By the simplest accounts, peace has returned to Lake Tahoe. California-Nevada cooperation has rescued the Lake Tahoe Regional Compact from years of deadlock and faltering communication over environmental governance by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). After Nevada threatened in 2011 to withdraw from the Compact, negotiations driven by both state governments' natural resource chiefs led to a major rewrite of the Compact's enforcement rules, the Regional Plan Update (RPU), which was adopted by TRPA's board in 2012. Further negotiations produced 2013 passage of parallel California and Nevada legislative measures that ended Nevada's pullout threat. The Compact, and hence bi-state governance of the lake, is saved.  If you believe TRPA's accounts of "an unprecedented level of public support", it would seem the developer now sits down happily with the environmentalist under conifer, crag, ski lift or casino chandelier, and only a few loose ends and sore losers remain to be straightened out. Except, this is a Western land-and-water fight. It isn't ever all happy, easy, or over. The settlement's costs included a painful schism in Tahoe's close-knit conservation community and some significant resignations.  Two prominent environmental groups now back the RPU: the League to Save Lake Tahoe (creator of the "Keep Tahoe Blue" slogan) and the Nevada Conservation League. Their choice could be viewed as a political concession, or a generational shift, or both: from older views of environmental regulation as a consistent, detailed system of publicly maintained defenses against encroachment, to newer, more pragmatist incentive-driven compromises with businesses that involve active retrofitting of existing developed properties. But dissenting groups remain. Two of these, the Sierra Club and Friends of the West Shore, have sued TRPA to block the new RPU and related rules. They allege the new rules allow too much density with mitigation measures that are insufficient or insufficiently tested. The case of Sierra Club and Friends of the West Shore vs. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency , Case No. 2:13-CV- 00267-JAM-EFB, in the Eastern District of California, was narrowed by a demurrer and goes to hearing March 5 on summary judgment motions by both sides. (The plaintiffs' opening brief is here.) Laurel Ames, conservation chair for the Tahoe Area Sierra Club, argues that Californian and environmentalist negotiators gave up too much to Nevada to secure peace. She says some of her fellow dissenters have joked about printing a bumper sticker: "Save The Compact: Lose The Lake." The RPU: Win-Win or Zero-Sum? With the lawsuit's outcome still uncertain, leading figures from the negotiations insisted the renewed bond between California and Nevada officials would survive even a successful challenge to the RPU. Bill Craven, chief consultant to the California Senate's Natural Resources and Water Committee, said: "If are successful in their litigation, and I of course have no idea, both states have already pledged to fix whatever the court identifies that needs fixing and get that fixed." Any definite resolution is good news for many.A long-term watcher of the process said Tahoe has for years suffered a form of "planning blight," in that small business and property owners held back from undertaking development projects or renovations because of uncertainty about permission to build. Supporters of the 2012 RPU say it reflects new science and urban planning principles as well as new political and budget considerations. It creates incentives to enlist builders and renovators in its mission to limit effects of real estate development within Lake Tahoe's environmental threshold carrying capacities. The RPU rewards owners for installing new runoff filters and other "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) on existing "legacy" properties, such as those from the pre-Compact building boom of the 1950s and '60s. It seeks to shift density to urban sites deemed least environmentally delicate while compensating for runoff effects of density with improved BMPs. Further, it grants development rights in urban centers as multiples of "coverage" (structures and paving) that developers "retire" from areas rated as more sensitive, such as Stream Environment Zones. Supporters, including the TRPA as litigants, argue the RPU doesn't weaken standards, but in some areas uses rigorous different ones, such as the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) standard under the Clean Water Act. They say it responds to changed circumstances such as reduced concern over ozone levels and greater concern over fine particulate matter, which turns out to affect the lake's clarity more than nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Darcie Goodman Collins, current executive director of the League to Save Lake Tahoe and an environmental scientist by training, said the old 1987 Regional Plan is less effective against recently understood threats, such as particulate matter or aquatic invasive species. The plaintiffs say the RPU adds too much possible development area to the total that may be approved in the next 20 years: 2,600 residential units, 600 "bonus units" for urban centers, and 200,000 square feet of commercial floor area. Plaintiffs also oppose the RPU's long-sought delegation provisions. These give municipal governments approval power over larger projects than before, provided they get TRPA approval for "area plans" compliant with the new TRPA standards. The plaintiffs allege that TRPA has not adequately studied the impact of its incentives for more ground coverage in denser areas, places too much faith in under-tested, expensive runoff mitigation, unrealistically seeks to increase compliance through incentives rather than adequate enforcement, monitors ozone insufficiently, and otherwise fails to protect the lake environment under the Compact. "They don't have solid evidence that shows that this new strategy is going to work," said the plaintiffs' counsel, Wendy Park of Earthjustice. Discussing pressures for development that TRPA faces, she said, "Their strategy is misguided in claiming that development is going to be the solution to the lake's problems when it's really the cause, I mean, the biggest cause for clarity decline. It's indisputable that more urban development results in more stormwater runoff pollution and that stormwater runoff pollution is the cause of the clarity decline at the lake." But TRPA general counsel John Marshall argued TRPA did an adequate analysis of denser coverage in urban areas. He said of the plaintiffs, "They didn't get the specific analysis that they demanded. That doesn't mean the analysis that we did was inadequate." The new plan imposes standards for reduced automobile dependency through Level of Service (LOS) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) regulation and sets urban planning goals including walkability and affordability. The Sierra Club and fellow critics question whether density-related goals that may be good urban policy elsewhere might harm the clarity of Lake Tahoe by increasing runoff. Conversely, TRPA board member Clement Shute Jr., a prominent environmental attorney who helped lead the bi-state negotiations, argues it's inconsistent for the Sierra Club to back SB 375 air quality and density goals elsewhere in California but not at the lake. Marshall cited a need to favor carrots over sticks in a time of worsened local poverty and limited public budgets: "You can bash existing businesses over the head and say you have to put in these BMPs and you have to do this, and the cost is not insignificant. So either you can take an approach where you try to force businesses to do this -- and given the tenuous nature of the economy at South Lake Tahoe and other places," he said that could push them out of business. "So what really the court is faced with is a policy choice." TRPA further argues that its findings about the sufficiency of the RPU to protect the lake and local air quality are policy matters within its discretion that the court cannot properly second-guess. End of a Nevada showdown  Nevada's 2011 threat to withdraw from the shared California-Nevada regulatory process came in Nevada's SB 271 legislation, passed with support from the South Tahoe Alliance of Resorts (STAR), formerly the Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance.  SB 271 set a 2015 deadline for Nevada to withdraw from the Compact unless development-friendly changes were made to TRPA's governance process. Since the demands included revisions to the bi-state Compact agreement, they effectively sought approvals at all levels: from the TRPA board, both state legislatures, and Congress. The most substantive demand, which was not met, would have reduced the levels of bi-state agreement required on the 14-member board. For a new project approval, it would have allowed only four rather than five of the required nine votes to come from the project's home state. The bill would have allowed any nine votes to pass a variance or rule change, whereas the Compact requires at least four delegates from each state to agree. More symbolic demands called for the TRPA to consider economic conditions and effects on commerce in changing the Regional Plan, and imposed the burden of proof on any challenger to the Plan's compliance with the Compact. It was after SB 271's passage that Secretary John Laird of the California Resources Agency and Leo Drozdoff of the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources  created a "bi-state consultation" negotiating group to complete the overdue 20-year revision of Tahoe's main regulatory document, the 1987 Regional Plan. This group's recommendations formed the basis for TRPA's 2012-approved RPU.  But SB 271 may not have been the main driver of those negotiations so much as a shout that drew high-level attention to existing pressures, which included a risk of losing federal environmental funding. Steve Robinson, a significant Nevada political figure who served on the TRPA board through the negotiations, said SB 271 "had very little chance of passage" in its original form as a unilateral withdrawal form the Compact, whereas in the conditional measure that passed, "If progress was shown it allowed the state to stay in, which was what essentially happened."  