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)

If you asked the average person to name a city that has professional sports, big-name entertainment, acres of waterfront park and dozens of historic buildings, not many people would say Stockton. But, in spite of its reputation as a crime-ridden, working-class place, downtown Stockton has all of the above — and more is on the way. A small hotel and conference center are under construction in a project that includes the first condominiums to take advantage of the "new" waterfront. Plus, local developer The Grupe Company is planning to build another 150 condominiums on city-owned land adjacent to a planned marina. Yet even downtown Stockton's biggest supporters call it a work in progress. While the city and other public agencies have spent several hundred million dollars on downtown development, facility rehabilitation and infrastructure, major private investment is lacking. There is a new 16-screen movie theater, and a restaurant is planned in the historic Hotel Stockton. But, in general, no one is rushing to build things downtown. " ome members of the public still perceive downtown as a place that is unsafe," a recently revised downtown plan candidly admits. "Many local residents are disconnected from downtown, and many downtown workers leave the area at the end of the workday." Downtown in the San Joaquin County seat has had a longer comeback road than just about any other downtown in California. The decline of its manufacturing industry, the Depression and World War II left the city with one of the biggest skid rows on the West Coast. "It was the same story you had in a lot of places. It was just more extreme here," Redevelopment Director Steve Pinkerton said. But during the mid-1990s, elected officials and city staff members started taking a more holistic approach by creating a new waterfront plan and a business improvement district to raise revenue for improvements and promotion. The first big success was the creation of Weber Point Event Center, a 10-acre park along the waterfront provided by the Stockton Channel. (Stockton lies at the eastern edge of the Delta.) Opened in 1999, Weber Point has an amphitheater, a popular play fountain, vast green space, a seasonal ice skating rink and places for boaters to tie up for the day. Although there was local opposition to the city spending $8 million on Weber Point — including $1 million for the fountain — few people today will dispute that the park is the jewel of downtown. The Asparagus Festival brings a huge crowd to Stockton's waterfront. Next up was creation of DiCarli Plaza, a brownfield project that brought the waterfront one block farther into downtown — right across the street from the Hotel Stockton (see CP&DR Economic Development , July 2001). Relying mostly on $3.5 million in federal funding, the city converted an abandoned gas station and fenced-off parking lot into an attractive full-block plaza dominated by the water. In 2004, the city reopened the renovated Fox Theater, a 1930s Art Deco building now called the Bob Hope Theater. Jerry Seinfeld performed on opening night at the theater, which downtown advocates believe can anchor a new cultural district. Next up were more ambitious projects: a minor league ballpark for the Stockton Ports, an 11,000-seat sports arena, and a convention center hotel — all located on a former shipyard across a narrow inlet from Weber Point. The 5,000-seat ballpark opened for the Class A Oakland A's affiliate in spring of 2005, and the arena opened six months later. The Stockton Thunder minor league hockey team and the California Cougars soccer club play in the arena. The city invested $130 million in general fund money, utility revenues and redevelopment resources in the two facilities. Adjacent to the arena, construction is under way on the Sheraton Stockton Hotel at Regent Place, a 180-room hotel with a 10,000-square-foot convention center. Topping the hotel will be 42 condominiums. The project is a bit of a disappointment because of its small size. But it does mark a private investment in downtown. The other significant private investment was construction of a 16-screen cinema, which opened three years ago. At this point, downtown badly needs "a huge influx of private capital," said Tom Bowe, a principal in WMB Architects and a member of the Downtown Stockton Alliance executive board. That capital will probably have to come from out of the area because Stockton's old-timers have been unwilling to invest in downtown, said Bowe, a Stockton native. Still, the market may be shifting. The Stockton Channel, with the Hotel Stockton in the background at left. "It seems to be primarily the acquisition of existing buildings so far. But there is some interest in residential along the waterfront," Bowe said. "We're working on some office buildings." Downtown's many older buildings are both assets and obstacles, as evidenced by controversy over the city's code enforcement crackdown on the SRO hotels. The city began a new enforcement effort on about 30 hotels and other dilapidated residential buildings in 2001. The city shut down nine properties, including some with bat infestations and other health hazards. California Rural Legal Assistance sued, and in late 2004, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals halted the crackdown because the city was not providing required relocation assistance and replacement housing (see CP&DR Legal Digest , January 2005). Ultimately, the city provided the assistance and replacement units in a variety of locations. More than half of the hotels are still operating but have been cleaned up. About 500 units were shut down, said Pinkerton, who makes no apologies for the city's effort. The city's deal with Regal for the 16-screen downtown theater is also an issue because it prevents cinemas with more than six screens from opening elsewhere in town. Legislation outlawing such "restraint of trade" deals has been discussed in Sacramento, partly because of Stockton's agreement with Regal. Again, Pinkerton offers no apologies for a deal that provided downtown's most popular attraction. Refurbishment of the Hotel Stockton, a National Register of Historic Places asset, has gone slowly. The vaguely Middle-Eastern-appearing hotel, once the liveliest place in town, was empty for more than a decade starting in 1991. The city's deal with one developer soured, and litigation over what the developer claims was a breach of contract has reached the state Supreme Court (see CP&DR Legal Digest , December 2005). In the meantime, the city is putting $9 million into Hotel Stockton restoration. The city created 156 apartments for senior citizens on the upper floors of the Hotel Stockton, and those have been filled since 2005. Further plans call for retail and a restaurant operated by Sacramento's Gary Paragary on the ground floor. What downtown may need most, though, is market-rate housing. A downtown plan calls for 3,000 to 3,500 new market-rate and affordable units, said Mike Niblock, the city's deputy community development director. The first project may be Grupe's plan for about 150 condominiums on 8 acres across the water from the ballpark. "The project is really in its infancy stage," said Grupe's Jeremy White, who noted the developer has not filed an application with the city yet. "It's something new for us. We're very optimistic. We think Stockton's ready for it." And it might be. But Stockton-based Grupe made its name as a builder of suburban housing tracts, and a proposed new general plan appears to encourage a great deal of such development on the periphery. In fact, the updated general plan envisions a doubling of the city's population of 280,000 largely by opening up new development areas. Such a plan would appear to give little incentive for private investment in downtown. Pinkerton, though, thinks downtown appeals to a certain demographic. "We don't have a neo-traditional neighborhood. We have a real neighborhood. I think you're going to see a lot of market rate homes," he said. There would appear to be demand for such housing, as upwards of 20,000 city, county, state and federal employees work in downtown offices and courthouses. Additional downtown projects in the planning stages include a new marina, a downtown transit station, a transit-oriented development adjacent to a rail line with service to the Bay Area, and a full-fledged California State University campus where CSU Stanislaus now has a branch. Contacts: Steve Pinkerton, Stockton Department of Housing and Redevelopment, (209) 937-8538. Tom Bowe, WMB Architects and Downtown Stockton Alliance, (209) 944-9110. Jeremy White, The Grupe Company, (209) 473-6000. Downtown Stockton Strategic Action Plan: www.ci.stockton.ca.us/ActionTeams/DAT/DAT.cfm

