After years of false starts and stumbles, the federal government has renewed its commitment to the troubled California Bay-Delta Program, breathing new life into the ambitious effort to fix the troubled centerpiece of the state's water system. The Sacramento-San Joaquin river delta, a vast cat's-cradle of sloughs and channels where the state's two major river systems mesh and then mingle with saltwater on the inland edge of San Francisco Bay, is where the State Water Project and the federally operated Central Valley Project get much of the water they distribute to farms, cities and rural communities in the southern half of the state. Altogether, the pumps that slurp water from the delta and dump it into southbound aqueducts irrigate more than 4 million acres of cropland and provide some or all of the water consumed by two-thirds of the state's population. The delta also is a troubled place, caught in the middle of a bitter, decades-long battle over water and fish. The California Bay-Delta Program, or Cal-Fed, was conceived in the early 1990s as a way to bring together all the battling groups with an interest in the Sacramento-San Joaquin river delta - urban and agricultural water agencies, environmentalists, government regulators - to craft a series of solutions to the problems associated with state and federal water diversions. Those problems include declining salmon, smelt and wildlife populations, deteriorating water quality, and the increasing unreliability of the supply because of pumping reductions ordered to protect the environment. So far, most of the $3 billion spent on Cal-Fed projects (including $180 million of the $825 million in Proposition 50 bond funds authorized by voters in November 2002) during the last 10 years has gone to ecological restoration projects in the delta and along the rivers that feed into it. The theory behind that approach is that recovering threatened or endangered species, and preventing others from becoming imperiled in the first place, reduces the chance that water diversions will be curtailed for ecological reasons. That allocation of funding has begun to draw criticism from representatives of some user groups, who argue more surface storage is needed. That criticism is reflected in the bill approved by Congress and signed by President Bush in October. The bill, HR 2828, reauthorizes the federal government's participation in the California Bay-Delta Authority, which is responsible for carrying out Cal-Fed projects and would have dissolved next year without that reauthorization. The bill also authorizes $389 million for Cal-Fed programs, $184 million of which is earmarked for projects intended to increase reservoir capacity and boost the amount of water that can be pumped out of the delta for delivery to farms and cities. The bill also authorizes $90 million to purchase water from agricultural and urban users so it can be dedicated to fish and wildlife, and $90 million to repair and rebuild delta levees. The bill more than doubles the federal investment in Cal-Fed. According to a September report on Cal-Fed finances, the state has provided $1.3 billion of the $3 billion spent so far. Local agencies have contributed $1.2 billion, water users and state and federal project contractors have put in $187 million, and the federal government about $350, or 12% of the total. The bill has won mixed reviews. “Today, California's leaders in Congress have truly delivered for our state,” Steve Hall, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies, said in a prepared statement. “Every facet of California's economy and way of life depends on reliable, high quality water, and this program will ensure that those supplies are available well into the 21st century.” Other groups were harshly critical of plans to increase exports from the delta, arguing that this will benefit large water users at the expense of the environment. The Natural Resources Defense Council, the Planning and Conservation League, and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association joined Friends of the River at a news conference in Sacramento to protest those plans. “Our solutions include conservation, water recycling and groundwater desalination. We can meet the growing demand at a lower cost without further imperiling wildlife and water quality,” said Mindy McIntyre, water policy specialist for the Planning and Conservation League. One of the most controversial elements in the original version of the bill, introduced more than a year ago by a coalition of California representatives, was dropped. As drafted, the measure would have granted authority to the secretary of Interior to proceed with any storage project he or she deemed “feasible,” unless Congress specifically forbid it. “We're grateful that the language that would have pre-authorized water projects was removed,” said Steve Evans, conservation director for Friends of the River. “That was a nonstarter for us.” Evans said, however, that he is disturbed by the suggestion, implicit in the bill's language, that the Cal-Fed process so far has improperly favored ecosystem restoration at the expense of storage projects. “The conservation community believes it was unbalanced in the other direction,” he said. “We're ready to admit that a good chunk of money has been spent on ecosystem restoration. But it's not how much money you spend. It's how many threatened and endangered species you bring back.” The version of the Cal-Fed bill approved in October differs from its predecessor in other ways as well, including elimination of $300 million “to address issues surrounding the Salton Sea.” The Salton Sea, the largest body of water in California, is a landlocked lake in the desert near the Mexican border that receives irrigation drainage from farms in the Imperial and Coachella valleys. Rising salinity, fluctuating water levels and contamination from American farms and Mexican sewage threaten fish and bird life at the sea, and several costly proposals have been made for solving those problems (see , February 2000). The final bill also authorizes $3 million to study construction of a dam on Alder Creek in El Dorado County, long sought by lawmakers representing the booming foothill communities east of Sacramento. The allocation for delta levee improvement is $20 million higher than when the legislation was introduced - perhaps a reflection of the June 3 collapse of a levee near Stockton, which flooded 11,000 acres of previously dry land and so perturbed the hydrology of the delta that salt water began flowing inland from San Francisco Bay toward the intakes of the state and federal pumping plants. The state pumps shut down; the federal plant reduced pumping to a trickle. The levee has been repaired and water diversions have resumed. Experts warn, however, that there's a 60% chance multiple levees could fail simultaneously in the next 50 years. Contacts: California Bay-Delta Authority: calwater.ca.gov . Association of California Water Agencies: www.acwanet.com . Friends of the River: www.friendsoftheriver.org .

Multi-County o Alameda, Contra Costa and San Francisco counties. A $980 million bond for improvements to BART. Two-thirds vote required. Measure AA, Yes: 68.6% o Alameda and Contra Costa counties. A measure that doubles an existing parcel tax in portions of the two counties to $48 per year for AC Transit operations. Two-thirds vote required. Measure BB, Yes: 71.9% Alameda County o City of Berkeley. A City Council measure that amends the city's rent control ordinance to provide for annual rent increases equal to 65% of the rise in the consumer price index, up to 7% per year. Previously, the city's Rent Stabilization Board determined rent increases. Measure O, Yes: 74.9% A City Council measure that subjects “Section 8” units to the city's rent control regulations. Measure P, Yes: 66.6% A complex initiative that prohibits topping or removal of mature public trees, requires “tree impact reports” for developments that affect public trees, prohibits coverage of public open spaces with impervious surfaces, and establishes a Tree Board with two full-time staff members. Measure S, No: 73.4% o City of Emeryville. Two referendums on the city's approval of Pixar Animation Studios' proposed expansion. Pixar has a 215,000-square-foot headquarters and may expand up to 415,000 square feet on 16 acres under a 1998 development agreement. Earlier this year, the City Council approved a general plan amendment and modified the development agreement to allow up to 533,000 square feet of development on 21 acres. Project opponents want more concessions from Pixar. Measure T is a referendum of the general plan amendment; Measure U is a referendum of the amended development agreement. Both measures needed to pass for the expansion to go forward. Measure T, Yes: 71.2% (pro-growth) Measure U, Yes: 70.2% (pro-growth) o Pleasanton. A city-sponsored measure that requires voter approval of park development plans for the 318-acre Bernal property. Measure X, Yes: 89.4% Butte County o City of Paradise. A referendum of a general plan amendment for the Skyway Plaza Shopping Center, a proposed 184,000-square-foot retail, restaurant, hotel and office project on 30 acres that the city would annex. Existing grocery stores in Paradise, including Safeway, bankrolled opponents of the project. A yes vote approved the general plan amendment. Measure O, Yes: 59.6% (pro-growth) Contra Costa County o A 25-year extension of a half-cent sales tax for transportation. Two-thirds vote required. Measure J, Yes: 70.5% o City of Hercules. An initiative that rezones about 600 acres in and near Franklin Canyon to 40-acre minimum lot sizes. The initiative blocks a proposal to develop 500 houses, offices, stores and a hotel in Franklin Canyon. Developer GreenPark Group, which submitted a development application in 2001, has already filed a takings lawsuit over the city's slow and expensive review