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.

A rule proposed March 25 by the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers could broaden the definition of "waters of the United States" subject to Clean Water Act regulation. Among much else, that could expand the areas where developers need Section 404 permits from the Corps to go forward, in a parallel permitting process in addition to local government. The Association of California Water Agencies says the rule apparently would place "most intermittent and ephemeral streams as well as wetlands located near rivers and streams" under Clean Water Act protection. (See http://www.acwa.com/news/water-news/proposed-rule-clarifies-clean-water-act-protections.) The firm of Alston & Bird LLP has posted its analysis at http://bit.ly/Pdlybx. As of April 1 the proposed rule had not yet been posted for comment purposes on the Federal Register site nor Regulations.gov, but a preview of the document is available at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/wus_proposed_rule_20140325_prepublication.pdf. Tax legislation could end the Jurupa Valley trap The League of California Cities is backing two bills, SB 69 (See http://http://legiscan.com/CA/bill/SB69/2013) and AB 1521 (http://legiscan.com/CA/bill/AB1521/2013), to undo the sudden funding disadvantage that pushed the newly incorporated city of Jurupa Valley toward disincorporation this winter. The bills are based on the prior SB 56 and are designed to restore funding to newly incorporated towns from vehicle license fees As CP&DR reported in January (see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3427), the legislature first sent vehicle license fee (VLF) money to help new towns like Jurupa Valley with their new municipal governments, then took much of it away with SB 89. The two new bills propose to restore incentives for new cities to form and for existing cities to annex territory, which the League writes has been absent since a state budget maneuver, the VLF-property tax swap of 2004, left cities unable to count directly on substantial VLF revenues. The new bills would change property tax and/or VLF distribution formulas to favor recently incorporated or annexed areas. See http://www.cacities.org/Top/News/News-Articles/2014/March/Legislation-Proposes-New-City-Incorporation,-Annex. The Central Valley is sinking from groundwater loss. National Geographic and California newspapers reported this week on news from USGS that ground levels have sunk, in places alarmingly, near the Delta-Mendota Canal in the San Joaquin Valley. The USGS announcement is at http://bit.ly/1htGt4e. National Geographic has an extensive writeup at http://bit.ly/1dKrNcg quoting one researcher for the news that "one 2-square-mile... area... is subsiding almost a foot.. annually." Further recent reports on groundwater as a crisis in the San Joaquin Valley appear in the San Jose Mercury News at http://bit.ly/O7KD6l and the Hanford Sentinel at http://bit.ly/1mGeGkR. Online hotel-booking services held not to owe San Diego hotel tax The Second District Court of Appeal ruled twice in March that "online travel companies" (OTCs) such as Priceline, Expedia and Travelocity do not owe San Diego's transient occupancy tax on fees they collect for serving as middlemen between hotels and guests. The decision focused on tax amounts that cities may lose through cases when the OTC pays wholesale room rates to hotels, charges retail rates to guests, and keeps the difference. The court referred to the text of the San Diego tax ordinance, and compared prior rulings in the same group of coordinated cases for Anaheim and Santa Monica, to find tax was only due on room rent charged by the business that provides the lodging. Hence, the court found, tax is only due to the city on the wholesale rate that the hotel operator is paid, even if the hotel guest might have spent more. It added in a footnote that the 1912 case of Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corp. v. City of Los Angeles , 163 Cal. 621, "does not support a ruling that hotels may delegate to OTCs all of their responsibilities under the ordinance, nor does it suggest that the OTCs may be audited or held liable for nonpayment of any under the circumstances before us." The matter was originally heard in Los Angeles Superior Court. On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Second District issued a unanimous initial opinion March 5 that it did not order formally published (at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B243800.PDF). The panel then agreed to revisit the matter, but after rehearing issued a nearly identical opinion March 27 (at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B243800A.PDF). Airbnb to pay hotel taxes in San Francisco and Portland Under pressures from city officials that included partway-drafted regulatory legislation, Airbnb announced March 31 that it would collect and pay San Francisco's 14 percent hotel tax on behalf of hosts in the city who list housing through the Airbnb service. Carolyn Said of the San Francisco Chronicle explains details at http://bit.ly/1mGqOlH. She further writes that the company made a similar announcement in Portland, Oregon last week and has offered $21 million in tax payments in New York. The San Francisco announcement followed the San Diego hotel tax decision by four days but it was not mentioned in the Airbnb weblog post announcing the decision (at