In one of the first published opinions upholding an environmental impact report’s water analysis, the Third District Court of Appeal has overturned a lower court’s ruling favoring opponents of a gravel mine proposed in Placer County. The Third District ruled that the water analysis was adequate and that Placer County did not have to revise the EIR after the project applicant altered the project and its phasing. On the later point, the court ruled there was substantial evidence to support the county’s decision that the project changes created no new environmental impacts. The decision appears to clear the way for a mining project originally proposed 12 years ago. Attorney Susan Brandt-Hawley, who represented a citizens group fighting the project, said she was surprised by the decision but declined to discuss it in detail. Attorney John Taylor, who represented mining company Teichert, said the court upheld the water analysis because the court noted the project “amounted to the status quo” for water usage. “It makes little difference whether it’s used for agriculture or for mining and reclamation,” Taylor said. In December 1994, Teichert submitted an application for a sand, gravel and granite mine on 945 acres of an 1,878-acre site, about four miles north of Lincoln. After concerns were raised about traffic and the site’s proximity to residents, Teichert acquired an additional 1,577 acres and revised the project. It proposed mining 1,000 acres of a 3,455-acre site in nine phases over 85 years. Much of the site has been a cattle ranch. The county released a draft EIR in 1999 that included a “mitigated design alternative” that limited mining to 40 years and 785 acres. In November 2001, Teichert accepted the mitigated design alternative but changed the phasing so that the company would avoid land covered by the Williamson Act until the Williamson Act contracts (which prevent development) expire. The county released the final EIR in January 2002. Four days later, Teichert submitted a revised project application to reflect the mitigated design alternative, new phasing and a relocated processing plant. In November 2002, the Planning Commission certified the FEIR and approved the project, which was called the “revised mitigated design alternative.” The Board of Supervisors upheld the decision in early 2003. A group called Western Placer Citizens for an Agricultural and Rural Environment (WPCARE) sued, alleging a number of violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Retired Mendocino County Superior Court Judge James Luther, sitting by assignment in Placer County, ruled that the county violated CEQA by not describing the revised project and new phasing in the EIR, and by inadequately analyzing the availability of a long-term water supply. On appeal by Teichert and the county, the Third District overturned the lower court. The Third District first addressed the question of new information in the EIR. “The trial court determined the EIR had to be revised to include the changes made to the project before the county determined whether the changes were significant enough to require recirculation,” Justice George Nicholson wrote for the unanimous appellate panel. “The authority the court cited to support its holdings does not expressly do so. The parties have directed us to no provision in CEQA or the Guidelines, and we have found none, that requires all changes made to a project after the final EIR is released but prior to certification to be included in the EIR.” According to the court, the question is whether substantial evidence supports the county’s decision that the new information was not significant enough to require revision and recirculation of the EIR. The court concluded that such evidence did exist, as the county had determined the last round of project modifications were environmentally superior to the mitigated design alternative. On the issue of water, the trial court found that the analysis was inadequate because there was not substantial evidence that Teichert had a dependable annual water supply to implement the reclamation plan, which calls for continued agricultural uses and creation of two lakes on 345 acres. But the Third District said that Judge Luther made a factual error. The appellate court said Teichert has a right to 2,437 acre-feet of water from Nevada Irrigation District, may purchase surplus water from the district, has rights to a creek that flows through its property, and has the right to groundwater beneath its property. “Teichert asserts, and WPCARE concedes, that to be sufficient, an EIR need not identify a guaranteed source of water. We agree,” Nicholson wrote. “No water supplier can guarantee an adequate supply of water in all circumstances. If an EIR were required to identify a guaranteed source of water, then no EIR would ever be sufficient. The EIR identifies existing, available and sufficient sources of water for the project and in that respect is sufficient.” The court contrasted the situation to that in other cases where courts have rejected water analyses. In , (1996) 48 Cal.App4th 182, the court rejected an EIR because the proposed project needed a new source of water that had not been identified (see , September 1996). In , (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 715, the court rejected an EIR that relied on water from the oversubscribed State Water Project (see , April 2003). In , (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, the court threw out an EIR that failed to analyze the impacts of separate projects that called for different uses of the same water (see , July 2003). The Teichert project, on the other hand, does not need a new water supply, has identified and available water sources, and does not rely on water supplies that may be changed, the court determined. Although the facts of the case may limit the decision’s scope as a precedent, the opinion could support an argument in a case where planned urban development would require the same amount of water as previous agricultural uses on the same site, attorney Taylor said. The Case: , No. C049364, 06 C.D.O.S. 10396, 2006 DJDAR 14839. Filed November 9, 2006. The Lawyers: For WPCARE: Susan Brandt-Hawley, (707) 938-3908. For the county: Valerie Flood, county counsel’s office, (530) 889-4044. For Teichert, Inc.: John M. Taylor, Taylor & Wiley, (916) 929-5545.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s determination that listing the Sierra Nevada Mountain yellow-legged frog as an endangered species was “warranted but precluded” has been rejected by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit did not rule on the merits of the decision by the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Rather, the court ruled that the agency did not follow the Endangered Species Act’s “warranted but precluded” procedure. Although the Ninth Circuit ruled for environmental groups that appealed a district court’s decision in favor of the USFWS, the court did not go so far as to order the agency to place the frog on the endangered list. In February 2000, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) petitioned the Fish and Wildlife Service to list the yellow-legged frog as an endangered species because, like the already protected red-legged frog, the once-plentiful yellow-legged species was vanishing from much of its historic range. The agency moved slowly, so the CBD sued and in late 2001 a district court ordered USFWS to make a determination on the yellow-legged frog. In January 2003, the agency published its findings. The USFWS determined that species populations were declining, that isolated populations were likely to become extinct and that threats to the frog were imminent. The agency concluded that listing the yellow-legged frog as endangered was warranted. But the agency further concluded that listing the frog was “precluded by other higher priority listing actions.” The agency contended that all the funding in its listing program was dedicated to complying with court orders and judicially approved settlement agreements (see , November 2001). So USFWS designated the yellow-legged frog as a “candidate” for future listing. The CBD and the agency went back to court. This time, District Court Judge Garland Burrell ruled for the federal government. Although USFWS did not follow the exact procedure in the Endangered Species Act, Judge Burrell upheld the “warranted but precluded” determination because the agency’s path could reasonably be discerned. But a discernable path was not enough for the Ninth Circuit, which overturned Judge Burrell. The Ninth Circuit noted that earlier it had narrowly defined “the circumstances under which the secretary may invoke the excuse of ‘warranted but precluded.’” In (“ ”), 254 F3d 833, the Ninth Circuit characterized the USFWS’s “warranted but precluded” determination for the Gila chub as “foot-dragging efforts of a delinquent agency” (see , August 2001). Under §4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act and the decision, the “warranted but precluded” finding must be based on the agency’s work on other listings and on an expeditious process. But what the court called the “frog decision,” contained “no determination at all that expeditious progress in listing or delisting other species is being made. … The decision contains no description or evaluation of the data or reasons why listing the frog is actually precluded,” Judge Pamela Ann Rymer wrote for the Ninth Circuit. The USFWS argued that it had provided detailed support for its determination six months earlier in its 2002 “Candidate Notice of Review” (CNOR) statement, and again in May 2004 when it published the 2003 version of the CNOR. However, the warranted but precluded finding did not refer to the 2002 CNOR, and it could not have referred to the future 2003 CNOR, Judge Rymer noted. “ t may be that the homework was done, but it has to be turned in to the court,” Rymer wrote. “It is insufficient for requisite determinations to be lurking in the administrative record yet be unidentified in the decision itself.” The matter now returns to the Fish and Wildlife Service for further proceedings. The Case: , No. 04-16563, 06 C.D.O.S. 9751, 2006 DJDAR 13967. Filed October 18, 2006. The Lawyers: For CBD: Michael Sherwood, Earthjustice, (510) 550-6725. For Kempthorne, David Shilton, Department of Justice, (202) 514-2000.

