A proposed $500 million cargo airport southeast of San Diego could bolster the area's manufacturing sector, but opposition to the airport is growing. With passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the economic expansion of the late 1990s, the San Diego-Tijuana metropolitan area has become a major manufacturing hub. Factories on either side of the border turn out clothes, televisions, appliances, parts and other items. However, distributing the products to markets, or to final assembly plants, is increasing becoming a headache. And the limited distribution system now available could hamper further economic growth, some analysts say. San Diego's Lindbergh Field is a highly constrained airport, with a short runway, strict noise requirements and poor ground access. And expansion of facilities at Lindbergh will probably be dedicated to passenger service. Because of Lindbergh's limited capacity, 90% of products that require shipping by air — that's about 500,000 tons a year — are sent out of airports more than 100 miles north in Los Angeles and Ontario. Business interests and the City of San Diego would like to see new facilities for cargo shipping, so the city has proposed converting a general aviation airport on Otay Mesa — only two miles north of the U.S-Mexico border — into a major cargo airport. The city acquired Brown Field from the military nearly 40 years ago, and it owns 886 acres in the area. The city would need an additional 235 acres to the east of Brown Field to accommodate the cargo airport. "Eventually, we are going to need every square inch of Lindbergh for passenger service, so this provides an outlet for cargo handlers there already," said Mike Westlake, a city planner for San Diego. But, as with any airport proposal, opponents are lining up against the city's plans for Brown Field. The cities of Imperial Beach, Chula Vista and Coronado have all gone on record against the cargo airport, which would be called San Diego Air Commerce Center. San Diego County has questioned the project, and, in June, Rep. Bob Filner (D-San Diego) announced his opposition because the airport would "detract from the quality of life" for South Bay residents. Although he has no vote in the matter, Filner's stance was a blow to airport backers because he represents the area in Congress and he had earlier spoken highly of the airport's economic benefits. San Diego city officials and a consortium of developers have talked about a cargo airport at Brown Field since at least 1998, and developers report that they have already poured $6 million into planning. However, when the project reached the city's Planning Commission in May, the commission voted 3-1 to reject the environmental impact report and deny the project. But with three of the seven commissioners recusing themselves because of conflicts of interest, the project actually goes to the City Council without a Planning Commission recommendation, Westlake said. The City Council is scheduled to consider the proposal on August 14. In the meantime, representatives of the city, the county and developers have been meeting to see if a compromise can be reached. Although the county will not take an official position before the Board of Supervisors considers the issues late this month, the county is worried that the cargo airport would hamper the county's own economic development plans for the area, said Joan Vokac, the county's chief of advance planning. "Our concern is that we are attempting to development an industrial park on the east end of the airport," Vokac said. "We're targeting the area for a high-tech park." A busy, noisy airport might not be compatible with technology campuses, she said. The county would like assurances from the Federal Aviation Administration that developer's plans to have airplanes take off toward the west — and away from the county's proposed business park — are realistic, Vokac said. The county has a specific plan for 3,300 lightly developed acres on Otay Mesa near the airport. Because the property lies within the Border Development Zone, the city can reinvest the tax increment to encourage development, Vokac explained. Erik Bruvold, director of government relations for the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation, said there is no reason the county and city could not mesh their plans. "We think there are synergies between what they are planning to do and the airport," Bruvold said. The EDC endorses the cargo airport as a way to support industrial growth on both sides of the border. Quick access to a facility would support expansion of "just-in-time" manufacturing that has blossomed in Baja California, Bruvold said. Plus, the cargo airport itself would provide good jobs, he added. "The kinds of jobs that are going to be created at an air cargo center are good, middle-class jobs. They typically are in the logistics area, are often unionized and pay a good wage," Bruvold said. According to developers, the cargo airport when fully built out in 2017 could provide up to 11,000 jobs and generate $750 million in annual gross receipts. If those figures are accurate, Brown Field would be a very busy place — a prospect that angers residents for miles around the site. Imperial Beach Mayor Diane Rose recently sent out a letter urging residents of the city, which lies under the proposed flight path, to fight the project. The airport, combined with existing Navy helicopter activity at Ream Field, means "Imperial beach is facing aircraft noise pollution 24 hours a day 7 days a week," Rose wrote. Area residents have already filled public hearings on the project. And purchasers of some new homes west of Brown Field have filed lawsuits against the developer, alleging they were deceived. A recent demonstration with a Boeing 747 appears to have only steeled opponents, who complained about the noise. But Westlake, the San Diego city planner, said the environmental impact report determined the airport would not be incompatible with other land uses and that large jets would not impact surrounded property owners. At the start of operations, the cargo airport would have only about 48 flights a day, he said. Contacts: Mike Westlake, San Diego city planner, (619) 446-5220. Joan Vokac, San Diego County chief of advance planning, (858) 694-3765. Erik Bruvold, San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation director of government relations, (619) 234-8484.

