Search Results

An Oregon property rights initiative has been upheld by that state’s Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision issued February 21, the court ruled that Measure 37 did not violate equal protection and due process rights, and did not improperly restrict state lawmakers’ land use authority. The decision overturned a trial court ruling issued last fall that found the initiative violated the federal and state constitutions. The ruling could provide a boost to similar proposed ballot measures elsewhere, including California. Approved by 61% of Oregon voters in November 2004, Measure 37 requires the government to either compensate property owners for land use regulations promulgated after the owner acquired property or not apply the regulations. The initiative backed by a group called Oregonians in Action was a direct attack on the state’s 30-year-old planning law that many planners see as a national model. The law prohibits most development outside of urban areas. Within months of Measure 37’s passage, landowners filed at least 2,500 applications for development in rural areas. With no money to compensate landowners, counties took many different approaches to the applications. Everything froze, however, when a Marion County Circuit Court judge invalidated the initiative. The state Supreme Court did not find constitutional flaws in Measure 37. The court rejected the argument that Measure 37 violated equal protection rights by establishing classes of people that others could not join, and that the measure violated due process rights by favoring certain property owners over others. “Although it is true that neither the state nor the federal constitution compensation to individuals who suffer any loss in property value as a consequence of land use regulation,” the court ruled, “it is equally true that neither constitution requiring such compensation in the manner provided for in Measure 37. The people, in exercising their initiative power, were free to enact Measure 37 in furtherance of policy objectives such as compensating landowners for a diminution in property value resulting from certain land use regulations or otherwise relieving landowners from some of the financial burden of certain land use regulations.” The case is , Oregon State Supreme Court No. S52875. Only days before the ruling, the farm bureau in the state of Washington filed an initiative similar to Measure 37. A local, California version of Measure 37 is scheduled to be on the ballot this June in Napa County, which currently bars most development in agricultural and watershed areas. The “fair pay” initiative would require compensation for land use regulation similar to Measure 37. A city charter amendment in Chula Vista that would limit the city’s eminent domain authority has been placed on the ballot by the City Council. The measure would prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes and would require the city to own for at least 10 years property it acquires via eminent domain. A group called Chula Vistans for Private Property Protection submitted about 14,000 signatures on the ballot measure in January. The group appeared to lack the number of signatures required to place a charter amendment on the ballot. But the City Council, without endorsing the amendment, voted unanimously in late February to put the measure on the ballot anyway. Exactly how the measure would affect the city’s redevelopment agency is unclear because the agency is not bound by the city charter. The state attorney general’s office revealed in February that it is continuing to monitor three redevelopment agencies that were cited last year for major violations of the Community Redevelopment Law by the state controller’s office. In a letter responding to an inquiry by state Sen. Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego), Attorney General Bill Lockyer said redevelopment agencies in Calapatria, Hawaiian Gardens and Santa Ana remain under scrutiny. In Calapatria, the redevelopment agency used low- and moderate-income housing funds to purchase 29 acres that the agency intended to sell to a developer for a market-rate housing project. The city said the developer would fully reimburse the low/mod housing fund. In Hawaiian Gardens, the controller questioned the redevelopment agency’s acquisition of 17 properties. The attorney general’s office demanded more information but has not received it. In Santa Ana, the redevelopment agency sold a parking lot to a commercial developer for $1 and then leased back 150 spaces for $15,000 per month, with the city subleasing parking spaces from the agency for $6,000 a month. Low/mod housing money is involved in the deal. “The arrangement appears to be problematic, and we anticipate taking further action in the matter, including the possibility of litigation,” Lockyer wrote. As expected, the Western Riverside Council of Governments increased a development mitigation fee for regional transportation to nearly $10,000 per house, effective in July. The Western Riverside COG has been a leader in the growing statewide movement to assess new development for regional highway, road and transit projects. The group claims that its transportation uniform mitigation fee (TUMF) is the largest, multi-jurisdictional transportation development fee program in the country. Since it was implemented in July 2003, the fee has generated about $800 million for projects. However, transportation officials said rising construction costs and faster-than-anticipated growth forced a fee revision. The new fees are $9,639 per single-family home (up from $7,247), $6,806 per multi-family unit (up from $5,021), $12.49 per square foot for retail development (up from $8.51 per square foot), $2.27 per square foot for industrial development (up from $1.58 per square foot) and $6.33 per square foot for services (up from $5.28 a square foot). The nonresidential fees will be phased in over three years. Some development interests and city officials argued against the fee hike, saying the charges would hinder needed growth and send desirable projects to neighboring San Bernardino County, where fees are lower. A new federal Environmental Protection Agency “smart growth” report on balancing parking needs with broader community goals highlights planning for two projects in California. The report, called “Parking Spaces/Community Places,” provides an extensive review of the proposed NASA Research Park (NRP) at the decommissioned Moffett Field Navy base in Mountain View. Using typical parking ratios, the 2-million-square-foot research park would need about 7,500 parking spaces. But a transportation demand management plan instead calls for only 5,200 spaces on the site. The reduction in parking spaces is made possible by the overall development’s inclusion of nearby housing with sidewalks and bike paths, shuttle busses and bus passes, charging tenants and lessees for parking, and forcing different users to share parking spaces. The second project profiled is a proposed 162-room hotel in downtown Long Beach. Under the city’s ordinance, the hotel and accompanying 35,000-square-foot retail project would have had to provide 302 parking spaces. That was neither financially feasible for the developer, nor preferable to the city, which wants to encourage pedestrian activity. The on-site parking requirement was eventually knocked down to 162 spaces through a hotel valet parking system, relaxed parking standards, and the payment of in-lieu fees to the city, which will provide public parking spaces. Parking Spaces/Community Places as well as a new report on best management practices for stormwater and two reports regarding water and high-density development are available on the EPA’s smart growth website, www.epa.gov/smartgrowth . The Department of Water Resources has completed an overhaul of the California Water Plan. Unlike previous state water plans, which forecast large deficits in the amount of water that would be available, this plan says needs can be met through 2030 through more efficient water use, underground water banking, recycling of treated wastewater, desalination projects and a relatively small amount of new surface storage. The complete report is available at www.waterplan.water.ca.gov .

