The state Capitol is one weird place. Sometimes, I'm not sure if it's even of this earth.  At the moment when you think major redevelopment "reform" is on the horizon, state lawmakers instead rewrite inconvenient laws that were getting in the way of San Diego's desire to use redevelopment financing to build a football stadium, including a law requiring increased funding for affordable housing. To step back just a bit: On September 30, the Senate Office of Oversight and Outcomes (a fairly new investigative entity) published a report titled "Where Does the Affordable Housing Money Go? Administrative Spending by Redevelopment Agencies Lacks Accountability." I'll be writing about the details of the report in coming days, but the investigation's message is obvious. Some redevelopment agencies are shirking their state-mandated responsibility to provide low- and moderate-income housing, and the state isn't doing anything about it. The very next day, the Los Angeles Times ran the first of two stories detailing alleged redevelopment abuse by agencies all over the state. Both the Times and the Senate office documented how some redevelopment agencies – quite a few, but by no means a majority – were spending a large chunk of the 20% of redevelopment revenue that must be dedicated to low/mod housing on planning and administration, and not on actual housing units. A few other newspapers followed up with unflattering reports on their local redevelopment agencies.  The well-documented revelations had to please affordable housing advocates who have long complained that some redevelopment agencies do everything possible to avoid providing housing. On the other side, limited government advocates who have long complained that redevelopment is one giant sham had to be equally pleased. Either way, you would think that redevelopment reform – carefully crafted or the butcher block variety – would be the Legislature's immediate response. You would be wrong. Instead, in the dark of the night (actually it was the early hours of Friday morning, October 8), the Legislature approved SB 863 with no public review at all. The bill does two unrelated things for redevelopment. First, it eliminates the dollar limit on the amount of tax increment that San Diego's Centre City Redevelopment Corporation may receive. (The CCDC is the city's downtown redevelopment agency.) The provision lifts the cap on the amount of debt that the CCDC may issue. With the cap gone, the agency is free to finance a football stadium for the San Diego Chargers, a stadium that could easily cost $1 billion. Apparently, the agency also has plans to finance a convention center expansion, additional downtown trolley lines and new parks. Now, existing law permits redevelopment agencies to extend their life spans by 10 years – and, therefore, increase their revenue and finance limits – if the agencies are able to make new findings that blight cannot be eliminated without the extension, and if the agencies agree to increase the tax increment revenue set-aside for low/mod housing from 20% to 30%. San Diego city officials were in the midst of a study to document the remaining blight. But the last-second legislation lets the CCDC bypass both of those restrictions. No new blight findings, no increased housing set-aside. A second provision in SB 863 concerns agencies that did not make payments required by the Legislature's shift of $2.05 billion from redevelopment agencies to school districts and the state over the 2009-10 and 2010-11 fiscal years. A handful of agencies did not make the first payment, which was due May 1 of this year. The legislation says that those agencies – so long as they notified the state Department of Finance in advance and saw property tax increment drop by at least 20% last fiscal year – may spread their payments over the next 30 years. It appears that only Richmond's redevelopment agency meets these qualifications. It's unclear whether Richmond may use low/mod housing money to make the payments. Senate Bill 863 passed both houses of the Legislature with the requisite two-thirds vote for urgency legislation during the all-night session that concluded with passage of a 2010-2011 state budget. Although the San Diego redevelopment exemptions had been floating around for a while, even the savviest affordable housing lobbyists did not know the exact details of SB 863 until after lawmakers had already voted. What do these redevelopment maneuverings have to do with the state budget? Nothing, other than they were part of the vote trading necessary to gain approval of the budget. Democrats apparently offered this to get Republican votes. The CCDC generally gets high marks for its role in transforming downtown San Diego into a vibrant urban place. The agency has invested in infrastructure and many development projects, including the baseball stadium for the San Diego Padres – a stadium that did its job of triggering private investment in a blighted neighborhood. A downtown football stadium, an even bigger convention center, more trolley lines and more parks sound great. But if they truly are great, why do they need exemptions from state law approved with no public review? And at the very moment when people are asking hard questions about redevelopment.  Concern about redevelopment abuse is not going away. Somebody better grab the baby before the bathwater starts flying. - Paul Shigley

