The life of a tentative map for a subdivision may be extended for up to five years if the map is subject to a local development moratorium, but the map does not live on if the moratorium continues for more than five years, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court determined that a subdivision map originally approved by the City of Half Moon in 1990, but caught up in an eight-year sewer connection moratorium, expired before action was taken to finalize the map. The court also rejected the developer’s arguments that because two different moratoriums were in effect, the map was eligible for two separate time extensions. The court further dismissed the developer’s attempt to keep the map alive administratively by filing, before the apparent expiration date, a final map that did not comply with tentative map conditions. The developer, Ailanto Properties, filed in 1987 an application for a 228-lot vesting tentative map on 114 acres. Ailanto also sought planned unit development zoning. To offset some environmental concerns, the developer whittled the project to 216 lots. The Half Moon Bay City Council certified an environmental impact report and approved the tentative map and zoning in August 1990. One of the conditions of map approval was that Ailanto get a coastal development permit from the Coastal Commission. At the time, Ailanto’s property was subject to a Coastside County Water District water service moratorium, which was lifted in March 1994 when the district secured a new water supply. This moratorium caused the Coastal Commission to return Ailanto’s application in 1991 for the lack of sufficient water rights. Just at the time the Coastal Commission kicked back the application, the city adopted a sewer connection moratorium because the wastewater treatment plant needed expansion. The sewer moratorium lasted from March 1991 until March 1999. Thus, for three years, the project was subject to both a water moratorium and a sewer moratorium. During the sewer moratorium, the authority for coastal development permits shifted from the Coastal Commission to Half Moon Bay, which had adopted a local coastal program. Only days before the sewer moratorium expired, the city approved Ailanto’s coastal development permit application but further reduced the project to 197 lots. The project still ended up before the Coastal Commission when opponents appealed the city’s permit approval. In February 2001, the Coastal Commission upheld the city’s decision but cut the size of the subdivision even more and required that Ailanto retire development rights on an equal number of substandard lots elsewhere in town. Ailanto then sued over those conditions in litigation that is pending separately. In May 2001, Ailanto filed a phased final map with the city and provided supplemental material on August 6, 2001 — one day before the map, with moratorium-related and other extensions, apparently would expire. The city rejected the application because it did not comply with the tentative map conditions, specifically the requirement for a coastal development permit. Before the city rejected the final map, though, Ailanto filed a lawsuit seeking a court declaration that the life of its tentative map had been extended for the entire eight years of the sewer moratorium, that the separate water moratorium also extended the map’s life, and that filing of the phased final map was enough to start a new 36-month extension. Ailanto lost its moratorium arguments in San Mateo County Superior Court, but the court did rule that the developer’s delivery of the phased final map was adequate to trigger a 36-month extension of the vesting tentative map. Both sides appealed, and a unanimous three-judge panel of the First District ruled entirely for the city. The moratorium debate centered on Government Code § 66452.6, a section of the Subdivision Map Act. Ailanto argued that the statute limits local moratoriums — not tentative map extensions — to five years. The court undertook a lengthy discussion of the legislative history and found that from 1977 to 1986 the statute clearly limited the time that a tentative map could be extended because of a moratorium. The Legislature has amended the law several times since, making the language a bit ambiguous but apparently never changing the intent regarding map extensions. “In summary, the legislative history of § 66452.6 points us to the conclusion that the five-year limit in subdivision (b)(1) was intended by the Legislature to apply to the length of the moratorium-related tolling of the expiration of a tentative map and not to the duration of the development moratorium itself,” Justice Mark Simons wrote for the court. Ailanto also argued that multiple moratorium extensions applied, and cited , (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 892 (see , June 1993). In that case, the court ruled that the city’s adoption of a growth management ordinance and delays in adopting a subarea facilities plan amounted to a moratorium that extended the life of a tentative map, even after a “friendly moratorium” had earlier prolonged the map. Ailanto argued that stood for the proposition that multiple moratoriums can extend the life of a tentative map by more than five years. But the First District rejected the argument, finding that “this issue was not addressed or even mentioned by the court.” The city’s appeal concerned a 36-month extension the Subdivision Map Act provides each time a phased final map is submitted before the tentative map expires. The city argued that Ailanto submitted a phased final map in a form that the city could not approve, meaning the tentative map did not qualify for an extension. Ailanto conceded it lacked the coastal permit required as a condition of tentative map approval, but the developer contended the statute did not require the filing of documents that are “approvable.” Here, the court found § 66452.6, subdivisions (a) (1) and (d) unambiguous. The lack of a coastal development permit was a “significant deficiency” and “a map that does not conform to the approved or conditionally approved tentative map may not be filed for approval by the legislative body,” Simons wrote. Despite the court’s ruling, the project is not dead. Two years ago, the city, Ailanto and the Coastal Commission entered into a settlement agreement which centers on approval of the coastal development permit, according to attorney Rick Jarvis, who represents Half Moon Bay. Working out that permit has been a slow process, for which the First District did not want to wait. Project opponents filed a California Environmental Quality Act lawsuit over the settlement agreement, but a Superior Court dismissed the suit in 2005. “The parties are still all behind the settlement agreement,” Jarvis said. The Case: , No. A098920, 06 C.D.O.S. 8214, 2006 DJDAR 11728. Filed August 30, 2006. Modified September 18 at 2006 DJDAR 12602. The Lawyers: For Ailanto: Robert Lanzone, Aaronson, Dickerson, Cohn & Lanzone, (650) 593-3117. For the city: Rick Jarvis, Jarvis, Fay & Deporto, (510) 238-1400.

A unanimous California Supreme Court has upheld lower court decisions rejecting an advertising company’s claim that it deserves compensation because trees planted along a public street obstructed visibility of six billboards. The state high court denied Regency Outdoor Advertising’s inverse condemnation claim and also rejected Regency’s arguments that the trial court had erroneously awarded the City of Los Angeles about $100,000 in costs, including $80,000 in expert witness fees. “ e conclude that owners and occupiers of roadside property do not possess a ‘right to be seen’ that requires the payment of compensation for municipal landscaping efforts having no injurious effect on any property rights other than the claimed right to visibility,” Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for the court. The court further held that compensation provisions in the state’s Outdoor Advertising Act do not apply because they speak only to intentional sign removal or limitations on use of billboards, not to incidental loss of visibility. To spruce things up for the 2000 Democratic National Convention, the City of Los Angeles planted mature palm trees and placed lighted pylons along Century Boulevard, the primary route into Los Angeles International Airport. Regency at the time complained that the landscaping made at least six of its billboards less visible to Century Boulevard motorists. Claiming the city must pay compensation for the allegedly reduced value of its signs, Regency then filed an inverse condemnation lawsuit. Prior to trial, the city offered to settle the lawsuit by removing one tree and paying Regency $1,000. The company rejected the offer, so the matter went to trial, after which Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Jean Matusinka ruled for the city. Relying on different legal footing than Matusinka used, the Second District Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision on the merits and the award of costs (see , May 2005). Regency got no further at the state Supreme Court. In the inverse condemnation claim, Regency argued that it has an “abutter’s right” to have its property seen from the adjacent public street. The court did find that there is extensive case law on the rights of those who own property along a public street, including a “right to be seen.” However, the court also found that the “right to be seen” cases concerned a physical taking of loss or access, neither of which Regency suffered. “ he virtually unanimous rule provides that there is no freestanding right to be seen, and that the government need not pay compensation for any lessened visibility,” Justice Moreno wrote. As for a partial takings, the court cited its nearly century-old decision in , (1907) 150 Cal. 592, a case in which the court acknowledged the rights of a property owner whose shop was blocked by the construction of an electric railway switching tower on the sidewalk in front of the shop. “We follow the weight of authority and conclude that Regency has no visibility right warranting compensation here,” Moreno wrote. “It bears emphasis that , the first decision in this state recognizing any ‘right to be seen,’ qualified its holding by noting that ‘any obstruction to the use of the street which impairs or destroys an abutter’s easements is a private injury.’ Our careful phrasing implied that activity that comports with the fundamental purposes served by the roads does not produce a private injury. The planting of trees along a road is, in general, fully ‘consistent with the road’s use as an open public street’ ( , (N.Y. App.Div. 2002) 744 N.Y.S.2nd 438, 439), and in fact may enhance both travel and commerce along the street.” Furthermore, the court noted, Regency has not shown that the landscaping reduced the billboards’ value. Regency also argued that Business and Professions Code § 5412, a portion of the Outdoor Advertising Act, directed that the company receive compensation because the city had effectively removed or limited the use of the billboards. The statute prohibits the government from blocking “customary maintenance and use” of a billboard, and Regency argued that the tree planting denied the company such maintenance and use. The court ruled first that the city clearly did not remove the billboards. Secondly, the court said that Regency was reading § 5412 too broadly, and that the compensation requirements of the statute do not “pertain to municipal landscaping efforts that may incidentally impair the visibility of nearby advertising facings.” “Regency has offered no evidence establishing that the trees at issue were planted along Century Boulevard for the purpose of blocking its billboards from view — indeed, the evidence adduced at trial was to the contrary,” Moreno wrote. As for the costs awarded to the city, the court rejected all of Regency’s arguments, including the contention that city expert witness fees incurred prior to a settlement offer were not eligible. Since the court issued its decision, Regency has filed a request for a re-hearing, a potential step toward asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. The Case: , No. S132619, 06 C.D.O.S. 7197, 2006 DJDAR 10276. Filed August 7, 2006. The Lawyers: For Regency: Michael Berger, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, (310) 312-4000. For the city: Eduardo Angeles, city attorney’s office, (310) 646-3260.