process. Measure M, Yes: 63.2% (slow-growth) o City of Lafayette. A $29 million bond to fund road reconstruction and drainage repairs. Would cost property owners about $25 per $100,000 of assessed valuation. Two-thirds vote required. Measure N, No: 42.2% o City of Martinez. A $30 million bond to fund a variety of capital improvements, including marina and park upgrades, library renovation and road work. Would cost property owners up to $30 per $100,000 of assessed valuation. Two-thirds vote required. Measure O, No: 38.7% Fresno County o City of Kingsburg. A city-sponsored measure to limit the number of building permits to about 115 per year. Measure N, Yes: 81.6% (slow-growth) Kern County o City of Wasco. A city-sponsored advisory measure that calls for a 10-mile buffer around Wasco in which there could be no large-scale dairy development. (See , October 2004.) Measure U, Yes: 81.5% Lassen County o City of Susanville. A half-cent sales tax to fund construction of the Sierra Sports Complex. Two-third vote required. Measure K, No: 53.1% Los Angeles County o City of Gardena. A referendum on the City Council's decision to create a redevelopment agency. A no vote rejected the redevelopment agency. Measure G, No: 61.9% (slow-growth) o City of Los Angeles. A $500 million bond to clean up urban runoff and rivers. The city-backed measure had no organized opposition. Two-thirds vote required. Measure O, Yes: 75.8% Marin County A half-cent sales tax for transportation for 20 years. Two-thirds vote required. Measure A, Yes: 70.8% o City of Novato. A city-sponsored proposal to amend a ballot measure approved by voters in 1987. Measure F permits required elections on certain capital improvement projects to go to voters during special elections. City officials sought the change so that they can get a city hall project in front of voters in 2006, well before the regularly scheduled November 2007 election. Measure F, Yes: 62.4% Monterey County o Pacific Grove. An initiative that would prevent the city from constructing new buildings on parkland and open space, or expanding existing buildings by more than 40%, without voter approval. The initiative was the result of controversy over a new 7,000-square-foot clubhouse that is under construction at the municipal golf course. Measure I, No: 50.8% Napa County An initiative permitting expansion of a 46-year-old deli in the unincorporated community of Oakville. Expansion is currently prohibited because the site is zoned for agriculture. Measure T, No: 55.5% (slow-growth) Orange County o City of Newport Beach. A city-backed general plan amendment to allow construction of a 110-unit resort on city-owned land on Balboa Peninsula, on the edge of Newport Harbor. The general plan calls for a park on the 8-acre site. Currently, a mobile home park, public tennis courts and a Girl Scout clubhouse exist on the property. The proposed development would require the developer to rebuild the Girl Scout clubhouse and tennis courts elsewhere. Measure L, No: 67.0% (slow-growth) Riverside County o Palm Springs. A referendum of the city's rezoning of “Section 14,” a square mile in downtown that is controlled by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. The rezoning extends a resort-commercial corridor and increases permissible housing densities. Although the tribe does not need the city's approval, the tribe has processed developments through the city. Rejection of the rezoning would have no legal effect. The Agua Caliente Band already operates a casino in Section 14 and was a leading proposed of state Proposition 70, which sought to repeal limits on slot machines. A yes vote approved the City Council's decision. Measure U, Yes: 50.2% (67-vote difference) (pro-growth) o City of Hemet. An initiative to rezone 43.5 acres from commercial, manufacturing and industrial designations to residential. Developer Charlie McLaughlin, who was behind the initiative, wants to build 230 houses on the property. The city and the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission rejected McLaughlin's zoning change, in part because the site is under the flight path for the Hemet/Ryan Airport. Measure PP, No: 75.5% (slow-growth) Sacramento County o A 30-year extension of a half-cent sales tax for transportation that is due to expire in 2009. Two-thirds vote required. Measure A, Yes: 75.1% o An Article 34 housing election to approve development, construction or acquisition of up to 9,500 units of low-cost housing in the unincorporated county and its cities during the next 20 years. Measure K, Yes: 55.7% (pro-growth) o City of Folsom. A city-sponsored measure that requires the city to take certain steps before annexing six square miles south of Highway 50. Among other things, the city would have to identify a water supply, adopt an infrastructure funding plan, and designate 30% of the land for open space. Measure W was the city's alternative to a slow-growth citizen initiative that would have prohibited development of the territory without subsequent voter approval. However, a judge threw the citizen initiative off the ballot because of technical flaws. Measure W, Yes: 67.8% (pro-growth) San Bernardino County o A 30-year extension of a half-cent sales tax for transportation. Two-thirds vote required. Measure I, Yes: 79.7% San Diego County o A 40-year extension of half-cent sales tax for transportation. Two-thirds vote required. Proposition A, Yes: 66.68% o An initiative backed by the Pala Band of Mission Indians to overturn Measure C from 1994, which amended the general plan to allow development of a 320-acre garbage dump in Gregory Canyon off Highway 76 in the North County. Proposition B, No: 63.9% o City of Coronado. Two measures that address traffic in the island city. Proposition L is an initiative that would amend the circulation element to designate Glorietta Boulevard as an “intermediate arterial” in an effort to take traffic off Orange Avenue, the city's main drag. Proposition M calls for the removal of three “traffic semi-diverters.” The city decided to remove the diverters in 2003, but a citizen lawsuit resulted in a court ordered for an environmental impact report. Supporters of Proposition M say voter approval eliminates the need for environmental review. Proposition L, No: 56.3% Proposition M, Yes: 67.8% o El Cajon. A half-cent sales tax for 10 years to rehabilitate or replace police, fire and animal control facilities. Two-thirds vote required. Proposition O, Yes: 68.6% o City of Escondido. An $84.35 million bond to fund fire stations, a police/fire headquarters and training facilities. Would cost property owners about $35 per $100,000 of assessed value. Two-thirds vote required. Proposition P, Yes: 67.4% o City of Lemon Grove. A $3.4 million bond to build a new library. Would cost property owners about $15 per $100,000 of assessed valuation. Two-thirds vote required. Proposition R: No, 37.6% o City of National City. A $12.33 million bond to fund public safety facilities. Would cost property owners about $11 per $100,000 of assessed valuation. Two-thirds vote required. Proposition S, No: 35.0% o Palomar Pomerado Health District. A $496 million bond that would help fund conversion of Palomar Medical Center in Escondido into a specialty hospital and partially pay for construction a new hospital elsewhere in Escondido. Would cost property owners about $18 per $100,000 of assessed valuation. Two-thirds vote required. Proposition BB, Yes: 69.6% o Valley Center Parks and Recreation District. A $19 parcel tax to fund land acquisition, new park facilities, maintenance and programs. Two-thirds vote required. Proposition CC, No: 42.9% San Francisco o $200 million housing bond that would pay for homeless shelters, affordable apartment development and homeownership programs. Would cost property owners about $3.50 per $100,000 of assessed value. Two-thirds vote required. Proposition A, No: 35.9% (slow-growth) o A $60 million bond to fund city and school district historic preservation efforts. Would cost property owners a little more than $1 per $100,000 of assessed value. Two-thirds vote required. Proposition B, No: 42.7% o An initiative that would direct 15% of hotel bed tax revenue (about $8 million annually) to a new program to acquire and preserve neighborhood and single-screen movie theaters, and to promote local film-making. Proposition L, No: 74.8% San Joaquin County o City of Lodi. An initiative to prohibit stores larger than 125,000 square feet unless approved by voters. A 227,000-square-foot Wal-Mart supercenter has been proposed. Measure R, No: 57.7% (pro-growth) o City of Stockton. A Sierra Club-backed initiative creating a 20-year urban growth boundary that roughly coincides with an existing urban services area boundary. Development outside the boundary would be prohibited without voter approval. The initiative also encourages the City of Lodi to adopt a “community separator” between the two cities. Measure Q, Yes: 50.4% (slow-growth) A property owners' alternative to the Sierra Club initiative. Measure S strengthens a “right to farm” ordinance, and calls for Stockton and Lodi to fund conservation easements between the cities. Measure S, Yes: 64.7% (slow-growth) The City Council's alternative to the Sierra Club initiative. Measure T requires the city to adopt a “greenbelt master plan” by June 30, 2006. Measure T, No: 51.7% (pro-growth) An initiative backed by developer John Verner to ensure that 1,000 acres in southeast Stockton is within the Sierra Club's urban growth boundary. Measure X, Yes: 67.6% (pro-growth) o City of Tracy. Dueling initiatives that both punch loopholes in Measure A, a 2000 initiative that capped building permits at about 600 housing units per year. Measure U, backed by AKT Development, would allow an additional 600 units per year starting in 2006, but only within AKT's 5,500-unit Tracy Hills project. Measure V, backed by the Surland Companies, would direct 