Search Results

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.

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

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

The City of Los Angeles will require economic impact studies for proposed Wal-Mart supercenters and certain other big box stores. The studies are intended to determine the effect of a new big box store on a neighborhood’s existing jobs, wages and businesses. The Los Angeles City Council’s approval of the new requirement came only two weeks before the Legislature approved a similar measure that would apply statewide. However, the fate of that measure, SB 1056 (Alarcon), appears uncertain in the governor’s hands. In August, the Los Angeles City Council adopted the economic impact study requirement for proposed stores of more than 100,000 square feet that would devote at least 10% of floor space to non-taxable items. The ordinance applies only in designated “economic assistance areas,” which cover roughly half of the city. Membership stores, such as Costco and Sam’s Club (which is owned by Wal-Mart) are exempt. Backers said the new requirement is necessary to ensure that a new big box does not force nearby stores to slash wages or close. The targets of the legislation are Wal-Mart supercenters, which have at least 200,000 square feet with a traditional Wal-Mart and a full grocery store. Wal-Mart has not yet proposed a supercenter for Los Angeles but has begun opening the gigantic stores elsewhere in the state. Labor union leaders and Wal-Mart opponents hope that the Los Angeles regulation becomes a model for other cities, especially if Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoes SB 1056. A second suburban Sacramento slow-growth ballot initiative has been blocked in court. In late August, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly ruled against Folsom Citizens for Sensible Growth, which backed an initiative to prohibit development of 3,600 acres south of Highway 50 without subsequent voter approval. The measure would have required the land, which lies inside Folsom’s sphere of influence but outside the city limits, to be used consistent with Sacramento County’s agricultural policies. But because the initiative petitions did not include copies of those policies, Connelly threw out the initiative, which had been scheduled for the November ballot. One month earlier, a Placer County judge knocked a slow-growth measure off the City of Roseville’s ballot. Five cities in Northern California have settled two separate lawsuits by agreeing to tax landowners and developers, with the money going for conservation easements. The City of Roseville settled a lawsuit over the 3,100-acre, 8,400-home West Roseville Specific Plan that had been filed by environmental groups and the Town of Loomis (see , March 2004; Local Watch, August 2003). The city agreed to a conveyance fee of 0.5 percent on all home resales in the specific plan area for 20 years. The fee could raise up to $85 million for the Placer Land Trust. Meanwhile the cities of Escalon, Lathrop, Manteca and Tracy, and the South San Joaquin Irrigation District settled a lawsuit filed by environmentalists and anglers over the South County Water Project, which could provide up to 44,000 acre-feet of water to the cities. The settlement requires Lathrop, Manteca and Tracy to collect fees of $2,000 per acre when prime farmland is converted to urban use. The fee could generate up to $21 million over 30 years for conservation and agricultural easements. The Lake Elsinore City Council has approved a controversial 1,500-home, 700-acre subdivision despite Riverside County’s request for a delay and threat of litigation. The project site lies in a floodplain and atop a major earthquake fault (see , June 2004). During final hearings on the project in August, county representatives raised questions about potential flooding, storm runoff, the settling of building pads and traffic congestion. County officials charged that the city did not respond to the county’s concerns, nor did the city give the county adequate time to review an environmental impact report. The County Board of Supervisors discussed suing the city during a closed session hours before the Lake Elsinore City Council voted 4-1 and 3-2 to approve the project. City officials said they tried to satisfy the county’s concerns. who had supported an historic agreement regarding a proposed Indian casino have survived a recall vote. Only about 44% of voters in the Sonoma County town voted to recall Council Members Armando Flores and Amie Spradlin during an August special election. They were targeted by opponents of a plan from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria to build a large casino, hotel and auditorium on the edge of town. Last year, the City Council approved an agreement in which the tribe would pay the city, school districts and community groups $200 million over 20 years to offset the development’s impacts (see , November 2003). Two other council members who backed the agreement are up for re-election in November. The City of Desert Hot Springs has emerged from Chapter 9 bankruptcy that was induced in part by the loss of a Fair Housing Act lawsuit. A federal judge approved the city’s plan to pay its creditors in full, including more than $8 million owed to Silver Sage Partners and their attorneys. Three years ago, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the city had illegally blocked development of Silver Sage Partners’ low-income mobile home park, and the court upheld a jury’s award to the developers (see , January 2002; , July 2001). Interest on the award, which was made more than 10 years ago, and attorneys fees have greatly increased the amount owed. The city of 17,000 people roughly 10 miles north of Palm Springs plans to issue bonds to retire most of the debt. In hopes of generating more revenue, the city has recently rezoned large tracks for spas and other tourist-oriented development. An engineering study that could show how to build both the transbay terminal in downtown San Francisco and an adjacent high-rise condominium project is due this month. Construction just got started on the residential tower in May when the city shut down the project. The foundation for the 51-story tower would prohibit construction of underground rail lines to the long-planned terminal (see , August 2004). The engineering study authorized by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is supposed to consider the feasibility of pouring a gigantic concrete foundation, rather than pilings or a buttress wall to support the tower. Rail tunnels, which are years away, could later be drilled through the concrete, according to the proposal that engineers are studying. The Coastal Commission has approved a development permit for a wastewater treatment plant in the unincorporated San Luis Obispo County community of Los Osos. The permit might be the most significant step in the 30-year saga over the proposed sewer plant, which would replace about 6,000 septic tanks in the coastal community. A state-imposed building moratorium has been in place since the late 1980s because of the degradation of groundwater and the Morro Bay estuary. Project opponents contended the downtown site was wrong and that the $90 million project might not be necessary at all. They are expected to file a lawsuit, which could delay construction past the planned spring 2005 start date. The San Diego Association of Governments board has unanimously approved a regional comprehensive plan that uses transportation investment decisions to encourage high-density, infill and transit-oriented development (see , April 2004). In a mail ballot election, Contra Costa County property owners rejected an annual tax of $25 per house to preserve open space and fund other environmental programs. The weighted vote against the countywide benefit assessment district was 54% to 46%.

