In this off-year election, there are few land use measures on Nov. 8 ballots statewide. The City of Vernon's measures regarding term limits and other reforms represents a resurrection of sorts in the wake of the highly publicized efforts to disincorporate it. Updated Weds., November 10. San Mateo Measure G: Affordable Housing: Rejected, 52% opposed Measure G would amend the City of San Mateo's general plan to allow the city to impose housing impact fees and a fee refund incentive program to compel developers to provide below-market-rate units in rental properties. The measure is in response to  Palmer v. City of Los Angeles , which invalidated certain approaches to inclusionary zoning.   Vernon Measure A: Term Limits: Approved, 43-9 In response to the firestorm of criticism--and an attempted forced disincorporation--the industrial City of Vernon in Los Angeles County is pursuing reform measures now that it has a new lease on life. This measure would limit council members to two-five year terms, with a lifetime ban thereafter. Critics contend that city council members have ruled over the city for decades and treated it like their own fiefdom in the absence of term limits or a functioning municipal democracy. Vernon has fewer than 200 residents. The Vernon city ballot also includes measure regarding city administration, at-will employment, and prevailing wages. Pittsburgh Measure I: Urban Limit Line: Approved, 79% in favor Sponsored by developer West Coast Homebuilders, Measure I would amend Pittburgh's general plan and expand its urban limit line to accommodate a 193-acre development averaging three dwelling units per acre. The measure would pre-zone the land for a combination of single-family residential, high-density residential, and light industrial uses.

The words "green" and "cargo containers" hardly seem to belong in the same sentence. Shipping is a dirty business. Particulate matter and greenhouse gases have long blackened the lungs of people who live near the ports, giving the area the lowest air quality rating in the region. One source of foul air is the port equipment, including the diesel-burning cranes and tow-trucks that move containers from ships to trucks. More harmful, however, is the fleet of fume-vomiting trucks that haul containers from the ports to intermodal yards near downtown Los Angeles and other places further inland, where the containers are loaded onto rail cars to destined for points east. These trucks make an average of 6,000 trips daily to and from the ports (including multiple trips by individual vehicles.) Many of these trucks are more than 20 years old, and engines tend to emit increasingly more with age.  You can understand my initial incredulity, then, with the claim that the proposed $500 million Southern California International Gateway would be "the greenest intermodal facility in the U.S." This claim can be found in the draft EIR of the project, filed last month by the developer, BNSF Railways of Dallas, Texas. BNSF appears to be betting heavily on a government-relations campaign that emphasizes both environmental quality and improved efficiency in moving the metal boxes through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. And the company has some progressive, even eye-opening suggestions on how to improve better air quality. Yet we still must ask whether BNSF is overstating the benefits the intermodal facility to bring to the region, such as improved air quality and lighter traffic on the 710 Freeway, the antiquated roadway leading to and from the ports.  An obvious tension exists between the goals of improving the air quality in the port area and the need to push millions of containers more quickly through the two ports onto waiting trains. The Los Angeles-Long Beach ports are the busiest in the nation, in part because they are primary point of entry for Chinese goods and/or American goods made in China. The aging 710 Freeway, which carries the bulk of the truck traffic to and from the ports, has undergone repeated studies for widening, although that prospect seems both expensive and politically volatile.    The basic premise of the BNSF intermodal yard is fairly simple: To cut down on pollution, they will shorten the distance that trucks must travel. Located about four miles away from the ports, the facility is far closer to the ports than BNSF's existing intermodal yard, which is 24 miles away in downtown Los Angeles. Shorter truck trips mean lower emissions overall, at least from those serving the new intermodal yard. (Many other trucks travel further to intermodal yards in the Inland Empire.) The shorter trip to the new yard means greater efficiency, with an expected increase of 1.5 million containers annually. The project sponsors, in the draft EIR, further claim that the project will improve traffic on the stop-and-go 710 Freeway. BNSF offers several other green features: One welcome decision is to use all electric equipment to move the containers. Another idea is to incentivize truck drivers to use cleaner-burning vehicles, by refusing to do business with drivers with substandard emissions.  All these green ideas are admirable, as far as they go. But will they make a meaningful difference to the brown air hovering over this heavily trafficked freeway? Sparing an estimated 1.5 million truck trips a year is a good thing. But the 710 Freeway is a thoroughfare in which demand always is greater than capacity. If BNSF actually manages to create some room on the road, that room will be quickly filled other truckers, who are driving their high-emissions trucks to container yards deep in the Inland Empire, shooting out tons of greenhouse gases and particulates all the while. So in this theoretical situation, BNSF gets good marks for increasing its own efficiency and sustainable practices, any claims to lighten traffic or reduce overall pollution, however, are not realistic. Similarly, the decision to do business with only low-emissions trucks seems to send the right message to the trucking industry. But if other container yard operators do not insist on cleaner trucks, BNSF has not really changed the equation. The preferences of one yard operator for clean burning truck engines over dozens of others that do not does not stack up as a strong enough incentive to change the behavior of truck drivers. Keep in mind that the majority of truck owners are small, family-owned businesses that bought older trucks because the latter cost a fraction of the sticker price of newer models. These owners do not have deep pockets. One meaningful program, sponsored by the ports, was to buy older trucks and cut them in half with acetylene torches, while the owners got a grant to help buy a newer, less polluting vehicle. A few dozen vehicles, however, are not enough to change the chronically poor air quality of the harbor area.  The resulting situation is an unenviable policy question that counterposes the needs of small business, the needs of big business, and those of public health. BNSF is "modeling good behavior," as they say in parenting class. The net improvement to the environment, however, remains questionable if others do not similarly change their trucks and their equipment.  But in the endless slow recovery, high-paying jobs are nothing to sneeze at. The best part of the BNSF container yard is that it promises 1,500 construction jobs for three years. Apparently the construction unions agree with me: In late October, when a group of them agreed to provide $255 million in project financing in exchange for an agreement from BNSF to hire union labor. If BNSF can't clean the air in L.A. County's worst air shed, they can at least make blue skies for a lot of under-employed people.

