I tend to be skeptical about land use policy and development trends in California. Every time I leave the state, I see creative developments and practices that we Californians should be implementing. Instead, we’ve got “smart growth” developments that are nothing more than dense suburbia, and a system of funding government that encourages more of the same. Can’t we get anything right? I wonder. A recent trip to the East Coast suggests that, yes, we Californians can get things right. While attending a program at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in Cambridge, Massachusetts, I and about two dozen other journalists had the opportunity to tour three transit-oriented development (TOD) sites. What I learned was that California — especially the Bay Area — is way ahead in the TOD game. The first project we visited, which is in the early stages of development, is a residential-office-retail project in the suburb of Medford, Massachusetts. The second site, in Revere, is only a parking lot, but planners envision a mixed-use project with a linear park. The third project, mostly complete, is part of a larger South Boston waterfront redevelopment. All three sites are accessible via the “T,” the Boston region’s public transit system. By California standards, the Medford and waterfront projects are nice but ordinary. What struck me is how new they are. The T is the second oldest subway system in the country, and it has about 600,000 riders a day. A similar number of people use various commuter rail, trolley and bus services. These are big transit numbers, due in part to the fact that driving — and parking — in Boston is impractical. Yet, according to Office for Commonwealth Development, only four TODs, two of which are quite small, have been built. Only now is the trend finally taking hold, as 11 projects are under construction and at least 30 more are in the planning stages. The Bay Area, in contrast, has been building TODs since the 1980s, mostly adjacent to BART stations. In Southern California, cities are planning TODs in anticipation of getting rail transit. One Pasadena project was completed and occupied years before the Metro Gold Line showed up. I happen to think it’s a good idea to place residences, offices, shops, civic facilities and colleges in close proximity to public transit. And with gasoline at $3.50 a gallon, I’m betting that a few thousand people living or working in Contra Costa Centre — right next to the Pleasant Hill BART station — are feeling awfully smug right now. In Revere, Massachusetts, today, an asphalt parking lot covers two acres between a subway station and a popular ocean beach. Think that real estate would still be a parking lot if it were in California?

The Second District Court of Appeal has ordered the City of Santa Paula to place a slow-growth initiative on the ballot. The Santa Paula city clerk blocked the measure from reaching the ballot last year after concluding the initiative petitions did not satisfy state elections law because they did not include sections of the general plan the initiative would amend. The unanimous three-judge appellate panel ruled that the city clerk's demands went beyond the state Elections Code requirements. The initiative — which would require a public vote on any project of at least 80 acres proposed at a density greater than the general plan allows — could appear on the November ballot. In making the ruling, the court built on a 1998 decision from the City of Hayward regarding what language an initiative petition must contain. In , 69 Cal.App.4th 93 (see , February 1999), the court ruled that an initiative did not comply with Elections Code § 9201 because the petitions did not contain 17 pages of the city general plan to which the initiative text referred. The decision contained some "loose language," said Richard Francis, the attorney for the Santa Paula initiative backers, and development interests have used that language to argue that petitions for ballot measures seeking to amend a general plan need to contain the entire general plan. The decision in the Santa Paula case "really is a very helpful clarification — to know that you don't have to do that," Francis said. Santa Paula City Attorney Karl Berger read the decision differently. "Depending on your point of view, it's either a clarification of what the law is, or it's a departure from what the law is. I think it's a departure," Berger said. Berger conceded the city leaned heavily on the decision, which, he said, followed a long line of cases with similar outcomes. "The city clerk felt she had no other choice but to bounce the petition. That's certainly was what I advised her," he said. In May 2005, a group called We Care – Santa Paula submitted signed petitions for their initiative. City Clerk Josie Herrera verified that the petitions contained sufficient valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. However, Herrera rejected the petitions because they did not show where in the general plan the proposed language would be inserted, what parts of the general plan would be amended or the current text of the land use element. We Care