Ten years ago, Suisun City was one of the nation's great redevelopment success stories. Plagued by violent, drug-dealing gangs, it literally bulldozed their strongholds to make room for a fancy civic center. The city reclaimed its neglected waterfront and approved the construction of hundreds of homes in a traditional neighborhood development. Suisun City, located adjacent to the Solano County seat of Fairfield, became a case study for planners, new urbanists and journalists, earning state and national awards for its turnaround. Despite the troubled economy, redevelopment continues, with a new motel under construction and a 40,000-square-foot mixed-use building nearly complete. As recently as last winter, Peter Katz, founding director of the Congress for the New Urbanism, named Suisun City the third "most enlightened" suburb in the country. But all the success and awards have not lessened a feeling that Suisun City's redevelopment still has a long ways to go. Vacant lots and empty or underused buildings occupy a considerable stretch of Main Street in old town, including several blocks across from the waterfront. A hoped-for transit-oriented development near an Amtrak commuter train station has never materialized. Solano County Supervisor Jim Spering, who was Suisun City mayor for 20 years, says it is time for the city to re-evaluate the downtown specific plan and to pursue development more aggressively. Camran Nojoomi, who served as redevelopment agency executive director and for two years as city manager during the 1990s, agreed. "We used to control and run the development business of the city," recalled Nojoomi, a businessman who is developing a small mixed-use project in town. "Now they are more passive. We didn't just wait for things to happen." Suisun City Mayor Pete Sanchez, who replaced Spering in 2007 after eight years on the City Council, concedes that downtown redevelopment is not complete. He is quick to say that the area needs more residents and more attractions for locals and visitors. But Sanchez said that Suisun City residents are not demanding more aggressive redevelopment. He doubts there is significant interest among the general public for updating the downtown plan. "We are dealing with a bedroom community of 27,000 people. Everybody is just so busy commuting to work and coming home to their family," Sanchez said. It was 1988 when Suisun City hit bottom. That year the San Francisco Chronicle conducted a quality-of-life survey that compiled statistics on crime, median income, public facilities and such for all 98 municipalities in the nine-county Bay Area. Suisun City ranked dead last. In his first of five terms as mayor, Spering responded by spearheading development of a downtown specific plan to replace one that had gathered dust since 1982. With the help of San Francisco's Roma Design Group, the city soon had a new plan, and with Nojoomi running a merged redevelopment, planning and housing agency, the city was soon acting as the lead developer. One of the city's first actions was cleaning out the Crescent neighborhood, a 470-unit condominium complex near the waterfront that was a gang haven. The city condemned the properties, relocated about 2,000 residents and approved the 300-unit Victorian Harbor project – a traditional neighborhood development of single-family homes with front porches, narrow streets and extensive trees – on the site. With the gangs gone, some of the former Crescent residents returned to entry-level housing in Victorian Harbor, which remains desirable today. The city also built a nautical-themed civic center on the waterfront just down from the former Crescent neighborhood as a statement that the public was reclaiming the territory. Suisun City funded the iconic project with redevelopment revenue, which would be illegal today. A south-facing view, with the civic center at left and old town to the right of the long marina. A very narrow arm of Suisun Bay reaches into the downtown, as it has since the city's founding in 1848. For many years, the waterfront was a polluted, industrial area inaccessible to the public. The specific plan envisioned a public promenade around the waterfront, parks and al fresco dining – which is pretty much what the city got, along with a new 150-slip marina. It is a busy place on weekends and during the many community events on the calendar. Jason Garben, the town's economic development director, said Suisun City has been successful because city leaders have stuck with the 200-acre specific plan for the waterfront and old town area for 20 years. The plan is flexible in achieving its overall vision, as key properties are zoned to permit a mix of commercial, office, industrial and residential uses. The area contains a number of two-story structures with retail outlets or restaurants below residences, as well as live-work units for professionals. There is also a collection of new craftsman-style bungalows that face onto a greenway across the street from city hall. During the housing boom earlier this decade, developers pressured the city to rezone properties for strictly residential development, according to Garben. It resisted, and in some ways the boom bypassed Suisun City. Most of the town's suburban housing tracts were built during the 1970s and 1980s. The city did approve a Wal-Mart Supercenter in the eastern part of town, which spurred a recall effort and lawsuit, neither of which were successful. The residential housing tracts are disconnected from the downtown waterfront area, which the city hopes to fix. Toward that end, the city recently completed a bikeway that runs through town, over Highway 12 and into downtown. Garben points to a vacant 30 acres tucked between downtown and residential areas – and within walking distance of the station where the Capital Corridor train stops 32 times a day. He foresees the property providing a crucial link to and entry into downtown. "That could be a real opportunity. You could do some high-density, transit-oriented development," Garben said. However, such a project was difficult to put together even when times were good. Nojoomi said the site offers a "tremendous opportunity" for high-rise residential development, and he urged the city to plan now to ensure piecemeal development does not swallow the golden egg. "I really think the area could use a lot more residential with commercial. We need to get more people in old town and capitalize on the lifestyle," Nojoomi said. "We could increase the use of the train on a daily basis with a resident population." Suisun's civic center as seen from the marina. Spering suggests replacing some of the warehouses and industrial buildings near the train station with a town square or plaza. The city needs to do something to take better advantage of the station and to generate more traffic for downtown businesses, he said. Like others, he is frustrated by the blocks of vacant and underused properties lining Main Street within a couple blocks of the train station. "If there is one failure in that whole project, it's that we didn't engage the private sector. That whole west side of Main Street is just as blighted as it used to be," Spering said. "The private sector's absence is just glaring." Mayor Sanchez agrees. The Main Street property owners "have not responded for 20 years. They are property owners who have long been out of touch with the city," he said. However, he noted, the redevelopment agency does have eminent domain authority, and "as soon as the economy picks up, I wouldn't hesitate to use that authority. … It's just a matter of rounding up the right parcels and working on a good plan." A 102-room motel (right) rises next to a new office building on the Suisun City waterfront. Meantime, the city celebrates its successes in a down economy. The 102-room Hampton Inn & Suites – the city's first new motel in 50 years – is scheduled to open in September. The 40,000-square-foot Harbor Square development centered on a large courtyard is closing in on opening day and will feature a live music lounge, a bar and grill, an art gallery and offices. Contacts: Suisun City Mayor Pete Sanchez, (707) 421-7356. Solano County Supervisor Jim Spering, (707) 784-6136. Jason Garben, Suisun City Office of Economic Development, (707) 421-7309. Camran Nojoomi, Ashria LLC, (707) 425-9858. Suisun City general plan and downtown specific plan: www.suisun.com/CommunityDev/Documents/CommDev_Docs.html

