-----

Oregon Voters Overturn Sneaky Developer Windfall Law

Voting 62% in favor in last November 2007’s statewide election, Oregonians chose to overturn a law that allowed developers to sue the government for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages for restrictive zoning regulations.

Their vote overturns the November 2004 approval by state voters of Measure 37, which simply stated, allowed developers to demand huge payments from the taxpayers anytime the government limited what developers could do with their land.

The group that originally sponsored Measure 37, Oregonians In Action, has posted a furious rebuttal to the turnabout by the voters. Read it at http://www.oia.org/ApartytoTyranny.htm

The campaign to pass Measure 37 masked the true beneficiaries of the proposal. Ads prominently featured a 92 year old grandmother who had been prevented from breaking up her land to give to her children. But the real beneficiaries of Measure 37 were big landowners, who, in Portland, for example, demanded $250 million from the City which had scaled down their development rights.

California voters in November of 2006 faced Proposition 90, which would have similarly required the public to pay any landowner who felt that the government had devalued their land. Voters here rejected it by 53% No, 47% yes. Proposition 90 was also a stealth measure in that it included a populist-themed ban on the government using its eminent domain powers to forcibly buy private land if the land was to be resold to another private developer, but also included the payment to landowners for any government regulations.

Coming up in the June 2008 California election are two measures that deal with eminent domain.

Proposition 98 is similar to Proposition 90 and also aims to wipe out rent control. http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/bp_06032008_direct_primary/prop_98.pdf

Proposition 99 is only aimed at halting the ability of the government to forcibly buy private property to sell to developers. http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/bp_06032008_direct_primary/prop_99.pdf

----------------------------

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE OREGON DEVELOPER WINDFALL LAW:

See http://www.yeson49.com/2007/08/maps.html for maps of Oregon landowners who were to receive the windfall from Measure 37.

See http://www.yeson49.com/2007/07/oregon_stories.html for stories on local effects of Measure 37.

-----------------------------------------------

(a summary from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_37_%282004%29)

The law enacted by Measure 37 allows property owners whose property value is reduced by environmental or other land use regulations to claim compensation from state or local government. If the government fails to compensate a claimant within two years of the claim, the law allows the claimant to use the property under only the regulations in place at the time he/she purchased the property

As of March 12, 2007, 7,562 Measure 37 claims for compliance payments or land use waivers had been filed spanning 750,898 acres statewide in Oregon.[24]

The claims filed include mobile home parks in sacred native burial grounds, shopping malls in farmland, and gravel pit mines in residential neighborhoods. There are no provisions in the law that public notice must be provided to neighboring property owners when a claim is filed. Because municipalities can not afford the billions in compensation, the laws have been waived in every case. (See: http://www.pdx.edu/media/i/m/ims_M37brainerdreport.pdf for more information.)

Claims filed in Portland, Oregon, by December 4, 2006, totalled over $250 million. Many of these claims were filed by major area land developers.

in 2007, the Oregon legislature placed Measure 49 on the November 6, 2007 special election ballot. It passed with 62% in favor.[29][30] The measure overturns and modifies many of the provisions of Measure 37.[31] The Legislature stated that it would restrict the damaging effects of Measure 37 by limiting some of the development that measure permitted.[32]

This measure protects farmlands, forestlands and lands with groundwater shortages in two ways.

First, subdivisions are not allowed on high-value farmlands, forestlands and groundwater- restricted lands. Claimants may not build more than three homes on such lands.

Second, claimants may not use this measure to override current zoning laws that prohibit commercial and industrial developments, such as strip malls and mines, on land reserved for homes, farms, forests and other uses.

---------------------------

Measure 37 hammers Portland

Some of city’s richest make land-use claims, which now total $250 million

The Portland Tribune, December 19, 2006

The city of Portland is facing $250 million worth of legal claims filed just before a key Measure 37 deadline.

“It’s our worst fears, it really is,” said Chris Dearth, who heads the city’s Measure 37 program. “It affects all parts of the city. … Many, many neighborhoods will be seriously affected by this.”

Measure 37, approved by voters in 2004, allowed landowners to file claims for compensation for decreased property value caused by regulations. The influx was prompted by a Dec. 4 deadline to claim past damages.

The claims undermine the city planning process and could “change the face of the city,” Dearth said.

It’s not just the dollar figure and the potential impact to Portland neighborhoods that make the claims filed under the state’s property rights law noteworthy. In contrast to the Measure 37 poster child, then-92-year-old Dorothy English, the new claims are being filed by some very prominent figures – such as companies owned by Jay Zidell and Mark Hemstreet – using some of the city’s most well-heeled law firms.

“It’s a whole new ball game,” Dearth said. “It’s not the mom and pop, Dorothy English-style claim anymore.”

The biggest claim, filed by Zidell for his South Waterfront properties, is for about $120 million. He has put his claim on hold while he negotiates with the city over his development plans. …

For full story:

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=116649078192709100

-----
California sprawl slows down

A calm in our region's growth offers an opportunity to cope with water, traffic and other issues.

March 24, 2008, editorial, L.A. Times

The Census Bureau has released its annual estimate of county population changes, and as they have for years, the numbers for July 2006 to July 2007 show wild growth in Sunbelt cities in eastern California, Nevada and Arizona. But this year they also hint that the rate of growth may be slowing, and that coastal urban and suburban areas could be gaining ground. Riverside County, for instance, added 79,995 people in 2006 but just 66,365 last year -- not a reverse but perhaps a respite. San Diego's more modest growth, on the other hand, nearly quadrupled from 6,704 in 2006 to 26,497 in 2007.

These numbers hardly suggest that sprawl is dead. It's best to view them as yet more evidence of the housing downturn. Demographer William Frey of the Brookings Institution spoke of a "migration correction." Just as bubble prices are declining -- in Los Angeles County, the median home price is down almost 13% from a year ago; County Assessor Rick Auerbach recently announced that his office had cut values on 41,000 properties by an average of $66,000 each -- boom-time mobility must decline too. As homes in urban areas lose market value, owners become loath to sell. They hunker down where they are, putting off buying that bigger, newer house on the fringes of the city or in more affordable markets such as Phoenix or Las Vegas.

