California is an expansive state, but most people live and work in a series of spaces that are – proportionally – rather small. It may seem like it takes forever to traverse metropolitan Los Angeles or the San Francisco Bay Area, but these population centers make up only a tiny portion of the state's overall land area. Meanwhile, the open lands in the state are quickly being scooped up for permanent protection. The federal government already owns half the land in the state, and state agencies and land trusts are picking up a good portion of the rest. Large pieces of real estate are available in the Central Valley and the Inland Empire, but most of them are far from job centers. Which brings us to brownfields – those contaminated sites, mostly in already urbanized areas, that represent great opportunities to use urban land more efficiently if only they can get cleaned up. California has tens of thousands of brownfield sites. Most are small, but some are large parcels – usually with an industrial past – that represent great opportunities to alter the state's urban form. California has never taken brownfields seriously enough as an issue – unlike a compact urban state like New Jersey, which is quickly moving to lock up most remaining undeveloped land and making it easy to develop on brownfields. But now the issue is beginning to get some traction in Sacramento. It remains to be seen whether the traction continues next year – an election year that is likely to feature a down economy – and whether the Legislature is interested in change sweeping enough to make a difference. This year's passage of SB 32 — which takes some baby steps towards encouraging brownfields development — represents a good example of how the coming debate is likely to shake out. On the one hand, it shows that there's a broadening of support for certain types of brownfields legislation, especially in connection with the environmental justice crowd, which has traditionally been wary of facilitating brownfields development. On the other hand, it suggests that brownfields policy, like most other land use policy in California, will be a work in process for a long time, driven mostly by the incremental steps the that Legislature is willing to take in any given year. Brownfields policy is a delicate three-part balance between the government, the landowner, and the community. Government agencies want contaminated urban land cleaned up, often to very high standards, and usually with private landowner dollars. Property owners want to realize profit from their real estate, and they do not want to be saddled with cleanup costs. Older urban communities want environmental problems eradicated, but they don't want to feel "dumped on." The result of this triangle is often bureaucratic, litigious gridlock, in which one or two of the three players holds the power to stop or slow down brownfields cleanup so much that under-utilized urban land simply cannot compete with "greenfield" sites. Piled on top of that is the "place-blind" orientation of California land use policy, especially the California Environmental Quality Act. Traditionally, planning in California is based on what Professor John Landis of University of California, Berkeley, calls "the suburban growth model." Under this model, the whole assumption underlying the planning process is that communities are converting raw land into urbanized neighborhoods. That is one of the reasons why CEQA has always been, by and large, "place-blind." Generally speaking, it does not matter whether your project is in a century-old industrial district or in the middle of nowhere – the requirements are pretty much the same. And as pressure to redevelop urban sites has grown, environmental justice groups have latched on to CEQA as one of the few levers they have to ensure that poor urban neighborhoods do not get railroaded. That is why attempts to reform CEQA to favor development of brownfields and infill sites – like other brownfields bills – have often failed. Beyond that is the fact that toxic contamination, unlike most land use issues, falls under the purview of a state agency, in this case the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Not surprisingly, DTSC is concerned with paying for and cleaning up contamination, rather than altering the urban form of the state. So the agency has had little motivation to facilitate brownfields development. Senate Bill 32, carried by Sen. Martha Escutia (D-Huntington Park), is not sweeping. The legislation takes three tiny steps toward making brownfields redevelopment easier. The most important aspect of the bill for land use is that it gives local governments the ability, in certain circumstances, to order landowners to investigate toxic contamination problems on under-utilized parcels of five acres or less. Far more important than what SB 32 does is who supported it and the fact that it passed at all. The bill won the backing of a wide variety of urban environmental justice groups – the first time such a broad coalition has been put together to support a brownfields bill. We will have to wait and see how far the brownfields coalition can go next year. The state's already limited brownfields program took a hit in November, when Gov. Davis axed $44 million of the $52 million originally allocated for DTSC's CLEAN Brownfields Loan Program because of the state budget deficit. Major CEQA reform still does not appear to be in the cards. The staunchest defender of CEQA – Sen. Byron Sher (D-Palo Alto) – remains at the helm of the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality. And even some minor CEQA changes to facilitate infill development in downtown Oakland required all of Mayor Jerry Brown's juice to get passed this year. And the big cahuna in brownfields is much tougher than CEQA. It's the question of liability. Currently, California law creates open-ended liability for all present and past landowners on the question of toxic cleanup – a boon to DTSC regulators who want to find deep pockets, but not exactly an incentive for enlightened developers to enter the gauntlet of redeveloping brownfields. To make the brownfields effort really sing in California, a sweeping deal will have to be brokered on liability. The deal will probably need to involve reining in the trial lawyers, throwing additional state money into the pot, and encouraging the locals to redirect redevelopment funds and other precious revenue to a task they would rather let somebody else pay for. That is a tough assignment in any climate. A sour economy with a budget deficit will make it even harder. And California is not given to sweeping political change on anything these days. Term-limited legislators move forward an inch at a time – and the electricity deregulation debacle has made them more cautious than ever. At this rate, it will take a decade or more to whip our state's brownfields policy into shape.

The results: Contra Costa County City of Brentwood Voters approved a $6 million general obligation bond for a new police station. Measure J: Yes, 73.9% (2/3 required). Los Angeles County City of Azusa A $5.875 million general obligation bond to fund a new library won approval. Measure L: Yes, 76.2% (2/3 required). City of Hawthorne A City Council-sponsored advisory measure on a proposal to replace the general aviation Hawthorne Airport with a large shopping center and hotel was voted down. Measure A: No, 70.8%. City of Hermosa Beach A complicated initiative that, among other things, would expedite preparation of a Local Coastal Program, prevent building permanent structures on the beach, and conserve existing parking spaces was soundly rejected. Measure F: No, 73.9% City of Malibu A $15 million bond that would have provided money mostly for land acquisitions did not receive enough support to pass. Measure K, No, 38.7% (2/3 required). City of Manhattan Beach A $15 million bond to pay for new police and fire department headquarters failed to get enough votes. Measure Y: No, 39.4% (2/3 required). City of Monterey Park Voters ratified City Council-approved amendments to the city general plan's land use element, rezoning properties to accommodate retail and mixed-use development, while also preserving 150 acres of parkland and open space. Measure O: Yes, 64.9%. Riverside County City of Palm Springs Voters approved an initiative that calls for spending the money the city will save by refinancing bonds for the convention center to build a new downtown parking garage. Measure D: Yes, 59%. San Bernardino County City of Chino Modifications to the city's mobile home rent control ordinance won approval. Measure F: Yes, 61.9%. San Francisco City and County A measure that requires voters to approve any project that involves filling at least 100 acres of the bay — namely, the proposed San Francisco International Airport runway realignment project. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors placed the measure on the ballot. Proposition D: Yes, 74.6%. Voters also decided four measures addressing electricity. They barely rejected a measure that would have turned the city's Public Utilities Commission into a water and power agency, with the authority to condemn PG&E transmission lines. By a larger margin, voters rejected a measure to create a new municipal utility district that also would include the City of Brisbane. They approved a $100 million revenue bond to construct solar and wind power systems to serve city buildings. And they gave the Board of Supervisors authority to issue revenue bonds to fund renewable energy projects without voter approval. Proposition B (solar and wind power bonds): Yes, 73.4%. Proposition F (create water and power agency): No, 50.4%. Proposition H (authority to issue bonds for renewable energy): Yes, 55.2%. Proposition I (create new municipal utility district): No, 52.1%. Stanislaus County City of Modesto Measures to extend sewer trunk lines to currently unincorporated areas won voter approval. The elections were required under a previous initiative that requires voter approval for extension of sewer service. Measure N: Yes, 54%. Measure O: Yes, 54%. San Mateo County Coastside County Water District An initiative that would require voter approval for the expansion of the water system that serves Half Moon Bay and unincorporated coastal communities narrowly failed. Measure U: No, 51.6%. City of Menlo Park A $38 million bond to fund park and recreation facilities, and acquire land, won approval. Measure T: Yes, 69.2% (2/3 required). Montara Sanitary District Voters approved a $19 million bond that provides money for the district to purchase a water system now operated by Delaware-based Citizens Utilities. Backers of the measure say a publicly run system would have access to other public water resources, and would provide better service. Measure V: Yes, 80.6% Santa Barbara County Goleta In the fourth vote on incorporation in 14 years, residents of Goleta approved creation of a new city. Measure H: Yes, 57.7%. Santa Clara County City of Cupertino Annexation of the Garden Gate community was approved, despite some residents' fears that the city would allow greater development than the county would. Measure D: Yes, 54.8% Ventura County City of Ventura The electorate backed a measure that requires future voters to decide on the extension of water and sewer services to 9,100 acres of hillside areas bordering the town. The City Council placed the measure before voters after landowners presented plans for developing portions of the hillsides. Measure P: Yes, 77.3%.

