From CP&DR 's Morris Newman: Personally, I think there's a way for Disney to make lemonade out of the lemons of this dispute over housing near Disneyland in Anaheim. Given that affordable housing is a clearly one-way ticket to blight and criminality -- at least according to some critics in Anaheim -- Disney should capitalize on the setting, and "theme" its third gate as "Disney's Urban Adventure."    The Walt Disney Company and its travails in Anaheim. Disney's California Adventure, a theme park that lives across the street from Disneyland, has gathered more dust than a broken set of Bancroft's History in a Salvation Army store. Adding further dismay to the Chief Private Benefactor of Anaheim is the proposal by SunCal, a local home builder, to erect 1,500 housing units across the street from the future site of Disney's third gate (i.e. themed attraction.) Disney has objected strongly to the SunCal development, because housing is out of place in a world-class resort like the Magic Kingdom.Making SunCal's housing proposal even worse, in the eyes of opponents, is the proposed existence of 225 units of affordable housing. (TelePrompTer: Start shrieking.) In the eyes of some people, affordable housing means slums, gang violence and discordant signage. Witness this characterization in the Los Angeles Times : "Disney and tourism officials are concerned that the more than $6 billion in public and private funds poured into the resort district over the last 13 years would be wasted if the area returns to its past, marked by seedy motels, tacky shops and neon signs." In other words, housing equals seedy motels. Who, I wonder, who was the source of this characterization? Please be aware that the land in question is currently a trailer park.  Really, creating Disney's Urban Adventure as Disneyland's third gate solves all these problems! The inner-city-like conditions created by the new housing development can be "re-purposed" as an attraction for suburban youth, who are the largest consumers of hiphop recordings, tee-shirts, and grills (i.e. bling for teeth.) Here's a clip from our marketing video (please keep in mind that in Disney parlance, customers are "guests" and employees are "performers.") Suburban Teenage Disney Guest: "Dude, I'm so looking for authenticity!" Urban Contemporary Disney Performer: "Well, this ain't the Gap, Daddy-Mac. Like some champagne?" STG:  "Hey, I'd love some!" Urban Contemporary Disney Performer: "Then buy your own, b***h. This s**t is expensive." Goofy's Crack House and Ho Alley will recreate South Central as heartwarmingly as Disneyland's Main Street replicated the Midwest town center. Suburban Teenage Disney Guest: "I can't believe how real this all seems! Look at this poorly maintained houses, and the unemployed people, sitting listlessly on the front stoops, seething with impotence and resentment. Say, sir, you know where I can buy a rock and hook up with a home girl?"  Stoop-sitting performer: "Can't properly say. Australia, maybe?" Donald's Check Cashing Stand will dispense souvenirs and trinkets, albeit at a healthy mark-up. Suburban Teenage Guest, perspiring heavily: "You've got to cash this check, no matter how high the interest! I've got to feed my habit!" Disney Performer: "I know, I know, those pumpkin Frappaccinos are addictive." In Minnie's Justice System, guests will be handcuffed to hospital beds, as they glide one-by-one through the Courthouse, the Slammer, Parole, and Unemployment (with Pregnancy and Substance Abuse leaping out of the shadows to scare them.) Suburban Teenage Male: "I can really say that we have experienced what only can be described as the underbelly of urban life!" Suburban Teenage Female: "I wish we had some affordable housing in our affluent community, so we could go slumming like this more often." (With her one free hand, she waves hello to a performer from Pluto's Bail Bonds.) "Hey One Leg P! What's goin' down?"One Leg P (formerly known as Pluto) wearing Armani shades and a diamond studded choke collar: "Oh, you know, the usual--home invasion, car jacking, leaving' babies in the dumpster—that kind of stuff. Nothing out of the ordinary." Suburban Teenage Female: "Awesome! I mean, I'm down with it." Teenage Male: "Man, these low- and moderate-income folks sure know how to live! To think that people in Anaheim tried to stop this place from being built! Is that whack, or what? That would have prevented us from being exposed to the genuine life style of everyone in America who makes less than $140,000 a year!" Suburban Teenage Female: "Omigod, I have to get out of here, and fast! I'm in trouble!"Suburban Teenage Male: "You mean you're…?" Suburban Teenage Female: "Yes! I've broken a nail on this stupid ride!" (Weeps.) "Take me home, Tyler!" Suburban Teenage Male: "You're on your own, Tiffany. After this, I'm never going back to Disney's California Adventure!"

