Many people in the planning and development community are saying good riddance to 2009. It was a year marked by extreme financial distress for government agencies and private industry. If 2008 was a year to "do more with less," then 2009 was a year to "do less with even less"--a year simply to hunker down and try to endure. Thus, it is no surprise that three of CP&DR 's top four planning and development stories of the year involve money--or, more precisely, the reaction to a severe lack of money. When there is no funding available, the planning priorities and projects seem to simply slip away. Will 2010 be any different? Almost every indicator and forecast says money will remain very tight, and we should expect a repeat of 2008 and 2009. On that less-than-encouraging note, we offer CP&DR 's Top 10 stories of 2009. 1. State budget disaster California's budget inevitably affects planning and development heavily, especially when the budget is getting whacked. No matter what protections local governments try to put into place, the state always finds ways to take local revenue. This year was no exception. The Legislature and Gov. Schwarzenegger settled on a "budget" for the 2008-09 fiscal year in February � more than seven months after the fiscal year began. That budget rested on spending and revenue measures placed before voters in May. Sending mixed messages � the budget cuts were too deep and taxes should be raised; the government has enough money and this isn't the time to raise any taxes � voters rejected the ballot measures. That sent lawmakers, the administration and the lobbying corps back to work. In late July, lawmakers approved a 2009-10 state budget that allegedly closed a $24 billion deficit. There are a number of reasons why this year's state budget impacts people in the business of planning and development: The budget shifts $2.05 billion in tax increment from local redevelopment agencies to schools and the state; subventions to counties that conserve farmland were eliminated; state funding for transit was axed, at least until a court intervened; and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research was placed on the chopping block. The budget's redevelopment tax revenue shift of $1.7 billion this fiscal year and another $350 million in 2010-11 is a larger version of a shift approved in 2008. The California Redevelopment Association (CRA) successfully sued to block implementation of the 2008 shift, and the organization filed a new lawsuit over the latest state maneuver. The redevelopment lobby's basic contention is that the state constitution protects redevelopment revenues. According to the CRA, the tax revenue shift would force many redevelopment agencies to halt new activities and devote all remaining revenues to debt retirement (see CP&DR , August 1, 2009 ). Some agencies might even have to go out of business entirely. The potential transfer, along with decreased revenues because of the real estate market collapse, has caused agencies to cut back. For example, San Jose's redevelopment agency, the state's largest, reduced its staff by about 25% this fall. The budget approved by lawmakers contained $27.8 million for subventions to counties that implement Williamson Act (California Land Conservation Act) contracts for farmland conservation. That amount was down from $35 million during recent years, and from a high of $39 million. The money is intended to backfill county coffers, as the Williamson Act provides substantial property tax breaks for landowners who agree not to develop their properties for 10 years. However, Gov. Schwarzenegger slashed all but $1,000 in subventions (see CP&DR , August 15, 2009 ). As a result, a number of large agricultural counties have revisited their participation in the land conservation program, and some counties have declined to enroll new properties in the program. In Yolo County, which has long enforced some of the strongest agricultural land protection policies in the state, the Board of Supervisors decided to put a farmland preservation tax on the 2010 ballot to replace the $1.1 million in subventions the county lost this fiscal year. Without additional funding, supervisors say, they will have to discontinue Yolo County's participation in the land conservation program. The budget deal also eliminated the State Transit Assistance program, which provided $230 million a year to local transit agencies for operating and capital assistance. The cut came at the same time the state is requiring regions and localities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through AB 32 and SB 375. The California Transit Association sued over the cut and won, but it remains unclear when local agencies might receive their money from the state. In addition, a Superior Court in mid-December ruled the state must pay transit operators $1.2 billion the state had diverted during the 2007-08 budget cycle. The state has until April 2010 to show the court how it will replenish the State Transit Assistance fund. When budget negotiations resumed after the May election, Schwarzenegger called his own Office of Planning and Research (OPR) a "total waste." Soon thereafter, it appeared that most if not all of OPR's planning, environmental and California Environmental Quality Act functions would be parceled out to other entities, such as the Air Resources Board and the Department of Finance (see CP&DR Insight , September 1, 2009 ). But while it remains short-staffed, OPR is still alive and will apparently remain in business unless state lawmakers transfer its responsibilities to other entities. There were other impacts of the budget mess. Some state funding was slow to go out because the state could not issue debt for a while. "Furlough Fridays" mean most state offices are closed 15% of the time, which, among other things, has done no favors for the City of Sacramento's slow efforts to revive downtown. And there is little reason to think the pain will subside. With revenue coming in slower than expected and accounting gimmickry in the 2009-10 budget becoming evident, the state is already facing another deficit that the Legislative Analyst's Office pegs at $17 billion.  2. Figuring out SB 375 Senate Bill 375 is potentially so far-reaching that it dominated discussion at many California planning and local government conferences this year, even though the law has not taken effect yet at the local level. Passage of SB 375 was CP&DR 's top story of 2008. Here's what we said one year ago: "State Sen. Darrell Steinberg's bill has the potential to alter the planning system in dramatic fashion. Essentially, the bill uses the urge to limit driving as a way to mandate regional planning. Quite clearly, the goal is to encourage infill development, mixed uses and transit, and to discourage greenfield housing subdivisions." In 2009, planners began to grapple with just how dramatic the alteration may be. The legislation requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to establish regional greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets related to land use by September 30, 2010. The state's 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) must then incorporate the targets into "sustainable communities strategies" that coordinate land use and regional transportation plans so as to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). In 2009, an advisory committee completed a report to the ARB regarding methodology for setting targets. The Regional Targets Advisory Committee recommended that the board establish a list of best management practices, and use those practices in addition to modeling to determine regional targets (see CP&DR , October 1, 2009 ). Although the advisory committee in September urged swift action by the ARB, the board has not acted on the committee's recommendations. Meanwhile, two different approaches for local governments and MPOs emerged during 2009. Some agencies began designing bureaucratic approaches under which they could prove future compliance with SB 375 and mandates related to climate change. Other agencies took a more direct approach by preparing and starting to implement policies that most people agree will cut the all-important VMT (see CP&DR Insight , July 1, 2009).  