Later this month, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors will meet to consider an appeal of the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. TT-5206 and certification of the accompanying Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. At first glance, this tract map approval might seem routine. It is the first of four tract maps that the developer anticipates bringing forward, allowing the developer to build 628 homes, a golf course, and other facilities on 846 acres of unincorporated land. It's a follow-on to a general plan amendment and development agreement previously approved by the Board of Supervisors. The county Planning Commission approved the tract map in November. But TT-5206 is not routine. Approval of the tract map by the supervisors is not guaranteed. And even if supervisors approve the tract map, the decision will certainly be fought -- in the courts, in the newspapers and even in Sacramento and Washington. The reason is simple: TT-5206 represents the final local government approval required to begin construction on the infamous Ahmanson Ranch project. No development project in the recent California history has generated so many headlines and so many delays as Ahmanson Ranch. It has been nearly 40 years since the Ahmanson family first hired William Pereira to draw up a plan. It is going on 20 years since Home Savings of America -- which the Ahmanson family founded -- first started talking to Ventura County about development. And, ironically enough, the members of Board of Supervisors are scheduled to act on TT-5206 almost 10 years to the day after they approved the general plan amendment and development agreement for Ahmanson Ranch in the first place. Yet the battle over Ahmanson Ranch rages, and in many ways the fight is more intense than ever. What is it about this piece of land that has inspired so much outrage by several generations of environmental activists? And what is it about the California planning system that has permitted this fight to continue for so long? Ahmanson Ranch is a beautiful property perched on the edge of Los Angeles. The ranch originally consisted of 5,400 acres -- some hilly, some flat -- located north of Highway 101. It is cut off from the rest of Ventura County by rugged terrain owned by the National Park Service (as part of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area) and by Rockwell International, which used the isolated location to test rocket engines. But the undeveloped property abuts two intensely developed areas across the county line -- Los Angeles's San Fernando Valley to the west, and Calabasas to the south. This proximity -- which makes Ahmanson Ranch such a prime development site -- has fueled the remarkably tenacious opposition to the ranch's development. Both the west Valley and Calabasas are home to affluent residents accustomed to battling developers. The site is just across the freeway from the Santa Monica Mountains, where environmental activists have done battle with developers parcel-by-parcel for decades. And it is just upstream from Malibu, meaning that you never know which celebrities might get into the act. Ventura County's approval of the Ahmanson Ranch project in 1992 was part of a larger and carefully constructed political deal to permit some development and protect large amounts of open space. Originally, Ventura County was considering two developments -- an office and housing proposal from Ahmanson, and a luxury golf course proposed for nearby Jordan Ranch, then owned by Bob Hope. The two ranches were separated by Cheseboro Canyon, which the National Park Service already owned. Jordan Ranch ran into stiff opposition from neighbors in the adjacent Oak Park community. Clamoring for action, the neighbors organized themselves into SOS ("Space Open Space") and helped elect 25-year-old Maria VanderKolk to the Ventura County Board of Supervisors in 1990. To save Jordan Ranch, VanderKolk brokered a deal between Jordan and Ahmanson. The Park Service purchased Jordan Ranch, and Jordan and Ahmanson development interests were combined on Ahmanson Ranch. In addition to Jordan Ranch, several thousand acres of other land -- including most of Ahmanson Ranch -- were thrown into the deal as open space. This was the development agreement that the Ventura County Board of Supervisors approved at VanderKolk's urging in 1992. But the project did not move forward immediately. First, several surrounding homeowner associations and cities — including Calabasas and Malibu, both of which incorporated in 1991 — sued under the California Environmental Quality Act. Ventura County and Home Savings eventually won or settled all the lawsuits, which took place during the recession of the '90s, when the project probably would not have been built anyway. Then Home Savings sold out to Seattle-based Washington Mutual, which thought it was buying an approved project. After that, the California red-legged frog — a federally listed threatened species — was found on the site, as was the San Fernando Valley spineflower — a species not listed as endangered because everybody thought it was extinct. At this point, the Wednesday night president and his director friend showed up. Nowhere is celebrity politics more important than in Los Angeles, and so it is not surprising that when "West Wing" star Martin Sheen and film director Rob Reiner came out against the Ahmanson Ranch project, the politics of the situation were profoundly altered. The species issues gave the project's opponents a new hook, especially because the 1992 EIR was aging fast. And Reiner was just coming off of a major political victory with the passage of Proposition 10, a tax on tobacco to fund early-childhood programs. To assist the longtime SOS activists, Reiner and his colleagues bankrolled a new organization with a professional staff called Rally to Save Ahmanson Ranch. Before long, virtually every political figure representing the area -- including L.A. County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman and State Sen. Sheila Kuehl -- were working to stop the project. Even Gov. Gray Davis and his resources secretary, Mary Nichols, suggested the state might be interested in buying the expensive real estate. But this opposition could not stop Washington Mutual from moving forward. Over the last year, WaMu has moved aggressively to get the tract map in front of the Board of Supervisors. WaMu agreed to a Supplemental EIR, which ran to 4,000 pages and concluded that the impact on the two rare species could be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The timing appeared to be driven largely by politics. Ahmanson supporter Supervisor Frank Schillo — VanderKolk's successor — will retire in January, to be replaced by environmentalist and avowed Ahmanson opponent Linda Parks. So long as Schillo is on the board, WaMu can probably win a 3-2 vote. Once Schillo is gone, that seems unlikely. The November action in front of the Ventura County Planning Commission went on for two days and received statewide news coverage, making it the most protracted and highly publicized tract map hearing ever conducted. Dozens of speakers spilled out of the hearing room in Ventura. Opponents trotted out the likes of Dennis Dickerson, the executive director of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Proponents brought San Fernando City Councilwoman Maria Delatorre, who spoke on behalf of 25 mostly Latino cities in L.A. County on the need for more housing. In the end, the Planning Commission's action — like the probable Board of Supervisors' decision — came down to politics cast in process and technical terminology. There are few legitimate grounds for denying a tract map (though significant environmental damage is one of them), and the Planning Commission approved the tract map on a 3-2 vote. If the board approves the project, we will see more lawsuits and maneuvering. Usually, in situations like this, there are only two possible outcomes. One is for somebody — probably the state and federal governments — to buy out Washington Mutual. The second is for somebody in the opposition — probably Calabasas — to fold and make a deal on a smaller project. But because of Ahmanson's peculiar history, both outcomes seem remote. Despite the campaign rhetoric, it is unlikely the Davis Administration will cough up $300 million to $500 million to buy it. And given the intense, hard-line nature opposition, it seems unlikely that anybody in Calabasas could make a deal without losing face. So, instead of being a park or a housing development, Ahmanson Ranch will probably spend several more years as a great story. That is the one thing the planning system in California is guaranteed to produce.

A state appellate court has halted a project at the Port of Los Angeles because the city never studied the development's environmental impacts. The court rejected the city's arguments that the project was covered by a 1997 environmental impact report and a 2000 subsequent EIR because the project had not been contemplated in 1997, and there was no evidence the 2000 study considered the project. Furthermore, even if the earlier studies covered the first phase of the project, as the city argued, the city had improperly segmented the project by not also studying the second and third phases at the same time, the court ruled. The case involved construction of a new terminal — including two wharves designed to handle large cargo ships and two four-lane bridges to the mainland — for China Shipping Holding Company. In May 2001, the Los Angeles City Council approved the project and determined no additional environmental study was necessary under the California Environmental Quality Act because of the 1997 EIR for major improvements to the port and the 2000 document addressing channel deepening. The City Council's decision came one day after the city finalized a contract with China Shipping for the project. Two months later, the City Council approved a "side letter" agreement addressing concerns related to air pollution, truck congestion and harbor congestion. Two environmental groups and two San Pedro homeowners associations filed suit, arguing the city should prepare an EIR addressing all three phases of the China Shipping project. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavs ruled for the city, finding the first phase was covered by the 1997 EIR and noting that the city had acknowledged a need for an EIR regarding the second and third phases. The environmentalists and homeowners, with support from the state Attorney General's office, appealed the ruling. A three-judge panel of the Second District, Division Four, overturned the decision. In his opinion, Justice Gary Hastings cited the attorney general's amicus brief: "Here, the Port and the City have reduced CEQA to a process whose result will be largely to generate paper, to produce an EIR that describes a journey whose destination is already predetermined and contractually committed to before the public has any chance to see either the road map or the full price tag. … They have signed this legally binding agreement for the entire project before completing the CEQA process for two of its three phases." According to the appellate court, the city tried two different defenses, but both failed. "If we accept the City's argument made to the trial court that Phase I of the project falls within the 1997 EIR, and its concession that a new EIR is being prepared with regard to Phases II and III, this is improper segmentation," Hastings wrote. "If we accept the argument made before us that Phase I is covered under the 1997 EIR and Phases II and III are covered under the 2000 SEIS/SEIR, this is also improper segmentation." Instead, the court ruled, the city should use the 1997 document as a program EIR and prepare a tiered EIR for all three phases of the China Shipping project. The court made permanent the injunction it issued one week earlier halting the project until an EIR is completed. The Case: Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles , No. B159157, 02 C.D.O.S. 10773, 2002 DJDAR 12503. Filed October 30, 2002. The Lawyers: For NRDC: Gail Ruderman Feuer, (323) 934-6900. For the city: Richard Helgeson, city attorney's office, (310) 732-3750.