Parallel legislative measures, California SB 630 and Nevada  SB 229, endorsed the RPU and accepted the economic impact and burden-shifting provisions but did not change the voting rules. The economic impact provision still requires an act of Congress to take effect but Robinson said that Congressional action "although important, is not an emergency." All parties, including the Sierra Club's counsel, Wendy Park of Earthjustice, said the burden-shifting provision did little more than restate existing law. The Tahoe-area delegation, for its part, was said to be putting its energy into companion measures S 1451 and HR 3390 to reauthorize $415 million for environmental remediation at the lake. Who Lost? Theories vary about who lost in this not entirely win-win deal. When the Los Angeles Times reported, "California blinks, Nevada wins", Shute wrote a heated rebuttal calling the Tahoe compromise "a win for the lake, not Nevada". In an interview he said Nevada interests didn't get all they wanted: that, for example, on the TRPA board's prior RPU revision committee, he had often cast the sole dissenting vote against developer -friendly proposals, but many of those shifted toward environmental protection under the bi-state process. Further, the Nevada Legislature's willingness to approve SB 229 without SB 271's voting change demands may have been related to the re-election defeat of SB 271's original author, State Sen. John Lee, after a special effort by the Nevada Conservation League. Three conservationists' resignations accompanied and arguably enabled the compromise. At the League to Save Lake Tahoe, long-term executive director Rochelle Nason resigned in 2011, having been singled out by pro-development political figures as too critical and quick to litigate. "There was a great deal of conflict," she said. Nason's successor, Goodman Collins, joined the bi-state consultation group as the California environmental representative alongside Kyle Davis, then political director of the Nevada Conservation League. Goodman Collins said the League's decision to back the RPU was "overwhelmingly" supported in a poll of its members. She said participation in negotiations "gave us a strong seat at the table" and a continuing "very strong voice in all of the conversations" including formation of area plans under the RPU. (The area plan process is moving fast: Douglas County and the City of South Lake Tahoe already have TRPA-adopted plans for parts of their respective landscapes.) Davis called the plan an "opportunity to improve conditions on the ground, and should that not happen there are appropriate safeguards in place to keep things from getting worse." The TRPA board's December 2012 RPU approval vote was over objections from two California board members: Byron Sher and Mara Bresnick. Sher, an elder of California environmentalism who served for many years as the chair of the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality, abstained from the final vote pending his imminent resignation. Shute said Sher was "under tremendous personal pressure because he felt loyalty to Secretary Laird" despite opposing the RPU proposal himself. Bresnick raised objections in detail right up to the final vote (see the minutes here), then resigned before the January 2014 board meeting. Bresnick said: "I am not anti-development and my background is representing development interests," but that she agreed with Sher "there weren't significant protections" in place for the environment while "there were significant incentives for development and redevelopment." They contested "what we thought were a lot of holes in the specific language of the plan." She said they proposed changes to the staff that were not incorporated. Bresnick cited family reasons for her departure, as Sher reportedly also did. Bresnick said while both were dissatisfied with the outcome, their resignations were not in protest. Afterbite Several supporters of the RPU, including TRPA's own public affairs office, have criticized the Sierra Club as refusing to negotiate constructively, claiming the group and its Tahoe-area allies lack broad support for their dissenting position. One of these was Shute. Another was Steve Teshara, principal of a firm known as Sustainable Community Advocates and a past official of Tahoe business organizations. He said: "There were a couple of strong-willed individuals who wouldn't compromise" and managed to "get organizations like Sierra Club and Earthjustice to support them." Teshara agreed with the suggestion that recent political changes partly reflected changes in the  personalities involved. He added, "We just need a few more people to change... I have a feeling the litigation will be the last hurrah for some." Ames, for her part, said the Sierra Club's two Tahoe-area chapters together have about 21,000 members and that, if few people are seen to speak for their positions at public meetings, there are others who want to "but they would lose their jobs." She said, "Every day that I'm out in the Post Office or the grocery store or wherever will just stand there quietly and say thank you for what you're doing." She said they're afraid of trouble if they speak up. "It's a small town."

Redevelopment reform has been gridlocked in the state capital for two years, but Governor Jerry Brown issued new clues on where he's heading in the state budget that was released in January.  The governor proposed changes to the Infrastructure Financing District law,  a tool that allows tax-increment funding for infrastructure improvements that formerly were handled by redevelopment agencies. The governor's office is expected to send specific language on the proposal to the legislature by February 1. The real action should begin then.     IFDs allow cities to use tax-increment financing without a blight finding. They have been part of California law since 1990, but have rarely been used, in part because they require two-thirds voter approval.  Brown's budget calls for lowering that voter threshold to 55 percent of the vote, as has been done for some forms of local school funding. But that's still a far cry from the past, when redevelopment agencies could approve individual projects and bonds without direct voter input. But the bill would also require cities to finish up the redevelopment wind-down and  conclude all post-redevelopment litigation against the state before they can take advantage of the new law. Groups such as the League of California Cities, which opposed the redevelopment changes, are waiting to see the actual legislation before they comment, said Chris McKenzie, the group's executive director. McKenzie expressed concerns about the public vote requirement for IFDs. "This is hard to get--even a 55 percent vote," he said. But he seemed relieved that  the governor had made some movement on redevelopment.  "We appreciate the fact the governor has started the conversation," McKenzie  said. "There's going to be a serious conversation. We're encouraged by that."  Other leaders, such as Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis,  chair of the Senate Governance and Finance Committee, were also glad to see the governor's proposal.  "I'm really delighted that he's engaging," she said, noting, "We haven't seen the language. The devil's in the details." "Many believe local governments could make good use of if requirements were eased or eliminated," said John Shirey, city manager of Sacramento, and former head of the California Redevelopment Association. Wolk's own bill to make it easier to use IFDs, SB 33, passed the Senate in 2013. It is now awaiting a final vote on the assembly floor. She said a final vote was delayed because Brown's office "gave clear signals last year that he wasn't ready to sign it." But Wolk's bill doesn't require a public vote on IFD projects, like Brown's does.  "That's a stark difference," she said.  And Brown vetoed an earlier version of her legislation SB 214 in 2012.  In his veto message then, he said the new law would have changed the focus to new tools, "instead of winding down redevelopment."  Wolk's bill on IFDs would improve accountability by requiring annual audits Other legislative measures to restructure redevelopment have been on hold as well. SB 1, another key redevelopment bill was introduced in 2013 by Sen. Majority Leader Darrell Steinberg-D-Sacramento. It is a re-tooled version of a measure that Brown also vetoed in 2012.  At the start of 2014, Shirey remains unconvinced that anything will happen.  "The governor seems to have launched a preemptive strike in his budget proposal by making his own proposal rather than embracing any of the pending bills in the Legislature," he said. "I think he is signaling that he will not sign any bill that isn't his proposal and so it appears there will be no relief for IFDs again this year."   Brown's proposal on IFDs did more than re-start the conversation on redevelopment in Sacramento. It also offers an inducement to cities and counties to speed up resolution of claims with the Department of Finance. At the time of redevelopment's demise, there were about 400 redevelopment agencies in the state, and the Department of Finance has sought reimbursement for specific expenses made by those agencies.  Currently, 100 lawsuits are pending against the department by former  redevelopment agencies, according to H.D. Palmer, the press spokesman for the department. Brown's new proposal requires city and counties who want to use IFDs to have no outstanding lawsuits against the state regarding the redevelopment wind-down, to comply with all State Controller's Office RDA audit findings, and have a "finding of completion" from the state. Wolk noted that many of the agencies have wound down their operations and resolved issues with the Department of Finance in the past two years.  The new proposal on IFDs would expand them beyond infrastructure uses to include military base reuse, urban infill, transit priority projects, affordable housing and "associated necessary consumer services." "The goal is to maintain the IFD focus on project which have tangible quality-of-life benefits for the residents of the IFD project area," Brown said in his budget message.  The governor suggested IFDs could be used in former redevelopment project areas. He called for retaining the current ban on using tax increments from school districts, which means the state general fund would be held financially harmless.  Despite Brown's embrace of IFDs, they have only been approved three times in the past twenty years. One was to fund public works for a hotel adjacent to the Legoland theme park in Carlsbad in San Diego County, and two others were in San Francisco.  One IFD was for improvements in San Francisco's Rincon Hill neighborhood, and the other was to finance waterfront improvements by the Port of San Francisco for the recent America's Cup races.  San Francisco may latched onto IFDs early on because it is both a city and a county, making it easier to negotiate among taxing entities.  Most point to the two-thirds voter approval requirement for IFDs as the main impediment to their use. In the Port of San Francisco's IFD, the legislature granted San Francisco an exemption from holding an election, according to Peter Detwiler, a retired legislative staffer.  Detwiler thinks the state is in the middle of figuring out the next steps on redevelopment, and he sounded optimistic about the governor's IFD's proposal.  "IFDs are the correct policy response in this early redevelopment reset," he said.  IFDs may appeal to Governor Brown because they don't take money from the state, as redevelopment once did.  Redevelopment lost popularity because it became a drain on the state's general fund, said Detwiler, explaining that the state had to make up money to school districts that they lost to redevelopment.  But with IFDs, "it's not diverting schools' property tax," he said. "There's no cost to the state general fund."

