Search Results

Flood control remains a lively topic in Sacramento, as ramifications of a 2003 court decision making the state fiscally liable for Central Valley levees become clearer (see , March 2005). In mid-May, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill (SB 94, Migden) that awards $45 million in state compensation to victims of a 1997 Feather River levee break in Yuba County. Four people died in the New Year's Day flood near Marysville, which spawned a lawsuit with 622 plaintiffs. They will share the $45 million settlement. Meanwhile, a state Senate budget subcommittee approved a measure that would prohibit approval of a tentative subdivision map or building permits unless the first habitable floor of residential units in areas protected by levees is at least one foot above the expected flood level in the case a levee failure. Alternatively, local governments could approve new houses only in levee-protected areas with at least 100-year flood protection, with 133-year flood protection as of 2008, or with 200-year flood protection as of 2012. Homebuilders have vowed to fight the measure. On the other side of the Capitol, Assemblyman John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) gutted his bill that would have established a Central Valley Flood Control Assessment District to tax landowners for increased flood protection. Laird's AB 1665 had the administration's support but ran into a buzz saw of opposition from local governments and landowners. THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES has released a new draft of the California Water Plan. The draft is far different from past water plans and from a stakeholder draft released in the final days of the Davis administration (see , November 2003). Past state water plans projected a water balance. For example, the last update, in 1998, predicted that California would face an annual water shortfall of 3 million to 7 million acre-feet annually in 2020. This time around, DWR has provided three scenarios: current trends, less resource intensive, and more resource intensive, all with different numbers attached. The plan also contains two broad initiatives - promotion of regional water management, and improvement of statewide water management systems. The emphasis on regional approaches is another departure from past state water plans. The water plan, formally known as Bulletin 160-05, makes 14 recommendations for state decision-makers and agencies. Among the recommendations are: o Invest in sustainable and affordable water conservation, water management and development of water supplies. o Provide incentives to regional and local agencies, and utilities, to prepare integrated resource and drought contingency plans. o Evaluate and propose management strategies to remediate the cause and effects of surface and groundwater contamination. o Rehabilitate aging water and wastewater infrastructure. o Predict and prepare for the effects of global climate change. Thirteen public hearings on the water plan are scheduled around the state this month. The deadline to comment is June 30. The plan is available at www.waterplan.ca.gov . ALTHOUGH ITS AUTHORS said it was not a response to the draft state water plan, the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) released, “No Time to Waste: A Blueprint for California Water” only three weeks after the state water plan hit the streets. Among ACWA's recommendations are: o Improve the existing Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta water conveyance system to increase flexibility and enhance water supply, water quality, levee stability and environmental protection in the near term. o Evaluate long-term threats to the Delta levee and conveyance system and pursue actions to reduce risks to the state's water supply and the environment. o Ensure delivery of adequate Colorado River supplies for Southern California and defend California's rights on the Colorado River. o Develop additional groundwater and surface water storage. o Work with local agencies to overcome constraints to developing seawater and brackish groundwater desalination projects. o Modernize the federal Endangered Species Act and other laws and regulations to allow water infrastructure projects, water supply and water quality activities to proceed while protecting species and habitats. o Support integrated regional water management plans. An ACWA task force spent a year devising the plan, which the organization said is aimed at federal and state decision-makers. The plan is available at www.acwa.com . THE RACE BETWEEN the City of San Jose and Santa Clara County to build a mid-sized performing arts hall may have become more complicated. In early May, Bill Graham Presents, a subsidiary of entertainment company Clear Channel, announced it plans to book up to 80 concerts a year at the Civic Auditorium, a 70-year-old, 3,000-seat facility in downtown San Jose. The city and county have fought over dueling concert hall proposals, with the county pursuing a 7,000-seat facility at the fairgrounds, about five miles south of downtown, while the city considers becoming a partner in a new 5,000-seat downtown venue (see , December 2004). Neither the city nor the county would admit that their plans had changed because of the Bill Graham Presents promotions. GOV. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER announced in May that roadless areas in California's national forests will remain roadless. The Bush administration has moved to give states a bigger role in setting national forest policy in hopes of increasing natural resources production. That put California's Republican governor in an awkward position because he campaigned as a proponent of environmental protection (see , April 2005, Marc 2005). The governor's announcement also promised that the state Resources Agency “will work to ensure the quality of wildlife habitat conservation, community safety and broad public support for watershed-based forest management practices.” Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman added, “In October of last year we said we were interested in having a rule specific to California so that our forests would remain roadless. We are thankful that USDA and the USFS have agreed to develop a rule specific to California.” YOLO COUNTY'S PLANNED ACQUISITION of 17,300 acres of farmland and habitat received a boost in May when a local Indian tribe that operates a thriving casino announced it would help finance the county's purchase of Conaway Ranch. The Rumsey Band of Wintun Indians revealed it has entered a partnership with the county to preserve the ranch for “public benefit.” Yolo County commenced eminent domain proceedings to acquire the Conaway Ranch last year (see , August 2004). County supervisors said they feared that developers would try to build on the property or would sell its rights to 80,000 acre-feet of surface water. A group of Sacramento-area developers purchased the real estate for a reported $60 million from a PG&E subsidiary after the county filed its condemnation action. The developers were critical of the county-tribe agreement. “The potential use of gambling profits to condemn private property and water rights is an issue the people of Yolo County should not take lightly,” they said in a written statement. Possibly complicating the deal is a plan to make the tribe a member of the Conaway Ranch Joint Powers Authority (JPA), whose members now include the county, three cities, the University of California, Davis, and a flood control district. State law prohibits tribes from joining a JPA, but Assemblywoman Lois Wolk (D-Davis) has said she would carry a bill permitting the agreement. ONE ENTITY THAT HAS ALREADY DEALT WITH the issue of tribal membership in a joint powers authority is the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). The regional body has nine cities, Riverside County and three Indian tribes as members. “They are not official members of the JPA,” explained agency Executive Director John Wohlmuth. “They are participating members of CVAG through a memorandum of understanding. It's a very good relationship.” Since 1998, the Agua Caliente, Cabazon and Torres Martinez bands have had voting rights and paid dues, he said. Both the Southern California Association of Governments and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) are studying the CVAG model while they consider new relationships with tribal governments. The western Riverside County region is home to five tribal nations. Rick Bishop, WRCOG executive director, said his council recognizes that tribes have a great deal of influence these day and have a desire to join the regional body. Bishop expects a decision within a few months.