Downtown Ocean Beach seems like a coddled momma's boy afraid to grow up. The small San Diego community just south of Mission Bay is a curious little enclave where the outdated downtown clashes with the cost of housing. The residents seem in denial about the hustle-bustle of capitalism and stubbornly resist the modern amenities like Starbucks. Shoes are optional and suntans are mandatory. On a lazy late Sunday afternoon after a football game at Qualcom stadium, we drove west until the 8 Freeway brought us to Ocean Beach in search of dinner. The area is a great place to get swept away in sunburns and beer-burps, but from planning perspective, the commercial core seems precarious. The residents hate corporations and redevelopment, and they fear gentrification like it's the super-bug. In the meantime their little downtown looks like it suffers from low-revenue and retail vacancies. Like a lot of beach subdivisions in Southern California, the subdivision of Ocean Beach dates back to the 1880s and once included an oceanfront amusement park. Today, the downtown is characterized by free and available street parking and diminishing quantities of vacant retail spaces the closer you get to the beach. The main drag, Newport Avenue, is nothing like the affluent city to north that shares the same name -- nor would it want to be. The sidewalks are wide and fraught with skateboarders and dogs. The retail mix ranges from antiques stores to head shops to taco-beer-burger restaurants. The only office space I noticed was mixed-use with a taco restaurant. There were a couple tourist shops, one was selling t-shirts in an unsightly box-store with 40-foot ceilings and yellow fluorescent lights. Drinking on the beach is a major source of revenue for an area where spring break is a sabbatical, and Fourth of July and New Years Eve are holy days. Some days there are as many as 40 dogs splashing unleashed in the surf. Though seemingly too large and out-of-place, the pier connects a block south of the main street to a residential area on the hillside and serves for a great view from the end-focal point of the downtown. Ocean Beach is dense, white, and accommodates a high share of college educated residents with lower than average incomes ( http://zipskinny.com zip code 92107) so why can't they get it together? The residents don't really depend on downtown stores like poor communities rely on transit and mom-and-pop bakeries. They should welcome a little gentrification and redevelopment to help bring the area into the 21st century, but I guess living in the slow lane, nestled away in this nearly forgotten beach town is good enough. People are usually afraid of change, and Ocean Beach only changes what party-event it will have next. Aaron Engstrom

FRIDAY DECEMBER 7, 2007UCLA EXTENSION BUILDING, G-33ELOS ANGELES (WESTWOOD VILLAGE), CALIFORNIA Smart growth, sustainability, housing, infrastructure, flooding, global warming and planning for safe communities: each of these topics reflects yet another step in the evolution of California's general plans.  While cities, counties and community groups are insisting upon well-conceived, legally valid plans, they now are more demanding: they seek plans that incorporate both innovation and realism; confront growth issues; transcend "legalism" by developing effective tools to reach community consensus; and conserve community character while celebrating its culture. This year's program will chart trends in general plan development as documented in new and pending legislation; will examine recent court cases; and most importantly, will focus on the tools and skills needed to imbue new plans with environmental, social and economic sustainability; smart, transit-oriented and pedestrian friendly growth; and a unique vision that reflects the heart and soul of its community. WHO SHOULD ATTEND Planning commissioners, elected officials, planning staffs, consultants, land use attorneys, developers and other project applicants, community activists, and others working with cities and counties on general plan development and revision. SEMINAR LEADERS Steven A. Preston , FAICP, is Deputy City Manager and Community Development Director for the City of San Gabriel ("Woodie") Tescher , is Principal Technical Professional/ Planning and Urban Design for EIP Associates, a division of PBS & J DATE, TIME, AND LOCATION Friday December 7th, 2007 9 am-4:30 pm (Registration and refreshments begin at 8:15 am.) UCLA Extension Lindbrook Center 10920 Lindbrook Drive, Room 204 Los Angeles, CA 90024 www.uclaextension.edu/publicpolicy

If any part of Los Angeles begs for redevelopment, it would be a 2,600-acre terrain in the northeast San Fernando Valley known as Sun Valley. From a satellite, the area could be easily mistaken for a moonscape, or perhaps a bombing range. The most conspicuous land forms are four enormous pits, which are gravel quarries. Two played-out pits are enjoying second careers as landfills. Nearly half of Sun Valley is devoted to heavy industry, yet the area still has a population of 45,000 people. Seventeen percent of the community lives in poverty, and the area is a local hot spot for cancer. Just to add some spice to the challenge, the area is also a regional watershed known as Tujunga Wash and needs additional flood control. If Sun Valley is an environmental Slough of Despond, the economic story in the area is slightly more cheerful. The community, together with neighboring Tujunga, is home to 10 million square feet of industrial space, with a vacancy rate of only 2% (even if that robust industrial activity includes far more waste handlers than any other neighborhood in Los Angeles). This wealth of industrial land, sullied as it is, may help keep high-paying industrial jobs in Southern California at a time when other industrial areas are being squeezed out by the condo-building craze. As a planning exercise, then, Sun Valley offers a stimulating mix of ingredients. The industrial area wants to be cleaned up and "repurposed" as light industry, such as sound stages and other entertainment-related uses. Lankershim Boulevard and San Fernando Road, the major corridors, want to be filled in with new mixed-use developments. A historic protection designation may be appropriate for Stonehurst, a neighborhood of 60 houses built of rocks salvaged from the wash. An unsightly steam plant owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power needs to be hidden by landscape or otherwise screened from view. One disused gravel quarry could be reinvented as a park plus detention basin, while another could serve as an expansion of an existing spreading yard, with newly installed wetlands and layers of gravel to scrub the filthy water. And at the north edge of Sun Valley, at the foot of the San Gabriel Mountains, the plan envisions a nature trail that could be incorporated into a continuous linear park that would eventually circle the entire San Fernando Valley. This optimistic