The Newhall Ranch project has acquired a substantial new foe: The City of Los Angeles. And not a moment too soon for longtime project opponents. Newhall Ranch, of course, is a 21,000-unit, 12,000-acre project west of Santa Clarita that has been "in the planning stages" since the mid-1990s. In fact, the second story I ever wrote for CP&DR was about Newhall Ranch water supply issues (see CP&DR , January 1999 ). Newhall Land and Farming Company (now a subsidiary of Lennar) contends those water issues — as well as other concerns over species, traffic, air quality, etc. — have been resolved. Longtime opponents, lead by the Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment, have a different opinion. Los Angeles County approved the Newhall Ranch specific plan in 2003. Now, just as the project is headed to the Board of Supervisors for the first phase of entitlements, SCOPE has gained a major ally in the City of Los Angeles. On Tuesday, February 19, the City Council voted 14-0 for a motion to oppose the project, in large part because many future residents of Newhall Ranch would commute into Los Angeles proper on Interstate 5, which is already horribly clogged between Santa Clarita and the San Fernando Valley. You can read the motion crafted by Councilman Richard Alarcon here . It's an interesting motion for a variety of reasons, including its admission that the city "never reviewed or commented upon the county's environmental reports prior to the close of the county's comment period." Lawyers would call that a "bad fact;" nevertheless, it sounds like the city is gearing up for a lawsuit. What's before the Board of Supervisors on February 26 is approval of Landmark Village, the first phase of Newhall Ranch. Landmark Village entails 1,444 residential units, 1 million square feet of commercial and mixed uses, and extensive drainage and utility improvements on about 1,000 acres. Update: The Board of Supervisors did not consider Landmark Village on February 26, and probably won't do so until late May, according to a Newhall Ranch spokeswoman.   You can learn more than you ever wanted to know about the Landmark Village project at http://planning.lacounty.gov/spLandmark.htm. When I wrote that story for the January 1999 issue, I never envisioned that the project would still be going through the process more than nine years later. Anyone want to take bets on where the project will stand in 2017? - Paul Shigley

A ruling that could result in more plant and animal listings under the California Endangered Species Act will stand. The state Supreme Court on February 13 declined to review a decision by the Third District Court of Appeal, which held that "evolutionary significant units" of a species may qualify for protection, and that state officials need only consider a species' range within California. The California Forestry Association and the California Chamber of Commerce had asked the state Supreme Court to overturn the Third District decision. However, only Justice Marvin Baxter voted to accept the case. " he court's decision could expand the pool of species eligible for listing to include any population of the species irrespective of the size of that population, the ecological significance of that population, and the relationship of that population to the viability of the species as a whole," Paul Weiland, a Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott attorney who frequently represents the development industry, wrote in an analysis of the decision. The case concerned a California Fish and Game Commission decision regarding coho salmon. Nearly eight years ago, 10 environmental groups calling themselves the Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Coalition petitioned the Commission to list coho salmon north of San Francisco Bay as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The Department of Fish and Game, which advises the Commission, separately evaluated two coho units: the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast evolutionary unit, which populates waters from Punta Gorda (on the Humboldt County coast) into southern Oregon, and the Central Coast unit, which lives between Punta Gorda and Monterey Bay. The department found that both units qualified for protected status, and in August 2002 the Commission designated the Southern Oregon/North California Coast unit as threatened, and the Central Coast unit as endangered. After the department prepared a recovery plan, the Commission in August 2004 amended state regulations to reflect the listings. The recovery plan called for measures such as decreased pumping from rivers by farmers, and less logging near waterways. In June 2005, the Forestry Association, the Chamber, the California Cattlemen's Association and other groups challenged the listings in court. Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian ruled for the Commission, and the Third District upheld that decision on appeal. The listing opponents had four primary arguments: CESA permits protection of species and subspecies, but not "evolutionary significant units;" the Commission failed to consider coho salmon range in Oregon; the Commission did not adequately consider the role of hatchery salmon; and the Commission violated the Administrative Procedures Act. The first two arguments — concerning evolutionary significant units, and species' range — were of primary importance. Property rights groups in California and nationally have repeatedly contested the definition of evolutionary significant units and their role in species protection regulations. The Commission argued that its listing of evolutionary significant units comported with the 1984 version of CESA, which provided automatic protection to more than a dozen variety of plants whether or not they comprised a species or subspecies. The court sided with the Commission. " eference to the Commission and the department's interpretation of the term ‘species or subspecies' as including evolutionary significant units is appropriate here given their central roles in the listing process, their scientific expertise, and their longstanding adherence to the policy that the CESA allows listings of evolutionary significant units," Justice Ronald Robie wrote for the Third District. Regarding the coho salmon's range, the court said the Commission was under no obligation to consider the coho's entire geographic range. Listing opponents contended the Commission had to account for the coho's Oregon habitat. Although the statute is ambiguous, the court ruled, "It is reasonable to infer that the CESA's focus is protecting species within the state, which is the extent of the state's regulatory authority." The court quickly dismissed the hatchery coho salmon question by noting that § 45 of the Fish and Game Code defines fish to mean "wild fish." Concerning the Administrative Procedures Act, the listing opponents contended the Commission's ruling was unnecessary and duplicative because coho salmon have been protected for years by the federal Endangered Species Act, and other federal and state laws (although the Bush administration has taken numerous steps to reduce salmon protection). The court ruled that the Commission's decision was not unnecessary because CESA implementation requires the adoption of regulations. The Commission's listing of the species was not duplicative because CESA and the federal ESA do not serve the same function, the court ruled. The CESA is concerned only with protecting a species in California. Plus, the two acts have different provisions for allowing "incidental take" of protected species, the court noted. The Case: California Forestry Association v. California Fish and Game Commission , No. C053866, 07 C.D.O.S. 13318, 2007 DJDAR 17252. Filed November 20, 2007. The Lawyers: For the Forestry Association: Damien Schiff, Pacific Legal Foundation, (916) 419-7111. For the Commission: Tara Mueller, attorney general's office, (510) 622-2100.