250 units per year to the developer's Ellis Transit Village project and to downtown. Measure U, No: 70.4% (slow-growth) Measure V, No: 57.4% (slow-growth) San Mateo County o A 25-year extension of a half-cent sales tax for transportation. Two-thirds vote required. Measure A, Yes: 75.6% o City of Pacifica. Two similar measures regarding preservation of the 94-year-old, city-owned Little Brown Church, which previously served as the police station. The primary difference is that Measure K, which was placed on the ballot by the City Council, would permit the city to delegate responsibility for restoration to a nonprofit entity. Measure K, Yes: 66.8% Measure L, Yes: 57.5% o City of Redwood City. A referendum of the Marina Shores Village Precise Plan, which permits up 1,930 housing units in 17 high-rise towers. A no vote rejects the project. (See September 2004.) Measure Q, No: 54.4% (slow-growth) o City of San Mateo. The city-sponsored measure extending the life of a 1991 initiative that limits buildings to 55 feet in height, with a few exceptions, and prohibits projects with more than 50 housing units per acre. Measure P, Yes: 69.5% (slow-growth) Santa Cruz County o A half-cent sales tax for transportation for 30 years. Two-thirds vote required. Measure J, No: 57.2% Solano County o Half-cent sales tax for transportation for 30 years. Two-thirds vote required. Measure A, No: 36.5% o City of Benicia. Advisory measure regarding 4.4 acres of city land on the waterfront. Both measures propose a park and commercial development. Measure B would allow more commercial development, 1.25 acres. Measure B, No: 55.8% Measure C, Yes: 67.5% Sonoma County o A quarter-cent sales tax for transportation for 20 years. Two-thirds vote required. Measure M, Yes: 66.7% (About a 210-vote difference) o An Article 34 housing measure that would allow development or acquisition of low-income housing units. The measure caps the number of units at one-half of 1% of the total number of units in the unincorporated area, or about 330 units per year. (pro-growth) Measure N, Yes: 51.8% o City of Cotati. An initiative that prohibits the retail use of more than 60,000 square feet of any building in a 52-acre area northwest of the Highways 101-116 junction. In November 2003, voters approved Measure B, which lifted the city's big-box ban on these 52 acres. A Lowe's has been approved and is under construction, but the initiative would apparently prevent Lowe's from fully occupying the structure. Measure P, No: 62.0% (pro-growth) o City of Petaluma. An advisory measure on a proposed east-west connector and interchange at Ranier Avenue and Highway 101. Supporters say it is needed for traffic congestion relief. Opponents say it will open up new lands for development. Measure S, Yes, 72.0% Stanislaus County o City of Modesto. A measure allowing extension of city sewer services to about 300 houses on 97 acres south of the city limits. Measure D, Yes: 62.7% o City of Newman. A measure advising the Board of Supervisors to direct urban development into incorporated cities. Measure I, Yes: 63.0% (slow-growth) Sutter County o A proposal from Yuba City to annex 810 acres on either side of Highway 99 at the south end of town. Most of the area is already developed, so the provision of services is the major issue. Measure H, No: 62.3% o An advisory measure placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors regarding development of 7,500 acres just north of the Sacramento County line. The proposal designates at least 3,600 acres for commercial and industrial development, no more than 2,900 acres for residential development, and at least 1,000 acres for public facilities and retail development. Measure M, Yes: 59.0% (pro-growth) Ventura County o Creation of an open space district, and a one-quarter percent sales tax to fund agricultural land preservation and open space acquisition. Two-thirds vote required. Measure A, No: 51.4% (pro-growth) o A half-cent sales tax for transportation for 30 years. Two-thirds vote required. Measure B, No: 59.1% o City of Simi Valley. A city-backed measure for a new building cap to replace one, originally approved by voters in 1996, that expires at the end of the year. Under Measure C, the number of residential building permits drops from 544 to 292 per year. Measure C, Yes: 75.9% (slow-growth) o City of Ventura. An Article 34 election that would allow the city's Housing Authority to develop or acquire up to 500 units of low-income housing. Measure D, Yes: 58.9% (pro-growth) Yolo County o City of Davis. An Article 34 housing measure that would allow development or acquisition of up to 50 units of low-income housing per year until 2025. Measure S, Yes: 58.9% (pro-growth) Yuba County o City of Wheatland. A construction excise tax of 1% of the total valuation of the construction, with exceptions for minor projects or reconstruction. The money would flow to the city's general fund. Measure E, Yes: 59.5%

The City of Orange's strategy for enhancing its downtown ambiance received a sharp rebuke from the Fourth District Court of Appeal. In the end, the court upheld an award of $150,000 to a property owner who lost access to one parking space because of the city's sidewalk project. What appeared to doom the city was a decision to ignore an Orange County Superior Court preliminary injunction that was intended to prevent the city from blocking access to the parking space. In a harshly worded and, at times, sarcastic opinion, Presiding Justice David Sills repeatedly cited the city's violation of the injunction. Sills opened the opinion thusly: “This is a textbook example of a party trying to take advantage of its own wrong. In this case the opportunistic party is the City of Orange. The wrong is that the city violated a preliminary injunction not to build in a certain area or otherwise interfere with existing parking access enjoyed by a property owner. We will repeat the essence of that statement just in case any reader missed it the first time: The city violated a preliminary injunction not to interfere with the landowner's parking access. It built a permanent cement curb that the injunction specifically precluded it from building, thereby eliminating a driveway swale and thus entirely foreclosing the owner's access to a parking space on his property. Now the city complains because the trial court awarded the property owner damages for the loss of access.” Orange Circle is a large traffic circle at the intersection of Glassel and Chapman avenues in the heart of “Old Towne Orange.” In the middle is a manicured plaza. Surrounding the circle are shops and offices. There is parking on the street. Of concern to the city was a gap between two buildings. That one-car-wide space was used for vehicle parking by the adjacent law office from 1946 to 2001. However, access to the space required a driveway across a sidewalk next to a coffee house and a restaurant, both of which have seating on the sidewalk. The city planned to enlarge the sidewalk and block off the vehicular access to the gap. In September 1999, the city notified attorney Mark Hurwitz, who owns the property, of its plans. The two sides negotiated for nearly a year but got nowhere when the city refused to compensate Hurwitz. He then learned that the city was about to demolish the driveway and build a curb. So in April 2001, he filed suit for an injunction to stop the city. On May 2, 2001, the court issued a preliminary injunction, which barred the city from “demolishing, blocking, barricading, commencing construction upon, eliminating or otherwise interfering with or depriving plaintiff of the use of the driveway.” A few weeks later, the city built a curb and bolted benches the sidewalk. The city also built a temporary asphalt ramp, but vehicular access to the gap was impossible. The city followed up in June by conducting a hearing in which the City Council declared use of the gap as a parking space to be a nuisance. The council also decided to acquire the vehicular access through nuisance abatement or eminent domain proceedings. The city then filed a cross-complaint in eminent domain to Hurwitz's suit. During a trial in 2002, Superior Court Judge Thierry Patrick Colaw ruled that the city should compensate Hurwitz for loss of the parking space. The city set the value at $1,000 based on a rental value of $10 per month for eight years and refused to consider a higher price. Hurwitz pegged the value at $150,000 based on the decline in property value. The jury chose Hurwitz's figure. The city appealed, based largely on the argument that Hurwitz was not entitled to any compensation because he had not contested the city's actions in court. The Fourth District rejected that argument for many reasons, including the fact that Hurwitz had sought and received a preliminary injunction against the city - before the city took action. “For a to violate a court order and then turn around and argue that its adversary should have tried to get another court order and that the failure to do so rendered the entity immune from judgment leaves us incredulous,” Sills wrote. The court also ruled that the city abused its police power to declare a nuisance. “If ever there was a case where a city's finding of a 'nuisance' could be found to by a trial court to be pretextual (as a cover for the substantive taking of property, or, as here, a property right) this is the case,” Sills wrote. As for the jury's award of $150,000, the court said the price “is a bit steep … but … the city again has only itself to blame. The choose-$1,000-or-$150,000 strategy forced the jurors to select one number or the other, and the record indicates that $1,000 would be too low as a matter of law.” The Case: , No. G032479, 04 C.D.O.S. 8766, 2004 DJDAR 11969. Filed September 24, 2004. The Lawyers: For Hurwitz, Michael Meade, Hurwitz & Hurwitz, (714) 538-2391. For the city: David DeBerry, city attorney's office, (714) 744-5580.

