Who says urban planning isn't partisan? It has certainly been many a planner's working assumption that local land use decisions in California are not affiliated with any political perspective, but are merely "good planning." In fact, since the days of 1910s reform Governor Hiram Johnson, local government has been legally devoid of party-affiliated elections. But with the assertive emergence of the Green Party in Election 2000, the fact can no longer be ignored: national political party platforms can and do correlate to local planning issues. Although small in number, the Greens are beginning to change the political landscape of local government in several regions of the Golden State. Though the Green Party's controversial run for the presidency with Ralph Nader ended with a bit of a setback when the party fell short of its goal of 5% of the national vote, Greens continue to make inroads on the planning and development stage in California through their diligent insistence on thinking globally and acting locally. Greens won 10 local government seats here this fall -- 60% of the 18 seats the party won nationwide. The biggest news comes from the pleasant Sonoma County town of Sebastopol. In a council race there, Greens Craig Litwin and Sam Spooner joined seated councilman Larry Robinson to form a Green majority on the five-member body. This is the second time this has happened nationally. The first was when the Greens formed the majority of the Arcata City Council from 1996 through 1998. The Greens also took an important swing seat on the San Luis Obispo City Council. And in Santa Monica, statewide Green Party spokesman Michael Feinstein reclaimed a City Council seat he held earlier. Feinstein is one of two Greens on Santa Monica's seven-member panel. The election raises the Greens' number of local government seats statewide to 29, barely even mist in the bucket considering the thousands of local elected positions in California. But there is something about the Green ascendancy that compounds its impact. First, it is the only group to promote party affiliations as part of a campaign strategy. In so doing, members correctly recognize that the Green Party holds cache when it comes to land use and a few other local government matters. Second, using the party organizational network, Greens in local government use one another as resources. Larry Robinson tells of how his city drew on expertise from Green council members in Arcata – 200 miles to the north – to develop Sebastopol's pesticide-free ordinance last year. Arcata had adopted a similar regulation under Green guidance there. "We plan to stay connected across the state to develop a tighter network among Greens," Robinson said. The importance of the Green arrival in local politics should be exciting to planners, even though the Greens are sometimes dismissed as idealists with roots in European socialism. In fact, the Green agenda correlates directly with the "smart growth" and "sustainability" themes popular in urban planning today. Greens are widely identified with environmental protection, making them influential allies with many of the state's most effective local advocacy groups. Greens are also in the lead on public transit and alternative transportation, responsible fiscal policy, and community empowerment. And Green leadership in the living wage movement is clearly reminiscent of 1960s-era sociology-oriented planning. Even on the process side, Greens appear exemplary in their pro-planning perspective. New Sebastopol Councilman Spooner, for example, is calling for a more people-friendly City Council meeting format. "I think we should convene more like a community meeting and less like a congressional hearing," he said. Greens typically have risen in jurisdictions with traditions of progressive politics, such as Santa Cruz, Berkeley, and Santa Monica. But Greens show up in other places too, such as the cities of Modesto, Morro Bay, and even in the San Bernardino County town of Yucaipa. Though Green-seated jurisdictions are small in number among the thousands of counties, municipalities and special districts in the state, their influence should not be dismissed by planners or development professionals. After all, liberal-minded municipalities are where many planning theories are tested on the ground. Take Arcata's alternative to a series of expensive and inefficient traffic signals: a series of landscaped roundabouts. And then there is Santa Cruz's recent living wage ordinance, widely considered the most progressive in the nation. The reemergence of partisan politics through the Greens' agenda will clearly influence local government in several subregions of California. In these places, we can expect Greens to raise the level of discussion beyond business-as-usual. To what should be the delight of many planners, we can expect planning issues to be framed in a sustainability context. This perspective suggests that the Greens are in it for the long haul, rather than just to react to the latest batch of development projects. Stephen Svete, AICP, is president of Rincon Consultants, Inc., a Ventura-based consulting firm.

Environmentalists were victorious in one of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' first interpretations of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Clean Water Act. The Ninth Circuit held that two environmental organizations could sue a Northern California lumber company for alleged Clean Water Act violations because the supposed pollution harmed members' recreational use of a creek. In January, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that South Carolina citizens could sue the operator of a hazardous waste incinerator for violating the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.) because the company's illegal discharges into a river affected the citizens' recreational, aesthetic and economic interests. (Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. 167; see CP&DR Legal Digest, February 2000.) The California case was similar. Members of the Ecological Rights Foundation and the Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation argued that they avoided some activities in Yager Creek, such as fishing and swimming, because of alleged pollution from a Pacific Lumber Company mill located upstream. In a 1997 lawsuit filed under the Clean Water Act's citizen suit provisions, the environmentalists claimed that Pacific Lumber allowed contaminated stormwater to flow offsite, had not prepared a required Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, failed to monitor and report conditions, did not collect water samples and was guilty of other violations. In a ruling before Laidlaw was decided, U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel held that the environmental groups did not have standing to sue and issued summary judgement for Pacific Lumber. The Ninth Circuit overturned Patel and remanded the case back to her for further proceedings on the merits. "Under Laidlaw, then, an individual can establish ‘injury in fact' by showing a connection to the area of concern sufficient to make credible the contention that the person's future life will be less enjoyable — that he or she really has or will suffer in his or her degree of aesthetic or recreational satisfaction — if the area in question remains or becomes environmentally degraded," Judge Marsha Berzon wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. In this case, two individual members of the environmental groups stated long-standing interest in Yager Creek, and both complained that Pacific Lumber's conduct impaired their enjoyment of the creek. Those are sufficient statements to survive summary judgement on the standing issue, the court ruled. The Ninth Circuit also rejected Pacific Lumber's contention that the case should not go forward because the environmentalists had not proven the company caused any actual environmental harm. No scientific proof is needed in order to obtain standing, the court held. Finally, the court dismissed Pacific Lumber's arguments that the suit was moot because the company is now operating under revised general discharge requirements, and because the plaintiffs' 60-day notice of intent to sue was defective. The Case: Ecological Rights Foundation v. Pacific Lumber Company, No. 99-17076, 00 C.D.O.S. 8692, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11526, filed October 30, 2000. The Lawyers: For ERF: Sharon Duggan, (415) 566-5321. For Pacific Lumber: Jared Carter, 707 764-4216.