In what might be the first land use corruption case to bring down a California sheriff, San Joaquin County Sheriff T. Baxter Dunn pleaded guilt in January to one count of mail fraud and resigned from office. He faces up to18 months in prison. Also pleading guilty in the federal corruption case were former county Supervisor Lynn Bedford for lying to the FBI, and former Office of Criminal Justice Planning Director N. Allen Sawyer for misusing a state office for personal gain. The scandal involved a proposal to build a power plant at the Port of Stockton. Dunn, Sawyer and San Joaquin County political operative Monte McFall in 2001 allegedly tried to shake down two companies interested in developing the power plant. Calpine Corp. refused to deal with the men, but Sunlaw Energy Corp. agreed to pay them a commission of at least $2 million if Sunlaw got to build the power plant. Dunn lobbied a Port of Stockton commissioner on Sunlaw's behalf and urged the Board of Supervisors to oppose a Calpine Project in Alameda County, all without revealing his financial stake. He also tapped into a police database to gather information on a Port of Stockton employee. While on the Board of Supervisors, Bedford conducted a meeting at his home in which he and McFall pressured a Calpine representative not to pursue the port power plant. During meetings with Sunlaw, Sawyer implied that he was representing the governor's office. Appearing before federal District Court Judge Morris England Jr., Dunn said, “I am profoundly sorry for my conduct.” In a memorandum to employees, the 14-year sheriff accepted responsibility for his conduct but he wrote that he was involved in nothing more than a “harmless, legal business venture.” Dunn, Bedford and Sawyer are scheduled to be sentenced in March. McFall and J. Tyler Reeves, a former aide to Bedford, were scheduled to stand for a trial beginning at the end of January, a trial in which Dunn, Bedford and Sawyer have agreed to cooperate with prosecutors. THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE (LAO) has recommended that state lawmakers pass a number of measures to beef up mitigation of coastal development, measures that could raise the cost of development. The LAO's findings were based on its investigation of the Coastal Commission's mitigation techniques. The commission has relied heavily on “offers to dedicate” (OTDs) as a way of providing physical or visual access to the ocean, and to protect natural resources. Frequently, the commission has required OTDs, which are often easements, rather than up-front mitigation as a condition of coastal development permits. However, OTDs require a third party (a different government agency or a nonprofit organization) to accept them, build any improvements and provide maintenance. The LAO found that of the 2,700 OTDs the commission has required since 1977, 40% have never been accepted, and the commission does not even know the status of another 233. Moreover, about 80 OTDs are scheduled to expire every year through 2008. In its mid-January report, the LAO recommended that the Legislature: o Direct the commission to report by January 1, 2006, on the status, location and expiration date of all outstanding OTDs. o Require the commission, in conjunction with the State Lands Commission and the State Coastal Conservancy, to develop a detailed plan for accepting, developing and opening all outstanding OTDs. o Require that the Coastal Conservancy accept responsibility for public accessways that are required in the future, at least until a third party is found to take permanent responsibility. o Demand the payment up front of an impact fee to cover the future capital costs related to an OTD. o Raise coastal development permit fees and dedicate the money to the maintenance and operation of easements. The LAO also urged the Commission, whenever possible, to demand up front mitigation. The LAO pointed to the San Francisco Bay Development Commission, which does not use OTDs as a mitigation tool. The Coastal Commission appeared to welcome report, and state Sen. John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) appeared ready to carry at least some of the recommended legislation. The LAO report, “Improving Coastal Access and Development Mitigation,” is available at www.lao.ca.gov . NOT OFTEN DOES A GENERAL PLAN PROCESS receive the scrutiny of a grand jury, but the Monterey County grand jury had few good things to say about the county's general plan update in a report released in January. The grand jury found, “The Board of Supervisors employed a laid back, wait and see attitude in the development of the general plan. It failed to provide guidance and direction up front which may have saved time and funds. The Board of Supervisors and the CAO have allowed special interest groups to have undue influence.” The grand jury also reported, “The land use and planning objectives of and for the county are outdated, confusing and frequently changing, according to the supervisors and administration.” Supervisors and the CAO must respond formally by April. After spending nearly five years and $5 million on a general plan update, the county last year scrapped much of a draft general plan and installed a new general plan team (see , July 2004). The grand jury's report is available at www.monterey.courts.ca.gov/grand_jury.html . ORANGE COUNTY HAS PARTIALLY FENDED OFF one developer's challenge of how the county spent excess building fees. During the 1990s, the county built up an $18.5 million surplus of building permit fees. Developer Barratt American sued over the surplus, forcing a fee reduction. The county used the excess revenue to subsidize operations while fees were reduced. The county also refunded $1 million in fees and bought a $5.5 million computer system. When building activity slowed, however, the county Planning and Development Services Department started to run a deficit that by late 2002 had reached $500,000 a month. The county ended up spending $8 million in general fund money on the department, reorganizing the agency and switching to a time-and-materials fee system. Planning and Development Services Director Tom Mathews retired, more than 30 department employees lost their jobs, and eventually county supervisors fired County Executive Officer Michael Schumacher. Barratt American's latest lawsuit was over the spending of the $18.5 million. Orange County Superior Court Judge Robert Jameson ruled that the county had properly expended $14 million, but he said the county did not provide documentation regarding $4.5 million - a conclusion that county officials dispute. Nevertheless, Jameson ordered the county to reduce fees by $4.5 million. THE CITY OF TURLOCK HAS WON a lawsuit filed by Wal-Mart over a city ordinance that bans stores of more than 100,000 square feet that devote at least 5% of floor space to non-taxable items. Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Roger Beauchesne ruled that the ordinance was not anti-competitive and instead was a response to legitimate concerns regarding blight, traffic congestion and air pollution. The judge also agreed with the city that the ordinance was exempt from environmental review. Turlock adopted the ordinance in 2003 because city officials feared that a Wal-Mart supercenter would force existing grocery stores to close, which would lead to vacant and run-down shopping centers (see , January 2004). The case is , San Joaquin County Superior Court Case No. 345253. FARMERS WITHIN THE PAJARO VALLEY Water Management Agency as well as agency Board Member John Eiskamp have sued the agency over water rate increases to pay for a $200 million water pipeline. The pipeline project, which is under construction, would bringing freshwater to the coastal portion of the agency's territory, where the water would help offset an overdraft of groundwater that has permitted saltwater to intrude into the aquifer (see , June 2004). However, the agency has spread the cost of the project among all agency customers, including inland landowners not affected by the saltwater problem. Rates have more than doubled to $160 per acre-foot, a very high price for agricultural water. The lawsuit contends that the district should have conducted an election on the rate increase.

