Search Results

A few highlights from this week's news: The First Appellate District cleared the way for a major redevelopment of the ParkMerced apartment complex in southwestern San Francisco. ParkMerced is a rare dense high-rise structure in the western half of the city. See http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A137753.PDF for the opinion. See http://bit.ly/1qpnusx and http://bit.ly/1w8ikcI for coverage of the project plans now unblocked. The California Supreme Court denied requests for both review and depublication on the 218 Properties case on conversion of mobile home parks from rental to owner-occupied status. The online docket is at http://bit.ly/1qpu2am and CP&DR's prior coverage at https://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3497. The Huntington Beach City Council took a measure off the ballot that would have invited voters to approve mobile home rent control after the landlord of two key mobile home parks moved toward negotiating five-year leases with his tenants. See the Huntington Beach Independent (noted via the League of CA Cities) at http://bit.ly/1uVVELl. The High-Speed Rail project has had mixed fortunes this month: The State Public Works Board approved a string of 158 properties to acquire in Fresno and Kings Counties ( Fresno Bee at http://bit.ly/1tgY8Sk;  Stoel Rives blog at http://bit.ly/1uVNLWl). The High-Speed Rail Auhority itself met to discuss use of its $250 million in cap-and-trade funds from the upcoming fiscal year's budget. (See http://bit.ly/1rXvMcW). On the other hand, the LA Times ' Ralph Vartabedian wrote that construction on the project has been slowed for lack of authority over land. (See http://lat.ms/1n9fCdC.) And Planetizen has a roundup at http://www.planetizen.com/articles/node-70784 of reports on the appeal by opponents of the recent High-Speed Rail bonds approval decision. (See http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3546.) The LA Times reported a group of landlords and tenants are working together to legalize unpermitted rental units in Los Angeles: http://lat.ms/1uVQejA (Noted via @VamonosLA) Per the Second Appellate District, when a city-owned tree falls on private property, it can constitute a "public improvement" for inverse condemnation purposes. See http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B254800.PDF and http://www.natlawreview.com/article/california-if-tree-falls-city-it-serving-public-purpose. San Francisco's Planning Commission approved the Moscone Center expansion: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2014/08/15/moscone_growth_spurt.php PG&E pleaded not guilty to federal charges connected with the 2010 San Bruno gas explosion that kiled eight people. The SF Chron 's Bob Egelko reported city officials were campaigning for prosecutors "to seek an independent monitor of the company's conduct, saying state regulators are too cozy with the giant utility," See http://bit.ly/YyNefA. Jennifer Hernandez of Holland & Knight and David Pettit of the NRDC, both CEQA specialists, argued Tesla CEQA exemptions in an August 13 call-in show appearance with business reporter Marc Lifsher on KPCC's "Airtalk" at http://bit.ly/Xib9Q7. AP reported the Ivanpah solar array has become a giant bird zapper: http://bit.ly/1pZVPkg

The Los Angeles City Council has approved initial plans to create a new Economic Development Department (EDD) . City officials hope that the new department, which will work alongside a nonprofit economic development corporation, can serve to replace the now defunct Community Redevelopment Agency. According to a report released by the city's Chief Administrative Officer last week, the creation of the EDD will require consolidation and reorganization of existing city departments, namely of the Community Development Department. As CP&DR previously reported , the consolidation has been in the works for some time and redevelopment wind-down funds may be used. LA Downtown News SF Supervisors Disagree on CEQA Reforms San Francisco Chronicle San Francisco County Supervisor Scott Wiener proposal to streamline the city's review process under the California Environmental Quality Act is moving forward. Proponents argue that the proposed legislation will make the environmental appeals process more legible for everyone, not just land use attorneys. Counter to Wiener's proposed legislation, Supervisor Jane Kim is preparing to release her own CEQA legislation proposal that would better support project appellants.  President Obama's New Budget Gives $130 Million Towards Two LA Metro Projects The Source For the first time, two of Metro's big projects, the Regional Connector and the Purple Line Extension, could receive federal funding. President Obama's proposed 2014  budget, released last week, includes the allocation of $65 million towards each of these two projects. Further, the proposed budget contains a bond program that will subsidize 28% of the bond's interest for major transit projects. Preliminary Data Suggests "Congestion Pricing" in LA Only Half Works LA Times Last fall, L.A. County made its first attempt at "congestion pricing" by opening toll lanes on the 110 Freeway with the hope of reducing congestion during peak traffic times. However, recent data shows that the new toll lanes have caused traffic to speed up only in toll lanes while slowing down traffic in regular lanes. HSR: Governor Seeks Investment From China and Obama's New Budget Washington Examiner, DC Streetsblog There has been a lot of news this week on funding for California's High Speed Rail. Governor Brown was in China trying to land investors to help fund the state's "green" projects, including the HSR. President Obama shows his support for the HSR in the 2014 transportation budget by proposing $40 billion over the next five years in passenger rail programs.

