A bill that is intended to put teeth in the state's housing element law is providing a major battleground between housing advocates and local government officials. The measure, SB 910 (Dunn), would let judges fine a city or county for not adopting a housing element that satisfies the state Department of Housing and Community Development . The bill also would withhold highway money from noncompliant jurisdictions. The League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties and scores of individual jurisdictions have voiced their strong opposition. "It switches land use authority to the state," protested Daniel Carrigg, a League lobbyist. He said SB 910 is the type of measure likely to get approved because it shifts the blame for affordable housing woes to local government and it costs the state nothing. But the Job-Center Housing Coalition has made passage of SB 910 a priority this year, and housing advocates have vowed to fight hard for it because so many cities have refused to accommodate affordable housing. In April, HCD released its annual housing element compliance report, which said that about 40% of cities and counties do not have valid housing plans. The Senate Housing and Community Development Committee, of which Sen. Joe Dunn (D-Santa Ana) is chairman, passed the bill in early April, but Dunn amended the legislation three weeks later. However, the opposition remains in place. Dilapidated courthouses throughout California would receive state-funded overhauls if a recommendation by the Task Force on Trial Court Facilities is heeded. The recommendation is the result of a study released in April by the Administrative Office of the Courts. The study found 451 courthouses were "functionally and physically deficient." Among the recommended improvements are security and safety upgrades, increased accessibility for the disabled, expanded jury assembly space, overcrowding relief, and major building system repairs including ventilation and air conditioning replacement. The task force called on the state — rather than counties, which have traditionally funded courthouse projects — to assume the cost of the needed improvements. The state drives the need for new facilities and can ensure uniformity of access to all facilities, the report said. Costs for the repairs are estimated at $140 million annually over 20 years, according to the report. The task force is expected to issue a final report to the Legislature by October 1. The Legislature would need to approve any transfer of financial responsibility from the counties to the state. The report is available at www.courtinfo.ca.gov The Sacramento City Council unanimously approved a 32-story, mixed-use structure for an empty downtown site that has long been an eyesore. The J Street building across from Cesar Chavez Plaza will be comprised of about 250,000 square feet of office and retail space topped by 10 floors of upscale apartments. Retail stores will front the sidewalk. Under the deal approved in April, the city will provide $16.7 million in subsidies for the Metro Place project. The city will deed its one-half interest in the property to the developer, First Key LLC, the city will offer a $7.2 million tax rebate, and the city will build a parking garage for the structure. Los Angeles County supervisors have upheld a Regional Planning Commission decision to deny permits for a large gravel quarry on Bureau of Land Management property near Santa Clarita. During the late-April vote, supervisors said they would consider alternatives that had fewer environmental impacts. The City of Santa Clarita spent $1 million on its campaign against the gravel mine proposal and bussed hundreds of protesters to several supervisors' meetings in downtown Los Angeles. City officials and area residents said the proposed quarry would be incompatible with the many houses that have been built in the area in recent years (see CP&DR Local Watch, January 2001). Cisco Systems has pulled back on plans to build new campuses around the Bay Area. The San Jose-based maker of computer hardware has canceled its search for an expansion site in Sonoma County but said it would maintain its 600-employee facility in Petaluma. Cisco also removed its application for a major complex in the East Bay city of Dublin from the city's fast-track approval process. Cisco has announced it will lay off about 8,500 people nationwide, and company officials concede they have had to re-evaluate their facility expansion plans. The company continues to move forward planning for a 6.6-million-square-foot campus in South San Jose, although the pace of development might slow. Federal officials announced in April that they have earmarked $1 million from the North American Wetlands Conservation Act for wetlands restoration in the Tulare Basin. The funds, combined with nearly $12 million from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Semitropic Water District in Kern County and private landowners, will fund about 2,700 acres of land purchases and another 20,000 acres of habitat enhancement in the southern San Joaquin Valley. About 99 % of historic wetlands in the basin have been lost to farming or urban development. A federal judge has approved an agreement between environmental groups and the Bureau of Land Management regarding 11.5 million acres of BLM land in southern California deserts from Mono County to the Mexican border. Among other things, the plan requires the BLM to revise plans for protecting 24 endangered species and to ban grazing on habitat for the desert tortoise. The agreement — which has been praised by environmentalists but blasted by ranchers and off-road vehicle users — is also likely to curb some mining. The agreement was finalized about one month before the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service issued a report in April that said the Army's proposal to expand Fort Irwin's tank training facilities near Baker could wipe out a population of desert tortoises and nearly eliminate the endangered Lane Mountain milk vetch plant. The Army said it is doing its own study. Congressional approval is needed before the BLM transfers the 131,000 acres in question to the Army. Correction. The attorney who argued the California Environmental Quality Act case for the City of Sierra Madre at the state Supreme Court was misidentified in the March issue. Sanford Svetcov of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach represented the city. See page 7 for the court's decision in the case.