Criticism of the Cal-Fed Bay-Delta Program continued to pile up during November. First, the Department of Finance released a draft report on Cal-Fed implementation that found a mixed record of progress. One week later, the Little Hoover Commission recommended dissolution of the California Bay-Delta Authority, which began overseeing the Cal-Fed program in 2003. Gov. Schwarzenegger requested the two studies as well as an organization and program management review by KPMG that is due this month. Schwarzenegger asked for the examinations because of growing concern that Cal-Fed is not making adequate progress on its four goals of improving water supply reliability, levee stability, water quality and the ecosystem (see , October 2005). In a November 10 transmittal letter to Resources Secretary Michael Chrisman, Acting Finance Director Michael Genest wrote, “We found areas with significant accomplishments, such as increased groundwater storage, support of local watershed efforts, and maintenance of water supplies through the Environmental Water Account, as well as areas where progress to date is promising for longer term results, such as ecosystem restoration. We also found several areas where significant progress was lacking, such as levee improvements and increased export of water from the Delta.” The Little Hoover Commission found that the Bay-Delta Authority, composed of 25 state and federal agencies, is too fragmented to succeed. The Authority “was not given the authority to implement the Cal-Fed Program and it is not clear within the implementing agencies who is in charge of Cal-Fed implementation,” the Commission reported. The Commission recommended re-creating a previous policy group, with the U.S. interior secretary and the state resources secretary clearly in charge. “One lesson of the last five years is that Cal-Fed will require an amount of political capital and leadership that can only flow from the institution of the governor,” Little Hoover Commission Chairman Michael Alpert said. The Commission further recommended adoption of a comprehensive state water policy, a larger role for science in Cal-Fed decisions, and more meaningful public involvement. Additionally, the Commission said the Legislature should clarify its expectations for state agencies and hold them accountable. The Cal-Fed reports hit at the same time that the Department of Water Resources released an environmental impact report for a project that is intended to meet two Cal-Fed goals: better water quality for farmers and cities, and protection of migrating fish. The EIR drew sharply different responses — just the sort of conflict that Cal-Fed was supposed to stem. The South Delta Improvements Program would install barriers near pumps at Byron that remove water from the Delta for transport to farms and cities via the California Aqueduct. The movable barriers would decrease saltwater intrusion into the area from which the pumps take water and block fish from the pumping zone. The EIR released on November 10 found that the project would not harm water quality or fish. However, the Contra Costa Water District immediately questioned the EIR’s conclusion. District officials said the project could increase water salinity at the district’s Delta pumps. Environmentalists and some farmers also questioned the EIR and the entire project, saying it was a partial solution at best. Meanwhile, a coalition of water agencies, farmers and business interests called California Water Future endorsed the EIR. The EIR as well as the Little Hoover Commission and the Department of Finance reports are all available on the Cal-Fed website: www.calwater.ca.gov.

San Bernardino County has adopted a tax-sharing policy that could promote development in six cities. The new policy permits cities that now receive less than 7% of local property tax to create “revenue enhancement zones.” Within the zones, the county will shift property tax it gets to ensure the cities get 7% of the property tax revenue generated by development within the zones. Territory eligible for the zones must already be annexed, comprise at least 20 contiguous acres and have little existing development. The cities of Chino Hills, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, Adelanto, Victorville and Hesperia qualify because they all receive less than 7% of property taxes. A separate deal with Chino Hills provides that city — which normally gets only 4% of property taxes — up to 10% of taxes from new development. The county treated Chino Hills differently because the city has no redevelopment agency. The county wanted to establish a more equitable system for funding public services and encourage cities to make the most of their land, explained Mark Kirk, chief of staff to Supervisor Gary Ovitt. “We’re not trying to tell the local jurisdictions where to develop or how to develop,” Kirk said. “But the net result will probably be that cities maximize the uses in these areas, probably with high-end development.” The intense battle over a new general plan for Monterey County shows no sign of abating. On February 28, the county Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 not to place a general plan initiative on the June ballot, even though petitions for the 70-page initiative had enough valid signatures to qualify. Supervisors said the initiative, which would limit most unincorporated development to a few communities, contained legal defects. The board’s decision came one day after three Latino residents sued the county to block the initiative because the petitions were not circulated in Spanish. In a separate lawsuit, initiative backers sued the county for not putting the measure on the ballot. That lawsuit was moved to federal court and consolidated with the voting rights litigation. On March 23, U.S. District Court Judge James Ware ruled that the initiative did violate the Voting Rights Act because petitions were not circulated amongst both English- and Spanish-speaking voters. The ruling keeps the general plan measure off the ballot. Initiative backers said they would appeal. The county began an update of its 1982 general plan seven years ago (see , July 2004). Over time, the county released three new versions of the plan, all of which have met with opposition from one side or the other in Monterey County’s polarized land use politics. The county issued a fourth draft in March but, at least initially, it was overshadowed by the legal fight regarding the initiative. Voters in the City of Moorpark overwhelmingly rejected a proposed 1,680-unit housing subdivision in the hills northeast of town. With nearly half of registered voters turning out for the one-issue special election on February 28, 76% of voters rejected the North Park Village project. The election was the first major test of the Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) initiatives in Ventura County. The SOAR initiatives require voters to decide on development outside of SOAR-established growth boundaries for nine cities and the county. Only a few minor projects have tested the SOAR limits since they were established starting in the late-1990s. In 1999, Moorpark voters defeated via referendum a 3,200-unit housing project the City Council had approved for the same site as North Park Village. After that defeat, city officials and the latest developer, Village Development, vastly reworked the project. The proposal rejected by voters this time was sweetened with a 2,100-acre nature preserve and 50-acre lake. Opponents, however, said the project would cause increased traffic congestion and mar residents’ views of the hills. Marin County has ended its legal fight to block construction of a new death row at San Quentin State Prison (see , April 2005). In January, a Marin County judge upheld the environmental impact report for the $230 million project. County officials considered an appeal but the Board of Supervisors finally voted to drop the litigation. Construction of the 760-inmate facility is scheduled to commence in June. Riverside has agreed to remove about 600 acres from a new redevelopment project area to settle a lawsuit with redevelopment opponents. In March, a Riverside County superior court judge signed the agreement between the city and the group Rural Residents and Horse Owners of Riverside. The city created the 9,000-acre La Sierra/Arlanza redevelopment project area in 2004. Last year, the city settled a lawsuit that the county filed over the project by removing 1,300 acres from the project area. That was not enough to satisfy the Rural Residents, who contended that their large-lot neighborhoods were neither blighted nor urbanized (see , November 2005). The settlement carves some of those areas out of the redevelopment project. The settlement also prohibits the redevelopment agency from taking owner-occupied single-family houses via eminent domain, and requires the agency to work on a system of equestrian trails. San Jose has lost a lawsuit filed by Santa Clara County and the City of Milpitas over traffic that could result from new development policies in North San Jose. The policies are intended to dramatically urbanize a 5,000-acre industrial area between the 101, 237 and 880 freeways (see , September 2005). The county and Milpitas contended that San Jose was saddling neighboring jurisdictions with traffic problems. Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Leslie Nichols sided with the county and Milpitas, saying that San Jose should consider a fair-share agreement to offset increased traffic costs. San Jose also lost a lawsuit it filed against the county over the county’s plan to develop a concert hall at the fairgrounds on Tully Road (see , December 2004). In that case, San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Marie Weiner ruled that the city had violated an earlier land use agreement between the city and county. The City of Santa Clarita’s federal court fight to halt a proposed gravel quarry just outside of town concluded with a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against the city. The city had contested a 2004 consent decree between the concrete company Cemex and Los Angeles County that permitted the 500-acre gravel mine to go forward. The city and environmentalists argued the mine would harm air quality, congest roads and harm two endangered species (see , January 2006, June 2004). In a very short, unpublished opinion, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel called the consent decree “fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable.” The decree limits the quarry’s hours of operation, requires payment to mitigate traffic, air and open space impacts, and imposes other conditions. The city currently is trying to annex the site of the proposed mine. For the second time in a year , property owners in Encinitas have rejected a parcel tax to fund the cleanup of the city’s stormwater runoff. In mail balloting that concluded during March, 61% of property owners rejected the $60 annual charge. Last year, property owners rejected a similar fee. The $60 fee would have raised $1.1 million annually for cleaning stormwater to state standards, which city officials say costs about $3.5 million a year. Opponents said the city has enough money already to pay for the clean water program.

