Get ready for the Great Eminent Domain War of 2008. Jim Madaffer, the San Diego city councilmember who's the incoming president of the League of California Cities, traveled all the way to Ventura Friday – by train – to encourage local elected officials from the Central Coast to help collect signatures for the League's eminent domain initiative. The League's measure is an alternative to a measure being circulated by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. The League's measure – which failed to pass the Legislature this year – would prohibit eminent domain on owner-occupied housing. The Jarvis measure includes a much more sweeping eminent domain prohibition, along with restrictions on zoning similar to those contained in Proposition 90 – and a prohibition on rent control as well. Proposition 90 lost by 5 points in 2006 , even though there was a significant campaign against it and little campaign for it. Because the League was unable to get the measure on the ballot through the Legislature, League officials are now scrambling to gather signatures. At the Friday night event, Madaffer said the League is asking each local elected official in the state to collect 50 to 100 signatures – mostly as a way to reduce the cost of the signature-gathering campaign, which is expected to cost upwards of $3-5 million. (The Madaffer plan would gather between 100,000 and 200,000 signatures at no cost to the campaign.) The League is making a big stink out of the idea that the Jarvis association played ball in the Legislature, then bailed – a "bait and switch," Madaffer called it – before the Legislature passed the limited eminent domain initiative. This required the League and its allies to, first, decide whether to mount its own initiative – a Yes/No campaign instead of a No campaign, as Madaffer put it – and, second, gather a lot of signatures in a short period of time for their own initiative. Meanwhile, the Jarvis measure has the backing of a large range of property owners, including landlords, because of its expansive provisions. Madaffer scored "smart growth points" with Central Coast electeds for riding the train. (He boasted about "getting a lot of work done" on the five-hour ride.) But he admitted that he was not well-briefed about his itinerary in Ventura, and hailed a cab – which someone else had called ahead to obtain – for the 600-yard trip from the Amtrak station to the Crowne Plaza Hotel. He apologized and said he easily could have pulled his roller-bag down Harbor Boulevard if only he had known. Plus he would have gotten a pretty good tour of locations that have become famous because of the movie Little Miss Sunshine, in which Ventura played the role of Redondo Beach. - Bill Fulton

The housing market slowdown appears to be running straight into the state's new flood control laws. It makes one wonder which way Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is close to homebuilders, will turn when the collision occurs. Schwarzenegger signed a collection of six bills aimed at limiting urban development in flood-prone areas of the Central Valley on Wednesday. Ironically, on the same day, backers of a San Joaquin County project that helped spur the bills — partly because of Schwarzenegger's interference — said their development is on hold because of the flat housing market. The project is River Islands in the City of Lathrop, about 10 miles south of Stockton. As approved by the city in 2003 , River Islands would have 11,000 housing units a 325-acre "employment center" and a mixed-use town center 4,800 acres along the San Joaquin River. The city approved the project even though floodwaters had inundated the site six years earlier. The developer, the Cambay Group, said it would prevent future flooding by building 300-foot-wide levees known as "high ground" and by strengthening other levees. Still, the project needed the approval of the obscure Sate Reclamation Board. After the board and its staff asked hard questions, Schwarzenegger dumped the board and appointed all new members. River Islands soon had its permit. River Islands is not dead. The British-funded developer is in it for the longer term and continues to build infrastructure in anticipation of future housing. But would the project have been approved if provisions in the six new flood bills had been effective in 2003? Probably not. The primary reason is not the legislation's new requirement for 200-year flood protection and general plan hazard policies. The primary reason is liability. One of the bills signed on Wednesday is AB 70, by Assemblyman Dave Jones (D-Sacramento). Although the language is a bit vague, AB 70's premise is this: If a city or county approves development on a flood-prone farmland protected by a state levee, the city or county is partially liable should that development flood. The legislation came in response to a 2003 Court of Appeal decision that said the state was solely liable for property damage caused by the 1986 failure of a levee in Yuba County, a decision that ultimately cost the state $500 million. The Jones bill is effective only until 2015, when other legislation requiring general plan policies and 200-year flood protection takes effect. The League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties opposed AB 70 because they see it as a poison pill. If AB 70 had been in place four years ago, would the Lathrop City Council have approved 11,000 houses on real estate that was underwater only six years earlier? At the time of approval, Lathrop's mayor brushed aside flood issues by saying they were the state and federal government's problem. But if the city were liable for property damage from a future flood, that thinking changes. Property damage from only one flood could easily bankrupt the city. AB 70 aside, would River Islands survive under other bills signed on Wednesday? Again, probably not. The cornerstone of this year's flood legislation is SB 5 by Sen. Mike