The census data reflect a reality that many Southern Californians have already experienced firsthand. Today, thousands of families face foreclosure. Millions more worry about the falling value of their homes and the effects of a probable recession. As the numbers show, the pain is particularly intense in our region's far-flung, faster-growing counties. But Los Angeles County, unlike San Diego, has also shrunk. Most years, we enjoy population gains; as recently as July 2004, the county grew by more than 80,000 people. Last year, we lost 2,354.

There is a silver lining. Slowing growth in Southern California signals that the overheated market is in fact over and that the long, difficult process of correction, in which prices return to sustainable levels, is underway. If local officials are smart, they'll take advantage of sprawl's apparent stall to plan more carefully for future growth. In planning terms, think of this as a strategic pause, a moment to concentrate on water supply, traffic, school construction, infrastructure -- all of which tend to be brushed aside in the press of expansion but which need and deserve the long look that this moment may allow.

-----
Southern California Wildlife paths may pave way to survival

By Dana Bartholomew, Staff Writer, L.A. Daily News
3/19/2008 http://www.dailynews.com/search/ci_8631425

For full report:
http://www.scwildlands.org/presskit/scmlpresskit.aspx

There's just enough wilderness left in Southern California for a mountain lion to stalk a wily badger from the southern Sierra Nevada into Baja California.

But if habitat linking millions of acres of parkland gets gobbled up by development, conservationists say the Southland's rich wildlife legacy could be lost.

"Without linkages between existing parks, national forests and other public lands, many native species could be threatened or disappear entirely," said Ray Sauvajot, chief of planning, science and resource management for the National Park Service in Thousand Oaks.

A consortium of 15 wildlife agencies released on Wednesday a comprehensive plan, seven years in the making, to establish those linkages throughout Southern California.

The plan, produced by South Coast Wildlife, maps more than 1 million acres of wildlife corridors and establishes a long-term strategy to safeguard native plants and animals.

Movement is essential to wildlife survival for gene sharing and for repopulating habitats, the group says. By protecting the travel routes for everything from mountain lions to butterflies, many endangered animal and plant species can be saved.

"Now, all 15 linkages from the Tehachapis down into Baja are complete," said Kristeen Penrod, conservation director for South Coast Wildlands, a Los Angeles conservation planning agency.

"The whole purpose of this is to maintain existing conservation investments- billions (of dollars) in state parks - so that our grandchildren and great grandchildren can see them in perpetuity. It's really about the animals being able to have healthy populations and gene pools."

The 67-page report, "South Coast Missing Linkages Project: A Wildland Network for the South Coast Ecoregion," is designed to provide a blueprint for governments to deter development of key wildlife habitats.

The South Coast Linkages Project now serves as a model for similar plans in Northern California, Arizona and Colorado.

The Southern California wildlife network is comprised of roughly 19.4 million acres, of which 94 percent are protected, according to the report.

Of that, about 1.4 million acres serve as links between national forests and other public lands - a little more than half of which is at risk of being developed.

The proposed 555-acre Las Lomas development in the rolling hills between Los Angeles and Santa Clarita was to be built on land reserved for one of those links. It was shot down Wednesday by the Los Angeles City Council.

"In Southern California, we don't have a lot of time to conserve these linkages," Penrod said. "Probably about a decade."

Linkage advocates hope to map the rest of California and to draw in more partner agencies in order to develop a public consciousness to protect vital open space.

"Connecting wildlands requires connecting a lot of people," said Penrod, a founder of the linkage movement. "We need to speak in one voice to protect these linkages."

In June 2006, South Coast Wildlands published a 213-page report outlining wildlife corridors around Los Angeles.

The region, considered one of the world's 25 most important "hot spots" for biological diversity, contains 400 threatened and endangered plant and animal species.

For wildlife, the acquisition of Ahmanson Ranch by the state in 2003 helped connect the Simi Hills to the Santa Monica Mountains.

In west Simi Valley, mountain lions have been tracked crossing an underpass and tunnel to the 118 Freeway connecting the Simi Hills to the Arroyo Simi.

The report found mountain lion movements from the Los Padres National Forest near Lake Piru across the Santa Clara River into the Santa Susana Mountains, then across the 118 around Rocky Peak Road and into the Simi Hills west of the San Fernando Valley.

Other corridors include the Agoura Hills-Calabasas area, across the Ventura Freeway around Las Virgenes-Malibu Canyon and into the Santa Monica Mountains around Malibu Creek State Park.

Sauvajot said such agencies as Caltrans have made recent headway to protect wildlife migrations by creating access under busy freeways. Plans call for new wildlife tunnels beneath the 101 Freeway at Liberty Canyon Road between Calabasas and Agoura Hills.

Wildlife fencing is now being added along Highway 23 between Moorpark and Thousand Oaks, which guides animals to safe undercrossings.

"It's the only plan of its kind," said Sauvajot, based in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. "Because of the level of development and fragmentation of habitat, the species that still exist and this area's survival depend on the corridors and open spaces that are still out there.

"This is a blueprint for wildlife survival."

---------------

from http://www.kpbs.org/news/local;id=11179

A landmark conservation plan would link up wildlands in Southern California. A report to be released Wednesday by the group South Coast Wildlands maps out strategies to preserve and link vast stretches of terrain. KPBS Environmental Reporter Ed Joyce tells us the plan would connect several areas in San Diego County and Mexico.

South Coast Ecoregion Wildland Network


Peninsular/Borrego linkage design


Palomar/San Jacinto/Santa Rosa design


Santa Ana/Palomar linkage design

The South Coast Missing Linkages project is intended to maintain Southern California's wildlife now and in the future. The group says without linking parks, forests, and other lands, many native species will disappear entirely. That's because the animals need room to roam to find food, mates and escape other threats such as fires and floods. The challenges are many -- from housing developments and freeways to shopping centers and climate change.

Penrod: We're standing actually in one of the core habitat areas or one of the target things that the linkages are intended to serve. So Palomar Mountain here with Cleveland National Forest and then Cuyamaca down in here and hooking up to Anza-Borrego Desert State Park.

That's Kristeen Penrod, Conservation Director for South Coast Wildlands. The group is one of more than 20 federal, state and local agencies and organizations that have put together the plan. Penrod says the idea is to translate that plan into land-saving actions such as buying property, restoring and preserving linkages.

