With California's efforts to combat climate change well underway, another country is finally being heard from: the United States. With the election of President Obama and the emergence of a Democratic majority in Congress, it appears that the federal government may soon pass sweeping legislation to address greenhouse gas emissions. Based on a preponderance of research linking greenhouse gas emissions to urban sprawl and reliance on automobiles, a national program may usher in the next great trend in urban planning. If so, California may find itself well ahead of its fellow states. "California has really pushed the envelope," said Louise Bedsford, research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. "California has served as a model and probably will continue to do so even if federal legislation passes." While the federal government has approached climate change with the trepidation of a skater venturing towards thin ice, California not only heeded its traditional environmental ethos but also acknowledged that the world's seventh-largest economy should play its part to mitigate climate change. In 2006 AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, authored by now-State Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), was hailed as landmark legislation, and it was followed up last year by State Senate President Pro Tem Darrel Steinberg's SB 375. AB 32 mandates a 25% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, through a variety of means, as of 2020, while SB 375 pays specific attention to vehicle miles traveled and requires regional metropolitan planning organizations to account for greenhouse gas emissions in their transportation and land use plans (see CP&DR Insight , May 2009 ). A California Air Resources Board advisory committee's recommendations for implementing SB 375 are due September 30 (see CP&DR Environment Watch , August 1, 2009 ). Support from Washington and the prospect of a national program to encourage cleaner fuels, less pollution from industry and utilities, and even re-make cities for a greener world has received a warm reception in California. "We need federal climate change legislation not just to back us up but to make all our efforts worthwhile," said Mary Nichols, chair of the Air Resources Board. "California has made it clear that we need to be part of a national and international effort. There's no way that California on its own can curb the threat of global warming." In June, the House of Representatives passed HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, sponsored by Reps. Ed Markey (D-Massachussets) and Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles). California's leaders are welcoming the feds to the party wholeheartedly. "Federal climate legislation is absolutely critical if we are to seriously address global climate change," said Pavley. "I think Congressman Waxman did a great job with the legislation he got through the House earlier this year." One of the strengths of AB 32, said Pavley, is that it set goals in statute that the state must meet, but provided a fairly high degree of flexibility and discretion to the California Air Resources Board for reaching the 25% reduction. In developing their regulations, the Air Resources Board has been mindful of the possibility of federal legislation, so the board designed regulations that should complement a federal bill. Though the Senate is still considering its own climate change legislation – debate was recently postponed from mid-September to later this fall – and the details yet to be worked out in conference committee, Waxman-Markey offers a hint at the requirements and guidelines that may ultimately become law. While most of its provisions apply to truly national issues – such as fuels, technologies, carbon sequestration, household appliance standards, and, perhaps most importantly, a national cap-and-trade system for issuing carbon credits – the bill also acknowledges that more efficient local land use patterns are essential for curbing carbon emissions. "Although land use is quintessentially a local issue, the federal government indirectly has very large influence on how cities have developed, primarily because of the federal dollars that go into transportation," said Nichols. Section 222 of Waxman-Markey seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by "integrating new greenhouse gas reduction planning measures into the existing transportation planning process." Though the details of this provision are far from being worked out, it represents a profound shift away from the federal government's traditional support of sprawl and dependence on the automobile. "The Waxman-Markey bill contains a provision which is similar in approach to SB 375 in that it doesn't create any mandates," said Nichols. "But it encourages states to enact land use reforms that will reduce the need to drive." The inclusion of land use in a bill as prominent and wide ranging as Waxman-Markey might present the possibility that the federal government would encroach on land use policies that have almost always been the domain of local governments. But early analysis of the bill suggests that the principles of Waxman-Markey – like those of SB 375 – will not translate into mandates or top-down controls. "State government can't create policy," said Julia Lave Johnston. "It's like lighting a cigarette with a blowtorch." Any such federal attempt would therefore resemble something along the lines of a booster rocket. Property rights and property rights law are defined on a state-by-state basis, observed Bill Higgins, legislative representative with the California League of Cities. "That's why a federal government isn't going to go in and get into the entitlement business," he