An irrigation district that provides wholesale electricity may not begin providing retail electric service without approval of the Local Agency Formation Commission, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled. In a related decision, the Third District also ruled that the irrigation district may not depose two members and the executive officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for the district's lawsuit regarding denial of the retail electric service application. Both decisions bolster the authority and integrity of LAFCOs. In 2005, the South San Joaquin Irrigation District sought approval from the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (SJ LAFCO) to provide retail electric service. The district already provided irrigation water service and wholesale electric generation and electricity marketing services. The district sells electricity from three hydroelectric dams to Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). The district proposed to acquire PG&E's distribution facilities through a negotiated purchase or eminent domain, and to sell the electricity directly to users. Not surprisingly, PG&E opposed the application and raised the question of whether this would be an appropriate use of eminent domain. Staff of the SJ LAFCO recommended approval of the application, but the LAFCO board voted 4-1 to deny it in June 2006. Although they officially rejected the proposal because the district "did not demonstrate its administrative, technical and financial capabilities to provide retail service to the satisfaction of the Commission," at least two commissioners focused on the issue of eminent domain. They did so despite a warning from the Commission's attorney that potential use of eminent domain could not be a factor in SJ LAFCO's decision. The irrigation district then sued SJ LAFCO, arguing both that the Commission's approval was unnecessary, and that retail electricity would not be a new service. The district also sought to depose Commissioners Jack Sieglock and Gary Giovanetti and Executive Officer Bruce Baracco (none of whom is still associated with the Commission). PG&E intervened in the litigation. San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Humphreys ruled against the district, concluding that SJ LAFCO's approval was necessary for the special district to exercise a latent power such as providing retail electric service. While Humphreys based her decision on the administrative record, she also ruled that the district could depose Sieglock, Giovanetti and Baracco. The judge limited the inquiry to "all unprivileged information that the deponents had prior to June 15, 2006, including information obtained from third parties (including but not limited to PG&E), and what additional information the Commissioner deponents needed to recommend adoption of the staff recommendation to approve the project." The Commission, which had fought the deposition request, appealed the ruling on the depositions, while the district appealed the ruling on the application. The issue of LAFCO approval of the application centered on interpretation of legislation passed in 2001 — AB 948 (Kelly), which was essentially a cleanup of the 2000 overhaul of the LAFCO law known as the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act (see CP&DR , September 2000 ). Among other things, AB 948 added §§ 56824.10 through 56824.14 to the Government Code. Those sections concern LAFCO proceedings "for the exercise of new or different functions or classes of services by special districts." The district argued that it has long had the right under the Water Code to provide retail electric services and, therefore, LAFCO approval was unnecessary. In a different line of argument, the district contended that the provisions in AB 948 were permissive, not mandatory. A three-judge panel of the Third District disagreed. It determined that retail electric service would be an expansion of the district's services. And the court ruled that interpreting the AB 948 provisions as permissive "would be nonsensical. There would be no point in establishing a detailed, timely and costly procedure for LAFCO approval if a disappointed applicant could simply disregard the decision of LAFCO and proceed with its plan to provide a new or different service." On the issue of depositions, the court ruled there was no reason to employ an exception to the rule that such suits are decided by reviewing the administrative record. "Limiting review to the administrative record is appropriate due to the scope of review," Justice Fred Morrison wrote for the court. "An action or proceeding to attack a determination of SJ LAFCO ‘extends only to whether there was fraud or a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Prejudicial abuse of discretion is established if the court finds the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record,'" Morrison continued, citing Government Code § 56107, subdivision (c). The irrigation district argued depositions were necessary because SJ LAFCO appeared to base its decision on information not in the administrative record. But if that were true, the record would not support the decision and the court could overturn LAFCO, Morrison noted. Here, the district appeared to want to learn what additional information would change the commissioners' minds. "While the district argues there is some secret category of information it did not know was needed," Morrison wrote, "we read the commissioners' remarks as simply stating they were not persuaded by the district's proposal. The denial was on the merits. If the district had a stronger case to make, reasonable diligence required the district to make that case at the hearing." The Cases: South San Joaquin Irrigation District v. Superior Court , No. C056661, 2008 DJDAR 5703; San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission v. Superior Court , No. C056463, 2008 DJDAR 5708. Both filed April 22, 2008. The Lawyers: For the district: Martin Fineman, Davis Wright Tremaine, (415) 276-6500. For SJ LAFCO: Daniel Schroeder, Neumiller & Beardslee, (209) 948-8200. For Pacific Gas & Electric: Michael M. Berger, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, (310) 312-4000.

