Everybody in San Diego seems amazed that developer Doug Manchester is willing to guarantee the city $50 million in tax revenues from his yet-to-be-built hotel. Even he seems amazed. "I challenge any reputable developer to step forward and say he or she would do the same deal," Manchester wrote in an Op-Ed piece in the San Diego Union-Tribune last October. At that time, he was offering to guarantee $5 million annually for two years, not the same amount for 10 years, as he would later agree to. Manchester added that he made the offer "against advice from colleagues and family." Almost equally amazing, however, is that the city would make his promise a key provision in the financing of the city's new 46,000-seat baseball stadium for the Padres on San Diego's downtown waterfront. Welcome to public finance San Diego-style, made up of equal parts of Rube Goldberg and Evel Knievel. Mayor Susan Golding has rightly described the financing plan for the new ballpark as "the largest and most complicated redevelopment project this city has ever seen." With equal aptness, she might have added that the deal is also an oddity that proposes an entire urban entertainment district around the new ballpark, and makes the debt service for the ballpark itself reliant on the tax revenues derived from an otherwise unrelated project — Manchester's new hotel. It's ingenious, and maybe a little fragile, too, because it assumes that several aspects of the San Diego economy — tourism, the convention business, and entertainment/retail development — will all remain healthy for the next 10 years. The $411 million ballpark is a private project (the developer is Padres owner John Moores) with a public mandate: In November 1998, 60% of San Diego voters approved Proposition C, which earmarked $225 million in tax-exempt, lease-revenue bond financing for the stadium. The annual debt service on the bonds will be partly paid by the city, and partly by hotel-room taxes generated by Manchester's new hotel, which will stand directly across the street from the new ballpark. The Centre City Development Corporation, a private, nonprofit entity that serves as the city's redevelopment agency, will contribute $50 million of downtown tax increment, while the port district is contributing $21 million for infrastructure. The Padres themselves will contribute $115 million. The Padres also have the right to develop much of the 26-acre stadium site, including 950 rooms in three different hotels and 600,000 square feet of office space. In short, the Padres are getting a very rich subsidized deal, although the team has the decency, rare among major league franchises, of actually contributing equity to its own stadium. Manchester not only took a risk in guaranteeing 10 years of bed tax, but had to fight and threaten the city for the privilege of doing so. Manchester is a local developer who has been erecting office buildings and hotels downtown since 1984. News reports of his negotiations with the port, however, do not suggest that he received favorite-son treatment. Some reports of the on-again, off-again talks suggest that both the port and the mayor would have preferred another developer, and the port explored the possibility of building the hotel itself, and relying on below-market financing reserved for vital public-works projects. (Manchester protested publicly, saying rightly that such financing was improper for hotels, and that the project should remain in the private sector, i.e. with him.) Mayor Golding, for her part, told reporters last fall she was wary of doing business with a developer "who threatened to sue you every five minutes." Indeed, Manchester recently accepted about $11 million from the port district to settle a lawsuit for alleged loss of business due to delays in the completion of the convention center. And Manchester also hinted that he might sue the port district if the agency decided to build the hotel as a public project. The agency decided against the high-risk strategy of building its own hotel, and probably made a better decision in hiring an experienced hotel owner for the job. In the end, Manchester won the coveted project after agreeing to guarantee 10 years of bed taxes at $5 million per year, and construction commenced in March. (At about the same time, he started construction on an 800-room expansion of the nearby Hyatt Regency.) Notwithstanding Manchester's own self-dramatizing claim that no other developer would do the deal, just how risky is his guarantee? I believe it is risky, but not foolhardy. According to a consultant study, the waterfront needs another 3,000 hotel rooms to accommodate the recent expansion of the convention center. Manchester's two projects, plus the Padres' hotel entitlements, would satisfy that requirement. Currently, the downtown hotel market has room occupancies of about 75%, which is considered healthy. Multiply 1,200 rooms times a nightly room rate of about $150 (the prevailing low-end on the waterfront), times .75 to account for the occupancy, times 365 days, and the result is about $49.28 million. With a San Diego hotel room tax of 10.5%, the result is about $5.17 million. In other words, the deal squeaks through, at least with present-day numbers. It's true that Manchester can get stung. If the economy goes bad — and San Diego was the last major metropolitan area in California to recover from the recession — hotel occupancies could dip, and the developer might have to reach into his own pocket to make good on the guarantee. On the other hand, the ballpark deal cements Manchester as the dominant hotelier on the waterfront, which is benefiting from an estimated $1 billion in public and private investment. Even if Manchester gets stung and must pay the city a couple of hundred thousand dollars of his money from time to time, he has nevertheless positioned himself as the long-term king of San Diego waterfront hotels. From a distance, the developer's $50 million guarantee looks like a big gamble. For Manchester himself, however, it may just be a walk on the beach.

