Michael Sweeney is the undersecretary of the California Resources Agency, the umbrella entity for seven state departments that address natural resources. Prior to his appointment in 1999, Sweeney was an Democratic assemblyman from Alameda County for two terms. He also served as mayor of Hayward from 1990 to 1994, and as a Hayward city councilman from 1982 to 1990. A teacher before entering politics full-time, Sweeney has bachelors and masters degrees in political science from California State University, Hayward. CP&DR The last round of California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines changes under the Wilson Administration was fairly controversial. Is the Resources Agency going to undertake CEQA Guidelines revisions? Sweeney All I can say is we are at the discussion stage. It's a very sensitive topic. We're discussing revisions. Whether anything moves is still uncertain. … You have so much tugging and pulling on both sides, it's hard to get anything done. CP&DR What sort of relationship does the Resources Agency have — or want — with local government? Sweeney One initiative that we have undertaken is to foster the formation of a lot of watershed working groups — strong, well-grounded watershed groups that are representative of the various stakeholders, including local government. Watersheds have a tremendous impact on water, water quality, impacts on fish. There are a lot of issues in forestry that impact a watershed. The agency tries to work with local governments and generally has a good relationship with local governments. We have the parks bond issue. One of the first things I was assigned to after being appointed by the governor was a short-term and long-term needs assessment. That paid off when voters approved a $2.1 billion parks bond last November. $900 million will go back to local agencies on a per capita basis. … I think this secretary and this governor have put more resources into urban parks than any other administration, and that has been a very positive thing for local governments. CP&DR The CCRISP (California Continuing Resources Investment Strategy Program) is a major new effort of the agency. Why is it important? Sweeney There basically are two key elements here to help people answer four key questions. Those are: What are the state's important lands and natural resources? What are the highest priorities for protection? What is the most appropriate way to protect these high-priority lands and resources? How effectively are the State of California and its partners in conservation implementing the strategic approach to conservation? This first year what we are going to do is focus on two key areas, find out where the gaps in the data are and come up with some criteria. Hopefully, as time goes on we will be able to develop much more comprehensive tools so we can answer these questions. … We've involved a lot of the stakeholders from throughout the state. By making this much more stakeholder-driven, we're hoping to avoid some of the questions and litigation that could follow. I think one of the things we are hopeful CCRISP will do is provide better information for local officials to use to make better decisions. CP&DR During a recent speech, you indicated that you believe increased spending on public education affects land-use, especially in poor neighborhoods. Why is that? Sweeney My own sense is that if the K-12 schools are not doing well, it's hard to keep a neighborhood healthy. It's hard to find a place where the K-12 schools are doing well and the neighborhood isn't coming back or doing well. I'm thinking long-term. You see neighborhoods throughout the state that are prosperous for a hundred years, and there's such a correlation to the schools. .… It has gotten lost in the shuffle. I think there's a recognition now." CP&DR You've talked about the state providing incentives for people to live and work in the same community, such as giving a portion of income tax to the city. Could you explain? Sweeney I would guess only 10% to 20% of people actually live and work in the same community. That's only a guess. What if you doubled that number over 10 or 15 years? What would that do the dynamics? You help local decision-makers if you provide good incentives. Local decision-makers sometimes aren't as gutsy as they could be. CP&DR You've been a mayor. Why don't cities and counties agree on a new fiscal structure? Sweeney I think sometimes organizations like the League and CSAC are lowest common denominator-driven. And it's a risk, it's a change. The locals say we want the money, but we don't want to change the way we do business. I think the governor and the Legislature would be more open if there were not such resistance to change. … And you have a lot of issues between cities and counties. CP&DR In the past there was discussion of a state growth plan, and Resources Secretary Mary Nichols even worked on such a plan in the Jerry Brown administration. Any move afoot for a statewide growth plan these days? Sweeney I haven't heard of anything come up. The watershed approach is something we're helping to facilitate, and it will be strongest where it's driven by locals. Michael Sweeney was interviewed in Ventura by CP&DR Managing Editor Paul Shigley

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against Lake Tahoe landowners who claimed that temporary building moratoriums and regional land use plans amounted to unconstitutional takings of their property. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency was not liable for a taking when it imposed a 32-month building moratorium during the early 1980s. The court also held TRPA was not liable for a taking when a court blocked implementation of a 1984 Regional Plan. Finally, the court ruled that takings lawsuits based on a 1987 Regional Plan were filed too late. The ruling was a major victory for TRPA, environmentalists and a wide variety of government entities that filed amicus briefs on TRPA's behalf, including the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, and the states of Oregon, Washington, Arizona and Montana. A contrary ruling had the potential to make government agencies liable for imposing a building moratorium. Property owners, meanwhile, said they would ask a full panel of 9th Circuit judges to reconsider the case. The Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, a group representing about 450 property owners, has been in litigation with TRPA for more than a decade. The latest ruling, issued in mid-June, is the fourth time the Ninth Circuit has ruled in the litigation. Congress and the states of California and Nevada created TRPA in 1969 to ensure more orderly development of the Tahoe basin and to halt degradation of the lake's clear water. After years of dissatisfaction with TRPA's effectiveness, the parties signed a 1980 compact that called for TRPA to adopt a new regional land use plan. In 1981, the agency implemented a building moratorium while it began work on the plan. The moratorium remained in place until April 1984, when TRPA adopted a new regional plan. But the state of California, contending the plan allowed too much building, sued and a judge blocked TRPA from ever implementing the plan. After lengthy negotiations, the agency finally adopted a new regional plan in 1987. During three earlier rounds of litigation, the property owners lost all their claims at one point or another. All that remained in the latest round of litigation were property owners' claims that TRPA actions had violated the landowners' rights under the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1983. U.S. District Court Judge for Nevada Edward Reed ruled partly for the landowners. The unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, however, was not persuaded and sided against the property owners in every instance. The landowners first argued that simple adoption of the building moratoriums in the early 1980s amounted to an unconstitutional taking because landowners were denied "all economically beneficial or productive use of land" while the moratoriums were in effect. They cited the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). But the court said property cannot be divided into separate pieces related to certain timeframes, in this case the 32 months that the moratoriums were in place. To rule otherwise, "would risk converting every temporary planning moratorium into a categorical taking," Judge Stephan Reinhardt wrote. He called such temporary moratoriums a "crucial planning mechanism." Furthermore, given the temporary nature of the moratoriums, landowners did not lose all value or use of their property, the court ruled. " hile the temporary moratoriums surely had a negative impact on property values in the basin, we cannot conclude that the interim suspension of development wiped out the value of plaintiffs' properties," the court ruled. "In reaching this conclusion, we preserve the ability of local governments to do what they have done for many years — to engage in orderly, reasonable land-use planning through a considered and deliberative process. To do otherwise would turn the Takings Clause into a weapon to be used indiscriminately to penalize local communities for attempting to protect the public interest," Reinhardt wrote. As for the 1984 to 1987 period when the Regional Plan was blocked by an injunction, landowners argued that TRPA was liable because it should have foreseen such a lawsuit. The landowners argued that TRPA secretly wanted an injunction against all construction. But the Ninth Circuit flatly rejected this argument and noted that the plan was blocked not because it allowed too little building, but because it allowed too much. Finally, as for period since adoption of the 1987 regional plan, the Ninth Circuit held that the landowners' claims filed in 1991 were too late. Nevada's statute of limitations for such claims is two years, and California's is one year. The Case: Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Nos. 99-15641, 99-15771, 00 C.D.O.S. 4765, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6356, filed June 15, 2000. The Lawyers: For TSCP: Lawrence Hoffman, (530) 583-8542. For TRPA: E. Clement Shute Jr., Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, (415) 552-7272.