http://publicpolicy.airbnb.com/san-francisco-taxes-airbnb-community/). Storm water Industrial General Permit up for final adoption April 1 The State Water Resources Control Board meets April 1 to consider adoption of the updated statewide Industrial General Permit for "storm water discharges associated with industrial activity". The General Permit covers entities in California including oil, gas and mining facilities, landfills, recyclers, feedlots, factories and food processors, airports, certain vehicle maintenance shops, and sewer systems. If granted, the approval would update a prior document, long since expired, that has been in effect by default since 1997. The new proposed permit would apply National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards under the Clean Water Act. It would require specified levels of effort, depending on circumstances and type of pollutant, to keep runoff within limits based variously on the contents of the effluent and the carrying capacities of the bodies of water receiving the runoff. Unlike the prior 1997 General Permit, it would require minimum Best Management Practices statewide along with other new standards. On March 28, the Friday before its Tuesday approval meeting, the board released responses to commenters that reflected some tension over the scope and timing of the third and last comment opportunity on the draft Permit: comment had been allowed only from February 19 to March 4, and only on the latest round of revisions. Several more substantive comments questioned the new definitions of Best Management Practices and of Numeric Action Levels (NALs), which are thresholds for pollution conditions including pH, suspended solids, oil and grease, and individual chemicals and metals. NAL exceedances trigger stricter levels of regulation and requirements to present plans for improvement. A unique comment from the Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California prompted the board to warn dischargers that local mosquito control ordinances would apply to stormwater facilities where water might be left standing. The meeting notice, comments, staff response chart, and other relevant documents are at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/industrial.shtml.

Monterey County voters in June may decide as many as three ballot measures regarding the county general plan. The Board of Supervisors approved a new general plan on January 3. At the same time, the board agreed to ask voters whether they want to keep the new plan. The board also consented to placing on the ballot a general plan initiative backed by environmental and homeowner organizations. The county had originally refused to put the initiative on the ballot (see f, October 2006; , May 2006). Meanwhile, backers of the initiative have gathered signatures to force a referendum on the new general plan. They said a referendum is necessary to prevent the new plan from taking effect prior to the June election so that there is not a window for developers to take advantage of the new plan. The plan opponents also said the referendum would present voters with a more straightforward question than the Board of Supervisors had crafted. The county adopted the updated general plan after seven years of planning and three discarded drafts (see , July 2004). The new plan designates a number of growth areas, mostly near cities and existing unincorporated communities. Supporters say the plan will help the county accommodate needed housing. Opponents say the plan sacrifices important farmland and encourages sprawl. The newly adopted plan is available at www.co.monterey.ca.us/pbi/gpu . A controversial Carmel Valley subdivision is back in court six years after a state appellate court rejected an earlier environmental impact report for the project. The Monterey County Board of Supervisors approved the September Ranch project in December. The project calls for 73 market-rate houses, 15 inclusionary units and seven units of workforce housing on about 100 acres. The remainder of the nearly 900-acre site will remain as an equestrian center and open space. In 2001, the Sixth District Court of Appeal used the September Ranch project to make an important ruling regarding baseline conditions for environmental studies. The issue concerned how much water had historically been used for farming on the site, and, therefore, how much water would be available for what was then a 109-unit project. The amount of agricultural water use increased during the 3 1/2 years the development application was under consideration, and the final EIR relied on the higher volume of water used during the end of the process. The court ruled in , 87 Cal.App. 4th 99, that “baseline conditions are normally to be determined at the time environmental review is begun” (see , April 2001). The EIR for the newly approved project says that water for September Ranch is available from a recently discovered aquifer that is separate from the overburdened Carmel Valley aquifer. Project opponents submitted information disputing the analysis, but the county concluded that disagreement among experts was not enough to force changes in the EIR. In January, three environmental groups filed two separate lawsuits challenging the EIR’s water analysis. Impacts to traffic, historic sites and the Monterey pine forest are also issues. The flood-control situation in Sacramento continues to evolve rapidly as local, state and federal officials grapple with the city’s inadequate protection