Expanding the capacity of the nation's aviation system has quickly risen toward the top of the Bush administration's transportation priorities. Both Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and Federal Aviation Administration chief Jane Garvey have spoken about the need to build more runways during the next decade, and they have suggested that speeding federal environmental reviews is one way to hurry along construction. The Bush administration's advocacy is welcome news for proponents of San Francisco and Los Angeles airport expansion and construction of a new airport at the former El Toro Marine Corps base in Orange County — all projects with major regional implications. However, analysts caution that the federal government's ability to force runway construction is limited. And they say that local political pressures — not federal environmental regulations — are usually responsible for stalled or canceled airport projects. Bush administration officials say the nation needs more runways to accommodate a projected increase in passenger air travel of nearly 50% between 2000 and 2010, and even greater growth in air cargo. The economy increasingly relies on aviation to move goods, workers and consumers efficiently, they say. During a speech in late March to the American Association of Airport Executives, Mineta emphasized the need to expand aviation infrastructure. He said that implementing existing expansion plans at the nation's busiest airports, including SFO and LAX "will substantially increase the capacity of the national airport system." Mineta said the FAA will propose environmental streamlining measures to Congress. "We are also working on a number of initiatives of our own to expedite and streamline environmental reviews for airport improvement projects without legislation," he said. "For example, the FAA has proposed establishing a team for each new EIS for a major runway enhancement project at large hub primary airports." San Francisco is among the airports to receive one of these EIS teams. Mineta continued, "We are working on an initiative to streamline environmental requirements for all airport projects within the current structure of environmental laws. This includes expansion of the projects that are exempted, using a shorter environmental assessment form, and limits on EIS size." Details will be worked out this summer. The pronouncements sounded good the airport executives group, which has complained that review processes drag on too long. Using the same reasoning, U.S. Sen Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) has introduced legislation (S. 633) that would require federal, state and local agencies to perform all reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act concurrently, and require the Transportation Department to set a date certain for completion of environmental studies. Whether the implementation of federal environmental regulations — and even the regulations themselves — needs to change is a growing debate, with environmental group and business interests digging in their heels on opposite sides. However, David Luberoff, Associate Director of the A. Alfred Taubman Center for State and Local Government at Harvard, said he could think of only two recent airport projects that were halted at the federal level — a third airport for Chicago and a new airport at the former Homestead Air Force base in South Florida. And the south Chicago proposal appears to be getting back on track. "This is not the first administration that has tried to push on building more airport capacity. The question is to what extent are the obstacles federal, and to what extent are the obstacles local?" said Luberoff, an infrastructure policy expert. Increasing airport capacity was a major priority during the later half of the Reagan administration and during the first Bush administration. Yet the only new airport to come from that era was in Denver, Luberoff said. The Denver airport was built primarily because city officials selected a site far from town and because the local economy was so weak at the time that many people agreed on building the airport to stimulate commerce, he said. The only existing airports to add substantial capacity in recent years are in cities such as Atlanta and Dallas, where the business community dominates the political scene, Luberoff observed. California has a very different political environment. "If you think about what is preventing a new airport at El Toro or expansion at LAX, it is intense local opposition. There is no local political consensus for the project," Luberoff said. Michael Dardia, a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, agreed that the federal government's role is limited. The proposal to build new SFO runways in the bay, for example, remains primarily a local issue. Washington can provide carrots for projects, Dardia said. It could pay for the inevitable cleanup of pollution at El Toro, grease the base reuse process with cash, or provide grants to insulate homes near the site, he said. "If the federal government was really on board, it certainly could throw money at it. But these are wealthy communities so that might not have as much influence," Dardia said. Federal officials "are not really in a position to force the community to accept this as an airfield. This is an issue that the FAA is wrestling with in general." Federal officials could also use sticks in the airport capacity debate, such as boosting landing fees for certain times of day at SFO to force airlines to use Oakland or San Jose airports. A trial balloon for such an idea was floated in April. What will happen with California's airports is far from certain. The debate over building runways for SFO in the bay — the only place to put new runways — rages on. Legislation is advancing (SB 244, Speier) that would essentially give San Mateo County supervisors veto power over the project. The airport is in San Mateo County, and it is those supervisors' constituents who the most vocal project opponents. In April, SFO released a report it commissioned by Charles Rivers Associates that found there are no real options for increasing Bay Area aviation capacity besides expanding SFO. Four hundred miles to the south, the Southern California Association of Governments in April adopted a Regional Transportation Plan that spreads airport growth across the region. The plan calls for half as much expansion as the City of Los Angeles has planned for LAX, and a quadrupling of Ontario airport's usage. The plan also assumes an El Toro airport would be about half the size of the current LAX by 2025. Los Angeles officials vowed to push ahead with their $12 billion expansion anyway. El Toro remains mired in litigation and political bickering. A fourth ballot measure regarding El Toro's future is likely to appear this November. Contacts: David Luberoff, A. Alfred Taubman Center for State and Local Government, (617) 495-1346. Michael Dardia, Public Policy Institute of California, (415) 291-4416. U.S. Department of Transportation: www.dot.gov American Association of Airport Executives: www.airportnet.org Southern California Association of Governments, Regional Transportation Plan: www.scag-rtp.govconnect.org

