A recent Legislative Analyst's Office report regarding the cost of fighting wildfires received a great deal of attention for its study and recommendations regarding personnel costs, labor agreements and potential new taxes. Largely overlooked, though, were suggestions that the state should influence planning decisions in areas with wildfire threats. The state has about 8 million acres in the “wildland-urban interface,” nearly three-quarters of which are at high risk for wildfire. The coastal and interior mountain ranges of Southern California, the hills ringing the San Francisco Bay Area and the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada contain most of the wildland-urban interface, where homes and businesses intermingle with undeveloped areas. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) estimates that the number of homes in the wildland-urban interface increased by 20% from 1990 to 2000. Most of the new homes are in areas served by local fire departments, and are not in the CDF's “state responsibility area.” Still, as the LAO noted, “State resources are often called upon as part of the state's integrated wildland fire protection system.” Additionally, CDF reported that its calls for non-fire emergencies, such as medical aid requests, in the Sierra foothills increased by 150% in only seven years. The LAO did not call for a decrease in development in these areas. Rather, the state should “encourage” local governments to make fire-safe planning decisions on where to locate new development, on fuel management plans and on building codes and designs, the LAO recommended. Furthermore, because the law does not specify who is responsible for funding firefighting in state responsibility areas, the LAO recommended the Legislature clarify the law to say that the state will not be fiscally liable. “First, if local agencies are clear that the state is not fiscally responsible for life and structure protection, this should encourage local land use decisions that attempt to minimize the risk to structures and people from wildfire. Second, a clear statement that the state is not responsible … could encourage local governments to budget an appropriate level of local resources for this purpose,” the LAO report says. The state's firefighting budget is about $500 million annually. The LAO recommends imposing a fee on landowners in state responsibility areas to cover half of that cost. The report is available on the LAO's website, www.lao.ca.gov . VOTERS IN SANTA ANA supported what would be the tallest building in Orange County during a special election in April. Nearly 57% of voters approved a referendum on the proposed One Broadway Plaza project in downtown Santa Ana. After five years of study, negotiation and contentious debate, the Santa Ana City Council in August 2004 approved a special development district and amended a specific plan to permit the project, which is in an area that otherwise has a 35-foot height limit. Project opponents contended at the time and during the campaign that the office tower would be out of place and cause traffic problems. The opponents qualified a referendum for the ballot and filed a still-pending lawsuit over the project's environmental impact report. Under an agreement with the city, developer Michael Harrah, who has developed and purchased dozens of buildings in downtown Santa Ana, must lease 50% of the proposed tower before beginning construction. THE PRIVATE INVESTORS IN A SANTA CRUZ redevelopment hotel and convention center project have withdrawn their support. Western Hotel Properties of Idaho backed away from the plan after project opponents submitted an overwhelming number of signatures on referendum petitions. In February, the City Council voted 4-3 to approve the project. It called for demolition of the former Dream Inn, now called the Coast Santa Cruz Hotel. Many locals and environmentalists have long considered the hotel - an 11-story structure that looms over the beach - to be an eyesore. Under the proposal, the hotel would have been replaced with a larger, 270-room oceanfront hotel connected to a six-story parking garage and a 23,000-square-foot conference center. Santa Cruz's redevelopment agency would have provided $30 million for the parking structure and conference center, which the city would have leased to the hotel owner. Complaining about the size of the project and the city's subsidy, opponents submitted 8,400 signatures on referendum petitions for the three ordinances approving the project. Only 3,892 valid signatures were required to get the referendum on the ballot. Before the county Elections Department could verify the signatures, Western Hotel Properties announced it was dropping the project. THE BATTLE OVER BOLSA CHICA in Huntington Beach just might have ended. In mid-April, the Coastal Commission approved Hearthside Homes' plans for 349 houses on a 105-acre site above Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. The Commission's approval of the project also clears the way for Hearthside to sell 103 acres to the state for an addition to the conservation project. The Bolsa Chica saga extends back to the 1970s. At various times, as many as 5,700 housing units were proposed for the site, a degraded wetlands and former oil field. Led by the group Amigos de Bolsa Chica, environmentalists fought every step of the way. Over the years, the state has acquired most of the site, or nearly 2,000 acres (see , January 2002; , November 1989). Amigos protested the latest development proposal, too, but the Coastal Commission approved it 11-1. With the Coastal Commission's approval of the Hearthside subdivision and the likely sale of the remainder of mesa to the state, virtually all of Bolsa Chica either is entitled for development or designated for conservation. THE CASE REGARDING DISPUTED WETLANDS near the unincorporated Santa Barbara County town of Orcutt has taken another turn. The property owner, Adams Brothers Farming, has agreed to pay $1.15 million to settle a lawsuit filed by the Environmental Protection Agency. In late 2004, a Santa Barbara County jury awarded Adams Brothers $5.6 million in damages - including $130,000 to be paid by three county planners and a consultant - after concluding the county had wrongly designated one-third of Adams Brothers 286-acre farm as wetlands (see , January 2005). The jury award is on appeal. In 1999, the county commenced enforcement proceedings against Adams Brothers because the company graded and planted grain crops on 95 acres of county-designated wetlands without a grading or land use permit. Adams Brothers then sued the county. However, the EPA sued Adams Brothers, alleging that the company illegally graded 70 acres of wetlands without a federal permit. Under the EPA settlement, Adams Brothers will pay a $200,000 fine and contribute $915,000 to the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County for wetlands restoration elsewhere. The settlement also allows the company to resume farming on all of its land, according to the EPA. THE ENVIORNMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for the Transbay Terminal project in San Francisco has failed to survive judicial scrutiny. In April, San Francisco Judge Ronald Quidachay sided with developer Jack Myers, who contended the study was inadequate partly because it failed to account a project he planned to build. The new multi-modal station would bring together a number of bus lines, BART and Caltrain, and would replace an existing, dilapidated depot (see , August 2004). However, Myers had begun construction of a condominium tower across the street from the terminal site when San Francisco shut down his project one year ago. After deciding that the two projects could not co-exist (rail lines are proposed right under Myers' property), San Francisco supervisors began eminent domain proceedings. The developer and other terminal opponents have continued to fight. After the judge's ruling, city officials vowed to persist. THE CITY OF INDUSTRY WON another round in an ongoing struggle with the City of Brea regarding land in the Chino Hills between the two cities. The latest battle is over Industry's purchase of 525 acres along Tonner Canyon Road. Industry purchased the land last year, but Brea sued, arguing that Industry had to make public its plans for the property and complete an environmental impact report before completing the purchase. Riverside County Superior Court Judge Stephen Cunnison ruled that environmental analysis could wait until development was proposed. In April, Brea voted to appeal Cunnison's decision. Four years ago, Industry purchased a 2,400-acre Boy Scout camp in Tonner Canyon, next to 2,800 acres that the city already owned (see , December 2001). That acquisition drew protests and litigation, but Industry has maintained ownership. During the late 1970s, Industry proposed building a reservoir in the area, but the city eventually dropped the project. Officials from Brea and other agencies, and environmentalists contend that Industry still plans to fill Tonner Canyon with water, and that the latest purchase of 525 acres is another step in the reservoir project. But Industry City Manager Phil Iriarte told the , “I think after the appeal period is over, then the council will start thinking about what they might do with the property.” RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA have settled a lawsuit that the city filed regarding the impacts of unincorporated area development on the city. The settlement essentially calls for funding to be in place before major developments may proceed in the French Valley and Menifee areas. The city sued the county two years ago over the county's new general plan, which calls for extensive development in unincorporated areas outside Temecula. Roads, freeways and freeway interchanges in the area are already congested, and Temecula demanded that the county provide improvements. The settlement calls for the city and county to fund a study to determine a development impact fee that would pay for additional lanes on Interstates 15 and 215. The study, by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, is scheduled to be completed later this year. The settlement also calls for the city and county to form assessment districts to pay for about $300 million of road and freeway interchange projects over the next 20 years. Last year, Temecula and the county settled a lawsuit over development near Hemet when the country agreed to restrict development based on the completion of road improvements. A DRAFT REPORT ON THE PROPOSED SPLIT of Santa Barbara County concludes that the new county would not be economically viable - and that the remainder of Santa Barbara County would be better off fiscally. The draft report by the governor-appointed Mission County Formation Review Commission states that Santa Barbara County now spends $30 million more for general fund services within the territory of the proposed new county than the same area generates in tax revenue. “Without an increase in taxes, significant reductions in current service deliveries would be necessary in those areas funded by general discretionary revenues (primarily sheriff, probation, district attorney, public defender and support services) for the proposed county to achieve a balanced budget,” the Commission reported. Mission County proponents assailed the report, partly because the Commission relied on information provided by the county. The report is available at www.missioncountyformation.org.