In a recently published opinion, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed construction of a high school in Tucson, Arizona, despite contentions from environmentalists that the school would harm an endangered owl. The case involved differing opinions by experts and the trial judge's exclusion of testimony by two experts called by environmentalists. The Ninth Circuit ruled that Federal District Judge Frank Zapata did not rule unreasonably, and the three-judge appellate panel upheld the decision. The Ninth Circuit initially entered its decision last fall as a memorandum disposition. But the court on February 28 redesignated its ruling as an authored opinion by Chief Judge Proctor Hug Jr. In 1994, the Amphitheater School District purchased 73 acres in northwest Tucson as the site for a 2,100-student high school. After initial planning, the district purchased 17 more acres and shifted the proposed school site to avoid 30 acres containing three "dry washes." Construction in the seasonal waterways would have required an Army Corps of Engineers permit under the Clean Water Act and set off a consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding endangered species. When the district began clearing the remaining 60 acres in March 1998, the environmental group Defenders of Wildlife filed suit. The district court issued a temporary restraining order to halt the site work. During a three-day trial, Defenders of Wildlife argued that school construction would result in an unlawful "take" of a cactus ferruginous pygmy owl, an endangered species. But Judge Zapata ruled that there was inadequate evidence the rare bird would be harmed or harassed within the meaning of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1543). Zapata refused to grant the permanent injunction sought by Defenders of Wildlife, and he lifted the temporary restraining order. In reviewing the harm and harassment claims under the "clearly erroneous standard," the Ninth Circuit held that Zapata ruled correctly. "He observed that while the inference that an owl uses the 30 acre parcel is based on solid factual premises and well-founded expert opinion, the allegation that the construction of the high school will harm the owl lacks this support and is weakened by seemingly inconsistent facts," Hug wrote. "He noted that there was evidence that the owl can tolerate and even benefit from human activity, and that Defenders have only offered speculation that the activity associated with the school would harass the owl. He observed that the experts made little or no attempt to support their opinions with recorded observations of pygmy owls in similar circumstances or to draw analogies from other similar birds," Hug continued. Thus, Zapata's factual findings were not clearly erroneous, the court ruled. The court further ruled that Zapata acted appropriately in excluding testimony by a conservation biologist and by a Fish and Wildlife Service expert. The biologist conceded he could offer "an opinion as to the viability of the pygmy-owl population" but could not address this specific site. The Fish and Wildlife Service has a policy of preventing staff members from testifying in civil cases, and Zapata agreed that compelling testimony would place an undue burden on Fish and Wildlife Service employees. The court also ruled that the school district did not have to apply for an incidental take permit because applying for such a permit is not mandatory under the Endangered Species Act. Finally, the court ruled that Zapata correctly denied a motion for a new trial. Defenders of Wildlife sought a new trial under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(a). The organization argued that the school district's last-minute pygmy owl survey was unscientific, that physical evidence was discovered after the trial that could indicate a pygmy owl presence, and that the court should have granted a continuance to allow Defenders to survey the site. The Ninth Circuit dismissed all three arguments. Defenders should have challenged the district's survey with their own expert during the trial and could have sought access to the sight during the pre-trial discovery period, the court ruled. "In addition, physical evidence that could indicate the presence of a pygmy owl on the site is not of the magnitude that would likely change the outcome of this case," Hug wrote. In a concurring opinion Circuit Judge Betty Fletcher warned others not to read too much into the decision. At the time of the lawsuit, the Fish and Wildlife Service had not designated critical habitat for the pygmy owl. Another lawsuit forced the Fish and Wildlife Service to act, and it designated 731,000 acres of critical habitat, including the school site, in July 1999. Federally permitted or federally funded projects within the area are affected by the designation. Fletcher noted this case was decided based on Defenders of Wildlife's evidence, not on the basis that a critical habitat designation does not apply to a private projects, such as the school. "We do not hold that the designation of critical habitat will never have any bearing on actions on private lands within designated critical habitat, and thus, our decision has limited value for any other case involving either the pygmy owl or private lands that lie within the mapped boundary of designated critical habitat," she wrote. The Case: Defenders of Wildlife v. Mike Bernal, No. 98-16099, 00 C.D.O.S. 1477, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2103, filed November 23, 1999, published February 28, 2000. The Lawyers: For Defenders of Wildlife: Eric Glitzenstein, Meyer & Glitzenstein, (202) 588-5206. For the school district: Denise Bainton, DeConcini, McDonald, Yetwin & Lacy, (520) 322-5000.

A new high school in Watsonville's coastal zone won the approval of the California Coastal Commission during the panel's March meeting. The decision came after local government leaders, environmentalists, farmers and Pajaro Valley Unified School District officials agreed to a complex pact that appears to end years of conflict over the proposed school. Opponents had long feared the school was a step toward development of farmland and coastal habitat. In voting to amend the Watsonville Local Coastal Plan to allow the 2,200-student school on 140 acres, coastal commissioners said they were impressed with the memorandum of understanding. Advocates, including Assemblyman Fred Keeley (D-Santa Cruz), who helped craft the deal, said the pact would protect 6,000 acres of Pajaro Valley farmland. The agreement gives the community a much-needed high school. In exchange, the City of Watsonville cannot annex additional land west of Highway 1 (with one minor exception), ending the city's longstanding plan to annex a 646-acre plot for housing development. City officials also agreed to introduce a "right to farm" ordinance and regulatory protections for environmentally sensitive areas near the high school site. City and county officials promised not to extend urban services into rural areas. The school district might have to alter architectural plans to fit the site, which the agreement modified slightly. The school district settled on the site at Harkins Slough and Lee roads in 1995, after a seven-year search. The Army Corps of Engineers has announced new permit regulations that will force builders to avoid wetlands and riparian areas. Under rules for Nationwide Permit 26 to take effect in July, developers and public agencies will be able to fill only one-half an acre of wetlands, rivers, or seasonal streams, a reduction from the current three-acre maximum. The Corps will also require that it be notified of activity impacting more than one-tenth of an acre of wetlands and creeks, down from one-third of an acre. "These changes to the national permit program reflect the administration's, and the Army's, commitment to protecting the nation's wetlands and reducing damages to communities from flooding," said Michael Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. Only three years ago, the Corps extended its "dredge and fill" regulations to projects involving one-third to three acres of wetlands, down from the previous range of one to ten acres. The Corps issues about 85,000 permits a year under the Clean Water Act. It is not often that a land-use hearing draws a congressman, an assemblywoman and an out-of-county supervisor. But a late-February hearing on the proposed Ahmanson Ranch development in eastern Ventura County attracted Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks), Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) and Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky — along with about 500 other people. The politicians and area residents urged the Army Corps of Engineers to require a new environmental impact statement for Ahmanson Ranch. They said a 1992 environmental study for the proposed 3,050-home subdivision was outdated because of the discovery on the site since then of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, which was thought to be extinct, and the California red-legged frog, an endangered species. They also argued that traffic and water concerns have increased since 1992. The Corps of Engineers has not yet made a decision on what level of review it will require. Washington Mutual, the Ahmanson Ranch developer, needs a Corps' permit to fill tributaries to East Las Virgenes Creek. Ventura County supervisors approved the project on the Ventura-Los Angeles County border in 1992 despite protests from Los Angeles, which would receive nearly all of the development's traffic. Since then, lawsuits and permitting processes have slowed the project. The state Board of Forestry has adopted temporary regulations for harvesting timber near waterways while the board continues to work on a permanent package of new rules. The temporary rules, effective for six months starting July 1, require loggers to leave at least 85% of forest canopy within 75 feet fish-bearing streams, and at least two-thirds of canopy within the next 75 feet. There also are restrictions on cutting trees on the steepest slopes and on winter road building. The rules, which affect private land from the Santa Cruz Mountains to the Oregon border, are intended to aid coho salmon and steelhead, whose numbers have declined dramatically in recent decades. (See CP&DR Environment Watch , December 1999.) Environmentalists argued that the rules are not strong enough to keep waters clear and cool, as the fish need. Loggers, who protested against proposed tighter limits, gave a mixed reaction to the temporary regulations. The Antioch City Council rejected a proposal to require real estate agents to tell prospective homebuyers about difficult commutes and crowded schools. The proposed ordinance stemmed from Measure U, a successful 1998 advisory measure targeted at developers of new houses. The ordinance, defeated on a 3-0 vote in mid-March, would have directed real estate agents to provide a disclosure statement saying that roads are heavily congested during commute hours and that children might have to attend crowded schools on the other side of town. It was unclear whether the disclosure would have applied only to new homes or to resale homes, too. Residents of Antioch, a fast-growing eastern Contra Costa County city of 81,000, have complained bitterly as traffic on Highway 4 and I-680 has lengthened the commute time to jobs centers about 30 miles west in Walnut Creek and Concord. A bill that would give landowners direct access to federal courts in local land-use disputes passed the U.S. House of Representatives in mid-March. The Private Property Rights Implementation Act, HR 2372, would allow landowners to bypass the state court system if a landowner were unsatisfied with the decision of a city or county. As things now stand, developers must first bring "takings" claims in state court before pursuing the matter in federal court. That process can last for several years, and even then federal courts can turn away lawsuits. Rep. Charles Canady (R-Florida), who authored the bill, described the current system as a "Kafkaesque legal maze." The American Planning Association, the National League of Cities and the Conference of (state) Chief Justices are among the bill's opponents. The bill, similar to one the house passed in 1997, received a 226-182 vote. President Clinton has vowed to veto the measure. Vice President Al Gore has also denounced the bill.