Citizens cannot force the Environmental Protection Agency to take enforcement action against polluters under the Clean Water Act, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. " he Clean Water Act leaves it to the discretion of the EPA Administrator whether to find violations and to take enforcement action, and … those discretionary decisions are not subject to judicial review," Judge William Canby wrote for the three-judge panel. The case involved the Nogales International Water Treatment Plant in Pio Rico, Arizona, about 10 miles north of the Mexican border. The City of Nogales, Arizona, and the U.S. Section of the Boundary Commission jointly operate the plant, which serves about 185,000 people on either side of the border. From January 1995 though January 2000, plant operators reported 128 violations of the facility's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit. The Sierra Club sued the EPA, the Boundary Commission and the City of Nogales. The Sierra Club reached an out of court settlement with the Commission and the city to upgrade the facilities, but the group pressed forward with its suit against the EPA. The group asked the court to order the EPA to take enforcement action against the sewer plant operators. Federal District Court Judge Raner Collins ruled for the EPA, holding that citizens cannot sue the agency to force it to take enforcement action. The Sierra Club appealed, pointing to the Clean Water Act's use of the word "shall" in regard to enforcement activities. But the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court ruling. In this instance, "shall" simply authorizes the EPA to act. The word does not compel action, as Congress did not intend for enforcement provisions to be mandatory, the court ruled. "The language of authorization, for both the commencement of a civil action and the issuance of a compliance order, shows congressional intent to give the Administrator these options, not to require their use in all instances," Canby wrote. The Eighth Circuit reached a similar conclusion in Dubois v. Thomas, 820 F.2d, 943 (8th Cir. 1987), Canby noted. " he purpose of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain national waters and waterways," Canby wrote. "As previously recognized by the Eighth Circuit, requiring the EPA to ‘expend its limited resources investigating multitudinous complaints, irrespective of the magnitude of their environmental significance' could lead to an inability to investigate and enforce those violations the Administrator believes to be the most serious." In a concurring opinion, Judge Ronald Gould said the court should not have even reached the issue of whether enforcement was discretionary. Although he called the EPA's inaction "troubling" in this case, Gould wrote, "No prior finding of violation was alleged here by the Sierra Club in its complaint, and the record does not disclose such a finding." Thus, there was no basis for an enforcement action, he wrote. The Case: Sierra Club v. Whitman, No. 00-16895, 01 C.D.O.S. 8576, 2001 DJDAR 10637. Filed October 2, 2001. The Lawyers: For the Sierra Club: Vera Kornylak, Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, (520) 529-1798. For Whitman: Ellen Durkee, Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division, (202) 514-2000.

State housing programs took a major hit in November when Gov. Gray Davis cut $2 billion from the state's current fiscal year budget. The governor eliminated the Jobs-Housing Balance program and shifted the program's $60 million balance, which was leftover from the 2000-01 budget, to the state general fund. The program was intended to spur approval of housing development in areas with rapid job growth by providing grants to local governments (see CP&DR, November 2001). The governor also cut half of the $89 million multi-family housing loan program. And Davis eliminated the Downtown Rebound Program, which provided money to plan infill development and conversion of industrial and commercial buildings to residential use. Davis also shifted the Downtown Rebound Program's $4.1 million to the general fund. In a letter to state officials, Davis said "the extraordinarily rapid decline in state revenues" requires the spending cuts. The Legislature is scheduled to consider the budget revisions during a special session in January. The proposed restoration of the Bolsa Chica wetlands in Huntington Beach advanced in November when the Coastal Commission approved a plan by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to carve a 360-foot-wide inlet through Bolsa Chica State Beach to re-create a tidal basin. Hunters cut off the marsh from the ocean a century ago to create better hunting grounds. Since then, Bolsa Chica's marsh and mud flats have become unhealthy and polluted. Wildlife experts say the restored 1,200-acre site, which includes oil wells, would support a wide variety of species, including the endangered western snowy plover and the least tern. The project appeared stymied when Caltrans said that it would need to build a six-lane bridge over the new inlet. Coastal Commission planners refused to support such a large bridge. But only days before the Commission's November meeting, Caltrans said it could live with a four-lane bridge. Approximately $100 million of restoration work jointly funded by the federal and state governments is scheduled to begin in 2003. Also in November, the state Historic Resources Commission voted to designate 18 acres of Bolsa Chica mesa, which lies above the wetlands, as an historic site because of the American Indian village and burial ground found there. Hearthside Homes, which plans to build 387 houses on the mesa, said it would not agree to the listing, which must be decided by the National Register of Historic Places. Californians appear at least somewhat troubled by growth and development, according to a poll released in November by the Public Policy Institute of California and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Asked if they would vote for a local initiative to slow the pace of development, even if it mean less economic growth, 55% of respondents said yes. Support for slowing development was highest in the Bay Area (60%) and lowest in the Central Valley (48%). Traffic congestion and affordable housing availability were the two largest land use concerns identified by respondents, with Bay Area residents seeing the biggest problems. However, 10% fewer people identified traffic congestion and affordable housing as concerns in this poll than in a similar survey released in May. About two-thirds of people conceded they had not heard of the terms "sprawl" or "smart growth." The vast majority (84%) said they want to live in a detached, single-family dwelling, although 32% said they would live in multi-story, multi-family housing if it meant they could walk to shops, schools and transit. The survey is available on the PPIC website, www.ppic.org A Los Angeles County planner who issued hundreds of potentially invalid certificates of compliance is being investigated by the District Attorney's office, the Los Angeles Times reported in November. Emmet Taylor, whom the county fired last year, is suspected of accepting bribes to approve the certificates of compliance, which legitimize parcels that were created decades earlier with few or no standards. Earlier this year the county began reviewing about 1,300 certificates of compliance issued since 1995 and found that many were invalid. Much of the land involved lies in northern Los Angeles County. Taylor has denied wrongdoing and continues to fight his dismissal. Three Los Angeles business groups issued a report in late October calling for the City of Los Angeles to overhaul its development policies so that 60,000 housing units get built during the next five years. That was the fare share housing allocation the Southern California Association of Governments assigned to Los Angeles. The position paper from the Building Industry Association, the Central City Association and the Valley Industry and Commerce Association rejects affordable housing programs such as inclusionary zoning for affordable units, in-lieu fees paid by housing developers, and linkage fees paid by commercial builders. Instead, the groups call for "real time" subsidies, fee deferrals, a "by-right" approval process and creation of "housing opportunity zones." The paper suggests that the city's housing policies have caused developers to avoid high-density projects, and that overcrowded conditions have caused the middle-class to move elsewhere. The California Energy Commission has decided to let power plants developed on an expedited basis run for up to 30 years under relaxed emission standards. The commission will allow power plants that are approved