My laptop battery started dying just as I noticed the huge bats somewhere around Barstow. Actually, I only vaguely recall last week's American Planning Association's 100th National Planning Conference in Las Vegas. My hazy recollection was not caused by losing money gambling on basketball playoffs and blackjack, only to discover when I submitted my expense receipts this wasn't reimbursable. It wasn't caused by free-flowing and inexpensive booze permitted even on public sidewalks — this I didn't even notice. And it wasn't because I stayed up until the wee hours inside cocoon-like casinos that operate without regard for time of day or my need for beauty sleep. It was because I was managing projects, presenting Powerpoints and merging companies, I swear. The first day was ambitious, combining the prospect of professional advancement with a rekindled youthful exuberance. I attended "Modal Choice in Transportation Decision Making" where a couple of guys from Parson Brinkerhoff and Carter & Burgess presented a methodology in which they normalize as much transportation data as they can find for an area, then apply the measured impact of public transportation improvements in other cities. Combining the two, they estimated the impacts on mode splits, travel times and other factors in their hypothetical study area. It was a fun little application that produced a transportation efficiency score, but this TDM methodology seemed to combine coarsely the typological nuances of travel patterns from distinctly different areas. It reminded me of a Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa speech when he said Parson Brinkerhoff designed many of the light rail lines in Los Angeles and used different technology in each one, costing the city billions to integrate. Later I attended "Regional Design in the Puget Sound Region," which discussed the challenges and progress of Puget Sound Regional Council's planning efforts. The new 2040 Vision regional strategy looks to accommodate population growth within the contours of existing travel sheds while preventing development in sensitive environments. There was a lot of talk about promulgating regional perceptions through the unique natural characteristics of the region, to which one speaker commented, "What are people supposed to identify with, Mount Can Never See?" The day concluded with Gunnison-style transfer of development rights, in which the development of rural tracts into subdivisions in Gunnison County, Colorado, could be taxed 10% of the assessed value to preserve other rural areas. I thought this was a great yet completely obvious idea. This program however, is being proposed as voluntary for developers, who receive reduced open space requirements in exchange for their participation. The next day I woke up to my 9:30 wakeup call with less vigor and tenacity than the day before. Indeed, Vegas was starting to take its toll and I figured I should punish myself for coming to this city of sin by attending a presentation about zoning. "How Sick is Your Zoning Ordinance?" was presented by a couple lawyers from the Midwest. I learned that if your city is getting sued a lot and there are many requests for variances, the zoning may be sick, or just old and useless. There is a lot of useful information for looking at updating zoning ordinances at http://www.camiros.com/my_ordinance_is_sick . Tuesday blended into Wednesday with me needing to resuscitate a project in the afternoon, a company toast celebrating the merger of Solimar with DC&E , the APA reception party that night (planners generally aren't the best dancers — they think too far ahead), the rest of that night, and then the morning. I managed to make it back to my hotel despite almost walking off a sidewalk that ended without notice at the conference hotel. Wednesday was split between producing project deliverables in 40 minutes on a laptop with a broken battery charger and a relaxing session about "New Zoning Techniques Using GIS." The highlight of this session was a planner from Las Vegas presenting 3-D visualizations of proposed projects in the city. He said the visualizations typically take two days to two weeks to design, and the method can be self-taught. All you have to do is get the GIS 3-D analyst extension, Site Builder software for fly-throughs, Sketch Up for custom buildings, Photoshop for the facades and Adobe Premier to make movie files. Combine the five programs together in some intuitive way and you can have amazing presentations too. No one had any questions. Throughout the conference, planners were skeptical of this behemoth city in the desert. Some warmed up to the city and the services it provides, but most remained astray. An article in the local newspaper describes this tension. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/may/03/planning-official-arms-over-putdowns-las-vegas/ - Aaron Engstrom

Ventura-based Solimar Research Group has merged its land-use policy consulting practice with Design, Community & Environment, an urban planning and design firm based in Berkeley. William Fulton, Solimar's founder, will become a principal in DC&E. Solimar's office will serve as the Southern California office of DC&E. "Joining forces with DC&E vastly increases our ability to provide both public and private clients with a wide range of planning services," said Fulton. "We will continue to provide our clients with our trademark analytical approach to land use issues. But being part of DC&E gives us access to expertise in urban design, landscape architecture, environmental analysis, and many other areas." "Bill Fulton's stature in State-wide planning, and Solimar's policy and analytical capabilities, will be a great addition to DC&E ," said David Early, DC&E's founding principal. "We believe that Bill will be a great leader to allow us to expand our operations in Southern California." Solimar ( www.solimar.org ) was founded in 2000 to provide solid research and policy analysis on land-use planning issues. The firm focuses on assisting developers and governmental agencies with specialized land use issues such as transferable development rights programs and identifying infill development potential. Solimar just completed a transferable development rights study for Santa Barbara County and is currently working on the growth management aspect of the City of Santa Barbara General Plan. The firm is also designing a regional transfer of development rights program for metropolitan Seattle. DC&E ( www.dceplanning.com ) provides a comprehensive range of planning and design services to public, private and institutional clients throughout California. The firm operates on the belief that the best planning is that which reflects the community it serves and which works in concert with the surrounding natural environment. DC&E provides an integrated approach to comprehensive planning projects including General Plans, Specific Plans, regional plans and neighborhood plans, and also provides services in urban design, landscape architecture, environmental review, transportation planning, public participation and graphic design. DC&E is also the successor firm to Wolfe Mason Associates , and is a nationally recognized leader in creek restoration and ecological design.