A State Auditor’s report questions reserve fund accumulations and spending practices at independent water districts. Released in late June, the report looks at the funds held by local, independent water districts statewide. The auditor also selected eight districts for closer scrutiny: Alameda County Water District, Crestline-Lake Arrowhead Water Agency, Leucadia Wastewater District, Otay Water District, San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, Walnut Valley Water District, Western Municipal Water District, and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District. The auditor reported that five of districts — Crestline, Leucadia, Walnut Valley, Western and Wheeler Ridge — “may have trouble defending to their ratepayers and taxpayers the need for some portion of their accumulative resources.” The auditor made clear that the accumulations are not necessarily excessive, but did question the reserve accounts because the agencies’ could not fully explain why they needed the money. The auditor reported that three districts — Otay, Walnut Valley and Western — paid attendance fees for directors to attend parties and Chamber of Commerce functions, and also spent lavishly on meals and travel. Walnut Valley, for example, paid $18,000 for 15 meals provided to directors and others who were away from the district. The auditor also found that one Leucadia director made decisions in which she had a financial interest. Director Lois Humphreys voted for district contracts with an engineering company that had hired her for public relations work, according to the audit. The districts’ responses to the audit were mixed, with Walnut Valley providing the most combative answer. “Walnut Valley Water District challenges the title of the report and the district disputes the claim that its ‘reserve accounts are not always sufficiently justified’ or that ‘some expenses and contract decisions are questionable.’ The district submits there is absolutely no evidence to support these broad general allegations,” General Manager Karen Power wrote. State officials have long eyed special district reserve accounts as a potential source of revenue during hard times for the state. However, the state auditor reported that the state could not legally “transfer” money in the water districts’ reserve accounts to the state general fund. The audit is available at www.bsa.ca.gov TWO NEW STUDIES by San Jose State University economics professors cast doubt on the effectiveness of inclusionary zoning — in which developers must sell 10% to 20% of new homes at “affordable” prices — as a means of encouraging affordable housing production. One study examined 50 Bay Area cities with inclusionary zoning, while the second report considered the 13 cities in Los Angeles and Orange counties that employ the tool. The report found that inclusionary policies produced 6,836 affordable units in the Bay Area cities and 6,379 affordable units — 70% of them in Irvine — in Los Angeles and Orange counties. Those numbers are tiny fractions of the number of affordable housing units needed. At the same time, overall housing construction decreased “drastically” right after a city adopted an inclusionary ordinance, the professors found. One study reported that Bay Area inclusionary ordinances raised the price of a new, market-rate home by $22,000 to $44,000. For the Southern California jurisdictions, the increase was pegged at $33,000 to $66,000 per unit. In more expensive jurisdictions, the policy added more than $100,000 to the price of a new home, according to the study. The studies by Professors Benjamin Powell and Edward Stringham were funded by the libertarian Reason Foundation. They are available at www.rppi.org WHILE THE REASON REPORTS were knocking inclusionary zoning, a coalition of seven Bay Area foundations announced a $250,000 grant to the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California to fund “the first phase of the campaign to help Bay Area cities and counties accelerate adoption of inclusionary housing polices, a proven affordable housing strategy.” The effort has targeted Contra Costa and Sonoma counties and the cities of Antioch, Pittsburg and San Jose, all of which lack inclusionary zoning. The housing advocates also want San Francisco, Santa Rosa and San Mateo to strengthen inclusionary laws. Providing money are S.H. Cowell Foundation, Fannie Mae Foundation, Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund, Marin Community Foundation, Peninsula Community Foundation, The San Francisco Foundation, and Charles and Helen Schwab Foundation. THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS has adopted a growth vision called “Southern California Compass.” The plan outlines how the six-county region should accommodate an expected 6.3 million people by 2030. The plan emphasizes redevelopment and infill, development along transportation corridors, a connected series of open space reserves and much greater public transit. The plan calls for the majority of new housing units to be multi-family apartments, townhouses and condominiums. The organization has closely tied the plan with its regional transportation plan (see , June 2004). The growth vision is available at www.socalcompass.org VOTERS IN ANTIOCH have rejected a proposed business park and apartment complex. During an election in June, 54% of voters on Measure C sided with Citizens for a Better Antioch, which forced a referendum after the City Council approved the project. The proposed Bluerock Business Center and Luxury Apartments would have provided space for about 1,000 jobs and 240 housing units. Although project advocates said the project would help address the bedroom community’s jobs-housing imbalance, the election appears indicative of an anti-growth backlash that has hit the Contra County city of 103,000. FORMER SANTA ROSA PLANNING COMMISSIONER Richard Carlile has been fined $24,000 by the Fair Political Practices Commission for repeated violations of conflict-of-interest laws. Five of the FPPC charges involved a failure to disclose income from clients on conflict-of-interest forms. The FPPC also found that Carlile twice voted on projects in which his clients held a financial interest, and that he improperly lobbied planning staff members for clients. Carlile, a cofounder of Carlile Macy, one of Sonoma County’s largest civil engineering companies, was on the Planning Commission from 1997 through 2002, when he was pressured to resign because of his lobbying activity regarding development regulations. He characterized the violations as technicalities. “I have nothing to be ashamed of,” Carlile told the Santa Rosa . “It’s unfortunate they happened, but they weren’t conscious violations.” A TENTATIVE DEAL that would prevent development on nearly all of the 82,000-acre Hearst Ranch in San Luis Obispo County was reached in early June. Under the deal, the Hearst Corporation would receive $80 million from the state, plus state tax credits worth $15 million. Hearst would also get the right to develop a 100-room hotel at San Simeon Village and 27 houses on 5-acre parcels. The state would gain title to 18 miles of coastline, and a conservation and agricultural easement on 81,000 acres. Details of the deal have not been finalized or released publicly.

The first update of the Governor’s Environmental Goals and Policy Report (EGPR) was issued in the final moments of the Davis administration. However, it was unclear how seriously the Schwarzenegger administration and state lawmakers would take the report. One member of the stakeholder advisory committee called the EGPR an "instant historical curiosity." The report has not been available on the website of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), which prepared the document. Rather, the EGPR was released to the public on the website of the Local Government Commission ( www.lgc.org ). Also, the letter "transmitting" the report to the Legislature was not signed by Gray Davis, as appeared to be required by law. Instead, interim OPR Director Tal Finney signed the letter to legislators. The letter was dated November 17, 2003 — the day that Arnold Schwarzenegger took office. State law requires the EGPR to be updated every four years, but Gov. Jerry Brown’s 1978 "Urban Strategy for California" is the only such report to be adopted and implemented through executive order. Under Davis, OPR spent several years working on an update. The final document, however, reads like a work in progress. More than half of the document is devoted to existing conditions, demographic change, and trends in the economy, land use and the environment. A full 47 pages of the 177-page report is a bibliography. Only 5 pages of the Environmental Goals and Policy Report contain actual goals and policies. Throughout, the report emphasizes sustainable development, environmental justice, containing "sprawl" and realigning government’s fiscal incentives. The six goals are: • Communities that provide affordable housing, economic opportunity, quality schools, parks and civic facilities that enhance the quality of life; and that use land in an equitable and environmentally sensitive manner. • A state government that is responsive to regional and local needs. • An inclusive state whose actions and institutions reflect the diversity of California’s population. • An economically vital state whose business environment supports innovation and entrepreneurship. • A healthy and sustainable environment for all Californians. • Safe, reliable energy to meet California’s needs. A revised environmental impact report for the proposed Newhall Ranch project near Santa Clarita passed judicial muster in late October. Kern County Superior Court Judge Roger Randall lifted his three-year-old order blocking the project. In 2000, Randall ruled that the original EIR failed to adequately address the project’s impacts to certain species, flood control and water quality. Newhall Ranch is proposed to contain about 21,000 housing units and 5 million square feet of commercial, industrial and retail development. Project opponents are expected to appeal Judge Randall’s decision. Placer County had the largest percentage job growth of any urban county in the nation from April 2002 through March 2003, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in November. The county’s payrolls grew by 4.9% — about 6,000 jobs — during the 12-month period. The bulk of Placer County’s job growth was in the construction, retail and service sectors. Ranking 315th and last by percentage in the annual report was Santa Clara County, which lost 5.9% of its jobs during the same 12-month period. The Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission has approved the City of Irvine’s annexation of the closed El Toro Marine Corps base. Under a plan adopted by the city, about 80% of the 4,700-acre base will be devoted to open space, parkland and a university. The remaining 20% of the site will be developed with 3,600 housing units and 3 million square feet of commercial and industrial space. City officials say the development will fund the site’s infrastructure, parks and other public facilities. Irvine and other cities fought for nearly 10 years against a county plan to convert the base, which closed in 1999, into a civilian airport. A change in the composition of the county Board of Supervisors, passage of a second anti-airport initiative during 2002, and, finally, Irvine’s annexation appear to have killed the proposed airport for good. University of California, Merced, has selected Lennar Communities of San Ramon to be the master developer of a new community of up to 31,000 residents next to the UC Merced campus, which is scheduled to open in fall 2005. The new community is still in the planning stages. A proposed 221-acre "wetlands park" in Petaluma moved closer to reality in November when the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors granted $2 million in open space district funds for property acquisition, habitat restoration and recreational facilities. The city is putting $2 million into property acquisition, and state agencies have also promised funding for the $9.7 million project, which aims to maintain and restore one of the largest intact marshes of its type in the country.