Alameda County: City of Alameda: Measure E: Initiative to amend the general plan and rezone the 22-acre Beltline Railroad Property from medium-density residential, general industry and parks to solely parks and public open space. Slow growth � yes. Yes: 53.1% Measure D: Placed on ballot by City Council. Postpones Measure E implementation. Requires city to file validation suit to determine if city must compensate Beltline Railroad Property owners for downzoning. Property has been appraised at $20 million to $25 million. If court rules compensation necessary, then city must put tax increase on future ballot. Pro growth � yes. Yes: 51.6% City of Albany: Measure F: $14.5 million bond for repairs and improvements to, and for additional, public buildings, streets and parks. (2/3 required) Yes: 69.5% City of Berkeley: Measure I: $7.2million bond to build an animal shelter. (2/3 required) Yes: 68.5% Measure J: $21.5 million bond to renovate and seismically retrofit the Old City Hall building, which houses the council chambers and the county Superintendent of Schools office. (2/3 vote) No: 60.4% Measure L: A special tax of 1.3 cents per square foot of improvements to fund pedestrian safety projects. Would tax average house about $25 and raise about $1 million annually for 10 years. (2/3 vote) No: 45.8% Measure M: Increases in the property transfer tax by 0.5% to raise money for the housing trust fund, emergency homeless assistance and housing safety programs. Houses costing less than $350,000 or 105% of the previous selling price are exempt. Would raise about $2 million annually. (2/3 vote) No: 48.7% Measure N: Allows the City Council to amend the Waterfront Specific Plan, which voters approved via Measure Q in 1986. The specific plan placed tight limits on what can be built between Interstate 80 and the Berkeley Marina. At issue is 56 acres owned by Magna Entertainment Co., which also owns nearby Golden Gate Fields race track. Magna wants to build hotels and restaurants. Any changes to the specific plan would again need voter approval. Placed on ballot by City Council. Slow growth � yes. Yes: 67.2% Measure P. Initiative to reduce the permissible height of buildings in commercial districts outside the downtown core area. Cuts maximum height from 50 feet to 28 or 35 feet. Allows 10-foot exceptions for affordable housing projects. Prohibits variances. Slow growth � no. No: 80.0% Castro Valley Measure Q. Incorporation of a community of 58,000 people in the East Bay hills. No: 72.2% City of Fremont Measure R: $51 million bond to replace three fire stations, rehabilitate others and build a public safety training center. (2/3 vote) Yes: 74.0% Measure T: An initiative that modifies the Hillside Initiative originally approved in 1981. The new initiative requires 20-acre minimums in the city's hills, and 100-acre minimums in any hillside areas that the city annexes. Also greatly limits potential land uses. Slow growth � yes. Yes: 57.4% City of Hayward: Measure U: Amends the general plan to delete reference to a specific route for a long-proposed Route 238 bypass, and allows the City Council to pursue other freeway projects. Successful litigation has blocked the city from pursuing the earlier bypass route. Yes: 61.6% City of Oakland: Measure DD. $198 million bond to help fund the Lake Merritt Park Master Plan. The measure provides money for lake cleanup, estuary restoration and access, acquisition of land and construction of recreational facilities. Will cost property owners about $20 per $100,000 of assessed value. (2/3 vote). Yes: 80.2% City of Pleasanton: Measure V: Initiative to prohibit housing development on 318 acres owned by the city known as the Bernal Property. City currently has a specific plan for the site that requires voter approval before any development is implemented, and a city task force has "suggested" developing senior housing or affordable housing on a small part of the land. Slow growth � yes. Yes: 60.4% Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District: Measure AA. Annual parcel tax of $24 per year to fund bus service. Would generate about $7.5 million annually for five years. Newark and Fremont excluded. (2/3 vote) Yes: 68.1% Bay Area Rapid Transit District (San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa counties): Measure BB: $1.05 billion bond to seismically retrofit BART. (2/3 vote) No: 35.8% Butte County: City of Paradise: Measure K: An initiative to repeal establishment of a redevelopment agency, which the City Council created in February. Slow growth � no. No: 67.1% Contra Costa County: City of Clayton: Measure E: General plan amendment to allow service stations as permitted uses in the town center commercial land use designation. City wants to sell one acre at Clayton Road and Center Street to developer for a gas station and car wash. Placed on ballot by City Council. Pro Growth � no. No: 67.1% Fresno County: Measure CC. 30-year extension of half-cent sales tax for transportation. Currently expires in 2007. (2/3 vote) No: 46.3% Humboldt County: Measure C. Parcel tax of $10 to repair Veterans Memorial Building in Eureka and to build other veterans halls. Tax would drop to $5 annually after 10 years. (2/3 vote) No: 55.9% Los Angeles County: Measure A: $250 million bond to retrofit county museums for earthquake and fire safety. (2/3 vote) No: 39.5% City of Lawndale: Measure N. Would amend the general plan to allow the redevelopment agency to use eminent domain to acquire property zoned commercial or industrial. Pro growth � no. No: 60.5% City of Los Angeles Measure F: San Fernando Valley secession. No: 66.9% (Valley vote only: Yes: 50.8%) Measure H: Hollywood secession. No: 71.3% (Hollywood vote only: No: 68.3%) City of Santa Monica: Measure FF. Charter amendment to tighten the rent control law to make it harder to evict tenants. Also makes "move in discount" rents the base rental rate. Yes: 62.8% Measure II. Charter amendment to authorize the conversion of rental housing to condos, stock cooperatives and other forms of common ownership. Essentially reauthorizes a TORCA (Tenant Ownership Rights Charter Amendment) law that expired in 1996. No: 64.5% Measure KK. Allows the city to spend all TORCA tax revenues (equal to one year's rent on a converted unit) for affordable housing development. Now, half the revenue must be spent to purchase, rehab or lease converted units. Yes: 50.6% Marin County: Town of Tiburon: Measure I: An initiative to amend the general plan to define more broadly "prime open space" and to prohibit almost any development of that territory. The measure is aimed at undeveloped hills and the shoreline. Would affect 18 undeveloped parcels. Slow growth � no. No: 52.0% Merced County: Measure M. Half-cent, 20-year sales tax for transportation. Would be county's first. Would raise about $212 million. (2/3 vote) No: 38.7% Monterey County: City of Monterey: Measure B. Advisory vote on whether to dissolve the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, whose ban on water-credit transfers and inability to secure new water supplies have brought criticism. Yes: 62.0% City of Marina: Measure R. $8 million bond to build new library. (2/3 vote) Yes: 80.7% Orange County: Measure B. Advisory vote on whether the Board of Supervisors should demand that the Navy clean up toxic contamination at El Toro before transferring the property. Yes: 60.3% City of San Juan Capistrano. Measure CC. Referendum on the Whispering Hills project, which entails 175 houses and a new high school. Slow growth � yes. No: 56.6% Measure DD. Advisory measure on whether the city should sell 13 acres of city property, known as the Lower Rosan Property, to Home Depot for $9 million. Pro growth � no. No: 69.0% City of Seal Beach: Measure FF. Charter amendment to prohibit rent control. No: 51.1% Nevada County: Measure D. Initiative to compensate landowners for government regulation that impedes development. Similar to Oregon's Measure 7 from 2000. Pro growth � no. No: 57.2% Riverside County: Measure A. Extension of half-cent sales tax to fund transportation projects and mitigating environmental projects. A key part of the Riverside County Integrated Project. (2/3 vote) Yes: 69.0% Sacramento County: City of Folsom. Measure P: Water Meter Initiative that blocks the city's plan to retrofit 6,600 existing homes with water meters and charge residents for the cost. Initiative backers say city is making current residents pay for growth. Yes: 54.4% City of Galt: Measure R: Initiative that limits single-family housing permits to 123 to 308 per year. The number depends on city general fund revenue. Slow growth � no. No: 55.5% Rancho Cordova: Measure W: Incorporation. Yes: 77.7% San Bernardino County: City of Chino: Measure A: General plan amendment to rezone 435 acres from institutional to residential. The state owns about 700 acres next to a prison and plans to sell it as surplus to the city, the community college district and a developer. Those three entities intend to pursue a specific plan for the area. Election required by 1988 initiative regarding residential zoning. Pro growth � yes. Yes: 56.4% Measure Z: General plan amendment to rezone half an acre from office to multi-family residential to accommodate a senior housing project. Election required by 1988 initiative regarding residential zoning. Pro growth � yes. Yes: 71.5% San Diego County: Campo/Lake Morena: Proposition Z: Changes the Campo/Lake Morena Community Planning Group from a body appointed by the Board of Supervisors to an elected body. Seen as a slow-growth measure. Yes: 56.3% City of Carlsbad: Proposition B: Removes