from high water. The Federal Emergency Management Agency revealed in January that it would require all property owners in Sacramento’s Natomas Basin with federally backed loans to purchase flood insurance before the end of the year. The mandate will remain in place until Natomas, the City of Sacramento’s primary growth area, has at least 100-year flood protection. Also in January, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency began detailing proposed assessment district changes that would expand the district’s territory and raise existing assessments. Property owners are scheduled to vote on the assessments by mail in March. The revised assessment district would encompass all of Natomas, including undeveloped portions in Sacramento and Sutter counties, where property owners would pay $76 annually. The Flood Control Agency plan is intended to raise $326 million over 30 years to help Natomas achieve 100-year flood protection by 2010, and for the entire area to get 200-year flood protection in following years. The money would match more than $2 billion that local officials hope to receive from the federal and state governments. These moves follow a state Department of Water Resources request to Sacramento last fall for a growth moratorium in Natomas, a request the city has rebuffed. The state’s request was spurred by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ announcement that Natomas lacked 100-year flood protection because seepage is weakening levees. A San Francisco Superior Court Judge has issued a ruling that builds on a 2004 appellate court decision aiding redevelopment agencies in cleaning up brownfields. Judge John Munter ruled that five manufacturers or distributors of dry cleaning chemicals and one dry cleaner are liable for the future costs of cleaning up contamination from the Modesto Steam Laundry & Cleaning operation. In 2004, the First District Court of Appeal ruled that companies that made or distributed solvents may be held liable for cleanup under the Polanco Act and returned the case to Superior Court (see , August 2004). The City of Modesto and its redevelopment agency contend that dry cleaners disposed of solvent waste by dumping it into the sewer system, from which contaminants leached into soil and groundwater. Last year, a San Francisco jury held the five manufacturers and distributors liable for $3.2 million for harming the city’s drinking water, and Munter assessed punitive damages of $13 million. The latest ruling assesses liability for future costs and also awards the Modesto Redevelopment Agency $430,000 for work already done at a brownfield site. “It’s good news for cities who are seeking to clean up contamination in redevelopment areas because it enlarges the pool of potentially responsible parties,” agency attorney Michael Axline, of Miller, Axline & Sawyer, told the . An appeal of Judge Munter’s ruling is likely. The cases are , No. 9993345, and , No. 999643. The Business, Transportation and Housing Agency and the California Environmental Protection Agency have released the “Goods Movement Action Plan,” which is intended to guide allocation of $3.1 billion contained in the $19.9 billion Proposition 1B that voters approved last November. State and regional officials have been working on the plan for two years to address transportation and environmental problems caused by ever-increasing traffic at shipping ports, especially the port at Los Angeles and Long Beach (see , June 2006). The plan does not necessarily dictate how the money should be spent, rather it provides about 200 “candidate actions” to improve infrastructure, protect public and environmental health, upgrade security and lessen community impacts. The California Transportation Commission, the Air Resources Board and the California Maritime Transportation Security Council will make the ultimate spending decisions. The Goods Movement Action Plan is available at www.arb.ca.gov/gmp/gmp.htm . The issue of historic preservation will apparently return to the City of Berkeley ballot, as opponents of a revised landmarks preservation ordinance have submitted petitions to force a referendum. The city eased its preservation regulations in December, one month after voters rejected a measure that would have locked in existing regulations that were some of the most stringent in the state. But preservation advocates said the revisions favored developers and now want voters to decide again. Unless the city calls a special election, the referendum will appear on the ballot in 2008. An organization representing mobile home and travel trailer owners on the shores of Lake Berryessa have sued the Bureau of Reclamation over a plan adopted last year that calls for the mobile homes and trailers to be removed. The federal court lawsuit filed by the group Berryessa For All contends that the bureau’s decision was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. The agency adopted the plan in June 2006 with the goal of boosting short-term visitor use at the reservoir in the hills of eastern Napa County. The plan calls for removing more than 1,000 trailers located in seven “resorts” whose leases expire between this year and 2009. The government hopes to lure new concessionaires to develop facilities that may include cabins, motels and campgrounds (see , October 2006). Owners of mobile homes and travel trailers contend they were not given a fair shake during the plan preparation process, which lasted for six years.