Proposition 90 may have lost, but it hasn’t gone away for good. It is likely to be back in 2008. That means local planners and many of the developers they deal with will spend the next two years looking over their shoulders. They’ll also be looking at how things play out in Arizona, where the equivalent of Proposition 90 passed overwhelmingly. Proposition 90 would have reined in the use of eminent domain, but it also would have required compensation for regulatory takings, including any instance where a downzoning caused a substantial economic loss. The measure lost by only 5 percentage points. The bottom line here is an important shift in the battleground over property rights in California. For a quarter-century – dating back to the landmark ruling – that battleground has been the courts. And while property rights advocates continue to gain ground, they have rarely turned their courtroom victories into actual compensation because it is very difficult to prove a regulatory taking. Now the battleground has shifted to the ballot box. Largely funded by Americans for Limited Government – an organization financed by New York real estate investor and libertarian Howard Rich – organizations throughout the West have been trying to place Proposition 90-style measures on state ballots. A similar measure already passed in Oregon, while Proposition 90 equivalents were either defeated or knocked off the ballot by the courts in Nevada, Washington, Montana, and Idaho (where the Proposition 90 equivalent only got 24% of the vote in November). This means that the property rights push is now in the domain of political strategists rather than legal strategists. And the battle lines have already been drawn for 2008. Proposition 90’s proponents have announced they will try to re-run the initiative in two years. “It’s clear that with even a bit more money for advertising that 90 would have won easily,” said Proposition 90 consultant Kevin Spillane, a Republican strategist. Meanwhile, the proposition’s leading opponents – including local governments and redevelopment agencies – are talking about taking legislative steps to further rein in eminent domain as a way of inoculating themselves against an ’08 ballot measure. John Shirey of the California Redevelopment Association said it is likely that the anti-Proposition 90 forces will seek to place a more narrowly defined eminent domain measure on the ballot during 2008 in hopes of counteracting a broader measure that would include regulatory takings as well. The pro-90 campaign spent $4 million, the vast majority of it in gathering signatures to place the measure on the ballot in the first place. Supporters essentially ran no “Yes on 90” media campaign. Meanwhile, the anti-90 campaign raised and spent $11 million, mostly on hard-hitting television commercials in the last week. It’s clear that this unanswered TV campaign won the election for the anti-90 forces. The pro-90 forces believe that if they spend a little more money to run a campaign next time, they’ll win. Meanwhile, the anti-90 forces are recognizing how hard it is to raise money and run a successful campaign on what amounts to the initiative equivalent of a “down-ticket race.” The anti-90 forces had hoped to raise $20 million and say that if they had done so they would have scored a decisive victory. But they could raise only $11 million and they had to spend it in a crowded media market where both pro and anti forces on Propositions 86 and 87 were bidding up the price of political ads on television. About $136 million was spent by both sides on Proposition 87, the oil severance tax proposal, and $75 million pro and con was spent on Proposition 86, the cigarette tax proposal. Both measures were defeated. The victory in Arizona is attributable to the combination of a vigorous pro campaign and a difference in the business community between Arizona and California. In California, the Chamber of Commerce, the Farm Bureau, and even the well-respected California Taxpayers Association opposed Proposition 90. In Arizona, all the equivalent organizations endorsed Proposition 207. Arizona voters saw a series of compelling television commercials built around the theme of “Keep What You Own.” One ad highlighted injustices to women, the elderly, and minorities who own homes. If these same ads had run on California television during the last week or two of the campaign, Proposition 90 might very well have passed. (More amusing was an animated commercial featuring tough guys with New York accents suggesting local government opposition to the initiative amounted to a form of gangsterism. The ad ran in several Western states including Arizona and can be found on YouTube.) The politics of business across the planning counter in the next two years could well depend on how developers or local governments are feeling about their chances on the ballot. There was considerable pressure in some locations right before the election to move forward with downzonings or moratoriums, but the anti-90 advocates – led by the redevelopment association – advised against such moves on the theory that it would give ammunition to the opposition. Developers, on the other hand, may increasingly make their moves based on whether they think “Son of 90” will pass. They may speed things up if they are engaged in a redevelopment project. But they may also sit on their development plans so as not to stimulate a pre-election downzoning, especially as the 2008 election gets closer. In the meantime, all eyes will be on Arizona, where an identical measure passed. Lots of litigation appears in the offing. It’s unclear, however, whether the opponents of Proposition 207 will follow the same legal tack they took before the election. At that time, they argued that the measure violated the state’s requirement “revenue source rule” – a constitutional amendment passed by voters in 2004 requiring future ballot measures that mandate spending to identify a revenue source. The courts allowed the measure to go forward, saying that Proposition 207 did not necessarily mandate spending because government agencies may or may not engage in land use regulations that would trigger its provisions. Already, however, scattered skirmishes have occurred in Arizona regarding implementation of Proposition 207. Only days after the election, the tiny town of Etoy – located on Interstate 10 halfway between Phoenix and Tucson -- vastly expanded its borders to permit new development, claiming that under 207 the city had no choice. Developers in California may invoke the prospect of Proposition 90 in their planning negotiations over the next two years, but it is unclear as to whether they will actually support “Son of 90.” One approach the property rights advocates could take is to try to peel off the Farm Bureau, the Chamber, the Building Industry Association (BIA) or the Taxpayers Association by making some compromises. The potential would seem to be there. After all, the rank-and-file BIA member certainly has more to gain by restraining downzoning in greenfield locations than in protecting eminent domain for redevelopment projects. But the Proposition 90 forces do not seem inclined to make such overtures. Instead, they appear much more interested in trying to turn business opposition to Proposition 90-style measures into a political asset by suggesting that big business and big developers opposed Proposition 90 because they benefit from eminent domain. The day after the election, consultant Spillane said: “If I were a developer who benefits from abusing eminent domain … I would be very nervous and concerned about the election results.”