San Diego County has been a national leader in habitat conservation planning, setting aside areas where rare and endangered species can thrive in the midst of ongoing development. Now, 12 years after a plan for the southern, inland part of the county was adopted, a second habitat plan has been released, this time for the inland North County. The North County Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) covers an area that is east of the cities of Oceanside, Encinitas, San Marcos, Vista, and Escondido and which runs north to the Riverside County line. The MSCP's boundaries encompass 295,000 acres, of which 100,000 acres are proposed to be off limits to development. The North County MSCP is intended to protect 63 rare or endangered species, including the California gnatcatcher, Stephens' kangaroo rat, San Diego fairy shrimp, Quino checkerspot butterfly and coast barrel cactus. The area contains chaparral, coastal sage and some forests. The 12-year-old South County MSCP has been considered a success for providing habitat. It was supposed to preserve 98,000 acres over a 50-year period, and already 78,000 acres have been set aside thanks to local, state and federal funding, as well as developers' contributions. But a different landscape in the North County means there is no guarantee of similar success. For starters, much of the undeveloped land in the North County is farmland used for growing avocados, flowers and blueberries. Costs of acquiring easements and fee title are expected to be higher than in the undeveloped South County lands, said Jim Whalen, co-chair of the Alliance for Habitat Conservation, a developer-funded group. Whalen also serves on a stakeholders' advisory group that has worked on the North County plan for seven years. A key part of the new MSCP is inclusion of several creeks and rivers, which provide wildlife corridors. Most of those waterways are owned by farmers who grow crops on fertile land next to the waterway, Whalen explained. Besides farmland, two large chunks of undeveloped land are within the MSCP's boundaries: Camp Pendleton Marine Corps base and Rancho Guejito, 22,000 acres of ranch land east of Escondido (see CP&DR Local Watch , April 2007 ). Like the South County plan, the North County MSCP is intended to ease the development process by eliminating case-by-case species evaluations, according to Tom Oberbauer, who oversees MSCPs for the county's Planning and Land Use Department. "We are also attempting to avoid the pitfalls of a few issues in the South County plan," Oberbauer said. "Specifically, the South County plan had what are referred to as Biological Resource Core Areas, a concept in which property is examined to determine if it meets high value habitat qualities and should be treated as such regardless of whether or not is it located within a pre-approved mitigation area. This has confused the mitigation concept. In the North County plan, we are avoiding the use of the Biological Resource Core Area and instead are focusing on the pre-approved mitigation areas." The North County MSCP does not appear to have caused much alarm. Escondido Community Development Director Jonathan Brindle, for example, said his city has no conflicts with the plan, which touches the city limits. In 2007, Rancho Guejito's owners asked the city to consider annexation of the property, but Brindle indicated nothing ever happened and the city received no plans to develop the ranch. While the new MSCP is debated for unincorporated county land, a proposed habitat protection plan impacting the adjacent cities of northern San Diego County has slowly been taking shape. The seven cities' Multiple Habitat Conservation Program, which is to conserve 19,000 acres for 80 species, was adopted by SANDAG in 2003, but so far has been approved by only one of the cities involved – Carlsbad – according to Dan Silver, executive director of the Endangered Habitats League, an environmental group. Brindle said the major hurdle to approval of the SANDAG plan is finding a way to finance needed studies that will examine ongoing issues such as the condition of the covered species and of the vegetation. The costs of San Diego County's MSCPs are unclear. Oberbauer said acquisition of the mitigation lands is funded by developers, along with money from state and federal sources. The county kicks in several million dollars a year as well. Additional money comes from a half-cent sales tax (called TransNet) approved by county voters in 2004 for transportation projects and associated mitigation. Government leaders have discussed putting an additional sales tax increase on the county ballot. The "Quality of Life" measure would raise more money for environmental projects, including North County MSCP land acquisition. But in light of the recession, local officials say the measure may not get to voters. "The public has to want this," said Whalen, noting that TransNet barely passed in 2004 despite the building industry's heavy financial backing. Today, he said, builders do not have the money to finance a campaign. Environmental groups such as the Endangered Habitats League support the proposed North County MSCP. "San Diego County has been a leader in habitat planning statewide," said Silver, whose group sits on an advisory board for the North County MSCP. "This is the first plan that I know of that is including agricultural land as part of the habitat preserve for connectivity or buffers." But Silver said his group still wants specific language in the MSCP to protect core areas, such as Rancho Guejito. He said a main concern is preserve fragmentation if areas like Rancho Guejito are developed. One question remains unanswered as the county moves forward on the MSCP for the North County: Do MSCPs save rare and endangered species? "We don't know yet," Silver said. "Management and monitoring is less a priority early on than acquisition is. We aren't going to know if these plans will work for 100 years." A first draft of the North County MSCP was released in February. Another draft and the environmental impact report/environmental impact statement for the program is scheduled to be released in October. The package could be brought to the county's Board of Supervisors for approval in late 2010. A third county MSCP – for the more rural East County region – should be completed in 2011, Oberbauer said. Major fires that impacted San Diego County twice since 2003 have slowed completion of the MSCPs, as the county's planning department focused resources on helping people rebuild, he explained. Contacts: Dan Silver, Endangered Habitats League, (213) 804-2750. Tom Oberbauer, San Diego County Planning and Land Use Department, (858) 694-3701. Jim Whalen, Alliance for Habitat Conservation, (619) 683-5544. John Brindle, City of Escondido, (760) 839-4671. Multiple Species Conservation Program: http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/mscp/index.html .