by this month and running by September 2002 to operate on simple-cycle turbines, rather than more efficient — but more expensive — combined cycle turbines. When the Energy Commission began fast-track approval of power plants a year ago, it allowed some new plants to install simple-cycle turbines under the condition that they be replaced within two years (see CP&DR, July 2001). Environmentalists and state officials disagree about how many plants could operate long-term under the relaxed standards. Litigation appears likely. A Fresno County coalition of governments, farmers, builders and businesses has issued a report called "Livable Neighborhood Development" that endorses many New Urbanist concepts. Three years ago, the Growth Alternatives Alliance produced "A Landscape of Choice," a report that urged compact development of existing communities and preservation of farmland. The follow-up report goes one step further by outlining preferred styles of development. The report calls for "walkable neighborhoods," zoning flexibility, mixed-use districts and commercial villages. Fresno County and all of its cities eventually endorsed the Landscape of Choice report, and initial reaction to Livable Neighborhood Development was favorable. The Cal-Fed Bay Delta project will receive $30 million in federal funding this fiscal year. The House of Representatives, which initially refused to fund the program at all, and the Senate agreed on the amount in November but tightly controlled how the money gets spent. The appropriation emphasizes water storage over environmental restoration. Specifically included is money to study enlarging Shasta Dam near Redding and Los Vaqueros Reservoir in Contra Costa County. Studying the proposed Sites Reservoir in the hills of Glenn County also is included. Environmentalists complained that the allocation ignores important restoration work. The federal government did not fund Cal-Fed at all in 2001. The City of Oceanside, in northern San Diego County, has eliminated in-lieu fees for affordable housing. Instead, the city will require housing developers to dedicate 10% of units within a project for low-income people. If the developer provides the affordable units off-site, then a number equal to 15% of the project must be offered for low-income residents. The city has collected about $3 million of in-lieu fees over the years but has never built any homes. Councilmembers said the city itself should not be responsible for building dwellings. Santa Clara County's Valley Transportation Authority has agreed to provide up to $48 million annually to operate a proposed extension of BART to San Jose. The decision, which the BART board endorsed in mid-November, removes a major hurdle to extending BART from its current terminus in Fremont to downtown San Jose and the airport. Operating funds could eventually come from a variety of places, such as higher sales taxes, higher gas taxes or increased ticket fares. But as none of those revenues are guaranteed, the BART board wanted assurances someone would fund operation of the extension. The VTA pledged a portion of quarter-cent sales tax revenues it now receives for transit, although it might never have to spend the money. Operation of the BART extension to Santa Clara County is still about 10 years away.

Development supporters fared better than slow-growth advocates during November's off-year election with few land use ballot measures. The pro-growth side won seven of the ten measures on local ballots that had obvious growth implications. The results contrast with recent off-year fall elections. In November 1999, slow-growth forces won 10 of 18 ballot measures. In November 1997, the slow-growth side won 9 of 12 elections. In other election results, residents in Goleta � a suburb of Santa Barbara � finally voted to incorporate into a new city after three failed attempts. Bond measures for new public facilities fared well, with parks, police stations, and other facilities getting the nod from voters. The slow-growth victories this November may have been few, but they all came in closely watched races � and mostly in familiar locales for ballot measures, including Ventura and San Francisco. When the slow-growth side won, it won big, scoring at least 70% of the vote in its three victories. One important trend that continued was the number of measures that either called for � or responded to � requirements for a public vote on specific issues. A vote requirement passed in Ventura and San Francisco, failed in a San Mateo County special district, and was used to facilitate growth in Modesto and Monterey Park. Slow-growth victories Voters in the City of Ventura overwhelmingly backed Measure P, which requires future voters to approve the extension of utilities into the hills that border the town. Approval of the measure bolsters Ventura's reputation as a town where the electorate closely controls growth, as the city first adopted an initiative in 1995 that requires voters to approve the rezoning of farmland. The San Francisco electorate overwhelmingly passed Proposition D, requiring city voters to approve any city project that involves filling at least 100 acres of the bay � namely, the expansion of San Francisco International Airport, which is not in the city but in San Mateo County. Although Mayor Willie Brown initially denounced Proposition D, he eventually endorsed it and there was no organized opposition. The measure clearly throws another tall hurdle in front of Brown and others who support the airport project, which calls for filling about 900 acres of the bay for new runways. Environmental groups opposed to the airport expansion, including Save the Bay and the Sierra Club, cheered Proposition D's passage. Voters in the southern Los Angeles County city of Hawthorne decisively said no to Measure A, an advisory measure that called for replacing the city's 80-acre general aviation airport with a large shopping center and hotel. The airport question also spilled over the Hawthorne mayor and City Council races. Voters re-elected Mayor Larry Guidi, who opposed the project, and two council candidates, Pablo Catano and Gary Parsons, who also opposed the development. Voters ousted 18-year Councilman Steve Andersen, a proponent of developing the airport site. Pro-growth wins Growth control advocates in Malibu failed to win two-thirds of the vote needed for a $15 million bond measure. Only 61% of voters backed Measure K. Under the proposal, 85% of the money would have been spent on land acquisition, with the remaining 15% going for park development. Voters in the Los Angeles County town of Hermosa Beach said no to a complicated initiative intended to curb large events at the beach. Measure F also called for expediting preparation of a Local Coastal Program, prohibited permanent structures on the beach and required protection of parking spaces in the coastal zone. In Monterey Park, a city adjacent to east Los Angeles, voters ratified changes to the general plan's land use element. The amendments open up more property for mixed-use development while also protecting additional land for parks and open space. Measure D appeared on the ballot as required by a 1980's initiative. City officials hope to pursue four to six new redevelopment projects under the revised land use element, Mayor Francisco Alonso said. "We're under pressure from residents to provide decent shopping in the city. We're under pressure to provide more housing. But we're a built-out city," Alonso said. In San Mateo County's Coastside County Water District, voters narrowly rejected Measure U, which would have required subsequent voter approval for expansion of the water system. The campaign focused on using the water system to limit growth in the City of Half Moon Bay and the unincorporated communities of El Granada, Miramar and Princeton � all of which the water district serves. The Half Moon Bay electorate has previously voted to limit growth, approving a 3% growth cap in 1991 and a 1% growth ceiling in 1999. Half Moon Bay voters did elect a slate of three growth-control City Council candidates, which could result in stricter interpretation of the 1% growth cap (see CP&DR Local Watch, September 2001). Water district voters, however, elected two "managed growth" candidates and only one slow-growth advocate. Growth advocates in Modesto won two measures to extend the city's sewer system to accommodate future development. One approved measure calls for extending a sewer trunk link to serve 480 acres of unincorporated territory on the northeast side of town, where about 2,400 homes could be developed. A similar measure extends the sewer to smaller unincorporated communities on the west side of town. Modesto has had a requirement to place sewer trunk