Search Results

The future of land use in the City of Ontario is up in the air. ;Literally.; For 40 years, Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) -- a subsidiary of the City of Los Angeles -- has owned and operated the LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) under a joint powers agreement between the cities of Ontario and Los Angeles. Now, Ontario says LAWA has welched on its promise to increase air traffic at Ontario. So;;the city has launched an aggressive, frankly worded campaign to wrest control of the airport's operations and management from LAWA in order to get the most out of what is considered one of the primary economic engines of the Inland Empire.;; ;As recently as four or five years ago, Los Angeles International Airport was approaching its mandated cap of 70 million annual passengers. To relieve pressure on Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), LAWA pledged that ONT's traffic would rise from roughly 7 million annual passengers in 2005 to its cap of 30 million annual passengers by 2030.;As a result, the generally growth-friendly city adopted an ambitious general plan update that would promote development to complement what would be one of the 25 busiest airports in the country. "Every real estate developer across the board would benefit from a boom in the Ontario Airport," said Christine Iger, a political consultant who sits on the Urban Land Institute's Inland Empire Committee.; LAWA's pledge to promote ONT was the centerpiece of the effort to "regionalize" air travel in Southern California and, among other things, steer passengers away from long drives to LAX. Concentration of air travel at LAX is a big regional problem; no other large metropolitan area concentrates so much of its air travel in one large airport – and LAX is far away from most population centers. Previous efforts to coordinate air travel among the LAWA airports and other regional airports, such as Orange County John Wayne and Burbank Airport, had yielded negligible results. But none of those results are so disheartening as those at ONT. In the past five years, traffic there has gone down to 4 million annual passengers – a decline of almost half. Meanwhile, traffic at LAX has trended steadily upward.;Ontario officials are blaming LAWA for the dropoff. They claim that LAWA, which is controlled by the Los Angeles mayor and City Council, has allowed landing fees and administrative costs to balloon in a deliberate effort to direct traffic to LAX in order to benefit the City of Los Angeles. "The issue of LAWA's control and the way they have handled the airport the last few years is largely regarded in this area as a form of economic warfare of the city of Los Angeles with regards to the economy of the Inland Empire," said economist John Husing, whose work focuses on the Inland Empire. City officials say that whatever benefit Los Angeles gained has been devastating for Ontario's economy and, if it persists, threatens to undermine the city's newly updated general plan, which is part of a larger civic effort called The Ontario Plan.; The general plan update, adopted earlier this year, assumes that heavy traffic at ONT will generate demand for development in the city. Ontario Planning Director Jerry Blum said that the rule of thumb in the aviation industry is that a city's airports create the demand for approximately one square foot of office space for every annual passenger. He said that the city's current supply of Class A space is sufficient for current traffic but that the city's plan calls for the several million more square feet that would complement a more crowded airport.; "At 5, 6, 7 million…the localized region probably has approximately that much Class A office," said Blum. City officials contend, however, that traffic will remain at low levels so long as LAWA remains in control. This means that land in and around the airport will be grossly under-utilized, they say. "Right now, basically it's being managed by an out-of-area landlord who really has no sense of what's going on or the true economic value of the property," said Alan Wapner, the Ontario City Councilmember who is leading the campaign to gain local control. "The city of Ontario sees it as part of the big picture." Wapner said that some of the airport's 1,700 acres "are just dirt" and could be developed.;Beyond the airport's footprint, Wapner said that the city has planned for housing, retail, and amenities to go along with more development. The city even has what it considers an ideal site to accommodate airport-related development.;Blum said that a 250-acre, single-owner parcel south of the 10 Freeway is ideally suited to be a new, aviation-fueled downtown. "Ontario Metro Center area is probably going to be the next urban center in Southern California," said Blum. "And it's (premised) on it being driven by the airport." Likewise, ONT is seen as a hub of multimodal transportation in the region. The Gold Line light rail Foothill Extension is planned eventually go to ONT, and there has been talk of including the airport in the state's planned high-speed rail network.; But regional boosters fear that none of this may come to bear as long as long as LAWA remains in control. "To stay at 4 million or 5 million air passengers for 20 or 25 years would be disastrous," said Blum. The city's Recovery Plan estimates that depressed traffic at ONT cost the city's economy $400 million and 8,000 jobs between 2007 and 2009. In September the City of Ontario published a white paper entitled "A Recovery Plan," which outlines what many consider to be an underhanded plot by LAWA to artificially depress traffic at ONT in favor of that at LAX. Every passenger ticket at ONT includes a 15% surcharge, and city officials contend that LAWA's management is bloated and that its wages are based on inappropriately high wage rates that prevail in Los Angeles. With local management, the city contends that it could reduce overhead, make tickets to ONT cheaper, and attract a flood of new traffic, especially from low-cost carriers such as Southwest and Allegiant.; Maria Tesoro-Fermin, spokesperson for LAWA, said that LAWA is;willing;to consider any proposal that the city puts forward for local management. Wapner said that the city has yet to make a formal plan or establish a timeline for submitting such a proposal. Husing said that boosters across the Inland Empire have expressed their support for a more robust ONT. And, concurrent with the;release;of the city's Recovery Plan, the Southern California Association of Governments;circulated;a letter unequivocally supporting local control, by which "ONT can recover from the economic downturn of the past several years while positioning itself for long-term growth." The letter notes that local control would put ONT on equal footing with other low-cost secondary airports, such as Long Beach.;The city claims that ONT's $14 per-passenger landing fees are unnecessarily inflated by administrative bloat, whereas they are $11 at LAX and $2 at Burbank Airport. Meanwhile, at $29 per passenger, ONT's operating expenses are double those of other regional airports. Perhaps most importantly for the city, local control would affect not only air traffic but also development both on and adjacent to ONT property. Moreover, unlike in many cities that consider airports to be one of the ultimate unwanted land uses, the Ontario General Plan has already been designed to accommodate new growth. Moreover, the community has agreed to up to 30 million annual passengers (up from a previous general plan's cap of 22 million), so, unlike vitriolic battles over traffic at LAX, ONT's build-out is already cleared.;At 30 million, it would rank as the 20th-busiest airport in the country, compared to current traffic.; Although the current situation suggests that the Ontario Plan may have been developed with overly optimistic air traffic projections, or on too much trust in LAWA. Blum rejects that contention.; "It was totally reasonable," said Blum. "At the time, our numbers were going up. LA had been sued and they had agreements in place that they were nearing their 70 million maximum. They were having to push out our way." Ultimately, however, any grand plans for a new metropolis depend on LAWA. Though LAWA officials have said they will entertain proposals from Ontario, the prospect of giving up control remains highly uncertain.; "I doubt it," said Husing. "LA's got every incentive to keep us as a colony. If you're hearing the disgust in my voice, it's there."; ; CONTACTS and RESOURCES The Ontario Plan Ontario Airport Recovery Plan Jerry Blum, Director, City of Ontario Planning Department,;909.395.2000 Chris Hughes, Ontario City Manager, 909.395.2000 John Husing, Politics and Economics, Inc.; Christine Iger, President, Iger & Associates; ULI Inland Empire Committee Member;949.723.4066 Maria Tesoro-Fermin, ONT Community Relations, 909.554.5360 Alan Wapner, Ontario City Councilmember,;909.395.2000

With the advent of AB 32 and SB 375, California has adopted some of the world's leading anti-greenhouse gas laws. And yet, even according to conservative projections, certain very low-lying coastal areas may not survive. Some of the state's most vulnerable land rings the San Francisco Bay, which is becoming a battleground in the latest round of climate change policy debates. The idea that sea levels are rising has been on the minds of planners and regulators in the San Francisco Bay Area since long before climate change entered the public consciousness. In 1989, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission issued a set of guidelines focused on mitigating impacts of sea level rise on bay fill projects as part of its Bay Plan. These guidelines recognized the impact of greenhouse gas emissions-caused climate change and the resulting increase in sea levels throughout the world. Those guidelines were prescient for their time in 1989, but the idea that sea levels are rising has gained some serious scientific traction over the past two decades. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other scientists have predicted that sea levels will rise between 16 and 55 inches by 2100. These are increases that would put hundreds of city blocks and swaths of developed coastal areas under water throughout the Bay Area, from Redwood City to Oakland to Novato. Even a 16-inch rise could partially inundate landmarks like the San Francisco waterfront, Oakland Airport, San Francisco International Airport, and vast marshy areas in the Sacramento Delta, upriver of the Carquinez Straits. Some of the area's biggest pending developments, including Treasure Island, Hunters Point, and the Alameda Naval Air Station—which are intended to be compact and eco-friendly—could lose land area even before developers even break ground. In order to account for new estimates on just how much the sea level is expected to rise, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission has set out to update some of its rules and policies. Based on a detailed 2009 report titled "Living with a Rising Bay," BCDC staff has proposed a series of amendments to the Bay Plan that react more forcefully to projections from the IPCC. No plans for projects near the shoreline would be issued permits unless they specifically address how they will avoid any negative impacts related to rising sea levels. "In the wake of the IPCC reports and other scientific information, it became apparent that our policies were not based on the most recent scientific information and that it would be prudent to update them," said Joseph LaClair, a planner on staff at the BCDC, which is responsible for permitting all development within a 100-foot band of shoreline throughout the Bay. Its jurisdiction covers more than a thousand miles. The proposed amendments call simply for these sea level increases to be taken into account during the planning and permitting process, and that proposed projects not pose a flood risk. Due to its relatively narrow jurisdiction of 100-feet of shoreline, the BCDC's proposed amendments won't have an especially wide reach, though they will impact various types of shoreline development, such as certain infill projects, the creation of walking paths and redevelopment of industrial salt harvesting properties, such as Cargill's Saltworks project in Redwood City. "The current policy was too blunt a tool to help achieve the regional vision for infill development," LaClair said. "We wanted to be in a position and have a policy that was more supportive of the sustainable communities strategy that's being developed pursuant to SB 375." SB 375 is the 2008 legislation that requires the creation of goals for greenhouse gas reduction and community strategies to meet those goals. Though SB 375 promotes compact infill development as a way to meet demand while reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the proposed new guidelines could impede, or even prevent, infill development in these shoreline areas. LaClair recognizes the irony, but argues that building even good projects in flood-prone areas is an environmental catastrophe waiting to happen. To insiders, the proposed amendments are relatively routine; the Bay Plan is regularly amended and updated to respond to changing environmental and developmental realities. But some argue the BCDC has taken a very un-routine ideological step in relying on projections that foresee the waters of the Bay Area nearly five feet higher by the end of the century. The amendments are currently in the public review phase, with hearings expected to wrap by the end of the year. Further revisions, based on the public comments, would then be applied, and BCDC is expecting to vote on the final amendment language by April. How much that language changes between then and now is still unclear, but there are two loud voices in the Bay Area's development scene that are doing all they can to make sure the edits are significant and the reach of the amended plan is reduced. "It appeared to us as being overly regulatory and prescriptive," said Ellen Joslin Johnck, executive director of the Bay Planning Coalition, a non-profit that advocates for the balanced use and regulation of the Bay Area. Along with another business-sponsored public advocacy organization called the Bay Area Council, the Bay Area Coalition submitted comments to the BCDC about the proposed amendments to the Bay Plan advising against their adoption. The two groups believe the amendments, as they stand, give too much regulatory power to the BCDC, and should instead be replaced with a set of guidelines that advise on how projects should react to the possibility of rising sea levels, rather than imposing restrictions on what they must do. Regulatory rules, they argue, should be developed by a coalition of the various local, state, and federal agencies -- a list that includes the Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, local and state water boards, and many others. "The whole subject of sea level rise really needs to be undertaken, in terms of guidance and land use planning, with a broad range of state and federal agencies and property owners around the Bay," Johnck said. That's a desirable goal, according to David Lewis. He's executive director of Save the Bay, a regional organization focused on protecting and restoring the Bay Area and its various ecosystems, and while he sees merit in Johnck's suggestions, he also sees an effort to steamroll the process. "There's a clear attempt to delay any significant restrictions," Lewis said. "They're trying to discourage from doing what is in its jurisdiction, what it's actually required and responsible for doing." Lewis expects the amendments to be approved, but cautions that further extensions of the public comment process for amendments that were first drafted in April 2009 could allow potentially hazardous projects to slip through the cracks -- and into the line of a rising tide. "What BCDC's proposing is modest and very important," said Lewis, "The opposition to it has bordered on hysterical and has emphasized false fear." For a state commission that typically sees about five major permits and about 30 to 40 minor ones a year, the impact of these amendments isn't as far-reaching as some might assume. He does hope other jurisdictions and coastal areas will follow their lead, but contends that even without these explicit rules, the developers have sea level rise on their minds. He points to the Treasure Island Development Authority, which is planning a massive mixed-use development on the man-made island built inside the Bay in the 1930s. "Over the past couple years, we have been working collaboratively with BCDC both on our approach and in responding to their proposed Bay Plan amendments," said Michael Tymoff, deputy director of redevelopment at the Treasure Island Development Authority. The project is planned to address sea level rise of 36 inches initially, and can be upgraded to handle additional levels of rise as they occur, according to Tymoff. "Our strategy is very much in line with the direction of BCDC's proposed amendments," Tymoff said. But for others, without hard rules, long-term concerns like sea level rise may not have much sway in the face of short-term realities like project costs. "There's a question though as to what scenario you want to pick," said Johnck, referring to the range of sea level rise by the end of the century. "Do you want to build your dock to plan for a 55-inch rise or a 16-inch rise? What if you don't have the money to build a dock high enough to accommodate a 55-inch rise when that's not supposed to happen until 2100? "People should plan for the future, but how far out do you plan?" Contacts & Resources: San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Climate Change Bay Plan Amendment  Joseph LaClair, Chief Planner, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission 415.352.3656 Ellen Joslin Johnck, Executive Director, Bay Planning Coalition  415.397.2293 David Lewis, Executive Director, Save the Bay  510.452.9261 Michael Tymoff, Deputy Director of Redevelopment, Treasure Island Development Authority   415.554.7038

A program intended to preserve farmland, adopted pursuant to the county's general plan, has been upheld as reasonably related to adverse impacts of residential development on agricultural land by the Fifth District Court of Appeal. In addition, the unanimous three-judge appellate panel ruled the program is not in conflict with a state law prohibiting a local agency from conditioning the issuance of land use approvals on the granting of conservation easements. In the much anticipated opinion of  Building Industry Association of Central California v. County of Stanislaus,  the appeals court reversed the trial court's ruling that invalidated the Stanislaus County Farmland Mitigation Program ( FMP ). The FMP had been adopted as an update to the agricultural element of the county's general plan. In December 2007, the county Board of Supervisors adopted the agricultural element update, which included specific mitigation requirements for the conversion of agricultural land. Under the FMP, discretionary projects that convert agricultural land to residential development must ensure that the converted agricultural land be replaced at a one-to one-ratio with agricultural land of equal quality. The FMP guidelines adopted by the board specify that for a project of 20 acres or more, the mitigation must be satisfied by direct acquisition of a permanent agricultural conservation easement. For a project of less than 20 acres, the county may authorize the payment of an in-lieu mitigation fee. The local Building Industry Association chapter filed objections to the FMP during Planning Commission and board hearings on the grounds that (1) the county failed to identify its legal authority for mandating the dedication of permanent conservation easements, (2) there is no reasonable relationship between the requirements of the FMP and the adverse public impacts resulting from agricultural conversion (a police power argument), and (3) conservation easements must be voluntary and, thus, cannot be required by general plan policy. After the county adopted the FMP, the BIA sued and won at the trial court level. The Fifth District reversed that decision. With respect to the police power argument, the appellate court ruled that the BIA had the burden at trial of demonstrating the invalidity of the FMP, which the BIA did not sufficiently do. The burden of proof was not on the county, the court ruled. Additionally, the court held that the FMP requirements clearly bear a reasonable relationship to the loss of farmland to residential development. The court cited the goals and policies in the county's agricultural element. Notably, Justice Herbert Levy wrote, " o meet the reasonable relationship standard it is not necessary to fully offset the loss." Reasoning that land use regulation is a function of local government pursuant to the police power, Levy also wrote, " he trial court … erred in concluding that the FMP was not authorized by the county's police power." Most importantly, the court held that Civil Code § 815.3(b) – which prohibits a local agency from conditioning the issuance of a land use entitlement on the applicant's granting of a conservation easement – in no way invalidates the FMP. In considering this issue for the first time, the court sided with the county because the county's program does not require an applicant or developer to grant the easement. "Rather, the FMP allows the applicant to arrange for a third party to voluntarily convey an easement to a land trust or the county," Levy wrote. It appears the court actually was saying something even more succinct: A developer may choose whether or not to develop. If the developer chooses to develop, that is a voluntary decision that comes with a price, such as the permanent protection of one acre of farmland for every acre of farmland developed. Commentary This case should not be read as requiring rural cities and counties conducting general plan updates to include mandatory mitigation for the conversion of agricultural land. Whether cities and counties choose to obligate landowners and developers to mitigate for farmland conversions is a local policy determination. Instead, this case provides long-awaited protection for cities and counties that affirmatively choose to employ a farmland mitigation policy. Furthermore, this case should not be read to conflict with another recent case out of the Fourth Appellate District –  Cherry Valley Pass Acres and Neighbors v. City of Beaumont . In that case, a California Environmental Quality Act challenge of a specific plan was filed because the city determined that mitigation for farmland loss was not feasible. The court in that case upheld the city's decision on the grounds it was supported by substantial evidence in the record – mainly, that historic and expected trends would eventually result in decreased agricultural land if for no other reason than that the farmers selling are selling land for urban development. The Case: Building Industry Association of Central California v. County of Stanislaus,  No. F058826, 2010 DJDAR 17864. Filed November 29, 2010. The Lawyers: For the BIA of Central California: David P. Lanferman, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, (415) 434-9100. For Stanislaus County: Matthew D. Zinn, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, (415) 552-7272.