The vast majority of California jurisdictions are now addressing greenhouse gas emissions, and increasingly they are using reduced parking requirements to achieve the "smart growth" land use changes that go along with emissions reductions.  That's the not-so-surprising conclusion of the annual Office of Planning & Research survey of local jurisdictions in California. The OPR survey  covers a wide range of topics, but is very focused on the things OPR is currently focused on – "smart growth" development strategies, climate change, and renewable energy. Among other things, the survey shows just how deeply engrained in California planning climate change has become. More than 70% of jurisdictions said they are either preparing a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or are have already adopted one. This finding comes after a decade of being pounded by the state on the importance of GHG reductions through the passage of AB 32, SB 375, and lawsuits from the attorney general's office. However, California jurisdictions are not nearly as far along in planning for climate adaptation. Only 36% say they are planning for adaptation. In the case of both emissions reduction and adaptation, however, the vast majority of jurisdictions say they use climate action plans as the policy document. OPR also conducted a detailed survey of different tools and what they are used for in achieving smart growth. Not surprisingly, the state density bonus law was most cited as the most common tool used to achieve higher densities – more than 50% of jurisdictions reported using density bonuses to achieve higher densities.  The survey also spoke to the frequency with which jurisdiction use specific plans in urban or smart growth settings – about 50%, give or take, which is a surprising number considering the fact that specific plans were traditionally used most frequently to facilitate the development of large single-developer greenfield projects. Perhaps most surprising, however, is the frequency with which California jurisdictions are now using reduced parking requirements in smart growth situations. As the chart below shows, more than 50% of the responding jurisdictions said they are using parking reductions to facilitate mixed use projects – and close to 40% say they are doing so for infill projects generally. Parking reductions are less frequently used for higher density and transit-oriented development – only about 25% in the latter case, though that may be partly due to the fact that TOD opportunities are concentrated in a relatively small number of jurisdictions with good transit service.

Sending the first signal that he is open to re-establishing some form of redevelopment, Gov. Jerry Brown has proposed changes to the Infrastructure Financing District law that would expand the allowable uses for IFDs and lower the voter threshold required to create them. But he would permit the expanded use of IFDs only for cities and counties that have settled out all redevelopment cash payments to other agencies and settled all redevelopment lawsuits against the state – moves that may accelerate the redevelopment wind-down process. The Infrastructure Financing District idea passed the Legislature in the early 1990s as an alternative to redevelopment, permitting the use of tax-increment financing for infrastructure without requiring a finding of blight. But the idea has rarely been used, primarily because they require two-thirds voter approval to be created. In the budget narrative accompanying his 2015 budget , Brown said he would support expanded use of IFDs as an economic development tool, but only if a city or county has completed its redevelopment wind-down process and resolved all lawsuits with the state over redevelopment. It was Brown's first cautious step toward reviving the use of tax-increment financing, which was eliminated in California two years ago at Brown's initiative. Since redevelopment was abolished on February 1, 2012, Brown has steadfastly refused to consider tax-increment financing in any form. Late in 2012 he vetoed a bill carried by Sen. Darrell Steinberg that would have permitted tax-increment financing in limited circumstances when consisted with an adopted sustainable communities plan. Steinberg stopped short of putting the same bill on Brown's desk again last fall, instead choosing to hold SB 1 over until this year. Brown's proposal would expand the use of IFDs beyond infrastructure to include military base reuse, urban infill, transit priority projects, affordable housing, and "associated necessary consumer services." "The goal is to maintain the IFD focus on projects which have tangible quality-of-life benefits for the residents of the IFD project area," said Brown's budget message. Presumably, "transit priority projects" means projects located inside transit priority areas, which local governments can create under SB 743 , the California Environmental Quality Act streamlining bill passed last fall. Brown suggested IFDs could be used in former redevelopment project areas, and also proposed that local government using IFDs for these purposes should be able to adopt IFDs with 55% voter approval. He called for retaining the current ban on using tax-increment from school districts, which means the state general fund would be held financially harmless. However, he also proposed placing strict limitations on the expanded use of IFDs, linked tightly to the redevelopment wind-down activities. More specifically, cities and counties seeking expanded use of IFDs would have to: 1. Have a "Finding of Completion" from the state, meaning the city or county has paid all unencumbered RDA cash assets to other taxing entities 2. Comply with with all State Controller's Office RDA audit findings. 3. Have no outstanding lawsuits against the state regarding the redevelopment wind-down. Local governments have literally hundreds of lawsuits pending against the Department of Finance over the redevelopment wind-down. By requiring that the cash be paid and lawsuits settled, Brown may be attempting to accelerate the redevelopment wind-down.

