Water bonds are as familiar as summer reruns to California voters, who have considered at least 16 of them on statewide ballots since 1960 — the year voters narrowly approved spending $1.75 billion to build the State Water Project. On November 5, however, the electorate is likely to consider a water bond measure that is different from all predecessors. Instead of being drafted by legislators and lobbyists in Capitol hallways and committee rooms, the Water Quality, Supply and Safe Drinking Water Act of 2002 is the product of citizen initiative. Sponsors submitted more than 750,000 signatures in April, and Secretary of State Bill Jones certified the initiative for the ballot a month later. Statewide water bond measures usually creep along a tortuous and cryptic political path outlined by lobbyists and veteran staffers. There are arcane pitfalls to avoid and scores of competing interests to satisfy — farms and cities, fish lovers and dam builders, rural and urban water agencies — if a proposal is to avoid fatal opposition. Complex, behind-the-scenes negotiations are standard procedure. The citizen initiative process, in contrast, tends to reward advocates whose argument can be conveyed effectively during a quick pitch for petition signatures in shopping mall parking lots. Statewide water planning does not typically lend itself to this sort of simplification. The Water Quality, Supply and Safe Drinking Water Act of 2002 also differs from most water bonds in the way it blends funding for water projects with money for habitat conservation. And, although people are calling it a "water bond," the measure would do little to procure new supplies. Most of the funding categories focus on enabling users to get more mileage out of existing supplies. The 12 legislative water bond measures approved by voters during the 1960s, '70s and '80s focused exclusively on building things: dams, canals, sewage treatment and reclamation plants, purification facilities, pipelines, pumping stations. None explicitly allocated a single dollar to ecological programs. That began to change in 1996 with Proposition 204, which allocated more than $500 million to ecological restoration, and fish and wildlife programs primarily associated with the Cal-Fed Bay-Delta Program. Cal-Fed is a state and federal effort to reverse the decline in sensitive fish and wildlife populations in the Bay-Delta region while also increasing the quality and reliability of the water supply diverted from the Delta to farms and cities. The linkage between water supply and environmental protection continued in 2000 when California voters approved Proposition 13, a $1.97 billion bond measure that provided $250 million for Bay-Delta fish and wildlife programs, and $468 million for watershed restoration and protection elsewhere. The logic of this linkage is clear. In an ecosystem compromised by urban development, farming and dams, water often is degraded and costly to make drinkable, and fish and wildlife populations often are endangered, requiring that diversions be reduced or managed differently to keep imperiled species from suffering further harm. The initiative awaiting certification by Secretary of State Bill Jones for this November continues this merger of water-supply and environmental concerns. It is, in effect, a hybrid of three major issues: Cal-Fed, the California 4.4 Plan (under which the state must reduce diversions from the Colorado River to its legal entitlement of 4.4 million acre-feet a year), and protection and restoration of watershed and coastal wetlands. Joe Caves, the veteran Sacramento lobbyist responsible for the initiative, says the initiative started out to be a coastal watershed and wetlands campaign. He and the environmental groups that are the initiative's primary proponents decided to broaden it to include water-supply components when they realized that funding for Cal-Fed was drying up, and that it would take too long to coax a conventional water bond through the Legislature. "Proposition 13 took about three years to negotiate, hammer out and work through," Caves noted. The state can't wait that long. In 2000, California and federal officials committed to a seven-year funding plan for costly improvements to the Bay-Delta system. Although the state already has committed or spent hundreds of millions of dollars, its full obligation is likely to approach $5 billion. Propositions 204 and 13 provided money for Cal-Fed, but not nearly enough; lawmakers had been dipping into the general fund to supplement the bond funds. With the state facing a huge budget deficit this year, the general fund is no longer an option. So, after consulting with staff of The Nature Conservancy, the Audubon Society, Heal the Bay and other environmental groups — as well as the Metropolitan Water District, which is bearing the brunt of California's effort to reduce Colorado River diversions — Caves and his staff drafted, circulated and apparently qualified a water bond initiative. The state is in the second year of the seven-year Cal-Fed process; Caves said his initiative fully funds the state's share of programs in years four and five. The initiative's $3.44 billion breaks down this way: Coastal watershed and wetland protection ($950 million): * Coastal watershed protection * San Francisco Bay wetland protection and restoration * Southern California wetland and watershed protection CAL-FED Bay-Delta program ($825 million): * Storage planning and studies * Water conveyance * Delta levee restoration * Interim water supply reliability * Ecosystem restoration * Watershed protection * Conservation and efficiency projects Integrated regional water management ($640 million): * Water supply reliability, storm water capture * Wetland restoration, pollution reduction * Groundwater recharge, salt removal and reclamation * Water banking and exchange * Integrated flood management * Fish and wildlife enhancement Safe drinking water ($435 million): * Small system upgrades * Treatment and contaminant removal * Drinking water source protection * Revolving loan fund Clean water and water quality ($370 million): * Pollution prevention, reclamation, blending and exchange * River parkways that provide water quality benefits * Lake Tahoe water quality projects * Clean beaches * Sierra Nevada water quality projects Contaminant and salt removal technologies ($100 million): * Desalination projects * Treatment projects for MTBE, arsenic, chromium, etc. Colorado River ($70 million): * Canal lining * Ecosystem restoration Water security ($50 million): * Monitoring and early warning systems * Protective structures * Emergency interconnections * Communication systems Contacts: Joe Caves: (916) 558-1516. Text of the Water Quality, Supply and Safe Drinking Water Act of 2002: www.pcl.org/bonds/water/text.html Cal-Fed Program: http://calfed.ca.gov/

An initiative that would require Nevada County to pay property owners if a land use regulation diminishes property value appears headed for the November ballot. Both opponents and supporters of the initiative expect that Nevada County will approve the initiative — and that it could lead to similar efforts in other parts of California, especially in conservative rural counties. The initiative would establish a process for landowners to present claims to Nevada County Superior Court for reimbursement if the landowner believed a county regulation restricted the use or utility of property. The use or utility of property would be based on existing zoning, said Russell Steele, chairman of Citizens for Fair and Balanced Land-Use. The Superior Court would award claims based on a real estate appraisal. A number of organizations on both sides of the "takings" debate are at least monitoring the Nevada County election because of its potential to set a precedent. The American Planning Association's California Chapter and national APA leaders are "watching in horror" but have not taken any active role yet, said Sande George, the California Chapter's Sacramento lobbyist. Meanwhile, the Sacramento-based Pacific Legal Foundation, one of the country's foremost property rights advocacy groups, is cheering on the Nevada County effort after providing input on early drafts of the initiative. Initiative backers used