California city councils may be in a short time window when it's to their advantage to pass local bans on plastic bags. They became more safely able to do so as of April 16 when the state Supreme Court declined to review the ruling by California's First District that upheld San Francisco's ban on plastic bags last winter. That decision was ordered published in January. At the other end of their time window is a deadline that could be imposed if the Legislature passes SB 270, proposed by State Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Pacoima. The Contra Costa Times , reporting on Pleasant Hill's proposed ban at http://bit.ly/1haLlbd, noted that, if passed, the Padilla bill would grandfather plastic bag bans imposed before September 1, 2014 but would impose a uniform ban statewide for areas that by then had not yet passed their own plastic bag laws. For SB 270's text and legislative progress see http://bit.ly/1o0lkjH. As of this writing it had passed the Senate and was on its third bounce through policy committees in the Assembly. Links: Bill Fulton's detailed account of the appellate decision for CP&DR is at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3426. The appellate court's online docket on the San Francisco case is at http://bit.ly/1tRLtoW. The advocacy site "Plasticbaglaws.org" provides a usefully thorough picture of plastic bag ban litigation around California, with links to official sites, at http://plasticbaglaws.org/litigation/ (In addition to the Marin chronology shown there, the state Supreme Court review was denied in the Marin case in October.) The Grist Web site, writing from an advocacy perspective, provides a national picture of plastic bag bans, in which California cities are prominent: http://grist.org/article/plastic-bag-bans-spreading-in-the-united-states/ Huntington Beach, which previously banned plastic bags, recently allowed the sale of reusable paper bags: http://cbsloc.al/POIIEz The Encore Recycling Company of Salinas, which recycles agricultural plastic into bags, was preparing to capitalize on a provision being considered for the statewide law that would favor use of recycled plastic bags: http://bit.ly/1hQnXzj EPA map focuses environmental attention by census tract A visually stunning and socioeconomically telling map project by CalEPA's CalEnviroScreen 2.0 project (http://oehha.ca.gov/ej/) has drawn Southern California papers' attention to the unequal distribution of pollution hot spots. Many of the most pollution-burdened areas are low-income communities of color in southern and central California. The LA Times provides the map -- which extend statewide -- and links to interpretive news reports at http://graphics.latimes.com/responsivemap-pollution-burdens/. (The city of Burbank and the report's authors disputed whether notably poor scores on water contamination were derived from tests of treated drinking water or untreated groundwater: http://bit.ly/1nYsEMO.) CalEnviroScreen, which is part of CalEPA's Environmental Justice Project, maps cumulative effects of separately measured pollution burdens and compares them to socioeconomic data, seeking "portions of the state that have higher pollution burdens and vulnerabilities than other areas, and therefore are most in need of assistance." In a statement at http://bit.ly/1pJ5PkR, Assemblymember V. Manuel P�rez, D-Coachella, said his AB 1329, passed by the Legislature last year, instructed the state's Department of Toxic Substances Control to prioritize enforcement in the hot spots that CalEnviroScreen identified -- and that the tool showed areas of serious concern in the Coachella and Imperial Valleys. AB 1329 is at http://bit.ly/1fLOfmo. Drought proclamation suspends HOA landscaping rules The Governor's April 25 emergency drought proclamation includes a declaration that homeowners' association rules and policies are unenforceable where they conflict with the proclamation's calls for water-saving measures. The order's phrasing is a more generic echo of provisions in the proposed AB 2104, by Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, which has been approved by the Assembly and as of late April was pending in its first State Senate policy committee. AB2104 would permanently invalidate HOA rules that impose landscaping standards: http://bit.ly/1k9b1r3. At a macro level, the proclamation's effects include suspending competitive bidding for several state agencies' drought projects. For details and the full text see http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18496. The Sacramento Bee 's Matt Weiser has the proclamation's highlights at http://bit.ly/1hEL93o. Bergamot development will be on Santa Monica's November ballot A challenge to the proposed large Bergamot-area development in Santa Monica, also known as the Hines project, has qualified for the November ballot, according to the local Santa Monica Lookout : http://bit.ly/1iqOQj2. The paper reports the Bergamot measure won its signatures with the help of project opponent Residocracy.org, an organization and multi-topic petition Web site founded by former City Council candidate Armen Melkonians. Other opponents include the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City, at http://www.smclc.net/, which filed suit against the project in March. PG&E fights cities and neighbors on trees PG&E has temporarily suspend a newly draconian vegetation removal program that could cut thousands of trees from areas around its gas pipelines. The utility has cited safety as its reason for the program but faces strenuous objections from cities and residents. The Contra Costa Times (reprinted in the Mercury News ) has more at http://bit.ly/1nxDTOI. Earlier this month PG&E was indicted on federal charges in connection with the 2010 gas pipe explosion that killed eight people in a residential neighborhood of San Bruno. For details in the SF Chronicle see http://bit.ly/1jyjPIK. San Francisco prepares to add local well water to Hetch Hetchy supply San Francisco's famous mountain-clear tap water, all the way from Hetch Hetchy, could have less clean local water blended with it as of 2016 in much of the city. Chris Roberts of the San Francisco Examiner reports the city is preparing to dig four wells this summer in the western part of the city, creating an emergency supply and a supplemental source that could provide up to 5% of city water regularly. There's concern, however, about contamination from bacteria and nitrates in the local groundwater. See http://bit.ly/1jZ0oXv.

Voters in Monterey County may be closer to deciding two land use ballot measures after a 15-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in an unrelated case that recall petitions need not be circulated in multiple languages. Last year, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that petitions in a Santa Ana Unified School District recall were invalid because they had been circulated only in English. In March, a federal district court judge, relying on the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, declared invalid an initiative to overhaul the Monterey County general plan because initiative backers printed petitions only in English. After the general plan ruling, the county Board of Supervisors pulled off the ballot a referendum of a proposed 1,100-unt housing project for the same reason (see , May 2006). Under the Voting Rights Act, the government must publish election materials in other languages if more than 5% of voters speak a language other than English. However, the panel that reheard the Santa Ana school district case voted 14-1 that the multi-lingual requirement does not apply to citizen petitions. Requiring translation of citizen petitions “is very likely to have a chilling effect on the petition process itself,” Judge William Canby wrote for the court. “A requirement of translation for recall petitions is far more likely to be used as a sword than as a shield.” Exactly what will happen with the Monterey County land use measures is unclear. Proponents said they would push for a special election because it is too late to get the initiative and the referendum on the November ballot. But county officials said they were still studying the situation and noted that a U.S. Supreme Court review of the Ninth Circuit decision is possible. Additionally, litigation over the two ballot measures is pending in federal court. The Ninth Circuit case is , No. 03-56259, 06 C.D.O.S. 8808, and was filed on September 19. While growth control votes in Monterey County remained in question, the county and the City of Salinas reached a settlement in the city’s lawsuit over county plans for the 2,500-acre Rancho San Juan. The county has been planning for growth on the ranch just north of Salinas for some time, but the city sued over a specific plan, which includes the 1,100-unit Butterfly Village project for which a referendum is pending (see above.) The city agreed to drop its California Environmental Quality Act lawsuit when the City Council and Board of Supervisors approved an 18-point “Greater Salinas Area Memorandum of Understanding.” The document permits the city to annex about 3,000 acres north of town, designates land to the north and east of the city for development while preserving farmland to the west and south, requires imposition of a countywide traffic impact fee, and calls for county-city cooperation on issues such as affordable housing and infrastructure improvements. Salinas officials said the city needs room to grow because of severe overcrowding and a lack of affordable housing. Rancho San Juan growth opponents immediately seized on the settlement and closed-door negotiations behind it, and the opponents