Machado (D-Linden). Among other things, the bill requires the state to prepare a Central Valley flood protection plan by 2012, and for cities and counties to incorporate the plan's data, policies and implementation measures into general plans and zoning ordinances by 2015. It's hard to imagine how a flood protection plan for the entire region — by which Lathrop would have to abide — could allow development on the River Islands tracts. The property is adjacent to a river that has a history of flooding, and lies upstream of the City of Stockton and on the edge of the Bay Delta. Yes, the developers could probably spend enough money on levees to protect their project from floodwaters. But that only sends floodwaters into Stockton and the fragile Delta more quickly — a prospect that a regionwide plan would likely discourage. Love it or hate it, River Islands is here to stay. The project actually has a pretty intriguing land use plan . But under the new rules approved by Schwarzenegger, the project is possibly the last of its kind. That was the point of the legislation. For a more complete rundown on the bills, check our recent story " Lawmakers Approve Flood Measures ." - Paul Shigley

There were lots of highlights, and some lowlights, at my first state planning conference. Here I list the best and the worst of my experience at the California Chapter, American Planning Association conference last week in San Jose. I'll let you decide which is a highlight and which is a lowlight. 1. Flew up Monday morning (October 1) after playing musical chairs to get a seat in Southwest Airline's "open seating." I was surprised the cab driver from the airport knew San Jose was the 10th largest city in the country. 2. Arrived just in time to sit down to a self-appreciating speech by Carl Guardino, president and CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. San Jose has made great strides to produce affordable units, but I didn't think his outfit was as great as he kept saying it was. 3. Went to "Successful Infill Projects – Past Present and Future," where William Anderson showed us a bunch of projects in San Diego. The city is going for a "City of Villages" strategy. He said wide sidewalks and lenient parking requirements are the keys to successful infill. Anderson cautioned that "right-size density" is important and that some projects with too much density have made them infeasible. A flourishing redevelopment district hinges upon the success of failure of the projects proposed. The City of Villages plan has been percolating for many years, as Bill Fulton's Insight column from 2002 suggests. 4. Meandered over to "'Ground-truthing' Smart Growth and New Urbanist Developments." I sat down in one of the only available seats in the front and thought I was in the wrong room for about ten minutes while I was lectured on permeable surface pavements. I finally noticed "Groundtruthing" was in quotes and this was basically another LEED workshop. Sarah Sutton of DC&E spoke inspiringly about green rooftops. She mentioned they're great for birds and butterflies and I started thinking about how green roofs wouldn't need to be mowed if there were deer on them. Go to stopwaste.org and follow the Bay Friendly Landscaping link to learn more about green roofs. 5. Who'd have thunk a workshop about parking would be the most entertaining of the conference. "Smart Parking for Smart Communities" opened with the most creative PowerPoint I've seen when Dr. Rick Willson of Cal Poly Pomona played the role of a disheveled car who is homeless and confused by new pushy regulations with "unbundling" and "peak demand." Distraught with the system, Dr. Willson, the car, went to his therapist to hear, "It's probably you." Then Dan Zack of Redwood City explained how he read Dr. Donald Shoup's book, The High Cost of Free Parking, and used it to model the city's downtown parking strategy. Patrick Kennedy, a well-known developer from Berkeley, later commented that Zack was the Tom Cruise of parking and that the Italians don't make very good parking lifts. Dr. Willson's "My Homeless Car" PowerPoint can be found at his website, http://www.csupomona.edu/~rwwillson/ and Redwood City's parking management plan can be found at http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/Downtown%20Redwood%20City%20Parking%20Plan.pdf . Patrick Kennedy's website is www.panoramicinterests.com/index2.html . check out the ARTech Building with 21 apartments and only 17 parking spaces fitted with lifts. 6. The next workshop was "Implementing Infill Development: Moving Beyond CEQA." But the discussion never strayed too far from CEQA and EIRs. There was plenty of talk about statutes and tiering. The purveying message seemed to be that LEED certification should be enough to streamline infill projects, but I wondered about other important stuff like affordable housing and proximity to transit. 7. The next morning I attended "Smart Growth and the Workplace," an excellent tag-team presentation by Ellen Greenberg and Dena Belzer. California doesn't have the same traditional strong-centered metropolitan employment areas as the East Coast. So, in order to obtain the vibrant, dense transit corridors with a variety of services that serve as the template for great smart growth design, the West Coast needs to look beyond the "creative class" of the new economy and also target older industries and retail for smart growth clusters to be linked by transit. 