Are the days of "levels of service" as a performance measure under the California Environmental Quality Act numbered? Following up on t he passage of SB 743, the Governor's Office of Planning & Research is considering a variety of alternatives to vehicle "level of service" under CEQA, including vehicle miles traveled, auto trips generated, and multi-modal leve l of service. OPR plans to deliver final draft CEQA guideline revisions to the Natural Resources Agency by July 1. In a preliminary paper released last week, OPR declared unequivocally that SB 743 "marks a shift away from auto delay as a measure of environmental impact". Most specifically, OPR has proposed the following possible metrics: 1. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), which OPR suggests "captures the environmental benefits of transit and active mode trips" and is easy to calculate 2. Automobile Trips Generated (ATG), already in use in San Francisco, which OPR suggests has many benefits but does not address the region of regional location of development projects. 3. Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS), an spin on auto LOS, which creats an A through F grade for every intersection and roadway segment for every mode of travel. OPR notes that MMLOS could increase the cost of infill development by burdeningch projects with additional bike/ped facility costs. 4. Total fuel use, which OPR suggests would encourage infill development although it could sometimes add auto travel if road expansions and operations improvements (sometimes required to reduce idling or slow traffic) are used as mitigations. 5. Motor vehicle miles traveled, which OPR suggests could harm alternative modes by increasing vehicle speeds, thus making roadways less safe. 6. "Presumption of less than significant transportation impact based on location" – in other words, adopting the idea that infill development in transit-rich locations will affect the regional transportation network so differently than greenfield development that a "less than significant" impact can be assumed. The law dictates that OPR develop new transportation metrics to accomplish three goals: * Promote greenhouse gas emissions reduction * Develop multimodal transportation networks * Promote a diversity of land uses In the preliminary evaluation released last week, OPR announced that it would consider a number of other factors as well, including: * Maximizing environmental benefit and minimizing environmental harm * Efficient use of local government fiscal resources * Equity, meaning, among other things, equitable distribution of public facilities * Health, especially the health benefits associated with "active transportation" (biking and walking) * Simplicity * Consistency with a wide variety of other state policies, including the AB 857 priorities (infill development, compact greenfield development, and protection of open space) * Access to destinations – in other words, recognizing that the goal of transportation is to provide people with access to the things they need, rather than simply moving either people or vehicles. The OPR document can be found here: http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/PreliminaryEvaluationTransportationMetrics.pdf Comments may be submitted to CEQA.Guidelines@ceres.ca.gov, using the subject line "LOS Alternatives". Staff lead at OPR is Senior Counsel Chris Calfee.

A Riverside County city will take the first steps to disincorporate itself in January, with the blame being pointed at Sacramento and state government decisions about how new cities are financed. Several other cities in the Inland Empire have discussed disincorporation, but no others appear to be close to taking such an action.   The city, named Jurupa Valley, could be any city in California. But most observers say the disincorporation is due to the fact that it was the last city to incorporate before state laws changed in 2011. Located north of the City of Riverside, Jurupa Valley has 95,000 people and encompasses 44 square miles – a jumble of homes, apartments, some manufacturing and commercial uses. For many years it was an unincorporated community, with voters only approving incorporation in 2011.  Those same city voters may soon have the final word on the city's disincorporation in an election. But first, the city has to jump through several hoops to actually disincorporate.  Jurupa Valley's City Council votes on January 16 to begin a study on disincorporation. That action may force the hand of Sacramento legislators and Governor Jerry Brown, since one outcome is that state legislators could vote to provide long-sought fiscal relief.   The city has about two years to complete disincorporation before it runs out of cash, according to recent press reports.  "Nobody connected with the city wants to disincorporate," said Mayor Verne Lauritzen. "We realize we have to take this action to meet the legal timeline." Jurupa Valley appears to be the only city in the state headed towards disincorporation. Two years ago, three other Riverside County cities were claiming they too would have to disincorporate, but all have backed away from that action. At the same time, other cities in San Bernardino County have also discussed the option. The last time cities disincorporated in California was in the early 1970s when two small cities did so.  Jurupa Valley's woes stem from passage of SB 89, a 2011 last-minute state legislative deal that diverted vehicle license fee money from city budgets, sending it instead to prison realignment. Its brunt was felt on new cities that had incorporated under a previous law that had sent VLF money to them to help jump-start their newly formed governments. Jurupa Valley lost nearly half the money it counted on for its new budget, and things have been tight ever since.  The other newly formed  Riverside County cities which felt the effects of  SB 89 and warned that they, too, might disincorporate were Eastvale, Wildomar and Menifee.  Carol Jacobs, city manager of Eastvale said her city is no longer considering disincorporation. It incorporated in 2010. "We got one payment of Vehicle License Fees of $3.2 million, just barely enough to get us over the fence,"she said. Jacobs explained that Jurupa Valley never got that early VLF money, and it is a bigger city than hers.  Wildomar is also not planning to disincorporate, said city manager Gary Nordquist.  "Disincorporation for the city is not forecasted, but a recovery to wanted municipal service levels is years away with the taking of revenues by the state," he said in an email.  Nordquist said police services have been cut in his city.  Menifee also is not planning on disincorporating due to significant commercial development, said George Spiliotis, executive officer for Riverside County's LAFCO. In San Bernardino County, Kathleen Rollings-McDonald, head of that county's LAFCO, has also spoken to local groups interested in disincorporation. Rollings-McDonald said she made a presentation about the topic to the city council of Grand Terrace, a city of 12,000. Rollings-McDonald also said that several cities in the northern part of the county have informally asked about it, but she declined to name them.   Grand Terrace, she said, is dealing with the end  of redevelopment and a long-ago failure to pass a utility tax. The city incorporated in 1978, making it a seasoned player compared to the newly incorporated Riverside County cities.  Rollings-McDonald said she made a presentation on disincorporation for San Berrnardino to a private civic group in that city, after that city went into bankruptcy in 2012.   Rollings-McDonald said disincorporation doesn't allow cities to walk away from obligations on things like bonds. Instead, cities lose their ability to renegotiate contracts under disincorporation. That's a major contrast to filing for bankruptcy, which allows such tactics.   "You negotiate through a bankruptcy process,"she said. "Disincorporation simply does away with an entity."   Another Riverside County city, Desert Hot Springs, has also recently discussed filing for bankruptcy after facing a budget gap of $4 million.  Dan Carrigg, legislative director for California League of Cities, said Jurupa Valley's case may preclude future incorporations of cities, a situation he laments.  "Incorporation is an example of local democracy in action," he said, noting it begins with local citizens who are concerned about government services and land use issues. "Incorporation is a really good form of growth management," he said, noting that cities are the most urbanized areas of the state and "densify over time."  Without incorporation, he said, "I don't know how that meshes with state goals of carbon reduction and preserving farmland and open space." Carrigg traces the problems of Jurupa Valley to the passage of SB 89, which took money from new cities. In a case of bad timing, Jurupa Valley was incorporated two days after the law went into effect. An attempt to fix the situation came via AB 1098 in 2012, which passed the legislature, but was then vetoed by Brown.  In the current legislative session, SB 56 is attempting to make the same legislative fix to VLF funding. The bill is sponsored by Sen. Richard Roth, D-Riverside. "I anticipate another effort to pass SB 56 in January," Carrigg said.  If SB 56 passes, Jurupa Valley will be saved.  But if it doesn't, a process begins in January that that will require votes on disincorporation by both LAFCO and the County Board of Supervisors, and then city's voters, said Mayor Lauritzen.  What happens if Jurupa Valley voters turn down disincorporation? "Nobody in the state has an answer to that one," said Lauritzen. Spiliotis of Riverside County LAFCO answers differently.  "If city voters vote no, it's up to city council to make a go of it with what they have," he said.  Most of the city's money goes to a contract with the Riverside County Sheriff for police services, Spiliotis noted.  "Public safety levels would be reduced," he said.