A dispute over water rights is threatening to shut down development around Lake Arrowhead in San Bernardino County. In August, the state Water Resources Control Board ruled that the Lake Arrowhead Community Services District does not have the right take water from the lake, which has been the district’s primary source since 1978. The water board also fined the district $182,000 and has ordered the district to submit a plan for replacement water sources by October. The district has appealed the decision, but, in the meantime, has stopped selling new water meters. Two years ago, local resident Ted Heyck filed a complaint with the state board, contending that the water district never applied to the state for the right to take water from the reservoir. Heyck has since been elected to the community service district’s board. He says the district should pursue other water sources. Other district officials say they have been doing just that during the last two years — drilling new wells, reviewing water recycling options and signing 15-year contracts with two nearby districts that have access to the State Water Project. Still, the 8,000-customer Lake Arrowhead district argues it owns water rights established prior to 1914, when the state first began regulating water use. The district says a previous utility transferred the rights to the district. The state board, however, determined that those rights are only for recreational use of the reservoir, and not for residential consumption. In a stunning turn, a U.S. District Court judge has ordered two lawyers who filed a racketeering lawsuit against environmentalists and federal employees to pay $267,000 in sanctions. The order from District Court Judge Manuel Real came in a case that has been remarkable from its outset. In November 2004, developer Irving Okovita filed a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) lawsuit against three U.S. Forest Service employees and the leader of an environmental group. Okovita wants to develop a 12.5-acre project with 133 condominiums and 175 boat slips in the unincorporated town of Fawnskin, on the north shore of Big Bear Lake. He received San Bernardino County approval for the project, but a federal judge in May 2004 halted construction because of potential harm to bald eagles, an endangered species. Okovita’s lawsuit claimed that Sandy Steers, who heads Friends of Fawnskin, Scott and Robin Eliason, a couple who are USFS biologists and members of Friends of Fawnskin, and USFS Supervisor Gene Zimmerman conspired to halt the real estate development. The lawsuit accused the federal employees of abusing their office for personal gain and to lower the value of Okovita’s property so the Forest Service could purchase it. The lawsuit claimed all four overstated the value of the 12.5 acres as eagle habitat. A number of entities intervened on behalf of the defendants, including the state attorney general’s office, which called Okovita’s lawsuit a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). The federal Department of Justice got the federal government substituted as the lead defendant. Early this year, Judge Real threw out the lawsuit. In August, Real ordered attorneys Wayne Rosenbaum and Susanne Washington of Foley & Lardner — not Okovita — to pay $267,000 in sanctions for filing a frivolous racketeering lawsuit. Because winning attorneys had sought only $175,000, many people believe Real was trying to make a point about meritless lawsuits. Foley & Lardner has vowed to appeal. The case is , EDCV04-1387. Thousands of City of San Jose employees began moving into the new, Richard Meier-designed city hall during August. Similar to many major civic center projects, the San Jose city hall project had to overcome litigation and political opposition. The San Jose project took two years longer than expected to complete, and its final $382 million cost was approximately 80% more than originally estimated. Nevertheless, the 18-story glass and anodized aluminum structure has drawn mostly positive reviews. Maybe the most remarkable part of the 550,000-square-foot facility is a 10-story-tall, freestanding glass dome in the public plaza. The new city hall on East Santa Clara Street also brings the municipal government back to downtown from a more suburban site on North First Street and from a variety of leased spaces spread around town (see , June 1999). The validity of a subdivision map recorded in 1907 has been upheld by a Monterey County Superior Court judge. The decision appears to permit development of a 73-lot housing subdivision on 16 acres of farmland in the unincorporated town of Spreckels. In January 1907, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors approved the “Official Map of Spreckels,” which shows the disputed subdivision. Judge Kay Kingsley ruled that because the map was recorded in compliance with the version of the Subdivision Map Act in effect at the time, the map was valid. Spreckels was originally a company town built for workers at the Spreckels Sugar Company, which closed in 1982. Located about four miles south of Salinas, the 185-home town is a designated historic district and was the location where the movie “East of Eden” was filmed. After county supervisors last year voted to recognize the 73-acre subdivision, Spreckels residents and LandWatch Monterey County sued. They argued that because the county in 1907 had no discretion over the map, the document did not create legal parcels. The validity of antiquated maps has long been a question in California. Two years ago, the state Supreme Court ruled that maps created before 1893, when the first predecessor of the Subdivision Map Act was adopted, do not create valid subdivisions for today’s purposes ( , 29 Cal.4th 990; see , March 2003). The decision also appeared to call into question the validity of maps created between 1893 and 1929, the year when local governments received specific authority to decide on a subdivision map’s design and improvements. An appeal is likely in the Spreckels case. In the meantime, the property owner, the Tanimura family, intends to start grading the site. The California High-Speed Rail Authority has released the final program environmental impact report for the proposed 700-mile-long rail system. The document pegs the cost of building the entire system at “over $33 billion” in 2003 dollars. However, an alternative that involves building more highway lanes, and additional airport runways and gates, would cost more than $82 billion and have greater environmental impacts, according to the report. The EIR, which serves as an environmental impact statement for federal purposes, deferred some difficult issues — such as selecting route alignments between the San Joaquin Valley and the Bay Area, and between Burbank and Los Angeles Union Station. The study says the high-speed rail line