Oregon's Measure 7, which voters approved in November 2000, as a model for the initiative, Steele said. The measure is necessary, he said, because "the county doesn't follow its own rules." "All we're doing in this initiative is bringing the constitution down to the county level," Steele said. "We're trying to protect the little guy." Opponents, however, say the initiative is unnecessary, too vague, and illegally imposes a new responsibility on the Superior Court. If the measure does pass, a court challenge is certain, although, not surprisingly, the two sides disagree on the measure's legality. Sharon Boivin, a retired county planner and current planning commissioner, said "ultraconservative" old-timers are purposely pursuing a divisive initiative because they have lost control of the Board of Supervisors to slow-growth advocates for the first time in county history. "It's probably more aimed at discrediting this board," she said of the initiative. Stretching from the Sacramento Valley's oak woodlands over Donner Pass to the Nevada state line, Nevada County has a history of polarized politics as the county's economic base of mining, logging and ranching has faded. During the 1960s, high-tech video companies migrated to the Grass Valley and Nevada City area. Also beginning in the late 1960s, the county began attracting a diverse new population: retirees buying homes in semi-rural subdivisions, back-to-the-land types moving into the woods, and artists drawn to a burgeoning cultural center. In spurts during the last 20 years, the area has drawn "equity refugees" from the Bay Area and Southern California, as well as commuters to the Sacramento metropolitan area. The Board of Supervisors remained in the pro-growth conservative camp until the last few years. Now, a 4-1 slow-growth majority controls the county. Two of the slow-growth supervisors, Elizabeth Martin and Bruce Conklin, face property-rights candidates in a November election. Further complicating the situation is a two-year-old county effort to inventory and map biotic resources with the intent of protecting agriculture, forestry and recreation. The effort, known as Natural Heritage 2020, "will be the most detailed habitat information of any county in the state when it's done," Planning Director Mark Tomich said. However, property rights advocates assailed the process as a new regulatory scheme. Feeling the heat, supervisors have ordered planners to speed up the process and finish their work by June 30. Behind the initiative is the Grass Valley-based California Association of Business Property and Resource Owners (CABPRO), a nine-year-old organization with ties to the Wise Use Movement. CABPRO President Margaret Urke said the county made the initiative necessary by treading on property rights, prohibiting some subdivisions and blocking development with environmental regulations. "Our hope is this will deter the supervisors from creating these regulations and imposing a burden on property owners," said Urke. Any money the measure would cost the county is money the county would have taken from property owners via regulation, she contended. Supervisor Martin does believe the measure could break the county financially. Martin said initiative advocates want "mob rule," not a well-reasoned political process. She also decried the vagueness of the initiative. "I completely support people's property rights," said Martin, a Penn Valley farm owner and longtime family farm advocate. "I don't even know what these people are trying to accomplish because their language is so muddy." In late May, initiative organizers submitted nearly 6,000 petition signatures, about two-thirds more than necessary to qualify for the November ballot. The initiative is one of the first local initiatives of its kind anywhere. More limited legislative efforts to compensate landowners for "takings" have arisen in some states and communities. A Florida law requires compensation when a property owner is "inordinately burdened" by regulation. Oregon's Measure 7 is broader, calling for the government to pay property owners for any regulation that devalues property. Thus far, an Oregon court has blocked Measure 7 from implementation because it improperly amended the state constitution. Timothy Dowling, chief counsel for the Washington. D.C.-based Community Rights Counsel, called the Nevada County measure "a one-size-fits-all compensation mandate that has no relationship whatsoever with the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment." Dowling, who has filed briefs at the U.S. Supreme Court defending government regulatory practices, said the measure favors owners of vacant land over existing homeowners, who could feel the impacts of new development. Dowling and other opponents are particularly critical of initiative proponents' reliance on nuisance, and public health and safety exceptions. Government uses its police power to regulate land use because healthy and safety, and nuisance definitions are narrow, often unclear and can fail to protect neighboring properties, they say. Opponents also question whether a county ballot initiative can assign a duty to a state court, and opponents complain the measure creates an undefined process. Dowling further complained that the initiative would "displace 200 years of takings jurisprudence." That, however, is just the point, says Tahoe City attorney and planning consultant Gregg Lien, who wrote the initiative. The ballot measure would establish a new and separate process for property owners seeking compensation because landowners are now "impotent" in the current legal system, Lien contended. Lien said he made the initiative short — it is seven sentences — because he wanted something "easily understandable" and because building all the complexities into the ballot measure was infeasible. James Burling, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, called the initiative "a step in the right direction." It arises because the pursuit of takings claims in state and federal courts can take years, he said. "Is it legal or not? That's hard to say. There's never been an initiative quite like it in California," Burling said. "I don't see any immediate infirmities." If the measure passes, both sides expect any potential infirmities to be tested in court. Contacts: Russell Steele, Citizens for Fair And Balanced Land-Use, (530) 273-8085. Margaret Urke, California Association of Business Property and Resource Owners, (530) 478-1331. Gregg Lien, initiative author, (530) 583-8500. Elizabeth Martin, Nevada County supervisor, (530) 265-1480. Timothy Dowling, Community Rights Counsel, (202) 296-6889. James Burling, Pacific Legal Foundation, (916) 362-2833. Initiative website: www.fairnessinitiative.org ---------- The people of the County of Nevada ordain as follows: Nevada County (the "County") shall provide an orderly process for addressing claims for reimbursement, payable to the property owner, when it is determined that there is a reduction in the market value of an owner's parcel. After passage of this initiative, this process applies to proposed projects when regulatory actions or determinations by the County restrict existing use or utility, in whole or in part, of the affected parcel. Restrictions based upon a clear and present danger to public health and safety, and traditionally recognized common law nuisance prohibitions, shall not be considered in calculating reductions in value. A property owner seeking reimbursement pursuant to this initiative shall first seek beneficial best use of the property. This best use must be denied by the Board of Supervisors prior to filing a claim. The Superior Court of the County shall have exclusive jurisdiction over claims made, and shall have the power to make independent findings of fact and conclusions of law, and shall not be bound by findings or determinations by the County. Reimbursement shall equal the difference in market value, with and without the regulation or action complained of, and shall include reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. If any phrase, clause or part of this initiative is found to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining phrases, clauses and parts shall remain in full force and effect.

