An advertising company should have challenged Caltrans' mid-1970s cancellation of billboard permits many years ago, the First District Court of Appeal ruled in March. The court rejected the company's attempt to revive the permits on grounds that the permits were not properly canceled in the first place. Richard Traverso, who runs Adco Outdoor Advertising, is the successor in interest to four billboards along Highway 101 in San Mateo County. Permits had been awarded for the signs between the 1930s and 1972, but Caltrans canceled the permits during the mid-1970s. In November 1997, Traverso requested renewal of the one the permits, but Caltrans did not respond. He soon filed a lawsuit seeking to force Caltrans to renew all four permits, or to recover damages for inverse condemnation. (Traverso, in fact, filed about 20 lawsuits against Caltrans at the end of 1997 over old billboard permits.) San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Rosemary Pfeiffer dismissed this lawsuit, and the First District, Division Four, upheld that decision. At issue was the statute of limitations to challenge Caltrans decisions from the 1970s, the court held. Traverso argued that he was suing only over Caltrans' refusal to renew the permits in 1997, and that he was not seeking damages extending back to the earlier permit revocations. But the appellate court did not buy this argument. "No matter how Traverso tries to slice it, however, this case involves setting aside permit revocations that occurred over 25 years ago," Justice Laurence Kay wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel. " hile Traverso attempts to frame the issue in terms of Caltrans's alleged duty to renew or reissue the permits in 1997, he must overturn the original permit revocations." Traverso argued that because the permits were canceled without due process, the revocation never actually occurred. At worst, he argued, the permits have expired but are still renewable. Again, the court said no. Even if Traverso's predecessors in interest were wronged by the Caltrans action, the time to contest the decision was within three to five years, depending upon the claim, the court held. The people who owned the billboards prior to Traverso could have raised the due process claims at the proper time, the court held. "The permits were revoked as a matter of fact as alleged in the complaint, and they were revoked as a matter of law when the time for contesting the revocations passed," Kay wrote. There is no basis, the court continued, for Traverso's alternative argument that the permits expired and he has a right to have them reinstated. "If that were the rule, then there would be no statute of limitations for wrongful takings," Kay wrote. The only way to get past the statute of limitations is if the agency went well beyond its fundamental jurisdiction, the court held. In this case, "Caltrans unquestionably has the power to revoke billboard permits," the court ruled. The Case: Richard Traverso v. Department of Transportation, No. A087456, 01 C.D.O.S. 2278, filed March 20, 2001. The Lawyers: For Traverso: Terry Traktman, (707) 769-3090. For Caltrans: Brelend Gowan, deputy chief counsel, (916) 654-2630.

o City of Ontario Senior Planner Albert Cruse pleaded guilty in March to soliciting a bribe from the builder of a drugstore. Cruse offered to set aside a design requirement in exchange for $7,000. o The trial of former Cathedral City Community Development Director Jaime Aguilera was scheduled to begin in late April. Aguilera was indicted by a Riverside County grand jury in March 2000 for allegedly accepting a $5,000 bribe from billboard developers Robert and Cindy Adams. Aguilera, who has pleaded not guilty, allegedly introduced Robert Adams to councilmembers and the city manager, and proposed an ordinance that would have allowed the Adams' billboards. Aguilera, a former planning director in Colton and Moorpark, resigned in June 2000. The Adamses, who also have pleaded not guilty, are awaiting trial. o San Diego City Councilwoman Valerie Stallings resigned from office and pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors in January. Federal investigators said Stallings accepted gifts from Padres owner John Moores at the same time she voted on a publicly funded stadium for the baseball team. o Last year, federal authorities wrapped up "Operation Rezone" in the Fresno area after 6 1/2 years. Sixteen local officials and developers were convicted in a scheme of payoffs for favorable zoning decisions. o San Bernardino County Supervisor Jerry Eaves continues to defend himself against multiple charges of criminal activity and willful misconduct while in office. A grand jury indicted him last year for accepting and not reporting gifts from people who had business before the county, including a real estate broker who handled a closed Kmart building that the county leased. The state has taken over prosecution of the case. o San Francisco Housing Authority Director Ronnie Davis resigned in March after an Ohio grand jury indicted him for allegedly taking $300,000 in illegal bonuses while working as chief financial officer for the housing authority in Cleveland. Two days after Davis was indicted, former San Francisco Housing Authority executive Patricia Williams was sentenced to five years in prison for selling federal housing vouchers. Two other housing officials were given to lesser sentences for bribery. o A lawsuit filed by an immigrant rights group alleges that Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido last year approved funding for a redevelopment program that provided façade improvements for buildings owned by Pulido's business partner. Pulido has denied wrongdoing. o Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission Executive officer Larry Calamine in February agreed not to accept private consulting jobs without the consent of county attorneys and the LAFCO board. Attention was focused on Calamine when the Los Angeles Times revealed that he has collected tens of thousands of dollars from developers for steering projects through the Los Angeles City Hall approval process. o In February, the San Francisco Chronicle revealed that Jacques Barzaghi, Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown's top aide, was paid $13,500 for feng shui advice by prominent developer John Protopappas. Barzaghi did not report the income until the Chronicle story appeared. No one has alleged Barzaghi lobbied on behalf of Protopappas, who is a Port of Oakland commissioner