A bomb detonated in my front yard at 3:30 a.m. on June 21. Actually, it was an explosive from the sky in the form of lightning, and it was the start of an electrical storm that continued for 11 hours. Nearly three weeks later, firefighters are still battling blazes sparked by that lightning in the mountains and canyons around me. My house has remained safe, but residents of hundreds of other houses in the area have evacuated. One question that comes to mind during a crisis like this is whether these houses — including mine — should even exist. If legislation proposed in Sacramento had been approved 40 years ago, the houses probably would not be here. I live in a high fire hazard zone in Shasta County. My lot and three others were created with a four-way parcel split during the 1970s. I'm guessing that the provision of fire services was just assumed by everybody at the time. We have a very small volunteer fire department, but it's the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF or Cal Fire) that is responsible when blazes erupt. The typical practice in counties across the state has been to leave fire protection of the countryside up to CDF . But nowadays, CDF's annual firefighting budget is approaching $1 billion. When you're in the vicinity of a large wildland fire, you understand why: You see the thousands of firefighters, the armadas of heavy equipment and the array of aircraft that go into action against a wildfire. Those of us who live in this kind of state responsibility area (SRA) are thankful that state taxpayers subsidize our fire protection. But the free ride may be over for us soon. And we might not get many more neighbors. It appears possible that the state budget deal could include some sort of new funding for CDF, either in the form of a surcharge on insurance premiums or a direct assessment on property owners. A homeowner like me might pay something in the neighborhood of $50 a year. Several pieces of legislation seek to limit development in SRAs. Assembly Bill 2447 (Jones) would prohibit a county from approving a subdivision or parcel map in an SRA or a very high fire hazard severity zone unless the responsible fire agency — it will almost always be CDF — verifies in writing that adequate structural fire protection will be available, and the Board of Supervisors makes findings regarding fire-safe structures, road access and emergency water systems. Who supports AB 2447? Unions of firefighters — the men and women who are working in 110-degree heat and brutally smoky conditions to protect houses like mine. Who is against AB 2447? County governments, specifically my county's Board of Supervisors, that approve the houses these firefighters are trying to preserve. The bill has passed the Assembly. Senate Bill 1500 (Kehoe) would require areas with an average residential density exceeding three dwellings per acre to be removed from an SRA, meaning a local agency would have to provide fire protection. This policy would be an enormous change that would discourage development on the exurban fringe and in resort areas — places with medium density housing that have long relied on CDF. A different Kehoe bill (SB 1764) would require a local agency to receive certification from the state fire marshal before the state would pick up more than 75% of disaster-related costs. Opponents, including San Diego County, argue the bill's language would prevent communities from relying on volunteer fire departments. I should note that San Diego County is only now beginning to take steps to implement proposals stemming from the tragic 2003 Southern California firestorms for creation of a countywide fire department and new fire taxes. The point of all the legislation is to change the business-as-usual approach and force counties to take more responsibility for fire safety. The choice is to enforce fire-safe development and building practices, and establish and fund local fire departments, or to prohibit development in fire-prone rural areas. As I look out my window at a procession of helicopters flying through skies full of smoke and ash, I can't argue against those ideas. – Paul Shigley

The Calaveras County Community Development Agency is in the political cross-hairs after the county grand jury issued a scathing report that questions the agency's hiring practices, the director's management style and the use of consultants. Sound familiar? Not the details, but the tone. Your local newspaper has probably struck similar notes recently. That's because it is the season for grand juries to release their annual reports on local government. Every county has a civil grand jury that investigates local government policies and practices. Grand jury terms follow the July-through-June fiscal year. Jurors are selected from a pool of volunteers by a Superior Court judge, who also oversees the panel's investigations. Retirees with time on their hands and younger people seeking to build a base on which they may run for office are heavily represented on grand juries. OK, that last comment was a cheap shot. I should warn you that it might not be my last. When I was in the newspaper business, we eagerly anticipated the release of the grand jury report. It typically provided fodder on government incompetence, corruption and stupidity with which we could fill the news pages for several days. When agencies targeted by the grand jury issued formal written responses a month or two later, we could rehash it all. But it didn't take too many rounds of this drill before I began questioning grand juries themselves. Some of them were well-meaning, while others appeared to have less-than-honorable motives. Overall, they struck me as groups of self-appointed experts (those of us who have worked in newsrooms can identify with groups of self-appointed experts) who issued sweeping condemnations and recommended practices that had already been dismissed for good reason. The terms "half-baked" and "witch hunt" came to mind frequently. My suspicion only grew when I tried to ask questions of various grand jury foremen. Grand jury reports can be vague. Who, I wanted to know, did the grand jury interview? What project specifically is in question? Which jobs are filled with political cronies? Which consulting contract is a waste of money? The county administrator/city manager/executive director says the grand jury never asked him about this. Why not? Invariably, the grand jury foreman would say state law prevented him or her from talking publicly. The report spoke for itself, he or she would say. And yet I would read grand jury reports from other counties that were far more specific. They would say exactly who was interviewed and which background documents were studied. Some of those reports named names. Government officials' often respond to grand jury reports with something along the lines of, "You morons are too ignorant to understand how government works." OK, not in so many words, but the point gets made, and the response isn't any more helpful than the grand jury report itself. I should be careful here. I have, in fact, read grand jury reports that were detailed and thoughtful, and which helped improve government effectiveness. That's the way the process should work. So which is the Calaveras County grand jury report on the planning and building agency — thoughtful and useful, or half-baked and harmful? It's hard for me to tell. The two sections concerning planning are very short and provides no context. Recommendations such as "The Director enroll in an accredited educational institution and obtain a Certified Planner Certificate" don't give me confidence. What in the world is a Certified Planner Certificate? I do know that land use politics in Calaveras County are difficult. The county's decision to hire Stephanie Moreno two years ago to serve as community development director was out of the ordinary. Moreno is a former Amador County supervisor who had been working as an analyst in the Monterey County Division of Child Protective Services before she took the Calaveras County planning job. ------ News update ------ Stephanie Moreno has resigned as Calaveras County community development director as of August 1. Read and listen to her interview with the Stockton Record here . -------------------------- It became clear immediately that she didn't accept business as usual. She fired the longtime building official, who was well-loved by contractors. She hired the respected Mintier & Associates to help with a troubled general plan update. She rubbed people the wrong way. The grand jury makes a number of allegations. The county administrator, who has been on the job less than a year, is denying the charges. The Board of Supervisors appears divided 3-2. And once again we have a grand jury report that provides far more heat than light. - Paul Shigley

