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.

A rule proposed March 25 by the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers could broaden the definition of "waters of the United States" subject to Clean Water Act regulation. Among much else, that could expand the areas where developers need Section 404 permits from the Corps to go forward, in a parallel permitting process in addition to local government. The Association of California Water Agencies says the rule apparently would place "most intermittent and ephemeral streams as well as wetlands located near rivers and streams" under Clean Water Act protection. (See http://www.acwa.com/news/water-news/proposed-rule-clarifies-clean-water-act-protections.) The firm of Alston & Bird LLP has posted its analysis at http://bit.ly/Pdlybx. As of April 1 the proposed rule had not yet been posted for comment purposes on the Federal Register site nor Regulations.gov, but a preview of the document is available at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/wus_proposed_rule_20140325_prepublication.pdf. Tax legislation could end the Jurupa Valley trap The League of California Cities is backing two bills, SB 69 (See http://http://legiscan.com/CA/bill/SB69/2013) and AB 1521 (http://legiscan.com/CA/bill/AB1521/2013), to undo the sudden funding disadvantage that pushed the newly incorporated city of Jurupa Valley toward disincorporation this winter. The bills are based on the prior SB 56 and are designed to restore funding to newly incorporated towns from vehicle license fees As CP&DR reported in January (see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3427), the legislature first sent vehicle license fee (VLF) money to help new towns like Jurupa Valley with their new municipal governments, then took much of it away with SB 89. The two new bills propose to restore incentives for new cities to form and for existing cities to annex territory, which the League writes has been absent since a state budget maneuver, the VLF-property tax swap of 2004, left cities unable to count directly on substantial VLF revenues. The new bills would change property tax and/or VLF distribution formulas to favor recently incorporated or annexed areas. See http://www.cacities.org/Top/News/News-Articles/2014/March/Legislation-Proposes-New-City-Incorporation,-Annex. The Central Valley is sinking from groundwater loss. National Geographic and California newspapers reported this week on news from USGS that ground levels have sunk, in places alarmingly, near the Delta-Mendota Canal in the San Joaquin Valley. The USGS announcement is at http://bit.ly/1htGt4e. National Geographic has an extensive writeup at http://bit.ly/1dKrNcg quoting one researcher for the news that "one 2-square-mile... area... is subsiding almost a foot.. annually." Further recent reports on groundwater as a crisis in the San Joaquin Valley appear in the San Jose Mercury News at http://bit.ly/O7KD6l and the Hanford Sentinel at http://bit.ly/1mGeGkR. Online hotel-booking services held not to owe San Diego hotel tax The Second District Court of Appeal ruled twice in March that "online travel companies" (OTCs) such as Priceline, Expedia and Travelocity do not owe San Diego's transient occupancy tax on fees they collect for serving as middlemen between hotels and guests. The decision focused on tax amounts that cities may lose through cases when the OTC pays wholesale room rates to hotels, charges retail rates to guests, and keeps the difference. The court referred to the text of the San Diego tax ordinance, and compared prior rulings in the same group of coordinated cases for Anaheim and Santa Monica, to find tax was only due on room rent charged by the business that provides the lodging. Hence, the court found, tax is only due to the city on the wholesale rate that the hotel operator is paid, even if the hotel guest might have spent more. It added in a footnote that the 1912 case of Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corp. v. City of Los Angeles , 163 Cal. 621, "does not support a ruling that hotels may delegate to OTCs all of their responsibilities under the ordinance, nor does it suggest that the OTCs may be audited or held liable for nonpayment of any under the circumstances before us." The matter was originally heard in Los Angeles Superior Court. On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Second District issued a unanimous initial opinion March 5 that it did not order formally published (at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B243800.PDF). The panel then agreed to revisit the matter, but after rehearing issued a nearly identical opinion March 27 (at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B243800A.PDF). Airbnb to pay hotel taxes in San Francisco and Portland Under pressures from city officials that included partway-drafted regulatory legislation, Airbnb announced March 31 that it would collect and pay San Francisco's 14 percent hotel tax on behalf of hosts in the city who list housing through the Airbnb service. Carolyn Said of the San Francisco Chronicle explains details at http://bit.ly/1mGqOlH. She further writes that the company made a similar announcement in Portland, Oregon last week and has offered $21 million in tax payments in New York. The San Francisco announcement followed the San Diego hotel tax decision by four days but it was not mentioned in the Airbnb weblog post announcing the decision (at