The state attorney general's office has joined a lawsuit filed by affordable housing advocates over the City of Pleasanton's growth management ordinance. First approved by voters in 1986 and modified in 1998, Pleasanton's growth management program caps annual housing development at 750 units and imposes an ultimate cap of 29,000 units. In 2006, Oakland-based Urban Habitat sued Pleasanton, contending that the growth management ordinance violated a variety of state laws, including the housing element statute that requires cities and counties to plan for their fair share of regional housing needs. Last year, an appellate court cleared the way for the lawsuit to move forward (see CP&DR Legal Digest , September 2008 ). Attorney General Jerry Brown said he joined the suit because Pleasanton's proposed general plan update would create a huge imbalance between the availability of employment and housing. Specifically, the plan would increase the number of jobs the city hosts by 45,000 – to about 100,000 – while maintaining its 29,000-unit housing cap, which would force workers to commute into Pleasanton. Brown contends that the city, if it adopts the revised plan, would violate the housing element law. "It's time for Pleasanton to balance its housing and its jobs and take full advantage of its underutilized land and proximity to BART," Brown said. Earlier this year, Brown's office expressed its concerns that Pleasanton's updated plan would increase long-distance commuting and, therefore, greenhouse gas emissions. The case is Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton , Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG 06 293831. The state may not use its gasoline sales tax revenue , designated by voters for public transit purposes, to balance its general fund budget, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled. Over the past two years, the state has eliminated virtually all support for local transit operations by diverting about $1 billion from a public transportation "spillover account" funded by the sales tax on gasoline to the general fund. The state contended it was using the money to retire transit-related debt and to provide transportation for developmentally disabled people and students in small school districts. But the court said those uses of the money violated Proposition 42, which passed in 2002, and Proposition 1A, which voters approved in 2006. While the court did not require the state to refund the diverted monies, it prevented future transfers. The case is Shaw v. The People ex rel. John Chiang , No. C058479, 2009 DJDAR 9815, and was filed on June 30, 2009. The Inglewood City Council in early July approved a specific plan and environmental impact report for redevelopment of Hollywood Park horse track. The plan calls for development of about 3,000 housing units, a lakefront park and a retail and entertainment district on the 238-acre site (see CP&DR Local Watch , June 2009 ). The city is likely to consider project entitlements for developer Wilson Meany Sullivan over the next 18 months. In the meantime, horse racing will continue. Scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) have developed a new tool they say will help water managers and public agencies better gauge and preserve Central Valley groundwater. The Central Valley Hydrologic Model is the product of scientists examining 8,500 drillers' logs dating to the early 20th century and reviewing 41 years of ground and surface water data. Among the findings: • Overall groundwater levels are decreasing in the southern San Joaquin Valley. Although the potential for large-scale, artificial groundwater recharge is good, land subsidence of up to 29 feet has been documented, reducing groundwater storage space. • Groundwater levels in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Sacramento Valley are stable. • The third consecutive year of below-average precipitation is increasing pressure on groundwater supplies, as landowners drill more and deeper wells. "The Central Valley Hydrologic Model could be used to evaluate regional issues such as the exportation of water from the Sacramento Valley to Southern California, or the upcoming restoration of salmon habitat in the San Joaquin River," said Claudia Faunt, a USGS hydrologist who helped develop the model. A full report and the model is available at the USGS website .