extensions on the ballot since the 1970s. In Palm Springs, voters backed a 388-space downtown parking garage by supporting Measure D. The initiative calls for using the savings from refinanced bonds (which originally funded the convention center) to pay for a new parking structure. Mixed bag elsewhere Bond measures for public facilities fared well during November elections. Voters approved bonds for a new police station in the eastern Contra Costa County city of Brentwood; for park facilities in the Bay Area town of Menlo Park; and for a library in the San Gabriel Valley city of Azusa. Also, voters in the Montara Sanitary District in coastal San Mateo County backed a bond that will finance the purchase of a water system now owned by a private company. Voters in Southern California's Manhattan Beach, however, failed to provide two-thirds support for Measure Y, which would have funded new police and fire department facilities. Voters in Goleta, just west of Santa Barbara, created the state's 477th city by approving incorporation. Three incorporation votes since 1987 had failed. This time, incorporation supporters narrowed the size of the proposed city, excluding neighborhoods that have long associated with the City of Santa Barbara, as well as the University of California, Santa Barbara, campus and the community of Isla Vista, where many students live. Although the Goleta area has about 80,000 residents, the new city will have a population of about 29,000. Taking control of rapid growth was one of the major themes of the election. Electricity was the central topic in San Francisco, where voters rejected two measures intended to create a municipal power utility. Pacific Gas & Electric, which is headquartered in San Francisco, spent about $1.5 million to defeat Propositions F and I. Also in San Francisco, voters approved alternative power measures that could establish the nation's largest photovoltaic system. In two City Council elections that hinged on development policies, slow-growth advocates won in the East Bay city of Livermore, while pro-growth incumbents retained their seats in the Riverside County city of Temecula. In Livermore, Mayor Cathie Brown and City Councilman John Stein were ousted. Brown and Stein were both backers of the North Livermore Specific Plan, which called for northward expansion of the city to add 12,500 housing units (see CP&DR Local Watch, June 2000). In their place, voters picked Marshall Kamena to be mayor and Mark Beeman for the council. Both are slow-growth advocates. Slow-growth Councilman Tom Reitter retained his seat. "The day is over when city staff will spend 80% of their time on projects outside the city limits," Kamena told the Contra Costa Times. In Temecula, Mayor Jeff Comerchero and Councilmen Ron Roberts and Jeff Stone were the three top vote-getters in a six-candidate race. Comerchero, Roberts and Stone have formed a 3-2 pro-growth majority on the City Council since 1999, when voters elected two slow-growth candidates (see CP&DR Local Watch, February 2001). Critics of development had hoped to take the council majority this year, but they failed.

A developer who I interviewed recently (not the one discussed in this story) described certain buildings as sending "hostile messages" to an urban neighborhood. At first, I thought the notion was quaint. Then I began to understand what he meant. Urban design is all about sending messages. A blank wall of cinder block topped with razor wire sends a very clear message. Most often, the response is antagonism, alienation and graffiti. Other buildings that have social qualities, such as transparency, good landscaping and a level of design beyond mere bottom-dollar functionality send messages of inclusion. Good buildings extend a sense of ownership to the general public, i.e., "this street is yours as well as mine." If this way of thinking is sound, contextualism means much more than simply blending in, or adding some artsy touches to a new building in an older area. Contextualism is also making a conscious decision not to alienate the community, but to engage it. In this way, and I do not mean to sound abstract, contextualism is an act of city-making, insofar as design has a social impact, and has the potential to send messages of sociability, connectiveness and investment of every kind, emotional as well as financial. Now, architectural style is usually not a make-or-break factor in urban design. More fundamental issues — such as the height of buildings, the width of the street and the sidewalk, landscaping and scale — are generally the factors that determine the attractiveness and usefulness of a street. In the 218-unit Cahill Park project near downtown San Jose, however, architecture plays the role of connecting several conflicting building types in the existing neighborhood. Known as The Alameda, the neighborhood is a place where the older part of San Jose transitions into downtown San Jose; the new sports arena is only a few blocks away. This part of The Alameda is a set of uncomfortable collisions between traditional residential and industrial uses. The five-acre site of the Cahill Park development was the contaminated remnant of a pallet warehouse. Wilson Street faces the older, single-family neighborhood of small, bungalow-style cottages. Bush Street, on the other hand, has an industrial character, exemplified by an old, red-brick Del Monte plant, itself soon to be converted to loft housing. Alameda itself is a mix of traditional Main Street-type retail of one- and two-stories, intermixed with light industrial buildings. The city wants high-end housing to fill in the empty spaces in The Alameda. But what kind of housing fits here? The cottages, the lofts, or mixed-use? And if you choose one type of housing above another, what messages get sent to the rest of the neighborhood? The solution devised by the developer, AvalonBay Communities Inc. of Alexandria, Va., and the architect, The Steinberg Group of San Jose, was to embrace the contradictions, and design four different types of housing. Three of those styles reflect the surrounding neighborhood. Along Wilson Street, the developer has built a set of townhouses with conspicuously peaked roofs that blazon their compatibility with the nearby bungalows. Along Bush, facing the old Del Monte building, the developer and architect have offered a very urban, "SoMa" style of housing in concrete-like stucco and corrugated metal. Facing Alameda is a set of mixed-use buildings with stores below and apartments above. Not all the problem-solving here is cosmetic. Like many large-scale housing projects, Cahill Park is built on a "podium" — a concrete slab stretched across a subterranean garage. Excavating the garage is one of the costliest jobs in home building, and developers rarely are willing to put the parking fully underground. True to form, the top of Cahill Park's garage protrudes a few feet above grade, lifting the entire project by several feet. This is a serious design issue, because curbside views of shadowy garages would be depressing and compromise the pedestrian quality of the street. In this case, Steinberg and AvalonBay have made a virtue out of an annoyance by positioning or "wrapping the front stoops of the row housing in front of this unsightly gap. Urban designers have long praised the social qualities of front stoops, which are private or quasi-private spaces that add a layer of protective privacy between the home and the street, and hence make living on pedestrian streets tolerable to home owners. Good urban design is often an accumulation of small, workable ideas like this. As always, we reserve final judgement on Cahill Park until the final product is finished. Whatever the execution, the idea is a good one: Embrace the context, rather than ignore it or hide from it behind a wall. Style alone, of course, cannot save a neighborhood. But consider how destructive it would have been if the developer had built a typical, cost-effective apartment complex with a neurotically busy profusion of identical units, a total lack of detailing, textured stucco, gaping garages, and landscaping that exists primarily to prevent thieves from climbing into windows. You can almost hear the metal bars going up on windows across the neighborhood. Luckily, neither the City of San Jose nor the developer would have settled for such housing, which should be strongly discouraged in any location. If Cahill Park succeeds in raising the ante of the neighborhood just slightly, then surrounding property owners will also ante up by raising their standards of maintenance and landscaping. In this way, the genuinely contextual project is an act of city-making that goes beyond style. If you build the right project, the neighborhood gets the message.

