We have grown suspicious of simplicity. We late 20th Century folk have come to equate complexity with competence. We tend to give the benefit of the doubt to things that have been over-intellectualized, over-wrought and over-papered. We want massive documents with hundreds of appendices that only consultants can read and interpret for us. The trend has given rise to a kind of info-snobbery: If a non-expert offers us an opinion, we tend to give it less weight than if a specialist weighs in on the same matter. Often, however, our suspicion of simplicity may not be well founded, nor is it fair to assume that simplicity necessarily means a lack of sophistication. It would be wrong to characterize the agreement between the Southern California International Airport Authority and Orange County-based Stirling Enterprises LLC as simple. It's hardly an IOU scrawled on the back of a napkin. At the same time, this very straightforward agreement can be read, and understood, by non-experts in about half an hour. That is impressive when you realize this document is essentially the working agreement between a public joint-powers authority and a private developer guiding the 20-year redevelopment of a 4,000-acre airport. In comparison, a typical lease in a big-city office building is usually a document that can be several inches thick. And then you have to pay somebody $300 an hour to read this thing and explain it to you. The comparison to the office lease, of course, is inappropriate in at least one way: the relationship between landlord and tenant is adversarial, while the developer and the Victor Valley communities seem to have a common goal. The desire to get something going at the former George Air Force Base is probably foremost in the minds of the municipalities that make up the Southern California International Airport Authority — the County of San Bernardino, the Town of Apple Valley, and the cities of Victorville and Hesperia. The airport authority is an alter ego of the Victor Valley Economic Development Authority, the official local agency for base closure. When the base closed in 1992, the region lost 6,000 jobs. Located in the desert about one-third of the way from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, the former military base may not look like a hot property (except in solar terms). But both the local officials and the developers are convinced that the area could become the next important air-cargo hub of Southern California. They make a good sales pitch: the region is already well-served by infrastructure, including Interstate 15 and the Burlington Northern and Southern Pacific rail lines; an eastward extension of the Alameda Corridor, a partially below-surface rail line to the harbor area of Los Angeles-Long Beach that is now under construction, would create a crucial link to the ports. The capacity for cargo at Los Angeles International Airport is fast filling up. Based on a rule of thumb that says truckers need to be within 18 hours of a destination, the area now known as Southern California International Airport could deliver goods to all western states and Mexico. Optimistically, but not unreasonably, local officials think the cargo airfield could more than replace the lost military base jobs. Both the developer and local authorities seem eager to start as soon as possible and signed the agreement in January. In a nutshell, here are the basic deal points: The public airport authority agrees to pay $40 million in infrastructure costs, which will be funded by bonds (which kind are not specified in the document). Tax-increment revenues on the base will pay off the bonds. (Special legislation granted military bases redevelopment powers.) Stirling agrees to provide the remainder of the infrastructure; the cost is not stated in the document but is estimated to be $70 million. The developer also agrees to buy a set of parcels, totaling 325 acres, for $28 million. These are the so-called Economic Development Conveyance parcels, which the Air Force has agreed to sell to the local reuse authority. Half of the income that the developer receives from property sales or leases on the base will automatically go into a "Land Pay Down Fund" until the obligation is met. The developer also has the right to lease the so-called Public Benefit Transfer parcels, which the military is not selling at this time. Additionally, both sides are to contribute $3.5 million to pay off a $7 million bond issue from 1996 that financed initial redevelopment costs at the base. Presumably, this goal will be accomplished through a refinance. After all other obligations and operating expenses are met, the two sides share income from projects on a 50-50 basis. The developer has the responsibility of marketing, managing and developing the property, but the airport authority also has the right to bring in potential tenants or investors, with the approval of the other party. The agreement is for 10 years, although either party can cancel the agreement at any time during the first year. The agreement can be renewed for two additional five-year terms. The framers of the agreement acknowledge its directness. Lawyer Andre de Bortnowsky, a partner in the Calabasas office of Sabo & Green, whom the airport authority retained to draft the agreement, said he reviewed several different master-developer agreements used by other former bases but chose to "essentially start from scratch." He characterized the agreement as flexible: "Philosophically, we are trying to accommodate or foresee changes. The agreement outlines the relationship and general obligations between the parties, and, at the same time, it also contemplates a need for additional agreements and fine tuning as the project goes along." Developer Dougall Agan, a principal in the land development firm of Stirling, put it more simply. "It's the KISS principle," he said, referring to the familiar acronym for Keep It Simple, Stupid. What was most notable was the balance of both responsibility and profit on the part of both parties. "It's the same thing as a good marriage," he said. "It has to be 50-50." Since the arrangement between the airport authority and the developer is in its infancy, it is obviously too soon to determine whether the agreement is a success or not. Still, it seems to represent an intriguing approach in framing a document that the general public can understand and comment on. The late jazz musician Dizzy Gillespie once said the quality of music depends on knowing which notes not to play. In other words, true sophistication consists in not saying everything. It would be interesting to see if such a straightforward agreement turns out to be workable. In an age of overkill, it is refreshing to see a document that knows when to shut up.

Loretta Lynch, a San Francisco lawyer with solid Democratic credentials, is the new Office of Planning and Research director. Gov. Gray Davis in mid-March named Lynch to the top job at OPR, which provides technical assistance to local planners and runs the State Clearinghouse for project review. The 37-year-old Lynch has been a partner in Keker & Van Nest since 1991, where she represented small and large companies in securities trading matters. Lynch is a graduate of University of Southern California and earned her juris doctor from Yale. She clerked for U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Dorothy Wright Nelson. Prior to attending law school, Lynch was a legislative aid to Assemblyman Johan Klehs. Lynch "developed research strategies, policy and issue positions" for the campaigns of President Clinton, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin, according to the governor's office. While the top post at OPR is now filled, the governor has not replaced Terry Rivasplata, who has joined Jones & Stokes Associates of Sacramento as a senior environmental planner. Rivasplata for 14 years managed the Planning and State Clearinghouse Unit and worked closely with local governments. Senior Planner Terry Roberts, who came to OPR in February from the West Sacramento Community Development Department, is in charge of the understaffed unit on an interim basis. "Everybody who was here before is gone, with the exception of one clerk who is handling the State Clearinghouse paperwork," Roberts said in mid-March. In his new position with Jones & Stokes, Rivasplata will provide technical expertise regarding the California Environmental Quality Act, general plans, environmental analyses, and local and regional planning to local government and private-sector clients.

