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

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

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

Voters in Monterey County may be closer to deciding two land use ballot measures after a 15-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in an unrelated case that recall petitions need not be circulated in multiple languages. Last year, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that petitions in a Santa Ana Unified School District recall were invalid because they had been circulated only in English. In March, a federal district court judge, relying on the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, declared invalid an initiative to overhaul the Monterey County general plan because initiative backers printed petitions only in English. After the general plan ruling, the county Board of Supervisors pulled off the ballot a referendum of a proposed 1,100-unt housing project for the same reason (see , May 2006). Under the Voting Rights Act, the government must publish election materials in other languages if more than 5% of voters speak a language other than English. However, the panel that reheard the Santa Ana school district case voted 14-1 that the multi-lingual requirement does not apply to citizen petitions. Requiring translation of citizen petitions “is very likely to have a chilling effect on the petition process itself,” Judge William Canby wrote for the court. “A requirement of translation for recall petitions is far more likely to be used as a sword than as a shield.” Exactly what will happen with the Monterey County land use measures is unclear. Proponents said they would push for a special election because it is too late to get the initiative and the referendum on the November ballot. But county officials said they were still studying the situation and noted that a U.S. Supreme Court review of the Ninth Circuit decision is possible. Additionally, litigation over the two ballot measures is pending in federal court. The Ninth Circuit case is , No. 03-56259, 06 C.D.O.S. 8808, and was filed on September 19. While growth control votes in Monterey County remained in question, the county and the City of Salinas reached a settlement in the city’s lawsuit over county plans for the 2,500-acre Rancho San Juan. The county has been planning for growth on the ranch just north of Salinas for some time, but the city sued over a specific plan, which includes the 1,100-unit Butterfly Village project for which a referendum is pending (see above.) The city agreed to drop its California Environmental Quality Act lawsuit when the City Council and Board of Supervisors approved an 18-point “Greater Salinas Area Memorandum of Understanding.” The document permits the city to annex about 3,000 acres north of town, designates land to the north and east of the city for development while preserving farmland to the west and south, requires imposition of a countywide traffic impact fee, and calls for county-city cooperation on issues such as affordable housing and infrastructure improvements. Salinas officials said the city needs room to grow because of severe overcrowding and a lack of affordable housing. Rancho San Juan growth opponents immediately seized on the settlement and closed-door negotiations behind it, and the opponents hinted they may file a suit insisting that the settlement should be subject to environmental review. A referendum contesting adoption of a redevelopment plan for the Bayview Hunters Point district in San Francisco has been blocked by City Attorney Dennis Herrera. He declared the referendum petitions were invalid because they did not contain the entire redevelopment plan. The city adopted the plan, which emphasizes development of 3,700 new housing units in the 1,300-acre project area, earlier this year (see , September 2006). Fearing gentrification, opponents gathered enough signatures on a referendum petition to force an election. But Herrera determined on September 19 that the petitions were invalid without the plan itself. Opponents said they would likely sue over Herrera’s decision. A controversial proposal by Santa Clara County to build a 7,000-seat concert hall at the county fairgrounds in San Jose is apparently dead after the Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 not to pursue the project. The decision came shortly after county analysts revealed that rising construction costs would require at least a $15 million county subsidy. The county began pursuing a concert hall at the aging fairgrounds in 1998, shortly before the City of San Jose and downtown advocates began talking about building a similar hall in downtown. Eventually, the county decided on a plan in which it would issue about $80 million in bonds to pay for the fairgrounds facility and hire the House of Blues to run it. The city sued and lost one round in court before paying to settle the lawsuit (see , May 2006; , December 2004). Backers of the county project said it could generate tens of millions of dollars for the county over the next three decades. But when it came time to move forward, three supervisors said the project was too risky, especially when the county already has a $200 million budget shortfall. The county’s decision may give new life to the proposed downtown concert hall, which has languished. Yolo County has dropped its eminent domain action to acquire 17,300 acres of farmland and open space in a triangle between the cities of Woodland, West Sacramento and Davis. Instead, the county reached an agreement with the property owners that limits development and water sales. The county commenced eminent domain proceedings on the Conaway Ranch more than two years ago because of concerns about the loss of farmland, endangered species habitat and water (see , August 2004). After eminent domain proceedings began, a collection of Sacramento area developers acquired the ranch, which has 50,000 acre-feet of water rights. Under the settlement, the owners may sell up to 1,500 acres of land in small parcels. For sales of parcels larger than 250 acres, the county will have the right of first refusal. All land remains subject to the county general plan, which currently permits virtually no development. The agreement calls for water to be used first to satisfy farming, habitat and recreation needs on Conaway Ranch. Surplus water could be sold but the county would have the first right to negotiate a water purchase and would receive a cut of proceeds if another entity buys the water. Property owners said they may use the land as a mitigation bank and sell conservation easements. On-the-ground restoration of San Dieguito Lagoon in Del Mar began in September after 15 years of planning, permitting processes and litigation. The restoration plan by the San Dieguito River Park Joint Powers Authority calls for creation of a 115-acre saltwater marsh, construction and rehabilitation of nesting sites for endangered birds, and permanently reopening the mouth of the river (see , September 2003). Construction is expected to take two years. Southern California Edison is paying for the project as mitigation for ongoing operation of the San Onofre nuclear power plant about 30 miles to the north.

