The Yuba County Board of Supervisors approved the 5,100-unit Yuba Highlands project on Tuesday, July 10, after nearly seven years of planning and negotiation with developer Gary Gallelli. Now it appears the action will shift to the courtroom. At least seven state, regional and local agencies called the project's environmental impact report inadequate, and most of those entities appear ready to seek relief in court. For example, the Department of Fish and Game says the EIR understates the project's impact on wildlife at an adjacent state wildlife area. Caltrans is dissatisfied with the traffic analysis and mitigations. The Regional Water Quality Control Board says the project lacks water rights. Environmentalists are staunchly opposed. They see Yuba Highlands as classic low-density, growth-inducing sprawl in an inappropriate location — about a 20-minute drive on two-lane county roads from the nearest towns, and wedged between Beale Air Force Base and Spenceville State Wildlife Area. There is no question that the environmentalists will sue. As many as half a dozen heavyweight California Environmental Quality Act lawyers representing the county, the developer or project opponents have attended recent hearings. Project defenders, however, point to the site's location outside of the floodplain. Yuba County has received extensive criticism over the years for approving subdivisions on flood prone agricultural land. The 2,900-acre Yuba Highlands site is in the foothills on the Sacramento Valley's east side. On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to approve a community plan amendment, an area plan, zoning and a development agreement. The project still needs master plans, subdivision maps and use permits before construction may commence. You can read more about Yuba Highlands in the Local Watch department of our June edition. To check out the latest staff reports, click here , then on the 07/10/2007 meeting. Yuba Highlands is item XIII. The Marysville Appeal-Democrat had coverage on Wednesday and Thursday .

There's a downturn in the real estate development market. Does that mean we'll soon see cities in California cutting development impact fees as well? The pressure is building. Development projects that made economic sense a year or two ago – even with high impact fees – don't "pencil" now because interest rates have gone up and prices have stagnated or even dropped. In many cases, the dreams of both developers and cities are now on hold. Dreams that might move forward if fees were cut from, oh, $100,000 per unit to $80,000, or $80,000 to $40,000. At least that's what developers say, and that's what cities think. We've heard lots of rumblings around here about cities cutting fees on individual projects and considering widespread fee cuts across the board. It's an understandable response: If we can get something going now, as opposed to later, by cutting the fees, let's do it. Lots of cities did this in the last real estate recession back in the early ‘90s on the theory that they could kick-start their local economy. Impact fees are politically tricky but economically necessary for most California jurisdictions – so cutting them in an attempt to stimulate development can be tricky too. The annual "Cost of Doing Business" survey has just been released by Kosmont Companies and the Rose Institute at Claremont McKenna College. There are not a lot of surprises in the Kosmont-Rose Survey: Philadelphia is the nation's leading "wallet-buster," while Cheyenne, Wyoming, is the least expensive place surveyed to do business. What's most interesting is Larry Kosmont's observation that cities in California don't have many choices in seeking to increase revenue: They can either increase fees and taxes or they can go after new development. It's hard to ride the wave of higher real estate values – especially when the sales market is slumping and fewer properties are turning over. That's because Proposition 13 permits reassessment of property only on sale. The longer somebody owns a piece of property, the more the property becomes a financial loser for the city. In good times, of course, California cities can do both at the same time – they'll get more development and they can hike fees as well. In bad times, they might have to trade one for the other – lowering fees in hopes of spiking development. It didn't work last time, largely because the bust of the ‘90s was created by an overall economic malaise in Los Angeles, not high fees. This time, the bust, such as it is, appears to be the result of a hyperinflated real estate market, not an economic bust. A dozen years ago, it didn't matter how much you cut fees or other development costs. Nobody was going to build. This time around things might be different.

