Search Results

Plans to build the first new, large-scale ski resort in California in four decades — and the largest project in Lassen County history — appear to be in serious jeopardy. The developers of the proposed Dyer Mountain Resort, in the Sierra Nevada Mountains west of Susanville, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in late March. News of the filing has caused environmentalists to celebrate, and Lassen County officials to wait even longer on what supporters have called an important economic development opportunity. The developer's attorney characterized the bankruptcy filing as a "bump in the road" and vowed that the project would go forward. But there is clearly doubt about the project in Lassen County, whose population of 36,000 includes more than 10,000 inmates at two state prisons in the county seat of Susanville. "We've just got to wait now for the judge to make a decision," said a frustrated county Supervisor Bob Pyle, a longtime supporter of the project. But for the project opponents, the bankruptcy is only further proof that the project has been unrealistic from the outset. "We always knew they never had the money because they kept missing payments to the county," said Steve Robinson, president and executive director of Mountain Meadows Conservancy. That organization and two other environmental groups filed a lawsuit over the project's environmental impact report in October. The project is interesting for a number of reasons. First, it was approved somewhat conceptually by voters in 2000, making the county's planning and environmental review process somewhat awkward. Second, Dyer Mountain would be the first large ski resort built from scratch since the California Environmental Quality Act became law in 1970. Finally, the project would be by-far the biggest development in remote Lassen County, where two state prisons serve as the largest employer in a county hard-hit by the logging industry's demise. Lassen County covers 4,690 square miles, primarily on the east side of the Sierra abutting Nevada. Population growth and economic expansion have been minimal for years. According to the state Employment Development Department, the county's unemployment rate for March was 11% (about double the state rate), and about 60% of people with jobs are employed by government entities. The leisure and hospitality industries account for only about 7% of employment, a figure that the proposed four-season Dyer Mountain Resort could change dramatically. County supervisors first identified Dyer Mountain, located near Walker Lake and the historic timber town of Westwood, as a potential winter sports location during the 1960s. The site is within view of Lassen Peak and Lake Almanor. A study two decades later found that a four-season resort was feasible, but it wasn't until a San Francisco real estate investor named Briar Tazuk appeared on the scene during the late 1990s that anything happened. With the assistance of Sacramento land use attorney William Abbott, Tazuk prepared an initiative for the county ballot, and in November 2000, 62% of voters backed a general plan amendment and rezoning that permit almost any development except residential by-right on approximately 6,800 acres. At the time, Lassen County officials and voters were thinking of a small ski resort akin to one on Mt. Shasta, a golf course or two, trails for mountain bikers and hikers in the summertime, a hotel and about 400 housing units. However, the project was not well-defined, and several years passed before county planners received details. "We really needed a project description to analyze," recalled Joe Bertotti, the county's assistant community development director. Finally, Dyer Mountain Associates began providing a great deal of information, which the county peer reviewed. A first draft EIR was circulated in 2005. After substantial modifications, the draft EIR was re-circulated the following year. By that time, the project had grown to 4,100 housing units, 300,000 square feet of retail space, three golf courses, a ski hill and other amenities for visitors. The challenge for the county, Bertotti said, was to impose mitigation measures on what was largely a by-right project approved by voters without environmental review. Because developers proposed a parcel map up front, the county found a reason to initiate the CEQA process, he said. The county ended up using a development agreement that imposes environmental mitigation measures as a condition for the issuance of building permits, he explained. In September 2007, the Board of Supervisors approved the development agreement, a program EIR, and a parcel map that divides the site into 13 large parcels ranging from 40 acres to nearly 3,000 acres. Exactly what the next step will be is up to developers, said Bertotti, but he expects it will involve subdivision maps for residential areas, infrastructure improvement plans and some visitor amenities. The site is unimproved, and the development must essentially be self-contained with its own water and sewage systems. The development agreement requires Dyer Mountain Associates to build a golf course and three ski lifts along with the first 400 housing units. However, there is this money problem. Dyer Mountain Associates' financial troubles have been well-known for years, as the developer repeatedly was late paying property taxes and county processing costs. In 2005, Tazuk sold a 45% interest in the project to investors. Last year, a San Francisco Superior Court judge appointed a receiver to replace Tazuk as the managing partner. The recent bankruptcy filing was intended to stave off a foreclosure action by California Mortgage and Realty, Inc., which loaned Dyer Mountain Associates $31.5 million to buy the land from timber company Roseburg Resources in 2005. Also listed as major creditors are the county, which is owed about $200,000 in property taxes, and attorney William Abbott. Dyer Mountain Associates attorney Merle Meyers contended there is strong interest in the project among real estate investors. There have been no discussions about altering the proposed development, which he said he fully expects to move forward. "We are talking actively with a number of bidders or investors to re-capitalize the project," Meyers said in late April. "I suspect that we will have more to report in the next two to three weeks." The bankruptcy filing has placed on hold the California Environmental Quality Act suit filed by Mountain Meadows Conservancy, the Sierra Club, and Sierra Watch, an organization that has successfully fought to limit housing and resort development in eastern Placer County (see CP&DR Environment Watch , December 2007 ; In Brief , April 2005 ; Local Watch , March 2002 ). The lawsuit contends the environmental impact report is flawed because mitigations are inadequate, the discussion of project alternatives was poor, and the statement of overriding considerations simply assumed the resort would be successful. Opponents also argue that the development agreement violated the 2000 ballot measure because that initiative gave the county the ability to take back zoning authority if construction of the ski resort had not commenced within seven years. Whether the ski resort would survive in an age of global climate change is uncertain, according to detractors. With a base elevation of 5,000 feet and ski runs starting at 7,500 feet, Dyer Mountain would be located at relatively low elevation and could accommodate skiing only with extensive snow-making and ideal winter weather, according to experts. Another factor in the project's success is the remote location. Westwood lies on a winding, two-lane mountain highway. The drive from Reno takes about two hours in ideal conditions. Sacramento is about three hours away. The nearest commercial airport is in Chico, which is more than an hour and a half away by car. County officials and the developer have contended that opponents are asking for too much from the program EIR. The county will not approve necessary subdivision maps without additional environmental review, they say. "The project stands subject to CEQA at every phase," Bertotti pointed out. Considering that voters approved the general plan and rezoning, the county conducted an extraordinarily public process, Bertotti said. There were a number of public hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors on the environmental documents, he noted. "It's a parcel map and a development agreement. It's not something where you would usually see a big public process," he said. While the CEQA lawsuit awaits resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings, project opponents are beginning to discuss arranging the next step — namely, long-term protection of the land and its resources. The conservancy's Robinson said the property is best suited to serve as timberlands with protection for extensive cultural resources. "There has been over 5,000 years of continuous habitation in this meadow area. It's an important place to the Honey Lake Maidu and to the Mountain Meadow Maidu," he said. "We look forward," said Robinson, "to sitting down with county officials, creditors, conservation allies and others to secure permanent protection of the property itself." Contacts: Joe Bertotti, Lassen County Community Development Department, (530) 251-8269. Lassen County Supervisor Bob Pyle, (530) 251-8333. Merle Meyers, attorney for Dyer Mountain Associates, (415) 362-7500. Steve Robinson, Mountain Meadows Conservancy, (530) 256-3982. Dyer Mountain Resort website: www.dyermtn.com .