yet achievable set of goals is a simplified summation of the Sun Valley Renaissance concept plan, prepared by the Urban Design Assistance Team of the American Institute of Architects, San Fernando Valley chapter. Sponsoring the study is the Economic Alliance of the San Fernando Valley and the CivicCenter Group. This is a fine undertaking, even more so for a set of community-minded volunteers. The best part of the plan is that it is down to earth and do-able. The most challenging part, perhaps, is finding both the money and the political libido to realize a plan that seems socially, environmentally and economically desirable. Although Sun Valley officially falls within the city's Pacoima/Panorama redevelopment area, the plan was prepared independently of the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency. In the implementation chapter, the study recommends that the agency coordinate with other public agencies and help create a business improvement district in the area. While many things in the world seem to worsen over time, the Sun Valley document shows how much planning has improved – even if planning in California is most often destined to remain theoretical. The concept plan shows respect for different constituencies — property owners, industrial employers, homeowners, existing service businesses, even eco-tourists. For neighborhood revitalization, the plan proposes a set of "urban villages." Please overlook that tired nomenclature and take note of the worthwhile goal: Making neighborhoods more walkable by locating retail and service businesses within short distances of residences. And rather than scraping entire streets and building the kind of humungous meta-project currently favored by the city's redevelopment agency, this concept plan proposes to repair some structures and build others where needed, including some fashionable-looking residential mixed-use projects. In short, the plan respects the street and its existing businesses, rather than sweeping all the chess pieces off the board in the name of revitalization, which is perhaps the most perverse aspect of redevelopment driven purely by revenue requirements. The challenge, here, then, would be to find developers willing to take on small projects, rather than the capital-intensive shopping centers that are somewhat easier to finance. Most difficult to achieve, if worth trying, is the idea of modernizing and prettifying the existing industrial inventory. Industrial space is the lowest-yielding type of real estate, and the prospect of slightly increased rents is rarely enough to induce owners to make major capital improvements to existing buildings. Most quixotic, alas, is the suggestion to bring in entertainment and high-tech uses. While the suggestion has a rational basis, insofar as both industries are growing and looking for affordable space in L.A., both are industries that tend to cluster in familiar locales, rather than look for cheaper space on the edge of town. Sun Valley, however, may be able to attract some import-related businesses, given that the area is immediately north of the Bob Hope Airport in Burbank. The toughest thing about any plan is implementation, which means political support and money. Politics aside, I am having a hard time seeing where the money will come from to build all these worthwhile things. My unscientific guess (and I would be delighted to be proven wrong) is that tax increment is not going to rake in the kind of bucks necessary to rebuild the local infrastructure while providing new facades to ugly industrial buildings. I also question whether Los Angeles voters would be willing to authorize the millions of dollars in revenue bonds needed to benefit Sun Valley, which is 70% Latino and has little clout with the rest of the city. Perhaps the committee that was wise and generous enough to prepare this plan can tackle the financing next. Sun Valley begs to be redeveloped, and this plan begs to be acted upon.

When voters approved the incorporation of Elk Grove in Sacramento County in early 2000, the town had a population of about 54,000. Today, Elk Grove's population is heading past 140,000, and the city is looking at a 13,900-acre area for potential expansion. In late October, the Elk Grove City Council directed its staff to move forward with a sphere of influence expansion and future master planning effort. City officials hope to annex the area within three to four years. "This process is about building the long-term vision of Elk Grove," Councilman Gary Davis said. "We have the opportunity, I believe, to grab hold of our future." Elk Grove's population has increased dramatically because of both rapid building and the city's annexation of Laguna West, a highly touted new urbanist community just east of Interstate 5. Considering this recent history and other factors, it is no surprise that Elk Grove is looking to grow into the pastures and open space that lie to the south and east of the current city limits. The city was a reluctant participant in the Sacramento Area Council of Government's regional blueprint process that sought to reign in sprawl. Voters in the 7-year-old city have consistently elected pro-development candidates, and slow-growth organizations seem to have had trouble gaining traction, despite extensive farmland conversion and increasing traffic congestion. The city currently has no sphere of influence beyond the city limits. The proposed sphere expansion "comes straight from the general plan," explained Taro Echiburu, the city's environmental planning manager. The plan identifies two areas for potential urbanization within the sphere study area. "The city's basic goal is to have a sustainable community that has a good amount of balance — housing, retail, employment, agricultural protection, open space," Echiburu said. Earlier this year, Sacramento County officials questioned Elk Grove's rush to expand. But the most recent communication between the two governments was friendly, as Elk Grove ensured the county it would be involved while the city studies where to draw lines for the sphere of influence and urban growth areas. A bigger obstacle than local politics might be environmental considerations. Elk Grove and all of the surrounding area lies within the boundaries of the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), which has been in the works for nearly a decade. Some of the most important habitat lies along the Cosumnes River corridor, a portion of which falls within the city's sphere study area. The Sacramento Valley Conservancy has identified the Cosumnes River corridor, including all of the Elk Grove side of the waterway, as an "essential countywide open space resource area." In this fashion, the corridor could provide not only habitat, but a permanent greenbelt between the cities of Elk Grove and Galt. In addition, the Elk Grove sphere of influence study area stretches right to the Cosumnes River's 100-year floodplain. Under