Search Results

The U.S. Forest Service should have prepared an environmental impact statement before awarding a series of contracts for timber salvage sales in the Umatilla National Forest in eastern Oregon, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. The Ninth Circuit's ruling - the latest in a long series of decisions on Forest Service operations in the Northwest - reversed the ruling of U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken, who had granted summary judgment to the Forest Service against the claims brought by the Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project and other environmental groups. The ruling means that the Forest Service will have to prepare an EIS even though some of the sales had already commenced in the summer of 1998. The case involves proposed salvage timber operations in the wake of the largest wildfire in the recorded history of Umatilla National Forest. In 1996, three wildfires swept through the watershed of the North Fork of the John Day River in eastern Oregon and Washington, charring 51,000 acres in a 10- to 14-mile swath. Subsequently, the Forest Service proposed three separate timber sales - known as the "Big Tower" sales - encompassing more than 4,100 acres that would remove virtually all remaining trees in the area and yield 30 million board-feet of lumber. According to the Ninth Circuit ruling, however, 65% of the area to be logged contained soils with high erosion potential. The Forest Service prepared an environmental assessment, or EA, for the proposed timber sales. But the EA did not identify the locations of the 18 miles of road that would be required to complete the timber sales, nor did it discuss the cumulative impact of the Big Tower sales and four other timber sales proposed in the fire area. Following Judge Aiken's ruling, the Forest Service permitted logging to begin in August of 1998. In November, however, the Ninth Circuit enjoined all future logging and road building in the fire area pending a ruling in the case. In reversing Judge Aiken, the three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit found considerable deficiencies with the Forest Service's EA for the Big Tower salvage operation. "The Big Tower EA simply fails to persuade that no significant impacts would result from Big Tower project," wrote Judge Betty Fletcher for the panel. "We find no documentation of the estimated sediment that would result from the logging and accompanying roadbuildings or the impacts of increased sediment on fisheries habitat. The Forest Service's only attempt to measure sedimentation failed when its data collection box overloaded with sediment." The Forest Service made several arguments as to why an EA was sufficient and an EIS was not necessary, but the Ninth Circuit rejected them all. For example, the EA identified "best management practices" to be used in the logging. But the Ninth Circuit noted that these best practices are based on "past observations of logging on unburned areas.": Wrote Judge Fletcher: "We find nothing in the EA to support the Forest Service's conclusion that the proposed BMPs will be adequate in a severely burned area where increased levels of erosion have already occurred. We note that even before the fire water quality was suffering." Similarly, the Ninth Circuit rejected the Forest Service's argument that an EIS was unnecessary because the timber sales could be "tiered" off of the Umatille National Forest Plan EIS and other EAs. "Nothing in the tiering regulations," Judge Fletcher wrote, "suggests that the existence of a programmatic EIS for a forest plan obviates the need for any future project-specific EIS, without regard to the nature or magnitude of a project." Perhaps most significantly, the Ninth Circuit found that the EA did not take cumulative impacts into account. The Big Tower project was only one of five separate salvage sales proposed in the wake of the fire. The Ninth Circuit noted that the Big Tower EA failed to even mention three of the four other salvage sales proposed for the fire area - even though the Forest Service acknowledged that all five were part of a coordinated strategy. "At the very least," wrote Judge Fletcher, "these sales raise substantial questions that they will result in significant environmental impacts. A single EIS, therefore, was required to address the cumulative effects of these proposed sales." The Ninth Circuit also ruled that the case was not rendered moot by the fact that more than half the trees have been cut down. Relying on its recent decision in Kettle Range Conservation Group v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 150 F.3d 1083, the Ninth Circuit panel concluded that because some trees are still standing the case is still a live one. The Case: Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, No. 98-35783, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12223 (issued December 2, 1998). The Lawyers: For Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project: Marc D. Fink, Boise, Idaho. For U.S. Forest Service: Michael J. Martin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

Despite a developers' decision to drop out of a 40-acre sports-themed project in Anaheim, city officials are keeping the project on track. Known as Sportstown, the entertainment project is taking shape in the parking lot of the Big A, home of the Anaheim Angels baseball team, and close to the Arrowhead Pond, home to the major league hockey team, the Mighty Ducks. In November, Cleveland-based developer Forest City Enterprises Inc. dropped plans to develop Sportstown, which is to include sports-themed businesses, hotels, and offices adjacent to an Amtrak train station at the stadium. Speculation arose that Forest Cities had dropped the project because of an abundance of new entertainment and retail establishments in the area, including those planned for the Disneyland area and in the nearby Orange County cities of Orange and Garden Grove. But Anaheim officials moved ahead in December with plans to lease land to one sports-themed business and to sell land to an office building developer. The land is located inside a city redevelopment area, according to Richard Bruckner, deputy director of the city's community development department. The sports-themed business is called Gotcha Glacier, and is to include indoor skiing, skydiving, snowboarding and a water park, along with retail and restaurants on 430,000 square feet. The project is to cost $65 million, and the city will receive $37.8 million in revenue over 30 years, under terms of the lease, according to the Orange County Register. Already open in Sportstown is Tinseltown Studios, a 700-seat restaurant and nightclub that gives guests a chance to pretend they're Hollywood celebrities by walking a red carpet, give autographs and be interviewed in front of television cameras. Bruckner said he expects the city to seek hotels and retail for the remaining acreage in Sportstown. The other venues will all tie together with sports, he said. Other new developments in the area include the 12-acre Stadium Crossings, rising across the street from the Big A, and a 25-screen theatre complex. Contacts: Richard Bruckner, city of Anaheim, (714) 765-4300.