Remember the cliché about "the deal you can't refuse?" The park-for-a-billboard caper in the city of Los Angeles is just such a deal. I'll tell you about it. (Just as soon, that is, as you put that bottle back in the bag where it belongs. I have no desire to add another item to my institutional resume.) Granted, the billboard story is hard to explain, because at bottom this deal makes so little sense. The City of Los Angeles has nothing to do with this lawsuit, so why is it involved? The people bringing the lawsuit have no case, so why do they win a settlement? But in April, the Los Angeles City Council approved a deal that gives the city a 10-acre site in South Central L.A. for development of a neighborhood park. In exchange, another neighborhood near downtown L.A. gets a pair of digital signs that may end up as a tall as a seven-story building. And thereby hangs the tale. But I'm getting ahead of myself. (A taste? I though you'd never ask. Like they say: In wine is truth.) Once upon a time, in 1996, the City of Los Angeles outlaws billboards. In 2006, the last 14 surviving examples of outdoor advertising are to be found in the city's affluent Westside, along a major thoroughfare that is starting a beautification project. The city tells the owner of the signs, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), to yank them in the name of all that is beautiful. The MTA, you may recall, is the purveyor of bus and commuter-rail transit to Los Angeles County. The advertising folks who were renting the billboard space from the transit agency were reportedly on a month-to-month lease, and the MTA thinks it has the right to serve them with a 30-day notice. In MTA's mind, when a billboard landlord says quit, the cookie has crumbled. Revenoo, adoo. The business of selling men's cologne and tight-fitting blue jeans on large outdoor signs is a lucrative one, however, and the billboard men are loathe to quit. And, like many other Californians, they have been known to consort with some litigious elements. "Hate for any unpleasantness to rear its head," they say, "but we may be forced to bring an action." "Bring all the actions you want, my dear sirs," replies the man with the bus, "but you'd best pull down those pictures of glamorous, half-dressed people for the time being." Fly forward a few months, and the billboard guy and his blue-suited lawyer are standing in front of the magistrate. "The MTA, your honor, has unfairly quashed our trade," says the lawyer, whose hair is standing up in stiff little spikes, as if trying to pull up stakes and run away from him in embarrassment. "We seek a remedy," he adds. The judge just frowns and says, "Well, well!" He doesn't look like he's much impressed with the argument by the man with the vertical hair. But he doesn't throw the case out on its ear, either. So one night the transit authority is having a sip with the City of Los Angeles. "What a heap of trouble you've gotten me into by tellin' me to pull down them signs," the bus boss says to the municipality. "That pint-sized outdoor advertiser has hung me up like a wool suit in a closet full of moths." "Anything I can do to help?" says the City of Los Angeles, batting its eyes like a seductive siren. "I mean, why don't you settle with those fellows?" "You mean throw them a bone?" says the MTA, who by now has parked his bus on the bar stool next to him. "Why should I? I'm not made out of money." "Well, you are rich in certain terrestrial assets," said the City of Los Angeles, with a blush rising from her own suggestion. "You tellin' me I should give my adversary a bus?" asks the man from MTA. The City shakes her head no. "Not a train! Never will I give that man a train!" says Mr. MTA. "I brought those things all the way from Germany!" "No, you big, rubber-wheeled dummy," says the City. "You have land." "Land?" says the MTA, innocently. "What's that worth?" "Land is worth anything somebody is willing to pay for it," says Ms. City, coming in for the kill. "Such as what you're willing to pay to get yourself out of a jam." "Oh, saints in heaven, is it possible?" says the hopeful MTA, thinking such a thing too good to be true. "Catch this: I'll let you off the hook by allowing those billboard gentlemen a couple of big signs. And not just ordinary signs, mind you, but big come-gamble-in-Commerce-Casino signs, 76 feet tall, that would be visible from Interstate 10." "You'd do all that for me?" says MTA, with the dewy eyes of one entranced. "What's the catch?" "I want that 10-acre bus yard in South Central for a park, mister," says the City, poking him in the chest like an adorable child. "And I won't take no for an answer." "That's all?" gasps a relieved MTA, who was afraid the City would ask for cash money. "Take it, it's yours," adds the now-cheerful transit district. "Goodnight and good riddance." And so here we are. Some citizen groups — quaint folk, they — are left askance. "Couldn't we have a park without the billboards?" asks one naive young thing. "I hardly see how one necessitates the other." "My dear child," says the City, "you don't get something for nothing." Besides, as Councilwoman Jan Perry has told the Los Angeles Times , that working-class downtown L.A. has done the rich Westside a favor by taking on those dreadful signs. And the settlement is a "win-win," as they like to say in the business world. The city gets a new park for almost nothing, while the transit agency gets a lucrative income stream from billboards that nobody else is allowed to have — that is, until the next billboard advertiser sues in hopes of a similar windfall settlement. (What? The bottle is empty so soon, and the night so young? I must decamp to a new venue with a fresh supply of refreshments, before this story has made the rounds. Cheers!) ( With apologies to the ghost of Damon Runyon. )