Property owners who received an $850,000 loan from the Carson Redevelopment Agency must return the money because they acquiesced to the mayor’s demand for a $75,000 bribe, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The property owners contended the court did not have to void the loan agreement because the corrupt public official did not have a direct interest in the agreement. They also argued that the court should consider remedies other than disgorgement of the $850,000. The court expressed sympathy to the property owners, but said that legal precedent and public policy mandated the case’s outcome. “A public contract obtained through an extortion payment is not valid, and no one should believe that it is valid. A bright line rule is required,” Justice Judith Ashmann-Gerst wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel. Michael and Bertha Padilla own the 45-unit Camino Senior Village apartment complex in Carson. In 1994, they signed a contract with the city’s redevelopment agency under which the agency agreed to provide rental assistance for six years of up to $295 a month per qualified tenant, up to a maximum of 22 units. In exchange, the Padillas agreed to provide 22 units as low-income senior housing for 30 years. In 1999, the Padillas asked the agency to extend the rental assistance for another 24 years and to include all 45 units. The agency responded with a proposed “buydown agreement” in which the agency would provide the Padillas an $850,000 forgivable loan to be used for buying down their existing mortgage. In exchange, the Padillas would restrict tenancy in 44 units to low-income people at least 55 years old for 24 years. Then-Mayor Agapito “Pete” Diaz Fajardo told Michael Padilla he would have to pay $75,000 to get the City Council and the redevelopment agency board to approve the new agreement. The Padillas paid the bribe and got the new agreement. The FBI indicted Fajardo in late 2002 for extorting money from the Padillas and attempting to extort another bribe from a bidder on a city public works project (see , January 2003). Padilla pleaded guilty in early 2003 and eventually was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison. The Carson Redevelopment Agency sued the Padillas, seeking avoidance of the buydown agreement and return of the $850,000. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Haley Fromholz ruled for the agency and ordered the Padillas to repay the $850,000 plus interest. On appeal, the Padillas argued that under Government Code § 1090, a public contract is not void unless a public official is financially interested in the contract. Although Fajardo received an illegal payment, he did not get paid with public funds and therefore did not have a cognizable financial interest in the contract, the property owners argued. However, the court ruled that Fajardo’s conflict of interest was plain and was covered by § 1090, which prohibits a public official from having an interest in a public contract that he created. “ ection 1090 is aimed at interest, other than an interest that is too remote or speculative, that could compromise a public official’s judgment or cast doubt on whether he executed his duties with the utmost allegiance, diligence, and loyalty to his office,” Ashmann-Gerst wrote. Here, the extortion payment created Fajardo’s financial interest in the contract, the court ruled. “ he term ‘financially interested’ in § 1090 cannot be interpreted in a restricted and technical manner,” the court ruled. “The sweep of § 1090 is broad; within its reach comes any interest that might deter a public official from the most righteous and noble path of civil service.” The Padillas also argued that requiring them to disgorge the $850,000 was unfair punishment of the victims of extortion. They said the court should consider the facts of the case before determining the appropriate remedy. The Second District, though, ruled that disgorgement is “automatic.” The court sited , (1985) 38 Cal.3d 633, in which the state Supreme Court ruled that an Albany city councilman who sold his land to the city through a third party had to return the payment he received for the land, while the city got to keep the land. “More recently,” Ashmann-Gerst wrote, , (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 572, “held that a public entity is entitled to recover any compensation it paid under a tainted contract without restoring any of the benefits it received. By logical import, interpreted as a binding precedent holding that the disgorgement remedy is automatic. … Also, as a policy matter, it is the most effective way to give § 1090 all the teeth that it needs.” The Case: , No. B184629, 06 C.D.O.S. 5948, 2006 DJDAR 8423. Filed June 28, 2006. The Lawyers: For Carson Redevelopment Agency: William Wynder, Aleshire & Wynder, (949) 223-1170. For Padilla: Jay Coggan, (310) 407-0922.

