Maybe there is reason to hope we can get development right in the future.

That’s the conclusion I draw after looking over the list of projects that the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) recently named “catalyst projects.” It's largely rhetoric, the state has put its seal of approval on -- and given valuable publicity to -- some promising, progressive projects. In general, projects are mixed-use, mixed-income infill projects that attempt – to varying degrees – to de-emphasize the automobile and improve the public realm. It’s nice to see the state recognize the planning behind such projects, even if the state isn’t willing to attach much money to that recognition.

My nephew and his wife recently had their second child, and they are following a well-worn path from the city to the suburbs.

Four years ago, childless and carless, they lived the urban life in the fashionable Washington, D.C., neighborhood of Cleveland Park. Child No. 1 pushed them four miles out, to the expensive inner Maryland suburb of Bethesda, where they bought a cozy two-bedroom condominium that had been converted from an apartment. Then, a couple of months ago, Child No. 2 pushed them another 12 miles farther out – beyond the Beltway – to Rockville, where they bought a four-bedroom, 2,200-square-foot house.

Overview

A development project in Redding that would destroy critical habitat for endangered species may proceed because the affected habitat constitutes a small percentage of habitat available nationwide, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal has ruled. 

The Ninth Circuit’s decision puts a new twist on the debate over what constitutes “adverse modification” to critical habitat by upholding a black and white mathematical percentage formula applied by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Using the formula, a FWS biological opinion determine there would not be adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat of three species native to the Central Valley.

While land use litigation per se is not overly complex, it contains two procedural rules that occasionally trip up project opponents. A San Diego community group that challenged a condominium project recently tripped on both hurdles.

By John Kaliski

John Chase, best known to many as urban designer for the City of West Hollywood for the past 14 years – even as he was recorder of all things architectural throughout Los Angeles – passed away suddenly and unexpectedly on Friday, Aug. 13. Over the next few weeks and months I will be re-reading his many articles, essays, and books not only to keep alive his memory but to remind myself of his vivacious and educative voice, which was at once keen, enthusiastic, insightful, humorous, sardonic, always observant, attentive to his audience (whether it was a crowd or just an individual), and loving.

This month’s legislative session, which concludes August 31, includes no game changers like SB 375, but it does include a few bills related to land use and redevelopment that bear watching. 

CEQA

Los Angeles Stadium CEQA Exemption

Over 100 organizations have signed on to a statement circulated by the Planning and Conservation League opposing a CEQA exemption for the development of a would-be NFL football stadium in downtown Los Angeles. The concerns have arisen in part because of an exemption granted to Majestic Realty in 2009 for its proposed stadium in the City of Industry and because of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s stated desire to grant exemptions to certain projects in the name of economic development. 

The Department of Water Resources is a “person” for the purposes of the Fish and Game Code and thus is prohibited from killing an endangered or threatened species protected by the California Endangered Species Act, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled.

The staff of the California resources board has released a staff report (pdf) and CEQA functional equivalent (pdf) document with its proposals for per capita greenhouse gas emissions targets for the state's four largest MPO's. The report comes roughly two months after ARB staff presented the board with a target range of 5-10 percent per capita reductions for 2020 for the four urban MPOs and "placeholder targets" for those of the Central Valley.

Somewhat unexpectedly, ARB staff has recommended different targets for each of the "big four." 

If you are at all involved with urban planning in Los Angeles you were probably either in the audience or on the panel at last night's "The Future of the Los Angeles City Planning Department (and the City of Los Angeles)" event, sponsored by AIA, APA-L.A., ULI, and Cal Poly Pomona's College of Environmental Design. I suppose a third option is that you were stuck in traffic and couldn't make it.