Even with the preoccupation over the state budget--and especially the fate of redevelopment--Sacramento lawmakers have managed to advance a typically broad array of bills related to land use.  Several of those bills focus on redevelopment reform, most notably Sen. Alan Lowenthal's SB 450, which seeks to preserve funds for affordable housing, and Sen. Rod Wright's SB 286, aimed at comprehensive reform -- but not elimination -- of the state's redevelopment system. Both bills have the support of the League of California Cities and the California Redevelopment Association.  But that's not all. Those and dozens more bills relating to everything from climate change to transportation to local planning issues remain on the table in Sacramento, where June 3 is the deadline for each house to pass bills introduced in that house. Bills that do not pass out by then are effectively dead for the remainder of the year.  Herewith is CP&DR's roundup of pending legislation:  CEQA & Climate Change AB 320 (Hill). Makes clarifying amendments to CEQA to ensure that all parties with a direct interest in a case brought pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are aware of the pending litigation. It seeks to ensure that lawsuits and litigation from being thrown out in the event a "recipient of approval" emerges after the statute of limitations time period has passed.  AB 605 (Dickinson). Directs the Office of Planning and Research to set standards for vehicle-miles traveled reductions and CEQA exemptions. The Act would adopt guidelines establishing a percentage reduction of vehicle miles traveled for a proposed project, in comparison to the average VMT of a project, that would assist a region in meeting the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets established by the California Air Resources Board for the vehicles of that region. AB 752 (Brownley). Requires cities, counties and harbor districts to have a plan in pace by 2013 to deal with floods resulting from rising sea levels. Passed Assembly.  AB 931 (Dickinson). Extends the current criteria for the preparation of a community-level environmental review from 5 to 20 years. It would also lower the density requirement for exemption from 20 to 15 units per acre. AB 1285 (Fuentes). Creates community greenhouse gas emission reduction program. Would provide state oversight over local government and nonprofit investments relating to greenhouse gasses. SB 241 (Cannella). Enacts the CEQA Litigation Protection Pilot Program of 2011 and would require the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency to select projects that meet specified requirements from specified regions for each calendar year between 2012 and 2016.  SB 246 (DeLeon). This bill would require the state board to meet specified requirements relating to verification and oversight of compliance offsets, as defined, if the state board allows the use of compliance offsets as part of a regulation adopted pursuant to AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Housing AB 483 (Torres). This bill would modify the definition of the term "target population" under the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act and make several changes to the information a borrower may include in his or her annual report. AB 542 (Allen). Requires, under housing element law, densities less than those specified in the housing element, to be deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households, if the site is owned by a city or county planning agency and set aside for affordable housing development, or if the planning agency has offered to provide subsidies per unit for affordable housing construction. AB 826 (Atkins). Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to include in its annual report specified cumulative totals for each program funded under the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Acts of 2002 and 2006.  AB 1103 (Huffman). Allows localities to count foreclosed homes and second units converted into deed-restricted homes toward their regional housing needs assessment requirement.  AB 1198 (Norby). This bill would repeal the requirement that the Department of Housing and Community Development determine the existing and projected need for housing for each region, as specified, and other specified provisions relating to the assessment or allocation of regional housing need.  AB 1220 (Alejo/Steinberg). Allows a five-year statute of limitations to challenge the adequacy of a housing element. Responds to ruling in Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton .  Local Planning & Land Use AB 46 (J. Perez). This bill would provide that every city with a population of less than 150 people (i.e. the City of Vernon) as of January 1, 2010, would be disincorporated into that cityÂ''s respective county as of 91 days after the effective date of the bill, unless a county board of supervisors determines that continuing such a city within that countyÂ''s boundaries would serve a public purpose if the board of supervisors determines that the city is in an isolated rural location that makes it impractical for the residents of the community to organize in another form of local governance.  AB 147 (Dickinson). Expands the existing eligible uses for transportation mitigation impact fees to transit, bike and pedestrian facilities under the Subdivision Map Act. AB 208 (Fuentes). This bill would extends by 24 months the expiration date of any approved tentative map or vesting tentative map that has not expired as of the effective date of this act and will expire prior to January 1, 2014. AB 485 (Ma). Eliminates the requirement of voter approval for the adoption of an infrastructure financing plan, the creation of an infrastructure financing district, and the issuance of bonds with respect to a transit village development district.  AB 502 (Bonilla). Authorizes the County of Monterey, and specified cities within that county to establish the Fort Ord Reuse Authority to, among other things, plan for, finance, and manage the transition of the property known as Fort Ord from military to civilian use. Authorizes Contra Costa County and the City of Concord to establish the Concord Naval Weapons Station Reuse Authority to plan for, finance, and manage the transition of the property formerly known as the Concord Naval Weapons Station from military to civilian use. AB 579 (Monning). This bill would permit the award of attorney's fees and, in some cases, other litigation expenses, to a local governmental entity in an action brought by the owner of a mobile home park to challenge the validity or application of a local ordinance, rule, regulation, or initiative measure that regulates space rent or is intended to benefit or protect residents in a mobile home park, if the local governmental entity is determined to be the prevailing party. AB 710 (Skinner). Eliminates minimum parking requirements for infill and transit-oriented development. Prohibits city or county from requiring more than one parking space per residential unit and prohibits requirement of more than one parking space per 1,000 sq. ft of commercial units for residential or mixed-use project in a transit intensive area. Also modifies definition of sustainable communities to include communities that incentivize infill development. AB 995 (Cedillo). Requires the Office of Planning and Research, not later than July 1, 2012, to prepare and submit to the Legislature a report containing recommendations for expedited environmental review for transit-oriented development. AB 1072 (Fuentes). This bill would establish the California Promise Neighborhoods Initiative in the Office of Economic Development. It would require the office to establish 40 promise neighborhoods throughout the state, according to specified criteria, to maximize collective efforts within a community to improve the health, safety, education, and economic development of each neighborhood. AB 1170 (Alejo). This bill would authorize the planning commission or city council of the City of Watsonville to amend a specified preliminary plan and redevelopment plan, respectively, to add described territory, known as the Manabe-Bergstrom Site, currently referred to as the Manabe-Ow site.  AB 1220 (Alejo). Changes the decision of a Court of Appeal (Urban Habitat v. city of Pleasanton). The bill would create a five-year statute of limitations to challenge land use planning decisions. SB 132 (Lowenthal). Requires State Allocation Board to revise guidelines, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies for the acquisition of school sites and the construction of school facilities to reflect the state planning. This bill would also require that advice, standards, surveys, or information regarding the acquisition of school sites or the construction of school facilities provided by the State Department of Education pursuant to this requirement reflect the state planning priorities. SB 184 (Leno). In response to Palmer/Sixth Street Properties L.P. v. city of Los Angeles, seeks to clarify that the Costa-Hawkins Act does not apply to inclusionary housing programs. This would make clear that inclusionary zoning is a permissible land use power. This bill would additionally authorize the legislative body of any city or county to adopt ordinances to establish, as a condition of development, inclusionary housing requirements, as specified, and would declare the intent of the Legislature in adding this provision. SB 244 (Wolk). Requires, prior to January 1, 2014, and thereafter upon each revision of its housing element, a city or county to review and update one or more elements of its general plan, as necessary to address the presence of island, fringe, or legacy unincorporated communities, inside or near its boundaries, and would require the updated general plan to include an identification of unincorporated island, fringe, or legacy communities within or near the city or county, a quantification and analysis of specific infrastructure deficiencies, an analysis of current programs for addressing conditions and deficiencies within these communities, a statement of goals for addressing these issues, and finally a set of implementation measures designed to achieve these goals.  SB 310 (Hancock). Eliminate the requirement of voter approval and authorize the legislative body to create the an infrastructure financing district, adopt the plan, and issue the bonds by resolutions. SB 444 (Evans). Allows an application to convert a mobile home park from rental to resident-owned to be subject to all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. SB 469 (Vargas).  Requires a city or county prior to approving or disapproving a "superstore retailer" to require, at applicant expense, a private consultant to prepare an exhaustive economic impact report examining 17 different detailed conditions. A "superstore" is defined as more than 90,000 square feet, selling a wide range of consumer goods, and where 10 percent of the total floor area is devoted to selling non-taxable food items.  SB 552 (Huff). The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act prohibits offering a voter or landowner, and would prohibit a voter or landowner from accepting or receiving, consideration to forgo the filing of a protest. Redevelopment AB 14 (Wieckowski). Authorizes the Fremont Redevelopment Agency to adopt a redevelopment plan for a project area encompassing or surrounding the New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI) automobile manufacturing plant and the Warm Springs Bay Area Rapid Transit station.  AB 101. Eliminates state redevelopment agencies (RDAs) and an orderly "wind down" of their responsibilities and assets. AB 330 (Norby). This bill establishes a specified procedure by which the Department of Housing and Community Development, the Attorney General, and the courts would handle major audit violations committed by redevelopment agencies. AB 343 (Atkins). Encourages redevelopment plans and subsequent projects to be in alignment with climate, air quality and energy conservation goals of Chapter 728 of the Statutes of 2008. AB 445 (Carter). This bill would require, notwithstanding anticipated proposed legislation, that a redevelopment agency shall continue in full force and effect with respect to a military base reuse project under the jurisdiction of that agency, as specified.  AB 936 (Hueso). Requires that, with regard to matters considered by a local legislative body, any matter on a meeting agenda to forgive a loan, advance, or indebtedness of a redevelopment agency be made public at a public meeting at least two weeks prior to the adoption of any action relating to that matter. AB 1234 (Norby). Prohibits redevelopment agencies from using specified revenue for the promotion, recruitment, or retention of any professional sports team, or any related activity, as defined or for the development, planning, design, site acquisition, subdivision, financing, leasing, construction, operation, or maintenance of infrastructure, as defined, related to the occupancy, recruitment, or retention of any professional sports team. AB 1250 (Alejo). Amends definition of blight; prohibits agencies from collecting the school share of local property tax or tax increment in new project areas starting in 2012; limits the percentage of total land area of a jurisdiction which may be included in redevelopment project areas; prohibits use of tax increment for specific purposes such as golf courses and race tracks; strengthens agency reporting and accountability requirements; focuses redevelopment activities on priorities such as job creation, cleaning up contaminated property basic infrastructure needs, and affordable housing. AB 1317 (Norby). Requires, in addition to consistency with the general plan, that a redevelopment plan be consistent with any specific plan for which the community has adopted for the same territory.  