When the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service proposed in September that 5.4 million acres in 31 California counties be designated critical habitat for the threatened red-legged frog, howls of outrage came from nearly every corner of the state. Builders, water agencies, local government officials and farmers decried the designation as an impending disaster with dire implications for everything from construction of affordable housing to the integrity of Southern California's precarious water supply. The volume of criticism prompted the agency to postpone the deadline for formal designation of frog habitat by two months to March 1. The scale of the proposal alone would have been sufficient to draw harsh criticism. But the frog decision was merely one of 11 habitat designations or proposals to have been issued by USFWS since early summer. That might not sound like many until you consider that only 134 of the 1,234 federally listed species have received critical-habitat designations in the 27 years since passage of the Endangered Species Act. What's more, many of the habitat designations and proposals this year were of unprecedented scale. Although USFWS issued several modest proposals pertaining to species that occur in populations of limited geographic range, other proposals were huge: 405,598 acres for the Alameda whipsnake; 513,650 acres for the coastal California gnatcatcher; 876,000 acres for the peninsular bighorn sheep; 478,400 acres for the arroyo southwestern toad. There are several reasons for the unusual congruence of habitat decisions over the past six months, as well as for their unusual scale. Some of these reasons are obvious while others are not. It is worth examining the reasons because of the insight they can provide into the economic, political, ecological and demographic forces colliding in California today. First, however, it is necessary to examine precisely what it means for the federal government to designate critical habitat. In most cases, the USFWS action is neither as protective of species as environmentalists hope nor as great an impediment to economic activity as landowners and business groups claim. The Endangered Species Act establishes three significant mechanisms for protection and recovery of an imperiled creature: listing, creation of a recovery plan and designation of critical habitat. The listing process is by far the most important from a regulatory standpoint. Once the federal government lists a species as endangered or threatened, it receives immediate protection under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. In general terms, this requires the federal government to ensure that no harm comes to that species or to its critical habitat, an admonition typically carried out through a process known as "consultation." Any federal agency that issues a permit required for any public or private activity — filling a wetland or altering a streambed, for example — is required to consult with USFWS or the National Marine Fisheries Service in advance of issuing that permit, to make sure it will not authorize an activity that puts a listed species in jeopardy. In addition, species listed as endangered immediately come under the protection of Section 9 of the act, which prohibits any "take" of that species — a term defined to include killing, harassing or harming individual animals or plants. (Threatened species do not automatically qualify for such protection, although the agency may extend it administratively.) The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the "take" prohibition can apply also to activities that destroy a listed species' habitat. Once a species has been listed as endangered (in danger of extinction in some or all of its range) or threatened (likely to become endangered in the near future), the ESA requires the federal government to develop a recovery plan. It must describe actions that will restore the species' long-term viability and allow the species to be removed from the list. The law also requires the designation of critical habitat "to the maximum extent prudent and determinable." Critical habitat is defined as specific locations within the geographic area occupied by a listed species that contain physical or biological features essential to the species' conservation. Critical habitat also includes specific locations outside the area occupied by the species at the time of listing that are determined to be essential to species' survival. From a regulatory standpoint, designation of critical habitat means little. Even in its absence, private landowners are prohibited by law from killing or harming endangered species, or destroying their habitat. And the ESA's consultation requirements apply to all federal permitting activities on private and public land regardless of whether that land falls within a critical habitat delineation. In other words, critical-habitat designation will not stop any development project that would not already have been blocked simply because it would have harmed a listed species. The habitat designation also does not impose any restrictions on use of land that has been so modified that it no longer constitutes viable habitat — urban areas, suburban back yards, most farmland. It also is unlikely that critical-habitat designation will lengthen the time it takes for applicants to get projects approved under the ESA consultation process or California Environmental Quality Act review. Again, the actual or suspected presence of an endangered species compels the same level of scrutiny, regardless of whether critical habitat has been designated. Federal agencies have been somewhat slow to complete the listing process because a backlog of candidate species, partly the result of an 18-month congressional moratorium imposed in 1995, continues to await evaluation. Agencies have been even slower to adopt recovery plans (only about half of all listed species have such plans) and to designate critical habitat. In general, USFWS and NMFS are required to undertake these steps at the time a species is listed: as a practical matter, the agencies frequently have resisted unless forced to do so. This is precisely what is happening in California: Nearly all the recent or pending habitat proposals are the result of court orders or settlements of lawsuits, most involving the Center for Biological Diversity. The Center, based in Tucson, Arizona, has targeted California ecosystems for protection through its Golden State Biodiversity Initiative. Its strategy has been to file lawsuits to compel listings for candidate species, and then to follow up with additional lawsuits to force designation of critical habitat. The Center has been extremely successful, having won ESA protection for 80 species and securing proposals to designate 7.3 million acres of critical habitat. In essence, the Center has taken control of the federal species-conservation agenda in California. It is not fair to blame the federal agencies alone for their tardiness in complying with the ESA. Acquiring the detailed data on distribution, abundance, behavior, interactions with other species, threats from human activity, ecosystem integrity and other factors required to devise a blueprint for recovery and to designate critical habitat takes time and money. But a hostile Congress in recent years has withheld funding in this area. In fact, property rights advocates in Congress have sought repeatedly to hamper NMFS and USFWS efforts to identify endangered-species habitat on private land by removing funding for such inventories from agency budgets. Now those efforts have backfired. Forced by litigation to identify critical habitat for threatened or endangered species — but frequently unable to acquire the detailed information required to precisely delineate those areas truly essential for the species' survival — USFWS has proposed or designated very general areas. In a sense, the farmers, developers and builders who have been so effective in persuading their congressional representatives to beggar the habitat-inventory process have only themselves to blame for these expansive designations. Imprecise data is not the only likely reason the recent habitat proposals have been so broad. The possibility with greater long-term significance relates to human population growth and urban development patterns. Several of this year's habitat proposals have been the sort to which Californians are accustomed: small areas for unusual creatures that never were widely distributed: 10,560 acres in Santa Cruz County for the Zayenta band-winged grasshopper; 2,566 acres in San Luis Obispo County for the Morro shoulderband snail; 4,025 acres in San Diego and Orange counties for the San Diego fairy shrimp. It is an axiom of conservation biology that small, geographically restricted populations are more vulnerable to habitat-altering catastrophe, whether that comes at the whim of nature (a volcanic eruption, for example) or at the hands of man (construction of a shopping mall). Such creatures are disproportionately represented on the endangered-species list. The conversion of California's natural landscape to farms and cities has had dire implications for geographically restricted species. But as the human population continues to grow and urban development spreads into new areas— the high desert, the Sierra foothills, rugged coastal mountains — even species that once occupied vast geographic ranges are in trouble. The red-legged frog, for example, may have been the most widely distributed amphibian in the state. At one time, the frog was common in nearly every low-elevation drainage between Redding and Baja, from the Sierra foothills to the sea. It has been eliminated from 70% of its range, and is found primarily in Monterey, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties. According to USFWS, only four areas within the entire historic range of the species harbor more than 350 adults. Regardless of litigation, political attacks on the ESA and the outraged complaints of developers and farmers, human population pressure will continue to intensify threats to California's nonhuman inhabitants. The pace and extent of habitat designations the state has seen in the past six months probably are but a preview of the future. Contacts Center for Biological Diversity, (520) 623-5252. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California-Nevada Operations Office: (916) 414-6600.

A development agreement between San Luis Obispo County and the developer of a subdivision and resort did not amount to an unconstitutional contracting away of the county's police power, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The opinion validates development agreements as legitimate planning tools and appears to erase any lingering doubts about the constitutionality of the practice. Although conflicts over development agreements are common, there is little case law directly addressing the state law that permits local governments to sign such contracts. "It's the first case to directly hold that the development agreement statute does not permit an unconstitutional contracting of local governments' police power," said Stephen Kostka, the developer's attorney. "That's a question that gets raised often in litigation. … This is something I've probably litigated about a dozen times, but it has never risen to the level of a published appellate court decision before now." The homeowners group that challenged the development agreement in San Luis Obispo County hopes that decision does not stand. Santa Margarita Area Residents Together (SMART) has filed a petition with the state Supreme Court because the Second District not only validated the development agreement but took the county's action one step further, according to attorney Alexander Henson of the Environmental Defense Center. "The court of appeals decision is horrible," Henson said. "It misstates the record and creates a type of project approval that can commit a public agency to a density and an intensity of land use without any environmental review." The conflict centers on the Santa Margarita Ranch, which covers 13,800 acres in San Luis Obispo County. After the developer, Santa Margarita Limited, sued the county regarding the number of legal parcels, representatives of the developer, the county and SMART mediated their differences. The end result was a 1997 development agreement outlining permissible land uses for the ranch: development of 1,800 acres for 550 housing units, a golf course, lodge and equestrian center; 8,400 acres of permanent open space; and 3,600 acres protected by 40-year Williamson Act contracts. The development agreement essentially froze the new land use designations in the Salinas River Area Plan, which the county adopted to accommodate the project before signing the development agreement. The agreement called for the developer to follow up with a specific plan, a vesting tentative map, an environmental impact report and a second development agreement. This process was unusual. More often, the county would sign a development agreement at the same time as, or after, it approved the general plan amendment and entitlements. SMART then filed a lawsuit contending that the agreement was invalid because it covered the planning stage of development before any structures were designed or approved. In other words, the group argued that the development agreement was signed too early in the process. The group also argued that the zoning freeze was an unconstitutional contracting of the county's power to police land use. San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Judge Barry Hammer ruled for the county. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Second District, Division Six, upheld the decision and awarded attorneys fees to the developer. The appellate court said that SMART interpreted the development agreement statute (Gov. Code §65864 et seq.) too narrowly. "It should be construed to allow development agreements as soon as the government and developer are required to make significant financial and personnel commitments to a project," Justice Steven Perren wrote for the court. The statute does not require project approval to occur at any particular stage, and the statute expressly contemplates discretionary approvals after the agreement is signed, the court ruled. While recognizing the development agreement contemplated further government approvals, the court also held that the county's adoption of the development agreement amounted to approval of an actual project. "While further agreement and discretionary approvals are necessary, every approval or denial permitted by the Agreement is designed to advance the project in accordance with the standards for Ranch development adopted by the County in the Salinas River Area Plan," Perren wrote. Interestingly, neither side had argued that signing the development agreement itself was tantamount to project approval, which would require environmental review. The county declared the development agreement categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and postponed environmental review until a specific plan was prepared. SMART did not challenge the categorical exemption. As for the question of the county surrendering police power, the court found that case law "supports the conclusion that the Agreement, as well as the Development Agreement Statute, satisfy all constitutional mandates concerning a city or county's exercise of its regulatory authority." Among the cases the court cited were: Morrison Homes Corp. v. City of Pleasanton , (1976) 58 CalApp.3d 724; Avco Community Developers Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com ., (1976) 17 Cal.3d 785; and Alameda County Land Use Assn., v. City of Hayward , (1995) 38 Cal. App.4th 1716. The court concluded that San Luis Obispo County's zoning freeze on the Santa Margarita Ranch was not a surrender of police power. "The Project must be developed in accordance with the County's general plan, and the Agreement does not permit construction until the County has approved detailed building plans. … The County concluded that the zoning freeze in the Agreement advances the public interest by preserving future options. This type of action by the County is more accurately described as a legitimate exercise of governmental police power in the public interest than as a surrender of police power to a special interest," Perren wrote. The state Supreme Court has not yet decided on SMART's petition for hearing. Kostka, the developer's attorney, said he doubted the state's high court would accept the case because there is no conflict among the appellate districts. But SMART attorney Henson said the court could be interested in development agreements as regulatory tools and in the issue of contracting away police power. The Case: Santa Margarita Area Residents Together v. San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors , No. B136088, 00 C.D.O.S. 8467, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11269, filed October 18, 2000. The Lawyers: For SMART: Alexander Henson, Environmental Defense Center, (805) 781-9932. For the county: Timothy McNulty, deputy county counsel, (805) 781-5400. For Santa Margarita Ranch Limited: Stephen Kostka, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Eneresen, (925) 937-8000.