In the ongoing quest to reclaim open space in the City of Los Angeles, no feature has been worried over more than the Los Angeles River and adjacent parcels. It is, by some accounts, one of the world's most un-natural waterways. The city's Los Angeles River Master Plan has long called for greening and the removal of concrete banks, but debate has raged over whether it even qualifies as a true river. This summer, that debate was resolved. In July the Environmental Protection Agency ruled that the river qualifies as a "traditionally navigable waterway" – rather than a flood control channel – and therefore subject to protection under the Clean Water Act. This decision qualifies the LA River to receive more federal funding, stricter anti-pollution regulations, and greater protection of its tributaries. Local environmentalists also hope that it will lead to a transformation of some of the moribund industrial sites along the river. The decision also takes ultimate authority away from the Army Corp of Engineers, whose main concern regarding the river has always been flood control. According to critics, the Corps has allowed the river to languish under its claim in a 2008 hearing that only four of the river's 52 miles were navigable. Beyond funding and protection, the EPA's decision seems important for a much stigmatized and even derided body of water. Though the concrete remains, the ruling might confirm for anyone who was in doubt, despite appearances, The Los Angeles River is indeed just that, a river. One group that has never been short on imagination regarding the river over the years is the nonprofit, Friends of the Los Angeles River (FoLAR). Shortly after the EPA decision in July, FoLAR released a new vision plan for a 125-acre site owned by Union Pacific Railroad formerly called the Piggyback Yard. The yard, which is scarcely a mile from downtown Los Angeles is the largest privately owned portion of riverfront property in the city. Currently inaccessible to the public, the Piggyback Yard is unique for a number of reasons besides its size and location.  It lies within the footprint of the California High Speed Rail project and could provide much needed water detention to help with flood control downstream in cities such as Bell, Maywood, and Long Beach. This has made the Piggyback yard a playground of sorts for planners, landscape architects, and environmentalists who envision an oasis literally in the middle of the city. FoLAR has solicited pro bono work from several firms, including  Perkins and Will architects, landscape firm Mia Lehrer and Associates, and Michael Mazatlan Architecture. "In the end what we wanted to accomplish most was, number one, river restoration and ecological restoration and number two, storm water detention," said Leigh Christy of Perkins and Will. "One proposal stresses restoring habitat in the bed itself while the other pushes maximum detention. But for both plans the second priority was always the other one." Carol Armstrong from the city's River Project Office who also contributed points out, the firms may have  been "likely much more inclined to participate because of the economic downturn." Landscape architect Mia Lehrer said that the planning process was freeing. "By not having a real client, we were able to be much bolder in the constraint, we weren't beholden to anybody," said Lehrer.  "It was like a graduate seminar class," says Shelly Backlar, the executive director of FoLAR. "There were so many presentations and after every one it was always, OK, now let's distill this into something that can meet these broad strokes we've just discussed." Starting from the issues of land use, access and the river itself, with open space versus development being of particular concern, the vision that emerged for the Piggyback Yard projects a greener, more cosmopolitan, almost unrecognizable version of what is currently mostly industrial space. It includes wetland habitat restoration on 130- acres of parkland with water treatment facilities as well as considerable water detention. Mission Boulevard would become a major connecter to downtown with mixed-use development including shops, offices and different priced levels of housing opportunities looking out onto the park. A pedestrian bridge across the river would link the Los Angeles State Historic Park, and an arts campus would be built adjacent to the Brewery Art Colony on East Main St. At the same time that it attempts to make the city greener, the vision also takes into account the continued presence of the railway. Project supporters say that heavy industry and functional open space can co-exist. "There was room for multiple levels of programming. We didn't only have to restore; we could also detain. We didn't only have to build; we could also carve," said Christy. "We didn't have to get rid of rail altogether, we could look at how it could be condensed and accommodated." Much of this meant folding rail into the plan and finding solutions of where to put the existing routes. Accommodating the rail lines is crucial if the project is ever to be practicable. Of all the many steps it would take to start construction on what the PBy Group has proposed, or some version of it, it seems that the  agreement from Union Pacific is the bottom line. "It's not like the railroads are going, ‘C'mon, this is wonderful, let's make a plan!'" Backlar said. "They're aware of the plan, we've had history in the past, it's going to be a process for sure." In