Penrod: We can basically create the backbone of a regional conservation strategy that will basically take us from the Southern Sierras all the way down to Baja.

There are six linkages in San Diego County stretching from Camp Pendleton to Palomar Mountain in the Cleveland National Forest.

Penrod says the project aims to stitch together a variety of open spaces, from park and forest land to farms. But barriers such as highways, bridges, and other developments are fragmenting the natural habitat areas. She says undoing those barriers will ensure the survival of endangered animals, from bighorn sheep to butterflies.

Penrod: And so what these linkages are is just a wee bit more in order to maintain those connections. Basically research has shown that if you know, even Palomar Mountain or Anza-Borrego State Park are not large enough by themselves to support species over time.

Penrod says Interstate 15 is the only major freeway in the linkage joining the Santa Ana Mountains to the Palomar Mountains. She says providing crossing structures -- bridges, overpasses, or specially designed culverts -- would give animals a pathway to reach upland and aquatic areas.

Other solutions to create links include working with property owners, builders, environmental groups and wildlife agencies to create conservation plans.

Dave Van Cleve is with The Nature Conservancy and the former superintendent of the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. He says connecting the lands is not just for wildlife.

Van Cleve: These corridors are open for people too to enjoy and they’re for backpackers, and horseback riders and mountain bikers. We encourage people to use these lands as well. We think public access is really going to be important to a lot of these.

One program already helping the effort is the County’s Multiple Species Conservation Plan -- a long-term habitat program to preserve more than 300,000 acres of county natural areas.

The chief of the plan is Tom Oberbauer. He says making the linkages work will ensure the survival of mountain lions, deer, foxes and bobcats.

Oberbauer: The last grizzly bear killed in San Diego County was in 1906 in San Onofre Creek. The last grizzly bear in California was 1922 in Tulare County. So it was sometime back in the Gold Rush period -- you know 1840s, 18-whatever -- there were grizzly bears all over here. There were also jaguars in San Diego County and jaguars extended clear up to Monterey County. The last jaguar killed in Southern California was in Palm Springs, I think it was like 1836.

If the wildlands plan is successful, it would mean mountain lions, foxes and other animals roaming the county today will still be here in 100 years.

Ed Joyce, KPBS News.

-----

L.A. council shoots down 5,553-home Las Lomas development Proposed for Narrow Corridor that Connects East and West L.A. County Wildlife Areas

Email Picture

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-laslomas20mar20,1,4042623.story

By Kerry Cavanaugh, L.A. Daily News Staff Writer

03/19/2008

(also see http://stoplaslomas.org)

Citing concerns about potential traffic and overdevelopment, the Los Angeles City Council ended a bitter years-long battle over the controversial Las Lomas mini-city Wednesday and voted to kill the entire proposed 5,553-home project.

In its 10-5 decision, the council ordered the Planning Department to stop processing Las Lomas' annexation and development applications and return all studies and paperwork to the company.

The decision comes after six years of work and a $20 million investment by developer Dan S. Palmer Jr., who sought to build a 555-acre self-contained community of homes, offices and shops on the last stretch of open space between the city of Los Angeles and Santa Clarita.

But council members said they did not even want to consider expanding Los Angeles' city limits to include such a large project in the already traffic-clogged Newhall Pass.

"This was critically important at this moment in time in the city of L.A. that we just say no. We can't afford overdevelopment and this is overdevelopment," said Councilman Greig Smith, who led the effort to block the project.

"This project would have put 15,000 cars per day in an already impacted area. The people of L.A. said we can't take any more. We're tired of it. We don't have to say yes to make a developer rich."

But several council members and the City Attorney's Office warned that the decision could expose the city to a potentially risky and expensive lawsuit from the developer.

That's because since 2002, the Planning Department had accepted fees from the developer and began processing Las Lomas' application and studies.

"To vote against overdevelopment is the easy decision," said Councilman Richard Alarc n, who urged the council to let Las Lomas finish its studies before deciding whether to reject the project.

"I think we're going to get sued. I think the city has too often put itself in the position to be sued and to lose."

The debate Wednesday centered on whether the city was likely to win or lose a lawsuit if it is brought by Las Lomas - although Palmer would not say whether he intends to file one.

Instead, Palmer would only say that he was disappointed in the council's decision and would look at all options.

"We believe Las Lomas is a fine project," Palmer said after the hearing. "It's environmentally responsible. It works to employ the very policies that the city of Los Angeles has adopted for sustainability, for transit-oriented development, for work-force housing and for all these reasons we remain very firmly committed to the project."

Palmer first proposed Las Lomas nearly a decade ago and he has continued to push the project despite opposition from virtually every politician in the area.

The 555-acre site is in county jurisdiction and zoned for about 250 homes. Palmer sought to annex into the city of Los Angeles for its secure water supply and the chance that leaders would support constructing 20 times more homes than current zoning would allow.

But over the past year, Smith had waged a campaign to oppose and defeat Las Lomas.

With the aid of an attorney he hired with his council office funds, he sought to block the project by requesting that the council order the Planning Department to stop processing the environmental study that is required for annexation.

And Smith found support among colleagues concerned about stretching the city limits to absorb Las Lomas.

"This is urban sprawl at its finest," said Councilman Dennis Zine, who led his own effort to block the 3,050-home Ahmanson Ranch development west of Woodland Hills. "We're going to take every inch of open space and build on it."

Even in 2005 after Palmer and his team revised the project into a smart-growth community of dense homes, open space, jobs, transit, shops, schools and an on-site shuttle, community activists and elected leaders still found the project unacceptable.

Sandra Cattell with the Sierra Club said the hillside site is too steep, too ecologically valuable and too prone to wildlife for Las Lomas.

"This is a one-of-a-kind type of place. There shouldn't be any type of development up there," Cattell said.

"Why doesn't he build this somewhere that wants it? Somewhere that it would be feasible, that it would be an attractive community, not in an isolated mountain where we would have sprawl."

-----
Off-roaders taking on the Marines

Enthusiasts prize site of potential training ground for Twentynine Palms Marine Corps base

By Michael Gardner

SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE SACRAMENTO BUREAU

March 14, 2008

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20080314-9999-1m14offroad.html

SACRAMENTO – California's off-road riders have launched an aggressive campaign to oppose any move by the Marines to annex Johnson Valley, a nationally acclaimed high-desert recreation area on the perimeter of an important military base at Twentynine Palms...