The ARB's determination of regional emissions reductions targets � and the likely land use consequences of those targets � undoubtedly will be a very big story during 2010. 3. Petaluma lays off all its planners The Sonoma County city of Petaluma has a special place in planning history. In 1972, Petaluma became the first California city with voter-mandated growth control. In 2009, Petaluma earned a new distinction when the City Council disbanded the Community Development Department and laid off all of the planners (see CP&DR Local Watch , May 2009 ). Faced with severe budget problems, city officials in 2008 greatly reduced general fund support for Community Development and forced the department to survive primarily on its own fees. But with very little development generating fee revenue, the department had racked up a nearly $300,000 deficit by early April of this year. With no firm alternative to carry on planning functions, the city later that month shut down the department.  In July, the city hired Mountain View-based Metropolitan Planning Group to handle planning functions. In turn, the consultant hired three former City of Petaluma staff members to provide some continuity. 4. Housing construction reaches new low It was not even close. Builders constructed fewer new housing units in 2009 than any year since the end of World War II. When the year began, the Construction Industry Research Board forecast that builders would pull permits for 67,000 housing units in 2009 � just up from the previous low of 65,380 units in 2008, and down an amazing 74% from the recent peak of 212,960 units in 2004. But that prediction turned out to be wildly optimistic. By the end of October, builders had received permits for only 29,901 units and the construction board was projecting only 36,000 housing starts for the year. That would mark a 45% drop from the previous record low. Housing construction remained desperately slow despite a federal tax credit of $8,000 and a state tax credit of up to $10,000 for buyers of new homes. Builders said the state credit in particular increased buyer activity in new subdivisions, and the California Building Industry Association urged an extension of the tax credit program after it expired in July. State officials declined to renew the program, but the builders will lobby to revive the tax credit in 2010. 5. Football stadium wins CEQA exemption Shortly after the new year began, the City of Industry approved Majestic Realty's proposal for a 75,000-seat football stadium, 25,000-space parking lot and about 3 million square feet of entertainment, retail and office development on a 560-acre site near the intersection of the 60 and 57 freeways. That project replaced a 5 million-square-foot business park that Industry had approved for the same location in 2004 but which never broke ground. Neighbors were not happy about a stadium that would bring tens of thousands of cars to an area already choking on traffic and smog. The neighboring cities of Diamond Bar and Walnut as well as a Walnut-based citizens group sued over the new project's environmental impact report. Diamond Bar quickly settled in exchange for $20 million in traffic mitigation, a school athletic field, property for a hotel, and up to $1 million annually for a community fund.  When the City of Walnut and the group Citizens for Community Preservation declined to settle, Industry began lobbying the state Legislature for an unprecedented exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the state law requiring a project to be compatible with a city's general plan. The city also sought to nullify all legal challenges. After lining up support from labor unions, Industry found a surprisingly receptive audience from Democrats in the Capitol. Under intense pressure from state lawmakers and the governor's office, the Walnut City Council in late September dropped its lawsuit in exchange for $9 million in traffic mitigation, annual contributions of up to $500,000 for a community fund, and promises from Industry and Majestic regarding transit, noise and public safety. But when Citizens for Community Preservation refused to budge, lawmakers � acting in a special October session � approved AB 81 X3 (Hall). That legislation provided the exemptions requested by Industry and barred all previous and future legal challenges based on CEQA (see CP&DR Capitol Update , October 15, 2009 ). Schwarzenegger signed the bill on the project site amid much fanfare. Supporters called the project "one of the most significant job-creation projects in the nation." Opponents and CEQA defenders called AB 81 X3 "disastrous." 6. Water legislation passes Schwarzenegger and Steinberg, who took over as state senate president pro tem in 2009, have proven to be a strange-bedfellows duo willing to address difficult topics. One of those is water. The five-bill package approved during a special session in November and signed by Schwarzenegger might be the most significant water legislation since approval of the State Water Project in 1960. At least that's the conventional wisdom. But doubters persist, in large part because the legislative package included an $11.1 billion bond for various water and environmental projects that will appear on the November 2010 ballot. Considering the state's perilous budget situation, selling voters on more debt could be very difficult. Still, the legislation does establish a new Delta Stewardship Council that is charged with preparing a Delta plan by 2012 and determining the consistency of local plans and projects with the Delta plan. Lawmakers also created a new conservancy to manage Delta ecosystem restoration and established a "watermaster" to enforce state decisions regarding freshwater flows into the Delta (see CP&DR , November 15, 2009 ). The idea is to centralize Delta management so that it is more consistent and accountable. In addition, the five-bill package created the first statewide groundwater monitoring program, requires urban water consumption to decrease 20% by 2021, and repealed a loophole allowing unreported water diversions by Delta landowners. California's longstanding north-south division re-emerged during the water legislation debate, and the 2010 water bond campaign may magnify that division. 7. Cal Supremes get serious about Proposition 218 enforcement In 2008, the state Supreme Court struck down a Santa Clara County Open Space Authority assessment as a violation of Proposition 218 because the authority did not put the assessment to a vote. The court followed up this year with a somewhat technical ruling in Bonander v. Town of Tiburon , 46 Cal. 646 (2009) that cleared the way for Tiburon property owners to challenge an assessment for placing utility lines underground (see CP&DR Legal Digest , July 1, 2009 ). The property owners argue they have the right under Proposition 218 to decide on the assessment. Only two weeks after issuing the Tiburon decision, the state high court accepted another Proposition 218 case for review. The question in Greene v. Marin County Flood Control District , No. S172199, is whether Proposition 218 requires secret voting, and, if so, whether the flood control district violated the requirement during 2007 balloting on a proposed storm drainage fee. If the court decides the district's process was legally inadequate, it could make Proposition 218 compliance more difficult for local government. The court is likely to hear the case in 2010. 