L.A. Councilman urges opposition to 5,500-home development at Wildlife Pinchpoint between Santa Susana Mountains and Angeles National Forest

(CLICK ON MAPS AND PHOTOS TO ENLARGE)

http://www2.dailynews.com/news/ci_6899995

Las Lomas again center of debate

BY KERRY CAVANAUGH, Staff Writer
LA Daily News

09/15/2007

San Fernando Valley neighborhood councils are getting dueling letters over the proposed Las Lomas mini-city - even before the 5,500-home development in the Newhall Pass has been considered by city leaders.

Hoping to block the project, Councilman Greig Smith sent a letter to Valley neighborhood councils this week calling the project a "tsunami of sprawl" and asking them to officially oppose it at their next meeting.

"It is too big, too dense, and in the wrong location," he wrote. "The impacts of the proposed Las Lomas development are simply impossible to ignore."

In response, Las Lomas Land Co. President Dan S. Palmer Jr. is sending a letter to neighborhood council presidents asking them to hold off any decision until they have heard his side of the story and the project is fully studied.

"We are aware that your Neighborhood Council has received a lengthy `white paper' and a letter from Los Angeles City Councilman Greig Smith which describes a mythical project that has little resemblance to the real Las Lomas plan, and yet urges your Neighborhood Council's immediate opposition to his imaginary project - before you have even had an opportunity to independently study the real Las Lomas," Palmer wrote.

"The City Charter empowers you to advise the City Council - not the other way around."

Palmer goes on to say that he intends to formally present the Las Lomas plans to neighborhood councils within two months.

Proposed more than five years ago and then stalled amid political opposition, Las Lomas is again a hot issue in City Hall. The site is just outside the city boundaries in county jurisdiction, where zoning limits the project to 200 homes. But Palmer wants to annex into L.A. to have access to the city's water supply and to allow a denser project.

Originally envisioned as a Mediterranean-style hilltop community of 5,800 homes and businesses, in the past two years Palmer's team has recast the plan as an energy-efficient, environmentally stable, mixed-income community with up to 5,500 town homes and condominiums, a hotel, a school and a commercial center.

This year, Palmer offered to pay the city for the staff time needed to process his development application. The City Council is now considering that request.

Smith and others have argued that the city does not have to process Palmer's development application.

But Councilman Richard Alarc n, whose district would likely include Las Lomas if it joined the city, said Smith's effort to kill the project in L.A. could end up hurting the city.

"The developer could go to the county or Santa Clarita and work out a project that could be detrimental to Los Angeles," he said.

While Alarc n said he doesn't support the project in its current form, he has urged the City Council to accept Palmer's offer to have a fee-for-staff-time agreement so L.A. will have more control over the project and recoup the costs.

The council's Budget and Finance Committee will consider the fee agreement.

---------------------------------

By Steve Hymon, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 14, 2007

In the city of Los Angeles, it's often the neighborhood councils that complain that they are the last to know about big real estate development projects in their backyards.

That notion was turned around this week when Councilman Greig Smith sent letters to neighborhood councils across the San Fernando Valley urging them to oppose the massive Las Lomas project that is proposed near the junction of the 5 Freeway and California 14.

"This development would have a profoundly negative impact on the entire San Fernando Valley," Smith wrote in the letter. "Simply put, this development is a tsunami of sprawl. It is too big, too dense and in the wrong location. The impacts of the proposed Las Lomas development are simply impossible to mitigate."

The project calls for 5,500 housing units on mountainous terrain north of the city limits. The developers are hopeful city officials will annex the land, which would allow the project to tie into the city's water supply.

Las Lomas is being pushed by developer Dan Palmer, who has hired six lobbying firms to help him get the necessary approvals. The project has been discussed for the past several years but has recently been revived.

Councilman Richard Alarcon earlier this year introduced legislation that would allow the city to process the development's application if Las Lomas pays for it. The fate of the motion is still to be decided. "I don't think anyone can support the project in its current iteration," Alarcon said. "Councilman Smith is certainly entitled to express his opinion of the project, but my fear is that if Los Angeles does not seize control of this project, the city of Santa Clarita will, and that could lead to negative consequences for" Los Angeles.

