Billboard ordinances in five cities have survived constitutional challenges, as the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected claims filed by three billboard companies. In three published decisions, the Ninth Circuit upheld billboard regulations in San Diego, Beaumont and Oakland. In unpublished memoranda, the court upheld regulations in Chula Vista and Lemon Grove. In all five cases, billboard companies argued that local ordinances violated the companies' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court did strike down one provision in Oakland's ordinance, and it returned the Beaumont case to District Court for further proceedings on a company's claim for damages. Randal Morrison, the attorney for San Diego, Beaumont, Chula Vista and Lemon Grove, said the Ninth Circuit broke no legal ground. The decisions demonstrate that the Ninth Circuit, like other circuits, is "growing weary of billboard companies trying to attack sign ordinances, including portions of the ordinances that don't apply to them." Billboard companies argue that zoning limitations impinge on their right to free expression. However, the First Amendment applies only to billboard content; whether someone may erect a billboard in the first place, "is a straight zoning issue," Morrison contended. Oakland Deputy City Attorney Christopher Kee said the Ninth Circuit's decision in the Oakland case "upheld what we thought were the guiding principles of First Amendment law in regard to billboards. It preserved our right to regulate these things. Billboards are of considerable concern because of the proliferation of these things and visual blight." The lawsuits against San Diego, Chula Vista and Lemon Cove were all filed by the outdoor advertising company Get Outdoors. In San Diego, the company filed 24 billboard permit applications in June 2003. The city rejected all applications because the city's sign ordinance did not permit new off-site billboards. In addition, the city found the applications were incomplete and the proposed billboards would violate size and height restrictions. Get Outdoors filed a lawsuit the following month asked the court to invalidate the entire sign ordinance. Get Outdoors argued that the ordinance unconstitutionally favored commercial speech over noncommercial speech, favored certain types of commercial speech over others, constituted "prior restraint" because it gave city officials no deadline to decide on applications, and gave officials unbridled discretion. Before District Court Judge William Hayes ruled, the city amended its ordinance to include a "message substitution" clause permitting noncommercial messages on billboards, and a 45-day deadline for deciding on permit applications. After considering these amendments, Hayes ruled for the city. At the Ninth Circuit, the primary issue was whether Get Outdoors could challenge the entirety of San Diego's sign ordinance. The Ninth Circuit determined that the company could "challenge only those provisions that applied to it. … Get Outdoors II cannot leverage its injuries under certain, specific provisions to state an injury under the sign ordinance generally." The Ninth Circuit then said that the company could get relief only if the court invalidated both the size and height restrictions, and the off-site ban. But the court upheld the size and height restrictions — which vary based on the size of the street and speed limit — as "not substantially broader than necessary to protect the city's interests in traffic safety and aesthetics." Thus, the city could use the size and height restrictions to deny Get Outdoors II's applications, according to the court. Get Outdoors contended the city's discretionary provisions and absence of a time limit amounted to prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment. But the court said the company had no standing to pursue such a claim. "Get Outdoors II's applications to erect billboard structures were denied on grounds that are constitutionally valid, and neither its filings nor its actions in this case have evinced any intent to file permit applications that comply with these requirements," Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall wrote for the three-judge panel. "Thus, Get Outdoors II cannot show that it would ever be genuinely threatened by an unconstitutional prior restraint in this case. … No change in the permit procedures would result in the approval of the permits it requests." The arguments were essentially the same in Get Outdoors II, LLC v. City of Lemon Grove , No. 05-56374, and Get Outdoors v. City of Chula Vista , No. 05-56696. In the unpublished memoranda upholding those cities' ordinance, the Ninth Circuit directed readers to the published San Diego decision for analysis. The Beaumont case was brought by Outdoor Media Group. It had filed a conditional use permit application to erect four billboards at the junction of Interstate 10 and State Route 60 in 2003. Based on subjective standards in the city's ordinance, the planning director recommended disapproval, and both the Planning Commission and City Council voted to deny the application. Outdoor Media sued, arguing that the city's ordinance violated the First Amendment because it regulated based on the billboard content and gave city officials too much discretion. The company also argued that the city violated its due process and equal protection rights. Outdoor Media asked the District Court to throw out the ordinance and award damages. The city responded by repealing the challenged ordinance and replacing it with one that banned new billboards. District Court Judge Robert Timlin upheld the new ordinance and dismissed Outdoor Media's claims as moot. The same Ninth Circuit panel that decided on the San Diego ordinance upheld