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.

Lennar Corp. has purchased the former El Toro Marine Corps base in Irvine. The Miami-based developer paid $649.5 million for 3,718 acres in an online auction that concluded February 16. The other bidders were Standard Pacific Homes and an unidentified “OCHOPE.” Typically, the military gives closed bases to local governments. But in this case, the Navy gave 1,000 acres to the Interior Department for a wildlife preserve and then put the rest up for auction in three chunks (see , May 2003). Los Angeles city officials tried to halt the auction at the last minute by resurrecting plans for an international airport at El Toro, but federal officials dismissed the pleas. Under Irvine's “Great Park” plan, Lennar must turn over about 1,500 acres to the city for parks, museums and other public amenities. On the rest of the acreage, Lennar may develop about 3,500 housing units, 3 million square feet of commercial, industrial and retail space and a university. Lennar also is obligated to fund about $400 million worth of infrastructure, some of which will be paid by future property owners. Lennar hopes to start building houses at El Toro by 2007. Meanwhile, the Navy is responsible for the ongoing, $300 million cleanup of hazardous materials, which is expected to take another eight years. A SLOW-GROWTH INITIATIVE in the City of Santee failed at a special election conducted February 15. The election appears to clear the way for development of the 2,600-acre Fanita Ranch, which has served as an informal park in the San Diego suburb for decades. Numerous plans for development of Fanita Ranch have come and gone over the years. In 1999, a year after voters rejected an initiative to limit development at Fanita Ranch, the city approved a 3,000-unit housing project for about half of the property. Later that year, however, voters rejected the project during a referendum (see , December 1999; , September 1999). At the same election, voters turned down a proposed parcel tax to fund acquisition of the real estate. The latest initiative would have prohibited Fanita Ranch development within 150 feet of any permanent or intermittent water course and on most slopes of more than 20% - essentially putting 90% of the ranch off-limits to development. Measure X also would have prevented lots smaller than one acre. For the undeveloped Rattlesnake Mountain area south of Fanita Ranch, the initiative would have prevented development on slopes greater than 25%. About 65% of voters said no to Measure X. Barratt American, which purchased Fanita Ranch a few years ago, and Greystone Homes, which has plans for Rattlesnake Mountain, poured approximately half a million dollars into the campaign. Barratt American has proposed a 1,380-house development on mostly half-acre lots, in addition to retail development. Greystone has proposed a 373-unit single-family home and condominium project for its property. A DECADES-OLD LAND USE CONTROVERSY in Malibu appears to have reached a permanent conclusion. In 1982, the Malibu Little League won the right to build baseball fields on 10-acres of the 93-acre, state-owned Bluffs Park. At that time, Malibu Little League needed a new place to play ball because the state wanted to restore wetlands at the site of the existing ball fields at Malibu Lagoon. Malibu's youngsters have continued to use the Bluffs Park fields even though a lease ended in 2002 and environmentalists have never been happy about the arrangement. The agreement, which appears to satisfy just about everyone, was approved in February. State parks will donate the 93-acre park to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, which will then sell 10 acres with the ball fields and other public amenities to the city for roughly $1.5 to $2.5 million. That money will go to state parks, which will put it toward the purchase of the 588-acre Soka University site in the Santa Monica Mountains, where Los Angeles County approved a huge, but never developed, campus during the 1990s (see , June 1996, March 1994, March 1993). State parks will also devote about $7 million set aside for the Little League field relocation to the Soka purchase. Coincidentally, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to allocate $550,000 toward the $35 million Soka site acquisition in February. THE MODESTO CITY COUNCIL has decided not to consider any sewer extensions to new growth areas for two years. The council decided to delay future sewer trunk extensions until the city completes new master plans for sewer, water and storm drain systems. Sewer extensions in Modesto must go to an advisory vote. With the council's decision, no such election may be conducted until 2007 unless developers foot the full cost of the election. City officials said they want a pause because they need more complete information. Recent Measure M elections have already opened about 1,600 acres to development. Even a representative of Centex Homes conceded to the that the City Council “probably did the right thing.” ORANGE COUNTY'S LONG-PROPOSED CenterLine light rail project may be dead. In February, the Orange County Transportation Authority voted to discuss other options for transit, including a possible rapid bus transit system and increased MetroLink train service. More than a decade ago, planners envisioned the CenterLine as a 28-mile-long system from Fullerton to Irvine. Over time, the proposed project shrank until it was down to only 9.3 miles from a multi-modal transportation center in downtown Santa Ana to John Wayne Airport, with a spur to Santa Ana College. The project is estimated to cost $1.1 billion, but $500 million the county has expected from the federal government appears to be in doubt. The agency is scheduled to revisit the matter in June. SIXTEEN INSURANCE COMPANIES led by Lloyd's of London have agreed to pay the State of California $93 million to settle insurance claims related to the state's highest priority Superfund site, the Stringfellow acid pits in Riverside County. Although cleanup of the toxic dump is expected eventually to cost the state more than $600 million, Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the settlements “will help California recoup some of its expenses and allow us to focus our attention on the remaining defendants.” A state lawsuit against 15 other insurance companies is scheduled for trial this month. From 1956 to 1972, manufacturing companies dumped 35 million gallons of solvents, pesticides and other toxic materials into unlined ponds at the 17-acre site just north of Highway 60 in Glen Avon. By the late 1970s, rain had caused the ponds to overflow at least once, and groundwater pollution was evident in nearby residential areas served by wells. The state began cleaning up the site during the 1980s. In 1998, a court found the state liable for the pollution because the state had not only regulated and inspected Stringfellow, but had directed companies to use the site. Since the early 1990s, the state has sought to collect on insurance policies it purchased over the years to cover its liability. CALVERAS AND TUOLOMNE COUNTIES have settled a lawsuit that Tuolumne had filed regarding Calaveras's approval of a 3,250-acre resort in the Copperopolis area. Tuolumne County officials argued that Oak Canyon Ranch - 2,275 houses and 1,200 visitor units, shopping areas and two golf courses - would impact a county road and two state highways in Tuolumne County (see January 2004). The two counties settled the lawsuit in February when Calaveras agreed to charge, and developer Maury Froman agreed to pay, $985 per unit toward traffic mitigation. Tuolumne County will get to spend the money, which would total $3.3 million if the project is fully built out. The project has been for sale recently. Froman also agreed to pay the two counties' legal expenses of about $130,000. Correction. The story in the December 2004 edition regarding a project at the Santa Clara County Fairgrounds contained an error. The story incorrectly stated that the subject of a 2000 environmental impact report was an outdoor amphitheater, and that the county Board of Supervisors later decided to pursue an indoor concert hall. The 1998 fairgrounds revitalization plan did call for an outdoor amphitheater, but the Board of Supervisors dropped the idea because of neighborhood opposition. Instead, the board in 1999 decided on an indoor facility, which was the subject of the EIR.