sued, and Ventura County Superior Court Judge Steven Hintz accepted Herrera's arguments. The Second District, however, quickly dismissed those arguments. "The city points out," Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert wrote for the court, "that We Care's petition seeks to amend the general plan. It believes this requires that the land use portion of the general plan be included in the petition. But the amendment does not change any land use or density designation in the general plan. Nor does it even purport to prohibit any change in land use or density. It simply adds a provision to the general plan requiring that any increase in density for projects involving 81 or more acres be approved by popular vote. The petition contains the full text of the measure. There is no need to include any portion of the general plan. Certainly, the passage of We Care's initiative will affect the general plan. But § 9201 does not require that a petition include the text of every plan, law or ordinance the measure might affect." The court distinguished We Care's petitions from those in the case, and petitions in other cases where courts identified Elections Code flaws. The petitions in the case referenced portions of the general plan by heading and chapter number but did not include the text. Similarly, referendum petitions rejected in , (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1225, identified the ordinance in question by number and title but did not contain the ordinance's text. Three other cases involving rejected referendum petitions also failed to provide the text of ordinances to be repealed. By contrast, Gilbert wrote, "We Care's petition does not omit the text of an incorporated exhibit or any other portion of the proposed enactment. Instead, the petition contains the full and complete text of everything that will be enacted if the voters approve it." Berger said the City Council would likely seek a political compromise with We Care rather than request a state Supreme Court hearing. Interestingly, the project that spurred the We Care initiative is scheduled to be decided by voters this month. That project is a 2,165-unit development proposed by Centex for an area in which the general plan now allows about 450 houses. The City Council approved the project in December 2005, but We Care forced a referendum vote. The Case: , No. B186242, 06 C.D.O.S. 3822, 2006 DJDAR 5617. Filed May 9, 2006. The Lawyers: For We Care: Richard Francis, (805) 486-5898. For Herrera: Karl Berger, Jenkins & Hogin, (310) 643-8448.

A $1.4-million damages award that a jury granted to the owner of a San Bernardino adult cabaret has been upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The damages were based on expenses and lost income from a 53-month period when the City of San Bernardino’s zoning ordinance - which was eventually ruled unconstitutional - prevented Flesh Night Club from operating. The court upheld the award of damages even though both the Superior Court and the Fourth District approved an injunction blocking the night club from operating, the night club’s owner did not insist that the city post an injunction bond to cover potential damages, and a substantial portion of the club’s profits apparently came from prostitution. The court ruled that the forced closure violated the club owner’s First Amendment rights and the owner was due damages under the federal civil rights statute (42 U.S.C. § 1983). “ e conclude that a city is liable for damages under § 1983 if it chooses to enforce an unconstitutional ordinance by means of a preliminary injunction,” Justice Art McKinster wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth District, Division Two. “It is no defense that the injunction was sought in good faith, nor does the city’s reliance on a preliminary injunction duly issued by a trial court insulate it from liability.” Roger Jon Diamond, attorney for Flesh Night Club, told the that the court made a “courageous decision.” “It will tell cities they need to be very careful before trying to shut down an existing business if it’s protected by the First Amendment,” he told the newspaper. A San Bernardino deputy city attorney called the matter “pending litigation” and said city attorneys would have no comment. San Bernardino has been trying to shutter the adult night club since it converted from a comedy club to topless entertainment in 1994. The night club’s owner, Waldon Randall Welty, who does business as Manta Management Corporation, started the court proceedings in November 1994, when he sued the city in federal court. He contended that the city’s zoning ordinance was unconstitutionally restrictive. At the time, the city’s ordinance limited locations for adult businesses to “commercial heavy” and “industrial light” zones, and required a buffer of 2,000 feet from any other adult business, and 1,000 feet from a school, church, public park, residence or residentially zoned land. Flesh Night Club’s location complied with the buffer requirements, but the Hospitality Lane site was in the wrong zoning district. In January 1995, the city attorney bought an action in the name