To the relief of many public agencies, the state Supreme Court has overturned an appellate court decision that could have increased the number of "projects" subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. In a 7-0 decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that Sacramento County was not required to complete an environmental review before denying a conditional use permit renewal for a private airport. Project denials are specifically exempted from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the court ruled. Attorneys on both sides of the case said the decision clarifies the law regarding when a public agency must complete a CEQA review. A collection of state agencies and the California State Association of Counties had asked the high court to overturn the appellate court's decision because of its potential to expand CEQA responsibilities, noted Krista Whitman, deputy Sacramento County counsel. In 2008, the Third District Court of Appeal ruled that the normal exemption for project denials did not apply here because the county's refusal to grant a requested use permit renewal would result in closure of the airport and "the potential for physical change in the environment" (see CP&DR Legal Digest , September 2008 ). "Accordingly, the county's action constitutes a CEQA ‘project,'" the appellate panel concluded. "The Court of Appeal erred," California Supreme Court Justice Carol Corrigan wrote, "because it misconstrued the nature of the project at issue. Declining to renew the conditional use permit was not a public project under CEQA, because the county did not ‘directly undertake' to close the airport. Instead, it decided not to reauthorize a private activity that required ‘the issuance of a permit.' The airport operation was the ‘project' in question, and projects rejected by a public agency are specifically exempted from CEQA's requirements." Although not pleased with the decision, airport attorney Lanny Winberry conceded the decision "is a clarification of the rule." "Our argument was that an approval of those things would merely preserve the status quo," Winberry said. "But the denial of those things would change the status quo, and that could have significant impacts." The Supreme Court, however, distinguished between private projects such as the airport at issue and facilities operated by a public agency. Twice in recent years, courts have ruled that closure of public facilities are "projects" under CEQA. Here, however, "closing the airport was not an ‘activity directly undertaken' by the county," wrote Corrigan, citing Public Resources Code § 21065, subdivision (a). The facts of the case are unusual. Sunset Skyranch began operating near Elk Grove in 1934, primarily as an airport for crop dusters. At the time, there were no applicable zoning regulations. In 1971, Sacramento County issued a two-year conditional use permit (CUP) for the airport, which at the time was merely a dirt landing strip and a handful of crop dusters. Airport owner Daniel Lang never renewed the CUP, but he did proceed to improve and expand the facility. By the late 1980s, Sunset Skyranch had two paved runways, about 20 hangers and 60 airplanes. There were roughly 30,000 annual takeoffs and landings at the facility. In 1989, Sacramento County denied Lang a business license because his CUP was long expired. When the county declined to issue a certificate of nonconforming use, Lang sued the county and lost. In 1997, Lang and Sunset Skyranch Pilots Association applied for a new CUP. The county approved a five-year CUP in October 1999. Days before that permit was set to expire, the county Planning Commission approved what it declared to be a final two-year renewal. Development consultant Taylor & Wiley appealed, and the Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to deny the permit renewal because urban growth in Elk Grove (which incorporated in 2000) was encroaching on the airport. Lang and the pilots association sued the county. Their primary argument was that the county's action conflicted with the State Aeronautics Act, which, they said, required the county to permit continued operation of the facility despite urban growth conflicts. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeal rejected this argument. Lang and the pilots also argued the county violated CEQA by not completing an environmental review before denying the permit renewal. The County of Appeal accepted that contention, concluding the county's decision had implications for the airport property and pilots that the county had to study. The California Supreme Court in 2008 accepted the case but chose to review only the CEQA issues raised by the county, and not the State Aeronautics Act interpretation questioned by Sunset Skyranch and the pilots. For their CEQA arguments, the airport and pilots association relied heavily on two cases – San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. , (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, and Association for a Cleaner Environment v. Yosemite Community College Dist. , (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 629. In the San Lorenzo Valley case, the court ruled that a plan to close two elementary schools was a project under CEQA, but was categorically exempt from environmental review (see CP&DR Legal Digest , July 2006 ) . In the other case, the court ruled that the community college district's decision to close a shooting range