The big box wars continue unabated in California, with retail giant Wal-Mart losing one high-profile round but winning elsewhere. In early April, City of Inglewood voters rejected an initiative endorsed by Wal-Mart that would have required the city to approve, without environmental review, a 60-acre retail development between Hollywood Park race track and The Forum. A Wal-Mart supercenter was at the heart of the proposed shopping center. The election received attention nationwide because it was the first time that Wal-Mart had gone the initiative route for a proposed store. Despite a Wal-Mart campaign that cost more than $1 million, 61% of Inglewood voters rejected the initiative. The 4,575 votes that Wal-Mart received cost the company about $220 apiece. Labor unions led the fight against the Inglewood initiative, and Wal-Mart opponents nationwide took heart from the election. Still, Wal-Mart continued to press ahead. "It’s simply one store, one site in the list of hundreds we work on ever year," Wal-Mart Vice President Robert McAdam told the . "It’s not that big of a deal. We’re going to find ways to build stores and serve customers, and while we would have loved to have that location, there are going to be other opportunities." Elsewhere, in what might be only a procedural victory for Wal-Mart, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors repealed an ordinance adopted earlier this year that prohibited stores of more than 100,000 square feet from devoting 10% of floor space to nontaxable items (see CP&DR, January 2004). The measure was clearly aimed at blocking supercenters, which are typically more than 200,000 square feet with complete grocery stores inside. Groceries are not taxed in California. Wal-Mart sued Alameda County and the Central Valley City of Turlock, which adopted a similar ordinance. At the behest of County Counsel Richard Winnie, the Alameda board repealed the ordinance because the Planning Commission had never reviewed it — one of the grounds for Wal-Mart’s lawsuit. The company then dropped the its lawsuit, but the county intends to restart the ordinance adoption process. Across the bay in San Francisco, a Board of Supervisors committee approved a proposed ordinance that would permit stores larger than 120,000 square feet that sell groceries in downtown, but ban them elsewhere. The ordinance also would require all stores of at least 50,000 square feet to obtain a conditional use permit. Also in San Francisco, supervisors have approved a zoning ordinance that restricts "formula retail stores," defined as companies with at least 12 stores nationally and having at least two standardized traits, such as trademarks, merchandise, facades, signs or colors. The new ordinance outright bans formula retail stores on four blocks of Hayes Street in the center of Hayes Valley, near the Civic Center. The ordinance further requires formula retail stores that propose to open in one of the city’s approximately three dozen neighborhood retail districts to notify neighbors of the proposal. Supervisors said the law protects the city’s varied neighborhoods and local businesses. The Southern California Association of Governments has adopted a $213 billion, 25-year transportation plan. The plan calls for nearly across-the-board improvements and changes to the metropolitan region’s system: a magnetic levitation train system, expanding Metrolink and Metro Rapid bus lines, growth at regional airports, and more freeway lanes, including toll and carpool lanes. The plan also calls for increasing the state gas tax by 10 cents per gallon, and raising as much as $60 billion over 25 years from tolls and ridership fees. A lawsuit over the proposed Newhall Ranch project in Los Angeles County has been settled, marking what appears to be a change in tactics for opponents of the 21,000-home project just west of Santa Clarita. Three environmental organizations agreed to drop the lawsuit in exchange for Newhall Land & Farming Company’s willingness to provide Los Angeles County with annual groundwater usage reports, and to ensure that groundwater serving the development meets state health standards. Project opponents won an early round of the lawsuit when a Kern County Superior Court judge ruled, among other things, that there was inadequate evidence that water was available for the development. Newhall then acquired more water rights, and a revised environmental impact report was prepared. Last year, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved project and EIR revisions, which were enough to satisfy the Superior Court. Instead of pursuing an appeal of that decision, opponents apparently intend to fight individual subdivisions within Newhall Ranch and to continue to question the availability of water. The City of Santa Clarita’s proposal to annex 555 acres at the junction of Interstate 5 and Highway 14 — where a 5,800-home development is proposed — received a setback in April. A Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that the city must complete an environmental impact report before proceeding with the annexation. The city opposes the proposed Las Lomas development (see , January 2004) and has filed an application with the Los Angeles County Local County LAFCO. Las Lomas developers want the City of Los Angeles to annex the territory and have filed their proposal with that city. The San Diego Padres' new downtown ballpark opened in April. The opening of the stadium, which is within a short walk of both the San Diego Convention Center and the thriving Gaslamp Quarter, appears to have induced even more interest in commercial and multi-family housing constructing in downtown, as several projects have been proposed in recent months. The San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission has approved the proposed expansion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by 140,000 acres after a bitter fight by the San Mateo County Farm Bureau and property owners. The LAFCO decision adds property on the San Mateo County coast and in the coastal hills, including many farms, to the open space district. The district, which covers portions of San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, has been very aggressive about acquiring property and conservation easements. It has preserved 48,000 acres since 1972. Agency officials say they would like to preserve another 12,000 acres, including coastal lands, in the next 15 years. The Farm Bureau dropped its opposition after the district agreed not to use eminent domain in the coastal expansion area. In April, Gov. Schwarzenegger signed AB 1195 (Cohn), which ensures the district cannot use eminent domain in the expansion area. Still, some landowners are unhappy and are considering a ballot measure to overturn the LAFCO decision. Restoration of the Bolsa Chica wetlands in Huntington Beach took two major steps forward recently. In late March, the State Coastal Conservancy approved $10 million for the 1,200-acre project. In April, the State Lands Commission granted a four-year lease to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is scheduled to start work on restoration this fall. The ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are providing $90 million for the project to offset port expansion projects. Since the 1970s, environmentalists have fought development proposed on the degraded wetlands and adjacent bluffs (see , January 2002). Over the years, the building envelope has dwindled to about 60 acres, and the current developer, Hearthside Homes, is reportedly negotiating to sell that property so that it may be preserved. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has re-designated 4.1 million acres in 28 California counties as critical habitat for the California red-legged frog, which is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The designation is similar to a 2001 critical habitat designation that a federal judge threw out in November 2002 because the Fish and Wildlife Service did not prepare an adequate economic analysis (see , December 2002; , December 2000). The new designation excludes three military bases on the central coast because of a new law exempting military lands from the Endangered Species Act, and lands covered by habitat conservation plans in San Joaquin and Riverside counties. The new designation adds territory in Nevada and Calaveras counties. A revised economic analysis, however, was absent from the Fish and Wildlife Service’s announcement. The analysis will be released next year, the agency said. The building industry, which won the earlier suit, complained that the agency had not improved its practices this time around. The designation of critical habitat can force additional federal review of proposed developments.