With the approval last March of a statewide initiative and the signing of a pact between the governor's office and 63 Indian tribes, development of Indian casinos is taking off. Proposals for major new casinos are introduced seemingly every week, and tribes that operate many of the existing 39 casinos have expansion plans. The casino boom is passing by local government officials, who have no say over what happens on lands held in trust for Indian tribes. "If it's reservation land, they pretty much do what they want to do," summed up Tom Parilo, development services director for Butte County, which has two casinos. That can be a difficult to swallow because these casinos can dramatically increase traffic, conflict with existing land uses and spur other growth in rural areas under the county's jurisdiction. And, the casinos pay no sales or transient occupancy tax. Lake County Community Development Director Dan Obermeyer said he is sympathetic to Indians' economic development needs and their distrust of the government. But, he added, "I think there needs to be some forum. There are impacts that need to be addressed, and there needs to be some way to mitigate them." Phillip Isenberg, a former state lawmaker and now a lobbyist for the Alliance of California Tribes, said some tribes have worked out agreements with local governments. However, he said, "The tribes are not going to give control of tribal lands to counties or the state." The current system In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that Indian tribes had the authority to conduct gambling on reservations free of state or county regulation. (California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202.) In response to that decision and the growth at the time of Indian bingo halls, Congress approved the Indian Gaming and Regulatory Act of 1988. It established the terms and conditions of casino development on Indian reservations, which are also known as trust lands. The act created the National Indian Gaming Commission, whose primary mission is to ensure that games are managed fairly and that tribes are the main beneficiaries. The act does not address land use implications. Last March, nearly two-thirds of California voters approved Proposition 1A, the second time in two years that the electorate backed Indian casinos. (A second initiative was required because the State Supreme Court threw out Proposition 5 from 1998.) Approval of Proposition 1A validated a compact between Gov. Davis and the tribes that allows for Nevada-style gambling in the form of slot machines, video poker and house-banked card games. The compact has provisions that, among other things, limit the number of slot machines, outline what types of gaming is allowed, and require revenue-sharing with the state. The compact's environmental requirements are minimal. For significant new casino construction, a tribe must prepare a report of potential off-reservation impacts and make a good-faith effort to mitigate those impacts. A tribe is to distribute the report to state and local governments and the public, and the public can comment. But the state's only recourse is to challenge the adequacy of the review process, and only after attempting to negotiate a new process, according to consulting firm Waltona Manion & Associates. There is supposed to be a pot of money for mitigating new casinos' impacts, but the status of the fund is unclear, added DeAnn Baker, a California State Association of Counties lobbyist. Indians have pursued casino development as a way to fund housing, health programs, sewer and water improvements, and education, said Clifford Trafzer, a professor of Native American studies at University of California, Riverside. Thus far, transportation routes have influenced casino development, as tribes with freeway frontage have cashed in the most. It is ironic, Trafzer added, that the "worthless" land designated for Indians many years ago is now so valuable. The Indians' newfound wealth has also gained them great influence in Sacramento, as tribes have lavished millions of dollars of campaign contributions on state lawmakers and Gov. Davis. Lawmakers have generally taken a hands-off approach to Indian casinos. Davis, meanwhile, included $30 million in his transportation package for a new freeway interchange serving Casino Morongo in the Riverside County community of Cabazon. Big money gets involved Although tribes were building casinos prior to the March election, the tribes' new ability to have Nevada-style gambling has energized casino development. Within weeks of the election, major gambling companies from Nevada, Louisiana and Atlantic City came onto the scene with proposals for large resorts featuring giant gambling halls, hundreds of hotel rooms and strips of retail shops. Among the major proposals: o A full-scale, $180 million resort in Valley Center, in San Diego County, by the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians. o A $100 million resort in Jamul, just east of San Diego, by the Jamul Indians. The proposal