Search Results

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

It was a little after 10 p.m. on a pleasantly warm Thursday evening in downtown Modesto when a member of the kitchen staff at the Firkin & Fox pub started gathering his belongings. "Hey, are you leaving?" a waitress asked the kitchen hand as he headed out the door. "We may need you. It's Thursday . Remember how we got slammed last Thursday night?" That's right, Thursday nights are jumping in downtown Modesto. So are Friday and Saturday nights, and some other evenings depending on local events. On this Thursday evening, metal bands attracted a colorful young crowd to the Fat Cat, just half a block from Firkin & Fox. Elsewhere, the sounds of hip-hop bands pulsed from multiple nightclubs. Comics entertained at St. Stan's brewpub. An upscale cigar shop and several white tablecloth restaurants drew a more refined crowd. The 18-screen Brenden movie theatre on 10th Street did brisk business. And all of this activity occurred on an evening when the largest entertainment facility in downtown was dark. The idea that downtown Modesto would be an entertainment and dining center would have induced laughter as recently as eight years ago. Now, the goal is to build on success with more commerce and — importantly — provide places for people to live downtown. There is still a long way to go. The housing market has crashed in Modesto as hard as anywhere in the country, making construction of housing units very uncertain. And while commerce clearly has bounced back in downtown, there remain empty storefronts in key locations, including right across the street from the $47 million Gallo Center for the Arts, which opened last year. "Redevelopment has three stages," said Linda Boston, Modesto Redevelopment Agency manager. "It has the pioneer stage, it has the teenage stage, and it has the adult stage — and, as you know, a lot of pioneers died." In other words, a number of downtown redevelopment efforts from the late 1980s and the 1990s failed. But downtown Modesto seems to have passed the adolescent stage and is now in the teenage years — full of life but rather unpredictable. It could grow up to be a success, or it could make some bad choices and fail. This feeling that things could still go either direction is one reason the redevelopment agency adopted a new redevelopment master plan in October 2007. The document is intended to be a guideline that was prepared in response to numerous inquiries from potential investors, Boston said. "We didn't realize how many folks were out there waiting in the wings. They want investment insurance, and that's really what this plan is," Boston explained. It was 1973 when Modesto native George Lucas made his town famous with the movie American Graffiti . The enormously popular flick captured the cruising scene in Modesto circa 1962. It was telling, however, that Lucas filmed most of the movie in Petaluma because he thought Modesto had changed too much since his youth. In fact, Modesto authorities had outlawed cruising, which locals actually called "dragging." Soon thereafter, Vintage Faire Mall opened several miles north of downtown. By the mid-1970s, downtown Modesto, which had thrived for decades, was a dead zone. The city created a redevelopment agency in 1983 with an original project area of three blocks, according to Boston. The project area grew to 2,000 acres, including all of the large downtown area, in 1991. The original project involved development of a hotel, the convention center and a parking lot along K Street. The project struggled mightily for years and everyone involved appeared to suffer financially. Still, Boston defends it as a "catalyst project," and the hotel, now operated by Doubletree, remains the tallest building in town. Next up was development of Tenth Street Place on the site of two abandoned hotels and other dilapidated structures. The project includes a joint City of Modesto-Stanislaus County government center, a parking structure, retail spaces and the Brenden theater. Downtown appeared to turn a corner when the project was completed in 1999. Prior to the opening of Tenth Street Place, Boston recalled, "women would never come down here, even in groups of four or five. We just didn't feel safe." Tenth Street Place was a crucial downtown redevelopmet project. The redevelopment agency has continued to invest. Among other things, it has provided a parking garage for an office building mostly leased by the county, put $500,000 into a façade improvement program, and funded the streetscape around the Gallo Center. Essentially, the agency completed every project in a 1994 redevelopment plan, Boston said. Chris Ricci, who owns the Fat Cat nightclub and produces an annual music festival that covers 15 blocks of downtown, said the city should be more directly involved in assisting businesses. In Las Vegas, where Ricci also does business, local government provides direct subsidies to businesses that generate revenue, he said. But that is not how Modesto operates, and local officials make no apologies. The 1994 plan called for making downtown a venue for the arts and entertainment, and officials love to cite this statistic: In 1999, there were a dozen places to eat downtown. Now, there are about 60. In addition, a collection of dive bars has been largely replaced with nightclubs and more upscale watering holes. The agency has not provided direct subsidies for these businesses, instead choosing to set the stage for private entrepreneurs such as Ricci. Last fall, the Gallo Center for the Arts opened. Funded by Stanislaus County and private donors, the facility has a 1,200-seat concert hall and a 444-seat second stage. Although the facility is clearly a cornerstone of downtown redevelopment, the City Council in 2000 actually decided not to fund construction. Instead, the city placed on the ballot a hotel tax increase to help fund for the project; the ballot measure failed, partly because councilmembers campaigned against it. So it is a county-owned arts facility with a $15 million private endowment, including $10 million from the Gallo family. The redevelopment plan approved last fall covers not just downtown, but the entire 2,000-acre project area. It focuses on economic development, changing land uses, improvements to the public realm, and transportation and circulation upgrades. Brent Sinclair, the city's community and economic development director, said the plan is intended to help guide potential housing development. The plan identifies opportunity sites, including some within walking distance of a multi-modal transportation center. In addition, the city may implement a mixed-use overlay zone or possibly a form-based code to further enable housing development, he said. New housing has not been built downtown in more than 30 years. The redevelopment agency has focused its low- and moderate-income housing set-aside monies on areas away from downtown, and private developers have not been willing to take the risk. That could change. The agency has proposed an affordable housing project at 17th and G streets on the northeast edge of downtown, and a market study estimated downtown could accommodate 500 to 750 market-rate units. Four local business entities calling themselves Team Modesto propose a seven-story, mixed-use building on