Search Results

The City of Los Angeles will require economic impact studies for proposed Wal-Mart supercenters and certain other big box stores. The studies are intended to determine the effect of a new big box store on a neighborhood’s existing jobs, wages and businesses. The Los Angeles City Council’s approval of the new requirement came only two weeks before the Legislature approved a similar measure that would apply statewide. However, the fate of that measure, SB 1056 (Alarcon), appears uncertain in the governor’s hands. In August, the Los Angeles City Council adopted the economic impact study requirement for proposed stores of more than 100,000 square feet that would devote at least 10% of floor space to non-taxable items. The ordinance applies only in designated “economic assistance areas,” which cover roughly half of the city. Membership stores, such as Costco and Sam’s Club (which is owned by Wal-Mart) are exempt. Backers said the new requirement is necessary to ensure that a new big box does not force nearby stores to slash wages or close. The targets of the legislation are Wal-Mart supercenters, which have at least 200,000 square feet with a traditional Wal-Mart and a full grocery store. Wal-Mart has not yet proposed a supercenter for Los Angeles but has begun opening the gigantic stores elsewhere in the state. Labor union leaders and Wal-Mart opponents hope that the Los Angeles regulation becomes a model for other cities, especially if Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoes SB 1056. A second suburban Sacramento slow-growth ballot initiative has been blocked in court. In late August, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly ruled against Folsom Citizens for Sensible Growth, which backed an initiative to prohibit development of 3,600 acres south of Highway 50 without subsequent voter approval. The measure would have required the land, which lies inside Folsom’s sphere of influence but outside the city limits, to be used consistent with Sacramento County’s agricultural policies. But because the initiative petitions did not include copies of those policies, Connelly threw out the initiative, which had been scheduled for the November ballot. One month earlier, a Placer County judge knocked a slow-growth measure off the City of Roseville’s ballot. Five cities in Northern California have settled two separate lawsuits by agreeing to tax landowners and developers, with the money going for conservation easements. The City of Roseville settled a lawsuit over the 3,100-acre, 8,400-home West Roseville Specific Plan that had been filed by environmental groups and the Town of Loomis (see , March 2004; Local Watch, August 2003). The city agreed to a conveyance fee of 0.5 percent on all home resales in the specific plan area for 20 years. The fee could raise up to $85 million for the Placer Land Trust. Meanwhile the cities of Escalon, Lathrop, Manteca and Tracy, and the South San Joaquin Irrigation District settled a lawsuit filed by environmentalists and anglers over the South County Water Project, which could provide up to 44,000 acre-feet of water to the cities. The settlement requires Lathrop, Manteca and Tracy to collect fees of $2,000 per acre when prime farmland is converted to urban use. The fee could generate up to $21 million over 30 years for conservation and agricultural easements. The Lake Elsinore City Council has approved a controversial 1,500-home, 700-acre subdivision despite Riverside County’s request for a delay and threat of litigation. The project site lies in a floodplain and atop a major earthquake fault (see , June 2004). During final hearings on the project in August, county representatives raised questions about potential flooding, storm runoff, the settling of building pads and traffic congestion. County officials charged that the city did not respond to the county’s concerns, nor did the city give the county adequate time to review an environmental impact report. The County Board of Supervisors discussed suing the city during a closed session hours before the Lake Elsinore City Council voted 4-1 and 3-2 to approve the project. City officials said they tried to satisfy the county’s concerns. who had supported an historic agreement regarding a proposed Indian casino have survived a recall vote. Only about 44% of voters in the Sonoma County town voted to recall Council Members Armando Flores and Amie Spradlin during an August special election. They were targeted by opponents of a plan from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria to build a large casino, hotel and auditorium on the edge of town. Last year, the City Council approved an agreement in which the tribe would pay the city, school districts and community groups $200 million over 20 years to offset the development’s impacts (see , November 2003). Two other council members who backed the agreement are up for re-election in November. The City of Desert Hot Springs has emerged from Chapter 9 bankruptcy that was induced in part by the loss of a Fair Housing Act lawsuit. A federal judge approved the city’s plan to pay its creditors in full, including more than $8 million owed to Silver Sage Partners and their attorneys. Three years ago, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the city had illegally blocked development of Silver Sage Partners’ low-income mobile home park, and the court upheld a jury’s award to the developers (see , January 2002; , July 2001). Interest on the award, which was made more than 10 years ago, and attorneys fees have greatly increased the amount owed. The city of 17,000 people roughly 10 miles north of Palm Springs plans to issue bonds to retire most of the debt. In hopes of generating more revenue, the city has recently rezoned large tracks for spas and other tourist-oriented development. An engineering study that could show how to build both the transbay terminal in downtown San Francisco and an adjacent high-rise condominium project is due this month. Construction just got started on the residential tower in May when the city shut down the project. The foundation for the 51-story tower would prohibit construction of underground rail lines to the long-planned terminal (see , August 2004). The engineering study authorized by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is supposed to consider the feasibility of pouring a gigantic concrete foundation, rather than pilings or a buttress wall to support the tower. Rail tunnels, which are years away, could later be drilled through the concrete, according to the proposal that engineers are studying. The Coastal Commission has approved a development permit for a wastewater treatment plant in the unincorporated San Luis Obispo County community of Los Osos. The permit might be the most significant step in the 30-year saga over the proposed sewer plant, which would replace about 6,000 septic tanks in the coastal community. A state-imposed building moratorium has been in place since the late 1980s because of the degradation of groundwater and the Morro Bay estuary. Project opponents contended the downtown site was wrong and that the $90 million project might not be necessary at all. They are expected to file a lawsuit, which could delay construction past the planned spring 2005 start date. The San Diego Association of Governments board has unanimously approved a regional comprehensive plan that uses transportation investment decisions to encourage high-density, infill and transit-oriented development (see , April 2004). In a mail ballot election, Contra Costa County property owners rejected an annual tax of $25 per house to preserve open space and fund other environmental programs. The weighted vote against the countywide benefit assessment district was 54% to 46%.

In what might be the first land use corruption case to bring down a California sheriff, San Joaquin County Sheriff T. Baxter Dunn pleaded guilt in January to one count of mail fraud and resigned from office. He faces up to18 months in prison. Also pleading guilty in the federal corruption case were former county Supervisor Lynn Bedford for lying to the FBI, and former Office of Criminal Justice Planning Director N. Allen Sawyer for misusing a state office for personal gain. The scandal involved a proposal to build a power plant at the Port of Stockton. Dunn, Sawyer and San Joaquin County political operative Monte McFall in 2001 allegedly tried to shake down two companies interested in developing the power plant. Calpine Corp. refused to deal with the men, but Sunlaw Energy Corp. agreed to pay them a commission of at least $2 million if Sunlaw got to build the power plant. Dunn lobbied a Port of Stockton commissioner on Sunlaw's behalf and urged the Board of Supervisors to oppose a Calpine Project in Alameda County, all without revealing his financial stake. He also tapped into a police database to gather information on a Port of Stockton employee. While on the Board of Supervisors, Bedford conducted a meeting at his home in which he and McFall pressured a Calpine representative not to pursue the port power plant. During meetings with Sunlaw, Sawyer implied that he was representing the governor's office. Appearing before federal District Court Judge Morris England Jr., Dunn said, “I am profoundly sorry for my conduct.” In a memorandum to employees, the 14-year sheriff accepted responsibility for his conduct but he wrote that he was involved in nothing more than a “harmless, legal business venture.” Dunn, Bedford and Sawyer are scheduled to be sentenced in March. McFall and J. Tyler Reeves, a former aide to Bedford, were scheduled to stand for a trial beginning at the end of January, a trial in which Dunn, Bedford and Sawyer have agreed to cooperate with prosecutors. THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE (LAO) has recommended that state lawmakers pass a number of measures to beef up mitigation of coastal development, measures that could raise the cost of development. The LAO's findings were based on its investigation of the Coastal Commission's mitigation techniques. The commission has relied heavily on “offers to dedicate” (OTDs) as a way of providing physical or visual access to the ocean, and to protect natural resources. Frequently, the commission has required OTDs, which are often easements, rather than up-front mitigation as a condition of coastal development permits. However, OTDs require a third party (a different government agency or a nonprofit organization) to accept them, build any improvements and provide maintenance. The LAO found that of the 2,700 OTDs the commission has required since 1977, 40% have never been accepted, and the commission does not even know the status of another 233. Moreover, about 80 OTDs are scheduled to expire every year through 2008. In its mid-January report, the LAO recommended that the Legislature: o Direct the commission to report by January 1, 2006, on the status, location and expiration date of all outstanding OTDs. o Require the commission, in conjunction with the State Lands Commission and the State Coastal Conservancy, to develop a detailed plan for accepting, developing and opening all outstanding OTDs. o Require that the Coastal Conservancy accept responsibility for public accessways that are required in the future, at least until a third party is found to take permanent responsibility. o Demand the payment up front of an impact fee to cover the future capital costs related to an OTD. o Raise coastal development permit fees and dedicate the money to the maintenance and operation of easements. The LAO also urged the Commission, whenever possible, to demand up front mitigation. The LAO pointed to the San Francisco Bay Development Commission, which does not use OTDs as a mitigation tool. The Coastal Commission appeared to welcome report, and state Sen. John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) appeared ready to carry at least some of the recommended legislation. The LAO report, “Improving Coastal Access and Development Mitigation,” is available at www.lao.ca.gov . NOT OFTEN DOES A GENERAL PLAN PROCESS receive the scrutiny of a grand jury, but the Monterey County grand jury had few good things to say about the county's general plan update in a report released in January. The grand jury found, “The Board of Supervisors employed a laid back, wait and see attitude