and transfer operations elsewhere was a project subject to CEQA review (see CP&DR Legal Digest , April 2004 ). The state Supreme Court, however, distinguished those cases from the one at hand. While the school district and community college district took actions to close a public facility, Sacramento County was not actively engaged in closing the private Sunset Skyranch. "Notably, if the airport had decided on its own to go out of business and allow the CUP to expire, there would have been no occasion for CEQA review by the county," Corrigan wrote. "It was the airport that sought a new approval for its operations, and the county's denial of that project application was statutorily exempt from CEQA review under § 21080, subdivision (b)(5)." The fact that the airport sought a CUP renewal, rather than a brand new CUP, was of no matter, Corrigan added. What the decision makes clear, said Taylor & Wiley attorney Kate Wheatley, is that a public agency may at any time exercise the CEQA exemption for a project the agency denies. Meanwhile, the 76-year-old airport's days appear numbered. County officials in the past have vowed to shut down the airport. The City of Elk Grove, whose city boundary currently is located across the street from the airport, has an application pending before the Sacramento County Local Agency Formation Commission to expand into the area. And Elk Grove appears to have no use for the airport, as the city and the county recently released a draft of an agreement that envisions extensive residential development in the area. The Case: Sunset Skyranch Pilots Association v. County of Sacramento , No. S165861, 2009 DJDAR 17959. Filed December 28, 2009. The Lawyers: For Sunset Skyranch: Lanny Winberry, (916) 386-4423. For the county Krista Whitman, county counsel's office, (916) 874-5544. For Taylor & Wiley: John Taylor, (916) 929-5545.

New California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines that urge public agencies to quantify and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from projects whenever possible have gone into effect. Outgoing Natural Resources Secretary Michael Chrisman signed the guideline amendments on December 30. Although not everyone is happy with the changes, this guidelines amendment process appears to have gone more smoothly than recent ones. The Wilson administration spent seven years on guidelines amendments – only to have several components thrown out by a court. In its nearly five years, the Davis administration did not complete a substantive guidelines update. This time, though, state lawmakers gave the Office of Planning and Research and the Natural Resources Agency a little more than two years to complete the task. Senate Bill 97 from 2007 set a January 1, 2010, deadline for new California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis and mitigation  (see CP&DR Environment Watch , October 2007 ). "At bottom, what these changes do is ensure greenhouse gas emissions are included in environmental review documents," said Christopher Calfee, Natural Resources Agency special counsel. "That's a big deal. There has been a lot of inconsistency." What the amendments do not do, said Calfee, is create a unique scheme or approach for greenhouse gas emissions. The guidelines require an agency that is evaluating a CEQA project to gather the relevant information and analyze that information based on scientific and factual data. Hence, said Calfee, "The analysis you do for greenhouse gas emissions is the same as you do for most other impacts." The new guidelines also emphasize the use of tiering in CEQA documents. So, for example, a project-level analysis could rely heavily on a program-level environmental impact report prepared for a local climate action plan or GHG emissions reduction strategy. This tiering should help streamline environmental reviews, Calfee said. The new guidelines do not establish thresholds for determining whether a project's GHG emissions are significant. The new guidelines do not even prescribe exactly how an agency must quantify or mitigate emissions. Instead, the guidelines permit agencies to describe a project's emissions quantitatively or qualitatively. The guidelines say on-site mitigation is preferable, but not required, and must be subject to monitoring. The CEQA Guidelines have long recognized lead agency discretion, and the amendments related to GHG are no different, Calfee explained. The deference to lead agencies did not satisfy some environmental groups, which pressed for a more prescriptive approach. In a letter to the Natural Resources Agency, seven environmental groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity and Earthjustice, say the new guidelines provide a loophole by permitting agencies to describe emissions qualitatively. "Despite the importance of quantitative data on project emissions in understanding project impacts, the language of Guidelines § 15064.4(a) serves to bolster the misplaced argument that readily available quantitative data on project emissions need not be provided to the public," the letter states. That data, environmentalist say, may be necessary to make a fair argument that a project could have a substantial impact on the environment – the standard for requiring an environmental impact report. While environmental groups were not satisfied, many planners and environmental professionals said the Natural Resources Agency responded to their concerns. The