A state appellate court has issued a ruling in an eminent domain case that could have expensive ramifications for government agencies. The court ruled that a business owner isn't required to have a written lease in order to seek compensation for lost goodwill resulting from a government taking of property. The decision reverses a 1999 ruling that held a business shall not receive compensation for lost goodwill unless the business has an "enforceable property interest." The decision means that the owners of a recycling business located on property taken by the Los Angeles Unified School District as a site for a new school may seek compensation for lost goodwill, even though the owners occupied the property under a month-to-month tenancy with no written lease. There is no constitutional right to compensation for loss of goodwill – essentially, economic losses caused by forced relocation – resulting from a government taking. However, Code of Civil Procedure § 1263.510 authorizes such compensation if certain conditions are met. Ten years ago, the Fourth District Court of Appeal established a bright line for goodwill claims. In San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Bd. v. Handlery Hotel, Inc. , (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 517, 533, the court ruled that, "Where the business owner has no enforceable property interest, a claim for compensation for goodwill cannot stand." In other words, month-to-month tenants could not qualify for goodwill compensation because they are always subject to losing their location (see CP&DR Legal Digest , September 1999 ). Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Joanne O'Donnell relied on the Handlery decision in rejecting a claim from the owners Mid Town Recycling, Elisa and Juan Pulgarin. The couple's business operated on a site owned by A&D Investment Corporation that the school district acquired via eminent domain. The Pulgarins sought compensation for loss of business goodwill, but O'Donnell ruled that they did not qualify under the Handlery rule. On appeal, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Four, said that while it agreed with the outcome in Handlery because of the specific facts in that case, the Second District disagreed with the Handlery court's interpretation of § 1263.510. "The statute contains no requirement that the real property interest be taken from the business owner in order for the business owner to be entitled to compensation, just that the taking cause a loss to the owner of a business conducted on the property which was taken," Presiding Justice Norman Epstein wrote for the court. "What is required is that the business owner prove that the loss is caused by the taking of the property. A business which is required to move because of the taking of the property on which it operates has suffered a loss from the taking," Epstein wrote. "This is true whether the tenancy is for a fixed term, or is a periodic tenancy as in this case." The value of goodwill, the court continued, depends in part of the duration of the tenancy and "the quality and mutual satisfaction in the landlord and tenant relationship." The ruling set legal analysts abuzz. Rick Rayl, an eminent domain and valuation specialist at Nossaman, wrote in a widely circulated "E-Alert" that while the Handlery rule was "somewhat arbitrary," it was also simple and predictable. "Whether one applauds or decries the Pulgarin opinion," Rayl concluded, "one thing is clear: This battle goes to the business owners and against the government." In another publicly distributed analysis, attorneys at Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard wrote that the ruling "highlights the potential costs a public entity may incur in a condemnation action and the potential damages available to a business owner." Compensation for lost goodwill "could significantly increase the acquisition costs." The Case: Los Angeles Unified School District v. Pulgarin , No. B206892, 2009 DJDAR 9179. Filed June 23, 2009. The Lawyers: For the school district: Cynthia C. Miller, Oliver, Sandifer & Murphy, (213) 621-2000. For Pulgarin: Karen A. Larson, Century Law Group, (310) 642-6900.

How did mass transportation in urban areas wind up getting shafted by the federal stimulus bill? According to an analysis published in Thursday's New York Times , urban transit systems are set to receive far less of the $26.6 billion than are rural areas. This is hard to justify, given that population, jobs and education are concentrated in urban areas. (You can do your Homer Simpson imitation at this point.) Mecklenburg County is the most populous area of North Carolina � it is home to Charlotte � but will receive only $7.8 million of $423 million in stimulus transportation money allocated for projects in the state thus far, according to the Times story. Seattle found itself "shut out" of stimulus money for roads, bridges and highways when the State of Washington cut up the stimulus pie. California cities seem to fare better than cities in some other states. The federal government has allocated $3 billion in transportation money to the state, of which about $1.53 billion has been committed to 512 projects, all of which involve pavement. According to my personal tally, less than a third of those projects are unambiguously urban (without getting into a tendentious argument about what is urban and what is not along the California coast; our megapolitan sprawl has blurred those distinctions.) In actual spending, however, at least two-thirds of the money goes to cities; a handful of costly projects, such as adding a lane to the 405 freeway and drilling a fourth Caldecott tunnel on Highway 24, skews the numbers. How is it possible that cities are getting screwed? In a word, local politics. The Times piece quotes Robert Puente, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, who cites a "peanut-butter approach" among many states, which prefer to spread dollars thinly and evenly among counties despite disparities in population. According to Puente, the peanut-butter approach is typical of the way many states divvy up federal dollars among their constituent counties. (I'll pause while you smack your head again.) I was already having difficulty digesting the high level of investment the stimulus has given to high-speed rail projects over creating or expanding commuter rail in major urban areas. I support high-speed rail, to which America is a latecomer. Mass transit, however, is the central issue in urban economies, after jobs and housing. Scanting transportation money for cities is discouraging news for both urban growth and urban design. In Southern California, the expansion of commuter rail is a do-or-die issue, especially for gridlocked cities in Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties. Southern California is becoming an unattractive job environment because of high housing costs and long commute times . I believe that a working mass transit system that is attractive to middle-class commuters could stabilize deteriorating neighborhoods and old suburbs, which have lost value, in part, because of their distance from employment centers. The expansion of commuter rail is arguably the single most powerful force in the shaping California cities since the federal highway programs of the 1950s and '60s. Most major cities in the state now offer density bonuses, waivers of certain zoning requirements and economic assistance to transit-oriented development. This means that the path of commuter rail will determine the location of new development, much as the freeway system and its off ramps determined the location of development during the past 50 years. Let's shift the discussion slightly to the issues of urban growth and economic revitalization of aging urban areas. The Santa Monica architect Johannes Van Tilburg � he's a friend and we taught a university extension course together years ago � has talked about the need to bring near-uniform density to hundreds of miles of city streets in Los Angeles County. His target is the network of major thoroughfares that crisscrosses L.A. County; those streets, viewed together, could be called a "supergrid." Much of this supergrid is ugly and economically underperforming. Van Tilburg, a principal of Van Tilburg Soderbergh Bavard, calls this proposed densification "boulevard urbanism." In a recent conversation, VanTilburg said rail transit would bring economic health to aging neighborhoods by encouraging new investment. � Call me simplistic, but I believe the federal stimulus would be better spent on developing mixed-use projects near rail stations in East L.A. than fixing potholes in Podunk. But, then, I may underestimate the hunger of rural lawmakers for a taste of peanut butter. � Morris Newman �

