In what most observers called a major victory for environmentalists and federal regulatory agencies, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Environmental Protection Agency's practice of not considering costs when setting air quality standards. The American Trucking Associations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce led the fight against the EPA, saying the agency should conduct cost-benefit analyses when setting standards. But a unanimous Supreme Court disagreed, with conservative Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the court. Scalia wrote that the Clean Air Act "unambiguously bars cost considerations" from the process of setting air quality standards intended to protect the public health. In a concurring opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer found the statutory language less definitive, but he reached the same conclusion. The February 27 decision, however, was not a complete defeat for business interests. The court did invalidate the EPA's ozone standards, finding that the agency's timing for implementation of the standards was unreasonable. Those standards, adopted in 1997, increased the number of metropolitan areas in violation of the Clean Air Act from 75 to about 400, including much of California. The high court sent the ozone standards back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia for further review. The appellate court is expected to overturn the standards outright. The case is Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns Inc., No. 99-1257, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1981. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review an adult business case from Los Angeles. In Alameda Books, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, No. 98-56200, the Ninth Circuit ruled that a city ordinance prohibiting an adult bookstore from also providing adult video viewing booths was unconstitutional. (See CP&DR Legal Digest, September 2000). The Ninth Circuit ruled that the city failed to prove the law prohibiting two adult businesses on the same site advanced a significant government interest because the city's study of "secondary effects" of dual adult operations was inapplicable. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case during its next term, with oral arguments likely to be conducted in October. The case is No. 00-799. An en-banc panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear a case regarding regulation of private land inside an Indian reservation. The majority of Ninth Circuit judges agreed to hear Roberta Bugenig v. Hoopa Valley Tribe, No. 99-15654 (see CP&DR Legal Digest, November 2000). Last year, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that an Indian tribe has the authority to regulate land owned by nonmembers only when given specific Congressional approval or when the land use directly affects the tribe's political integrity, economic security, or health and welfare. The Hoopa Valley Tribe does not have Congressional approval, nor did Bugenig's proposed land use directly harm the Tribe, the court ruled. Bugenig owns 40 acres inside the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation in Humboldt County. She sought permission to selectively log three acres of her property, but the tribe refused to grant permission because of impacts on a ceremonial site. When Bugenig went ahead anyway, the tribe sued her in Tribal Court and won. Bugenig then filed suit in federal court, losing at the trial court level but winning on appeal. The decision to hear the case en-banc means the earlier appellate decision cannot be cited as precedent. The Ninth Circuit has withdrawn a decision in a rent control case from Southern California. In Montclair Parkowners Association v. City of Montclair, No. 99-55083, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit cleared the way for the landlords to challenge the city's rent control ordinance as an uncompensated taking. (See CP&DR Legal Digest, June 2000). A federal district court had dismissed the lawsuit because a similar one was making its way through state court. In the state litigation, The Fourth District Court of Appeal ultimately ruled that the city's ordinance was not a taking. Montclair Parkowners Association v. City of Montclair, 76 Cal.App.4th 784 (see CP&DR Legal Digest, January 2000). The Ninth Circuit panel concluded that the federal district court had ruled properly. But because the state litigation concluded in the time between the district court's decision and the appellate panel's ruling, the federal case could proceed. However, that three-judge panel's decision was withdrawn in February pending resolution of a different case, Green v. City of Tucson, No. 99-15625, in which a different Ninth Circuit panel reached a different conclusion regarding concurrent state and federal lawsuits. The Ninth Circuit is hearing Green en-banc.

The average person thinks of government as having a monolithic character. If she does not know better, she believes that different government agencies are merely the Vishnu-like arms of one great, unified body. But the opposite is true. Government is, in fact, a cluster of little bureaucracies. Each governmental agency, and each department inside that agency, and each division that department, has its own agenda. Call it the Will to Power. Call it the Imp of the Perverse. Whatever you call it, the result is the same: Different governmental entities often do not cooperate. That is why the notion of joint use is exciting. Joint use is a common-sense idea that two or more separate public agencies can save money and, in the lingo of bureaucrats, "achieve efficiencies" if they combine their money and build things that both need, such as libraries, swimming pools, and public safety facilities. But how do you divide costs, maintenance, responsibilities and security issues among two very different entities? The downtown San Jose library is one project that stretches across the Balkans of non-cooperation, joining together the City of San Jose Redevelopment Agency and San Jose State University. What is most interesting about the San Jose library, which is under construction with completion due in early 2003, is that the facilities are largely shared — rather than creating, what is in effect, two separate libraries under one roof. "We decided against the duplex model," says San Jose City Librarian Jane Light. The decision to combine resources, especially books, was a philosophical one. "It's ‘in for a penny, in for a pound,'" she says of the joint-use approach. "You are not going to get the benefits if you are not going to do it all the way." Another benefit is that the library becomes a crucial link between the university and downtown San Jose. On May 21, 1998, the San Jose City Council and Redevelopment Agency Board (which are alter egos) approved a Memorandum of Understanding with San Jose State University. The MOU is a voluminous document that sets out the rules for the way two very different entities will share a 575,000-square-foot library with a collection of more than 1 million volumes. This document does far more than decide who pays how much for maintenance and furniture: The MOU effectively creates a new type of library. Under this agreement, non-students will be able to check out books from the university collection, which is larger and more in-depth than that of the public library. (As is traditional, university instructors have the right to reserve books related to course work.) The city and the university will share a database, enabling patrons in branch libraries to request books from the main library, or at least put a hold on them. The MOU sets out the obligations of both parties. The university and the city jointly own and use the building as tenants-in-common. Of the total square footage of the building, roughly two-thirds is allocated to the university and the remaining one-third to the city (although this seems a little bit symbolic to me, because much of the library and its collections are open to all). Again, the university and the redevelopment agency jointly own all the furniture, splitting the replacement costs 59-41, with the university picking up the biggest part. The two entities run the library together. Significantly, no staff members of either the city or university library system are to be laid off, ensuring the facility has an unusually large staff to assist library users. The 59-41 split also applies for the library's repair program. To cover facility maintenance costs, the city is obliged to pay the university $6.45 per square foot, or about $1.025 million annually. For sheer economic savings, the joint-use library is a winner. Under the MOU, the city owns 158,990 square feet of the library. Assuming a construction cost of $300 per square foot, which Light says is conservative, that portion alone costs about $47.7 million, while the university's portion costs about $94.7 million. Total construction costs are pegged at $177.5 million. Beyond dollar savings is the considerable boon that the library will have on the urban design of downtown San Jose. The library may become a sort of portal between the city and the school. This portal becomes all the more important when one realizes that contact between the downtown and the campus has been surprisingly rare. Although the university is located directly next to the downtown area, much of the campus is fenced off, and there are only a few pedestrian connections to downtown. (The front doors of nearly all the university buildings face inward toward the quadrangle, turning their backs on downtown. "I have met many people in town who have never set foot on the university campus, and students who have never left the campus," Light says. The location of the library at South Fourth and East San Fernando streets is right at the meeting point of the campus and the city, which connect through a pedestrian walkway. Light says that location was a crucial decision: By straddling the boundary between city and university, the library remains convenient to the campus while providing plentiful pedestrian activity in a downtown area starved for people on foot. The library site is a few blocks from where the city plans to build a new Civic Center/City Hall designed by Getty Center architect Richard Meier. It's a remarkable, if unlikely, achievement: A university research library becomes the driver of pedestrian activity in a formative downtown area. Obviously, problems are possible, such as in the area of labor relations. Librarians employed by different entities may chafe if they believe that their counterparts are receiving better salaries or benefits. The most potent difficulty, perhaps, is what happens if one of the parties runs into financial trouble: the city, being more vulnerable to the ups-and-down of tax collections, may be forced to renegotiate the agreement, cutting staff and hours. Those potential problems, however, seem piddly compared to the benefits. And while we should be cautious about leaping to embrace joint-use agreements across the board, Light draws a provocative analogy between the world of information and the world of public agencies. After all, she points out, both libraries and universities are tax-supported institutions. "In the information age, these kinds of jurisdictional boundaries are kind of laughable. If you are giving resources to people for life-long learning needs, we have to unlock these boundaries that we have helped to erect." Amen, sister, and pass the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature.

