By any measure, a great deal has happened in San Marcos lately, and the city is feeling both the benefits and pressures of the growth and change. A city of 58,000 in northern San Diego County, San Marcos is the scene of a new 3,400-unit housing development, aggressive redevelopment by the city, extensive construction and rehabilitation of affordable housing units, and a growing California State University campus. City officials have worked to get control of their town's destiny. Capitalizing on a CSU campus that opened in 1990 and Palomar College, a huge community college across town, San Marcos leaders decided to fill the north county's "educational niche," City Manager Rick Gittings said. San Marcos is not a "college town," but CSU San Marcos is building its first dormitories. And apartments, condominiums, retail development and institutional uses such as health care facilities are part of a master plan for the university area approved in 1989. Development in the master plan area has quickened of late. "The last several years, we seem to have done a number of things right," said Mayor Corky Smith, who won a third, four-year term as mayor in November. But there are traces of discontent. Backers of an initiative that would require voter approval of zoning changes submitted petition signatures in October. Supporters came up about 30 valid signatures short of qualifying for the ballot, but they vow to return. The recent election could pose a problem for the huge San Elijo Hills development. Smith will now command a council majority that many people believe will not be as friendly toward the project. And traffic congestion remains a problem on city boulevards despite more than $100 million in improvements to surface streets and freeway ramps. Located on Highway 78 between Escondido on the east and Carlsbad and Vista on the west, San Marcos remained a rural backwater into the 1980s. The city incorporated in 1963, growing slowly and somewhat haphazardly for more than two decades. The lack of infrastructure became an issue during the 1970s, and voters eventually approved an initiative requiring development to pay its fair share of infrastructure capital costs, as well as operations and maintenance. But the city is still trying to catch up, Gittings said. Since the late 1980s, however, the city has seen a different approach to development. Larger projects based on specific plans or master plans have become common. The largest of these is San Elijo Hills. Approved three years ago, San Elijo Hills encompasses 3,400 single-family houses and condominiums, a school site and a 19-acre commercial center on 1,920 acres in the grassy hills between San Marcos and Carlsbad. About one quarter of the housing units — but none of the commercial amenities — have been built. Partially designed by New Urbanist architect Peter Calthorpe, San Elijo Hills was named "Master Planned Community of the Year" by the National Homebuilders Association earlier this year. The project has proven popular with buyers, too, as reflected by a price escalation. Currently, condominiums start at about $280,000, while most of the single-family homes — all of which are at least 2,300 square feet — run from nearly $500,000 to more than $700,000. These prices were unknown in San Marcos until very recently. Still, San Elijo Hills has its detractors. Cynthia Skovgard, an unsuccessful City Council candidate who headed the rezoning initiative, called the project "horrid, appalling and abusive" because it fills open space with houses. Access to San Elijo Hills and to a neighboring housing development is limited, with one two-lane road (now being widened to four) serving as the only route — and it provides a better link to Carlsbad and Encinitas than to the rest of San Marcos. An extension of one of the San Marcos's main boulevards to San Elijo Hills is planned, but money is lacking, Development Services Director Charles Schaffer said. The poor access is a sticking point with Mayor Smith, who earlier this year was on the short end of a vote to limit San Elijo Hills building permits until a new road is in place. The more immediate controversy has shifted to a golf course proposed for a ridgeline above town. Although it was empty land at the time, the city placed the San Elijo Hills site in a redevelopment project. In fact, most of the city lies in one of three project areas created from 1983 to 1989. As those areas grow, the city's tax increment grows. The city expects to get about $17 million in tax increment this fiscal year. Gittings conceded the city could not draw the same redevelopment boundaries under the 1993 reform of redevelopment law (see CP&DR, December 1993, May 1993). "I'm not so sure that ‘reform' was a good thing," Gittings said. San Marcos receives only 7.5% of property taxes — roughly half what many cities get — so it needs to be creative. "You can't do anything with 7.5 cents," he said "What we've done with the redevelopment areas is balance that a little bit." The city has indeed used its redevelopment agency to revitalize older areas, and the affordable housing program is ahead of most cities'. Since 1995, the city has added 1,500 deed-restricted units to its affordable housing inventory, Assistant City Manager Paul Malone said. New development, rehabilitation and conversion of existing mobile homes each account for about one-third of the total. About 1,000 more units are pending. That is a substantial turnaround from 10 years ago, when the city had an affordable housing deficit and was the target of a housing advocates' lawsuit. The city has also served as a developer to generate revenue. The city developed a recreational vehicle mall, and then invited tenants. A three-year-old civic center — half of which is leased to other public entities and private enterprise — is surrounded by about 50 acres that is available for site leases. Already, developers have constructed restaurants and two office buildings on the city-owned property. This approach has angered some. "They should sell out all of their real estate holdings and do what a city is supposed to do," said James Eubank, developer of a collection of eateries on San Marcos Boulevard called Old California Restaurant Row. "Take that money from all their real estate holdings and put it into some infrastructure," Eubank urged. Gittings defended the city's strategy and pointed to a voter-approved charter amendment that allows the city to develop land. The city is constantly searching for "revenue streams we can generate that the state can't get its hands on," he said. Contacts: Mayor Corky Smith, City Manager Rick Gittings, Development Services Director Charles Schaffer, City of San Marcos, (760) 744-1050. Cynthia Skovgard, initiative proponent, (760) 744-8380. Jim Eubank, Old California Restaurant Row developer, (760) 744-0550.

The Los Angeles Unified School District has embarked on a huge land-purchase effort as part of a massive school construction program. But because the cost of real estate in the region is so high — and available land is scarce — the district and other agencies are beginning to emphasize joint use. The 79 new schools that compose Phase I of the construction program all have been or will be designed with some level of community use in mind. And future phases of the capital improvement program will contain even more aggressive approaches to shared uses, said Glenn Gritzner, special assistant to LAUSD Superintendent Roy Romer. Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg (D-Los Angeles), a former city councilwoman and LAUSD trustee, is pressing for more joint-use projects. To further her efforts, Goldberg has conducted two meetings with dozens of representatives of government agencies, nonprofit organizations and development interests. A third meeting is scheduled for this month. For a variety of political and economic reasons, LAUSD has built few schools during the last three decades. At the same time, the enormous district's student population has grown, and officials expect increased enrollment in the future. To accommodate current and future students, the district plans to build 79 new schools — including 15 comprehensive high schools — during the next few years. The district also plans a second phase to expand and upgrade 60 existing campuses and add playground space at 19 other schools within the next five years. On top of those 158 projects, the district needs 140 to 160 additional schools in future phases to eliminate the need for year-round schools, which is a priority for Romer. The LAUSD, however, serves some of the most densely populated areas in the country, and there is little vacant land for new schools. In many instances, the district displaces housing or businesses when constructing a new school. For the 79 new schools, the Board of Trustees has already approved more than 60 eminent domain resolutions involving hundreds of real estate transactions. Goldberg and others clearly want to see the new schools — but not at the expense of housing and jobs. The communities that need new schools are the ones that most need housing, jobs and other facilities, such as parks, libraries and community gathering places, said Suzi Hoffman-Kipp, an aide to Goldberg. But meeting numerous community needs is difficult because of differing and sometimes conflicting laws and administrative regulations. So Goldberg has gathered people to locate the hurdles and figure out ways to cross them. At the last meeting — which about 30 lawyers from a variety of entities attended — informal committees were assigned to answer 15 questions, such as whether the school district could use housing relocation money to create replacement units, and whether the district could sell or lease air rights above schools. These issues and questions are not new. A number of people, including the organization New Schools Better Neighborhoods, have been advocating these things for years. But as chairwoman of the Assembly Education Committee, Goldberg brings added weight to the discussions. Under Romer and the current Board of Trustees, the LAUSD is willing to consider joint-use projects, but some observers believe the district is unwilling to change its approach significantly. The district's Gritzner said LAUSD is not necessarily the best entity to be in charge of joint-use projects. "We want our schools to be the center of their communities. The superintendent has said that over and over again," Gritzner said. "But our job is not to plan housing and retail. We're not the Community Redevelopment Agency, nor should we be." True joint-use projects —parks or libraries shared by schools and the general public, a housing project next to a school, retail site leases — are tremendously complicated. "It's hard to even frame the questions," said Jane Blumenfeld, director of school facilities planning for the City of Los Angeles. "It's good, but it's very complicated. For us, joint use is critical because there are many, many needs." The school district has the money — voters approved a $3.3 billion bond for LAUSD in November and the district has been getting more state bond money than in the past — and the district has the will to build, Blumenfeld noted. Plus, the district is most often building in neighborhoods where parking, play space and other amenities are sorely lacking. So the city would like to work as many items into the school projects as reasonably possible. There is not a great deal the city could do for joint-use projects. What it can do is serve as a facilitator and provide interpretations to regulations and processes that aid the projects, Blumenfeld explained. Among those who often protest the loudest over a new school are the residents themselves. That is because the district buys up housing units to create a school site. Goldberg has insisted that housing advocates should be part of her discussions, which is a good sign, said Jan Breidenbach, executive director of the Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing. In the past, school officials have not approached tenant groups until the deal was done, she said. "It will never be a perfect process, but … there are clever things that can be done," Breidenbach said. "I'll just be damned if we should have to make the choice — schools or housing." Goldberg's discussions could result in legislation, said her aide, Hoffman-Kipp. But the assemblywoman has decided nothing yet and has no timeline. She just does not want to see future joint-use projects take years longer to deliver than traditional school projects. As for the LAUSD, officials have identified all but two sites for the 79 new schools, and the district now controls about 60% of the land it will need. Four schools are complete, about two dozen others — including the district's first two new high schools in 30 years — have at least started construction, and plans are ready for many of the remaining Phase I schools. Designers have had some shared-use in mind for every school, even if that only means making bathrooms accessible for community meetings without having to open the entire school building, Gritzner said. Once it gets the Phase I schools complete, the district will have more breathing room to contemplate what it considers "robust" joint-use projects that entail funding from a variety of sources, joint-use agreements, and true sharing of maintenance, operations and liability, Gritzner said. And it will consider being a partner in projects that involve housing and businesses, he said. Contacts: Suzi Hoffman-Kipp, Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg's office, (323) 258-0450. Glenn Gritzner, Los Angeles Unified School District, (213) 241-7000. Jane Blumenfeld, City of Los Angeles, (213) 978-1372. Jan Breidenbach, Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing, (213) 480-1249.