...The 140,000-acre off-highway vehicle area, located southeast of Barstow in San Bernardino County, also is home to the federally protected desert tortoise, a fact that could provoke strident opposition from environmentalists.

Protecting the tortoise was a key issue when the Army expanded training facilities near Fort Irwin a few years ago.

Johnson Valley is under the supervision of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Mike Pool, California's BLM director, is expected to attend Hunter's March 22 meeting with off-road enthusiasts.

John Dearing, a BLM spokesman, said the military followed a regular process before taking other federal lands.

“We have not yet received an application from the Marines,” said Dearing, referring specific questions about Johnson Valley to the military.

The Marine Corps said it plans to prepare an environmental review of alternatives once a decision is made. It promises full disclosure and public participation.

Johnson Valley is nationally known as “the Hammers” – one of the best four-wheeling, boulder-hopping areas in the country, off-roaders say.

-----

Pacific Lumber Gets Itself Out of $1 Billion Federal, State Lawsuit over Fraud; Maxxam and Charles Hurwitz Remain as Defendants

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.aspx?Feed=AP&Date=20080211&ID=8115187&Symbol=MXM

2/11/2008

WASHINGTON (AP) - Pacific Lumber Co. has reached a major settlement in its bankruptcy case allowing it to walk away from two lawsuits demanding $1 billion in damages for allegedly defrauding the state of California and the federal government.

The settlement, which requires court approval, would wipe out $1 billion in potential claims that were threatening Pacific Lumber's Chapter 11 reorganization. The deal was made public in documents filed Friday with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Corpus Christi, Texas.

The lawsuits stem from a 1999 logging pact Pacific Lumber company negotiated with California and the United States. Two California forestry officials sued Pacific Lumber and its parent, Maxxam Inc., in December 2006, accusing the companies of defrauding taxpayers.

While the claims against Pacific Lumber will be dropped, the two lawsuits -- one in a California state court and another in federal court -- will go forward against Maxxam and its chairman and Chief Executive Charles Hurwitz.

An attorney for the plaintiffs declined to comment on Monday. A spokesman for Maxxam could not be reached for comment.

Pacific Lumber is asking the court to sign off on the settlement, saying it eliminates costly litigation that threatened its bankruptcy case.

The company, based in Scotia, Calif., said in court papers that even if the plaintiffs were "modestly successful" in asserting their claims, a claim for any amount "could prevent the feasibility of any Chapter 11 plan and thereby doom" the company's reorganization.

Under the settlement, the claims filed against Pacific Lumber will be resolved for $1. Pacific Lumber will eventually be dismissed from the state and federal lawsuits, according to court documents.

Pacific Lumber, which owns more than 200,000 acres of timberlands in northern California, has been in bankruptcy since January 2007. It has filed a plan to repay creditors by selling and developing some its timberlands, but it is also facing competing plans filed by two other creditors -- the Bank of New York Mellon Corp. and hedge fund Marathon Asset Management.

In 1999, Pacific Lumber and Maxxam finalized the so-called Headwaters agreement with California and the federal government. Under the deal, Pacific Lumber sold 5,600 acres of redwood trees for $380 million. The company also won approval for a sustained yield plan, or SYP, that would regulate logging on its remaining land.

Richard Wilson, the former director of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and Chris Maranto, another forestry official, sued on behalf of the state and federal government, claiming Pacific Lumber and Maxxam used fabricated data to win approval of the deal.

-----

Iconic Mt Toro Vista Protected

Dorrance Family and Conservation Groups Keep Prized Ridgeline in Ranching and Free of Development

Monterey, CA — March 11, 2008 — The Nature Conservancy and a well-known Monterey County ranching family have protected Dorrance Ranch, a spectacular 4,300 acre property located on Mt. Toro’s northern ridge. Working closely with the Dorrances, The Nature Conservancy purchased a conservation easement on the ranch to protect it from development, regardless of future ownership, and to ensure that the family’s legacy is preserved for generations to come. Rising up from what John Steinbeck characterized as “The Pastures of Heaven,” Dorrance Ranch is a key part of Monterey’s ranching heritage and one of the County’s most familiar vistas.

Click link below for full story

http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/california/press/dorrance031108.html?src=rss

-----

Desert Military Bases aim to expand

More High Desert land eyed for training troops

Lauren McSherry, Staff Writer

03/08/2008

http://www.sbsun.com/search/ci_8508079

Two military bases in the High Desert are undertaking expansion plans that will widen the territory used for war games crucial to training soldiers and Marines being deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms has announced its intention to extend its boundaries. The process could take years.

Gunnery Sgt. Chris Cox, a public affairs officer, estimated that 50 percent of the combat center - which encompasses 932 square miles, an area about half the size of Rhode Island - is unusable.

This is because tracts of land are too mountainous, provide habitat for endangered species or are too close to civilian areas, which would be disturbed by the noise and tremors that accompany explosions.

"That's the conundrum: Where do we go? What do we do?" Cox said. "That's why it's going to take such a long time to figure out a course of action."

The extent and timeline for the expansion remains unclear.

Cox would not disclose what areas are under consideration - or even what geographical direction the expansion might take.

The problem is the base needs more space to execute training exercises, and military leaders are anticipating a future increase in Marines undergoing battlefield exercises, Cox said.

All Marines that go to Iraq are sent to the base for the monthlong "Mojave Viper" training.

The training prepares Marines for the hardships of living in the

desert, for vehicle checkpoint procedures and for combat operations.

Up to 450 Marines can participate in the training at one time, but the goal is to be able to train an entire battalion, up to 1,000 Marines, at once, Cox said.

The planning process is being led by the Defense Department and the Navy, he said.

Notices were sent to residents in July about the expansion plans, Cox said.

The expansion is necessary because it will enable training that is crucial to limiting Marine casualties in war zones, he said.

"The Marine Corps in the High Desert realizes we are part of the community," he said. "We're not in the business of keeping secrets or doing things that aren't good for our neighbors.

"At the same time, we are in the business of saving lives."

The Bureau of Land Management confirmed Friday that the combat center had not submitted an application to change its boundaries, which typically involves a review of environmental impacts.

Meanwhile, Fort Irwin is moving ahead with its expansion, which was divided into three phases.