Environmental review of a 109-unit subdivision on a 900-acre parcel in Carmel Valley was inadequate, the Sixth District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court concluded that in overturning the Monterey County Planning Commission's decision to deny the project, the Board of Supervisors used information about the project's water supply that had been introduced at the end of the environmental review process and had not been sufficiently analyzed or reviewed by the public. The environmental impact report for the proposed September Ranch project concluded that water demand for the originally proposed project (which called for 117 residences) estimated annual water usage of 61.15 acre-feet per year, or 16.15 acre-feet more than the estimated existing usage of 45 acre-feet per year. The 45 acre-feet figure was based on an estimate of 2 acre-feet apiece for 21 irrigated pastures, plus 3 acre-feet used by an existing equestrian center and residence. In the comment period, the county health department concluded that fewer acres had historically been irrigated as pastureland. However, the final EIR concluded that no historical data on water use existed and stuck with the 45 acre-foot estimate. A supplemental EIR dealt with other water issues, including the ranch's assertion that it held riparian rights. Following the release of the supplemental EIR, the applicants announced they had purchased a 10-acre parcel (the "Berube" parcel) that contained the right to pump approximately 32 acre-feet of water per year from the property. In 1998, the county's Land Use Advisory Committee recommended denial, claiming the project did not comply with the county's water supply policies. The committee gave the project a failing score (44%) in the category of water/hydrology. Later that year, the Planning Commission rejected the project, in part because of the water issues, but did approve a smaller project of 56 units. The Planning Commission rejected the EIR's methodology of estimating water use and instead used the September Ranch's records for water use for 1997, which revealed that 26 acre-feet had been pumped for irrigation (plus 52 acre-feet for aquifer testing). The commission approved the smaller project based on this lower estimate of water usage. However, the applicants viewed the smaller project as economically infeasible. After the Planning Commission action, the environmental consultants submitted "supplemental information and errata," which relied on documented water use to conclude that average use for 1993 to 1999 was 30 acre-feet per year. But that usage had grown to 51 acre-feet per year in the period 1997 to 1999. Based on this information and the availability of water from the Berube property, the county staff recommended that the Board of Supervisors revise the project's failing water/hydrology score. In late 1998, the board voted 3-2 to approve the project at 109 units, selecting 51 acre-feet of water per year as the base year figure. Environmentalists sued and Monterey County Superior Court Judge Richard Silver ruled against the county, concluding, among other things, that the board's findings about baseline water supply were not supported by substantial evidence and that the EIR should have considered the environmental effects of using an offsite water supply. The September Ranch developers appeal revolved around the question of what the county should have used as its baseline water figure. The developers argued that this question is "a matter of policy" to be resolved by the county — especially because the record contained several different estimates and records, each of which could have been used as a baseline. Environmentalists countered that the baseline environmental conditions should be determined by the EIR itself. The appellate court found some merit in both positions but ultimately ruled in favor of the environmentalists. First, the court questioned whether the property had actually been used as irrigated pastureland — the assumption that underlay the EIR's estimate of water usage — noting that there was no objective evidence but merely the assertion of the applicant that this was so. Second, the court noted that the water pumping numbers grew dramatically during the years after the application was failed. "By inviting the board to pick from an array of numbers to determine an important aspect of the baseline environmental setting, the EIR failed to fulfill its function of providing information and analysis of environmental impacts," the court wrote. Finally, the court said, the county erred in basing its decision on information that emerged late in the environmental review process. The court noted that the project was pending for 3 1/2 years, a period during which the applicants controlled the pumping rate. "The better approach … would be to follow the general rule expressed in the Guidelines and cases that baseline conditions are normally to be determined at the time environmental review is begun," the court ruled. "An EIR in which a baseline water use determination is elastic and can be modified by the Board at the end of the environmental review process without benefit of analysis or public participation" is a violation of CEQA. The Cases: Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County , No. H020900, and Sierra Club v. County of Monterey , No. H020933. The Lawyers: For September Ranch Partners:Stephen Kostka, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enerson, (925) 937-8000. For Save Our Peninsula Committee: Alexander Henson, (831) 626-8686. For Sierra Club: Frances Farina, (831) 625-5544.

In most parts of the world, islands are bits of dry land that stick out of the water. The term has quite a different meaning in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, a place where human ingenuity has managed to stand geography on its head. Delta "islands" are dry land, all right, reclaimed by dredge and steam shovel from the network of river channels, sloughs and marsh that once covered 1,000 square miles at the confluence of California's two principal waterways. The Delta islands, however, are lower than the water around them (some are below sea level) and remain dry only because they are protected by a 1,100-mile network of levees. This peculiar characteristic — islands that actually are dry holes in a liquid landscape — has spawned a controversial plan to supplement the state's water supply by transforming corn and wheat fields into shallow reservoirs. Instead of keeping the rivers out, the levees surrounding two of the largest Delta islands would be reinforced and used to keep fresh water in, capturing it during times of high river flow and releasing it — for a price — in the dry season. Delta Wetlands, a private company based in Lafayette, won approval for its plan in February from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Although the project has undergone years of review, it still requires federal and local permits. It also faces opposition from local farming and environmental groups, as well as practical hurdles related to the cost and quality of the water it would provide. Still, it is an intriguing new twist in California's unceasing campaign to capture, store and redistribute its most precious resource. Unlike most of the state's water-storage projects, this one would not dam a river or destroy wildlife habitat. Nor would it be subsidized with public funds. On the contrary, it represents an effort to transform water into a privately marketed commodity like tomatoes or asparagus. And unlike most previous water marketing proposals, this one appears likely to become a reality thanks to the Delta's pivotal role in the state's gargantuan water system and the unusual history of Delta agriculture. The Delta region is a triangle with its apex at the eastern edge of Suisun Bay. It is about 50 miles across its base, a line passing through Stockton and reaching roughly from Tracy in the south to Elk Grove in the north. Efforts to farm the rich soil laid down in the Delta by the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers began during the Gold Rush, but it was not until the early 20th century that powerful equipment and ample investment capital transformed the region. Dredges cut straight shipping channels through the Delta's maze of tule-clogged sloughs. Giant shovels piled the spoils into levees encircling large tracts of marsh, and the water inside was pumped out. Thus drained, the rich peat soil could be plowed and planted. Delta soil, however, has a peculiar characteristic: Exposed to the air, the formerly submerged peat oxidizes and blows away as fine dust. Heavy farm equipment compacts it. Since they were created, the islands have subsided by as much as 1.5 inches a year. Some are now 25 feet below sea level. Yet as long as the levees are maintained — an increasingly expensive and difficult task as the ground sinks — the farms inside remain productive. The annual value of Delta crops exceeds $500 million.The region's most valuable product, however, is not food but water. As the meeting point of the state's two largest waterways, as well as the smaller Mokelumne, Cosumnes and Calaveras rivers, the Delta receives 47 percent of the state's freshwater runoff, including springtime snowmelt stored behind foothill dams that is released during the summer. That made the Delta a practical place to install the huge pumping plants that drive the State Water Project (SWP) and the Central Valley Project (CVP), which together supply water to 20 million people