A sweetheart deal that permitted nearly 300 mobile home owners to maintain homes in a state park at the beach has reached a conclusion. In a lawsuit alleging that the state's proposal to convert the mobile home park to a public campground violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled against the mobile home owners. The ruling means that the mobile home owners must remove the structures from Crystal Cove State Park in Orange County by the end of the year. Construction of the campground is scheduled for 2005. Through donations and purchases, the Department of Parks and Recreation began acquiring what would become a 2,800-acre park from the Irvine Company in 1979. The property included the 287-unit El Morro Mobile Home Park, as well as 46 pre-World War II beach cottages. The mobile home park owners were eligible for relocation assistance, but they waived that right in exchange for 20-year leases with rent increases kept to the rate of inflation. Years later, the state agreed to extend the leases by five years, concluding in December 2004. Since the original leases were signed, about 90% of the mobile homes have changed ownership and most of them have become vacation homes. The fate of the spectacular parkland - and the dwellings located therein - has been a sticky issue since the 1980s, as has ensuring public access. The state and beachgoers have repeatedly battled with renters of the cottages and mobile home owners, who erected “no trespassing” signs and otherwise discouraged beach use. Seven years ago, the state signed a contract with developer Michael Freed to build a high-end resort at Crystal Cove historic district, where the cottages are located (see , October 1997). Environmentalists, historic preservation advocates and beach enthusiasts vigorously fought the resort plan, and eventually the state dropped it. Instead the state agreed to overhaul the cottages, from which the state evicted the last tenants in 2001 after years of contention. This year, the state began restoring the cottages for use as overnight rentals and other visitor accommodations. The plan for the mobile home park site has been clearer for a long time. A plan for the park adopted by the state in 1982 discussed replacing the mobile home park with picnic, camping and other facilities for the public. In 2002, the Parks and Recreation Department circulated an environmental impact report for the transformation of the mobile home park. The state proposed removal of all mobile homes and accessory structures, replacement of a group septic system with a connection to a municipal sewer, and construction of a 60-site campground, a parking lot, two restroom buildings and three group picnic areas. The project also included natural restoration of Moro Creek and other areas. In August 2002, Parks and Recreation Department Deputy Director Bill Berry Jr. signed a notice of determination certifying the EIR and approving the project. The mobile home owners' El Moro Community Association (EMCA) and a group called The Wise Use Front sued the state, alleging numerous violations of CEQA. Orange County Superior Court Judge Jonathan Cannon ruled for the state, and a three-judge panel of the Fourth District, Division Three, upheld the lower court. First, EMCA argued that Berry could not certify the EIR because he was not a “decision-making body” within the definition of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The mobile home owners argued that the State Parks and Recreation Commission was the decision-making body. The Fourth District, however, ruled that Berry was authorized to approve the EIR. Guidelines § 15356 define decision-making body as “any or group of people within a public agency permitted by law to approve or disapprove the project at issue.” The Parks and Recreation Department is controlled by an executive officer, who is appointed by the governor. The appointed commission sets policies for the agency, “ ut it is the department that executes those polices, and the director, or his or her designee, is the person with the power to approve specific projects,” the court ruled. The second major argument from EMCA concerned technical reports on which the EIR relied. The mobile home owners complained that the EIR failed to refer to the reports by title, author and date, instead listing them only by general subject matter. EMCA argued the state attempted to hide technical information from the public. Again, the court disagreed. “Guidelines direct the lead agency to 'cite all documents used in its preparation …' (Guidelines § 15148). But they do not tell the lead agency how specific it must be in those citations other than to suggest using page and section numbers when possible. Here, the department disclosed the existence of all the technical reports, by subject matter,” Justice Kathleen O'Leary wrote for the court. “Certainly, the department could have included more detail about the titles of the technical reports. But we simply cannot say the EIR failed to advise the public about the existence of this technical information or that the lack of specific titles constitutes a failure to comply with CEQA's procedural requirements. In fact EMCA and other members of the public were obviously alerted to the existence of the technical reports and obtained them from the department,” O'Leary continued. The court dealt separately with EMCA complaints regarding a traffic study and a hydrology analysis. EMCA argued that Berry could not possibly have considered the 295-page traffic study, which was dated one day before he certified the EIR. But the court noted that all but 18 of the pages in the traffic study were data sheets, and that the study's figures were similar to traffic and pedestrian counts contained in the draft EIR. The hydrology study required by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board was unnecessary for the project because the study concerned a failing septic system that the state planned to remove, the court determined. The court's ruling, along with the Coastal Commission's project approval in October, means the state may proceed with the project. The Case: , No. G032990, 04 C.D.O.S. 9038, 2004 DJDAR 12345. Filed October 4, 2004. The Lawyers: For EMCA: Nelson Brestoff, Moskowitz, Brestoff, Winston & Blinderman, (310) 785-0550. For the state: Hayley Peterson, deputy attorney general, (619) 645-2540.

Mendocino County's automatic merger of four lots into one has been upheld by an appellate court. The court rejected the property owners' argument that they should have received advance notice from the county before the lot merger became effective. The conflict between property owners William and Tona Moores and the county has been ongoing since the mid-1990s. The Moores contend that the lots were never merged because the county did not comply with its own ordinance requiring notice. The county has steadfastly held to its position that the lots automatically merged long ago. The Moores sued, but Mendocino County Superior Court Judge Richard Henderson ruled for the county. On appeal, the First District Court of Appeal upheld Judge Henderson. In October 1981, the county adopted a merger ordinance that mandated the merger of contiguous parcels under the same ownership in rangeland, forest land or agricultural zones. The ordinance required that at least one of the parcels be undeveloped and that one be of substandard size. In January 1982, the county modified its ordinance to include a “due process” provision, which required the county to give property owners a written notice at least 30 days prior to the county's official recording a notice of lot merger. Not until December 1986, though, did the county notify the Moores and approximately 2,300 other property owners via form letter that their parcels may be been combined five years earlier. The county's notice came shortly before a January 1, 1987, deadline for notice prescribed in state law. That deadline was contained in a 1985 amendment to the Subdivision Map Act governing the sort of mergers the Mendocino County had undertaken. In fact, the Legislature approved the statute - Government Code §§ 66451.301 and .302 - specifically to aid Mendocino County, which said it could not provide individual notice to property owners before an earlier, state-prescribed deadline. “The Legislature responded by enacting §§ .301 and .302 as urgency legislation,” Presiding Justice Laurence Kay wrote for the First District. “The plain import of §§ .301 and .302 was to preserve mergers accomplished through local law by exempting them from the requirement of recorded notice and allowing the more informal notice outlined in § .302.” The court accepted the county's argument that the notice required in § .302 was the only notice required, despite the county ordinance's due process provision. “The County's merger ordinance specified that parcels would be merged 'upon the effective date of this ordinance … .' This is an example of what is known as 'automatic merger,' requiring no additional steps to take effect,” the court ruled. “Because this occurred through legislation, due process did not require notice and opportunity for a hearing. The county's subsequent enactment of an ordinance providing for recording of notice and a hearing did not result in unmerging parcels already automatically merged the previous year by operation of law.” “By sending plaintiffs the letter satisfying the provisions of § .302, the county preserved the automatic merger of parcels accomplished by operation of law when it first enacted its merger ordinance in October of 1981,” the court concluded. The Case: , No. A105446, 04 C.D.O.S. 8814, 2004 DJDAR 12003. Filed September 24, 2004. The Lawyers: For Moores: Ginevra King, Carter, Behnke, Oglesby & Bacik, (707) 462-6694. For the county: Frank Zotter Jr., county counsel's office, (707) 463-4446.