hinted they may file a suit insisting that the settlement should be subject to environmental review. A referendum contesting adoption of a redevelopment plan for the Bayview Hunters Point district in San Francisco has been blocked by City Attorney Dennis Herrera. He declared the referendum petitions were invalid because they did not contain the entire redevelopment plan. The city adopted the plan, which emphasizes development of 3,700 new housing units in the 1,300-acre project area, earlier this year (see , September 2006). Fearing gentrification, opponents gathered enough signatures on a referendum petition to force an election. But Herrera determined on September 19 that the petitions were invalid without the plan itself. Opponents said they would likely sue over Herrera’s decision. A controversial proposal by Santa Clara County to build a 7,000-seat concert hall at the county fairgrounds in San Jose is apparently dead after the Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 not to pursue the project. The decision came shortly after county analysts revealed that rising construction costs would require at least a $15 million county subsidy. The county began pursuing a concert hall at the aging fairgrounds in 1998, shortly before the City of San Jose and downtown advocates began talking about building a similar hall in downtown. Eventually, the county decided on a plan in which it would issue about $80 million in bonds to pay for the fairgrounds facility and hire the House of Blues to run it. The city sued and lost one round in court before paying to settle the lawsuit (see , May 2006; , December 2004). Backers of the county project said it could generate tens of millions of dollars for the county over the next three decades. But when it came time to move forward, three supervisors said the project was too risky, especially when the county already has a $200 million budget shortfall. The county’s decision may give new life to the proposed downtown concert hall, which has languished. Yolo County has dropped its eminent domain action to acquire 17,300 acres of farmland and open space in a triangle between the cities of Woodland, West Sacramento and Davis. Instead, the county reached an agreement with the property owners that limits development and water sales. The county commenced eminent domain proceedings on the Conaway Ranch more than two years ago because of concerns about the loss of farmland, endangered species habitat and water (see , August 2004). After eminent domain proceedings began, a collection of Sacramento area developers acquired the ranch, which has 50,000 acre-feet of water rights. Under the settlement, the owners may sell up to 1,500 acres of land in small parcels. For sales of parcels larger than 250 acres, the county will have the right of first refusal. All land remains subject to the county general plan, which currently permits virtually no development. The agreement calls for water to be used first to satisfy farming, habitat and recreation needs on Conaway Ranch. Surplus water could be sold but the county would have the first right to negotiate a water purchase and would receive a cut of proceeds if another entity buys the water. Property owners said they may use the land as a mitigation bank and sell conservation easements. On-the-ground restoration of San Dieguito Lagoon in Del Mar began in September after 15 years of planning, permitting processes and litigation. The restoration plan by the San Dieguito River Park Joint Powers Authority calls for creation of a 115-acre saltwater marsh, construction and rehabilitation of nesting sites for endangered birds, and permanently reopening the mouth of the river (see , September 2003). Construction is expected to take two years. Southern California Edison is paying for the project as mitigation for ongoing operation of the San Onofre nuclear power plant about 30 miles to the north.

Post-redevelopment plans for downtown San Diego The San Diego Foundation is teaming up with the Downtown San Diego Partnership business group to frame a  new vision for San Diego's downtown. With the end of redevelopment agencies in the state, San Diego can no longer depend on the $125 million dollars a year to subsidize these types of projects.  SF redesigns Castro Street to better accommodate pedestrians  San Francisco's famous Castro Street is undergoing a design makeover to transform the street into a better environment for pedestrians. Castro Street, with its narrow sidewalks and busy intersections, is not suitable for the heavy foot traffic that dominates the area. The Castro Street Design Plan builds upon previous efforts to improve the street's conditions for pedestrians and enhance the street's capacity to serve as a local hot spot and tourist destination.  Realigning High Speed Rail may compromise SF freeway San Francisco officials explore alternative High Speed Rail alignments, including the removal of the I-280 viaduct. The proposal could benefit both the city and Caltrain, though details for how this proposal would align with Caltrain's electrification plans still need to be worked out. Stakeholders agree: Modernize CEQA ... After 40 years, stakeholders agree that the time has come to modernize CEQA. Governor Jerry Brown and other political coalitions have made strong commitments to CEQA modernization in the upcoming year.  ... But Enviros Aren't On Board Bruce Reznick and David Mogavero of Planning & Conservation League say that the call for CEQA reform is much ado about nothing. LA publishes DEIR for 5-year bike plan and the "My Figueroa Project"  The Draft EIR encompasses 39.5 miles of bicycle lane projects that require the removal of street lanes and promises streetscape improvements and better accessibility for bicyclists. The city is using Governor Brown's new law (A.B. 2245) that allows certain bicycle projects to be exempt from the CEQA process to opt-out of the EIR certification process.   Metro unveils study on how to close the 710 Freeway gap The final five recommendations on how to close Los Angeles's 710 Freeway gap were released by Metro last Friday. Options include: do nothing, traffic management systems, light rail, bus route and freeway tunnel.  Metro will host open houses starting this week to discuss its findings.

A “preliminary master plan” for the Orange County Great Park has been approved by the park board. The plan for 1,655 acres of the former El Toro Marine Corps base divides the park into a series of “activity levels,” ranging from nature areas with wildlife viewing to a large sports park. There would be a “lifelong learning district,” a botanic garden, a conservatory that spans a manmade canyon, air and military museums, 50 miles of trails and an orange hot-air balloon rising 500 feet to serve as an icon. During a presentation to the Irvine City Council, park designer Ken Smith called the release of the preliminary plan “momentous,” but he emphasized that the plan is a work in progress. Councilwoman Christine Shea, who helped lead the fight against a proposed airport at El Toro, said it was “amazing” to see the park vision come to light “after so many years of struggle.” While the early park plans have earned high praise, some Irvine residents are urging caution. After Smith made his presentation to the City Council, one resident said he was concerned to see the estimate of park attendance rise from 1.2 million to 5 million visitors per year. The Great Park board is scheduled to adopt a comprehensive master plan in early 2007, with construction to follow. The preliminary master plan is available at www.ocgp.org All 23 Enterprise Zones scheduled to expire this year have been given an additional 15 years by Gov. Schwarzenegger. New or existing businesses in Enterprise Zones are eligible for tax credits for hiring certain employees or purchasing equipment, and may take advantage of other financial incentives. Analysts have given Enterprise Zones mixed reviews during recent years, with some questioning the benefits of a program that costs the state tens of millions of dollars annually (see , June 2006; , February 2002). But Schwarzenegger cited a report released in August by the Department of Housing and Community Development that asserted poverty and unemployment rates declined faster in Enterprise Zones than statewide from 1990 to 2000, and that income increased faster than the state average. The extended Enterprise Zones are: City of Arvin, Delano, Fresno-City, Fresno-County, Merced, North Sacramento, Yuba Sutter, Calexico, City of San Bernardino, Coachella, City of Los Angeles-Central/Hollywood, Compton, Santa Clarita, Long Beach, Pasadena, City of Southgate/Lynwood, San Diego, Richmond, San Francisco, San Jose, Shasta, Eureka and Oroville. for a Highway 50 freeway interchange in El Dorado County that would serve a controversial Indian casino has been upheld. Last year, the Third District Court of Appeal rejected an EIR for the Shingle Springs interchange because of the analysis of air quality issues (see , January 2006). However, a revised version survived the scrutiny of Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly, who in November ruled against the citizens group Voices for Rural Living. The group promised to appeal the ruling, but it is the second major blow to the group’s efforts to halt the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians from building a casino resort. In September, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors agreed to drop its litigation over the project in exchange for the tribe’s payment of up to $190 million over 20 years for law enforcement, and transportation and other projects. An environmental impact