and most of California's irrigated cropland. Delta Wetlands hopes to take profitable advantage of this setting. With investment money from Kemper and Lumbermen's Mutual insurance companies, it has purchased four parcels totaling 20,000 acres. Webb Tract and Bacon Island, together comprising 11,000 acres, would be used as reservoirs. Nearby Holland Tract and Bouldin Island would be converted into wildlife habitat. In the dry season, the company would sell water to thirsty downstream users, pumping water out of the island reservoirs into existing Delta channels for diversion by the SWP and CVP. Delta Wetlands predicts it will produce 170,000 acre-feet in average years, and 800,000 acre-feet in wet years. Although it seems a simple proposal, the Delta Wetlands project is being pursued in a fiendishly complex legal, political, economic and scientific context that renders its prospects questionable. In the Delta, urban and agricultural water demands compete with each other and wreak havoc on fish and wildlife by disrupting the aquatic ecosystem. Control of the region's future — and therefore influence over the state's water supply — is the prize in a fierce tug of war between city dwellers and farmers, rural counties and metropolitan areas, environmentalists and business groups. Since 1994, an ambitious state-federal partnership known as the Cal-Fed Bay-Delta Program has been attempting to negotiate a truce. Last summer, Cal-Fed unveiled its preferred alternative for the first phase of a 30-year program to restore the Delta's ecological health, improve the quality of water diverted by CVP and SWP pumps, and assure a more reliable supply for everyone. Cal-Fed has long envisioned something like the Delta Wetlands proposal to supplement other types of underground and surface storage. The program unveiled last summer calls for 250,000 acre-feet of "in-Delta storage" and proposes either buying the Delta Wetlands project or negotiating with other landowners to construct something similar. Nevertheless, the project faces skepticism. San Joaquin County officials are unhappy that it will take farmland out of production. Deltakeeper, a Stockton-based environmental group, has suggested that the project's water — having spent weeks or months in shallow reservoirs atop peat — will be so dirty, warm and low in oxygen that it will harm aquatic life. The Central Delta Water Agency's attorney has said it plans to appeal the SWRCB ruling, questioning a private firm's legal right to profit from water sales. In the end, though, the real test of the Delta Wetlands project will be whether it can find a market for its product. The company has said it hopes to sell water for $200 to $300 an acre-foot. That's far too expensive for farmers. Urban users can afford it, but they are already unhappy about the poor quality of Delta water. It remains to be seen whether they will get thirsty enough to pay top dollar for more of the same. Contacts: Delta Wetlands: 916-646-9900 Deltakeeper: 209-464-5090 Central Delta Water Agency: 209-465-5883 Cal-Fed Bay-Delta Program: http://calfed.ca.gov/

Seasonal wetlands and the endangered species who inhabit them have forced planners for the proposed University of California, Merced, campus to choose a new location. Although many details remain undecided, planners have shifted the general site of the future campus — and an adjoining new community — a few miles closer to the Merced city limits. The new site eases some worries about vernal pools (small depressions in the earth that fill with rainwater) and the fairy shrimp, an endangered species that live in the pools. The original site of the proposed community was smack on top of what is probably the largest vernal pool resource remaining in the Central Valley. UC and county planners settled on a new campus location on the eastern edge of Lake Yosemite, with the planned community lying to the south. The main campus would be built on the Merced Hills Golf Course. The rest of the preferred site for future campus growth and the community is pasture, cropland and open grasslands. There are far fewer wetlands on the new site. The new site also helps answer questions about sprawl-inducement that came with the original site, which was several miles outside Merced's urban growth boundary. In 1995, UC regents choose a 10,400-acre site six miles northeast of Merced for the 10th UC campus. It is expected to accommodate 25,000 students when complete, and an adjoining community would be home to about 31,000 residents. Officials liked the site's relative proximity to an urban area, the availability of water, the potential to aid economically depressed Merced County, and a local landowners' promise of 2,000 acres of free property. They chose the location over finalist sites in Madera and Fresno counties. But as experts investigated further, they found the vernal pool resource to be even greater than originally suspected. Not only would the new town pave over 3,000 acres dotted with vernal pools, but the campus site on the edge of the foothills appeared hydrologically linked to the area's vernal pools. To receive a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to fill the wetlands — a "§404 permit" — planners had prove they had picked the "least environmentally damaging, practical alternative." So they undertook a comprehensive alternatives analysis, which was released March 1. Planners reviewed 15 sites in Merced County, including the original location, the closed Castle Air Force Base in Atwater, and three "campus only" proposals. The biggest impact of developing the new site could be loss of farmland, said Woodie Tescher, director of urban planning & design for EIP Associates, a consultant to Merced County. But by placing the campus and adjoining community close to the current eastern edge of Merced, planners have a chance to address farmland conservation on a large scale. The original site left several miles of farmland between the campus community and Merced, all of which could have been lost to piecemeal development. "I think it's enormously better than the site they had originally proposed," said Steven Johnson, a scientist for The Nature Conservancy in California. "They went from a non-starter, from a regulatory standpoint, to a challenging but do-able site. … If you could construct a compromise on all fronts, where a little bit of wetlands is taken, and a little bit of farmland is taken, then this is it." The new site gives the City of Merced a larger role in campus and community planning, said George Hinds, a city councilman who has been involved in the process. The city intends to design strategies for permanently preserving agricultural land in the immediate area, he said. "I think from a planning standpoint and for the city, this is a lot better," Hinds said. But not everyone is happy. Some Hispanic organizations continue to lobby for an urban infill site, with downtown Fresno a leading candidate. The environmental group VernalPools.Org argues that the 1995 site-selection process and accompanying environmental impact report were deficient and is urging UC officials to start anew. "A Subsequent EIR is required to remedy these deficiencies before the university proceeds with a site specific EIR for the UC LRDP . The Subsequent EIR should consider a broad range of sites in the San Joaquin Valley for both environmental impacts and site feasibility issues," VernalPools.Org coordinator Carol Witham wrote to UC and county planners in a March 19 letter that sounds like the precursor to a lawsuit. However, UC's latest path was smoothed in late March, when the David and Lucille Packard Foundation announced it would donate $11 million for the purchase of 7,030 acres, which includes the proposed new site for the campus. The gift was important for several reasons. Originally the Virginia Smith Trust donated 2,000 acres for the campus, with the understanding that the adjoining community would get built on other trust land. Money derived from that development was to provide scholarships. But when planners proposed shifting the campus and community sites, it left the trust with little development potential. Under the new agreement, UC will purchase 7,030 acres from the trust for about $8 million, with the remaining $3 million going to the trust for a scholarship fund. About 5,800 of the 7,030 acres will be protected as habitat, according to UC planners. "Simply put, without the Packard grant, I'm not sure where we would have gone or what we would have done at this point," UC President Richard Atkinson said when the agreement was revealed. An enormous amount of work remains before the campus can open in 2004, as Gov. Gray Davis has promised. Planners are using the alternatives analysis during talks with federal agencies in preparation for filing permit applications later this year. University planners have started work on a Long Range Development Plan and an EIR, both of which they hope to circulate for public review this summer, said UC Merced spokesman James Grant. Meanwhile, county planners are preparing a community plan and EIR, which are scheduled to be released in July, said Tescher, who called the time frame very challenging. "We really are looking at developing a sustainability theme all throughout this document," Tescher said of the community plan. "We're looking at some fairly innovative housing strategies." Councilman Hinds said the new location causes his city to reconsider its general plan. "I think it's an opportunity to connect the campus and the community to the City of Merced much earlier," he said. Grant said UC officials intend to break ground in spring of 2002. Contacts: Woodie Tescher, EIP Associates, (310) 268-8132. Steven Johnson, The Nature Conservancy, (415) 281-0443. George Hinds, Merced City Council, (559) 385-6866. UC Merced website: www.ucmerced.edu/ VernalPools.org: www.vernalpools.org