in the development of the general plan. It failed to provide guidance and direction up front which may have saved time and funds. The Board of Supervisors and the CAO have allowed special interest groups to have undue influence.” The grand jury also reported, “The land use and planning objectives of and for the county are outdated, confusing and frequently changing, according to the supervisors and administration.” Supervisors and the CAO must respond formally by April. After spending nearly five years and $5 million on a general plan update, the county last year scrapped much of a draft general plan and installed a new general plan team (see , July 2004). The grand jury's report is available at www.monterey.courts.ca.gov/grand_jury.html . ORANGE COUNTY HAS PARTIALLY FENDED OFF one developer's challenge of how the county spent excess building fees. During the 1990s, the county built up an $18.5 million surplus of building permit fees. Developer Barratt American sued over the surplus, forcing a fee reduction. The county used the excess revenue to subsidize operations while fees were reduced. The county also refunded $1 million in fees and bought a $5.5 million computer system. When building activity slowed, however, the county Planning and Development Services Department started to run a deficit that by late 2002 had reached $500,000 a month. The county ended up spending $8 million in general fund money on the department, reorganizing the agency and switching to a time-and-materials fee system. Planning and Development Services Director Tom Mathews retired, more than 30 department employees lost their jobs, and eventually county supervisors fired County Executive Officer Michael Schumacher. Barratt American's latest lawsuit was over the spending of the $18.5 million. Orange County Superior Court Judge Robert Jameson ruled that the county had properly expended $14 million, but he said the county did not provide documentation regarding $4.5 million - a conclusion that county officials dispute. Nevertheless, Jameson ordered the county to reduce fees by $4.5 million. THE CITY OF TURLOCK HAS WON a lawsuit filed by Wal-Mart over a city ordinance that bans stores of more than 100,000 square feet that devote at least 5% of floor space to non-taxable items. Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Roger Beauchesne ruled that the ordinance was not anti-competitive and instead was a response to legitimate concerns regarding blight, traffic congestion and air pollution. The judge also agreed with the city that the ordinance was exempt from environmental review. Turlock adopted the ordinance in 2003 because city officials feared that a Wal-Mart supercenter would force existing grocery stores to close, which would lead to vacant and run-down shopping centers (see , January 2004). The case is , San Joaquin County Superior Court Case No. 345253. FARMERS WITHIN THE PAJARO VALLEY Water Management Agency as well as agency Board Member John Eiskamp have sued the agency over water rate increases to pay for a $200 million water pipeline. The pipeline project, which is under construction, would bringing freshwater to the coastal portion of the agency's territory, where the water would help offset an overdraft of groundwater that has permitted saltwater to intrude into the aquifer (see , June 2004). However, the agency has spread the cost of the project among all agency customers, including inland landowners not affected by the saltwater problem. Rates have more than doubled to $160 per acre-foot, a very high price for agricultural water. The lawsuit contends that the district should have conducted an election on the rate increase.

A dispute over water rights is threatening to shut down development around Lake Arrowhead in San Bernardino County. In August, the state Water Resources Control Board ruled that the Lake Arrowhead Community Services District does not have the right take water from the lake, which has been the district’s primary source since 1978. The water board also fined the district $182,000 and has ordered the district to submit a plan for replacement water sources by October. The district has appealed the decision, but, in the meantime, has stopped selling new water meters. Two years ago, local resident Ted Heyck filed a complaint with the state board, contending that the water district never applied to the state for the right to take water from the reservoir. Heyck has since been elected to the community service district’s board. He says the district should pursue other water sources. Other district officials say they have been doing just that during the last two years — drilling new wells, reviewing water recycling options and signing 15-year contracts with two nearby districts that have access to the State Water Project. Still, the 8,000-customer Lake Arrowhead district argues it owns water rights established prior to 1914, when the state first began regulating water use. The district says a previous utility transferred the rights to the district. The state board, however, determined that those rights are only for recreational use of the reservoir, and not for residential consumption. In a stunning turn, a U.S. District Court judge has ordered two lawyers who filed a racketeering lawsuit against environmentalists and federal employees to pay $267,000 in sanctions. The order from District Court Judge Manuel Real came in a case that has been remarkable from its outset. In November 2004, developer Irving Okovita filed a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) lawsuit against three U.S. Forest Service employees and the leader of an environmental group. Okovita wants to develop a 12.5-acre project with 133 condominiums and 175 boat slips in the unincorporated town of Fawnskin, on the north shore of Big Bear Lake. He received San Bernardino County approval for the project, but a federal judge in May 2004 halted construction because of potential harm to bald eagles, an endangered species. Okovita’s lawsuit claimed that Sandy Steers, who heads Friends of Fawnskin, Scott and Robin Eliason, a couple who are USFS biologists and members of Friends of Fawnskin, and USFS Supervisor Gene Zimmerman conspired to halt the real estate development. The lawsuit accused the federal employees of abusing their office for personal gain and to lower the value of Okovita’s property so the Forest Service could purchase it. The lawsuit claimed all four overstated the value of the 12.5 acres as eagle habitat. A number of entities intervened on behalf of the defendants, including the state attorney general’s office, which called Okovita’s lawsuit a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). The federal Department of Justice got the federal government substituted as the lead defendant. Early this year, Judge Real threw out the lawsuit. In August, Real ordered attorneys Wayne Rosenbaum and Susanne Washington of Foley & Lardner — not Okovita — to pay $267,000 in sanctions for filing a frivolous racketeering lawsuit. Because winning attorneys had sought only $175,000, many people believe Real was trying to make a point about meritless lawsuits. Foley & Lardner has vowed to appeal. The case is , EDCV04-1387. Thousands of City of San Jose employees began moving into the new, Richard Meier-designed city hall during August. Similar to many major civic center projects, the San Jose city hall project had to overcome litigation and political opposition. The San Jose project took two years longer than expected to complete, and its final $382 million cost was approximately 80% more than originally estimated. Nevertheless, the 18-story glass and anodized aluminum structure has drawn mostly positive reviews. Maybe the most remarkable part of the 550,000-square-foot facility is a 10-story-tall, freestanding glass dome in the public plaza. The new city hall on East Santa Clara Street also brings the municipal government back to downtown from a more suburban site on North First Street and from a variety of leased spaces spread around town (see , June 1999). The validity of a subdivision map recorded in 1907 has been upheld by a Monterey County Superior Court judge. The decision appears to permit development of a 73-lot housing subdivision on 16 acres of farmland in the unincorporated town of Spreckels. In January 1907, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors approved the “Official Map of Spreckels,” which shows the disputed subdivision. Judge Kay Kingsley ruled that because the map was recorded in compliance with the version of the Subdivision Map Act in effect at the time, the map was valid. Spreckels was originally a company town built for workers at the Spreckels Sugar Company, which closed in 1982. Located about four miles south of Salinas, the 185-home town is a designated historic district and was the location where the movie “East of Eden” was filmed. After county supervisors last year voted to recognize the 73-acre subdivision, Spreckels residents and LandWatch Monterey County sued. They argued that because the county in 1907 had no discretion over the map, the document did not create legal parcels. The validity of antiquated maps has long been a question in California. Two years ago, the state Supreme Court ruled that maps created before 1893, when the first predecessor of the Subdivision Map Act was adopted, do not create valid subdivisions for today’s purposes ( , 29 Cal.4th 990; see , March 2003). The decision also appeared to call into question the validity of maps created between 1893 and 1929, the year when local governments received specific authority to decide on a subdivision map’s design and improvements. An appeal is likely in the Spreckels case. In the meantime, the property owner, the Tanimura family, intends to start grading the site. The California High-Speed Rail Authority has released the final program environmental impact report for the proposed 700-mile-long rail system. The document pegs the cost of building the entire system at “over $33 billion” in 2003 dollars. However, an alternative that involves building more highway lanes, and additional airport runways and gates, would cost more than $82 billion and have greater environmental impacts, according to the report. The EIR, which serves as an environmental impact statement for federal purposes, deferred some difficult issues — such as selecting route alignments between the San Joaquin Valley and the Bay Area, and between Burbank and Los Angeles Union Station. The study says the high-speed rail line could carry up to 68 million passengers by 2020. However, no money has ever been budgeted for construction, and a statewide bond is unlikely to appear on the ballot before 2008. The Authority and the Federal Railroad Administration are scheduled to certify the environmental study this fall. The next step in the project would be preparation of a study to determine the best route over the mountains separating the Central Valley from the Bay Area. Litigation over the 14,000-unit Rancho Mission Viejo housing project in southern Orange County has been settled. Environmental organizations agreed to drop their lawsuit in exchange for developer Rancho Mission Viejo’s concession to shrink development envelopes and permanently protect 17,000 acres of habitat and farmland. Nearly one year ago, the Orange County Board of Supervisors approved the Rancho Mission Viejo project (see , January 2005). The project called for 14,000 housing units, mostly single-family homes, and three large mixed-use centers that would provide thousands of jobs. The project was designed with development “pods” totaling about 8,000 acres spread across the 23,000-acre ranch. At the time, environmentalists complained about the spread-out nature of the development and the lack of protection for undeveloped areas. Conservation groups, including the Endangered Habitats League, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, sued over a number of project aspects. Under the agreement signed in August, the total amount of development will not change. Rather, it will be contained in a tighter area of about 6,000 acres. The remaining 17,000 acres will be protected as habitat or farmland. The developer, Rancho Mission Viejo, now must amend details of the plan approved in 2004. Meanwhile, federal and state wildlife officials are working on plans for a nature reserve.