A Placer County judge's decision to throw out a mitigated negative declaration for an employee housing project in the high Sierra has been upheld by the Third District Court of Appeal. The appellate panel found that the environmental document did not address the growth-inducing impacts of two new roads that would serve the housing project. However, the court published only the portion of its ruling addressing the procedural issue of whether the project opponents met California Environmental Quality Act requirements for expediting the litigation. The court found that the opponents had satisfied the requirement. In September 2000, developer East West Partners and its Northstar ski resort submitted an application to Placer County for a housing development. The proposal ultimately was for 96 apartments, with a total of 380 beds, for Northstar and other service employees. Also proposed were 120 parking spaces, two access roads and a 500,000-gallon water storage tank. The project needed a general plan amendment, rezoning, two conditional use permits, a building height variance and a parcel map. One year later, the Placer County Planning Commission adopted a mitigated negative declaration and approved the project. A citizens group called Association for Sensible Development at Northstar (ASDAN) and others appealed to the Board of Supervisors, which upheld the Planning Commission decision. The opponents then sued the county. Placer County Superior Court Judge James Garbolino ruled for the opponents, finding that the mitigated negative declaration was inadequate because of the potential growth-inducing impacts of the new roads, and because of potential impacts to land, water and traffic. The county appealed, but a three-judge panel of the Third District affirmed the lower court's ruling. The published part of the Third District's opinion addresses a procedural issue. Northstar argued that ASDAN failed to take appropriate steps to request a trial court hearing within 90 days, as required by CEQA in Public Resources Code § 21167.4. Both Judge Garbolino and the Third District rejected Northstar's argument. The “seminal case” on this issue has been , (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 352, according to Third District Justice Ronald Robie. In , Robie wrote, the court ruled that CEQA policy “is to ensure that mandate proceedings challenging environmental approvals are conducted expeditiously and squarely places the burden on the challenger to tender their claim for resolution at any early point in the proceedings or lose it altogether.” However, the Third District held that “is no longer good law.” In 1994, the Legislature amended the statute, adding subdivision (c) to § 21167.4. The new language said that any party may ask to establish a briefing schedule and hearing date. “Under the current version of the statute, after the petitioner files a request for a hearing, 'any party' my file an 'application' for a hearing date, at which point in time the court set the hearing,” Robie wrote. In this case, the project opponents did submit a hearing request within 90 days of filing the lawsuit. At that point, any party could have “move the petition to a hearing on the merits, swiftly satisfying the legislative intent that these proceedings be conducted expeditiously,” the court ruled. In the unpublished part of the opinion, the court found that the county should have addressed the potential growth-inducing impacts of the two new roads from Highway 267 to the project site. The roads could serve the 1,650-unit Highlands residential development. Northstar argued that the Highlands project was speculative and, thus, did not have to be considered, while the county contended the impacts need not be studied because fire officials had required one of the roads. The court ruled that the Highlands project was “reasonably foreseeable” within the meaning of CEQA. The court pointed out that Northstar's own traffic consultant described the project in some detail, East West Partners has marketed the Highlands project in a newsletter, and the road configuration “appears to have the future Highlands project precisely in mind.” As for the county's argument, the court said it was “simply irrelevant who suggested the road.” The court did uphold the project description as adequate. The court did not address Garbolino's rulings regarding land, water, traffic and cumulative impacts. The Case: , No. C044364, 04 C.D.O.S. 8977, 2004 DJDAR 12281. Filed October 4, 2004. The Lawyers: For ASDAN: Donald Mooney, (530) 758-2377. For the county: Valerie Flood, county counsel's office, (530) 889-4044. For Northstar Mountain Properties: Whitman Manley, Remy, Thomas, Moose & Manley, (916) 443-2745.

Oakland might be famous for having “no there there,” but maybe no place is more sorely lacking a “there” than the San Fernando Valley. A team of architects and other professionals who are working with business boosters, however, hope to give the San Fernando Valley the city center it has never had. One year ago, an “urban design assistance team” sponsored by the American Institute of Architects (AIA) San Fernando Valley Chapter published the Panorama City commercial area concept plan. The document lays out ideas for converting a congested, 1.33-mile stretch of Van Nuys Boulevard into a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly city center. This strip of Van Nuys Boulevard is the heart of Panorama City, a community within the Los Angeles city limits. When the San Fernando Valley - or, simply, “the Valley” - attempted to secede from the City of Los Angeles two years ago, the lack of a city center became a public issue, said Julie Dercle, a professor of urban studies and planning at California State University, Northridge. The new city would have had 1.4 million people spread across 220 square miles, but no downtown. About the same time that secession was failing at the polls, a nonprofit business organization, the Economic Alliance of the San Fernando Valley, joined with the AIA's team to identify a center and figure out how to make it function like a downtown. The result was the concept plan, which has since been endorsed by the Los Angeles Planning Commission, and has become a catalyst for renewed government investment and fresh interest on the part of private developers. For half a century, the San Fernando Valley was the ultimate suburb, a post-World War II sprawl of tract houses, shopping centers and office parks that covered over some of the most productive farmland in the United States. The Valley was the original “edge city,” Dercle said. The 5.5 square miles known as Panorama City was originally developed right after the war on the site of the Panorama Dairy by Henry J. Kaiser and developer Fritz Burns. Houses and stores provided for people working at the nearby General Motors and Lockheed plants. By the 1990s, the Valley was essentially built out as a massive suburb, and portions of the Valley - including Panorama City - had fallen on tough times, partly because of the closing of plants like the GM and Lockheed facilities. In recent years, the four smaller incorporated cities around the Valley - Burbank, Glendale, San Fernando and Calabasas - have either refurbished their old downtowns or created two ones. “But,” said Economic Alliance President and CEO Bruce Ackerman, “nowhere in the 28 communities that make up the Los Angeles portion of the valley is there a town center.” A shortage of housing is a big problem in the Valley, so Ackerman's organization undertook a study. In doing so, the group found a pronounced need for a town center and a sense of place. The Economic Alliance then went to work with the AIA's urban design assistance team, which is headed by Jerry Pollak, a semi-retired architect and planner who worked for years with shopping center design guru Victor Gruen. Pollak drove all over the Valley - this is L.A. after all - before settling on a stretch of Van Nuys Boulevard as the ideal spot: The 280-acre site lies in the heart of the Valley, Van Nuys Boulevard is a primary north-south artery, there is a MetroLink train station, numerous government buildings are nearby, and the area is ripe for redevelopment. “It has all the attributes of a major center,” Pollak said. Yet the site is also difficult. Few buildings actually face Van Nuys Boulevard because, like so much of the Valley, development has been overwhelmingly oriented toward the automobile. The Panorama Mall and the Panorama Plaza both turn blank walls toward the street. The Plant, which reuses part of the closed GM factory, is a power center that sits behind a giant parking lot. An adjacent movie theater is hidden