Few land use measures appeared on ballots during the spring municipal elections conducted in some California cities and counties on March 6, although development was an issue in several city races. One of the more interesting City Council elections was in Calabasas, in western Los Angeles County. The 3,000-home Ahmanson Ranch development, which is not in Calabasas but is proposed for nearby unincorporated Ventura County, was a lightening rod issue. Voters reelected incumbents James Bozajian and Lesley Devine, both of who strongly oppose the project, and voters elected real estate attorney Michael Harrison, another outspoken foe of the development. The subdivision and commercial development, which would contribute traffic to Calabasas streets, has been mired in lawsuits and environmental reviews since Ventura County approved it eight years ago (see CP&DR January 1993, CP&DR Legal Digest December 1995, March 1994). In the City of Glendora, in the eastern San Gabriel Valley, two challengers who vowed to block development of the area's foothills ousted two incumbents. Mike Conway and Paul Marshall defeated Mayor Larry Glenn, who had been on the council for 13 years, and one-term incumbent Al Fishman. The March 6 election also saw the first school bond measures that could pass with only 55% of the vote, as allowed under Proposition 39. Both Fresno Unified and Clovis Unified school districts used the 55% provision. Fresno's received 67.2% of the vote, while Clovis' got 64.4% approval. Five other school bonds appeared on the March ballot under the two-thirds requirement, according to School Services of California. Bonds in Exeter (Tulare County), Liberty Union High (Contra Costa County) and Tamalpais Union High (Marin County) school districts were approved. Those in Banta Elementary (San Joaquin County) and Mojave Unified (Kern County) failed. Individual school districts can choose whether to seek approval for bonds based on 55% approval or two-thirds approval, explained Paul Holmes, a lobbyist for Coalition for Adequate School Housing. The constitutional amendment allowing 55% approval adds a number of conditions, such as a citizens' oversight committee, regular audits, a list of specific projects and limits on the level of taxes, he said. Kings County A half-cent sales tax increase for eight years to fund a new jail failed. Measure B: No: 51.9%. Los Angeles County City of Pasadena An advisory measure calling for a 6.2-mile extension of the 710 Freeway won the support of voters, while a competing measure calling for preparation of a citywide traffic management plan failed. The pro-freeway initiative came about last year, after the Pasadena City Council voted 5-3 to reverse the city's longstanding position of support for the freeway. The City Council backed the opposing measure that would have prevented the city from taking a position until it completed a transportation plan. The freeway extension, which would connect the 710 and 210 freeways, is vehemently opposed by the City of South Pasadena and historic preservationists because it would wipe out hundreds of old homes. Measure A (pro-freeway): Yes: 58.2%. Measure C (traffic management plan): No: 55.2%. City of South Gate Environmental justice advocates won a major victory when voters rejected an advisory measure for a proposed 500-megawatt power plant. Sunlaw Energy Co. proposed building the plant on the site of a truck stop. But opponents complained that South Gate, a mostly Latino suburb southeast of Los Angeles, would endanger residents' health. Mayor Raul Moriel and Vice Mayor Xochilt Ruvalcaba even went on a six-day hunger strike prior to the election to bring attention to the project's expected impacts. After the vote, Sunlaw asked the California Energy Commission to suspend its processing of the project application. Measure A: No: 66.5%. Orange County Aliso Viejo Residents of this south Orange County community of 45,000 people voted overwhelmingly to incorporate effective July 1. Development of an airport at the closed El Toro Marine Corps base was the key issue, and voters elected a slate of councilmembers strongly opposed to the project. Aliso Viejo is directly under the El Toro flight path. Aliso Viejo incorporation: Yes: 93%. City of Buena Park A special tax to fund a new police station and jail received the support of the majority of voters, but the assessment required two-thirds approval. The special tax would have cost homeowners about $30 a year and small businesses about $120 annually. Measure P: No: 44%. (2/3 required) San Bernardino County City of Chino Voters approved the rezoning of land from commercial to residential to permit development of 60 apartments for seniors. A 1988 initiative requires voter approval for such zone changes. Measure U: Yes: 85.3%. San Mateo County City of Belmont Voters approved an $8.65 million bond to replace the city's cramped 6,000-square-foot library. The new facility, to be built on the same site, will be four times as large. The bond provides matching funds for a state grant. The bond will cost homeowners about $70 annually for 30 years, and commercial property owners about 8 cents per square foot annually. Measure C: Yes 78.1%. (2/3 required)

A San Diego Superior Court judge properly removed from the ballot a 1999 initiative seeking to kill implementation of the deal between the City of San Diego and the Padres baseball team for a new stadium. The Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 1, ruled that the initiative interfered with administrative actions of the city government, rather than legislative actions. Administrative actions may not be placed before the voters. In making the decision, the court said its ruling rendered moot a motion by the initiative's proponents to strike the lawsuit by the city and the Padres as a SLAPP suit, or "strategic lawsuit against public participation." The deal between the city and the Padres began after the city's voters approved Proposition C in 1998, which authorized the city to sign a memorandum of understanding with the Padres to build a stadium and redevelop 26 blocks in downtown San Diego. The MOU laid out the conditions that were required for the project to continue, including assurances that the Padres would participate in the development of a hotel and that the city redevelopment agency could obtain acceptable financing terms for its $225 million investment in the new baseball park. Subsequently, opponents of the ballpark deal circulated an initiative seeking to terminate the MOU because the conditions required under the MOU had not been met. Among other things, the initiative required the city to carry out the contract's terms "by such administrative and non-legislative acts as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out the purpose and intention of Proposition C and the MOU." The city and the Padres were granted summary judgment by a Superior Court judge before the election. The initiative proponents then appealed the lower court's decision. The proponents argued that the initiative was legislative because, as the court said, "it decides whether the project should proceed, not how it proceeds." The proponents also argued that the manner of financing for the project is a legislative decision. But the Fourth District disagreed. While acknowledging that the initiative sought to make a policy statement that would bind the city, the court concluded, "The proposed initiative does not seek to change this policy by its plain language, but rather to change the substance of the implementing decisions that were created by Prop. C. In other words, the proposed initiative seeks to substitute the proponents' judgment regarding compliance with the applicable conditions and the feasibility of financing, in place of that process created by Prop. C and the MOU, which confided such implementing decision to City administration." This, the court said, is an unacceptable attempt to interfere with an administrative decision. The initiative proponents also filed a motion to strike the city's and the Padres' causes of action based under Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16, the so-called anti-SLAPP law. In so doing, the proponents argued that the lawsuit that knocked the initiative off the ballot was designed to interfere with the initiative proponents' free speech activities. However, a court cannot grant an anti-SLAPP motion to strike "unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim." The appellate court concluded that once the city and the Padres had been granted summary judgment as a matter of law, "there was nothing left for to decide with regard to the pending SLAPP motions …" Thus, the SLAPP motions were moot. The Case: City of San Diego v. Dunkl, No. D035559, and Padres v. Dunkl, No. D035585, 01 C.D.O.S. 601, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 757, issued January 22, 2001. The Lawyers: For Dunkl and initiative proponents: J. Bruce Henderson and Kent C. Wilson, (619) 236-6616. For City of San Diego: Charles A. Bird, Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, (619) 699-2406. For San Diego Padres, Mark C. Zebrowski, Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich, (619) 699-2693.

