The second and final phase of the Playa Vista development near Playa del Rey appears headed toward approval in early 2010, as the Los Angeles Planning Commission recommended approval of the project earlier this month. The city originally approved phase two in 2004, but the Second District Court of Appeal two years ago ruled the environmental impact report was deficient (see CP&DR In Brief , October 2007 ). Master developer Playa Capital, LLC, started the process over and a new EIR was released this year. The second phase is proposed for 111 acres between a nearly complete 6,000-unit, mixed-use residential community to the west, and a slow-to-develop office campus on the east. The middle section is viewed as the heart of Playa Vista and is planned to have 2,600 housing units, nearly 200,000 square feet of retail development and 175,000 square feet of offices. Although a number of Playa Vista residents testified at the Planning Commission meeting in support of phase two, environmental groups that have fought the project for years – including the Ballona Institute and the Sierra Club – continued their opposition. They maintain that much of the site should provide wetlands and open space.

The City of Sacramento has approved a specific plan for the 29-acre Docks site along the Sacramento River, across Interstate 5 from downtown. The City Council unanimously chose Option B, which allows about 1,000 residential units, 200,000 square feet of office space, mostly in a few towers. The plan further includes about 40,000 square feet of retail development, a large park and the extension of a riverfront promenade from Old Town (see CP&DR Places , August 1, 2009 ). The city also extended for 4 1/2 months an exclusive negotiating agreement with a team of developers led by Darius Anderson's Kenwood Investments.

The proposed Merriam Mountains housing development in North San Diego County suffered a setback in December when the Board of Supervisors split 2-2 on the project. The tie vote equates to rejection of the project; however, supervisors within 30 days may call for a new hearing, and reconsideration appears likely. County Supervisor Ron Roberts missed the December 9 meeting at which the board divided on the project, as he was attending a California Air Resources Board meeting in Sacramento. Typically a supporter of growth, Roberts could ask for reconsideration and provide the deciding vote. Stonegate Development Group proposes 2,700 single-family houses, condominiums and apartments, as well as a 10-acre retail center, on 560 acres of a 2,320-acre site just west of Interstate 15 and north of Escondido (see CP&DR Local Watch , August 2006 ). Stonegate would preserve more than half of the site as open space. Area residents strongly oppose the project, which they say would be out of place on land currently zoned for low-density, single-family housing. In addition, questions have arisen about fire protection. Supervisors Dianne Jacob and Pam Slater-Price voted against the project, citing the lack of a fire evacuation plan for residents and concerns over water to serve the project. "It's a wonderful project in the wrong location," Jacob stated. Supervisors Greg Cox and Bill Horn voted for the project. Since the December 9 meeting, project opponents have questioned Horn's pre-meeting advice to Stonegate that the developer request a continuance until all five board members were present. The project website: www.merriammountains.com .

The largest wind energy project ever in California won unanimous approval from the Kern County Board of Supervisors in mid-December. Alta Windpower Development plans to erect up to 320 wind turbines on a 9,100-acre site between the cities of Tehachapi and Mojave. The extremely tall (more than 200 feet) and efficient machines will generate 1.5 to 3 megawatts of energy apiece for a total of about 800 megawatts – which is more than most gas-fired power plants in California generate. Area residents complained that the wind turbines would be noisy, unsightly and potentially unsafe, as the turbine blades could toss chunks of ice long distances. Environmentalists argued that the turbines would kill many birds of prey that hunt in the area, including very rare California condors. Supervisors required Alta Windpower to relocate and eliminate a few turbines to help quell residents' protest, but litigation over the project appears likely. Kern County is considering numerous other wind energy proposals that total more than 4,000 megawatts of energy.

Former Siskiyou County Planning Director Wayne Virag has been fined $2,600 by the Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to disclose economic interests in real property and for failing to file a statement of economic interests upon leaving office. Siskiyou County supervisors fired Virag in 2006 amid a local law enforcement investigation into alleged improprieties and conflicts of interest stemming from a real estate development business in which Virag was a partner(see CP&DR In Brief , September 2006). A county employee for 11 years and the planning director for two, Virag never faced criminal charges. However, the FPPC ruled that Virag failed to disclose on official statements that he owned about a dozen pieces of property in Siskiyou County.