Joel Kotkin is at it again. In yesterday's Los Angeles Times Sunday opinion section , the enfant terrible of L.A. urbanism dissed the "suburbs as slums" thesis of Brookings' Christopher Leinberger. But in once again coming to the defense of "suburbs", he has revealed that he can't tell the difference between Glendale and Palmdale. For the last year or so, Leinberger has been trumpeting the idea that "Walkable Urban Places" – he sometimes calls them WUPs – are likely to have a competitive advantage over suburban driving neighborhoods in the decades ahead. As Leinberger himself admits, his methodology is a bit ragged . Still, he has a point. The job-rich city neighborhoods and inner suburbs that childless professionals favor, especially those with access to rail transit, are on the rise – and they are doing well in the current real estate downturn. More recently, Leinberger suggested in the Atlantic Monthly that not only will the WUPs have a competitive advantage going forward, but that auto-oriented suburbs will become the new slums – especially starter-home suburbs like Elk Grove in Sacramento and the Victor Valley in Southern California, which have been hammered hard by the subprime mortgage crisis. This was apparently too much for Kotin, who responded in Sunday's Times with a screed that once again came to the defense of the "suburbs" against the "city". In a similar fashion to last summer's debacle – when he decried Pasadena-sized densities as "Manhattanization" – Kotkin has now confused Glendale with Palmdale. He argued that Leinberger is wrong because people and jobs are not flowing to Downtown Los Angeles in huge numbers. He claimed that Leinberger and his sympathizers base their research mostly on anecdotes, rather than facts. And he concluded that "rather than cramming more people and families into cities," high energy prices and similar trends "may instead foster a more dispersed, diversified archipelago of self-sufficient communities." As examples he lists Burbank, Ontario, and West L.A. – all job-rich "suburbs" where commutes are shorter than they are in inner-city L.A. Take that, Leinberger! Except that Leinberger, like practically every other advocate of urbanism in America, agrees with him. In a Brookings paper last year – admittedly qualitative in its approach – Leinberger took a stab at identifying WUPs in the nation's 30 largest metropolitan areas. He came up with 15 existing or emerging WUPs in the Los Angeles area, including … Burbank, Glendale, Century City, Westwood, Culver City, and Beverly Hills. In other words, he included all the "suburbs" that Kotkin is always defending against the "city". The inescapable conclusion is that Kotkin is about 30 years out of date. His mind lives in a ring of older suburbs that circle downtown L.A. – Burbank, the San Gabriel Valley, the Westside, Irvine, all built between the 1920s and the 1960s as residential suburbs. Kotkin always casts the "urban v. suburban" battle as a battle between Downtown Los Angeles and these "suburbs". But Burbank and Westwood are no more suburbs than is Downtown. And the Americana at Brand, Rick Caruso's new mixed-use project in downtown Glendale, may seem manufactured – but it's definitely not suburban. Why can't Kotkin see that these are emerging as urban places in their own right, with diversity and liveliness and jobs and amenities and all the things that are driving the yuppies to the WUPs, as Leinberger keeps saying? And has Kotkin ever even been to Palmdale or Victorville or Hemet? These are the emerging slum suburbs created by the subprime fiasco. Over the last year or so, Kotkin the great expert on cities has been strangely silent about them. Maybe it's about time he visited some of these places. It's really not that hard, especially for a fan of auto-oriented suburbs. All Kotkin has to do to find Palmdale is get on  the Hollywood Freeway near his house and head north – up the 170 freeway, then I-5, and the 14 freeway – for about 60 miles. Maybe when he returns to Valley Village, he'll feel safely ensconced in suburban living because he has a back yard with trees. But at least he will have spent a little time out in a real suburb. -- Bill Fulton

San Francisco and the Bay Area residents have waited many years for a new transbay terminal in downtown San Francisco, and they have approved taxes to fund the long-planned project. However, the proposed multi-modal transit station could get waylaid by cost concerns, competing interests and even a giant condominium tower being built where a rail line is planned. Prospects for the project — estimated to cost about $2 billion to build, and $4 billion in total when financing costs are included — improved in June when the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously approved an environmental impact report. But a 51-story condominium project being built in the path of a rail line into the terminal has led to a lawsuit and increased expenses. The current transbay terminal building, 55 years old and decaying, stands out in the gentrifying Mission Street corridor in San Francisco. Surrounded by high rises, the building serves as a terminus for a number of bus lines throughout the region. When the Bay Bridge opened in the 1930s, the terminal was also used by trains crossing the bridge. Today, the transbay terminal is better known as a gathering place for homeless people, and has no connections to the major train lines in the region. Amtrak lets off its passengers across the bay in Emeryville. The new transbay terminal is supposed to tie Bay Area transit threads together. Caltrain riders from the South Bay would arrive by a new underground line at the terminal, and could quickly connect to BART and Muni trains via a block-long automated walkway. In addition, a proposed bullet train connection would whisk passengers to Los Angeles in 2.5 hours. The estimated cost of the terminal is $1 billion, with the 1.3-mile underground train extension costing $977 million more. Plans for the building include a 600,000-square-foot building of six stories. It would serve buses from transit districts in San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Alameda, Contra Costa and San Mateo counties, along with Greyhound. Six train tracks will be built on the bottom floor. Redevelopment of the surrounding neighborhood would also increase, with the addition of 3,200 housing units, retail stores, offices and a hotel. The transbay project is being overseen by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA), whose members are the major project stakeholders — San Francisco, the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District, and the Peninsula Joint Powers Board, which runs Caltrain. Of immediate concern is resolving a dispute with developer Jack Myers, who is pursuing plans for a 432-unit condominium project adjacent to the terminal site. Construction on the Myers property began in May. Only days before the terminal's EIR was approved, San Francisco planners slapped a stop work order on Myers' project, claiming that the building permit was not valid. The property has had building permits since 1991, but previous owners were unable to build, according to Adam Alberti, a spokesman for the JPA. Myers took control of the parcel last year. Alberti said that the landowners were informed of the situation as the EIR was underway, and the parcel was identified in the EIR as one of 23 properties necessary for the rail line project. But Myers is not backing away from the condominium project. "We're going to get the building permits back and we're going to construct the project," said Tim Tosta, an attorney for Myers Development. "They were fully vested and the building was under construction." Several scenarios have been considered for resolving the impasse: The Board of Supervisors could reroute a train tunnel around the property; Myers could agree to a buyout of the land or a land swap; or the TJPA could acquire the property through eminent domain. A decision appeared to be close in late July. Funding for the transbay terminal comes from more than a dozen sources, including a $1 bridge toll increase that Bay Area voters approved in March, sales tax revenue from San Francisco, and a future ticket charge on transbay commuters. Caltrans is turning over $290 million worth of land in the area that will be sold to finance the project. All but $182 million of the needed funding has been identified. However, $475 million for the train extension depends on whether state voters approve a bond measure to build the proposed high-speed rail system. Originally slated to appear on this November's ballot, the bond measure has been delayed until 2006 or 2008. If the high-speed rail is not funded, the Caltrain extension may not get built. Alberti, TJPA spokesman, said the train tracks can be added later if the funding is not available when construction begins. Current plans are for the project to begin in 2005, with completion by 2012. The approval of the EIR capped a 30-year planning effort to rebuild the terminal. Past San Francisco mayors have been less than enthusiastic about the project. As expected, though, opponents filed lawsuits challenging the EIR in mid-July. Myers filed one