At Disney's new Anaheim theme park, designers are banking on a proven formula. Create facsimiles of real places, stir them together into a brick-and-mortar masala amid the aging sprawl of suburban north Orange County, and voila: another millions-of-visitors-a-year attraction. However contrived, Disney was the first to prove that people will pay good money to visit a place that mimics the real thing. But in another corner of the state, the City of Napa is banking on a different concept. It combines river restoration with urban revitalization. It piggy-backs on a broader effort to restore the Napa River watershed and provide flood protection — capitalizing on the opportunity to retrofit central district neighborhoods. In counterpoint to Disney's project, Napa is banking on visitor interest in real natural and urban attractions. So far, informal reports suggest that Disney's bean counters might need to start worrying. The gradually emerging critiques of the California Adventure theme park are lukewarm at best. And early reports indicate that visitor numbers are dramatically lower than expected. Disney has responded by ramping up advertising to generate more interest. Meanwhile, Napa officials are licking their chops. After all, their project has a lot going for it: recession-proof growth in the wine industry for which the City of Napa finally is emerging as a true business center; increased desire by Bay Area and Sacramento dwellers to get away on weekend trips; and the general rise in tourist interest in real places as destinations worthy of spending leisure time. Napa's project is not without precedent. Waterfront-oriented tourist projects are nothing new, and every large city on the West Coast has been, or is currently, involved in some urban design scheme that purports to return the waterfront to the community. In hindsight, the circa-1960s Ports O' Call development on the LA harbor front of San Pedro was a ground-breaking example of converting an area traditionally used for heavy industry into a tourist gathering place. Since then, the concept has been continually refined. San Francisco has converted much of the Embarcadero into a grand linear park/playground/promenade. Recently crowned with the Giant's PacBell Park, it is the most comprehensive example of the power of the waterfront as an urban gathering place. Rivers too, are increasingly seen as urban design opportunities. Early examples of riverfront remodels focused on park and greenway functions. Sacramento's American River Parkway and Riverside's Santa Ana Regional Park are both 1960s-era examples of reclaimed riparian places. More recently, West Sacramento built a minor league ballpark to anchor its Sacramento River urban retrofit (see CP&DR Local Watch, March 1999). But Napa's project has to be viewed as the state-of-the-art example of convergence of many planning goals in one project. It also benefits nicely from trends in tourism and urban culture. In a way, the project is at a confluence of two planning tributaries. One is the broader Napa River Watershed restoration project. Initiated in 1996 by the county flood control district, the project involves a host of state, federal, and local agencies. It received a huge financial boost when Napa County voters assessed themselves to the tune of $170 million to fund the valley-wide effort (see CP&DR, May 1998). Under the guise of flood protection and habitat restoration, the project aims to restore the river to as close to a natural system as possible while still providing reasonable flood protection. That is a lofty goal in the heart of the intensive wine-grape industry. The second tributary was the City's own revitalization efforts. After stumbling for decades, the redevelopment of downtown Napa finally found its focus with the river restoration project. It's own Napa Urban Waterfront Restoration Plan calls for fishing piers, boat docks, habitat restoration, and numerous access points. When coupled with other downtown tourist projects, such as the Robert Mondavi-funded American Center for Wine Food and the Arts that is scheduled to open this fall, an Opera House renovation and numerous additional historic restoration projects, the City finally has a good chance of drawing into downtown a large share of the 5 million annual wine country visitors. The divergent strategies of Napa and Disney for attracting a growing leisure consumer dollar make an interesting point about contemporary culture. In the Disney case, celebrating real places within a ticket booth-controlled park adheres to the truism that tourists prefer a safe haven from reality. In the Napa case, officials are betting on another viewpoint: That by celebrating the reality of the local history, economy, and natural features through restoration and enhancement, economic rewards will follow. If I were a betting man, I'd place my money on Napa. Stephen Svete, AICP, is president of Rincon Consultants, Inc., a Ventura-based consulting firm.

CEQA AB 271 (Canciamilla). Exempts from CEQA review infill developments of up to 5 acres within an urbanized, unincorporated area. AB 1086 (Calderon). Requires a lead agency to adopt a negative declaration for infill residential projects in an urbanized area of an incorporated city of at least 100,000 people, provided the project meets certain requirements. AB 1365 (Ashburn). States that agencies that transport or dispose of sewage sludge outside their boundaries are the lead agencies for purposes of CEQA. Some Central Valley counties have blocked land application of sewage sludge imported from Southern California, setting off a flurry of CEQA-related legal activity. SB 439 (Monteith). Requires consideration of a project's effects on homeownership, employment and educational opportunities. SB 1087 (Alarcon). Allows cities and counties to consider regional environmental benefits in an environmental study in order to facilitate infill development. SB 1141 (Poochigian). Repeals an existing exemption that allows the attorney general to file a CEQA suit without raising the grounds for the suit during the administrative process. Attorney General Bill Lockyer has filed several CEQA suits regarding proposed dairies in Poochigian's district. Also: AB 1283 (Florez) allows agencies to submit dairy EIRs to the attorney general's office for review, and establishes a rebuttable presumption of the EIR's legal validity if the attorney general finds the that the document complies with CEQA. Construction Defects AB 267 (Steinberg) and SB 355 (Escutia). Both bills overturn the state Supreme Court's recent decision in Aas v. Superior Court (see CP&DR Legal Digest January 2001). The court ruled that homeowners cannot sue builders for construction defects until the damages manifest themselves. AB 1010 (Dutra). Calls for creation of alternative means to solving construction defect claims. Also, AB 600 (Dutra) creates a voluntary home warranty program. Housing AB 8 (Cedillo). Increases the amount of per-unit assistance available under HCD's Downtown Rebound Program. AB 369 (Dutra). Strengthens the anti-NIMBY law regarding affordable housing development. AB 381 (Papan). Requires an undefined percentage of the Jobs-Housing Balance Improvement Account be used as incentives to local governments, transit providers, private developers and lenders for housing construction within one-quarter mile of an existing or planned transit station. AB 490 (Diaz). Creates a program to make matching grants to local agencies that establish affordable housing trust funds. AB 905 (Cohn). Provides forgivable home loans of up to $7,500 to public safety employees in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose and Long Beach. AB 1170 (Firebaugh). Creates a new program, and provides $100 million, for down payment assistance for homebuyers in cities and counties that have "removed barriers" toward developing affordable housing. AB 1359 (Lowenthal) requires the California Housing Finance Administration to establish a down payment assistance program to help people buying new homes in high-density areas near transit stations. AB 1436 (Correa). Requires all existing housing on closed military bases to be preserved and maintained as affordable housing. AB 1611 (Keeley). Creates a $250 million program to fund construction of student housing near University of California and California State University campuses. Also AB 1063 (Aroner) authorizes the state Public Works Board to finance student, faculty and staff housing for public colleges. AB 1284 (Lowenthal). Authorizes a locality