The close of one year always induces predictions for the coming year. Putting one's forecast in print – even virtual print – is a dangerous business. But I can't help myself. No one knows for certain what will happen in 2010. Some of our top stories from 2009 were easy to see coming. The state budget mess, the continued focus on SB 375 and the ongoing home construction slowdown were not surprises. But one year ago, few people would have predicted that a Sonoma County city with a fine reputation among planners would lay off all of its planners, that state lawmakers would exempt a 500-acre development project from CEQA, or that lawmakers and Gov. Schwarzenegger would agree on significant water legislation. With that, I offer three predictions for 2010. • Redevelopment deadlines will get delayed by at least 30 years. The state budget deficit is already at $17 billion. That figure is only going to grow, and it seems that lawmakers and the administration have already made all of the "easy" budget decisions. The coming budget scramble promises to be a wild one. During the last budget go-round, the City of Industry proposed letting the state take a cut of property tax increment revenues in exchange for a lengthy extension of redevelopment activity, whether or not blight still exists. The proposal failed, but I think it will return. With many redevelopment project areas scheduled to sunset during the next few years, and with the state desperate for funding, we just might have a marriage of convenience here. I'm betting more than a few redevelopment agencies would be willing to trade a cut of tax increment revenue – 10%? 20%? – for another 30 or 40 years of redevelopment authority. And I'm betting state officials are willing to make the trade for, say, $750 million a year, which is about 15% of current tax increment receipts.  I'm not arguing this is a good policy choice. But it is expedient, and expediency is king of Sacramento. • The SB 375 backlash will start to hit. Truly reducing the amount that people drive is going to take enormous changes in land use development and growth patterns. There's some acceptance of the needed planning changes. But reducing driving also is going to require aggressive measures that discourage people from driving – and that's going to necessitate very unpopular decisions. We've all heard the pitch from true believers that cities should be designed for people, not for cars. Sounds great until you realize this notion means placing the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transit ahead of motorists. This, in turn, means dividing up the public right-of-way to provide more room for sidewalks, bike lanes, and light rail and bus lines – and a lot less room for cars. It means fewer and smaller parking lots. It probably means some form of "congestion pricing." Such ideas will start to come into tighter focus when the Air Resources Board sets regional greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets in September. Good luck selling these ideas to millions of people who are used to driving everywhere. • Housing production will increase. OK, this is any easy one. In 2009, housing production was at the lowest level ever recorded. It's not going to go down further. The turnaround will not be rapid, but it's coming.  We all read the recent news stories about California's slow population growth of late. Keep in mind, though, that even when population increases slowly, the state still adds a lot of people. From July 2008 to July 2009, the population jumped 353,000. That increase equates to a need for roughly 140,000 housing units – or about 40,000 fewer than builders produced in 2008 and 2009 combined. In other words, market demand is going to necessitate more housing production. Happy New Year. - Paul Shigley

A City of West Hollywood moratorium on new multi-family housing development has been declared invalid by the Second District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the city had not made required findings for the moratorium. Under state law, the city had to adopt written findings to "identify both (i) a specific ‘significant, quantifiable, direct and unavoidable impact' upon the public health or safety that would result from continued development approvals, and (ii) objective ‘written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions' on which that impact is based," the court stated. The city's moratorium findings failed to comply, the court ruled. In June 2007, the West Hollywood City Council approved a 45-day interim ordinance prohibiting – with a few exceptions under interim standards – the issuance of permits for new multi-family dwellings. In July 2007, the City Council extended the moratorium by 10 months and 15 days. A final extension was approved in May 2008. The city stated that a recent proliferation of applications was resulting in fewer and larger multi-family units than were desired to meet the city's housing needs. Essentially, the city sought more and smaller units to increase affordability. The city also began revising its general plan land use and housing elements. Among the applications pending when the city first adopted the moratorium were one by Hoffman Street, LLC, and one from Harper Project LLC. Hoffman wanted to demolish a 16-unit apartment building on North Hayworth Avenue and construct a 17-unit condominium complex on the site, Harper sought approval to demolish a 15-unit apartment building on North Harper Avenue and construct 16 condominiums on the property. After the city approved the July 2007 moratorium extension, Hoffman and Harper filed a joint lawsuit arguing the city violated the Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code § 65000 et seq .), the Permit Streamlining Act and the California Environmental Quality Act, denied the developers' rights of due process and equal protection, and took property through inverse condemnation. A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled for the city. On appeal, and a unanimous three-judge panel of the Second District, Division Three, overturned the lower court. The city first argued that the appeal was moot because