Santa Clarita officials, however, have said that the plan is far too dense and have shown little interest in supporting it. Alarcon did not rule out supporting the project in some form, but he said it would have to greatly expand wilderness protection.

Smith has maintained that the city should not process the application because the project is widely opposed and lies outside Los Angeles.

Matt Klink, a lobbyist with Cerrell Associates and a spokesman for Las Lomas, declined to comment, saying he had not seen Smith's letter.

--------------------------------
L.A. City's Largest Development Wipes Out Before the Appeals Court

Ballona Developers Not Only Lose Their Building Permits and EIR, They Lose Their High Density Zoning

The court repeatedly called the City and developer’s statements “untrue”, describing the project’s environmental analysis as “illusory” and “materially misleading”.

The full 114 page ruling may be read at the Court’s website: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B189630.DOC

Read the full press release: http://ballona.blogspot.com/2007/09/playa-vista-loses-huge-case-to.html

The Court Ruled in favor of the environmental group plaintiffs on three issues. The following is the issue won by BEEP:

THE FALSE DOWNZONING (ISSUE IS IN BEEP’S CASE) :

The Land Use impact analysis that the court found so troubling was that the project was claimed as a huge downzoning, and therefore a huge down-sizing of impacts to the surrounding communities compared to a project Playa Vista claimed they were legally entitled to build. Playa Vista claimed they had the right to build a project including over 2.5 million square feet of office and retail space that would dump 36,000 cars a day onto local streets. In contrast, Playa Vista touted their proposed condominium and office/retail project as dumping only 24,000 cars a day onto local streets, and that this was a huge concession based on what they were legally allowed. The Court agreed with BEEP that Playa Vista was not allowed to build this threatened project, but only 108,000 square feet of office space on the 111 acre site. The actual zoning of the site allowed a development that would dump 1568 cars a day onto local streets, or a difference between what Playa Vista claimed they were entitled to and the true zoning of 15 to 1. So what Playa Vista and the City claimed was a huge downsizing of their project was in fact a huge increase in Playa Vista’s development rights. The public had a right to know the true project that was being considered by the City Council. The court repeatedly called the City and developer’s statements “untrue”, describing the project’s environmental analysis as “illusory” and “materially misleading”.

The reason Playa Vista claimed they were entitled to such a huge project was based on proposals they had made in the 1990’s. However, the Court agreed with BEEP that Playa Vista had used up those development rights in their 300-plus acre First Phase project approved in 1993 and 1995, , which was marked by controversies over wetlands, endangered species, traffic and a huge taxpayer-subsidized benefit package granted by then-Governor Pete Wilson and then-Mayor Richard Riordan.

Because Playa Vista and the City claimed that the zoning of the land allowed such a huge amount of development, it tainted the review of the legally mandated alternatives to the project, such as a regional park or wetlands restoration, by making them all “infeasible” due to the cost of buying the land.

The Court’s action returns the zoning on the land back to the 108,000 square foot office building that was the true zoning at the beginning of the EIR process.

Rex Frankel, Director of the Ballona Ecosystem Education Project stated, “If Playa Vista wants to build more than that, they will have to honestly admit to the public what they want and why they should be granted such a huge upzoning gift by the City Council, and why they deserve even more corporate welfare than they got in their first phase project. This victory for the people of Los Angeles is a victory for telling the truth on development decisions. The Court didn’t accept the developer’s masquerade about benefits to the public that didn’t actually exist. Playa Vista and the City threatened the public with a monster development that they could never build as a club to beat us into submission and accept a slightly smaller, but still enormous, project. In fact, the Court agreed with us that Playa Vista never had the right to build this monster project.”

