Achieving Sustainability
inCalifornia’s Central Valley
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A report by the UC Davis Sustainable Transportation Center
UCDAVIS
SUS TAINABL E TRANSPORTAT ION CENT ER
of the Institute of Transportation Studies
Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s CentralValley
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A report by the
AUTHORS
Mark Lubell, Ph. D., Associate Professor in the Department of Environmental Science and Policy
Bret Beheim, Research Assistant, Department of Environmental Science and Policy
Vicken Hillis, Research Assistant, Department of Environmental Science and Policy
Susan Handy, Ph. D., Professor in the Department of Environmental Science and Policy,
Director of the UC Davis Sustainable Transportation Center
Edited by SusanWolbarst, Davis, CA
wolbarst@ pacbell. net
Graphic Design by KIM ART Graphics, Kim Rogers, Grass Valley, CA
kim- art@ sbcglobal. net
The research was supported by a grant from the
Sustainable Transportation Center at the University of California Davis,
which receives funding from the U. S. Department of Transportation and Caltrans,
the California Department of Transportation,
through the University Transportation Centers program.
Additional funding came from
NSF Grant SES- 0350817,
" Collaborative Research on Institutions and Land- Use Politics."
Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley 1 |
The concept of sustainability has been described as
“ the current object of planning’s fascination”( Campbell,
1996), especially in fast- growing areas attempting to balance
economic, social and environmental priorities for long- term
community welfare. California’s rapidly growing Central
Valley is one such area. The CentralValley is at a critical
juncture— the 2009 population of about seven million
people is expected grow to 12 million people by 2040
according to California Department of Finance estimates.
“ By developed world standards, such growth is phenomenal,”
outstripping any other region in California, the United States,
and even Mexico ( Johnson and Hayes 2004; p. 7).
This report assesses the capacity of the CentralValley’s
cities to manage the economic, social, and environmental
problems associated with this rapid population growth in
a sustainable manner, offering alternatives to sprawl and
automobile- dependent lifestyles. California’s response to
climate change will only bring these issues more to the
forefront as state laws like SB375 and AB32 encourage local
governments to take action to reduce emissions.
We developed an“ environmental policy sustainability”
index to measure the presence of 50 different sustainability
policies in 100 incorporated CentralValley cities in Butte,
Colusa, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Madera,
Merced, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Stanislaus,
Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo andYuba counties. The index
includes policies thought to contribute to the“ triple bottom-line”(
Rogers and Ryan 2001) of economic, environmental,
and social welfare, but focuses on environmental sustainabil-ity
policies. ( See Table 1 on page 2 for full listing of policies.)
We searched archival information ( i. e. general plans,
city ordinances, websites) to determine if a particular policy
existed in a city and then surveyed local planning officials
about the existence of the same policy. This information was
combined into an index within each city that had a possible
range from 0- 50; observed scores ranged from 5- 33 with
an average of 17. Figure 1 ( page 3) shows a map of the
sustainability index, and more detailed information about
its construction can be found in the full report, Achieving
Sustainability in California’s CentralValley, online at
http:// pubs. its. ucdavis. edu/ publication_ detail. php? id= 1286.
Second, we conducted case studies in seven Central
Valley cities— Fresno, Modesto, Davis, Wheatland, Lincoln,
Sacramento, and Citrus Heights. These cities reflect the
diversity of the CentralValley, ranging from high to low on
the index, and including both small rural cities and major
urban centers.
The case studies consist of interviews with key city
officials about the definition of sustainability, the policies
in place in the city, and the factors that influence the city’s
ability to pursue sustainability goals. Many technical details
regarding development of the environmental policy sustain-ability
index are in the full report, which also contains pro-files
of individual cities.
U C D A V I S S U S T A I N A B L E T R A N S P O R T AT I O N C E N T E R
Achieving Sustainability
in California’s Central Valley
I N T R O D U C T I O N
| 2 Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley
The statistical analysis ( see Appen-dix
A and full report for details) suggests
that geographically larger, more populous, and higher density
cities were more likely to have high index scores. The sustain-ability
index was also higher in cities with better tax bases,
and lower in cities that relied heavily on intergovernmental
revenues. In terms of social characteristics, the index was
higher in cities with professional and managerial workforces
( so- called“ intellectual capital”), higher income/ education,
and a well- established development industry.
The statistical analysis also suggests that CentralValley
cities fall into four groups: traditional rural, transitioning
rural, Sacramento suburban growth, and established urban
centers. Each type of city faces somewhat different chal-lenges
in achieving sustainability. The Sacramento regional
growth cities score relatively high on the sustainability index
and have many factors predicted to encourage sustainability
such as extremely high growth, low reliance on intergovern-mental
revenue, and a well- educated and wealthier popula-tion.
At the same time, these Sacramento suburbs are some
of the most politically conservative constituencies in the
region, where sustainability principles may conflict with
citizen preferences. The transitioning rural cities are moving
away from the agricultural economy of the CentralValley,
Large and More Urban Cities Have More Policies
A C H I E V I N G S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y I N C A L I F O R N I A’ S C E N T R A L V A L L E Y
Table 1. List of Policies Included in the Index
Land Use ( 8)
• Comprehensive Land Use Plan Includes/ Identifies
Environmental Sensitive Areas
• Habitat Conservation Planning under ESA
• Encourages Conservation Easements
• Williamson Act Lands in Jurisdiction
• Williamson Act Support
• Minimum Density Standards
• Eco- Village Project or Program
• Growth Phasing
Zoning ( 6)
• Green Zoning
• Agricultural Zoning
• Up- Zoning
• Inclusive Use Zoning
• Mixed Use Zoning
• Urban Growth Boundary
Transportation ( 6)
• Traffic Impact Analysis
• Public Transit System
• Downtown Parking Limits
• Carpool Program
• Alternative Fuel FleetVehicles
• Bicycle Ridership Program
Economic Development/ Redevelopment ( 9)
• Eco- Industrial Park Development
• Cluster or Targeted Economic Development
• Infill Financial Incentives
• Impact Fees
• Mandatory Dedications
• Negotiated Exactions
• Public Redevelopment Investment
• Redevelopment Authority
• Brownfield Redevelopment
Pollution Prevention and Mitigation ( 10)
• Air Pollution Mitigation Program
• Superfund Site Remediation
• Asbestos Abatement Program
• Household SolidWaste Recycling
• Household HazardousWaste Recycling
• Household GreenWaste Recycling
• Commercial SolidWaste Recycling
• Commercial HazardousWaste Recycling
• Industrial Recycling
• City Government Recycled Product Purchase
Resource Conservation ( 5)
• Commercial Green Building Program
• Energy Conservation Programs
• Renewable Energy Use by City Government
• Consumer Alternative Energy
• Water Conservation Program
Administration and Coordination ( 2)
• Sustainability Agency/ Non- Profit
• Sustainability Goals in Comprehensive Plan
Green Symbols and Membership ( 4)
• Green Symbol Logos
• Member, International Council for
Local Environmental Initiatives
• Member, Cities for Climate Protection Campaign
• Signatory, Mayors’Climate Protection
Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley 3 |
| 4 Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley
A C H I E V I N G S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y I N C A L I F O R N I A’ S C E N T R A L V A L L E Y
and population growth in these cities is accompanied by
increasing education and wealth, which are important
resources for implementing sustainable policies. The trans-itioning
cities generally have many opportunities for creating
sustainable growth patterns because they still have space to
expand. In contrast, many of the established urban centers
such as Sacramento and Fresno have already filled much of
their available space and made development decisions that
will constrain future choices. The traditional rural cities
score the lowest on the index and have small populations,
poor fiscal health, and low educational levels. Achieving
sustainability in these cities will probably require substantial
investment from outside actors such as state government or
non- profit groups. While these cities may not need sustain-ability
policies now, they will very likely need them if they
continue to grow.
Overall, sustainability appears to be a largely urban
phenomenon, occurring in CentralValley cities where the
process of development is correlated with increasing
education, professionalism, tax revenue, and less depend-ence
on intergovernmental revenues. Some of these cities
are large urban centers that are grappling with the conse-quences
of past rapid growth, while other cities are currently
experiencing rapid growth and are sometimes adopting
sustainability policies earlier than their larger neighbors.
Multiple Views on
Sustainability
We asked the case study participants to reflect on the
meaning of sustainability, and not surprisingly there were
multiple perspectives. Officials in cities that scored higher
on the sustainability index generally reported an integrative
view of sustainability that focuses on balancing social, envi-ronmental,
and economic goals for the long term, in ways
that foster cooperation among competing interests. Other
cities tended to emphasize the economic aspect of sustain-ability
in terms of maintaining the fiscal health of a city.
Overall, the social aspect of sustainability received the least
attention, while participants generally agreed on the impor-tance
of a long- term perspective. Many of these competing
views were played out in the context of specific develop-ment
projects, demonstrating how sustainability is linked to
the traditional politics of urban growth.
Integrating Sustainability
Into General Plans
Nearly all cities pointed to the contents of their general
plans as places where sustainability issues are addressed.
General plans are“ part intent, part feasible future”( Innes
1996) and thus reflect a city’s preferences for development
patterns. Davis has a history of general plans that pay
attention to integration of land use and transportation, iden-tification
of infill opportunities, especially in the housing
element, and planning for higher density development to
reduce boundary expansion. Officials in Fresno noted that
the general plan update in 2002 focused development
inward and upward, rather than outward. Sacramento
updated its general plan in 2008, with specific integration
of sustainability practices and a long- term planning horizon
to 2030. The concept of sustainability is established in the
Sacramento General Plan as the fourth goal, after ( 1) afford-able
housing, ( 2) economic development, and ( 3) safe
neighborhoods. Lincoln, following Placer County’s 50- year
Habitat Conservation Plan, recently took the unusual step of
writing a 2050 General Plan for the city, with the goal of guid-ing
the community all the way to“ build out.”
The process by which general plans are developed has
an important influence on how well their content addresses
city goals. More recently created general plans or updates
have relied on expanded forms of public participation, such
as the crafting of vision statements and citizen advisory
committees. This type of public participation is considered
an aspect of good planning in general, and is not necessarily
unique to sustainability. However, the level of public partici-pation
in such processes varies across cities, and some cities
in the CentralValley— such as Modesto— have lower levels
of overall participation.
Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley 5 |
Formal and Informal
Coordination Mechanisms
A key factor influencing the level of sustainability prac-tices
was development of formal and informal mechanisms
to facilitate coordination and build networks among city
departments, and also between the city council, city adminis-tration,
and citizen commissions. The sustainability manager
in Davis and the Green Team in Citrus Heights coordinate
and communicate across city departments to focus on
common sustainability goals. Citrus Heights also conducts
bi- monthly development review meetings that include all city
departments, service contractors, and sometimes developers
to insure awareness and coordination of upcoming projects.
Annual strategic planning retreats involve the city council,
commissions, and administrative staff. Sacramento’s recent
general plan’s development was facilitated by Leadership
Workshops that brought together relevant appointed boards
and commissions, the city council, department heads, and
city manager all in one room, as well as focus groups with
environmentalists and developers.
Second, cities that score high on the sustainability
index are also more likely to have administrative mecha-nisms
in place to forward sustainability goals. In Citrus
Heights, the Green Team facilitates green practices like use
of recycled paper and energy efficient lighting. Fresno has
Fresno Green, a comprehensive set of 25 strategies with the
stated objective of making Fresno“ a sustainable city by
2025.” Davis has a sustainability program manager who coor-dinates
multiple departments, and is charged with analyzing
what policy options will give the“ most bang for the buck”
in terms of sustainability goals like reducing greenhouse
gasses. Davis also has recently created a Climate Action
Team as an ad- hoc citizens’committee to advise the city
on climate policy.
Fostering New Urbanism
Many observers recommend adopting the principles of
new urbanism or smart growth— minimizing the impacts of
sprawl, promoting infill development, and creating walkable
communities— as a way to reconcile environmental and
economic priorities in the context of specific development
proposals and site design.
In Sacramento, a strong commitment to sustainable liv-ing
plus a limited inventory of developable land is resulting
in a push for mixed- use infill development.“ The Railyards”
infill project will nearly double the downtown footprint and
add 12,000 housing units. City officials in Modesto cited
improvement efforts downtown as a positive first step to
higher- density developments. Modesto Mayor Jim Ridenour
and Modesto City Councilman Brad Hawn support
regionalization of water and sewer services, as well as
potentially even planning departments and master plans.
