Stimulated by the success of Ventura County's SOAR initiatives, citizens � and some City Councils � throughout the state are placing growth restrictions on the local ballot in increasing numbers. Four growth-control initiatives are scheduled for the November ballot, including three sponsored by the Citizens' Alliance for Public Planning, or CAPP, a Pleasanton-based citizen organization active in the Tri-Valley area of eastern Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Up to eight measures may appear next year, including at least two on the March ballot. Like the Ventura County initiatives sponsored by Save Open-space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR), the CAPP initiatives require voter approval to change local land-use policies. And like the SOAR organizers, CAPP proponents are attempting to influence land-use issues regionally by passing initiatives in adjacent jurisdictions. But unlike the SOAR initiatives, which establish urban growth boundaries and protect agricultural land, the CAPP initiatives would require voter approval for plan amendments required to construct as few as 10 or 20 houses. The CAPP initiatives were placed on the ballot by a new citizen planning group that has entered the roiling Tri-Valley growth wars, which have raged along the I-580 and I-680 corridors in the East Bay during recent years. The increase in initiative activity appears to be partly the result of publicity about SOAR's success, and networking among SOAR's proponents and citizen activists elsewhere. SOAR leader Steve Bennett of Ventura, whose photograph recently appeared in Time magazine, said he fields several phone calls a week from around the state and has advised activists in San Luis Obispo and elsewhere. The increased ballot activity also appears related to the biggest real estate boom since the late 1980s. Past research has shown that land-use ballot measures increase in response to increased development activity. CAPP measures will appear on ballots this fall in Pleasanton, Livermore, and San Ramon. A council-sponsored measure will appear as an alternative on San Ramon's ballot. In addition, the CAPP organization is working to place measures before Danville and Alameda County voters next year. The only non-CAPP measure on the fall ballot is a SOAR-style measure in Agoura Hills, a small city in Los Angeles County adjacent to Ventura County. CAPP chairman Stan Erickson of Pleasanton did not return telephone calls from CP&DR, but the organization's web site claims that CAPP is a coalition of citizens "brought together by a common vision -- a vision of residential and commercial development done in a manner so as to inspire praise instead of derision. Our vision is to encourage development which is harmonious with the surroundings and with nature. We are against what has become widely known as �sprawl' development." Somewhat surprisingly, the Greenbelt Alliance has decided to remain neutral on the CAPP initiatives. "Local land-use initiatives need to not only limit irresponsible development, they must also encourage smart growth: attractive, affordable, transit-accessible, infill opportunities," the Alliance said in a written statement. "Unfortunately, the proposed CAPP initiatives do not strike this critical balance." Greenbelt Alliance has been a backer of urban growth boundaries, including the 1996 growth boundary implemented in Pleasanton. The CAPP measures have generated controversy in each of the three jurisdictions where they are scheduled to appear this fall. The biggest brawl is in Livermore, which has the most land available for growth. In particular, the CAPP measure would stymie the city's current plans to work jointly with Alameda County to allow a 12,500-unit development � and development of open space � in North Livermore. "The issue is whether there's going to be 30,000 people in North Livermore," says Eric Parfrey, an environmental consultant in the East Bay. Parfrey has been assisting citizen activists in Tracy � just over the Altamont Pass from Livermore � who are seeking to restrict growth there. The North Livermore area has been a major source of contention between Livermore and Alameda County for many years. However, the two jurisdictions recently agreed on the 12,500-unit plan, which dedicates 80% of the property for open-space uses. The CAPP measure would create an urban growth boundary � changeable only by a vote � that would exclude most of the North Livermore property. The initiative would also require a vote for residential projects of 20 units or more and cut the city's population growth rate to a little more than 1% per year. Part of the reason CAPP proponents are trying to place a measure on the Alameda County ballot is to prevent landowners from moving forward with a large project in North Livermore through the county government, rather than the city government. The CAPP measure was placed on the November ballot by the Livermore City Council after a Superior Court judge ruled initiative petitions invalid because of two minor technical problems. However, the council also appointed a citizen committee to examine alternatives to the 30,000-resident North Livermore plan. In early August, the citizen committee presented a positive evaluation of a proposal to accommodate only 10,000 new residents. The City of Livermore currently has about 75,000 residents. In Pleasanton, CAPP supporters were buoyed by voters' rejection in June of a proposed 89-unit subdivision. The Pleasanton initiative is similar to the Livermore initiative, requiring a public vote on residential projects of 10 or more units, as well as rezoning of some agricultural properties and approval of commercial and industrial projects more than 55 feet tall. Meanwhile, the landowners and developers who lost the June election have gone to court, claiming that June's referendum results were inconsistent with the city's general plan. In San Ramon, a battle is shaping up between the CAPP initiative and an alternative City Council proposal. The CAPP initiative would require a public vote on projects of 10 units or more and on increased densities in commercial and residential areas. The San Ramon measure also contains General Plan language that encourages infill development. In response, the City Council placed on the ballot an alternative measure that would impose a two-year growth moratorium, initiate a general plan update that the voters would approve, and require voter approval to change the general plan in the future. Meanwhile, in Agoura Hills, voters will decide the SOAR-style initiative on the November ballot. The measure, which was placed on the ballot by the City Council, would require two-thirds voter approval to change the general plan land-use designation of any property from open space to urban development. Sitting adjacent to the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreational Area, Agoura Hills has approximately one-third of its city designated in open space, most of it mountainous. The Agoura Hills measure resulted from the passage of the 1998 SOAR initiatives in Ventura County. Many slow-growth political alliances straddle the Ventura-Los Angeles county line in the area around Agoura Hills. In addition to the CAPP initiatives planned for Danville and Alameda County, the following ballot measures are also in the works for next year: o The Dublin City Council has placed an urban growth boundary measure on the November 2000 ballot. The proposal would remove thousands of acres between Dublin and Castro Valley from the city's planning area. Although Dublin is located between San Ramon and Pleasanton on the I-680 corridor, CAPP chose not to pursue an initiative there. o The City of Davis is aiming to place a SOAR-style initiative on the March 2000 ballot. The measure would require a vote on any project involving a rezoning of land designated for open space or agriculture. "If any project came forward, it would get referended anyway," said Mayor Julie Partansky. Unlike Ventura County SOAR, however, the Davis measure would place projects before the voters only after city council approval. o Citizens