Election Day 1998 sure looked like a watershed for ballot-box zoning in California. That was the day that voters in Ventura County and five cities there passed the so-called SOAR (Save Open-space and Agricultural Resources) initiatives, which created an almost "air-tight" system of urban growth boundaries around the cities and agricultural preservation in unincorporated areas. In the months after that election, California began to look like "SOAR-land". Reporters from around the country trooped through Ventura to interview the organizers of what appeared to be the cutting-edge of land-use policy nationally. These same organizers also played Johnny Appleseed around the state, advising other cities and counties on how to draft and campaign for their own SOAR-style initiatives. So it was a bit surprising on Election Day 2000 that the two most highly publicized "children of SOAR" �the San Luis Obispo County SOAR and the Rural Heritage Initiative in Sonoma County � went down to defeat. And what made it all the more perplexing was the fact that these high-profile defeats came as slow-growthers won most races (34 out of 55, or about 62% statewide). The only other high-profile countywide measure � urban growth boundaries in Alameda County � won. But that occurred because the Sierra Club outspent the homebuilders in the campaign and because more individual members of the Sierra Club live in Alameda County than in any other county in the nation. In retrospect, these results all reveal how remarkable the 1998 Ventura SOAR campaign was � and, in particular, what a shrewd political move it was to place the countywide SOAR measure on the same ballots as the city SOARs. People are more likely to vote for � and, indeed, to work for � a growth restriction in their city than in their county. By tethering the county measure to the city measures, the SOAR proponents removed the biggest political obstacle to passage of the countywide measure � the perception that it is not pertinent to local residents. (Also, for a variety of complicated reasons, the Ventura County SOAR forces were not badly outspent by their opponents.) In San Luis Obispo, the SOAR forces attempted the same strategy, but they managed to place the measure on only one city ballot � in conservative Paso Robles, where it failed. Even if proponents had hit all the cities, however, they still might not have succeeded. Unlike Ventura County, San Luis Obispo County has a large number of residents living in unincorporated areas. These folks are not only conservative by nature, but they also apparently feared more development in unincorporated areas that are already designated for suburban growth in the county's general plan. (The anti-SOAR campaign cleverly played on these fears.) In Sonoma County, where (like Ventura) most people live in medium-sized cities separated by greenbelts, prospects seemed good. In fact, Greenbelt Alliance, a Bay Area environmental group, had successfully passed growth boundaries in virtually all Sonoma County cities. But this fact actually harmed the Rural Heritage Initiative. Led by the Sonoma County Farm Bureau, opponents argued that RHI left farmers out of the initiative-writing process and complained that the measure would hamper even minor, farm-related development projects. Plus, both opponents and supporters of Measure I claimed that a vote for their side was a vote for farms and parks. Unlike Ventura, voters could not easily make the connection between growth boundaries in their cities and the countywide SOAR-style measure. So perhaps Ventura County is unique � not just in the way it looks and feels, but in the political makeup that passed SOAR in 1998. But the long-term lesson from the November 7 election may not come from the defeat of SOAR-style measures. It may instead be the growing number of initiatives requiring voter approval for major land-use changes inside those growth boundaries. A SOAR system presumably channels growth into existing urban areas and other nearby locations. And in some other parts of the state � especially Orange and San Diego counties � the trend is toward requiring elections on projects inside these urban areas rather than outside. For example, Escondido passed such a requirement in 1998. The result this time around was that Escondido voters were confronted with eight separate ballot measures dealing with increased densities and changes in zoning. In aggregate, all these proposals didn't add up to much. The total amount of land involved in the eight measures combined was about 100 acres, or the same as the one override measure in the City of Ventura. Even so, all eight measures in Escondido failed. And more of these vote-on-density measures are on the way; the requirements for subsequent votes already exist in many other San Diego County cities and such requirements were extended in Solana Beach and imposed in Newport Beach on Election Day. Will a vote requirement on increased densities in already urbanized areas be the real "son of SOAR?" It's entirely possible. As pressure to increase densities in Ventura County grows because of SOAR's geographical constraints, more development will be channeled into existing cities, and that is sure to displease some residents. The power to vote on density increases is an attractive and emotionally satisfying solution for many people. But is it a good idea? SOAR has its faults, but one of its strengths � from an urban planning perspective � is that is does not seek to permit voters to micromanage the land-use process. Rather, it places constraints on where growth can go and then challenges planners, developers, and elected officials to create better communities inside those boundaries. SOAR may not be good planning in and of itself, but it can serve as a tool to encourage better planning. Voting on increased densities inside the boundaries may not serve the same function. Our existing urban communities are necessarily dynamic, and in many cases important land is underused, thus increasing the pressure for more sprawl. As the Escondido votes show, density votes can lead to micro-management of what ought to be a thoughtful and logical planning process inside urban growth boundaries. And in this way, the SOAR approach does not foster good planning, it frustrates good planning.