The first phase, extending the eastern boundary to include 45,000 acres, was completed last summer, said Col. Chris Philbrick, garrison commander at Fort Irwin.

The second phase, moving the southern boundary to encompass 22,000 acres, is still undergoing environmental impact assessment, but could be complete by this fall, he said.

The third and largest phase, absorbing 65,000 acres to the west, is not expected to be complete until next year, Philbrick said.

Service members from all branches of the military are sent to the base.

Because of its size, Fort Irwin is a key training location for soldiers and Marines going to Iraq and Afghanistan, Philbrick said.

The training grounds prepare troops for communicating, planning logistics and executing combat operations over the vast geographic areas they will encounter overseas, he said.

"There's a difference between going a mile and practicing and going 100 miles," Philbrick said. "We like to use the old football analogy - you wouldn't go from the team that's at summer camp to the Super Bowl. You've got to have some training in there."

But by pushing its borders westward and southward, Fort Irwin has encountered a couple of stumbling blocks.

The military base is encroaching on areas occupied by the desert tortoise, which is federally listed as a threatened species.

The base is developing a plan to mitigate the impact on the desert tortoise.

The area is also home to the Lane Mountain milkvetch, an endangered plant species only found in the expansion area, said Ileene Anderson, a wildlife biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity.

Fort Irwin's plans have raised concerns about the future of the two species, she said.

"We don't see how running tanks are going to be compatible with species conservation," she said.

-----
Bush Administration Intends to Override Local Authority Over Power Line Corridors in Anza-Borrego State Park and elsewhere in So-Cal

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20080307-9999-1b7power.html

By Keith Darcé

UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

March 7, 2008

The U.S. Department of Energy said yesterday that it was moving forward with a plan that could give federal regulators the final say on whether to build power lines in Southern California despite opposition from state utility regulators and others.

The department turned down multiple requests to reconsider its designation in October of a “National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor” covering 10 counties in Southern California and western Arizona.

The designation makes it easier for utilities to build transmission lines in San Diego County and other areas covered by the corridor. A second corridor covering portions of eight northeastern states drew similar opposition.

The California Public Utilities Commission and several others argued for reconsideration of the Southwestern corridor designation, saying the 65,000-square-mile area covers too much space, isn't needed and usurps the state's authority to oversee the electricity grid within its own border.

The Energy Department, however, said that the complaints against both corridors were “without merit” and that power lines in both regions had experienced congestion that raised the possibility of blackouts.

Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is authorized to override local and state opposition to new transmission lines within designated corridors if the agency deems the lines necessary to eliminate power-grid bottlenecks.

Creation of the corridors marked a major shift away from traditional policy that gave states the final say on the construction of power lines. The wires, which typically hang high overhead from large towers, often face challenges from local communities that claim the lines are unsightly and diminish the quality of life.

The Southwestern corridor designation could come into play in the fight over the Sunrise Powerlink, a 150-mile, $1.3 billion power line proposed by San Diego Gas & Electric that would cross Imperial County, Anza-Borrego Desert State Park and several communities in San Diego County.

Plans for the Sunrise line drew stiff opposition during a recent series of public hearings held by the PUC. State regulators could decide as soon as August whether to let SDG&E build the line. If the answer is no, the corridor designation would let FERC override that decision.

Utility officials applauded yesterday's decision by the Energy Department. “Once again the U.S. Department of Energy has come to the same conclusion . . . that our region has a dangerous shortage of transmission, and action clearly needs to be taken immediately to upgrade the electric grid before it's too late,” SDG&E spokeswoman Jennifer Briscoe said.

While yesterday's decision cleared the final administrative hurdle facing the corridors, opponents still can challenge the designations in federal court.

It wasn't clear whether any of the parties that sought reconsideration of the Southwestern corridor would seek a legal appeal. A spokeswoman for the PUC said the agency was reviewing the Energy Department's announcement.

Meanwhile, some members of Congress have said lawmakers should consider revoking the portion of the Energy Policy Act that made the corridors possible. A vote on the matter isn't likely before 2009, said Michael Shames, executive director of the Utility Consumers' Action Network in San Diego, which opposes the Sunrise line.

Shames said yesterday's outcome had been widely expected. “Both the petitions for reconsideration and the requests for rehearing were all preludes to the inevitable lawsuits and congressional wrangling over the issue.”

Even if FERC receives a request via the corridor designation to approve the Sunrise line, the agency likely would postpone a decision while challenges to the corridor are pending in court and on Capitol Hill, he said.

-----

Frazier Park Estates Builder On Hot Seat at Lebec County Water District

By Patric Hedlund

3/7/2008

http://mountainenterprise.com/atf.php?sid=2528&current_edition=2008-03-07

Those who love the epic scale, intrigue and crafty plot twists of historic dramas set at moments of critical change have a choice this year to order up buttered popcorn in a darkened movie theater or simply plan to attend the real-life hearings about land use decisions and water allocation happening right here at home.

On March 3, the Lebec County Water District (LCWD) staged an impressive event that is an opening act in the slow-motion saga of developers seeking permits to carve up the mountains along the Interstate 5 corridor for housing developments that could triple the population of this region. The hopeful entrepreneurs are plagued by residents who keep asking "But is there enough water?"

Michael Callagy, sporting a crisp linen shirt bearing his Cornerstone Engineering monogram, met with cowboys bearing briefcases, Bakersfield lawyers, a high-priced water consultant and about 25 residents at Lebec Community Church.

Callagy represents Paso Robles-based developer Frank Arciero's Falling Star Homes. Their first bid for permits proposed over 700 homes studding the hillsides encircling Frazier Mountain High School. That effort was sidelined when Lorelei H. Oviatt, senior planner with Kern County, dropped the flag under pressure of unrelenting evidence from the community that the developers had not done their homework.

Callagy's revised plan for Frazier Park Estates specifies over 650 homes, 40 apartments and commercial strip malls. They seek annexation by the LCWD, which currently services 300 residential and commercial customers. This development could triple the amount of water used in the region.

Board members Steve Cozzetto, Darren Hager and Dale Mann heard Mary Lou Cotton, senior water resources manager from LCWD's Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, shred the credibility of the three-inch stack of new research submitted by Callagy for not showing adequate water supply for seasonal spikes in demand during drought years, among other alleged shortcomings regarding SB610 and SB221, "laws to improve the link between water supply and land use decisions."

