When Proposition 84 passed in 2006, it reflected a booming economy. Providing $5.4 billion for clean water, parks, and open space the measure was seen as an important way to protect the state's natural resources at a time before many were worried about $28 billion deficits or maxing out the state's bonding capacity.  Prop. 84's primary focus is on waterways and water management. However, it also includes a relatively tiny set-aside for innovative planning that is proving to be a godsend to planning departments that are suffering unprecedented budget cuts (see CP&DR Insight Vol. 25, No. 5, March 2010 ).  Last month, the Strategic Growth Council approved the first round of Sustainable Communities Planning Grants. The council allocated roughly $23 million to 40 projects across the state. In many cases, this infusion of cash from Sacramento has given life to long-range planning activities and special projects that, despite the impetus of new statewide smart-growth incentives, otherwise would have been shelved indefinitely.  The economic crisis comes at an unfortunate time for cities and regional agencies, such as councils of government, that are gearing up to comply with SB 375, the 2008 law that promotes mitigation of greenhouse gases through smart-growth principles.  "(Applicants are) trying to do something that will help them not only meet their SB 375 targets but also really look at improving the quality of life in their communities," said Heather Fargo, executive policy officer at SGC.   Many of the municipal recipients are updating general plans or specific plans that seek to foster density and create greater harmony between density and transportation. Many of the MPO recipients will be creating region-wide blueprints and Sustainable Communities Strategies, per SB 375.  Stakeholders will continue to debate whether SB 375's regional targets are strong enough, too strong, or just right. However, localities are almost unanimous in expressing the complaint that SB 375 comes with almost no fiscal support from Sacramento. Many have lamented that SB 375 is an "unfunded mandate" that puts pressure on localities while offering scant assistance from the state.  "This is probably the first time that this kind of money, in this amount…has been available for planning efforts in a very long time," said Kim Murry, director of Long Range Planning for the City of San Luis Obispo. "It provides an alternative to funding this update that  the city probably couldn't have taken on by itself given current budget constraints."  The city received $880,000 to update its land use and circulation element. Prop. 84 funds are thus filling a crucial funding gap for many of the localities and agencies that received funding (three metropolitan planning organizations were given conditional awards). That leaves roughly 80% of approximately 188 applicants—totaling $94 million in requests—wanting for funds. SGC has not yet released a list of all applicants.  For many of the successful applicants, Prop. 84 funding has been approved for bread-and-butter projects that cities would normally fund in the normal course of business. These projects include area plans and general plan updates. In many cases, these updates have languished for lack of funding.  "General plans are often modified, sometimes updated, but there's no mandate stating when and how often they need to be, so it's very sporadic and all over the place," said Jena Price, Global Warming Coordinator at the Planning and Conservation League.  "Disadvantaged communities…would otherwise be left in the dust."  Tales of desperation abound among some of the recipients who struggle just to keep their doors open. Cities in the Central Valley such as Corcoran and Merced have suffered double-blows of the recession and the region's perennially poor air quality. Corcoran received a relatively large grant of $450,000 for its general plan update. (Disclosure: CP&DR Publisher Bill Fulton consults for the City of Corcoran.)  In funding general plan updates, the SGC hopes that cities will come up with plans that are not just revisions of current plans but, in fact,  revolutionary documents that serve as models for other cities.  "For a lot of people, even if they are just doing  bread-and-butter general plan updates, (they are responding to) the new world and the need to look at climate change, energy conservation, TOD," said Fargo. "Those aren't necessarily things that they've had in their general plan before." Some plans have been around since before climate change was even recognized as an environmental issue, much less a planning issue.  In Imperial County, tiny Calipatria—population 7,200, including 4,000 prison inmates—received $175,000 for an update of a general plan that has, because of the city's impoverishment, remained unchanged since 1992. Justina Gamboa-Arce, a contract city planner with the City of Calipatria, said that Calipatria's isolation and the county's own financial constraints meant that the city had no other option than to seek Prop. 84 funding.  "We pretty much knew if it didn't get funded through this program, there really isn't anything else out there," said Gamboa-Arce. "So if you don't get this, you're going to stay, in essence, another 20 years without a general plan update."   Twenty percent of the Sustainable Communities Planning Grants are earmarked for the benefit of economically disadvantaged communities, including Calipatria and Corcoran.  If the SGC had taken into account economically disadvantaged planning departments, then almost every project would have qualified for the earmark. Community Development Director Susan Atkins, of the City of Corcoran, described her city's level of disadvantage as "unbelievable."  Some recipients, however, are in less dire straits and are pursuing  projects that might be considered experiments or luxuries. The City of Morgan Hill received $380,000 to create a plan to install solar power generators along a freeway right-of-way.  Upscale Santa Monica, whose planning department is on stable financial footing, has received an embarrassment of riches, not only from SGC, but also from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. The city received $550,000 in Prop. 84 funds for a neighborhood plan at the Memorial Park Station, which will be a stop on the Expo Line Phase 11. It also received an unrelated $625,000 Sustainable Communities Challenge Grant—a joint project of the federal departments of Housing and Urban Development and Transportation—to plan a transit village at Bergamot Station, the next station on the Expo Line.  Santa Monica officials speculate that their applications succeeded because both projects tie into a recent general plan update that promotes sustainability and smart growth principles holistically throughout the city.  "I think that it was easier for both the federal and the state agencies to see that we're already thinking this way, about how to integrate transportation and land use…we have stated goals," said Santa Monica Senior Planner, Liz Bar-El.  SGC officials say that some cities' goals were not so clear. Of the 188 applications, they said that they were able to reject many simply because—regardless of financial need—the applications were sloppy or because proposed projects simply did not meet the standards set out by the grant guidelines. Twenty-five such applications were deemed ineligible for consideration.  Though some cities may have been disappointed, the recipients cover a diverse geographic and socioeconomic range.  "There's a huge need out there and it does appear that they did disburse the funds as evenly as possible," said Atkins of the SGC's approach to the Central Valley.  Fargo said that, desperate as some other cities may be, there is hope for them later this year. She said that SGC will be accepting another round of applications this summer and that projects that got shut out in 2010 have a good chance of succeeding in 2011.   "The good news is that we do have two more funding cycles," said Fargo. "We're hoping people will look at what has been funded….and look at what they might do and how they might improve their application."  SGC may alter the selection process somewhat for the next round. In particular, Fargo said that so many applications included economically disadvantaged communities that a separate set-aside may not be necessary. Economic disadvantage will remain a selection criterion. For those jurisdictions that were passed up this year, Fargo said that some need almost no changes to be frontrunners this year. And she said that SGC staff will be available to help localities on their applications.  For both recipients and future applicants alike, officials caution that departments cannot become dependent on state funding, especially given the drastic budget cuts that Gov. Jerry Brown has proposed. Recipients say, however, that they are aware of the grants' constraints and are treating them as one-time windfalls that are unlikely to recur. Most, in fact, are hiring temporary outside consultants rather than rehiring or taking on new full-time staff members.  Overall, however, Fargo said that she sees Prop. 84 grants as job-generators for planners. And she said that a lousy economy for builders might prove to be an ideal time for innovative planning.  "The timing is great: because we are in this recession, we're not seeing a lot of building," said Fargo. "But when the market comes back, you're ready to go and you're able to have a lot of up-front work done."   Contacts & Resources Sustainable Communities Planning Grants Funding Report Susan Atkins, Community Development Director, City of Corcoran, 559.992.2151 Liz Bar-El, Senior Planner, City of Santa Monica, 310.458.8341 Heather Fargo, Executive Policy Officer, Strategic Growth Council , 916.653.9205  Justina Gamboa-Arce, Planner, City of Calipatria, 760.348.4141 Kim Murry, City of San Luis Obispo, 805.781.7100 Jena Price, Global Warming Coordinator, Planning & Conservation League , 916.313.4508

