Search Results

The city with the best vacation downtown is the Rodney Dangerfield of beach towns. It gets no respect, and it is often overshadowed by its more glamorous neighbor. Still, Carpinteria has the best downtown for a vacation in California. We'll tell you why. Summer vacation season is officially upon us. People have very different concepts of what makes for a great vacation, although "getting away from it all" is a common thread. But even when you're headed to the middle of nowhere, it's often nice to find a town with a number of conveniences. And, of course, plenty of people seek out big cities across the globe for their vacations. With this in mind, we have chosen the best vacation city downtowns for our next installment in CP&DR 's ongoing best downtowns series. (Earlier, we ranked the best big-city downtowns , mid-sized city downtowns , small downtowns in the Central Valley , and convention city downtowns .) What makes for a great vacation city downtown? Obviously, it has to have bread and circuses, as well as lodging. Variety is essential: greasy spoons and white tablecloths; dive bars and jazz clubs; T-shirt shacks, art galleries and unique shops; motels, hotels, B&Bs and condos. You can get all of that in most vacation areas. But a great vacation city downtown must also be walkable and/or bikeable. Good public and quasi-public spaces are crucial for vacationers in need of places to linger. Most of all, the downtown needs to be a place where you want to spend time, because who wants to waste precious vacation hours navigating traffic from attraction to attraction? We Californians are lucky to have so many great vacation destinations close-by. People come from all over the world to enjoy our coastal cities and vacation hamlets. This makes our job of choosing the best particularly difficult. But, for the benefit of our loyal readers, we're only too happy to take a vacation. The best downtowns for a vacation in California: Overall Winner: Carpinteria. This beach town of 14,000 people is only 15 miles down Highway 101 from the much more famous Santa Barbara. But what makes Carpinteria a great vacation downtown is this: It's dead flat, and the beach is connected to the downtown in a seamless transition � interrupted only slightly by the railroad tracks � down Linden Avenue, the main drag. On the beach side of the tracks lie a variety of pretty typical beach-town attractions: Beachfront condos and houses for rent by the week; a nice state park facing the beach; a wonderfully groomed beach, perfect for lazing around; and the requisite burger joint, The Spot (flip-flops required). On the landward side, there are a number of slightly-more-upscale restaurants such as The Palms (where you cook your own meat) and, a little closer to the freeway, the inevitable Starbucks. There are also a few souvenir shops. There is also a supermarket, a drug store, and other places you might actually need in real life. Because Carpinteria so small, walking everywhere is easy; because it's so flat, biking everywhere is even easier. In other words, it's an old-fashioned, functioning downtown with a beach attached. Best of all, you can leave your car at home. Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner provides five trains a day in each direction. Step off at the station, and it's three blocks in one direction to the beach and three blocks in the other to the heart of downtown. Best in the wine country: Healdsburg. We'll concede that Healdsburg is an upstart among wine country destination cities, but that's part of its appeal. Healdsburg is an old farm town that has not been completely consumed by the chi-chi wine-and-brie set. Downtown centers on a classic town square park, which is frequently the site of festivals and art exhibits. Lodging ranges from mom-and-pop, 1950s-style motels to $500-a-night, ultra-hip hotels. Likewise, restaurants vary from order-at-the-counter Mexican places popular with field hands to four-star dining experiences. Buy a T-shirt for $5, or browse a store where items on the sale rack start at "only" $100. Suck on a Coors Light at a dive with a classic rock jukebox, or sip a Cosmo while a jazz trio plays on the heated patio. And here's one thing we love: You can walk out the door of your motel, hotel or B&B and down the street to a number of comfortable places to taste world-class wine. No drinking-and-driving necessary. Plus, Bear Republic Brewing Company has a great ales and pub grub. When you want to work off all that wine, beer and food, hop on a bike (your own or a rental) and head out on any one of a number of great country roads through the vineyards and oak woodlands. Honorable mentions: � Sonoma. A great town square and a mission are highlights in this upscale destination city. � Calistoga. Lincoln Avenue has everything for visitors and locals, and is alive from morning through night. Best in the mountains: Mammoth Lakes. For many years, Mammoth was a ski resort in the winter and early spring, and dead in the summertime. No more. This is a four-season town that's busy year-round. Downtown may be a little difficult to discern, but it is essentially an L that runs along Mammoth Road and Main Street. It's arguably a little too spread out for walking, but when there isn't 6 feet of snow on the ground, the place is a joy for cyclists because of the all the bike trails. In fact, proximity is everything at Mammoth. The village gondola will carry you from the top of Main Street to the resort. Ambitious cyclists may walk about the door, clip into their pedals and ride forever through the mountains. There are golf courses and parks right in town (and plenty of trout in Mammoth Creek), and there's even a skate park along Main Street. Lodging and restaurants span the gamut, although everybody seems to end up at Roberto's at some point. Add to this mix a growing artists' community, a touch of nightlife and a seemingly endless series of events and festivals. Honorable mention: � Mount Shasta. A downtown oriented toward outdoor adventure sits at the base of the 14,000-foot mountain. Best on the beach (besides Carpenteria): Laguna Beach. This Orange County town is a quintessential California artists' enclave and is often called the California Riviera. The city has many art galleries and hosts three summer-long art festivals. The city is most famous for its Pageant of the Masters, in which actors "reenact" famous paintings and sculptures on stage. � The dozens of coves and warm seasonal water temperatures make the beaches some of the best anywhere. Laguna is a mecca for scuba divers and surfers, as Laguna boasts the best water clarity in mainland California. The south-facing nature of most beaches make them great for picking up end-of-summer south swells from hurricanes off Mexico. Here's the part we particularly like: The sand, surf and festivals are located within walking distance or a free electric tram ride of the beachfront downtown, which is a charmingly manageable scale for pedestrians. Heck, Main Beach Park (a popular� beachfront gathering place full of public art) and Heisler Park (a two-mile-long greenway) are across the street from downtown shops. This proximity is essential because Pacific Coast Highway gridlock makes driving a total drag; besides, you don't want to give up a parking spot once you've found one. Honorable mentions: � Santa Barbara. An easy place to see and do things without a car. You could spend two or three days simply exploring State Street. � Santa Cruz. Although locals may have mixed opinions, downtown Santa Cruz is more inviting to visitors since it was rebuilt following the 1989 earthquake. Best big city: San Diego. We have to be careful, because downtown San Diego could win just about any category we think up. Still, the place is ideal for a long weekend or even a week. Take a cab from the airport or, better yet, ride into town on Amtrak. You won't need a car, as you may get everywhere you need by walking, grabbing one of those bicycle rickshaws or hopping on the trolley. There's the Gaslamp Quarter's dining and nightlife, the renewed waterfront, the baseball stadium, shopping at Horton Plaza, Little Italy's eclectic India Street, some spectacular architecture, decent museums, etc. If you can't find something to do in downtown San Diego, you're not trying very hard. And the weather's always perfect. Honorable mention: San Francisco. Downtown is dominated by the financial district, which isn't very interesting if you're not wearing a suit. But vacationers don't have to go far to find endless food, drink, culture and entertainment. Just don't go to Pier 39. Best for alternative lifestyles: Guerneville. Best known for nearly getting washed away by the Russian River every few years, this Sonoma County getaway has long been popular with both gays and straights from the Bay Area. Main Street is packed with galleries, working spaces for artists and artisans, restaurants and watering holes. Naturally, there is great access to the river, where beaches and the shallow waters of summer and fall provide an ideal place to laze away the afternoon. Hop on your bike, and in about 10 minutes you'll be at Korbel, where Champagne, beer (seriously), a deli and gorgeous grounds await. Honorable mention: � Palm Springs. Palm Canyon Drive is rocking at night. Best chi-chi vacation: Carmel. In the last couple of decades, Carmel (technically Carmel-By-The-Sea) has evolved from quaint to cloying. The locals, including the regular visitors, are pretty smug about how precious it is. But generally speaking, they are right to be so smug: Carmel is one of the best tiny downtowns to visit for a vacation. It's compact, not too dense, and has lots of great shops and restaurants, as well as some extraordinarily expensive B&Bs. There's topographic interest � it's hilly, but not overly so � and the ocean is down at the end of the street. The place is so pedestrian-friendly you never notice all that money leaving your wallet as you walk down the street. Honorable mention: � St. Helena. Yountville may have a greater number of renowned restaurants, but St. Helena has plenty of its own, and the downtown is fun whether or not you can afford a $100 bottle of wine. Most disappointing: South Lake Tahoe. Lake Tahoe is one of the most beautiful places in the world. The City of South Lake Tahoe is not. There is no real downtown, just a few jam-packed arterials on which walking and bicycling (let alone driving) are no fun. Things are too spread out for walking anyway. Old motels with lots of deferred maintenance, cheesy souvenir stands and fast food drive-throughs predominate. The locals know this, which is why redevelopment is a high priority for the city. We're all for it. - CP&DR staff