Post-redevelopment plans for downtown San Diego The San Diego Foundation is teaming up with the Downtown San Diego Partnership business group to frame a  new vision for San Diego's downtown. With the end of redevelopment agencies in the state, San Diego can no longer depend on the $125 million dollars a year to subsidize these types of projects.  SF redesigns Castro Street to better accommodate pedestrians  San Francisco's famous Castro Street is undergoing a design makeover to transform the street into a better environment for pedestrians. Castro Street, with its narrow sidewalks and busy intersections, is not suitable for the heavy foot traffic that dominates the area. The Castro Street Design Plan builds upon previous efforts to improve the street's conditions for pedestrians and enhance the street's capacity to serve as a local hot spot and tourist destination.  Realigning High Speed Rail may compromise SF freeway San Francisco officials explore alternative High Speed Rail alignments, including the removal of the I-280 viaduct. The proposal could benefit both the city and Caltrain, though details for how this proposal would align with Caltrain's electrification plans still need to be worked out. Stakeholders agree: Modernize CEQA ... After 40 years, stakeholders agree that the time has come to modernize CEQA. Governor Jerry Brown and other political coalitions have made strong commitments to CEQA modernization in the upcoming year.  ... But Enviros Aren't On Board Bruce Reznick and David Mogavero of Planning & Conservation League say that the call for CEQA reform is much ado about nothing. LA publishes DEIR for 5-year bike plan and the "My Figueroa Project"  The Draft EIR encompasses 39.5 miles of bicycle lane projects that require the removal of street lanes and promises streetscape improvements and better accessibility for bicyclists. The city is using Governor Brown's new law (A.B. 2245) that allows certain bicycle projects to be exempt from the CEQA process to opt-out of the EIR certification process.   Metro unveils study on how to close the 710 Freeway gap The final five recommendations on how to close Los Angeles's 710 Freeway gap were released by Metro last Friday. Options include: do nothing, traffic management systems, light rail, bus route and freeway tunnel.  Metro will host open houses starting this week to discuss its findings.