The sale of 49 state-owned properties could bring the state between $1.6 billion and $4.4 billion, according to a report by the California Performance Review panel. However, some of the most valuable properties are very sensitive, and proposed private development could touch off fierce battles. The report divides the properties into two categories. The first is composed of 37 properties that have already been declared surplus but have not been sold, and “underutilized portions of facilities currently in use.” The second category of 12 properties lists the most valuable real estate. Those properties, the CPR suggests, could be put to better uses. The second category is the more intriguing. The properties listed are: o 850 acres of the Napa State Hospital currently leased to the City of Napa for parkland o Undeveloped portions of the Cal Expo state fairgrounds, including more than a mile of American River frontage o Fairgrounds in Del Mar, Costa Mesa, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Antioch and Napa o San Quentin Prison o Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and Sports Arena o The Cow Palace in Daly City o 455 properties in Pasadena, South Pasadena and El Sereno that the state acquired for the long-stalled extension of the Long Beach Freeway. Officials with the CPR stopped short of suggesting that any of these properties should be sold or developed, recommending only that state officials review how the properties are used and whether taxpayers are getting the most out of the real estate holdings. The CPR does make recommendations regarding management of real estate, including passage of a state law requiring binding arbitration to resolve disputes between the state and local governments regarding the surplus or reuse of state property. The report is available at www.cpr.ca.gov . IN A SERIES OF THREE AUDITS, Los Angeles City Controller Laura Chick has faulted the loan and real estate practices of the city's Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA). “My audits of the CRA revealed an agency lacking the most basic of written procedures governing the issuance and collection of loans, the award of subsidies or the transfer and use of land,” Chick said upon release of the final audit at the end of October. “It is imperative that we work together to improve the management and oversight of the agency.” Regarding development loan practices, Chick found that the CRA awarded loans without conducting in-depth underwriting evaluations, did not monitor loans properly and failed to require adequate collateral to secure loans. She also reported that the agency did not adequately monitor compliance with housing affordability covenants, inspect properties or collect its share when properties were sold or foreclosed. Regarding real estate transactions, Chick found that CRA did not “track the disposition of its real estate properties,” did not maintain land inventory records and failed to follow policies when disposing of real estate. Chick, a former city councilwoman, called on the “city's leadership” to conduct hearings regarding CRA oversight. Agency Executive Director Bud Ovrom and CRA Board of Commissioners Chairman Paul Hudson said the agency had cooperated with Chick's audits and would use the recommendations to improve operations. All three audits are available on the city controller's website at www.lacity.org/ctr . THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS has adopted new regulations that could limit development on 33 square miles in the Santa Monica Mountains. The regulations require builders to get a conditional use permit to grade more than 5,000 cubic yards of soil. Previously, a use permit was needed only for projects involving at least 100,000 cubic yards of grading. The new rules also require development to be located at least 50 vertical feet and 50 horizontal feet from ridgelines. The regulations adopted in November help implement the North Area Plan, which the county adopted four years ago to reduce subdivision activity in the mountains between Malibu and the San Fernando Valley. During public hearings, landowners and developers complained that the new regulations amounted to a “land grab.” But state and federal parks agencies, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and the cities of Agoura Hills and Calabasas supported the measures. A NEW REPORT PREPARED BY the Greater Los Angeles and Ventura County Chapter of the Building Industry Association and the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation warns of dire economic consequences if the pace of homebuilding does not increase during coming years. The study identified a new housing shortfall from 1990 to 2004 that totaled 282,000 units in Los Angeles County and 9,460 units in Ventura County. If population growth continues to outstrip supply, the study warns, businesses will move elsewhere because they cannot afford to pay employees adequately, companies will struggle to recruit new employees, young families will move elsewhere, attracting companies to the region will become increasingly difficult, families will “double up,” and more people will be forced to commute long distances from outlying areas with less-expensive housing. The report's recommendations for improving the situation were familiar. To overcome NIMBYism, for example, the study recommended addressing citizens' complaints “by creating, funding and implementing coordinated infrastructure and housing plans.” The report also urged an overhaul of the California Environmental Quality Act. The study is available at www.bialaventura.org . WHAT MIGHT BE ONE OF THE LAST large-scale housing developments in Orange County received approval in November when the Board of Supervisors approved a 14,000-unit development proposed by Rancho Mission Viejo. During a standing-room-only meeting, the Board of Supervisors approved an environmental impact report, a general plan amendment, zoning changes and a development agreement. The project encompasses 14,000 dwelling units and 5.2 million square feet of commercial development on 7,700 acres. About 15,100 acres will permanent open space, under the approved plan. The Sierra Club intends to challenge the county's decisions in court. The cities of Mission Viejo and San Clemente, which complained about potential traffic from the south county project, might join the litigation. THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION Commission reported that cities and the county have failed to collect a new regional transportation impact fee about one quarter of the time. In a report released in November, the Commission found that $180 million, of an expected $726 million in a five-year forecast, in Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) was apparently waived or uncollected for other reasons. Under the TUMF program, the county and all 14 cities in western Riverside County are supposed to collect $6,650 per house, and varying amounts for commercial and industrial development, for regional transportation improvements (see , March 2003). A sizeable portion of the uncollected amount apparently is due to development agreements that were signed prior to June 1, 2003, when the TUMF became effective. At least one city (Temecula) waived the regional traffic fee in exchange for a developer's agreement to build road and freeway ramp improvements. Nearly every multi-family housing development in the San Gorgonio Pass area was apparently exempted from the fee. Although the Transportation Commission accepted the report, representatives of four cities voted not to accept the report because they said it was inaccurate. MIGRATION TO AND FROM the Central Valley varies significantly in different parts of the 19-county region, according to a new report by the Public Policy Institute of California. The Upper Sacramento Valley is losing college graduates while attracting retirees, the Sacramento area is drawing skilled workers, Bay Area commutes are flocking to the North San Joaquin Valley, and the South San Joaquin Valley is getting more low-skilled immigrant workers, according to the report. The study, called “The Central Valley at a Crossroads: Migration and its Implications,” found that public and private institutions are responding differently, based largely on specific regional challenges. For example, economic development efforts in the South San Joaquin Valley focus on “vertical integration” of the agriculture industry, such as post-harvest processing, and on sectors that rely on inexpensive labor, such as call and distribution centers. In the Sacramento metro area, which has a robust economy, the emphasis is on better urban planning and improving air quality. The study is available online at www.ppic.org .