The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors has released investigative reports commissioned by the county regarding two closely scrutinized land deals: the county’s lease and eventual purchase of a private jail in Adelanto, and the acquisition of surplus county real estate by a supervisor’s aide. Los Angeles attorney Leonard Gumport completed the reports last year, and, at that time, county leaders said the investigations cleared the county of wrongdoing. However, they refused to release the documents. Local newspapers pressured the county and, in August, supervisors produced the reports — and then began distancing themselves from the conclusions. The first investigation involved the county’s $31 million deal to lease and then purchase the private Maranatha Correctional Facility. At the time, lobbyist Brett Granlund, a former assemblyman from Yucaipa, represented both Maranatha and the county. Gumport concluded that Granlund pressured the county to buy the jail while not disclosing that he was representing both parties. The report also questioned why the county purchased the jail “as-is” and did not require a current-value appraisal. Gumport concluded that Granlund and his employer, Sacramento-based lobbying firm Platinum Advisors, had a conflict of interest that tainted the deal. Granlund has said he advised the county that he represented Maranatha, and he denied lobbying the county on the jail’s behalf. The district attorney’s office concluded an investigation into the matter earlier this year without filing charges. Platinum Advisor’s chief, Darius Anderson, a developer and Democratic fundraiser, called the report’s conclusions “slanderous” in an interview with the . “We’ve done nothing wrong and we have nothing to hide,” Anderson told the newspaper. County Administrator Mark Uffer denied that Granlund influenced the jail deal. In a formal response released with Gumport’s report, Uffer wrote: “While Granlund did make statements supporting the Maranatha facilities to the CAO and sheriff, the decisions to lease and then purchase the facility were based solely on the county’s immediate need for jail space and the research and recommendations of the county’s professional staff, which had zero contact with Granlund prior to the Board of Supervisors approval of the lease.” Supervisor Bill Postmus called Gumport’s report “sensationalistic” and said the charges were motivated by Granlund’s disgruntled former business partner. “Still,” Postmus said, “if one looks past Gumport’s hyperbole, loaded wording, and in some cases unsupported statements, I believe it is clear that the public was in no way harmed in the lease and eventual purchase of the Maranatha facility.” The disgruntled business partner is Jim Foster, himself the subject of Gumport’s other report. It says that Foster, while serving as chief of staff for Supervisor Dennis Hansberger, violated conflict of interest laws and county ethics policies when he acquired surplus county land. Foster and Granlund had been partners in a billboard business. When the county declared a 0.4-acre parcel in Redlands as surplus, Foster showed the property to Granlund, who partnered with another couple to buy the property from the county for $20,000 in 2001. The following year, Granlund sold his interest in the property to Foster for $10,000. Two years later, the parcel and an adjacent lot sold for $100,000, netting Foster a $36,000 profit, according to the report. Granlund later alleged that Foster was a silent partner in the deal all along. Whether that was true or not, Gumport concluded that Foster’s actions were improper. After the deal became public last year, Foster was fired, and he is under investigation by the district attorney’s office. He has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, saying the entire matter stems from a soured business relationship. A dispute over regional flood control facilities on the site of a housing and commercial development in Upland appears headed back to state appellate court after a trial court judge ruled San Bernardino County Flood Control District’s easements on the site no longer exist. Superior Court Judge Christopher Warner ruled that the county “has continuously violated and repudiated its obligations to maintain, repair, operate, insure, properly permit or take ownership of any of the facilities.” Therefore, Warner ruled, the county’s flood control easements had been extinguished. The developers of Colonies Crossroads — 1,150 housing units and about 1.1 million square feet of commercial space along the 210 freeway — have contended for years that the county must pay them for the approximately 70 acres devoted to flood control and for costs of reconstructing flood channels and a basin (see , January 2004). At least $100 million could be at stake. Last year, the Fourth District Court of Appeal overturned a trial court judge and found that easements from the 1930s covered at least part of the flood control basin. On remand, however, Judge Warner determined that the county had essentially given up the easements and relied on the property owner to maintain flood control facilities. Vowing to continue pressing the case, interim County Counsel Dennis Wagner said the ruling was “inconsistent” with the Fourth District’s decision. “This ruling is the same as the prior trial court decision, which was overturned on appeal,” Wagner said in a written statement. A Kern County ballot measure that bans the application of sewage sludge to farm fields is the subject of a federal court lawsuit filed in August by the City of Los Angeles. For years, Kern County officials have tried to slow or halt the importation of sludge, a byproduct of wastewater treatment. In June, county voters overwhelmingly approved Measure E, which prohibits the spreading of sludge on land. Kern County currently receives about one-third of the sludge generated statewide, including nearly all of Los Angeles’s. Kern County contends that the continual application of tons of sludge to farm fields is unsafe because water, air and crops could become tainted by toxic chemicals and viruses in the material (see , July 2000). Los Angeles and sanitation districts, which call the material “biosolids,” say it is safe and meets all federal, state and local standards for land application. Los Angeles deposits its sludge on a 4,200-acre farm the city owns south of Bakersfield. “Biosolids have only improved the environment in Kern County, and there is no basis for this ban,” said Rita Robinson, director of the L.A. Bureau of Sanitation. “The property we purchased in Kern County would not be productive farmland without the use of our biosolids and the treated wastewater from Bakersfield.” Joining the city in the lawsuit are the Orange County Sanitation District, Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 2, the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, and property owners and trucking companies that contract with public entities. Interestingly, they filed their lawsuit in federal court. Last year, a state appellate upheld Kern County regulations regarding the land application of sludge, although the court ruled the county should have completed an environmental impact report for the regulations (see , May 2005). The new lawsuit charges that Kern County’s ban “directly conflicts with comprehensive federal and state programs which regulate biosolids and encourage their recycling through land application.” The lawsuit contends the initiative conflicts with the constitution’s Commerce Clause, denies the plaintiff’s equal protection, and is superceded by the Clean Water Act and state laws. The recalled mayor of Murrieta was arrested in August for some of the same alleged conflict-of-interest transgressions that were issues in his removal from office last year. Jack van Haaster faces 10 felony counts of perjury and filing false documents related to loans he received or made. He also faces five misdemeanor counts of conflict of interest regarding actions taken to aid a day care center in which he allegedly had a financial stake. According to Riverside County prosecutors, van Haaster failed to list on annual disclosure reports filed with the city clerk and the Fair Political Practices Commission loans totaling $490,000 from a Murrieta resident, an employee at his accounting office and two Murrieta businessmen. Van Haaster also allegedly failed to report loans that he made to a local contractor. The day care center project — which was prominent during the recall campaign — involved a proposal from California Oaks Childcare to build a 394-student facility and swim academy on three acres in Murrieta. Prosecutors allege that van Haaster pressured four city planning commissioners to approve the project. He also voted for city-funded road improvements near the project site. Van Haaster’s daughter was listed as the childcare business owner, and the mayor recused himself when the project came before the City Council. Prosecutors, however, say bank records show van Haaster had invested $165,000 in the childcare center and received back $100,000. Van Haaster, who was on the Murrieta City Council for 12 years, is scheduled to be arraigned this month and could be sentenced to up to eight years in prison if convicted. The former mayor was arrested only hours before the City Council voted 3-1 to censure Councilman Warnie Enochs for voting on a shopping center project for which both he and his son have been subcontractors. Enochs is scheduled to go on trial this fall on unrelated charges of extortion, forgery and perjury involving a messy divorce. Siskiyou County Planning Director Wayne Virag has been fired amid questions about conflicts of interest and an investigation by local law enforcement authorities. The assistant planning director since 1995, Virag was named head of the department in August 2004. He has repeatedly said nothing more than paperwork errors are involved; the Board of Supervisors vote to dismiss him was divided 3-2. Greg Messer, a failed candidate for supervisor, first raised conflict of interest questions when he revealed during the recent campaign that Virag owned a real estate development business with William Roberts, who has had extensive dealings with county planners as a representative of cell phone companies. Virag did not list the business on annual economic disclosure forms required by the Fair Political Practices Commission, nor did he recuse himself from proposed use permit applications submitted by Roberts. Additionally, although Virag listed on his disclosure form only a mobile home park in Yreka, he apparently has an ownership interest in at least 11 real properties in Siskiyou County. Environmental Health Director Terry Barber has been named interim planning director. The City of Alameda may yet get to acquire upwards of 40 acres of railroad land at a small fraction of market price. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jon Tigar ruled that the city is entitled to buy the remnants of the Alameda Belt Line’s railway and a 22-acre rail yard for $966,000. The decision is the latest chapter in a seven-year battle over the Alameda Belt Line, which stopped operating in 1998. The city built the original 1.2-mile rail line in 1918 to serve the waterfront. The city sold the line to two railroads in 1924. However, a provision in the sale contract permitted the city to buy back the line and any extensions for their original costs if the railway stopped operating. Alameda Belt Line, now owned by Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe, argued that the provision no longer applied, but a state appellate court ruled that the contract could be enforced (see , December 2003). The appellate court sent the case back to Judge Tigar, who issued his ruling in August. Alameda Belt Line, which will appeal the latest decision, wants to sell 22 acres to developer Michael Valley, who plans to build 200 housing units. However, city voters in 2002 rezoned the property as open space, and activists are fighting for a city park. San Mateo voters will not decide the fate of the Bay Meadows horse track in November. San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Mark Forcum ruled that city and San Mateo County elections officials had acted properly in disqualifying petition signatures from people who listed different addresses than on their voter registration affidavits or who signed their names differently. Last year, the city approved Bay Meadows Land Company’s plan to build at least 1,000 housing units and 1 million square feet of office and retail space on the site of the horse track (see , March 2006). Project opponents fought back with a referendum, but after elections officials threw out questionable signatures, the referendum was about 100 signatures short of qualifying for the ballot. Referendum proponents sued, but Judge Forcum has now ruled against them. An appeal is likely. A referendum of a proposed development on a portion of Rancho San Juan in Monterey County also will apparently not appear on the November ballot. United States District Court Judge James Ware in August declined to order the referendum of the 1,100-unit Butterfly Village project onto the ballot, calling election law “unsettled.” After the Monterey County Board of Supervisors approved the project in November 2005, opponents quickly gathered enough signatures to force a referendum. However, because petitions were not circulated in both Spanish and English, the county refused to place the referendum on ballot. The county’s refusal followed Ware’s decision to block a Monterey County general plan initiative from the ballot for the same reason (see , June 2006). Ware declined to make a final decision in a lawsuit regarding the referendum until an en banc panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decides , No. 03-56259, an Orange County school board case involving similar Voting Rights Act issues. That case was argued in June and a decision is expected any time. The San Diego County Water Authority has dropped out of a plan to build a seawater desalination plant in Carlsbad. The authority’s board voted not to certify an environmental impact report for the desalination facility and to end negotiations with plant developer Poseidon Resources. The desalination plant would be linked to NRG Energy’s Encina power station, which is cooled with seawater. But NRG announced that it plans to demolish the plant and replace it with an air-cooled facility during the next 10 to 20 years. That announcement came a few months after the State Lands Commission announced that it wants to phase out coastal power plants that draw water from the ocean because of harm to marine life — a move that could threaten numerous desalination proposals. Still, the Carlsbad desalination plant, which would be the largest in the United States, remains alive. The City of Carlsbad is committed to the Poseidon proposal, and, in August, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board approved a discharge permit for the project. Next up is a Coastal Commission review.

Sutter County voters may get to relive the ballot-box growth wars of the early 1990s. In July, county officials began preparing an advisory measure for the November ballot regarding the potential development of at least 8,000 acres in the south end of the mostly rural county, near the Sacramento airport. Lennar Communities, which controls 2,700 acres on either side of Highway 99 just north of the Sacramento County line, approached Sutter County officials earlier this year about an advisory measure. Lennar has proposed 11,000 housing units on 1,400 acres, in addition to 700 acres of business parks and 600 acres for retail development and public facilities. Since Lennar’s proposal became public, other would-be developers have asked the county to add projects to the ballot measure. As of late July, the Board of Supervisors was considering a ballot measure that would cover a broad swath of the south county, most of which is farmland in the Natomas Basin. In 1991, voters rejected competing slow-growth ballot measures for south Sutter County. County officials then proceeded with processing a “new town” proposal for 25,000 acres with a potential population of 200,000 people. A lame-duck Board of Supervisors approved the project after the 1992 election, only to have a new board rescind all of the development agreements a few weeks later. In a June 1993 referendum, voters rejected the new town. (See , July 1993, December 1992, June 1991). Two years ago, supervisors approved a specific plan for 3,500 acres of industrial and commercial development in the south county. However, a judge threw out an environmental impact report for the project. (See , July 2003; , November 2002). The area in question is attractive to developers because of its proximity to the airport and downtown Sacramento. However, the area provides habitat to several rare species, and large chunks of the territory lie in the 100-year floodplain. The Palm Springs City Council has approved a hillside development at the same time that environmentalists and some residents are attempting to qualify an initiative that would block most hillside development. The City Council approved the 300-acre Palm Hills project in July. The project is a 350-room hotel, about 120 houses and a golf course. In approving the project, the council also approved a general plan text amendment that distinguishes between the San Jacinto Mountains (on the city’s west side) and the Santa Rosa Mountains. The Palm Hills Land Corporation project is in the Santa Rosa range, on the city’s south side. The general plan amendment notes that the topography and soils of the mountain ranges are different, and the Santa Rosa range is more suitable for development than the San Jacinto Mountains, said Jing Yeo, a principle planner for the city. The entire Palm Hills planning area covers 1,200 acres, about half of which is designated for open space. Residents complained that a hillside golf course resort would mar their view of the rugged, desert mountains, which have remained undeveloped. But Yeo said the project is on a plateau and would not be visible from the valley floor except at a great distance. Besides aesthetics, potential impacts on the endangered peninsular bighorn sheep are also an issue. City officials and the developer said the site does not provided sheep habitat, but the Sierra Club differed and intends to sue over the species issue. Meanwhile, backers of a hillside preservation initiative continue to gather signatures. The measure could reach the ballot in March 2005. A bill that allows local governments to adopt form-based zoning codes received Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s signature in late July. Assembly Bill 1268 (Wiggins) is based largely on a white paper produced last year by New Urbanist planners and architects for the Office of Planning and Research (see , May 2003). The white paper endorsed the use of form-based codes, which focus on the design of streets and buildings, but not on their uses. New Urbanists say this approach encourages development of truly mixed-use neighborhoods. Although several cities have dabbled with form-based codes, it has been unclear whether the codes complied with state planning law. The Wiggins bill makes clear that state law permits form-based codes. El Dorado County supervisors adopted a new county general plan in July. The county has been working under a court order since early 1999, when a Sacramento County judge ruled that the environmental impact report for a general