TheWheatland CommunityVision project of 2008
outlined a three- pronged approach: attracting a diverse
employment base; channeling development into a modular,
village- type concept; and maintaining the small- town charac-ter
by incorporating agriculture into the urban environment.
Mayor Primo Santini described Lincoln’s approach to growth
as new urbanism, where new growth is organized into seven
semi- autonomous villages, each of them roughly the size of
the historic core of Lincoln itself, between 800- 2000 acres.
In addition, Lincoln is a participant in a pilot electric vehicle
program, and is building neighborhood electric vehicle
paths. “ We’re going to try to organize our growth so that you
don’t have to get in your car or go very far to accomplish
what you need to,” Santini said.
Fresno’s sustainability policies center on two initiatives:
an action- oriented plan called Fresno Green identifying
strategies and implementation tactics intended to transform
Fresno into a sustainable city, and Southeast Growth Area
( SEGA), a major new growth community representing a
wholesale departure from the standard low- density, single-family
development of years past.
New urbanism projects sometimes collide with the
politics of growth, as seen in Davis, where two proposed new
urbanism projects were recently cancelled. One project,
CovellVillage, was rejected by voters in 2006, while another
project called Cannery Business Park was withdrawn by the
developer after the city council asked for a new environ-mental
impact statement before agreeing to rezone the
property. While Davis has one of the highest scores on our
sustainability index, concerns about the amount and charac-ter
of growth in the city have derailed projects that were at
least purported to be following new urbanism design.
Fiscalization of Land Use
Nearly every case study participant mentioned the
fiscalization of land use as a major barrier to the implemen-tation
of sustainability policies. Cities are driven by financial
incentives regarding balancing revenue and expenditures.
City revenues such as property taxes, sales taxes, service fees,
and impact fees are tied to land use intensification and
population growth. This so- called“ fiscalization of land use”
( Lewis 2001) creates a financial disincentive for cities to
restrict growth or encourage the high- density development
that is often promoted by smart growth or sustainability
advocates. These financial issues are particularly acute in
| 6 Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley
A C H I E V I N G S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y I N C A L I F O R N I A’ S C E N T R A L V A L L E Y
California because of Proposition 13, passed in 1978, which
reduces the availability of property taxes and encourages
cities to search for alternative revenue sources like sales tax
from big box retail and user fees on new development. As
demand for services and costs continues to rise, many cities
view growth as the only way to maintain fiscal sustainability.
Budgets and Planning
Resources
The fiscal health of a city translates into planning re-sources,
including staff time devoted to sustainability issues
and resources available for implementing new policies. The
planning manager in Citrus Heights said she has adequate
resources. Davis created a sustainability program manager
position in 2008, which is a 50- 75% position split with the
open space planner. Fiscal health in Fresno is presumably
related to the city’s ability to hire a consultant planner for
the design of the 14- square- mile Southeast Growth Area,
although this wasn’t explicitly mentioned by any city
officials. Other cities like Sacramento have large deficits,
limiting their ability to take on new staff or projects. Modesto
is reportedly facing a deficit of $ 10 million in FY 09/ 10. The
city recently shelved its needed general plan update because
it lacked funds to hire a senior planner to lead the project.
Some smaller cities have very limited planning depart-ments,
and often contract with consultants to create their
general plans. The degree to which these consultants
integrate sustainability principles into their services is an
important consideration. Tim Raney, former mayor of Citrus
Heights and current owner of Raney Planning and Manage-ment,
contracts withWheatland as their community devel-opment
director. He has advocated innovative policies
for a city ofWheatland’s size, including water reclamation
and clean- burning agricultural waste cogeneration as an
alternative energy source.
Fiscal constraints will have a big impact on the ability
of any city to respond to new state laws such as AB32 and
SB375, which encourage cities to change their general plans
to meet climate change goals.
City Council Politics
The preferences of the city council have a strong influ-ence
on the number of sustainability practices, the resources
devoted towards implementation, the types of developments
approved, and the overall rate of growth in a city. In Davis,
there is a conflict between“ slow growth” and“ moderate
growth” city council members, with the majority of the coun-cil
currently in favor of a one- percent growth cap. In Citrus
Heights, the council is concerned with redevelopment of
commercial corridors; as one respondent put it,“ now the
council is made up of individuals who are... pro- good
growth. They are supportive of growth but really concerned
about neighborhood issues.” In Modesto, some city council
members feel strongly that a change in housing style or
growth is inconsistent with lifestyle expectations of Central
Valley residents, while others feel equally strongly that a new
type of development is needed. In Fresno, members of the
council who were interviewed seemed more or less in agree-ment
about development, especially the importance of the
Southeast Growth Area as a flagship for new urbanist
development. Some council members, however, noted that
the focus on SEGA diverted attention and funds from impor-tant
issues in their own districts. InWheatland, the council
has a strong desire to attract diverse local jobs.
Role of Neighborhood
Associations
Perhaps the most organized groups are neighborhood
associations, which have distinct advantages and disadvan-tages
with respect to sustainability. In Citrus Heights, the first
mayor purposely organized neighborhood associations
through city policy. Such associations often support sustain-ability
within their neighborhoods; they want a clean and
healthy environment, good schools, and job opportunities.
But these same neighborhood associations often exhibit
Not- In- My- Backyard ( NIMBY) reactions to decisions with
regional benefits but perceived local costs. The most fre-quent
example cited in the case studies was neighborhood
Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley 7 |
resistance to high- density infill development.
Overcoming NIMBY dynamics is a major challenge to
many types of sustainability policies. Case study participants
recommended that public education campaigns should
communicate the regional benefits of individual projects to
help citizens see a broader picture. Another strategy is to
require development projects to have a strong community
involvement program, where developers themselves ask for
input from local neighborhoods and adjust their project
design to reflect local concerns.
Role of Developers
Some respondents identified two types of developers:
large- scale developers seeking project opportunities
throughout the region, and smaller- scale developers working
mostly on small pieces of land within community bound-aries.
Each type may have advantages and disadvantages
with respect to sustainability. The large- scale developers will
often get a greater return from single- family homes on city
borders, but they also have the resources needed to create
more innovative green developments and buildings. Smaller-scale
developers will be more likely to implement infill
projects with a smaller environmental footprint, and more
willing to comply with a city’s demands for project changes.
But smaller developers generally have fewer resources
available for being leaders in innovation.
Additionally, respondents noted that the demand for
more sustainable development provides a unique market
opportunity for the opportunistic and innovative developer.
Often, however, this effect is trumped by the fact that estab-lished
developers, with a substantial amount of control over
the marketplace, have a successful business model based on
traditional suburban development that has been generating
profits for decades, and they are loathe to change it.
Education, Affluence and
Citizen Involvement
Our statistical analysis found that sustainability policies
are implemented more frequently in affluent, well- educated
communities with high levels of professional occupations.
Case study participants in cities that scored higher on the
sustainability index echoed these findings. Davis was charac-terized
as relatively affluent, educated, and highly participa-tory.
Citrus Heights was characterized as fairly conservative in
the sense that its residents dislike change and their participa-tion
is motivated largely by resistance to infill. Policy makers
in Modesto observed that citizens only became involved in
the planning process after- the- fact, to complain about
specific decisions; and inWheatland, low participation was
observed among residents unless issues directly affected
their property. Fresno’s interim planning director, Keith
Bergthold, described his job as being partly one of market-ing,
or convincing various stakeholders that more sustain-able
developments were, in actuality, in their best interest.
Many cities also mentioned citizen initiatives that place
explicit policy constraints on growth. In Davis, Measure J
was passed in 1999, requiring voter approval before the city
would allow development of agricultural, open space, or
horse ranch property at the edge of the urban area. In
Modesto, the general plan calls for an urban area growth
policy review every two years. As part of this review process,
a citizen’s advisory vote is required to approve the extension
of sewer service to any areas of urban expansion. Reports
from officials were mixed, however, as to the impact this advi-sory
process has had over the years. These citizen initiatives
reflect the general tendency of neighborhood groups to pay
a high level of attention to the costs of new developments,
A Culture of Innovation
An overall acceptance of innovation was frequently
mentioned as a catalyst for sustainability policies. The statis-tical
results coupled with the case study information suggest
that a culture of innovation is a more important factor than
overall political ideology.
The city of Davis has an overall culture of innovation
fostered by the presence of UC Davis. Davis has a long his-tory
of attention to sustainability principles in general plans
dating back to the 1970s, which recognize the need to main-tain
open space, develop greenways, encourage alternative
transportation by creating bike paths, and have relatively
high density development. Other cities have only recently
started to pay attention to sustainability issues, and must
deal with the realities of past policy and development deci-sions
that are difficult to change in the future.
The use of outside planning consultants was said to
spur innovation in cities likeWheatland ( see Budgets and
Planning Resources) and Fresno, which contracted with
Calthorpe Associates, a sustainable development authority
from Berkeley, to design the Southeast Growth Area, a high-density,
multi- use development incorporating new types of
open space and walkable communities targeted to absorb
at least 20% of Fresno’s growth over the next 20 years.
Additionally, many innovative policy ideas implemented in
the case study cities were learned about outside of that city,
for example by city staff attending training or conferences.
| 8 Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley
C O N C L U S I O N
The Future of Sustainability?
Achieving sustainability in the CentralValley faces
significant economic, political, and social barriers linked to
the traditional growth conflicts of the past. Appointed and
elected officials in the CentralValley have different ideas
about the definition of sustainability. Some of them expressed
a view that balances environmental, social, and economic
priorities for long- term welfare. Others focused more on
economic and fiscal health issues that have always been
central concerns for cities. In general, officials with the more
balanced view of sustainability are also working in cities
with higher scores on our quantitative sustainability index.
Barriers to sustainability include fiscalization of land use,
lack of planning resources, city councils focused on tradi-tional
development, lack of coordination among city
departments, and NIMBY politics resisting infill. Catalysts for
sustainability include sustainability programs within city
administration, adequate resources, and a culture of innova-tion.
Our statistical results suggest the barriers are lower and
the catalysts more available in the larger urban cities in
comparison to the traditional rural or transitioning rural
cities. However, implementation of sustainability policies in
larger cities is often more difficult due to constraints from a
history of poor development decisions, while smaller transi-tioning
cities have greater opportunities to start off on a
more sustainable development path.
Our analysis suggests some specific recommendations
for city and state policy makers:
 Look for ways to break the fiscalization of land use con-straints
cycle, possibly even revisiting Proposition 13 at the
state level. Cities need new sources of revenue that are
not tied to new development.
 Allow broad citizen participation in the city planning
process, but try to focus those forums on key sustainability
issues from the outset. A vision for sustainability— rather
than the mechanics of different plan elements— should
be the guiding principle of any general plan updates. The
vision should encompass environmental, economic, and
social issues.
 Create administrative mechanisms within cities to coordi-nate
across departments and analyze the costs and bene-fits
of different options. The strongest mechanism is the
creation of a sustainability program with a dedicated
budget and staff. The program should evaluate the highest
priority problems for the city and the most cost- effective
solutions, fostering communication among city depart-ments
and between city officials and citizens.
 Provide professional development opportunities for exist-ing
city staff to learn about innovative practices through
professional conferences, training, and other networks
( including virtual.) Many of the innovative policy ideas
implemented in the case study cities were learned about
outside of that city.
 State level policies should place high priority on“ transi-tioning
cities” that will be making important future deci-sions.
Regional planning processes like Blueprint and
decisions associated with AB32 and SB375 will have more
leverage in those cities that have enough resources to
effectively implement policy, but are not hampered by a
history of poor development. At the same time, the large
urban cities should not be excluded from the incentives
associated with regional planning.
 New development projects should be based on principles
of new urbanism or smart growth in ways that are accept-able
to local citizens.
 In partnership with developers and neighborhood associa-tions,
create educational programs or town hall meetings
for local neighborhoods to explain the benefits of infill
development for both the city and the region. These pro-grams
should be focused around specific new develop-ments
and take place in affected neighborhoods ( not
City Hall), giving citizens a venue to voice their concerns.
Development plans should not be approved by City Council
or planning officials without responding to these concerns.