Beaumont's new ordinance, but ruled that the District Court should consider whether Outdoor Media was eligible for damages based on the old ordinance. "The new ordinance justifies its ban on off-site commercial signs by citing the aesthetic harm imposed by billboards," Judge Hall wrote. "The Supreme Court and our prior case law have endorsed this rationale as a substantial government interest, and found that a complete ban on new billboards is no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest." Much of the opinion, though, discussed Beaumont's repealed ordinance. Outdoor Media contended the old ordinance was unconstitutional because it regulated noncommercial speech based on content. For example, the ordinance permitted political campaign signs, and directional and informational signs. Such provisions are unconstitutional, the Ninth Circuit said, and Outdoor Media should be allowed to develop its argument that it deserves damages because of the provisions. Judge Consuelo Callahan dissented with the damages ruling. The content of Outdoor Media's proposed billboards was unknown and not the basis for the city's denial of the application, Callahan said, and therefore Outdoor Media cannot argue it was harmed by content-based restrictions. Attorney Morrison said the city would seek a rehearing on the issue based on Callahan's dissent. In Oakland, Desert Outdoor Advertising erected two freeway-visible billboards and applied for a variance for a third sign displaying the messages "Volunteer to Be a Big Brother" and "Pray at First Baptist Church." The city concluded that the two billboards violated the municipal code and rejected the variance request based on the planning code. Desert went to court seeking to invalidate the city's ordinances and damages under federal civil rights law. The company argued the city's ordinances imposed content-based restrictions, favored commercial speech and gave city officials too much discretion. The city then amended the planning code to remove a provision allowing rejection of a variance application if the variance would "be detrimental to the public welfare." District Court Judge Martin Jenkins struck down one exception in the city ordinance allowing time and temperature displays; otherwise, he ruled for the city. On Desert's appeal, the Ninth Circuit upheld the new ordinance. The new ordinance's variance standards are "reasonably specific" and sufficiently constrain city officials' authority, the court ruled. Based on those standards, Desert's application failed, so the company does not have a viable claim for damages, the court ruled. The content of the signs was not a consideration in the city's denial, the court found. The Ninth Circuit also upheld the lower court's decision to remove the time and temperature sign exception from the ordinance. In the meantime, the city has won Superior Court rulings in a lawsuit demanding that Desert remove its two billboards. Those rulings are on appeal. The lesson from all of the Ninth Circuit decisions is that cities need to review their billboard regulations, said Kee, Oakland's attorney. "It's incumbent upon municipalities to look at the language of their ordinances to make sure they are keeping up," he said. Morrison, who specializes in billboard and sign law, agreed. "It general, most city sign ordinances are outdated and will not stand up in court. And typically it's because of time limits on political signs," he said. First Case: Get Outdoors II, LLC v. City of San Diego , No. 05-56366, 07 C.D.O.S. 12720, 2007 DJDAR 16448. Filed November 1, 2007. The Lawyers: For Get Outdoors: Adam Webb, The Webb Law Group, (770) 444-9325. For the city: Randal Morrison, Sabine & Morrison, (619) 234-2864. Second Case: Outdoor Media Group, Inc., v. City of Beaumont , No. 05-56620, 07 C.D.O.S. 12724, 2007 DJDAR 16455. Filed November 1, 2007. The Lawyers: For Outdoor Media: Jeffrey Tidus, Baute & Tidus, (213) 630-5000. For the city: Randal Morrison, Sabine & Morrison, (619) 234-2864. Third Case: Desert Outdoor Advertising, Inc., v. City of Oakland , No. 05-15501, 07 C.D.O.S. 12616, 2007 DJDAR 16324. Filed October 30, 2007. The Lawyers: For Desert: Alan Herson, (541) 770-1372. For the city: Christopher Kee, city attorney's office, (510) 238-3601.

Environmental Programs Administrator City of Irvine The City of Irvine (population: 202,000) is a 66-square mile city located in Orange County, California. Irvine, incorporated in 1971, is an award-winning master planned community, with top-rated educational institutions, an enterprising business atmosphere, sound environmental stewardship and respect for diversity. The Environmental Programs Administrator will be an innovative and entrepreneurial professional who is excited by the opportunity to implement best practices in a progressive and cutting edge organization. Under the direction of the Manager of Planning and Redevelopment in the Community Development Department, the Environmental Programs Administrator will plan, organize and direct the operations of the City's environmental, sustainable, green building and energy programs. Requires the equivalent of a Bachelor's degree in environmental science, public policy, management or a closely related field; and at least five years of related professional experience in a public or private organization, including environmental management and compliance, pollution prevention, waste minimization, energy efficiency or environmental sustainability principles; five years of supervisory experience; and a minimum of three years administrative, budgetary or financial experience. Salary $78,246 to $117,369, plus excellent work/life benefits.  For more information about this position and to apply online by December 12, 2007 , please visit www.cityofirvine.org/jobs .