said. What the federal government may do, however, is take a proverbial jackhammer to the auto-centric infrastructure that gave rise to sprawl in the first place. In conjunction with other legislation, such as the upcoming transportation reauthorization, bills such as Waxman-Markey may herald a major shift in the funding mix for highways and mass transit. Then again, funding provides only a nudge – and will not dictate particular forms of land use. "The question is, if the federal government makes those resources available in a different way, are we going to make decisions in light of the resources that are available to us?" said Higgins. "There's nothing in the federal legislation saying that a local agency can't approve a sprawl subdivision." Much like SB 375, the federal legislation does not have enforcement teeth behind it, according to Bedsford. But also like SB 375, Waxman-Markey talks about regional transportation plans and linking transportation and land use. Some people think that once the links is made, it will trickle down to how regional transportation plans are evaluated by the federal government, she said. Johnston said that the recognition that the combination of land use and transportation plays such a huge role in the production of greenhouse gas emissions will tip the playing field and result in certain types of development activities going forward. If the Waxman-Markey bill mirrors California's efforts, the question, then, is the extent to which it may complement, or even pre-empt, the policies that California is already en route to implementing. As it turns out, California's early adoption of its own climate change legislation may make it well positioned to take advantage of federal regulations and compete for federal funding. "In terms of land use and transportation, my latest read of the federal bill is that nothing in it would preclude what we are trying to do either as part of AB 32 or in terms of the other landmark bill we passed in 2008, SB 375," said Pavley. If Higgins, "If anything, the way that federal legislation works, particularly in this area, it's going to recognize that different states have different ways of doing things." Regardless of intentions, federal legislation poses the danger of creating a complicated stew of regulations and incentives that might naturally flow from overlapping legislation. "There's always the possibility for complication when you have multiple layers of government working in the same area," said Nichols. "I think there' s a concerted effort underway ... to try to make this as seamless as possible." Federal legislation can tighten those seams, in fact, by backing up its legislation with funding. An early criticism of SB 375 is that it sets guidelines and targets but offers little financial or logistical support. Backers of federal legislation hope for something more substantial as local entities try to improvise solutions to what may be the most dire issue of the 21st century. "There are very little resources, both financial and technical, to develop a regional plan or a climate change plan," said Bedsford. "I think the federal government can play a role there, and so can the state. Aiding local and regional governments will be really important." Contacts: Mary Nichols, California Air Resources Board, (916) 332 3260. State Sen. Fran Pavley, (916) 651-4023. Louise Bedsford, Public Policy Institute of California, (415) 291-4469. Bill Higgins, League of California Cities, (916) 658-8200. Julia Lave Johnston, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, (916) 324-4002. House Energy and Commerce Committee, (202) 225 2927, http://energycommerce.house.gov . California Air Resources Board: www.arb.ca.gov .

A project that had become a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lightning rod has apparently died. Nestlé Waters North America notified the McCloud Community Services District that it is dropping plans to convert a closed lumber mill in Siskiyou County into a water-bottling plant because it is building the facility in Sacramento instead. In early 2007, a state appellate court ruled that a 100-year contract between Nestlé and the district – in which the district agreed to supply the company with up to 1,600 acre-feet of water for about $400,000 a year and other considerations – was immune from environmental review because the company's ultimate project would be the subject of an environmental impact report ( Concerned McCloud Citizens v. McCloud Community Services Dist. , (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 181; see CP&DR Legal Digest , March 2007 ). That decision has helped define a "project" under CEQA. An EIR for the 1-million-square-foot water-bottling plant went forward under intense scrutiny from environmentalists and fishermen worried about the project's effects on groundwater sources and creeks. Last year, Attorney General Jerry Brown threatened to sue the district and Nestlé if the EIR did not address the global warming effects of producing plastic water bottles and trucking them to the water source and then to market. At about that same time, the company announced it would scale back the project by 60%. In July, Nestlé revealed it plans to build a bottling plant in Sacramento, using water from the City of Sacramento and from a private spring. A September 10 letter from the company to the McCloud district, citing the Sacramento project, stated, "We have concluded that we no longer have a business need to build a new facility in McCloud." While Nestlé's withdrawal pleased environmentalists and anglers in Siskiyou County, it frustrated district and economic development advocates who face a county unemployment rate of 14%, according to the Employment Development Department.