SB 77 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review). Eliminates state redevelopment agencies (RDAs) and an orderly "wind down" of their responsibilities and assets.  SB 191 (Sen. Governance and Finance Cmte). Validating Acts. Included provision that would have aided in the elimination of redevelopment. Senate refused to approve.  SB 214 (Wolk).  This bill would eliminate the requirement of voter approval and authorize the legislative body to create an infrastructure financing district, adopt an infrastructure financing plan, and issue the bonds by resolutions.  SB 286 (Wright). Adds specificity to the types of information needed for making findings of blight; limits the percentage of total land area of a jurisdiction which may be included in project areas; exclude the schools share of property taxes in new project areas formed after January 1, 2012; prohibits uses of tax increment for specific purposes such as golf courses and professional sports facilities without voter approval; adds new requirements to five-year implementation plans and require agencies to focus activities on state priorities such as job creation, cleaning up contaminated property, basic infrastructure needs, and affordable housing; provide for more public oversight; require development of performance indicators to measure agency success; require performance audits of agencies by the State Auditor and provide funds for those reviews. Failed to pass Senate. SB 450 (Lowenthal). Restricts how redevelopment agencies spend their low- and moderate-income housing funds. Passed Senate. Transportation & Infrastructure AB 31 (Beall). Establishes the High-Speed Rail Authority to develop and implement an intercity high-speed rail system in the state, exclusively grants to the authority the responsibility for planning, construction, and operation of that system, and confers upon the authority specified powers and duties relating to that system. This bill would establish the High-Speed Rail Local Master Plan Pilot Program, applicable to specified cities and counties, and would authorize each of those jurisdictions to prepare and adopt, by ordinance, a master plan for development in the areas surrounding the high-speed rail system in each jurisdiction. AB 345 (Atkins). Requires Caltrans to convene an advisory committee of representatives from groups representing bicycle and pedestrian users of streets, roads and highways and consult with this group regarding the installation of traffic control barriers and/or devices. AB 441 (Monning). Requires the California Transportation Commission to include health issues in regional transportation plans. The Office of Planning and Research would develop guidelines for local government and regional agencies to incorporate health (improvement) issues into general plans. AB 539 (Williams). Authorizes local government to double fines for speeding in a school zones. AB 650 (Blumenfield). Convenes "blue ribbon" task force to be comprised of twelve transportation subject matter experts to prepare a written report which would include findings and recommendations regarding the current state of CA’s transit system, costs of creating the needed system, and potential funding sources. AB 676 (Torres). Existing transportation expenditures are currently legally obligated for transportation related administration, operation, maintenance, local assistance, safety and rehabilitation projects. This bill would allocate remaining funds for the study of, and development and implementation of capital improvement projects to be programmed in the state transportation improvement program. AB 696 (Hueso). In conjunction with the existing Bergeson-Peace Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank Act, This bill would require the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank to consult, and authorize it to coordinate implementation of its revolving loan program, with local and regional revolving loan funds and networks of revolving loan funds, for specified purposes. AB 700 (Blumenfield). The act provides that California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank is governed and its corporate powers are exercised by a board of directors of which the Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing or his or her designee shall serve as chair. AB 819 (Wieckowski). Augments existing Dept. of Transportation responsibility for safety guidelines to include class IV bikeways, in addition to class I, II and III bikeways.  AB 893 (Manuel Perez). Incorporates a requirement into the State General Obligation Bond Law that a bond act include a provision that includes a plan on how the bond will be administered, including outreach and oversight, to ensure that the objectives of the bond act will be adhered to. AB 910 (Torres). In addition to public capital facilities, requires an infrastructure financing district to finance affordable housing facilities and economic development projects. SB 214 (Wolk). Eliminates requirement of voter approval to create and authorize an infrastructure financing district. This bill would authorize a legislative body to create an infrastructure finance district, adopt an infrastructure financing plan, and issue bonds by resolutions by resolution, not requiring voter approval. SB 310 (Hancock). Eliminates requirement of voter approval for the creation of an infrastructure financing district and would authorize the appropriate legislative body to create the district, adopt the plan, and issue the bonds by resolutions. Creates streamlined permit process for development that met certain criteria and it would create a program to reimburse developer fees if a project was located within an Infrastructure Finance District. SB 446 (Dutton). Establishes the Ontario International Airport Authority as a local entity of regional government. Authorizes the authority to enter into an agreement with the City of Los Angeles to facilitate the sale of, or the transfer of management and operational control of, the Ontario International Airport to the authority.  SB 468 (Kehoe). This bill would impose additional requirements on Caltrans with respect to proposed capacity-increasing state highway projects in the coastal zone, including requiring the department to collaborate with local agencies, the California Coastal Commission, and countywide or regional transportation planning agencies to develop traffic congestion reduction goals. Passed Senate. SB 517 (Lowenthal). Reorders the High-Speed Rail Authority and places the Authority within the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency and require the members of the authority appointed by the Governor to be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. Passed Senate. SB 535 (De Leon). Requires minimum of 10% of revenues generated from fees collected by the Air Resources Board from sources of greenhouse gas emissions would be deposited into a trust operated by the CA Treasury Dept. Funds would be in used in communities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or to mitigate health or environmental impacts of climate change. Passed Senate. SB 907 (Evans and Perez). Creates Master Plan for Infrastructure Financing and Development Commission, consisting of specified members, and would require the commission to prepare and submit a strategy and plan for infrastructure development in California that meets certain criteria to the Legislature and the Governor by December 1, 2013. SB 910 (Lowenthal). Requires the driver of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle that is proceeding in the same direction to pass at a safe distance, at a minimum clearance of 3 feet, or at a speed not exceeding 15 miles per hour faster than the bicycle, without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken bicycle. AB 1308 (Miller). In any year in which the Budget Act has not been enacted by July 1, provides that all moneys in the Highway Users Tax Account in the Transportation Tax Fund, except as specified, are continuously appropriated and may be encumbered for certain purposes until the Budget Act is enacted. Environment/Open Space AB 703 (Gordon). Provides property tax incentives for non-profit ownership and stewardship of open-space and park lands. Lands benefiting from the current exemption complement existing local, state, and federal park lands, and they do so without drawing upon scarce public funds. Passed Assembly.  SB 436 (Kehoe). Until January 1, 2022, authorizes a state or local public agency to provide funds to a nonprofit organization to acquire land or easements that satisfy the agency's mitigation obligations, including funds that have been set aside for the long-term management of any lands or easements conveyed to a nonprofit organization if the nonprofit organization meets certain requirements.  SB 580 (Kehoe and Wolk). This bill would prohibit land acquired for the state park system, through public funds or gifts, from being disposed of or used for other purposes incompatible with park purposes without the substitution of other land. Passed Senate. SB 618 (Wolk). Creates a solar easement program for siting solar on marginally productive agricultural lands. Easements would look similar to Williamson Act contracts, with a term of no less than 10 years, and an automatic annual renewal, and termination only by a process of non-renewal. SB 668 (Evans). Until January 1, 2016, authorizes a nonprofit land-trust organization, a nonprofit entity, or a public agency to enter into a contract with a landowner who has also entered into a Williamson Act contract, upon approval of the city or county that holds the Williamson Act contract, to keep that landowner's land in contract under the Williamson Act, for a period of up to 10 years in exchange for the open-space district's, land-trust organization's, or nonprofit entity's payment of all or a portion of the foregone property tax revenue to the county, where the state has failed to reimburse, or reduced the subvention to, the city or county for property tax revenues not received as a result of Williamson Act contracts. SB 833 (Vargas). Prohibits a person from constructing or operating a solid waste landfill disposal facility located in the County of San Diego if that disposal facility is located within 1,000 feet of the San Luis Rey River or an aquifer that is hydrologically connected to that river and is within 1,000 feet of a site that is considered sacred or of spiritual or cultural importance to a tribe and is listed in the California Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands Inventory. Building & Development AB 49 (Gatto).  The Permit Streamlining Act requires each state agency and local agency to compile one or more lists that specify in detail the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project, and requires a public agency that is the lead agency for a development project,  or a public agency which is a responsible agency for a development project that has been approved by the lead agency, to approve or disapprove the project within applicable periods of time. AB 482 (Williams). This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to encourage innovation in green building design and natural building that meets or exceeds all existing health and safety requirements.  AB 1338 (Hernandez). Requires that on and after January 1, 2012, all real property purchased or otherwise acquired in exchange for financial remuneration by an agency pursuant to the above provisions be subject to an appraisal by a qualified independent appraiser to determine the fair market value of that property. Other AB 331 (Brownley). States the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would create the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2012, a state general obligation bond act that would provide funds to construct and modernize education facilities, to become operative only if approved by the voters at the next statewide general election, and to provide for the submission of the bond act to the voters at that election.  SB 194 (Senate Committee on Governance). Establishes the Shasta County Regional Library Facilities and Services Commission, and authorizes the commission to, among other things, issue bonds, levy a special tax pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, levy a special tax pursuant to Section 4 of Article XIII A of the Constitution, levy a retail transactions and use tax, and levy service charges and fines, as specified. This bill would repeal this act. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. SB 653 (Steinberg). Allows local government (county, city, or even a school district) to impose a number of taxes which currently can only be levied by the state, upon voter approval.