Many times I have attended a conference or workshop on land use and public policy that included an expert the organizers brought in from another country. While the expert could be from London, The Netherlands, China, Buenos Aires or Capetown, my private reaction was always the same: What could this "outsider" possibly tell me that's relative to California?   I suppose that attitude makes me sound like your typical arrogant American. "Hey, Mr. International Expert, we've got this thing wired. You should be learning from us – not vise-versa."   But inevitably, and usually within the first few minutes of the foreign guest's presentation, I was furiously scribbling notes and asking where I could get the PowerPoint slides.   Turns out that we Californians – and we Americans – don't have all the answers. It's always good to be reminded of this.   That brings me to a new blog by Jeff Loux , who heads the Land Use and Natural Resources program at UC Davis Extension. Jeff and a group of students are spending a month in Europe "exploring how cities, neighborhoods and projects can be planned, designed, built and experienced in a more sustainable manner." (Sounds like tough duty, doesn't it?)   Jeff promised to post regular blog entries during the trip, and his first two entries, from Stockholm, went up this week. Stockholm's planning strategy, we learn, is to build the city inward by focusing compact development on large infill and brownfield sites.   In other words, Jeff and his students are not in the Sacramento Valley anymore. And I'll bet they are learning a whole bunch of valuable lessons because of it. – Paul Shigley

A state appellate court has blocked San Francisco from considering an historical landmark designation for a 98-year-old church building. The court ruled that, under state law, the building is exempt from local regulations to protect historic landmarks. The court rejected the city's contention that because the church owner intends to demolish the building to make way for housing on the site, the old church did not qualify for the exemption. The court also rejected the city's argument that the controversy was not ready for judicial review because the city has done nothing more than start the historical designation process. First St. John's United Methodist Church, located at Larkin and Clay streets in San Francisco's Nob Hill district, is reportedly the only existing California building designed by noted church architect George Washington Kramer. First St. John's qualifies for placement on both the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Resources as a good example of early 20th century church architecture. Worship services in the building ended in 2002 because of declining membership. Two years later, the congregation transferred ownership of the property to an administrative arm of the United Methodist Church. A daycare and preschool operated at First St. John's until 2005, when the building was determined to be seismically unsafe because of its unreinforced masonry construction. About the same time, the United Methodist Church signed an agreement with Pacific Polk Properties to develop 27 condominiums on the site. The church applied for permits to demolish the old building and construct new housing. In April 2007, San Francisco released a draft environmental impact report on the project, which triggered historic preservation efforts. The city's Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board conducted a public informational meeting on the draft EIR, and a Board of Supervisors' committee recommended the full board initiate proceedings to determine whether the property should be designated a local landmark. The United Methodist Church objected to the committee's recommendation because the designation could prevent demolition. Despite repeated objections from the Methodist Church, the Board of Supervisors formally initiated historic landmark proceedings. Both the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board and the city's Planning Commission recommended that supervisors approve the landmark designation. Meanwhile, the church and Pacific Polk sued the city to halt the landmark designation process. In 2008, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Peter Busch sided with the church and developer, ruling the building qualified for an exemption from local landmark designation. He ordered the city to halt its process; San Francisco appealed. Fifteen years ago, state lawmakers amended Government Code � 25373 by adding subdivision (d). That provision permits a nonprofit religious group that owns "noncommercial property" to exempt the property from a county's historic preservation regulations. Lawmakers also added a similar provision to Government Code � 37361, which governs cities. In 2000, the state Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision upheld the exemption's constitutionality in East Bay Asian Local Development Corp. v. State of California , (2000) 24 Cal.4th 693 (see CP&DR Legal Digest , January 2001 ). The basis of San Francisco's appeal was that the building did not qualify as a noncommercial property because converting it into a site for condominiums made its sole purpose revenue generation. San Francisco argued a property had to have a religious purpose to qualify for the exemption. A unanimous three-judge panel of the First District Court of Appeal disagreed. " he opinion in East Bay , as well as the text of the statute and its legislative history, clearly refute this notion and support the trial court's observation that the �whole point' of the exemption �is to allow religious institutions to sell their dilapidated churches for a profit,'" Justice Stuart Pollak wrote for the court. "The East Bay opinion makes unmistakably clear that the statute permits a religiously affiliated nonprofit property owner �to exempt its property from a landmark preservation law if the owner determines in a public forum that application of the law will cause substantial hardship that is likely to deny the owner economic return on the property , or deprive the owner of reasonable or appropriate use of the property in furthering the owner's religion mission.'" San Francisco also argued the matter was not ready for judicial review because designation of a landmark is a legislative decision, and the Board of Supervisors has never decided. Again, the court disagreed. "Simply as a matter of common sense, there is no point in pursuing landmark designation if the city is prohibited from imposing any restrictions on the use or demolition of the property that otherwise might be imposed as the result of such a designation," Pollak wrote. "If an agency is proceeding in a matter beyond its jurisdiction, judicial intervention may be obtained even though the agency has not yet reached a final decision." While there is no evidence the historic preservation process had delayed the project, the court concluded, there also is no evidence the city would suffer a disadvantage from an immediate court resolution of the controversy. The Case: The California-Nevada Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church v. City and County of San Francisco , No. A122578, 2009 DJDAR 7196. Filed May 20, 2009 The Lawyers: For the church: Gordon Egan, Signature Law Group, (916) 362-2660. For San Francisco: Kristen Jensen, city attorney's office, (415) 554-4700. For Pacific Polk Properties: Timothy O'Leary, O'Leary & O'Leary, (415) 247-7900.