On October 7, the Los Angeles Chapter of the American Institute of Architects held a symposium to discuss opportunities to design communities that promote greater physical activity and equitable access to healthier lifestyles.  The event brought together a architects, planners, landscape architects, policy makers, urban designers, public health professionals, and students.  The major theme of the symposium is the need for greater cross-collaboration between architects and planners, and public health professionals to address the problem of obesity. Highlights of the event, by sub-topic, included: •         Public Health: Dr. Paul Simon with the L.A. County Department of Public Health provided important background on the historic connection between city planning and public health, with statistics on childhood obesity and healthcare spending that demonstrate the severity and urgency of the problem.  Dr. Simon also highlighted various ongoing efforts by the Public Health Department to create healthy communities, including the Policies for Livable, Active Communities and Environments (PLACE) and Renew Environments for Nutrition, Exercise, and Wellness (RENEW) programs. •         Planning: Los Angeles City Planning Director Michael LoGrande discussed the city's efforts in healthy design and planning such as: plans to incorporate a health chapter into the General Plan Framework, along with implementing ordinances; development of a health-centric transit-oriented development template in South L.A. along Metro Blue Line stations; and update of the Mobility Element of the General Plan to give Angelenos a full range of options including biking, walking, and public transit. •         "Living Streets": Consultant Ryan Snyder presented the idea that a living street is one in which the needs of automobile drivers are secondary to the needs of users of the street as a whole; it is a space designed to be shared by pedestrians, playing children, bicyclists, and low-speed motor vehicles.   Snyder's presentation focused on the Model Street Design Manual that was created through a writing charrette involving national experts.  This manual focuses on all users and modes, seeking to achieve balanced street design that accommodates automobiles while ensuring that cyclists, pedestrians, and transit users can travel comfortably and safely.  •         Community Engagement: Lark Galloway-Gilliam with Community Health Councils contended that the community needs to be engaged in any process to design and redesign communities.  She pointed out how past planning efforts lacked vision on the part of leadership and reflected disconnect between different public agencies responsible for planning, transportation, housing, and redevelopment.  Gilliam also stressed the need to speed up in coming up with strategies to help the residents of underserved communities. •         Recreational Space: Carolyn Ramsey discussed the Trust for Public Land's successful efforts in improving and increasing usage of existing parks through "fitness zones."  Fitness Zones are easy-to-use outdoor gyms designed to promote general health and introduce a new set of healthy activities to the park experience.  Installed in existing parks, the equipment is designed to be durable, vandal resistant, and appropriate for teenagers and adults of all fitness levels.  To date, 29 Fitness Zones have been installed throughout L.A. County and more are planned in the near future. An idea that was briefly mentioned during the symposium, but not fully discussed was the temporary closure of some streets for recreational activities. Inspired by Bogotá's Ciclovía, Los Angeles has held three CicLAvia events (most recently on October 9), which opened up some city streets to pedestrians and bicyclists, creating a temporary network of public space where participants could walk, bike, socialize, and learn more about their city. Closing streets temporarily recognizes the urgency of addressing the recreational needs of residents. Los Angeles could learn from New York City's Playstreets Program created by the city's Departments of Health and Mental Hygiene, Transportation, and Parks to battle childhood obesity.  This program is a quick and low-cost way to create active play space, and is a health measure that directly targets children, the city's most important at–risk population.  Other ideas also deserve consideration.  For example, given the success of mobile libraries, and the lack of land and money to develop permanent recreational facilities, mobile park spaces may also be employed as a way to bring in outside resources to a community in need. Mobile gyms provide additional opportunities for residents to work out and are flexible in that they can be parked at any location where vehicles are allowed.  Also, the conversion of existing buildings for recreational use is growing in popularity and has been carried out by both commercial interests and public agencies.  Warehouses, for example, have been converted to sports facilities for indoor soccer, badminton, handball, and batting cages. The symposium was successful in many ways.  Hopefully, it would lead to the rise of more political and professional champions in the architecture and planning realms, and the development of timely, effective solutions to promote greater physical activity in our communities and address the obesity crisis.  Clement Lau is a freelance writer and a planner with the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation.

In a feat of chronological gymnastics regarding a proposed development in the City of Napa, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District held that a Notice of Determination posted over the course of 31 calendar days was not posted long enough to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act's requirement that it be posted for 30 days.  CEQA provides for shortened statutes of limitations to challenge project approvals if the local agency files and posts a Notice of Determination (NOD) according to Public Resources Code section 21152. The shortened statute of limitations means that a project opponent has 30 days, rather than 180 days to challenge the project approval. Public Resources Code section 21152 requires the local agency to file a notice of determination within five days of the project approval. The notice then must be posted within 24 hours of the receipt and shall remain posted for 30 days. In Latinos Unidos de Napa v. City of Napa , supra, (196 Cal.App.4th 1154), the Court of Appeal held that for the shortened 30-day statute of limitations to apply the notice must be both filed and posted, and the notice must be posted for 30 days, excluding the first day, and must be posted for the entire 30th day.  On June 16, 2009, the City of Napa approved revisions to the housing element of its general plan, and related general plan and zoning amendments, concluding the project would have no environmental effects beyond those identified and mitigated in the 1998 general plan. On June 17, 2009, the city filed an NOD with the county clerk. The cash register receipt shows the document was received at 9:05 on June 17. According to the Clerk, the NOD was posted from 10:00 a.m. on June 17, 2009 until at least 10:00 a.m. on July 17, 2009.  Petitioners Latinos Unidos, a group that advocates for affordable housing in the region, visited the clerk's office at 11:29 a.m. on July 17, 2009 and found no NOD posted. On September 17, 2009, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the project approval, claiming the longer 180-day statute of limitations applied, rather than the shorter 30-day statute of limitations, because the NOD had not been posted for the full 30-days required by Public Resources Code section 21152 subdivision (c). The trial court granted the city's motion for a judgment on the grounds that the petition was barred by the 30-day statute of limitations. Petitioners appealed. Petitioners based their claim that the longer statute of limitations applied on an interpretation of the posting period in CEQA on Code of Civil Procedure section 12 which excludes the first day of posing and includes the last. Petitioner further argued that the NOD must be posted for the entire 30th day to satisfy the 30-day requirement.  The city argued the notice was posted over the course of 31 days – from 10:00 a.m. on June 17 to 10:00 am on July 17. The City further argued that even if the first day is excluded from the calculation, the NOD was posted for part of the 30th day, and thus, was adequate. Petitioners argued, that when calculated according to Code of Civil Procedure section 12, which excludes the first day and includes the last, the 30th day of posting was July 17. Further, Petitioners argued that the notice should have been posted for the full day on July 17, pointing to Scoville v. Anderson (1901) 131 Cal. 590 and other case law holding that the effect of fractions of days are disregarded when time is computed.    The court agreed with the petitioners.  The court rejected the city's argument that Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors (2010) (see CP&DR Legal Digest Vol. 25, No. 4 , Feb. 2010) stood for the proposition that the 30-day statute is triggered when the NOD is filed, not when it is posted. The court also rejected the City's argument that it had substantially complied with the 30-day posting requirement, stating that "any assessment of substantial compliance would introduce an element of subjective line-drawing into an area where clarity and precision are vital."  The court held that because the NOD had not been posted for the full 30 days as calculated according to Code of Civil Procedure section 12, the 180-day statute of limitations applied and the dismissal was reversed.  The practical effect of this case is that the 30-day posting period in 21152(c) is actually 32 days. However, the effect will be limited, given that a potential project opponent risks missing his filing deadline if he or she actually waits to see if the NOD was posted for the full statutory 30 days. The Case:  Latinos Unidos de Napa v. City of Napa (2011) 196 Cal. App. 4th 1154, No. A129584. The Attorneys:  For Plaintiff and Appellant: Law Offices of David Grabill and David Grabill. For Defendants and Respondents: Jarvis, Fay, Doporto & Gibson, Andrea J. Saltzman, Rick W. Jarvis and Julie M. Randolph  Leslie Walker is an attorney with Abbott & Kindermann , LLP, of Sacramento.