A vesting tentative parcel map approved in 1990 but never recorded as a final parcel map had expired by the time a developer tried to act on the map in 1996, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court held that under both the Subdivision Map Act and the Manhattan Beach Municipal Code, the map for a four-unit beachside condominium project was no longer valid. The unanimous three-judge panel also found that project opponents properly exhausted their administrative remedies even though they did not cite the municipal code during administrative hearings, and that the lawsuit over the project was timely filed. In September 1990, the City of Manhattan Beach approved Highland View Limited Partnership's vesting tentative parcel map and conditional use permit for four condominiums. A year later, Highland submitted a final parcel map to the city engineer, and the city approved the final parcel map in October 1991. Soon thereafter, Highland submitted the map for recording, but the county recorder refused to record the map because Highland failed to pay property taxes and did not submit monument inspection approval documentation. In 1996, when the economy improved, Highland paid the taxes and submitted the monument data, and the final parcel map was recorded with the limitation that "all future construction must comply with the zoning requirements in effect at the time of construction." Highland applied for a new conditional use permit in February 1997. During public hearings, project opponent Donald McPherson and a group calling itself the Height Increase Repeal Committee argued that the city should deny the permit because the city had reduced permissible building heights between 1990 and 1997. But the Planning Commission approved the project under the 1990 height regulations, and the City Council denied an appeal on September 2, 1997. Highland supposedly was in the process of getting a "certificate of correction" to delete the recorded map's reference to current zoning requirements. In late November, McPherson filed a lawsuit seeking a writ of mandate to rescind the conditional use permit and a preliminary injunction to halt construction. The court denied the preliminary injunction, and construction continued. However, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge David Yaffe eventually ruled for McPherson, ordering the city to rescind the conditional use permit and enjoining Highland from building in violation of current height restrictions. Highland reduced the height of its buildings but the developer and the city still appealed the ruling. They argued that Municipal Code §11.24.020, which set a deadline of 36 months to record a parcel map, was preempted by the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code §66410). They argued that the Municipal Code's 36-month time limit was triggered by approval of the tentative parcel map, not the final map. If the time limit applies to approval of the tentative parcel map, the time limit would violate Subdivision Map Act provisions allowing time extensions for tentative maps. But the unanimous three-judge panel of the Second District rejected this argument. "There is no dispute the ordinance's reference to filing of a parcel map with the County Recorder must refer to a final parcel map, as only final maps are recorded with the County Recorder," Justice Earl Johnson Jr. wrote for the court. Johnson also cited other language in the Municipal Code to back this interpretation. Furthermore, the court ruled, Highland's vested rights under the tentative parcel map approved in 1990 had expired under the Subdivision Map Act itself. Rights conferred under a tentative parcel map expire in 36 months. In September 1993, the Legislature extended the life of all tentative parcel maps by two years, thus granting Highland its vested rights until September 1995. Highland and the city argued that although the tentative map expired prior to recordation in 1996, the developer maintained vesting rights by filing the final parcel map with the city engineer in 1991. The court also rejected this contention. "Under the unique circumstances of this case, we are compelled to hold the delivery of the final map to the city engineer did not constitute a timely filing for purposes of preserving vesting rights under the approved vesting tentative map. … To hold otherwise would permit a developer to secure tentative vesting rights in perpetuity, simply by submitting the map to the city engineer while cleverly, or inadvertently, withholding payment of the requisite taxes," Justice Johnson wrote. The court also ruled that project opponents did not have to cite Municipal Code sections to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit. "McPherson raised the issue of untimely recording and expiration of the vesting tentative parcel map at every administrative proceeding. This was sufficient to satisfy the exhaustion requirements, whether the issue is decided under §11.24.020 or the statutory provisions of the Act," Johnson wrote. The court also said the 90-day period for filing a lawsuit started with the City Council's final action on the new conditional use permit in September 1997, not with Highland's recordation of the map in 1996, as the developer argued. The Case: Donald McPherson v. City of Manhattan Beach, No. B130132, 00 C.D.O.S. 1985, filed February 14, 2000, certified for publication March 10, 2000. The Lawyers: For McPherson: Michael Strumwasser, Strumwasser & Woocher, (310) 576-1233. For the city: Jeffrey Oderman, Rutan & Tucker, (714) 641-5100.