With tens of thousands of public employees migrating to its downtown every weekday, Sacramento is very much a company town. So it is no surprise that a gigantic new building — by far the largest in the Central Valley — at 10th and I streets provides offices for state workers. Nearly 3,100 employees of the six agencies and the administrative office that comprise the California Environmental Protection Agency are scheduled to finish moving into the new CalEPA building by the middle of this month. The 25-story, L-shaped tower occupies one square block, providing 950,000 square feet of office space. The new CalEPA building is only one of several major public projects in downtown Sacramento. The Department of General Services began construction earlier this year on the largest state office project in California history — the 1.5 million-square-foot Capitol East End Complex. Across the street from the new CalEPA building, the City of Sacramento is planning to build a 200,000-square-foot city hall. The Capitol Area Development Authority is pursuing a number of market-rate and affordable housing projects within about 5 blocks of the Capitol building. And the city is behind the Sheraton now under construction on J Street, next to the Sacramento Convention Center The new CalEPA building is interesting for a number of reasons, including the city-state pact behind the project. In the mid 1990s, CalEPA Director James Strock decided to combine the agency's offices, which were spread across downtown Sacramento and beyond. CalEPA negotiated with representatives of West Sacramento to construct a new headquarters, and it appeared the state agency would relocate to the Yolo County community. But Sacramento's mayor, the late Joe Serna, did not want to see a major state agency move to the other side of the Sacramento River. Eventually, Sacramento and state officials cut a deal that called for the city to build the $170 million structure now standing at 10th and I. The state leases the entire building from the city and must rely on some city services, including a parking garage. In 25 years, the state can purchase the building for $1. "I think this is a pretty unique agreement," summed up Theresa Parsley, the project manager for CalEPA. The city built the tower expressly to suit the state's needs. State officials have received some criticism for not building enough "green" items into the headquarters of an agency that is supposed to protect California's environment. State officials concede a number of items were added late in the process — at least partly because of pressure from state lawmakers — but officials defend the project as environmentally sensitive. For example, energy meters are located throughout the building, which will help control electricity usage, Parsley said. Much of the carpet and paint is recycled, as is about half of the steel. Photovoltaic cells lie atop a portion of the building, and space is set aside for a fuel cell that could generate electricity on site. Additionally, the facility has 150 indoor spaces for employee bicycle parking, another 50 bicycle spaces in the garage, and 25 spots in front of the building. Showers and lockers are located on-site. In fact, said Parsley, employees have already reserved all bicycle spaces, while about 500 of 1,300 parking spaces remain available. The state encourages carpools and use of light rail, which stops only one block from the new building, she said. Already, the Department of General Services, which is responsible for most state buildings, is learning from the CalEPA project. The East End Complex is designed for energy efficiency, will have photovoltaic panels, and will rely on recycled materials ranging from asphalt and concrete to glass and drywall. Even the historic marble flooring from the renovated Jesse Unruh and State Library buildings will gain new life in the East End Complex. While the CalEPA building is a tower, the $390 million East End project ranges from three to seven stories and covers several blocks between 14th and 17th streets, and L and O streets. The facility will provide workspace for 6,300 employees of the departments of Education, Health and General Services who are now spread in 19 buildings across town. Aileen Adams, secretary of the State and Consumer Services Agency, estimated the consolidation would save the state $220 million over 30 years. A 1995 Urban Land Institute study recommended the site, where run-down businesses, motels and apartments had stood. The East End Complex, however, lacks the housing envisioned by planners. General Services spokesman Ken Hunt said the project extends the Capitol mall farther into residential neighborhoods but is sensitive to the area, said. The target completion date is 2003. Although overshadowed by the state government, the City of Sacramento has a significant presence downtown. Earlier this year, the City Council voted to proceed with a $50 million civic center behind the current city hall on I Street. The city conducted a public workshop in late November to help refine the project's design. City officials say that 720 staff members, most of whom now work in leased buildings, will fill the new offices. The office consolidations downtown only increase an already substantial demand for housing in downtown Sacramento, said Paul Schmidt, interim executive director of the Capitol Area Development Authority, a joint powers authority between the city and state that covers a 42-block area of downtown. "I believe people need to think of it as a campus," Schmidt said of the East End Complex. "I think we can anticipate 6 to 7% of the people who work there wanting to live in the adjacent area." Sacramento's ever-worsening traffic congestion and the continued revival of the K Street Mall offer additional incentives for people to live within walking distance of state offices, he said. Downtown housing prices have risen 15% in the last year, and one of CADA's most ambitious projects could provide a gauge of just how hot the market is. Capitol Park Homes is a development of 64 single family units to be sold next year at market rates. Although prices have not been set yet, Schmidt expects the houses to sell for $180,000 to $300,000 apiece, which would put them toward the higher end of the regional market. Nearby, the CADA Warehouse project will bring 106 for-sale lofts to the R Street Corridor. And work is nearly complete on a mixed-use project that includes 69 upper-end apartments on 16th Street. Contacts: Theresa Parsley, California Environmental Protection Agency, (916) 322-5322. Paul Schmidt, Capitol Area Development Authority, (916) 322-2114. CADA website: www.cadanet.org City of Sacramento website: www.ci.sacramento.ca.us Capitol East End Complex website: www.resd.dgs.ca.gov/Projects/EastEnd/default.asp

Land-use ballot measures for November 2000. Alameda County Voters approved the Sierra Club's urban growth boundary initiative drawing draw a tight urban limit line around Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, Sunol and Castro Valley. Voters rejected the competing Tri-Valley Vision 2010 measure, a less-restrictive UGB placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors. Measure D (Sierra Club initiative): Yes, 56.5% Measure C (Vision 2010 plan): No, 56.9% County voters approved a 20-year extension of a half-cent sales tax for transportation, which was scheduled to expire in 2002. The money will fund a BART extension and other transit projects. Measure B; Yes: 81% (2/3 required) City of Dublin Voters approved a City Council-sponsored measure to establish an urban limit line on the city's western boundary and require an election for growth outside the boundary during the next 30 years. Measure M: Yes, 59.1% Contra Costa County An countywide library tax narrowly failed. Measure L: No, 34.0% (2/3 required) City of Clayton Voters rejected a CAPP (Citizen Alliance for Public Planning) initiative that would have required voter approval if development involved 10 houses, 2 acres of open space or 1,000 square feet of commercial construction. Measure O: No, 55.2% Clayton voters also decided on two measures placed on ballot by City Council. In an advisory vote, they approved of building a park on a 1-acre downtown site that the city bought in May. But they rejected a 2.4% utility tax to fund park construction and maintenance. Measure Q (park): Yes, 55.7% Measure P (tax): No, 72.8% City of Danville Voters approved both a CAPP initiative, which requires an election for any development of at least 10 units, and the City Council alternative, which requires voter approval for general plan amendments involving agricultural land, open space, parks, and public or semi-public recreational land. The City Council's alternative takes effect because it received more votes. Measure R (CAPP): Yes, 52.9% Measure S (City Council measure): Yes, 74.3% Fresno County A quarter-cent sales tax to fund arts, cultural, zoological and other programs failed. Measure A: No, 46% (2/3 required) Lassen County Voters approved a county general plan amendment and rezoning of 6,800 acres for a large, four-season resort at Dyer Mountain, near Westwood. Measure V: Yes, 62.4% Los Angeles County City of Burbank Voters overwhelmingly backed a measure that will let them decide on airport expansion or relocation. The City Council placed the measure on the ballot after rejecting a voters' initiative to block airport expansion. Measure B: Yes, 80.3% City of Malibu Voters chose from two "subsequent vote" initiatives and favored the less-restrictive one. The "Right to Vote on Development Initiative" would have required voter approval of commercial, industrial or mixed-use developments of at least 25,000 square feet, projects that involve road expansion or construction, projects that require a variance or use permit, and projects denser than existing zoning. But voters chose an alternative measure requiring voter approval of development agreements for commercial and mixed-use projects of at least 30 acres. Because of "poison pill" language, the measure with the most votes shall become effective. Measure N (vote on large development agreements): Yes, 52.7% Measure P (vote on everything): No, 50.1% City of Los Angeles Voters approved a $532 million bond for fire stations and animal shelters. Measure F: Yes, 75.4% (2/3 required) City of Palmdale In a referendum, voters upheld the City Council's approval of a general plan amendment redesignating 13 acres of residential property to commercial to allow development of a Wal-Mart and other retail space, and changing 83 acres from "Business Park" to "Industrial." Measure T: Yes, 65.2% Monterey County Voters approved an initiative backed by the Pebble Beach Co. to amend the Del Monte Land Use Plan. Measure A eliminated 890 potential houses in exchange for a golf course, about 210 hotel/resort rooms, a few units of worker housing and about 40 houses. Measure A: Yes, 63.4% City of Monterey Voters liked the idea of requiring voter approval for the sale of city-owned land zoned for open space in the Cannery Row, Harbor and Del Monte Beach Local Coastal Plan areas. Measure G: Yes, 84% City of Marina An urban growth boundary around this tiny city won approval. Measure E: Yes, 52.4% Orange County City of Brea Voters narrowly rejected the Hillside Heritage Initiative, which would have required an election for any project that would have impacts beyond certain thresholds for traffic, air and water quality, wildlife and other things. Measure N: No, 51.4% City of Newport Beach Voters approved the Traffic and Density Initiative ("Greenlight" Initiative) requiring a vote on most projects that require a general plan amendment. Voters rejected a competing, less-restrictive initiative that would have tied development levels to certain traffic goals. Measure S (Greenlight Initiative): Yes, 63.4% Measure T (builders' alternative): No, 64.9% City of San Clemente An initiative to impose a housing moratorium until the city completed an extension of a new north-south thoroughfare failed. Measure U: No, 52.8% Placer County A quarter-cent sales tax, placed on ballot by Board of Supervisors, to purchase 75,000 acres of land and conservation easements under the Placer Legacy program failed miserably. Measure W: No, 72.6% Sacramento County The county's urban services limit withstood an initiative challenge when voters defeated Measure O, an initiative placed on the ballot by developer CC Myers. He proposed the 3,000-home Deer Creek Hills subdivision outside the limit, in the county's eastern foothills. Measure O: No, 69.1% Voters in unincorporated Sacramento County and in the cities of Elk Grove and Citrus Heights narrowly failed to give two-thirds approval to an annual $22 parcel tax for 4 years to fund libraries. Measure P: No, 34.0% (2/3 required) City of Galt Residents voted to join the countywide library system but failed to approve to a parcel tax to fund the system. Measure S (annex): Yes, 75.6% Measure T (tax): No, 41.2% (2/3 required) City of Isleton This small town voted to join the countywide library system and even approved a library parcel tax. Measure U (annex): Yes, 83.7% Measure V (tax): Yes, 68.1% (2/3 required) San Bernardino County City of Yucaipa In a referendum, voters overturned the City Council's approval of Robinson Ranch North, a power center that would have featured a Wal-Mart. Measure O: No, 55.3% San Diego County City of Escondido. Eight separate general plan amendments and/or zoning changes for residential and commercial projects were defeated at the polls. Voter approval was required under 1998's Proposition S. Proposition J (rezoning a 20-acre parcel to permit 100 homes instead of 66): No, 71.1% Proposition K (rezoning a 6-acre residential parcel to light industrial): No, 62.7% Proposition L (rezoning a 5.3-acre residential parcel to commercial): No, 52.3% Proposition M (rezoning a 50-acre residential parcel to permit 52 houses instead of 20): No, 67.2% Proposition N (rezoning a 6.5-acre residential parcel to permit 90 condos instead of 45): No, 71.3% Proposition O (rezoning a 4.8-acre residential parcel to light industrial): No, 64.3% Proposition P (rezoning a 3.6-acre residential parcel to light industrial): No, 61.7% Proposition R (rezoning a 7.4-acre residential parcel to permit 42 houses instead of 15): No, 72.3% Escondido voters approved a measure allowing conversion of existing mobile home parks to resident ownership. The vote was required under 1998 Proposition S because changing a general plan policy was involved. Proposition H, Yes: 68.1% City of San Diego Voters amended the city's zoning ordinance to allow a 150-foot-high pedestrian bridge and other tall buildings as part of the "Gateway of the Americas" commercial and federal development in San Ysidro. In 1972, voters approved a 30-foot height limit for the Coastal Zone, which extends inland to this area. Proposition C: Yes, 66.9% City of San Marcos A city charter amendment requiring the city to comply with state law as it applies to general law cities regarding land use, zoning and planning won easy approval. Proposition S: Yes, 65.4% City of Solana Beach Voters approved the Solana Beach Community Protection Act, which requires voter approval to change general plan designations except to reduce residential density. The measure eliminates "threshold" requirements in 1998's Proposition CC, which also called for voter approval of development. Proposition T: Yes, 61.9% City and County of San Francisco Voters rejected two measures addressing office development. An initiative dubbed the "Daughter of Proposition M" (1986) would have limited and, in some districts, prohibited office space development; Mayor Willie Brown's alternative would have imposed fewer restrictions but would have doubled development fees. Measure L (initiative): No, 50.3% Measure K (mayor's alternative), 61.4% San Francisco voters decided on two initiatives presented as affordable housing measures. Voters rejected a ban on new tenancies in common (TICs), in which apartment dwellers get together to purchase a building and live in their own units, but voters approved a measure making it more difficult for landlords to pass through capital improvement costs to renters. Measure N (TICs): No, 53% Measure H (costs): Yes, 58.6% San Franciscans also approved a measure sponsored by the Board of Supervisors urging the Navy to clean up Hunters Point shipyard to residential standards so it can be developed. Measure P: Yes, 86.6% Voters in The City also approved an advisory measure placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors regarding Pier 45 development. Counter to a tourist park planned for the site, the measure calls for development of a nonprofit, educational, public facility related to maritime activities. Proposition R: Yes, 73.1% Finally, voters approved a $106 million branch library rehabilitation and construction bond. Measure A: Yes, 75% San Joaquin County City of Lathrop. Voters backed a modified development agreement between Califia (nee Gold Rush City) and the city to allow construction of 8,500 homes before theme parks and other commercial areas that the developer had promised to build first. Measure D: Yes, 56.2% City of Tracy An initiative from the Tracy Region Alliance for a Quality Community that cuts the annual number of housing permits in half won favor after narrowly losing eight months earlier. Measure A: Yes, 56.1% San Luis Obispo County Voters rejected the Save Open space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) initiative, which would have required voter approval for rezoning of land designated as Agriculture, Open Space, Rural or Rural Residential. Measure M: No, 59% City of Paso Robles. A city version of SOAR, creating an urban growth boundary, failed. Measure O, No: 61.2% City of Morro Bay. Voters cast ballots on two measures concerning Duke Power's proposal to reconstruct an existing power plant. They approved an advisory measure backing the City Council's support for the project, and rejected a measure requiring future voter approval for demolition or reconstruction of the plant. Measure P (advisory support for power plant): Yes, 63.6% Measure Q (requiring future voter approval of plant): No, 54.1% Santa Clara County Despite opposition by the Board of Supervisors, county voters approved a half-cent sales tax for 30 years to fund mass transit. The tax will provide about $6 billion to bring BART to San Jose and Santa Clara, expand light rail, bring rail to the airport, and electrify Caltrain. Measure A: Yes, 70% (2/3 required) City of San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales' proposal to strengthen the urban growth boundary, known as the "greenline," by requiring voters to approve any changes to it proved overwhelmingly popular. Measure K: Yes, 81.3% San Jose voters also approved a $228 million park bond and a $212 million library bond. Measure P (parks): Yes, 78% Measure O (libraries): Yes, 75% City of Saratoga Voters extended a moratorium until March 15, 2002, on residential development of lands zoned "Retail Commercial," "Professional Administrative," "Gateway Landscaping," or "Planned Development." Measure G: Yes, 73.6% Santa Clara Valley Water District. Voters narrowly approved a parcel tax averaging $39 per year for 15 years for flood control, habitat restoration and preservation, new streamside trails and parks, and contamination cleanup. Measure B: Yes, 66.8% (2/3 required) Sonoma County Voters rejected the Greenbelt Alliance's Rural Heritage Initiative, which would have locked in existing zoning and general plan designations for most unincorporated areas for 30 years unless voters approved changes. Measure I: No, 57.4% City of Healdsburg. Voters approved an initiative to limit new homes to 30 per year, with an exception for affordable units. They rejected a competing City Council-backed measure that would have limited new homes to 25 per year but allowed more exceptions for affordable housing, small subdivisions, and granny flats. Measure M (initiative): Yes, 55.4% Measure L (City Council alternative): No: 58.1% City of Rohnert Park. Voters affirmed an urban limit line drawn by the City Council during the general plan adoption process. Measure N: Yes, 70.8% Rohnert Park voters also authorized the city to participate in low-income housing development, with certain restrictions. The election was required under Article 34 of the state constitution. Measure O: Yes, 53.6% City of Sebastopol Voters rejected a one-eighth cent sales tax increase for general needs. Measure Q: No, 50.1% (2/3 required) City of Sonoma. An urban growth boundary at the city's current sphere of influence won approval. Measure S: Yes, 63.5% Sonoma voters also authorized the city to develop or acquire 100 units of "low-rent" housing. Another Article 34 election. Measure R, Yes: 59.9% Ventura County City of Fillmore. Voters rejected both a SOAR initiative establishing an urban growth boundary, and the City Council's alternative UGB that would have allowed development on about 1,500 acres more than the SOAR initiative would have permitted. Measure J (SOAR measure): No, 56.8% Measure K (council alternative): No, 62.0% City of Santa Paula. Voters approved SOAR in the only city where it had previously lost. Measure I: Yes, 54.6% City of Ventura. Voters decided to rezone cropland for a 100-acre sports complex and community park in an election required by the original SOAR initiative. Measure M, Yes: 53.8% Yolo County City of Davis. A parcel tax to fund an open-space acquisition program received the necessary two-thirds support. Measure O: Yes, 70.4%