The Bush administration announced it has dropped a plan to relax federal regulation of wetlands. For most of 2003, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers worked on a proposal to redefine which streams, ponds, wetlands and other seasonal and permanent bodies of water would be protected under the Clean Water Act. The proposal was a response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2001 ruling in , 121 S. Ct. 675 (see , February 2001), in which the court limited the Army Corps’s ability to regulate isolated bodies of water. However, most states, including California, half the members of the House of Representatives and numerous angling, hunting and conservation groups opposed the proposal to relax federal regulations. Homebuilders, on the other hand, endorsed the concept. In announcing that the administration was dropping the proposal, EPA Administrator Michael Leavitt endorsed the longstanding policy of "no net loss" of wetlands. However, Leavitt also suggested that fear of extensive litigation drove the decision. IN THE LATEST INSTALLMENT of a controversy that is nearly a century old, Attorney General Bill Lockyer has sued the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP) for failing to restore the Lower Owens River. The lawsuit, which the Sierra Club and the Owens Valley Committee joined, appears to have spurred the DWP to action. Under a 1997 memorandum of understanding that settled earlier litigation, DWP agreed to put a prescribed amount of water in the dry riverbed by June 2003. The project was intended to serve as mitigation for DWP’s increased groundwater pumping in Inyo County that commenced when DWP completed a second aqueduct in 1970. "DWP has now missed all the deadlines that the MOU parties negotiated after years of litigation and settlement discussions," asserts the lawsuit, filed during December in Inyo County Superior Court. "DWP is now proceeding on an ad hoc basis, without any specific enforceable deadlines, and it continues to further delay the project and miss its own work schedules. … t is unclear when, if ever, the city and DWP will complete this important mitigation project, cure its ongoing violation of CEQA, and bring the project’s environmental benefits to fruition." Lockyer and the environmental groups asked the court to limit DWP’s groundwater pumping until the Lower Owens River project is completed. Two weeks after the lawsuit was filed, DWP announced it would restore a steady flow of water to the Lower Owens River within two years. The agency said it hoped its new commitment would settle the lawsuit. The DWP’s acquisition of water rights from the Owens Valley during the early 20th century made possible much of Los Angeles’s growth. But the large-scale water diversion dried up Owens Lake and made the Owens Valley, literally, a dust bowl. SACRAMENTO FLOOD PROTECTION advanced significantly at the end of 2003 when Congress approved a deal that authorizes about $220 million for a 7-foot raise of Folsom Dam and downstream levy improvements. Once complete, the improvements would give Sacramento — which now is not safe from 100-year storms — only a 1-in-213 chance of flooding in any given year, according to engineers. Major flood improvements for Sacramento, which is threatened chiefly by the American River, have stalled for years because Reps. John Doolittle (R-Rocklin) and Robert Matsui (D-Sacramento) could not agree. Doolittle has long championed building the proposed Auburn Dam, which could provide flood control and drinking water, while Matsui sought cheaper and less environmentally damaging flood control projects downstream (see , September 2002). The deal approved as part of a federal budget bill authorizes the dam and levy upgrades, which will be partly funded by the state and local taxpayers. The deal also authorizes $135 million worth of unspecified water projects in Doolittle’s district. An additional $66 million will fund a new bridge below Folsom Dam. The road across the dam has been closed because of security concerns, creating a huge traffic problem. THE LONG-RANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN for the University of California, Davis, has been approved by the UC Board of Regents. The controversial plan calls for: • 1,600 housing units in a new neighborhood west of the campus • More than 2 million square feet of academic and administrative buildings • Research parks of 27 acres and 11 acres apiece • An 18,000-seat football stadium to be funded by private contributions and student-approved fees • A 170,000-square-foot Robert Mondavi Institute for Wine and Food Science to be funded partly by Mondavi, Anheuser-Busch Foundation and other private groups • A 75,000-square-foot conference center with an adjoining 75-room hotel. UC Davis planners have been working on the plan for years and halved the size of both the new neighborhood and the hotel because of community concerns. Still, litigation by Davis residents is likely. The long-range development plan and related documents are available at: www.ormp.ucdavis.edu/environreview/lrdp.html SOME OF THE STATE'S nine regional water quality control boards fail to follow through on regulatory enforcement actions, according to a report the State Auditor issued in December. For example, the Santa Ana and San Francisco Bay regional boards often let polluters, which may be either public or private entities, fund "supplemental environmental projects" instead of pay fines. But those boards did not ensure the projects were actually completed. When the San Francisco Bay board did levy fines, it would suspend the fines if the polluters agreed to clean up contamination or stop violations. "However, the San Francisco Bay regional board did not always follow up to determine that polluters either came into compliance with the State water quality act in according with the suspension agreements or paid the ," the State Auditor reported. The auditor recommended that the State Water Resources Control Board require the regional boards to monitor and report on the supplemental cleanup projects, and collect all fines promptly. The California Environmental Protection Agency, the agency that includes the state board, said it would attempt to implement the recommendations. The State Auditor’s report is available at www.bsa.ca.gov/bsa SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SUPERVISOR Jerry Eaves is scheduled this month to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit bribery for failing to disclose the receipt of gifts. Federal and state prosecutors announced the plea deal in December, shortly before Eaves was to stand trial on five federal counts of mail fraud and one charge of conspiracy. Eaves’s guilty plea to one state count of bribery apparently will conclude both the state and federal prosecutions. Authorities allege that Eaves accepted $33,000 in campaign contributions and $6,000 worth of lodging and hospitality at a Las Vegas hotel from William "Shep" McCook in exchange for Eaves’s votes allowing McCook to erect, and later sell, billboards on county-owned land near Interstates 10 and 215 in Colton. Under the plea deal, Eaves will pay a $10,000 fine and serve three years of "informal" probation. He also must resign from the Board of Supervisors. A former San Bernardino County administrative officer, two Colton city councilmen and McCook’s partner had earlier pleaded guilty to federal corruption charges related to the billboard scheme. McCook continues to await trial. A former Assemblyman and Rialto city councilman who was already barred from seeking a fourth term on the Board of Supervisors because of earlier campaign finance violations, Eaves continued to maintain he was guilty of nothing more than poor record-keeping. "I still feel I’m innocent," he told the . "I had to take what was offered. I wanted to get rid of these charges." THE PROCESS OF SPLITTING Santa Barbara County into two counties will move forward. County Clerk-Recorder-Assessor Joe Holland announced in December that Santa Maria-area proponents of the county split submitted enough signatures on a petition to qualify the matter for the ballot (see , July 2003). The next step is for Gov. Schwarzenegger to appoint a five-member commission to study the proposed secession. The issue is not likely to make the ballot until 2006. THE CITY OF STOCKTON'S $600 million venture to privatize the city’s water system has been thrown out by San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Bob McNatt because the city did not complete an environmental study of the project. McNatt ruled that the contract should be voided until the city completes an environmental review under CEQA. A partnership of Thames Water, of England, and Colorado-based OMI, Inc., took over the city’s water system last year. City officials contended the 20-year contract would save the city $175 million. But the Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters and the Concerned Citizens Coalition of Stockton filed a lawsuit. One month after the deal was signed last year, Stockton voters approved an initiative requiring voters to decide on any utility privatization worth more than $5 million. But the initiative was too late to block the OMI-Thames deal. THE CENTER FOR COLLABORATIVE POLICY at California State University, Sacramento, has started an Internet-based newsletter that addresses methods for resolving sticky land use issues. The Collaborative Edge can be found at www.csus.edu/ccp