of the lawsuits, arguing that the study did not account for his planned residential tower. A group of architects, engineers, business owners and property owners who favor an alternate transbay terminal one block from the current site filed the other lawsuit. The competing proposal backed by the EIR litigants could be built $1 billion to $1.5 billion cheaper than the project that has been approved, according to Jon Kaufman, executive vice president at Solem and Associates, a public affairs firm in San Francisco. The lower cost is because most of the land for the alternate project is currently used for parking lots, and because the project would use a different alignment for an underground rail line, he explained. Kaufman also said the competing plan would not require construction of a new temporary terminal while the old one is torn down, and would allow the current terminal site to be sold for real estate development once a new terminal is in place. "It's a huge expense," Kaufman said of the approved project. "It's much more expensive than it needs to be." But the TJPA's Alberti said the temporary terminal will be more of a parking lot, and not much of a structure. Tosta, Myers' attorney, likened the terminal project to gambling. "You might as well go to Las Vegas and put your money on the table," he said. But Alberti said the project will serve the region. "It is an expensive project," he said, adding, "It's going to cost us a lot less today than to build it tomorrow." Contacts: Adam Alberti, Transbay Joint Powers Authority, (415) 227-9700. Jon Kaufman, Solem & Associates, (415) 788-1829. Tim Tosta, Steefel, Levitt & Weiss (415) 403-3343. Transbay Joint Powers Authority: http://sfgov.org/site/tjpa

With Sacramento bogged down in the annual battle over the state budget, it appears that the Schwarzenegger administration may not push forward a housing agenda before the legislative session concludes on August 31. But whether or not the administration gets behind legislation this year, it is apparent that administration officials led by Business Transportation and Housing (BTH) Secretary Sunne Wright McPeak are devising broad housing policies. During the week of July 19, McPeak conducted two days of intensive discussions with representatives of numerous interest groups, including development, local government, low-income housing, agricultural and environmental organizations. Outside planning and policy experts also participated. It appears that the administration is headed toward a policy to require cities to designate a supply of land for 20 years worth of housing growth. The details, however, remain fuzzy. One of the major questions is whether the 20-year supply would be part of a local agency’s housing element or the land use element. The state reviews and certifies housing elements, which are also frequently the subject of lawsuits by affordable housing advocates. Where exactly counties would fit into the 20-year land supply mandate also is unclear. Environmentalists and agricultural interests are concerned about the 20-year land supply requirement. They appear willing to accept the notion only if it is accompanied by a requirement for an urban growth boundary and possibly increased review of environmental impacts — conditions opposed by builders and some local government representatives. The administration also is reported to be weighing changes to the regional housing needs assessment process. Affordable housing advocates, though, want to ensure that any changes do not favor market-rate housing at the expense of low-income units. Also under discussion are amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and to general plan law with the goal of providing more certainty to project proponents. The idea is to “front load” the planning process with the intent of minimizing project-by-project battles. Environmentalists, though, are very wary of tinkering with CEQA and can usually round up enough opposition to kill substantial CEQA bills. For months, at least some of the discussion has centered around SB 558 (Ducheny), which McPeak said the administration intends to use as a vehicle for housing policy. As originally introduced last year, SB 558 would have required cities and counties to designate a 20-year supply of land. The California Building Industry Association and the Home Ownership Advancement Foundation (a collection of large homebuilding companies) co-sponsored the legislation. The Senate passed the bill in January, but the 20-year land supply requirements remained poorly defined. The bill then morphed into what appeared to be a dream bill for developers. It would have required cities and counties to adopt community plans for all sites designated for housing development. Local governments would prepare master environmental impact reports for these community plans. Once that advance planning work was done, builders — in theory — would have an easy time because individual projects that were consistent with a community plan would not undergo full CEQA review. An analysis for the Assembly Local Government Committee strongly questioned this approach. “Unlike previous legislation concerning CEQA exemptions for development, this bill is not a focused policy initiative,” the bill analysis stated. “It would apply to all residential development, from a small infill development to subdivisions of hundreds or thousands of homes on the suburban fringe. It makes no pretense of encouraging either smart growth or affordable housing.” The Assembly Local Government Committee rejected the community plan approach, and passed the measure only after all of the offending provisions were removed. As of late July, SB 558 was a “spot bill” awaiting amendments. Capitol insiders expressed doubt that the administration would try to advance SB 558 or any other piece of legislation with substantial housing policies, in part because time is so short before lawmakers adjourn and in part because of uncertainty over the state-local fiscal relationship. “This stuff has been changing weekly,” said one legislative staff member. “It may never get anywhere.” Still, representatives for the League of California Cities and for the California Building Industry Association continue to negotiate over a housing bill. Those rather unusual talks are driven partly by the League’s desire to get the builders’ substantial political muscle on the cities’ side during the ongoing fight regarding state-local government finance. With their police powers, cities could, in turn, make life easier for the builders. A working group of League and CBIA representatives has met twice in Oakland – and once was joined by McPeak. “We’re talking at kind of a broad, conceptual level,” said Richard Lyon a CBIA lobbyist. “What we would like to do is provide a better planning process so that land on a long-term basis could be identified and entitlements accompanying the land could be provided.” League lobbyist Daniel Carrigg said that a front-loaded process that is heavy on community involvement could actually help city councils because they would not have to reopen old fights every time a project is proposed. But the difficult part is balancing developers’ desire for certainty with local control and public input. And any new approach must have some flexibility simply to account for changes in market conditions, Carrigg added. Lyon said that the builders and the League have not made any great breakthrough and have drafted no specific measures that could be placed into SB 558 or another piece of legislature. “Whether we’re able to get anything done this year remains to be seen,” he said. Some believe that McPeak and other members of the administration may be laying plans for a full-scale policy initiative next year. The Department of Housing and Community Development has commissioned a study headed by University of California, Berkeley, Professor John Landis on infill sites throughout the state to determine the existing capacity for housing construction. That study is due this fall and could provide a basis for state policy decisions. A former Contra Costa County supervisor, McPeak was executive director of the Bay Area Council, a fairly progressive business group, before accepting the governor’s appointment to BTH late last year. During her time at the Bay Area Council, McPeak spoke strongly about housing being a key component of a region’s overall economic well-being. She also advocated linking housing with investments in infrastructure. McPeak has carried those themes with her to Sacramento. During recent speeches, McPeak has advocated “anti-dumb growth” and making the most efficient use of infrastructure. And, according to people who participated in the recent meetings at McPeak’s office, the secretary is willing to go for broke. During a recent speech to the Solano Economic Development Corporation, McPeak said, “This administration has made it clear the state’s economic success relies on adequate housing, and that means a radical change in land use planning.”