L.A. may have multiple planning commissions An overhaul of the Los Angeles City Charter, which will go before voters June 13, calls for creation of at least five area planning commissions. But those area commissions would have limited powers, and the citywide Planning Commission would remain in place, under the proposal. "The citywide Planning Commission is seen as a body that's not very closely related to the people," Jackie DuPont-Walker, chairwoman of the Elected Charter Reform Commission said. "I think the area planning commissions provide an opportunity for decisions to be made closer to home by people who are stakeholders." DuPont-Walker made those comments to the Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century during a recent hearing in Los Angeles. She and George Kieffer, chairman of the Appointed Charter Reform Commission, explained the proposed charter during the hearing. The two charter reform commissions, which were not always friendly, in February settled on one recommendation. Kieffer said multiple planning commissions make sense because of Los Angeles's size — nearly 4 million people spread over 465 square miles. No one from San Pedro can understand the community of Chatsworth, 50 miles north but still within the L.A. city limits, he said. However, the area planning commissions, which the City Council and mayor would appoint, have limited authority, under the proposed charter. Area commissions would have jurisdiction over conditional use permits, variances and zoning administrator appeals. The citywide Planning Commission would decide on projects that require both quasi-judicial and legislative actions. The proposed charter allows the City Council, planning director and citywide Planning Commission — but not area commissions — to initiate zoning changes and general plan amendments. Area commissions could comment on proposed zoning changes and general plan amendments only at the citywide Planning Commission's request. The charter does allow the citywide Planning Commission, with City Council approval, to delegate authority over "projects determined not to have citywide impact" to an area commission. The City Council would pick the number on area commissions, but there must be at least five. The council would draw area commission boundaries for the whole city, and members of the five-person panels must live within those boundaries. The proposed charter also creates a Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, which ought to give residents and business owners more input regarding development and other neighborhood matters, Kieffer said. The proposed charter may be downloaded from www.lacharter.com.

A county considering the environmental impact of a proposal to expand a mine may use full-capacity operation of the existing facility as the environmental "baseline" even if the facility is operating at less than full capacity, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court found that in preparing an environmental impact report, Ventura County could assume that a mining operation outside Moorpark is generating 810 truck trips per day — the maximum number of truck trips that would be generate... A county considering the environmental impact of a proposal to expand a mine may use full-capacity operation of the existing facility as the environmental "baseline" even if the facility is operating at less than full capacity, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court found that in preparing an environmental impact report, Ventura County could assume that a mining operation outside Moorpark is generating 810 truck trips per day — the maximum number of truck trips that would be generated by the existing mine's peak operations. Environmentalists who challenged the expansion project argued that the county should use a lower number, because the 1976 EIR for the original mining operation assumed only 120 truck trips per day and actual operations have averaged approximately 400 truck trips per day in recent years. The court further concluded that because the project under consideration was merely the expansion of an existing use, it probably did not even require a full new EIR but rather merely a supplemental or tiered EIR. The appellate court also concluded that EIR's requirement for future analysis does not violate the so-called Sunstrom rule if the county determines that the project will create significant unmitigable impacts even after the future mitigation is determined, the appellate court ruled. The case began when Transit Mixed Concrete Co. applied for a conditional use permit to expand an existing sand mining operation in a rural area near Moorpark. The mine provides construction materials for use within the county. A previous CUP permitted Transit to operate the mine at a production level that correlates to the creation of 810 truck trips per day — though the CUP imposed no limit on the number of truck trips and the original EIR assumed that only about 120 truck trips per day would be generated. Although the site already contains plants to make concrete batch, road base, and mortar, Transit sought approval to construct an asphalt batch plant on site as well. The county issued a draft EIR in 1991 and spent the next five years circulating and revising it before certifying the EIR and approving the project, including the asphalt batch plant, in 1996. The EIR certification included a statement of overriding consideration because air, noise, and biological impacts were deemed significant and unmitigable. After approving the project, the county was sued by a citizen group, Fairview Neighbors, which contended that the asphalt batch plant was inconsistent with the county general plan and that the EIR was inadequate. Ventura County Superior Court Judge Roland N. Purnell denied Fairview's petition for a writ of mandate, and Fairview appealed to the Second District, Division Six. Fairview challenged the EIR by arguing, among other things, that the document should have been based on an existing setting reflecting the actual number of truck trips, not the theoretical maximum of 810. In the appellate panel's opinion, Justice Stephen Stone, who recently retired as presiding justice of Division Two, disagreed. Stone concluded that a new EIR probably was not even needed because this was the expansion of an existing facility. He also said it was arguable that the project was categorically exempt from CEQA for the same reason. He noted that, in one peak year, the mine had generated an average of 837 truck trips per day. Fairview argued that the document improperly subjected Transit to additional mitigation measures to be determined by a future study. Such requirements were struck down in the well-known case of Sunstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal.App.3d 296 (1988). The Sunstrom rule prohibits lead agencies from requiring unspecified mitigation based on future studies. The appellate court rejected Fairview's argument. The court ruled that a county may properly issue a statement of overriding considerations if there is no way to mitigate the impacts below a level of significance. The Second District also ruled that the construction of an asphalt batch plant in a rural area where the Ventura County general plan permits mining does not violate the general plan. And the appellate court affirmed a lower court ruling upholding the county's EIR against several other lines of attack. In the appellate panel's ruling, Stone distinguished the Transit situation from Sunstrom. In Sunstrom, the county had "deferred environmental assessment to a future date after approval of the project," Stone wrote. "That is not what occurred here. Here the EIR explains what the environmental impacts would be, and it concludes that the impacts would be significant and unmitigable regardless of the proposed mitigation measures or future studies. Under such circumstances, the board may adopt a statement of overriding considerations and approve the project." Fairview also challenged the EIR on the grounds that the air quality impacts were based on "illusory" traffic estimates and that the Board of Supervisors should have required mitigation for air quality impacts. Regarding the air quality impacts, the appellate court concluded that the county acted properly. Fairview argued that Transit should have been required to participate in any future assessment district designed to alleviate air pollution from truck traffic in the area. The appellate court accepted the county's conclusion that air quality impacts would have been significant and unmitigable even if such a requirement had been imposed. The court also concluded that the EIR adequately examined cumulative impacts. Fairview claimed that the cumulative impact section of the EIR simply stated the obvious point that more development will destroy resources, and argued that the EIR should have been more comprehensive and specific regarding cumulative impacts. The court ruled that the county had adequately analyzed cumulative impacts by writing "a separate, lengthy section of the EIR" supported by an eight-page appendix describing related projects and their impacts. Fairview contended that both the asphalt and cement manufacturing plants are inconsistent with the site's general plan designation. Under the general plan, most of the property is designated for open space with a mineral resource protection overlay that permits mining and "incidental" uses, such as crushing, batching, and recycling of concrete and asphalt. Fairview argued that under the county's general plan, manufacturing is permitted only in light or heavy industrial zones. But the Second District disagreed. The county general plan "provides some examples of permitted uses, including concrete manufacturing," Stone wrote. "On its face permits batching and concrete products manufacturing, provided on-site materials are used in the process." Stone noted that sand mined on-site constitutes 90% of the weight of the materials manufactured. The Case: Fairview Neighbors, v. County of Ventura, No. B120456, 99 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1805, 99 C.D.O.S. 1465 (issued January 28, 1999, with modifications ordered February 24, 1999). The Lawyers: For Fairview Neighbors: Kate Neiswender, (805) 639-0035. For Ventura County: Steven W. Weston, McClintock, Weston, Benshoof, Rochefort, Rubalcava & MacCuish, (213) 623-2322.