A Kern County voter initiative prohibiting the disposal of sewage sludge on fields in the county has new life. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a federal District Court judge's ruling that the initiative violated the United States constitution's commerce clause. The unanimous three-judge appellate panel held that the alleged harm caused by the initiative is not even "marginally related" to the purpose of the commerce clause. The suit, which was filed by Southern California sanitation agencies, sludge trucking companies and Kern County landowners, was returned to the District Court for the Central District of California for further consideration. Sewage sludge is the common name for the organic solids leftover from the treatment of municipal wastewater. For decades, treatment plant operators either dumped the sludge in the ocean or buried it in landfills. Regulatory barriers, however, have made ocean dumping infeasible, and burial in landfills has become expensive. Since the 1990s, numerous out-of-county sanitation agencies have sent sludge to Kern County, where a handful of landowners and farmers accept the material (see CP&DR Environment Watch , July 2000 ). Some of these landowners and farmers consider sludge to be an organic fertilizer for farm fields, while others in the sludge trade plow the material under. But Kern County officials and residents are tired of being treated as the state's toilet, pointing out that the sludge can contain high levels of metals, as well as viruses, parasites and pathogens. In 2006, Kern County voters approved Measure E, which prohibits the spraying or spreading of sewage sludge onto land in unincorporated areas. The City of Los Angeles, Orange County Sanitation Districts, the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, trucking companies and a few Kern County landowners sued to block the measure's implementation. They contended that Measure E violated the commerce and equal protection clauses of the constitution. The plaintiffs also argued that the measure was preempted by the federal Clean Water Act, the California Integrated Waste Management Act and state water law. District Court Judge Gary Feess issued mixed rulings. He rejected the equal protection argument and dismissed claims based on the Clean Water Act and state water code. But he ruled that the initiative had the effect of discriminating against interstate commerce and therefore violated the commerce clause. He also held that the state waste management act, which mandates that at least 50% of waste be recycled, preempted Measure E. In considering the appeal, the Ninth Circuit examined only the question of whether the plaintiffs – the sanitation agencies, trucking companies and landowners – could make claims based on the commerce clause. The "negative" or "dormant" commerce clause, the court explained, prohibits states from "advancing their own commercial interests by curtailing the movement of articles of commerce, either into or out of the state." The "recyclers," as the court collectively called the plaintiffs, contended that Measure E violated the commerce clause because it would force them to haul sludge to Arizona if they could not dispose of it in Kern County. But the appellate panel determined that the "recyclers miss the point." "The interest the recyclers seek to secure is their ability to exploit a portion of the intra state waste market – they want to be able to ship their waste from one portion of California to another. But as we have said, the ‘chief purpose underlying the dormant commerce clause is to limit the power of states to erect barriers against inter state trade,'" Justice Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote, citing Individuals for Responsible Gov't v. Washoe County , 110 F.3d 699, 703 (1997). In that case, the Ninth Circuit upheld a Washoe County, Nevada, ordinance mandating residents subscribe to garbage collection service, even though the ordinance would apparently end the practice of residents hauling their own trash to a garbage dump in California. "Nothing in Measure E hampers the recyclers' ability to ship waste out of state," O'Scannlain continued. "Likewise, no recycler claims to apply out-of-state waste to land in Kern County. In short, Measure E in no way burdens the recyclers' protected interest in the interstate waste market. We decline to expand the zone of interests protected by the clause to purely intrastate disputes." " inancial injury must somehow be tied to a barrier imposed on interstate commerce. The recyclers here have not established that requisite link," O'Scannlain wrote. The Ninth Circuit directed Judge Feess to reconsider his conclusion that the state waste management law preempts Measure E. " e are left with a complex question of state law preemption. Because our dismissal of the federal constitutional claim may materially alter the district court's decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the preemption claim, we vacate its judgment and remand the state law claim for reconsideration," the court concluded. The Case: City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern , No. 07-56564, 2009 DJDAR 13520. Filed September 9, 2009. The Lawyers: For Los Angeles: Thomas Hixon, Bingham McCutchen, (415) 393-2000. For the county: Steve Mayer, Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin, (415) 434-1600.