In the audience were at least five Tejon Ranch Company associates. At the front desk, representing LCWD, sat lawyer Dennis Mullins, TRC shareholder and former general counsel for the company that hopes to build 3,500 luxury homes and a series of lavish resort hotels across the freeway from Callagy's proposed mid-priced project.

Callagy, asking to sit for his presentation, said he hadn't known LCWD needed "this level of detail" to consider annexation.

Lake of the Woods resident Doug Peters said the formerly seasonal Castac Lake, at the heart of TRC's Tejon Mountain Village marketing campaign, consumes 3,000 acre/ft. of pumped water a year, without factoring in use by future residents or commercial endeavors. "That dwarfs the consumption calculated in [Callagy's] research," Peters said. Cumulative impact on the water table of the entire region from the two projects must be considered, and assertions that the Cuddy water basins are disconnected is not based on evidence, he argued.

LCWD tabled Callagy's petition until he can return to answer the consultant's critique.

-----

Security-training camp won't be built in Potrero in Southeast San Diego County Mountains

By Anne Krueger

UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

March 8, 2008

Blackwater Worldwide dropped its plans yesterday to build a military and law enforcement training camp in East County, ending a storm of controversy over the security contractor's presence in the county.

Brian Bonfiglio, a Blackwater vice president, said the decision came down to noise – gunfire tests at the 824-acre site in Potrero exceeded county standards – and not fiery opposition from residents, environmentalists and those politically opposed to Blackwater's role as a contractor guarding officials in Iraq.

“Blackwater has maintained its position from the very beginning that if we could not meet or exceed (California) and San Diego County guidelines that we would not proceed, and we are keeping to that commitment,” Bonfiglio said in a statement.

For the rest of this story, go to http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080308-9999-1n8black.html

Online: To read Blackwater's letter to the county withdrawing its application, go to

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/images/080307blackwater.pdf

-----

Tejon Ranch Veterans cemetery plans moving forward slowly

BY STEVEN MAYER, Bakersfield Californian staff writer

Mar 8 2008

There doesn’t appear to be much going on at the future site of the national veterans cemetery planned in the hills east of Bakersfield. Ground has not yet been broken (unless you count some test drilling for water Availability) and title for the 500-acre property has not yet been transferred to government hands. But one thing has changed. The VA’s National Cemetery Administration has named a director for the future facility. Wes Jones, former director of the Santa Fe National Cemetery in New Mexico, will be responsible for all burial and maintenance operations when the Kern facility is opened. In the meantime, he’s anxious to continue an outreach effort he’s already begun to help inform veterans and their families about their rights and responsibilities regarding the cemetery. “It’s in process,” Jones said of the planned property transfer from Tejon Ranch, which has agreed to donate the land. “We hope to have it deeded to us in a May-June timeline,” he said. That’s months later than an estimate in September from a Cemetery Administration spokesman who said officials expected to acquire title to the property before the end of last year. But don’t blame Jones if things appear to be moving slowly. He’s not directly involved in the development of the project. Jo Schuda, a public affairs specialist with the National Cemetery Administration in Washington, D.C., said analysis of the test wells is still in progress, and further testing is recommended. On the topic of landscaping, Schuda confirmed that the proposal for a “water-wise” design reported last year will likely be adopted by planners. That means there could be green zones around administration buildings and other areas of the cemetery, but the gravesites will probably not be watered. In September, administration officials said they were back on schedule to offer fast-track burials starting in late 2008. But Schuda placed that date in early 2009. “Our current projection is to award a construction contract in July 2008 to develop an initial burial area while the remaining portions of the cemetery are developed,” she said. This initial burial area is projected to accommodate burials beginning in January 2009, she said. Jones asked area residents to remember that the development of the cemetery will come in phases as burial plots are used over the years and decades. “We have 500 acres, but in 10 years we’ll be on a 50-acre footprint,” he said. But it’s the beginning of something that will help the community chronicle its own history and the ongoing history of the nation, he said. Just walk through an older national cemetery and you get a concrete sense of the millions who have served and the many who have fought and died in America’s historic conflicts. “It’s going to be your great-great grandchildren,” Jones said, “who look back at this effort and say, ‘Thank you.’”

-----

Tassajara Valley Urban Limit Line Threat; Calling Urban Sprawl "rural" Doesn't Make it So

3-4-2008

Voters approved the Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line (ULL) in November 2006, putting Tassajara Valley off-limits to development. However, developers recently proposed a 193-unit housing development outside the ULL on a 770 acres of land east of San Ramon and Danville.

County Supervisors agreed to review the proposal, setting a bad precedent, as they were essentially agreeing to consider allowing suburban development outside the ULL.

If this proposal is accepted, it could open the floodgates for similar development proposals throughout Contra Costa County, putting thousands of acres of land at risk.

What's at Stake

The current proposal, entitled New Farm, attempts to skirt the law by not requiring the County to physically alter the ULL. Instead, the developer is attempting to convince County Supervisors that the proposed housing development project is “rural” in nature.

But New Farm is not rural, and it’s no farm.

The proposal blatantly breaks the ULL by extending water and sewage lines across the line. Rural development has traditionally been defined as parcels using septic tanks and wells, whereas urban development requires the construction of public utilities—such as water and sewage lines.

The New Farm 193-unit proposal will allow massive development on prime agricultural land. On the land, only one housing unit per 80 acres is currently allowed, to support true farms. But the New Farm proposal would subdivide the land into 5-acre parcels. The developer is even requesting “density bonuses” for consolidating development on 40 acres, to allow more units.

The proposal is sprawl development, pure and simple.

Even if it were a better proposal, New Farm is in the wrong place. Contra Costa County voters agreed on a growth boundary with the understanding that no urban or suburban development would be allowed beyond that point until at least 2020, at which time the General Plan will be reevaluated.

Calling this project “rural” is a transparent attempt to get around the law, and is in clear opposition to the will of the people of Contra Costa. Greenbelt Alliance opposes this threat to farmland, and to the policies protecting farmland and natural areas.