In the race for endorsements, the anti-Proposition 98 camp has lapped the competition. The question is whether the endorsements will make any difference in an election that is likely to see very low voter turnout. In recent weeks, the no-on-98 campaign has trotted out endorsements by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Gov. Pete Wilson, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Republican U.S. Rep. George Radanovich from the Fresno area, and the California Transportation Commission. Newspapers urging a no vote on 98 include the San Francisco Chronicle , the San Diego Union-Tribune , and the Riverside Press-Enterprise . The pro-98 side has countered with endorsements from the likes of the Irvine Chamber of Commerce, the Log Cabin Republicans and the Libertarian Party of Monterey County. The only major newspaper to endorse 98 is the libertarian Orange County Register . Proposition 98 supporters can't even line up endorsements from the majority of local farm bureaus, even though the state Farm Bureau Federation helped write the initiative. Sorry, but this is not a fair fight. Proposition 98, of course, is the initiative backed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the California Farm Bureau Federation to prevent the use of eminent domain for economic development projects. It would also outlaw rent control. Supporters say Proposition 98 is necessary in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision permitting the City of New London, Connecticut, to take people's homes to make room for a mixed-use, economic development project. Critics say that eminent domain has nothing to do with rent control, and they contend the measure is so poorly — or cleverly — written that it would bar use of eminent domain for water projects and might invalidate land use and environmental regulations. This was Schwarzenegger's statement: "Eminent domain is an issue worth addressing; however, Proposition 98 would undermine California's ability to improve our infrastructure, including our water delivery and storage. California voters strongly support rebuilding our transportation, housing, education and water infrastructure, so it would be irresponsible to support a measure that would prevent the state from accomplishing our goals." The concern regarding Proposition 98's potential impact on water projects has also caused the California Chamber of Commerce, The California Building Industry Association and the Western Growers Association to oppose the initiative . Keep in mind that these organizations are siding with every major environmental organization in the state. Proposition 98's authors dispute the argument that the initiative would do anything to harm legitimate water projects. But if they can't convince natural allies in the world of Republican politics, development, business and agriculture, then it's difficult to believe they are going to convince always-skeptical voters. – Paul Shigley

Six. That's how many housing starts there were in the Marysville-Yuba City area in March. This is an area with a population of more than 150,000 people, an area that has needed four digits to count annual housing production during recent years. But in March 2008? Six housing starts. That's the definition of a real estate slump. We've been hearing for more than a year that the housing market has tanked. We all know about the housing foreclosure disaster. But it took the statistics released recently by the California Building Industry Association (CBIA) to truly slap me upside the head. What got my attention was all of the metro areas where the number of housing starts during March was in the double-digits. El Centro: 31. Vallejo-Fairfield: 16. Redding: 17. Ventura County: 73. And there were others. Heck, "fast growing" Stanislaus, Merced and Madera counties combined didn't see 100 housing starts in March. Orange County managed 137 housing starts — that's combined single-family houses and multi-family units in a county of more than 3 million people. San Diego County racked up 193 starts, including exactly eight multi-family units. Statewide, there were 4,713 housing starts in March. That's down 65% from March 2007, and down 75% from March 2005 — a time when the housing market was still flying high. Sure seems like a long time ago. At the start of the year, the CBIA predicted California would produce 128,000 new housing units this year. Considering there were only 16,287 housing starts during the first quarter of 2008, the CBIA forecast appears optimistic in the extreme. Keep in mind that builders produced about 190,000 units annually from 2002 through 2006. Back in February, we reported that the housing market appeared to be evolving , with infill and multi-family activity remaining stronger than construction of single-family housing tracts. So far this year, the numbers for multi-family housing do not support our thesis. But it is true that the downturn is most dramatic in the exurbs of the Inland Empire and the Central Valley. You can find the latest CBIA statistics on housing starts at the CBIA website . The housing slowdown is affecting many aspects of the economy, and it's hitting city halls and county administration centers. Cities and counties are laying off planners, building inspectors and plan checkers in droves. The Appeal Democrat newspaper in Marysville reports that the Yuba County Community Development and Services agency is shrinking from 32 employees to 16. That will happen when construction activity comes to a halt. Tough times that show no indication of letting up. – Paul Shigley

After a lull during the off-year election of 2007, land use initiatives and referendums are starting to reappear on local ballots this June. Voters in at least seven jurisdictions are scheduled to decide measures that are related directly or indirectly to what gets built and where. It might seem odd that the number of ballot measures is increasing in the midst of a real estate recession, but research has consistently indicated that such measures are a lagging economic indicator. That is, they tend to appear in higher numbers at the end of and after a real estate boom. Although the number of measures on the June primary ballot is small, the number is more substantial when added to the 14 that voters decided in February. Several measures on the June ballot could be important enough to shape development for many years. Arguably the most important election will be in Napa County, where an initiative imposing a 1% annual growth cap and other development limitations on unincorporated areas in on the ballot. The initiative is at least partly a response to a proposal to redevelop an industrial site just south of Napa with about 3,000 housing units. Also on the ballot in June: • Dueling measures in San Francisco regarding redevelopment of Candlestick Point and the Hunter's Point Shipyard. One measure emphasizes low-income housing, while another reinforces plans for a variety of uses, including a new football stadium. • A measure backed by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to prohibit campaign contributions from entities with business pending before the city. • Expansion of the urban limit line in the Ventura County city of Santa Paula to accommodate a proposed 1,500-unit housing development. • A Thousand Oaks initiative that would require voters to decide on projects that have certain impacts on roads. • A height limitation initiative in the City of Chula Vista. • A referendum of a building height and view protection ordinance adopted by the San Clemente City Council. • A measure that would prohibit lobbying by any commissioners appointed by the Irvine mayor or City Council. • A proposal to incorporate the western Riverside County community of Menifee. A referendum of a development project in the City of Pleasanton will not go before voters because developers successfully sued over the ballot measure, which had received enough signatures to qualify for the June election. The campaign in Napa County has been going full throttle since the fall of 2007. Napa County is the home of the pivotal Measure J, a 1990 initiative that prohibits the conversion of agricultural land to other uses without voter approval. Measure J led to the state Supreme Court's DeVita decision assuring that voters have the ability to amend a general plan, and it spawned successful copycat initiatives in Ventura County and, most recently, Stanislaus County. Measure J has become as much a part of the Napa County landscape as the valley's famous vineyards. The results of subsequent votes on specific, small projects under Measure J have been mixed, but no one has even attempted a major development in the unincorporated area. A property rights initiative on the June 2006 Napa County ballot received only one-third voter support. Measure J "has protected the essence and beauty of our region. It has protected agriculture," said Sandy Ellis, executive director of the Napa County Farm Bureau. Although Measure J does not sunset until 2020, the Farm Bureau recently submitted signatures to place a 50-year extension of Measure J on this November's ballot. Into this decidedly slow-growth atmosphere arrived a proposal to redevelop a 152-acre industrial property just south of the City of Napa, at the gateway to the Napa Valley. Developer Rogal + Walsh + Mol proposes to convert the former Napa Pipe property into a mixed-use district with about 3,000 