requires the federal government to expand a 6-acre reservation to include 100 adjacent acres the tribe recently purchased. Kean-Arogvitz Resorts of Houston, which operates two Indian casinos in Louisiana, and Lakes Gaming Inc. of Minnesota, which developed Indian casinos in that state, are providing funding. o Expansion of an existing casino in Lakeside run by the Barona Band of Mission Indians. The plan calls for a 300,000-square-foot casino, 120-room hotel, golf course, restaurants and even a two-story carousel. o A $100 million casino and hotel in northern San Diego County by the Rincon San Luiseno Band of Mission Indians. Harrah's Entertainment of Las Vegas is behind the project. o A $90 million casino, also in northern San Diego County, by the Pala Band of Mission Indians. Anchor Gaming of Nevada is involved. o A $60 million expansion of an existing casino near Coachella by the Twentynine Palms Band of Mission Indians. Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, Inc., is behind the project. o An $80 million casino on 40 acres along I-10 in Rancho Mirage by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. The tribe also plans to expand its existing casino in downtown Palm Springs. o A casino along I-10 near Coachella by the Torres-Martinez Indians. Rep. Mary Bono (R-Palm Springs) is carrying a bill that would compensate the Torres-Martinez Indians for the flooding of their land, which became the Salton Sea, and allow them to buy land that includes 640 acres along the freeway. Tribes with existing casinos in the area oppose the bill. o A five-story hotel and casino on Highway 41 in Madera County, about 25 miles south of Yosemite National Park, by the Picayune Rancheria tribe of Chukchansi Indians. The project also includes several large restaurants and a 150-seat nightclub. o A 125,000-square-foot entertainment complex in Tuolumne County by the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuks. o A casino of at least 100,000 square-feet plus a hotel in Shingle Springs, in western El Dorado County, by the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians. A successful lawsuit to block access via private roads has halted the project. o A $100 million casino in an industrial park in Rocklin, in Placer County, by the United Auburn Indian Community of Miwok and Maidu Indians (see CP&DR Deals, December 1999). Station Casinos of Nevada is behind the proposal, which requires the Bureau of Indian Affairs to place the land in trust. o Conversion of an existing San Pablo card room into a full-scale casino by the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians, who want to buy the facility. In May, Gov. Davis rejected a compact with the Lytton Band, blocking the proposal for now. o A 175,000-square-foot casino and restaurant complex in Alexander Valley, near Healdsburg, proposed by the Dry Creek band of Pomo Indians. Mark Advent, who built the New York-New York hotel and casino in Las Vegas, is involved. The sewer and water stick While local government has no control over development on trust lands, it does have a say when a landowner wants to annex into a special district. Local officials in several jurisdictions have used the Local Agency Formation Commission project to gain at least a little leverage over casino development. The Butte County LAFCO is considering an application from Gold Country Casino just outside Oroville to annex into separate sewer and water districts. The Tyme Maidu Tribe says the annexation of 34 acres is to accommodate residential development, a park and a large parking lot. Butte County LAFCO Executive Officer Paula Leasure said she is treating the application as if expansion of the tribe's existing casino were involved. Why would a parking lot need sewer and water, she asked. "We're going to be looking at it for maximum impacts," she said. "Traffic has turned out to be one of the biggest impacts we've had . I know traffic accidents are up significantly." The LAFCO cannot request changes in land use or project design, but it could ask for a large one-time impact fee, said Leasure, who noted the casino is surrounded by residences. Obermeyer, of Lake County, said officials there have used the LAFCO process to get concessions from Indian casino operators. Lake County has had as many as four Indian casinos operating at one time, and some tribes are more open to negotiating that others, he said. Currently, Lake County is processing a Williamson Act cancellation contract for the Big Valley band of Pomo Indians to accommodate expansion of a casino near Lakeport. While Obermeyer does not believe the land ever should have been placed under the Williamson Act, he sees traffic and wetlands concerns with a bigger casino — but no legal ability to address them. The existing facility is in a floodplain and a narrow two-lane road provides the only access. El Dorado County planners have wrestled for several years with implications of a casino development along Highway 50, a few miles west of Placerville. The Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians erected a large tent for gambling, but patrons could reach the facility only by way of private roads. Residents of the area, a gated, large-lot subdivision, successfully sued to block the tribe's use of the road for casino access. Since then, the tribe has purchased property in an attempt to gain new access to their landlocked parcel, said county Planning Director Conrad Montgomery. But the earlier confrontation has steeled casino opponents, and the Board of Supervisors approved a resolution in early June opposing the casino. "The problem is it's entirely a low-density residential neighborhood," Montgomery said. "The ideal situation would be to try and find a completely different site." New representatives of the tribe have shown a willingness to negotiate, including offers to fund law enforcement and pay something like a bed tax to the county, Montgomery added. County officials believe a casino is inevitable, so they might as well make the best of it, he said. Other counties, however, have not concerned themselves. "It's never been an issue one way or the other for the county," said David Wert, spokesman for San Bernardino County, which is home to two casinos. Cooperation could grow Isenberg, the Indians' lobbyist, said Indians often have had no contact, or only hostile contact, with local government. "Traditionally, Indian tribes in California and most of the rest of America have had relations only with the federal government," he said. "Local governments just kind of view them as a pain in the neck, particularly now that they have trust land on which they can do anything that a separate government entity could do." But tribes are willing to be good neighbors and some of them are working out agreements with local government to fund emergency services and infrastructure improvements, Isenberg said. "If you try to guess where the next 50 years will be, it is with these agreements," he said. Baker, the CSAC lobbyist, said counties and tribes have a mixed record of cooperation so far. "It really just depends on the individual tribes," she said. Leasure, of the Butte County LAFCO, suggested counties might want to plan commercial development of their own near casinos to build the tax base. "One way the counties could get a handle on the casinos would be to go out and plan the area around the casinos," she said. "It would involve some extensive planning and general plan amendments up front. From a theoretical standpoint, I think it could work." Contacts: Dan Obermeyer, Lake County Community Development Department, (707) 263-2221. Paula Leasure, Butte County LAFCO, (530) 538-7151. Conrad Montgomery, El Dorado County Planning Department, (530) 621-5355. DeAnn Baker, California State Association of Counties, (916) 327-7500, ext. 509. Clifford Trafzer, University of California, Riverside, (909) 787-4577, ext. 1828. Phillip Isenberg, Alliance of California Tribes, (916) 447-7933. National Indian Gaming Commission website: www.nigc.gov Victor Rocha's Indian and Gaming News website: www.pechanga.net

A recently adopted specific plan for nearly four square miles in southern Sacramento County represents the first time county officials have instituted a major farmland mitigation program. The East Franklin Specific Plan calls for developers of 2,475 acres to contribute $950 per acre to an account that will purchase agricultural easements or property in a nearby farming area. Whether farm owners will cooperate, however, is uncertain. The mitigation fee is intended to protect about 26,000 acres of farmland south of the fast growing community of Elk Grove, said Sacramento County Supervisor Don Notolli, who represents the area. "Agriculture is important in the history of this community, and it will continue to be in the future," said Notolli. Sacramento County's general plan calls for development of prime farmland to be mitigated with the purchase of rights to prime agricultural land elsewhere in the county. However, the county had not implemented the policy for a major development since adopting the general plan in 1993. Whether or not the $950-an-acre fee will provide enough money is unknown. But Notolli — who earlier pressed for a higher mitigation fee but eventually voted for the $950 rate — pointed out that the fee will apply to the entire specific plan area, even though only 1,400 acres qualify as prime farmland. "In looking at the calculation, where you have 2,400 acres paying the fees and the loss of 1,400 acres, it's a pretty good number to start with," Notolli said. The Environmental Council of Sacramento, a 30-year-old coalition of environmental groups and individuals, endorsed the East Franklin Specific Plan for several reasons, said ECOS leader Earl Withycombe. First, the East Franklin plan carries out the general plan policy of mitigating the development of farmland. Second, and even more importantly, the specific plan requires the county to purchase agricultural easements in the immediate area of the development. That focus is important because