No government planning process is more given to cumbersome bureaucratic procedures than transportation planning. The whole process by which we determine what transportation projects get built is often portrayed — even by policy wonks — as little more than a mind-numbing collection of acronyms: ISTEA, TEA-21, CTC, MPO, RTP, RTPA, STIP, RTIP, and on and on. The very bureaucratic denseness of this system, however, reveals the solid public policy logic on which it is based. When we talk about transportation planning, we are talking about how to make decisions about our largest ongoing public-works construction program. It's a system easily susceptible to pork-barrel politics — the practice of individual politicians funding individual transportation projects for their own political gain regardless of the larger good. The alphabet soup of transportation planning is a deliberate attempt to create a pork-free process — one in which a rational assessment about which projects are needed actually stands a chance of success. This has been particularly true in the last decade, as regional transportation planning agencies have gained more power over transportation spending, allowing them to match up regional transportation projects with regional growth strategies. Maybe that's why Gov. Gray Davis's "Traffic Congestion Relief Plan" has thrown practically everybody involved in transportation planning into such a frenzy. It's called a plan, but it looks a lot like pork. Davis's proposal takes $5 billion over the next five years — all of it money that currently flows into the state's general fund— and allocates it to a specific set of transportation projects that Davis has identified. These include the Fremont-to-San Jose BART extension, separate routes for high-speed buses in the Los Angeles area, the Alameda Corridor freight line serving the L.A. and Long Beach ports, and about 100 other specific projects. These projects were not selected based on priorities created by the regional transportation planning processes around the state — indeed, in some cases, Davis proposes funding for projects that regional planner rejected. Nor is the funding allocated according to the strict geographical requirements contained in the state's transportation improvement program — the STIP, as it is known among the experts. Instead, the $5 billion is allocated based on the governor's own notions of how best to relieve congestion, enhance transportation "connectivity," and facilitate goods movement. For this reason, Sacramento wags quickly dubbed the proposal the "G-TIP" — Gray's transportation improvement program. Whatever criteria the governor applied in shaping the list of projects on the G-TIP, the result closely mirrors Davis's own political inclinations. Silicon Valley business interests lobbied heavily for the BART extension. The L.A. bus proposals permit an expansion of rapid transit in Los Angeles, a core of political support for Davis, but doesn't alienate local politicians who are opposed to an expansion of the subway system. Most of the money is spent on big-ticket items with strong ribbon-cutting opportunities. Furthermore, it's clear that Davis's list of projects is tilted toward geographical areas with whom he wants to curry favor. The Legislative Analyst's Office, for example, prepared a county-by-county breakdown comparing proposed G-TIP expenditures to the way those funds would have been distributed according to the STIP formula. The results are stark, indeed: Compared to the STIP, funds are pulled from all outlying Southern California counties into Los Angeles, and from the Central Valley into the Bay Area. Thirty-three of California's 58 counties receive no funds at all. A lot of folks looking at the G-TIP — especially those in Sacramento — are saying that maybe it's not such a bad idea, even if it is heavily pork-driven. This $5 billion, after all, is funding that otherwise might not go to transportation at all. Part of it is an appropriation of the general fund ($1 billion in this surplus year), and part of it is an allocation of specific general fund money (the revenue from sales tax on gasoline). "It's a good news/bad news thing," says Steve Heminger of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. "Clearly, we would prefer to use the conventional system. But that doesn't mean the governor's plan is unworkable." So, the reasoning goes, just take the money and be grateful. Don't look a gift pig in the mouth. That would probably be fine, except for two things. First, the G-TIP cleverly contains just enough money in it to skew the other, supposedly more rational transportation planning processes in its direction. And second, the G-TIP is sure to affect state growth patterns in a profound way, even though the governor hasn't articulated a coherent growth policy. The G-TIP doesn't propose fully funding any individual project. Instead, it typically offers 20-30% of the cost of big-ticket projects included on the list. The G-TIP allocates $750 million for the Fremont-San Jose BART extension, for example, even though the project is estimated to cost around $4 billion. Thus, in order to actually build the BART extension, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and other agencies will have to come up with more than $3 billion in additional funds. (Partly for this reason, the full-scale Fremont-San Jose BART extension isn't in MTC's plan. The agency has proposed a scaled-down version that combined BART and commuter rail.) Even while he's not providing full funding for most projects, Davis is also withholding his support for the one measure that transportation officials around the state claim would help them come up with the rest of the dough — SCA 3, a constitutional amendment that would permit counties to renew their local-option sales taxes with a simple majority vote. In political terms, SCA 3 is likely a loser, so the governor's opposition probably makes sense. In financial terms, it means that building the governor's projects requires more money out of the existing STIP and the regional transportation programs. So in that sense, the G-TIP is clearly an exercise in using the funds the governor does control to gain leverage over the funds controlled by others. More worrisome, however, is the fact that Davis's initiative — while it does focus on new construction designed to relieve congestion — appears to be entirely divorced from any discussion in Sacramento about the state's growth policy. The jobs-housing imbalance in Silicon Valley is the focal point about discussion in the state right now. Yet while Davis's initiative would partly fund the BART extension, his formula takes money away from the Central Valley — where more and more Silicon Valley workers live — and gives it to the Bay Area instead. Furthermore, his proposal doesn't alter the underlying land-use policies of local governments — nor does it alter the financial incentives the state gives to local governments that encourage an imbalance between jobs and housing. Oddly, this multibillion-dollar transportation initiative comes at the same time that the Davis administration is trying to figure out how to spend several billion dollars in land and water conservation funds. Both these efforts, obviously, will have a major impact on the state's future growth patterns. Other governors interested in growth policy — Parris Glendening of Maryland in particular — have seen the value of combining the state's investment in infrastructure with the state's investment in conservation to promote a consistent vision of their state's future growth. But apparently Gray Davis sees no political advantage in positioning himself as a visionary thinker about "smart growth" in California.