plan adopted in 1996 was inadequate (see , March 1999). Since then, the county has been unable to process discretionary applications, including subdivision maps, for residential developments. The newly adopted plan is based largely on the 1996 version. Supervisors rejected a slower-growth “environmentally constrained” alternative that the Planning Commission had recommended. The county will now try to convince the court that the revised EIR and general plan satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act. That process could take several months — especially if slow-growth proponents challenge the county’s actions, which is expected. An Indian tribe has sued San Diego County Treasurer-Tax Collector Dan McAllister for attempting to impose the county’s transient occupancy tax (TOT) on a 200-room hotel on the tribe’s reservation. McAllister is seeking $1.6 million in TOT from a 200-room hotel on the reservation of the Rincon band of San Luiseno Indians, near Valley Center. The two-year-old hotel is operated by a subsidiary of Harrah’s, HCAL Corporation, and is next to the tribe’s casino. The tribe contends that HCAL neither owns nor leases the hotel, and that the tribe makes all of the business decisions. As sovereign nations, Indian tribes are exempt from local taxes. But McAllister contends that HCAL built, runs and profits from the hotel. “The last time I checked, Harrah’s is not a sovereign nation unto itself,” McAllister told the . A 470-room expansion of the hotel is under construction. A Placer County judge has blocked a growth initiative from appearing on the ballot in Roseville this November. The initiative sought to draw an urban growth boundary on the city’s west side. However, Superior Court Judge John Cosgrove ruled that the initiative petitions lacked a privacy statement, and maps and charts referenced by the initiative. An EIR for a University of California, Davis long-range development plan has been upheld by an Alameda County Superior Court judge. Neighbors upset about the plan’s proposal for a 1,600-unit residential village west of the campus had contested the EIR, including the document’s treatment of alternatives (see , January 2004; , August 2000). But Judge Connie Sabraw found that the environmental study was adequate. The Woodland City Council unanimously rejected an application from Wal-Mart to expand an existing 127,000-square-foot store into a 210,000-square-foot “supercenter” that would sell groceries. City officials called the July decision “a planning decision.” Meanwhile, 40 miles to the south in the City of Lodi, Wal-Mart announced it would join with the Lodi Chamber of Commerce in fighting a ballot initiative that would prohibit stores of more than 125,000 square feet without voter approval. The initiative, which has qualified for the November ballot, would block a proposed Wal-Mart supercenter. Correction. A story in the May edition incorrectly stated that an initiative in Inglewood marked the first time that Wal-Mart had used a ballot initiative in an attempt to gain approval of a new store. In fact, Wal-Mart backed an initiative for a proposed store in Eureka in 1999 (see , October 1999). In both cases, voters rejected the Wal-Mart initiative.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed a critical habitat designation for the California red-legged frog that is 80% smaller than originally proposed. Twice during the last five years USFWS has proposed critical habitat plans for the frog covering 4.1 million acres. The latest proposal designates 738,000 acres in 23 counties. The Service reduced the amount of habitat considered critical to the endangered frog’s survival after development and business groups complained that earlier designations did not consider economic impacts. Builders still maintained that the latest designation is too large, while environmentalists said there was no scientific basis for the reduction. A final decision on critical habitat is due in early 2006. The Golden Gate Audubon Society and Californians for Renewable Energy have sued Alameda County for not preparing an environmental impact report before renewing use permits for windmills in the Altamont Pass area, where windmills kill hundreds of raptors every year. The county approved the use permits in late September with conditions that are intended to reduce bird deaths over time (see , August 2005). However, environmentalists said the measures did not do enough and that an EIR was required. County officials were anticipating the lawsuit. Over the objection of environmentalists and residents complaining about traffic congestion, the Orange City Council approved development by the Irvine Company of up to 3,992 housing units on 2,500 acres on the eastern edge of town. The plan calls for 128 affordable condominium units and 4,300 acres of protected wilderness areas. Litigation over the project’s impacts is likely.

The housing deficit continues to grow in the Bay Area, which produced only 83% of needed housing units from 1999 through 2005, according to a report by the Bay Area Council. The production of affordable units was even worse, as the nine-county region produced only 42% of the very low-, low- and moderate-income units prescribed in the Association of Bay Area Governments’ regional housing needs determination (RHND). The Council, a CEO-led business organization, said the region’s housing situation is an economic concern. “While salaries tend to be high in the region, costs of living are even higher than comparative regions (almost exclusively due to housing costs), resulting in workers paying a very large ‘premium’ to reside in this region,” the Council concluded. “Thus, as talented workers consider where to live, very high housing costs can discourage new talent from moving to the Bay Area while pushing current residents elsewhere.” Contra Costa County has produced more than its share of total units, and Solano County has nearly met its overall share. Other counties, however, saw less building than prescribed by the RHND. San Mateo County’s 9,365 permits were only 59% of the county’s housing share. Interestingly, the Council found that the jurisdictions that fell the farthest short of their RHND goals were cities of 35,000 to 75,000 people. Together, they had produced only 59% of their RHND total. Smaller cities jointly exceeded their target figures, and larger cities met 85% of their RHND goals. Seven cities provided more than 100% of their share of affordable units: San Jose, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, Hercules, Pinole, San Bruno and Colma. The cities of Petaluma and San Pablo nearly met their goals, according to the Council. The Bay Area Council, previously headed by outgoing Business, Transportation and Housing Secretary Sunne Wright McPeak, urged approval of SB 1800 (Ducheny). The builder-sponsored bill would require local governments to zone for 20 years of housing needs and prepare 10-year housing plans, increase by-right developments and decrease environmental review. However, the bill has received little support (see , page 3). The Council’s report is available at www.bayareacouncil.org .

The state Department of Water Resources (DWR) has recommended that the City of Sacramento consider limiting development in the Natomas Basin, the fastest growing part of the city, because of flood threats (see , October 2005). In July, the Army Corps of Engineers reported that Natomas lacks 100-year flood protection because of levee seepage concerns. “This is particularly troubling since Natomas is a deep basin and may experience flooding in excess of 15 feet,” DWR Director Lester Snow wrote to Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo. “With less than 100-year flood protection, the chance of homes flooding over the next 10 years is approximately 10%, much greater than the risk of a home fire.” The letter emphasizes that DWR is working with the city and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency to upgrade the levees, and that voter approval of two bonds in November will help. In the meantime, though, DWR urged the city to consider: • Limiting new construction; • Requiring building designs relative to potential flooding depth; • Notifying property owners and renters annually of the flood risk; • Requiring builders to provide flood insurance to new residents until “the minimum level of flood protection is achieved;” • A “robust assessment of flood risk in general plan updates,” and possibly new policies. The state agency sent a similar letter to Sutter County, in which the northern end of the Natomas Basin lies. Sacramento officials expressed some frustration with the letter, and there are no indications the city will slow Natomas development. Sutter County officials said development of the planned 7,500-acre Sutter Point project will not likely get started before levees are upgraded. of Supervisors has voted 3-2 to pay the developer of a 440-acre project in Upland $102 million to settle a lawsuit filed by the developer. Colonies Partners sued the county’s flood control district over the cost of providing a 65-acre flood control project in the midst of the 1,150-unit project (see , February 2004; , December 2003). The litigation had already reached an appellate court once and appeared headed back in July when a Superior Court for a second time ruled that the flood control district’s easements on the property no longer existed, meaning the county would have to purchase the land for the flood control channel and basin. The county counsel’s office and outside attorneys with Jones Day disputed the ruling and recommended against a settlement, but a sharply divided board approved the $102 million agreement anyway. Dissenting Supervisors Dennis Hansberger and Josie Gonzales contended Colonies Partners never