East Franklin is right up against the county's urban services boundary, and pressure could easily build to expand the boundary, Withycombe said. Thus, the specific plan provided a creative approach to preserving the integrity of the urban growth boundary. No one expected extensive development on the urban services boundary only seven years after it was adopted, said Withycombe, who noted a major retail development called Lent Ranch has also been proposed right on the boundary. "It made a lot of sense to us that we were better off forestalling development on lands just across the urban services boundary … until the next overhaul of the general plan, when the issues could be revisited," Withycombe said. Supervisor Notolli said the board decided it could not reasonably offset loss of south county farmland by acquiring agricultural easements in the rural northern part of the county, as some people had proposed. Instead, they focused on an area within three miles of the East Franklin Specific Plan area. Looks good on paper The Sacramento Bee has reported that farm owners near East Franklin have indicated little interest in selling agricultural easements. Instead of preserving farming, they want to preserve their right to sell land to developers. The farmers point out — correctly — that the county has not enforced the farmland mitigation policy for other major developments. Denny Lewis, executive manager of the Sacramento County Farm Bureau, endorsed the mitigation fee but said no one can predict its effectiveness. "There's such little experience dealing with agricultural mitigation fees. I have no idea whether the agricultural community will accept this. I suspect they will," Lewis said. "Either we're going to grow houses, or we're going to grow food. And this is a start." The Nature Conservancy has been purchasing agricultural easements along the Cosumnes River watershed, south of Elk Grove, for years. That program has been quite successful, Lewis said. Wine grapes are the number one crop in southern Sacramento County, according to Lewis. Other components of the area's farm industry are dairy, cattle, hay, alfalfa and barley. Sacramento County had $278 million in agricultural production in 1998 (the last year for which figures are available), ranking it 22nd among California's 58 counties, according to the California Farm Bureau Federation. State officials estimate that the five-county Sacramento region (Sacramento, Yolo, Sutter, Placer and El Dorado counties) lost 2,800 acres of prime farmland to development from 1996 to 1998. That figure worries open space and farming advocates, but builders say it is a tiny amount that totals only about two-thousandths of 1% of the region's total farmland. Density policy doesn't survive While the East Franklin plan does implement the general plan's farmland mitigation policy, it required general plan amendments to remove four transit-oriented zones from the East Franklin area. Instead, those areas will have single family homes along with some typical apartment buildings and retail stores. County planners say there just is not enough acceptance of high-density, mixed-use planning concepts. (See sidebar.) Indeed, Elk Grove residents lobbied for fewer housing units in East Franklin. As a result, county supervisors approved a plan that calls for far more large-parcel, single-family development than originally envisioned. Although county supervisors approved the East Franklin Specific Plan in late May, what exactly will become of the plan is unclear because the area lies within Elk Grove, which became an incorporated city on July 1. Growth was the number one issue during the incorporation election, with many people contending the county has been too accommodating to developers. Elk Grove Mayor Jim Cooper said it would be unfair for the city to insist on changes to proposals that have already gone through the county process, such as the East Franklin Specific Plan. Supervisor Notolli added, "I don't think our work is going to be discarded." Still, said Cooper, the bedroom community of about 55,000 needs a better balance of growth so that not everyone has to commute to jobs in Sacramento. The new mayor noted that during the last few years, 40% of residential building permits in unincorporated Sacramento County have been issued in Elk Grove. Interestingly, the new East Franklin Specific Plan designates 2,398 acres — nearly the entire specific plan area —for single-family residential development. The plan earmarks only 47 acres for office and commercial, plus 30 acres for medium-density residential. Under the plan, 10,400 housing units could be built. When the Elk Grove City Council convenes for the first time, it will have no fewer than 46 pending development projects to consider, Cooper added. Contacts: Don Notolli, Sacramento County supervisor, (916) 874-5465. Jim Cooper, Elk Grove mayor, (916) 686-2222. Earl Withycombe, Environmental Council of Sacramento, (916) 444-6666. Denny Lewis, Sacramento County Farm Bureau executive manager, (916) 685-6958.