report offering 10 alternatives for the future of the Salton Sea has been released by the state Department of Water Resources (DWR). The alternatives range from doing nothing to making a smaller lake to devising a series of lakes and brine ponds, with costs ranging from about $1 billion to $6 billion over 75 years. State officials have yet to embrace an alternative, and neither environmentalists nor local farmers appear thrilled with any of the ideas. But nearly everyone says the state needs to chose a course of action quickly because the 360-mile lake will lose about half of its water flow starting in 2017 due to water diversions from Imperial County farms to the San Diego region. An important resource for migratory birds, the lake is experiencing rising salinity, fish die-offs and other ecological problems. With less runoff from farms, the Salton Sea could become a hazard to animals and humans. The Salton Sea Authority, a local joint powers authority, called the state’s EIR “obsolete.” The authority supports a plan to create a separate “salt sink” next to a much smaller lake with better water quality. The Resources Agency anticipates recommending a preferred alternative to the Legislature in the spring. The EIR is available on a DWR website: www.saltonsea.water.ca.gov . The state budget situation is not as big a problem for local governments as it was two years ago, according to a recent survey of city officials. In the survey by the Public Policy Institute of California, the League of California Cities and the National League of Cities, 66% of respondents said the state budget is a “big problem” for cities. That percentage was down from 76% in 2005 and 90% in 2004. In addition, the percentage of city officials who said California’s system of public finance needs “major changes” dropped from 76% in 2005 to 45% in 2006. Not surprisingly, city officials also said their local budgets are in better shape this year than during the recent past. The complete survey regarding local government finance and infrastructure is available at www.ppic.org

Although many land use bills failed to avoid Arnold Schwarzenegger’s veto pen, the governor did sign some pieces of land use legislation this fall. One approved bill, SB 1535 (Kuehl), increased the filing fees for environmental documents to be reviewed by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG). The bill bumps up the cost of filing an EIR from $800 to $2,500, and boosts the negative declaration fee from $1,250 to $1,800. According to environmental groups that supported the bill, DFG reviews only about 10% of the environmental documents it receives because of funding and staff shortages. The DFG fees for reviewing environmental documents prepared by other agencies are unique in state government; no other agency has such a fee. Developers have chafed at the fees and local governments have complained about having to collect the money, but courts have upheld the fees (see , May 2000). The fees had gone unchanged for years. The additional revenue should enable DFG to review all environmental documents it receives, according to bill supporters. While the DFG fee bill affects the entire state, another bill signed by the governor, AB 1457 (Baca), impacts only one dark corner of San Bernardino. The legislation is a creative attempt to revitalize a troublesome park, decrease criminal activity and provide new housing. The legislation permits the City of San Bernardino to give 14 acres of the 43-acre Seccombe Lake Park to the city’s redevelopment agency, which must come up with replacement parkland nearby. The redevelopment agency wants to sell the property for private development of up to 80 houses and town homes in a new, gated community. The city acquired the downtown parkland through purchase and eminent domain after World War II and deeded it to the state about 25 years ago for development of a regional park. That plan died, though, and the state returned the park to the city. For years, the park has been the site of homeless encampments and criminal behavior — and not much baseball or recreational fishing. Earlier this year, though, the city began removing walls and overgrown vegetation to open up sight lines. City officials hope the cleanup and planned housing project will entice more people to recreate in the park. A bill that would give property owners with land use disputes direct access to federal court has passed the House of Representatives and could be taken up by the Senate this month. The proposed Private Property Rights Implementation Act, HR 4772 by Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), would permit property owners to bypass state courts and take claims over local land use regulation directly to federal court. As it now stands, federal courts generally require property owners to go to state court first with claims that regulation has deprived them of property rights or civil rights. However, at least in the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, federal courts have been reluctant to consider claims that have been decided in state court. Thus, it is difficult for property owners to get heard in federal court, which many people believe would be a more favorable venue for property owners than state court. Although passage of HR 4772 is a long shot during the lame-duck congressional session, local governments are worried. The bill would undermine local zoning authority and “create greater federal intrusion into local land use decisions,” according to the National League of Cities. In one of the more lopsided land use elections in state history, Glendora voters rejected an elaborate rezoning initiative that would have permitted development of 338 houses on the site of a private country club and construction of a new golf course in the rugged hills above town. The developer-written “Glendora Hillside Protection Ordinance” received only 9.4% of the 12,455 ballots cast during the special election on October 3. Developer NJD, Ltd., for years has been attempting to build houses on about 400 acres in the hills of Glendora and the neighboring city of San Dimas. But those efforts have gone nowhere at City Hall and in court. So the developer went directly to voters. Under the initiative, NJD would have essentially swapped its 400 acres in the hills for the 107 acres owned by the Glendora Country Club. The developer would build the country club a new golf course and other facilities in the hills. The developer would also build 338 houses on the relatively flat land now occupied by the 50-year-old country club. The initiative proposed amending the city’s general plan, and city zoning and grading ordinances to permit the new golf course and homes — although part of the golf course would have been built in San Dimas, which has not consented to the project. Country club members agreed to the land swap earlier this year. NJD spent more than $1 million on the campaign and went as far as offering people grocery and gasoline gift cards if they agreed to fill out absentee ballots. After the overwhelming defeat, NJD representatives said they would again try to receive city approval for building up to 53 houses in the hills. El Dorado County officials have reached an agreement with the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians regarding a long-discussed casino just off Highway 50, a few miles west of Placerville. The agreement calls for the tribe to pay $104 million over 20 years for construction of carpool lanes on Highway 50, at least $78 million over 20 years to mitigate impacts on the community and $500,000 annually for local law enforcement, and for the tribe to offer hiring preferences for construction and casino jobs to El Dorado County residents. The tribe has talked about building a 200,000-square-foot casino and 250-room hotel since 1998, but the county and landowners in the rural residential neighborhood next to the tribe’s 160-acre reservation have fought the project. Late last year, the Third District Court of Appeal threw out the environmental impact report for a freeway interchange that would serve the casino (see , January 2006). The citizens group involved in that litigation, Voices for Rural Living, filed a new lawsuit in September over the proposed interchange, which is vital for the casino. A Superior Court judge has thrown out an environmentalists’ lawsuit that contends the continued operation of windmills in the Altamont Pass area violates the state’s unfair competition law and the public trust doctrine. The Center for Biological Diversity argued that the windmills — located along Interstate 580 between Livermore and Tracy — are illegal because they destroy wildlife, which is a public trust. However, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Bonnie Sabraw ruled that harm to wildlife does not equate to the destruction of property under the unfair competition law. Environmentalists filed the creative lawsuit after failing to convince Alameda County and power companies to close down older windmills that state officials blame for killing about 1,000 raptors annually, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks and burrowing owls (see , August 2005). Environmentalists say operation of the windmills violates federal and state wildlife protection laws. An appeal of Judge Sabraw’s ruling is possible, according to Jeff Miller, of the Center for Biological Diversity. Under a county-approved plan, power companies have closed some old power turbines and are supposed to replace the rest over 13 years with fewer, larger models that are expected to be safer for birds. The case is , Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG04183113.