the moratorium had expired earlier this year. But the court said that although the appeal was "technically moot," the appeal presented "an issue of continuing public interest" that deserved consideration. At issue was the interpretation of Government Code § 65858, subdivisions (c) and (g). Subdivision  (c) outlines the findings necessary for extending a 45-day moratorium. Subdivision (g) says that certain findings are not required for a moratorium involving demolition or conversion of multi-family housing units or that results in decreased affordability. The city argued, and the trial court agreed, the developers' projects were the types of development described in subdivision (g). However, the nature of the developers' projects did not relieve the city from having to make the findings required under subdivision (c), the appellate court ruled. " hether the statutory findings are required depends not on the effect of an interim ordinance on a particular applicant challenging an extension, but on the effect of the interim ordinance generally," Justice Walter Croskey wrote for the court. The court then cited from the statue: "We conclude that by prohibiting the issuance of permits or other approvals for the development of any ‘new multi-family structures' not in compliance with the interim zoning standards, the interim ordinance had the effect of requiring the denial of some applications for the development of multi-family housing and therefore had ‘the effect of denying approvals needed for the development of projects with a significant component of multi-family housing' within the meaning of the statute. Because the interim ordinance had that effect, the city was required to make the findings set forth in paragraphs (1) through (3) of Government Code § 65858, subdivision (c)." Under those paragraphs, the city must find there is a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety, the moratorium will mitigate or avoid the impact, and there is no feasible alternative to the moratorium. The West Hollywood City Council had found there was a "significant unmet need for smaller affordable housing units" and recent projects were not increasing the number of units adequately. The city's findings, the court determined "failed to identify any specific impact on public health or safety." The findings also did not identify written standards or conditions for determining an impact, and did not address a less burdensome alternative. Thus, the court ruled the moratorium was invalid. The court rejected the Permit Streamlining Act claim, and it declined to consider the CEQA claim. The court directed the trial court to reconsider the claims regarding due process, equal protection and inverse condemnation. The Case: Hoffman Street LLC v. City of West Hollywood , No. B210789, 2009 DJDAR 16525. Filed November 23, 2009. The Lawyers: For Hoffman: Benjamin Reznik, Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro, (310) 203-8080. For the city: Michael Jenkins, Jenkins & Hogin, (310) 643-8448.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has set back a plan to develop the country's largest solid waste landfill near Joshua Tree National Park. The court ruled that the environmental analysis for the project was inadequate and that the Bureau of Land Management undervalued land it would provide to the landfill developer. In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit panel found that the range of alternatives in the environmental impact statement was too limited because the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) adopted the developer's goals for the project as the government's own. The court also said the analysis of eutrophication – in this case, the introduction of nitrogen to the desert environment – was scattered in too many parts of the EIS for a reader to follow. The court further ruled the BLM should have considered the federal land's value as a landfill. The BLM's appraisal ignored the possibility that the 3,481 acres of federal land sought by the landfill developer would be used for the project. The decision is an important one not only for the long-proposed Eagle Mountain landfill, but for scores of solar and wind energy projects proposed for federally owned land in the desert. The decision suggests the federal government needs to consider the value of land for its ultimate use when selling or swapping parcels with a private entity, which could increase land prices dramatically. In a remarkably sharp dissent, Judge Stephen Trott called the majority opinion "indefensible" and "flatly wrong." He said the two-judge majority ignored the 50,000-page administrative record and elevated process over function. From 1948 until 1983, Kaiser mined iron ore from about 5,000 acres of Eagle Mountain in eastern Riverside County, about one mile from what has since become Joshua Tree National Park. With the mine played out, Kaiser in 1989 applied to Riverside County for permits to fill the massive mining pits with garbage. Proponents said the landfill could accommodate 20,000 tons of trash daily for more than 100 years – enough capacity to serve Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, San Diego, Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. About 90% of waste would arrive by train. After Riverside County approved the project, opponents sued over the environmental impact report. They won their case over the first EIR in 1996, but the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld a revised EIR in 1999 in National Parks & Conservation Assn. v. County of Riverside , (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1341 (see CP&DR, Legal Digest , June 1999 ). The opponents turned to federal court later in 1999. Based on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), they challenged the EIS for the project. They also contested the BLM's appraisal of 3,481 acres of federal land sought by Kaiser. Kaiser needs the federal land to make the project practical, and federal officials said the swap for 2,846 acres of private land, plus a $20,100 difference, would allow them to better manage habitat for sensitive plant and animal