The City of West Hollywood had the authority under the Vehicle Code to turn a through road into a cul-de-sac to accommodate a development, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court rejected project opponents' contention that the city had to prove that the street was no longer needed for vehicular traffic. In the mid-1990s, the city adopted the Sunset Specific Plan for a portion of Sunset Boulevard known as the Sunset Strip. The city certified a master environmental impact report on the plan in 1996. Sunset Millennium Associates proposed a major project on the south side of Sunset Boulevard, within the specific plan area. The development — on which work has since begun — includes a 10-story hotel, 159,000 square feet of office space, 155,000 square feet of retail development, and two auditoriums for live theater. The city determined the project, though larger than envisioned by the specific plan, would not have any additional significant environmental effects, so the city did not issue a new environmental document. Project opponents sued over the city's environmental review of the project, a development agreement between the city and Sunset Millennium, and the city's decision to create a cul-de-sac on Alta Loma Road. Los Angeles County Judge David Yaffe ruled for the city, and a three-judge panel of the Second District, Division Five, affirmed the decision. The appellate court published only the portion of its opinion addressing the creation of a cul-de-sac. The proposed development involves blocking off Alta Loma Road, a side street off Sunset Boulevard. City officials, relying on § 21101, subdivision (f), of the Vehicle Code found that Alta Loma is not a regionally significant traffic corridor and approved the creation of a cul-de-sac. Project opponents argued that Vehicle Code § 21101, subdivision (a)(1), required the city to find that it no longer needed Alta Loma for vehicular traffic before the city blocked the street. Area residents have complained that the road closure would worsen traffic along Sunset Boulevard and impede emergency vehicle access. However, the appellate court ruled that the two subdivisions of the statute are independent. " ehicle Code § 21101, subdivision (a)(1), grants authority only for a complete closure of a street to all vehicular traffic," Presiding Justice Paul Turner wrote for the court. "It is undisputed the present case involves the creation of a cul-de-sac, not the complete closure of a street to vehicular traffic. The street remains open to vehicular traffic and no residence or business on Alta Loma Road is directly or indirectly inaccessible." "The city has not closed to traffic a major street running through one or more adjacent cities," Turner continued. "It has created a cul-de-sac on a one-block-long residential street situated entirely within its borders. There was no evidence placing a cul-de-sac on Alta Loma Road would interfere with the delivery of emergency services or otherwise adversely affect the public health and safety." In the unpublished portions of the its decision, the court upheld the city's reliance on the master EIR for the Sunset Millennium project. The court ruled that opponents failed to show substantial evidence — not just a fair argument — of significant potential traffic impacts. The court also upheld the development agreement, saying the city did not surrender its policy power by freezing regulations for the developer. The court said a $5.2 million fee it accepted from the developer was voluntarily paid and never challenged by the developer. Project opponents had contended the fee amounted to a bribe paid to the city treasury. The Case: Save the Sunset Strip Coalition v. City of West Hollywood, No. B143615, 01 C.D.O.S. 2236, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2827, filed March 20, 2001. The Lawyers: For the coalition: Joel Moskowitz, Moskowitz, Brestoff, Winson & Blinderman, (310) 373-9790. For the city: Gregory Kunert, Richards, Watson & Gershon, (213) 626-8484. For the developer: James Arnone, Latham & Watkins

A billboard company jumped the gun when it claimed two of its proposed signs were "deemed approved" because of delays by the City of Los Angeles, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The unanimous three-judge panel upheld a trial court's dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Eller Media Company. In April, May and June of 1999, Eller filed three applications for permits to construct three separate billboards in Los Angeles. The third application received approval, but the first two were referred to the city's Community Redevelopment Agency because the sites are in the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan area. When the CRA had not made a decision on the applications by October 25, 1999, Eller filed a lawsuit claiming that the applications were "deemed approved" under the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA). Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavs dismissed the lawsuit, and Eller appealed. The Second District explained that the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code § 65920 et seq.) limits the time for final approval or rejection of applications based on the environmental review process. A public agency must decide on a project within 180 days of certification of an environmental impact report, or within 60 days of adoption of a negative declaration or the determination of CEQA exemption. But Eller did not wait for environmental determinations before filing the lawsuit. Prior to Judge Janavs's ruling, the CRA issued initial studies for both billboard applications. The CRA recommended a supplemental EIR be prepared for a sign proposed on Sunset Boulevard, and a mitigated negative declaration, with project modifications, for a sign proposed on Cahuenga Boulevard. "Until the Supplemental EIR was prepared for the Sunset sign, or the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for the Cahuenga sign, the time for approval or disapproval pursuant to the PSA did not begin to run," Judge Norman Epstein wrote for the court. "Appellant therefore cannot state a cause of action establishing a right to have its applications deemed approved pursuant to § 65956, subdivision (b)." The court also rejected Eller's contention that the city's failure to prepare initial studies within a time required by CEQA Guidelines also supported the "deemed approved" claim. Epstein wrote: "Allegations that the CEQA determinations were not performed in a timely manner are not sufficient to state a cause of action for ‘deemed approval' of the applications." The Case: Eller Media Company v. City of Los Angeles, No. B142004, 01 C.D.O.S. 2324, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2903, filed March 21, 2001. The Lawyers: For Eller: Richard Hamlin, (310) 822-2676. For the city: John Cotti, deputy city attorney, (213) 847-0564.