the last ten years negotiations with rail have happened though, primarily at the Cornfield and Taylor Yard, both close by. In fact, the full completion of the city's Taylor Yard project hinges on acquiring another Union Pacific piece of land, the  42-acre G-2 parcel, which is unique in its ability for ecosystem restoration potential and that would connect the existing Rio de L.A. State Park to the River. As of yet, the Piggyback Yard plan has received no formal approvals. Los Angeles City official Councilmember Ed Reyes, who heads the council's River Ad-Hoc Committee and for whom the LA River has been primary focus since taking office, said the next step is community outreach. "Many of these plans also need to be part of the consensus-building process," said Reyes. "That requires bringing in people who live in Lincoln Heights, Boyle Heights, the downtown residents, the people who are impacted on a day-to-day basis." Reyes said an investigation into the Taylor Yard Corridor started at a similar grassroots level—in 1993. Now though the project is, according to Reyes, 80% complete. "The Piggyback Yard plan is a great start but now need to start folding in the layers of stakeholders and interest groups," said Reyes. "If we start structuring it based on funding we can move a lot faster on these projects. The Piggyback Yard can start around those lines as well." Whereas previous transformations of the L.A. River came from federal funds funneled through the Corps, funding sources for the river's restoration are neither as robust nor as clear. Christy suggests a mix of private development and public funds. "There's Prop O that can pay for water quality and prop K that can fund parks and recreation," said Christy. "Or an opportunity that Metro or Union Pacific—whoever came on the site to build a maintenance yard—could fund whatever goes on top of it. Depending on where the funding came from, there could be changes to the plan." Ultimately, the PBy group hopes to generate excitement and give stakeholders a sense of the dramatic transformation that could take place along the river. "We wanted someone to look at the plan and say ‘this could actually happen' which is weirdly what we found happening," said Christy. Contacts: Shelly Backlar, Executive Director, Friends of the Los Angeles River , 323.223.0585 Leigh Christy, architect, Perkins+Will Architects ,  213.270.8438 Mia Lehrer, Mia Lehrer+Associates ,  213.384.3844 Ed Reyes , Councilmember, Los Angeles City Council,  213.473.7001

Typically it's the developers who worry about cap rates and the environmentalists who worry about preserving ecologically sensitive lands. That tradition could be upset, however, if a recent proposal to restrict the investments of nonprofit land trusts is approved by the California Department of Fish and Game. The California Endangered Species Act allows for developers and other landowners to set aside sensitive lands and receive incidental take permits in exchange. These lands are typically preserved in perpetuity, using the investment income from endowments that the landowner sets aside. Currently, land trusts hold and manage CESA endowments on their own, with relatively little oversight by DFG. DFG's proposal, however, would mandate that all endowment monies be pooled and managed by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, a nonprofit typically associated with the protection of federal lands. The DFG chose the NFWF because it "manages a program tailored to mitigation endowments," according to a DFG memo. "This is mitigation in perpetuity and we want to make sure that the funding is available to carry out the management," said Tina Bartlett, chief of the DFG's Habitant Conservation Planning Branch. DFG began allowing third-party land trusts to hold CESA mitigation lands and endowments only last year, with an initial program that called for interested trusts to apply. This approach contrasts with land trusts' usual strategy, which is to acquire land that it deems valuable from willing sellers, rather than holding them for government agencies. However, the DFG is now considering a policy that would deny the trusts control of the endowments attached to mitigation lands. "The department doesn't want to hold these lands themselves," said Darla Guenzler, president of the California Council of Land Trusts. "They trust (land trusts) to hold the land, but they don't want to trust them to hold the money. So this is really a dysfunctional relationship." In reviewing these third parties DFG officials said that they were overwhelmed by the variability in the trusts' management schemes and admitted that the agency did not have the expertise or personnel to oversee the endowments properly. "We received numerous applications and substantial interests expressed not only by land trusts but also by businesses….and entrepreneurs expressed a lot of interest that we didn't expect," said Bartlett. "To be honest, we were struggling with how to review the financial health and responsibility of the organizations." DFG hosted discussions throughout the summer on the proposal to keep endowment funds with NFWF, with protests from representatives of interested land trusts. Many of them complained that the policy was drafted and proposed with little input from them and that the stakeholder meetings came later than they should have. In fact, uncertainty about the proper relationship between land trusts and DFG has