A state hospital once used as an insane asylum has triggered one of the most contentious development battles in Silicon Valley, with officials on both sides of the deal calling each other crazy - and more. "It was a sweetheart deal and there was a lot of yelling over it," said Eddie Souza, former Santa Clara mayor. Sun Microsystems is building new corporate headquarters on 82.5 acres it bought from the state for $52 million. The high-tech company's digs will rise on a portion of the former Agnew Development Center, which lies at the north end of Santa Clara across the Bayshore (101) Freeway. which divides the north and south parts of Santa Clara. "This is a model of private/public partnership," said Bill Agnello, Sun's vice president of real estate and the workplace. "A lot of people said we got a great deal, but they don't understand how corporate developers pay for land." Located at Lafayette Street and Montague Expressway, the Agnew site boasts some open land, R&D facilities, and housing developments that are underserved compared with the south end of town. There are no public libraries, parks, police or fire stations, let alone shopping mall. Sun and its supporters said that the Sun project would help attract these amenities to the area But Sun had to battle numerous groups over destroying Agnew, a Beaux Arts complex built in 1888 whose 60 buildings featured tiled roofs, marble floors, and Mediterranean-style flourishes. Its elegant clock tower holds an original Seth Thomas timepiece; some rooms sported shoulder-high wainscoting. And quite apart from the preservation issue, opponents of the project argued that a new library and supermarket were already on the way whether Sun moved in or not. The 330-acre site was landscaped by John McLaren the longtime superintendent of Golden Gate Park. Some 1,300 trees had been planted to shade the asylum's retarded, mentally ill and disabled residents, who farmed the surrounding land. The complex thrived until the 1960s, when the state's commitment to the mentally ill dwindled. By 1995, Agnew had deteriorated so much that it flunked requirements for continued federal funding "The state had to make a decision," said Geoff Goodfellow, Santa Clara planning director. The state moved Agnew's 800 residents to a smaller facility, then closed Agnew's Santa Clara campus. "The state was supposed to sell (Agnew's) for fair market value, although there is legislation that can force them to use it for open space or affordable housing," Goodfellow said. Instead, the state held a confidential auction in which it collected 200 sealed proposals for the site. Sun, which would demolish most of Agnew's buildings and construct its own facility, was the only high-tech finalist. The state sold Sun that portion of land where the buildings were clustered. Out of the $51 million purchase price, Sun would spend $17 million for renovation of a few buildings which would not be demolished. The state will reimburse Sun for the cost of renovation, so the net purchase price was $34 million. Critics point out that Sun paid a net of $412,000 per acre, a fraction of the then-market value of $1.5 million per acre for land in this coveted area. (Sun responded that a lower price was appropriate because it plans to build at a low floor-area-ratio of 0.28.) Neither former mayor Souza nor current city councilwoman Pat Mahan, a lawyer, could explain the state's secretive process. "I had some concerns about it," said Mahan. "But by the time the city got the (Sun) project, it was done deal." Representatives of the state Department of General Services did not return repeated telephone calls. In December 1996, the state presented the Santa Clara City Council with the done deal. "Either you accept the deal with Sun, or not at all," Mahan said the council was told. Many citizens and officials unsuccessfully tried to convince Sun to swap the historic site with vacant land next door. Santa Clara's planning commission rejected Sun's project 4-3, but the City Council ignored staff recommendations and approved the project 4-3. Then began a complicated two-tiered environmental review process that made planning difficult, said Goodfellow. Planners had to draft an EIR for Sun's project, and another for the remaining 248 acres. Meanwhile, citizens galvanized to stop Agnew's demise. One group registered the 330-acre site as a national historic district in August 1997 - making it the only such historic district in Northern California. "We thought the move would save those buildings," said organizer Liz Holmes. But because a private - not public - entity was doing the razing, the buildings weren't spared. Then, a second citizens group filed a lawsuit against the city, attacking its EIR. The citizens lost but appealed." The delays were costing us a lot of money in stalled construction costs," said Agnello. So, Sun offered to pay the citizen's legal fees if they'd drop the matter; they did. Meanwhile, a third grassroots group collected enough signatures to put Sun's project to a public vote. To defeat Measure D, Sun mounted a well-defined public relations campaign, mailing 14 different pamphlets and spending at least $500,000. "We tried not to make it too glitzy," said Agnello. "Yet, we explained our position, which was we would preserve some buildings, have open space and stimulate development on that side of the city." In June, 64% of Santa Clara voters strongly backed the Sun project. However, bad blood boiled into November, when Santa Clara held its municipal elections. Sun's project became a campaign issue although voters did not cast ballots along Sun lines. Both Mayor Judy Nadler - who supported the Agnew project - and Councilwoman Mahan - who opposed it - won reelection by wide margins. Sun has since tried to appease critics and provide public needs. It will save three buildings as well as part of the clock tower, which will become Sun's reception area. The three buildings will be shared with the public, while an adjacent 14.5-acre grassy field will become a park. Sun will spend $220 million building a low-density, low-rise campus, said Agnello. For its part, the state will pay for a homeless shelter and a child-care center on site. Agnew's remaining 248 acres will become a housing development with a mix of single-family, low-income housing, and senior housing. Prior to Sun's arrival, the city had already started to bring a supermarket chain and public library to the area. "But now the question is how we'll fund a new school and park," said Goodfellow. There are many lessons to learn from the experience, said Mahan. "The major one is you have to figure out a way to be pro-active in planning." In this case, she regrets that the state didn't involve the city earlier in the process. "I wish there had been an opportunity for the city to say to the state, 'Look, this is what we need, let's work together on this.' "But that never happened." Contacts: Bill Agnello, vice president of real estate and the workplace, Sun Microsystems, (650) 934-9651. Geoff Goodfellow, Santa Clara director of planning, (408) 261-5260. Pat Mahan, Santa Clara City Councilwoman, (408) 237-1055. Eddie Souza, citizen, (408) 984-6037.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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