In land use news this week: The State Supreme Court denied review of San Francisco Tomorrow v. City and County of San Francisco (ParkMerced Investors Properties) , Case No. S221844. William Abbott of Abbott & Kindermann recently posted an analysis of this case, which approved a major rebuilding and expansion of the ParkMerced highrise complex in southwestern San Francisco. See also http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3555 . The Strategic Growth Council announced it will move back its meeting on formal adoption of guidelines for the new Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities cap-and-trade grant program. Originally scheduled for December 11, the meeting was moved back to January 20, 2015. Some commenters had sought more review of the proposed guidelines, in part because precise numbers on emissions monitoring and application scoring were still awaited as of the last publicly circulated draft. The League of California Cities' comment was among those asking for more public discussion. For more on comments from advocates for affordable housing and rural areas, and hopes in areas defined as disadvantaged under the program, see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3627 . The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on November 12 certified the EIR for the Antelope Valley Area Plan (AVAP) and gave initial consideration to the Plan itself. The Statement of Proceedings reports the Board certified the EIR, adopted the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopted the plan's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Board did not actually approve the AVAP nor its related zoning changes, instead stating its intent to adopt a list of revisions, including a promise that "if a conflict exists" between the AVAP and "any new or existing Significant Ecological Area (SEA) ordinance" the AVAP would control. (As discussed in CP&DR's news feature on the AVAP at http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3603 , an SEA Ordinance for areas both in and outside the AVAP area is moving on a separate track in the county's General Plan revision process.) The amendments that the Supervisors previewed are mainly technical but in general reduce possible impediments to project approvals. One amendment also spells out the requirement of compliance with the Southern California Association of Governments' Sustainable Communities Strategy. For plan materials see http://planning.lacounty.gov/tnc/ . The Supervisors' Nov. 12 agenda and materials are at http://bos.co.la.ca.us/BoardMeeting/BoardAgendas.aspx . San Francisco's city government announced it would bid to host the 2024 Olympics. The Saltonstall petitioners lost again at the appellate level in their effort to halt construction on the new Sacramento Kings arena. Dale Kasler of the Sacramento Bee has details . Earlier the Bee reported the Kings basketball team released plans for mixed-use residential, commercial and office construction ancillary to their new arena in downtown Sacramento. A lawsuit charging that a tribe did not follow the Williamson Act has been dismissed by a Santa Barbara County judge. The Santa Maria Times reported Judge Timothy Staffel dismissed a lawsuit by the Save the Valley group against Vincent Armenta, as tribal chair of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. According to the paper, the suit alleged that Armenta failed properly to assume responsibility for Williamson Act ag-preservation commitments when the Tribe purchased the 1400-acre Camp 4 property, because the Tribe wrote clauses into the transfer documents "including that nothing in the assumption agreement would limit or erase the tribe's sovereign immunity or change the tribe's terms of ownership." The paper reported Judge Staffel cited the Tribe's sovereign immunity in dismissing the case. The State Water Board issued a proposed ruling November 21 responding to 37 challenges, mainly by municipal governments, to Los Angeles' main MS4 permit, issued November 8, 2012, limiting pollution in runoff from local streets and municipal storm sewers. The permit affects the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers but not Long Beach. The permit imposes Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) limits on the amounts of trash and specified pollutants allowed to flow out of municipal storm sewers. The water board announced a workshop on the proposed ruling December 16 and set a public comment deadline of January 21, 2015. As of this writing the text had not yet been posted on the Los Angeles area stormwater page of the State Water Board, which is at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/stormwater/municipal/ . The proposed ruling would agree to some revisions in the 2012 permit's language but would essentially uphold it. Among the proposed revisions is an alternative program to reward extra effort toward compliance for dischargers that cannot meet the prescribed water quality standards immediately. The proposed ruling interacts with, but is not directly pursuant to, a major 2013 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on LA-area local governments' responsibility for cleaning up municipal street runoff, NRDC v. County of Los Angeles (2013) 133 S.Ct. 710. (The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a Ninth Circuit offshoot from that case last spring, on which see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3489 for coverage and links to context.) The litigation, however, concerns the 2001 predecessor to the 2012 regulation at issue in the new draft ruling. And in the new draft ruling the water board says the 2013 Supreme Court case "did not invalidate any requirements of the Los Angeles MS4 Order and did not result in any changes to the Order." This summer the EPA featured the Los Angeles runoff permit among several examples of innovation in the field: see http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/sw_ms4_compendium.pdf . The program requires permittees to require building owners to either retain runoff on their property or do something to compensate for failure to do so. The Association of California Water Agencies warns ahead of its conference in San Diego Dec. 2-5 that exhibitors may receive calls from people falsely claiming to be with a company contracted to provide housing for exhibitors. The conference itself has a solid-looking lineup of panels. Sacramento is still courting officials of Major League Soccer, hoping to land an expansion team. The State Supreme Court rejected a depublication request in City of San Diego v. Shapiro , the case invalidating the San Diego special hotel tax district that had been meant to pay for a convention center expansion. For coverage of the underlying case see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3545 . Land use obsessives may or may not find it heartwarming that the Ocean Beach Town Council in San Diego County voted to designate the Ocean Beach Community Plan as grand marshal of the OB Holiday Parade.

Two former Placentia city officials in charge of an ambitious project to lower a five-mile rail corridor have been indicted by an Orange County grand jury. The panel indicted former Public Works Director and city consultant Christopher Becker and retired City Administrator Robert D’Amato on two counts of conflict of interest. The charges stem from a city contract with Becker, whom the city hired as a consultant for the rail corridor project at the same time he was the public works director. Six years ago, the city created the Orange North-American Trade Rail Access Corridor (OnTrac) as a joint powers authority between the city and its redevelopment agency. OnTrac was charged with solving the circulation problem created by the increasingly busy railroad tracks, which cut across every north-south thoroughfare in town. OnTrac chose to pursue a project of placing the rail lines in a 35-foot-deep trench for nearly the length of the city (see , February 2005). The agency completed one railroad overpass, but the city finally abandoned the proposed trench in late 2005, by which time the estimated cost of the trench had doubled to about $600 million. When the city created OnTrac, it signed Becker to a 10-year, $4.5 million consulting contract to serve as OnTrac’s executive director. Becker remained a city employee for another two years. Eventually, the city reworked Becker’s consulting contract at a lower rate, and the city cancelled his contract in November 2005. The grand jury alleged that Becker’s arrangement with the city violated conflict of interest laws. The grand jury alleged that D’Amato, who retired as city administrator in December 2003, violated conflict of interest laws by helping in the formation of the contract with Becker and by not investigating when informed of a potential conflict. Becker has been under fire from project opponents for years and has repeatedly denied wrongdoing. In asserting his client’s innocence, D’Amato’s attorney, Ron Brower, told the , “Everything was done in public. If there was a crime, then the $64 question is, ‘Why wasn’t the entire City Council indicted?’ They knew everything he knew.” The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors is scheduled this month to begin formulating a response to a county grand jury report that was highly critical of the county Planning Commission and an individual commissioner. Supervisors, who have had little good to say about the 13-page report, scheduled a hearing on the matter for this month. In a report released in late March, the grand jury concluded, “It appears that the Planning Commission has attempted to interject itself into matters over which it has no authority and, in the grand jury’s opinion, has become a vehicle for pursuing the personal agenda of some of its members. Further, decisions often do not appear to be made in a fair, consistent and impartial manner and appear to reflect personal bias rather than a fair and impartial review of the facts.” The panel was particularly critical of Commissioner Sarah Christie, a legislative liaison for the Coastal Commission. The grand jury suggested that Christie got the Coastal Commission involved in the county’s Cambria/San Simeon community plan update. The panel recommended that a commissioner abstain on issue when the same issue “is subject to authority or other direct interest of the commissioner’s employer.” The grand jury also recommended that when the Planning Commission denies projects recommended for approval by the Planning Department, appeals to the Board of Supervisors should be free of charge and the Planning Department ought not prepare findings to support the Planning Commission’s decision. The grand jury, which reportedly did not interview planning commissioners, also said the planning director should be able to appeal Planning Commission denials. A number of people have come to the defense of Christie and the Planning