Bill Fulton's UC Davis Extension Land Use Class Sign up now for Bill Fulton's overview land use class, " Planning in California ," offered by UC Davis Extension in Sacramento this winter! This course is perfect for mid-career professionals looking for a refresher; people working in planning departments seeking professional certification; and lawyers, developers, and citizen activists seeking insight into the process. The course will be taught in Sacramento on Jan. 17-18 and Feb. 21-22. You will receive the most recent edition of William Fulton and Paul Shigley's Guide to California Planning . This course features the planning process, the role of politics in local government, planning and the regulatory framework for planning efforts in California. Topics include: • current issues in California planning • historical overview of land use regulation • an introduction to the general plan process, specific plans and zoning • overview of planning implementation tools such as design review and growth management • relationship of land use planning to environmental review and transportation • property rights and takings • local government boundary issues • redevelopment and "fiscalization" of land use For more information: http://extension.ucdavis.edu/unit/land_use_and_natural_resources/certificate/land_use_and_environmental_planning/#L15429

Regional Land Use Planner Sonoran Institute  POSITION SPECIFICS Status:   Full-Time Location: Morongo Basin Area, California Closing Date: Open Until Filled Salary Range:  $60,000 - $75,000 DOE & Excellent Benefit Package POSITION SUMMARY The Regional Land Use Planner will work in the Morongo Basin area of Twentynine Palms, Joshua Tree and Yucca Valley with the Open Space Group to provide technical assistance in conservation and land use planning. The Open Space Group includes federal land management agencies, state agencies, local municipalities, and nonprofits citizens groups, all working collectively to protect open space.  The planner will help facilitate meetings and provide technical assistance for accomplishing an "open space" work plan that reflects mutual goals for conservation and land use planning in the region in support of open space protection. KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, & ABILITIES REQUIRED • Demonstrated experience working with local officials, interested citizens, non-governmental organizations, and federal agencies in a public process. • Demonstrated experience in comprehensive plan development and the design and administration of land use regulations. • Previous experience in conducting and/or supervising a wide range of technical analyses and studies, socioeconomic profiles, build out and other land use studies, cost of services studies, and natural resource mapping and analysis, including the development of Land Evaluation and Site Assessment  systems. Experience with Habitat Conservation Plans a plus. • Proven ability to design and manage inclusive public planning processes, including visioning and policy development. • Experience in integrating planning for both public and private lands with an emphasis on conservation values. • Familiarity with linkages between effective land use planning and economic development strategies. • Excellent written and verbal communication skills. • Computer proficiency in Microsoft Office word processing and spreadsheet applications as well as PowerPoint. • Familiarity with the application of GIS technology, GIS capabilities a plus. • Experience in working in Western communities with diverse constituencies. • Ability to travel by car locally and regionally. • Ability to work and communicate collaboratively in a team environment for a nonprofit organization that supports community-based conservation. EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS Advanced degree or equivalent experience in community planning or a related field and five to seven years of increasingly responsible experience in community-based planning, preferably with a focus on regional or multijurisdictional planning; or an equivalent combination of education, training, and experience that provides the required knowledge and abilities. AICP certification is highly desirable. APPLICATION PROCESS Please send cover letter, resume, and application to the address noted below.  Applications can be found on our website at www.sonoran.org .  Sonoran Institute, Human Resources, 7650 E. Broadway Blvd., Suite 203, Tucson, AZ  85710 Fax:  520.290.0969 Email: carla@sonoran.org

After several years of struggling along with a minimal website, Solimar Research Group – sister organization to California Planning & Development Report -- has just launched a handsome new site ( http://www.solimar.org ) that is far more comprehensive and attractive than the old one. The new site has a lot of features, including more detailed information about the products and services Solimar offers and even a little bit of description about the historic building where our office is located. But to me, the most important part of the new website is the "Virtual Library" – a collection of 45 studies and reports produced by Solimar and its research partners over the past eight years. It's the first time that virtually all Solimar reports have been available online. These studies range over some pretty wide territory – from a nationwide examination of who's sprawling to the economic development strategy for a tiny California city. Much of the material, obviously, covers California in general and Southern California in particular, but Solimar has spent a lot of time looking at trends in Arizona and elsewhere in the intermountain West; and in selected other metro areas around the country, including Orlando, Seattle, and Minneapolis-St. Paul. Taken together, I like to think that this body of work represents a pretty good guide to the changing zeitgeist of the land use policy world over the last