The San Diego waterfront, already the scene of a growing San Diego Convention Center, is on the verge of adding 750 hotel rooms, a massive retail village and an expanded public park. The project is the first phase of the Port of San Diego's South Embarcadero Redevelopment Project. Two to three year's worth of construction is likely to begin this spring, according to Ralph Hicks, the port's director of land use and planning. The project involves three separate undertakings: adding a 750-room tower to the existing Hyatt Regency hotel, expanding a small park into a Central Park with bay access, and building a new 180,000-square-foot retail complex. The port in 1996 completed a master plan for the two-phase South Embarcadero Redevelopment Project. The California Coastal Commission last year approved the first phase, which covers about 20 acres of port district property north of the Convention Center. After a legal challenge, the project's environmental impact report won the backing of a Superior Court judge in February. Project opponents still have time to appeal the ruling, according to Melissa Mailander, who oversaw preparation of the EIR for the port. The project is enticing because the hotel and retail developers have a good track record with the port, Hicks said. Manchester Resorts, which already operates the Hyatt Regency, will develop the new tower. Harbor Venture LLP and San Diego Seaport Village will undertake the retail additions to the much smaller Seaport Village. Once construction is complete and all merchants have moved in, the port should realize an additional $4 million to $6 million a year in lease revenue, Hicks said. The port's annual operating budget is about $110 million. The City of San Diego will get an additional $6 million to $8 million in transient occupancy and sales tax, Hicks said. The Seaport Village expansion will provide 180,000 square feet for retail shops, entertainment, fast food and sit-down restaurants in a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere. Besides the stores, the project includes a walkway to Fish Harbor Pier, a plaza, courtyards and small arcades, according to the project description in the EIR. The redevelopment project has received public backing not only because of the economic benefits, but also because of the Central Park development. Seaport developers will contribute $600,000 to the park project, and Manchester Resorts agreed to pitch in $500,000. The four-acre park will provide an important visual and physical link between busy Harbor Drive and the waterfront itself. Community members will have considerable say regarding final design of the park, Hicks said. However, not everyone is happy with the port's redevelopment efforts. Owners of City Front Terrace, an exclusive condominium complex across from the Hyatt Regency, and the San Diego Police Historical Association both fought the project. City Front Terrace contended the hotel expansion would result in a "walling off" of the waterfront. The police association complained because the project meant the likely demise of a 60-year old police headquarters building to make way for a Seaport Village parking lot. The condo owners and the police historical association both sued over the project EIR. However, San Diego Superior Court Judge David B. Moon Jr. in February upheld the document. Still, the port had to make a statement of overriding consideration regarding both the walling off issue and the historic building. "All along Harbor Drive is one big wall," Mailander conceded. Port planners contended the project would actually improve views and coastal access for the public because of the expanded park. Also, planners scaled back the development from the original plan, which called for expanding the Marriott hotel on Harbor Drive by 600 rooms. The port dropped that expansion because it would have led to "too much hotel in too small an area," Hicks said. Also, the port reduced the Hyatt Regency expansion from the original 810 rooms to 750 rooms, lowered the height of the structure that will connect the new rooms with the existing tower and required a larger setback from Harbor Drive and Kettner Boulevard. As for the old police headquarters, opinions vary on the historical significance of the structure, which the WPA built during the late 1930s. At one time, it housed police, a city jail, five courtrooms and even a pistol range. The building has mostly been vacant since police moved to newer, larger digs 12 years ago. The building, part of which now serves as a stable for a carriage company, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The police historic association, a two-year-old group of active and retired officers, contends the building is worth saving. The association would like to establish a museum at the old station, which could also accommodate shops and restaurants. "It was a balancing — do you want a Central Park or do you want to keep the old police station?" Hicks responded. Members of the public who participated in creating the master plan for the South Embarcadero Redevelopment Project definitely wanted the park, he said. The old police headquarters' bell tower may get incorporated into the park's entrance, which will align with pedestrian-oriented California Street, Mailander added. Furthermore, experts are studying the possibility of moving at least part of the station. The port's redevelopment project is part of San Diego's booming downtown renaissance. Phase two of the South Embarcadero Redevelopment Project calls for a 1,400-room hotel to replace a commercial shipping terminal. The port is in negotiations with a developer, Hicks said. All of the hotel rooms are needed to serve a bigger Convention Center and the proposed baseball stadium for the San Diego Padres, which will be only a few blocks away. Construction has begun on the Convention Center addition, which is scheduled to open in September 2001. Close by is the city's most ambitious redevelopment project — a 26-block district that is to include a baseball stadium that opens in 2002. San Diego voters last November approved the city's redevelopment plan. Just north of the Convention Center is the bustling Gaslamp Quarter, whose shops, restaurants and clubs have proven popular with locals and tourists. Contacts: Ralph Hicks, Port of San Diego land use and planning director, (619) 686-6435. Melissa Mailander, Port of San Diego environmental review coordinator, (619) 686-6283.