When voters emerge from the ballot box in California, you never know what the consequences are going to be. Proposition 26 – the new state ban on fees – certainly seems as though it would have wide-ranging impact, not just on planning and development but on government operations in California in general. Yet Proposition 26 lets impact fees off the hook and is aimed pretty narrowly at one particular court case. At the same time, Prop. 26 turns the whole idea of fees and taxes upside down, and it is already playing havoc with many pieces of legislation passed this year, including the gas tax/sales tax swap. The bottom line is that Proposition 26  shouldn't  have a huge impact on planning and development in California. But it  might  – because it significantly alters the way the courts must view taxes and fees. Proposition 26 redefines " any levy, charge, or exaction of any kind" as a tax. It requires a two-thirds majority vote of the Legislature for any state fees and two-thirds voter approval for any local fees. It does, however, exempt seven pretty broad categories of fees, including development impact fees , fees for service (such as a recreation program), entry fees, and fees "imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly" – which ought to cover fees for planning permits. Proposition 26 was promoted by taxpayer advocates as a way to close a loophole in Proposition 218, the 1996 initiative that required a vote for property assessments. Proposition 218 was, in turn, an initiative promoted by taxpayer advocates to close a loophole in Proposition 13. Even though the Yes on 26 campaign portrayed the measure as an almost comic broadside against fees in general (with an actor playing a legislator saying, " I just love ‘fees' "), the measure itself is aimed narrowly at a court ruling – just as Proposition 218 was. Sinclair Paint Co. v. Board of Equalization  was a 1997 court ruling that upheld regulatory fees on manufacturers of lead paint to pay for programs to assist children subject to lead poisoning. The intent of Prop. 26 is to outlaw fees imposed generally on an industry to pay for the mitigation of problems created by that industry's products, without tying the fees to specific impacts. In a nutshell, Proposition 26 takes the "special benefit" language from assessments and applies them to fees. Given the fact that local governments in California are already expected to calculate overall costs and fair-share costs anyway, Proposition 26 should not disrupt daily life too much. Impact fees are exempt but they are already covered by other laws requiring developers to pay their fair share. So far as planning fees are concerned, most local governments already do cost analyses periodically and adjust their fees accordingly. But Proposition 26 does target fees not tied to a specific benefit or service – like the polluter fees upheld in  Sinclair Paint.  This could be disruptive and push the cost of many semi-targeted government programs back onto the taxpayers. "Proposition 26 requires proportionality accounting on an individual user basis," says Bill Higgins, land use lobbyist for the League of California Cities. Take, for example, the practice of levying a general plan fee on development permit applicants – one way that cities and counties in California pay for general plan updates. A general plan fee is generally calculated as a percentage of the project's cost or volume (units, square footage). How a general plan update specifically benefits a development applicant is anybody's guess. Similarly, Proposition 26 may threaten the Coastal Commission's practice of charging fees to developers, homeowners, oil companies, and other permit applicants in order to mitigate the impact of change along the coast generally.  One interpretation of Proposition 26 is that it creates the latest business development opportunity for nexus consultants – fiscal experts who work for local governments calculating the "nexus" between the cost of a government program and the benefit or impact of that program on specific landowners, developers, or other applicants. More broadly, however, Proposition 26 is a game-changer in the sense that it implies that any charge from the government is a tax – unless that government can prove that it is  not  a tax as defined by Proposition 26. This provision will surely cause local governments to spend a lot of time and effort examining all fees to see whether they are exempt. Conversely, it will also provide an opening for taxpayer advocates in arguing that a wide variety of fees are really taxes. There's one other class of fees that could be thrown out under Proposition 26: fees adopted by the Legislature after Proposition 26 was placed on the ballot but did not get a two-thirds vote for passage. One example is AB 401, by Sen. Lois Wolk (D-Davis) that levied fees on renewable energy plants to defray regulatory costs. Also caught in this legislative vise is the complicated gas-tax/sales-tax swap from last spring, which could be unraveled by the combined passage of Prop. 26 and Prop. 22, which protects local government transportation revenues. This may be a good thing for local governments seeking to keep their gas-tax money – but a bad thing for transportation agencies (whose boards often consist of local elected officials) trying to use the gas sales/sales tax swap to obtain state transportation funds. Last spring's swap was a complicated deal that eliminated the state sales tax on gasoline but increased the gas tax and used some of the increased funds to pay off state transportation bonds. Prop. 22 may block part of the swap – and because the deal increased the gas tax (even though it eliminated the sales tax) it may be blocked by Prop. 26. Nobody really knows what the impact will be. Which is, I suppose, part of the "fun" of governance in California, if you want to call it that. In any given election, nobody quite knows who'll get something on the ballot – or whether voters will approve it – or quite how things will shake out. Proposition 26 is the latest skirmish in a long-running war waged by taxpayer advocates on governments' source of funds. But it's a never-ending war. Every time the taxpayers plug what they see as a leak in the system, the governments figure out how to punch a hole somewhere else. The result is a system that is more and more complicated – and harder to figure out. Good for nexus consultants, maybe not for the rest of us. --Bill Fulton

There have not been a great many surprises in the world of California land use planning and real estate development during 2010. At least that's what I can see now, with the year nearly complete. But in late 2009, I made three predictions for the coming year that turned out to be about half right. My three predictions were: • Housing production will increase. This was too easy, and I was right. But not by a lot. • The SB 375 backlash will start to hit. A number of builders and local government officials jumped off the SB 375 bandwagon this year, but I expected the fallout to reach the general public. It didn't. I got this one half right. • Redevelopment deadlines will get delayed by at least 30 years. I thought this would be part of a state budget deal in which the state would get a permanent slice of redevelopment agency revenues in exchange for permitting agencies to remain in business past existing sunset dates. Wrong. Here's a little more detailed review of things, followed by three new predictions for 2011. In 2009, California builders pulled permits for 36,209 housing units – the smallest number since record-keeping began during the 1950s, and almost certainly the slowest rate of housing construction since World War II ended. Through the first 10 months of 2010, builders started 34,508 housing units and were on track for a full year total of 41,700, according to the Construction Industry Research Board. That would be a 15% increase from 2009, but still the second lowest number on record and truly a pathetic building rate in a state that continues to add more than 300,000 residents per year. Implementation of SB 375 – the 2008 legislation that requires reduced greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles as a way to force coordinated land use and transportation planning – advanced in September when the California Air Resources Board adopted GHG emissions reduction targets for metropolitan planning regions. While the targets largely cheered environmentalists and infill development proponents, the California Building Industry Association and some construction trade groups argued the targets were unrealistic and would hinder economic recovery. Also, the state board backed away from its target for the biggest region when the Southern California Association of Government's Regional Board voted against the target. Redevelopment was not much of a topic at the Capitol this year, and the state budget finally adopted in October did not touch the issue. However, investigations produced in early fall by a state Senate office and the Los Angeles Times chronicled redevelopment abuses in some jurisdictions. Lawmakers have yet to react in a significant way. That was the year coming to a close. I'll try to improve on my .500 record during 2011, for which I predict: • The infill-environmental justice conundrum will get deeper. Call it infill, call it redevelopment, call it reinvestment: the trend of cramming more and more people and buildings in existing urban areas will continue to grow in 2011. Senate Bill 375 steers cities and regions in this direction, and many advocates would like to see the California Environmental Quality Act further streamlined to encourage infill projects. Meanwhile, people who have lived in some of these urban areas for years – often people of color and modest means – will continue raising good questions about the environmental impact of more development in their neighborhoods, and about the social impact of gentrification. This latter group may very well have a powerful ally in incoming Attorney General Kamala Harris, who made civil rights and environmental protection cornerstones of her campaign. • The Governor's Office of Planning and Research will rise again. During the Davis and Schwarzenegger administration, OPR's prestige and policymaking role diminished. Both governors appointed political associates to run the office, and the ranks of actual planners and researchers shrank. Schwarzenegger went so far as to call the office a "total waste" and proposed eliminating it, a move the Legislature resisted. The first Jerry Brown administration marked OPR's true heyday. The agency undertook groundbreaking research and proposed state growth policies that may have been decades ahead of their time. I'm not predicting the return of Bill Press, who was Brown's OPR director long ago. But Brown's eight years as mayor of Oakland appear to have made him even more of an urbanist and to have educated him about the struggles of planners and developers who are trying to do the right thing. The new old governor will ensure this agency is more than a place to park political cronies. • State lawmakers will introduce at least 20 bills concerning redevelopment agencies' low- and moderate-income housing obligations. Affordable housing advocates have long complained that some small and medium-sized cities waste the 20% of redevelopment tax increment that must be devoted to providing low/mod housing. The well-documented report by the Senate Office of Oversight and Outcomes supports the argument. In 2011, we will see a number of bills that would limit the amount of low/mod housing money redevelopment agencies may spend on planning and administration. We could also see legislation that modifies the low/mod housing mandate in ways that housing advocates find distasteful. And I wouldn't be surprised to see California Redevelopment Association-sponsored legislation that attempts to head off draconian changes to the system. – Paul Shigley