Everybody always complains about growth but nobody ever does anything about it. That, at least, is one way to view the March 7 election returns. According to most polls, sprawl tops many lists of community problems these days. But voters in almost a dozen California communities rejected the opportunity to use "ballot-box zoning" to stop growth and development. And it will be interesting to see whether that trend continues in the November election — when some very big anti-growth initiatives are scheduled to appear on local ballots in numerous parts of the state. Pro-growth forces throughout California easily carried the day on Super Tuesday, winning 11 of 15 land-use contests on local ballots throughout the state, according to an analysis by California Planning & Development Report. The pro-growth vote was strong and uniform throughout the state, including such traditional slow-growth bastions as Ventura County, Monterey, and Palo Alto. The only slow-growth victories came in the small college towns of Davis and San Luis Obispo, and in Orange County, where opposition to a proposed airport at the El Toro Marine Corps Air Base apparently motivated a large turnout to support future restrictions on jails, hazardous waste facilities and airports. A slow-growth argument also carried the day in the eastern Alameda County city of Livermore. In Ventura County, the first countywide test of the SOAR initiative — which requires voters to approve the rezoning of agricultural land or open space before development can occur — resulted in overwhelming victory for the applicant. Residential growth limits were narrowly defeated in the San Joaquin Valley commuter town of Tracy, where the imbalance of jobs and housing has become a major issue. Significantly, voters in three suburban cities — Glendora, Huntington Beach, and South San Francisco — approved big-box retail projects. A large retail project in Seal Beach also survived an initiative challenge. The 73% pro-growth success rate was one of the highest in any recent election. In the November 1999 election, pro- and slow-growth forces split 18 local ballot issues almost evenly. What's going on? Aren't California voters supposed to be ticked off about growth, the way Ventura County voters were in 1998 when they approved the SOAR open-space protection initiatives? Well, yes and no. It's true that California is unlike any other state in the way that local citizens frequently use "ballot-box zoning" to hash out development disputes. But unlike, say, the tax revolt kick-started by Proposition 13, we've never seen a full-blown revolution in land-use planning touched off by initiatives. In general, land-use initiatives are limited to select parts of the state where there exists a long tradition of ballot-box zoning — including some parts of the Bay Area, Ventura County, the Central Coast, and the San Diego area. During real estate booms, ballot measures expand into unlikely areas, such as the Inland Empire and the Central Valley, but the trend usually does not stick. When the real estate market tanks, local ballot activity in the land-use arena tails off. And slow-growthers haven't ever "broken through" to create an effective statewide movement. Unlike other states — including Washington and Arizona — we have not seen a statewide growth initiative in recent years, partly because California is so big and diverse nobody can figure out how to write one that stands a chance of winning. In the current real estate boom, California is following this historical trend. The traditional centers of ballot-box zoning are popping with activity. The number of measures statewide appears to be on the rise. And the whole business has not quite reached the point where it is a statewide movement. Indeed, an argument exists that the latest round of ballot-box zoning peaked with passage of the Save Open space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) protections in Ventura County 18 months ago, even though SOAR was widely played in the national press as the leading edge of a trend. Since then, some minor ballot-box zoning measures have passed around the state, but all the big ones have lost, including the East Bay's Citizens Alliance for Public Planning (CAPP) initiatives last fall. But the final act may still lie ahead: the November 2000 ballot. Right now, the November ballot is shaping up as the most important test of ballot-box zoning since the election of November 1988 — the height of the 1980s real estate boom, when growth control measures appeared simultaneously on the ballot in Orange, Riverside, and San Diego counties. In the East Bay, the Sierra Club is likely to launch a major urban growth boundary initiative in Alameda County. Boundaries will also be on the ballot in the fast-growing Central Valley town of Modesto. A SOAR-style, open-space initiative will be voted on in San Luis Obispo County. And if recent history is any guide, we're likely to see two or three dozen smaller ballot-box zoning measures throughout the state. So will the voters become more impatient with growth between now and November? And will ballot-box success translate into an enduring statewide slow-growth movement at last? The answer is maybe. History would suggest that the longer a real estate boom lasts, the wearier of growth the voters become. And even in the mostly pro-growth results last Tuesday, there were some signs that slow-growth sentiment is spreading. Even though they were outspent something like 40 to 1, the slow-growth activists in Tracy came within 300 votes of victory — a remarkable achievement in an area represented in Congress by Richard Pombo, a real estate broker and militant property-rights advocate. The Tracy slow-growthers may well put their initiative back on the ballot in November, and they're likely to make a serious run at the City Council as well. If ballot-box zoning passes this November in both Tracy and Modesto — two Valley towns not known for electing environmentalists — that result might take slow-growth politics in California to a new plateau. If the fast-growing Central Valley were finally perceived as being ripe for slow-growth politics, a statewide movement might be viable after all. Yet, at the same time, there is no guarantee that even victories in Tracy and Modesto would spark a statewide movement. Two other high-profile ballot-box zoning contests in November will take place at the county level, in San Luis Obispo and Alameda. Past experience has shown that it is very difficult for slow-growth activists to win at the county level, where walking precincts is not as important as big mailers and media campaigns. The history of California is littered with voter revolts that almost happened. Over the next few months, we'll find out whether ballot-box zoning has enough "legs" as a political issue to create a political earthquake — or whether, instead, it will continue to cause nothing more than a series of minor tremors throughout the state.

One of the most difficult parts of making environmental changes is bringing all the parties to the table. Sometimes it takes lawsuits, sometimes it takes political pressure. In the case of the Sacramento River in California's Central Valley, it has taken 13 years of meetings among environmentalists, government officials and farmers to gain consensus and cement ties for a group to coordinate a river restoration project along a huge portion of the 373-mile river. The best-known and most contentious part of the Sacramento River is where it forms the Bay Delta with the San Joaquin River. But an equally important part, with thousands of acres of riparian habitat and thousands of salmon, is a 220-mile stretch of the river between Redding and Sacramento. Efforts to improve the river's environment got a boost recently when state, federal and local government recently announced the formation of the Sacramento River Conservation Area, which will attempt to continue improving the 220 miles of river. The Conservation Area grew out of 13 years of meetings. The Conservation Area is similar in many ways to conservancies that exist throughout the state, which acquire, restore and preserve open space. And the organization could evolve into a conservancy one day. But the SRCA will be run by a nonprofit organization because no one thought that forming a new government agency was a good idea, according to Diana Jacobs, deputy director of the state Department of Fish and Game and a key figure in formation of the conservation zone. The SRCA will comprise seven counties: Shasta, Tehama, Glenn, Butte, Colusa, Sutter and Yolo. So far, only Shasta, Tehama, Colusa and Glenn counties have signed on, but Bundy expects the others to join shortly. The new nonprofit board running the SRCA will consist of two appointees from each of the seven counties, and a 15th member appointed by the state resources secretary. The group will also include six non-voting members from government agencies. Half the county appointees are people who own, manage or farm land in the area. The San Joaquin River already has a state conservancy covering a portion of the