Cities, counties and other agencies approving plans and projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act may not ignore greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. That's the bottom line contained in a technical advisory issued Thursday by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR). Meanwhile, on Friday the California Air Resources Board issued protocols for local governments to follow in quantifying and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from their own activities. The OPR advisory document says that lead agencies must quantify or estimate greenhouse gas emissions from a project, determine whether those emissions are individually or cumulatively significant, and if so, identify project alternatives or impose mitigation measures. If full mitigation is not feasible, the lead agency must adopt a statement of overriding consideration that explains why further mitigation is infeasible, according to OPR. The advisory document is important because it eliminates the argument that emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) is too speculative an issue to be addressed in environmental review documents, said Brian Nowicki, California climate policy director for the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). Nowicki's organization has sued several cities that did not consider GHG emissions while reviewing proposed developments. "Hearing this come from the administrative branch is helpful," Nowicki said. "I think we will see a change over a very short period of time." While environmentalists appeared to be thrilled with the OPR advisory, the building industry was not celebrating. "We won't be able to comment on it until we have had a chance to review it carefully," California Building Industry Association spokesman John Frith said. The advisory specifies "three basic steps" for CEQA compliance: 1) Identify and quantify GHG emissions. 2) Assess the significance of those emissions. 3) If the impact is significant, identify project alternatives or mitigation measures that will reduce the impact below significant. On the first point, OPR urges lead agencies to "make a good-faith effort, based on available information" to calculate emissions from a project, including emissions from: • Traffic • Energy consumption • Water usage and • Construction activities. An attachment to the OPR advisory directs practitioners to modeling tools that are readily available for calculating emissions. The question of significance may be the trickiest. The OPR advisory says, "As with any environmental impact, lead agencies must determine what constitutes a significant impact. In the absence of regulatory standards for GHG emissions or other scientific data to clearly define what constitutes a ‘significant impact,' individual lead agencies may undertake a project-by-project analysis consistent with available guidance and current CEQA practice." Although OPR has asked the California Air Resources Board to recommend methods of setting thresholds of significance, the air board has not yet provided such guidance. Determining whether a project contributes to cumulative impacts may be even trickier. The OPR advisory says that not every project which emits GHG must be found to contribute to a significant cumulative impact, and says reliance on previously approved plans and mitigation programs may be adequate. Documentation is critical. On the final point, OPR states that mitigation should vary depending on the project, "but may include alternative project designs or locations that conserve energy and water, measures that reduce vehicle miles traveled by fossil-fueled vehicles, measures that contribute to established regional programmatic mitigation strategies, and measures that sequester carbon." The advisory also includes a three-page attachment of potential mitigation measures. At the top of the list: "Implement land use strategies to encourage jobs/housing proximity, promote transit-oriented development, and encourage high-density development along transit corridors." The advisory document is set in the context of AB 32 and SB 97. Approved in 2006, the former bill requires California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and to cut emissions further in future decades. The latter bill, approved in 2007, amended CEQA "to clearly establish that GHG emissions and the effects of GHG emissions are appropriate subjects for CEQA analysis," according to the OPR advisory. Guidelines for mitigating the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, as required by SB 97, are in process at OPR and must by law be adopted by the Resources Agency by January 1, 2010. The technical advisory on CEQA and climate change is available on the OPR website at: http://www.opr.ca.gov/index.php?a=sch/announcements.html

An environmental impact report for the Cal-Fed Bay-Delta project has been upheld by the state Supreme Court. The unanimous decision was at least somewhat academic because the Cal-Fed process has essentially halted. Still, the court appeared to signal that it would defer to policymakers on Delta water and environmental policy, and to agencies that certify broad program environmental impact reports. In upholding the Cal-Fed EIR, the state high court overturned a Third District Court of Appeal decision rejecting the environmental study (see CP&DR Legal Digest , November 2005 ). The appellate panel determined the program EIR (which also served as an environmental impact statement to meet federal law) was inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the PEIR did not consider the alternative of reduced water exports from the Delta, failed to identify water that would be used to carry out the program, and did not provide details of an "environmental water account." The state Supreme Court ruled that Cal-Fed directors had good reason to dismiss a reduced water export alternative as infeasible, and ruled that a program EIR for a project as large as Cal-Fed need not provide the details on which the Third District insisted. Those details could be postponed until specific projects to carry out the larger program were proposed, the court determined. "The PEIS/R complied with CEQA by identifying potential sources of water and analyzing the associated environmental effects in general terms. The level of detail contained in the PEIS/R's impact analysis was consistent with its first-tier programmatic nature," Justice Joyce Kennard wrote for the court. "By compelling Cal-Fed at the first-tier stage to provide greater detail about potential sources of water for second-tier projects, the Court of Appeal's decision undermined the purpose of tiering and burdened the program EIR with detail that would be more feasibly given and more useful at the second-tier stage." Fourteen years ago, 18 federal and state agencies with management or regulatory authority over the Delta signed the Bay-Delta accord with the idea of solving numerous water and environmental concerns to everyone's satisfaction. In 2000, the state resources secretary certified the program EIS/EIR and approved the 30-year Cal-Fed program. Although portions of the program advanced — mostly environmental restoration upstream from the Delta — Cal-Fed has withered during recent years. Some government funding never materialized and new efforts at planning for water and the Delta emerged. Now, the governor's Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force is formulating policy, while various state and local entities work on a Delta habitat plan and Delta flood control plans. Pending state legislation would essentially end the state's role in Cal-Fed. "There is no more formal Cal-Fed process that will build on this decision," said attorney James Moose, who represented the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California in the litigation. "No one is using this EIR anymore. But there is the Bay-Delta conservation plan process that is going forward, and this decision will provide guidance." What is important, said Moose, is the court's deferred to Cal-Fed officials on the fundamental purpose of the project. Environmentalists as well as the Regional Council of Rural Counties, both