persisted despite several legislative attempts to clarify it. Last year Assemblymember Anna Caballero introduced AB 444, which was intended to head off the current disagreements. AB 444 passed through both houses before being vetoed by the governor. According to Caballero, the veto was at the behest of DFG. "The whole purpose of it was to be able to efficiently utilize the money to benefit the land as opposed to, in my mind, in favor of a bureaucracy," said Caballero. "(Land trusts) are just closer to the properties and closer to the work that's being done. We wanted to take away the bureaucratic part of it that keeps things from getting done." The proposal, if implemented, would apply only to new endowments held by nonprofit groups. Mitigation endowments held by the state have been, and will continue to be, held in the state Special Deposit Fund. Barlett said that the agency issues roughly 30 incidental take permits per year but noted that not all of those permits require mitigation endowments. DFG officials say that this plan would both ensure that the monies were managed properly and conservatively and that it would give DFG greater oversight over the endowments. The plan would apply to land acquired because of CESA requirements or by land bankers, which acquire land and sell conservation credits to developers. While the DFG insists that it trusts NFWF because of its ten years of experience as well as congressional oversight, representatives of land trusts say that such a plan constitutes overkill. Guenzler referred to Washington, D.C.-based NFWF as a "completely unrelated organization to the ownership of the land to hold the endowment." "It actually increases the risk to have an overwhelming proportion of these endowments held by a single entity…the bigger you are does not necessarily insulate you from problems," said Guenzler. By contrast, she said that land trusts are, "in most cases quite sophisticated nonprofits that are used to handling millions of dollars." Many land trust officials say that the policy, even if it did insulate endowments from the vagaries of aggressive investing, would all but ensure a slow death. For that reason, some land trusts may hesitate to take on CESA mitigation lands if this policy goes into effect. "If an organization… cannot monitor it, they might not want to make the deal," said Nita Vail, CEO of the California Rangelands Trust. "We don't have that kind of control if an organization like NFWF is the endowment-holder." Vail added that her organization has pending projects involving CESA mitigation that "might be affected" by DFG's decision. Land trust officials see an alternative scenario that is not merely likely but is in fact predictable: the pooled monies might fail to generate the income needed for the endowments to keep up with inflation and spin off funds for maintaining the endowed lands. They say that far from being profligate, individual land trusts are far better able to determine the amount of investment income that they need and to make sound investments accordingly. For its part, DFG is worried in part about catastrophic endowment losses and was spooked by the failure of The Environmental Trust in San Diego, which filed for bankruptcy and forced the state to take back eight properties in 2005 (see CP&DR Vol. 20, No. 1 Jan. 2006  http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-323 ). The Environmental Trust's failure came long before DFG started allowing land trusts to hold mitigation endowments, but DFG officials are still wary. "I think that's added to our level of concern but we have some examples of failures that make us take pause," said Bartlett. At a July 9 stakeholder meeting, several land trust representatives urged DFG not to set a policy based on that one failure. Moreover, the trusts fear that if they cannot accurately predict the cap rate – the rate of return, minus fees, adjusted for inflation – then it will be difficult to estimate the amount of endowment needed in the first place. As a result, said Guenzler, developers will be wary of committing to deals while trusts will worry that easement lands will not come with sufficient funding. "When endowments are calculated with extremely conservative return on investment numbers…the endowments becomes so expensive that it could stop development entirely or result in less on-the-ground mitigation being accomplished," said Nicole Byrd, executive director of the Solano Land Trust. The proposal could have adverse effects on developers as well. Guenzler said that developers seek certainty and want a predictable amount of endowment that they will have to set aside. Additionally, if land trusts are unwilling to absorb lands that could turn into financial burdens, then developers who want to encroach on endangered species' habitats will have one less tool with which to strike mitigation deals. Land trusts hold a tiny percentage of land set aside because of CESA requirements. Likewise, such lands and their attendant funds occupy a relatively small portion of land trusts' portfolios. Yet, some fear that this policy – on a relatively obscure issue – could set an unwelcome precedent. Guenzler speculated that if CESA endowments are restricted then DFG could start restricting other endowments, such as those set aside under CEQA. "DFG says it's going to relate very few projects," said Byrd. "But what we're hearing is that it will set precedent and become the standard for how mitigation is done." Contacts: Tina Bartlett, Branch Chief, Habitant Conservation Planning Branch, California Department of Fish and Game , 916.445.0411 Nicole Byrd, Executive Director, Solano Land Trust , 707.432.0150 Anna Caballero , Assemblymember, 28th District (Salinas), 916.319.2028  Darla Guenzler, President, California Council of Land Trusts , 916-497-0272 Nita Vail, CEO, California Rangelands Trust , 916.444.2096