New conflict-of-interest rules promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission went into effect in February, and many changes affect public officials who make land use decisions. The rule changes come at a time when land use scandals appear to be at a new peak, with one staff planner pleading guilty to soliciting bribes and the planning director in another city facing a trial on bribery charges (see sidebar). Leaders of the FPPC say the new regulations (California Code of Regulations §§ 18700 - 18708) and an accompanying eight-step test for determining conflicts of interest make rules clearer for government officials and the public. "If nothing else, the revisions to the rules allowed us to explain what the rules really were because there was a lot of misinformation out there," FPPC Chairwoman Karen Getman said. The FPPC revised the longtime "300-foot rule," and modified other regulations to allow small-time landlords to make rent-control decisions. The agency also attempted to clear up when a public official with a conflict of interest must participate. But some observers question whether the changes, two years in the making, will have much impact. "It's not a significant change," said Matthew Jacobs, a Sacramento attorney with Downey, Brand, Seymour and Rohwer and a former federal prosecutor. "It's kind of tweaking at the perimeters, but the fundamental rules are still the same. There is only so much that can be done within a regulatory structure that is existing." Getman said the new regulations are not an attempt to go after the truly bad actors because they are usually busted for violating the Penal Code. Still, she said, the revisions should make conflicts clearer in cases where a public official makes a decision that helps himself. "There are more of those out there than you care to see," she said. The FPPC hopes to prevent public officials from even getting in that position. Jacobs, who prosecuted the Operation Rezone sting in the Fresno area during the 1990s, said that the FPPC's rules, in fact, do affect criminal cases. Prosecutors will not bring a case until they have evidence of bribery or a quid pro quo, but they often use violations of state conflict-of-interest requirements in the actual prosecution, he said. The voter-approved Political Reform Act of 1974 created the FPPC. The Act addresses a variety of state and local government officials — not just those in the land use field. The FPPC often gets more attention for its oversight of campaign contribution reporting. But state regulators spend a great deal of time dealing with land use conflicts of interest because there are so many gray areas. Land use decisions are seldom a simple yes or no, unlike the awarding of a contract. "The land use decisions caused the most trouble," Getman said of earlier rules. "More people were disqualified and felt they were unjustly disqualified. A lot of the advisors had trouble interpreting the rules." The new eight-step, conflict of interest test is intended to make things easier for advisors and public officials. The eight-step test begins with who is bound by the conflict rules, moves through potential conflicts and economic interests, and addresses various exceptions. Adoption of the eight-step test is part of making the system more accessible to everyone, FPPC officials said. Agency members are also accepting speaking engagements, publishing articles and working with the League of California Cities to spread the word. A $500,000 grant has funded a new publications unit, and the agency is urging public officials to use a free advice line, 1 (866) ASK-FPPC. Under the old 300-foot rule, decision-makers were presumed to have a conflict of interest if they owned property within 300 feet of a proposed project, and they had to abstain from the matter. If they owned property 300 to 2,500 feet from the project, a conflict existed if there was a $10,000 effect on the fair market value of their property. The new rules extend the presumption of a conflict to owners of property within 500 feet. But beyond that point, proof of a material conflict is needed. The FPPC made the change because the old rules for the middle zone of 300 to 2,500 feet were impossible to enforce, Getman said. Five-hundred feet is also a new standard for determining conflicts for public officials who are leaseholders. Previous rules involved complicated criteria for determining whether a leaseholder would be affected by a land use decision. The new rules presume a conflict of interest within 500 feet, although the conflict can be rebutted by proof, said John Wallace, FPPC senior counsel. Officials hope that a 500-foot threshold for both property owners and leaseholders will make rules easier to understand. The FPPC also cleared up rules regarding landlords who vote on rent control issues. Now, anyone who owns three or fewer rental units can participate. Owners of more units can participate in some instances. "We had rent control boards where, basically, all the landlords were disqualified and only tenants got to make the decisions," Wallace explained. The revisions should allow more people to participate. The rules also have new definitions for determining a "material" financial effect on a business in which a decision-maker owns stock. The FPPC continues to wrestle with how to determine the "reasonably foreseeable effects" of a decision on a public officials' financial interests. The FPPC is accepting comments on the new rules and plans to revisit the regulations at the end of the year. Contacts: Karen Getman and John Wallace, Fair Political Practices Commission, (916) 322-5660. Matthew Jacobs, Downey, Brand, Seymour and Rohwer, (916) 441-0131. FPPC website: www.fppc.ca.gov