housing units, extensive industrial, office and retail uses, a hotel and riverfront recreation. Last year, the County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to consider the site as a special study area during a general plan update that is under way. Environmentalists, slow-growth activists and City of Napa officials raised questions about the project, and by last fall the 26-page "Responsible Growth Initiative" was being circulated. It qualified for this June's ballot as Measure N. Among other things, the initiative would reinstate a 1% growth cap in the unincorporated area and limit new structures to 35 feet in height. A voter-approved cap was in place from 1980 until 2000, when supervisors decided to maintain the cap themselves. The only way the Napa Pipe redevelopment project could go forward as proposed is if supervisors are willing to bust the 1% growth cap, which amounts to about 115 new units annually. The fact that three supervisors showed a willingness to overturn the 1% limitation forced a new group called Napa Coalition for Responsible Growth to take action, said Victor Ajlouny, a hired political consultant and spokesman for the group. "The are talking high rises," Ajlouny charged. "They are building a whole new city. It would be right on the riverfront. That's not Napa County. It's absolutely wrong to jam 3,200 homes on one site." Other growth proposals are also problematic, Ajlouny said, including a request from Pacific Union College in Angwin to build hundreds of houses in the hills above the valley. "All of a sudden, there are a number of proposals for tremendous growth in the unincorporated area," he said while quickly pointing to a 2000 county study that found houses are a financial drain on the county. Although Measure N clearly has supporters, Napa County's slow-growth "establishment" has not rushed to the bandwagon. The Farm Bureau, for example, is taking no position on the initiative. A 1% growth cap provides for "measured development," Ellis said, but a good policy requires flexibility. Plus, Measure N might run afoul of state housing law and undercut a 2004 settlement between the county, the cities of American Canyon and Napa, and affordable housing advocates regarding provision of fair-share housing, she said. "Measure N is not a straightforward issue. It has voters hugely confused," Ellis said. Supervisor Brad Wagenknecht, who was on the losing end of the 3-2 vote to consider the Napa Pipe project during the general plan update, has also declined to endorse Measure N. The "9111 report" authorized by the Elections Code and commissioned by the county found that the initiative likely would conflict with the county's housing element, he noted. Measure N proponents "are trying to freeze into being an old version of our growth management plan. That makes it look like bad legislation," Wagenknecht said. "I don't want to explode our current growth management plan. It forces us to deal with our housing in the cities, which is where it belongs." Wagenknecht is trying to organize a countywide "growth summit" after the June election to discuss the Napa Pipe proposal, extending Measure J, providing for needed housing and other issues. Without saying so, Wagenknecht appears to be assuming that Measure N will fail. Napa Pipe project developer Keith Rogal is not willing to make that assumption. He is pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into the "Keep Napa Napa" campaign to defeat the initiative, which he called a "litigation magnate." If Measure N passes, "it would severely restrict the number of building permits that could be issued in any given year, and it would do so in a way that forces us to rethink our project," Rogal said. Although Measure N has been painted by some people, including proponents, as a referendum on the Napa Pipe project, Rogal argued that such a characterization is unfair. "We don't have a project yet to run a referendum on," Rogal said. "There hasn't even been a formal scoping session to initiate the EIR." That may be, but there clearly has been a great deal of thought behind re-use of the former industrial site. Rogal noted that nearly all Napa County job growth is in the south part of the county, where the Napa Pipe site is located. The site is at the intersection of highways and county thoroughfares, rail tracks run through the land, offering the potential for transit, and there is four-fifths of a mile of Napa River frontage, Rogal said. Plus, he said, because the site is bordered by a city park and near a community college, relatively dense development would not upset an existing neighborhood balance, which is always a concern in Napa County. "What it affords is an opportunity to create a compact neighborhood in an urban form that could be much more attainable for the workforce, and in an area where the employment is located," Rogal said. "It's a remarkably well-located site." In San Francisco, redevelopment of old industrial lands is also a ballot issue, but in a more direct fashion. Propositions F and G both address redevelopment of the Navy's former Hunter's Point Shipyard site and the adjacent Candlestick Point. One year ago, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 9-2 for a conceptual framework for redevelopment of the area. Proposed are 8,500 to 10,000 housing units (25% at below market rate), reconstruction of a dilapidated public housing project, 2.1 million square feet of office, technology and R&D space, 700,000 square feet of retail space, about 350 acres of new and renovated parkland, and either a new 49ers football stadium (if the team remains in town) or additional housing and industrial space. The city has signed an agreement with developer Lennar. Proposition G essentially endorses this framework and continues the planning and environmental review processes. It is supported by Mayor Gavin Newsom and Senator Dianne Feinstein. The competing Proposition F is backed by a coalition of environmental groups, environmental justice advocates and neighborhood activists who argue Lennar's project would price out area residents. Many of the same organizations fought a redevelopment plan for the adjacent Bayview district because of gentrification concerns (see CP&DR Redevelopment Watch , September 2006 ; In Brief , October 2006 ). Proposition F would require that 50% of new housing at Hunter's Point and Candlestick Point be available to low-, very low- and extremely low-income households. Advocates say the measure would ensure that poor and working class people can afford to live in one of the nation's most expensive cities. Newsom, however, has called Proposition F a "poison pill" for redevelopment of the area, and Lennar has contended that Proposition F would likely kill the project — contentions that Measure F backers reject as "politics." Also on the San Francisco ballot is the Newsom-backed Proposition H, which would prevent elected officials, candidates for office and their political committees from accepting donations from anyone with a permit or California Environmental Quality Act matter pending before the city until six months after the matter has concluded. The only significant opposition to Proposition H appears to be from Republican activists, who are a small minority in San Francisco. In Ventura County, Santa Paula voters will decide on a proposal to expand the city's urban boundary to the east by 500 acres for Limoneira Company's planned 1,500-unit housing development. Last year, Santa Paula voters moved the growth boundary for a 495-unit high-end housing development in the hills above town. The Limoneira proposal has been far less controversial. In nearby Thousand Oaks, The Home Depot and The Do it Center are duking it out over Measure B, which would place before voters almost any development project that would increase traffic congestion beyond certain levels. The Do it Center sponsored Measure B to block a proposed Home Depot on the site of a former Kmart store. In Pleasanton, a referendum of a long-controversial, 51-house subdivision in the rugged hills was blocked from the June ballot by an Alameda County Superior Court judge, who ruled that referendum petitions contained inadequate information about the project. An appeal has been filed, but the June election is off. Napa County Contacts: Supervisor Brad Wagenknecht, (707) 253-4386. Sandy Ellis, Napa County Farm Bureau, (707) 224-5403. Keith Rogal, Rogal + Walsh + Mol, (707) 251-0123. Keep Napa Napa: www.keepnapanapa.org . Napa Coalition for Responsible Growth: www.votersretakecontrol.org . April Election Results Voters in two Los Angeles County cities approved land use measures during municipal balloting in April. On the ballot in Malibu was an advisory measure concerning an ordinance that would require property owners to remove or trim landscaping in order to restore and maintain primary views from private residences. The issue, of course, is that one homeowner's mature landscaping and trees can block another homeowner's view of the ocean or Santa Monica Mountains. Measure E passed with 60.3% of the vote. In Lawndale, voters backed Measure A, which authorizes the city to spend more than $1 million to construct a community center at 147th Street and Burin Avenue, adjacent to City Hall. A 1988 ballot measure prohibits the city from spending more than $1 million on public facilities without voter approval. The proposed community center received 75.7% approval.