of whom sued over the Cal-Fed EIR, argued that a reduced water export alternative should have been considered — an argument that the Third District accepted. But the state high court disagreed. "As the Court of Appeal correctly pointed out, an EIR should not exclude an alternative from detailed consideration merely because it ‘would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives,'" Kennard wrote, citing California Code of Regulations 14 § 15126.6, subdivision (b). "But an EIR need not study in detail an alternative that is infeasible or that the lead agency has reasonably determined cannot achieve the project's underlying fundamental purpose." "Cal-Fed's determinations that an integrated water solution was necessary to the success of the program, and that the water supply objective could not feasibly be achieved with a reduced exports alternative, are supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the rule of reason," Kennard continued. Richard Frank, director of University of California, Berkeley's Center for Environmental Law and Policy, said he was struck by the first eight pages of the court's opinion, which contain sweeping statements about water policy, the plight of the Delta and government's failure to resolve the issues. "Justice Kennard and the court were speaking to a larger constituency," said Frank, a member of the governor's Delta Vision task force. Frank said he has commended the opinion to the task force. The court, said Moose, placed provision of water on the same footing as environmental protection. Environmentalists decried the high court's decision. Since the Cal-Fed EIR was adopted in 2000, Delta-dependent fish species have declined, as has water supply reliability, said Mindy McIntyre, water program manager for the Planning & Conservation League, one of the plaintiffs. "This tragic history clearly dispels the myth that Delta ecosystem restoration can be achieved alongside ever-increasing levels of freshwater export," she said. As for potential CEQA precedent, Moose said the court provided some standards for program EIRs. The decision indicates that an emphasis on a project's essential objectives is important, he said. The decision also indicates that the court is willing to uphold a program EIR, even one involving water. Last year, the court rejected a program EIR in Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova , (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412 (see CP&DR , March 2007 ). In Vineyards , the court ruled that the program EIR should have described long-term water sources for a 20,000-unit development, and the impacts of using those sources, in more detail. Unlike Vineyards , where decision-makers knew water would be needed for a certain number of housing units, the Cal-Fed program was designed to be flexible. Thus, Cal-Fed appropriately deferred analysis of specific water projects such as sales and transfers until those projects were identified and could be studied in detail, the court determined. The decision is the state Supreme Court's fourth CEQA ruling in two years and came out only two weeks after the court upheld the environmental review of three timber harvest plans (see next Legal Digest item). Three other CEQA cases are pending at the court. The court "is really engaging in CEQA to a far greater degree than at any other time," Frank observed. "I think it's part of a renewed interest by the court in environmental policy and law in general." The Case: In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings , No. S138974, 08 C.D.O.S. 6822, 2008 DJDAR 8241. Filed June 5, 2008. The Lawyers: For California Farm Bureau Federation: Alan Bick, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, (949) 451-3800 For Regional Council of Rural Counties: James Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe, (415) 371-8500. For State of California: Danae Aitchison, attorney general's office, (916) 322-5522.

The California Supreme Court has upheld three timber harvest plans that an appellate court had found to be in violation of the state Forest Practices Act and the California Department of Forestry's functional equivalent of the California Environmental Quality Act. The state high court ruled the analysis of cumulative impact on two rare species was adequate, as was an analysis of likely herbicide use. While it appeared the Department of Forestry (CDF) was initially reluctant to address in detail issues raised by environmentalists, CDF in the end provided information and analysis, primarily in responses to comments on the draft timber harvest plans. The disputed timber harvest plans were proposed for land in Tuolumne County owned by Sierra Pacific Industries, the largest private landowner in the state. Sierra Pacific proposed to harvest three sites of 534, 441 and 394 acres in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. In April 2002, CDF approved all three timber harvest plans (THPs). Two environmental groups sued, arguing that CDF had violated the Z'berg-Nejedly Forest Practices Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Tuolumne County Superior Court judge ruled against the groups, but in 2006 the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the lower court. The appellate panel ruled that a cumulative impact analysis regarding the California spotted owl and the Pacific fisher failed to comply with regulations implementing the Forest Practices Act, and that CDF should have addressed the "reasonably foreseeable" use of herbicides. The state Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Court of Appeal decision. On the issue of cumulative impacts, environmentalists argued that Sierra Pacific's THPs did not consider a broad enough area. The appellate court found that the THPs violated the Forest Practices Act Technical Rule Addendum No. 2, which requires that "biological assessment areas will vary with the species being evaluated and its habitat." The environmentalists were right "in a formalistic sense," Justice Kathryn Werdegar wrote for the state high court. The analysis defined "planning watersheds" of several thousand acres around each proposed timber harvest site, and the discussion of cumulative impacts did not designate by name different assessment areas for the owl and the fisher. "When one reads the THPs for substance , however, a different picture emerges," Werdegar wrote. he THPs, as well as CDF's response to comments on them, actually discuss potential cumulative impacts on the California spotted owl and Pacific fisher over areas of the Sierra Nevada much more extensive than the designated planning watersheds." " he regulation directing timber harvest plan preparers to follow the technical addendum also directs them to be ‘guided by standards of practicality and reasonableness,'" Werdegar continued. "In that light, we believe the technical addendum is properly read to direct that a timber harvest plan's cumulative-impacts assessment be reasonably tailored, in geographic scope as in other respects, to the species under decision, but not to require rigid adherence to a particular analytical process." Regarding the use of herbicides — timber companies often apply herbicide after harvesting timber so that scrub brush does not overwhelm newly planted seedling trees — Sierra Pacific initially said that herbicide use was "entirely too speculative" to be considered in the THPs. CDF appeared to agree, saying that it was not required to analyze in a THP the use of herbicides and that the Department of Pesticide Regulation's programs would address the issues. The court said that CDF could not simply defer to another agency and had a duty "to approve, disapprove and impose mitigation measures on timber harvest plans, including measures to address the foreseeable use of herbicides in planned silvicultural operations." Although CDF initially declined to address herbicide use, in fact the agency's response to comments contains "an extended consideration of the ‘cumulative watershed or biological effects' of using any of six herbicides in silviculture," the court noted. "CDF thus did not erroneously rely on the Department of Pesticide Regulation's regulatory program and fail to conduct its own environmental impacts assessment." The court's ruling centered on process and did not address the question of whether substantial evidence supported CDF's conclusions in the THPs. In a footnote, Werdegar wrote, "We have not attempted to weigh the parties' competing factual claims in this case." Environmentalists complained that the court ruling elevated process over substance. Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center Executive Director John Buckley called the decision a "technical, procedural ruling that accepts the current level of paperwork analysis." But Sierra Pacific attorney Edgar Washburn told the Los Angeles Daily Journal that is was environmentalists who were arguing "any technical error is grounds to invalidate" a timber harvest plan. He praised the court for allowing CDF to exercise discretion while evaluating plans. The Case: Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection , No. S143689, 08 C.D.O.S. 6184, 2008 DJDAR 7481. Filed May 22, 2008. The Lawyers: For Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch: Thomas Lippe, (415) 777-5600. For CDF: Charles Getz IV, attorney general's office, (415) 703-5500. For Sierra Pacific Industries: Edgar Washburn, Morrison & Foerster, (415) 268-7860.