When organizers of the UCLA Extension Land Use Law and Planning Conference sponsored sessions on ethics in previous years, yawns and frequent checking of cell phones was the overwhelming response. They expect a far more engaged audience this year for the session titled "Unringing the Bell: When Land Use Decision Making and Ethics Collide." The 25th annual Land Use Law and Planning Conference is scheduled for Friday, January 21, at the Millennium Biltmore Hotel in downtown Los Angeles. About 400 planners, attorneys, development professionals and government officials are expected to attend the day-long session that will also address recent and proposed legislation, SB 375, CEQA developments and other topics.  Land use has not been a major part of the ugly stories coming out of Bell – where elected and appointed officials enriched themselves with public funds – and Vernon – which has been run like a private fiefdom for decades. However, land use is at the center of upcoming trials for three former San Bernardino County officials related to a $102 million county settlement with an Upland developer and major campaign donor. And it's easy to see that the land use planning and entitlement processes are ripe for corruption because there is so much money at stake for private parties. "The concern is that these are bellwether cases, but they are not isolated," said San Gabriel City Manager Steven Preston, who will moderate the ethics panel. He and the other participants intend to ask audience members to submit anonymous questions about ethics issues they have encountered. The panel will also build a scenario for how someone might start slipping down a slippery ethical slope. Scheduled for the panel are Sonia Carvalho, a partner with the Best, Best & Krieger law firm and the city attorney for Claremont; City of Clovis Deputy City Planner David Fey; and David Snow, an attorney with Richards, Watson & Gershon. All three bring a different perspective to the issues, Preston noted. A different lawyer from Carvalho's firm served as city attorney in Bell and has been implicated in the scandal. Although Carvalho won't be addressing the Bell situation directly, Preston said she is a frequent speaker on ethics issues. Fey lived through Operation Rezone, a federal sting in Clovis and Fresno during the late 1990s that resulted in 16 convictions of public officials and developers. Fey can address the situation in a jurisdiction where large-scale growth is expected, Preston said. The city attorney in Beverly Hills and Rancho Palos Verdes, Snow is familiar with pending state legislation and well-versed in the American Planning Association code of ethics. "We've had ethics panels in the past, and they didn't draw much attention," said Preston. In 2006, Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley talked about the activities of his local government corruption unit. But Cooley is not the most compelling speaker, and the atmosphere was much less charged then. When the ethics discussion gets started at this year's conference, I bet everyone will put down the smart phone and listen. – Paul Shigley

The dissolution of redevelopment agencies may be the biggest bombshell that Gov. Jerry Brown dropped on the land use community. But it is not the only one. He is also targeting the Williamson Act, Enterprise Zones, and fire safety in order to help close the state's $28 billion deficit.  Enterprise Zones Like redevelopment project areas, Enterprise Zones are intended to stoke economic development in disadvantaged areas. However, rather than using tax increment financing and being orchestrated by a public agency, Enterprise Zones simply confer tax credits and other financial incentives on businesses that set up shop within the zones.  The proposed budget calls for the elimination of all Enterprise Zones and related benefits. Similar zones such as Targeted Tax Areas, Manufacturing Enhancement Areas, and Local Agency Military Base Recovery Areas would also be eliminated. Because these zones involve relatively straightforward tax credits, the savings estimate is relatively straightforward: $343 million in 2010-11 and $581 million in 2011-12.  The proposed budget includes the rationale that local economic development strategies should be managed locally. These strategies are, in fact, not of "statewide interest" "because the primary benefit of these zones is to shift economic activity from one geographic region within California to another geographic region within California," according to the budget draft. As with redevelopment agencies, the draft budget also includes some scathing criticism of Enterprise Zones:  The Legislative Analyst's Office "California's Enterprise Zone Programs" – 2005 found that EZs have little if any impact on the creation of new economic activity or employment. That activity would have occurred elsewhere, according to the analysis.  The Public Policy Institute of California found "Do California Enterprise Zones  Create Jobs?" – 2009 that there was "no statistically significant effect on either employment levels or employment growth rates" within enterprise zones as compared to neighboring areas.  The greatest benefits of Enterprise Zones may not accrue to the companies or localities but in fact to the consulting and accounting firms that facilitate the relocation of a business to an Enterprise Zone.  Enterprise Zones were established in 1984, with a maximum of 42 zones throughout the state at any one time. Zones are approved for 15-year terms. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger presided over on an Enterprise Zone bonanza, approving 36 in his two terms. New Enterprise Zones were approved in Anaheim, the Santa Clarita Valley, and the Los Angeles Harbor area just last month.  California Land Conservation (Williamson) Act A relatively minor item in the state budget, the Williamson Act for farmland protection cost the state $35 million in 2009-10.  Under the Williamson Act, owners of farmland can voluntarily agree to keep their land in agricultural production for as open space -- rather than convert it to other uses -- for a specified period in exchange for an artificially low tax assessment. The 1972 Open Space Subvention Act provides for the state to reimburse local governments for lost property tax revenue.  The governor proposes the permanent suspension of Wiliamson Act subventions. The budget invites localities to run the program as they see fit.  Wildlands Fire Protection The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) provides wildland fire protection services in over 31 million acres of state responsibility areas (SRAs). Although the number of acres in SRAs has been relatively constant since the 1950's, the composition of SRAs has greatly changed. Population and urban development in SRAs has grown significantly in recent decades, increasing fire risks and state costs. Under this proposal, responsibility for fire protection and medical emergency response in these populated wildland areas will be assumed by local government.The budget insists that jurisdictions making land use decisions which result in housing development encroaching in wildland areas also provide the necessary emergency response services associated with more highly populated land use patterns. In other words, local jurisdictions may not be able to approve development in unincorporated areas without also planning and paying for fire protection.  It is estimated that this proposal will result in the realignment of up to $250 million of Cal Fire's fire protection program to local governments.