The Second District Court of Appeal has overturned a City of Los Angeles decision not to permit construction of a billboard, and the court indicated the city could be liable for revenue the would-be sign builder lost. The opinion by Justice Rueben Ortega strongly suggests that political pressure from the mayor's office influenced the city's Board of Building and Safety Commissioners. The board initially refused to revoke the billboard permit on appeal. After the mayor's office intervened, the board did revoke the permit on grounds the Court of Appeal rejected. In July 1996, the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety issued a permit for Van Wagner Communications to erect an off-site sign at the intersection of Bentley Avenue and Little Santa Monica Boulevard. A nearby store, Koo Koo Roo, appealed the awarding of the permit. Department staff members denied the appeal, which then went to the Board of Building and Safety Commissioners. At the end of a long public hearing, the Board determined the sign permit was issued in error because the proposed sign was too close to an existing sign on Sepulveda Boulevard. However, the board stopped short of revoking the permit. Department staff members revoked the permit anyway in October 1996. Van Wagner then asked the department to reconsider and to find that Van Wagner had acquired a vested right because it had begun constructing the sign. The department ruled in Van Wagner's favor. Koo Koo Roo then brought a second appeal to the Board, challenging the department's decision and the lack of a public hearing on Van Wagner's claim of vested rights. At the second Board hearing, two department staff members said the proposed sign was acceptable under the city's ordinance, which requires 600 feet between off-site signs on the same side of the street. In this case, the existing sign and proposed sign were within 600 feet but they were not on the same street. Nevertheless, a representative of the mayor's office objected to the proposed sign, as did Koo Koo Roo. The Board then ruled that the permit was invalid, that Van Wagner did not act in good faith reliance on the permit when it began building the sign, and that Van Wagner had no vested right to the permit. Van Wagner sued the city in May 1997. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David Yaffe concluded that the Board was authorized to interpret the city's 600-foot spacing ordinance. He noted that the existing sign on Sepulveda Boulevard is angled so that motorists on Little Santa Monica Boulevard can see it; hence, the proposed sign could not be placed within 600 feet. He also suggested Van Wagner rushed to begin construction even though it knew an appeal was possible. Yaffe then transferred the case to Superior Court Judge Edward Ferns, who rejected Van Wagner's inverse condemnation and estoppel claims. On appeal, the issues were application of the 600-foot spacing restriction, and whether Van Wagner may seek inverse condemnation damages for loss of revenue. The unanimous three-judge panel concluded that the 600-foot requirement did not apply. "The ordinance unambiguously states that it applies to signs that are located on the same side of the same street, which these signs are not. … Had the City wished to regulate the spacing of signs situated on different streets but visible to motorists on an adjacent street, it could have done so," Justice Ortega wrote. Because it ruled the permit was valid, the court also reversed Judge Ferns's inverse condemnation judgement against Van Wager. The company sought compensation for delays associated with administrative and judicial proceedings and with the city's erroneous revoking of the permit. "Should the motion be renewed below, the parties and trial court will be bound by our findings that the permit was validly issued and erroneously revoked," Ortega wrote regarding the inverse condemnation claim. He then pointed to two cases: Landgate, Inc., v. California Coastal Com. (1998) 17 Cal4th 1006, in which the court held that failure to approve a development did not constitute a taking (see CP&DR Legal Digest January 1999); and Ali v. City of Los Angeles, (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 246, in which the city's delay in issuing a demolition permit was ruled a temporary taking and the city was ordered to pay more than $1.2 million for inverse condemnation (see CP&DR Legal Digest, February 2000). The court held that the estoppel claim was moot because the court reinstated the permit. The Case: Van Wagner Communications, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, No. B135654, 00 C.D.O.S. 8753, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11577, filed October 30, 2000. The Lawyers: For Van Wagner: George James Stephan, Stephan, Oringher, Richman & Theodora, 310 557-2009. For the city: Michael Klekner, deputy city attorney, (213) 485-5420.

Ever since Camp Pendleton opened on its northern border during World War II, Oceanside has been known as a military town. Over the years, nude dance clubs, rough bars, tattoo parlors and hourly motels flourished in the beachfront downtown, giving Oceanside a reputation as a tough town with a high crime rate. But city officials, civic leaders and merchants in this northern San Diego County town of 160,000 people have worked hard to make those days history. Now, downtown is on a comeback, aided by new row houses and an evolving retail scene. Although the city's redevelopment efforts remain controversial and have experienced setbacks, the redevelopment agency did bring in a multi-screen theater. A developer wants to build a high-end, beachfront resort. And a pharmaceutical company is moving forward with plans for a $1.25 billion campus in a new industrial park in a different part of town. "After doing this for 10 years, we are an overnight success," said John Daley, president of the new Main Street association. "We've really had an incredible summer with tens of thousands of people coming downtown, more so that at any other time." Ten years ago, Daley and other merchants started the "downtown business watch" because drug sales, prostitution and gang activity were flourishing. Business owners hired private security and kept a close eye on suspicious activity. As the climate improved, the group evolved into the Downtown Business Association, which marketed the district, organized cleanup programs and promoted concerts. That group eventually became Main Street Oceanside, which gained sanction from the state Trade and Commerce Agency earlier this year. Daley, who has been active in Oceanside civic affairs for three decades, said merchants' partnership with City Hall has been crucial in downtown's turnaround. "It's the place to be now in Oceanside," he said. Oceanside Planning Director Michael Blessing called the downtown comeback "truly remarkable … we don't just have young Marines looking for something to do. We have all kinds of people there now." Restaurants and shops catering to surfers and beach-going families have replaced some of the rougher establishments. The opening of a downtown multiplex in November 1999 was also key because it introduced a whole new population to the downtown, which sits next to a wide, 3 1/2-mile-long beach. Daley called the movie theater an important step, but he noted that the city's redevelopment process was very slow, starting nearly 20 years earlier when the city leveled a number of buildings. Now the developer, DDR Oliver McMillan, has backed away from completing other retail portions of the project. And downtown redevelopment has been a controversial topic during this fall's City Council election campaign, which drew 15 candidates for two seats. The city did spend more than $6 million for the cinema — selling the land at a great discount, clearing the site and creating parking, Redevelopment Director Doug Clark said. Although Oliver McMillan's departure has forced the city to rethink the rest of the two-block project, the theater has drawn other businesses to the area, he said. While the multiplex project is long and expensive, nothing else has been as controversial as the proposed Manchester Resort. Two years ago, 55% of Oceanside voters approved a ballot measure to permit a large oceanfront resort. Catellus Corporation and San Diego developer Doug Manchester both proposed resorts for approximately the same area on the edge of downtown. The city decided to work with Manchester, who proposed an elaborate resort with 500 hotels rooms in twin 12-story towers, a 100-unit, time-share resort, a spa, ice rink, entertainment pavilion and retail stores, as well as one to three resort golf courses across town. However, the downtown project would have wiped out the city's amphitheater and civic center, displaced three historic houses, leveled a bluff, taken over three blocks of vacant beach-level real estate owned by the city, and closed a few blocks of Pacific Street to traffic. Despite public complaints of the resort's impacts, the City Council voted 4-1 to approve the Manchester project in April. Opponents filed a lawsuit over the environmental impact report, but a judge threw out the lawsuit because it was filed one day after the legal deadline. However, the opposition did not go away and it became apparent that getting Coastal Commission approval for the project would be very difficult, as the project involved converting public parkland to private use. The city applied for an amendment to its Local Coastal Plan to allow a project like the Manchester Resort, but the amendment process has not gone beyond the discussion stage, said Diana Lilly, a California Coastal Commission analyst. Lilly said she is waiting for details from the city, and no hearing has been scheduled before the commission. She might have to wait a while because Manchester has backed away from the earlier proposal. The revised project will probably have a 400-room hotel with no time-share resort, and refurbishment of the existing amphitheater, according to Blessing. "Basically, it's a new project," said Blessing, who hopes the revised project will not require an LCP amendment. "If that gets built, it will have a significant impact on the landscape in