Once the largest concentration of dairy cows in the United States, the San Bernardino County Dairy Preserve is on the verge of becoming home to more than 200,000 people. The City of Chino is finishing work on a specific plan for 5,435 acres, and City of Ontario officials are refining a development fee schedule, the last document needed before the city begins processing development applications for 8,200 acres on the south end of town. To different degrees, both plans depart from the large-lot, single-family home development that characterizes much of the area. Chino's plan squeezes 9,700 dwelling units and about 10 million square feet of office, retail and industrial development onto 2,261 acres, or slightly less than half of the specific plan area. The remaining land lies in the floodplain behind a flood control dam on the Santa Ana River and will be set aside for open space, habitat, parks and even some farming. The Ontario plan devotes about 4,400 acres to low-density single-family home development at 4.6 houses per acre. But the plan also devotes numerous areas for housing of 12 or 18 units per acre, and calls for about a dozen neighborhood centers, a town center and two other major centers at either end of the plan area. "Ontario and Chino, I think, can lead the way in the Inland Empire for smart growth," said Dan Silver, executive director of the Endangered Habitats League. Three years ago, Silver's group and the Sierra Club sued Ontario over its "New Model Colony" plan. Earlier this year, the environmentalists settled when the city agreed to impose an additional development mitigation fee. Silver has become at least partially a fan of the plan. "It's kind of halfway there," Silver said. But the Chino plan, he said, "is the single most progressive land use plan I've seen in the Inland Empire." Even Ontario Planning Director Jerry Blum acknowledges that Chino has taken a number of "smart growth" principles — mixed-use development, public transit, a pedestrian orientation — farther than Ontario did. But, Blum and others note, Chino's plan was at least partially driven by the flood control project that makes more than half the site off limits to development. Whatever the respective plans say, developers are eager to start building. Lewis Homes of Upland has purchased more than half of the developable land in the Chino plan area. Forecast Homes and Lennar Homes have both submitted applications to Ontario, and three other developers are talking with the city, Blum said. Together, the Ontario projects would total about 2,000 housing units. The dairy preserve is a prime location, said Frank Williams, executive director of the Building Industry Association of Southern California's Baldy View Chapter. It is near job-rich Los Angeles and Orange counties, and it could attract some of the businesses that are getting squeezed out of coastal areas by high real estate prices. The land is becoming available for development after about 50 years as the center of California's dairy industry. San Bernardino County began the phase out of the agricultural preserve in 1993, and since then at least half of the 400 dairies in the area have moved, mostly to the San Joaquin Valley, the high desert and Arizona (see CP&DR , August 2000 ; CP&DR Local Watch , March 2000 ). Although urban development has encroached to the border of the dairy preserve, the area remains home to tens of thousands of cows, and farmers still grow feed and row crops. The Chino Plan, called "The Preserve," is centered around a tight, 125-acre community core that is intended to feature a wide variety of residential, retail, office and civic uses. The plan urges pedestrian-friendly development along a lively promenade. Residential development of varying densities would surround the community core. To the north and west, near the Chino Airport, the plan provides 475 acres for industrial development. A regional commercial center is designated for the western edge. The plan "captures the best of what we see occurring in the best planned communities in Southern California," said Chuck Coe, Chino community development director. The plan recognizes the need for a wide range of housing and for transit. "Theoretically, you could spend your whole life there," while moving from one type of housing to another, said Robert Prasse, of Hogle-Ireland Inc., who is managing the project for the city. The plan also recognizes the desire to continue developing industrial uses near the airport. The overall mix of uses should provide a strong sense of community, Coe said. Exactly what will happen with the nearly 3,000 acres that lie in the Prado Dam floodplain is uncertain. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Orange County Flood Control District own most of the property, so the city has little control, Coe said. Much of the land will probably remain as undeveloped open space. One hurdle Chino officials will need to overcome is The Preserve's isolation from the rest of the city. The airport, a state prison and the City of Ontario separate the plan area from the existing city of 67,000 people. To help connect the new with the old, the city plans to open branch offices in the community center, and The Preserve will get street names with historical Chino connections, Coe said. City officials also figure The Preserve residents will come to the older part of town for cultural activities. Chino officials hope to circulate a revised environmental impact report this month before moving into the public hearing process in August. The City Council could adopt the plan this fall. The city would then proceed with annexation, Coe said. Ontario's planning process, which began in 1995 with the appointment of an advisory committee, is farther along. The city adopted the New Model Colony plan as a general plan amendment in 1998, and completed annexation in late 1999. Environmentalists sued over the project's impacts but lost in trial court. The plaintiffs appealed but dropped the suit early this year when Ontario officials agreed to impose an addition $2,000-per-acre mitigation fee. The fee, when added to the originally proposed $2,700-per-acre levy, means developers will provide about $25 million for habitat. The money will likely to go to a land conservancy for the purchase and maintenance of property and open space easements, although many details remain unfinished. Unlike the Chino plan, Ontario's plan calls for developing nearly the whole area, with even the open space being designated for active-use parks, a golf course and bicycle paths. Silver, of the Endangered Habitats League, calls it "wall-to-wall development." But he concedes that decades of industrial dairy operations, and the enormous buildup of cow manure, have highly degraded the landscape. To Blum, the approach makes sense. "In its truest sense," said Blum, "this is a brownfield — about four feet thick! … Our point was, let's build the hell out of this place because it's the doughnut hole. It's surrounded by urban uses. It's not habitat for anything. Maybe we could prevent, for a time, the development of more sensitive land out in desert or along the Santa Ana River." Besides the 4,400 acres of single-family homes at 4.6 units per acre, the New Model Colony plan designates about 800 acres for multi-family housing development (including mixed-use housing in the town center), 500 acres for neighborhood and regional commercial development, and about 340 acres for industrial uses and business parks. The plan is not as transit-oriented as Chino's, Blum noted. Chino's proposed plan includes design guidelines and would allow developers to move right to the tract map stage. Ontario's plan requires developers to bring in a new specific plan proposal with every project, which makes for a longer process. Blum expects the first project will receive approval in 2003. The area has very little infrastructure, which everyone acknowledges will add to development costs. Chino's portion of the ag preserve will require approximately $220 million in infrastructure, not including schools, Prasse estimated. Although the cities share a boundary, Chino and Ontario have not coordinated their planning efforts. Coordinated planning is not something that occurs in San Bernardino County, Blum lamented. Both cities commented extensively on the other's plan, and the two entities eventually talked about traffic circulation, Blum said. The cities have not coordinated at all with Riverside County, whose unincorporated Eastvale district is adjacent to Ontario and Chino. Riverside County's proposed general plan places a new town center in Eastvale, but most of the area is designated for large tracts of single-family homes. Contacts: Jerry Blum, Ontario planning department, (909) 395-2199. Chuck Coe and Robert Prasse, Chino community development department, (909) 590-5549. Dan Silver, Endangered Habitats League, (323) 654-1456. Frank Williams, Building Industry Association of Southern California, Baldy View Chapter, (909) 945-1884.

California is on the verge of an unprecedented surge in school construction. State voters' willingness to lower the threshold of approval for local school bonds from two-thirds to 55% has drastically increased the number of bonds issued by districts. If state voters approve the two largest bonds in California history — $13 billion in November and $12.5 billion in March 2004 — school construction would take off. About 90% of local school bonds are passing these days. That figure cheers officials at school districts, which must provide a 50% match to be eligible for the state bond money. School supporters say the influx of money is the best thing to happen to educational facility development in decades. The money is building additional classrooms, libraries and auxiliary facilities, and is modernizing schools that have received minimal maintenance for decades. Some taxpayer advocates, however, warn that some school districts are using their new revenue-raising abilities recklessly and are accumulating huge amounts of debt. State Sen. Jack O'Connell (D-San Luis Obispo), who carried constitutional amendment legislation for 13 years to reduce the two-thirds voter approval requirement, said the state and local districts need to make up for decades of neglect. "We've lost a generation of students because of the burdensome, onerous two-thirds requirement," said O'Connell, who is running for state superintendent of public instruction. Lowering the voter threshold to 55% "has really revolutionized" school construction, he said. But Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said dropping the two-thirds requirement is burdening homeowners. "Bonds are passing almost regardless of merit," said Vosburgh, who complained that bonds are funding stadiums, culinary arts facilities and even a simulated golf driving range at one community college. "We're seeing a lot of nonsense and fluff incorporated into these bonds." Either way, the increased bond funding appears to be taking pressure off developers. With bond financing, school districts can replace portable classrooms with permanent capacity — eliminating the basis for "Level II" development fees, said Jeanette C. Justus, a school facilities consultant for Southern California developers. Level II fees can run to about $6 per square foot — about three times the current Level I fee. Plus, said Justus, good schools help developers sell houses. Starting in the early 1970s, local school bonds began to fail in large numbers. Those losses at the polls preceded the taxpayer revolt of 1978, when the state electorate approved Proposition 13 and essentially shut down local bonding. It was not until 1986 and the passage of Proposition 46 that local school bonds became feasible again. Still, the state constitution required two-thirds voter approval of local general obligation bonds — a requirement that dates to the 19th century. From 1986 through 