As expected, the budget proposed today by Gov. Jerry Brown calls for the wholesale elimination of redevelopment agencies.  This dramatic move would free up roughly $5 billion in annual tax increments that redevelopment agencies control and would redirect those increments to fund a range of local services.  The proposal has set off what will likely be an ongoing debate over the value of redevelopment as it has been implemented in the 59 years since California voters approved a constitutional amendment allowing the use of tax increment financing to combat blight.  While the governor described the proposed budget as  "a tough budget for tough times," redevelopment officials have already launched their counter-offensive. John Shirey, executive director of the California Redevelopment Association, called the proposal "  smoke and mirrors that will bring little financial gain for the State, but will cause widespread and significant economic pain in communities throughout California."  The proposed budget's chapter on Tax Relief and Local Government includes a wide-ranging indictment of redevelopment. The budget offers the following reasons, among others, why redevelopment fails to live up to its promise:  Because redevelopment agencies keep the incremental monies that are generated within redevelopment, even tax increases that stem simply from inflation or property value increases--rather than direct agency intervention--end up in agency coffers. Meanwhile, the base tax that is distributed to other recipients remains the same and loses real value over time. The budget claims that over time, the increment kept by agencies can "dwarf" the base tax revenue that goes to local services like schools.  According to a 1988 study by the Public Policy Institute of California,  "fewer than one?quarter of the (redevelopment) projects came close to being responsible for the property taxes they received. These projects were also the ones with the most vacant land."  Redevelopment agencies have failed to develop affordable housing, which is supposed to consume 20 percent of agencies' income. Instead, many agencies have built up large balances.  In the aggregate, redevelopment agencies do not create a net increase in development. Development that occurs in redevelopment project areas would have occurred elsewhere in the state. The budget lists the following relative detriments of the diverting the tax increment:  Diversion of tax increment not only diverts a total of $5 billion from other taxing agencies but also creates a complicated system by which the state must "backfill" and compensate K-14 schools at a cost of approximately $1.8 billion annually. Local services such as law enforcement and emergency response rely largely on property taxes and local sales taxes. While the former is expected to stabilize, the latter is expected to take years before returning to pre-recession levels.  The budget proposes the following steps to disbanding redevelopment agencies and redistributing their tax increments:  By July, existing agencies would be disbanded and their debts would be gradually retired by local successor agencies.  Starting in 2012-13, the amount of tax increment remaining after paying pre-existing depbts and contractual obligation would be distributed to cities, counties, and K-14 schools in amounts proportionate to their share of the base countywide property tax. The net gain for these entites is estimated to be $3 billion annually.  Monies left in agencies' coffers that are earmarked for low- and moderate-income housing would be shifted to local housing authorities for the same purpose.  Fund future local economic development projects via a 55-percent voter approval for limited tax increases and bonding against local revenues for projects that are currently done by redevelopment agencies.  This announcement comes on the heels of what redevelopment officials considered a disastrous year. In May a judge upheld a 2009 law ordering the transfer of $2.01 billion in tax increment from agencies statewide to help fund schools. Agencies were then ordered to pay $1.7 billion of that payment, with the rest due this year.  "Without decisive action, the state's severe budget problems will persist, threatening economic recovery, job growth, public education and the quality of life in California," said Gov. Brown in a statement. "The adoption of this budget will position the state to lead the country as it slowly recovers from the Great Recession." Redevelopment officials contend, however, that the current system and the use of tax increments can stoke that recovery.  "The State and local governments have very few tools to stimulate the economy, but redevelopment is the exception," said the CRA's Shirey in a statement.  "Redevelopment is already a locally-governed service which generates hundreds of thousands of jobs." The governor's spending plan assumes that all statutory changes to implement budget actions will be adopted by the legislature in March, allowing the necessary ballot measures to be put before the people at a June special election.  Please visit CP&DR for continuing coverage of this proposal and reactions from around the sate.

The Town of Mammoth Lakes has been ordered to pay more than $32 million for violating a development agreement. In upholding a jury's award of damages to the developer, the Third District Court of Appeal made clear that local government agencies are treated like any other private contracting party when it comes to development agreements and can be held liable for damages if the agency breaches the agreement. As previously established in  Building Industry Association of Central California v. City of Patterson , (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 886, (see  CP&DR Legal Digest , April 2009 ), the interpretation of development agreements is governed by contract law and not statutory interpretation principles. In the Mammoth Lakes case, that breach of a development agreement by a municipality came with a hefty price tag. Under contract law, there are no immunities protecting the municipality from having to pay up. In 1997, Terrence Ballas and the Town of Mammoth Lakes entered into a development agreement whereby Ballas would lease the land encompassing and surrounding the airport from the town with an option to purchase. Ballas would operate the airport in conjunction with developing the land near the airport into a 250-unit condominium or hotel complex. In 2000, after Ballas helped form Mammoth Lakes Land Acquisition, LLC, and invested $15 million to $17 million in required airport improvements, the developer submitted an application for development of a residential condominium complex. The development agreement stated: "Town and its agents, employees and contractors shall exercise discretionary approvals applicable to the project reasonably, in good faith, and in a timely manner." However, town officials disliked the residential concept, and, in 2004, the developer submitted another application for what is known as the Hot Creek project. The new proposal involved a time-share condominium hotel in which units could be rented out when the owners were not using them. Meanwhile, the town had been working to gain Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approval to expand the airport facilities to accommodate commercial jets. About the same time the revised development proposal came forth, the FAA – which, unbeknownst to Ballas, questioned the development agreement before it was approved in 1997 – stated that it would not approve the airport expansion. The FAA further advised that the town was in jeopardy of losing federal grant funding for airport improvements if a condominium/hotel complex were built on the surrounding property. Based on this admonition, the town proceeded to work against the Hot Creek project and refused to process the application without first resolving the FAA issues. Mammoth Lakes Land Acquisition sued the town in 2006 for anticipatory breach of contract. A Mono County jury found in favor of the developer and awarded $30 million in damages for breach of contract. Subsequently, the judge also granted the developer $2.3 in attorneys fees under the prevailing party provision of the development agreement. The town appealed on three grounds: (1) The developer failed to exhaust its administrative remedies; (2) three clauses in the development agreement excused the town's performance; and (3) there was no substantial evidence to support the jury's determination of breach. The appellate court found none of the town's arguments meritorious and upheld the award for damages and attorneys fees. On the first issue of exhaustion, the town argued the developer was required to engage in the administrative process before filing suit. The appellate court disagreed. The lawsuit, the court ruled, rested solely on the terms of the development agreement and whether the town breached those terms. Therefore, exhaustion of the administrative process was not required, and the principles of contract law applied. "There was no remedy available to the developer in the administrative process," Justice George Nicholson wrote for the unanimous three-judge Third District panel. " nce the developer gave notice of default and the town failed to cure the default, there was no longer a proposed land use to adjudicate in the town's quasi-judicial administrative process." On the second issue of excused performance, the court rejected all of the town's attempts to assert defenses under the agreement. The court found that development agreement clauses requiring compliance with governmental restrictions and FAA regulations provided no protection because the restrictions at issue were under the town's control, and the grant assurances between the FAA and the town did not constitute FAA regulations. Additionally, the developer knew nothing of the grant assurances between the town and the FAA and, thus, did not assume any responsibility in regards thereto, the court ruled. On the third issue of substantial evidence, the appellate court found that evidence was adequate to support the jury's determination. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the jury's award of damages and attorneys fees. This case acts as a reminder to local agencies that development agreements cannot simply be dismissed after they are executed. Future consequences must be taken into account before the agreement is entered into, as with any other contractual agreement between private parties. The Case: Mammoth Lakes Land Acquisition, LLC v. Town of Mammoth Lakes , No. C059239, 2011 DJDAR 92. Filed December 30, 2010. The Lawyers: For Mammoth Lakes Land Acquisition: Daniel L. Brockett, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, (212) 849-7345. For the town: Peter E. Tracy, (760) 872-1101. CP&DR 's Legal Digest is reported by the attorneys of Abbott & Kindermann , LLP.