from the street. In fact, the most visible structure in the district is a 13-story office building that has sat vacant since the 1994 Northridge earthquake. But the bones for a city center, including the public infrastructure, exist, said Dercle. “The pressure on housing and land is enormous … and the only place to go is up. This is a perfect place to put two or three more stories above a mall for apartments or condos,” she said. Tom Rath, a city planner who volunteered to work with the AIA team, said development during the last decade has been significant - Panorama City has one of the few two-story Wal-Marts, for example - but has done nothing to improve the overall situation. “There's been a great deal of investment in Panorama City. You just can't see it,” he said. The concept plan envisions a 24-hour, mixed-use district with a heavy orientation toward pedestrians. The plan proposes a series of interior courtyards and plazas with direct connections to Van Nuys and Roscoe boulevards as well as other streets. Existing buildings would be redeveloped or retrofitted to provide a friendlier face to the street. Centralized parking structures would be provided so that surface parking lots could be developed. Landscaping and street furniture would be extensive. And, in one of its boldest moves, the plan proposes pedestrian walkways above all four corners of the congested intersection of Van Nuys and Roscoe boulevards. The overall idea is to “activate” the district. “They came up with all sorts of ideas,” said Rath, who gives team members a great deal of credit. “The big problem is that it's basically a built environment.” Ideally, backers would like Van Nuys Boulevard to mimic Pasadena's thriving Colorado Boulevard. The demographics are quite different, though. Where Pasadena is a mostly wealthy community, the median income in Panorama City is 20% less than the average in Los Angeles. Thus, implementation of the Panorama City plan becomes even trickier. Pollak, Ackerman and other backers of the plan, however, see reasons for encouragement: Los Angeles County has announced its plan to build a 130,000-square-foot social services center at the site of an existing ice rink in the plan area. The Los Angeles Unified School District has already begun construction on a new high school next to Van Nuys Boulevard. New fire and police stations are proposed, and the city's Planning Commission has adopted the concept plan as a guideline for all future development. Additionally, the city's Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) has approved a five-year revitalization strategy. The five-year plan calls for the agency to upgrade the streetscape, provide incentives for property owners and businesses to construct pedestrian pathways and improve facades, work with stakeholders on forming a business improvement district, design signs, and work with developers on the redevelopment of vacant buildings and lots. Plan supporters believe that private investment will follow this renewed interest on the part of public agencies. “Developers want to see public expenditures, like on landscaping,” said Pollak, who thinks private development could start as soon as next year. Ackerman agrees, and so does the city's Rath, who said he has received about 15 serious inquiries this year. Maybe most remarkable is the unofficial, grass-roots nature of the Panorama City effort. Government agencies provided no money for the commercial area concept plan and played almost no role in the document's preparation. A small grant from the AIA covered some of the hard costs associated with the plan, team members and students donated their time, and the Economic Alliance paid for printing and distribution. Professor Dercle, who has since joined the design team, thinks the plan has come at precisely the right time. Despite the strong market demand, real estate is relatively affordable, Dercle said. So now is the time, she said, for public agencies and developers to purchase and assemble properties for redevelopment. Contacts: Julie Dercle, California State University, Northridge, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, (818) 677-7395. Jerry Pollak, Urban Design Assistance Team, (818) 909-3757. Bruce Ackerman, Economic Alliance of San Fernando Valley, (818) 379-7000. Concept plan website:

In the first published ruling on the subject, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled that the newly incorporated City of Goleta had the discretion to reject a final subdivision map. Ordinarily, approval of a final map is ministerial, and the city would have no discretion as long as the conditions of the tentative map were satisfied. But in this case, the new city had discretion because Santa Barbara County had approved the tentative map shortly before Goleta incorporated. A 1998 amendment to the Subdivision Map Act - Government Code § 66413.5 - “creates an exception to the general rule that approval of a final map is ministerial” and permits the city to deny the final map, the unanimous three-judge panel ruled. In November 1999, Oly Chadmar Sandpiper General Partnership filed an application with the county for a vesting tentative subdivision map and a development plan for a 109-unit project. The site was within the proposed boundaries for the new city. Signature gathering on incorporation petitions had begun four months earlier. On October 31, 2001, the county Planning Commission approved the vesting tentative map and development plan. Six days later, the citizens of Goleta voted for incorporation. Two citizens groups appealed the county Planning Commission decision to the Board of Supervisors, and Goleta's mayor-elect notified the board that the city wanted to review the project. Nevertheless, supervisors approved the project in January 2002, about two weeks before incorporation became effective. In November 2002, the county engineer, working on behalf of the new city, brought the final subdivision map to the city. The City Council, however, refused to approve the final map. Sandpiper sued, and Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge J. William McLafferty ordered the city to approve the final map. The city appealed, quickly winning a stay of McLafferty's decision from the Second District. After hearing the case, the Second District overturned the lower court. The 1998 amendment to the Subdivision Map Act states, in part, “When any area in a subdivision or proposed subdivision as to which a vesting tentative map meeting the criteria of this section has been approved by a board of supervisors is incorporated into a newly incorporated city, the newly incorporated city shall approve the final map and give effect to the vesting tentative map … .” The criteria require the application for the vesting tentative map to be submitted prior to the gathering of signatures on incorporation petitions, and approval of the vesting tentative map before the incorporation election. Sandpiper acknowledged that its project did not meet the criteria. Instead, the developer argued that the statute did not apply because the city had not adopted the statute or taken any other affirmative action - an argument quickly dismissed by the court. “We agree with the city that the plain language of § 66413.5 gives the city discretion to deny Sandpiper's final map,” Justice Paul Coffee wrote. “Section 66413.5 is a procedural statute. As such, it is not subject to modification by a local agency and requires no implementing legislation to be effective.” Sandpiper further argued that, under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, the city was barred from rejecting the map. Under this theory, the city had to approve the map because it had taken actions indicating that it would grant approval. Sandpiper said it spent $90,000 to push the project forward because the city had continued to process the application. Again, this argument went nowhere with the Second District panel. “There is no evidence in the record that any official, employee or agent of the city made any express representation that the city would approve the map,” Coffee wrote. “To the contrary, the undisputed evidence shows that city officials publicly voiced their concerns about the project both before and after incorporation became effective. The city was required by law to continue processing Sandpiper's application after incorporation.” The Case: , No. B175054, 04 C.D.O.S. 8973, 2004 DJDAR 12225. Filed September 30, 2004. The Lawyers: For the city: Julie Hayward Biggs, Burke, Williams & Sorenson, (909) 788-0100. For Oly Chadmar Sandpiper General Partnership: Patrick Breen, Allen, Matkins, Leck, Gamble &Mallory, (213) 622-5555.