I've always known that there are limits to celebrity in the world of urban planning. You write a book or two, people get to know your name, they ask you to come and give a speech, you make ‘em laugh, and maybe – maybe – they'll give you a couple of bucks for showing up. In a small professional field where nobody's very rich, that's the best you can hope for. In other words, people might know who you are, but you're not really a star. Which is kind of a problem when the professional planners decide to have a conference in a place where you can find real stars – Hollywood. This fall, California planners will converge on Hollywood for their annual and apparently not-very-star-studded event . But it seems as if they are having a tough time figuring out who the headliners should be. In a YouTube video uploaded by the conference organizers – intended to be a parody of "The Office" – a group of nerdy planners are depicted sitting around a conference table discussing which "stars" to invite. One nerd suggests inviting me , since I'm apparently a star in the pint-sized constellation of California planning. Another nerd says he never heard of me and suggests William Shatner instead. William Shatner over me ? I'm not hurt by this. Honest. But it does raise the question of who planners in California really want to hear – or should want to hear – when they gather together in Hollywood. After all, nowhere else on the planet do planning and celebrity collide in quite the same way. You might want Shatner as your keynote, for example, but you definitely want George Takei , who played Mr. Sulu on Star Trek , on your transportation breakout session. He was appointed by Mayor Tom Bradley many years ago to serve on the board of the Regional Transit District, the predecessor to L.A. Metro. (Because he was a … transportation expert ?) And while you're at it, you might want to pick up 88-year-old Ray Bradbury for the urban design breakout, because he grew up skateboarding just outside the Paramount gate and has spent the past several decades talking about what the urban future of Los Angeles might be like. (Because he's an expert on … cities that don't exist ? Now that's the kind of speaker planners need to hear!) But even these huge stars fade in the firmament of Hollywood when compared with the most obvious candidate for keynote speaker at the fall conference: that eminent land-use expert Angelyne . Okay, Angelyne – blonde and comically buxom -- is really better known as a real estate investor. She invests in Hollywood billboards advertising herself, thereby making her a celebrity whose main claim to fame is making herself a celebrity. That alone ought to qualify her as a keynote speaker at any conference in Hollywood. Traditionally, Angelyne hasn't flaunted her land-use knowledge. But all that changed recently when no less than the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency turned her life upside down. For several years, the CRA has been working with Dallas-based Gatehouse Capital Corp. on a $ 600 million redevelopment project at the Hollywood & Vine Red Line station. And in order to build the W Hotel as part of the project, the wrecking ball came down on … the building on Selma Avenue where Angelyne had her mailbox. The mailbox where everybody writes her fan letters and from which she sells the trinkets that pay her bills. Well, Angelyne raised a stink, saying it would cost 400 grand to reprint her letterhead. And because Angelyne is famous for being famous, her stink got some ink in the local press. The end result was a deal in which Gatehouse will allow Angelyne to continue receiving mail at the same address … even though it will now be the W Hotel. She's also getting money. All of which suggests that maybe Angelyne is smarter than she looks. Which, frankly, I always thought was a prerequisite for being a keynote speaker. So go ahead, push me out of the way and replace me with a buxom blonde. If that's the way those nerdy planners want it, fine. Everybody knows Hollywood is a brutal place. -- Bill Fulton

When we listed the best small-city downtowns in the Central Valley , we didn't include Exeter, a Tulare County community eight miles east of Visalia. Exeter was in our discussion, but it didn't make the cut for reasons that I don't recall. After spending part of one day last week in Exeter, I'm convinced we made a mistake. In fact, Exeter has one of the best downtowns for a city of its size (about 10,700 people) not only in the Central Valley, but in the entire state. Exeter has long been one of the preferred places to live in the citrus and cattle growing territory at the base of the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains. Crime is low, schools are good and neighborhoods have character. During the last 10 years, the city has become known for its murals, which now number 24. Art snobs might be quick to dismiss the mural project , but these are professional works executed by real artists. Most murals are located in the center of town, and they certainly grab your attention. But what most got my attention was the number of people on the sidewalks of what is obviously a thriving downtown. Hundreds of people — including many teenagers from the high school on the edge of downtown — were walking to restaurants and coffee shops, running errands, meeting friends, taking care of business and quite clearly enjoying their town. There are California cities of 100,000 people that don't have the downtown foot traffic that Exeter has. Some touristy small towns boast busy downtowns (Carmel, Sonoma, St. Helena), but Exeter throbs with a local energy. One of downtown Exeter's many gathering places. The downtown core covers about three blocks of Pine Avenue, plus a block or two (depending upon your definition of downtown) in either direction. You'll find two hardware stores, a bookstore, professional offices, restaurants, a couple watering holes, a few clothing stores, city hall, the post office, the upstart Sierra Forge & Fire , and a number of small parks and gathering places. What's missing? Obviously dilapidated buildings. Trash. Empty storefronts (OK, I counted a couple vacancies). In fact, the whole place is spotless — the downtown business district, the adjacent residential areas and Exeter City Park, and even the high school, which was carefully overhauled and expanded a few years ago. People care about this town. "Exeter has always had a lot of community pride," said Greg Collins, of Collins & Schoettler and Exeter's contract city planner for more than 20 years. Collins said he hears regularly from locals who want to open a store or other business — people who are willing to invest in their town. When we rate downtowns, we give a lot of weight to "sense of place." In downtown Exeter, the water tower on the edge of downtown, historic building facades (some of which were restored with redevelopment money) and the murals depicting the local social and economic history let you know where you are. Except for the True Value and Ace hardware stores, I don't remember seeing a chain business. "Most of the time you do talk to the owner when you are in a business," said Sandy Blankenship, executive director of the local Chamber of Commerce. Exeter High School's nicely manicured grounds.  How has Exeter done it? By expecting the best and not accepting development simply for development's sake, said Collins. "I really come back to the vision of the City Councils present and past that set the bar for development high," Collins said. He added: "The City Council has allowed me and the city manager and some of the other staff to do what we do best. I've made mistakes, but we've had successes. You don't always get that in cities. They've allowed me to be aggressive in planning the city." I hate to gush. We journalists are supposed to be circumspect. Let me simply suggest that people who are in search of "small town atmosphere" may want spend a day or two in downtown Exeter to experience the real thing. "The downtown is really the heart of Exeter and the place where you meet friends and family members for a meal or whatever," Collins said. "That's something that so many other towns have lost." – Paul Shigley