waterway, and protection of other watersheds in California is done on a regional basis. The Sacramento River Conservation Area is notable, Jacobs said, because of its size — more than 200 miles of river. The SRCA itself is the successor to an advisory council begun by the Legislature in 1986 to look at the river's future. The council had 25 members, including landowners, government agency representatives and environmentalists. The council spent years developing the consensus needed to plan for the river's future, which will now be guided by the newly named Conservation Area. Jacobs, who was a member of the earlier council, said it had no power to seek grants or permits, and members never felt comfortable commenting on projects. Creating a nonprofit organization is expected to make it easier to do the same work . Except when it floods, the stretch contained in the Sacramento River Conservation Area, receives little notice. It flows through mainly farmland. The closer the river gets to Sacramento, the narrower the levees. Along the river, trees have been cut to provide more room for agriculture, and, combined with other factors, this has led to a decline of some fish species. More than two dozen species in the river are already classified as threatened or endangered species or are candidates for those designations. The council came up with several ideas that the SRCA will help to implement: allowing meander zones so that the river can flood periodically and support more wildlife, and planning for environmental restoration along the river. Agriculture will continue to thrive, but with the SRCA's prodding, efforts will continue to revive the river's riparian forests and fish life. The SRCA does not directly perform restoration projects, according to Burt Bundy, SRCA coordinator and a former Tehama County Supervisor. But it does bring parties together, and thus can create support for legislative funding to solve the river's problems, he said. Much of the land along the river is in private ownership. Working with individual plum growers or walnut growers, each with their own political views, priorities and personalities, can be challenging, said Ronald Stork of the environmental group Friends of the River. "That requires a lot of community outreach," he said. Bundy said SRCA tries to address problems on a specific unit of the river at the same time so that one solution does not cause problems further downstream. He contrasted this method to a more traditional approach where a flood control levee might be built, land downstream is damaged by flooding related to the upstream levee, and a lawsuit is filed. Recently, Bundy met with a half dozen farmers near Colusa, some of whom belonged to families that have been farming for more than 100 years. They were tired of paying the costs of fighting floods, cleaning up debris, and replacing trees. They wanted to sell portions of their ranches either to groups such as the Nature Conservancy or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It's something the SRCA hopes to encourage. New environmental programs do not always get the support of the agricultural community. According to Jacobs, at least one agricultural group in the Colusa area has expressed opposition to the conservation zone. But the sale Bundy discussed should match one of SRCA's missions, which is to naturally restore and protect 30,000 acres on both sides of the river. The inner river zone would allow the river to meander and even overflow to protect the wildlife it supports. Because few towns are located along the river, flooding would not create the same havoc as it would in other parts of the state. The inner river zone is based on the river's past and projected future flood history, Bundy explained. The SRCA runs on a budget of about $100,000 a year, but state bonds approved in March will provide millions of dollars for river and watershed protection projects. Proposition 12, the parks bond, allocates $3 million for watershed, riparian and wetlands restoration along the Sacramento River in Yolo, Glenn and Colusa counties. Proposition 13, the water bond, creates a $95 million protection program for the state's rivers, although no specific money is allocated for the Sacramento. Bundy said the group does not emphasize water quality issues that are a focus of CalFed talks on the Delta's future. One water issue that should get more attention in coming months involves hearings before the State Water Resources Control Board to apportion water losses to water rights holders along the Sacramento River. Such matters arise as part of CalFed and other efforts to restore the Delta's plant and animal communities. Hearings should begin sometime in the spring. So far, CalFed has not come up with a way to apportion river water so that both farmers and fish have enough. Contacts: Diana Jacobs, deputy director, Department of Fish and Game, (916) 654-9937. Burt Bundy, coordinator, Sacramento River Conservation Area, (530) 528-7411. Ron Stork, senior policy advocate, Friends of the River, (916) 442-3155.

Alameda County Livermore: Voters overwhelmingly approved Measure K, a plan to modify the urban growth boundary to allow construction of 1,500 houses and preservation of some 2,000 acres of farmland and undeveloped property. Pleasanton: More than 63% of voters supported a $50 million bond issue to purchase land in the city which is owned by the City of San Francisco and slated for development. But that was not enough to win the two-thirds majority required for Measure I approval. Contra Costa County Diablo: Voters in the unincorporated area of Diablo rejected a proposal to limit the size of houses on large lots. Los Angeles County Glendora: More than 60% of voters approved a rezoning plan to permit a Wal-Mart and a Home Depot. Monterey County City of Monterey: More than 60% of voters rejected an initiative that would have placed restrictions on future development of Cannery Row and other oceanfront areas. Orange County Countywide: Voters readily approved Measure F, which requires two-thirds voter approval for future jails, hazardous waste facilities, and airports. The measure was sponsored by south county cities opposed to a civilian airport at El Toro. Twice before, voters approved an airport at El Toro. Huntington Beach: Voters rejected an initiative that would have blocked construction of a Wal-Mart. Seal Beach: Voters affirmed a City Council decision to approve a 300,000-square-foot retail project. Riverside County Indian Wells: Voters in this affluent desert community approved the concept of building a 101-unit low-income senior citizen complex. The vote was an "Article 34" election, referring to a provision in the California Constitution requiring voter approval for low-income projects. Indian Wells has traditionally been resistant to low-income housing despite a large redevelopment treasury; however, this was the second time city voters have approved a low-income housing development. Sacramento County Elk Grove: Voters in this unincorporated community of 54,000 people south of Sacramento approved incorporation as a new city after 25 years of trying. San Joaquin County Tracy: Voters in this rapidly growing, San Joaquin Valley commuter town narrowly rejected an initiative that would have restricted residential building permits to 750 per year. The city has been approving between 1,200 and 1,500 units per year. San Luis Obispo County Countywide: County voters approved the DREAM initiative, an advisory measure that calls upon the county to prohibit development on the property surrounding the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant when it is decommissioned. San Mateo County South San Francisco: A referendum on the city's decision to rezone land for a Costco was approved by some 63% of voters. Santa Barbara County City of Santa Barbara: Nearly two-thirds of voters approved a measure that allows the city's redevelopment agency to develop or acquire up to 181 units of low-income housing every year. Measure Y was an Article 34 election. Santa Clara County San Jose: Voters rejected an initiative that would have restricted the city's ability to expand San Jose airport until highway and light-rail improvements around the airport are made. Before the election, city officials agreed to provide many of the road and transit improvements, a move that reduced support for Measure O. Los Gatos: Voters in five unincorporated "pockets" and "islands" in Los Gatos rejected the idea of annexation to the city. The votes occurred as part of Santa Clara County's program to bring such pockets inside municipal boundaries. Palo Alto: Voters narrowly rejected a plan to restrict demolition of older buildings listed on the city's new Historic Register. Ventura County Countywide: In the first countywide test of the SOAR initiative, voters overwhelmingly approved rezoning a few acres of agricultural land to permit a nursing home near Ojai to expand. Yolo County Davis: Voters decisively approved a SOAR-like measure that will require voter approval for rezoning of agricultural or open space land in the future.