This case involved the perfect storm of events resulting in the flooding of the plaintiffs' properties and an ensuing legal tempest. Plaintiffs sued the county in court claiming that the flooding was a result of county's failure to maintain a county road, from which the runoff spilled. Plaintiff claimed that the county's neglect of the road constituted a taking and inverse condemnation. In Gutierrez v. County of San Bernardino , the Fourth District Court of Appeals grappled with the application of the "reasonableness" takings test that applies to flood control projects. The court concluded that the county acted reasonably, and therefore, there was no taking. Background In October 2003, a wildfire eliminated all of the trees on a section of the mountains north of the unincorporated community of Devore, where plaintiff Michael T. Gutierrez and other plaintiffs resided. In December 2003, it rained, causing water to flow down the mountain trapping debris and sediment in its wake. The water flowed across Greenwood Avenue and brought the debris and sediment to plaintiffs' properties. In an attempt to protect the properties from further flooding, the county placed concrete K-rails along the sides of the paved portion of the street on which plaintiffs' live. Unfortunately, another large rain storm passed through and the K-rails failed to contain all of the debris and settlement. Plaintiffs brought this action against the county on the grounds that the county's actions in maintaining the street in 2003 and 2004 caused the flooding, and thereby, constituted a taking. The trial court found in favor of the county, and plaintiffs appealed. Appeal On appeal, the appellate court divided the case into two separate issues: was there a taking in 2003, and was there a taking in 2004 by implementation of the K-rails? The court quickly dismissed the issue of the 2003 taking because the road that brought the debris and settlement was still in its natural state and never maintained by the county, and therefore it was not a "public improvement" for purposes of inverse condemnation. As to the part of the road that was paved, plaintiffs failed to present any evidence as to how this road caused the damage to their properties.  The court spent more time discussing the issue of the 2004 flooding. All parties and the court agreed that the K-rails installed in 2004 constituted a public improvement, and the court accepted the trial court's conclusion that the K-rails caused damage to plaintiffs' properties. Thus the only remaining issue, the one that took up most of the court's opinion, is whether strict liability or the "reasonableness test" applied. As stated in Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control District (1988) 47 Cal.3d 550, 565, "a public agency that undertakes to construct or operate a flood control project clearly must not be made the absolute insurer of those lands provided protection." For this reason, courts apply the reasonableness test to flood control improvements, which requires the court to evaluate whether "the design, construction or maintenance of the flood control project…posed an unreasonable risk of harm to the plaintiffs." The appellate court found that the K-rails constituted the type of flood control project to which the reasonableness test applied, and strict liability was not proper. After reviewing the record of evidence, the court found that "substantial evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that the county acted reasonably relative to its installation of the K-rails," and the trial court's decision was upheld in its entirety. The Case: Gutierrez v. County of San Bernardino (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 831. Filed August 24, 2011.  Cori Badgley is an attorney with the firm of Abbott & Kindermann , LLP, of Sacramento.

Gov. Jerry Brown considered over 600 bills that came to his desk this legislative session. Some of the most contentious involved land use, particularly bills concerning redevelopment and the California Environmental Quality Act. The City of Los Angeles got a CEQA exemption for its proposed football stadium and infill developments have received special dispensation; speculation is that other such exemptions may be on the horizon. High-profile failures and vetoes include a bill opposing the expansion of Walmart in San Diego and a bill that would have lowered parking requirements in transit-oriented districts.  In total, the governor received 870 bills, the lowest number in decades. Yet, he still managed to veto 14 percent of them. Herewith is CP&DR's roundup of relating to land use that made the cut.  California Environmental Quality Act AB 320 (Hill) will prevent CEQA lawsuits and litigation from being thrown out in the event a "recipient of approval" appears only after the statute of limitations time period has passed. The bill will help bring clarity to the question of which parties must be named in CEQA lawsuits and litigation. AB 900 (Buchanan) will allow the governor to choose as many projects as he deems appropriate for the expedited judicial review process, primarily by skipping Superior Court review and expediting the timeline for the litigation process at Appellate Court. SB 226 (Simitian) seeks to streamline CEQA processes to facilitate projects (including rooftop solar, renewables on disturbed lands, and infill) that are generally considered ‘green'.  SB 292 (Padilla) establishes specified administrative and judicial review procedures for the administrative and judicial review of the EIR and approvals granted for a project related to the development of football stadium in the City of Los Angeles.  Land Use AB 147 (Dickinson) is an amendment of the Subdivision Map Act that allows municipalities to include fees to developers for constructing bicycle, transit, pedestrian or traffic calming measures.  AB 208 (Fuentes) extends by 24 months the expiration date of any approved tentative map or vesting tentative map that has not expired as of the effective date of this act and will expire prior to January 1, 2014. AB 516 (M. Pérez) establishes a specified public participation process for the establishment of Safe Routes to Schools programs.  Redevelopment AB 936 (Hueso) requires redevelopment agencies and other public bodies to report debt forgiveness. AB 1338 (Hernández) requires redevelopment agencies to get appraisals before acquiring real property.  Housing AB 221 (Carter) – The Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Acts of 2002 and 2006: supportive housing. AB 1103 (Huffman) allows localities to count foreclosed homes and second units converted into deed-restricted homes toward their regional housing needs assessment requirement. Allows cities and counties to plan to meet up to 25 percent of their Regional Housing Needs Allocation targets by converting foreclosed homes into homes affordable to low- and very low-income households. SB 562 (Committee on Transportation and Housing) Housing omnibus bill. Water & Waste AB 54 (Solorio) establishes new requirements for organizing and operating mutual water companies.   