8. Form-based codes seemed like a black-box to me so I decided to attend "Implementing Your Community's Vision with Form-Based Code." Daniel and Karen Parolek presented detailed descriptions of how form-based codes provide holistic and prescriptive regulations that can be used to streamline the approval process. Daniel said every time he looks at how specific districts plug into the city of Grass Valley's form-based code he finds something new. It made me wonder about unintended consequences and what affect form-based codes have on the "givings and takings" associated with zoning. Our own Bill Fulton followed with a witty synopsis of Ventura's implementation of the code for the downtown area. He said rather than dividing the entire city into transects, it is sometimes more efficient to implement the codes only in specific areas. For more on this visit formbasedcodes.org . Grass Valley's new code update is at http://www.cityofgrassvalley.com/services/departments/cdd/DEVELOPMENTCODE/GVDeveloCode041007_Article2.pdf . Ventura's downtown specific plan is at http://www.cityofventura.net/depts/comm_dev/downtownplan/pdfs/dtsp.pdf 9. My last workshop was El Toro/The Great Park: Setting New Standards in Sustainability. I learned that Lennar is the greatest sustainable developer ever, according to Bob Santos, president of Lennar. The park, as envisioned, does sound nice, with photovoltaic solar panels on every home and tentacle-like tracts of open space extending from the park into the town center. It sounds like Lennar is using the development as a guinea pig for integrating sustainability into all of its projects, but I bet new homes in Irvine have a lot more financial wiggle room than Lennar's eight new developments in Bakersfield have. 10. We left the conference a little early to check out Santana Row, a new urbanist development west of downtown. I was impressed and thought it superior to similar developments in Southern California, such as Valencia Town Center. But when we asked a policeman leaning against the wall at the entrance to the main drag if it was a public street, he replied it was not and that the Row has a contract with the police department. One of my counterparts commented the development was "fake" and I didn't believe her until then. Developments like the Row, while aesthetically pleasing, may not be the next best thing for California if they choose what diversity, if any, to permit walking on their streets. The Santana Row website http://www.santanarow.com/ describes the development in more detail, while CP&DR 's Morris Newman offered his take on Santana Row in a Places column four years ago. - Aaron Engstrom

The reactions to our latest downtowns list has been interesting — and telling, because they betray a fundamental misunderstanding of "placemaking." The strongest reactions concern our list of the most disappointing mid-sized city downtowns in California. First, let me say congratulations to the folks in San Bernardino and Redding. Although we still think those downtowns are awful, at least people in those cities reacted with "We've got great plans" (San Bernardino), or "It's better than it used to be" (Redding). When we named Fresno the worst big-city downtown in California earlier this year, we detected not a squeak of protest from anyone. In Chico, whose downtown we ranked third, we were heros, sort of. Check out the Dog's Breakfast blog and comments, and the Bullfight blog and comments. In Redding, the reaction was a bit different, as is evident in this Record Searchlight column and the comments. What's telling is that some people see our list as a ranking of "the city's" efforts — as in, the plans and execution of the people running City Hall. This is where the misunderstanding lies. The work of elected and appointed municipal officials is only one factor in the success or distress of a downtown. Planning, public investment and government leadership are important. But just as important are property owners who are willing to invest, developers with long-term vision, merchants who take a few chances, and hardworking community organizations that have their own pride of ownership. Without all of these pieces, a downtown will suffer to some extent, no matter how well City Hall is doing its job. And if you think we were hard on some cities, check out Sacramento Bee columnist Marcos Breton's Sunday piece on downtown Sacramento, which he calls a "caldron of neglect." Yes, Breton blames City Hall. But he also points the finger at slumlords and apathetic parents. - Paul Shigley

Norman Mineta, possibly the most important transportation policymaker of the last 20 years, closed the 2007 CCAPA Conference on Wednesday with a speech that was less than inspiring. Not that Mineta wasn't entertaining. He told a number of humorous and self-depreciating stories from his 40-year career in public service. But he was speaking to a group dedicated enough to stick around for the fourth and final day of a very full conference. I think they were counting on more from a guy who understands both politics and policy. Mineta was the mayor of San Jose before heading to Congress for more than 20 years. In the House, he was the lead author of the ISTEA and TEA-21 legislation that overhauled federal transportation programs and spending priorities. He was Commerce secretary during the last year of the Clinton Administration and then was the lone Democrat in the Bush cabinet, serving as Transportation secretary from 2001 to 2006. Fairly early in the 25-minute presentation, it appeared Mineta would talk about details. He clearly knew what the planners had been focused on for four days, and he contended that nothing has a greater impact on qualify of life than the ability to get from point A to point B. "You simply cannot have a conversation about transforming the urban fabric without discussing transportation," Mineta said. "Those areas with the strongest transportation systems will thrive the most." Mineta then candidly described President Bush's insistence that the 2005 transportation bill not include any gas tax increase. The president even scratched Mineta's plan for a CPI inflator that would not take effect until Bush was out of office. The former Transportation secretary did not criticize Bush directly but he did say, "Our current approach is broken." He said he we need more public-private partnerships and market-based initiatives — and leadership from groups