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had the authority to remove two dilapidated piers in Oakland Harbor to make room for port expansion, and then bill the pier owner for the removal, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. The Ninth Circuit made clear that the Corps of Engineers has broad authorities under the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. §403, and the Commerce Clause of the constitution. The ruling was another loss for the pier's owners, Alameda Gateway Ltd. Last year, the company lost a separate lawsuit in which it claimed the Corps of Engineers' removal of the piers was an illegal taking under the Fifth Amendment. Alameda Gateway Ltd. v. United States, 45 Fed Cl. 757 (1999). In 1983, Alameda Gateway acquired a 29-acre industrial site on the Alameda site of Oakland Harbor. The site had two piers that both extended about 600 feet into the harbor. Soon after the purchase, Gateway applied to the Corps for a permit to develop a marina. The Corps denied the application because it was preparing to create a turning basin that would increase port capabilities. In 1986, Congress authorized a project to make the port competitive by deepening and widening the shipping channels, and creating the turning basin for larger ships. Without the project, Oakland Harbor was inaccessible to the largest vessels except during high tide or when the ships were not fully loaded. The Corps notified Gateway that it needed to remove the piers at its own cost. When Gateway refused to cooperate, the Corps removed the piers itself to keep the project on schedule. The federal government sued to prevent Gateway from interfering and later filed a motion for summary judgement, arguing that Gateway was responsible for $1.6 million in demolition and removal costs. Gateway also sought summary judgement. District Court Judge Marilyn Patel granted summary judgement for the federal government and denied Gateway's motion. On appeal, Gateway conceded its piers were an obstruction but argued that the Corps did not have authority to remove them and seek reimbursement. The unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that although the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act did not expressly authorize the Corps, "Supreme Court precedent suggests that the Corps may perform the removal work itself and then collect the costs of such work from private parties." The Ninth Circuit cited United States v. Republic Steel Co., 362 U.S. 482 (1960) and Wyandotte Transportation Co. v. United States, 389, U.S. 191 (1967). Both cases gave broad reading to the Corps' powers under the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act. In Wyandotte, the high court implied that the Corps has "a self-help removal and reimbursement remedy" when dealing with a recalcitrant property owner. "In many cases, the Corps has more expertise in removing an obstruction and even more importantly, a self-help remedy assures the United States a speedy and competent remedy when a prompt removal is in the best interests of commerce, safety, or national defense. This observation especially rings true where, as here, the Corps requested that Gateway remove the obstruction and that demand was firmly refused," Judge Melvin Brunetti wrote for the court. Gateway also argued that the Corps failed to follow its own Engineering Regulations, which would indicate the Corps acted prematurely because a local sponsor — the City of Alameda — had the power of eminent domain and did not exercise its authority. However, the court held that the Corps is not bound by its own Engineering Regulations because the they offer only "a general policy statement rather than a substantive rule." As policy statements, they offer no rights to third parties, such as Gateway, according to the court, which noted that the Engineering Regulations were never published in the Code of Federal Regulations or the Federal Register. The Case: United States v. Alameda Gateway Ltd., No. 99-15642, 00 C.D.O.S. 4140, filed May 26, 2000. The Lawyers: For the U.S.: John Stahr, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For Alameda Gateway: Diane Hastert, Damon, Key, Leong, Kupchak Hastert, (808) 531-8031.

When they adopted a new general plan in 1993, Sacramento County supervisors approved what would now be called "smart growth" policies. The general plan established an urban growth boundary (called an urban services boundary), encouraged dense residential development, and designated a number of areas for transit-oriented development. Thus far, the county has blocked development outside the urban services boundary, despite attempts by developers to bust the boundary. But implementing higher densities and transit-oriented developments has proven difficult. "Neighbors just don't want to see higher density housing, and the board has gone along with that," said Ann Baker, a senior planner on the county's long-range planning team. "But we see a need to be more efficient with our land use." So the county is undertaking a general plan update that focuses on the public facilities element and the community plan element. The county might also create a new element that considers ways to address older communities, some of which have become neglected, Baker said. The Board of Supervisors was scheduled to conduct the first general plan update workshop on June 28, at which time planners hoped the scope of work would become clearer. But they are not anticipating a complete overhaul. "Our intent is not to unravel the general plan. We want to keep the land use element and transportation element in tact," said Baker, who will manage the two- to three-year project. Under the 1993 general plan, areas with specific plans were supposed to average six homes per acre. Instead, the board, bowing to constituent lobbying, has been approving specific plans averaging about 4.5 units an acre. The East Franklin Specific Plan area, for instance, offers about 4.3 units per acre. Baker said that planners hope to undertake an extensive public education campaign to explain the advantage of denser development — namely the preservation of natural resources and less expensive provision of public services. The county likely will appoint a steering committee containing civic leaders, who would spread the word. Planners also hope to extend their message via existing community groups. But planners also recognize that the county's current infrastructure financing policy might inadvertently promote the low-density, fringe development that the general plan discourages. For example, while a developer pays to extend sewer lines to new homes, the county as a whole funds expansion of the wastewater treatment plant. Planners would like to eliminate this sort of subsidy for rural area development. Planners also are just beginning an east county resources study to determine what the county ought to protect, Baker said. The fast-growing City of Folsom in eastern Sacramento County wants to expand its sphere of influence, a proposal that the Sacramento County Local Agency Formation Commission has thwarted so far. The general plan update also will embrace a new umbrella policy for protecting open space and agriculture. Growth is moving toward the southwestern portion of the county, which is prime farmland. Plus, as more communities incorporate — Citrus Heights in 1997, Elk Grove this year, and Rancho Cordova could be next — the county "is going to be left being keepers of the open space and ag land," Baker said.