Is it appropriate for designers to create objects that have no use beyond giving pleasure? In 1972, a French interviewer asked a similar question to the designer Charles Eames in the film "Design Q&A." His answer: "Who is to say pleasure is not useful?" Eames's rhetorical question can be rephrased in a positive way: Pleasure is a legitimate concern in design, and nowhere more so than in urban design. Just as we have outgrown the idea of strict functionalism, in which design is little more than finding the most efficient shape for a given purpose, we have abandoned the idea of the city as nothing more than a pure economic machine that contains housing, places of employment and ways of moving goods and people. We now think a city should provide pleasurable experiences — things to look at, places to hang out, beautiful landscape to stroll along — to fulfill its role as a city. Pleasure, however, is not a word that forms itself soundlessly on one's lips when looking at downtown Fresno. A city with a large downtown dating from the 19th century, Fresno was once a place of graceful, turn-of-the-century mansions and elegant apartment buildings from the 1920s. Now, however, the vacant lots and blocks of isolated, aging buildings emanate a sense of desolation and exhaustion. Until recently, the downtown area was virtually deserted on evenings and weekends. This enervation is a strange fate for Fresno, the hub of the San Joaquin Valley. "Fresno grew up as a center of agriculture," says urban designer Richard Thompson of A.C. Martin, the Los Angeles-based architectural firm that served as a design consultant for Vision 2010, the latest downtown plan. Set amid the plains of the San Joaquin Valley, Fresno's "magnificent buildings … seemed to come out of the middle of nowhere," he added. The magnificence of Fresno during the 1920s is hard to visualize nowadays. The city's downtown area is perhaps the most radical example in California of the abandonment of the traditional downtown core in favor of the suburbs. Like many cities during the postwar years, Fresno exploded with suburban growth (Fresno is now California's sixth largest city, with a population of nearly 500,000 residents) and Fresno County probably has more "rural sprawl" than any other region of the state. Making matters worse, earlier generations of city officials demolished some distinctive masonry buildings dating from the 19th Century during the period when we believed that buildings were the source of urban blight. Those buildings are mourned now because they would have added character, history and scale to a downtown revival. In Fresno's favor is an energetic redevelopment department that has worked hard to attract developers. During the past several years, those efforts have attracted nearly 30 projects or proposals, some recently completed, others under construction and still others unscheduled possibilities. A 12,500-seat baseball stadium, built by the city and rented by the Fresno Grizzlies minor league baseball team, reached completion in May. The stadium is located in the "entertainment district," just northwest of the dilapidated Fulton Mall, one of the oldest pedestrian malls in the country. The ballpark attracted 500,000 spectators during the Grizzlies' 2002 season, a stronger-than expected showing that suggests the ballpark could be the long-sought anchor of the entertainment district. A federal courthouse broke ground in the civic center about seven blocks east of the new ballpark, while a regional medical center is under construction several blocks north of the courthouse. Meanwhile, Fresno County officials are trying to decide on a new downtown location for a large library. The good thing about the current crop of projects is that they are large, "catalytic" projects capable of attracting further development around them. The bad thing is that most of the projects are scattered widely across the vast canvas of downtown Fresno, with little connective tissue in between. One project that holds some promise to connect the disparate, mutually unacknowledging pieces of downtown Fresno together is a proposed River Walk and Lake. It would stretch for seven or eight blocks between Highway 41 on the east and the Grizzly baseball stadium on the northwest. Like many American cities, Fresno appears enchanted by the famous Riverwalk in San Antonio, Texas, that has become so widely imitated that it verges on becoming a planning cliché. Never mind. Cities do not need to be original to be successful. Rather, they need to provide amenities — water, shade, continuous architecture, landscaping — that provide a pleasant backdrop for human activity. And while "water features" are corny in many places, water in downtown Fresno would seem almost paradisal. (Students of Islamic architecture will remember that fountains — symbolizing the junction of four rivers — represent paradise in Arab courtyards.) Although the idea remains a mere diagram at this point in time, the proposed River Walk would flow alongside Fulton Mall, which the city plans to rejuvenate while building a residential mixed-use district around the old shopping center. In theory, people who attend the baseball game could stroll or shop or grab a meal in the Fulton Mall. I hope that the city will also create pricing incentives for people to park their cars near the off ramps of Highway 41, and walk several blocks up the Fulton Mall to the ballpark. In this way, a pedestrian district comes into existence. The artificial river is the thread that can stitch together the entertainment district. Under the leadership of Executive Director Dan Fitzpatrick, the redevelopment agency is using its modest resources to advance infill projects such as River Walk, as well as new housing and retail in ethnic enclaves likes China Town and Armenian Town. The city has earmarked a none-too-generous $30 million during the next five years for various downtown projects, including $10 million for the River Walk. If those projects move forward, lonely downtown Fresno would then have what seems almost unimaginable now: a lively pedestrian, mixed-use district. Pleasure, in turns out, is not only useful, but crucial to the district's future. A touch of paradise can bring people to otherwise abandoned places and return vitality to even the most degraded downtowns.

A city resolution restricting parking on certain residential streets to residents with parking permits was categorically exempt from environmental review, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court rejected business owners' contention that the ordinance was not exempt because of the cumulative impact of parking restrictions or because of "unusual circumstances." In November 2000, the Santa Monica City Council adopted a resolution establishing Preferential Parking Zone XX (PPZ XX) for streets in a 26-acre area. The resolution allowed only vehicles with residential parking permits to park on unmetered curbs in residential areas of the zone from 7 a.m. to 2 a.m. daily. The City Council also declared the resolution exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guideline § 15301(c), which provides exemptions for minor alterations. The Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce sued, claiming the resolution was not exempt. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge David Yaffe ruled for the city, and a unanimous three-judge panel of the Second District, Division Three, upheld the decision. The appellate court first determined that the resolution qualified as an exempt "project" under Class 1 of § 15301(c). That class applies to the operation, repair or minor alteration of existing structures, facilities or topography and involving no expansion of use. The court held that the city's resolution easily met the criteria, and the court rejected the Chamber of Commerce's argument that Class 1 was not intended to apply to a regulatory scheme. " he Class 1 exemption itself specifically states that it is applicable to activities involving the operation of existing public facilities — and that is exactly what the legislation here involves," Justice Walter Croskey wrote for the court. As for the Chamber of Commerce's arguments that the exemption did not apply because of cumulative impacts or unusual circumstances, the court ruled that the Chamber did not provide any factual evidence as the basis for a "fair argument." The Chamber argued that the resolution itself, and combined with other preferential parking zones, created an adverse parking effect. But the court disagreed. "The only ‘adverse parking impact' of the legislation is that it gives residents, versus commercial users, preferential parking at some unmetered spaces," Croskey wrote. "While it can be inferred from this fact that the legislation may have an adverse financial impact on some persons or businesses, it cannot be inferred from this fact that the legislation may have any environmental impact." The chamber argued that PPZ XX was "unusually large," its hours were "unusually restrictive" and that an "unusually diverse" mix of users frequent the area. But the court found nothing unusual and said the city was simply "deciding how best to allocate its limited curbside parking in an area with competing user interests." The court also ruled that it did not matter that the city had not exempted the establishment of earlier preferential parking zones. The Case: Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v. City of Santa Monica, No. B151761, 02 C.D.O.S. 7981, 2002 DJDAR 10002. Filed August 29, 2002. The Lawyers: For the Chamber: Christopher M. Harding, Harding, Larmore, Kutcher & Kozal, (310) 451-2968. For the city: Cara Silver, city attorney's office, (310) 458-8336.