 Many cities
expressed a need
to have a better
understanding of
which climate
change and sus-tainability
efforts
will provide a
greater“ bang for
the buck”; this is
one area where
more state and
university research
and outreach
efforts should
be devoted.
A C H I E V I N G S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y I N C A L I F O R N I A’ S C E N T R A L V A L L E Y
Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley 9 |
The statistical analysis uses linear regression to identify
the factors that best predict a city’s score on the environmental
sustainability index. In statistical jargon, the sustainability
index is the dependent variable to be explained and various
economic, social, and political factors are the independent or
explanatory variables. The results of the analysis support our
claims in the body of the report.
We measured a variety of economic and demographic
variables. City size is the natural logarithms of city area from
the 2000 U. S. Census of Population and Housing and 2004
population estimates produced by the California Department
of Finance, standardized so that the logged scores have a
mean of zero and standard deviation of one, and then summed
together. City size is thus expressed in standard deviation
units and measures a city’s size relative to the others in our
study. Proportion population growth is the proportion growth
from 1990 to 2004. Housing density is the number of dwelling
units per square mile from the 2000 Census of Population and
Housing. Fiscal capacity is measured using total local taxes per
capita and percent intergovernmental revenue per capita from
the 2002 U. S. Census of Governments and the 2000 Census of
Population and Housing.
We also include a range of social indicators. Intellectual
capital is the proportion of business establishments that were
professional and scientific, educational, managerial, and health
and social services based on 2002 U. S. Economic Census data
aggregated for zip codes. Development industry is the propor-tion
of business establishments in construction and develop-ment
from the same source. Socioeconomic status combines
percentage of the population with bachelor’s degrees or higher,
median household income, and median housing value, all from
the 2000 Census of Population and Housing. The scale is created
by first standardizing each raw score to have a mean of zero
and standard deviation of one, and then summing together the
standardized scores. Percent Democratic voters in the 2004
presidential election using data from the California Secretary of
State ( 2004) is a proxy for environmental attitudes; Democrats
are generally more supportive of environmental policies.
Table A. 1 reports the analysis results. The “ full” model
includes all of the independent variables, while the other three
models examine different categories of indicators. The
“ Adjusted R2” ranges from zero to one, and shows the percent-age
of variance explained in the sustainability index; it is a
measure of model fit. The regression coefficients indicate the
direction and size of the influence of a particular independent
variable on a dependent variable, where a positive value means
that as the independent variable increases, the sustainability
index will also increase and negative coefficients predict a
decrease in the sustainability index. Larger coefficients gener-ally
mean a larger effect, although the scale on which the
independent variable is measured must be considered. The
traditional threshold for statistical significance is a “ p- value”
less than .05; these can be seen in the parentheses of the table.
A P P E N D I X A : S T AT I S T I C A L A N A LY S I S O F T H E E N V I R O N M E N T A L S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y I N D E X
Table A. 1: Regression Models for the Sustainability Index
Economic
Full Development Fiscal Capacity Interest Group
Model Model Model Model
Development Indicators
City Size 2.66 (. 70; <. 01 ) 3.45 (. 47; <. 01) —- —-
Housing Density ( per mile2) .003 (. 001; <. 01) .004 (. 001; <. 01) —- —-
Proportion Population Growth 1990- 2004 -. 10 ( 1.14; .93) 1.14 ( 1.14; .32) —- —-
Fiscal Indicators
Taxes Per Capita 7.02 ( 2.53; .01) —- 9.69 ( 2.62; <. 01) —-
Percent Intergovernmental Revenue Per Capita .004 (. 04; .92) —- -. 09 (. 05; .06) —-
Social Indicators
Intellectual Capital .09 (. 11;. 41) —- —- .18 (. 09; .05)
Development Industry .20 (. 08; .01) —- —- .46 (. 09; <. 01)
Socioeconomic Status -. 12 (. 68; .86) —- —- 1.23 (. 64; .06)
% Democratic Voters 2004 .05 (. 04; .17) —- —- .09 (. 04; .02)
Model Fit Statistics
Constant 4.55 ( 3.62; .23) 13.45 ( 1.32; <. 01) 16.46 ( 2.03; <. 01) 1.71 ( 3.52; .63)
Adjusted R2 .56 .46 .26 .40
Notes: Cell entries for regression results are unstandardized partial slope coefficients with standard errors in parentheses, followed by
p- values (<. 01 means“ less than 1 percent”) for test of hypothesis that the coefficient equals zero. Five cities not included in models due
to missing data on some independent variables.
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
Bowman, A. ( 2005). “ Cities and Environmental
Politics.” Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Political Science
Association.
Brown, B. J., M. E. Hanson, D. M. Liverman, and
R. W. Merideth ( 1987). “ Global sustainability:
Toward definition.” Environmental Manage-ment,
11( 6), 713.
Campbell, S. ( 1996). “ Green Cities, Growing Cities,
Just Cities? Urban Planning and the
Contradictions of Sustainable Development.”
Journal of the American Planning Association,
62( 3), 296- 312.
Great Valley Center ( 2005). “ State of the Great
Central Valley of California.”
www. irvine. org/ publications/ by_ topic/
central. shtml# central4, Last accessed
September 29, 2008.
Innes, J. E. ( 1996). “ Planning Through Consensus
Building— A New View of the Comprehensive
Planning Ideal.” Journal of the American
Planning Association, 62 ( 4), 460- 72.
Jepson, E. J., Jr. ( 2004). “ The Adoption of
Sustainable Development Policies and
Techniques in U. S. Cities: How Wide,
How Deep, and What Role for Planners?”
Journal of Planning Education and Research,
23 ( 3), 229- 41.
Johnson, H. P. and J. M. Hayes ( 2004). The Central
Valley at a Crossroads: Migration and its
Implications. San Franciso, CA: Public Policy
Institute of California.
Lewis, Paul G. ( 2001). “ Retail Politics: Local Sales
Taxes and the Fiscalization of Land Use.”
Economic Development Quarterly 15 ( 1): 21- 35.
Portney, K. E. ( 2003). Taking Sustainable Cities
Seriously. Cambridge, Massachusets:
The MIT Press.
Rogers, M., and R. Ryan. ( 2001). “ The Triple
Bottom Line for Sustainable Community
Development.” Local Environment,
6 ( 3), 279- 89.
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency
“ Sacramento Flood Threat”
www. safca. org/ floodhistory/ floodthreat. html.
Last accessed April 13, 2009
Schaller, N. ( 1993). “ The concept of agricultural
sustainability.” Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment, 46( 1- 4), 89.
St. John, Claire. “ Lewis cans Davis project.”
The Davis Enterprise, Davis, CA.
March 19, 2009.
Achieving Sustainability
inCalifornia’s Central Valley
UCDAVIS
SUS TAINABL E TRANSPORTAT ION CENT ER
of the Institute of Transportation Studies
| 2 Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley
Achieving Sustainability in
California’s CentralValley
A report by the
UC Davis Sustainable Transportation Center
AUTHORS
Mark Lubell, Ph. D.
Associate Professor in the Department of
Environmental Science and Policy
Bret Beheim
Research Assistant, Department of
Environmental Science and Policy
Vicken Hillis
Research Assistant, Department of
Environmental Science and Policy
Susan Handy, Ph. D.
Professor in the Department of
Environmental Science and Policy and
Director of the UC Davis Sustainable
Transportation Center
Edited by SusanWolbarst, Davis, CA
wolbarst@ pacbell. net
Graphic Design by KIM ART Graphics
Kim Rogers, Grass Valley, CA
kim- art@ sbcglobal. net
The research was supported by a grant from
the Sustainable Transportation Center at the
University of California Davis, which receives
funding from the U. S. Department of Trans-portation
and Caltrans, the California Depart-ment
of Transportation, through the
University Transportation Centers program.
Additional funding came from NSF Grant SES-
0350817, " Collaborative Research on Institu-tions
and Land- Use Politics."
C O N T E N T S
Introduction ................................................................. 3
The Environmental Policy
Sustainability Index .................................................... 6
Perspectives on the
Meaning of Sustainability......................................... 11
Important Policies for
Achieving Sustainability........................................... 15
Economic Factors...................................................... 17
Political Factors......................................................... 21
Social Factors............................................................. 23
Conclusion:
The Future of Sustainability..................................... 27
Sustainable City Profiles
Citrus Heights ............................................................ 10
Davis............................................................................ 14
Fresno ......................................................................... 18
Lincoln ........................................................................ 22
Modesto...................................................................... 24
Sacramento ................................................................ 26
Wheatland .................................................................. 28
Table 1. List of Policies Included in the Index ......................... 6
Figure 1. Map of Central California Cities
Showing Index Scores and Population...................................... 7
Figure 2. City Scores on Sustainability Index........................... 8
Figure 3. Scatterplot of Sustainability Index and
City Size Scale .............................................................................. 9
Table 2. Cluster Analysis Average Scores................................. 9
Table A. 1. Regression Models for the
Sustainability Index................................................................... 29
Appendix A................................................................................. 29
Bibliography............................................................................... 30
This report analyzes the barriers and cata-lysts
to sustainable growth and development
in Central Valley cities at a crucial time of rapid
population growth in that region. Sustainability
has been described as “ the current object of
planning’s fascination” ( Campbell 1996), yet
the term’s exact meaning remains vague. This
report aims to clarify the concept of sustain-ability
as applied to cities in California’s Cen-tral
Valley and identify some of the major
factors influencing a city’s ability to achieve
sustainability goals. The Central Valley is at a
critical juncture: the 2009 population of about
seven million people is expected to grow
to 12 million people by 2040, according to
California Department of Finance estimates.
“ By developed world standards, such growth
is phenomenal,” outstripping any other region
in California, the United States, and even Mex-ico
( Johnson and Hayes 2004; p. 7). It’s timely
to assess the capacity of Central Valley cities
to manage the economic, social, and environ-mental
problems associated with this rapid
population growth in a sustainable manner.
The issues discussed in this report will take on
added urgency as California’s response to cli-mate
change— including state laws like SB375
and AB32— encourage local governments to
take action to reduce emissions.
What, exactly, is meant by sustainability?
Most definitions focus on balancing eco-nomic,
social, and environmental priorities for
long- term community welfare. Sustainability
also includes thinking about what we want our
communities to look like in the next century or
more. This report includes perceptions of the
meaning of sustainability by key elected and
appointed officials in selected Central Valley
cities who are grappling with the realities of
rapid population growth in their region. Syn-thesizing
these various opinions, we conclude
that sustainability is an evolution of existing
local policies and growth management con-flicts,
and achieving sustainability involves
three central challenges: competition among
environmental, economic, and social priorities;
symbolic policy; and whether or not sustain-ability
is really “ needed” by all cities.
The report uses two methodologies to
analyze sustainability in the Central Valley.
First, we develop an “ environmental sustain-ability”
index that measures the presence or
absence of 50 different sustainability policies
in 100 Central Valley cities. The map in Figure
1 ( page 7) previews the results, and later we
will describe how this index was developed.
Second, because the quantitative index does
not provide much detail about any particular
Achieving Sustainability
inCalifornia’s Central Valley
I N T R O D U C T I O N
Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley 3 |
city, we conducted case studies in seven
cities— Fresno, Modesto, Davis, Wheatland,
Lincoln, Sacramento, and Citrus Heights.
Reflecting the diversity of the Central Valley,
these cities were selected because:
 they range from high to low on the sustain-ability
index,
 they’re located in both the Sacramento and
San Joaquin valleys,
 they range in population size from some of
the smallest to the largest cities in the region,
 they represent different types of cities identi-fied
in the cluster analysis, which categorizes
cities as traditional rural, transitioning rural,
Sacramento suburban growth, and estab-lished
urban centers.
The case studies consist of interviews with key
city officials about the definition of sustainabil-ity,
the policies in place in the city, and the fac-tors
that influence the city’s ability to pursue
sustainability goals. While the sustainability
index focuses mostly on the environmental as-pect
of sustainability, the case studies are de-signed
to elicit more information about social
and economic goals. The results of the analysis
offer a more critical view of sustainability than
others who view it as a transformative concept
that will change the future of planning and
urban development. Instead, our analysis
shows that sustainability policies are em-broiled
in many of the same conflicts that are
traditionally seen in the politics of urban growth.