The Park Avenue Project in the City of South Lake Tahoe is not the largest or the most expensive downtown plan ever contemplated in California, but it might be the most ambitious. I can't name too many other downtown projects that undertake, all at once, to remove blighted buildings, provide all-new urban design, build a new resort hotel, retail space, high-end condominiums and an ice-skating rink, erect a gondola that carries visitors to two local ski areas — and undertakes major environmental protections. In short, the $500 million Park Avenue project seeks to bolster the town's leading industry (tourism), protect the environmental wellbeing of its major attraction, (Lake Tahoe), and fully mitigate its water- and traffic-related impacts (both on-site and off). As such, Park Avenue is attempting to expand the scope of redevelopment, and makes us wonder why other cities do not approach redevelopment as an activity that has more than one purpose. At Park Avenue, for example, all the stormwater will be filtered twice before flowing toward the lake. The participating land owners are required to contribute $5 to a Mello-Roos assessment district to restore wetlands near the southern shore of Lake Tahoe and build sediment ponds to divert urban storm runoff. To minimize the use of cars, an on-site transit center is to be built into the site, encouraging visitors to park their cars and use local trolleys and taxis. I almost forgot to mention that the entire development is designed to preserve viewsheds to the mountains in the north. Currently under construction on a site about a half-mile south of Lake Tahoe, the Park Avenue project is a near-total makeover of an aging, poorly maintained commercial area that was built with virtually no planning. Prior to construction, the city is demolishing four old retail buildings, five motels built in the 1950s and '60s, and two retail strips. But the city had to sell both property owners and environmentalists — who agree on little at Lake Tahoe — before it could move forward with the project. After long negotiations with local landowners, the city convinced the owners either to sell or to build new projects acceptable to the agency. The environmentalists agreed to support redevelopment projects, "as long was we removed outdated or environmentally harmful development and replaced it with environmentally friendly development," said Redevelopment Manager Jaye Von Klug. The settlement of a 1989 lawsuit from a local environmental group, Save Lake Tahoe, was the "foundation" of the city's commitment to environmental mitigation, she said. Mitigation measures for each redevelopment project must benefit the surrounding area, not merely the immediate impacts of the project alone. At first glance, the site plan prepared by Design Workshop Inc. of Aspen, Colorado, looks suburban: The plan is a series of large, discontinuous buildings on enormous "superblocks." (The 34-acre project is contained within two giant blocks, although individual developments are divided among 11 different parcels.) A closer look, however, suggests that the design is sensitive to the streetscape by lining much, but not all, of the street frontage with new construction, and locating parking inside the block rather than between the street and the buildings. Like suburban projects, the buildings have big setbacks of about 60 feet. But Von Klug said setbacks were necessary to protect pedestrians from being splashed by passing cars. Formerly, motels and retail buildings were separated from Highway 50 only by a five-foot sidewalk that was easily blocked by snow cleared from the road. The construction program calls for an existing shopping mall and grocery store to be upgraded and expanded, while the hotel, the transit center, the ice rink and the gondola are all new. Much of the mall is landscaped, and clearly intended for pedestrian use, not automobile circulation. The ice rink is situated among several buildings, giving the rink the feeling of an urban plaza. The gondola, which could have been the centerpiece of a magnificent plaza, however, stands alone. As the centerpiece of the Park Avenue project, the gondola should be visible from the highway, according to Von Klug. Additionally, mountain views are more important in South Lake Tahoe than a "street wall." The city's redevelopment agency, in fact, had to win some concessions from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to build at all; the regulatory body has traditionally discouraged construction that blocked mountain views from Highway 50. The most interesting parts of the project, arguably, are the elaborate environmental controls. As mentioned above, all of the project's runoff will be filtered first by a sand-and-oil separator system directly beneath the surface, and then scrubbed a second time by a filtration system located downstream and offsite. This fits well within the "Keep Tahoe Blue" campaign that is intended to block sediment from the lake. The Mello-Roos district is also paying for three sedimentation basins, to be planted with native species, to remove contaminants from storm runoff. Another environmental amenity is the replacement of eight acres of asphalt with pavers that allow rainwater to percolate through to the soil. It is not surprising that Park Avenue is loaded with environmental mitigations. Communities that depend on the health of Lake Tahoe and the surrounding region have both strong commercial motivation and strict regulations to protect the quality of the air and water. But even those of us who do not live at the shore of Lake Tahoe might learn something about controlling impacts — especially as storm runoff and flooding become increasing dangers throughout the state. More than that, Park Avenue represents a project that has been designed to serve several purposes, not just the single goal of generating revenue for a city government. This is a project that actually mitigates itself; the developers have been required to do something more than pay an impact fee, or buy some new traffic signals for the next town. At a time when redevelopment is increasingly the excuse to build mediocre retail projects that blight the landscape and offer little or nothing in urban design and pedestrian activity, the example of Park Avenue in little South Lake Tahoe is a reminder that there are other ways to rebuild our cities.