Stockton's inland shipping port is poised to triple its capacity if port officials can stave off a lawsuit filed by environmentalists and port neighbors. At issue is a plan to enlarge the port by 1,400 acres of land on the San Joaquin River that the Stockton Port District acquired from the federal government three years ago. But nearby residents and environmentalists contend that an additional 130 visiting ships a year in Stockton will increase road traffic and cause more air and water pollution in the populated area. Expansion of the Stockton port - it is the largest inland port in the state - is viewed by the Stockton Port District as a economic boost to the region, creating jobs and encouraging the export of agricultural products from the Central Valley. However, the region is also beset by some of the state's worst air and water pollution, which, project opponents say, would be exacerbated by the port expansion. The expansion is proposed for Rough and Ready Island, a man-made island that housed a naval communications center in recent years. The site lies across the river from the existing 600-acre port, which opened in 1933, and which expansion opponents claim is underutilized. The new port land is located as close as 400 feet from exclusive residential homes on the water. Plans for expanding the port include upgrading and using seven wharves, constructing and operating a 105-acre container terminal and a 300-acre auto processing facility, developing an intermodal rail yard, dredging a mile of the San Joaquin River channel, and building bridge and road improvements. With an expected 130 new ships a year using Rough and Ready Island, the expansion is projected to add as many as 40,000 new jobs, according to the Port District. Already, the port has expanded its operations with 20 ships a year coming to Rough and Ready Island, something that environmental advocates charge was done without environmental review. Anne Chargin, an 81-year-old retired judge who lives on the waterfront across from the island, said ships' generators can be heard round the clock. Loading and unloading cargo, she said, occurs 20 hours a day. Bob Kavanaugh, the Port District's chairman, also lives on the waterfront and said the noise is not a problem. He said the port district did an extensive environmental impact report in preparing for its expansion. The study, however, did not satisfy project opponents. The environmental organizations Deltakeeper and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), along with several neighborhood associations, filed a the California Environmental Quality Act petition. In the lawsuit, the groups contend that 51,000 new vehicle trips each day after the expansion will cause more air pollution. In addition, ships and equipment such as tugboats and yard tractors will emit heavy diesel fumes. Water quality will also suffer if the expansion occurs, according to Robert Perlmutter, attorney for Deltakeeper and the residents' groups, because of a decrease in oxygen in the water, the introduction of invasive species and more runoff from stormwater and dredged materials. The CEQA lawsuit points out that the San Joaquin Valley air basin is designated as being in “extreme non-attainment” for national and state ozone standards and “serious non-attainment” for particulate matter. The San Joaquin Valley is considered to have the second worst air quality in the state, and diesel exhaust from the ships and truck traffic is expected to increase the problem dramatically, according to the lawsuit. Port spokeswoman Abbie Gubera countered that the port's expansion will take thousands of trucks off the highways leading to the Bay Area. But environmental advocates argue that one ship - using an extremely dirty fuel called bunker oil - emits many times as much pollution as automobiles do. The lawsuit also charges that the project will severely impact residents of Boggs Tract, a low-income minority residential area where much of the increased vehicle traffic will travel. But the Port District's Kavanaugh said the traffic near Boggs Tract will be redirected when a bridge is built to nearby Highway 4 as part of the project. NRDC attorney Julie Masters said opponents of the port's expansion are not against use of the island, but they favor a project that does not cause harmful effects. “The question is whether it's necessary,” she said. “We don't think it is being used to capacity. Why not use this as a commercial and light industrial area? It might have less impact on the surrounding communities.” Regarding unused capacity, Perlmutter said statistics show that the older part of the port on the east sits empty nearly 70% of the year. Port commissioner Steven Herum disagrees. “It's not true,” he said of the 70% figure. Herum said that the port is in negotiations with users who have special needs that can be met only with expanded facilities on Rough and Ready Island. Herum said the port district has adopted a number of measures to reduce noise, glare and light from affecting the nearby residences. Although the proposed expansion would require new truck routes and move operations closer to houses, it is unclear how environmentalists' suggestion to increase the use of existing facilities would solve the problem of noise at existing houses or the broader issue of air pollution. In addition to the lawsuit challenging the Stockton project, opponents plan to challenge the issuance of Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board permits that are needed before dredging can begin. Masters said court-ordered settlement talks were conducted in the CEQA case and are continuing. It is too early to tell if the sides will settle the case, she said. Stockton is not the only port district dealing with pollution issues. The NRDC recently won a $60 million judgment against an expansion project at the Port of Los Angeles. The judgment requires the port to construct the world's first electrified container terminal where ships can plug into dockside power while at berth, rather than continuously run their diesel engines to generate electricity. In September, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed legislation (AB 2042, Lowenthal) that would have capped the booming ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach at existing air pollution levels. Further north, issues of cost and truck emissions have bedeviled the Port of Sacramento, which is expected to consider deepening its port this fall to compete better with facilities such as those proposed in Stockton. Contacts: Steven Herum, Stockton Port District commissioner, (209) 472-7700. Bob Kavanaugh, Stockton Port District chairman, (209) 943-5443. Julie Masters, Natural Resources Defense Council, (310) 434-2300. Robert Perlmutter, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, (415) 552-7272. The case: , No. CV024399.

Any comparison between Cal Poly Pomona and a hermit crab is likely to be met with skepticism. It is absurd to suggest that a 1,050-acre university campus in Los Angeles County has anything in common with a crustacean scuttling across the ocean floor. Except for one thing, that is: Both the university and the deep-sea creature want to set up housekeeping in structures left behind by others. Hermit crabs, as most sixth-graders know, occupy sea shells abandoned by other creatures. Cal Poly Pomona, in this tenuous analogy, plans to occupy a set of office buildings and laboratories to be built by commercial developers on university land. The new buildings would be part of a 65-acre business park known as Innovation Village, which the Cal Poly Foundation is developing. The plan is this: The university will invite developers to build high-tech facilities, and lease the facilities to tech and bio-tech companies. The assumption is that tech companies will be attracted to the university's pool of engineering talent, while the companies - and the possibility of lucrative jobs -- will make the university even more attractive to engineering students. In other words, Cal Poly Pomona is trying to ignite the kind of town-and-gown “synergy” that has occurred in places like Palo Alto, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina. While Cal Poly is not the only university that is trying to find the alchemical formula that created Silicon Valley, the concept goes one step further here. When the high-tech tenants depart in a decade or two, Cal Poly plans to take over the buildings and remake them into academic space. In other words, the university has conceived a way for commercial developers to build the next phase of campus expansion at their own cost. Although Cal Poly is not beating a bass drum about this aspect of Innovation Village, the concept is strikingly new in the world of campus development, at least in California. Public universities are traditionally built with public dollars. Those dollars are shrinking, however, and could conceivably shrink further in Schwarzenegger-era California, when the public university system, which used to be the envy of the world, becomes one more program to be slashed in the name of balancing the state budget. Even before the budget crisis, the state had gone from fully supporting the campus to paying only 90% of its cost, according to Ed Barnes, the university's associate vice president of executive affairs. “Cal Poly has gone from being a state-supported institution to a state-assisted institution," Barnes said. The message is clear: The Lord helps engineering schools who help themselves. The mission statement for Innovation Village Research Park calls for a “world class research and development environment for public-private partnerships and the leaders of tomorrow's industries to meet, exchange new ideas, challenge frontiers, and work together….” The village has gotten off to a good start, with the completion three years ago of a NASA-sponsored building for technology “incubator” companies. A 190,000-square-foot Red Cross Biomedical Services facility is scheduled to open in a few months. In October, the university was scheduled to choose a developer for the third phase, a 100,000-square-foot office building. The rub about Innovation Village is that the university has placed many limitations on developers while offering few incentives in return. The university retains ownership of the land, which may make it difficult for some developers to get financing because many lenders want the land as collateral. Also, developers do not have the ability to sell the buildings, restricting their income to rent. In exchange, the university will not assist the developers, who will take all the risks and pay market rate rents for the land. In addition, tenants are expected to participate in some way in the life of the university, which may not please wizards who are racing their rivals to develop new products. In short, the Cal Poly office park is a tough sell. It is not easy to make a miracle like Silicon Valley happen anywhere, much less in the smoggy Pomona Valley. Cal Poly, in fact, is one of several campuses in the state - including University of California, Riverside, UC Irvine and the medical school of UC San Francisco - that is trying to create a university-industry synergy. Cal Poly's Innovation Village was first conceived nine years ago, but a poor commercial real estate market did not help move the project along quickly. And Cal Poly is not alone. All of the UC efforts have been relatively slow starters, even in San Francisco, where developer Catellus is having difficulty renting out lab buildings in Mission Bay. While it is true that technology companies often cluster around universities, simply providing land near a university does not re-create Cambridge. Examined closely, we see that each of the locations for the synergy success stories offers something more than a research university and a tract of empty land. Places like Palo Alto, Cambridge and San Diego's University City are all highly desirable places to live, with nice housing, great cultural amenities, an abundance of outdoor recreation opportunities, and the like. They are places where smart, energetic people choose to live. And, for better of worse, there is little technology market in the Pomona Valley, where tech companies fill less than 300,000 square feet of space. The university hopes to build about three times that amount - 800,000 square feet - in the foreseeable future. Still, needing a few years to get started and a having to make a difficult sale are not necessarily a foretaste of failure. Innovation Village may yet take off. We should remember, though, that real estate development and university development follow different time lines. Cal Poly itself is eager to expand, and its need for new space could conceivably outstrip the pace of development at Innovation Village. Unless the technology market improves dramatically, the great Cal Poly Pomona hermit crab may find itself outgrowing its old home before it has a new one to move into.