In an unpublished opinion, the First District Court of Appeal has rejected an attack on San Francisco's single-use plastic-bag ban, saying that the city did not violate the California Environmental Quality Act and that local plastic-bag bans are not overridden by the state's Retail Food Code. San Francisco adopted a single-use plastic-bag ban in 2012. The city concluded that the plastic-bag ban was categorically exempt from CEQA under 15307 and 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines, saying that the plastic-bag ban would have a net positive impact on the environment. The city was quickly sued by the Save The Plastic Bag Coalition, which has challenged plastic-bag ordinances around the state. The Coalition argued that the plastic-bag ban should not fall under the categorical exemption because life-cycle studies show that plastic bags are not as harmful to the environment as paper bags. The Coalition also argued that plastic-bag ordinances should be pre-empted by the state's Retail Food Code, which occupies the field of health and sanitation regulation. The First District did not buy the Coalition's arguments – and, in the case of the CEQA argument, was not persuaded by the Coalition's approach given the outcome of previous cases. In arguing that the plastic-bag ban should not be categorically exempt, the Coalition relied on the California Supreme Court's ruling in Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach 52 Cal.4th 155 (2011).  The Coalition's argument relied heavily on the Supreme Court's statement in a footnote which noted that the plaintiff – the Coalition itself – argued that a plastic-bag ban required "comprehensive environmental review". In the San Francisco case, the Coalition concluded that "comprehensive environmental review" precluded the use of a categorical exemption. "In the present case," the First District wrote, "the Coalition's reliance on Manhattan Beach is perplexing. The fact that the city of Manhattan Beach was able to enact its plastic bag ban without preparing an EIR certainly does not strengthen the Coalition's position here. Furthermore, we find nothing in that opinion which supports the Coalition's specific contention that the City cannot rely on a categorical exemption in this case because it is larger than the city of Manhattan Beach. Indeed, Manhattan Beach was not a categorical exemption case at all; during the second step of its CEQA inquiry the city conducted an initial review which resulted in a negative declaration." The Coalition also argued that the Supreme Court upheld Manhattan Beach's plastic-bag ban partly because Manhattan Beach was such a small city and the impact of its ban on the global environment would be minimal – the implication being that a ban in a larger city would be prohibited. But the First District didn't bite. Indeed, the appellate court seemed somewhat miffed that the Coalition used the exact same arguments about life-cycle impacts in the San Francisco case that the Supreme Court had rejected in the Manhattan Beach case. The First District also noted that the San Francisco case was essentially the same case the court had already decided earlier this year in Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. County of Marin , 218 Cal.App.4th 209 (2013). As for the Retail Food Code, the Coalition argued that because that state law pre-empts local regulation on health and sanitation of single-use carry-out items (plastic utensils and paper plates, for example), it also pre-empts a local plastic bag ban. Again the First District was not sympathetic. It affirmed the Superior Court's judgment that the plastic-bag ban is a regulation focused on environmental issues, not health and sanitation issues. The Case: SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION, Plain tiff and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants and Respondents.  A137056 (December 10, 2013).

There's no question that Riverside County is still the single-family home capital of California. Between 2010 and 2013, more single-family detached homes were built in Riverside than in any other county in the state – a lot more. According to the Department of Finance Demographics Research Unit, the number of single-family detached houses increased by almost 9,000 in Riverside County – almost double the number in the No. 2 county, San Diego, and close to triple the number in any other county in the state. Other inland counties such as Fresno and Sacramento had comparable percentages of single-family home construction – about 75% of new units in each case – but Riverside's raw numbers are in the stratosphere. So, as it has been for 30 years, Riverside County is the mecca of affordable single-family housing in California, especially Southern California. The question is how much that's worth in the future. How big will the single-family market be? Can Riverside County continue to capture and outsized share of that market? And, if not, how in the world can a county with hundreds of thousands of post-1980 single-family homes – wide streets, three-car garages, cul-de-sacs, and so forth – compete in California's 21st-century housing market? Every indicator suggests that the market for single-family detached housing in California – and, indeed, throughout the United States – will be on the decline in decades ahead. The combination of demographic and economic change means that fewer people will want single-family houses and many who want them won't be able to afford them. The now-famous estimates of Professor Arthur C. Nelson suggest that the United States – and, by extension, California – already has enough single-family homes to meet demand for the next 20 or so years. Nelson's numbers are subject to debate, of course, and there's no question that some single-family housing development will continue. After all, even if there are enough houses theoretically available in the aggregate, there are probably still gaps in single-family housing type, size, location, and price. And as we all know, some people just like new houses and are willing to drive a long way to own one. But this segment of the market is in decline. Indeed, for the first time even, you can even begin to think of it as a niche. And that poses a problem for Riverside County. Indeed, the most recent Department of Finance statistics – which seem to tell the compelling story of Riverside County as the single-family mecca – also document the rapid decline in the single-family market. The six counties of Southern California – the five-county Los Angeles market plus San Diego – represent a discrete regional housing market. There's a lot of commuting within this enormous region, but very little commuting in and out of it. And this six-county area represents about half of the overall state housing market. Between 2010 and 2013, according to DOF, this region added about 59,000 housing units. Of these, only about 38% were single-family detached homes. More than half were apartment and condominium buildings of five or more units. The rest were either single-family attached units or small multi-family buildings such as duplexes. Of all the single-family homes built in this six-county region between 2010 and 2013, almost 40% of them – 8,600 – were built in Riverside County. Riverside County built more single-family homes than Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino counties combined. Think about this for a minute. Riverside County – with about 2.2 million people in 2013 – has about 12% of Southern California's population. Riverside has 11% of the region's housing stock, and – all told – about 13% of the single-family homes. Yet during the recent upturn in the housing market, the county captured almost 40% of all single-family construction. In other words, the county kept growing – but only by capturing an enormously large share of a declining market segment. To some extent, this pattern will probably continue indefinitely. There's definitely a market for new detached single-family homes in Southern California. There aren't very many other places in Southern California where such housing can be built affordably. And there's a long-standing pattern of self-selection within this market segment. For decades, single-family homebuyers have shown a willingness to move to Riverside County and commute long distances – to L.A, Orange County, and San Diego – in order to to maintain that lifestyle. So there's no doubt that Riverside County can continue to capture a large share of the single-family market in Southern California. It's got brand-name recognition and can probably continue to increase its market share even as the market segment continues to decline for the foreseeable future. But what happens when Riverside County hits the wall? After all, the remaining available single-family land in southwest Riverside County – along the I-15 and I-215 corridors – is being gobbled up quickly. And even if Riverside doesn't hit the wall soon, does it have to diversify its housing stock in order to remain competitive? Because underneath all the numbers and trends, there is one intangible: People. Will the people that Riverside County needs to prosper want to live there if the only choice is single-family living? And can the people who live in the county's single-family neighborhoods now – who are getting older and older – continue to live in their houses indefinitely? The two biggest drivers of the housing market these days are Millenials and aging Baby Boomers. Both are necessary for a region's prosperity. And both are trending heavily toward urban living – in other words, both are trending in the complete opposite direction of Riverside County. So Riverside County faces a choice: focus on the self-selected suburbanites and remain a bedroom suburb; or diversity its housing stock and its selection of neighborhoods to become more competitive with the people who can bring jobs and broader prosperity to the county. It's worth remembering that, not so long ago, Orange County faced a similar challenge: It was the quintessential bedroom suburb in a rapidly changing world. But Orange County had some advantages that Riverside does not. Jobs were decentralizing into suburban Edge Cities (that's not happening anymore) and the county had a few large landowners willing to move heavily in the direction of employment centers and master-planned communities (which Riverside does not). Is Riverside up to the challenge? Maybe hip neighborhoods will emerge in certain locations – near the University of California in the City of Riverside, for example, and a few other locations. Maybe aging homeowners stuck in their subdivisions will become creative – doubling up, sharing kitchens, selling each other goods and services in an informal economy, and so on. Or maybe Riverside County will follow the same pattern as many old brand names in mature industries – mining a declining customer base for as much short-term profit as it can extract before the mines are played out.