There's a downturn in the real estate development market. Does that mean we'll soon see cities in California cutting development impact fees as well? The pressure is building. Development projects that made economic sense a year or two ago – even with high impact fees – don't "pencil" now because interest rates have gone up and prices have stagnated or even dropped. In many cases, the dreams of both developers and cities are now on hold. Dreams that might move forward if fees were cut from, oh, $100,000 per unit to $80,000, or $80,000 to $40,000. At least that's what developers say, and that's what cities think. We've heard lots of rumblings around here about cities cutting fees on individual projects and considering widespread fee cuts across the board. It's an understandable response: If we can get something going now, as opposed to later, by cutting the fees, let's do it. Lots of cities did this in the last real estate recession back in the early ‘90s on the theory that they could kick-start their local economy. Impact fees are politically tricky but economically necessary for most California jurisdictions – so cutting them in an attempt to stimulate development can be tricky too. The annual "Cost of Doing Business" survey has just been released by Kosmont Companies and the Rose Institute at Claremont McKenna College. There are not a lot of surprises in the Kosmont-Rose Survey: Philadelphia is the nation's leading "wallet-buster," while Cheyenne, Wyoming, is the least expensive place surveyed to do business. What's most interesting is Larry Kosmont's observation that cities in California don't have many choices in seeking to increase revenue: They can either increase fees and taxes or they can go after new development. It's hard to ride the wave of higher real estate values – especially when the sales market is slumping and fewer properties are turning over. That's because Proposition 13 permits reassessment of property only on sale. The longer somebody owns a piece of property, the more the property becomes a financial loser for the city. In good times, of course, California cities can do both at the same time – they'll get more development and they can hike fees as well. In bad times, they might have to trade one for the other – lowering fees in hopes of spiking development. It didn't work last time, largely because the bust of the ‘90s was created by an overall economic malaise in Los Angeles, not high fees. This time, the bust, such as it is, appears to be the result of a hyperinflated real estate market, not an economic bust. A dozen years ago, it didn't matter how much you cut fees or other development costs. Nobody was going to build. This time around things might be different.

When I was interviewing for a summer fellowship with Solimar Research Group, I asked the last question that a young professional fresh out of graduate school hoping to relocate to Southern California would be expected to ask. "Can I live in Ventura without a car?" I received a reassuring "yes" for an answer; however, I didn't realize that I would be up against one of the country's most car-reliant populations apart from my hometown of Atlanta. Through the eyes of a new resident without four wheels and an engine, two things became apparent about my new surroundings. One was the lack of bike racks downtown and the other was the abundance of (free!) public parking. Whenever I needed a place to lock up my bike, I was faced with scouting out alternatives such as skinny street trees abutting car bumpers and sign posts in the way of pedestrian traffic. But there was never any shortage of places I could have parked my nonexistent car located conveniently within walking distance from any number of retail shops, eateries or bars. Within a matter of days of my arrival to Southern California I managed to have my bike stolen from a strip mall, partly due to the fact that I locked it to a sign post that was not intended to serve as a secure bike parking location. The shopping center was located in a predominantly low-income neighborhood and was desperately underserved by visible bike parking. Out of sight of the security guards patrolling the stores, my several hundred dollar mountain bike — financed by several months of waiting tables during my past life — was a sitting duck. Despite the desperation I felt immediately after realizing that my bike was missing, only ten minutes after leaving it to perform my good deed for the day — picking up a Father's Day card in the Rite-Aid — I was completely disillusioned by Southern California's slant towards automobile transit. Having my bike stolen among a sea of cars seemed unfair. Losing my only mode of transportation meant that my mobility would be reduced to walking and relying on the public bus to get to distant places that already seemed far by bike. My efforts to recover the bike proved miraculous in that the city police apprehended the joyriding thief with my bike within blocks of the scene of the crime. Upon arrival at the fairgrounds where the young man was handcuffed, I saw my bike resting against the fence. I found myself unable to look upon the culprit as I suddenly felt guilty. I couldn't determine if I felt