For years, major cities, especially in California, have held their ground in what some consider an unwelcome onslaught by Walmart stores and their like. In the City of San Diego, however, Walmart has been making one of its most significant plays yet in attempting to establish itself in urban California. Its recent announcement of its intention to build up to a dozen stores comes amid a political battle that has raged for a half-decade. In November, the city council voted in favor of an ordinance requiring that retail superstores such as Walmarts submit extensive economic impact reports detailing the projected effects they would have on neighboring small businesses. The ordinance was directed at stores with over 90,000 square feet of retail space, at least 10% of which is dedicated to items exempt from state sales tax, such as groceries.  The Ordinance to Protect Small and Neighborhood Businesses, introduced by councilmember Todd Gloria, passed in November. It was vetoed almost immediately by San  Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders.  "Passage of the superstore ordinance…will cause confusion in the development process," said Sanders in a statement issued following the November veto. "(It adds) an additional layer of regulation that fails to identify objective review criteria or conditions under which superstore development may ever be considered to be appropriate." While a similar ordinance had been approved and then vetoed in 2007, this time the council overrode the mayor's decision in early December on a 5-3 vote. And yet, the controversy continued.  In response, Walmart brought about a petition campaign, purportedly spending near a million dollars to promote its message, gathering 54,000 signatures (about 4% of San Diego's population) in opposition to the bill. Under city law, the council was forced to vote on the ordinance again, this time with the prospect of a costly special election if the bill went through. Leading up to the follow-up vote, Walmart announced, on Jan. 27, that it planned to develop 12 new stores in San Diego, including several supercenters that would be subject to the ordinance. At a Feb. 1 the City Council ultimately voted, 7-1, to repeal the ordinance, reasoning that in the light of a near $50 million budget deficit, securing funds to put the measure on the ballot was not practical. Walmart did not respond to interview requests.  According to opponents of the ordinance, that process would be burdensome, unnecessary, and produce results that would be vague at best. They say that it uses the land-use planning process as a way to inappropriately hinder a certain type of development.  "They still have to go through the discretionary process— that's what the frustrating part of this was—any project of that size still requires discretionary review," said Matt Adams, vice president of the Building Industry Association of San Diego. "They were just piling on all these other finding requirements and economic analysis that when you looked at it, you thought, no one can meet these. But it was like, of course, if they can't meet them, then they can't build it." While Walmart and its supporters, such as Sanders, reason that supercenters provide jobs and consumer choice to cities, numerous studies have shown the negative aspects of supercenters on communities: the increase in traffic that results in higher pollution levels, the loss of local diversity and color, even the increase in crime. Opponents note that supercenters can generate as many as 10,000 car trips in a weekend, which, they say, places an undue burden on urban streets.  Walmart supporters find both the state bill and city ordinance simply meddlesome.  "We believe that the actions of the city and now the actions of the state are counter to providing free markets and free commerce," said Paul Webster, vice president of public policy at the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce. "The state does not have any business regulating business expansion, business development and job creation in this way." Matt Adams, the Vice President of the Building Industry Association of San Diego, was a public opponent of the anti-superstore ordinance. Among allegations of manipulating land development code to target a specific company, his main concern was for the loss of jobs in his industry. "At the end of the day we're talking about job-creation in a city that has 10 percent unemployment and the potential for construction jobs which this thing would have prevented and we were strongly opposed to it for those two mains reasons," said Adams. Adams estimated that with each Walmart that is not built, 100 possible construction jobs, from both contractors and subcontractors, will not be created. He imagines it will be a couple years at least before construction starts on the 12 newly proposed stores.  Sanders' veto message notes that if those stores – or ones like them – are not built in the City of San Diego, they will likely crop up elsewhere in the region, thus creating even more traffic congestion than would the more centrally located stores. He contends that such stores would also deprive the city of tax revenue.  "(The anti-superstore ordinance) action creates a competitive disadvantage for San Diego in the pursuit of sales tax revenue," said Sanders. "Superstores will be built to serve our residents, but they will simply locate outside of the city's boundary, causing sales taxes to go to other jurisdictions and increasing traffic as people must travel further in search of lower prices." This scenario would potentially be addressed by Senate Bill 469, sponsored by Sen. Juan Vargas (D-Chula Vista), which is currently under consideration in Sacramento. The goal of Vargas's bill, according to his chief of staff, Jim Harrison, is to provide a uniform means of assessing the impact of supercenters across the state, while ultimately letting adjacent local planning agencies decide which effects of supercenters are objectionable and which are palatable. "We don't know what the studies will show; there's a chance they could show positive things in some areas and negative things in others," said Harrison.  The studies will be paid for by the permit applicants at a cost estimated at somewhere around $30,000 per report. In addition to assessing the economic impact on small businesses, the reports promoted by SB 469 would also investigate the projected effect a superstore might have on a neighborhood's affordable housing, destruction of parks and playgrounds, traffic and other blight. They will also be open to public review. Like the Councilmember Gloria's failed ordinance, SB 469 defines a superstore as "any business with 90,000 square feet that sells a wide range of consumer goods and that devotes 10% of its sales floor area to the sale of items that are not subject to the state sales tax." Harrison said studies have found that supercenters have a higher rate of visits per week among consumers than either of these types of establishments. In the meantime, in San Diego, there are certainly alternatives for those seeking low-cost fresh produce according to councilmember Gloria, whose district is one of the poorest in the city.  "There are ways to improve the availability of affordable fresh groceries without sacrificing neighborhood character," said Gloria. Contacts:  Matt Adams, Vice President, Building Industry Association of San Diego, 858.450.1221 Todd Gloria, Councilmember, San Diego 3rd District, 619.595.1481 Sen. Juan Vargas, 40th District, 916.651.4040 Paul Webster, Vice President of Public Policy, San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, 619.544.1300  (CP&DR contributor Kate Wolf is a freelance writer based in Los Angeles.)

If you think things are bad in California, then you probably don't live in Silicon Valley. And if you think things are swell, you probably don't live in Kerman (or in the Schwarzenegger household). That's the conclusion of a new report released this month about the state of human well-being in California.  The American Human Development Project, a series of studies in all 50 states, is part of a growing movement to measure development not only in terms of economic prosperity but also in terms of quality of life and—to the horror of 1950s-era quantitative analysts—happiness. It's in the Declaration of Independence, so I suppose it's about time we paid attention to it.  Authored by Sarah Burd-Sharps and Kristen Lewis, A Portrait of California uses methodology for assessing well-being that has been developed by the United Nations. It synthesizes measure of health, education, and income into a single index, ranging from 0 to 10.  A Portrait of California is an expansive study that boils the state down to one little number. With a statewide score of 5.46, California ranks above the national average of 5.09. However, the study revealed that California also has the greatest range of scores among all the states surveyed. With nearly perfect scores, five of California's congressional districts rank in the national top-10. Meanwhile, Mississippi, Flint, and the Bronx have nothing on the Central Valley. Congressional District 20, near Fresno, ranks at the very bottom nationwide. Average incomes range from $73,000 in parts of Silicon Valley to $15,000 in parts of the City of Los Angeles. Broadly, the Bay Area is by far the most prosperous metro region, with an index just under 7; no other metro breaks 6 as San Diego, Sacramento, and Los Angeles—the other "big four" metros--were measured at 5.65, 5.48, and 5.28, respectively. The San Joaquin Valley measures 3.84.  Variations within metros were, predictably, even more pronounced. In the Los Angeles area, a 7-point gap separates the mostly white residents of Laguna Hills from the mostly African-American residents of Watts. You can guess which placed ranked higher.  Similar disparities cross ethnic lines. Asian-Americans rank 7.61, with nearly twice as much well-being (as it were) as Latinos, whose index is 3.99. Slice the data however you want—gender, location, education, immigrant status, ethnicity—and predictable patterns persist.  The study concludes that, contrary to what planners may think about cities, on the one hand, and metro regions, on the other hand, there are five "Californias": Silicon Valley Shangri-La, Metro-Coastal Enclave, Main Street, Struggling, and Forsaken. Each of these states corresponds with varying access to quality education and shocking disparities in quality of neighborhoods and social services. The study lists the exact cities and communities that fall into each California, so everyone in the state can find his or her place in the inequitable mess that the state has become.  Any planner with a conscience should pay attention to the development factors that relate to land use, of which there are many. For instance, the study points out that residents of Palo Alto get around via three public bus systems plus a commuter rail line, thus fulfilling the contentions of everyone from Jane Jacobs to Ed Glaeser that connectivity equals prosperity. Just a stone's throw from Steve Jobs' house, East Palo Alto is served by a single public bus system. Shangri-La it is not.  The study concludes by identifying 12 categories of action that are required to bring the respective Californias up to a level of respectability. Not surprisingly, the Forsaken California requires all 12 fixes; Silicon Valley needs only to reduce the gender gap in earnings (presumably, though, women tech executives who make $10 million compared to men who make $20 million are fighting more of a moral battle than a financial battle).  The categories, numbered below as they appear in the report, that should concern planners include the following:  4. Reduce residential segregation. With astounding disparities in amenities, services, and social capital among the Californias—and with some of them sitting cheek by jowl—the study implies that the stakes in the battle for affordable housing are higher than merely having a place to live. 5.  Facilitate healthy behaviors. This is nothing new. Walking and cycling should be easy, not marginalized in favor of the auto.  11. Stabilize housing costs. As far as I'm concerned, this means relaxing zoning laws, speeding up the entitlement process, and otherwise getting rid of many artificial barriers to the production of privately developed housing. (Harvard professor Ed Glaeser says nothing less in Triumph of the City (see CP&DR Book Beview May 2011 .) Aside from those, a full four categories of action relate directly to education.  None of this data is news to anyone who lives in these different Californias. But the report does offer a striking holistic portrait of the state as a whole: planners and public officials who read the report – however valid or invalid its conclusions might be – cannot ignore how the other half lives. This sort of analysis, especially at the level of the metro region, would be nearly useless if it weren't for the dawning of a new age of regionalism in California. SB 375 intends to reduce vehicle miles traveled on the regional scale, but in directing transportation investment, development, and especially housing development, SB 375 has the chance to promote equity. And that's something that many will consider more important than VMT reduction.  --Josh Stephens

Plenty of people who live and work in West Los Angeles have zero firsthand knowledge of redevelopment. So a hotel in Brentwood probably doesn't provide the most appropriate venue for a discussion thereof. Nevertheless, the Westside Urban Forum gave it a good shot this morning and the results were telling.  With any issue as controversial as redevelopment, you'd expect a panel with four members to represent a balance between pro and con. In these times, the pro-redevelopment argument would contend that the current doing peachy, thank you very much. If it wasn't, why would nearly 400 agencies been allowed to proliferate across the state and control billions of dollars in public funds? The opposition would say that it's all a bit, corrupt waste of money.  Among the four panelists -- State Controller John Chiang; L.A. County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky; Bill A. Witte, president of Related California; and Michael Dieden, one of the founders of the California Infill Builders Association -- not a single one spoke in favor of the status quo.  I don't fault the organizers for assembling an imbalanced panel. I just don't know if anyone, anywhere thinks the current system -- the one that Gov. Jerry Brown thinks is beyond salvation -- is any good. When the status quo has no friends, you know something is terribly, terribly wrong.  If recommendations were bricks, you could build a football stadium out of the ideas that have been advanced for the reform of redevelopment. A few interesting ones popped up this morning.  Yaroslavky, who may be run for mayor of Los Angeles in 2013, took the hardest line against redevelopment, calling it "welfare for the rich." He said he has looked for blight in cities like Arcadia and Industry -- both of which have RDAs -- and has yet to find it. Regarding projects like L.A.'s Bunker Hill, which now features gleaming Class A office buildings, he asked, "How long do you keep pouring money in?" Yaroslavsky bemoaned the evolution of redevelopment from a blight-fighting tool to a development tool. He noted that some cities in L.A. county have no blight and that some have even proposed legislation in Sacramento to do away with the requirement to find blight, because, he said, it only invites cities and developers to make bogus findings. Yaroslavky's opposition is predictable, of course: the tension between cities and counties over diverted tax increments is as old as redevelopment itself.  Chiang hesitated to pass judgment on the concept of redevelopment but instead said that agencies have failed to prove their own worth. According to a survey of 18 agencies that he oversaw in March, not one of the 18 agencies had filed proper paperwork to disclose all of their activities and finances. Chiang thus issued a plea for agencies to be more transparent and, indeed, more competent.  Witte, like Yaroslavsky, said that the blight requirement is a sham, "because blight is whatever you want it to be." Witte recommended that RDAs become more like other city agencies: a core function but without the legal charade associated with findings of blight. Witte recommended that redevelopment be recast to cover three situations: 1) economically distressed areas that currently produce no tax revenue; 2) areas with such poor infrastructure or contamination that private-sector developers cannot make viable; 3) production of affordable housing.  Dieden referred to a forthcoming white paper to be published by the California Infill Builders Association that describes comprehensive reform measures that would provide the state with $1 billion in the first year and $500 million in the following years. He also favored replacing designations of blight with those of "challenged" and providing agencies with the legal framework for addressing "challenged" parcels.  Tellingly, one of the most prominent reform measures that is getting attention in Sacramento seemed like a non-starter. The California Redevelopment Association has proposed that agencies voluntarily turn over a portion of their TIF, so as not to run afoul of Prop. 22. And yet Yaroslavsky cautioned that such a move would be penny-wise and pound-foolish: "A voluntary $1 billion will be the victory and reform will be the causality." The panelists presented ideas with the sort of sobriety and thoughtfulness you would expect from thinking people who are aghast at a public policy disaster. It's quite a different tone than that which persisted seven months ago, when advocates of redevelopment were talking tough and pushing Prop. 22, which promised to preserve the sanctity of TIF financing for all eternity. Of course, Prop. 22 has backfired. By thwarting the state's ability to appropriate any TIF monies, it forced the governor to propose the elimination of the entire system. Had supporters of redevelopment been talking seriously about reform last year -- or even longer ago -- the current crisis might never had befallen them.  It's worth noting that, to my knowledge, this morning marks the first time that there has ever been an event on the Westside dedicated to a broad discussion of redevelopment. And you wonder how we got into this mess in the first place?  --Josh Stephens Correction Appended: An earlier version of this post erroneously identified Bill Witte as an executive with Caruso Affiliated.  William B. Witte is with Caruso; William A. Witte, who was on the WUF panel, is president of Related California. CP&DR regrets this error.