in Tracy � a commuter town in San Joaquin County heavily affected by growth patterns in the Tri-Valley area � are preparing a measure for the March ballot that would halve the number of houses permitted each year from 1,500 to 750. According to Parfrey, a consultant to the Tracy Area Residents for Quality Growth, the city has never hit the cap of 1,500 previously but appears likely to do so this year. o Environmental and citizen groups in San Luis Obispo are aiming for a SOAR-style set of initiatives on city and county ballots in November of 2000. "What a SOAR initiative would do is lock in current land-use designations," said Pat Veesart of Go SLO, an environmental group. "The political will on the part of elected officials is not there." o Citizen activists have discussed possible SOAR initiatives in Santa Barbara County and in the L.A. County community of Westlake Village � both adjacent to Ventura County � but no firm ballot plans have emerged yet. Contacts: Stan Erickson, CAPP, (925) 462-4995. Barry Hand, Community Development Director, City of Livermore, (925) 373-5200. Eric Parfrey, Baseline Consulting, (510) 420-8686. Julie Partansky, mayor of Davis, (530) 753-3936. Pat Veesart, Go SLO, (805) 544-1777. CAPP web site: home.att.net/~alliance

An elementary school proposed for agricultural land is not subject to a Ventura County initiative intended to preserve farmland and open space, according to an attorney general's opinion. A school district board of trustees, by a two-thirds vote, may exempt itself from local land use regulations, according to the opinion prepared by Deputy Attorney General Gregory Gonot. He quoted extensively from City of Santa Clara v. Santa Clara Unified School District (1971) 22 CalApp.3d 152, in which the court interpreted Government Code §§ 53091 and 53094. "The only reasonable interpretation of these sections is that a school district must abide by local zoning ordinances unless it chooses to exercise its right of exemption," the court said in Santa Clara. The school district may declare the exemption at any time, provided the decision is not arbitrary and capricious, the court ruled. The Santa Clara court said state law sets school districts apart from other local agencies. "The Legislature accordingly provided in § 53094 that school districts, as opposed to other local agencies, should retain the right to exempt themselves from local zoning ordinances," the court ruled. In the case at hand, the Ventura Unified School District proposed building an elementary school on a 15-acre orchard in unincorporated Ventura County, just outside the City of Ventura boundary. The district picked the site one year ago, before voters approved Save Open-space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) initiatives in the county and several cities. The SOAR initiatives prevent urban development of agriculturally zoned land, such as the 15-acre orchard, unless voters approve a rezoning. State Sen. Jack O'Connell (D-Santa Barbara), who represents the region, requested the attorney general's opinion. Richard Francis, the Ventura attorney who authored the SOAR initiatives, said the opinion was unsurprising and called it "a whole lot of nothing. The law is real clear on this." Gonot opined that the initiative is no different than any other zoning regulation and cannot be extended to schools. "The fact that this particular general plan ordinance was adopted as an initiative measure by the electorate does not change our analysis," Gonot wrote. "Adoption of a general plan, like adoption of a zoning ordinance, is a legislative act. (66 Ops. Cal.Atty.Gen. 258, 260 (1983); see § 65301.5) While county voters may amend the county's general plan to the same extent as the board of supervisors, they cannot adopt an amendment that makes it conflict with state law." "Accordingly," Gonot continued, "the ordinance in question must yield to the authorization contained in § 53094, permitting a school district under specified conditions to construct a school on property even though such use would not be in conformity with the general plan." Francis said that while local agencies cannot keep schools out of greenbelts and agricultural districts, practical constraints may discourage school construction in these areas. Developers cannot use schools to break apart greenbelts easily because, under SOAR, the accompanying urban development must go before voters, he said. Also, some school officials shy away from building on farmland because of past pesticide use. Minimum lot sizes, from which schools are not exempt, also complicate school siting decisions, Francis added. For example, Oxnard High School, just south of Ventura, is located on an excessively large parcel because the county refused to grant a minimal parcel size variance. The school must farm part of its property. Francis suggested he could live with the statutes. "I'm not running any statewide initiative to change the law," he said. Attorney General's opinion No. 99-401, filed July 26, 1999.

In state Supreme Court action, the court declined to review a landfill EIR, and, in an unrelated case, the court said it will not decide a San Francisco hotel conversion case that had already been briefed. In the landfill case, a Fourth District Court of Appeals decision to uphold an environmental impact report for the giant Eagle Mountain landfill in Riverside County will stand. Only two of the seven justices, Joyce Kennard and Ming Chin, voted to review the decision in National Parks & Conservation Association v. Kaiser Steel Resources, 71 Cal.App.4th 1341 (1999). The appellate court overturned the decision of San Diego County Superior Court Judge Judith McConnell, who said the EIR for the 2,200-acre landfill inadequately addressed impacts on the desert tortoise and on visitors to nearby Joshua Tree National Park. (See CP&DR Legal Digest, June 1999.) Although the Fourth District agreed with McConnell on the inadequacy of an earlier EIR for the same project, National Parks & Conservation Assn. v. County of Riverside, 42 Cal.App.4th 1505 (1996), the Fourth District this time said the study was acceptable. The project would turn a former Kaiser iron-ore mine into a landfill capable of accepting 20,000 tons of trash a day for a century. Project opponents are now trying to block a needed Bureau of Land Management land swap with the landfill developer. In the hotel conversion case, the state's high court decided it will not review a case in which a hotel owner contended San Francisco's hotel conversion law was an illegal taking of property. In late July, the seven justices decided it was a mistake to grant review in Lambert v. CCSF, S065446. The Supreme Court action means San Francisco wins the case, but the First District Court of Appeals opinion remains unpublished. The hotel owners, represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, argued that the city's rejection of an application to convert a residential hotel into a tourist hotel was spurred by the owners refusal to pay a $600,000 mitigation fee. Such a condition of approval should be subject to heightened scrutiny, the PLF argued. The city said it denied the application because it wanted to preserve affordable housing provided by the Cornell Hotel, which is subject to the city's law preventing such conversions. Two of three justices on the First District, Division One, said that the mitigation fee issue was irrelevant and that the city had denied the landowner of nothing. (See CP&DR Legal Digest, October 1997.) The Supreme Court granted review in January 1998 and the case was fully briefed earlier this year. Even Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed an amicus brief on the city's side. A confident San Francisco Deputy City Attorney Andrew W. Schwartz expressed disappointment for the court not to review the case because he wanted to add a Supreme Court's opinion to a list of earlier defenses of the hotel conversion law in state appellate court and at the federal Ninth Circuit. He said the hotel conversion law has been "more litigated than any other local ordinance in the history of the world."