Endangered species issues became more complicated in the Coachella Valley in late June when the City of Desert Hot Springs declined to participate in a multiple species habitat conservation plan. The city’s decision appeared to force the plan’s author, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, to revise the plan without including Desert Hot Springs, refigure impact fees and — most importantly — revise and recirculate the environmental impact report. All of that could take at least a year, said Jim Sullivan, the association’s director of environmental resources. In the meantime, the region could be without an “incidental take” permit that allows development on habitat for the endangered fringe-toed lizard, which includes much of the valley. The permit was scheduled to expire July 1 and be replaced with a new permit stemming from the habitat conservation plan. Without the incidental take permit for the lizard, “you go from paying a $600 per acre fee to doing a full EIR,” Sullivan said. “It’s very much up in the air.” The species plan has been in the works for more than 10 years. It is intended to provide for conservation of 27 animal and plant species on 1.1 million acres in the Coachella Valley and surrounding mountains (see , April 2006). The plan designates about 750,000 acres for conservation while allowing development to go forward elsewhere. Eight cities in the valley and other public agencies have agreed to participate in the plan. However, the Desert Hot Springs City Council voted 3-2 to opt out, citing concerns about the plan’s impact on private property rights and desired growth in the city. The City of San Diego’s inclusionary housing ordinance has been declared unconstitutional by a trial court judge. San Diego County Superior Court Judge John Meyer ruled that the ordinance resulted in a taking because the law did not allow exceptions for builders who could prove their projects were unrelated to San Diego’s affordable housing shortage. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the San Diego County Building Industry Association, which has fought the ordinance since the city adopted it in 2003. The measure requires builders to designate 10% of new units for low- and moderate-income residents or pay an in-lieu fee. The ruling threw into question the fate of more than $9 million of in-lieu fees the city has collected. More than 100 jurisdictions around the state have inclusionary housing requirements. Meyer distinguished San Diego’s ordinance from a City of Napa inclusionary ordinance that the First District Court of Appeal upheld in , 90 Cal.App.4th 188 (see , July 2001). The Napa ordinance has an exemption for builders who prove their projects have no connection to the city’s affordable housing shortage, while San Diego’s exemption focuses on financial hardship. After the ruling, the city hired outside counsel — Charles Christensen of Christensen, Schwerdtfeger & Spath — and asked Judge Meyer to reconsider his decision to throw out the entire ordinance. In what might be a major victory for environmental activists, the Pebble Beach Company has withdrawn a controversial plan to build luxury and worker housing, a golf course, an equestrian center and additional hotel rooms in the Del Monte Forest. The company backed away from its plan in June, only one day before the Coastal Commission was scheduled to consider the project. County voters cleared the way for the project six years ago when they approved an initiative amending the Del Monte Forest plan. The Monterey County Board of Supervisors approved the development project in early 2005 (see , July 2005). Environmentalists have bitterly fought the project because of its impact on the Monterey pine forest and coastal habitat. Coastal Commission staff members recommended the panel reject the project. Upon pulling the plan, representatives of Pebble Beach Company (which is owned by Clint Eastwood, Arnold Palmer, Peter Ueberroth and other investors) complained that the Coastal Commission could not provide a fair hearing. The company said it would revise its plans. Plans for a complex of high-rise condominiums in Santa Monica also went by the wayside in June. Macerich Company revealed that overwhelming public opposition had caused the company to scrap its plans to replace the Santa Monica Place shopping mall with high-rise development (see , April 2005; , February 2005). Macerich said it would start over on planning for the site.

Cordova Hills project approved by Sacramento County Fanning fears that the Sacramento Region won't be able to meet SB 375 emissions reduction standards, Sacramento County supervisors have approved the sprawling South County Cordova Hills project.  Cities turn to new sources of funds for affordable housing Before the dissolution of redevelopment agencies, 95% of local affordable housing dollars came from redevelopment. With RDAs dead in California, cities are being forced to try and close the money gap with other pots of money, namely namely being those reserved for affordable housing.  CA car debates: parking minimums in Santa Monica A proposal to ease parking minimums in Santa Monica is in no way a "war on cars," says Paul Barter of Reinventing Parking. Barter makes the case that people's dependency on the automobile is not going to be alleviated by easing parking minimums. Rather it's the traditional zoning policies that require excessive parking to blame.  Nation's largest landlord uses smart growth strategies The federal government is the biggest landlord in the nation. In this blog from Atlantic Cities, NRDC's Kaid Benfield remind the Government Services Administration that with big development rights comes big responsibility, and advises that its real estate endeavors should give higher priority to how its development decisions impact community life and neighborhood connectivity. CEQA Controversy finds its home at the Capitol  As advocacy groups from both ends of the spectrum are launching CEQA campaigns, state senate leaders Darrell Steinberg and Michael Rubio are trying to create a common outline for the new bill to help guide the process.  New LAX runway plan moving forward despite NIMBY opposition A plan to move the northernmost runway at LAX 260 feet closer to homes in Westchester is moving forward despite opposition, but the Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners voted to approve the LAX modernization plan last week. However, the plan still has several hoops it needs to jump through before changes can begin to take place. Get rid of the Fulton Street mall Fresno held its annual State of Downtown Breakfast last Tuesday, where urban designer and architect, Henry Beer, led the discussion for how Fresno can improve its downtown. To no one's surprise, the topic of discussion was the city's downtown Fulton Mall, and again, to no one's surprise, Beer urged Fresno to reopen the mall to cars.  LA kicks off pilot parklets program Three out of the four parklets of the city's pilot parklets program opened to the public last week, and  they have already received wide praise from city officials and the public. Highland Park's parklet opened last Saturday and two parklets on Spring Street opened last Thursday as part of the city's larger efforts to create a more active and pedestrian friendly downtown.