Gov. Gray Davis completed the legislative year by signing every high-profile planning bill that hit his desk. Davis signed a bill that severely curtails the use of lot line adjustments and certificates of compliance in creating subdivisions. He approved a three-package bill that forces a closer link between planning and water availability. The governor also signed a $2.6 billion park bond initiative that will appear on the March ballot, and a measure that allows redevelopment agencies to extend their life spans by 10 years. Unlike previous years, Davis vetoed few land use measures. "I think he was much more aware of planning issues this year," said Sande George, lobbyist for the California Chapter of the American Planning Association. While Davis' signature on the water and planning bills was not entirely unexpected, many people viewed the governor's decision on the lot line adjustment crackdown as a big test. That bill, SB 497 (Sher), severely restricts landowners' practice of seeking certificates of compliance to legitimize antiquated subdivisions, and then using lot line adjustments to reconfigure the old lots into more usable — and more valuable — parcels. The measure limits lot line adjustments to only four parcels, and requires that lot line adjustments be compatible with general plans and local coastal plans. The measure was lawmakers' direct response to the Hearst Corporation's stated plan to rely on an 1852 map to carve 279 parcels out of its 83,000-acre ranch in San Luis Obispo County, where the Coastal Commission has blocked Hearst plans for a resort. Davis signed the bill but, interestingly, issued no statement regarding his decision. Most of the state's powerful development, real estate and forestry interests lobbied hard for a veto. How the bill will actually affect the Hearst Ranch is uncertain, as San Luis Obispo County has already issued Hearst nearly all of the certificates of compliance that the company sought. Richard Lyon, lobbyist for the California Building Industry Association, complained that the issues with Hearst Ranch related to antiquated subdivisions and certificates of compliance, not really with lot line adjustments. Yet the most significant parts of SB 497 are the lot line provisions. The requirement that lot line adjustments be compatible with general plans and local coastal plans brings discretion into what had been a ministerial act, he complained. This means that California Environmental Quality Act review also will be required of lot line adjustments, he said. "What we've done is take a simple process and make it much more expensive and time-consuming," Lyon said. "Of course, now that it's discretionary, local governments can pick and choose, and play favorites. … What public purpose is served by this new and time-consuming process?" The new process will be a large obstacle for developers who need to make the numerous — but minor — lot line adjustments that become necessary after site work begins, Lyon said. The water bills were also heavily lobbied on both sides. In a signing message, the governor said SB 221 (Kuehl) and SB 610 (Costa) "provide an important and necessary foundation for developing comprehensive state water policies to prepare California to meet our future water needs." The Kuehl bill applies to projects of at least 500 homes. The measure requires a water provider or local government to make a finding, based on substantial evidence, that adequate water is available without putting the existing community at risk. While SB 221 hits development at the end of the planning process, the Costa bill focuses on the early stages by forcing water agencies to take a substantial role in the preparation of municipal water plans. The governor also signed SB 672 (Machado), which integrates regional and state needs and encourages the use of new technologies. Davis used his signing message for the water bills to "re-emphasize the need to aggressively pursue infrastructure projects throughout California." Among the projects he identified were increased water storage, including raising the height of Shasta Dam, more conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater, and implementation of the Cal-Fed Bay Delta project. As implied by the formal name of SB 1602 (the Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and Coastal Protection Bond Act), a wide variety of land purchases and restoration activities would qualify for some of the $2.6 billion bond if voters approve the ballot measure next March. In his signing message, Davis said he supported investing in parks and natural resources, but noted that the state's economy — and, therefore, state revenues — are rapidly declining. If voters approve the park bond, Davis promised to disburse the money slowly "to balance the cost of debt service with other high priority demands on the general fund." Hundreds of cities closely watched the redevelopment bill, SB 211 (Torlakson). It allows a 10-year extension of any pre-1994 redevelopment project area if the jurisdiction has a state-approved housing element and it makes a finding that significant blight remains. The 10-year extension comes with a number of conditions, including a requirement that agencies spend at least 30% of the additional tax increment on low- and very low-income housing, as compared with the usual requirement of 20% for low- and moderate-income housing. The California Redevelopment Association, which sponsored SB 211, had to make a number of concessions to get it through the Legislature, said CRA Executive Director William Carlson. "The Legislature, even though it is heavily Democratic, is very skeptical about redevelopment. So we had a tough time," he said. Carlson estimated that about 40% of eligible agencies would qualify for an extension, depending on whether they can make the required blight finding. Had Davis vetoed the bill, many of redevelopment agencies facing a 2004 deadline for issuing debt would have sought individual extensions next year, Carlson said. The Torlakson bill provides needed uniformity, he said. Davis's signing of SB 211 came over the objection of his Department of Finance, which worried about school district revenue losses that the state must backfill. However, the Department of Housing and Community Development urged approval because officials estimated the measure could provide up to $1 billion for affordable housing.