species. About five years later, District Court Judge Robert Timlin ruled for the opponents on some issues and against them on others. Both sides appealed, and another five years later – including nearly two full years after oral arguments – the divided Ninth Circuit panel mostly upheld Timlin's decision. On the NEPA claims, the court found that the range of project alternatives studied in the EIS was inadequate because the BLM's stated purpose for the land swap was based on Kaiser's desires. The BLM's purpose and needs statement listed as goals: (1) development of a solid waste landfill, (2) creation of a long-term income source, (3) finding a viable use for mine byproducts, and (4) development of the former mine's town site. "The first, to meet long-term landfill demand, is unquestionably a valid BLM purpose. The remaining three goals, however, can hardly be characterized as BLM needs," Judge Harry Pregerson wrote for the majority. As a result, five of the six analyzed project alternatives – all except for "no action" – resulted in some measure of landfill development. "The BLM adopted Kaiser's interests as its own to craft a purpose and need statement so narrowly drawn as to foreordain approval of the land exchange," wrote Pregerson, who was joined by Judge Richard Paez. On the issue of eutrophication, the court rejected the BLM's argument that the EIS adequately dealt with impacts of bringing nitrogen to the desert environment in sections addressing biological resources and air quality. "A reader seeking enlightenment on the issue would have to cull through entirely unrelated sections of the EIS and then put the pieces together," Pregerson complained. The Ninth Circuit did overturn Judge Timlin on the issue of bighorn sheep, finding that the EIS "contains extensive analysis of potential impacts on bighorn sheep, including migration patterns, habitat loss and water accessibility." The court also rejected opponents' appeals regarding analysis over impacts to desert tortoises, noise levels, night lighting, groundwater, air quality and visual aesthetics. In its appraisal, the BLM valued the public parcels that Kaiser would acquire at $77 to $106 per acre, and determined that the private land the BLM would receive was worth $104 per acre. The difference was $20,100. The appraisal determined that the "highest and best use" for the public parcels in question was "holding for speculative investment." The appraisal ignored the landfill proposal because the appraiser considered the project infeasible. The court noted that the landfill provided the basis for the land swap and that Los Angeles County Sanitation District has since agreed to pay Kaiser $8,800 per acre for the project site and permits.   The court, noted Pregerson, faced similar facts when it rejected the BLM's appraisal of federal land for a proposed Imperial County landfill. In Desert Citizens Against Pollution v. Bisson , 231 F.3d 1172 (9th Circuit 2000) (see CP&DR Legal Digest , December 2000 ), the court ruled, "The use of the land as a landfill was not only reasonable, it was the specific intent of the exchange that it would be used for that purpose. There is no principled reason why the BLM, or any federal agency, should remain willfully blind to the value of federal lands by acting contrary to the most elementary principles of real estate transactions." In a dissent far longer than Pregerson's majority opinion, Trott decried the process and lengthy litigation. It took the District Court five years to issue a ruling and, Trott wrote, " ere we are at the end of 2009, another five years later, burdened by a seriously flawed District Court opinion, hitting the reset button, and unnecessarily sending the parties back to a Sisyphean hill which cannot be climbed in a lifetime." Trott continued, "Now, in an opinion that is not only not supported by the record, but is irreconcilable with it, the endless process continues. No doubt we will see this case back again, years from now, unless the proponents of this project – including seven California counties – weary of it and throw in the towel, thwarted and defeated not by substance but by interminable process." Unless an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit agrees to rehear the case, it now returns to District Court for further proceedings. The Case: National Parks & Conservation Association v. Bureau of Land Management , No. 05-56814, 2009 DJDAR 15950. Filed November 10, 2009. The Lawyers: For National Parks and Conservation Association: Deborah Sivas, Stanford Environmental Law Clinic, (650) 723-0325. For the BLM: Tamara Rountree, Department of Justice (202) 514-2000. For Kaiser: Leonard Feldman, Stoel Rives, (206) 386-7538.

Which comes first, the car culture, or the infrastructure for cars? I ask this chicken-and-egg question because I saw in a recent report by the alternative transportation advocacy groups Transportation for America and the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) that the 10 most dangerous metro regions for pedestrians are all in the South. If you have ever spent much time in the South, the statistics are no surprise. Southern drivers tend to behave very aggressively toward pedestrians, and pity the poor fool pedaling a bicycle. Even in car-centric L.A., motorists usually cut pedestrians a pretty courteous berth. Transportation for America and STPP blame roadway design and urban development practices for the dangerous conditions in which pedestrians trod. Urban growth patterns that require everyone – motorist, pedestrian, cyclist – to use the same collector and arterial streets are a real safety hazard.  I think these conditions create a car-only culture in which anyone who tries to get around without a car is considered a lesser human being. No sensible person would be out there walking along a road without a sidewalk, right? This attitude then drives (pardon the pun) a public policy that is overwhelmingly aimed at accommodating the needs of automobiles. Yet nearly half of the people living in the United States do not drive. They are too young, they are too old, they are too poor to own a car, they have a physical or mental disability. A few people even choose not spend the $5,000 to $10,000 a year it costs to own, operate and insure a car. This sidewalk along a Sacramento retail center provides excellent access to a utility box, but none to the apartments in the background.  