The Capitol Area Development Agency (CADA) was seemingly exempt from the dissolution of redevelopment agencies last year. However, in the face of state budget cuts, officials plan to cease the agency's development operations and sell off its properties to subsidize the state budget. CADA still hopes to retain its role in supporting development and managing affordable housing projects.  Enviros Rally at Capitol to Save CEQA Sacramento Bee Labor unions, tribal organizations, and a coalition of environmental groups gathered on Tuesday to protest against the state's prospect to reform CEQA. Protesters claim that any attack on the law is also an attack on the state's workers, families and communities. In addition, the pro-CEQA coalition has released a report that highlights how the law benefits the state to counter common claims that the law is used to prevent development projects that are good for the environment and the state's economy. Oakley Pushes Through Redevelopment Project Contra Costa Times Oakley city officials have approved the original development plan for the former CentroMart building downtown. The building was purchased with redevelopment funds last May after Oakley's redevelopment agency had been dissolved, meaning the state had to authorize its transaction. Council's vote last Tuesday upheld the project's inclusion of a discount variety store and grocery store debunking rumors of relocating the community's library to the CentroMart site.  St ate Orders San Bernardino to Pay Over $500 Million in Mishandled Redevelopment Funds Modesto Bee The state's Controller, John Chiang, identified that San Bernardino mishandled its redevelopment funds by illegally transferring funds to its EDC and wrongly holding onto the remaining $420.5 million. The (now) former City Manager claims that the report's finding are false, and although the city later admitted its transfer of funds to the EDC, it claimed the transaction was legal. The state is requiring the bankrupt city to repay these funds, leaving the city at a loss for how it will be able to transfer money it does not have-possibly resulting in criminal charges for the city.    LA Council Approves Downtown Streetcar Plan LA Downtown News The Los Angeles City Council approved a 30-year operational plan that will commit $294 million for LA's downtown streetcar. The maintenance funds for the streetcar will come from fares, ad revenue and the county's Measure R sales tax- after the streetcar is built. To finance the construction, the city will be using a voter approved special tax and (hopefully) federal funds. The project's draft EIR is expected for release this summer and construction could begin as early as 2014.   Could SF Become the Next Big Cruise City? Mercury News San Francisco's new James R. Herman Cruise Terminal could be just what the city needs to get the cruise industry's attention and attract new megaships to city's port. America Cup, who currently occupies the new terminal space, has pledged over $100 million to the city for port and harbor improvements and will illuminate the terminal with a series of ship races beginning this summer. The grand plans for the terminal's interior will be completed in early 2014.

Assembly Majority Leader Toni Atkins has gotten to Governor Brown's desk with a new version of a bill to smooth recurring problems in the dissolution of local redevelopment agencies. A statement from Atkins' office  said the bill is similar to last year's AB 662 but drops a provision on amendments to project contracts that led Brown to veto it. The revised bill contains continuity provisions that would allow projects begun under redevelopment agencies to be carried forward. They include infrastructure financing districts, reimbursement of expenses taken on by housing authorities, and authorization to use bond proceeds on already-approved projects.  Proponents qualify Los Gatos ballot measure to authorize new Netflix HQ Los Gatos will vote June 3 on the "Albright Way Initiative" to allow construction of a new headquarters for Netflix. Developer John Shenk received town council approval to exceed 35-foot height limits on the project, which calls for four office buildings and a parking garage, but the project has been blocked by litigation. The ballot measure would confirm the prior approval but it was disputed whether the lengthy proposal might also add permissions beyond what the council granted. Critics said it would allow the town's community development director to be the only approving authority for any subsequent changes to the project. The San Jose Mercury News has coverage here . A city staff report and many public comment letters appear in the town council's February 3 agenda packet . The staff report said the DA reviewed complaints about allegedly misleading claims by petition gatherers, including that Netflix might leave the area or that there would be "no money for schools," and concluded such statements could not be proven false, hence did not amount to violations of law. The town's page on the initiative is here .  San Francisco to vote on requiring waterfront height variances by referendum Emboldened by their "No Wall on the Waterfront" win last November, San Francisco neighborhood and open-space activists have qualified a new ballot measure to require a citywide vote on any proposal for a waterfront project to exceed currently zoned height limits. The measure presumably will go to a vote June 3, 2014. (Ballotpedia has more here . The proponents' site  provides the measure's text.)  The lawsuit met almost immediately with a lawsuit from and other opponents, who claim that the waterfront is the state's turf, not the city's.  