I have found myself studying, of all things, a site plan of a bicycle path in the City of Portola. Why would a small-town bike path be interesting, particularly one that exists only on paper? Perhaps because site plans, like all maps, seem so static, while the dotted line that represents the bike trail suggests movement and freedom. It is easy to imagine ourselves as tourists on bicycles in this small mountain town in the Sierra Nevada, tooling through the historic district, and then crossing the bridge into the riverfront area. Or maybe that dotted line, found on the update of the city's general plan, carries an added significance — a subliminal message, if you will — of showing all the parts of the town that ought to be better connected in downtown Portola. Looking at those connections in the city's new general plan update, in fact, is the best way to understand the strategy to revive the stagnant downtown in this city of 2,500 people in Plumas County. It would be wrong to suggest that that the plan of downtown Portola, especially the proposed Riverwalk and Old Town Corridor under discussion here, relies entirely on connections. Like all master plans, the city's general plan update relies on the construction of new streets and paths, new buildings and public spaces. Yet I would argue that the plan, prepared by Wade Associates of Sacramento, is an object lesson in getting the most out of bringing things together. And in a city with few resources and somewhat scattered attractions, making wise connections is the best way to get good weight out of planning. Like many other cities that have depended historically on the timber industry, Portola is casting about for ways to re-invent itself. The decline of logging has had a severe impact on a city that was essentially a railroad depot for timber. Tourism and fishing, while seasonal, have been a saving grace — except for the controversial program, sponsored by the state Department of Fish and Game, of poisoning nearby Lake Davis to rid the water of an invasive, non-native pike. The poisoning managed to kill the local fishing industry but not the pike, which eat the trout favored by anglers. The city apparently is looking to maximize its existing assets, which are strong. One is the city's adjacency to federally owned parkland, including campground areas. A second is the beauty of the Middle Fork of the Feather River as it meanders through the Sierra. And a third factor, possibly the city's single greatest source of international fame, is the Portola Railroad Museum. It not only has a collection a 35 locomotives but also offers lessons in driving locomotives and, for a price, will allow men and women who still fantasize about being Casey Jones — I'm a member of this community — to drive an actual locomotive around a circular track. The design problem, then, is how to bring all these disparate events into a single, coherent urban experience. The most obvious need for connection is between the older part of the city on the south side of the river, and the newer downtown on the north. Short of building new bridges, that means providing activity and lively uses on either side of the single bridge in town that spans the riverbank and the railroad tracks. In the Old Town area, the popular railroad museum is an obvious node for creating new activities and urban forms. To provide a better sense of an entrance to the museum, the plan proposes bending Colorado Street, a north-south corridor, so that it meets the east-west axis of First Street. The new quarter-circle-shaped block that results from this meeting would become a public green for "turfed recreation" and other events. A city block full of new restaurants, wedged between the public green and the railroad museum, would rely on its propinquity to these public areas to capture the lunch crowd. Visitors who want to walk off lunch might then be inclined to walk across the bridge to the river-oriented shops and restaurants on the river's northern bank. (This riverbank is a narrow finger of land between the river and Highway 70, two barriers that focus activity into a small area.) If visitors do walk across the bridge, they will find a collection of outdoor and camping-related amusements, including outdoor ice skating, camping, more "turfed recreation," and shops. The north part of the river bank is the most ingenious piece of connection-making in the plan, particularly in the way that the plan connects wilderness and urbanity in phases: starting with the federal park to the east, we go to a slightly denser, more settled use — the campground — then to a permanent building, the visitor center. Moving farther west, the plan provides several uses, including a park and an ice-skating rink, that buffer the campsite from urban life. The landscape grows more urban still as we move still farther west, passing by the amphitheater, the shops and restaurants, and the Memorial Hall Events Center. The weakness of the plan is that the two sides of riverbank need more connections, and hence at least one more bridge. One good spot for a new bridge would be immediately north of the Railroad Museum, connecting with the Visitor Gateway. Beyond providing more access between the divided downtown's north and south sides, a new bridge would make the bike path into a circuit that would allow our imaginary bicyclist to return to his or her starting point without retracing her route. And while I am generally a big supporter of parks, I am a little worried whether or not the several public greens in this plan will dissipate some of the energy in a downtown area where the experience of moving among other people can provide a pleasant contrast to the isolation of camping and fishing. This reflects an admittedly nostalgic note, because I remember camping outside Aspen, Colorado, during the 1960s. We woke up in tents, put on city clothes and went to the local music festival. It was a weirdly enchanting mixture of wildness and high culture. While Portola may not offer a music festival, the plan of the riverbank suggests the charm of leaving the forest and coming into a small city. Still, I hope it doesn't get too crowded in Portola. I have my heart set on driving a locomotive, and I don't want to wait too long in line.