Three local government organizations and three conservation groups have asked Gov. Schwarzenegger to work with them and other stakeholders on developing a comprehensive statewide growth strategy. The September 1 request came from the California State Association of Counties, California Special Districts Association, California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions, American Farmland Trust, Endangered Habitats League and Sierra Club. “As you and those within your administration have acknowledged, the current situation — in which housing prices are increasingly out of reach for the average family, inefficient land use patterns are gobbling up farmland and habitat, traffic congestion and air pollution are worsening, cities, counties and special districts cannot afford public services and infrastructure improvements, and the disadvantaged cannot find places to live near job opportunities — simply cannot continue,” the letter states. Not coincidentally, the CSAC coalition is composed of interest groups that have not been directly involved in the talks between the League of California Cities and the California Building Industry Association regarding housing development. The coalition made five recommendations to the governor: • Implement AB 857, a 2002 law that requires the state to make planning and capital spending decisions that encourage infill development, protect environmental and agricultural resources, and encourage efficient development patterns. • Work with the Legislature, and regional and state governments on budget and tax reforms “to break the barriers standing in the way of smarter growth patterns.” • “Establish a bipartisan working group to develop specific legislative, budget and policy changes to achieve efficient growth and prosperity outcomes.” • “Support additional funding for planning, infrastructure, housing, public services, and agricultural and habitat land conservation.” • Establish pilot projects to build housing, improve transportation choices and “encourage cooperation between communities and developers.” The same coalition, with the addition of the California Farm Bureau Federation, also sent a letter to Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman asking for full implementation of AB 857. “The state has not really made any effort to implement that legislation,” CSAC lobbyist DeAnn Baker said. The coalition wants to create a single effort to address land use and related fiscal issues, Baker explained. There have been so many scattered efforts and proposals recently that it has been difficult simply to track all of the discussions, she said. As of late September, the CSAC coalition had not received a response.

Construction of a sewage plant in the unincorporated San Luis Obispo County community of Los Osos has been halted following the successful recall of three elected officials who supported the plant. During a September 27 special election, voters in the Los Osos Community Services District (CSD) recalled Directors Stan Gustafson, Gordon Hensley and Richard LeGros, and replaced them with Chuck Cesena, John Fouche and Steve Senet. The ousted directors had approved a large sewer plant that is — rather, was — under construction in the center of town. The new directors and two directors who were not recalled oppose the project. Voters also approved a ballot measure blocking the project. The reconstituted CSD board halted construction and dismissed the agency’s general manager, attorney and public information officer. Board members have indicated they would pursue a different type of treatment plant to be built outside of town. Indirectly, the board has picked a fight with state agencies that have been working for years on water quality improvements State regulators have insisted since the 1970s that Los Osos needs a wastewater treatment facility. The town of 14,000 people relies on 6,000 individual septic systems, which regulators blame for polluting the groundwater and Morro Bay estuary. A state-imposed building moratorium has been in place since 1988. After years of debate and planning, the state Coastal Commission approved a development permit for the treatment plant in 2004. Construction on the $150 million collection system and treatment plant began earlier this year. The Water Resources Control Board provided a $135 million low-interest loan for the work. Since the new CSD board changed directions, the water board has demanded repayment of $6.5 million, and is withholding another $6.4 million, arguing that the district broke an agreement when it stopped construction. The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board is pursuing $10,000-per-day fines that it has held in abeyance for years. After several tense weeks, Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee (R-San Luis Obispo) began mediating negotiations between CSD representatives and state officials in late October. In what might be the most expensive hotel deal in history, the Los Angeles City Council has agreed to provide up to $290 million in subsidies for a 1,100-room Hilton Hotel next to the downtown convention center. Under the deal approved September 30, the city will rebate a minimum of $246 million in transient occupancy taxes (TOT) that the hotel would generate over 25 years. If the hotel generates more than that amount in TOT, the city and hotel would evenly split the next $48 million. Additionally, the city will rebate $4 million worth of building permit fees and the L.A. Community Redevelopment Agency will provide a low-cost, $16 million loan. The hotel is part of a larger entertainment and residential project being pursued just north of the convention center and Staples Center by developer Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG). Development began in September on parts of the project, which is planned to contain a 7,000-seat performing arts center, a 14-screen movie theater, numerous restaurants and nightclubs, offices, broadcast facilities, condominiums and, of course, a 55-story Hilton. AEG reportedly is selling the hotel site at a discount to developers Wolff Urban Management and Apollo Real Estate Advisors. The city-owned convention center has been a money pit forever, draining as much as $20 million annually from the city’s general fund. Council members said the hotel would revitalize both the convention center and downtown. Operators of existing downtown hotels lobbied against the Hilton’s subsidy and have vowed to block the deal in court or via a ballot measure. An Oregon judge has thrown out a property rights initiative approved last year by state voters. In a decision that is definitely not the final word on the matter, Marion County Circuit Judge Mary James ruled that Measure 37 violated the federal and State of Oregon constitutions, and impermissibly prohibited the Legislature from exercising its police powers. More than 60% of Oregon voters backed the initiative, which requires compensation to property owners for regulations adopted after the owner acquires property. Judge James ruled that the initiative treated property owners differently based upon when they acquired their property, which violated equal protection rights and the state constitution. She also ruled the initiative violated the separation of powers doctrine and intruded on legislative authority. A similar property rights initiative that Oregon voters approved in 2000 also was struck down in state court, but on the mostly technical ground that the initiative covered too many subjects. James’s ruling went to the merits of the measure. Property rights advocates with the group Oregonians in Action said they would continue to press on in court, and would pursue another initiative if necessary. The case is , Risk Management Division, Marion County Circuit Court No. 05C10444. State Housing and Community Development (HCD) Director Lucetta Dunn has resigned after little more than a year on the job. Dunn, an attorney who has worked in the Orange County development industry for many years, resigned effective October 31 to become president and chief executive officer of the Orange County Business Council. There was no immediate word on a replacement at HCD. Litigation over the siting of the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco has apparently been settled with the San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ decision in October to pay developer Jack Myers $58 million. The Transbay Joint Powers Authority acquired Myers’s property on Natoma Street via eminent domain after Myers had begun work on a 432-unit condominium project. The government valued the property at $32 million, a price Myers rejected. The city’s transportation authority and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission will fund the $58 million purchase. The $2 billion Transbay Terminal is planned to provide a central station for numerous forms of public transit near San Francisco’s Financial District (see , August 2004). A controversial Marin County quarry will be the subject of a $1 million environmental impact report. In October, the Board of Supervisors awarded the EIR — worth up to $998,840 — for the San Rafael Rock Quarry project to ESA. The quarry has been in operation for more than 100 years, but it has became a source of neighborhood and county complaints and litigation during recent years (see , April 2004). The environmental study, to be funded by quarry owner the Dutra Group, will examine a new reclamation plan for the 276-acre property. NASA Ames Research Center near Mountain View and internet powerhouse Google have announced an agreement under which Google would develop a 1-million-square-foot research facility on the federal installation. The project would permit public and private scientists and engineers to collaborate in a number of areas, including biotechnology and nanotechnology. As many as 4,000 people could work at the facility. Under the agreement, Google is responsible for all development costs, including infrastructure construction. Residents of a 495-acre island of unincorporated Orange County have blocked the City of Anaheim’s annexation bid. A group called West Islands Neighbors submitted 1,944 signatures — a little more than 50% of registered voters — on petitions against the annexation. That was enough to kill the annexation without an election, a rare occurrence under current law. City and county officials said annexation of the La Colonia, Sherwood Forest and Thistle neighborhoods made sense because the city could provide better public services. Opponents said they doubted service levels would increase and said they feared the city would crack down on code violations, such as the keeping of livestock and vehicle storage.