could carry up to 68 million passengers by 2020. However, no money has ever been budgeted for construction, and a statewide bond is unlikely to appear on the ballot before 2008. The Authority and the Federal Railroad Administration are scheduled to certify the environmental study this fall. The next step in the project would be preparation of a study to determine the best route over the mountains separating the Central Valley from the Bay Area. Litigation over the 14,000-unit Rancho Mission Viejo housing project in southern Orange County has been settled. Environmental organizations agreed to drop their lawsuit in exchange for developer Rancho Mission Viejo’s concession to shrink development envelopes and permanently protect 17,000 acres of habitat and farmland. Nearly one year ago, the Orange County Board of Supervisors approved the Rancho Mission Viejo project (see , January 2005). The project called for 14,000 housing units, mostly single-family homes, and three large mixed-use centers that would provide thousands of jobs. The project was designed with development “pods” totaling about 8,000 acres spread across the 23,000-acre ranch. At the time, environmentalists complained about the spread-out nature of the development and the lack of protection for undeveloped areas. Conservation groups, including the Endangered Habitats League, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, sued over a number of project aspects. Under the agreement signed in August, the total amount of development will not change. Rather, it will be contained in a tighter area of about 6,000 acres. The remaining 17,000 acres will be protected as habitat or farmland. The developer, Rancho Mission Viejo, now must amend details of the plan approved in 2004. Meanwhile, federal and state wildlife officials are working on plans for a nature reserve.

The sale of 49 state-owned properties could bring the state between $1.6 billion and $4.4 billion, according to a report by the California Performance Review panel. However, some of the most valuable properties are very sensitive, and proposed private development could touch off fierce battles. The report divides the properties into two categories. The first is composed of 37 properties that have already been declared surplus but have not been sold, and “underutilized portions of facilities currently in use.” The second category of 12 properties lists the most valuable real estate. Those properties, the CPR suggests, could be put to better uses. The second category is the more intriguing. The properties listed are: o 850 acres of the Napa State Hospital currently leased to the City of Napa for parkland o Undeveloped portions of the Cal Expo state fairgrounds, including more than a mile of American River frontage o Fairgrounds in Del Mar, Costa Mesa, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Antioch and Napa o San Quentin Prison o Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and Sports Arena o The Cow Palace in Daly City o 455 properties in Pasadena, South Pasadena and El Sereno that the state acquired for the long-stalled extension of the Long Beach Freeway. Officials with the CPR stopped short of suggesting that any of these properties should be sold or developed, recommending only that state officials review how the properties are used and whether taxpayers are getting the most out of the real estate holdings. The CPR does make recommendations regarding management of real estate, including passage of a state law requiring binding arbitration to resolve disputes between the state and local governments regarding the surplus or reuse of state property. The report is available at www.cpr.ca.gov . IN A SERIES OF THREE AUDITS, Los Angeles City Controller Laura Chick has faulted the loan and real estate practices of the city's Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA). “My audits of the CRA revealed an agency lacking the most basic of written procedures governing the issuance and collection of loans, the award of subsidies or the transfer and use of land,” Chick said upon release of the final audit at the end of October. “It is imperative that we work together to improve the management and oversight of the agency.” Regarding development loan practices, Chick found that the CRA awarded loans without conducting in-depth underwriting evaluations, did not monitor loans properly and failed to require adequate collateral to secure loans. She also reported that the agency did not adequately monitor compliance with housing affordability covenants, inspect properties or collect its share when properties were sold or foreclosed. Regarding real estate transactions, Chick found that CRA did not “track the disposition of its real estate properties,” did not maintain land inventory records and failed to follow policies when disposing of real estate. Chick, a former city councilwoman, called on the “city's leadership” to conduct hearings regarding CRA oversight. Agency Executive Director Bud Ovrom and CRA Board of Commissioners Chairman Paul Hudson said the agency had cooperated with Chick's audits and would use the recommendations to improve operations. All three audits are available on the city controller's website at www.lacity.org/ctr . THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS has adopted new regulations that could limit development on 33 square miles in the Santa Monica Mountains. The regulations require builders to get a conditional use permit to grade more than 5,000 cubic yards of soil. Previously, a use permit was needed only for projects involving at least 100,000 cubic yards of grading. The new rules also require development to be located at least 50 vertical feet and 50 horizontal feet from ridgelines. The regulations adopted in November help implement the North Area Plan, which the county adopted four years ago to reduce subdivision activity in the mountains between Malibu and the San Fernando Valley. During public hearings, landowners and developers complained that the new regulations amounted to a “land grab.” But state and federal parks agencies, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and the cities of Agoura Hills and Calabasas supported the measures. A NEW REPORT PREPARED BY the Greater Los Angeles and Ventura County Chapter of the Building Industry Association and the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation warns of dire economic consequences if the pace of homebuilding does not increase during coming years. The study identified a new housing shortfall from 1990 to 2004 that totaled 282,000 units in Los Angeles County and 9,460 units in Ventura County. If population growth continues to outstrip supply, the study warns, businesses will move elsewhere because they cannot afford to pay employees adequately, companies will struggle to recruit new employees, young families will