A trial court judge's decision ordering the closure of a neighborhood market in Santa Monica has been thrown out by the Second District Court of Appeal. The unanimous three-judge appellate panel said that the lower court judge misread two agreements between property owners and the City of Santa Monica in a way that improperly superceded the city's police power. The Fair Market has been a neighborhood grocery store on Fourth Street since 1928, a year before the property was first zoned. After World War II, the city zoned the property "residential" but permitted Fair Market to remain as a nonconforming use. The city approved a number of short-duration conditional use permits for Fair Market before, in 1985, approving a conditional use permit effective through October 23, 2000. When the property owners sought to build two condominiums behind the market, the city in 1987 approved a parcel map and new use permit. Thereafter, the city and the property owner (who no longer owns the property) entered into an "Agreement Imposing Restrictions on Real Property" (AIR), and, in 1990, the city approved covenants, codes and restrictions (CC&Rs) for the property. In April 2000, the Fair Market owner sought permission to operate the market beyond the October 23, 2000, termination date of the conditional use permit. Processing apparently took some time, as not until September 2003 did the city approve a new use permit allowing Fair Market to operate indefinitely. About one year later, the owners of one of the condos (Juanita Richeson and Eugene Kallman) sued the new owners of Fair Market (Haque and Bakul Helal), who also own the other condo. Richeson and Kallman argued that the AIR and CC&Rs clearly prohibited the market from operating past the October 23, 2000, deadline contained in the 1987 conditional use permit. Kallman had testified before the city three times in support of the 2003 conditional use permit but apparently changed his mind about the neighborhood store when the housing market took off. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge John Segal agreed that the AIR and CC&Rs required the market to close in 2000. The Helals appealed and the Second District, Division Eight, overturned the lower court. Richeson and Kallman cited language in the AIR that requires the market building "shall be removed and the underlying area shall be landscaped or redeveloped … at such time as the retail use is discontinued for a continuous period of one year, the conditional use permit expires (on October 23, 2000) or the conditional use permit is revoked, whichever occurs first." But the court found that the documents, when read together, "raise an ambiguity." The court said that the AIR does not prohibit the city from extending the termination date, and the CC&Rs contain no termination date at all. The court also noted that the only original party to the AIR and CC&Rs — the city — argued that the conditional use may be extended beyond the October 23, 2000, date. "If that date was certain and immutable, surely the parties would have taken care to set it forth in the recorded CC&Rs," Justice Madeleine Flier wrote for the court. "Moreover," Flier wrote, "the absence of any express freeze provision in the AIR and CC&Rs is consistent with an implied reservation of the city's police powers under existing authorities." Indeed, the court noted, the city's right to exercise the police power — which is the basis for all land use regulation — cannot be contracted away. "The AIR and the CC&Rs do not expressly restrict the city's power to legislate in the future. The AIR, and corresponding CC&Rs, therefore must be read as containing an implied provision reserving the city's police power to modify its zoning regulations and conditional use permit for the property," the court ruled. The court also rejected Richeson and Kallman's argument that the AIR amounted to a development agreement, finding that the document lacked the substantive requirements for a development agreement. Richeson and Kallman appealed to the state Supreme Court, which declined to accept the case. The Case: Richeson v. Helal , No. B187273, 07 C.D.O.S. 14683, 2007 DJDAR 18876. Filed November 29, 2007. Ordered published and modified December 21, 2007. The Lawyers: For Richeson: Mitchell Dawson, Dawson, Tilem & Gole, (310) 285-0880. For Helal: Christopher Harding, Harding, Larmore, Mullen, Jakle, Kutcher & Kozal, (310) 451-2968. For the city: Barry Rosenbaum, city attorney's office, (310) 458-8336.