A NEW STUDY OF WATER SUPPLY in California provides a mixed picture. The state could meet much of the demand required by a growing population through water conservation, groundwater banking, recycling and water transfers, according to a report from the Public Policy Institute of California. However, the long-term plans of many water agencies rely heavily on the development of new supplies, especially groundwater in areas with no groundwater management policies. “Water for Growth: California’s New Frontier” by Public Policy Institute of California Research Fellow Ellen Hanak recognizes what many water experts have said for years — the era of constructing large dams and aqueducts is over. Instead, water suppliers will have to be more creative in managing limited water supplies. According to the PPIC report, California is expected to add 14 million new residents by 2030. If current water use trends prevail, the state would need an additional 3.6 million acre-feet of water to provide for population growth. And that projection might be low because about half of the state’s population growth is expected to be in the Sacramento region, the San Joaquin Valley and the Inland Empire — locations where single-family houses predominate and more than half of water is used for landscaping. Hanak was encouraged to find that a little more than half of planning agencies participate to some extent in utility planning and in regional water policy groups. She also reports that compliance with SBs 610 and 221 — 2001 legislation requiring proof that water will be available for large developments —is quite high. Hanak was less upbeat about mandatory urban water management plans. She found that one-sixth of agencies did not submit required plans during the 2000 update cycle, and the plans of many utilities rely heavily on “paper water” and additional groundwater pumping to meet future needs. Hanak makes four recommendations: • Strengthen long-term water planning, in part by giving land use planners more say. • Streamline project-level water adequacy reviews by improving long-term planning documents and finding ways to pay for new water supplies. Hanak also recommends charging developers impact fees to fund water development. • Realize the potential of water conservation, in part by charging higher rates to the biggest water users. • Consolidate progress in groundwater management because overdraft is a serious problem in some areas. Hanak further recommends that the state withhold new water supply permits from local agencies that do not manage water responsibly. The PPIC report is available at www.ppic.org HOUSES IN FRESNO will have water meters. In July, the city approved a 40-year contract renewal with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for the delivery of 60,000 acre-feet of water from the San Joaquin River. The deal requires installation of water meters at all single-family houses in the city by 2013. Only about 25,000 of the city’s 105,000 houses have meters, and the city has never billed homeowners anything but a flat rate. However, both state lawmakers and federal officials insist that the days of meter-less water use in Fresno had to end so that homeowners would be encouraged to conserve. Retrofitting existing customers with water meters is estimated to cost at least $50 million. Commercial and multi-family developments already have meters. RECONSTRUCTION OF THE BAY BRIDGE is again moving forward now that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a bill that addresses funding of the $6.3 billion project. Under the deal spearheaded by state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland), the state will provide an additional $630 million for the project. Tolls on all bridges in the Bay Area except the Golden Gate Bridge will increase by a buck to $4 in 2007 to raise another $800 million for the project. Caltrans will keep the single-tower suspension design that has caused much consternation. The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake caused a section of the Bay Bridge’s eastern span to fail. Caltrans has retrofitted the western span and plans to replace the eastern span. However, the project stalled last year when the state received only one bid, at double the expected $740 million cost, for the suspension tower (see , October 2004). Nearly a year of negotiations, which added an estimated $400,000 per day to the project cost, resulted in the deal signed by Schwarzenegger. The re-bidding process has already begun. The project’s expected 2012 completion date would give a fourth governor a Bay Bridge photo op. Pete Wilson signed the first funding bill on the bridge in 1997. Gray Davis attended the project groundbreaking. And in July Schwarzenegger signed the latest funding bill with the bridge looming over his shoulder. CITY OF SANTA PAULA VOTERS will not decide on a growth-control initiative during the November 8 special election. Ventura County Superior Court Judge Steven Hintz ruled in July that Santa Paula City Clerk Josie Herrera was correct to disqualify the initiative because signed petitions did not include the ordinances that the initiative wanted to amend. The proposed initiative would have put to a public vote any project of more than 80 acres proposed at a higher density than allowed under the general plan. The initiative came in response to Centex Homes’ proposal for about 2,200 houses, townhouses and apartments on 2,200 acres that Santa Paula would annex. The city’s general plan now calls for about 450 houses on the site. The City Council is scheduled to consider the housing project later this year. Opponents vowed to keep fighting. A 5.8-MILE TROLLEY EXTENSION to San Diego State University opened in July — 28 years after it was first planned. The $500 million project extends San Diego’s thriving, 54-mile trolley system through Mission Valley, providing an alternative to congested Interstate 8. The line is expected to get about 11,000 riders a day, one-third of them SDSU students. THE AIR FORCE IS PROPOSING to reduce the cleanup of groundwater contamination at the closed McClellan Air Force Base, according to the . Sacramento County fears that the reduced cleanup could substantially set back reuse of the 3,000-acre base as a business and industrial park. The military has been pumping and treating tainted groundwater at McClellan for two decades. The new proposal calls for shutting down extraction wells. Instead, the military would only take steps necessary to contain pollution within the base boundaries. The change would save about $600 million, but it still needs approval from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. TWO SAN DIEGO CITY COUNCILMEN were convicted in July in a federal corruption trial. According to prosecutors, Councilmen Michael Zucchet and Ralph Inzunza accepted $23,000 in campaign contributions from the owner of Cheetahs adult nightclub. They were convicted of conspiracy, wire fraud and extortion. Also convicted was Lance Malone, a former Clark County, Nevada, commissioner, who went between the Cheetah’s owner and the San Diego councilmen. Zucchet, Inzunza and Councilman Charles Lewis, who died while under indictment, tried to ease the city’s “no touch” rule for nude dance clubs. The scheme also involved closing down a Cheetahs competitor and amending the city’s zoning code to make it more difficult to open new adult businesses. Zucchet, Inzunza and Malone have maintained their innocence and vowed to appeal. Sentencing is scheduled for November. THE MARIN COUNTY GRAND JURY has criticized the county’s planning process as “unclear, convoluted, time-consuming and costly.” The Marin Community Development Agency got the grant jury’s attention last year when there was controversy over a 6,500-square-foot house in Greenbrae that was originally permitted for only 3,950 square feet. The grand jury found flaws in the agency’s code enforcement, building inspection and planning practices. The county, however, has already undertaken steps to improve the system, according to officials. The county has adopted new design guidelines for single-family homes, added planners and revised various procedures.

What has been possibly the longest-running general plan controversy on record appears to have concluded on August 31, when a Sacramento County Superior Court judge accepted a revised environmental impact report for a new El Dorado County general plan. The judge’ decision gives the county a legal general plan for the first time since 1999. After a seven-year process with multiple political swings, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors adopted a new general plan in 1996. A collection of homeowners and environmental groups sued, arguing that the plan’s EIR was inadequate. A Sacramento County judge agreed in an early 1999 decision that eliminated the county’s ability to approve discretionary projects (see , March 1999, March 1996). Last year, the Board of Supervisors approved a slightly revised general plan and a new EIR. The plan survived a referendum in March of this year (see , April 2005). The county then returned to court, where it won Judge Gail Ohanesian’s blessing. The county intends to begin processing applications again this month. An appeal of the decision is likely. The case is , Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 96CS01290. In a controversy nearly as old as El Dorado County’s, a federal judge has stalled a proposed giant garbage dump in Riverside County near Joshua Tree National Park. In late September, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Timlin rejected the Bureau of Land Management’s study of a proposed land swap with Kaiser Ventures, which first proposed the Eagle Mountain landfill in the late 1980s. Kaiser now has a deal with Los Angeles County, which intends to purchase the landfill site from Kaiser for $41 million. Kaiser and the BLM propose swapping approximately 2,500 acres owned by the federal government for a like amount of property Kaiser owns elsewhere in the desert. Judge Timlin found that the BLM did not fully consider alternatives to the land trade, failed to adequately analyze the project’s impacts on national park visitors and bighorn sheep, and did not consider the increased number of predators that that landfill may lure. The proposed garbage dump has withstood extensive state court litigation and political controversy (see , June 1999, April 1996, November 1994; , October 1997; , November 1992). However, environmentalists have continued to fight the project vigorously. San Diego County has sued the City of El Cajon over two proposed development projects — a Home Depot and an 11-lot residential subdivision. Pointing primarily to traffic, the county argues that the environmental reviews for the projects are inadequate. But city officials question whether the county is trying to halt the city from annexing the properties because development within the city limits would deprive the county of a new traffic impact fee. “We’ve never had the county jump on us, and I’ve been with the city for 32 years,” El Cajon Community Development Director Jim Griffin said. “Now we have to pay money to defend lawsuits, and applicants are hung out to dry.” The Home Depot project on East Main Street has been particularly controversial. The city certified an EIR in 1999, but later that year rejected the development. This time around, the city used the six-year-old EIR but added an addendum to address traffic, air quality, noise and other issues. Neighbors remained opposed and they got support from county Supervisor Dianne Jacob, who testified against the project. With both projects now in court, the San Diego County Local Agency Formation Commission has put the annexations on hold. The salamander wars continue unabated in Central and coastal California. In a victory for environmentalists, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup ruled that the Santa Barbara County and Sonoma County populations of California tiger salamander qualify as endangered. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which granted the amphibians Endangered Species Act protection only after earlier litigation, had downgraded the two salamander populations from endangered to threatened. Alsup determined that the agency “did not supply any scientific evidence” for the downgraded status. The case is , No. 04-04324. The listing has been particularly controversial in Sonoma County because of the potential for slowing development and wine-growing activities (see , July 2004). Federal officials have proposed designating 74,000 acres near Santa Rosa as critical habitat for the salamander. In a victory for development interests and landowners, USFWS released a new map of critical habitat for the Central California and Santa Barbara County populations of the tiger salamander. The map covers 199,000 acres in 19 counties, but contains only about half as much territory has an earlier proposed critical habitat designation. In its final decision, USFWS eliminated from the critical habitat designation 12 census tracts in Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Monterey, San Benito and Santa Clara counties because of the economic impact the designation would have had. A pair of 53-story hotel and condominium towers proposed for the Capitol Mall in Sacramento has received the Sacramento Planning Commission’s approval. At 615-feet, the towers would be the tallest structures in Sacramento by nearly 200 feet. Proposed by developer John Saca for Capitol Mall at Third Street, the buildings would have a hotel on the lower floors and at least 700 condominiums on the upper stories.

