Now that Ray LaHood has finally announced he is stepping down as President Obama's Secretary of Transportation, speculation has immediately focused on whether outgoing L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa will succeed him. There's no question that Obama needs a Latino in the Cabinet. It's not clear whether Obama thinks he needs a big name like Villaraigosa at DOT, and Villaraigosa claims to have taken himself out of the running because he doesn't want to leave office before his term is over on June 30. But that, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily mean he's out.The timing and messaging of LaHood's departure would seem to point in Villaraigosa direction: LaHood took his time making a decision and made it clear he'll stay on until a successor arrives. But maybe the most interesting question raised by the Villaraigosa possibility is whether a mayor is the best choice the DOT job. As   a recent blog  in Atlantic Cities noted, there's a pretty good case for a  mayor as opposed to a career transportation expert or a transplant from Capitol Hill.  The job is important to planning and development because the Department of Transportation has by far the most money of any federal agency involved in the field. It's one of three agencies (Environmental Protection Agency and Housing and Urban Development being the other two) involved in the Obama's Partnership for Sustainable Communities. And, of course, transportation investments drive development patterns. Villaraigosa's name is in play because he is a high-profile Latino with a strong record of accomplishment in the transportation field. On his watch, L.A. has moved to the forefront on rail transit construction, and Villaraigosa has eloquently advocated for "elegant density" as a solution to the city's problems. Most recent Transportation Secretaries have been either transportation professionals (like Mary Peters in the Bush Administration) or members of Congress who worked on transportation issues (like Norm Mineta, who had also been a mayor, and Ray LaHood). In the case of both Mineta, a Democrat, and LaHood, a Republican, the incumbent president used the DOT slot to give a Cabinet job to a respected member of Congress from the other party. But, as Atlantic Cities points out, mayors have a different take on DOT than other folks, because they view transportation as part of the overall system of their city's functions and they are more likely to view transportation investments in economic development terms. In many ways, Villaraigosa resembles former Denver Mayor Federico Pen a, who was President Clinton's first DOT secretary in 1993. Pena was a well-respected Latino mayor who had gotten one big transportation project done (the new Denver Airport) and had laid the groundwork for urban redevelopment both downtown and at the old Stapleton Airport site. (You can read a piece I wrote about Pena at the time here .) Pena did not have nearly the high national profile that Villaraigosa has, however. Pena sometimes seemed over his head in the job at first, but in the end did a good job. But it was easier to be Secretary of Transportation in those days, principally because of money and politics. The pathbreaking ISTEA law had passed with bipartisan support just two years earlier and the federal gas tax had gone up. Now, the federal Highway Trust Fund is bankrupt and it took Congress four years to pass an 18-month extension to the transportation bill. It is also hard to know how Villaraigosa -- a big city mayor -- would handle the state DOTs, who have enormous influence over how transportation money is spend. It is worth noting, however, that he spent six years in California Assembly, rising to the position of Speaker. In the end, the question of whether Villaraigosa goes to DOT is a political calculation on both sides -- whether President Obama sees an advantage to having this high-profile Latino in his Cabinet, and whether Villaraigoisa views the DOT job as a useful stepping stone toward his presumed next goal, a run for governor after Jerry Brown steps down. But it would be interesting to see whether Villaraigosa can push a smart growth transportation agenda more effectively than anybody else.

Here's CP&DR 's roundup of recent events around the state regarding the redevelopment wind-down. Just click on the headline to read more -- sometimes from us, sometimes from other sources. West Sac passes Chiang's test, Hercules struggles, Morgan Hill sues CP&DR Controller John Chiang has audited four former redevelopment agencies so far and only West Sacramento has been given a clean bill of health. Hercules is struggling to comply amid an unrelated redevelopment scandal, while Milpitas and Morgan Hill got rapped for creating what Chiang concluded was a bogus economic development entity. Morgan Hill is suing the state over that one. Menlo Park sells pricey land at direction of oversight board San Jose Mercury News Menlo Park has sold a 2-acre site previously owned by its redevelopment for $8 million, and the proceeds will be distributed to local taxing agencies. The property on Hamilton Avenue is zoned M-1 but could support 38 housing units. The RDA had been attempting to find a developer before redevelopment was dissolved. Over the summer, the oversight board directed the city as successor to issue an RFP for a developer. The purchaser is Greenheart Land Co. plans to build all market-rate units. Read the staff report here . Victorville airport authority defaults on bonds Contra Costa Times The Southern California Logistics Airport Authority has defaulted on bonds for the second time this year, blaming the end of redevelopment for the problem. The VIctorville-based joint powers authority was originally created to deal with land at the former George Air Force Base and was given redevelopment powers in the process. DOF says no to WeHo park project West Hollywood Patch The state Department of Finance has denied West Hollywood's request to use $14 million in redevelopment funds to help fund a $41 million renovation of Plummer Park. The city floated $30 million in bonds in 2011 to cover the remainder, but expected to use redevelopment money for about a third of the project. Plummer Park is one of only three parks in WeHo and served as the location for the temporary city hall when the city was incorporated in 1984. Camarillo loans $250,000 to successor agency Ventura County Star The City of Camarillo has loaned its redevelopment successor agency $250,000 to cover administrative costs.