move elsewhere, attracting companies to the region will become increasingly difficult, families will “double up,” and more people will be forced to commute long distances from outlying areas with less-expensive housing. The report's recommendations for improving the situation were familiar. To overcome NIMBYism, for example, the study recommended addressing citizens' complaints “by creating, funding and implementing coordinated infrastructure and housing plans.” The report also urged an overhaul of the California Environmental Quality Act. The study is available at www.bialaventura.org . WHAT MIGHT BE ONE OF THE LAST large-scale housing developments in Orange County received approval in November when the Board of Supervisors approved a 14,000-unit development proposed by Rancho Mission Viejo. During a standing-room-only meeting, the Board of Supervisors approved an environmental impact report, a general plan amendment, zoning changes and a development agreement. The project encompasses 14,000 dwelling units and 5.2 million square feet of commercial development on 7,700 acres. About 15,100 acres will permanent open space, under the approved plan. The Sierra Club intends to challenge the county's decisions in court. The cities of Mission Viejo and San Clemente, which complained about potential traffic from the south county project, might join the litigation. THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION Commission reported that cities and the county have failed to collect a new regional transportation impact fee about one quarter of the time. In a report released in November, the Commission found that $180 million, of an expected $726 million in a five-year forecast, in Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) was apparently waived or uncollected for other reasons. Under the TUMF program, the county and all 14 cities in western Riverside County are supposed to collect $6,650 per house, and varying amounts for commercial and industrial development, for regional transportation improvements (see , March 2003). A sizeable portion of the uncollected amount apparently is due to development agreements that were signed prior to June 1, 2003, when the TUMF became effective. At least one city (Temecula) waived the regional traffic fee in exchange for a developer's agreement to build road and freeway ramp improvements. Nearly every multi-family housing development in the San Gorgonio Pass area was apparently exempted from the fee. Although the Transportation Commission accepted the report, representatives of four cities voted not to accept the report because they said it was inaccurate. MIGRATION TO AND FROM the Central Valley varies significantly in different parts of the 19-county region, according to a new report by the Public Policy Institute of California. The Upper Sacramento Valley is losing college graduates while attracting retirees, the Sacramento area is drawing skilled workers, Bay Area commutes are flocking to the North San Joaquin Valley, and the South San Joaquin Valley is getting more low-skilled immigrant workers, according to the report. The study, called “The Central Valley at a Crossroads: Migration and its Implications,” found that public and private institutions are responding differently, based largely on specific regional challenges. For example, economic development efforts in the South San Joaquin Valley focus on “vertical integration” of the agriculture industry, such as post-harvest processing, and on sectors that rely on inexpensive labor, such as call and distribution centers. In the Sacramento metro area, which has a robust economy, the emphasis is on better urban planning and improving air quality. The study is available online at www.ppic.org .

A jury has awarded a Santa Barbara County landowner $5.6 million in general and punitivedamages because the county designated part of the landowner's farm as protected wetlands. The jury ordered the county to pay Adam Brothers Farming $5.47 million. The jury also ordered three current or former county planning department employees to pay a total of $100,000 in punitive damages, and found a planning consultant liable for another $30,000 in punitive damages. The jury found that the county conspired to designate a 95-acre portion of a 286-acre farm near Orcutt as wetlands in an attempt to suppress the value of the land. Insisting the county had done nothing wrong, officials said they would take the case to the Court of Appeal. The county in 1999 ordered Adam Brothers, which bought the land in 1997, to stop farming the disputed site without grading and other permits. The company graded and planted the site anyway, leading to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency raid. A federal lawsuit against Adam Brothers that seeks millions of dollars in damages and mitigation fees for destruction of sensitive areas is set for trial this month. IN A DECISION THAT HAS INFURIATED ENVIRONMENTALISTS and State of California officials, the Bush administration has settled a takings lawsuit with several San Joaquin Valley irrigation districts and farming companies. The administration announced in late December that it would pay the group $16.7 million. The water agencies and farmers had sued the federal government because of reduced water deliveries during 1992 and 1994, when water managers curtailed diversions from the Delta to protect runs of endangered fish. A U.S. Court of Federal Claims judge in Washington D.C. concluded that the districts and farmers had a property right to the water and were due $14 million, plus interest (see , March 2004). Members of the Schwarzenegger administration, as well as the State Water Resources Control Board and even attorneys within the federal government urged the Bush administration to appeal the ruling. How much of a precedent the payment sets is unclear. The settlement itself states that no legal precedent is being established. But both sides said there is a precedent. Roger Marzulla, the Washington attorney who won the case, told the the case “establishes the fundamental principal that the government is free to protect the fish; it simply has to pay for the water it takes to do so.” The case is , (2003) 59 Fed. Cl. 246. RIVERSIDE COUNTY HAS APPROVED a revised plan for one of the largest subdivisions in county history in an unincorporated area between Hemet and Temecula, and the revisions appear to have satisfied opponents of a previous plan. The specific plan for the Domenigoni Valley project calls for about 4,200 houses, as well as two schools, a golf course and commercial development on 1,734 acres. In 2001, the county approved a similar, 4,600-unit project for the same site, but the City of Temecula and the Endangered Habitats League sued. Temecula was concerned about traffic on its streets, while the environmentalists worried about the loss