existing requirement that city capital improvements or real estate acquisitions costing more than $1 million be subject to voter approval. Placed on ballot by City Council. No: 66.2% Proposition C: Would allow the city spend more than $1 million on each of the following: a swimming pool, open space acquisition and trails, a public safety training facility, an extension of Cannon Road to Oceanside. Placed on ballot by City Council. Yes: 59.5% City of Encinitas: Proposition H: In initiative that directs the city to build a proposed new library on Quail Garden Drive, and not at a site the city has chosen. The initiative also requires the library to be at least 25,000 square feet and requires the city to build it within 30 months. No: 64.0% City of Escondido: Proposition J: General plan amendment for 6.8 acres adjacent to Interstate 15. Changes permitted uses from residential to planned commercial to accommodate a proposed pediatric medial center and an animal hospital. Election required by 1998 initiative. Voters defeated commercial development proposal for site in 2000. Pro growth � yes. Yes: 64.8% City of Oceanside. Proposition M. Initiative to designate 545-acre El Corazon property, a former sand mine, as parkland. City owns the site, which was proposed as golf course in conjunction with a proposed hotel on the beach. But the Coastal Commission rejected the resort. Slow growth � no. No: 50.1% Pine Valley: Proposition DD. Changes the Pine Valley Community Planning Group from a body appointed by the Board of Supervisors to an elected body. Seen as a slow-growth measure. Yes: 66.2% City of San Diego: Proposition A: Would allow the city to develop or acquire up to 5,000 units of "low rent" housing. Election required by Article 34 of state constitution. Pro growth � yes. Yes: 69.1% City of Solana Beach. Proposition O. Rezones 0.2 acres from public/institutional to residential. Three homeowners purchased the property from Solana Beach School District to expand their backyards. Subsequent election required by Proposition T of 2000. Yes: 71.3% Valley Center Parks and Recreation District: Proposition GG. Parcel tax of $14 annually to fund open space and park land purchases, and to maintain existing facilities. (2/3 vote) Slow growth � no. No: 39.1% San Francisco: Measure A. $1.6 billion bond to fund upgrades to Hetch Hetchy water system. Yes: 53.7% Measure B. $250 million housing bond to fund acquisition, construction and rehabilitation of low- and moderate-income housing, and for down payment assistance. Pro growth � yes. Yes: 56.9% Measure M. Expands the responsibilities of the Office of Economic Development and funds the office with existing business registration fees. No: 51.9% Measure R. Allows apartment buildings of any size to be converted to condos and allows up to 1% of total housing units (about 3,400) to be converted annually. Currently, only buildings of up to 6 units can be converted, and there is a conversion limit of 400 units per year. No: 60.7% San Mateo County: City of East Palo Alto: Measure J. Requires the city to spend 10% of transient occupancy tax (TOT) "for affordable housing purposes." The city has no hotel, but a proposed Four Seasons Hotel would generate about $2 million of TOT annually. Yes: 59.8% City of Pacifica: Measure E. Allows the city to approve up to 315 housing units as part of a proposed mixed-use development on land known as the "Quarry site." Residential portion of project subject to vote under 1983 initiative. Pro growth � no. No: 66.2% Santa Barbara County: City of Solvang Measure L: An initiative that would allow a property owner to build a replica of Copenhagen's Tivoli wheel amusement ride in a portion of a parking lot in this town of Danish replicas. No: 59.7% Santa Clara County: Measure A: Advisory vote on Valley Transportation Plan 2020, which calls for extensive transit improvements, including a connection to BART. Yes: 82.6% Measure B: Directs future, discretionary state and federal funds to highways and other roads, and away from transit projects. Yes: 74.1% City of Palo Alto: Measure D: $49.1 million bond to renovate and expand Children's Library and to replace Mitchell Park Library and Community Center. (2/3 vote) No: 38.6% City of San Jose: Measure E: Allows the city to lease 0.56 acres of the 9.3-acre Ramblewood Park to Franklin-McKinley School District for construction of an elementary school. Yes: 62.7% Measure F: Increases the TOT from 10% to 14% to help pay for a possible 370,000-square-foot convention center expansion. Pro growth � yes. Yes: 64.8% Santa Cruz County: City of Watsonville: Measure U. An initiative that moves the Urban Limit Line to allow housing and some commercial development on 500 acres of farmland that the city would annex. But the measure prohibits further ULL changes without voter approval. Also changes general plan policies for seven specific areas to encourage housing development. Pro growth � yes. Yes: 60.2% Solano County: Measure G: Half-cent sales tax for transportation. Would raise at least $800 million over 20 years. (2/3 vote) No: 40.1% Sonoma County: City of Santa Rosa: Measure K. Allows the city to double the number of subsidized rental units from 297 to 594. An Article 34 election. Pro growth � yes. Yes: 62.9% Town of Windsor: Measure X. Initiative to cap housing permits at 150 � or up to 225, including permits issued under existing development agreements � for a rolling three-year period. Initiative exempts affordable housing projects. Opposed by unanimous City Council. Slow growth � no. No: 59.8% Ventura County: City of Ojai: Measure C. An initiative that would prevent development of any kind unless the project can fully mitigate its traffic. Slow growth � no. No: 65.4% City of Santa Paula: Measure F: Initiative to expand the city's urban growth boundary by 5,200 acres to accommodate a large housing and retail development. Subsequent election required by 2000 SOAR initiative. Pro growth � no. No: 63.4% City of Simi Valley: Measure B: An initiative that would tighten the SOAR boundary to prevent development of Alamos Canyon, where a 2,800-acre, mixed-use development has been proposed. Slow growth � no. No: 64.1% City of Ventura: Measure A. An initiative to extend sewer and water service to about 800 acres of hillside territory to allow development of 1,390 homes. Pro growth � no. No: 70.3% Yolo County: City of West Sacramento: Measure L. An initiative to rezone all industrial land in the southern half of city for residential or commercial uses. Similar to initiative that barely failed in 1990. Slow growth � no. No: 70.2% City of Woodland: Measure I. Amends the mobile home rent control ordinance approved by voters in 2000 to exempt resident-owned mobile home parks. Yes: 65.2%

At least some blame for one of the most complicated and intractable water-policy conundrums in the West can be laid fairly at the feet of Charles Rockwood and George Chaffey. Rockwood, a land developer, and Chaffey, a public-relations whiz, teamed up during the 1890s to create the California Development Company. The outfit constructed a crude wooden headgate and canal to divert Colorado River water into a vast expanse of desert on the California-Mexico border they grandly renamed "Imperial Valley." In 1901, settlers lured by Chaffey's promises of boundless fecundity and wealth began settling in the forbidding region; five years later, the company's primitive diversion works collapsed under pressure from the unruly river. Floodwaters chewed through the valley and poured into an ancient dry lakebed, creating the Salton Sea. Although the California Development Company quickly died, the dream upon which it was founded remained alive. The ill-fated venture by Rockwood and Chaffey was revived by others, eventually spawning a $1 billion-a-year agricultural empire in Imperial County, establishing the farmers there as owners of the most senior rights to Colorado River water in California, and setting a political and ecological trap that has slowly ensnared nearly every water user in the Southwestern United States. This fall, through a complex series of legal agreements reached under pressure from the federal government, several Southern California water agencies began hacking their way out of the snare unwittingly set by land speculators a century ago. The deals announced in late October herald a significant change in the way the region's most important surface water resource is apportioned. Distribution of the Colorado River's flows is governed by a pastiche of laws, contracts, court rulings, treaties and agreements known collectively as "The Law of the River" — a label that implies more coherence than the situation merits. Basically, it doles out the Colorado's flow in two tiers. The first tier is governed by the Colorado River Compact of 1922, which divided the Colorado's 246,000-square-mile watershed into two units — an upper basin, comprising Wyoming, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico, and a lower basin comprising California, Nevada and Arizona — and gave each basin the right to half the river's estimated annual flow. Under the compact, the lower basin's 7.5 million-acre-foot entitlement is then further subdivided by state: California was granted 4.4 million acre-feet, Arizona 2.8 million acre-feet and Nevada 300,000 acre-feet. The second distribution tier is governed by the 1931 Seven Party Agreement, which concerns priority among water agencies in California. The agreement divides the state's share into two large chunks: 3.85 million acre-feet for agricultural water agencies in the desert — the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), the Palo Verde Irrigation District, the Yuma Project Reservation Division and the Coachella Valley Water District — and 1.212 million acre-feet for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), which serves 16 million urban customers on the coast. Obviously, 3.85 million and 1.212 million do not add up to 4.4 million. They equal 5.062 million — 662,000 acre-feet more than California's apportionment. And therein lies one of the thorny problems the recent spate of water deals intends to solve. The Met can withdraw the full 1.212 million acre-feet only if the Interior secretary declares that there are surplus or unused flows in the river that year. There have been such surpluses almost every year, mainly because Arizona and other upstream states have not diverted all the water to which they are entitled. So over the past decade, MWD has come to rely on its full allotment — enough to supply nearly 10 million people. Rapid population growth in the other lower basin states is boosting water demand, however, and in 1996 Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt warned that the era of Colorado River surpluses was ending. California, he said, had to come up with a plan to reduce its use to the 4.4 million acre-feet it was granted by the 1922 compact. Later negotiations set December 31, 2002, as the deadline for that plan to be submitted to the federal government. Practically, MWD has to find a replacement for the surplus flows on which it has come to rely. Imperial Valley farmers, whose water rights are held in trust by IID, have the oldest and largest claim to California's share of the Colorado River. It was to the Imperial Valley that MWD turned. Following years of contentious debate, two months of marathon talks ended in mid-October with a complex set of agreements. They have two key elements: * IID will sell water to the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), a MWD member, starting at 10,000 acre-feet in 2003, increasing to 130,000 acre-feet annually in 2018 and 200,000 acre-feet in 2021, and remaining at that level for the duration of the 75-year agreement. * SDCWA will contribute $20 million to a special fund to offset socioeconomic impacts in the Imperial Valley associated with any decrease in farm activity resulting from the water transfer. Although they are an important step, the agreements alone do not satisfy the federal government's demand for a plan demonstrating reduction in California's Colorado River use. Nor do the agreements shift enough water to MWD's customers to offset the pending loss of surplus flows. (The agency is pursuing other strategies, ranging from additional agricultural water transfers to desalination to make up the difference.) The agreements do resolve some of the political conflicts set in motion a century ago by Charles Rockwood and George Chaffey — who helped give a relative handful of desert farmers control of water coveted by millions of city dwellers — but the agreements do not really address the ecological trap those speculators also set. Irrigation runoff from Imperial Valley farms drains into the Salton Sea, which serves as a crucial resource for migratory waterfowl. Water transfers that result in reduced irrigation runoff will shrink the sea, exposing its bed and possibly leading to dangerous dust storms. Reduced inflow also will cause the sea's salinity — already 30 percent greater than the ocean — to rise so high that the sea can no longer sustain life. Preventing that looming biological disaster is the focus of a wide-ranging research program loosely overseen by the Salton Sea Authority, whose executive director, Tom Kirk, is among those unmoved by the October agreement. "I feel like I'm sitting in the back of the pew of the wedding when the priest asks if anybody objects," Kirk told a Copley News Service reporter. "I do." Contacts: Adan Ortega, MWD, (213) 217-5786. Ron Hull, IID, (760) 482-9600. Dennis Cushman, SDCWA, (619) 252-6600. Tom Kirk, Salton Sea Authority: (760) 564-4888.

State Sen. Joe Dunn has vowed to reintroduce a bill that would put teeth in the housing element law by fining cities that refuse to comply with the housing mandate. Dunn, chairman of the Senate Housing Committee, said he would take his case directly to cities and would not negotiate with the League of California Cities, which was a chief opponent to his housing element reform bill during the last two years. Speaking in November at the Public Policy Institute of California office in San Francisco, Dunn also said lawmakers might pursue creation of a state process by which housing developers could appeal local land use decisions. Builders need recourse when a local government makes an arbitrary decision "with no justification, designed to keep out a legitimate project," said Dunn, who was unsure what form the appeals process would take. Dunn's housing element proposal during the 2001-02 legislative session was among the most controversial bills in Sacramento. The bill, SB 910, eventually died in the Assembly. "It's coming back in January," said the Santa Ana Democrat, who said he aims to cut funding from jurisdictions that have no intention of complying with the law. League of California Cities spokeswoman Megan Taylor called Dunn's punitive approach "far too simplistic." Cities are reluctant to approve housing because housing does not generate enough revenue to pay for municipal services, she said. Plus, there is not enough money from the state or locally to fund infrastructure that serves new residences, she said. Dunn conceded that the current local government finance system is flawed because of decisions by state lawmakers. Nevertheless, he predicted little movement on the issue during 2003. Phil Serna, vice president of the Home Builders Association of Northern California, welcomed Dunn's remarks. Serna said the majority of Bay Area cities and counties are out of compliance with the housing element law. Smart growth took a hit when the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) released a survey on land use in November. Overwhelmingly, the 2010 adults surveyed prefer living in a single-family house, drive alone to work, and do not think their commute is bad. "What this says to us," said Marc Baldassare, PPIC research and survey director, "is that changing the status quo is not going to be easy." Among the more provocative results: 86% of respondents said they want to live in a single-family, detached home; 75% drive alone to work, and 81% of those lone commuters said they were satisfied with their commute — but 51% of respondents said traffic congestion in their region is a big problem. Additionally, 44% said availability of affordable housing is a big problem, including 59% of Bay Area respondents; 67% said availability of parks and open space is not a problem. Statewide, 50% of respondents said local government should steer growth to already developed areas. The north-south split was significant, however, as 62% of Bay Area respondents want to grow in existing areas, while only 42% of Los Angeles respondents supported the idea. The poll also found only 49% believe the state should provide guidelines for local land use. The poll found little interest in smart growth fundamentals such as short commutes, easy access to stores and neighborhood public spaces. When naming their top criterion for choosing a home or neighborhood, people listed safety most often, followed by living space and schools. The poll further found that Latinos are disenfranchised, as only 18% had ever attended a public meeting about a land use issue, and only 11% had ever contacted a public official about a land use matter — roughly half the rate of non-Hispanic whites. The full survey is available on the PPIC website, www.ppic.org. Nearly 4 million acres of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog have been eliminated under an agreement between the Fish & Wildlife Service and the Home Builders Association of Northern California. Washington D.C. District Judge Court Richard Leon approved the settlement of the builders' suit after earlier stalling the agreement because environmental groups had not had a chance to comment. The federal agency accepted the builders' argument that the critical habitat designation failed to assess the economic impacts of development restrictions. As part of the settlement, Judge Leon ordered the Fish & Wildlife Service to prepare a new economic impact analysis within two years and reconsider critical habitat designations. In April 2001, federal officials designated 4.1 million acres in 28 California counties as critical habitat for the frog, which was listed as a threatened species in 1996 (see CP&DR Environment Watch, December 2000). Under the settlement approved in November, only 124,000 acres in Tuolumne and Mariposa counties and 75,000 acres in the Angeles National Forest remain as critical habitat. Riverside County supervisors in November approved a 4,063-unit housing development on about 930 acres in the community of Menifee, south of Highway 74 and east of Interstate 215. The Brookfield Homes project is one of the largest in Riverside County. Sutter County supervisors have changed their minds again and decided to keep the Williamson Act. The county offered Williamson Act property tax breaks to farmers for the first time in 2001, but earlier this year supervisors said the county would drop the program because they feared the state would not backfill lost taxes in the future. Farmers protested, and supervisors could not muster three votes for formal action.