Regulators with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) traditionally have explained their agency's role in protecting the nation's waterways by saying it had authority over "anything bigger than a duck's butt." The reference was to a COE rule extending its permitting power, granted by Congress through the Clean Water Act, to any body of water used by migratory birds. If a duck could land on it, the agency had declared, then a COE permit was needed before it could be filled or drained. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the "duck's butt" standard, saying isolated ponds and wetlands not attached to navigable waters of the United States were beyond the COE's permitting authority (see CP&DR Legal Digest, February 2001). At first glance, the ruling appears to be a victory for builders and landowners who had chafed under the restriction. Closer examination suggests, however, that they may have lost more than they gained. The 1972 Clean Water Act and its amendments establish legislative protection for the nation's "navigable waters" — defined vaguely as "the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas." Under Section 404 of the Act, a COE permit is required before the "discharge of dredged or fill material" into those waters. COE regulations implementing the Act's provisions defined those waters to include "intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce." In 1986, the agency further clarified its reach by saying its Section 404 authority extended to any waters "which are or could be used as habitat" by endangered species, birds protected under migratory bird treaties, or other migratory birds that cross state lines. The agency also took jurisdiction over waters used to irrigate crops sold in interstate commerce. This expansive interpretation of congressional intent gave the federal agency authority over virtually every puddle, including flooded road ruts, seasonal ponds and vernal pools. Critics saw it as an intrusion of federal power into an arena more properly left to state and local authorities. These opponents got their chance to challenge the COE's sweeping interpretation when the agency denied a permit for a suburban Chicago landfill. The Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) had proposed developing a regional landfill on the 533-acre site of a former sand and gravel mine. Abandoned since 1960, the pits and trenches had become filled with water, which attracted migrating birds. The SWANCC planned to fill 17 acres of the flooded pits, and so applied to the COE for a Section 404 permit. Initially, the COE decided it lacked jurisdiction. It reconsidered, however, later determining that use of the ponds by migratory birds provided a rationale for Section 404 authority. The agency eventually denied the permit, ruling that the applicants had not fully examined less environmentally damaging alternatives. SWANCC filed suit in federal court challenging COE's jurisdiction. The solid waste agency lost in 1998 in the Chicago district court, and lost an appeal in 1999. It appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled on January 9 that the COE had overstepped its authority (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 99-1178). In a 5-4 ruling, the court's conservative majority declared that Congress had not intended to give the COE authority over isolated intrastate waters simply because they are used by migratory birds. Doing so, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, "would result in a significant impingement of the state's traditional and primary power over land and water use." In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens decried the majority's interpretation of the Clean Water Act as "miserly" and said the decision "needlessly weakens our principal safeguard against toxic water." Environmentalists agreed, condemning the ruling and saying it removed protection from as much as a quarter of the nation's waterways. Property-rights groups and business organizations, on the other hand, applauded. That enthusiasm may have been premature. The ruling did not affect the COE's Section 404 permitting authority over the vast majority of the nation's waters. As noted in a January 22 memo by Gary S. Guzy, general counsel for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Robert M. Anderson, chief counsel for the COE, the ruling left open the possibility that even isolated intrastate wetlands might fall under COE jurisdiction if some other connection with interstate commerce could be demonstrated. The ruling, they wrote, also did not preclude COE involvement in cases where use, degradation or destruction of isolated, intrastate and nonnavigable waters could affect other "waters of the United States." More significantly, though, the ruling deprived landowners of a useful tool for negotiating compliance with other federal regulations. Thanks to the widespread destruction of the nation's wetlands — more than half have been filled or drained nationally since the 19th century, with the loss estimated as high as 90% in California — those that remain have become enormously important to wildlife, especially endangered species. Although developers and farmers regarded as particularly annoying the COE's assertion of authority over ephemeral wetlands and seasonal ponds, the Section 404 permitting process actually represented a straightforward means of dealing with the likelihood that any body of water might harbor a protected species. Section 404 permits typically allowed applicants to negotiate conservation agreements for listed species with the COE, which had worked out a streamlined consultation process with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Landowners planning to fill or drain isolated wetlands will still have to conduct detailed studies of their property to ensure that the water in question falls outside COE scope, as well as to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Coastal Act, and the state Fish and Game Code — all of which protect wetlands and waterways in some fashion. In addition, they will have to apply to USFWS for an incidental take permit under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act if the wetland they plan to alter harbors a listed species. That process is more complicated, takes longer (a year or more, compared with 30 to 60 days in a Section 7 process) and is fraught with greater uncertainty than the Section 7 process. In short, the "victory" at the Supreme Court may turn out to be a hollow one for many landowners, particularly in California. It may no longer matter whether a puddle is big enough to accommodate a duck's butt. But landowners will have even greater reason to worry that the puddle might harbor a fairy shrimp, red-legged frog or pupfish. Contacts: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Pacific Division: 415-977-8004 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Sacramento office: 916-414-6464 USFWS "Report to Congress on the Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1986 to 1997": http://wetlands.fws.gov/bha/SandT/SandTReport.html