Each day, a parade of trucks heads north out of the Southern California metropolis, grinding over the Tehachapis and descending into Kern County, one of the state's premier agricultural regions. The convoy is nearly a mirror image of the truck traffic heading the other way laden with commodities grown in the fertile Central Valley. There is an important difference, however. Whereas the southbound trucks, bearing oranges, tomatoes, almonds, carrots, cotton and other valued products, are welcomed, the northbound trucks haul a less popular cargo: sewage sludge, the semisolid leftovers of municipal wastewater treatment. This aesthetically unsavory product is a perennial headache for sanitation districts. Yet to farmers trying to coax crops from marginal farmland, sludge is a nutrient-rich resource. And now it is at the heart of a legal and political battle that pits science against popular perception, and the state's rural heartbeat against urban muscle. Technically, "sludge" is organic solids separated from untreated wastewater. The stuff trucked to Kern County from cities throughout Southern California is known more accurately, if less descriptively, as "biosolids" — human and industrial waste that has been filtered from treated wastewater, pumped into tanks and allowed to cook in its own biologically generated heat until bacteria and other pathogens have been neutralized. For decades, sewage plants dumped their sludge in the ocean, buried it in landfills or incinerated it. But regulatory barriers to ocean disposal and burning have made those options unattractive. And high tipping fees at crowded urban landfills have made burying it costly. Searching for a new solution, municipal sanitation districts have in recent years seized on a paradoxically old technique: land application. Essentially, properly treated biosolids are a fertilizer and organic soil amendment, and plowing such waste into cropland to boost fertility has an ancient history. An Environmental Protection Agency guide describes the value of sludge in glowing terms: "Biosolids are, in effect, a slow-release nitrogen fertilizer with low concentrations of other plant nutrients. In addition to significant amounts of nitrogen, biosolids also contain phosphorus, potassium, and essential micronutrients, such as zinc and iron, which are of great benefit in the West, where many soils are deficient in micronutrients. Since biosolids are also rich in organic matter, they can improve soil quality by improving water-holding capacity, soil structure and air and water transport. Proper use of biosolids can ultimately decrease soil erosion." Southern California sanitation districts had little trouble finding receptive farmers in Kern County, which has much land that is fertile but also much that is not. Both varieties are urged into cultivation by inexpensive water. A billion pounds of sludge a year, more than 50 truckloads a day, makes its way to Kern County, where it is spread on land used for such nonfood crops as cotton, sorghum and alfalfa. Thanks to its proximity to Southern California's urban centers, and the convenient access provided by Interstate 5, Kern County has quietly become California's top repository of sludge. Not everyone in Kern County is happy about that. Local environmentalists and health activists, for example, warn that sludge might contain high levels of toxic metals derived from industrial processes, as well as viruses, parasites and other pathogenic organisms that survive processing. The limited research that has been done, however, suggests there is little public health risk. Heavy-metal concentrations in municipal wastewater have been greatly reduced since the 1970s under tough federal and state discharge regulations. A 1996 report by the National Research Council noted, "There have been no reported outbreaks of infectious diseases associated with a population's exposure — either directly or through food consumption pathways — to adequately treated and properly distributed reclaimed water or sludge applied to agricultural land." But an audit of EPA's biosolids management and enforcement, which the U.S. Inspector General's Office released March 20, found that federal regulations governing the land application are adequate. But the Inspector General also concluded that EPA does not collect enough information or conduct enough field inspections to determine whether farmers comply with the law. If the actual public health threat is ambiguous, public attitude is not. "We don't want to be L.A.'s toilet," one Kern County farmer told a newspaper reporter earlier this year. Sensitive about the public image of Kern County agricultural products — particularly high-value specialty crops competing in a cutthroat market — a coalition of growers persuaded the Kern County Board of Supervisors last October to pass an ordinance making it illegal to apply conventional sludge to farmland. The ban would be phased in over three years, after which time only "exceptional quality" biosolids — sludge that has been mixed with other organic matter and composted — could be plowed into the soil. Municipal agencies relying on Kern County farmland as a destination for sludge responded in November with a lawsuit contending that the county violated the California Environmental Quality Act by failing to review the environmental impact of its sludge ban. The Southern California agencies also claimed they are exempt from local ordinances. The Superior Court trial, moved to presumably neutral Tulare County, is now in the discovery phase. The dispute even migrated to the Legislature, where Sen. Richard Polanco (D-Los Angeles) introduced SB 1956, which would prohibit local governments from adopting biosolids regulations more restrictive than the federal government's. Assemblyman Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield) countered with legislation (AB 2495) specifically requiring local agencies to abide by the building and zoning ordinances of other local jurisdictions. Polanco has put his bill on hold, but Ashburn's remains alive, having received unanimous approval in the Assembly. Although Kern's contested ordinance officially declared the county's willingness to accept "exceptional quality" sludge, the sincerity of that commitment is in doubt. In May, the Yakima Co. abandoned plans to build a composting facility able to handle 600,000 wet tons (biosolids are 75 percent water) of sludge a year from eight Southern California waste agencies. The company blamed fierce community opposition, which led to permitting delays. To municipal waste managers, the failure of Yakima's plans suggests that public perception — not legitimate concerns about health risks or groundwater purity — is responsible for Kern County's ban. And they see that attitude as shortsighted. "We think it's a more reasonable, sensible option" than burying it in a landfill, said Mike Sullivan, Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County biosolids recycling coordinator. His agency sends 1,500 to 2,000 wet tons of sludge a week to Kern County, reimbursing farmers for the cost of hauling it, spreading it and handling the paperwork — a sum that averages around $25 a ton. The cheapest alternative would be to truck the sludge to a landfill the agency owns, but that would shorten the landfill's three-year life expectancy. And it would mean forgoing the utility of a nutrient-rich organic fertilizer, as well as ignoring the broader question of what to do with so much waste. And if the sanitation agencies lose their legal attempt to overturn Kern County's ban? There's always Arizona. "They welcome the stuff there," Sullivan said. Contacts: Kern County counsel's office: 661-868-3800. Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County: (562) 699-7411 EPA Biosolids website: www.epa.gov/unix0008/community_resources/muni/water/wbiosolid.html

The Metropolitan Water District won a round of a lawsuit over the price it charges for conveying private transfers of water. A three-judge panel of the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Five, ruled that Metropolitan can include its capital investment and other system-wide costs when figuring the fee it charges for handling water transfers. The appellate court overturned the decision of San Francisco Superior Court Judge Laurence Kay, who had ruled Metropolitan improperly included costs unrelated to the actual water transfer. The appellate panel sent the case back to Kay for further proceedings. The ruling is potentially a blow against the private water market that many public officials, farmers, speculators and developers hope to nurture. In 1986, the Legislature adopted "water wheeling" statutes (Water Code §§1810-1814) that prohibit public water agencies from withholding use of their canals and pipelines when unused capacity is available and fair compensation is paid. The idea is to encourage transfers of water from land with excess water rights, such as certain farms, to growing urban areas. In January 1997, Metropolitan established a wheeling rate of $141 per acre foot for its member agencies, regardless of the water's source, how far the water would travel or the facilities used. Representatives of all 27 member agencies — except the San Diego County Water Authority — voted for the rate. The San Diego agency is counting on buying water on the open market to help meet future needs. To get court validation for its wheeling rate, Metropolitan filed a lawsuit against seven parties, including the San Diego County Water Authority, Imperial Irrigation District, private water developer Cadiz Inc., and a few Native American tribes. But Judge Kay ruled that Metropolitan could not set a fixed wheeling rate in advance of a particular transaction and without regard to the specific proposal. He also held that Metropolitan could not include system-wide costs, such as expenses for constructing reservoirs and administrative buildings. On appeal, San Diego County Water Authority and other defendants argued that wheeling rates should be determined on a "point-to-point" basis that accounts only for the facilities used. But Metropolitan contended that because