Cisco Systems announced in late October that it would not construct an enormous new campus in San Jose's Coyote Valley (see CP&DR, June 2000, September 1999). Instead of building a 6.6 million-square-foot campus for up to 20,000 workers, Cisco said it would build 1 million to 3 million square feet of facilities — eventually. The announcement came only five days after Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Leslie Nichols ruled that the environmental impact report for the proposed 688-acre campus was adequate. Nichols ruled against Santa Cruz County, the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, the Sierra Club and the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. They argued that the EIR did not adequately address housing needs, traffic, provision utilities and loss of open space. Like many tech companies, Cisco has seen business slow dramatically, and earlier this year the company reported its first fiscal year loss since going public. Besides the Coyote Valley campus, Cisco has also put a hold on planned campuses in Fremont and Milpitas. The company already has about a dozen empty buildings in Silicon Valley. Cisco is not the only outfit sitting on empty buildings. Office vacancy rates in the Bay Area, especially in San Francisco, the Peninsula and the South Bay, have increased up to tenfold in a short period. In October, San Francisco commercial real estate brokers reported some of their worst numbers ever: A Class A office vacancy rate of 16% and a Class B vacancy rate of 22%. In San Mateo County, office vacancies increased from less than 2% to about 19% in about 18 months. At the same time, rents have reportedly dropped by at least 50% in many areas. The state Department of Housing and Community Development has issued a report that says local development fees "significantly contribute to … high housing costs and prices." The October report contains findings from a 1999 survey of 89 cities and counties that identifies fees for a 25-home subdivision, a single infill house and a 45-unit apartment building. The report found the average fee for the subdivision was $24,325 per unit, the average for the infill home was $20,327 and the average for the apartments was $15,531 per unit. The report calls California's fees "extremely high," and says shifting to other capital financing sources could result in a 4% to 8% increase in housing purchase affordability, and 1% to 4% increase in rent affordability. The report, called "Pay to Play, Residential Development Fees in California, 1999," includes recommendations for improving administration of permit fees and offers policy options for long-term capital improvements and financing mechanisms. The report is available at www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/pay2play/pay_to_play.html Participants at a two-day workshop for environmentalists and coastal management experts were told that urban growth and sprawl are threatening the East and West coasts. The group, composed of members of the Pew Oceans Commission, met in Portland during October to hear that coastal areas are being developed much faster than the rest of the country. U.S. coastal areas are home to two-thirds of the U.S. population. The 19-member commission is headed by former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta. The commission was formed last year with a $4.5-million grant from Pew Charitable Trusts. The commission is charged with finding solutions to the coastal pollution and marine habitat damage. The full commission will meet in November to begin drafting formal recommendations to present to Congress next year. Orange County residents are most concerned with growth-related issues, a survey released in late September revealed. The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) and UC Irvine survey shows a significant shift in opinion from just one year earlier when residents ranked crime and schools as Orange County's top problems. In the recent survey, residents listed population and development as the number one growth-related problem (21%), followed by the El Toro Airport controversy (14%), housing issues (13%), and traffic and transportation (12%). Despite their concerns, Orange County residents remain positive about their community. Most residents say they are satisfied with the local economy and quality of life. The survey is available at www.ppic.org/#survey22 The San Clemente City Council unanimously approved a scaled-down plan for Marblehead, one of a few remaining undeveloped, privately owned coastal parcels in Southern California. The revised plan approved in September calls for Irvine-based Lusk Co. to develop 358 homes and approximately 750,000 square feet of commercial space, and to preserve 80 acres for open space. City officials expect that the commercial development will provide about 50% of San Clemente's future sales tax revenue. In exchange for city approvals, the developer also agreed to a more than $3.5 million package to provide for city improvements, including beach and downtown improvements, a new senior center and library expansion. For two decades, environmentalists protested development of the 250-acre property, which was once considered for the Richard M. Nixon library. But residents and activists concede that the approved plan is better than previous proposals. The California Coastal Commission must approve the plans before the project moves forward. The U.S. Congress in October approved $50.6 million for further cleanup of San Francisco's Hunter's Point Shipyard. The bill was shepherded through the Senate by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction. The bill is a $10.5-billion package for military construction projects, $529 million more than President George W. Bush requested. If signed by the president, the bill will provide $600 million for construction projects at California and Nevada military bases. The Navy has been under pressure from Feinstein and San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown to finish the cleanup of the 500-acre Hunter's Point facility. The shipyard closed in 1974 and since 1989 has been on the federal government's Superfund list of the nation's worst toxic sites. The former shipyard is one of the largest unused sites in San Francisco. A task force to evaluate how best to clean up and protect the state's watersheds was created in October. The Joint Task Force on California Watershed Management is headed by Secretary of the California EPA Winston Hickox, Secretary for Resources Mary Nichols, and State Water Resources Control Board Chair Art Baggett. The newly created task force selected 10 programs as exemplary examples of watershed protection projects. Among the top state projects are those at Humboldt Bay Watershed, Los Penasquitos Watershed, Codornices Creek Watershed, and Arroyo Seco Watershed. The task force was established by AB 2117 (Wayne) and must submit a report evaluating the pilot projects and making recommendations for cooperative watershed projects to the Legislature by February 1, 2002. The Los Angeles County Sanitation District is pursuing the purchase of 14,000 acres in Kings County, east of Kettleman City, to use as a sewage sludge composting facility. The district and other metropolitan Los Angeles sanitation agencies have encountered opposition from southern San Joaquin Valley counties in the last couple years over the practice of spreading sewage sludge on farm fields (see CP&DR Environment Watch, July 2000). Some counties, including Kings, have placed tight restrictions on the practice. Before the district completes the land purchase and begins trucking 100,000 tons of sludge to the site annually, the landowner must receive a conditional use permit from the county. The San Diego City Council in October voted to kill plans to convert lightly used Brown Field into a large cargo airport (see CP&DR Economic Development, July 2000). The proposal had received widespread opposition from area residents and from officials in cities near the airport, which lies two miles north of the Mexican border. San Diego County officials also raised concerns about incompatibility with plans for a large business complex near the airport. The Martinez City Council has adopted an ordinance requiring stores that sell primarily tobacco and tobacco-related products to receive a conditional use permit. Correction. The correct name of the development featured in the September edition of Places is Sailhouse. Scheurer Architects designed the project.