Ballot measures generated and placed before voters by a public agency are not exempt from environmental review, a unanimous state Supreme Court has ruled. In the closely watched case of Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre, the court said a ballot measure sponsored by a public agency should be treated differently than a voter-backed initiative. "As the Attorney General suggests, the distinction between initiatives generated by a city council and voter-sponsored initiatives serves a significant governmental policy," Justice Marvin Baxter wrote for the court. "Voters who are advised that an initiative has been placed on the ballot by the city council will assume that the city council has done so only after itself making a study and thoroughly considering the potential environmental impact of the measure. For that reason a preelection EIR should be prepared and considered by the city council before the council decides to place a council-generated initiative on the ballot." The case marks the state Supreme Court's first CEQA decision since 1997, when the court ruled that de-listing an endangered species is not exempt from CEQA review (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Comm'n, 16 Cal.4th 105, see CP&DR Legal Digest, August 1997). Susan Brandt-Hawley, attorney for Friends of Sierra Madre, called the ruling a needed clarification because some public officials believed that all ballot measures — whether sponsored by the city or by voters —need not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. But attorneys for the city contended that state's high court has reversed many years of case law. "I definitely do think the case broke new ground in a significant way because there had been a line of Court of Appeal cases that had held that the submission of measures to the voters was not subject to CEQA," said Michael Zischke, a lawyer for the City of Sierra Madre. "Several of those cases were about council-sponsored measures, in part Lee v. Lompoc and the City of Albany case." In Lee v. City of Lompoc, (1993) 14 Cal.App. 4th 1515 (see CP&DR Legal Digest, May 1993), an appellate court ruled that CEQA did not apply to a city-sponsored ballot measure to permit a shopping center development. The Lee court said CEQA would apply to the ultimate project if voters approved the zone change. Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Albany, (1997) 56 Cal.App. 4th 1199 (see CP&DR Legal Digest September 1997), built on Lee. In that case, an appellate court ruled that the city's submission of a development agreement to voters was subject to CEQA, but that the city could place a zoning amendment on the ballot without CEQA review. Sanford Svetcov, the attorney who argued the City of Sierra Madre's case at the state supreme court, said the high court read the CEQA Guidelines narrowly and effectively reversed the Lee and Albany decisions. "For 20 or more years, cities and counties have been putting measures on the ballot without CEQA review," Svetcov said. "It's a procedural decision." But Brandt-Hawley said that while the Guidelines might be in dispute, it is clear that there is no statutory authority to exempt public agency-sponsored ballot measures from CEQA. "I think it was just a very logical decision," she said of the state Supreme Court's ruling. The Supreme Court held that Lee was different from the Sierra Madre case because, in fact, an EIR was prepared on the project before it went to the voters. But the Supreme Court specifically repudiated a basic holding of Lee, that how a matter reached voters — whether by city council sponsorship or by voter petition — was irrelevant for CEQA. The case at hand involves preservation of 29 old homes in Sierra Madre, a small city in the San Gabriel Valley. In 1987, the city established a Cultural Heritage Commission and a regulatory process for protecting structures of cultural and historic significance. In 1997, the city repealed its ordinance and made future listings on the city's Register of Historic Landmarks voluntary. However, properties already listed on the registry remained on the list. Later in1997, a group of property owners petitioned the city to remove their homes from the register. City planners said delisting would require a review of historic resources under CEQA at a cost of about $2,500 per property. Neither the city nor property owners were willing to pay for a review, so city staff members recommended placing the issue before voters as a way of avoiding CEQA. In April 1998, 63% of voters approved Measure I-97-1, which removed the 29 homes from the city's historic register. Friends of Sierra Madre filed suit, alleging that the city should have completed an EIR on each of the 29 properties and contending that the city violated the Elections Code by not adequately informing voters of city amendments to Measure I-97-1 made after the sample ballot was printed. A trial court rejected the CEQA arguments but ruled that the city had violated the Elections Code. Both sides appealed. The Second District Court of Appeal ruled that the city had not run afoul of the Elections Code but did violate CEQA. The appellate panel invalidated the election results (see CP&DR Legal Digest, January 2000). The state Supreme Court accepted the case, generating a great deal of attention. About 80 cities and several development groups filed amicus briefs on the city's side. Attorney General Bill Lockyer and historic preservation advocates submitted briefs supporting the Friends. The city contended that CEQA (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines adopted by the Resources Agency do not distinguish between ballot measures a public agency originates, and measures that a public agency places on the ballot as a ministerial action after citizens have submitted an adequate number of petition signatures. Friends contended that CEQA does indeed distinguish between the two types of ballot measures and that agency-sponsored measures are subject to CEQA review. The state Supreme Court accepted the Friends' argument. Part of the decision was based on 1998 revisions of the Guidelines, specifically the Guidelines' notice of Stein v. City of Santa Monica, (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 458. In Stein, an appellate court held that CEQA did not apply when a city, acting ministerially, placed on the ballot a citizen initiative to amend the city charter. "The addition of the citation of Stein to Guidelines § 15378 (b)(3) is more indicative of the agency's intent with respect to initiative ballot measures, suggesting the agency intended that the exemption apply only in the Stein situation, i.e., when placing an initiative measure on the ballot was a ministerial act compelled by law," Justice Baxter wrote. The Guidelines, plus language in Public Resources Code § 21080, subdivision (b)(1), which expressly excepts "ministerial projects," create a clear distinction between voter-sponsored and city council-sponsored initiatives, Baxter wrote. The state high court ruled that the city did not violate the Elections Code, but that the ordinance approved by voters still must be thrown out. "Since the petition adequately alleges noncompliance , failure to comply is not disputed by respondents, and the record confirms noncompliance, the appropriate relief is invalidation of the ordinance," Baxter wrote. The Case Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre, No. S085088, 01 C.D.O.S. 2523, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3150, filed March 29, 2001. The Lawyers: For Friends: Susan Brandt-Hawley, Brandt-Hawley & Zoia, (707) 938-3908. For the city: Sanford Svetcov, Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, (415) 288-4545.