decade – from concern about sprawl and urban growth boundaries of the late ‘90s to the infill orientation of the 21st Century. The turning point came in 2001, when we at Solimar produced Who Sprawls Most? and played a major role in producing Sprawl Hits The Wall . Who Sprawls Most? was written by Rolf Pendall of Cornell, Alicia Harrison, Mai Nguyen, and me, and was released by the Brookings Institution. Our report documented a counterintuitive trend – that the rest of the country was consuming land more rapidly and less efficiently than the West was. Sprawl Hits The Wall , which was released jointly by Brookings and the University of Southern California, documented the fact that metropolitan Los Angeles was running out of places to sprawl onto. Before these two reports came out, nobody believed that California and the West were running out of developable urban land. After they came out, Solimar's work – both research and consulting – has almost always been based on this assumption. In conjunction with a variety of partners in Los Angeles, Solimar developed the "California Infill Estimation Tool," a GIS-based method of determining infill housing potential in a built-up area. This led, in turn, to a pathbreaking analysis of infill opportunities along the Exposition Line in Los Angeles, which is now under construction. Solimar also worked on a variety of studies and reports about the future of land-poor areas in Phoenix – most notably "Which Way Scottsdale," which documented the dwindling land supply in the city and was at least partly responsible for Scottsdale ditching a Wal-Mart on an old mall site and putting a university research center there instead. Of course, Solimar has continued to look at growth patterns in greenfield locations, including the San Joaquin Valley   and our home turf of Ventura County, California . But even these studies have focused on the question of a limited land supply and the kinds of choices that local governments will have to make in order to maintain farmland and open space while still accommodating additional development. The chronological progression of the 45 reports also yields a steady movement away from broadbrush trend analysis toward a more specific approach focused on providing assistance and detailed recommendations on how to improve land-use policy systems so they are more effective. This movement toward diagnosis and recommendation really began with Solimar's unprecedented and comprehensive analysis of the transferable development rights programs in the Lake Tahoe area, which was released in 2003. Since that time, Solimar has worked on more client projects for local and regional agencies, yielding such varied work products as a guidebook for mixed-use development in the South Bay of Los Angeles and an assessment of a proposed TDR program in metropolitan Bozeman, Montana . It's hard to say where Solimar's work will go in the future. To a surprising degree, the 45 reports reminds me that we at Solimar have always been somewhat opportunistic, grabbing what comes our way, whether it's pointy-headed research or down-and-dirty consulting. But I can promise you one thing: Wherever the land use zeitgeist is going, that's where you'll find us. - Bill Fulton

According to the "traffic on the fives" radio station, I was avoiding all the bad freeways, just like I was supposed to. Apparently, there were no crashes or unusual conditions on my chosen route. Still, the needle on my speedometer hovered just below 10 mph. Although I was in the midst of five lanes of brake lights, the alternatives were worse. I was attempting to drive from Ventura to Riverside, a 125-mile trip that would end up taking me just short of 4 hours. But what the heck makes me so special? This was just another day in L.A., a place where seemingly every chore and every enjoyment requires a trip in the car. Is there really no other option? Everybody likes to boast that traffic in their area is the worst. All urban commuters have their anecdotes ("It took me 90 minutes to drive home and I only live 14 miles from the office!") and it is clear that traffic congestion is awful in many of the country's metropolitan areas. In the very slow "race" for the worst traffic congestion, however, there is a clear, uh, winner. L.A. And by L.A., I mean all of urban SoCal — from Santa Clarita to the Mexico border, from Santa Barbara to the Coachella Valley. No area of the country has traffic congestion to match. Everybody else is braking for second place. As we all know, SoCal has been built on a complex system of freeways that is unmatched in the world. But the system is failing. What sets L.A. apart from other places with makes-you-wanna-scream congestion is the scope. L.A. does not have a "rush hour." In many places, cars start backing up around 6 a.m. and do not start flowing freely until 8 or 9 in the evening. So, unless you're out before sunrise or late at night, you're going to get stuck. And there are no guarantees at any time of day or night. What's more, congestion is awful everywhere. Yes, there are certain hot spots, and vehicles move more slowly in certain directions at certain times. But I'm not exaggerating when I say that traffic is congested from Santa Barbara to Palm Springs — a distance of about 200 miles — and from the south end of the Grapevine to the border — merely 170 miles. Back in the late 1990s, experts were predicting that the average speed on L.A. freeways during commute hours would decrease from around 40 mph to less than 20 mph within 20 years. I remember this prediction being made at several conferences, and the audience would always chuckle. Inevitably, someone would shout out, "You mean it's not 20 already?" Well, no, it wasn't. But anybody in SoCal who possesses a drivers license knows that 40 mph is now a fantasy on the San Diego, Harbor, Ventura, Riverside, Irwindale, Long Beach, Golden State, Antelope Valley, Costa Mesa and