The San Francisco 49ers of the National Football League are trying to punt themselves out of creaky Candlestick Park and into a shiny new home in Santa Clara. Whether political winds will carry them roughly 35 miles to the south to the City of Santa Clara or whether they'll be blown back to the line of scrimmage now depends on the voters of Santa Clara.  Measure J, otherwise known as the Santa Clara Stadium Taxpayer Protection and Economic Progress Act, was placed on the ballot by a 3-2 city council vote, but it is based on the language of a citizens' initiative brought forth by Santa Clarans for Economic Progress, which is backed by the 49ers. Measure J asks voters to approve a complex deal that would bring a 68,500-seat, $937 million stadium to a commercial area near Great America theme park, between the 101 and 237 freeways. The stadium would be publicly owned by a joint powers authority consisting of the city and the stadium authority and leased to the team and other tenants.  Several lawsuits are pending, including one filed by the owners of Great America, which contends that the stadium will interfere with business there.  The deal involves $114 million in contributions from the city's Redevelopment Agency; its utility, Silicon Valley Power; and a hotel tax on eight hotels surrounding the would-be stadium. The tax is part of the ballot measure and is estimated to generate $35 million over the 40-year lifetime of the deal. While Measure J stipulates that no general fund monies will be dedicated to the stadium, a public stadium authority will be created to operate the stadium and help finance its construction through the sale of $330 million in bonds. Those bonds are intended to be financed through naming rights, seat licenses (season tickets), and ticket surcharges. Measure J includes a clause indicating that the 49ers would cover any cost overruns.   Supporters say that the city's costs will total only $79 million while generating $249 million in local economic activity, $26 million in local school funding, and $1 million annually in guaranteed ground rent. Measure J stipulates that none of the city's contributions will come from its general fund or enterprise funds.  "For me, the direct benefits are what convinced me to be supportive of the project as it's been negotiated thus far," said Santa Clara Mayor Patricia M. Mahan. Mahan noted that at a time when the state is raiding local coffers, stadium revenues are "a revenue stream that the state can't lay their hands on."  An April poll by the San Jose State University found 52 percent of respondents in favor of a stadium and only 36 percent opposed.  Opponents contend that revenues are based on overly optimistic projections and that the contribution of redevelopment funds and stadium authority bonds still exposes the city to too much risk, even if no general fund monies are used.  "If you read the ballot measure, you will not find any mention of the $114 million upfront subsidy or the $330 million Stadium Authority contribution that has to be raised," said Bill Bailey, treasurer of Santa Clara Plays Fair. "The 49ers are leaving us a miserable $8 million in fixed ground rent over 40 years...it does nowhere near to compensate for our $67 million in costs." Moreover, though Mahan said that she believed the stadium would benefit the city regardless of indirect economic activity, Bailey said that estimates of local spending on game days were exaggerated.  "The EIR proves that of the 20,000 vehicle trips, all 20,000 will be made out of the city within two hours," said Bailey. "If the people in those 20,000 vehicles are stuck in a traffic jam on Great America Parkway, they're not thinking in terms of patronizing Santa Clara businesses." Bailey added that the stadium "barely passes muster under California Redeployment Act" and that the traffic it creates will "contribute to blight" rather than alleviate it.  Supporters contend, however, that few parcels could be better suited for a redevelopment project such as a football stadium and that, in fact, such a project has been envisioned for decades. The stadium site is located in the Bayshore North Redevelopment Area.  "I see it as the culmination of all the land use planning that's gone into that area over the last 30 years," said Mahan. "We attracted major businesses, and those in turn attracted other businesses. It has always been planned that we should have a sports venue. That was part of the redevelopment area plan to begin with."  Mahan noted that the stadium is located in the city's industrial area, which sees tens of thousands of car trips daily to its major Silicon Valley employers. Though Mahan insists that the city's estimates are based on "very conservative" analyses, if Measure J passes and the stadium does prove to provide a net benefit to the city, it would contradict a long-standing trend in public-private stadium partnerships. Despite the glamour that comes with stadiums, many of those partnerships have proven disastrous for cities.  "No reasonable person reading the economics research on stadiums could possibly believe that a football stadium is an economic boom to a city," said Roger G. Noll, professor emeritus of economics at Stanford and editor of Sports, Jobs, and Taxes: The Economic Impacts of Sports Teams and Stadiums.  "The general history has been that the estimated benefits...tend to be substantially overstated and the costs substantially understated."  Noll said that benefits are often based on optimistic scenarios such as consistent sell-outs, and he said that lately stadiums have had trouble selling seat licenses and naming rights for their full anticipated amounts. He also said that he is concerned about the stadium authority's $330 million bond obligations because they essentially obligate the city to promote the team in order to pay off the bond debt.   Mahan, however, said that attracting fans will be the responsibility of the 49ers. "We're not in it to promote the 49ers per se," she said.  Contacts & Resources:  Bill Bailey, Treasurer,  Santa Clara Plays Fair , (877) 703-4300 Patricia M. Mahan, Mayor, City of Santa Clara, (408) 615-2200 Prof. Roger Noll, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research,  (650) 723-2297 Official 49ers New Stadium Website Santa Clarans For Progress Website Official Measure J Ballot Text  (PDF) City of Santa Clara Stadium Page