Nearly every project falls a little short of its initial promise, and nearly every project loses some of its visionary luster in the translation from idea to fact. Even with limited expectations, however, Playa Vista comes as an unpleasant jolt. The 1,085-acre housing development immediately south of Santa Monica is the most striking example I know of the discrepancy between a plan and on-the-ground reality True, the outlines of the elegant plan we first saw nearly 15 years ago are vaguely discernible in this incongruous cluster of newly made residential blocks on the Los Angeles waterfront. That plan had promised New Urbanist residential streets amid gardens and trees, sprinkled with small parks throughout. But, today, these streets are filed with massive, square, four-story apartment buildings of unvarying and unrelieved bulk that appear to have been extruded like ingots from some giant furnace. What’s more, the buildings are tricked out in gaudy dress, like truck drivers in drag. One building is a mediocre pastiche of Irving Gill, while another is a Saturday-morning cartoon of Josef Hoffmann. Despite builders’ rigid compliance with rules requiring a continuous “street wall” of buildings along the sidewalk, these streets are not walkable. The narrow sidewalk is intimidated by the massive buildings, which are separated from the sidewalk only by a thin green margin. Nothing here is charming or carries any conviction, not even the cheerful Babbittry of the homebuilder. The entire effort seems forced, and the mood is one of intense psychological oppression. In case readers suspect that this description is a told-you-so snub by a Playa Vista hater who would attack anything whatsoever built on or near the Ballona wetlands, please be informed that I am not one of them (although there are many). I have endorsed Playa Vista throughout years of planning and politics, primarily because I support affordable housing in crowded and expensive West Los Angeles, and because I hoped the promise of fine residential streets and a mix of housing types would succeed. In fairness, the promised public amenities of Playa Vista, voluminously codified during the 1990s, have all been kept: There is a mix of housing for people of all incomes. There is a high ratio of open space to buildings, even if much of that open space is flat, unshaded grass. Here and there, one can see the electric buggies that the developers promised as a gadget-crazy alternative to driving. (What’s the matter with bicycles?) And whether or not I like the housing, it does add critically needed units in Los Angeles: For the approximately 1,400 units that remain to be built in the first phase of 3,200 units, there are 40,000 names on a waiting list. At this moment, though, it is difficult to remember that Playa Vista, or at least its site plan, had been one of the great promises of the New Urbanism. Early in the planning stages, Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zybek, co-founders of the Congress of New Urbanism (CNU), were involved in the planning, and Plater-Zybek remained involved with the project for years. Later, Stefanos Polyzoides and Dan Solomon, two of California’s best-known urban designers and also CNU co-founders, consulted on the project. In its earliest stages, Playa Vista was imagined by designers as a group of different housing types and different scales, designed in varying styles by many architects. The original vision of Playa Vista was a walkable place with little of the uniformity usually imposed by developers. This was a genuinely exciting idea for one of the largest urban infill projects in the country. Much later, after further “charrettes,” or all-day design sessions, architects and homebuilders reportedly agreed that much of the project would have to be four stories to be profitable, according to Ken Agate, the former Playa Vista marketing director who remains a consultant. Despite this move from creativity to uniformity during the charrettes, many New Urbanist planning principles remained in place: The sharp corners, the streets lined with buildings, the emphasis on landscape, the notion of locating stores and transit within walking distance of homes. With so many “correct” design guidelines, how could the final result turn out so dismally? The easy answer, which is not exactly right, is that the money men took control of an unconventional project that they were too crass to understand. The financiers and merchant homebuilders cheapened and conventionalized Playa Vista to maximize their profit. That kind of cheap shot will satisfy the Playa Vista haters, I suppose, but I think the real answer is more subtle. The project fell into some crevasse between the intentions of the original designers and the practices of conventional homebuilding. It’s as if the builders followed the letter of the design, but not the spirit. In particular, there seems to be a fundamental problem with the building type. For some reason, the buildings at Playa Vista are not “boulevard buildings,” to borrow architect Jan Van Tilburg’s memorable phrase. Height, by itself, is not the problem; much of Paris is covered in six-story apartment blocks, while Boston’s Back Bay, arguably the finest planned community in America, is made up four-story townhouses and apartments. But the buildings at Playa Vista, at least the ones finished so far, are conventional apartment buildings pretending to be row housing. Conventional apartment buildings have one explicitly public area – the entrance – while the rest of the building and facade are private, in the sense that the facades were not really designed with an awareness of passers-by. Row houses (think San Francisco, Philadelphia, New York, Boston) are explicitly urban because they “acknowledge” the public realm with formal and attractive facades while still protecting privacy with a small setback — usually a beautifully kept garden or miniature lawn, The narrow, green band-aids of Playa Vista are inadequate setbacks. The very features that make the row house seem public — front steps or “stoops,” a covered entrance or portico, a garden in front — are also the very things that protect the homeowner from public intrusion. Playa Vista, for the most part, lacks these protectors of privacy. We feel like intruders while walking by the balcony of a private apartment because there is no spatial or architectural intermediary. Quite literally, we can reach out and touch the hibachi, folding chair and guitar resting on the balcony. The housing seems vulnerable to the street, while the street, having no design or public character of its own, feels like an adjunct to the housing compound. Add narrow sidewalks and a lack of shade trees, and the result is claustrophobia. The disillusionment is unavoidable for anyone who held out hopes for Playa Vista. It is doubly dismaying for the many people who risked their careers and political reputations to support what they thought would be a progressive piece of planning. For my part, I am glad that new housing exists, especially the 25% that is reserved for low- and moderate-income renters and buyers. But once in Playa Vista, I cannot wait to get out — to get back in Los Angeles, on Sepulveda Boulevard’s strip of fast food, low-end retail and pawn shops. At this moment, it looks like the Golden City.