Three highly anticipated studies regarding the potential impact of Wal-Mart supercenters in California have been released in recent weeks. A supercenter is a full Wal-Mart store plus a full-sized grocery and usually totals 180,000 to 230,000 square feet. Wal-Mart hopes to build 40 supercenters in California in five years, but some cities and counties have blocked Wal-Mart (see , February 2004). The studies have some common threads but reach dramatically different conclusions — and the studies drew predictable responses. A Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC) report defended supercenters as a net gain for the region. The LAEDC found that if supercenters had 20% of the grocery market, households in the seven-county Southern California region would save an average of $589 annually, a total $3.76 billion. There could be regional loss of up to 5,100 grocery jobs, but those losses would be offset 7-to-1 by gains in other sectors that would be funded by money saved on groceries, the LAEDC concluded. In a study prepared by University of California, Irvine, Professor Marlon Boarnet and UCLA Professor Randall Crane, the Bay Area Economic Forum concluded that supercenters controlling 6% to 18% of the market could reduce consumers’ grocery bills in a 12-county region by 5% to 13% annually. The savings of as much $1.13 billion a year could stimulate other spending, the report says. However, the supercenters would likely pay employees about half as much as the typical Bay Area grocery clerk, reducing payrolls by as much as $677 million a year and harming what has been a source of high-paying, entry-level employment, the study said. The study recommended local governments consider proposed superstores’ demands on roads and public services, and the possibility of existing retail areas closing. A report released by Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez) called Wal-Mart a tax drain. Because of low wages and restricted health benefits, a Wal-Mart store with 200 employees costs taxpayers about $420,000 a year for health care, housing subsidies and school lunches, according to the report, prepared by the Democratic staff on the House Education and Workforce Committee. IN OTHER BIG-BOX NEWS, Wal-Mart has filed lawsuits against both the City of Turlock and Alameda County regarding new ordinances that block superstores. The separate state court lawsuits claim Turlock and Alameda County violated the California Environmental Quality Act and other procedural requirements. Wal-Mart also filed a federal lawsuit against Turlock alleging a violation of the company’s equal protection rights. OWNERS OF ABOUT 5% of the stock in Costco have voted for a resolution calling on the discount membership store to devise a policy for the selection and acquisition of store sites. The shareholders, led by Christian Brothers Investment Services (CBIS), say Costco has not been sensitive to local concerns. CBIS said it would continue to press the issue. THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE'S budget analysis released in mid-February contains a number of proposals worrisome to planners and housing advocates. Among other things, the LAO recommended using more Proposition 46 bond money for ongoing multi-family housing programs, increasing the amount of property tax revenue shifted from redevelopment agencies to school districts by nearly $200 million, eliminating the Office of Planning and Research, and dropping the regional housing mandate. ALTHOUGH IT HAS BEEN RELUCTANT to fully embrace the New Urbanist-style City of Villages plan (see , August 2002), the San Diego City Council in February approved five sites as "pilot villages." Those five communities and developers there will get higher priority for water and sewer improvements, help with applying for financial assistance, and expedited permitting. The pilot projects range from 366 row houses, condominiums, apartments and lofts on 8 acres along El Cajon Boulevard, to 839 housing units, an amphitheater, shops, offices and job training centers on 45 acres at Euclid Avenue and Market Street. DEVELOPMENT IN THE PLACER COUNTY CITY OF ROSEVILLE advanced in February when the City Council approved the west Roseville specific plan, which calls for about 8,400 housing units plus a business park and retail areas on 3,100 acres (see , August 2003). The council also approved development agreements with West Park Associates and Signature Properties. The project now moves to the Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission, which will consider the city’s proposed annexation of the territory. At the same time the Roseville plan moved forward, a visiting Superior Court Judge blocked Placer County’s approval of the 1,900-home Bickford Ranch project, just north of Loomis. Judge John Golden found the county’s record so confusing that he could not determine which version of the project the county approved. CALAVERAS COUNTY SUPERVISORS approved road impact fees for the first time in February. Road fees failed to win Board of Supervisors’ support last year because the fees did not cover commercial development (see , January 2004). The new fees are $3,300 per single-family home and $2,400 per multi-family unit. Non-residential fees range as high as $8.60 per square foot for highway commercial development. Supervisors voted 3-2 for the fees. Among the dissenters was California State Association of Counties President Paul Stein. THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL issued something of a split decision regarding a proposed shopping mall in Elk Grove. The Department of Conservation and slow-growth advocates had sued to block the 295-acre, 3 million-square-foot Lent Ranch Marketplace project, proposed for farmland on the south end of town. A Sacramento County Superior Court Judge found the EIR inadequate for a number of reasons. In an unpublished, 2-1 decision, the Third District overturned all of the lower court decision except with regard to farmland mitigation. The court ruled that the city must find a way to mitigate the loss of 300 acres of "farmland of statewide importance." Both sides in the five-year-old fight claimed victory. THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE has decided not to protect the midvalley fairy shrimp, which lives in portions of the Central Valley and East Bay, under the Endangered Species Act. The agency found that the species often lives in vernal pool habitat that is already protected, or in rural areas with little development pressure. The decision on the midvalley fairy shrimp came at about the same time that environmentalists sued the federal agency over its 2003 decision, based in part on economic grounds, to remove 1 million acres from a critical habitat designation for four freshwater shrimp and 11 plant species. That land lies in Butte, Sacramento, Solano, Merced and Madera counties.