Earlier this month, I was in our nation's capital, which served as the stage for the most recent federal theatrics on the issue of climate change regulation. The seventh annual New Partners for Smart Growth conference, sponsored by the Local Government Commission (an organization of locally-elected officials, city and county staff, planners, architects, and community leaders), took place in the hotel neighboring the site of the Conservative Political Action Conference. While we attended sessions such as "Where is the Money? Trends in Funding Smart Growth," the young conservatives were rehearsing their Republican roles in sessions titled "What Do Liberals Have Planned for Your Money?" Thickening the plot was the cast of characters that traveled from California, including state officials and representatives from the California Air Resources Board, the Governor's Office of Planning of Research, and Caltrans. Jake Mackenzie, the mayor of Rohnert Park and LGC board member, alluded to the reputation of the members of the traveling show as "fruits and nuts" at a session demonstrating the strides that the state is taking to achieve Governor Schwarzenegger's goals to combat global warming. Who would have guessed that the most dynamic session on climate change policy would feature a cast including the likes of Mr. Peanut and Chiquita Banana? Over the three days, conference segments that are typically replete with droning wonky policy jargon that no semi-normal person can comprehend were replaced by approachable language and legible statistics. Professionals and policy experts came together not only to share the efforts being made by the planning, development, and public heath communities, but also to speak out against the lack of federal participation and leadership on carbon emissions.  The most recent sting resulting from the EPA's decision to deny California's bid to set stricter carbon emissions standards for motor vehicles was still on everyone's mind. What began as a daytime soap opera viewed by few has become a blockbuster hit in the eyes of the 1,500 professional planners, architects, public health experts, and policymakers: the climate change issue has taken center stage. The message even recently graced the cover of Sports Illustrated . Once I stepped outside and squinted against the afternoon sun, I briefly forgot why I spent three full days inside the sunlight-starved set of the conference, filling my head with new ideas surrounding the climate change issue. But once I got back to the land of fruit and nuts, and more specifically, Los Angeles, where everyone is looking for their 15 minutes of fame, I remembered why. I was now well-versed with the knowledge that acting on behalf of the climate change issue on Capitol Hill is more than just a cameo role. - Jessica Daniels

INCREASING HOUSING IN THE MIDST OF A CRISIS:ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FRIDAY FEBRUARY 22. 2008COVEL COMMONS, UCLA CAMPUS LOS ANGELES The housing crisis continues in Southern California. The existing population grows and new people move here every day. The traditional rules of supply and demand have pushed housing costs beyond the reach of the average family. We need more housing of all types, yet existing residents are afraid of the impacts of those projects. The state has stepped in and imposed numerous requirements on cities, exacerbating the tension. Understanding these various forces, learning about the new rules, and discovering strategies which have worked are the focus of this seminar presented by a team of legal and public policy experts. WHO SHOULD ATTEND This program is designed for professionals in the public and nonprofit sectors, who are participating in the preservation or production of housing in Southern California. It should be particularly useful for municipal planners, council members, planning commissioners, and citizens involved in the policies and politics of affordable housing; consultant firms preparing legislation for cities; attorneys working in housing; and housing developers trying to create successful projects. TOPICS INCLUDE ? The Empirical, Political, and Practical Nature of the Problem ? A Brief History of Government's Role ? Where We Are Now The role of the federal government ? Role and Requirements of the State Housing ? Finding a site ? Where are we going SEMINAR LEADER Mark Winogrond , FAICP, past director of community development in three Southern California cities, consultant to and board member of numerous housing development corporations, consultant to the City of Los Angeles on Mayor Villaraigosa's new housing strategy GUEST SPEAKERS Michael Dieden , President, Creative Housing Associates, developers of affordable housing projects in South Pasadena, Metlox Block in Manhattan Beach, Bixel Lofts in downtown L.A., and others Cristi Hogin , Partner, Jenkins& Hogin, a Manhattan Beach Law firm representing ten cities and many more special agencies Allyne Winderman , Director of Housing and Redevelopment, City of West Hollywood Robin Hughes , Executive Director, Los Angeles Community Design Center and Planning Commissioner, City of Los Angeles DATE, TIME, AND LOCATION Friday, February 22 - 9 am-4:30 pm (Registration and refreshments begin at 8:15 am.) UCLA Covel Commons 330 DeNeve Drive Plaza Room A Los Angeles, California (310) 825-7885 FEES AND CREDIT $300/$325 Reg # T6473 ($300 for enrollments postmarked, phoned in, or faxed by February 8, $325 thereafter) **We are in the process of applying for the new CM credits for this course: 6.0 hours.