Commission. County Administrator David Edge urged supervisors to reject four of the grand jury’s five recommendations, and he said a fifth recommendation — regarding consideration of other commissioners’ opinions — is already policy. In a separate report, County Planning Director Vic Holanda also dismissed many of the panel’s findings and recommendations. San Luis Obispo County has levied a $900,000 “mitigation fee” on a developer who graded the remains of a dormitory at Mission San Miguel while preparing to build a 59-unit housing project. Developer Gordon Marshall bulldozed the site in 2003 in anticipation of developing the housing project. The earthwork, which extended beyond Marshall’s property to the grounds of Mission San Miguel, damaged a site that was home to Salinan Indians during the late 18th and early 19th Centuries. County supervisors, who had earlier supported a $225,000 mitigation fee for the grading, upped the amount to $900,000 in April after hearing testimony from archaeologists about the damage caused and the amount of money needed to complete a scientific excavation of the site. All it took was money to settle lawsuits involving the City of San Jose and Santa Clara County. In April, the city agreed to pay the county $36.5 million and to annex some islands of unincorporated land that the county is eager to surrender. The settlements end litigation — the city had already lost two suits in Superior Court — involving a proposed concert hall the county wants to build and a new city plan for North San Jose. Under the agreement, the city will pay the county $7.5 million annually for three years to help build a new crime lab and seismically retrofit county buildings. The city also will provide $11 million for improvements to Montague Expressway and at least $3 million for other traffic projects. The city had sued the county to halt development of a 7,000-seat concert hall at the county-controlled fairgrounds (see , April 2006; , December 2004). The city, which proposed its own concert hall downtown, contended the project violated a city-county pact that prohibits the county from developing anything other than county government facilities. The city lost the lawsuit. The county had counter-sued the city, arguing that the city’s litigation hindered the project’s financing. As part of the settlement, the county dropped that lawsuit. The settlement does not address the proposed concert hall. County officials may soon decide whether to move forward on the project. In an unrelated case, the county sued the city over the North San Jose plan, which would permit up to 32,000 housing units and 27 million square feet of office space in a 5,000-acre district (see , September 2005). The county claimed the city was not mitigating traffic impacts outside the city. Again, the county won in court. In that case, the settlement does address the issue at hand by providing at least $14 million for traffic improvements. Housing development in San Francisco’s eastern neighborhoods could slow dramatically, as the city’s supervisors are refusing to approve projects without an analysis of how market-rate housing projects affect affordable housing and industrial jobs. The requirement could slow approximately 50 proposed housing projects totaling about 4,600 units in the Soma, Mission, Showplace Square and Potrero Hill districts. Civic activists contend the housing development — primarily in the form of upper-end condominiums and lofts — is displacing low-income residents and blue-collar workers from working-class and industrial areas. City planners are conducting a comprehensive review, which is expected to take about a year. A number of project proponents are preparing their own individual studies in hopes of winning approval before the city completes its review. The Sierra Nevada Conservancy has released a draft strategic plan that is intended the guide the agency — which covers one-quarter of the state — for the next five years. The plan is quite general, and the only identified goals are those that were contained in the legislation creating the conservancy, such as increasing tourism and recreation, conserving physical and cultural resources, and improving water quality. The plan does lay out a number of institutional and resources challenges, including “a lack of knowledge about the importance of the Sierra Nevada region by a majority of Californians living outside of the area.” The plan also lists action steps. The plan is available on the conservancy’s website: www.sierranevada.ca.gov . A comprehensive, annotated glossary of statutes for local government operations has been compiled by the state Senate Local Government Committee. The “Quick List” also contains instructions for retrieving official documents and a list of relevant public agency and private enterprise websites. The Quick List is available at the committee’s website, under reference materials, www.sen.ca.gov/locgov/REFERENCES.htp .

Less than a day before trial, the California High-Speed Rail Authority and Madera/Fresno farming organizations a nnounced they had reached a settlement -- dissolving the last legal challenge to the first segment of California's HSR. According to Anja Raudabaugh, executive director of the Madera Farm Bureau, the rail authority offered significant concessions including increased mitigation for agricultural impacts and compensation for landowners who are affected by the project. Those representing farmers' interest in the Central Valley agree that the settlement concessions likely exceed what would have been afforded to them if they prevailed in the CEQA lawsuit. Now that the last lawsuit has been settled, the rail authority must deal with the implications of the federal Surface Transportation Board having authority over the project. Nevertheless, the rail authority believes it construction on the Madera to Bakersfield segment will begin this summer. Does Muni Need More Funding To Meet Regional Targets? SF Streetsblog In response to last week's approval of SF's ten-year Capital Plan, Supervisor Scott  Wiener claims that Muni will only get worse if officials do not initiate more funds for the underfunded transit system. Under the current proposed spending plan, Muni would get allotted $300 million, an amount well below SFMTA's estimated need of $510 million per year. In addition, MTC recently released its draft for Plan Bay Area , which promotes the widening of highways to create high occupancy toll lanes rather than using existing lanes. Critiques of this plan argue that this logic follows outdated Caltrans practices that cannot be used to solve 21st century transit problems and falls short of addressing other exasperating issues, such as decreasing traffic crashes by 50% and improving walking and biking by 70%. The final plan is scheduled for adoption in July.  New Community Plan May Overturn South LA's Fast Food Ban KCET In 2008, the Los Angeles City Council passed an ordinance banning the development of new, stand-alone fast food restaurants in South LA. The ban was intended to encourage the development of grocery stores and increase the community's access to healthy food options by limiting the amount of fast food restaurants in the area. Now the ban could be overturned as part of the area's new proposed Community Plan. Although the proposed plan is not yet official, its potential override of the fast food ban has sparked a debate among health advocates and those who are skeptical over how planning and policy can fix 'food deserts'. LA Mayor's Budget Includes Consolidation of City's Two Biggest Agencies LA Times Last week, L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa released his proposed $7.7 billion budget -- essentially focused on reversing cuts and layoffs for city services.  The proposed budget also includes the consolidation of the Department of Planning and the Department of Building and Safety, and the creation of a new Economic Development Department that would aim to replace the functions of the (now defunct) CRA.  City Council will hold public hearings before voting on the budget next month.

Cordova Hills project approved by Sacramento County Fanning fears that the Sacramento Region won't be able to meet SB 375 emissions reduction standards, Sacramento County supervisors have approved the sprawling South County Cordova Hills project.  Cities turn to new sources of funds for affordable housing Before the dissolution of redevelopment agencies, 95% of local affordable housing dollars came from redevelopment. With RDAs dead in California, cities are being forced to try and close the money gap with other pots of money, namely namely being those reserved for affordable housing.  CA car debates: parking minimums in Santa Monica A proposal to ease parking minimums in Santa Monica is in no way a "war on cars," says Paul Barter of Reinventing Parking. Barter makes the case that people's dependency on the automobile is not going to be alleviated by easing parking minimums. Rather it's the traditional zoning policies that require excessive parking to blame.  Nation's largest landlord uses smart growth strategies The federal government is the biggest landlord in the nation. In this blog from Atlantic Cities, NRDC's Kaid Benfield remind the Government Services Administration that with big development rights comes big responsibility, and advises that its real estate endeavors should give higher priority to how its development decisions impact community life and neighborhood connectivity. CEQA Controversy finds its home at the Capitol  As advocacy groups from both ends of the spectrum are launching CEQA campaigns, state senate leaders Darrell Steinberg and Michael Rubio are trying to create a common outline for the new bill to help guide the process.  New LAX runway plan moving forward despite NIMBY opposition A plan to move the northernmost runway at LAX 260 feet closer to homes in Westchester is moving forward despite opposition, but the Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners voted to approve the LAX modernization plan last week. However, the plan still has several hoops it needs to jump through before changes can begin to take place. Get rid of the Fulton Street mall Fresno held its annual State of Downtown Breakfast last Tuesday, where urban designer and architect, Henry Beer, led the discussion for how Fresno can improve its downtown. To no one's surprise, the topic of discussion was the city's downtown Fulton Mall, and again, to no one's surprise, Beer urged Fresno to reopen the mall to cars.  LA kicks off pilot parklets program Three out of the four parklets of the city's pilot parklets program opened to the public last week, and  they have already received wide praise from city officials and the public. Highland Park's parklet opened last Saturday and two parklets on Spring Street opened last Thursday as part of the city's larger efforts to create a more active and pedestrian friendly downtown.