8. MTA approves $40 billion L.A. transit plan Freeways may define Los Angeles, but in October the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority approved a long-range transportation plan that calls for $40 billion worth of public transit projects over the coming two decades (see CP&DR Insight , December 1, 2009 ). Among the projects included in the plan are light rail line extensions to Los Angeles's Westside (including the long-discussed "Subway to the Sea"), to Los Angeles International Airport and further into eastern Los Angeles County suburbs; a new regional connector to ease light rail trips through downtown Los Angeles, and four north-south bus rapid transit lines in the San Fernando Valley. For nearly two decades, transportation officials in Los Angeles have steered investment toward public transit. The result has been construction of more than 100 miles of light rail lines, creation of the most popular bus rapid transit route in the state in the San Fernando Valley, and establishment of the Metrolink heavy rail system that connects five counties. The MTA's new long-range plan takes the public transit emphasis at least one step further. 9. Air pollution fee on new development is upheld A first-of-its-kind air pollution fee on new development was upheld in October, when the Fifth District Court of Appeal rejected building and taxpayer group arguments over the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District's "indirect source" fee program. More than three years ago, the district began assessing the smog mitigation fee on most residential, commercial, industrial, office and public projects. The fee averages about $475 per dwelling unit, and the district uses the money to fund air pollution offsets, such as diesel engine retrofits. Project proponents may reduce their fee by including "smart growth" provisions, such as higher densities and access to transit, and by incorporating energy efficiency and clean air measures. Builders, business advocates and taxpayer groups argued the fee violated the Mitigation Fee Act because the district did not demonstrate a nexus between the effects of development and the fee. However, the court ruled the fee is regulatory in nature, not a development fee, and, therefore, is not subject to the Mitigation Fee Act's nexus requirement (see CP&DR Legal Digest , October 15, 2009 ). The ruling is expected to ease the implementation of fees tied to greenhouse gas emissions. 10. State finalizes climate adaptation plan The Earth's changing climate is going to result in higher sea level, bigger floods, and more and larger wildfires � and public agencies that have land use authority or that provide infrastructure should plan accordingly. That was the message contained in the California Climate Change Adaptation Strategy that the Schwarzenegger administration completed in early December. Development interests said the plan overreaches, while environmentalists said it does not go far enough (see CP&DR Insight , November 1, 2009 ). What appears certain is the Schwarzenegger administration's commitment to the plan. The governor appointed a committee to make specific implementation recommendations based on the plan. The committee includes such heavy hitters as former Gov. Pete Wilson, former Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg, and former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William Reilly. With a July 2010 deadline, the committee could make big news next year.

A state appellate court has thrown out an Inyo County general plan amendment that the county argued was nothing more than a clarification of a longstanding policy. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, concluded that the amendment was more than a mere clarification and that the county should have completed an environmental impact report before approving the amendment. Inyo County adopted a new general plan in 2001. The plan contained a new definition of the term "net acreage": "The remainder of land left after land devoted to streets, roads, and utilities are deducted from the parcel." Later that year, county planners said the definition was confusing and would result in some properties being rendered too small for development. The concern was that land that was subject to utility easements should not be deducted from the net acreage total because the land would still be usable. Planners prepared a general plan amendment to redefine "net acreage," as well as a negative declaration stating that the amendment could not impact the environment. Residents of McLaren Ranch Estates outside of Bishop opposed the new definition because they said it could permit property owners to go forward with land divisions that would not be permitted under the 2001 definition. The area is zoned for half-acre minimum parcels, and three properties in question were barely larger than 1 gross acre.  County officials maintained they were only clarifying a policy that had been in effect since 1984 and that the new definition would have no impact on growth. The Board of Supervisors in early 2005 adopted the negative declaration and approved the general plan amendment. It defined "net acreage" as "the remainder of a parcel or piece of property after land dedicated or otherwise encumbered by an easement and/or right-of-way for a public street or road, including a county road, is deducted from the gross acreage or gross parcel size." A group called Inyo Citizens for Better Planning sued, arguing the county should have prepared an EIR for the general plan amendment (GPA) and for three parcel maps in McLaren Ranch Estates. Retired Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Phillip Argento, sitting by assignment in Inyo County, rejected the citizens group's contentions. On appeal, the group argued it had passed the California Environmental Quality Act's fair argument test. Under this test, an agency must prepare an EIR if substantial evidence supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The appellate panel found that such evidence existed. The court cited: • A letter from the Bishop Creek Water Association saying the amendment could increase subdivisions in an area with low water flows during the dry season. • A letter from a property owner who testified groundwater levels were falling. • A resident's letter questioning whether wells and septic tanks could be sited on small parcels without impacting groundwater • National Park Service testimony regarding potential impacts to birds from decreased open space and degraded surface waters • A statement from then-Planning Director Chuck Thistlethwaite to the Board of Supervisors that the 2001 definition of net acreage "could have countywide implications and virtually place a moratorium on development in every area of the county." "Reasonable assumptions from these facts were (1) allowing greater residential density might have an adverse impact on water resources; (2) strained water resources might adversely affect plant life and bird life; and (3) subdivisions and residential building that would not be authorized under the 2001 general plan might be permitted under the GPA," Justice Douglas Miller wrote for the court. " he county should have prepared an EIR, rather than a negative declaration." The court pointed out that Thistlethwaite's statement ran counter to the county's legal argument that the county was simply clarifying a long-held policy that would not induce more development than was anticipated by the 2001 general plan. In addition, the court noted, a 2004 staff report to the Board of Supervisors provided options for defining net acreage, such as whether or not to count private driveway easements. Wrote Miller, " t does not appear from the record that the change in the definition of net acreage was merely a clarification of existing policies, because the definition was debated and different options were discussed." The court directed the county to set aside the general plan amendment. However, the court upheld three parcel maps approved by the county, concluding that the opponents did not prove the county had incorrectly figured the net acreage of the existing or new parcels. The Case: Inyo Citizens for Better Planning v. Inyo County Board of Supervisors , No. E046646, 2009 DJDAR 17417. Filed November 20, 2009. Ordered published December 14, 2009. The Lawyers: For Inyo Citizens: Charles Kroilikowski, Newmeyer & Dillion, (949) 854-7000. For the Board of Supervisors: Randy Keller, county counsel's office (760) 878-0229.