A jury has awarded a Santa Barbara County landowner $5.6 million in general and punitivedamages because the county designated part of the landowner's farm as protected wetlands. The jury ordered the county to pay Adam Brothers Farming $5.47 million. The jury also ordered three current or former county planning department employees to pay a total of $100,000 in punitive damages, and found a planning consultant liable for another $30,000 in punitive damages. The jury found that the county conspired to designate a 95-acre portion of a 286-acre farm near Orcutt as wetlands in an attempt to suppress the value of the land. Insisting the county had done nothing wrong, officials said they would take the case to the Court of Appeal. The county in 1999 ordered Adam Brothers, which bought the land in 1997, to stop farming the disputed site without grading and other permits. The company graded and planted the site anyway, leading to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency raid. A federal lawsuit against Adam Brothers that seeks millions of dollars in damages and mitigation fees for destruction of sensitive areas is set for trial this month. IN A DECISION THAT HAS INFURIATED ENVIRONMENTALISTS and State of California officials, the Bush administration has settled a takings lawsuit with several San Joaquin Valley irrigation districts and farming companies. The administration announced in late December that it would pay the group $16.7 million. The water agencies and farmers had sued the federal government because of reduced water deliveries during 1992 and 1994, when water managers curtailed diversions from the Delta to protect runs of endangered fish. A U.S. Court of Federal Claims judge in Washington D.C. concluded that the districts and farmers had a property right to the water and were due $14 million, plus interest (see , March 2004). Members of the Schwarzenegger administration, as well as the State Water Resources Control Board and even attorneys within the federal government urged the Bush administration to appeal the ruling. How much of a precedent the payment sets is unclear. The settlement itself states that no legal precedent is being established. But both sides said there is a precedent. Roger Marzulla, the Washington attorney who won the case, told the the case “establishes the fundamental principal that the government is free to protect the fish; it simply has to pay for the water it takes to do so.” The case is , (2003) 59 Fed. Cl. 246. RIVERSIDE COUNTY HAS APPROVED a revised plan for one of the largest subdivisions in county history in an unincorporated area between Hemet and Temecula, and the revisions appear to have satisfied opponents of a previous plan. The specific plan for the Domenigoni Valley project calls for about 4,200 houses, as well as two schools, a golf course and commercial development on 1,734 acres. In 2001, the county approved a similar, 4,600-unit project for the same site, but the City of Temecula and the Endangered Habitats League sued. Temecula was concerned about traffic on its streets, while the environmentalists worried about the loss of habitat. The revised plan calls for a phasing of improvements to arterial roads that connect the Domenigoni Valley to Interstate 215, which lies several miles southwest of the project site. Under the approved plan, the developer, the Domenigoni family, must put in some roads before any housing development begins and must provide other improvements at certain phases of the project. Those changes satisfied Temecula. Meanwhile, environmentalists dropped their opposition because the county has since adopted a multiple-species habitat conservation plan that covers all of western Riverside County, including this project site. A MOVEMENT INTENDED TO HALT construction of a Wal-Mart supercenter in the San Gabriel Valley city of Rosemead appears to have gone awry. Project opponents gathered more than 2,000 signatures on a referendum of a city-approved development agreement with Wal-Mart. The referendum, however, did not target the general plan amendment for the project. So the City Council in December repealed the development agreement, eliminating the need for a referendum election. Other project approvals remain in place, and Wal-Mart representatives said they could break ground as soon as this month. An opposition group called Save Our Community said it would pursue a court challenge. THE MONTEREY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS in December approved a the 4,000-unit, 2,700-acre Rancho San Juan specific plan only two weeks after the county's Planning Commission unanimously voted against the project (see , June 2003). Supervisors voted 3-2 for the project just north of Salinas, but the battle is hardly over. County officials said they would likely return with plan amendments within six months. Project opponents have vowed to sue. THE CITY OF LATHROP in San Joaquin County has approved another huge development, this one a 6,800-unit specific plan backed by Richland Planned Communities, Inc. During the last two years, the city of about 13,000 people has approved nearly 20,000 housing units in four large developments (see , March 2003). Some construction has already begun. THE FINAL ELECTION TALLIES in San Diego and Sonoma counties found that transportation sales tax measures narrowly won. San Diego County's extension of a half-cent sales tax for 40 years received 67.01% of the vote, winning by 3,400 votes out of slightly more than 1 million votes cast. In Sonoma County, a new quarter-cent sales tax received 67.2% of the vote, winning by 1,072 votes out of about 210,000 votes cast. The final results mean that 7 of the 10 sales tax measures for transportation improvements on county ballots during November were successful (see , December 2004, October 2004).

The first local initiative to copy Oregon's Measure 37 may appear on the ballot in Napa County, possibly during this November's special election. In late June, the Napa Valley Land Stewards Alliance submitted signed petitions on the “Fair Payment for Public Benefit Act.” The initiative would require the county to pay property owners when a new land use regulation decreases property values. If the county and a property owner cannot agree on an amount for compensation with 100 days, the property owner may go to court, under the initiative. The initiative mimics the November 2004 initiative approved by Oregon voters (see , April 2005). Proponents are members of a group who helped defeat a county stream setback ordinance at a referendum election last year (see , March 2004). Property rights advocates in other counties, including San Luis Obispo County, are considering placing similar initiatives on local ballots. The Napa County initiative is available at www.landstewards.org THE FRESNO COUNTY GRAND JURY has recommended the county implement a building moratorium “until proven water sources are located, developed and preserved.” The mid-June report arrived just as a newly formed water advisory committee got started on a plan to bring together water agencies, developers, civic leaders and local government officials. The committee, headed by Clovis City Councilman Harry Armstrong, intends to inventory water supplies and recommend ways to improve water availability. In recent months, Fresno County officials have been hesitant to approve new subdivisions in the eastern foothills because of both groundwater and surface water supply concerns (see , May 2005). Formation of the advisory committee and placing new requirements on groundwater users are among the steps the county has implemented - but those were apparently not enough for the grand jury. “Without a regional oversight of water use and sales, the rapid growth in Fresno County is a potential disaster,” reported the grand jury, which also found, rather surprisingly, that agriculture consumes less water per acre than houses. The grand jury report received a mixed reception. “I guess I was really disappointed in the fact that they would make any statement about water at all until the county's water study is done,” Supervisor Bob Waterson told the . THE CITY OF BERKELEY and the University of California have settled a lawsuit that the city filed earlier this year over UC's Long Range Development Plan for the Berkeley campus. The university agreed to work with the city on, and help pay for, a downtown area plan that would guide revitalization of the city's core. Additionally, UC agreed to reduce new parking spaces by half to 1,270, increase annual payments for municipal services and programs from $500,000 to $1.2 million, explore a “use tax” on campus purchases of out-of-state goods, and consider programs that favor hiring Berkeley residents and buying local products. City officials agreed to drop their demands for additional sewer fees and for parking surcharges. The long-range plan calls for building 2.2 million square feet of space for additional academic and support programs over 15 years (see , June 2005). However, city officials said the plan burdened city services and did not protect city desires for off-campus development. The proposed downtown plan would not be binding on UC, but both UC and city officials said they expect the plan would strongly influence university building decisions. “This agreement ensures our community will have a real voice in future development by the university, provides funding for vital city services, and reinforces out commitment to reducing traffic congestion and improving transit alternatives,” Mayor Tom Bates said. Still, three of nine City Council members voted against the settlement, and a group called Berkeleyans for a Livable University Environment said they would try to carry on the litigation without the city. MARIN COUNTY HAS SUED the state Department of Corrections over the environmental impact report (EIR) for the construction a new death row at San Quentin. In a lawsuit filed in June, the county argues that the EIR does not adequately address project alternatives, or impacts on nearby communities such as traffic congestion, lighting glare and ugly aesthetics. Marin County officials and some civic groups want the state to build a new condemned inmate facility elsewhere (see , April 2005). But state officials say the $220 million project belongs at California's longtime home of death row. THE CITY OF MISSION VIEJO HAS DROPPED its lawsuit over Orange County's approval of a 14,000-unit development on Rancho Mission Viejo (see , January 2005). The city filed its lawsuit because of traffic concerns. The settlement calls for the county to give priority to improving two intersections and two parkways that serve Mission Viejo residents and that will carry traffic from the new development. A lawsuit filed by environmentalists is still pending. OPPONENTS OF A PLAN TO EXPAND the San Diego Zoo lost the first round of their lawsuit when San Diego County Superior Court Judge Ronald Prager confirmed a tentative ruling against the group Preserve Our Parks. The group contends that the city should not have approved the zoo expansion and an environmental impact report before completing a parking study for all of Balboa Park, a study that the city has yet to finish. The city approved the zoo plan last year after years of planning and debate (see , June 2001; , April 2000). The plan calls for expanding the zoo onto what is now the zoo's surface parking lot, and building a new parking structure underground. The city and zoo, however, currently lack funds to carry out the $300 million project. THE TRANSBAY TERMINAL IS BACK on track - maybe. In June, the First District Court of Appeal lifted an injunction halting work on the project while a California Environmental Quality Act lawsuit over the project proceeds. A San Francisco judge halted work in May after he found that the EIR for the multi-modal transportation hub was inadequate because the study did not consider the project's impact on a condominium project planned across the street (see , May 2005; , August 2004). The First District, however, said work may proceed while an appeal of the Superior Court's ruling on the EIR is pending.