of habitat. The revised plan calls for a phasing of improvements to arterial roads that connect the Domenigoni Valley to Interstate 215, which lies several miles southwest of the project site. Under the approved plan, the developer, the Domenigoni family, must put in some roads before any housing development begins and must provide other improvements at certain phases of the project. Those changes satisfied Temecula. Meanwhile, environmentalists dropped their opposition because the county has since adopted a multiple-species habitat conservation plan that covers all of western Riverside County, including this project site. A MOVEMENT INTENDED TO HALT construction of a Wal-Mart supercenter in the San Gabriel Valley city of Rosemead appears to have gone awry. Project opponents gathered more than 2,000 signatures on a referendum of a city-approved development agreement with Wal-Mart. The referendum, however, did not target the general plan amendment for the project. So the City Council in December repealed the development agreement, eliminating the need for a referendum election. Other project approvals remain in place, and Wal-Mart representatives said they could break ground as soon as this month. An opposition group called Save Our Community said it would pursue a court challenge. THE MONTEREY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS in December approved a the 4,000-unit, 2,700-acre Rancho San Juan specific plan only two weeks after the county's Planning Commission unanimously voted against the project (see , June 2003). Supervisors voted 3-2 for the project just north of Salinas, but the battle is hardly over. County officials said they would likely return with plan amendments within six months. Project opponents have vowed to sue. THE CITY OF LATHROP in San Joaquin County has approved another huge development, this one a 6,800-unit specific plan backed by Richland Planned Communities, Inc. During the last two years, the city of about 13,000 people has approved nearly 20,000 housing units in four large developments (see , March 2003). Some construction has already begun. THE FINAL ELECTION TALLIES in San Diego and Sonoma counties found that transportation sales tax measures narrowly won. San Diego County's extension of a half-cent sales tax for 40 years received 67.01% of the vote, winning by 3,400 votes out of slightly more than 1 million votes cast. In Sonoma County, a new quarter-cent sales tax received 67.2% of the vote, winning by 1,072 votes out of about 210,000 votes cast. The final results mean that 7 of the 10 sales tax measures for transportation improvements on county ballots during November were successful (see , December 2004, October 2004).

The first local initiative to copy Oregon's Measure 37 may appear on the ballot in Napa County, possibly during this November's special election. In late June, the Napa Valley Land Stewards Alliance submitted signed petitions on the “Fair Payment for Public Benefit Act.” The initiative would require the county to pay property owners when a new land use regulation decreases property values. If the county and a property owner cannot agree on an amount for compensation with 100 days, the property owner may go to court, under the initiative. The initiative mimics the November 2004 initiative approved by Oregon voters (see , April 2005). Proponents are members of a group who helped defeat a county stream setback ordinance at a referendum election last year (see , March 2004). Property rights advocates in other counties, including San Luis Obispo County, are considering placing similar initiatives on local ballots. The Napa County initiative is available at www.landstewards.org THE FRESNO COUNTY GRAND JURY has recommended the county implement a building moratorium “until proven water sources are located, developed and preserved.” The mid-June report arrived just as a newly formed water advisory committee got started on a plan to bring together water agencies, developers, civic leaders and local government officials. The committee, headed by Clovis City Councilman Harry Armstrong, intends to inventory water supplies and recommend ways to improve water availability. In recent months, Fresno County officials have been hesitant to approve new subdivisions in the eastern foothills because of both groundwater and surface water supply concerns (see , May 2005). Formation of the advisory committee and placing new requirements on groundwater users are among the steps the county has implemented - but those were apparently not enough for the grand jury. “Without a regional oversight of water use and sales, the rapid growth in Fresno County is a potential disaster,” reported the grand jury, which also found, rather surprisingly, that agriculture consumes less water per acre than houses. The grand jury report received a mixed reception. “I guess I was really disappointed in the fact that they would make any statement about water at all until the county's water study is done,” Supervisor Bob Waterson told the . THE CITY OF BERKELEY and the University of California have settled a lawsuit that the city filed earlier this year over UC's Long Range Development Plan for the Berkeley campus. The university agreed to work with the city on, and help pay for, a downtown area plan that would guide revitalization of the city's core. Additionally, UC agreed to reduce new parking spaces by half to 1,270, increase annual payments for municipal services and programs from $500,000 to $1.2 million, explore a “use tax” on campus purchases of out-of-state goods, and consider programs that favor hiring Berkeley residents and buying local products. City officials agreed to drop their demands for additional sewer fees and for parking surcharges. The long-range plan calls for building 2.2 million square feet of space for additional academic and support programs over 15 years (see , June 2005). However, city officials said the plan burdened city services and did not protect city desires for off-campus development. The proposed downtown plan would not be binding on UC, but both UC and city officials said they expect the plan would strongly influence university building decisions. “This agreement ensures our community will have a real voice in future development by the university, provides funding for vital city services, and reinforces out commitment to reducing traffic congestion and improving transit alternatives,” Mayor Tom Bates said. Still, three of nine City Council members voted against the settlement, and a group called Berkeleyans for a Livable University Environment said they would try to carry on the litigation without the city. MARIN COUNTY HAS SUED the state Department of Corrections over the environmental impact report (EIR) for the construction a new death row at San Quentin. In a lawsuit filed in June, the county argues that the