The Nut Tree, a California highway landmark that closed eight years ago, may return to life in 2005. The Vacaville City Council in September approved a master plan for the 79-acre property along Interstate 80. The council’s unanimous decision came a year and a half after the city, which had acquired the property, approved a disposition and development agreement with Bay Area developer Roger Snell. For decades, the Nut Tree was a stopping point halfway between San Francisco and Sacramento, as well as a destination of its own. A restaurant, produce market and train ride were among the attractions. After some hard times and the rise of a gigantic outlet mall nearby, however, the Nut Tree closed. Several developers took a shot at the site before Snell emerged as the leading candidate to revitalize the landmark. The master plan calls for a mixed-use development that is modern, yet reminiscent of the Nut Tree’s public spaces. The pedestrian-oriented plan calls for 350,000 square feet of restaurant and specialty retail space, 200,000 square feet of offices, a 20,000-square-foot conference center and full-service hotel, a smaller business-class hotel, and up to 350 attached residential units. The development would also feature a 1.5-acre public square, and a 3-acre park with amusement rides and the restored home of the original Nut Tree proprietors, the Harbison family. The disposition and development agreement requires Snell to produce at least 20 acres of retail and public attractions in the first phase. Development could begin in the spring of 2005, although the city has not yet approved a site plan or other project details. During a hearing on plan approval, Snell told the City Council that the project would be a 24-hour entertainment hub that makes Vacaville a destination again. “There is no project like this anywhere in the country,” he said. Council members were eager to approve the project but emphasized that they want something unique, “not,” as Councilwoman Rischa Slade said, “like every other place.” IN A BATTLE OF SHOPPING CENTER TITANS, Los Angeles developer Rick Caruso defeated Chicago-based General Growth during a September referendum in the City of Glendale. The city’s voters narrowly approved a zoning amendment (Measure A, 51.6%), a specific plan (Measure B, 51.1%) and a development agreement (Measure C, 50.7%) that the City Council had adopted earlier this year for the Caruso project. Caruso has proposed a “town center” project called Americana at Brand for 15.5 acres of dilapidated buildings and parking lots in downtown Glendale. The development would contain 400,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space, a 16-screen movie theater, and about 330 condominiums and apartments. Americana at Brand would be similar to The Grove, Caruso’s successful open-air mall in Los Angeles’s Fairfax district. General Growth, which owns the 1.5-million-square-foot Glendale Galleria adjacent to the project site, complains that the development would cut off access to the Galleria and clog local streets. The new shopping center would close Harvard and Orange streets to automobiles and generate about 20,000 vehicle trips per day. The second largest enclosed shopping mall owner in the country, General Growth forced the referendum and reportedly spent $1.5 million on the campaign. Caruso responded by pouring more than $2 million into the election. The two sides are also in court. General Growth has contested the project’s environmental impact report. In a separate lawsuit, Caruso has charged General Growth with anti-competitive conduct. VENTURA COUNTY SUPERVISORS have approved a measure that limits campaign contributions to $250 for anyone with a land use matter pending before the Board of Supervisors. The county already had limited contributions to $600 per election cycle. But Supervisor Steve Bennett — who helped pass urban growth boundaries in most Ventura County cities before he become a supervisor — said there is a perception that land use decisions stimulate campaign contributions that could influence supervisors. Supervisor Judy Mikels voted against the restriction, saying it is unnecessary and discriminates against landowners. THE RACE TO LURE A DHL CARGO HUB neared the finish line during September. In Moreno Valley, the March Joint Powers Commission approved a 380,000-square-foot facility, an action that permits a joint powers authority to issue $35 million in industrial bonds for the project. Two weeks earlier, the San Bernardino Planning Commission approved Hillwood Investment’s plan for a similar sized cargo facility at the former Norton Air Force Base. The City Council is expected to provide final approval this month. DHL has already opened a small sorting facility at the closed base, which is now called San Bernardino International Airport. Meanwhile, officials in Ontario are reportedly talking to DHL about a cargo base at Ontario International Airport. The plan for March Air Reserve Base has spurred the most public interest. Nearly 1,000 people — many of them area residents who oppose nighttime flights at March — attended a September 22 hearing of the Joint Powers Commission. Middle-of-the-night flights are a staple of the cargo business. Although DHL has remained in the background, most people involved expect the company to make a decision within a few months. The DHL cargo hub would employ 400 to 500 people.

The Navy has asked incoming governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to block a proposed new town on the Tejon Ranch because the development would hinder national security. The Navy has also asked the new administration “to facilitate coordinated master planning of the entire Tejon Ranch, across local jurisdictions, with special consideration of input from DoD regarding military training and testing requirements.” The new town, called Centennial, is proposed to have 23,000 housing units and 14 million square feet of office, industrial and retail space near the junction of Interstate 5 and Highway 138, about 25 miles north of Santa Clarita (see CP&DR Local Watch, April 2003). According to an October 21 letter to the incoming administration from Navy Rear Admiral J.L. Betancourt, military airplanes regularly fly training and testing missions within 200 feet of ground level in the area of the proposed development. “ t is likely that the Tejon Ranch project is just the beginning of the development of this portion of the Antelope Valley,” according to a Navy report. “Such development, if realized, could result in substantive land use conflicts underlying current training areas and could likely pose a threat to continued use of training routes.” Betancourt pointed to 2002 legislation, AB 1468 (Knight), that requires general plans to account for potential land use conflicts with military bases, and which gives the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research authority to resolve disputes. He suggested proposed development could be pushed to the northern portion of the 270,000-acre Tejon Ranch, in the San Joaquin Valley. Tejon Ranch President and Chief Executive Officer Bob Stine called the letter “politically driven” and said environmental groups were using the military to halt development. He noted that 43 individuals and groups — ranging from federal, state and local lawmakers to the Sierra Club — were on the letter’s carbon copy list. “Certainly we were surprised because we’ve been in the planning process for the Centennial project for three years, all of the information for the project was submitted to the public in August 2002, and the military has never contacted us,” Stine said. Tejon Ranch officials are willing to cooperate with the military, and involvement from the governor’s office is not warranted, Stine added. The Rohnert Park City Council has approved an agreement with the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria under which the tribe will pay the city, a school district and community groups $200 million over 20 years to mitigate impacts of a proposed casino and resort. The City Council’s mid-October vote came while casino opponents worked on a recall of the four councilmembers who voted for the agreement. Meanwhile, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors rejected an offer of $120 million from the tribe because the money came under the condition that the county not oppose the proposed development — a condition Rohnert Park accepted. Still, a recall of three supervisors, including two who voted against the tribe’s offer, is also underway. The Graton Rancheria has proposed the largest casino in Northern California on 360 acres of farmland west of Rohnert Park. Besides what might be the largest gambling floor in the state, the facility would also have a 300-room hotel and a 2,000-seat auditorium. Station Casinos of Las Vegas, which joined with a different tribe to open a casino near Roseville in June, would help develop and operate the facility. The land is not held in trust for the tribe — a requirement for an Indian casino. However, the 2000 federal legislation that gave legal recognition to the tribe mandates the Interior Department take into trust any land the tribe requests. Under the approved revenue-sharing plan, the tribe will pay the city $15 million up front for road work, $2.7 in in-lieu development fees, and $3 million for new police and fire facilities. In addition, the tribe will pay annually for 20 years $6 million, including $1 million designated for housing, to the city; $1 million to the Cotati-Rohnert Park School District; and $2 million to community nonprofit organizations. The agreement has escape provisions for the tribe, including the tribe’s failure to reach a certain compact with the state. The deal would provide more money for local government than any other agreement involving a gaming tribe. The Corona Redevelopment Agency should reimburse hundreds of thousands of dollars of low- and moderate-income housing funds (LMIHF or low/mod funds) that the city used to purchase and operate emergency shelters, a Department of Housing and Community Development audit has concluded State auditors found that Corona spent $400,000 in low/mod funds to purchase one shelter and spent $250,000 over three years to help the Salvation Army operate the facility. The redevelopment agency spent another $94,000 of low/mod funds to help run an emergency and transitional housing facility for domestic violence victims. Low- and moderate-income housing funds must be used for permanent or transitional housing, and not for short-term emergency shelter, states the audit, which was released at the end of September. Corona Redevelopment and Economic Development Director Jim Bradley responded that redevelopment law is not clear cut and he rejected HCD’s interpretation. “To adopt a narrow definition of what qualifies as housing for purposes of LMIHF expenditures would most likely result in the closure or reduction of numerous emergency and other non-traditional housing venues throughout the state,” Bradley wrote. “Given the strong public policy behind providing housing in both traditional and non-traditional forms, we do not believe that a narrow definition is warranted.” State auditors also found that Corona used as much as 52% of annual low/mod expenditures for administration and planning, that it spent $91,000 of low/mod monies over three years on community trash cleanup, and that the city failed to assist 25 families displaced by redevelopment activity. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has until January 18, 2005, to designate critical habitat for 20 species of salmon and steelhead trout listed under the Endangered Species Act, according to a consent decree signed in September. The decree settled a lawsuit environmentalists and commercial fishing companies filed against NMFS. The critical habitat designation could be the largest ever, as the federal agency will study about 150 watersheds in California, Oregon, Washington and Idaho. A critical habitat designation for the fish released in 2002 was withdrawn when development interests filed suit arguing that NMFS did not consider economic effects of the designation. The Sacramento Valley Conservancy completed its purchase of 4,060 acres of grasslands and oak woodlands in eastern Sacramento County. The land, in a lightly developed area more than 5 miles south of Highway 50, had been the site of the proposed 3,000-unit Deer Creek Hills subdivision, which voters rejected 2-to-1 three years ago (see , December 2000). The Conservancy pieced together about $11.1 million in state bond money from the county and two state agencies. Private contributions composed only about $250,000 of the $11.4 million purchase price.

