With lawsuits, referendums and an economic slowdown, it's been a rough few weeks for large-scale development projects. Some updates: The 14,000-housing-unit Placer Vineyards project has been hit with at least three lawsuits. Sutter County, environmental groups and a citizens group filed the court actions over various impacts of the proposed 5,000-acre project in unincorporated Placer County, just across the line from Sacramento County. Litigation was anticipated, although Sutter County's lawsuit over traffic came as a bit of a surprise. The 5,100-unit Yuba Highlands project in unincorporated Yuba County is headed for the ballot. Project opponents led by Supervisor Hal Stocker gathered enough signatures on referendum petitions to qualify for the February ballot. In addition, at least one lawsuit has been filed over the environmental impact report for the project, which is proposed for grasslands between Beale Air Force Base and Spenceville State Wildlife Area. A specific plan adopted by the City of Livermore that calls for 1.5 million square feet of retail space, including a factory outlet center, is the subject of a lawsuit filed by a quarry. A road serving the development envisioned in the El Charro specific plan would cut off access to about 20 acres owned by Rhodes & Jamieson, which operates a rock quarry. The city has proposed a land swap, but Rhodes & Jamieson is apparently uninterested. A Monterey County judge upheld a referendum vote overturning the county's approval of the 1,150-unit Butterfly Village project near Salinas. Developer HYH Corporation argued that the referendum violated a 2001 court order requiring the county to process the proposal. Voters' rejection of the project in June was "not a direct and conclusive challenge to the court's judgment," Judge Robert O'Farrell concluded. Butterfly Village would be part of the larger Rancho San Juan development. The Modesto Bee reported the Florsheim Land Company has abandoned a proposed 1,500-unit, 380-acre project proposed for orchards just south of Atwater, in Merced County. Locals opposed to what they considered to be an incompatible housing development in a rural area filed a lawsuit over the Atwater Ranch project two years ago. Since then, the Central Valley housing market has sunk, which apparently forced Florsheim's surrender. The Bakersfield Californian reported that developer Bryan Troxler has abandoned the proposed 9,000-unit Flying Seven Ranch project. The Californian also suggested that the 16,500-unit Gateway project is also in jeopardy. Both developments are — or were — proposed for farmland on the western outskirts of Bakersfield and would extend the city limits to I-5. Again, the slow market appears to be the driving factor. - Paul Shigley

When people think of downtowns, they often think of huge cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles. But anybody familiar with California knows that the big city downtowns are the exceptions. By and large, California is a state of mid-sized cities, and some of the most delightful urban places are the smaller downtowns. Often in older cities, these districts are manageable, pleasant and, very often these days, in the midst of a strong renaissance. That's why we at California Planning & Development Report are expanding our "best and worst downtowns" compilation beyond only the largest cities. Back in July, CP&DR selected San Francisco and San Diego as the top big-city downtowns in California , and we placed Fresno at the bottom. Now, it's time to look at the state's 94 cities with populations of 75,000 to 290,000 people - what we at CP&DR consider "mid-sized" cities. These cities couldn't be much more diverse. They range from old regional centers (Riverside, Modesto) to inner-ring suburbs (Lakewood, Daly City) to fast-growing bedroom communities (Temecula, Elk Grove). Some of these cities have visions of grandeur (Irvine, Roseville), and some are blue-collar factory towns struggling to regain their footing (Fontana, Richmond). Some are California icons (Santa Barbara), while others are icons of post-war planning practices (Thousand Oaks, Sunnyvale). The downtowns of many of these cities are great - the sorts of places that locals and visitors enjoy whether or not they care anything about planning, architecture, social systems or transit boarding statistics. Other downtowns, unfortunately, are grim places where nobody is enjoying much of anything. Some of these districts have been distressed for decades. Some have been the scene of failed revitalization plans, while others have simply been ignored. We name some names here, but with a caveat: We're pulling for every one the cities on our "most disappointing" list. We'd be very pleased to return in a few years to write about a downtown transformation. Such transformations are entirely possible. Some of the downtowns we rave about today were districts that excited no one outside of the vice squad during the 1970s and 1980s. Of course, a number of the 94 mid-sized cities have no identifiable downtown. By and large, these are cities that have grown rapidly since the 1960s, a period when creating a downtown with a messy mix of uses and extended hours was legally prohibited. You can find a number of these cities in Orange County and the Inland Empire. It's a shame because any city of 75,000 people should have a core area that provides a sense of place. Indeed, a sense of place and a feeling of vibrancy were critical in our rankings. We also considered land use mixes, public spaces, architecture, pedestrian friendliness, cultural facilities and activities, and other amenities. But we always get back to how a place feels - and how it makes you feel. If you were to visit any of the downtowns in our top 5, you would find a very strong sense of place. What all five cities have in common is that they are grounded in a history in which their downtowns served as significant regional commercial centers for a broad area. This factor helps account for their magnificent public realm and architecture, which almost all of them have. Three of the five are college towns, which tend to have good downtowns, and a fourth (Pasadena) has strong educational institutions. All five work well for residents, business people and tourists. Enough of the introduction. Here is our list of the best and worst mid-sized city downtowns, along with a few special awards. Best Mid-Sized City (population 75,000 to 300,000) Downtowns in California: 1. Pasadena. One of the country's biggest planning success stories of the last 30 years, downtown Pasadena was not always a happy place. In the 1970s, the only people who went to Old Pasadena after dark were probably up to no good. The city began an urban renewal program that, thankfully, the local citizenry halted. They wanted a real place with a real sense of history. What has made Pasadena the most magnificent example for other cities is the way it is being transformed during what is now the second generation of downtown revitalization. What began during the 1980s as an attempt to leverage retail revitalization on Colorado Boulevard off of strategically located parking garages has evolved, believe it not, into a transit-oriented housing strategy thanks to the Gold Line. Who would have believed you could blow out the middle of a shopping mall and put housing on top - and make it one of the hottest residential properties in L.A. Who would have believed you could build housing on top of not one but two light-rail stations within walking distance of each other? Believe it. It's a clich- to say Pasadena is the best, but nothing else is even close. It's the gold standard. 