West Sacramento has become the first city to emerge unscathed from a redevelopment audit by the State Controller's Office. Meanwhile, the Bay Area city of Hercules finds its asset transfers caught in the crossfire of a variety of other problems, including alleged long-term mismanagement of the redevelopment agency. West Sacramento was the fourth city to have its 2011 asset transfers audited by Controller John Chiang's office . In general, Chiang's audits have found that redevelopment agencies transferred government facilities to cities in 2011 – rather than letting the successor agency do that – and also have transferred redevelopment project assets to the city or a city-created economic development group. Like many cities around the state, West Sacramento – located just across the Sacramento River from the State Capitol – transferred most of its redevelopment agency's assets to the city in 2011. Chiang's office found in November that all of West Sacramento's $77 million in asset transfers were legal. Chiang's office said the city should have turned 12 parcels with zero book value involved in that transfer over to the successor agency – but West Sacramento's oversight board subsequently approved the city's retention of those properties, so West Sacramento got a clean bill of health overall. The first two – Morgan Hill and Milpitas – got whacked for transferring redevelopment assets to a newly created economic development entity controlled by the city. Milpitas's response was more hard-line than Morgan Hill's, though Morgan Hill is suing over the economic development entity. The third – Hercules – was criticized for transferring several critical redevelopment parcels to the city. Chiang's office had previously found mismanagement in the redevelopment agency prior to 2011. Hercules The Hercules situation is messy because of an underlying financial scandal and other factors. In January, the city and the RDA were sued by their bond insurer, Ambac, when it became clear that the RDA would miss a bond payment on February 1 – the same day that the RDA was scheduled to go out of business. Subsequently, the city settled the lawsui t with, among other things, a promise to sell two RDA properties, Parcel C and Victoria Crescent, that had been transferred to the city by the RDA in 2011. It was clear that, without the legal settlement, Hercules would have had to declare bankruptcy. Further scandal erupted in September, when an audit by Chiang's office revealed that the city had misspent or otherwise not properly accounted for $50 million in RDA expenditures between 2007 and 2010. The audit specifically called out the city's former city manager – apparently Nelson Oliva – whose private consulting firm received $3 million to run various housing programs during this period, including $2 million from the RDA's housing setside fund, apparently without competitive bid. Many other irregularities were also found, including failure to pay ERAF funds and poor documentation (no appraisals, for example) for four properties the RDA purchased during this time, including Victoria Crescent. The city subsequently sued Oliva and his three daughters, seeking to recover the $3 million. In November, Chiang's office found that $35 million of the $124 million in assets transferred from the city to the RDA were improper. These included about $4 million in cash and, apparently, about $30 million in the form of three pieces of property – Sycamore Crossing and the two parcels the city is compelled to sell to settle the Ambac suit, Victoria Crescent, and Parcel C. Chiang's report does not specify these three properties but the City Council ordered the transfer of these three properties a t its meeting on November 13 , five days after Chiang's audit came out. Chiang's office also knocked Hercules for not turning out $15 million in affordable housing assets, but the city claimed this was related to a dispute over who would be the successor agency. Hercules declined to serve as the successor agency for housing and waited all summer while the Contra Costa County Housing Authority – the default entity under AB 1x 26 – determined whether to accept the role of successor agency for housing purposes. The Housing Authority eventually declined and Hercules claimed it did not know who to transfer the assets to. Milpitas In August, Chiang's office found that $147 million of the $175 million in assets transferred in 2011 were not permitted and recommended that these assets be transferred to the successor agency. Of these, about $97 million were government facilities and public works assets transferred to the city, including the Milpitas Civic Center, valued by the city at $30 million. About $50 million, including $37 million in investment funds, was transferred to the Milpitas Economic Development Corp., a newly created entity. Milpitas responded by saying that the assets transferred to the city were governmental assets built, at least in part, with redevelopment funds as was permitted under the redevelopment law. Regarding the assets transferred to the economic development entity, Milpitas claimed that it is a separate entity and the city cannot compel the corporation to surrender assets to the successor agency. In its counter-response, Chiang's office said that it was up to the oversight committee to determine which government facilities to transfer and noted that the economic development corporation was set up by the city and the City Council serves as its board. Morgan Hill Also in August, Chiang's office virtually identical fault with transfers in Morgan Hill as its found in Milpitas. Chiang found that $108 million of the $228 million in assets transferred in 2011 were not permitted and recommended that these assets be transferred to the successor agency. Of these, about $88 million were public facilities transferred to the city, including the city library and a variety of sports and recreation complexes. The other $20 million in assets were downtown redevelopment assets, including a parking garage, parking lots, and a theater, which were transferred to the Morgan Hill Economic Development Corp. – which, as in Milpitas, was a new entity created in response to the possible end of redevelopment. Unlike Milpitas, the city agreed to turn the city assets over to the successor agency. The Morgan Hill Economic Development Corp., however, was another story. The EDC was created by the city on March 2, 2011, specifically to carry on the work of the RDA. But the city tried to create an arms-length relationship with the EDC. The boundaries were the entire city, not just the old redevelopment project area. The EDC's initial board of directors was the City Council; but on March 7, the EDC met and changed the by-laws so that a majority of its board members were not City Councilmembers. The RDA had initially transferred the downtown assest to the city, but ater in March, the city transferred these assets back to the RDA, which immediately transferred to the EDC. In its response, the city argued vigorously that the EDC was beyond the city's control, but Chiang's office didn't buy it, saying that at the time of the asset transfer the EDC board still consisted of the City Council. In September, the Morgan Hill City Council decided to sue the state on the issue of the economic development entity.

There is some irony in contemplating the demise of state affordable housing programs at this moment. Residential values have taken a major haircut and interest rates are at record lows, the two factors together resulting in new levels of affordability. Nevertheless, over the long run, state programs have served a vital role in affordable housing and from a long term policy perspective, should remain funded and operational. The most recent decision in this area, in Housing Partners I, Inc. v. John C. Duncan, pertains to prevailing wage requirements and the specified exemptions to the obligation to pay prevailing wage on public projects, depending upon the funding source. California's prevailing wage requirements are found in the Labor Code at sections 1720-1861. Two commonly utilized exemptions from the obligation to pay prevailing wages involve projects financed through a qualified housing fund or from a combination of qualifying housing funds and private funds (Labor Code section 1720(c)(4), and below-market interest rate funds for projects meeting qualified income and affordability criteria (Labor Code section 1720(c)(6)(E)).  In this case, Housing Partners I, Inc. developed a senior citizens housing project in Redlands. To finance the project, the developer utilized 1720(c)(4) funds and 1720(c)(6)(E) monies. As permitted by state law, a prevailing wage monitoring group requested a prevailing wage coverage determination from the Department of Industrial Relations.  The monitor first concluded that the project met the definition of a public works project, which would typically require the developer to follow prevailing wage law.  The monitor then turned to the nuanced question of whether or not a developer who receives funds from two sources, each of which meet the test for the exemption, loses the exemptions if the funding sources are combined. As difficult as it is to imagine that the legislative purpose behind the exemption would be lost if the two sources were combined, that is what the monitor concluded.  That decision was confirmed following an administrative appeal, and by the trial and appellate courts. As the appellate court observed, the legislative goals behind the exemption have to yield to the unambiguous terms of the statutes. In the situation of section 1720(c)(4) funds, the statute qualifies the exemption to circumstances in which those funds are the sole source of funds.  Commentary When it came to interpreting what the legislature enacted, the director and the court got it right. If there is legislative wisdom to such a restriction, it is far from evident. This case reminds me of Humpty Dumpty in Alice In Wonderland: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." The moral of this case is to be careful of what you wish for and how you draft legislation. The Case:  Housing Partners I, Inc. v. John C. Duncan (June 15, 2012, E052582) __Cal.App.4th __; 2012 Cal.App. LEXIS 709 The Attorneys:  Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, Thomas W. Kovacich and Jennifer D. Cantrell for Plaintiff and Appellant. Vanessa L. Holton, Chief Counsel, Steven A. McGinty, Assistant Chief Counsel, and John L. Korbol, Staff Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent.