Auto racetracks and rock concert venues are often seen as noisy land uses with the potential to generate monster traffic jams. Rare is the homeowner who wants a speedway or concert amphitheater in his back yard. Thus, the lack of opposition to plans to build a speedway and amphitheater in southern Yuba County is extraordinary — but no more extraordinary than the fact that this $90 million development is pegged for one of California's poorest counties. Preliminary grading and road work has commenced for the Yuba County Motorplex, a 900-acre development among the rice fields between Highways 65 and 70 about 10 miles south of Marysville and, more importantly, 30 miles north of Sacramento. Developers Frank Arciero Sr. of Orange County and Gerald R. Forsythe of Illinois plan a 1.3-mile oval track, a drag strip and several road courses. At the far end of the site, San Francisco's Bill Graham Presents plans a 20,000-seat amphitheater, which is scheduled to open in spring of 2000. The projects were approved when 84 percent of Yuba County voters backed a 1998 initiative that created a sports and entertainment zoning district, said James Manning, Yuba County community development director. The new zoning specifically allows a racetrack and concert venue. The county had been processing a zoning amendment and conditional use permit, and it had circulated a draft environmental impact report. However, a few opponents were slowing the process, so county supervisors put the initiative on the ballot, Manning said. Arciero paid for election costs. All the developers need now are building permits, because "all the regular review processes stopped" upon approval of the initiative, Manning said. Both the racetrack and the amphitheater ended up in Yuba County (population 61,000) after communities in the Sacramento metropolitan region showed ambivalence, if not outright hostility, toward earlier proposals. "Frank Arciero had done a lot of searching before he chose this site," said Norm Richards, construction manager for the motorplex. "He had found a more desirable site, but it happened to be in Sutter County. Sutter County wouldn't hardly even talk to him about it." That site along Highway 99 sits just north of the Sacramento County line, near Sacramento International Airport. Arciero also searched near the northeastern Sacramento suburbs in Placer County, but he got nowhere, Richards said. Sutter County Planning Division Director Tom Last said Arciero spoke with county officials but never filed an application. South Sutter County's 10,500-acre commercial and industrial reserve probably could have accommodated the speedway, he said. "County staff clearly would have supported it. It would have been a matter of them mitigating all the impacts and getting approval from the Board of Supervisors," Last said. Bill Graham Presents spent five years searching for a site to construct a replacement for its now-closed facility at Cal Expo in Sacramento, said Tim O'Brien, BGP's project manager. Sacramento, Roseville, Folsom, Elk Grove and Woodland all had potential amphitheater sites. But it was Yuba County that cooperated. "We didn't find that anywhere else," O'Brien said. "We ran into a lot of different issues — noise and traffic. When you're dealing with a facility like an amphitheater, you're dealing with a lot of perception versus reality." The facility's site — a 35-minute drive from downtown — is not a problem, O'Brien contended. "People are going to go where the talent is playing," he said. Early stages of motorplex construction have slowed because even small amounts of rain turn the former rice fields into equipment-sucking bogs. Still, developers intend to have the drag strip and seating for 10,000 fans complete this year. Construction of the oval track and seating for another 40,000 spectators probably will begin in spring of 2000, with racing likely in 2001, Richards said. The significance of the speedway and amphitheater for Yuba County is difficult to overestimate. Incomes are modest in Yuba County, where and the February unemployment rate of 14.7 percent was nearly 2 1/2 times greater than the state average. The motorplex will employ 50 to 75 people full-time and 120 to 150 people during races. Major events should provide work for up to 500 vendors. Bill Graham Presents plans 25 to 40 shows a year between April and October at a facility modeled on BGP's Shoreline Amphitheater in Mountain View. The amphitheater, on about 90 acres BGP purchased from Arciero, will employ up to 650 people on the day of shows and have a small year-round staff, O'Brien said. Additionally, about 70 acres are designated for industrial development and could provide up to 1,500 jobs. All 900 acres lie within the Yuba-Sutter Enterprise Zone, which gives businesses tax credits for hiring employees and buying equipment, said Mary Hansen, enterprise zone manager. Contacts: Norm Richards, Yuba County Motorplex construction manager, (530) 741-3100. Tim O'Brien, Bill Graham Presents project manager, (415) 541-0800. James Manning, Yuba County community development director, (530) 741-6419.

Failure of a county to send a copy of a mitigated negative declaration to the state Department of Fish & Game is a big enough oversight to require setting aside the mitigated negative declaration and a subsequent rezoning, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled. In interpreting Public Resources Code §21005, the unanimous three-judge panel ruled that the lack of notice given to a trustee agency "deprived the county of information necessary to informed decision making and informed public participation," and improperly prejudiced Shasta County's decision on a proposed rezoning and residential development. Shasta County in 1987 approved an application from Fall River Ranches to develop 14 residential sites along Fall River. After acquiring an additional 150 acres, Fall River Ranches applied for another rezoning and more residential units. The county solicited comments from interested and affected agencies in 1995, and published a public hearing notice on Dec. 19, 1996. The county, however, did not send a copy of the mitigated negative declaration to DFG. The Board of Supervisors in January 1997 approved the mitigated negative declaration and amended the zoning ordinance. Fall River Wild Trout Foundation sued, alleging the county violated the California Environmental Quality Act by not sending the mitigated negative declaration to DFG and to the State Clearinghouse. Shasta County Superior Court Judge Bradley L. Boeckman initially accepted the county's defense, which was that the trout foundation had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies by not appearing at public hearings conducted by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. But Boeckman vacated his initial order after a hearing for reconsideration. He then set aside the mitigated negative declaration and zoning amendment because of the county's failure to notify DFG. The county appealed the ruling regarding the CEQA process and Boeckman's setting aside of the mitigated negative declaration. The appellate court said it was unsure whether a person must appear at an administrative proceeding to exhaust an administrative remedy. But even if a person or agency must appear, the county's failure to notify DFG excuses the trout foundation from this requirement in Public Resources Code §21177. The county argued that §21177 mandates that a lead agency notify the public — but not trustee agencies — of the lead agency's intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaration. The court rejected this argument. CEQA guidelines prepared by the Resources Agency require the lead agency to notify public, responsible and trustee agencies of the lead agency's intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaration, the court said. "Our broad reading of the statutory language encourages public action to ensure relevant information is considered by local agencies at all stages in the CEQA review process," Justice Connie M. Callahan wrote for the court. As for setting aside the mitigated negative declaration and the zoning amendment, the appellate court agreed with the trial court's ruling that the county abused its discretion by failing to notify a trustee agency. Not notifying DFG amounted to more than a harmless error, the court said. Citing Rural Landowners Association v. City Council, 143 Cal.App.3d 1023 (1983), the court ruled "that the error is prejudicial ‘where that failure to comply with the law results in a subversion of the purposes of CEQA by omitting information from the environmental review process.'" The Case: Fall River Wild Trout Foundation v. County of Shasta, No. C028650, 99 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1989, 99 C.D.O.S. 1565 (filed February 26, 1999). The Lawyers: For Fall River Wild Trout Foundation: William D. McHugh and Cammie W. Chen, McHugh & Chen, (408) 286-2700. For County of Shasta: Paul N. McCloskey Jr., (650) 851-9700, and Charles E. McClung Jr., McClung & Davis, (949) 499-8424.