The City of Los Angeles will require economic impact studies for proposed Wal-Mart supercenters and certain other big box stores. The studies are intended to determine the effect of a new big box store on a neighborhood’s existing jobs, wages and businesses. The Los Angeles City Council’s approval of the new requirement came only two weeks before the Legislature approved a similar measure that would apply statewide. However, the fate of that measure, SB 1056 (Alarcon), appears uncertain in the governor’s hands. In August, the Los Angeles City Council adopted the economic impact study requirement for proposed stores of more than 100,000 square feet that would devote at least 10% of floor space to non-taxable items. The ordinance applies only in designated “economic assistance areas,” which cover roughly half of the city. Membership stores, such as Costco and Sam’s Club (which is owned by Wal-Mart) are exempt. Backers said the new requirement is necessary to ensure that a new big box does not force nearby stores to slash wages or close. The targets of the legislation are Wal-Mart supercenters, which have at least 200,000 square feet with a traditional Wal-Mart and a full grocery store. Wal-Mart has not yet proposed a supercenter for Los Angeles but has begun opening the gigantic stores elsewhere in the state. Labor union leaders and Wal-Mart opponents hope that the Los Angeles regulation becomes a model for other cities, especially if Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoes SB 1056. A second suburban Sacramento slow-growth ballot initiative has been blocked in court. In late August, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly ruled against Folsom Citizens for Sensible Growth, which backed an initiative to prohibit development of 3,600 acres south of Highway 50 without subsequent voter approval. The measure would have required the land, which lies inside Folsom’s sphere of influence but outside the city limits, to be used consistent with Sacramento County’s agricultural policies. But because the initiative petitions did not include copies of those policies, Connelly threw out the initiative, which had been scheduled for the November ballot. One month earlier, a Placer County judge knocked a slow-growth measure off the City of Roseville’s ballot. Five cities in Northern California have settled two separate lawsuits by agreeing to tax landowners and developers, with the money going for conservation easements. The City of Roseville settled a lawsuit over the 3,100-acre, 8,400-home West Roseville Specific Plan that had been filed by environmental groups and the Town of Loomis (see , March 2004; Local Watch, August 2003). The city agreed to a conveyance fee of 0.5 percent on all home resales in the specific plan area for 20 years. The fee could raise up to $85 million for the Placer Land Trust. Meanwhile the cities of Escalon, Lathrop, Manteca and Tracy, and the South San Joaquin Irrigation District settled a lawsuit filed by environmentalists and anglers over the South County Water Project, which could provide up to 44,000 acre-feet of water to the cities. The settlement requires Lathrop, Manteca and Tracy to collect fees of $2,000 per acre when prime farmland is converted to urban use. The fee could generate up to $21 million over 30 years for conservation and agricultural easements. The Lake Elsinore City Council has approved a controversial 1,500-home, 700-acre subdivision despite Riverside County’s request for a delay and threat of litigation. The project site lies in a floodplain and atop a major earthquake fault (see , June 2004). During final hearings on the project in August, county representatives raised questions about potential flooding, storm runoff, the settling of building pads and traffic congestion. County officials charged that the city did not respond to the county’s concerns, nor did the city give the county adequate time to review an environmental impact report. The County Board of Supervisors discussed suing the city during a closed session hours before the Lake Elsinore City Council voted 4-1 and 3-2 to approve the project. City officials said they tried to satisfy the county’s concerns. who had supported an historic agreement regarding a proposed Indian casino have survived a recall vote. Only about 44% of voters in the Sonoma County town voted to recall Council Members Armando Flores and Amie Spradlin during an August special election. They were targeted by opponents of a plan from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria to build a large casino, hotel and auditorium on the edge of town. Last year, the City Council approved an agreement in which the tribe would pay the city, school districts and community groups $200 million over 20 years to offset the development’s impacts (see , November 2003). Two other council members who backed the agreement are up for re-election in November. The City of Desert Hot Springs has emerged from Chapter 9 bankruptcy that was induced in part by the loss of a Fair Housing Act lawsuit. A federal judge approved the city’s plan to pay its creditors in full, including more than $8 million owed to Silver Sage Partners and their attorneys. Three years ago, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the city had illegally blocked development of Silver Sage Partners’ low-income mobile home park, and the court upheld a jury’s award to the developers (see , January 2002; , July 2001). Interest on the award, which was made more than 10 years ago, and attorneys fees have greatly increased the amount owed. The city of 17,000 people roughly 10 miles north of Palm Springs plans to issue bonds to retire most of the debt. In hopes of generating more revenue, the city has recently rezoned large tracks for spas and other tourist-oriented development. An engineering study that could show how to build both the transbay terminal in downtown San Francisco and an adjacent high-rise condominium project is due this month. Construction just got started on the residential tower in May when the city shut down the project. The foundation for the 51-story tower would prohibit construction of underground rail lines to the long-planned terminal (see , August 2004). The engineering study authorized by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is supposed to consider the feasibility of pouring a gigantic concrete foundation, rather than pilings or a buttress wall to support the tower. Rail tunnels, which are years away, could later be drilled through the concrete, according to the proposal that engineers are studying. The Coastal Commission has approved a development permit for a wastewater treatment plant in the unincorporated San Luis Obispo County community of Los Osos. The permit might be the most significant step in the 30-year saga over the proposed sewer plant, which would replace about 6,000 septic tanks in the coastal community. A state-imposed building moratorium has been in place since the late 1980s because of the degradation of groundwater and the Morro Bay estuary. Project opponents contended the downtown site was wrong and that the $90 million project might not be necessary at all. They are expected to file a lawsuit, which could delay construction past the planned spring 2005 start date. The San Diego Association of Governments board has unanimously approved a regional comprehensive plan that uses transportation investment decisions to encourage high-density, infill and transit-oriented development (see , April 2004). In a mail ballot election, Contra Costa County property owners rejected an annual tax of $25 per house to preserve open space and fund other environmental programs. The weighted vote against the countywide benefit assessment district was 54% to 46%.