Flood control remains a lively topic in Sacramento, as ramifications of a 2003 court decision making the state fiscally liable for Central Valley levees become clearer (see , March 2005). In mid-May, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill (SB 94, Migden) that awards $45 million in state compensation to victims of a 1997 Feather River levee break in Yuba County. Four people died in the New Year's Day flood near Marysville, which spawned a lawsuit with 622 plaintiffs. They will share the $45 million settlement. Meanwhile, a state Senate budget subcommittee approved a measure that would prohibit approval of a tentative subdivision map or building permits unless the first habitable floor of residential units in areas protected by levees is at least one foot above the expected flood level in the case a levee failure. Alternatively, local governments could approve new houses only in levee-protected areas with at least 100-year flood protection, with 133-year flood protection as of 2008, or with 200-year flood protection as of 2012. Homebuilders have vowed to fight the measure. On the other side of the Capitol, Assemblyman John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) gutted his bill that would have established a Central Valley Flood Control Assessment District to tax landowners for increased flood protection. Laird's AB 1665 had the administration's support but ran into a buzz saw of opposition from local governments and landowners. THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES has released a new draft of the California Water Plan. The draft is far different from past water plans and from a stakeholder draft released in the final days of the Davis administration (see , November 2003). Past state water plans projected a water balance. For example, the last update, in 1998, predicted that California would face an annual water shortfall of 3 million to 7 million acre-feet annually in 2020. This time around, DWR has provided three scenarios: current trends, less resource intensive, and more resource intensive, all with different numbers attached. The plan also contains two broad initiatives - promotion of regional water management, and improvement of statewide water management systems. The emphasis on regional approaches is another departure from past state water plans. The water plan, formally known as Bulletin 160-05, makes 14 recommendations for state decision-makers and agencies. Among the recommendations are: o Invest in sustainable and affordable water conservation, water management and development of water supplies. o Provide incentives to regional and local agencies, and utilities, to prepare integrated resource and drought contingency plans. o Evaluate and propose management strategies to remediate the cause and effects of surface and groundwater contamination. o Rehabilitate aging water and wastewater infrastructure. o Predict and prepare for the effects of global climate change. Thirteen public hearings on the water plan are scheduled around the state this month. The deadline to comment is June 30. The plan is available at www.waterplan.ca.gov . ALTHOUGH ITS AUTHORS said it was not a response to the draft state water plan, the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) released, “No Time to Waste: A Blueprint for California Water” only three weeks after the state water plan hit the streets. Among ACWA's recommendations are: o Improve the existing Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta water conveyance system to increase flexibility and enhance water supply, water quality, levee stability and environmental protection in the near term. o Evaluate long-term threats to the Delta levee and conveyance system and pursue actions to reduce risks to the state's water supply and the environment. o Ensure delivery of adequate Colorado River supplies for Southern California and defend California's rights on the Colorado River. o Develop additional groundwater and surface water storage. o Work with local agencies to overcome constraints to developing seawater and brackish groundwater desalination projects. o Modernize the federal Endangered Species Act and other laws and regulations to allow water infrastructure projects, water supply and water quality activities to proceed while protecting species and habitats. o Support integrated regional water management plans. An ACWA task force spent a year devising the plan, which the organization said is aimed at federal and state decision-makers. The plan is available at www.acwa.com . THE RACE BETWEEN the City of San Jose and Santa Clara County to build a mid-sized performing arts hall may have become more complicated. In early May, Bill Graham Presents, a subsidiary of entertainment company Clear Channel, announced it plans to book up to 80 concerts a year at the Civic Auditorium, a 70-year-old, 3,000-seat facility in downtown San Jose. The city and county have fought over dueling concert hall proposals, with the county pursuing a 7,000-seat facility at the fairgrounds, about five miles south of downtown, while the city considers becoming a partner in a new 5,000-seat downtown venue (see , December 2004). Neither the city nor the county would admit that their plans had changed because of the Bill Graham Presents promotions. GOV. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER announced in May that roadless areas in California's national forests will remain roadless. The Bush administration has moved to give states a bigger role in setting national forest policy in hopes of increasing natural resources production. That put California's Republican governor in an awkward position because he campaigned as a proponent of environmental protection (see , April 2005, Marc 2005). The governor's announcement also promised that the state Resources Agency “will work to ensure the quality of wildlife habitat conservation, community safety and broad public support for watershed-based forest management practices.” Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman added, “In October of last year we said we were interested in having a rule specific to California so that our forests would remain roadless. We are thankful that USDA and the USFS have agreed to develop a rule specific to California.” YOLO COUNTY'S PLANNED ACQUISITION of 17,300 acres of farmland and habitat received a boost in May when a local Indian tribe that operates a thriving casino announced it would help finance the county's purchase of Conaway Ranch. The Rumsey Band of Wintun Indians revealed it has entered a partnership with the county to preserve the ranch for “public benefit.” Yolo County commenced eminent domain proceedings to acquire the Conaway Ranch last year (see , August 2004). County supervisors said they feared that developers would try to build on the property or would sell its rights to 80,000 acre-feet of surface water. A group of Sacramento-area developers purchased the real estate for a reported $60 million from a PG&E subsidiary after the county filed its condemnation action. The developers were critical of the county-tribe agreement. “The potential use of gambling profits to condemn private property and water rights is an issue the people of Yolo County should not take lightly,” they said in a written statement. Possibly complicating the deal is a plan to make the tribe a member of the Conaway Ranch Joint Powers Authority (JPA), whose members now include the county, three cities, the University of California, Davis, and a flood control district. State law prohibits tribes from joining a JPA, but Assemblywoman Lois Wolk (D-Davis) has said she would carry a bill permitting the agreement. ONE ENTITY THAT HAS ALREADY DEALT WITH the issue of tribal membership in a joint powers authority is the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). The regional body has nine cities, Riverside County and three Indian tribes as members. “They are not official members of the JPA,” explained agency Executive Director John Wohlmuth. “They are participating members of CVAG through a memorandum of understanding. It's a very good relationship.” Since 1998, the Agua Caliente, Cabazon and Torres Martinez bands have had voting rights and paid dues, he said. Both the Southern California Association of Governments and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) are studying the CVAG model while they consider new relationships with tribal governments. The western Riverside County region is home to five tribal nations. Rick Bishop, WRCOG executive director, said his council recognizes that tribes have a great deal of influence these day and have a desire to join the regional body. Bishop expects a decision within a few months.