Needless to say, realigning the relationship between state and local government in California isn't going to be as easy, say, as realigning the tires on your car. Then again, at the rate things are going, there won't be any decent roads left on which to drive. So your car might not matter anymore.  The Public Policy Institute of California has announced that it will publish a series of papers concerning the process and wisdom of realigning, per Gov. Jerry Brown's intentions in his 2011 budget proposal. The first report, Rethinking the State-Local Relationship: An Overview , was released in April. Authored by Dean Misczynski, it outlines the general principles of realignment and lays out some of the challenges that the state and its localities will face. Under the governor's budget proposal, counties would take over responsibility for, among other funcitons, housing certain low level offenders and juvenile offenders; providing mental health, drug treatment, and child and adult protective services; and, of course, the elimination of redevelopment zones (but possibly not Enterprise Zones, per the governor's recent budget revise ). Many of these services would be paid for by a temporary increase in vehicle license fees and sales tax, pending voter approval.  The report outlines what it considers some of the factors that have prompted the need for realignment in the past, most notably Prop. 13 , which deprived localities of the ability to raise money via certain property taxes and therefore tied their fates to the largesse of the state.  Clearly, the success of realignment depends on implementation and not on any conceptual framework. Nevertheless, the report cites several benefits that may come from realignment: efficiency, better outcomes, and a balance between local control and statewide equity. This last point is the thorniest, however, since localities may become more free to provide, or ignore, services as they see fit. Therefore, funding and standards must, Misczynski, be put in place in order to ensure that localities do not go astray. Aside from the ethical obligation to provide for citizens equally, he notes that if services are not provided equitably, then residents might be compelled to move from poorly served areas to well served areas, thus creating undesirable migration patterns.  Among the constraints that will complicate the realignment process are 1) the mandate to reimburse localities for new obligations; 2) Prop. 96's mandate that 45% of general fund monies go to schools; 3) Props. 1A and 22, which limit the uses of sales tax revenues and of monies related to redevelopment and transportation. And even if those hurdles are cleared, the report notes that the real devil may be in the financing details. Not surprisingly, the state will want to lowball the value of the services that it is delegating to localities, and localities will demand generous funding from the state. How far apart these numbers will be remains to be seen. But while money is fungible, facilities and expertise are not. In some cases, it could take years before localities built the capacity to take on all that will be asked of them.  What all of this means, of course, is that realignment could go swimmingly and save millions of dollars. Or it could be a nightmare for local governments that already feel put-upon by the state.  --Josh Stephens

In the beginning there was the general plan. This is an overstatement of Dan Curtin’s world view, but not by much. The dean of California land use lawyers, who died a few weeks ago at age 73, was an almost priestly man of faith who believed in God, the rule of law, and the process of land use planning. Over the past 25 years, other land use lawyers in California had busy practices and a few even had more appellate cases under their belt. But no one else had Curtin’s gravity – his deep respect for the law, his firm grasp of the overall land use planning process, his unassailable sense of authority. Much of his outsized reputation came from his authorship of , the flagship title at Solano Press Books. (Note: Solano Press also publishes , written by yours truly and Paul Shigley, editor of this publication.) But ultimately, Curtin’s legacy is not really the book, or the endless conferences and lectures he enjoyed providing, or the two generations of land use lawyers he so lovingly mentored. In legal terms, his real legacy is the general plan. When Curtin began his career in municipal law during the 1960s, the general plan was a thin, semi-optional advisory document that some cities took seriously and others didn’t. By the time Dan died, it was – as he so often said – the “constitution for the future development of a community.” This transformation occurred in large part because Dan himself made it happen – and especially because Dan won the most important case of his career. It was a case that Dan spent his whole career preparing to litigate, and no novelist could have crafted a better story. Although Curtin was courtly in an old-school lawyerly way, he did not come from a silk-stocking background. He was San Francisco Irish Catholic through and through. Curtin grew up in the Sunset District to Irish immigrant parents during the 1940s. As a boy he went to seminary. His sister became a nun and one of his best friends from seminary – a longtime priest – officiated at his funeral in Walnut Creek. True to form, he went to both college and law school at the University of San Francisco, a respected Catholic institution. Curtin served in the Army during the late ’50s but quickly moved into government law. He worked on the legislative staff in Sacramento for two years – this was during the speakership of Ralph M. Brown, for whom the Brown Act is named – and then went into local government. In Richmond, he was the assistant city attorney for four years. In 1965, he became city attorney of Walnut Creek at age 32. He held the job for 17 years – essentially, from the end of Pat Brown’s administration to the end of Jerry Brown’s administration. This turned out to be perfect timing for a smart, young municipal lawyer interested in land use. California was in the midst of a vast postwar suburban growth boom that was sweeping into outer suburbs. During the ’60s, Walnut Creek grew from 9,000 to 39,000 people and in the 1970s expanded again to 54,000 people. Curtin’s tenure as city attorney straddled the growth management case, the passage of the California Environmental Quality Act and the major general plan law revisions of 1971, the CEQA case, the case that created the state’s “late vesting” rule, the passage of the development agreement law, the first major revision of redevelopment law, and three California Supreme Court rulings in the late ’70s that opened the floodgates for ballot-box zoning. To put it bluntly: When Dan Curtin became Walnut Creek’s city attorney in 1965, there was really no such thing as a land use lawyer. When he left in 1982, there were hundreds of them – and Dan was their guru. He became the guru for two reasons. The first was his unflagging willingness to lecture on the latest developments in land use law to practically anybody who would listen – a sideline that eventually led to the publication of his book. The second was his deep and heartwarming desire to mentor young land use lawyers and planners, which influenced two generations of practitioners throughout California. Curtin began doing land use law updates in various venues in 1973 – just when land use law was emerging as a complicated specialty – and soon became the hit of the UC Extension circuit, giving updates and lectures all over the state constantly. Eventually, he turned his standard binder into , now in its 27th edition. At the podium he often seemed professorial, but in retrospect a better description might be priestly. Curtin’s Irish Catholic background gave him great reverence for authority and he conveyed that reverence in a straightforward and unvarnished way. When discussing an appellate court ruling, he rarely identified the individual court that issued the decision or the individual justice who wrote it. He simply stated: “The court said …” To Dan, it didn’t really matter which court or which justice – even if it was somebody who used to work for him. The court’s imprimatur was enough for him. He was only delivering the message from on high. And the core of the message was primacy of the general plan. The most significant legal revision occurred in 1971, when the state created the consistency requirement – meaning the general plan must be internally consistent and that other planning documents, such as the zoning ordinance, must be consistent with the plan As Dan pointed out on page 8 of his book – quoting several appellate cases – this change transformed the general plan from “an interesting study” to “the basic land use charter that embodies fundamental land use decisions and governs the direction of future land use in a city’s jurisdiction.” For someone steeped so deeply in Roman Catholic doctrine, the clarity of this act seemed both appealing and reassuring. So Dan saw it as his mission to spread the word about the general plan. In 1982, shortly after publishing for the first time, Dan left the City of Walnut Creek and went into private practice with his friend Sanford Skaggs, an eminent domain lawyer who had been on the City Council in Walnut Creek during the ’70s. Van Voorhis & Skaggs soon became one of the leading land use firms in the state – so attractive that during the rash of law firm mergers in the 1980s, it was bought out by the great San Francisco firm of McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, now known as Bingham McCutchen. The hurly-burly of daily legal practice required Curtin’s shop to take all kinds of cases. Inevitably, he often represented developers in private practice, which sometimes left him open to criticism, especially from citizen groups and environmentalists who believed he had sold out. But because of his reputation, he could – on significant cases – pick his spots. It’s true that most of his important appellate work involved representing developers. But each case was framed around defending a fundamental principle of the general plan. In this way he always managed to stay above the fray. This was true in all of his major cases – especially the most important one. After Curtin left the city attorney’s office, Walnut Creek fell into a divisive battle over growth typical of suburban cities in the 1980s. During this period, the city was experiencing second-generation growth – the arrival of BART and I-680, the construction of large office buildings, and so forth. This political fight culminated in 1985 with the passage of Measure H, a citizen-backed initiative that imposed a development moratorium if traffic standards were not met. The crusty Dean Lesher, owner of the and a major landowner in Walnut Creek, decided to challenge the initiative in court and asked Skaggs, Curtin, and their associate Maria Rivera (now an appellate court judge) to represent him. The line of attack was, inevitably, the general plan, which Skaggs and Curtin had been largely responsible for writing in the ’70s. The development restrictions of Measure H seemed to conflict with the general plan, which called for strengthening Walnut Creek’s position as a regional commercial center. To Dan, this was a violation of the 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not be inconsistent with the general plan. Even worse, it wasn’t clear what Measure H was. Was it a general plan amendment? A zoning ordinance? Nowhere in the initiative was this spelled out – which surely offended Curtin’s finely developed sense of order and authority. So, in the case, Curtin and his associates had to make several important and seemingly difficult arguments. First, Measure H was a zoning ordinance. Second, it was inconsistent with the General Plan. Third, and perhaps most difficult, was the argument that state general plan law trumped the initiative process – a tough trick under the California constitution, which is extremely deferential to citizen initiatives. Curtin won in Contra Costa County Superior Court, but he lost at the First District Court of Appeal, which ruled that Measure H was a general plan amendment. He turned it around at the California Supreme Court, where Justice David Eagleson concluded in a New Year’s Eve ruling that because of its “self-executing” nature, Measure H was a zoning ordinance and therefore inconsistent with the general plan. Only the ornery Justice Stanley Mosk dissented. ( , 52 Cal.3d 531 (1990)). “The tail does not wag the dog,” Eagleson wrote – quoting Curtin himself. Not every lawyer could have looked graceful and measured in the process of challenging a citizen initiative in his own city by invoking a general plan he had helped write on behalf of a curmudgeon that a lot of people in town didn’t like. But Dan maintained almost everybody’s respect in the process. The case also cemented the primacy of his beloved general plan. As Dan wrote in his , according to , “any subordinate land use action, such as a zoning ordinance, tentative map, or development agreement, that is not consistent with a city’s current and legally adequate general plan is ‘invalid at the time it is passed.’” Even, as Dan took pains to point out, if the action was passed by initiative. I can’t think of a single book that contains such a compelling story of being outcast, then redeemed in a way that changed the world so profoundly. Dan, being a devout Roman Catholic, could probably think of at least one. It wasn’t obvious at the time, but the era was a watershed time in California land use law. Not only did the Supreme Court affirm the significance of the general plan in that case, but in a second case issued on the same day the Court reined in the use of CEQA to block projects ( , 52 Cal. 3d 553). In , the Supreme Court also went out of its way to reaffirm the primacy of the general plan. New Year’s Eve 1990 was the first and only time that the California Supreme Court stated unequivocally that the general plan is superior to all other land use documents. It was Dan’s day. After these two cases, typical craziness went on in the world of California land use – rampant initiatives and lawsuits, use, misuse and abuse of both the general plan law and CEQA. But the craziness was tempered by an overarching respect for the general plan as a community’s constitution. And that shift – along with his mentoring of hundreds of lawyers and planners who share this respect – may be Dan’s real legacy. In the beginning, maybe there the general plan. But in the end, there the general plan – thanks mostly to Dan Curtin.

