A water supply assessment provided by a water agency for a proposed development project is not subject to legal scrutiny until it becomes part of an environmental impact report, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The unanimous three-judge appellate panel upheld a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge who had ruled that a water supply assessment may be challenged in court as part of a California Environmental Quality Act review, but not independently. A water supply assessment (WSA) "is a technical, informational document and not a ‘final' act or determination" subject to court review, the Second District ruled. "It teaches us something that's very helpful, but not unexpected," said Eric Robinson, an attorney for the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) who filed an amicus brief in the case. "It teaches us that opponents of a land development project may not try to stop the project by challenging the water supply assessment for the project." Attorney Anne E. Mudge, who represented the developer in the case, said the case is important because it is the first published opinion that centers squarely on a water supply assessment law approved in 2001. Although the decision did not address the contents of a water study, the decision answered a key procedural question, namely, whether a water agency's supply assessment is subject to legal challenge. The answer was no. As with many water supply cases, this latest one comes from the Santa Clarita Valley, along Interstate 5 just north of Los Angeles. In 2003, the City of Santa Clarita approved GateKing Properties' proposed business park — 4.2 million square feet of industrial and commercial space on 161 acres, with another 200-plus acres dedicated as open space. Local environmental groups sued over the GateKing EIR and won an important decision three years ago in California Oak Foundation v. City of Santa Clarita , (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1219. In that case, the Second District, Division Eight, ruled the EIR was inadequate because the water supply assessment prepared by the Newhall County Water District failed to fully explain the uncertainty over future water deliveries (see CP&DR Legal Digest , December 2005 ). Specifically, the court found that the water supply assessment erroneously assumed that a contested transfer of 41,000 acre-feet of State Water Project water from Kern County to the Newhall district was a certainty. After losing in court, the city asked the water district to prepare a new water supply assessment. It did so and in May 2006, the city certified a revised EIR containing the new water study. Under a state law amended in 2001 (SB 610, Costa), a water supply assessment is required for residential projects with more than 500 units and large commercial projects, including industrial parks with more than 650,000 square feet (see CP&DR , October, 2001 ). Before the city certified the revised EIR with the new water supply assessment, an organization called the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN) sued the water district, alleging the assessment was legally deficient and misleading. The district, the city and the developer argued the document was not subject to legal review, and Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavs agreed. "WSA's are not immune from judicial review, but must be challenged and reviewed as part of CEQA review," Judge Janavs ruled. After C-WIN appealed, the Second District, Division Seven, ruled that Janavs got it right. On appeal, C-WIN argued it should be able to challenge the water supply assessment either as an adjudicative act taken after a public agency accepts evidence, or as an arbitrary decision. But the appellate panel ruled otherwise. It found that under state law, the city — not the water provider — makes the final decision on water supply issues. " he WSA's role in the EIR process is akin to that of other informational opinions provided by other entities concerning potential environmental impacts — such as traffic, population density or air quality," Justice Norvell Woods Jr. wrote for the court. The water supply assessment "is not a final agency decision, determination or action" subject to court review, he wrote. "While the lead agency must include the WSA in the EIR, the lead agency is not required to accept the WSA's conclusions," Woods continued. "The lead agency may in evaluating the WSA accept or disagree with the water provider's analysis or may request additional information from the water provider. In any event, the lead agency is required by statute to make the ultimate determination, based on the entire record, whether water supplies are sufficient." The court noted that, in fact, the same parties to the original lawsuit over the project EIR are back in court over the revised EIR. That lawsuit, which is pending at the appellate level, contains "nearly identical" complaints about the water supply assessment, including the contention that the 41,000 acre-foot transfer remains in doubt. Robinson, the ACWA attorney with Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard, agreed with the court. He said the decision simply "eliminates one piece of unnecessary litigation" without preventing development opponents from having their day in court. The decision, said GateKing attorney Mudge, "establishes that you only get one bite of the apple. I think you're still going to see water supply litigation, but it will be in the CEQA context." The Case: California Water Impact Network v. Newhall County Water District , No. B197570, 08 C.D.O.S. 4413, 2008 DJDAR 5483. Filed April 16, 2008. The Lawyers: For C-WIN: Babak Naficy, (805) 593-0926. For Newhall: Thomas Bunn III, Lagerlof, Sebecal, Gosney & Kruse, (626) 793-9400. For GateKing Properties: Anne E. Mudge, Cox, Castle & Nicholson, (415) 392-4200.