of the People alleging the business constituted a public nuisance and seeking to close the night club through a preliminary and permanent injunction. The following month, San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Duane Lloyd granted a preliminary injunction and ordered Manta to cease operating as an adult cabaret. Manta appealed the injunction and filed a cross-complaint against the city, seeking relief under § 1983. After a lengthy bench trial in 1996, Superior Court Judge Carl Davis declared the city’s ordinance unconstitutional because it did not serve a substantial governmental interest and did not allow for reasonable alternative avenues of communication. The city appealed that decision, and the Fourth District in an unpublished ruling affirmed the trial court ruling and dissolved the injunction in early 1999 ( ., No E019635). The litigation then returned to the trial court for a two-step trial, first to determine liability and second to determine damages. Superior Court Judge Donald Alvarez ruled that the act of requesting and obtaining the preliminary injunction and stay pending appeal constituted a basis for liability under § 1983. A jury later awarded Manta $1.4 million in damages. On appeal, the city argued that seeking redress in court is not a First Amendment violation and, for that reason, the city cannot be held liable. However, in this case, the city’s ordinance had been ruled to violate the First Amendment, and, the court noted, a city may be sued for “monetary, declaratory or injunctive relief” if it implements an unconstitutional policy. Although city officials and employees have immunity, “municipalities themselves have no immunity from damages liability ‘flowing from their constitutional violations,’” McKinster wrote, citing , Mo., (1980) 445 U.S. 622. The fact that the city received a court-ordered injunction and relied on that injunction in good faith provides no immunity, he court ruled. The city noted that Manta did not obtain an injunction bond, which under state and federal law provides a means for recovering damages. But the court, again citing , said an exception exists for § 1983 claims. “The trial court recognized this, holding that the injunction was the vehicle by which the city sought to enforce an unconstitutional ordinance, and that Manta’s cross-complaint was thus based not on the mere wrongful issuance of an injunction but on ‘a separate and distinct action for violation of Manta’s constitutional rights,” McKinster wrote. “ he absence of a bond is irrelevant.” The court then turned to the evidence behind the damages award. Manta sought $2.6 million based on $1.66 million in net profits during the 53 months after Flesh Night Club reopened and $943,000 in expenses while the club was shuttered. During the trial, the city presented evidence that Flesh dancers, with Welty’s encouragement, engaged in prostitution. The jury determined that some profits earned from 1999 to 2004 were from illegal activity but the jury carved out what it considered lawful profits. On appeal, the city argued that because some of the night club’s income was from prostitution, Manta should be barred from recovering any lost profits. But the court said it is possible for a jury to separate legal profits from illegal income. Assuming the jury awarded Manta all $943,000 for expenses, the jury awarded Manta only $456,000 for lost profits, or about 25% of what Manta claimed. Evidence exists, the court continued, that Manta derived income from legal means, such as lap dance fees, admission charges and the sale of soft drinks “at greatly inflated prices.” Flesh Night Club attorney Diamond told the he would now seek about $500,000 in attorney fees from the city. Meanwhile, a city lawsuit that seeks to shut down the club because of prostitution is pending. The Case: , No. E036942, 06 C.D.O.S. 3913, 2006 DJDAR 5715. Filed May 11, 2006. The Lawyers: For Manta: Roger Jon Diamond, (310) 399-3259. For the city: Christopher Lockwood, Arias, Lockwood & Gray, (909) 885-1229.

“Thank God for hospitals,” I said to myself a few weeks ago while speeding to the local emergency room, doubled over in the back of an ambulance. Only after the painkillers had deadened a hitherto-undetected kidney stone could I begin to think about hospitals from an urban-design standpoint. As thankful as I am for hospitals, I have to acknowledge they do not make good neighbors. Hospitals are multi-headed beasts—an ungraceful amalgam of hotel, clinic, restaurant and catering service, public areas for visitors, emergency facilities, nursing stations, testing laboratories and big loading docks that are constantly receiving shipments of food, drugs and equipment. Not to speak of a stream of patients being checked in and out at all times of day and night. Beyond consuming enormous amounts of land, hospitals need a lot of parking, nearly as much as a regional mall, so hospitals traditionally are surrounded by asphalt lots or parking structures on all sides, sometimes disguised half-heartedly by planting. The perimeters of hospitals tend to be burnt-out zones, exacerbated by traffic. Having completed its