CEQA Guidelines contain specific thresholds of significance for only a few subjects, and establishing them right now for GHG emissions would have been unnecessarily limiting, said Kent Norton, an Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) board member. Thresholds of significance are typically left to local agencies, said Norton, who works for The Planning Center. "We were very satisfied with the way this came out," added Gene Talmadge, AEP president. "Was it perfect? No. It never is. But we think the Natural Resources Agency listened to us." The agency also listened to planners and alternative-transportation advocates, who convinced the agency to alter Appendix G checklist questions concerning transportation and traffic. Previously, the first two questions asked whether a project would impact street system capacity or result in a reduced level of service. Planners and advocates argued that such measurements forced agencies to favor automobiles, even though the state is trying to decrease emissions from automobiles. One revised checklist question now asks: "Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit?" The next question asks: "Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?"   The idea, said Calfee, is to get agencies to "focus on the entire circulation system." Although some planners and advocates urged the Natural Resources Agency to disavow the level of service concept altogether, Calfee said the agency could not. "The Congestion Management Act and the Government Code require level of service to be included in congestion management programs," he explained. Officials did drop parking capacity from the checklist and expanded a question regarding a project's potential conflicts with public transit and bicycle or pedestrian facilities. Jennifer Klausner, executive director of the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, endorsed the changes because the previous checklist "emphasized a purely car-centric point of view" that discouraged bicycle travel. Planners appeared divided on the parking question, which some arguing that a lack of parking could lead to motorists cruising for spaces, thus emitting more greenhouse gases. But UCLA urban planning professor Donald Shoup, author of the influential book The High Cost of Free Parking , rejected that argument. "Cruising is caused by the city's failure to charge the right prices for curb parking," he wrote. Shoup continued, "Rather than try to force up the parking supply and automobile trips, CEQA should focus on reducing automobile trips, or should at least not have a policy that will increase automobile trips." The revised guidelines additionally make clear that the Appendix F analysis of energy is now mandatory, not optional. However, officials declined to require analysis of a project's "lifecycle" energy usage because there is no agreement on how to define lifecycle, Calfee said. Contacts: Christopher Calfee, Natural Resources Agency, (916) 653-5656. Gene Talmadge, Association of Environmental Professionals, (805) 427-4123. Jennifer Klausner, Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, (213) 629-2142. Revised CEQA Guidelines: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines .

Claims that Sacramento County violated the California Environmental Quality Act while approving a commercial development have been dismissed by the Third District Court of Appeal because the project opponent did not submit a written request for a hearing within 90 days of filing a lawsuit. The attorney for opponent Forster-Gill, Inc., argued that a telephone call to the court clerk within the 90-day period was adequate, but the appellate court disagreed, ruling that the law "plainly contemplates a written request that can be, and is, filed with the court." Although previous cases have addressed the 90-day deadline, the court said its decision marked the first time a published opinion made clear "that a ‘request for a hearing' required by subdivision (a) of § 21167.4 must be a writing filed with the court." In May 2008, Sacramento County approved "The Landing," an entertainment and retail project proposed by Syufy Enterprises, Sywest Development and others on property located in Del Paso Heights, just north of Interstate 80. Forster-Gill owns an adjacent industrial property and challenged The Landing developers' access and other aspects of the project. Forster-Gill filed a lawsuit on June 12, 2008, alleging the county violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the general plan. Forster-Gill also sought to resolve who owned an access road. Under CEQA, the county had until August 19 to complete the administrative record. The county needed more time, and attorneys for all parties in early September signed a stipulation giving the county until October 20. A second stipulation signed in October gave the county until November 7 for the administrative record. At a March 20, 2009, status conference, the Sacramento County Superior Court determined Forster-Gill's CEQA claims should be litigated first. Four days later, the county and the developers asked the court to dismiss the CEQA claims because Forster-Gill did not request a hearing within 90 days of filing its lawsuit in June 2008. Forster-Gill's attorney countered that he had called the court clerk on September 10 to reserve a January 9, 2009, hearing date, which the attorney and a county lawyer later agreed was premature because of