Not often does the head of a planning commission suggest that someone should sue her city over a newly adopted ordinance. But it happened in Los Angeles and, in fact, a lawsuit has been filed. In March, Los Angeles City Planning Commission President Jane Ellison Usher sent an email to community groups regarding a density bonus ordinance adopted by the City Council. The ordinance essentially implements SB 1818 approved in 2004, a state law that mandates increased density bonuses and development incentives in exchange for development of affordable housing units (see CP&DR , September 2004 ). The new Los Angeles ordinance makes application of the density bonus provisions and incentives a ministerial matter. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Planning Director Gail Goldberg endorsed the ordinance as an affordable housing tool, and the City Council approved it 12-2 after declaring it exempt from California Environmental Quality Act review. However, neighborhood activists opposed the ordinance, saying it would lead to incompatible, high-density development with inadequate parking in relatively low-density neighborhoods that may not have good transit. In her email to activists, Usher, a Villaraigosa appointee and former legal advisor to Mayor Tom Bradley, said that two legal issues "are ripe for immediate litigation." These, she wrote, are: "1) Whether the categorical exemption issued in support of the city's enabling ordinance is fatally flawed in light of the actual contents of the ordinance, and 2) Whether the ‘ministerial' definition contained in the ordinance itself violates CEQA." A lawsuit filed in April by a Valley Village resident asks that the court respond to these two questions in the affirmative. The proposed and bitterly contested development of Rancho San Juan in Monterey County appears to have been resolved after 25 years of conflict. In April, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors and developer HYH Corporation signed an agreement that permits development on about 330 acres while excluding development on Rancho San Juan's remaining 2,200 acres of farmland and open space north of Salinas. The county is scheduled to conduct public hearings on the revised project in June. Importantly, the two major project opponents — LandWatch Monterey County and the Rancho San Juan Opposition Coalition — have endorsed the settlement. The county has planned for extensive development of Rancho San Juan since the 1980s (see CP&DR Local Watch , June 2003 ). However, development has been stymied by political battles, litigation and referendums. In 2005, voters rejected a specific plan for Rancho San Juan, and last year they overturned approval of HYH's 671-acre, 1,150-unit first phase development called Butterfly Village (see CP&DR Local Watch , July 2007 ). The settlement ends litigation that HYH filed against the county in 2001 over the county's planning process. Under the settlement, the 1,150-unit project will be limited to about 330 acres, 32% of units must be designated affordable, a neighborhood commercial area will double in size, and a park and public open space will replace a planned golf course. The county will pay HYH $1 million and waive $1 million worth of impact fees. Furthermore, the settlement precludes further subdivision of Rancho San Juan. A county planning director may also serve as the executive officer of the county's local agency formation commission, a Sierra County judge has ruled. The decision appears to be the first that directly addresses the question of whether a county employee may serve as the LAFCO executive officer since the Legislature approved a measure requiring LAFCOs to be independent agencies (see CP&DR , September 2000 ). The lawsuit involves a conflict over a farmland security zone — or "Super Williamson Act" — designation for land in eastern Sierra County. The Board of Supervisors approved the designation, which provides tax breaks in exchange for a 20-year assurance the land will remain in agricultural production, in March 2007. The designation, however, carved out a 7-acre area that lies in City of Loyalton's "community core." Among other things, opponents argued that it was a conflict of interest for Sierra County Planning Director Tim Beals to serve as the LAFCO executive officer. Despite the 2000 legislation that separated out LAFCOs from county government, county planners or administrative officers still act as LAFCO executive officers in some smaller counties. Sierra County Superior Court Judge R. Michael Smith ruled there is no conflict: "Government Code §§ 56380 and 56384 specifically allow LAFCOs to contract with public agencies for personnel. Therefore, the same person holding the position of planning director for the county and executive officer of LAFCO does not create ‘incompatible offices." The case is Sierra Valley Development Company, LLC v. Board of Supervisors of Sierra County , Sierra County Superior Court Case No. 6729. The Napa County grand jury has concluded that oversight of two farmworker housing projects that went far over budget was lacking and that "public servants who were supposed to oversee these projects failed to do their job and have not acknowledged that they had any responsibility for the problems." The two housing projects completed in 2006 are located in Calistoga and Oakville. They ended up costing about $1.7 million more than estimated. The director of the county and the City of Napa's housing authorities unilaterally decided to use city funds to cover much of the overrun without the city's approval. Eventually, the housing director resigned under pressure and the city's finance director was terminated. The grand jury, however, cast the blame far beyond only those two men. It found that a county housing authority commission and an advisory committee to grapegrowers who helped fund the project did not exercise proper oversight, that the county Conservation, Development and Planning Department issued a building permit based on "a completely inadequate review," and that county officials who had a role in the mess were quick to scapegoat the housing director and finance director. The good news, said the grand jury, is that the centers provide "a safe, clean and habitable abode for farmworkers," and no individuals appear to have inappropriately profited from the overruns. The full grand jury report is available at www.napacourt.com/Documents/GJ%20Print%20Copy%20FWH%20Report.pdf.