A superior court's decision that invalidated several changes the state made to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines in 1998 has been upheld almost entirely by a state appellate court. The appellate panel threw out six guidelines addressing cumulative impacts, thresholds of significance, and tiering. The court upheld one guideline addressing cumulative impacts but provided additional direction for interpreting the rule. And the court said one guideline addressing "probable future projects" was invalid but could be remedied with a small wording change. The court also upheld a narrow infill development exemption that environmentalists had contested. The ruling was a victory for the three environmental groups — Communities for a Better Environment, Environmental Protection Information Center and Desert Citizens Against Pollution — that challenged the Wilson administration's amendments to the Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Reg. 15000 et seq.). On the losing end was the California Building Industry Association (CBIA), which had taken up defense of the amendments. Richard Drury, attorney for Communities for a Better Environment, called the case "the most important CEQA decision in a decade." The losing side was unwilling to go that far, but no one denied that the ruling was important in the continuing evolution of CEQA. "CEQA is here to stay, EIRs are here to stay," said James Moose, a leading CEQA attorney with Sacramento's Remy, Thomas and Moose, which was not involved in the litigation. "It's a big decision, not only because it knocks out these guidelines that were high profile, but also because it addresses these issues that have caused practitioners trouble." Among those issues were ways to address cumulative impacts. The guideline changes attempted to provide more certainty in this area. The unanimous three-judge panel of the Third District struck down most of those changes. The court stated that "one molecule" of change was not the standard for requiring an EIR, but the court also struck down a guideline that allowed a lead agency to find that a project's contribution to cumulative impacts was de minimis and, therefore, did not need further study. "How do you assess?" asked Edward Casey, who represented the building industry. "What test do you use to determine a project's contribution to a cumulative condition? I don't know. We're back to square one. This has always been the toughest part of CEQA law." But Drury praised the court's ruling. So often, he said, environmental documents ignore cumulative impacts. But the issue is important for communities that get pollution from multiple sources, he said. Drury and Moose noted that the court's opinion repeatedly endorsed the "fair argument" standard. Under this standard, if someone can provide a fair argument based on substantial evidence that a project may have a significant impact on the environment, the lead agency must prepare an EIR. "It's a very strong reaffirmation of the fair argument standard," Drury said. "I think that's what the Wilson administration was trying to go after with these guideline revisions." The roots of the case extend to 1998, the most recent time when the Resources Agency revised the CEQA Guidelines (see CP&DR, June 1999, October 1998). The state amended scores of guidelines, but the lawsuit filed by environmentalists challenged only 12 of the changes. Most people believed that they were the 12 most important changes. In mid-2001, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Ronald Robie (since elevated to the Third District bench) overturned eight of the amendments (see CP&DR Legal Digest, June 2001). The Davis administration declined to appeal the decision, but the CBIA, which had intervened in the lawsuit, did appeal. Environmentalists appealed the decision regarding an infill exemption that Robie had upheld, and the state did defend that part of the case on appeal. In a ruling issued at the end of October, the Third District upheld nearly all of Robie's decision. Guideline §15064(h) encouraged cities and counties to adopt thresholds of significance based on regulatory standards. Under this guideline, if a project's impact was below the adopted threshold of significance, a local agency was directed to determine the impact was insignificant. But the court found this approach too inflexible. "This direction relieves the agency of a duty it would have under the fair argument approach to look at evidence beyond the regulatory standard, or in contravention of the standard, in deciding whether an EIR must be prepared," Justice Rodney Davis wrote for the court. As for cumulative impacts, the appellate court upheld Guideline § 15064(i)(3). That rule allows an agency to determine a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect as not significant if the project complies with an approved plan or mitigation program. However, the court said, the fair argument standard still applies, meaning an EIR could still be required. The court fully struck down § 15064(i)(4) and 15130(a)(4), which allowed a lead agency to determine an incremental contribution to cumulative impacts as "de minimis," meaning no further study was necessary. The court reaffirmed a standard set in Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, and in Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v City of Los Angeles, (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1019 (see CP&DR Legal Digest, December 1997). The court cited Kings County: "The relevant question to be addressed in the EIR is not the relative amount of precursors emitted by the project when compared with pre-existing emissions, but whether any additional amount of the precursor emissions should be considered significant in light of the serious nature of the ozone problems in this air basin." The court repudiated San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus, (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 608 (see CP&DR Legal Digest, March 1996), which allows agencies to weigh incremental contributions as a ratio. " nder CEQA § 21083, under the Guidelines § 15355 definition of cumulative impacts and under the Kings County/Los Angeles Unified approach, the need for an EIR turns on the impacts of both the project under review and the relevant past, present and future projects," Justice Davis wrote. "We conclude that Guidelines § 15064(i)(4) and 15130(a)(4) are inconsistent with controlling CEQA law because they measure a proposed project's de minimis incremental impact relative to the existing cumulative impact, rather than focus on the combined effects of these impacts." The court also invalidated § 15152(f)(2) to the extent it incorporated the de minimis approach. As for defining "probable future projects," the court invalidated § 15130(b)(1)(B)2 because it contained the word "or" rather than "and." The court held that a lead agency must refer to all categories of probable future projects, including projects for which an application has been submitted, projects in a capital improvement plan or general plan, projects that are part of a later phase of a previously approved projects, and public agency projects for which money has been budgeted. The court also rejected § 15152(f)(3)(c) regarding tiering. The guideline allowed an agency to approve a project that had significant, unavoidable impacts without the agency making findings of overriding considerations if the earlier master or program EIR made such findings. The court held that the public agency must adopt overriding findings every time. Finally, the court upheld § 15332, which provides a categorical exemption for infill projects of less than five acres in urban areas if the project would not impact traffic, noise, air quality of water quality. Environmentalists had hoped the court would overturn Judge Robie, who also backed this guideline. The appellate court read the exemption as narrow and noted that qualifying projects must comply with existing general plan, zoning and other regulations. Drury said environmentalists' complaint is not with infill development per se, but with the exemption from scrutiny — an argument environmental justice advocates often present. "Even good projects are supposed to undergo environmental review," he said. "In some ways, infill development can impact more people than sprawl development." Deputy Attorney General Marian Moe said the exemption is so tight that "there are very few infill projects that it will apply to." Just about everyone foresees the Third District's decision leading to more litigation. Casey, the builders' attorney, said there will be future battles over how much discretion an agency has when setting thresholds of significance. The extent of the fair argument test also is unclear, he said. Moose predicted further litigation over cumulative impacts. "People are still scratching their heads," he said. The Case: Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency, No. C038844, 02 C.D.O.S. 10740, 2002 DJDAR 12379. Filed October 28, 2002. The Lawyers: For CBE: Richard Drury, (510) 302-0430. For the state: Marian Moe, Attorney General's office, (916) 322-5460. For the California Building Industry Association: Edward Casey, Weston, Benshoof, Rochefort, Rubalcava & MacCuish, (213) 576-1000.