Mobile home parks often represent meaningful opportunities for cities to provide affordable housing. Conversions of rental mobile home parks to individual ownerships can lead to thorny issues. They can create affordable ownership opportunities for lower income families and individuals, or they can displace the same economically disadvantaged households burdened with a difficult-to-relocate housing asset.  The legislature has struggled with crafting the appropriate protocols for cities and counties to follow when reviewing applications for park conversion. The most recent judicial decision, Paul Goldstone v. County of Santa Cruz, involves city and county practice when determining whether or not an application represented a bona fide application to convert under Government Code section 66427.5. Originally enacted in 1991, this code section has steadily morphed, adding new provisions in response to legislative recognition of new issues associated in conversion. In 2002, the appellate court in El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd.v. City of Palm Springs (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1153 concluded, based upon the statute as then enacted, that the scope of local government discretion when acting on an application was strictly constrained to that limited provisions found in the code, and in particular, concluded that local governments were precluded from imposing conditions to prevent sham or fraudulent conversions.  This scenario, of limited discretion of course, is at great variance to the discretion typically enjoyed by most cities and counties when acting upon pending applications for land use approvals. In response to the El Dorado decision, the legislature, in the same year amended section 66427.5 to provide for a tenant survey. The code directed that the results of the survey would be delivered to the city or county processing the applications, and that the scope of review was limited to compliance with "section 66427.5." With that as background, plaintiff Goldstone sought approval for a mobile home park conversion in Santa Cruz County. The applicant completed the requisite park tenant survey, the overwhelming results of which were in opposition to the conversion. There was a dispute as to how the survey information was conducted and whether or not the homeowners association cajoled tenants into opposing the conversion.  The county planning commission recommended against the conversion, and the Board of Supervisors, based upon the negative resident survey results, denied the application. The applicant filed a writ challenging the decision, arguing that the scope of local inquiry was limited to whether or not the statutorily required survey was conducted, but not the results of the survey. Recognizing the ambiguity in the code, the appellate court ultimately concluded that the city or county processing the application could take into consideration the results of the tenant survey when making its decision to approve or deny the conversion. As a result, the appellate decision affirms the county's denial. The Case: Paul Goldstone v. County of Santa Cruz (July 17, 2012, H036273) ___Cal.App.4th ___. The Attorneys:  Gilchrist & Rutter: Thomas W. Casparian, Richard H. Close, Yen N. Hope for Plaintiff and Appellant Dana McRae, County Counsel; Jason M. Heath, Assistant County Counsel for Defendant and Respondent

Ideal Boat & Camper Storage began operating as an equipment storage yard in 1964, and in subsequent years, obtained various county approvals, including two site development review (SDR) approvals, the latest in 1990. In 1993, the county adopted a new area planning document which sought to promote viticulture in the area and in 1994, the area plan was incorporated in the comprehensive general plan for the east area of the county.  In November 2000, the voters of Alameda County approved Measure D, which, among other provisions, sought to protect agricultural and open space. Measure D restricted the urban expansion areas, and added new development requirements. These requirements proved to be restrictive for Ideal.  In 2001, Ideal submitted an application to expand the storage operation to turn an additional 30 areas of the same lot into additional vehicle storage. On the contention that the proposal could lead to the conversion of potentially productive agricultural land, county staff recommended denial. The planning commission, and then the Board of Supervisors, denied the request. The applicant then filed a new application. Staff advised the applicant that the county could not approve expansion of a non-conforming use but would consider all arguments offered by the applicant.  Staff recommended to the planning commission that it dispense with California Environmental Quality Act requirements and deny the application on the basis that it was an expansion of a non-conforming use. The commission denied the request, as did the Board, in accord with staff recommendations. They contended that the expansion would be in conflict with Measure D, and was inconsistent with County planning requirements. The applicant then filed a writ. The trial court denied all relief. On appeal, in Ideal Boat & Camper Storage v. County of Alameda, the plaintiff argued in part that Measure D was not intended to apply to existing activities such as those that Ideal with which Ideal was engaged. First, the court reviewed the specifics of the East Area Plan, as amended by Measure D. When read in conjunction with other county land use regulations, the existing Ideal Storage activity became a non-conforming use upon passage of the east area plan and Measure D. Measure D restricted any expansion of non-conforming uses.  Under such pointed limitations, expansion would not be consistent with the applicable planning and land use requirements. With that as background, the appellate court rejected the argument that Measure D was not intended to apply to existing activities. As Measure D restricted discretionary approvals, Ideal then challenged the nature of the SDR approval, asserting it was not discretionary.  Although no hearing was required by local ordinance, the court agreed that the director could conduct a hearing on the proposed SDR. More importantly, the terms of the ordinance allow the decision-making authority to exercise significant discretion, based upon a broad range of issues and potential areas of investigation. The Court of Appeal also rejected the argument that Ideal had a vested right to expand.  Given that the approvals granted by the County prior to the implementation of the East Area Plan and Measure D did not contemplate any additional expansion, the appellate court could find no basis for an argument that there was a vested right to expand. The Case:  Ideal Boat & Camper Storage v. County of Alameda (August 9, 2012, A132714) ___Cal.App.4th ___. The Attorneys:  Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, David P. Lanferman and James G. Higgins for Appellants. Donna R. Ziegler, County Counsel; Brian E. Washington, Chief Assistant County Counsel; Erin H. Reding, Associate County Counsel for Respondents:

The $188 million Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC), which broke ground earlier this month, is the most recent example of a fast-growing list of public facilities with big ambitions: the local transit hub that connects local and regional transit rail lines with bus service, taxies, bicycle locks and sometimes business services for travelers.  The anticipation of high-speed rail also adds some drama to the Anaheim transit center.  Even if high-speed rail never gets built, however, the Anaheim complex promises to be one of the first of a new type of civic building: a flamboyant train station meant to be a high-profile civic ornament. With its dramatic, parabolic roofline, ARTIC has the confident, puff-out-your-chest architecture that in some cases wants to evoke the train stations of a century ago�even if it's not yet clear what exactly these buildings should look like or what ultimate purpose they will serve. Unlike an airport, typically an anonymous-looking expanse of infrastructure on the edge of town, the rail terminal is a downtown building. It needs to be visible, swelling with civic pride, a beacon.   Driving the development of massive projects like ARTIC are several factors, notably regional air quality goals, efforts to expand ridership on light rail systems and, in the case of Anaheim, perhaps the chance to give the city an "image" building that is not an artificial alp. The financing for ARTIC reflects policy goals on federal, state and local levels, with $143.1 million coming from Measure, the county's half-cent sales tax devoted to transportation improvements, $29.2 million from the 2008 State Transportation Improvement Program, and another $11.8 million from federal sources. An additional of $3.6 million for environmental studies rounds out the budget. Located at the site of existing Amtrak and Metrolink stations, ARTIC is within close distance of Angel Stadium and the "Platinum Triangle" commercial district in downtown Anaheim. Dozens of intermodal transit hubs are currently planned in California, although the exact number is difficult to identify, in part because it's difficult to talk the range of projects and their urban-design ambitions are extremely wide, ranging. They include everything from suburban park-and-rides with train platforms, to large-scale city building exercises like the multi-block TransBay Terminal currently under construction in the SOMA district of San Francisco and the expansion of Sacramento's historic train station situated between the city's downtown area and the enormous Railyards project immediately to the north.  The largest projects integrate office buildings and other uses into the transit projects, increasing their importance as civic linchpins.   