The state Supreme Court has rejected California State University trustees’ contention that the university does not have to mitigate off-site traffic and fire safety impacts from expansion of the CSU Monterey Bay campus. A divided appellate court panel in 2003 had accepted the CSU Board of Trustees’ argument that the state constitution prohibits the university from paying the Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) for off-site road and fire safety improvements related to campus expansion. The state Supreme Court unanimously overturned the appellate court and threw out the CSU Monterey Bay campus master plan and environmental impact report. “The plain language of the California Constitution does not support the trustees’ position that voluntary mitigation payments are impermissible,” Justice Kathryn Werdegar wrote for the court. The decision appears to provide a significant victory for cities and counties that are home to public universities and other large state institutions. “We argued that the university couldn’t simply point to another agency and say, ‘We know we have impacts here but they are your total responsibility,’ without even trying to enter into any sort of agreement,” said Sheri Damon, an attorney who has represented FORA throughout the eight years of litigation. The state Supreme Court took a broad view of a state agency’s obligations under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), she said. The court ruled that although FORA may not assess fees on CSU, implementation of FORA’s infrastructure plan constitutes feasible mitigation for the impacts of university expansion. Thus, the court ruled, CSU should negotiate with FORA regarding the university’s contribution toward infrastructure plan improvements. Clara Potes-Fellow, a CSU spokeswoman, said the decision clearly will have one impact. “It definitely will increase the cost to the state to fund university construction projects,” Potes-Fellow said. “We will know in time if the cost has the impact of slowing down construction.” Local government officials were closely watching the case and had provided amicus briefs asking the state high court to overturn the appellate court decision. In San Diego, the city, a neighborhood group and a hospital have sued over San Diego State University expansion plans because of impacts on roads and public safety. The Supreme Court decision appears to shoot down San Diego State’s argument that the school is not responsible for offsetting the impacts. Since the Army closed Fort Ord in 1994, the university has emerged as the largest user of the 27,000-acre base in the hills northeast of Monterey. The university opened in 1995 and, in 1998, trustees adopted a master plan calling for eventual growth to 25,000 students on the 1,370-acre campus. More than 10,000 students, faculty, staff and household members would live on campus. The City of Marina and FORA filed a CEQA lawsuit arguing the trustees failed to identify and adopt feasible mitigation measures, improperly disclaimed responsibility for offsetting environmental effects, and improperly relied on a statement of overriding considerations to justify approval of the EIR and master plan. At issue was the mitigation of traffic and fire protection impacts. Trustees said they could not fully mitigate those impacts because doing so would require FORA to implement an infrastructure plan the Reuse Authority adopted in 1997. And, in fact, FORA had included CSU growth in the long-range base reuse plan and had assumed CSU would pay $1.139 million annually for 18 years to fund its share of infrastructure improvements. But CSU argued that it was precluded from paying. Monterey County Superior Court Judge Richard Silver ruled against the university, finding that CEQA requires the university, like any developer, to contribute to a fund for mitigating cumulative impacts. A divided three-judge panel of the Sixth District overruled Silver, largely based on the majority’s reading of San Marcos Water Dist. v. San Marcos Unified School Dist. , (1986) 42 Cal.3d 154. In San Marcos , the state Supreme Court ruled that a special district could not levy a “sewer capacity” fee on a school district. The Sixth District found that the Legislature overrode part of the San Marcos decision when lawmakers approved Government Code § 54999, permitting public agencies to levy capital facilities fees on schools for a number of things, but not specifically for traffic and fire safety (see CP&DR Legal Digest , August 2003). The state Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth District and CSU misread San Marcos . The university argued that San Marcos and the follow-up legislation permitted payments only for such items as water, drainage and sewage collection, but not for roads and fire protection. “The trustees have misinterpreted San Marcos ,” Justice Werdegar wrote. “The decision addresses only compulsory charges imposed by one public entity on another. The case has nothing to say about a discretionary payment made by a public agency that voluntarily chooses that method of discharging its duty under CEQA to mitigate the environmental effects of its project.” The Reuse Authority has not imposed a charge on CSU; instead, FORA has sought a negotiated payment to mitigate specific impacts of campus growth, the court noted. “Nothing in San Marcos speaks to voluntary payments or purports to address or narrow any public agency’s duties under CEQA,” Werdegar wrote. The trustees further argued that mitigation was infeasible because they could not guarantee that FORA would actually implement the infrastructure improvements. But the court rejected the contention. “Both the CEQA Guidelines and judicial decisions recognize that a project proponent may satisfy its duty to mitigate its own portion of a cumulative environmental impact by contributing to a regional mitigation fund,” Werdegar wrote. The trustees cannot disclaim responsibility for making such payments until the trustees have at least requested funds from the Legislature, Werdegar wrote. In a concurring opinion, Justice Ming Chin warned that the six-justice majority was inserting an unnecessary limitation into CEQA law. He wrote that it is not clear that “a public agency has no responsibility or jurisdiction for a mitigation measure simply because the Legislature denies a specific request for money to pay for that mitigation measure.” In this case, the trustees could still contribute to FORA from CSU’s general operating fund, Chin wrote. Indeed, FORA attorney Damon said the court did not go as far as it could have. It did not provide direction on settling potential impact fee negotiation impasses between FORA and CSU. Plus, the court gave the impression that only the Legislature may authorize money for mitigation measures when in fact universities have a variety of funding sources, she said. Potes-Fellow, of CSU, said trustees will now ask for environmental mitigation funds when submitting capital funding requests to the Legislature. “We will be facing the same situation in any future campus construction,” she said. The Case: City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California State University , No. S117816, 06 C.D.O.S. 6905, 2006 DJDAR 9917. Filed July 31, 2006. The Lawyers: For Marina: Sheri Damon, Lombardo & Gilles, (831) 754-2444. For CSU: Basil Shiber, Miller, Starr & Regalia, (925) 935-9400.

The Coastal Act does not protect views of the coast from off-shore locations, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. In a case from San Luis Obispo County, the court ruled that the Coastal Commission did not have authority to require that a proposed house be relocated and downsized to protect the views of boaters and surfers. The ruling is a setback for the Coastal Commission, which has increasingly sought to preserve views from offshore, especially in remote areas. At issue is a house proposed by landowner Dennis Schneider for a 40-arce parcel along the Harmony Coast, between Cambria and Morro Bay. Six years ago, the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission approved a coastal development permit (CDP) for a 10,000-square-foot house, a barn and a 1.25-mile-long driveway from Highway 1. Two members of the Coastal Commission appealed the decision, and four years later the state panel approved the CDP but added new conditions. The Coastal Commission found that the project would be visible from the ocean. So the Commission insisted that the project be relocated to a higher elevation away from a marine terrace, that all development be confined to 5,000 square feet, that the barn be dropped from the project, and that the driveway be moved. Schneider sued, arguing that the Commission has no authority to impose development conditions to protect views of the coast from offshore. San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Judge Roger Picquet ruled for the Commission, but the Second District, Division Six, overturned that decision. The Coastal Commission argued that a portion of the Coastal Act, specifically, Public Resources Code § 30251, mandates protection of scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas. The Commission noted that the statute does not mention a vantage point. During the hearing regarding Schneider’s project and at other times, Coastal Commission Executive Director Peter Douglas contended that the agency has a responsibility to protect views from the sea to the coast. But the Second District determined, “This expansive reading of the statute stretches the fabric too thin.” Historically, the protection of scenic coastal views from public parks, roads, trails and vista points has been regulators’ aim, the court determined. “” e believe that it is unreasonable to assume that the Legislature has ever sought to protect the occasional boater’s views of the coastline at the expense of a coastal landowner,” Justice Kenneth Yegan wrote for the court. The Coastal Commission reviewed the CDP based on policies in San Luis Obispo County’s Local Coastal Program (LCP), which protect views from Highway 1 and other inland areas, the court noted. “Neither § 30251 nor the LCP support an unwritten policy to protect scenic views of the coast from offshore, ocean-based vantage points. The LCP protects ‘major public view corridors,’ not offshore views by the occasional boater, kayaker or surfer. Such an ocean-based view corridor would change minute by minute depending on where the boater, kayaker or fisher happens to be,” Yegan wrote. However, the court did not go so far as to reinstate the original permit approved by the county, and, instead, ordered the Commission to reconsider the CDP. The court noted that the proposed project would be visible from a park and other land-based view corridors, and the Coastal Commission had added conditions to address that impact. The Case: , No. B186149, 06 C.D.O.S. 5997, 2006 DJDAR 8429. Filed June 28, 2006. The Lawyers: For Schneider: James Burling and Lawrence Salzman, Pacific Legal Foundation, (916) 419-7111. For the Commission: Rosana Miramontes, attorney general’s office, (213) 897-2000.

