San Diego County's integrated waste management plan did not require preparation of an environmental impact report even though the plan called for the creation of new landfills and identified 10 possible sites for those landfills, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled. "There is no substantial evidence in the administrative record to support a fair argument that the county's adoption of the summary plan and siting element may have a significant environmental impact, and thus the county did not prejudicially abuse its discretion by certifying the negative declaration," wrote Justice Gilbert Nares for a unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth District. Nares also wrote that "because all 10 of the proposed landfill sites identified in the siting element are only 'tentatively reserved', preparation of an EIR (including a program EIR) would be premature and is not yet required under CEQA." The lawsuit was brought by the Pala Band of Mission Indians, whose reservation is located near Gregory Canyon, which was identified in the waste plan as one of the 10 possible landfill sites. In fact, the county's voters specifically designated Gregory Canyon as the location for a private landfill by passing Proposition C in 1994. After preparing the plan pursuant to the state's integrated solid waste management law, the county Department of Public Works issued a negative declaration on the plan under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Pala tribe sued based on a four-page comment letter it had written in response to the negative declaration notice. In the letter, the tribe argued that the county had not examined several important environmental issues in deciding to issue a negative declaration. Among other things, the tribe claimed that the county's initial study ignored "considerable documentation of the potential secondary effects" of the plan and argued that the inclusion of a landfill site "is the first step in the approval process of that landfill". The tribe also argued that the initial study ignored a "substantial body of information" available from the county, and that it should conduct additional analysis focusing on "potential effects of developing the landfill sites" and "program-level mitigation measures". At the trial court level, Superior Court Judge Judith McConnell, the designated CEQA judge for San Diego County, denied Pala's petition, claiming that because the Gregory Canyon site was only one site of 10 under consideration, it was premature to require an EIR. The appellate court agreed. "Because the proposed potential landfill sites identified in the siting element are only 'tentatively reserved,' there is nothing in the administrative record to establish it is reasonably foreseeable at the current planning stage that any of the sites will actually be developed. The siting element suggests that although potential sites have been identified in North and South County, these sites may not be developed." The appellate court also concluded that none of the cases Pala used to make its argument required a different conclusion. The three cases in question all dealt with program EIRs and tiering, but the appellate court concluded that they were not "on point" in that none of them required even a program EIR at such an early stage. The court also rejected Pala's argument that its comment letter constitutes substantial evidence in support of a fair argument that the county's approval of the siting element may have a significant impact on the environment. The letter, the appellate court found, "consists almost exclusively of mere argument and unsubstantiated opinion, which are excluded from the definition of substantial evidence under CEQA." The Case: Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego, No. D029489, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12579 (issued November 18, 1998; published December 9, 1998). The Lawyers: For Pala Band: Thomas D. Mauriello, (619) 515-1144. For San Diego County: R. Mark Beesley, Deputy County Counsel, (619) 531-6456.

Santa Cruz Lumber Rules Santa Cruz County supervisors are clamping down hard on the logging industry, and have approved "in concept" new ordinances that limit logging near residences, helicopter harvesting, and logging near riparian corridors. The ordinances are expected to be presented to the state Board of Forestry next year as proposed rules that would impact only Santa Cruz County. The county is one of a handful of California coastal counties that have special authority to propose rules to the nine-member board. In recent years, as the price of timber has skyrocketed, the county's numerous small stands of redwood and douglas fir trees have been logged. Since many homes are located in mountains among the trees, residents have been upset by the increased activity. In November, the Board of Forestry approved 11 rule changes sought by the county. County Principal Planner Mark Deming called them "minor procedural changes." The new rules imposed more requirements on helicopter operations and notification of nearby residents, and also reduced the hours that chains saws could operate near residences. The county's Board of Supervisors is expected to return next year to the Board of Forestry with an additional 10 rule changes that the Forestry Board refused to enact at its November meeting. "We're hoping there's a different Board of Forestry," Deming said, since newly-elected Gov. Gray Davis appoints members of the board. The Board of Supervisors limited logging in the county to certain zoning areas in August 1998. After the Board of Forestry failed to enact 10 of its propsed rules in November, the Board of Supervisors also enacted "in concept" new ordinances that limit helicopter use, prohibit timber harvests within 300 feet of residences, and limit logging within riparian corridors. While the ordinances won't take effect until the spring, they will be sent during that interim to the Coastal Commission for review, Deming said. The Santa Cruz supervisors decided to impose stricter rules based on a 1995 appellate court decision, according to Mike Jani, Chief Forester for Big Creek Lumber. In 1995, the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco ruled in Big Creek Lumber Inc. v. San Mateo County, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 159 (See CP&DR, February 1995), that state timber laws didn't preempt San Mateo County from enacting zoning laws to control the location of commercial timber harvesting. The amendments created buffer zones by prohibiting timber harvesting in certains areas located with 1,000 feet of a residence. Jani said that the proposed ordinances in Santa Cruz County are "much stricter" than those adopted by neighboring San Mateo County. He said the company is looking at the legality of the county's decision to adopt ordinances in concept and then sending them to the Coastal Commission. The new rules adopted by the Board of Forestry in November still need to be approved by the state's Office of Administrative Law. Contacts: Mike Jani, Big Creek Lumber Company, (831) 457-5026. Mark Deming, Principal Planner, Santa Cruz County, (831) 454-2580.