A dispute between owners of property in northern San Diego County and a public utility district is headed for a new trial after the Fourth District Court of Appeal overturned a $2.3 million award of damages and compensation to the property owners. A jury awarded the property owners $2.3 million for inverse condemnation and breach of contract by the Fallbrook Public Utilities District, and for the district’s later taking of the property via eminent domain. However, the Fourth District ruled that San Diego County Superior Court Judge Lisa Guy-Schall erroneously interpreted an easement agreement that gave the landowners access via the district’s property. The error was a factor in the judge’s ruling that actions of the district to deny use of the easement constituted inverse condemnation. Thus, the Fourth District ordered a new trial on all aspects of the case. At issue is land adjacent to Red Mountain Reservoir, near the town of Fallbrook. In 1977, two investors purchased 710 acres from movie director Frank Capra with the intent of developing estate homes. The following year, the Fallbrook Public Utilities District acquired 18 acres from the investors. Part of that deal included a 60-foot easement across the district’s property so the investors could access their land from Mission Road. After the investors died in a 1978 plane crash, the family of one of the investors ended up with the property. A few years later, the family agreed to sell 3 acres for a reservoir expansion project that obliterated the dirt road on the easement. In 1999, the property owners, calling themselves Red Mountain LLC, began working toward a 44-lot subdivision on a portion of their property. They notified the district they intended to use Red Mountain Dam Road for access to the proposed subdivision. The district refused to grant access because hundreds of cars would be traveling within a few feet of the reservoir. The district uses the 22-acre reservoir to store water purchased from the San Diego County Water Authority. The district only lightly treats the water before providing it to customers. In 2001, Red Mountain LLC filed a lawsuit alleging inverse condemnation and breach of contract. The district followed that with its own action to take 134 acres of Red Mountain’s property, which included some of the potential subdivision site, via eminent domain. The litigation was combined, and Judge Guy-Schall ruled that the 1978 agreement granted Red Mountain access on the dam road. But she also ruled that Red Mountain was bound by a 1949 “sanitary easement” intended to preserve the lake’s purity, a ruling that appeared to block any potential subdivision. In late 2003, the district offered $900,000 to settle all litigation. Red Mountain asked for twice as much, so the matter went to trial. Judge Guy-Schall made a finding of inverse condemnation and directed a jury to determine whether there were damages. The jury awarded $1.4 million for inverse condemnation and breach of contract, and nearly $900,000 as fair market value for the land the district directly condemned. The court also awarded Red Mountain all litigation expenses, which totaled nearly $450,000. The district appealed, and a unanimous three-judge appellate panel reversed the judgment. The case turned on the court’s interpretation of the 1978 access easement. The district argued that the trial court’s interpretation was wrong because Civil Code § 1069 required the court to interpret the easement in the district’s favor. The Fourth District agreed. Under § 1069, a grant is to be interpreted in favor of the grantee (here, Red Mountain), except when the grantor (here, the public utility district) is a public entity. If there is ambiguity, and the grantor is a public entity, then the grant is to be construed in favor of the government, according to the Fourth District. In this case, the district contended that the easement was granted only for personal ingress and egress, not to accommodate a housing development. “ hen a grant by a public body is ambiguous, the controlling rule is the provision in § 1069 that every grant by a public body is to be interpreted in favor of the grantor,” the court ruled, saying that the property owners’ contrary evidence was “irrelevant.” The Fourth District further reasoned that if the trial court had determined the easement access was limited to personal use, there was a “reasonable probability” that the court would not have ruled that refusal to grant the easement resulted in inverse condemnation. Thus, a new trial is in order. Because the inverse condemnation question must be reconsidered at a new trial, the issue of compensation for the direct condemnation must also be retried because the jury had established the fair market value based on “mitigation land with no access.” “If there was no inverse condemnation/breach of contract, Red Mountain would have had a contractual right to an access easement until Fallbrook directly condemned that right,” Justice Cynthia Aaron wrote for the court. “Under that scenario, a jury on retrial could find that the value of the property that was directly condemned was higher than the value the jury awarded for direct condemnation in the first trial.” The Fourth District declined to consider Fallbrook’s argument that the sanitary easement precluded any subdivision. The issue was rendered moot by Fallbrook’s direct condemnation of the land within the sanitary easement, the court ruled. The Fourth District did overrule the lower court’s award of litigation expenses to Red Mountain because a retrial could result in a different outcome. The Case: , No. D044546, 06 C.D.O.S. 9065, 2006 DJDAR 13023. Filed September 25, 2006. The Lawyers: For Red Mountain: Steven A. McKinley, Asaro, Keagy, Freeland & McKinley, (619) 297-3170. For Fallbrook PUD: Bruce Beach, Best, Best and Krieger, (619) 525-1300.

Of all the Election Day upsets in congressional races across the country, none was more surprising than the defeat of veteran Central Valley lawmaker Richard Pombo, who has represented California’s 11th District in the House of Representatives since 1992. The seven-term congressman, chair of the House Committee on Resources, was unseated by a candidate with virtually no political experience and little name recognition outside his immediate family. Despite representing a district where Republicans hold an edge over Democrats in voter registration, Pombo garnered only 47% of the vote on November 7, versus 53% for opponent Jerry McNerney, an engineer whose resume identifies him as a wind-energy consultant and novelist. “Pombo’s defeat sends a clear message to those who share his ideology that when it comes to the elections, the environment is now a giant-killer,” Sierra Club Director Carl Pope told the . Pombo’s loss, although celebrated with almost giddy enthusiasm by his critics, will no doubt lead to a marked change in congressional debate over national environmental and energy policy. But his successor as leader of the Resources Committee, which has tremendous influence over matters near and dear to the hearts of Californians, such as water, energy and public lands, won’t have to spend a lot of time trying to unravel Pombo’s legacy. That’s because there is not much of a legislative legacy to unravel. Despite tireless and occasionally hyperbolic efforts to revise some of the nation’s most far-reaching environmental statutes — mainly the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) — Pombo has almost nothing concrete to show for his 14 years in Congress. Environmental advocates have long regarded him as Public Enemy No. 1, and can justifiably claim the lion’s share of credit or blame for his defeat last month. But their antipathy toward the former rancher had more to do with ideology than with his record of legislative achievement. And there was more to Pombo’s defeat than his hostility toward environmental regulations. Some political analysts have noted that Pombo’s district, once reliably Republican and conservative, has been changing as exurban refugees from liberal bastions in the Bay Area seek more affordable housing on the edge of the Central Valley. Hopeful Democrats have been predicting for several years that liberal commuters might finally spell defeat for a congressman wedded to the policy priorities of farmers, real estate investors and oil-patch workers. But of the forces that finally conspired to send Pombo packing, changing demography likely played the smallest role. The 11th District was created after the 1990 Census, when California gained seven House seats. The district originally included the southern and eastern parts of Sacramento County and nearly all of San Joaquin County, and Democrats led Republicans in voter registration 48% to 41%. The district was still Democratic, on paper at least, when Pombo first won election in 1992, and it remained that way through 2000, although the margin had narrowed by then to 45% Democratic and 43% Republican. Redistricting in 2002, however, shifted Sacramento County out of Pombo’s district and added inland portions of Alameda, Contra Costa and Santa Clara counties. And the balance of power flipped. Republicans led Democrats in voter registration that November 47% to 38%. That margin has since narrowed, and in fact it fell this year from 6.5% during the runup to the June primary to 5.6% for the November general election. Still, Pombo won re-election repeatedly, and by large majorities, even when he represented a Democrat-dominated district. Scandal probably played a more important role this year than demography. Pombo’s critics hammered relentlessly on his ties to convicted influence peddler Jack Abramoff, from whom Pombo accepted campaign contributions, as well as his reliance on campaign money from oil and gas companies that stood to benefit from the changes he promoted in federal energy policy. They also raised questions about money he directed from campaign funds to his wife and brother. Ultimately, however, it was Pombo’s environmental record that finally did him in. Probably not directly — his attitudes toward environmental policy have been consistent since he first went to Washington, and voters resoundingly re-elected him anyway — but because it finally drew the attention and money of big-name advocacy groups such as the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife. Pombo’s signature issue has been revising the ESA to make it friendlier to business and property owners, a responsibility GOP leadership handed to him shortly after the party took control of Congress in 1994. His first 11 efforts were stymied either by a certain White House veto or opposition by moderate Republican colleagues. However, the stars finally seemed to align for him last year, thanks to strong support from the Bush administration and a larger Republican majority in Congress. In October 2005, the House approved Pombo’s 12th ESA rewrite on a vote of 229 to 193, sending it to a still-uncertain fate in the Senate (see , November 2005). Pombo also drew heat, but not much support, for proposals to sell off portions of the national park system to finance transportation projects, expand oil and gas drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, allow mining companies to claim ownership of public lands, and revamp NEPA. Environmental groups have been battling Pombo’s legislative proposals for more than a decade, but the groundswell of anti-incumbent sentiment this year offered a chance to eliminate him altogether from the policy debate. Although Pombo raised and spent twice as much as his opponent — $3.8 million vs. $1.6 million as of the close of the October 18 reporting period — that margin was narrowed by environmental groups, which spent more than $1 million on McNerney’s behalf and mobilized volunteers to knock on thousands of doors in the district. Pombo’s defeat opens the door for Resources chairmanship to Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia, the committee’s ranking Democrat. Environmentalists may welcome any Democrat as an improvement over Pombo. But Rahall represents a coal-mining state, and he has pressed for federal investment in coal liquefaction and gasification technologies, which have the potential to boost greenhouse gas emissions and accelerate destructive mining practices. Federal Election Commission records show he’s received substantial campaign contributions from coal mining companies, coal-hauling railroads and the coal-burning electricity industry. Nevertheless, the League of Conservation Voters gave Rahall a 92 rating for his votes in the 109th Congress. Pombo scored a 3.