A large residential and commercial development in Upland is back on track after an appellate court lifted an order that halted some grading. Although litigation filed by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District against developers of the Colonies Crossroads continues, construction is proceeding. The two sides are in a dispute regarding the cost and design of 65 acres worth of flood control facilities on the property along the 210 freeway in far western San Bernardino County (see , December 2003). After losing in Superior Court, the county appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, which blocked further grading for new flood control facilities. But in late December, the court ruled that halting the flood control work threatened public safety, and the court lifted the injunction. Construction resumed full speed shortly thereafter, and, in January, the City of Upland approved a final map and amended development agreement for the 440-acre, 1,150-unit project. Although the county and the developers have fought vigorously in court and in the press, Scott Sommer, an attorney for The Colonies Partners, said the dispute could be resolved. "There are some serious settlement discussions getting started," Sommer said. DEVELOPERS OF A "NEW TOWN" development in the San Joaquin County city of Lathrop have settled a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club by agreeing to fund a new agricultural land trust. The River Islands project calls for 11,000 housing units and a 325-acre employment center on 4,800 acres just west of Interstate 5 (see , March 2003). The Sierra Club — which also sued over earlier proposals for a theme park on the site — filed a lawsuit in early 2003 regarding the River Islands environmental impact report. Under the settlement, Cambay Group will pay the Modesto-based Great Valley Center $200,000 to establish a new trust to preserve farmland in the project’s vicinity. Cambay Group must also pay $2,200 per acre (the amount will be adjusted for inflation) for every acre it develops, including about $900,000 up front. The developer could eventually pay more than $8 million into the trust fund. River Islands still needs some state and federal wetlands, flood control and endangered species permits. Construction remains at least one year away. DURING A SEVEN-HOUR HEARING attended by about 400 people, the Coastal Commission approved a housing and commercial development proposed for the Dana Point Headlands in Orange County. The commission voted 7-5 for developer Sanford Edward’s proposal for 122 houses, a 90-room hotel and 40,000 square feet of commercial development on the promontory. Controversy over development of the property has been around for about 15 years. In 1994, the city approved 370 houses and a 400-room hotel, but voters overturned that decision with two referenda (see , February 1997; , December 1994). Among the issues for the latest proposal were habitat for the endangered Pacific pocket mouse and the threatened California gnatcatcher, and the need to move and rebuild a seawall. Environmentalists led by the Surfrider Foundation and the Sierra Club opposed the project and threatened litigation after the Commission voted. The Commission majority contended the proposal was a balanced plan that would protect and enhance open space on half of the 121-acre site. Commissioner Mary Nichols, who was state Resources Agency secretary under Gov. Gray Davis, said that habitat and species would be better off with the project than without it. MARYSVILLE MAYOR DICK HELDER resigned in January while under pressure from Yuba County District Attorney Pat McGrath. Six months earlier, a Yuba County grand jury accused Helder of 20 counts of misconduct for acquiring interests in property within Marysville’s redevelopment project area and failing to disclose that interest. McGrath alleged that the mayor hid his interest by using a "straw buyer." After Helder resigned, a Yuba County judge dismissed the grand jury’s accusation because loss of office was the only potential penalty. COMPETING STREAM PROTECTIONS MEASURES on the Napa County ballot in March appear be dividing residents and interest groups into three camps. Major winemaking groups and most county supervisors support Measure P, which would establish setbacks of 25 to 150 feet between farms and streams depending upon the terrain and waterway (see , May 2003). Property rights activists call Measure P a "land grab" that could prohibit farming and logging on 53,000 acres. Environmentalists say Measure P does not go far enough, and they have thrown their weight behind Measure O, which calls for setbacks as large as 325 feet. Environmentalists say the restrictions are necessary to prevent further conversion of hillside forests to vineyards that are susceptible to erosion. CORRECTION. A story in the January edition on the proposed Las Lomas development near Santa Clarita mischaracterized the seismic issues. According to state maps, no fault runs directly through the site. However, territory that qualifies as special study areas under the Alquist-Priolo Act virtually surrounds the Las Lomas site.