a block of 10th Street owned by the Redevelopment Agency. The building would have ground floor retail with 75 condos above. The project, however, appears to have stalled. Another proposed project — a combination office and residential condo tower at 14th and J streets — is on hold, according to Modesto attorney Bart Barringer, whose law firm owns the property. The project simply is not feasible at a time when the median home price in Stanislaus County has dropped 45% in three years to $215,000. "These economic times are causing us an awful lot of consternation over just what to do and when to do it," said Barringer, a member of the Downtown Improvement District board who called residential development "the next logical step" for downtown. "If we would have started this eight years ago, we would have sold the units and we'd look like geniuses. If we had started them three years ago and have them come on line right now, we'd be in the poorhouse." While housing may be a ways off, public improvements go forward. One of the most important may be planned streetscape improvements along Ninth and Tenth streets to create a connection from downtown to a bluff-top park overlook and to Tuolumne River Regional Park itself. Development of the park is a $20 million project, the first phase of which is complete, according to Doug Critchfield, of the city's Department of Parks, Recreation and Neighborhoods. Contacts: Linda Boston, Modesto Redevelopment Agency, (209) 571-5179. Brent Sinclair, Modesto Community Economic Development Department, (209) 577-5228. Bart Barringer, Mayol & Barringer, (209) 544-9555. Redevelopment master plan: www.modestorda.com/documents/masterplan.asp

(The following is a harangue by an imaginary resident of San Ramon addressed to the author of this column, in response to an earlier article he had supposedly written about San Ramon City Center. The ambitious mixed-use project (office, retail, housing and hotel) is to start construction in early 2009 in this city of 50,000 people in the southwest corner of Contra Costa County. Residents of San Ramon, which incorporated in 1983, have long expressed the desire for a conventional downtown area. Of the 39 acres to be developed, 17 belong to the developer, while the city owns the remaining 22, most of which the city bought from the developer to provide some seed capital for the project. The San Ramon City Council approved the project unanimously in December 2007, less than two years after Sunset Development first proposed the mixed-use endeavor. Please note that the proposed development adjoins the developer's existing Bishop Ranch office park. We go now to the harangue.) "What on earth is the matter with you? Isn't anything good enough for you? Really, I think you've got issues. "I mean, here's a project that meets just about every requirement you have ever asked for in urban design, or pretty darn close. San Ramon City Center has a regular street grid, and the city has excused the project from its set-back requirements, so most of the buildings can line the sidewalk. We have a good mix of different uses, including housing, office space, a new city hall, retail and a hotel — all to be built by our native son firm of Sunset Development. In terms of sustainability, this project is so green, it's practically purple. "Yes, it's not terribly exciting, but aren't you the guy who said that urban planning was not meant to be entertainment, and that urban designers should not be afraid of being a little bit boring? Make up your mind! "True, this new City Center is ‘nothing more,' as you say in your condescending way, than ‘an extension of a suburban business park.' And what's the matter with that? You yourself always say that suburbs grow up to be cities. San Ramon is growing up. So what's your point, bobble-head? "I acknowledge that it's hard to reinvent a suburban office park into a downtown area. And it is true that it is challenging, very challenging, to make a walkable street out of the regional highway known as Bollinger Canyon Road. I think our architects, Cooper Robertson of New York, have done a very good job in making the wide roadway feel narrow by planting a median strip in the middle of the street. And it's true that the football-field-sized plaza at the main intersection will probably look pretty big. That's why the architects ‘activated' the space, which you charmingly refer to as an ‘urban dead zone,' with an outdoor café and one of those fountains that surprise you, because you don't know when the water is going to spray up! Really, kids love that sort of thing. Who gives a rat's behind what you find ‘convincing'? You're not the client! We are. "I grant that you have a point, that the wide street is really a suburban thoroughfare, designed for the convenience of motorists and office tenants, not for the comfort and convenience of people on foot. To paraphrase a former secretary of defense, you design cities with the streets you've got. We've got a wide street, smarty. I don't like your suggestion of putting diagonal parking on either side as a means of narrowing the street. We don't want to slow down traffic, do we? Oh, we do? Well, why don't you slow down traffic in your own community and see if that improves the quality of your life! "And while I'm at it, I didn't appreciate your crack that San Ramon City Center doesn't look very much different than an office park from the air. That's simply not true: An office park would have much more landscaping around all the buildings, while the office buildings here will just have a little sward of grass surrounding them. And I don't think it was appropriate for you to ‘infer' that the grassy setbacks around the office buildings means that the developer has not gotten away from its suburban mindset. I don't really care that office buildings in San Francisco don't have grass all around them. Too bad for them. I like grass. "But what really ticks me off is the way you lampoon the main commercial block, which we call ‘the plaza.' It is not a ‘warmed-over lifestyle center.' It is a shopping street. What's wrong with the street being ‘inward looking,' as you call it? I don't know about you, but I don't feel like buying shoes right next to the city's busiest, fastest street. It would be like listening to your iPod at the Daytona Speedway. ‘Vroom, vroom' while you're trying to do something else. I don't think so. "What burns me up the most is when you say the developers ‘neither understand nor are in fundamental sympathy' with urban goals. Or when you say that San Ramon City Center is really just ‘pretend urbanism,' or, as you say – and this is really unforgivable – ‘a kind of children's tea-party version of a major downtown area, designed so as not to upset suburban expectations.' We'll, let's see you do better! "What? I hurt you with that last comment? No, I didn't know you were a frustrated urban designer, and you were only writing to make ends meet until the ‘really big plan' comes along. Oh, your lower lip is trembling! Oh, don't make those puppy-dog eyes at me! You know I can't resist that. "Yes, yes, I'll take you to dinner. But you've got to promise to behave and not poke any more fun at San Ramon. We're a young town. You should be proud that we're making the effort. Now, no more talk of urbanism. We're going to Chipotle."

