Search Results

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

A Santa Monica apartment complex owned by a religious group did not fall within a statutory exemption from local historic preservation regulations because the property has always been a commercial enterprise, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. Designed by architect Stanford Kent and built in 1949 and 1950, the Teriton Apartments consist of a 28-unit, rent-controlled garden-style apartment complex in a single two- and three-story structure, arranged in a pinwheel around landscaped courtyards. The complex is one of the few other examples of this pinwheel design remaining the Los Angeles area. The corporation that owns of the property, Or Khaim Hashalom ("Living Light of Peace," in Hebrew), filed an application with the City of Santa Monica in 2006 to demolish the complex and construct a new building. When the application triggered a review by a city's Landmarks Commission on the issue of historic preservation, the owner withdrew the application and re-formed itself into a not-for-profit religious corporation. Or Khaim then restated its intention to demolish and rebuild. Or Khaim said that it planned to use the property to house Jewish refugees from Iran and Iraq, but it refused to answer questions as to whether it was operating as a synagogue. The property owner then submitted a "notice of exemption" from the city's landmarks ordinance pursuant to Government Code § 37361. Nevertheless, the city designated the complex as a historic landmark in late 2006. Or Khaim then filed lawsuit seeking an order compelling the city to set aside its designation. The owner contended the property was "noncommercial" and qualified for the statutory exemption from local historic preservation contained § 37361, subdivision (c). A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge disagreed with OKH and denied the petition. The Court of Appeal affirmed that decision. Government Code § 37361 governs cities' ability to preserve historic landmarks. Subdivision (c) of the section permits religiously affiliated organizations to exempt their "noncommercial" property from local historic preservation laws – an exemption the state Supreme Court ruled was constitutional in the pivotal case  East Bay Asian Local Development Corp v. State of California , (2000) 24 Cal.4th 693 (see  CP&DR Legal Digest , January 2001). For a property to qualify as "noncommercial" under the exemption in § 37361, subdivision (c), the Court of Appeal explained, the property's use must be related to the religious owner's fulfillment of its religious mission. The property may not be used for profit-making. In addition, the noncommercial use must predate the landmark designation and the exemption application. Here, the court held that the Teriton Apartments did not qualify for the exemption in § 37361, subdivision (c), because the property had been a commercial and for-profit apartment building since it was built; because the property had never been used for a religious entity's mission and has never been a nonprofit concern; because the owner had no religious purpose either at the time it purchased the property or when it initially sought to demolish the building; and because even the newly created religious corporation was no more than a landlord of a conventional, commercial apartment building that has no purpose related to any religious mission. The Court explained that its holding – that noncommercial use must predate the exemption application – is intended to avoid two kinds of manipulation by property owners: First, without this rule, a nonsectarian owner could thwart a landmark designation merely by incorporating as a religious association and declaring an exemption on its commercial property. Second, if this rule did not exist, a religious entity could trump a historic preservation determination by purchasing a landmark and later declaring the exemption so as to demolish the landmark and erect a commercial building for financial advantage. "Under either scenario, the exemption would eviscerate the historic preservation statutes," Justice Richard Aldrich wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel. In an unpublished portion of the decision, the court upheld the validity of Santa Monica's landmark ordinance and the city's decision to designate the Teriton Apartments as a historic landmark. The Case: Or Khaim Hashalom v. City of Santa Monica , No. B212733, 2010 DJDAR 17625. Filed November 22, 2010. The Lawyers: For Or Khaim Hashalom: Rosario Perry, (310) 394-9831. For the city: Alan Seltzer, city attorney's office, (310) 458-8691.