The Los Angeles Times is running an all-week series on traffic congestion in L.A. and how miserable everybody's commute is. The topic is a sure-fire winner among readers, and the personal stories of commuters are interesting and well-told. But the Times appears to have taken the position that the problem can be solved by simply building more highways and denying development projects that would generate traffic. Good luck getting that package through the Legislature! The policy debate about what to do was contained mostly in Monday's story , written by Jeffrey L. Rabin and Dan Weikel. The nerdy parts of the article are very well-done for a general-circulation newspaper – probably because both writers (especially Rabin) are experienced hands at covering the growth wars. The article basically lays out the California Environmental Quality Act process in layperson's terms, even the "Statement of Overriding Consideration" that a government agency adopts when a project's impacts cannot be fully mitigated. The story also documents highway underinvestment in California relative to increases in both population growth and driving. Yet the story is framed around the killer, 72-mile-each-way commute of Aundraya Reliford. Poor Aundraya drives from her home in Rialto every morning to the nearby Metrolink station, takes the train to Union Station in downtown L.A., where she transfers to her junker car and then makes the killer commute across town to Santa Monica, where she works at MTV. Elapsed time: Two hours and 40 minutes each way. Rabin and Weikel even track the history of the Water Garden project in Santa Monica, where Reliford works, noting that it was approved with a Statement of Overriding Consideration on traffic. As I noted above, the article also takes the state to task for underinvesting in highway construction. It concludes with poor Aundraya saying: "At the rate things are going, there's certainly going to be a time when I have to pull out." The pairing of the nerdy policy discussion with the compelling story of the long-distance commuter creates a weird dynamic. What is the Times really saying? That we should spend more money on highways and approve fewer office buildings on the Westside? So that Aundraya Reliford can drive faster from Rialto to Santa Monica, where she won't have a job because the Water Garden project wouldn't have been built? This is the problem with journalism about growth that focuses on traffic and on the sexiest traffic story, which is the nightmarish long commute. Yes, traffic in L.A. is horrible. But most people in L.A. have short commutes. In terms of distance, the average commute in L.A. is actually getting shorter. And the problem on the Westside isn't only too many jobs, but also not enough housing – a problem that doesn't get solved by not adopting Statements of Overriding Considerations and building more highways. (Almost any housing project on the Westside would also require a Statement of Overriding Consideration on traffic.) The Times seems to suggest that transportation policy has failed because we cannot figure out how to provide one person with a comfortable, fast way to commute 72 miles across one of the most densely crowded landscapes in the world every single day. Most of the commenters on the Times web site pointed something out that the writers didn't mention: Maybe poor Aundraya ought to live closer to work, or work closer to home. I agree. If poor Aundraya has to give up the ghost on her 72-mile commute because it's just too hellish, I'd say that's a public policy success, not a public policy failure. – Bill Fulton

Redevelopment may have been the biggest winner in the June primary election. Statewide, voters rejected Proposition 98, an initiative to prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes. In San Francisco, voters supported a huge redevelopment project. And in Napa County, voters rejected a slow-growth initiative that was aimed at halting redevelopment of a former industrial site just south of Napa. Proposition 98 Voters' rejection of Proposition 98 on the statewide ballot marked the second time that property rights advocates have failed to capitalize on backlash to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo decision upholding the use of eminent domain for economic purposes. In November 2006, voters turned down Proposition 90, a far-reaching eminent domain and regulatory takings measure. This time around, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the California Farm Bureau Federation wrote a what appeared to be a narrow initiative restricting use of eminent domain, but they included a controversial prohibition of rent control. While the 2006 vote on Proposition 90 was close, the voting on Proposition 98 was not, as the measure received only 38.4% support. Instead, a modest alternative backed by the League of California Cities and the California Redevelopment Association — Proposition 99 — won with 62% of the vote. Proposition 99 bars the taking of owner-occupied homes for economic development projects. Jon Coupal, president of the Jarvis organization, blamed Proposition 98's loss on the "confusion" created by Proposition 99, and on "public agencies using taxpayer dollars for campaign purposes." Tom Adams, board president of the California League of Conservation Voters and a Proposition 99 co-author, viewed the results differently. "The voters saw that Proposition 98 was a deceptive initiative, in fact, the worst kind of ballot abuse where a populist issue is used to conceal an attack on renters, the environment, homeowners and our communities," Adams said. Hunter's Point In San Francisco, voters endorsed the concept of redeveloping about 720 acres at the closed Hunter's Point Shipyard and adjacent Candlestick Point. The plan still needs environmental review and approval by the Board of Supervisors, but the proposal is for 8,500 to 10,000 housing units (32% of which would be designated affordable), reconstruction of a public housing project, 2 million square feet of office space, retail space, a new football stadium and extensive parks. The city is negotiating with Lennar, which would receive the land for free in exchange for investing upwards of $1 billion in infrastructure. While the pro-redevelopment Proposition G received 62.5% of the vote, a counter-measure that would have required 50% of new housing in the project to be affordable received only 36.7% support. Lennar and Mayor Gavin Newsom argued Measure F would have made the redevelopment project economically infeasible. San Francisco voters also backed a measure that prohibits elected officials, candidates for office and their political committees from accepting donations from anyone with a permit or California Environmental Quality Act matter pending before the city until six months after the matter has concluded. Proposition H received 66.6% of the vote. Napa County Initiative In Napa County, voters narrowly rejected Measure N, an initiative that would have imposed a 1% annual growth cap on the unincorporated area. The chief target of the initiative was a proposal to redevelop a 152-acre former industrial site on the Napa River with about 3,000 housing units (see CP&DR , May 2008 ). The project remains in the planning stages, but it has become a lightening rod in what is typically a slow-growth county. Measure N, however, received only 47.6% of the vote. Less than two weeks after the election, county supervisors convened a "growth summit," at which the idea of pursuing state legislation that would relieve counties of the obligation to plan for housing growth was popular. Other balloting Development was also a winner in Ventura County. In the City of Santa Paula, 82.6% of voters backed a measure to extend the city's eastern boundary to permit development of 1,500 housing units on 500 acres of farmland. Although preservation of farmland is politically popular in Ventura County, there was no organized opposition to the proposal from landowner Limoneira — a well-known and well-respected local farming company. Limoneira plans a mix of housing units, as well as retail space and about 200 acres of open space, orchards and parks in its development. In nearby Thousand Oaks, 56.3% of voters rejected a measure that pitted the locally owned Do it Center against The Home Depot. Measure B would have required voters to decide almost any development project that would increase traffic beyond specified levels. Backed by