recently signed state law, Central Valley development will need 200-year flood protection, or a plan to achieve such protection, as of 2015. Although he conceded "the HCP does not contemplate what the city wants to do," Echiburu said there is no reason the city's southward expansion has to conflict with the HCP. The city is a participant in the HCP process and has no intention of seeing development cover the entire 22-square-mile study area. "Certainly a large amount of that would be left in open space," Echiburu said. "We are looking at 7,500 acres for potential urbanization." So far, environmentalists have remained in the background. Indeed, at a recent City Council meeting, nearly all public comment came from people complaining that their land was not included in the city's sphere study area. The process approved by the City Council includes a detailed public participation plan for both determining the sphere of influence and for the subsequent master planning effort. Under the approved process, the city will not designate new land uses within the proposed sphere area. Instead, it will define a preferred sphere of influence. Once that sphere has been approved by the Sacramento County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the city intends to undertake a two- to three-year master planning process for the area, Echiburu said. Peter Brundage, Sacramento LAFCO executive officer, noted that there would appear to be a tension between the HCP and Elk Grove's expansion designs. But Brundage declined to speculate on where things might head. "They've never talked to me and I've never seen anything from them," Brundage said. The city expects to file a sphere of influence expansion application at LAFCO within nine months, Echiburu said. Contacts: Taro Echiburu, City of Elk Grove, (916) 478-2257. Peter Brundage, Sacramento County Local Agency Formation Commission, (916) 874-6458. South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan: http://www.planning.saccounty.net/habitat-conservation/overview.html

Making clear that the Community Redevelopment Law "is not simply a vehicle for cash-strapped municipalities to finance community improvements," an appellate court has thrown out the City of Diamond Bar's redevelopment plan. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that Diamond Bar did not prove that its 1,300-acre redevelopment project area suffered from "blight," as defined by the Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code §§33000 et seq., 33030). The court found that the city, in establishing the redevelopment area, relied on boilerplate language and unsupported findings from a field survey. The court extensively cited another case, County of Riverside v. City of Murrieta, (1998) 65 Cao.App.4th 616, (see CP&DR Legal Digest August 1998) in which a city offered "little concrete evidence of actual conditions of blight." Diamond Bar has asked the state Supreme Court to review the case. In July 1995, the Diamond Bar City Council adopted an ordinance approving a 30-year redevelopment project for 1,300 acres. The city made the legal findings regarding physical and economic blight that presents a burden on the community and "cannot be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or governmental action, or both, without redevelopment." Two weeks later, 12 Diamond Bar residents sued the city, claiming that the area was neither blighted nor "predominately urbanized," as required by the CRL. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Ernest Hiroshige ruled for the city in what the appellate court called "a terse minute order." The residents made the same arguments to the Second District, which overturned Judge Hiroshige on the question of blight. The appellate panel ruled for the city in one aspect, saying that the area was predominately urbanized because it passed the threshold of containing at least 80% urbanized land. The court found that 1,034 acres, or 79.5 percent of the land, was developed, and 191 acres of vacant land was "an integral part of an urban area." The court then proceeded step by step to address different ways the city tried to prove that the area was blighted. The court shot down all of the city's arguments. The city first argued that the area has unsafe or unhealthy buildings. But the city dropped that argument, which the court said was appropriate because a city consultant's survey found only one structure in need of "extensive rehabilitation." The city then argued that substandard building design, commercial areas with inadequate parking and small parcels inhibited economic development in the project area. But the court said the city did not identify specific buildings and based its determinations on a field survey by consultant Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. "At the end of the day, the raw data in the administrative record consists of a series of checkmarks reflecting the field surveyor's ultimate conclusions. The field surveyor's bald conclusions do not amount to tangible proof which can be scrutinized in a meaningful way," Presiding Justice Joan Klein wrote. Delving into the redevelopment project's details, Klein noted that although the city claimed there were buildings and lots of "inadequate size given present standards and market conditions," the city did not plan "‘power centers' in the project area to remedy this purported source of blight. Thus, there is a total ‘disconnect' between the cause of the alleged blight and the proposed remediation." The court also rejected the city's argument that incompatible uses hindered economic development. The identification of industrial uses next to an elementary school was irrelevant, as the city did not prove how the juxtaposition harmed economic development, the court ruled. The court dismissed the city's argument that small and irregular lots under multiple ownership hurt economic development. The city provided no evidence. "In addition," Justice Klein wrote, "although the City contends its commercial areas have been rendered obsolete by the shift toward large scale ‘power centers' and ‘big box' type retailers, as noted, the City has eschewed that type of development. Further, even assuming economic development requires the availability of large tracts of land, the redevelopment area contains a number of undeveloped parcels as large as 47, 41, 36, 35 and 24 acres." Finally, the court dismissed the contention that the project area lacks sufficient infrastructure. The court cited the city's 1995 general plan, which said the city "has a fairly new infrastructure." Redevelopment, the court pointed out, is not intended to deal with future growth. The Case: Barbara Beach-Courchesne v. City of Diamond Bar, No. B130244, 00 C.D.O.S. 3295, 2000 Daily Journal 4391, filed April 27, 2000. The Lawyers: For Beach-Courchesne: Murray Kane, Kane Ballmer & Berkman, (213) 617-0480. For Diamond Bar: Gregory Kunert, Richards Watson & Gershon, (213) 626-8484.