AB 359 (Huffman) would encourage the sustainable management of groundwater resources by requiring, as a condition of receiving a state grant or loan, local agencies to including a map of prime recharge areas in their groundwater management plans. It would then require these maps to be shared with the planning agencies, interested parties and organizations. AB 938 (M. Pérez). Public water systems. This bill would add environmental documentation to the costs of a single project that the department is required to determine by an assessment of affordability AB 964 (Huffman) authorizes any person to obtain a right to appropriate water for a small irrigation use. AB 1221 (Alejo) – State Water Quality Control Fund: State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account. SB 267 by (Rubio) – Water supply planning: renewable energy plants. SB 607 (Walters) – State Water Resources Control Board: water quality: brackish groundwater treatment. Environment, Parks & Open Space AB 42 (Huffman) allows the state to explore partnerships with non-profit organizations that can help support state park system.   AB 566 (Galgiani) amends the Surface Mining Act (1975) to include additional legislative findings, including, among other things, that the state's mineral resources are vital, finite, and important natural resources and the responsible protection and development of these mineral resources is vital to a sustainable California. AB 703 (Gordon) – Property taxation: welfare exemption: nature resources and open-space lands. AB 1036 by Assemblymember Michael Allen (D-Santa Rosa) – Parks: regional park, park and open-space, and open-space districts: employee relations. AB 1077 by Assemblymember Wilmer Amina Carter (D-Rialto) – State parks: Colonel Allensworth State Historic Park. AB 1112 (Huffman) Oil spill prevention and administration fee: State Lands Commission.  AB 1414 (Committee on Natural Resources) Forestry: timber harvesting. SB 152 (Pavley). Public lands: general leasing law: littoral landowners. Requires the State Lands Commission to charge rent for a private recreational pier, as defined, constructed on state lands and would require the rent to be based on local conditions and local fair annual rental values SB 328 (Kehoe) revises the Eminent Domain Law to establish requirements for acquisition of property subject to a conservation easement.  SB 436 (Kehoe) – Land use: mitigation lands: nonprofit organizations. Revises these provisions and would additionally authorize a state or local public agency to authorize a nonprofit organization, a special district, a for-profit entity, a person, or another entity to hold title to and manage an interest in property held for mitigation purposes, subject to certain requirements. SB 551 (DeSaulnier) – State property: tidelands transfer: City of Pittsburg. SB 618 (Wolk) allows landowners and local officials to simultaneously rescind Williamson Act contracts and enter into easements allowing photovoltaic solar facilities on the same land.  SB 668 (Evans) – Local government: Williamson Act. Authorizes a nonprofit land-trust organization, a nonprofit entity, or a public agency to enter into a contract with a landowner who has also entered into a Williamson Act contract to keep that landowner's land in contract under the Williamson Act, for a period of up to 10 years in exchange for the open-space district's, land-trust organization's, or nonprofit entity's payment of all or a portion of the foregone property tax revenue. SB 792 (Steinberg) – Surface mining: mineral resource management policies. SB 860 by Committee on Natural Resources and Water – Tidelands and submerged lands: public trust lands: mineral rights. Infrastructure & Transportation AB 529 Gatto (D-Burbank) – Vehicles: speed limits: downward speed zoning. AB 615 (Lowenthal) supplements Budget Act appropriations by appropriating $4,000,000 from the High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Fund to the authority for the Los Angeles to San Diego segment. AB 628 (Conway) – Vehicles: off-highway vehicle recreation: County of Inyo. AB 664 (Ammiano) allows San Francisco to form special waterfront Infrastructure Financing Districts for the Port America's Cup and Treasure Island areas.   AB 706 (Torres) – Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority. AB 716 (Dickinson) – Transit districts: prohibition orders: Sacramento Regional Transit District: Fresno Area Express: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. AB 751 (Cedillo) concerns a freeway segment to be constructed without an agreement within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. AB 957 (Committee on Transportation) – Transportation omnibus bill. AB 892 (Carter) Department of Transportation: Environmental Review Process. Allows CalTrans to continue its participation in the National Environmental Policy Act delegation pilot program in SAFETEA-Lu or any successor federal transportation reauthorization legislation.  AB 1027 (Buchanan) requires local publicly owned utilities to provide space on their utility poles for use by communication service providers. AB 1097 (Skinner) authorizes a state or a local agency, relative to the use of federal funds for transit purposes, to provide a bidding preference to a bidder if the bidder exceeds Buy America requirements applicable to federally funded transit projects. AB 1143 (Dickinson) – Sacramento Regional Transit District: bonds. AB 1164 (Gordon) – Federal transportation funds. AB 1298 (Blumenfield) – Vehicles: parking: mobile billboard advertising displays. SB 310 (Hancock) allows cities and counties to adapt Infrastructure Financing Districts and other incentives for transit priority projects.   SB 325 (Rubio) enacts the Central California Railroad Authority Act to create the Central California Railroad Authority as an alternative for ensuring short-line railroad service in the Counties of Kern, Kings, Tulare, Fresno, and Merced. SB 468 (Kehoe) Department of Transportation: north coast corridor project: high-occupancy toll lanes. SB 771 (Kehoe). In regards to programs of the California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority, expands the definition of "renewable energy" to include energy generation based on thermal energy systems such as landfill gas turbines, engines, and microturbines; and digester gas turbines, engines, and microturbines. Local Finance, Governance, & Agency Formation AB 307 (Nestande) includes a federally recognized Indian tribe as a public agency that may enter into a joint powers agreement. AB 506 (Wieckowski) – Local government: bankruptcy: neutral evaluation. A signing message can be found here. AB 912 (Gordon) expedites the dissolution of special districts.   AB 1344 (Feuer) alters the statutory requirements regarding how cities and counties can put a proposed charter before the voters. Increases the noticing period from the regular 72-hour noticing requirement to a 10-week process. AB 1430 (Committee on Local Government) – The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 omnibus bill. SB 244 (Wolk) General Plan: Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities. Mandates General Plans be updated to address disadvantaged unincorporated communities. Cities required to submit dual annexation requests.   SB 555 (Hancock) allows Mello-Roos community facilities districts to finance renewable energy, energy efficiency, and water efficiency improvements on private property.