Later this month, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors will meet to consider an appeal of the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. TT-5206 and certification of the accompanying Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. At first glance, this tract map approval might seem routine. It is the first of four tract maps that the developer anticipates bringing forward, allowing the developer to build 628 homes, a golf course, and other facilities on 846 acres of unincorporated land. It's a follow-on to a general plan amendment and development agreement previously approved by the Board of Supervisors. The county Planning Commission approved the tract map in November. But TT-5206 is not routine. Approval of the tract map by the supervisors is not guaranteed. And even if supervisors approve the tract map, the decision will certainly be fought -- in the courts, in the newspapers and even in Sacramento and Washington. The reason is simple: TT-5206 represents the final local government approval required to begin construction on the infamous Ahmanson Ranch project. No development project in the recent California history has generated so many headlines and so many delays as Ahmanson Ranch. It has been nearly 40 years since the Ahmanson family first hired William Pereira to draw up a plan. It is going on 20 years since Home Savings of America -- which the Ahmanson family founded -- first started talking to Ventura County about development. And, ironically enough, the members of Board of Supervisors are scheduled to act on TT-5206 almost 10 years to the day after they approved the general plan amendment and development agreement for Ahmanson Ranch in the first place. Yet the battle over Ahmanson Ranch rages, and in many ways the fight is more intense than ever. What is it about this piece of land that has inspired so much outrage by several generations of environmental activists? And what is it about the California planning system that has permitted this fight to continue for so long? Ahmanson Ranch is a beautiful property perched on the edge of Los Angeles. The ranch originally consisted of 5,400 acres -- some hilly, some flat -- located north of Highway 101. It is cut off from the rest of Ventura County by rugged terrain owned by the National Park Service (as part of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area) and by Rockwell International, which used the isolated location to test rocket engines. But the undeveloped property abuts two intensely developed areas across the county line -- Los Angeles's San Fernando Valley to the west, and Calabasas to the south. This proximity -- which makes Ahmanson Ranch such a prime development site -- has fueled the remarkably tenacious opposition to the ranch's development. Both the west Valley and Calabasas are home to affluent residents accustomed to battling developers. The site is just across the freeway from the Santa Monica Mountains, where environmental activists have done battle with developers parcel-by-parcel for decades. And it is just upstream from Malibu, meaning that you never know which celebrities might get into the act. Ventura County's approval of the Ahmanson Ranch project in 1992 was part of a larger and carefully constructed political deal to permit some development and protect large amounts of open space. Originally, Ventura County was considering two developments -- an office and housing proposal from Ahmanson, and a luxury golf course proposed for nearby Jordan Ranch, then owned by Bob Hope. The two ranches were separated by Cheseboro Canyon, which the National Park Service already owned. Jordan Ranch ran into stiff opposition from neighbors in the adjacent Oak Park community. Clamoring for action, the neighbors organized themselves into SOS ("Space Open Space") and helped elect 25-year-old Maria VanderKolk to the Ventura County Board of Supervisors in 1990. To save Jordan Ranch, VanderKolk brokered a deal between Jordan and Ahmanson. The Park Service purchased Jordan Ranch, and Jordan and Ahmanson development interests were combined on Ahmanson Ranch. In addition to Jordan Ranch, several thousand acres of other land -- including most of Ahmanson Ranch -- were thrown into the deal as open space. This was the development agreement that the Ventura County Board of Supervisors approved at VanderKolk's urging in 1992. But the project did not move forward immediately. First, several surrounding homeowner associations and cities — including Calabasas and Malibu, both of which incorporated in 1991 — sued under the California Environmental Quality Act. Ventura County and Home Savings eventually won or settled all the lawsuits, which took place during the recession of the '90s, when the project probably would not have been built anyway. Then Home Savings sold out to Seattle-based Washington Mutual, which thought it was buying an approved project. After that, the California red-legged frog — a federally listed threatened species — was found on the site, as was the San Fernando Valley spineflower — a species not listed as endangered because everybody thought it was extinct. At this point, the Wednesday night president and his director friend showed up. Nowhere is celebrity politics more important than in Los Angeles, and so it is not surprising that when "West Wing" star Martin Sheen and film director Rob Reiner came out against the Ahmanson Ranch project, the politics of the situation were profoundly altered. The species issues gave the project's opponents a new hook, especially because the 1992 EIR was aging fast. And Reiner was just coming off of a major political victory with the passage of Proposition 10, a tax on tobacco to fund early-childhood programs. To assist the longtime SOS activists, Reiner and his colleagues bankrolled a new organization with a professional staff called Rally to Save Ahmanson Ranch. Before long, virtually every political figure representing the area -- including L.A. County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman and State Sen. Sheila Kuehl -- were working to stop the project. Even Gov. Gray Davis and his resources secretary, Mary Nichols, suggested the state might be interested in buying the expensive real estate. But this opposition could not stop Washington Mutual from moving forward. Over the last year, WaMu has moved aggressively to get the tract map in front of the Board of Supervisors. WaMu agreed to a Supplemental EIR, which ran to 4,000 pages and concluded that the impact on the two rare species could be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The timing appeared to be driven largely by politics. Ahmanson supporter Supervisor Frank Schillo — VanderKolk's successor — will retire in January, to be replaced by environmentalist and avowed Ahmanson opponent Linda Parks. So long as Schillo is on the board, WaMu can probably win a 3-2 vote. Once Schillo is gone, that seems unlikely. The November action in front of the Ventura County Planning Commission went on for two days and received statewide news coverage, making it the most protracted and highly publicized tract map hearing ever conducted. Dozens of speakers spilled out of the hearing room in Ventura. Opponents trotted out the likes of Dennis Dickerson, the executive director of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Proponents brought San Fernando City Councilwoman Maria Delatorre, who spoke on behalf of 25 mostly Latino cities in L.A. County on the need for more housing. In the end, the Planning Commission's action — like the probable Board of Supervisors' decision — came down to politics cast in process and technical terminology. There are few legitimate grounds for denying a tract map (though significant environmental damage is one of them), and the Planning Commission approved the tract map on a 3-2 vote. If the board approves the project, we will see more lawsuits and maneuvering. Usually, in situations like this, there are only two possible outcomes. One is for somebody — probably the state and federal governments — to buy out Washington Mutual. The second is for somebody in the opposition — probably Calabasas — to fold and make a deal on a smaller project. But because of Ahmanson's peculiar history, both outcomes seem remote. Despite the campaign rhetoric, it is unlikely the Davis Administration will cough up $300 million to $500 million to buy it. And given the intense, hard-line nature opposition, it seems unlikely that anybody in Calabasas could make a deal without losing face. So, instead of being a park or a housing development, Ahmanson Ranch will probably spend several more years as a great story. That is the one thing the planning system in California is guaranteed to produce.

A state appellate court has halted a project at the Port of Los Angeles because the city never studied the development's environmental impacts. The court rejected the city's arguments that the project was covered by a 1997 environmental impact report and a 2000 subsequent EIR because the project had not been contemplated in 1997, and there was no evidence the 2000 study considered the project. Furthermore, even if the earlier studies covered the first phase of the project, as the city argued, the city had improperly segmented the project by not also studying the second and third phases at the same time, the court ruled. The case involved construction of a new terminal — including two wharves designed to handle large cargo ships and two four-lane bridges to the mainland — for China Shipping Holding Company. In May 2001, the Los Angeles City Council approved the project and determined no additional environmental study was necessary under the California Environmental Quality Act because of the 1997 EIR for major improvements to the port and the 2000 document addressing channel deepening. The City Council's decision came one day after the city finalized a contract with China Shipping for the project. Two months later, the City Council approved a "side letter" agreement addressing concerns related to air pollution, truck congestion and harbor congestion. Two environmental groups and two San Pedro homeowners associations filed suit, arguing the city should prepare an EIR addressing all three phases of the China Shipping project. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavs ruled for the city, finding the first phase was covered by the 1997 EIR and noting that the city had acknowledged a need for an EIR regarding the second and third phases. The environmentalists and homeowners, with support from the state Attorney General's office, appealed the ruling. A three-judge panel of the Second District, Division Four, overturned the decision. In his opinion, Justice Gary Hastings cited the attorney general's amicus brief: "Here, the Port and the City have reduced CEQA to a process whose result will be largely to generate paper, to produce an EIR that describes a journey whose destination is already predetermined and contractually committed to before the public has any chance to see either the road map or the full price tag. … They have signed this legally binding agreement for the entire project before completing the CEQA process for two of its three phases." According to the appellate court, the city tried two different defenses, but both failed. "If we accept the City's argument made to the trial court that Phase I of the project falls within the 1997 EIR, and its concession that a new EIR is being prepared with regard to Phases II and III, this is improper segmentation," Hastings wrote. "If we accept the argument made before us that Phase I is covered under the 1997 EIR and Phases II and III are covered under the 2000 SEIS/SEIR, this is also improper segmentation." Instead, the court ruled, the city should use the 1997 document as a program EIR and prepare a tiered EIR for all three phases of the China Shipping project. The court made permanent the injunction it issued one week earlier halting the project until an EIR is completed. The Case: Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles , No. B159157, 02 C.D.O.S. 10773, 2002 DJDAR 12503. Filed October 30, 2002. The Lawyers: For NRDC: Gail Ruderman Feuer, (323) 934-6900. For the city: Richard Helgeson, city attorney's office, (310) 732-3750.