California's Central Valley is a distinctive place. It is a place of flat ground and extreme weather. It is a place of fruits, nuts, grains and dairy products, yet it's also a place of extensive suburban sprawl. It's a place with some of the worst air pollution in the country, but, when the sky is clear, a place with stunning mountain views. It's a place of recent immigrants and extreme poverty, and of fourth and fifth generation landowners.And the Central Valley is a place of small towns, many dating to the 19th century and laid out on a grid that straddles the railroad. The classic valley town has a business district along a primary thoroughfare, handsome public buildings that often front on a public square or park, and leafy residential neighborhoods just off downtown. Frequently, there's a sign or arch stretching across the Main Street at the entrance to the downtown � often with a corny saying. The high school might be right downtown. There is always a strong connection to agriculture.Many Central Valley cities are struggling, and plenty of the downtowns are badly neglected, even abandoned. But there are some downtowns that are gems � centers of community and commerce that reflect a true sense of the valley's distinctive place. Central Valley sprawl has not yet obliterated the great downtowns that were created more than a hundred years ago, and in many cases they are coming back. __________Editor's Note: Our presentation of the best small-city downtowns in the Central Valley kicks off our "Best Small Downtowns" series. Over the next year, we'll roll out a series of "bests" of California's cities smaller than 75,000 people, of which there are about 365.__________ We list our favorite small Central Valley downtowns here, but first a few caveats: Even though they have first-rate downtowns, Chico and Visalia don't appear on this list because the cities have more than 75,000 people. You also won't find Davis on this list, because we consider Davis a college town that happens to be in the valley. Watch for Davis to rate highly on our future rundown of college towns. The best small-city Central Valley downtowns:1. Woodland. Unlike downtowns in similar sized cities, downtown Woodland never died � not even when County Fair Mall opened at the southern edge of Woodland during the mid-1980s. Restaurants, watering holes, small professional service businesses and offices helped keep Main Street as the center of town. In the heart of downtown sits the City Hall, a 19th Century valley classic that was rebuilt during the Depression. The residential neighborhoods between East and West streets are filled with tall trees and well-maintained houses of Victorian, Tudor and craftsman design. But the jewel is the Woodland Opera House, a national historic landmark and, since the 1970s, a state park. The brick opera house was closed for 76 years before it reopened in 1989 and today provides a gorgeous setting for live theater. And both before and after the show, you'll find people on the sidewalks of downtown Woodland.2. Hanford. Especially in smaller cities, downtowns often thrive if they are the county seat. In the old days, county seats were usually the regional center of commerce and culture, leaving behind a legacy of both architecture and activity. That's what makes Hanford a great downtown. Hanford has only 50,000 people, (it's the county seat of extremely poor Kings County), and it's not on the freeway. Yet the downtown goes on for blocks, stretching from the old commercial core � which also features an opera house � to the governmental core that revolves around a town square that contains the old Kings County Courthouse. The 1896 courthouse is now used as an office building; the 1898 jail is now a restaurant. To the north is the new courthouse � architecturally pretty similar. Just to the west of the old courthouse is the 1929 Hanford Fox Theater, which now features live musical acts. Except for Visalia � similar in that it's an old county seat off the freeway � Hanford is the best downtown in the San Joaquin Valley.3. Lodi. When Woolworth and JC Penney closed their stores in downtown Lodi during the mid-1990s, the district appeared on the edge of collapse. Instead, the redevelopment agency, merchants and property owners invested in wide sidewalks, cobble-covered streets, a new parking structure, a cinema, a refurbished train station (which now serves as a busy bus station) and events such as a regular farmers' market and street fairs. Nowadays, downtown Lodi's restaurants, movie house, shops and 100-year-old buildings provide a destination for locals and people from outside the area. A kid-oriented science museum is scheduled to open soon. There is even interest in residential development. Getting close:- Red Bluff. It's often not a good sign when a downtown becomes known for its antique and second-hand stores. But in Red Bluff it's not necessarily a bad thing. The antique stores do decent business and attract people to downtown's coffee houses, bars and restaurants, some of which have been around for decades. A new plaza is under construction on Main Street. But it's architecture that helps set apart what is otherwise a fairly ordinary downtown. The county courthouse, the gothic Sacred Heart Church and the century-old Herbert Kraft Free Library (now a home d�cor store) would be landmarks in nearly any city. The close-in residential neighborhoods have some glorious Victorian and craftsman homes. Still, there's a feeling that downtown, including some historic structures, could use substantial new investment. A better connection to the adjacent Sacramento River would help, too.- Dinuba. The water tower that looms over downtown Dinuba screams "valley town." Thanks in part to the high school at one end of downtown, and a vocational center several blocks away, downtown is a fairly busy place. A six-screen cinema and bowling alley, separated by a plaza and all fairly new, help generate activity after hours and reflect a willingness to invest in the place that is clearly the center of town. Others of note:- Turlock. The leafy downtown is fairly small for a city of 70,000, but it offers some interesting eateries, architecture and a good park. It's tough to compete for downtown-type activities with the nearby behemoth Modesto, which has put enormous effort into downtown redevelopment. Nevertheless Turlock has some excellent urban fabric, deriving in part from a diagonal street grid that creates a flatiron-building-style site at a critical spot.- Winters. There's not much in this tiny Yolo County town (population about 7,000) that isn't "downtown." The Palms Playhouse is a great performing arts house. The delightful Buckhorn Steakhouse is located on the "100% corner," at Main and Railroad. The small-town funky atmosphere � with just a touch of sophistication � is one of the reasons bicyclists stop on way their way from Sacramento to Lake Berryessa.