Plans to build the first new, large-scale ski resort in California in four decades — and the largest project in Lassen County history — appear to be in serious jeopardy. The developers of the proposed Dyer Mountain Resort, in the Sierra Nevada Mountains west of Susanville, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in late March. News of the filing has caused environmentalists to celebrate, and Lassen County officials to wait even longer on what supporters have called an important economic development opportunity. The developer's attorney characterized the bankruptcy filing as a "bump in the road" and vowed that the project would go forward. But there is clearly doubt about the project in Lassen County, whose population of 36,000 includes more than 10,000 inmates at two state prisons in the county seat of Susanville. "We've just got to wait now for the judge to make a decision," said a frustrated county Supervisor Bob Pyle, a longtime supporter of the project. But for the project opponents, the bankruptcy is only further proof that the project has been unrealistic from the outset. "We always knew they never had the money because they kept missing payments to the county," said Steve Robinson, president and executive director of Mountain Meadows Conservancy. That organization and two other environmental groups filed a lawsuit over the project's environmental impact report in October. The project is interesting for a number of reasons. First, it was approved somewhat conceptually by voters in 2000, making the county's planning and environmental review process somewhat awkward. Second, Dyer Mountain would be the first large ski resort built from scratch since the California Environmental Quality Act became law in 1970. Finally, the project would be by-far the biggest development in remote Lassen County, where two state prisons serve as the largest employer in a county hard-hit by the logging industry's demise. Lassen County covers 4,690 square miles, primarily on the east side of the Sierra abutting Nevada. Population growth and economic expansion have been minimal for years. According to the state Employment Development Department, the county's unemployment rate for March was 11% (about double the state rate), and about 60% of people with jobs are employed by government entities. The leisure and hospitality industries account for only about 7% of employment, a figure that the proposed four-season Dyer Mountain Resort could change dramatically. County supervisors first identified Dyer Mountain, located near Walker Lake and the historic timber town of Westwood, as a potential winter sports location during the 1960s. The site is within view of Lassen Peak and Lake Almanor. A study two decades later found that a four-season resort was feasible, but it wasn't until a San Francisco real estate investor named Briar Tazuk appeared on the scene during the late 1990s that anything happened. With the assistance of Sacramento land use attorney William Abbott, Tazuk prepared an initiative for the county ballot, and in November 2000, 62% of voters backed a general plan amendment and rezoning that permit almost any development except residential by-right on approximately 6,800 acres. At the time, Lassen County officials and voters were thinking of a small ski resort akin to one on Mt. Shasta, a golf course or two, trails for mountain bikers and hikers in the summertime, a hotel and about 400 housing units. However, the project was not well-defined, and several years passed before county planners received details. "We really needed a project description to analyze," recalled Joe Bertotti, the county's assistant community development director. Finally, Dyer Mountain Associates began providing a great deal of information, which the county peer reviewed. A first draft EIR was circulated in 2005. After substantial modifications, the draft EIR was re-circulated the following year. By that time, the project had grown to 4,100 housing units, 300,000 square feet of retail space, three golf courses, a ski hill and other amenities for visitors. The challenge for the county, Bertotti said, was to impose mitigation measures on what was largely a by-right project approved by voters without environmental review. Because developers proposed a parcel map up front, the county found a reason to initiate the CEQA process, he said. The county ended up using a development agreement that imposes environmental mitigation measures as a condition for the issuance of building permits, he explained. In September 2007, the Board of Supervisors approved the development agreement, a program EIR, and a parcel map that divides the site into 13 large parcels ranging from 40 acres to nearly 3,000 acres. Exactly what the next step will be is up to developers, said Bertotti, but he expects it will involve subdivision maps for residential areas, infrastructure improvement plans and some visitor amenities. The site is unimproved, and the development must essentially be self-contained with its own water and sewage systems. The development agreement requires Dyer Mountain Associates to build a golf course and three ski lifts along with the first 400 housing units. However, there is this money problem. Dyer Mountain Associates' financial troubles have been well-known for years, as the developer repeatedly was late paying property taxes and county processing costs. In 2005, Tazuk sold a 45% interest in the project to investors. Last year, a San Francisco Superior Court judge appointed a receiver to replace Tazuk as the managing partner. The recent bankruptcy filing was intended to stave off a foreclosure action by California Mortgage and Realty, Inc., which loaned Dyer Mountain Associates $31.5 million to buy the land from timber company Roseburg Resources in 2005. Also listed as major creditors are the county, which is owed about $200,000 in property taxes, and attorney William Abbott. Dyer Mountain Associates attorney Merle Meyers contended there is strong interest in the project among real estate investors. There have been no discussions about altering the proposed development, which he said he fully expects to move forward. "We are talking actively with a number of bidders or investors to re-capitalize the project," Meyers said in late April. "I suspect that we will have more to report in the next two to three weeks." The bankruptcy filing has placed on hold the California Environmental Quality Act suit filed by Mountain Meadows Conservancy, the Sierra Club, and Sierra Watch, an organization that has successfully fought to limit housing and resort development in eastern Placer County (see CP&DR Environment Watch , December 2007 ; In Brief , April 2005 ; Local Watch , March 2002 ). The lawsuit contends the environmental impact report is flawed because mitigations are inadequate, the discussion of project alternatives was poor, and the statement of overriding considerations simply assumed the resort would be successful. Opponents also argue that the development agreement violated the 2000 ballot measure because that initiative gave the county the ability to take back zoning authority if construction of the ski resort had not commenced within seven years. Whether the ski resort would survive in an age of global climate change is