The railroad has been a force in American urbanism since the Iron Horse first pushed its way across the Western prairies and mountain ranges. Many Western towns, including Laramie and Cheyenne in Wyoming, were founded by the Union Pacific Railroad during the late 1860s on its drive to complete the Transcontinental Railroad. In other cases, small towns like Omaha, Nebraska, became big cities almost overnight, when thousands of men who worked for the railroad poured into town, followed by the people who made their living (honorably or otherwise) by inducing the railroad men to part with their money. In present-day California, rail continues to be an urbanizing force. The difference, of course, is that we are building new commuter-rail systems in already developed areas, rather than laying track across miles of wilderness. Perhaps it seems overblown to compare the projects being built in anticipation of the latest expansion of BART to the railroad towns. It is true that so-called "transit-oriented developments" are less spectacular than the sudden growth of railroad towns in the 19th Century, with their tent cities, gamblers, make-shift banks and brothels. In the Bay Area of the early 21st Century, however, the rapid transit system is stimulating new investment in neglected or unglamorous places. And, what is new, the investment is now happening even before the train comes to town. One recent beneficiary of BART-inspired investment is the city of San Bruno, a bedroom community of 42,000 people in San Mateo County just north of San Francisco International Airport. BART plans to complete a new station within a year just south of Interstate 380 and El Camino Real on the site of the Tanforan Park Shopping Center. The stop for BART, which serves San Francisco and the East Bay, will be within walking distance of an existing station for Caltrain station, which serves the Peninsula and South Bay. For years, the immediate area has been in something like suspended animation; much of the area has been occupied by the Navy's Western Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command (EFA West) which consists of little more than wooden barracks rehabbed as office buildings. A 27-acre Marine Corps Reserve Training Center lies directly north, and is not part of the plan. In 1997, after the Navy decided to close EFA West, the city drafted specific plan calling for a mixed-use district on the 20-acre site. Last spring, the U.S. General Services Administration auctioned off the property for about $20 million to a partnership of The Martin Group and REGIS Homes of Northern California, both of San Francisco. The resulting project is The Crossing (named for the meeting of the freeway and El Camino Real), a $200 million master plan for 300,000 square feet of office space, a 500-room hotel, 400 dwelling units (of which nearly half are assisted-living units for seniors), and a two-acre park. Twenty acres of land is a big opportunity in San Mateo County, and it is not surprising that two well-heeled developers pounced on the property. The urban design of the former naval site is awkward, however. The site is hemmed in by the freeway to the south, and on the east by the somewhat unsightly strip condition of El Camino Real � a ragtag collection of spa dealers, automotive shops and the like. South of El Camino Real is the enormous asphalt parking lot of the Tanforan mall, a condition which discourages people from walking in the area. To the north is a large brick-and-concrete Marine Corps building. For better or for worse, The Crossing needs to be an inward-looking, self-contained area. The intent of the developers is to make The Crossing echo the urban design of the Bay Area, according to Martin Group partner David Cropper: streetside parking (but few surface parking lots), wide sidewalks and a continuous street-wall of buildings. In addition, the developers are providing three types of housing: walk-up or "stoop-style" townhouses, loft units above retail, and assisted-living units. In short, the developers want something akin to a miniature San Francisco or Oakland. The resulting plan by the San Francisco office of St. Louis-based Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum (HOK) Inc. reflects the constraints of both the manmade and natural world. To the east, the developers and architects have created a large, formalized public plaza or square; the open space accommodates two, parallel, 40-foot water easements. A pair of identical office buildings serve as bookends for the park. The office buildings look pleasantly symmetrical in plan but may seem oppressively similar when built. In addition, a number of mature pine trees exist on the site, which the architects were careful to preserve by aligning an "esplanade" in a north-south direction down the center of the plan. North of the esplanade is a block of row housing, with its own interior courtyard. Designed with walk-up stairs, the row housing strives to be classic, urban stoop housing. Opposite the row housing is a neighborhood-serving retail strip, which helps hide a multi-story parking structure for the seven-story hotel to the east. If the rest of the plan is turning its back to the freeway, the hotel is an unabashed freeway building. The loft units are located in the commercial building fronting on El Camino Real, while the senior units are off by themselves, just west of the Marine Corps property. In all, the plan is impressive evidence of the high degree to which mainstream developers have embraced urbanity and genuine mixed-use � undoubtedly because these are elements that are easily marketable to Bay Area professionals. If the plan is admirable for envisioning a "full service" community with urbane values, it is also a little frustrating because the site is so small and the project does not link to the rest of town. Unlike the open spaces traversed by 19th Century locomotives, the urban spaces of the present-day Bay Area are constrained by major roadways and other conditions that can get in the way of creating a larger, pedestrian-oriented city. The most positive thing to say is that this project is energetic, introduces mixed-use planning notions to the area, and it wants to expand. Happily, the possibility of future growth lies to the north, where the Marine Corps facility will someday be demolished and replaced with new development. The Crossing will have its fullest bloom when new investment � with similar design values, I hope � arrives and enlarges the pedestrian realm of San Bruno.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's ruling against the Mohave Valley Irrigation & Drainage District in a water rights battle against the Interior Department. At dispute was an allegedly ambiguous contract regarding the western Arizona district's Colorado River water rights. According to a 1968 contract between the two agencies, the district is entitled to 41,000 acre-feet of water annually from the Colorado River system. But the Interior Department reduced the district's water allotment, saying that landowners within the district who hold present perfected rights (PPRs) were also receiving Colorado River water. Rights to water from the Colorado River system that have existed since June 25, 1929 are considered PPRs by the Supreme Court. Arizona v. California, 376 U.S. 340 (1964). The water district contends the 1968 contract is ambiguous because it does not address PPRs. However, Interior argued that PPRs were recognized by the Supreme Court in Arizona v California, before the district and Interior entered into the contract. And Interior maintained it can fulfill its contractual obligation if it calculates the district's allotment by subtracting water provided to holders of PPRs located in the District from the amount stated in the contract. In mid-April, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the contract between the district and Interior was not ambiguous because the contract defines "water delivered" as "all water pumped by the District or by any other person, firm, or Corporation, from wells located within or outside the District for use within the District or from wells located within the District for use outside the District." The contract does not make an exception for water delivered to PPR holders, the court held. The case is Mohave Valley Irrigation & Drainage District v. Gale A. Norton, No. 99-16927, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3578.