Many long, hard-fought battles have been waged for the control of high ground, and the one surrounding Pleasanton's Measure D is no exception.  Measure D asks whether a 51-home development known as Oak Grove may be built on a parcel of 562 acres in the southeastern hills above the city, a Bay Area bedroom community which sits in a valley in inland Alameda County. Measure D was placed on the ballot by the City Council following a long saga of denials, approvals, lawsuits, new ordinances, and community outcry. A yes vote allows the development to go forward per the agreement with the city council; a no vote forces would-be developers to start from scratch.  Landowners have been trying to develop the property since 1992, when landowners Jennifer and Frederick Lin received council approval for a 122-unit housing development and 18-hole golf course. That development was rejected in a 1993 ballot referendum. Since then, a 1996 general plan update provided for up to 98 homes on the property.  In 2007, however, the city council approved, on a 4-1 vote, a development with only 51 homes of up to 9,000 square feet (and no golf course). That development agreement included the deeding of over 500 acres of open space to the city, which would preserve and maintain it as recreational space in perpetuity. The city was also promised other public benefits, including a one-time $2 million contribution to the school district, the purchase of new firefighting equipment, and funding to maintain the deeded parkland.  "This presents a marvelous opportunity for our community to acquire some beautiful parkland," said Mayor Jennifer Hosterman, who supports the project and Measure D.  Soon after the council issued its approval, citizens group Save Pleasanton Hills successfully circulated a petition to put the project to a vote, and the developers sued to keep that measure off the ballot. After two rounds of litigation, the First District Court of Appeals ruled last year that the vote should go forward. The state Supreme Court refused to hear the developers' appeal, and the city council placed the measure on the ballot on a 3-2 vote.   Meanwhile, in 2008 Pleasanton voters approved Measure PP, sponsored by Save Pleasanton Hills, which prohibits development on slopes with more than a 25 percent grade or within 100 vertical feet of a ridgeline.  Measure D's opponents contend that the proposed development, even though it may comply with the city's 1996 general plan, should have been subject to a hillside ordinance such as the one that Measure PP instituted, all along. Kay Ayala, co-chair of the No On Measure D Committee, contends that a hillside ordinance was mandated by that general plan and that the council was remiss in approving Oak Grove in the absence of such an ordinance.  "They broke the general plan when they approved the project," said Ayala. Hosterman called this contention "absolutely false."  "This city council is still working on all the language we have available to us in order to define what development in the hillsides makes sense to what doesn't make sense," said Hosterman. "We have a number of pieces of language in a number of different documents that speak to ridgeline protection and hillside protection in the city." The agreement's provision of open space and financial contributions to the city and school district do not sway opponents, according to Ayala, who served on the city council for eight years.  "We're not willing to trade our ridges for open space," said Ayala. Hosterman, however, contends not only that the city will benefit considerably from the agreement but also that the proposed homes would not in fact impinge on any ridgelines.  "The highest ridgelines stretched across that entire 600 acres are going to be left undeveloped and in their current pristine condition," said Hosterman, who added that the definition of a ridgeline should not include minor rises.  If Measure D fails, the current general plan would allow developers to build up to 96 homes on the property; those homes would have to comply with Measure PP. Hosterman said that defeat of Measure D means that the landowners would be free to go ahead with another, larger development. And she said that Measure D could set a precedent for preserving open space throughout the city.  "If Measure D gets passed, I'll be able to take this development agreement to other two property owners and say, take a look at what we've been able to do," said Hosterman. "If you can match it and set aside some additional acreage, you might get the green light to be able to develop." Contacts:  Kay Ayala, Co-Chair, No on Measure D/ Save Pleasanton Hills  Jennifer Hosterman, Mayor of Pleasanton, (925) 931-5001

Whether or not the state's "fleet reduction" plan to sell 11 properties for an estimated $2 billion makes the slightest bit of fiscal sense remains to be seen (see CP&DR Blog April 29, 2010). As the state wallows in a $20 billion deficit, the most palpable impacts of the sale may fall someplace other than Sacramento, including Costa Mesa. Wary of intensive development of the 150-acre site of the Orange County Fairgrounds, residents of the City of Costa Mesa will vote on whether to amend the city's general plan requiring voter approval for any future zoning changes or major developments. The intent of the plan is to ensure that any future, post-sale uses will remain consistent with the site's historical uses. "City council was looking at the option to ensure that the fairgrounds would remain so in the future," said Costa Mesa Development Services Director Kimberly Brandt. "It pursued the track of amending the general plan land use description of fairgrounds to be more expansive and to better define the uses that the city wants to see there in the long term." A yes vote would effectively maintain the property for events, equestrian uses, flea markets, concerts, and the County Fair itself, and it would prevent any major construction on the property. It would also maintain the 8,500-seat Pacific Amphitheater. Placed on the ballot by the city council, Measure C reaffirms the city's existing general plan, which currently does not apply to the fairgrounds because they are state-owned. But the property will come under the general plan's jurisdiction once the state disposes of it. "Even though we don't exercise land use control at this point, we do already have designation on the property," said Brandt. "With the state in the process of selling the property, should a transfer to a private property owner take place, at that time, we would be able to exert our land use authority." Expecting to sell the property for between $96 million and $180 million, the Department of General Services received seven bids and rejected all of them in March. Outlet mall developer Craig Realty later submitted a bid of $65.5 million. However, the city has now entered into exclusive negotiations with Facilities Management West, which has bid $55 million and has vowed to operate and maintain the property as fairgrounds, in accord with Measure C and the existing general plan. Costa Mesa officials argue that the city benefits from maintaining the status quo at the fairgrounds. "(Measure C gives an) extra layer of comfort to the community," said Brandt. "The council is very serious about wanting to preserve the fairgrounds as a community- and county-wide resource." As for its value as a statewide resource, Brandt did not comment on whether the potential passage of Measure C would affect the property's value. She noted that the property has always been zoned, under the city's general plan, as fairgrounds but noted that the state's request for proposals includes a clause that allows the state access to a share of the profits that might stem from a change of use. If the measure fails, the existing general plan designation will remain in effect for the property; however, proposed changes would not require voter approval.             Contacts: Kimberly Brandt, Costa Mesa Development Services Director, (714) 754-527 OC Vote: Official Measure C Website