Only two months after voters rejected Proposition 90, new proposals to alter eminent domain law are already arising. Anti-tax activists, environmentalists, local government organizations and state lawmakers are all working on eminent domain proposals, and it is likely that voters will see at least one ballot measure on the subject during the 2008 primary. It is also possible that voters will decide on another regulatory takings initiative. It appears all but certain that redevelopment agencies will lose at least some measure of eminent domain authority, as even the California Redevelopment Association is talking about sponsoring its own “reform” legislation. There are two main reasons the campaign that started with Proposition 90 barely paused after the November 7 election. First, Proposition 90 — which would have prohibited the use of eminent domain for economic purposes and would have required payment to property owners affected by regulations — lost by only 52.4% to 47.6%, even though proponents ran virtually no campaign. And, second, the narrow margin appears to have emboldened property rights proponents and raised concern among local government leaders, redevelopment advocates, planners and environmentalists who fought the measure. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association made the first post-Proposition 90 move when the group filed the “California Property Owners Protection Act” with the attorney general’s office only two weeks after the election. Like Proposition 90, the proposed initiative combines eminent domain reform with provisions regarding regulatory takings, although the measure does not appear to go as far as Proposition 90. On the first day of the legislative session, state Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) and Assemblywoman Mimi Walters (R-Laguna Niguel) introduced constitutional amendments that would prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes. Meanwhile, local government organizations and environmental groups are actively pursuing eminent domain reform via either legislation or a ballot measure. These groups want to frame the issue themselves, defuse some of the other side’s political momentum, and separate the issues of eminent domain and regulatory takings. “After living through the campaign and seeing how the issues were put on the table … it certainly has given me and my board of directors pause,” said Chris McKenzie, executive director of the League of California Cities. “The whole experience demonstrated to us over and over again that the public has a concern about eminent domain.” Local government officials and attorneys have repeatedly argued that the Supreme Court’s June 2005 ruling in — which inflamed the public — had no impact on California’s eminent domain practices. Still, even the biggest defenders of eminent domain now concede that the rules must change. “It is the position of the California Redevelopment Association that we need to prohibit the use of eminent domain for single-family homes when the ultimate use is redevelopment, and not a public project like a new school,” said association Executive Director John Shirey. “We still think we need to do some eminent domain reform. As to what form that’s going to take, I don’t know yet.” McKenzie, Shirey and other leaders of the anti-Proposition 90 effort are hoping to keep the campaign coalition together. That coalition included business, agriculture and real estate interests who oftentimes are at odds with government regulators, as well as environmental groups. Gov. Schwarzenegger also opposed Proposition 90, although he was not part of the campaign. Environmental groups appear to be staying on board, but it is unclear where everyone else, including the administration, will stand. Tom Adams, board president of the California League of Conservation Voters, said environmentalists are advocating eminent domain reform because the public is demanding changes, and because property rights advocates are using public frustration over eminent domain to advance restrictions on land use regulations. “The failure to do eminent domain reform gave some property rights extremists cover,” Adams said. Proposition 90 opponents convinced voters that the initiative was about more than eminent domain, but it was a difficult case to make, he said. “It was hard to talk to the general public and get them to see through the eminent domain cloak.” “If there was a straightforward takings measure on the ballot, I would have a high degree of confidence that it would be defeated,” Adams said. The proposed Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) initiative does combine the issues of eminent domain and regulatory takings, but that could change. “We continue to refine another version,” said Jon Coupal, HJTA president. “It is very likely that we will file another version. We are communicating with other property rights interests.” The organization endorsed Proposition 90 but did not actively campaign for the measure, which was spearheaded by New York real estate investor and libertarian crusader Howard Rich. Coupal said that an initiative drafted by Californians which reflects the state’s environmental and political concerns might fare better than Proposition 90, and that means addressing regulatory takings in a measured way. The proposed initiative that HJTA filed in November, for instance, would not make routine general plan amendments or rezonings subject to a property owner’s takings claims, as Proposition 90 would have, Coupal said. The Jarvis organization’s primary focus is on protecting single-family homes, Coupal said. “We don’t want private homes taken and handed over to private developers,” he emphasized. That concern could be eliminated with amendments to eminent domain law, and Coupal said his organization has not ruled out “working with the municipal interests” on legislation. “We’re keeping our options open.” State Sen. McClintock and Assemblywoman Walters, however, have shown little interest in working with local government, and they were quick to introduce legislation. Both McClintock’s SCA 1 and Walters’s ACA 2 would prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes, and would alter the condemnation process in favor of property owners. “The taking of private property for ‘public use’ should be reserved for explicitly public needs, not to increase local tax collections,” Walters said in a written statement. During an early December conference at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., a conservative think tank, Richard Mercereau, policy director for the Assembly Republican Caucus, said the fight regarding eminent domain and property rights is far from over. He called Proposition 90 a “moon shot” that barely failed despite the overwhelming campaign against the initiative, suggesting that Californians are ready for regulatory reform. Republicans’ dissatisfaction stems from what the Democratic-controlled Legislature did (or did not) do in response to . While McClintock and other Republicans charged that local governments were abusing eminent domain and must be restrained, Democrats were circumspect. Lawmakers last year did pass the most significant changes in redevelopment law since 1992, including provisions that require redevelopment agencies to adopt updated blight findings when they extend eminent domain authority (see , October 2006). But Republicans and property rights advocacy groups said the changes do not go far enough, and whether they can be won over by the anti-Proposition 90 coalition’s proposals is uncertain. Proponents of Proposition 90 vowed right after the election that they would return in 2008. So far, no written proposal has emerged, but the CRA’s Shirey and others take the threat seriously. Thus, the possibility that local government organizations may pursue their own ballot measure or legislation. Shirey declined to call any such proposal “pre-emptive,” but politically it may work that way. “We’re working on it very, very hard,” McKenzie said. “It is a priority issue for us.” Contacts: Tom Adams, League of Conservation Voters, (650) 348-0870. Jon Coupal, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, (916) 444-9950. Chris McKenzie, League of California Cities, (916) 658-8200. John Shirey, California Redevelopment Association, (916) 448-8760.

Two ballot measures approved by Santa Cruz voters in November appear to have further strained the already difficult relationship between the city and the University of California. One ballot measure requires the extension of water or sewer services to new areas — such as UC Santa Cruz’s North Campus — to be put to a vote. The second measure prohibits the city from providing services to the university unless UC fully implements measures to mitigate environmental impacts of expansion. Both measures passed by greater than 3-to-1 ratios. The university filed a lawsuit in August in hopes of blocking the measures from the ballot, but the election went forward. The university will apparently resume its litigation now that voters have approved the measures. “The Santa Cruz community is understandably concerned about issues related to UCSC growth,” Acting Chancellor George Blumenthal said after the election. “Unfortunately, these ballot measures will only serve to inhibit the ability of the city and the university to work together.” Other recently filed lawsuits may also inhibit a working relationship. In October, the city and Santa Cruz County sued the university over the environmental impact report for the UCSC long range development plan that the UC Board of Regents approved in September. There was also a lawsuit filed earlier this year by the group Coalition for Limiting University Expansion (CLUE) that alleges runoff from two campus construction sites violated the Clean Water Act. The city has joined CLUE in that litigation. Santa Cruz is a company town in which the university is by far the largest presence and employer. More UC Santa Cruz graduates stay in town than at any other UC campus. And it’s not uncommon for the City Council or other city panels to contain UC employees. Yet the relationship between local government and the state-run university may be more strained in Santa Cruz than anywhere else in California. Longtime Santa Cruz residents point to the early-1960s deal that brought UC to the coastal city. At that time, UC envisioned a small campus for a few thousand undergraduates amongst the redwoods on the edge of town. Since then, UC Santa Cruz has evolved into a significant research university with 15,000 students. The long range development plan envisions more growth, as the entire UC system tries to keep pace with rising enrollment demands. The 15-year plan, which is similar to a general plan, would accommodate 4,500 additional students — plus related faculty and staff — with the development of 3.2 million square feet of additional building space, including the first major projects on the lightly developed North Campus. In approving the plan, the Board of Regents accepted Blumenthal’s recommendation to scale down expansion by 1,500 students and 800,000 square feet of building space. Blumenthal urged the last-minute reductions because of “concerns of the Santa Cruz City Council and other members of the community.” But it was not enough to satisfy locals. The city’s lawsuit over the EIR cites a number of alleged deficiencies. The EIR acknowledges that implementation of the long-range plan would result in significant unavoidable impacts to air quality, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, noise, housing, traffic and utilities. For residents, the biggest issues are traffic and parking in a part of town that is already jammed. “Unlike other campuses, UCSC is isolated from dining and shopping areas, and from freeway access. Only a few residential streets serve it,” CLUE pointed out in a review of the long-range plan. “Students lack adequate campus parking now. UCSC growth will produce Westside gridlock.” The ballot measures — authored by county Supervisor Mardi Wormhoudt and placed before the electorate by the City Council — were a response to this situation. After the election, Wormhoudt told the , “People and institutions work best together when there is a balance of power, and the passage of Measures I and J helps to even the playing field for the city and the university.” The university, however, argues that the ballot measures are illegal for a number of reasons. First off, the university contends the city violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by not preparing an EIR on the ballot measures. Although citizen initiatives are exempt from CEQA review, the state Supreme Court in , (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 165, ruled that council-generated ballot measures are not exempt (see , May 2001) Santa Cruz did adopt a negative declaration for the two ballot measures, but UC argues that it is inadequate because it does not address foreseeable impacts related to increased groundwater pumping and increased development on portions of the campus within the city limits and, therefore, within the city’s water and sewer service area. The university further argues that the ballot measures break 1960s contracts in which the city agreed to provide water and sewer services for the entire campus. The university contends those agreements also bar one of the ballot measure’s requirements that the city and university undergo a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) process — and receive voter approval — for the extension of water and sewer to the North Campus, a part of the 2,000-acre campus that lies outside the city limits. Santa Cruz County LAFCO Executive Officer Patrick McCormick said he has had conversations with UC and the city, but no applications have been filed. He said his reading of the ballot measure was that it “didn’t substantially change the law. It was a statement of intent.” There are hints that UC, the city, the county and CLUE may enter into far-reaching negotiations to avoid protracted courtroom fights. But, at this point, those talks are difficult to envision. In a July letter to the city, University Counsel Kelly Drumm vowed: “With or without the initiatives, university enrollment at the Santa Cruz campus will continue to grow to accommodate the State of California’s demand for higher education. … If the city denies water service to the North Campus, the university will find alternative means of accommodating the increased enrollment.” Two months after receiving that letter, the City Council voted to spend an extra $100,000 on legal battles with UC. Now that voters have overwhelmingly stated their opposition to further UCSC growth, it may be even harder for the city to back down. Contacts: UC Santa Cruz long range development plan: http://lrdp.ucsc.edu/ Coalition for Limiting University Expansion: www.santacruzclue.org Patrick McCormick, Santa Cruz County LAFCO, (831) 454-2055.