guilty for reporting the bike stolen knowing that whoever stole it would have fewer means to ever buy a bike of his own, or if I felt guilty for getting so upset over losing a material possession that could easily be replaced with my new income stream. After my introductory experience to life in Southern California, I slowly began to understand why my bike was stolen, and the source of my conflicted feelings towards its return. After a life with a car back east, I was finally confronted what it was like not to have access to a reliable mode of transportation. Not only was my shiny bike a profitable target for a carless thief, but also an attractive alternative to the constraints and costs associated with public transit. The public bus in my new town only costs $1.25 per trip, but bus fares for multiple daily trips add up even for an entry level planner. In addition, bus routes and schedules are not as convenient as the freedom of personal mobility enabled by my bike. Now that I cruise around on two wheels instead of four, I realize that the right to mobility doesn't come without a cost, and may even be worth stealing to attain. - Jessica Daniels

Design, Community & Environment is hiring a senior-level manager to oversee all its work in Comprehensive Planning. The selected candidate will report directly to the firm's president as one of four senior staff members overseeing each of the firm's four professional disciplines. While other managers oversee work in landscape architecture, urban design and environmental review, this principal-level manager will oversee all the firm's work in general plans, specific plans and public participation. Total current project volume to be managed is approximately $2.5 million per year, with approximately 15 direct and indirect staff reports. Projects to be managed are generally in Northern California , but also include some in Southern California . Applicants for this position should have extensive experience in the management of a range of comprehensive planning projects. Specific activities will include: Staff assignments and oversight Ensuring schedule and budget adherence Ensuring subconsultant coordination and management Client contact Oversight of proposal and report writing Strategic planning Coordination of marketing and expansion efforts Quality control and quality assurance Public presentations Meeting facilitation This is a principal-track position, with the possibility of an ownership interest in the firm within a short period of time. DC&E offers a competitive salary, generous benefits, and a casual, collaborative work environment. Qualified candidates are encouraged to contact us by phone, or to e-mail a resume and cover letter to steve@dceplanning.com , or fax to (510) 848-4315 . Please see our webpage at www.dceplanning.com for more information about the firm. DC&E is an equal opportunity employer and encourages candidates with diverse backgrounds.

For a bill that's mostly about symbolism, it was a symbolic defeat. A local government-backed eminent domain bill cleared its first committee hearing on Tuesday, July 3, but the prospects for ultimate passage may have dimmed. The measure, ACA 8, survived the Assembly Local Government Committee 7-3 — but without a single Republican vote. Because it is a constitutional amendment, ACA 8 needs two-thirds support in both houses, which means it needs some GOP votes. As we reported in June , the measure would essentially prohibit the taking of owner-occupied residences so that the property could be transferred to another private owner. Small businesses — those with 25 or fewer employees — could be taken only if the business owner declined to participate in the economic development project proposed for the site. The Republican members of the committee picked holes in the bills. Why distinguish between small and large businesses, asked Assemblyman Anthony Adams (R-Hesperia.) Why aren't churches, farmland and rental properties addressed, asked Assemblyman Van Tran (R-Costa Mesa). What about the definition of "blight," asked Assemblyman Rick Keene (R-Chico). ACA 8 doesn't "get to the crux" of concerns raised by the Kelo decision, Keene said. Bill author Hector De La Torre (D-South Gate) emphasized that the bill would restrict the government's authority in an unprecedented way and noted that voters rejected more far-reaching eminent domain restrictions contained in last year's Proposition 90. He called ACA 8 a "thoughtful compromise." But De La Torre won over no Republicans. Adams and Tran are co-sponsors of ACA 2 (Walters), which would prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development. Although that bill is dead for the year, Republicans appear to be sticking by it. Interestingly, opposition to ACA 8 was relatively light during the Assembly Local Government Committee Hearing. The National Federation of Independent Business and the California Farm Bureau Federation were the only substantial opponents. A number of other business groups, including the influential California Business Properties Association, have signed on in support. However, this fight is about appearance more than it is about policy. The U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision upholding the use of eminent domain for economic development is at the heart of it all. And even Adams conceded that the Kelo situation — in which the City of New London, Connecticut, condemned an entire neighborhood to make room for a hotel and parking lot — could not happen here because of state redevelopment law. Keene, a former Chico city councilman, conceded that such redevelopment abuse in California is rare. All of which means Californians should expect to vote on at least two initiatives on the subject next year. - Paul Shigley