An environmental impact report for a 560-housing unit specific plan in the Riverside County city of Beaumont has been upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The court approved the city's use of a baseline for examining water usage that was favorable to the developer, accepted the city's determination that loss of farmland could not be mitigated, and upheld the city's statement of overriding consideration for approving a project with significant environmental impacts. The City of Beaumont approved the 560-unit Sunny-Cal specific plan for 200 acres in unincorporated Cherry Valley in August 2007. The city also certified an environmental impact report and approved an annexation plan. The core of the specific plan site had been egg farm from the 1960's to 2005. Sunny-Cal Egg & Poultry Company closed the operation because of declining economics of the egg industry. In addition, the San Gorgonio Pass area along Interstate 10, in which the farm is located, is rapidly urbanizing and has been for a number of years (see  CP&DR Local Watch , April 2008 ).  As a result, historic agricultural activities are subject to constant pressure. Cherry Valley residents challenged the EIR and lost in Riverside County Superior Court. On appeal, the Fourth District, in a very fact-rich decision, addressed three common areas of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) litigation: water supply analysis/assessment, agricultural lands mitigation and statements of overriding considerations. Beaumont and the surrounding area sits atop a groundwater basin known as the Beaumont Basin. In 2004, as a result of litigation to adjudicate groundwater rights, the safe yield of groundwater for the basin was set at 8,650 acre feet per annum (afa), with 1,784 afa allocated to the Sunny-Cal property. This number was based upon the egg farm's historic groundwater pumping. The water supply assessment in the EIR used 1,484 afa – Sunny-Cal's rights minus 300 afa that Sunny-Cal assigned to a neighboring property – as the baseline for measuring water impacts. The EIR did not use the amount of water used on the site during post-egg agricultural activities, which was estimated at only 50 afa. Although the court's decision discusses a variety of water supply planning efforts by affected water agencies, the key legal question was whether the most recent use (50 afa), or the adjudicated amount minus the assignment (1,484 afa), was the appropriate baseline. The California Environmental Quality Act generally directs lead agencies to use existing physical conditions when preparing environmental review documents. However, as court recognized, CEQA Guidelines § 15125 leaves room for the lead agency to utilize an alternative baseline. Here, the appellate court determined the 1,484 afa was appropriate in light of the earlier groundwater adjudication. "Sunny-Cal's right to use 1,484 afa on the project site was unaffected by its cessation of the egg farm operations in late 2005, and the 1,484 afa figure closely approximated Sunny-Cal's historic water usage on the project site while the egg farm was operating," Justice Jeffrey King wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel. Notably, in upholding the city's baseline, the court ruled that the appropriate judicial review was the more deferential substantial evidence test, rather than the "fair argument" test that favor plaintiffs, because the agency had the discretion to choose, and because the issue was not purely a question of law. Thus, although there may have been other evidence regarding groundwater issues in the basin, there was an adequate basis to support the recognition of Sunny-Cal's rights, the court ruled. The issue of agricultural land mitigation is of continuing debate in courts throughout California. Beaumont had concluded that long-term trends made it infeasible to offset the conversion of 200 acres of prime agricultural soils to urban use. Project opponents argued the EIR was defective because it did not consider off-site mitigation measures, such as acquisition of land for long-term farming or the acquisition of agricultural conservation easements.  