entitlement process recently, the $456 million Sutter Health campus planned for midtown Sacramento is trying not to be a typical urban hospital. Rather than taking the mega-structure approach to designing an urban hospital, Sutter is showing some fresh thinking in the way that hospitals fit into cities. Unlike the single-purpose character of traditional hospitals, the Sutter campus is an inclusive place that finds room for historic structures, a new church, a children’s theater, a new medical office building and even 32 new units of housing on a site that Sutter is selling to a local homebuilder. (The housing has no direct relationship to health care and was included in the plan as a good-will gesture to the neighborhood, according to Tom O’Leary, the hospital’s project manager.) In short, Sutter Medical Center is an attempt to rethink the hospital as urban infill and mixed use. Unusual projects often arise from unusual conditions. “The plan represents the confluence of three projects,” said architect Jim Diaz, managing partner of KMD Architects, which designed the site plan and the Sutter Health buildings. Beyond the expansion of the existing medical complex, those projects were an expansion of the nearby Trinity Church, which the local Episcopal diocese wants to enlarge into a cathedral, and a new location for the non-profit B Street Theater, which was combing the city in search of a venue for its stage productions for children. After city officials asked Sutter Health to be mindful of the other projects in the vicinity, the hospital operator decided to include the cathedral and the theater in the planning process; eventually, the Episcopal diocese and the health-care provider filed a single EIR for the combined hospital and cathedral construction. Although it’s a little hard to see from the illustrations plan printed here, one ingenious aspect of the plan is the way the hospital complex threads itself delicately among existing buildings on the site, including the Old Pioneer Church, at least two existing retail structures with popular restaurants, and an old brewery building dating from the 1850s that Sutter is restoring to something close to its Nineteenth Century state. Parking, the eternal fly in the ointment of urban design, is also cleverly handled here. Sutter is building a new parking structure directly beneath the elevated highway, next to an existing Sutter Health garage, “on land that otherwise has little value,” according to Diaz. The 1,100-space garage is intended as a community parking structure, with a flex-parking strategy. During the day, the hospital is expected to use 700 parking spaces. At night and weekends, when traffic is heaviest for the churches, the restaurants and the theater, the majority of the spaces will be available for those uses. KMD has worked hard to make the hospital look like something other than what it is: an enormous, graceless office building with enormous floors. The firm, renowned for its careful detailing, goes to town here, trying to carve some sculptural interest out of this giant refrigerator, and with some success. KMD also understands that architecture, in the sense of gorgeous facades, would not solve all problems by itself. Equally praiseworthy as architecture, if less flashy, is the way the HMO and the architects have handled scale, stepping down from tall buildings to shorter ones. Sutter Health located its tallest building, the 150-foot-tall hospital tower, directly next to the elevated highway, where a tall building would seem least intrusive in the low-rise neighborhood. The high-rise scale of the tower steps down to four stories, to the new medical office building, which steps down, terrace-style, to two stories, so that it does not overshadow Sutter’s Fort, located in a park directly across the street. Materials also transition, from the high-tech metal and glass of the hospital tower to a historically friendly copper façade of the medical office building. In Diaz’s surmise, Sutter Medical Center will be “the most comprehensively designed hospital in an urban context.” Given the variety of different businesses operating over this six-block site, it might not be surprising to find some kind of “synergies” among some of the users. One synergy that O’Leary finds is amenities for children. The B Street Theater puts on plays for young audiences, and that might make a good match with the children’s hospital that will be part of the larger medical campus. He also hopes that changing exhibits at Sutter’s Fort, now a museum, can address an audience of children. He sees the hospital area becoming a destination for children, with school buses arriving regularly to bring audiences to the theater and visitors to the historic birthplace of Sacramento. Making Sutter Medical Center into an attraction for children, however desirable, would be icing, not cake. The cake, so to speak, would be a full-scale medical center that has found a way to co-exist with a mixed-use neighborhood without becoming a nagging pain. Thank God for hospitals that can heal — and even provide adequate parking — without scorching the earth all around them.