Walking to work at Solimar, I pass through downtown Ventura from my hillside apartment to the office on "The Avenue," a locally historic, blue-collar street on the west edge of downtown. Sure, I could drive, but it seems that just in the last few years downtown has been reinvigorated and is a pleasant place stroll. My "commute" takes me past turn-of-the-century craftsman homes and bungalows, the toaster-oven-like modernist library wearing a hospital gown shade of blue-green, the pseudo-art deco movie theater built during the '90s, the historic mission, pocket parks and window-shopping opportunities. In the mornings, Main Street is mostly barren. Drivers use alternate, faster streets and there are only a handful of breakfast joints and cafes, half of which are on the shady side of the street in the morning. There isn't much going on, and I don't have those chance encounters with fellow citizens commonly attributed to walking and smart growth design. But today's walk was unprecedented — two people said "hi." Southern California isn't known for congeniality, and it's hard to say "hi" to someone pushing 80 mph on the freeways, but even pedestrian encounters can be fraught with awkwardness. Usually it's the eye contact with the person who doesn't want to say "hi" that's awkward, or when no one is on the street except for you and one other person whose timing coincidentally puts them walking right next to you or right on your tail. Passing slower walkers without rushing can be an art form on all but the widest of sidewalks. Perhaps California is too crowded and busy for "hi." You certainly wouldn't be able to greet everyone on the Santa Monica Pier on a Sunday afternoon. If you tried, well, you'd be like the guy with dreadlocks playing his banjo while rollerblading to and fro. Maybe the density of California's urban areas, played out in walkable environments, predicates interaction to the extent that there's usually so many people around we don't know how to act when there are only a few. I think the really surprising thing was that both people who offered greetings were young guys like me, whose masculinity and vestigial territoriality usually makes for awkward passing. But I guess it was a nice summer morning in downtown Ventura and the world was at ease. - Aaron Engstrom

Like a blast of hot air from the Santa Ana winds of fall, the push to address global warming in environmental impact reports has come on suddenly and with surprising intensity. Twelve months ago, only a handful of people were talking about global warming in the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, the passage last year of AB 32 limiting greenhouse gas emissions, the filing of several lawsuits over project and plan environmental reviews, and an apparent interest by new Attorney General Jerry Brown have brought the issue to the forefront. But while there is a movement to include global warming discussions in environmental impact reports and other CEQA documents, there is little guidance for planners and environmental consultants who have to prepare the documents. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research has had little to say on the subject, and there are no proposals — at least not publicly available — to amend the CEQA Guidelines or state law in a way that explains how global warming should be considered. Conferences and workshops are buzzing, though, and the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) has just released a heavily reviewed "white paper" that provides some of the most extensive guidance to date. "I really think the attorney general submitting comment letters on projects has raised the profile of this issue," said Barbara Schussman, an attorney with Bingham McCutchen in Walnut Creek. "Most land use lawyers are advising their clients to include global warming in their environmental documents." In April, Brown's office sued San Bernardino County for failing to analyze and mitigate the effects on global warming caused by a general plan update. Brown's office has also started submitting comment letters on individual development projects — including the 5,000-unit Yuba Highlands project (see CP&DR Local Watch , June 2007) — and on regional transportation plans. An attorney general's letter sent in May commenting on the EIR for San Joaquin County's regional transportation plan (RTP) says that governor's Executive Order S-3-05 (which recognized the need to limit global warming's impact on the state) and the passage of AB 32 (the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) "inform agencies' obligations under CEQA." The construction and use of $6.6 