A “preliminary master plan” for the Orange County Great Park has been approved by the park board. The plan for 1,655 acres of the former El Toro Marine Corps base divides the park into a series of “activity levels,” ranging from nature areas with wildlife viewing to a large sports park. There would be a “lifelong learning district,” a botanic garden, a conservatory that spans a manmade canyon, air and military museums, 50 miles of trails and an orange hot-air balloon rising 500 feet to serve as an icon. During a presentation to the Irvine City Council, park designer Ken Smith called the release of the preliminary plan “momentous,” but he emphasized that the plan is a work in progress. Councilwoman Christine Shea, who helped lead the fight against a proposed airport at El Toro, said it was “amazing” to see the park vision come to light “after so many years of struggle.” While the early park plans have earned high praise, some Irvine residents are urging caution. After Smith made his presentation to the City Council, one resident said he was concerned to see the estimate of park attendance rise from 1.2 million to 5 million visitors per year. The Great Park board is scheduled to adopt a comprehensive master plan in early 2007, with construction to follow. The preliminary master plan is available at www.ocgp.org All 23 Enterprise Zones scheduled to expire this year have been given an additional 15 years by Gov. Schwarzenegger. New or existing businesses in Enterprise Zones are eligible for tax credits for hiring certain employees or purchasing equipment, and may take advantage of other financial incentives. Analysts have given Enterprise Zones mixed reviews during recent years, with some questioning the benefits of a program that costs the state tens of millions of dollars annually (see , June 2006; , February 2002). But Schwarzenegger cited a report released in August by the Department of Housing and Community Development that asserted poverty and unemployment rates declined faster in Enterprise Zones than statewide from 1990 to 2000, and that income increased faster than the state average. The extended Enterprise Zones are: City of Arvin, Delano, Fresno-City, Fresno-County, Merced, North Sacramento, Yuba Sutter, Calexico, City of San Bernardino, Coachella, City of Los Angeles-Central/Hollywood, Compton, Santa Clarita, Long Beach, Pasadena, City of Southgate/Lynwood, San Diego, Richmond, San Francisco, San Jose, Shasta, Eureka and Oroville. for a Highway 50 freeway interchange in El Dorado County that would serve a controversial Indian casino has been upheld. Last year, the Third District Court of Appeal rejected an EIR for the Shingle Springs interchange because of the analysis of air quality issues (see , January 2006). However, a revised version survived the scrutiny of Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly, who in November ruled against the citizens group Voices for Rural Living. The group promised to appeal the ruling, but it is the second major blow to the group’s efforts to halt the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians from building a casino resort. In September, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors agreed to drop its litigation over the project in exchange for the tribe’s payment of up to $190 million over 20 years for law enforcement, and transportation and other projects. An environmental impact report offering 10 alternatives for the future of the Salton Sea has been released by the state Department of Water Resources (DWR). The alternatives range from doing nothing to making a smaller lake to devising a series of lakes and brine ponds, with costs ranging from about $1 billion to $6 billion over 75 years. State officials have yet to embrace an alternative, and neither environmentalists nor local farmers appear thrilled with any of the ideas. But nearly everyone says the state needs to chose a course of action quickly because the 360-mile lake will lose about half of its water flow starting in 2017 due to water diversions from Imperial County farms to the San Diego region. An important resource for migratory birds, the lake is experiencing rising salinity, fish die-offs and other ecological problems. With less runoff from farms, the Salton Sea could become a hazard to animals and humans. The Salton Sea Authority, a local joint powers authority, called the state’s EIR “obsolete.” The authority supports a plan to create a separate “salt sink” next to a much smaller lake with better water quality. The Resources Agency anticipates recommending a preferred alternative to the Legislature in the spring. The EIR is available on a DWR website: www.saltonsea.water.ca.gov . The state budget situation is not as big a problem for local governments as it was two years ago, according to a recent survey of city officials. In the survey by the Public Policy Institute of California, the League of California Cities and the National League of Cities, 66% of respondents said the state budget is a “big problem” for cities. That percentage was down from 76% in 2005 and 90% in 2004. In addition, the percentage of city officials who said California’s system of public finance needs “major changes” dropped from 76% in 2005 to 45% in 2006. Not surprisingly, city officials also said their local budgets are in better shape this year than during the recent past. The complete survey regarding local government finance and infrastructure is available at www.ppic.org