Lennar Corp. has purchased the former El Toro Marine Corps base in Irvine. The Miami-based developer paid $649.5 million for 3,718 acres in an online auction that concluded February 16. The other bidders were Standard Pacific Homes and an unidentified “OCHOPE.” Typically, the military gives closed bases to local governments. But in this case, the Navy gave 1,000 acres to the Interior Department for a wildlife preserve and then put the rest up for auction in three chunks (see , May 2003). Los Angeles city officials tried to halt the auction at the last minute by resurrecting plans for an international airport at El Toro, but federal officials dismissed the pleas. Under Irvine's “Great Park” plan, Lennar must turn over about 1,500 acres to the city for parks, museums and other public amenities. On the rest of the acreage, Lennar may develop about 3,500 housing units, 3 million square feet of commercial, industrial and retail space and a university. Lennar also is obligated to fund about $400 million worth of infrastructure, some of which will be paid by future property owners. Lennar hopes to start building houses at El Toro by 2007. Meanwhile, the Navy is responsible for the ongoing, $300 million cleanup of hazardous materials, which is expected to take another eight years. A SLOW-GROWTH INITIATIVE in the City of Santee failed at a special election conducted February 15. The election appears to clear the way for development of the 2,600-acre Fanita Ranch, which has served as an informal park in the San Diego suburb for decades. Numerous plans for development of Fanita Ranch have come and gone over the years. In 1999, a year after voters rejected an initiative to limit development at Fanita Ranch, the city approved a 3,000-unit housing project for about half of the property. Later that year, however, voters rejected the project during a referendum (see , December 1999; , September 1999). At the same election, voters turned down a proposed parcel tax to fund acquisition of the real estate. The latest initiative would have prohibited Fanita Ranch development within 150 feet of any permanent or intermittent water course and on most slopes of more than 20% - essentially putting 90% of the ranch off-limits to development. Measure X also would have prevented lots smaller than one acre. For the undeveloped Rattlesnake Mountain area south of Fanita Ranch, the initiative would have prevented development on slopes greater than 25%. About 65% of voters said no to Measure X. Barratt American, which purchased Fanita Ranch a few years ago, and Greystone Homes, which has plans for Rattlesnake Mountain, poured approximately half a million dollars into the campaign. Barratt American has proposed a 1,380-house development on mostly half-acre lots, in addition to retail development. Greystone has proposed a 373-unit single-family home and condominium project for its property. A DECADES-OLD LAND USE CONTROVERSY in Malibu appears to have reached a permanent conclusion. In 1982, the Malibu Little League won the right to build baseball fields on 10-acres of the 93-acre, state-owned Bluffs Park. At that time, Malibu Little League needed a new place to play ball because the state wanted to restore wetlands at the site of the existing ball fields at Malibu Lagoon. Malibu's youngsters have continued to use the Bluffs Park fields even though a lease ended in 2002 and environmentalists have never been happy about the arrangement. The agreement, which appears to satisfy just about everyone, was approved in February. State parks will donate the 93-acre park to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, which will then sell 10 acres with the ball fields and other public amenities to the city for roughly $1.5 to $2.5 million. That money will go to state parks, which will put it toward the purchase of the 588-acre Soka University site in the Santa Monica Mountains, where Los Angeles County approved a huge, but never developed, campus during the 1990s (see , June 1996, March 1994, March 1993). State parks will also devote about $7 million set aside for the Little League field relocation to the Soka purchase. Coincidentally, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to allocate $550,000 toward the $35 million Soka site acquisition in February. THE MODESTO CITY COUNCIL has decided not to consider any sewer extensions to new growth areas for two years. The council decided to delay future sewer trunk extensions until the city completes new master plans for sewer, water and storm drain systems. Sewer extensions in Modesto must go to an advisory vote. With the council's decision, no such election may be conducted until 2007 unless developers foot the full cost of the election. City officials said they want a pause because they need more complete information. Recent Measure M elections have already opened about 1,600 acres to development. Even a representative of Centex Homes conceded to the that the City Council “probably did the right thing.” ORANGE COUNTY'S LONG-PROPOSED CenterLine light rail project may be dead. In February, the Orange County Transportation Authority voted to discuss other options for transit, including a possible rapid bus transit system and increased MetroLink train service. More than a decade ago, planners envisioned the CenterLine as a 28-mile-long system from Fullerton to Irvine. Over time, the proposed project shrank until it was down to only 9.3 miles from a multi-modal transportation center in downtown Santa Ana to John Wayne Airport, with a spur to Santa Ana College. The project is estimated to cost $1.1 billion, but $500 million the county has expected from the federal government appears to be in doubt. The agency is scheduled to revisit the matter in June. SIXTEEN INSURANCE COMPANIES led by Lloyd's of London have agreed to pay the State of California $93 million to settle insurance claims related to the state's highest priority Superfund site, the Stringfellow acid pits in Riverside County. Although cleanup of the toxic dump is expected eventually to cost the state more than $600 million, Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the settlements “will help California recoup some of its expenses and allow us to focus our attention on the remaining defendants.” A state lawsuit against 15 other insurance companies is scheduled for trial this month. From 1956 to 1972, manufacturing companies dumped 35 million gallons of solvents, pesticides and other toxic materials into unlined ponds at the 17-acre site just north of Highway 60 in Glen Avon. By the late 1970s, rain had caused the ponds to overflow at least once, and groundwater pollution was evident in nearby residential areas served by wells. The state began cleaning up the site during the 1980s. In 1998, a court found the state liable for the pollution because the state had not only regulated and inspected Stringfellow, but had directed companies to use the site. Since the early 1990s, the state has sought to collect on insurance policies it purchased over the years to cover its liability. CALVERAS AND TUOLOMNE COUNTIES have settled a lawsuit that Tuolumne had filed regarding Calaveras's approval of a 3,250-acre resort in the Copperopolis area. Tuolumne County officials argued that Oak Canyon Ranch - 2,275 houses and 1,200 visitor units, shopping areas and two golf courses - would impact a county road and two state highways in Tuolumne County (see January 2004). The two counties settled the lawsuit in February when Calaveras agreed to charge, and developer Maury Froman agreed to pay, $985 per unit toward traffic mitigation. Tuolumne County will get to spend the money, which would total $3.3 million if the project is fully built out. The project has been for sale recently. Froman also agreed to pay the two counties' legal expenses of about $130,000. Correction. The story in the December 2004 edition regarding a project at the Santa Clara County Fairgrounds contained an error. The story incorrectly stated that the subject of a 2000 environmental impact report was an outdoor amphitheater, and that the county Board of Supervisors later decided to pursue an indoor concert hall. The 1998 fairgrounds revitalization plan did call for an outdoor amphitheater, but the Board of Supervisors dropped the idea because of neighborhood opposition. Instead, the board in 1999 decided on an indoor facility, which was the subject of the EIR.