Briefs in BEEP's case can be found on their website, http://saveallofballona.org/

Tax deductible donations to BEEP’s legal fund can be mailed to BEEP at P.O. Box 451153, Los Angles, CA 90045

-----------------------------------------------------

New Map: History of Land Purchases at L.A.'s Giant Urban Mountain Greenbelt Park

------------------------------
Bay Area Politicians Still Trawling for Sprawl

Greenbelt Newswire
Your Five-Minute News Flash
Greenbelt Alliance
Volume 6, Issue 9: September 2007

http://www.greenbelt.org/resources/newswire/2007september.html#subheading6

Alert: Save the Gilroy 660
     

In the South Bay, Gilroy city officials will soon begin creating a plan for the development of 660 acres of farmland east of Highway 101.

Development in this area is not appropriate; it is prime farmland, it is on a floodplain, and it is far from Caltrain and from Gilroy’s downtown. Much of the land could be developed into a mega-mall, which would drain life from Gilroy’s newly reawakened downtown. This auto-dependent development, disconnected from the rest of the city, would put more cars on the road, increasing traffic and air pollution. Gilroy has many outlet malls already; the last thing it needs is more big-box development.

Voice your concern in a letter to the editor of the Gilroy Dispatch. The City Council election is approaching—let elected officials know this is an important issue to their constituents.

Update: Pittsburg Officials Ignore Constituents, Follow Developer

In an astonishing display of disregard for the public, during the public comment period of a hearing on August 28, a Pittsburg Planning Commissioner asked for a developer’s guidance on each provision of the city’s hillside development ordinance. After developer Albert Seeno III told the commission the ordinance was too onerous to comply with, four of the six Commissioners voted according to his response.

In doing this, the Planning Commissioners disregarded several months of public input and the comments of many residents at the hearing, and gutted the already-weak ordinance. Their changes will allow major grading of the hills—which are south of Pittsburg and east of Concord—and will allow development on steep slopes, along ridgelines, and in scenic areas. The Commissioners also dismissed the need for a slope-density calculation, which prevents development in landslide-prone areas – just one year after landslides in these hills forced several families from their homes.

The Planning Commission will take its final vote on the ordinance in October, making its recommendation to the City Council, which will then consider the ordinance.

Write a letter to the editor of the Contra Costa Times to object to the Planning Commission’s conduct, and support protecting East Bay hills! To find out more, visit www.SaveOurHills.org.

----------------------------------

COURT ISSUES INITIAL RULING TO HALT
MOUNT WHITNEY DEVELOPMENT

8/31/07

DECISION POINTS WAY FOR LAND SWAP

http://srva.net/cms/

In an initial ruling released August 27 2007, the California Court of Appeals sided with Sierra Nevada conservationists and concluded that development approvals in the Mount Whitney Portal area violate state law.

The ruling clearly states, “The County failed to proceed in the manner required by law.” Once finalized, the Court action would overturn Inyo County approvals of the “Whitney Portal Preserve” project, a remote subdivision of 27 luxury homes along Whitney Portal Road , the sole paved access route for the tallest mountain in the continental United States .

SRVA Advocates for Smart Growth, the plaintiffs in the case, have long advocated for a better blueprint for development in the region. They argued that Inyo County decision-makers should have considered the possibility of a land swap, whereby the threatened landscape could be protected and growth could be focused closer to existing development.

The panel of judges agreed. “We agree with SRVA that the analysis of the land exchange alternative is legally insufficient and reverse on that ground," according to the initial decision.

“The proposed development was clearly an unacceptable threat to the Mount Whitney area and the Owens Valley ,” said Jennifer Fenton of the grassroots SRVA Advocates for Smart Growth. “We look forward to working with public agencies, private developers, and local residents to open a meaningful dialog and work on a resolution that honors the values of the region and protects the resources of the Sierra Nevada .”

State law requires that environmental review provide decision-makers with adequate information to assess the impacts of a proposed project, including alternatives to the proposal. But, according to the initial ruling, environmental review "…includes only the barest of facts…, vague and unsupported conclusions about aesthetics, views, and economic objectives, and no independent analysis whatsoever of relevant considerations.”