uncertain, according to detractors. With a base elevation of 5,000 feet and ski runs starting at 7,500 feet, Dyer Mountain would be located at relatively low elevation and could accommodate skiing only with extensive snow-making and ideal winter weather, according to experts. Another factor in the project's success is the remote location. Westwood lies on a winding, two-lane mountain highway. The drive from Reno takes about two hours in ideal conditions. Sacramento is about three hours away. The nearest commercial airport is in Chico, which is more than an hour and a half away by car. County officials and the developer have contended that opponents are asking for too much from the program EIR. The county will not approve necessary subdivision maps without additional environmental review, they say. "The project stands subject to CEQA at every phase," Bertotti pointed out. Considering that voters approved the general plan and rezoning, the county conducted an extraordinarily public process, Bertotti said. There were a number of public hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors on the environmental documents, he noted. "It's a parcel map and a development agreement. It's not something where you would usually see a big public process," he said. While the CEQA lawsuit awaits resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings, project opponents are beginning to discuss arranging the next step — namely, long-term protection of the land and its resources. The conservancy's Robinson said the property is best suited to serve as timberlands with protection for extensive cultural resources. "There has been over 5,000 years of continuous habitation in this meadow area. It's an important place to the Honey Lake Maidu and to the Mountain Meadow Maidu," he said. "We look forward," said Robinson, "to sitting down with county officials, creditors, conservation allies and others to secure permanent protection of the property itself." Contacts: Joe Bertotti, Lassen County Community Development Department, (530) 251-8269. Lassen County Supervisor Bob Pyle, (530) 251-8333. Merle Meyers, attorney for Dyer Mountain Associates, (415) 362-7500. Steve Robinson, Mountain Meadows Conservancy, (530) 256-3982. Dyer Mountain Resort website: www.dyermtn.com .

Remember the cliché about "the deal you can't refuse?" The park-for-a-billboard caper in the city of Los Angeles is just such a deal. I'll tell you about it. (Just as soon, that is, as you put that bottle back in the bag where it belongs. I have no desire to add another item to my institutional resume.) Granted, the billboard story is hard to explain, because at bottom this deal makes so little sense. The City of Los Angeles has nothing to do with this lawsuit, so why is it involved? The people bringing the lawsuit have no case, so why do they win a settlement? But in April, the Los Angeles City Council approved a deal that gives the city a 10-acre site in South Central L.A. for development of a neighborhood park. In exchange, another neighborhood near downtown L.A. gets a pair of digital signs that may end up as a tall as a seven-story building. And thereby hangs the tale. But I'm getting ahead of myself. (A taste? I though you'd never ask. Like they say: In wine is truth.) Once upon a time, in 1996, the City of Los Angeles outlaws billboards. In 2006, the last 14 surviving examples of outdoor advertising are to be found in the city's affluent Westside, along a major thoroughfare that is starting a beautification project. The city tells the owner of the signs, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), to yank them in the name of all that is beautiful. The MTA, you may recall, is the purveyor of bus and commuter-rail transit to Los Angeles County. The advertising folks who were renting the billboard space from the transit agency were reportedly on a month-to-month lease, and the MTA thinks it has the right to serve them with a 30-day notice. In MTA's mind, when a billboard landlord says quit, the cookie has crumbled. Revenoo, adoo. The business of selling men's cologne and tight-fitting blue jeans on large outdoor signs is a lucrative one, however, and the billboard men are loathe to quit. And, like many other Californians, they have been known to consort with some litigious elements. "Hate for any unpleasantness to rear its head," they say, "but we may be forced to bring an action." "Bring all the actions you want, my dear sirs," replies the man with the bus, "but you'd best pull down those pictures of glamorous, half-dressed people for the time being." Fly forward a few months, and the billboard guy and his blue-suited lawyer are standing in front of the magistrate. "The MTA, your honor, has unfairly quashed our trade," says the lawyer, whose hair is standing up in stiff little spikes, as if trying to pull up stakes and run away from him in embarrassment. "We seek a remedy," he adds. The judge just frowns and says, "Well, well!" He doesn't look like he's much impressed with the argument by the man with the vertical hair. But he doesn't throw the case out on its ear, either. So one night the transit authority is having a sip with the City of Los Angeles. "What a heap of trouble you've gotten me into by tellin' me to pull down them signs," the bus boss says to the municipality. "That pint-sized outdoor advertiser has hung me up like a wool suit in a closet full of moths." "Anything I can do to help?" says the City of Los Angeles, batting its eyes like a seductive siren. "I mean, why don't you settle with those fellows?" "You mean throw them a bone?" says the MTA, who by now has parked his bus on the bar stool next to him. "Why should I? I'm not made out of money." "Well, you are rich in certain terrestrial assets," said the City of Los Angeles, with a blush rising from her own suggestion. "You tellin' me I should give my adversary a bus?" asks the man from MTA. The City shakes her head no. "Not a train! Never will I give that man a train!" says Mr. MTA. "I brought those things all the way from Germany!" "No, you big, rubber-wheeled dummy," says the City. "You have land." "Land?" says the MTA, innocently. "What's that worth?" "Land is worth anything somebody is willing to pay for it," says Ms. City, coming in for the kill. "Such as what you're willing to pay to get yourself out of a jam." "Oh, saints in heaven, is it possible?" says the hopeful MTA, thinking such a thing too good to be true. "Catch this: I'll let you off the hook by allowing those billboard gentlemen a couple of big signs. And not just ordinary signs, mind you, but big come-gamble-in-Commerce-Casino signs, 76 feet tall, that would be visible from Interstate 10." "You'd do all that for me?" says MTA, with the dewy eyes of one entranced. "What's the catch?" "I want that 10-acre bus yard in South Central for a park, mister," says the City, poking him in the chest like an adorable child. "And I won't take no for an answer." "That's all?" gasps a relieved MTA, who was afraid the City would ask for cash money. "Take it, it's yours," adds the now-cheerful transit district. "Goodnight and good riddance." And so here we are. Some citizen groups — quaint folk, they — are left askance. "Couldn't we have a park without the billboards?" asks one naive young thing. "I hardly see how one necessitates the other." "My dear child," says the City, "you don't get something for nothing." Besides, as Councilwoman Jan Perry has told the Los Angeles Times , that working-class downtown L.A. has done the rich Westside a favor by taking on those dreadful signs. And the settlement is a "win-win," as they like to say in the business world. The city gets a new park for almost nothing, while the transit agency gets a lucrative income stream from billboards that nobody else is allowed to have — that is, until the next billboard advertiser sues in hopes of a similar windfall settlement. (What? The bottle is empty so soon, and the night so young? I must decamp to a new venue with a fresh supply of refreshments, before this story has made the rounds. Cheers!) ( With apologies to the ghost of Damon Runyon. )