- Delano. Here's a good example of how the outside observer's expectations and cultural background plays a role in assessing a place. Located along Highway 99 in Kern County, Delano has an extensive downtown. Unlike Hanford or Visalia, Delano has never been a county seat or a center of commerce or culture, and it's unlikely to become one anytime soon. But you can't deny that downtown Delano is functional. Like a lot of older L.A. suburbs that have a Mexican flavor, Delano pulses with businesses catering to the local market � Latino families with modest incomes. Delano ain't pretty, but it's awfully tough to find a for rent sign. So it works for the locals. And what's so bad about that? Woe is them (for now):- Marysville. The story of this city's downtown is mostly a tale of demographics. Marysville is the county seat in what has long been one of the poorest counties (Yuba) in the state, and downtown reflects the state of the community. The five-story beaux arts Hotel Marysville closed more than 20 years ago and sits as a boarded-up and burned-out landmark at downtown's most visible intersection. There are plans to refurbish it into housing or a genuine hotel, but there have been plans for years. There were also plans for a multi-screen cinema, but that development never happened either. Still, there are far fewer vacancies in downtown buildings these days, a handful of coffee houses, restaurants and other businesses seem to thrive, and there's even a new bookstore. The city is trying to create a better link between downtown and adjacent Ellis Lake, located in a classic valley park. While the "catalytic" project has never materialized, the little successes are starting to add up.- The CP&DR Staff

A city council or board of supervisors must wait until receiving a planning commission's recommendation before the legislative body gives 10-day notice of a public hearing on the matter, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court also determined that the planning commission's recommendation must be part of the notice. The decision, which applies to counties and general law cities, has caused consternation among local governments and the development industry because of its potential to slow "fast track" permitting processes. The decision came in a case from sparsely populated Sierra County. In late 2004, Mark LaRocque applied for permission to subdivide his 31-acre parcel in Sierra Valley, east of the mountain range, into two lots of 21 and 10 acres, respectively. Because of an existing prohibition on subdividing the land, LaRocque needed a zoning ordinance amendment. On January 13, 2005, the county gave notice that on January 27, the Sierra County Planning Commission would conduct a public hearing on LaRocque's tentative parcel map and a zoning ordinance amendment. On January 20, 2005, a week before the Planning Commission met, the county gave notice that the Board of Supervisors would conduct a public hearing regarding the same matters on February 1. At the Planning Commission meeting, a local environmental advocate testified about the project's merits and the county's process. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision with modifications and the zoning ordinance amendment. The Planning Commission sent its recommendation to the board late on January 28, and on February 1 the board considered the matter. The same advocate again questioned the process, complaining that she had received only one business day to prepare a response to the Planning Commission's project modifications and recommendations. Nevertheless, supervisors approved the subdivision and zoning amendment. The group Environmental Defense Project of Sierra County sued, alleging the county was guilty of numerous improprieties. The county successfully defended all of the allegations except one concerning the public notice requirement. Sierra County Superior Court Judge John Kennelly ruled that the Board of Supervisors had to wait for receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendation before the board could give notice of a public hearing. The county appealed, and a unanimous three-judge panel of the Third District upheld the lower court. The first question for the appellate court was whether there was an "actual controversy" to decide. The county argued there was no controversy because the environmental group and LaRocque had settled their differences in 2005 when LaRocque agreed not to further subdivide the property and paid money into a Sierra Valley conservation fund. With no actual controversy, there was nothing for the court to decide, the county argued. But the court noted that the issue was the county's process, not this particular project or zoning amendment. The county's process was part of its "streamlined" zoning, and the county was committed to continued use of the process, the court noted. "Under these circumstances, �there is a reasonable expectation that the wrong, if any, will be repeated,' and the controversy does not present only an �academic question,'" Justice Ronald Robie wrote for the court, citing Pittenger v. Home Savings & Loan Assn. , (1958) 166 Cal.App.2d 32, 37. After deciding the case qualified for review, the court turned to interpretation of the Planning and Zoning Law, specifically Government Code �� 65856, 65090 and 65094. The court said that � 65856 is "silent" on the timing of the public notice, so that section must be read in context with the other two, which provide for a 10-day public notice that includes "a general explanation of the matter to be considered." "In our view," Robie wrote, "the question of whether the 10-day notice may be given before receipt of the planning commission's recommendation is inextricably bound with the question of what must be included in a �general explanation of the matter to be considered.' This is so because if �a general explanation of the matter to be considered' includes the planning commission's recommendation, then the 10-day notice must be given after the planning commission has made a recommendation on the matter under consideration." The point of the public notice requirement is "to inform the public of the legislative body's hearing so they will have an opportunity to respond to the planning commission's recommendation," according to the court. Yet in the Sierra County case, the public had only one full business day to prepare comments, which the court suggested was not sufficient time. "We therefore hold that the 10-day notice of the legislative body's hearing must be given after the planning commission's recommendation has been received and must include the planning commission's recommendation as part of the �general explanation of the matter to be considered,'" Robie concluded. The Case: Environmental Defense Project of Sierra County v. County of Sierra , No. C055448, 2008 DJDAR 284. Filed January 9, 2009. The Lawyers: For Environment Defense Project: Michael Graf, (510) 525-7222. For the county: William Abbott, Abbott & Kindermann, (916) 456-9595.