Monterey County should have completed an environmental impact report for a proposal to demolish a county jail that many people consider historic for cultural and architectural reasons, the Sixth District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court found that the county's mitigated negative declaration was inadequate because project opponents had made a “fair argument” that the potential impacts of the project would not be offset. “One function of an EIR is to address the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures. Another function is to consider alternatives to the project,” Justice Richard McAdams wrote for the court. “Neither was fully explored here. In cases like this, an 'EIR is required to identify and examine the full range of feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to demolition,'” McAdams wrote, citing , (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 909 (see CP&DR Legal Digest, March 1997). The case involves the old Monterey County jail in Salinas. The county would like to tear down the little-used, 73-year-old jail in order to renovate the adjacent courthouse and government offices. When the county reported that it planned to adopt a mitigated negative declaration for the jail demolition, the county's Historic Resources Review Board and other historic preservation advocates told county officials that the document was insufficient. Nevertheless, in July 2001, the county Planning and Building Inspection Department adopted a mitigated negative declaration and issued a demolition permit. Mitigations included photographic documentation of the building, preparation of an historic monograph, reuse or duplication of architectural elements, and maintaining a complete set of blueprints at the local historical society. A citizens' group called the Architectural Heritage Association appealed to the Board of Supervisors, but the board affirmed the mitigated negative declaration. The association then sued the county, alleging violations of the California Environmental Quality Act. Monterey County Superior Court Judge Robert O'Farrell ruled for the county, but a unanimous three-judge panel of the Sixth District overturned the lower court and ordered the county to prepare an EIR. Essentially, the questions for the court were whether the association could make a fair argument based on evidence in the record that the old jail is an historic resource, that its demolition would have a significant impact on the resource, and that the proposed mitigation measures would not reduce the impact to insignificant. The county's initial study - a prelude to the mitigated negative declaration - called the old jailhouse “a significant historic resource as defined by CEQA.” The county, however, discounted that description, saying it was based solely on the fact that Cesar Chavez was incarcerated there during a 1970 lettuce boycott. The county also contended that a finding of significance by the Historic Resources Review Board was a “gratuitous conclusion” and that county staff statements did not qualify as substantial evidence. The Sixth District disagreed. The initial study was based on a report by Robert Cartier of Archaeological Resource Management. The initial study noted not only the significance of Chavez's jailing (during which the labor leader was visited by Coretta Scott King and Ethel Kennedy) but also the gothic revival architecture of the structure, as well as to Cartier's conclusion that the jail was eligible for both the national and state registers of historic places. The county based its argument on , (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 424, in which the court held that subordinate agency staff determinations alone did not constitute substantial evidence. But the Sixth District said that the county was reading too broadly, and that the CEQA definition of substantial evidence had changed since . “Here,” Justice McAdams wrote, “the record includes fact-based evidence of historic status, which the Historic Board and its subcommittee had gained through meetings with county staff, a site view and the review of pertinent documents.” The court also dismissed the county's contention that speakers at public hearings provided only “unsubstantiated opinions.” The court noted that the speakers included an historian and an architect. “These and other speakers' remarks represent fact-based observations by people apparently qualified to speak to the question of the jail's historic status. That testimony constitutes substantial evidence because it consists of 'facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts and expert opinion supported by facts,'” McAdams wrote, citing Public Resources Code § 21082.2, subdivision (c). The court also rejected the county's argument that the mitigation measures in the negative declaration were adequate in light of the old jail's poor structural condition. “Without undertaking a full EIR, the county determined that the jail could not be saved, finding that 'its preservation or adaptive reuse is impractical due to its age, design and deteriorating condition, and opening up the building for more usable spaces would seriously degrade the structural integrity of the building and pose a safety hazard to its occupants and neighbors.' We find this determination insupportable, both factually and legally,” McAdams wrote. “As a factual matter, the administrative record discloses mixed conclusions concerning the physical condition of the structure, as well as an incomplete investigation both of the jail's condition and of alternatives to demolition,” McAdams wrote. Since the litigation began, the jail made the National Register of Historic Places. At the county's request, the federal officials withdrew the listing, but the state Historic Resources Commission has urged the federal panel to reinstate the old jail's status. The Case: , No. H026443, 04 C.D.O.S. 8997, 2004 DJDAR 12247. Filed August 31, 2004. Modified and ordered published September 30, 2004. The Lawyers: For the association: Susan Brandt-Hawley, (707) 938-3908. For the county: Efren Iglesia, county county's office, (831) 755-5045.

California's population growth never seems to change much - a half-million more people per year, give or take. But where all those people come from and what the growth means for the future of the state are always changing. Here's a good example, courtesy of demographer Hans Johnson of the Public Policy Institute of California: During the 1990s, California added 4 million people - but only 60% of them (2.5 million) were adults, while 40% (1.5 million) were children. In the first decade of the 21st Century, we're looking at adding about 5 million people. But this time around, 90% of them (4.5 million people) will be adults and only 10% (500,000) will be children. The reason is simple: The vast increase in Latino population during the 1990s was due largely to extremely high Latina fertility rates that are typical of first-generation immigrants. But Latina fertility rates are decreasing, and all the Latino kids born during the '80s and '90s are growing up. The result is a bubble - a kind of “Latino baby boom” - that is going to drive the demand for all kinds of things in California over the next several decades. As Johnson pointed out during a recent conference of housing data nerds in Berkeley, the Latino baby boomers have been driving the vast need for additional K-12 schools over the last decade. Now this group of kids is beginning to generate an enormous demand for higher education that the state will struggle to handle. And over the next decade or so, they'll hit the housing market like a tsunami. Everybody knows that the housing market in California has been out of whack for more than a decade. After a boom during the 1980s, housing production died during the recession of the early '90s. Even after the recession ended, the state produced only about 100,000 to 150,000 units per year during the late '90s - half what the housing experts told us we needed. California got away with low housing production for several reasons, not the least of which was the structure of the population growth. For the first time in the state's history, a huge portion of population growth came in the form of children, who, obviously, don't live in their own houses. And any demographer will tell you that immigrants are much more likely than natives to live in extended families. Housing production has increased steadily during the last few years and recently hit an annual figure of 200,000 for the first time in decades. Even so, the long-term under-production is now catching up with us, as the ongoing increase in housing prices has proven. If Johnson and other demographers are right, even the recent, higher level of housing production will not come close to meeting demand in the next few years. Immigrants may live together in large extended families, but their children - the second generation - are much more likely to live in smaller households like other native-born groups. “In 2000, California's second generation was concentrated in children,” Johnson told the Housing Statistics User Group West meeting at the University of California, Berkeley. “And that population, that second generation, in the next 10 to 20 years is going to be aging into the prime household formation years. We're not going to have the same kind of increase in immigrants that we saw in the 1990s. Instead, what we're going to have is a very large second generation that's going to be coming through the colleges, entering the labor market, and looking for housing.” In the very long run, this pattern is actually going to mean fewer people than demographers previously expected. Last spring, the Department of Finance demographers adjusted their long-term population forecast downward because they now assume lower Latina fertility rates, a result of the second-generation phenomenon. The state is now expected to hit 51 million people by 2040. That's a few million less than the previous forecast. And the Latinization of the state will continue. The state demographers estimate that, by 2040, 53% of the state will be Latino, while only 23% will be white. Still, there is little doubt that as a state, California must plan for more housing during the next two decades. The question is what kind. As Johnson says, “Not all population growth is equal when it comes to housing demand.” Most of the recent population growth in California has been concentrated among lower-income groups that would typically be renters. But until the last few years, the vast majority of housing production in the state has been in the form of single-family detached ownership dwellings - seemingly an enormous mismatch between supply and demand. As this column has suggested before, this has meant that all kinds of households - large and small, rich and poor - have been shoehorned into traditional suburban housing. We now see more multifamily construction, but this is occurring mostly in the coastal areas where land prices are extremely costly and entitlements are very difficult to obtain (see , June 2004). These expensive new apartments and condos are not being built for immigrant families. Meanwhile, three-quarters of housing production in the state is still in single-family detached dwellings, with lot size and unit price changing depending on where in the state the construction is taking place. Is this a good match to the emerging market? Oddly enough, maybe. Again, as the demographers always point out, it depends on what kind of pattern emerges in housing demand. As Johnson notes, if you take today's income and educational levels and roll them forward by race and ethnicity, you would see a huge demand for low-cost housing. But that scenario is not likely to happen because second generation Latinos are ascending rapidly in educational attainment and income - and education and income are generally the best predictors of what housing demand is going to look like. Simply put, as the children and grandchildren of Latino immigrants ascend into the middle class, they are going to be looking for housing that matches the traditional California dream. The big question is whether it will still be there for them. In the coastal areas, postage-stamp lots are now beyond the reach of the middle class. In the inland areas, the dream now involves a nearly intolerable commute that is likely to get worse. Sometime around 2015, something has got to give.