The City of Sunnyvale's analysis of a road improvement project's traffic and related impacts based on predicted conditions in 2020 violated the California Environmental Quality Act's requirement to compare a proposed project with existing conditions. The Sunnyvale case offers the most recent California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) decision on selecting a project baseline for environmental review. Although the city had some discretion over the baseline, the city had no authority to use a point 12 years in the future as the baseline, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled. The City of Sunnyvale proposed to construct a four-lane, northerly extension of Mary Avenue, including light rail tracks, over the Bayshore and South Bay Freeways to Eleventh Avenue. The road and transit lines would serve an industrial area adjacent to the former Moffett Field Naval Air Station (see  CP&DR Economic Development , October 15, 2009 ). The city's environmental impact report adopted in 2008 analyzed the project and its impacts based on 2020 conditions, as opposed to present-day conditions. A group called Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Association sued over the project's EIR. A Santa County Superior Court judge ruled in the group's favor and the city appealed. The Sixth District upheld the trial court's decision rejecting the city's argument that the project could be evaluated differently because it was a traffic congestion-relief project. The court found there is no provision in CEQA allowing the city to review the roadway infrastructure project differently than other projects. The court further found the administrative record was devoid of substantial evidence to support the city's decision to deviate from the norm of using current conditions as the baseline for project analysis. The appellate court identified numerous flaws in the EIR regarding the traffic impacts analysis. For example, the EIR assumed that numerous roadway improvements in the project area would be in place by 2020, regardless of the proposed project. Additionally, the EIR lacked an analysis of how the project would change the level of service at various intersections under the existing conditions. Notably, the draft EIR found only one significant impact for traffic – deterioration of service at the intersection of Mary Avenue and Maude Avenue – and that impact was reduced to less than significant. The noise analysis in the draft EIR was also problematic. For instance, the city did not compare potential noise impacts with the project versus noise impacts without the project. Instead, the EIR concluded that the project would be responsible for a traffic noise level increase of less than one decibel above the 24-hour average of noise levels expected as a result of general plan build-in 2020 traffic volumes. Such an increase would not be measurable or exceed the threshold for noise and, thus, the city concluded the project would not result in significant noise impacts. However, the EIR did not analyze the project's traffic-related noise impacts on the existing environment. Additionally, the court found the air quality impacts were not properly analyzed. The draft EIR stated that the project would accommodate existing and future traffic, and would not create new traffic. The EIR concluded there would not be any significant air quality impacts associated with the project because (1) the project would improve long-term air quality by providing an alternate north-south route, alleviating congestion on some routes, and because (2) carbon monoxide would not exceed standards along Mary Avenue. However, the EIR did not describe existing air quality conditions in the project area so it was impossible to truly ascertain what the project's air quality impacts, the court concluded. Oddly, the growth-inducement section of the EIR indicated that the project would cause growth, and that growth would result in increased traffic, noise, air pollution, and water pollution. Essentially, all of the EIR's flaws were based on an improper baseline. The appellate court highlighted a peer review of the draft EIR in which a consultant questioned the baseline because a base year of 2020 could underestimate the impacts of the project, especially if the project were built before 2020. The peer review consultant recommended the draft EIR contain an analysis of existing conditions, which would likely include increased significant impacts that may or may not be mitigated. The appellate court acknowledged that "an agency may exercise its discretion to apply appropriate methodology to determine the ‘baseline' existing conditions." It listed as an example the instance when traffic congestion has temporarily decreased because of an unusually poor economy. In this event, an agency might use historical data and traffic modeling to determine generally existing conditions. Conversely, when evidence indicates traffic levels are expected to increase significantly due to other projects occurring in the area, projected traffic levels as of the expected date of project approval (not construction) may be appropriate. In response to the city's argument that the proposed road extension warranted a different analysis because it was a "traffic congestion relief project," the court noted that there is no provision of CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines that allows roadway infrastructure to be evaluated differently than other projects. "The statute requires the impact of any proposed project to be evaluated against a baseline of existing environmental conditions, which is the only way to identify the environmental effects specific to the project alone," Justice Franklin D. Elia wrote for the court. The court emphasized that road infrastructure projects aimed at reducing regional traffic problems can still have growth-inducing impacts with indirect adverse impacts on the environment and could have adverse environmental impacts in the immediate vicinity, such as localized increases in traffic, noise and air pollution, which need to be analyzed by comparing the proposed project to existing conditions. The court held that while deviations for the normal baseline standard of existing conditions may be permitted, the record in this case did not contain substantial evidence to support a deviation. Specifically, the court stated that a project manager's comments in writing and at a public hearing regarding why the city selected 2020 as its baseline did not constitute substantial evidence because "the year of the anticipated project completion was merely a guestimate." Ultimately, the court decided that the city's failure to analyze the project's impacts based on existing conditions constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion. "While the analyses using the projected traffic conditions in 2020 certainly adds valuable information to the EIR, they are not a substitute for evaluating the project's traffic and related impacts on the existing conditions," Elia wrote. "Without a straightforward assessment of the project's full impact on existing conditions, the EIR process does not service its core informational purpose." The Case: Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Association v. City of Sunnyvale , No. H035135, 2010 DJDAR 18843. Filed December 16, 2010. The Lawyers: For Sunnyvale West: Alexander T. Henson, (831) 659-4100. For the city: David E. Kahn and Kathryn A. Berry, Office of the City Attorney, (408) 730-7464.

A case involving the relationship of the Subdivision Map Act with the Coastal Act and Mello Act has been accepted for review by the state Supreme Court. Last year, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that a section of the Subdivision Map Act governing the conversion of mobile home parks to residential subdivisions (specifically, Government Code § 66427.5) did not pre-empt the restrictions of the Coastal Act and the Mello Act. The Coastal Act seeks to protect natural resources along the coast, while the Mello Act attempts to prevent coastal exclusivity by ensuring a supply of low- and moderate-income housing in the coastal zone. In  Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v City of Los Angeles , the court ruled that the conversion of a 170-unit mobile home park in which spaces are rented to a subdivision of individually owned spaces was subject to both the Coastal Act and Mello Act (see CP&DR  Legal Digest , September 15-30, 2010 ). Because compliance with those statutes could hinder the conversion, the property owner turned to the state high court. The state Supreme Court framed two issues for review: (1)  Do the Mello Act and the California Coastal Act apply to the conversion of a mobile home park to resident ownership if the park is located within the coastal zone? (2) Do the limits imposed by Government Code § 66427.5 on the scope of a hearing on an application for conversion of such a mobile home park prohibit the local authority from requiring compliance with the Mello Act and the Coastal Act? Attorneys are still briefing the case, and no date has been set for oral argument. The case is  Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates v. City of Los Angeles , No. S187243.