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL MEMO TO THE EDITOR OF CALIFORNIA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT. WARNING: DON'T NOBODY ELSE READ THIS. STRICTLY "ENTRE NOUS." STAY OUT!  Dear Colleague: Something has happened to the American sports venue. Despite their great cost, stadiums and arenas  have become as disposable as the paper wrapper on yesterday's tater tots. The latest example, of course, is Atlanta Fulton Stadium, the current venue of the Atlanta Braves. This 17-year-old has-been was built as a venue for the Olympics, and converted a year later for major-league baseball. It's publicly owned. But the stadium is not perfect. It does not connect easily to public transit, and parking can be hard to find. Plus, the downtown location is this "minority-majority" city (no dog whistle here!) is not optimal for the majority of Braves fans, who live in the northern and western suburbs. (Did you hear a high-pitched squeal? Me neither!)  The stadium may need $150 million in repairs, the Braves management claims. "Who's gonna pay for that?" they appear to say, without using those exact words. "Us? We don't think so."  Anyway, after 17 years of pre-recorded electronic organ accompaniments to "Take Me Out to the Ball Game," the Braves are looking for a greener pasture. That new pasture, depending on the will of local voter, may lie in suburban Cobb County, just 12.5 miles to the north. With little or no public input, the county supervisors have agreed, in principle, to contribute $300 million toward the $670 million stadium. Plus, the county has agreed to pay 50% (!) of future maintenance costs, without any ability to recapture that public money. That's not a problem, because county officials say the whole thing can be done without raising taxes! Taxes are tyranny, after all, and nobody treads on Cobb County (unless they're millionaires wearing cleats.)  And just so the deal won't be a total waste, the Braves brass say they want to spend another $400 million on 1 million-square-feet  of "sports entertainment" sprawl, replete with bars, restaurants and impulse retail; the team is reportedly shopping for a developer to go halves with them. Some Cobb County residents have reportedly complained that the planning process has been conspicuously, uh, absent. Well, if there's one thing you learn from living in the South, it's that you can't please everyone.  As for the 17-year-old stadium in downtown Atlanta, they'll find something to do with it, won't they? Just ask the folks in Irving, Texas, who demolished their 39-year-old Texas Stadium in 2010, after having been abandoned by the Cowboys for the $1.15 billion AT&T Stadium in nearby Arlington. The city has been trying to interest developers in the site. At last report, there have been no takers. This discussion reminds me of Sacramento, home town of bothThis Reporter and the Sacramento Kings. The Kings have played the past 26 seasons in the Sleep Train Arena, formerly known as the Power Balance Pavilion, formerly known as Arco Arena. After a well-publicized fracas this past spring, which involved a tug-of-war for team ownership between corporate meanies from Seattle and some Golden State billionaires, the National Basketball Association decided that the Kings should stay in Sac-town, as long as the new ownership would build a $477 million stadium, this time in a downtown area. (This time, the location is fortunate, because it replaces an underperforming retail mall. Although Sacramento voters rejected a proposal in 2006 for a $600 million stadium to be built on the public dime, there were fewer protests this time around for a public contribution of $250 million for the crucial task of bringing basketball to downtown Tomato-town.  As for Sleep Train Pavilion, well, we'll figure out something. ( At least the 1988-era arena is finished, unlike the half-built baseball stadium next door, which will never be finished, apparently, because somebody else built a ball park, Raley Field, in the meantime.   So clearly, colleagues, we can see that 1) teams need to move frequently and 2) stadiums have very short halflives. The cost of stadiums places an undue burden on both team owners and local governments.  Hell (pardon my language) stadiums can't even be converted to discount malls or low income housing!  So here's the plan, on the down-low, colleagues: We are getting into the stadium business. And w only have to build two or three of them. How, you might ask, eye brows raised and mouth agape in astonishment, would this be possible? Oh, just for 7,000-year-old Mesopotamian invention known as little rubber wheels.  Yes, colleagues, we're going to invent … the rolling stadium! Look, fellow planning journalists, it doesn't make sense for cities to spend to spend a half billion dollars every couple of years, just to watch the local sports heroes move to a newer stadium in another city. With our new proprietary CAL PLANNING ROL-ARENA ® we simply unlock the wheels underneath the thing, and push the sucker to the suburbs, or redeveloping downtown area, whatever. Granted, a stadium is a bit of a plus-sized customer for your standard super-freeway, so we would be wise to design the sports facility in 20-footwide segments, which can roll down the road, extra-wide-load-style. (Are you keeping up with me? I know I type pretty fast.)   Now, you may say, whoa there Rabbi, how do we freshen up the architecture for new customers? After all, each new facility needs a unique, new look to impress the folks in suburban I've-Got-Mine-ville USA. This is where you're lucky to have someone like me, colleagues. For each new location in which a CAL PLANNING ROL-ARENA  ®  is deployed, we will use a new WRAP-AROUND sheet of mylar imprinted with a new façade, just like the printed coverings you see on personalized automobiles used by plumbers and internet start-ups. The creative challenge here is to give each stadium an image based on local culture and history. Now, sports stadiums built in downtown areas of cities like Baltimore or Denver can reflect the look of historic buildings that surround them. Sacramento, for example, is a city with a rich railroad history, plus a brisk trade in vegetables. Imagine a stadium that is covered with a picture of an old locomotive, with the coal cars full of butternut squash! It will fit right in. Corporate identity is obviously another area of concern. Sleep Train Arena --is there a better-named facility anywhere in the world?-- has had to change its name three times in past quarter century. (I've known embezzlers who have changed their names less often.) I propose that each rolling stadium be equipped with a big sign with magnetic letters, like those by second-run movie houses and organic-food supermarkets. I have done reconnaissance on these establishments, and have observed that a single employee, equipped with a magnet on a long pole, is able change the wording on these signs fairly quickly. We simply remove the magnetic letters that spell out SLEEP TRAIN ARENA and re-arrange them to read, for example, FLOOD PLAIN INSURANCE SERVICES,  A Levee of Safety When Your Waters Are Rising. At $20 million a pop for naming rights, I think it's a worthwhile investment.  Now, colleagues, as I see it, the first hurdle we have to clear with this thing is money. For starters, I estimate-- (At this point, the computer freezes and the document is lost.)