According to the advocacy groups, about 13 pedestrians in the U.S. are killed by motor vehicles every day. I disagree with the groups that all of these deaths are preventable. No matter how we design our cities, drunks will stumble into downtown traffic, depressed people will jump in front of buses, and kids will do stupid things. Still, many deaths and injuries are entirely preventable. The advocacy groups have four recommendations: • Employ traffic calming and street design to slow motorists. • Design and build "complete streets" that take into account the needs of all users, not only motorists. • Take advantage of the federally funded Safe Routes to School program. • Design and develop walkable neighborhoods in which residents and visitors may literally run errands. Pedestrians have forged a narrow path where a downtown San Leandro sidewalk ends. The city has plans to alter this hazardous situation. In California, we're lucky that many cities already follow some or all of these recommendations. That doesn't mean our cities couldn't do a lot more. None of them, after all, made the top 10 safest cities on the advocacy groups' list. On a related note, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel business writer Richard Birch recently wrote an interesting piece on the social and financial costs of our devotion to the automobile. Yes, it's another one of those why-can't-we be-more-like-Europeans? opinion columns, which can be so tiresome. Still, Birch makes several good points. – Paul Shigley

The package of water legislation approved by state lawmakers and signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger earlier this month may be the most ambitious attempt yet to address the troubled Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. However, the legislation angers and worries many interests in and around the Delta, including local government leaders concerned about their ability to approve development. The centerpiece of the Delta bill – which was one of five pieces in the water legislation package – is creation of a new Delta Stewardship Council. In addition to preparing a comprehensive Delta plan by January 1, 2012, the council will have broad oversight of Delta planning and resource management. Initial drafts of the legislation, SB 1 X7 by Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), roughly modeled the stewardship council on the Coastal Commission and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission – two state entities with the authority to make land use and resource protection decisions. In the end, the Delta Stewardship Council was not given land use authority. However, local governments fear the council could evolve into a Coastal Commission-like body, and Delta interests complain that they were given only one guaranteed seat on the seven-member council. "Nobody knows what it means at this point because there is no funding for it," Rio Vista Mayor Jan Vick said of the stewardship council. Still, she pointed out that the Coastal Commission and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission accumulated power over time, and the new Delta council could follow the same path. "It could impact all of the communities in the Delta on local land use," she said. With an entirely different perspective, Rick Frank, executive director of the Boalt Hall Center for Law, Energy and the Environment and a member of the governor's Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force, said the "biggest shortcoming" of the Delta legislation concerns land use. For Frank and the Delta Vision task force, the need to shift some land use control away from local governments is a matter of public safety. In its 2008 report, the Delta Vision task force complained of "encroaching urbanization" in an area threatened by crumbling levees, rising sea level and ever-bigger flood flows attributed to climate change. Delta Vision recommended restricting development in and around the Delta to preserve floodplains (see CP&DR Environment Watch , February 2008 ). The politics of the Delta prevented the land use issue from getting the attention it deserves, Frank said. But he endorsed the overall water package and Delta legislation as a major step forward. "At one level, I'm quite pleased with it. Virtually all the core policies in the Delta Vision plan are incorporated in the legislation," Frank said. "It's far from perfect. But it's a significant improvement over the status quo." The stewardship council will be composed of four governor's appointees, two people appointed by the Legislature and the chair of the existing Delta Protection Commission. The new council must adopt a new Delta plan by the start of 2012, based at least in part on recommendations of the Delta Vision reports. Local general plans would have to be consistent with the new Delta plan, as would some infrastructure projects. The council will make consistency decisions. The council is also supposed to consider the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, a habitat conservation plan due to be released in early 2010, as well as Department of Water Resources recommendations for coordinating flood control and water supply operations. Besides creating the stewardship council, the Simitian bill does many other things. It: • Codifies the "co-equal" goals of "providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring and enhancing the Delta ecosystem." The concept of co-equal goals has been embraced by the Delta Vision task force and other entities studying the Delta. • Shrinks the existing Delta Protection Commission from 23 to 15 members, primarily by reducing the number of state appointees, and requires the commission to prepare a "regional economic sustainability plan." The commission was also given until July 1, 2010, to recommend whether the Legislature should expand the Delta's primary