In November 1986, was born as a four-page “sample.” We haven’t missed a month since. Darned few publications survive for 20 years. To celebrate two decades — and to thank our loyal readers — we are publishing our most ambitious edition ever. In addition to our usual news stories, columns and updates, you’ll find reflective pieces by Publisher William Fulton and Associate Editor John Krist. Former longtime contributor Stephen Svete makes a return with a provocative column about new urbanism. Charter subscribers Marsha Rood and Peter Detwiler provide guest commentaries. Larry Sokoloff and I bring you up to date on a number of projects and controversies that has followed over the years. We also have collected some of our favorite stories from the past two decades. Included in this “greatest hits” section, which begins on Page 26, is our original coverage of the landmark Supreme Court decisions in and . See if you think we got it right. You will also find a 1995 Ken Jost piece about the lack of a firm legal definition for the taking of property rights. Ken, our Supreme Court correspondent, could have written essentially the same piece yesterday. We’ve also included two classic Morris Newman columns. I hope our friends in the fair City of Lancaster can forgive us. What you have in your hands, I think, is an excellent resource for anyone interested in California land use. Thanks for reading. We’ll see you again next month. - Paul Shigley

Several pieces of land use legislation have been vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, including two bills aimed at affordable housing and a bill that would have decreased local discretion over the siting of emergency shelters and group homes. Meanwhile, state lawmakers and lobbyists are already starting to prepare housing bills for the 2007 legislative session. Detecting a philosophy in the governor’s vetoes is not easy, but it appears that bills that would have made the biggest changes to current law or practices were most likely to get the red pen. For example, bills that would have substantially expanded groundwater monitoring, amended the Mello-Roos finance law to fund affordable housing, or given Indian tribes larger planning roles received vetoes. Lawmakers are likely to reintroduce expansive bills that failed with the governor or their colleagues. Among the anticipated bills are measures that would mandate an increase in redevelopment agency spending on affordable housing, and one that would ease California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of housing projects that comply with long-range plans. Among the vetoed housing bills was AB 2922 by Assemblyman Dave Jones (D-Sacramento), which would have permitted tenants to enforce affordability restrictions for housing units subsidized by redevelopment agencies. In his veto message, the governor said that he was “concerned that this bill will allow individuals without a direct interest in a housing project to bring suit against the property owner.” Jones expressed surprise at the veto and promised to try to work with the governor’s office next year. “The stated concern was not an issue we had been worried about,” Jones said. The problem, the assemblyman said, is that the affordability of a subsidized unit often gets lost when a unit is resold because a redevelopment agency has not recorded an affordability covenant or does not enforce other affordability restrictions. “We’re using state and local money to provide affordable housing, and tenants are losing that affordability,” Jones said. Originally, AB 2922 was a more ambitious measure that would have required redevelopment agencies to spend 50% of tax increment revenues on housing, up from the current 20% minimum. Redevelopment agencies opposed the bill, saying it would hinder revitalization efforts and slow the growth of property tax revenues that fund housing. But Jones said he plans to pursue a similar bill in 2007. “We have an affordability crisis, not a shopping center crisis,” Jones asserted. “It does seem reasonable to me to shift more of an agency’s resources to affordable housing, and away from commercial development.” Schwarzenegger did sign two of Jones’s other bills, AB 2511, which makes relatively minor changes to planning and zoning law with the intent of easing affordable housing development, and AB 1387, which expands a CEQA exemption for infill housing projects in urban areas. “I’m going to continue to look for ways to make infill easier and to incent infill development,” Jones said, noting that CEQA “has not been effective at stopping sprawl.” The former Sacramento city councilman also vowed to pursue additional curbs on local government authority over housing projects. “There are many applications of regulations at the local level that, either by design or inadvertently, impede affordable housing,” he said. Another proposal that appears certain to return in 2007 is a measure that would reduce or eliminate environmental review of housing projects that comply with long-term plans which themselves have been subjected to environmental review. That concept was embodied in SB 1800, a bill carried by Sen. Denise Ducheny (D-San Diego) and backed by both the California Building Industry Association (CBIA) and the Schwarzenegger camp. The bill emerged from a year-and-a-half of negotiations between the CBIA and the League of California Cities. When talks broke down, the CBIA went forward with a bill containing the provisions favored by builders. That caused local governments to join environmentalists in opposition to SB 1800, and the measure never escaped the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee. John Fleming, Ducheny’s chief of staff, said the intent of introducing SB 1800 was to open discussions among lawmakers, planners, environmentalists, local government officials and affordable housing advocates. He promised that Ducheny would introduce similar a bill during 2007. Under SB 1800, housing projects that complied with mandatory new “housing opportunity plans” would be exempt from environmental review. Environmentalists charged that the measure would “drive a truck” through CEQA, while local governments worried about an expensive new planning mandate and the loss of local control. Fleming conceded that bill proponents have not done a good job of explaining their intentions to opponents. “We’re not trying to truncate the process or streamline the process,” Fleming said. “We’re trying to front-load the CEQA process in the way that CEQA intended.” The key is ensuring that there is enough detail in environmental documents for long-range plans to ensure the documents are adequate when building permits are pulled, he said. “One thing everybody agrees on is that the system currently is not serving anyone’s needs,” Fleming said of the housing element update process. That process should ensure the designation of adequate land that is suitable for housing development, while also providing for open space, agriculture and environmental protection, he said. Marc Brown, who is stepping down as co-director of the California Housing Law Project, said that while the basic ideas of SB 1800 were sound, a more incremental approach might be warranted. “I think people can agree in concept on certainty for housing and certainty for environmental protection,” Brown said. “But when push comes to shove, neither side is willing to give up anything.” For his part, Schwarzenegger vetoed 262 of the 1,172 bills that lawmakers sent him during 2006, according to a report by the Senate Local Government Committee and the governor’s office. Other land use bills that received vetoes were: • AB 1020 (Hancock), which called on Caltrans and urban regional transportation agencies to prepare new transportation models that better account for land use policies. The governor said the bill was “well intentioned” but costly and unnecessary because his administration “is already moving forward with a comprehensive approach to integrating land use and transportation planning through the Strategic Growth Plan that I proposed earlier this year.” • AB 1962 (Berg), which would have allowed the Yurok Tribal Council to enter into a joint powers agreement with public agencies for the purpose of preserving and restoring the tribe’s natural resources, which include the embattled Klamath River. The governor called the legislation ambiguous. • AB 2158 (Evans), which would have required the fair-share housing needs allocation process to consider local agency formation commission growth policies. Schwarzenegger called the bill unnecessary. • AB 2762 (Levine), which would have permitted 16 Indian tribes to join the Southern California Association of Governments. Again, the governor called the bill poorly defined. • SB 1230 (Florez), which would have established a program for low-interest loans for economic development projects that would improve air quality in the San Joaquin Valley. The governor called the proposal “overly prescriptive.” • SB 1322 (Cedillo), which would have required cities and counties to make emergency shelters and group homes by-right uses in certain zones, and would have required local governments to account for shelters in general plans. In vetoing the bill, Schwarzenegger noted that he signed AB 2634 (Lieber), which requires local housing elements to provide for the needs of “extremely low-income” households that have only 30% of median income. • SB 1395 (Ducheny), which would have required local governments that find a project is exempt from CEQA review to notify Indian tribes who have an interest in the area of the project. Schwarzenegger called the bill an “unnecessary obligation.” • SB 1432 (Lowenthal), which would have permitted the use of Mello-Roos bonds to fund affordable housing development. Schwarzenegger said he disagreed with the premise of taxing homeowners for the purpose of building affordable units. • SB 1509 (Soto), which called on the Office of Planning and Research to develop a model mixed-use ordinance for voluntary use by cities and counties. The governor said local governments should write their own ordinances. • SB 1523 (Alarcon), which would have required economic impact reports for proposed big-box retail stores. The governor said the measure would “only limit the authority of local communities to decide what kind of retail projects they want to embrace.” • SB 1640 (Kuehl), which would have required state agencies to better monitor the use of both surface water and groundwater for supply-planning purposes. Schwarzenegger called the measure an “unfunded mandate on state and local agencies and overlying landowners.” • SB 1798 (Florez), which would have re-formed the state Reclamation Board, which oversees flooding and levee issues in the Central Valley, and required preparation of a state flood plan for the valley. The governor offered no reason for the veto.