Projects appear to be both more popular and more useful in Northern California, where BART and local rail systems seem like natural station generators. In the nine-county area comprising the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the Bay Area, at least 51 transit hubs of various sizes are under review.  Other places are banking almost entirely on high speed rail � a still-uncertain proposition.  The positive aspects of the HOK-designed ARTIC is that it is prominent, has a graceful shape and will likely be an ornament to a city that has long worked to make its downtown area seem at least as big and prosperous as Disneyland, the resort-within-a-city which has been Anaheim's monstre sacre for half a century. The negative aspects, arguably, is that the building, with its soaring, glass-lined ceilings, is not readily identifiable as a train station or perhaps anything else. If we were flying over the completed building in a helicopter, and knew nothing about it, what would we think it was? My first guess is an opera house or community theater, because the half-shell profile of the building suggests a band shell. A second guess might be an Olympic-sized sports venue, although this building, with its half-round foot print, looks more like a basketball stadium cut down the middle.  When we find out that ARTIC is a transit building, however, it's clear that HOK has wisely chosen to evoke the soaring spaces of old-time rail stations�Grand Central and the late, great Penn Station, both in New York, are the textbook examples�with the height of the building symbolizing the great press of people down below, all hurrying past one another in search of their travel connections. The new-style transit hub is different from Grand Central, however, because the transit hub is a building sitting alone in the middle of a parking lot--an awkward condition that tends to isolate these structures from the business districts they serve.  A much smaller, but equally intriguing, transit center is the proposed Hercules Multimodal Transit Center in Contra Costa County. If I'm reading it correctly, the Hercules station evokes a different building type, in this case the long-barrel vaulted train stations of Great Britain and France. (Think of the train station in Paris that became the Musee D'Orsay.) The "signifier" or symbolic piece in this design is a set of three broad-shouldered station buildings with curving roofs, which remind me of the industrial-looking buildings, with their long, "extruded" cross sections.  In suburban Hercules, however, the station buildings are narrow, rather than the long platforms found in big-city train stations. A prominent clock tower that serves as a place marker is another traditional device.  In terms of making sense at first view, I find Hercules more easily identifiable as a transit station than ARTIC. At the same time, the rapid growth of transit stations suggests that there is something like an architectural version of "shake out" happening, whether competing images of what best symbolizes the intermodal transit station. Cities like Sacramento and Los Angeles, which have created new transit centers at the site of existing rail stations, have a certain advantage, although the 19th   Century or early 20th Century facades of those stations may not give an adequate idea, from the outside, of the 21st Century transit technology that someday may roll in behind their walls. It's clear from the contrast between ARTIC and Hercules, in any event, that the image of the present-day transit center is still early in its evolution.

The $188 million Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC), which broke ground earlier this month, is the most recent example of a fast-growing list of public facilities with big ambitions: the local transit hub that connects local and regional transit rail lines with bus service, taxies, bicycle locks and sometimes business services for travelers.  The anticipation of high-speed rail also adds some drama to the Anaheim transit center.  Even if high-speed rail never gets built, however, the Anaheim complex promises to be one of the first of a new type of civic building: a flamboyant train station meant to be a high-profile civic ornament. With its dramatic, parabolic roofline, ARTIC has the confident, puff-out-your-chest architecture that in some cases wants to evoke the train stations of a century ago—even if it's not yet clear what exactly these buildings should look like or what ultimate purpose they will serve. Unlike an airport, typically an anonymous-looking expanse of infrastructure on the edge of town, the rail terminal is a downtown building. It needs to be visible, swelling with civic pride, a beacon.   Driving the development of massive projects like ARTIC are several factors, notably regional air quality goals, efforts to expand ridership on light rail systems and, in the case of Anaheim, perhaps the chance to give the city an "image" building that is not an artificial alp. The financing for ARTIC reflects policy goals on federal, state and local levels, with $143.1 million coming from Measure, the county's half-cent sales tax devoted to transportation improvements, $29.2 million from the 2008 State Transportation Improvement Program, and another $11.8 million from federal sources. An additional of $3.6 million for environmental studies rounds out the budget. Located at the site of existing Amtrak and Metrolink stations, ARTIC is within close distance of Angel Stadium and the "Platinum Triangle" commercial district in downtown Anaheim. Dozens of intermodal transit hubs are currently planned in California, although the exact number is difficult to identify, in part because it's difficult to talk the range of projects and their urban-design ambitions are extremely wide, ranging. They include everything from suburban park-and-rides with train platforms, to large-scale city building exercises like the multi-block TransBay Terminal currently under construction in the SOMA district of San Francisco and the expansion of Sacramento's historic train station situated between the city's downtown area and the enormous Railyards project immediately to the north.  The largest projects integrate office buildings and other uses into the transit projects, increasing their importance as civic linchpins.  Projects appear to be both more popular and more useful in Northern California, where BART and local rail systems seem like natural station generators. In the nine-county area comprising the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the Bay Area, at least 51 transit hubs of various sizes are under review.  Other places are banking almost entirely on high speed rail – a still-uncertain proposition.  The positive aspects of the HOK-designed ARTIC is that it is prominent, has a graceful shape and will likely be an ornament to a city that has long worked to make its downtown area seem at least as big and prosperous as Disneyland, the resort-within-a-city which has been Anaheim's monstre sacre for half a century. The negative aspects, arguably, is that the building, with its soaring, glass-lined ceilings, is not readily identifiable as a train station or perhaps anything else. If we were flying over the completed building in a helicopter, and knew nothing about it, what would we think it was? My first guess is an opera house or community theater, because the half-shell profile of the building suggests a band shell. A second guess might be an Olympic-sized sports venue, although this building, with its half-round foot print, looks more like a basketball stadium cut down the middle.  When we find out that ARTIC is a transit building, however, it's clear that HOK has wisely chosen to evoke the soaring spaces of old-time rail stations—Grand Central and the late, great Penn Station, both in New York, are the textbook examples—with the height of the building symbolizing the great press of people down below, all hurrying past one another in search of their travel connections. The new-style transit hub is different from Grand Central, however, because the transit hub is a building sitting alone in the middle of a parking lot--an awkward condition that tends to isolate these structures from the business districts they serve.  A much smaller, but equally intriguing, transit center is the proposed Hercules Multimodal Transit Center in Contra Costa County. If I'm reading it correctly, the Hercules station evokes a different building type, in this case the long-barrel vaulted train stations of Great Britain and France. (Think of the train station in Paris that became the Musee D'Orsay.) The "signifier" or symbolic piece in this design is a set of three broad-shouldered station buildings with curving roofs, which remind me of the industrial-looking buildings, with their long, "extruded" cross sections.  In suburban Hercules, however, the station buildings are narrow, rather than the long platforms found in big-city train stations. A prominent clock tower that serves as a place marker is another traditional device.  In terms of making sense at first view, I find Hercules more easily identifiable as a transit station than ARTIC. At the same time, the rapid growth of transit stations suggests that there is something like an architectural version of "shake out" happening, whether competing images of what best symbolizes the intermodal transit station. Cities like Sacramento and Los Angeles, which have created new transit centers at the site of existing rail stations, have a certain advantage, although the 19th   Century or early 20th Century facades of those stations may not give an adequate idea, from the outside, of the 21st Century transit technology that someday may roll in behind their walls. It's clear from the contrast between ARTIC and Hercules, in any event, that the image of the present-day transit center is still early in its evolution.