Criticism of the Cal-Fed Bay-Delta Program continued to pile up during November. First, the Department of Finance released a draft report on Cal-Fed implementation that found a mixed record of progress. One week later, the Little Hoover Commission recommended dissolution of the California Bay-Delta Authority, which began overseeing the Cal-Fed program in 2003. Gov. Schwarzenegger requested the two studies as well as an organization and program management review by KPMG that is due this month. Schwarzenegger asked for the examinations because of growing concern that Cal-Fed is not making adequate progress on its four goals of improving water supply reliability, levee stability, water quality and the ecosystem (see , October 2005). In a November 10 transmittal letter to Resources Secretary Michael Chrisman, Acting Finance Director Michael Genest wrote, “We found areas with significant accomplishments, such as increased groundwater storage, support of local watershed efforts, and maintenance of water supplies through the Environmental Water Account, as well as areas where progress to date is promising for longer term results, such as ecosystem restoration. We also found several areas where significant progress was lacking, such as levee improvements and increased export of water from the Delta.” The Little Hoover Commission found that the Bay-Delta Authority, composed of 25 state and federal agencies, is too fragmented to succeed. The Authority “was not given the authority to implement the Cal-Fed Program and it is not clear within the implementing agencies who is in charge of Cal-Fed implementation,” the Commission reported. The Commission recommended re-creating a previous policy group, with the U.S. interior secretary and the state resources secretary clearly in charge. “One lesson of the last five years is that Cal-Fed will require an amount of political capital and leadership that can only flow from the institution of the governor,” Little Hoover Commission Chairman Michael Alpert said. The Commission further recommended adoption of a comprehensive state water policy, a larger role for science in Cal-Fed decisions, and more meaningful public involvement. Additionally, the Commission said the Legislature should clarify its expectations for state agencies and hold them accountable. The Cal-Fed reports hit at the same time that the Department of Water Resources released an environmental impact report for a project that is intended to meet two Cal-Fed goals: better water quality for farmers and cities, and protection of migrating fish. The EIR drew sharply different responses — just the sort of conflict that Cal-Fed was supposed to stem. The South Delta Improvements Program would install barriers near pumps at Byron that remove water from the Delta for transport to farms and cities via the California Aqueduct. The movable barriers would decrease saltwater intrusion into the area from which the pumps take water and block fish from the pumping zone. The EIR released on November 10 found that the project would not harm water quality or fish. However, the Contra Costa Water District immediately questioned the EIR’s conclusion. District officials said the project could increase water salinity at the district’s Delta pumps. Environmentalists and some farmers also questioned the EIR and the entire project, saying it was a partial solution at best. Meanwhile, a coalition of water agencies, farmers and business interests called California Water Future endorsed the EIR. The EIR as well as the Little Hoover Commission and the Department of Finance reports are all available on the Cal-Fed website: www.calwater.ca.gov.

San Bernardino County has adopted a tax-sharing policy that could promote development in six cities. The new policy permits cities that now receive less than 7% of local property tax to create “revenue enhancement zones.” Within the zones, the county will shift property tax it gets to ensure the cities get 7% of the property tax revenue generated by development within the zones. Territory eligible for the zones must already be annexed, comprise at least 20 contiguous acres and have little existing development. The cities of Chino Hills, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, Adelanto, Victorville and Hesperia qualify because they all receive less than 7% of property taxes. A separate deal with Chino Hills provides that city — which normally gets only 4% of property taxes — up to 10% of taxes from new development. The county treated Chino Hills differently because the city has no redevelopment agency. The county wanted to establish a more equitable system for funding public services and encourage cities to make the most of their land, explained Mark Kirk, chief of staff to Supervisor Gary Ovitt. “We’re not trying to tell the local jurisdictions where to develop or how to develop,” Kirk said. “But the net result will probably be that cities maximize the uses in these areas, probably with high-end development.” The intense battle over a new general plan for Monterey County shows no sign of abating. On February 28, the county Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 not to place a general plan initiative on the June ballot, even though petitions for the 70-page initiative had enough valid signatures to qualify. Supervisors said the initiative, which would limit most unincorporated development to a few communities, contained legal defects. The board’s decision came one day after three Latino residents sued the county to block the initiative because the petitions were not circulated in Spanish. In a separate lawsuit, initiative backers sued the county for not putting the measure on the ballot. That lawsuit was moved to federal court and consolidated with the voting rights litigation. On March 23, U.S. District Court Judge James Ware ruled that the initiative did violate the Voting Rights Act because petitions were not circulated amongst both English- and Spanish-speaking voters. The ruling keeps the general plan measure off the ballot. Initiative backers said they would appeal. The county began an update of its 1982 general plan seven years ago (see , July 2004). Over time, the county released three new versions of the plan, all of which have met with opposition from one side or the other in Monterey County’s polarized land use politics. The county issued a fourth draft in March but, at least initially, it was overshadowed by the legal fight regarding the initiative. Voters in the City of Moorpark overwhelmingly rejected a proposed 1,680-unit housing subdivision in the hills northeast of town. With nearly half of registered voters turning out for the one-issue special election on February 28, 76% of voters rejected the North Park Village project. The election was the first major test of the Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) initiatives in Ventura County. The SOAR initiatives require voters to decide on development outside of SOAR-established growth boundaries for nine cities and the county. Only a few minor projects have tested the SOAR limits since they were established starting in the late-1990s. In 1999, Moorpark voters defeated via referendum a 3,200-unit housing project the City Council had approved for the same site as North Park Village. After that defeat, city officials and the latest developer, Village Development, vastly reworked the project. The proposal rejected by voters this time was sweetened with a 2,100-acre nature preserve and 50-acre lake. Opponents, however, said the project would cause increased traffic congestion and mar residents’ views of the hills. Marin County has ended its legal fight to block construction of a new death row at San Quentin State Prison (see , April 2005). In January, a Marin County judge upheld the environmental impact report for the $230 million project. County officials considered an appeal but the Board of Supervisors finally voted to drop the litigation. Construction of the 760-inmate facility is scheduled to commence in June. Riverside has agreed to remove about 600 acres from a new redevelopment project area to settle a lawsuit with redevelopment opponents. In March, a Riverside County superior court judge signed the agreement between the city and the group Rural Residents and Horse Owners of Riverside. The city created the 9,000-acre La Sierra/Arlanza redevelopment project area in 2004. Last year, the city settled a lawsuit that the county filed over the project by removing 1,300 acres from the project area. That was not enough to satisfy the Rural Residents, who contended that their large-lot neighborhoods were neither blighted nor urbanized (see , November 2005). The settlement carves some of those areas out of the redevelopment project. The settlement also prohibits the redevelopment agency from taking owner-occupied single-family houses via eminent domain, and requires the agency to work on a system of equestrian trails. San Jose has lost a lawsuit filed by Santa Clara County and the City of Milpitas over traffic that could result from new development policies in North San Jose. The policies are intended to dramatically urbanize a 5,000-acre industrial area between the 101, 237 and 880 freeways (see , September 2005). The county and Milpitas contended that San Jose was saddling neighboring jurisdictions with traffic problems. Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Leslie Nichols sided with the county and Milpitas, saying that San Jose should consider a fair-share agreement to offset increased traffic costs. San Jose also lost a lawsuit it filed against the county over the county’s plan to develop a concert hall at the fairgrounds on Tully Road (see , December 2004). In that case, San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Marie Weiner ruled that the city had violated an earlier land use agreement between the city and county. The City of Santa Clarita’s federal court fight to halt a proposed gravel quarry just outside of town concluded with a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against the city. The city had contested a 2004 consent decree between the concrete company Cemex and Los Angeles County that permitted the 500-acre gravel mine to go forward. The city and environmentalists argued the mine would harm air quality, congest roads and harm two endangered species (see , January 2006, June 2004). In a very short, unpublished opinion, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel called the consent decree “fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable.” The decree limits the quarry’s hours of operation, requires payment to mitigate traffic, air and open space impacts, and imposes other conditions. The city currently is trying to annex the site of the proposed mine. For the second time in a year , property owners in Encinitas have rejected a parcel tax to fund the cleanup of the city’s stormwater runoff. In mail balloting that concluded during March, 61% of property owners rejected the $60 annual charge. Last year, property owners rejected a similar fee. The $60 fee would have raised $1.1 million annually for cleaning stormwater to state standards, which city officials say costs about $3.5 million a year. Opponents said the city has enough money already to pay for the clean water program.

