The sale of 49 state-owned properties could bring the state between $1.6 billion and $4.4 billion, according to a report by the California Performance Review panel. However, some of the most valuable properties are very sensitive, and proposed private development could touch off fierce battles.

The report divides the properties into two categories. The first is composed of 37 properties that have already been declared surplus but have not been sold, and “underutilized portions of facilities currently in use.” The second category of 12 properties lists the most valuable real estate. Those properties, the CPR suggests, could be put to better uses.

The second category is the more intriguing. The properties listed are:

o 850 acres of the Napa State Hospital currently leased to the City of Napa for parkland
o Undeveloped portions of the Cal Expo state fairgrounds, including more than a mile of American River frontage
o Fairgrounds in Del Mar, Costa Mesa, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Antioch and Napa
o San Quentin Prison
o Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and Sports Arena
o The Cow Palace in Daly City
o 455 properties in Pasadena, South Pasadena and El Sereno that the state acquired for the long-stalled extension of the Long Beach Freeway.

Officials with the CPR stopped short of suggesting that any of these properties should be sold or developed, recommending only that state officials review how the properties are used and whether taxpayers are getting the most out of the real estate holdings. The CPR does make recommendations regarding management of real estate, including passage of a state law requiring binding arbitration to resolve disputes between the state and local governments regarding the surplus or reuse of state property.

The report is available at www.cpr.ca.gov.

IN A SERIES OF THREE AUDITS, Los Angeles City Controller Laura Chick has faulted the loan and real estate practices of the city's Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA).

“My audits of the CRA revealed an agency lacking the most basic of written procedures governing the issuance and collection of loans, the award of subsidies or the transfer and use of land,” Chick said upon release of the final audit at the end of October. “It is imperative that we work together to improve the management and oversight of the agency.”

Regarding development loan practices, Chick found that the CRA awarded loans without conducting in-depth underwriting evaluations, did not monitor loans properly and failed to require adequate collateral to secure loans. She also reported that the agency did not adequately monitor compliance with housing affordability covenants, inspect properties or collect its share when properties were sold or foreclosed. Regarding real estate transactions, Chick found that CRA did not “track the disposition of its real estate properties,” did not maintain land inventory records and failed to follow policies when disposing of real estate.

Chick, a former city councilwoman, called on the “city's leadership” to conduct hearings regarding CRA oversight.

Agency Executive Director Bud Ovrom and CRA Board of Commissioners Chairman Paul Hudson said the agency had cooperated with Chick's audits and would use the recommendations to improve operations.

All three audits are available on the city controller's website at www.lacity.org/ctr.

THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS has adopted new regulations that could limit development on 33 square miles in the Santa Monica Mountains. The regulations require builders to get a conditional use permit to grade more than 5,000 cubic yards of soil. Previously, a use permit was needed only for projects involving at least 100,000 cubic yards of grading. The new rules also require development to be located at least 50 vertical feet and 50 horizontal feet from ridgelines.

The regulations adopted in November help implement the North Area Plan, which the county adopted four years ago to reduce subdivision activity in the mountains between Malibu and the San Fernando Valley.

During public hearings, landowners and developers complained that the new regulations amounted to a “land grab.” But state and federal parks agencies, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and the cities of Agoura Hills and Calabasas supported the measures.

A NEW REPORT PREPARED BY the Greater Los Angeles and Ventura County Chapter of the Building Industry Association and the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation warns of dire economic consequences if the pace of homebuilding does not increase during coming years.

The study identified a new housing shortfall from 1990 to 2004 that totaled 282,000 units in Los Angeles County and 9,460 units in Ventura County. If population growth continues to outstrip supply, the study warns, businesses will move elsewhere because they cannot afford to pay employees adequately, companies will struggle to recruit new employees, young families will move elsewhere, attracting companies to the region will become increasingly difficult, families will “double up,” and more people will be forced to commute long distances from outlying areas with less-expensive housing.

The report's recommendations for improving the situation were familiar. To overcome NIMBYism, for example, the study recommended addressing citizens' complaints “by creating, funding and implementing coordinated infrastructure and housing plans.” The report also urged an overhaul of the California Environmental Quality Act.

The study is available at www.bialaventura.org.

WHAT MIGHT BE ONE OF THE LAST large-scale housing developments in Orange County received approval in November when the Board of Supervisors approved a 14,000-unit development proposed by Rancho Mission Viejo. During a standing-room-only meeting, the Board of Supervisors approved an environmental impact report, a general plan amendment, zoning changes and a development agreement.

The project encompasses 14,000 dwelling units and 5.2 million square feet of commercial development on 7,700 acres. About 15,100 acres will permanent open space, under the approved plan.

The Sierra Club intends to challenge the county's decisions in court. The cities of Mission Viejo and San Clemente, which complained about potential traffic from the south county project, might join the litigation.

THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION Commission reported that cities and the county have failed to collect a new regional transportation impact fee about one quarter of the time. In a report released in November, the Commission found that $180 million, of an expected $726 million in a five-year forecast, in Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) was apparently waived or uncollected for other reasons.

Under the TUMF program, the county and all 14 cities in western Riverside County are supposed to collect $6,650 per house, and varying amounts for commercial and industrial development, for regional transportation improvements (see CP&DR Insight, March 2003).

A sizeable portion of the uncollected amount apparently is due to development agreements that were signed prior to June 1, 2003, when the TUMF became effective. At least one city (Temecula) waived the regional traffic fee in exchange for a developer's agreement to build road and freeway ramp improvements. Nearly every multi-family housing development in the San Gorgonio Pass area was apparently exempted from the fee.

Although the Transportation Commission accepted the report, representatives of four cities voted not to accept the report because they said it was inaccurate.

MIGRATION TO AND FROM the Central Valley varies significantly in different parts of the 19-county region, according to a new report by the Public Policy Institute of California.

The Upper Sacramento Valley is losing college graduates while attracting retirees, the Sacramento area is drawing skilled workers, Bay Area commutes are flocking to the North San Joaquin Valley, and the South San Joaquin Valley is getting more low-skilled immigrant workers, according to the report.

The study, called “The Central Valley at a Crossroads: Migration and its Implications,” found that public and private institutions are responding differently, based largely on specific regional challenges. For example, economic development efforts in the South San Joaquin Valley focus on “vertical integration” of the agriculture industry, such as post-harvest processing, and on sectors that rely on inexpensive labor, such as call and distribution centers. In the Sacramento metro area, which has a robust economy, the emphasis is on better urban planning and improving air quality.

The study is available online at www.ppic.org.