2000, about 60% of school bonds received the necessary two-thirds approval. The bonds were most likely to pass in wealthy communities and least likely to gain approval in poor areas. The system made school districts more and more dependent on the state for facilities funding, said Robert Corley, a Ventura-based school facilities and planning consultant. In March of 2000, voters rejected a state constitutional amendment that would have reduced the voter threshold for local school bonds to 50%. But eight months later, voters approved Proposition 39, which allows passage at 55% with some additional restrictions. The ability to pass bonds with a 55% vote has empowered school districts, Corley said. "When we look back in 50 years, the passage of Prop. 39 will be a date when things started to get better," Corley said. "It's a step in shifting the balance of power back to the locals." Since the first 55% elections in early 2001, school bonds have passed about 90% of the time — and voters are now deciding more local school bonds than ever before. During the March 2002 election, K-12 and community college districts put forth 78 school bonds, including 73 that required only 55% approval. (Some school districts have not gone the 55% route because the lower threshold requires districts to more specifically identify how they will spend the money and requires establishment of a citizen oversight committee.) Voters approved 66 of the bonds, including 65 of the 73 at the 55% level, according to a report by the Coalition for Adequate School Housing. In total, voters approved $4.2 billion in bonds for K-12 districts, and $2.2 billion for community college districts. Most analysts expect at least as many local school bonds to appear on November ballots as were on the March ballot. The surge in local funding means that more districts can raise the 50% local match for construction projects, said Duwayne Brooks, director of school facilities for the state Department of Education. The higher passage rate of local bonds also means fewer districts are seeking hardship status, for which the state pays 100% of construction costs, he said. "It makes everybody's job easier. It results in more schools being built," Brooks said of Proposition 39. "We have been underfunded for so many years. $6.7 billion in 1998 sounded like a lot. But the bonds that were put before voters before that time were really just miniscule. … And the kids just keep coming." Indeed, state officials expect to award the last $600 million of the $6.7 billion — an amount voters approved for K-12 schools with passage of Proposition 1A in 1998 — this summer. This November's state school bond would provide $4.8 billion simply to cover the backlog of approved but unfunded projects. The $13 billion state school bond earmarks $1.7 billion for "critically overcrowded" schools. This money is seen primarily as aid to the Los Angeles Unified School District, but other poor and urban districts could qualify. The remaining $6 billion will be awarded on the traditional first-come, first-served basis favored by many growing suburban districts (see CP&DR Public Development, June 2001). If voters reject the state bond, however, the whole system could fall apart. Vosburgh, of the Jarvis group, expects another voter revolt will occur at some point, especially as the same districts return to voters again and again with bond measures. "It may take a few years, but ultimately we think there is going to be enough anger out there that people with pursue an initiative to restore the two-thirds threshold," Vosburgh predicted. In the meantime, Vosburgh's group vows to file a standard ballot argument against any local 55% bond that does not have opposition. Contacts: State Sen. Jack O'Connell, (916) 445-5405. Duwayne Brooks, Department of Education, (916) 445-2144. Jeanette Justus, school facilities consultant, (949) 509-7761. Robert Corley, school facilities consultant, (805) 658-2995. Kris Vosburgh, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, (213) 384-9656.

Apparently hoping to lure the San Diego Chargers northward, real estate magnate Philip Anschutz has proposed a football stadium in a newly created redevelopment project area near Staples Center in downtown Los Angeles. Mayor James Hahn has endorsed the proposal even as Los Angeles County prepared to sue the redevelopment action. The Los Angeles City Council approved the creation of an 879-acre redevelopment project area in the southern part of downtown in early May. The day after the council dropped a proposal to ban the use of redevelopment funds for a stadium, Anschutz and his company, AEG Entertainment, unveiled stadium plans and revealed that they had purchased much of the necessary land. The other major development expected in the redevelopment project area is a new hotel. The L.A. Convention Center — located adjacent to Staples — has languished in recent years, apparently because a convention-quality hotel does not exist nearby. Conventioneers must stay several blocks north and shuttle to the convention center. Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, a former Los Angeles city councilman, has led the effort by Los Angeles County to sue. He claimed that the project, which is expected to generate more than $2 billion in tax-increment funds over 45 years, is "taking money out of the mouths of poor people" and "defies common sense." A Little Hoover Commission report on the state's housing shortage recommends the state play a much larger role in ensuring housing gets built. The report notes that in 2000, California housing production fell short of need for the eleventh consecutive year. The report contains five major recommendations for the state: o Strengthen the housing element law and refocus it to ensure housing gets built, not simply planned. o Reform brownfields policies to encourage affordable housing development. o Draw more investors into the housing market by promoting partnerships, identifying new sources of capital and encouraging cities and counties to streamline permit processing and be flexible with development fees. o Provide more subsidies for unit construction and infrastructure. o Make subsidies easier to access, streamline reporting requirements and provide technical assistance. The report, "Rebuilding the Dream: Solving California's Affordable Housing Crisis," is available on the Little Hoover Commission website, www.lhc.ca.gov/lhc.html The City of Santa Rosa has adopted an affordable housing fee that will be imposed on market-rate units. The sliding scale ranges from 40-cents-per-square-foot for 850-square-foot units, to $7.35 a square foot for homes of 2,000 to 4,500 square feet. City officials hope the fee, besides raising money for affordable housing programs, will encourage development of smaller units that are more affordable to working families. A variety of housing, conservation and other land use programs were hit in the annual "May revise" of the state budget. Gov. Davis proposed reducing the Housing and Community Development budget by $27.9 million, including a $11.5 million cut in the Farmworker Housing Program. The proposed 2002-03 budget eliminates $39 million in subventions the state would pay local governments that participate in the Williamson Act farmland and open space protection program. And the governor's budget recommends eliminating the Williamson Act backfill permanently. The budget would force redevelopment agencies and multi-county special districts to participate in the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund, which shifts property tax dollars from local governments to school districts. Under the May revise, redevelopment agencies would send about $75 million to schools, and multi-county special districts would lose about $45 million to schools. The State Water Resources Control Board would lose $6.2 million for its stormwater pollution control program. The federal Environmental Protection Agency has ordered California to end farmers' exemption from the federal Clean Air Act. The federal decision was issued to settle three lawsuits over Central Valley air pollution filed by the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment and other environmental and health groups. The decision appears to mean that huge diesel engines that power water pumps must have emission control devices. Dust from huge livestock operations would have to be controlled better, as would the spraying of pesticides. Farmers contend that urbanization and Bay Area smog are to blame for the valley's air pollution, which ranks among the worst in the nation (see CP&DR Environment Watch, April 2002). If the state does not eliminate the exemption by October 2, the federal government will take over Clean Air Act enforcement on farms. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service issued a final designation of critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat in late April. The agency designated 33,295 acres in western San Bernardino and Riverside counties as critical habitat for the k-rat, which has been central to Southern California endangered species battles since the 1980s. The decision appeared to satisfy neither environmentalists nor builders. The critical habitat designation is about 22,100 acres fewer than originally proposed, and biologists questioned the elimination of some areas the USF&WS said were not necessary for species survival. On other hand, about 90% of the critical habitat area is privately owned and much of it is subject to intense growth pressure. The City of Tustin and the Santa Ana Unified School District have settled a dispute over reuse of the Tustin Marine Corps base (see CP&DR Deals, October 2001). Under the agreement, the school district, which had wanted 100 acres for school sites, will get 22 acres for an elementary and middle school, plus $38 million to buy land for a high school elsewhere. If the designated 22 acres proves too polluted or the district opts not to use it, the city must pay the district another $22 million. The City of Milpitas has sued the City of San Jose for approving a 180-megawatt power plant in the Alviso neighborhood, near the border of the two cities. The lawsuit claims that the environmental impact report did not adequately address the visual and air quality impacts of the proposed 90-foot-tall combustion stacks and 60-foot-high cooling towers. Milpitas filed the suit in late March, about one month after San Jose approved Calpine's Los Esteros Critical Energy Facility. The California Energy Commission began conducting public hearings on the project in May. Wal-Mart announced in May it plans to open 40 "supercenters" across California during the next four to six years. At approximately 225,000 square feet, the supercenters are 50% to 100% larger than most existing Wal-Marts in the state. The supercenters include full grocery stores. Less than a week later after Wal-Mart's announcement, Albertson's said it would build 30 new grocery stores and remodel 82 others in Southern California, and the chain plans to build 96 new Sav-On drugstores and remodel 20 more. A City of Redondo Beach specific plan for redevelopment of 150 acres along and near the waterfront will be the subject of a voter referendum. Opponents of the "Heart of the City" plan formed in March because of the scale of development the plan would allow (see CP&DR Local Watch, January 2002). They quickly gathered enough signatures to force a vote during the November election. The nonprofit organization Greenbelt Alliance has released a new guidebook that provides details on 12 strategies for infill and mixed-used development. The report by Stephen Wheeler recommends updating zoning ordinances, revising parking requirements and preparing specific plans for neighborhoods. "Smart Infill: Creating More Livable Communities in the Bay Area" is available at http://www.greenbelt.org/resources/reports/index.html.