A streetlighting assessment district created prior to Proposition 218 is exempt from the tax-limiting initiative, the Fourth District Court of Appeals has decided. The court held that the City of Riverside's Street Light Assessment District is exempt because it provides revenue to operate streets, which was a specific exemption in the 1996 initiative. The July ruling was a blow to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Paul Gann's Citizens Committee, two statewide organizations that backed Proposition 218. The landmark Proposition 13 was the forebearer to Proposition 218, the court noted. Backers intended for the initiative to close a loophole in Proposition 13 that allowed local government to raise taxes via special assessments. Proposition 218 requires two-thirds voter approval for special assessments. But Proposition 218 (Cal. Const. art. XIII D) contained four exemptions, and the Riverside case turned on one of them. The proposition exempted pre-existing special assessments "imposed exclusively to finance the capital costs or maintenance and operation expenses for sidewalks, streets, sewers, water flood control, drainage systems or vector control." Under the Riverside assessment district, created under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Sts. & Hy. Code § 22500), the city taxes almost all private property owners to pay for electricity for street lights. The district raises about $3 million annually. "Electrical current is necessary to operate streetlights; and streetlights, we believe, are necessary to operate streets and sidewalks," Justice Betty Ann Richli wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel. "Streetlights make streets and sidewalks safer. Thus, they are analogous to traffic lights." Proposition 218 contained exemption for "traditionally appropriate, nonabusive special assessments" such as those for streetlights, the court ruled. The taxpayer groups argued that the necessity of streetlighting was a factual question that was not resolved at the trial level. But the appellate court said the question was whether streetlighting is necessary within the meaning of Proposition 218. The court affirmed that streetlighting is necessary. "Although the drafters of Proposition 218 did not exempt streetlighting assessments in so many words, it does not violate their evident intent to hold that a streetlighting assessment is exempt as an expense of the operation of streets and sidewalks," Richli wrote. Riverside city officials' unease regarding the assessment district's legal status vis a vis Proposition 218 was not an issue, the court said. In June of 1997, Riverside placed a measure on the ballot that was intended to continue the district. Measure EE received 50.5% of the vote, well short of the two-thirds requirement needed to survive as a special tax. "This does not necessarily mean the City actually believed the assessment was invalid under Proposition 218," the court said. "The City was entitled to take a ‘suspenders and belt' approach — to try to reauthorize the assessment as a special tax and thereby to forestall litigation, while preserving its position that the assessment was exempt, just in case its efforts failed and litigation did ensue." Proposition 218 also exempted assessments imposed pursuant to a petition signed by all property owners, assessments needed to repay certain bond indebtedness, and assessments that had previously received a majority voter approval. The Case: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of Riverside, No. E022717, 99 C.D.O.S. 5739, Filed July 16, 1999. The Lawyers: For Jarvis: Jonathan Coupal, (916) 444-9950. For Riverside: Stan Yamamoto, city attorney, (909) 782-5567.

San Bernardino County has adopted a policy that calls for the county to assume more control over land use in unincorporated areas within incorporated cities' spheres of influence. The policy concerns leaders of many cities in San Bernardino County who fear the county may compete with cities for desirable development and approve substandard projects that cities eventually must serve. The policy, which the Board of Supervisors adopted as a general plan amendment in June, is the latest in a series of conflicts between San Bernardino and at least some of its 24 incorporated cities. Although the new policy appears to have arisen from a flight in the San Bernardino metropolitan area, the change could have major impacts in high desert communities, northeast of San Bernardino, that have giant spheres of influence. But Jim Goss, the county's interim development services director, contended cities are overreacting. The general plan amendment replaces a previous policy that called for the county to rubber stamp whatever a city wanted within a city's sphere of influence, he said. "Basically, it did not reflect at all the rights of the county under state law," Goss said. By changing its stance toward development, the county "was clarifying its policy so that people in unincorporated areas can go to their elected representatives and get some land use changes," Goss said. Relations between the county and cities have been poor for some time, noted Barstow City Planner Scott Priester. "This appeared to just be a punitive response to the Redlands lawsuit," he said of the county's new policy. The lawsuit to which he referred was filed by the City of Redlands against the county after the county approved a shopping mall for an unincorporated island inside of Redlands. The city contended the project violated a specific plan. Conflicts between Redlands and the county have continued as competing mall proposals have arisen, with some developers playing the city against the county. (See CP&DR November 1998, November 1997.) Goss conceded developers have enticed different jurisdictions to bid against one another for desirable projects. But he dismissed the argument that the county's new policy came arose strictly because of the Redlands mall dispute. The issues are much bigger, Goss said. Cities that want to control areas outside their boundaries should annex those areas, Goss said. The county will not stand in the way of large annexations proposed by Ontario and Chino, he pointed out. James Roddy, executive officer of the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission, an independent agency, said the new policy is likely to have little practical impact on annexations. Although the county's previous policy appeared to encourage annexation, the county usually was neutral. Roddy is unsure how the new policy will shake out. There has been talk of some cities annexing their entire spheres of influence, but Roddy doubts that will happen. Desert cities such as Hesperia, Victorville, Barstow and Needles have adopted giant spheres of influence, which, under the county's old policy, extended city's land-use influence far and wide. Indeed, Barstow's sphere of influence stretches for 150 miles — clear to the spheres of towns that realistically are 30 miles away. Priester conceded Barstow, a town of 24,000 people, has plenty of room to grow within its city limits, which themselves cover 35 square miles. Although the county is exerting more say over so much land near Barstow, Priester said, "It does not really affect how Barstow does business." The city will still comment on nearby development proposals, but growth is not a major issue in the area. But urban growth is more of an issue in high desert communities closer to San Bernardino and in the San Bernardino metropolitan area, where job growth is rapid and houses remain relatively affordable. "My biggest concern," Roddy said, "is that it might spark new interagency competition for certain types of urban development. ... It could bring about some level of shopping for land-use entitlements." San Bernardino County is unusual in that it has a county-wide community services area authorized to provide the full range of urban services, Roddy explained. Developers dissatisfied with a city may ask the county to form an assessment zone within the CSA to provide infrastructure and services to a project, he said. Raising the fiscalization of land use argument, city officials fear the county will try to lure sales tax generators to unincorporated territory, or prevent cities from annexing commercial areas near their borders. Fontana, for example, is interested in annexing a 19-square-mile island inside the city, where California Speedway, a large recycling facility and other business enterprises have been erected on the former Kaiser steel mill. The county has also approved a warehousing center, giant truck stop and retail development for the same area. (See CP&DR July 1999.) Fontana City Manager Ken Hunt told the San Bernardino Sun, "The city is very concerned (with the general plan amendment) because it takes a long-standing policy that recognizes city concerns and takes away these rights. We want to clean up our city boundaries. And this is a wake up call." Rancho Cucamonga City Councilman Paul Baine also expressed frustration. "They're saying ‘We can do what we want, and to hell with you,'" Baine told the Ontario Daily Bulletin. Goss, a retired Chula Vista city manager, said he understands the cities' fears. He said there is not a history of the county treating the cities well, and the new policy was introduced earlier this year with little input from cities, he said. But it's a two-way street. "I think the cities also have a responsibility to ensure that communication occurs early on," Goss said. "At the staff level, I think there's definitely room for improvement in how we communicate." However, LAFCO's Roddy said the new policy "clearly does soften the language" calling for cooperation of cities and counties regarding urban development within cities' spheres. Ultimately, the upshot of the new policy will be seen on a case-by-case basis, he said. "All our cities are concerned about it, but I think it's more a matter of perception that it is of fundamental changes in relationships," Roddy said. Relationships clearly would sour if cities band together in a lawsuit against the county, which has been hinted at. Contacts: Jim Goss, San Bernardino County Land Use Services Department, (909) 387-4131. James Roddy, San Bernardino County LAFCO, (909) 387-5866. Scott Priester, City of Barstow, (760) 256-3531.