The environmental impact report for a water transfer from a Kern County irrigation district to an urban water supplier in the Santa Clarita Valley has been upheld by the Second District Court of Appeal. The unanimous three-judge panel overturned a trial court judge,who had struck down the EIR because it did not adequately address a State Water Project framework and ongoing environmental review. The Second District ruled that the EIR did address the State Water Project issues and said the water transfer is a separate matter anyway. The ruling is a victory for water providers and developers in Los Angeles County's Santa Clarita Valley, and a setback for environmentalists and slow-growth activists. The rapidly growing Santa Clarita Valley has been at the center of numerous legal and political battles over water plans and water supply assessments. A transfer of 41,000 acre-feet of State Water Project (SWP) water to the Castaic Lake Water Agency has been a major point of contention. In 1999, the agency signed a contract under which the Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District (which receives SWP deliveries via the Kern County Water Agency) would permanently transfer the rights to 41,000 acre-feet of SWP water to Castaic. That transfer was based on the "Monterey Agreement," a 1995 plan that modified how the State Water Project allocated water during dry years and which authorized the transfer of 130,000 acre-feet of water from agricultural use to urban suppliers. In 2000, an appellate court struck down the Monterey Agreement EIR because a Monterey County water agency – and not the Department of Water Resources (DWR) – served as the "lead agency" that certified the EIR ( Planning & Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources , (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 892). The Second District followed up by invalidating the EIR for the Kern-Castaic water transfer because the environmental document tiered off the Monterey Agreement EIR. In Friends of the Santa Clara River v. Castaic Lake Water Agency , (2002) Cal.App.4th 1373, the court ruled that an EIR that tiers off a program EIR is not valid if the program EIR is no longer in place (see CP&DR Legal Digest , March 2002 ). Importantly, though, the court rejected Friends' request for an injunction halting the water transfer. Castaic has continued to have access to the SWP water since 1999. In late 2004, Castaic certified a second EIR and approved the water transfer again. The new EIR did not tier off any other document and analyzed the impacts of the transfer under three different scenarios: (1) a transfer based on 2003 amendments to the Monterey Agreement (known as Monterey Plus), (2) a transfer without Monterey Plus or a reallocation of water in dry years, (3) a transfer without Monterey Plus but with other SWP permanent cutbacks. The EIR also included five alternatives to the transfer. Although the EIR had to go back to Los Angeles County Superior Court because of the 2002 Friends ruling, Friends dismissed its action because the group lacked money to continue litigating. However, the Planning and Conservation League (PCL) and the California Water Impact Network (CWIN) filed a new suit over the second EIR. Superior Court Judge James Chalfant rejected most of PCL and CWIN's arguments. Still, he concluded the EIR was flawed because it did not adequately explain the relevance of the pending Monterey Agreement EIR to the scenarios in the Castaic EIR. Parties on both sides appealed, and the Second District ruled entirely for Castaic. The appellate panel overturned Chalfant on the issue of the scenarios for two reasons. First, the court ruled, PCL and CWIN never specifically objected to the discussion of the scenarios during the administrative process and, therefore, should not be able to raise the argument in court. Second, the court determined, " he 2004 EIR adequately explains why the three scenarios discussed in connection with the transfers are possible outcomes of DWR's pending Monterey Agreement EIR." " he 2004 EIR describes the relationship between the pre- and post-Monterey Agreement contractual requirements and the three water supply scenarios in considerable detail," Justice Nora Manella wrote for the appellate panel. "Although we agree with the trial court that the 2004 EIR's discussion could have been clearer,  ‘absolute perfection' is not required of an EIR." The primary contention of PCL and CWIN was that the Department of Water Resources should have prepared the EIR for the Kern-Castaic water transfer because the Monterey Agreement enabled the transfer. Castaic could serve as the lead agency only after a new Monterey Agreement EIR is complete, they argued. Both the trial court and the appellate court disagreed. " othing before us suggests that the Monterey Agreement, viewed as a CEQA project, included the Kern-Castaic transfer when the original Monterey Agreement was prepared and certified in 1995," Manella wrote. "As the Kern-Castaic transfer was no more than ‘a gleam in a planner's eye' at the time of the Monterey Agreement, the transfer fell outside the original Monterey Agreement EIR, and was properly considered in a separate EIR. "We also conclude that the decertification of the 1995 Monterey Agreement EIR and its aftermath have not brought the transfer within the compass of the new Monterey Agreement," Manella continued. The water transfer opponents pointed to the 2000 decision in Planning & Conservation League , in which the court ruled that DWR's statewide perspective made the agency the logical choice to complete the Monterey Agreement EIR. But the Monterey Agreement, the Second District noted, involves the entire State Water Project. "In contrast, Castaic's preeminent role regarding the water transfer renders it the logical choice for lead agency, in view of the transfer's confined scope" Manella wrote. The opponents further argued that the EIR represented the water transfer as fait accompli and that a "no project" alternative that involved both no Kern-Castaic transfer and the state's abandonment of the Monterey Agreement should have been studied. The court rejected both arguments and accepted Castaic's arguments that the water transfer could go forward with or without the Monterey Agreement, and that the transfer and the Monterey Agreement "constitute different projects under CEQA, and only the transfer is subject to Castaic's approval." The Case: Planning and Conservation League v. Castaic Lake Water Agency , No. B200673, 2009 DJDAR 17603. Filed December 17, 2009. The Lawyers: For PCL: Roger Moore, Rossmann & Moore, (415) 861-1401. For Castaic: William Hancock, Eisenberg & Hancock, (415) 984-0650. For Kern County Water Agency: Amelia Minaberrigarai, Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard, (661) 634-1400. For Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District: Steven Torigiani, Young Wooldridge, (661) 327-9661. For the Department of Water Resources: Deborah Wordham, attorney general's office, (916) 323-3549.