The planners may have all gone home from Squaw Valley, but the planning talk has continued apace in San Jose, where the League of California Cities annual conference started on Wednesday. Most of the talk, not surprisingly, is about money – specifically, how Sacramento keeps taking it – but there's also plenty of policy talk, especially about affordable housing. One of the big topics – especially among city attorneys – is affordable housing. That's largely because of two recent appellate court rulings that are reshaping the world of inclusionary housing and housing fees – Palmer v. City of Los Angeles , in which the Second District ruled that inclusionary housing requirements can't be applied to rental apartments, and BIA v. City of Patterson , in which the Fifth District rejected the city's methodology for an in-lieu fee. A third of the cities in California have "inclusionary" requirements, which force homebuilders to set aside a certain percentage of their units for low/mod housing or else pay a fee of more or less equivalent value. Inclusionary requirements are increasingly popular – and increasingly a target for the builders. The issue that both these cases bring up, according to Goldman & Lipfarb's Barbara Kautz , is what kind of an action an inclusionary housing ordinance really is. Kautz, a former community development director of San Mateo, suggested that in legal terms an inclusionary housing ordinance could be considered any one of the following three types of actions: 1. A land use control, like zoning. 2. An exaction, subject to rules under such precedents as Nollan, Dolan, and Ehrlich. 3. Economic regulation, similar to price controls and rent control. It's pretty clear that most planners would prefer that inclusionary housing be considered just another form of land use control – a necessary regulation to protect health, safety, and welfare. Unfortunately, Kautz said, the only place where the courts have viewed inclusionary housing as straightforward land use controls is in New Jersey, where the Mount Laurel cases have established that line of reasoning. Inclusionary housing related to rental units is getting tripped up by laws related to economic regulation, especially rent control. That's what happened in the Palmer case, where the court ruled that Los Angeles's requirement that central city apartment developers set aside some rental units for affordable housing was a violation of the state's Costa-Hawkins Act, which limits local governments' ability to maintain rent control. The law says landlords have the ability to set rental prices when they put units on the market, and then again when apartments turn over. Only when an apartment is occupied may rents  be controlled. The court said the inclusionary housing ordinance violated the landlord's right to set rents at the outset. Kautz seemed to suggest that this leaves California cities little choice but to treat inclusionary housing as an exaction – as Patterson attempted to do, but failed because the city's methodology left a lot to be desired. (In the Patterson case, the city simply took the total subsidy required to provide the low/mod units under the Regional Housing Needs Assessment and divided it by the remaining residential buildout to come up with a per-unit fee.) This would appear to suggest more nexus studies, this time for inclusionary housing. (In a separate presentation on the same panel, Alan Selzer, chief deputy city attorney in Santa Monica, made an interesting point about inclusionary housing fees. Updating the city attorneys on the appellate court ruling in Action Apartment Association v. City of Santa Monica , which held that the Nollan/Dolan test can't be applied to inclusionary housing ordinances, he noted that there's a big difference between impact fees, which require a nexus study, and in-lieu fees, which simply provide a developer with the option of "monetizing" an on-site requirement such as affordale housing.)  However, as Kautz pointed out, it may be difficult to prove that construction of market-rate housing has a big impact on the supply of low/mod housing – though economic consultants will certainly be more than willing to try. Indeed, this has been the building industry's big argument all along – that the need for low/mod housing is created by a wide variety of circumstances, including job creation and non-residential development, and the burden should not be placed entirely on homebuilders. From the point of view of affordable housing advocates, support for inclusionary housing has not always been based on technical analysis but on practical reality. Inclusionary requirements are a way to make sure affordable housing actually gets built. More litigation to come, for sure. But in the meantime, bring on the nexus studies. – Bill Fulton

Increasing Housing in the Midst of a Crisis: Roles and Responsibilities High foreclosure rates due to skyrocketing debt and unemployment have pushed the availability of affordable housing beyond the reach of lower to middle income families.  As a result of this current crisis the government has stepped in and imposed many new regulations, requirements, and rules impervious to criticism.  Non-profit professionals, municipal planners, city employees, or public citizens interested in, or involved with housing preservation, production, or affordable housing projects are encouraged to attend.  Additionally consultants, attorneys, or developers who contribute to housing should consider this seminar.  Topics include the role of federal and state agencies, housing elements, tax credits, role of housing development corporations, steps to success, sustainable and smart growth, as well as transit-oriented development (TOD) to name a few.  The all-day class will be held Wednesday, September 30 at the Westin Pasadena Hotel.  For more information or to enroll, please contact UCLA Extension Public Policy at (310) 825-7885, or by visiting www.uclaextension.edu and referencing course code V3774.