The decision is another important example of citizen action to stop illegal approvals of Sierra development. “We are delighted with this tentative ruling," said Tamara Galanter of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP, counsel for SRVA. "The 45 page decision reflects a careful analysis of the applicable law and recognizes the importance of considering alternatives as part of the environmental review process"

Conservationists throughout California look to the proposed project as a dangerous precedent for leapfrog development in the fragile Eastern Sierra landscape. “This is an important victory for the entire Sierra Nevada ,” said Tom Mooers, executive director of Sierra Watch. “It’s another great example of how people are standing up to defend the Sierra landscape – from Mount Whitney in the south to Dyer Mountain in Lassen County .”

Now conservationists will seek to work with the landowner to reach a collaborative resolution to the contentious issue. “Our goal was never simply to win a lawsuit,” said Fenton. “Our goal is to reach a win-win agreement that protects the land and encourages responsible development. We look forward to taking that next step.”


SRVA Advocates for Smart Growth is a non-profit organization working to promote sustainable development in the Eastern Sierra region. For more information, call (559)658-8189 or visit http://srva.net/cms/.

----------------------------
Very Interesting Interactive Map Shows California Counties that Lost Population Due to People Moving Out (as opposed to births outpacing deaths)

http://enterprise.star-telegram.com/ARCIms/Maps/clt/2007/irsmig.asp?map.x=350&map.y=248&pick=&action=bg

Total people migrating into Los Angeles County

IN: 857,158
OUT: 1,258,120

NET MIGRATION -400,962 (Loss)


Meanwhile, in the "What are they...nuts? department, in August, the State's Department of Finance predicted that by 2050, the State's population will hit 50 million. The California Department of Finance predicts at today's rate:

Riverside County will grow from 1.5 million to 4.7 million
Los Angeles will grow from 9.5 million to 13.4 million
San Bernardino will grow from 1.7 million to 3.6 million
San Diego will grow from 2.8 million to 4.5 million
Orange County will grow from 2.8 million to 3.9 million

SHOW ME THE WATER!

California Courts Do Not Accept the View that Growth Must be Accomodated at All Costs

From L.A. Times October 11, 2005

By Bettina Boxall

The 5-year-old CalFed program, which governs California's single largest source of fresh water, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, has been dealt a setback by a state appeals court that ruled that parts of the program's environmental review were inadequate.

The opinion, released late Friday, concluded that the review was too narrow because it failed to consider the effects of reducing water exports from the delta to Central and Southern California. The CalFed program was created to balance the state's water needs with protection of the delta, including its fish.

State officials were still reviewing the 224-page decision, but CalFed critics suggested the ruling opened the door to a fundamental rethinking of the program's plan to fix the delta's many environmental problems while simultaneously stepping up water deliveries.

"The implications are substantial," said longtime delta advocate Bill Jennings, chairman of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance. "It's certainly a huge victory that will perhaps dissuade us from continuing this headlong rush of increasing exports that have contributed to the delta's decline."

The ruling is just the latest problem for CalFed, a joint state- federal effort that has struggled for federal funding since its inception. This year it encountered stinging criticism from state legislators who said it was ineffective, and the Schwarzenegger administration has ordered a reevaluation of the program.

"We're in the middle of a restructuring and refocusing on how to best accomplish our goals, and this provides further guidance for that effort," said Keith Coolidge, spokesman for the California Bay- Delta Authority, which oversees CalFed. The 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento upheld CalFed on a number of issues in the case, turning away challenges to other parts of its environmental review that were raised in a lawsuit filed by delta water agencies and the California Farm Bureau Federation.

But the panel said that when CalFed was reviewing various options for the delta, it should have considered the possibility of reducing water exports -- which help provide water to nearly two of every three Californians.

The state, a defendant in the suit, has said that given population growth andCalFed's mandate to improve water supplies, that option was not feasible.

Though the court wrote that "the record contains evidence that significant exports from the delta will be needed in the future to meet water demands inSouthern California," it went on to say that reduced exports could help meet CalFed's other goals, which include ecosystem restoration.

The appeals panel further suggested that if less water flowed south from the delta, there might be less growth and therefore less demand. "CalFed appears not to have considered, as an alternative, smaller water exports from the Bay-Delta region, which might, in turn, lead to smaller population growth due to the unavailability of water to support such growth," the judges wrote.

Officials of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which intervened in the case, said they were troubled by that argument.