Just in time for the recession, California's voters are going to take a crack at another parks and open space bond in March. Given the state of the economy and other uncertainties, it was kind of surprising that the Legislature passed – and Gov. Gray Davis signed – the $2.6 billion "Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act." And even the governor seemed a little dubious about it, stating in his signing letter that it was up to the voters to pass the bond but he could not be responsible for the economic consequences if they do. Even so, this latest open space bond will provide a good test of voter commitment to open space – and, if it passes, a good test of open space as a growth management tool in California. Over the last decade, we've seen a curious phenomenon. The public's appetite to use the government to control and direct growth has not abated. Ballot measures to curb growth were up sharply last year, and urban growth boundaries in particular have been popular for the last five or six years. Yet property rights lawsuits have continued to mount, making it more difficult for local and state agencies to use strict regulation to direct urban growth. So in California and elsewhere, we have seen the use of open space acquisition programs used more overtly as a tool to manage and direct growth. This trend has been fueled by the strong economy — which always creates increased support for open space acquisition – and by the increasing alignment of open space advocates with the "smart growth" movement. The smart growth crowd argues for compact development on infill sites and on selected greenfield locations that seem like logical extensions of current growth patterns. Whether they are intended to or not, all open space acquisitions direct urban growth. Sometimes this occurs on a "micro" level – as when a local land trust buys a treasured meadow. Sometimes it occurs as part of a strategic plan to create parkland and open space. For example, the large land acquisitions in the Santa Monica Mountains by both the state and federal governments during the last 20 years has clearly diverted high-end single-family development out of the mountains to other locations around Los Angeles. Similarly, the vast open space acquisitions in the coastal sections of the Bay Area – especially Marin, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties – have profoundly affected the urban growth patterns in that area. "Stopping development" is often part of the emotional impulse behind these open space movements, especially in highly localized situations. And protecting precious open space resources is usually part of the policy rationale for more large-scale acquisitions, as in the Santa Monicas and on the Peninsula. However, the idea of open space acquisition as an overt growth management tool – especially one shaping large-scale land-use patterns – is a relatively new idea in California. The recent history dates back about a decade, to the time when the endangered species crises in Southern California forced local, state and federal agencies to begin working together to set aside large preserves in order to comply with the Endangered Species Act. This was the first time since the 1970s that the state and federal resource agencies had sat down with local governments to hammer out overt plans designating where urban growth would be directed in a large area. But it was not done in the context of a growth management plan. It was done in the context of environmental policy, namely the Endangered Species Act. And this planning did not rest on the assumption that the open space in question would be protected via land-use regulation – which was the assumption for many other large-scale land-use planning exercises in California during the 1970s. Rather, this effort rested on the assumption that the open space land would be purchased by state and federal agencies – or, in some cases, deeded over to them by private landowners as part of a deal to permit development. The species plans – commonly known as Habitat Conservation Plans under federal law and Natural Communities Conservation Plans under state law – were not different from previous parks and open space plans in the sense that they created a framework for open space protection into which future open space acquisitions can fit. But they are different for two reasons. First, the land involved is land that biologists concluded was important – but that, except for species, would not be on anybody else's list to protect. And second, it was different in the sense that everybody involved – including the urban growth-driven local governments sitting at the table – understood that they were really creating the template for future urban growth. In San Diego and Riverside counties in particular, we saw a lot of horse-trading and squabbling among the local governments over which cities would have to accept parts of the species preserve. In any event, the end result of the species planning exercises is that, at least in those geographical areas, the state government has a much stronger framework for land acquisition. An overall plan for where to grow is already in place. The species planning framework and its open space acquisition program is essentially an implementation of that plan. Local open space acquisition programs, however, do not always fit the same planning model. With local governments and local land trusts, there exists much more political pressure to buy a smaller or less strategically significant piece of land. Indeed, there is often a great deal of pressure to buy certain pieces of land precisely because they are located in or near existing developments and therefore serve as development targets. In such situations, the open space acquisition often serves to direct urban growth – but not in a planned or logical way. If the open space bond on the March ballot passes, this issue of strategic local acquisitions will become more important. The bond contains few earmarked projects in it and would distribute hundreds of millions of dollars to local governments with few strings attached. The opportunity to buy land of local political importance, but of little larger value, will be great. So it is important to praise those local efforts that have consciously combined good growth management and open space acquisition. They will be the models we must follow in California. Perhaps the best one is the open space acquisition program in Sonoma County, where a strategic plan has been adopted to determine how to spend the ample funding produced by a quarter-cent sales tax for open space acquisition that voters adopted several years ago. The plan highlights priorities for both land acquisition and conservation easements, and in so doing, it essentially serves to implement the county's existing land use priorities, including maintaining the "community separators" between existing cities. If more open space money becomes available – especially funding with local discretion – other communities would do well to follow the NCCP and Sonoma County models. These are examples in which open space acquisition becomes a powerful tool to implement thoughtful land-use planning, rather than an ad-hoc and reactive response to development pressure that neighbors dislike.

With its key location on the edge of the Bay Area and plenty of inexpensive land, Tracy would appear to be in position to attract some technology-based economic growth. And the city has inched into the tech arena, but it remains primarily a bedroom community. Tracy need look only 30 miles over the Altamont Pass to Pleasanton and Dublin, two cities in the tri-valley area of Alameda County, to see the prosperity that high-tech businesses can bring. Closer to San Francisco and San Jose, Pleasanton and Dublin attracted office parks and some heavyweight tech companies in recent years, and the boom continued until the recent economic downturn. Tech industries may have temporarily slowed, but Tracy officials are continuing their quest for office-based, high-tech jobs to keep residents closer to home. Even though tech has not taken off in San Joaquin County, where Tracy is located, the area has become a prime bedroom community for Silicon Valley workers willing to endure long commutes in order to own a home. About one-third of the motorists driving over Altamont Pass toward the Bay Area each day are Tracy commuters, according to Mayor Don Bilbrey. The commute from Tracy to San Jose is about 70 miles, and because of congestion it can take up to two hours each way. The ACE commuter train provides an alternative but the one-way trip still takes nearly two hours. The city is attempting to balance the number of housing units with more commercial and industrial development to provide jobs closer to home. And even if the region is entering a recession, Bilbrey noted that Tracy still has assets to offer companies seeking to cut costs. Tracy's economic development in recent years has focussed on its location — close to the Bay Area and near Interstate 5 — and many jobs that located in Tracy are centered around warehouses and distribution. But with continued affordable housing development has come new retail and commercial businesses also. In recent years, the city has added about 3,500 new residents each year, according to Economic Development Director Andrew Malik. The city currently has a population of 61,000, up from approximately 35,000 in 1995. Housing growth may slow in future years because Tracy voters adopted building permit caps in November 2000, allowing, at most, 750 new homes a year (see CP&DR, December 2000, April 2000). But the measure's impact will not be felt for several years because 5,880 homes approved before the measure passed can still be built. Mark Connolly, a Tracy native and member of Tracy Regional Alliance for a Quality Community, which backed the housing cap, said that trying to attract economic development "is a good thing as long as residential developers don't sue over water." In recent years, homebuilders have sued commercial developers over water, he said, and water remains an issue because the city has already approved so many new homes without a good water plan in place. To attract development, the city boasts of plenty of land and low development costs. Last year, Bilbrey met with businesses that were comparing the costs of developing in Santa Clara ($84 per square foot) versus the costs of developing in Tracy ($6 per square foot). Even with the economic slowdown, the mayor believes that economics will push Silicon Valley business in his city's direction. "It may slow development here a bit, but I think it's just a temporary period of time," Bilbrey said. Tracy is getting the message from tech companies that the city does not offer the amenities they need, such as entertainment and conference facilities, said City Councilwoman Suzanne Tucker. But she added, "There's starting to be a lot more interest. We're preparing." Already, the city has snagged its first high-tech prize, albeit a small one. Malik and the mayor tout Moore Technology, which recently moved to Tracy from San Jose, as an example of the high-tech related companies that can be expected to lead the way. Moore Technology manufactures film that goes on silicon wafers, and employs about 50 workers in Tracy. Bilbrey said the city is in discussion with several other tech companies as well. Tech manufacturers, rather than researchers, are expected to find Tracy attractive, Malik said. Meanwhile, the city's first Class A office project is being planned, offering the city's best hope for high paying office and tech jobs. Called the Gateway Project, the 6 million-square-foot project is proposed by Sacramento developer Pifferetti and Associates on 538 acres. The property must first be annexed into the city. The project is not expected to gain the necessary approvals and begin construction until 2003. Bilbrey expects the project will include two-story to eight-story buildings and a golf course. The city is also trying to address the jobs-housing imbalance by applying for state funding for "opportunity zones," designed to lure additional companies through tax breaks and tax increment financing, much like redevelopment districts. Some of those funds may be used on the Gateway Project. The incentives are part of the efforts of the Inter-Regional Partnership, created between five Bay Area and Central Valley counties to address growth issues (see CP&DR, March 2000). Two other projects bring the promise of higher paying jobs to Tracy. One is planned by the Catellus Corporation, a major developer of commercial and industrial projects, which owns property northwest of town that is within the city's sphere of influence. A mixed-use development, including office parks and research and development facilities is being planned, although nothing has been submitted to the city yet, Malik said. A second project called Tracy Hills is also in the planning stages. The 5,300-acre project changed owners earlier this year, and is now owned by Sacramento-based AKT Development Corp. The land is approved for more than 5,000 homes, and light industrial, retail and other uses, although development appears to be several years off. The previous owner dropped plans for a tech business park at Tracy Hills, said Niki Doan, assistant project manager for AKT, which instead is endorsing tech elements of the Gateway and Catellus projects. Other projects on the horizon in Tracy include flex-office space, described as single-story buildings that can be used either for offices or for manufacturing and distribution. The first such project under development, the Edgewood Corporate Project, is only 40,000 square feet, but may grow if the demand increases, Malik said. Financial and insurance companies are expressing interest in using the space for call centers, he said. Contacts: Andrew Malik, Economic Development Director, City of Tracy, (209) 831-4104. Don Bilbrey, Tracy mayor, (209) 831-4103. Suzanne Tucker, Tracy councilmember, (209) 831-4103. Mark Connolly, Tracy Regional Alliance for a Quality Community, (209) 836-1237. Niki Doan, AKT Development, (916) 383-2500.