other freeways at many times of the day. Toss in any adversity — a collision, a lane closure for road construction, a little rain — and you may lose an extra hour. The question, of course, is what to do about this in the face of ongoing population growth. The Bush administration recommends that L.A. experiment with congestion pricing. A recent Times story said this: "One of the examples administration officials cite is the success of toll lanes on the 91 Freeway between Orange and Riverside counties." It makes me wonder if any of these administration officials have ever driven on the 91, let alone asked someone commuting from Moreno Valley to their $10-an-hour job in Anaheim about this big success. In a recent op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle , former Governors Davis, Deukmejian and Wilson along with Bay Area Council President and CEO Jim Wunderman urged the use of public private partnerships for infrastructure projects. Their best example? The Alameda Corridor. Indeed, the Alameda Corridor should be considered a success. But let's be clear. The Alameda Corridor is a 10-mile-long freight rail line that cost $2.2 billion and took more than 20 years to plan and build. And the 710 freeway is still jammed with big rigs day and night. Planners have long argued that you can't build your way out of traffic congestion. The Foothill Freeway (I-210) is Exhibit A. In the last five years, Caltrans has opened extensions of the freeway from San Dimas through to San Bernardino. The freeway extensions had the undesired effect of transforming an old section of the 210 — specifically from Pasadena to about Glendora — into a parking lot. The pavement crowd might argue with the planners and point to the recently widened I-5 in Orange County. But, really, just how many miles of new freeway lanes, not to mention new freeway interchanges and access ramps, would we have to build to make any sort of real difference? And where would they go, other than on a second level above the existing freeways, which is a very costly proposition. The next option is public transit. It's a lovely concept, but retrofitting an existing urban area is colossally expensive and inherently difficult for physical and political reasons. Exhibit B is the long-discussed and still very uncertain subway to the Westside. Express buses and shuttles of various stripes may be more realistic than trains and light rail, but they have drawbacks, starting with the fact that they operate on congested streets. All of this leave us with, well … land use planning. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the reason traffic is so bad in SoCal is because nothing is close together. Going to work, going to school, picking up groceries, stopping into the bank, grabbing dinner, even taking the dog for a walk — it all requires a trip in the car. Oftentimes, it's a trip of many miles and multiple freeways. People in L.A. are always going to drive. But what if they could take care of most of their daily needs within a mile of home? Suddenly, walking, bicycling, skateboarding (it's transportation, not a crime!) and even old-fashioned technology like streetcars become feasible. Is better land use planning truly a more realistic solution than congestion pricing or public private partnerships? Maybe and maybe not. But it must be part of the discussion. - Paul Shigley

Sustainability and Real Estate Trends – ULI San Diego, November 13 Hunter Lovins of Natural Capitalism Solutions and CP&DR Publisher William Fulton will be among the featured speakers at the Urban Land Institute San Diego/Tijuana annual real estate trends conference on Tuesday, November 13th. The theme will be sustainability and green development. Fulton will conduct a conversation with Fred Maas, developer of Black Mountain Ranch, while another panel will cover issues associated with CEQA and global warming. For more: http://www.ulisd.org/events/43

A little more than a month ago, in a blog from the CCAPA conference , I wrote about a panel that discussed the design of streets from a planner's perspective. I promised to follow-up with some links that presenters offered, and I have finally gotten around to posting those links. These are great resources for planners, engineers, developers and anyone interested in how their neighborhood might function better. First up is a study from the Institute of Urban and Regional Development at UC Berkeley on street trees and intersection safety. The lengthy study attempts to debunk the belief that trees hinder motorists' views and, therefore, must be set back from intersections. The study finds that things such as parked cars do more to hinder sight lines than do street trees. The study is available at http://www-iurd.ced.berkeley.edu/pub/abstract_wp200611.htm. The Institute of Transportation Engineers offers an extensive website on context sensitive solutions, or CSS in transportation-speak. Put together by the ITE, the Federal Highway Administration, the EPA and the Congress for New Urbanism, the website provides white papers, fact sheets, design recommendations and more. You'll find it at http://www.ite.org./css/ . Two years ago, the Journal of the American Planning Association published a report by Eric Dumbaugh that found pedestrian-friendly streets are actually safer for motorists than wide, high-speed thoroughfares are. You can read that report, "Safe Streets, Livable Streets," at http://www.planning.org/japa/pdf/JAPADumbaugh05.pdf . Finally, the UC Transportation Center website offers more research on every aspect of transportation than all but the wonkiest wonk could ever hope to digest. Have at it at http://www.uctc.net/ . - Paul Shigley