A bill that is intended to put teeth in the state's housing element law is providing a major battleground between housing advocates and local government officials. The measure, SB 910 (Dunn), would let judges fine a city or county for not adopting a housing element that satisfies the state Department of Housing and Community Development . The bill also would withhold highway money from noncompliant jurisdictions. The League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties and scores of individual jurisdictions have voiced their strong opposition. "It switches land use authority to the state," protested Daniel Carrigg, a League lobbyist. He said SB 910 is the type of measure likely to get approved because it shifts the blame for affordable housing woes to local government and it costs the state nothing. But the Job-Center Housing Coalition has made passage of SB 910 a priority this year, and housing advocates have vowed to fight hard for it because so many cities have refused to accommodate affordable housing. In April, HCD released its annual housing element compliance report, which said that about 40% of cities and counties do not have valid housing plans. The Senate Housing and Community Development Committee, of which Sen. Joe Dunn (D-Santa Ana) is chairman, passed the bill in early April, but Dunn amended the legislation three weeks later. However, the opposition remains in place. Dilapidated courthouses throughout California would receive state-funded overhauls if a recommendation by the Task Force on Trial Court Facilities is heeded. The recommendation is the result of a study released in April by the Administrative Office of the Courts. The study found 451 courthouses were "functionally and physically deficient." Among the recommended improvements are security and safety upgrades, increased accessibility for the disabled, expanded jury assembly space, overcrowding relief, and major building system repairs including ventilation and air conditioning replacement. The task force called on the state — rather than counties, which have traditionally funded courthouse projects — to assume the cost of the needed improvements. The state drives the need for new facilities and can ensure uniformity of access to all facilities, the report said. Costs for the repairs are estimated at $140 million annually over 20 years, according to the report. The task force is expected to issue a final report to the Legislature by October 1. The Legislature would need to approve any transfer of financial responsibility from the counties to the state. The report is available at www.courtinfo.ca.gov The Sacramento City Council unanimously approved a 32-story, mixed-use structure for an empty downtown site that has long been an eyesore. The J Street building across from Cesar Chavez Plaza will be comprised of about 250,000 square feet of office and retail space topped by 10 floors of upscale apartments. Retail stores will front the sidewalk. Under the deal approved in April, the city will provide $16.7 million in subsidies for the Metro Place project. The city will deed its one-half interest in the property to the developer, First Key LLC, the city will offer a $7.2 million tax rebate, and the city will build a parking garage for the structure. Los Angeles County supervisors have upheld a Regional Planning Commission decision to deny permits for a large gravel quarry on Bureau of Land Management property near Santa Clarita. During the late-April vote, supervisors said they would consider alternatives that had fewer environmental impacts. The City of Santa Clarita spent $1 million on its campaign against the gravel mine proposal and bussed hundreds of protesters to several supervisors' meetings in downtown Los Angeles. City officials and area residents said the proposed quarry would be incompatible with the many houses that have been built in the area in recent years (see CP&DR Local Watch, January 2001). Cisco Systems has pulled back on plans to build new campuses around the Bay Area. The San Jose-based maker of computer hardware has canceled its search for an expansion site in Sonoma County but said it would maintain its 600-employee facility in Petaluma. Cisco also removed its application for a major complex in the East Bay city of Dublin from the city's fast-track approval process. Cisco has announced it will lay off about 8,500 people nationwide, and company officials concede they have had to re-evaluate their facility expansion plans. The company continues to move forward planning for a 6.6-million-square-foot campus in South San Jose, although the pace of development might slow. Federal officials announced in April that they have earmarked $1 million from the North American Wetlands Conservation Act for wetlands restoration in the Tulare Basin. The funds, combined with nearly $12 million from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Semitropic Water District in Kern County and private landowners, will fund about 2,700 acres of land purchases and another 20,000 acres of habitat enhancement in the southern San Joaquin Valley. About 99 % of historic wetlands in the basin have been lost to farming or urban development. A federal judge has approved an agreement between environmental groups and the Bureau of Land Management regarding 11.5 million acres of BLM land in southern California deserts from Mono County to the Mexican border. Among other things, the plan requires the BLM to revise plans for protecting 24 endangered species and to ban grazing on habitat for the desert tortoise. The agreement — which has been praised by environmentalists but blasted by ranchers and off-road vehicle users — is also likely to curb some mining. The agreement was finalized about one month before the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service issued a report in April that said the Army's proposal to expand Fort Irwin's tank training facilities near Baker could wipe out a population of desert tortoises and nearly eliminate the endangered Lane Mountain milk vetch plant. The Army said it is doing its own study. Congressional approval is needed before the BLM transfers the 131,000 acres in question to the Army. Correction. The attorney who argued the California Environmental Quality Act case for the City of Sierra Madre at the state Supreme Court was misidentified in the March issue. Sanford Svetcov of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach represented the city. See page 7 for the court's decision in the case.

Expanding the capacity of the nation's aviation system has quickly risen toward the top of the Bush administration's transportation priorities. Both Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and Federal Aviation Administration chief Jane Garvey have spoken about the need to build more runways during the next decade, and they have suggested that speeding federal environmental reviews is one way to hurry along construction. The Bush administration's advocacy is welcome news for proponents of San Francisco and Los Angeles airport expansion and construction of a new airport at the former El Toro Marine Corps base in Orange County — all projects with major regional implications. However, analysts caution that the federal government's ability to force runway construction is limited. And they say that local political pressures — not federal environmental regulations — are usually responsible for stalled or canceled airport projects. Bush administration officials say the nation needs more runways to accommodate a projected increase in passenger air travel of nearly 50% between 2000 and 2010, and even greater growth in air cargo. The economy increasingly relies on aviation to move goods, workers and consumers efficiently, they say. During a speech in late March to the American Association of Airport Executives, Mineta emphasized the need to expand aviation infrastructure. He said that implementing existing expansion plans at the nation's busiest airports, including SFO and LAX "will substantially increase the capacity of the national airport system." Mineta said the FAA will propose environmental streamlining measures to Congress. "We are also working on a number of initiatives of our own to expedite and streamline environmental reviews for airport improvement projects without legislation," he said. "For example, the FAA has proposed establishing a team for each new EIS for a major runway enhancement