Barrington, Ill.—What can California learn from a sleepy exurb on the edge of nowhere? Not much, I don't think. California has scarcely ever pretended to care much for small town America. But something that is at once very modern and very old-fashioned is afoot here on Main Street.  I mean Main Street literally. Barrington has a primary commercial street, and it's called Main. And in the middle of that street, watching over it calmly and without imposition, stands the Catlow Theater , its neon casting a red glow over the prairie.  Living near Westwood, in Los Angeles, makes me one of the last Americans to think of a movie theater as a single-screen affair, with a marquee and architectural flourishes. Everyone else probably thinks of multiplexes and uses the retronym "single-screen," if they think about such things at all, when they refer to such oddities like the Village Theater or, indeed, the Catlow. If the Catlow had been dutifully following the trends of the past two decades, it would have turned into a Walgreen's years ago. While so many of its brethren have gone dark—such as my local Aero, in 2005—the Catlow hung on just long enough for a hero to arrive.  That hero was neither Batman, who does not exist, nor was it even the movie Batman, which I saw at the Catlow Tuesday night in the form of Dark Knight Rises. Instead, something much more modest rescued the old Catlow Theater: civic pride.  An orthodox (i.e. unrealistic) interpretation of capitalism says that an institution like the Catlow should live and die by selling all the tickets and popcorn that it can sell. If its sales fall short, then in marches creative destruction. One show per weeknight and hundreds of empty seats aren't going to cut it.  That's why the Catlow resorted to a Kickstarter campaign. Its operators asked for $100,000 to upgrade the theater and, presumably, to keep it afloat. How much could a for-profit operation expect to raise from the population of one small town? And why should anyone "donate" to a business in the first place? We'll get to the second question. As to the first, the answer is… $175,000.  Make it $175,005, with my five bucks thrown in.  The Catlow was built some 90 years before the invention of Kickstarter, but what's a generation gap when the heart of a town is on the line?  If the private sector worked perfectly, the Catlow wouldn't need Kickstarter, and if the public sector worked perfectly, developers wouldn't need lobbyists. Patrons would see a movie a week, and elected officials would know exactly what the public does and does not want built in their backyard or town square. But it doesn't work that way. People don't always have the time or inclination to spend the money that they actually want to spend.  The Catlow's Kickstarter campaign puts in perfect relief the point where the power of the public sector ends and where the private sector – be it businesses, stakeholders, or nonprofits – must take over. Planners can do their damndest to promote appealing, vibrant places, but they cannot control who is going to move into those places, and they cannot guarantee their success. If stakeholders are going to invest in nice places – via the tax money that goes into planning and infrastructure – then they should also be willing to invest in the institutions that activate those places, even if those institutions are presumably for-profit ventures. That's because, as strict free-market conservatives are loath to admit, there is such thing as an externality.  When externalities are negative, we deserve compensation. When they are positive, we deserve a chance to show our appreciation. Many people would pay not just to see movies in an enchanting space but would in fact pay merely to have the opportunity to see movies in an enchanting space. Unfortunately, until the advent of Kickstarter, institutions like the Catlow had no way of gracefully asking for help. Witness every independent bookstore and music store that has perished since the advent of Amazon and Napster. The Catlow's salvation suggests, at least, that we are finally taking notice of what we've lost and are willing to preserve those few great gathering places that still remain. It's tempting to think of great places as charity cases, but I reject that notion. When we're talking about a communal institution, of which the proprietor is as much a steward as an investor, the charity is us.  California's economic situation is going to get worse before it gets better. And semi-historic institutions like movie theaters are facing increasing peril with the demise of redevelopment. We can expect no further success stories like Oakland's Paramount Theater. So Californians should get ready to pony up.   If that still sounds like an odd notion, consider this: If they pass the plate around on Sunday morning so that you can sit in a lovely building and hear provocative ideas in the company of your neighbors for two hours, then why not do the very same on Saturday night?