A recent Legislative Analyst's Office report regarding the cost of fighting wildfires received a great deal of attention for its study and recommendations regarding personnel costs, labor agreements and potential new taxes. Largely overlooked, though, were suggestions that the state should influence planning decisions in areas with wildfire threats. The state has about 8 million acres in the “wildland-urban interface,” nearly three-quarters of which are at high risk for wildfire. The coastal and interior mountain ranges of Southern California, the hills ringing the San Francisco Bay Area and the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada contain most of the wildland-urban interface, where homes and businesses intermingle with undeveloped areas. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) estimates that the number of homes in the wildland-urban interface increased by 20% from 1990 to 2000. Most of the new homes are in areas served by local fire departments, and are not in the CDF's “state responsibility area.” Still, as the LAO noted, “State resources are often called upon as part of the state's integrated wildland fire protection system.” Additionally, CDF reported that its calls for non-fire emergencies, such as medical aid requests, in the Sierra foothills increased by 150% in only seven years. The LAO did not call for a decrease in development in these areas. Rather, the state should “encourage” local governments to make fire-safe planning decisions on where to locate new development, on fuel management plans and on building codes and designs, the LAO recommended. Furthermore, because the law does not specify who is responsible for funding firefighting in state responsibility areas, the LAO recommended the Legislature clarify the law to say that the state will not be fiscally liable. “First, if local agencies are clear that the state is not fiscally responsible for life and structure protection, this should encourage local land use decisions that attempt to minimize the risk to structures and people from wildfire. Second, a clear statement that the state is not responsible … could encourage local governments to budget an appropriate level of local resources for this purpose,” the LAO report says. The state's firefighting budget is about $500 million annually. The LAO recommends imposing a fee on landowners in state responsibility areas to cover half of that cost. The report is available on the LAO's website, www.lao.ca.gov . VOTERS IN SANTA ANA supported what would be the tallest building in Orange County during a special election in April. Nearly 57% of voters approved a referendum on the proposed One Broadway Plaza project in downtown Santa Ana. After five years of study, negotiation and contentious debate, the Santa Ana City Council in August 2004 approved a special development district and amended a specific plan to permit the project, which is in an area that otherwise has a 35-foot height limit. Project opponents contended at the time and during the campaign that the office tower would be out of place and cause traffic problems. The opponents qualified a referendum for the ballot and filed a still-pending lawsuit over the project's environmental impact report. Under an agreement with the city, developer Michael Harrah, who has developed and purchased dozens of buildings in downtown Santa Ana, must lease 50% of the proposed tower before beginning construction. THE PRIVATE INVESTORS IN A SANTA CRUZ redevelopment hotel and convention center project have withdrawn their support. Western Hotel Properties of Idaho backed away from the plan after project opponents submitted an overwhelming number of signatures on referendum petitions. In February, the City Council voted 4-3 to approve the project. It called for demolition of the former Dream Inn, now called the Coast Santa Cruz Hotel. Many locals and environmentalists have long considered the hotel - an 11-story structure that looms over the beach - to be an eyesore. Under the proposal, the hotel would have been replaced with a larger, 270-room oceanfront hotel connected to a six-story parking garage and a 23,000-square-foot conference center. Santa Cruz's redevelopment agency would have provided $30 million for the parking structure and conference center, which the city would have leased to the hotel owner. Complaining about the size of the project and the city's subsidy, opponents submitted 8,400 signatures on referendum petitions for the three ordinances approving the project. Only 3,892 valid signatures were required to get the referendum on the ballot. Before the county Elections Department could verify the signatures, Western Hotel Properties announced it was dropping the project. THE BATTLE OVER BOLSA CHICA in Huntington Beach just might have ended. In mid-April, the Coastal Commission approved Hearthside Homes' plans for 349 houses on a 105-acre site above Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. The Commission's approval of the project also clears the way for Hearthside to sell 103 acres to the state for an addition to the conservation project. The Bolsa Chica saga extends back to the 1970s. At various times, as many as 5,700 housing units were proposed for the site, a degraded wetlands and former oil field. Led by the group Amigos de Bolsa Chica, environmentalists fought every step of the way. Over the years, the state has acquired most of the site, or nearly 2,000 acres (see , January 2002; , November 1989). Amigos protested the latest development proposal, too, but the Coastal Commission approved it 11-1. With the Coastal Commission's approval of the Hearthside subdivision and the likely sale of the remainder of mesa to the state, virtually all of Bolsa Chica either is entitled for development or designated for conservation. THE CASE REGARDING DISPUTED WETLANDS near the unincorporated Santa Barbara County town of Orcutt has taken another turn. The property owner, Adams Brothers Farming, has agreed to pay $1.15 million to settle a lawsuit filed by the Environmental Protection Agency. In late 2004, a Santa Barbara County jury awarded Adams Brothers $5.6 million in damages - including $130,000 to be paid by three county planners and a consultant - after concluding the county had wrongly designated one-third of Adams Brothers 286-acre farm as wetlands (see , January 2005). The jury award is on appeal. In 1999, the county commenced enforcement proceedings against Adams Brothers because the company graded and planted grain crops on 95 acres of county-designated wetlands without a grading or land use permit. Adams Brothers then sued the county. However, the EPA sued Adams Brothers, alleging that the company illegally graded 70 acres of wetlands without a federal permit. Under the EPA settlement, Adams Brothers will pay a $200,000 fine and contribute $915,000 to the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County for wetlands restoration elsewhere. The settlement also allows the company to resume farming on all of its land, according to the EPA. THE ENVIORNMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for the Transbay Terminal project in San Francisco has failed to survive judicial scrutiny. In April, San Francisco Judge Ronald Quidachay sided with developer Jack Myers, who contended the study was inadequate partly because it failed to account a project he planned to build. The new multi-modal station would bring together a number of bus lines, BART and Caltrain, and would replace an existing, dilapidated depot (see , August 2004). However, Myers had begun construction of a condominium tower across the street from the terminal site when San Francisco shut down his project one year ago. After deciding that the two projects could not co-exist (rail lines are proposed right under Myers' property), San Francisco supervisors began eminent domain proceedings. The developer and other terminal opponents have continued to fight. After the judge's ruling, city officials vowed to persist. THE CITY OF INDUSTRY WON another round in an ongoing struggle with the City of Brea regarding land in the Chino Hills between the two cities. The latest battle is over Industry's purchase of 525 acres along Tonner Canyon Road. Industry purchased the land last year, but Brea sued, arguing that Industry had to make public its plans for the property and complete an environmental impact report before completing the purchase. Riverside County Superior Court Judge Stephen Cunnison ruled that environmental analysis could wait until development was proposed. In April, Brea voted to appeal Cunnison's decision. Four years ago, Industry purchased a 2,400-acre Boy Scout camp in Tonner Canyon, next to 2,800 acres that the city already owned (see , December 2001). That acquisition drew protests and litigation, but Industry has maintained ownership. During the late 1970s, Industry proposed building a reservoir in the area, but the city eventually dropped the project. Officials from Brea and other agencies, and environmentalists contend that Industry still plans to fill Tonner Canyon with water, and that the latest purchase of 525 acres is another step in the reservoir project. But Industry City Manager Phil Iriarte told the , “I think after the appeal period is over, then the council will start thinking about what they might do with the property.” RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA have settled a lawsuit that the city filed regarding the impacts of unincorporated area development on the city. The settlement essentially calls for funding to be in place before major developments may proceed in the French Valley and Menifee areas. The city sued the county two years ago over the county's new general plan, which calls for extensive development in unincorporated areas outside Temecula. Roads, freeways and freeway interchanges in the area are already congested, and Temecula demanded that the county provide improvements. The settlement calls for the city and county to fund a study to determine a development impact fee that would pay for additional lanes on Interstates 15 and 215. The study, by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, is scheduled to be completed later this year. The settlement also calls for the city and county to form assessment districts to pay for about $300 million of road and freeway interchange projects over the next 20 years. Last year, Temecula and the county settled a lawsuit over development near Hemet when the country agreed to restrict development based on the completion of road improvements. A DRAFT REPORT ON THE PROPOSED SPLIT of Santa Barbara County concludes that the new county would not be economically viable - and that the remainder of Santa Barbara County would be better off fiscally. The draft report by the governor-appointed Mission County Formation Review Commission states that Santa Barbara County now spends $30 million more for general fund services within the territory of the proposed new county than the same area generates in tax revenue. “Without an increase in taxes, significant reductions in current service deliveries would be necessary in those areas funded by general discretionary revenues (primarily sheriff, probation, district attorney, public defender and support services) for the proposed county to achieve a balanced budget,” the Commission reported. Mission County proponents assailed the report, partly because the Commission relied on information provided by the county. The report is available at www.missioncountyformation.org.