As residents of one of the nation's oldest master-planned cities, Mission Viejo voters will be asked, essentially, to decide whether the city's planners got it right the first time. Measure D, billed by its backers as the "Right to Vote Amendment," would update the city's general plan to require all projects seeking a "major amendment of planning policy documents" to not only go through the city's existing approvals process but also receive final approval via a popular vote. The measure is intended, say backers, to provide an extra layer of protection against projects that might be inconsistent with or detrimental to the city's character. "The uses that were designated were intended to provide an economically sustaining community…..with the right balance of commercial, residential, and open space," said community activist Dale Tyler, who co-authored Measure D. "Absent reasons that are compelling to change that strategy, I think we should maintain it." Opponents see the measure as a threat to both existing and potential businesses. It would, they say, prevent businesses from expanding their facilities, assembling parcels, or undergoing any major changes without running into the hassle and expense of sponsoring a ballot measure. "Measure D is classic ballot-box planning," said Michael Suydam, spokesperson for the South Orange County Chamber of Commerce. "We're opposed because of… the exorbitant cost that would be imposed on Chamber members in Mission Viejo who, in order to grow their business….(would have to) potentially fund a campaign to get voter approval of their expansion." Measure D is modeled after two other growth control measures approved by Orange County cities: Yorba Linda's Measure B, which passed in 2006, and Newport Beach's 10-year-old Greenlight Initiative. "There's concern among people throughout Orange County that this could be yet another domino that would lead to similar initiatives in other cities," said Suydam. But proponents argue that the measure warrants no such worries. Tyler said that the measure was inspired by four proposals that have come forth in the past two decades that, he said, would have been out of place. He said that Measure D would therefore be invoked only rarely, especially because the city is nearly built-out. "I don't see businesses over the past 15 years or so wanting to expand and needing to change the zoning to do so," said Tyler. "I don't see any possibility that Measure D is even operative for businesses wanting to expand." Moreover, Tyler, who described himself as a "critic of ballot-box zoning," said that voter control simply adds a check to the approvals process. "All of the practices inherent in the city decision-making process are still complied with, and only at the end, everybody says, this is a great project, we commend it to you voters, please approve it. Only then would it be placed on the ballot," said Tyler. "It seems to me the only argument for opposing it is if you trust the city council to makes these decisions and you don't trust yourself." Regardless of the actual projects that would invoke Measure D's voting requirement, Suydam said that, as written, the measure uses a controversial definition of voting. The text of the measure refers to a "majority vote of the electorate," which could be interpreted as the entire potential electorate, not just those voters who cast ballots in a given election. "Whether (the wording is) a mistake or whether it's intentional, the result is there's going to be confusion and likely tons of litigation," said Suydam. Tyler said that it means nothing of the sort. "I think that's being confused deliberately," he said. "It means people who are voting: regular majority wins." Regardless of how many people vote, opponents also say that Measure D could end up giving veto power to the state. Suydam said that Measure D could be interpreted such that it cedes planning power to the state because of the clause "Nothing in this ordinance shall be applied to preclude City compliance with housing regulations under State law." Suydam said that some opponents read that statement as an invitation to the state to impose affordable housing on the city. "I believe they are misinterpreting that clause," said Tyler. "The clause simply states that nothing should preclude compliance with state law. That's almost an obvious statement. There's no saying that the state can come in and do whatever it wants." Ultimately, opponents of Measure D argue that it is simply unnecessary, since none of the four projects that Tyler cited as being troubling ever came to fruition. "You could argue that the existing process actually did its job," said Suydam. Contacts: Michael Suydam, South Orange County Chamber of Commerce, (949) 635-5800 OC Vote: Official Text of Measure D (PDF)

Use of redevelopment funds by a city-formed nonprofit organization to develop school administrative buildings and a housing project with units reserved for low- and very low-income residents was valid and did not require voter approval, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled.  In reaching its decision, the court had to interpret the various restrictions in redevelopment law as well as Article 34 of the state constitution.   Article 34 as part of the California Constitution, adopted by voters in 1950, had the effect of requiring voter approval of "low rent housing projects." Over time, the Legislature has codified various interpretations of Article 34, excluding from the voter approval process certain types of affordable projects. On a parallel path, the Legislature has modified redevelopment law to ensure that cities spend a certain amount of their tax increments on affordable housing.  Against that legal background, the City of Cerritos, its redevelopment agency, the ABC Unified School District, and a nonprofit public benefit corporation formed by the city, entered into a complex financing and development agreement to develop a 247-unit senior housing project. Under that agreement, the school district would lease the site of its administrative facilities to the redevelopment agency. The agency in turn would transfer its lease interest to the nonprofit corporation. The agency would clear the property, guarantee the sublease, and finance the construction of the senior apartments. The agency would invest about $81 million of redevelopment funds designated for low- and moderate-income housing.  