troubles with the administrative record. The trial court declined to dismiss the CEQA claims. The county and the developers appealed and won a reversal. At issue was interpretation of Public Resources Code § 21167.4. Subdivision (a) gives a petitioner 90 days to file a request but does not specify the form of the request. Subdivisions (b) and (c), which were added during the 1990s, speak to filing a request and serving a notice of request upon all parties. "Subdivision (a) … cannot be read in isolation from the remainder of § 21167.4," Justice Ronald Robie wrote for the unanimous three-judge Third District panel. " ubdivisions (b) and (c) of § 21167.4 do … clarify that the request for a hearing required by the statute is to be a writing that can be filed with the court, not simply an oral request." Forster-Gill argued it would have been futile to serve notice of a hearing while the parties were negotiating over preparation of the administrative record. But the court ruled, " ll Forster-Gill had to do was ‘request a hearing' and serve notice of the request. The setting of the actual hearing date, and the briefing schedule to proceed the hearing, could have come later." Forster-Gill pointed to the two stipulations, the second of which stated the hearing date would be moved from January 9 to March 6. The court, however, said the stipulation did not supplant the statutory deadline. The court also rejected the argument that the county baited Forster-Gill into missing the deadline by signing the stipulations. The Third District did not consider anything other than the CEQA portion of Forster-Gill's lawsuit. The Case: County of Sacramento v. Superior Court , No. C062025, 2009 DJDAR 18022. Filed December 29, 2009. The Lawyers: For Sacramento County: Krista Whitman, county counsel's office, (916) 874-5544. For Forster-Gill: John Belsher, Belsher & Becker, (805) 542-9900.

A state appellate court has upheld the California Coastal Commission's denial of a development permit for a small mixed-use project in Morro Bay. The court rejected developer Dan Reddell's arguments that the commission violated his due process and equal protection rights, and that its decision was a regulatory taking of property. Instead, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that substantial evidence supported the commission's finding that Reddell's project was inconsistent with Morro Bay's local coastal plan (LCP). In 2003, the City of Morro Bay approved Reddell's proposal for six Harbor Street parcels located on the bluff above the city's waterfront Embarcadero. The project involved a 22,700-square-foot buildings containing 5,100 square feet of visitor-serving commercial uses and six single-family residences with a combined total of 17,600 square feet. The commercial uses would be on the ground floor, while the residences would be on the second, third and fourth floors of the building. Because the project site is in a planned development overlay zone and would provide extraordinary public benefits – underground utilities, handicapped-accessible sidewalks, small plazas and a chance to master plan six lots – the city exempted the project from the underlying visitor-serving commercial district (C-VS) zoning standards. Local resident George Contento appealed the city's decision to the Coastal Commission. Contento argued the project violated the city's LCP and the Coastal Act because the project was inconsistent with the C-VS zoning, had inadequate parking, exceeded height restrictions and would block public views. A commission staff report identified similar issues. Reddell responded by agreeing to remove the fourth floor and increase some setbacks on upper floors. The staff said the revised project would still be inconsistent with the LCP, but nevertheless recommended project approval with additional conditions. At an April 2004 hearing, the Commission denied the project, finding it inconsistent with the LCP's policies regarding bluff development, visual resources, parking, visitor-serving priorities and community character. Reddell sued the Commission. San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Judge Barry LaBarbera rejected all of Reddell's contentions and upheld the Coastal Commission's decision. On appeal, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Second District, Division Six, agreed with LaBarbera. Two of the primary issues on appeal were whether the project would conflict with the underlying zoning's requirement that residential uses be secondary, and, alternatively, whether the project's public benefits qualified the project for an exemption from the zoning standards, which include a 30-foot height limit. The Coastal Commission and the trial court judge found the residential uses were not secondary in light of a residential to commercial floor space ratio of greater than three-to-one. Reddell had argued that commercial was the primary use because of its ground floor orientation and that the square footage for residential garages should not be included in the residential-to-commercial ratio. As for Reddell's first argument, the Second District cited the city's ordinance: "Whether the determination of primary and secondary uses is based on square footage or some other method, the project violates the letter and spirit of the C-VS zoning designation because it consists of six residential units, many more than the ‘single apartment unit or security quarters' permitted by the