The California Air Resources Board's release of a draft scoping plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions strikes me as important for several reasons. The plan provides a starting point for how California will dramatically reduce its output of gases that cause global climate change, and the plan downplays the role of land use planning in those reductions. Perhaps most important, however, the plan marks the State of California's return to the role of public policy leader. Other states and many cities are talking about ways to address climate change, but California's greenhouse gas emissions reduction law (AB 32) and the new scoping plan for implementing that law place the state at the forefront. As Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols said in a prepared statement, "California is once again blazing a trail to lead other states and the nation to address climate change." Two generations ago, California was a land of bold ideas and big actions. We invested heavily in huge public works projects on which we still rely. We built a three-tier system of higher education that made college accessible to every California resident. We adopted environmental protections that became models for the federal government and other states. This and more helped make California an economic powerhouse and a desirable place to live. For about the last 35 years, however, the "big picture" has eluded us. Instead, we have spent untold energy and money arguing about details and diversions. While other states and regions innovated, we devised the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund and the "triple flip." We got passed by. In the land use arena, states such as Oregon, Washington, New Jersey and Maryland brushed California into the suburban dustbin. But there is a void in climate change policy because the Bush administration has abdicated. Passage of AB 32 in 2006 moved California into a leadership position. The law requires the state to reduce its emission of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80% less than 1990 levels by 2050. Those are aggressive targets. The Air Resources Board is the agency charged with implementing the law, and the draft scoping plan released last week — during a board meeting that drew an audience of hundreds of people — outlines how the state will meet the emission goals. The scoping plan emphasizes cleaner-running vehicles, energy efficient buildings and appliances, renewable electricity sources, and minimizing industrial emissions. The plan calls for land use and local government activities to provide about 1% of reductions for the 2020 goal — something that concerns environmentalists and smart-growth advocates, and pleases development interests and many local governments. The plan is only a proposal, so it could change. Remember, though, what's important here is the big picture. The day after the air board released the scoping plan, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the UN body that shared last year's Nobel peace prize with Al Gore), said while speaking in Sacramento that the plan could set an example for the rest of the world. The Sacramento Bee agreed in a Sunday editorial , saying, "More than any other government in the world, California is creating a template for tackling global warming." Is the template the right one? No one knows. But at least the state is out on the leading edge of public policy once again. - Paul Shigley

Redevelopment agencies may soon have authority to assist homeowners with subprime loans who are facing foreclosure, and to acquire foreclosed housing. Under a measure likely to pass the Legislature, redevelopment agencies could aid homeowners, lenders and developers whether or not the subject property is within a redevelopment project area. However, a late amendment to the bill would prevent agencies from using their 20% housing set-aside fund for the activities. Assembly Bill 2594 by Assemblyman Gene Mullin (D-South San Francisco) would permit redevelopment agencies to enter the foreclosure and subprime mortgage mess. The measure passed the Assembly in May and survived the state Senate Transportation and Housing Committee in late June before heading to the Senate floor. But the only way that Mullin and the California Redevelopment Association (CRA), the bill's sponsor, could get the bill out of that committee was to a delete a provision allowing redevelopment agencies to spend their 20% housing set-aside funds for foreclosure-related activities. Instead, the bill permits redevelopment agencies to use only the "other" 80% of funds that are normally dedicated to infrastructure, economic development and activities that generate tax increment. "It's not a minor amendment," said John Shirey, executive director of the CRA. He predicted that preventing redevelopment agencies from using housing funds for foreclosure-related activities would "greatly reduce the likelihood" that local government will get involved directly. Still, the bill does authorize redevelopment agencies to make new loans, buy out subprime mortgages and acquire foreclosed units anywhere within the local jurisdiction. Approval in the state Senate appears likely, with a vote coming in August. The governor's position on AB 2594 is unknown. With the subprime mortgage mess reaching new heights, state lawmakers introduced a number of bills in January and February to address the issue through direct government intervention or regulation of the mortgage industry. With hundreds of thousands of California homeowners facing foreclosure, many people assumed at least some pieces of legislation would pass easily. But that has not happened. For example, a five-bill package that sought to tighten lending practices died in the Senate Banking, Finance and Insurance Committee, where members said federal regulators and the private market could take care of the situation. The Mullin bill was another one that appeared on the surface as if it would sail through the Legislature. Foreclosures have hit both Democratic and Republican districts. Plus the bill is permissive — it does not mandate that local government officials do anything. The measure passed the Assembly in May on a 49-23 vote, with all but one of the opposing votes cast by Republicans. The bill then went to the Senate, where it faced more Republican resistance — the caucus has recommended a "no" vote, saying that government intervention is not necessary — as well as opposition from affordable housing advocates, who argued against spending low/mod housing funds on foreclosures. The CRA's Shirey was among the people surprised at the level of opposition. "I have to admit to some frustration over this issue because we initiated this bill at the request of the Democratic leadership," Shirey said. "This crisis is not over by a long shot. I just don't sense any urgency to do something about the problem." For cities and counties, the problem is this: Foreclosed houses are accumulating and becoming blighting influences. Oftentimes, the houses sit vacant. They quickly deteriorate and attract "broken window" problems that can drag down a neighborhood — the sort of problems that redevelopment agencies are often charged with solving after the fact. A number of cities have increased their code enforcement efforts to force the property owner, usually a bank or investor, to maintain a house and its landscaping. But a better solution may be to have people living in the house. That's where the Mullin bill comes in. The measure includes a number of provisions: • The bill authorizes redevelopment agencies to use non-housing funds to provide pre-foreclosure assistance to homeowners by acquiring, assuming or refinancing mortgages or making new loans to homeowners. • Assistance would be limited to homeowners with subprime and non-traditional mortgages, terms which the bill defines. • Because only non-housing funds may be used, homeowners with incomes of up to 150% (rather than the low/mod limit of 120%) of median income are eligible for assistance. • No affordability covenants are required to be placed on assisted properties. • Agencies may help lenders or developers purchase for-sale vacant homes that have been foreclosed so that the units may be rented or sold. • Agencies may acquire and manage foreclosed units themselves. • Agencies may provide counseling to homeowners in financial difficulty. • The bill contains a January 1, 2013, sunset date. Mullin and the CRA argued that agencies should be able to use a portion of the 20% of revenues required by law to be spent on housing for low- and moderate-income families. "We are clearly in a mortgage crisis," Mullin told the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee. "This is a pro-active measure to attempt to head off blight." But Committee Chairman Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) said he would oppose the bill unless provisions for use of low/mod housing funds were deleted. State law requires redevelopment agencies to devote 20% of revenues to increase and improve affordable housing because redevelopment activities often shrink the affordable housing stock, he said. The bill would not increase the housing stock, rather it tackles blight, Lowenthal said, adding, "Activities to address blight are appropriately addressed by the other 80%." Lowenthal echoed the concerns of affordable housing advocates, who lobbied hard against AB 2594 as originally written. "We are fully aware of the growing foreclosure problem and its effect on our communities, particularly where our clients live, but the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund (LMIHF) is not the appropriate source to mitigate the problem," Christine Minnehan, a lobbyist for the Western Center on Law & Poverty, and Brian Augusta, an attorney with the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, wrote in a letter to lawmakers. "The LMIHF must be used to ‘increase and preserve' the community's supply of affordable housing." Minnehan said she could accept a bill that permitted agencies to use their non-housing funds on the foreclosure problem inside and outside of project areas. Steve Lantsberger, who manages the Hesperia Redevelopment Agency, said removing housing funds from the equation will reduce agencies' interest in helping resolve foreclosure issues. "You're talking housing. It only makes sense to use housing funds," Lantsberger said. "Most of our non-housing funds are committed to capital projects and making debt payments." Located in the San Bernardino County high desert, Hesperia experienced a housing construction boom from 2003 through 2006, when as many as 1,800 units a year were built. Now, there are "several hundred" units in some stage of foreclosure, and developers are walking away from half-built subdivisions and incomplete infrastructure projects, Lantsberger said. In addition, vacant foreclosed houses are being used for parties, drug activity and by squatters, he said. "It just invites problems that we are having to deal with as municipalities," he said. The extraordinary circumstances of the day justify the spending of redevelopment funds outside of designated project areas, Shirey said. "It's a good investment for redevelopment agencies to deal with those properties now, before those neighborhoods become candidates for redevelopment," Shirey said. Contacts: John Shirey, California Redevelopment Association, (916) 448-8760. Office of Assemblyman Gene Mullin, (916) 319-2019. Christine Minnehan, Western Center on Law & Poverty, (916) 442-0753. Steve Lantsberger, Hesperia Redevelopment Agency, (760) 947-1906.