In addition, the city/agency would use about $18.5 million of low/mod housing funds to acquire private property and renovate that property for the district's replacement administrative offices. The various agreements allowed the nonprofit organization and the school district to acquire their respective sites, which in fact transpired. As a legal insurance policy, the city, agency, and district brought a validation action under Code of Civil Procedure § 860. A validation action essentially seeks a judicial blessing for a government activity. Cerritos Taxpayers Associations (CTA) answered the action and challenged the use of the low- and moderate-income housing funds to develop a non-housing facility (the replacement district offices). Taxpayers also challenged the lack of voter approval under Article 34. The trial court ruled in favor of the agencies. CTA appealed and was joined in its objections to the city's use of housing funds by the Western Center on Law and Poverty (WCLP). As to the use of low/moderate housing funds for replacement offices, the Second District Court of Appeal concluded the redevelopment statutes were not as narrowly drawn as urged by CTA and WCLP. While the redevelopment law contains limitations (for example, offsite infrastructure funded with low/mod housing money must be a "reasonable and fundamental component of the housing units") the overall statutory scheme is sufficiently broad to allow expenditure on the district administrative buildings as part of a plan to generate the senior housing project. In other words, the court found a nexus between the non-residential investment and the housing project. The non-residential investment supported the legislative purpose of increasing the supply of affordable housing.  The taxpayer group did not fare any better with respect to its Article 34 argument. Of the project's 247 units, 25 units were restricted to households of very low income, and 15 units were restricted to low-income residents. Health and Safety Code §§ 37000-37002 exempt from voter approval projects that are privately owned and which have less than 49 percent low-income residents. Plantiffs argued that the project was not privately owned because it would be developed by the city-formed nonprofit public benefit corporation. The court disagreed, finding the corporation was a separate legal entity. That characterization as a separate entity was not lost simply because the nonprofit corporation was formed by the city and the city would have continuing involvement, the court ruled. In early Proposition 13 cases (Rider v. County of San Diego, (1991) 1 Cal.4th 1, and Rider v. City of San Diego, (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1035) courts had frowned on local government's use of alter egos to skirt constitutional restrictions. However, the Second District panel in the Cerritos case declined to follow the alter ego argument.  Cerritos further argued that the project was exempt from the voter-approval requirement because the percentage of low- and very low-income units was too small to trigger Article 34. But the appellate court did not reach that issue, because it was satisfied that the project met the private ownership test. CTA also argued that the school district failed to follow government code provisions on the disposition of surplus lands, that the redevelopment agency failed to provide supporting information for a resolution authorizing property acquisition with tax increment funds, and that the same people could not legally sit on the City Council, the redevelopment agency board and the nonprofit corporation board. The appellate court rejected all of the contentions.  The Case: City of Cerritos v. Cerritos Taxpayers Association , No. B214530, 2010 DJDAR 5923. Filed April 20, 2010 The Lawyers: For the city: Dan Slater, Rutan & Tucker, (714) 641-5100.  For ABC Unified School District: Constance J. Schwindt, Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, (562) 653-3200.  For Cerritos Taxpayers Association: Timothy Quick, (562) 799-6020.

UCLA Extension will offer its annual CEQA updates course on Wednesday June 9.  This one day seminar, CEQA: 2010 Updates, Issues, and Trends will be held at the Figueroa Courtyard in downtown Los Angeles.  Keep in mind, this seminar is only offered once a year.        The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is complex and dynamic law that changes from year to year.  Keeping abreast of the latest developments is essential for professionals involved in any aspect of environmental impact assessment.  This 2010 update will feature the latest legislation, proposed revisions to the CEQA Guidelines, and court decisions handed down in the past year.  The course will also feature key issues and trends in CEQA practice at the state and local levels.  Additionally, the course will cover the latest developments related to the evaluation of climate change impacts, including hot topics such as determining the proper baseline, thresholds of significance, and the limits of what is a "reasonably" foreseeable indirect impact.  Ron Bass, AICP, JD, Senior Regulatory Specialist, ICF International, and Margaret Sohagi, JD, President, The Sohagi Law Group, PLC will lead the seminar.  For more information visit our website, www.uclaextension.edu/publicpolicy. The seminar runs from 9:00 am to 4:30 pm. The fee is $350 and includes materials.  Please reference registration number V5986 when enrolling online (uclaextension.edu) or over the phone. To enroll by phone, please call (310) 825-9971.     Follow us! Blog – www.uclaextensionppp.wordpress.com Twitter – www.twitter.com/unexpubpol .

The lives of 39 million people are affected by the news that CP&DR reports, and we're trying to get as many of them to subscribe to and advertise in the newsletter as possible.  We are therefore seeking resourceful, energetic candidates to market and promote CP&DR, California's leading land use publication. Responsibilities would include soliciting subscriptions, selling print and online ads, and promoting the newsletter in a variety of venues. There will be ample room for creativity and pursuit of a vast market of planners, public officials, and other land use professionals.  The ideal candidate will have professional marketing experience as well as familiarity with some combination of journalism, land use, development, and state politics. This position would be paid on commission and can be conducted virtually from anywhere in California.  We invite interested candidates to send a resume and brief cover letter to info@cp-dr.com.