Odd how the fast food joint has become emblematic of what's wrong with the modern world. The recent bombing of a McDonalds in Brittany was widely interpreted as nothing less than a shot across the bow of cultural globalization. Here on our golden shores, discussions about the merits of quick service restaurants are more measured, but the burger and burrito huts can cause high anxiety. Particularly loathed by many are drive-through facilities. These car-friendly land uses have been scoffed at for years by students of the urban form. After all, when it comes to bleating speakers, idling vehicles belching exhaust, and multiple curb cuts, what's to like? Drive-throughs have been banned in a handful of California's municipalities for many years. Now, a new generation of towns — perhaps enthusiastic about neo-traditional and smart growth concepts — have brought drive-through lanes under new scrutiny. And the fast-food industry is armed and ready. In 1999, the battle of the drive-through ended up in the state Legislature, which argued over the merits of SB 1200. The bill, introduced by Senator Charles Poochigian (R-Fresno), attempted to override local government's land use control of drive-through facilities. As proposed by the bill, cities could not prohibit drive-through facilities without the establishment of elaborate and extensive findings. Supported by the California Restaurant Association, the bill's goodwill theme was access rights for the disabled. A much watered-down version of the bill passed in September 1999. The new law simply requires that local agencies specifically notify "blind, the aged, and disabled communities" regarding hearings on permits for drive-throughs. One has to wonder how interested blind people could be in drive-throughs. Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo have long disallowed drive-through facilities – not only for restaurants, but for banks and all other services. Santa Barbara's ban dates to 1979, and San Luis Obispo's to 1982. Probably not coincidentally, both burgs are known for both the quality and quantity of their pedestrian life. Glen Matteson, a San Luis Obispo city planner, concedes that the argument for the disabled has some merits. He acknowledges that complaints about the lack of drive-through access to fast food restaurants are heard from time to time in his bucolic city, and many complaints are in fact from disabled people. But even though the fast food lifestyle is thwarted in his town, Matteson believes the overall benefits to community remain in place. "Though the term neo-traditional was not yet in use when we passed the ordinance, the sentiment that minimizing automobile access would be an improvement to pedestrian life has seemed to prove true," he says. Like San Luis Obispo, the City of Santa Barbara also uses an ordinance to force hungry families to get out of their mini vans to purchase burgers and fries. Both cities originally used the onus of air pollution to create the legal nexus for the ban. However, using the air pollution approach is not advisable these days. The County of Santa Barbara lost its attempt to use air quality as the reason for denying a drive-through use permit for the popular In-N-Out chain in 1994. In that county, the applicant must demonstrate that the air quality impacts of a project with a drive-through would be lesser than a project without a drive-through to gain a permit. And that is exactly what the purveyor of Double-Doubles proceeded to do. Armed with a CRA-commissioned study (funded by In-N-Out, Carl's Jr., and Burger King) demonstrating that cars idling in drive through lanes for 15 minutes or less are 25% to 40% less polluting than cars that pull into the parking lot, stop, restart and leave a short time later, In-N-Out prevailed in its appeal for a drive-through. Last year, Marin County had more success with a conditional use permit process. Based on careful site review for circulation and parking issues, combined with neighborhood character review and community input, a drive-through for In-N-Out was rejected in the Mill Valley shopping center. According to Tom Lai, principal planner for Marin County, the finding for denial — which went all the way to the Board of Supervisors on appeal — was based in the fact that the site was within a "neighborhood-oriented" center, and a drive-through would endanger pedestrians and harm the character. In-N-Out proceeded with building the restaurant sans drive-through. Of the chain's 143 stores, it is one of only two without a car queue lane. As it stands today, land use authority over drive-through lanes remains with local agencies. Outright bans are still legal. Conditional use permit restrictions are upon what most jurisdictions rely. And Michael Prosio, the Restaurant Association's deputy director of government affairs, said the CUP approach is what its members prefer. "Blanket bans on drive-throughs really don't respond to the specifics of particular neighborhoods, and may preclude what some customers really want. We prefer to be allowed to address site design on case-by-case basis," Prosio said. In other words, the burger barons want the chance to drive their point home. Stephen Svete, AICP, is a principal in the Ventura-based consulting firm of Rincon Consultants, Inc.