A NEW STUDY OF WATER SUPPLY in California provides a mixed picture. The state could meet much of the demand required by a growing population through water conservation, groundwater banking, recycling and water transfers, according to a report from the Public Policy Institute of California. However, the long-term plans of many water agencies rely heavily on the development of new supplies, especially groundwater in areas with no groundwater management policies. “Water for Growth: California’s New Frontier” by Public Policy Institute of California Research Fellow Ellen Hanak recognizes what many water experts have said for years — the era of constructing large dams and aqueducts is over. Instead, water suppliers will have to be more creative in managing limited water supplies. According to the PPIC report, California is expected to add 14 million new residents by 2030. If current water use trends prevail, the state would need an additional 3.6 million acre-feet of water to provide for population growth. And that projection might be low because about half of the state’s population growth is expected to be in the Sacramento region, the San Joaquin Valley and the Inland Empire — locations where single-family houses predominate and more than half of water is used for landscaping. Hanak was encouraged to find that a little more than half of planning agencies participate to some extent in utility planning and in regional water policy groups. She also reports that compliance with SBs 610 and 221 — 2001 legislation requiring proof that water will be available for large developments —is quite high. Hanak was less upbeat about mandatory urban water management plans. She found that one-sixth of agencies did not submit required plans during the 2000 update cycle, and the plans of many utilities rely heavily on “paper water” and additional groundwater pumping to meet future needs. Hanak makes four recommendations: • Strengthen long-term water planning, in part by giving land use planners more say. • Streamline project-level water adequacy reviews by improving long-term planning documents and finding ways to pay for new water supplies. Hanak also recommends charging developers impact fees to fund water development. • Realize the potential of water conservation, in part by charging higher rates to the biggest water users. • Consolidate progress in groundwater management because overdraft is a serious problem in some areas. Hanak further recommends that the state withhold new water supply permits from local agencies that do not manage water responsibly. The PPIC report is available at www.ppic.org HOUSES IN FRESNO will have water meters. In July, the city approved a 40-year contract renewal with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for the delivery of 60,000 acre-feet of water from the San Joaquin River. The deal requires installation of water meters at all single-family houses in the city by 2013. Only about 25,000 of the city’s 105,000 houses have meters, and the city has never billed homeowners anything but a flat rate. However, both state lawmakers and federal officials insist that the days of meter-less water use in Fresno had to end so that homeowners would be encouraged to conserve. Retrofitting existing customers with water meters is estimated to cost at least $50 million. Commercial and multi-family developments already have meters. RECONSTRUCTION OF THE BAY BRIDGE is again moving forward now that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a bill that addresses funding of the $6.3 billion project. Under the deal spearheaded by state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland), the state will provide an additional $630 million for the project. Tolls on all bridges in the Bay Area except the Golden Gate Bridge will increase by a buck to $4 in 2007 to raise another $800 million for the project. Caltrans will keep the single-tower suspension design that has caused much consternation. The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake caused a section of the Bay Bridge’s eastern span to fail. Caltrans has retrofitted the western span and plans to replace the eastern span. However, the project stalled last year when the state received only one bid, at double the expected $740 million cost, for the suspension tower (see , October 2004). Nearly a year of negotiations, which added an estimated $400,000 per day to the project cost, resulted in the deal signed by Schwarzenegger. The re-bidding process has already begun. The project’s expected 2012 completion date would give a fourth governor a Bay Bridge photo op. Pete Wilson signed the first funding bill on the bridge in 1997. Gray Davis attended the project groundbreaking. And in July Schwarzenegger signed the latest funding bill with the bridge looming over his shoulder. CITY OF SANTA PAULA VOTERS will not decide on a growth-control initiative during the November 8 special election. Ventura County Superior Court Judge Steven Hintz ruled in July that Santa Paula City Clerk Josie Herrera was correct to disqualify the initiative because signed petitions did not include the ordinances that the initiative wanted to amend. The proposed initiative would have put to a public vote any project of more than 80 acres proposed at a higher density than allowed under the general plan. The initiative came in response to Centex Homes’ proposal for about 2,200 houses, townhouses and apartments on 2,200 acres that Santa Paula would annex. The city’s general plan now calls for about 450 houses on the site. The City Council is scheduled to consider the housing project later this year. Opponents vowed to keep fighting. A 5.8-MILE TROLLEY EXTENSION to San Diego State University opened in July — 28 years after it was first planned. The $500 million project extends San Diego’s thriving, 54-mile trolley system through Mission Valley, providing an alternative to congested Interstate 8. The line is expected to get about 11,000 riders a day, one-third of them SDSU students. THE AIR FORCE IS PROPOSING to reduce the cleanup of groundwater contamination at the closed McClellan Air Force Base, according to the . Sacramento County fears that the reduced cleanup could substantially set back reuse of the 3,000-acre base as a business and industrial park. The military has been pumping and treating tainted groundwater at McClellan for two decades. The new proposal calls for shutting down extraction wells. Instead, the military would only take steps necessary to contain pollution within the base boundaries. The change would save about $600 million, but it still needs approval from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. TWO SAN DIEGO CITY COUNCILMEN were convicted in July in a federal corruption trial. According to prosecutors, Councilmen Michael Zucchet and Ralph Inzunza accepted $23,000 in campaign contributions from the owner of Cheetahs adult nightclub. They were convicted of conspiracy, wire fraud and extortion. Also convicted was Lance Malone, a former Clark County, Nevada, commissioner, who went between the Cheetah’s owner and the San Diego councilmen. Zucchet, Inzunza and Councilman Charles Lewis, who died while under indictment, tried to ease the city’s “no touch” rule for nude dance clubs. The scheme also involved closing down a Cheetahs competitor and amending the city’s zoning code to make it more difficult to open new adult businesses. Zucchet, Inzunza and Malone have maintained their innocence and vowed to appeal. Sentencing is scheduled for November. THE MARIN COUNTY GRAND JURY has criticized the county’s planning process as “unclear, convoluted, time-consuming and costly.” The Marin Community Development Agency got the grant jury’s attention last year when there was controversy over a 6,500-square-foot house in Greenbrae that was originally permitted for only 3,950 square feet. The grand jury found flaws in the agency’s code enforcement, building inspection and planning practices. The county, however, has already undertaken steps to improve the system, according to officials. The county has adopted new design guidelines for single-family homes, added planners and revised various procedures.