The recession's very personal impacts provide the real story at the APA California conference that concludes Wednesday in Squaw Valley. Sure, we're all going to panels about climate change and LEED and CEQA and form-based zoning codes. But in between and after the panels about saving the world, the talk is about layoffs, unexpected career changes, firm mergers, doing more with less, and a lack of private sector work. Last year's APA California conference took place while the economic collapse was just getting started. There were a lot of nervous jokes about what it all might mean for people in the land use profession. Now we know, and it's no joke. On Monday morning, a recent San Jose State University graduate stared in disbelief at a completely empty job board. By Tuesday morning, he was back at the board taking notes on the five jobs that had been listed. At a typical conference, there might be upwards of two dozen postings. When one panel presenter said that Yolo County intends to make its general plan update EIR so comprehensive that the county will not need to prepare subsequent EIRs for compatible projects, there was an audible groan from consultants in the audience. Cross off Yolo County as a potential client. Several people told me about having to take jobs only tangentially related to land use planning. Others told me they had to cover at least some of the cost of the conference themselves because their employer's travel budget was virtually nil. Public sector employers said they are as busy as ever – especially if they have their fingers in the climate change business – but they have fewer resources than ever. Fee revenue has dried up, and the staff has shrunk. The only thing growing is state mandates. And no one seems to think the situation is going to be a whole lot better by the time of APA California's 2010 conference. – Paul Shigley

A lot of the talk here at the California APA Conference in Squaw Valley is about climate change – and, more specifically, about how to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. But there's more and more talk – important but poorly attended – about the other side of the coin, which is dealing with sea level rise and other consequences of climate change. I attended two panels today where speakers dealt with adaptation and sea level rise. Both had a handful of people – in contrast to the throngs that went to the emissions reduction panels, which is what we're used to thinking about in regards to climate change. We've written about adaptation before , but the difference really struck me this time around. Maybe I'm oversensitive, because I live in a beach town, but this strikes me as illustrative of the gap between practice and reality these days. Any greenhouse gas emissions reductions we accomplish in California will be a drop in the bucket and won't prevent climate change. It is going to happen anyway, and it will profoundly affect both our natural and built environments, which means it will probably be the single most important thing planners in California will deal with during the decades ahead. So why all the empty seats? Probably because no state or federal regulators are telling you you've got to do something about adaptation. Yet, increasingly, the policy wonks in the climate change arena are recognizing that mitigating global warming impacts and adapting for the future are more or less the same thing. And they also recognize that, at the first sign of sea level rise, the initial impulse of most people is to destroy the environment further by building huge structures to protect the coast and the bays. The most compelling presentation of the day came from Steve Goldbeck, the deputy director of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, who presented the results of BCDC's recent analysis of sea level rise in the Bay Area. Everybody knows that the San Francisco Bay has been reduced by a third this century because of the practice of filling it. But Goldbeck said that a 16-inch rise in the sea level – the high end of estimates for 2050 – simply puts the bay back where it was before the Gold Rush. No big deal, except that close to 300 square miles, hundreds of thousands of residents, and 22 sewer plants will be inundated. (If you think 16 inches is a lot, bear in mind that the Bay has risen 7 inches in the last hundred years.) And separate presentations from Abe Doherty of the Ocean Protection Council and Joan Sollenberger of Caltrans highlighted the need to start figuring out how to work adaptation into the infrastructure equation. There has been no lack of studies on the importance of adaptation techniques, and the state does have a draft adaptation strategy out, yet the state's approach to adaptation is clearly still in its infancy. Doherty, for instance, went on at length about the policy guidance the state is beginning to create regarding when and whether to build hard-infrastructure protections against inundation. And the list of issues is long. Should you permit hard infrastructure when a soft, green solution is available? Should you protect existing wastewater plants or move them? Which is more expensive in the long run? Should you protect developments or facilities along the coast if protecting them costs more than their value? Implicit in a lot of this guidance is the sea-level-rise equivalent of fires. A lot of the development along the coast, especially private development, is very valuable and controlled by wealthy people. I could almost imagine author Mike Davis stepping to the podium with a presentation called "The Case For Letting Malibu Drown." Apparently there will be plenty of time for urgent action, difficult decisions, and class warfare later. There certainly doesn't seem to be much interest now. We'll just have to wait until the next generation – like my daughter, who turns 19 next week – takes over, because we middle-aged California planners are punting the problem past our lifetime. – Bill Fulton