Voters in Palm Springs threw out a 10-year extension of a development agreement for a project on the side of Mt. San Jacinto during the November 6 election. Slightly more than 60% of voters said yes to the Measure C referendum, which called for setting aside the development agreement extension. Measure C in Palm Springs was the few significant land use measures on local ballots in November. The Palm Springs City Council approved the 10-year extension with Utah developer DDRM Companies last year. The city first approved the project, called Shadowrock, in 1993. For a variety of legal and financial reasons, the project never progressed. The 2006 extension kept the project alive, although a judge in May halted initial site work because of environmental concerns and questions about a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit. The development agreement provided for three options: an 18-hole golf course, a 60-room hotel and spa, 145 houses and 200 condominiums, or a 490-room hotel, or 211 houses. The project would be the first significant development in the Chino Cone area above the Coachella Valley floor. The vote was seen as pivotal because the city in 2006 adopted zoning that provides for development in Chino Cone. A number of other landowners are considering development in the area, and the city is processing two specific plan applications based on the 2006 zoning, according to Palm Springs Planning Manager Craig Ewert. Shadowrock opponents said the project would harm critical wildlife habitat, ruin views from the famous Palm Springs Aerial Tramway and set a dangerous precedent for development above the valley floor. They also contended the development agreement was out of date. An effort to buy the property for conservation purposes is in its infancy. City officials endorsed the project as good for the local tourism economy. In the weeks leading up to the election, DDRM's Stan Casteleton said he might file a takings lawsuit if voters threw out the development agreement extension. Whether the referendum settled Shadowrock's fate is unclear. "It leaves the development agreement subject to its original terms, including a number of things that are in litigation," Ewert said. "Whether it is entitled remains to be determined." In San Bernadino County, voters in the high desert City of Adelanto approved a measure that returns authority for general plan amendments and rezoning decisions to the City Council. Approval of Measure G reversed a 1994 ballot measure that placed general plan and zoning decisions before voters. Measure G passed with 62.8% of the vote in an election with a 9% turnout. Also in San Bernardino County, voters in the City of Chino approved rezoning to permit development of 84 single-family houses and 72 units for senior citizens. Approval of Measure A essentially ratified a deal that the city had worked out with a property owner: The city will buy an old Home Depot building off the Pomona Freeway for use as a new police headquarters. As part of the deal, though, the landowner wanted permission to develop housing on an adjacent vacant lot. The rezoning of non-residential property to residential use requires voter approval under a 1988 ballot measure. Measure A, which received 66.6% approval, provided the rezoning. In San Francisco, voters decided on two measures related to parking, and the results marked a victory for San Francisco's long-held "transit first" policies. Proposition A locks in existing caps on parking spaces for new development (unlike most cities, San Francisco establishes a maximum number of off-street parking spaces, rather than a minimum) and provides an additional $26 million for public transit. A counter proposal, Proposition H, would have permitted more off-street parking. Proposition H would have tripled the amount of parking allowed for office and retail projects and for downtown housing projects, and required more parking for neighborhood residential developments. San Francisco voters favored the status quo, with Proposition A receiving a 55.3% "yes" vote. The pro-parking Proposition H received only 33.1% support. In Sunnyvale, voters rejected a $108 million bond to build a larger library to replace a 48-year-old facility. Opponents questioned how the city could fund the projected $2.2 million extra needed to operate the new facility. The Measure B library bond received 59.3% of the vote, well short of the two-thirds required for passage. In the City of Davis, 73% of voters approved an $88 parcel tax, up from $42 annually, to fund library expansion and modernization, as well as service level increases. In Calaveras County, voters approved a $31 million bond to build a jail. Measure J, which received 67.5% approval, will increase property taxes by $18 per $100,000 in assessed value. In the border town of Calexico, 56.1% of voters rejected Measure Y, which would have imposed a quarter-cent sales tax for 15 years to pay for downtown revitalization, a protective cover over the New River, economic development efforts, and various public works projects. Seven of 11 school bonds on the November ballot received approval. By far the largest winning bond was $196 million in Riverside's Alvord Unified School District. A $240 million bond in the Antelope Valley High School District failed to pass the 55% approval threshold. In a closely watched election in Oregon, voters approved Measure 49, which dramatically modified a property rights ballot measure approved three years earlier. Measure 37 from 2004 required local governments to either suspend development regulations outside urban growth boundaries or pay compensation to landowners. Since voters approved Measure 37, landowners have submitted 7,500 claims seeking either compensation or suspension of regulations. Most landowners have sought to develop subdivisions in agricultural or forested areas. Measure 49 makes it easier to build a handful of houses outside of growth boundaries but prevents large projects. The result is that the vast majority of Measure 37 claims now appear to be moot. The Measure 49 reform received 62% support, similar to the approval level for Measure 37 three years ago.