Although many land use bills failed to avoid Arnold Schwarzenegger’s veto pen, the governor did sign some pieces of land use legislation this fall. One approved bill, SB 1535 (Kuehl), increased the filing fees for environmental documents to be reviewed by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG). The bill bumps up the cost of filing an EIR from $800 to $2,500, and boosts the negative declaration fee from $1,250 to $1,800. According to environmental groups that supported the bill, DFG reviews only about 10% of the environmental documents it receives because of funding and staff shortages. The DFG fees for reviewing environmental documents prepared by other agencies are unique in state government; no other agency has such a fee. Developers have chafed at the fees and local governments have complained about having to collect the money, but courts have upheld the fees (see , May 2000). The fees had gone unchanged for years. The additional revenue should enable DFG to review all environmental documents it receives, according to bill supporters. While the DFG fee bill affects the entire state, another bill signed by the governor, AB 1457 (Baca), impacts only one dark corner of San Bernardino. The legislation is a creative attempt to revitalize a troublesome park, decrease criminal activity and provide new housing. The legislation permits the City of San Bernardino to give 14 acres of the 43-acre Seccombe Lake Park to the city’s redevelopment agency, which must come up with replacement parkland nearby. The redevelopment agency wants to sell the property for private development of up to 80 houses and town homes in a new, gated community. The city acquired the downtown parkland through purchase and eminent domain after World War II and deeded it to the state about 25 years ago for development of a regional park. That plan died, though, and the state returned the park to the city. For years, the park has been the site of homeless encampments and criminal behavior — and not much baseball or recreational fishing. Earlier this year, though, the city began removing walls and overgrown vegetation to open up sight lines. City officials hope the cleanup and planned housing project will entice more people to recreate in the park. A bill that would give property owners with land use disputes direct access to federal court has passed the House of Representatives and could be taken up by the Senate this month. The proposed Private Property Rights Implementation Act, HR 4772 by Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), would permit property owners to bypass state courts and take claims over local land use regulation directly to federal court. As it now stands, federal courts generally require property owners to go to state court first with claims that regulation has deprived them of property rights or civil rights. However, at least in the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, federal courts have been reluctant to consider claims that have been decided in state court. Thus, it is difficult for property owners to get heard in federal court, which many people believe would be a more favorable venue for property owners than state court. Although passage of HR 4772 is a long shot during the lame-duck congressional session, local governments are worried. The bill would undermine local zoning authority and “create greater federal intrusion into local land use decisions,” according to the National League of Cities. In one of the more lopsided land use elections in state history, Glendora voters rejected an elaborate rezoning initiative that would have permitted development of 338 houses on the site of a private country club and construction of a new golf course in the rugged hills above town. The developer-written “Glendora Hillside Protection Ordinance” received only 9.4% of the 12,455 ballots cast during the special election on October 3. Developer NJD, Ltd., for years has been attempting to build houses on about 400 acres in the hills of Glendora and the neighboring city of San Dimas. But those efforts have gone nowhere at City Hall and in court. So the developer went directly to voters. Under the initiative, NJD would have essentially swapped its 400 acres in the hills for the 107 acres owned by the Glendora Country Club. The developer would build the country club a new golf course and other facilities in the hills. The developer would also build 338 houses on the relatively flat land now occupied by the 50-year-old country club. The initiative proposed amending the city’s general plan, and city zoning and grading ordinances to permit the new golf course and homes — although part of the golf course would have been built in San Dimas, which has not consented to the project. Country club members agreed to the land swap earlier this year. NJD spent more than $1 million on the campaign and went as far as offering people grocery and gasoline gift cards if they agreed to fill out absentee ballots. After the overwhelming defeat, NJD representatives said they would again try to receive city approval for building up to 53 houses in the hills. El Dorado County officials have reached an agreement with the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians regarding a long-discussed casino just off Highway 50, a few miles west of Placerville. The agreement calls for the tribe to pay $104 million over 20 years for construction of carpool lanes on Highway 50, at least $78 million over 20 years to mitigate impacts on the community and $500,000 annually for local law enforcement, and for the tribe to offer hiring preferences for construction and casino jobs to El Dorado County residents. The tribe has talked about building a 200,000-square-foot casino and 250-room hotel since 1998, but the county and landowners in the rural residential neighborhood next to the tribe’s 160-acre reservation have fought the project. Late last year, the Third District Court of Appeal threw out the environmental impact report for a freeway interchange that would serve the casino (see , January 2006). The citizens group involved in that litigation, Voices for Rural Living, filed a new lawsuit in September over the proposed interchange, which is vital for the casino. A Superior Court judge has thrown out an environmentalists’ lawsuit that contends the continued operation of windmills in the Altamont Pass area violates the state’s unfair competition law and the public trust doctrine. The Center for Biological Diversity argued that the windmills — located along Interstate 580 between Livermore and Tracy — are illegal because they destroy wildlife, which is a public trust. However, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Bonnie Sabraw ruled that harm to wildlife does not equate to the destruction of property under the unfair competition law. Environmentalists filed the creative lawsuit after failing to convince Alameda County and power companies to close down older windmills that state officials blame for killing about 1,000 raptors annually, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks and burrowing owls (see , August 2005). Environmentalists say operation of the windmills violates federal and state wildlife protection laws. An appeal of Judge Sabraw’s ruling is possible, according to Jeff Miller, of the Center for Biological Diversity. Under a county-approved plan, power companies have closed some old power turbines and are supposed to replace the rest over 13 years with fewer, larger models that are expected to be safer for birds. The case is , Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG04183113.