The City of Half Moon Bay has reached a settlement agreement with a developer who won a takings lawsuit against the city. Last December, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker awarded developer Charles Keenan $36.8 million in damages, plus interest and attorney's fees, because an incomplete city drainage project had transformed an approved 24-acre housing project site into an unbuildable wetland (see CP&DR In Brief , January 2008 ). In April, Keenan and the Half Moon Bay City Council signed an agreement permitting Keenan to build 129 houses on the 24 acres and an adjacent 12 acres in exchange for an end to the litigation. However, the settlement requires passage of state legislation because it would permit development on a site that would otherwise be subject to severe environmental restrictions. Assemblyman Gene Mullin (D-South San Francisco) has agreed to carry the legislation, AB 1991. The Assembly Local Government Committee passed the bill on a 5-2 vote on April 30, sending the measure to the Assembly Appropriations Committee for further review. Environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and the Committee for Green Foothills, have already lined up against the legislation. Plus, state Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), who originally agreed to sponsor the bill in the Senate, has dropped his support because the bill permits development on more than the original 24-acre site. Under the settlement, the city must provide all entitlements by June 30, 2009, making passage of legislation this year critical. If the city misses the deadline, it would owe Keenan $18 million. The full settlement is available on the city's website at: www.half-moon-bay.ca.us/Beachwood_Information/Beachwood_Settlement_040208.pdf .

Here's a puzzler for you: What land use creates more pedestrians than any other? Transit stations? Office buildings? Condos? Try airports! Every single person who arrives at an airport from out of town arrives without a car. At many airports, the first vehicle in which people ride after landing is a train of some sort. So what's the rush to put them into cars? A "new urbanist airport" may seem like an oxymoron. But according to aviation planning experts speaking at the American Planning Association conference in Las Vegas, such design principles may be the key to the sustainable airport of the 21st Century. North Carolina business professor John Kasarda, who coined the term "aerotropolis," said that in order to be economically successful in the future, airports can no longer afford to follow the "spontaneous, haphazard" development pattern of the last few decades. Because airports are congested and running out of land – and because their patrons arrive without cars – these new, high-end business centers will have to be nodal and mixed-use. Part of the key is doing more comprehensive land use planning that involves areas "outside the fence" as well as on airport property. Most airports are focused on "doing a plan that meets FAA regulations inside the fence," said consultant Mark Bowers, who has been working on a "commercial development land use plan" for Dallas-Forth Worth Airport. DFW's plan was done in collaboration with four surrounding cities and is increasingly focused on the smart growth approaches planners love. For instance, the DART (Dallas Area Rapid Transit) line will run straight into the airport, and instead of turning the station just outside the airport into a park-and-ride, DFW will convert it into a mixed-use center. DFW will also focus on centralized business centers that provide "valet services," such as auto repair and dry cleaning. Just think – drop your car and then run your errands on the way to the terminal. – Bill Fulton

A property owner that lost a California Environmental Quality Act suit against the City of San Rafael has been told to pay the city for costs incurred recovering emails related to the property and a proposed development project. Although the developer's attorney characterized the email inquiry as a routine Public Records Act request, the First District Court of Appeal clearly thought it was an unnecessary fishing expedition for which the developer should pay. The First District upheld the trial court's award of the expense, even though it was the property owner who prepared the administrative record. Typically, only the side that prepares the administrative record may have its costs covered. But the court found that the property owner's email demands justified the award of costs. Furthermore, the court rejected the landowner's contentions that the city violated CEQA and the housing element law when the city removed the property from its sphere of influence. The decision concludes San Rafael's role in the acrimonious planning of the property, which is owned by St. Vincent's School for Boys, Catholic Charities. Marin County is now considering St. Vincent's development plans. First, some background: St. Vincent's is a 150-year-old school and residential treatment center for troubled teenagers. It owns 835 acres between San Rafael and Novato. The mostly undeveloped property extends from Highway 101 on the west to San Pablo Bay on the east. The property is separated from the San Rafael city limits by the approximately 350-acre Silveira cattle ranch. Since the early 1970s, Marin County has emphasized development in cities along the Highway 101 corridor in order to preserve much of the rest of the county. For years, city and county officials worked jointly on planning the roughly 1,200-acre St. Vincent's/Silveira site, assuming that San Rafael would eventually annex the territory. San Rafael's 1988 general plan designated the properties for 2,100 residential units. Environmentalists, however, have long fought development of the pastoral lands between the freeway and the bay. When Marin County and San Rafael began updating their respective general plans nearly 10 years ago, they created a 16-member advisory task force to recommend use of the St. Vincent's/Silveira properties. In May 2000, the task force recommended 800 to 1,500 units, reduced to 500 units with the purchase of development rights. The city forwarded the recommendation to its general plan task force. In early 2002 — while the city's general plan update was still in process — St. Vincent's and developer Shapell Industries submitted an application for 766 residential units and 120,000 square feet of commercial space. In January 2003, however, the City Council passed a resolution indicating its intent to remove the properties from the city's sphere of influence. Three months later, the City Council voted to deny the St. Vincent's and Shapell application for annexation and prezoning. The council found that, since the task force had presented its recommendation in 2000, planned road improvements had not been made, Highway 101 traffic had worsened, and public opposition to development of the site had grown. Plus, the council noted, the St. Vincent's property was not contiguous to the city. In November 2004, the city adopted an updated general plan that excluded the St. Vincent's and Silveira properties from future annexation. In December of that year, St. Vincent's sued, arguing the city violated CEQA and state planning and zoning laws. In 2006, Marin County Superior Court Judge James Ritchie ruled for the city, and awarded the city $4,000 in filing and copying fees, plus $26,362 for the costs of retrieving emails. St. Vincent's appealed, but got nowhere with a three-judge panel of the First District, Division Three. St. Vincent's did not dispute that the city had incurred costs while retrieving emails. Instead, St. Vincent's argued that the Code of Civil Procedure and the Public Records Act barred the award of costs. St. Vincent's argued that CEQA