Not often does the head of a planning commission suggest that someone should sue her city over a newly adopted ordinance. But it happened in Los Angeles and, in fact, a lawsuit has been filed. In March, Los Angeles City Planning Commission President Jane Ellison Usher sent an email to community groups regarding a density bonus ordinance adopted by the City Council. The ordinance essentially implements SB 1818 approved in 2004, a state law that mandates increased density bonuses and development incentives in exchange for development of affordable housing units (see CP&DR , September 2004 ). The new Los Angeles ordinance makes application of the density bonus provisions and incentives a ministerial matter. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Planning Director Gail Goldberg endorsed the ordinance as an affordable housing tool, and the City Council approved it 12-2 after declaring it exempt from California Environmental Quality Act review. However, neighborhood activists opposed the ordinance, saying it would lead to incompatible, high-density development with inadequate parking in relatively low-density neighborhoods that may not have good transit. In her email to activists, Usher, a Villaraigosa appointee and former legal advisor to Mayor Tom Bradley, said that two legal issues "are ripe for immediate litigation." These, she wrote, are: "1) Whether the categorical exemption issued in support of the city's enabling ordinance is fatally flawed in light of the actual contents of the ordinance, and 2) Whether the ‘ministerial' definition contained in the ordinance itself violates CEQA." A lawsuit filed in April by a Valley Village resident asks that the court respond to these two questions in the affirmative. The proposed and bitterly contested development of Rancho San Juan in Monterey County appears to have been resolved after 25 years of conflict. In April, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors and developer HYH Corporation signed an agreement that permits development on about 330 acres while excluding development on Rancho San Juan's remaining 2,200 acres of farmland and open space north of Salinas. The county is scheduled to conduct public hearings on the revised project in June. Importantly, the two major project opponents — LandWatch Monterey County and the Rancho San Juan Opposition Coalition — have endorsed the settlement. The county has planned for extensive development of Rancho San Juan since the 1980s (see CP&DR Local Watch , June 2003 ). However, development has been stymied by political battles, litigation and referendums. In 2005, voters rejected a specific plan for Rancho San Juan, and last year they overturned approval of HYH's 671-acre, 1,150-unit first phase development called Butterfly Village (see CP&DR Local Watch , July 2007 ). The settlement ends litigation that HYH filed against the county in 2001 over the county's planning process. Under the settlement, the 1,150-unit project will be limited to about 330 acres, 32% of units must be designated affordable, a neighborhood commercial area will double in size, and a park and public open space will replace a planned golf course. The county will pay HYH $1 million and waive $1 million worth of impact fees. Furthermore, the settlement precludes further subdivision of Rancho San Juan. A county planning director may also serve as the executive officer of the county's local agency formation commission, a Sierra County judge has ruled. The decision appears to be the first that directly addresses the question of whether a county employee may serve as the LAFCO executive officer since the Legislature approved a measure requiring LAFCOs to be independent agencies (see CP&DR , September 2000 ). The lawsuit involves a conflict over a farmland security zone — or "Super Williamson Act" — designation for land in eastern Sierra County. The Board of Supervisors approved the designation, which provides tax breaks in exchange for a 20-year assurance the land will remain in agricultural production, in March 2007. The designation, however, carved out a 7-acre area that lies in City of Loyalton's "community core." Among other things, opponents argued that it was a conflict of interest for Sierra County Planning Director Tim Beals to serve as the LAFCO executive officer. Despite the 2000 legislation that separated out LAFCOs from county government, county planners or administrative officers still act as LAFCO executive officers in some smaller counties. Sierra County Superior Court Judge R. Michael Smith ruled there is no conflict: "Government Code §§ 56380 and 56384 specifically allow LAFCOs to contract with public agencies for personnel. Therefore, the same person holding the position of planning director for the county and executive officer of LAFCO does not create ‘incompatible offices." The case is Sierra Valley Development Company, LLC v. Board of Supervisors of Sierra County , Sierra County Superior Court Case No. 6729. The Napa County grand jury has concluded that oversight of two farmworker housing projects that went far over budget was lacking and that "public servants who were supposed to oversee these projects failed to do their job and have not acknowledged that they had any responsibility for the problems." The two housing projects completed in 2006 are located in Calistoga and Oakville. They ended up costing about $1.7 million more than estimated. The director of the county and the City of Napa's housing authorities unilaterally decided to use city funds to cover much of the overrun without the city's approval. Eventually, the housing director resigned under pressure and the city's finance director was terminated. The grand jury, however, cast the blame far beyond only those two men. It found that a county housing authority commission and an advisory committee to grapegrowers who helped fund the project did not exercise proper oversight, that the county Conservation, Development and Planning Department issued a building permit based on "a completely inadequate review," and that county officials who had a role in the mess were quick to scapegoat the housing director and finance director. The good news, said the grand jury, is that the centers provide "a safe, clean and habitable abode for farmworkers," and no individuals appear to have inappropriately profited from the overruns. The full grand jury report is available at www.napacourt.com/Documents/GJ%20Print%20Copy%20FWH%20Report.pdf.