Much has been written about the economic potential of alternative energy. So the proposal to build a 7,000-acre solar farm in Riverside County near Blythe struck me as notably promising. The new plant would be capable of generating 1,000 Mw, or more than all the photovoltaics that have been so far installed in California, according to a recent New York Times  article .  Here's another wrinkle in the idea of photovoltaics as land use: Reusing brownfields as solar energy farms. That's the proposal put forward by a pair of Northeastern companies, who claim that formerly shunned lands can be profitably reused as "surface area" for fields of photovoltaic panels. This strategy would create a vector of two forward-looking causes in land use: Finding new uses for contaminated and unproductive (translate as "non-tax-generating") real estate while finding adequate acreage for photovoltaics to soak up the natural goodness of sunlight and make it into cheap (or at least competitively priced) electricity. The proponents are Opel Solar, Inc. of Shelton, Ct., and Truenorth Solar & Environmental, L.L.C. of Toronto, Ontario. Some eye-opening numbers from the companies' press release (warning: I have not independently verified these numbers): "The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has estimated that site cleanup revenue, for the companies doing the clean-up, can amount to approximately $6-8 billion annually as experts forecast that there may be as many as 4,000 brownfields in the United States, roughly the equivalent of 30,000 football fields. Add in Superfund sites and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act sites and the total jumps to more than 14 million acres that could be redeveloped as renewable energy sites." I have some dollars-and-cents questions for Opel Solar Chairman Leon Pierhal. (I've put out several requests for an interview, and I‘ll file a follow-up report when I get a better sense of how the whole thing "pencils out.") For the time being, here are some of my basic questions/quandaries: Do we need to clean up these sites before reusing them as solar energy farms? That costs money. The commonest and, arguably, most easily remediate type of contamination in soil is petrochemicals (I.e. old gas stations, underground storage tanks and drilling rigs, etc) which can cost up to $25 per square foot to clean up. That's a reasonable cost for high-end development such as regional malls, big hotels, and Class A office buildings that can reliably throw off a lot of cash down the road. In some cases where the stuff is really awful, such as carcinogens, developers can sometimes "encapsulate" the crud by laying a sandwich of sand and asphalt on top of it. Add to that the cost of land, or the cost of leasing it. So, this is my simplistic formula: Profit must be equal to, or greater than, (the cost of remediation) +  ( cost of PV equipment) + (cost of land). Granted, those numbers will likely vary widely from place to place. Hopefully, those numbers would work in Arizona, where we could blanket the entire state just to make enough energy to keep air conditioners humming in Southern California. Northern California, for its part, could use Nevada for similar purposes. It's a win-win-win-win! (Just kidding….) --Morris Newman Correction Appended.

After months of stakeholder meetings, speculation, and preliminary reports, the California Air Resources Board has finally adopted official targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as mandated by SB 375. The targets were announced this past Thursday, Sept. 23, in compliance with the law's Sept. 30 deadline.  SB 375 encourages reduction in greenhouse gases by providing incentives for cities to reduce vehicle miles traveled through compact development and more efficient coordination between land use and transportation. The targets are expressed as percentage reduction per capita in the state's four largest metropolitan planning organizations. Therefore, due to population growth is it unclear whether SB 375, even if properly implemented, will promote an absolute reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.  They announcement was somewhat anticlimactic because the official targets are exactly what ARB staff had recommended in a report published August 9 ( CP&DR blog 9 Aug. 2010 ).  They are as follows:  Metropolitan Transportation Commission (Bay Area): 7 percent - 2020; 15 percent - 2035 San Diego Association of Governments: 7 percent - 2020; 13 percent - 2035 Sacramento Area Council of Governments: 7 percent - 2020; 16 percent - 2035 Southern California Association of Governments: 8 percent - 2020; 13 percent - 2035 San Joaquin Valley MPOs (eight MPOs) placeholder targets: 5 percent - 2020; 10 percent - 2035; official targets to be considered in 2012.  CP&DR will have full coverage of the target-adoption process and its significance for California cities in an upcoming issue.  For more information in SB 375, please visit CP&DR's  SB 375 Resources Page .