It's always been a mystery to me why traffic modeling – and traffic mitigation – is such a big part of analysis done under the California Environmental Quality Act. After all, traffic in and of itself is not an environmental impact, any more than building a building is an environmental impact. Traffic may cause certain environmental impacts – air pollution, for example, depending on the fuels used – but there's nothing inherently damaging environmentally about traffic. Nevertheless, CEQA traffic analysis has always focused on identifying and alleviating traffic congestion. After careful environmental review, cities and counties have concluded – many thousands of times – that the solution to the environmental problem created by traffic is to build wider roads in order to accommodate more traffic. Those days may be waning, however.  As panelists at the APA California conference in Squaw Valley pointed out today, new policies in many jurisdictions are bringing the "Level of Service" approach to both CEQA analysis and general plans to an end. Even within the confines of CEQA, these jurisdictions are finding ways to place other priorities ahead of – or at least alongside of – alleviation of traffic congestion. "In the future, we're going to have fewer public resources for transportation," said Ron Milam of Fehr & Peers, "And we're going to have more objectives for our transportation system." In particular, the panelists said, alleviating traffic congestion doesn't always jibe with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions – which is suddenly a major goal of state policy and an important consideration in CEQA. And as Paul Shigley reported in these pages not long ago , proposed changes to the CEQA Guidelines may discourage the use of the LOS approach.  The APA panel presented cutting-edge techniques from both San Jose and San Francisco. Though the approaches are different, they show how local governments can end-run the LOS approach. In San Francisco, the city came to the conclusion that using LOS was in conflict with its "Transit First" strategy and simply didn't measure the most important environmental impacts of driving – which, in San Francisco's case, is particulates. "We have to reallocate our limited right of way to other things," said Rachel Hiatt of the San Francisco County Transportation Agency. "We will degrade auto LOS in the short term as we implement our 'Transit First' policy." In San Jose, the city took a different approach. Planners identified three job centers where transit is likely to be the primary transportation investment in the future, including downtown, North San Jose, and Edenvale. Downtown was exempted from the LOS standard. In North San Jose and Edenvale, a master environmental impact report was completed that contained an override option for not hitting the LOS standard at 23 "protected intersections". The rest of the city still uses an LOS standard, partly in deference to suburban-style neighborhoods and surrounding communities. "The City Council amended the general plan to be more flexible in places where we wanted to do smart growth," said planner Hans Larsen. Milam from Fehr & Peers also showed how an alternative approach can be used on a specific project, though probably not in all locations. As an example, he pointed to an intersection analysis his firm did which concluded, initially, that the intersection in question had to be greatly widened. Upon further examination, however, the firm and the city concluded that the problem was not cars. Rather, the slow-downs were created by the need to accommodate the large amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic at the intersection. So a ped/bike overpass preserved the intersection in its current configuration. Not everybody can be Davis or San Francisco or maybe even San Jose. But everybody can think about what they're really trying to achieve with their traffic standards – and ditch the LOS if it's appropriate. – Bill Fulton

The executive director of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency told the lunch crowd at the APA California conference today that her agency provides a model for regional planning. She was right – but not in the way she intended. Speaking at the annual planning conference in Squaw Valley, Joanne Marchetta explained how TRPA has been planning for the two-state region surrounding Lake Tahoe for 40 years, and how the agency's policies are paying off in a cleaner environment and clearer lake. Those environmental benefis translate to economic benefits in a region that relies almost exclusively on tourism for jobs. At the same time, she described how it took the agency 22 years to adopt a policy for waterfront development along a small slice of the lake, and how that policy is now tangled in litigation filed by property owners. Sorry, but 22 years to develop a policy for implementing a regional plan adopted in 1987 is hardly a model for other jurisdictions, especially if the immediate upshot is a lawsuit. Marchetta also stated matter-of-factly, "There will be no new large subdivisions, and we are on the verge of buildout." Sorry again, but I can think of no other region in California, including the most densely populated ones, where the term "buildout" would be applicable. In California's land-constrained urban regions, there is no such thing as "buildout," only building up. The TRPA may get to spend most of its effort and money on environmental restoration, but other regions need to figure out how to accommodate millions of more people and jobs while shrinking their carbon footprint. Still, Marchetta had one observation that seemed to resonate with planners: Environmental organizations are fighting the wrong battle. She said that redevelopment and revitalization of existing town centers in the Tahoe region is crucial for environmental restoration purposes, especially enhancing the lake's water clarity. The urban footprint needs to shrink and can do so with strategic redevelopment. However, the knee-jerk reaction from environmental groups is opposition to any development within the Tahoe basin. That same phenomenon is commonplace elsewhere: Environmental advocates oppose "good" infill development, which leads to "bad" greenfield development in places where environmental advocacy is minimal. This is why the Central Valley got most of the housing units that should have been built in the Bay Area for the last 20 years. If TRPA figures out a way to combat the environmental organizations' conventional wisdom that all development must be halted, the agency will truly have a lesson for the rest of the state to emulate. - Paul Shigley