regulation, and these residential uses are not ‘commercial uses intended primarily to serve the needs of tourists and other visitors to the city.'" On Reddell's argument that the project qualified for an exemption, the court deferred to the Coastal Commission. Under the Coastal Act, the commission has "broad discretion to make a benefit/detriment analysis," and substantial evidence supported the commission's decision, the court ruled. The court was similarly deferential regarding the commission's findings on bluff-top development, visual resources, parking and community character. Reddell further argued the commission decided on the wrong project because the panel did not consider his proposed changes. However, the Second District ruled, "The record shows that the commission considered but was not persuaded by Reddell's revised plans." Finally, Reddell argued that his claim for damages based on a regulatory taking of property should stand despite the trial court's ruling. The Second District, though, said Reddell's takings claim was not ready for adjudication because the Coastal Commission has not identified what project it will permit on the site. "The commission has indicated its willingness to review a revised proposal," Justice Steven Perren wrote for the court "There is nothing in the record, and we may not presume, that the commission will fail to do so. Therefore, his claim for damages for a regulatory taking of property is not ripe." The Case: Reddell v. California Coastal Commission , No. B206428, 2009 DJDAR 18027. Filed December 1, 2009. Opinion modified and certified for publication, and rehearing denied December 29, 2009. The Lawyers: For Reddell: William Walter, Walter & Bornholdt, (805) 541-6601. For the commission: Rosana Miramontes, attorney general's office, (213) 897-2693.

24th Annual Land Use Law & Planning Conference Friday, January 29, 2010 8:30am - 5:00pm Millenium Biltmore Hotel Downtown Los Angeles 506 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-2607 (310) 825-7885 UCLA Extension's annual Land Use Law and Planning Conference is the leading source of information on California land use legislation, case law, and the emerging issues that frame land use and development practices in the nation's most populous state. Its unique cross-disciplinary approach explores the full range of perspectives drawn from the land use planning, legal, development, and environmental communities—and demonstrates how these factors influence the day-to-day work of planners, developers, environmental regulators, and attorneys. Join our experts and audience members as they review the important issues of the past year and explore what is on the horizon. Now in its twenty-fourth year, this conference provides a big picture view of land use law and planning practice. Our guest speakers consistently provide succinct and provocative updates on core state and federal case law and legislation mixed with practice pointers on basic land use law and planning issues. This conference is essential for attorneys, planners, environmentalists, and developers who need to know how land use law and planning is changing and affecting their interests. Keynote Speaker: Edward Blakely , Honorary Professor of Urban Policy at the United States Study Center, University of Sydney, Australia Fee and Credit Information: $450 Reg# V3696 ($450 by 1/15; $500 thereafter) $150 Reg# V5515 (Students, faculty, non-profit and government organization discount – Space Limited/Phone Enrollment Only) Fee includes refreshments, lunch, and conference materials. 7 Hours of MCLE and CM (AICP) credit available. This activity has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) credit by the State Bar of California and for continuing Professional Development Program (CM) credits by the American Institute of Certified Planners. For more information or to obtain a complete agenda which includes topics and speakers please visit www.uclaextension.edu/publicpolicy/landuse

Ask the people in Cincinnati about the wisdom of building publicly funded stadiums for major league sports teams. Earlier this month, I wrote about the eagerness to erect new football and baseball stadiums in California. I suggested that public investment in any of the stadiums might not be the best idea. Three days after I posted that blog, The New York Times published a story about Cincinnati's fiscal woes stemming from construction of adjacent football and baseball stadiums. In 1996, Hamilton County, Ohio, commissioners convinced voters to approve a half-cent sales tax to build and maintain two stadiums that would replace a 30-year-old facility that the Reds and Bengals shared. The county's studies said the stadium projects would ignite riverfront revitalization and, well, everyone would get rich. Shockingly, things haven't turned out that way. Stadium construction cost far more than estimated. Riverfront redevelopment remains in the starting gate. And actual sales tax revenue did not match the forecast, even before the recession hit. Now, the county is draining reserve funds and cutting services simply to cover the stadium debt payments. Meanwhile, the Bengals' agreement lets the football team stop paying rent next year. Cincinnati offers a valuable lesson for California cities and voters considering major league stadium and arena projects. We'll see if anyone is paying attention. – Paul Shigley

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?