I recently returned from four months of living in Moscow. The best thing I brought from California was a Zen-like detachment to accept Russia on its own terms. Because Russia is what it is. And Russia is basically a mess. A livable mess, where the trains run on time. But it is the kind of place that made my family appreciate California. Despite its ongoing  financial wreck, the Golden State looks pretty good when viewed through the prism of Moscow. What looks good from afar? The list includes California's physical beauty, its laidback populace and the state's variety of foods, along with its smoke-free environment and clean streets. Moscow has either 10, 12 or 16 million people living in it, depending on whom you ask. But unlike our biggest cities, it has no discernible downtown. Building heights are generally low, so it's an endless sea of eight- and ten-story buildings. Occasionally, one of the seven skyscrapers built by Stalin pops through, grand buildings that help people navigate the city. A river runs through Moscow, lined with pedestrian paths and some of the city's most striking buildings. The Moscow Metro is the most impressive thing about the city. The subway system is about the only thing in Moscow that functions well.  It transports 9 million passengers a day, and trains run every 90 seconds during rush hour. Because the public streets are choked with cars, the Metro is the lifeline of the city. Most subway stations have ornate art in them, with murals depicting Russian cities or Soviet leaders such as Lenin. Stern female guards keep a watchful eye to make sure no one is eating or drinking on the trains, and the stations are cleaned continuously. Still, pedestrian take their lives in their hands when they get off the Metro, because in Moscow, cars are sometimes driven on the sidewalks. Sidewalk driving is not an everyday occurrence, but after I saw a few SUVs driving down the sidewalk, I was forever on the alert.  Many streets are lined with heavy black chains to keep the drivers off said sidewalks. Major streets have underground passages so that pedestrians can safely cross.   Moscow can be beautiful when it wants to be, usually starting in May when the winter finally ends, the sidewalk cafes open, the flowers are planted and the fountains turned on. It's a much more difficult city to love in March, when the city is all cigarette butts and broken vodka bottles and endless gray days. You can be sure the Obamas are seeing Moscow at its best this week. – Larry Sokoloff (Editor's Note: Longtime CP&DR contributor Larry Sokoloff was in Moscow on a Fulbright scholarship. To read more about his and his family's experiences living in Moscow, check out their blog .)

The California Air Resources Board will take over many duties of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) by the first of the year. That's the word in Sacramento right now. I haven't been able to confirm the precise plan, but already people are starting to operate under the assumption that the Air Resources Board (ARB) will assume responsibility for the State Clearinghouse and planning unit for the California Environmental Quality Act. In addition, the air board apparently will take control of the strategic growth program, of which the Natural Resources Agency has been in charge with a great deal of assistance from OPR. All of the shifting duties are the result of California's budget shortfall, now pegged at $26 billion. In early June, Gov. Schwarzenegger called OPR a "total waste," and the Legislature's Conference Committee on the Budget voted to eliminate the office. What followed was a struggle between the ARB and the California Energy Commission over which agency would gain control of OPR's responsibilities. It appears the ARB has won. This is significant for planners – and for developers, when the economy starts to right itself – because the ARB is very focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, whereas OPR tried to view the big picture. Make of that what you will. In addition, OPR's census activities will get moved to the Department of Finance's Demographic Unit. The work OPR has been doing on the pass-through of federal stimulus funds will move to finance and the governor's office itself. One other move of note: the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (I-Bank) is reportedly going to move from the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency to the Department of Housing and Community Development, as the agency's secretary position and administration is an apparent budget casualty. Also about to be axed are the secretaries of the Natural Resources Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Labor and Workforce Development Agency. Most offices, boards and departments housed within those agencies will apparently survive in some form, although the Bay Conservation and Development Commission appears to be on squishy ground. – Paul Shigley

Caltrans sponsored Planning Commissioners Training – One Day! Thursday 7/16/09 UCLA Extension will offer a one day seminar at the Caltrans building in downtown Los Angeles on July 16th.  This seminar is meant to provide planners and commissioners with useful information to assist them in their daily activities.  A group of experienced professionals will discuss the importance of CEQA mitigation, the ins-and-outs of Transportation Demand Management, integrating mobility and multi-model transportation systems, and how to comply with state mandates regarding the development of affordable housing.  The seminar runs from 9:00am to 3:30pm and provides ample opportunity for participants to raise questions or interact with speakers. The fee is $55 and includes lunch. Please use registration number U9095. For more information, or to enroll, please call (310) 825-9971 or go to www.uclaextension.edu/publicpolicy .