Mobilehome park owners in the City of Montclair can proceed with a federal lawsuit alleging that the city's rent control law is a regulatory taking, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. A federal district court had dismissed the lawsuit filed by mobilehome park owners because a similar suit was making its way through the state court system (see CP&DR Legal Digest January, 2000). However, the litigation ended early this year when the state Supreme Court refused to review an appellate court decision upholding the city's rent control law because it advanced a "legitimate government interest." Because the circumstances have changed, the district should now hear the federal case, the Ninth Circuit ruled. In June 1998, Montclair adopted an ordinance amending a previous mobilehome rent control measure. The new ordinance limited rent increases to 3% to 8% annually and prohibited park owners from requiring tenants to sign long-term leases that were exempt from the city's rent controls. The city did allow park owners to request higher rents based on operating costs. In August 1998, park owners sued in both state and federal courts. They claimed that the ordinance was unconstitutional because it violated due process protections and was an uncompensated taking. U.S. District Court Judge Manuel Real dismissed the federal lawsuit because, under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), federal courts do not take up cases that would interfere with state court proceedings. Park owners appealed, arguing that state courts "do not permit plaintiffs to instigate inverse condemnation proceedings to redress uncompensated takings and thus do not grant the appropriate remedy guaranteed by federal law." In other words, the lawsuits were not the same. While not getting into details, the Ninth Circuit said Judge Real was correct. "The district court's timely dismissal of the Association's federal lawsuit precluded any federal interference — real or perceived — with the California courts' consideration of the Association's state law claims," Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel. However, O'Scannlain continued, " ecause materially changed circumstances have rendered moot the district court's reasons for abstaining and dismissing the Association's federal lawsuit, we are disposed to vacate the district court's order." The Case: Montclair Parkowners Association v. City of Montclair, No. 99-55083, 00 C.D.O.S. 3616, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4863, filed May 8, 2000. The Lawyers: For Montclair Parkowners: R.S. Radford, Pacific Legal Foundation, (916) 362-2833. For the city: Henry Heater, Endeman, Lincoln, Turek & Heater, (619) 544-0123.

After a delay of almost a decade, the battle over how localities in California divvy up their responsibility for low- and moderate-income housing has been joined once again. The first battlefield is metropolitan Los Angeles, where the Southern California Association of Governments is engaged in a struggle with its own members over the "Regional Housing Needs Assessment" (RHNA) process � and is lobbying the state to reduce L.A.'s overall obligation to provide low/mod housing. The SCAG battle is important statewide because the six-county SCAG region is the first in the state scheduled to move through the housing allocation process. The Association of Bay Area Governments is scheduled to follow next year with other regions of the state required to update their housing allocation in years to come. What happens at SCAG is likely to determine how seriously other regions will take the RHNA process in the future. The housing allocation effort is a state-mandated process designed to give each city and county in the state a target number of units for low/mod housing � a number that local jurisdictions then use as the basis for the housing elements of their general plans. The state gives a number to each region, and then the regional planning agency � such as SCAG � must distribute the target among all the jurisdictions in the region. Thus, it's a zero-sum game � unless the region can persuade the state to reduce the overall target number. By law, the housing allocation is supposed to occur every five years � but in the recession years of the early �90s, the Legislature did not fund the allocation process and postponed it for all regions. Therefore, the SCAG allocation effort is the first of its kind anywhere in the state in almost a decade, making it especially important. Housing policy is a high-profile issue now because a booming economy has not equaled a boom in housing construction. The state recently released an analysis showing that housing production in California during the 1990s was only half the total of previous decades. And jobs-housing balance issues have become a high-priority item in Sacramento. SCAG has put a lot of effort into trying to make the process work � doing a lot of technical outreach to local governments, revising its own process and methodology, and delegating decisions to sub-regions whenever possible. Just because the process has been extensive, however, doesn't mean that it has been peaceful. The agency is currently engaged in pitched battle with some of its member jurisdictions � especially those in the Inland Empire � over how the low/mod housing should be allocated. SCAG has already negotiated with the state for a reduction in overall low/mod housing need from approximately 675,000 units to 600,000 over the next five years, and the agency is supposed to be done with the allocations by June 30. But under pressure from its members, the agency has temporarily halted its final approval process, pushed a bill in the Legislature that would provide a six-month deadline extension, and begun lobbying for a further reduction in the region's low/mod housing obligation. All these actions have apparently come as the result of a near-revolution on the part of some Southern California localities who have been unsuccessful in getting SCAG to reduce their allocation. Of the 189 jurisdictions in the SCAG region, 47 appealed their RHNA numbers to the agency's Community, Economic, and Human Development Committee. Many of the jurisdictions, such as the cities of San Bernardino and Moreno Valley, asked for reductions of several thousand units. Joe Carreras, director of comprehensive planning at SCAG, said the state's target number was so high compared to recent construction levels that it called into question the credibility of the whole process, especially in the Inland Empire. "The private market hasn't rebounded as we'd hoped," he said. Of those appeals � virtually all of which called for a reduction in the jurisdiction's target � 11 were fully accepted by SCAG's Community, Economic, and Human Development Committee, 8 were partially accepted, 26 were rejected, and 2 were withdrawn. The SCAG committee made these recommendations on April 26, and SCAG's Regional Council � the organization's governing body � was scheduled to give final approval to these recommendations at its meeting on May 4. Shortly before that meeting, however, the SCAG staff changed the Regional Council's requested action from "approve" to "receive and file". Mark Pisano, the agency's executive director, and Colin Lennard, SCAG's counsel, asked Regional Council members to consider the staff report a "progress report" and send the whole matter back to the committee level, where more public hearings would be held. The Inland Empire jurisdictions, however, reacted with anger at SCAG's proposed process changes. Allison Burns, a lawyer representing Moreno Valley, accused SCAG of Brown Act violations. San Bernardino Mayor Judith Velles, a member of the Regional Council, demanded a halt to the process rather than further committee hearings. "I say, reject the whole thing and start from scratch." Instead of starting from scratch, the Regional Council voted simply to halt the process and lobby the state for further reductions in the SCAG regional target. It remains to be seen whether they'll succeed. Regional housing policy will always be controversial in California. Housing is the only area of planning policy in which local jurisdictions must answer to the region and the state, rather than simply doing what they want � and, understandably, the cities and counties chafe under this requirement After the SCAG debacle, it is likely that the state Department of Housing and Community Development will examine how to improve the process. Both SCAG and the state Department of Housing and Community Development, for example, seem to agree that the process takes too long, and planners often work with numbers and market condition data that are two years old. Even so, it's not likely that the allocation process will go away, which means than in the long run, local governments in California will have to learn how to live with a zero-sum game.