It's safe to say that the City of Calistoga's Silver Rose Referendum will not be the most important question on the ballot in the this November. Nor will Escondido's general plan measure, nor even a preliminary vote on draining Hetch Hetchy reservoir. Nonetheless, next month's election brings a diverse array of local land use measures on issues ranging from the provision of open space to the funding of affordable housing to a 60-year plan to invest tens of billions of dollars in transportation. Herewith is CP&DR's roundup of ballot measures related to land use statewide. General Plans, Specific Plans & Growth Napa County Measure U Angwin General Plan Amendment Initiative Measure U would redesignate certain lands in Angwin from urban residential to "agricultural, watershed and open space (AWOS) or public institutional." It will permit modernization and expansion of a sewage treatment plant and prohibit further subdivision of "public institutional lands" anywhere in the county. Del Mar (San Diego County) Measure J Village Specific Plan "Shall Ordinance 869 approving the Village Specific Plan as approved by the Del Mar City Council, which, without raising taxes, implements the Del Mar Community Plan by: creating a pedestrian-oriented downtown with plazas, wider sidewalks and landscaping; improving the Village's appearance and economic viability; increasing public parking availability; improving traffic flow, bike and pedestrian safety; reducing air and water pollution; and providing development controls, and traffic and parking solutions to ensure neighborhood compatibility, be adopted?" Escondido (San Diego County) Measure N Changes to General Plan Measure N would ratify the changes to the city's general plan, approved by the City Council. Simi Valley (Ventura County) Measure N Managed Growth Plan Measure N would approve a new Managed Growth Plan, which will become effective January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2022, replacing a plan that expires December 31, 2012. Zoning & Restrictions Berkeley (Alameda County) Measure T Zoning for the West Berkeley Plan Measure T would make zoning changes to large parcels in West Berkeley. It reads, "Shall the West Berkeley Plan and the Zoning Ordinance be amended to allow development flexibility on up to 6 large sites, each under the same ownership, during the next 10 years, allowing a maximum height of 75' with a site-wide average height of 50', and only if community and environmental benefits are provided to West Berkeley?" Pacific Grove Measure F Building Height Restrictions If Measure F is approved, it will regulate the height of buildings in the city's downtown district. Buildings in this area would be allowed "a maximum height of 75 feet and 100 percent site coverage. Parks & Open Space Fullerton (Orange County) Measure W West Coyote Hills Development and Nature Preserve The Fullerton City Council approved the "West Coyote Hills" development, a project that would cover 510 acres of former oil field; it would include 760 homes and 283 acres of open space . A "yes" on Measure W supports decision of the Fullerton City Council to allow the West Coyote Hills Project. A "no" vote would stop that development. Laguna Beach (Orange County) Measure CC Parcel Tax for Open Space Measure CC would approve a parcel tax of $120 per parcel per year, and the revenues from the tax will be used to purchase open space within the city. The tax will generate about $1 million a year, with the objective of increasing open space in the city by about 20%. Yuba County Measure T  Open Space Initiative Measure T's passage would mean that land use designation and building densities in the General Plan Natural Resources Land Use Element must be retained until the year 2030. A "no" vote means that the Yuba County Board of Supervisors will continue to decide on changes to land use designation and building densities in the General Plan Natural Resources Land Use Element, without a popular vote. City of Alameda (Alameda County) Measure D Sale or Disposal of City Parks The City of Alameda's charter requires voter approval for any "sale or alienation of any public parks or portion of public parks within the City." This provision has three exceptions that allow the city council to grant certain permits and licenses and sell park property, under certain circumstances, without first seeking voter approval. If Measure D is approved, that the city council would no longer have the authority to sell or dispose of park land without voter approval. The measure reads, "Shall the Charter of the City of Alameda be amended by amending Section 22-12 to eliminate language that allows the City Council to sell or dispose of public parks or any portion thereof if a new public park is designated, which means the sale or disposal of public parks must be approved by the electors?" City and County of San Francisco Proposition B Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond Proposition Proposition B would authorize the city to borrow $195 million for park, open space and recreation facilities. City and County of San Francisco Proposition F Water Sustainability and Environmental Restoration/Hetch Hetchy Reservoir Proposition F would allocate $8 million to require the City to prepare a plan that evaluates how to drain the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and identifies replacement water and power sources. Hetch Hetchy, in Yosemite National Park, is a reservoir that supplies San Francisco with much of its drinking water. It has long been considered a lost natural jewel. Woodland Hills, Encino, and Tarzan Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (Los Angeles County) Measure MM Parcel Tax Measure MM would levy a parcel tax of $19/year for ten years "to protect, maintain and conserve local open space, parklands and wildlife corridors; protect water quality in local creeks and reservoirs; improve fire prevention including brush clearing, acquire open space, and increase park ranger safety and security patrols." Los Angeles County Measure HH Santa Monica Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority Parcel Tax          Measure HH would "protect, maintain and conserve local open space, parklands and wildlife corridors; protect water quality in local creeks and reservoirs; improve fire prevention including brush clearing; acquire open space, and increase park ranger safety security patrols" through a special $24 tax assessed annually for ten years, with all funds spent locally in the Santa Monica Mountains east of the 405. Housing & Redevelopment City and County of San Francisco Proposition C Creation of a Housing Trust Fund The measure would create a brand-new affordable housing trust fund for the City of San Francisco. "This measure (would set) aside general fund revenues beginning in Fiscal Year 2013-2014 and ending in Fiscal Year 2042-2043 to create, acquire and rehabilitate affordable housing and promote affordable home ownership programs in the City; and 2) lower and stabilize the impacts of affordable housing regulatory impositions on private residential projects; and to authorize the development of up to 30,000 affordable rental units." Moorpark (Ventura County) Measure O Low-Rent Housing Development Measure N would approve a new Managed Growth Plan, which will become effective January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2022, replacing a plan that expires December 31, 2012. West Sacramento Measure G Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Revenues West Sacramento is attempting a novel approach to redevelopment dissolution, by explicitly directing remaining RDA revenue to community investments. The measure reads, "Should the City direct ongoing revenue it receives from the dissolution of its Redevelopment Agency to continue funding community investment projects such as streets, bridges, transportation, parks, and public infrastructure?" Miscellaneous Alameda County Measure B1 Transportation Sales Tax Increase Would raise the county transportation sales tax from 1/2 cent to a full cent for the purpose of road maintenance and other transportation projects. The measure could raise up to $8 billion over 30 years. Managed by a 22-member commission,  48% of Measure B1 funds would be spent on transit, 39% would be spent on roads and highways, and 8% would go toward bicycle and pedestrian programs. It requires a 2/3 supermajority. Atherton (Santa Clara County) Measure L New Town Center "Should the Town of Atherton use funds primarily from private donations to construct a new Town Center? Other funding sources might include funds derived from Building fees or future grant money, but would not use general fund or parcel tax money." Calistoga (Napa County) Measure B Silver Rose Referendum Measure B concerns an ordinance, approved by the Calistoga City Council in May 2012, which amended the city's overall zoning ordinance to allow the development of the Silver Rose project at 400 Silverado Trail. A yes vote support's the council's decision. Guadalupe Measure J City of Guadalupe Name Change to "Guadalupe Beach"         If the measure is approved, the name of the city will be changed from "Guadalupe" to "Guadalupe Beach." Huntington Beach (Orange County) Measure AA Equal Taxation and Assessments for Sunset Beach Measure AA emerges from an acrimonious annexation of the formerly unincorporated community of Sunset Beach by the City of Huntington Beach. Sunset Beach residents feared that the larger city would raise taxes and fees on residents. If Measure AA is approved, the residents of Sunset Beach will pay the same assessments, taxes and property-related fees as do the residents of Huntington Beach. Los Angeles County Measure J Sales Tax for Transportation Measure J is the companion to Los Angeles County's Measure R, passed in 2010 to secure a 1/2-cent, 30-year sales tax to fund transportation improvements. Measure J would extend the Measure R tax for another 30 years, thus allowing the county to borrow against future revenues in order to fund a multitude of transportation improvements over the next two decades. The measure would accelerate light rail, subway, and freeway projects. As a tax, it requires 2/3 approval.  Los Angeles (Downtown) (Los Angeles County) Streetcar Measure Residents in an area of downtown Los Angeles will vote on whether a proposed streetcar circulator will be developed in the area. The system is projected to cost $125 million, with roughly half coming from local landowners. The measure requires 2/3 approval.