One of the many key features of 1978's Proposition 13 was the rolling back of the taxes, and limiting annual increases. A change in ownership was treated as a triggering event for purposes of establishing property valuation, and in turn, the recalculated property tax liability. Duea v. County of San Diego clarifies as aspect of how, and when, tax liability may be recalculated.  Over time, one of the important considerations in applying tax liability was whether a transfer took place. Subsequent to Proposition 13, the Legislature enacted legislation for purposes of defining certain transfers as not constituting a triggering event. Exemptions include acquisition through eminent domain, acquisition by a public entity, or governmental action resulting in a judgment of inverse condemnation.  David Duea, as trustee for a revocable trust, sold property to a private developer active in the development/redevelopment of San Diego's downtown baseball complex, today known as Petco Park. Following the sale of the property, Duea acquired replacement property. Duea then filed a request with the county tax assessor to have the tax base from the sold property transferred to the acquired property. The assessor rejected the request on the basis that the property was not acquired by a public entity.  Duea appealed to the Board of Equalization, arguing that the acquisition was the functional equivalent to an eminent domain proceeding (which would be a basis for base transfer). Backing up Duea, The city's development corporation, responsible for the ballpark and related projects, issued a letter to Duea indicating that had he not sold, the city would have condemned the property. The Board of Equalization affirmed the decision of the assessor. Duea filed a Superior Court action. At trial, Duea argued that the developer-buyer was acting as an agent for the city, but the trial court rejected this argument on the basis that Duea had not presented this issue to the Board of Equalization, thereby failing to exhaust administrative remedies.  The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that Duea had administratively pursued the "eminent domain" argument, but not the acquisition by agency legal theory and that the trial court was not obligated to consider the alternative theory. Recognizing the long line of cases which vest the primary legal proceeding with the local board of equalization, the appellate court declined to broaden the authority of the trial court. The Case:  Duea v. County of San Diego (Feb. 29, 2012, D058333), certified for publication March 27, 2012, 204 Cal.App.4th 691; 2012 Cal.App. LEXIS 350 The Attorneys: James Ellis Schneider, LL.M., Inc., and James Ellis Schneider for Plaintiff and Appellant.  Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, and Walter Joseph DeLorrell III, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent.

While the presidential Primary Election will be a non-event in California,this upcoming Election Day, June 5, will be a relatively quiet one for land use measures in California as well. Only a handful of measures appear on city and county ballots. Perhaps not surprisingly, Orange County features two of the most contentious measures: one to promote affordable housing in Yorba Linda and to create a new commercial center in Cypress. In Shasta County, voters will be asked to do some "ballot-box zoning" to stop an approved development, and in Butte County voters may rein in marijuana cultivators, in keeping with a statewide trend to restrict the sale and cultivation of cannabis in communities where it is unwanted.  County of Butte  Medical Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance Referendum Measure A - Rejected Measure A is a referendum on an ordinance proposed for Butte County. It asks, "Shall the Medical Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance, Ordinance Number 4029, be adopted?" The Butte ordinance forbids any cultivation - indoors or out - on properties of less than 1/2 acre; limits gardens to 6 mature plants on properties of 1/2 to 1.5 acres; requires all gardens over six plants to be registered with the County Dept of Development Services Gardens; and forbids any cultivation within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, parks, youth-oriented or residential treatment facilities.  No 19,833 55.27% Yes 16,051 44.73% Orange County Yorba Linda  Affordable Housing at Savi Ranch and Other Locations, Measures H and I - Both Approved On June 5, 2012 the City Council of the City of Yorba Linda called for a special election to be held to allow the residents in the City of Yorba Linda to consider two measures in accordance with the Yorba Linda's Right to Vote Amendment (Measure B). This vote is an effort for the city's housing element to comply with state law, by increasing the allowable number of residential units and building heights at nine specific locations within the city.  If a majority of the voters approve this measure, amendments will be adopted for the Land Use Element and Land Use Diagram of the City's General Plan, the City's Zoning Map and Regulations and the Town Center Specific Plan. Passing the Measure does not require property owners to construct multi-family housing on the identified sites. The measure merely allows housing to potentially be built. As determined by the city attorney, if the measure does not pass the city could potentially be more susceptible to legal challenges alleging that the city is in violation of state housing law Measure H Yes 6,535 60.4% No 4,287 39.6% Measure I  Yes 5,709 53.1% No 5,045 46.9% Orange County City of Cypress Zoning Amendment Measure L - Approved Loosening land use restrictions for the site of the former Cypress Golf Club, Measure L would amend the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan by creating a new 33.5 acre planning area within the existing specific plan area where most commercial uses permitted in the CG zone would be allowed.  The measure would change the zoning designation within the new planning area from Public and Semi-Public (PS-1A) to Planned Business Park (PBP-25A) and change the various General Plan Land Use Designations with the new planning area to "Specific Plan".  The measure will also limit development in the new planning area to 875,556 square feet with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.6:1. The site is currently constrained by 1987's Measure D, which put restrictions on the use of the site when it became apparent that the golf course might not survive. It closed in 2004. Yes 4,041 69.9% No 1,741 30.1% City of Riverside  Commission on Sustainability Measure F - Rejected Measure F asks, "Shall the Charter of the City of Riverside be amended by adding a new section 811, entitled "Commission on Sustainability," which would create a new commission to advise the Mayor and City Council on matters of sustainability as it pertains to environmental stewardship, economic development, and regional advantages as a means of pursuing a higher quality of life...?" The proposed commission has been described as a "think tank" for generating ideas for how the city can pursue a range of sustainable goals, including those that relate to land use. The commission would have no from authority but instead would be an advisory group and hub for gathering information. It would be the first such group to be enshrined in a city charter in California.  