A state appellate court has rejected a claim that a Coastal Commission permit condition requiring the dedication of a public access to the beach was a taking. The court ruled that the lawsuit should have been filed 20 years earlier, and that an agency’s more recent acceptance of the “offer to dedicate” did not give the landowner a new chance to sue. The decision by the state’s Second District Court of Appeal mirrors a 2002 decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which also rejected a property owner’s takings claim for being filed long after the statute of limitations had expired. ( , 288 F.3d 375; see , May 2002). In recent years, state agencies have formally accepted a number of dedications of easements or land that were required by the Coastal Commission during the 1970s and 1980s. State agencies have also become more aggressive about enforcing the public access routes required by the Commission. These activities have spurred litigation by a number of property owners, who argue that the required dedications were unconstitutional under the landmark case , (1987) 483 U.S. 825. In , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Coastal Commission’s requirement that a landowner provide a public access to the beach in exchange for a permit to build a house violated the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment because there was no reasonable relationship between the project’s impact and the condition of approval. Since , the Commission has imposed the requirement of coastal access on far fewer development applicants (see , August 2002). However, courts have refused to apply ’s “nexus” requirement to permit conditions approved prior to the ruling. Thus, recent litigation by landowners has failed. The case at hand involved a permit condition imposed in 1981. At that time, the Adamson Companies sought a permit from the Coastal Commission to expand a mobile home park on Point Dume in Malibu. The Commission approved the application on the condition that Adamson provide an “offer to dedicate” (OTD) land several miles away to provide for public recreational use. Adamson did not challenge the condition and in 1983 executed the OTD, which was promptly recorded. The Commission transferred its rights in the OTD to the Coastal Conservancy. In August 2002, the Conservancy accepted the OTD, drew up plans for public improvements and prepared to record its acceptance. But the Serra Canyon Company, Ltd., which had acquired property from Adamson in 1992 as part of a lawsuit settlement, sued the Coastal Commission. Serra argued that the original permit condition was involuntary and unconstitutional, so any attempt to accept the OTD was prohibited. The Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that the statute of limitations was 60 days from the Commission’s imposition of the condition. Serra appealed, but a unanimous three-judge panel of the Second District, Division Two, upheld the lower court. In its opinion, the court cited Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5 and , (1994) 26 Cal.App. 4th 516, a case in which the court rejected a Malibu property owner’s challenge of deed restrictions imposed on a previous landowner because of the statute of limitations (see , June 1997, August 1994). The present case was similar, the Second District determined. “Adamson agreed to the condition imposed by the Commission and executed the OTD, thereby accepting the benefit of the permit,” Presiding Justice Roger Boren wrote for the court. “Serra, the successor owner of the property, is bound by Adamson’s waiver of its right to seek timely writ review.” In , the landowner followed the proper procedure for an inverse condemnation claim by promptly seeking relief in court, Boren noted. Not so in the present case. “Serra attempts to avoid the finality of the Commission’s original permit decision by arguing that it is merely challenging the Conservancy’s acceptance of the OTD. No matter how the action is styled, it remains a collateral attack on a decision that has been final for two decades,” Boren wrote. “The current claim derives solely from the Commission’s 1981 permit condition, not from the formalities involved in enforcing that condition.” Boren then cited the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Daniel, concluding, “By accepting title to property with full knowledge that it is subject to an existing, recorded OTD, a landowner cannot claim that the exercise of the OTD amounts to a ‘taking.’ To secure a benefit (i.e. a development permit),the prior landowner conveyed away the very interest that the present owner now claims is being ‘taken’ by the government,” Boren wrote. The Case: , No. B165314, 04 C.D.O.S. 6245, 2004 DJDAR 8451. Filed June 15, 2004. Ordered published July 13, 2004. The Lawyers: For Serra Canyon: Paul Shoop, Shoop and Leanse, (310) 456-1957. For the Commission: Rosana Miramontes, deputy attorney general, (213) 897-2000.

In the latest round of a battle that began during the late 1980s, the City of St. Helena has won an appellate court ruling stating the Napa Valley Wine Train is not a public utility to be regulated by the Public Utilities Commission. The decision appears to mean that the city has sole jurisdiction over the design and operation of the Wine Train’s long-proposed station in downtown St. Helena. From 1996 through 2003, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) issued no fewer than seven formal rulings on the status of the Wine Train. The Commission swung back and forth on the question of whether the Wine Train provided transportation and, therefore, was a public utility. But a unanimous three-judge panel of the First District Court of Appeal annulled all PUC decisions “to the extent they deem the Wine Train a common carrier providing transportation subject to regulation as a public utility.” The Wine Train, which began operating in 1990, carries tourists on a slow ride from Napa to St. Helena and back. The 36-mile round trip makes no stops and takes about 3 hours. Gourmet meals and fine wines are served. The train does run special tours that stop at a few wineries near Yountville (about halfway between Napa and St. Helena). The Wine Train has long argued that it is a railroad subject to the PUC. The Legislature passed a bill in 1990 that appeared to place the Wine Train under the sole jurisdiction of the PUC. St. Helena and many Napa Valley winemakers and grape growers have fought the Wine Train continuously, saying it does not provide meaningful alternative transportation, blocks roads and driveways, and gives the valley a carnival atmosphere. St. Helena officials have contended that a Wine Train stop in their town would flood the city’s quaint but congested streets with hundreds of tourists, many of them in search of a public restroom. After losing the most recent rounds at the PUC, St. Helena asked the court to intervene. Although it cited the procedural history in detail, the court needed only seven paragraphs of its published opinion to decide the merits of the case. The state Supreme Court’s decision in , (1962) 57 Cal.2d 373, has long helped define “transportation” as “the taking of persons or property at some point and putting them down at another.” The PUC and the Wine Train argued that the Golden Gate Scenic Steamship definition of transportation was not applicable, but the court disagreed. “We see no reason to depart from the ordinary meaning and find the Wine Train does not provide ‘transportation,’” Justice Timothy Reardon wrote for the court. “Presently, the Wine Train does not pick up passengers at one location and put them down at another location. Rather, the Wine Train provides a round-trip excursion from Napa. Throughout the proceedings, the PUC has made much of the fact that the approved project envisioned up-valley stops and connections with shuttles that would transport passengers to wineries and other points of interest. The PUC alleges the proposed project has not been realized because the Wine Train has not been permitted by the city to have an up-valley station. We are not persuaded by this bootstrap argument. In essence the PUC is arguing that before the Wine Train can function as a common carrier, it must be granted the powers of a public utility to pre-empt local jurisdiction. “The fact that they Wine Train could provide transportation in the future does not entitle it to public utility status now,” Reardon wrote. The court cited two of the PUC’s own decisions that said sightseeing is not a function of a public utility. ( , (1998) 78 Cal.P.U.C.2d 292; , (1981) 7 Cal.P.U.C.2d 128.) The Wine Train, the First District ruled, is a sightseeing service. And even if the Wine Train had a station in St. Helena, “it could be argued that any transportation provided would be incidental,” the court held. In the unpublished portion of its opinion, the court rejected arguments that St. Helena’s claims regarding PUC decisions from 1996 were barred by the statute of limitations. The PUC’s most recent decisions implicated the earlier ones, and the city filed on time to challenge the recent decisions, the court determined. The court also ruled that the city was not barred from arguing that the Wine Train was not a public utility simply because the city had asked the PUC in 1988 to regulate the Wine Train as a public utility. At that time, the Wine Train contended that only federal transportation authorities could regulate it, and locals feared there would not be adequate environmental review unless the state PUC intervened. The Case: , No. A104466, 2004 DJDAR 7459. Filed June 21, 2004. The Lawyers: For the city: Patrick Power, (510) 446-7742. For the PUC: Randolph Wu, PUC general counsel, (415) 703-2015. For the Wine Train: James Squeri, Goodin, MacBride, Squeri, Ritchie & Day, (415) 392-7900.