The Novato Fire Protection District detached the former Hamilton Air Force Base in 1977, but last month the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the detachment was an illegal attempt to tax the federal government. The court said the fire district is obliged to serve the former base, now occupied by the Navy, the Coast Guard, other federal agencies and even some private entities. The unanimous three-judge appeals court upheld Northern California District Judge Fern Smith's ruling that the detachment was invalid under state law. However, the appeals court never considered state law. Instead, the Ninth Circuit said the detachment violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Because the federal government does not pay property tax, the district removed Hamilton from inside its boundaries so the district could charge a fee for emergency services. However, Circuit Court Judge Sidney Thomas wrote that the district has an obligation to serve the area and "the district cannot now contrive to tax the United States through gerrymandering." The district intends to seek a rehearing before the entire 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, said George Silvestri Jr., one of the district's lawyers. "We can't afford to sit back and let this decision stand," he said. "It raises some very frightening possibilities about the instability of the boundaries of local government entities in California." Hamilton Field had always been in the Novato Fire Protection District, but the Air Force maintained its own fire department. When the Air Force decommissioned the facility in 1974, it left Hamilton with minimal fire protection. The Navy then contracted with the district for fire protection and emergency services on portions of Hamilton managed by the Navy. The contract provided for payment of a flat fee equal to the amount the district would have received in property tax had the Navy's land been privately owned. Concerned that this arrangement might constitute an illegal intergovernmental tax, the district commenced detachment proceedings. "The stated purpose of the proposed detachment was to ensure that the district would continue to ‘receive compensation for any services it provided to the currently tax-exempt properties,'" according to Thomas's opinion. The Navy and Air Force lodged protests, but the district went forward anyway. In November of 1977, the district's voters approved the detachment, which the Marin County Local Agency Formation Commission and the California Secretary of State subsequently recognized. The district continued to provide service for a flat fee. But by October of 1996, the Coast Guard had assumed control of some property formerly managed by the Navy. The Coast Guard refused to pay the fire district, so the district sought a declaration of the detachment's validity in Marin County Superior Court. The Coast Guard moved the case to federal district court, which granted the federal government's motion for summary judgement on the grounds that the detachment was invalid because the election was improper. On appeal, the district did not dispute Hamilton's tax immunity. The district argued that the 1977 election was legal. But the appellate panel sidestepped the question of state election law. Instead, the court decided the district had violated the Supremacy Clause. "When the district assessed a fee equivalent to a theoretical property tax as a condition for providing fire and emergency medical services, its action clearly ran afoul of the Supremacy Clause," Judge Thomas wrote. Judge Thomas continued, "This is not to say that the United States cannot be charged reasonable fees related to the cost of government services provided, such as payment for metered water usage. However, the contractual fees that the district charged the government in exchange for continued fire and emergency medical protection were based not upon the actual cost of services provided to Hamilton Field, but rather upon the value of the property in question." The fee "clearly constituted an impermissible tax," the court concluded. Furthermore, the district intended to circumvent Hamilton's tax immunity, the court said. "We cannot allow a municipality to initiate a detachment action with the purpose of charging the federal government a flat fee for basic services that the municipality otherwise has a duty to provide." The court also said the statute of limitations for challenging the 22-year-old detachment is not binding when the federal government asserts a federally created right. Concerned about the stability of local government boundaries, the California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions argued in an amicus brief that a 180-day statute of limitations existed. Silvestri, the fire district's lawyer, said the ruling raises questions about how far back the federal government may reach to challenge elections. The decision also throws into question contracts between the district and federal agencies, and the status of millions of dollars the Navy paid the district, he said. The Case: Novato Fire Protection District v. United State of America, No. 98-15441, 99 C.D.O.S. 5410, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6903, filed July 7, 1999. The Lawyers: For the fire district: George Silvestri Jr., (415) 883-8800. For the U.S.: Mary Beth Uitti, Department of Justice, (415) 436-7200.