The state auditor is questioning construction of a new death row at San Quentin State Prison, saying Department of Corrections' cost estimates for construction and operation are too low. Although State Auditor Elaine Howle did not recommend a different location for the project, many people expect her to do just that in an upcoming report. For years, government officials and civic leaders in Marin County have been urging the state to build the new death row elsewhere. People in Marin County would like to see the 156-year-old San Quentin closed eventually, and the site converted into a multi-modal transit hub and other uses (see CP&DR Public Development , April 2005 ). Last year, Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have delayed construction until Corrections investigated alternative sites, something that Howle recommended in 2004. In June, Howle estimated the 768-cell project could cost $395 million to construct, up from Corrections' initial estimate of $220 million, and add $1.2 billion to staffing expenses during the first 20 years of operation. And, unless the state double-cells condemned inmates — a practice that is not recommended — the facility would be full by 2014. The State Water Resources Control Board has proposed an overhaul of how it and the regional water quality control boards carry out many basic regulatory functions. The detailed proposal contains 17 changes that state lawmakers would have to make, and nine administrative changes that the state and regional boards could implement on their own. Among the legislative changes recommended: • Ease conflict-of-interest rules so that more experienced candidates would be eligible to serve on regional boards. • Make regional board chairs full-time, paid positions. • Create a formal, public process by which the regional board chairs may coordinate efforts and reduce regional inconsistencies. • Streamline the process for adopting total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), a measure of how much of a certain pollutant a water body can tolerate. • Streamline enforcement procedures. • Allow regional board executive officers to make some decisions now requiring regional board action. Among the administrative changes recommended: • Standardize the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process so that it is consistent and permits are enforceable. • Improve data management systems and make water quality information available on-line. • Move forward with a new Bay Delta cross functional team of state and regional board staff members to develop and implement water rights and water quality actions. • Upgrade enforcement efforts and spill notification requirements. The state board plan appears to be a response to State Senate President Don Perata, whose bill to reduce regional board membership and change board member qualifications was vetoed last year. Perata has a similar bill this year (SB 1176), but it appears to be going nowhere. Criticism of regional boards by "the regulated community" has increased during recent years. Information on the "Water Quality Improvement Initiative" is available on the state board's website, www.waterboards.ca.gov . The developer of the proposed Las Lomas project on the edge of the Santa Clarita Valley has sued the City of Los Angeles for $100 million because the city stopped processing the development applications. In a suit filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, developer Dan Palmer argues that the city halted the process for arbitrary and discriminatory reasons. The Los Angeles City Council in March voted 10-5 to stop processing the application for 5,500 housing units and 2 million square feet of office space on 555 acres at Interstate 5 and Highway 14. Councilmembers said the project would add too much traffic to the already congested interstate. The company that owns Newhall Land and Farming Company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in June. Newhall officials insisted their company — which has developed much of the Santa Clarita Valley and is behind the proposed 21,000-unit Newhall Ranch project — was not going out of business. The parent company, LandSource Communities Development LLC, characterized the bankruptcy filing as only a means of restructuring debt.

An award of $665,000 in damages and legal expenses to a developer in Pacifica has been thrown out by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The unanimous three-judge panel determined that a questionable condition of project approval that the city eventually repealed did not constitute a violation of the developer's equal protection rights because the condition did not stop the project from moving forward. The Ninth Circuit determined that the City of Pacific owed developer North Pacifica LLC nothing. The case illustrates, Judge Mary Schroeder wrote bluntly, "the friction that can grow between a developer trying to secure approval of a condominium project as quickly as possible, and a city trying to use development permit procedures to avoid all foreseeable future problems." Pacifica is a city of about 40,000 people on the coast of San Mateo County where slow-growth politics predominate. For more than 25 years, Pacifica's growth wars have spilled into the courts and voting booths. Ten years ago, Pacifica was the setting for the important state appellate court ruling Milagra Ridge Partners Ltd. v. City of Pacifica , 62 Cal.App.4th 108 (1998) (see CP&DR Legal Digest , April 1998). In that case, the court ruled that voters' decision to overturn a general plan amendment permitting a housing subdivision did not amount to inverse condemnation because the developer had never submitted an application that conformed to the general plan. In May of this year, a different developer wanting to develop the "Quarry" property — where voters have blocked development multiple times — sued the city, alleging construction of a water treatment plant and realignment of Calera Creek damaged the property. The case at hand involved proposed development of a 4.3-acre parcel known as the "Bowl." In 1999, North Pacifica (NP) filed an application for a condominium project on the site. City officials made a number of requests for additional information before finally deeming the application complete in June 2001. Before the application made it to the Planning Commission, North Pacifica sued, alleging that city processing delays had violated the company's due process and equal protection rights. The Planning Commission approved the project, but a citizen appealed to the City Council. In August 2002, the City Council approved the project subject to 39 conditions of approval. North Pacifica objected to a number of the conditions, including condition 13 (b) requiring that condominium owners be individually and collectively liable for maintenance of building exteriors, landscaping, common areas and an access road. North Pacifica contended that no other condo developer in the state had ever been subject to condition 13 (b) and said it would render the project unsaleable. Apparently, however, North Pacifica's written objections never reached either the Planning Commission or City Council until after the project was approved. At the time, city attorneys and planners insisted on the condition as protection because North Pacifica had filed a different lawsuit in state court demanding that the city maintain the access road. (North Pacifica eventually lost that suit at the appellate court level in 2005.) A citizen appealed the City Council's approval of the entire project — 19 houses and 24 condominium units on the 5.8 acres as the "Fish" and "Bowl" sites — to the Coastal Commission. Those proceedings ground on for years before the Commission in May 2006 overturned the city's approval because of impacts to wetlands. The developer's suit against the Coastal Commission is pending in state court. Meanwhile back in federal court, U.S. Magistrate Judge Edward Chen ruled that North Pacifica could not pursue its due process claim because it had not sought compensation in state court. But in October 2003, Judge Chen concluded that imposition of condition 13 (b) did violate the developer's right to equal protection. After that ruling, the City Council repealed the condition. Still, North Pacifica