Not often does the head of a planning commission suggest that someone should sue her city over a newly adopted ordinance. But it happened in Los Angeles and, in fact, a lawsuit has been filed. In March, Los Angeles City Planning Commission President Jane Ellison Usher sent an email to community groups regarding a density bonus ordinance adopted by the City Council. The ordinance essentially implements SB 1818 approved in 2004, a state law that mandates increased density bonuses and development incentives in exchange for development of affordable housing units (see CP&DR , September 2004 ). The new Los Angeles ordinance makes application of the density bonus provisions and incentives a ministerial matter. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Planning Director Gail Goldberg endorsed the ordinance as an affordable housing tool, and the City Council approved it 12-2 after declaring it exempt from California Environmental Quality Act review. However, neighborhood activists opposed the ordinance, saying it would lead to incompatible, high-density development with inadequate parking in relatively low-density neighborhoods that may not have good transit. In her email to activists, Usher, a Villaraigosa appointee and former legal advisor to Mayor Tom Bradley, said that two legal issues "are ripe for immediate litigation." These, she wrote, are: "1) Whether the categorical exemption issued in support of the city's enabling ordinance is fatally flawed in light of the actual contents of the ordinance, and 2) Whether the ‘ministerial' definition contained in the ordinance itself violates CEQA." A lawsuit filed in April by a Valley Village resident asks that the court respond to these two questions in the affirmative. The proposed and bitterly contested development of Rancho San Juan in Monterey County appears to have been resolved after 25 years of conflict. In April, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors and developer HYH Corporation signed an agreement that permits development on about 330 acres while excluding development on Rancho San Juan's remaining 2,200 acres of farmland and open space north of Salinas. The county is scheduled to conduct public hearings on the revised project in June. Importantly, the two major project opponents — LandWatch Monterey County and the Rancho San Juan Opposition Coalition — have endorsed the settlement. The county has planned for extensive development of Rancho San Juan since the 1980s (see CP&DR Local Watch , June 2003 ). However, development has been stymied by political battles, litigation and referendums. In 2005, voters rejected a specific plan for Rancho San Juan, and last year they overturned approval of HYH's 671-acre, 1,150-unit first phase development called Butterfly Village (see CP&DR Local Watch , July 2007 ). The settlement ends litigation that HYH filed against the county in 2001 over the county's planning process. Under the settlement, the 1,150-unit project will be limited to about 330 acres, 32% of units must be designated affordable, a neighborhood commercial area will double in size, and a park and public open space will replace a planned golf course. The county will pay HYH $1 million and waive $1 million worth of impact fees. Furthermore, the settlement precludes further subdivision of Rancho San Juan. A county planning director may also serve as the executive officer of the county's local agency formation commission, a Sierra County judge has ruled. The decision appears to be the first that directly addresses the question of whether a county employee may serve as the LAFCO executive officer since the Legislature approved a measure requiring LAFCOs to be independent agencies (see CP&DR , September 2000 ). The lawsuit involves a conflict over a farmland security zone — or "Super Williamson Act" — designation for land in eastern Sierra County. The Board of Supervisors approved the designation, which provides tax breaks in exchange for a 20-year assurance the land will remain in agricultural production, in March 2007. The designation, however, carved out a 7-acre area that lies in City of Loyalton's "community core." Among other things, opponents argued that it was a conflict of interest for Sierra County Planning Director Tim Beals to serve as the LAFCO executive officer. Despite the 2000 legislation that separated out LAFCOs from county government, county planners or administrative officers still act as LAFCO executive officers in some smaller counties. Sierra County Superior Court Judge R. Michael Smith ruled there is no conflict: "Government Code §§ 56380 and 56384 specifically allow LAFCOs to contract with public agencies for personnel. Therefore, the same person holding the position of planning director for the county and executive officer of LAFCO does not create ‘incompatible offices." The case is Sierra Valley Development Company, LLC v. Board of Supervisors of Sierra County , Sierra County Superior Court Case No. 6729. The Napa County grand jury has concluded that oversight of two farmworker housing projects that went far over budget was lacking and that "public servants who were supposed to oversee these projects failed to do their job and have not acknowledged that they had any responsibility for the problems." The two housing projects completed in 2006 are located in Calistoga and Oakville. They ended up costing about $1.7 million more than estimated. The director of the county and the City of Napa's housing authorities unilaterally decided to use city funds to cover much of the overrun without the city's approval. Eventually, the housing director resigned under pressure and the city's finance director was terminated. The grand jury, however, cast the blame far beyond only those two men. It found that a county housing authority commission and an advisory committee to grapegrowers who helped fund the project did not exercise proper oversight, that the county Conservation, Development and Planning Department issued a building permit based on "a completely inadequate review," and that county officials who had a role in the mess were quick to scapegoat the housing director and finance director. The good news, said the grand jury, is that the centers provide "a safe, clean and habitable abode for farmworkers," and no individuals appear to have inappropriately profited from the overruns. The full grand jury report is available at www.napacourt.com/Documents/GJ%20Print%20Copy%20FWH%20Report.pdf.