Sutter County is once again pursing a major development near the Sacramento International Airport. A specific plan the county adopted earlier this year calls for a 3,500-acre industrial and commercial development that would be a job center for the region. Sutter County officials hope they can entice businesses to the South Sutter County Specific Plan area with relatively low real estate prices, an accommodating infrastructure financing plan, and a system that requires no more than design review for permitted industrial projects. "We want to make it easy for builders to come — where all they have to do is go get a building permit," said Sutter County Supervisor Casey Kroon. Environmentalists, however, argue that the specific plan opens flood-prone farmland to major industrial development while postponing many infrastructure requirements. The environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and the Environmental Council of Sacramento, have filed a lawsuit contending that the county violated the California Environmental Quality Act and other state laws. "This project is a throwback to the way they used to do it before there were laws," charged James Pachl, an attorney for environmentalists. Environmentalists are not they one ones concerned with Sutter County's accommodating approach to industrial development. The state Department of Fish and Game has complained that the county postponed a study of biological resources — a study the agency says the specific plan's environmental impact report should have contained. And both Reclamation District 1000, which provides water and flood control in the area, and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board have expressed concerns about the lack of public infrastructure requirements. Lying north of Sacramento, Sutter County has a mostly agricultural economy. Most of the Sacramento region's economic growth of recent years has been east of the state capital toward Roseville and Folsom — not north toward Sutter and Yuba counties. Thus, Sutter County remains one of the poorer in the state, with an unemployment rate that has not ranked better than seventh worst of California's 58 counties in any year since 1990, according to the state Employment Development Department. During the 1990s, south Sutter County was a battle-zone for development proposals. In 1991, county voters rejected competing growth initiatives. Voters' apparent willingness to let the Board of Supervisors decide led to the county's approval of a 36-square-mile, 200,000-resident new town proposal called Sutter Bay. But in January 1993, the Board of Supervisors — with three members, including Kroon, participating in their first meeting ever — rescinded 18 development agreements with Ahmanson Development Company and its Bay Area-based partners. That decision preceded a referendum on the project, which voters defeated by a nearly two-to-one ratio. The county then spent years defending developers' lawsuits, but the county prevailed. (See CP&DR Legal Digest, December 1997 and June 1995; CP&DR February 1993, December 1992, June 1991.) While it was defending the lawsuits, the county updated its general plan. As part of the update, the county designated a 10,500-acre "industrial/commercial reserve" that it sees as a 100-year plan, Planning Director Tom Last explained. After meeting with area property owners, the county in April adopted the South Sutter Specific Plan for 3,500 acres on the border with Sacramento County and within the industrial/commercial reserve. "There has always been pressure for development down there," Last said. "There is proximity to the airport, all the growth in Placer County and Sacramento County, the possibility of rail." The specific plan attempts to capitalize on the site's proximity to Highway 99, Interstate 5, the airport and rail lines. The plan permits many manufacturing operations, distribution centers and warehouses, truck terminals, bulk storage yards, and a variety of wholesale businesses. Retail is not a high priority for the specific plan area, as the county allocated only 100 acres, including a number of small parcels expected to serve neighboring industrial uses, for retail development. But the lawsuit filed by environmentalists has put the specific plan on hold. Attorney Pachl said the county delayed the infrastructure financing plan until after the public comment period on the EIR closed. And, he said, the infrastructure plan allows development to proceed before sewer, water and storm drainage facilities are in place. Environmentalists and some agency representatives complain that nothing in the specific plan ever requires the regional facilities to be built. And flooding is always a concern in the area; about half of the specific plan territory lies within the 100-year floodplain. The county's plan does let developers rely on on-site wells and drainage, and "package" sewer plants. But those facilities can do the job and they would be in use only until enough money is available to pursue regional facilities, said county officials. At this point, the county cannot even finance the infrastructure because it has nothing with which to leverage the debt, Last said. "We don't have," added Supervisor Kroon, "a lot of money to put into infrastructure ahead of time and then hope that someone shows up." For DFG, the issue is animal and plant habitat. The Natomas Habitat Conservation Plan covers the area, but a federal judge threw out the HCP in 2000. The City of Sacramento, Sutter County and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service only recently released a revised HCP. For its EIR on the specific plan, Sutter County deferred biological issues to the HCP effort— a strategy that did not satisfy DFG. " he county may not defer analysis and disclosure of project-related impacts under the guise that an ongoing and yet-to-be completed planning effort pursuant to the State and federal Endangered Species Act will address all impacts on biological resources," DFG staff counsel John Mattox wrote to the county before adoption of the EIR. The agency is not necessarily opposed to the specific plan, and DFG is not a party to the lawsuit, Mattox added. In fact, the county has melded its planning to regional resource needs, he said. But the agency was not happy with the EIR, and Mattox made clear that the dissatisfaction could be problem for the county when it seeks DFG permits for work in the specific plan area. To Sutter County, though, the questions and opposition sound like sour grapes from outsiders. Because there is no residential component to the specific plan, there has been minimal local controversy. Kroon even suggested that developers of competing business parks in the region are responsible for stirring the pot. Contacts: Casey Kroon, Sutter County supervisor, (530) 822-7106 Tom Last, Sutter County Planning Division, (530) 822-7400. John Mattox, Department of Fish and Game, (916) 654-3821. James Pachl, attorney for environmentalists, (916) 446-3978. South Sutter County Specific Plan website: www.co.sutter.ca.us/community_services/planning/specific_plan.htm

The California Coastal Commission's decision to allow Malibu property owners who are building new houses to exchange existing public view corridors on their property for dedication of an off-site public access to the beach has been upheld by the Second District Court of Appeal. The court rejected a variety of arguments about the Coastal Commission's statutory ability to permit the deal, the panel's findings and its compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. "We find," Justice Robert Mallano wrote for the court, "nothing in the Coastal Act or in any other statute, regulation or legal opinion that would circumscribe the Commission's exercise of discretion in this case and forbid it to conclude that the public will receive a greater public benefit from the mitigation parcel, with its uninterrupted 80-foot view and public beach access, than from retaining separate view corridors adjacent to the residences that real parties have been authorized to build." The controversy involved the rich and famous who tend to congregate in Malibu. In 1999, cartoon producer Haim Saban, developer Eli Broad and Nancy Daly Riordan, the wife of former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, filed applications with the Coastal Commission. They sought permits to demolish a total of six existing houses in the Carbon Beach area of Malibu, and to build three new houses ranging from Broad's 4,690-square-foot structure to Daly's 14,210-square-foot monster (see CP&DR Environment Watch, August 2002). While approving all three projects, the commission required a "lateral" public easement along the beach and "public view corridors" across each property from Pacific Coast Highway to the ocean. The property owners then sought to amend their permits. They offered to donate a vacant, 80-foot-wide parcel roughly half a mile down the road to the California Coastal Conservancy to provide access to the beach. In exchange, the Commission would drop the public view corridor condition. Noting that the nearest public access to the sandy beach was more than a mile from the proposed access site, the commission voted in 2000 to accept the deal and modify the permits. The La Costa Beach Homeowners' Association — whose members include actor Ryan O'Neal, who lives near the proposed access site — filed a lawsuit. The homeowners' association argued that the commission did not have authority to trade on-site view corridors for off-site mitigation. The opponents also contended the commission did not make adequate findings about public safety and that it failed to conduct adequate environmental analysis. Last year, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge David Yaffe ruled for La Costa. The Coastal Commission then appealed, and a unanimous three-judge panel of the Second District, Division One, reversed the lower court. The opponents said that nothing in the Coastal Act (Public Resources Code § 30000 et seq.) allowed the commission to mitigate the impacts of a project off-site. But the court disagreed, citing the Coastal Act's goal of maximizing public access and recreational opportunities. Nothing in the statute "‘requires the commission to condition development' at any specific site," the court held. The court upheld the commission's findings and said that the site is no more hazardous than any other on the congested Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu. In fact, there is street parking available at the mitigation site, as well as a bus stop and a nearby traffic signal, the court said. The court also found no CEQA violation. " othing in the record demonstrates that the commission failed to provide adequate public notice of hearings or evaluate the impact of the use of the beach …," the court ruled. The Case: La Costa Beach Homeowners' Association v. California Coastal Commission, No. B152304, 02 C.D.O.S. 7977, 2002 DJDAR 9996. Filed August 29, 2002. The Lawyers: For La Costa: Patricia Glaser, Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser Weil & Shapiro, (310) 553-3000. For the commission: John Saurenman, Attorney General's Office, (213) 897-2702.