Yolo County officials have voted to use eminent domain to purchase the 17,300-acre Conaway Ranch. The ranch, which lies between Woodland and West Sacramento, contains 15,900 acres of productive farmland, endangered species habitat, open space, rights to 50,000 acre-feet per year of water, natural gas sources, and flood control value. The county is acquiring the property to prevent private interests from purchasing the land with intent to develop the property or transfer the water out of the county, according to Yolo County Supervisor Helen Thomson. She contended that the county is invoking eminent domain due to the nature of the bidding process, which is closed and confidential. If Yolo County ultimately uses eminent domain to purchase the Conaway Ranch, it may be the largest piece of property ever condemned by a local agency in the state. The county aims to preserve the present state of the land. However, if the property were to remain in private hands, the ability to develop or transfer the water would be highly restricted because of the county’s land use and water transfer policies. Many people say that regulations may achieve the same effect as the purchase. In 1990, PG&E Properties, a subsidiary of PG&E Utilities, purchased the ranch for $35 million. This purchase and others throughout the state were made with the idea that profits from development could be thrown in the company pot. In the case of the Conaway Ranch, quite the opposite occurred. As early as 1992, the Conaway Ranch Conservancy Group, made up of PG&E Properties and other local business interests, planned to develop as much as 2,500 acres to provide homes for 35,000 to 40,000 new residents in the City of Woodland. They also drew up plans for 500 to 600 acres of commercial and industrial development, including a 30,000-seat amphitheater comparable to Shoreline Amphitheatre in Mountain View. They poured millions of dollars into development plans, transportation studies, public outreach, and generous donations to local interests. At the time, Woodland, with a population of about 43,000, had some growth choices to make. There was no doubt that the development proposals would bring homes, jobs, and revenue. But local residents and officials wondered aloud about the fate of farmland, natural resources, and water rights. By 1996, all development plans had been abandoned because it had become clear that local desires lay elsewhere. PG&E Properties, which had since bought out all the other partners, put the land up for sale for $68.5 million. The company said that that an agri-business interest should have the land. Yolo County, its cities and other regulatory agencies attempted to mobilize and pursue a joint purchase of the ranch. Before they had a chance, PG&E Properties withdrew the property from the market. In 2001, the property was transferred from PG&E to National Energy and Gas Transmission (NEGT) under a corporate restructuring process resulting from the California electricity mess. NEGT subsequently filed for bankruptcy and, after a review of assets, was forced to sell the Conaway Ranch. In May of this year, NEGT placed an add in the seeking parties interested in purchasing the ranch. The Yolo County government agencies reconvened and succeeded in forming the Conaway Ranch Joint Powers Authority (JPA) representing Yolo County, it’s four cities, UC Davis, and the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The JPA was charged with evaluating funding options for purchasing the land. Alvarez and Marsal, the firm handling the sale for NEGT, announced that it would entertain offers using a closed and confidential bidding process. The county and the JPA said they could not participate in the confidential bidding process. So on July 8, the Yolo County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to use eminent domain to purchase the property, adopting a “Resolution of Necessity” attempting to establish legal grounds for the process. The county announced an offer of $50 million, which NEGT promptly rejected. Negotiations, however, are under way. Stuart Somach, an attorney for the county, said NEGT’s reaction was not surprising and the amount on the table could easily change. Because the ranch is unincorporated territory, Yolo County is the lead agency in the condemnation, not the JPA, which would lead a negotiated purchase. The JPA has publicly supported the use of condemnation action and has pledged to support to the county to the extent possible. Still, the county has stated that it is prepared to “go it alone” if necessary. Thomson, an outspoken champion of this cause, said the Conaway Ranch condemnation was the first time during her 33 years of public service that she has voted for the use of eminent domain. She said eminent domain is necessary to protect a number of public interests: Water rights, water supply, and water security for Yolo County landowners, residents, and businesses; agricultural resources; public health and safety; local and regional flood control alternatives; open space and rural recreation; and the ability to manage natural resources for environmental purposes. According to Chris Unkel of The Nature Conservancy, the Conaway Ranch is one of the few locations in the state that provides habitat for the endangered Swainson’s hawk, and one of two locations remaining in the Central Valley with real capacity for restoring the habitat of native fishes. The ranch also provides an important stop for migratory birds. The real issue, said Unkel, is that the ranch’s productive farmland provides important habitat for the rare hawk. Habitat restoration would require only a small reversion of farmland, he said. In approving the use of eminent domain, Yolo County supervisors did so with a provision that the land use not be physically altered. Yet even people who support the county’s goal are wary of the route the county has taken. Blake Harlin, a Yolo County Farm Bureau board member, said that while the Farm Bureau supports the goals of maintaining the current land use and the purchase by local authorities, the Farm Bureau is opposed to the use of eminent domain and frustrated by the lack of detail put forth by the JPA. The Nature Conservancy, which has been involved with the JPA to examine funding opportunities, agrees in principle with the plans, yet The Nature Conservancy also opposes the use of eminent domain, according to Unkel. Once a deal is done, local interests and authorities would convene and form a management JPA in which stakeholders such as the Farm Bureau and The Nature Conservancy would be involved. In the meantime, they have been asked to “have faith,” and offer their support, said Harlin. The deal is as much about water rights as it is about land use. Local interests and officials have expressed deep concern that a sale of this property to a private developer could mean the transfer of water to another area, the fallowing of some of Yolo County’s most productive land, and the loss of a precious source of water for future Yolo County growth. However, according to Thomson and Somach, the county has strict laws in place that would make it very difficult for a private developer to transfer water out of the county. During the early 1990’s, the county adopted an ordinance that prohibits the transfer of water out of the county in cases where the use of additional groundwater would be required to make up for the loss. All of Conaway’s 50,000 acre-feet of water would fall under this restriction, Somach said. But, he noted, the ordinance would allow the transfer if it were approved by the Board of Supervisors. County officials such as Thomson argue that the restrictions on land use and water rights are major factors in setting the market value of this land, and that potential future projects should not be considered when establishing market value. Contacts: Helen Thomson, Yolo County supervisor (530) 666-8622. Stuart Somach, Somach, Simmons & Dunn, (916) 446-7979. Blake Harlin, Yolo County Farm Bureau (530) 308-6594. Chris Unkel, The Nature Conservancy (916) 449-2852. Yolo County background material: http://www.yolocounty.org/org/bos/agendas/2004/070804s/09.pdf