A citizens group and an environmental organization do have a right to attorneys' fees in successful litigation regarding El Dorado County's handling of a large subdivision, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled. However, the court tempered that right by saying that the aesthetic protections won by the groups and their members should be a factor in the awarding of fees. In other words, because they gained aesthetic protections, the groups might not get as much in attorneys' fees as they would have otherwise. The issue regards the awarding of fees under the private attorney general theory of Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5. For a party to receive fees under this theory, the litigation must "vindicate an important public right," confer a "significant benefit on the general public or a large class of persons," and impose a "financial burden on plaintiffs which was out of proportion to their individual stake in the matter." At issue is approximately $360,000 for legal work at the trial and appellate court levels. In the original case, the Third District ruled that El Dorado County's approval of the 566-lot, 7,868-acre Cinnabar development was inconsistent with a draft general plan. Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County (FUTURE) v. Board of Supervisors, (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332; see CP&DR Legal Digest, May 1998. In the attorneys' fees portion of the case, neither the county nor the developer, Cook Ranch Partners, disputed that the action enforced a public right and provided a significant public benefit. However, they argued that the financial burden of litigation for members of FUTURE and the Foothill Conservancy were not out of proportion with their stake in the matter. El Dorado Superior Court Judge Winslow Christian ruled for the county and the developer, which is the real party in interest. The Third District, in a 2-1 ruling, reversed the lower court. The court pointed to undisputed declarations that the lead attorney, who is a member of FUTURE, and plaintiffs who own property in the vicinity stand to lose nothing financially if Cinnabar is developed. In fact, the high-end, large-lot development could actually increase their property values. And landowners would receive compensation for any small strips of property condemned to allow road widening, the court noted. The court dismissed the argument from the county and the developer that the project opponents were simply NIMBYs. "The fact is that ‘nimby' plaintiffs are often at the forefront of private environmental enforcement in the public interest. CEQA enforcement is built on such private enforcement," Justice George Nicholson wrote. But the court tempered its decision by citing the First Appellate District's ruling in Williams v. San Francisco Bd. of Permit Appeals, (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 961. In Williams, the court concluded that a plaintiff's personal interest — under the §1021.5 financial burden criterion — can include aesthetic interests. In Williams, a landowner successfully sued to prevent construction of a four-story apartment building next to his single-family Victorian home. The Williams court refused to award attorneys' fees because the homeowners' "interest in maintaining the aesthetic integrity of his immediate neighborhood and protecting both his property's privacy and its access to light, air and views, constitutes an ‘individual stake' equally as significant as a purely pecuniary one." In remanding the case, the appellate panel directed the Superior Court to consider "plaintiffs' non-financial interests" in both the trial and appeal. But Nicholson did add this warning: " or an aesthetic or environmental interest to block an award of attorney fees under the ‘financial burden' criterion, that interest must function essentially in the same way in the comparative analysis as a financial interest, clearly an objective interest. A subjective, vaguely-grounded aesthetic interest, even if ‘heart-felt,' will not be considered sufficient; nor will a mere abstract interest in aesthetic integrity or environmental preservation suffice to block an award of attorney fees." In a concurring and dissenting opinion, President Justice Richard Sims wrote that the plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys' fees but that their aesthetic interests should not be considered. Sims said Williams was wrongly decided and the court should not follow it. "There is simply no way reasonably to place a pecuniary valuation on the sorts of abstract aesthetic interests that are at issue in this litigation," he wrote. The Case: Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, No. C031681, 00 C.D.O.S. 2509, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3329, filed March 29, 2000. The Lawyers: For FUTURE: Randy Barrow, Mackenroth, Ryan & Fong, (916) 924-1912. For the county, Edward Knapp, chief assistant county counsel, (530) 621-5770. For Cook Ranch Partners, Howard Ellman, Ellman Burke, Hoffman & Johnson, (415) 777-2727.

Portions of Santa Monica's rent control law have been thrown out by an appellate court because the provisions conflicted with state law. The Second District Court of Appeal said Santa Monica could not modify conditions established by state law under which landlords can increase rents for voluntarily vacated units, and the city cannot demand more information than state law requires when registering rent-controlled units. In reviewing the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995 (Civ. Code §1954.50), the court found that the state "fully occupied" the field of law governing the right of landlords to establish rental rates, whether or not the units are subject to rent control. Because the field is "fully occupied," the city cannot adopt additional regulations, the court ruled. The case involved the setting of rents for rent-controlled units that have been voluntarily vacated. Under Costa-Hawkins, a landlord — effective January 1, 1999 — can set initial and subsequent rental rates for new tenancies, even for units subject to rent control. In an interim period from January 1, 1996 to December 31, 1998, landlords were limited to a 15% increase, or 70% of the prevailing market rate, after a tenant voluntarily vacated, abandoned or was properly evicted from a unit. The City of Santa Monica adopted regulations to address this interim period. The regulations defined "voluntary" and "non-voluntary" vacancies, required a four-month tenancy before a vacancy rent increase could be sought and set other conditions. In January 1997, Cabinda LLC became owner of a 20-unit apartment complex subject to the city's rent control law. In March and April 1997, Cabinda applied to the city for vacancy rent increases for three units but was denied by the city's Rent Control Board because the previous tenants left after less than four months. Cabinda filed for another vacancy rent increase in June 1998 but was again denied, this time because the tenant claimed she was harassed into leaving. Cabinda then sued, claiming that the city violated its rights under Costa-Hawkins. The landlord also sought administrative mandamus, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Hugh Gardner III ruled that the city's regulations were preempted by Costa-Hawkins, so they were invalid. The appellate panel said the question before it was narrow: How fully did the Legislature intend to occupy the field of law regarding setting of rental rates? The city argued not fully because the Legislature did not define "voluntary vacancy" for purposes of interim increases, and because local entities retain jurisdiction to monitor health and safety code violations, and evictions. But the unanimous three-judge appellate court rejected both contentions. The term "voluntary vacancy" is readily understood, ruled the court, which quoted from Black's Law Dictionary and Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary. As for local jurisdiction over health and safety codes, Costa-Hawkins's specific provisions "demonstrate the Legislature's desire to preserve to local government and other local entities particular aspects of regulatory oversight, while occupying the remainder of the field itself," Justice Norman Epstein wrote for the court. Costa-Hawkins granted landlords the right to set rates, exempted certain properties, and established an interim period. "This is a comprehensive treatment of the field of decontrol of residential rental rates, indicating the Legislature's intent to fully occupy the field," Epstein wrote. The court found that Santa Monica's criteria for non-voluntary vacancies could preclude rent increases permitted by Costa-Hawkins; therefore, the local law is preempted. "The regulation not only set up additional criteria in order for an owner to utilize the authority granted by Costa-Hawkins, it also gave to the Board the power to challenge an owner's vacancy rent increase ‘if a question of fact arises' regarding the correct registered rent, and places on the owner the burden to prove to the Board that the vacancy was a qualifying vacancy. Costa-Hawkins does not preserve any such authority to the Board," Epstein wrote. The appellate court also said that the trial court properly barred Santa Monica from enforcing local regulations regarding rent registration under the Petris Act, which mandates that rent control jurisdictions with registration requirements certify permissible rent levels within certain timelines. The city can require only a tenant's name, and can only request the extensive information sought under the local ordinance, the court said. The Case: Cabinda LLC v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, No. B133077, 00 C.D.O.S. 3743, filed May 11, 2000. The Lawyers: For Cabinda: Gordon Gitlen, (310) 883-3333. For the city: Doris Ganga, Rent Control Board general counsel, (310) 458-8781.