http://publicpolicy.airbnb.com/san-francisco-taxes-airbnb-community/). Storm water Industrial General Permit up for final adoption April 1 The State Water Resources Control Board meets April 1 to consider adoption of the updated statewide Industrial General Permit for "storm water discharges associated with industrial activity". The General Permit covers entities in California including oil, gas and mining facilities, landfills, recyclers, feedlots, factories and food processors, airports, certain vehicle maintenance shops, and sewer systems. If granted, the approval would update a prior document, long since expired, that has been in effect by default since 1997. The new proposed permit would apply National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards under the Clean Water Act. It would require specified levels of effort, depending on circumstances and type of pollutant, to keep runoff within limits based variously on the contents of the effluent and the carrying capacities of the bodies of water receiving the runoff. Unlike the prior 1997 General Permit, it would require minimum Best Management Practices statewide along with other new standards. On March 28, the Friday before its Tuesday approval meeting, the board released responses to commenters that reflected some tension over the scope and timing of the third and last comment opportunity on the draft Permit: comment had been allowed only from February 19 to March 4, and only on the latest round of revisions. Several more substantive comments questioned the new definitions of Best Management Practices and of Numeric Action Levels (NALs), which are thresholds for pollution conditions including pH, suspended solids, oil and grease, and individual chemicals and metals. NAL exceedances trigger stricter levels of regulation and requirements to present plans for improvement. A unique comment from the Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California prompted the board to warn dischargers that local mosquito control ordinances would apply to stormwater facilities where water might be left standing. The meeting notice, comments, staff response chart, and other relevant documents are at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/industrial.shtml.

Monterey County voters in June may decide as many as three ballot measures regarding the county general plan. The Board of Supervisors approved a new general plan on January 3. At the same time, the board agreed to ask voters whether they want to keep the new plan. The board also consented to placing on the ballot a general plan initiative backed by environmental and homeowner organizations. The county had originally refused to put the initiative on the ballot (see f, October 2006; , May 2006). Meanwhile, backers of the initiative have gathered signatures to force a referendum on the new general plan. They said a referendum is necessary to prevent the new plan from taking effect prior to the June election so that there is not a window for developers to take advantage of the new plan. The plan opponents also said the referendum would present voters with a more straightforward question than the Board of Supervisors had crafted. The county adopted the updated general plan after seven years of planning and three discarded drafts (see , July 2004). The new plan designates a number of growth areas, mostly near cities and existing unincorporated communities. Supporters say the plan will help the county accommodate needed housing. Opponents say the plan sacrifices important farmland and encourages sprawl. The newly adopted plan is available at www.co.monterey.ca.us/pbi/gpu . A controversial Carmel Valley subdivision is back in court six years after a state appellate court rejected an earlier environmental impact report for the project. The Monterey County Board of Supervisors approved the September Ranch project in December. The project calls for 73 market-rate houses, 15 inclusionary units and seven units of workforce housing on about 100 acres. The remainder of the nearly 900-acre site will remain as an equestrian center and open space. In 2001, the Sixth District Court of Appeal used the September Ranch project to make an important ruling regarding baseline conditions for environmental studies. The issue concerned how much water had historically been used for farming on the site, and, therefore, how much water would be available for what was then a 109-unit project. The amount of agricultural water use increased during the 3 1/2 years the development application was under consideration, and the final EIR relied on the higher volume of water used during the end of the process. The court ruled in , 87 Cal.App. 4th 99, that “baseline conditions are normally to be determined at the time environmental review is begun” (see , April 2001). The EIR for the newly approved project says that water for September Ranch is available from a recently discovered aquifer that is separate from the overburdened Carmel Valley aquifer. Project opponents submitted information disputing the analysis, but the county concluded that disagreement among experts was not enough to force changes in the EIR. In January, three environmental groups filed two separate lawsuits challenging the EIR’s water analysis. Impacts to traffic, historic sites and the Monterey pine forest are also issues. The flood-control situation in Sacramento continues to evolve rapidly as local, state and federal officials grapple with the city’s inadequate protection