California state officials aren't even dancing around the issue any more. They're openly admitting that the state can't possibly meet the greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals contained in AB 32 without a statewide strategy to reduce driving. But high-ranking state officials still aren't saying that Sacramento will mandate a limit on vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, as part of the land use component of implementing AB 32. At least they weren't tipping their hand on Friday, when many of them spoke at the New Partners for Smart Growth conference in Washington, D.C. "At this point," said Panama Bartholomy of the California Energy Commission, "we are moving forward in a voluntary manner to see how much local governments can do. But this will go along a path from voluntary to mandatory." "Land use is the key," said James Goldstene, executive officer of the California Air Resources Board. "But there are basic questions. Are targets mandatory or voluntary? Are there fees on ‘high-GHG projects'? Will we provide thresholds or guidance? Will there be relief for good projects, thresholds that discourage sprawl and required mitigations?" While Goldstene posed these questions, Cynthia Bryant, the director of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, still appeared to be clinging to the idea that California can meet the AB 32 standard of a 20% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020 through voluntary means. "We need a carrot so big that it is a carrot stick," she said. State officials have been getting more direct in their public rhetoric about VMT lately, acknowledging that drastic steps must be taken to limit or reduce it. Two weeks ago, CARB's Anthony Eggert, pinch-hitting for board chair Mary Nichols at a land use conference in Los Angeles, raised the VMT question but stopped short of saying that restrictions on overall driving are necessary. On Friday in Washington, the rhetoric was even more direct. Bartholomy also stopped short of calling for a mandatory VMT cap but came very close to suggesting it. "At least we can give some guidance to regional agencies," he said. "Issues like greenhouse gas mitigation is best done on a regional level than on a local level, with the locals fighting each other. We can create a statewide target for land use and hand those targets to the regions. -- Bill Fulton

How do you implement smart growth successfully? Take one bite of the apple at a time. That was the advice from local smart growth leaders in Nashville and Baton Rouge at a panel on implementing smart growth at the New Partners for Smart Growth conference in Washington, D.C., Friday. Ann Hammond, assistant executive director of the Planning Commission in Nashville-Davidson County , Tennessee, said her agency had focused on taking small steps – partly because the 40-person elected council government for the combined city-county government makes it hard to make sweeping changes. So instead of proposing zoning code changes, which require council approval, Nashville focused on changes in subdivision regulations, which only require approval from the planning commission. The planning commission also focused on creating a project or a plan change in an individual neighborhood, thus creating "plan envy" among elected councilmembers. "If you do it in council district 26," she said, "the guy in council district 25 says, I want one of those." Progress has also been slow in Baton Rouge – especially after Hurricane Katrina, which expanded the city's population temporarily by more than 100,000 and permanently by some 30,000. And while the overarching vision is grand, the actual issues that civic activists have dealt with are at the neighborhood level, according to representatives of the Center for Planning Excellence in Baton Rouge. Boo Thomas, the center's president, said that connectivity – that is, connecting new neighborhoods to existing neighborhoods with a consistent road system – has been hugely controversial in Baton Rouge. "There's a huge outcry every time somebody wants to connect a 12-house subdivision to an existing neighborhood," she said. As the post-Katrina population swelled, however, so did traffic congestion – and this has given smart growth advocates a new line of argument on connectivity, because most new areas have only a few crowded arterials. "We tell them, don't complain about traffic congestion unless you want to connect," said Richael DiResto, the center's vice president. The panel highlighted communities that have worked with the Smart Growth Leadership Institute under a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency. Staff members at Solimar Research Group , CP&DR 's sister organization, worked with SGLI in most of the communities. -- Bill Fulton

Stanislaus County voters may have rocked the Central Valley on Tuesday by approving a growth-control initiative that prohibits the rezoning of agricultural land without voter approval. Traditionally, growth control initiatives have been a coastal phenomenon. But they have been inching into the valley in recent years. A growth boundary initiative in Stockton narrowly lost out to city-written boundary measure in 2004 (see CP&DR , December 2004 ). Tracy voters adopted a housing permit cap in 2000 and have refused to ease it. Davis, of course, has plenty of voter-imposed growth rules. Modesto's advisory vote requirements date to the 1970s.   