While most definitions of sustainability en-compass
environmental health, social equality,
and economic opportunity ( Brown et al. 1987;
Campbell 1996; Schaller, 1993), it is difficult to
simultaneously achieve or measure all of these
goals. For example, although the sustainability
index includes policies thought to contribute to
the “ triple bottom- line” ( Rogers and Ryan 2001)
of economic, environment, and social welfare, it
focuses mainly on the environmental aspect of
sustainability. The sustainability index is not a
comprehensive audit that examines all the pos-sible
trade- offs among environmental, social,
and economic goals ( see Jepson 2004 for a
more comprehensive measure.) These trade-offs,
either perceived or real, are frequently an
important barrier that policy- makers have to
overcome in order to implement sustainability
policies. For example, many case study partici-pants
described the economic imperatives of a
city as barriers to potentially costly environ-mental
policies.
Sustainability policies may often be sym-bolic
and risk a large disjuncture between pol-icy
decisions and actual ecological, economic,
and social outcomes, which are at least partly
influenced by macro- level and long- term vari-ables
( such as economic downturns and stimu-lus
packages) that are beyond the control of
city policy. In addition, cities often make devel-opment
decisions that limit the ability of future
sustainability policies to make a difference. For
example, Sacramento receives one of the high-est
scores on our index, but is also the highest
flood- risk city in the United States due to previ-ous
development decisions and reliance on
century- old levees. On the other hand, Sacra-mento
has signaled the intent to become more
sustainable in the recent update of its general
plan, which identifies policies for achieving 200-
year flood risk protection. While consistent
with Sacramento’s score on the sustainability
index, translating the intent into real outcomes
is far from a foregone conclusion. Fresno,
| 4 Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley
INTRODUCTION continued...
meanwhile, received the highest score on the
index but has a reputation for sprawling hous-ing,
poor air quality, and high levels of poverty.
In recent years, Fresno has targeted sustainabil-ity
policy aggressively in the city’s general plan
and other arenas. The fact that these policies
have yet to come to full fruition, if indeed they
ever will, underscores the notion that there is
often an important gap between policy and out-comes
“ on the ground.”
To what extent do different types of cities
really “ need” sustainability policies? Our analy-sis
finds that large, more populous cities are far
more likely to have sustainability policies than
their small, rural neighbors. One reason is that
more urban cities need to find policy solutions
to the negative consequences of development.
But should smaller cities be expected to have
policies that address mostly urban problems
like brownfield redevelopment? Perhaps a
better question to ask is whether or not a
particular city is on a sustainable development
pathway that will avoid some of the current
problems experienced by larger cities that
ignored sustainability issues early in their
growth process. Thinking about sustainability
as a developmental process invokes important
questions such the ability to measure develop-ment
pathways, the rights of less- developed
cities to engage in economic activities that
might have negative regional consequences,
the potential for less- developed cities to “ leap
frog” toward sustainability by learning from
their neighbors, and the role of regional, state
and national government policies in shaping
local decisions.
The next section discusses the develop-ment
of the environmental policy sustainability
index and some of our statistical results; many
of the technical details are in Appendix A ( page
29). Following this, we present a synopsis of
the meaning of sustainability as reported by
case study participants, along with some of the
policies they think are most important. Then
we discuss the economic, political, and social
factors that will either decrease or increase the
ability of a city to foster sustainability. We con-clude
with predictions for the future of sustain-ability
in the Central Valley, including whether
or not regional and state policies in California
can help move cities onto a sustainable devel-opment
path. Information provided by inter-view
respondents will be provided throughout
the discussion, and we also include “ sustain-able
city profiles” that summarize the stories of
the case study cities.
Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley 5 |
INTRODUCTION continued...
The Environmental Policy Sustainability Index
Table 1. List of Policies Included in the Index
| 6 Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley
The basic idea behind the sustainability index
is to identify a relevant set of environmental sustain-ability
policies, and then count how many of those
policies exist in any given Central Valley city. The
policies were adapted to the Central Valley from
Portney ( 2003) and Bowman ( 2005); the full listing
of the policies is provided in Table 1. As mentioned
in the introduction, the list of policies is focused
mostly on the environmental aspect of sustainabil-ity
although many of the policies are hypothesized
to provide social and economic benefits or achieve
environmental goals in a cost- effective manner.
We used the Great Valley Center’s ( 2005) definition
of the Central Valley, which includes the 100 incor-porated
cities in the counties of Butte, Colusa,
El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Madera,
Merced, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta,
Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo and Yuba.
Land Use ( 8)
• Comprehensive Land Use Plan Includes/ Identifies
Environmental Sensitive Areas
• Habitat Conservation Planning under ESA
• Encourages Conservation Easements
• Williamson Act Lands in Jurisdiction
• Williamson Act Support
• Minimum Density Standards
• Eco- Village Project or Program
• Growth Phasing
Zoning ( 6)
• Green Zoning
• Agricultural Zoning
• Up- Zoning
• Inclusive Use Zoning
• Mixed Use Zoning
• Urban Growth Boundary
Transportation ( 6)
• Traffic Impact Analysis
• Public Transit System
• Downtown Parking Limits
• Carpool Program
• Alternative Fuel FleetVehicles
• Bicycle Ridership Program
Economic Development/ Redevelopment ( 9)
• Eco- Industrial Park Development
• Cluster or Targeted Economic Development
• Infill Financial Incentives
• Impact Fees
• Mandatory Dedications
• Negotiated Exactions
• Public Redevelopment Investment
• Redevelopment Authority
• Brownfield Redevelopment
Pollution Prevention and Mitigation ( 10)
• Air Pollution Mitigation Program
• Superfund Site Remediation
• Asbestos Abatement Program
• Household SolidWaste Recycling
• Household HazardousWaste Recycling
• Household GreenWaste Recycling
• Commercial SolidWaste Recycling
• Commercial HazardousWaste Recycling
• Industrial Recycling
• City Government Recycled Product Purchase
Resource Conservation ( 5)
• Commercial Green Building Program
• Energy Conservation Programs
• Renewable Energy Use by City Government
• Consumer Alternative Energy
• Water Conservation Program
Administration and Coordination ( 2)
• Sustainability Agency/ Non- Profit
• Sustainability Goals in Comprehensive Plan
Green Symbols and Membership ( 4)
• Green Symbol Logos
• Member, International Council for
Local Environmental Initiatives
• Member, Cities for Climate Protection Campaign
• Signatory, Mayors’Climate Protection
Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley 7 |
Figure 1.
Legend for Central California Cities
Two modes of data collection were used
to identify the policies in each city: searches
of archival information ( i. e. general plans,
city ordinances, websites), and surveys of
local planning officials. The archival infor-mation
was used to determine if a particular
policy existed or did not exist in the city;
the survey respondents were asked about
each policy’s existence. If the survey infor-mation
and archival search agreed, then the
city was scored as having a 1= exist or 0= not
exist for that particular policy. When the
two sources disagreed, the city received a
score=. 5 for that policy. Finally, the resulting
index scores were aggregated within each
city to produce an overall score with a pos-sible
range from 0- 50; the observed scores
ranged from 5- 33 with an average of 17.
Figure 1 ( page 5) shows a map of the
sustainability index, and Figure 2 ( left)
displays the scores for every individual city
in the study. Statistical analyses ( see
Appendix A) showed that geographically
larger, more populous, and higher density
cities were more likely to have high index
scores. The sustainability index was also
higher in cities with better tax bases, and
lower in cities that relied heavily on inter-governmental
revenues. In terms of social
characteristics, the index was higher in
cities with professional and managerial
workforces ( so- called “ intellectual capital”),
higher income/ education, and a well- estab-lished
development industry. Figure 3
( next page) shows a graph of the relation-ship
between a scale combining geographic
size/ population and the score on the index;
the labeled cities are cities that score fairly
high on the index.
Table 2 ( next page) presents the results
of a cluster analysis, which is a statistical
procedure that groups cities in terms of
their similarity on the range of factors in-cluded
in our dataset, including the score
on the sustainability index. The cluster
analysis identifies four different groups of
cities in the Central Valley, which we have
labeled traditional rural, transitioning rural,
Sacramento suburban growth, and estab-lished
urban centers. The Sacramento re-gional
growth cities score relatively high on
the sustainability index and have many fac-tors
predicted to encourage sustainability
continued on page 11
Figure 2. City Scores on Sustainability Index
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY SUSTAINABILITY INDEX
| 8 Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley
Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley 9 |
Table 2: Cluster Analysis Average Scores
Traditional Transitioning Sacramento Established
Rural Rural Suburban Growth Urban Centers
( N= 11) ( N= 55) ( N= 5) ( N= 23)
Sustainability Index Score 11.95 15.94 21.80 23.30
Development Indicators
Population 2004 7,402 15,147 51,323 113,945
Geographic Area Miles2 1.86 9.20 19.01 32.43
Housing Density ( per mile2) 878.46 908.74 810.06 1159.50
Proportion Population Growth ( 2002- 2004) .40 .54 1.53 .37
Fiscal Indicators
Taxes Per Capita ($) .13 .32 .30 .47
Percent Intergovernmental Revenue Per Capita (%) 45.25 25.05 13.46 20.67
Interest Group Indicators
Intellectual Capital (%) 13.70 17.93 24.99 27.767
Development Industry (%) 8.97 15.41 20.47 13.94
Median Income ($) 26,346 35,475.85 57,175.6 38,133.52
Median Housing Value ($) 77,545.45 101,514.5 179,880.0 128,069.6
Percent College Degree (%) 3.42 9.70 26.03 20.36
Percent Democratic Voters 2004 (%) 57.06 40.43 36.08 43.54
Representative Cities
Most Populous City ( Name, Population) Arvin Madera Roseville Sacramento
( 14,499) ( 48,366) ( 96,922) ( 440,976)
Least Populous City ( Name, Population) Tehama Isleton Galt Auburn
( 435) ( 832) ( 22,151) ( 12,634)
Figure 3. Scatterplot of Sustainability Index and City Size Scale
S U S TA I N A B L E C I T Y P R O F I L E
Citrus Heights
| 10 Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley
Background
Carved from existing development in
Sacramento County, Citrus Heights was in-corporated
in 1997. Due to the history of
county development, Citrus Heights is
95% built out and city officials expect
only a small amount of future growth
based on infill projects. Citrus Heights is
an important suburb of Sacramento, with
a high ratio of rental residents and many
people who work in Sacramento.
Views on Sustainability
Citrus Heights officials emphasize the
fiscal and operational aspects of local
sustainability. Assistant City Manager Hi-lary
Straus suggests that sustainability is a
case of “ follow the money” that must rec-ognize
linkages between land use, rev-enues,
and fiscal health. “ The issue of
sustainability is a community… that has a
wide range of housing, necessary shop-ping
availability, and jobs in that location
where you can work, live, and educate all
within your community,” according to
Community Development Director Janet
Ruggerio. Another city official describes
sustainability as“ balancing everything so
that long- term, things will not be bad for
our kids and their kids. It’s not just what is
best for the economy or just the environ-ment;
you have to balance the two… and
recognize the environmental conse-quences
of all our decisions.” However,
city officials recognize that Citrus Heights
is only “ three- quarters of the way there.”
On the economic side, they would like to
have more jobs and on the environmen-tal
side they have“ not spent a lot of time
or really [ had] the need to address big
picture sustainability in terms of devel-opment
patterns, issues, and practices.”
Policies for Sustainability
The general planning process in Citrus
Heights encouraged strong public partic-ipation
through mechanisms like a com-munity
visioning exercise and a citizen
advisory committee. Public participation
focused on the key policy issues of com-munity
development, resource conserva-tion,
and community health, rather than
trying to tackle every required element of
the general plan in detail. The general
plan emphasizes revitalization of the
main commercial corridors, with com-mercial
activity focused at the inter-section
of major thoroughfares and
mixed- use strips ( rather than a tradition-ally
defined downtown). The principles of
the general plan are implemented in spe-cific
development projects like Stock
Ranch, which incorporates mixed- use re-tail
and housing, sets aside land for new
job growth, and provides open space and
riparian corridors. To achieve long- termfi-nancial
health, the City has implemented
a 25- year cash- flow model to predict fu-ture
revenues and costs.