permits the petitioner (St. Vincent's in this case) to prepare the record of proceedings as a way of controlling the expense of lawsuits. Awarding the city its costs would frustrate CEQA's goal of controlling expenses, St. Vincent's argued. But the court examined the specifics of the case and reached a different conclusion. In response to St. Vincent's initial request, the city turned over documents amounting to 58,000 pages. St. Vincent's found few emails included in the package, so it submitted a broad Public Records Act request for electronic communications stored on city computers. The city eventually turned over a collection of emails, but St. Vincent's was dissatisfied and further demanded documents. Again, the sides went back and forth with St. Vincent's continuing to complain about withheld emails. All the while, the case was moving forward in court. "This record," wrote Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Horner, sitting by assignment to the First District, "reflects a total disregard for cost-containment on St. Vincent's part, and a complete abandonment of its statutory duty to ‘strive to at reasonable cost.' After three extensions of time, the city gave St. Vincent's 20 boxes of documents in April 2005. St. Vincent's then subjected the city to a costly and lengthy process of trawling through its entire computer system in response to an extremely broad and unbounded search for ‘all writings evidencing or reflecting communications … relating to or in connection with the St. Vincent's property or the Silveira property.' And St. Vincent's rationale for this? — not because it had identified any ‘gaps' in the voluminous planning documents contained in the 20 boxes, but because it was not satisfied with the number of emails contained in the 20 boxes." Horner then wrote in italics: "It is telling that after all this, St. Vincent's does not mention one single email, obtained in response to its request, which provided information that bolstered any of its claims in this case. Indeed, we wonder what the point of all of it was, because, as noted, St. Vincent's filed its brief before the issue of the emails was ever resolved." St. Vincent's attorney Stephen Kostka, of Bingham McCutchen, said that what the plaintiff did was not out of the ordinary. He said the court's ruling "indicates that perhaps it's a risk" for plaintiffs to assemble the record based on Public Records Act requests. On the merits, St. Vincent's argued that the city improperly removed the St. Vincent's and Silveira properties from the city's sphere on influence in January 2003 without any CEQA review and as an unlawful reaction to a development application. But the court ruled that the January 2003 resolution did not trigger CEQA and that the general plan EIR provided satisfactory review. As to the charge of an improper reaction to an application, the court noted that the city's decision merely maintained the status quo and did not preclude development. St. Vincent's argued that the general plan EIR should have evaluated displacement of development as an impact because the plan would force development to distant locations. The court ruled, " he city specifically addressed the issues of ‘displacement' or ‘leapfrog development' in its response to St. Vincent's comment on the EIR." On the question of the housing element, St. Vincent's contended the city could not identify adequate sites to meet its fair-share obligation without the St. Vincent's and Silveira properties. The court disagreed, noting the city had identified more than enough sites to meet its fair share and had adopted policies to encourage housing development. Potential development of the St. Vincent's and Silveira properties is now entirely within Marin County's hands, said San Rafael Community Development Director Bob Brown. The county's recently adopted comprehensive plan (see CP&DR Local Watch , January 2008 ) permits a total of 221 housing units clustered on 5% of the two properties, said Alex Hines, the county's community development director. The development could be split proportionately between the two properties, he said. The plan also permits other uses, such as an assisted living facility, so long as the uses do not generate more traffic than houses would, Hines said. County supervisors rejected pleas from affordable housing advocates who said the properties could provide a site hundreds of affordable units in a county where the median price is more than $900,000. Instead, county officials emphasized the potential to restore wetlands on the St. Vincent's property. Plus, building a great deal of housing right at sea level makes little sense considering predictions of rising sea level and more severe storms, Hines said. St. Vincent's has not filed an application, but it did endorse the comprehensive plan and the property owner's representatives have been talking with county officials, according to Hines The Case: St. Vincent's School for Boys, Catholic Charities CYO v. City of San Rafael , No. A116690, 2008 C.D.O.S. 3070, 2008 DJDAR 3705. Filed March 18, 2008. Certified for publication in full April 15, 2008 at 2008 DJDAR 5337. The Lawyers: For St. Vincent's: Stephen Kostka, Bingham McCutchen, (925) 937-8000. For the city: Clark Guinan, city attorney's office, (415) 485-3080.

The state Supreme Court has accepted a case involving the baseline for an environmental impact report of a Southern California oil refinery project. The decision to accept the case means the state high court now has four California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) cases pending. In the latest case, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that actual emissions from ConocoPhillip's Los Angeles Refinery should serve as the baseline for measuring impact of proposed refinery modifications. The court threw out a South Coast Air Quality Management District EIR that instead used permitted emission levels as the baseline, even though actual emissions were less than half the amount permitted (see CP&DR Legal Digest , March 2008 ). Although a line of cases indicates that permitted levels would be the proper baseline for an EIR, the court said those cases were inapplicable because they involved permitted levels that had been subject to environmental review. The refinery's permitted emissions had not undergone prior CEQA review. The case is Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District , No. S161190. Due for a decision by July 1 is a case involving the EIR for the Cal-Fed Bay-Delta project. The Third District Court of Appeal in 2005 ruled the document inadequate for a number of reasons, including the document's lack of an alternative that did not contemplate a halt to future state population growth (see CP&DR Legal Digest , November 2005 ). The case, Bay-Delta Coordinated Proceedings , No. S138974, was argued on April 2. One of the other pending cases has been heavily briefed and appears ready for oral argument. That case, Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood , No. S151402), concerns whether or not the city's signing of a conditional agreement with a developer to sell a city-owned property constituted a "project" for CEQA purposes (see CP&DR Legal Digest , April 2007 ). An appellate court said the conditional agreement should have undergone environmental review, even though it required CEQA compliance prior to development. The final CEQA case before the state Supreme Court concerns whether the statute of limitations ran out before opponents of a proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter in Stockton filed a lawsuit challenging the city's lack of environmental review for the project. That case is Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton , No. S159690 (see CP&DR Local Watch , February 2008).