In a case watched closely by ranchers and environmentalists, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld 1995 grazing regulations for public lands, including about 6.7 million acres in California controlled by the Bureau of Land Management. Ranchers challenged Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt's power to impose the new rules, which ranchers said would raise their expenses and threaten their livestock businesses. But a unanimous Supreme Court, interpreting the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act, 43 U.S.C. §315, said that the changes were not as significant as ranchers feared and that the Interior secretary did not exceed his authority. The court considered three regulatory changes made by Babbitt that changed the definition of "grazing preference," permitted people who are not in the livestock business to get grazing permits, and gave title for all future permanent range improvements to the federal government. The grazing preference issue was foremost for the ranchers, who said they have relied on the previous regulations to establish businesses and qualify for credit. The 1995 regulations make future grazing subject to "an applicable land use plan." But Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the court, said ranchers were never guaranteed grazing rights into perpetuity and noted that the secretary has always had the authority under the Taylor act to withdraw rangeland from gazing use. As for who gets grazing permits, Breyer wrote, "The new change is not as radical as the text of the new regulation suggest. … Those in the business continue to enjoy a preference in the issuance of grazing permits." Ranchers fear that environmentalists will buy up grazing rights only to sit on the land. However, the court noted, "New regulations allowing issuance of permits for conservation use were held unlawful by the Court of Appeals and the Secretary did not seek review of that decision." As for the improvements, the secretary has the right to grant the federal government ownership, but permit holders can still own removable improvements, such as corrals, feeders, chutes and troughs, the court held. The case is Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, No. 98-1991, 00 C.D.O.S. 3782, 2000 Daily Journal 5055.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered preparation of an environmental study on an already-completed freeway interchange in Washington state. On a 2-1 ruling, the three-judge panel said that the project was not exempt under the National Environmental Policy Act. "While we decline to order the interchange torn down, we direct the district court to order the requisite environmental review …" the court concluded. In 1985, the City of DuPont, between Seattle and Tacoma, identified the need for a new freeway interchange to serve a proposed Intel campus and a 3,200-acre, master-planned development proposed by Weyerhaeuser. Ten years later, the Federal Highway Administration granted preliminary approval for the South DuPont interchange subject to environmental review of the project. The state Department of Transportation planned a two-stage project. The first stage involved construction to allow access to the Weyerhaeuser project. Stage Two would entail a more complete interchange, rerouting of connector roads and reconstruction of an existing, nearby interchange. The transportation department prepared environmental reports analyzing the effects on the Fort Lewis landfill (a former Superfund site), air quality, cultural resources and two endangered species. In April 1996, the state and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) released a joint environmental document that concluded there would be no significant environmental impact, and said they had satisfied the criteria for both a "documented categorical exclusion" under NEPA and a Notice of Nonsignificance under Washington's State Environmental Policy Act. Construction followed. Arthur West, an attorney from Olympia, sued, claiming the project was not exempt from NEPA. District Court Judge Robert J. Bryan dismissed West's claims. When West appealed, Weyerhaeuser argued that the lawsuit was moot because Stage One of the project was in place. But the Ninth Circuit said the controversy was live. The court noted it could still order additional environmental review and even order "the interchange closed or taken down." Plus, Stage Two construction had yet to begin, noted the court, which then moved to the merits of the case. West argued that the highway administration should have prepared an Environmental Impact Statement or an Environmental Assessment under NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §4332. But the state and federal agencies contended the project qualified for a documented categorical exclusion (DCE) because federal highway regulations list "approvals for changes in access control" as an example an exempt project. The court said, "‘Approvals for changes in access control,' however, is not defined in the regulations, the legislative history, or case law." Judge Betty Fletcher continued, "None of the examples listed in the DCE regulations approaches the magnitude of this project — an entirely new, $18.6 million, four-lane, ‘fully-directional' interchange constructed over a former Superfund site and requiring 500,000 cubic yards of fill material, 30,000 tons of crush surfacing and 32,000 tons of asphalt concrete pavement. To the contrary, the other examples provided in 23 C.F.R. §771.117(d) suggest that the FHWA intends a very different scale of project to escape the more detailed environmental review that would occur in an environmental assessment." "The FHWA regulations forbid the use of a categorical exclusion for projects that will have ‘significant impacts on travel patterns,'" Fletcher wrote. "The new South DuPont interchange was designed with the intent that it have significant impacts on travel patterns." A fuller environmental review might identify mitigation measures that could still be implemented or could alter plans for State Two, which also must have further study, the court ruled. In a dissent Judge Sidney Thomas said the case was moot. "The environmental damage of which Mr. West complains has been accomplished … No order of this Court can alchemize concrete and asphalt into blueprint," he wrote. Thomas further said that the highway administration's interpretation of its own regulations was "not plainly erroneous" and, thus, should be upheld. The Case: Arthur S. West v. Secretary of the Department of Transportation, No. 97-36118, 00 C.D.O.S. 2171, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2967, filed March 20, 2000. The Lawyers: For himself: Arthur West, Olympia, Washington. For federal agencies: Brian Kipnis, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For state agencies: Deborah Cade, assistant attorney general, Olympia. For Weyerhaeuser: George Kresovich, Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson, Seattle.