Available land is a rare and, therefore, valuable commodity in Santa Monica. So city officials are pleased with the opportunities they now have after purchasing about 11 acres, owned for decades by a prominent think tank, that lie adjacent to Santa Monica Civic Auditorium, City Hall and Palisades Park. "It's an incredibly strategic area," said Andy Agle, Santa Monica's deputy director of planning and community development. The city could eventually develop parks, affordable housing and office buildings on the property, which is only a block from the beach. Downtown Santa Monica is adjacent to the Pacific Ocean and contains a number of Southern California's most prominent tourist attractions, including the Santa Monica Pier, the Third Street Promenade, and the Santa Monica Place shopping mall. The Rand property separates the Promenade and the shopping mall (to the north) from City Hall and the civic Auditorium (to the south) and has therefore served for decades as a barrier to connecting those two areas. The city's redevelopment agency purchased the property this spring from Rand Corporation for $53 million. An extensive, community-based planning process for the site will likely begin this fall. The purchase of the land between Ocean Avenue and Main Street, just north of the Civic Auditorium, places a key chunk of the Civic Center district in public hands. That's important because a specific plan for the area, which the city adopted in 1993, was never fully executed. That plan assumed that Rand's property would remain in private hands but would get developed with a new Rand headquarters, affordable housing, and public open space. However, Rand officials said the city's plan for the site was not economically feasible for the company. "The city had a fairly elaborate vision of what could be done on this land," Rand spokeswoman Iao Katagiri told the Los Angeles Times. "The economics proved to be impossible for us to meet." Santa Monica has long been ruled by social activists who have not restricted growth in an extreme way, but, rather, have imposed heavy social and community requirements, such as child-care facilities, affordable housing, and transit fees, on new development projects. So Rand was receptive when the city offered to purchase the property. The nonprofit research company is one of the city's largest private employers, with about 1,000 workers. Currently, the site contains a number of Rand office buildings, some of which are dilapidated and boarded up, and a large surface parking lot. Rand has submitted an application for a five-story, 300,000-square-foot office building with an underground parking lot, Agle said. Essentially, Rand will consolidate from 15 acres down to about 3.5 acres. A motel on the site is scheduled to be torn down and replaced this summer with a four-story office building developed by Maguire Partners, one of Southern California's most prominent commercial developers, which is also based in Santa Monica. The Rand entitlement process will likely wrap up this fall, although Coastal Commission approval, which can be sticky, is needed for the project. After Rand builds its new headquarters, it will demolish the current structures, opening the site for the city's redevelopment project. At about the time Rand is scheduled to receive city approval for its new building this fall, the city will begin a public planning process, Agle said. Although the City Council has not yet established the precise structure of the process, he anticipates it will take 12 months to 18 months to scope the project, receive public comment and write a plan. The City of Santa Monica is known for emphasizing the "public" portion of the public planning process, so it will not move quickly. Once a draft plan is complete, the environmental review will commence. "It's a very significant opportunity for Santa Monica," Agle said of the newly acquired land. "It's going to be a real focus on community attention because it's such a strategic location and it presents and opportunity to address some of the critical concerns that the community has raised." Santa Monica badly needs both affordable housing and open space, and the newly acquired property could provide both, Agle said. The City Council talks of diverse population and has hoped to see affordable homes developed on the Rand site for years, as evidenced by the 1993 Civic Center plan. Real estate prices make affordable housing development difficult in Santa Monica, a city whose tough rent control laws have been partially overridden by recent state legislation (see Legal Digest, page 9). In fact, a recent study by the city found that a new state law that lets apartment owners raise rents on vacant units to market rates cost the city 2,000 units affordable to low-income and very low-income households. Rental rates have jumped an average of 41% to 75% for the vacant units. City housing officials project that Santa Monica will lose 3,800 units, or 15%, that were once affordable to families earning 80% of median income. All of these factors put momentum behind the idea of affordable housing development on the newly acquired property. The open space concept is appealing because the property is cater-cornered to heavily used Palisades Park, which overlooks the Pacific Ocean. The city considers the bluff-top park one of its prime assets, and the park could conceivably be extended into at least a portion of the newly purchased property. Acquiring the Rand site also allows the city to tie together the pier, the park, the Civic Auditorium, City Hall, a courthouse and Santa Monica's lively downtown. The upcoming planning process offers the opportunity to rethink the relationships of all the land uses in the area, Agle said. Contacts: Andy Agle, Santa Monica planning and community development department, (310) 458-2275. Santa Monica website: www.ci.santa-monica.ca.us

The City of Livermore and Alameda County are close to completing a specific plan that provides for the development of 3,200 acres and the conservation of 10,300 acres of farmland and open space. However, a Sierra Club-backed urban growth boundary initiative that appears headed for the Alameda County ballot in November could throw the project into question. The city and county are in the midst of conducting approximately 17 workshops and public hearings on the North Livermore Specific Plan. City and county planners say the plan provides for 12,500 much-needed housing units in job-rich eastern Alameda County. Fees from development of those homes will provide about $50 million to fund rural land acquisitions and open space easements, which would preclude additional development on neighboring hillsides. The specific plan marks the cooperation of the city and county, which fought each other in court over development in the area during the mid-1990s (see CP&DR, September 1994). However, if voters in November approve the urban growth boundary initiative, for which the Sierra Club submitted signatures in mid-May, the North Livermore Specific Plan could effectively be invalidated. It is uncertain whether Livermore and Alameda County can both complete specific plan adoption prior to the November 7 election. The Sierra Club has come out against the plan because of the development's affects on traffic, air quality and quality of life. On the opposite side is the 90-member Tri-Valley Business Council. The organization has