Oceanside, especially from a tourist's point of view," Blessing said. Several other hotels have expressed interest because of the downtown comeback and plans to improve the harbor, said Jane McVey, the city's economic development director. But opponents, including a number of environmental groups, contend Oceanside has no need for an upscale resort. Oceanside plays an important role as a blue-collar beach town in a region of upscale coastal development, said Mark Massara, head of the Sierra Club's Coastal Program. The proposed Manchester Resort site would be ideal for a public park or low-cost facilities for beach-goers, he said. "Our feeling is that there is no shortage of luxury, visitor-serving, coastal accommodations," Massara said. While Massara and others fight the slow gentrification of Oceanside, the popularity of pricey, infill housing continues to grow. Buyers quickly snapped up about 40 row houses built near a transit station, even as the price for houses on lots as small as 2,500 square feet hit the mid-$400,000s. Developers are now looking for other infill opportunities, and the conversion of a former telephone switching station to live/work lofts is going forward, Clark said. East of Interstate 5, several housing projects are going forward, including a 600-acre master planned community with 800 to 1,200 homes, a golf course, parks and a neighborhood commercial center. But, more importantly, development of the 400-acre Ocean Ranch Corporate Center is underway. In September, IDEC Pharmaceuticals closed escrow on 60 acres in the industrial park where it will build a 1.37-million-square-foot research and manufacturing facility valued at $1.25 billion, according to Jane McVey, the city's economic development director. Biotechnology research companies have congregated around University of California, San Diego, approximately 25 miles south of Oceanside, but opportunities for expansion near UCSD are limited. "We have an industry in its infancy in San Diego that has nowhere to manufacture this stuff," McVey said. "The timing is just right. What it has done is given us other opportunities." The city waived most development impact fees to lure IDEC and its 2,400 jobs, most of which will be in the $45,000- to $65,000-a-year range. The city and Hon Development Corp., the Ocean Ranch developer, are aggressively marketing the site. With only 0.62 jobs per household, Oceanside needs employers, and the city hopes the industrial park will eventually provide 7,000 to 8,000 jobs. Next to the Ocean Ranch Corporate Center is the 150-acre Rancho Del Oro Technology Park, which has developed rapidly in the last few years. The fact that until recently Oceanside had 550 acres of mostly undeveloped, industrially zoned land that was not being marketed presented a remarkable opportunity, especially considering the town's location between Orange County and San Diego, McVey said. That location has helped make Oceanside's Amtrak station the second busiest in the state. Now, the North County Transit District is working on a light rail line from Oceanside to the inland city of Escondido that is scheduled to open in 2004. Oceanside is taking advantage of its six future light rail stations by preparing land use plans for the areas. The city should complete studies for those plans by year's end, Blessing said. Contacts: Michael Blessing, Oceanside planning director, (760) 966-4770. Jane McVey, Oceanside economic development director, (760) 435-3355. Doug Clark, Oceanside redevelopment director, (760) 435-3539. Diana Lilly, Coastal Commission analyst, (619) 767-2370. John Daley, Main Street Oceanside president, (760) 439-1319. Mark Massara, Sierra Club Coastal Program coordinator, (415) 665-7008.

Redevelopment is supposed to be out of fashion. The legislative reforms passed in 1993 made it more difficult for local governments to find "blight" — and cut down on the financial incentives for using redevelopment as well. Furthermore, California's appellate courts have made it increasingly clear that they have little patience for California's redevelopment games. In three recent rulings, appellate judges have hammed local agencies for playing fast and loose with the definition of both "blight" and "urbanization." Yet a few cities and counties around the state are moving forward with large redevelopment projects — sometimes as much as several thousand acres. In some cases, these local governments appear eager to tap into redevelopment tax-increment financing as one of the few available sources of funding for public infrastructure improvements. In other cases, both cities and counties appear to be simply placing all older urban neighborhoods into project areas. As is typical, these new project areas are being met with resistance from both angry residents and county governments fearful of losing revenue — though in at least two cases, the large project areas are being proposed by counties themselves. "It's not a trend," asserted William Carlson, executive director of the California Redevelopment Association. As evidence, Carlson pointed to figures from the state Controller's office showing that the creation of new redevelopment project areas has been dropping steadily since the 1980s. On average, 20 new project areas were created statewide in the three fiscal years from 1996-97 through 1998-99, compared with about 35 per year in the late 1980s. Even though the number of project areas may be small, the acreages involved are large. And so maybe there is a trend going on after all. Among the recently created or pending project areas are the following: o Stanton and Westminster, adjacent older cities in north Orange County, have both moved to place all property in their jurisdiction inside redevelopment areas. o Both Alameda County and Sonoma County have created large redevelopment areas in unincorporated, but apparently urbanized, communities — flood-prone Guerneville in Sonoma County, and Castro Valley (and a series of other communities) in Alameda County. Sonoma County has been sued by local residents. The Alameda County project consists of 3,300 acres in five non-contiguous communities; the Sonoma County project is 1,800 acres along the lower Russian River. o San Jose, which has one of the largest redevelopment agencies in the state, has greatly expanded its neighborhood-based effort, placing 18 different neighborhoods into a 9,400-acre project area that covers about one-sixth of the large city. o Upland, a small but generally affluent city in San Bernardino County, has placed some 1,600 acres of land in its older part of town in a redevelopment area — and has been sued by the county. In many cases, cities and counties are justifying these major redevelopment pushes in very different terms than we saw 10 to 15 years ago. Rather than promoting business growth, they claim older neighborhoods have housing problems that must be fixed. In other cases, the redevelopment agencies are pushing for simple public facilities improvements such as curbs and sidewalks. San Jose, for example, has committed $20 million over five years for this sort of thing in the neighborhoods. However, all this action comes in the context of three recent court cases that have taken redevelopment agencies to task for not adhering to the stricter definition of "blight" contained in the 1993 redevelopment revisions. In the most recent case, Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes, the Court of Appeal found that the city had failed to provide substantial evidence not only about blight but also about the question of whether the area was predominantly urbanized. All three recent cases criticized the boilerplate manner in which redevelopment agencies and their consultants typically approach findings of blight and urbanization. In the case of Mammoth Lakes, for example, the city argued that existing blight was harming economic viability. But the court concluded that the city "could not determine from the evidence that the flat rate of tax revenues was caused by defective design or construction, inadequate lot sizes or substandard site design" — in other words, by the physical conditions that must be present to find blight. CRA's Carlson acknowledged that redevelopment agencies "have to be more careful in their analysis" than they used to be. He also said he is not surprised by an increase in proposed large project areas by counties because the redevelopment system is likely to result in less oversight of counties. Traditionally, cities have had far more motivation to create redevelopment areas because they stand to capture a great deal of property tax revenue that otherwise would flowed to counties. Counties, on the other hand, have had little interest in redevelopment because they are simply stealing property tax revenue from themselves — and, indeed, counties have usually been the agencies that hold cities accountable by suing them. But Carlson pointed out that, if counties can reach a political consensus on redevelopment, there is usually nobody to look over their shoulder and enforce the law against them. No one, that is, except angry residents of the affected area, who often object to the blight finding and fear that the government will use redevelopment to impose large changes. That's what is happening in the Guerneville area, where two sets of local residents are suing. The redevelopment project area approved by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors in July stretches for nine miles along the Russian River from Guerneville to Monte Rio. The redevelopment plan calls for $185 million of improvements such as affordable housing projects, home repairs, sidewalks, streetlights, parks, and public buildings. This area floods frequently, and both fires and landslides are common. The area is also characterized by low-density "rural sprawl" and a plethora of "paper subdivisions" which have never been built on. The area is a weekend tourist destination for San Franciscans, but some local residents want to retain the rural feel and object to the notion that their area is both "blighted" and "urbanized." Under redevelopment law, an area must be 80% urbanized to be legal. "They must have been counting vacant lots," said Susan Lea, a lawyer living in the area who is representing several residents challenging the project area. Redevelopment has always been a controversial tool in California. It is a tempting tool for almost any city or county that's strapped for cash — the financier of public improvements or public facilities of last resort. This will probably always be true, even if California's screwy state-local fiscal situation is improved someday. The latest round of new project areas simply shows that cities and counties are going to keep using redevelopment as a tool to intervene in older neighborhoods, whether or not they are, strictly speaking, blighted, urbanized, or even incorporated. This is why the redevelopment game — even if it slows down — probably will not stop until every older area in the state is inside a project area.