In what might be the first land use corruption case to bring down a California sheriff, San Joaquin County Sheriff T. Baxter Dunn pleaded guilt in January to one count of mail fraud and resigned from office. He faces up to18 months in prison. Also pleading guilty in the federal corruption case were former county Supervisor Lynn Bedford for lying to the FBI, and former Office of Criminal Justice Planning Director N. Allen Sawyer for misusing a state office for personal gain. The scandal involved a proposal to build a power plant at the Port of Stockton. Dunn, Sawyer and San Joaquin County political operative Monte McFall in 2001 allegedly tried to shake down two companies interested in developing the power plant. Calpine Corp. refused to deal with the men, but Sunlaw Energy Corp. agreed to pay them a commission of at least $2 million if Sunlaw got to build the power plant. Dunn lobbied a Port of Stockton commissioner on Sunlaw's behalf and urged the Board of Supervisors to oppose a Calpine Project in Alameda County, all without revealing his financial stake. He also tapped into a police database to gather information on a Port of Stockton employee. While on the Board of Supervisors, Bedford conducted a meeting at his home in which he and McFall pressured a Calpine representative not to pursue the port power plant. During meetings with Sunlaw, Sawyer implied that he was representing the governor's office. Appearing before federal District Court Judge Morris England Jr., Dunn said, “I am profoundly sorry for my conduct.” In a memorandum to employees, the 14-year sheriff accepted responsibility for his conduct but he wrote that he was involved in nothing more than a “harmless, legal business venture.” Dunn, Bedford and Sawyer are scheduled to be sentenced in March. McFall and J. Tyler Reeves, a former aide to Bedford, were scheduled to stand for a trial beginning at the end of January, a trial in which Dunn, Bedford and Sawyer have agreed to cooperate with prosecutors. THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE (LAO) has recommended that state lawmakers pass a number of measures to beef up mitigation of coastal development, measures that could raise the cost of development. The LAO's findings were based on its investigation of the Coastal Commission's mitigation techniques. The commission has relied heavily on “offers to dedicate” (OTDs) as a way of providing physical or visual access to the ocean, and to protect natural resources. Frequently, the commission has required OTDs, which are often easements, rather than up-front mitigation as a condition of coastal development permits. However, OTDs require a third party (a different government agency or a nonprofit organization) to accept them, build any improvements and provide maintenance. The LAO found that of the 2,700 OTDs the commission has required since 1977, 40% have never been accepted, and the commission does not even know the status of another 233. Moreover, about 80 OTDs are scheduled to expire every year through 2008. In its mid-January report, the LAO recommended that the Legislature: o Direct the commission to report by January 1, 2006, on the status, location and expiration date of all outstanding OTDs. o Require the commission, in conjunction with the State Lands Commission and the State Coastal Conservancy, to develop a detailed plan for accepting, developing and opening all outstanding OTDs. o Require that the Coastal Conservancy accept responsibility for public accessways that are required in the future, at least until a third party is found to take permanent responsibility. o Demand the payment up front of an impact fee to cover the future capital costs related to an OTD. o Raise coastal development permit fees and dedicate the money to the maintenance and operation of easements. The LAO also urged the Commission, whenever possible, to demand up front mitigation. The LAO pointed to the San Francisco Bay Development Commission, which does not use OTDs as a mitigation tool. The Coastal Commission appeared to welcome report, and state Sen. John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) appeared ready to carry at least some of the recommended legislation. The LAO report, “Improving Coastal Access and Development Mitigation,” is available at www.lao.ca.gov . NOT OFTEN DOES A GENERAL PLAN PROCESS receive the scrutiny of a grand jury, but the Monterey County grand jury had few good things to say about the county's general plan update in a report released in January. The grand jury found, “The Board of Supervisors employed a laid back, wait and see attitude in the development of the general plan. It failed to provide guidance and direction up front which may have saved time and funds. The Board of Supervisors and the CAO have allowed special interest groups to have undue influence.” The grand jury also reported, “The land use and planning objectives of and for the county are outdated, confusing and frequently changing, according to the supervisors and administration.” Supervisors and the CAO must respond formally by April. After spending nearly five years and $5 million on a general plan update, the county last year scrapped much of a draft general plan and installed a new general plan team (see , July 2004). The grand jury's report is available at www.monterey.courts.ca.gov/grand_jury.html . ORANGE COUNTY HAS PARTIALLY FENDED OFF one developer's challenge of how the county spent excess building fees. During the 1990s, the county built up an $18.5 million surplus of building permit fees. Developer Barratt American sued over the surplus, forcing a fee reduction. The county used the excess revenue to subsidize operations while fees were reduced. The county also refunded $1 million in fees and bought a $5.5 million computer system. When building activity slowed, however, the county Planning and Development Services Department started to run a deficit that by late 2002 had reached $500,000 a month. The county ended up spending $8 million in general fund money on the department, reorganizing the agency and switching to a time-and-materials fee system. Planning and Development Services Director Tom Mathews retired, more than 30 department employees lost their jobs, and eventually county supervisors fired County Executive Officer Michael Schumacher. Barratt American's latest lawsuit was over the spending of the $18.5 million. Orange County Superior Court Judge Robert Jameson ruled that the county had properly expended $14 million, but he said the county did not provide documentation regarding $4.5 million - a conclusion that county officials dispute. Nevertheless, Jameson ordered the county to reduce fees by $4.5 million. THE CITY OF TURLOCK HAS WON a lawsuit filed by Wal-Mart over a city ordinance that bans stores of more than 100,000 square feet that devote at least 5% of floor space to non-taxable items. Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Roger Beauchesne ruled that the ordinance was not anti-competitive and instead was a response to legitimate concerns regarding blight, traffic congestion and air pollution. The judge also agreed with the city that the ordinance was exempt from environmental review. Turlock adopted the ordinance in 2003 because city officials feared that a Wal-Mart supercenter would force existing grocery stores to close, which would lead to vacant and run-down shopping centers (see , January 2004). The case is , San Joaquin County Superior Court Case No. 345253. FARMERS WITHIN THE PAJARO VALLEY Water Management Agency as well as agency Board Member John Eiskamp have sued the agency over water rate increases to pay for a $200 million water pipeline. The pipeline project, which is under construction, would bringing freshwater to the coastal portion of the agency's territory, where the water would help offset an overdraft of groundwater that has permitted saltwater to intrude into the aquifer (see , June 2004). However, the agency has spread the cost of the project among all agency customers, including inland landowners not affected by the saltwater problem. Rates have more than doubled to $160 per acre-foot, a very high price for agricultural water. The lawsuit contends that the district should have conducted an election on the rate increase.