project at large hub primary airports." San Francisco is among the airports to receive one of these EIS teams. Mineta continued, "We are working on an initiative to streamline environmental requirements for all airport projects within the current structure of environmental laws. This includes expansion of the projects that are exempted, using a shorter environmental assessment form, and limits on EIS size." Details will be worked out this summer. The pronouncements sounded good the airport executives group, which has complained that review processes drag on too long. Using the same reasoning, U.S. Sen Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) has introduced legislation (S. 633) that would require federal, state and local agencies to perform all reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act concurrently, and require the Transportation Department to set a date certain for completion of environmental studies. Whether the implementation of federal environmental regulations — and even the regulations themselves — needs to change is a growing debate, with environmental group and business interests digging in their heels on opposite sides. However, David Luberoff, Associate Director of the A. Alfred Taubman Center for State and Local Government at Harvard, said he could think of only two recent airport projects that were halted at the federal level — a third airport for Chicago and a new airport at the former Homestead Air Force base in South Florida. And the south Chicago proposal appears to be getting back on track. "This is not the first administration that has tried to push on building more airport capacity. The question is to what extent are the obstacles federal, and to what extent are the obstacles local?" said Luberoff, an infrastructure policy expert. Increasing airport capacity was a major priority during the later half of the Reagan administration and during the first Bush administration. Yet the only new airport to come from that era was in Denver, Luberoff said. The Denver airport was built primarily because city officials selected a site far from town and because the local economy was so weak at the time that many people agreed on building the airport to stimulate commerce, he said. The only existing airports to add substantial capacity in recent years are in cities such as Atlanta and Dallas, where the business community dominates the political scene, Luberoff observed. California has a very different political environment. "If you think about what is preventing a new airport at El Toro or expansion at LAX, it is intense local opposition. There is no local political consensus for the project," Luberoff said. Michael Dardia, a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, agreed that the federal government's role is limited. The proposal to build new SFO runways in the bay, for example, remains primarily a local issue. Washington can provide carrots for projects, Dardia said. It could pay for the inevitable cleanup of pollution at El Toro, grease the base reuse process with cash, or provide grants to insulate homes near the site, he said. "If the federal government was really on board, it certainly could throw money at it. But these are wealthy communities so that might not have as much influence," Dardia said. Federal officials "are not really in a position to force the community to accept this as an airfield. This is an issue that the FAA is wrestling with in general." Federal officials could also use sticks in the airport capacity debate, such as boosting landing fees for certain times of day at SFO to force airlines to use Oakland or San Jose airports. A trial balloon for such an idea was floated in April. What will happen with California's airports is far from certain. The debate over building runways for SFO in the bay — the only place to put new runways — rages on. Legislation is advancing (SB 244, Speier) that would essentially give San Mateo County supervisors veto power over the project. The airport is in San Mateo County, and it is those supervisors' constituents who the most vocal project opponents. In April, SFO released a report it commissioned by Charles Rivers Associates that found there are no real options for increasing Bay Area aviation capacity besides expanding SFO. Four hundred miles to the south, the Southern California Association of Governments in April adopted a Regional Transportation Plan that spreads airport growth across the region. The plan calls for half as much expansion as the City of Los Angeles has planned for LAX, and a quadrupling of Ontario airport's usage. The plan also assumes an El Toro airport would be about half the size of the current LAX by 2025. Los Angeles officials vowed to push ahead with their $12 billion expansion anyway. El Toro remains mired in litigation and political bickering. A fourth ballot measure regarding El Toro's future is likely to appear this November. Contacts: David Luberoff, A. Alfred Taubman Center for State and Local Government, (617) 495-1346. Michael Dardia, Public Policy Institute of California, (415) 291-4416. U.S. Department of Transportation: www.dot.gov American Association of Airport Executives: www.airportnet.org Southern California Association of Governments, Regional Transportation Plan: www.scag-rtp.govconnect.org

The City of West Hollywood had the authority under the Vehicle Code to turn a through road into a cul-de-sac to accommodate a development, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court rejected project opponents' contention that the city had to prove that the street was no longer needed for vehicular traffic. In the mid-1990s, the city adopted the Sunset Specific Plan for a portion of Sunset Boulevard known as the Sunset Strip. The city certified a master environmental impact report on the plan in 1996. Sunset Millennium Associates proposed a major project on the south side of Sunset Boulevard, within the specific plan area. The development — on which work has since begun — includes a 10-story hotel, 159,000 square feet of office space, 155,000 square feet of retail development, and two auditoriums for live theater. The city determined the project, though larger than envisioned by the specific plan, would not have any additional significant environmental effects, so the city did not issue a new environmental document. Project opponents sued over the city's environmental review of the project, a development agreement between the city and Sunset Millennium, and the city's decision to create a cul-de-sac on Alta Loma Road. Los Angeles County Judge David Yaffe ruled for the city, and a three-judge panel of the Second District, Division Five, affirmed the decision. The appellate court published only the portion of its opinion addressing the creation of a cul-de-sac. The proposed development involves blocking off Alta Loma Road, a side street off Sunset Boulevard. City officials, relying on § 21101, subdivision (f), of the Vehicle Code found that Alta Loma is not a regionally significant traffic corridor and approved the creation of a cul-de-sac. Project opponents argued that Vehicle Code § 21101, subdivision (a)(1), required the city to find that it no longer needed Alta Loma for vehicular traffic before the city blocked the street. Area residents have complained that the road closure would worsen traffic along Sunset Boulevard and impede emergency vehicle access. However, the appellate court ruled that the two subdivisions of the statute are independent. " ehicle Code § 21101, subdivision (a)(1), grants authority only for a complete closure of a street to all vehicular traffic," Presiding Justice Paul Turner wrote for the court. "It is undisputed the present case involves the creation of a cul-de-sac, not the complete closure of a street to vehicular traffic. The street remains open to vehicular traffic and no residence or business on Alta Loma Road is directly or indirectly inaccessible." "The city has not closed to traffic a major street running through one or more adjacent cities," Turner continued. "It has created a cul-de-sac on a one-block-long residential street situated entirely within its borders. There was no evidence placing a cul-de-sac on Alta Loma Road would interfere with the delivery of emergency services or otherwise adversely affect the public health and safety." In the unpublished portions of the its decision, the court upheld the city's reliance on the master EIR for the Sunset Millennium project. The court ruled that opponents failed to show substantial evidence — not just a fair argument — of significant potential traffic impacts. The court also upheld the development agreement, saying the city did not surrender its policy power by freezing regulations for the developer. The court said a $5.2 million fee it accepted from the developer was voluntarily paid and never challenged by the developer. Project opponents had contended the fee amounted to a bribe paid to the city treasury. The Case: Save the Sunset Strip Coalition v. City of West Hollywood, No. B143615, 01 C.D.O.S. 2236, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2827, filed March 20, 2001. The Lawyers: For the coalition: Joel Moskowitz, Moskowitz, Brestoff, Winson & Blinderman, (310) 373-9790. For the city: Gregory Kunert, Richards, Watson & Gershon, (213) 626-8484. For the developer: James Arnone, Latham & Watkins