Hundreds upon hundreds of real estate developments, planning efforts, economic development projects and related matters have received coverage in the pages of CP&DR during the past 20 years. We present here an update on some of the most important, and some of the weirder, stories from that period — while keeping in mind that most of these stories still have not ended. Bolsa Chica One of the longest running land use battles in Southern California — the fate of the Bolsa Chica wetlands in Huntington Beach — opened a new phase in August when ocean water flowed freely into the wetlands for the first time in 107 years. Hunters diked the marshland in 1899 to gain better access to the thousands of migratory birds that used the area as a feeding ground. Oil drilling followed after World War II. By the 1960s, the oil was beginning to run out, and developers set their sights on ambitious waterfront housing. In 1985, the Orange County Board of Supervisors approved a plan for 5,700 homes, a marina, shops and an oceanfront hotel. But litigation by the environmental group Amigos de Bolsa Chica succeeded in stopping those and subsequent development plans. Under an agreement worked out in 2002, most of the wetlands are now restored, and development of 349 homes is being allowed on 68 acres of a mesa above it. Grading work on the mesa has begun, said Alexia Swanepoel, executive director of Amigos de Bolsa Chica. The wetlands area is now owned by the state, which acquired 300 acres in 1973, and nearly 900 acres in 1997. The tidal inlet that opened during August allows ocean water to flow through a 360-foot-wide channel. The water flowed following an extensive, $147 million clean up and dredging of the property. More than half of the cost was borne by the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which paid mitigation fees in order to expand their facilities. Many oil wells were removed, while others will remain until they are tapped out. Bolsa Chica was once considered one of the world's greatest natural habitats for wildlife and game birds. Bird life is again increasing, Swanepoel said, and future studies will track what could be an important environmental turnaround. Celebrity City The low rolling hills between Redding and Red Bluff vaguely resemble the Ozark Mountains. During the 1990s, dreamers thought they could make the area into a West Coast version of Branson, Missouri, the Ozark Mountain town that has grown into a thriving country music destination resort. The proposed Celebrity City project envisioned performance centers with tens of thousands of seats, 20,000 hotel rooms, thousands of housing units and extensive retail centers on approximately 3,200 acres just west of Interstate 5. Eager for economic development, supervisors in rural Tehama County approved general plan amendments and rezoning for the project in 1994. The promoters, however, never lined up funding. They later floated the idea of building a large racetrack on the property. That idea also fizzled. Then Del Webb arrived. The development company and Pulte Homes proposed to build one of Del Webb's well-known planned communities for senior citizens on the Celebrity City property. Sun City Tehama would have about 3,500 units for people at least 55 years of age, 250 non-age-restricted houses, a 44-acre commercial center and the usual Del Webb amenities, such as a golf course, community center and walking paths. Tehama County supervisors approved the Del Webb project in October. However, Caltrans has threatened to file a lawsuit, arguing that the county is not requiring Del Webb to pay its fair share for widening I-5 between Redding and Red Bluff to six lanes. Yerba Buena redevelopment A once forlorn section of San Francisco's downtown is one of the city's most visited and vibrant areas today. Yerba Buena Center, located just south of the city's Financial District, is an example of what redevelopment can do for a city — given enough time and investment dollars. Created shortly after World War II in an area of seedy hotels, the redevelopment project area is now San Francisco's premier museum district, and is home to the city's convention center, new hotels and office buildings. However, it took years of planning and litigation before redevelopment occurred. "It really is quite brilliant," said Jim Chappell, president of SPUR (San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association), an urban planning advocacy organization. Redevelopment of the area has, he said, "totally changed that part of the city, and created a tremendous number of jobs." The newest piece of the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment District is the expanded San Francisco Centre, which opened in September. It is home to the second largest Bloomingdale's in the nation, as well as other shops, office space and entertainment venues. San Francisco Centre, which was added to the redevelopment district in 1999, features a restored Emporium department store built after the 1906 earthquake. San Francisco Centre's expansion links the Union Square shopping and theatre district to the north with Yerba Buena's South of Market attractions. One of the biggest attractions in the redevelopment project area is Yerba Buena Gardens itself, a city park on a roof above the George Moscone Convention Center. Nearby are a children's entertainment area, restored buildings, the Metreon shopping and entertainment complex, and the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. The Contemporary Jewish Museum recently broke ground in the area and upon completion will join the Museum of the African Diaspora, which opened in 2005. Fundraising continues on efforts to build a Mexican museum in the area. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, also known as "the framework" for management of federal lands in the mountain range, was developed by the Clinton administration and adopted in early 2001. The plan was in effect from 2001 until 2004, according to Earthjustice attorney Greg Loarie, who represents environmental groups challenging the current plan. The Bush Administration created its own plan upon taking office, and it went into effect in 2004. The Bush administration's Sierra Nevada plan is being challenged in federal court, where a ruling is still awaited. Environmentalists and Attorney General Bill Lockyer challenged the plan in February 2005, the latest volley in a long-running effort to come up with a management plan governing 11.5 million federal acres in the Sierra Nevada. The Clinton-era plan established a protected network of old forest areas to maintain suitable habitat for old-growth-dependent species, such as the California spotted owl. The plan put large trees off limits to logging, but provided for logging of 191 million board feet of timber in each of its first five years. The revised framework, released in January 2004 by the U.S. Forest Service, called for more than doubling the amount of timber being cut, to an estimated 450 million board feet a year. It eliminated protected old forest areas and allowed larger trees to be cut under the idea that the harvesting of big trees would prevent catastrophic wildfires. Legal arguments regarding the resort plan were heard in June by U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England, Jr. A broad coalition of environmental groups brought the challenge, according to Loarie. The court may hold additional hearings on that case, or hold additional hearings on other lawsuits brought over the plan, he said. Whatever the ruling, it is sure to be appealed because the stakes are so high, Loarie said. Mammoth Lakes redevelopment In 1997, the Town of Mammoth Lakes adopted a redevelopment plan for 1,100 acres, about one-quarter of the funky ski town on the eastern side of the Sierra. Redevelopment boosters expected the plan would help turn around the fortunes of the town, which struggled while business at Mammoth Mountain ski area declined. Local landowners, though, complained that redevelopment would primarily benefit Intrawest Corporation, a Canadian company that builds and operates upscale ski resorts. Intrawest had recently purchased a one-third interest in Mammoth Mountain and had acquired about 250 acres in town. Indeed, Intrawest soon proposed to develop more than 2,000 mostly upper-end housing units and a new town center. Meanwhile, though, local opponents were making history in court. In July 2000, the Third District Court of Appeal threw out the Mammoth Lakes redevelopment plan because it included non-blighted and undeveloped territory for which private development was already proposed. "The facts of this case exemplify the misuse of redevelopment power the Legislature sought to curb," Justice George Nicholson wrote at the time. The