Building homes around publicly accessible lakes may be the new gold mines in California's Sierra Nevada foothills. The unincorporated community of Copperopolis in western Calaveras County has just such a water feature in Lake Tulloch, and, not surprisingly, the area is experiencing a growth boom. The county has already approved approximately 5,000 residential parcels that remain unbuilt. In addition, Central California development heavyweight Castle & Cooke is building a new town square and in August submitted paperwork for two new projects totaling 2,100 units. A controversial 300-unit housing and golf course project is pending, as is a different plan for lakefront condominiums. Meanwhile, a community plan that forecasts a nearly ten-fold increase in population to 40,000 remains in limbo. "With the amount of development that is coming to Copperopolis and just around the lake, we're going to wind up with a city five times the size of Sonora. But there just isn't any infrastructure yet," said Connie Williams, who heads the Lake Tulloch Alliance. The Lake Tulloch group is one of many that, in recent months, has helped form the Calaveras Planning Coalition. The coalition is urging the county to overhaul its general plan, which was last updated in 1996. But Ward La Valley, a coalition coordinator, said the current general plan is a 1980s-style plan that provides "open season for all the wrong kind of development." In addition, growth is one of the primary issues in the campaign for the county supervisor's seat representing Copperopolis. But the race is unusual in that the challenger appears to be the more overtly pro-development candidate. First-term incumbent Supervisor Victoria Erickson has rolled out a number of proposals to protect Lake Tulloch and is taking a measured stance on growth. Her opponent, Russ Thomas, is a former Stanislaus County planning commissioner who has headed the Copperopolis Community Plan Update Committee, which did not embrace Lake Tulloch growth restrictions. Like a number of counties with territory in the Sierra Nevada foothills, Calaveras is seeing an influx of retirees from urban areas, wealthy people buying second homes, and even some long-distance commuters. And because there is only one small incorporated city — Angels Camp — nearly all of the newcomers to the county of 45,000 people are locating in unincorporated areas. Copperopolis, a 19th century gold and copper mining town on Highway 4, is one of the top destinations. The demographics certainly have the attention of Castle & Cooke. Among the company's projects are a new town square, buildout of the 1,150-unit Saddle Creek subdivision, and the newly proposed 1,500-unit Copper Valley Ranch and 600-unit Sawmill Lake projects. "We see this as a very critical region in California," said Paul Stein, vice president of land planning for Castle & Cooke Calaveras. "We're close to several million baby boomers in the Bay Area and the Central Valley who will be retiring in the next few years." From Copperopolis, people can make day trips to the foothills wine country, ski slopes at Bear Valley, and even the Bay Area, he said. Stein, a former county supervisor who served two years as chief deputy director of the state Department of Fish and Game in the Schwarzenegger administration, said Castle & Cooke is taking a long-term, community-building approach. That is why even before there are enough residences nearby to justify it, the town square project is under construction, Stein said. The 27-acre project will feature wide sidewalks, a post office and about 20 buildings with upwards of 200,000 square feet of space for retail shops, professional services and second-floor residential uses. "We're looking out 10 to 20 years," Stein said. "We want to re-create the old town center concept where people lived in town." Castle & Cooke as well as other developers are also enticed by 67,000-acre-foot Lake Tulloch, a reservoir operated by two Central Valley irrigation districts. Stretches of the lakeshore are lined with homes, some of which extend over the water. Castle & Cooke and other developers would like to build more lakeshore homes. That concerns the Lake Tulloch Alliance, which fears the waterway could easily get overrun by boaters. Another concern regards the extensive use of septic systems above the lake level. The group would like to see the county designate remaining lakefront land for 20-acre minimum parcel sizes and prohibit large-scale use of septic systems. Supervisor Erickson conceded that infrastructure is "a huge issue" in Copperopolis. But, she said, the Calaveras County Water District has adopted a good master plan for sewer and water service, and planners are now looking at possible routes for new roads. "The developers are going to have to realize that a lot of this infrastructure they are going to have to put in themselves," said Erickson, who commended the area's developers as responsible citizens. Erickson also said that preparation of a new general plan is essential. "The key thing is, as we grow, we need to maintain our rural character. That's going to be the big fight," said Erickson, noting the number of newly created citizen groups. "They are afraid we are going to lose that small-town character." Stein recommended preparation of a master plan for all potential development in the area, an idea Erickson endorsed. The draft community plan, though, is something of a touchy subject. The plan envisions an eventual population of 40,000 in the greater Copperopolis Basin, which now has fewer than 5,000 residents. Still, the county general plan would permit upwards of 100,000 people. The plan committee submitted the draft plan a year ago. County planners and attorneys identified flaws, Erickson said, so the county has commissioned an independent consultant's review, which should become public this month. Hearings will follow. "That community plan is a vital piece of the future of the Copperopolis Basin," she said. Thomas, however, said the plan received wide public input and that Erickson has delayed it for no good reason. The plan would help retain the look and feel of Copperopolis, he contended. "I personally think that it's far better for California to grow here than to continue to gobble up peach orchards and grape vineyards in the Central Valley," Thomas said. Neighboring Tuolumne County, which contains a piece of Lake Tulloch, has avoided the growth battles that are breaking out next door. Tuolumne County's lake frontage is steeper, and the county has zoned the area agricultural, with 37-acre minimum lot sizes. Plus, there is virtually no infrastructure, noted Tuolumne County Community Development Director Bev Shane. Tuolumne did sue Calaveras in 2004 over road impacts from the 2,600-unit Oak Canyon Ranch project. Litigation was settled with an agreement for the developer to fund road improvements in Tuolumne. Contacts: Victoria Erickson, Calaveras County supervisor, (209) 304-7374. Russ Thomas, Copperopolis Community Plan Committee, (209) 785-2020. Paul Stein, Castle & Cooke, (209) 785-8553. Ward La Valley, Calaveras Planning Coalition, (209) 754-3317. Lake Tulloch Alliance: www.laketulloch.org Calaveras County Planning Department: www.co.calaveras.ca.us/departments/planning.asp

Although it's city that has been in the redevelopment business since 1948, San Francisco has recently created its largest redevelopment project area. The new, 1,300-acre Bayview Hunters Point project might also be the most controversial redevelopment project in a city where land use planning and development are always contentious. The Bayview Hunters Point project area differs from more traditional redevelopment projects in that its top priority is housing. In fact, the city has committed 50% of tax increment revenue to housing for very low-, low- and moderate-income residents. That could amount to more than $90 million for housing over the next 45 years. The city also has set a goal that 25% of all new housing in the project area be affordable. State law requires only that 20% of tax increment go for housing, and that 15% of new units in a project area be affordable. San Francisco's redevelopment agency has made housing - including a policy of "no net loss" of affordable units in project areas - a major emphasis in recent years. Moreover, the city's definition of "affordable" is even tighter than required by state law, as rental housing must be affordable to people making 50% of median income, and for-sale units must be affordable to people with incomes equal to 100% of median. "It's not unusual for San Francisco," Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Marcia Rosen said of the Bayview project housing policy. "We devote 50% of net tax increment after pass-throughs to affordable housing. We do it in nearly every project area. San Francisco has an enormous affordability gap and enormous unmet needs." Still, the Bayview plan's ambitious housing policies have not been enough to win over large portions of the historically African-American Bayview Hunters Point community in the southeast corner of town. That's because Bayview residents have long memories. Prior to the 1960s, San Francisco's Western Addition was heavily populated by low-income African-Americans. But when the city undertook "urban renewal" style redevelopment, the city cleared away the homes of many African-American people to make room for projects serving wealthier people. A number of the Western Addition's residents relocated to Bayview Hunters Point, just north of Candlestick Point and east of the 101 freeway. Those people and their younger family members fear the city could undertake the same sort of clearance, followed by gentrification. The local San Francisco Bay View newspaper has been a leading opponent, contending that redevelopment will only help developers at the expense of existing residents. And even some city leaders have remained skeptical. The Board of Supervisors' vote to approve the project this spring was 6-3, with dissenters arguing the plan does not give adequate power to Bayview residents. But Rosen dismisses history as just that, and says the Bayview Hunters Point plan is "different from the urban renewal plans of old." Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, who represents Bayview Hunters Point, has been among the biggest supporters, arguing that the district has been depressed for too long. The plan is the result of 10 years of planning and hundreds of public meetings. Community members first decided on a vision statement, which emphasized the need for affordable housing, economic development and community enhancements. Those three issues became the cornerstones of the redevelopment plan. "This project area was 10 years in the making because it was a bottom-up, community planning process," Rosen said. The process was deliberately chosen to decrease public skepticism. Tim Colen, executive director of the San Francisco Housing Action Coalition, said the redevelopment agency deserves credit for addressing the city's affordable housing challenges. "It's surprising to me, given the tax increment devoted to affordable housing, how controversial the Bayview Hunters Point redevelopment project is. Affordability is at crisis levels right now," Colen said. "There's nervousness in the Bayview Hunters Point about people being forced out. But the redevelopment plan addresses that," Colen added. As in all of San Francisco, housing that poor and even middle-class families can afford is an issue in Bayview. Plus, because the area has relatively inexpensive real estate, it may be only a matter of time before developers gobble up chunks to build expensive, market-rate housing. The redevelopment plan intends to ensure that Bayview has a diverse social and economic mixture, Rosen said. "None of us can stop escalating rents or hoards of developers desperately trying to claim the last sizable lots of undeveloped land in San Francisco," Project Area Committee Chairman Angelo King wrote on the committee's website. "But I believe that community driven redevelopment can alter the change to benefit the indigenous people of the affected area." In fact, portions of Bayview might benefit from a touch of gentrification. In some neighborhoods, more than 80% of housing units are subsidized, according to Rosen. A "better blend" of housing could benefit those poor neighborhoods. One project that counts as both economic development and as a community enhancement is the planned Third Street light rail line. It would provide easy access from Bayview - which has long been somewhat isolated - to the Financial District and Mission Bay, where thousands of new jobs are being created. The new project area abuts a 9-year-old redevelopment project area that encompasses the Hunters Point shipyard, a closed Navy shipyard on the San Francisco Bay waterfront. The city has signed a master development agreement with Lennar that calls for revitalization of the shipyard, thousands of new housing units and extensive development of new industrial and commercial space. "We're really looking at two different kinds of redevelopment," Rosen said. "One is the transformative, economic use of a military base to a mixed-use neighborhood. The second is a much more modest plan for a much larger area that is intended to revitalize the Bayview for the benefits of the residents and businesses that are already there. It is building on the assets that are there." Taken together, the redevelopment projects should have multiple benefits for the broader Bayview Hunters Point district, she said. Contacts: Marcia Rosen, San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, (415) 749-2588. Tim Colen, San Francisco Housing Action Coalition, (415) 541-9001. Bayview Hunters Point Project Area website: www.sfgov.org/site/sfra_page.asp?id=5581 Bayview Hunters Point Project Area Committee website: www.bvhp-pac.org