No 15,567 64.63% Yes 8,521 35.37% Shasta County Knighton Road Development in Churn Creek Bottom Referendum Measure A - Rejected In 2011, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors approved a commercial development on Knighton Road in Churn Creek Bottom. That decision was the impetus for Measure B, which would freeze zoning in that area.  A "yes" vote on Measure A will allow the proposed development to move ahead. A "no" vote means that the development will not be allowed to go ahead. No 19,957 65.88% Yes 10,338 34.12% Shasta County Freeze Zoning in Churn Creek Bottom Measure B - Rejected Whereas Measure A refers to only the particular development that supervisors have approved for Churn Creek Bottom, Measure B would have broader impacts. It would freeze the general plan in the Churn Creek Bottom until 2036. This will prevent any commercial development in the area until then.  No 21,315 70.66% Yes 8,850 29.34%

Once a shiny, exciting new concept, transit oriented development is easing into the mainstream like a train approaching a station--in thought, if not yet on the ground. Yesterday's Transit Oriented Development Summit, sponsored by the LA chapter of the Urban Land Institute and held at the University of Southern California, attempted to lay the track for a long, prosperous ride -- rather than a dead-end.  Yesterday's event was the third annual TOD Summit, and it's interesting to note what has changed since 2010. The inaugural event was a veritable pep rally for the way that many people think California should grow. Back then, ULI leadership made a deliberate -- and perhaps risky -- choice to get behind TOD and to introduce it to many members who were probably still mourning the collapse of the market for single-family homes. That conference implied that TOD would be one of the trends that would yank the development industry out of its malaise.  Two years later, the industry-wide malaise seems to be so deeply ingrained that it's ceased to be a malaise and instead has become the status quo. The good news, at least for proponents of TOD, is that developers are now having a more sober and, perhaps, more practical discussion about what TOD should be. In part because of the implementation of Senate Bill 375's Sustainable Communities Strategies, California is no longer discussing whether to do TOD but rather how to do TOD. No easy task, apparently.  Panels addressed crucial minutiae such as financing, design, and compliance with SCS's.   I had the pleasure of moderating a session on -- what else? -- redevelopment. That conversation has changed too. The panelists -- attorneys Murray Kane and Michael Kiley, as well as RDA veteran Renata Simril of Jones Lang Lasalle -- emphasized that the loss of redevelopment does not necessarily impact TOD's more than it does other kinds of developments. Nevertheless, it's hard not to notice that, in Los Angeles County at least, many current and future TOD sites lie in former RDA project areas. I'm thinking of South LA's Blue Line, East LA's Gold Lind, and the Purple Line subway through downtown. If there's no RDA, then all the TOD's in those places get harder to develop. Yesterday's discussion was a refreshing departure from the hand-wringing and post-game analysis that had occupied many panels earlier in the year and instead focused on the details of dissolution and the future of redevelopment.  They agreed that litigation would tie up the disposition of assets for 3-4 years and that no one was really sure how or when the plum assets -- including some that might be ripe for TOD -- would get sold off. Maximizing value is not, of course, the same thing as expeditious disposal. Perhaps most pessimistically, Kane in particular emphasized that financing schemes such as infrastructure financing districts and community taxing were unlikely to work at all, much less replace development. (Even though his business is booming, he called dissolution a "disaster" for the state, in part because, he said, revenue recovery that were once estimated at $1.7 billion are plummeting, possibly well below $1 billion.) Ultimately, the panel agreed that cities need to pursue policy solutions (parking came up more than once) in order to invest their windfall tax increments, make development easier, and guide developers who are bold enough to work in former RDA project areas.  The one session that could rightly be called a cheerleading session was, not surprisingly, the speech by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. The mayor seemed relaxed and even feisty in his advocacy for transit in the Los Angeles area and for smart development around transit. It's hard not to recall, though, that this very same mayor was pushing for "elegant density" a full seven years ago. It's a long haul, to say the least.  The most exciting upcoming TOD in Los Angeles County might that of USC's massive mixed-use district on the north side of its campus. Within a ten-minutes walk of the Expo Line, it's still not clear whether a revitalized area geared towards the USC community will really have much to do with the surrounding South LA neighborhood, which remains depressed after all these decades. Ironically, the least stirring aspect of the conference was the presentation of "visions" for Los Angeles' Union Station. Recently, LA Metro held a conceptual design competition yielding some lovely renderings--none of which, Metro later revealed, are likely to come to fruition. But big ideas and big projects are not necessarily what drive TOD. The final session, a plenary talk by Pasadena-based architect and New Urbanist eminence Stefanos Polyzoides presented a compelling vision of just how functional and attractive TOD can be -- if it's planned and designed properly. Polyzoides issued what amounted to a call to arms for planners: TOD, he said, is not one building or one project. It's an entire urban region radiating out from a transit station. Ideally, he said, that region needs to be planned as a whole (he, of course, recommended form-based code) and then developed according to the plan. In that sense, his own Del Mar station in Pasadena and other iconic early examples of TOD -- like Oakland's Fruitvale Station and even the award-winning Contra Costa Centre -- do not yet realize what TOD ought to be.   That's a big ought. It's tantalizing to think that, if the financing, the regulation, the planning, and the architecture all come together that LA County (and others around the state) could end up with dozens of gleaming transit-oriented districts to complement what are becoming extensive bus and rail systems. The conference certainly implied that this--and not suburban tract-home development--woudl be the wave of the future. How many more TOD Summits will pass before that happens--and how much of the enthusiasm will remain--is anyone's guess.