A bill that would exempt a planned football stadium and an adjacent 3 million-square-foot entertainment and retail complex in the City of Industry from the California Environmental Quality Act, and state planning and zoning law is speeding through the Legislature at a rapid pace. The exemptions are contained in AB 81 X3 by Assemblyman Isadore Hall III (D-Compton). Although the Legislature previously has exempted certain projects from CEQA, there appears to be no precedent for letting a project bypass the planning and zoning law that requires a project to be consistent with a city's general plan. What's more, the legislation – which is both retroactive and prospective – would bar any legal challenge to the project, including a lawsuit filed earlier this year by the City of Walnut (see CP&DR In Brief , April 2009 ). Industry and the project developer, Majestic Realty, have been lobbying for the exemption since lawmakers returned from their summer recess in August. However, actual bill language did not begin to circulate widely until about September 1, and the legislation did not have a bill number until about 2 p.m. on Wednesday, September 9. Once it had a bill number, the measure was immediately assigned to the Assembly Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism and Internet Media – and not the Assembly Local Government Committee, which is where the bill belonged. The Arts Committee approved the bill on a 7-0 vote Wednesday evening. The bill then moved across the hall to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, which voted 13-0 to send the bill to the Assembly floor. It all happened so quickly that Walnut – whose lawsuit over the project would get quashed – could not even get a representative to the committee hearings in time. The bill is likely to pass the Assembly either today (September 10) or first thing Friday morning. The question then becomes whether the legislation will get a real hearing in a legitimate forum. Either the Senate Local Government Committee or the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality, or both, would normally have many, many questions about such a bill. However, the normal procedural rules clearly do not apply to AB 81 X3, as the typical procedures would prevent the bill from passing before the Legislature goes into recess Friday night. -----UPDATE----- Although AB 81 X3 passed the Assembly 55-15 on September 10, it did not come up for a vote in the Senate before the Legislature concluded its regular session for the year. ------------------- There are two primary reasons the bill is moving so quickly: First, developer Ed Roski Jr. and his Majestic Realty are heavy campaign contributors that typically get what they want out of Sacramento. Second, Roski and the City of Industry have cleverly lined up support from organized labor, which is lobbying heavily in favor of what it calls a jobs bill. Labor has a great deal of influence over the Legislature's Democratic majority. There is opposition. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the American Planning Association California Chapter are trying to defeat the legislation. In an editorial apparently written before Wednesday evening's committee hearings, the L.A. Times called the bill "poisonous." If the bill does pass the Legislature, the focus will then turn to Gov. Schwarzenegger, who appears open to signing anything that might aid – or even appear to aid – the economy. – Paul Shigley

Something seems to be missing from the site plan for Quarry Village, a 42-acre proposed housing development in Hayward. Here are orderly rows of streets, a scattering of small parks and a "village center" for neighborhood-scale retail. The 950 housing units are made up entirely of three-story townhouses, arranged in rows of four and six units. Although the layout of Quarry Village does not appear to be based on any historical model, something about the plan reminded me of something I had seen in a history book: The squarish arrangement of dense residential blocks found in the plan of Reading, Pennsylvania, circa 1747. (See Moholy-Nagy, S., Matrix of Man: An Illustrated History of Urban Environment , 1968. p. 17). What do 21st Century Quarry Village and 18th Century Pennsylvania have in common? Neither has any garages. Quarry Village is a radical proposal, introduced by a quixotic, retired professor from California State University, East Bay, to build a car-free residential neighborhood in suburban Alameda County. Parking is limited to 1,000 spaces on the periphery of the property. Otherwise, the streets – oops, "walkways" – are free of vehicles except for an occasional electric cart. Children can play freely in the streets, or indeed, throughout the entire compound. Mass transit, of course, is the lifeline of Quarry Village: The local bus line delivers commuters to the BART station less than two miles away at the college campus; the bus ride takes six minutes. The smallish retail component, only about 5,000 square feet, may include a tiny market and a child-care center. The project is the brainchild a group of investors led by Sherman Lewis, a retired political science professor who is also past president of Sierra Club's California chapter. Although not a developer by training, Lewis has mastered many of the financial and planning skills needed for large-scale homebuilding. This is a serious proposal with real numbers: According to his latest spreadsheet, construction costs, including photovoltaic cells on every unit, comes to a moderate $225 per square foot. The internal rate of return (IRR) is a robust 28% , which could