A state appellate court has found that a provision of the Palo Alto municipal code requiring a 60-day delay prior to the issuance of a demolition permit did not render the permit approval a discretionary act requiring environmental review. The city properly treated the demolition permit as ministerial and exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled. The ruling came in the long controversy over the fate of the Juana Briones House, the central portion of which was built during the 1840s as an adobe. The structure was built by Juana Briones de Miranda, a successful businesswoman and early settler of what became North Beach in San Francisco. The History In 1988, the owners of the Juana Briones House entered into a historic preservation contract with the City of Palo Alto pursuant to the Mills Act (Government Code, § 50280  et seq .) for a rolling 10-year term. The Mills Act provides property tax abatement in exchange for the owner's agreement to restrict the use of a historic or architecturally significant property. The city had designated the house a historic landmark the previous year. However, the Loma Prieta earthquake caused structural damage to the house in 1989, and the owners were unable to finance repairs. The house was sold to Daniel and Suzanne Meub, who renovated the house without securing permits and in violation of the Mills Act. In 1996, Jaim Nulman and Avelyn Welczer purchased the house. After a year of unsuccessful negotiations with the city over property restoration, Nulman and Welczer informed the city that they would not renew their Mills Act contract and applied for a demolition permit in 1998. Litigation Commences When the city denied the permit, Nulman and Welczer requested a hearing. After the city refused to conduct a hearing, the property owners filed a lawsuit demanding the city either give them a hearing or grant the demolition permit. They also sought relief from further obligations under the Mills Act. The city cross-complained for enforcement of the Mills Act. The Santa Clara County Superior Court issued a writ of mandate compelling the city to conduct a hearing. The city appealed and the Sixth District upheld the lower court ruling in an unpublished decision. The city's director of planning and community environment conducted the hearing in early 2007. He determined the project was ministerial and, therefore, not subject to CEQA, and he issued the demolition permit. A group called Friends of Juana Briones House filed a lawsuit challenging the demolition permit approval. The trial court found for the group on the grounds that the demolition permit was discretionary and, thus, subject to CEQA. Nulman and Welczer appealed. Palo Alto Municipal Code § 16.49.070 provides that a permit to demolish a historic structure outside of the downtown area "(a) requires a permit application and imposes a 60-day moratorium period, (b) requires referral to the city's Architectural Review Board or Historical Resources Board, and (c) permits an extension of the moratorium for up to one year." The property owners argued the section does not grant the city any discretion to decide whether to issue the permit or to determine how the demolition is carried out. Issuing the permit is a purely ministerial act, they argued. Under CEQA, only discretionary actions are subject to environmental review. Friends argued the mandatory moratorium in section (a) qualifies the ordinance as discretionary because it gives the city time to consider alternatives. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Sixth District found that under the Municipal Code the issuance of the demolition permit was ministerial because the decision involved only the use of fixed standards or objective measurements, and the city did not have the authority to impose conditions on approval of the permit that would render it discretionary. Fixed Standards The court distinguished the case from  San Diego Trust & Savings Bank v. Friends of Gill , (1981) 121 Cal. App.3d 203, in which demolition permits were found to be discretionary solely because the San Diego Municipal Code authorized a demolition delay. In  Friends of Gill , the relevant municipal code section required the city to investigate and confer with responsible parties, attempt to secure alternatives where appropriate, and take necessary steps for the preservation of the historical site. In comparison, Palo Alto Municipal Code § 16.49.070 requires no exercise of discretion by the city. This court concluded that the phrase imposing a delay on the issuance of the demolition permit did not cause the permit to be discretionary. " n agency's ability to impose delay does not make its decision discretionary," Justice Richard McAdams wrote for the court. Because there is no choice for the agency, the action is ministerial, he wrote. Conditions of Approval The city imposed six conditions on the approval of the permit, including the filing of a tree disclosure statement explaining how a significant tree would be protected. The property owners accepted these conditions, which Friends argued was evidence of the city's discretion. However, the court found, " onditions alone do not render a project discretionary." McAdams explained, "The pertinent inquiry is whether the appellants could ‘ legally compel  approval without any changes in the design of its project which might alleviate adverse environmental consequences,' ( Friends of Westwood v. City of Los Angeles  (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 259, 267.) Here, appellants' right to the permit was not dependent on their voluntary concessions, and appellants could have compelled issuance of the demolition permit without them. Appellants' concessions thus do not change the ministerial nature of the permit." The Case: Friends of the Juana Briones House v. City of Palo Alto, No. H033275, 2010 DJDAR 17657. Filed November 22, 2010. The Lawyers: For Friends: Susan Brandt-Hawley, (707) 938-3908. For the property owners: Gregory Klingsporn, Mitchell, Herzog & Klingsporn, (650) 327-7476.

