FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:	August 3, 2004

Contacts:	Allen Bartleman, Chapter Chair (909) 885-8388
		Terry Wold, Chapter Conservation Coordinator (951) 684-6203
		Barrington Daltrey, Attorney at Law (951) 780-5131

SIERRA CLUB STRIKES MAJOR BLOW AGAINST SPRAWL:
LAWSUIT FILED TO STOP SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY'S MEASURE I
"You can't pave your way out of congestion"

The Sierra Club, San Gorgonio Chapter filed a lawsuit today, under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), challenging Measure I, a
voter-approved measure - drafted by the county's transportation agency -
that imposes a one-half percent sales tax to fund sprawl-inducing
transportation projects in San Bernardino County.

The goal of the lawsuit is to force the county to analyze and disclose the
environmental consequences of Measure I in an "environmental impact report"
before placing the measure on the ballot.  By forcing the county to perform
a CEQA review of the measure, the Sierra Club hopes to foster greater public
debate about the environmental implications of the measure.

Powerful development interests in southern California are working with
county officials to persuade voters to pass taxes that will fund new road
construction and other transportation projects that pave the way for more
sprawl development.  San Bernardino County's Measure I is a perfect
illustration of this problem.  The lawsuit is part of an overall effort by
the Sierra Club to build public support for progressive solutions such as
mass transit and smart growth, as antidotes to sprawl development, traffic
congestion and associated air pollution.
(See http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/)

Sprawl developers in southern California have a problem:  people don't want
to buy new homes in an area plagued by severe traffic congestion.  As
Building Industry Association chief Frank Williams explained at a meeting of
development interests organized to drum up support for Measure I:  "If you
can't move traffic, you can't build new homes.  If we do nothing, we'll have
complete gridlock."  To remove this impediment to sprawl, development
interests have begun sponsoring and financing local ballot measures that
impose sales taxes for new road construction and freeway widening in order
to pave the way for future, ill-conceived growth.

Faced with waning federal and state subsidies for new road construction,
county officials are often eager to accommodate the developers' interests.
As a result, many counties in southern California are working with
development interests to pass voter-approved taxes that fund sprawl-inducing
transportation projects.  The development community typically promotes these
ballot

(more)
measures through multi-million dollar marketing campaigns, which aim to
convince the public that new road construction will eliminate traffic
congestion - a goal that suffering southern California residents are
naturally quick to embrace.  Typically, the measures also include a small
amount of funding for public transit, which helps the developers in their
efforts to mislead the public into thinking that the taxes will fund
projects that benefit the environment.

In actuality, the massive freeway widening and road construction projects
funded by these ballot measures typically result in more sprawl development
and increased air pollution, while doing little or nothing to alleviate
traffic congestion.  This failure is caused in part by a phenomenon known as
"induced travel" - when roads are widened, traffic congestion is temporarily
relieved, which induces additional traffic and ultimately results in the
same or worse congestion as existed before the widening.  At the same time,
the number of cars traveling on the widened road increases, causing more
smog and other types of air pollution.

Measure I was drafted by and proposed by the San Bernardino Associated
Governments (SANBAG), which is the transportation agency that serves all 24
cities within San Bernardino County.  Measure I has the strong backing of
the development community.  A recent news article noted that development
interests are hoping to raise well over a million dollars for a massive
marketing campaign that will include TV ads, radio ads, billboards, direct
mail and other tactics, to persuade voters to pass the measure.
(Cassie MacDuff, Extending Measure I, Press-Enterprise, July 11, 2004.)

According to Riverside attorney Barrington Daltrey, who filed the suit on
behalf of the Sierra Club, “The lawsuit challenges the county's decision not
to analyze and disclose the environmental impacts of Measure I before
placing the measure on the November ballot.”  The San Bernardino County
Board of Supervisors voted on June 29 to place Measure I on the November
ballot.  In so doing, the county determined that its actions were exempt
from the requirements of CEQA.

Under CEQA, government agencies must disclose and analyze the environmental
impacts of any "project" they approve or carry out.  The purpose of CEQA is
to inform the public and decision-makers about the environmental
consequences of the agency's proposed action, and about ways to avoid those
consequences, in order to foster informed decision-making.

In 2001, the California Supreme Court ruled that ballot measures generated
by government agencies - as opposed to measures generated by citizens - are
"projects" subject to CEQA.  (See Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra
Madre, 25 Cal.4th 165, 191, Cal. 2001).  CEQA applies only to "projects,"
which, roughly stated, are decisions made by government officials using
their discretionary authority.  In Sierra Madre, the court reasoned that,
when agency officials draft a ballot measure and bring it to the voters,
they are exercising their discretion and therefore CEQA applies.  By
contrast, when private citizens draft a ballot measure and gather enough
signatures for it to be placed on the ballot, the government's role is
merely ministerial and, therefore, CEQA does not apply.

The Sierra Club would like to see an EIR review because it would help the
county prioritize the projects, determining which projects would help
relieve congestion and which projects would facilitate more growth.  Measure
I, as written, contains no requirement for the developers to pay as in
Riverside County’s Measure A.  Measure A at least requires developers to
help pay the cost of infrastructure to support the development while the
proposed Measure I has no such requirement on developers.  Sprawl should pay
for itself.  It should not be paid for by the taxpayers.