Citrus Heights has done some “ little
things” for resource conservation, such as
limits on parking, expedited permitting
for solar energy upgrades, and participa-tion
in the Sacramento region’s “ Green
Partnership” to help cities adapt to state
climate change policies. The city also has
a “ Green Team” to encourage environ-mentally
friendly practices in city opera-tions,
such as buying hybrid cars and
products with recyclable post consumer
waste.
Barriers and Catalysts for
Sustainability
Citrus Heights officials note threemain
barriers to sustainability: the connection
between fiscal health and land use, resist-ance
of neighborhood associations to in-fill
development, and lack of large tracts
of open space. “ Land use and land use
policies are inextricably linked to fiscal is-sues,”
according to Strauss.“ If you look at
our budget and funding sources— sales
tax, property tax, vehicle license fees and
so forth— a lot of those are tied to popu-lation…
it creates a dynamic where cities
are forced to grow.” These fiscal constraints
are exacerbated by the tendency of state
and county authorities to divert local
government funding. Neighborhood asso-ciations
fear infill developments will lead
to increased traffic, crime fromoccupants
of low- income housing, and loss of exist-ing
open space. The built- out character of
Citrus Heights and lack of large open
space on the borders reduce the need to
address large- scale sustainability issues.
Citrus Heights is also not a “ full- service”
city, and thus does not directly decide
whether or not contracted service pro-viders
and special districts implement
sustainability practices.
The fiscal health of Citrus Heights is
good relative to other CentralValley cities.
Despite reduced property taxes resulting
from a“ revenue neutral” agreement with
Sacramento County, the city is still oper-ating
with a net budget surplus and ap-proximately
one year of reserve revenue.
Straus attributes this situation to an effi-cient
city organization, long- term finan-cial
planning, and a city council that
recognizes the importance of fiscal is-sues.
“ I’ve never had a budget issue re-garding
staffing or even specialmonies to
do specific plans or general plans,” said
Ruggerio in reference to resource con-straints,
but resourcesmay becomemore
strained when the general plan is up-dated
to comply with state climate
change policies.
In addition to the Green Team, other
organizational mechanisms exist to en-courage
inter- departmental coordination.
Bi- monthly development reviewmeetings
include all city departments, service con-tractors,
and sometimes developers to in-sure
awareness and coordination of
upcoming projects. There are annual
strategic planning retreats with the city
council, citizen commissions, and ad-ministrative
staff. Staff members are as-signed
tasks from multiple departments
to increase connections and“ cross- polli-nate”
ideas. 
Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley 11 |
such as extremely high growth, low reliance on
intergovernmental revenue, and a well- educated
and wealthier population. The high growth rates of
these cities are driven by their location on the high-way
corridors ( e. g; Interstate 5) surrounding the
largest urban center in the Central Valley. At the
same time, these Sacramento suburbs are some of
the most politically conservative constituencies in
the region, surrounding the Democratic island of
Sacramento with a sea of Republicans. It appears
the growth pressures and resources available in
these cities encourage planners to implement
sustainable policies despite a political culture that
generally resists government interventions. Plan-ning
staff may act as policy entrepreneurs in these
cities by using professional expertise in sustaina-bility
to address emerging growth issues.
The transitioning rural cities are the largest
category with medium scores on the sustainability
index; most of these cities are slowly transitioning
away from the agricultural economy of the Central
Valley. Population growth in these cities is accom-panied
by increasing education and wealth, which
are important resources for implementing sustain-able
policies. The transitioning cities generally have
many opportunities for creating sustainable growth
patterns because they still have space to expand.
In contrast, many of the established urban centers
such as Sacramento and Fresno have already filled
much of their available space and made develop-ment
decisions that will constrain future choices.
While the established urban centers have the high-est
score on the sustainability index, they probably
also face the highest risk of symbolic policy. The
traditional rural cities score the lowest on the index
and have small populations, poor fiscal health, and
low educational levels. These cities were largely
supported by the traditional agricultural economy
of the Central Valley, and may be in danger of being
left behind as population growth focuses on cities
that are better positioned to integrate agriculture
with other economic activities. Achieving sustain-ability
in these cities will probably require substan-tial
investment from outside actors such as state
government or non- profit groups. While these
cities may not need sustainability policies now,
they will very likely need them if they continue to
grow. Sustainability policies are likely to be more
effective early in the developmental pathway of a
city if they are able to prevent poor decisions that
are costly to reverse.
Overall, sustainability appears to be a largely
urban phenomenon, occurring in Central Valley
cities where the process of development is corre-lated
with increasing education, professionalism,
tax revenue, and less dependence on intergovern-mental
revenues. Some of these cities are large
urban centers that are grappling with the conse-quences
of past rapid growth, while other cities are
currently experiencing rapid growth and are some-times
adopting sustainability policies earlier than
their larger neighbors. The remainder of this report
discusses the important aspects of sustainability
that emerged from our case studies.
Perspectives on the
Meaning of Sustainability
The concept of sustainability rests on three key
assumptions: the triple bottom- line ( economic,
environmental, and social welfare); long- term per-spective;
and cooperation among diverse interests.
To what extent do sustainability efforts really meet
these challenges? To answer this question, we
asked our interview respondents to define how
they viewed sustainability in the context of their
cities. This turned out to be one of the most impor-tant
questions in our study, because there were a
wide variety of answers.
The biggest difference among cities was the
extent to which they emphasized one aspect of
sustainability versus a more balanced approach.
Officials in cities like Davis, Sacramento and Fresno,
which scored high on our index, tended to offer a
more balanced view that appreciated the impor-tance
of economic and environmental goals and
trade- offs. Tom Pace, Sacramento’s long- range plan-ning
manager, referred to the new urbanist concept
of “ smart growth”— minimizing the impacts of
sprawl, promoting infill development, and creating
walkable communities. Sacramento’s energy man-ager
and greenhouse gas coordinator, Keith Roberts,
stressed the need to combat global climate change
by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and incorpo-rating
alternative sources of energy. The interim
planning director in Fresno, Keith Bergthold, stressed
the synergy inherent to the triple bottom- line, and
claimed there is nothing economically competitive
about single- family, low- density housing.
Other cities placed more emphasis on the eco-nomic
and fiscal aspects of sustainability, which
have always been central issues for planning
growth and development. Cities are faced with the
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY SUSTAINABILITY INDEX continued...
PERSPECTIVES ON THE MEANING OF SUSTAINABILITY continued...
| 12 Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley
economic realities of finding revenue sources to
meet the increasing costs of service provision,
ensuring adequate infrastructure to support popu-lation
growth, and making sure enough services are
in place for new development projects. “ Cities are
in a competitive business,” says Tim Raney, former
mayor of Citrus Heights and currently community
development director for the city of Wheatland,
adding, “ cities that understand that do well and
cities that don’t understand that, don’t do well.”
Enita Elphick, Wheatland’s mayor, campaigned on
her background as a small- business owner. In her
opinion, cities are just like any other businesses,
with one exception: “ their product is service to
their residents.” The mayor of Modesto, Jim Ride-nour,
also stressed the importance of his prior
experience in business for understanding how to
run a city. An economic challenge for city manage-ment
is developing new employment opportunities
within the city itself, especially in bedroom commu-nities
around urban centers like Sacramento. These
cities seek to become more economically independ-ent
through local job diversity. Strategies for
achieving economic growth are influenced by the
existing structure of the city. Modesto, for example,
is concerned about developing a vibrant and viable
downtown. But Citrus Heights is focusing economic
development on large thoroughfares because there
is no identifiable downtown space.
Importantly, the social justice aspect of sustain-ability
was the least emphasized by all respondents.
Strategies for low- income housing, diversity in
employment opportunities, and environmental
justice were mentioned by some interviewees only
in passing. One reason for this is that our study
was framed from the outset to focus on the idea of
environmental sustainability. However, our case
study interview questions asked about trade- offs
among social, economic, and environmental goals,
so interviewees had the opportunity to speak about
social equity issues. While a study that highlights
social equity issues would surely elicit more infor-mation,
we think it is telling that social equity was
a lower priority than economic and environmental
goals. A notable exception was Fresno, where some
officials noted that poverty and low levels of educa-tion
are a substantial barrier to economic develop-ment
and sustainability.
City officials were more in agreement on having
a long- term perspective, although the application of
long- term thinking was usually framed in terms of
which aspect of sustainability was most empha-sized.
For example, Davis Mayor Ruth Asmundson
described sustainability as trying to envision the
appearance of the city in 50 years, flying at 50,000
feet. Carol Shearly, Sacramento’s director of plan-ning,
points to her experience at the California
Indian Museum & Cultural Center by defining sus-tainability
as simply, “ planning for seven genera-tions.”
In Citrus Heights, where respondents empha-sized
the fiscal aspects of sustainability, planning
for the long term entailed development of a budget
model that predicted distribution of city revenues
on a 10 to 25- year time horizon. Brad Hawn, a coun-cilmember
in Modesto, stated that a countywide
land use plan extending 50- 75 years was probably
required to preserve agricultural land in the area.
The long- term perspective applies to the his-tory
of a city as well as future planning. Davis has a
long history of attention to sustainability principles
in general plans dating back to the 1970s, which rec-ognize
the need to maintain open space, develop
greenways, encourage alternative transportation by
creating bike paths, and have relatively high- density
development. Other cities have only recently started
to pay attention to sustainability issues, and must
deal with the realities of past policy and develop-ment
decisions that are difficult to change in the
future. For example, policy makers in Modesto
noted that the city had only recently completed
necessary infrastructural upgrades to develop-ments
from the early and mid 90s. When the city of
Citrus Heights was incorporated in 1997, it inher-ited
Sacramento County development patterns that
emphasized commercial corridors and large- lot,
single- family housing. Furthermore, Citrus Heights
is surrounded by other suburban development and
does not have much space to expand. The combi-nation
of the character of existing development and
lack of open space constrains policy choices in
Citrus Heights.
The third assumption is the ability of sustain-ability
to bridge conflicting interests within a city.
This aspect of sustainability appeared more fre-quently
in the case study cities that scored high
on the index. In Davis, there was the idea that eco-nomic
and environmental issues could have mutu-ally
beneficial interactions. For example, Davis
officials have an explicit economic development
strategy to promote green industry and attract
quality employees with a livable community.
Preservation of agricultural land might be consid-ered
one example in which economic and environ-mental
interests are aligned. This is true to the
degree that agricultural policies are indeed environ-mentally
sustainable, as well as economically
Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley 13 |
sound. Economic and environmental interests,
however, are often seen as conflicting. In Modesto,
for example, some policy makers claimed that envi-ronmental
regulations can inordinately increase the
cost of living, and thus serve as a strong disincen-tive
to individuals considering moving to the area.
Many of these conflicts over sustainability are
played out in the context of specific development
proposals or planning decisions. In Davis, impor-tant
recent projects include the large housing devel-opment
of Covell Village ( rejected by citizen vote in
2006), the upgrade of the sewage treatment plant,
and the development of surface water connections
to the Sacramento River. Many slow- growth advo-cates
in Davis feel the development of new water
infrastructure is a prelude to higher growth rates,
but others argue that it will help improve the qual-ity
of Davis water and reduce the pollution impacts
of salinity. The conflict in Citrus Heights swirled
around small infill projects as well as the nature of
retail development in commercial corridors. In
Fresno, the flagship development for sustainable
practices is the Southeast Growth Area ( SEGA),
designed along new urbanist principles. Officials in
Fresno noted the resistance to such a project on the
part of citizens and developers. Citizens are resist-ant
because they want to live in sprawling, single
story, large- lot, suburban homes with 4- car garages
as opposed to high- density, mixed- use, walkable,
urban communities like SEGA. Some developers are
resistant to any apparent change in the status quo
which threatens their established and successful
business model focused on large- lot, single- family
home suburban development. At least one official
in Fresno also mentioned that enterprising, green
developers can use the change in values regarding
urban design as an opportunity to make a profit by
providing a novel product.
In Modesto, debates currently center around
whether or not agricultural mitigation is required of
new development within the city’s sphere of influ-ence.
In all of these development projects, decision
makers were concerned with both how much the
city would be growing, and the character of the new
development. These same concerns were apparent
in planning decisions, such as updates to the hous-ing
elements of general plans.