decision was the third in a string of four important cases (the others involved Murrieta, Diamond Bar and Upland) in which appellate courts narrowly interpreted 1993 redevelopment reforms. The Mammoth Lakes case has been cited numerous times in court and during legislative hearings, said attorney Murray Kane, of Kane Ballmer & Berkman, who won the case for the group Friends of Mammoth. "The courts are throwing the bad apples out. They have shown that the Legislature was serious when it tightened up the definition of blight," Kane said. Invalidation of the redevelopment plan, however, appears to have done little to slow development in Mammoth Lakes — which suggests that the opponents were correct, but that they are losing the larger battle anyway. In 2005, hotel mogul Barry Sternlicht purchased the ski resort with plans to take it upscale. "We have a lot going on here," said Community Development Director Mark Wardlaw, who arrived in town in 2005. "We're pretty much focused on our destination resort development." Two upscale condo-hotels are under construction, and there are proposals to expand the village core, develop a new lodge at the base of the ski mountain, build a condo-hotel and retail project elsewhere in town, and even to develop 25 acres of affordable housing. There's also a proposed master plan amendment to allow between 900 and 1,200 housing units of various types in the town's Snow Creek area. Meanwhile, a plan to expand the airport to accommodate large jetliners was grounded in 2003 when a federal court ruled the environmental review of the project was inadequate. Martis Valley Development plans for the Martis Valley, just north of Lake Tahoe, seemed to be in high gear during 2003 when the Placer County Board of Supervisors approved a community plan for the 25,000-acre area that called for 6,000 homes, ten to twelve golf courses and upwards of 1 million square feet of commercial space and hotels. But after environmental groups sued, settlements were reached that allowed smaller-scale development to occur in exchange for preservation of swaths of open space. Those settlements laid the groundwork for more conservation and development agreements and the apparent end of litigation. Under a settlement announced in March, the largest of the developments, Siller Ranch, was reduced to half its original size. Originally planned for 1,118 housing units with 45 holes of golf, Siller Ranch is now planned to have 653 units with an 18-hole golf course and 120 acres of open space. The settlement was reached between developers DMB/Highlands and the groups Mountain Area Preservation Foundation and Sierra Watch. "The discussions over Siller Ranch led to a broader collaborative agreement that takes significant steps towards securing a better blueprint for all of Martis Valley," said Tom Mooers, executive director of Sierra Watch. Mooers was especially pleased with a $72 million funding program created as part of the settlement that will be used to preserve open space and create worker housing in other parts of Martis Valley. The program, funded by a conveyance fee on property sold at Siller Ranch, will raise $18 million for habitat management, $18 million for workforce housing and $36 million for open space protection during the next 25 years. Under the same settlement, a proposed luxury development at the 280-acre Hopkins Ranch was turned into open space and housing for local workers. The settlement followed a 2005 decision by a Placer County judge who ruled that the Martis Valley community plan was illegal. That decision was appealed, but in September, environmentalists, developers and the county signed a settlement that ended the litigation. The plan adopted in 2003 will remain in place, but agreements with the individual developers have effectively cut the number of potential housing units in half and reduced other development opportunities. Among those other agreements are two regarding projects that are now under construction: 1,450 condominium units at the Northstar-At-Tahoe Ski Resort, and the 462-unit Eaglewood project located adjacent to Siller Ranch. At Eaglewood, 306 out of 475 acres were donated as open space, and 56 units there are being built as affordable housing. The various deals are expected to raise $100 million for land conservation, habitat restoration and affordable housing development over 25 years. Mooers estimated that 5,000 acres of Martis Valley land has received permanent protection through the agreements. Napa economic development Many California cities have reclaimed their downtowns and made them destinations for visitors and locals. At the close of the 20th Century, downtown Napa appeared poised for a renaissance. The key development planned in Napa was the American Center for Wine, Food and the Arts, also known as Copia. Several other developments also were proposed during an economic boom, designed to turn the mostly blue-collar community into a destination for some of the 5 million visitors a year to Napa Valley. A flood control project would open up the Napa River to the downtown, and visitors would find the following: a new waterfront retail market and spa, a restored 1879 opera house, and a convention center and hotel on the fairgrounds near downtown. Copia was predicted to draw 300,000 visitors a year when it opened in 2001. That was the vision, anyway. But by 2003, Copia was drawing only 150,000 visitors a year, at which point the center's programming was revamped to place a greater emphasis on wine tasting. Admission fees were reduced earlier this year from $12.50 a person to $5. The fairgrounds project never was built. Still, things have definitely changed in downtown Napa. New restaurants, wine tasting rooms, stores and day spas have opened. "We're starting to develop that visitor experience that you used to only get upvalley," said Jennifer LaLiberte, project coordinator for the Napa Community Redevelopment Agency. The restored opera house and a restored mill have been open several years, and they cater to locals and tourists. During the next 18 months, a pedestrian segment of the flood control project should be completed, as well as a mixed-use retail, residential and office project. Hotels are springing up: the River Terrace Inn opened during 2003 with 108 rooms; a 165-room Westin condo-hotel is due to break ground within walking distance of Copia this fall, and another 500 high-end hotel rooms are expected to be built downtown during the next several years. Near Copia, a 22,825-square-foot public market has been approved. With shops, food vendors and restaurants, the project will have the same developer and concept as San Francisco's Ferry Building. Newhall Ranch Plans for the massive Newhall Ranch development in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County were first announced in 1994, and first approved by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in 1999. But don't expect the first units — in the 1,400 home Landmark Village — to be built until 2008 or 2009. After the project's initial approval, the county faced lawsuits that challenged the adequacy of the water supply and raised questions about the project's effect on a federally endangered fish that lives in the nearby Santa Clara River. The project's developer, Newhall Land and Farming Company, was able to buy water from a variety of sources in the region, including private companies. The earlier lawsuits were resolved, and no lawsuits are currently pending, according to Newhall spokeswoman Marlee Lauffer. The specific plan for the project calls for nearly 21,000 homes, along with business parks and schools in the master-planned community west of Interstate 5. A total of 20,000 jobs are expected to be created in the community's commercial and business projects. Approximately 6,000 acres of the 12,000-acre Newhall Ranch property are to be dedicated as open space in both Los Angeles County and adjoining Ventura County. A joint powers authority was formed this year to preserve the open space, which will be dedicated over a 20-year span. But the open space preservation has not received universal kudos from environmentalists who fought the project. "This area is what they call ‘high country' and is really not buildable anyway," said Lynne Plambeck, of the group Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment. "The flood plain area is not preserved." San Emidio Ranch The Central Valley was the location of numerous "new town" proposals during the development boom of the late the 1980s. Many of those proposals faded away when the economy soured during the early 1990s, but one of the projects that received approval was also one of the biggest: The 94,000-acre, 25,000-unit San Emidio Ranch project at the valley's southern