A State Auditor’s report questions reserve fund accumulations and spending practices at independent water districts. Released in late June, the report looks at the funds held by local, independent water districts statewide. The auditor also selected eight districts for closer scrutiny: Alameda County Water District, Crestline-Lake Arrowhead Water Agency, Leucadia Wastewater District, Otay Water District, San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, Walnut Valley Water District, Western Municipal Water District, and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District. The auditor reported that five of districts — Crestline, Leucadia, Walnut Valley, Western and Wheeler Ridge — “may have trouble defending to their ratepayers and taxpayers the need for some portion of their accumulative resources.” The auditor made clear that the accumulations are not necessarily excessive, but did question the reserve accounts because the agencies’ could not fully explain why they needed the money. The auditor reported that three districts — Otay, Walnut Valley and Western — paid attendance fees for directors to attend parties and Chamber of Commerce functions, and also spent lavishly on meals and travel. Walnut Valley, for example, paid $18,000 for 15 meals provided to directors and others who were away from the district. The auditor also found that one Leucadia director made decisions in which she had a financial interest. Director Lois Humphreys voted for district contracts with an engineering company that had hired her for public relations work, according to the audit. The districts’ responses to the audit were mixed, with Walnut Valley providing the most combative answer. “Walnut Valley Water District challenges the title of the report and the district disputes the claim that its ‘reserve accounts are not always sufficiently justified’ or that ‘some expenses and contract decisions are questionable.’ The district submits there is absolutely no evidence to support these broad general allegations,” General Manager Karen Power wrote. State officials have long eyed special district reserve accounts as a potential source of revenue during hard times for the state. However, the state auditor reported that the state could not legally “transfer” money in the water districts’ reserve accounts to the state general fund. The audit is available at www.bsa.ca.gov TWO NEW STUDIES by San Jose State University economics professors cast doubt on the effectiveness of inclusionary zoning — in which developers must sell 10% to 20% of new homes at “affordable” prices — as a means of encouraging affordable housing production. One study examined 50 Bay Area cities with inclusionary zoning, while the second report considered the 13 cities in Los Angeles and Orange counties that employ the tool. The report found that inclusionary policies produced 6,836 affordable units in the Bay Area cities and 6,379 affordable units — 70% of them in Irvine — in Los Angeles and Orange counties. Those numbers are tiny fractions of the number of affordable housing units needed. At the same time, overall housing construction decreased “drastically” right after a city adopted an inclusionary ordinance, the professors found. One study reported that Bay Area inclusionary ordinances raised the price of a new, market-rate home by $22,000 to $44,000. For the Southern California jurisdictions, the increase was pegged at $33,000 to $66,000 per unit. In more expensive jurisdictions, the policy added more than $100,000 to the price of a new home, according to the study. The studies by Professors Benjamin Powell and Edward Stringham were funded by the libertarian Reason Foundation. They are available at www.rppi.org WHILE THE REASON REPORTS were knocking inclusionary zoning, a coalition of seven Bay Area foundations announced a $250,000 grant to the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California to fund “the first phase of the campaign to help Bay Area cities and counties accelerate adoption of inclusionary housing polices, a proven affordable housing strategy.” The effort has targeted Contra Costa and Sonoma counties and the cities of Antioch, Pittsburg and San Jose, all of which lack inclusionary zoning. The housing advocates also want San Francisco, Santa Rosa and San Mateo to strengthen inclusionary laws. Providing money are S.H. Cowell Foundation, Fannie Mae Foundation, Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund, Marin Community Foundation, Peninsula Community Foundation, The San Francisco Foundation, and Charles and Helen Schwab Foundation. THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS has adopted a growth vision called “Southern California Compass.” The plan outlines how the six-county region should accommodate an expected 6.3 million people by 2030. The plan emphasizes redevelopment and infill, development along transportation corridors, a connected series of open space reserves and much greater public transit. The plan calls for the majority of new housing units to be multi-family apartments, townhouses and condominiums. The organization has closely tied the plan with its regional transportation plan (see , June 2004). The growth vision is available at www.socalcompass.org VOTERS IN ANTIOCH have rejected a proposed business park and apartment complex. During an election in June, 54% of voters on Measure C sided with Citizens for a Better Antioch, which forced a referendum after the City Council approved the project. The proposed Bluerock Business Center and Luxury Apartments would have provided space for about 1,000 jobs and 240 housing units. Although project advocates said the project would help address the bedroom community’s jobs-housing imbalance, the election appears indicative of an anti-growth backlash that has hit the Contra County city of 103,000. FORMER SANTA ROSA PLANNING COMMISSIONER Richard Carlile has been fined $24,000 by the Fair Political Practices Commission for repeated violations of conflict-of-interest laws. Five of the FPPC charges involved a failure to disclose income from clients on conflict-of-interest forms. The FPPC also found that Carlile twice voted on projects in which his clients held a financial interest, and that he improperly lobbied planning staff members for clients. Carlile, a cofounder of Carlile Macy, one of Sonoma County’s largest civil engineering companies, was on the Planning Commission from 1997 through 2002, when he was pressured to resign because of his lobbying activity regarding development regulations. He characterized the violations as technicalities. “I have nothing to be ashamed of,” Carlile told the Santa Rosa . “It’s unfortunate they happened, but they weren’t conscious violations.” A TENTATIVE DEAL that would prevent development on nearly all of the 82,000-acre Hearst Ranch in San Luis Obispo County was reached in early June. Under the deal, the Hearst Corporation would receive $80 million from the state, plus state tax credits worth $15 million. Hearst would also get the right to develop a 100-room hotel at San Simeon Village and 27 houses on 5-acre parcels. The state would gain title to 18 miles of coastline, and a conservation and agricultural easement on 81,000 acres. Details of the deal have not been finalized or released publicly.