The big box wars continue unabated in California, with retail giant Wal-Mart losing one high-profile round but winning elsewhere. In early April, City of Inglewood voters rejected an initiative endorsed by Wal-Mart that would have required the city to approve, without environmental review, a 60-acre retail development between Hollywood Park race track and The Forum. A Wal-Mart supercenter was at the heart of the proposed shopping center. The election received attention nationwide because it was the first time that Wal-Mart had gone the initiative route for a proposed store. Despite a Wal-Mart campaign that cost more than $1 million, 61% of Inglewood voters rejected the initiative. The 4,575 votes that Wal-Mart received cost the company about $220 apiece. Labor unions led the fight against the Inglewood initiative, and Wal-Mart opponents nationwide took heart from the election. Still, Wal-Mart continued to press ahead. "It’s simply one store, one site in the list of hundreds we work on ever year," Wal-Mart Vice President Robert McAdam told the . "It’s not that big of a deal. We’re going to find ways to build stores and serve customers, and while we would have loved to have that location, there are going to be other opportunities." Elsewhere, in what might be only a procedural victory for Wal-Mart, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors repealed an ordinance adopted earlier this year that prohibited stores of more than 100,000 square feet from devoting 10% of floor space to nontaxable items (see CP&DR, January 2004). The measure was clearly aimed at blocking supercenters, which are typically more than 200,000 square feet with complete grocery stores inside. Groceries are not taxed in California. Wal-Mart sued Alameda County and the Central Valley City of Turlock, which adopted a similar ordinance. At the behest of County Counsel Richard Winnie, the Alameda board repealed the ordinance because the Planning Commission had never reviewed it — one of the grounds for Wal-Mart’s lawsuit. The company then dropped the its lawsuit, but the county intends to restart the ordinance adoption process. Across the bay in San Francisco, a Board of Supervisors committee approved a proposed ordinance that would permit stores larger than 120,000 square feet that sell groceries in downtown, but ban them elsewhere. The ordinance also would require all stores of at least 50,000 square feet to obtain a conditional use permit. Also in San Francisco, supervisors have approved a zoning ordinance that restricts "formula retail stores," defined as companies with at least 12 stores nationally and having at least two standardized traits, such as trademarks, merchandise, facades, signs or colors. The new ordinance outright bans formula retail stores on four blocks of Hayes Street in the center of Hayes Valley, near the Civic Center. The ordinance further requires formula retail stores that propose to open in one of the city’s approximately three dozen neighborhood retail districts to notify neighbors of the proposal. Supervisors said the law protects the city’s varied neighborhoods and local businesses. The Southern California Association of Governments has adopted a $213 billion, 25-year transportation plan. The plan calls for nearly across-the-board improvements and changes to the metropolitan region’s system: a magnetic levitation train system, expanding Metrolink and Metro Rapid bus lines, growth at regional airports, and more freeway lanes, including toll and carpool lanes. The plan also calls for increasing the state gas tax by 10 cents per gallon, and raising as much as $60 billion over 25 years from tolls and ridership fees. A lawsuit over the proposed Newhall Ranch project in Los Angeles County has been settled, marking what appears to be a change in tactics for opponents of the 21,000-home project just west of Santa Clarita. Three environmental organizations agreed to drop the lawsuit in exchange for Newhall Land & Farming Company’s willingness to provide Los Angeles County with annual groundwater usage reports, and to ensure that groundwater serving the development meets state health standards. Project opponents won an early round of the lawsuit when a Kern County Superior Court judge ruled, among other things, that there was inadequate evidence that water was available for the development. Newhall then acquired more water rights, and a revised environmental impact report was prepared. Last year, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved project and EIR revisions, which were enough to satisfy the Superior Court. Instead of pursuing an appeal of that decision, opponents apparently intend to fight individual subdivisions within Newhall Ranch and to continue to question the availability of water. The City of Santa Clarita’s proposal to annex 555 acres at the junction of Interstate 5 and Highway 14 — where a 5,800-home development is proposed — received a setback in April. A Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that the city must complete an environmental impact report before proceeding with the annexation. The city opposes the proposed Las Lomas development (see , January 2004) and has filed an application with the Los Angeles County Local County LAFCO. Las Lomas developers want the City of Los Angeles to annex the territory and have filed their proposal with that city. The San Diego Padres' new downtown ballpark opened in April. The opening of the stadium, which is within a short walk of both the San Diego Convention Center and the thriving Gaslamp Quarter, appears to have induced even more interest in commercial and multi-family housing constructing in downtown, as several projects have been proposed in recent months. The San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission has approved the proposed expansion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by 140,000 acres after a bitter fight by the San Mateo County Farm Bureau and property owners. The LAFCO decision adds property on the San Mateo County coast and in the coastal hills, including many farms, to the open space district. The district, which covers portions of San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, has been very aggressive about acquiring property and conservation easements. It has preserved 48,000 acres since 1972. Agency officials say they would like to preserve another 12,000 acres, including coastal lands, in the next 15 years. The Farm Bureau dropped its opposition after the district agreed not to use eminent domain in the coastal expansion area. In April, Gov. Schwarzenegger signed AB 1195 (Cohn), which ensures the district cannot use eminent domain in the expansion area. Still, some landowners are unhappy and are considering a ballot measure to overturn the LAFCO decision. Restoration of the Bolsa Chica wetlands in Huntington Beach took two major steps forward recently. In late March, the State Coastal Conservancy approved $10 million for the 1,200-acre project. In April, the State Lands Commission granted a four-year lease to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is scheduled to start work on restoration this fall. The ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are providing $90 million for the project to offset port expansion projects. Since the 1970s, environmentalists have fought development proposed on the degraded wetlands and adjacent bluffs (see , January 2002). Over the years, the building envelope has dwindled to about 60 acres, and the current developer, Hearthside Homes, is reportedly negotiating to sell that property so that it may be preserved. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has re-designated 4.1 million acres in 28 California counties as critical habitat for the California red-legged frog, which is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The designation is similar to a 2001 critical habitat designation that a federal judge threw out in November 2002 because the Fish and Wildlife Service did not prepare an adequate economic analysis (see , December 2002; , December 2000). The new designation excludes three military bases on the central coast because of a new law exempting military lands from the Endangered Species Act, and lands covered by habitat conservation plans in San Joaquin and Riverside counties. The new designation adds territory in Nevada and Calaveras counties. A revised economic analysis, however, was absent from the Fish and Wildlife Service’s announcement. The analysis will be released next year, the agency said. The building industry, which won the earlier suit, complained that the agency had not improved its practices this time around. The designation of critical habitat can force additional federal review of proposed developments.

The Bush administration announced it has dropped a plan to relax federal regulation of wetlands. For most of 2003, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers worked on a proposal to redefine which streams, ponds, wetlands and other seasonal and permanent bodies of water would be protected under the Clean Water Act. The proposal was a response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2001 ruling in , 121 S. Ct. 675 (see , February 2001), in which the court limited the Army Corps’s ability to regulate isolated bodies of water. However, most states, including California, half the members of the House of Representatives and numerous angling, hunting and conservation groups opposed the proposal to relax federal regulations. Homebuilders, on the other hand, endorsed the concept. In announcing that the administration was dropping the proposal, EPA Administrator Michael Leavitt endorsed the longstanding policy of "no net loss" of wetlands. However, Leavitt also suggested that fear of extensive litigation drove the decision. IN THE LATEST INSTALLMENT of a controversy that is nearly a century old, Attorney General Bill Lockyer has sued the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP) for failing to restore the Lower Owens River. The lawsuit, which the Sierra Club and the Owens Valley Committee joined, appears to have spurred the DWP to action. Under a 1997 memorandum of understanding that settled earlier litigation, DWP agreed to put a prescribed amount of water in the dry riverbed by June 2003. The project was intended to serve as mitigation for DWP’s increased groundwater pumping in Inyo County that commenced when DWP completed a second aqueduct in 1970. "DWP has