The City of Half Moon Bay has reached a settlement agreement with a developer who won a takings lawsuit against the city. Last December, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker awarded developer Charles Keenan $36.8 million in damages, plus interest and attorney's fees, because an incomplete city drainage project had transformed an approved 24-acre housing project site into an unbuildable wetland (see CP&DR In Brief , January 2008 ). In April, Keenan and the Half Moon Bay City Council signed an agreement permitting Keenan to build 129 houses on the 24 acres and an adjacent 12 acres in exchange for an end to the litigation. However, the settlement requires passage of state legislation because it would permit development on a site that would otherwise be subject to severe environmental restrictions. Assemblyman Gene Mullin (D-South San Francisco) has agreed to carry the legislation, AB 1991. The Assembly Local Government Committee passed the bill on a 5-2 vote on April 30, sending the measure to the Assembly Appropriations Committee for further review. Environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and the Committee for Green Foothills, have already lined up against the legislation. Plus, state Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), who originally agreed to sponsor the bill in the Senate, has dropped his support because the bill permits development on more than the original 24-acre site. Under the settlement, the city must provide all entitlements by June 30, 2009, making passage of legislation this year critical. If the city misses the deadline, it would owe Keenan $18 million. The full settlement is available on the city's website at: www.half-moon-bay.ca.us/Beachwood_Information/Beachwood_Settlement_040208.pdf .

Here's a puzzler for you: What land use creates more pedestrians than any other? Transit stations? Office buildings? Condos? Try airports! Every single person who arrives at an airport from out of town arrives without a car. At many airports, the first vehicle in which people ride after landing is a train of some sort. So what's the rush to put them into cars? A "new urbanist airport" may seem like an oxymoron. But according to aviation planning experts speaking at the American Planning Association conference in Las Vegas, such design principles may be the key to the sustainable airport of the 21st Century. North Carolina business professor John Kasarda, who coined the term "aerotropolis," said that in order to be economically successful in the future, airports can no longer afford to follow the "spontaneous, haphazard" development pattern of the last few decades. Because airports are congested and running out of land – and because their patrons arrive without cars – these new, high-end business centers will have to be nodal and mixed-use. Part of the key is doing more comprehensive land use planning that involves areas "outside the fence" as well as on airport property. Most airports are focused on "doing a plan that meets FAA regulations inside the fence," said consultant Mark Bowers, who has been working on a "commercial development land use plan" for Dallas-Forth Worth Airport. DFW's plan was done in collaboration with four surrounding cities and is increasingly focused on the smart growth approaches planners love. For instance, the DART (Dallas Area Rapid Transit) line will run straight into the airport, and instead of turning the station just outside the airport into a park-and-ride, DFW will convert it into a mixed-use center. DFW will also focus on centralized business centers that provide "valet services," such as auto repair and dry cleaning. Just think – drop your car and then run your errands on the way to the terminal. – Bill Fulton

A property owner that lost a California Environmental Quality Act suit against the City of San Rafael has been told to pay the city for costs incurred recovering emails related to the property and a proposed development project. Although the developer's attorney characterized the email inquiry as a routine Public Records Act request, the First District Court of Appeal clearly thought it was an unnecessary fishing expedition for which the developer should pay. The First District upheld the trial court's award of the expense, even though it was the property owner who prepared the administrative record. Typically, only the side that prepares the administrative record may have its costs covered. But the court found that the property owner's email demands justified the award of costs. Furthermore, the court rejected the landowner's contentions that the city violated CEQA and the housing element law when the city removed the property from its sphere of influence. The decision concludes San Rafael's role in the acrimonious planning of the property, which is owned by St. Vincent's School for Boys, Catholic Charities. Marin County is now considering St. Vincent's development plans. First, some background: St. Vincent's is a 150-year-old school and residential treatment center for troubled teenagers. It owns 835 acres between San Rafael and Novato. The mostly undeveloped property extends from Highway 101 on the west to San Pablo Bay on the east. The property is separated from the San Rafael city limits by the approximately 350-acre Silveira cattle ranch. Since the early 1970s, Marin County has emphasized development in cities along the Highway 101 corridor in order to preserve much of the rest of the county. For years, city and county officials worked jointly on planning the roughly 1,200-acre St. Vincent's/Silveira site, assuming that San Rafael would eventually annex the territory. San Rafael's 1988 general plan designated the properties for 2,100 residential units. Environmentalists, however, have long fought development of the pastoral lands between the freeway and the bay. When Marin County and San Rafael began updating their respective general plans nearly 10 years ago, they created a 16-member advisory task force to recommend use of the St. Vincent's/Silveira properties. In May 2000, the task force recommended 800 to 1,500 units, reduced to 500 units with the purchase of development rights. The city forwarded the recommendation to its general plan task force. In early 2002 — while the city's general plan update was still in process — St. Vincent's and developer Shapell Industries submitted an application for 766 residential units and 120,000 square feet of commercial space. In January 2003, however, the City Council passed a resolution indicating its intent to remove the properties from the city's sphere of influence. Three months later, the City Council voted to deny the St. Vincent's and Shapell application for annexation and prezoning. The council found that, since the task force had presented its recommendation in 2000, planned road improvements had not been made, Highway 101 traffic had worsened, and public opposition to development of the site had grown. Plus, the council noted, the St. Vincent's property was not contiguous to the city. In November 2004, the city adopted an updated general plan that excluded the St. Vincent's and Silveira properties from future annexation. In December of that year, St. Vincent's sued, arguing the city violated CEQA and state planning and zoning laws. In 2006, Marin County Superior Court Judge James Ritchie ruled for the city, and awarded the city $4,000 in filing and copying fees, plus $26,362 for the costs of retrieving emails. St. Vincent's appealed, but got nowhere with a three-judge panel of the First District, Division Three. St. Vincent's did not dispute that the city had incurred costs while retrieving emails. Instead, St. Vincent's argued that the Code of Civil Procedure and the Public Records Act barred the award of costs. St. Vincent's argued that CEQA