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

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.