It appears the federal government is on the verge of reducing funding for public transit and other means of "alternative" transportation. Such cutbacks could be bad news for California, where alternative transportation is mainstream and the state government is barely solvent. Ever since the dawning of the tea age in 1991 (the year Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, or ISTEA), the feds have devoted a fair amount to transit infrastructure, bike lanes, sidewalks and other stuff that make it possible to move people and goods without cars and trucks. About 20% of federal transportation dollars has gone for this alternative transportation, and regional agencies have had broad discretion to spend federal money on their preferred transit projects. The new Republican majority in the House of Representatives has little interest in light rail or bike lanes. According to DC Streetsblog writer Tanya Snyder, Jim Tymon, Republican staff director of the House Highways and Transit Subcommittee, recently told highway construction executives that Republicans want to return transportation spending to its 1950's priorities of interstate commerce and travel enabled by the National Highway System. Two weeks after the election, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, a Tea Party darling, said that transportation should be exempt from the Tea Party's proposed ban on federal spending earmarks. What she specifically said was that earmarks for "building roads and bridges and interchanges" was acceptable. It was no accident that she didn't use subways or Safe Routes to School as an example of an appropriate earmark. Bachmann recognizes that Republican voters, even Tea Partiers, are mostly residents of suburban, exurban and rural areas, and these voters expect to drive on wide highways no matter how deep the red ink. At the same time Bachmann was making her pitch for highway projects, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands) was demanding that the federal government take back $12 billion in unspent American Recovery and Reinvestment Act allocations, the biggest chunk of which is $2 billion for California's high-speed rail system . Does anyone seriously think Lewis would make that same demand if the $2 billion had been allocated for widening I-10 and I-15 in the Inland Empire? Of course, Rep. John Mica (R-Florida), the incoming House Transportation Committee chairman, is a longtime transit proponent. Thus, it's difficult to see the federal transportation bill – already overdue for reauthorization – ignoring non-auto transport entirely. Plus, the Senate and White House remain in Democratic hands, and the administration's Transportation Secretary, Republican Ray LaHood, has emerged as a surprising champion of practically every option to automobile travel. Still, with the highway trust fund running a $15-billion-a-year deficit, with Republicans expressing newfound concern over deficit spending, and with no elected official willing to promote tax increases, something must give. And that something is likely to be funding for projects other than highways and roads. California could use new and improved highways and roads. But in California's urban regions – which is where our transportation policy is made – the focus is increasingly on modes other than private automobiles. California is an urban state and grows more so by the year. There's a recognition that we cannot build our way out of urban congestion with highways and roads, which is precisely what many land use planners have been saying for decades. Because of latent demand, every newly widened highway is almost instantly jammed. The state also is striving to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. Instead, California's current and future transportation investment strategy can be seen in Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's 30/10 plan – which seeks to speed delivery of 12 major transit projects – and in the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission's most recent long-term plan, which devotes two-thirds of spending to transit operations and expansion, and about 5% to roadway expansion. Is the federal government going to remain a willing partner in such transportation plans? That seems doubtful, at least during the short-term. At the same time, it seems equally unlikely that a shift in federal priorities will cause California's urban regions to embrace more pavement. For better or worse, California may be on its own for a while. – Paul Shigley

… And that's the end of the fairy tale: Prince Nokia came to Princess Downtown Sunnyvale, providing the city with new jobs, plus helping complete the long-unfinished office building that had annoyed Sunnyvale for years. And the prince and princess lived happily ever after …. Oh, Gramps, I love that story! Tell it to me again. It's past your bedtime, swee' pea, and it's even getting late for me…. I'll scream. You'll be in trouble with Grandma. Oh you would, would you? Well, pipe down, here goes: It started in the Seventies, before your mother was born, in the City of Sunnyvale, currently a burg of 135,000 souls located, in its own words, in "the Heart of Silicon Valley."  Does Silicon Valley have a heart, Gramps? I'm not sure, angel, but it certainly has a lot of jobs, with 118,000 people working here daily. So keep in mind the city's an established employment center. So they don't need redevelopment, Gramps? Oh no, every city needs redevelopment, sugar cookie. Sunnyvale has a single redevelopment project area, which is downtown Sunnyvale. For many years, the single largest project in the redevelopment area was Sunnyvale Town Center, a regional mall built in 1979 by the late, great Ernie Hahn. Can we go visit the mall? Well, not exactly, my green-eyed girl. The mall doesn't exist anymore. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. The agency helped the mall developer assemble about 34 acres in the city's sparsely developed downtown area. The redevelopment agency committed $16.8 million in tax allocation bonds to buy the property and demolish the existing on-site structures, plus another $22.3 million in lease revenue bonds to build an adjoining parking structure.              That was nice of the city. That's what cities do for big money makers like Sunnyvale Town Center, which operated profitably for nearly two decades before the original partnership sold, in 1998, to American Mall Properties. The new owner--let's call him Suitor No. 1 to Princess Sunnyvale--had an expansion plan, including a public parking structure. After finishing the parking, however, the rest of the expansion came to grief early in the current decade, when American Mall Properties found itself beset with both a high vacancy rate in the mall and the bankruptcy of its lender, Finova. That's sad, Gramps. Real estate is not for the meek, little one. Anyway, a few years later, in 2002, San Diego National Bank--otherwise known as Suitor No. 2--bought the loan and served American Mall Properties with a default notice shortly after. Sunnyvale Town Center ended up in the hands of a receiver, and not for the last time. A little while later, AMP defaults on the Mello-Roos bonds (I guess you still have to pay your taxes even when your project is losing money.) That‘s unfair.  Rules are rules, honey cake. Anyway, the Mello Roos bond holders started to foreclose on the mall. Unsurprisingly, American Mall filed for bankruptcy protection shortly after that. This is a long story, Gramps. And it's not over, honeybun.  In 2003, another investor, this time an affiliate of Lehman Brothers--Yes, Suitor No. 3--bought the bank loan. The mall property was now shuttered and an adjoining parking structure declared unsafe by city officials. The city put out a request from proposals for a master developer from the various landowners in the mall area. Lehman Brothers-- Oh. That's a scary story! Don‘t tell me that one again! Don't worry: this happened way before all that. Anyway, Lehman's partner was a Georgia-based developer, Forum Development Group, and together they put forward a proposal to demolish both the mall and the dilapidated parking deck. To replace the mall, Lehman-Forum proposed a mixed-use center with 500,000 square feet of retail, 292 residential units and 275,000 square feet of office space, plus 5,651 parking spaces. They also asked to extend public streets through the property--a worthwhile move to integrate the former mall property back into the downtown street grid. In return, the city agreed to pay for the demolition of the old parking structure, while also agreeing to give the developer up to $4.05 million annually in tax increment generated by the project.              