EIR does not adequately address project alternatives, or impacts on nearby communities such as traffic congestion, lighting glare and ugly aesthetics. Marin County officials and some civic groups want the state to build a new condemned inmate facility elsewhere (see , April 2005). But state officials say the $220 million project belongs at California's longtime home of death row. THE CITY OF MISSION VIEJO HAS DROPPED its lawsuit over Orange County's approval of a 14,000-unit development on Rancho Mission Viejo (see , January 2005). The city filed its lawsuit because of traffic concerns. The settlement calls for the county to give priority to improving two intersections and two parkways that serve Mission Viejo residents and that will carry traffic from the new development. A lawsuit filed by environmentalists is still pending. OPPONENTS OF A PLAN TO EXPAND the San Diego Zoo lost the first round of their lawsuit when San Diego County Superior Court Judge Ronald Prager confirmed a tentative ruling against the group Preserve Our Parks. The group contends that the city should not have approved the zoo expansion and an environmental impact report before completing a parking study for all of Balboa Park, a study that the city has yet to finish. The city approved the zoo plan last year after years of planning and debate (see , June 2001; , April 2000). The plan calls for expanding the zoo onto what is now the zoo's surface parking lot, and building a new parking structure underground. The city and zoo, however, currently lack funds to carry out the $300 million project. THE TRANSBAY TERMINAL IS BACK on track - maybe. In June, the First District Court of Appeal lifted an injunction halting work on the project while a California Environmental Quality Act lawsuit over the project proceeds. A San Francisco judge halted work in May after he found that the EIR for the multi-modal transportation hub was inadequate because the study did not consider the project's impact on a condominium project planned across the street (see , May 2005; , August 2004). The First District, however, said work may proceed while an appeal of the Superior Court's ruling on the EIR is pending.

A recent Legislative Analyst's Office report regarding the cost of fighting wildfires received a great deal of attention for its study and recommendations regarding personnel costs, labor agreements and potential new taxes. Largely overlooked, though, were suggestions that the state should influence planning decisions in areas with wildfire threats. The state has about 8 million acres in the “wildland-urban interface,” nearly three-quarters of which are at high risk for wildfire. The coastal and interior mountain ranges of Southern California, the hills ringing the San Francisco Bay Area and the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada contain most of the wildland-urban interface, where homes and businesses intermingle with undeveloped areas. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) estimates that the number of homes in the wildland-urban interface increased by 20% from 1990 to 2000. Most of the new homes are in areas served by local fire departments, and are not in the CDF's “state responsibility area.” Still, as the LAO noted, “State resources are often called upon as part of the state's integrated wildland fire protection system.” Additionally, CDF reported that its calls for non-fire emergencies, such as medical aid requests, in the Sierra foothills increased by 150% in only seven years. The LAO did not call for a decrease in development in these areas. Rather, the state should “encourage” local governments to make fire-safe planning decisions on where to locate new development, on fuel management plans and on building codes and designs, the LAO recommended. Furthermore, because the law does not specify who is responsible for funding firefighting in state responsibility areas, the LAO recommended the Legislature clarify the law to say that the state will not be fiscally liable. “First, if local agencies are clear that the state is not fiscally responsible for life and structure protection, this should encourage local land use decisions that attempt to minimize the risk to structures and people from wildfire. Second, a clear statement that the state is not responsible … could encourage local governments to budget an appropriate level of local resources for this purpose,” the LAO report says. The state's firefighting budget is about $500 million annually. The LAO recommends imposing a fee on landowners in state responsibility areas to cover half of that cost. The report is available on the LAO's website, www.lao.ca.gov . VOTERS IN SANTA ANA supported what would be the tallest building in Orange County during a special election in April. Nearly 57% of voters approved a referendum on the proposed One Broadway Plaza project in downtown Santa Ana. After five years of study, negotiation and contentious debate, the Santa Ana City Council in August 2004 approved a special development district and amended a specific plan to permit the project, which is in an area that otherwise has a 35-foot height limit. Project opponents contended at the time and during the campaign that the office tower would be out of place and cause traffic problems. The opponents qualified a referendum for the ballot and filed a still-pending lawsuit over the project's environmental impact report. Under an agreement with the city, developer Michael Harrah, who has developed and purchased dozens of buildings in downtown Santa Ana, must lease 50% of the proposed tower before beginning construction. THE PRIVATE INVESTORS IN A SANTA CRUZ redevelopment hotel and convention center project have withdrawn their support. Western Hotel Properties of Idaho backed away from the plan after project opponents submitted an overwhelming number of signatures on referendum petitions. In February, the City Council voted 4-3 to approve the project. It called for demolition of the former Dream Inn, now called the Coast Santa Cruz Hotel. Many locals and environmentalists have long considered the hotel - an 11-story structure that looms over the beach - to be an eyesore. Under the proposal, the hotel would have been replaced with a larger, 270-room oceanfront hotel connected to a six-story parking garage and a 23,000-square-foot conference center. Santa Cruz's redevelopment agency would have provided $30 million for the parking structure and conference center, which the city would have leased to the hotel owner. Complaining about the size of the project and the city's subsidy, opponents submitted 8,400 signatures on referendum petitions for the three ordinances approving the project. Only 3,892 valid signatures were required to get the referendum on the ballot. Before the county Elections Department could verify the signatures, Western Hotel