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will not reconsider a takings case involving a building moratorium in the Tahoe Basin. However, five Ninth Circuit judges did vote to hear the case of Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc., v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 216, F3d., 764. (9th Cir. 2000), and Judge Alex Kozinski issued a blistering dissent in which he accused the three-judge panel that decided the case of ignoring takings precedent. "The panel does not like the Supreme Court's Takings Clause jurisprudence very much," Kozinski wrote. "Because we are not free to rewrite Supreme Court precedent, I urged the court to take this case en banc. By voting not to rehear, we have neglected our duty and passed the burden of correcting our mistake on to a higher authority." In June, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) was not liable for a takings when it imposed a 32-month building moratorium during the early 1980s while TRPA drafted a new regional plan (see CP&DR Legal Digest, July 2000). The panel ruled that property cannot be divided into separate pieces related to certain time frames, in this case the 32 months that the moratorium was in place. Writing for the unanimous panel, Judge Stephan Reinhardt called a temporary moratorium a "crucial planning mechanism." The decision was the fourth appellate court ruling in the long-running litigation, during which property owners have lost every claim at one point or another. Property owners asked for a hearing en banc. Only Kozinski and Judges Diarmuid O'Scannlain, Thomas Nelson, Stephen Trott and Andrew Kleinfeld voted to hear the case. All five signed the Kozinski's dissent. Kozinski accused the three-judge Tahoe-Sierra panel of reversing First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987), the landmark case that establish the concept on "temporary takings." Kozinski said the panel adopted Justice John Paul Stevens's dissent in First English, in which he rejected the concept that property can be "taken" by imposition of a temporary land-use regulation. To emphasize his point, Kozinski cited similarities in Stevens's dissent and the opinion in this case. "Although claiming its opinion is fully consistent with First English, the panel plagiarizes Justice Stevens's dissent," he wrote. Kozinski continued, "In this case, a series of consecutive development moratoria has prevented the landowners from building any homes on their lots for the two decades since the start of this litigation. If a local government can evade its constitutional obligations by describing a regulation as ‘temporary,' we create a sizeable loophole in the Takings Clause." Kozinski also said the latest Tahoe decision conflicted with Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505, U.S. 1003 (1992), in which the Supreme Court held that government regulation which prevents all economically beneficial uses of a property is a takings. "The only difference between this case and Lucas is that the regulation here had a finite duration," Kozinski wrote. And, he wrote, First English made clear that a temporary building moratorium is no different than a permanent ban. The case is Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Nos. 99-15641, 99-15771. Kozinski's dissent, filed October 20, 2000, can be found at 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11307.

Federal housing officials violated the free speech rights of three Berkeley residents who protested plans for a homeless shelter in their neighborhood, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. The court ruled that a Department of Housing and Urban Development officials' eight-month investigation into the activities of project opponents trampled on rights that were clearly protected by the First Amendment. The court held that the five HUD officials (one of whom is now deceased) are individually liable for their actions, clearing the way for a U.S. District Court trial to determine damages. In a detailed opinion, the Ninth Circuit made clear that HUD officials had gone way too far with an investigation that involved the threat of subpoenas, demands that project opponents stop publishing a newsletter, and directives for the opponents to turn over all documents related to the homeless shelter. In fact, the investigation, which officials in Washington eventually killed, led to permanent changes in HUD policy for dealing with housing project opponents. In 1992, the nonprofit group Resources for Community Development (RCD) applied for a use permit to convert the Bel Air Motel on University Avenue in Berkeley into a homeless shelter. The city's Zoning Adjustment Board granted the permit; an appeal by the Coalition of Neighborhood Groups Opposing the Bel Air Conversion failed on a 4-4 City Council vote in April 1993. Soon thereafter, the Coalition filed a lawsuit alleging that zoning board member Linda Maio had a conflict of interest because she was also on the RCD board. An Alameda County Superior Court in early 1994 ruled against the Coalition, saying that the "good faith" exemption to the state's conflict of interest law saved Maio. Meanwhile, the director of Housing Rights, Inc., a Berkeley advocacy group, complained to HUD about "discriminatory scare tactics used by the opponents," such as warnings that the shelter would bring mentally disabled people and drug addicts to the area. In November 1993, the Housing Rights director signed a federal housing law complaint prepared by San Francisco HUD staff members. The HUD officials then sent letters to the three Coalition leaders — Alexandra White, her husband, Joseph Deringer, and Richard Graham — notifying them of the investigation and warning that they could face $100,000 penalties if found guilty of discriminatory housing practices. The following month, HUD officials produced a "proposal for conciliation" that required the three to drop their state court litigation and stop publishing the newsletter and flyers about the Bel Air conversion. In January 1994, the HUD officials issued a broad request for all documents related to the project. HUD interviewed the three residents but received little other cooperation. In July, the San Francisco office forwarded the case file to HUD's Washington headquarters with a report concluding that the project opponents had violated the Fair Housing Act and there was reasonable cause to take further enforcement action. But the director of HUD's Office of Investigations in Washington quickly ended the case when she decided that the First Amendment protected opponents' actions. White, Deringer and Graham then sued five HUD officials in their official and individual capacities (and a sixth official only in her official capacity) claiming that they harassed the opponents solely for exercising their rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances. U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granted partial summary judgment for White, Deringer and Graham. Patel ruled against the project opponents only on the issue of prospective relief, which they sought to prevent future harassment. On appeal, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld Patel. Centering on the residents' unsuccessful state court lawsuit, the HUD officials argued on appeal that opponents did not have First Amendment protection because they lost that case. The opponents used the lawsuit in an attempt to prevent people from exercising their right to move into a neighborhood. The HUD officials, citing Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731 (1983), argued that they only had to show that a lawsuit was filed with a discriminatory motive. Whether there was an objective basis for the suit was immaterial, they argued. But the Ninth Circuit said the HUD officials incorrectly extended the reach of a labor law case. Instead, the court said, the residents were protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which "ensures that those who petition the government for redress of grievances remain immune from liability for statutory violations, notwithstanding the fact that their activity might otherwise be proscribed by the statute involved." In fact, there was an objective basis for the state court lawsuit — even the Berkeley city manager conceded Maio's conflict of interest — that the HUD officials failed to investigate, the court ruled. Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt continued: "Regardless of whether Noerr-Pennington or Bill Johnson's applies, the investigation far exceeded what was reasonable for the purpose of ascertaining the plaintiff's motives for filing the state-court suit and thus intruded unnecessarily on their First Amendment rights. … The plaintiffs' reasons for opposing the Bel Air project were matters of public record and evident from the flyers in the San Francisco Office's possession before HRI even filed its complaint." The court ruled that the HUD officials should have known that the scope and manner of their investigation violated project opponents' First Amendment rights. Thus, the officials lost their qualified immunity as government officials. "In 1993 and 1994, reasonable government officials would have known that they could not conduct an eight-month investigation into the vocal but entirely peaceful opposition of residents to a housing project proposed for their neighborhood, or into their efforts to persuade the appropriate government agencies of their point of view," Reinhardt wrote. As for the prospective relief sought by the residents, the court said there was no need because HUD has permanently altered how it conducts such investigations — in response to this case. Despite the Ninth Circuit's ruling on liability, the U.S. Justice Department said it would continue to provide legal representation for the HUD officials. The Case: White v. Lee, Nos. 99-15098, 99-15109, 99-16033, 00 C.D.O.S. 7958, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10577, filed September 27, 2000. The Lawyers: For White: Kenneth Marcus, Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal, (202) 638-3930. For Lee, Robert M. Loeb, U.S. Department of Justice, (202) 514-2000.