sought damages, and in May 2005 Chen awarded $156,000 in damages, $454,000 in attorney's fees and $55,000 in costs. Chen concluded that the development was worth less from August 2002 until November 2003, the period during which condition 13 (b) was in effect. Both sides appealed to the Ninth Circuit. North Pacifica sought to resurrect its due process claim, while the city sought to overturn the award for violation of equal protection. The city won on both counts. The Ninth Circuit concluded that imposition of condition 13 (b) did not violate equal protection rights because there was no evidence the city singled out NP for discriminatory treatment. The court also noted that compensation was not justified unless the developer could prove actual damages. "The problem" wrote Judge Schroeder, "is that there was no reduction in value attributable to condition 13 (b) because development could not go forward until NP obtained a development permit from the Coastal Commission. The condition did not cause any actual delay. Even if we were to agree that NP should have prevailed on the equal protection claim, it would have been entitled only to nominal damages." On the due process claim, the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's ruling but on different grounds. The district court said NP first had to press and lose a claim in state court before seeking relief in federal court. That would have been true had NP filed a taking claim, but the developer instead filed a due process claim based on the city's lengthy process, the Ninth Circuit pointed out. The Ninth Circuit found there was a "reasonable explanation" for every delay. The city needed additional information to review the application, it sought a new application when NP's agent dropped out of the process, and it restarted the environmental review process after determining that NP wrongly claimed the project was exempt, the court noted. The Case: North Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica , No. 05-16069, 08 C.D.O.S. 5685. Filed May 13, 2008. The Lawyers: For North Pacifica: Jaquelynn Pope, (310) 379-3410. For the city: Lee Rosenthal, Goldfarb & Lipman, (510) 836-6336.

The Sierra Club's challenge of the environmental review for a large annexation by the City of Orange and a related development by the Irvine Company has been rejected by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The court turned away arguments that the environmental analysis for the Santiago Hills and East Orange projects improperly described the project, segmented environmental reviews, failed to adequately address water quality, incorrectly analyzed traffic and lacked a proper project alternatives analysis. The area in question is 6,800 acres to the east of Orange but within the city's sphere of influence. During the 1980s, the city certified a program environmental impact report and adopted the East Orange general plan for the area. In 2000, the city certified a supplemental program EIR for the 500-acre Santiago Hills II planned community. Three years later, the Irvine Company submitted an application for a general plan amendment and development entitlements. It proposed 1,700 housing units at Santiago Hills II, 1,100 units in East Orange planned community 1 (EOPC 1), 1,200 units and 212 acres of commercial development in EOPC 2, and 50 units in EOPC 3. Nearly two-thirds of the 6,800 acres would remain open space under the Irvine plan. The city prepared a combined supplemental environmental impact report for the Santiago Hills portion, and an environmental impact report for the East Orange segments. In November 2005, the City Council certified the combined SEIR/EIR, adopted a statement of overriding considerations because not all impacts could be mitigated, and approved the project. The council eliminated the 50 units in EOPC 3. The Sierra Club sued, arguing that the city violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Orange County Superior Court Judge Stephen Sundvold ruled for the city, and a three-judge panel of the Fourth District, Division Three, upheld the lower court. First, the court had to determine whether the Sierra Club filed the lawsuit on time. Plaintiffs have 30 days to file a CEQA suit. The city approved the project on November 8, 2005, and filed a "notice of determination" the next day. To correct mistakes, the city filed a second notice of determination on November 14, and a third on November 22. The Sierra Club sued on December 14. Irvine argued the suit was too late because it was filed more than 30 days after the initial notice of determination. The court ruled the environmentalists could rely on the second notice; therefore, the lawsuit was filed on time. On the merits, the Sierra Club argued the project description was inadequate because the SEIR/EIR acknowledged the exact boundaries of territory to be annexed were yet to be determined. The court, however, said this one statement was not conclusive. The SEIR/EIR contained a written description of the project area and maps depicting the city's sphere of influence and the project area, and described in detail all four planned community areas. "Since the SEIR/EIR reviewed the entire project area, the mere fact defendant may eventually annex only a portion of it does not render the approval an abuse of its discretion under CEQA," Justice William Rylaarsdam wrote for the court. The Sierra Club argued that the SEIR/EIR broke up impacts into separate project components as a way of minimizing significance. Irvine countered that the Sierra Club did not raise this concern during the administrative proceedings, so it could not raise it in court. The Sierra Club cited numerous pages of the administrative record and two internal documents from the period before the draft SEIR/EIR was released. But none of the Sierra Club's citations were adequate for the court, which ruled the group had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies on the matter. Comments made prior to SEIR/EIR preparation were of little use here, and other comments cited by the Sierra Club were too general to alert Orange adequately to the question segmentation, the court determined. On the issue of water quality impacts, the court again determined that the Sierra Club had forfeited part of its argument for failing to exhaust administrative remedies. The court determined the Sierra Club could raise only the issue of impacts to Irvine Lake, but concluded the group "failed to accurately summarize the relevant facts." The Sierra Club complained the SEIR/EIR contained only one vague sentence about baseline conditions at Irvine Lake. However, the court noted that an appendix to the SEIR/EIR "provides the information plaintiff contends is missing." The Sierra Club's best shot might have been on traffic. Three years ago, a different panel of Fourth District judges threw out an EIR that Orange County approved for a development in the same general vicinity because the county did not use the general plan's prescribed methodology for measuring traffic service levels ( Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orang e, (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777; see CP&DR Legal Digest , September 2005 ). The Sierra Club argued the SEIR/EIR analysis of impacts to Santiago Canyon Road should have been based on county general plan standards because the area is unincorporated. Instead, the SEIR/EIR was based on the city's general plan standards. The court found the city's approach acceptable because the city would annex the portion of Santiago Canyon Road in question were the project to move forward. The Sierra Club also contested the project alternatives analysis, arguing that more environmentally friendly alternatives were dismissed with little explanation. The court found the alternatives analysis was less than exhaustive and "may not be perfect, but it is sufficient." The Sierra Club has asked the state Supreme Court to review the case. The Case: Sierra Club v. City of Orange , No. G037999, 08 C.D.O.S. 6661, 2008 DJDAR 7956. Filed April 30, 2008. Ordered published May 30, 2008. The Lawyers: For Sierra Club: Frank Angel, (310) 314-6433. For the city: Robert Bower, Rutan & Tucker, (714) 641-5100. For Irvine Company: Christopher Garrett, Latham & Watkins, (619) 236-1234.