The Governor's Office of Planning and Research released updates of two reference documents in December – the 2010 edition of "Planning, Zoning and Development Laws," and the 2010 version of the "Planners' Book of Lists." The 370-page collection of laws contains summaries of new planning, zoning and development laws, as well as summaries of pertinent attorney general's opinions from 2009. The introduction states, "OPR staff receives hundreds of requests for technical assistance each year from local planning agencies. In an effort to address some of these technical assistance requests, the ‘2010 Planning, Zoning, and Development Laws' is comprised not only of state planning and zoning laws, but also excerpts from related statutes." The "Book of Lists" contains all the usual contact information for local, regional, state and federal agencies, as well as general plan status reports. The document also provides the results from OPR's annual survey of planners, which this time concerned regional planning efforts, local transportation planning, climate change issues, energy and water conservation planning, and funding for planning. Both publications may be downloaded for free from the OPR website, www.opr.ca.gov .

About 475,000 residents, major sea ports and airports, thousands of miles of roads and rail lines, power plants and wastewater treatment facilities are at risk of flooding due to sea level rise, according to a new report from the State Lands Commission. Using research from Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, and other sources, the Commission report pegs likely sea level rise at 16 inches by 2050 and 55 inches by 2100. Yet a Commission survey of ports, harbor districts, and coastal cities and counties earlier this year found that "the majority of respondents have not yet begun to comprehensively consider the impacts of sea level rise." The Commission has jurisdiction over tidelands and the beds of navigable rivers, lakes, bays and estuaries. In many instances, especially along the coast, jurisdiction has been transferred to local entities, but the Commission continues to monitor uses. Based on the new report, the Commission is headed toward requiring future development and lease applicants to analyze the potential impacts of sea level rise. Property rights advocates have raised concerns about the report because it assumes that Commission jurisdiction will creep up the coast as sea level rises. Thus, coastal landowners could lose both real estate and legal rights to sea level rise, according to an analysis by Nossaman attorney Howard Coleman, who is urging property owners to apply for permission to build structures that protect against sea level rise. The seal level rise report is available on the State Lands Commission website, www.slc.ca.gov .

The Riverside County Board of Supervisors has postponed until January a decision on a new town proposal that has drawn significant opposition from hunters, bird watchers and environmentalists because of the 2,800-acre project site's close proximity to the San Jacinto Wildlife Area. Lewis Group of Companies' proposal is called Villages of Lakeview. It would contain 11,500 housing units, a shopping center, offices, a number of community facilities and 32 miles of bike lanes, trails and paseos. About half of the site would be used for parks or preserved as open space. Hunters and bird watchers have led the opposition to the project because the 10,000-acre wildlife area, which includes Mystic Lake, provides habitat for many birds traveling north and south on the Pacific Flyway, as well as for resident bird populations. The farmland on which Lewis proposes development also provides bird habitat. In addition, the wildlife area, which the state pieced together during the 1970s and 1980s, provides habitat for about 25 special-status plant and animal species. Although Lewis's design includes a 500-foot buffer and earthen berm between the wildlife area and homes, opponents say the project would change the nature of the area. "San Jacinto Wildlife Area effectively would be turned into an urban park with all of the associated problems of trash, feral cats and vandalism," wrote syndicated outdoors writer Jim Matthews, who noted the wildlife area is one of the few places in metropolitan Southern California where hunting is permitted. After hearing from more than a dozen project opponents during a mid-December hearing, supervisors delayed a decision until staff members have time to respond to questions and concerns. Lewis's project website is www.thevillagesoflakeview.com .