In ruling for the city, the court recited the evidence in the administrative record supporting the conclusion that the historic and expected land use and economic trends would eventually result in decreased agricultural operations in the area, if for no other reason than farmers are selling their land for urban development. The appellate court cited  Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine , (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1261 (see CP&DR Legal Digest, Vol. 19, No. 8 Aug. 2004 ) , in which the court also upheld a city's decision not to mitigate the loss of agricultural land because of negative farm economics. The lesson to be learned here is obvious: Whether the issue involves agricultural land or other natural resources, the lead agency, landowner or developer needs to develop an appropriate level of evidentiary support to defend a determination that a mitigation measure is infeasible. With respect the statement of overriding considerations, the city had identified eight separate benefits to justify approval of the project notwithstanding the significant unmitigated impacts. Tactically, the city's findings took the approach that each of the eight reasons independently supported project approval, thus forcing the opponents to overturn all eight benefits, a significant undertaking. These benefits in many cases were broadly stated, and, although the opponents argued that some of benefits were nothing more than stated characteristics of the project, the appellate court said that it could not substitute its judgment for that of the City Council. The Case: Cherry Valley Pass Acres and Neighbors v. City of Beaumont , No. E049651, 2010 DJDAR 17640. Filed November 22, 2010. The Lawyers: For Cherry Valley Pass Acres and Neighbors: Robert C. Goodman, Ann M. Blessing, Rogers, Joseph, O'Donnell, (415) 956-2828. For the city: Joseph S. Aklufi, Aklufi & Wysocki, (951) 682-5480. For Sunny-Cal Egg & Poultry Company: Michelle Ouellette and Fernando Avila, Best, Best & Krieger, (951) 686-1450. --William W. Abbott

Public transit was one deciding factor when free agent pitching ace Cliff Lee chose to sign a contract with the Philadelphia Phillies last week. I am not making this up. The left hander had previously pitched for the Phillies, and his wife, Kristen, enjoyed urban living in Philadelphia, including its abundant transit options. She didn't care for the Dallas area, where her husband played last season for the Texas Rangers. "We liked the easy travel on a train for our kids to other cities and the good cultural experience for them here," Kristen Lee told the Philadelphia Daily News . "There's so many things that are so great," she told the Philadelphia Inquirer . "How easy it is to get from Point A to Point B. Even in Dallas, where we were staying, it was hard to get to the ballpark because of traffic." The Phillies play in a fairly new stadium that is a three-block walk from the Broad Street line, which Kristen Lee and her two young sons rode during the family's first stint in Philadelphia. The Rangers' stadium is six miles away from the Trinity Railway Express that links Dallas and Fort Worth. Indeed, there may be no more car-dependent major urban area in the United States than the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex . Although Los Angeles has a deserved reputation for cars, cars, cars – and I'll concede you can't ride the train to Dodger Stadium – Los Angeles has a fair and rapidly expanding system of heavy rail, light rail and subways, as well as lots of housing, businesses and attractions (including Staples Center arena) along the transit lines. It's worth noting that you can ride Metrolink or Amtrak to Anaheim's baseball stadium. Transit was hardly the only factor in the Lees' decision. Kristen spoke favorably about Philly's many cultural amenities and dining options. Her husband knows the team is loaded with talent. Still, the episode provides an interesting glimpse. This land use and transit planning stuff does matter. – Paul Shigley

As its location suggests, Beverly Hills High School enjoys its share of amenities: a gym that converts to an indoor pool; a planetarium; a professional-quality theater. But, like most high schools, it does not have a class in urban planning or transportation. Now that the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority has proposed extending the Purple Line subway under school grounds, Beverly High is getting a few lessons. On its way from downtown Los Angeles to Westwood , the alignment that would pass under the high school would lead to a station in the middle of Century City, a location that Metro planners favor for its centrality. A less expensive alternative would follow Santa Monica Boulevard but arrive at a station that some contend would be less convenient for commuters. The debate over these two alignments has brought out an array of concerned citizens. Some of them express informed, nuanced opinions about cost, walkability, and local control. Others fear for high schoolers' lives. The latest voice to pick up the children's crusade is Lisa Korbatov, the incoming president of the Beverly Hills Unified School District Board of Education. Incongruously, Korbatov said that her "first priority" as board president would be "fighting the MTA's plan to possibly tunnel under the high school."  "If the tunnel is built under the high school," Korbatov told the Beverly Hills Patch last week, "there will be interruptions in education from noise, pollution, traffic and other factors, and both the quality of our education and our property values will suffer." As if all that weren't enough, she nearly invites nefarious forces to marshal against Beverly Hills: "I am also very worried about the high school being the subject of a terrorist attack. Terrorists have bombed subway lines in Madrid and London. Our high school, with its reputation as having affluent and Jewish students, would make a good target." (I'm sure she didn't really mean to say "good.") If this world hasn't figured out how to get along with itself in the 20 years that it will take for the subway to reach Beverly Hills, then we have a lot more to worry about than a subway route. Moreover, they would have to be some very patient terrorists who would wait that long rather than pack a van full of explosives and drive it on to campus tomorrow. I don't mean to scare anyone -- I just mean to point out the absurdity of stoking unnecessary fears.  Where's steely-eyed Dylan McKay when we need him? As for those "other factors," presumably they include everything from underground vibrations to the possibility that the tunnel could collapse and swallow the school whole. If this comes to pass, it would be, as far as I know, the first such instance of a subway with such a large appetite for teenagers. But this gruesome, if incredibly unlikely, prospect must be what Korbatov means when she says, "everything I do will be for naught if there are subway tunnels under the high school." In other words, the mere presence of the subway could obliterate every new hire, every tough budget decision, every ounce of learning, every essay, every math problem, every drama production, every athletic contest, every eager freshman, and every proud graduate. Little will the straphangers of the 2030s know of the havoc they are causing up on the surface.   Good planning is supposed to be built on research and, whenever possible, on data and valid analysis. Plenty of that is right there in Metro's draft EIR/EIS . These methods have their limits, but planners have reasonably effective, though not foolproof, tools to quantify the danger posed by a subway. And they have other tools to determine the relative efficacy and cost effectiveness of one alignment over another. I don't actually have a position on the subway alignment, but I do have a position on the uphill battles that planners have to fight despite, or perhaps because of, these quantitative methods. For better or worse, planning has embraced metrics and objective measurements of everything from walkability to regional planning (see CP&DR Vol. 25, No. 14 July 2010 ). The principles that planners learn everywhere from Harvard and MIT to UCLA and Cal Poly somehow go out the window when they are pit against an emotional public figure like Korbatov -- someone at the heart of this country's education crisis -- and the public at large. So passion, not planning, still rules the day. And yet, one of the very purposes of education is the containment of passion. We gain ideas and analytical methods from books and teachers so that we are not always held captive by our own whims.  Korbatov did not respond to repeated interview requests , so neither I nor her constituents may ever know the basis of her concerns. But in her published statements she cites no data, no studies, and no statistics. She does not even present discursive arguments to support her doomsday claims. For a few years, I taught high school and coached debate not far from Beverly Hills High. As an educator, I know what grade I would have given to a student who presented an incendiary, hyperbolic argument with no research or analysis to back it up. But we all deserve a re-write now and again. So I hope opponents of the high school alignment come out with more measured arguments to explain their opposition to the proposed alignment -- if not for the gratification of planners and the elevation of public discourse, then at least to set an example for the very students whom they hope to save.