Opponents of a proposed expansion of a hazardous waste dump in rural Kern County took the proper steps to earn a hearing before a state-appointed appeals board, the Fifth District Court of Appeal has ruled in one of its rare published opinions. Residents of the unincorporated community of Buttonwillow wanted a state board to decide whether Safety-Kleen could expand its facility on the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley. The decision in this case is somewhat academic because Gov. Davis appointed a seven-member appeals panel last year, and the board has conducted 14 days of public hearings since then. A decision from the board is due this month. Still, the case is important because it is the first of its kind decided by a state appellate court. The unanimous three-judge panel attempted to sort through the apparently conflicting requirements that applicants must meet to get a hearing before a state board. In October 1991, Safety-Kleen (then known as Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.) applied to Kern County for a conditional use permit to modify and expand the Buttonwillow facility. Compounding the situation was the later disclosure that Safety-Kleen had accepted radioactive debris for some time. The legality of that activity is unclear. In December 1994, the Kern County Board of Supervisors approved the conditional use permit. The following month, an association of Buttonwillow residents called Padres Hacia una Vida Mejor (Parents for a Better Life) and eight individuals filed an appeal under the Tanner Act (Health and Safety Code § 25135 et seq. and § 25199 et seq.) with the governor's office. The Tanner Act governs the siting and operation of hazardous materials facilities. Project opponents acknowledged their petition was not ready for consideration because Safety-Kleen still needed state permits for toxic substances, air pollution and water quality. The California Environmental Protection Agency said the appeal was filed on time but could not be heard until all necessary state permits were approved. In June 1999, Safety-Kleen completed the regulatory gauntlet and received an "authority to construct" permit from the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. In July 1999, Padres informed the governor that the project had all its permits. The opponents requested the governor convene an administrative appeal board, but they received no response. They sent another letter in November 1999 and again heard nothing. So they sued the governor. After Padres filed the lawsuit, Cal EPA rejected the appeal because the opponents did not resubmit the original application. Kern Court Superior Court Judge Roger Randall ruled for the opponents and directed the governor to convene a "Tanner board." The governor would eventually do just that, but Kern County and Safety-Kleen appealed the trial court's decision. They argued that the project opponents did not meet the requirements of the administrative appeal process. The Fifth District called the statutory process a "Catch-22" and upheld the lower court ruling. The opponents met the first mandatory step of the process when they filed an appeal within 30 days of the Board of Supervisors' decision. The second step was satisfied when the governor's office determined within five working days whether all state permits had been obtained, the court ruled. At this point, the story of the process becomes confusing. The county and Safety-Kleen argue that the third step was for Padres to resubmit its application after all state agency permits were granted. The original application was incomplete because, at the time Padres filed the application, the project lacked state permits, the county and Safety-Kleen argued. But the opponents contended that the next step was for the governor to convene the Tanner board. The court sided with Padres. If an application must show that all state permits have been granted, then it could not be filed within the 30-day time limit from the county's decision — a classic Catch-22, the court noted. To get around this paradox, Cal EPA retained the opponents' original application and required them to resubmit their appeal once all state permits were awarded. However, Cal EPA never notified opponents that resubmission was required. Furthermore, the court ruled, the Tanner Act does not mandate this resubmittal, nor was it a valid administrative regulation. " ubdivision (e) of § 25199.9 clearly imposes a mandatory obligation on the Governor or his designee to convene an appeal board if all state agency permits have been obtained by the proponent of the project," Justice James Ardaiz wrote for the court. "We hold that the third step mandated by the Tanner Act under the facts of this case was for the Governor to convene a Tanner Board after the project obtained all required state agency permits." The court rejected arguments from the county and Safety-Kleen that indefinite delays would result if the court did not enforce appeal deadlines. "A delay will only arise if the Governor or his designee do not perform their obligation of convening a Tanner Board once all the permits have been obtained," the court ruled. Finally, the court rejected arguments that the opponents waived their right to challenge the requirement to resubmit the original application. The January 1995 letter from Cal EPA "is ambiguous and does not state that Padres's timely filed appeal will be rejected if it is not ‘resubmitted' within a specified amount of time after the last state agency permit is obtained by the project," Ardaiz wrote. The Case: Padres Hacia una Vida Mejor v. Davis, Nos. F036205, F037576, F037832, F037828, 02 C.D.O.S. 2361. Filed March 12, 2002. The Lawyers: For Padres: Luke Cole, (415) 495-8990. For Kern County: Stephen Schuett, county counsel's office, (661) 868-3837. For Safety-Kleen: J. Martin Robertson, Gray, Cary, Ware & Freidenrich, (415) 836-2537.