It is said that a rising tide lifts all ships. It would stand to reason, then, that California's resurgent economy is uniformly raising construction activity. But tides are, after all, fluid. Swells and surges may drop a boat here or there, depending on the harbor. And so it is with California's building. Some of the trends that we began to notice last year are holding strong, while others have reversed — suggesting that the current boom manifests in ways that are particular to California's varying regions. Don't get us wrong. Real estate and building — in case you have been traveling in the Amazon Basin for the period and had not noticed — have been on a roll for more than two years. With the Construction Industry Research Board finalizing data from the 1997 statistical year, it's now official: that was the year of the big comeback. During that term, annual spending for residential construction reached almost $20 billion, a first since the recession hit the state in 1991. And commercial and industrial building spurted 25% higher than the prior year, the largest year-to-year increase since the 1970s. One counter-intuitive trend we noticed last year is holding true. Look again at San Jose — beaming capital of Silicon Valley and in many ways the epicenter of California's economic recovery. Here, among the tech campuses that sprawl to the south of Stanford University, construction of commercial and industrial space continued to slow. By comparison, commercial and industrial building activity statewide, as measured in dollars spent, surged 21% during 1998 compared with 1997. But in Santa Clara County, it dropped by 2%. A similar pattern was observed in San Francisco, where non-residential building decreased by 5%. In these venerable loci of the state's vaunted economy led by technology and creative enterprises, the construction of space to house these activities is sputtering. So are these regional economies on the wane? After all, we have learned that construction is clearly a lagging indicator of economic growth. For the answer, look to the broader hinterland of these economies. Silicon Valley's core industries are setting up shop to the east and south, in Alameda, Santa Cruz, and Monterey counties. Commercial and industrial construction shot up 14% in Alameda, 142% in Santa Cruz, and 28% in Monterey. Silicon Valley is maturing as an industry center to the point of needing to back-office operations, especially as land prices and lease rates continue to soar close to home. San Francisco's banking industry followed the same course during the 1980s boom. Still, Santa Clara County's $1.8 billion worth of commercial and industrial construction during 1998 was greater than the combined total in Alameda, Santa Cruz and Monterey counties. By far the biggest story on the homebuilding scene was the explosion in the Bay Area spill-over markets of Modesto and Stockton. They are especially interesting because their growth now seems more clearly than ever tied to the expanding economy of the Silicon Valley, whose commercial and industrial development has yet to flow into the Central Valley. In Modesto, construction spending for housing continued a four-year growth trend — this time clocking a 46% increase in 1998 compared with 1997. And the Stockton area, which recently linked to the Silicon Valley via a regionally sponsored heavy rail line, experienced a surge of 56% in homebuilding expenditure. These two markets were only surpassed in homebuilding year-to-year growth by tiny Yolo County, which serves as a bedroom to Sacramento. Yolo grew by 80%. These figures are all the more dramatic when held up to non-residential building activity. Stockton's commercial and industrial building only grew 6% last year, making the region a poster child for Vice President Al Gore's Smart Growth campaign. On the other hand, another trend we noticed a year ago, regarding Central Valley homebuilding, has reversed itself. Last year, we observed that some of the San Joaquin Valley's urban complexes — Bakersfield, Fresno, and Visalia — had bucked a strong state trend by exhibiting ongoing declines in residential construction. Today, that has completely reversed. And so an adage holds: the last into the recession — as the San Joaquin Valley was during California's 90s downturn — is the last out. The Valley's burgeoning agricultural burgs joined the rest of the state in the home-building boom during 1998. Bakersfield made the most startling turnabout, with a 31% increase in dollars spent on housing construction after three years of decline. Fresno and Visalia both logged in with 15% increases, also following a decline during recent years. The Construction Industry Research Board's numbers should squelch any lingering doubts that the latest real estate boom is in full swing. And after six long years of recession, it has been widely regarded as a welcome turnabout. These days, the 5:30 a.m. Altamont Commuter Express train heads out of Stockton for San Jose, and sleepy commuters settle in for 90 or so minutes of pre-dawn shut-eye. As the train rolls past subdivisions sprouted from farmland on the way to the land of tech jobs, one can ponder where this rising tide will next deposit their ship.