A taxpayer lawsuit challenging the City of Seaside’s discounted sale of 105 acres of the closed Fort Ord military base to housing developers appears headed for trial. The Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled that the lawsuit contesting the city’s deal with a joint venture of KB Home and Bakewell Homes was not filed too late. A Monterey County Superior Court had ruled that the lawsuit was a validation suit that was filed after the 60-day deadline. But the Sixth District ruled that the validation statutes, which typically affect indebtedness, taxes and government organization, do not apply. The lawsuit challenges the city’s 2002 sale of property that has since been developed into the 380-unit Seaside Highlands subdivision. In a double-escrow transaction, the city acquired the property from the federal government in July 2002 for $5.1 million. K&B Bakewell provided money for the city-federal deal. The city then immediately transferred the property to K&B Bakewell for $5.95 million. Development began in early 2003 on the subdivision of market-rate homes ranging from 1,700 to 3,600 square feet. In May 2003, Seaside resident Benjamin Kaatz filed a lawsuit and even managed to get construction shut down for a week. As amended, the suit contends that the city’s sale of property for what Kaatz contended was 5% of its market value was invalid because it was a gift of public property, was not permitted under terms of the city’s deal with the developers, and was not properly noticed. The Superior Court lifted the injunction quickly and, without ruling on the merits, dismissed the lawsuit in March 2004 because it was filed too late. On appeal, the Sixth District, which also did not consider the merits, overturned the lower court, clearing the way for a trial. The city and K&B Bakewell have asked the state Supreme Court to review the Sixth District’s decision. Local government groups and the California Building Industry Association have said that allowing lawsuits over the government’s sale of large tracts of land long after the sale has been completed could chill interest in such transactions. The question for the Sixth District was whether the validation statutes in Code of Civil Procedure §§ 860-870 apply. The validation statutes require legal action be filed within 60 days. The idea is that prompt resolution of any legal questions is necessary to provide for government certainty. The city and the developers argued that the validations statutes apply in this case because the contract between the city and the developers embodies an “important policy decision affecting the public at large,” because the lack of a prompt validation procedure would impair the city’s ability to operate, and because the land disposition agreement (LDA) between the city and the developers concerned the city’s financial transaction with a third party. The court rejected the arguments. Government Code § 53511 — originally approved in 1963 and amended to § 53511 subdivision (a) in 2004 — specifically references the validation statutes adopted in 1961 and further references “bonds, warrants, contracts, obligations or evidences of indebtedness,” according to the court. The city’s deal with K&B Bakewell does not relate to bonds or warrants, the court noted, and does not speak to a loan of funds. Therefore, the question is whether the LDA is a “contract” within the meaning of Government Code § 53511 and the validation statutes. Relying heavily on the state Supreme Court’s decision in , (1970) 2 Cal.3d 335, the Sixth District said the LDA is not such a contract. In the , the state Supreme Court adopted a narrow definition of the term “contract.” “Rather than authorizing proceedings to validate any public agency contract — or even any contract constituting a financial obligation of a public agency — the ‘contracts’ under Government Code § 53511 are only those that are in the nature of, or directly relate to, a public agency’s bonds, warrants or other evidences of indebtedness,” the Sixth District ruled. “ he execution of the LDA and the city’s subsequent conveyance of the property to K&B Bakewell pursuant to that agreement were not matters embraced by the validation statutes and Government Code § 53511,” the court concluded. Therefore, Kaatz’s lawsuit is not subject to the validation statute’s 60-day deadline. The Case: , No. H027562, 06 C.D.O.S. 8953, 2006 DJDAR 12793. Filed September 21, 2006. The Lawyers: For Kaatz, Jay Renneisen, (925) 280-8900. For the city: Lee Rosenthal, Goldfarb & Lipman, (510) 836-6336. For K&B Bakewell: Julie Woods, Horvitz & Levy, (818) 995-0800.

Voters who decided local land use ballot measures in November showed slow-growth tendencies. They also displayed more than a little unpredictability, suggesting that nothing in local land use politics is certain, or at least certain forever. For example, voters in two Bay Area counties rejected “anti-sprawl” ballot measures aimed at protecting the region’s cherished hills and farmland. Voters in the perennially slow-growth City of Davis approved a 136,000-square-foot big-box store. Growth-control advocates in Newport Beach had their three-election winning streak snapped when voters rejected new restrictions. In a rare instance of county voters approving a specific project, the San Luis Obispo County electorate overwhelmingly backed a controversial retail and housing project that City of San Luis Obispo voters rejected 18 months earlier. Voters in the usually conservative San Joaquin Valley approved sales taxes for transportation, while liberal Marin County rejected a sales tax for commuter rail and a 70-mile-long bike path. Overall, voters chose the slow-growth side in 26 of 42 classifiable local ballot measures. During the 2004 general election, the pro-growth side won 16 of 31 elections. Two years earlier, growth advocates won 19 of 32 ballot measures. Without question, the biggest surprises in November were in the Bay Area, where the “Land Conservation Initiative” narrowly failed in Santa Clara County, and an extension of Solano County’s voter-approved “Orderly Growth Initiative” received only 47% of the vote. Proponents of the measures focused their message on saving rural areas and protecting agriculture. However, in both counties, farmers complained that they had not been consulted by proponents, and the farmers actively campaigned against the ballot measures. The Solano County measure would have extended existing policies by 30 years until 2036. Those policies prohibit most development on land zoned for agriculture, watershed or open space, which adds up to most of the unincorporated area. Opponents of Measure J focused on farmers’ needs when campaigning in Dixon and Rio Vista, and on economic development when talking to voters in Vallejo and Benicia, campaign manager Amber Johnson said. The No on J campaign did not accept money from housing developers nor the endorsement of any elected official, according to Johnson. “We made a concerted effort to stay away from development money. Not that we didn’t have their support, but we knew that would be the nail in our coffin,” Johnson said. Third-generation Suisun Valley farmer Derrick Lum said Measure J proponents did not approach growers until the measure was already on the ballot. “They should have come to the table and asked us what we think about it,” he said. Lum, who grows pears, beans and wheat, said he needs options to continue in the farming business. Orderly Growth Initiative policies prohibit processing plants on agriculture land, as well as “ag tourism,” which has helped growers in places such as Apple Hill in El Dorado County, Half Moon Bay and the Napa Valley, he said. “I have to change my ag practice. It’s not the same as we’ve been doing for the last 30 years,” said Lum, who cited inexpensive imported food as a major competitor. In Santa Clara County, 51% of voters said no to a measure intended to prevent development on about 400,000 acres of rural areas and hills. As in Solano County, opponents of the Santa Clara County initiative focused on farmers’ and landowners’ complaints that they had been left out of the initiative drafting process. “A lot of the people looking at it realized there were a lot of disparate views,” said Beverley Bryant, executive director of the Southern Division of the Home Builders Association of Northern California, an initiative opponent. “It was not as straightforward as it was presented to be.” Indeed, the initiative went on for nearly 20 pages, and descriptions of what exactly it would do varied. But the idea was to lock in — and in some instances tighten — existing regulations barring development in most unincorporated areas. Proponents, including Greenbelt Alliance and the Sierra Club, argued that existing policies may be changed at any time with three votes by the Board of Supervisors — an argument that played well during Ventura County’s Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources campaigns of the late 1990s. Opponents, meanwhile, said Measure A could harm housing affordability in Santa Clara County, where affordability is already at a premium. However, Bryant and other opponents were hard-pressed to say how the measure would drive up housing costs when the initiative would have prohibited only single-family homes on large parcels. “There were some conflicting messages, some inaccurate information that went out and that may have affected the outcomes in Santa Clara and Solano counties,” Greenbelt spokeswoman Elizabeth Stampe told the . Whether voters countywide accepted the housing affordability argument or not, voters in the Santa Clara County city of Cupertino clearly did not. In two referendums, they overwhelmingly rejected two housing proposals. The city approved both projects earlier this year. One rezoned a portion of Vallco Fashion Park to permit 134 condominiums atop new retail space. The second project involved the rezoning of a 26-acre former Hewlett Packard office site to allow 300 condominiums and 80 apartments for low-income senior citizens. Project opponents used yard signs referring to “Condotino” and said the developments would crowd the city’s desirable schools. Cupertino Community Development Director Steve Piasecki said he was unsure what is next for the polarized city. “It’s an interesting conundrum for the community. We’re stuck in the vice,” Piasecki said. “The state declares a crisis on housing, and the community says no.” There is a perception that Cupertino is being overrun by condominiums when, in fact, the city of 54,000 people will see only about 1,000 new units over six years, Piasecki said. And while the community is unwilling to accept even those units, the regional fair-share housing process is likely to boost Cupertino’s future allocation, said Piasecki, who serves on an Association of Bay Area Governments’ committee working on the allocations. “Multi-family residential on those two sites and just about anywhere in town is probably going to be on hiatus,” he said. “Why would (a developer) want to put up half a million or a million dollars for an entitlement process?” In the college town of Davis, the vote on rezoning to permit a 136,000-square-foot Target store was not seen as a referendum on the city’s big-box regulations, which prohibit retail stores of more than 40,000 square feet. Rather, the election appears to be mostly about having a Target in town, rather than six miles away in Woodland. In the end, 51.5% of voters backed the proposed store. The outcome would likely have been different if the proposed big box were a Wal-Mart. In San Luis Obispo County, voters approved an initiative placed on the ballot by property owner Ernie Dalidio, who has been trying to develop his 130 acres near the Madonna Inn since the late 1980s. The city finally approved his plan for a 650,000-square-foot power center, a hotel and 60 housing units, but voters overturned the approval last year. Dalidio, whose property the city has never annexed, modified his plans a bit to include 200,000 square feet of office space, 530,000 square feet of retail and a permanent farmers market, in addition to the housing. He then took the plans directly to county voters, who approved the project nearly 2-to-1. “A lot of people voted for it because they wanted some additional shopping,” said Michael Boswell, an associate professor of city and regional planning at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo who campaigned against the project. “I imagine other developers would take a good hard look at whether this (initiative) process is the way to go.” What happens next with the Dalidio Ranch project, though, is unclear. The project needs an on-site wastewater treatment plant, which is proposed for a floodplain; thus, a Regional Water Quality Control Board permit is necessary. Furthermore, the project needs a freeway interchange. However, the initiative locks in the developer’s contribution to the interchange at $4 million plus 13 acres of land worth about $4 million. Yet the interchange is estimated to cost in the neighborhood of $50 million and would be unnecessary if not for the Dalidio Ranch development. Election results in Newport Beach suggest that growth-control proponents may have overreached. Newport Beach voters soundly rejected the “Greenlight II” initiative, which would have required voters to decide on any project that would “significantly increase traffic, density or intensity above the as-built condition of a neighborhood.” The measure was a follow-up to the Greenlight initiative, which requires a vote on certain projects exceeding general plan provisions. Since voters approved Greenlight in 2000, they have rejected an office tower in 2001 and a hotel in 2004. But some original Greenlight supporters said the latest initiative was a no-growth measure that would force nearly any project to the ballot. Instead, voters approved a city-sponsored general plan amendment that permits increased housing development in exchange for fewer new offices. A total of 12 local sales tax measures for transportation were on the ballot in November. Voters approved sales tax measures in Orange County, as well as in the San Joaquin Valley counties of Fresno, Madera, San Joaquin and Tulare. Sales tax plans lost in Amador, Kern, Merced, Santa Barbara and Stanislaus counties, and in the City of Grass Valley. A two-county sales tax for a commuter rail and bike path project in Marin and Sonoma counties also failed, although Sonoma County voters did back the measure. Voters in Nevada City approved a half-cent tax measure solely for the repair of roads. The Orange County extension of an existing half-cent tax was probably the most widely watched measure because it took three tries for Orange County voters to muster majority support for the original tax. The extension required a two-thirds vote, and this time a unified front of nearly every public official backed the measure. In Marin County, environmental groups divided over a proposed quarter-cent sales tax to fund a commuter rail service from Cloverdale in Sonoma County to Larkspur in Marin County, where commuters could pick up a ferry to San Francisco. Opponents said the system would serve mostly Sonoma County residents and its estimated daily ridership of about 5,000 people would provide little relief for Highway 101 congestion.