zone, where development is severely restricted and over which the commission has land use appeal authority. • Creates a new Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy as the primary state agency to manage Delta ecosystem restoration. Funding will come from Propositions 84 and IE, the recent water and natural resources bond measures. • Establishes a "Delta Watermaster" to enforce State Water Resources Control Board decisions regarding necessary freshwater flows into the Delta. • Creates an independent science board. • Redefines the Delta to include the approximately 120,000-acre Suisun Marsh south of Fairfield. The Simitian bill was part of a larger package. The other four pieces are: • SB 2 X7 (Cogdill), an $11.1 billion bond that provides $3 billion for new storage, $2.25 billion for Delta projects and implementation of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, $1.785 billion for watershed and water quality projects, $1.4 billion for regional supply improvements, $1.25 billion for water recycling projects, $1 billion for groundwater projects, and $455 million for drought relief. The bond is scheduled to appear on the November 2010 ballot. • SB 6 X7 (Steinberg), which creates a groundwater monitoring program. The legislation authorizes counties, water replenishment districts, groundwater management agencies, and other local agencies and associations to assume responsibility for monitoring groundwater levels, but not for monitoring specific extractions. If no local entity assumes responsibility, the Department of Water Resources would do the monitoring, and local entities would lose eligibility for certain grants and loans. • SB 7 X7 (Steinberg), which requires the state to reduce per capita urban water usage by 10% by 2016 and by 20% by 2021. In addition, agricultural water suppliers must implement efficient water management practices by August 2012. • SB 8 X7 (Steinberg), which, among other things, repeals a legal provision that exempted water users in the Delta from reporting diversions. The water package was put together without state Sen. Lois Wolk (D-Davis), who has been a party to nearly all recent Delta legislation and who carried a failed bill earlier in the year to create a Delta conservancy and expand the role of the Delta Protection Commission (see CP&DR Capitol Update , August 15, 2009 ). Legislative leaders excluded Wolk late in the negotiations after she complained that local interests were not being adequately represented and that the legislation would enable construction of a peripheral canal carrying freshwater around the Delta. Sen. Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord), normally a strong ally of Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, joined Wolk in voting against the Delta legislation. "The plan would put the Delta at risk" DeSaulnier told the Bay Area News Group. "The plan doesn't give the Delta and its 4 million residents a fair say in the process. It doesn't adequately protect Northern California water users. Nor does the plan state how the Delta and its farms, economy, communities and environment would be protected." Rio Vista Mayor Vick, who serves on the Delta Protection Commission, insisted that the primary mission of the water legislation is to move more water, and everything else – including the needs of locals – is an afterthought. "I don't think we were listened to. That's the general feeling of all the people who have been involved," she said. Environmental groups are divided on the water legislation. The Sierra Club called it a continuation of existing, failed policies. The Planning and Conservation League complained that the legislation contains no assurances that the Delta will have the freshwater its ecology needs. Those groups joined with some conservative lawmakers in opposing the water bond, which they called fiscally irresponsible. Meanwhile, the Natural Resources Defense Council and The Nature Conservancy endorsed the legislation. Leo Winternitz, Delta project director for The Nature Conservancy, said the Simitian bill was "absolutely necessary to change the direction we are headed in the Delta." "It sets up a governance structure that at least provides for consistency and accountability," Winternitz said. "We don't like where we are headed in the Delta. It's not working for anybody." One of the chief problems identified by the Delta Vision task force and in influential reports by the Public Policy Institute of California concerns the 200-plus agencies – cities, counties, reclamation districts, water districts, federal agencies, state agencies – that have authority over some portion or aspect of the Delta. The agencies often work at cross-purposes while protecting their individual interests. Under the new legislation, though, all the agencies are supposed to work from the Delta Plan adopted by the stewardship council. "Protecting particular interests may not be good for all of California," Winternitz said. Whether the legislation will lead to construction of a peripheral canal or other facility for conveying freshwater from the Sacramento River to the State Water Project and Central Valley Project remains unknown. Winternitz said the legislation makes ecosystem restoration a component of, and not merely mitigation for, any conveyance project. Yet environmentalists raised 30-year-old arguments about the canal being a "water grab," and many Northern California lawmakers voted against the water legislation because of north-versus-south fears over the peripheral canal. In the near term, people on both sides of the debate will be closely watching who is appointed to the Delta Stewardship Council, as well as how the agency is staffed and funded. "We'll have to see how seriously the actors – the new government entities and the existing ones – take their charge," said Frank, of the Delta Vision task force. Contacts: Rio Vista Mayor Jan Vick, (707) 374-6451. Rick Frank, Delta Vision Foundation, (510) 642-8305. Leo Winternitz, The Nature Conservancy, (916) 214-9530. Delta Vision: http://www.deltavision.ca.gov . California State Association of Counties water legislation analysis .