The proposal ties into raging citywide debates on whether residential high-rise construction will reduce housing costs by expanding supply or raise them by skewing the housing stock toward luxury, and on whether large-scale construction serves or marginalizes existing neighbors and public spaces. Projects at issue include a proposal to bring the Golden State Warriors basketball team to a new waterfront arena and a large planned redevelopment of post-industrial Pier 70 in the Dogpatch neighborhood. November's "wall on the waterfront" measure defeated the 8 Washington residential development with backing from many tenant activist groups although, as proposed, the project would have contributed $11 million in mitigation fees toward affordable housing. More coverage of the 8 Washington debate is  here . On the new ballot measure, SF Weekly 's Joe Eskenazi has a news analysis with emphasis on the role of former mayor Art Agnos in organizing, especially against the Warriors proposal. San Clemente has a General Plan San Clemente adopted a General Plan on February 4. The adoption included a zoning change to allow senior housing on a six-acre Shorecliffs Golf Course parcel previously zoned for hotel or timeshare use.  The package included a bicycle and pedestrian master plan, a climate action plan, and even an endorsement of skateboards as "an efficient and legitimate transportation mode." Criticism at the adoption meeting came primarily from residents and management of the Capistrano Shores Mobile Home Park. City officials offered assurances that the park's designation would not change under the Plan. Park residents had previously expressed alarm over Coastal Plan drafts they viewed as seeking to dismantle their neighborhood for open space.  The council now turns to implementation steps: revising zoning and the Housing Element, and preparing a Local Coastal Program to receive delegated permitting authority from the Coastal Commission. The city's Web page on the plan is here at http://san-clemente.org/sc/GP2Column.aspx?PageID=1000. Details on the approval meeting are here  and, in Council minutes here . E scondido Approves 99-Cent Store Interpreting its unusual ordinance that restricts the location of  "fixed-price" discount stores," Escondido has voted to permit a 99-Cent Store in the downtown area. Old Navy recently left the downtown area, and a debate ensued as to whether to permit a discount store in its place.  99-Cent Stores are often dismissed as being too downscale for many retail districts and creating problems for neighbors � for example, shopping carts sometimes stack up at nearby bus stops. But as retailing has changed over the past few years resistance has lessened. The Escondido Planning Commission denied the project , claiming that it violated the Downtown Specific Plan, which calls for creative and arts-related uses of downtown spaces.  But the City Council overturned the Planning Commission on a 3-2 vote.

The City of Davis has adopted an ordinance that requires housing developers to provide a percentage of new units to people making 120% to 180% of median income. The ordinance also creates a lottery for the new units favoring local workers, and limits the resale prices. Most inclusionary housing ordinances target low- and moderate-income families — people making up to 120% of median. Davis already has such an ordinance, but city officials want to ensure that people with good jobs in Davis can live in the city, where few homes are available for less than $600,000. The ordinance targets individuals making about $51,000 to $76,000 a year, or families of four bringing in $72,000 to $109,000 annually. The middle-income housing ordinance adopted in December by the City Council requires developers of projects with 26 to 35 units to provide 10% of units for people making 120% to 180% of median, developers of projects with 36 to 49 units to designate 15% of units, and projects with at least 50 units to include 20% of units for middle-income families. Those requirements are on top of the 20% inclusionary requirement for low- and moderate-income families. The city will use a lottery to select potential buyers. Local employees can get four tickets, disabled people will get two tickets and anyone may get one ticket. City officials want local workers to get the housing units, but there are legal problems with excluding others, said Principal Planner Bob Wolcott. The weighted lottery is a compromise. The ordinance also caps annual increases in resale prices at 5% per year to ensure that the units remain affordable to the target population for a long time, Wolcott said. The lottery and resale price limitations were at least as controversial as the basic concept of a middle-income housing requirement. “It’s all tied in with the council asking some questions about why we want to grow and how much,” Wolcott said, noting the city has settled on an approximately 1% annual growth rate based on a study of local workers’ housing needs. SunCal Companies has acquired the 167-acre campus of the former Oak Knoll Naval Medical Center in the Oakland hills for $100.5 million. Although planning is still in the early stages, SunCal is considering a mixed-use project that takes advantage of the site’s bay views and close proximity to transit, SunCal spokesman Steve Greyshock said. “The potential for this property is just enormous,” he commented. The auction of the hospital, which closed in 1996, is the third major sale of surplus military land in California to developers during the last few years. In early 2005, Lennar purchased 3,700 acres of the former El Toro Marine Corps base in Orange County. Prior to that, three developers bought 235 acres of the former Marine Corps base in Tustin. Over the strong objection of military officials, the commission looking for a new San Diego airport site has chosen to examine Miramar Marine Corps Air Station, North Island Naval Station and Camp Pendleton. At a December meeting of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, representatives from all three bases urged the panel not to consider the bases. They said a joint-use airport or a separate civilian airport on one of the bases would jeopardize military operations and base security. “Absolutely, positively not doable at Camp Pendleton,” community liaison Larry Reynolds told the authority’s board. However, board members pointed out that the state legislation creating the authority included a provision for the study of both civilian and military sites. The panel is charged with finding a way to handle passenger and cargo growth because Lindbergh Field is highly constrained. Thus far, the panel has narrowed civilian options to three: a site near Campo just north of the Mexico border in eastern San Diego County, a site along Interstate 8 in Imperial County, and expansion of Lindbergh. The panel plans to make a recommendation