make the project attractive to investors. The environmental review process may not entail much delay: Lewis expects Quarry Village to qualify for a "negative declaration" under the California Environmental Quality Act, meaning developers and the city would not have to wade through a long and costly environmental impact report. Lewis, however, does not get to decide on the level of environmental review, the city does. Caltrans, which had planned a freeway for the site – "I've spent 30 years of my life fighting that freeway," said Lewis – is expected to sell the acreage for development in the next several years. The professor-turned-homebuilder is trying to raise some additional money from investors to buy an option on the land. The project, inspired by a similar project in Vauban, Germany, will probably not be for everyone. A New York Times story from May relates that some residents left the German project because they could not tolerate the inconvenience of living apart from their cars. Also, individual units are reasonable in price, by California standards, with prices averaging $316,000. Units will range from studios to three bedrooms. Each unit will be fitted with photovoltaic or other solar-power converters that will supply virtually all electricity for household use. In short, Quarry Village seems best suited for young families on moderate incomes, such as junior faculty at Cal State. Lewis, in fact, says he has received at least 10 reservations for future units from university staff. Car-free cities have long been imagined by ecologists and eco-minded planners. In fact, a number of European cities besides Vauban have set aside entire districts for pedestrians, typically for shopping. While Quarry Village is grounded in similar idealism, there is an encouraging realism to the project; rather than being a utopian island set off by itself, the project is very much part of the present-day Hayward. The biggest difference from surrounding housing, of course, is density; while typical suburban densities are about 8 to 10 homes per acre, the density of Quarry Village would be about 45 units per acre, or equivalent to a medium-density apartment house or condominium complex. In fact, Lewis plans to build the housing on condominium maps, and home owners would be obliged to belong to a condo organization and pay monthly dues for maintenance of common areas and the like. In addition to maintenance, the condo organization will also be charged with policing the residents. Renting out units to subtenants is forbidden. In a car-free environment, streets turn into active open space, especially for children who would otherwise be limited to their back yards or public parks. The parks, including a wetlands preserve on the southern end of the site, provide additional open space. Not shown on the site plan, but enormously important in terms of open space, is a planned extension of the Highridge Trail, which would run north-south from Castro Valley to southern Hayward, and would take the form of a new, linear regional park. Getting rid of cars and garages is a practical move toward the ideal of sustainability. Residents would have the use of electric carts to carry heavy loads, and Lewis is also considering a car-share club for village residents. Beyond the quiet atmosphere, clean air and open space made possible by removing cars and garages, the car-free strategy also offers a new model of high-density housing in traditionally low-density suburbs. The car-free strategy may be attractive to conventional developers, because this new model of density, made possible by excluding garages, translates into potentially higher returns to developers and investors. Developers can charge market rents, without the cost of building either garages or costly subterranean parking. Housing officials, on the other hand, now have an alternative beyond mediocre apartment buildings and "stacked flats" to meet their housing numbers. Before I allow enthusiasm about pedestrian-oriented planning to gallop away with me, it is important to point out that the project is still only a proposal. City officials appear interested in, but not committed to, Lewis's car-free plan. In late 2008, the City Council conducted a public workshop about the project and suggested that Lewis needed more working capital so he could buy an option on the land. (In a recent interview, Lewis said he needs at least $1.6 million for that purpose.) In June, the Hayward City Council amended the city's general plan to allow housing on the former quarry site, which the city is also considering for a school. For the time being, Quarry Village looks far away. Even with those caveats about this particular project, I say that idealism is good, practical idealism is better and practical idealism with a realistic business model is best of all. The most intriguing aspect of this suburban, achingly green housing development is the possibility of making density not only tolerable but desirable. And while you're bicycling to Cal State East Bay, would you please drop off the children's Gameboys at the recycling center? It's time for kids to play outside.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): A Place to Start As part of the Environmental track of UCLA Extension's Global Sustainability Certificate we would like to introduce a brand new quarter long course on CEQA.  The twelve-week, 4-unit class will examine the fundamentals of the environmental legislation with emphasis on the policies, procedures, and practices necessary to make it successful.  This course will touch on various subtopics including, but not limited to, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process, mitigation measures and climate change as it relates.  Margaret Sohagi, JD, President of the Sohagi Law Group, PLC will instruct the course.  Class will be held every Thursday night from 6:30p-9:30pm on the UCLA campus.  For more information or to enroll, please contact UCLA Extension Public Policy at (310) 825-7885, or by visiting www.uclaextension.edu and referencing course code V3638.