Two events will shape Stanislaus County planning and development issues this year: a proposed ballot initiative to rein in urban sprawl, and a plan to encourage business development in an unincorporated community north of Modesto. Proponents of the farmland-protection initiative have until May 11 to gather signatures to place it on the November ballot after the county Board of Supervisors refused to do so. Sponsored by the group GOAL (Growth: Orderly, Affordable, and Livable), the measure would establish 30-year urban limit lines that coincide with those set in the general plan of each city and the county. How that initiative, if approved, would affect potentially controversial plans for extensive commercial and residential development in Salida, north of the Modesto city limits, is uncertain. The proposed initiative has one feature that might be unique: it gives elected officials the option of amending general plans that block development in one area to add another development area to the general plan. In other words, more development could be accommodated if another area is declared off limits. The urban limit lines could also be changed by a vote of the electorate, according to Bruce Frohman, a Modesto City Councilman and a member of GOAL's board of directors. Frohman is optimistic that the group would get 11,000 valid signatures needed to place the measure on the ballot. GOAL's members contend that too much of the county's valuable farmland is being used for development. The measure is known as both the FOOD Initiative, which stands for Future Options on Development, and more officially as FSI, the Farmland Stabilization Initiative. The measure will definitely be on the ballot in Turlock this November and in Modesto in November 2001. The city councils in Turlock and Modesto, the county's largest cities agreed to put the FSI to a vote. But those measures will not take effect unless the county measure gets on the ballot and passes. Voters in the county's smaller cities could get a chance to vote on it in elections scheduled for November, or in 2001 and 2002. County Supervisor Nick Blom does not expect FSI to qualify for the ballot. Blom, a farmer, and said the FSI would tell him how to use his land. "You're taking my property rights away," he said. He noted that an earlier GOAL-sponsored proposal, Measure F, was soundly defeated by voters about eight years ago. That measure, Frohman explained, would have changed general plans to stop conversion of farmland to urban use. In contrast, FSI respects the boundaries set by general plans that are in effect. "It lost because it was too restrictive," he said. "I thought it was too restrictive." Modesto, which is home to 182,000 of the county's 450,000 residents, could conduct the key the election. Frohman said two things favor the current initiative: county officials' failure during the past three years to develop a specific proposal on future land use, and anger in Modesto over the implementation of Measures P & Q. Frohman said that the FSI initiative was to be on the ballot last year. But GOAL postponed things for a year because county officials asked for more time to develop their own specific proposals through what they call their visioning plan, which was intended to address land use, education, transportation and other issues. Under city council-sponsored Measures P and Q, voters in Modesto were asked in November 1997 approve the extension of sewer lines to properties that had already been annexed into the city but had not been subjected to a public vote, as an earlier ballot measure had specified. Those measures would have provided sewer service to 2,500 acres on the fringes of the city that would support 4,000 homes. Measures P and Q both lost by wide margins, but the City Council continued to approve the extension of sewer lines into the area, claiming that state laws required them to do so because properties had already been annexed into a city (See CP&DR, January 1998). Voters in the same November 1997 election approved Measure M, which was intended to tighten loopholes in Measure A, an advisory vote passed in 1979. Measure A required the city to conduct elections before extending sewer lines to new developments. Measure M was also an advisory vote, so GOAL and its allies were not able to force the council to heed it. Frohman said there has been a lot of new development on the north side of Modesto in the past two years, and many people are angry because they voted against it when they defeated Measures P and Q. "They're not trusting their elected officials," Frohman said. Supporters and opponents disagree on how the FSI could impact another hot issue in the county: a community plan update for Salida, an unincorporated area just north of Modesto. Salida has a current population of 12,000 but is projected to grow because of its proximity to Highway 99. While much of Modesto has been built out, county supervisors see the agricultural areas around Salida as a place to add businesses and jobs. Many Modesto residents now make long commutes to jobs in the Bay Area. Several years ago, Modesto city officials eyed the Salida area for future expansion. But efforts to expand Modesto's sphere of influence were shot down by the Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation Commission, according to Modesto City Council member Kenni Friedman. The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider the Salida Community Plan Update this month, when a draft environmental impact report on it is released. The update is supposed to guide development in the area for the next 20 years. The Salida Community Plan update was first presented to the Board of Supervisors a year ago and projected a great deal of residential growth. But supervisors sent planners back to the drawing board, saying they wanted more business development. Of the 5,500 acres that are part of the community plan, about 1,800 acres would be set aside for business parks, according to the new plan, which officials were hesitant to discuss. The new plan would allow Salida to grow to about 21,000 by 2020, down from original estimates of 37,000, according to the Modesto Bee. Modesto supports the revised plan for Salida because it would increase local employment, according to both Blom and Friedman. A tax agreement for the area provides that approximately 75% of the tax revenue will go to the county, and 25% to Modesto for providing water and other services. "We want to partner with the county on this," Friedman said. Frohman said that the Salida Community Plan will not be affected by the Farmland Stabilization Initiative if it passes, because the area has already been designated in the county's general plan for growth. Blom disagreed. "If it passes, it will waste all the time we've spent ," he said. Contacts: Bruce Frohman and Kenni Friedman, Modesto City Council, (209) 571-5169 Nick Blom, Stanislaus County supervisor (209) 525-6560 Ron Freitas, Director of Planning and Community Development, Stanislaus County, (209) 525-6330

Voters in Culver City rejected an initiative that would have blocked a downtown redevelopment project, while voters in Benicia overwhelmingly approved an open space protection measure during April 11 special elections. The split decisions on growth follow March 7 balloting, when three-quarters of slow-growth measures failed. In Culver City, which lies a few miles north of Los Angeles International Airport, Measure M received only 32.8% of the vote. The complex Save Our Schools Initiative would have prohibited certain uses, such as parking garages, theaters and liquor stores, within 400 feet of schools. Measure M was aimed at a downtown redevelopment project called Town Plaza that is planned to include a large theater, retail stores and a parking garage. City officials vigorously fought the initiative, which they said would "kill efforts to bring downtown back to life." Initiative proponents said they wanted to protect schoolchildren from "unrestrained commercial development" and complained about city subsidies for retailers. In Benicia, a Solano County city along the Bay, 88.6% of voters backed a very different Measure M. This one will require voters to approve development or sale of city-owned land designed as open space in Benicia's 1999 general plan. The measure does not apply to private property but does affect dozens of city-owned parcels, including some very small ones, throughout Benicia. Controversy last year over a city proposal for a 50-unit affordable housing development on a grass field in the Southampton subdivision spurred the measure, which the City Council placed on the ballot. Some environmentalists questioned the measure, saying it would discourage infill development.