State and federal officials early this summer released a "draft preferred alternative" for the Calfed Bay-Delta Program, which officials inside the process contend will overhaul the plumbing system on which most California residents, farms and businesses rely. Many observers outside the program, however, struggle to determine how significantly Calfed will alter water and land use policies. Although the full plan weighs in at 40 pounds, it is light on some crucial details that might have major implications for land use planning. The plan, for example, does not recommend whether or not to build new reservoirs, and it postpones for up to seven years a decision on an "isolated conveyance facility" — better known as a peripheral canal. Still, water policy and politics appears likely to get more attention in coming months, as Calfed leaders have scheduled 15 public hearings around the state from August 18 through September 22. Plus, Gov. Gray Davis is receiving pressure, from Sen. Dianne Feinstein among others, to get more involved in state water negotiations. Calfed is a five-year-old effort involving 15 state and federal agencies, including the Resources Agency of California, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Calfed is charged with developing long-term solutions to Bay-Delta system problems concerning fish and wildlife, water supply reliability, flood control and water quality. Calfed will not change local land use decision-making and it will not tie water supply to growth, Calfed spokeswoman Valerie Holcomb said. Still, she pointed to several aspects of the Calfed plan that should interest planners and developers. Enhancing water reliability and water quality remain a major part of Calfed's mission, which should affect local development decisions, she said. Byron Buck, executive director of the California Urban Water Agencies, said the argument within Calfed over additional surface water storage is a surrogate for the growth debate. Not even Buck's member agencies, which are the state's 12 largest water districts, can agree on how closely water should be linked to land use planning. Buck complained that the pace of traditional water development has slowed to a trickle, which could well affect future urban development. "We've been through five consecutive wet years, and that continues to mask the concerns we have with water in California," he said. Joan Dym, executive director of the Southern California Water Committee, said, "Let's recognize that growth will happen and let's plan for it. I think storage is obviously one way to do that. There are lot more underground storage opportunities than we are taking advantage of." Agriculture has an obvious stake in the debate, but other business interests are paying close attention, too. An extended shut-down of pumps in the Delta to protect the Delta smelt this spring raised water-delivery concerns among some Silicon Valley manufacturers. Businesses planning to relocate or expand are considering water reliability when weighing siting options for new plants, said Dym, who represents a coalition of businesses, cities, counties and water agencies. Dym said Calfed needs to go forward now on the peripheral canal. "We don't want to wait 10 years down the road and then say, oops, and have to start from scratch," she said. Peripheral canal proponents say a water delivery system that bypasses the Bay-Delta system would improve water quantity and quality for the central and southern parts of the state, and prevent fish from getting sucked into Delta pumps. Opponents, however, fear such a canal would take too much water, harming the Bay-Delta ecosystem and inducing Southern California urban growth. While delaying for now decisions on the peripheral canal and new reservoirs, Calfed's latest plan does address water transfers. Rather than relying on the overcommitted state water project or a local water district, some developers purchase agricultural water rights from another location. Thus, water that would have irrigated crops in one part of the state, instead flushes toilets and keeps lawns green elsewhere. Calfed proposes a water transfer clearinghouse and a process for protecting areas from which water is being moved. "We're not talking about prohibiting a free market," said Holcomb, "but putting in place some guidelines that make the free market work better and protecting third parties who don't have a say over the transfer." Leaders of far northern California's rural counties, which are at the beginning of the state's plumbing system, have committed money and staff to participating in the Calfed process "because of the threats to land use and property rights," said Patrick Minturn, Shasta County assistant public works director. Minturn said a number of land use measures are tucked away in the volumes of Calfed documents. Among the issues he sees are stricter grading and erosion controls, greater development setbacks from riparian areas, water-efficient development mandates, and tight restrictions on sewer and storm drain discharges. The erosion control mandates could increase the cost of development significantly, Minturn said. For example, "you may see a quarter-acre sedimentation basin next to the parking lot for the new Wal-Mart," he said. Whether friend or foe of Calfed, several observers are frustrated with the pace at which the process is moving. Dym, among others, said Gov. Davis and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt need to take a direct role to speed things along. A final programmatic environmental impact statement is scheduled to be adopted in summer of 2000. Contacts: Joan Anderson, Southern California Water Committee, (909) 980-4700. Byron Buck, California Urban Water Agencies, (916) 552-2929. Patrick Minturn, Shasta County Department of Public Works, (530) 225-5661. Calfed Web page, http://calfed.ca.gov.

University of California, Santa Barbara, officials proposed building 200 dorm rooms a little too close to wetlands, the California Coastal Commission had decided. The commission approved the student housing but ordered the university to keep the planned construction at least 100 feet from a slough, coastal pools and other wetlands. The decision requires a major redesign of the San Rafael housing addition and will delay the project by a year, according to Tye Simpson, UCSB director of physical and environmental planning. University officials had hoped to have the dormitories ready for students in the fall of 2000. The UCSB proposal called for 200 dorm rooms in 18 buildings to house a total of 800 students. Housing is at a premium at the 20,000-student campus and in the neighboring unincorporated community of Isla Vista. University officials have agreed to build more housing, and the 10-acre site for the San Rafael addition is the last place on campus designated for housing by UCSB's Long-Range Development Plan, Simpson said. The San Rafael project is intended to house existing numbers of students, not additional UCSB students, he added. However, UCSB planners and the Coastal Commission differed over how best to protect natural resources. The university proposed a resource management approach that would have enhanced more valuable wetlands elsewhere, while the Coastal Commission took more of a preservationist approach, Simpson explained. Steve Hudson, a coastal program analyst for the commission, said the Coastal Act mandates protection of wetlands in general. Everyone involved agrees the wetlands involved are not pristine, but "even small and degraded wetlands serve an important environmental component," he said. Furthermore, UCSB's own Long-Range Development Plan — which the Coastal Commission approved in 1990 — requires a 100-foot buffer, Hudson noted. University planners had proposed buildings within 60 feet of wetlands, with grading even closer to the sensitive areas. Placing 800 students so close to the wetlands and to habitat for three rare plant species found on-site is bound to have an impact, but the revised project should offset those effects, Hudson said. While voting 9-1 in June to approve the dormitories, the Coastal Commission also required UCSB to provide better public access to a bluff and beach bordering the campus. The Coastal Commission decision may provide ammunition to environmental groups concerned about UCSB plans to build 500 faculty houses near a slough and nature preserve elsewhere on campus. The university has not officially filed those plans with the Coastal Commission yet, Hudson said. Contacts: Tye Simpson, University of California, Santa Barbara, planning director, (805) 893-8388. Steve Hudson, Coastal Commission analyst, (805) 641-0142.