With its well-paying high-tech jobs, close commuting proximity to Sacramento, a scenic location on the American River, ample supplies of new housing and a quaint downtown, Folsom has many assets. Because of those advantages, the city on the eastern edge of Sacramento County has attracted hordes of newcomers in recent years. As a result, schools are overcrowded and the city is rapidly running out of land. The city is culminating a 10-year effort to expand itself to attract more industrial and commercial growth, while contending with low-income housing advocates who say there is not enough affordable housing. In recent months, the City Council pondered whether to adopt an emergency ordinance to freeze development applications. Folsom has about 50,000 residents, not including the roughly 7,500 inmates at Folsom State Prison. The city has grown at an annual rate of 5% to 10%, according to Planning Director David Storer, and expects to have as many as 70,000 residents by the year 2013. With all available land expected to be built out by early in the next decade, the city is looking south of Highway 50 to accommodate future growth. In May, the Sacramento County Local Agency Formation Commission is expected to approve Folsom's application to extend its sphere of influence to include nearly 3,600 acres of hills and woodlands south of the city's current borders, according to John O'Farrell, executive officer of LAFCO. The land is outside the county's current urban growth boundary. In order to gain LAFCO approval for the application — which is the first step towards annexing the land into the city — Folsom officials have agreed to 16 conditions for such things as improvements to Highway 50, protection of native trees, clean up of contaminated land and groundwater, and keeping 30% of the acreage as open space. O'Farrell called the conditions the "most far reaching conditions this LAFCO has ever imposed." "We agree with all the conditions," said Storer, adding that it is developers who will have the obligation to comply with the conditions. Storer said the current City Council has not said what kind of development it wants to allow in the new area. An earlier City Council told LAFCO it wanted commercial and industrial development, and open space. The process stands in contrast to another recent battle in eastern Sacramento County. Last year, developer C.C. Myers placed Measure O on the ballot to bust the county's urban services limit and build the 3,000-home Deer Creek Hills subdivision eight miles south of Highway 50. That measure was opposed by several members of the Folsom City Council and was defeated by a large margin (see CP&DR, December 2000). Not everyone in Folsom agrees with the southern expansion. A group opposed to the application, called Alliance of Folsom Residents, submitted a petition signed by 600 residents to LAFCO in December, according to the Sacramento Bee. A lack of public school classrooms and a shortage of affordable homes are partial causes of the backlash. Legal Services of Northern California threatened to sue the city earlier this year, according to Storer. The legal aid group charged that the city has violated state law by failing to ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing in its 1992 general plan. Legal Services also testified in opposition to the proposed sphere of influence application, according to Storer. A Legal Services representative did not return calls from CP&DR. Although the City Council had taken no action on a proposed emergency ordinance to freeze development applications by mid-March, it appears that the Legal Services' pressure and resulting negotiations have had an impact. The City Council has authorized preparation of a new housing element to be completed a year ahead of schedule. Recent housing development has not been of the "affordable" variety. The city has been issuing more than 1,000 single-family housing annually. And after issuing no building permits for apartments between 1992 and 1997, the city approved 1,026 high-end apartments in 1999. Growth is exploding throughout the region at the base of the foothills, Storer noted. Neighboring communities — including unincorporated El Dorado County, and Roseville and Lincoln in Placer County — have boomed in recent years. One reason for the growth is the expansion of high-tech companies such as Intel, which is a major employer in Folsom. The city has also seen tremendous growth of its retail sector in recent years, adding a power center and expanding an outlet center. In addition, the historic Old Town district's quaint antique stores and restaurants also draw tourists. An extension of the county's light rail system to Folsom in 2003 is also expected to draw more visitors and commuters. All the growth has placed a strain on the city's schools, which are part of the 16,000-student Folsom-Cordova Unified School District. The district covers both the city of Folsom and the neighboring unincorporated community of Rancho Cordova, which has not seen the same rapid growth as Folsom. The enrollment at schools within Folsom has jumped from 4,928 in 1992 to 7,500 students this year, and is expected to rise to 13,700 in 2014, according to Debbie Bettencourt, deputy superintendent of the district. Classroom space in Folsom is at a premium at elementary schools near new housing developments. Large signs in front of some of the newest elementary schools warn parents that the schools are oversubscribed and their children may not be able to attend those schools if they buy homes nearby, according to John Frith, a six-year Folsom resident who's children have attended local schools. Instead, children are bussed to schools outside their neighborhood. However, a new elementary school is scheduled to open in August, said Bettencourt. A new high school opened two years ago at a cost of $68 million, but it is already at capacity, and a second high school is planned, she added. In the past, district-wide bond measures have failed. Several years ago, the two communities began conducting separate bond elections, which were to raise school construction funds for Folsom and to modernize schools in Rancho Cordova. The last time Folsom passed a school bond was in 1992, Bettencourt said. Last May, Measure M, a $38.4 million school bond measure failed when it fell 74 votes short of the required two-thirds majority. The passage of Proposition 39 last November, which allows school bonds to pass with 55% of the vote, will not help Folsom because the proposition does not cover elections for school facility improvement districts such as the one used in Folsom. Bettencourt said the district is hoping to get corrective legislation passed by state lawmakers this year to allow Folsom-Cordova bonds to win elections with 55% of the vote. The district is tentatively planning a bond measure for this November, but it would be unaffected by any corrective legislation, according to Bettencourt. The district did away with year-round schooling because the community opposed the schedule; however, the district may have to return to it, she indicated. Contacts: John O'Farrell, Sacramento LAFCO executive officer, (916) 874-6474. David Storer, Folsom planning, inspections and permitting director, (916) 355-7200. Debbie Bettencourt, Folsom-Cordova Unified School District (916) 355-1100.