a private water transfer could displace a sale to a member agency, Metropolitan's other agencies would get stuck with a higher proportionate share of system-wide costs, thus subsidizing the water transfer. In a detailed opinion, the court found "neither the plain language of the wheeling statutes nor the legislative history supports a conclusion as a matter of law that system-wide costs cannot under any circumstances be included in a wheeling rate calculation. … The Legislature did not utilize language which is consistent with defendants' theory that only ‘point-to-point' costs my be recovered." "In short," wrote Presiding Justice Paul Turner, "the Legislature did not intend that the impact of the wheeling statutes should be to cause a water conveyance system owner to lose money or to subsidize wheeling transfers." The panel sent the case back to the lower court to determine whether Metropolitan's wheeling rate meets the definitions of "fair compensation" and reasonableness within §1813. However, the case could become moot depending on the outcome of pending legislation. Senate Bill 1973 (Perata) would give the Public Utilities Commission authority to determine what factors can be included in wheeling rates. The Case: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California v. Imperial Irrigation District, No. B119968, 00 C.D.O.S. 4206, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5615, filed May 30, 2000. The Lawyers: For Metropolitan: N. Gregory Taylor, MWD, (213) 217-6115. For Imperial: David Osias, Allen, Matkins, Leck, Gamble & Mallory, (619) 233-1155. For San Diego County Water Authority: Daniel Hentschke, SDCWA, (619) 682-4113.

Homeowners associations in the retirement community of Leisure World acted legally when they spent half a million dollars of homeowners assessments on an initiative campaign to halt a proposed airport, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court cleared the political activity of the Golden Rain Foundation of Laguna Hills and three of its member homeowner associations. The groups provided $542,000 for Orange County's Measure S, a 1996 ballot initiative aimed at blocking development of an airport at El Toro Marine Corps base, which is near Leisure World. (Measure S failed. But, in March, Orange County voters approved Measure F, which requires a two-thirds vote of the public for the proposed airport to go forward. Various homeowners associations also contributed to the pro-Measure F campaign.) The lawsuit was filed by members of the homeowners associations, although the Orange County Register reported that developer George Argyros, the proposed airport's prime private supporter, was behind the suit. The suit claimed that the associations did not have the power to make the political contributions, and that the donations were illegal and violated members' constitutional rights of free speech and association. Orange County C. Robert Jameson ruled for the homeowners associations, and a unanimous three-judge appellate panel upheld the ruling. In the published portion of its opinion, the court held that the associations are corporations that can use the "special litigation committee" defense. In this case, after the lawsuit was filed, each association created its own special litigation committee. Each committee was composed of members of the board of directors who had not become members until after the lawsuit was filed. The committees retained lawyers and conducted thorough reviews before concluding that the lawsuit was not in the best interest of each association. Thus, the actions of the homeowners associations boards of directors were protected by "the business judgement rule," the court held. The special litigation committee defense is intended "to further the fundamental principle that those best suited to make decisions for a corporation — including the decision to file suit on its behalf — are its directors, not its stockholders or the courts," Justice Betty Ann Richli wrote. In the unpublished portions of the opinion, the court ruled that the associations had the authority to make the contributions necessary to preserve Leisure World residents' lifestyle. The court noted, "A carefully designed professional survey revealed that 91.3% of Leisure World residents opposed the airport conversion." And the court held that the contributions did not violate anyone's constitutional rights. The Case: Warren T. Finley v. Superior Court, No. E024743, 00 C.D.O.S. 4077, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5439, filed Mary 23, 2000. The Lawyers: For Finley: Daniel Livingston and Alan Ross, Payne & Fears, (949) 851-1100. For the homeowners associations: William R. Hart and Robert Mulvihill, Hart, King & Coldren, (714) 432-8700.

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

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

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

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

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

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