2. Santa Barbara. If you can afford it, this historic coastal city is about as close to paradise as you can get. Downtown, however, is not for only the wealthy. There is famously hip nightlife that caters both to UC college students and tourists. Shopping consists of everything from high-brow boutiques and department stores to thrift shops. Restaurants range from steakhouses to organic vegan take-out. Mixed in are professional offices of all stripes. State Street provides the heart, but the downtown vibe extends well beyond to take in some historic neighborhoods, grand civic structures, lush gardens and the well-maintained Alameda and Chase Palm parks. And it's all reachable without a car, thanks to a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly atmosphere and electric trolley rides that cost only two bits. 3. Chico. This Sacramento Valley city may be California's ultimate college town, and that is reflected in the downtown, which lies just across Second Street from the third-oldest campus in the CSU system. Like any good college town, Chico is replete with nightclubs, sports bars, coffee houses, eateries, bookstores and even shops that sell vinyl records. The place literally pulses with energy well into the night. But you'll also find stores and services that clearly appeal to the college kids' parents, upper-floor professional offices, artist studios and civic institutions. A carefully revamped downtown plaza is only going to get better as it matures, and new housing is on the way. The edge of Bidwell Park - a 4,000-acre jewel that extends for miles from the valley floor into the foothills - is only a couple blocks away. 4. Berkeley. Not a whole lot of new development has happened in downtown Berkeley recently, but the place is a dense, rich, diverse district with fabulous transit, including a BART station in just the right place, thus providing immediate access to most of the Bay Area. Believe it or not, many chain stores are doing quite well (although, in Berkeley fashion, the run-down, no-public-bathroom Starbucks feels more like an urban McDonalds catering to the near-homeless). Despite the chains, local businesses thrive, including nationally renowned restaurants. There is a great deal of housing on upper floors and in the immediate vicinity, the UC campus is close by, and everything is walkable, if a bit spread out. Patrick Kennedy's Gaia Building, the first new high-rise in 30 years, and Shattuck Lofts are excellent urban projects, even if the locals hate them. 5. Santa Rosa. Maybe the biggest surprise on our list, downtown Santa Rosa is big and strong with many different features: shopping, offices, some fabulous public spaces, a smattering of housing, a touch of the arts, and an overall flavor that says "Sonoma County." The enclosed shopping mall could be problematic, but it relates pretty well to downtown. The 101 freeway is something of a dividing line; however, as Railroad Square continues to develop, the freeway will likely become little more than a minor annoyance. This is a downtown that's only going to get better. Honorable Mentions: Visalia San Mateo Ventura Riverside Santa Monica Best Manufactured New Downtown: Valencia Town Center in Santa Clarita. Forty years ago, Valencia was first developed as a planned suburb - pleasant and walkable, though it did not exactly have a downtown. In the late '90s, however, developer Newhall Land and the city of Santa Clarita began a serious effort to manufacture a downtown - and so far it's the best of all of the new downtowns created from scratch. A retail Main Street was constructed at one end of the Valencia Town Center mall, complete with multiplex theater. If it seems a little mall-esque, that's OK; the scale is great and there is some diversity in the form of office buildings housing the headquarters of (believe it or not) Princess Cruise Lines. Across McBean Parkway, the Main Street continues toward a hotel, some nice mixed-use projects, and pretty high-density housing. Narrow the eight-lane McBean and throw in some kind of arts or college component, and you've got a real downtown. The Next Big Thing: Redwood City. This Peninsula city is in its third round of redevelopment after two earlier efforts failed to produce much. But this time, it's taking. Want evidence? You now have to pay to park downtown on weekends - unthinkable only a few years ago. Downtown has a new multi-plex and the restored Fox Theatre, alfresco dining aplenty, watering holes, an invigorating blend of old and new architecture, and hundreds of new housing units. Anchoring downtown is the refurbished San Mateo County courthouse (now a museum), which is one of the state's most handsome public buildings. A public square in front of the courthouse provides a great view. And all of this is within walking distance of a Caltrain station. As it matures, downtown Redwood City could well become one of the Bay Area's most interesting urban places. Most Underrated (even by us): Fullerton. While much of Fullerton offers up Orange County's suburban blandness, the small downtown almost makes you wonder if you're still south of the Orange Curtain. Harbor Boulevard is lined with a nice mix of services, retail, restaurants and comfortable bars. New multi-story housing has brought people to the neighborhood 'round the clock. Plus, only one block off Harbor is Fullerton High School (an inviting Mission-style campus with no obnoxious fence on the perimeter). Just beyond the high school is Fullerton College. Thus, downtown is full of young people on foot. Yes, the place could be better. There's too much through traffic, for one thing. But restoration of the Fox Fullerton Theatre appears to be gaining traction finally, and there is civic and developer interest in making more things happen. Most Overrated: Santa Monica. We concede that many people like downtown Santa Monica. Heck, we even gave it an honorable mention above. The Third Street Promenade is magnificent urbanism in just the right place. But take away Third Street, and what do you have? Not much besides a mix of uses and pretty good bus transit. Big chunks of land are poorly utilized, a freeway divides things up and there is little architecture of note. Part of the reason there's something missing here is due to Santa Monica's historic lack of regional significance as a commercial center, something that the best downtowns all have; hence, the lack of magnificent architecture. Yes, some of the coolest, modernist-style mixed-use and residential buildings anywhere in Southern California are in close proximity to downtown. But it doesn't hang together as an urban district. There are too many things pulling people away from the downtown, including the beach, the funkiness of the Ocean Park neighborhood, and the civic center, which is on the other side of the freeway. Underneath, this is only a small-city, pre-war downtown. Santa Monica, you're not Pasadena. You're not even Chico. Most Disappointing Mid-Sized City Downtowns in California: 1. San Bernardino. Where to begin? Downtown San Berdoo has been a depressing and dangerous place for a long time. The Carousel Mall (originally called the Central City Mall) opened during the early 1970s, helping kill off mom-and-pop businesses. Before long, the mall itself started to decline and for two decades it has been a white elephant surrounded by empty parking lots in the midst of downtown. For years, developers have been interested mostly in freeway frontage elsewhere in town. During the last 10 years, the city and developers have cooked up numerous schemes to revive downtown, ranging from wiping out part of downtown with a series of lakes and canals, to re-using the mall for housing. But it has been little more than talk. 2. Redding. Downtown Redding started to die in the early 1970s, when the city transformed four blocks on either side of Market Street - the heart of downtown - into an enclosed mall. In a city with 110-degree summers, air-conditioned retail comfort seemed like the right thing. It wasn't. The mall began to fail almost immediately (a "real" mall opened across town a year later) and most of the forlorn downtown mall still stands, a glum collection of offices, struggling shops and vacant space. There are signs of life downtown today. A new Shasta College health sciences center is replacing part of the old mall, the art deco Cascade Theatre has been refurbished into a performing arts center (full disclosure: CP&DR Editor Paul Shigley served on the Cascade Theatre restoration committee) and there is a bit of genuine investment by the private market. Reasons for optimism? Maybe. Check back in 10 years. 3. Antioch. A forgotten district in a city of commuter housing tracts and big-box centers. Even under the tightest definition of redevelopment, this qualifies as urban blight. 4. Costa Mesa. Massive Harbor Boulevard and its glut of traffic chops things in half. The poorly situated Triangle Plaza has never worked right. A bunch of run-down stores matches the run-down neighborhoods nearby. This should all be so much better. 5. Richmond. It's probably unfair to call this San Bernardino North, but downtown Richmond may be equally unsafe. Even during the recent real estate boom that juiced most of the region, downtown Richmond continued to stagnate.