billion worth of highway and road projects will result "in a significant cumulative contribution" to greenhouse gases, and, therefore, the San Joaquin Council of Governments must adopt "all feasible alternatives and mitigation measures to reduce the project's global warming impacts." The attorney general goes on to suggest that the COG spend more money on public transit, require energy-efficient building materials and plant additional trees. The San Joaquin COG's response, which Schussman helped prepare, says that greenhouse gas emissions would actually be greater without the project because of increased traffic congestion. The attorney general's office, though, may use the San Joaquin RTP as a test case, much as it is using the San Bernardino general plan update. The AEP white paper offers seven potential methodologies for dealing with global warming during environmental review, ranging from no analysis to a quantitative analysis combined with emission reduction strategies contained in a report by the governor's Climate Action Team. An earlier version of the white paper recommended a quantitative analysis in every instance, but that recommendation drew condemnation, especially from the building industry. "We figured out that's not practical in a lot of instances," said AEP President Kent Norton, of Michael Brandman Associates' San Bernardino office. "We came up with kind of a shopping list instead. … Every attorney in the world wanted to have their say." Indeed, attorneys have begun cranking out memos and other documents in response to the AEP white paper and clients' questions. During a UCLA Extension conference earlier this year, attorney Michael Zischke of Cox, Castle & Nicholson offered four options for dealing with the issue: • Declare that AB 32 added nothing to CEQA requirements and ignore the matter; • Disclose that a project will generate greenhouse gas emissions but state that any impacts are too speculative to consider; • Address greenhouse gas emissions as a CEQA issue in an air quality discussion; or • Prepare a quantitative analysis and mitigations. Zischke said he is ready to defend all four approaches, but he said the last alternative — full analysis and mitigations — is "far-fetched." The California Building Industry Association (CBIA) favors Zischke's first alternative — do nothing new. In a comment letter on the AEP's draft white paper, CBIA attorneys and lobbyists stated, "To date, no legal requirement exists, be it statute (AB 32), regulation, guideline or case law, that an analysis of climate change issues be undertaken within a CEQA document." Besides, the CBIA argues, lead agencies lack scientific data to establish baseline emission standards. " owhere in the scientific or analytical literature is there an established methodology for determining the impacts of either a land use plan or an individual project on global climate change and, in particular, for determining whether those impacts are significant," the CBIA letter to the AEP says. On the other end of the spectrum are environmental groups, led by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Brian Nowicki, a global warming specialist for the CBD, pointed out that AB 32 commits California to doing everything feasible to reduce the effects of global warming, including cutting greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. So it simply stands to reason that activities that generate greenhouse gas emissions — such as road projects and auto-dependent urban growth — must be analyzed under CEQA, and their impacts mitigated, he argued. "We want a full inventory of the greenhouse gas increases due to development" Nowicki said of project and plan EIRs. The CBD has sued over the EIRs for the San Bernardino general plan and a housing project approved by the City of Banning. The AEP does not pick sides but the white paper says that AB 32 "creates a compelling statutory basis" for addressing global climate change in CEQA compliance. There have been only two court decisions so far, both by trial court judges in cases that might not be entirely representative. In April, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette ruled against the Natural Resources Defense Council, which had sued the State Reclamation Board for not considering the impact of global warming on a project (rather than vice-versa). The NRDC argued that the state should have considered the impact that a rise in sea level would have before the agency granted levee improvement permits for the 11,000-unit River Islands project in the City of Lathrop (see CP&DR Local Watch , March 2003). Marlette, who called his decision "narrow," ruled that project detractors did not provide enough specific, new evidence to require the preparation of a supplemental EIR. In May, a Napa County court reached a similar conclusion in a lawsuit concerning a new Wal-Mart store's contribution to global warming: detractors had not presented new information to require after-the-fact review of the EIR. Thus far, however, no appellate courts have tackled a case and published an opinion, so there is no precedent in case law for practitioners to follow. "I suspect a lot of this will be decided on a case-by-case basis," Schussman said. Contacts: Kent Norton, Association of Environmental Professionals, (909) 884-2255. Barbara Schussman, Bingham McCutchen, (925) 975-5319. Brian Nowicki, Center for Biological Diversity, (520) 623.5252. AEP white paper: http://califaep.org/climate%20change/default.html