The dispute between the State of California and a group of Malibu residents regarding the restoration of the Malibu Lagoon is the latest land-use dispute in this city which occupies – apt word! – a coveted, 30-mile stretch of coastline in Los Angeles County. To the outward eye, the issue appears to center on the state's desire to restore a degraded wetlands area vs. the concerns of local surfers who are fretting about the fate of the legendary point break at Surfrider Beach.  Those surfers believe that the State Parks Department's restoration work , which involves draining polluted water and dredging sediment from a restored wetlands, might somehow ruin their surfing, even though the lagoon is separated from the ocean by an earthen dam.  In other words, to the uninformed eye, this case could easily be mistaken as the old canard of Malibu residents opposing any intrusion by "outsiders," such as state environmental agencies and other bandits.  \t Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, the residents of Malibu are actually protecting us all from harm, God forbid. \t Never before has this been revealed publicly: Malibu residents base their actions on the Kabbala, the ancient mystical tradition. \t The truth is – and I tremble as I write these words -- the Malibu coast, famed for sunshine and sparkling blue water, is actually a place of metaphysical evil. We learn this from Zephaniah, Chapter 2, Verse 5: "Woe to the inhabitants of the seacoast … land of the Philistines." We know that Malibu is the home of the Philistines, because of the high number of local residents who work in the entertainment industry.   \t In our ignorance, Californians have wrongly criticized Malibu residents for being piggish and exclusionary. Like blind people, we have excoriated the selflessness of home owners—such as David Geffen and Barbara Streisand—who have attempted to keep non-Malibuans from accessing the coast, or even parking their cars in the city. May Heaven forgive our ingratitude! Malibu residents are simply shielding us from the bad magic of an accursed sea coast. (The pious are advised to spit three times, at the very mention of the place.) So conscientious are the Kabbalists of Malibu, in fact, that they have been known to chase away self-described "swimmers" who are "legally" enjoying what they naively refer to as "public" waters, especially those of Broad Beach, where rent-a-cops on Four-Runners keep the masses at bay. And to think that some of these so-called "by-right bathers" actually complain, mind you, about the "harassment" they receive at the hands at the blessed guardians of Malibu's private beaches! As my dad used to say, "no good deed goes unpunished."    When the state wildlife service brings its bulldozers to Malibu lagoon this month, nothing less than a cataclysm could be the result. Remember those billboards last year that publicized the end of the world on particular dates? Those were the originally scheduled start dates for the lagoon work! Just let that sink in for a minute. The Kabbalistic message is clear: Stay away from Malibu, you sheepish masses! It's bad for you. Trust me on this one, OK? One last thing: Every person who reads this article and has access to social media should tweet about it. This act will ensure good health and prosperity for the rest of your life. A 49-year-old school teacher in Michigan who tweeted an earlier article of mine on this very website won $7 million from the state lottery shortly after. If you fail to tweet this article, unfortunately, things just might go badly for you. I don't want to say any more. Like I said, trust me. Have I ever lied to you?

Just as new policies are arising in California to wean Californians off their cars, a force more powerful than public policy has arisen to get the next generation all amped up about driving. No, gas prices haven't plummeted and high speed rail isn't dead (yet). Those would be child's play compared to Cars Land -- the newest "world" at Disney's California Adventure theme park.  Forget the old Autopia ride, which was basically a string of glorified golf carts putting down a track. According to its website, Cars Land re-creates seemingly the entire landscape of the American West and sends cartoony roadsters bounding over ravines and along canyon walls. Kids can scamper among jalopies, jeeps, and low-riders, and then have a milkshake at a roadside diner. It may remind you of a movie you've seen. It was called Cars.  I spend enough time bounding over nothing while I'm idle on the 10 Freeway, so I don't think I'll be engaging in this particular fantasy. But I have a feeling that millions of kids have other ideas. They're going to clamber aboard and experience a thrill unlike anything they've ever experienced before. Unless they've ever ridden in a real car before.  Cars Land could make driving cool in a way that we haven't seen since James Dean. Well, OK, Paul Newman. Maybe Steve McQueen. Or Burt Reynolds. And David Hasslehoff. And Dale, Jr. Hey Girl , Ryan Gosling grabs a mean gearshift too.  Oh, never mind.  Given that cars have been cool for the past 100 years or so, I guess Cars Land isn't going to leave any impressions that aren't already there. In fact, given Disney's track record with Americana, Cars Land, which opens June 15, might actually herald good things for the real California.  Disneyland inspired lot of interesting 1980s urban theory, which celebrated the eerie unreality of the place. Fresh off Space Mountain (and who knows what else), Jean Beaudrillard theorized that Disneyland created a copy of the real world--and yet, is also in the real world. Disneyland is a place and the idea of a place all at once. I, for one, never bought into this notion of hyper-reality, which Bauldrillard refers to as "simulacrum," meaning a copy without an original. I have never for a moment believed I was in anything other than an enormous diorama.  (California Adventure takes this idea to a new extreme, by re-creating famous sites in California, as if visitors couldn't just visit the actual sites themselves. It even includes replicas of old Los Angeles landmarks, including the Carthay Circle movie theater and the streamline modern masterpiece Pan Pacific Auditorium. The thought of seeing buildings that really ought to still exist sounds, to me, more depressing than It's a Small World.) For those of us who can neither suspend our disbelief nor stomach too much poststructural theory, Disneyland as a magical place isn't so interesting. But Disneyland as an archeological site is another matter entirely.  With the possible exception of Fantasyland, each of the other five "lands" in the original Disneyland park--Adventure-, Tomorrow-, Frontier-, and Main Street, USA---was grounded in something resembling reality. Even Tomorrowland drew inspiration from the conquest of space during the Cold War.  Notably, this is archive of places we've lost, sometimes in tragically ironic ways. The rainforest is retreating and conquered the frontier. Fairy princesses have given way to Snookie and Khloe, and tomorrow has come and gone. Main Street, USA troubles me the most, since it celebrated the classic American main street at the very moment when small town life was giving way to suburban life (thanks, in part, to the car). The Happiest Place on Earth is, in short, a graveyard of American ideals.  There's an argument to be made that Disney actually contributed to the decline of main street America, by introducing mass-produced entertainment that degraded community life, but that's beside the point. What's more salient is that Disney may be on to something with its uncanny ability to predict, and create, nostalgia. I'm sure that at one point the demise of the frontier, the jungle, and manned space flight seemed preposterous. It could be that, in the near future, driving and automobiles will also lose their luster and that they'll be best enjoyed in amusements parks rather than on I-5 at rush hour.  If that's the case, then Cars Land may flip Baudrillard's simulacrum on its head: the real world might actually become better than the fake one.  Even in light of that rosy notion, I confess that I'm still not excited to visit Anaheim anytime soon. But I'm sure plenty of other people are. I wonder how they'll all get there?

