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.

The state Supreme Court has agreed hear to an unusual case from the Sonoma County city of Cotati that involves both mobile home rent control and an alleged strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). Several years ago, Cotati implemented mobile home rent control in response to rapidly rising rents. Mobile home park owners in town sued in federal court, arguing that the rent control ordinance was unconstitutional. Cotati responded by filing a lawsuit in state court that sought to have the ordinance declared lawful. The mobile home park owners contended that Cotati's state court litigation was a SLAPP suit intended to prevent them from having their day in federal court. A trial court ruled against Cotati but the First District Court of Appeal reversed the decision and remanded the case back to the trial court in July. The appellate panel ruled that Cotati's lawsuit sought to resolve the same constitutional issues that mobile home park owners had raised themselves. The court held that Cotati's lawsuit served the public interest and did not result in additional expense or inconvenience for the park owners. The state high court has not yet set a date for oral arguments. The case is City of Cotati v. Gene Cashman, No. S099999, 2001 DJDAR 7375.

The City of Palm Springs has agreed to pay $1.2 million to a conservation organization because the city built a golf course on land donated to the city as desert preserve. The settlement apparently ends the protracted litigation between the city and the Living Desert Reserve of Palm Desert. Nearly 10 years ago, a landowner donated 30 acres of open space to the city on the condition that the land be used for a preserve. The grant deed stated that if the city did not keep the land as an open space preserve, the Deserve Reserve would get the property. However, the city condemned the property and developed the Tahquitz Creek Municipal Golf Course on the site. The Fourth District Court of Appeal eventually ruled for the Desert Reserve, harshly criticizing the city's tactics. With a trial date for determining compensation pending, the city sought to settle the lawsuit. The case is City of Palm Springs v. Living Desert Reserve, Riverside County Superior Court Case No. CIVI69605.

After years of design changes and project delays, a troubled North Hollywood redevelopment project finally appears to be headed toward construction. The Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency board in September approved $31.7 million in loans and subsidies to aid the $194-million NoHo Commons infill project. The 16-acre NoHo Commons project site sits in a blighted North Hollywood neighborhood and adjacent to the newly constructed Metro Red Line Station. The mixed-use project has undergone several modifications and now contains approximately 810 residential apartment units (247 units of which will be loft-style live-work spaces); 228,000 square feet of retail space that will include a 50,000-square-foot supermarket; 200,000 square feet of office space; a community health center; and a child care center. The development is the largest mixed-use project adjacent to a Metro station. NoHo Commons is part of a larger North Hollywood redevelopment project overseen by the mayor-appointed Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA). The agency is managing a 740-acre redevelopment project to bolster the arts and entertainment district. Along with the NoHo Commons project, the CRA plans to build new single-family homes and restore the historic Lankershim Train Depot. This is the third adaptation of the problem-plagued NoHo Commons project since original plans were unveiled in 1999. At that time, the proposal called for a $1 billion, 4 million-square-foot development to include larger retail, residential and office spaces as well as a hotel, multi-screen cinema, and film sound stages. But when the market turned sour, the previous developer, J. Allen Radford, dramatically downsized the project. Then in February, lacking financial backing, Radford agreed to sign over rights to the property to developer J. H. Snyder in exchange for a 12.5% share in the project. The troubled project seemed to make progress when Snyder took control. The mixed-use project was last scaled back in July only after the Los Angeles Unified School District proposed building a high school on some of the property originally set-aside for the development. Los Angeles Unified School District plans to build a school on about eight acres, said David Stolzer, senior real estate development agent for the CRA. The Los Angeles-based J. H. Snyder touts development of many retail, office and residential projects, but senior partner Cliff Goldstein said that Snyder has never integrated all of these elements into one mixed-use project of this magnitude. "This is our attempt to remove a blighted area and be a catalyst for redevelopment in the North Hollywood area," Goldstein said. "And we want to build a new community that will utilize mass transportation." The community surrounding NoHo Commons will get ample opportunity to make use of the nearby subway. The rail station will be easily accessible from the Commons and the Metropolitan Transit Authority plans to develop 13 acres of its nearby property to enhance the rail station, Goldstein said. Absent from the infill project is the usual opposition from neighborhood residents. In fact, North Hollywood Residents Association President Victor Viereck said he is eager to see the project move along. When it comes to shopping, area residents do not have many options and must drive to Burbank and Sherman Oaks to shop, he said. "I am eager to see it happen, finally," Viereck said. "Anyone familiar with North Hollywood knows there is no downtown to it. … This needs to be done." Goldstein said ample retail, such as a supermarket, restaurants, small storefronts, and a major bookstore, will be available, but the developer is staying away from big-box retailers common in large malls. Despite a good reception from residents, the welcome wagon is not exactly revving its engine. The North Hollywood Residents Association does oppose one aspect of the project: the $31.7 million CRA project funding. Viereck argued that Snyder should be responsible for the entire tab of the project and that taxpayers should not have to foot any part