Oh, I love happy endings! Not quite yet, darling. Lehman-Forum was unable to get financing for the project by a December 2004 deadline. Lehman bought out Forum (we're not done with them, however) and asked the city to push the deadline back to May 2005. As master developer, Lehman solicited proposals from developers, including Forum, and in April 2005, Lehman sold the entire mess back to Stanley Thomas, the principal owner of Forum. I think I'm getting sleepy. Forum went to work on the expansion plans later the same year, tearing down the old parking structure, but was late getting started on construction. The city told Forum that the latter was in breach of its agreement. By 2006, the city told the developer that it intended to exercise its right, under the redevelopment agreement, to buy back the mall and find yet another developer. "No, no!" said the developer. "Let me find a new buyer!" Gramps, why didn't the city just blow up the mall with dynamite and make it into a pumpkin patch? Well, that's a good question, sweetheart. By 2007, Forum sold the property to a partnership between RREEF Properties and Sand Hill Properties--Suitor No. 4, let‘s call them--who wanted to build the earlier project, while adding a hotel and a grocery store. Fine, why not, said the city, "Just build  something !" So Sand Hill and RREEF built the beginnings of the project, including three office buildings, which were about half finished in 2009. At that point, the latest developers announced a slowdown as they sought a new round of financing. They were sued that same year by their building contractor, who alleged that Sand Hill and RREEF were behind on payments. By October 2009, yet another receiver was in place. Is this project occupied by evil spirits, Gramps? I think so. The current receiver is Jerry Hunt, a principal of Quattro Realty. He marketed the half-finished office buildings to various parties. By some lucky stroke, Nokia, the Finnish cell-phone maker, decides in May 2010 to lease an entire five-story, 156,000-square-foot office building, and consolidate three of its Silicon Valley offices into downtown Sunnyvale. It was a stroke of rare luck for the city, because Sunnyvale's office buildings were competing with tons of vacant office space left over from the Tech Wreck nearly a decade ago. Will Princess Downtown Sunnyvale be happy at last, gramps? I hope so. With the lease signed, the bank gives the receiver the money to finish the building, and Nokia takes occupancy in December.  Everybody's happy. Why is this lease so surprising? It's surprising because high tech companies in Silicon Valley often prefer suburban, stand-alone campuses, or sometimes tall office buildings. The company's decision to lease in downtown Sunnyvale might be seen as an expression of interest in urban things, such as places to walk during lunch, and maybe get your dry cleaning done, too. Plus, the project stands two blocks away from a Cal Train station, so it's transit-friendly. So, Gramps, this means if I get good grades and go to the Wharton School and become a developer I can do the same thing when I grow up? Don't count on it, sweetness. The Nokia lease was a stroke of extraordinary good fortune. Of course, in my opinion, many more high-tech firms would be happier in downtown areas, which, unlike suburban campuses-- (Z-z-z-z-z-z.)  --Morris Newman

Mike Winn, president of Sacramento-based land development and planning firm Michael Winn Associates, assumes the chairmanship of the California Building Industry Association at a challenging time, to put it mildly. The ravages of the recession and their relationship with the housing market are of course well known, and they have struck at the heart of thousands of developers, contractors, and architects who were deluged with work only a few years ago. As CIBA contemplates a year of dwindling membership and new priorities, CP&DR spoke with Winn about the organization's outlook on a changing California. What are your goals this year as CBIA chair? Our industry has gone through quite a crisis really. Membership in CBIA is down so we've had to pick and choose our battles pretty carefully.  Going into 2011, the focus is pretty much around the implementation of SB 375 and the various regional plans related to the greenhouse gas targets.  We want to make sure they're as reasonable as they can be for the healthy growth of each of the regions.  School financing is another big priority for us in 2011. We're doing everything we can legislatively and with the regulators to see that adequate state funds are there for new school construction.   Construction defect reform is likely to gain some steam next year.  About 5 years ago SB 800 provided for the right to ask homebuilders to repair construction defects and all types of customer service issues.  We're concerned about loopholes that still need to be closed by legislation and abuses that are still going on statewide. How important are public-sector projects going to be in the coming years? Very important. The membership of CBIA is very diverse: architects, engineers, builders, developers. Particularly those with the ability to design and build in the public sector--or on public funded facilities--there's definitely a gravitation in that direction. For the conventional homebuilder, those opportunities really aren't too realistic. What kind of shape are conventional homebuilders--the type who might have been doing subdivisions in the Inland Empire five years ago--in now? How are they riding out this crisis? Those who are still standing aren't doing much volume. Even the big publicly traded companies � the Pultes, the Lennars, the KBs aren't either. But the large private companies have worked through their debt issues and probably learned how to shrink and be more effective.  They're tackling business plans that might show 50-100 homes per year whereas in the past it might have been 500-600 homes per year. Probably more importantly, their focus is now on infill or in what I might characterize as the inner suburbs or metropolitan areas. Right now there's not a great deal of new master-planned development being initiated. What's that been like for your members to adapt to this new business and regulatory landscape? It's interesting that this is all happening at one time: the industry is contracting, the rules for land use development are changing, and commercial banking capital is scarce. So the adaptation has probably been expedited by that combination. The companies that are still standing in the major metropolitan areas are aware that they're going to have to be more diverse and build different product and do infill. I'd say on the whole they're welcoming that. It might be the only opportunity that they have.  Does that require a totally different attitude towards their business, or can a greenfield developer shift their focus to infill without disrupting what they consider their business to be? Some have done it very well. I can't say that uniformly the large-scale greenfield builder is going to jump at infill opportunities. Some have made the jump very adeptly and are till working in both types of markets with very distinct products in each. I've seen some hybrid examples too where some of the best examples of greenfield architecture have been brought into infill situations. On the coast, infill has been big for a while. How are these trends playing out in Sacramento? The regional planning agency certainly is. Between the Blueprint that was adopted five years ago and the metropolitan transportation plan, there's a high percentage of homes over the next couple of decades that will be attached and in infill locations. There now are a couple small-scale developments happening � eight homes, twelve homes, sixteen homes on infill lots. That was the type of thing you didn't see at all during the boom. What would you pursue if you had more latitude to push other policy agendas? There's a limit to what the state agencies or legislature can do with local building permits or impact fees, but that's always going to be near the top of our list to the extent that we can find equity in the way public agencies charge impact fees. That has an awful lot to do with how affordable houses can be. In some jurisdictions it got to be where $100,000 in impact fees alone was not extraordinary. On the building materials side and on the labor side, it's just an unusual period. Costs of construction materials may be down and labor is plentiful.  Are you surprised that we haven't hit an equilibrium whereby the cost of construction has dropped and construction would be viable again? We hoped that that would be the case. Some of the bigger public builders have tried mightily to drive their hard cost of construction down to a point where they reached that equilibrium on sales price that they begin to attract new buyers. But in some cases that involves writing their land cost down to zero if they're able to do so.  That's quite an advantage over a conventional real estate company. Now that ARB has announced the SB 375 targets for the different regions, what would you like to see happen with SB 375 implementation? We were part of the 375 collaboration, so I think CBIA on balance is looking forward to implementation but is very concerned that it be done in a realistic way. The targets, depending on the region, are very aggressive. It's our hope that a second look can be taken or other benefits of implementing those targets can go into effect without slowing things down more than they already are. As these regions begin to roll out their metropolitan transportation plans and sustainable community design strategies�it's really going to be incumbent upon us, the builders, to stay engaged.  It frightens some people and it's confusing. But it's the new rules of the game. Is there a silver lining to SB 375? Is it going to promote things that are going to be good for builders? Two elements of that silver lining are important. Local jurisdictions that had been reluctant to approve higher density housing seem less so, with the advent of 375 and the blueprint regional plans. And then of course there are some CEQA benefits that could realistically cut a year off the process at a point where that year makes a huge difference. I think there's real benefit to the way the legislation came out of the mill. We just have to see how it behaves once it hits the ground. Who are your core members now, what are you doing to reach out, and what are you doing to help them keep their spirits up? That's probably our number-one objective here. The reorganization is really our focus over the next few months. It's going to be an interesting year whether we have 3,000 members or 4,000 members. As much as legislative and regulatory matters, we're reorganizing internally. We have a new president, Liz Snow. We're trying to get the organization down so that it's primarily a government-affairs association and we can afford to be as active as possible. That's going to be a big change for the builders who benefited from CIBA's efforts through the revenue that came through our big trade show, the Pacific Coast Builders Conference every June in San Francisco. That model is broken. We can no longer rely on revenue from one trade show. Builders have to reach into their pockets and look at the value benefit of CBIA. We are down in membership, from 5,000 members a few years ago to just under 4,000 now. Are you perceiving different issues bubbling up in different parts of the state? It's a good relationship. We have a mission between the local chapters, the state, and the national chapter. The communication is very good. We meet and collaborate a few times a year within California. And whenever one of our local chapters has a real issue of statewide significance, it boils up pretty quickly. If you're building in San Diego or Redding or the Bay Area or Los Angeles, the big issues seem to be common to all of us. Occasionally there's going to be an issue � water, for instance � in which you'd have a Northern and a Southern California perspective.