In working with Placer County on the preserva-tion
of vernal pool complexes as part of its Habitat
Conservation Plan, the City of Lincoln has come to
loggerheads over the fate of roughly 3,400 vernal
pools. Mayor Santini noted that it is particularly
frustrating that out of the 220,000 acres under
study, development of only about 4% of the terri-tory
is contested, but after a year and a half, he
says, “ we might be farther away than when we
started.” Mayor Santini is skeptical that developing
the habitat, home to the endangered fairy shrimp
( Anostraca spp.), would present a threat to the
species as a whole, and the city is currently entan-gled
in a dispute involving the Army Corps of
Engineers, National Marine Fisheries, EPA, Califor-nia
Fish and Game, U. S. Fish and Wildlife, as well as
environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and
the Audubon Society.
Graham Brownstein, executive director of the
Environmental Council of Sacramento ( ECOS), cites
a recent example of developer Angelo Tsakopoulos
proposing to extend the urban growth/ urban serv-ice
boundary to include several thousand acres he
owns in eastern Sacramento County. Opinions of
the proposal— both in the community and on the
board— were mixed; some pointed to neighboring
El Dorado County’s encroachment on the other
side of the county line as requiring a response. As
Brownstein describes the event, ECOS was able to
pack the meeting with 350 residents from Sacra-mento
County who opposed the proposition
because it followed the sprawl growth model. As a
result, the board of supervisors, which had been ex-pected
to approve the proposal on a 3- 2 vote, ended
up unanimously denying the proposed expansion.
Many observers recommend adopting the
principles of new urbanism or smart growth—
minimizing the impacts of sprawl, promoting infill
development, and creating walkable communities
— as a way to reconcile environmental and econo-mic
priorities in the context of specific develop-ment
proposals and site design. Mayor Santini
described Lincoln’s approach to growth as new
urbanism, where new growth is organized into
seven semi- autonomous villages, each of them
roughly the size of the historic core of Lincoln itself,
between 800- 2000 acres. In addition, Lincoln is a
participant in a pilot electric vehicle program, and
is building neighborhood electric vehicle paths.
“ We’re going to try to organize our growth so that
you don’t have to get in your car or go very far to
accomplish what you need to,” Santini said. He
added that new urbanism means going back to the
way cities were laid out 100 years ago, before the
mass introduction of the automobile.
Several other case study cities provided exam-ples
of new urbanism development projects that
were either proposed or underway. In recent years,
numerous mixed- use infill developments have been
PERSPECTIVES ON THE MEANING OF SUSTAINABILITY continued...
| 14 Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley
S U S TA I N A B L E C I T Y P R O F I L E
Davis
Background
Davis, incorporated in 1917, is located
11 miles west of Sacramento at the junc-tion
of Interstate 80 and State Highway
113. With a population of 64,938, Davis is
home to a University of California cam-pus.
The University serves a prominent
role in the local economy as the primary
employer and source of Davis’highly ed-ucated
citizenry. City officials expect
Davis to grow slowly in the near future,
with few large open spaces remaining in
city boundaries and a history of growth
controls.
Views on Sustainability
Davis officials offered a sophisticated
view on sustainability that encompassed
environmental health, economic growth,
and social justice.“ We start off with the
three legs of the stool,” according to sus-tainability
director Mitch Sears,“ the eco-nomic,
environmental, and social
piece[ s], and trying to find an appropri-ate
balance of those three pieces.” Other
officials echoed the importance of bal-ance.
Greg Clumpner, chair of the citizen
planning commission, argued,“ whether
or not you fully embrace the global
warming issue… there is a real case for
doing things that are more conservation-oriented
for energy and materials; ways
that are less wasteful but make a lot of
economic and environmental sense.” City
Manager Bill Emlen said sustainability
means “ putting back no more than you
take; you are trying to get [ to] equilib-riumwhere
we are neutral in terms of our
impact to the planet.” Mayor Ruth As-mundson
emphasizes the importance of
long- term planning, defining sustainabil-ity
as,“ looking at what do you want Davis
to look like in 50 years when you are fly-ing
at 50,000 feet.”
Policies for Sustainability
According to Bill Emlen, Davis is grow-ing
sustainably,“ compared to most com-munities…
but we still have our own
output of carbon emissions that we still
need to work on.” City officials high-lighted
Davis’long history of commitment
to sustainability principles, going back to
the environmental movement of the
1970s and embodied in the general plans
that have consistently emphasized higher
densities, reluctance to expand city
boundaries, and alternative transporta-tion
such as bicycles. These general plans
have created a “ culture of development”
that stresses integration of land use
and transportation planning. More recent
policies include Measure J, a citizens’ ini-tiative
that requires a popular vote to ap-prove
any new developments outside city
boundaries such as the recently rejected
Covell Village project. The city council
has also recently adopted a 1% growth
cap. Several administrative changes have
been made, including the creation of cli-mate
change council and a sustainability
coordinator position. The city has retrofit-ted
many of its fleet vehicles, and is tak-ing
steps towards requiring more energy
efficient features in development projects.
Barriers and Catalysts for
Sustainability
Davis officials consistently noted the
high levels of public participation, a cul-ture
of innovation engendered by the uni-versity,
and a sense of civic pride in Davis’
unique characteristics. Mitch Sears says
that Davis is,“ not a risk- averse community;
it feels comfortable in being an early
[ adopter] and take[ s] some pride in that.
A lot of that has to do with the campus
being here; people are used to looking at
and exploring new ideas.” The relative af-fluence
of the community,“ gives people
more time to concern themselves with is-sues
beyond putting food on the table.”
The city budget is also balanced at this
time, with a reasonable reserve. There is a
strong coalition of no- growth advocates
with representation on the city council,
who serve as watchdogs for more aggres-sive
development proposals. However,
there are critics of the no- growth advo-cates
who view them as barriers to nec-essary
progress and change in the
community.
Despite these factors, Davis faces eco-nomic
development problems similar to
other cities. While the Davis city budget is
currently balanced, there is an on- going
search for new sources of revenue to
meet increasing service costs. Given the
limits on local property taxes, Davis has
increased its sales tax base through the
introduction of larger retail develop-ments
like Target, and by increasing local
option sales tax through citizen initiative.
Funding limitations have created some
uncertainty about the future of the sus-tainability
coordinator position, and
make costly policies more difficult to im-plement.
“ There will be a real strong ac-ceptance
of things that don’t require a
personal sacrifice, but a reluctance of tak-ing
on things that require more personal
action,” says Mitch Sears. Resource avail-ability
will become evenmore of an issue
as Davis is required to respond to state
mandates ( AB32 and SB375) for updating
general plans to address climate change.
Davis is also facing two major infra-structure
challenges: upgrading a sewage
treatment plant that is currently violating
some water quality standards; and, ob-taining
surface water rights in the Sacra-mento
River to supplement the current
groundwater supply. Other challenges in-clude
neighborhood associations that
generally resist infill and high density de-velopments,
making it difficult for Davis
as a whole to encourage central city de-velopment.

Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley 15 |
built in downtown Davis. All of these have been on
a small scale, involving one building with several
businesses on the street level and apartments up-stairs.
The buildings have been integrated into the
existing streetscape. For example, the Roe Building
at 435 G Street, is a mixed- use building on .276 acres
housing 5,000 square feet of retail on the first floor
and eight townhouses on the second and third
floors. The new urbanism principle of high- density
and mixed- use development may be more accept-able
to citizens in urban communities like Sacra-mento,
where density has been a part of life for
many years. In more rural or suburban cities like
Lincoln or Citrus Heights, high density develop-ment
is viewed by some as a threat to the small-town
or neighborhood atmosphere that some
people prefer as an alternative to living in a large
metropolitan area. Like sustainability, there may be
a gap between the principles of new urbanism as
stated in a development plan and the actual envi-ronmental,
social, and economic effects of these
developments. For these reasons, some neighbor-hood
groups will resist a new urbanist development
in the same way they would resist other types of
unwanted land uses in their backyards.
Important Policies for
Achieving Sustainability
Although our index identified 50 potential poli-cies
for achieving sustainability, we asked case
study participants to identify those policies most
effective for their particular cities. We think it is
important to distinguish between the list of policies
suggested by scholars, versus the types of policies
that real decision- makers think the most about, and
have the largest influence on their decisions.
First, nearly all cities pointed to the con-tents
of their general plans as places where sustain-ability
issues are addressed. General plans are “ part
intent, part feasible future” ( Innes 1996) and thus
reflect a city’s preferences for development pat-terns.
Davis has a history of general plans that pay
attention to integration of land use and transporta-tion,
identification of infill opportunities, especially
in the housing element, and planning for higher
density development to reduce boundary expan-sion.
According to Davis officials, these goals of the
general plan have been translated into an overall
“ culture of development” that shapes the project
permitting and approval process. Officials in Fresno
noted that the general plan update in 2002 focused
development inward and upward, rather than out-ward.
Officials in Modesto mentioned that the
general plan calls for an urban area growth policy
review every two years. They also noted, however,
that a needed general plan update had been
shelved for another year due to fiscal constraints.
Sacramento updated its general plan in 2008, with
specific integration of sustainability practices and
a long- term planning horizon to 2030. The concept
of sustainability is established in the Sacramento
General Plan as the fourth goal, after ( 1) affordable
housing, ( 2) economic development, and ( 3) safe
neighborhoods. Tom Pace, Sacramento’s long- range
planning manager, points to the land use and urban
design elements of Sacramento’s general plan,
which focuses on two major components: mixed-use
classifications focused more on urban form
than land use, and an increasing emphasis on rede-velopment
of existing urban area ( brownfield devel-opment,
or infill), as opposed to expansionary
development ( greenfield development). Lincoln,
following Placer County’s 50- year Habitat Conserva-tion
Plan, recently took the unusual step of writing
a 2050 General Plan for the city, with the goal of
guiding the community all the way to “ build out.”
The process by which general plans are
developed has an important influence on how well
their content addresses city goals. More recently
created general plans or updates have relied on
expanded forms of public participation, such as the
crafting of vision statements and citizen advisory
committees. The recent update of the housing ele-ment
of Davis’ city plan relied on a citizen steering
committee and a range of community workshops.
Tom Pace, Sacramento’s long- term planner, says
plans are only as good as the level of political sup-port.
The recent Sacramento General Plan went
through three rounds of public meetings in 2005,
2006 and 2007, as well as a public opinion survey.
This type of public participation is considered an
aspect of good planning in general, and is not nec-essarily
unique to sustainability.
However, the level of public participation in
such processes varies across cities, and some cities
in the Central Valley have lower levels of overall
participation. Officials in Modesto were particu-larly
frustrated at the lack of citizen involvement in
PERSPECTIVES ON THE MEANING OF SUSTAINABILITY continued...
general plan workshops and other forums. Officials
complained that citizens rarely got involved unless
it was too late, or unless the matter directly affected
them. It is often much harder to get people involved
in a rather abstract, long- range planning process
than in a very near- term, specific project in which
they can see a direct impact on their property or
neighborhood. The Wheatland Community Vision
project of 2008 outlined a three- pronged approach:
attracting a diverse employment base; channeling
development into a modular, village- type concept;
and maintaining the small- town character by incor-porating
agriculture into the urban environment.
The city also has interest in alternative sources of
energy such as clean- burning agricultural waste
cogeneration, solar, wind, and hydroelectric power.
The goal is to be able to tell future developers what
the community should look like, as opposed to ad-hoc
development projects proposing “ their” vision
for “ their” portion of the community. The vision
covers, in broad terms, environmental resources,
community development and design, economic
development, mobility, education, infrastructure,
public safety, green spaces/ recreation. It was devel-oped
through a series of meetings with the public,
the entire city council and planning commission.
Public participation has been encouraged, though
Stephen Wright, Wheatland’s city manager, noted
that public participation is often confined to issues
that deal directly with the properties of residents.