JOIN US IN BEAUTIFUL IRVINE, CALIFORNIA! The City of Irvine is ideally located in Southern California and is close to many of the area's tourist attractions, numerous resorts and some of the state's finest beaches. Irvine has also been recognized as "one of the ten best places in the nation to live," according to U.S. News and World Report.  The City encompasses over 65 square miles and has a residential population of 202,000.         Supervising Transportation Analyst  $68,075.00 - $102,111.00 annually, plus excellent benefits (PERS: 2.7% @55) The City of Irvine Public Works Department seeks a motivated and enthusiastic candidate to work as a Supervising Transportation Analyst in the Development Review Division. In this challenging position, the successful candidate will demonstrate the ability to perform a broad range of transportation planning and engineering tasks with emphasis in transportation development review. The position will serve in the lead role within the function overseeing senior, associate and/or assistant level analysts. Specific tasks include the review of traffic studies, environmental impact reports and various types of plan review, as well as the assignment and review of work, and the management of multiple complex projects at any given time. Position requires a Bachelor's Degree in Transportation Planning, Engineering or a related field, plus six years of professional transportation planning/analysis experience, or any combination of education and experience that provides equivalent knowledge, skills and abilities. Position closes on Tuesday, October2, 2007. Please visit www.cityofirvine.org/jobs for a detailed position description and to apply. EOE

Prior to visiting a series of planned communities in and near Southern California's San Fernando Valley, I envisioned them as they were depicted in Greg Hise's book, Magnetic Los Angeles — suburban enclaves dotted with single-family homes, cars lining the wide curvilinear streets, children walking hurriedly to school. I almost expected my vision to blur slightly and force my surroundings to take on hues of white and black, matching the old photographs which told the story of the Valley's birth to a number of postwar self-contained suburban communities. The day's tour began with Westlake Village. Upon exiting the 101 freeway where it crosses the line between Los Angeles and Ventura County, we were transported to a classic example of 1960s planned suburbanism. But what we discovered was more characteristic of a retirement community than a serene master-planned suburb of lakeside condos and suburban homes. The community park was underutilized, the small office and retail uses embedded in the center of the neighborhood were overwhelmingly vacant. There were two other people in sight on a cool, breezy Saturday afternoon in late August. The walking paths winding between private residences were altogether devoid of human life. Public spaces ripe for human interaction and commerce remained in tact, but there was little evidence of current use. The next stop was Panorama City. This time we did a windshield survey of the area, driving along Van Nuys Boulevard, the commercial arterial that became the area's regional shopping center, and touring a couple of the winding internal streets. The architecture and layout of the residences were indicative of the mass-produced homes built during the postwar era. Henry Kaiser's planned community also included industrial uses that employed a large share of the neighborhood's first generation of working-age residents. But the agricultural landscape that hemmed in the once self-sufficient and self-contained community was gradually eaten up by a growing population. Automobile dependence and the decline of large-scale industry had forced regional interdependence within the Valley. In today's Panorama City thrived a community of working-class Latinos and Filipinos who had made Kaiser's version of the suburban dream their own reality. Heading north to Valencia, the monotonous suburban landscape lulled me to sleep. I was caught somewhere between reality and a waking dream-state. From the backseat of the car I was propelled to any number of familiar suburbs I had experienced in my childhood and travels as a young adult. Occasionally, I was jerked awake by surrounding conversation or a quick turn of the car, and I would have to remind myself that I was in Southern California, not suburban Chicago, or Atlanta, or Jacksonville, or Denver, or DC, or… What I saw that afternoon in Valencia — which is within the bounds of the City of Santa Clarita — caused me to rethink New Urbanism's attempt to create a "better" American suburb. Neither the garden suburb nor the new town development has fully realized Ebenezer Howard's Garden City principles. America's urbanization and the bursting of the real estate bubble rendered obsolete the goals of Nolen and Stein's suburban designs of the early 20th Century. So where does the hope lie for New Urbanism? A visit to Valencia's new town center addressed my question. Originally constructed and unveiled in the late 1990s, Valencia's downtown had all the elements of a prototypical New Urbanist development. There are a variety of mid to high-density residential units within a five-minute walk of the center, a smattering of offices and commercial businesses, and a city center replete with coffee shops, public art, hip restaurants, and a movie theater. The internal streets were narrow and in a modified grid pattern. But despite Valencia's noteworthy attempt of achieving a pedestrian-orientated neighborhood, it was difficult to overlook the busy arterial splitting the residential and commercial portions of the development. Once again, we witnessed the nostalgia for pre-automobile urban environments manifest itself in design philosophy. But does the movement represent a truly new idea, or will the fate of New Urbanism follow that of towns and neighborhoods that were built on similar principles until the 1920s? Maybe the historic master-planned community will be revisited, or perhaps the idea should be abandoned all together. The country continues to rapidly urbanize and Americans are increasingly mobile, so why do we need civic, commercial, and office uses within walking distance of our homes? Are we chasing a dream of a more livable community or a cultural abstraction, the latter which may only be obtained by squinting our eyes against the realities of modern design? - Jessica Daniels

To succeed in the 21st Century, do cities really have to be cool, as Richard Florida argues? Or do they have to be uncool, as Joel Kotkin insists? Maybe they have to be both. A few years ago, a little-known academic named Richard Florida turned the economic development world upside down by publishing a book called The Rise of the Creative Class . In a nutshell, Florida's argument was that to be successful today, cities have to be cool. The engine of the American economy, he claimed, was creativity. The United States had produced a "creative class" of close to 40 million highly educated professionals who focus on researching and creating innovative products. In his followup book, Cities and the Creative Class , he argued those professionals were increasingly concentrated in cities with certain "cool" attributes, including an arts and culture scene, bohemian enclaves and even large gay populations. Economic development is a field susceptible to "panacea" thinking. The latest hot idea, whether it's the sports stadium, the convention center, the downtown multiplex or the auto assembly plant, is often trumpeted as a panacea and pretty soon every city starts craving it. There is no economic development panacea, of course. (For many years as the economic development correspondent for Governing magazine I was nicknamed the "panacea editor," because my job was to write a long article every few months concluding that the latest hot idea was not a panacea). Even so, most of these ideas – Florida's included – have at least some value. The minute Florida declared that cities had to be cool, however, it was only a matter of time before Joel Kotkin starting writing that cities wouldn't succeed unless they were un -cool. Kotkin had long been a fan of what he calls "nerdistans" – boring suburbs (he always seems to mention Irvine) that nevertheless house some of the most powerful drivers of the American economy, especially in the tech sectors. But Florida's work really revved him up. In a typical article for the Manhattan Institute last year, Kotkin called the cool cities idea "shtick" and suggested that the creative class "by the time they get into their 30s, may be more interested in economic opportunity, a single family house and procreation than remaining ‘hip and cool' urbanites." The question of how to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina gave Kotkin a special opportunity to wave the flag for uncool cities. Less than a week after the hurricane, he drew a line in the sand. "The wrong approach would be to preserve a chimera of the past, producing a touristic faux New Orleans, a Cajun Disneyland," he wrote in the Los Angeles Times . Rather, the city should follow Houston's model. "Houston has succeeded by sticking to the basics, by focusing on the practical aspects of urbanism rather than the glamorous." The powers that be in New Orleans have not listened to Kotkin and he has continued squawking. On the second anniversary of the hurricane last week, Kotkin wrote in the Wall Street Journal that New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin was about to make a big mistake by committing to the $1 billion Riverfront development in order to lure "the much ballyhooed ‘creative class'." He frequently calls this approach "the ephemeral city". Is Kotkin really just being a contrarian? Or does he have a point? On this one, he's got a point – and a pretty good one. But just as he is prone to being a contrarian, he