The City of Half Moon Bay has reached a settlement agreement with a developer who won a takings lawsuit against the city. Last December, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker awarded developer Charles Keenan $36.8 million in damages, plus interest and attorney's fees, because an incomplete city drainage project had transformed an approved 24-acre housing project site into an unbuildable wetland (see CP&DR In Brief , January 2008 ). In April, Keenan and the Half Moon Bay City Council signed an agreement permitting Keenan to build 129 houses on the 24 acres and an adjacent 12 acres in exchange for an end to the litigation. However, the settlement requires passage of state legislation because it would permit development on a site that would otherwise be subject to severe environmental restrictions. Assemblyman Gene Mullin (D-South San Francisco) has agreed to carry the legislation, AB 1991. The Assembly Local Government Committee passed the bill on a 5-2 vote on April 30, sending the measure to the Assembly Appropriations Committee for further review. Environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and the Committee for Green Foothills, have already lined up against the legislation. Plus, state Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), who originally agreed to sponsor the bill in the Senate, has dropped his support because the bill permits development on more than the original 24-acre site. Under the settlement, the city must provide all entitlements by June 30, 2009, making passage of legislation this year critical. If the city misses the deadline, it would owe Keenan $18 million. The full settlement is available on the city's website at: www.half-moon-bay.ca.us/Beachwood_Information/Beachwood_Settlement_040208.pdf .

Here's a puzzler for you: What land use creates more pedestrians than any other? Transit stations? Office buildings? Condos? Try airports! Every single person who arrives at an airport from out of town arrives without a car. At many airports, the first vehicle in which people ride after landing is a train of some sort. So what's the rush to put them into cars? A "new urbanist airport" may seem like an oxymoron. But according to aviation planning experts speaking at the American Planning Association conference in Las Vegas, such design principles may be the key to the sustainable airport of the 21st Century. North Carolina business professor John Kasarda, who coined the term "aerotropolis," said that in order to be economically successful in the future, airports can no longer afford to follow the "spontaneous, haphazard" development pattern of the last few decades. Because airports are congested and running out of land – and because their patrons arrive without cars – these new, high-end business centers will have to be nodal and mixed-use. Part of the key is doing more comprehensive land use planning that involves areas "outside the fence" as well as on airport property. Most airports are focused on "doing a plan that meets FAA regulations inside the fence," said consultant Mark Bowers, who has been working on a "commercial development land use plan" for Dallas-Forth Worth Airport. DFW's plan was done in collaboration with four surrounding cities and is increasingly focused on the smart growth approaches planners love. For instance, the DART (Dallas Area Rapid Transit) line will run straight into the airport, and instead of turning the station just outside the airport into a park-and-ride, DFW will convert it into a mixed-use center. DFW will also focus on centralized business centers that provide "valet services," such as auto repair and dry cleaning. Just think – drop your car and then run your errands on the way to the terminal. – Bill Fulton

A property owner that lost a California Environmental Quality Act suit against the City of San Rafael has been told to pay the city for costs incurred recovering emails related to the property and a proposed development project. Although the developer's attorney characterized the email inquiry as a routine Public Records Act request, the First District Court of Appeal clearly thought it was an unnecessary fishing expedition for which the developer should pay. The First District upheld the trial court's award of the expense, even though it was the property owner who prepared the administrative record. Typically, only the side that prepares the administrative record may have its costs covered. But the court found that the property owner's email demands justified the award of costs. Furthermore, the court rejected the landowner's contentions that the city violated CEQA and the housing element law when the city removed the property from its sphere of influence. The decision concludes San Rafael's role in the acrimonious planning of the property, which is owned by St. Vincent's School for Boys, Catholic Charities. Marin County is now considering St. Vincent's development plans. First, some background: St. Vincent's is a 150-year-old school and residential treatment center for troubled teenagers. It owns 835 acres between San Rafael and Novato. The mostly undeveloped property extends from Highway 101 on the west to San Pablo Bay on the east. The property is separated from the San Rafael city limits by the approximately 350-acre Silveira cattle ranch. Since the early 1970s, Marin County has emphasized development in cities along the Highway 101 corridor in order to preserve much of the rest of the county. For years, city and county officials worked jointly on planning the roughly 1,200-acre St. Vincent's/Silveira site, assuming that San Rafael would eventually annex the territory. San Rafael's 1988 general plan designated the properties for 2,100 residential units. Environmentalists, however, have long fought development of the pastoral lands between the freeway and the bay. When Marin County and San Rafael began updating their respective general plans nearly 10 years ago, they created a 16-member advisory task force to recommend use of the St. Vincent's/Silveira properties. In May 2000, the task force recommended 800 to 1,500 units, reduced to 500 units with the purchase of development rights. The city forwarded the recommendation to its general plan task force. In early 2002 — while the city's general plan update was still in process — St. Vincent's and developer Shapell Industries submitted an application for 766 residential units and 120,000 square feet of commercial space. In January 2003, however, the City Council passed a resolution indicating its intent to remove the properties from the city's sphere of influence. Three months later, the City Council voted to deny the St. Vincent's and Shapell application for annexation and prezoning. The council found that, since the task force had presented its recommendation in 2000, planned road improvements had not been made, Highway 101 traffic had worsened, and public opposition to development of the site had grown. Plus, the council noted, the St. Vincent's property was not contiguous to the city. In November 2004, the city adopted an updated general plan that excluded the St. Vincent's and Silveira properties from future annexation. In December of that year, St. Vincent's sued, arguing the city violated CEQA and state planning and zoning laws. In 2006, Marin County Superior Court Judge James Ritchie ruled for the city, and awarded the city $4,000 in filing and copying fees, plus $26,362 for the costs of retrieving emails. St. Vincent's appealed, but got nowhere with a three-judge panel of the First District, Division Three. St. Vincent's did not dispute that the city had incurred costs while retrieving emails. Instead, St. Vincent's argued that the Code of Civil Procedure and the Public Records Act barred the award of costs. St. Vincent's argued that CEQA