now missed all the deadlines that the MOU parties negotiated after years of litigation and settlement discussions," asserts the lawsuit, filed during December in Inyo County Superior Court. "DWP is now proceeding on an ad hoc basis, without any specific enforceable deadlines, and it continues to further delay the project and miss its own work schedules. … t is unclear when, if ever, the city and DWP will complete this important mitigation project, cure its ongoing violation of CEQA, and bring the project’s environmental benefits to fruition." Lockyer and the environmental groups asked the court to limit DWP’s groundwater pumping until the Lower Owens River project is completed. Two weeks after the lawsuit was filed, DWP announced it would restore a steady flow of water to the Lower Owens River within two years. The agency said it hoped its new commitment would settle the lawsuit. The DWP’s acquisition of water rights from the Owens Valley during the early 20th century made possible much of Los Angeles’s growth. But the large-scale water diversion dried up Owens Lake and made the Owens Valley, literally, a dust bowl. SACRAMENTO FLOOD PROTECTION advanced significantly at the end of 2003 when Congress approved a deal that authorizes about $220 million for a 7-foot raise of Folsom Dam and downstream levy improvements. Once complete, the improvements would give Sacramento — which now is not safe from 100-year storms — only a 1-in-213 chance of flooding in any given year, according to engineers. Major flood improvements for Sacramento, which is threatened chiefly by the American River, have stalled for years because Reps. John Doolittle (R-Rocklin) and Robert Matsui (D-Sacramento) could not agree. Doolittle has long championed building the proposed Auburn Dam, which could provide flood control and drinking water, while Matsui sought cheaper and less environmentally damaging flood control projects downstream (see , September 2002). The deal approved as part of a federal budget bill authorizes the dam and levy upgrades, which will be partly funded by the state and local taxpayers. The deal also authorizes $135 million worth of unspecified water projects in Doolittle’s district. An additional $66 million will fund a new bridge below Folsom Dam. The road across the dam has been closed because of security concerns, creating a huge traffic problem. THE LONG-RANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN for the University of California, Davis, has been approved by the UC Board of Regents. The controversial plan calls for: • 1,600 housing units in a new neighborhood west of the campus • More than 2 million square feet of academic and administrative buildings • Research parks of 27 acres and 11 acres apiece • An 18,000-seat football stadium to be funded by private contributions and student-approved fees • A 170,000-square-foot Robert Mondavi Institute for Wine and Food Science to be funded partly by Mondavi, Anheuser-Busch Foundation and other private groups • A 75,000-square-foot conference center with an adjoining 75-room hotel. UC Davis planners have been working on the plan for years and halved the size of both the new neighborhood and the hotel because of community concerns. Still, litigation by Davis residents is likely. The long-range development plan and related documents are available at: www.ormp.ucdavis.edu/environreview/lrdp.html SOME OF THE STATE'S nine regional water quality control boards fail to follow through on regulatory enforcement actions, according to a report the State Auditor issued in December. For example, the Santa Ana and San Francisco Bay regional boards often let polluters, which may be either public or private entities, fund "supplemental environmental projects" instead of pay fines. But those boards did not ensure the projects were actually completed. When the San Francisco Bay board did levy fines, it would suspend the fines if the polluters agreed to clean up contamination or stop violations. "However, the San Francisco Bay regional board did not always follow up to determine that polluters either came into compliance with the State water quality act in according with the suspension agreements or paid the ," the State Auditor reported. The auditor recommended that the State Water Resources Control Board require the regional boards to monitor and report on the supplemental cleanup projects, and collect all fines promptly. The California Environmental Protection Agency, the agency that includes the state board, said it would attempt to implement the recommendations. The State Auditor’s report is available at www.bsa.ca.gov/bsa SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SUPERVISOR Jerry Eaves is scheduled this month to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit bribery for failing to disclose the receipt of gifts. Federal and state prosecutors announced the plea deal in December, shortly before Eaves was to stand trial on five federal counts of mail fraud and one charge of conspiracy. Eaves’s guilty plea to one state count of bribery apparently will conclude both the state and federal prosecutions. Authorities allege that Eaves accepted $33,000 in campaign contributions and $6,000 worth of lodging and hospitality at a Las Vegas hotel from William "Shep" McCook in exchange for Eaves’s votes allowing McCook to erect, and later sell, billboards on county-owned land near Interstates 10 and 215 in Colton. Under the plea deal, Eaves will pay a $10,000 fine and serve three years of "informal" probation. He also must resign from the Board of Supervisors. A former San Bernardino County administrative officer, two Colton city councilmen and McCook’s partner had earlier pleaded guilty to federal corruption charges related to the billboard scheme. McCook continues to await trial. A former Assemblyman and Rialto city councilman who was already barred from seeking a fourth term on the Board of Supervisors because of earlier campaign finance violations, Eaves continued to maintain he was guilty of nothing more than poor record-keeping. "I still feel I’m innocent," he told the . "I had to take what was offered. I wanted to get rid of these charges." THE PROCESS OF SPLITTING Santa Barbara County into two counties will move forward. County Clerk-Recorder-Assessor Joe Holland announced in December that Santa Maria-area proponents of the county split submitted enough signatures on a petition to qualify the matter for the ballot (see , July 2003). The next step is for Gov. Schwarzenegger to appoint a five-member commission to study the proposed secession. The issue is not likely to make the ballot until 2006. THE CITY OF STOCKTON'S $600 million venture to privatize the city’s water system has been thrown out by San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Bob McNatt because the city did not complete an environmental study of the project. McNatt ruled that the contract should be voided until the city completes an environmental review under CEQA. A partnership of Thames Water, of England, and Colorado-based OMI, Inc., took over the city’s water system last year. City officials contended the 20-year contract would save the city $175 million. But the Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters and the Concerned Citizens Coalition of Stockton filed a lawsuit. One month after the deal was signed last year, Stockton voters approved an initiative requiring voters to decide on any utility privatization worth more than $5 million. But the initiative was too late to block the OMI-Thames deal. THE CENTER FOR COLLABORATIVE POLICY at California State University, Sacramento, has started an Internet-based newsletter that addresses methods for resolving sticky land use issues. The Collaborative Edge can be found at www.csus.edu/ccp

Three local government organizations and three conservation groups have asked Gov. Schwarzenegger to work with them and other stakeholders on developing a comprehensive statewide growth strategy. The September 1 request came from the California State Association of Counties, California Special Districts Association, California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions, American Farmland Trust, Endangered Habitats League and Sierra Club. “As you and those within your administration have acknowledged, the current situation — in which housing prices are increasingly out of reach for the average family, inefficient land use patterns are gobbling up farmland and habitat, traffic congestion and air pollution are worsening, cities, counties and special districts cannot afford public services and infrastructure improvements, and the disadvantaged cannot find places to live near job opportunities — simply cannot continue,” the letter states. Not coincidentally, the CSAC coalition is composed of interest groups that have not been directly involved in the talks between the League of California Cities and the California Building Industry Association regarding housing development. The coalition made five recommendations to the governor: • Implement AB 857, a 2002 law that requires the state to make planning and capital spending decisions that encourage infill development, protect environmental and agricultural resources, and encourage efficient development patterns. • Work with the Legislature, and regional and state governments on budget and tax reforms “to break the barriers standing in the way of smarter growth patterns.” • “Establish a bipartisan working group to develop specific legislative, budget and policy changes to achieve efficient growth and prosperity outcomes.” • “Support additional funding for planning, infrastructure, housing, public services, and agricultural and habitat land conservation.” • Establish pilot projects to build housing, improve transportation choices and “encourage cooperation between communities and developers.” The same coalition, with the addition of the California Farm Bureau Federation, also sent a letter to Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman asking for full implementation of AB 857. “The state has not really made any effort to implement that legislation,” CSAC lobbyist DeAnn Baker said. The coalition wants to create a single effort to address land use and related fiscal issues, Baker explained. There have been so many scattered efforts and proposals recently that it has been difficult simply to track all of the discussions, she said. As of late September, the CSAC coalition had not received a response.