The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors has released investigative reports commissioned by the county regarding two closely scrutinized land deals: the county’s lease and eventual purchase of a private jail in Adelanto, and the acquisition of surplus county real estate by a supervisor’s aide. Los Angeles attorney Leonard Gumport completed the reports last year, and, at that time, county leaders said the investigations cleared the county of wrongdoing. However, they refused to release the documents. Local newspapers pressured the county and, in August, supervisors produced the reports — and then began distancing themselves from the conclusions. The first investigation involved the county’s $31 million deal to lease and then purchase the private Maranatha Correctional Facility. At the time, lobbyist Brett Granlund, a former assemblyman from Yucaipa, represented both Maranatha and the county. Gumport concluded that Granlund pressured the county to buy the jail while not disclosing that he was representing both parties. The report also questioned why the county purchased the jail “as-is” and did not require a current-value appraisal. Gumport concluded that Granlund and his employer, Sacramento-based lobbying firm Platinum Advisors, had a conflict of interest that tainted the deal. Granlund has said he advised the county that he represented Maranatha, and he denied lobbying the county on the jail’s behalf. The district attorney’s office concluded an investigation into the matter earlier this year without filing charges. Platinum Advisor’s chief, Darius Anderson, a developer and Democratic fundraiser, called the report’s conclusions “slanderous” in an interview with the . “We’ve done nothing wrong and we have nothing to hide,” Anderson told the newspaper. County Administrator Mark Uffer denied that Granlund influenced the jail deal. In a formal response released with Gumport’s report, Uffer wrote: “While Granlund did make statements supporting the Maranatha facilities to the CAO and sheriff, the decisions to lease and then purchase the facility were based solely on the county’s immediate need for jail space and the research and recommendations of the county’s professional staff, which had zero contact with Granlund prior to the Board of Supervisors approval of the lease.” Supervisor Bill Postmus called Gumport’s report “sensationalistic” and said the charges were motivated by Granlund’s disgruntled former business partner. “Still,” Postmus said, “if one looks past Gumport’s hyperbole, loaded wording, and in some cases unsupported statements, I believe it is clear that the public was in no way harmed in the lease and eventual purchase of the Maranatha facility.” The disgruntled business partner is Jim Foster, himself the subject of Gumport’s other report. It says that Foster, while serving as chief of staff for Supervisor Dennis Hansberger, violated conflict of interest laws and county ethics policies when he acquired surplus county land. Foster and Granlund had been partners in a billboard business. When the county declared a 0.4-acre parcel in Redlands as surplus, Foster showed the property to Granlund, who partnered with another couple to buy the property from the county for $20,000 in 2001. The following year, Granlund sold his interest in the property to Foster for $10,000. Two years later, the parcel and an adjacent lot sold for $100,000, netting Foster a $36,000 profit, according to the report. Granlund later alleged that Foster was a silent partner in the deal all along. Whether that was true or not, Gumport concluded that Foster’s actions were improper. After the deal became public last year, Foster was fired, and he is under investigation by the district attorney’s office. He has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, saying the entire matter stems from a soured business relationship. A dispute over regional flood control facilities on the site of a housing and commercial development in Upland appears headed back to state appellate court after a trial court judge ruled San Bernardino County Flood Control District’s easements on the site no longer exist. Superior Court Judge Christopher Warner ruled that the county “has continuously violated and repudiated its obligations to maintain, repair, operate, insure, properly permit or take ownership of any of the facilities.” Therefore, Warner ruled, the county’s flood control easements had been extinguished. The developers of Colonies Crossroads — 1,150 housing units and about 1.1 million square feet of commercial space along the 210 freeway — have contended for years that the county must pay them for the approximately 70 acres devoted to flood control and for costs of reconstructing flood channels and a basin (see , January 2004). At least $100 million could be at stake. Last year, the Fourth District Court of Appeal overturned a trial court judge and found that easements from the 1930s covered at least part of the flood control basin. On remand, however, Judge Warner determined that the county had essentially given up the easements and relied on the property owner to maintain flood control facilities. Vowing to continue pressing the case, interim County Counsel Dennis Wagner said the ruling was “inconsistent” with the Fourth District’s decision. “This ruling is the same as the prior trial court decision, which was overturned on appeal,” Wagner said in a written statement. A Kern County ballot measure that bans the application of sewage sludge to farm fields is the subject of a federal court lawsuit filed in August by the City of Los Angeles. For years, Kern County officials have tried to slow or halt the importation of sludge, a byproduct of wastewater treatment. In June, county voters overwhelmingly approved Measure E, which prohibits the spreading of sludge on land. Kern County currently receives about one-third of the sludge generated statewide, including nearly all of Los Angeles’s. Kern County contends that the continual application of tons of sludge to farm fields is unsafe because water, air and crops could become tainted by toxic chemicals and viruses in the material (see , July 2000). Los Angeles and sanitation districts, which call the material “biosolids,” say it is safe and meets all federal, state and local standards for land application. Los Angeles deposits its sludge on a 4,200-acre farm the city owns south of Bakersfield. “Biosolids have only improved the environment in Kern County, and there is no basis for this ban,” said Rita Robinson, director of the L.A. Bureau of Sanitation. “The property we purchased in Kern County would not be productive farmland without the use of our biosolids and the treated wastewater from Bakersfield.” Joining the city in the lawsuit are the Orange County Sanitation District, Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 2, the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, and property owners and trucking companies that contract with public entities. Interestingly, they filed their lawsuit in federal court. Last year, a state appellate upheld Kern County regulations regarding the land application of sludge, although the court ruled the county should have completed an environmental impact report for the regulations (see , May 2005). The new lawsuit charges that Kern County’s ban “directly conflicts with comprehensive federal and state programs which regulate biosolids and encourage their recycling through land application.” The lawsuit contends the initiative conflicts with the constitution’s Commerce Clause, denies