Constructing a golf course is a legitimate use of public parkland, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court ruled against an Orange County citizens group that alleged the county government was improperly using land dedicated for a park. At issue was Mile Square Park in Fountain Valley, a World War II military airfield that the county acquired from the federal government in 1973. The terms of the sale required the county to keep the 507-acre tract around the former runways for park and recreational uses. While leasing the land prior to purchasing it, the county had constructed a golf course on part of the site. During the 1980s, the county built a second golf course. In the early 1990s, the county purchased the remaining 137 acres of the former airfield, which the county had previously leased and left open to the public. The purchase of this "core area" came with an unrestricted title, and the county said it would develop "a mix of traditional commercial recreational uses." The county then undertook an extensive planning process that involved 17 public meetings and preparation of an environmental impact report. In May 1999, the Board of Supervisors decided to build a golf course, sports fields and a nature center on the core area. An organization called Save Mile Square Park Committee (SMSPC) sued. The group argued that the county was developing park property for non-park purposes without providing a replacement park or funds for a replacement, in violation of Public Resources Code § 5401. The group also alleged due process violations under the Federal Civil Rights Act. Orange County Superior Court Judge Eileen Moore issued summary judgment for the county, and a three-judge panel of the Fourth District, Division Three, unanimously upheld the decision. The case turned on the determination of what is a permissible use of parkland. The citizens group said that a golf course might be a proper use but that in this case the proposed golf course would displace hobbyists who have used the core area for years to fly model airplanes, landsail, walk, and ride bicycles. In his opinion, Justice William Bedsworth said he could find no California cases that address whether a golf course is a legitimate park use. However, some out-of-state rulings have concluded a golf course is a park use. He also pointed to definitions of a park found in San Vicente Etc. Sch. v. County of L.A., (1956) 147 Cal.App2d, 79, and to the California Wildlife, Coastal and Park Land Conservation Act. San Vicente says a park "is a pleasure ground set apart of recreation of the public, to promote its health and enjoyment." The conservation act calls a park "a tract of land … to be used by the public as a place for rest, recreation, education, exercise, inspiration and enjoyment." The court held that either definition fits a golf course. "It is apparent that the real dispute is over how the core area of Mile Square Park should be used — not whether golf is a park purpose," Bedsworth wrote. "SMSPC's complaint is political, not legal. And were we to accede to it, we would be taking on the role of a three-person Legislature." Whether or not the decision to build a golf course was wise, it was entirely legal, the court held. As for the due process claims, the court shot those down quickly. The citizens group argued it had a right to use the parkland and that the county took the right without due process. But the court ruled that the site remains parkland, and the "imagined right" did not exist. The Case: Save Mile Square Park Committee v. County of Orange, No. G027787, 01 C.D.O.S. 8913, 01 DJDAR 11083. Filed October 16, 2001 The Lawyers: For SMSPC: Vincent Goodwin, Goodwin & Wynen, (714) 565-1918. For the county: Stephen Martino, Madory, Zell & Pleiss, (714) 832-3772.

An environmental assessment of a 5,000-acre federal land exchange in Las Vegas did not sufficiently address the question of the cumulative air-quality impacts of developing the property, a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. The court held that federal officials may be required to prepare an environmental impact statement. The Bureau of Land Management owns most of the land surrounding Las Vegas. The federal agency often trades prime parcels to real estate developers in exchange for more remote property with higher environmental value. Activist Robert Hall, who claims he has developed a lung sensitivity to air and dust pollution since moving to the area, sued the BLM in 1997 over an exchange of almost 5,000 acres of land in the Las Vegas Valley to the Del Webb development corporation, which has subsequently proposed constructing 11,000 homes on the property. The BLM prepared an environmental assessment on the property that acknowledged the Las Vegas Valley is a federal air quality non-attainment area, but concluded that the Del Webb project would have no significant impact on air quality. U.S. District Court Judge Lloyd George ruled in favor of the BLM on all counts. On appeal, however, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit overturned Judge George on some points, including the cumulative impact point. The panel ruled that, while the project-specific emissions alone were not "sufficient" and therefore did not rise to the level of requiring an EIS, the BLM might not have dealt with cumulative impacts. The court said that even though briefs filed by Hall, who represented himself in court, were unclear, the BLM had not sufficiently addressed the environmental impact of transferring into private hands 57,000 acres in the Las Vegas area that have been designated for land exchange. In granting summary judgment, the panel said, "There is no discussion by the district court of the potential emissions from the other 57,000 acres of land ‘identified for disposal' … e are not convinced that the district court fully considered Hall's environmental impacts argument." Regarding a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Ninth Circuit found that instead of challenging the environmental assessment and the Finding of No Significant Impact, Hall should have challenged the Environmental Protection Agency's ruling that land exchanges are exempt from Clean Air Act legal challenges under the "conformity" provisions of the law. The court agreed with Judge George that Hall should have filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, as the exemption is a nationally applicable regulation. However, the Ninth Circuit panel did find that Hall has standing to sue because his discomfort "is not too remote" from the project's potential impacts to eliminate him as a plaintiff. The Case: Hall v. Norton, No. 99-16153, 01 C.D.O.S. 8053. Filed September 12, 2001. The Lawyers: Plaintiff Robert Hall represented himself. For Bureau of Land Management: Andrew M. Mergen, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.