Two reforms of state redevelopment law — both carried by Assemblyman Gene Mullin (D-South San Francisco) — advanced at the Capitol during January. The Assembly voted 72-0 for AB 782, which removes antiquated subdivisions as a basis for establishing a redevelopment project area. Also, two Assembly committees passed AB 773, which increases in smaller jurisdictions the time available to qualify a referendum of a redevelopment ordinance. Mullin is a former member of the South San Francisco City Council.
The antiquated subdivision bill would eliminate redevelopment agencies’ ability to base project areas on the existence of lots of “irregular form and shape” and “inadequate size for proper usefulness.” Instead, under AB 782, an agency would have to make the usual findings that an area is blighted physically and economically, and is predominately urbanized. Attention has focused on the antiquated subdivision provision of redevelopment law ever since California City a few years ago expanded a redevelopment project area across 15,000 acres of empty desert because of parcel size and lack of infrastructure (see CP&DR Economic Development, May 2004).
Legislation regarding referendums emerged from recent hearings regarding redevelopment and eminent domain (see CP&DR Capitol Update, December 2005). Redevelopment opponents said that 30 days — the current time permitted — was not long enough to gather signatures to force an election on redevelopment ordinances. Jurisdictions larger than 500,000 people already provide 90 days to submit referendum petitions on redevelopment ordinances; AB 773 would make the 90-day rule uniform. The bill appears likely to pass the Assembly.
While lawmakers approved the two measures by Democrat Mullin, a bill by Republican state Sen, Dennis Hollingsworth of Murrieta went nowhere. His SB 1099 would limit instances in which agricultural property may be taken by eminent domain. The bill failed in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Many more bills regarding redevelopment and eminent domain are alive in the Legislature.
Loma Linda voters will make multiple growth decisions in June. The City Council in the small city near San Bernardino placed separate referendums regarding the University Village and Orchard Park projects on the June ballot. The projects, which are next to one another between Redlands Boulevard and Mission Road, would bring 2,400 housing units and 1 million square feet of commercial development to 300 acres (see CP&DR Local Watch, December 2005).
Additionally, backers of an initiative that aims to limit development on hundreds of acres in the South Hills appear to have enough signatures to make on the June ballot.
Monterey County voters again will decide on proposed development at Rancho San Juan, a stretch of unincorporated farmland and hillsides just north of Salinas. Opponents of the 1,147-unit Butterfly Village project qualified a referendum for the June ballot.
Last November, county voters overwhelmingly rejected a specific plan allowing for 4,000 housing units and extensive commercial development on the 2,500-acre Rancho San Juan. Included in the specific plan was the Butterfly Village project. However, the day before the November election, the Board of Supervisors approved amendments providing only for Butterfly Village development. Those changes are the subject of the latest referendum.
A revised study of water availability for the 2,300-unit West Creek project in unincorporated Santa Clarita has passed muster in Superior Court.
Three years ago, an appellate court rejected an environmental impact report for Newhall Land and Farming’s project because the EIR’s water analysis relied too heavily on deliveries from the State Water Project (see CP&DR Legal Digest, December 2005, April 2003).
Los Angeles County adopted a revised EIR in 2005 and again approved West Creek. Project opponents sued a second time, but Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge James Brown upheld the new environmental study. A different Santa Barbara County judge had upheld the first EIR, a decision overturned on appeal. Another appeal appears likely.
The City of Stockton has settled a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club over the city’s 5,600-acre sphere of influence expansion north and west of Stockton’s current boundaries. The city agreed to levy a fee of $3,250 for every acre of farmland that is developed in the new growth area. Fee revenue will fund conservation easements.
The settlement approved by the Stockton City Council in January marks the third such settlement of Sierra Club litigation. Developers in Manteca, Tracy and Lathrop also will have to pay farmland preservation fees. In Stockton, the City Council further agreed to decide within six months on a citywide farmland preservation fee.
Grupe Co. President Kevin Huber told the Stockton Record that the Sierra Club’s lawsuit was “litigation terrorism to exact money from developers.” Grupe plans to build 7,000 housing units on about 1,800 acres in Stockton’s new sphere of influence area.
Marin County’s losing streak regarding the proposed rebuilding of death row at San Quentin continued in January, when a Marin County Superior Court judge rejected the county’s lawsuit challenging the EIR for the project. The county had argued that the state Department of Corrections had failed to consider alternative sites.
Last year, the county lost a lawsuit that contended Corrections needed the Legislature’s approval to change the size of death row.
Marin County officials would like to see the 432-acre, bay front site of the prison redeveloped for use as a transit hub, housing and parks.