Alameda County: City of Alameda: Measure E: Initiative to amend the general plan and rezone the 22-acre Beltline Railroad Property from medium-density residential, general industry and parks to solely parks and public open space. Slow growth � yes. Yes: 53.1% Measure D: Placed on ballot by City Council. Postpones Measure E implementation. Requires city to file validation suit to determine if city must compensate Beltline Railroad Property owners for downzoning. Property has been appraised at $20 million to $25 million. If court rules compensation necessary, then city must put tax increase on future ballot. Pro growth � yes. Yes: 51.6% City of Albany: Measure F: $14.5 million bond for repairs and improvements to, and for additional, public buildings, streets and parks. (2/3 required) Yes: 69.5% City of Berkeley: Measure I: $7.2million bond to build an animal shelter. (2/3 required) Yes: 68.5% Measure J: $21.5 million bond to renovate and seismically retrofit the Old City Hall building, which houses the council chambers and the county Superintendent of Schools office. (2/3 vote) No: 60.4% Measure L: A special tax of 1.3 cents per square foot of improvements to fund pedestrian safety projects. Would tax average house about $25 and raise about $1 million annually for 10 years. (2/3 vote) No: 45.8% Measure M: Increases in the property transfer tax by 0.5% to raise money for the housing trust fund, emergency homeless assistance and housing safety programs. Houses costing less than $350,000 or 105% of the previous selling price are exempt. Would raise about $2 million annually. (2/3 vote) No: 48.7% Measure N: Allows the City Council to amend the Waterfront Specific Plan, which voters approved via Measure Q in 1986. The specific plan placed tight limits on what can be built between Interstate 80 and the Berkeley Marina. At issue is 56 acres owned by Magna Entertainment Co., which also owns nearby Golden Gate Fields race track. Magna wants to build hotels and restaurants. Any changes to the specific plan would again need voter approval. Placed on ballot by City Council. Slow growth � yes. Yes: 67.2% Measure P. Initiative to reduce the permissible height of buildings in commercial districts outside the downtown core area. Cuts maximum height from 50 feet to 28 or 35 feet. Allows 10-foot exceptions for affordable housing projects. Prohibits variances. Slow growth � no. No: 80.0% Castro Valley Measure Q. Incorporation of a community of 58,000 people in the East Bay hills. No: 72.2% City of Fremont Measure R: $51 million bond to replace three fire stations, rehabilitate others and build a public safety training center. (2/3 vote) Yes: 74.0% Measure T: An initiative that modifies the Hillside Initiative originally approved in 1981. The new initiative requires 20-acre minimums in the city's hills, and 100-acre minimums in any hillside areas that the city annexes. Also greatly limits potential land uses. Slow growth � yes. Yes: 57.4% City of Hayward: Measure U: Amends the general plan to delete reference to a specific route for a long-proposed Route 238 bypass, and allows the City Council to pursue other freeway projects. Successful litigation has blocked the city from pursuing the earlier bypass route. Yes: 61.6% City of Oakland: Measure DD. $198 million bond to help fund the Lake Merritt Park Master Plan. The measure provides money for lake cleanup, estuary restoration and access, acquisition of land and construction of recreational facilities. Will cost property owners about $20 per $100,000 of assessed value. (2/3 vote). Yes: 80.2% City of Pleasanton: Measure V: Initiative to prohibit housing development on 318 acres owned by the city known as the Bernal Property. City currently has a specific plan for the site that requires voter approval before any development is implemented, and a city task force has "suggested" developing senior housing or affordable housing on a small part of the land. Slow growth � yes. Yes: 60.4% Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District: Measure AA. Annual parcel tax of $24 per year to fund bus service. Would generate about $7.5 million annually for five years. Newark and Fremont excluded. (2/3 vote) Yes: 68.1% Bay Area Rapid Transit District (San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa counties): Measure BB: $1.05 billion bond to seismically retrofit BART. (2/3 vote) No: 35.8% Butte County: City of Paradise: Measure K: An initiative to repeal establishment of a redevelopment agency, which the City Council created in February. Slow growth � no. No: 67.1% Contra Costa County: City of Clayton: Measure E: General plan amendment to allow service stations as permitted uses in the town center commercial land use designation. City wants to sell one acre at Clayton Road and Center Street to developer for a gas station and car wash. Placed on ballot by City Council. Pro Growth � no. No: 67.1% Fresno County: Measure CC. 30-year extension of half-cent sales tax for transportation. Currently expires in 2007. (2/3 vote) No: 46.3% Humboldt County: Measure C. Parcel tax of $10 to repair Veterans Memorial Building in Eureka and to build other veterans halls. Tax would drop to $5 annually after 10 years. (2/3 vote) No: 55.9% Los Angeles County: Measure A: $250 million bond to retrofit county museums for earthquake and fire safety. (2/3 vote) No: 39.5% City of Lawndale: Measure N. Would amend the general plan to allow the redevelopment agency to use eminent domain to acquire property zoned commercial or industrial. Pro growth � no. No: 60.5% City of Los Angeles Measure F: San Fernando Valley secession. No: 66.9% (Valley vote only: Yes: 50.8%) Measure H: Hollywood secession. No: 71.3% (Hollywood vote only: No: 68.3%) City of Santa Monica: Measure FF. Charter amendment to tighten the rent control law to make it harder to evict tenants. Also makes "move in discount" rents the base rental rate. Yes: 62.8% Measure II. Charter amendment to authorize the conversion of rental housing to condos, stock cooperatives and other forms of common ownership. Essentially reauthorizes a TORCA (Tenant Ownership Rights Charter Amendment) law that expired in 1996. No: 64.5% Measure KK. Allows the city to spend all TORCA tax revenues (equal to one year's rent on a converted unit) for affordable housing development. Now, half the revenue must be spent to purchase, rehab or lease converted units. Yes: 50.6% Marin County: Town of Tiburon: Measure I: An initiative to amend the general plan to define more broadly "prime open space" and to prohibit almost any development of that territory. The measure is aimed at undeveloped hills and the shoreline. Would affect 18 undeveloped parcels. Slow growth � no. No: 52.0% Merced County: Measure M. Half-cent, 20-year sales tax for transportation. Would be county's first. Would raise about $212 million. (2/3 vote) No: 38.7% Monterey County: City of Monterey: Measure B. Advisory vote on whether to dissolve the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, whose ban on water-credit transfers and inability to secure new water supplies have brought criticism. Yes: 62.0% City of Marina: Measure R. $8 million bond to build new library. (2/3 vote) Yes: 80.7% Orange County: Measure B. Advisory vote on whether the Board of Supervisors should demand that the Navy clean up toxic contamination at El Toro before transferring the property. Yes: 60.3% City of San Juan Capistrano. Measure CC. Referendum on the Whispering Hills project, which entails 175 houses and a new high school. Slow growth � yes. No: 56.6% Measure DD. Advisory measure on whether the city should sell 13 acres of city property, known as the Lower Rosan Property, to Home Depot for $9 million. Pro growth � no. No: 69.0% City of Seal Beach: Measure FF. Charter amendment to prohibit rent control. No: 51.1% Nevada County: Measure D. Initiative to compensate landowners for government regulation that impedes development. Similar to Oregon's Measure 7 from 2000. Pro growth � no. No: 57.2% Riverside County: Measure A. Extension of half-cent sales tax to fund transportation projects and mitigating environmental projects. A key part of the Riverside County Integrated Project. (2/3 vote) Yes: 69.0% Sacramento County: City of Folsom. Measure P: Water Meter Initiative that blocks the city's plan to retrofit 6,600 existing homes with water meters and charge residents for the cost. Initiative backers say city is making current residents pay for growth. Yes: 54.4% City of Galt: Measure R: Initiative that limits single-family housing permits to 123 to 308 per year. The number depends on city general fund revenue. Slow growth � no. No: 55.5% Rancho Cordova: Measure W: Incorporation. Yes: 77.7% San Bernardino County: City of Chino: Measure A: General plan amendment to rezone 435 acres from institutional to residential. The state owns about 700 acres next to a prison and plans to sell it as surplus to the city, the community college district and a developer. Those three entities intend to pursue a specific plan for the area. Election required by 1988 initiative regarding residential zoning. Pro growth � yes. Yes: 56.4% Measure Z: General plan amendment to rezone half an acre from office to multi-family residential to accommodate a senior housing project. Election required by 1988 initiative regarding residential zoning. Pro growth � yes. Yes: 71.5% San Diego County: Campo/Lake Morena: Proposition Z: Changes the Campo/Lake Morena Community Planning Group from a body appointed by the Board of Supervisors to an elected body. Seen as a slow-growth measure. Yes: 56.3% City of Carlsbad: Proposition B: Removes