the nine-store Do it Center, Measure B was aimed at a proposed Home Depot at the site of a former Kmart store. The two chains both spent several hundred thousand dollars on the campaign. In Riverside County, incorporation of the 60,000-population community of Menifee won approval with 62% of the vote. In addition, voters selected the name Menifee over Menifee Valley (52.9% to 47.1%) and decided to elect councilmembers by district rather than at-large (51.1% to 48.9%). In Orange County, voters in San Clemente supported a city ordinance that protects ocean views and imposes a 16-foot height restriction in part of town (see CP&DR Legal Digest , April 2008 ). Only 31.4% of voters chose to overturn the ordinance. In the City of Irvine, 80.9% of voters backed a measure that prohibits lobbying by any commissioners appointed by the mayor or City Council. In the San Diego County city of Chula Vista, voters narrowly rejected an initiative that would have reaffirmed the general plan's 84-foot height limit in most areas east of Interstate 5, and 45 feet on a stretch of Third Avenue downtown. Measure E received 48.6% of the vote. In San Mateo County, a one-eighth percent sales tax to fund park acquisition, development and improvements failed for the second time in less than two years to receive the required two-thirds report. Measure O received 60.5% support.

Some of California's best-known Gold Rush towns feel like museums that are operated for the benefit of tourists and transplanted retirees. Although the towns are genuinely historic, they may or may not be genuine places today. Yreka is different. The historic district in the county seat of Siskiyou County can match the historic qualities of just about any Gold Rush city in California. But it's no museum. Downtown Yreka is very much a functioning and evolving district. Gold was discovered in the area in 1851, and the City of Yreka (the name comes from a Shasta Indian term for northern mountain or Mt. Shasta) incorporated in 1857. Like many original mining towns, Yreka evolved over the decades into a logging town and regional trade center. These days, government agencies and the leisure/hospitality industry provide the vast majority of jobs. Yreka is surprisingly spread out for a city of only 7,300 people. It has the obligatory Wal-Mart and, because of the location on Interstate 5, more than its share of chain restaurants. But downtown appears to remain the center of the community. I wouldn't call downtown Yreka thriving. It has too many empty storefronts and second-hand stores. Yet on Monday, people were coming and going from professional offices and government buildings. People in business attire, blue-collar work clothes and vacation duds were on the sidewalk of Miner Street. The two-chair barbershop in the front of the 142-year-old Franco-American Hotel (now closed, but renovation is promised) was busy. At lunchtime, mom-and-pop restaurants and coffee houses were doing decent business. Plaques located all over Yreka's designated historic district commemorate events at certain buildings or on certain locations. It's great stuff for anyone interested in the Old West. These days, many old buildings serve new purposes — Mexican restaurant, law office, beauty salon, sporting equipment sales, bookstore. (The 132-year-old St. Joseph's Catholic Church pictured here is still a church, with weekday mass at 8:30 a.m.) The T-shirt shops, art galleries and overpriced antique stores that dominate some Gold Rush towns are noticeably absent. And I bet that is just fine with the locals, who still need and use a real downtown. - Paul Shigley

Rick Caruso, retail genius – ok. But Rick Caruso, mayor of Los Angeles? C'mon! It ain't gonna happen. The blogosphere has been burning up for a month with the idea that Caruso – developer of The Grove on the Westside and, more recently, The Americana on Brand in Glendale – will run against incumbent Antonio Villaraigosa next year. The L.A. Times finally gave the rumor credence last Friday – not in the news or politics columns, but oddly in Tina Daunt's entertainment column . Daunt's story was cast as an article about celebrity fundraising for the Villaraigosa campaign. Caruso is clearly flattered by the idea and isn't doing anything to discourage the rumors. And a Villaraigosa-Caruso race would be a haberdasher's dream. Along with the Obama candidacy, the mayoral race might bring back the well-fitting suit and crisply pressed suit from oblivion. But is Caruso really gonna run? Unlikely. In fact, it doesn't look like anybody is going to seriously challenge Antonio in his re-election run -- even with his highly publicized marital problems. Zev Yaroslavsky's been making high-profile anti-density noise aimed at Villaraigosa, but he hasn't made any obvious move toward actually running. It's always tempting to think that a sharp business executive with money can become an effective politician. And it's especially tempting when that sharp business executive is familiar with politics – as Caruso must be in order to get the entitlements and redevelopment subsidies he needs to thrive in his business. The closest analogy would be Richard Riordan, the downtown lawyer, redevelopment maven, and land speculator who was elected mayor of Los Angeles in 1993 and served for two pretty respectable terms. Riordan was theoretically vulnerable in political terms on his downtown land dealings, which weren't very pretty to look at. But he spent a lot of money. He was running for an open seat vacated by Tom Bradley, whom he loyally served. And he was lucky enough to draw a weak opponent in City Councilmember (and urban planner) Mike Woo. Caruso, on the other hand, would be running against the modern equivalent of Bradley. And he's probably too smart to do that. Surely he understands that challenging the high-profile and charismatic incumbent mayor of the largest and most powerful city in his market area is probably not a good way to keep that political support. Imagine if he lost! You'd never see another Caruso project in Los Angeles again – and Villaraigosa would use all his political leverage to make sure that suburban cities shut Caruso down too. Too bad in a way. After all, they both look great in a sharp suit. -- Bill Fulton

When Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network CEO Russell Hancock talks about transforming El Camino Real into the Northern California version of the Avenues des Champs Elysees, one begins to wonder what color the sky is in his world. For more than 40 miles between San Francisco and San Jose, El Camino is a traffic-choked arterial road lined with strip commercial centers, used car lots, fast-foot drive-throughs and suburban bric-a-brac that has grown up over decades. People come from all over the world to stroll, dine and shop on the famous Parisian boulevard. People who live in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties avoid El Camino whenever possible. Hancock, though, readily admits El Camino is "this hodge-podge that's just awful." What he really sees is potential — potential to create a corridor that brings together transit, housing, commerce and culture. There is no reason, he said, that El Camino couldn't become a boulevard of grand architecture, extensive landscaping and pedestrian-oriented destinations. "We can improve it in every dimension," Hancock said of El Camino. "More through-put, better retail, you can walk on the thing, housing, transit. Right now, El Camino is not an asset to the region. It doesn't reflect our dynamic nature." Hancock is co-chairman with Michael Scanlon, who heads the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), of the Grand Boulevard Task Force. The task force is a two-year-old, ad-hoc group that is intent on overhauling 43 miles of the El Camino corridor from Daly City into San Jose. The Grand Boulevard Initiative is likely the largest purely voluntary regional planning effort in the state. Both San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, all 19 cities along the corridor, Caltrans, local transit agencies, civic groups, business organizations and labor unions are participants on the 47-member task force. To date, 10 cities, SamTrans and the San Mateo City/County Governments Association (C/CAG) have adopted the Task Force's "guiding principles." "I think this is