But none of those restrictions compares to Measure E — known as Stamp Out Sprawl or SOS — which Stanislaus County voters supported by a 2-to-1 ratio. Similar to Napa County's vaunted Measure J and the SOAR initiatives in Ventura County, Measure E requires voters to decide the rezoning of agricultural land, although Measure E is limited to residential rezonings. In Ventura and Napa counties, the result has been that significant development in unincorporated areas has nearly ceased. If the effect is the same in Stanislaus County, it would be a major change, because the county has been plenty willing to carve up farms with subdivisions. According to the Modesto Bee, the county has approved nearly 3,000 houses in unincorporated areas since 2000. The county fought like hell to block Measure E. First, it delayed the vote on Measure E until 2008, even though advocates submitted petition signatures in June 2006. In the interim, developers drafted a growth-friendly plan for Salida, the county's largest unincorporated growth area, and gathered signatures to place the plan on the ballot. When the Salida plan qualified for the ballot, supervisors simply adopted it rather than permitting voters to decide (see CP&DR Local Watch , September 2007 ). It was a slick move, but one wonders whether the development community won the Salida battle at the expense of the county war. Surprisingly, the development community sat out the February election. Builders didn't like Measure E, but they didn't campaign against it, either. Denny Jackman, an SOS co-author and former Modesto councilman, figures that builders didn't fight Measure E because they know that protecting farmland has become a public priority. Plus, he said, "There are nine incorporated cities in Stanislaus County, so there are plenty of areas in which the BIA can still build." Jackman contends that SOS vote sent "a real strong signal" to the county and cities about growth planning. But Larry Giventer, a professor of politics and administration at California State University, Stanislaus, questioned how many people were even paying attention to Measure E. "I don't think very many people followed Measure E, compared with all the hype the presidential election and state propositions were getting. It sort of flew under the radar," Giventer said. In addition, the City of Modesto had its own high-profile ballot measures — one giving the City Council more authority over city administration and one dividing the city into council districts. Those measures in the county's largest city received far more attention than the SOS initiative, Giventer said. What helped Measure E was its offer to let voters decide on development, Giventer added. "I don't think it's a harbinger of things to come, I think it's a reflection of the past. Voters like to control things," he said. No matter why voters approved SOS, the most important thing might be whether the initiative gets copied in other San Joaquin Valley counties. For planning wonks, farmland preservation and low-density development have been big issues in the Central Valley for a long time. In recent years, however, farmland preservation has become a public cause ( CP&DR , June 2007 ). If Measure E gets repeated in counties like Merced and Madera, both of which have a larger percentage of unincorporated area development than Stanislaus County has, the effects could be dramatic. And, I should note, the farmland preservation movement may have deeper grassroots in Merced County than anywhere in the valley. - Paul Shigley

Stanislaus County voters on Tuesday approved a growth control initiative that prohibits the rezoning of agricultural land to residential uses in unincorporated areas without voter approval. Two-thirds of voters in the fast-growing Central Valley county approved the "Stamp Out Sprawl" initiative, which was strongly opposed by county supervisors. Voters also approved a less-restrict county alternative, but the citizen initiative received the most votes. Initiative supporters said Stanislaus County should direct growth to the nine incorporated cities, rather than continuing to permit conversion of agricultural lands. The initiative's requirement for voters to decide on agricultural land rezoning is similar to the approach approved by voters in Napa and Ventura counties during the 1990s. Elsewhere in California on Super Tuesday, voters in Santa Clara and Rocklin upheld housing project approvals, while voters in San Clemente overturned conversion of a golf course into condominiums. Alameda County Voters rejected two parcel tax measures for Children's Hospital and Research Center Oakland. Measure B was a hospital-backed initiative, while Measure A was something of a compromise between the hospital and the county. Both would have imposed an annual tax of $24 per residential parcel, $250 for a large business parcel and $100 for a small business lot to raise about $300 million for construction of a new hospital. Measure A would have last 35 years compared with Measure B's 30 years, and Measure A would have given a greater cut to the county to pay for tax administration. County officials disliked both measures because they imposed a tax to pay for a private hospital and placed the burden solely on Alameda County landowners even though the hospital serves the region. Hospital neighbors complained that new hospital facilities would displace families and conflict with the North Oakland neighborhood character. Measure A (2/3 vote required): No, 59.4% Measure B (2/3 vote required): No 69.0% Imperial County A measure prohibiting the importing of sewage sludge into the county passed easily. The measure is aimed at blocking a "sludge-to-energy" plant proposed by Liberty Energy east of the Salton Sea. Measure X: Yes, 67.9% Madera County Oakhurst. Voters in this 13-square-mile, 4,200-person community in the foothills along Highways 41 and 49 rejected incorporation. The opposition group Keep Oakhurst Rural Coalition argued that the Local Agency Formation Commission process was skewed and the public was not adequately notified of the incorporation drive. Supporters contended