In only a year's time, global warming's context within CEQA has gone from the dullest blip on the radar screen to the hottest CEQA issue. Don't expect it to go away soon. Shortly after delivering our July edition to the printer, I received a copy of a letter that business and development organizations sent to the governor and legislative leaders requesting "urgent legislative action" to prevent global warming from becoming a CEQA issue. The top story in our July edition is about environmental groups and Attorney General Jerry Brown insisting that environmental reviews address a project or plan's contribution to global warming, or, in some instances, global warming's potential impact on a project or plan. Increasingly, it appears, land use attorneys are advising their clients to include at least a discussion of global warming in California Environmental Quality Act documents. But the California business and development groups — which include the Chamber of Commerce, the Manufacturers & Technology Association, the Building Industry Association, the Business Properties Association, the Forestry Association and the Western States Petroleum Association — insist that global warming is not a matter for environmental impact reports. In the June 21 letter to Gov. Schwarzenegger, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, the groups argue that until rules for enacting AB 32 (the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) are adopted, "it is pure speculation how companies, developers and consumers should be treated." "There is no provision in AB 32, nor any other statute, regulation, guideline or case law, that says CEQA is the appropriate vehicle for addressing climate change concerns," the letter states. "In fact, AB 32 explicitly gave authority to the Air Resources Board and other specific agencies to create a sound program to reduce emissions and protect the economy." "The potential harm if these challenges are allowed to continue is staggering," the letter urges, citing potential delays to new housing, commercial development and infrastructure projects. The Planning and Conservation League followed up with a June 26 letter of its own to Schwarzenegger, Nuñez and Perata, calling the business and development group's request "ill-advised and selfish." "CEQA's purpose and the goals of AB 32 are in complete harmony," wrote PCL Executive Director Gary Patton. Currently, there is no bill in the Legislature that addresses this controversy. - Paul Shigley

Corrections. A case involving enforcement of the Williamson Act in Tehama County and the payment of attorney fees to the state has in fact been published in full. A story in the June edition erroneously reported that only a portion of the case was certified for publication. The case is People ex rel. Brown v. Tehama County Board of Supervisors. The May Redevelopment Watch story erroneously stated that the City of Brea issued a $200 million bond for infrastructure improvements in 1986. In fact, the bond was for $30 million. In addition, the story should have made clear that a judge's order regarding the Brea Redevelopment Agency's underfunding of the low- and moderate-income housing fund requires the agency to recalculate housing fund contributions in the future, as well as to repay shortages dating to 1998.

The Coastal Commission in mid-June voted 8-4 to reject the Pebble Beach Company's Del Monte Forest plan — a plan that 62% of Monterey County voters approved in 2000. The plan would permit development of a golf course and hotel, about 30 high-end houses and some worker housing, while providing permanent protection for about 800 acres of Monterey pine forest elsewhere (see CP&DR Environment Watch , July 2005). The Coastal Commission rejected the plan, even though it had the support of Commissioner Dave Potter, a slow-growth supervisor from Monterey County who represents the Monterey Peninsula. Potter argued that the plan was environmentally superior to a 1984 local coastal plan, which would permit much of the property in question to be chopped up into nearly 900 large lots for new houses. However, the Commission majority sided with staff members, who said the Pebble Beach Company's plan would result in unacceptable destruction of healthy stands of Monterey pines and fragile coastal habitat. Only two weeks after the Sacramento Bee published a report questioning Placer County Planning Commissioner Michelle Ollar-Burris's real estate and land division practices, the county Board of Supervisors removed her from office. The Bee reported that Ollar-Burris and four associates repeatedly bought, sold and used parcel maps to divide properties into new rural neighborhoods east of Auburn. In one instance, 93 acres originally purchased by Mary Smith — a name used by Ollar-Burris — was sliced into 21 lots through multiple sales transactions and parcel maps. The Subdivision Map Act prohibits an