Twenty years from now, while we scoot up and down the state on 200 mph trains, we could look back on the current "train to nowhere" episode and laugh at the furor over the project's starting point. Or, twenty years from now, as we crawl up and down Interstate 5 and Highway 99 in bumper-to-bumper traffic, we could look back on the "train to nowhere" episode and cry over a decision that killed high-speed rail's chance of ever succeeding. Or, twenty years from now, we may simply look back at the "train to nowhere" episode and smile, comfortable that we never sent tens of billions of dollars down that rat hole. As you probably know, the California High-Speed Rail Authority board last week decided to build the first section of the proposed 800-mile system on a 65-mile stretch from the outskirts of Madera to Corcoran. The appointed state board was under pressure from the Obama Administration and Congress to start building ASAP in the Central Valley or face losing nearly $3 billion in federal funding. The authority has received harsh criticism for the decision, and the authority's defense has not helped reduce the vitriol and confusion. On one had, officials say the 65-mile stretch is nothing more than an easy place to start building and will never be a stand-alone route. "It's not about the first 100 yards, the first mile or even the first 50 miles," said Roelof van Ark, the authority's CEO. "It's about the finish line – building the nation's first true high-speed rail system, connecting California's great cities." On the other hand, authority board members and some locals have protested that a line connecting Madera and Tulare counties with stops in downtown Fresno and Hanford does go somewhere. "The Central Valley is not nowhere," board member Lynn Schenk told Greenwire . What's more, the authority is working on a federally mandated backup plan , in which the new tracks could be used for conventional Amtrak service if the high-speed system never materials – a move that further undercuts the first argument. ------------------------------------ Update: On Monday, December 20, the High-Speed Rail Authority board voted unanimously to extend the first phase about 55 miles southward from Corcoran to the north edge of Bakersfield. The extension was made possible in part by $616 million in additional federal funds, which became available when Ohio and Wisconsin shelved plans for their own high-speed rail systems. Exactly how far into Bakersfield the rail line will reach remains undetermined. The 55-mile extension will require the Legislature's consent to release state bond funds to match the federal grant. ------------------------------------ It's true that the state has to start building the proposed, 800-mile, high-speed train route somewhere. But even pretending that the 65-mile line through farm fields could provide legitimate service is problematic. It is a train to nowhere, and high-speed rail proponents know it. "The decision to spend $4.3 billion on an isolated 65-mile stretch of track in the sparsely populated Central Valley, far removed from any large population concentration, could instead become a huge embarrassment for the Administration," wrote Ken Orski, editor and publisher of Innovation NewsBriefs and a high-speed rail believer. "If Congress fails to authorize further funds to extend the line – a highly likely possibility in a Republican-controlled House of Representatives  – the project will end up truly as  ‘a high-speed train to nowhere.' Like Alaska's ‘bridge to nowhere,' the Central Valley rail line will become a target of jokes and ridicule, and a symbol  of wasteful government spending on a project that makes little common sense to the average citizen." Orski is saying that the California board's decision could be so bad that it forces a premature end to the federal government's high-speed rail initiative. Richard Tolmach, president of the nonprofit California Rail Foundation , has been a frequent critic of the authority despite his support of high-speed rail. During a hearing before the authority board formally chose the Madera to Corcoran segment, Tolmach told the board it would become "a laughingstock in Congress." If this is what high-speed rail advocates are saying, it's no wonder that project skeptics and opponents are beside themselves. The Sacramento Bee 's Dan Walters, who has never jumped aboard the high-speed rail plan, called the train to nowhere a crazy, pork-barrel project intended to bolster the re-election bid Fresno Congressman Jim Costa (he barely won). High-ranking House Republicans from California who have opposed the project from the outset are not laughing. Rather, they are demanding the federal government get back its money before it's spent. The authority might be in a no-win situation. If it doesn't start building the project somewhere by 2012, it could lose $2 billion in economic stimulus money from the federal government. And if it doesn't start building in the Central Valley, it could lose another $715 million federal grant. Furthermore, Central Valley segments will be the easiest to build because they traverse mostly wide-open spaces. But when California voters approved a $9.95 billion bond for the project in 2008, I'm quite sure they were not envisioning a system that serves the farm towns or even the mid-sized cities of the San Joaquin Valley. During the campaign, the project was presented as a way to move people quickly between the Bay Area and Metropolitan Southern California. If the authority had chosen Merced to San Jose, or Bakersfield to Burbank as the first segment, there would be no discussion of a train to nowhere. The short first segment could provide legitimate service to housing and employment centers, and function as an advertisement for the rest of the project. Since the 2008 campaign, we have learned that the High-Speed Rail Authority's passenger forecasts were inflated and that project construction will cost a great deal more than earlier estimated. In addition, residents of cities on the Peninsula have raised hard questions about the impact of bullet trains flying through the middle of their communities. In other words, California's high-speed rail project could use bolstering right about now. Building the first segment from a dairy to a state prison doesn't help at all. – Paul Shigley