Now that the age of greenhouse gas emissions reduction is upon us, I think there's an important point worth making: Government agencies in California can try to comply with SB 375 – or they can focus on reducing driving. There is a lot of overlap between the two, but they are not exactly the same thing. One is a complicated governmental bureaucratic process; the other requires governmental action about infrastructure and new development. A few weeks ago I got into hot water with some folks for the way I characterized a panel discussion at California State University, San Bernardino's Leonard Transportation Center. I said that Ty Schuiling from the San Bernardino Associated Governments – and, to a lesser extent, Hasan Ikhrata from the Southern California Association of Governments – were saying that SB 375 is not the best way to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The complaint was that this isn't all they said. Schuiling in particular also outlined SANBAG's smart growth efforts, including focusing development around possible bus rapid transit lines. But there is no question that an undercurrent in the SB 375 discussion these days, especially in Southern California, is that if you want to reduce GHGs, SB 375 may not provide the most efficient path. To a certain extent, this idea reflects the view of a lot of elected officials – not necessarily of Schuiling and Ikhrata – that there must be some other way , any other way, to reduce GHGs besides leaning on local governments to change their land use policies. But it also reflects, understandably enough, the disconnect between the very bureaucratic process contained in SB 375 and the very real challenge of actually using land use strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in real life – which means reducing driving. Like a lot of regional planning efforts, SB 375 is a real contraption. The goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks through land use strategies. Regional planning agencies are given an emissions reduction target from the state. Then they have to prepare a "sustainable communities strategy" (SCS) that shows how emissions will be reduced. But the SCS has to be tied to the regional transportation plan (RTP), and the RTP has to be grounded in realistic travel forecasts. So if the SCS doesn't meet the state target, then the regional agency has to produce an "alternative planning strategy" (APS), but unlike the SCS, the APS doesn't have to be financially tied to the RTP. The bottom line is that a city or county does not get transportation funding unless it acts consistently with an SCS (but not an APS). There is also some streamlining under the California Environmental Quality Act tied to both. But local general plans do not have to have anything to do with any of this. All of which means a lot of people will do a lot of paper-shuffling in an attempt to meet the bureaucratic requirements of SB 375. But on the ground, using land use strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of transportation fuels means one thing: Figuring out how to lay out California in such a way that people drive less. This has been the basic issue buried in SB 375 from the beginning, as we have been reporting for 18 months now. It's understandable that people are a little intimidated by this idea, and hiding one's self in the bureaucratic rigmarole of SB 375 is indeed an attractive alternative. But there are ways to tackle the driving issue head-on, and if California is going to make a successful transition to a more urban society – remaining livable without too much congestion or pollution – it seems to me that planners in the state simply have to dive into it. How do you reduce driving? The standard planning answer of compact, mixed-use development, transit, bicycling and so forth is, broadly speaking, correct. But the most effective solutions are both simpler and more nuanced than standard planning theology, partly because the goal is to drive less, not revolutionize how people live, and partly because California contains a particular form of urban development that is not the same as in New York, Europe, or Asia. So, as planners move forward trying to reduce driving, here are a few tips: 1. Put things closer together. I know, this sounds incredibly simple-minded. But it's true. If you want people to drive less, don't put things so far apart. The studies by environmental activist and researcher John Holtzclaw of the Bay Area, which show vehicle miles traveled increase as you move from the center of the metropolis to the edge, is based partly on transit; but it's also based partly on the simple fact that things are closer together in Berkeley than they are in Pleasanton, even if you have to drive. There are a lot of consequences to putting things closer together, including a fair amount of localized traffic congestion that average citizens won't like. But there are huge environmental benefits, including less driving and probably less congestion overall. 2. Density for its own sake isn't enough. Simply building high densities of one type of land use will be counterproductive. A high-rise office center will generate a lot of trips, a lot of commuting, and, without good transit, a lot of traffic. A high-rise residential area will do the same. 3. Concentrate housing and jobs in close proximity to one another. This is effective not for the reason you might think. Hardly anybody walks to work anywhere. But considerable evidence exists that if you put lots of jobs and lots of housing in close proximity to one another, a sustainable market for everyday businesses and services can be created. If a daytime worker population can create some business for a dry cleaner, a drug store, and so forth, a nighttime/weekend resident population can glom onto those same businesses and make them truly viable. 4. Pay attention to the actual businesses, not just the land uses. Planners tend to think in terms of land uses. But people think in terms of businesses. Where is the business that serves my particular need? The most successful mixed-use districts usually have popular, local, service-oriented businesses. If even one of those businesses goes away, the local residents and employees will start driving elsewhere. 5. Think like a shopping mall. I know – the worst sin a planner can imagine. But shopping malls are a prime example of the "park once" strategy. Your grandmother drove all over town to different little businesses; now, you just go one place, park your car, and buy all kinds of things. Even a Wal-Mart or Costco superstore operates on this principle. The idea is to get you out of your car and into a particular location, and then manipulate you to do as many different things as you possibly can before you get back into your car. Isn't that what planners are trying to accomplish? You won't find any of this in SB 375, nor under discussion at the state's Regional Targets Advisory Committee, nor at the regional planning agencies. Still, these are the things that California will have to do on the ground to accomplish SB 375's goals.