An environmental impact report is necessary for a 120-unit senior housing facility in the City of Grand Terrace, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled. The unanimous three-judge appellate panel upheld a trial court judge's ruling that a mitigated negative declaration for the project was inadequate. The court found that housing density, building height and noise were all potential impacts that needed additional study. The site in question is six acres in Grand Terrace, which is located between Riverside and San Bernardino. In 2004, the city purchased the undeveloped land with the intent of developing senior housing, as the city's senior center is next door. The property was zoned for single-family residential development of up to five units per acre, although a 2003 park master plan contemplated using the property for a park. The city signed an agreement with Corporation for Better Housing to develop the site. In September 2005, the city approved a specific plan for the site. The specific plan included a general plan amendment, a rezoning to medium-high density residential allowing up 20 units per acre, approval of 120 units in a mixed two- and three-story building on a 2-acre portion of the site, and a 4-acre park. The city also certified a mitigated negative declaration that said all environmental impacts could be reduced to insignificant levels with project mitigations. The project had been unpopular with residents of the single-family neighborhood bordering the site, so not surprisingly they organized as Citizens for Responsible and Open Government and sued. In mid-2006, San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge John Wade ruled that Citizens had made a fair argument that increased population density, neighborhood incompatibility and noise were potential environmental effects, and he ordered preparation of an EIR. On appeal, Better Housing argued Citizens had not met the fair argument standard, which is a relatively low bar for plaintiffs to cross. Regarding population density, Better Housing contended the average density was 20 units per acre — not 60 — because the entire 6-acre site needed to be considered. Plus, Better Housing argued the opponents had not identified significant impacts that would not be mitigated by approved measures such as screening and setbacks, minimizing outside lighting glare, the provision of transit, and compliance with the city's noise ordinance. Citizens argued that 60 units an acre was the proper characterization because development would occur on only 2 acres. Plus, the opponents pointed out, the general plan limits density to 12 units per acre. The Fourth District said Better Housing presented "a disingenuous method of evaluating the project density." The court noted the specific plan itself refers to "120 senior-oriented villas and related parking area on 2.05 acres." And even at 20 units an acre, the court ruled, the project conflicts with the general plan's limitation of 12 units per acre. An EIR is necessary to evaluate "changes to the physical and aesthetic conditions and character of the surrounding low-density, single-family residential community," Justice Barton Gaut wrote for the court. On building height, Better Housing pointed out that it eliminated a third story on one wing closest to houses and that the third story elsewhere was only 6 to 8 feet higher than an adjacent elementary school. Still, the court found the project "uncharacteristic of the surrounding neighborhood." "The impact creates a change in the aesthetic environment and interferes with scenic views of the public in general by introducing into the primarily single-family residential neighborhood a large, high-density residential building, which includes mixed two-story and three-story structures," Gaut wrote. "Aesthetic issues, such as public views, ‘are properly studied in an EIR to assess the impacts of a project,'" Gaut continued, citing Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside , (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 477, 492 (see CP&DR Legal Digest , July 2004). Regarding noise, opponents argued that the project's individual wall-mounted air conditioning units would impact the quiet neighborhood. Better Homes pointed to mitigations, such limiting air conditioners near neighboring residences to 20 and complying with the noise ordinance. But the court said the evidence supported opponents' contention and concluded, "There is no evidence of any measures to be taken that would insure that the noise standards would be effectively monitored and enforced." In an unpublished portion of the opinion, the Fourth District upheld the trial court's award of $30,000 in attorney's fees to Citizens. The Case: Citizens for Responsible and Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace , No. E041493, 08 C.D.O.S. 2960, 2008 DJDAR 3615. Filed February 21, 2008. Certified for partial publication March 13, 2008. The Lawyers: For Citizens: Raymond W. Johnson, Johnson & Sedlack, (951) 506-9925. For Corporation for Better Housing: John C. Nolan, Gresham, Savage, Nolan & Tilden, (951) 684-2171.