permits the petitioner (St. Vincent's in this case) to prepare the record of proceedings as a way of controlling the expense of lawsuits. Awarding the city its costs would frustrate CEQA's goal of controlling expenses, St. Vincent's argued. But the court examined the specifics of the case and reached a different conclusion. In response to St. Vincent's initial request, the city turned over documents amounting to 58,000 pages. St. Vincent's found few emails included in the package, so it submitted a broad Public Records Act request for electronic communications stored on city computers. The city eventually turned over a collection of emails, but St. Vincent's was dissatisfied and further demanded documents. Again, the sides went back and forth with St. Vincent's continuing to complain about withheld emails. All the while, the case was moving forward in court. "This record," wrote Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Horner, sitting by assignment to the First District, "reflects a total disregard for cost-containment on St. Vincent's part, and a complete abandonment of its statutory duty to ‘strive to at reasonable cost.' After three extensions of time, the city gave St. Vincent's 20 boxes of documents in April 2005. St. Vincent's then subjected the city to a costly and lengthy process of trawling through its entire computer system in response to an extremely broad and unbounded search for ‘all writings evidencing or reflecting communications … relating to or in connection with the St. Vincent's property or the Silveira property.' And St. Vincent's rationale for this? — not because it had identified any ‘gaps' in the voluminous planning documents contained in the 20 boxes, but because it was not satisfied with the number of emails contained in the 20 boxes." Horner then wrote in italics: "It is telling that after all this, St. Vincent's does not mention one single email, obtained in response to its request, which provided information that bolstered any of its claims in this case. Indeed, we wonder what the point of all of it was, because, as noted, St. Vincent's filed its brief before the issue of the emails was ever resolved." St. Vincent's attorney Stephen Kostka, of Bingham McCutchen, said that what the plaintiff did was not out of the ordinary. He said the court's ruling "indicates that perhaps it's a risk" for plaintiffs to assemble the record based on Public Records Act requests. On the merits, St. Vincent's argued that the city improperly removed the St. Vincent's and Silveira properties from the city's sphere on influence in January 2003 without any CEQA review and as an unlawful reaction to a development application. But the court ruled that the January 2003 resolution did not trigger CEQA and that the general plan EIR provided satisfactory review. As to the charge of an improper reaction to an application, the court noted that the city's decision merely maintained the status quo and did not preclude development. St. Vincent's argued that the general plan EIR should have evaluated displacement of development as an impact because the plan would force development to distant locations. The court ruled, " he city specifically addressed the issues of ‘displacement' or ‘leapfrog development' in its response to St. Vincent's comment on the EIR." On the question of the housing element, St. Vincent's contended the city could not identify adequate sites to meet its fair-share obligation without the St. Vincent's and Silveira properties. The court disagreed, noting the city had identified more than enough sites to meet its fair share and had adopted policies to encourage housing development. Potential development of the St. Vincent's and Silveira properties is now entirely within Marin County's hands, said San Rafael Community Development Director Bob Brown. The county's recently adopted comprehensive plan (see CP&DR Local Watch , January 2008 ) permits a total of 221 housing units clustered on 5% of the two properties, said Alex Hines, the county's community development director. The development could be split proportionately between the two properties, he said. The plan also permits other uses, such as an assisted living facility, so long as the uses do not generate more traffic than houses would, Hines said. County supervisors rejected pleas from affordable housing advocates who said the properties could provide a site hundreds of affordable units in a county where the median price is more than $900,000. Instead, county officials emphasized the potential to restore wetlands on the St. Vincent's property. Plus, building a great deal of housing right at sea level makes little sense considering predictions of rising sea level and more severe storms, Hines said. St. Vincent's has not filed an application, but it did endorse the comprehensive plan and the property owner's representatives have been talking with county officials, according to Hines The Case: St. Vincent's School for Boys, Catholic Charities CYO v. City of San Rafael , No. A116690, 2008 C.D.O.S. 3070, 2008 DJDAR 3705. Filed March 18, 2008. Certified for publication in full April 15, 2008 at 2008 DJDAR 5337. The Lawyers: For St. Vincent's: Stephen Kostka, Bingham McCutchen, (925) 937-8000. For the city: Clark Guinan, city attorney's office, (415) 485-3080.

The state Supreme Court has accepted a case involving the baseline for an environmental impact report of a Southern California oil refinery project. The decision to accept the case means the state high court now has four California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) cases pending. In the latest case, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that actual emissions from ConocoPhillip's Los Angeles Refinery should serve as the baseline for measuring impact of proposed refinery modifications. The court threw out a South Coast Air Quality Management District EIR that instead used permitted emission levels as the baseline, even though actual emissions were less than half the amount permitted (see CP&DR Legal Digest , March 2008 ). Although a line of cases indicates that permitted levels would be the proper baseline for an EIR, the court said those cases were inapplicable because they involved permitted levels that had been subject to environmental review. The refinery's permitted emissions had not undergone prior CEQA review. The case is Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District , No. S161190. Due for a decision by July 1 is a case involving the EIR for the Cal-Fed Bay-Delta project. The Third District Court of Appeal in 2005 ruled the document inadequate for a number of reasons, including the document's lack of an alternative that did not contemplate a halt to future state population growth (see CP&DR Legal Digest , November 2005 ). The case, Bay-Delta Coordinated Proceedings , No. S138974, was argued on April 2. One of the other pending cases has been heavily briefed and appears ready for oral argument. That case, Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood , No. S151402), concerns whether or not the city's signing of a conditional agreement with a developer to sell a city-owned property constituted a "project" for CEQA purposes (see CP&DR Legal Digest , April 2007 ). An appellate court said the conditional agreement should have undergone environmental review, even though it required CEQA compliance prior to development. The final CEQA case before the state Supreme Court concerns whether the statute of limitations ran out before opponents of a proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter in Stockton filed a lawsuit challenging the city's lack of environmental review for the project. That case is Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton , No. S159690 (see CP&DR Local Watch , February 2008).