owner or group of owners from dividing a property into more than four lots without going through the subdivision map process. Placer County officials first appointed a special counsel to investigate the allegations. But supervisors did not wait for the investigation to conclude before dumping Ollar-Burris, calling the situation "very distracting." Ollar-Burris told the Board of Supervisors she did "nothing wrong, nothing illegal and nothing immoral." Referendum petitions seeking to force a vote on San Francisco's redevelopment plan for the Bayview-Hunters Point area have been rejected by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Patrick Mahoney. He ruled that the petitions were invalid because they did not contain the full text of the redevelopment plan. San Francisco supervisors adopted the plan last year after a 10-year process (see CP&DR Redevelopment Watch , September 2006). The plan devotes 50% of tax increment to affordable housing, and provides a great deal of small business assistance. Residents of the heavily African-American district, however, have been distrustful of what they see as a plan to gentrify the area. An appeal of Judge Mahoney's ruling is likely. Napa County has begun processing an application for the largest project in county history: 3,200 housing units, nearly 500,000 square feet of industrial space, a neighborhood shopping center and a hotel on 152 acres next to the Napa River at the south end of the Napa Valley. The project promises to be controversial, and not merely because of its size. The site, the mostly abandoned Napa Pipe industrial property, is in unincorporated Napa County but is immediately adjacent to the City of Napa. City officials contend they should be in charge of planning the development. In addition, the proposal is starting through the environmental review process while the county is in the midst of a general plan update. Plus, an initiative limits unincorporated area growth to 1% a year. Still, the Napa County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 in early June to begin environmental review of the project, which is backed by local developer Keith Rogal, former Napa Mayor Ed Henderson and former Napa Pipe executive Steve Orndorf. For the third time in seven years , Oregonians will vote on a takings ballot measure. This time, they will decide on a proposal backed by Democratic state lawmakers that scales back Measure 37, the property rights initiative approved in 2004. Under Measure 37, landowners have filed about 7,500 claims covering 750,000 acres with local government entities. The claims ask the local government either to repeal land use restrictions adopted since 1972, or to pay the property owner. Payment of all claims would cost local governments at least $6 billion, so virtually all agencies are allowing development to proceed. More than 100 lawsuits over Measure 37 claims are pending. Democrats and advocates of Oregon's strong planning laws contend property owners have gone further than Measure 37 voters intended. The measure headed for November's ballot would limit most rural landowners to three houses and make large subdivisions outside urban areas nearly impossible. Republicans and Measure 37 proponents say changes are unnecessary.

The U.S. Supreme Court has changed course on liability for the cleanup of contaminated properties under the Superfund law. In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that a private party undertaking voluntary environmental cleanup can sue another "potentially responsible party" to recover cleanup costs. Among those who applauded the decision were the California State Association of Counties and a number of water agencies. They contended that preventing cost-recovery suits would discourage voluntary remediation of contaminated sites. Three years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in Cooper Industries v. Aviall Services , 543 U.S. 157 (2004), that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, or the Superfund law) prohibits cost-recovery suits in voluntary cleanups. However, in the case at hand, the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Atlantic Research Corporation could use a different section of CERCLA to sue a potentially responsible party. Atlantic Research wants to sue the federal government because the contamination of a site in Arkansas resulted from the company's work on rocket engines for the federal government. The Eighth Circuit said the suit could go forward, and, over the Bush administration's objections, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed. The federal government and some analysts argue that the decision will discourage potentially responsible parties from paying a sum to a state or federal government to settle liability. The settlements were intended to immunize a party from additional liability. But in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court ruled that such settlements do not protect against suits filed by other parties because the settlements would preclude any responsible party from recovering cleanup costs. The case is United States. v. Atlantic Research Corp ., No. 06-562, 2007 DJDAR 8503 and was decided on June 11, 2007.