provided documentation to support the amount of the settlement, and Hansberger later told the that a taxpayer lawsuit for a gift of public funds would be “entirely appropriate.” But the board majority said it was in the best interest of everyone to settle the matter. The flood control district will apparently use its reserves, issue bonds and sell surplus property to make the $102 million in payments over 10 years. The City of Lynwood’s Redevelopment Agency shorted its low- and moderate-income housing fund by $193,000 over three years, spent nearly half of housing monies on planning and administration, failed to record affordability covenants on subsidized housing units, and held property longer than legally permitted, according to a recent audit by the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). For the three years audited, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05, the agency deducted pass-through amounts, fees and transfers to schools from the gross tax increment before allocating money to the low/mod housing fund, according to HCD. The result was $193,000 less than required for the housing account, as state law mandates that 20% of gross increment go into the affordable housing fund. The city blamed Los Angeles County accountants and concurred with HCD’s conclusion. The redevelopment agency spent 13%, 48% and 45% of low/mod housing funds on planning and administration during the three audited years, without determining that the expenses were necessary. The agency countered that it was negotiating and approving two affordable housing projects during that period. State auditors reported that they were unable to confirm affordability restrictions for housing units subsidized by the redevelopment agency. The agency said that no redevelopment funds had been used for the projects, as the city relied on federal funding for affordable housing projects. However, HCD said that assertion contradicted the agency’s audited financial statements, which say the agency spent more than $1.3 million on housing rehabilitation and construction over a six-year period. The city should expect a follow-up audit on this issue, HCD said. As for the six properties held longer than the five- or 10-year statutory maximum, the agency reported that it had sold three parcels to the city for a park, is developing one parcel, and is negotiating with a developer regarding two others. Water began flowing in the Lower Owens River in December when Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa turned a control knob opening a gate that has directed the river into the Los Angeles Aqueduct since 1913. After decades of political battles and litigation involving Inyo County and environmentalists, Los Angeles in 1991 agreed to restore the river. But the city moved slowly, prompting more litigation. The city lost recent rounds and was facing the loss of some water rights if it did not start restoring the river (see , October 2006). The river will now flow an additional 62 miles through the Owens Valley before the city diverts it into the aqueduct. The project also includes restoration of riparian habitat along the river. Cynthia Bryant is the new director of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Bryant replaces Sean Walsh, whom Gov. Schwarzenegger has named a senior advisor. Bryant most recently served as chief deputy legislative secretary for the governor. Prior to that, she was a policy aide to state Senate Republicans, legal counsel for the Assembly Republican Caucus and counsel to the Assembly Rules Committee. Gov. Schwarzenegger has extended the life of the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley by two years, until the end of 2008. The governor formed the partnership headed by members of his cabinet in 2005 to address economic, transportation, land use and social issues in the eight-county region (see , February 2006). Thus far, the group’s major success has been getting attention focused on the need for Highway 99 improvements. The truce between the City of Berkeley and the University of California over campus development appears to have crumbled. In December, the UC Board of Regents approved the “southeast campus integrated projects” program, which calls for renovating and seismically strengthening Memorial Stadium, constructing a 142,000-square-foot athletic center, and converting the Bowles Hall dormitory into suites for corporate executives attending classes. Two weeks later, the city filed a lawsuit, contending that the project violates the Alquist-Priolo seismic safety law, and that the project description and UC’s search for alternative sites were inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act. A neighborhood association and environmental groups have filed two other lawsuits over the projects. In 2005, the city and UC reached a settlement over the school’s long range development plan after years of antagonism (see , July 2005; , June 2005). But the friendly feelings are apparently over. The City of Berkeley eased its historic preservation regulations in December, when the City Council approved a revised preservation ordinance. In November, Berkeley voters rejected an initiative that would have locked in place the previous regulations. The new rules make it harder to designate historic sites and structures, and make it easier to remove things from the protected list. Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates repeatedly argued that the old rules were abused to halt development.

Even if they disagree with each other sometimes, state and local officials are trying to make it easier to get development projects through the CEQA process. Jerry Brown recently used his 2011 CEQA reforms to get a solar project approved in Riverside County. Meanwhile, Fresno County streamlined its CEQA process even as Brown has attempted to intervene in disputes between Fresno city, the county, and Madera County over greenfield development. Brown Uses CEQA Reforms to Approve Solar Project CA.gov Last week Governor Brown certified the McCoy Solar Project in Riverside County under the terms of his 2011 CEQA reforms (AB 900), making it the second project to be certified since he signed the bill in September 2011.  AB 900 allows projects to be eligible for expedited review. Brown says the billion-dollar renewable solar facility is projected to generate clean solar power, create over 340 jobs, and invest at least $100 million in the state.  A RDA Success Story For Long Beach LA Streetsblog The former RDA effort to revamp downtown Long Beach provides a unique example of something positive coming from the state's dissolution of the RDA last year. A four-phase project to redo downtown streetscapes was slimmed down to focus solely on Pine Avenue, the main downtown corridor. .  Recently Approved Regulatory Change Makes Development Easier in Fresno County  Fresno Bee Amid concerns that Fresno and Madera counties have made development of greenfield projects too easy, the Fresno County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to approve a regulatory change that will help speed up the county's development process. The change allows developers to hire their own consultants, instead of the county contracting to a third party, for CEQA required reviews of project proposals. Opposing groups call this change a conflict of interest; however supervisors hold that there is no conflict of interest since the county will continue to oversee the environmental review process of proposed projects.  Metro Approves Use of Measure R Funds for the 710 Freeway Coalition LA streetsblog The City of Rosemead is using a portion of its Measure R local return funds to pay for its membership fees in the 710 Coalition. Although many oppose the use of local tax dollars to support the highly controversial I-710 extension project, Metro claims that this use falls within the Metro funding guidelines.  US DOT Prioritizes Walking and Biking in New Design Standards DC streetsblog Traditionally, US DOT has relied on adopted roadway guidelines that favor the automobile and render roadways unsafe for bicyclists and pedestrians. Now for the first time, US DOT is setting out to create its own set of design standards that prioritize safer streets for biking and walking. Secretary of Transportation, Raymond LaHood, says that DOT will draw from best practices and collaborate with AASHTO and NACTO to develop standards that create a safer experience for all roadway users.  Council Candidate Visions A New LA Rail Line With Streetcar Curbed LA Los Angeles Council District 13 candidate, Matt Szabo, revealed his comprehensive transportation vision for the area in a plan titled, "This Could Be Us: A Public Transit Vision That Works". The plan includes a new rail line running along Sunset Boulevard, connecting Hollywood to other destination areas, like Dodger Stadium and Downtown LA, a new streetcar along Riverside Drive connecting to the downtown streetcar, and an extension to Metro's existing red and purple rail lines. Szabo's plan aims to improve the area's connectivity, improve access to public space, and advance efforts for increasing green space, like the Hollywood Central Park freeway capping project. San Diego Preps Region for CA's High Speed Rail U-T San Diego San Diego is in the process of preparing the county's rail lines for the state's future high-speed rail network. The blueprints , as part of the draft CA State Rail Plan, aim to combine the existing rail system with the future rail system needed to accommodate the state's new bullet-train network. Although the high-speed rail isn't expected to operate through San Diego for decades, officials are committed to improving regional access to future network connections in Los Angeles and San Diego by investing in its current light rail system.