The first update of the Governor’s Environmental Goals and Policy Report (EGPR) was issued in the final moments of the Davis administration. However, it was unclear how seriously the Schwarzenegger administration and state lawmakers would take the report. One member of the stakeholder advisory committee called the EGPR an "instant historical curiosity." The report has not been available on the website of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), which prepared the document. Rather, the EGPR was released to the public on the website of the Local Government Commission ( www.lgc.org ). Also, the letter "transmitting" the report to the Legislature was not signed by Gray Davis, as appeared to be required by law. Instead, interim OPR Director Tal Finney signed the letter to legislators. The letter was dated November 17, 2003 — the day that Arnold Schwarzenegger took office. State law requires the EGPR to be updated every four years, but Gov. Jerry Brown’s 1978 "Urban Strategy for California" is the only such report to be adopted and implemented through executive order. Under Davis, OPR spent several years working on an update. The final document, however, reads like a work in progress. More than half of the document is devoted to existing conditions, demographic change, and trends in the economy, land use and the environment. A full 47 pages of the 177-page report is a bibliography. Only 5 pages of the Environmental Goals and Policy Report contain actual goals and policies. Throughout, the report emphasizes sustainable development, environmental justice, containing "sprawl" and realigning government’s fiscal incentives. The six goals are: • Communities that provide affordable housing, economic opportunity, quality schools, parks and civic facilities that enhance the quality of life; and that use land in an equitable and environmentally sensitive manner. • A state government that is responsive to regional and local needs. • An inclusive state whose actions and institutions reflect the diversity of California’s population. • An economically vital state whose business environment supports innovation and entrepreneurship. • A healthy and sustainable environment for all Californians. • Safe, reliable energy to meet California’s needs. A revised environmental impact report for the proposed Newhall Ranch project near Santa Clarita passed judicial muster in late October. Kern County Superior Court Judge Roger Randall lifted his three-year-old order blocking the project. In 2000, Randall ruled that the original EIR failed to adequately address the project’s impacts to certain species, flood control and water quality. Newhall Ranch is proposed to contain about 21,000 housing units and 5 million square feet of commercial, industrial and retail development. Project opponents are expected to appeal Judge Randall’s decision. Placer County had the largest percentage job growth of any urban county in the nation from April 2002 through March 2003, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in November. The county’s payrolls grew by 4.9% — about 6,000 jobs — during the 12-month period. The bulk of Placer County’s job growth was in the construction, retail and service sectors. Ranking 315th and last by percentage in the annual report was Santa Clara County, which lost 5.9% of its jobs during the same 12-month period. The Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission has approved the City of Irvine’s annexation of the closed El Toro Marine Corps base. Under a plan adopted by the city, about 80% of the 4,700-acre base will be devoted to open space, parkland and a university. The remaining 20% of the site will be developed with 3,600 housing units and 3 million square feet of commercial and industrial space. City officials say the development will fund the site’s infrastructure, parks and other public facilities. Irvine and other cities fought for nearly 10 years against a county plan to convert the base, which closed in 1999, into a civilian airport. A change in the composition of the county Board of Supervisors, passage of a second anti-airport initiative during 2002, and, finally, Irvine’s annexation appear to have killed the proposed airport for good. University of California, Merced, has selected Lennar Communities of San Ramon to be the master developer of a new community of up to 31,000 residents next to the UC Merced campus, which is scheduled to open in fall 2005. The new community is still in the planning stages. A proposed 221-acre "wetlands park" in Petaluma moved closer to reality in November when the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors granted $2 million in open space district funds for property acquisition, habitat restoration and recreational facilities. The city is putting $2 million into property acquisition, and state agencies have also promised funding for the $9.7 million project, which aims to maintain and restore one of the largest intact marshes of its type in the country.

Three highly anticipated studies regarding the potential impact of Wal-Mart supercenters in California have been released in recent weeks. A supercenter is a full Wal-Mart store plus a full-sized grocery and usually totals 180,000 to 230,000 square feet. Wal-Mart hopes to build 40 supercenters in California in five years, but some cities and counties have blocked Wal-Mart (see , February 2004). The studies have some common threads but reach dramatically different conclusions — and the studies drew predictable responses. A Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC) report defended supercenters as a net gain for the region. The LAEDC found that if supercenters had 20% of the grocery market, households in the seven-county Southern California region would save an average of $589 annually, a total $3.76 billion. There could be regional loss of up to 5,100 grocery jobs, but those losses would be offset 7-to-1 by gains in other sectors that would be funded by money saved on groceries, the LAEDC concluded. In a study prepared by University of California, Irvine, Professor Marlon Boarnet and UCLA Professor Randall Crane, the Bay Area Economic Forum concluded that supercenters controlling 6% to 18% of the market could reduce consumers’ grocery bills in a 12-county region by 5% to 13% annually. The savings of as much $1.13 billion a year could stimulate other spending, the report says. However, the supercenters would likely pay employees about half as much as the typical Bay Area grocery clerk, reducing payrolls by as much as $677 million a year and harming what has been a source of high-paying, entry-level employment, the study said. The study recommended local governments consider proposed superstores’ demands on roads and public services, and the possibility of existing retail areas closing. A report released by Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez) called Wal-Mart a tax drain. Because of low wages and restricted health benefits, a Wal-Mart store with 200 employees costs taxpayers about $420,000 a year for health care, housing subsidies and school lunches, according to the report, prepared by the Democratic staff on the House Education and Workforce Committee. IN OTHER BIG-BOX NEWS, Wal-Mart has filed lawsuits against both the City of Turlock and Alameda County regarding new ordinances that block superstores. The separate state court lawsuits claim Turlock and Alameda County violated the California Environmental Quality Act and other procedural requirements. Wal-Mart also filed a federal lawsuit against Turlock alleging a violation of the company’s equal protection rights. OWNERS OF ABOUT 5% of the stock in Costco have voted for a resolution calling on the discount membership store to devise a policy for the selection and acquisition of store sites. The shareholders, led by Christian Brothers Investment Services (CBIS), say Costco has not been sensitive to local concerns. CBIS said it would continue to press the issue. THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE'S budget analysis released in mid-February contains a number of proposals worrisome to planners and housing advocates. Among other things, the LAO recommended using more Proposition 46 bond money for ongoing multi-family housing programs, increasing the amount of property tax revenue shifted from redevelopment agencies to school districts by nearly $200 million, eliminating the Office of Planning and Research, and dropping the regional housing mandate. ALTHOUGH IT HAS BEEN RELUCTANT to fully embrace the New Urbanist-style City of Villages plan (see , August 2002), the San Diego City Council in February approved five sites as "pilot villages." Those five communities and developers there will get higher priority for water and sewer improvements, help with applying for financial assistance, and expedited permitting. The pilot projects range from 366 row houses, condominiums, apartments and lofts on 8 acres along El Cajon Boulevard, to 839 housing units, an amphitheater, shops, offices and job training centers on 45 acres at Euclid Avenue and Market Street. DEVELOPMENT IN THE PLACER COUNTY CITY OF ROSEVILLE advanced in February when the City Council approved the west Roseville specific plan, which calls for about 8,400 housing units plus a business park and retail areas on 3,100 acres (see , August 2003). The council also approved development agreements with West Park Associates and Signature Properties. The project now moves to the Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission, which will consider the city’s proposed annexation of the territory. At the same time the Roseville plan moved forward, a visiting Superior Court Judge blocked Placer County’s approval of the 1,900-home Bickford Ranch project, just north of Loomis. Judge John Golden found the county’s record so confusing that he could not determine which version of the project the county approved. CALAVERAS COUNTY SUPERVISORS approved road impact fees for the first time in February. Road fees failed to win Board of Supervisors’ support last year because the fees did not cover commercial development (see , January 2004). The new fees are $3,300 per single-family home and $2,400 per multi-family unit. Non-residential fees range as high as $8.60 per square foot for highway commercial development. Supervisors voted 3-2 for the fees. Among the dissenters was California State Association of Counties President Paul Stein. THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL issued something of a split decision regarding a proposed shopping mall in Elk Grove. The Department of Conservation and slow-growth advocates had sued to block the 295-acre, 3 million-square-foot Lent Ranch Marketplace project, proposed for farmland on the south end of town. A Sacramento County Superior Court Judge found the EIR inadequate for a number of reasons. In an unpublished, 2-1 decision, the Third District overturned all of the lower court decision except with regard to farmland mitigation. The court ruled that the city must find a way to mitigate the loss of 300 acres of "farmland of statewide importance." Both sides in the five-year-old fight claimed victory. THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE has decided not to protect the midvalley fairy shrimp, which lives in portions of the Central Valley and East Bay, under the Endangered Species Act. The agency found that the species often lives in vernal pool habitat that is already protected, or in rural areas with little development pressure. The decision on the midvalley fairy shrimp came at about the same time that environmentalists sued the federal agency over its 2003 decision, based in part on economic grounds, to remove 1 million acres from a critical habitat designation for four freshwater shrimp and 11 plant species. That land lies in Butte, Sacramento, Solano, Merced and Madera counties.