While Gov. Jerry Brown's veto of redevelopment-related bills and the earlier failure of parking reform bill Assembly Bill 904 caused some consternation around the state, he did in fact sign a wide array of bills relating to land use at the end of last month.  Of chief concern to many planners is Senate Bill 1241, sponsored by Sen. Christine Kehoe. The bill intends to use land use planning to minimize fire risks and guide decisions about future development by amending the safety element of general plan law. In doing so, expands the state's ability to review county plans and subdivsion plans. It adds to the list of specialized topics that general plans must address.  The bill is considered to be a culmination of an eight-year effort by Kehoe to address wildfires, starting in 2004 with AB 3065. A measure similar to SB 1241 was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2010.  Its provisions go into effect Jan. 1, 2013. By 2014, cities and counties will have to review and update the safety element as necessary to address the risk of fire for state responsibility areas and conducted detailed surveying and mapping to determine areas of high fire danger. The bill directs the Office of Planning and Research to draft guidelines for how plans should identify and address fire danger, and it requires that county legislative bodies make findings that ensure the availability of fire protection before they approve tentative maps for parcels in areas located in an SRA and/or an area of high fire danger.  Many of the other bills that Brown signed affect only small, specific geographic areas or are adjustments to existing laws. One of his more quizzical signatures was applied to AB 2259, which creates an infrastructure financing district for San Francisco's America's Cup yacht race. The governor made it clear that he does not yet support the use of IFD's for redevelopment. However, the immediacy and special purpose of the America's Cup IFD may have made it necessary and justifiable.  The other bills that Brown signed include the following, listed by sponsor with official titles:  Open Space & Conservation AB 2207 by Richard Gordon (D-Redwood City) – Property taxation: welfare exemption: nature resources and open-space lands. AB 1672 by Norma Torres (D-Pomona) – Housing-Related Parks Program. AB 880 by Brian Nestande (R-Palm Desert) – Ecological reserves: Mirage Trail. AB 1589 by Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) – State parks: sustainability and protection. AB 1961 by Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) – Coho salmon: habitat. AB 2544 by Richard Gordon (D-Redwood City) – Forestry and fire protection: land purchases and property use. AB 2082 by Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) – Public lands: State Lands Commission: violations. AB 2169 by Wesley Chesbro (D-Eureka) – Property Acquisition Law: conservation easements. AB 2388 by Jim Beall (D-San Jose) – Santa Clara County Open-Space Authority: authorization to contract. AB 2680 by Assembly Agriculture Committee – repeals the automatic termination date to authorize a city or county and landowner to rescind a Williamson Act contract and simultaneously enter into a new contract to facilitate a lot line adjustment with no sunset.  SB 1094 by Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) – Land use: mitigation lands: nonprofit organizations. SB 1169 by Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) – Natural community conservation planning. SB 1278 by Lois Wolk – makes several changes to Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley cities and counties' flood hazard planning and development practices.  SB 1501 by Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) – Open-space easements. SB 1577 by the Committee on Natural Resources and Water – Resources: public trust lands: City of Newport Beach. Transportation, Transit, & Roads AB 1446 by Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) – Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority: transactions and use tax. AB 819 by Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) – Bikeways. AB 432 by Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento) – Transit: Sacramento County. AB 441 by William Monning (D-Carmel) – Transportation planning. AB 1770 by Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) – California Transportation Financing Authority. Community Development & Affordable Housing AB 1585 by John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) – Community development. AB 1699 by Norma Torres (D-Pomona) – Affordable housing. AB 1951 by Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) – Housing bonds. AB 1551 by Norma Torres (D-Pomona) – Housing. AB 1797 by Norma Torres (D-Pomona) – Mobilehome Park Purchase Fund. AB 232 by Manuel Pérez (D-Coachella) – Community Development Block Grant Program: funds.  Miscellaneous AB 1614 by William Monning (D-Carmel) – Fort Ord Reuse Authority. AB 1616 by Mike Gatto (D-Los Angeles) establishes zoning and permit requirements pertaining to cottage food industries.  AB 1915 by Luis Alejo (D-Salinas) – Safe routes to school. AB 1965 by Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) – Land use. AB 2046 by Michael Allen (D-Santa Rosa) – provides that tenants in floating home marinas who want to purchase the marina can do so without reassessment of the marina, similar to mobile home parks.  AB 2259 by Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) – makes conforming changes to San Francisco's special waterfront Infrastructure Financing Districts for the Port America's Cup.  AB 2649 by Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) – Tidelands and submerged lands: City and County of San Francisco: seawall lots. SB 200 by Lois Wolk (D-Davis) – Delta levee maintenance. SB 1241 by Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) – Land use: general plan: safety element: fire hazard impacts. Climate Change AB 1532 by John A. Pérez (D- Los Angeles) – California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. SB 535 by Kevin De León (D-Los Angeles) – California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. California Environmental Quality Act AB 1665 by Cathleen Galgiani (D-Tracy) – California Environmental Quality Act: exemption: railroad crossings. AB 1486 by Ricardo Lara (D-South Gate) – California Environmental Quality Act: exemption: Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System. AB 2245 by Cameron Smyth (R-Santa Clarita) – Environmental quality: California Environmental Quality Act: exemption: bicycle lanes. AB 890 by Kristin Olsen (R-Modesto) – Environment: CEQA exemption: roadway improvement. AB 2669 by the Committee on Natural Resources – Environmental quality: California Environmental Quality Act.