permits the petitioner (St. Vincent's in this case) to prepare the record of proceedings as a way of controlling the expense of lawsuits. Awarding the city its costs would frustrate CEQA's goal of controlling expenses, St. Vincent's argued. But the court examined the specifics of the case and reached a different conclusion. In response to St. Vincent's initial request, the city turned over documents amounting to 58,000 pages. St. Vincent's found few emails included in the package, so it submitted a broad Public Records Act request for electronic communications stored on city computers. The city eventually turned over a collection of emails, but St. Vincent's was dissatisfied and further demanded documents. Again, the sides went back and forth with St. Vincent's continuing to complain about withheld emails. All the while, the case was moving forward in court. "This record," wrote Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Horner, sitting by assignment to the First District, "reflects a total disregard for cost-containment on St. Vincent's part, and a complete abandonment of its statutory duty to ‘strive to at reasonable cost.' After three extensions of time, the city gave St. Vincent's 20 boxes of documents in April 2005. St. Vincent's then subjected the city to a costly and lengthy process of trawling through its entire computer system in response to an extremely broad and unbounded search for ‘all writings evidencing or reflecting communications … relating to or in connection with the St. Vincent's property or the Silveira property.' And St. Vincent's rationale for this? — not because it had identified any ‘gaps' in the voluminous planning documents contained in the 20 boxes, but because it was not satisfied with the number of emails contained in the 20 boxes." Horner then wrote in italics: "It is telling that after all this, St. Vincent's does not mention one single email, obtained in response to its request, which provided information that bolstered any of its claims in this case. Indeed, we wonder what the point of all of it was, because, as noted, St. Vincent's filed its brief before the issue of the emails was ever resolved." St. Vincent's attorney Stephen Kostka, of Bingham McCutchen, said that what the plaintiff did was not out of the ordinary. He said the court's ruling "indicates that perhaps it's a risk" for plaintiffs to assemble the record based on Public Records Act requests. On the merits, St. Vincent's argued that the city improperly removed the St. Vincent's and Silveira properties from the city's sphere on influence in January 2003 without any CEQA review and as an unlawful reaction to a development application. But the court ruled that the January 2003 resolution did not trigger CEQA and that the general plan EIR provided satisfactory review. As to the charge of an improper reaction to an application, the court noted that the city's decision merely maintained the status quo and did not preclude development. St. Vincent's argued that the general plan EIR should have evaluated displacement of development as an impact because the plan would force development to distant locations. The court ruled, " he city specifically addressed the issues of ‘displacement' or ‘leapfrog development' in its response to St. Vincent's comment on the EIR." On the question of the housing element, St. Vincent's contended the city could not identify adequate sites to meet its fair-share obligation without the St. Vincent's and Silveira properties. The court disagreed, noting the city had identified more than enough sites to meet its fair share and had adopted policies to encourage housing development. Potential development of the St. Vincent's and Silveira properties is now entirely within Marin County's hands, said San Rafael Community Development Director Bob Brown. The county's recently adopted comprehensive plan (see CP&DR Local Watch , January 2008 ) permits a total of 221 housing units clustered on 5% of the two properties, said Alex Hines, the county's community development director. The development could be split proportionately between the two properties, he said. The plan also permits other uses, such as an assisted living facility, so long as the uses do not generate more traffic than houses would, Hines said. County supervisors rejected pleas from affordable housing advocates who said the properties could provide a site hundreds of affordable units in a county where the median price is more than $900,000. Instead, county officials emphasized the potential to restore wetlands on the St. Vincent's property. Plus, building a great deal of housing right at sea level makes little sense considering predictions of rising sea level and more severe storms, Hines said. St. Vincent's has not filed an application, but it did endorse the comprehensive plan and the property owner's representatives have been talking with county officials, according to Hines The Case: St. Vincent's School for Boys, Catholic Charities CYO v. City of San Rafael , No. A116690, 2008 C.D.O.S. 3070, 2008 DJDAR 3705. Filed March 18, 2008. Certified for publication in full April 15, 2008 at 2008 DJDAR 5337. The Lawyers: For St. Vincent's: Stephen Kostka, Bingham McCutchen, (925) 937-8000. For the city: Clark Guinan, city attorney's office, (415) 485-3080.

The state Supreme Court has accepted a case involving the baseline for an environmental impact report of a Southern California oil refinery project. The decision to accept the case means the state high court now has four California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) cases pending. In the latest case, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that actual emissions from ConocoPhillip's Los Angeles Refinery should serve as the baseline for measuring impact of proposed refinery modifications. The court threw out a South Coast Air Quality Management District EIR that instead used permitted emission levels as the baseline, even though actual emissions were less than half the amount permitted (see CP&DR Legal Digest , March 2008 ). Although a line of cases indicates that permitted levels would be the proper baseline for an EIR, the court said those cases were inapplicable because they involved permitted levels that had been subject to environmental review. The refinery's permitted emissions had not undergone prior CEQA review. The case is Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District , No. S161190. Due for a decision by July 1 is a case involving the EIR for the Cal-Fed Bay-Delta project. The Third District Court of Appeal in 2005 ruled the document inadequate for a number of reasons, including the document's lack of an alternative that did not contemplate a halt to future state population growth (see CP&DR Legal Digest , November 2005 ). The case, Bay-Delta Coordinated Proceedings , No. S138974, was argued on April 2. One of the other pending cases has been heavily briefed and appears ready for oral argument. That case, Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood , No. S151402), concerns whether or not the city's signing of a conditional agreement with a developer to sell a city-owned property constituted a "project" for CEQA purposes (see CP&DR Legal Digest , April 2007 ). An appellate court said the conditional agreement should have undergone environmental review, even though it required CEQA compliance prior to development. The final CEQA case before the state Supreme Court concerns whether the statute of limitations ran out before opponents of a proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter in Stockton filed a lawsuit challenging the city's lack of environmental review for the project. That case is Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton , No. S159690 (see CP&DR Local Watch , February 2008).