A proposal to expand the San Diego Zoo has forced city officials, civic activists and the Zoological Society to reexamine the zoo and its relationship to Balboa Park, where the facility is located. San Diegans consider both the zoo and the park civic treasures, and finding a compatible mix is proving to be a time-consuming and politically sensitive project. Although the issues are complex, the questions are relatively simple — how large to make the zoo, and how to solve traffic congestion and parking problems. Neighbors, who have been most outspoken in opposition to zoo expansion, feel the brunt of the current problems because the popular zoo lacks adequate parking on at least one-third of the days of the year, according to zoo officials. Last year, the zoo proposed a 24.5-acre expansion that would have required demolition or relocation of several assets in a National Historic Landmark Zone. Included in the expansion was the replacement of 3,000 free parking spaces with a larger parking structure that would generate revenue for the zoo. The city's Planning Commission gave approval for the Zoological Society of San Diego, which operates the city-owned zoo, to move forward with studies and planning, but the commission did not indicate whether it would approve the expansion. Members of the public, especially historic preservation advocates and area residents, voiced concern about the early plans for the New Century Zoo. The public outcry forced zoo leaders to re-evaluate their proposal, said Angela Colton, of the city's planning department. "It's a public policy question: What place should the zoo have in the city of San Diego?" said Stephen Haase, the city's development review manager. "The zoo is a part of what the city decided to provide as a resource. The city decided that 85 years ago." The zoo's initial plans called for replacing the 1948 War Memorial Building with a five-story parking structure, removing the Balboa Park Miniature Railroad, relocating the carousel, displacing an archery range and eliminating 3,000 free parking spaces. Those plans were not popular for a variety of reasons: The War Memorial Building houses a disabled services program, veterans groups and other community organizations. The miniature railroad and carousel are designated city historic sites. An earlier-approved city plan calls for converting the archery range into a nature preserve. The existing free parking lot is Balboa Park's largest. "It is ludicrous to take a space as beautiful as the War Memorial area, with the flat grass environment surrounding it and the gorgeous eucalyptus trees, not to mention the symbolic importance of the building to our veterans, and plow that over for some five-story building dedicated to housing cars," San Diego resident Laurel Deal wrote to the Zoological Society. Indeed, the proposals of eliminating the free parking lot and demolishing the War Memorial Building became lightening rods. City and zoo officials now say that last year's development plans are dead. But the Zoological Society is still pursuing its New Century Zoo objectives of expanding an endangered species breeding program, creating more naturalistic habitats for animals, adding parking, and building a more prominent entrance on Park Boulevard. "Without the room to develop larger and more natural enclosures to maintain a self-sustaining animal collection, San Diego's Zoo will cease being world-famous," Zoological Society President Dr. Kurt Benirschke wrote to Mayor Susan Golding. The Zoological Society is now undertaking a community outreach program, and it has hired one of its leading critics to help design the project. Steve Estrada of Estrada Land Planning had served as the consultant when the city adopted the Balboa Park Master Plan in 1989 and the Central Mesa Precise Plan in 1992. "The zoo had submitted a plan without any kind of public input at all. That's not what the Plan was all about," Estrada said. "They thought it was going to be a slam dunk, but they were slightly wrong." Estrada was helping opponents strategize when zoo representatives called. Estrada said he took the job when zoo officials said they were willing to start over. "They didn't lie. We are starting from scratch. We have a blank slate," Estrada said. The city has formed a working group of 40 stakeholders to examine conditions at Balboa Park, and needs of the zoo and other Balboa park users. The working group began meeting twice a month in February, according to the city's Colton. Forming the working group was the recommendation of two consultants, Alana Knaster of The Mediation Institute, and Alan Wiener of Consensus Facilitation. After interviewing about 70 people, including city officials, civic and business leaders, residents and environmentalists, the consultants found that many people had similar concerns — keeping the zoo world-class, preserving open space and passive park uses, ensuring multiple recreational uses of the park, and retaining the War Memorial Building. The working group approach is unusual, but it was clear the public needed a significant amount of input on the project, Haase said. He believes the panel can settle on a compromise plan, but, he added, "people are going to have to agree to disagree." Estrada believes the parties can settle on a plan that makes nearly everybody happy. There is no reason a plan that allows some zoo expansion and better parking must come at the expense of other park tenants and users, he said. Area residents are among the participants in the working group, which will likely bring a plan for the zoo to the City Council in 18 to 24 months, said Haase. Enough information should be available by this fall to allow planners to start an environmental review of the project, he added. The city adopted the Balboa Park Master Plan less than 10 years ago, but the plan left something of a hole where the zoo now exists, Haase said. That plan might need a fresh look, he said. The zoo currently leases 124 acres of the approximately 1,100-acre park, which is located in the heart of the city. The zoo is Balboa Park's most popular single attraction, but the park also offers a golf course, walking trails, picnic areas, a velodrome, gardens, and museums. "I think the ultimate goal is that Balboa Park remain a jewel for the City of San Diego. And we want the zoo to be a part of Balboa Park," Haase said. But, "parkland is precious there because you can't create more in that area." Some people have suggested the zoo could relocate altogether. The Zoological Society leases about 2,100 acres in Escondido for its Wild Animal Park. But both Haase and Estrada said relocation is probably not feasible. Escondido offers a much warmer and dryer climate than Balboa Park, which is near the ocean, and some animals and plants need the current site's cooler and moister weather. Plus, both the zoo and the city have made large capital investments at the current site. Contacts: Stephen Haase, San Diego development review manager, (619) 446-5467. Steve Estrada, Estrada Land Planning, (619) 236-0143. Angela Colton, San Diego planning department, (619) 446-5042. City website: www.ci.san-diego.ca.us/zoo-lease Zoo website: sandiegozoo.com/special/newcentury

The state Supreme Court has agreed to hear its first California Environmental Quality Act case in three years. The state's high court also agreed to review a significant brownfields case, and to let stand a controversial CEQA ruling involving water and local general plans. The court accepted for review Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre, No. S085088, in which the Second District Court of Appeal invalidated an election because the city violated CEQA. (See CP&DR Legal Digest, January 2000.) The court said the city's act of placing on the local ballot a measure to remove 29 properties from the city's Register of Historic Landmarks was a "project" under CEQA. Unlike a citizen's initiative, the council's discretionary action to place the city-sponsored measure on the ballot is subject to CEQA, the court ruled. The city put the measure on the ballot specifically to avoid CEQA review, and argued in court that CEQA did not apply. The city also argued that CEQA did not authorize the court to throw out election results. Four of seven state Supreme Court justices — Chief Justice Ronald George and Associate Justices Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin and Janice Brown — voted to hear the case. It will be the court's first CEQA case since it decided in August 1997 that de-listing a species under the California Endangered Species Act is not exempt from CEQA, but that CESA procedures provide a functional equivalent to CEQA. (See CP&DR Legal Digest, August 1997.) The court decided not to hear a more far-reaching CEQA case, League to Save Sierra Lakes v. El Dorado County Water Agency, No. C027948 (see CP&DR Legal Digest, January 2000). In that case, the Third District Court of Appeal threw out an environmental impact report for a water project because the EIR was predicated on El Dorado County's draft, unadopted general plan. The court also ruled the proposed purchase of three reservoirs by an irrigation district was subject to CEQA review, the Federal Powers Act does not preempt CEQA, and the EIR inadequately described baseline conditions. Only Justice Baxter wanted to hear the case, which has drawn interest of CEQA practitioners and observers. The brownfields case the court unanimously decided to accept is Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Los Angeles County Superior Court, No. S084057, (see CP&DR Legal Digest, December 1999). In that case, a divided three-judge panel of the Second District Court of Appeal said an oil company's insurer had no responsibility to pay for state-mandated remediation of polluted industrial sites or pay administrative fines. The court said insurance companies had a responsibility in regards only to lawsuits in the most technical sense. In a dissent, Appellate Justice Richard Aldrich said the ruling would slow clean up of the environment.