In a decision handed down shortly before the state Supreme Court opinion on California State University project impacts, an appellate court ruled that a San Diego community college district is responsible for off-campus traffic impacts caused by campus expansion. Much like the state Supreme Court, the Fourth District Court of Appeal said the 20-year-old decision in San Marcos Water Dist. v. San Marcos Unified School Dist. , (1986) 42 Cal.3d 154, was “inapplicable” because it involved a special assessment for capital facilities, not a school’s obligations under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). “We conclude that the district’s mitigation obligation under CEQA is not a prohibited special assessment, and the district’s claim that it lacks legislative authorization to mitigate its project’s significant adverse off-campus traffic impacts is unsupported by the administrative record or applicable law,” the court ruled. At issue are a master plan and environmental impact report adopted in 2004 by the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District calling for an expansion and remodeling of the Cuyamaca College campus in Rancho San Diego. The various construction projects would permit student enrollment to grow from about 8,000 to 15,000 by 2015. As in the California State University, Monterey Bay, case, the community college district denied responsibility for off-campus traffic impacts and adopted a statement of overriding considerations because of the unmitigated impacts. San Diego County sued, arguing that the traffic mitigations in the EIR were inadequate and that adoption of the statement of overriding considerations did not excuse failure to include mitigation measures. San Diego County Superior Court Judge Linda Quinn ruled for the college, but a unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth District, Division One, overturned the lower court. The community college district presented many of the same arguments that CSU made to the state Supreme Court. The community college district argued that mitigating traffic impacts was not feasible because the county has exclusive jurisdiction over the roads, the district cannot assure necessary road improvements would be implemented, construction is constrained by limited rights-of-way, and the district cannot “lawfully pay for the off-site traffic improvements.” The district contended that Education Code § 14020.1 prohibits community college districts from spending money for off-site street improvements. The Fourth District, however, ruled that § 14020.1 constrains only a portion of state funds provided to the district. “ he district accepts its responsibility under CEQA to mitigate significant impacts on air quality, aesthetics and visual quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, paleontology and noise,” Justice Gilbert Nares wrote for the court. “The district does not explain how expenditure of funds to mitigate these project-related environmental impacts is permitted if, as it claims, the district is only authorized to spend funds on educational services.” The court determined that other sections of the Education Code make clear that any funds available to the district may be spent to provide community college facilities — and that the district must comply with CEQA. “In our view, expenditure of the district’s funds on off-campus road and intersection improvements designed to accommodate the increased volume of student and faculty vehicular traffic to and from the Cuyamaca College campus that the project will generate is implicitly authorized by § 81800 of the Community College Construction Act of 1980 and pertinent regulations. Specifically, the CEQA Guidelines are expressly adopted as part of the regulations promulgated to implement the Community College Construction Act of 1980,” Nares wrote. The court found the district’s arguments based on San Marcos and subsequent legislation regarding capital improvement assessments on school districts (Government Code § 54999) to be “unavailing” because neither the court case nor the legislation makes any mention of CEQA. The court further rejected the district’s claim that traffic mitigation is economically infeasible, because “the administrative record contains no estimate of the cost of the district’s proportional share of the off-campus traffic mitigation measures identified in the final EIR.” Because it concluded the district’s handling of mitigation measures was inadequate, the court did not even consider the statement of overriding considerations. Instead, the court invalidated the EIR and master plan. The Case: County San Diego v. Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District , No. D046728, 06 C.D.O.S. 6144, 2006 DJDAR 8939. Filed July 7, 2006. The Lawyers; For the county: C. Ellen Pilsecker, county counsel’s office, (619) 531-4860. For the community college district: Kevin P. Sullivan, Stephenson, Worley, Garratt, Schwartz, Garfield & Prairie, (619) 696-3500.

I mean no disrespect to the developers of Liberty Station when I suggest that they would have to go out of their way to screw up this elegantly organized project. No disrespect, because the developers — a joint venture of the San Diego Redevelopment Agency and a local developer called the Corky McMillin Companies — have done of good job of leaving well enough alone. They started out with a site, the former Naval Training Center near downtown San Diego, that was already well designed. After installing a single-family neighborhood, a large retail and arts district, some acreage for hotels and some others for educational uses, the site remains attractive and well-organized, because the developers pretty much stuck to the original lines of a 1920’s site plan. There is an implied moral here about the value of starting out with good planning, but I’ll spare you the lecture for the time being. Suffice it to say that the former Naval Training Center, now known as Liberty Station, may be the most city-friendly ex-military base — even more so, in some ways, than the Presidio in San Francisco. The Naval Training Center had a long life for a California military base, having been built originally in 1921 (and expanded incrementally thereafter) until being listed on Base Realignment and Closure roster of 1993 and hearing its last reveille in 1997. Before that time, the NTC had been one of the largest training grounds for the Navy, peaking at 33,000 servicemen during World War II, when one-sixth of the nation’s fleet was based in San Diego. All that is historic enough, but design, rather than history, is of the most interest here. While I do not know exactly how it happened, a classically trained architect, or somebody who knew how to imitate one, designed the original Naval Training Center. At that time, the best architecture schools in the country were heavily influenced by the design principles and teaching methods alike of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris. (Among the architects receiving that training was Louis K. Kahn, a student at the University of Pennsylvania during the 1920’s who would design the highly formal Salk Institute, probably the finest 20th Century building in California, near the La Jolla campus of University of California, San Diego.) Following the basic Beaux-Arts design principles, the entire base is designed as a single, unified campus with a clearly indicated hierarchy differentiating the most important buildings from the less important ones. The composition is strongly axial, meaning all the buildings and open spaces are organized along broad avenues. As we can see from the aerial photograph of 1924, the big administrative buildings are in front, followed by a set of free-standing barracks buildings, with clearly marked open spaces, known in the military as “grinders,” for calisthenics or dress corps. One of the green spaces by the ship channel is a four-hole golf course (much enlarged now) where Ben Hogan and Billy Casper were known to have taken a swing or two, according to McMillin’s website. When we jump 85 years forward into present time, we can truly appreciate the original design. I have not been making so much fuss about the original design because I am nostalgic for the Beaux-Arts, which H.L. Mencken, ever on the watch for phoniness, liked to lampoon as the “Bozart.” Instead, it is the versatility and flexibility of the old design that I favor. It has provided a bunch of clues for organizing Liberty Station into what is shaping up to be a very good-looking urban district. As in many successful base conversions, a long planning process preceded construction. After the Pentagon conveyed the former naval training station in 1998, the city assigned the redevelopment agency the task of base planning. With the intent of controlling the future direction of the base, redevelopment officials specified the land uses, square-footages and massing. With a very limited budget of public money for the project, the redevelopment agency spent four years in a careful planning process, then invited developers to bid on the entire base. The developers had to be willing to put their own money into infrastructure, and they would be reimbursed down the line by tax-increment revenues. In exchange for the risk, the developer would receive ownership of 60 acres of residentially zoned land. The commercial, educational and recreational areas remain the property of the City of San Diego. Homebuilder McMillin is completing construction on 349 residential units arranged in three separate neighborhoods and consisting of single-family homes, row-house-style units and a condominium complex. At least 80% of the housing has been built, and more than half of it is already sold. McMillin Companies contracted with Huntington Hotel Group to develop a resort property with two hotels of 150 and 200 rooms, respectively, and to restyle the U.S.S. Recruit, in dry dock, for meeting and ballrooms spaces. McMillan also brought in retail developer Craig Clark to make a 150,000-square-foot shopping center out of historic buildings. As at the Presidio, the presence of historic buildings by the dozens is both an advantage and disadvantage to the developers (see , August 2005). The advantage is that many of the buildings are good-looking and probably could not be replicated. The disadvantage, of course, is that the buildings are technologically obsolete and not easily rehabilitated. “It’s much more expensive to do an adaptive-reuse job on a building than to do new construction,” says developer Clark. Some of the buildings that cannot be easily adapted to commercial use may work for the arts and non-profit sectors. Liberty Station includes 125 acres to be operated as a cultural resource by the non-profit NTC Foundation. Liberty Station is a project that integrates well with existing city streets (one arguable advantage over the Presidio) while giving the city a new waterfront park on the ship channel. Two layers of planning –the original Beaux-Art design and the redevelopment agency’s land-use plan—are two main sources of its success. Duck! Here comes the moral: Good planning actually works, making it possible to reuse the same site two or three generations after original development. As they used to say, “Who’d a thunk?”

