Paul Shigley's blog

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.

A California Environmental Quality Act amendment that could ease Walmart’s entry into new markets appears to be speeding toward approval in the state Legislature.

Assembly Bill 1581 (Torres) would exempt from CEQA review the alteration of a vacant retail structure of up to 120,000 square feet so long as the use is consistent with the applicable general plan and meets certain energy and water efficiency thresholds. The exemption would sunset on January 1, 2014.

In early 2009, I wrote a story about the City of Bell’s plan to lease 15 acres it had recently purchased to Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad for use as a truck yard. An environmental organization had successfully sued to block the project because Bell did not complete an environmental review.

As you no doubt know, Bell has been in the news lately for gross levels of corruption at the elected and staff level. Now, the Los Angeles Times has revealed that Bell is unable to pay back a $35 million debt that was issued for the railroad truck yard project. Standard & Poor’s has placed Bell on a credit watch list.

The announcement earlier this week that bookstore giant Barnes & Noble is for sale is important to city planners for two reasons.

First, however the deal comes together, the sale will almost certainly result in the closure of some of Barnes & Nobles' 720 U.S. stores. Closures could begin even before there is a sale, as the company tries to increase its appeal by shedding its weakest outlets.

California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George is probably most widely known for his 2008 majority opinion striking down the state’s prohibition on same-sex marriages, and for his 2009 opinion begrudgingly upholding voters’ ability to ban same-sex marriage and effectively reverse the court’s earlier ruling. But in land use planning and development circles, George’s legacy is one of centrism and consensus. Time and again, George has corralled all of his colleagues into unanimous decisions on sticky land use regulatory issues.

In light of George’s announcement last week that he will not seek re-election this November, a quick review of the George court’s land use decisions is in order.

Before we pay our last respects to the latest statewide water bond, could we at least let the voters put the nail in its coffin?

Gov. Schwarzenegger recently announced he would work with the Legislature to pull Proposition 18 – the $11.1 billion water bond – from the November ballot and instead place the measure on a 2012 ballot. State Senate President Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) said he would cooperate.

A bill that would permit a lawsuit challenging a housing element to be filed at almost any time advanced through a state Senate committee earlier this week and is headed to the Senate floor.

Assembly Bill 602 passed the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on a party-line vote of 6-3 vote, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed.

Pitting affordable housing advocates against local government officials, planners, and builders, a housing element bill has seemingly risen from the dead to become one of the hottest land use bills in Sacramento.

Assembly Bill 602 would provide an unlimited time period during which someone could sue over a jurisdiction’s housing element, which is intended to demonstrate how a city or county will provide its fair share of housing at various cost levels. According to the affordable housing advocates supporting the legislation, a 2008 Court of Appeal decision placed a 90-day statute of limitations on legal challenges to housing elements. The bill would permit lawsuits at any point during the housing element planning period.

The Legislature doesn’t get credit for doing many things right these days, but lawmakers appear to be making at least one bipartisan strike for fiscal sanity.

When it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in California, one size does not even come close to fitting all.

That’s all I could conclude after the SB 375 Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) and metropolitan planning organization (MPO) representatives touched on an amazing array of policy and technical issues during an all-day meeting on Tuesday.

All right, I could also conclude that what has been a highly technical process may be on the verge of becoming very political.