A world away from the Gaslamp Quarter and the Hotel del Coronado, eastern San Diego County is often described as California's own outback. Its roughly 3,600 square miles of unincorporated county territory encompasses mountains, farmland, and deserts � and includes only 16% of the county's 3 million residents. For the past 12 years, county officials and stakeholders have been trying to decide how to marry an ardently rural area with 21 st  century planning principles. Now, after countless hearings and an estimated 500 stakeholder meetings, a general plan update for unincorporated San Diego County will soon be voted on by county supervisors. A vote was expected as early as October, but the number of requests to speak before the supervisors overwhelmed the agenda. Public hearings have been continued to the Dec. 8 meeting, and a vote will likely take place no sooner than January. The plan update relies on growth projections by the San Diego Association of Governments, which expects the county's unincorporated areas to grow to from 443,000 to 627,000 residents by 2050. To accommodate that growth, the plan would discourage development in the county's eastern reaches and instead concentrate it in roughly 30% of the county's unincorporated territory. Meanwhile, it would protect up to 393,000 acres of sensitive habitat from development. Most of the territory designated for higher densities lies in the western portion of the county, hugging inland boundaries of the county's coastal cities. The plan encourages greater density around the county's existing villages � such as Fallbrook, Julian, and Ramona � but strives to keep the backcountry nearly as rural as ever in part through minimum densities and conservation subdivisions.  If the current version is adopted it will be considered a victory for environmentalists and smart-growth advocates, especially those who see San Diego County as microcosm for the rest of the state. "It's a plan of statewide significance, because San Diego has important natural resources, important farmland, and it has countryside," said Dan Silver, executive director of the Endangered Habitats League and member of the General Plan Interest Group. "This is a watershed for smart growth and good planning. San Diego is a county that has not really either in the past committed itself to smart growth pattern of development or to complete destruction either � it's been kind of an in-between county." "In-between" does not, however, mean that the county has reached a harmonious balance. Many residents of the backcountry remain concerned that the cosmopolitan forces in the county are imposing a plan that will be too restrictive. A white paper entitled "Fixing the Fatal Flaws" was published in August by a coalition of agricultural and business groups concerned about downzoning and the relationship between the general plan and the community plans. And many of the speakers at those 500 stakeholder meetings have been landowners who are furious about the changes that the plan portends. The white paper contends that "large swaths of the County are proposed for severe downzoning, a downzoning that is arbitrary and excessive and will result in regressive economic impacts to rural communities." The challenge of striking the right balance is one reason why the process has taken longer than a decade. Another is its radical departure from the existing general plan, which was adopted in 1978. Now considered legally deficient, the 1978 plan promotes what Silver described as "checkerboard" development, and pays relatively little heed to crucial constraints such as roads, water, sewage service, and the area's considerable environmental resources. Critics say that if the general plan update is not adopted, any number of inland hamlets could turn into the next Temecula. If projected growth were to occur undirected, Silver estimates that the roads alone to serve dispersed populations would cost up to $5 billion over 40 years. "It was important to do that because the current general plan from the late 1970s is a complete disaster," said Silver. "It maximizes fire risk, depletes groundwater, maximizes infrastructure costs and greenhouse gas emissions." "Update" is thus a loose term for a plan that essentially wipes out the old one. "We decided to use new land-use designations," said Devon Muto, the county's chief of advanced planning. "We're not even using the old terminology. That requires us to re-map the entire unincorporated area. We're not changing density on 70% of our parcels. 10% will increase density, 20% will decrease." The three general designations are 1) rural, which will include one unit per 20-80 acres; 2) semi-rural with one unit to 0.5 -20 acres; and 3) village, with up to 30 units per acre. Those densities would put the unincorporated county in line with other coastal counties. For comparison, the general plans of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties include densities as low as one unit to 320 acres, while the least dense areas of Los Angeles and Orange County are prescribed for one unit to 40 acres. "Backcountry development is something they want to move away from an infrastructure perspective�services are not there," said San Diego County Planning Commissioner Bryan Woods. "Good planning says you plan where infrastructure is already developed, and that's where San Diego County is going." San Diego County planning staff produced a Draft General Plan Map representing these designations several years ago. However, landowners demanded the production of a Referral Map, which treats individual parcels differently according to landowners' individual concerns. The new plan also establishes a system of conservation subdivisions. That system would discourage the division of properties into larger, dispersed parcels and would instead set aside a relatively large parcel for conservation while creating smaller, clustered parcels for development. Unlike in many California land use battles, stakeholders are not arguing over environmental protection. Silver said that environmental groups are happy with how the plan addresses ecological resources, and Woods said, "I don't even think that's an issue." This downzoning has raised inland residents' ire not because of its effects on the environment but rather because of its potential economic impacts. Group such as the San Diego County Farm Bureau contend not necessarily that the new density limits would thwart future developers but rather that they could decimate values of existing farms. Farmers claim that their assessed values are based on the provisions of the current general plan and that a radical departure would rob them of equity. "Like it or not, the value of land in San Diego County is in large part driven by how you can divided it up and sell it as residential lots," said Eric Larson, executive director of the San Diego County Farm Bureau. "We've been asking since Day One for an equity program, which would be a means of compensating the famers if there is a real loss of value of their land." The Board of Supervisors may yet explore such a mechanism. As well, some farmers may be compensated for setting aside habitat through the plan's Purchasing Agricultural Conservation Easements program. However, planners caution that these landowners may be overestimating the value of their land. The county commissioned a study by Keyser-Marston Assoc. that found that the downzoning would have a negligible effect on the value of individual parcels. And just because they can develop their land without constraints does not mean that the demand for such development exists � or that the opportunity would be available to more than a handful of landowners. "I sympathize with those in the backcountry that feel that they're losing their development potential," said Woods. "But on the other hand I don't think they had what they thought they had from the beginning." Moreover, this loss of value may not in and of itself warrant compensation � nor is it necessarily planners' concern. "Ultimately it's up to the Board of Supervisors as to whether they want to try to compensate those land owners," said Muto. "When we up-zone people and they receive a benefit, we don't really ask for things back. It's the same when you look at downzoning. Ultimately, it's a policy decision." On the macroeconomic scale, the San Diego County Regional Chamber of Commerce has voiced concerns that the plan could hurt the entire county's economy. The chamber contends that the plan's housing element will never be realized, in part because communities will resist the densities that the plan calls for. Moreover, they contend that the plan assumes an unrealistically high per-unit density. As a result, they say that the county's workforce will be stifled and regional businesses will suffer for lack of employees. "I don't have confidence that that density is actually achievable," said Donna Jones, vice chair of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce Public Policy Committee. Muto rejects this interpretation of the plan, noting that current densities in unincorporated communities are 2.92 persons per unit and that the projections are for a modest increase, to 3.02 persons per unit. "The general plan update provides sufficient housing to accommodate growth beyond 2050," said Muto. "That's a 40-year timeframe and more capacity than most general plans provide. During this timeframe, the unincorporated county would grow at 41.7%, which is higher than the entire region, which would grow at 40.0%." The Chamber of Commerce and other groups behind the August white paper are also concerned about how the plan treats the county's villages. Stakeholders have demanded the chance to maintain control over the character of their respective communities. Critics worry that that wording in the general plan update is so weak � referring to language that "encourages" certain densities rather than "ensures" them � that community plans could end up superseding the general plan. County officials question that characterization. "They can't really supersede the general plan," said Woods. "But they specifically can define parts of the general plan relative to their community character." Moreover, Muto said that giving communities flexibility and a certain degree of discretion is crucial for the plan's viability. "Having the communities' plans be able to provide this additional level of direction on how policies are implemented is very important especially given the size of our jurisdiction and how diverse our individual communities are," said Muto. "It's impossible to have a one-size-fits all policy for a jurisdiction like ours." Contacts & Resources San Diego County General Plan Update (Official Website) Donna Jones, Vice Chair, San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce Public Policy Committee, 619.544.1300 Eric Larson, Executive Director, San Diego County Farm Bureau , 760.745.3023  Devon Muto, Chief of Advanced Planning, County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land, 858.694.2960 Dan Silver, Executive Director, Endangered Habitats League , 213.804.2750