a model for California," said Corrine Goodrich, special projects manager for SamTrans and a lead staff member for the initiative. "At some level, it's a way for entities to share a vision and move forward collaboratively." Few roads in California have more history than El Camino Real, a name that translates to "The King's Road." It originated during the mid-18th Century as a 500-mile path linking missions, pueblos and military posts from San Diego to Sonoma. But none of that rich history is evident today on El Camino, which is known as known as Mission Street in Daly City, The Alameda in San Jose, and El Camino Real in between. The entire stretch is also Highway 82 and, thus, heavily controlled by Caltrans. Beginning in 2002, several planning efforts focused on El Camino. The Project for Public Spaces helped prepare a "Peninsula Corridor Plan" emphasizing improved transportation as a means to better living conditions. That plan resulted in five cities preparing conceptual plans for improvements around existing transit stations. During a 2004 symposium, local, state and federal officials agreed the corridor fell short of its potential as a place to live, work and shop. That same year, Joint Venture began work on a "Silicon Valley Main Street" project that identified numerous ways to improve the corridor in both counties. What people found while studying the situation was that nobody was satisfied with El Camino. They also found that a number of cities of their own accord had already adopted or were preparing plans to redevelop land along their individual sections of El Camino. "People don't like it, and they use it constantly," said Grand Boulevard Initiative consultant Michael Garvey, recognizing the dichotomy. "Psychologically, it's a barrier running through our communities." The barrier is also physical. For most of the San Mateo County stretch, the Caltrain railroad tracks run adjacent to El Camino, and in the northern end a relatively new BART line is nearby. The El Camino right-of-way is as wide as 139 feet in Millbrae, noted Goodrich. Long stretches El Camino are wide enough for six lanes of traffic, curb parking and an island in the middle. Portions of El Camino in Santa Clara County seem wider than the Bayshore Freeway, and nearly as high speed — not surprising considering that Caltrans for decades managed El Camino simply to move cars efficiently. Although Highway 82 does handle a lot of automobile traffic, the corridor underperforms in every other way. Transit is a good example. Ten Caltrain stations are located within one-quarter mile of El Camino, and five more are within a half-mile. El Camino is a backbone of SamTrans and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus service. "However," Goodrich wrote in an overview, "the use of commute alternatives to the car (17%) is only slightly higher by residents living within one-quarter mile of the corridor than for the counties as a whole (15%), reflecting the low density and lack of mixed-use development and pedestrian accessibility." Essentially, past land planning and public improvement decisions are prohibiting the more recent investment in transit from paying off. In its two years, the Grand Boulevard Task Force has launched a website, released an existing conditions report, adopted a vision statement and guiding principles, started an awards program for local projects, and received a Caltrans planning grant. Next up is a detailed study of economic development and housing opportunities along the corridor, Goodrich said. In the meantime, Grand Boulevard Initiative participants are making incremental progress. For example: • SamTrans has passed along $2.3 million in federal funds to help with $6 million worth of pedestrian, transit-access and aesthetic improvement projects in San Carlos, San Mateo, Millbrae, San Bruno and Daly City. • VTA has awarded $1.2 million to Palo Alto, which has plans for extensive improvements to the massive intersection of El Camino Real and Stanford Avenue. • A mixed-use project with 360 apartments and retail space (including a Trader Joe's) opened between El Camino Real and a BART station in South San Francisco last year. • Millbrae has added more than 300 housing units and new retail space and has upgraded streetscapes in its downtown area, which is located along El Camino and within walking distance of BART. • Several other transit-oriented development projects are in the planning stages, including re-use of the Bay Meadows horse track in San Mateo, and a 280-unit, mixed-use project at a multi-modal transit station on SamTrans property in San Carlos. • VTA has started bus rapid transit service, which has proven quite popular. • Both Redwood City and Sunnyvale have adopted precise plans that encourage mixed-use development and much greater density in certain areas along El Camino. San Bruno is one of 10 cities to adopt the Grand Boulevard Initiative's guiding principles. San Bruno has incorporated the principles into a nearly complete general plan update and intends to use them while preparing a detailed transit corridor plan, said Mark Sullivan, the city's housing and redevelopment manager. "Right now, El Camino in the city is all zoned commercial. The current land use designation doesn't allow residential," explained Sullivan, who said the new general plan will change things. "We've created a transit-oriented development land use designation which permits commercial below, with residential above." San Carlos has not yet adopted the guiding principles because it wants to let a general plan update complete its course, said Deborah Nelson, the city's planning manager. But there appears to be no conflict between the two, as the general plan committee is considering changing the emphasis on El Camino Real from highway-oriented commercial to mixed-use, she said. Nelson is interested in using public projects such as sidewalks, bike paths, landscaping and street furniture to ensure the SamTrans mixed-use project incorporates into the surrounding community, which includes downtown to the west, and significant industrial uses to the east. The actions of the cities are what matter most, said Daniel Cruery, president and CEO of the San Mateo County Economic Development Association, one of the initiative's primary backers. "Business organizations and the public agencies — VTA and SamTrans — are not the decision-makers along the corridor," he said. "The individual cities are." The role of the task force is to keep the cities, which have many priorities, focused on the corridor, Cruery said. "We hear from people that there's not as much going on as they would like to see. But it's a process," Cruery said. "It takes time. It takes education." Joint Venture's Hancock agrees. "The biggest challenge is getting the results — getting good stuff on the ground," he said. "All we can do is persuade. We can't tell cities what to do." Contacts: Russell Hancock, Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network, (408) 271-7213. Daniel Cruery, San Mateo County Economic Development Association, (650) 413-5600. Corrine Goodrich, San Mateo County Transit District, (650) 508-6200. Deborah Nelson, City of San Carlos, (650) 802-4263. Mark Sullivan, City of San Bruno, (650) 616-7074. Grand Boulevard Initiative website: http://grandboulevard.net 'Grand Boulevard' Guiding Principals The Grand Boulevard Initiative Task Force has adopted these 10 "guiding principles." The task force is urging member entities to adopt the principles as well. 1. Target housing and job growth in strategic areas along the corridor. 2. Encourage compact mixed-use development and high-quality urban design and construction. 3. Create a pedestrian-oriented environment and improve streetscapes, ensuring full access to and between public areas and private developments. 4. Develop a balanced multi-modal corridor to maintain and improve mobility of people and vehicles along the corridor. 5. Manage parking assets. 6. Provide vibrant public spaces and gathering places. 7. Preserve and accentuate unique and desirable community character and the existing quality of life in adjacent neighborhoods. 8. Improve safety and public health. 9. Strengthen pedestrian and bicycle connections with the corridor. 10. Pursue environmentally sustainable and economically viable development patterns.