not taken a formal stance on the specific plan because it is still reviewing details, but the group does back development in North Livermore, Council President Tom O'Malley said. The Livermore general plan calls for development in North Livermore, and the area needs more homes for current and future workers, he said. In 1993, Livermore adopted the North Livermore general plan amendment, which called for dwelling units to accommodate about 30,000 people in an area north of I-580. At about the same time, Alameda County was approving the East County Area Plan, which had alternatives for up to 60,000 people in a broader area. Landowners sued the city, and the city sued the county. All sides settled in 1995 when the city and county agreed to a joint planning process overseen by a committee of two city planners, two county planners and one landowners' representative. "It's an amazing group," said Joe Runco of SWA Group, the specific plan's lead planner and urban designer. "It's remarkable that a project like this could even get this far." Planners first conducted an open space feasibility study, which concluded that a density bonus program and development fees could result in permanent protection of vast tracts of rural areas in northeastern Alameda County. Planners then melded the earlier city and county plans, which called for similar housing production, urban growth boundaries and local-serving commercial development, said Chris Bazar, an Alameda County senior planner. Volume I of the resulting specific plan addresses the 10,300 rural acres, all but 425 of which will remain unincorporated. The plan creates a 1,550-acre rural management/agricultural enhancement area that would serve as a transition zone north of the urban area. Agriculture, large-lot residential development, limited tourist commercial uses and golf courses would be among the allowable uses. In the hills west of the urban area lie 1,675 acres that would provide wildlife habitat and open space. Just over half of the project area, 7,100 acres north and west of the urban area, would be designated for large-lot agriculture and habitat protection. Volume II addresses the 3,200-acre urban area. The 12,500 residential units would be built in densities of 0.2 units to 35 units per acre, with no more than 3,000 units being constructed in a five-year period. The plan calls for 700,000 square feet of commercial development, about two-thirds of which would lie in a "village core." Also included are 22 neighborhood parks, 90 acres of community parkland and eight schools. The plan is an attempt to interconnect the various pieces of the overall development, SWA's Runco said. There are more than 100 landowners in the specific plan area, including about 40 in the proposed urban area. Balancing homes and jobs The plan does contain some New Urbanist components. A fairly tight street grid is in the plan. An extensive trail system is planned, and 30% to 40% of residences will be within a 10-minute walk of the village core, which is intended to serve locals. Nearly all residences will be within a half-mile of an elementary school. However, there will be little employment within the new urban area, and planners concede the development will be heavily auto-dependent. That is not encouraging for motorists stuck on the already congested I-580 freeway that links the East Bay with bedroom communities in San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties, or the even more crowded I-680 freeway, which ties the East Bay to Silicon Valley. Traffic is a major concern of the Sierra Club, which notes that the EIR lists significant, unavoidable impacts from the North Livermore project. Mike Daley, conservation coordinator for the Sierra Club's Bay Chapter, said that what is planned as a new town in North Livermore is unwarranted. Under the initiative, cities would be required to grow within urban growth boundaries, and the county would be out of the development business, he said. For the North Livermore project to go forward, Livermore would first have to receive Local Agency Formation Commission approval to annex the area, he said. The initiative would leave adequate room for growth around cities, said Daley, who pointed to infrastructure problems faced by proposed developments. "We're not saying housing and development cannot occur in these areas," he said. Furthermore, the initiative tightens requirements for affordable housing on all projects of at least 20 units, he added. But the Tri-Valley Business Council's O'Malley said the North Livermore development probably should be even denser than proposed, even though its average of 6.2 units per acre is roughly double the rest of Livermore. Smart growth criteria mandate dense housing, he said. "I think this could be a pilot project to show how high-density could be done in fine fashion," said O'Malley. He said that planners have been stunned to hear anyone arguing for more density in the Tri-Valley area, which is characterized by large tracts of single-family homes and low-rise industrial parks. The area needs more middle-class housing, O'Malley said. Workers are already forced to commute from Tracy and Modesto, and every indication is that industrial growth is moving east from Pleasanton to Livermore, he said. "We have to do more to start providing housing for our work force," O'Malley said. City officials would agree with that statement. With North Livermore built out, Livermore will have an estimated 1.29 jobs per housing unit, said Will Kettler, an associate planner for the city. Without the development, that ratio goes to 1.7 jobs per home, which is higher than the city wants, he said. The county's Bazar said the plan is remarkable for its protection of more than 10,000 acres of rural land. A development fee of $25,000 per acre will go to a land trust for purchasing property and easements � which is the cornerstone of the specific plan's resource conservation program. Besides protecting and enhancing natural resources, the fee also prevents area landowners from getting divided into haves and have-nots. That's especially important because planners essentially drew a line at May Road to divide the urban area and the lightly developed transition zone. There is no obvious topographic break. Market studies suggest the $25,000 fee will not sink the project, Bazar said. "I think we're really setting a pretty strong precedent here," he said.  The plan is the first to consider urban versus non-urban uses for a wide area of the East Bay, and to draw a line between the two, said SWA's Runco. "I can't think of another single development project where developing the urban area protects the rural area at a ratio of four to one," Runco said. Both the Livermore City Council and the Alameda County Board of Supervisors must approve the specific plan. The planning commissions for each jurisdiction are scheduled to make recommendations this summer, but no dates have been set yet for the elected bodies to consider the plan. Comments on the draft environmental impact report were due June 2, although planning commissioners were considering extending the deadline. Contacts: Chris Bazar, Alameda County Planning Department, (510) 670-5400. Will Kettler, Livermore Planning Division, (510) 373-5200. Tom O'Malley, Tri-Valley Business Council, (925) 890-1892. Mike Daley, Sierra Club Bay Chapter, (510) 848-0800. Joe Runco, SWA Group, (415) 332-5100.