The California Supreme Court has accepted for review a case in which lower courts ruled that a state agency may not provide tax-exempt bond financing to religious schools. The California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) sought to provide tax-exempt bonds to assist Oaks Christian School in Westlake Village, California Baptist University in Riverside and Azusa Pacific University. The schools sought the money to build classrooms, athletic fields, offices and other capital improvements. The authority filed a validation action in Sacramento County Superior Court in hopes of having the proposed bonds declared legal. But a Superior Court judge ruled that CSCDA’s proposal violated article XVI, §5 of the state constitution, which prohibits the government from aiding any church or religious sect, or supporting any school controlled by a religious organization. In a 2-1 decision, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the lower court. Neither court addressed federal constitutional issues, although dissenting Third District Justice George Nicholson wrote that he believed the CSCDA bonds would not violate provisions of either the state or federal constitution. The state Supreme Court voted unanimously to accept the case. It is , No. S124195.

A state appellate court has upheld an environmental impact report for a 96-unit condominium project in downtown Oceanside. The court rejected arguments that the environmental impact report failed to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives, did not address the project’s impact on neighboring residents and did not require adequate mitigation of biological impacts. The proposed project is a 96-unit condominium, two-building development on 7.5 acres next to the San Luis Rey River and within Oceanside’s downtown redevelopment project area. The project site is next to Mira Mar Mobile Community, a 173-unit mobile home park. Relying on a redevelopment project area master plan, the city adopted a tiered EIR (called the final supplement EIR, or Final SEIR) and approved a tentative map for the project in May 2002. Mira Mar residents and the mobile home park’s owner, Logan Boggs, sued, arguing that the city violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in a number of ways. San Diego County Superior Court Judge Michael Anello upheld the Final SEIR. The project opponents appealed, but a unanimous three-judge panel of Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the lower court decision. The appellate court dealt first the question of alternatives. The final SEIR contained a “no project” alternative; reduced-density alternatives of 10 and 28 single-family lots, respectively; and a 95-unit, single-structure condominium development. The project opponents argued that the no project alternative discussion was misleading because it did not indicate that the proposed project would result in the loss of open space and coastal sage scrub habitat, and because the Final SEIR should not have speculated that future proposals for the site could have greater impacts. The court disagreed, saying that the impact of the no project alternative was “self evident” and that the impacts of the project itself were described elsewhere. As for the Final SEIR’s speculation, the court ruled, “ his comment merely acknowledges the reality that a disapproval of the instant project would inevitably result in the proposal of some other project.” Project opponents contended that the reduced density alternatives were bogus because they were not feasible. But the court said their inclusion was fine. “Although the city ultimately rejected these alternatives as ‘infeasible,’ this conclusion does not imply these alternatives were improperly included for discussion,” Justice James McIntyre wrote for the court, citing CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6, subdivision (a). “Alternatives included in an EIR need only be ‘potentially feasible,’ meaning they are ‘capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors.’” The opponents argued that the 95-unit condo was an inappropriate alternative because it would actually have a greater impact that the proposed project. The court agreed but said it did not matter. “While we do not condone the city’s inclusion of an alternative that does not further CEQA’s purposes, we find the error was not prejudicial,” McIntyre wrote. Finally, opponents said the Final SEIR should have addressed alternative locations, which the study did not contain. But the court ruled, “Because the proposed project was consistent with the city’s existing plans, policies and zoning, we conclude a review of alternative sites was not necessary.” The court then turned to the Final SEIR’s analysis of impacts. Project opponents said the proposed condominiums would block their ocean view, sunlight and ocean breezes. As proposed, buildings 22 and 35 feet away from mobile homes would tower more than 30 feet above the mobile homes. But the city determined that the impact was not significant. The city’s policy draws a distinction between public views and private views, and the project was designed to protect public views. Therefore, the court explained, the city could determine the project’s impact on the mobile home park was not significant. As for the loss of coastal sage scrub habitat, the court noted that the Final SEIR requires the loss of 0.86 acres of habitat must be offset 3-to-1 with the creation, restoration and permanent preservation of habitat elsewhere on the site. The state Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Coastal Commission all accepted the mitigation, the court pointed out. The court also ruled that the city’s findings were supported by substantial evidence in the record. The Case: , No. D042070, 04 C.D.O.S. 5252, 2004 DJDAR 7183. Filed May 17, 2004. Ordered published June 15, 2004. The Lawyers: For Mira Mar: D. Wayne Brechtel, Worden, Williams, Richmond, Brechtel & Gibbs, (858) 755-6604. For the city: Pamela Walls, assistant city attorney, (760) 435-3979. For real party in interest CH Oceanside: Ronald Rouse and Brian Fish, Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, (858) 720-6300.