When it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in California, one size does not even come close to fitting all. That's all I could conclude after the SB 375 Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) and metropolitan planning organization (MPO) representatives touched on an amazing array of policy and technical issues during an all-day meeting on Tuesday . All right, I could also conclude that what has been a highly technical process may be on the verge of becoming very political. The session provided a way for the state's 18 MPOs and the committee to give final input to Air Resources Board staff before it issues greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions targets to the MPOs in late June. Under SB 375, the MPOs must use the GHG targets to formulate regional sustainable communities strategies that guide transportation and land use decisions. Because passenger vehicles account for more than one-third of GHG emissions in California, the idea behind SB 375 is to employ land use planning and transportation policies that reduce the amount that people drive. Repeatedly, the MPO representatives and even the RTAC members said that policies which reduce GHG emissions in one region may have little effect in another region. Concepts that are obvious in major metropolitan areas are foreign in more lightly populated regions. Political agendas in San Diego, San Francisco, Stockton and Thousand Oaks are not the same. A moderate transit expansion in Sacramento may produce significant results, while a far more expensive transit expansion in L.A. would have virtually no impact on vehicle miles traveled. "Smart growth" policies that are mainstream in San Luis Obispo County are unknown in Shasta County. "I've heard some things today that have illustrated some fundamental differences in what regions are going to be able to achieve," said Pete Parkinson, who represents the American Planning Association's California chapter on the RTAC. Much of the meeting's focus was on defining "achievable." What became clear is that technical achievability and political achievability are not the same. Just about everyone in the room on Tuesday was on board with transit-oriented development, compact mixed-use communities, highway tolls, building mixed-income housing next to employment sites, reducing the amount of free parking, and vastly expanding transit service. The environmental, economic and social benefits are obvious, right? Well, no, they're not, at least not to the people who make decisions and to the voters who elect those people. Repeatedly, RTAC members and MPO representatives insisted that whatever comes out of the SB 375 process must contain a large dose of political reality. "There are clearly local political issues," warned RTAC member Carol Whiteside, a former mayor of Modesto. "I think we underestimate the political difficulties local jurisdictions are going to have with implementing some of the land use recommendations." Southern California Association of Governments Executive Director Hasan Ikhrata said that MPOs must "attach reality to what we are doing." Preparing a politically unrealistic "fantasy plan" will only cause people to turn away from the larger effort, he said. Two representatives from the house-building industry provided a measure of that political reality on Tuesday. They argued that the assumptions in MPOs' models for future development – which leaned heavily toward multi-family housing – were faulty. "Many of the housing type of assumptions and the density type of assumptions …may not pan out in the real world," California Building Industry Association lobbyist Richard Lyon said. Andy Henderson, Building Industry Association of Southern California general counsel, sounded what may become a familiar theme as SB 375 implementation goes forward: Make someone else do it. Raise parking prices, tax gasoline or provide incentives for people to buy cleaner-burning cars, he suggested. "You could interfere with the recovery we need to see in building houses," Henderson said. "We can't be putting in place impediments to that recovery." Those are the type of arguments we'll probably be hearing often in September, when the campaigns for and against repealing AB 32 – the 2006 state law that mandates GHG emissions reductions – grow heated. September is also precisely the time when the Air Resources Board is scheduled to finalize regional GHG emissions reductions targets. Political reality, indeed. – Paul Shigley

Even as commuters have grown weary of the long drive from the western edge of the Central Valley to the employment centers of the Bay Area, a group of landowners in Brentwood see robust development opportunities. The formerly diminutive Contra Costa County city, now of 51,000, is hotly debating what its next round of expansion will look like.  At issue is the fate of a 740-acre tract of largely undeveloped land, which lies to the west of the county urban limit line that governs Brentwood but is nonetheless already addressed in its general plan. That plan calls for up to 579 homes to be built on the property, which is owned by only five landowners, in the event that the land was annexed by the city. Measure F, however, would expand the urban limit line and in so doing authorize a 20-year development agreement for up to 1,300 homes and 30 acres of commercial development.  The agreement itself would not, however, permit development, which would still be subject to environmental review, and approval by the city, the water board, and other agencies.  Unique to Contra Costa County, the urban limit line is a planning tool by which the county designates land, both incorporated and unincorporated, for development. The urban limit line used to be an informal policy, but since 2007 the county Local Area Formation Commission has promised to honor it (See CP&DR Vol. 14, No. 4 ). This is, in fact, the latest in many battles over the future of inland Contra Costa County and its uneasy role as bedroom community serving the East Bay and San Francisco (See Insight CP&DR Vol. 15, No. 9 ) "Brentwood will have its own urban limit line that it will control," said Tom Koch, consultant and spokesperson for the pro-Measure F campaign. "Currently Brentwood does not have that authority."  Representatives of the Brentwood Department of Community Development declined to be interviewed for this article.   