the plaintiff’s equal protection, and is superceded by the Clean Water Act and state laws. The recalled mayor of Murrieta was arrested in August for some of the same alleged conflict-of-interest transgressions that were issues in his removal from office last year. Jack van Haaster faces 10 felony counts of perjury and filing false documents related to loans he received or made. He also faces five misdemeanor counts of conflict of interest regarding actions taken to aid a day care center in which he allegedly had a financial stake. According to Riverside County prosecutors, van Haaster failed to list on annual disclosure reports filed with the city clerk and the Fair Political Practices Commission loans totaling $490,000 from a Murrieta resident, an employee at his accounting office and two Murrieta businessmen. Van Haaster also allegedly failed to report loans that he made to a local contractor. The day care center project — which was prominent during the recall campaign — involved a proposal from California Oaks Childcare to build a 394-student facility and swim academy on three acres in Murrieta. Prosecutors allege that van Haaster pressured four city planning commissioners to approve the project. He also voted for city-funded road improvements near the project site. Van Haaster’s daughter was listed as the childcare business owner, and the mayor recused himself when the project came before the City Council. Prosecutors, however, say bank records show van Haaster had invested $165,000 in the childcare center and received back $100,000. Van Haaster, who was on the Murrieta City Council for 12 years, is scheduled to be arraigned this month and could be sentenced to up to eight years in prison if convicted. The former mayor was arrested only hours before the City Council voted 3-1 to censure Councilman Warnie Enochs for voting on a shopping center project for which both he and his son have been subcontractors. Enochs is scheduled to go on trial this fall on unrelated charges of extortion, forgery and perjury involving a messy divorce. Siskiyou County Planning Director Wayne Virag has been fired amid questions about conflicts of interest and an investigation by local law enforcement authorities. The assistant planning director since 1995, Virag was named head of the department in August 2004. He has repeatedly said nothing more than paperwork errors are involved; the Board of Supervisors vote to dismiss him was divided 3-2. Greg Messer, a failed candidate for supervisor, first raised conflict of interest questions when he revealed during the recent campaign that Virag owned a real estate development business with William Roberts, who has had extensive dealings with county planners as a representative of cell phone companies. Virag did not list the business on annual economic disclosure forms required by the Fair Political Practices Commission, nor did he recuse himself from proposed use permit applications submitted by Roberts. Additionally, although Virag listed on his disclosure form only a mobile home park in Yreka, he apparently has an ownership interest in at least 11 real properties in Siskiyou County. Environmental Health Director Terry Barber has been named interim planning director. The City of Alameda may yet get to acquire upwards of 40 acres of railroad land at a small fraction of market price. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jon Tigar ruled that the city is entitled to buy the remnants of the Alameda Belt Line’s railway and a 22-acre rail yard for $966,000. The decision is the latest chapter in a seven-year battle over the Alameda Belt Line, which stopped operating in 1998. The city built the original 1.2-mile rail line in 1918 to serve the waterfront. The city sold the line to two railroads in 1924. However, a provision in the sale contract permitted the city to buy back the line and any extensions for their original costs if the railway stopped operating. Alameda Belt Line, now owned by Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe, argued that the provision no longer applied, but a state appellate court ruled that the contract could be enforced (see , December 2003). The appellate court sent the case back to Judge Tigar, who issued his ruling in August. Alameda Belt Line, which will appeal the latest decision, wants to sell 22 acres to developer Michael Valley, who plans to build 200 housing units. However, city voters in 2002 rezoned the property as open space, and activists are fighting for a city park. San Mateo voters will not decide the fate of the Bay Meadows horse track in November. San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Mark Forcum ruled that city and San Mateo County elections officials had acted properly in disqualifying petition signatures from people who listed different addresses than on their voter registration affidavits or who signed their names differently. Last year, the city approved Bay Meadows Land Company’s plan to build at least 1,000 housing units and 1 million square feet of office and retail space on the site of the horse track (see , March 2006). Project opponents fought back with a referendum, but after elections officials threw out questionable signatures, the referendum was about 100 signatures short of qualifying for the ballot. Referendum proponents sued, but Judge Forcum has now ruled against them. An appeal is likely. A referendum of a proposed development on a portion of Rancho San Juan in Monterey County also will apparently not appear on the November ballot. United States District Court Judge James Ware in August declined to order the referendum of the 1,100-unit Butterfly Village project onto the ballot, calling election law “unsettled.” After the Monterey County Board of Supervisors approved the project in November 2005, opponents quickly gathered enough signatures to force a referendum. However, because petitions were not circulated in both Spanish and English, the county refused to place the referendum on ballot. The county’s refusal followed Ware’s decision to block a Monterey County general plan initiative from the ballot for the same reason (see , June 2006). Ware declined to make a final decision in a lawsuit regarding the referendum until an en banc panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decides , No. 03-56259, an Orange County school board case involving similar Voting Rights Act issues. That case was argued in June and a decision is expected any time. The San Diego County Water Authority has dropped out of a plan to build a seawater desalination plant in Carlsbad. The authority’s board voted not to certify an environmental impact report for the desalination facility and to end negotiations with plant developer Poseidon Resources. The desalination plant would be linked to NRG Energy’s Encina power station, which is cooled with seawater. But NRG announced that it plans to demolish the plant and replace it with an air-cooled facility during the next 10 to 20 years. That announcement came a few months after the State Lands Commission announced that it wants to phase out coastal power plants that draw water from the ocean because of harm to marine life — a move that could threaten numerous desalination proposals. Still, the Carlsbad desalination plant, which would be the largest in the United States, remains alive. The City of Carlsbad is committed to the Poseidon proposal, and, in August, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board approved a discharge permit for the project. Next up is a Coastal Commission review.