An environmental impact report is necessary for a 120-unit senior housing facility in the City of Grand Terrace, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled. The unanimous three-judge appellate panel upheld a trial court judge's ruling that a mitigated negative declaration for the project was inadequate. The court found that housing density, building height and noise were all potential impacts that needed additional study. The site in question is six acres in Grand Terrace, which is located between Riverside and San Bernardino. In 2004, the city purchased the undeveloped land with the intent of developing senior housing, as the city's senior center is next door. The property was zoned for single-family residential development of up to five units per acre, although a 2003 park master plan contemplated using the property for a park. The city signed an agreement with Corporation for Better Housing to develop the site. In September 2005, the city approved a specific plan for the site. The specific plan included a general plan amendment, a rezoning to medium-high density residential allowing up 20 units per acre, approval of 120 units in a mixed two- and three-story building on a 2-acre portion of the site, and a 4-acre park. The city also certified a mitigated negative declaration that said all environmental impacts could be reduced to insignificant levels with project mitigations. The project had been unpopular with residents of the single-family neighborhood bordering the site, so not surprisingly they organized as Citizens for Responsible and Open Government and sued. In mid-2006, San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge John Wade ruled that Citizens had made a fair argument that increased population density, neighborhood incompatibility and noise were potential environmental effects, and he ordered preparation of an EIR. On appeal, Better Housing argued Citizens had not met the fair argument standard, which is a relatively low bar for plaintiffs to cross. Regarding population density, Better Housing contended the average density was 20 units per acre — not 60 — because the entire 6-acre site needed to be considered. Plus, Better Housing argued the opponents had not identified significant impacts that would not be mitigated by approved measures such as screening and setbacks, minimizing outside lighting glare, the provision of transit, and compliance with the city's noise ordinance. Citizens argued that 60 units an acre was the proper characterization because development would occur on only 2 acres. Plus, the opponents pointed out, the general plan limits density to 12 units per acre. The Fourth District said Better Housing presented "a disingenuous method of evaluating the project density." The court noted the specific plan itself refers to "120 senior-oriented villas and related parking area on 2.05 acres." And even at 20 units an acre, the court ruled, the project conflicts with the general plan's limitation of 12 units per acre. An EIR is necessary to evaluate "changes to the physical and aesthetic conditions and character of the surrounding low-density, single-family residential community," Justice Barton Gaut wrote for the court. On building height, Better Housing pointed out that it eliminated a third story on one wing closest to houses and that the third story elsewhere was only 6 to 8 feet higher than an adjacent elementary school. Still, the court found the project "uncharacteristic of the surrounding neighborhood." "The impact creates a change in the aesthetic environment and interferes with scenic views of the public in general by introducing into the primarily single-family residential neighborhood a large, high-density residential building, which includes mixed two-story and three-story structures," Gaut wrote. "Aesthetic issues, such as public views, ‘are properly studied in an EIR to assess the impacts of a project,'" Gaut continued, citing Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside , (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 477, 492 (see CP&DR Legal Digest , July 2004). Regarding noise, opponents argued that the project's individual wall-mounted air conditioning units would impact the quiet neighborhood. Better Homes pointed to mitigations, such limiting air conditioners near neighboring residences to 20 and complying with the noise ordinance. But the court said the evidence supported opponents' contention and concluded, "There is no evidence of any measures to be taken that would insure that the noise standards would be effectively monitored and enforced." In an unpublished portion of the opinion, the Fourth District upheld the trial court's award of $30,000 in attorney's fees to Citizens. The Case: Citizens for Responsible and Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace , No. E041493, 08 C.D.O.S. 2960, 2008 DJDAR 3615. Filed February 21, 2008. Certified for partial publication March 13, 2008. The Lawyers: For Citizens: Raymond W. Johnson, Johnson & Sedlack, (951) 506-9925. For Corporation for Better Housing: John C. Nolan, Gresham, Savage, Nolan & Tilden, (951) 684-2171.