An 11-square-mile portion of the northeast San Fernando Valley could become the City of Los Angeles' largest redevelopment project area. Planners have been at work on the project for about three years, and the City Council is expected to decide whether to create the project area this summer. However, the area is so large — and suffers from such widespread decay — that some people wonder whether a redevelopment project can provide meaningful change. While other cities have giant redevelopment project areas where the amount of true blight is debatable, no one doubts that this corner of the San Fernando Valley meets the definition of "blight." Tim Dagodag, coordinator of the Urban Studies Department at California State University, Northridge, said, "That area is not ill-chosen." Population densities are high, people often live in ancillary buildings, jobs pay little, health and safety issues exist, and streets, lighting and drainage are substandard, he said. Those are problems redevelopment is designed to address, he pointed out. Furthermore, the area's per capita income of $9,266 is only 57% of the city average, according to the city's Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA). Property values in the area dropped about 10% from 1994 to 1998, while values remained about even citywide, and home sale prices in the area declined by 16%. But whether implementation of the proposed Northeast San Fernando Valley Redevelopment Project is the solution remains an unanswered question. Staff members, with guidance from a public advisory committee, are still examining conditions, working on a project area plan, considering financing options, and developing a work program, said Robert Fazio, a senior city planner and the project coordinator. The CRA has laid out rough plans for a $490-million, 40-year project that would add about 1,600 residences, rehabilitate many more, provide about 2 million square feet of industrial and commercial space, and bring about 3,600 new jobs. The CRA continues to receive criticism as an under-performing agency, and city leaders have reduced the CRA staff by about a one-third. Several top-level administrators have been forced out or left of their own accord during the last year, and some city councilmembers make no secret they want more control over the agency. "There has been some mixed reaction," to the Northeast Valley redevelopment proposal, said Gerardo Guzman, of the Mexican-American Political Association's San Fernando Valley office. The area's poor residents have not received the benefits of prior government programs, and they are unsure the CRA can properly administer a redevelopment project. "The residents want something to happen. They want the change," Guzman said. "In concept they are in support, but they are skeptical of the details." Among the details is the practicality of a 6,835-acre — nearly 11 square miles — project area. "We are not proposing large-scale redevelopment, but, rather, spot infill development that will have catalytic effects," Fazio said. He conceded that planners have recommended shrinking the project size because examining the range of issues over such a broad area on a timely basis is exceedingly difficult. The sheer size of the territory and diversity of neighborhoods makes a well-rounded approach difficult to craft, he said. And only two CRA staff members area assigned to the project full-time. But the project's scope has become a political issue — one with which the CRA Board of Commissioners and the City Council are likely to wrestle later this year. Guzman said not everything in the entire 11 square miles is blighted. "I think at the end of the day, we'll see a drastic reduction in the scope of the project," he predicted. Dagodag said almost any community within the proposed project area could be a redevelopment project of its own. Such a large project area could keep some segments of the community from receiving proper representation on advisory committees, Dagodag warned. He also worried that funding would get watered down so that only cosmetic improvements would be possible. "I think it will be a viable project, but I have some questions about the size of it. It's gigantic," he said. The proposed project area takes in all or parts of Mission Hills, Pacoima, Arleta, Sun Valley and Lake View Terrace — formerly suburban districts of Los Angeles that now show signs of urban blight and poverty. "The area is exceedingly overcrowded," Fazio said. "It's common for a one-bedroom apartment to support up to seven unrelated adults, with a three-bedroom unit supporting three whole families. … The area has pockets of residential uses that could best be described as squalor. There are some trailer parks in Pacoima and Sun Valley that are notorious." And the horrid living conditions are not necessarily inexpensive. Fazio said the agency has found people paying $900 a month to rent a single-wide mobile home, or $400 a month for a single motel room on a dirt road next to a factory. Conflicting land uses, in fact, are a substantial problems, Fazio said. The area has numerous gravel quarries, batch plants, automobile wrecking yards and other heavy industrial facilities. Oftentimes, homes of some sort are right next door. Residents are exposed to extreme environmental conditions, and childhood asthma rates are very high in some areas, he said. The redevelopment project could mitigate some of these land-use conflicts by either forcing one of the users to relocate or by helping landowners retrofit homes. Years of infrastructure neglect are evident. A CRA study found 53% of the area's 6,800 parcels lie on deteriorated streets, and 42% of parcels — including some schools — abut deteriorated or missing sidewalks, curbs and gutters. Parks are few in number and equally neglected. Even police patrols are reported to be below the city's average. Still, the area's large industrial base and the number of small businesses are assets on which the CRA hopes to build. The redevelopment project could provide funds to businesses for modernization and expansion, which would keep businesses competitive and let them add jobs, Fazio said. Ideally, these businesses would employ local residences, he said. A 23-member public advisory committee began work on the project in January 1998. However, because interest in the committee waned, the city conducted a new election at a meeting last December. So the majority of the committee members is new. But MAPA's Guzman and other observers see the committee as a major supporter of redevelopment. Indeed, Councilman Alex Padilla, a proponent whose district includes the project area, helped elect the new committee members. Dagodag, of CSUN, credited Padilla, a first-term councilman, with at least taking an interest. "Over the decades, that area has been neglected. The effort is late in coming and it's remedial," Dagodag said. Questions still remain regarding project area financing, eminent domain, and other aspects, Fazio said. Those will need to be resolved before the City Council makes a final decision. And Guzman raised an interesting social concern. Redevelopment, he said, could jeopardize the community of Pacoima's ability to serve as a first stop for new immigrants. Now, Pacoima provides homes and jobs to many Latinos who have recently come to the United States, said Guzman, who grew up in Pacoima. Once they get established, these people move on. A CRA-backed gentrification could close Pacoima's door to future immigrants, he said. Contacts: Robert Fazio, Community Redevelopment Agency, (818) 623-2128. Gerardo Guzman, Mexican-American Political Association, (818) 837-2272. Tim Dagodag, CSU-Northridge Urban Studies Department, (818) 677-2904.