While most of California's cities undergo the arduous wind-down of their redevelopment agencies, a handful of cities have been going about business as usual. For most of the cities that never had redevelopment agencies, business has been, and probably will continue to be, good. Redevelopment took root in economically disadvantaged places, so the likes of Beverly Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, and Sausalito are carrying on contentedly. Add to that rarified group the East Bay of Benicia and the south Los Angeles County city of Gardena. They are among the few cities in California that, by most accounts, should have had redevelopment agencies and yet did not. Though the demise of redevelopment has not necessarily been a blessing in disguise, those cities have nonetheless escaped the trauma that their peers are suffering.  "All the other cities in Solano County have redevelopment agencies, and it's extremely difficult dealing with it," said Benicia City Manager Brad Kilger, a former redevelopment manager who also serves on a League of California Cities post-redevelopment task force. "There are dozens and dozens of issues that need to be worked out on how you unwind these things." Though both Gardena and Benicia face economic challenges – Benicia has an outdated industrial park and Gardena's median annual household income of $45,599 is well less than that of the state as a whole – Kilger said that the benefits of his city's current situation are twofold. The city does not have to contend with what Kilger described as the administrative and logistical "debacle" that is the dissolution process. Moreover, the city will not have to part with full-time staff members whose salaries may have been funded by redevelopment, as they were in many other cities.  "Since we didn't have an RDA….our city wasn't heavily invested in personnel or other costs…..associated with RDAs, so we weren't really impacted by the changes recently," said Ward Madrono, Gardena's police chief and assistant community development director. "We are thankful that we have no liability because of the recent decisions." In that respect, the loss of redevelopment is yet another blow that has followed years' worth of fiscal constraints brought on by the recession.  "Given the turmoil that's created inside organizations who have been over the last 3-4 years dealing with downsizing…(dissolution) is like the last straw," said Kilger. "From that standpoint we do not have to contend with that and I see that as a major plus for us." Cities that have lost their redevelopment agencies are currently caught in a maelstrom of uncertainty as the Department of Finance deliberates on the validity of their Recognized Obligation Payment Schedules.  "We are thankful that we have no liability because of the recent decisions," said Madrono. Cities without redevelopment agencies might not be in strong shape, but their fate may be more predictable.   "We feel that we've probably hit bottom and, barring another major turnaround recession, that we'll be able to continue to deal with the need for cost reactions and such," said Kilger. "The cities with (former) redevelopment agencies…they don't know where the bottom is." The two cities missed out on the redevelopment trend -- which gained momentum in California following the 1978 passage of Proposition 13 -- for different reasons.  For decades, Benicia had funded development activities from its general fund surplus, created in part by the success of a mid-20th century era Benicia Industrial Park. But, with the industrial park in decline, Kilger said that, upon arrival in Benicia, he felt the city was ready to explore other options.  "When I came on board about a year ago, the infrastructure in the industrial park had deteriorated over the last 30-some years," said Kilger. "Before redevelopment had met its demise, I was thinking this is a prime community for redevelopment!" Madrono said that the city had not necessarily suffered for lack of redevelopment, except for having trouble assembling parcels.  "We're a built-out city for the most part," said Madrono. "Without having the funding of an RDA to do that ourselves we've been limited in our ability to do large-scale developments."  Gardena's failure to form a redevelopment agency was not for lack of trying. Rather, Gardena residents raised the common--if not necessarily substantiated--complaint that redevelopment would lead to rampant use of eminent domain. Redevelopment foes called for a voter referendum on redevelopment and won.  Madrono said that, had the issue come up again more recently, the vote might have yielded a different result.  "There was a lot of misinformation about it and maybe some lack of trust at the time," said Madrono. "If it was on the ballot now, there might be more trust in government…to move that forward."  As cities are now trying to devise their own home-grown economic development initiatives, Benicia and Gardena do not necessarily offer much by way of models. Benicia, with fewer than 30,000 people, thrived in large part because of the industrial park. Meanwhile, Gardena employed a range of administrative reforms in order to facilitate the development process.  "We've tried to develop a one-stop approach to economic development….identifying potential businesses that want to come here, through our hand-holding and pre-meetings," said Madrono. He added that the city has also tried to streamline the code-enforcement process.  Those practices, said Madrono, helped make Gardena a finalist for the honor of "Most Business-Friendly City" by the Los Angeles Economic Development Corp. last year.

Now that the age of Senate Bill 375 has arrived, transit-oriented development is poised to become not just a trend but indeed a common practice in California. But, as a typology, TOD is still unknown territory for many developers and planners. Just how to create appealing, equitable developments that actually achieve the goal of getting people out of their cars remains an inexact science. Thus, the Urban Land Institute's TOD Summit, to be held at USC this Thursday, June 7. Among the featured panels will be one on the impact of the loss of redevelopment on planned and dreamed-about transit oriented developments. This panel will be moderated by CP&DR's own Josh Stephens. For more information on the summit, please click below:   http://la.uli.org/event/tod-summit-2012/

In the wake of a court ruling to deny a temporary restraining order against the June 1 disbursement of property tax funds, KCRW Santa Monica's venerable public affairs show "Which Way L.A.?" included a segment on the ongoing fallout from the death of redevelopment. CP&DR editor Josh Stephens participated in the discussion, along with host Warren Olney and Irvine City Council Member Larry Agran, who explained the impact of redevelopment on plans for Irvine's Great Park. Tune into the podcast, recorded Thursday, May 31, by clicking below:  http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/ww/ww120531redevelopment_funds_

How do cities create a thriving urban fabric on large lots?  How do you build large developments to fit within existing communities?  How can large developments contribute to neighborhood vitality rather than overshadow it? Such was the theme of "Large: Designing for Density", the third installment of the Lunchtime Forum series held by San Francisco Urban Planning & Research (SPUR) last week.  In the hour-long forum, moderated by Anne Torney of Daniel Solomon Design, speakers from the public, non-profit, developer, and architectural worlds held forth on what they considered the essential elements for large residential design. More than just an esoteric discussion, the topic could prove to be important for cities that, in the coming years, will be conforming to Sustainable Communities Strategies and deciding what density ought to look like.  Joshua Switzky, representing the San Francisco Planning Department, compared large residential developments to UFOs landing in the midst of a city. He characterized zoning and design guidelines as the controls to rein in large-lot development that can otherwise "run amok".  While San Francisco adopted its first Urban Design element in 1972, it became clear over the proceeding decades that it didn't give enough guidance for large-lot development.  