Sacramento County may not rank among California's great wine countries, but it does appreciate the value of aging. Eight years in the making, the land use element of the county's new general plan update is on the verge of approval by the county Board of Supervisors. In contrast with the contentiousness that has surrounded many other recently updated county general plans, this one—save some concerns about the protection of wild habitats—seems to be pleasing just about everyone.  The plan still holds the theoretical potential to expand the "Urban Policy Area" by up to 20,000 acres. However, in order to direct development towards what county planners explicitly refer to as a "smart growth" pattern, the county has established a novel set of benchmarks that proposed development must meet before they can even think about treading beyond the established Urban Policy Area.  "They have fashioned a really innovative kind of approach that I'm not sure anyone else has done exactly the same way," said Mike McKeever, executive director of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments. County Supervisor Phil Serna called it a "paradigm shift for how the county is going to consider growth in the future."  Critics of the growth management strategy contend that there will be political pressure to not follow through with the plan's density goals, which could then open up greenfields to development more quickly than planners anticipate. "Our big concern is, that despite strong criteria, the actual implementation of projects will involve a never-ending series of concessions and relaxations and decisions that will end up with the kind of development that we have historically seen at the edge of the urban area, which is primarily single-family residential, transportation systems that are inadequate, and more of the same kind of sprawl that we've been getting for the last 15-20 years," said Ron Burness, a member of the Executive Board of the Environmental Council of Sacramento. Last month, the Board of Supervisors tentatively approved, by a unanimous vote, the plan's growth management strategy and will soon consider the land use element. Final votes on both are expected by the end of the year. Supervisors say they have supported the plan because it responds to a host of environmental and economic concerns.  Though disputes and discussions have drawn out the planning process to an absurd duration, stakeholders say that its glacial pace may have averted a planning catastrophe. Had the plan been based on conditions before the real estate market crash, the results could have been disastrous. "When we started out, demand was a lot higher," said Storelli. "As the market tanked, we realized that we needed to scale back because demand wasn't that high. Our board of supervisors still wanted an opportunity to consider new growth areas so we had to come up with some criteria that weren't based off supply and demand." Torrid growth swept over the region in the beginning and middle of the last decade, pushing development into greenfields and creating what critics consider to be economically inefficient and environmentally unfriendly low-density communities. Planners say a general plan update based on these premises would have been useless for a host of changes that have taken place since 2008, most notably the near-death of new development that corresponded with the recession and mortgage crisis.  Contemplating a relatively slow-growth future, county planners turned to a more conservative but flexible scenario that, they say, is designed to limit growth at the urban fringes and encourage development within existing unincorporated communities. A significant portion of Sacramento County's population—roughly 550,000 out of 1.4 million county residents—lives in the county's 23 unincorporated areas. County planners say that SACOG estimates that demand could be for anywhere between 50,000 and 100,000 new housing units by 2030.  Attempts to control where and how development occurs have enjoyed mixed success in the past. The county established a pair of planning tools in 1993 meant to limit the growth of urbanized areas. The Urban Policy Area defines territory where the county provides services and allows growth; it could be expanded to accommodate projected growth for a 25-year period. The Urban Services Boundary, however, is a rigid boundary extending beyond the UPA designed to mark the absolute extent of all future development in the county. Environmentalists and other critics have lamented that in the boom years of the 2000s, the UPA was expanded almost at whim by the Board of Supervisors.  The new land use element attempts to remove political whims from the shaping of the county's growth. Yet, many stakeholders, including environmental groups, are unnerved by the fact that the element still allows for the potential expansion of the UPA by 20,000 acres. However, planners caution that what the plan allows for, and what will actually take place on the ground, are likely to be two vastly different things.  "It doesn't actually open up anything," said Storelli. "If you (developers) meet these very stringent criteria you can initiate an application that would expand the USB and only then would the land open."  For the board to consider extending the UPA or approving a master plan beyond UPA boundaries, developments must meet some combination of the following criteria as outlined in the draft growth management plan:  • A "Justification Statement" that shall be a comprehensive explanation of the proposed request and the development it would allow.  It must include background information, reasoning, and the goal(s) and benefits of the proposed project. • "Significant borders" that are adjacent to the existing UPA or a city boundary.  As a guideline, "significant borders" generally means that the length of the boundary between the existing UPA or city boundary and the proposed UPA expansion/Master Plan should be 25 percent of the length of the boundary of the UPA expansion area.  • A vision of how the development will connect to other adjacent existing and potential future development areas within the USB, including how roadways, transit, sewer, and water could occur within all adjacent areas.  • A variety of housing types and densities, including single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, accessory dwelling units, townhomes, condominiums, apartments and similar multi-family units, in a variety of settings including both residential neighborhoods and mixed use nodes.  • Design guidelines, development standards and/or similar assurances that will require high-quality development consistent with the vision set forth in the Master Plan.  These criteria are meant to guide growth to infill areas, with particular attention to older commercial strips that, planners say, are ripe for redevelopment. The plan text includes the goal of "enhancing quality of life in every community, as well as utilizing vacant and underutilized lands to accommodate future economic and population growth." This will take different forms in maturing suburban places such as Arden-Arcade, which is nearly fully built-out, as opposed to more rural communities that are expected to experience significant growth.  "It's a more thoughtful approach than just looking at projected housing and jobs and treating it in a sterile, quantitative fashion only," said Serna. "We're trying to address growth in the context of what is that future growth going to mean not just in terms of its land uses but what is it going to be in terms of its connection between land use, transportation, and air quality." As long as that list of criteria may be, its certainty and flexibility may actually be appealing to developers who are desperate for some kind of predictability.  "Previously they were looking at more of a supply-and-demand model, and those numbers can swing from very high to very low, which is what the county has experienced over the eight-year cycle of developing their general plan," said John Costa, Senior Legislative Advocate of the North State Building Industry Association. "This provides a better framework for projects moving forward in the planning process and have a better idea of what they are developing for." While developers may need some time to wrap their minds around this new approach to development, one group that welcomes the county's approach wholeheartedly is the Sacramento Area Council of Governments. SACOG is responsible for preparing the region's Sustainable Communities Strategy as mandated by Senate Bill 375, the 2008 law requiring major metro regions to reduce per capita greenhouse gas emissions by better integrating land use and sustainable transportation policies. Though SACOG's SCS is only in the early planning stages, SACOG and the county planning department collaborated to ensure that the general plan update—and the projects that result—would reflect the same goals and values as the SCS.  "They may end up entitling some projects that meet their smart growth criteria that have more market capacity than will fit inside our SCS in any given planning cycle, but that's fine," said McKeever. " This collaboration represents a new approach to the interplay between local and regional planning. Defanti noted that the economic climate was not the only thing that changed in the last eight years.  "Throughout this process, the economy has violently fluctuated on us and that the regulatory environment has fluctuated as well," said Defanti. "Central to that has been SB 375." Serna echoed that sentiment, saying "it is a new day and we do have a responsibility to respond to a different regulatory and different legislative environment."  That regulatory change has, according to McKeever, made metropolitan planning organizations, such as SACOG, even more relevant to local planning efforts.  "The actions of MPOs are now front-and-center, so even though it's a little bumpy in some regions, everyone is looking in much more detail at how these regional plans are built," said McKeever. Area developers remain anxious about what form infill development will actually take in a county that has historically embraced single-family, low-density development.  "The difficulty that we've seen through the process is that the density levels are higher than we're used to in this area," said Costa. "Some members have concerns about whether that's viable to build." Burness pointed to three developments already in the planning stages that would extend the urban fringe, as well as potential annexations by cities including Folsom and Sacramento.  "All of these efforts on the part of landowners by and large (have pushed) at the edges of the urban area," said Burness.  Costa rejects the contention that the new plan would foreshadow rapid suburban growth.  "You may see projects in the planning stages, but we don't believe that the county is going to open up this area to growth anytime soon," said Costa. He added that many BIA members focus on infill and not just on greenfield development.  As well, county planners contend that the growth management strategy has built-in disincentives to greenfield development.  "Any new development that would be coming forward would have to show how it pays for itself, and hopefully would be a net benefit to the county," said Defanti.  Contacts & Resources:  Rob Burness, Executive Board, Environmental Council of Sacramento, 916.444.0022 John Costa, Senior Legislative Advocate, North State Building Industry Association: 916.751.2753 Dave Defanti, Senior Planner; Cindy Storelli, Principal Planner; Planning Division, County of Sacramento, 916.874.6141 Mike McKeever, Executive Director, Sacramento Area Council of Governments, 916.321.9000 Phil Serna, Supervisor, County of Sacramento, 916.874.5485

The California Supreme Court announced today that it will hear oral arguments in San Francisco on  California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos on November 10. The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the state's plan to eliminate redevelopment agencies unless they agree to pay $1.7 billion for FY 2011-12 and $400 million in subsequent budget years. The initial petition was filed on July 18 by the California Redevelopment Association, the League of California Cities, and the cities of San Jose and Union City. The suit claims that the state's budget plan runs afoul of Proposition 22, which passed last yaer and was designed to protect local funds from state captures. In August, the Court agreed to hear the case on an expedited basis, in order to reach a decision before Jan. 15, 2012, when the first payments under AB 1x 27 are due.

In the ongoing billboard wars that have taken place up and down the state in recent years, the advertisers have won the latest legal battle.  In Hill v. San Jose Family Housing Partners, the Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District held: (1) that a written easement for a billboard was enforceable, even if the billboard was constructed in an illegal manner; and (2) that the servient owners of a development that unreasonably interfered with the visibility of the billboard could owe the billboard owner damages for lost profits. Plaintiffs James C. Hill and Dawn L. Hill and defendants San Jose Family Housing Partners (SFJHP) own adjacent parcels of land located along U.S. Highway 101 in San Jose. Since the 1970s, the Hills have owned and operated a two-sided commercial billboard on a section of SJFHP's parcel, near the joint property line. In 2000, the Hills and SJFHP's predecessors in interest entered into a written easement agreement relating to the Hills' use of the billboard.  The purpose of that easement was " o do all things necessary and incidental to the operation of the business of a billboard including, but not limited to, placement, construction, reconstruction, maintenance and repair of the billboard … all to facilitate the billboard business or any other lawful purpose associated with the use of the Dominant Tenement." The easement also expressly provided that "no structures, vegetation, or other objects will be allowed to interfere with or encroach on the easements in the above described Grant Deed and as, herein, referenced." In or about 2007, the Hills learned that SJFHP planned to construct on its property a multi-unit residential development, which would obstruct the view of the billboard's north face. The Hills brought a lawsuit against SJFHP in 2007 for injunctive relief and damages.  In that lawsuit, SJFHP raised an affirmative defense that the easement is unenforceable because the billboard was constructed and maintained in violation of county and city building codes and ordinances. The trial court rejected that defense. The trial court also held that the easement agreement must be interpreted "to allow viewing of the billboard," and that SJFHP's development interfered with the Hills' easement by obstructing it. The trial court therefore awarded damages in the amount of $778,539, which included lost future profits through 2037.  After trial, the City of San Jose issued a compliance order that directed removal of the "illegally constructed billboard." SJFHP moved for a new trial on the grounds that this newly-discovered evidence of the city's actions would substantially reduce or eliminate the lost profits portion of the Hills' damages award. The trial court denied the motion. SJFHP appealed.  On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's determination as to the illegality defense. SJFHP argued that if the billboard is itself illegal, its use for advertising is also illegal, and therefore the easement agreement is unenforceable. The court disagreed. This was not a case where the parties entered into an easement agreement that allowed for an illegal use of the property. The court explained: "The Hills' action to enforce the easement is entirely legitimate because the property's use for advertising purposes is not illegal in and of itself. Although the instrumentality of that use, i.e., the billboard, may be illegal, that is not a bar to the enforcement of the agreement."  The court also affirmed the trial court's interpretation of the easement agreement. SJFHP argued that the easement did not prohibit SJFHP from developing its property since such development does not restrict the Hills from operating, maintaining or accessing the billboard (even if that development reduced the profitability of that billboard business). The court disagreed. Instead of seeking an impermissible easement for light, air or view, the Hills were seeking enforcement of an easement that expressly provided that its purpose is to allow for the operation of a billboard business. The court explained: "Since the point of a billboard is that it be visible to potential consumers, it is clear the intent of the easement was to prohibit unreasonable interference with the structure's visibility. Such interference would necessarily impinge on the Hills' operation of the billboard business…. t is clear the parties to the easement agreement necessarily intended that the billboard must be visible to passing motorists." However, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and order, denying the motion for a new trial, in light of the evidence regarding the city's post-trial efforts to remove the billboard. The court remanded the matter for retrial on the issue of damages, and directed the trial court to stay the retrial pending a final resolution of the city's removal actions. The Case:  Hill v. San Jose Family Housing Partners (2011) Cal.App.4th, Filed Aug. 23, 2011. No. H034931. Cal. App. LEXIS 1101 The Attorneys:  For the Plaintiffs/Respondents: Law Office of Scott S. Furstman, Scott S. Furstman; Law Office of Paul J. Derania, Paul J. Derania  For the Defendant/Appellant: Incorvaia & Associates, Joel L. Incorvaia, Lavanya Ramachandran, and G. Ehrich Lenz  Glen C. Hansen is an attorney in the law firm  Abbott & Kindermann , LLP, of Sacramento.