that local residents need more influence over the rapidly growing town's future. Measure C: No, 57.1% Napa County Voters approved a general plan amendment and zoning change to permit the four-acre Stanly Lane Pumpkin Patch, located in an agricultural zone south of Napa, to have a delicatessen and wine tastings. Measure K: Yes, 57.3% Orange County City of Newport Beach. Voters approved an initiative that amends the city charter to require a new city hall to be built on city-owned land between MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue, next to the central library. For years, the city has promised to develop the hilly 12.8-acre site as a park. Initiative proponents said the site offers the cheapest location for a much-needed city hall. Measure B: Yes, 52.8% City of San Clemente. A project that involves replacing nine holes of the private Pacific Golf Club with 224 housing units failed at the polls. The project approved last year by the City Council included a development agreement in which landowner Michael Rosenfield would pay $11.5 million for development of a community park and senior center elsewhere in town. Opponents who forced a referendum vote said the development would reduce open space, increase traffic and raise public service costs. Measure C: No, 68.5% Riverside County Wildomar. Incorporation of the community of 29,000 people along Interstate 15 won approval. The incorporation drive followed years of local residents fending off attempts by Lake Elsinore and Murrieta to annex Wildomar. Measure C: Yes, 60.2% Placer County Rocklin. In a referendum, voters backed developer Rick Massie's proposed 558-unit, 622-acre project in Clover Valley, a growth battle zone for more than 10 years. Project supporters defended the development for maintaining 60% of the site as open space. The United Auburn Indian Community, which owns the nearby Thunder Valley Casino, has promised to buy 154 lots to preserve the remains of an ancient community. Opponents said the entire site should remain undeveloped and complained the project would increase traffic congestion. Measure H: Yes, 52.8% San Diego County City of Coronado. An initiative that would have prohibited any building at the beach — including lifeguard buildings, restrooms or a bike path — without voter approval failed. Meanwhile, a measure asking whether the city may go forward with a planned 2,500-square-foot lifeguard support building won easily. Proposition A (voter approval requirement): No, 52.9% Proposition B (lifeguard support building): Yes, 67.7% San Francisco A $185 million park bond to pay for development of three new bay front parks and extensive repairs and renovations at existing parks and green spaces was approved. Proposition A (2/3 vote required): Yes, 71.7% Santa Clara County City of Santa Clara. In a referendum election, voters backed a plan to re-use the University of California's 17-acre Bay Area Research Extension Center site for development of 110-single family houses by SummerHill Homes and a 165-unit low-income senior citizens apartment complex by Charities Housing. The university closed the agricultural research center across from Valley Fair mall about five years ago. SummerHill agreed to pay the state $34 million for 11 acres, while the city and Charities Housing agreed to pay $10 million for 6 acres. Development opponents called the site the "last 17 acres of open space in Santa Clara." Measure A (general plan amendment referendum): Yes, 60.9% Measure B (rezoning referendum): Yes, 60.5% Stanislaus County Voters endorsed the "Stamp Out Sprawl" initiative prohibiting the rezoning of agricultural land to residential uses without voter approval. Also on the ballot was the county's alternative "Responsible Planning and Growth Control Initiative" proposing a two-year moratorium on agricultural land conversions until the county completes a general plan update. Although both passed, the SOS initiative takes effect because it received more votes. Measure E (citizen initiative): Yes, 66.9% Measure L (county alternative), Yes: 63.4% Yuba County Not surprisingly, voters turned down the 5,100-unit Yuba Highlands project that the county had approved on 2,900 acres between Beale Air Force Base and Spenceville Wildlife Refuge. In January, developer Gary Gallelli urged voters to reject the project so that he could pursue a scaled-down version. Measure N: No, 77.6%

The California Supreme Court has dismissed a case involving San Diego County's antenna ordinance because the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the ordinance last year. Adopted in 2003, the ordinance created a four-tier system for granting conditional use permits for wireless telecommunications facilities. The level of review and amount of information required depended on the location, visibility and height of the proposed structures. Nearly one year ago, the Ninth Circuit invalidated the ordinance because its discretionary provisions and public hearing requirements ran afoul of the federal Telecommunications Act. ( Sprint Telephony PCS, LP v. County of San Diego , (9th Circuit 2007) 490 F. 3d, 700; see CP&DR Legal Digest , May 2007). Before the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion, the state high court had decided to review a Fourth District Court of Appeal decision upholding the San Diego County ordinance (see CP&DR Legal Digest , August 2006). The Fourth District said the federal Ninth Circuit was getting antenna cases wrong by ruling that localities may not regulate the aesthetics of antennas in the public right of way. But the state Supreme Court said the Ninth Circuit decision in the San Diego County case made moot the state court lawsuit over similar issues. The case is Sprint Telephony PCS v. County of San Diego , No. S145541.