After serving six years in the state Assembly, Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) was elected last November to the State Senate seat previously held by Tom Haden. Earlier this year, she was named Chairwoman of the Senate Natural Resources and Wildlife Committee. Although much of her work in the Assembly centered on social issues, Kuehl did serve on committees concerned with land use and was a director of the California Coastal Conservancy. Before coming to the Legislature, Kuehl was a law professor at Loyola, UCLA and USC law schools. She is a graduate of Harvard Law School. CP&DR: What are your priorities for the Senate Natural Resources Committee this year? Kuehl: One of the major areas that I see that we're going to be spending quite bit a time on are the NCCPs — the question, really, of how we can treat habitat as a whole instead of having to deal with one species at a time, the fact that there have been no real standards for how to do that. And I think there will be a number of bills that will bring real standards to how these are approved — looking at corridors and migration patterns and how numbers of species are interconnected. And I think also the question of how you are going to embrace giving away some things forever in exchange for others things needs to be addressed. There are a number of people in the past who have said we don't want any development…. The way the law has been constructed you have to say, almost artificially, there are fairy shrimp here, so don't come near us. It's not in the state's best interest to deny absolutely everything and therefore we need to develop some protective standards for these tradeoffs, which have been so ad hoc. The second issue we will deal with will be in regards to forestry. The question of clear cutting will get a hearing. We will be talking about what "sustainable yields" mean and standards for timber harvest plans. It's my hope to develop some long-term strategy for our forests. CP&DR: Public or private forests? Kuehl: Both. And I think the third issue will be whatever comes in response to the Supreme Court decision on the Clean Water Act. The question is whether having the regional water quality control boards, having the Coastal Commission jurisdiction, having endangered species review … is sufficient. There are already 3 bills being introduced dealing with pieces of this problem. One of them is that anything that touches a wetland has to go through CEQA. … I know there is a concern about that decision. CP&DR: Are you concerned about it? Kuehl: Well I am. Having the Army Corps of Engineers take a look at something gives us a little extra clout in the state. Saying they don't have jurisdiction leaves it totally to the state. We at least have to have something to say about these projects. CP&DR: Are you suggesting the state has lost some of its leverage? Kuehl: I am interested in making certain that if any gaps were created by the court decision that we have sufficient law to fill those gaps now — or we need to make certain that we have the ability to permit on all the lands that we think are covered. And I think a fourth area that will be covered will be the Coastal Commission itself. They are so understaffed. They seem to be able to take a hard look at big projects, but that eats up so much of their staff and time that they have been less likely to scrutinize single-family dwelling projects. And the result, I think, is that a lot of them are permitted. And when you add all of them together they may not be as devoted as they need to be to controlling runoff, and addressing other impacts. When you add hundreds and hundreds of houses in an area, even if they are not very close to each other, I think there is an impact. So I think there will be a discussion, although not necessarily in the form of legislation. It might just be informal discussions about what's needed. CP&DR: Does the energy crisis change your committee's focus? Kuehl: Not as much. There's an interplay between this committee and air quality issues and maybe, to a greater extent, water issues. But because there are committees that deal with water and with environmental quality and with energy, we don't really have to. I think that we will be called upon, in terms of the energy issue, to have an opinion about the acquisition of conservation easements on some of the utility companies' lands. Because if the state decides to help the utility companies avoid bankruptcy, I think it's clear we are unwilling to donate money for that purpose. Rather, we have expressed an interest in acquiring an asset. Among the assets being discussed are the lands that the utilities own. This last week we talked about whether we would want to acquire conservation easements or actual fee title ownership of the land. … We are asking for the development of information to compare the benefits to the state of a 99-year conservation easement on some of the lands, which would preserve them from development or sale or pollution, we hope, or acquisition of the land outright. There may not be a big difference in price. CP&DR: Last session, you carried legislation that would have tightened the connection between water availability and land-use planning. Are you still pursuing that? Kuehl: I'm doing it again. SB221 has the same provisions that SB 1219 had at the end. So I'm starting it up for another two years. CP&DR: Why is this a priority for you? Kuehl: I think that people now, perhaps because of the energy crisis, are more and more accepting of the notion of scarcity of resources. Where we used to think there is plenty of water for everything, plenty of electricity, plenty of gas — no matter how much the state grows, no matter how much the demand grows, God will provide.… I think we cannot assume an endless, boundless supply of everything, and that includes water. We have never asked, when a new development is being prepared, for an assessment of whether adequate water can be provided for new residents and future residents, even though we do ask if there will be adequate sewer and adequate schools. Water has to be taken into account. CP&DR: Why is there such strong opposition to this concept? Kuehl: I think the builders were not happy because they thought it would prevent them from making their living. But the truth is, I don't think it will because years ago we instituted the water transfer system in this state, so that if your local water agency cannot provide the needed amount, then the local permitting authority can contract with someone else to supply the water. Or we need to institute a water conservation plan, or a graywater plan, or we need to double pipe so you don't endlessly water your lawn, for example. The opposition thinks this is meant to be a slow-growth or no-growth tool, but I don't mean in that way. I mean it as a planning tool. CP&DR: You are a member of the Smart Growth Caucus. How can the Smart Growth Caucus influence decision-making at the Capitol? Kuehl: It's a lot of people in the first place, and that translates into a lot of votes. And most members are leaders of committees. If you've got the chairs of Local Government, Natural Resources, Water, it has an influence. Especially Local Government, because those are the permitting agencies. CP&DR: Do you have a definition of "smart growth?" Kuehl: Smart growth would prefer infill to sprawl, from the point of view of not having to transmit or deliver services in a brand new fashion in a brand new place. It relates enormously to transportation and the feeling that if we continue to rely on an already overloaded transportation system to move us great distances between home and work, there will never be an end to congestion. So smart growth contains principles so that you can plan to have homes close to where you work. If you're going to build a whole new community off somewhere, let's not have it just be a bunch of houses with no work nearby. CP&DR: Does that require changes in how local government is financed? Kuehl: I suppose it will also require us to take another look at the ways we've left for cities to finance themselves. If all they get is sales tax, then we can't blame them for wanting to maximize that income, and that translates to more big box stores and less residential property. So it does cut in the other direction from smart growth, CP&DR: Do you think we will see legislative changes to CEQA this year? Kuehl: I haven't seen any large-scale approaches to changing CEQA. But I know there are always bills to unravel CEQA, which would not get a friendly welcome in my committee. Sen. Kuehl was interviewed by CP&DR Managing Editor Paul Shigley in late February.