California Environmental Quality Act o AB 1108 (Pavley). Says that, for projects of statewide, regional or areawide significance, a scoping meeting under the National Environmental Quality Act qualifies as a scoping meeting for CEQA purposes. Also requires the lead agency to notify the military if a low-level flight path or impact zone could be affected. Signed by governor. o SB 1828 (Burton). Modifies CEQA to provide American Indians with greater control over sacred sites threatened by development. Vetoed by governor. o SB 1925 (Sher). Clarifies exemptions to CEQA for infill and farmworker housing projects. The bill makes no major changes to CEQA. Signed by governor. General Plans o AB 2175. Requires the Governor's Office of Planning and Research to include "human service matters" in general plan guidelines. Vetoed by governor. o AB 2954 (Simitian). Requires land use elements to address the distribution of child care facilities. Vetoed by governor. o AB 3057 (Matthews). Recasts the open space element as the "agriculture and open space element," and requires county governments to amend general plans to minimize land use conflicts with long-term agricultural viability. Vetoed by governor. o SB 1468 (Knight). Requires general plans to account for military bases and training facilities. Signed by governor. Housing o AB 1866 (Wright). Makes second unit permits a ministerial review at the local level, and prevents cities and counties from applying development standards that make affordable housing density bonuses impossible to receive. Signed by governor. o AB 2292 (Dutra). Requires cities and counties to abide by the zoned density used in certified housing elements. If a local government approves a downzone, it must transfer the density elsewhere to prevent a net loss. Signed by governor. o AB 2867 (Kehoe). Authorizes creation of a joint powers authority among numerous public entities to pursue development of a new school and replacement housing in San Diego's City Heights neighborhood. Signed by governor. o SB 800 (Burton). Revises consumer law to give builders a right to fix construction defects before an owner may pursue a lawsuit. The bill was the result of last-minute negotiations between consumer attorneys and developers. They consider it a first step toward encouraging more condominium construction. Signed by governor. o SB 972 (Costa). Exempts self-help housing, owner rehabilitation projects and developments with below market-rate financing from prevailing wage requirements. The bill is a follow up to last year's SB 975, which mandated that nearly any project receiving a government subsidy be built with prevailing wage labor. Signed by governor. o SB 1636 (Figueroa). Allows cities and counties to designate "Infill Opportunity Zones" where development may occur without having to meet transportation level-of-service standards. The sites must be near transit stations and have zoning that requires at least three different types of land use. Signed by governor. Natural Resources o AB 858 (Wiggins). Prohibits the Water Resources Control Board from approving a private company's proposal to collect water at the mouths of the Albion and Gualala rivers in giant plastic bags for export to Southern California until the state completes detailed fish habitat studies. Signed by governor. o AB 1414 (Dickerson). Requires the Department of Fish and Game to prepare within 18 months of acquisition management plans for lands wholly within DFG jurisdiction. The measure applies to lands the state acquires on or after January 1, 2002, and is subject to budget constraints. Signed by governor. o AB 1997 (Thomson). Prohibits the subdivision of land that is subject to agricultural or open space easements. Signed by governor. o AB 2156 (Kehoe). Establishes the San Diego River Conservancy. Signed by governor. o AB 2370 (Thomson). Prohibits a local agency formation commission from approving annexation of land protected by a Williamson Act contract to a city. Signed by governor. o SB 482 (Kuehl). Suspends protections for "fully protected species" in the Salton Sea area to allow the Imperial Irrigation District to complete a water transfer to the San Diego County Water Authority. Signed by governor. o SB 483 (Sher). Amends the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act to prevent open pit mines within one mile of a site deemed sacred by American Indians. The bill is aimed specifically at blocking the proposed Glamis Gold Ltd. mine in Imperial County. Signed by governor. o SB 550 (Costa). Permits the "take" of endangered, threatened or candidate species if the killing occurs as part of routine farming activity. Signed by governor. o SB 984 (Costa). Provides for the protection of range, grazing land and grassland via conservation easements, and earmarks $19 million from Proposition 40 for easement purchase. Signed by governor. o SB 1515 (Machado). Prohibits local governments from putting land restricted to agricultural or open space uses into a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. Signed by governor. o SB 1714 (Poochigian). Requires the controller to report annually on property tax lost because of state agency acquisition of land or easements. Vetoed by governor. o SB 1962 (Polanco). Requires the State Coastal Conservancy to accept outstanding offers to dedicate coastal access easements within 90 days of the offer's expiration if no local government or nonprofit organization has accepted the easement. Signed by governor. Regional Planning o AB 1823 (Papan). Requires San Francisco to adopt a capital improvement program for the Hetch Hetchy water system, totaling about $2.9 billion. The bill also requires the Department of Health Services to monitor the progress of these projects. Signed by governor.. o AB 1939 (Daucher). Directs the Legislative Analyst's Office to study a proposal that encourages voluntary tax sharing among cities, counties and special districts and increases the amount of tax increment devoted to affordable housing. Vetoed by the governor. o AB 2058 (Papan). Provides for the formation of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency by at least 15 public agencies that receive water from the Hetch Hetchy system. The new agency is intended to interact with San Francisco regarding operation of Hetch Hetchy, which San Francisco owns. Signed by governor. o SB 1703 (Peace). Consolidates San Diego regional transportation planning and transit project delivery with the San Diego Association of Governments. Signed by governor. o SB 1731 (Polanco). Establishes the California and Mexico Border Economic Infrastructure Finance Authority to issue revenue bonds to fund infrastructure, environmental improvements and economic development on both sides of the border. Vetoed by governor. o SB 1870 (Speier). Creates the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water System Financing Authority to fund improvements to Hetch Hetchy. Signed by governor. Transportation o AB 1010 (Correa) Provides the Orange County Transportation Authority the legal ability to purchase 10 miles of privately owned toll lanes on Highway 91. Signed by governor. o SB 1799 (Poochigian). Doubles Central Valley representation from one to two members on the nine-member California High-Speed Rail Authority. Vetoed by governor. o SB 1856 (Costa). Places on the March 2004 ballot a $9.9 billion bond measure to fund the first phase of a proposed high-speed rail line. Signed by governor. Other o AB 857 (Wiggins). Requires state agencies to adopt consistent planning and capital spending priorities based on promoting infill, protecting environmental and agricultural resources, and encouraging efficient development patterns. Also adds those three priorities to the State Environmental Goals and Policy Report. Signed by governor. o AB 2561 (Vargas). Makes it easier for property owners to form a property and business improvement district that spends at least 25% of its money promoting mass transit and that has a mass transit station in the district. Vetoed by governor. o AB 2936 (Aroner). Allows cities and counties to include planning costs as part of permit processing fees. Signed by governor. o SB 1460 (Ortiz). Expands the Capitol area redevelopment plan by 12 blocks along R Street, where the city has struggled to attract private investment. The state and the City of Sacramento jointly run the redevelopment agency. Signed by governor. o SB 1480 (Speier). Requires local approval of billboards near freeways and increases fines for illegal billboards. Signed by governor. o SB 1684 (Polanco). Eliminates the sunset provision in the Polanco Act, which provides immunity from liability to developers who reuse brownfields and who were not responsible for the pollution. Signed by governor. o SB 1717 (Machado). Prohibits cities from leasing noncontiguous land that is owned by the city for use as a shopping center or hotel. Signed by governor.

Although there are many tactics used to control growth, ultimately, there is only one measure of importance in protecting farmland: efficient urban land use. In examining four communities in the Central Valley, we found large disparities in land use efficiency. Planners and researches often measure efficiency based on housing units built per acre of land. However, this statistic often misleads, as housing characteristics vary from market to market. What makes the most sense when determining the level of land use efficiency, is to look at the number of additional residents housed per converted acre of farmland. To evaluate the rates at which cities are converting farmland to urban uses, we will use four Central Valley cities as examples: Modesto (in Stanislaus County), Merced (in Merced County), Davis and Woodland (both in Yolo County). We chose these cities because each represents a distinguishable urban area of growth surrounded by farmland. While many cities have an option of what type of land to develop, these cities have little choice; virtually all of their converted land comes from farmland. The study areas represent not just the incorporated cities, but also the urban clusters in and around these cities. Although it varies from place to place, much of the growth and land use conversion happens beyond the city boundaries. We used census tracts to define the study regions, two of which are shown in the map to the right. Population data for each study are shown in table 1-1, while land use conversion data (in acres) are shown in table 1-2. Looking at the two datasets together yields the following results: * Modesto is adding 13 people per converted acre. * Woodland is adding 10.57 people per converted acre. * Merced is adding 8.4 people per converted acre. * Davis is adding 7.25 people per converted acre. At first glance, it is surprising that Davis — known for its progressive planning policies and work in farmland preservation — would make the least efficient use of converted agricultural land. Additionally, Davis's growth rate during the past ten years (25%) is the greatest of the four. Woodland, which lies only a few miles north of Davis, is adding more than three people per urbanized acre more than Davis. The difference here is likely explained by the difference in real estate markets. Davis has built high-end homes in subdivisions with large lots and open space requirements, while Woodland provides more mid-range and starter homes for Sacramento commuters. Merced is the poorest community of the four and has been hit hard by the closing of the Castle Air Force Base in 1995. Merced lacks the large development projects more common in the other cities, and has little in the way of growth control measures. It will be interesting to see what kind of effect the new University of California campus planned a couple miles east of town (see CP&DR Public Development, April 2001; Environment Watch, June 1999) will have on these numbers in the future. Modesto is, by a fair measure, the most "efficient" of the four. This efficiency can be seen in the large housing subdivisions of northern Modesto, which provide single-family homes on lots that are smaller than usual in the Central Valley. With its proximity to Bay Area job centers, Modesto's real estate market is strong, and the city has implemented some growth measures that keep lot sizes relatively small and developments clustered close together. This methodology could easily be applied to many other California cities and regions to help paint a more complete picture of farmland conversion rates throughout the state. Also, the methodology may be used in conjunction with population projections to predict the future rate of farmland conversion. Projections indicate that growth in California is not likely to slow anytime soon, and that much of this growth could occur in the Central Valley, making farmland conversion an issue of increasing concern. Erik Kancler is a research associate at Solimar Research Group.