Even on a typical day, Las Vegas often seems like an extension of Los Angeles. Throngs of tourists arrive via car on the I-15 each day, and it's not uncommon to walk down the Strip and run into people you know. This week, however, the American Planning Association conference – being conducted at two hotels along the Strip – has often seemed like an extension of Los Angeles as well. Not only is the conference flooded with planners from L.A., but there are so many sessions on L.A. that it could become a whole separate track! Prime-time on the Los Angeles network was a panel Monday featuring Gail Goldberg and Bruce McClendon, who talked about the challenges they've faced in the last two years as the new city and county planning directors, respectively. Goldberg, who had spent her entire career in San Diego before coming to L.A., admitted being overwhelmed when she first arrived. "It took me two weeks to realize L.A. is a humungous city. San Diego, much as I love it, is a baby city," she said. The City of Los Angeles is 450 square miles and 4 million people, while L.A. County is 4,000 miles with 10 million people, including 1 million in the unincorporated area. McClendon, on the other hand, said that his longtime views about how to approach a planning challenge have been reaffirmed at Los Angeles County – including the idea of increasing public visibility and improving the reputation of planning. He told the story of buying something in the downtown Macy's while wearing his employee badge with his title on it. "The saleswoman said, ‘My God, you mean this place is planned?', she exclaimed," McClendon recalled. "Our biggest public challenge has been, how can we market planning in L.A.?" Both planning directors, however, said that they have been fortunate to walk in during a "window of opportunity" that they can best take advantage of by focusing on the creation of community plans for specific neighborhoods because their jurisdictions are so big. Since her arrival two years ago, Goldberg has managed to get significant budget and staffing increases – in spite of a financial crisis that has L.A. cutting almost every other department except for public safety. She's obtained a commitment from the politicians to update each of the 36 community plans on a three-year cycle, meaning that the city will initiate 12 community plan updates each year. The reason for her success? She claims it's because the old system of the city councilmembers interposing themselves project by project isn't working anymore, and developers, councilmembers, and neighborhood groups would rather have plans to fall back on. She also said the new plans will be meatier than the 15-20 page community plans currently in existence. "We will never stop planning," she said. Meanwhile, McClendon said that he hopes to devote more attention to community plans in L.A. County's urban unincorporated areas as well. The County has been updating its general plan for the first time since 1985, but, he said, community plans will be more important going forward. – Bill Fulton

Today, as planners, we are constantly inundated with new ideas and theories, and nowhere can this become more of a reality than a planning conference in Las Vegas. This year's national APA Conference is being held between the Paris and Bally's casinos, quintessential locations for gambling, shopping, dining, nightlife, and, well, apparently planning conferences. Where else can conference sessions be held in banquet halls decorated like extravagant French parlors? As a recent graduate of a planning program and a new practicing planner with Solimar, I found myself caught somewhere between wanting to ingest everything I can about planning and going into Spring Break mode and imbibing in a literal sense. But who says you can't be a professional planner and still have fun in Vegas? My old classmates, planning grad students who are generally good natured, remarked after their forays that the strip was "exhausting," "awful," and "it embodies everything I love to hate about cities." After less than 24 hours in Sin City — not to be confused with a more beloved impetus for modern planning tools, Sims City — they were all "over it." But despite sensory overload, they still managed to learn how not to let their own cherished neighborhoods become epicenters of all things undesirable. But along with these complaints, there were also planning buzzwords like "champion projects," "green infrastructure," and "urban agriculture." I ran into a colleague who is a civil engineer who admitted to coming to the conference primarily to become well-versed in planner-ease so that he could connect with clients who find sustainable development desirable. It seems as if modern planning concepts have become less cliché and more mainstream. Even cities in the Rustbelt are confronting their demons by planning for a shrinking population in a sustainable manner, rather than fighting the tides of change, by incorporating ideas like, well, green infrastructure and urban agriculture. In Vegas, climate change was not the featured topic. Rather, urban revitalization and how to incorporate green infrastructure or open space into urban centers was debated and discussed. I learned how energy codes are becoming stand-alone guidance documents for cities looking to reduce carbon emissions and improve prosperity and quality of life instead of being referenced in general plans per the State of California mandate. During two sessions, I learned more about my new urban neighbor on the West Coast, L.A., than I had in the 10 months since I'd moved to Ventura. Downtown L.A. is getting a facelift thanks to city planners like Jane Blumenfeld who have orchestrated the adoption of implementation tools like the adaptive reuse ordinance. Another city that had a strong presence at the conference was my hometown of Atlanta. Not only is Atlanta now hip, it also has a green thumb. As projects come online like the Beltline, the City will be prepared to take on a growing population that desires housing choices like mixed-income downtown condos and apartments near transit and green space, instead of the typical single-family house on a cul-de-sac in the suburbs. But the question remains: Who will pay for these improvements to our beloved urban centers? Obviously, someone has to pay for the regeneration of decaying urban corridors, the improvement of transit corridors, and retrofitting the suburbs to be more like our cities. But that's where we as planners come into play, aiding in public-private partnerships that can leverage the resources necessary to carry out the ideas and theories that we all are willing to travel to Las Vegas to hear. So I say come join us in Las Vegas, where "transect" is not a four-letter word, at least for a few more days. – Jessica Daniels

All the urban planners in the country are in Las Vegas this week, and it's clear they have a love/hate relationship with the place. Vegas is kitschy and over the top, and at first glance it always looks like the least sustainable place on the planet. Vegas is acres of neon plastered across the front of 30-story casinos in the 100-degree desert – each casino more outlandishly upscale than the other – along with the occasional lake and 200-foot water fountain. The thousands of attendees at the American Planning Association conference in Las Vegas this week like to say they hate all this stuff, and no doubt a good percentage of them will flee to the desert to tromp around among the spring wildflowers. But they'll definitely be missing out. Because after the latest building boom, there's no denying it: Vegas is the most rapidly evolving – and, in many ways, the most exciting – urban environment in America. The Strip is the densest employment center in the West, and because many hotel and casino workers make modest incomes, Vegas has one of the fastest-growing transit systems in the country. Cities all over the country have dreamed of monorails, but Vegas built one. Thousands of people mob the sidewalks every day and night. Rich and poor live alongside each other – not always in a graceful coexistence, but in close proximity to one another. Planners think great cities are created by thoughtful analysis and political leadership that