Second, cities that score high on the sustain-ability
index are also more likely to have adminis-trative
mechanisms in place to forward sustainabil-ity
goals. These administrative mechanisms often
have a more direct influence on policy implementa-tion
than the goals and priorities of a general plan,
which risk becoming paper tigers. Davis has
a sustainability program manager who coordinates
multiple departments, and is charged with analyz-ing
what policy options will give the “ most bang
for the buck” in terms of sustainability goals like
reducing greenhouse gasses. Davis also has re-cently
created a Climate Action Team as an ad- hoc
citizens’ committee to advise the city on climate
policy. To implement the Davis City Council- man-dated
1% growth cap and the SACOG regional hous-ing
allocation, the Davis steering committee created
a “ green light, yellow light, red light” system of
prioritizing new development proposals. Citrus
Heights has a “ Green Team” that facilitates the use
of green practices like recycled paper and energy
efficient lighting throughout operations. Fresno has
“ Fresno Green,” a comprehensive set of 25 strate-gies
with the stated objective of making Fresno “ a
sustainable city by 2025.” Although Wheatland’s
community planners foresee several social sustain-ability
programs, many of these programs and land
use decisions are still several years, and possibly
decades, away.
Third, many cities also mentioned citizen initia-tives
that place explicit policy constraints on
growth. In Davis, Measure J was passed in 1999,
requiring voter approval before the City would
allow development of agricultural, open space, or
horse ranch property at the edge of the urban area.
In Modesto, the general plan calls for an urban area
growth policy review every two years. As part of
this review process, a citizen’s advisory vote is re-quired
to approve the extension of sewer service to
any areas of urban expansion. Reports from offi-cials
were mixed, however, as to the impact this
advisory process has had over the years. Recently,
voters in Stanislaus county passed Measure E, a
30- year land use restriction initiative that requires
a majority approval of any redesignation of agri-cultural
or open space to residential land in
unincorporated areas of the county. These citizen
initiatives reflect the general tendency of neighbor-hood
groups to pay a high level of attention to the
costs of new developments.
Fourth, regionalization is an important topic
for many cities, although not directly reflected in
our index. Regionalization involves important
cooperation problems because one city’s adoption
of sustainability policies may reduce its economic
competitiveness relative to other cities in the
region. From another perspective, there are often
economic benefits from cooperating to provide
joint services at the regional scale. Cities are con-tracting
with each other or with counties to provide
these types of regional services. Other regional
strategies include participating in integrated land
use and transportation planning processes like the
Sacramento Blueprint, which was frequently men-tioned
as a stimulus for growth management.
Wheatland’s Mayor Elphick is also a proponent of
revenue sharing between Wheatland and Yuba
county for future development. After all, she says,
counties are the ones who have to pay for the roads
regional customers use to get to big box stores
| 16 Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley
IMPORTANT POLICIES FOR ACHIEVING SUSTAINABILITY continued...
inside city limits. Lincoln Mayor Santini agrees that
tax- sharing agreements are critical to preventing
counties from attempting urbanized growth in unin-corporated
county land, which was commonly men-tioned
by policy- makers in smaller Central Valley
cities as a major problem, both doing harm to the
city’s tax base, and creating poorly planned, ad- hoc
communities that usually neglected quality of life
and sustainability concerns for their residents. San-tini
specifically highlights the use of county water
districts to pursue urbanized growth, but without
the planning resources or the accountable, unified
government structure of a city. Brad Hawn, a city
councilmember in Modesto, is a strong proponent
of regionalization and is currently working on in-creasing
efficiency of service provision in Stanislaus
County. Hawn argues that inconsistencies among
county and city regulations create development
situations that need to be rectified as cities grow
and inherit county developments. These situations
could be alleviated through a regionalization of
water and sewer services, as well as potentially
even planning departments and master plans.
Such an arrangement would allow cities to function
within their respective spheres of influence, but
within the terms laid out by the county plan. Jim
Ridenour, mayor of Modesto, agrees that a regional-ization
of services would make services more cost-effective
and efficient for citizens.
In reality, however, officials admit that bringing
cities together to agree on the details of such a
regionalization can be prohibitively difficult. In
Fresno, City Councilmember Brian Calhoun argued
strongly in favor of regionalization, going so far as
to say that the current system of city regulations
nested within a separate set of regulations at the
county level is outdated, or even dysfunctional.
Calhoun has brought his suggestions to the council
a number of times over the last eight years, but has
been rejected each time either by the city council
or county board of supervisors. Calhoun recom-mends
the formation of a citizens commission to
examine efficiencies among the city, county, and
other communities in the county. He argues that a
merger of services and even of the governments
would inevitably allow policy makers to effectively
address issues that don’t respect municipal bound-aries,
things like air and water pollution, as well as
the provision of health, fire, and police services.
Economic Factors
Nearly every case study participant mentioned
the fiscalization of land use as a major barrier to
the implementation of sustainability policies. Cities
are driven by financial incentives regarding balanc-ing
revenue and expenditures. City revenues such
as property taxes, sales taxes, service fees, and
impact fees are tied to land use intensification and
population growth. This so- called “ fiscalization of
land use” ( Lewis 2001) creates a financial disincen-tive
for cities to restrict growth or encourage the
high- density development that is often encouraged
by smart growth or sustainability advocates. These
financial issues are particularly acute in California
because of Proposition 13, passed in 1978, which
places a cap on property taxes such that the amount
paid cannot exceed 1% of the assessed value of the
property ( including commercial) and the overall
amount can only increase 2% every year. When a
property is sold, the reassessed value may be taxed
at a higher rate, but still no more than 1% of the
new value. The constraints imposed by Proposition
13 reduced an important source of city revenue,
and spurred a search for alternative revenue
sources like sales tax from big box retail and impact
fees on new development. As demand for services
and costs continue to rise, many cities view growth
as the only way to maintain fiscal stainability. The
previously mentioned desire for revenue- sharing
between cities and counties is also driven by the
fiscal imperatives of city administration.
Graham Brownstein, executive director of the
Sacramento environmental group ECOS, points to
the model that large developers have used in the
Sacramento region for several decades: buy cheap
farmland on the edge of developed areas, lobby
local elected officials to annex and up- zone the
land, and then the value of the land goes up and the
developer does a massive development. These
developments are typically car dependent, large- lot,
single- family home projects. “ If you look at what
this model has done to city and county revenues,”
Brownstein says, “ it has created a reality where
municipalities are addicted to suburban sprawl
community development fees to fund basic serv-ices.
In the case of the city of Sacramento, close to
50% of all community development fees come from
development in Natomas. So the city is addicted to
approving more and more sprawl growth.” ECOS is
not opposed to growth per se, and praises develop-ers
like Sotiris Kolokotronis and LJ Urban for pursu-
Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley 17 |
| 18 Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley
S U S TA I N A B L E C I T Y P R O F I L E
Fresno
Background
Incorporated in 1885, Fresno is located
in the center of the San Joaquin Valley
along Highway 99, roughly 200miles from
both Sacramento and Los Angeles. With
a population of about 486,000 in 2008,
Fresno is the sixth- largest city in Califor-nia,
and the largest inland city in the state.
Fresno’s population is expected to roughly
double in the next 40- 60 years. The
population is socio- economically and
culturally diverse, with a large Hispanic
population, and sizable Asian and
African- Americanminority communities.
According to the U. S. Census Bureau,
about one- fifth of the population lives
below the poverty line and the unem-ployment
rate in 2007 was 8 percent.
Views on Sustainability
Some city officials in Fresno expressed
a nuanced understanding of sustainabil-ity
that incorporated a balance between
economic, environmental, and social
factors. Interim director of Planning and
Development, Keith Bergthold, claimed,
“ the key to creating sustainability is to
link competitive advantage in the envi-ronment
and competitive advantage in
healthy neighborhoods into competitive
advantage in the overall regional econ-omy.”
He said this idea of balance is not
strictly rhetorical, but,“ in reality, a neces-sary
program of action.” Councilmember
Cynthia Sterling focused on the social
aspect of sustainability, stressing the need
to find improved opportunities for the
poor, uneducated, and homeless mem-bers
of the populace, particularly com-mon
in her own constituency. Council-member
awareness of environmental
and social issues reflect both the socio-economic
diversity that exists in the city
of Fresno as well as current problems
with air and water quality. One official
identified the tension between pursuing
sustainability mainly through regulation,
or through market incentives. All city
officials agreed that Fresno, despite
already being a relatively large city, is at
a developmental crossroads between the
suburban sprawl exemplified by LA and a
new model of development incorporat-ing
high- density living and other smart
growth principles. Officials also agreed
that protecting agricultural land, improv-ing
air and water quality, providing
educational opportunities, and reducing
poverty were important and usually com-plementary
goals.
Policies for Sustainability
Fresno’s sustainability policies are cen-tered
on twomain initiatives. The first is a
comprehensive program called “ Fresno
Green,” an action- oriented plan intended
to transformFresno into a sustainable city.
The plan combines both public and pri-vate
sector initiatives and identifies 25
strategies and accompanying implemen-tation
tactics in 5 key areas including
urban design, clean air, renewable energy,
green enterprise and economic develop-ment,
and greening of city facilities and
practices. The plan was developed in
2007, and was a logical extension of the
2025 General Plan, updated in 2002, that
focused development upward and
inward, rather than outward.
The secondmajor initiative in the area
of sustainability in Fresno is the Southeast
Growth Area ( SEGA). This 14- squaremile
area was targeted in the 2025 General
Plan as a major new growth community
to absorb at least 20% of Fresno’s growth
over the next 20 years, and was added to
the city’s sphere of influence in 2006.
SEGA represents a wholesale departure
from the standard model of low- density,
single- family development of years past.
The focus is on high- density, multi- use
development incorporating new types of
open space and walkable communities.
The objective is to model these new prin-ciples
of urban design in a specific area
of new growth. Successful ideas will then
be transferred to key centers and corri-dors
in older areas of Fresno, and subse-quently
to all areas of the city when
feasible.
Other projects include the Regional
Jobs Initiative, a 10- year plan to end
homelessness, and a reauthorization of a
countywide sales tax that funds trans-portation
improvements, including fund-ing
for alternative transportation. While
not currently an adopted policy, Coun-cilmember
Brian Calhoun identified
regionalization of services and govern-ment
at the county level an important
factor potentially enablingmore efficient
and sustainable policy.
Barriers and Catalysts for
Sustainability
City officials identified poverty and
low levels of education as barriers to
achieving sustainability in Fresno. Addi-tionally,
Bergthold highlighted the ‘ men-tal
model’ that many Central Valley
residents have regarding the desired
lifestyle in the Valley: low density, single-family
dwellings, and car- oriented trans-portation.
Many developers that have
built successful business models along
these lines are resistant to change. Finally,
city officials viewed county and state
decisions as often hampering their own
ability to steer a sustainable course.
Many officials in Fresno felt that
changing conditions, both locally and
globally, are demandingmore sustainable
policies. As such, necessity is an impor-tant
catalyst of sustainability. Additionally,
while previous master plans had been
developed in- house, the planning division
contracted out the design of SEGA to
Calthorpe Associates, a high- powered,
renowned authority in sustainable devel-opment
from Berkeley. The statewide,
regional Blueprint process has also
played a role in bringing sustainability-related
issues to the table at the city level.

Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley 19 |
ing a different model of development that is focused
on infill projects and redevelopment of commercial
corridors and other pre- existing, but underutilized,
developments within communities. A key role for
environmental groups, Brownstein argued, will be
to strongly advocate such infill development pro-posals
to city councils and county boards while
continuing to oppose sprawl.
The majority of planners and policy stakehold-ers
emphasized the necessity of continued growth
in their cities. Though most responded negatively
to zero- growth policies, they emphasized that there
were ‘ right’ and ‘ wrong’ ways to respond to pres-sure
from developers, and that, properly channeled,
development could successfully meet the goals of
the triple bottom- line of economic, social and
environmental sustainability. The major themes dis-cussed
by stakeholders included: ( 1) the status of
large retailers as revenue engines for the city, in the
form of sales taxes, ( 2) a renewed appreciation for
long- term, holistic planning of communities, ( 3) the
use of new urbanist concepts such as high- density
and mixed- use development, minimizing impacts of
sprawl, promoting infill development, and creating
walkable communities, and ( 4) the attempt to direct
growth into infill projects, so- called brownfield
development, instead of greenfield development.
However, Tim Raney, community development
director for Wheatland, said greenfield develop-ment
is necessary, pointing out that certain
segments of the population simply want to live
in a brand new, large- lot home.