with a serious jobs-housing imbalance to create a "housing opportunity district," from which the local government receives a larger portion of the property tax increment. AB 1606 (Bates). Grants a city two units of credit toward meeting its regional housing need for every one unit of housing on a decommissioned military base that is converted to low-income housing. SB 372 (Dunn). Creates a revolving loan fund to preserve affordability of Section 8 units that will lose their federal subsidies during the next five years. Funds would be made available to entities that purchase the units and agree to new affordability covenants. SB 503 (Vasconcellos). Requires Santa Clara and San Diego counties to establish "attainable housing zones" near major transportation corridors. Development of homes within those zones that cost 75% of the county average would be eligible for infrastructure grants. SB 784 (Torlakson). Allows local jurisdictions to use Jobs-Housing Balance Program funds for any purpose. SB 1098 (Alarcon). Requires a city or county to make findings of significant health and safety concerns before imposing a multi-family housing construction moratorium. Gov. Davis vetoed a similar bill last year. Housing Elements/General Plans AB 858 (Wiggins). Expressly requires an opportunity for public involvement during the preparation and amendment of general plan elements. AB 924 (Wayne). Requires the Office of Planning and Research to implement a pilot program in which local governments would receive grants or loans to develop general plan elements with "smart growth principles." AB 932 (McPherson). Extends the deadline for housing element revisions in the Fresno, Kern, Monterey and Sacramento regions by six months to December 31, 2002. AB 938 (Daucher). Establishes an HCD program to provide grants to localities that, in turn, assist people who buy or rent homes near their job sites. AB 1367 (Wiggins). Mandates that general plans designate adequate sites for new schools. The bill also limits the ability of school districts to override local zoning. AB 1514 (Canciamilla). Requires land use elements to contain 20-year urban growth boundaries that are consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. Jurisdictions that comply by July 1, 2002 would get priority for Infrastructure Bank funding. SB 213 (Perata). Requires the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments to evaluate whether their member cities and counties are implementing their fair share of housing starts and participating in regional congestion reduction plans. SB 520 (Chesbro). Requires housing elements to identify adequate sites for homes for disabled people. SB 714 (McClintock). Requires local jurisdictions to zone sufficient land for 20 years of projected housing needs. Also requires the Department of Housing and Community Development and councils to government to identify 20-year housing needs. SB 910 (Dunn). Creates the legal presumption that a housing element rejected by HCD is invalid. Requires courts to fine non-complying jurisdictions up to $1,000 per unit of total projected housing identified in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Also allows the state to withhold other undefined funds. Money AB 52 (Wiggins). The Farmland Protection and Infill Housing Bond. No amount yet. AB 73 (Lowenthal). Creates a $30 million tax credit for donations to community development corporations. AB 404 (Diaz). Creates a $200 million grant program for local infrastructure serving multi-family infill developments of at least 100 acres. AB 1526 (Florez). Farmworker Housing and Family Wellness Bond Act. $250 million. SB 73 (Dunn). Increases low-income housing tax credit by $20 million to $70 million. SB 423 (Torlakson). Returns ERAF dollars to jurisdictions that have valid housing elements, have "livable communities" principles in their general plans, increase building permit over the previous year, and do not provide incentives to retailers. Natural Resources AB 104 (Nation). Adds $1 to $4 to vehicle registration fees in the Bay Area to fund open space purchases, improve water quality and restore wetlands. AB 597 (Aanestad). Exempts from the Forest Practices Act the cutting of trees to reduce the threat of wildfire. AB 1256 (Harman). Appropriates an unspecified amount to help purchase the Bolsa Chica mesa in Huntington Beach, the site of a decades-long development fight. AB 1414 (Dickerson). Prohibits the Department of Fish and Game and the Resources Agency from acquiring additional land for ecosystem restoration or habitat preservation until those agencies complete management plans for all properties they already own. AB 1540 (Strickland). Requires two-thirds voter approval for a city or county to designate or dedicate open space or related easements. SB 221 (Kuehl). Prohibits approval of a subdivision map or development agreement for more than 200 units unless the local government finds that sufficient water is available. Similar to a bill that failed last year. Also, SB 610 (Costa) closes loopholes in the existing process for determining adequate water supplies for new housing. SB 984 (Costa). Establishes the Grazing Land Conservation Program Fund. Redevelopment AB 166 (Cedillo). Provides a 25% income tax credit for rehabilitation of certified historic structures in redevelopment areas. AB 212 (Correa). Requires the City of Tustin to give at least 100 acres of the former Tustin Marine Corps base to the Santa Ana Unified and Rancho Santiago Community College school districts. Tustin has offered the schools about 20 acres. A similar bill died last year. AB 237 (Papan). Makes a number of changes to the eminent domain process, including a requirement that compensation for a business's loss of goodwill be included in a public agency's final offer. AB 247 (Maddox). Prohibits use of eminent domain to acquire tax-exempt property used for religious purposes. The bill is in response to a conflict between the City of Cypress and the Cottonwood Christian Center over the future of a prime, 18-acre site owned by the church, which wants to build a sanctuary, school and conference center. The city wants to see retail development on the site. AB 368 (Cedillo). Authorizes redevelopment agencies to use Mello-Roos financing for capital facilities. AB 406 (Diaz). Increases the redevelopment agency set aside for housing from 20% to 25%. AB 637 (Lowenthal). Extends for two years (until January 2004) the requirement that redevelopment agencies replace low- and moderate-income housing units that are removed from the market by a redevelopment project. AB 750 (Cedillo). Requires redevelopment agencies to fund replacement units when affordability guarantees expire on agency-assisted, owner-occupied units. AB 1567 (Runner). Allows a redevelopment agency to meet inclusionary housing requirements by purchasing long-term affordability covenants on mobilehomes. AB 1653 (Pacheco). Loosens the standards for creation of a redevelopment area. The bill specifically overturns the definition of "true blight" adopted in Riverside v. City of Murrieta, (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 616 (see CP&DR Legal Digest, August 1998). SB 211 (Torlakson) and SB 1137 (Ortiz). Both extend the life spans of redevelopment projects. SB 411 (Perata). Allows the City of Oakland to extend the life of its Central District Urban Renewal Plan. SB 600 (Torlakson). States that lack of housing and commercial development at specific densities within a one-quarter mile of a transit station constitutes "blight" for the purpose of establishing a redevelopment area, if the intent is to develop a transit village. Others AB 545 (Steinberg). Requires the state, when siting office space, to consider mixed-use sites and proximity to affordable housing. AB 640 (Jackson). Modifies the way the Coastal Commission reviews certified Local Coastal Plans. AB 680 (Steinberg). Encourages a regional approach to planning in the Sacramento area. AB 857 (Wiggins). Requires OPR to complete by June 30, 2003 a "State Comprehensive Plan" that articulates a 20-year vision. The OPR would complete this plan in lieu of updating the State Environmental Goals and Policies Report, which is nearly 20 years out of date. AB 1114 (Pescetti). Establishes incentives for cleaning up and redeveloping brownfields, and establishes liability and insurance limits. SB 660 (Hayes). Requires the Technology, Trade and Commerce Agency to designate 25 "California Renewal Communities" to be linked with various government and private funding sources.