tends toward creating straw men in order to win an argument. In this case, he has set up Florida and the creative class in just this way. Over and over again, Kotkin has reduced Florida's "creative class" argument to nothing more than tourism and entertainment – in other words, bread and circuses. Kotkin has repeated it so frequently that nowadays even politicians and economic development experts tout the value of tourism and entertainment and claim they are following Florida's philosophy. This is a fundamental misreading of Florida's argument. Which is too bad, because it forces people in the world of economic development to take sides, rather than do what they should do – understand the value each of these combatants bring to the table with their arguments. In other words, by reducing Florida to a straw man, Kotkin forces us to treat Florida's ideas in an either/or way. It's either a panacea – or a worthless argument. In his book, The City: A Global History , Kotkin argues that cities serve three basic functions: religion, safety, and commerce. His view of cities as centers of commerce is nothing new; from time immemorial, cities have served as the geographical focus of commerce in general and trading in particular. Creating a safe zone goes hand-in-hand with commerce, obviously. But Kotkin's deepest conviction seems to concern the role of religion in shaping cities. And he seems to want to place himself and Florida on opposite sides of the culture wars in the U.S. today. "The sacred place" is so important to Kotkin that he ends his book with it. He decries the fact that New Urbanists, for example, "rarely refer to the need for a powerful moral vision to hold cities together." He ascribes much of Singapore's recent success to neo-Confusianism. And he decries the modern urban environment, "with its emphasis on faddishness, stylistic issues, and the celebration of the individual over the family or stable community." This last is clearly a frontal attack on Florida's ideas, with their emphasis on bohemian aspects of urban life, arts and culture, and the presence of a gay community. It's also, in a way, an attack on the idea of the city as a place of diversity. But there is more to Florida than art galleries and gay bars, no matter what Kotkin says. In identifying the creative class, he's not just talking about artists and actors. Indeed, if that were all he was talking about, he'd have gotten a lot of play on the Westside of L.A. and in Greenwich Village but nowhere else. To Florida, the creative class includes architects, software developers, medical researchers, scientists, engineers – anybody and everybody who is involved in the high-value-added process of conducting basic research and converting that research into new products. And Florida's argument is not that art galleries and gay bars by themselves are economic bonanzas, but that a wide variety of urban amenities are required to attract and retain the key members of the "creative class" to specific locations. Kotkin – who has long positioned himself as "Mr. Nerdistan" – would undoubtedly disagree. But I think, by and large, Florida is right about what the creative class wants. Not long ago I was giving a speech in just about the most blue-collar city you can imagine – Buffalo – and I made the Florida argument. New York State was investing hundreds of millions of dollars in life sciences research in Buffalo in an effort to compete with Georgia, Arizona, and California in this sector of huge economic opportunity. But I pointed out that the prevalent new development pattern in Buffalo was the creation of three-acre suburban lots. I suggested that research scientists trying to cure cancer did not want to spend all weekend on a riding mower. Afterwards, one woman came up to me and told me – in the broadest, flat-a Upstate accent you can imagine -- that she works at a cancer research institute. "You're right," she said of the scientists. "At the end of the day all they want is a restaurant, a gym, and a loft." It's worth noting as well that some businesses associated with the ephemeral city actually do represent enormous economic sectors. As Florida protégé Elizabeth Currid points out in her new book about New York, The Warhol Economy , art galleries aren't very big business, but the fashion industry is a huge industry of worldwide significance. You'd think Kotkin would acknowledge this every once in a while, considering how many times he's told the story, in speeches, about the Lower East Side and the economic miracle of the needle trade a century ago. And in Kotkin's own adopted hometown of Los Angeles, one of the biggest industries is the most ephemeral of all – entertainment, which has a long history of providing well-paying middle-class craft jobs that have provided a path for upward mobility for generations of families who have lived in Kotkin's own neighborhood. You won't read much about these subtleties in Kotkin's columns because they fit don't in with the straw-man argument he's usually making. And that's too bad, because Kotkin makes an important point that we all should bear in mind: Coolness alone will not make American cities work in the 21st Century. In other words, as I might put it in Governing magazine, coolness is not a panacea. But neither is uncoolness. This is the point that Kotkin does not allow for. Successful economic development in the 21st Century will require that American cities understand the creative class and how to attract and retain them just as Florida suggests. At the same time, obviously, cities cannot ignore basic infrastructure while subsidizing art galleries and gay bars. As I concluded in every Governing article I ever wrote, no one thing – no one structure, no one theory -- will guarantee a city's long-term economic success. The more those of us in the business of commentary communicate this message -- rather than the straw man, either/or argument that Joel Kotkin typically makes -- the more likely cities are to dig deeper, search harder, and find the real keys to success. - Bill Fulton Third of three blogs. For Part 1, click here . For Part 2, click here .

It's no secret alternative energy and sustainability are hot topics. There are all kinds of ingenious ideas to harness "green energy" through wind, hydro, thermal and solar sources, but did you ever think about harnessing energy from the movements of crowds? Some guys at MIT seem to think people can move trains instead of trains moving us. A "Crowd Farm," as envisioned by MIT architecture graduate students James Graham and Thaddeus Jusczyk isn't intended to promulgate crowds as the name implies but rather to harness energy from them as they move over small blocks imbedded in the pavement ( http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/crowdfarm-0725.html ). These blocks, or dynamos, slightly depress when stepped or sat upon and transfer the energy into electricity. These students have run a couple models with the technology imbedded in train stations, and they have set up a chair that powers a tiny LED light. Still, the technology is expensive in its infantile stages. Somehow, someone figured 28,527 steps on these dynamos is the magic number to run a train for a second. I put this in the context of Union Station in Los Angeles with about 1.4 million visitors last year. Assuming they walk a quarter mile on average when in or around the station, and their average step covers about a foot and a half, the 1.3 billion steps taken in Union Station last year is enough to power a train for 12.4 hours. LAX had 61 million visitors in 2004; imagine that all these footsteps in the quarter-mile walk through the security line would power a train for almost 22 days! These gadgets would really be powering less exciting things than trains, but even feeding the power back onto the grid would help California reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Mass produce them cheaply an install them at airports, train stations, concert halls even sports stadiums. "The wave" could be popular again at Dodger games if it helps global warming, and I could tolerate a couple standing ovations at the opera if they lit the exit signs. It's just plain fun to consider, not to mention the fact that dynamos would add a new perspective to urban interfaces by encouraging movement and interaction. I imagine the blocks would give a little, like walking on gravel, and this would reduce stress on the joints and burn a couple extra calories on the way. I wonder if they feel like rubber sidewalks; I love the feel of walking on rubber sidewalks. Another grad student at Princeton, not to be outdone by the likes of MIT, made a similar themed invention (converting kinetic energy into electricity) a couple years ago. Only this other project harnesses the tumultuous ocean surface on weekdays, and converts into a park for boats on weekends with the accumulated energy. Check out Yuske Obuchi's "Wave Garden" at http://pruned.blogspot.com/2005/06/wave-garden-by-yusuke-obuchi.html or http://www.archiprix.org/project_2007.php?id=2032 . They're thinking this thing will succeed the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in 2026! - Aaron Engstrom