From CP&DR 's Morris Newman: Personally, I think there's a way for Disney to make lemonade out of the lemons of this dispute over housing near Disneyland in Anaheim. Given that affordable housing is a clearly one-way ticket to blight and criminality -- at least according to some critics in Anaheim -- Disney should capitalize on the setting, and "theme" its third gate as "Disney's Urban Adventure."    The Walt Disney Company and its travails in Anaheim. Disney's California Adventure, a theme park that lives across the street from Disneyland, has gathered more dust than a broken set of Bancroft's History in a Salvation Army store. Adding further dismay to the Chief Private Benefactor of Anaheim is the proposal by SunCal, a local home builder, to erect 1,500 housing units across the street from the future site of Disney's third gate (i.e. themed attraction.) Disney has objected strongly to the SunCal development, because housing is out of place in a world-class resort like the Magic Kingdom.Making SunCal's housing proposal even worse, in the eyes of opponents, is the proposed existence of 225 units of affordable housing. (TelePrompTer: Start shrieking.) In the eyes of some people, affordable housing means slums, gang violence and discordant signage. Witness this characterization in the Los Angeles Times : "Disney and tourism officials are concerned that the more than $6 billion in public and private funds poured into the resort district over the last 13 years would be wasted if the area returns to its past, marked by seedy motels, tacky shops and neon signs." In other words, housing equals seedy motels. Who, I wonder, who was the source of this characterization? Please be aware that the land in question is currently a trailer park.  Really, creating Disney's Urban Adventure as Disneyland's third gate solves all these problems! The inner-city-like conditions created by the new housing development can be "re-purposed" as an attraction for suburban youth, who are the largest consumers of hiphop recordings, tee-shirts, and grills (i.e. bling for teeth.) Here's a clip from our marketing video (please keep in mind that in Disney parlance, customers are "guests" and employees are "performers.") Suburban Teenage Disney Guest: "Dude, I'm so looking for authenticity!" Urban Contemporary Disney Performer: "Well, this ain't the Gap, Daddy-Mac. Like some champagne?" STG:  "Hey, I'd love some!" Urban Contemporary Disney Performer: "Then buy your own, b***h. This s**t is expensive." Goofy's Crack House and Ho Alley will recreate South Central as heartwarmingly as Disneyland's Main Street replicated the Midwest town center. Suburban Teenage Disney Guest: "I can't believe how real this all seems! Look at this poorly maintained houses, and the unemployed people, sitting listlessly on the front stoops, seething with impotence and resentment. Say, sir, you know where I can buy a rock and hook up with a home girl?"  Stoop-sitting performer: "Can't properly say. Australia, maybe?" Donald's Check Cashing Stand will dispense souvenirs and trinkets, albeit at a healthy mark-up. Suburban Teenage Guest, perspiring heavily: "You've got to cash this check, no matter how high the interest! I've got to feed my habit!" Disney Performer: "I know, I know, those pumpkin Frappaccinos are addictive." In Minnie's Justice System, guests will be handcuffed to hospital beds, as they glide one-by-one through the Courthouse, the Slammer, Parole, and Unemployment (with Pregnancy and Substance Abuse leaping out of the shadows to scare them.) Suburban Teenage Male: "I can really say that we have experienced what only can be described as the underbelly of urban life!" Suburban Teenage Female: "I wish we had some affordable housing in our affluent community, so we could go slumming like this more often." (With her one free hand, she waves hello to a performer from Pluto's Bail Bonds.) "Hey One Leg P! What's goin' down?"One Leg P (formerly known as Pluto) wearing Armani shades and a diamond studded choke collar: "Oh, you know, the usual--home invasion, car jacking, leaving' babies in the dumpster—that kind of stuff. Nothing out of the ordinary." Suburban Teenage Female: "Awesome! I mean, I'm down with it." Teenage Male: "Man, these low- and moderate-income folks sure know how to live! To think that people in Anaheim tried to stop this place from being built! Is that whack, or what? That would have prevented us from being exposed to the genuine life style of everyone in America who makes less than $140,000 a year!" Suburban Teenage Female: "Omigod, I have to get out of here, and fast! I'm in trouble!"Suburban Teenage Male: "You mean you're…?" Suburban Teenage Female: "Yes! I've broken a nail on this stupid ride!" (Weeps.) "Take me home, Tyler!" Suburban Teenage Male: "You're on your own, Tiffany. After this, I'm never going back to Disney's California Adventure!"