A National Football League team could be playing in downtown Los Angeles in less than five years. So says Tim Leiweke, president of AEG, the development company owned by Phil Anschutz that wants to build a downtown football stadium. Leiweke is pitching the stadium as an extension of the Los Angeles Convention Center that could be open 50 days a year for conventions and other big events, not simply for 10 pro football games. He says the development will be privately funded, but that he expects to get the same CEQA waiver that state lawmakers granted to developer Ed Roski Jr. for a proposed football stadium in Industry. The proposed stadium would generate a great deal of other investment in downtown Los Angeles with 25,000 new jobs as the upshot, according to Leiweke. He also promises a "green" stadium that would need little additional parking because of the proximity of the region's expanding transit system. (Our friends at The Planning Report recently reprinted portions of a presentation Leiweke gave to the Valley Industry and Commerce Association and which you may read here: http://www.planningreport.com ) My initial reaction is to call BS. First, I'm skeptical of the potential design because I don't want to see another L.A. Live--another AEG project--in the same neighborhood. We've been very hard on L.A. Live because it's an exclusive, anti-urban project in the downtown of the nation's second largest city. Second, I don't believe the football stadium will go forward without public subsidies of some kind. Fee waivers, tax abatements, free infrastructure, something will be expected, and we all know how eager elected officials are to do favors for the NFL . Third, we shouldn't get in the habit of exempting massive projects from state law simply because they involve sports. If anyone can afford to play by the rules, it's Phil Anschutz and the NFL. Fourth, there's a grand and historic football stadium already in place less than two miles away. It's called the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. It's the only stadium to host two Olympic games, and it has been the home of USC's pro football team forever. For reasons I don't understand, the NFL thinks it is above the Coliseum. All that said� I love the idea of a downtown football stadium. Seriously. The biggest drawback to the proposed stadium in Industry is its overwhelmingly suburban nature. It would be one more gigantic attraction to which everyone would drive in an area that already has soul-crushing traffic congestion. And the stadium would not have a friendly relationship with anything around it other than the proposed retail and entertainment complex that was also exempted from CEQA. A football stadium at the south end of downtown L.A. could be a great urban project. It could further activate a rebounding part of the city that is close to hotels, dining, nightclubs and services. There's already good transit service and people would use it if AEG truly doesn't build a ton more parking. Making the stadium an extension of the Los Angeles Convention Center would be a brilliant stroke, as the convention center is an underused facility that can't handle the biggest conventions. The possibility also exists that the stadium would force L.A. Live to open up, because AEG is going to want to create inviting connections between the stadium and L.A. Live's restaurants and hotels. I'll be the first to concede the difficulty of working an 80,000-seat football stadium into a city's urban fabric. If the stadium is walled off, physically or virtually, it becomes a dead zone. Also, I question whether a facility that's open even 50 days a year would be enough to trigger development of a bunch of new hotels and other amenities, as Leiweke indicates. Even if he is right, I wonder if downtown L.A. would not be better off with some new high-rise apartment buildings and a couple more supermarkets. Yes, the project has myriad pitfalls, but I'm getting off track. This is a project that has great promise. It's a potential game changer (pardon the pun) for Los Angeles that deserves serious consideration. Now, let's make sure everyone gets a look at the details before some backroom deal is done. � Paul Shigley

When 5.7 million people say they want to shield local funding from grabbing hands – as they did in November -- that should be the end of the story. At least, that's what California's redevelopment agencies would hope after this  annus horribilis  in the redevelopment world. First the State Legislature ordered the transfer of $2.05 billion in tax increment, with the majority paid this past May and the balance due this coming May. As a result, redevelopment staff were laid off, projects went dormant, and agencies are wallowing in debt. "In three or four years we'll be in a very good financial position," said Harry Mavorgenes, Executive Director of the San Jose Redevelopment Agency. "But surviving the next year or two is going to be the challenge."  "Surviving" is how just about every other redevelopment official describes the coming year. The passage of Proposition 22, the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety, and Transportation Protection Act, has pulled redevelopment away from the brink of a nervous breakdown.  It forbids any further transfers like this year's State's Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (SERAF) payment, which was earmarked last year for school use and next year for funding trial courts. But members of the redevelopment community, especially those at the California Redevelopment Association, are not yet ready to let down their guard. "Do I think people in the Capitol try to find ways around Prop 22? Certainly I do," said CRA Executive Director John Shirey. "There's no end of creativity under the dome.  I am sure there are people both in the Legislature and in the Department of Finance to get around it." Agencies are not resting easy either. "It is a weight off our shoulders, but I am not comfortable that it's going to remain in place for more than a few years," said Long Beach Redevelopment Director Amy Bodek.  "The way the California Legislature is dealing with the budget is pretty abysmal, and they're going to look for band-aid approaches in the future." On the one hand, the CRA has appealed the May court ruling by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly that affirmed the legality of Assembly trailer bill ABX 426 and hopes that a victory will lead to a wholesale refund. On the other hand, the CRA has told its members to prepare to pay up in May, especially because nobody knows when the ruling will come out. And the later it comes out, the more the situation turns in favor of the state. "My sense is the state's going to drag this on," said Mavorgenes. "Because once we send the money over there, it's going to be very hard to get it back." If the 2011 payment goes through, it will be a symbol of what Shirey considers the dysfunction of the State Legislature. ABX 426 was passed under the premise that redevelopment funds would at least be earmarked for local schools but in designating the next payment for trial courts, it has become all the more evident that the funding take was simply a matter of offsetting the state's enormous general fund deficit. "It was clear all along that the reason they took redevelopment money was to simply balance the state budget," said Shirey. "It didn't have anything to do with some motive to help education." That analysis gets little argument from officials in Sacramento. "Everyone understands the financial implications of the financial shift," said Marianne O'Malley, director of General Government at the California Legislative Analyst's Office. "No one is pretending that the transaction occurred for reasons other than to offset state General Fund costs."  Nonetheless, this year's payment has already set up what some in the redevelopment community are saying could turn into a showdown between redevelopment and education interests in the state. In a Dec. 13 update on the CRA website, Shirey noted that the California Teachers Association, which opposed Prop. 22, may be mounting a campaign to once again make redevelopment monies available for schools. CTA spokesperson Sandra Jackson said that the CTA board has not met since October and therefore has come out with no official statement on Prop. 22's passage. Redevelopment officials say, though, that given the state's fiscal situation, all interest groups should be seeking a long-term solution from Sacramento. "If all we're going to do is fight like wild dogs over the same small bone, I don't think that anyone's going to be getting ahead," said Scott Ochoa, city manager and redevelopment director of Monrovia. Even aside from a fight to get around Prop. 22, Shirey said that this year will be "a very difficult year legislatively." He said that the scandal in the City of Bell, an unfavorable audit of the use of housing funds, and unflattering stories in the  Los Angeles Times  have put a target on redevelopment. He said that the CRA will likely introduce its own legislation designed to acknowledge problems such as misuse of housing funds. "We intend to have our own reform legislation introduced in January because we just simply think that we should take seriously the issues that are laid out in that report.  We can make some changes in law that might encourage our agencies to do a better job. We can't defend agencies that are spending 50-100 percent on planning and admin."   He also said that CRA will try to revive AB 2531 which was vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger. That bill was designed to broaden the abilities of the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency to aid job creation and undertake other economic development activities not directly related to land use. Until those solutions arise, many agencies remain in dire straits. Perhaps surprisingly, the some of the least desperate agencies are those few that refused to make their SERAF payment this year. ABX 426 imposes a so-called "death penalty" on agencies that do not pay, meaning that they are not allowed to embark on any new projects. However, agencies—including those in Monrovia, Placentia, and Richmond—that are in violation say that the state has yet to take any action and that it's largely business as usual. "As we moved forward throughout the year and nothing happened to us, the state didn't contact us…we became less concerned," said Placentia City Administrator Troy Butzlaff. "Maybe this whole thing would be reversed and we wouldn't have to make this payment at all." Butzlaff noted that his agency has had to cut back on acquisitions and may not be able to assemble parcels for a planned commuter rail station. However, by proceeding with current projects—and not going into debt—these agencies hope to raise enough new funds that they will be able to make their 2011 SERAF payment in due time. Thus, they hope to clear themselves before the "death penalty" would even become a factor. "I think at the end of the day, what the state wants is money," said Ochoa. "When we get ours, you'll get yours. And I think that's probably good enough." While other agencies have had to pay tens of millions of dollars, Ochoa said that his city's refusal to pay was not influenced by peer pressure, nor has it prompted any. "It was kind of a novelty when the story first broke," said Ochoa. "I don't think that anyone begrudges us. I don't know that anybody admires us. People do what they have to do when they're in crisis." For those agencies that did abide by ABX 426, the year ahead looks only marginally brighter than the one now ending. One of the more common methods of paying their SERAF payments was for agencies to borrow against their affordable housing set-aside funds. These "loans" have to be repaid within five years, meaning that even if Prop. 22 prevents further takes, the SERAF has become more than a two-year issue. "While the budget impact was over two years, the effective impact for us is going to be over 7 years," said Long Beach's Bodek. In some parts of the state where economic fundamentals are looking weak, redevelopment agencies are expecting neither to increase their revenues nor embark on the sort of projects that, proponents say, enables redevelopment to spur local economies. In some places, agencies are focusing on job-creation and not even on development or infrastructure. Private developers are, officials say, essentially on their own. "If we do anything, it's going to be strictly private financing without any redevelopment assistance" said Gus Duran, interim director of the Stockton Redevelopment Agency. The Central Valley has been hit especially hard. Duran said that his agency wants to rehabilitate some historic hotels in the city's downtown but that doing so is a long way off. "I think it's going to be five to ten years, especially for Stockton," said Duran. "It costs us just as much to rehab a building here as it would in the Bay Area, but the incomes are not here for people to buy or rent those apartments." Contacts & Resources Amy Bodek, Executive Director, Long Beach Redevelopment Agency, (562) 570-6615 Gus Duran, Interim Director, Stockton Redevelopment Department, (209) 937-8539 Harry Mavorgenes, Executive Director, San Jose Redevelopment Agency, (408) 535-8500 Scott Ochoa, City Manager, City of Monrovia, (626) 932-5501 Marianne O'Mally, Director of General Government, California Legislative Analyst's Office (916) 319-8315 John Shirey, Executive Director, California Redevelopment Association  www.calredevelop.org , (916) 448-8760.