Voters in three Bay Area counties have the opportunity in November to cement in place existing policies that steer nearly all growth to cities and away from unincorporated territory. Measures in Contra Costa and Solano counties appear to face limited opposition, but an initiative that would increase parcel sizes and require voters to decide rezoning of some agricultural land and hillsides in Santa Clara County appears to be drawing stiffer protests. A number of environmental groups are behind the Santa Clara County Land Conservation Initiative, which aims to limit development sharply on 400,000 acres of unincorporated hillsides and rangeland. Backers say the initiative is necessary to strengthen the existing county general plan, which already limits most development in the targeted areas. Opponents say the measure would unnecessarily harm farmers’ property values and would place too many subjective standards in the general plan. Those are familiar arguments in local fights over preserving farmland and open space. Also sounding familiar are arguments in eight counties regarding proposed sales tax measures to fund transportation projects. In other local elections this fall, voters are scheduled to decide: • A $1 billion housing bond in Los Angeles, the largest local housing bond in history. • A Newport Beach initiative that would put most development projects in front of voters. • A plan to create an open space district in Napa County, and a proposal to extend a Sonoma County sales tax to fund open space acquisition. • Measures that directly or indirectly decide the fate of housing proposals in the Bay Area cities of Fremont, Brisbane, Pacifica and Cupertino, and in the City of Shasta Lake in far Northern California. The Santa Clara County situation is similar to that in Ventura County leading up to passage of the Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources initiatives during the late 1990s (see , December 1998, September 1998). In both cases, county growth policies steered growth to cities, but activists argued the Board of Supervisors could change course and open up new territory for development. The Santa Clara County initiative would rezone hillsides with at least 10% slopes and designated ranchlands to 160-acre minimum lot sizes, and keep large-scale agriculture lots to a minimum of 40 acres. The lengthy measure addresses permitted uses in hillside, ranchland and agricultural areas, and imposes additional restrictions to protect stream corridors, wildlife habitat and forests. The measure is largely the work of retired Stanford law professor Robert Girard and environmental advocate Peter Drekmeier, both of whom are longtime growth-control warriors. A coalition of the Sierra Club, Greenbelt Alliance and the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society called People for Land and Nature (PLAN) is leading the campaign. On the other side are the Santa Clara County Association of Realtors, the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau, the Home Builders Association of Northern California (HBANC) and hillside property owners groups. What the two sides can agree on is that there currently is very little development in the targeted areas. Over the last 10 years, Santa Clara County has issued an average of 70 building permits annually for rural areas, according to Jenny Derry, executive director of the Farm Bureau. The two sides diverge on the likely future of those same lands without the initiative. “We’re seeing increasing pressure to build out onto the ranchlands and hillsides, and we’re seeing increasing threats such as the Richard Pombo freeway from the Central Valley into the Silicon Valley that would open up some of the Mount Hamilton rangelands, ” Drekmeier said. Indeed, U.S. Rep. Pombo (R-Tracy) has floated the idea of building a freeway from Interstate 5 through the Diablo Range to Highway 101. Drekmeier, a Palo Alto city councilman who heads up PLAN, said the initiative only strengthens the existing county general plan by ensuring the Board of Supervisors does not approve amendments permitting large-scale development in rural areas without voter consent. Opponents say the threat of development in remote rural areas is overstated. “Very little is built in the hillside areas,” said Beverly Bryant, executive director HBANC’s southern division. She called Measure A “a solution in search of a problem.” Although builders do little business in the targeted areas, they oppose the measure because it would restrict property rights and lock in policies that may need to evolve over the long-term as cities try to accommodate growth, Bryant said. Plus, development in cities is not always popular either, she said, pointing to two condominium project referendums on the ballot in the City of Cupertino. Derry said the measure would hurt farmers because it would devalue their most important business asset — their land — and because it would prevent them from building a couple houses for family members on farms. Moreover, farming is not always practical in an urban county such as Santa Clara, where residents complain about smelly and noisy agricultural operations, she said. Measure A “purports to save farming and ranching in Santa Clara County, but it was written without input from us,” Derry said. “That seems disingenuous to not include the people who will be most affected.” A better approach would be that taken by The Nature Conservancy and the Silicon Valley Land Trust, which buy conservation easements from landowners, she said. Drekmeier countered that the entire Highway 101 corridor — where most urban-ag conflicts occur — is untouched by Measure A. “We shopped the initiative around to a lot of different groups. It’s been three years in the making, so we think we have a very good product,” he said. In Contra Costa County, a proposed urban growth boundary is a follow-up to a 2004 transportation sales tax, in which voters required the county and cities to adopt “mutually agreed upon, voter approved” growth boundaries to receive a cut of sales tax revenues. The county and cities negotiated unsuccessfully for months, and last November Antioch, Pittsburg and Brentwood put their own boundary measures on local ballots. Antioch and Pittsburg voters approved their respective city boundaries, which are more expansive than the county favored. Although the county boundary on the ballot this November follows the voter-approved lines for Antioch and Pittsburg, the county boundary overall is similar to one that has been in place since the 1990s. Under the measure on the ballot in November, expanding the boundary by more than 30 acres will require an election, and the county will review the boundary every five years. In Solano County, an initiative would extend the existing Orderly Growth Initiative until 2036. First approved by voters in 1984, the policy prohibits most development on land zoned for agriculture, watershed or open space. This is “an important time” for Solano County, said Amanda Brown-Stevens, field director for Greenbelt Alliance, which endorses the initiative. The existing policy “has made a difference. Without this, the sprawl potential will be that much greater. If it is locked in for 30 years, it will send a strong message about city-centered growth.” Bob Glover, HBANC eastern division executive director, said the organization has taken a neutral position on the Contra Costa and Solano measures because they simply maintain the status quo and would have minimal impact on overall home production. Contacts: Peter Drekmeier, People for Land and Nature, (650) 223-3333. Jenny Derry, Santa Clara County Farm Bureau, (408) 776-1684. Beverly Bryant, Home Builders Association of Northern California, (408) 977-1490. Amanda Brown-Stevens, Greenbelt Alliance, (415) 543-6771. Pro-Measure A website: http://openspace2006.org Anti-Measure A website: http://votenoonmeasurea.com