A billboard company jumped the gun when it claimed two of its proposed signs were "deemed approved" because of delays by the City of Los Angeles, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The unanimous three-judge panel upheld a trial court's dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Eller Media Company. In April, May and June of 1999, Eller filed three applications for permits to construct three separate billboards in Los Angeles. The third application received approval, but the first two were referred to the city's Community Redevelopment Agency because the sites are in the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan area. When the CRA had not made a decision on the applications by October 25, 1999, Eller filed a lawsuit claiming that the applications were "deemed approved" under the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA). Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavs dismissed the lawsuit, and Eller appealed. The Second District explained that the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code § 65920 et seq.) limits the time for final approval or rejection of applications based on the environmental review process. A public agency must decide on a project within 180 days of certification of an environmental impact report, or within 60 days of adoption of a negative declaration or the determination of CEQA exemption. But Eller did not wait for environmental determinations before filing the lawsuit. Prior to Judge Janavs's ruling, the CRA issued initial studies for both billboard applications. The CRA recommended a supplemental EIR be prepared for a sign proposed on Sunset Boulevard, and a mitigated negative declaration, with project modifications, for a sign proposed on Cahuenga Boulevard. "Until the Supplemental EIR was prepared for the Sunset sign, or the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for the Cahuenga sign, the time for approval or disapproval pursuant to the PSA did not begin to run," Judge Norman Epstein wrote for the court. "Appellant therefore cannot state a cause of action establishing a right to have its applications deemed approved pursuant to § 65956, subdivision (b)." The court also rejected Eller's contention that the city's failure to prepare initial studies within a time required by CEQA Guidelines also supported the "deemed approved" claim. Epstein wrote: "Allegations that the CEQA determinations were not performed in a timely manner are not sufficient to state a cause of action for ‘deemed approval' of the applications." The Case: Eller Media Company v. City of Los Angeles, No. B142004, 01 C.D.O.S. 2324, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2903, filed March 21, 2001. The Lawyers: For Eller: Richard Hamlin, (310) 822-2676. For the city: John Cotti, deputy city attorney, (213) 847-0564.

New conflict-of-interest rules promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission went into effect in February, and many changes affect public officials who make land use decisions. The rule changes come at a time when land use scandals appear to be at a new peak, with one staff planner pleading guilty to soliciting bribes and the planning director in another city facing a trial on bribery charges (see sidebar). Leaders of the FPPC say the new regulations (California Code of Regulations §§ 18700 - 18708) and an accompanying eight-step test for determining conflicts of interest make rules clearer for government officials and the public. "If nothing else, the revisions to the rules allowed us to explain what the rules really were because there was a lot of misinformation out there," FPPC Chairwoman Karen Getman said. The FPPC revised the longtime "300-foot rule," and modified other regulations to allow small-time landlords to make rent-control decisions. The agency also attempted to clear up when a public official with a conflict of interest must participate. But some observers question whether the changes, two years in the making, will have much impact. "It's not a significant change," said Matthew Jacobs, a Sacramento attorney with Downey, Brand, Seymour and Rohwer and a former federal prosecutor. "It's kind of tweaking at the perimeters, but the fundamental rules are still the same. There is only so much that can be done within a regulatory structure that is existing." Getman said the new regulations are not an attempt to go after the truly bad actors because they are usually busted for violating the Penal Code. Still, she said, the revisions should make conflicts clearer in cases where a public official makes a decision that helps himself. "There are more of those out there than you care to see," she said. The FPPC hopes to prevent public officials from even getting in that position. Jacobs, who prosecuted the Operation Rezone sting in the Fresno area during the 1990s, said that the FPPC's rules, in fact, do affect criminal cases. Prosecutors will not bring a case until they have evidence of bribery or a quid pro quo, but they often use violations of state conflict-of-interest requirements in the actual prosecution, he said. The voter-approved Political Reform Act of 1974 created the FPPC. The Act addresses a variety of state and local government officials — not just those in the land use field. The FPPC often gets more attention for its oversight of campaign contribution reporting. But state regulators spend a great deal of time dealing with land use conflicts of interest because there are so many gray areas. Land use decisions are seldom a simple yes or no, unlike the awarding of a contract. "The land use decisions caused the most trouble," Getman said of earlier rules. "More people were disqualified and felt they were unjustly disqualified. A lot of the advisors had trouble interpreting the rules." The new eight-step, conflict of interest test is intended to make things easier for advisors and public officials. The eight-step test begins with who is bound by the conflict rules, moves through potential conflicts and economic interests, and addresses various exceptions. Adoption of the eight-step test is part of making the system more accessible to everyone, FPPC officials said. Agency members are also accepting speaking engagements, publishing articles and working with the League of California Cities to spread the word. A $500,000 grant has funded a new publications unit, and the agency is urging public officials to use a free advice line, 1 (866) ASK-FPPC. Under the old 300-foot rule, decision-makers were presumed to have a conflict of interest if they owned property within 300 feet of a proposed project, and they had to abstain from the matter. If they owned property 300 to 2,500 feet from the project, a conflict existed if there was a $10,000 effect on the fair market value of their property. The new rules extend the presumption of a conflict to owners of property within 500 feet. But beyond that point, proof of a material conflict is needed. The FPPC made the change because the old rules for the middle zone of 300 to 2,500 feet were impossible to enforce, Getman said. Five-hundred feet is also a new standard for determining conflicts for public officials who are leaseholders. Previous rules involved complicated criteria for determining whether a leaseholder would be affected by a land use decision. The new rules presume a conflict of interest within 500 feet, although the conflict can be rebutted by proof, said John Wallace, FPPC senior counsel. Officials hope that a 500-foot threshold for both property owners and leaseholders will make rules easier to understand. The FPPC also cleared up rules regarding landlords who vote on rent control issues. Now, anyone who owns three or fewer rental units can participate. Owners of more units can participate in some instances. "We had rent control boards where, basically, all the landlords were disqualified and only tenants got to make the decisions," Wallace explained. The revisions should allow more people to participate. The rules also have new definitions for determining a "material" financial effect on a business in which a decision-maker owns stock. The FPPC continues to wrestle with how to determine the "reasonably foreseeable effects" of a decision on a public officials' financial interests. The FPPC is accepting comments on the new rules and plans to revisit the regulations at the end of the year. Contacts: Karen Getman and John Wallace, Fair Political Practices Commission, (916) 322-5660. Matthew Jacobs, Downey, Brand, Seymour and Rohwer, (916) 441-0131. FPPC website: www.fppc.ca.gov