The management of the Planning Grants and Incentives Team at the Department of Conservation announced today its recommendations for the next round of Prop. 84 Sustainable Communities Planning Grants (see CP&DR Insight Vol. 25, Nos. 5-6, March 2010 ) which is administered by the Strategic Growth Council to support the climate change goals of AB 32 and SB 375. The council received 189 applications and has recommended 44 awards totaling roughly $23 million in funding.  The primary goal of the grant program is to help develop and implement plans that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve objectives including infill development, public health, equity, natural resource protection, and urban revitalization. Grants are awarded in four focus areas: 1) local sustainable planning grants for cities and counties; 2) regional SB 375 grants for metropolitan planning organizations; 3) regional planning activities with multiple partners, and 4) economically disadvantaged communities. Awards of $10.3 million, $5.7 million, and $2.2 million $4.6 million have been recommended for each of these respective focus areas. Competition was particularly fierce among cities; SGC received is recommending 24 awards out of 100 applications, many of which were clustered in Los Angeles and Orange counties. Recommended grants range from $139,000 to $1 million.  For a full list of recommended projects, please download the PDF of the  full report  to the Strategic Growth Council.

Deep in the heart of John Steinbeck country, city folks, rural folks, farmers, businesses and everyone in between are still waging dubious battle over control of Monterey County land. After an 11-year process, a general plan update was unanimously approved by the county's Board of Supervisors on October 26. But rather than lay out a vision for a bright new future, the approved update � which focuses growth on existing urban centers, limits growth in some areas with water shortages, and expands farmland � may turn out to be a magnet for lawsuits. Groups are lining up to sue, with several suits expected to be filed by the end of the year. Contentiousness would be nothing new for the county. Two previous versions of the plan had come before the board in 2004 and 2007, only to fall apart. In 2004, the board rejected a city-centered growth plan. In 2007, county voters rejected an environmental group's general plan initiative, and they rejected the county's version of the plan update as well (see CP&DR, Vol. 22, No. 7, July 2007). Monterey County has all the ingredients for classic planning tussles: valuable agricultural land, scenic vistas near the oceans, wealthy residents who don't want to see more development, environmentalists who want growth in its cities, farmworkers who need housing, and chronic water supply issues. Put it all together, and common ground is difficult, if not impossible, to find. "Both sides at the extremes are unhappy" with the latest plan, said Simon Salinas, who is chairman of the Board of Supervisors. Salinas said that many groups in the county do support the updated plan�affordable housing advocates, cities, and developers. But environmentalists and agricultural groups may yet file lawsuits over the latest plan by the end of the year, delaying the plan from going forward. The website for environmental group LandWatch Monterey County, calls the general plan "a deeply flawed document." Its website said "LandWatch opposes new policies which would permit cultivation on steep slopes, a practice prohibited since the 1980s," and claims the county has chosen to postpone dealing with long-term sustainable water supply issues. LandWatch officials declined to comment further for this story. But many concerns about the plan's actual impacts are likely to be ironed out in the coming years. Both Sup. Salinas and Assistant County Planning Director Carl Holm say that implementing ordinances will spell out specifics from the 150-page plan. One thing that the general plan doesn't touch is use of oceanfront property, always a hot button issue. That would get the Coastal Commission involved, explained Holm, who was the county's project manager on the general plan. So the plan looked only at other zones in the county that are located inland or on coastal plains. Two notable parts of the new update are expected to impact parts of the county differently. One provision will limit housing subdivisions in unincorporated parts of the north county where water supplies are limited. This area has drawn particular scrutiny because it is just over the hill from the employment centers of Silicon Valley and therefore is considered ripe for development. And yet, Monterey County is still more oriented to crops than to computers. Another provision allows crops to be grown on slopes of over 25% grade, which is expected to allow more vineyards on hillsides in the foothills that extend south from Salinas. "Compromises were made to development on slopes and on water use," Holm said. The 25% slope issue is part of a long range plan to promote more tourism in the inland parts of the county, which is home to many of the county's vineyards. Tasting rooms, however, are currently clustered on the Monterey Peninsula where tourists to Monterey and Carmel are plentiful, Holm explained. To compel tourists to visit inland areas, the general plan update allows for easier development of bed and breakfast inns and tasting rooms in the Salinas Valley. Supervisor Salinas said the general plan update will also facilitate agriculture-related construction, such as food processing plants, in the region. Although environmentalists are concerned that crops might take over fragile hillsides, but those concerns may be unfounded, Holm said most wine growers do not plan to grow grapes on slopes with more than a 25% grade. And anything beyond that threshold will require a use permit from the county. Holm said the new requirements for slope grading is based on studying what has been done in nearby grape growing regions of San Luis Obispo, Sonoma and Napa counties "Most viticulturists indicated it's not cost effective to go over 25 percent," he said. But one agricultural leader said a blanket slope policy doesn't work for the vast county. "The one-size-fits-all mentality is pretty stone age, " said Christopher Bunn, Jr., who is head of the land use committee of the Monterey County Farm Bureau. Environmentalists, he said, "don't really care about slopes. It's a convenient way to shut down growth." Bunn said that, on the whole, the new general plan is "not friendly to farming" because "a lot of these regulations and policies cost (farmers) more." He said that the Farm Bureau would meet soon to decide on litigation. Several agricultural groups have threatened a lawsuit over the plan's requirement that most new construction include proof of a long-term water supply, according to the Salinas Californian newspaper. They contend that an annual $3 million tax assessment for various water projects already confers on them certain long-term water rights that the general plan update would effectively trump. Finally, Michael Stamp, an environmental attorney in Monterey, represents what he calls "citizen advocacy groups." "We're still evaluating the situation," he said on November 10, when asked if litigation would be filed over the update. "If the general plan is challenged, the challenge could be quite successful," said Carmel Valley attorney Richard Rosenthal, who is counsel for the Save our Peninsula Committee. Rosenthal said two top concerns with the update are inadequacies with traffic circulation and water issues. Rosenthal did not, however, indicate that his group would be filing lawsuits. "The county has a pretty rich history of land use litigation," he said. Bunn, whose family company grows celery and cauliflower, said the 11 years of contention on the general plan update are due to "a very polarized county. It has, he said, "sucked up a lot of time and money that we would have rather put into our businesses." Contacts: Christopher Bunn, Monterey County Farm Bureau Land Use Committee, 831.424. 2067 Carl Holm, Assistant Planning Director, Monterey County, 831.755.5240 Richard Rosenthal, attorney, 831.625.5193 Simon Salinas, Chair, Monterey County Board of Supervisors, .831.755.5033 Michael Stamp, attorney, 831.373.1214 LandWatch