There is no doubt that the Sacramento metropolitan area is awash in retail shopping development, but whether or not the region is facing an excess of retail stores is subject to debate. The question arises while a 1.1-million-square-foot regional mall prepares to open in Roseville this summer, and regional malls of similar size are proposed in Folsom and Elk Grove. Plus, the City of Sacramento continues to consider large-scale downtown retail development. In three recent studies performed for the City of Sacramento, David Wilcox of Economics Research Associates, warned that the region faces an unhealthy glut of retail shopping development. Wilcox examined a fast-growing four-county area (Sacramento and Yolo counties, south Placer County and western El Dorado County) with about 1.7 million people, and compared it to similar-sized metropolitan regions. "What I found was just this enormous amount of retail space that is being built, or has been built in the last five years," Wilcox said. "Then there was this whole huge amount of place-holder projects there was being proposed. … Sacramento would have a massive amount of retail if all of these speculative proposals would get built." Some analysts contend that retail development is only following the residential and industrial growth that has occurred in the lower foothills east of Sacramento. Indeed, Wilcox found that power centers (collections of big-box stores such as Home Depot and Wal-Mart) have closely followed residential subdivision development in the Placer County cities of Roseville and Rocklin, where the population has more than tripled during the last 20 years to approximately 110,000. Plus, there is a great deal of additional wealth in the area thanks to an increase of high-tech jobs. Roseville Planning Director Patty Dunn said she sees no problem, at least in her rapidly growing town, which is a net importer of jobs. "We've really striven to have a balance of land use. Right now, in terms of commercial zoning, we might have a little bit of an overage. Based on models, about 80% of it will be absorbed by 2020," Dunn said. "But if you look at most city or county general plans, you see a little bit of an overage in commercial because residential typically is absorbed much faster." The cities of Roseville and Rocklin, on the I-80 corridor, and Folsom, along Highway 50, will see 2-million-square-feet of retail space open this year alone, Wilcox said. The largest project is the Galleria at Roseville, a 1.1-million-square-foot regional mall aimed at higher end shoppers. Nordstrom, Macy's, J.C. Penney and Sears will anchor the Galleria. Across the street from the Galleria at Roseville is proposed Creekside Town Center, a 400,000-square-foot power center. The Galleria at Roseville undoubtedly will compete with Sunrise Mall, about six miles west in Citrus Heights. Sunrise has served the region for decades and recently underwent a $10 million facelift. Less than 15 miles south of the Galleria at Roseville and about six miles east of Sunrise Mall lies the site of the proposed Broadstone Mall in Folsom. The city approved the 1.1-million-square-foot regional mall in 1991, but it has yet to be built. However, Broadstone Plaza, a smaller retail and entertainment center, is scheduled to open before year's end in Folsom, whose population has more than quintupled to about 50,000 in the last two decades. While all of this retail development plays out in Sacramento's eastern suburbs, the southern suburb of Elk Grove, which voted last November to become a city, is the site of a proposed 1-million-square-foot regional mall called Lent Ranch Marketplace. Although Lent Ranch could divert Elk Grove shoppers from south Sacramento's retail opportunities along Florin Road, Lent Ranch would have little other competition within close driving distance. In Sacramento itself, city officials have had to consider new retail proposals in North Natomas, a collection of farms along I-80 and I-5 where long-planned development is finally becoming reality. Some North Natomas landowners requested that their property be rezoned from industrial and office designations to commercial. The landowners proposed six of what ERA's Wilcox called "intercept centers" ranging from 250,000 to 680,000 square feet apiece. Landowners said commercial development would do more for city finances than office buildings. But Wilcox said the proposed commercial centers would seriously harm the prospects for neighborhood shopping centers that are planned throughout North Natomas, which is projected to have a build-out population of 60,000. In late March, the Sacramento City Council refused to approve the rezoning and stuck with the North Natomas plan. The Sacramento council also has continued to focus on the long-struggling, pedestrian-only K Street Mall. Westfield Corp. has recently consolidated much of the mall under one ownership for the first time, and in March Westfield hired renowned architect Jon Jerde to create a plan for about seven blocks of the K Street Mall from the Downtown Plaza to the Sacramento Community Convention Center. Both the Plaza, an enclosed shopping mall, and the Convention Center received major upgrades during the 1990s, but the K Street Mall still languishes, especially at night and on weekends, when state office workers are absent. The City Council had been weighing plans of Mills Corp., a Virginia-based developer, for a mixed-use project on an old railroad yard just north of downtown. Wilcox, however, said that the retail aspect of the Mills project would have competed with the K Street Mall effort. The potential conflict was solved when Mills withdrew its plans at about the same time its request for a $75 million city subsidy was reported by the Sacramento Bee. Contacts: David Wilcox, Economics Research Associates, (310) 477-9585. Patty Dunn, Roseville Planning Department, (916) 774-5276.