The fight over fair-share allocations of needed housing within the Southern California Association of Governments region is on. At least two cities have filed lawsuits and numerous others are reportedly considering their legal and political options. The cities of Irvine and Palmdale were apparently the first to find the courthouse, as both have filed lawsuits demanding that SCAG more equitably allocate units across the region. "The entire process was not appropriate," summed up Palmdale Assistant City Attorney Judy Skousen. Early this year, SCAG adopted an "integrated forecast" and methodology for the regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) process. After considering requests for revisions and various appeals, SCAG in July adopted the RNHA numbers for every city and county in the six-county region. The RHNA apportions 700,000 units of very low-income, low-income, moderate-income and above moderate-income housing units for a planning period that began January 1, 2006, and concludes June 30, 2014. Cities and counties are supposed to use the RHNA numbers to update their general plan housing elements, which must explain how and where the jurisdiction will accommodate the units needed by people of varying incomes. Housing element updates for the SCAG region are due at the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) by June 2008. Planners at SCAG began by working off a growth forecast prepared for the 2004 regional transportation plan, explained Joann Africa, a SCAG attorney. Planners accepted input from cities that helped refine the growth forecast and then began applying the adopted methodology. Among other things, the methodology considers the availability of land suitable for urban development, underutilized parcels, and opportunities for infill and higher densities. The methodology also allocates low- and very low-income units across the region in attempt to promote socio-economic equity, according to a report SCAG prepared for the Legislature. The last round of housing allocations for the 1998 through 2005 planning period dissolved into extensive fighting and litigation among SCAG, its members and HCD over the total number of units needed and their distribution. During that round of planning, SCAG allocated large numbers of housing units to the Inland Empire, where cities and counties revolted. SCAG cut some of the allocations, but HCD refused to go along with the reductions. The battles were not resolved until near the end of the planning period (see CP&DR Insight , April 2003 and June 2000 ; CP&DR , February 2001 ). Whether the latest battles will drag on for years is unknown, but possible. One of the combatants this time is the City of Irvine, a wealthy and politically powerful entity that is accustomed to getting what it wants — such as the conversion of the former El Toro Marine Corps base not into a civilian airport but instead into a park. Under SCAG's allocations, Irvine is supposed to plan for 35,660 new housing units, about 60% of which must be in the affordable categories. The RHNA figure is equal to more than half of the city's current housing inventory of about 64,500 units. The only city in the region to receive a larger allocation is Los Angeles at 112,000 units. "We don't understand SCAG's methodology, and we cannot question their methodology," city spokesman Louis Gonzalez said. Irvine Housing Manager Mark Asturias said the city has inclusionary zoning policies that permit developers to meet their obligations in a variety of ways. Plus, a core area along Jamboree Road is zoned for high-density housing. But if the SCAG allocation sticks, Asturias said, "we have to revisit everything." And that may be just what SCAG wants. It appears two factors drove the SCAG numbers: jobs and land. Irvine is an employment center with about 188,000 jobs, or approximately three jobs for every housing unit. That's more than double what is typically considered a jobs-housing balance. In addition, Irvine has jurisdiction over the majority of El Toro, a 4,000-acre chunk of land, and Irvine annexed about 3,000 additional acres in recent years. Asturias said nearly all of the land in the "northern sphere" annexation is covered by a natural communities conservation plan and cannot be developed. Of the El Toro site, the Navy is hanging on to more than 1,000 acres for environmental mitigation, and another 1,600 acres are planned for the Orange County Great Park. Only 1,100 acres are designated for housing development, and that land is already entitled for 3,300 units of low-density housing, Asturias said. "That wasn't acknowledged by SCAG when they put their numbers together," Asturias said. Undoubtedly, regional planners would like to see a lot more density than three units per acre on land that is so close to tens of thousands of jobs. Still, the Orange County Business Council, which ranks housing development as its top priority, is ready to support Irvine in court. The council's president, Lucy Dunn, a former HCD director, called SCAG's allocations "insane." Other cities in south Orange County were given minimal fair-share housing numbers, she pointed out. For example, Laguna Hills' total allocation is 8 units. Lake Forest's figure is 29. Mission Viejo's is 147. "Fundamentally, on its face, it's not fair," Dunn said. "SCAG makes a mockery of the process." The high desert city of Palmdale could not be more different from Irvine. Palmdale serves primarily as a bedroom for workers "down the hill" in the Santa Clarita Valley and Los Angeles. Adding SCAG's prescribed 17,910 units (about 58% which are supposed to be affordable) would only exacerbate already terrible freeway congestion, said Skousen, the assistant city attorney. "They did not take into consideration all of the items listed in the statute," Skousen said. "For example, in the City of Palmdale, they did not take a realistic look at the number of jobs." Nor, she said, did SCAG consider water availability, which is a very real issue in Palmdale. Palmdale would like its allocation cut to about 10,000 units. In an earlier appeal that SCAG denied, Irvine was willing to accept 8,800 units. However, both cities readily admit that if SCAG accepts those lower numbers, other jurisdictions must receive the units. The City of El Monte in the San Gabriel Valley is not prepared to sue yet. Instead, Planning Manager Minh Thai said, the city will go through the process of seeing how it can accommodate its allocation of 2,208 units, 56% of which are to be affordable. However, even during the housing boom earlier this decade, builders produced only about 140 units a year in El Monte, Thai noted. "We feel that the numbers do not match our ability to provide the units in terms of what the market can drive and what our infrastructure can accommodate," Thai said. The city has nearly completed a specific plan that envisions about 1,850 housing units in a 65-acre, transit-oriented development adjacent to the downtown area, a Metrolink station and the terminus of the El Monte Busway. However, nearly all of those units would be market-rate, Thai said. The city does have extensive industrial land, and there is landowner interest in converting some into residential uses, Thai said. But the city is trying to preserve its industrial areas so that it has a balance of land uses. Officials at HCD are expected to approve SCAG's allocation plan this month. Contacts: Mark Asturias, City of Irvine, (949) 724-7448. Minh Thai, City of El Monte, (626) 580-2090. Judy Skousen, City of Palmdale, (661) 267-5108. Lucy Dunn, Orange County Business Council, (949) 476-2242. SCAG RHNA website: http://www.scag.ca.gov/Housing/rhna

California's greenhouse gas reduction bill – AB 32 – has received worldwide recognition as cutting-edge policy on global warming, not least because Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has chewed up a lot of carbon flying around the world promoting it. Back in Sacramento, however, the hard part is just beginning: Deciding how to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state. AB 32 calls for a 20% emissions reduction over the next 13 years. Most of these reductions are expected to come from tighter air pollution standards on stationary sources, such as electricity plants, and from cleaner-burning fuels. But 10-15% of this reduction is expected to come from changes to land use patterns – transit-oriented development, smart growth, or whatever you want to call development patterns that reduce overall vehicle miles traveled and, therefore, tailpipe emissions as well (see CP&DR Insight , April 2007). The Legislature is heavily focused on how to work land use into the greenhouse-gas reduction mix – primarily through debate over SB 375, a proposal to deal with this question. Not surprisingly, California's local governments and the building industry have been less than enthusiastic about a new layer of state directives that tells them what land use patterns should look like. Both are resisting SB 375 strongly, suggesting that more time is required to work out the details. ---------------News Update--------------- On Thursday morning, August 30, state Sen. Darrell Steinberg made SB 375 into a two-year bill, meaning a final decision on the legislation will not occur until 2008. --------------------------------------------- Yet it's hard to imagine how AB 32 is going to be seriously implemented without something along the lines of SB 375. If the state does not impose some regulatory scheme on local land use patterns, then use of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to deal with greenhouse gases will probably be accelerated. Attorney General Jerry Brown has already attracted a lot of publicity by suing local governments, claiming that AB 32 requires CEQA analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. Most recently, he forced a settlement agreement with San Bernardino County requiring a re-crafting of the general plan to account for greenhouse gas emissions (see In Brief ). We have been down this road before, though not with such blazing intensity. Back in the late '80s and early '90s, when the feds were pressuring California to hit federal clean air standards, the betting was that California's regional air pollution control agencies would get into the land use business. The air pollution agencies talked tough about land use for a while, and tinkered around the edges of the planning process, but they never took on land use directly. Instead they focused mostly on carpooling and other demand management mechanisms designed to limit the growth in vehicle miles traveled and, hence, tailpipe emissions. Some of these efforts remain in place today, while others have withered away. But it's hard to imagine AB 32 withering away. Global warming has captured the public's attention very quickly as the most significant environmental issue in history. Both Schwarzenegger and Brown – whose celebrity reaches far beyond their current offices – have staked a lot of their publicity value on it. (Schwarzenegger is termed out in 2010, and with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's recent personal problems Brown has emerged as the early front-runner for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination at that time.) Most of the legislative attention is focused on SB 375, a bill by Sen. Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) that has barreled through the Legislature quickly despite significant opposition from both the locals and the builders. The bill has passed the Senate and has received friendly receptions in Assembly committees. The Steinberg bill is a wide-ranging proposal that affects local land use decisions in many ways. The bill's basic approach is to use the leverage of regional transportation plans to encourage local land use changes. Each metropolitan planning organization (MPO) would be required to adopt a "preferred growth scenario" that will show how emissions reduction targets set by the Air Resources Board will be hit. Among other things, the MPOs would be required to designate "significant resource areas" that would have to be set aside. Steinberg suggests the scenario is a variation on the recently approved "blueprints" in many regions. Future transportation funding will be tied to these preferred growth scenarios; if local governments' land use decisions conform to the scenario, they will be rewarded with transportation money. Local governments using the preferred growth scenario will also get some process breaks under the California Environmental Quality Act. Some projects will be exempt from CEQA analysis if they conform to a "sustainable communities checklist". Both the League of California Cities and the builders lobby have reacted forcefully with a wide array of arguments. Among other things, they argue that SB 375 is putting the cart before the horse, in that overall AB 32 implementation is moving slowly through stakeholder processes while Steinberg's bill is being rushed through the Legislature. For both the League and the California Building Industry Association (CBIA), the substantive crux of the argument is that SB 375 imposes a statewide land use regulation mechanism on local governments. "In essence," a missive from the League of Cities stated, "a regional authority would be making local land use designations." (Steinberg has called this characterization a "myth".) The League's party line is that AB 32 implementation should focus on "emissions reduction strategies" rather than "growth controls". There are two different ways to look at SB 375 and the response to it from the locals and the builders. The first is that AB 32 implementation has given the planning hard-liners an excuse to drag out every failed growth management idea of the last 20 years and take another run with them. The second is that AB 32 represents a radical public policy change – a sharp reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions – and it requires a radical shift in how practically everything in California is done. Actually, both are probably true. The League's general argument is not without merit. The recent history of California planning is littered with examples of policies that purported to clean up the environment but were really focused on nothing more than limiting growth. Just about every local growth control initiative would be an example here, as would the whole regulatory system in the Tahoe basin, which has presumed – erroneously, apparently – that water clarity in Lake Tahoe can be maintained if development in the Tahoe basin is limited quantitatively. Some of the more micro arguments against SB 375 are not without merit either. For example, the CBIA lambastes the bill's mandate to set aside "significant resource areas" as being in conflict with the state's own Regional Housing Needs Assessment process. (The bill does at least state that the region's housing needs must be accommodated in the preferred growth scenario.) It's true that simply setting aside land does not necessarily reduce emissions. Overall driving and emissions could increase or decrease, depending on the resulting development patterns. Unfortunately for both the League and CBIA, however, Steinberg's bill cleverly uses the rhetoric and approach of "smart growth" to sidestep the question of whether overall development would actually be restricted. The goal of the bill is to implement a law calling for a reduction in air pollution emissions, but nowhere does SB 375 say this should be accomplished by actually reducing development – only by rearranging it. Clearly, neither the League nor CBIA actually believes this – or else they have concluded that the "growth control" arguments are are most effective. The League is most concerned about retaining local control, because its constituents are local governments, while CBIA is most concerned about retaining the maximum amount of raw land in play for development, because most of its members are small homebuilders. But both the League and CBIA might want to be careful about what they ask for. At present, the battle over SB 375 is being fought on very familiar ground for everybody involved in planning and development – the basic question of whether local land use decisions should be accountable to a regional or station entity. It's nothing more than the typical you-can't-make-us-do-what-we-don't-want-to-do argument. But if the debate over SB 375 turns to emissions reduction, then both the League and CBIA will find themselves on a much larger and unfamiliar battleground in implementing the overall AB 32 targets. Rather than a you-can't-make-us-do-it debate, AB 32 is an I-win-you-lose debate. The emissions reductions have to come from somewhere, so the question is, Who bears the burden? And there are other powerful players besides the builders, the local governments, and the enviros, and the stakes are extremely high. The AB 32 battle is big-league competition in Sacramento of a kind that the locals and the builders are not used to playing. It'll be driven in large part by savvy corporate players – including huge electricity conglomerates who know how to play the lobbying game in Sacramento better than anybody – who will have an interest in pushing as much emissions reduction as possible off on somebody else. Every argument made by the local governments and the builders – all those arguments so carefully honed in intramural battles over the last 20 years – will be countered by equally compelling and well-funded arguments from other corporate interests who will claim that protecting them from AB 32 will be better for California in the long run. And they are smart enough to figure out that every ton of emissions reduction that can be laid off on land use is a ton of emissions reduction they don't have to worry about. In other words, the planning and development lobby's biggest problem in implementing AB 32 isn't those nasty enviros. It's all those industrial polluters that just might have more juice in Sacramento. So the locals and the builders might want to think about cutting out the usual intramural warfare and decide how much of an emissions reduction they can really accept in the land use system – or else some more powerful lobbyists for the likes of PG&E, Hyundai and Royal Dutch Shell might decide for them.

The City of Stockton intends to take back control of its water and sewer systems from a private company in early 2008. The City Council recently voted to drop an appeal of a court ruling that said the city's 2003 contract with OMI-Thames was improper because its environmental impact's were not studied. The council voted to end its $600 million, 20-year agreement with OMI-Thames, which has been sharply criticized by local residents and the Sierra Club, and closely watched by people on both sides of the privatization debate. "It's time to move on," Mayor Ed Chavez told the Stockton Record. Eleven redevelopment agencies failed to correct major audit violations for the 2005-06 fiscal year by July 30, 2007, according to the state controller's office, which has turned over the agencies to the attorney general's office for possible enforcement action. Belmont, Cloverdale, Exeter, Hawthorne, Rio Vista, Taft, Ventura County and California State University Channel Islands Site Authority failed to adopt implementation plans. Taft also failed to adopt required time limits, while Hawthorne, El Centro, Grand Terrace and Pomona did not develop land acquired with housing fund money within five years, according to the controller's office. A federal court judge has thrown out an initiative approved last year by Kern County voters that prohibits the dumping of out-of-county sewage sludge on unincorporated land. U.S. District Court Judge Gary Allen Feess ruled that Measure E violates the commerce clause because it does not apply to Kern County cities and is superceded by state waste regulations. The Kern County Board of Supervisors has voted to appeal the ruling. The owners of the 216-acre Wavecrest development site in Half Moon Bay have agreed to sell their land to the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST). Twelve years ago, the Half Moon Bay City Council approved 750 homes, a golf course, an RV park and an oceanfront hotel on the site. Voters tossed out that project in a referendum. In 1999, the city approved a scaled-down version and eventually the project shrunk to only 217 homes, but it has languished for years at the Coastal Commission. The deal between POST and the partnership that owns the land could be finalized by year's end, according to POST, which declined to release financial details.