Alameda County Voters will decide on a $5 million bond to expand the fire station and add “sustainable building features” to the civic center complex. Measure C requires two-thirds voter approval. • To accommodate the proposed development of five sports fields, Measure F would amend the voter-approved waterfront specific plan to make public or commercial recreation facilities by-right uses. • Measure I would allow greater conversion of apartments to condominiums and reduce affordable housing requirements for conversions. • Measure J is an initiative that would keep in place the city’s rigorous system of historic preservation. The city has considered weakening some of the provisions. • Measure K would rezone land near Coyote Hills Regional Park to agriculture. The initiative is an attempt to block a proposed 800-unit housing development on the Patterson Ranch. • A $30 million bond would preserve open space and create parks in Castro Valley. Measure Q requires two-thirds approval. • A $148 million library bond would convert the recently closed Henry J. Kaiser Convention Center into a library and build new branch libraries. Two-thirds vote required. • The fate of the Bernal property is again before voters, this time in the form of the “grand park” design approved by the City Council. Contra Costa County • A countywide urban growth boundary that is similar to existing limits goes before voters. • A $59.1 million bond would pay for road, storm drain and water main improvements. Two-thirds vote required. Fresno County • Measure C calls for the renewal of a half-cent sales tax for transportation for 20 years. The county’s existing half-cent tax was approved by only a majority of voters in 1986 and is scheduled to expire in 2007. Two-thirds vote required. Kern County • A half-cent sales tax for 20 years would raise about $1 billion for transportation projects. Two-thirds 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, across from the Westfield mall — are on the ballot. One measure would prohibit paid parking in large commercial centers; the second would bar billboards on the race track property. • A $1 billion housing bond would provide $750 million for grants and loans to developers of affordable housing and $250 million for home-purchase assistance. Two-thirds vote required. • Measure A calls for the renovation of the Rose Bowl so that it may be leased to a pro football team. Marin County • A quarter-cent sales tax would provide funds to build and operate a 70-mile commuter rail line from Cloverdale in northern Sonoma County to Larkspur in southern Marin County, where a ferry provides transportation to San Francisco. Two-thirds vote required. Merced County • A half-cent sales tax for 30 years to fund transportation projects returns to the ballot after losing narrowly in June. Measure A requires a two-thirds vote. Napa County • Voters are scheduled to decide whether to create the Napa County Regional Park and Open Space District. Orange County • Measure M would raise nearly $12 billion over 30 years for transportation projects by extending an existing half-cent sales tax. It took three tries for the existing tax, which expires in 2011, to pass with a majority vote. A two-thirds vote is required this time. • The Greenlight II initiative would require 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 is a follow-up to a 2000 measure that requires votes on certain projects exceeding general plan provisions. Sacramento County • A quarter-cent sales tax increase for 15 years would fund development of a downtown Sacramento basketball arena and other public facilities. Because tax proceeds are not specifically earmarked in the ballot measure, only a majority vote is required. San Bernardino County • A county-crafted ballot measure would prohibit the county from using eminent domain to acquire property for the purpose of transferring it to another private entity. San Diego County • In an advisory election, voters will be asked whether they 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. • Two ballot measures regarding the “strawberry fields” just east of Interstate 5 are on the ballot. A citizens initiative would designate the 320-acre area as agricultural; a City Council alternative would designate most of the area as regional open space but would permit commercial development on 48 acres near the freeway. • A half-cent sales tax for 30 years would pay for a new civic center, fire stations, sports fields and upgrades to the city-owned amphitheater. Because the measure does not specifically earmark revenues, only a majority approval is required. • A measure backed by Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval would require 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. San Joaquin County • Measure K calls for a 30-year renewal of an existing half-cent sales tax for transportation, which expires in 2011. Two county supervisors are campaigning against the extension because they say the tax has not provided the promised benefits. Two-thirds vote required. San Luis Obispo • After losing a City of San Luis Obispo referendum election last year (see CP&DR Election News, June 2005), property owner Ernie Dalidio has taken his plan for 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 directly to county voters. San Mateo County • A one-eighth-cent sales tax would provide about $16 million annually over 25 years to fund open space acquisition, and parks improvement and maintenance. Two-thirds vote required. • The City Council has asked voters to decide on a proposal to close Guadalupe Valley Quarry and replace it with 173 units of housing. • Measure H calls for $44 million in bonds to improve “under capacity flood control infrastructure” and retrofit city buildings for seismic safety and disabled access. Two-thirds vote required. • An advisory measure asks whether the city should construct 17 acres of sports fields at the 160-acre Bayfront Park. • Measure L would permit the development of about 350 housing units and a 350-room hotel at Rockaway Quarry. Voters have rejected previous development proposals for the site. Santa Clara County • Measure A is the “Land Conservation Initiative.” • Separate referendums of two condominium projects are on the ballot — a 134-unit development proposed adjacent to Vallco Fashion Park, and a 380-unit proposal for surplus Hewlett Packard land. The city approved the projects in March (see CP&DR Local Watch, May 2006). Santa Cruz County • The Measure I “sustainable growth” initiative would prohibit the city from providing services for University of California growth unless the university fully mitigates all impacts of that growth. A related measure (Measure J) would require voter approval for the city to extend sewer and water services beyond current city boundaries, including to the UC campus. Shasta County • An initiative would rezone an area of town, now zoned for three housing units per acre, to permit only one house per 2 acres. The initiative would block a proposal from developer Jaxon Baker to build 170 units on 120 acres. Sonoma County • A quarter-cent sales tax would provide funds to build and operate a 70-mile commuter rail line through Sonoma and Marin counties. Two-thirds vote required. • Also on the ballot is the extension of an existing quarter-cent sales tax to fund acquisitions by the county’s Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District. Stanislaus County • Measure K would impose a half-cent sales tax for transportation for 30 years. Nearly all of the $1 billion the measure would generate would go for highways and roads. Two-thirds vote required. Tulare County • The county’s first half-cent sales tax for transportation would generate about $650 million over 30 years. Yolo County • Voters will decide whether they want to amend city regulations to permit construction of a 136,000-square-foot Target store.