Proponents have agreed to a number of concessions designed to assure residents that, if Measure F passes on June 8, all 1,300 homes -- and their estimated 4,000 residents -- would not appear overnight and would not adversely affect the community. Provisions included in the measure an in a recently negotiated development agreement include assurance that the area would not be occupied until 2015 and that developers would improve surrounding roads, provide community benefits such as parks, and fund municipal paramedic services.  These concessions are not enough for opponents, who contend that any future development should simply abide by the city's existing general plan and that the measure represents an unfortunate case of ballot-box planning.  "We understand that it may be developed in the future; it's in our general plan for that purpose," said Brentwood resident and Measure F opponent Kathy Griffin. "It's not like we're not saying that it's pristine farmland or it should be preserved for open space. Our argument is that you're replacing our general plan and doubling the number of housing units."  Measure F's proponents contend, however, that failure to extend the urban limit line now may mean that Brentwood will forfeit the ability to control the land in the future. They contend that the neighboring city of Antioch may try to annex it or that Contra Costa County will go ahead and authorize development there.  "It's clear that the land is going to be developed by one or the other," said Koch.  Opponents of the measure call these concerns far-fetched.  "There are so many hoops for to do that," said Griffin. "They'd have to do a planning process, they'd have to do an environmental report, they'd have to get LAFCO to take it out of our sphere of influence under our protest and put it into their sphere of influence...then they would have to take it to a vote of their people to get it into their urban limit line. "To just imply that Antioch can just come in and build something is simply misleading."  Griffin insists that she does not oppose growth but does think that Measure F calls for too much density. She also contends that many of the concessions that proponents are making would be required by the existing general plan and are, in fact, not particularly generous in light of the increased density.  They include a $2,000 per house fee for community athletic facilities; land that could be developed for parks and schools; a $3,000 per house fee for employment generation, such as job-training programs; a fee for paramedics; and requisite road improvements. The city's fiscal analysis estimates that at full build-out the city would net $800,000 annually, with $2 million in revenues and $1.2 million in additional expenses from the development; the city could also receive up to $45.7 million in impact fees.  "If you look at their development agreement, most of the items they're touting as over and above at contribution levels you're expected to make with a development of this size," said Griffin.  Though the battle over Measure F is being fought against the backdrop of tremendous growth in the Bay Area's inland suburbs, Griffin said that the measure is following an old pattern. In 2005 Brentwood voters defeated Measure L, which would have expanded the urban limit line to the north, and then in 2006 approved a measure that reaffirmed the city's existing (and still current) urban limit line.  Contacts: Tom Koch,  Y es on F  (925) 634-4200 Brentwood Special Election Website Brentwood Measure F Full Text (PDF)

(Please note that the word "draconian" does not occur once in the following post concerning the ongoing budget debacle. Readers susceptible to cliché-induced seizures (CIS) can read this article without ill effect.) \t By his own characterization, the governor's latest proposal attempts to close the $19 billion shortfall in the coming year's budget almost entirely through cuts. For CP&DR readers, it's probably unnecessary to explain that many of these cuts affect – or have effectively eliminated – services for low-income people, not limited to affordable housing, health care and early childhood education. Hell, we can't even afford our prisons—an irony well deserved by the Lock-'em-Up State.  I'm going to skip the usual jeremiad about short-sightedness and greed, not because I don't think it's true, but that it's been said often before, by wiser heads. Except I will add that if there ever had been a post-war "social contract" in California, it's fast evaporating. We are no longer upholding the side of the bargain that calls for sheltering and lifting up those less fortunate. This brings a sour dénouement to the all-American narrative of opportunism and occasional public spiritedness that made California the capital of postwar American optimism.    \t Amid the loss of our once-enviable social contract, then, how are we going to provide continue to provide low income housing? This goal was hard to attain even when times were good and real estate was even more expensive. One proposal allows the state to steal (my word) a portion of local redevelopment money, generated by local tax increment, to toss some additional dollars at the state's money fire ( CP&DR Vol. 25, No. 9, May 2010 ).  As most readers know, siphoning off local redevelopment dollars has a direct impact on the creation of low-income housing, because 30 percent of redevelopment monies are set aside for affordable units.  Although not unprecedented, I think such raids on local money are actionable, and possibly illegal, if the "nexus" theory of taxation, created in case law, holds up in court (although my guess the state would prevail by claiming the right under emergency powers).  \t In any event, we need to invent new and creative ways to provide low income and moderate income housing (including workforce housing). Joint use, meaning the sharing of resources, such as land and money and access to funding sources, among public agencies—has never seemed as attractive as it does now. But how will smaller cities with very few redevelopment funds meet their low-income housing requirements?  Am I insane for suggesting that organizations like Habitat for Humanity could be invited to build a half-dozen homes at a time in certain places? I'd be happy to start a thread here, if you think any of these ideas, or others, are workable. And if not, please set me straight. \t Then again, things could be worse … much worse. A brief tour of some urban ills that California policy makers can bless the stars are not theirs:  In 40 years, seven out of 10 people will live in mega-cities (from the Christian Science Monitor)  Ten Places in the world where you don't want to live (from Hottnez) And  for a worst-case in civic liability, how 'bout a s uddenly liquefied landscape that swallows an entire house, leaving little trace behind (must be seen to be believed)  ? Yes, things could be worse.