Even on a typical day, Las Vegas often seems like an extension of Los Angeles. Throngs of tourists arrive via car on the I-15 each day, and it's not uncommon to walk down the Strip and run into people you know. This week, however, the American Planning Association conference – being conducted at two hotels along the Strip – has often seemed like an extension of Los Angeles as well. Not only is the conference flooded with planners from L.A., but there are so many sessions on L.A. that it could become a whole separate track! Prime-time on the Los Angeles network was a panel Monday featuring Gail Goldberg and Bruce McClendon, who talked about the challenges they've faced in the last two years as the new city and county planning directors, respectively. Goldberg, who had spent her entire career in San Diego before coming to L.A., admitted being overwhelmed when she first arrived. "It took me two weeks to realize L.A. is a humungous city. San Diego, much as I love it, is a baby city," she said. The City of Los Angeles is 450 square miles and 4 million people, while L.A. County is 4,000 miles with 10 million people, including 1 million in the unincorporated area. McClendon, on the other hand, said that his longtime views about how to approach a planning challenge have been reaffirmed at Los Angeles County – including the idea of increasing public visibility and improving the reputation of planning. He told the story of buying something in the downtown Macy's while wearing his employee badge with his title on it. "The saleswoman said, ‘My God, you mean this place is planned?', she exclaimed," McClendon recalled. "Our biggest public challenge has been, how can we market planning in L.A.?" Both planning directors, however, said that they have been fortunate to walk in during a "window of opportunity" that they can best take advantage of by focusing on the creation of community plans for specific neighborhoods because their jurisdictions are so big. Since her arrival two years ago, Goldberg has managed to get significant budget and staffing increases – in spite of a financial crisis that has L.A. cutting almost every other department except for public safety. She's obtained a commitment from the politicians to update each of the 36 community plans on a three-year cycle, meaning that the city will initiate 12 community plan updates each year. The reason for her success? She claims it's because the old system of the city councilmembers interposing themselves project by project isn't working anymore, and developers, councilmembers, and neighborhood groups would rather have plans to fall back on. She also said the new plans will be meatier than the 15-20 page community plans currently in existence. "We will never stop planning," she said. Meanwhile, McClendon said that he hopes to devote more attention to community plans in L.A. County's urban unincorporated areas as well. The County has been updating its general plan for the first time since 1985, but, he said, community plans will be more important going forward. – Bill Fulton

Today, as planners, we are constantly inundated with new ideas and theories, and nowhere can this become more of a reality than a planning conference in Las Vegas. This year's national APA Conference is being held between the Paris and Bally's casinos, quintessential locations for gambling, shopping, dining, nightlife, and, well, apparently planning conferences. Where else can conference sessions be held in banquet halls decorated like extravagant French parlors? As a recent graduate of a planning program and a new practicing planner with Solimar, I found myself caught somewhere between wanting to ingest everything I can about planning and going into Spring Break mode and imbibing in a literal sense. But who says you can't be a professional planner and still have fun in Vegas? My old classmates, planning grad students who are generally good natured, remarked after their forays that the strip was "exhausting," "awful," and "it embodies everything I love to hate about cities." After less than 24 hours in Sin City — not to be confused with a more beloved impetus for modern planning tools, Sims City — they were all "over it." But despite sensory overload, they still managed to learn how not to let their own cherished neighborhoods become epicenters of all things undesirable. But along with these complaints, there were also planning buzzwords like "champion projects," "green infrastructure," and "urban agriculture." I ran into a colleague who is a civil engineer who admitted to coming to the conference primarily to become well-versed in planner-ease so that he could connect with clients who find sustainable development desirable. It seems as if modern planning concepts have become less cliché and more mainstream. Even cities in the Rustbelt are confronting their demons by planning for a shrinking population in a sustainable manner, rather than fighting the tides of change, by incorporating ideas like, well, green infrastructure and urban agriculture. In Vegas, climate change was not the featured topic. Rather, urban revitalization and how to incorporate green infrastructure or open space into urban centers was debated and discussed. I learned how energy codes are becoming stand-alone guidance documents for cities looking to reduce carbon emissions and improve prosperity and quality of life instead of being referenced in general plans per the State of California mandate. During two sessions, I learned more about my new urban neighbor on the West Coast, L.A., than I had in the 10 months since I'd moved to Ventura. Downtown L.A. is getting a facelift thanks to city planners like Jane Blumenfeld who have orchestrated the adoption of implementation tools like the adaptive reuse ordinance. Another city that had a strong presence at the conference was my hometown of Atlanta. Not only is Atlanta now hip, it also has a green thumb. As projects come online like the Beltline, the City will be prepared to take on a growing population that desires housing choices like mixed-income downtown condos and apartments near transit and green space, instead of the typical single-family house on a cul-de-sac in the suburbs. But the question remains: Who will pay for these improvements to our beloved urban centers? Obviously, someone has to pay for the regeneration of decaying urban corridors, the improvement of transit corridors, and retrofitting the suburbs to be more like our cities. But that's where we as planners come into play, aiding in public-private partnerships that can leverage the resources necessary to carry out the ideas and theories that we all are willing to travel to Las Vegas to hear. So I say come join us in Las Vegas, where "transect" is not a four-letter word, at least for a few more days. – Jessica Daniels