Money problems for the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy earlier this year have highlighted a need among most of the state's six land conservancies to find a long-term funding source to carry out their mission of acquiring, restoring and preserving open space. The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, which acquires land throughout Los Angeles County and in southeastern Ventura County, announced it had run out of money to even pay administrative costs as of June 30. A state Assembly budget subcommittee in March voted to give the conservancy $750,000 to cover those costs for the next fiscal year, with a requirement that the conservancy identify long-term funding sources. "Budgets (for conservancies) dramatically declined during the past decade," said Rachel Dinno, director of government affairs for the Planning and Conservation League. "We hope for change with the new governor." Dinno and others said to watch for the May revisions of the state budget, after tax receipts are in. At that time, Gov. Davis' priorities — as well as the state's financial picture — will be clearer. Some conservancies — such as the Coastal Conservancy — benefited from flush state coffers last year and received one time funding increases. However, the Coastal, Santa Monica Mountains, Coachella Valley Mountains and San Joaquin River conservancies lack consistent funding. The Tahoe Conservancy and the Wildlife Conservation Board both have more stable funding bases. The heads of the state's conservancies are now hoping that a state parks bond measure gets on the ballot in March 2000. Four competing parks bond proposals are currently before the state Legislature, with each containing millions of dollars for the conservancies. Belinda Faustinos, chief deputy executive director of the Santa Monica conservancy, said the agency hopes to receive about $60 million under any bond measure that passes. Additionally, a water bond measure sponsored by Sen. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, may contain millions for some of the conservancies. The Coastal Conservancy hopes for $100 million to $200 million in parks bond funding, said Bruce Ahern, executive officer of the agency. The smaller Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy hopes to get between $2.5 million and $5 million from bonds. California voters last approved a parks bond measure in 1988. A 1992 parks bond measure went down to defeat during the state's recession. A few conservancies receive funding from Proposition 117, a mountain lion protection initiative passed in 1990. During hard times, conservancies have turned to a variety of funding sources. The Tahoe Conservancy receives $5 million a year from the sale of special state license plates featuring Lake Tahoe. A non-profit affiliate of the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy sponsors funding raising for an "adopt an acre" program, which has raised $100,000. Bill Havert, executive director of the Coachella conservancy, said the agency has been able to acquire 1,600 acres through purchases and donations, and another 1,200 through conservation easements. Under legislation introduced this session by state Senator David Kelley, R-Idyllwild, the conservancy's mission and boundaries would be expanded to encompass a larger 1.25 million-acre, multi-species planning area across the Coachella Valley that is now being studied for a habitat conservation plan. However, the legislation does not provide the Coachella conservancy more money. Some conservancies have also been able to draw national attention to their particular region and gain additional funding. The Tahoe Conservancy, for example, was highlighted by President Clinton's 1997 Tahoe Summit, which included a $908 million, 10-year plan to restore the lake. The state is putting up more than $200 million. The conservancy will receive about $20 million a year during that period, with money going towards land acquisition and restoration costs. "Compared to other folks, we might be doing OK," said Executive Officer Dennis Machida. But, he warned, "There's still an issue of long-term funding. It's not just a conservancy issue, it's in front of all resource protection and management agencies." The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy has acquired more than 40,000 acres since 1980, said Faustinos. In the past four years, it has acquired 18,753 acres through donations and 6,300 acres through purchases. Environmentalists have sometimes criticized the group for cutting deals with developers whose projects require viewshed preservation or wildlife corridors. The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy was hit hard when money from Los Angeles County bond measures, which had provided millions each year, was expended. In contrast to hard times at the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, the Coastal Conservancy has benefited from a flush state economy. In the current year, the Coastal Conservancy received $33 million from the state, up from $8 million it received annually during the early 1990s. But the conservancy identified $400 million to $500 million in coastal restoration and preservation projects, Ahern said. Regardless of whether a parks bond gets on the ballot, the Planning and Conservation League is backing a state measure that would give a 50% tax credit to landowners who donate open space, farmland and critical habitat lands to the state. The group has been pushing the measure for at least five years (See CP&DR, March 1995). SB 680, sponsored by Sen. Jack O'Connell, D-Santa Barbara, passed the state Senate unanimously last year, but stalled because of the Assembly's budget battles. Earlier versions of the bill had a $200 million cap on the tax credit. Now, Dinno said, the bill would allow the legislature to set a specific cap each year. Dinno expects the measure to lead to increased land donations. Federal tax law already allows property owners to write off up to 35% of a land donation to the state, and by adding the 50% deduction, Dinno said, property owners could write off 85% of a property's fair market value. One conservancy that has a solid funding source is run by a director who insists it is not really a conservancy. The Wildlife Conservation Board acquires land for the state Department of Fish and Game. It has one of the most stable funding sources, but Executive Director John Schmidt refuses to call the organization a conservancy. The board receives $21 million a year from Proposition 117 funds, which it uses to acquire habitat for mountain lions and deer. Another $750,000 in administrative costs are funded through revenues from horse racing. Contacts: Dennis Machida, Tahoe Conservancy (530) 542-5580 Bill Ahern, Coastal Conservancy (510) 286-1015 Rachel Dinno, Planning and Conservation League (916) 444-8726 John Schmidt, Wildlife Conservation Board (916) 445-8448 Belinda Faustinos, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (323) 221-8900 Bill Havert, Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy (760) 776-5026

In the latest chapter in a long-running story, Contra Costa County and many of its cities appear to be ready to tighten up the county's urban limit line. The county is examining the creation of tighter boundaries in the controversial Tassajara Valley area and in fast-growing eastern Contra Costa County. Meanwhile, the county's Local Agency Formation Commission recently adopted a written policy committing itself to honoring the county's urban limit line wherever possible. Urban limit line tightening comes at a time when Contra Costa officials are engaged in a series of other wide-ranging planning efforts. These include participation in a five-county "Interregional Task Force" with representatives of both the Bay Area and the Central Valley; the initiation of joint planning efforts in the eastern part of the county; and a cooperative effort among the county and representatives of the county's cities to create "quality of life" standards. Located in San Francisco's East Bay region, Contra Costa County is often viewed as a bellwether of California growth management. The county created the urban limit line in 1990 as part of Measure C, which was placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors as an alternative to a stricter initiative proposed by environmentalists. (The environmentalist alternative failed.) While in support of the urban limit line concept, environmentalists have complained that the county was too generous in drawing it. The proposed change in the line is proof that the Board of Supervisors is "willing to correct the mistakes of the past," said Tom Mooers, the Greenbelt Alliance's East Bay field representative. The supervisors recently signaled their intention to shrink the urban limit line to exclude 4,000 acres, which encompass almost the entire Tassajara Valley. The