While California's yawning budget gap remains wide open, the revenue and spending plan eventually approved by legislators will likely have significant ramifications for land use planning and development. Consider these budget-balancing possibilities: The state taking most of the gas tax revenues that cities and counties would get over the next two years for basic street and road maintenance – a move that would mark a major disinvestment in infrastructure; a $350 million shift in redevelopment tax increment revenues to help fund schools despite a court ruling in April that such a shift would violate the state constitution; and elimination of Williamson Act subventions for the 2009-10 fiscal year, which, if it became permanent, would cost agricultural counties $35 million annually and raise questions about the Williamson Act's long-term viability as a farmland protection tool. There is more. Lawmakers and the governor himself have targeted the Governor's Office of Planning and Research for dismantling, parceling out its functions to existing agencies. Such a move might leave local planners without the technical assistance they need to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, develop general plans and properly interpret statutes. The 2008-09 fiscal year ended with partisan divisions solidified in Sacramento, and there is no prospect of a thaw in the current budget debate. Democrats want to close an estimated $24 billion budget gap for the just-closed fiscal year and 2009-10 cycle with an approximately 50-50 combination of tax increases and spending cuts, while Republicans oppose any tax increases. Gov. Schwarzenegger appears to be somewhere in between the two, although he has threatened to veto most tax-boosting proposals. A Schwarzenegger proposal to borrow $2 billion in local property tax revenue during the 2009-10 fiscal year, which begins July 1, was taken off the table in mid-June when Republican lawmakers objected. But the plan to take – not borrow – $986 million in Highway User's Tax Account money (the gas tax) earmarked for cities and counties in the 2009-10 fiscal year has gained traction in both parties. The Schwarzenegger-backed plan would take an additional $750 million in 2010-11. The state would use the money to service transportation debt. The administration also wants to withhold $288 million of Proposition 42 gasoline sales tax money that would otherwise be spent on road projects during the 2009-10 fiscal year. "It's absolutely devastating. It just makes no sense," said DeAnn Baker, a lobbyist for the California State Association of Counties (CSAC). "I don't think I have ever seen county engineers so distraught over something." The cut in money for road upgrades and repairs would more than offset the $600 million in federal stimulus money headed to California regions for transportation projects, Baker said. Revenues generated by the gas tax and Proposition 42 make up 50% to 90% of counties' road funding. The cut in local transportation spending would mean the elimination of about 4,000 jobs in county public works departments alone, and the suspension of such basic activities as repairing traffic signals, operating drawbridges, removing snow and clearing culverts, according to Baker. Scores of cities and counties have adopted resolutions opposing the state's taking of the gas tax revenues, and the League of California cities has released a legal opinion concluding that the seizure of the gas tax would be unconstitutional. The CSAC board of directors even endorsed a 5-cents-a-gallon gas tax increase, but that idea has gone nowhere in the Capitol. The proposal to shift redevelopment agency revenues to schools – first approved last fall – appeared doomed after a Sacramento County Superior Court judge ruled it unconstitutional because the money must be spent on redevelopment activities (see CP&DR Redevelopment Watch , June 2009 ). But lawmakers say they can fix the legal problem with SB 80, which declares the revenue would be available only to school districts located entirely or partly in redevelopment project areas. Lawmakers and the administration are considering shifting $350 million a year for three years. Despite the language change in SB 80, the California Redevelopment Association continues to maintain that such a shift would be illegal. One reason is that the state's taking of so much tax-increment money would impair agencies' ability to make contractually required payments to bondholders and public entities that have financed redevelopment projects, said CRA Board of Directors President Jim Kennedy. Redevelopment projects are already being delayed because of real estate and credit issues, said Kennedy, who heads Contra Costa County's redevelopment agency. The proposed tax increment shift would further freeze redevelopment activity at a time when the federal government is investing billions of dollars in public projects, he said. The drastic reduction in road and street maintenance funding is one more concern, he said, adding, "The inability to maintain infrastructure adequately is one of those pennywise, pound foolish decisions." A few cities seek to exploit the state's pursuit of revenues to balance its books. The City of Industry, for instance, would have redevelopment agencies turn over a percentage of tax increment revenue to the state in exchange for the state extending the lifespan of redevelopment project areas by 30 years – whether blight exists or not. Industry could use tax-increment financing to subsidize infrastructure for a proposed football stadium. The CRA board opposes the idea, and CRA Executive Director John Shirey, in a recent legislative update, reiterated that stance. "We continue to hear about a few local agencies lobbying for special allowances in exchange for giving up funds. These efforts should be stopped," Shirey wrote. "The reason is simple: Any take of redevelopment funds by the state for non-redevelopment purposes violates the California Constitution and is directly counter to the primary argument in CRA's successful lawsuit against the state." Schwarzenegger's pronouncement in early June that the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is a "total waste" virtually kills the agency. Among other things, OPR operates the State Clearinghouse for California Environmental Quality Act documents and maintains general plan guidelines. Because both of these services are required by law, they would have to be parceled out to other agencies if OPR is dismantled. The larger question for local planners is which state agency, if any, would offer a broad perspective on land use planning and provide the technical advice that ORP has given since the 1970s. Both the California Air Resources Board and the California Energy Commission appear eager to assume the role of technical expert, which would be a departure from their traditional roles as regulatory agencies. Elimination of OPR should be worrisome to planning practitioners, said Pete Parkinson, vice president of policy and legislation for the American Planning Association, California Chapter. "You would lose an office that is focused on planning in this state. You can argue about how effective it has been, but that's really a function of the different administrations' priorities and focus," he said. The planning organization has not lobbied strongly for keeping OPR in place, said Parkinson, because the organization must pick its battles carefully and because it recognizes the magnitude of the state's budget problem. Those budget woes, combined with the economic downturn, has created a "giant sucking sound of money disappearing from local governments," Parkinson said. That, in turn, reduces money available for long-term planning, which is a mostly discretionary activity and therefore easier to cut in the face of so many underfunded mandates, he said. Many general plan updates will be set aside, Parkinson predicted. The proposed suspension of Williamson Act subventions should also concern planners, said Parkinson. The act provides for property tax breaks for agricultural landowners who agree not to develop their property. The state reimburses counties for the property tax revenues they lose, which amounts to more than $1 million apiece for big farm counties. The Schwarzenegger administration has proposed eliminating the subvention virtually every budget year, but lawmakers have refused to go along – until this year. Planners and farmland preservation advocates worry that if the subvention is ended for a year, restoring it may be difficult. That could result in some counties pulling out of the Williamson Act program, potentially increasing growth pressure on farmland. Contacts: League of California Cities: www.cacities.org . California State Association of Counties budget page: www.csac.counties.org/default.asp?id=235 . California Redevelopment Association: www.calredevelop.org . Department of Finance: www.dof.ca.gov . Pete Parkinson, American Planning Association, California Chapter, (707) 565-1925. Jim Kennedy, California Redevelopment Association, (925) 335-7200.