What has been possibly the longest-running general plan controversy on record appears to have concluded on August 31, when a Sacramento County Superior Court judge accepted a revised environmental impact report for a new El Dorado County general plan. The judge’ decision gives the county a legal general plan for the first time since 1999. After a seven-year process with multiple political swings, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors adopted a new general plan in 1996. A collection of homeowners and environmental groups sued, arguing that the plan’s EIR was inadequate. A Sacramento County judge agreed in an early 1999 decision that eliminated the county’s ability to approve discretionary projects (see , March 1999, March 1996). Last year, the Board of Supervisors approved a slightly revised general plan and a new EIR. The plan survived a referendum in March of this year (see , April 2005). The county then returned to court, where it won Judge Gail Ohanesian’s blessing. The county intends to begin processing applications again this month. An appeal of the decision is likely. The case is , Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 96CS01290. In a controversy nearly as old as El Dorado County’s, a federal judge has stalled a proposed giant garbage dump in Riverside County near Joshua Tree National Park. In late September, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Timlin rejected the Bureau of Land Management’s study of a proposed land swap with Kaiser Ventures, which first proposed the Eagle Mountain landfill in the late 1980s. Kaiser now has a deal with Los Angeles County, which intends to purchase the landfill site from Kaiser for $41 million. Kaiser and the BLM propose swapping approximately 2,500 acres owned by the federal government for a like amount of property Kaiser owns elsewhere in the desert. Judge Timlin found that the BLM did not fully consider alternatives to the land trade, failed to adequately analyze the project’s impacts on national park visitors and bighorn sheep, and did not consider the increased number of predators that that landfill may lure. The proposed garbage dump has withstood extensive state court litigation and political controversy (see , June 1999, April 1996, November 1994; , October 1997; , November 1992). However, environmentalists have continued to fight the project vigorously. San Diego County has sued the City of El Cajon over two proposed development projects — a Home Depot and an 11-lot residential subdivision. Pointing primarily to traffic, the county argues that the environmental reviews for the projects are inadequate. But city officials question whether the county is trying to halt the city from annexing the properties because development within the city limits would deprive the county of a new traffic impact fee. “We’ve never had the county jump on us, and I’ve been with the city for 32 years,” El Cajon Community Development Director Jim Griffin said. “Now we have to pay money to defend lawsuits, and applicants are hung out to dry.” The Home Depot project on East Main Street has been particularly controversial. The city certified an EIR in 1999, but later that year rejected the development. This time around, the city used the six-year-old EIR but added an addendum to address traffic, air quality, noise and other issues. Neighbors remained opposed and they got support from county Supervisor Dianne Jacob, who testified against the project. With both projects now in court, the San Diego County Local Agency Formation Commission has put the annexations on hold. The salamander wars continue unabated in Central and coastal California. In a victory for environmentalists, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup ruled that the Santa Barbara County and Sonoma County populations of California tiger salamander qualify as endangered. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which granted the amphibians Endangered Species Act protection only after earlier litigation, had downgraded the two salamander populations from endangered to threatened. Alsup determined that the agency “did not supply any scientific evidence” for the downgraded status. The case is , No. 04-04324. The listing has been particularly controversial in Sonoma County because of the potential for slowing development and wine-growing activities (see , July 2004). Federal officials have proposed designating 74,000 acres near Santa Rosa as critical habitat for the salamander. In a victory for development interests and landowners, USFWS released a new map of critical habitat for the Central California and Santa Barbara County populations of the tiger salamander. The map covers 199,000 acres in 19 counties, but contains only about half as much territory has an earlier proposed critical habitat designation. In its final decision, USFWS eliminated from the critical habitat designation 12 census tracts in Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Monterey, San Benito and Santa Clara counties because of the economic impact the designation would have had. A pair of 53-story hotel and condominium towers proposed for the Capitol Mall in Sacramento has received the Sacramento Planning Commission’s approval. At 615-feet, the towers would be the tallest structures in Sacramento by nearly 200 feet. Proposed by developer John Saca for Capitol Mall at Third Street, the buildings would have a hotel on the lower floors and at least 700 condominiums on the upper stories.

An Oregon property rights initiative has been upheld by that state’s Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision issued February 21, the court ruled that Measure 37 did not violate equal protection and due process rights, and did not improperly restrict state lawmakers’ land use authority. The decision overturned a trial court ruling issued last fall that found the initiative violated the federal and state constitutions. The ruling could provide a boost to similar proposed ballot measures elsewhere, including California. Approved by 61% of Oregon voters in November 2004, Measure 37 requires the government to either compensate property owners for land use regulations promulgated after the owner acquired property or not apply the regulations. The initiative backed by a group called Oregonians in Action was a direct attack on the state’s 30-year-old planning law that many planners see as a national model. The law prohibits most development outside of urban areas. Within months of Measure 37’s passage, landowners filed at least 2,500 applications for development in rural areas. With no money to compensate landowners, counties took many different approaches to the applications. Everything froze, however, when a Marion County Circuit Court judge invalidated the initiative. The state Supreme Court did not find constitutional flaws in Measure 37. The court rejected the argument that Measure 37 violated equal protection rights by establishing classes of people that others could not join, and that the measure violated due process rights by favoring certain property owners over others. “Although it is true that neither the state nor the federal constitution compensation to individuals who suffer any loss in property value as a consequence of land use regulation,” the court ruled, “it is equally true that neither constitution requiring such compensation in the manner provided for in Measure 37. The people, in exercising their initiative power, were free to enact Measure 37 in furtherance of policy objectives such as compensating landowners for a diminution in property value resulting from certain land use regulations or otherwise relieving landowners from some of the financial burden of certain land use regulations.” The case is , Oregon State Supreme Court No. S52875. Only days before the ruling, the farm bureau in the state of Washington filed an initiative similar to Measure 37. A local, California version of Measure 37 is scheduled to be on the ballot this June in Napa County, which currently bars most development in agricultural and watershed areas. The “fair pay” initiative would require compensation for land use regulation similar to Measure 37. A city charter amendment in Chula Vista that would limit the city’s eminent domain authority has been placed on the ballot by the City Council. The measure would prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes and would require the city to own for at least 10 years property it acquires via eminent domain. A group called Chula Vistans for Private Property Protection submitted about 14,000 signatures on the ballot measure in January. The group appeared to lack the number of signatures required to place a charter amendment on the ballot. But the City Council, without endorsing the amendment, voted unanimously in late February to put the measure on the ballot anyway. Exactly how the measure would affect the city’s redevelopment agency is unclear because the agency is not bound by the city charter. The state attorney general’s office revealed in February that it is continuing to monitor three redevelopment agencies that were cited last year for major violations of the Community Redevelopment Law by the state controller’s office. In a letter responding to an inquiry by state Sen. Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego), Attorney General Bill Lockyer said redevelopment agencies in Calapatria, Hawaiian Gardens and Santa Ana remain under scrutiny. In Calapatria, the redevelopment agency used low- and moderate-income housing funds to purchase 29 acres that the agency intended to sell to a developer for a market-rate housing project. The city said the developer would fully reimburse the low/mod housing fund. In Hawaiian Gardens, the controller questioned the redevelopment agency’s acquisition of 17 properties. The attorney general’s office demanded more information but has not received it. In Santa Ana, the redevelopment agency sold a parking lot to a commercial developer for $1 and then leased back 150 spaces for $15,000 per month, with the city subleasing parking spaces from the agency for $6,000 a month. Low/mod housing money is involved in the deal. “The arrangement appears to be problematic, and we anticipate taking further action in the matter, including the possibility of litigation,” Lockyer wrote. As expected, the Western Riverside Council of Governments increased a development mitigation fee for regional transportation to nearly $10,000 per house, effective in July. The Western Riverside COG has been a leader in the growing statewide movement to assess new development for regional highway, road and transit projects. The group claims that its transportation uniform mitigation fee (TUMF) is the largest, multi-jurisdictional transportation development fee program in the country. Since it was implemented in July 2003, the fee has generated about $800 million for projects. However, transportation officials said rising construction costs and faster-than-anticipated growth forced a fee revision. The new fees are $9,639 per single-family home (up from $7,247), $6,806 per multi-family unit (up from $5,021), $12.49 per square foot for retail development (up from $8.51 per square foot), $2.27 per square foot for industrial development (up from $1.58 per square foot) and $6.33 per square foot for services (up from $5.28 a square foot). The nonresidential fees will be phased in over three years. Some development interests and city officials argued against the fee hike, saying the charges would hinder needed growth and send desirable projects to neighboring San Bernardino County, where fees are lower. A new federal Environmental Protection Agency “smart growth” report on balancing parking needs with broader community goals highlights planning for two projects in California. The report, called “Parking Spaces/Community Places,” provides an extensive review of the proposed NASA Research Park (NRP) at the decommissioned Moffett Field Navy base in Mountain View. Using typical parking ratios, the 2-million-square-foot research park would need about 7,500 parking spaces. But a transportation demand management plan instead calls for only 5,200 spaces on the site. The reduction in parking spaces is made possible by the overall development’s inclusion of nearby housing with sidewalks and bike paths, shuttle busses and bus passes, charging tenants and lessees for parking, and forcing different users to share parking spaces. The second project profiled is a proposed 162-room hotel in downtown Long Beach. Under the city’s ordinance, the hotel and accompanying 35,000-square-foot retail project would have had to provide 302 parking spaces. That was neither financially feasible for the developer, nor preferable to the city, which wants to encourage pedestrian activity. The on-site parking requirement was eventually knocked down to 162 spaces through a hotel valet parking system, relaxed parking standards, and the payment of in-lieu fees to the city, which will provide public parking spaces. Parking Spaces/Community Places as well as a new report on best management practices for stormwater and two reports regarding water and high-density development are available on the EPA’s smart growth website, www.epa.gov/smartgrowth . The Department of Water Resources has completed an overhaul of the California Water Plan. Unlike previous state water plans, which forecast large deficits in the amount of water that would be available, this plan says needs can be met through 2030 through more efficient water use, underground water banking, recycling of treated wastewater, desalination projects and a relatively small amount of new surface storage. The complete report is available at www.waterplan.water.ca.gov .