"There's an assumption in this court's decision that if you reduce exports, you will reduce growth," said Metropolitan Vice President Tim Quinn. "If you look at the history of California over the last quarter of a century, that doesn't fit with facts. The State Water Project never got completed, yet we grew."

Metropolitan's general counsel, Jeffrey Kightlinger, said a separate case involving legal challenges to CalFed's federal environmental reviews was still pending, complicating the implications of the state ruling. He also pointed out that since the environmental reports were drawn up, CalFed had been reauthorized by Congress and the California Legislature.

"There clearly has been a legislative directive to go and do these projects, so there's a legal question as to whether you would even need this kind of[environmental] document," he said. "I don't think you're going to see acomplete revamping or rewriting of CalFed because the legislatures have said to move forward."

Editorial from L.A. Times 11/19/2005

FOR DECADES, WHENEVER California began running short of water to meet population projections, water engineers -- "visionaries," they were called -- brought in new supplies from hundreds of miles away. Los Angeles went to theOwens Valley and then the Colorado River and far Northern California. SanFrancisco had the audacity to build a dam and reservoir right in Yosemite National Park.

The days of building big dams and canals are long past. But even today, water managers are calling for pumping greater volumes from the stressed Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to meet projected growth in Southern California. Their axiom is that people will come whether there's enough water or not.

Now, finally, a court has challenged that mantra. The 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento has ruled that managers of the delta should balance the demands of water users with the demands of the environment. "Population growth is not an immutable fact of life," the court said in rejecting parts of an environmental impact study on the operations of CalFed, the joint state-federal program for managing the delta.

A key finding was that the impact study was insufficient because it explored various ways of increasing exports from Northern to Southern California, but it never considered reducing exports. Cutting exports would be one way to lessen the environmental degradation of the delta. In recent years, fish life has suffered an alarming decline in the delta as exports have reached record levels. Experts disagree about whether those two things are connected.

The state is seeking a rehearing of the case and may appeal to the state Supreme Court. A better course would be to revise the environmental impact study.

The court ruling comes at a time when many in government and the water industry are considering whether major changes are needed in the CalFed program. At the request of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Little Hoover Commission conducted a detailed study of CalFed, which on Thursday recommended an overhaul of the program's management structure. Water users have asked the governor to create a blue-ribbon commission to recommend changes. If he does so, it should be a small body put on a tight deadline.

State water experts recognize that California is moving into a new era. The periodic revision of the state water plan now being drafted by the Department of Water Resources forecasts a future in which new demands will be met by innovative supply mechanisms, including more sophisticated conservation programs, expanded programs to reclaim used water, increased water trades from farmers to urban areas and more "banking" of water in aquifers rather than surface reservoirs. The department also predicts water problems increasingly will need to be solved on a regional basis rather than with grand, statewide transfers.

The court ruling may be heresy to the water engineers. In fact, it's the new reality.

------------------------------
204 Acres Added to San Diego River Park Within National Forest Boundary

9/10/2007

Largest Donation in Our History Received!

The San Diego River Park Foundation has received a donation of 204 acres to add to Eagle Peak Preserve. This donation has a current value of more than $800,000! The property was donated by a local Charitable Remainder Trust who wanted to make sure this land would be protected and preserved for future generations to enjoy.

We applaud the donor and this incredible commitment to the preservation of San Diego's threatened natural environment. Thank you for your generosity and support of the River Park!

Join us on October 21st for a hike and tour of the Preserve. Details will be in the October ENews.

Eagle Peak Preserve is one of those special places, perhaps not seen enough, that can be transformational for many. It is a place of rare beauty that is matched by its natural, recreational and cultural resources. The idea for Eagle Peak Preserve came before the devastating Cedar Fire of 2003 when a "For Sale" sign was found along the side of the road to the trailhead known as "Saddleback." Was this land really privately owned? Was it possible to really build on this land? Yes and Yes. This land is what is called a "private in-holding" within the Cleveland National Forest. This piece of land is bordered on three sides by the public lands of the National Forest. Eagle Peak Preserve consists of more than 300 acres of land. Our goal is to acquire 600 acres of what is was once the Marks Ranch. The Marks Ranch is an area that was originally homesteaded around 1880. It has a rich history of ranching and life stretching over many decades. For thousands of years before this, the land was important as a processing village site for native americans.