Is California running out of land? At first glance, this may seem to be a preposterous question. After all, California has something like 150,000 square miles of land – and the vast majority of it is not urbanized. The federal government owns half of it for parks, national forests, and the like, and most of the rest of it is used to grow food. Even with the rapid urban growth we've experienced during the past half-century, how can we be running out of land? Well, that's exactly the point. We're not running out of non-urbanized land. But we are running out of land that is not permanently "spoken for" in some way or another – especially around the large coastal metropolitan areas where most Californians live and where, believe it or not, most of our future urban growth is going to occur. By "spoken for," I don't mean developed. Rather, I simply mean that the land has been more or less permanently locked up for some particular use – urban growth, agriculture, open space, national parks and forests, endangered species protection, and so forth. When you use that definition, it becomes clear how tight our coastal land situation has become – especially when you realize that most of California is made up not of wide open spaces, but of valleys, mountains, and coastal plains that create a particular boxed-in structure to land resources. The nine-county San Francisco Bay Area is almost completely built out. There is abundant open space in Marin County, but that has been permanently set aside for dairy farming. There is abundant undeveloped land in the East and South Bays, but mostly that property is in the hands of land trusts for open space. The few places where it is possible to place more urban growth – eastern Alameda and Contra Costa Counties in particular – are battlegrounds where most remaining land will undoubtedly be set aside for open space, no matter who wins the battle. No wonder suburbanization is oozing south and east to the Central Valley and the Salinas Valley. Given its traditional reputation as the nation's capital of sprawl, it is even more surprising that the five-county metropolitan Los Angeles area is in pretty much the same situation. A vast central area has been urbanized during the last 50 years. The entire coastal plain (including northern Orange County), and a ring of valleys (San Gabriel, San Bernardino, San Fernando, Santa Clarita, Conejo) — separated by mountains from the coastal plain — all have been consumed for The American Dream since the end of World War II. Much of the remaining land (desert and mountains mostly) is in the hands of the federal government. Thus, there are a few places left to go, but, as in the Bay Area, these are the familiar "growth battlegrounds" you read about in these pages each month. In Ventura County, voters have knocked 100,000 acres of agricultural and open space land out of the development game. In Orange and Riverside Counties, the Endangered Species Act will do the same for a half-million acres more – land that probably would have been available for development as recently as the 1980s. The areas unaffected by these constraints are subject to political battles, such as the Newhall Ranch property in northern Los Angeles County – where the eventual project, assuming it is approved, will certainly accommodate far less growth than would have been the case in the past. In fact, the only part of the region that seems to have a vast amount of unconstrained land for growth is the "high desert" – specifically the Antelope and Victor Valleys. These areas have been growing fast for the last 20 years, but they remain far from job centers, located in harsh climates, and their growth has not been without social and economic stress. The fact that we are running out of land does not mean that our overall urban growth will slow. Every projection suggests that California in general and metropolitan Los Angeles in particular will continue to add population at a brisk pace during the next 20 years. In the five-county Los Angeles region, the phrase most frequently bandied about is "two Chicagos." The assumption is that the region will have to accommodate 6 million more people (about a 40% increase over the current 16 million) during the next 20 years. How could this be? How could it be that we must accommodate millions more people even if we don't have anywhere to put them? The answer is that the future of California looks very different than the past; therefore, the future of planning and development in California must look very different as well. First of all, most of our population growth is inevitable, not optional. That is, it will come as a result of natural increase – births over deaths – rather than migration from other states or immigration from other countries. This is a huge change from the past, and it is the first time we have ever faced the population question from this perspective. In the economic downturn of the late 1970s, the state's population growth almost came to halt – thanks in large part to the fact that middle-class folks from other states stopped moving to California, and middle-class folks who lived here started moving to other states. By contrast, during the recession of the mid '90s, our state's population growth never dropped below around 400,000 per year. A second, related point is that a great deal of this population growth is occurring in existing urban areas – especially older suburbs – and that is a phenomenon we in California have never faced before either. Since 1980, for example, metro Los Angeles has added about 5 million people. Surprisingly, however, 2 million of them have been added in areas that would have been regarded as "built out" in 1980 – the City of Los Angeles, the San Gabriel Valley, southeastern Los Angeles County, and northern Orange County. As the map below suggests, during the 1990s the mature communities of northern Orange County added more people than the developing communities of southern Orange County. And partly for that reason, Orange County added more people during the 1990s than did Riverside County, which is often seen as Southern California's fastest growing area. (This map was prepared by our sister organization, Solimar Research Group, for "Sprawl Hits The Wall," a report released last month by the Southern California Studies Center at the University of Southern California. The report is available on our website, www.cp-dr.com) All this means that the future of accommodating California's growth is not about building new suburbs, but, rather, about rendering older ones as better places to live even as they become more dense. Urban activists in California often resist density as damaging to their quality of life, and understandably so. But the fact of the matter is that in our older suburbs the human density is rising considerably even as the building density does not change much. Local residents throughout California may oppose the construction of more apartment buildings or condominiums. But does such opposition make sense when, in those same communities, two or even three families are living in one single-family home?