Over the past year, even the most irate objectors to Gov. Jerry Brown's dismantling of redevelopment held out hope that in agreeing to kill redevelopment, the legislature would invent a new, better system for stoking local economic growth. Last week, the governor dashed those hopes.  Facing a total six bills designed to replace aspects of redevelopment or otherwise help cities with local economic development, Brown vetoed all six. In his veto statements, Brown indicated that it was too soon to consider alternatives. The wind-down process has been tumultuous for many cities, but almost all have clamored for immediate relief for the billions in tax increment funding that they have collectively lost this year.  Despite the governor's seemingly indiscriminate vetoes, they came as a shock to neither supporters nor critics of redevelopment.  "I'm not 100 percent surprised," said Jean Hurst, senior legislative representative of the California State Association of Counties. "The governor put significant time and energy into the dissolution process." League of California Cities Legislative Director Dan Carrigg said that he was "certainly disappointed" but that he was not necessarily discouraged by the vetoes, even if many cities were hoping for relief sooner rather than later. Peter Detwiler, former staffer for the Senate Government and Finance Committee, said, "I didn't read it as ‘hell, no.' I think he said, ‘not now, not yet.'"   Brown was unusually complimentary the concept of replacing redevelopment, despite his veto. In his veteo of Senate Bill 1156 he wrote, "the planning and investment that is envisioned by this bill would help to develop and redevelop a California that is sustainable and thriving." But he wrote that he would " prefer to take a constructive look at implementing this type of program once the winding down of redevelopment is complete." Supporters of redevelopment are cautiously optimistic.  "We can see in the governor's veto messages that he seems to have left the door open for a return of those bills or a reopening of that discussion once the redevelopment process has kind of played itself out," said Carrigg. He was hopeful that the dissolution process would adhere to the schedule set forth in the "touch-up" bill, Assembly Bill 1484, passed over the summer. (The League has since filed suit to block some of the provisions of that bill.) The vetoed bills include the following, listed by their official titles and sponsors:  • AB 345 by Norma Torres (D-Pomona) – Redevelopment.  • AB 2144 by John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) – Local government: infrastructure and revitalization financing districts.  • AB 2551 by Ben Hueso (D-Chula Vista) – Infrastructure financing districts: renewable energy zones. • SB 214 by Lois Wolk (D-Davis) – Infrastructure financing districts: voter approval: repeal.  • SB 1030 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund allocations: excess Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund moneys. • SB 1156 by Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) – Sustainable Communities Investment Authority. Three of the bills would have changed the state's notoriously restrictive laws concerning infrastructure financing districts, through which a local government can levy special taxes on local residents and businesses for the purpose of investing in locally serving infrastructure projects. SB 214 would have made the most drastic changes to this system, changing the voter-approval threshold from 2/3 to 55%.  Historically, IFD's have not been heavily used because they cannot be used in redevelopment project areas and require 2/3 voter approval, not only for the formation of the districts, but also for the issuance of bonds backed by projected tax increment revenues in the districts. Many, however, see a gentler version of IFD law as a way for cities to revive many of the infrastructure-related functions that redevelopment agencies served.  "The governor's veto does nothing to remove the obstacles barring many local governments from utilizing infrastructure financing districts for public infrastructure investment, like flood protection and clean drinking water," said Wolk in a statement to CP&DR. "I remain committed to making it easier for local governments to utilize IFDs to fund important projects, without adversely affecting our schools, core local services, or the state general fund." (Brown did, however, sign a bill authorizing the creation of an IFD for the America's Cup yacht race in San Francisco next year. Detwiler postulated that such a move was appropriate given that the IFD is for a specific, clearly defined event and not for general economic development.) SB 1156 would have come closest to a replacement for traditional redevelopment. It was designed to complement Senate Bill 375 by giving cities more tools to promote development in districts heavily served by public transit. Many such districts are in former redevelopment project areas. It has nearly universal support from local officials and statewide advocates of local economic development.  The bill would have enabled cities to form "Community Development and Housing Joint Powers Authorities" to carry out much the same functions as redevelopment agencies did. These authorities would have been funded by tax increments as long as they prepared plans to offset any loss of tax revenues incurred by local schools. It also would have allowed localities to implement local sales taxes, with voter approval.   Redevelopment had long drawn the scorn of many county officials who felt that it allowed cities to unfairly siphon away tax money that would have, in part, ended up in county coffers. However, even some county officials supported SB 1156 because it explicitly attempted to address some of those concerns by giving counties input into cities' use of tax increment financing.  "SB 1156 provided that authorization for counties and cities to come to the table together and say that we agree that this is an appropriate use of tax increment dollars, as opposed to a more unilateral approach," said Hurst.  Steinberg has already vowed to reintroduce a version of SB 1156 and make it one of his highest legislative priorities next year.  In an Oct. 2 letter to supporters, Steinberg wrote, "Looking ahead to next year, it is imperative that the Legislature and Governor reach an agreement on a new set of tools for local economic development and affordable housing." Steinberg wrote that he will reintroduce it on the very first day of the legislative session, with the designation SB 1.  Brown indicated that he feared that such new tools would distract cities from the burdensome process of winding down their former redevelopment agencies.  "Expanding the scope of infrastructure financing districts is premature," Brown wrote in his SB 214 veto statement. "This measure would likely cause cities to focus their efforts on using new tools provided by the measure instead of winding down redevelopment. This would prevent the state from achieving the General Fund savings assumed in this year's budget." Brown's veto messages indicate that he supported the spirit of many of the bills that he vetoed, thus simultaneously giving cities hope, while telling them to hang on for another year.  Even supporters of redevelopment are sympathetic to this approach, saying that there are too many uncertainties to come up with a suitable replacement for redevelopment just yet.    At the same time, cities are caught in an uncomfortable period of limbo and are trying to encourage development regardless of what happens in Sacramento. They would, however, like some help in the meantime.  "The business of our economy doesn't stop or isn't necessarily synchronized with the state budget," said Carrigg. "There's all sorts of infrastructure challenges that are out there….there were a lot of city officials that would just like to get to work on dealing with those challenges." Some hope that an extra year will result in a stronger, better economic development tool from Sacramento.  "(The governor) is signaling a redevelopment recess," said Detwiler. "The whole policy community—the fiscal and urban renewal community—needs to see how this post-redevelopment period settles out and really what are the assets and liabilities." Detwiler also speculated that Brown is more focused on Proposition 30, his package of tax increases aimed at balancing the state budget, than he is on any other issue.  "Anything that might deflect that focus (on Prop. 30) had better be for an awfully good reason," said Detwiler. "Right now there is no awfully good policy reason to sign IFD bills or redevelopment reincarnations." At the very least, this year's bills may pave the way for those future incarnations. Though city officials have had choice words for the governor, and tempers have often flared, they seem to accept his veto messages in good faith.  "The bright spot is that the governor's veto messages certainly, in my mind, don't close any doors," said Carrigg. "They seem to indicate a delay connected to budget issues and the unwinding of redevelopment."  Whenever it comes, a replacement for redevelopment will likely impose new challenges on city administrators—and a quick fix should not be expected.  "We know that there are other economic development devices out there," said Detwiler. "They are politically much more difficult to use and require more managerial skill, more political leadership, and a genuine cultivation of public support. Well, duh. Of course." Editor's Note: This story is an updated and expanded version of a blog post that ran online Sept. 30.  Contacts Dan Carrigg, Legislative Director, League of California Cities, 916.658.8222 Jean Hurst, Sr. Legislative Representative, California State Association of Counties, 916.327.7500