Properties announced it was dropping the project. THE BATTLE OVER BOLSA CHICA in Huntington Beach just might have ended. In mid-April, the Coastal Commission approved Hearthside Homes' plans for 349 houses on a 105-acre site above Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. The Commission's approval of the project also clears the way for Hearthside to sell 103 acres to the state for an addition to the conservation project. The Bolsa Chica saga extends back to the 1970s. At various times, as many as 5,700 housing units were proposed for the site, a degraded wetlands and former oil field. Led by the group Amigos de Bolsa Chica, environmentalists fought every step of the way. Over the years, the state has acquired most of the site, or nearly 2,000 acres (see , January 2002; , November 1989). Amigos protested the latest development proposal, too, but the Coastal Commission approved it 11-1. With the Coastal Commission's approval of the Hearthside subdivision and the likely sale of the remainder of mesa to the state, virtually all of Bolsa Chica either is entitled for development or designated for conservation. THE CASE REGARDING DISPUTED WETLANDS near the unincorporated Santa Barbara County town of Orcutt has taken another turn. The property owner, Adams Brothers Farming, has agreed to pay $1.15 million to settle a lawsuit filed by the Environmental Protection Agency. In late 2004, a Santa Barbara County jury awarded Adams Brothers $5.6 million in damages - including $130,000 to be paid by three county planners and a consultant - after concluding the county had wrongly designated one-third of Adams Brothers 286-acre farm as wetlands (see , January 2005). The jury award is on appeal. In 1999, the county commenced enforcement proceedings against Adams Brothers because the company graded and planted grain crops on 95 acres of county-designated wetlands without a grading or land use permit. Adams Brothers then sued the county. However, the EPA sued Adams Brothers, alleging that the company illegally graded 70 acres of wetlands without a federal permit. Under the EPA settlement, Adams Brothers will pay a $200,000 fine and contribute $915,000 to the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County for wetlands restoration elsewhere. The settlement also allows the company to resume farming on all of its land, according to the EPA. THE ENVIORNMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for the Transbay Terminal project in San Francisco has failed to survive judicial scrutiny. In April, San Francisco Judge Ronald Quidachay sided with developer Jack Myers, who contended the study was inadequate partly because it failed to account a project he planned to build. The new multi-modal station would bring together a number of bus lines, BART and Caltrain, and would replace an existing, dilapidated depot (see , August 2004). However, Myers had begun construction of a condominium tower across the street from the terminal site when San Francisco shut down his project one year ago. After deciding that the two projects could not co-exist (rail lines are proposed right under Myers' property), San Francisco supervisors began eminent domain proceedings. The developer and other terminal opponents have continued to fight. After the judge's ruling, city officials vowed to persist. THE CITY OF INDUSTRY WON another round in an ongoing struggle with the City of Brea regarding land in the Chino Hills between the two cities. The latest battle is over Industry's purchase of 525 acres along Tonner Canyon Road. Industry purchased the land last year, but Brea sued, arguing that Industry had to make public its plans for the property and complete an environmental impact report before completing the purchase. Riverside County Superior Court Judge Stephen Cunnison ruled that environmental analysis could wait until development was proposed. In April, Brea voted to appeal Cunnison's decision. Four years ago, Industry purchased a 2,400-acre Boy Scout camp in Tonner Canyon, next to 2,800 acres that the city already owned (see , December 2001). That acquisition drew protests and litigation, but Industry has maintained ownership. During the late 1970s, Industry proposed building a reservoir in the area, but the city eventually dropped the project. Officials from Brea and other agencies, and environmentalists contend that Industry still plans to fill Tonner Canyon with water, and that the latest purchase of 525 acres is another step in the reservoir project. But Industry City Manager Phil Iriarte told the , “I think after the appeal period is over, then the council will start thinking about what they might do with the property.” RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA have settled a lawsuit that the city filed regarding the impacts of unincorporated area development on the city. The settlement essentially calls for funding to be in place before major developments may proceed in the French Valley and Menifee areas. The city sued the county two years ago over the county's new general plan, which calls for extensive development in unincorporated areas outside Temecula. Roads, freeways and freeway interchanges in the area are already congested, and Temecula demanded that the county provide improvements. The settlement calls for the city and county to fund a study to determine a development impact fee that would pay for additional lanes on Interstates 15 and 215. The study, by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, is scheduled to be completed later this year. The settlement also calls for the city and county to form assessment districts to pay for about $300 million of road and freeway interchange projects over the next 20 years. Last year, Temecula and the county settled a lawsuit over development near Hemet when the country agreed to restrict development based on the completion of road improvements. A DRAFT REPORT ON THE PROPOSED SPLIT of Santa Barbara County concludes that the new county would not be economically viable - and that the remainder of Santa Barbara County would be better off fiscally. The draft report by the governor-appointed Mission County Formation Review Commission states that Santa Barbara County now spends $30 million more for general fund services within the territory of the proposed new county than the same area generates in tax revenue. “Without an increase in taxes, significant reductions in current service deliveries would be necessary in those areas funded by general discretionary revenues (primarily sheriff, probation, district attorney, public defender and support services) for the proposed county to achieve a balanced budget,” the Commission reported. Mission County proponents assailed the report, partly because the Commission relied on information provided by the county. The report is available at www.missioncountyformation.org.