this spring, with voters scheduled to decide in November 2006. The City of Los Angeles has made peace with three neighboring cities, Los Angeles County and a citizens advocacy group regarding an overhaul of Los Angeles International Airport. At the behest of new Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the city dropped most parts of a controversial modernization plan. In exchange, the county, the cities of El Segundo, Inglewood and Culver City, and a citizens group called Alliance for a Regional Solution to Airport Congestion agreed to drop lawsuits against Los Angeles. Los Angeles has spent more than a decade and approximately $150 million planning airport expansion and modernization. Cities near the airport and their residents have fought vigorously, saying the plans would result in too much noise, traffic congestion and air pollution. They have advocated spreading out air traffic to other Southern California airports. According to the settlement agreement announced in December, Los Angeles will work with the Federal Aviation Administration, the Southern California Association of Governments, air carriers and others to increase flights at Ontario and Palmdale airports, both of which Los Angeles owns. The settlement also calls for the city to close two airport gates per year for five years once the airport hits 75 million passengers in a year. The closures would result in a total of 153 gates at LAX, which now handles about 62 million passengers a year. The FAA prohibits airports from capping the number of passengers, but closing gates allows the city to limit passenger numbers. Under Mayor Richard Riordan, the city adopted a plan to accommodate up to 89 million passengers a year at LAX. The settlement permits Los Angeles to proceed with some projects, including moving a southern runway to decrease the chance of airplane collisions, rebuilding the international terminal to accommodate the largest Airbus planes, and installing a new baggage system. A former Los Angeles County Planning Department employee has been sentenced to four years in prison after pleading guilty to three counts of falsification of public records. Emmett Taylor was fired in 2000 after investigators alleged that he had collected $500,000 in “consulting fees” in exchange for issuing certificates of compliance — documents that verify the legality of a parcel. The certificates are most often sought by a landowner whose property was the subject of a very old subdivision map. Taylor was arrested in 2002 and charged with 97 criminal counts. Eventually, the district attorney’s office identified 347 illegal parcels for which Taylor had issued certificates, mostly near Malibu and Agua Dulce. Taylor, who may be eligible for a work release program, was also ordered to pay $1.53 million in restitution. Development of the third phase of the giant Mountain House project near Tracy has been approved by the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors. Phase three, to be built by three developers and San Joaquin Delta College, will include 2,400 housing units, a 150-acre business park, a 100-acre community college campus, and a large community park. Approval of the third phase nearly got stymied by a demand from Trimark Communities, Mountain House’s master developer, that Delta College pay $15 million that Trimark had fronted for infrastructure. Delta refused to pay, but housing developer Gerry Kamilos agreed to cover the college’s portion of infrastructure costs. Although Mountain House was originally approved in 1995, buildout of the 14,000-unit project is less than 10% complete. The Port of San Diego has selected a developer for a project that port officials say could become an iconic gateway to the city. The Port Commission selected Federal Viejas LLC — a partnership of a San Diego County Indian tribe and Federal Development of Washington, D.C. — to develop the Embarcadero Circle project. On a parking lot at Broadway and Pacific Highway, the Federal Viejas proposes a cruise ship terminal, a 500-room, 27-story Marriott hotel, a 250-room, 16-story Ritz-Carlton, concert facilities, restaurants, shops and a parking structure with 3,000 spaces. The project is expected to cost at least $500 million. The Port Commission rejected three other proposals, including a larger one from Douglas Manchester. Port officials said they already have approval from the Coastal Commission and State Lands Commission for a project of the scope envisioned by Federal Viejas. Manchester’s larger project would have re-opened the state review process. Santa Clarita property owners have rejected the proposed creation of an open space and parkland preservation district. In a vote-by-mail election, 53% of 17,257 property owners who returned ballots voted against the district. The district would have assessed single-family homes $25 a year, with assessments rising based on inflation. City officials estimated the assessments would have raised about $1.5 million annually for purchasing open space, creating wildlife corridors and renovating existing parks. City officials also hinted that the district might provide a method to limit growth in unincorporated areas around the city. Creation of the open space district failed despite the lack of organized opposition. Meanwhile, Santa Clarita’s 15-year fight over a proposed sand and gravel quarry just outside of town is moving to the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission. The city has filed an application with LAFCO to annex 1,885 acres in Soledad Canyon, off Highway 14. The territory includes the site where Cemex, Inc., wants to operate a quarry, a project that the city has fought from every angle because of traffic, air quality and aesthetic concerns. Several years ago, LAFCO denied Santa Clarita’s application to add to the territory to the city’s sphere of influence. The city lost the latest legal round in late November when a federal district court upheld the Interior Department’s environmental impact statement for the proposed quarry. Even though the city owns some of the land involved, the BLM owns the mineral rights and has leased them to Cemex. Santa Clarita said it would appeal the district court’s decision. State litigation is pending in the Second District Court of Appeal.