revision will also move one ranch near Clayton and another parcel near Brentwood, known as the Veale Tract, outside the urban limit line. However, the supervisors still must decide whether to exclude a 500-acre parcel near Tassajara Valley owned by Shapell Industries, a politically influential developer. County supervisors recently ordered preparation of an environmental impact report on the proposed limit line change. Dennis Barry, the county's director of community development, estimated the EIR will take 12 to 18 months to prepare. Contra Costa's shrinking urban limit line appears to be the result of shifting growth politics along the Interstate 680 corridor near Danville and San Ramon. In the early 1990s, county politics was dominated by the Board of Supervisors' approval of the 11,000-home Dougherty Valley project, located just east of I-680. After extensive litigation, that project is now under construction. More recently, controversy has centered on proposals by various developers, including Shapell, to build approximately 5,000 homes in the Tassajara Valley, immediately adjacent to Dougherty Valley. However, the supervisor from the Danville area, Diane Gerber, has opposed development of Tassajara and a large set of development proposals for the area was withdrawn in 1998. Subsequent to the withdrawal of the Tassajara proposal, Gerber and Millie Greenberg, a member of the Danville City Council, proposed shrinking the urban limit line to exclude all of Tassajara. Their proposal calls for a major "retreat" from the undeveloped hills and valleys east of I-680 and would essentially prohibit development of Tassajara Valley. "I've seen what happened in Los Angeles, the San Fernando Valley, and Orange County," Greenberg said in an interview. "When I moved here 20 years ago, I saw the potential for the same thing to happen here." At the same time that the supervisors were considering the urban limit line shift, the county's LAFCO — stimulated again by Greenberg, who is LAFCO chair — created a formal policy promising to honor the line. "The Contra Costa LAFCO has honored the urban limit line. It wasn't a written policy, and it was supplied in a case by case basis. We decided the time had come for the LAFCO to memorialize the policy," Greenberg said. Greenberg originally proposed a firm LAFCO policy of adhering to the line. But LAFCO's attorneys balked at such an iron-clad policy, saying that because LAFCOs are state-chartered agencies they cannot be bound by local ordinances. Instead, the LAFCO adopted a policy stating that it would "generally" uphold the limit line unless a city or developer makes a case that violating the line "compellingly outweighs the public interest in limiting growth to areas within the urban limit line." "Our attorney said we need to preserve our discretion and flexibility," Greenberg said. The other pending planning efforts in the Contra Costa area are not as dramatic as the urban limit line issues, but they do appear to be important steps toward stronger planning policies. They include the following: o Led by Supervisor Joe Canciamilla, officials from eastern Contra Costa County have begun meeting to discuss mutual concerns about urban growth and economic development. Canciamilla is meeting with elected officials from Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood, and the newly incorporated city of Oakley. This area has been the fastest-growing part of Contra Costa County and growth has been a major subject of concern. (CP&DR, XXX 1998.) o Meanwhile, the Contra Costa County Mayors Conference has been working with county officials to draft "quality of life" guidelines to create a set of principles for urban development inside the county's 19 cities. The draft guidelines include such ideas as using sales-tax money to purchase open space as well as provide transportation improvements; creating a countywide hillside development ordinance; and adopting a coordinated policy of permitting growth only in areas where infrastructure to accommodate it already exists. Both city and county officials say that guidelines are important if the county is going to channel future urban growth inside city boundaries. o And finally, Contra Costa officials are working with officials from four other counties (Alameda, Santa Clara, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus) on problems associated with the imbalance of jobs and housing in the Bay Area and Central Valley. The program, known as the Inter-Regional Partnership, is being coordinated by the Association of Bay Area Governments. Gary Binger, ABAG's planning director, said the organization is creating a "checklist" of responsible planning practices that local governments in the five counties will fill out so that the Inter-Regional Partnership will be able to document planning practices that may promote or impede a better regional jobs-housing balance. The Inter-Regional Partnership's board includes one supervisor and two city councilmembers from each of the five counties for a total of 15 members. Greenberg, who is one of the Contra Costa representatives, said she was encouraged by the effort. "The process is more important than the product," she said. "It opens up a line of communication." Contacts: Millie Greenberg, Danville City Councilwoman, (925) 837-3231. Tom Mooers, East Bay field representative, Greenbelt Alliance, (925) 932-7776. Dennis Barry, director of community development, Contra Costa County, (925) 335-1290. Gary Binger, planning director, Association of Bay Area Governments, (510) 464-7902.

Completing the subdivision application process twice, and having the project rejected both times, does not qualify as an exhaustion of the administrative process, The First District Court of Appeal as ruled. In a case from the Town of Ross, a unanimous three-judge panel said a landowner's taking claim was not ripe because the landowner had not used up all administrative remedies. The court also said the "futility exception" was not available because the landowner had filed only two applications, both for five-lot subdivisions. "The problem in this case lies, as previously stated, in the fact that (the landowner) has not explored either a reduction in size, scope or intensity of the proposed development," Justice Ignazio J. Ruvolo wrote. The landowner's contention that the town would reject any development application "derives from nothing more than ‘speculation, conjecture, imagination or guess work' and is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (O'Neil v. Drake (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 1038, 1044)." The court also ruled the city did not abuse its discretion, and the court rejected the landowner's argument that the city was estopped from denying the application because the landowner lacked any project approval. The California Supreme Court in late February ordered the publishing of the appellate ruling, which was filed October 30, 1998. This was not the first time this controversy has reached the Court of Appeal. Four years ago, the court in an unpublished case also found the city had not abused its discretion in denying a proposed subdivision because the Town Council determined the development was inconsistent with the general plan (Berg v. Town of Ross (Feb. 24, 1995) A057967 ). In February 1989, Susanna Toigo, H. Skip Berg and Brenda Berg (collectively known as Toigo) purchased 36.5 acres of undeveloped property in Ross for $1.75 million. The steeply sloped property has many oak trees, extensive native vegetation and rock outcroppings, and it provides wildlife habitat. The city's general plan designated it as "very low density" and it was zoned residential with 5-acre minimum lot sizes. After losing its first round with the city, Toigo submitted a revised five-lot subdivision application on September 24, 1994. The city said the application and a revision submitted on April 17, 1995 were incomplete. The city deemed the application complete on June 15, 1995. In a staff report, city planners said the new application contained a different lot design and different road access, but planners called the environmental impacts "substantially more severe" than those associated with the subdivision in the 1990 application. The Town Council in August 1995 unanimously denied the project. In a lawsuit, Toigo challenged the denial on numerous grounds, including the estoppel theory, under which the city would be precluded from denying the project because of earlier endorsements from city officials. Toigo filed an administrative mandamus claim alleging the town prejudicially abused its discretion. The city successfully demurred to Toiga's estoppel claim and on March 18, 1997, received summary judgement that disposed of the entire matter. The city won again when the appellate court affirmed the decision of Marin County Superior Court Judge Gary Thomas. Toigo argued