An appellate court has reinstated a lawsuit over environmental review of a recreational trail proposed to be built in San Mateo County. A Santa Clara County Superior Court judge had thrown out the suit because it was filed after the California Environmental Quality Act's usual 30-day statute of limitations expired. However, the Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled there was "reasonable probability" environmentalists could show that a 180-day statute of limitations applied here. The longer period for filing a lawsuit applies in instances where an agency approves a project without determining whether the project would have a significant impact on the environment. The group Committee for Green Foothills argued that is just what the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors did when it approved an agreement with Stanford University regarding a new alignment for a trail required by earlier project approvals. In late 2000, Santa Clara County approved a general use permit (GUP) allowing Stanford to develop 2 million square feet of academic facilities and 3,000 housing units. Condition I.2 of the GUP required Stanford to develop and maintain portions of two trail alignments across Stanford lands. In December 2005, the county Board of Supervisors approved an agreement with Stanford that was intended to satisfy condition I.2. The agreement selected a final alignment for the trails, known as the S1 and C1 trails. At issue here was the C1 trail alignment. The agreement called for the Stanford-funded trail to be developed outside of Santa Clara County in unincorporated San Mateo County and the Town of Portola Valley, provided that those jurisdictions agreed. The Committee for Green Foothills sued, arguing that the agreement approved a new trail alignment without environmental review, and instead improperly deferred environmental analysis to San Mateo County and Portola Valley. The county and Stanford responded by saying the suit was too late because CEQA prescribes a 30-day statute of limitations. The county filed a notice of determination on December 13, 2005, and a revised notice on December 20, 2005. The committee did not file its lawsuit until June 9, 2006. The trial court judge agreed with the county and Stanford that the lawsuit was too late, but a unanimous three-judge panel of the Sixth District overturned the lower court's decision. The revised notice of determination described the project and referenced the EIR for the S1 trail alignment, the EIR for the GUP, and the EIR and supplemental EIR for the 1995 county trails master plan. A notice of determination is intended to follow certification of an EIR or negative declaration, and starts the 30-day statute of limitation. The Committee said that, unlike with the S1 trail — which was realigned because an earlier proposed alignment would impact riparian habitat — the C1 realignment was never subject to environmental review. The Committee argued that because the county never determined whether the new C1 alignment would impact the environment, the 30-day statute of limitations did not apply. Instead, they committee argued that a section of CEQA (Public Resources Code § 21167, subdivision (a)) applied. That section permits suits for up to 180 days after an agency approves without environmental review a project that may have a significant environmental effect. The Sixth District appeared convinced by the Committee and determined the group should at least have the opportunity to make this argument to the trail court. "It appears that the Committee may be able to allege facts showing that the proposed changes with respect to the C1 trail alignment were sufficiently substantial to require an EIR subsequent or supplemental to the GUP EIR," Justice Franklin Elia wrote for the court. "In addition, the Committee may be able to state facts indicating that the proposed subsequent activities with regard to the C1 trail alignment should have been examined in light of the program EIRs to determine whether the activities were within the scope of the project covered by the program EIRs and whether those activities had potential environmental effects not fully examined in those EIRs." The county and Stanford further argued that the committee was suing over implementation of the GUP condition, and the Government Code permits only 90 days for such suits. But the court concluded the suit was essentially a CEQA claim that was governed by the 180-day statute of limitations. Stanford and Santa Clara County have asked the state Supreme Court to review the Sixth District decision. The Supreme Court already has one CEQA statute of limitations case pending, Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton (see CP&DR Local Watch , February 2008 ; Legal Digest , May 2008 ). The Case: Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors , No. H030986, 08 C.D.O.S. 4188, 2008 DJDAR 5178. Filed April 10, 2008. The Lawyers: For the committee: William Parkin, Parkin & Wittwer, (831) 429-4055. For the county: Lizanne Reynolds, county counsel's office, (408) 299-5940. For Stanford: Barbara Schussman, Bingham McCutchen, (925) 937-8000.