The State Water Resources Control Board is circulating a statewide version of proposed amendments to tighten existing statewide trash control rules. The proposals, released June 10, are at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/trash_control/documentation.shtml. The proposal applies to all California surface waters except for the Los Angeles rivers and streams that, uniquely in the state, already have trash Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) standards for trash. Even those would be reconsidered under the statewide rules. The League of California Cities has more links and commentary at http://bit.ly/1kuJWyo. A workshop on the proposal was scheduled for July 16 in Sacramento. Comments are due August 5, also the date of a hearing when the board will take public comment without voting. State Supreme Court grants review in Newhall Ranch case The State Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of the March 2014 Newhall Ranch ruling, Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife . The March decision by the Second District Court of Appeal (No. B245141) intrigued some smart people with its detailed unpublished discussion of greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. As discussed previously at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3505, writers Thomas Henry and Bao Vu wrote a technically careful blog post at http://bit.ly/1hxBDWz comparing standards for GHG reduction set in the case to those apparently set by the recent AB 32 scoping plan update, suggesting that the scoping plan might be more lenient. The Miller Starr Regalia blog has details of the grant of review at http://bit.ly/U9hhYj. San Diego compromise could raise development fees A deal between housing and business advocates could bring about a rare increase in the fee San Diego charges to commercial developers to support subsidized housing. Writer Andrew Keatts in the Voice of San Diego says the increase would only return the fee to 1.5% of 1990-denominated construction costs, which is where it started 24 years ago. The City Council was forced to undo a vote that last year raised the fee to 1.5% of total development costs. The replacement compromise plan goes to its first City Council committee meeting July 17. For details and links to the plan see the Voice of San Diego at http://bit.ly/1nvkFUF, San Diego CityBeat at http://bit.ly/1t27r78, and the U-T at http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/jul/09/linkage-fee-double-reform/. Fresno General Plan revision draft out for review The city of Fresno is circulating the final draft of its 2035 general plan revision with comments due August 18. The Fresno Bee reports the plan seeks to increase density and allow housing growth in many kinds of neighborhoods while also addressing the city's problems, with poverty-related disparities among neighborhoods at the top of the list. http://bit.ly/1mghM9N For past coverage of Fresno's growth plans and related negotiations see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3417. The plan draft is at http://www.fresno.gov/News/PressReleases/2014/2035gpdraft.htm. Treasure Island EIR upheld The First District Court of Appeal upheld the EIR supporting a $1.5 billion development plan for Treasure Island, the man-made former World's Fair site at the middle of the San Francisco Bay Bridge. The case is Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco , available at http://bit.ly/1t2f0dW. For more detail see legal writer Bob Egelko's report in the SF Chronicle at http://bit.ly/W9AGKk. There's more technical legal analysis from Parissa Ebrahimzadeh of Stoel Rives at http://bit.ly/1rfXXXY and Art Coon of Miller Starr Regalia at http://bit.ly/WgZ6lE. The court rejected the challengers' claim that the EIR for the project should have been prepared as a program-level EIR (i.e., with subsidiary EIRs for individual projects to follow later), but that it instead was improperly prepared as an insufficiently detailed project-level EIR. The court found the substance mattered more than the title, and the actual detail in the document was enough to qualify the EIR as adequate. The project calls for up to 8,000 housing units, plus hotel, office and commercial space. It's important that, as the court noted, the EIR requires the Navy to finish its toxic cleanup work on every land parcel before transferring it to the Treasure Island Development Authority for new use. Plans to build dense housing on Treasure Island, and decisions to house poor people there in recent years, have been criticized based on concerns about incomplete cleanup of hazards left by prior military uses, from mold to asbestos to radioactivity. (See http://bit.ly/1wtS7jP and http://bit.ly/O0JZHG.) Perhaps surprisingly, rising sea levels are less of a concern for this low-lying, mainly artificial island in the Bay. The court decision does not mention sea levels at all, and the June report by San Francisco's Civil Grand Jury said Treasure Island's development plans had taken sea level rise into account better than many other parts of the city. The grand jury report is available via http://bit.ly/1zHWFrk. Conservatives' challenge to Plan Bay Area rejected An Alameda County judge has rejected a challenge to Plan Bay Area by the conservative group Bay Area Citizens, which is represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation. Judge Evelio Grillo rejected the challengers' claim that only fuel improvements, not denser housing, would be needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Egelko has details at http://bit.ly/1wtG0TV, and Planetizen has links with context for the case at http://www.planetizen.com/articles/node-70187. The decision follows the recent settlement of an environmental challenge to the plan as reported at http://www.planetizen.com/articles/node-69937. The Bay Area Citizens group will presumably appeal. Otherwise, Planetizen reports, only one lawsuit against Plan Bay Area now remains, by a group with an address in Santa Rosa called the Post Sustainability Institute. The group's Web site warns strenuously against "UN Agenda 21" and "Communitarianism," frequently in capital letters. San Francisco passes open space plan A revised Recreation and Open Space Element (ROSE) for the San Francisco General Plan passed the Board of Supervisors 8 to 3 on first reading July 8. It was headed for final passage July 15. The San Francisco Parks Alliance supported the measure, praising it for "up-to-date priority areas for land acquisition; local biodiversity in natural areas; living alleys, POPOS (privately owned public open spaces), and parklets; a plan to connect existing open spaces through "Green Connections"; and more community engagement." http://conta.cc/W9cKXo The proposal drew criticism from a neighborhood advocates' coalition for insufficiently protecting open space from new construction, especially in areas where it's scarce, for lacking a measure of adequately met recreational needs, and for overemphasizing native species at the expense of existing greenery. See http://bit.ly/1r3fPDX and http://sfforest.net/2014/06/10/watch-out-for-rose-action-alert/. The plan is at http://openspace.sfplanning.org/. Khosla goes back to court this week on Martins Beach The multiply postponed trial on public access to Martins Beach resumes with final arguments July 16 in San Mateo County Superior court. The Mercury News at http://bit.ly/WgKVwU looks at the major contentions: principally, the Surfrider Foundation's claim that billionare property owner Vinod Khosla violated Coastal Act access laws by ending fee-based access to the beach; and Khosla's that he merely exercised his property rights to keep the gate closed. At the Coastal Commission's July 9 session, Commissioner Martha McClure confirmed with staff that the Coastal Commission's legislative representative was still advocating for public access to Martin's Beach at the Commission's direction. McClure expressed dismay that SB 968, which initially called for the state lands commission to acquire the land by eminent domain had been "what I would consider watered down," in that it would merely "authorize the State Lands to take a look at it, and acquire it if possible." She said,"Every time I think public access, I think of that locked gate." She urged the Commission's representative to say, "Put the teeth back in that puppy, we need public access to Martins Beach." (For the bill text see http://bit.ly/1nv7q6c; for background see http://bit.ly/UJxiVZ.) With court arguments about to start on the morning of July 16, the plaintiff Surfrider Foundation was promising updates on legal director Angela Howe's Twitter at https://twitter.com/angtex. Are Sacramento's downtown developments fair? In June a Bee columnist called the Sacramento Coalition for Shared Prosperity lawsuit "greed" at http://bit.ly/1oXViiv. But two supporters of the group's social equity claims against the Kings explain at http://bit.ly/1zHKbjq and http://bit.ly/1nHc0TI how a Community Benefits Agreement could serve denser, more affordable downtown hosing in Sacramento. On a similar note, Planetizen highlighted Rachel Dovey's critique in Next City of downtown development projects that she argued are likely to exclude residents of the poorer downtown Sacramento that remains each day after office workers go home. http://www.planetizen.com/articles/node-70227 Costa Mesa will vote on a city charter Costa Mesa's City Council has definitely placed a city charter proposal on the November ballot. This is a second try: a similar charter proposal, Measure V, was defeated in 2012. See http://bit.ly/1mgfUhj and, for a prior mention with links, http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3467. The charter description is linked from the city site at http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=1675, as are materials from March 18, April 22 and July 1 meetings on the issue. In other news: Gov. Jerry Brown signed AB 577, which rescinds a 1991 ban on light rail in the San Fernando Valley. See www.planetizen.com/articles/node-70260. California Lawyer has an in-depth story at  at http://bit.ly/1l2f3Bi on the San Jose litigation against Major League Baseball over its anomalous exemption from antitrust laws. The city of Agoura Hills is still considering an annexation although its budget lost half a million dollars to the dissolution of its redevelopment agency: http://bit.ly/1zHLOxs

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

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

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

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