The City of Baldwin Park is pressing forward with an extremely ambitious redevelopment project that would convert the present downtown area of mostly single story commercial structures and modest houses into a very high-density, mixed-use district adjacent to a Metrolink station. However, the city's extensive planning and a deal with a developer may be for naught if state voters approve eminent domain restrictions that will appear on the June ballot. City officials say the project would bring much needed investment and wealth to Baldwin Park, a San Gabriel Valley suburb that for years was best known as the corporate home of the In-N-Out Burger chain. (In-N-Out has since moved to Irvine.) But local detractors of the downtown project have begun organizing protests, and managers of the statewide campaign for Proposition 98, which would restrict the use of eminent domain, are citing the Baldwin Park project as a prime example of the government activity they want to halt. Although the project is still somewhat ill-defined, the basics are these: The Baldwin Park Community Development Commission (the city's redevelopment agency) would acquire 125 acres in the middle of town, with master developer Bisno Development funding the acquisitions and any resident and business relocation costs. Bisno would then receive the property and develop it in phases over 15 years with 8,000 housing units, 3 million square feet of commercial space, 750,000 square feet of retail and entertainment uses, a 300-room hotel and a charter school. Public improvements would include a pedestrian promenade, a lagoon and extensive upgrades to the existing Metrolink station. "The project is presented pretty much as a transit-oriented development," explained Marc Castagnola, the community development director who arrived in Baldwin Park in mid-process. "The intent is that the people who are going to live downtown will be able to walk just a block or two and ride the transit." There is a significant obstacle: The 125-acre redevelopment site that centers around the intersection of Ramona Boulevard, Maine Avenue and Pacific Avenue is broken into about 330 developed parcels, most of which are privately owned. Opponents estimate the redevelopment project would displace about 100 households and 300 businesses. "We're just not good enough," huffed Ken Woods, who owns a 54-year-old sewing machine repair and embroidery business in the redevelopment project area. "They don't want our kind of people — working blue collar people." Woods has helped organize a local group called Community Alliance for Redevelopment Accountability (CARA) that started making its opposition to the project known last fall. He does not deny that the area "needs sprucing up." But he and others argue that the city is moving too fast on a plan that lacks local support. "We keep saying back off, get us involved," Woods said. "They want to bulldoze 125 acres and start over." After soliciting proposals from developers, the City Council signed an agreement with Los Angeles-based Bisno in late 2006. Since then, the city, Bisno and consultants have been working simultaneously on a general plan amendment, a specific plan and an environmental impact report, according to Castagnola. A draft EIR is expected to be released this month, with a final EIR and the other documents to follow in a few months, he said. The specific plan "will look a lot like a zoning code," Castagnola said. The specific plan will set land uses and densities, establish architectural and color standards, outline a landscape palate, and provide an open space design, he said. The specific plan will also contain the development entitlements, meaning there would be only minor review of follow-up projects that comply with the specific plan. Castagnola said the redevelopment agency would provide "no monetary subsidies" to Bisno for the project other than making available the 20% housing set-aside fund for affordable units. However, the agreement between the Community Development Commission and Bisno states that if the developer's cost of acquiring land and relocating businesses and residents tops an average of $2 million per acre, the Commission will reimburse Bisno the difference with tax increment. The agreement pledges up to half of the project area's tax increment to make up the difference. In January 2007, CEO Robert Bisno sent the city a letter urging a fast planning process that would be complete before a vote on any restrictive initiative. At the time, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association was discussing an initiative that eventually turned into Proposition 98, a measure that would prevent the taking of private property from one owner for transfer to another private entity. The rival Proposition 99 would prevent the taking of owner-occupied single-family houses for transfer to another private owner. Clearly, the city is not going to beat the June 3 election date. The city's inability — or unwillingness — to rush the process to beat election day is good, said Marko Mlikotin, a spokesman for the Proposition 98 campaign. That is, it's good for the community and good for the campaign, which has begun featuring Baldwin Park as exhibit A of redevelopment abuse. "You have your greedy developer. You have a dispassionate city council. You're going to have hundreds of people homeless," Mlikotin recited. In recent months, public meetings in Baldwin Park, a 70% Latino city of 81,000 people, have grown more and more tense. Opponents of the downtown project have put the City Council on the defensive and have staged street protests. Councilmembers recently refused to speak to a Los Angeles Business Journal reporter, and Mayor Manuel Lopez did not return messages from CP&DR . Late last year, Lopez told the San Gabriel Valley Tribune that opponents were using misinformation and scare tactics. "We don't even know if this project is even going to occur or not," Lopez told the newspaper. Woods said that if the project goes forward, he'll close his business rather than try to relocate. Ironically, he is in his present location after losing his commercial building during the late 1980s to an earlier redevelopment project that brought a supermarket and other stores to the downtown area. "Now they are going to tear down the area that they redeveloped in the first place," Woods said. Contacts: Marc Castagnola, City of Baldwin Park, (626) 813-5253. Ken Woods, Community Alliance for Redevelopment Accountability, (626) 962-5298. Marko Mlikotin, California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights, (916) 444-8781. Bisno Development project website: www.baldwinparkfuture.com/index.php

Dave Brown of Calabasas is this year's recipient of the American Planning Association's leadership award for a planning advocate. A member of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy advisory committee since 1985 and a Calabasas planning commissioner since 1992, Brown has been involved in land use and natural resources issues in the area since the 1970s. He received the award in part for his "overlooked but instrumental" role in creating the 153,000-acre Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. For 45 years he has been a history professor at Los Angeles Valley College, where he still teaches two classes. Brown spoke with CP&DR Editor Paul Shigley in April. CP&DR : Congratulations on the APA award. Brown: It surprised me. I think there are a lot of other people who deserve it more. I'd trade it all to conserve some more land. CP&DR : How did you get involved in land use planning? Brown: I got involved in planning — not planning directly so much — in midlife, I guess primarily out of an interest in saving and protecting some of the natural beauty and habitat in the area. I first really got interested when I got involved with Malibu Creek State Park. I got some coaching from one guy who was a county planner. The