As with most things in life, one person's gain is another person's loss, and public-private partnerships are not exempt from these types of tradeoffs. To the state engineers and their representative union, the contracting out to private engineering firms of engineering services traditionally performed by Caltrans engineering staff represents one of those zero-sum games. This becomes the backdrop to a challenge to the Phase II improvement work on Doyle Drive, the highway approach to the southern terminus of the Golden Gate Bridge. At the heart of the litigation is Streets and Highways code section 143, a section permitting public private partnerships. This statute allows Caltrans to hire outside engineering companies for work traditionally performed by Caltrans engineering staff. Work on Doyle Drive dates back to 1998, when, through a series of cooperative agreements between Caltrans and San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA), SFCTA undertook a number of feasibility studies for improving the roadway. In 2009, the Legislature significantly expanded potential opportunities for public private partnerships, also known as P3s. Caltrans ultimately awarded a P3 contract to a private contractor, and a separate cooperative agreement with SFCTA. The agreements called for a supervisorial role for Caltrans, but project construction would be the responsibility of the private contractor. The state Professional Engineers union filed suit, seeking to set aside the contract and enjoin the action. The trial court denied relief, which was affirmed on appeal. The plaintiff's primary attack claimed the project did not qualify as a P3, as Caltrans had not been acting as a responsible agency, as the initial engineering work had been performed by private consultants working for SFCTA. Responding to an argument over legislative interpretation, the appellate court ultimately concluded that responsible agency status required Caltrans to be responsible for the work, not that it was required to perform the work. The court held that, under the terms of the various agreements, this element was satisfied. Given the current state budget pressures in Sacramento, it will be worth watching to see whether or not the less-government-rather-than-more movement will make further inroads into contracting out services traditionally performed by agency employees. The Case:  Professional Engineers in California Government v. Department of Transportation (2011) Cal.App. 4th No. A131449, 2011 DJDAR. Filed August 8, 2011. The Attorneys:  Somach Simmons & Dunn, Jennifer T. Buckman, Kanwarjit S. Dua and Gerald A. James for Plaintiffs and Appellants Ronald W. Beals, Chief Counsel, Thomas C. Fellenz, Deputy Chief Counsel, Todd Van Santen, Assistant Chief Counsel and Erin E. Holbrook for Defendants and Respondents California Department of Transportation et al. Nossaman LLP, Stephen N. Roberts, Stanley S. Taylor III for Defendants and Respondents San Francisco County Transportation Authority et al. Stoel Rives LLP, Barbara A. Brenner and Craig A. Carnes for Amicus Curiae American Council of Engineering Companies of California William W. Abbott is a senior partner in the law firm Abbott & Kindermann , LLP, of Sacramento.

When the City of Morgan Hill annexed an 80-acre plot of land over public outcry, city residents fought back by approving ballot measures limiting the development that could take place on that parcel. With a recent appeals court ruling – 31 years after the initial annexation -- a developer's project is high and dry, with the court ruling that the city's actions did not amount to inverse condemnation or illegal spot zoning.  In Arcadia Development Co., v. City of Morgan Hill, Arcadia Development filed a petition for writ of mandate and a complaint for damages against the City of Morgan Hill over an initiative measure placed on the ballot by the city and approved by the voters in 2004. Arcadia argued that the city illegally spot-zoned its 69-acre property, inversely condemned the property, and sought damages for violating its civil and equal protection rights. Both the trial court and the appellate court rejected Arcadia's claims. Background On March 19, 1990, despite great public opposition, the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission approved the annexation of an 80-acre property owned by Arcadia Development Co. into the urban services area of the City of Morgan Hill.  Within a few months, Arcadia had entitled 11 acres of its property. Thus, 69 acres remained undeveloped. On December 8, 1990, voters of Morgan Hill approved Measure P, which amended the city's zoning code to restrict the density on lands annexed on or after March 1, 1990 to that which was allowed by the county's general plan prior to annexation. The measure and new ordinance had the effect of zoning Arcadia's un-entitled property (now only 69 acres) to 20-acre minimum lot sizes and limiting the development rights on the property to four single-family homes (versus 354 homes under the City's general plan). The terms of Measure P would expire in 2010. On April 17, 2004, Measure C was approved by city voters, which prohibited the city from applying to LAFCO or otherwise requesting or supporting the addition of any land to its urban services area until the existing infill land is insufficient to accommodate five years of growth. It also contained the same density restriction for lands annexed on or after March 1, 1990 as the previous Measure P adopted by the voters in December 1990. The terms of Measure C expire in 2020. Legal Issues Arcadia sued the city over Measure C in 2004 arguing the city illegally spot-zoned its site, inversely condemned the property; it sought damages for violating Arcadia's civil rights and equal protection rights. The inverse condemnation cause of action was dismissed. The trial court ruled in favor of the city on all remaining claims, which Arcadia appealed. On Appeal On appeal, the Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, analyzed whether the city abused its police power by illegally spot zoning the Arcadia property. Here, the court found that because other land surrounding the Arcadia property had equally or more restrictive zoning (two sides of the property were bounded by 20-acre minimum agricultural sites) and no development surrounding the property had occurred since 1990, when the density restriction initially took effect, the city did not illegally spot zone the site.  Arcadia's equal protection challenge was also unsuccessful at the appellate level. Even in accepting the fact that the city's new ordinance singled out Arcadia's property for differential treatment, the court still sided with the city. The issue was whether there was any rational basis related to the public welfare for the restriction imposed. The appellate court explained that the first inquiry into the issue must start with asking whose welfare is to be benefited by the ordinance at issue. A balancing of competing interests is undertaken and then the court must decide whether the ordinance has a rational basis.  In distinguishing the Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 330 (holding that an initiative to down-zone a site was not rationally related to the general regional public welfare, but was rather an attempt to address only localized development concern) asserted by Arcadia, the court noted that there was an extreme shortage of low to moderate income housing in the City of Costa Mesa and in down-zoning Arnel's site, the city had not addressed the regional housing shortage concern. Comparing the Arnel case to Arcadia's, the court noted that the public welfare concerns outlined in Measure C were legitimate in that they attempted to reduce the burden on the city's resources by discouraging noncontiguous development and urban sprawl. Moreover, the city had a legitimate goal of preserving the city's unique rural character. Comment The holdings in this case reinforce the long-standing rules regarding both spot zoning and equal protection. In sum, an agency does not abuse its police power in zoning unless it acted arbitrarily. Similarly, so long as there is a rational basis related to the public welfare for the restrictions imposed, no violation of equal protection will be found – even where an entity or parcel is singled out as was the case here.  The Case:  Arcadia Development Co., v. City of Morgan Hill (2011), filed August 5, 2011.  The Lawyers:  For Arcadia Development Co.: SSL Law Firm, Michael Burke, Diane K. Hanna For the City of Morgan Hill: Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, Ellison Folk Katherine J. Hart is an attorney with Abbott & Kinderman, LLP , of Sacramento.