Endangered species issues became more complicated in the Coachella Valley in late June when the City of Desert Hot Springs declined to participate in a multiple species habitat conservation plan. The city’s decision appeared to force the plan’s author, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, to revise the plan without including Desert Hot Springs, refigure impact fees and — most importantly — revise and recirculate the environmental impact report. All of that could take at least a year, said Jim Sullivan, the association’s director of environmental resources. In the meantime, the region could be without an “incidental take” permit that allows development on habitat for the endangered fringe-toed lizard, which includes much of the valley. The permit was scheduled to expire July 1 and be replaced with a new permit stemming from the habitat conservation plan. Without the incidental take permit for the lizard, “you go from paying a $600 per acre fee to doing a full EIR,” Sullivan said. “It’s very much up in the air.” The species plan has been in the works for more than 10 years. It is intended to provide for conservation of 27 animal and plant species on 1.1 million acres in the Coachella Valley and surrounding mountains (see , April 2006). The plan designates about 750,000 acres for conservation while allowing development to go forward elsewhere. Eight cities in the valley and other public agencies have agreed to participate in the plan. However, the Desert Hot Springs City Council voted 3-2 to opt out, citing concerns about the plan’s impact on private property rights and desired growth in the city. The City of San Diego’s inclusionary housing ordinance has been declared unconstitutional by a trial court judge. San Diego County Superior Court Judge John Meyer ruled that the ordinance resulted in a taking because the law did not allow exceptions for builders who could prove their projects were unrelated to San Diego’s affordable housing shortage. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the San Diego County Building Industry Association, which has fought the ordinance since the city adopted it in 2003. The measure requires builders to designate 10% of new units for low- and moderate-income residents or pay an in-lieu fee. The ruling threw into question the fate of more than $9 million of in-lieu fees the city has collected. More than 100 jurisdictions around the state have inclusionary housing requirements. Meyer distinguished San Diego’s ordinance from a City of Napa inclusionary ordinance that the First District Court of Appeal upheld in , 90 Cal.App.4th 188 (see , July 2001). The Napa ordinance has an exemption for builders who prove their projects have no connection to the city’s affordable housing shortage, while San Diego’s exemption focuses on financial hardship. After the ruling, the city hired outside counsel — Charles Christensen of Christensen, Schwerdtfeger & Spath — and asked Judge Meyer to reconsider his decision to throw out the entire ordinance. In what might be a major victory for environmental activists, the Pebble Beach Company has withdrawn a controversial plan to build luxury and worker housing, a golf course, an equestrian center and additional hotel rooms in the Del Monte Forest. The company backed away from its plan in June, only one day before the Coastal Commission was scheduled to consider the project. County voters cleared the way for the project six years ago when they approved an initiative amending the Del Monte Forest plan. The Monterey County Board of Supervisors approved the development project in early 2005 (see , July 2005). Environmentalists have bitterly fought the project because of its impact on the Monterey pine forest and coastal habitat. Coastal Commission staff members recommended the panel reject the project. Upon pulling the plan, representatives of Pebble Beach Company (which is owned by Clint Eastwood, Arnold Palmer, Peter Ueberroth and other investors) complained that the Coastal Commission could not provide a fair hearing. The company said it would revise its plans. Plans for a complex of high-rise condominiums in Santa Monica also went by the wayside in June. Macerich Company revealed that overwhelming public opposition had caused the company to scrap its plans to replace the Santa Monica Place shopping mall with high-rise development (see , April 2005; , February 2005). Macerich said it would start over on planning for the site.

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

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

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

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