In one of the most active election days of the decade for planning and development issues, pro-growth and slow-growth forces battled almost to a tie on local ballots around the state in November. Slow-growthers won some high-profile victories, most notably a near-sweep in passing a highly publicized series of urban growth boundaries in Ventura County. However, they lost other key races in San Diego and El Dorado counties. And - perhaps most surprising - most measures to allow or promote growth passed easily throughout the state. More than anything else, the November election was characterized by a resurgence of ballot activity on planning and development issues. The election saw more than 50 different measures appear on local ballots, dealing with more than 40 different issues. Even more surprising was the fact that voters appeared willing to cast "yes" ballots on most issues, no matter where they promoted or constrained growth. Despite some high-profile victories by slow-growthers - most notably a highly publicized near-sweep on urban growth boundaries in Ventura County - slow-growth forces carried the day on only 18 of 35 sharply defined issues around the state (51.4%), while pro-growth forces won on the other 17 issues (48.6%). Among other things, slow-growthers won several Bay Area races but lost a proposed downzoning of rural land in San Diego County. Slow-growth forces appeared to lose in always-contentious El Dorado County, where four measures appeared on the ballot. And pro-growth forces won in several areas, including two races in the City of San Diego where voters approved large new residential subdivisions. Overall slow-growthers won 16 of 23 slow-growth measures, while pro-growthers won 10 or 12 pro-growth measures. Other ballot activity included 12 ballot measures in 7 different locations on transportation and rail transit - all but one in the Bay Area - as well as one city incorporation and one ballot measure that could not be defined by CP&DR as either pro- or slow-growth. Despite the high volume of ballot measures, this November's election was in many ways a typical election-year ballot - similar to the presidential election year of 1996, when pro- and slow-growthers split 40 ballot measures evenly down the middle. (CP&DR, December 1997.) By contrast, the November 1997 ballot - an off-year election - saw only 12 growth measures on the ballot, with slow-growthers winning 9 of them. (CP&DR, December 1996.) The big question arising from this year's election results is whether it portends continued citizen unrest about growth. Past experience suggests that ballot measures associated with growth tend to follow closely behind periods of strong economic growth. So even if the economy begins to slow down in the next year or two, it may well be that ballot measures will continue to increase in 1999 and 2000. It is questionable, however, whether these initiatives will expand to new geographical areas, as they did in the 1980s. Virtually all of this year's measures were concentrated in the Bay Area, Ventura County, San Diego County, and El Dorado County - all areas where contentious growth issues have spilled over onto the ballot before. The Slow-Growth Battlegrounds: Ventura and San Diego Counties Though this year's election results were decidedly mixed, slow-growthers appeared victorious because of the enormous publicity given to the successful urban growth boundary elections in Ventura County. However, the so-called Rural Heritage and Watershed Initiative in San Diego County - which also received a great deal of publicity - went down to defeat, and voters in several other situations in San Diego voted in favor of new growth. The Ventura County effort received national publicity because it represented an unprecedented attempt to use the ballot to shape a regional land-use policy affecting both an entire county and virtually all its cities. It was expansion of slow-growthers' successful ballot initiative campaign in the City of Ventura in 1995 - but it represented a more sophisticated approach, both politically and in policy terms. Taking not one but two pages from the Bay Area slow-growth experience, the so-called SOAR (Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources) campaigners placed a Napa-style initiative on the countywide ballot requiring voter approval for changing the zoning on agricultural and open space land, and combined that effort with Greenbelt Alliance-style urban growth boundaries in seven of the county's 10 cities. Because they made a signature-gathering error, the SOAR campaign's measures were knocked off the ballot in all of the cities after the signatures had been submitted. This forced the SOAR leaders to negotiate with each city over proposed urban growth boundaries in order to persuade the city council to place the measure on the ballot in that city. While the SOAR leaders were forced to make a few compromises in order to win city council support, this strategy actually worked to their benefit by defusing opposition in most cities. The only exception was Moorpark, a fast-growing city that serves as a bedroom community for job centers in the San Fernando Valley and Thousand Oaks. In Moorpark, where a 3,200-home development proposed by Messenger Co. is pending with city council support, SOAR leaders were unable to place their urban-growth boundary measure on the ballot, though a city-sponsored alternative did appear on the ballot and did pass. SOAR leaders are now planning a January special election on the Messenger project as well as a later urban growth boundary election as well. Overall, Measure B, the countywide SOAR initiative, passed with 63% of the vote. The city urban growth boundaries passed in virtually all of the county's largest cities, including Oxnard, Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley, and Camarillo, with 65% to 70% of the vote. SOAR failed in the agricultural community of Santa Paula. Measure A, a county-sponsored alternative to SOAR, also passed - not surprising, considering that SOAR leaders said it did not conflict with their measure and several county supervisors also supported SOAR. Measure A calls for a temporary moratorium on converting agricultural land to urban use while the county studies long-term alternatives. The Ventura County effort appears to have won in part because of peculiar political circumstances - some inherent to the county and others cleverly devised by the SOAR backers. Remarkably, pro-SOAR forces managed to match the opponents (led by landowners and homebuilders) almost dollar-for-dollar in fundraising. Also, because Ventura County is not a discrete television market, the campaign was waged mostly through mailers - a distinct advantage for the pro-SOAR forces. Finally, because longstanding local policy has channeled almost all development into the cities and left greenbelts around the cities, most local voters apparently felt they could protect land close to their homes. This experience stands in contrast to San Diego County, where voters were asked to approve radical downzoning of rural land far from their homes. Proposition B, the Rural Heritage and Watershed Initiative, would have downzoned 600,000 acres in eastern San Diego County from 4- and 8-acre lots to 40- and 80-acre lots. Outgunned by television advertising, Proposition B was defeated decisively, receiving only about 40% of the vote. Indeed, the San Diego County failure seemed to be the mirror image of the Ventura County success. Because it is a discrete television market, developers could raise big money and use television advertising to oppose the measure; and because development has not been channeled into specific areas, most people - unlike in Ventura County - do not live near the rural areas affected. Interestingly, San Diego County had the most active ballot in the state, with some 10 local growth-related measures. In general, it would appear that pro-growth forces came out ahead. In the City of San Diego, voters approved a huge redevelopment plan revolving around a new baseball stadium as well as two new housing tracts in emerging areas of the city. Results from suburban cities were mixed, with slow-growth forces winning some and pro-growth forces winning others. El Dorado County Four growth-related measures were on the ballot in El Dorado County, where development continues to be a contentious issue. (See CP&DR, July 1998). Only one, Measure Y, supported by environmentalists, passed. But the other measures reflected some of the divisions over growth in the area, which is both a booming suburb of Sacramento and home to struggling timber and mining industries. The most unusual measure was Measure W, which would have limited the number of commercial rafters on the American River. The measure was considered a slap in the face of commercial rafting companies. Some of the rafting companies are aligned with environmental groups and causes. The measure would have cut the number of commercial users on the river in half. A ballot argument for the measure revealed the underlying issue: In El Dorado County, there are limits on traffic, ranching, building, logging and other businesses in order to protect our resources," the argument said. "We should not turn our backs on the American River. Protecting our environment should not be left to the discretion of the people who profit from our environment." Opponents of the measure, which included two county supervisors and a supervisor-elect, said in their ballot arguments that Measure W's supporters" ant to injure commercial rafting because they disagree with the politics of some rafting business owners." Nate Rangel, a rafting business owner in Coloma, said that animosity towards rafting companies dates back to the 1970s, when they fought against a series of proposed dams. Measure Y, known as the Control Traffic Initiative, was a stripped down version of Measure K, which narrowly lost in November 1996. The new measure makes five changes to the county's general plan, and will prevent approval of tentative subdivision maps if traffic increases to specified levels. It also requires voters to approve the use of county tax revenues to enlarge roads for new development. Opponents charged that the measure would cancel or delay needed traffic improvements, and was a "job killer." But the opposing measure, Measure Z - placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors - failed by a huge margin. Rangel said he thought that Measure Z's backers lost credibility because most of them also supported Measure W, the anti-rafting measure. Measure V, the fourth measure, was also placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors. The measure is related to continued wrangling over the county's general plan, which anticipates the county's population to be 260,000 by the year 2015. But the general plan also said that theoretically the county's growth could be 375,000 by that year. Proponents said this was a way to end that debate. Opponents in the environmental community asked voters to send a message that "260,000 people is way to much." It also went down to defeat. Other Important Races Most of the other important contests in the state came in the Bay Area, where slow-growth forces generally prevailed. Here are some highlights: o Seven different rail and transportation issues appeared on local ballots. In Los Angeles County, voters overwhelmingly approved a measure sponsored by County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky to halt construction of the Los Angeles subway system once its current phase to the San Fernando Valley has been completed. The measure was opposed by political leaders in East Los Angeles, the next area scheduled for construction. In Sonoma and Marin counties, voters approved rail-oriented transportation system plans - but voted down sales-tax increases to actually build the system. Four Bay Area cities approved the idea of rail transit on the Bay Bridge. o Greenbelt Alliance continued its city-by-city campaign to impose urban growth boundaries, winning in all three cities that were targeted - Cotati and Petaluma in Sonoma County and Milpitas in Santa Clara County. A similar measure to protect agricultural land between Petaluma and the Marin County line also passed. o In the Orange County city of Irvine, voters overwhelmingly approved a proposal for a mixed-use development plan for the El Toro Marine Air Base which does not include a commercial airport. Business leaders in the county support the airport and engineered a previous ballot measure to change the county general plan to accommodate it. Political leaders in southern Orange County have opposed the airport, and Irvine has sought to annex the property in order to block the airport. o Voters made Oakley, in eastern Contra Costa County, only the third city to incorporate since the passage of the so-called "revenue neutrality" bill in 1992, which made it more difficult for cities to incorporate. Oakley is located on a fast-growing corridor where many communities are taking action to shape or restrict development (CP&DR Local Watch, October 1998).