A state appellate court panel has chastised the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) for ignoring the California Environmental Quality Act during reviews of timber harvest plans. In a case involving a small timber harvest plan (THP) in Sonoma County, the First District Court of Appeal said that CDF’s regulatory program under the Forest Practice Act is exempt only from certain sections of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and that CDF was improperly attempting to extend the exemption. “ lthough the argument CDF presents to us in this case is novel, it is premised on a legal theory which has been soundly rejected,” the court ruled. “The appellate courts of this state have repeatedly advised CDF that CEQA applies to the timber harvesting industry and that the process CDF uses to evaluate and approve THPs must comport with all provisions of CEQA, except for chapters 3 and 4 and § 21167. Indeed, this court has so held on more than one occasion. Our Supreme Court has also expressly agreed with this position.” The court cited the 1994 state Supreme Court decision in , 7 Cal.4th 1215. “Nevertheless, CDF has continued to resist complying with CEQA by advancing increasingly contorted interpretations of settled law,” the court continued. “We urge CDF to heed the law as consistently interpreted by the courts of this state, and to commit its time and resources toward the more productive end of conforming its ‘process’ to comply with CEQA.” The extraordinarily direct opinion was written by Justice Paul Haerle, an appointee of Gov. Wilson and former aide to Gov. Reagan who is considered one of the First District’s most conservative members. Joining the opinion was Division Two Presiding Justice Anthony Kline, a Jerry Brown appointee who is seen as one of the appellate bench’s most liberal members, and Justice James Richman, a Schwarzenegger appointee. The Department of Forestry has asked the state Supreme Court to accept the case, and the California Forestry Association has asked the high court to depublish the First District’s opinion so that it may not be cited as precedent. The case involves a timber harvest plan for 13 acres near Occidental. In March 2002, CDF approved an amended THP submitted by property owner Harmony Forest & Land Company. The plan permitted Harmony to harvest two-thirds of the redwood trees on the property, but required that the largest trees remain untouched. A local group called Joy Road Area Forest and Watershed Association sued and won a restraining order preventing the timber harvest. Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Lawrence Antolini then ruled that CDF had violated CEQA in three ways, but he upheld the agency’s protection efforts for the threatened northern spotted owl. Both sides appealed. The issues for the First District concerned public notification requirements, assessment of impacts and the treatment of owls. CDF argued that it could not comply with CEQA’s requirement that the public be notified and given time to comment on project changes because a THP is a “dynamic document” that cannot be treated like a “static” draft environmental impact report. In this case, CDF modified or replaced 37 pages of the 167 THP over a period of months. Besides, CDF argued, the Forest Practices Act takes precedence over CEQA. The court disagreed. “ f the THP is routinely altered by CDF during the review period, then the THP that CDF ultimately approves is essentially a than that which the property owner submitted,” Justice Haerle wrote. “The notice and recirculation provisions of CEQA ensure that the public has notice and an opportunity to comment on the plan that CDF intends to approve.” As for impacts, the court found that substantial evidence supported CDF’s conclusion that the project’s impact on fog drip (the process in which trees capture fog moisture, which drips to the ground) was not significant was supported by substantial evidence. However, the court ruled the agency’s cumulative impact analysis regarding fog drip was “woefully inadequate” because it lacked “facts, statistics, reports or studies.” The court also held that CDF could not ignore the potential impact of residential development on the 13 acres as speculative. The property is split into three parcels, a lot-line adjustment application has been filed, and the property owner has stated a desire to build a house on two parcels, the court noted. Finally, the court overturned the lower court’s ruling regarding spotted owls. The appellate panel found that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had approved the timber harvest only if it were completed by February 1, 2002. But CDF approved the THP in March 2002. CDF regulations require Fish and Wildlife Service approval before CDF approves a THP. Hence, CDF violated its own regulations, the court determined. The Case: , No. A105421, 06 C.D.O.S. 8259, 2006 DJDAR 11706. Filed August 20, 2006. Modified September 22, at 2006 DJDAR 12936. The Lawyers: For the association: Edwin Wilson, Sayre & Wilson, (707) 433-4871. For CDF: Tiffany Yee, attorney general’s office, (415) 703-5500.

Alameda County • Voters approved a $5 million bond to expand the fire station and add “sustainable building features” to the civic center complex. The bonds will cost property owners about $19 per $100,000 of assessed valuation for about 25 years. Measure C: Yes, 76.4% (2/3 vote required) • To accommodate the proposed development of five sports fields on 16 acres, the electorate approved amendments to a voter-approved waterfront specific plan to make public or commercial recreation facilities by-right uses. Measure F: Yes, 79.9% • A measure to increase the permissible number of conversions of apartments to condominiums from 100 to 500 annually, and reduce affordable housing requirements for conversions, was rejected. Measure I: No, 73.8% (pro growth—no) • Voters also said no to an initiative that would have kept in place the city’s rigorous system of historic preservation. The city has proposed reforming the regulations, and the initiative was a response. Mayor Tom Bates argued the regulations are abused to halt development. Backers said the regulations are necessary to protect neighborhood integrity. Measure J: No, 57.3% (slow growth—no) • An initiative to rezone land near Coyote Hills Regional Park to agriculture was soundly defeated. The initiative was an attempt to block a proposed 800-unit housing development on the Patterson Ranch. Measure K: No, 65.9% (slow growth—no) • A $30 million bond to purchase 24 acres for parkland in Castro Valley and make other park improvements failed. The bond would have cost property owners about $16 per $100,000 of valuation. Measure Q: No, 37.3% (2/3 vote required) (slow growth—no) • A $148 million library bond would have converted the recently closed Henry J. Kaiser Convention Center into a library and built new branch libraries. Measure N: No, 36.2% (2/3 vote required) • Voters backed the “grand park” design approved by the City Council for the 300-acre Bernal property. The plan calls for open space, sports fields, a community center and cultural facilities, and indoor and outdoor theaters. Measure P: Yes, 82.1% Amador County • A half-cent sales tax for transportation improvements and road maintenance failed to receive even majority support. Measure K: No, 51.5% (2/3 vote required) Contra Costa County • A countywide urban growth boundary that is similar to existing limits won easy approval. Measure L: Yes, 63.9% (slow growth—yes) • A $59.1 million bond that would have paid for road, storm drain and water main improvements failed. Measure Q: No, 35.8% (2/3 vote required) Fresno County • The renewal of a half-cent sales tax for transportation for 20 years won approval. The county’s existing half-cent tax was approved by only a majority of voters in 1986 and was scheduled to expire in 2007. Measure C: Yes, 77.7% (2/3 vote required) Kern County • A half-cent sales tax for 20 years that would have raised about $1 billion for transportation projects failed to receive super-majority support. Measure I: No, 43.6% (2/3 vote required) Los Angeles County • Two initiatives backed by the Westfield Santa Anita mall — and aimed at developer Rick Caruso’s plan for a lifestyle center at Santa Anita race track, adjacent to the Westfield mall — won very narrow approval. One measure bans most billboards on the race track property; the second prohibits charging for parking in large commercial centers. Measure N (billboards): Yes, 50.3% (slow growth—yes) Measure P (free parking): Yes, 51.1% (slow growth—yes) • A $12.5 million bond to pay for the purchase of the 183-acre Johnson’s Pasture in the hills adjacent to the city’s existing wilderness park won approval. The property owner wants to sell the pastureland, and developers had expressed interest. The bonds will cost property owners about $33 per $100,000 of assessed value for 30 years. Measure S: Yes, 70.5% (slow growth—yes) • A proposed special tax of $89 per house and $65 per multi-family unit to fund construction and operation of a new 24,500-square-foot library failed badly. About 70% of the tax would have paid for bonds to finance construction. Measure L: No, 71.0% (2/3 vote required) • A $1 billion housing bond failed to receive two-thirds approval. The bond would have provided $750 million for grants and loans to developers of affordable housing and $250 million for home-purchase assistance. The bond would have cost property owners $14.66 for every $100,000 of assessed value for 20 years. Measure H: No, 37.7% (2/3 vote required) (pro growth—no) • Voters convincingly said they do not want to renovate the city-owned Rose Bowl so that it may be leased to a professional football team. Measure A: No, 72.1% • A parcel tax of $84 per single-family house (with varying levels for multi-family and commercial properties) to improve urban runoff management and implement measures to prevent ocean pollution passed by a handful of votes. Measure V: Yes, 66.71% (2/3 vote required) • Voters rejected a proposed general plan amendment that would have permitted development of a Lowe’s store on 22 acres now zoned for offices. Measure Z: No, 55.8% (pro growth—no) Madera County • Voters approved a half-cent sales tax for transportation. The tax follows an earlier measure that expired in October 2005, and is expected to raise $213 million over 20 years. Measure T: Yes, 72.7% (2/3 vote required) Marin County • A quarter-cent sales tax to build and operate a 70-mile commuter rail line and construct an adjacent bike path from Cloverdale in northern Sonoma County to Larkspur in southern Marin County failed. The defeat in Marin County was enough to kill the tax, even though slightly more than two-thirds of Sonoma County voters supported it. Measure R: No, 42.6% (2/3 vote required) Merced County • A half-cent sales tax for 30 years to fund transportation projects lost for the second time this year. It would have raised an estimated $466 million, with about 95% going for roads and highways. Measure G: No, 39.1% (2/3 vote required) Napa County • Voters approved creation of the Napa County Regional Park and Open Space District. No new funding is included. Measure I: Yes, 54.3% Nevada County • A half-cent sales tax would have funded construction of four transportation projects, including a long-sought Highway 49 interchange to serve a hospital. Measure T: No, 42.5% (2/3 vote required) Orange County • Voters approved the extension of a half-cent sales tax that will raise nearly $12 billion over 30 years for transportation projects. The tax was scheduled to expire in 2011. Measure M: Yes, 69.6% (2/3 vote required) • Voters approved a City Council-backed charter amendment that prohibits the city, its redevelopment agency and its housing authority from using eminent domain to acquire private property for the purpose of conveying the property to another private entity. Measure P: Yes, 80.4% • A city-sponsored charter amendment that would prohibit gambling facilities won approval. Measure Q: Yes, 75.5% • Voters approved a city-sponsored ballot measure prohibiting the use of eminent domain to acquire property for the purpose of transferring the property to another private property “for the conduct of for-profit commercial activity.” Measure S: Yes, 84.7% • Voters approved the city’s plan to build a 47,000-square-foot senior center on five acres in Central Park. Measure T: Yes, 51.2% • Voters rejected the Greenlight II initiative that would have required voters to decide on any proposed development that would “significantly increase traffic, density or intensity above the