With its well-paying high-tech jobs, close commuting proximity to Sacramento, a scenic location on the American River, ample supplies of new housing and a quaint downtown, Folsom has many assets. Because of those advantages, the city on the eastern edge of Sacramento County has attracted hordes of newcomers in recent years. As a result, schools are overcrowded and the city is rapidly running out of land. The city is culminating a 10-year effort to expand itself to attract more industrial and commercial growth, while contending with low-income housing advocates who say there is not enough affordable housing. In recent months, the City Council pondered whether to adopt an emergency ordinance to freeze development applications. Folsom has about 50,000 residents, not including the roughly 7,500 inmates at Folsom State Prison. The city has grown at an annual rate of 5% to 10%, according to Planning Director David Storer, and expects to have as many as 70,000 residents by the year 2013. With all available land expected to be built out by early in the next decade, the city is looking south of Highway 50 to accommodate future growth. In May, the Sacramento County Local Agency Formation Commission is expected to approve Folsom's application to extend its sphere of influence to include nearly 3,600 acres of hills and woodlands south of the city's current borders, according to John O'Farrell, executive officer of LAFCO. The land is outside the county's current urban growth boundary. In order to gain LAFCO approval for the application — which is the first step towards annexing the land into the city — Folsom officials have agreed to 16 conditions for such things as improvements to Highway 50, protection of native trees, clean up of contaminated land and groundwater, and keeping 30% of the acreage as open space. O'Farrell called the conditions the "most far reaching conditions this LAFCO has ever imposed." "We agree with all the conditions," said Storer, adding that it is developers who will have the obligation to comply with the conditions. Storer said the current City Council has not said what kind of development it wants to allow in the new area. An earlier City Council told LAFCO it wanted commercial and industrial development, and open space. The process stands in contrast to another recent battle in eastern Sacramento County. Last year, developer C.C. Myers placed Measure O on the ballot to bust the county's urban services limit and build the 3,000-home Deer Creek Hills subdivision eight miles south of Highway 50. That measure was opposed by several members of the Folsom City Council and was defeated by a large margin (see CP&DR, December 2000). Not everyone in Folsom agrees with the southern expansion. A group opposed to the application, called Alliance of Folsom Residents, submitted a petition signed by 600 residents to LAFCO in December, according to the Sacramento Bee. A lack of public school classrooms and a shortage of affordable homes are partial causes of the backlash. Legal Services of Northern California threatened to sue the city earlier this year, according to Storer. The legal aid group charged that the city has violated state law by failing to ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing in its 1992 general plan. Legal Services also testified in opposition to the proposed sphere of influence application, according to Storer. A Legal Services representative did not return calls from CP&DR. Although the City Council had taken no action on a proposed emergency ordinance to freeze development applications by mid-March, it appears that the Legal Services' pressure and resulting negotiations have had an impact. The City Council has authorized preparation of a new housing element to be completed a year ahead of schedule. Recent housing development has not been of the "affordable" variety. The city has been issuing more than 1,000 single-family housing annually. And after issuing no building permits for apartments between 1992 and 1997, the city approved 1,026 high-end apartments in 1999. Growth is exploding throughout the region at the base of the foothills, Storer noted. Neighboring communities — including unincorporated El Dorado County, and Roseville and Lincoln in Placer County — have boomed in recent years. One reason for the growth is the expansion of high-tech companies such as Intel, which is a major employer in Folsom. The city has also seen tremendous growth of its retail sector in recent years, adding a power center and expanding an outlet center. In addition, the historic Old Town district's quaint antique stores and restaurants also draw tourists. An extension of the county's light rail system to Folsom in 2003 is also expected to draw more visitors and commuters. All the growth has placed a strain on the city's schools, which are part of the 16,000-student Folsom-Cordova Unified School District. The district covers both the city of Folsom and the neighboring unincorporated community of Rancho Cordova, which has not seen the same rapid growth as Folsom. The enrollment at schools within Folsom has jumped from 4,928 in 1992 to 7,500 students this year, and is expected to rise to 13,700 in 2014, according to Debbie Bettencourt, deputy superintendent of the district. Classroom space in Folsom is at a premium at elementary schools near new housing developments. Large signs in front of some of the newest elementary schools warn parents that the schools are oversubscribed and their children may not be able to attend those schools if they buy homes nearby, according to John Frith, a six-year Folsom resident who's children have attended local schools. Instead, children are bussed to schools outside their neighborhood. However, a new elementary school is scheduled to open in August, said Bettencourt. A new high school opened two years ago at a cost of $68 million, but it is already at capacity, and a second high school is planned, she added. In the past, district-wide bond measures have failed. Several years ago, the two communities began conducting separate bond elections, which were to raise school construction funds for Folsom and to modernize schools in Rancho Cordova. The last time Folsom passed a school bond was in 1992, Bettencourt said. Last May, Measure M, a $38.4 million school bond measure failed when it fell 74 votes short of the required two-thirds majority. The passage of Proposition 39 last November, which allows school bonds to pass with 55% of the vote, will not help Folsom because the proposition does not cover elections for school facility improvement districts such as the one used in Folsom. Bettencourt said the district is hoping to get corrective legislation passed by state lawmakers this year to allow Folsom-Cordova bonds to win elections with 55% of the vote. The district is tentatively planning a bond measure for this November, but it would be unaffected by any corrective legislation, according to Bettencourt. The district did away with year-round schooling because the community opposed the schedule; however, the district may have to return to it, she indicated. Contacts: John O'Farrell, Sacramento LAFCO executive officer, (916) 874-6474. David Storer, Folsom planning, inspections and permitting director, (916) 355-7200. Debbie Bettencourt, Folsom-Cordova Unified School District (916) 355-1100.