A decade ago, a team of federal scientists and researchers unveiled the most comprehensive report card ever compiled on the ecological health of the sprawling Sierra Nevada region. At about the same time, the Sierra Business Council released a landmark survey of its own, the first Sierra Nevada Wealth Index, which painted a comprehensive portrait of the communities scattered up and down the mountain range. The prognosis they delivered was not a hopeful one. The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project report — 2,000 pages of information about the environment, society and economy of the region, assembled over two and a half years by more than 120 researchers at a cost to the federal government of $6.4 million — identified disturbing trends: increasing fire risk, diminishing forest and woodland, worsening air and water quality. The Sierra Business Council’s index added a human dimension to the bad news: rapid population growth, inadequate planning and public services, and widespread poverty and illiteracy. Over the next 10 years, proposals to address some of those issues in a coordinated, regional fashion bubbled up periodically. The most ambitious of those, creation of a state agency charged with promoting the well-being of the Sierra Nevada region, reached a milestone this summer when that agency adopted a strategic plan and set of project goals to guide its work over the next five years. As is to be expected from a document that took nearly two years to produce and involved comments and contributions collected from hundreds of individuals during public meetings up and down the state, the Sierra Nevada Conservancy’s new strategic plan is long on lofty generalities and short on specifics. And those qualities hint at the very real challenges facing the conservancy, which has been assigned to coordinate a daunting array of efforts across a region united more by wishful thinking and symbolism than by common interests, challenges and needs. The Sierra Nevada Conservancy was established two years ago by legislation authored by Assemblymen John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) and Tim Leslie (R-Roseville) (see , September 2004). Upon signing the bill, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared it “a major milestone” that would ensure that “our children and grandchildren, visitors from far and wide, will see and enjoy the same Sierra Nevada that we value so much today.” It became the ninth state conservancy, joining a list that already included the Baldwin Hills, California Tahoe, Coachella Valley Mountains, San Diego River, San Gabriel & Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains, San Joaquin River, Santa Monica Mountains, and State Coastal conservancies. The conservancies are independent government agencies that exist primarily to funnel money from bonds, the state’s general fund and private contributions toward acquisition and protection of land for wildlife habitat, recreation, open space and resource conservation. They are overseen by boards appointed by state and local lawmakers and department heads. For the most part, their authority is focused on well-defined and cohesive geographical units: a 22-mile stretch of the San Joaquin River, for example, or the watershed of the San Gabriel and Los Angeles rivers. The Sierra Nevada Conservancy, however, is a creature of decidedly different aspirations and character. The conservancy’s territory encompasses a quarter of the state — 25 million acres — and a staggering array of ecosystems, landforms and communities, from crown-jewel national parks to desolate lava beds, from alpine streams and glaciers to low-elevation dams and reservoirs, from decrepit logging towns and high-desert ranching communities to Mother Lode tourist traps, foothill retirement havens and lakeside playgrounds for wealthy vacation-home owners. Even the name is a bit misleading. The northern part of the conservancy’s territory is not technically part of the Sierra Nevada at all; the section from Lassen Peak north lies in the Cascades and the Modoc Plateau. And on the east, the boundary runs along the crest of the White-Inyo range, which is on the Nevada border and is separated from the Sierra by the Owens Valley and Mono Basin. The region is united mostly by its significance to the rest of the state. Only about 640,000 people live within its boundaries (although that figure is expected to triple by 2040), but the Sierra Nevada produces 65% of California’s water supply, and without it, there would be no Los Angeles, no Bay Area, no Central Valley farming empire. The range also provides about half the state’s timber. And the Sierra contains the natural icons that define California in the popular imagination: Yosemite’s waterfalls, Sequoia’s giant trees, the blue gem that is Lake Tahoe (although that watershed has its own conservancy). Trying to develop a coordinated approach to economic development, environmental protection and land conservation over such a large and diverse landscape will not be easy. Yet that is the challenge assigned to the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, which is directed by its establishing legislation to expand recreation and tourism, protect natural and cultural resources, preserve farms and ranches, reduce fire risk, protect air and water quality, and somehow ensure that economic development and environmental protection will not conflict with each other. And it must do this without legal authority to hold title to land, condemn property, regulate land use or interfere with existing water rights. It does have some money, although not a lot: The state budget Schwarzenegger signed June 30 includes $3.9 million for the conservancy’s work and staffing. "The final draft of the strategic plan includes a clear statement about the important role the conservancy must play in protecting the natural resources of the Sierra, and reflects a grassroots democratic philosophy of working across a broad range of constituents and interests," said Elizabeth Martin, a former Nevada County supervisor and chief executive officer of The Sierra Fund. "We are proud of the work that the conservancy has done on this document.” The strategic plan approved by the conservancy’s board on July 20 fleshes out the legislative goals a bit and introduces a lot of talk about collaboration, cooperation and partnerships. That’s to be expected, given the jurisdictional jigsaw puzzle within the conservancy’s area of authority: 20 incorporated cities, 22 counties, 40 special districts and 212 communities, along with Native American tribes, the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service. This initial plan also focuses mainly on acquiring and disseminating information, and finding out what communities in the conservancy planning area want to know so they can plan better. Contacts: Sierra Nevada Conservancy strategic plan: www.sierranevadaconservancy.ca.gov/ Jim Branham, Sierra Nevada conservancy, (530) 823-4672. Elizabeth Martin, The Sierra Fund, (530) 265-8454, ext. 11.

A mitigated negative declaration for a never-built project cannot be used for a subsequent, similar project proposed for the same site, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court rejected the City of Placerville’s use of a seven-year-old mitigated negative declaration with a new addendum for a proposed hotel and retail development. The court ruled that projects proposed for the same site in 1997 and 2004 were unrelated, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) required an independent review of the latest proposal. For two decades, various developers have pitched projects for the 8.2-acre site — in a rural residential area just north of Highway 50 in the Gold Rush city — involved in this case. In 1986, the city approved a 100-unit motel for a portion of the property. Two years later, the city approved a 104-unit motel, restaurants, banquet facilities, lounge, retail area and gas station for the property. Nothing got built, and when the proponent resubmitted plans for the latter project in 1995, the city said no. In 1997, the city approved the North Point project consisting of a 106-unit motel, restaurants, and a gas station with a convenience store and car wash. The project also involved a new road to provide better Highway 50 access. The city approved the project based on a mitigated negative declaration that said potentially significant impacts — such as increased runoff, traffic, noise, light and glare, and intrusion into wetlands — could be offset to less than significant levels. Again, no development occurred. In 2004, developer Edward Mackay submitted plans for a 102-room Holiday Inn Express with convention facilities, plus a gas station with a large convenience store and a carwash. The Gateway proposal also included the access road and extensive grading, including the filling of 1.4 acres of seasonal wetlands and realignment of a drainage channel traversing the wetlands. The city prepared an initial study and mitigated negative declaration for the project. A group called Save Our Neighborhood insisted that the city should complete an environmental impact report. Instead, the city put together an addendum to the North Point mitigated negative declaration, saying the 2004 Gateway project involved only “minor changes” to the 1997 North Point project. In August 2004, the Placerville City Council approved the Gateway project, finding that the North Point mitigated negative declaration was still valid. Save Our Neighborhood sued, arguing that the city violated CEQA. El Dorado County Superior Court Judge James Wagoner ruled for the city. On appeal, the Third District overturned the lower court. A section of CEQA (Public Resources Code § 21166) and CEQA Guidelines § 15162 address the use of an already-prepared EIR or negative declaration when a project is being modified or conditions have changed. “The event of a change in a project,” the court explained, “is not an occasion to revisit environmental concerns laid to rest in the original analysis. Only changed circumstances, and any additional environmental impacts they cause, are at issue.” Save Our Neighborhood, though, argued that the projects were unrelated, and that Guidelines § 15162 did not contemplate a city using a previous environmental document for a different project. The city said the North Point and Gateway projects were related in that they both involved the same piece of land, mix of uses and proposed connector road. The city cited numerous cases in which courts have ruled that a new environmental review was not necessary when a project was modified years after its initial approval. But the Third District found that those cases “do not stand for the proposition that an addendum may be used if the project is replaced by another project that happens to be similar in nature. Each of the cases cited by respondents involved only one project that underwent changes after completion of the initial environmental review.” In fact, the city’s initial study for the Gateway project “made no mention of the North Point project,” Justice Harry Hull Jr. wrote for the court. “Only after the city met resistance from Save Our Neighborhood did it decide to treat the Gateway project as a modification of the North Point project.” Hull continued: “Although planned for the same land and involving similar mixes of uses, the North Point project and the Gateway project are different projects nonetheless. They have different proponents and there is no suggestion the latter project utilized any of the drawings or other materials connected with the earlier project as a basis for the new configuration of uses.” Concluding that the city violated CEQA by relying on an addendum to the North Point mitigated negative declaration, the court ordered the city to set aside approval of the Gateway project. The Case: , No. C049525, 06 C.D.O.S. 5863, 2006 DJDAR 8335. Filed June 28, 2006. The Lawyers: For Save Our Neighborhood: Stephan Volker, (510) 496-0600. For the City of Placerville: Whitman Manley, Remy, Thomas, Moose & Manley, (916) 443-2745.