object here was basically to protect the setting of the state park, the area around it, from massive development so that the park itself would remain a place of natural beauty. I first got started working with state parks to determine what areas needed to be purchased to protect the state park. That was 30 years ago at least. How to protect a place like that that is under constant urban pressure is what got me thinking about planning. CP&DR : Did you move from your activities at the state park to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy? Brown: I got involved with the Coastal Commission, whose jurisdiction extends five miles inland in the Santa Monica Mountains. The Coastal Act is a very comprehensive type of plan. I learned a fair amount about planning from reading the Coastal Act , and attending Coastal Commission meetings and getting up and speaking. The conservancy kind of came logically out of that. Actually, the Santa Monica Mountains Comprehensive Planning Commission came first. That lasted four years. It was supposed to do a plan for the Santa Monica Mountains. It never quite got that far because there wasn't political support. The conservancy grew out of the Comprehensive Planning Commission as the next best alternative to having land use authority. I was appointed to their advisory committee in 1985 and I've been on it ever since. Los Angeles County was almost the antithesis of good planning until about 10 or 15 years ago. When the county's political climate began to change, I was one of a number of people appointed to a citizens committee set up to redo the plan for the area where I live. This area would have been north of Malibu and west of the SF Valley. I was eventually elected chair of that committee. We did the north area plan with the cooperation of Supervisor Yaroslavsky. That was my first effort into really getting involved in land use planning. In 1991, the city of Calabasas incorporated and I was appointed to the Planning Commission. I've been on it every since. CP&DR : Are the Santa Monica Mountains still experiencing urban growth pressures? Brown: Yes. It's not just urban growth pressures. It isn't so much any longer big housing tracts. In the '70s that was still a threat — large hillsides getting scraped clean, and cut and fill. The terrain is so rugged that big developers have given up that sort of thing. What we've had in the Santa Monica Mountains is parceling, and I finally figured out what was really going on. People were buying acreage lots, and being allowed by the county to divide them but not being required to put in the necessary improvements. They could buy a 40-acre parcel and split it into 10-acre parcels without providing much of anything in the way of improvements and then leaving the buyer to figure out what to do with a parcel that did not have adequate street access or anything. A lot of that was done in the Santa Monica Mountains. It messed up a lot of beautiful areas and it messed up a lot of areas that could have been developed. It was planning at its worst in an area that is subject to an extreme fire hazard. One of the things that I've concluded over the years is that we desperately need to plan for fires. When I first started saying that, people just said, ‘What can you do about it?' You can do a lot. If we would pay more attention to setting back a house from the lip of steep slopes, rather than trying to maximize the view, for example, we could design the house to minimize that risk. We've never done that. I'm hoping in my last years of these efforts to get more people thinking in those terms. You can reduce the fire loss with good planning. … There's a danger when people get out of touch with the natural forces around them. They make decisions that endanger their life and property. CP&DR : Do your activities with the conservancy carry over to the city's Planning Commission? Brown: They interface to some extent. I think I've broadened my interest in planning beyond just protecting the scenic environment. Probably the most frustrating thing you can do in the L.A. area is try to protect something in its natural state, and yet we've done it. We've left a legacy of protecting landscapes that hopefully will bring joy to people for decades, assuming we take care of it. In the 30 years I've been involved in this, there has really been a change among citizens that some pieces of land are not made to be cut-and-fill pads. Maybe you should also pay attention to areas of natural beauty with the assumption that someday people will appreciate that. I think of those guys who sat around Yellowstone 100 years ago who decided maybe it would be nice to preserve this beauty for future generations. CP&DR : What can planners learn from a history professor? Brown What you can learn from history is not to make the same mistakes you've made before. We don't always understand the consequences of what we're doing. If we study the past, we would learn better how to plan for the future.

I hate to be repetitious, but sometimes in the column-writing business it's inevitable. Eighteen months ago, I wrote in this space that the debate over Proposition 90 came down to two unfortunately simpleminded campaign slogans – "protect our homes" or "taxpayer trap." Proposition 90 would have greatly restricted the use of eminent domain – hence it would have protected our homes. But it also would have required the government to compensate landowners for virtually any downzoning – hence the taxpayer trip. "Taxpayer trap" won, but not by much. So now we've got Proposition 98 on the June ballot – a watered-down and slightly sideways version of Proposition 90. And for good measure we've got Proposition 99 – a countermeasure put forth by local government organizations that would restrict eminent domain, but only in the case of owner-occupied single-family homes. In campaign terms, it doesn't look much different than it did before. On the one hand, we've got Proposition 98 – the "Protect Renters, Protect Homes" initiative or the "Hidden Agenda Initiative," depending on your point of view. On the other hand, we've got Proposition 99 – the "Homeowner Protection Act" to its supporters. So far, opponents haven't come out with their pithy three-word negative characterization. They've fallen back on the trusty old "Don't Be Fooled" approach. And the campaign rhetoric will likely be pretty shrill and pervasive, because these two propositions will be the only measures on the June ballot – thanks in large part to the fact that California moved its presidential primary (and hence some other ballot measures) from June to February. The whole reason this issue is even on the ballot at all in California is because of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in 2005 in Kelo v. City of New London . On a 5-4 vote, with Sacramento native Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote, the court upheld a local government's power to use eminent domain for "economic development" purposes. That is, the court ruled the government has the power to take property via eminent domain from one private owner and convey that property to another private owner. Kelo didn't change the state of the law in California, but it provided a political opening for property rights advocates here and elsewhere. Proposition 90 came pretty close to passing, setting up a rematch on the ballot this year. Underneath all the typical political rhetoric rehashed above, what do we really have? Three things: 1. A weaker property rights initiative that does not address the regulatory takings issue. 