San Marcos is suffering from a syndrome. (We're talking metaphors here, gentlemen; no need to call the process server.) The name of the ailment that afflicts this attractive, upscale suburb north of San Diego could be called Nowhere in Particular Syndrome. The symptoms include the lack of a center, coupled with a sense that one could be nearly anywhere in America—anywhere, in fact, that suffers from the same anonymity. The treatment, still experimental, is to graft a city center onto this bedroom community, much as one would transplant some genetically healthy tissue onto a diseased organ. If the cure takes, the city will not only gain a center, but the healthy DNA of this transplant might spread beneficially to other parts of the organism. This "transplant" is the San Marcos Creek specific plan. In late July, the San Marcos City Council unanimously endorsed the plan, which calls for high-density commercial and residential development, together with new parks and open space, as well as some flood control measures. In addition to 90 acres of parks and open habitat space, the specific plan will allow 1.2 million square feet of retail space, nearly 600,000 square feet of office space and up to 2,300 housing units. The 217 acres of the specific plan area encompass the creek's 100-year floodplain, and the idea of locating a new downtown in such a place sounds odd. Yet the creek bed and its surrounding floodplain lie in the center of town, bounded by four major roads, including State Highway 78. The creek is also a dividing line between the older, commercial part of the city on the north, with its familiar configuration of shopping centers floating in a lake of asphalt, and the newer, spaghetti-street residential neighborhoods to the south. In other words, the stream that has served as a natural division between the older and newer parts of town can now function as the place that connects the two. The San Marcos Creek project would squeeze a new downtown between the commercial part of town (top) and residential neighborhoods (bottom). The design of the specific plan area logically locates the commercial and high-density residential uses along San Marcos Boulevard, the northern boundary of the project area. The shapeless parking lots suddenly transition into smaller, pedestrian-oriented blocks that measure roughly 400 feet by 310 feet north of Main Street, and 400 feet by 280 feet south of Main. Those dimensions are a little larger than the blocks in downtown San Francisco, but it is still a walkable scale. To make the blocks even more accessible to pedestrians, the blocks are "to be further broken down through the provision of private paseos and alleys," according to urban designer Michael Olin of WRT/Solomon of San Francisco, the firm responsible for the master plan. The parks and riparian habitat lie mostly south of the creek, bordering the existing residential neighborhoods, and the softer lines of the open space element of the specific plan are as carefully designed as the formal blocks to the north. During the public hearing process, the designers had shown a PowerPoint presentation of all the things that the San Marcos Creek specific plan was not supposed to be, including "a developer's wildest dream." That statement was not intended to say that the specific plan would be hostile or inimical to developers; the real meaning is that the plan would not be shaped entirely by commercial concerns, but instead by respect for the natural environment and the health of the waterway. The design decisions made by WRT/Solomon for the relationship between the open space and the areas to be developed demonstrate the designers' respect for both commercial viability and the life of the creek. To appreciate this design, take into consideration an idea that an architect recently shared with me. To create the most usable open spaces, whether they are courtyards or parks, the open spaces should be designed first. After the footprints of the open spaces are determined, then design buildings around the open space. This simple principle, so commonsensical, is actually the opposite way we design most of our parks and habitats, which are leftovers that developers don't want, such as hilly areas or wetlands. Taking a close look at the southern edge of the developed area in the San Marcos plan, we see that a newly designed street, Creekside Drive, mimics the meander of the waterway, maintaining a near-uniform depth of open space on either side of the creek, whichever way the waterway happens to turn. Notice, also, how the blocks of development yield to the path of the water and the surrounding riparian environment, as if the creek had eroded the streets. This primacy given to open space, and the way that commercial development yields to the requirements of a healthy creek, demonstrates the good faith of the specific plan, and proves that it is not guided by the rapacity of developers. My hope is that the rhythm of walkable blocks will someday spread north into the formless retail district and spread the DNA of walkable streets farther into San Marcos. Flood control takes the form of new levies on both the north and south of the creek, particularly near a mobile home park, which currently is vulnerable in the event of a flood. A new culvert beneath Highway 78 would drain the area if the creek rises. High densities and a mix of uses would provide the San Diego suburb with a real downtown. According to local news reports, the only San Marcos residents who spoke out against this plan are people who are concerned about high-density development, which is fair. They were also concerned that the new downtown San Marcos might become a regional attraction, which seems less of a real issue, because there are plenty of other places for the residents of San Diego County to shop. Downtown San Marcos will probably remain mostly a local attraction. As one of millions of Californians who live near lifeless, channelized waterways that could have been wonderful places, given a different history, I eat my metaphorical heart in envy for the good fortune of San Marcos. But envy is a different disease altogether.

With the politicking already under way, another confusing campaign over eminent domain restrictions is likely to confront voters next year. A coalition headed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the California Farm Bureau Federation is gathering signatures on an initiative that would prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development. The measure would also prohibit rent control. And, according to initiative opponents, because of subterfuge or error, the measure would prohibit the use of eminent domain for public water projects. The rent control provision and the argument about the impact on water projects could overshadow the issue of redevelopment agencies' use of eminent domain during the 2008 campaign. At the same time, a coalition that includes the League of California Cities, the California Redevelopment Association (CRA) and the League of Conservation Voters is circulating a rival initiative that would bar the taking of owner-occupied, single-family residences for economic development and provide new safeguards for small business owners. The initiative is similar to ACA 8, which the same organizations are sponsoring. However, because it is a constitutional amendment, ACA 8 needs two-thirds approval in the statehouse before heading to the ballot. Thus far, the measure has no Republican support. In 2006, California voters rejected Proposition 90, one of several "sons of Kelo " ballot measures around the country (see CP&DR , December 2006 , August 2006 ). Proposition 90 would have prohibited the use of eminent domain for economic development. But it also contained far-reaching language that would have required government compensation for regulation that reduced a property's value. Opponents seized on these takings provisions, which became far more important than the eminent domain limitations during the campaign. This time, rent control may replace takings as the tangential — yet dominant —issue. John Shirey, CRA executive director, noted that apartment owners and mobile home park owners are providing most of the money for the Jarvis group's signature-gathering effort. Those property owners have fought local rent control ordinances vigorously for decades. Initiative proponents say rent control is a natural fit for the initiative because property rights protections are meaningless if the government can still regulate sales or lease prices. In late August, the League and CRA trumpeted a legal opinion that said the Jarvis initiative would prohibit the use of eminent domain for water projects. The opinion was written for the organizations by Richard Martland, a former assistant state attorney general now with Sacramento's Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor. Martland pointed to initiative language that would prohibit the transfer of property rights to a public agency for the "consumption of natural resources." " f the ultimate purpose is to provide water for domestic use, such as drinking water, irrigation, commercial or industrial purposes, the use of eminent domain to acquire the land necessary to construct any feature of the project would be prohibited," Martland wrote. The opinion generated headlines in Sacramento and some worried comments by a few Republicans. But Jon Coupal, president of the Jarvis association, said the opinion was simply a political ploy. "On the merits of the legal argument, we're very comfortable and we wouldn't change a thing about our initiative," said Coupal, who laughed at the idea that the Farm Bureau would do anything to halt water projects. "The notion that the dozen or so water attorneys at the Farm Bureau Federation would miss this is silly." Coupal said his initiative would provide "iron-clad protection for all property owners," which he said is a contrast with the more limited protections of ACA 8 and the local government-sponsored initiative. The lack of protection for the owners of rental properties and churches was clearly at issue during an Assembly Local Government Committee hearing on August 22, when ACA 8 failed to get a vote from either Republican committee member — a sign that any GOP support is very unlikely. "Do what's fair," Assemblyman Guy Houston (R-San Ramon) urged ACA 8 author Hector De La Torre (D-South Gate). "The rental property is real, real important." ---------------News Update--------------- On August 30, De La Torre amended his bill to prohibit the use of eminent domain for the taking of a church or house of worship for transfer of the property to another private party. --------------------------------------------- If ACA 8 supporters cannot round up all Democratic lawmakers plus two Senate Republicans and six Assembly Republicans, local government organizations must go the initiative route, which Shirey called "plan B." At this point, it appears both initiatives could appear on the June 2008 ballot. The Local Impact The Arcadia Redevelopment Agency is painfully aware of what happens when a local government loses eminent domain authority. In Arcadia's case, it may mean the loss of the city's last automobile dealership and one of the largest sales tax generators, at nearly $1 million annually. After the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its Kelo decision upholding the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes, Arcadia officials commenced the condemnation process to acquire three parcels so that the adjacent Rusnak Mercedes-Benz dealership could expand. The timing, noted Assistant City Manager Don Penman, could not have been worse. One property owner, Manny Romero, the owner of the popular Rod's Grill, made clear that he had no intention of selling. As the Kelo backlash grew, Romero became something of a celebrity — a small business owner willing to stand up to both city hall and Mercedes-Benz. Romero became active in the Proposition 90 campaign and also helped qualify an initiative in Arcadia. Measure A would have prohibited automobile sales on the block where the city was attempting to help Rusnak expand. The City Council countered with its own ballot measure, Measure B, which preserved land use authority but eliminated the redevelopment agency's ability to use eminent domain for the purpose of taking private property for private use. During a special election in May, voters by three-to-one ratios rejected Romero's zoning limitation and approved the council's concession of eminent domain authority. The redevelopment agency has acquired one of the parcels and is in escrow to purchase the second, according to Penman. However, Romero will not sell and his mid-block parcel is essential. In July, Rusnak announced it would look out for a new location out of town. Penman conceded that Arcadia is a conservative community. Still, he said, "It's tough to make things happen when you don't have the leverage." Contacts: John Shirey, California Redevelopment Association, (916) 448-8760. Jon Coupal, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, (916) 444-9950. Don Penman, City of Arcadia, (626) 574-5414.