In a new opinion, the Sixth District Court of Appeal has unraveled a confusing set of events surrounding the certification of the environmental impact report for San Jose's new general plan, concluding that an environmental group exhausted all administrative remedies and can sue over the EIR. The California Clean Energy Committee sued over the certification of the EIR, saying that it should not be penalized because of the confusing way San Jose certified the EIR. The Sixth District agreed. Under the San Jose municipal code, the city planning commission is empowered to certify EIRs. However, the CEQA Guidelines, § 15025, subd. (b)(1), say that the decisionmaking body for a project cannot delegate the authority to certify the EIR to an "inferior" body. There's no conflict on most entitlements, where San Jose's planning commission is the final decisionmaking body and applicants have the right to appeal to the city council. But in the case of the general plan, the planning commission's role is advisory. The decisionmaking body in that case was the San Jose City Council. Nevertheless, in approving Envision San Jose, the city at first followed the procedure called for in the municipal code. The draft EIR was released and comments by groups such as the California Clean Energy Committee were presented to the planning commission. The committee's letter  covered a wide variety of topics, including traffic, energy conservation, and the city's ability to finance all the proposed actions. Following the municipal code, the planning commission certified the EIR. But of course the planning commission didn't have power to approve the plan. Rather, the commissioners made recommendations to the city council. Subsequently the city council approved the general plan. However, the council also certified the EIR. The Clean Energy Committee subsequently sued, claiming the EIR was inadequate and should have been recirculated. The city argued that the Clean Energy Committee  had not exhausted its administrative remedies because neither the committee – nor anyone else – appealed the planning commission's certification of the EIR. The committee argued, essentially, that it was not possible to appeal the EIR certification because, under the municipal code that certification was final. The committee also argued that the planning commission certification was not legal and that the city council's certification was done with knowledge of the committee's comments. The Sixth District ruled for the committee. "We conclude that the EIR was not properly certified by the planning commission, as the planning commission could not be delegated the duty to certify a final EIR given that it is not a decisionmaking body with respect to the Envision San Jose project," the court wrote, adding: "We conclude that CCEC exhausted its administrative remedies with respect to the challengest o the sufficiency of the EIR and CCEC?s argument that the draft EIR should have been recirculated, as these points were adequately raised with the city council via CCEC?s comment letter." The San Jose case was a good example of a case in which one side – the city in this situation -- had to make a tortured argument in order to defend its actions.  Under Section 15090 of the CEQA guidelines. certification of a final EIR requires the lead agency to certify that: 1. The final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA;  2. The final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency, and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to approving the project; and  3. The final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis.  The municipal code states that once the planning commission has certified the EIR, it may then either act on the matter at hand or make recommendations to the city council. In court, San Jose made the argument that certification in the case of the Envision San Jose plan was bifurcated. The planning commission, the city argued, provided certification of #1 above, while the city council provided certification of #2 and #3. The court saw through this tactic and basically concluded that the municipal code did not comply with the CEQA guidelines. "For all intents and purposes," the court wrote, "the certification of the final EIR by the planning commission is meant to be final for the purposes of CEQA, as the San Jose Municipal Code provides that after the planning commission ‘certifies the final EIR, it may then immediately act or make recommendations on the project associated with the EIR.'" The court added: "An alternate reading of the municipal code would produce a strange result where the planning commission has made only one out of the three required findings under CEQA Guidelines section 15090, subdivision (a), for all projects requiring CEQA approval, with no provisions for further CEQA certification by the planning commission or the lead agency. Logically, the planning commission would not be able to ‘immediately act' if it did not make all three of the requisite findings under CEQA Guidelines section 15090, subdivision (a)." The case (unpublished): California Clean Energy Committee v. City of San Jose, Sixth District Court of Appeal Docket # H038740

Fresno, the largest city in the Central Valley, is going to keep growing. The question is, in which direction?  City leaders who are dealing with issues of leapfrog development, declining neighborhoods and strained city services, would like to keep growth inside city limits as infill projects – as the city's recently adopted general plan suggests.   But local counties, including Fresno and Madera, are happy to encourage some of that overflow growth as it moves beyond the affluent north side of Fresno. Both counties have many developments planned for the region near the San Joaquin River, which is the border between the two counties. This has led to years of environmental litigation between the large city and the counties.    Fresno recently settled a lawsuit against Madera County over the large Tesero Viejo planned community. But the city is still involved in other litigation, and is appealing a recent decision against Fresno County's plans to allow 2,500 homes at Friant Ranch.   Amidst the litigation, the city and its two county adversaries recently met with a  mediator from the state's Strategic Growth Council to discuss some of the longstanding issues. The meeting was required in the settlement of Fresno's lawsuit against over Tesero Viejo, and Fresno County was also invited.  "We started talking about ways to talk about planning from a regional perspective," said Jennifer Clark, Fresno' new planning director.  The next step, she said, is "the state will participate at whatever level we're interested in." "We are at a fairly early stage of discussions and anticipate some additional meetings," said state Office of Planning and Research director Ken Alex via email. "We are helping the parties explore the issues, the possibilities of more regional planning and development, and various connected issues of sprawl, agricultural land preservation, transit-oriented development, and restoration of downtown Fresno." Norman Allinder, planning director for Madera County, said the planning directors plan to meet again.  Clark said regional cooperation has been hindered in the past by the size of the region. She contrasted the Fresno area with Houston and Galveston, Texas, where the regional council of government covers 11 counties in an 8,500-square-mile region. Fresno County alone, in contrast, is 9,000 square miles, and has its own council of government.   "I think regional collaboration is a much better model than litigation," she said.  That sentiment is not far from Allinder's view. "My outcome, lofty or not, is that they not sue us," he said.  Allinder said Madera County, with 164,000 residents, wants some of the amenities that exist in Fresno, including more shopping. "They've always acted as if they're the only ones who should have urban development," he said. "And  all the surrounding communities stand by while they develop their economy while we don't develop our own." It's a view shared by Alan Weaver, Fresno County's planning director.  "There are 14 other cities (in the county) that all have the need to grow and be self-sustaining as well," he said.   Allinder says that Madera County wants the same kind of smart growth in its county that is being championed in Fresno. He points to plans for the Rio Mesa area, which encompass many of the proposed developments in the south county. "The Rio Mesa plan of 1995 embodied the principles of smart growth prior to that term being common," he said.   Rio Mesa could be home to 250,000 people, according to the Fresno Bee.  Among the projects are Tesero Viejo, a proposed 5,200 home development and Gunner Ranch West, a proposed 2,800 unit development. There are supposed to be jobs and retail at both locations so residents won't have to drive far.  But critics of the project, such as Fresno land use attorney Sara Hedgpeth-Harris, contend that until those developments are built out, many of the residents will commute into Fresno, adding to traffic and air pollution difficulties in a region that already has the worst air quality in the nation. Fresno sued over Tesero Viejo, and settled the matter in May after an agreement was reached for the city to receive a $1,600 per home impact fee. But Hedgpeth-Harris is continuing with litigation over that project on behalf of environmental groups such as the Coalition for Clean Air.  She said in total, 80,000 new housing units are proposed for Madera County.  Approval of Gunner Ranch West, meanwhile, has been held up by the Madera County Board of Supervisors because the developers have failed to identify a water source. Critics of the project include the Madera County Farm Bureau, which has sued the county over development and water issues in the past.  This time, though, the county seems to be paying more attention to water, said Anja Radabaugh, executive director of the Madera County Farm Bureau. "We're hopeful,"she said. "One of the more encouraging things we're noting is the county supervisors are much more cognizant of the water situation that they were ten years ago."  Attorney Hedgpeth-Harris agrees, saying Madera County is updating their water management plans.  "The county of Madera has done a lot more in terms of gathering information,"she said.   Still unresolved in the latest talks is a separate suit  between Fresno and Madera County over El Paseo, a project  along Highway 99 in Fresno.  Madera officials sued in June to stop the 75-acre commercial project, according to the Fresno Bee.  In Fresno County, officials are looking at more development near Millerton Lake and other northern sections. Plans for Millerton New Town date from 1984, Weaver said.  The Fresno County Planning Director said that new development is compliant with SB 375, which seeks to reduce global warming.  "We go through the CEQA process, " he said. "If we fall short, we mitigate. It's no different than development that would occur in the city of Fresno."  Attorney Hedgpeth-Harris described Fresno itself as "the epitome of sprawl," but said a new general plan being written there is attempting to change that direction. "The whole idea is to end sprawl," she said.  Hedgpeth-Harris said the cities and the counties are both looking for new tax revenue from development, money that has been taken away by the state and by Proposition 13.   She summed up the problem the city faces:"it's difficult to do the infill development ..if the tax base is leaving to go into the county." Contacts: Anja Radabaugh, Executive Director, Madera County Farm Bureau, (559) 674-8871 Norm Allinder, Madera County Planning Director, (559)675-7821 Sara Hedgpeth-Harris, attorney, (559) 233-0907 Jennifer Clark,  Director of Fresno Development and Resource Management, (559)621-8003 Alan Weaver, Director of Fresno County department of Public Works and Planning, (559)600-4078 Ken Alex, Director, Governor's Office of Planning and Research (916)322-2318