The planned University of California campus in Merced advanced in October when Merced County Superior Court Judge William Ivey ruled against three environmental groups that sued over the environmental impact report adopted by the UC Board of Regents. Lawyers for the San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center, Protect Our Water and the Central Valley Safe Environmental Network said they would appeal, but UC officials said they intend to begin construction this fall. Opponents argued that the regents had improperly segmented the project by not including the community proposed next to the campus in the EIR. Judge Ivey ruled that the campus and the community were "separate projects" but that the EIR for each "must address the cumulative effects of both." Opponents also contended the analysis of air quality impacts, water and storm drainage was inadequate, but Ivey again disagreed. As for concern about where the campus would get water, the EIR "told the regents and the public a lot more than they really needed to know," Ivey ruled. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed designating 1.7 million acres in California and southern Oregon as critical habitat for four species of fairy shrimp and 11 plant species. Vernal pools — tiny depressions that fill with rainwater — dot the 1.7 million acres, which lie in 36 California counties but mostly in the Central Valley. The critical habitat includes the site of the proposed UC Merced campus. The agency's proposal was in response to a judge's order in a lawsuit brought by the Butte Environmental Council. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has dropped a plan to purchase groundwater from a Mojave Desert landowner. Questions about the cost of the project, potential environmental impacts and the stability of the company selling the water — as well as the influence of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a project opponent — doomed the project. Cadiz Inc., a publicly traded company headed by Gov. Gray Davis confidant Keith Brackpool, proposed pumping as much as 150,000 acre-feet of groundwater annually from the San Bernardino County desert (see CP&DR Environment Watch, July 2001). Cadiz proposed selling the water to the Met, and the agency pursued the project for several years. But Met Chief Executive Ronald Gastelum recommended the agency indefinitely delay the project. A weighted majority of the Met board backed the recommendation during a meeting in October. Burbank officials have been directed by the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to reimburse $1.4 million to the city redevelopment agency's Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. The officials could not justify spending the $1.4 million of housing money on activities of the planning, building, city clerk, personnel and other departments, according to an HCD audit. The state also hit the city's accounting practices for co-mingling housing funds from four different project areas. City officials contended that they complied with redevelopment law and accounting guidelines, but state auditors were not persuaded. The state also found that the city was not promptly directing interest accrued by housing monies to the housing fund. The city accepted that conclusion and agreed to transfer about $500,000 to the housing fund. Efforts to protect farmland west of Madera received a boost in late September, but a proposal to replace thousands of acres of orchards with houses east of town inched forward a few weeks later. Eight landowners west of town accepted $3.3 million from the federal and state governments and will receive tax credits for putting 440 acres into an agricultural easement. According to the American Farmland Trust, which helped broker the deal, the easements provide a mile-long buffer that will prevent the westward growth of the city and preserve tens of thousands of acres of grapes, alfalfa and dairy land. The Trust has continued to negotiate with landowners to expand the buffer. Landowners east of Madera who plan to develop the 6,400-unit "Village of Gateway" received a boost when the Madera County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to approve the EIR and statement of overriding considerations. Provision of water remains a controversial issue for both the Gateway project and a nearby large housing project called Rio Mesa, said Leonard Garoupa, director of the county's Resources Management Agency. The county has approved specific plans for both projects, but the county has yet to approve zoning changes, tract maps and infrastructure plans for either project. A proposal to raise Folsom Dam by seven feet to provide Sacramento with additional flood protection (see CP&DR Environment Watch, September 2002) stalled during the last month that Congress was in session. Committees in both houses backed away from the proposal for a variety of reasons, including the lack of a completed study. The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) has rejected an appeal of regional housing allocations by Santa Cruz County. In July, AMBAG allocated 9,715 of the region's 23,130 housing units for the six-year planning cycle to Santa Cruz County and its cities (see CP&DR In Brief, August 2002). Officials in slow-growth Santa Cruz County said the figure should be revised to about 6,000 units, but the AMBAG board refused to budge. The deadline for jurisdictions in the AMBAG region to submit housing elements to the state is December 31. A former Los Angeles County planner was arrested in October and charged with 97 counts of forgery and falsification of public records. Emmet Taylor, whom the county fired in late 2000, accepted about $500,000 to forge grant deeds and issue fraudulent certificates of compliance for property in the high desert and in the Santa Clarita Valley, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office alleges. Taylor has denied wrongdoing. Landowners seek certificates of compliance to prove that a legal parcel has been created, often decades earlier by maps with few standards. County officials are reviewing about 1,200 certificates of compliance Taylor issued. An initial cut found that none of the certificates was legitimate. The county has already forced some property owners to halt construction and reapply for permits. The biggest dairy-producing county in the nation approved its first new dairy in three years in October. Tulare County approved a use permit for Rob Hilarides to build a 14,000-cow dairy on 1,400 acres in Lindsay. However, a lawsuit from project opponents is likely. Tulare County processing of dairy applications ground to a halt during 1999 when Attorney General Bill Lockyer sued the county to force compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (see CP&DR August 2000; Environment Watch, July 1999). The county has since completed a new general plan element and extensive environmental studies, but the county now has a backlog of about 80 dairy applications. On the same day that Tulare County approved the Hilarides project, supervisors in neighboring Kern County declined to allow further dairy development "by right." Kern County officials said they would keep the by-right system only if the industry paid for a program EIR. When dairy operators refused to pay, the county said it would require new dairies to get conditional use permits. The City of Colton has decided to find a new place to build a sports park because a proposed 16-acre site near Interstate 10 provides habitat for the endangered Delhi sands flower-loving fly. In late September, Colton broke off negotiations with the Fish & Wildlife Service regarding potential mitigations, including buying habitat elsewhere. Colton is working with Big League Dreams (see CP&DR Deals, July 2002) on development of a sports park that features small versions of major league baseball stadiums. Riverside County supervisors have refused to approve a 507-lot subdivision where they once approved a 1,600-house golf course development. In late September, the Board of Supervisors rejected developer Bill Johnson's 507-lot proposal for the rural Walker Basin, west of Temecula, and scheduled a hearing on a revised project for March. In 1984, the county approved the larger development, but it never went anywhere and the maps expired. UC Davis planners have downsized a proposed student and faculty housing development after residents and city officials complained about an earlier version. The university reduced the development proposed west of campus from 380 acres to about 200 acres. UC officials plan to house 2,200 to 2,700 students in the development and provide 400 to 600 units of housing for facility and staff members. The project is at least a year away from a decision by the UC regents. San Joaquin County has dropped plans to build 200 low-income housing units on 5 acres in French Camp, a few miles south of Stockton. The county pursued the project because health officials last year shut down nine residential motels in Stockton that provided cheap housing for about 300 people. But French Camp residents said they were already overburdened by county facilities, including the jail, juvenile hall, the sheriff's office headquarters, a children's shelter, the county hospital, and farmworker housing. County officials dropped the housing development in October and said they would work with private landlords rather than build public facilities.