recognizes eternal land use principles. But Vegas is a not-too-subtle reminder to planners about how great cities are really created: You stuff vast amounts of money into a tiny space for decade after decade until the mixture of wealth, commerce, entertainment, and culture becomes so combustible that it finally explodes. Paris, London, Tokyo, San Francisco, Chicago, New York – all were built on this model. Vegas isn't there yet – but it's getting close. You'll often hear planners compare Vegas unfavorably to New York, but the truth is that Vegas is probably more like New York at this point than any other American city. Indeed, it has positioned itself effectively to become the next New York. The most obvious comparison is in the area of live entertainment. New York has been the center of live entertainment in America for a century and a half, since the beginnings of vaudeville. But Vegas is catching up fast. Live entertainers who used to have to commute from New York for special gigs can now make a living year-round in Vegas, and they choose to live here. Las Vegas is also replacing New York as the new headquarters of the deal-based economy – but with a twist. At its peak, New York was one big office, where people shuttled around doing deals during the day and going to expensive dinners and fancy shows at night. Vegas is one big hotel – with the same result. The only difference is that the dealmakers live here only temporarily – a few days at a time for their trade show – rather than permanently. Tell me this isn't a great city in the making. – Bill Fulton

The City of Baldwin Park is pressing forward with an extremely ambitious redevelopment project that would convert the present downtown area of mostly single story commercial structures and modest houses into a very high-density, mixed-use district adjacent to a Metrolink station. However, the city's extensive planning and a deal with a developer may be for naught if state voters approve eminent domain restrictions that will appear on the June ballot. City officials say the project would bring much needed investment and wealth to Baldwin Park, a San Gabriel Valley suburb that for years was best known as the corporate home of the In-N-Out Burger chain. (In-N-Out has since moved to Irvine.) But local detractors of the downtown project have begun organizing protests, and managers of the statewide campaign for Proposition 98, which would restrict the use of eminent domain, are citing the Baldwin Park project as a prime example of the government activity they want to halt. Although the project is still somewhat ill-defined, the basics are these: The Baldwin Park Community Development Commission (the city's redevelopment agency) would acquire 125 acres in the middle of town, with master developer Bisno Development funding the acquisitions and any resident and business relocation costs. Bisno would then receive the property and develop it in phases over 15 years with 8,000 housing units, 3 million square feet of commercial space, 750,000 square feet of retail and entertainment uses, a 300-room hotel and a charter school. Public improvements would include a pedestrian promenade, a lagoon and extensive upgrades to the existing Metrolink station. "The project is presented pretty much as a transit-oriented development," explained Marc Castagnola, the community development director who arrived in Baldwin Park in mid-process. "The intent is that the people who are going to live downtown will be able to walk just a block or two and ride the transit." There is a significant obstacle: The 125-acre redevelopment site that centers around the intersection of Ramona Boulevard, Maine Avenue and Pacific Avenue is broken into about 330 developed parcels, most of which are privately owned. Opponents estimate the redevelopment project would displace about 100 households and 300 businesses. "We're just not good enough," huffed Ken Woods, who owns a 54-year-old sewing machine repair and embroidery business in the redevelopment project area. "They don't want our kind of people — working blue collar people." Woods has helped organize a local group called Community Alliance for Redevelopment Accountability (CARA) that started making its opposition to the project known last fall. He does not deny that the area "needs sprucing up." But he and others argue that the city is moving too fast on a plan that lacks local support. "We keep saying back off, get us involved," Woods said. "They want to bulldoze 125 acres and start over." After soliciting proposals from developers, the City Council signed an agreement with Los Angeles-based Bisno in late 2006. Since then, the city, Bisno and consultants have been working simultaneously on a general plan amendment, a specific plan and an environmental impact report, according to Castagnola. A draft EIR is expected to be released this month, with a final EIR and the other documents to follow in a few months, he said. The specific plan "will look a lot like a zoning code," Castagnola said. The specific plan will set land uses and densities, establish architectural and color standards, outline a landscape palate, and provide an open space design, he said. The specific plan will also contain the development entitlements, meaning there would be only minor review of follow-up projects that comply with the specific plan. Castagnola said the redevelopment agency would provide "no monetary subsidies" to Bisno for the project other than making available the 20% housing set-aside fund for affordable units. However, the agreement between the Community Development Commission and Bisno states that if the developer's cost of acquiring land and relocating businesses and residents tops an average of $2 million per acre, the Commission will reimburse Bisno the difference with tax increment. The agreement pledges up to half of the project area's tax increment to make up the difference. In January 2007, CEO Robert Bisno sent the city a letter urging a fast planning process that would be complete before a vote on any restrictive initiative. At the time, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association was discussing an initiative that eventually turned into Proposition 98, a measure that would prevent the taking of private property from one owner for transfer to another private entity. The rival Proposition 99 would prevent the taking of owner-occupied single-family houses for transfer to another private owner. Clearly, the city is not going to beat the June 3 election date. The city's inability — or unwillingness — to rush the process to beat election day is good, said Marko Mlikotin, a spokesman for the Proposition 98 campaign. That is, it's good for the community and good for the campaign, which has begun featuring Baldwin Park as exhibit A of redevelopment abuse. "You have your greedy developer. You have a dispassionate city council. You're going to have hundreds of people homeless," Mlikotin recited. In recent months, public meetings in Baldwin Park, a 70% Latino city of 81,000 people, have grown more and more tense. Opponents of the downtown project have put the City Council on the defensive and have staged street protests. Councilmembers recently refused to speak to a Los Angeles Business Journal reporter, and Mayor Manuel Lopez did not return messages from CP&DR . Late last year, Lopez told the San Gabriel Valley Tribune that opponents were using misinformation and scare tactics. "We don't even know if this project is even going to occur or not," Lopez told the newspaper. Woods said that if the project goes forward, he'll close his business rather than try to relocate. Ironically, he is in his present location after losing his commercial building during the late 1980s to an earlier redevelopment project that brought a supermarket and other stores to the downtown area. "Now they are going to tear down the area that they redeveloped in the first place," Woods said. Contacts: Marc Castagnola, City of Baldwin Park, (626) 813-5253. Ken Woods, Community Alliance for Redevelopment Accountability, (626) 962-5298. Marko Mlikotin, California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights, (916) 444-8781. Bisno Development project website: www.baldwinparkfuture.com/index.php