A city is not liable for damages sustained because it failed to record a notice that a property was in a known landslide zone, despite a city ordinance requiring such recordation, the California Supreme Court has ruled. In a case watched closely by many California cities and counties, the state Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that the City of Los Angeles was not liable when the 1994 Northridge earthquake caused a landslide that destroyed a house in Pacific Palisades. Justices did not dispute landowner Paul Haggis' claim that he would not have purchased the property if the city had recorded the notice of substandard condition. But, the court ruled that the city's failure to record the notice did not violate any duty of care to Haggis because the municipal code was intended to protect general public health and safety. The majority also held that the city was immune from lawsuits arising out of building inspections. Haggis purchased a $2 million-plus home on the Pacific Palisades bluffs in 1991 but apparently was unaware of the property's long history. A city-sponsored study in 1959 found that coastal bluff was vulnerable to landslides, and in 1966 a landslide destabilized part of the property. The city then ordered the owner to vacate the property and stabilize the site, as required by Los Angeles Municipal Code §91.0308(d). But the county failed to record a notice of substandard condition with the county recorder, as mandated by the same code section. In 1970, the city again ordered the landowner to abate the landslide hazard. Later that year, the county issued permits to demolish portions of the existing residence and to rebuild farther from the damaged bluff. At the same time, the city did not demand either an affidavit stating the owner was aware of the unstable conditions, or require a landslide stabilization plan — even though the municipal code required such documents. The city issued several building permits during the 1970s and even allowed Caltrans to remove slide debris as part of a fill project. Still, the city never required geologic studies or recorded the notice of substandard condition. The Northridge earthquake destroyed the house and left the property unusable. Haggis filed suit seeking more than $3.5 million in damages, plus compensation for emotional distress. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge David Finkel and the Second District Court of Appeal rejected the lawsuit on a demurrer. The hearing before the state's high court drew amicus briefs from 136 cities, the California State Association of Counties, and the state Attorney General. The court ruled that city liability required an obligatory action, not a discretionary or permissive action, and that the obligatory duty must be designed to protect against the kind of injury suffered by the plaintiff. The court ruled that the Municipal Code did not "create a mandatory duty of enforcement," it only authorized the city to use particular enforcement tools. "We agree with the City that the probable purpose of the ordinance's recordation requirement is to encourage the landowner to undertake necessary stabilization work, for if he or she does not do so, a recorded certificate of substandard condition will seriously impair the value of the property for possible sale or security," Justice Kathryn Werdegar wrote for the court majority. "… Municipal Code §91.0308(d) exists to protect the public against unsafe building and land conditions, not to regulate the marketing of real estate." Moreover, Government Code § 818.6 grants local governments immunity for making an inadequate or negligent inspection, the court ruled. "To impose liability for failing to record the result of the inspection would frustrate the purpose of the immunity statute," Werdegar wrote. The inspection immunity was key to other jurisdictions' interest in the case. If governments were liable for inspection errors, they would be greatly discouraged from performing inspections, the cities, counties and Attorney General argued. Justice Stanley Mosk dissented. He said that the city had a mandatory duty that was intended to protect precisely the type of injury Haggis suffered. "The warning that recording provides to potential purchasers and lenders is an integral part of the legislative scheme," Mosk wrote. The Case: Paul Haggis v. City of Los Angeles, No. S074364, 00 C.D.O.S. 1897, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2611, filed March 9, 2000. The Lawyers: For Haggis: Pamela Schmidt, Berger & Norton, 310 449-1000. For the city: William Waterhouse, assistant city attorney, (310) 732-3750.

Frank Taylor served as executive director of the San Jose Redevelopment Agency for 20 years before retiring in 1999. Prior to his work in San Jose, Taylor held a similar job in Cincinnati. A Boston native, he is a graduate of the University of Cincinnati's School of Architecture. With a tight control over the Redevelopment Agency, Taylor's task was to revive San Jose's downtown, from which developers, businesses, residents and even city government had been fleeing since the 1950s. At times he clashed with historic preservation advocates, merchants, landowners and elected officials, including current Mayor Ron Gonzalez. But no one can deny that downtown San Jose has become an important part of Silicon Valley. CP&DR What's the proper role of a redevelopment agency? Taylor It is basically to go where no one else will go and do development. It is to take the tough projects that no one else will do, to create jobs and raise the tax base. … I had an additional criterion, and that was the City Beautiful, to make people feel good about their city. And, of course, there was industrial development. So it's not just construction jobs, it's permanent jobs was well. CP&DR What was downtown San Jose like 20 years ago? Taylor It was a regional embarrassment and a national joke. San Jose and Cleveland were often talked about at the same time. CP&DR Downtown seems like a vital place now. Taylor It's a work in progress. The foundation is in place. Future development won't need as much economic assistance as previous businesses. The other role that redevelopment had in downtown was to complete the freeway system. The downtown was not connected to the freeway system. That's very rare. The reason we were able to do all this is we were able to merge our bankrupt redevelopment areas with our industrial redevelopment areas and bond for the funds, the tax increment. CP&DR How does a redevelopment agency measure success? Taylor You measure success a lot of ways — the jobs created, the tax base. Those are pretty straightforward. The other way is pride in your community, people feeling good about where they live. I mentioned the City Beautiful. Then you need a place for children. They were in all our plans. Then, as I began to age, I worried about the elderly. … Redevelopment is not just about the buildings themselves, but the spaces between them — parks, plazas, walkways. We had three areas of focus: the plaza in the center of the city — that included the Fairmont , the art museum and the convention center; Guadalupe River development; and the civic center. CP&DR What pitfalls exist for redevelopment agencies? Taylor The pitfalls for us were the economics and lack of confidence. … The lack of investment was really very, very hard to overcome. And the possibility of being able to make more with your dollars in the suburbs than in downtown was very strong. And I had to fix up the infrastructure, which had been badly neglected for years. Retail is still the most difficult because the city is surrounded by retail shopping centers that compete for the development. They have been able to expand their facilities. I didn't want them to, but I lost that battle. CP&DR Where does housing fit in? Taylor The other thing that's important is housing, market-rate housing that you can't distinguish from affordable housing. I didn't want to build affordable housing apart from market-rate housing. I emphasized homeownership, condominiums if I could get that. We've built about 1,500 units, but we need a lot more, 5,000 to 10,000 units. CP&DR What was your biggest success? Taylor You know, the hardest deal to do was the Fairmont, and in conjunction with that was the convention center, because that was the first big deal. That was important to do because it lifted the quality for San Jose. People came into the Fairmont and walked around and saw that San Jose was not second class. Adobe was the first corporate headquarters to locate downtown. And Knight Ridder was the second. That's something nobody thought of in 1980. CP&DR What would you do differently? Taylor I would have waited on the retail until there was more housing built. I would not have tried to incorporate the amount of retail into the Plaza, which was part of the Fairmont project. I would have phased it in more. And I would have pushed light rail a little more. I lost that one I should have outreached more myself with the historic preservation people. I didn't want to save buildings for plywood. I wanted to save buildings for their use. The De Anza Hotel is still a hotel. … We saved a lot of historic buildings, but we battled over about two or three major projects, and that got the program sidetracked. And I would have shaved off my beard earlier. I originally grew it to make myself look older. CP&DR Can a city be revitalized without a redevelopment agency? Taylor If it has the economics and the market forces, yes. … But if a city suffers all the external forces and has been neglected, you need a program to get it to come back. I'm encouraged. I think the market in San Jose is much stronger. You're going to see less subsidies or maybe even no subsidies for office projects downtown. … Redevelopment programs need to be decisive, risk-taking programs. CP&DR Do you recommend any changes to the Community Redevelopment Act? Taylor I think they ought to leave redevelopment alone. There are time limits on it. Redevelopment should not be forever in any city.