The second and final phase of the Playa Vista development near Playa del Rey appears headed toward approval in early 2010, as the Los Angeles Planning Commission recommended approval of the project earlier this month. The city originally approved phase two in 2004, but the Second District Court of Appeal two years ago ruled the environmental impact report was deficient (see CP&DR In Brief , October 2007 ). Master developer Playa Capital, LLC, started the process over and a new EIR was released this year. The second phase is proposed for 111 acres between a nearly complete 6,000-unit, mixed-use residential community to the west, and a slow-to-develop office campus on the east. The middle section is viewed as the heart of Playa Vista and is planned to have 2,600 housing units, nearly 200,000 square feet of retail development and 175,000 square feet of offices. Although a number of Playa Vista residents testified at the Planning Commission meeting in support of phase two, environmental groups that have fought the project for years – including the Ballona Institute and the Sierra Club – continued their opposition. They maintain that much of the site should provide wetlands and open space.

The City of Sacramento has approved a specific plan for the 29-acre Docks site along the Sacramento River, across Interstate 5 from downtown. The City Council unanimously chose Option B, which allows about 1,000 residential units, 200,000 square feet of office space, mostly in a few towers. The plan further includes about 40,000 square feet of retail development, a large park and the extension of a riverfront promenade from Old Town (see CP&DR Places , August 1, 2009 ). The city also extended for 4 1/2 months an exclusive negotiating agreement with a team of developers led by Darius Anderson's Kenwood Investments.

The proposed Merriam Mountains housing development in North San Diego County suffered a setback in December when the Board of Supervisors split 2-2 on the project. The tie vote equates to rejection of the project; however, supervisors within 30 days may call for a new hearing, and reconsideration appears likely. County Supervisor Ron Roberts missed the December 9 meeting at which the board divided on the project, as he was attending a California Air Resources Board meeting in Sacramento. Typically a supporter of growth, Roberts could ask for reconsideration and provide the deciding vote. Stonegate Development Group proposes 2,700 single-family houses, condominiums and apartments, as well as a 10-acre retail center, on 560 acres of a 2,320-acre site just west of Interstate 15 and north of Escondido (see CP&DR Local Watch , August 2006 ). Stonegate would preserve more than half of the site as open space. Area residents strongly oppose the project, which they say would be out of place on land currently zoned for low-density, single-family housing. In addition, questions have arisen about fire protection. Supervisors Dianne Jacob and Pam Slater-Price voted against the project, citing the lack of a fire evacuation plan for residents and concerns over water to serve the project. "It's a wonderful project in the wrong location," Jacob stated. Supervisors Greg Cox and Bill Horn voted for the project. Since the December 9 meeting, project opponents have questioned Horn's pre-meeting advice to Stonegate that the developer request a continuance until all five board members were present. The project website: www.merriammountains.com .

The largest wind energy project ever in California won unanimous approval from the Kern County Board of Supervisors in mid-December. Alta Windpower Development plans to erect up to 320 wind turbines on a 9,100-acre site between the cities of Tehachapi and Mojave. The extremely tall (more than 200 feet) and efficient machines will generate 1.5 to 3 megawatts of energy apiece for a total of about 800 megawatts – which is more than most gas-fired power plants in California generate. Area residents complained that the wind turbines would be noisy, unsightly and potentially unsafe, as the turbine blades could toss chunks of ice long distances. Environmentalists argued that the turbines would kill many birds of prey that hunt in the area, including very rare California condors. Supervisors required Alta Windpower to relocate and eliminate a few turbines to help quell residents' protest, but litigation over the project appears likely. Kern County is considering numerous other wind energy proposals that total more than 4,000 megawatts of energy.