Residents of the Riverside County city of Temecula, which has been among the state's fastest growing cities for 20 years, have run into some growth they do not want. City leaders and local residents are opposing a proposed quarry located one mile south of the city limits near the San Diego County line. The quarry, to be operated by Granite Construction of Watsonville, would mine aggregate for use in making concrete and building transportation projects. The area to be mined is 135 acres of a 414-acre site, with mining operations running a half mile long and 1,020 feet deep. Temecula has "a longstanding policy of creating open space boundaries," around the city, said Patrick Richardson, the city's planning and redevelopment director. To the north and west of the city are numerous wineries and agriculture. Temecula tried an unusual tactic to stop the quarry: The city proposed an environmental annexation of about 5,000 acres that included the quarry site along with an adjacent 4,500-acres of open space, managed by San Diego State University (SDSU), called the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve. Nearly all annexations are intended to enable development. Temecula's proposal is intended to preserve the status quo. However, the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) rejected the proposed annexation in June. Temecula modified the proposed annexation by removing the mine site, but LAFCO said no for a second time in September. In a staff report on the proposed annexation, LAFCO staff conceded that surface mines are not usually welcomed. "Surface mining is not a popular use, not unlike landfills, jails, prisons, etc." the report said. "However, like those uses, it is a necessary use that must exist somewhere. Siting such uses always proves to be a difficult decision." The real issue, according to LAFCO Executive Officer George Spiliotis, is land use authority. The whole point of Temecula's annexation is to halt the gravel quarry, Spiliotis pointed out. But as with any locally unwanted land use, the ultimate decision needs to balance local desires against regional needs. Temecula's approach would prevent a complete evaluation of the proposed quarry, he noted. "The agency ultimately charged with siting such uses must balance the regional need for those uses not only with project impacts, but also with the desires of local constituencies," Spiliotis wrote in a report to the LAFCO board. "In this case, the land use agency must also weigh, after determining the impacts of the project, the relative value of various open space uses. Staff believes the appropriate agency to balance these objectives is the county. The Board of Supervisors does have a regional interest and perspective that is called for in this circumstance." Interestingly, the only support for annexation on LAFCO has come from the two county supervisors on the board – Bob Buster and John Tavaglione. With annexation apparently dead for now, the quarry plan is headed to Riverside County's Planning Commission, and ultimately its Board of Supervisors. The county has not yet set a date for a hearing, as it first must review and revise a draft environmental impact report following comments submitted this month. Temecula's comments alone on the draft EIR were 157 pages long, according to Richardson. "I imagine it'll take a few months to revise," he said. As commuters have moved inland in search of affordable housing, Temecula's population has nearly quadrupled to 102,000 residents since 1990. Many of the residents in Temecula's huge subdivisions commute to jobs in Orange County and San Diego. While the city has been very welcoming of urban development, Granite Construction's proposal has become a lightening rod, and protests have drawn more than 2,000 quarry opponents. The main concerns voiced by local residents are "air quality, traffic congestion, noise, light pollution, and habitat destruction," said Temecula Mayor Maryann Edwards. "We have concerns with just about every aspect of it," added Richardson. "It is essentially a wilderness area." The quarry would abut the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, which is home to nearly 100 rare and endangered species, and five miles of the Santa Margarita River, the only remaining free-flowing river in Southern California. "An operation of this magnitude is not appropriate next to an ecological reserve or an outdoor classroom," Matt Rahn, director for research and outreach for field station programs for SDSU at the reserve, said of the proposed mine. Edwards said she agrees that aggregate is needed for construction. "However, research shows that there are dozens of areas with similar resources that are remote to populated areas," she said. New quarries are often hard to locate near urban areas, even as the operators promise modern technology to keep down dust and limit other impacts. "People don't know what to expect," said Karie Reuther, director of community affairs for Granite Construction. The proposed mine would be hidden in steep hills covered with chaparral and coastal sage scrub vegetation, and not visible from the city. Still, residents want to save mountain views and preserve open space. One local group fighting the project is Save Our Southwest Hills. SOS Hills member Fred Bartz points out that Riverside County has 52 active quarries, while San Diego County has 14. He said Riverside County ends up exporting its aggregate to San Diego County and Orange County. Bartz said, "Some people are saying ‘Why should Riverside County become one large gravel pit?'" Residents have suggested increasing extraction at other mines in the county, developing mines in other locations, or even importing aggregate from Mexico and Canada. Granite's Reuther argues that having a local mine will help reduce regional truck traffic because aggregate will not have to be shipped in from outlying areas. The mine would, however, send an estimated 700 trucks a day onto Interstate 15. The project is expected to create 100 local jobs and lead to increased state and local tax revenues. Granite has mines throughout California and has fought hard to open new mines in the past. After 23 years of wrangling, it recently received approvals for a smaller mine in San Diego County, called Rosemary's Mountain Quarry, which is expected to open in 2011. Bartz said a major concern of SOS Hills is about air quality. "Not all quarries are as simple as excavating gravel from a riverbed," he explained. "This quarry will require blasting, as much as 10 blasts per week." The draft EIR does say that the quarry project will have significant and unavoidable impacts on air quality and traffic/transportation. But Reuther contended that those problems are caused by existing air and traffic problems in the area, and she said that the company will pay mitigation fees as required. Reuther said the increase in particulate matter on the property's border will be less than 1% and will decrease further away from the property. The company will have dust mitigation on site, including an indoor crusher, enclosed conveyor belts, paved roads and spray bars on all trucks. All blasts on the site will be controlled to keep energy in the ground, she said, and will not create huge explosions that residents are familiar with from military activities at nearby Camp Pendleton Marine Corp Base. Contacts: Temecula Mayor Maryann Edwards, (951) 694-6416. Patrick Richardson, City of Temecula Community Development Department, (951) 694-6444. George Spiliotis, Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission, (951) 369-0631. Matt Rahn, San Diego State University, (619) 594-5386. Fred Bartz, Save Our Southwest Hills, (951) 302-3401. Karie Reuther, Granite Construction, (951) 304-9647.