A Public Policy Institute of California survey of Central Valley residents found strong opinions regarding urban growth and the environment. When asked to name the most important issue facing the 18-county region, 15% of residents said population growth, tying for first place with electricity. In third place was the economy (13%), but the next four issues in descending order were water quality and availability, air pollution, loss of farmland, and traffic and transportation. All of those issues rated ahead of schools, crime and drugs in the survey, which PPIC and the Great Valley Center released in March. At least 75% of respondents said they support proposals to protect farmland and wetlands, expand public transit, and build freeways. Interestingly, 56% said they favor a regional growth plan rather than letting each city and county decide. "Problems associated with growth and development create big worries today and cloud an otherwise rosy view of what's ahead," said PPIC Statewide Survey Director Mark Baldassare. The economy provided a point of contrast within the region. Residents in the North Valley (from Sutter County to Shasta County) were four times as likely to rank the lack of well-paying jobs as an issue than Sacramento-area residents, who cited traffic congestion as a major concern. The survey is available at www.ppic.org Only a week before PPIC and the Great Valley Center released their survey, the Minnesota-based Metropolitan Area Research Corporation and the Great Valley Center released a report on social and development trends in the Valley. The study identified rising social disparity and inefficient growth patterns as key issues. The report, written by MARC's Myron Orfield, lists three factors preventing the region from addressing these issues: the concentration of poverty in core urban areas and outlying rural communities; a "highly fragmented system of local finance and economic development;" and the lack of structure for regional leadership. "We can choose to address the existing disparities and invest in strong central cities with good schools, or we can continue to treat our communities like they are disposable," said Great Valley Center President Carol Whiteside. The report is available at www.greatvalley.org The Rail Cycle saga in San Bernardino County appeared to conclude when the developer of a proposed garbage dump reached a settlement with a neighboring landowner who opposed the project. In March, Waste Management announced it would pay $6 million and give 7,000 acres to Cadiz, Inc. in exchange for Cadiz dropping state and federal lawsuits. Rail Cycle was a giant dump proposed by Waste Management for the desert east of Barstow. (see CP&DR, November 2000, October 2000, November 1999, March 1999). The project fell apart, but in October of 1998, the county grand jury indicted Waste Management and five employees for a variety of white-collar crimes. Prosecutors contended Rail Cycle proponents tried to ruin Cadiz Inc. All criminal charges were dropped or expunged late last year, and Waste Management agreed to pay the county $7.7 million in fines and restitution. Cadiz had filed civil suits regarding the adequacy of the dump's EIR and claiming Waste Management officials tried to manipulate the price of Cadiz stock. Cadiz owns 27,000 acres in the desert, from which it hopes to pump groundwater for sale to the Metropolitan Water District. Cadiz officials expressed satisfaction with the March settlement, while Waste Management attorney John Newell told the Los Angeles Times the settlement "is really for us just a cost justification." The downtown Los Angeles site of a controversial proposed industrial development has been optioned to an environmental group and could become a park. Developer Majestic Realty has offered 32 acres of the "Cornfield" to the Trust for Public Land, which agreed to accept the property while state funding is lined up for the purchase. Majestic had proposed an industrial project that won the endorsement of Mayor Richard Riordan and was approved by the city's Central Area Planning Commission last year (see CP&DR Economic Development, September 2000, January 2000). But Friends of the Los Angeles River sued on behalf of environmental and neighborhood groups, alleging inadequate environmental review. They groups say the area needs parks and community facilities more than warehouse jobs. The opponents' case received a boost when the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development announced it would withhold a $12 million subsidy for cleanup of the site until the city completed a more thorough environmental analysis. The site is an abandoned rail yard where corn once grew. Closure of the deal requires the park coalition to come up with $30 million by November 30. Proponents hope to get funding earmarked in the state budget and from Proposition 12 park bonds. Temecula city officials have blocked from the ballot a referendum regarding the Wolf Creek development, a 2,022-home project that the City Council approved on a 3-2 vote in February (see CP&DR Local Watch, February 2001). Project opponents needed only 16 days to gather what appeared to be more than enough signatures to qualify a referendum. But City Attorney Peter Thorson said the referendum was invalid because its backers did not show petition signers the entire Wolf Creek development plan. Litigation now appears likely. The San Jose City Council in March approved a plan to redevelop six neighborhood shopping center scattered around town. The city plans to spend about $5 million on landscaping, streets and building upgrades at the shopping centers to generate tax increment for poor neighborhoods. However, the project threatens to bring to a head the long-simmering feud between the city and Santa Clara County, which has suggested the city uses redevelopment simply to divert tax revenues. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finalized its designation of "critical habitat" for the threatened red-legged frog in March. The designation covers 4.1 million acres in 28 counties, down from 5.4 million acres the agency proposed last year (see CP&DR Environment Watch, December 2000). Environmentalists generally were pleased with the decision, but development and farming interests were outraged. They said the designation — and the additional reviews it sets off — will needlessly slow projects. The Transportation Committee of the Southern California Association of Governments has voted against the City of Los Angeles's expansion plans for the Los Angeles International Airport. The committee said the growth of air traffic should be spread among airports in the region. The vote was a major victory for cities near LAX that oppose expansion, and for proponents of a new airport at the closed El Toro Marine Corps base in Orange County. Voting members of SCAG are scheduled to resume consideration of the air transportation plan this month. Correction. A brief in January's edition improperly characterized a lawsuit settlement between the Sonoma County Housing Advocacy Group and the county. The county must adopt a valid housing element by August, but whether more land will need to be rezoned for multi-family residential development is unknown. The county has some land zoned for multi-family projects, and the judge's order in the case does not state that more is needed. Also, the 2,500 units mentioned in the story referred to the county's share of very low- and low-income housing units allocated to it during the latest regional housing needs determination.

Birdwatchers can legitimately state a claim of injury and therefore have standing to sue the Navy under the National Environmental Policy Act over the destruction of bird habitat on the former site of the Long Beach Naval Station, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. However, the court also held that the birdwatchers do not have standing to sue as California taxpayers. Among other things, the court ruled that the birds themselves need not have been harmed by the Navy's action so long as the birdwatchers' activity of watching the birds had been disrupted. A group of individuals from Long Beach and Lakewood sued Long Beach and the Navy. The individuals challenged the environmental impact statement for the reuse plan of the Long Beach Naval Station after the based was closed in 1994. The EIS evaluated four alternatives: a marine container terminal, an auto terminal, an institutional campus, and a "no project" alternative. Birdwatchers and other alleged that the EIS was inadequate, charging that the city and the Navy had pre-determined that a marine container terminal should be built and leased to the Chinese Overseas Shipping Company. They were opposed to the reuse plan because it called for the demolition of World War II-era buildings designed by early African-American architect Paul Williams, as well as the dredging of 26 acres of shallow water habitat used by two federally endangered species, the California least tern and the California brown pelican. In addition, a large ornamental ficus tree had rookeries used by the black-crowned night heron, which is protected by the Migratory Bird Act of 1918 and had been classified as a "California special animal" by the state Department of Fish & Game. In addition to the NEPA lawsuit, the birdwatchers sued as California taxpayers, charging that the City of Long Beach had violated the state tidelands trust and that the proposed use was a waste of public assets and a public gift that violated the California constitution. In the summer and fall of 1998, the birdwatchers unsuccessfully sought a temporary restraining order in federal court in Los Angeles, and a motion for a preliminary injunction. In late 1998 and early 1999, the structures, the ficus, and the habitat were destroyed as part of the reuse project. During the appeal, Long Beach and the Navy argued that the litigation was moot because all the resources in question had been destroyed. But a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit disagreed with that argument, noting that "the burden of demonstrating mootness is a heavy one." " f required to undertake additional environmental review, the defendants could consider alternatives to the current reuse plan, and develop ways to mitigate the damage to the birds' habitat by, for example, creating new nesting and foraging areas on the land that was formerly the station or utilizing other nearby land for mitigation purposes," the court added. The Navy also contended that the birdwatchers did not have standing to file the lawsuit regarding the EIS because they had not suffered injuries that could be redressed by court action. But the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the birdwatchers, concluding that they had been injured because their birdwatching activity had been impeded. "The birdwatchers' averments that they had visited the affected area in the past and that the defendant's challenged activity would impede their ability to appreciate and the use the specified area are sufficient to establish that they have suffered an injury to a concrete and particularized interest," the court wrote. In addition, the court rejected the Navy's argument that the birdwatchers did not have standing because, in pursuit of their birdwatching activity, they did not have the legal right to trespass on the grounds of the closed station or to stand adjacent to the station and gaze over the property line to observe the birds in their habitat. The court did not address the trespass question, but the judges overturned the trial court in ruling in favor of the birdwatchers on the second point. "If an area can be observed and enjoyed from adjacent land, plaintiffs need not physically enter the affected area to establish an injury in fact," the court held. The court also ruled that, even though the habitat had been destroyed, the legal test of "redressability" had also been met. (An injured party must also prove that the injury is redressable in order to have standing to sue.) " ecause they are seeking to enforce a procedural right under NEPA to protect their concrete interests," the court wrote, "they have standing to challenge the adequacy of the Navy's FEIS even though they cannot establish that a revised EIS would result in a different reuse plan for the Naval Station." The Ninth Circuit ruled against the birdwatchers' contention that they had standing to sue as California taxpayers.. The court said the birdwatchers had not established the connection between "the taxpayer, the tax dollars, and the allegedly illegal government activity" that is required under federal case law. The Case: Cantrell v. City of Long Beach, No. 98-56940, 01 C.D.O.S. 1018, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1351 (issued February 5, 2001). The Lawyers: For Cantrell: Richard I. Fine, (310) 277-5833. For City of Long Beach: Dominic T. Holzhaus, city attorney's office, (310) 570-2212, and M. Katherine Jenson, Rutan & Tucker, (714) 641-5100. For U.S. Navy: John K. Rubiner and Eliot Krieger, U.S. Attorney's Office, Los Angeles, (213) 894-2434.