Construction of a sewage plant in the unincorporated San Luis Obispo County community of Los Osos has been halted following the successful recall of three elected officials who supported the plant. During a September 27 special election, voters in the Los Osos Community Services District (CSD) recalled Directors Stan Gustafson, Gordon Hensley and Richard LeGros, and replaced them with Chuck Cesena, John Fouche and Steve Senet. The ousted directors had approved a large sewer plant that is — rather, was — under construction in the center of town. The new directors and two directors who were not recalled oppose the project. Voters also approved a ballot measure blocking the project. The reconstituted CSD board halted construction and dismissed the agency’s general manager, attorney and public information officer. Board members have indicated they would pursue a different type of treatment plant to be built outside of town. Indirectly, the board has picked a fight with state agencies that have been working for years on water quality improvements State regulators have insisted since the 1970s that Los Osos needs a wastewater treatment facility. The town of 14,000 people relies on 6,000 individual septic systems, which regulators blame for polluting the groundwater and Morro Bay estuary. A state-imposed building moratorium has been in place since 1988. After years of debate and planning, the state Coastal Commission approved a development permit for the treatment plant in 2004. Construction on the $150 million collection system and treatment plant began earlier this year. The Water Resources Control Board provided a $135 million low-interest loan for the work. Since the new CSD board changed directions, the water board has demanded repayment of $6.5 million, and is withholding another $6.4 million, arguing that the district broke an agreement when it stopped construction. The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board is pursuing $10,000-per-day fines that it has held in abeyance for years. After several tense weeks, Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee (R-San Luis Obispo) began mediating negotiations between CSD representatives and state officials in late October. In what might be the most expensive hotel deal in history, the Los Angeles City Council has agreed to provide up to $290 million in subsidies for a 1,100-room Hilton Hotel next to the downtown convention center. Under the deal approved September 30, the city will rebate a minimum of $246 million in transient occupancy taxes (TOT) that the hotel would generate over 25 years. If the hotel generates more than that amount in TOT, the city and hotel would evenly split the next $48 million. Additionally, the city will rebate $4 million worth of building permit fees and the L.A. Community Redevelopment Agency will provide a low-cost, $16 million loan. The hotel is part of a larger entertainment and residential project being pursued just north of the convention center and Staples Center by developer Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG). Development began in September on parts of the project, which is planned to contain a 7,000-seat performing arts center, a 14-screen movie theater, numerous restaurants and nightclubs, offices, broadcast facilities, condominiums and, of course, a 55-story Hilton. AEG reportedly is selling the hotel site at a discount to developers Wolff Urban Management and Apollo Real Estate Advisors. The city-owned convention center has been a money pit forever, draining as much as $20 million annually from the city’s general fund. Council members said the hotel would revitalize both the convention center and downtown. Operators of existing downtown hotels lobbied against the Hilton’s subsidy and have vowed to block the deal in court or via a ballot measure. An Oregon judge has thrown out a property rights initiative approved last year by state voters. In a decision that is definitely not the final word on the matter, Marion County Circuit Judge Mary James ruled that Measure 37 violated the federal and State of Oregon constitutions, and impermissibly prohibited the Legislature from exercising its police powers. More than 60% of Oregon voters backed the initiative, which requires compensation to property owners for regulations adopted after the owner acquires property. Judge James ruled that the initiative treated property owners differently based upon when they acquired their property, which violated equal protection rights and the state constitution. She also ruled the initiative violated the separation of powers doctrine and intruded on legislative authority. A similar property rights initiative that Oregon voters approved in 2000 also was struck down in state court, but on the mostly technical ground that the initiative covered too many subjects. James’s ruling went to the merits of the measure. Property rights advocates with the group Oregonians in Action said they would continue to press on in court, and would pursue another initiative if necessary. The case is , Risk Management Division, Marion County Circuit Court No. 05C10444. State Housing and Community Development (HCD) Director Lucetta Dunn has resigned after little more than a year on the job. Dunn, an attorney who has worked in the Orange County development industry for many years, resigned effective October 31 to become president and chief executive officer of the Orange County Business Council. There was no immediate word on a replacement at HCD. Litigation over the siting of the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco has apparently been settled with the San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ decision in October to pay developer Jack Myers $58 million. The Transbay Joint Powers Authority acquired Myers’s property on Natoma Street via eminent domain after Myers had begun work on a 432-unit condominium project. The government valued the property at $32 million, a price Myers rejected. The city’s transportation authority and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission will fund the $58 million purchase. The $2 billion Transbay Terminal is planned to provide a central station for numerous forms of public transit near San Francisco’s Financial District (see , August 2004). A controversial Marin County quarry will be the subject of a $1 million environmental impact report. In October, the Board of Supervisors awarded the EIR — worth up to $998,840 — for the San Rafael Rock Quarry project to ESA. The quarry has been in operation for more than 100 years, but it has became a source of neighborhood and county complaints and litigation during recent years (see , April 2004). The environmental study, to be funded by quarry owner the Dutra Group, will examine a new reclamation plan for the 276-acre property. NASA Ames Research Center near Mountain View and internet powerhouse Google have announced an agreement under which Google would develop a 1-million-square-foot research facility on the federal installation. The project would permit public and private scientists and engineers to collaborate in a number of areas, including biotechnology and nanotechnology. As many as 4,000 people could work at the facility. Under the agreement, Google is responsible for all development costs, including infrastructure construction. Residents of a 495-acre island of unincorporated Orange County have blocked the City of Anaheim’s annexation bid. A group called West Islands Neighbors submitted 1,944 signatures — a little more than 50% of registered voters — on petitions against the annexation. That was enough to kill the annexation without an election, a rare occurrence under current law. City and county officials said annexation of the La Colonia, Sherwood Forest and Thistle neighborhoods made sense because the city could provide better public services. Opponents said they doubted service levels would increase and said they feared the city would crack down on code violations, such as the keeping of livestock and vehicle storage.

A large residential and commercial development in Upland is back on track after an appellate court lifted an order that halted some grading. Although litigation filed by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District against developers of the Colonies Crossroads continues, construction is proceeding. The two sides are in a dispute regarding the cost and design of 65 acres worth of flood control facilities on the property along the 210 freeway in far western San Bernardino County (see , December 2003). After losing in Superior Court, the county appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, which blocked further grading for new flood control facilities. But in late December, the court ruled that halting the flood control work threatened public safety, and the court lifted the injunction. Construction resumed full speed shortly thereafter, and, in January, the City of Upland approved a final map and amended development agreement for the 440-acre, 1,150-unit project. Although the county and the developers have fought vigorously in court and in the press, Scott Sommer, an attorney for The Colonies Partners, said the dispute could be resolved. "There are some serious settlement discussions getting started," Sommer said. DEVELOPERS OF A "NEW TOWN" development in the San Joaquin County city of Lathrop have settled a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club by agreeing to fund a new agricultural land trust. The River Islands project calls for 11,000 housing units and a 325-acre employment center on 4,800 acres just west of Interstate 5 (see , March 2003). The Sierra Club — which also sued over earlier proposals for a theme park on the site — filed a lawsuit in early 2003 regarding the River Islands environmental impact report. Under the settlement, Cambay Group will pay the Modesto-based Great Valley Center $200,000 to establish a new trust to preserve farmland in the project’s vicinity. Cambay Group must also pay $2,200 per acre (the amount will be adjusted for inflation) for every acre it develops, including about $900,000 up front. The developer could eventually pay more than $8 million into the trust fund. River Islands still needs some state and federal wetlands, flood control and endangered species permits. Construction remains at least one year away. DURING A SEVEN-HOUR HEARING attended by about 400 people, the Coastal Commission approved a housing and commercial development proposed for the Dana Point Headlands in Orange County. The commission voted 7-5 for developer Sanford Edward’s proposal for 122 houses, a 90-room hotel and 40,000 square feet of commercial development on the promontory. Controversy over development of the property has been around for about 15 years. In 1994, the city approved 370 houses and a 400-room hotel, but voters overturned that decision with two referenda (see , February 1997; , December 1994). Among the issues for the latest proposal were habitat for the endangered Pacific pocket mouse and the threatened California gnatcatcher, and the need to move and rebuild a seawall. Environmentalists led by the Surfrider Foundation and the Sierra Club opposed the project and threatened litigation after the Commission voted. The Commission majority contended the proposal was a balanced plan that would protect and enhance open space on half of the 121-acre site. Commissioner Mary Nichols, who was state Resources Agency secretary under Gov. Gray Davis, said that habitat and species would be better off with the project than without it. MARYSVILLE MAYOR DICK HELDER resigned in January while under pressure from Yuba County District Attorney Pat McGrath. Six months earlier, a Yuba County grand jury accused Helder of 20 counts of misconduct for acquiring interests in property within Marysville’s redevelopment project area and failing to disclose that interest. McGrath alleged that the mayor hid his interest by using a "straw buyer." After Helder resigned, a Yuba County judge dismissed the grand jury’s accusation because loss of office was the only potential penalty. COMPETING STREAM PROTECTIONS MEASURES on the Napa County ballot in March appear be dividing residents and interest groups into three camps. Major winemaking groups and most county supervisors support Measure P, which would establish setbacks of 25 to 150 feet between farms and streams depending upon the terrain and waterway (see , May 2003). Property rights activists call Measure P a "land grab" that could prohibit farming and logging on 53,000 acres. Environmentalists say Measure P does not go far enough, and they have thrown their weight behind Measure O, which calls for setbacks as large as 325 feet. Environmentalists say the restrictions are necessary to prevent further conversion of hillside forests to vineyards that are susceptible to erosion. CORRECTION. A story in the January edition on the proposed Las Lomas development near Santa Clarita mischaracterized the seismic issues. According to state maps, no fault runs directly through the site. However, territory that qualifies as special study areas under the Alquist-Priolo Act virtually surrounds the Las Lomas site.