An environmentalists-sponsored effort to improve Arizona's planning laws backfired on the November ballot. But Gov. Jane Hull, who handily won another term, has appointed a statewide commission to examine growth management legislation. A measure to impose urban growth boundaries and growth management plans failed to make it to the ballot, but a counter-measure to make it harder to fight development in the state was placed on the ballot and passed. The measure that passed, Proposition 303 or the Growing Smarter Act, also includes $20 million a year to purchase open space in the state for 11 years. It was endorsed by popular Republican Governor Jane Hull. The measure that sparked Proposition 303 was called the Citizens Growth Management Initiative. After failing to gain sufficient signatures for the November 1998 election, backers are now planning to get it on the ballot in 2000. Organizers tried to gather enough signatures to place CGMI on the November 1998 in only a few months, and fell short. But they now plan to begin gathering signatures in January 1999 and have up to 1 1/2 years to place it on the November 2000 ballot, according to Sandy Bahr, conservation director of the state's Sierra Club organization, one of the main organizers of the CGMI campaign. It would have had specific language overturning most of Proposition 303, except for provisions like the money for land acquisition. Proposition 303 was designed to counter every point of the CGMI. It bans state mandates on UGBs, growth management plans that call for mandatory development fees, and mandatory air and water quality controls. It also prohibits the state from requiring street and highway environmental impact reviews. In late November, Hull set up a commission to look at growth in the state and surprised many by directing the commission to look at UGBs. The commission was set up under legislation passed last spring, according to the Arizona Republic. Land-use attorney Steve Betts, who wrote much of Proposition 303, said the City of Flagstaff currently has a UGB and other cities can still adopt UGBs under the proposition. Betts is a member of Hull's Growing Smarter Commission. When Proposition 303 was placed on the ballot, the state legislature did add more requirements for municipal development plans, such as designating specific areas for open space and describing environmental impacts from development, according to the Phoenix newspaper, New Times. The $20 million for land purchases attracted many supporters to Proposition 303, Bahr said, and people voted for it with the idea that a future CGMI would override it. "The one positive thing is that for the first time in Arizona we're seriously looking at the growth issue," Bahr said. Almost half of Arizona's land is owned by the federal government. Much of the rest is state trust land given to Arizona by the federal government at statehood in 1912. This land is sold at auction, with proceeds going to public education and other public institutions. Betts indicated that the governor's commission may consider proposals that could lead to further ballot measures in 2000. "We're maybe in the fourth inning of a nine-inning baseball game," he said. The commission will look at a Colorado initiative that set aside state trust lands there for open space and also at the feasibility of exchanging environmentally sensitive state trust land to the federal government for protection, he said. Sandy Bahr, Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club, (602) 253-8633. Steve Betts, Gallagher & Kennedy, (602) 530-8000.

As California's planning practice escalates toward a regulatory function increasingly detached from life on the street, the question presents itself: Who's minding the store? In the case of central business districts and outlying commercial precincts, the answer may lie with a collection of loosely organized and highly local affinity groups called BIDs - Business Improvement Districts. On the one hand, the growing power of the BIDs around California might threaten traditional city hall-based planning practitioners. But viewed from a different perspective, BIDs may represent the greatest triumph yet of planning theories spawned in the 1960s: grassroots bottom-up decision-making, local control of spending details, broad community involvement, and direct reinvestment of locally-generated revenues. BIDs are property-owner associations whose members agree to contribute an increment of business license fees or property taxes to fund a variety of efforts that collectively promote the district. Their formation must be approved by the local government entity, and must have a majority of support of the property owners that control 50% or more of the assessed land valuation in the district. From there, rules governing decision-making and funding are developed by the BID membership and the partnering land use agency. Typically, funds are spent on physical and urban design improvements, basic maintenance, promotional activities, and joint marketing - all with the express intent of improving the economic condition of the delineated district. Though poorly understood and sporadically applied, the BID tool is not exactly new. State enabling legislation was passed back in the 1970s. But as retail and entertainment activity continues to return to older downtown and neighborhood commercial areas, BIDs have moved to the front and center of community-based planning. The National Center for Policy Analysis estimates that there are over 1000 BIDs in operation nationwide. San Diego is the epicenter of California's BID action. One of the first BIDs in the state, the Downtown San Diego Partnership, was formed in the 1970s. There is no denying that the revival of the Gaslamp District in the southern port city has tracked along with the with the Partnership's history. Since then, BIDs have cropped up all over town. Currently, there are 16 BIDs in San Diego, with two more on the drawing boards. And, San Diego has logged another BID movement first: the city is home to the first consortium of BIDs, called the Business Improvement District Council. To date, San Diego BIDs have collected over $1.3 billion dollars for direct reinvestment back into the districts. Meanwhile, San Francisco is set to activate its first BID in Union Square at the first of the year. The BID activities in San Diego have been responsible for everything from an explosion in neighborhood street fairs and festivals to pricey urban design improvements. "Before," says the San Diego BID Council's Program Director Gary Weber, "one would wonder if the City would ever get around to streetscape improvements. Now, within the BIDs, the question is not if, but when." Though it is widely assumed that the BID movement has improved San Diego, there are no real numerical success measurements yet. "We are in the early stages of establishing a data collection system and GIS. This would allow us to make year-to-year comparisons like private shopping centers and retailers would." Steve Russell, executive director of the El Cajon Boulevard Business Improvement Association, sees success at an empirical level. "We have seen a gradual accumulation of physical improvements- median landscaping, special pavement, and pedestrian-scaled street lighting - along the three-mile corridor." Russell, whose BID encompasses 1,200 members, has also noticed "an improvement in attitude and pride amongst the business owners." The role BIDs play in community planning is bound to grow. "Our BID sits at the intersection of four of San Diego's community planning area" says Russell "Increasingly, we are realizing we can play a pivotal role as a catalyst for a variety of planning endeavors." In addition to working with city departments, BIDs coordinate with county, state, and even federal agencies to leverage grant programs and represent the small business community agenda for planning programs. Broadly considered, BIDs may really represent the success of planning principles. Perhaps the best embodiment of the private-public partnership ballyhooed for over a decade, BIDs seem to thrive on their extra-governmental knack at building relationships between interest-connected small businesses, and focussing resources that would otherwise be dissipated across the bureaucratic spectrum. So from Main Street to midtown, we can rest assured: someone's minding the store.