Downtown Ocean Beach seems like a coddled momma's boy afraid to grow up. The small San Diego community just south of Mission Bay is a curious little enclave where the outdated downtown clashes with the cost of housing. The residents seem in denial about the hustle-bustle of capitalism and stubbornly resist the modern amenities like Starbucks. Shoes are optional and suntans are mandatory. On a lazy late Sunday afternoon after a football game at Qualcom stadium, we drove west until the 8 Freeway brought us to Ocean Beach in search of dinner. The area is a great place to get swept away in sunburns and beer-burps, but from planning perspective, the commercial core seems precarious. The residents hate corporations and redevelopment, and they fear gentrification like it's the super-bug. In the meantime their little downtown looks like it suffers from low-revenue and retail vacancies. Like a lot of beach subdivisions in Southern California, the subdivision of Ocean Beach dates back to the 1880s and once included an oceanfront amusement park. Today, the downtown is characterized by free and available street parking and diminishing quantities of vacant retail spaces the closer you get to the beach. The main drag, Newport Avenue, is nothing like the affluent city to north that shares the same name -- nor would it want to be. The sidewalks are wide and fraught with skateboarders and dogs. The retail mix ranges from antiques stores to head shops to taco-beer-burger restaurants. The only office space I noticed was mixed-use with a taco restaurant. There were a couple tourist shops, one was selling t-shirts in an unsightly box-store with 40-foot ceilings and yellow fluorescent lights. Drinking on the beach is a major source of revenue for an area where spring break is a sabbatical, and Fourth of July and New Years Eve are holy days. Some days there are as many as 40 dogs splashing unleashed in the surf. Though seemingly too large and out-of-place, the pier connects a block south of the main street to a residential area on the hillside and serves for a great view from the end-focal point of the downtown. Ocean Beach is dense, white, and accommodates a high share of college educated residents with lower than average incomes ( http://zipskinny.com zip code 92107) so why can't they get it together? The residents don't really depend on downtown stores like poor communities rely on transit and mom-and-pop bakeries. They should welcome a little gentrification and redevelopment to help bring the area into the 21st century, but I guess living in the slow lane, nestled away in this nearly forgotten beach town is good enough. People are usually afraid of change, and Ocean Beach only changes what party-event it will have next. Aaron Engstrom

FRIDAY DECEMBER 7, 2007UCLA EXTENSION BUILDING, G-33ELOS ANGELES (WESTWOOD VILLAGE), CALIFORNIA Smart growth, sustainability, housing, infrastructure, flooding, global warming and planning for safe communities: each of these topics reflects yet another step in the evolution of California's general plans.  While cities, counties and community groups are insisting upon well-conceived, legally valid plans, they now are more demanding: they seek plans that incorporate both innovation and realism; confront growth issues; transcend "legalism" by developing effective tools to reach community consensus; and conserve community character while celebrating its culture. This year's program will chart trends in general plan development as documented in new and pending legislation; will examine recent court cases; and most importantly, will focus on the tools and skills needed to imbue new plans with environmental, social and economic sustainability; smart, transit-oriented and pedestrian friendly growth; and a unique vision that reflects the heart and soul of its community. WHO SHOULD ATTEND Planning commissioners, elected officials, planning staffs, consultants, land use attorneys, developers and other project applicants, community activists, and others working with cities and counties on general plan development and revision. SEMINAR LEADERS Steven A. Preston , FAICP, is Deputy City Manager and Community Development Director for the City of San Gabriel ("Woodie") Tescher , is Principal Technical Professional/ Planning and Urban Design for EIP Associates, a division of PBS & J DATE, TIME, AND LOCATION Friday December 7th, 2007 9 am-4:30 pm (Registration and refreshments begin at 8:15 am.) UCLA Extension Lindbrook Center 10920 Lindbrook Drive, Room 204 Los Angeles, CA 90024 www.uclaextension.edu/publicpolicy