2. A property rights initiative that – unlike its predecessor – seeks to outlaw rent control. 3. A countermeasure that seeks to limit the damage. Of these three things, only the third is not surprising. The local government organizations got caught flatfooted during the 2006 election, when only a last-minute media blitz – one that was hard to place on TV, given the political competition (see CP&DR Insight , October 2006 ) – averted the passage of Proposition 90. In putting forth Proposition 99, the local government establishment is throwing a bone to the other side. OK, they're saying, we recognize eminent domain has to be limited, so let's limit that limitation as much as possible. The first two items on the list above, however, are something of a surprise, especially the interplay between the two. A pull-back from Proposition 90's aggressive position on land use regulations was probably inevitable if the property rights crowd wanted to broaden its base of support. And rent control is always a favorite target of landowners, even though it affects only a small percentage of rental properties in the state. The addition of rent control – which was not a part of Proposition 90 – augmented Proposition 98's fundraising base. Yet trading land use regulation for rent control as a target doesn't seem to have done the property rights advocates much good. Proposition 98 didn't win the support of the state Chamber of Commerce. And while Proposition 98 popped open the landlord fundraising base, it has fueled opposition from a wide variety of tenant groups. Chief among these are the state's mobile home residents — a mostly older and highly organized group of folks who typically own the "coach" in which they live but not the land underneath it, on which they must pay rent. In dozens of communities throughout the state (including the one where I serve as an elected official), the city government has passed a rent control ordinance restricting the land rents that mobile home park owners charge the residents. The archives of CP&DR are littered with the failed attempts of mobile home park owners to take down these rent control ordinances. So it's not surprising that mobile home park owners are glomming onto Proposition 98 as the solution to their long-time rent control problem. They are important donors to the Yes on 98/No on 99 campaign. In trading the regulatory takings issue for the rent control issue, the property rights advocates clearly traded a large group of landowner and developer supporters who each had a little to gain for a much smaller group of landlords who stand to obtain enormous gains if Proposition 98 passes. Whether that campaign can come up with a winning message, however, remains to be seen. The No on 98/Yes on 99 campaign is engaging in more than its fair share of hyperbole, arguing not only that landlords would win and renters would lose, but also that water projects, land use planning and environmental protection are all at risk, which is stretching the truth at best. But that's nothing compared with the stretches coming out of the Yes on 98/No on 99 campaign. As noted earlier, the advocates have not yet come up with a single, pithy campaign slogan against 99. They are using familiar themes – arguing, for example, that the League of California Cities is not segregating membership funds (which are tax revenues) from Proposition 99 campaign funds. The most amusing argument is that Proposition 99 opens a "back door" to a split roll – a property tax assessment system that would circumvent Proposition 13 by assessing commercial property at a higher rate than residential property. How? By setting the "dangerous precedent" of treating owner-occupied, single-family homes differently from other properties. There is a good argument to be made that houses should not be treated differently because they are rented by the occupants rather than owned. But it is unlikely that Proposition 99 will revise Proposition 13 to allow split roll. Nor does it seem like this is a winning argument in June. But it's probably a pretty good fundraising strategy because the most likely donors to Proposition 98 are income property owners who would fork out big bucks to fight a split roll. The bottom line: Proposition 98 would not have nearly the wide-ranging impact on land use planning that Proposition 90 would have had – even though it would outlaw rent control. And it is fair to say that the Proposition 98 folks still have not figured out their message, even though we have only a few weeks to go.

A bill that would permit the City of Industry to extend its redevelopment plan's effectiveness for 10 years appears to have died when the bill's author, Sen. Gloria Romero (D-East Los Angeles), pulled SB 1771 before a scheduled mid-April committee hearing. Rumors had circulated at the Capitol for months that Industry sought to extend its redevelopment powers without having to make updated blight findings, as required by current law. Industry reportedly sought the extension to help fund construction of a professional football stadium on 600 acres owned by developer Ed Roski Jr. Industry officials and Roski have denied there is any connection between redevelopment and the stadium. However, the day after the Senate Local Government Committee was scheduled to consider SB 1771, Roski revealed stadium plans at a press conference. Originally, SB 1771 was a Sen. Alex Padilla (D-San Fernando Valley) bill concerning credit counseling for homeowners. But the legislation was overhauled on April 10 to permit Industry's redevelopment activities to continue for an additional 10 years. Without the extension, Industry would have to start shutting down redevelopment activities in about four years. Industry's redevelopment agency had revenues of $98 million during the 2005-06 fiscal year, according to the state controller's office. An unusually long bill analysis for the Senate Local Government Committee raised questions about the legislation, which would permit Industry to sidestep existing legal provisions regarding blight findings and funding for affordable housing. "SB 1771 uncouples the half-century-old policy consensus that requires local officials to document blight before they can get their hands on the property tax revenues that ordinarily go to other local governments, especially school districts," the analysis said. In a letter to the committee, Christine Minnehan, a lobbyist for the Western Center on Law and Poverty, wrote, "Current law permits all activities sought in SB 1771 if blight — the justification for redevelopment — remains. SB 1771 eviscerates existing law and invites more public outcry against redevelopment." The football stadium is proposed for 600 acres of vacant land at the junction of the 60 and 57 freeways, a location where Industry approved Roski's proposed 4.8 million-square-foot industrial development in 2004. That project has not gone forward. Now Roski proposes a 75,000-seat stadium, a 5,000-seat concert venue, 1.5 million square feet of office buildings and nearly a 1 million square feet of retail shops and restaurants. The site is not within a redevelopment project area.