A fence atop an historic wall in the Hollywood hills is not exempt from environmental review, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court found that the City of Los Angeles did not have enough evidence supporting the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption to shift the burden of proof to project opponents. Rather, the court directed the city to conduct an initial study to determine the appropriate level of environmental review. The decision of the unanimous three-judge appellate panel appears to be first published case regarding a "Class 5" exemption for "minor alterations in land use limitations," such as minor lot-line adjustments and setback variances, according to Douglas Carstens, an attorney for the fence opponents. The case also appears to be the first published decision to cite the historic impact exception to CEQA exemptions, he said. The court found that the exemption to CEQA review did not apply because of the potential impact to an historic resource. The city has asked the state Supreme Court to review the case. The city contends that the Court of Appeal incorrectly applied the "fair argument" standard in the case, rather than the "substantial evidence" test. The former is more favorable to project opponents. The decision "creates confusion" for the city, said Deputy City Attorney Gerald Sato. "The city and most agencies have always felt that if there is substantial evidence , that should be enough to shift the burden of proof," Sato said. Instead, the court required the city to prove the exemption applied. The project involves approval of an exception to a specific plan. The Hollywoodland housing tract was developed in the Hollywood Hills during the early 1920s. One of the neighborhood's primary features is the numerous granite support walls abutting the winding, hilly streets. These walls range from only a few to 20 feet in height and have no guardrails or fences. In 1992, the city adopted the Hollywoodland specific plan, which prohibits the attachment of fences to the historic walls and granite stairways. In 2002, the owners of a house on Durand Drive built an unpermitted six-foot high wooden fence atop a wall at the rear of their property. Their yard sits at the base of a 15-foot wall, with the street above. The owners wanted the fence for privacy and safety, as both vehicles and pedestrians had tumbled into the yard in the past. The city issued a citation because the fence was on city property and, under the specific plan, had to be set back by three feet. The property owners said the setback was infeasible because it would create a chasm between the wall and the fence, so they applied for an exception to the specific plan. While the application was pending, Robert Cutler purchased the property. A group called Hollywood Heritage urged denial of the application, arguing that an existing steel guardrail keeps cars on the street and the fence would set a bad precedent. The city's Historic Preservation Section and, initially, the Hollywoodland Design Review Board recommended denial. In late 2004, the City Planning Commission approved a specific plan exception allowing a 54-inch tall fence. The commission also adopted findings for a categorical exemption from CEQA. In April 2005, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission decision. Historic preservation advocates sued. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Daniel Pratt ruled for the city, finding that the wall itself was not on the public right-of-way and that a fence on top of the curb would not affect the wall. On appeal, the Second District, Division Seven, took the somewhat unusual step of first considering the city's approval of the project, not the environmental review. The court found there was evidence to support the specific plan exception because of unusual circumstances: The yard is below grade, making the three-foot setback problematic, the property has no real backyard, and there is a safety concern. But after finding the exception to the specific plan — essentially, the project approval — was justified, the court rejected the project's environmental review. "The city found the fence exempt because allowing it constituted a minor alteration to a land use limitation," Justice Laurie Zelon wrote for the court. "The record does not demonstrate, however, that the city had evidence to support the exemption and shift the burden to the challenger. First, the record is unclear whether fence posts will be drilled into the curb or the wall; whether the curb is part of the historic resource; and whether the proposed fence will harm the physical stability of the wall. Additionally, the city conceded in its findings that a fence higher than 42 inches would impair the scenic view of the granite wall from nearby streets, and the city therefore erred in failing to consider the impact of granting an exception from the height limitation in the Municipal Code. "Second, the city failed to consider whether the circumstances of this project, namely the fence, differ from the general circumstances of projects covered by the exemption, and whether those circumstances create an environmental risk that does not exist for the general class of exempt projects," Zelon continued. "The building of a fence atop the wall will significantly impact the environment by altering the historic resource, both as to its physical integrity and its aesthetic appeal from the neighboring streets." Thus, the court overturned the environmental review but upheld the project approval. Assuming the state Supreme Court does not accept the case, the trial court will need to determine how to implement the appellate court ruling, said attorney Carstens. "You can't have an approval without an environmental review," he said. Sato said the court's standard for reviewing a CEQA exemption — not the fence itself — is the city's primary concern. Sato, Carstens and Justice Zelon all noted that courts are divided on whether the fair argument standard or the substantial evidence standard applies to potential exceptions to a CEQA exemption. In this case, the Second District concluded the city's exemption failed under either test. The Case: Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan v. City of Los Angeles , No. B197018, 08 C.D.O.S. 4105, 2008 DJDAR 5055. Filed March 12, 2008. Modified and ordered published April 4, 2008. The Lawyers: For the committee: Douglas Carstens, Chatten-Brown & Carstens, (310) 314-8040. For the city: Gerald Sato, city attorney's office, (213) 978-7734. For the property owner: Frank Gooch III, Gilchrist & Rutter, (310) 393-4000.