The Port of Oakland is moving ahead with plans for a second dredging project to make it more attractive to larger ships. As part of the dredging some novel environmental restoration projects are planned, with a plan to fill a part of San Francisco Bay proving controversial to environmentalists. This past summer, the Port finished a $110 million dredging project to increase its depth from 38 feet to 42 feet. With an eye on remaining competitive in the future, the Port now wants to remove another eight feet in shipping channels in a $250 million project. To do that, 13 million cubic yards of dirt, made up mostly of sand, will be removed. The project probably won't begin for at least two years, but the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission gave a preliminary approval in October. Getting federal money to pay for the work may take longer than anticipated due to legislative wrangling in Washington, D.C. The project is part of a larger $698 million plan to add two new terminals to the port's existing 11 terminals. The land for the expansion comes from the Oakland Naval Supply Center, closed during the most recent round of military base closures. Seven million cubic yards of dirt will be pumped into the Middle Harbor basin, which housed Navy ships until the recent base closures. The dirt will create a subtidal habitat over a few hundred acres that should encourage fish to the area, and benefit bird species like the least tern which lives on nearby Alameda Island. The project is one of the biggest bay fill projects in the past 30 years, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. The controversial part of the proposal involves planting eelgrass as a way to attract fish. Wil Burns of the environmental group Save the Bay said the grass is hard to replant in the bay because of the cloudiness of its waters. "Re-creating historical habitat is a brand new sort of thing," he said. Burns said earlier attempts by the military to plant eelgrass in the bay near Richmond in the 1980s had failed. He said his group wants to see more studies showing that the project will work. Will Travis, executive director of BCDC, also said that growing eelgrass has not been proven to work. But Jim McGrath, environmental planning manager for the Port, said studies have been done, and are continuing. McGrath, who worked on an eelgrass restoration project in San Diego, said "There's been a lot of good experimental work in the past 15 to 20 years." McGrath noted that a small patch of eelgrass still exists in the Middle Harbor area today. "It's sort of our model," he said. And, contracting Burns, he said the water is relatively clear. He expressed confidence about the project, saying "although not a sure bet, it's not the California lottery, either." Another environmental group, the Golden Gate Audubon Society, is supporting the Middle Harbor Project. "We'd prefer not to see dredging take place," said Executive Director Arthur Feinstein. " the Port of Oakland deserves some kudos for looking for environmentally friendly ways to get rid of dredged materials. They don't always deserve kudos." Feinstein said his group was involved in litigation for ten years beginning in the mid-1980s against the Port over wetlands destruction. That litigation was "sort of a wake up call to them," he said. Some of the fill material would also be used for wetlands restoration in Marin County near Hamilton Field in Novato and in Solano County at the Montezuma wetlands. The project funding hinges on passage of the federal Water Resources Development Act, a bill that Congress traditionally passes every two years. But because of wrangling over the fate of Auburn Dam, the bill was not passed by Congress in its recently concluded session. The actual dredging is done by contractors hired by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Travis said the latest dredging allows the port to be competitive for international shipping. Its two biggest competitors are Seattle/Tacoma, which are a day closer to Asia and already have deep ports, and Los Angeles/Long Beach, which has superior rail connections. McGrath said little of the dredging material is contaminated. The estimated 700,000 cubic yards that is contaminated will be sent to landfills or used for on land construction projects, he said. Contacts: Will Travis, Executive Director, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, (415) 557-3686. Wil Burns, Director of Public Outreach, Save the Bay, (510) 452-9261. Arthur Feinstein, Executive Director, Golden Gate Audubon Society (510) 843-2222. Jim McGrath, Environmental Planning Manager, Port of Oakland, (510) 272-1175.

In a region where unemployment is double the state average and many available jobs are in the low-paying service and retail sectors, a $100 million factory would appear to be a godsend. But in Shasta County, a proposed fiberglass insulation factory has instead become a lightning rod. The two-year-old battle has split the community, with business and government leaders on one side and a mix of slow-growth advocates, physicians, and small business owners on the other. In October 1996, representatives of Knauf Fiber Glass, the Economic Development Corp. of Shasta County, and the City of Shasta Lake jointly announced plans for a 150-employee factory on vacant land in the southwest corner of town. Leaders of the German fiberglass company, seeking a West Coast base, hoped to begin making building insulation in Shasta Lake within two years. Knauf, however, did not foresee the opposition that would fight the project at every turn, said Michael Lynam, director of marketing communications at Knauf's American headquarters in Shelbyville, Indiana. Knauf also has never undergone such a rigorous, time-consuming approval process, he said. Today, Knauf's 95-acre site is graded, but the company still has more than one year of construction remaining and it still needs one more permit before building may begin in earnest. The company remains committed to the project, Lynam said. The City of Shasta Lake, a five-year-old city of 9,300 in a run-down, semi-rural area north of Redding, attracted Knauf's 500,000-square-foot plant with tax rebates, inexpensive electricity, railroad frontage, and a location halfway between Seattle and Los Angeles. City officials and Shasta County's economic boosters were thrilled with the prospect of a major company bringing manufacturing jobs to town. The area's economy has never recovered from the timber industry's decline and Knauf would be the region's first new, large manufacturer in 30 years. "It's going to help the whole north state with the jobs it will provide, and not just jobs at the plant," Shasta Lake Mayor Ray Siner said. "There can't be just McDonalds and Burger King jobs for family people. We need manufacturing jobs." Knauf's financial impact on the City of Shasta Lake and the city's redevelopment agency would be unmistakable. "The assessed value of the project will virtually double the assessed value of the city," City Manager Alan Harvey said. The city agreed to rebate a portion of the property tax revenue to Knauf until the company receives $3.5 million. In addition, the city-owned electric utility will receive a $1.2 million annual "demand charge" from Knauf, though the city has agreed to sell electricity to Knauf at cost. Knauf also would pay about $125,000 in water, sewer, and park impact fees - a large amount for Shasta Lake. But Laurie Holstein, who lives about three-quarters of a mile from the Knauf site, said decision-makers and average citizens were blinded by the project's ballyhooed economic benefits. "I'm appalled at the amount of stuff people don't know. They can't see beyond 150 jobs. All they can see is the economic benefits, and even then they only see one side of the ledger," said Holstein, a machine-shop owner. "It's going to cost taxpayers money to get Knauf here and support them while they are here." Within weeks of Knauf's 1996 announcement, area residents started voicing concerns about the factory's air pollution. They said the plant's discharge of PM10 - dust particles so small they infiltrate human lungs - and various chemicals was inappropriate at Sacramento Valley's northern tip, which mountains surround on three sides. Already the air is often brown in the summertime. Quickly, Knauf became a polarizing force and both sides claimed science was on their side. A $500,000 EIR by consultants CH2M Hill, and backed by the Shasta County Air Quality Management District, determined that all factory impacts except a few minor ones could be offset. Knauf, for instance, would have to pave about four miles of existing dirt roads to mitigate the 199-foot stack's PM10 emission. Colleen Leavitt, coordinator of Citizens for Cleaner Air, which formed to fight the factory, complained that Knauf would mitigate only its dust discharge, but not its output of ammonia, phenol, and formaldehyde. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council in late 1997 gave the fiberglass factory unanimous backing. Council members, all of whom visited a similar Knauf factory in Lanett, Ala., said the plant would be a good neighbor and valued employer. "They had nothing scientific to go by," Mayor Siner said of factory opponents. Knauf must meet strict pollution standards set by the state and federal regulators, he said. Project opponents demanded the city reject the project because, they said, it would pollute the air, harm property values, spur other growth, pose a threat of hazardous chemical spills, and blemish the landscape close to the huge Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area. Leavitt and Holstein, a former Citizens for Cleaner Air Leader, said local decision-makers already had their minds made up. "The last two years have been a real eye-opener for me in terms of the process and in terms of how regulatory bodies seem to turn a deaf ear to what constituents are saying. That has been very disappointing, " Holstein said. Opponents have continued to press their case. They sued Knauf, the city and other public agencies in U.S. District Court, but Judge Lawrence Karlton dismissed the suit. They tried, but failed, to block Knauf's acquisition of property. They requested the Bureau of Land Management not permit the city to extend power lines to Knauf across one mile of federal property, but BLM rejected the plea. Opponents asked the Army Corps of Engineers not to grant a permit to build on two acres of wetlands and extend a railroad spur over a creek. The corps, which initially appeared skeptical of Knauf's search for sites without wetlands, granted the permit required by Sect. 404 of the Clean Water Act - but only after U.S. Rep. Wally Herger interceded on Knauf's behalf. Opponents have now pinned their hopes on an appeal of a permit granted by the Shasta County AQMD. Eighteen individuals and groups - including the EPA's Region 9 office in San Francisco - asked the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board to overturn the Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit which Knauf needs before it may build. The board received the appeal in the spring but has yet to decide. In the meantime, the Region 9 office agreed to drop its appeal if Knauf works to cut proposed dust emissions by 30%. A lawsuit contesting the EIR's validity remains alive in Sacramento County Superior Court. Also, a fledgling county ballot initiative aimed at big polluters has taken shape, but the measure's potential impact on Knauf is unclear. The opposition has evolved from attempting to block the project altogether to forcing Knauf to minimize its pollution, Leavitt conceded. "A lot of people still wish we could make Knauf go away," Leavitt said, "but they've spent a lot of money, so that's probably not realistic." Contacts: Michael Lynam, Knauf Fiber Glass director of marketing communications, (317) 398-4434. Alan Harvey, Shasta Lake City Manager, (530) 275-7404. Colleen Leavitt, Citizens for Cleaner Air Coordinator, (530) 275-0246.

In one of the most active election days of the decade for planning and development issues, pro-growth and slow-growth forces battled almost to a tie on local ballots around the state in November. Slow-growthers won some high-profile victories, most notably a near-sweep in passing a highly publicized series of urban growth boundaries in Ventura County. However, they lost other key races in San Diego and El Dorado counties. And - perhaps most surprising - most measures to allow or promote growth passed easily throughout the state. More than anything else, the November election was characterized by a resurgence of ballot activity on planning and development issues. The election saw more than 50 different measures appear on local ballots, dealing with more than 40 different issues. Even more surprising was the fact that voters appeared willing to cast "yes" ballots on most issues, no matter where they promoted or constrained growth. Despite some high-profile victories by slow-growthers - most notably a highly publicized near-sweep on urban growth boundaries in Ventura County - slow-growth forces carried the day on only 18 of 35 sharply defined issues around the state (51.4%), while pro-growth forces won on the other 17 issues (48.6%). Among other things, slow-growthers won several Bay Area races but lost a proposed downzoning of rural land in San Diego County. Slow-growth forces appeared to lose in always-contentious El Dorado County, where four measures appeared on the ballot. And pro-growth forces won in several areas, including two races in the City of San Diego where voters approved large new residential subdivisions. Overall slow-growthers won 16 of 23 slow-growth measures, while pro-growthers won 10 or 12 pro-growth measures. Other ballot activity included 12 ballot measures in 7 different locations on transportation and rail transit - all but one in the Bay Area - as well as one city incorporation and one ballot measure that could not be defined by CP&DR as either pro- or slow-growth. Despite the high volume of ballot measures, this November's election was in many ways a typical election-year ballot - similar to the presidential election year of 1996, when pro- and slow-growthers split 40 ballot measures evenly down the middle. ( CP&DR , December 1997.) By contrast, the November 1997 ballot - an off-year election - saw only 12 growth measures on the ballot, with slow-growthers winning 9 of them. ( CP&DR , December 1996.) The big question arising from this year's election results is whether it portends continued citizen unrest about growth. Past experience suggests that ballot measures associated with growth tend to follow closely behind periods of strong economic growth. So even if the economy begins to slow down in the next year or two, it may well be that ballot measures will continue to increase in 1999 and 2000. It is questionable, however, whether these initiatives will expand to new geographical areas, as they did in the 1980s. Virtually all of this year's measures were concentrated in the Bay Area, Ventura County, San Diego County, and El Dorado County - all areas where contentious growth issues have spilled over onto the ballot before. The Slow-Growth Battlegrounds: Ventura and San Diego Counties Though this year's election results were decidedly mixed, slow-growthers appeared victorious because of the enormous publicity given to the successful urban growth boundary elections in Ventura County. However, the so-called Rural Heritage and Watershed Initiative in San Diego County - which also received a great deal of publicity - went down to defeat, and voters in several other situations in San Diego voted in favor of new growth. The Ventura County effort received national publicity because it represented an unprecedented attempt to use the ballot to shape a regional land-use policy affecting both an entire county and virtually all its cities. It was expansion of slow-growthers' successful ballot initiative campaign in the City of Ventura in 1995 - but it represented a more sophisticated approach, both politically and in policy terms. Taking not one but two pages from the Bay Area slow-growth experience, the so-called SOAR (Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources) campaigners placed a Napa-style initiative on the countywide ballot requiring voter approval for changing the zoning on agricultural and open space land, and combined that effort with Greenbelt Alliance-style urban growth boundaries in seven of the county's 10 cities. Because they made a signature-gathering error, the SOAR campaign's measures were knocked off the ballot in all of the cities after the signatures had been submitted. This forced the SOAR leaders to negotiate with each city over