The Nut Tree, a California highway landmark that closed eight years ago, may return to life in 2005. The Vacaville City Council in September approved a master plan for the 79-acre property along Interstate 80. The council’s unanimous decision came a year and a half after the city, which had acquired the property, approved a disposition and development agreement with Bay Area developer Roger Snell. For decades, the Nut Tree was a stopping point halfway between San Francisco and Sacramento, as well as a destination of its own. A restaurant, produce market and train ride were among the attractions. After some hard times and the rise of a gigantic outlet mall nearby, however, the Nut Tree closed. Several developers took a shot at the site before Snell emerged as the leading candidate to revitalize the landmark. The master plan calls for a mixed-use development that is modern, yet reminiscent of the Nut Tree’s public spaces. The pedestrian-oriented plan calls for 350,000 square feet of restaurant and specialty retail space, 200,000 square feet of offices, a 20,000-square-foot conference center and full-service hotel, a smaller business-class hotel, and up to 350 attached residential units. The development would also feature a 1.5-acre public square, and a 3-acre park with amusement rides and the restored home of the original Nut Tree proprietors, the Harbison family. The disposition and development agreement requires Snell to produce at least 20 acres of retail and public attractions in the first phase. Development could begin in the spring of 2005, although the city has not yet approved a site plan or other project details. During a hearing on plan approval, Snell told the City Council that the project would be a 24-hour entertainment hub that makes Vacaville a destination again. “There is no project like this anywhere in the country,” he said. Council members were eager to approve the project but emphasized that they want something unique, “not,” as Councilwoman Rischa Slade said, “like every other place.” IN A BATTLE OF SHOPPING CENTER TITANS, Los Angeles developer Rick Caruso defeated Chicago-based General Growth during a September referendum in the City of Glendale. The city’s voters narrowly approved a zoning amendment (Measure A, 51.6%), a specific plan (Measure B, 51.1%) and a development agreement (Measure C, 50.7%) that the City Council had adopted earlier this year for the Caruso project. Caruso has proposed a “town center” project called Americana at Brand for 15.5 acres of dilapidated buildings and parking lots in downtown Glendale. The development would contain 400,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space, a 16-screen movie theater, and about 330 condominiums and apartments. Americana at Brand would be similar to The Grove, Caruso’s successful open-air mall in Los Angeles’s Fairfax district. General Growth, which owns the 1.5-million-square-foot Glendale Galleria adjacent to the project site, complains that the development would cut off access to the Galleria and clog local streets. The new shopping center would close Harvard and Orange streets to automobiles and generate about 20,000 vehicle trips per day. The second largest enclosed shopping mall owner in the country, General Growth forced the referendum and reportedly spent $1.5 million on the campaign. Caruso responded by pouring more than $2 million into the election. The two sides are also in court. General Growth has contested the project’s environmental impact report. In a separate lawsuit, Caruso has charged General Growth with anti-competitive conduct. VENTURA COUNTY SUPERVISORS have approved a measure that limits campaign contributions to $250 for anyone with a land use matter pending before the Board of Supervisors. The county already had limited contributions to $600 per election cycle. But Supervisor Steve Bennett — who helped pass urban growth boundaries in most Ventura County cities before he become a supervisor — said there is a perception that land use decisions stimulate campaign contributions that could influence supervisors. Supervisor Judy Mikels voted against the restriction, saying it is unnecessary and discriminates against landowners. THE RACE TO LURE A DHL CARGO HUB neared the finish line during September. In Moreno Valley, the March Joint Powers Commission approved a 380,000-square-foot facility, an action that permits a joint powers authority to issue $35 million in industrial bonds for the project. Two weeks earlier, the San Bernardino Planning Commission approved Hillwood Investment’s plan for a similar sized cargo facility at the former Norton Air Force Base. The City Council is expected to provide final approval this month. DHL has already opened a small sorting facility at the closed base, which is now called San Bernardino International Airport. Meanwhile, officials in Ontario are reportedly talking to DHL about a cargo base at Ontario International Airport. The plan for March Air Reserve Base has spurred the most public interest. Nearly 1,000 people — many of them area residents who oppose nighttime flights at March — attended a September 22 hearing of the Joint Powers Commission. Middle-of-the-night flights are a staple of the cargo business. Although DHL has remained in the background, most people involved expect the company to make a decision within a few months. The DHL cargo hub would employ 400 to 500 people.

The Navy has asked incoming governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to block a proposed new town on the Tejon Ranch because the development would hinder national security. The Navy has also asked the new administration “to facilitate coordinated master planning of the entire Tejon Ranch, across local jurisdictions, with special consideration of input from DoD regarding military training and testing requirements.” The new town, called Centennial, is proposed to have 23,000 housing units and 14 million square feet of office, industrial and retail space near the junction of Interstate 5 and Highway 138, about 25 miles north of Santa Clarita (see CP&DR Local Watch, April 2003). According to an October 21 letter to the incoming administration from Navy Rear Admiral J.L. Betancourt, military airplanes regularly fly training and testing missions within 200 feet of ground level in the area of the proposed development. “ t is likely that the Tejon Ranch project is just the beginning of the development of this portion of the Antelope Valley,” according to a Navy report. “Such development, if realized, could result in substantive land use conflicts underlying current training areas and could likely pose a threat to continued use of training routes.” Betancourt pointed to 2002 legislation, AB 1468 (Knight), that requires general plans to account for potential land use conflicts with military bases, and which gives the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research authority to resolve disputes. He suggested proposed development could be pushed to the northern portion of the 270,000-acre Tejon Ranch, in the San Joaquin Valley. Tejon Ranch President and Chief Executive Officer Bob Stine called the letter “politically driven” and said environmental groups were using the military to halt development. He noted that 43 individuals and groups — ranging from federal, state and local lawmakers to the Sierra Club — were on the letter’s carbon copy list. “Certainly we were surprised because we’ve been in the planning process for the Centennial project for three years, all of the information for the project was submitted to the public in August 2002, and the military has never contacted us,” Stine said. Tejon Ranch officials are willing to cooperate with the military, and involvement from the governor’s office is not warranted, Stine added. The Rohnert Park City Council has approved an agreement with the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria under which the tribe will pay the city, a school district and community groups $200 million over 20 years to mitigate impacts of a proposed casino and resort. The City Council’s mid-October vote came while casino opponents worked on a recall of the four councilmembers who voted for the agreement. Meanwhile, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors rejected an offer of $120 million from the tribe because the money came under the condition that the county not oppose the proposed development — a condition Rohnert Park accepted. Still, a recall of three supervisors, including two who voted against the tribe’s offer, is also underway. The Graton Rancheria has proposed the largest casino in Northern California on 360 acres of farmland west of Rohnert Park. Besides what might be the largest gambling floor in the state, the facility would also have a 300-room hotel and a 2,000-seat auditorium. Station Casinos of Las Vegas, which joined with a different tribe to open a casino near Roseville in June, would help develop and operate the facility. The land is not held in trust for the tribe — a requirement for an Indian casino. However, the 2000 federal legislation that gave legal recognition to the tribe mandates the Interior Department take into trust any land the tribe requests. Under the approved revenue-sharing plan, the tribe will pay the city $15 million up front for road work, $2.7 in in-lieu development fees, and $3 million for new police and fire facilities. In addition, the tribe will pay annually for 20 years $6 million, including $1 million designated for housing, to the city; $1 million to the Cotati-Rohnert Park School District; and $2 million to community nonprofit organizations. The agreement has escape provisions for the tribe, including the tribe’s failure to reach a certain compact with the state. The deal would provide more money for local government than any other agreement involving a gaming tribe. The Corona Redevelopment Agency should reimburse hundreds of thousands of dollars of low- and moderate-income housing funds (LMIHF or low/mod funds) that the city used to purchase and operate emergency shelters, a Department of Housing and Community Development audit has concluded State auditors found that Corona spent $400,000 in low/mod funds to purchase one shelter and spent $250,000 over three years to help the Salvation Army operate the facility. The redevelopment agency spent another $94,000 of low/mod funds to help run an emergency and transitional housing facility for domestic violence victims. Low- and moderate-income housing funds must be used for permanent or transitional housing, and not for short-term emergency shelter, states the audit, which was released at the end of September. Corona Redevelopment and Economic Development Director Jim Bradley responded that redevelopment law is not clear cut and he rejected HCD’s interpretation. “To adopt a narrow definition of what qualifies as housing for purposes of LMIHF expenditures would most likely result in the closure or reduction of numerous emergency and other non-traditional housing venues throughout the state,” Bradley wrote. “Given the strong public policy behind providing housing in both traditional and non-traditional forms, we do not believe that a narrow definition is warranted.” State auditors also found that Corona used as much as 52% of annual low/mod expenditures for administration and planning, that it spent $91,000 of low/mod monies over three years on community trash cleanup, and that the city failed to assist 25 families displaced by redevelopment activity. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has until January 18, 2005, to designate critical habitat for 20 species of salmon and steelhead trout listed under the Endangered Species Act, according to a consent decree signed in September. The decree settled a lawsuit environmentalists and commercial fishing companies filed against NMFS. The critical habitat designation could be the largest ever, as the federal agency will study about 150 watersheds in California, Oregon, Washington and Idaho. A critical habitat designation for the fish released in 2002 was withdrawn when development interests filed suit arguing that NMFS did not consider economic effects of the designation. The Sacramento Valley Conservancy completed its purchase of 4,060 acres of grasslands and oak woodlands in eastern Sacramento County. The land, in a lightly developed area more than 5 miles south of Highway 50, had been the site of the proposed 3,000-unit Deer Creek Hills subdivision, which voters rejected 2-to-1 three years ago (see , December 2000). The Conservancy pieced together about $11.1 million in state bond money from the county and two state agencies. Private contributions composed only about $250,000 of the $11.4 million purchase price.