Riverside County has gained the dubious distinction of being one of the foreclosure capitals of California, if not the country.  One bright spot, however, has been the unincorporated community of Eastvale, which has grown from an exurb of scattered homesteads a decade ago to a major unincorporated bedroom community of roughly 40,000 residents.  "Eastvale is really leading Riverside County in its ascendance from the recession," said Jeff DeGrandpre, president of the Eastvale Incorporation Committee.   On June 8 Eastvale residents will consider Measure A, a multi-part ballot measure to decide whether the community, located in the northwest corner of the county adjacent to the City of Norco, will become the county's 27th city.  Eastvale is already more than halfway to its projected built-out population of 68,000, and it will have the option of continuing to follow a general plan set forth in the Riverside County Integrated Project. Additionally, proponents say they seek local control over opportunities to promote new commercial developments and contract with the Riverside County Sheriff for dedicated service.  "We're all pretty happy with the way Eastvale looks right now," said DeGrandpre. "We have residential, commercial, and light industrial to come. We're doing this to keep our tax dollars here."   While both opponents and supporters of Measure A say that they favor cityhood and the local control that it would bring, they differ over the issue of whether current economic conditions make this the right time to incorporate. In addition to bearing its own operating expenses, the city of Eastvale will have to pay roughly $1.5 million annually, for 30 years, in net neutrality payments designed to compensate Riverside County for the loss of tax revenue that it will incur upon incorporation.  Analysis revealed that Eastvale would not be able to pay the entire amount from its general fund but will have to dip into its fire fund as well, a move that concerns opponents but still conforms to state requirements.   Opponents of Measure A, however, fear that this payment may doom the city to fiscal ruin from Day One because it is both more generous than it ought to be based on prevailing economic conditions.  "The base year around which the neutrality fees were negotiated was 2008," said Irene Long, one of the leaders of Not Now Eastvale. "The county's revenues have shrunk dramatically, so if we're tied into paying them lose revenues for 2008…we're automatically giving away more money than we need to." Both Long and DeGrandpre are running to serve on the would-be Eastvale City Council. Long also contends that proponents of incorporation provided different sets of revenue projections to county officials and that the revisions created a more optimistic picture than the original numbers that appeared in the incorporation committee's Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis. Even so, Long said that the city will have to go to extraordinary lengths to pay what she considers generous net neutrality payments.  "For some never explained reason they decided to throw in what I call the ‘signing bonus'…they would give whatever was left of our fire fund, but no less than 15 percent, to the county as a gift," added Long. "We're in the red from the very first full year of incorporation." An October 2009 Local Agency Formation Commission staff report, signed by Executive Officer George J. Spiliotis, could not make a recommendation of fiscal viability, and a follow-up report in January maintained that position despite what it acknowledged as "positive fiscal changes" that emerged from subsequent negotiations between the Eastvale Incorporation Committee (EIC) and the county.  A July 2009 incorporation study committed by EIC found that "the feasibility of the incorporation is inconclusive: neither clearly feasible, nor clearly infeasible" and that feasibility would ultimately depend on "policy decisions."   LAFCO Executive Officer George Spiliotis said that the city would in fact be viable as of its first year, according to information that was presented to the commission after the publication of the initial reports on the CFA.  "There was testimony presented by proponents that allayed the commission's concerns regarding staffing, and they ended up approving it," said George Spiliotis, Executive Officer of the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission. "They presented information using some of predicted surplus funds and assigned staffing to those funds." "LAFCO's concerns have been largely alleviated," said Field. "Their staff report indicates that they are, I believe, comfortable with the fiscal analysis as it stands now." Field and DeGrandpre both cited retail and residential projects that are in the pipeline that will contribute to future tax receipts.  Furthermore, Spiliotis said that the use of fire funds would meet state requirements.  "There's no problem," said Spiliotis. "I don't know if you can say it's normal. Each revenue neutrality negotiation is unique, but I do not believe that is unprecedented."  For opponents of Measure A, the negotiations that led to the finding of viability were not nearly transparent enough and in fact were based on questionable data. Not Now Eastvale, which acknowledges "the simple fact that almost everyone wants Eastvale to become a city one day" cites the October 2009 Comprehensive Financial Analysis in finding that the city will run a deficit in years 2-10 of incorporation, resulting in a negative operating reserve of $3 million by the 10th year. The Not Now group wants to put cityhood on old until the economy picks up.  "The main benefit to is that we won't be locked into giving away this money," said Long. "That gives us time to renegotiate. I think 2011 is a good year to lock in based on anticipated drop in revenue and then put it back on the ballot in 2012." Supporters, however, contend that, even in light of the recession, the incorporated city will be no worse off than any other city in the state and, with projected growth, will be on firm footing before long. Proponents also claim that cityhood will not affect residents' taxes.  The revenue neutrality agreement was the best agreement we could possibly have made," said DeGrandpre. "When they started it was in perpetuity. We knocked down from infinity to 30 years. Do I like it? Not necessarily, but it's the law." While DeGrandpre said that his group's analysis points to a potential $4 million surplus in the first year, others are expressing more cautious optimism and yet still contend that the moment is ripe for Eastvale to incorporate.  "There are different ways to look at the right moment: political vs. absolute best economic time," said Field. "Even though from an economic standpoint, this probably isn't the perfect time to do it, if you can do it now and succeed…that's a pretty firm foundation for the future."  Moreover, supporters of Measure A contend that a defeat of Measure A will simply mean that the would-be city will have to go through years' more hassle and expense to craft a new measure and a new agreement, at which point it might not be any better off than it would be under Measure A. "We'd have to start the process all over again," said DeGrandpre. "We'd have to spend roughly $140,000 again, do studies again, collect signatures again. The math doesn't work out."   Contacts:  Jeff DeGrandpre, President, Eastvale Incorporation Committee , (951) 808-4840 John Field, Chief of Staff, Riverside Supervisor John Tavaglione , (951) 955-1020 Irene Long,  Not Now Eastvale  notnoweastvale@gmail.com George Spiliotis, Executive Officer, Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission, (951) 369-0631 Eastvale Incorporation Documents