Just looking at the proposed football stadium on the eastern edge of Los Angeles County is enough to give me indigestion. This six-dollar hamburger is just too big to eat. Even by the high standards for excess in Southern California, the numbers for this project seem overly rich. The 562-acre complex will contain (take a deep breath) a 75,000-seat stadium, expandable to 80,000 seats in the event of a Super Bowl. That stadium will be big-and-bad enough to satisfy the National Football League, which demands a Brobdignagian sports facility as the price of doing business in pro football. Add 833,000 square feet of retail space, or twice the size of two smallish regional malls, and another 162,000 square feet of restaurants to serve up enough chicken tenders, Philly cheese steaks and spaghetti marinara to satisfy the hunger of the football faithful. Add to this development goulash a 5,000-seat theater, plus 1,200 cinema seats, plus 1.5 million square feet of office space in an industrial area with little or no demand for such space. All this for a mere $800 million. If you like the tenant mix, you'll the love the urbanism: The developer, Ed Roski Jr., has sited his dream child in the City of Industry, a city made up almost entirely of warehouses and loading docks, the majority of which have been built by Roski himself. In other words, this NFL project – let us call it Roski Island – is to be an isolated megastructure amid a tangled skein of freeways and windowless industrial boxes. The project website describes Roski Island as one of a variety of regional attractions, such as Disneyland and Knott's Berry Farm, that will entice tourists. Believe me, 833,000 square feet of retail wrapped around a football stadium is the first thing I want to see when I get off the plane after a long week in Kuala Lumpur. In fairness, Roski and his development partners, including sports and entertainment magnate Philip Anschutz, have already tried and failed to sell the City of Los Angeles on the notion of a football stadium in or near downtown Los Angeles, either at the antiquated Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum or on a separate site near the Los Angeles Convention Center that was quickly hooted down. One can hardly blame Roski for turning back to Industry, the town where he made his fortune, as the next logical venue for an NFL ball field. Site assembly, an enormous issue for a football stadium in downtown L.A., is not a concern in Industry, where Roski's Majestic Reality has a 65-year lease on the project site. Pulling a building permit would probably not be a problem for Industry's favorite son, either, even for a project big enough for Pecos Bill to lose Babe the Blue Ox in. Ribbing aside, Roski and his team actually have at least one interesting idea, which is to excavate deeply into the site, and make the football stadium essentially a crater-like opening in the ground. This stratagem would save money on steel. The bermed stadium would also save millions of dollars in heating and cooling costs, because the temperature of the soil almost anywhere in the temperate zone is 55 degrees Fahrenheit. A partially under-grounded stadium is a notion worth exploring. But the questionable urbanism of the scheme is its undoing, in my opinion. Sports and entertainment complexes need thousands of pairs of feet to succeed. Foot traffic is why stadiums thrive in many downtown areas; Baltimore, Denver, and San Diego are among the most frequently cited. Industry, however, is a gigantic business park that has no previous history of being a shopping or sports destination. It is difficult to imagine Southern California residents piling in the car on a regular basis to go shopping in the heat sink and smoggy air of Industry, no matter how cool the crater. The second and third problems are economic and geographic, and they are intertwined. The absurd economics of pro sports has skewed the pricing of such events sharply toward the upper middle class. While the location in east L.A. County offers excellent access to some folks in neighboring Orange and Riverside counties — 12 million people within a 25-mile radius, according to the project website — it's questionable whether that location serves the affluent folks in West Los Angeles, Santa Monica and Beverly Hills who are mostly likely to drop a few grand for season tickets to watch the Los Angeles Captains of Industry toss the pigskin around. When the project website talks about Roski Island being a regional attraction on the scale of Disneyland and Universal Studios, we realize that the developers are stuck in the 1960s, when it was still possible to hop into a Corvette and race across town. Those days are over. Driving in Southern California is misery, and entertainment is increasingly localized. Yes, football may induce people to drive long distances, but the other 350 days each year of concert-going and shopping look very dicey to me — particularly when venues offering the same fare already exist in Hollywood, Universal City, downtown L.A. and perhaps a dozen other places in the region. Roski and Anschutz state that Los Angeles is hungry for pro football after 14 years of living without. They may be right, although L.A., despite its wealth and history of winning teams, tends to be a dispassionate sports market, perhaps because nobody in Los Angeles really wants to admit that they actually live here. And that indifference suggests that driving out of town for a nominally L.A. team may or may not work. Those kinds of questions are for wiser heads to answer. For the time being, I would simply advise Roski and his friends to keep the berms but look closer to the Westside. There's an empty basketball stadium in Inglewood, where the Lakers used to play before they moved downtown into an arena that Roski and Anschutz built. That might be a good place to start. And, if my favorite billionaires wouldn't mind some further advice, I recommend going easy on the food-and-retail bit. In this town, football itself is hard enough to swallow.