like the American Planning Association. And that was about it. The audience asked no follow-up questions. A few final notes from the conference … Co-Chairs Juan Borrelli and Hing Wong announced that 1,800 people attended this year's conference, the most ever … … The final half-day of the conference was quite well-attended. In past years, the final session has drawn some embarrassingly small "crowds." This year, however, conference organizers cleverly saved the CEQA update panel for the final morning … … As usual, though, the room for the CEQA update was not large enough to accommodate everyone. It almost never is … … The feather boas handed out by one consulting firm were a bit hit. Twice, I found feathers floating around on Caltrain passenger cars in the evening … … The 2008 CCAPA conference is scheduled for September 21 through 24 at the Renaissance Hollywood Hotel in, yes, Hollywood. - Paul Shigley

The tension between planners and engineers is well-known. Planners have little patience with their counterparts down the hall, and vice-versa. Both sides think the other side doesn't "get it." This tension was the subject of a panel presentation — "Putting Design in the Driver's Seat" — during Tuesday's CCAPA conference in San Jose. Essentially, the planners in the room blamed the engineers for creating ugly streets that carry lots of automobiles and discourage every other potential use of the right-of-way. And engineers, said one planner, are easy compared with fire chiefs who insist that every residential street must be 40 feet wide. But the real theme was that we all can get along if we're all just a little bit flexible, and don't consider guidelines to be mandatory standards. The panel members — Jeff Williams of DC&E, UC Berkeley Professor Elizabeth Macdonald and Christopher Ferrell of Dowling Associates — provided some great resources for planners. (You can find those online resources here .) One of the best resources, though, was the streets of downtown San Jose right outside the Fairmont Hotel. Numerous streets around the conference hotel serve automobiles, light rail and pedestrians quite well. Sycamores, redwoods, ficus and other trees provide shade and visual relief. Many sidewalks are wide enough for outdoor dining. The panel emphasized that the car should not control the landscape. And in downtown San Jose, it doesn't. Just ask all the planners walking around the Fairmont. - Paul Shigley

You can't turn around at this year's CCAPA conference in San Jose without hearing the terms LEED, sustainability, carbon footprint, greehouse gas emissions and zero waste. Forget about floor-area ratios, design review standards and conditional use permits. These people think land use planning can save the world. Clearly, land use planners have gotten the green religion. Every session — heck, every conversation in the hallway — seems to touch on global warming. Monday's sessions specifically on AB 32 (the greenhouse gas law) and climate change were overflowing. Even sessions on dense subjects such as indirect source review were well-attended. The big question for CCAPA attendees is how the need to address global climate change will affect their day-to-day practice vis-a-vis general plans, CEQA conformance and project review. The fear that Jerry Brown will sue every city and county over each and every general plan amendment that doesn't take climate change into account is one big factor. But it's not the only factor. Stuart Cohen, of Transportation and Land Use Collaborative and a member of the Governor's Climate Action Team, said the bigger quetions are about policy and technical work. What policies will emerge from implementation of AB 32? Will local governments be required to quantify emissions from new development projects? How do you compare emissions from different development scenarios? Cohen said the Climate Action Team will likely focus on three things: • Using better planning tools • Shifting money around to promote green goals • Requiring mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from new projects. All of this really comes down to increased air pollution regulation, which means, according to Joe DiStefano of Calthorpe Associates, more pressure to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from every project. And, as Walter Arenstein of Writrac Consulting pointed out, the science of measuring and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions has not advanced much in many years. Clearly, this is all headed toward a far greater emphasis on infill development, mixed-use, public transit and anything else that will decrease vehicle miles traveled. And that means it's going to be far more difficult for NIMBYs to defeat the six-story building proposed next to the local transit station. - Paul Shigley

Downtown San Jose sure has changed since the last time CCAPA was at the Fairmont. That was in 1989, when the Fairmont had just opened up. The idea of a fancy hotel in downtown San Jose – or a fancy anything, for that matter -- was kind of a new idea. Today, the Fairmont's practically a venerable institution compared to the newer cool things, like light-rail and high-density housing and the Adobe "vertical" campus and the excellent "urban interface" between downtown and San Jose State … The opening reception at the Tech Museum featured a lot of planners doing nerdy things (imagine!) like making little water turbines at the exhibits. CP&DR collected a few tidbits as well …. … Rick Willson reports that there's a proposal to eliminate the College of Environmental Design at Cal Poly Pomona (that's the college planning has been in forever) and merge it into a new school that includes agriculture and natural resources. They're not happy about this! … Bill Anderson, the San Diego city planning director, and Planning Commissioner Kathy Garcia report that the city's General Plan – still called "City of Villages" will come before the Planning Commission