that even though the city had not made an absolute final decision on what could be built on the property, the takings claim was ripe under the futility exception. In a declaration, project engineer John Stuber said submitting a revised application was futile because the manner in which the city rejected the latest application made clear the city would not allow any residential development on the site. Judge Thomas granted the city summary judgement on the issue because Stuber offered only speculation. The appellate court agreed. "When closely examined, the critical portions of Stuber's declaration constitute little more than unsupported conclusions and opinions and do not constitute the competent factual proof required to raise an issue of material fact on summary judgement," the court wrote. The town's refusal to permit one use is not a refusal to permit all uses, the court said. Even the town's rezoning of the site in December 1995 — to require 10-acre minimum lot sizes — does not prevent all economically viable use of the property, the court ruled. The city did not abuse it discretion in denying the subdivision application because the Town Council supported its decision with 38 pages of findings, the court wrote. "The findings methodically detail how Toigo's proposal conflicted with distinct provisions of the Ross general plan," the court wrote. "For example, the findings pointed out that the proposed improvements — which would require a cut of 12,500 cubic yards of earth, substantial tree removal, and an extensive network of retaining walls — are inconsistent with the general plan policies requiring the protection of natural resources, the environment, open space and community character." As for the estoppel claim, the court noted "that Toigo faces daunting odds in establishing estoppel against a government entity in a land use case." The landowners said they redesigned the subdivision with clustered building sites because the city had earlier endorsed a clustering alternative. However, the trial judge rejected this argument because the town made "general statements endorsing the concept" of a clustered alternative. Moreover, the latest Toigo proposal was different from the clustered alternative the town discussed. The appellate court again supported the trial judge's ruling and said the landowners needed to be much farther along in the approval process before they could argue estoppel. "Courts have yet to extend the vested rights or estoppel theory to instances where a developer lacks a building permit or the functional equivalent, regardless of the property owner's detrimental reliance on local government actions and regardless of how many other land use and other preliminary approvals have been granted," the court wrote. The Case: Susanna Toigo v. Town of Ross, No. A078486, 99 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1829, 99 C.D.O.S. 1455 (filed October 30, 1998, ordered published February 24, 1999). The Lawyers: For Toigo: Clayton E. Clement, Clement, Fitzpatrick & Kenworthy, (707) 523-1181. For Town of Ross: Fran M. Layton, Shulte, Mihaly & Weinberger, (415) 552-7272.

Carson's mobile home rent control board acted properly in granting a mobile home park owner a rent increase of only $58 per month rather than the $160-170 that the park owner requested, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court also ruled that the city's formula for granting rent increases is constitutional even though it is vague. The city board reduced the rent increase by determining that the mobile home park should amortize the cost of remediating contaminated wetlands over three years, rather than just one year. The board also denied the park owners' request to include in the rent increase the cost of attorney fees incurred in seeking to recover the cost of the remediation from oil companies and other parties — including the city itself. The case involved the Carson Harbor Village Mobilehome Park, described by the appellate court as an "upscale" mobile home park with 420 spaces on 70 acres. Of the 420 spaces, 407 are subject to Carson's mobile home rent control laws because they were completed before 1995. As with most mobile home parks, the "owner" is the investment company that owns the land, while the "tenants" are the residents, who own their mobile home "coach" but rent the land underneath it from the landowner. In 1995, Carson Harbor Village Ltd. filed a request for rent increases on the 407 controlled spaces ranging between $163 and $178 per month. Between the time the request was filed and the time the city's rent control board actually heard the case 18 months later, the rent board's staff issued three staff reports. Each one proposed a lower rent increase than the previous one. The first recommended a $99 rent increase, the second proposed a $76 rent increase, and the final one — adopted by the board — recommended a $58 rent increase. These changes came about largely because of the staff's unwillingness to permit the park owner to charge higher rents to cover the cost of the attorney fees. The park owner sued, claiming that the rent board had abused its discretion in granting the lower rent increase. Unlike many mobile home rent control cases, the park owner did not challenge the constitutionality of the rent control ordinance but rather disputed the way it was applied by the board. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David Yaffe ruled in favor of the rent board and the Second District, Division Seven, affirmed his ruling. On appeal, the Second District did declare that Carson's formula for granting increases is constitutional. The court acknowledged that the ordinance "offers little assistance in clarifying the definition of a ‘just, fair and reasonable' return," which is the legal requirement contained in the ordinance. The court ruled that it must defer to the rent board's interpretation "unless we find its construction lacks substantial evidence to support its findings." On both the wetlands remediation and the attorney fees, the court found that there is indeed substantial evidence to support the board's decision. The wetlands remediation cost the park owners $190,000, which they paid for out of the proceeds of a $300,000 third trust deed loan payable over 28 months. The park owner then submitted the entire $190,000 to the rent board as a 1995 operating expense. The board chose instead to allocate the expense over three years on a pro-rated basis to reflect the 28-month mortgage. The park owner argued in court that this was an abuse of discretion because an expense incurred during 1995 had not been permitted as an expense in that same year. But the court agreed with the rent board's interpretation. "Allocating the cost, paid out of loan proceeds, to a single year, would understate the 1995 gross profit figure and artificially inflate CHV's need for a monthly rental increase," the court wrote. "A permanent, artificially high monthly rent increase would permit CHVB to realize unwarranted profits from increases long after repayment of the loan obligation incurred to remediate the wetlands contamination." The park owner had also claimed the rent board abused its discretion by disallowing $100,000 of the park owner's $208,000 in attorney fees. The park owners had sought to recover the cost of remediation from Unocal, Caltrans, and others, including the City of Carson itself. The board also disallowed fees incurred in seeking to recover cleanup costs from insurers. The board did permit inclusion in the rent increase of attorney fees incurred in obtaining regulatory approval for the remediation plan from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The city's rent control guidelines cover mostly the question of whether to pass along the cost of attorney fees associated with dealing with the rent board itself. The cost of seeking rent increases is permitted; the cost of challenging the rent control ordinance is not permitted. The ordinance is silent on the question of environmental remediation. Nevertheless, the Second District concluded that the board deliberated carefully and "did not regard suits against other parties to recover legal expenses associated with wetlands remediation project as directly related to regular park operations." The appellate court added: "A court should not substitute its judgment for that of the local mobilehome rent control board even though the court may arrive at different findings of fact after hearing the case on its merits." The Case: Carson Harbor Village Ltd. v. City of Carson Mobilehome Park Rental Review Board, No. B118282, 99 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1797, 99 C.D.O.S. 1461 (filed February 24, 1999). The Lawyers: For Carson Harbor Village: Frank Gooch III, Gilchrist & Rutter, (310) 394-5492. For City of Carson: Glen R. Watson, Richards, Watson & Gershon, (213) 626-8484.