Gov. Schwarzenegger waited until the last minute to take action on the most important housing bills of the 2004 legislative year, signing some and vetoing others. The most controversial housing bill that the governor signed is SB 1818 (Hollingsworth), which increases the maximum density bonus for certain affordable housing projects from 25% to 35%. One way developers can qualify for the larger density bonus is by donating land for future affordable housing projects. The bill also requires cities to provide affordable housing developers with three incentives of the developer's choice. That final provision is a major concern, said Sande George, lobbyist for the California Chapter of the American Planning Association. It appears a developer could use the provision to avoid paying mitigation fees, utility connection charges, and planning fees, she said. But bill supporters say they envision the incentives being things like smaller setbacks or relaxed parking requirements. Under the legislation, a city may refuse to grant a concession if the city makes findings. Also receiving the governor's endorsement were AB 2348 (Mullin) and AB 2158 (Lowenthal), both of which make changes to the housing element process (see , June 2004). The governor vetoed two other high-profile housing bills, both by Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento). One of the failed bills was AB 2702, which would have reduced local government discretion over second units. “As a strong proponent of local control,” the governor said in his veto statement, “I believe that government is most responsive and accountable to people when it is close to the people. This bill removes that control away from local officials, where homeowners and residents can voice their concerns about their neighborhoods and moves it to a state bureaucracy in Sacramento.” The second bill Schwarzenegger rejected was AB 1426, which would have provided $1 million from the Proposition 46 housing bond to fund incentives for affordable housing production in the Sacramento region. The governor said it was inappropriate for the state to set aside the bond funds for one region's programs. Interestingly, both vetoes came despite Business, Housing and Transportation Secretary Sunne Wright McPeak's support for the Steinberg bills. Housing advocates were disappointed. “This governor may be more receptive than any of his predecessors over the last 25 years to local government arguments for local control,” the California Housing Law Project said in an October memorandum. BESIDES THE HOUSING BILLS, the governor also took action on two other bills that could have indirect land use implications. Schwarzenegger signed AB 2572, which requires cities, special districts and other water providers with at least 3,000 connections to install water meters by 2025 (not by 2013, as reported by in September). The largest cities affected are Sacramento and Modesto. Meanwhile, the governor vetoed a bill that would have capped air pollution limits at the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles at current levels. Schwarzenegger said AB 2042 (Lowenthal) “would not reduce air pollution in any way.” Instead, he called for a new state and federal program of financial and regulatory incentives to reduce port air pollution. AS EXPECTED, CALTRANS DID NOT AWARD A BID a bid to build the “signature” portion of a new, seismically safe San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. However, instead of asking for a bid extension, the state simply let the $1.4 billion bid expire on September 30. The bid from a consortium of bridge builders for the self-anchored cable suspension span was about double what Caltrans had estimated, and the bid helped make clear just how expensive the proposed eastern Bay Bridge replacement may be ( , October 2004). The estimated cost of the project has jumped from $1.3 billion to $5.1 billion since 1997. The state has convened a panel of experts to reconsider the Bay Bridge design. A report to the Legislature is due in December. More than half of the state's cities and counties have not completed a comprehensive general plan update in at least 10 years. According to a letter from the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to the attorney's general's office, 288 cities (out of 477) have not completed an update in at least a decade, nor have 37 of the state's 58 counties. However, OPR did report that 75 cities and 19 counties are currently working on comprehensive plan updates. OPR defines a “comprehensive” update as a revision of at least five of the seven required general plan elements. AT A HEARING ATTENDED BY MORE THAN 1,000 people, the Los Angeles City Council approved phase two of the Playa Vista project on the city's west side. Phase two will slide between housing that is already under development on the project's west end, and a 3 million-square-foot office and industrial park on the project's east end (see , October 2003). With 2,600 housing units, 175,000 square feet of office space and 150,000 square feet of retail space, phase two is proposed to contain the mixed-use aspects that Playa Vista backers have touted. In all, Playa Vista will have about 5,800 housing units. Even though about 600 of Playa Vista's 1,087 acres are being set aside for open space, wetlands habitat or parks, development opponents persist. During the City Council hearing, they complained bitterly, especially about traffic congestion. Litigation over phase two approvals is next. A RAND CORPORATION STUDY is the latest to link low-density, suburban-style development with public health problems. The Santa Monica-based think tank found that adults who live in the most sprawling cities have a health profile similar to someone who is four years older and living in a more compact city. The RAND study identified the Riverside-San Bernardino region as the nation's most sprawling. Among the health conditions more prevalent among residents of sprawling areas are high blood pressure, arthritis, headaches and breathing difficulties - even after accounting for factors such as age, race, income and local environmental conditions. “To improve our health the study suggests that we should build cities where people feel comfortable walking and are not so dependent on cars,” said Dr. Deborah Cohen, a RAND researcher and study co-author. The study is available on the RAND website at: www.rand.org/research_areas/health/index.html . A STATE APPELLATE COURT has for the first time invalidated an urban water management plan. In an unpublished decision, the Fifth District Court of Appeal rejected the Castaic Lake Water Agency's plan. Castaic's urban water management plan - which is supposed to address 20-year supplies and needs - has received criticism since the agency adopted the document in 2000. The agency sells water at both wholesale and retail in the Santa Clarita Valley. The Sierra Club and Friends of the Santa Clara River sued over the plan in 2001, as did Ventura County, which eventually dropped out of the litigation. Earlier this year, directors of the Newhall County Water District, which purchases water wholesale from the Castaic agency, cast a no-confidence vote regarding the plan (see , March 2004). The environmentalists contend that the plan improperly relies on “paper water” from the oversubscribed State Water Project and questionable groundwater supplies. The Fifth District rejected the plan because it did not properly account for perchlorate contamination from a closed munitions factory in Saugus. “If the perchlorate contamination impairs the supply of water taken from the Saugus formation in dry years, the districts plan to restore full production capacity by treating the contaminated water,” Justice Dennis Cornell wrote for the court. “While the treatment facilities are being built, the districts have no plan to cover the reduction in water available from the Saugus formation. “Thus, the plan's description of the perchlorate contamination and the method for addressing that contamination is flawed because it fails to (1) address the time needed to implement the available method for treating the contaminated water and (2) describe the reliability of the groundwater supply during that implementation period,” Cornell continued. The implications of the court ruling are unclear, although the decision places planners in a tenuous situation. In the meantime, the Castaic agency is preparing the mandated five-year update to the water plan. THE CONFLICT BETWEEN A CONDOMINIUM tower and a multi-modal transportation depot in downtown San Francisco has concluded with the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voting to purchase the condo site via eminent domain. Developer Jack Myers had actually begun preliminary construction on a 423-unit, 51-story condominium project across the street from the site of the planned transbay terminal (see , August 2004). Construction of the condominiums apparently would have prevented construction of an underground rail line to the terminal. The Transbay Joint Powers Authority suggested both projects could go forward if a huge concrete foundation were built under the residential tower. Supervisors, however, rejected the idea as risky and costly, and instead voted to acquire Myers' site on Natoma Street for $32 million. The city would pay half and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission the other half. Myers, who vowed to continue with a lawsuit over the terminal's environmental impact report, will likely press for a higher price. SAN FRANCISCO SUPERVISORS in October approved a 45-day moratorium on the demolition of one- and two-screen movie theaters. A proposal to raze the Richmond District's 4 Star theater to make room for a church spurred the moratorium, which supervisors are likely to extend this month. In the meantime, the city is considering a process in which developers would have to prove that a proposed theater demolition would not harm a neighborhood. PACIFIC LUMBER COMPANY (PALCO) and state agencies have been ordered to pay $6 million in attorneys' fees after losing a lawsuit over a “sustained yield plan” for 200,000 acres of forest owned by PALCO on California's north coast. The award of attorneys' fees is one of the largest ever in an environmental case, and an appeal is certain. The logging plan was drawn up as part of the $480 million deal in which the state purchased a portion of the Headwaters Forest in Humboldt County from PALCO. The Environmental Protection Information Center and the United Steelworkers Union challenged the plan on a variety of grounds, winning the case in 2003. More recently, Lake County Superior Court Judge John Golden awarded EPIC $4.3 million in fees and the union $1.8 million. The administrative record in the case contains more than 75,000 pages. AFTER MORE THAN A DECADE of planning, discussion and controversy, the City of Los Angeles broke ground in October on a new pedestrian path around Silver Lake Reservoir. The 2.2-mile long pathway will encircle the 126-acre property and have varying amounts of separation from the street. The project also includes the planting of street trees and a new chain-link fence along the west side of Silver Lake. The $4.2 million project, funded by the state and city, is the highest priority of the Silver Lake and Ivanhoe Reservoirs master plan. The bodies of water have been off limits to the public since the 1940s, and the city during the 1980s proposed covering them because they provide drinking water. Area residents fought that plan and have worked ever since to get some limited use of the public property.