existing requirement that city capital improvements or real estate acquisitions costing more than $1 million be subject to voter approval. Placed on ballot by City Council. No: 66.2% Proposition C: Would allow the city spend more than $1 million on each of the following: a swimming pool, open space acquisition and trails, a public safety training facility, an extension of Cannon Road to Oceanside. Placed on ballot by City Council. Yes: 59.5% City of Encinitas: Proposition H: In initiative that directs the city to build a proposed new library on Quail Garden Drive, and not at a site the city has chosen. The initiative also requires the library to be at least 25,000 square feet and requires the city to build it within 30 months. No: 64.0% City of Escondido: Proposition J: General plan amendment for 6.8 acres adjacent to Interstate 15. Changes permitted uses from residential to planned commercial to accommodate a proposed pediatric medial center and an animal hospital. Election required by 1998 initiative. Voters defeated commercial development proposal for site in 2000. Pro growth � yes. Yes: 64.8% City of Oceanside. Proposition M. Initiative to designate 545-acre El Corazon property, a former sand mine, as parkland. City owns the site, which was proposed as golf course in conjunction with a proposed hotel on the beach. But the Coastal Commission rejected the resort. Slow growth � no. No: 50.1% Pine Valley: Proposition DD. Changes the Pine Valley Community Planning Group from a body appointed by the Board of Supervisors to an elected body. Seen as a slow-growth measure. Yes: 66.2% City of San Diego: Proposition A: Would allow the city to develop or acquire up to 5,000 units of "low rent" housing. Election required by Article 34 of state constitution. Pro growth � yes. Yes: 69.1% City of Solana Beach. Proposition O. Rezones 0.2 acres from public/institutional to residential. Three homeowners purchased the property from Solana Beach School District to expand their backyards. Subsequent election required by Proposition T of 2000. Yes: 71.3% Valley Center Parks and Recreation District: Proposition GG. Parcel tax of $14 annually to fund open space and park land purchases, and to maintain existing facilities. (2/3 vote) Slow growth � no. No: 39.1% San Francisco: Measure A. $1.6 billion bond to fund upgrades to Hetch Hetchy water system. Yes: 53.7% Measure B. $250 million housing bond to fund acquisition, construction and rehabilitation of low- and moderate-income housing, and for down payment assistance. Pro growth � yes. Yes: 56.9% Measure M. Expands the responsibilities of the Office of Economic Development and funds the office with existing business registration fees. No: 51.9% Measure R. Allows apartment buildings of any size to be converted to condos and allows up to 1% of total housing units (about 3,400) to be converted annually. Currently, only buildings of up to 6 units can be converted, and there is a conversion limit of 400 units per year. No: 60.7% San Mateo County: City of East Palo Alto: Measure J. Requires the city to spend 10% of transient occupancy tax (TOT) "for affordable housing purposes." The city has no hotel, but a proposed Four Seasons Hotel would generate about $2 million of TOT annually. Yes: 59.8% City of Pacifica: Measure E. Allows the city to approve up to 315 housing units as part of a proposed mixed-use development on land known as the "Quarry site." Residential portion of project subject to vote under 1983 initiative. Pro growth � no. No: 66.2% Santa Barbara County: City of Solvang Measure L: An initiative that would allow a property owner to build a replica of Copenhagen's Tivoli wheel amusement ride in a portion of a parking lot in this town of Danish replicas. No: 59.7% Santa Clara County: Measure A: Advisory vote on Valley Transportation Plan 2020, which calls for extensive transit improvements, including a connection to BART. Yes: 82.6% Measure B: Directs future, discretionary state and federal funds to highways and other roads, and away from transit projects. Yes: 74.1% City of Palo Alto: Measure D: $49.1 million bond to renovate and expand Children's Library and to replace Mitchell Park Library and Community Center. (2/3 vote) No: 38.6% City of San Jose: Measure E: Allows the city to lease 0.56 acres of the 9.3-acre Ramblewood Park to Franklin-McKinley School District for construction of an elementary school. Yes: 62.7% Measure F: Increases the TOT from 10% to 14% to help pay for a possible 370,000-square-foot convention center expansion. Pro growth � yes. Yes: 64.8% Santa Cruz County: City of Watsonville: Measure U. An initiative that moves the Urban Limit Line to allow housing and some commercial development on 500 acres of farmland that the city would annex. But the measure prohibits further ULL changes without voter approval. Also changes general plan policies for seven specific areas to encourage housing development. Pro growth � yes. Yes: 60.2% Solano County: Measure G: Half-cent sales tax for transportation. Would raise at least $800 million over 20 years. (2/3 vote) No: 40.1% Sonoma County: City of Santa Rosa: Measure K. Allows the city to double the number of subsidized rental units from 297 to 594. An Article 34 election. Pro growth � yes. Yes: 62.9% Town of Windsor: Measure X. Initiative to cap housing permits at 150 � or up to 225, including permits issued under existing development agreements � for a rolling three-year period. Initiative exempts affordable housing projects. Opposed by unanimous City Council. Slow growth � no. No: 59.8% Ventura County: City of Ojai: Measure C. An initiative that would prevent development of any kind unless the project can fully mitigate its traffic. Slow growth � no. No: 65.4% City of Santa Paula: Measure F: Initiative to expand the city's urban growth boundary by 5,200 acres to accommodate a large housing and retail development. Subsequent election required by 2000 SOAR initiative. Pro growth � no. No: 63.4% City of Simi Valley: Measure B: An initiative that would tighten the SOAR boundary to prevent development of Alamos Canyon, where a 2,800-acre, mixed-use development has been proposed. Slow growth � no. No: 64.1% City of Ventura: Measure A. An initiative to extend sewer and water service to about 800 acres of hillside territory to allow development of 1,390 homes. Pro growth � no. No: 70.3% Yolo County: City of West Sacramento: Measure L. An initiative to rezone all industrial land in the southern half of city for residential or commercial uses. Similar to initiative that barely failed in 1990. Slow growth � no. No: 70.2% City of Woodland: Measure I. Amends the mobile home rent control ordinance approved by voters in 2000 to exempt resident-owned mobile home parks. Yes: 65.2%

At least some blame for one of the most complicated and intractable water-policy conundrums in the West can be laid fairly at the feet of Charles Rockwood and George Chaffey. Rockwood, a land developer, and Chaffey, a public-relations whiz, teamed up during the 1890s to create the California Development Company. The outfit constructed a crude wooden headgate and canal to divert Colorado River water into a vast expanse of desert on the California-Mexico border they grandly renamed "Imperial Valley." In 1901, settlers lured by Chaffey's promises of boundless fecundity and wealth began settling in the forbidding region; five years later, the company's primitive diversion works collapsed under pressure from the unruly river. Floodwaters chewed through the valley and poured into an ancient dry lakebed, creating the Salton Sea. Although the California Development Company quickly died, the dream upon which it was founded remained alive. The ill-fated venture by Rockwood and Chaffey was revived by others, eventually spawning a $1 billion-a-year agricultural empire in Imperial County, establishing the farmers there as owners of the most senior rights to Colorado River water in California, and setting a political and ecological trap that has slowly ensnared nearly every water user in the Southwestern United States. This fall, through a complex series of legal agreements reached under pressure from the federal government, several Southern California water agencies began hacking their way out of the snare unwittingly set by land speculators a century ago. The deals announced in late October herald a significant change in the way the region's most important surface water resource is apportioned. Distribution of the Colorado River's flows is governed by a pastiche of laws, contracts, court rulings, treaties and agreements known collectively as "The Law of the River" — a label that implies more coherence than the situation merits. Basically, it doles out the Colorado's flow in two tiers. The first tier is governed by the Colorado River Compact of 1922, which divided the Colorado's 246,000-square-mile watershed into two units — an upper basin, comprising Wyoming, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico, and a lower basin comprising California, Nevada and Arizona — and gave each basin the right to half the river's estimated annual flow. Under the compact, the lower basin's 7.5 million-acre-foot entitlement is then further subdivided by state: California was granted 4.4 million acre-feet, Arizona 2.8 million acre-feet and Nevada 300,000 acre-feet. The second distribution tier is governed by the 1931 Seven Party Agreement, which concerns priority among water agencies in California. The agreement divides the state's share into two large chunks: 3.85 million acre-feet for agricultural water agencies in the desert — the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), the Palo Verde Irrigation District, the Yuma Project Reservation Division and the Coachella Valley Water District — and 1.212 million acre-feet for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), which serves 16 million urban customers on the coast. Obviously, 3.85 million and 1.212 million do not add up to 4.4 million. They equal 5.062 million — 662,000 acre-feet more than California's apportionment. And therein lies one of the thorny problems the recent spate of water deals intends to solve. The Met can withdraw the full 1.212 million acre-feet only if the Interior secretary declares that there are surplus or unused flows in the river that year. There have been such surpluses almost every year, mainly because Arizona and other upstream states have not diverted all the water to which they are entitled. So over the past decade, MWD has come to rely on its full allotment — enough to supply nearly 10 million people. Rapid population growth in the other lower basin states is boosting water demand, however, and in 1996 Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt warned that the era of Colorado River surpluses was ending. California, he said, had to come up with a plan to reduce its use to the 4.4 million acre-feet it was granted by the 1922 compact. Later negotiations set December 31, 2002, as the deadline for that plan to be submitted to the federal government. Practically, MWD has to find a replacement for the surplus flows on which it has come to rely. Imperial Valley farmers, whose water rights are held in trust by IID, have the oldest and largest claim to California's share of the Colorado River. It was to the Imperial Valley that MWD turned. Following years of contentious debate, two months of marathon talks ended in mid-October with a complex set of agreements. They have two key elements: * IID will sell water to the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), a MWD member, starting at 10,000 acre-feet in 2003, increasing to 130,000 acre-feet annually in 2018 and 200,000 acre-feet in 2021, and remaining at that level for the duration of the 75-year agreement. * SDCWA will contribute $20 million to a special fund to offset socioeconomic impacts in the Imperial Valley associated with any decrease in farm activity resulting from the water transfer. Although they are an important step, the agreements alone do not satisfy the federal government's demand for a plan demonstrating reduction in California's Colorado River use. Nor do the agreements shift enough water to MWD's customers to offset the pending loss of surplus flows. (The agency is pursuing other strategies, ranging from additional agricultural water transfers to desalination to make up the difference.) The agreements do resolve some of the political conflicts set in motion a century ago by Charles Rockwood and George Chaffey — who helped give a relative handful of desert farmers control of water coveted by millions of city dwellers — but the agreements do not really address the ecological trap those speculators also set. Irrigation runoff from Imperial Valley farms drains into the Salton Sea, which serves as a crucial resource for migratory waterfowl. Water transfers that result in reduced irrigation runoff will shrink the sea, exposing its bed and possibly leading to dangerous dust storms. Reduced inflow also will cause the sea's salinity — already 30 percent greater than the ocean — to rise so high that the sea can no longer sustain life. Preventing that looming biological disaster is the focus of a wide-ranging research program loosely overseen by the Salton Sea Authority, whose executive director, Tom Kirk, is among those unmoved by the October agreement. "I feel like I'm sitting in the back of the pew of the wedding when the priest asks if anybody objects," Kirk told a Copley News Service reporter. "I do." Contacts: Adan Ortega, MWD, (213) 217-5786. Ron Hull, IID, (760) 482-9600. Dennis Cushman, SDCWA, (619) 252-6600. Tom Kirk, Salton Sea Authority: (760) 564-4888.

State Sen. Joe Dunn has vowed to reintroduce a bill that would put teeth in the housing element law by fining cities that refuse to comply with the housing mandate. Dunn, chairman of the Senate Housing Committee, said he would take his case directly to cities and would not negotiate with the League of California Cities, which was a chief opponent to his housing element reform bill during the last two years. Speaking in November at the Public Policy Institute of California office in San Francisco, Dunn also said lawmakers might pursue creation of a state process by which housing developers could appeal local land use decisions. Builders need recourse when a local government makes an arbitrary decision "with no justification, designed to keep out a legitimate project," said Dunn, who was unsure what form the appeals process would take. Dunn's housing element proposal during the 2001-02 legislative session was among the most controversial bills in Sacramento. The bill, SB 910, eventually died in the Assembly. "It's coming back in January," said the Santa Ana Democrat, who said he aims to cut funding from jurisdictions that have no intention of complying with the law. League of California Cities spokeswoman Megan Taylor called Dunn's punitive approach "far too simplistic." Cities are reluctant to approve housing because housing does not generate enough revenue to pay for municipal services, she said. Plus, there is not enough money from the state or locally to fund infrastructure that serves new residences, she said. Dunn conceded that the current local government finance system is flawed because of decisions by state lawmakers. Nevertheless, he predicted little movement on the issue during 2003. Phil Serna, vice president of the Home Builders Association of Northern California, welcomed Dunn's remarks. Serna said the majority of Bay Area cities and counties are out of compliance with the housing element law. Smart growth took a hit when the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) released a survey on land use in November. Overwhelmingly, the 2010 adults surveyed prefer living in a single-family house, drive alone to work, and do not think their commute is bad. "What this says to us," said Marc Baldassare, PPIC research and survey director, "is that changing the status quo is not going to be easy." Among the more provocative results: 86% of respondents said they want to live in a single-family, detached home; 75% drive alone to work, and 81% of those lone commuters said they were satisfied with their commute — but 51% of respondents said traffic congestion in their region is a big problem. Additionally, 44% said availability of affordable housing is a big problem, including 59% of Bay Area respondents; 67% said availability of parks and open space is not a problem. Statewide, 50% of respondents said local government should steer growth to already developed areas. The north-south split was significant, however, as 62% of Bay Area respondents want to grow in existing areas, while only 42% of Los Angeles respondents supported the idea. The poll also found only 49% believe the state should provide guidelines for local land use. The poll found little interest in smart growth fundamentals such as short commutes, easy access to stores and neighborhood public spaces. When naming their top criterion for choosing a home or neighborhood, people listed safety most often, followed by living space and schools. The poll further found that Latinos are disenfranchised, as only 18% had ever attended a public meeting about a land use issue, and only 11% had ever contacted a public official about a land use matter — roughly half the rate of non-Hispanic whites. The full survey is available on the PPIC website, www.ppic.org. Nearly 4 million acres of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog have been eliminated under an agreement between the Fish & Wildlife Service and the Home Builders Association of Northern California. Washington D.C. District Judge Court Richard Leon approved the settlement of the builders' suit after earlier stalling the agreement because environmental groups had not had a chance to comment. The federal agency accepted the builders' argument that the critical habitat designation failed to assess the economic impacts of development restrictions. As part of the settlement, Judge Leon ordered the Fish & Wildlife Service to prepare a new economic impact analysis within two years and reconsider critical habitat designations. In April 2001, federal officials designated 4.1 million acres in 28 California counties as critical habitat for the frog, which was listed as a threatened species in 1996 (see CP&DR Environment Watch, December 2000). Under the settlement approved in November, only 124,000 acres in Tuolumne and Mariposa counties and 75,000 acres in the Angeles National Forest remain as critical habitat. Riverside County supervisors in November approved a 4,063-unit housing development on about 930 acres in the community of Menifee, south of Highway 74 and east of Interstate 215. The Brookfield Homes project is one of the largest in Riverside County. Sutter County supervisors have changed their minds again and decided to keep the Williamson Act. The county offered Williamson Act property tax breaks to farmers for the first time in 2001, but earlier this year supervisors said the county would drop the program because they feared the state would not backfill lost taxes in the future. Farmers protested, and supervisors could not muster three votes for formal action.