within a month. Anderson shocked everybody by leaving Economic Research Associates after 23 years to become the planning director, but he seems to be thriving; Bill now oversees planning, economic development, redevelopment, facilities finance, and urban design… Well, it wasn't o ur fault: As the city's redevelopment manager, Shawn Tillman was always downtown Redding's biggest booster. CP&DR , of course, recently rated Redding as having one of California's worst downtowns . But Shawn says he moved on to the City of Chico to be in charge of neighborhood planning three months ago – before we came out with our ratings … And appropriately enough – especially considering yesterday's blog on Warren Jones – a number of California's most distinguished planners adjourned from the Tech Museum last night for their first annual Dan Curtin Memorial Dinner. Everyone in San Jose this week misses Dan … Hands-down best "after-party" last night was the Civic Solutions casino night at The Montgomery – which included not just blackjack but also some pretty ferocious bocce ball … Receptions we've heard about … Tonight * Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, Paragon Restaurant, 5 pm (BEFORE CPF Auction) * DC&E party, The Loft Bar & Bistro, 90 S. 2nd St., 8-11 pm (AFTER CPF Auction) Tuesday night • Call Poly Pomona, Atherton Room at the Fairmont, 8 pm If we hear about more we'll keep you posted.

Fittingly enough, the memorial service for Warren Jones – the founder of Solano Press Books, who died back in May – took place yesterday, on the eve of the annual conference of the California Chapter, American Planning Association, in San Jose. Like most conferences, CCAPA is all about exchanging information – practice tips, job leads, business cards. And Warren devoted most of his career to making sure that planners in California had access to the information they needed. Warren's memorial service wasn't conducted here in San Jose, where the CCAPA conference is being held. Rather, the memorial service took place four hours to the north in the tiny Mendocino County town of Point Arena, where for the past 19 years Warren had lived his life, served his community, and – improbably enough – operated one of the most important institutions in California planning. The memorial service was held at the Point Arena Community Library, which, as anybody who knew Warren could readily guess, would not have existed without his organizational know-how and financial support. Most of the attendees and speakers were Point Arena locals, who clearly loved the fact that this kindly curmudgeon had made the city his home for so long. Among other things, they wouldn't have had a general plan of any substance if he hadn't volunteered his time to write one almost as soon as he move there from Berkeley. But for those of us in the planning profession, Warren Jones's legacy is much broader. Warren founded Solano Press in 1985, and since then the company has published more than two dozen books – almost all of them geared to assist the planning practitioner in California. These books include Guide to California Planning , written by Paul Shigley and me, as well as such classics as Curtin's California Land Use and Planning Law, by Dan Curtin, and a series of NEPA and CEQA books written by the likes of Ron Bass, Al Herson, and Ken Bogden. When you asked Warren how he had come to found Solano Press, he would claim that it was kind of a fluke. The truth was, it was the culmination of his life's work. Born in 1929, Warren came of age in an era when information was plentiful but difficult and expensive to obtain. The knowledge planners needed was available not online but in print – on planning department bookshelves, in libraries, and, most importantly, inside the heads of the state's leading land-use lawyers and planning practitioners. Warren spent the majority of his working life making sure that useful, easy-to-use practice information was available to practitioners at a low cost. In 1972, as an adjunct professor at the Department of City & Regional Planning at UC Berkeley, he was appointed to run the planning school's continuing education programs. In that capacity, he essentially invented the now-familiar UC Extension land use course – the pithy and informative half-day or full-day class. And it wasn't long before the impresario found his first star – Dan Curtin , then the city attorney of Walnut Creek, whose basic land-use law seminar quickly became the staple of the UC Extension circuit. The thick binder from Curtin's class soon became one of the most sought-after commodities in the world of California planning, and after a few years Jones and Curtin realized that it had market value. So Warren started Solano Press Books for the express purpose of publishing Curtin's California Land Use and Planning Law , which is still a best-seller after 27 years. Over the years, Warren found many other authors and nurtured many other excellent practice books. In 1987, Warren traveled to Ventura expressly to ask me to write Guide to California Planning – a book he had always wanted to write himself but, as he aged, realized that he never would. Always quick to seize a market opportunity, I turned him down – and then, two years later, begged him to let me write it. The recent passing of both Warren and Dan Curtin – there were four years difference in age between them and they died five months apart – is a sober reminder that a seminal generation of California planners is moving on. These are the unsung heroes from the ‘50s, ‘60s, and ‘70s, who brought planning from the dark ages into the modern world of the seven-element General Plan and CEQA. But it's also a reminder of how different the world of information is today. For those of us who deal in that business today, the problem is not that information is inaccessible or expensive, as it was in Warren's day. Rather, the problem is the opposite – it's ubiquitous and free. So the key is no longer delivering pithy information; it's sifting through all the chaff out there on the internet to find what's golden. It's a challenge that Warren Jones himself would have loved to tackle. -- Bill Fulton