proposed urban growth boundaries in order to persuade the city council to place the measure on the ballot in that city. While the SOAR leaders were forced to make a few compromises in order to win city council support, this strategy actually worked to their benefit by defusing opposition in most cities. The only exception was Moorpark, a fast-growing city that serves as a bedroom community for job centers in the San Fernando Valley and Thousand Oaks. In Moorpark, where a 3,200-home development proposed by Messenger Co. is pending with city council support, SOAR leaders were unable to place their urban-growth boundary measure on the ballot, though a city-sponsored alternative did appear on the ballot and did pass. SOAR leaders are now planning a January special election on the Messenger project as well as a later urban growth boundary election as well. Overall, Measure B, the countywide SOAR initiative, passed with 63% of the vote. The city urban growth boundaries passed in virtually all of the county's largest cities, including Oxnard, Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley, and Camarillo, with 65% to 70% of the vote. SOAR failed in the agricultural community of Santa Paula. Measure A, a county-sponsored alternative to SOAR, also passed - not surprising, considering that SOAR leaders said it did not conflict with their measure and several county supervisors also supported SOAR. Measure A calls for a temporary moratorium on converting agricultural land to urban use while the county studies long-term alternatives. The Ventura County effort appears to have won in part because of peculiar political circumstances - some inherent to the county and others cleverly devised by the SOAR backers. Remarkably, pro-SOAR forces managed to match the opponents (led by landowners and homebuilders) almost dollar-for-dollar in fundraising. Also, because Ventura County is not a discrete television market, the campaign was waged mostly through mailers - a distinct advantage for the pro-SOAR forces. Finally, because longstanding local policy has channeled almost all development into the cities and left greenbelts around the cities, most local voters apparently felt they could protect land close to their homes. This experience stands in contrast to San Diego County, where voters were asked to approve radical downzoning of rural land far from their homes. Proposition B, the Rural Heritage and Watershed Initiative, would have downzoned 600,000 acres in eastern San Diego County from 4- and 8-acre lots to 40- and 80-acre lots. Outgunned by television advertising, Proposition B was defeated decisively, receiving only about 40% of the vote. Indeed, the San Diego County failure seemed to be the mirror image of the Ventura County success. Because it is a discrete television market, developers could raise big money and use television advertising to oppose the measure; and because development has not been channeled into specific areas, most people - unlike in Ventura County - do not live near the rural areas affected. Interestingly, San Diego County had the most active ballot in the state, with some 10 local growth-related measures. In general, it would appear that pro-growth forces came out ahead. In the City of San Diego, voters approved a huge redevelopment plan revolving around a new baseball stadium as well as two new housing tracts in emerging areas of the city. Results from suburban cities were mixed, with slow-growth forces winning some and pro-growth forces winning others. El Dorado County Four growth-related measures were on the ballot in El Dorado County, where development continues to be a contentious issue. (See CP&DR , July 1998). Only one, Measure Y, supported by environmentalists, passed. But the other measures reflected some of the divisions over growth in the area, which is both a booming suburb of Sacramento and home to struggling timber and mining industries. The most unusual measure was Measure W, which would have limited the number of commercial rafters on the American River. The measure was considered a slap in the face of commercial rafting companies. Some of the rafting companies are aligned with environmental groups and causes. The measure would have cut the number of commercial users on the river in half. A ballot argument for the measure revealed the underlying issue: In El Dorado County, there are limits on traffic, ranching, building, logging and other businesses in order to protect our resources," the argument said. "We should not turn our backs on the American River. Protecting our environment should not be left to the discretion of the people who profit from our environment." Opponents of the measure, which included two county supervisors and a supervisor-elect, said in their ballot arguments that Measure W's supporters" ant to injure commercial rafting because they disagree with the politics of some rafting business owners." Nate Rangel, a rafting business owner in Coloma, said that animosity towards rafting companies dates back to the 1970s, when they fought against a series of proposed dams. Measure Y, known as the Control Traffic Initiative, was a stripped down version of Measure K, which narrowly lost in November 1996. The new measure makes five changes to the county's general plan, and will prevent approval of tentative subdivision maps if traffic increases to specified levels. It also requires voters to approve the use of county tax revenues to enlarge roads for new development. Opponents charged that the measure would cancel or delay needed traffic improvements, and was a "job killer." But the opposing measure, Measure Z - placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors - failed by a huge margin. Rangel said he thought that Measure Z's backers lost credibility because most of them also supported Measure W, the anti-rafting measure. Measure V, the fourth measure, was also placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors. The measure is related to continued wrangling over the county's general plan, which anticipates the county's population to be 260,000 by the year 2015. But the general plan also said that theoretically the county's growth could be 375,000 by that year. Proponents said this was a way to end that debate. Opponents in the environmental community asked voters to send a message that "260,000 people is way to much." It also went down to defeat. Other Important Races Most of the other important contests in the state came in the Bay Area, where slow-growth forces generally prevailed. Here are some highlights: o Seven different rail and transportation issues appeared on local ballots. In Los Angeles County, voters overwhelmingly approved a measure sponsored by County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky to halt construction of the Los Angeles subway system once its current phase to the San Fernando Valley has been completed. The measure was opposed by political leaders in East Los Angeles, the next area scheduled for construction. In Sonoma and Marin counties, voters approved rail-oriented transportation system plans - but voted down sales-tax increases to actually build the system. Four Bay Area cities approved the idea of rail transit on the Bay Bridge. • Greenbelt Alliance continued its city-by-city campaign to impose urban growth boundaries, winning in all three cities that were targeted - Cotati and Petaluma in Sonoma County and Milpitas in Santa Clara County. A similar measure to protect agricultural land between Petaluma and the Marin County line also passed. • In the Orange County city of Irvine, voters overwhelmingly approved a proposal for a mixed-use development plan for the El Toro Marine Air Base which does not include a commercial airport. Business leaders in the county support the airport and engineered a previous ballot measure to change the county general plan to accommodate it. Political leaders in southern Orange County have opposed the airport, and Irvine has sought to annex the property in order to block the airport. • Voters made Oakley, in eastern Contra Costa County, only the third city to incorporate since the passage of the so-called "revenue neutrality" bill in 1992, which made it more difficult for cities to incorporate. Oakley is located on a fast-growing corridor where many communities are taking action to shape or restrict development ( CP&DR Local Watch , October 1998).