Where is Robert Bruegemann when you need him? A few years back, Bruegmann wrote Sprawl: A Compact History, an exaltation of low-density growth. It called for cities to double-down on all the conventions and mistakes of the previous 50 years. It was a disturbingly anachronistic, but it was provocative, and it was passionate. It seems that these days there's still plenty of in urbanist literature, but, for better or worse, provocation is getting harder to come by. Happy City: Transforming Our Lives Through Urban Design , by Charles Montgomery, pulls up the rear in the urbanist canon. Happy City argues for the right things: everybody would be happier if they lived in denser, more attractive, less auto-dependent, more human-centric cities. Montgomery defines happiness as the Aristotle's concept of eudemonia: self-acceptance, navigation of your own environment, positive relations with others, personal growth, sense of purpose, feelings of autonomy. A city, contends Montgomery, can make or break all of these virtues: "we all translate our own ideas of happiness into form....it is impossible to separate the life and design of a city from the attempt to understand happiness, to experience it." Montgomery couches Happy City in psychological terms, matching new science with Classical philosophy. Presumably inspired by trends such as positive psychology movement, "gross national happiness," and ratings of happiest and saddest countries, Montgomery explains why the human brain is wired to enjoy itself more in certain types of environments and certain modes of getting around (e.g. pedal, foot) and why driving, subdivisions, and all the other accouterments of sprawl are not stressful because of the behaviors they induce or the people that they attract but in fact because of the actual, formal structure of the environments. Cities must strike a balance between "privacy, conviviality, and biophilia"�the latter being love of nature.   Unfortunately, too many places embody the opposite. While expediency, and economics, may require us to convince ourselves that the office, the freeway, or the grocery store are OK (perhaps because there are no other options in some places), the human brain, which was raised in the forest and trained to distrust open places, knows otherwise. "Places that seem too sterile or too confusing can trigger the release of adrenaline and cortisol, the hormones associated with fear and anxiety," writes Montgomery. "Places that seems familiar, navigable, and that trigger good memories, are more likely to activate his of feel-good serotonin, as well as the hormone that rewards and promotes feelings of interpersonal trust: oxytocin." The most feel-bad environments? Big boxes with long blank walls, and "sharp architectural angles light up the brain's fear centers much like the sight of a knife or a thorn, releasing stress hormones," writes Montgomery. In other words, anything designed by architect Daniel Libeskind. Montgomery is great at explaining pop science. But he is not a psychologist himself, and he loses the scientific thread as the book goes on. He makes occasional nods to endorphins and such, but he does not analyze the built and moving environment with the authority or focus of a true scientist. (Even so, a lot of the recent attempts to apply neuroscience to the "real world" to be redundant at best. Surely there are fascinating physiological processes going on in our brains, but we don't need a doctor to tell us how much freeway congestion sucks.) Traditionally, the great urban books have been written by scholars, practitioners, or activists. Montgomery is none of these. A travel journalist best known for a first-person ethnography of South Pacific tribes , Montgomery does not use his outsider status nearly as powerfully as he could. Maybe  Happy City 's publisher, the venerable Farrar Strauss & Giroux, finally decided to go looking for something on cities, and they figured Montgomery would suffice. It's tantalizing to think what Montgomery would have produced had admitted that he came late to the game and had instead pursued an expose of, say, the homebuilding industry or political conservatives, both of which seem to have doubled down on the suburban myth. Even sticking with his theme, he could have done the world a tremendous service by comparing the supposed "preferences" that lead people to live in suburbia with those urban forms that science says is actually healthy. Montgomery tosses a few barbs at the Tea Party's fierce anti-urbanism and notes that "a nation that that celebrates freedom and weaves liberty into its national myth rarely gives regular people the chance to shape their own communities." With this claim, Montgomery is not criticizing planners per se but rather lamenting the power structure in which they have to operate. He implies that Tea Partiers' roiling frustration with government, and distrust of smart growth schemes, stems in part from the fact that "It's hard to find an agora in the dispersed city. You can't hold a demonstration in a Walmart parking lot or inside a Starbucks." His best dig at sprawl comes at the expense of the nearly godlike power that many fire departments wield, noting that "sprawl's wide streets and big lots take up so much space that cities can't accord to build fire stations close by, so it takes fire trucks longer to reach each blaze." But, for the most part, Montgomery approaches the faults and promises of the contemporary urban condition with a combination of earnestness and "gee-whizz" curiosity. Happy City relies mostly largely on observations and anecdotes, which are exhausting and globe-trotting. Montgomery describes a host of delightful innovations that are supposed to increase happiness. They range from Enrique Penalosa's Ciclavia to Jamie Lerner's buses to Janet Tsadik-Kahn's pedestrian plazas to Lee Myung-bak's daylighting of the Cheonggynecheon River to Paris and its Velib bike-sharing prorgram -- to, of course, Portland's, Vancouver's, and Copenhagen's overall swellness. To illustrate how the 20th century got into its mess, he also takes a familiar tour from the Greek agora to the to Broadacre City, to Futurama, to the Plan Voison, and then to the cul-du-sac. The High Line is in there somewhere, and Disneyland too. Happy City is, by all accounts, amiable, insightful and informative. Unfortunately for Montgomery, he writes at the end of decade or two that have produced Walkable City, Triumph of the City, Straphanger, Human Transit, Green Metropolis, Traffic, This Land, Rise of the Creative Class, the Geography of Nowhere, and Suburban Nation , among many others. Just look at Planetizen's annual list of Top 10 books to see the incredible body of work that has arisen around smart growth, environmental responsibility, center-city revitalization, and pedestrianism. Encouragingly, no matter the perspective -- Edward Glaeser: economics; Jeff Speck: aesthetics and personal health; David Owen: environmentalism, Jarrett Walker: transportation; Florida: subcultures; David Byrne: cycling; James Kunster: sheer incredulity -- many of these authors arrive at nearly identical, or at least complementary, conclusions. Agreement may be satisfying, but it's a little dull. As nice as it might be to read the occasional Molotov cocktail thrown by Kotkin, Bruegemann, or Wendell Cox, it seems that progressive planning has finally won. It almost seems that Montgomery hasn't been paying attention, and that he's writing for readers who have been similarly oblivious. Then again, who could blame them? All the famous innovations that planners are familiar with are, on the ground, few and far between. Most people have not experienced them firsthand, and most people, including himself, have not spent their lives dreaming about nicer, happier cities.  At its best,  Happy City signals the maturation of the discussion about how to improve cities. Not that cities don't need improvement, or that there's not room for more books or for new ideas (if there are 16,000 books on Abraham Lincoln, then surely the world's cities can lend themselves to a few more). If his book inspires some readers to crawl out from their SUV's and read about smart growth with fresh, eager eyes, then more power to him.   The real challenge that Montgomery, and everyone else who writes about cities (myself included), faces is that of time. Unless you are at the controls of a wrecking ball, an atomic bomb, or a city hall in China, it takes a lot longer to create a city than it does a book. So, while we wait, we write. Now these ideas are making their way into plans, projects, and the public consciousness, planners have to make sure that the reality matches up with the rhetoric. And they have to make sure that the triumph of the city -- to borrow Edward Glaeser's phrase -- on paper does not make them complacent, arrogant, or, indeed, too happy. There's a lot of work to be done.  Happy City: Transforming Our Lives Through Urban Design Charles Montgomery Farrar, Strauss & Giroux $28.00 400 pages