Regional planning strategies are not necessarily compatible with local desires, especially when satisfying regional needs means putting a bunch more cars on already overburdened streets. This is a common story in California's urban regions, and it is playing out right now in San Pedro, where developer Bob Bisno has proposed a 1,950-unit housing development on 61.5 acres along South Western Avenue formerly owned by the Navy. A 13-member community advisory committee to Los Angeles Councilwoman Janice Hahn rejected the project primarily because of traffic impacts. "At this point, I am in agreement with my advisory committee," Hahn said. "Traffic is just too much of a problem on Western Avenue and the project built on this site should not be any denser than its current R-1 zoning." But keeping the residential single-family zoning, which would permit in the range of 525 to 725 houses, is unrealistic and a wasted opportunity, according to the developer. Plus, a traffic analysis says that a single-family development would put just as many cars on Western Avenue at peak hours as the proposed multi-family project, known as Ponte Vista, of which 44% would be restricted to senior citizens. "I don't think anyone seriously believes this should be developed with 5,000-square-foot, single-family lots. Nobody is developing that in the region," said Alan Abshez, Ponte Vista's land use attorney. The site is located about 2 1/2 miles north of downtown San Pedro, and less than two miles from the Port of Los Angeles. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes lies across Western Avenue. For nearly four decades, the site provided housing for Navy personnel stationed at Long Beach Naval Shipyard. The shipyard and the housing closed in 1999 and, ultimately, the Navy auctioned the property. Bisno Development Co. acquired 42 acres for $88 million and later bought the remaining 19.5 acres from Volunteers of America, a homeless advocacy group, for $34 million. The property has been zoned for low-density residential development since the City of Los Angeles annexed it in 1980. Bisno originally proposed 2,300 townhouses and condominiums in four- to six-story buildings, with one-quarter of the units located in a gated community for senior citizens. Also proposed were about 10,000 square feet of retail uses, a community clubhouse and 11 acres of parks. "The concept is to provide a resort-like community in which people of different income levels can enjoy the amenities," Abshez explained. "We wanted to have a project that would service several market segments — seniors, entry-level buyers, move-up buyers." "It's an incredible infill opportunity site in every sense of the term," Abshez continued. "It's located next to the region's largest employment source — the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach." No one disputes that the demand is enormous because housing development has not kept pace with the explosion in employment in and around the country's busiest port complex. "Virtually no new housing has been built in that area of the City of Los Angeles in the last 20 to 30 years," Abshez said. The response during nearly a year's worth of Hahn's community advisory council (CAC) meetings was mixed, but concerns about density and traffic were too hard to ignore. In June, Bisno downsized the project to 1,950 units in buildings of no more than four stories. There would be 850 senior condos in a gated community, 1,000 townhouse-style condos and 100 upper-end, attached, three-story townhouses. The developer also agreed provide 20% of the units (370 units) at or below the "workforce" pricing level, which Abshez estimated at about $460,000. The developer would pay extensive fees to improve traffic on Western Avenue, with the bulk of the money going for expansion of and improvements to a signal automation system that adjusts based on traffic conditions. But the CAC questioned the traffic figures from the city and Bisno's consultant, as well as the practicality of a signal automation project that requires better coordination among Los Angeles, Rancho Palos Verdes and Caltrans simply to meet current demands. The CAC expressed extreme frustration with the city, which members said failed to provide needed information "and left the CAC rudderless in a process that very much needed good direction." By a vote of 10-1, the CAC rejected the revised project, and by a vote of 8-4, the committee recommended keeping existing single-family zoning. Committee members said they appreciated the need for new housing and supported infill policies, but insisted that multi-family projects such as Ponte Vista belong near public transit centers, not along a gridlocked arterial that has only routine bus service. They cited recently adopted city Planning Department guidelines that urge "additional density at train and rapid bus stops, and discourage new density where we anticipate no mass transit relief." However, a five-member CAC minority urged Bisno, Hahn and city planners to negotiate on a new mixed-use, multi-family project. "In short, by failing to suggest a reasonable compromise, we are missing an opportunity to improve traffic on Western Avenue and to provide needed housing for people to come to or remain in San Pedro," the minority group wrote. "Opportunities such as this are unlikely to present themselves again." Indeed, 61.5-acre infill sites that have virtually no environmental hazards are extremely rare in metropolitan Los Angeles, which explains why a developer was willing to pay nearly $1.5 million an acre for unentitled dirt. The San Pedro Peninsula Chamber of Commerce is among the organizations that has endorsed the project because of its positive impact on local goods