GET MORE INFO: http://www.sandiegoriver.org/articles/EaglePeakPreserveFacts.htm

DONATE NOW! http://www.sandiegoriver.org/articles/urgent_habitat_acquisition.html

FOR MAP: CLICK HERE

-----------------------------

Judge Lets Voters Reject Merger of Bay Area Sprawl into Monterey County

LandWatch News Alert

9/10/2007

Measure D upheld, Butterfly Village defeated!

Monterey County Superior Court Judge Robert O'Farrell upheld a June election in which voters soundly rejected the proposed Butterfly Village golf and housing subdivision north of Salinas. Butterfly Village was the first phase of the Rancho San Juan development, the largest and worst example of urban sprawl in Monterey County history.

LandWatch Monterey County, the Rancho San Juan Opposition Coalition, and other community groups collected signatures to put Measure D on the ballot after supervisors approved Butterfly Village in November 2005. It was the second referendum that voters passed to stop the Rancho San Juan development.

In ruling against Butterfly Village developer HYH Corporation, Judge O'Farrell rejected HYH's request to set aside the June 5 referendum, in which voters turned down by a 64-36 percent margin approvals for the 1,147-home project.

O'Farrell rejected HYH's argument that opponents to development in Rancho San Juan would continue to mount referendums against any project in the area. "Special interest organizations do not vote. People vote," the judge said.

Chris Fitz, executive director of LandWatch, said, "This is a huge victory for democracy." He said the main issue wasn't the land-use process, but "the people's right to vote."

Read the Herald's story on the decision here
Read Judge O'Farrell's decision here
See the 20-year Rancho San Juan timeline here

----------------------------
HOW OAK TREES AFFECT GLOBAL WARMING

September 2007

California Oak Report,

http://californiaoaks.org

Oaks & Climate Change
California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (AG) has reached a landmark lawsuit settlement with San Bernardino County involving the extent to which the County’s environmental impact report for its General Plan update should address impacts on climate change. This is the first time any California jurisdiction has entered into a legally binding agreement to look at the overall impact of its planning on global warming.

The agreement solidifies climate change as an impact to be addressed in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review documents. Significant impacts to oak woodlands must be addressed in CEQA green house gas reviews because oak impacts uniquely combine carbon capture and carbon emission issues.

According to the AG, discretionary approvals must provide: (1) An examination of a project's impact on climate change and the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures to reduce such impacts, and (2) such analysis can – and must – be done today even absent established thresholds of significance or impending regulations under Assembly Bill 32. The state’s California Climate Action Registry, which will guide AB 32 regulations, recognizes that converting oak woodlands to development is a carbon emission due to lost forest photosynthesis. Moreover, many municipal and county codes have general or specific tree-related provisions that reference air quality, air pollution or climatic conditions.

Consistent with the CEQA opinions of the AG, where significant oak resource impacts occur, project air quality analyses must consider three oak resource factors: (1) How much carbon is sequestered in the impacted oak trees?; (2) How much potential carbon sequestration will be lost due to oak seedling, sapling and tree impacts?; (3) How much sequestered carbon will be released if the impacted oaks are burned?

The CEQA Oak Woodlands Dilemma
The oak woodlands circumstances are unique for each CEQA project. Unfortunately, project oak woodland mitigation measures consistently fail to provide proportional habitat mitigation. The basic problem is a failure to see the forest for the trees, exemplified by the fact that invariably mitigated negative declarations and environmental impact reports biologically analyze oak woodlands but mitigate for individual oak trees.

On-Site Conservation Easement Mitigation
Impact avoidance through on-site oak woodlands conservation easement serves only to limit the degree of significant oak woodland impacts and the project applicant’s oak woodlands mitigation responsibilities. An on-site oak preserve amounts to nothing more than a promise not to further remove or fragment the remnant oak resource; these preserves do nothing to proportionally mitigate for the actual impacts from removing project site oak habitat.