This week Governor-elect Jerry Brown's office announced that the incoming governor would take part-time residence in the Eliot Building in Downtown Sacramento upon taking office in January. The incoming governor's new digs, on the busy intersection of 16th Street (historic Highway 160) and J Streets, was one of the first modern mixed use projects in Sacramento. Bordering the unofficial boundaries of Sacramento's Downtown and Midtown areas, the former Chevrolet dealership was rehabbed by LoftWorks and Fulcrum Property in 2003 to create an 18-unit project with 11,000 sq. ft. of ground floor retail and 11,000 sq. ft of office space. The Governor-elect is expected to reside in a modest 1,450 sq. ft one-bedroom apartment – unfurnished for now.  Although he intends to keep his home in Oakland, he is the first Governor in recent times to establish residence close to the capital since 1967, when Ronald and Nancy Reagan moved from the Governor's Mansion on 16 th  and H, now a State Historic Park.** In the 1970s during his first stint as Governor, Jerry Brown lived in a sparse studio across the street from the Capitol building – reflective of his Jesuit training and overall economic aesthete. It was not motivated by desires to revitalize a blighted community, or encourage smart growth; rather, it was a practical and no-frills statement. In an age when politicians often say one thing and do another, Brown's choice of residence reflects a refreshing consistency. Brown's interest in revitalization and redevelopment was most prominent as mayor of Oakland, including his "10K" campaign to populate Downtown Oakland with 10,000 new residents, pushing policies forward to allow for higher density redevelopment projects, and even rehabbing a warehouse near the Jack London waterfront in 1995, which served as both a communal residence for him and eight others and nonprofit office space. As governor, Brown is likely to continue to push an urban agenda, using CEQA and other tools to encourage growth in infill areas and discourage growth in greenfield areas, including increased focus on SB 375 implementation, as noted in an October 2010 CPDR  blog . These days, it appears that the Governor-elect continues to embrace his urbanist leanings, and although he has stated that he doesn't intend to do much after-hours bar-hopping, the activity on the street might be attractive to Brown. Using the ubiquitous  Walkscore  tool,  frequently used by planners as a metric  for identifying walkability of an address based on proximity to amenities and transit access, Brown's new digs will have a walkscore of 95 – actually the highest neighborhood score in Sacramento. Brown's previous urban residences generated lower walkscores (89 and 94 in his two lofts in Downtown Oakland), and 15 in his current home in the Oakland Hills area (approximated). From a convenience perspective, Brown will be settling down within five blocks from his office at the State Capitol – with eateries, household services, small grocery stores, and even other residents – also a short walking distance from his new home. Brown joins the numerous state legislators, staffers, and even Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson – all urban dwellers within close distance to their workplaces. This  Los Angeles Times'  article  describes the immediate area as "at the intersection of two busy thoroughfares in the heart of what passes for a hip downtown. There's a sushi spot downstairs and a fancified burger joint down the block that offers Mac-N-Cheese as a topping." Which always leads us to think about what makes a neighborhood trendy? Is it the urbanity of people living and working in the same areas, or the toppings on a burger? Is Brown's choice of a smaller dwelling in a higher-density project a sign of his interest in encouraging smart growth, or one of mere convenience? Probably both. I s Brown being trendy or merely following the mainstream? Will the term "hipster" refer to hip replacements rather than a guy in skinny jeans and a tumblr account? (Although CPDR hasn't checked to see if JB is on tumblr yet…) Hopefully it is less of a "trend" and more of a general option for those seeking to live a more compact lifestyle. R regardless, Brown's preference for urban places and walkable commutes to the office is to be commended. - - CPDR's Sacramento Bureau **Governor Schwarzenegger occasionally stayed at the Hyatt Regency hotel in Sacramento (across from the Capital building) during the week, however most nights, Schwarzenegger chartered flights back to Los Angeles, at his own expense.