FOR THE FULL STORY:

http://www.greenbelt.org/regions/eastbay/camp_tassajara.html

http://www.redorbit.com/news/politics/1024376/voterapproved_urban_limit_line_faces_challenges/index.html

-----

Delta water may need to stay put;

Too much promised to rest of state, task force says

By Mike Taugher
Inside Bay Area
February 24, 2008

http://www.calcoast.org/news/water000029.html

During the Great Depression, the southern and central parts of the state cut a deal with the north: Let us build big pumps and canals to take your surplus water, and we'll give it back when you need it.

The time to deliver on that promise may be nearing — but coming through will be tough because California's water supply is already threatened by climate change, a declining Delta ecosystem and a desiccating Colorado Basin.

The state agency responsible for doling out water rights, it turns out, has a massive backlog of pending applications for Delta water at the same time experts are coming to the conclusion that the system is already maxed out.

This puts the state Water Resources Control Board in a difficult position: How can it satisfy historical assurances for the north when the amount of water available for other parts of the state is already being cut?

"Those (applications from the north) can change the equation pretty significantly," Vicky Whitney, the water rights division chief for the State Water Resources Control Board, testified recently.

The pending applications, which total more than all of the Delta water delivered each year to Southern California, would, to the extent they are granted, take water directly from the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California, Whitney told a task force formed to develop solutions to the Delta's water supply and environmental problems. California, Whitney said, "let permanent demand occur in geographic areas on borrowed water."

Task force analyzes demand

The problems posed by the pending applications emerged in recent months during meetings of the Delta Vision task force, appointed to solve the intertwined problems of the Delta's deteriorating ecology and the state's increasingly unreliable water supply.

Members of the task force, who were becoming convinced that too much water was being promised from the Delta, wanted to know how much more water was being sought in the rivers and streams that ultimately drain to the estuary.

The number that came back was startling: 4.8 million acre-feet a year, a figure greater than the 4.1 million acre-feet under contract — but rarely delivered fully — from the sprawling State Water Project that serves 25 million people in Southern California and 750,000 acres of farms in Kern County.

And that does not count an additional 3 million to 5 million acre-feet being requested by the state on behalf of Northern California counties.

Not all of those unfulfilled claims will prove legitimate. But played out to its worst extreme, the situation could dry up Delta water supplies to Southern California and the San Joaquin Valley, regions that are highly dependent on Delta water delivered through the State Water Project and the smaller, federal Central Valley Project.

"I don't get terribly panicky about this," said Jerry Johns, deputy director of the state Department of Water Resources, which manages the State Water Project. "This is something that will play out over a series of years. There will be time to adjust to this."

Planners counted on dams

The situation echoes the fight over the Colorado River, where seven states, including California, divided up rights to the river's flow in 1922. That issue arose because states, relying on a string of wet years, assumed the river carried more water on average than it really did.

Meanwhile, Southern California was for a time allowed to use more than its share of the Colorado River. That began to end in 2003 when California agreed to wean itself from overuse of the river so other states, especially Nevada and Arizona, could take their share.

In the Delta, water contracts were signed when optimistic state planners were counting on major new dams to supply water from the Eel, Klamath and Trinity Rivers on the North Coast.

Those dams, which might have supplied an additional 5 million acre-feet of water to the Delta, were never built.

The result is just like what happened with the Colorado River. Parts of California developed on overly optimistic water supply estimates and an obligation to eventually return "surplus" water.

Johns said it is incumbent on Southern California water agencies to develop more water supplies, conservation programs and other plans to make up for future losses from the Delta.

It is not known how many of the pending applications will be granted. But the fact that the demands in the north are on a collision course with the rest of the state should not be a surprise because the North Coast rivers were put off limits to dams in the 1970s and 1980s when those rivers were designated wild and scenic.

"They've known that water supply wasn't going to be there for about 25 years," said John Herrick, manager of the South Delta Water Agency. "Nobody planned. That doesn't mean the solution would be easy, but they've had 25 years."

Further, the solution most often touted by some water agencies — an aqueduct to connect the Sacramento River directly with south Delta pumps — will not work if the underlying problem is an insufficient water supply, some critics contend.

"The early plans anticipated developing a lot more water," said Greg Gartrell, assistant general manager of the Contra Costa Water District. "That never happened. The result is that the system has been squeezed to what appears to be a limit. A (peripheral canal) will not solve the lack of water."

Laws not yet tested

The deal over water distribution stems from a string of laws dating back more than 70 years that were intended to prevent a repetition of Los Angeles' water raid on the Owens Valley, an incident made famous in the movie "Chinatown."

The laws, referred to collectively as "area of origin" laws, require water users in Southern California and the San Joaquin Valley to give Delta water back when the region needs it and can use it.

But the laws have rarely been applied or tested in courts, leaving it unclear how far the rights extend.

The key is a 1933 promise that water will be made available to the watershed where the water originates or in areas "immediately adjacent to" the watershed that can be "conveniently" supplied with water from it.

Rather than test how broadly that language applies, state water officials in 2002 negotiated a deal with the cities of Benicia, Fairfield and Vacaville that provided the cities with the water they wanted without setting a precedent that defined them as being in the area of origin.

Benicia, in particular, was making a claim that some water officials did not want to see cemented in precedent. That city's watershed drains into the Carquinez Strait, which the city argued was a historical source of fresh water but other water officials said did not properly belong in the area of origin.

Today, the biggest applications are from the Stockton East Water District, Delta Wetlands Properties, a private enterprise that is trying to build for-profit reservoirs in the Delta, and the Westlands Water District, a 600,000-acre farm district whose claim to San Joaquin River flow outraged other farmers. Other applicants include the growing Sacramento region and the cities of Davis, Stockton and Woodland.

"Part of their responsibility was to go out and develop that water," said Kevin Kauffman, general manager of the Stockton East Water District, which has applied for 1.4 million acre-feet of water to accommodate growth and recharge an overused aquifer. "They just simply haven't done it."

Taken together, those applications represent an enormous potential strain on a water system that has already been stretched past the breaking point.

In December, for example, a federal judge imposed water delivery cuts to save one fish species, the Delta smelt, from extinction. State wildlife officials are imposing more restrictions to protect another fish species, the longfin smelt.

And the Delta Vision panel all but concluded that Delta water supplies would shrink in coming years to protect the environment.

"Everything points in the direction of not just being fully allocated, but way overallocated right now," William Reilly, a former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator under the first President Bush and a member of the Delta Vision panel, concluded at a recent hearing.