When a public agency acquires a property via eminent domain, only a trial court judge -- and not a jury -- can decide whether a business should receive compensation for loss of goodwill, a state appellate court has ruled. The ruling came in a case involving the Emeryville Redevelopment Agency. The First District Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court got a number of things wrong -- including allowing improper evidence -- but that the lower court was right to prevent the jury from hearing arguments about the loss of goodwill. In the end, the appellate court threw out a $12.5 million award to the landowner and sent the case back to the trial court. "This is a significant victory for condemning agencies in that it will send a strong message to trial courts that they should not defer issues other than valuation to a jury," Emeryville attorney Tom Douvan, of McDonough, Holland & Allen, told the Los Angeles Daily Journal. Even before this lawsuit was initiated, the 13-acre site in question had a long history. American Indians had created a huge mound of sea shells reaching at least 40 feet in height. During the late 1800s, the land was used for an amusement park known as Shellmound Park. During the 1920s, the mound was leveled and an industrial development was built. In 1987, the city included the site in a 270-acre redevelopment project. In 1998, the redevelopment agency filed an eminent domain lawsuit against Harcros Pigments Inc. (later Elementis Pigments Inc.) to acquire the 13 acres. The city wanted the property to accommodate a mixed-use commercial development. The city offered $6 million, but a jury eventually ordered the city to pay $12.5 million, minus costs for cleaning up contaminated soil. Both the city and Elementis filed appeals of different parts of the decision. Elementis argued that Alameda County Superior Court Judge Ronald Sabraw improperly withheld from the jury evidence concerning loss of goodwill. Elementis cited several cases in which the issue of entitlement to compensation for lost goodwill was submitted to the jury. But the unanimous three-judge panel of the First District ruled that the cases Elementis cited were not the same as the current one. Citing Code of Civil Procedure section 1263.510 (a), the court held that when a dispute exists about compensation for lost goodwill, a judge must first rule on that dispute. If the court rules that there has been a loss of goodwill, only then can the issue of valuing that goodwill go to the jury, the First District ruled. " he general rule in eminent domain actions is that ‘the right to a jury trial … goes only to the amount of compensation,'" Justice Patricia Sepulveda wrote for the court, citing Redevelopment Agency v. Contra Costa Theatre, Inc., (1982) 135 Ca.App.3d, 73. "‘All other questions of fact, or mixed fact and law, are to be tried … without reference to a jury.'" The city argued that Judge Sabraw allowed the jury to consider evidence not properly before the jury. The appellate panel agreed. It ruled that Judge Sabraw made several mistakes that prejudiced the jury too much for the jury's decision to stand. Sabraw wrongly allowed the jury to consider the amount the city has paid for other properties in the area, and Sabraw let the jury consider what project the city had proposed for the site. In eminent domain cases such as this one, the appellate court ruled, Evidence Code section 822 excludes information regarding "acquisitions for public use." One case cited by Elementis, City and County of San Francisco v. Golden Gate Heights Investments, (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th, appears to allow the jury to consider the price paid by a public agency for other pieces of property. But the First District declined to follow the Golden Gate case and pointed to a recent amendment by the Legislature that said the Golden Gate court has "misconstrued" the evidence rule. As for evidence regarding the city's proposed use of the site, such information must not be considered by the jury, the court ruled. " vidence of specific project plans is inadmissible in the absence of specific facts or points of contention which demonstrably enhance the probative value of the evidence to a point where it outweighs the inherent potential for prejudice," Sepulveda wrote. The Case: Emeryville Redevelopment Agency v. Harcros Pigments, Inc., Nos. A090932, A091716, A093126, 02 C.D.O.S. 8255, 2002 DJDAR 10329. Filed August 9, 2002. Ordered published September 6, 2002. The Lawyers: For Emeryville: Natalie West, McDonough, Holland & Allen, (510) 273-8780. For Harcros: James Berg, Berg & Parker, (415) 397- 6000.

Can we Californians do a better job of getting centered? This is not a metaphysical question. Increasingly, it is a practical concern. As California moves into the post-suburban era, the question of how to grow is moving beyond a fight about growth and density as abstract statistics to a more fine-grained discussion about how to create more dense and compact . In October, Smart Growth America, an advocacy group, ranked the nation's largest metropolitan areas on four different factors. The study found that California metros ranged from the most sprawling (Riverside) to one of the most dense (San Francisco). In general, the California metros came out on the middle. But what is interesting is not the California metros ranked, but . In three categories — density, a mix of uses in close proximity to one another, and connected street systems — virtually all California metros fared well. Where our state fell down was in what the researchers called "centeredness" — the strength of downtowns and other concentrated activity nodes. All this makes sense. California building practices, along with high land and infrastructure costs, have encouraged density. Connected street systems and a mix of uses in close (automobile) proximity to one another were hallmarks of good suburban-era land use planning. But our system and decision-makers did not value "centeredness." Ironically, at the same time that the Smart Growth America report highlighted the "centeredness" question, Californians were engaged in an intense debate over this very subject. That debate indicates that when it comes to centeredness, we Californians are nothing if not conflicted. The day before it was released, a critical part of the widely hailed "City of Villages" program was killed by San Diego Mayor Dick Murphy. Yet even Murphy acknowledged the need for many of the plan's approaches (see , August 2002). On the same day that the Smart Growth America report was issued, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) unrolled the final report of the "Smart Growth Strategy Regional Livability Footprint." ABAG's proposed strategy is a variation on the "network of neighborhoods" alternative that the organization previously proposed, but the latest plan was unveiled to a somewhat less-than-overwhelming response. The San Diego situation was a little surprising considering how far into the process the City of Villages plan got. But, perhaps from a political standpoint, the mayor's departure was not too unexpected. The San Diego planning effort emerged from the planning department's recent estimate that if the 1979 General Plan were built out, the city would fall at least 17,000 units — and perhaps 37,000 units — short of the total number required to accommodate growth in the city by 2020. The proposed solution called for a strengthening of neighborhoods, especially those that accommodate higher-density housing, by creatively deploying public infrastructure. One of the problems, of course, was the sheer cost of necessary public facilities, which was more than $2 billion. Instead of moving City of Villages forward whole-hog, Mayor Murphy sent a memo to the San Diego City Council arguing that lower population forecasts obviated the need for many of the high-density housing strategies the plan contained. Because the San Diego Association of Governments lowered its 2020 and 2030 population forecasts, Murphy says the higher-density housing strategies are now unnecessary. "We do not support increased housing densities over the objections of communities," he wrote in a memo co-signed by councilmembers Toni Atkins and Scott Peters. Meanwhile, the regional smart growth strategy unveiled at the ABAG General Assembly was the result of a lengthy regional visioning exercise, which elicited criticism from a few local governments in the region. Beginning with the nine-county region's general plan buildout, ABAG constructed three alternative future scenarios: • The "central cities" scenario, which "hearkens back to an earlier era" and concentrates growth in dense cities; • The "network of neighborhoods" proposal, which would redevelop central cities less densely and spread most growth along transportation corridors; • The "smarter suburbs" alternative, which would permit considerable greenfield development, but would encourage more compact growth and a mix of uses in relatively low-density suburbs. The final vision proposed by ABAG is similar to the middle, "network of neighborhoods" proposal. The preferred vision would consume far less land than the buildout of the existing general plans. According to ABAG, the current Bay Area urbanized footprint is 752,000 acres. The buildout scenario would add 83,000 more acres to this footprint by 2020, an increase of 11%. And because this still would not provide enough housing for the region, ABAG estimated that 45,000 acres in surrounding counties would be urbanized to accommodate Bay Area economic growth. By contrast, ABAG estimated that the preferred vision would add only 15,600 acres of urbanized land, an increase of 2%, most of it in Solano and Contra Costa Counties. By focusing growth in existing urban areas, it would accommodate all of the region's projected housing need in a much tighter area. The 80 or so elected officials who gathered at the ABAG General Assembly for the rollout appeared resigned to the idea that the region must do something differently. But they were not very enthusiastic. "No one is under the assumption that this will be easy, and it won't be done without major pain and opposition from some," Contra Costa County Supervisor John Gioia said. The strategy also went out of its way to point out that major legislative help would be required from Sacramento, especially in altering fiscal incentives to local governments and in streamlining the California Environmental Quality Act to make it easier to intensify urban land uses. At the same time, a number of local governments from around the Bay complained to ABAG that the process had "blue-skied" the future at sub-regional workshops without taking their existing general plans into account. So it will not be smooth sailing for the ABAG regional strategy. Even ABAG President Gwen Regalia acknowledged that "the numbers" would have to be fleshed out later in negotiations with local governments. So it is possible that the network of neighborhoods, like the City of Villages, will be watered down in the interest of political feasibility. The end result might be a baby step toward more centeredness in California — even if we remain pretty conflicted about the whole thing.