In Year Three of the Great Recession, it's comforting to think that California has heard all the bad news it's going to hear. Or at least we're so accustomed to bad news, that we've stopped getting depressed by it. As a result, many of this year's top stories come with silver linings. The no-growth vs. slow-growth vs. build-everything debate has become a faint murmur, since not much of anything is getting built anyway. What is getting built, though, is generally pleasing to the smart growth crowd. Fans of infrastructure development have surely cheered the progress on projects like High Speed Rail and Los Angeles Metro's 30/10 Initiative. Then again, skeptics may be assuring themselves that these projects will never get built. The impacts of SB 375 are a long way off, but the Air Resources Board managed to set targets that many consider to be attainable and reasonable. The movement to mitigate climate change survived a scare from Prop. 23, which would have curtailed SB 375's sister legislation, AB 32: The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Redevelopment took perhaps the biggest hit this year, with a court ruling in favor of a $2.05 billion funding transfer and some scathing reports and news stories about inefficiency and alleged misuse of affordable housing funds. Then again, voters approved Prop. 22, thus protecting local funds and affirming their distaste for Sacramento's use of local governments as piggy banks. With that, here are the  California Planning & Development Report's  Ten Most Important Land Use Stories of 2010: High Speed Rail It's been slow-going for High Speed Rail. While nary an inch of track has yet to be laid, high speed rail has spread its tentacles across the state, into places that are dying to welcome it (Fresno, Bakersfield, the rest of the Central Valley) to places that would prefer that travel be replaced by iPhone video conference (Menlo Park, Atherton, Palo Alto). Where it will go, what it will cost, and how to pay for it -- even with billions in federal stimulus funds -- have dominated conversations in both land use and transportation planning circles. Locally, cities have begun to plan for downtown stations that would serve as catalysts for development. But for all that $40 billion worth of talk, some say we're going to end up going from  nowhere to nowhere http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-2826  -- fast. Redevelopment Funding Raid/Proposition 22 According to many in the redevelopment community, the Legislature signed the death warrant for many redevelopment agencies in 2009, and this year a judge refused to grant a stay of execution. In May, Judge Lloyd Connelly ruled that ABX 4-26, the budget trailer bill that authorized the transfer, was in fact legal and that the Legislature could order the transfer of $2.05 billion from local redevelopment agencies to the state. Most agencies delivered the payment by the May 10 due date. Many of them had to summarily halt all activities requiring public funds that were not already budgeted with the funding take in mind. The California Redevelopment Association battled back by successfully prompting Prop. 22, and it has taken its suit to stop the take to the Third District Court of Appeals. Until that court rules, many agencies feel like they are on Death Row. Los Angeles County 30/10 Transportation Funding Initiative So little development is going on in California's cities these days that you can probably rent a crane and cement mixer for about the price of a ham sandwich. That's one of the many reasons why folks in Los Angeles County are excited about the so-called "30/10" plan that's been promoted by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. 30/10 seeks to complete 30 years' worth of transportation projects in just a decade, financed by an up-front $40 billion loan from the federal government using the county's Measure R sales tax to repay the loan over time. The plan would initiate miles of subway, light rail, and freeway construction all at once, with the intent of giving county residents easier ways to move around and promoting transit-oriented development along high-traffic corridors. Many say that it might even turn Los Angeles into a  more "urban" city  http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-2752 . Embattled Mayor Villaraigosa also hopes that it will resurrect a legacy that is otherwise full of charm, enthusiasm, and unfulfilled promises. Proposition 26 Will it kill cities' ability to raise funds through fees, or won't it? That debate will continue as local officials and lawyers sort out all the implications of Prop. 26, but the voters' intent seems clear: now, as ever, they are skeptical of any kind of new tax. It's likely, however, that a  slew of exemptions  http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-2827 will lessen Prop. 26's impact on land use. Slow Housing Development The crater in residential development isn't so much a story as it is a way of life at this point. Nevertheless, anyone who was expecting a boom has been disappointed. Construction remains anemic, and  developers  http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-2823  remain anxious. At least, the ones who are still developers are scared. Many have left the business entirely. Infill development, however, may be a saving grace for those developers who already have a toehold in center cities or who are nimble enough to change their business model. Beyond the developers' plight, many are concerned that in some areas -- notably the Central Valley and Inland Empire -- anemic development means that SB 375 and local plans oriented towards smart growth will never make it off the drawing board. SB 375 Targets Two years ago, the passage of SB 375 was  CP&DR's top story of 2008  http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-2221 . It marked a fundamental shift in the way that the state approached regional planning and promised to offer profound co-benefits relating to both greenhouse gas emissions and livability. But it takes a while to turn principle into policy. This September the California Air Resources Board finally announced its  regional greenhouse gas targets  http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-2797 , thus initiating the actual implementation of SB 375. Some environmentalists felt that the targets -- 7% in San Diego, Sacramento, and the Bay Area, and 8% in the five-county Los Angeles area -- did too little, and noted that a per capita reduction in greenhouse gas emissions still could lead to an overall  increase in emissions  http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-2715 . Others feared that SB 375 would stifle developers or require Soviet-style urban relocation programs. The overwhelming consensus, however, was that the targets came from an unusually rigorous vetting process, marking a new day for regional planning in the state, if not the country. Governor-Elect Jerry Brown When former Governor Jerry Brown first came to office, in the midst of a punishing recession, Californians were enveloped in a new environmental ethos and concerned about everything from gas-guzzling cars to emerging solar power technologies. They lived in cities that were imperfect but vibrant places and the suburbs were still developing their identities. He acquired a funny nickname. When Governor-elect Jerry Brown comes to office, in the mist of a punishing recession, Californians will be enveloped in a new environmental ethos and concerned about everything from gas-guzzling cars to emerging solar power technologies. They live in cities that are imperfect but vibrant places and the suburbs that are still developing their identities. He succeeds a governor with a funny nickname. One major difference that may give planners pause is that for all the things that have stayed the same, Brown now arrives with local government experience. Credited by many with stoking a modest revival in Oakland, Californians have reason to believe that the  new old governor  http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-2802  will pay more attention to cities than ever before. Gail Goldberg Steps Down in L.A. The departure of a single city's planning director doesn't usually have statewide implications, except when it reflects the zeitgeist of an entire profession.  Gail Goldberg stepped down  http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-2713  from the top post at the Los Angeles Department of City Planning in July, thus ending a four-year run that began with nearly infinite promise. One of several star female hires by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Goldberg arrived in L.A. with a promise to "do real planning." She saw promise in the city's neighborhoods and never once succumbed to the clich� that L.A. is an unplannable mess. The real mess, she found, was in the department itself, which was rife with inefficiency and a bland spirit. Goldberg was succeeded by department insider  Michael LoGrande  http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-2739 , who has promised to make the department more user-friendly, according to a business-inspired model. Meanwhile, Goldberg's energy, optimism, and visions for a "city of villages" appear to have been put on the shelf. Walkscore and Web-Based Planning The capacities of websites have advanced so quickly that terminology like "Web 2.0" (or is it 3.0?) or "mashup" now seem hopelessly quaint. Even urban planners should simply expect that the next great advance will happen any day now. In fact, it just did. While the popularity of the Walkscore city-rating website -- a mashup of urban data with a metric for assessing pedestrian-friendliness -- is not a story per se, planners cannot ignore its influence. Case in point: Publisher Bill Fulton's blog about Walkscore was the single  most-read story  http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-2592  on  CP&DR  all year. Walkscore uses both sophisticated data and appealing graphics to put into layman's terms many things that planners have struggled to articulate. And in case you thought Walkscore was cool back in February, check out the new  neighborhood-level ratings  http://www.planetizen.com/articles/node-47154  that came out last month. Planning Department Budget Cuts On the plus side, there's not much development for  planning departments  http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-2662  to worry about. On the negative side, revenues are down, from both fees and general funds, and planning departments have had to let go of enormous fractions of their workforces, through everything from early retirement to outright layoffs. Some departments see this lull as a good chance to work on long-term plans, while others find little solace in reductions of up to 40 percent of their planning capacity. -- CP&DR  Staff