Michael Jackson, an environmental lawyer in Plumas County and a director of the California Water Impact Network, said about 5 million acre-feet of water originates in the county located in the Sierra Nevada but only about 2,000 acre-feet of water rights exist there.

He said it is time for the water resources board to open a formal proceeding, likely to take years, to straighten out how much water is available and how best to distribute it while protecting the public trust values of that water.

"The thing that makes the state board the only place you can probably solve it is they have the ability to put everybody's five leading experts on the stand, and then let everybody's leading lawyers cross-examine them," Jackson said. "There's no more B.S."

Jackson said the board has not wanted to exercise that power in the past.

"It comes with unexpected results," he said, adding that the board appears more willing to wade into the problem recently.

"It's like they're waking up from a deep sleep," he said.

-----

Wildlife agency prods cities on habitat plans

By CRAIG TENBROECK
North County Times
February 24, 2008

http://www.calcoast.org/news/localgovernment1200094.html

NORTH COUNTY ---- Dissatisfied with the efforts of most North County cities to finish their pieces of a regional conservation plan, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has drawn a hard line against development on sensitive land.

Late last year, the agency scrapped a long-standing compromise with cities from Encinitas to Escondido that had allowed them to build on a small percentage of coastal sage scrub as long as they were making progress on their habitat plans.

That arrangement, known as 4D, appeared to be killing the cities' motivation to finish the plans, said Therese O'Rourke, Fish and Wildlife's assistant field supervisor, in a terse, two-page letter to the California Department of Fish and Game.

Carlsbad is the only city in the project area to have adopted its plan.

"We have sent (the rest of) these jurisdictions letters for two years asking them to renew their commitments and make some progress," O'Rourke said.

"To date, only Oceanside has responded in a satisfactory manner," she added.

The agency's refusal to sign off on any more city-issued habitat-loss permits may give headaches to developers.

Anyone planning a project that could impact the California gnatcatcher, a threatened songbird, will now have to deal directly with the federal wildlife agency and endure a cumbersome and time-consuming approval process, a building official said.

"Go ahead and tack on 12 to 16 months to the project," said Matthew Adams, vice president of the Building Industry Association of San Diego. "Once you get into the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, all bets are off."

Crafting the plan
North County's conservation plan, called the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program, encompasses seven cities: Carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach and Vista.

Its objective is to balance the desire for new homes and businesses with the need to set aside land for environmental preservation.

Environmentalists have pushed for progress because the plan would create valuable wildlife corridors. Developers, too, are supportive because a completed program will remove delays and surprises from the federal Endangered Species Act.

"They're ultimately beneficial to us," Adams said.

In North County, it has taken longer than many expected for the cities to adopt their plans. Environmentalists have accused city officials of dragging their feet.

"We don't feel the individual jurisdictions have shown any concern about the credibility of the program," said Michael Beck, San Diego director of the Endangered Habitats League.

The process isn't simple. City "subarea" plans require approval from local, state and federal officials.

"It's a mind-numbing process, to be quite honest," Adams said.

Carlsbad completed its plan in 2004 after years of effort, and Oceanside appears close to doing so. Solana Beach is not required to prepare a plan.

Several of the cities have drafts, but funding requirements remain a sticking point, officials said last week.

It isn't enough to set aside land. Cities are expected to monitor and maintain the wildlife in those conserved areas.

"We haven't figured out how to pay for all the things the agency is telling us we need to get done to get our plans approved," said Barbara Redlitz, Escondido's principal planner. "It's really no surprise it's boiling down to financing."

Encinitas is in a similar boat, a city official said.

"There are some costs to these (plans) and we don't have unlimited funds," said Patrick Murphy, that city's planning director. "We need to better understand what those costs are."

Out with the old, in with the new
Under the 4D program, Fish and Wildlife allowed cities to develop 5 percent of their coastal sage scrub land, if the projects had minimal effect on threatened species. After cities used up their allocation they could purchase "credits" from the county out of its share.

Beck described the 5 percent rule as good-faith agreement, a way to acknowledge "that the world doesn't stop while you're doing the planning."

But it was also problematic, he said, because cities "used the benefits of the program without fulfilling the conservation obligations."

Redlitz bristles at this critique, pointing out that Escondido has acquired thousands of acres of open space, such as Daley Ranch. And just because the city's plan is still in draft form, she said, doesn't mean the city hasn't been environmentally responsible.

"Our feeling is that our conservation effort ---- the amount we've put into conservation since this began ---- far exceeds what's been removed from 4D," she said.

Who suffers?
Ultimately, the change in Fish and Wildlife's policy may be hardest on developers, Adams said.

"Punishing an industry that's supportive of the ultimate objective does not make sense, and ultimately, we're the ones being hurt," he said.

Fortunately, the troubled economy should soften the blow, he said.

"I would imagine if we weren't in such a weakened economy it would probably be a more significant issue," Adams said. "It's a big deal for those who are trying to get their projects going, but not many projects are trying to get going these days."

Not everyone is going to have the same troubles, Redlitz said.

"I think the big developers, they're sophisticated enough, they can hire the experts to put the plans together and make it work," Redlitz said. "It's going to hurt the small, single-family homeowners, for example ... . They don't have the resources to pull these sorts of permits together."

At least one developer has already had to make some adjustments.

Concordia Homes, which wants to build a 54-acre housing project in a rural area of Vista, had originally planned to purchase sage scrub credits from the county (through the city), said John Conley, the city's community development director.

Now, the company must go through Fish and Wildlife's approval process.

"That's a pretty big hit for them in terms of time," Conley said.

If Concordia is unable to get its permit, that could affect construction of a city sports park next door (access to the park cuts through Concordia's property).

Changing the plan
After receiving O'Rourke's letter, the cities without adopted plans have begun meeting regularly with the Fish and Wildlife Service to hash out different options. Perhaps there's a way to reshape the program to make is feasible for everyone, said Keith Greer, a senior regional planner with the San Diego Association of Governments.

"It's saying, we're all in the same boat here, how do we move forward?" said Greer, who is serving as a facilitator.

Thus far, the discussion have been productive, city officials said. But big hurdles remain.

"Our sticking point is always going to be the financing," Redlitz said. "I don't have a solution for that."