A plan that alters regulations for the operation of a wastewater treatment plant that disposes of effluent into a Sierra Nevada foothills creek, rather than requiring improvements to the plant, has been upheld by the First District Court of Appeal. Anglers and environmentalists sued over the plan, arguing state water quality regulators violated the California Environmental Quality Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. But a unanimous three-judge panel of the First District, Division One, ruled for the government. Deer Creek runs through the lower foothills of El Dorado and Sacramento counties before flowing into the Cosumnes River near Elk Grove. In 1974, El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) built a wastewater treatment plant on Deer Creek below Cameron Park Lake. The treatment plant's effluent constitutes a majority of the flow in Deer Creek during much of the summer and fall. The creek was subject to the State Water Resources Control Board's plans adopted in 1989, 1994 and 1998 for the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers basin. The basin plan contained a generic "Delta 5-degree requirement," under which discharges were not permitted to raise the temperature of natural receiving waters by more than 5 degrees. Discharges from EID's treatment plant regularly exceeded the basin plan's objectives for temperature, as well as for pH and turbidity. After significant plant upgrades, the temperature of effluent remained too warm. In lieu of making further plant improvements, the district commenced a "site-specific basin plan amendment" for Deer Creek. The amendment actually provided greater temperature restrictions for the period of January through August, the time when water flows in the creek are naturally their highest. But temperature rules were relaxed for September through December. In 2003, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board accepted the amendment, and the State Water Resources Control Board approved it, as did the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water temperature is critical for salmon and trout, which require cold water environments. The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and environmentalists sued the state board to set aside the amendment and require preparation of temperature requirements that would allow salmon and trout to live in Deer Creek. A San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled for the state, a decision upheld on appeal. The First District opinion contains great detail about the facts of the case and the administrative procedure, and cites statutes and case law at length. The opinion devotes less space to analysis of the Alliance's claims. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to certified regulatory programs such as this one. Still, CEQA's broad policy goals and substantive standards do apply, so the regional and state boards follow an environmental review process that is the functional equivalent of CEQA. The Alliance argued the study approved by the regional board was the equivalent of a negative declaration — a document that may be prepared when a project would have no significant environmental impacts. Supporting the Alliance's argument was a regional board checklist. A box was marked next to the statement, "The proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a negative declaration will be prepared." Despite the checklist, the court found the regional board prepared a full environmental study based on scientific studies and consultation with other public agencies and experts. "This is not a case in which the regional board merely offered a checklist that denied the project would have any environmental impact and ‘obviously intended its documentation to be the functional equivalent of a negative declaration,'" Justice Douglas Swager wrote for the court, citing City of Arcadia v. State Water Resources Control Board , (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1423. "Rather, when read in its entirety the report demonstrates that the regional board considered all significant implications on the environment of the decision to adopt the proposed site-specific temperature amendments, in the nature of a full EIR, before finding that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on Deer Creek water quality objectives." The court also ruled that there was nothing about the marked checklist that misled the public. Regarding the Porter-Cologne Act, the Alliance argued that there was "undisputed and overwhelming" evidence that rainbow trout had historically inhabited Deer Creek, and that salmon could spawn in the waterway. These were "beneficial uses" that Porter-Cologne required state officials to protect, the Alliance argued. That assertions about trout conflicted with the conclusion of a state fisheries biologist. He said Deer Creek has not provided for a viable, self-sustaining population of rainbow trout before or after construction of the wastewater treatment plant. Swager called this "a classic case of conflicting evidence," which the appellate court was required to resolve in favor of the prevailing party at the trial court — namely, the state board. The court also rejected the Alliance's argument that the amendment would cause conditions that prevent salmon from migrating upstream into Deer Creek. The Case: California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. State Water Resources Control Board , No. A117494, 08 C.D.O.S. 3259, 2008 DJDAR 3931. Filed March 21, 2008 For the Alliance: Greg Loarie, Earthjustice, (510) 550-6725. For the state board: William Jenkins, attorney general's office, (415) 703-5527.

Are the exurbs dead? You'd think so, based on all the publicity about plummeting home prices in California – and the rapidly increasing price of gasoline. In the short run, it is probably true that we'll see big housing price drops in the exurbs and construction will stop almost completely. The question is whether long-term California real estate prices will ever recover enough – and whether gas prices will stabilize enough – to make the exurbs competitive again. But there's another issue: whether better-located but troubled close-in suburbs can bounce back too. In many cases, they've been even harder hit. A year ago, the average home price in the state was $450,000 and gas was around three bucks a gallon. Today, the average home price is around $330,000 – and gas is moving steadily toward five bucks a gallon. The obvious conclusion here is that if you bought an overpriced exurban home on a subprime mortgage with the intent of commuting a long way to your job, you're screwed. And it's clear that a lot of people in this situation are screwed. Home prices have dropped more precipitously throughout inland California than in the coastal areas. DataQuick reported that prices dropped by 28-30% in May from the same month a year ago in Riverside and San Bernardino counties but by only 20-23% in the coastal counties of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego. Sacramento dropped by 35%, while San Francisco held almost even and Marin actually went up. Beneath the headlines are a few subtleties. The biggest wrinkle is that it's not just the exurbs that are hurting. There are lots of places – in all kinds of locations – that have been hard-hit by the subprime crisis. It's really not about location so much as it is about demography. In the Sacramento region, for example, the hardest-hit location has not been an exurb in some outlying county but Elk Grove, located only 15 miles to the south of job-rich downtown Sacramento. Almost 80% of recent home sales in Elk Grove have been of houses in foreclosure. Another hard-hit location has been Sacramento's Natomas area, located just over the American River from the Capitol. Both Elk Grove and Natomas are well-located in the metro area and close to jobs. But they were magnets for young renter families using teaser mortgages to get into a house. There was another type of location that was slammed by the subprime market – older, built-out, largely poor communities. One of the biggest price drops in Los Angeles County occurred in Compton. And in San Bernardino County, according to DataQuick, the home price drop in San Bernardino city zip codes (54%) far outweighed the drop in the High Desert (around 40%). Compton is extremely well-located in relation to jobs but, of course, has a reputation, deserved or not, as poor and crime-ridden. San Bernardino is much closer to Inland Empire and even Orange County jobs than the High Desert, but suffers from a similar reputation. So, really, the subprime mess creates two different problems for communities. The first is whether the exurbs can hang on to the ledge until the housing market comes back. And the second is whether the close-in suburbs – whether new like Elk Grove and Natomas or old like San Bernardino and Compton – will get bailed out by their locational advantage. Let's take the exurbs first. Conventional wisdom would suggest that any California exurb will be a long-term winner. After all, there are only so many places to build. Demand is still strong. People still want single-family homes and what they perceive to be good school districts. And jobs are gradually dribbling out of the coastal areas to inland locations. All this may be true, but it really depends on how strongly and quickly the housing market bounces back all across the states. The exurbs thrived during the '80s but suffered during the '90s when a big recession caused home prices to drop and construction to fall off. The result was not just half-built subdivisions in the exurbs, but a big move back toward the coast. Anybody who had a coastal job and could afford to move closer did so. This will surely happen again -- now that the average home price in Anaheim, for example, has dropped below $400,000. You would think, of course, that over time an exurb would become better positioned in the metropolitan constellation as all the other "moving parts" shift. This was certainly true of the postwar suburbs such as the San Fernando Valley, the San Mateo County Peninsula, and Orange County. And it has been true of some '80s suburbs that have gone high-end, such as Pleasanton and Santa Clarita. But the experience of the true '80s exurbs in the recent bust does not send an encouraging signal. In both the Antelope Valley and Moreno Valley – the signature '80s exurbs – home prices have dropped by more than 40% during the last year. They were exurbs 20 years ago and apparently they still are – to their detriment. So it would seem the recovery of the exurbs will be long and slow, and it is unlikely that all those subdivisions in the High Desert and the Central Valley and the Coachella Valley will get built anytime soon (see CP&DR Local Watch , December 2007 ). Exurbs may not become slums, as Christopher Leinberger of the Brookings Institution has predicted, but they will be sub-par real estate performers for a long time. In many ways, the more interesting question is what happens to the Comptons and San Bernardinos. After all, they have location on their side – and location is presumed to be an enormous advantage these days. It's true that over the last generation, the old assumption that affluent folks will keep moving farther out and their previous housing will "filter down" to less affluent folks has been debunked in many cases. But mostly this has occurred because middle-class suburbs – if they have some locational advantage – have gone rich. This has been true of Pasadena, Santa Monica and parts of the San Fernando Valley and, again, the San Mateo County Peninsula. What hasn't happened much is the gentrification of older suburbs of modest means. In other words, up to now, location hasn't been enough for these places to thrive. But in a world where traffic is congested and gas is five bucks a gallon, that could change. I'd say as traveling gets harder and more expensive, San Bernardino is a better bet than the High Desert, and Compton a better bet than the Antelope Valley.