Placement of an oak woodlands easement within a development is of marginal habitat value and also creates a potentially hazardous fire condition. Residual or planted oaks are at great risk of future loss through new Cal Fire fuel reduction regulations and increasingly stringent fire insurance policy standards.

On-Site Tree Planting Mitigation
Projects rarely have enough suitable land available for purposeful on-site oak planting for habitat mitigation. In most cases, funds for on-site planting would be far better spent on off-site planting or dedicated to the state Oak Woodlands Conservation Fund to purchase local oak woodlands.

Those projects that rely extensively on planting oaks on-site for mitigation need to disclose the estimated total cost of planting, maintaining and monitoring mitigation oaks and present information documenting local projects that have successfully created oak woodland habitat for CEQA mitigation purposes.

Tree Transplanting Mitigation
Public Resources Code Section 21083.4 doesn’t recognize the transplanting of oaks as a feasible or proportional mitigation measure. Moreover, several scientific studies have demonstrated that the transplanting of established oak trees is not a viable CEQA oak habitat mitigation measure.

For example, Dagit and Downer (1996) observed over a four-year period that, “16 percent of the transplanted trees died, 20 percent were nearly dead, 24 percent were in decline, 32 percent were stable and 8 percent were improving....While the transplanted trees remained alive, they were no longer self sustaining natives, but rather high care exotics that required intensive, long term maintenance.”

Cumulative Impacts Mitigation
CEQA requires that projects provide a comprehensive cumulative impacts list of past, present and probable future projects impacting oak resources regionally or area-wide, including quantifying the extent and severity of those oak habitat impacts.

County Mitigation Banks
All stakeholders should support establishment of county lists of landowners interested in the benefits of oak woodlands mitigation banking. These banks would serve project applicants seeking off-site oak woodland mitigation options, either through the restoration planting of oaks off-site or the purchase of off-site conservation easements on existing oak woodlands. Local or state conservation organizations would administer the oak woodland easements.

------------------------
Don't Blame Endangered Fish for Water Use Cutbacks. Blame Uncontrolled Urban Growth


"Water ruling casts shadow on growth"

L.A. Daily Breeze Editorial, September 9, 2007

Don't blame the smelt. A district judge cited the danger of wiping out the tiny Sacramento Delta fish when he imposed tough restrictions that threaten Southern California's water supply. But if it hadn't been the smelt, it would have been something else.

Eventually, something was going to arise to make the state face the fact that its water demands can't keep going up indefinitely while the water supply keeps shrinking.

The preciousness of water in this semidesert state is something that has escaped the attention of California's politicians. That's because all they can see is how growth replenishes public treasuries and provides more money to squander every year.

State and local politicians routinely rubber-stamp new developments with little thought to environmental preservation or the strain on water supply.

Something had to give.

The expected result of the ruling last week is the threat of water rationing that would hit many Southern California communities hard. For most of us, it means adopting a perpetual-drought mind-set and conserving at every level. That means low-flow toilets and drought-resistant plants. For agriculture, it will mean a hard economic punch. And for politicians, it ought to mean a serious rethinking of land-use policy.

Some will dismiss this as an overreaction to the possible extinction of a little-known fish. But concentrating on the water rights of smelt vs. humans misses the entire point: We don't have unlimited amounts of water.

If there isn't enough water for smelt or people, how can we continue to allow major construction developments that bring in more people who need more water and force more rationing on current residents?

The answer is we can't.

The largest user of delta water, the Metropolitan Water District, has already made plans for rationing water to its 18 million users. No doubt every agency affected will do the same.
The MWD, the primary water importer for Southern California's urban areas, could lose as much as 30 percent of its supplies from Northern California in 2008 if Judge Oliver W. Wanger's preliminary ruling holds.

California's history has been one of opportunity and open horizons and the dream for millions of new and potential residents. This ruling makes it clear the future must be different for the state to continue to prosper.

Water can be used more wisely, stronger conservation measures can be introduced, and future developments need to meet stringent land-use planning rules and pay a hefty premium for that most basic of all necessities, water.