Electricity has been the dominant topic at the state Capitol for months and threatens to overshadow every other issue facing lawmakers in 2001. Still, legislators introduced hundreds of bills related to land use prior to the late-February deadline, including approximately 150 housing bills. "I'd say there are easily twice as many bills as we normally see," said Mike Herald, executive director of Housing California, a statewide coalition of advocacy groups. "I think it's a reflection of what members are hearing in their districts." Those bills range from measures that would put teeth in the housing element law, to housing subsidies for firefighters and police in certain cities, to proposals that would give local government a larger share of property taxes from housing developments, to incentives for infill and transit-oriented projects. "It's not just a Silicon Valley problem," Sen. Joe Dunn (D-Santa Ana) said of affordable housing. "It's really starting to touch on every portion of the state." Other land use bills would tinker with the California Environmental Quality Act, lower the hurdle for a redevelopment agency to prove "blight," require a finding of adequate water supplies for projects of at least 200 housing units, and require the Governor's Office of Planning and Research to prepare a "State Comprehensive Plan." (See accompanying list of bills.) As of late March, most legislative committees were just getting started, and a large number of bills remained in spot form. Despite the plethora of bills, a number of Capitol insiders and lobbyists said they expect to see few proposals that would create new programs for housing or anything else get approved this year because the energy situation has been costing the state an unbudgeted $45 million a day, and because the quick economic slowdown could hurt revenues. State Senate President Pro Tempore John Burton (D-San Francisco) has vowed to match last year's housing funding of $570 million, but even housing champions such as Dunn, the chairman of the Senate Housing and Community Development Committee, have doubts. "If we go down the path we've been on , there won't be any significant state funds available for housing," Dunn said. But the uncertain situation has not deterred interest groups and lawmakers from pursuing their agendas. The California Chapter of the American Planning Association is sponsoring legislation based on a report of the group's state plan task force, said CCAPA lobbyist Sande George. The primary components call for preparation of a state plan (AB 857, Wiggins), making infrastructure funding dependent on consistency with the state plan (SB 294, Sher), and requiring local land use elements to address issues of environmental and social justice (AB 1553, Keeley). The group may also use AB 858 (Wiggins) as a vehicle for further general plan reform. George said CCAPA is working with the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties on the bill package. "I think the biggest concern that legislators are hearing from their constituents is that everybody is sprawling too much," George said. "That's become a buzz word in the last few years." Solving the affordable housing shortage will require money, and there is talk of a housing bond, George said. However, if the state issues $10 billion worth of bonds to fund long-term electricity purchases, as is proposed, the state may have little bonding capacity remaining for other things, she said. The planners association appears to have a solid ally in Assemblywoman Patricia Wiggins (D-Santa Rosa), chairwoman of the Assembly Local Government Committee and head of the Smart Growth Caucus. She has focused on the lack of fiscal incentives for local governments to approve housing. Because so many state lawmakers have moved up from city councils and boards of supervisors during recent years, they understand that housing is a drain on local government finances, she said. "Many of us are looking at property tax incentives," Wiggins said. "We're probably not going to get a wholesale return of the property tax that was shifted away by the state, but we can do it in pieces." Sen. Dunn agreed that most lawmakers agree there is a problem with the way local government is financed. But, he said, it is very unlikely that the Davis administration will accept any measure that shifts funds from the state to local government. On a different topic, Wiggins said she intends to pursue legislation that provides for geographic information system mapping of the state. "We're very primitive in our planning in California considering the technology we have," she said. Wiggins said lawmakers are returning to their own agendas and away from electricity. However, she said there could be an effort to require an energy element as part of local general plans. Jerry Meral, executive director of the Planning and Conservation League, said he has detected "member burnout on energy" and he believes lawmakers will move on to other issues. "I actually think if it were not for energy, transportation would be the biggest issue this year," Meral said. Transportation is toward the top of the PCL agenda this year, as the group is sponsoring AB 321 and ACA 2 (Vargas), both of which would allocate the state's share of sales tax on vehicles for transportation programs. Meral's organization would like to see the money focused on transit in urban areas. The PCL also is quite interested in Wiggins' AB 52, a proposed bond that would raise money for farmland protection and infill housing. Wiggins refers to the proposal as "pave an acre, save an acre." Meral said a similar program has been successful in Vermont. With the Democrat majority on both houses at nearly 2-1, the PCL finds that it has quite a few friends these days and does not spend a great deal of time fighting bills. That means that business and development groups are struggling to find allies. Thus, development interests are continuing to work with housing and labor groups in the Job-Center Housing Coalition that become a major player during the last legislative session. The group is back with a 10-bill package. Like last session, the package includes measures to limit builders' construction defect liability and to make brownfield cleanup easier. The Job-Center Housing Coalition package also includes Sen. Dunn's SB 910, a housing element law crackdown. The measure states that if HCD finds a local housing element to be out of compliance, a court should presume the element is invalid. The proposal requires courts to impose fees of up to $1,000 per unit of the jurisdiction's fair-share housing requirement, and — maybe most importantly — cuts off state funds for cities and counties that do not comply with housing element law. Dunn has not yet defined the revenue stream he will go after but said education and transportation dollars are safe. Instead, he will try to stem the flow of more discretionary funding. "That is gonna be a shot at the heart of the jurisdictions that steadfastly have refused to comply with the housing element law," Dunn said. His office estimates that about 30% of cities and counties have inadequate housing elements. Housing California's Herald said SB 910 is important because some local governments will not take the first step of zoning enough sites for affordable units. The issue is one that housing advocates and the development community can agree upon, whereas the construction defect liability concerns belong mostly to builders, Herald said. Contacts: State Senator Joe Dunn, (916) 445-5831. Assemblywoman Patricia Wiggins, (916) 319-2007. Sande George, California Chapter of the American Planning Association, (916) 443-5301. Jerry Meral, Planning and Conservation League, (916) 444-8726. Mike Herald, Housing California, (916) 447-0503. California Housing Law Project: www.housingadvocates.org Job-Center Housing Coalition: www.jobcenterhousing.com

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.