from high water. The Federal Emergency Management Agency revealed in January that it would require all property owners in Sacramento’s Natomas Basin with federally backed loans to purchase flood insurance before the end of the year. The mandate will remain in place until Natomas, the City of Sacramento’s primary growth area, has at least 100-year flood protection. Also in January, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency began detailing proposed assessment district changes that would expand the district’s territory and raise existing assessments. Property owners are scheduled to vote on the assessments by mail in March. The revised assessment district would encompass all of Natomas, including undeveloped portions in Sacramento and Sutter counties, where property owners would pay $76 annually. The Flood Control Agency plan is intended to raise $326 million over 30 years to help Natomas achieve 100-year flood protection by 2010, and for the entire area to get 200-year flood protection in following years. The money would match more than $2 billion that local officials hope to receive from the federal and state governments. These moves follow a state Department of Water Resources request to Sacramento last fall for a growth moratorium in Natomas, a request the city has rebuffed. The state’s request was spurred by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ announcement that Natomas lacked 100-year flood protection because seepage is weakening levees. A San Francisco Superior Court Judge has issued a ruling that builds on a 2004 appellate court decision aiding redevelopment agencies in cleaning up brownfields. Judge John Munter ruled that five manufacturers or distributors of dry cleaning chemicals and one dry cleaner are liable for the future costs of cleaning up contamination from the Modesto Steam Laundry & Cleaning operation. In 2004, the First District Court of Appeal ruled that companies that made or distributed solvents may be held liable for cleanup under the Polanco Act and returned the case to Superior Court (see , August 2004). The City of Modesto and its redevelopment agency contend that dry cleaners disposed of solvent waste by dumping it into the sewer system, from which contaminants leached into soil and groundwater. Last year, a San Francisco jury held the five manufacturers and distributors liable for $3.2 million for harming the city’s drinking water, and Munter assessed punitive damages of $13 million. The latest ruling assesses liability for future costs and also awards the Modesto Redevelopment Agency $430,000 for work already done at a brownfield site. “It’s good news for cities who are seeking to clean up contamination in redevelopment areas because it enlarges the pool of potentially responsible parties,” agency attorney Michael Axline, of Miller, Axline & Sawyer, told the . An appeal of Judge Munter’s ruling is likely. The cases are , No. 9993345, and , No. 999643. The Business, Transportation and Housing Agency and the California Environmental Protection Agency have released the “Goods Movement Action Plan,” which is intended to guide allocation of $3.1 billion contained in the $19.9 billion Proposition 1B that voters approved last November. State and regional officials have been working on the plan for two years to address transportation and environmental problems caused by ever-increasing traffic at shipping ports, especially the port at Los Angeles and Long Beach (see , June 2006). The plan does not necessarily dictate how the money should be spent, rather it provides about 200 “candidate actions” to improve infrastructure, protect public and environmental health, upgrade security and lessen community impacts. The California Transportation Commission, the Air Resources Board and the California Maritime Transportation Security Council will make the ultimate spending decisions. The Goods Movement Action Plan is available at www.arb.ca.gov/gmp/gmp.htm . The issue of historic preservation will apparently return to the City of Berkeley ballot, as opponents of a revised landmarks preservation ordinance have submitted petitions to force a referendum. The city eased its preservation regulations in December, one month after voters rejected a measure that would have locked in existing regulations that were some of the most stringent in the state. But preservation advocates said the revisions favored developers and now want voters to decide again. Unless the city calls a special election, the referendum will appear on the ballot in 2008. An organization representing mobile home and travel trailer owners on the shores of Lake Berryessa have sued the Bureau of Reclamation over a plan adopted last year that calls for the mobile homes and trailers to be removed. The federal court lawsuit filed by the group Berryessa For All contends that the bureau’s decision was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. The agency adopted the plan in June 2006 with the goal of boosting short-term visitor use at the reservoir in the hills of eastern Napa County. The plan calls for removing more than 1,000 trailers located in seven “resorts” whose leases expire between this year and 2009. The government hopes to lure new concessionaires to develop facilities that may include cabins, motels and campgrounds (see , October 2006). Owners of mobile homes and travel trailers contend they were not given a fair shake during the plan preparation process, which lasted for six years.