The owner of a San Pedro hotel who intends to sell out to a nonprofit group has standing to file a Fair Housing Act lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles for allegedly interfering with the sale, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. In addition, the Ninth Circuit ruled that City Councilman Rudy Svornich - while immune from liability for his legislative actions - is not immune from a lawsuit alleging he retaliated against the hotel owners by allegedly initiating code enforcement inspections. The case began in 1994, when the Fentis family, owner of the California Hotel in San Pedro, agreed to sell to a nonprofit developer known as A Community Of Friends, or ACOF, which planned to convert the hotel to housing for mentally disabled people. The sale was contingent on ACOF obtaining federal financing and tax credit allocations. The $1.3 million federal loan had to be approved by the City of Los Angeles. In 1995, several local groups, including the San Pedro Chamber of Commerce, publicly expressed their opposition to the project. Later that year, the L.A. City Council Housing and Community Redevelopment Committee voted not to recommend that the federal funds be applied to the California Hotel project. Svornich, the city council member who represents San Pedro, was chair of the redevelopment committee. Subsequently, John Fentis was quoted in a local newspaper claiming that the city had acted illegally and his family would sue. Several weeks later, members of L.A.'s "Slumlord Task Force" inspected the California Hotel and found code violations requiring $40,000 in repairs. Subsequently, the Fentises filed suit, alleging a violation of their civil rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983, as well as state and federal fair housing laws. They asked that the city and Svornich be enjoined from interfering with the funding of a home for the mentally ill. After the complaint was filed, the city re-inspected the California Hotel. Inspectors concluded that the Fentises had not made substantial progress on previously cited problems and also found new violations as well. The city charged the Fentises with criminal slum offenses. Following all this activity, the redevelopment committee recommended approval of the California Hotel loan and the City Council concurred. ACOF received tax-credit authorization and the sale of the property was completed. However, the Fentises elected to move forward with their claims. U.S. District Court Judge Harry Hupp dismissed most of the claims, saying, among other things, that the Fentises had no standing to complain about the city's interference. Hupp also ruled that Svornich as an individual was immune from action he took in a legislative capacity. However, Hupp allowed the Fentises to amend their complaint in order to properly state a retaliation claim against the city and against Svornich. Once the claim was amended, however, Svornich moved for - and received - summary judgment on the retaliation claim. Hupp also dismissed the retaliation claim against the city itself and, after a lengthy delay, granted summary judgment to the city on all other claims. But a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit overturned some of Judge Hupp's rulings. Most significantly, the panel concluded that the Fentises do have standing to file a lawsuit under the federal Fair Housing Act. Judge Hupp had concluded that the relationship between the Fentises and the people who would actually be victimized - the mentally disabled persons who would move into the hotel after it was sold and renovated - was too tenuous. "To establish standing under the Act, all the Fentises need to show is that the City interfered with the housing rights of the mentally ill and that, as a result, the Fentises suffered an actual injury." The city had argued that it could not be held liable for a discretionary action - i.e., choosing not to approve the loan to ACOF. But the Ninth Circuit disagreed. "The allegation here is not that the City violated the Act by failing to approve the ACOF loan, but that it improperly interfered with the loan ACOF needed to purchase the Fentis' property." The Ninth Circuit upheld Judge Hupp's conclusion that Svornich is immune from liability based on his legislative actions but overturned Hupp's ruling that he is also immune from the retaliation claim. " e believe that there are genuine issues of material fact which preclude summary judgment," the court wrote. "The timing of the investigations, the short amount of time given to the Fentises to make repairs, the participation of the Building and Safety Commissioner, the criminal prosecution, and the evidence suggesting that a city official may have been demoted for interceding on behalf of the Fentises cannot, on the current state of the record, be accepted as routine or condemned as evidence of invidious purpose." The court remanded the retaliation claim against both the city and against Svornich personally to the trial court for a trial on its merits. The court affirmed Hupp's dismissal of the Civil Rights Act claims, saying the Fentises alleged no claim against themselves and - at least so far as the Civil Rights Act is concerned - have no standing to sue on behalf of the mentally disabled. The Case; San Pedro Hotel Co. v. City of Los Angeles, No. 97-55053, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11480 (issued November 6, 1998). The Lawyers: For San Pedro Hotel Co.: William J. Davis, Davis & Co., (949) 222-9034. For City of Los Angeles: Jesse J. Gonzalez, Deputy City Attorney, (213) 485-1059.

The U.S. Forest Service could be forced to make changes in its land-use planning for four forests it manages in Southern California as a result of a lawsuit that charges the service hasn't properly considered preserving the 40 federally endangered and threatened species of plants and animals that live there. Until the Forest Service takes those species into account, the suit is asking a federal court to stop such activities as livestock grazing, mining, off-road vehicle use, road building, land exchanges, land purchases, special projects, and other uses in the Los Padres, Angeles, San Bernardino and Cleveland National Forests. Those forests span California's coast and interior regions from Monterey to San Diego. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, charged that the Forest Service, a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has failed to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is a division of the U.S. Department of Interior. The suit charges the Forest Service should be consulting with the Fish and Wildlife Service over Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) for the four forests and their impacts on federally-listed threatened and endangered species there. The suit was filed by the Arizona-based Southwest Center for Biological Diversity. The group's attorney, Jay Tutchton, said it has entered settlement negotiations with the U.S. Forest Service and that the Forest Service has begun consultations with the Fish and Wildlife Service since the lawsuit was filed. A LRMP is a 10- to 15-year strategy for managing each forest in an environmentally sound way. Many if not most of the 40 species in the lawsuit were listed after the LRMPS were adopted in the 1980s. Tutchton said that if the Forest Service took care of endangered species within its forests, some species who live on private property might not be endangered or threatened species. The costs imposed on a private developer to do an HCP for such species can be hundreds of thousands of dollars, he noted, while in contrast, the government makes only $1.30 a month to allow cows to graze in national forests and denude riparian habitats. Tutchton said that cows are allowed to graze in both the Los Padres and Cleveland National Forests. Another example of the Forest Services' failure to take endangered and threatened species into account, he said, was placing a campground "squarely in an Arroyo Toad breeding ground in Los Padres National Forest." A U.S. Justice Department attorney declined to comment on the specifics of the case. The suit seeks an order forcing the Forest Service to consult with the FWS, and to prevent the Forest Service from continuing with such activities until it complies with the Endangered Species Act. While the Forest Service has begun such consultations, Tuchton called it "limited progress." Tuchton said similar suits had earlier been filed against national forests in the Pacific Northwest, Arizona and New Mexico to bring the Forest Service into compliance there. He said he was unaware whether other national forests in Northern California were in compliance. The case is Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. G. Lynn Sprague, et al., Case No. 98-2434SC. Contacts: James J. Tutchton, Earthlaw, (303) 871-6034. Jean Williams, U.S. Forest Service, (202) 305-0228.