If a new generation of transportation advocates and federal officials has their way, California will soon have miles of brand-new rail lines, strategically sited to enliven cities, increase real estate values, and whisk passengers several whole blocks at speeds of.... nearly 20 miles per hour. High-speed rail, it's not. But $40 billion, it's not either. While the state plans for its proposed high-speed rail network, a raft of California cities are pursuing a more twee type of rail travel. Ubiquitous in the early 20 th  century, trolleys and streetcars are emerging as a newly popular form of intra-city transit. But even the staunchest rail buffs admit that transportation is only part of the benefits that over three dozen cities across the country -- and more than a few in California -- are seeking as they to join the streetcar trend. The streetcar bandwagon, which has picked up dozens of cities nationwide, including Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento, and Santa Ana, is fueled not only by nostalgia but also by new attitudes about both urbanism and transportation planning. In transportation terms, streetcars play the same role as downtown shuttle buses: they are "circulators" connecting places in close proximity to one another. Many planners see streetcars not as transportation projects at all and are instead "place-making" devices, according to Maureen Pascoe, capital improvement manager for the City of West Sacramento. Pascoe is in charge of the Riverfront Streetcar Plan, which is being developed in cooperation with the City of Sacramento. "The (transportation) paradigm is changing from mobility to accessibility," said Gloria Ohland, the Los Angeles-based author of  Street Smart: Streetcars and Cities in the Twenty-First Century . "Accessibility is really about things like streetcars, so you can be in one place have access to a lot of things without having to drive from point A to point B." Streetcars have been proposed for downtown Los Angeles' Broadway, which is lined with underutilized historic buildings. The effort is supported with up to $10 million in redevelopment funds and Los Angeles County Metro released a request for proposals seeking firms to conduct an initial environmental study. The City of Oakland would replace its Broadway Shuttle bus with a streetcar that would link Jack London Square to the rest of downtown and at least one BART station. Long Beach and Pasadena officials envision streetcars for their respective cities' historic downtowns. A streetcar has even been proposed for the edge city of Warner Center, in Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley. Meanwhile, officials in West Sacramento see a streetcar as the catalyst that will enable it to share more of its big sister's vibrancy; its 1.2-mile segment would originate at City Hall, cross the Tower Bridge over the Sacramento River and connect with a system that the City of Sacramento is planning. "Too many people (in Sacramento) think that the world ends at the Sacramento River," said Pascoe. "We really see ourselves as the other side of downtown. We are right at the core of the region and we plan to develop." Similarly, Santa Ana's proposed streetcar system would link the city's downtown with a regional transit hub in adjacent Garden Grove. Each of these cities can look to San Francisco for inspiration. There, vintage streetcars have been running along Market Street and throughout the city continuously for over a century. Unlike light rail lines, which dominated rail transit over the past two decades, streetcars travel at grade and usually in the flow of traffic, without dedicated rights of way. It is their integral role in the streetscape that, supporters say, make them sought-after tools for urban development and economic development. "They can catalyze development because of their real and perceived sense of permanence," said Zach Seal, Broadway Streetcar Project manager for the City of Oakland. "Once the developers see the tracks laid in the asphalt they know the streetcar will be there for decades and know they can make large investments in dense, green, mixed use housing along the streetcar line." Long Beach City Councilmember Suja Lowenthal views her city's pursuit of a streetcar as a way to appeal to new transit riders who are attracted to fixed rail: "streetcars serve a different customer than buses, attracting more choice riders and tourists/visitors who are willing to travel on a rail system in an unfamiliar city." By that same token, however, streetcars' most often-cited downside is that by traveling in the flow of traffic they cannot move any faster than the average bus or car. Moreover, transit planner and streetcar critic Jarrett Walker notes in a recent blog post, "Streetcars: An Inconvenient Truth," that for the cost of a streetcar system local businesses, property owners, and redevelopment agencies could invest in pavement upgrades, street furniture, and myriad other amenities that would enhance pedestrian life. Moreover, streetcar systems do not tend to serve regional goals. "It is a fad; it's always been a fad. That doesn't mean necessarily that it's a bad thing," said Lisa Schweitzer associate professor of transportation at the USC School of Policy, Planning, and Development. "Because it's not a commuter system�.it's not really something that's going to change climate or alter air quality." It may, however, change the fortune of local landowners and urban boosters. A 2008 report commissioned by Portland Streetcar contends that up to $3.5 billion had been invested within two blocks of the alignment since the system began operating in 2001. Likewise, residential and commercial densities had increased, with over 10,000 new housing units and over 5 million square feet of new commercial space. The report notes, however, that the streetcar is just one element of a strategy to promote investment in the city's core. "More than streetcars being transit projects, they are really economic development projects with transportation benefits," said Ohland. "They promote the whole local, sustainable, green trend. They would become such groovy neighborhoods with a streetcar." These developments often come right out of the smart growth pattern playbook, replete with mixed use buildings, pedestrian improvements, and even locally owned businesses that are, according to Ohland, sensitive to the unique character of historic urban neighborhoods. Backers say that the investment potential and concentrate benefits enable them to seek private investment from local businesses and landowners who stand to capture the economic benefits of a streetcar line. Streetcar planners say that businesses and landowners have been receptive to ideas for schemes such as benefit assessment districts. LA Streetcar Inc.'s website notes that the private sector funded 30% of Portland's line and nearly 50% of Seattle's; the group seeks similar participation among stakeholders in downtown Los Angeles. "All of the long-term studies of transit show that the main beneficiaries of public investment are the people who own land next to it," said Schweitzer. "And if we know this why can't we find ways of moving some of this�.increase in value up-front and allocating it across the lifetime of the investment?" Streetcars' fate may ultimately rest with the largesse of the federal government, which has of late introduced new policies and funding criteria that embrace circulators and urban livability.  This year the Department of Transportation awarded its first round of Urban Circulator Grants, dedicated to helping cities improve their internal transit (including streetcars), bike, and pedestrian networks. These grants emerged out of a new partnership between DOT, the department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Environmental Protection Agency. This partnership has led to a major shift away from typical transportation grants, which consider the worthiness of a transportation project based largely on its cost-effectiveness, based on travelers' time savings, and towards a method of evaluation that takes into account broader neighborhood benefits. "A few years ago it was very difficult if not impossible to get federal New Starts money for streetcars," said Seal. "Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood tweaked the scoring system for rail projects and put less weight on speed and more weight on things like quality of life and economic development." Sixty-five cities applied for the first round of Urban Circulator Grant funding, which was awarded this summer. $130 million of the total $293 million was dedicated to streetcar projects and Cincinnati, Chicago, St. Louis, and Charlotte, N.C., each snapped up $25 million grants for new lines. West Sacramento and Los Angeles applied in this summer's round of funding but were both shut out. Those and other planned systems in California are estimated to cost roughly $30 million per mile to build, plus several million per year to operate. Seal attributes this competition to the fact that the grants have arrived a moment when there is massive "pent-up demand." "There were 10-20 streetcar projects across the country sitting there waiting for this (funding) change to happen," said Seal. Those projects can still appliy for grants from the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) federal stimulus program; TIGER II grants are available through Septembers 2012. "There seems to be continued interest at the federal and state level to continue funding these systems," said Lowenthal, who said that her city of Long Beach will apply for federal funds. "That being said, there may be changes to funding priorities as a result of the November 2 election." No matter what, it's likely that new trolleys will be clanging modestly down California streets long before they get out-raced by bullet trains. Contacts & Resources: Julie Gustafson, Portland Streetcar Community Relations Representative,  http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/ 503-823-2900 Daniel Jacobson, The Oakland Streetcar Plan, http://www.oaklandstreetcarplan.com Suja Lowenthal, Long Beach City Council Member, 562.570.6684 Gloria Ohland, Author,  Street Smart: Streetcars and Cities in the Twenty-First Century Maureen Pascoe, West Sacramento Capital Improvement Manager, (916) 617-4535 Lisa Schweitzer, Associate Professor, USC School of Policy, Planning, & Development, (213) 740-3866 Zach Seal, Broadway Streetcar Project Manager, City of Oakland; (510) 238-2937 Streetcar Proposals & Studies: Los Angeles: www.lastreetcar.org/ Santa Ana: santaanatransitvision.com/fixed_guideway_project.html Sacramento/West Sacramento: www.riverfrontstreetcar.com/