Four San Jacinto city councilmen, a councilman's wife and four people in the development business were indicted in mid-November by a Riverside County grand jury on charges of money laundering, fraud, bribery, perjury and filing false campaign finance documents. From the court papers released thus far, it is difficult to define the quid pro quo involved in the alleged scheme. The district attorney's 18-month investigation, instigated by a city employee's tip, centered on Councilman James Ayers and Stephen Holgate, whose company, Shelbran Investments, owns numerous pieces of property in San Jacinto and neighboring Hemet. A former San Jacinto Chamber of Commerce CEO, Holgate funneled extensive contributions to Ayers for a failed 2006 Assembly campaign and for his successful 2008 City Council re-election bid, according to the indictment, which says Holgate channeled the money through numerous people to avoid campaign contribution limits. Ayers was among the councilmembers who voted for a development agreement for a proposed Shelbran Investments commercial project along the route of the proposed Mid-County Parkway (see CP&DR Public Development , August 15, 2009 ). Also indicted were Ayers's wife Nancy Jo, who is a San Jacinto Unified School District trustee and executive director of the Chamber of Commerce; Mayor Dale Stubblefield, a planning consultant; Councilmen John Mansperger and James Potts; Robert Osborne, who has developed housing subdivisions in San Jacinto and elsewhere in Riverside County; Byron Ellison Sr., a property manager who does work for Holgate and a former Chamber of Commerce executive; and Scott Shaull, the pastor of a Roseville church for which Holgate serves on the board of directors. Everyone involved has either pleaded not guilty or deferred entering a plea. The San Marcos City Council has adopted the University District Specific Plan, which calls for extensive residential, office and mixed-use development on 194 acres. Adoption of the document completes a planning process begun in 2006 that was intended to create a walkable downtown in the San Diego County suburb (see CP&DR Places , September 2007 ). The plan provides for 2,600 multi-family residential units, 800 to 1,000 units of student housing, 450 to 600 hotel rooms, about 900,000 square feet of offices and medical facilities, and 40 acres of parks and open space. In addition, 1 million square feet of mixed-use retail and commercial development would be permitted along the two-mile-long main street corridor, and in an urban lifestyle center and smaller neighborhood-serving locations. Yolo County completed one of the more ambitious general plan updates in recent years when the Board of Supervisors unanimously voted for a new plan and an accompanying environmental impact report in early November. More than six years in the making, the plan maintains Yolo County's longtime priority of preserving agriculture and directing growth to cities and a few unincorporated communities. However, the new plan departs from the previous version by designating Dunnigan, a rural community of about 1,000 people 40 miles northwest of Sacramento, as a major growth area. The plan envisions a largely self-contained town of more than 9,000 housing units with extensive retail and office development on approximately 3,000 acres along Interstate 5 (see CP&DR Local Watch , September 2008 ). To ensure Dunnigan does not become only a bedroom for Sacramento commuters, the plan contains objectives and triggers intended to ensure new housing coincides with local job growth. Officials have insisted throughout the general plan process that the county needs revenue that development in unincorporated areas could provide. The updated plan, the county's first since 1983, also addresses climate change at length and calls for a new greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan to be incorporated into all county activities. The general plan and EIR are available at http://www.yolocounty.org/index.aspx?page=1514 . Only about one-quarter of property owners eligible for refunds from the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority submitted claim forms. Last year, the state Supreme Court struck down the authority's annual $20 assessment on about 320,000 properties, ruling the levy was tax that should have been submitted to voters ( Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority , (2008) 44 Cal.4th 431; see CP&DR Legal Digest , August 2008 ) The authority collected about $51 million from the assessment but never spent the money because of the litigation. Following the Supreme Court ruling, the authority asked property owners if they wanted a refund. Environmental organizations urged property owners to let the authority keep the money. After refunds, legal costs and administrative expenses are paid, the authority expects to still have about $30 million from the illegal tax to fund park improvements and land purchases.