It was bound to happen. The neo-traditionalist planning movement is making inroads into the most doctrinaire of planning dynasties – Caltrans. Late last year, in a little-noticed but potentially monumental policy shift, the state road bureaucracy issued Design Information Bulletin Number 80, thereby granting guarded approval of modern roundabouts as part of California's highway design toolbox. Now it's up to local governments to press ahead with a back-to-the-future concept: intersections where signalized or controlled stopping and multiple turning movement lanes are replaced with slowed, continuous, circular movement patterns around landscaped or art-bedecked center plazas. The concept of one-way circular intersections was probably invented by French architect Eugene Henard during the 19th century. His American counterpart William Eno was simultaneously proposing small circles to alleviate traffic congestion in New York City. But the idea never flourished, and implementation remained limited to grand urban design locations like Du Pont Circle in Washington DC. The notion that the roundabout could actually enhance intersection operation and safety really took root in England during the mid-1960s with the innovation of the "yield-at-entry" rule and the "angle-of-deflection" design. These features combine to slow entering cars, allow only one point of conflict, and keep traffic moving in accordance with its load characteristics. These minor but critical design improvements enabled the safe handling of much higher volumes of traffic. The roundabout concept has flourished in many countries since then – notably in France, the Netherlands, and Australia. But, interestingly, in North America the idea has been slow to take hold. One wonders if the simplicity of the concept offends our more techno-fix oriented engineers. But there is movement. Led by roundabout consulting crusaders like Florida-based Michael Wallwork and Santa Barbara-based Lief Ourston and Peter Doctors, the modern roundabout is an idea that is, well, coming around. And it's no wonder why. Not only do the roundabouts dovetail nicely with growing preferences for new urbanist design, but, importantly, they seem to really work. A growing body of empirical evidence suggests that roundabouts can handle more traffic, reduce injury collisions, and save capital and operational costs. Plus, they're fun to tool around in. In the mid 1990s, Vail, Colorado, took a groundbreaking risk in tackling the interchange design at Vail Road and Interstate 70, which is the freeway that funnels Denver's weekend skiers into the Rocky Mountain resorts. The solution was a double roundabout design that saved $3 million in capital costs by eliminating the need for a bridge widening and $85,000 per year in traffic police staffing. Interchange capacity grew by 56% while injury crashes have eased by 66%. California trails in the acceptance of roundabouts. Instead, Florida, Colorado, and Nevada are at the leading edge. With Bulletin 80, Caltrans has taken a baby step toward acceptance. But it will be the local jurisdictions that must take the lead. In California, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, Carlsbad, and Arcata are at the forefront. In each case, local planners have served in advocacy and education-dispensing roles. In Santa Maria's case, the developer of an adjacent big-box center financed two roundabouts in 1998. Reluctant to be guinea pigs for an intersection experiment, the developer winded up benefiting from the cheaper cost and from the unique design features that serve as entry points. According to Jim Stern, city planner, the facilities are functioning well, but there were administrative bugs. "We had a bit of a problem with the signage component," Stern said. "Because there is no roundabout signage approved by Caltrans, we have not been able to install the internationally-accepted roundabout approach signage." Tiny Arcata in Humboldt County is the epicenter of California's roundabout trend. The city, which is proud of the fact that it has no traffic signals, has one circle on line, two beginning construction later this year, and three more scheduled for the summer of 2000. According to Dobie Class, assistant public works director, the city is retrofitting existing intersections to make them safer and to avoid the costs of signals and maintenance. Santa Barbara traffic consultant Scott Schell said the transportation community in the state is "cautiously optimistic" about the future of modern roundabouts. "We certainly look at them in specific instances where it appears to be a feasible alternative. The general feeling is ‘let's try them at smaller locations and see if they work,'" Schell said. He added that even though vehicle collisions have been reduced, engineers are insecure about data on the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. But Ourston asserted that there have been no pedestrian collisions involving roundabouts in the U.S. As the new urbanist movement has demonstrated, sometimes what's old is what's new. And in matters of traffic, this may mean we will be going in circles.

A new survey has documented what many planning and public policy experts have long suspected: California city managers prefer retail projects in their community over any other type of land use, and they least favor multi-family housing and heavy industrial projects. The survey — part of a study of land use and sales tax issues by the Public Policy Institute of California — was released just as the California Legislature considers a bill that would require cities that lure large retailers across jurisdictional lines to share tax revenue with the "losing" jurisdiction. The bill, AB 178, carried by Assemblyman Tom Torlakson, D-Contra Costa County, was approved by the Senate Local Government Committee on July 14. A similar Torlakson bill failed to pass the same committee last year. The PPIC study also emerged at the same time that a committee appointed by the Board of Supervisors in Humboldt County concluded that big-box retailers will bring few new jobs and little new tax revenue to the county. The city manager survey found that retail ranked significantly higher than office, mixed-use, and light industrial land uses, which also rated as city manager favorites. Surprisingly, the survey found little difference in city manager preferences for land uses inside and outside redevelopment project areas. "To be fair, cities are not one-dimensional in their policy orientation, and they're still pretty interested in other types of development," said Paul Lewis, a PPIC researcher and co-author of the study, California Cities and the Local Sales Tax. The PPIC study also found that even though cities are heavily focused on sales tax, the hierarchy of sales-tax "winners" and "losers" in the state has not changed significantly in the last 25 years. Furthermore, the study concluded, distributing sales tax on a population basis — either statewide or on a county-by-county basis — would not create significant change, as least on a macro scale. Approximately half the cities would be winners and half would be losers. Though individual cities would be heavily affected, there would be little difference, in the aggregate, between cities that win and cities that lose. Cities with a high Latino population would be winners — but so would extremely affluent cities, because they often have little retail base. Sales-tax revenue has been considered especially important to cities ever since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978. According to the report, cities received about 20% of their revenue from property tax and only 10% from sales tax prior to Proposition 13. Today, the two revenue sources are approximately equal at about 10% apiece. Cities receive most of their revenue from public