Stanislaus County supervisors and developers have beaten farmland preservation advocates to the punch. Supervisors adopted a developer-written growth plan for the unincorporated community of Salida six months before voters are scheduled to decide on a slow growth/farmland protection initiative that actually was written first. In response to the "Stamp Out Sprawl" (SOS) initiative, scheduled for the February 2008 ballot, developers drafted the "Salida Now" initiative and appeared to qualify it for the November 2007 ballot. However, the Board of Supervisors in August voted 3-2 simply to adopt the initiative. Supporters say the plan is very similar to a community plan update that has been in the works for years, provides infrastructure funding for industrial and commercial development, and moves Salida toward financial self-sufficiency. Detractors say the quick drafting and adoption of the Salida Now initiative was a brazen political move that could backfire. "It's such an obvious, in-your-face flaunting of power," said Denny Jackman an (SOS) organizer and former Modesto councilman. County Supervisor Jeff Grover conceded that the SOS initiative created a "feeling of real urgency." By adopting the Salida initiative, supervisors simply speeded up what had already been a long process. The Salida Now plan "is exactly what we've been working on and exactly what we've been planning in Salida," Grover said. With a population of about 14,000, Salida is by far the largest town in unincorporated Stanislaus County. Salida's location along Highway 99 at the far northern end of the county puts it within long-distance commuting range of the Bay Area. County officials, however, have long wanted to see Salida grow as an employment center (see CP&DR Local Watch , May 2000). That has not happened and county officials say Salida is an approximately $3 million-a-year drain on the county. Since 2000, advocates of farmland protection in Stanislaus County have been trying to get something on the ballot that resembles Ventura County's SOAR initiatives (see CP&DR Insight , May 2002; CP&DR , December 1998 ). Previous efforts failed, but in June 2006, farmland advocates presented the county with signed petitions on the SOS initiative. If approved, it would require voters to decide on the rezoning of unincorporated agricultural land. Supporters wanted to place the initiative on the November 2006 ballot. However, county supervisors ordered an analysis as allowed under the Election Code. By the time the analysis was completed two months later, the deadline for getting an initiative on the ballot had passed. Therefore, supervisors scheduled the SOS initiative for the next general election — February 2008. The move bought Salida growth proponents time. Within months, the Salida Now initiative was on the streets, and in June supporters submitted an extraordinary number of signed petitions — enough to force a special election. The $400,000 signature-gathering campaign was financed almost entirely by developers, primarily Pacific Union Homes, Bates Properties and The Stringer Co., all of which have substantial interests in Salida. (An interesting twist in the initiative calls for development fees to reimburse the cost of preparing the initiative.) Again, supervisors ordered an analysis. But when that analysis was presented to the board in August, supervisors somewhat unexpectedly adopted the initiative, a decision permitted by state law. The decision studded some people. In an editorial under the headline "Maybe The Developers Really Do Run The County," the Modesto Bee opined: "In a single vote, three supervisors amended the county general plan, adopted the Salida Community Plan as firm for the next 25 years, and OK'd a development agreement with developers. And the three supervisors did all of this without giving the public any time to comprehend it all and to comment." From a political standpoint, Jackman said, the supervisors' actions have been great for SOS supporters. First, supervisors delayed an election on the grass-roots SOS initiative, then they adopted the developer-funded Salida initiative with virtually no warning. SOS supporters could not have asked for better campaign material, Jackman said. But Supervisor Grover, who represents Salida, makes no apologies. State demographers predict Stanislaus County will add 350,000 people and need at least 100,000 new jobs by 2030, Grover pointed out. "We need areas to provide jobs all over the county," Grover said. The SOS initiative would "block everything in the unincorporated areas." The lack of infrastructure in Salida is often cited as one reason for the lack of economic development. According to an analysis by county staff members of the initiative, "The proponents envision … the residential component subsidizing the initial infrastructure of the industrial and commercial areas and in later years the industrial/commercial area generating adequate revenue to maintain the infrastructure of both the residential and industrial/commercial area." Grover said the initiative is very similar to a community plan update — in process for years — that was presented to supervisors in April. Adopting the plan simply keeps the decision-making in the hands of elected officials, he said. In the Turlock-based Farmland Working Group's most recent newsletter, President Jeani Ferrari expressed doubt. "The supervisors' action gives the project to the developers, with no right to say ‘no' to the project as a whole, no matter what the environmental impact report and financial feasibility studies show," Ferrari wrote. The initiative covers 3,383 acres, of which about 60% is designated for industrial, business park or commercial uses. Proponents say as many as 27,000 jobs could be created there. In addition, the plan permits up to 5,000 housing units in varying densities and sets aside 100 acres for a riverfront park. The initiative contains no entitlements, said Stanislaus County Planning and Community Development Director Ron Freitas. The next step is for developers to prepare "development plans" that would be similar to specific plans. While the initiative did not undergo California Environmental Quality Act review, all development plans are subject to CEQA, Freitas said. "We're stepping back and saying, ‘It's your development plan, you prepare it.' We will still retain the EIR consultant," Freitas said. Loss of farmland is a significant issue. About 3,000 acres in the plan area are in agricultural production, and most of the territory is prime farmland. The initiative calls for housing developers to offset loss of farmland by buying acre-for-acre preservation easements on similar farmland elsewhere in the county. However, the mitigation requirement does not apply to non-residential development. The initiative also calls for developers to contribute $150,000 to a Salida incorporation feasibility study. Contacts: Stanislaus County Supervisor Jeff Grover, (209) 525-6560. Ron Freitas, Stanislaus County Planning and Community Development Department, (209) 525-6330. Farmland Working Group, (209) 247-2503.