Flat-rate "franchise fees" that the City of Roseville charges customers of its municipal water, sewer and refuse collections systems are in violation of Proposition 218, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled. The in-lieu franchise fees are illegal because they are not directly related to the cost of providing service to property owners, the court held. If the fees were tied to the cost of services, the city could levy the charges, the court ruled. The court ruling could affect numerous local governments that provide utility services to property owners and transfer a portion of the revenues to the general fund. In 1992, the northeastern Sacramento suburb of Roseville began charging a 4% in-lieu franchise fee on the budgets of the city's water, sewer and garbage utilities. City officials said the fee was compensation, or rent, paid to the general fund by the municipal utilities for use of streets, alleys and rights-of-way � all of which are supported by the general fund. The city also said the 4% fee was a reasonable economic return to the general fund. Several years later, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, two other groups and two ratepayers sued the city. They claimed that the fees violated Proposition 218, the Right to Vote on Taxes Act, which voters added to the state constitution in 1996. Placer County Superior Court Judge Frances Kearney ruled for the taxpayers, and Roseville appealed. On appeal, the Third District considered two questions: First, does Proposition 218 apply to the in-lieu franchise fee? And, second, does the fee violate Proposition 218? The unanimous three-judge appellate panel answered yes to both questions, upholding the lower court's decision. Proposition 218 applies to fees "imposed by an agency upon a parcel or upon a person as an incident of property ownership," the court ruled, citing Article XIII D, � 2 of the state constitution. The city argued the fee was not "an incident of property ownership" and, therefore, was not subject to Proposition 218. But the court disagreed, pointing to Roseville municipal ordinances that direct the provision of water, sewer and refuse services to property. "These services are first necessarily delivered to property, and then, and only then, to those living or working on that property," Justice Rodney Davis wrote for the court. "This recognized dichotomy discounts any argument that water, sewer and refuse services delivered to a tenant are not property-related." Moreover, Proposition 218 stated, "�Property ownership' shall be deemed to include tenancies of real property where tenants are directly liable to pay." As to whether the fees violated Proposition 218, the court ruled the answer is yes because the proposition requires fees to be reasonably related to the cost of service. "Roseville may charge its water, sewer and refuse utilities for the street, alley and right-of-way costs attributed to the utilities," Davis wrote. " nd Roseville may transfer these revenues to its general fund to pay for such costs (the general fund supports or pays for Roseville's streets, alleys and rights of way). Here, however, there has been no showing that the in-lieu fee reasonably represents these costs." A consultant prepared a report for the city that provides a "theoretical foundation" for imposing the fees, but the report failed to identify what the costs supported by the general fund actually were. "The in-lieu fee is the same percentage applied to each budget, regardless of varying uses of streets, alleys and rights-of-way by the individual utilities," Davis wrote. "It cannot be said that this flat fee on budgets coincides with these costs." Furthermore, Proposition 218 requires the fees to be pledged for specific purposes. But Roseville simply placed the revenue in its general fund for general governmental services, which was a further violation, the court ruled. The city argued that Measures U and K, approved by Roseville voters in November 2000, legalized the fees. Measure U amended the city charter to require each city utility to be financially self-sufficient and to fully compensate the general fund "for all goods, services, real property and rights to use or operate on or in city-owned real property." Measure K permitted the city to levy an in-lieu franchise fee of up to 4% to pay for police, fire protection, parks, recreation and libraries. However, the court ruled those measures did not save the city's case because � again � the ballot measures did not demonstrate what the actual costs were. The Case: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of Roseville, No. C036295, 02 C.D.O.S. 3160, 2002 DJDAR 3870. Filed April 12, 2002. The Lawyers: For Jarvis: Jonathan Coupal, (916) 444-9950. For the city: Mark Doane, city attorney's office, (916) 774-5325.

"Environmental justice" is becoming the biggest buzzword in planning since "smart growth." There is an irony here, because, at least in California, the two appear to be on something of a collision course. On one hand, smart growth principles call for focusing new development on land available in existing urban areas. But on the other hand, environmental justice calls for an equitable distribution of development so that older neighborhoods with concentrated poverty do not bear a disproportionate burden of harmful facilities. These two things are not at complete odds with each other. Not all growth channeled into poor neighborhoods is harmful; and not all older neighborhoods are poor. But older affluent neighborhoods have long been skilled at deflecting any kind of undesirable development. In a certain way, older poor neighborhoods are using the environmental justice movement to fight the same projects. Indeed, the debate in California planning is whether environmental justice concerns should be dealt with in general plans or during environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This mirrors a fundamental debate about how most other planning issues in California should be handled. Planners often argue that things should go in the general plan; yet use of CEQA is a favored tactic of project opponents everywhere. At the policy level, the general plan approach appears to be winning. A new law requires the Governor's Office of Planning & Research (OPR) to include environmental justice considerations in revising the general plan guidelines, and to complete those revisions by next year. But CEQA-style review may win at the street level in the long run simply because the tactics of environmental justice proponents lend themselves to project-by-project battles. In particular, environmental justice advocates appear to believe that if affluent suburban neighborhoods can use CEQA to their advantage in stopping projects, inner-city activists ought to be able to do the same. The environmental justice movement has emerged largely as a result of aggressive action by ethnic and anti-poverty advocacy groups, which have argued that non-white and poor neighborhoods bear a disproportionate burden of the impact of noxious facilities. In many ways, environmental justice is simply a new way of looking at the familiar planning question of how to balance regional benefit and local impact. Planners have struggled with this question at least since the 1970s, when Rutgers University planning professor Frank Popper coined the phrase "Local Unwanted Land Use" (LULU). Environmental justice advocates have revived the LULU debate by casting it sharply in terms of race and economic class, however. For example, the Latino Issues Forum, a San Francisco-based research and advocacy group, recently used a GIS analysis to challenge the California Energy Commission's statistics on the impact of new energy plants on non-white populations. The research report found that non-white populations generally -- and Latino populations specifically -- were highly concentrated in areas adjacent to proposed peaker energy plants throughout the state. This kind of aggressive activism in environmental justice has become much more common since 1994, when President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898. The order called on every federal agency to make environmental justice "part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations." In issuing the executive order, he relied on a combination of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which requires that federal actions not discriminate on the basis of race, among other factors), the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, and federal freedom of information laws. As a result of the executive order, all federal agencies and some state and local agencies dependent on federal funds — most notably Caltrans — have embarked on aggressive programs to include environmental justice in their activities. (A recent survey of 63 state agencies by OPR found that 2% had environmental justice policies and 11% were developing them; among agencies subject to Title VI, those figures were 6% and 33%.) But a recent federal appellate court ruling from New Jersey has called the full force of the executive order into question. In South Camden Citizens in Action v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal civil rights law could not be used to pursue a claim of "disparate impact" unless the underlying statute in question specifically states that disparate impact is against the law. The successful argument by anti-environmental justice lawyers was that the Civil Rights Act was not passed in the context of concern for "disparate impact;" therefore, it cannot be used to pursue such claims, despite Clinton's reliance on Title VI. Environmental justice has come under fire not only from conservative commentators but from iconoclastic middle-of-the-road pundits, such as David Friedman of the New America Foundation, who have argued that the evidence of actual health problems associated with proximity to noxious facilities is less than overwhelming. According to one study cited by Friedman, living close to a plant emitting toxic chemicals shortens people's lives far less than simply being poor. In spite of these debates over the legal and scientific validity of environmental justice, the topic has gradually worked its way into the debate over land use planning in California. Indeed, much of the debate over both CEQA and general plan revision in recent years has revolved around environmental justice. For example, most efforts to streamline CEQA in urban areas have run into opposition from environmental justice advocates. These same environmental justice advocates, however, have been unable to work the topic overtly into the CEQA process. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines do contain some basis for what we today call environmental justice. Both contain references to decent housing and "suitable living conditions" for all people and warn that environmental protection cannot be achieved at the cost of those goals. There is no specific mention of environmental justice, however. When she was state lawmaker, Rep. Hilda Solis, a Democrat from of El Monte, repeatedly attempted to work environmental justice into CEQA and other state laws. In 1997, Solis pushed a bill requiring environmental justice considerations to be part of CEQA analysis all the way to the desk of Gov. Pete Wilson, but Wilson vetoed it. Two years later, Gov. Gray Davis signed a Solis bill establishing OPR as the statewide coordinating agency for environmental justice programs. The Solis bill and a bill by Sen. Richard Alarcon (D-San Fernando) passed in 2001 seek to use the California Environmental Protection Agency as a model for environmental justice programs. The most important bill for land-use planning, however, was AB 1553 (Keeley) in 2001, which calls on OPR to include environmental justice considerations in its next set of general plan guidelines, and to issue the revised guidelines by July 1, 2003. In response to the Keeley bill, OPR conducted four public hearings around the state in January and February soliciting ideas for the General Plan revisions. Among other things, those testifying suggested: * Beefing up efforts to inform local governments about the federal Civil Rights Act. * Encouraging local governments to pursue equitable distribution of facilities. * Providing precise definitions for sometimes vague environmental justice terms, such as an "environmental justice affected community," "equitable distribution," "livable," "over concentrating," "buffer zones," and "employment zone." Planners at OPR have not drafted changes to the general plan guidelines yet. But it will be interesting to see whether the eventual changes will alter the nature of California planning practice. Will local governments add "environmental justice elements" to their general plans? Will they take the whole topic seriously? Or will they deal with it in such a way that environmental justice advocates — like so many environmentalists before them — simply fall back on CEQA as the handiest tool at their disposal?