California city councils may be in a short time window when it's to their advantage to pass local bans on plastic bags. They became more safely able to do so as of April 16 when the state Supreme Court declined to review the ruling by California's First District that upheld San Francisco's ban on plastic bags last winter. That decision was ordered published in January. At the other end of their time window is a deadline that could be imposed if the Legislature passes SB 270, proposed by State Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Pacoima. The Contra Costa Times , reporting on Pleasant Hill's proposed ban at http://bit.ly/1haLlbd, noted that, if passed, the Padilla bill would grandfather plastic bag bans imposed before September 1, 2014 but would impose a uniform ban statewide for areas that by then had not yet passed their own plastic bag laws. For SB 270's text and legislative progress see http://bit.ly/1o0lkjH. As of this writing it had passed the Senate and was on its third bounce through policy committees in the Assembly. Links: Bill Fulton's detailed account of the appellate decision for CP&DR is at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3426. The appellate court's online docket on the San Francisco case is at http://bit.ly/1tRLtoW. The advocacy site "Plasticbaglaws.org" provides a usefully thorough picture of plastic bag ban litigation around California, with links to official sites, at http://plasticbaglaws.org/litigation/ (In addition to the Marin chronology shown there, the state Supreme Court review was denied in the Marin case in October.) The Grist Web site, writing from an advocacy perspective, provides a national picture of plastic bag bans, in which California cities are prominent: http://grist.org/article/plastic-bag-bans-spreading-in-the-united-states/ Huntington Beach, which previously banned plastic bags, recently allowed the sale of reusable paper bags: http://cbsloc.al/POIIEz The Encore Recycling Company of Salinas, which recycles agricultural plastic into bags, was preparing to capitalize on a provision being considered for the statewide law that would favor use of recycled plastic bags: http://bit.ly/1hQnXzj EPA map focuses environmental attention by census tract A visually stunning and socioeconomically telling map project by CalEPA's CalEnviroScreen 2.0 project (http://oehha.ca.gov/ej/) has drawn Southern California papers' attention to the unequal distribution of pollution hot spots. Many of the most pollution-burdened areas are low-income communities of color in southern and central California. The LA Times provides the map -- which extend statewide -- and links to interpretive news reports at http://graphics.latimes.com/responsivemap-pollution-burdens/. (The city of Burbank and the report's authors disputed whether notably poor scores on water contamination were derived from tests of treated drinking water or untreated groundwater: http://bit.ly/1nYsEMO.) CalEnviroScreen, which is part of CalEPA's Environmental Justice Project, maps cumulative effects of separately measured pollution burdens and compares them to socioeconomic data, seeking "portions of the state that have higher pollution burdens and vulnerabilities than other areas, and therefore are most in need of assistance." In a statement at http://bit.ly/1pJ5PkR, Assemblymember V. Manuel P�rez, D-Coachella, said his AB 1329, passed by the Legislature last year, instructed the state's Department of Toxic Substances Control to prioritize enforcement in the hot spots that CalEnviroScreen identified -- and that the tool showed areas of serious concern in the Coachella and Imperial Valleys. AB 1329 is at http://bit.ly/1fLOfmo. Drought proclamation suspends HOA landscaping rules The Governor's April 25 emergency drought proclamation includes a declaration that homeowners' association rules and policies are unenforceable where they conflict with the proclamation's calls for water-saving measures. The order's phrasing is a more generic echo of provisions in the proposed AB 2104, by Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, which has been approved by the Assembly and as of late April was pending in its first State Senate policy committee. AB2104 would permanently invalidate HOA rules that impose landscaping standards: http://bit.ly/1k9b1r3. At a macro level, the proclamation's effects include suspending competitive bidding for several state agencies' drought projects. For details and the full text see http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18496. The Sacramento Bee 's Matt Weiser has the proclamation's highlights at http://bit.ly/1hEL93o. Bergamot development will be on Santa Monica's November ballot A challenge to the proposed large Bergamot-area development in Santa Monica, also known as the Hines project, has qualified for the November ballot, according to the local Santa Monica Lookout : http://bit.ly/1iqOQj2. The paper reports the Bergamot measure won its signatures with the help of project opponent Residocracy.org, an organization and multi-topic petition Web site founded by former City Council candidate Armen Melkonians. Other opponents include the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City, at http://www.smclc.net/, which filed suit against the project in March. PG&E fights cities and neighbors on trees PG&E has temporarily suspend a newly draconian vegetation removal program that could cut thousands of trees from areas around its gas pipelines. The utility has cited safety as its reason for the program but faces strenuous objections from cities and residents. The Contra Costa Times (reprinted in the Mercury News ) has more at http://bit.ly/1nxDTOI. Earlier this month PG&E was indicted on federal charges in connection with the 2010 gas pipe explosion that killed eight people in a residential neighborhood of San Bruno. For details in the SF Chronicle see http://bit.ly/1jyjPIK. San Francisco prepares to add local well water to Hetch Hetchy supply San Francisco's famous mountain-clear tap water, all the way from Hetch Hetchy, could have less clean local water blended with it as of 2016 in much of the city. Chris Roberts of the San Francisco Examiner reports the city is preparing to dig four wells this summer in the western part of the city, creating an emergency supply and a supplemental source that could provide up to 5% of city water regularly. There's concern, however, about contamination from bacteria and nitrates in the local groundwater. See http://bit.ly/1jZ0oXv.