The first article I ever wrote for CP&DR concerned the generationally decrepit state of Los Angeles' Westwood Village (see CP&DR Vol. 23, No. 6 June 2008 ). In the three years that have passed since then--despite my blistering expose (of one of the city's most open secrets)--it's only gotten worse. Storefronts are vacant. Bars are sad. Only the Trader Joe's seems to be making any money, and that's because, well, it's Trader Joe's. I saw Moneyball the other night at the cavernous, turreted Village Theater with maybe 20 other people in its 1,000 seats.  For the uninitiated, Westwood is no inner-city slum. It's next door to UCLA and, beyond that, Bel Air. Yes, that Bel Air. Of the Fresh Prince, gated estates, and obscene amounts of money fame.  But, for the most part, the city has treated Westwood Village about as well as it has treated its homeless population: with more resignation than hope. It remains grungy and avoided even though it has, arguably, the best, most pedestrian-friendly streetscape in the entire city. No wonder Angelenos think it's cursed.   This Monday UCLA's cityLAB, in conjuction with the Hammer Museum and Westside Urban Forum  (disclosure: I am a former board member), will try to exorcise a few demons with "Curse and Vision: the Future of Westwood Village," a charette/competition to imagine what the Village could be a generation hence. CityLab enlisted two local architecture firms, Neil M. Denari Architects and Roger Sherman and Associates, to imagine what Westwood could be if hair salons, CVS pharmacies, and the Aahs! novelty shop were kicked out and replaced by something that reflects the district's geographic and cultural centrality in West Los Angeles.  Dana Cuff, director of cityLAB, instructed the firms to forget about the gang shootings, economic stagnation, and UCLA football defeats and focus on the streets and the area's inherent virtues.  Last week I attended a preview event at which the two teams have presented concepts that, on face, seem outrageously bold--and breathlessly exciting.  Neil Denari and his team approach their vision by asking what in the blazes an "urban village" even is. I don't think anyone quite knows, though it's an appealing notion to think that it's something more self-contained, defined, and dynamic than a neighborhood but not merely part of the cityscape. Westwood and Noe Valley are probably villages; Koreatown and the Tenderloin are not.  Denari envisions the Village as a high-density district of mid-rise towers that would be almost off-limits to automobiles but served generously by Metro's planned subway extension, with a station in the heart of the Village. Denari's paln would partially bury Wilshire Boulevard—an eight-lane torrent that makes approaching the Village on foot agonizing experience—and deck it over with a pedestrian plaza, the likes of which are rare in Los Angeles. Skinny towers would pop up like giraffes throughout the Village's irregular streetscape. This vision, which would surely increase the Village's jobs and residential density, acknowledges the Village's geographic centrality on the Westside. It is in the middle of everything and therefore should serve as many people as possible.  Roger Sherman & Associates focused less on the physical form of the Village than on its potential cultural significance. The paradox of the Village is that, despite its vacancies, it has two of the remaining great single-screen movie theaters, plus a museum, a second-their live theater, and all the museums and performance spaces of UCLA. But it's hard to take in Shakespeare or contemplate Van Gogh when you have to wash them down with Subway and hookah.  Sherman's team therefore proposed an ingenious stroke of urban acupuncture: demolish the public parking structure in the middle of the Village and replace it with a public plaza dedicated to the arts. Sherman's model includes all sorts of creative flourishes, such as video art projected on exterior walls and enormous public sculptures. He proposes that the institutions get involved: specifically that UCLA relocate at least one of its theaters to the village so that it can do what theater does best: enhance public life. Like Denari, Sherman envisions the addition of tufa-tower type residential buildings with lofts, studios, and rooftop patios where artists and other creative-types can live.  Neither of these visions has anything to do with the way that planning takes place today—they are more like architecture school projects that co-opt a place over which they have no dominion over anything except, surely, the passions of neighbors who are going to blanche at the sight of the teams' renderings. And both present such astoundingly novel interpretations of the Village that it's impossible to imagine that they would ever amass political support or that they would survive once enshrined in the bureaucracy of a zoning code. Then again, when most of West Los Angeles was occupied by nothing but scrub brush, the original Westwood Village was itself a radical notion. Both, therefore, rely on the audacity of hope: that after 20 years of malaise stakeholders can begin to believe that Westwood is not cursed.  The larger lesson for all California cities is that we will someday get out of this recession and will someday get back to making, and realizing, big plans. By the time that happens, traffic will be thicker and Californians will be more numerous—and they might even want great places in which to live, work, and take a stroll. Westwood has always had great bones, with its nearly Medieval tangle of streets. Maybe some day someone will exhume them, break the curse, and create life anew.  Curse and Vision: The Future of Westwood Village Public Symposium by UCLA's cityLAB When: Monday, October 10, 2011, 4:00-6:00 PM Where: Hammer Museum, Billy Wilder Theater / 10899 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles http://www.citylab.aud.ucla.edu/projects/westwood-village/