Sutter County voters may get to relive the ballot-box growth wars of the early 1990s. In July, county officials began preparing an advisory measure for the November ballot regarding the potential development of at least 8,000 acres in the south end of the mostly rural county, near the Sacramento airport. Lennar Communities, which controls 2,700 acres on either side of Highway 99 just north of the Sacramento County line, approached Sutter County officials earlier this year about an advisory measure. Lennar has proposed 11,000 housing units on 1,400 acres, in addition to 700 acres of business parks and 600 acres for retail development and public facilities. Since Lennar’s proposal became public, other would-be developers have asked the county to add projects to the ballot measure. As of late July, the Board of Supervisors was considering a ballot measure that would cover a broad swath of the south county, most of which is farmland in the Natomas Basin. In 1991, voters rejected competing slow-growth ballot measures for south Sutter County. County officials then proceeded with processing a “new town” proposal for 25,000 acres with a potential population of 200,000 people. A lame-duck Board of Supervisors approved the project after the 1992 election, only to have a new board rescind all of the development agreements a few weeks later. In a June 1993 referendum, voters rejected the new town. (See , July 1993, December 1992, June 1991). Two years ago, supervisors approved a specific plan for 3,500 acres of industrial and commercial development in the south county. However, a judge threw out an environmental impact report for the project. (See , July 2003; , November 2002). The area in question is attractive to developers because of its proximity to the airport and downtown Sacramento. However, the area provides habitat to several rare species, and large chunks of the territory lie in the 100-year floodplain. The Palm Springs City Council has approved a hillside development at the same time that environmentalists and some residents are attempting to qualify an initiative that would block most hillside development. The City Council approved the 300-acre Palm Hills project in July. The project is a 350-room hotel, about 120 houses and a golf course. In approving the project, the council also approved a general plan text amendment that distinguishes between the San Jacinto Mountains (on the city’s west side) and the Santa Rosa Mountains. The Palm Hills Land Corporation project is in the Santa Rosa range, on the city’s south side. The general plan amendment notes that the topography and soils of the mountain ranges are different, and the Santa Rosa range is more suitable for development than the San Jacinto Mountains, said Jing Yeo, a principle planner for the city. The entire Palm Hills planning area covers 1,200 acres, about half of which is designated for open space. Residents complained that a hillside golf course resort would mar their view of the rugged, desert mountains, which have remained undeveloped. But Yeo said the project is on a plateau and would not be visible from the valley floor except at a great distance. Besides aesthetics, potential impacts on the endangered peninsular bighorn sheep are also an issue. City officials and the developer said the site does not provided sheep habitat, but the Sierra Club differed and intends to sue over the species issue. Meanwhile, backers of a hillside preservation initiative continue to gather signatures. The measure could reach the ballot in March 2005. A bill that allows local governments to adopt form-based zoning codes received Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s signature in late July. Assembly Bill 1268 (Wiggins) is based largely on a white paper produced last year by New Urbanist planners and architects for the Office of Planning and Research (see , May 2003). The white paper endorsed the use of form-based codes, which focus on the design of streets and buildings, but not on their uses. New Urbanists say this approach encourages development of truly mixed-use neighborhoods. Although several cities have dabbled with form-based codes, it has been unclear whether the codes complied with state planning law. The Wiggins bill makes clear that state law permits form-based codes. El Dorado County supervisors adopted a new county general plan in July. The county has been working under a court order since early 1999, when a Sacramento County judge ruled that the environmental impact report for a general plan adopted in 1996 was inadequate (see , March 1999). Since then, the county has been unable to process discretionary applications, including subdivision maps, for residential developments. The newly adopted plan is based largely on the 1996 version. Supervisors rejected a slower-growth “environmentally constrained” alternative that the Planning Commission had recommended. The county will now try to convince the court that the revised EIR and general plan satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act. That process could take several months — especially if slow-growth proponents challenge the county’s actions, which is expected. An Indian tribe has sued San Diego County Treasurer-Tax Collector Dan McAllister for attempting to impose the county’s transient occupancy tax (TOT) on a 200-room hotel on the tribe’s reservation. McAllister is seeking $1.6 million in TOT from a 200-room hotel on the reservation of the Rincon band of San Luiseno Indians, near Valley Center. The two-year-old hotel is operated by a subsidiary of Harrah’s, HCAL Corporation, and is next to the tribe’s casino. The tribe contends that HCAL neither owns nor leases the hotel, and that the tribe makes all of the business decisions. As sovereign nations, Indian tribes are exempt from local taxes. But McAllister contends that HCAL built, runs and profits from the hotel. “The last time I checked, Harrah’s is not a sovereign nation unto itself,” McAllister told the . A 470-room expansion of the hotel is under construction. A Placer County judge has blocked a growth initiative from appearing on the ballot in Roseville this November. The initiative sought to draw an urban growth boundary on the city’s west side. However, Superior Court Judge John Cosgrove ruled that the initiative petitions lacked a privacy statement, and maps and charts referenced by the initiative. An EIR for a University of California, Davis long-range development plan has been upheld by an Alameda County Superior Court judge. Neighbors upset about the plan’s proposal for a 1,600-unit residential village west of the campus had contested the EIR, including the document’s treatment of alternatives (see , January 2004; , August 2000). But Judge Connie Sabraw found that the environmental study was adequate. The Woodland City Council unanimously rejected an application from Wal-Mart to expand an existing 127,000-square-foot store into a 210,000-square-foot “supercenter” that would sell groceries. City officials called the July decision “a planning decision.” Meanwhile, 40 miles to the south in the City of Lodi, Wal-Mart announced it would join with the Lodi Chamber of Commerce in fighting a ballot initiative that would prohibit stores of more than 125,000 square feet without voter approval. The initiative, which has qualified for the November ballot, would block a proposed Wal-Mart supercenter. Correction. A story in the May edition incorrectly stated that an initiative in Inglewood marked the first time that Wal-Mart had used a ballot initiative in an attempt to gain approval of a new store. In fact, Wal-Mart backed an initiative for a proposed store in Eureka in 1999 (see , October 1999). In both cases, voters rejected the Wal-Mart initiative.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed a critical habitat designation for the California red-legged frog that is 80% smaller than originally proposed. Twice during the last five years USFWS has proposed critical habitat plans for the frog covering 4.1 million acres. The latest proposal designates 738,000 acres in 23 counties. The Service reduced the amount of habitat considered critical to the endangered frog’s survival after development and business groups complained that earlier designations did not consider economic impacts. Builders still maintained that the latest designation is too large, while environmentalists said there was no scientific basis for the reduction. A final decision on critical habitat is due in early 2006. The Golden Gate Audubon Society and Californians for Renewable Energy have sued Alameda County for not preparing an environmental impact report before renewing use permits for windmills in the Altamont Pass area, where windmills kill hundreds of raptors every year. The county approved the use permits in late September with conditions that are intended to reduce bird deaths over time (see , August 2005). However, environmentalists said the measures did not do enough and that an EIR was required. County officials were anticipating the lawsuit. Over the objection of environmentalists and residents complaining about traffic congestion, the Orange City Council approved development by the Irvine Company of up to 3,992 housing units on 2,500 acres on the eastern edge of town. The plan calls for 128 affordable condominium units and 4,300 acres of protected wilderness areas. Litigation over the project’s impacts is likely.