service enterprises (approximately a third) and licenses, fees, and assessments (including development fees), which have grown from about 20% of revenue in the pre-Proposition 13 era to about 30% to 35% today. Sales taxes are especially important, however, because there are no legal constraints to growth in revenue and because the funds may be used for any purpose. In tracking city sales-tax revenue, Lewis and his co-researcher, Elisa Barbour, examined statistics in the 1991-93 period (a recession, especially for retailing) as well as historical trends from the early 1970s to the early 1990s. Among other things, they found that per-capita sales-tax revenue is generally higher in cities with declining household sizes, cities that have not had rapid population growth, and — significantly — cities located outside the Central Valley. These cities were more successful not only during the 1991-93 period, but also over the entire 20-year period. In addition, PPIC found, cities active in redevelopment, those located near freeways, and those with a small African American population were also successful in the sales-tax game — but these differences only showed up during the 1991-93 period, not over the 20-year period. Significantly, however, researchers did find that central cities — defined as 36 older cities with established downtown areas — have lost considerable ground compared with suburbs. In 1971, central cities actually had greater sales-tax revenue per capita than suburbs did. Suburbs overtook central cities in the mid-'70s, and the gap has accelerated during the boom years of both the 1980s and the 1990s. Today, sales tax revenues in the central cities is about $90 per capital compared with about $110 in other cities. The study also found an increasing gap in per-capita sales-tax revenues between the Bay Area and the Los Angeles region. Los Angeles had higher per-capita sales-tax revenue until the early 1980s but has been losing ground ever since. Today, the figures are approximately $125 per capita in the Bay Area and $95 per capita in Los Angeles. The survey of city managers — to which about three-quarters of city managers in the state responded — measured not only land-use preferences but also factors reported by city managers that influence land use decisions. New sales-tax revenues came out as the most important factor, followed closely by city council support, eradication of blight (in redevelopment areas), infrastructure adequacy, and likelihood of job creation. With the exception of blight, these factors were not very different inside and outside redevelopment project areas. Meeting affordable housing needs, although higher in redevelopment areas, was among the least of city managers' concerns. However, city managers in different regions of the state had different attitudes. City managers in all parts of the state listed sales-tax revenue as an important motivation. But Bay Area city managers, unlike their counterparts elsewhere, listed city council support, traffic problems, and neighborhood concerns as top factors. By contrast, Central Valley city managers were far more likely to list job creation as a factor influencing their land use decisions. "If you're an isolated Central Valley city, you have to be concerned about jobs," Lewis said. Though PPIC released the study at the same time the Senate Local Government Committee considered the Torlakson bill, it is hard to say whether the study affected the bill's success. AB 178, which was opposed by the California Motor Car Dealers Association among others, requires that if a city offers a subsidy to a big-box retailer or auto dealer to relocate within the same market area, the city must offer a sales-tax sharing contract to the city from which the retailer is relocating. The contract must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the city council or county board of supervisors in each jurisdiction. The legislation defines a big-box retailer as a store of at least 75,000 square feet. Rex Hime, lobbyist for the California Business Properties Association, said opposition was muted by a number of changes from Torlakson's 1998 bill. Among other things, AB 178 limits the definition of a financial incentive so that some mitigation measures such as traffic improvements are not included and provides a specific definition of a "market area". As originally written, the bill defined "market area" as a 40-mile radius. At the July 14 hearing, the committee amended the bill to define the market area for big-box retailers as 25 miles, while retaining the market area for autos as 40 miles. "It's a much different bill than it was before," Hime said. The Humboldt County report was issued by a 10-member committee, including city managers and other prominent county citizens, appointed by the Board of Supervisors. The Ad Hoc Committee on Big Box Development concluded that because the county is isolated and its retail market is not growing very rapidly, any new big-box development would simply siphon jobs and sales from existing retailers. Supervisors created the committee in response to the pending question of whether to approve a Wal-Mart in Eureka. That question will be on the Eureka ballot August 24. The committee encouraged the county's cities to take advantage of the sales-tax sharing provisions in Proposition 11, passed by state voters last year. Contacts: Paul Lewis, Public Policy Institute of California, (415) 291-4400. Peter Detwiler, Senate Local Government Committee, (916) 445-9748 Rex Hime, California Business Properties Association, (916) 443-4676. California Cities and the Local Sales Tax is available on the PPIC web site, www.ppic.org.

Opponents of a 5,000-unit subdivision and golf resort in the western foothills of Stanislaus County continued their courtroom winning streak when Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Donald Shaver ruled a supplemental environmental impact report was inadequate. In a July decision, Shaver said the county "failed to adequately evaluate the environmental impacts and the cumulative impacts, failed to accurately describe one portion of the project and failed to recirculate the SEIR." In the first round of litigation over the Diablo Grande project, the Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled that the county's EIR had improperly deferred analysis of water supply issues. The court in that case, Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus, (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 182, said the county could not make an informed decision on the development when the EIR only addressed the first five years of water supply for a 25-year project. Because the area does not contain adequate on-site water, project proponents have pursued a water transfer from the valley floor. After that decision, now known as Diablo Grande I, the county issued a supplemental EIR. But judge Shaver punched holes in that document too. "Nowhere in the report does it consider or evaluate the impact, alternatives or mitigation of directing 13,000 acre feet per year of valley or outside water to the new community," Shaver wrote. Shaver said the county misinterpreted Diablo Grande I by discussing in the SEIR a variety of potential water sources, three of which he called "too speculative." "The purposes of CEQA would be ill-served if the act sanctioned a generalized discussion of a shotgun list of options which leaves the reader to wonder which might or might not be used," Shaver wrote. The Cases: Protect Our Water v. County of Stanislaus, Superior Court Case No. 181472, and California Farm Bureau Federation v. County of Stanislaus, Superior Court Case No. 181448. The Lawyers: For Protect Our Water: Rose Zoia, Brandt-Hawley & Zoia, (707) 938-3908. For Stanislaus County: E. Vernon Seeley, assistant county counsel, (209) 525-6376.