The people of the County of Nevada ordain as follows: Nevada County (the "County") shall provide an orderly process for addressing claims for reimbursement, payable to the property owner, when it is determined that there is a reduction in the market value of an owner's parcel. After passage of this initiative, this process applies to proposed projects when regulatory actions or determinations by the County restrict existing use or utility, in whole or in part, of the affected parcel. Restrictions based upon a clear and present danger to public health and safety, and traditionally recognized common law nuisance prohibitions, shall not be considered in calculating reductions in value. A property owner seeking reimbursement pursuant to this initiative shall first seek beneficial best use of the property. This best use must be denied by the Board of Supervisors prior to filing a claim. The Superior Court of the County shall have exclusive jurisdiction over claims made, and shall have the power to make independent findings of fact and conclusions of law, and shall not be bound by findings or determinations by the County. Reimbursement shall equal the difference in market value, with and without the regulation or action complained of, and shall include reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. If any phrase, clause or part of this initiative is found to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining phrases, clauses and parts shall remain in full force and effect.

Though scarcely acknowledged, urban planning is in the midst of a fundamental shift in professional focus. The public is demanding the change. It's a simple idea, as well as an old one: Planners need to understand design. This is because urban planning in America has followed the larger culture into an era where style is substance. This fundamental shift should send planners back to school with a fresh academic pursuit — architecture and landscape architecture. These topics are simply not part of North American universities' planning curriculum. Since the 1940s, top planning academicians have eschewed urban design as "orthogonal thinking." Long misunderstood by the public, the planning profession is in fact rooted in the tradition of social welfare and — this can be difficult for some of us to admit — social engineering. Physical planning has focused on color-coded plan maps, legalistic zoning codes, trip generation, and population pyramids — topics far afield from the more right-brained world of design, and far from issues that currently inspire the public. Nonetheless, since World War II, built environment design issues have been left for architects and landscape architects. Until now. The late 19th Century theories of cities and urban space popularized by Daniel Burnham (architect) and Frederick Law Olmstead (landscape architect) are all the rage today. Re-popularized by the neotraditional urban design movement led by Andres Duany (architect) and coupled in various combinations with the transit-friendly geometric city design of Peter Calthorpe (architect), the old has become new again. And planners, with their policies, codes and standards, are expected to make sense of it because the public demands it. Frank Ramirez, senior planner for the Governor's Office of Planning & Research (OPR), has noticed the drift of planning toward design concerns. OPR reports that 51% of California's 477 municipalities now employ design guidelines. Ramirez, who reviews general plan elements submitted by the state's local governments, notes a strong increase in communities that have adopted optional urban design elements as part of their general plans. Of the 91 cities that have adopted such elements, one-third have done so during the last five years. "Cities are more aware of their limited space. They want to ensure that their developed areas are livable and provide a high quality of life," Ramirez said. He sees the design movement being rooted in smart growth impulses. "Cities are encouraging infill because they are beginning to realize that the sprawl model costs more to service." He notes the wide variety of design approaches that have come into being. Built-out communities pay attention to street design, while expanding cities focus on private development standards. Designers who are engaged in developing guidelines and elements also note the surge in interest in regulation related to quality-of-life issues. "People in general are much more vocal and involved in the development of their communities" than 20 years ago, said Erik Justesen, an urban designer trained in landscape architecture with San Luis Obispo-based RRM Design Group. He noticed that community interest in design really began to take hold during the 1980s, a period noted for the first large-scaled post-modernist developments — such as Michael Graves' Humana tower in Louisville, Kentucky — and the deconstructivist work of architect Frank Gehry. There is likely a marketing element at play, too. Justesen observes that the growing competition between communities for attracting shoppers and tourists drives demand for good design. "Cities have a desire to distinguish themselves as destinations. They are realizing that attractive environments attract people. Retail developers, too, realize that," he said. John Chase holds a lonely post as one of only a handful of urban designers employed to review design by a city government in California – in his case, West Hollywood. Despite the growth in public interest in urban design, Chase wonders if his profession is more accepted in the private sector, where he notes a string of consulting firms have hired urban designers right out of school to serve their public agency clients better. Chase, a trained architect, serves primarily as an advisor on development review and the design of public spaces in West Hollywood, such as the recent redesign of Santa Monica Boulevard. He answers to the planning manager, and he understands that urban planning abandoned design as a primary concern decades ago and is now in the rediscovery process. He suspects the popularization of design is tied to what he calls the "Martha Stuart phenomenon" – the notion that everything can be dressed up and that, in so doing, quality of experience is improved. In this line of theory, merchandizing and branding have become so integral to culture that the public demands branding and packaging of urban space. Whereas it seems that there is something to the notion that "city-as-theme-park" impulses are at play in current redesigns of urban retail and entertainment-oriented downtowns, there are just as many legitimate calls for a humanizing and beautification of public spaces in our cities. To LA-based urban designer and landscape architect Patricia Smith, the three most important urban design tenets are the relationship of buildings to the street, the design of the street/public space itself, and the design of access and "wayfinding." Smith and Chase agree that in order to get a good result from the myriad forms of urban design policies/guidelines/codes, it is critical to require that design-trained professionals be involved with both writing and with implementation. "Interpretation of standards is critical," said Smith. "There are always unique circumstances that confront a design problem where a fundamental understanding of the intent is essential to enable a creative solution." Stephen Svete, AICP, is president of Rincon Consultants, Inc., a Ventura-based consulting firm.

Where do housing unit need projections come from? If you answered, "from population projections," you are only partly correct. The little-understood and unappreciated "headship rate" translates population projections into units. Small changes in headship rates could result in significant changes in housing need projections. Housing element law, first enacted in 1969, mandates that local governments work to provide a safe and livable environment for Californians. That mandate evolved to include adequately planning to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of a community. During the latest round of state-mandated housing element updates, many cities and counties have struggled to plan for the number of units required by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The RHNA number is determined by the headship rate — the probability that individuals, families, or groups will rent or buy a housing unit. Headship rates are worth a closer look because they estimate how many households are formed from the population projections. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) currently is focused on the headship rates and realizes that small changes in the rate will make large differences in future housing unit projections. The RHNA allocation is a two-part number: the existing housing need and future need based on population growth. The existing need figure is the number of units necessary to reduce overcrowding and provide an economic choice range that, coupled with a decent vacancy rate, enables an efficient and equitable housing market to operate. The growth-based housing need estimate is based on population projections (a combination of net natural increase and net migration) translated into numbers of households via the headship rates. Like most demographic methods, headship rates reflect how the population has been carved up into housing units in the past. The Department of Finance (DOF) and SCAG headship rates are essentially probabilities that a person of a specific age and race will be listed as the "Head of Household" ("Reference Person" in census jargon) or the person listed first on a lease, mortgage or property title. Chart No. 1 contains the Department of Finance's headship rates for San Bernardino County. It shows that about 22.5% of males age 18-24 are a household head. That means the remaining 77.5% of age 18-24 males are living with their parents, at school, in jail or with someone else who is listed as the "household reference person" in a census or survey. You can also see that male heads of household tend to outnumber female, and that the highest headship rates are for people older than 55. Headship rates also vary by race, income and geography, reflecting the various factors that influence people's desire and ability to form households. In San Bernardino County, the expected number of households for males age 35 to 44 differs by race, as shown in Chart No. 2. "Others" include Asians and Pacific Islanders and American Indians. Here you see the general pattern that more than half of all males in this age group are renting or owning an apartment or house, more likely renting than owning. These "starter households" are the most likely to be affected by a tight housing market because of cost and low housing supply. Most people older than 35 already have a home, and they may choose to remain in it pending a good opportunity to move. So, when they do not move, or move less frequently, the pipeline "jams up" and affects the starter households the most. We are already seeing in some areas more young adults continuing to live with their parents. As a result, young adults are less able to move to take entry-level jobs, or the jobs have to offer higher wages. You may infer that because non-Hispanic whites generally have higher incomes than the other groups, headship is a function of income. You would be right. That raises the question of other ways to estimate households that may better anticipate future household formations in an increasingly expensive housing market. Perhaps sex and race-based headship rates are not the best way to anticipate future household formation. When Census 2000 income data are fully released by September, this is one topic worth examining. Maybe in the next round of fair-share housing allocations, a different headship rate methodology would yield results more attuned to the interests of local businesses and residents. In our increasingly diverse population, one wonders if race-based headship rates still make sense. Perhaps the rates should be based on income and/or education. The existing rates reflect the housing choices of the 1980s and early 1990s, which is another reason to explore more accurate ways to create the rates.