With state and local government revenues shrinking throughout California, planners are increasingly looking to the federal government – and especially transportation funds – to pay for local planning efforts, especially if they involve infill and transit-oriented development efforts. But the two major possible sources of funding – the transportation reauthorization bill and the climate bill – are both stalled with little hope of passage anytime soon. The climate bill has been caught, at least for the moment, in the crossfire of the immigration debate. So let's get back to that later and focus instead on the bill that ought to have no trouble passing: the transportation reauthorization bill. The so-called T-bill has to be reauthorized every six years – and in all the cycles since 1991 (1997 and 2003), the bill has moved further and further away from its original focus on highways and other hard infrastructure.  There are always huge debates over what it should fund – highways versus rail, capacity versus environmental enhancements – but there has never been any doubt that it will pass. Until now. The bill hasn't passed yet and doesn't seem likely to pass before the November election – if then. The problem, simply put, is money. Between increasing fuel economy because of regulation and decreasing travel because of the recession, the federal gas tax doesn't generate enough money anymore. After decades in surplus, it's now in deficit, borrowing from the federal government's "general fund" on a regular basis to make ends meet. Since everybody loves transportation pork – Democrats and Republicans alike -- there's only one way out of this problem, which is to find what folks inside the Beltway euphemistically call an "enhanced revenue source." But that means either raising the gas tax or squeezing money out of the climate bill's "cap-and-trade" provisions for transportation.  Nobody wants to increase the gas tax before the November election – least of all the Republicans, who are seeking to regain control of the House by running against tax-and-spend Democrats. So that leaves two scenarios. The first one is for the lame-duck Democratic congress to pass the gas tax after the election. This may work politically for everybody – even the Republicans, who will then have plenty of transportation revenue to play around with but can wash their hands of responsibility for raising taxes. The second is a long, slow decline of the federal transportation reauthorization system. It's possible that no federal transportation reauthorization bill will be passed in 2009, even after the election, or in 2010. So what happens? The previous authorization bill bumps along, getting temporarily extended by Congress indefinitely, and every year Congress faces the question of whether to fund it fully through a general fund subsidy or simply not appropriating all the money that's been authorized. This is not an uncommon scenario in federal programs, but it's a scenario that was unimaginable only a few years ago for the transportation bill. The conventional wisdom in Washington is that the system is broken because the gas tax no longer provides sufficient revenue for everybody's appetite. This is true, but there may be a deeper problem here – which is that the 20-year-old "TEA" concept in federal transportation may have run its course. Old-timers will remember that the passage of "ISTEA" in 1991 (the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act) was heralded as a revolution federal transportation policy – giving unprecedented powers to Metropolitan Planning Organizations, creating the environmental enhancement program, and providing unprecedented flexibility in spending federal dollars. The changes came about largely as a result of a revolution in the Bay Area, where the Metropolitan Transportation Commission demanded and got more flexibility to fund, say, bike paths over freeway expansions. (Bush signed the bill as a "jobs stimulus" during a recession, but never mind about that.) The TEA concept was carried forward in the 1997 and 2003 reauthorizations. Yet the problem with the TEA concept is that it never contained a compelling alternative to the old pavement philosophy. As some commentators noted as far back as the mid-1990s, the TEA bills created a system that allowed MPOs to reject the highway-construction model and replace it with … a whole bunch of cool stuff that we really like. Which has never really added up to an alternative transportation system. In the era of climate change, an alternative has begun to emerge – the idea that transportation should not be a separate idea but, rather, is one component of the goal of giving people proximity and access to things people need. In some cases, people will have to travel some distance to get what they need (a job, loaf of bread) and in most cases those folks will have to drive a car. But another option is simply to put people and stuff closer together, so that folks can walk, or ride a shuttle, or at least drive their car shorter distances to get from one thing to another. That's why federal transportation funds are so frequently used these days for things like local land-use planning projects. (It's a system that, with full disclosure in mind, I benefit from in my day job as a planning consultant.) But it's also a way of looking at things that makes more sense from an integrated point of view. Federal policies tend to be very functionally segregated, so it may never be possible to truly intertwine transportation with other aspects of community-building. But this kind of alternative vision could build support for a gas tax – showing that it is possible to improve access without adding lanes and increasing congestion all at the same time. It's not clear at this point whether the climate bill will play a role in funding all this stuff. Since the burning of transportation fuels accounts for some 40% of greenhouse gas emissions, you'd think that reducing the need for transportation would be a goal in the climate bill. But transit advocates have consistently been outfoxed by deep-pockets folks like the coal industry ( Insight CP&DR Vol. 24, No. 4 April 2008). And, in any event, the climate bill is – as it were – on ice right now because Sen. Lindsey Graham from South Carolina has broken with his northeastern counterparts over immigration law.  So even though the land use alternative ought to be compelling in both the transportation and climate change arenas, it's not likely to move either bill forward toward passage this year. Which means that, for the moment, we'll just keep muddling along.