and services providers, and because of its mix of housing types. And the project won an endorsement from the Southern California Association of Governments, whose regional planning urges infill. Hahn, however, appears ready to accept the CAC's recommendations. "There is no doubt that Los Angeles is facing a housing shortage, which is why I have been so supportive of new housing in downtown San Pedro, where we have the public transportation and roads to support it. But increased density at the Ponte Vista site is clearly just the wrong fit for San Pedro," she said. Public hearings on Bisno's request for a general plan amendment, zoning change, specific plan, development agreement and tract map are scheduled to begin about the first of the year. One complicating factor is the Los Angeles Unified School District's proposal, still under consideration, to take about eight acres of the site for a small high school. Contacts: Alan Abshez, Ponte Vista, (310) 203-7573. Los Angeles Councilwoman Janice Hahn, (213) 473-7015. Ponte Vista website: www.pontevista.com Citizens Advisory Council report: www.nwsanpedro.org/pdfs/pontevistaCACreport%20final.pdf

The creation of a "land bank" and the subsequent sale of mitigation credits within the bank is not subject to requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, according to the attorney general's office. The opinion, prepared by Deputy Attorney General Marc Nolan, is potentially good news for advocates of using mitigation banks to offset development's impact on endangered species — a fairly routine practice used statewide. The opinion was prepared for state Sen. Dick Ackerman (R-Irvine) in response to a specific situation in San Bernardino County. After the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Delhi sands flower-loving fly as an endangered species in 1993 (see CP&DR Environment Watch , September 1999), Vulcan Materials Company signed an agreement with the agency to operate a conservation bank for the fly. Vulcan agreed to transfer in phases portions of its property in the City of Colton to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Vulcan would then receive mitigation credits that it could sell to other potential developers. According to Ackerman's request letter, Vulcan has effected one transfer and sold three 1-acre mitigation credits. However, the question arose as to whether the arrangement constituted a "subdivision" within the meaning of the Subdivision Map Act, which could then start a whole new planning and environmental review process. The granting of an easement is not typically considered a subdivision. But an argument could be made that the credits constitute a "lease" for a definite period of time, which could trigger the map act. In addition, the arrangement might also be considered an "environmental subdivision," which would be subject to map act requirements. In response, the attorney general started with the definition of "subdivision" in Government Code § 66424: " he division, by any subdivider, of any unit or units of improved or unimproved land, or any portion thereof, shown on the latest equalized assessment roll as a unit or as contiguous units, for the purpose of sale, lease or financing, whether immediate or future." Other portions of the act speak to the intent to create "one or more new or additional, separate parcels of property," Nolan wrote. A mitigation bank does not fit within these definitions, the attorney general concluded. "While the grant of a conservation easement may involve identifying a portion of a larger tract of land upon which will be placed enforceable use restrictions, the grant does not constitute a division of the land within the meaning of the act," Nolan wrote. "The owner has neither conveyed the land so designated, nor expressed any future intent to convey it, as a separate unit. The creation of a conservation easement, in which the owner maintains ownership and possession of the land, does not, in itself, evidence an intent to convert the designated property into a separate parcel that can be transferred or sold." "Moreover," Nolan continued, "the purpose of granting a conservation easement ‘is to retain land predominately in its natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, forested, or open-space condition' (Civil Code § 815.1) and not to effect a ‘sale, lease or financing, whether immediate or future.'" There is no sale involved in the mitigation bank arrangement because ownership of the property does not change hands, Nolan explained. And there is no lease within the meaning of the act, because the "occupier" — in this case, the purchaser of mitigation credits — does not gain exclusive possession of the property. In fact, developers who buy credits "will not acquire any right to actual possession, much less the right to exclusive possession." The financing provision of the act does not apply because the mitigation bank involves no transfer of the property title, the attorney general concluded. Because the mitigation bank does not qualify as a subdivision under the map act, the provisions for an "environmental subdivision" do not apply, according to the opinion. The attorney general also rejected the notion that Vulcan's receipt of mitigation credits or the subsequent sale of the credits triggered the map act. "Under the federal program, such a credit represents ‘the quantification of a species' or habitats' conservation values within a bank' so as to offset the negative impact of a credit purchaser's development of other land," Nolan wrote, citing Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines. "No ‘division' of land results from the receipt, sale or use of mitigation credits." Although an attorney general's opinion does not set legal precedent, courts often rely on the opinions when making decisions. The opinion is No. 06-801 and was issued August 14, 2007. It may be found at 07 C.D.O.S. 9630 and 2007 DJDAR 12483.