A few lines tucked into the 1993 federal budget bill funding the Department of Interior granted the agency $150,000 to launch a "scientific review of the remaining old-growth in the national forests of the Sierra Nevada in California, and for a study of the entire Sierra Nevada ecosystem by an independent panel of scientists." That deceptively modest directive gave birth to a mammoth undertaking. Three years later, after work by a team of 18 experts — who called upon contributions from 19 "special consultants" and 107 additional researchers — what became known as the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) issued its monumental final report: More than 3,000 pages of text, charts and diagrams. It pulled together much of what was known to science about the Sierra, a sprawling region encompassing 21 million acres and most or all of 18 counties. In January, an echo of that 1993 congressional directive rumbled across the California landscape, unleashing a revolution in management of the forests that blanket the Sierra. Immediately controversial, the new rules governing 11 national forests draw inspiration from the SNEP report's conclusions and recommendations, as well as from a host of other recent initiatives, most notably those undertaken to protect the spotted owl. The new rules, issued by Southwest Regional Forester Brad Powell, represent a significant departure from historic management practices and also constitute one of the rare instances where scientific research appears to have trumped politics in the formulation of public policy. Assuming implementation likewise avoids political derailment — this is far from certain, given the Bush administration's antipathy toward policies that favor ecological values over resource extraction — the repercussions will be felt for years. The revolution bears a bland bureaucratic title: The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Released January 12, along with an environmental impact statement, it comprises an update to the land and resource management plans for the Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, Tahoe, El Dorado, Stanislaus, Sierra, Inyo, Sequoia and Humboldt-Toiyabe national forests, as well as the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Together, these forests encompass 11.5 million acres. The new regulations reflect the growing recognition that national forests provide more than timber and livestock forage — that other forest products, such as water, wildlife and recreational opportunities, now constitute their primary public and economic benefits. The rules also recognize the role traditional logging and fire-suppression policies have played in the growing fire danger in the Sierra, as well as the increased risk to human life and property created by urban incursion into the foothills forest belt. The rules establish a network of "old forest areas" encompassing more than 4 million acres, where prescribed fire and limited mechanical thinning will be used to maintain natural conditions and maintain suitable habitat for old-growth dependent species such as the spotted owl and northern goshawk, as well as fishers and martens (both members of the weasel family). In areas closest to human communities, limited logging will be encouraged to remove the thick buildup of brush and small-diameter trees that has turned the "urban-wildland interface" into a fuel-rich tinderbox. Riparian conservation areas will be established near streams, meadows and lakes. In these areas, additional restrictions will be imposed on grazing and logging to protect the habitat of imperiled aquatic species such as frogs, toads and fish, as well as the willow flycatcher, which breeds and nests in riparian vegetation, and the great gray owl, which hunts for prey in undisturbed meadows. Under the plan, nowhere in Sierra national forests will live conifers more than 30 inches in diameter be cut. On the east side of the range, all conifers larger than 24 inches will be protected. In addition, hardwoods (such as oak) will be off-limits to the saw if they are more than 12 inches in diameter on the west slope and 8 inches on the east. The plan estimates that 191 million board feet of timber will be available for harvest in each of the next five years, dropping to 108 million board feet annually for the subsequent five years. That compares with an average of 200 million board feet each of the past three years, and an average of 300 million board feet annually over the past decade. The peak year for logging on federal lands in the Sierra was 1988, when 1 billion board feet was cut. In addition, the removal of undergrowth and small trees to reduce fuel loads near inhabited areas is estimated to produce 35% more wood chips annually during the next 10 years for burning in energy-generating biomass plants. Cautiously endorsed by environmental groups, the plan was denounced immediately by timber industry representatives and lawmakers from logging-dependent communities. Republican members of Congress urged President Bush to derail the plan, which California Forestry Association President David Bischel called "disastrous." The regulations have followed a tortuous route. The process began in 1992 when the USFS responded to accusations it was doing too little to protect the habitat of the California spotted owl. The agency imposed temporary curbs on logging and began work on a comprehensive management plan. The first version of that plan was withdrawn just before release in 1996 because it conflicted with the data in the SNEP report, and a subsequent draft was rejected in 1997 by the Clinton administration because it allowed excessive logging. Work on the current plan began in June 1998; it involved dozens of public meetings and drew comments from 47,000 people. The Bush administration could easily suspend the plan. New Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, who oversees the Forest Service, criticized earlier drafts of the plan while she was an attorney representing the Sierra Nevada Access, Multiple Use and Stewardship Coalition, a consortium of groups opposed to Clinton forest policies. Veneman has pledged to recuse herself from decisions involving the Sierra forest plan, but it is unclear who might act in her stead. Such a suspension could, however, backfire. Last October, three environmental groups sued the USFS, seeking to suspend logging in the Sierra and southern Cascades to protect the California spotted owl and the fisher. The agency in December imposed a three-month moratorium on timber sales throughout the region while it prepared a response. The new rules for Sierra forests represent the agency's effort to protect those increasingly rare creatures and settle the litigation. Suspending the regulations could put the lawsuit — and the future of Sierra logging — in the hands of a judge. That scenario ought to sound familiar and unappealing to the timber industry and its allies. It is what happened in the Pacific Northwest a decade ago when nearly all public-lands logging was halted by the courts to protect the northern spotted owl. Contacts: California Forestry Association: (916) 444-6592. U.S. Forest Service, Southwest Region: 707-562-9004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment: http://www.r5.fs.fed.us/sncf . Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: http://ceres.ca.gov/snep .