as-built condition of a neighborhood.” The initiative was a follow-up to a 2000 measure (Greenlight I) that requires votes on certain projects exceeding general plan provisions. Measure X: No, 63.3% (slow growth—no) • Meanwhile, voters approved a city-backed general plan update that was on the ballot as the result of Greenlight I. The update permits about 1,100 more residential units than the 1988 general plan but reduces non-residential development by about 450,000 square feet. Measure V: Yes, 53.7% (pro growth—yes) • A city-sponsored charter amendment prohibiting the use of eminent domain for the sole purpose of transferring property from one person to another for economic development won approval. Measure W: Yes, 76.6% Riverside County • A landowner-backed initiative would have rezoned 344 acres now designated for large-lot residential development to permit smaller lots and some commercial development. Measure M: No, 58.0% (pro growth—no) • Voters backed a measure placed on the ballot by the City Council clarifying a 1994 ballot measure that limits most new structures to a maximum of “20 feet or one story.” The clarification states that the maximum is both one story and 20 feet, with a few exceptions for larger lots and commercial development. Measure N: Yes, 80.8% (slow growth—yes) Sacramento County • A quarter-cent sales tax increase for 15 years would have funded development of a downtown Sacramento basketball arena and other public facilities. Because tax proceeds were not specifically earmarked in the ballot measure, only a majority vote was required. However, Sacramento Kings owners provided no support for the measure. Measure R: No, 80.4% (pro growth—no) San Benito County • Voters rejected an initiative that would have rezoned 1,300 acres of ag land to “mixed-use residential community” to accommodate the proposed Del Webb Sun City Hollister project. The initiative would also have exempted the project from the city’s annual limit of 244 new sewer connections after a sewer moratorium is lifted. Measure S: No, 57% (pro growth—no) San Bernardino County • A county-crafted measure that prohibits the county from using eminent domain to acquire property for the purpose of transferring it to another private entity won. Measure O: Yes, 68.5% • Voters backed a citizen initiative that intends to limit development in the “South Hills” to about 800 units. The initiative also establishes a 7,200-square-foot minimum lot size for the entire city, imposes new building height maximums and requires that developers mitigate traffic impacts. Measure V: Yes, 52.8% (slow growth—yes) • At the same time, voters rejected a City Council-backed alternative that would have limited development in the South Hills to 1,185 houses, prevented the city from selling the 1,050 acres it owns in the South Hills, and required a subsequent vote to change the restrictions. Measure U: No, 52.9% (pro growth—no) San Diego County • In an advisory election, voters said they do not favor development of a commercial airport on a portion of Miramar Marine Corps Air Station. The San Diego Regional Airport Authority recommended the site over other locations despite the military’s opposition. Proposition A: No, 61.9% • Voters approved a measure that makes members of Boulevard Sponsor Group, a land use advisory panel for the Boulevard area in southeastern San Diego County, directly elected. The Board of Supervisors has appointed the members previously. Proposition V: Yes, 74.0% • Voters narrowly favored one ballot measure over another regarding the “strawberry fields” just east of Interstate 5. Voters barely rejected a citizens initiative (Proposition E) that would have designated 380 acres as “coastal agricultural,” blocking potential residential and commercial development. They approved a City Council alternative (Proposition D) that designates 208 acres as regional open space with agricultural uses permitted, but which does not block development on 45 acres already zoned for visitor-related commercial development. Proposition D: Yes, 50.4% (pro growth—yes) Proposition E: No, 50.2% (slow growth—no) • In an Article 34 election, voters authorized development or acquisition of up to 1,600 units of low-income rental housing. Proposition F: Yes, 55.8% (pro growth—yes) • An initiative that increases the minimum parcel size in some single-family residential zones from 3,500 square feet to 5,250 square feet won by only nine votes out of 6,705 cast. The measure, which says it is retroactive to January 18, 2006, is an attempt to halt the practice of tearing down one house and replacing it with two. The city contends the initiative is illegal for a number of reasons, and litigation is pending. Proposition J: Yes, 50.1% (slow growth—yes) • A bond of $596 million to fund hospital and healthcare facilities in Oceanside, Carlsbad and Vista failed. It would have cost property owners $23 per $100,000 of valuation. A similar measure failed by a narrower margin in June. Proposition T: No, 35.2% (2/3 vote required) • A half-cent sales tax for 30 years will pay for a new civic center, fire stations, sports fields and upgrades to the city-owned amphitheater. Because the measure did not specifically earmark revenues, only a majority approval was required. Proposition L: Yes, 54.0% • A measure backed by Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval requires chain stores (formula businesses with at least 11 locations) to receive a special use permit before opening in a neighborhood commercial district. The city already restricts chains in a few parts of town. Proposition G: Yes, 58.0% (slow growth—yes) San Joaquin County • Despite a campaign against the measure by two county supervisors, voters approved a 30-year renewal of an existing half-cent sales tax for transportation. The existing tax expires in 2011. Measure K: Yes, 77.9% (2/3 vote required) • Voters rejected a half-cent sales tax to fund construction of a fire station, an aquatics center, and an indoor sports center, and to fund the addition of paramedic services. Measure G: No, 56.2% (2/3 vote required) • After losing a City of San Luis Obispo referendum election last year (see , June 2005), property owner Ernie Dalidio found countywide support for his plan to develop a 530,000-square-foot shopping center, 150-room hotel, 60 residential units and 200,000 square feet of office space on 131 acres just south of town. Measure J: Yes, 64.6% (pro growth—yes) • The electorate backed a measure requiring voter approval before the district extends water service outside the 2006 district boundaries. Measure P: Yes, 78.5% (slow growth—yes) San Mateo County • A one-eighth-cent sales tax for 25 years to fund open space acquisition, and parks improvement and maintenance by the county, cities and special districts failed. Measure A: No, 44.7% (2/3 vote required) (slow growth—no) • The City Council asked voters to decide on a proposal to annex Guadalupe Valley Quarry, close the mine and replace it with 173 units of housing. Measure B: No, 73.2% (pro growth—no) • A $44 million bond to improve “under capacity flood control infrastructure” and retrofit city buildings for seismic safety and disabled access failed. Measure H: No, 35.9% (2/3 vote required) • An advisory measure asked whether the city should construct 17 acres of sports fields at the 160-acre Bayfront Park. Measure J: No, 61.3% • Voters rejected a measure to permit development of about 355 housing units and a 350-room hotel at the former Rockaway Quarry. Voters have rejected previous development proposals for the site. Measure L: No, 51.5% (pro growth—no) Santa Barbara County • A measure to double an existing quarter-cent sales tax for transportation, and extend the tax for 30 years, failed. The measure would have generated an estimated $1.575 billion. Among other things, the tax would have funded a new commuter rail service between Goleta and Ventura. Measure D: No, 45.8% (2/3 vote required) Santa Clara County • Voters narrowly rejected the Land Conservation Initiative. It would have increased minimum parcel sizes on designated rangeland and steep hillsides to 160 acres, and set a minimum parcel size of 40 acres on other agricultural lands and hillsides. The initiative, which affected about 400,000 acres, also sought to impose other building restrictions to protect stream corridors, wildlife and forests. Measure A: No, 50.7% (slow growth—no) • In separate referendums, voters rejected rezoning for two condominium projects — a 134-unit development proposed for 5.2 acres at Vallco Fashion Park (Measure D), and a 380-unit, 26-acre proposal for surplus Hewlett Packard land (Measure E). The city approved the projects in March (see , May 2006). Measure D: No, 65.2% (slow growth—yes) Measure E: No, 63.6% (slow growth—yes) • Voters approved a proposal to amend the general plan and development control system to allow up to 100 additional residential units in the downtown core, and speed up development of downtown projects that conform with a downtown plan. Measure F: Yes, 52.2% (pro growth—yes) Santa Cruz County • Voters overwhelmingly backed a “sustainable growth” initiative (Measure I) prohibiting the city from providing services for UC, Santa Cruz, growth unless the university fully mitigates all impacts. A related measure (Measure J) requires voter approval for the city to extend sewer and water services beyond current city boundaries, including to the UC campus. Measure I (mitigation of UC impacts): Yes, 76.1% (slow growth—yes) Measure J (extension of services): Yes, 79.9% (slow growth—yes) Shasta County • An initiative to rezone an area of town now zoned for three housing units per acre to permit only one house per 2 acres failed. The initiative was an attempt to block a plan from developer Jaxon Baker to build 170 units on 120 acres, a project the city approved after the initiative qualified for the ballot. Measure C: No, 52.6% (slow growth—no) Solano County • Voters said they do not want to extend the Orderly Growth Initiative, which they first approved in 1984. The policy prohibits most development on land zoned for agriculture, watershed or open space, which is most of the unincorporated county. Measure J: No, 52.7% (slow growth—no) Sonoma County • An extension of an existing quarter-cent sales tax to fund acquisitions by the county’s Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District won approval. Measure F: Yes, 75.0% (2/3 vote required) (slow growth—yes) • A quarter-cent sales tax to build and operate a 70-mile commuter rail line through Sonoma and Marin counties won in Sonoma County. However, the tax failed in Marin County, killing the plan. Measure R: Yes, 69.3% (2/3 vote required) • Voters backed a City Council advisory measure asking whether the city should “take all lawful steps to oppose” a casino proposed by the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians on 277 acres of farmland outside the city. Measure H: yes, 78.7% (slow growth—yes) Stanislaus County • A half-cent sales tax for transportation for 30 years failed. Nearly all of the measure’s $1 billion would have gone for highways and roads. Measure K: No, 42.1% (2/3 vote required) • In an Article 34 election, voters authorized developers and public agencies to acquire or develop 50 units of housing for low- and moderate-income households. Measure T: Yes, 52.5% (pro growth—yes) Tulare County • The county’s first half-cent sales tax for transportation barely won approval. The tax will generate about $650 million over 30 years. Measure R: Yes, 67.2% (2/3 vote required) • Voters authorized the district, originally formed to operate the Veterans Memorial Building, to own and operate parks. Voters also backed an annual parcel tax of $8.50. The measures are intended to save Springville Park, which a public utilities district says it can no longer afford to maintain. Measure X (authorization): Yes, 85.4% Measure Y (tax): Yes, 70.5% (2/3 vote required) Ventura County • In an Article 34 election, voters refused to authorize the city’s Housing Authority to develop or acquire up to 150 units for persons of low- and very low-income. Measure K: No, 51.6% (pro growth—no) • Voters approved an initiative that requires voter approval for residential or commercial development projects on at least 81 acres. The city attempted to keep the initiative off the ballot, but the Second District Court of Appeal ordered the city to conduct an election. Measure L: Yes, 61.7% (slow growth—yes) Yolo County • Voters approved an amendment to city big-box regulations to permit construction of a 136,000-square-foot Target store. Measure K: Yes, 51.5% (pro growth—yes)