tip, near the Interstate 5 Grapevine. The Kern County Board of Supervisors approved the gigantic San Emidio Ranch project over the objections of environmentalists in 1992 during a period when Kern County lacked a planning commission. However, the project never got started. There were financial issues, and then developer Dale Poe died in a car crash. Ultimately, Poe's children kept a slice of the land while the Wildlands Conservancy acquired 97,000 acres of the 109,000-acre ranch. The conservancy, a private nonprofit organization, has established Wind Wolves Preserve on its portion of the property, which stretches from the valley floor high into the Tehachapi Mountains. The preserve provides wildlife and native plant habitat with minimal public access. Meanwhile, Kern County continues to receive periodic inquiries about the new town specific plan, said Ted James, the county planning director. "I know there have been efforts to buy that up," he said. However, the specific plan is 14 years old. It would need significant updating and a fresh environmental review, James said. The source of water for the new town project was always an issue and would likely be an even bigger issue nowadays, he added. Diablo Grande This master-planned resort and second-home development was in the news over the summer when a large wildfire burned nearby. But Diablo Grande, a development on 30,000 acres in western Stanislaus County, escaped unscathed because firebreaks held back the blaze. Originally proposed during the late 1980s, Diablo Grande has taken shape over the past twelve years west of Interstate 5. First, two golf courses that are considered among Northern California's best were built in the mid-1990s. A winery soon followed. First approved by the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors in the fall of 1993, Diablo Grande development was slowed by lawsuits over endangered species and water. The project was the subject of the landmark 1996 decision Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus , 48 Cal.App.3d 182, in which the court ruled that analysis of a long-term water supply may not be postponed until after project approval. Eventually, a water supply for the former grazing lands was secured when the water district formed for Diablo Grande arranged a water transfer with the Kern County Water Agency, according to Curtis Creel, manger of water resources for the Kern County agency. As for rare species, a federal judge in 2004 ruled against environmentalists, who had contested federal permits related to rare species. Those permits allow construction of the project's first phase of 2,000 houses and commercial development while developers acquire and protect habitat on the property and nearby to protect the endangered California red-legged frog and San Joaquin kit fox. Currently, 12,000 acres are saved in permanent conservation areas. At this point, infrastructure for the new community still needs to be built, according to Kirk Ford, Stanislaus County deputy planning director. But, gradually, a community is taking shape in the foothills of the Diablo Range 20 miles south of Modesto, and eight miles from the city of Patterson. A total of 300 homes have been built since 2003, and another 1,700 homes have been approved on more than 2,000 acres. Also approved are a hotel and conference center, and a commercial center. For now, residents must drive to Patterson for food shopping and other needs. Diablo Grande's developers, which include Irish pharmaceutical magnate Donald Panoz and Wall Street investment banker J. Morton Davis, plan to build on a total of 8,000 acres, according to Dwain Sanders, vice president of development for Diablo Grande. They will need additional permission from Stanislaus County to build any more homes. Sanders said the company may ask for permission shortly to build on 1,200 acres. Mountain House Many new towns were proposed in San Joaquin County during the 1990s, but only one was actually built. That exception is Mountain House, located on the outer edge of the San Francisco Bay Area, near the border of Alameda and San Joaquin counties. Although originally approved in 1994, Mountain House construction did not commence until in 2001. The community's first school opened in 2004. Eventually, Mountain House is planned to generate 22,000 jobs and have a population of 44,000 living in 12 pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods. For now, Mountain House is a bedroom community of about 3,500 residents, with most homes occupied by Bay Area workers willing to make a long commute each day. There are only two small businesses in town, although more are planned soon. About 1,200 homes are currently inhabited. If there are not enough jobs by the time 2,000 homes are occupied, safeguards in the new town's master plan allow the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors to slow residential growth. County Supervisor Leroy Ornellas, who represents the area, expects the Board of Supervisors to conduct a hearing on the area's job-housing imbalance. But Ornellas said he doesn't expect the Board to take any major action, such as halting housing construction. "I could not imagine we would take an ax to the project," Ornellas said. Additional jobs may arrive by the end of 2007, after Pegasus Development of Pleasanton builds the first phase of a commercial project, with 65,000 feet of office and 80,000 feet of retail space. The Pegasus project is eventually supposed to be a 1.7-million-square-foot business park. Another project, a satellite campus for San Joaquin Delta College, is also expected to add jobs when it opens during the next few years. Ornellas said the college project was hurt by rising construction costs. Mountain House is currently overseen by the county Board of Supervisors, but when the development contains 1,000 registered voters, they will have a chance to choose independent directors to run the community service district that provides municipal services there. Belmont Learning Center It is difficult to conceive of a more troubled public development project than the Belmont Learning Center, located in a rough neighborhood west of downtown Los Angeles. However, the problematic project may finally have a happy — albeit expensive — ending. A new high school could welcome students in less than two years. Belmont Learning Center was conceived during the late 1980s and early 1990s as a state-of-the-art facility that would decrease the burden on overcrowded Belmont High School. In 1996, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) began construction on a unique project: A year-round school for 5,000 students, about 120 housing units, a retail center anchored by a grocery store, a community center and public recreation facilities. The project was estimated to cost at least $90 million. By early 1998, the district had eliminated nearly all of the non-school components of the complex project, and the first of what would be many investigations was under way, this one led by a state Assembly committee and focused on conflicts of interest for LAUSD vendors. The following year, LAUSD halted the project because of methane gas on the site, which had been an oil field decades earlier. Then the investigations really got rolling. An internal LAUSD investigation suggested criminal malfeasance. Steve Cooley defeated Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti in a campaign centered largely on Garcetti's handling of a Belmont probe. (In 2003, Cooley announced that he would pursue no criminal charges in the Belmont scandal.) The mainstream and alternative press made Belmont a lead story for months. Meanwhile, LAUSD abandoned the project altogether — until Roy Romer took over as superintendent. He vowed to complete the school but was soon vexed by the discovery of an earthquake fault directly beneath some of the new buildings. In late 2004, the district tore down the new, never-occupied buildings on top of the earthquake fault. The demolition of the majority of new buildings on the Belmont site may have been painful, but it was part of an effort to actually complete the project. Now called Vista Hermosa, the new school is planned to house 2,600 high school students. Three existing buildings are being converted into a 2,100-student high school, and a separate 500-student academy is being developed for a total of 102 classrooms, according to LAUSD spokesperson Binti Harvey. The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy is building a park that will include a soccer field and picnic area. Project development also includes installation of a methane collection system. Start to finish, LAUSD may end up spending $300 million on Vista Hermosa, which is on track for completion in the spring of 2008.