An appellate court has upheld the awarding of $200,000 for lost goodwill to a business owner whose shop was taken by the Inglewood Redevelopment Agency, even though the business had mostly lost money. The court agreed that the owner of Auto Inn Lube and Oil deserved to recoup the losses he racked up while awaiting completion of a big-box center across the street. The business owner's expert called this the "cost to create" goodwill, and the court said it was an acceptable method of valuing goodwill lost because of the government's taking. However, the court declined to throw out the city's eminent domain action or to award the business owner his litigation expenses. Elias Aklilu opened Auto Inn in 1997 on West Century Boulevard. The business was profitable in 1998, but lost money the following four years while it endured road construction related to development of Marketplace at Hollywood Park, which contains Home Depot, Target and other stores. Once traffic flow returned to normal in 2003, the profitability of Aklilu's business also returned. But in mid-2003, the Inglewood Redevelopment Agency adopted a resolution of necessity authorizing condemnation of the property on which Auto Inn was located to make room for a 180,000-square foot retail project. In October of that year, the agency filed an eminent domain complaint against the property owner, Aklilu and his subtenant, who ran a smog-check shop. The agency settled with the property owner for $700,000 and with the subtenant for $35,000. The agency offered Aklilu $35,000 for lost goodwill, but he demanded $239,000 for lost goodwill, $31,000 for improvements and $85,000 for "moveable equipment." At trial, Aklilu's expert, Chris Pedersen, said Auto Inn had adjusted annual losses of $238,761 over six years, and that amount should be considered the "goodwill" that Aklilu had invested in what was likely to become a successful venture because of its location. The agency's expert testified that Auto Inn had no goodwill because it had not turned a profit. Ultimately, a jury awarded Aklilu $200,000 for lost goodwill. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Ricardo Torres also awarded Aklilu $4,265 of the $34,525 the agency had agreed to pay the property owner for fixtures and equipment. The judge declined to award attorneys fees or halt the city's condemnation action. Both sides appealed, and a unanimous three-judge panel of the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Three, upheld the lower court. Key to the decision was the valuing of lost goodwill. The agency contended the "cost to create" approach was impermissible because it was not based on past business performance, but instead speculated about future business success. The court, however, pointed to People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Muller , (1984) 36 Cal.3d. 263, the only state Supreme Court decision to analyze compensation for lost business goodwill under Code of Civil Procedure § 1263.510. In Muller , the court ruled, " here is no single acceptable method of valuing goodwill." "Pedersen testified a willing buyer would pay $238,716 for Auto Inn's goodwill," Presiding Justice Joan Klein wrote for the Second District. "The fact Pedersen appraised the value of this goodwill using a cost to create approach does not render Pedersen's valuation inadmissible. Rather, admission of Pedersen's testimony was consistent with Muller's interpretation of § 1263.510 as ‘a remedial statute to be construed liberally.'" The court noted that the founder of the firm hired by the agency to determine valuation had written a handbook that said a cost to create approach was acceptable when the "excess profits" test produced a goodwill value of zero. The court declined to overturn the agency's resolution of necessity, finding that Aklilu should have raised an objection during a public hearing when instead he endorsed the resolution under the mistaken belief the agency would find room for him in the new project. The court also upheld the trial court judge's determination that substantial evidence supported the city's resolution. As for litigation expenses, Aklilu argued he was eligible because the jury's award of $200,000 was far beyond the city's offer of $35,000. But the court ruled that the mathematical relationship between the award and the offer was only one factor. The court noted that Aklilu made "unreasonable" demands for payment for fixtures and equipment he apparently did not own, and for "movable" equipment, which is not eligible for compensation. In addition, the agency's payment to Aklilu's subtenant also settled a suit the subtenant had filed against Aklilu. The court also ruled that the agency could offset the interest it owed Aklilu against rent he owed for continuing to occupy the property after the agency gained actual possession. The Case: Inglewood Redevelopment Agency v. Aklilu , No. B185107, 07 C.D.O.S. 9041, 2007 DJDAR 11677. Filed and partially published July 30, 2007. Certified for full publication August 20, 2007. The Lawyers: For Inglewood: Royce Jones, Kane, Ballmer & Berkman, (213) 617-0480. For Aklilu: Karen Larson, Century Law Group, (310) 642-6900.