Graham Brownstein, head of Sacramento envi-ronmental
group ECOS, says, “ Anyone who tells you
that you can just stop growing is either fooling
themselves or doesn’t understand the way commu-nities
function.” As Brownstein describes it, a large
developer “ doesn’t wake up in the morning wonder-ing
how he can destroy the environment— that’s not
what’s on his mind.” Large developers “ of the world
wake up thinking about perfectly normal stuff: like
how to make more money and build more value for
a development business... but we, as a region and a
society, have set up a bunch of rules that essen-tially
say to developers: ‘ You can make a lot more
money buying up cheap farmland and lobbying to
up- zone it than you can doing smart growth infill.’”
Brownstein continues, “ These are dumb out- of- date
rules. If we establish better rules that make it more
difficult and more expensive to do sprawl growth
and easier and cheaper to do infill, it’s not as if de-velopers
will disappear. They’ll just switch to doing
more sustainable development.”
Mayor Santini of Lincoln argued that fiscalizing
land use decisions is a necessary component of
good planning. The link between revenue and
growth often conflicts with the environmental goals
of sustainability. For example, large- scale retail de-velopment
often increases traffic and vehicle- miles
traveled within a city, with an affiliated increase in
emissions. When asked about the potential for
reconciling the principles of new urbanism with the
large, big box- style regional shopping centers,
Mayor Santini agreed that the two were essentially
at odds with one other, but said the latter has to be
accommodated in urban design if only because
such large retailers provide services citizens want,
and are willing to drive to neighboring cities to get.
Large- lot, single- family developments usually pro-vide
higher revenue to service- cost ratios than
high- density or lower- income housing develop-ments,
although there is some debate about the
longer term fiscal consequences. New construction
is needed if development impact fees are to be
acquired as new sources of revenue. However,
anticipating future growth to fund existing city
services leaves open the possibility of unexpected
shortfalls during hard economic times. As a result,
Rod Campbell, Lincoln’s community development
director, notes that the city may be approaching a
“ sales tax black hole,” necessitating the vigorous
pursuit of new businesses in Lincoln to prevent
sales tax leaks into neighboring communities.
In contrast, other participants questioned the
wisdom of relying on commercial development to
fund city services. Although she frames the con-cept
of sustainability in terms of economics, Wheat-land’s
Mayor Elphick is skeptical of the common
view of big box retailers as satisfactory revenue
engines for a city’s growth. Sales tax revenue from
large retailers, she argues, should be seen as an
added bonus. But if you create budgets or pro-cesses
that rely on that sales tax revenue, during
economically depressed periods you’ll either have
to run deficits or cut programs, “ and everyone’s
going to be screaming.” In her mind, owner- opera-tor
stores are a backbone of a community and steps
have to be taken to ensure they aren’t pushed out
by chain stores. The big box stores have their
place in a community, Elphick says, but communi-ties
should not become dependent on them for
financing. She says that cities dependent on major
ECONOMIC FACTORS continued...
| 20 Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley
revenue engines like big box and auto malls didn’t
do their job right to start off. Instead, she argues,
the proper sources of funding should be in impact
fees on developers and assessment fees on prop-erty
owners, so that homeowners themselves pay
the amount their house impacts the community. In
nearby Yuba city, Elphick feels that for the last 20
years the city has not been thinking what is best for
the community in the long term in its relationships
with developers. This is most evident in impact
fees, which are substantially less than necessary to
pay for the additional costs the development will
incur on the community. In addition, she says,
cities have engaged in the practice of phasing in
impact fees over a three- year period, leaving the city
short on revenue.
The fiscal health of the city also translates into
planning resources, in particular whether or not
staff time is devoted to sustainability issues and the
resources available for implementing new policies.
Some cities like Davis and Citrus Heights have bal-anced
budgets and revenue reserves for meeting
new costs. When asked about whether or not
resources are adequate, the planning manager in
Citrus Heights answered, “ In my years that I’ve
been here, I would say without a doubt. For the
most part, we’ve been able to do what we’ve
needed to do.” Vic Freeman, a retired real estate
agent and planning commissioner in Lincoln, says
the city has enough planning resources, and the
real problem is the lack of projects to work
on. Davis created a Sustainability Program Manager
position in 2008, which is a position split with the
open space planner. Other cities like Sacramento
have large deficits, and therefore a limited ability to
take on new staff positions or projects. Sacramento
planning officials describe the city budget as “ terri-ble,”
with each department instructed to reduce
expenses 20% in 2008, and another 20% reduction
expected for 2009. Fresno and Modesto have
worked hard to maintain balanced budgets in
recent years, but Modesto is reportedly facing a
deficit of $ 10 million in FY 09/ 10. Additionally, the
city recently shelved its needed general plan
update because it lacked funds to hire a senior
planner to lead the project. Fiscal health in Fresno
is presumably related to the city’s ability to hire a
consultant planner for the design of the 14- square-mile
Southeast Growth Area ( SEGA), although this
wasn’t explicitly mentioned by any city officials.
These fiscal constraints will likely have a big impact
on the ability of a city to respond to new state laws
such as AB32 and SB375, which encourage cities
to change their general plans to meet climate
change goals.
Some of the smaller cities have very limited
planning departments, and most often contract
with consultants for the creation of general plans.
The degree to which these consultants integrate
sustainability principles into their services is thus
an important consideration. Tim Raney, former
mayor of Citrus Heights and current owner of Raney
Planning and Management, contracts with the city
of Wheatland as their community development
director, and has advocated innovative policies for
a city of Wheatland’s size, including water reclama-tion
and clean- burning agricultural waste cogenera-tion
as an alternative energy source. He is cited by
Wheatland’s city manager as a primary source of
information for the small community.
But even in fiscally healthy communities like
Davis, future sustainability initiatives, especially in
connection to climate change, are likely to strain
future resources. Davis’ sustainability manager said,
“ If we’re looking at the climate science, accepting
the results of the modeling, doing our share of what
needs to be done to mitigate, and also prepare for
adaption, the need far, far outstrips the resources.
We’re talking about fundamentally reorganizing and
rethinking how our communities are organized.” In
reference to all the potential options for addressing
climate change that come from citizen commissions
and other sources, he said, “ I could fully employ
probably 5- 10 people who are pretty savvy when it
comes to doing life- cycle cost analysis to analyze all
the different actions that are flying my way… I could
use as many people as I could get a hold of to help
answer those questions.” The Davis city manager
echoed these sentiments, “ We obviously have some
constraints. We’ve plugged in some funds for some
of the sustainability efforts, but if the budgets con-tinue
to tighten over the next few years, if we want
to continue what we’re doing, we’re going to have
to re- prioritize some of our other spending.” As a
result, many cities expressed a need to have a
better understanding of what climate change and
sustainability efforts will provide a greater “ bang
for the buck”; this is one area where more state
and university research and outreach efforts should
be devoted.
ECONOMIC FACTORS continued...
Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley 21 |
Political Factors
The case study participants identified two key
political factors influencing the level of sustaina-bility
practices. First, the preferences of the city
council have a strong influence on the number of
sustainability practices, the resources devoted
towards implementation, the types of develop-ments
approved, and the overall rate of growth in
the city. In Davis, there is a conflict between “ slow
growth” and “ moderate growth” city council mem-bers,
with the majority of the council currently in
favor of a one- percent growth cap. Interestingly, the
Davis city council seems more united in terms of
the importance of climate change, but will be more
in conflict when it comes to approving specific
development proposals such as Covell Village or
Target. In March, 2009, developer Lewis Operating
Corp. withdrew an application to build 610 residen-tial
units and 20 acres of business park on the site
of the former Hunt- Wesson tomato cannery, the last
large ( 100- acre) parcel in the Davis city limits.
Known as Cannery Business Park, the proposed
development had been in the works for five years
and featured sustainable principles like mixed- use
and planned to achieve the US Green Building Coun-cil’s
Leadership in Environmental Design ( LEED) for
Neighborhood Development certification. The prop-erty
had been zoned industrial since 1952 and the
city council was reluctant to change the property’s
zoning. The city recently moved to require the
developer “ to pay for a study of a full business park
in the EIR, increasing the cost,” according to an arti-cle
in The Davis Enterprise, which Mayor Don Saylor
called, “… the last straw.” Not surprisingly, the
developer’s decision to pull the plug was greeted
with mixed reactions by council members, and
shows how growth politics can affect even innova-tive
new urbanism development projects.
In Citrus Heights, the council is concerned with
redevelopment of commercial corridors; as one
respondent put it, “ Now the council is made up of
individuals who are… pro- good growth. They are
supportive of growth but really concerned about
neighborhood issues.” In Modesto, differences in
vision seemingly drive debates among city council
members regarding growth management and devel-opment.
Some city council members feel strongly
that a change in housing style or growth is inconsis-tent
with the lifestyle expectations of Central Valley
residents, while others feel equally strongly that
a new type of development is needed. These dis-agreements
are embodied in debates swirling over
agricultural mitigation, urban growth boundaries,
and whether or not to adopt growth- management
policies recommended by the Regional Blueprint
process. In Fresno, members of the council that
were interviewed seemed more or less in agreement
about development, especially the importance of
the Southeast Growth Area ( SEGA) as a flagship for
new urbanist development. This 14- square- mile
area was targeted in the 2025 General Plan to ab-sorb
20% of Fresno’s growth over the next 20 years.
Some council members, however, noted that the
focus on SEGA diverted attention and funds from
important issues in their own districts. Other coun-cil
members additionally stressed the importance
of educational and poverty- reduction initiatives,
pointing out that the more environmentally- minded
sustainable policies were ultimately untenable
without also addressing social issues.
Stephen Wright, city manager for Wheatland,
points to the council’s strong desire to avoid be-coming
a bedroom community for Sacramento by
pursuing active strategies to attract diverse local
jobs, and laying out a long- term land use plan in
their 2008 Community Vision. Rod Campbell,
community development director of Lincoln, also
credits past city councils with initiating several
important policies, including joining Placer
County’s Habitat Conservation Plan and requiring
that 40% of land in new developments be desig-nated
as open space ( parks, floodways, natural
land, and golf courses.) Jay Pendergraph, city
councilman for Wheatland, is open to the incorpo-ration
of “ green” technologies, but only on a volun-tary
basis. “ We live in America.” He is emphatic,
“ America’s about freedom, and choices, so when
you become a ‘ green’ society -- and I don’t have
anything against green societies -- but you are
telling people you can’t live here unless you are
green. Is that is what America’s all about?”
The second key political factor influencing the
level of sustainability practices was development
of formal and informal mechanisms to facilitate
coordination and build networks among city
departments, and also between the city council,
city administration, and citizen commissions. One
of the central roles of the sustainability manager in
Davis and the Green Team in Citrus Heights is to co-ordinate
and communicate across city departments
to focus on common sustainability goals. Citrus
Heights conducts bi- monthly development review
meetings that include all city departments, service
contractors, and sometimes developers to insure
awareness and coordination of upcoming projects.
There are annual strategic planning retreats with
| 22 Achieving Sustainability inCalifornia’s Central Valley
S U S TA I N A B L E C I T Y P R O F I L E
Lincoln
Background
Lincoln is one of six cities in Placer
County, and had a population of approxi-mately
40,000 on roughly 19 squaremiles
as of 2007. Like many cities in the Sacra-mentometropolitan
area, Lincoln has ex-perienced
tremendous growth in the last
decade. Lincoln was named America’s
fastest growing city from 2000- 2006 in
Forbes Magazine. Roseville, eightmiles to
Lincoln’s south along State Route 65, is a
major retail and commercial hub. While
the city was in a building slump in 2008
during the downturn in the housing mar-ket,
more development is planned.
Views on Sustainability
Lincoln’s officials view sustainability
primarily in economic terms— providing
a level of service to the community in an
economically feasible way— although
environmental sustainability programs
are included as priorities. Mayor Primo
Santini believes that fiscalizing land use
decisions is a necessary component of
good planning in order to generate local
revenue. Lincoln’s 2005 General Plan de-clares:
“ The City’s vision for the future is
to become a self- sustaining community.”
However, city officials point out thatmany
sustainability measures serve multiple
purposes. For example, building cities
around pedestrian and low- speed vehicle
travel increases quality of life while si-multaneously
lowering greenhouse gas
emissions.
Policies for Sustainability
To meet Lincoln’s central vision of be-coming
a self- sustaining community, city
officials estimate that the population
must triple to approximately 120,000 resi-dents,
enough to attract large commer-cial
retailers that provide services to the
community and provide revenue through
sales tax.
This future growth is also envisioned
along new urbanis