Sutter County is once again pursing a major development near the Sacramento International Airport. A specific plan the county adopted earlier this year calls for a 3,500-acre industrial and commercial development that would be a job center for the region. Sutter County officials hope they can entice businesses to the South Sutter County Specific Plan area with relatively low real estate prices, an accommodating infrastructure financing plan, and a system that requires no more than design review for permitted industrial projects. "We want to make it easy for builders to come — where all they have to do is go get a building permit," said Sutter County Supervisor Casey Kroon. Environmentalists, however, argue that the specific plan opens flood-prone farmland to major industrial development while postponing many infrastructure requirements. The environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and the Environmental Council of Sacramento, have filed a lawsuit contending that the county violated the California Environmental Quality Act and other state laws. "This project is a throwback to the way they used to do it before there were laws," charged James Pachl, an attorney for environmentalists. Environmentalists are not they one ones concerned with Sutter County's accommodating approach to industrial development. The state Department of Fish and Game has complained that the county postponed a study of biological resources — a study the agency says the specific plan's environmental impact report should have contained. And both Reclamation District 1000, which provides water and flood control in the area, and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board have expressed concerns about the lack of public infrastructure requirements. Lying north of Sacramento, Sutter County has a mostly agricultural economy. Most of the Sacramento region's economic growth of recent years has been east of the state capital toward Roseville and Folsom — not north toward Sutter and Yuba counties. Thus, Sutter County remains one of the poorer in the state, with an unemployment rate that has not ranked better than seventh worst of California's 58 counties in any year since 1990, according to the state Employment Development Department. During the 1990s, south Sutter County was a battle-zone for development proposals. In 1991, county voters rejected competing growth initiatives. Voters' apparent willingness to let the Board of Supervisors decide led to the county's approval of a 36-square-mile, 200,000-resident new town proposal called Sutter Bay. But in January 1993, the Board of Supervisors — with three members, including Kroon, participating in their first meeting ever — rescinded 18 development agreements with Ahmanson Development Company and its Bay Area-based partners. That decision preceded a referendum on the project, which voters defeated by a nearly two-to-one ratio. The county then spent years defending developers' lawsuits, but the county prevailed. (See CP&DR Legal Digest, December 1997 and June 1995; CP&DR February 1993, December 1992, June 1991.) While it was defending the lawsuits, the county updated its general plan. As part of the update, the county designated a 10,500-acre "industrial/commercial reserve" that it sees as a 100-year plan, Planning Director Tom Last explained. After meeting with area property owners, the county in April adopted the South Sutter Specific Plan for 3,500 acres on the border with Sacramento County and within the industrial/commercial reserve. "There has always been pressure for development down there," Last said. "There is proximity to the airport, all the growth in Placer County and Sacramento County, the possibility of rail." The specific plan attempts to capitalize on the site's proximity to Highway 99, Interstate 5, the airport and rail lines. The plan permits many manufacturing operations, distribution centers and warehouses, truck terminals, bulk storage yards, and a variety of wholesale businesses. Retail is not a high priority for the specific plan area, as the county allocated only 100 acres, including a number of small parcels expected to serve neighboring industrial uses, for retail development. But the lawsuit filed by environmentalists has put the specific plan on hold. Attorney Pachl said the county delayed the infrastructure financing plan until after the public comment period on the EIR closed. And, he said, the infrastructure plan allows development to proceed before sewer, water and storm drainage facilities are in place. Environmentalists and some agency representatives complain that nothing in the specific plan ever requires the regional facilities to be built. And flooding is always a concern in the area; about half of the specific plan territory lies within the 100-year floodplain. The county's plan does let developers rely on on-site wells and drainage, and "package" sewer plants. But those facilities can do the job and they would be in use only until enough money is available to pursue regional facilities, said county officials. At this point, the county cannot even finance the infrastructure because it has nothing with which to leverage the debt, Last said. "We don't have," added Supervisor Kroon, "a lot of money to put into infrastructure ahead of time and then hope that someone shows up." For DFG, the issue is animal and plant habitat. The Natomas Habitat Conservation Plan covers the area, but a federal judge threw out the HCP in 2000. The City of Sacramento, Sutter County and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service only recently released a revised HCP. For its EIR on the specific plan, Sutter County deferred biological issues to the HCP effort— a strategy that did not satisfy DFG. " he county may not defer analysis and disclosure of project-related impacts under the guise that an ongoing and yet-to-be completed planning effort pursuant to the State and federal Endangered Species Act will address all impacts on biological resources," DFG staff counsel John Mattox wrote to the county before adoption of the EIR. The agency is not necessarily opposed to the specific plan, and DFG is not a party to the lawsuit, Mattox added. In fact, the county has melded its planning to regional resource needs, he said. But the agency was not happy with the EIR, and Mattox made clear that the dissatisfaction could be problem for the county when it seeks DFG permits for work in the specific plan area. To Sutter County, though, the questions and opposition sound like sour grapes from outsiders. Because there is no residential component to the specific plan, there has been minimal local controversy. Kroon even suggested that developers of competing business parks in the region are responsible for stirring the pot. Contacts: Casey Kroon, Sutter County supervisor, (530) 822-7106 Tom Last, Sutter County Planning Division, (530) 822-7400. John Mattox, Department of Fish and Game, (916) 654-3821. James Pachl, attorney for environmentalists, (916) 446-3978. South Sutter County Specific Plan website: www.co.sutter.ca.us/community_services/planning/specific_plan.htm

The California Coastal Commission's decision to allow Malibu property owners who are building new houses to exchange existing public view corridors on their property for dedication of an off-site public access to the beach has been upheld by the Second District Court of Appeal. The court rejected a variety of arguments about the Coastal Commission's statutory ability to permit the deal, the panel's findings and its compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. "We find," Justice Robert Mallano wrote for the court, "nothing in the Coastal Act or in any other statute, regulation or legal opinion that would circumscribe the Commission's exercise of discretion in this case and forbid it to conclude that the public will receive a greater public benefit from the mitigation parcel, with its uninterrupted 80-foot view and public beach access, than from retaining separate view corridors adjacent to the residences that real parties have been authorized to build." The controversy involved the rich and famous who tend to congregate in Malibu. In 1999, cartoon producer Haim Saban, developer Eli Broad and Nancy Daly Riordan, the wife of former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, filed applications with the Coastal Commission. They sought permits to demolish a total of six existing houses in the Carbon Beach area of Malibu, and to build three new houses ranging from Broad's 4,690-square-foot structure to Daly's 14,210-square-foot monster (see CP&DR Environment Watch, August 2002). While approving all three projects, the commission required a "lateral" public easement along the beach and "public view corridors" across each property from Pacific Coast Highway to the ocean. The property owners then sought to amend their permits. They offered to donate a vacant, 80-foot-wide parcel roughly half a mile down the road to the California Coastal Conservancy to provide access to the beach. In exchange, the Commission would drop the public view corridor condition. Noting that the nearest public access to the sandy beach was more than a mile from the proposed access site, the commission voted in 2000 to accept the deal and modify the permits. The La Costa Beach Homeowners' Association — whose members include actor Ryan O'Neal, who lives near the proposed access site — filed a lawsuit. The homeowners' association argued that the commission did not have authority to trade on-site view corridors for off-site mitigation. The opponents also contended the commission did not make adequate findings about public safety and that it failed to conduct adequate environmental analysis. Last year, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge David Yaffe ruled for La Costa. The Coastal Commission then appealed, and a unanimous three-judge panel of the Second District, Division One, reversed the lower court. The opponents said that nothing in the Coastal Act (Public Resources Code § 30000 et seq.) allowed the commission to mitigate the impacts of a project off-site. But the court disagreed, citing the Coastal Act's goal of maximizing public access and recreational opportunities. Nothing in the statute "‘requires the commission to condition development' at any specific site," the court held. The court upheld the commission's findings and said that the site is no more hazardous than any other on the congested Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu. In fact, there is street parking available at the mitigation site, as well as a bus stop and a nearby traffic signal, the court said. The court also found no CEQA violation. " othing in the record demonstrates that the commission failed to provide adequate public notice of hearings or evaluate the impact of the use of the beach …," the court ruled. The Case: La Costa Beach Homeowners' Association v. California Coastal Commission, No. B152304, 02 C.D.O.S. 7977, 2002 DJDAR 9996. Filed August 29, 2002. The Lawyers: For La Costa: Patricia Glaser, Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser Weil & Shapiro, (310) 553-3000. For the commission: John Saurenman, Attorney General's Office, (213) 897-2702.