The Better Neighborhoods Program, launched in 2002, hopes to provide both citywide and neighborhood-specific design guidance for incorporating large-lot development into the urban fabric.  The tools Switzky listed for integrating large development are well known to most: re-establishing street-grid connections on super-blocks, requiring ground floor activity, syncopating building facades to create sight-line variations, and breaking up the massing of building frontages. Daniel Murphy, the president of Urban Green Devco LLC, next spoke on design for large-lot residential from the developer's point of view. Murphy drew most of his examples from the South-of-Market neighborhoods (South Beach, Bayside, Mission Bay) that have seen a shift from industrial/port activity to large-lot residential development over the last 25 years.   In the South Beach area, near the foot of the Bay Bridge, he extolled the variation in height and architectural styles of the existing large residential developments, the development of continuous urban streetwalls, and the proliferation of POPOS (privately-owned open space) as elements that soften large developments and tie the community together.  He also stressed that, in large residential developments, design trumps materials: successful urban places can be made on the cheap if they are built the right way. In the Mission Bay area, near the San Francisco Giants' waterfront ballpark, he held up the "framing" of streets with an appropriate ratio of street width to building height as a key for successful design.  He also complimented the developers' "respect for open space and heritage" by retaining houseboats in the Mission Bay inlet as well as providing easy waterfront access.  For those who have experienced the ghost town that Mission Bay often feels like when the Giants aren't in town, Murphy urged patience.  Large-lot residential developments, he said, need time to mature before they can be judged as successful urban spaces. In closing, Murphy urged the audience to "dream big", and not get bogged down in what he called the "blood sport" of neighborhood development politics.  He instead urged communities to let planners and developers do their jobs, which earned him an earful from neighborhood activists at the Q&A session following the forum. From the non-profit world, Raime Dare spoke in her capacity as president of the SF Community Housing Partnership and a senior project manager with Mercy Housing.  While the previous two speakers spoke mostly about the exteriors of large-lot residential developments, Dare instead focused on the design elements inside the building necessary to thriving communities.  Drawing on the 12-story, 136-unit Mercy Housing development for low-income and senior housing at 10th & Mission, Dare emphasized the need for varied spaces within the building itself. Lounges, play areas, event space, patios, youth centers, and day care were among the semi-public spaces needed to make large, high-density buildings successful.  Also stressed was the role that buildings can play in the framing of outdoor spaces, whether they are public or reserved for the use of residents. The final speaker was Glenn Rescalvo, principal-in-charge at Handel Architects, LLP.  Rescalvo portrayed increasing density as a boon to San Francisco, but one which requires additional attention paid to the challenges that a crowded city can bring.  While Rescalvo was more inclined to judge each building individually for its merit, he stressed the importance of increased pedestrian infrastructure and open space as a counter-balance to an increasingly dense city.  He highlighted three downtown open spaces in close proximity: Yerba Buena Gardens, the Crocker Galleria, and the plaza at 555 Mission (with its interesting public art).  To Rescalvo, each open space provided different urban functions, which further contributed to the enjoyment of a denser city. When it came the buildings themselves, Rescalvo urged planners and residents to be less concerned with height than with bulk.  By allowed taller building heights (invoking shades of LeCorbusier), he said that building footprints could be reduced and more open space provided for public benefit.  Rescalvo characterized such an approach as "getting your sky back" by reducing building bulk; he eschewed "holding the height line" on buildings which would create an uninterrupted wall. While the forum was interesting and informative, I couldn't help but feel that its brevity left out major points in the discussion.  The focus of the forum was almost entirely on aspects of the buildings themselves, paying scant attention to the transition between large developments and the surrounding community.  It's telling that almost every example at the forum came from the historically industrial and commercial areas along the South-of-Market waterfront - these new residential communities were cut out of whole cloth and did not face the task of transitioning into a well-established residential neighborhood. Another issue unresolved by the forum was that of infrastructure: while Mr Rescalvo briefly mentioned the need for better and larger sidewalks, none of the other speakers mentioned what types of cumulative impacts denser residential development has on our streets.  Though not as pertinent to design, the demise of redevelopment in the state could have been another fertile topic for a forum on high-density residential housing.  Many large-lot residential projects across the state, especially those built for or incorporating low-income and senior housing, were made feasible through redevelopment funding.  The loss of such funding may play out in future project design as developers attempt to make things pencil out. Christopher Kidd was the founder and former writer of the LADOT Bike Blog.  He currently works as a planner at Alta Planning + Design in Berkeley.

Yesterday the Senate Budget Subcommittee 4 heard testimony from cities and other supporters of redevelopment in opposition to a bill that could limit the number of former redevelopment projects that receive funding under Assembly Bill 1X 26.  Released last week, the bill would make changes to the redevelopment dissolution statutes that would reduce the discretion of local oversight boards and expand the power of the Department of Finance, including granting it the ability to divert local sales and property taxes when it determines successor agencies have "improperly" transferred funds to other agencies or private parties.  "It's designed to provide additional clarification in terms of some of the actions associated with the dissolution of redevelopment agencies," said DOF spokesperson H.D. Palmer.   The DOF's proposal would direct all remaining affordable housing and other funds to benefit the state and empower DOF and county auditor-controllers with authority to resolve all matters of dispute involving Recognized Obligation Payment Schedules and enforceable obligations in favor of the state without regard to priorities set by local oversight boards. Though many have expressed concerns about AB 1X 26, the League of California Cities is leading the opposition against this new bill, which, League officials say, makes the dissolution process even harder on cities.  Palmer said, though, that the bill includes provisions that could benefit successor agencies. Many successor agencies have been concerned about obligations that might not get funded by the deadline of June 1 but that are still under investigation by DOF. The bill would ensure that monies would be available even if deliberations extend beyond June 1.  "There's an opportunity to catch up or recoup this amount if after June 1 we review additional evidence that the successor agency has provided...and that additional information that it was in fact an enforceable obligation," said Palmer.   The bill may complicate the progress of other bills intended to supplement AB 1X 26 and provide cities with new tools for promoting economic development and affordable housing. Those bills include AB 1585 (Pérez), SB 986 (Dutton), SB 1335 (Pavley), SB 1151 (Steinberg) and SB 1156 (Steinberg).  The bill is part of the larger budget package, which is scheduled to be approved on or around the deadline of June 15.  To read the current bill language, please click here (pdf).  DOF is in the process of posting all of its letters concerning successor agencies' ROPS's; they can be found on the DOF website here .  This post will be updated as this issue develops.