of the bill. But he does not blame the developer. Viereck instead blames the CRA, complaining that the agency is largely responsible for the lack of progress in the North Hollywood area. "It has been delayed for so long, and the CRA has been the main reason why nothing has happened until now." Viereck says. "The CRA is an additional layer of bureaucracy for the developer to go through." Without the CRA, other areas of the city have developed property faster and more efficiently, Viereck charged, pointing to efforts in Sherman Oaks and Northridge. While it opposes the public funding of NoHo Commons, the North Hollywood Residents Association has not made any demands on the project. But one labor advocacy group, the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE), has made demands on the project. The group has worked with the CRA and NoHo Commons developers for two years to hammer out a deal that LAANE says satisfies the local community. According to Goldstein, the community benefits package that the three disparate groups signed includes a promise that 75% of the employment at NoHo Commons will be living-wage jobs, and there will be an on-site health care clinic, an affordable child care facility and a one-stop job resources center. Roxane Auer, a researcher for the LAANE accountable development project said that her organization met numerous times with North Hollywood residents to assess the community needs. After deciding on several elements, including living-wage jobs and affordable child care, LAANE put together a six-member negotiating team that bargained with the CRA and Snyder for concessions. LAANE does not oppose the subsidy like the NoHo Residents Association does, but it does believe that when taxpayer subsidies are used for private developments, workers should be compensated with living-wage jobs. Auer said that many projects receive public subsidies, and those projects need to be accountable to the communities where they are built. LAANE's mission, she said, is to work with those projects and not against them. "At first they might have been reluctant to deal with us, but they were receptive to our ideas," Auer said of NoHo Commons proponents. "And after a time they realized that we had very focused concerns." Although LAANE did not get everything it wanted out of the bargaining sessions, Auer called the community benefits package they did receive a "major step forward" in the development process. The NoHo Commons project has just one more step on its way to groundbreaking. The Los Angeles City Council must give final approval to the project. A vote is scheduled for this fall, and developers plan to break ground on the first of three phases in June 2002. Goldstein says that barring any further delays, NoHo Commons should be complete sometime in 2006. Contacts: David Stolzer, Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency, (818) 753-1918. Cliff Goldstein, J.H. Snyder (323) 857-5546. Victor Viereck, North Hollywood Residents Association, (818) 985-9174. Roxane Auer, Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, (213) 486-9880. LAANE website: www.laane.org

Other land use bills approved during 2001: CEQA AB 436 (Chan). Allows a focused EIR to be prepared in parts of the City of Oakland for certain urban infill, multi-family, residential developments, or residential and commercial projects, or retail mixed-use developments with not more than 25% of the total floor area used as retail space. Signed by governor. AB 1532 (Pavley). Requires a lead agency to call at least one scoping meeting for a project of statewide, regional or area-wide significance. Signed by governor. SB 244 (Speier). Extends the public review period to 120 days for the draft EIR on the San Francisco International Airport expansion, and gives the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors a say over the runway project. Signed by governor. General Plans AB 1367 (Wiggins). Establishes a meet-and-confer process between school districts and local governments to address long-range school-siting plans. Signed by governor. AB 1553 (Keeley). Requires the Office of Planning and Research to include environmental justice procedures in its general plan guidelines. Signed by governor. SB 520 (Chesbro). Requires general plan housing elements to consider the needs of disabled people. Signed by governor. SB 932 (McPherson). Extends by six months the deadline for jurisdictions in the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments to complete updated housing elements. The new deadline is December 31, 2002. The bill also extends by six months the deadline for all local governments not otherwise specified in statute to update their housing elements. That new deadline is December 31, 2003. Signed by governor. Housing AB 8 (Cedillo). Increases the amount of per-unit assistance available under the Department of Housing and Community Development's Downtown Rebound Program. The bill also requires the units to be in a school attendance area where at least 50% of students qualify for free meals. Signed by governor. AB 369 (Dutra). Allows courts to award attorneys' fees against local governments that violate the anti-NIMBY law. Developers or housing advocates are eligible for receiving attorneys' fees after winning a lawsuit. Signed by the governor. AB 807 (Salinas). Extends the Farmworker Housing Grant program to include seasonal, migrant housing. Signed by governor. AB 1359 (Lowenthal). Merges four existing predevelopment loan programs. The consolidated program will provide loans for technical and financial assistance to local government agencies and nonprofit corporations for predevelopment expenses incurred in the production or rehabilitation of affordable housing in urban and rural areas. Signed by governor. AB 1611 (Keeley). Authorizes the California Educational Facility Authority to sign agreements with nonprofit entities to finance housing construction for students, staff and faculty near UC, CSU, community college and participating private college campuses. Signed by governor. SB 73 (Dunn). Increases the State Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program by $20 million to $70 million a year, and indexes the program for inflation. Signed by governor. SB 784 (Torlakson). Establishes the Jobs-Housing Balance Program within HCD as an on-going program, and allows local governments to use grants for