Gray Davis's election appears to mean a new era in Sacramento. But whether it portends a shift in state policy relating to planning and development remains to be seen. Davis is a Democrat who has always enjoyed environmentalist support, but he is also a cautious politician unlikely to initiate sweeping policy reforms. Caution notwithstanding, Davis must deal with a strengthened Democratic majority in the Legislature that may seek a more aggressive approach on environmental, land use, and local government issues. Democrats control the office of governor and lieutenant governor and both houses of the Legislature for the first time since 1974. Furthermore, the Democratic majority in both houses grew considerably on election day. Democrats now hold 48 of 80 Assembly seats and 25 of 40 seats in the Senate. Among other things, these electoral victories strengthen the position of leading environmentalists in the Senate such as Byron Sher, chair of the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality, and Tom Hayden, chair of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildlife. Also holding a strong hand is Sen. Jim Costa, chair of the Senate Agriculture and Water Resources Committee. Though more conservative than Sher and Hayden, Costa has been one of the most effective legislators in Sacramento in the last few years. In addition, the forced departure of many legislators because of term limits has brought a new flock of lawmakers directly from local government. Close to one-sixth of the legislature now consists of new members who previously served on a city council or a county board of supervisors. And Davis takes office just after the passage of Proposition 1A, the $9 billion school bond package, and Proposition 11, which permits more sales-tax-revenue sharing among neighboring jurisdictions. Prop 1A also imposes major reform on the state's school fee system, limiting local government's ability to demand higher school fees from developers. It received 62% of the vote. Proposition 11, the municipal tax-sharing constitutional amendment, received 53% of the vote. This proposition, championed by Republican Assemblyman George Runner, a former mayor of Lancaster, permits two municipalities to share sales-tax revenue with a super-majority of the two city councils, repealing the requirement for voter approval from both cities. This measure - long advocated by reformers - could be a small but important step in reducing competition for retailers and sales taxes among adjacent municipalities. At press time, however, Davis still had not made any appointments to his new administration, so there was little clue at to what direction he might take on any planning and development issues. The only major moves he made in the weeks after his election had to do with education. He selected Barry Munitz, head of the Getty Trust in Los Angeles and former chancellor of the California State University system, to lead his transition team. (Some environmentalists pointed out that Munitz formerly worked for financier Charles Hurwitz, controversial owner of the Pacific Lumber Co., who has been locked in a lengthy dispute with the state over logging in Northern California.) He also appointed a task force to examine education reforms. Local Government So far, the only relevant policy Davis seems motivated to address is a restoration of property taxes to cities and counties - potentially reversing, at least in part, the decision of Gov. Pete Wilson in 1992 and '93 to shift approximately 25% of the property tax in the state away from local governments to school districts. However, even that proposal could be rife with political problems, given his backing by teachers unions and his decision to make schools a high priority. Under Proposition 13, the state government has the authority to allocate property-tax revenue among various government agencies. However, the state is also required to equalize school funding from its own general fund. During the early '90s, Wilson chose to shift property-tax revenue from cities and counties to school districts in order to lessen the financial burden on the state. Local governments have been clamoring for property-tax restoration ever since they lost the property tax. Despite growing support in the Legislature, however, Wilson never signed a bill altering the property-tax formula. In October, however, both Davis and his Republican opponent, Dan Lungren, appeared at the League of California Cities convention. According to eyewitness reports, Lungren did not address the property tax issue - but Davis committed himself to action on it. "He came to the League annual conference and spoke and met with our board," said League of California Cities lobbyist Dwight Stenbakken. "He said, it's time to return your property tax. I'll sign a bill to return a reasonable amount over a reasonable time." Both the League and the California State Association of Counties are expected to make property-tax restoration a top priority in next year's legislative session. As Davis contemplates his next step, he may be confronted with a more activist legislative body on local government issues. Since term limits began removing longtime legislators, more new lawmakers have come directly out of local government. In the process, these legislators - such as Assembly Members Tom Torlakson, a Republican from Contra Costa County, and Mike Sweeney, a Democrat from Hayward - have made local government issues a higher priority. With close to 20 new legislators arriving straight from local government, this caucus may have more influence than ever. Land Use and Environmental Planning Despite repeated attempts by growth management advocates to interject growth and land use into the gubernatorial debate, Davis said virtually nothing about this issue during the campaign. (This stands in stark contrast to the last campaign for an open gubernatorial seat, when Dianne Feinstein and Pete Wilson - both former mayors - aggressively debated land-use planning as an issue.) As the first Democratic governor in 16 years, however, Davis will be under considerable pressure to reaffirm environmental protections and deal with related land-use planning issues. "We're hoping he will bite the bullet and move to some sort of comprehensive growth management plan for the state," said Samuel Schuchat, executive director of the California League of Conservation Voters. "When we interviewed him he was clearly aware that the fundamental environmental problem facing the state was the huge surge in population, and there's no planning in place for that." Though growth management was not an issue during the campaign, Schuchat is rumored to be one of Davis's transition insiders on environmental issues, along with Darryl Young, a longtime Hayden aide who worked on his campaign. Davis may have considerable opportunity to shape land-use and environmental policy quickly because of upcoming vacancies on state boards and commissions. In addition to his political appointments - such as Resources Secretary and director of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research - Davis will be able to appoint four members to the Coastal Commission. (For the first time in 16 years, all 12 Coastal Commission members will be selected by Democrats; the other eight are chosen by Assembly and Senate leaders.) One unusual opportunity exists at the Integrated Waste Management Board, where one Wilson holdover was never confirmed and a second was elected to the Legislature. Two additional slots on the six-member board will be up a year from now.

In Riverside County, the county supervisors have never been big fans of federal endangered species regulations. So it should be no surprise that the board recently granted individual home builders a exemption basically excusing them from complying with those regulations. But the supervisors were forced to rescind those regulations once a judge ruled against them.. The issue arose in the southwestern part of the county, home to the Quino checkerspot butterfly, which last year was listed as an endangered species. Because of that designation, the animals and their habitats cannot be destroyed. The board was apparently upset because the listing occurred after development approvals had been given. "There was a dispute over what the county's role was in disclosing impacts for the Quino checkerspot," said Dan Silver, executive director of the Endangered Habitats League. The California Environmental Quality Act requires impacts to endangered species to be disclosed, he said. In June, the supervisors tried to get around the endangered species act by exempting builders of homes under 10,000 square feet from complying with the regulations. But that move was struck down by Superior Court Judge Gloria Trask. In September, the supervisors unanimously rescinded the entire policy. Now, said Deputy County Counsel Jay Vickers, "We have no policy with regard to the Quino checkerspot." What about following the Endangered Species Act? "That's up to the federal government," said Vickers. "They're basically trying to get around the policy," said Ray Johnson, an attorney for the EHL, which had sued over the exemption. But in mid-November, Trask dismissed the EHL lawsuit on the basis of the board's revised policy. The group is considering filing suit over the board's failure to do an environmental review before enacting the latest policy, Johnson said. The red, brown and yellow spotted Quino checkerspot butterfly only lives in a few places in Riverside and San Diego County, Johnson said. At one time the inch-long insect was one of the most common butterflies in Southern California, he said. The butterfly lives on plantago, a shrub found in the hilly country of Riverside County. In February, the county's planning director said that the butterflies had not held up any of 300 projects that had been reviewed since its listing, according to the Riverside Press Enterprise. The county supervisors in February also asked its staff to analyze what would happen if it stopped policing every new rodent and insect on the endangered species list, because the new listings are affecting development projects that have already been approved, the paper said. Two supervisors also suggested eliminating the county's Habitat Conservation Agency. Other contentious endangered species in the county have included the Stephens kangaroo rat, the California gnatcatcher and the Delhi sands flower loving fly. Riverside County has been dealing with endangered species issues since the listing of the kangaroo rat a decade ago, but many political leaders have resisted a full-scale planning effort to protect the species. The lawsuit is Endangered Habitats League v. County of Riverside, No. RIC 314330. Contacts: Dan Silver, Endangered Habitat League, (323) 654-1456. Ray Johnson, attorney for Endangered Habitat League, (909) 506-9925.