A bill concerning development under military airspace continues to evolve in the state Legislature. Senate Bill 1462 originally proposed creation of the Military Greenway Commission, to which cities and counties in Southern California would have to report proposed developments that could impact the military. But the bill’s author, Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), expanded the measure into a California Environmental Quality Act amendment that would force local governments to consider a project’s potential impact on military operations. In mid-May, Kuehl again amended the bill, dropping the CEQA provisions. Instead, the bill would require local governments to notify the military of proposed development projects, general plan amendments or plan updates when the property in question lies beneath a low-level flight path or adjacent to a military base. The military branch involved could then request a consultation with the public agency or project applicant. The bill also requires the governor to create a conflict-resolution process. The CEQA version of the bill generated a firestorm of opposition from developers, business groups, and some cities and counties with military bases. It appears unlikely that the latest bill amendments will satisfy opponents. The bill was written at least partially in response to Tejon Ranch’s plans for a new town of 60,000 people at Interstate 5 and Highway 138. Portions of the 11,700-acre project site underlie a low-level flight path used for training military pilots (see , April 2003). Kuehl and the bill’s backers — which are mostly environmental groups — say the measure is necessary to prevent conflicts between urban development and military activities, and they point to the round of base closings that is scheduled to commence in 2005. Opponents say the measure is unnecessary and only an attempt to block development. At the committee level, the bill has received mostly partisan supports. But the measure puts some conservative lawmakers in a difficult position because a vote for property rights could also be portrayed as a vote against military readiness. A former development company executive is the new director of the state Department of Housing and Community Development. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed Lucy Dunn to the post effective June 1. Dunn spent 12 years with the Koll Company and its affiliates. Most recently, she was executive vice president of development for Hearthside Homes, where she negotiated deals concerning Bolsa Chica entitlements and wetlands restoration (see , January 2002). An attorney, Dunn is vice president of the California Building Industry Association and a director of the National Association of Home Builders. Dunn succeeds Matthew Franklin, who served as HCD director for a year before taking a position as head of San Francisco’s housing programs. Gov. Schwarzenegger has signed a bill that makes it easier for local governments to adopt transit village plans. Under the original Transit Village Development Planning Act, a transit village could be created only around a rail station, and only if the local government could prove the project would 13 specific public benefits, such as redevelopment of depressed neighborhoods, promotion of job opportunities, and increased stock of affordable housing. Assembly Bill 1320 (Dutra) permits creation of a transit village around any sort of rail station, a bus hub, a bus transfer station or a ferry terminal. The bill also reduces the public benefit requirement from 13 to five. The controversy over a proposed quarry and concrete batch plant just outside Santa Clarita continues. In May, U.S. District Court Judge Dickran Tevrizian approved a consent decree between Cemex and Los Angeles County that allows the mine to go forward. However, the Santa Clarita City Council has voted to appeal the consent decree to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit in February directed the lower court to let the city intervene in the lawsuit. Cemex sued the county more than two years ago, after the county rejected the Mexican mining company’s proposed quarry in Soledad Canyon, off Highway 14. Under the settlement, the company must pay about $1.5 million over several years into a fund to address air quality, traffic and open space impacts. The company also must widen Soledad Canyon Road between the quarry and the freeway. The Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 for the settlement, with Supervisor Michael Antonovich, who represents the area, firmly opposed. The city contends the mine will harm already poor air quality, increase traffic congestion, threaten groundwater and scar a prominent hillside. The city also insists that environmental studies should be updated. In an interesting twist, the city earlier this year purchased for $1 million the 493 acres where the mine is proposed. But the Bureau of Land Management owns the property’s mineral rights and has issued mining permits to Cemex. Both U.S. Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Santa Clarita) and Sen. Barbara Boxer have introduced bills that would block the mine. One development company that has vigorously fought another company’s project in El Segundo lost yet another round in May. In an unpublished decision, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled against Kilroy Realty. Kilroy had alleged that the City of El Segundo had manipulated the CEQA process to aid Thomas Properties Group, which plans to develop 2.2 million square feet of office and retail space near the Los Angeles International Airport (see , May 2002). Kilroy lost an earlier round of the lawsuit at the trial court level. Two years ago this month, Kilroy lost at the ballot box when two-thirds of El Segundo voters rejected a Kilroy-funded referendum of the project. The 46-acre site of “Campus El Segundo” has been vacant since the early 1990s, when Rockwell International closed and then demolished an aerospace industry factory. Voters in Azusa approved a specific plan for 500 acres owned by Monrovia Nursery during a special election in May. The plan calls for 1,250 housing units, including single-family houses, condominiums and apartments, a retail “promenade,” an elementary school, a transit plaza around a Metrolink rail line, and 200 acres of parks and open space. A group called Azusans for Responsible Growth opposed the project, contending it contained too many housing units. After the city approved the project last year, the group gathered signatures on a referendum. The city found the referendum flawed, so the group sued. The city then put the plan on the ballot anyway, and the plan won favor with 75% of voters. In 1999, city voters overturned approval of a 1,600-unit development on the nursery site, which Monrovia is vacating. The city then undertook a lengthy planning process with heavy public involvement (see , February 2002). The resulting plan is the one voters endorsed in May. A five-member commission charged with examining the proposal to divide Santa Barbara County in two has been appointed by the governor. The commission has up to one year to report on the proposal to carve Mission County out of the northern and western portions of Santa Barbara County (see , July 2003). The commissioners are Jack Boysen, a retired developer and member of the county Planning Commission from Santa Maria; former Solvang Mayor June Christensen; retired San Luis Obispo County Assessor Dick Frank; former Santa Barbara Mayor Harriet Miller; and former San Jose City Manager and retired airlines executive Ted Tedesco. Private water companies should be eligible for Proposition 50 bond funds , according to a recommendation from the Legislative Analyst’s Office. In a May 14 report, the LAO found that legal and tax issues could be resolved, so the issue is one of policy for the Legislature. Proposition 50 — a $3.4 billion resources bond approved in November 2002, — does not address public versus private eligibility, and the LAO has urged lawmakers to set a clear policy. Senate Bill 909 (Machado) could provide the policy. The LAO reported that 23% of Californians get their water from private companies, the majority of which are quite small. Those companies appear to be eligible for portions of $1.4 billion in six different Proposition 50 categories. Making those monies available to private water companies would further the public purpose of Proposition 50, the LAO concluded. The LAO’s report is available at www.lao.ca.gov .

The Bush administration brought its efforts to change environmental regulations to California in September, when high-ranking appointees conducted “listening sessions” in Redding and Colton — two of 24 informal hearings across the country intended to carry out a 2004 executive order calling for “cooperative conservation.” Department of Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey called cooperative conservation the “fourth chapter” in American conservation, following on the initiatives of Theodore Roosevelt, the New Deal, and the environmental movement of the 1960s and ’70s. At the Redding hearing, attended by about 140 people, environmentalists expressed skepticism that landowners, developers and resources industries would be willing to cooperate for the sake of the environment unless strong laws require such action. “Voluntary compliance is a beautiful idea, but we don’t think it has a chance working,” said William Oliver, of the Audubon Society’s Wintu Chapter. He and other environmentalists urged federal officials to “believe in the science that we are paying for.” However, numerous timber industry representatives at the Redding session focused their comments on the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Tim Feller, a district manager for Sierra Pacific Industries, called the two laws “onerous” and difficult to comply with. The Endangered Species Act “has turned into a hammer on private lands,” said Dave Bischel, president of the California Forestry Association. “Put away your hammer,” he told the officials. Representatives of environmental groups did endorse existing programs that bring conservationists, landowners, ranchers and others together. But the environmentalists spoke repeatedly about the need for more funding and pointed out that the administration has proposed reduced funding. Federal officials have offered little indication of what they will do to implement cooperative conservation, or when. There is a website: http://cooperativeconservation.gov .