any purposes. Signed by governor. SB 1098 (Alarcon) Prohibits cities and counties from extending beyond 45 days a moratorium on housing projects that have large multi-family components. A city or county could extend the moratorium only if it makes specific findings based on substantial evidence that the moratorium was the only way to avoid significant, quantifiable health and safety impacts. Signed by governor. SB 1209 (Romero). Enables the California Educational Facility Authority to offer tax-exempt revenue bonds for construction of faculty housing owned by private colleges. Vetoed by governor. Natural Resources ABX2 27 (Lowenthal). Authorizes the State Lands Commission to execute a contract with the City of Long Beach and any city contractor to provide incentives to explore and develop gas reserves in the Long Beach tidelands. Signed by the governor. AB 104 (Nation). Allows boards of supervisors in nine Bay Area counties to levy a vehicle registration fee of up to $4 to fund open space purchases, improve water quality and restore wetlands. Vetoed by governor. AB 134 (Kelley). Allows the Castaic Lake Water Agency, which sells water wholesale, to provide retail water service to a specific area. Signed by governor. AB 252 (Pavley). Grants temporary protection under the California Endangered Species Act to any plant or animal thought to have been extinct but is rediscovered. The bill's target is the 3,000-home Ahmanson Ranch project in Ventura County, where a flower thought to have disappeared was rediscovered. Vetoed by governor. AB 910 (Wayne). Modifies the process by which a government agency can condemn wildlife conservation easements that have been acquired by the state. The bill, aimed at construction of water infrastructure in waterfowl habitat, creates a more stringent process for water agencies. Signed by governor. AB 1207 (Longville). Gives cities and counties until April 15, 2002, to enact ordinances governing the development of power-generating windmills in non-urbanized areas. If a city or county does not adopt rules, a landowner may build a windmill by right. The bill also places restrictions on how much a city or county can regulate windmills. Signed by governor. SB 909 (Chesbro). Extends the time for public comment on timber harvest plans. Signed by governor. Redevelopment AB 212 (Correa). Requires the City of Tustin to give 100 acres of the former Tustin Marine Corps base to the Santa Ana Unified and Rancho Santiago Community College school districts. Signed by governor. AB 237 (Papan). Requires the final offer of a public entity that is in eminent domain proceedings to include compensation for loss of goodwill. The bill also sets up a process for mediating eminent domain disputes. Signed by governor. AB 637 (Lowenthal). Makes a number of changes to housing requirements in redevelopment law. The bill eliminates the January 1 sunset date for the 15% inclusionary housing requirement, mandates that redevelopment agencies leverage their housing spending with private and commercial financing, and requires that housing units provided by agencies remain affordable for up to 55 years. Signed by governor. AB 1567 (Runner). Allows the Lancaster Redevelopment Agency to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirement by purchasing long-term affordability covenants on mobile home parks. Signed by governor. SB 32 (Escutia). Is a three-part brownfields bill. First, it enables local governments to order the investigation and cleanup of idle parcels of less than 5 acres. Second, it requires Cal EPA to conduct a peer reviewing of "screening numbers," which are advisory figures that provide rough estimates of what level of cleanup might be required before redeveloping a property for a particular use. Third, it requires Cal EPA to publish information helping local officials and developers to understand the factors and procedures the Department of Toxic Substances Control and regional water boards use when ordering cleanups. Signed by governor. Others AB 93 (Wayne) Creates the San Diego Regional Airport Authority. The new nine-member, appointed entity will have exclusive authority to plan, build and operate regional airports in San Diego County. The bill removes the Port of San Diego and the San Diego Association of Governments from the process of planning a new airport to replace Lindbergh Field in San Diego. Signed by governor. AB 330 (Reyes). Allows cities that annex land covered by a Williamson Act contract to avoid Williamson Act restrictions on development. Vetoed by governor. AB 545 (Steinberg) Requires the state, when leasing, purchasing or constructing state government office buildings, to consider the availability of public transit, proximity to affordable housing, pedestrian access to retail businesses, and the need for an area's economic revitalization. The bill gives priority to use of buildings with historic, architectural or cultural significance. It also requires state-owned office buildings, when feasible, to include ground-floor retail or other amenities to serve pedestrians. Vetoed by governor, who then signed an executive order containing many provisions of this bill. AB 1171 (Dutra). Calls for the state to pay 40% of the cost of earthquake retrofits of Bay Area toll bridges — about $820 million. The bill also extends a $1 toll surcharge until enough money is collected. Signed by governor. AB 1419 (Aroner). A complicated bill that, among other things, requires Caltrans to provide 20 acres to San Francisco for $1 to allow redevelopment of the San Francisco Transbay Terminal project. The bill also provides a limited exemption from CEQA. Vetoed by governor. AB 1495 (Cox). Alters the procedures for revenue neutrality calculations when new cities are proposed, and sets up new ways to handle appeals for city incorporations. Signed by governor. AB 1564 (Cardenas). Allows American Indian tribes to negotiate directly with Caltrans for highway projects to serve reservations. The legislation is intended primarily to help the Miwok Indian tribe get a Highway 50 interchange in El Dorado County to serve a proposed casino and resort. Vetoed by governor. SB 975 (Alarcon). Extends prevailing wage requirements to developments that receive subsidies of almost any sort, including fee waivers and reimbursements. The bill makes a few exceptions for certain affordable housing projects. Signed by governor.