The campaign in Napa County over a ballot measure that would impose a 1% growth limit may be a microcosm of the entire Bay Area. On one side are slow-growth advocates with the usual arguments about density, traffic, greedy developers and untrustworthy politicians. On the other side are developers with promises for creating housing in a very nice setting within a few miles of tens of thousands of jobs. In between are local government officials, who may end up arm wrestling with lawyers over who should review the project. You can read my summary of the ballot measure and the 3,200-unit redevelopment project the measure seeks to block in our May edition . This morning, San Francisco Chronicle urban design writer John King weighed in with these deep thoughts: "As our region grows more complex and interconnected, we need to rethink how we grow. And when inventive designers are put to work on something that could be enduringly distinct — for all classes of society, not just the upper crust — it's foolish to try to chase them away." Meanwhile, the Napa Valley Register has recently published four thoughtful editorials on the situation, ultimately urging rejection of the initiative. Still, urban growth is not popular in Napa County. This is definitely an election to watch. - Paul Shigley

As Barack Obama would be the first to say, you can't underestimate the importance of North Carolina anymore. At 9.1 million people and counting, it's now the 10th most populous state in the nation, and it has added a million people just since the 2000 Census. Another few boom years and North Carolina – along with Georgia – will pass Michigan in population. All this growth is clearly increasing North Carolina's political significance. But is it bad for a place that has always called itself "the good growth state"? Only three days after the North Carolina primary, the state's policy wonks gathered in Greensboro at the behest of the Institute for Emerging Issues at North Carolina State University. The stated purpose was to talk about how to deal with the fact that growth is straining the state's infrastructure. But in the process, the wonks are gingerly beginning to address the question of whether growth should be managed. (I attended as an observer and as an out-of-state expert .) As a Californian, I was struck by how similar the situation in North Carolina today is to what we in California experienced during the postwar boom – and how intractable the problems sometimes seem. North Carolina, for example, has hundreds of small water agencies, many of them on the economic margin; yet the small agencies have no political incentive to consolidate, and the big agencies have no economic incentive to absorb them. The state's school finance system is muddled, with both county and state government playing a role in paying for new schools; yet there are no standards for school design or construction and, of course, there is not enough money. There is never enough money for roads and highways, but there also isn't much recognition that the actual pattern of growth may play a role in demand for transportation. The event itself was held at The Proximity , a brand-new hotel in Greensboro selected for the event partly because its building operations make it one of the nation's "greenest" hotels. But the Proximity isn't really proximate to anything. It straddles a parking lot in an industrial park alongside a limited-access highway two miles from downtown. It is nearly impossible to walk from the Proximity to the nearby office buildings. Which raises a systemic problem in North Carolina: an unrelenting pattern of sprawl that is driven partly by the state's own rural past. Half of the state's residents use septic tanks and a third use water wells. Most residents aspire to the very large lot in the woodsy, rural-style landscape. There is virtually no urban tradition. There are exceptions throughout the state. In Durham, the old tobacco warehouses have been converted to lofts and restaurants, and downtown has taken off partly because of the new Durham Bulls stadium. And in Charlotte, Mayor Pat McCrory , the Republican candidate for governor this year, has created a buzz around light rail. But Durham and Charlotte are far from the norm. McCrory faces an uphill battle, and not just because the state usually elects Democrats as governor. It's nearly impossible for the mayor of Charlotte to win votes in the rest of the state because he is usually viewed as too urban in orientation. Indeed, the growing divide between urban and rural may be North Carolina's biggest problem in facing growth. Textile mills have closed in the small towns, and the rural areas are losing population. Meanwhile, the three big metro areas along the I-85/I-40 corridor – Charlotte, the Piedmont Triad (Greensboro, Winston-Salem, and High Point), and the Research Triangle (Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill) – are growing faster than anyone could have imagined and sprawling so much they will soon blend together. Here in California, we're lucky in certain ways. We must address growth issues because our metro areas are bounded. The four South Atlantic states – Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia – are combined almost exactly the same geographical size as California. California currently has 38 million residents; these four states currently have 31 million residents. But more than half of the land in California is publicly owned and off-limits to development, whereas most undeveloped land in the South is in private hands. And, of course, California has a peculiar history. We skipped the agrarian era of development and, because of the Gold Rush, went straight to an urban, mercantile economy. This created different expectations from the beginning about what life would be like – close to the ground but close to each other, as Cal Poly's architecture dean Tom Jones likes to say – and so we have never had to struggle with emerging from a rural past. Like the rest of the South, North Carolina must struggle every day with the dream of being rural and the reality of being urban. That's what makes it increasingly difficult to keep growth good. – Bill Fulton

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.