Voters in Sierra Madre have approved an initiative that gives owners of property on the city's historical landmarks registry 120 days to withdraw their properties from the landmarks list. The vote on Measure 02-A during the April election was 1,419 (61.3%) to 897 (38.7%). The San Gabriel Valley city's historic landmarks registry contains 79 properties, mostly single-family homes from the early 20th century. The city tightly regulates any changes to the structures. However, some property owners have complained that they never consented to the listing and have battled to get their real estate off the registry. In 1998, Sierra Madre voters approved a city-sponsored ballot measure that removed 29 homes from the registry. However, historical preservationists sued because the city did not perform an environmental review prior to putting the measure on the ballot. The case went all the way to the state Supreme Court, which ruled that ballot measures placed before voters by public agencies must receive scrutiny under the California Environmental Quality Act (see CP&DR Legal Digest, May 2001). The court distinguished citizen-sponsored initiatives. After that ruling, a group called Citizens for Property Rights got the initiative qualified for the April ballot. The latest election still may not settle the issue, as historic preservationists vowed to continue fighting. In a symbolic move, two Bush administration Cabinet secretaries opened the main irrigation canal in Southern Oregon's Klamath Basin in late March. Interior Secretary Gale Norton and Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman opened the headgates that help irrigate 240,000 acres of farmland in Oregon and Northern California. Only 11 months earlier, the Bureau of Reclamation announced it was reducing 2001 water deliveries by 80% so that more water would be available for the endangered sucker fish and for two Indian tribes downstream in California (see CP&DR Environment Watch, October 2001). The bureau's decision caused widespread protests, and Bush administration officials vowed to reconsider the situation. "We have to find ways to balance the needs of the ecosystem and of people," Norton said during the March ceremony, at which environmentalists and Indians protested. An infrastructure panel appointed by Gov. Davis has issued its final report addressing numerous planning issues, including the need for more housing development. The California Commission on Building for the 21st Century recommended passing a new school bond, adopting a state energy infrastructure policy, lowering the voter threshold for local transportation tax hikes from two-thirds to 55%, and adopting a state water infrastructure plan. The panel further urged establishment of a new state infrastructure fund, and creation of a public-private entity "to support needed and cost-efficient infrastructure planning and investment." Unlike many past infrastructure reports, this latest document includes recommendations for housing and land use. To boost housing production, the panel recommended the state: o Reform the state-local fiscal relationship so that local government has incentives to meet regional housing production goals. Possibilities include swapping local sales tax revenue for more property tax revenue, capping the property tax shift to schools, and regional tax revenue sharing. o Provide more funding for brownfield cleanup and redevelopment. o Establish a permanent housing incentive fund to reward communities. o Offer incentives for interregional and multi-disciplinary planning. o Provide more resources to cities and counties with housing elements that are in compliance with state law. o Resolve construction defect litigation. Possibilities include a better dispute resolution system, home buyer warranties, and more training for construction workers and building inspectors. o Promote the use of master environmental impact reports and streamline the California Environmental Quality Act. Regarding land use in general, the commission recommended the state: o Provide matching funds and technical support to help local governments update general plans. o Provide better data, technical assistance and planning grants to local and regional agencies. o Adopt inter-agency planning models. o Fund resource conservation planning, such as multi-species habitat conservation plans. o Use "scientifically accepted standards" to regulate brownfield cleanup. o Provide money for "best practices in zoning and building codes so communities can achieve more efficient land use and adopt new models of development, such as mixed-use and transit-oriented development." The report is available at www.bth.ca.gov/invest4ca/ A proposed 450-acre expansion of the Sunshine Canyon Landfill into the City of Los Angeles has been rejected by the city's Environmental Affairs Department, which said Browing Ferris Industries' application was incomplete. Within hours, BFI withdrew the application temporarily. The huge garbage dump, which straddles the city-county border near Interstate 5, operated for years inside the city before its permit expired 11 years ago. Los Angeles County permitted landfill operations to resume in 1996. In 1999, the Los Angeles City Council approved expansion into the city — a decision that was a catalyst for the San Fernando Valley secession movement. Browning Ferris hoped to get a permit approved to open the city portion of the facility this spring. Mayor James Hahn said he is "committed to closing all landfills within our city limits" and he endorsed the decision to reject the application. Mountain View City Councilman Mario Ambra was convicted of willful misconduct and removed from office in April. A jury found Ambra guilty of violating the city charter by bullying the planning director and other city employees. One week after the verdict was issued, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge John Herlihy formally removed Ambra from office, although Ambra had submitted his resignation the prior day. Earlier in the trial, Judge Herlihy dismissed three counts against Ambra related to his attempts to use the planning department to harass a neighboring property owner so the property owner would sell out to Ambra. According to grand jury testimony, Ambra wanted to develop the site next to his home on Rengstorff Avenue. However, the court ruled that Ambra did not have a financial interest in the property where his home is because the real estate is held in a trust established by his father. Housing advocates have settled a lawsuit with the City of Folsom. Under the settlement approved by Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly in April, the city will rezone 128 acres to allow development of about 2,900 units for very low- and low-income people. City officials also agreed to create a housing trust fund, impose a "linkage" fee of at least $1.10 per square foot on commercial and industrial development, and adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance. In approving the settlement, Judge Connelly lifted a development moratorium on 600 acres. He had imposed the moratorium in December because the city had not approved any low-income housing units in recent years. The Coronado City Council imposed a 45-day moratorium on mixed-use developments in early April and will likely extend it so that planners have time to complete a downtown specific plan, Community Development Director Tony Pena said. A few years ago, the city decided to allow development of up to 74 residential units in the "limited commercial" and "central commercial" zoning districts of the Orange Avenue corridor. The city has approved an 8-unit project, and applications for two others were submitted, Pena said. However, all the projects are in the "limited commercial" zone. Planners hope to complete the specific plan by the end of the year before taking action on the latest mixed-use proposals. The San Diego Union-Tribune reported that residents of mixed-use projects in the area have complained about noise and traffic from businesses. Correction. The Public Development story in the April edition incorrectly characterized AB 2058 (Papan). The bill would allow public entities outside of San Francisco that rely on the Hetch Hetchy water system to form the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, which could issue bonds to fund system repairs.