Coastal wetlands used to cover a huge swath of Southern California's coast, serving as a sanctuary for wildlife and plants. But today one is hard pressed to find many wetlands left in this urbanized section of the state, where homes, marinas and ports long ago replaced native habitat. While wide, sandy beaches and rocky tide pools are part of the Southern California landscape, quieter wetlands with estuaries, marshes and sand dunes are harder to find. That might explain why coastal wetland habitat is prized in the region. One effort to preserve and re-create coastal wetlands is happening in Oxnard in Ventura County, where state and local officials have struggled to bring back a two-mile stretch of Ormond Beach. When finished, 750-acre Ormond Beach will be a significant addition to the regional wetlands inventory. But it's been a bumpy path to get there, and more bumps — in the form of adjacent urban development — remain. The largest city in Ventura County with approximately185,000 residents, Oxnard for years was a dumping ground of unwanted industrial uses. In the past generation, though, the city has focused on more desirable development and cultivating its coastal location. Ormond Beach reflects the city's past, containing the city's wastewater treatment plan, a power plant, a paper mill and even a Superfund site on its border. But it is also home to at least six endangered or threatened species, and more than 200 species of migratory birds are found there. Local environmentalists pushed for restoration of Ormond Beach for many years, and in 1999, the California Coastal Conservancy began purchasing land. The conservancy has spent $25 million on land purchases and planning for the restoration of the site, according to Peter Brand, senior project manager for the conservancy. The conservancy has already bought 540 acres, with plans to acquire more. A feasibility study for restoring the beach area is scheduled for completion this summer, Brand said, followed by more developmental studies before construction begins. A better-known wetlands restoration project in Southern California is at Bolsa Chica in Huntington Beach, a project that Brand said cost $145 million (see CP&DR In Brief , May 2005 ; Environment Watch , January 2002 ). Bolsa Chica's restoration costs were high due to its location next to busy Pacific Coast Highway and oil fields. Ormond Beach, in contrast, is located away from most development in Oxnard. It lies south of Port Hueneme and north of the 1,500-acre Pt. Mugu Lagoon. When Ormond Beach is restored, the combined wetlands will be the largest in Southern California. "The Ormond Beach wetlands restoration project is larger than the other big coastal wetland restorations on the south coast like Bolsa Chica, Ballona, Batiquitos and San Dieguito," said Brand. "The biggest difference between Ormond Beach and Ballona and all these other projects is not just size, but that we can restore something close to the historic extent and function. … The others don't have that opportunity because of existing development." The biggest problem at Ormond Beach is probably the Halaco scrap metal facility, which operated next to the wetlands until 2004. Environmentalists fought for years to get Halaco to close after the plant was found to have caused both air and water pollution. Halaco's legacy is a 40-foot-high, 28-acre mountain of toxic slag that remains on the fenced-off site. Brand said drainage from Halaco's site is a problem for restoring the wetlands. The site was added to the federal Superfund cleanup list in 2007, but due to limited federal funding, clean up may take many years. A federal lawsuit brought against Halaco by two environmental groups, Channelkeeper and the Environmental Defense Center, is in the process of winding down. "Channelkeeper and the Environmental Defense Center have concluded that the Environmental Protection Agency can handle it from here," said Daniel Cooper, an attorney for the groups. "It's time for us to get out." While the bulk of development in Oxnard is far from Ormond Beach, two projects proposed near the area have alarmed environmentalists who fear that more development will hurt the wetlands restoration. The projects, which may be considered by the Oxnard City Council in the next year, are a 1,300 unit residential project called SouthShore, and a 287-acre industrial park. The housing project is especially of concern to environmentalists, who fear that the residents and their pets will disturb the nests of endangered birds at Ormond Beach. But Matthew Winegar, Oxnard's director of development services, does not share the concern about adding residents to the area. "The beach has never been a recreational beach," he said. "The wetlands didn't extend to SouthShore," Brand, of the Coastal Conservancy, said. "That's one project we've pretty much ignored." The industrial park also is not considered a big problem by everyone, although potential flooding of that site is a worry. David Armstrong, whose firm serves as land use consultants to the city as it plans for the industrial park, said industrial parks are usually raised above natural sea levels. He said the industrial park is a compatible use for the property, which had been zoned for residential use but is currently farmland. The project would also provide 3,200 jobs in a poor area, he said. Brand said the Coastal Conservancy hopes to buy some of the farmland adjacent to the beach, but no deal has been struck. Winegar said stormwater runoff will either percolate into the ground or, during larger storms, be treated to prevent harm to the wetlands. He doubts the industrial land will be turned into parkland. "I don't think there will be enough money to go around," he said. Some environmentalists are also concerned that a proposed $55 million overhaul of the city's water system could impact Ormond Beach by allowing these developments and others to occur on the edges of Ormond Beach. The project is reliant on federal enabling legislation that has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives, according to Al Sanders, conservation chair of the Los Padres Chapter of the Sierra Club. Federal funding for the project is still pending in Congress. Sanders bemoaned the time the Ormond Beach project has taken to complete. "It really has been a citizen driven effort," he said. "We don't have any elected officials who have taken this on as their cause celebre. The biggest problem is the lack of direction on what should happen." Contacts: Peter Brand, California Coastal Conservancy, (510) 286-4162. Matthew Winegar, City of Oxnard (805) 385-7896. Al Sanders, Sierra Club, (805) 488-7988. David Armstrong, Armstrong Real Estate Advisors, (310) 600-6682. Daniel Cooper, Environmental Defense Center, (415) 440-6520. The Case: Santa Barbara Channelkeeper and Environmental Defense Center v. Halaco , U.S. District Court case no. CV01-00456CAS(MCX).