The proposed Saltworks project in Redwood City is, as one of its designers says, a potential "game changer" for the Bay Area. Proposed by landowner Cargill and developer DMB, the project would provide 8,000 to 12,000 high-density, mixed-income housing units in a decidedly suburban town halfway between San Francisco and San Jose, and within close proximity to hundreds of thousands of jobs. The Bay Area has seen similar projects in recent years, but they have been in San Jose and San Francisco proper. Even those suburbs that have embraced relatively dense, transit-oriented development haven't seen anything on the scale of Saltworks . The 1,436-acre site on the edge of San Francisco Bay has produced commercial salt, in evaporation ponds, since the early 1900s. The ecologically sensitive land has now been deemed by Cargill to be a little too valuable for it to be dedicated to a lowly condiment. Cargill and DMB propose not only 355 acres of housing, but about 1 million square feet of commercial and office space, as many as four schools, and about 360 acres of parks, greenways, sports fields and public open space. About 30% of the site, 436 acres, would be restored as tidal marsh. In a way, Saltworks is a unique project. But, in ways that I find more interesting, Saltworks is not unique at all. Bonnie Fisher, a principal at ROMA Design who is working on the project and who noted its game-changing nature also said Saltworks provides "a casebook of a lot of issues." Among those issues: • What is infill? Saltworks proponents insist this is an infill site. It has provided industrial-scale salt production for a century and is bordered on three sides by heavy industry, a port, office buildings, mobile home parks and a garbage dump converted into a municipal park. Environmental groups say the site is actually part of the San Francisco Bay and should be returned to a natural state. • How do you avoid land use conflicts? As noted above, part of the site borders very heavy industrial uses, such as aggregate processing plants and a port where ships unload raw materials. These are noisy, smelly operations that may run all day and all night, thus hearkening back to the earliest days of planning. The Saltworks plan would place office and commercial development across the street from the heavy industry as a way of buffering new residential areas. Is that enough? Wanting to ensure a diverse job-base (Redwood City was a casualty of the dot-com bust 10 years ago), city officials are wary of placing potential NIMBYs next to valued industrial activity. • Crossing the freeway divide. Most of Redwood City lies west of the Bayshore Freeway. Saltworks lies east of the freeway. There currently are only three connections over the freeway. One of those is in Menlo Park, which is dead set against the project. One is at Woodside Road, which is already overburdened. The third is merely a two-lane street. Saltworks proponents are talking about extending a road to a different freeway intersection and building a flyover for transit. But even if designers solve the circulation issues, the concern is that Saltworks will evolve as an independent district -- an appendage. There's good reason for this concern, because of… • The Redwood Shores example. Redwood Shores also lies east of the freeway and, although it is within Redwood City's boundaries, it has almost no relationship to the rest of town. Designed during the 1960s, and built mostly during the 1980s and '90s, Redwood Shores is a slice of Orange County pasted atop bay fill. Large office parks, lots of two- and three-story condos, wide boulevards, a grocery store/strip mall to which you can't walk. No one inside City Hall is willing to call Redwood Shores a failure. After all, both software behemoth Oracle and video game giant Electronic Arts have built their world headquarters in Redwood Shores. Combined, they employ about 8,000 people, many of them handsomely paid. Yet, no one wants a repeat of Redwood Shores. With a neo-traditional grid, mixed uses and many public amenities, the Saltworks design is nothing like Redwood Shores' suburbia. Still, what the public sees as an example of recent large-scale development is Redwood Shores. • What about downtown? It took three tries, but downtown Redwood City redevelopment finally took hold during the last decade. Downtown is now a desirable place with a busy Caltrain station. A high-speed rail stop is likely. Private interests are starting to invest, locals are proud of downtown, and city officials envision greater things. The fear is that Saltworks would divert momentum and development interest away from downtown. Saltworks proponents say there is no cause for concern because downtown is poised for development right away, while Saltworks would grow over the course of 20 years. • What is a transit-oriented development? Can it occur in a location that currently has no transit? I think Saltworks proponents are genuine when they talk about building transit lines through their project and across the freeway to the rest of town, including to the Caltrain station. But what sort of transit? Would it be compatible with the streetcar system Redwood City has planned through and south of downtown?  Even if the developers build the infrastructure, who would operate – and, therefore, subsidize – the system? • What is a jobs-housing balance? Saltworks' new housing would be within easy biking distance of 2.3 million square feet of existing class A office space and R&D facilities at Pacific Shores Center and Brittania Seaport Centre. The proposed development would contain another 1 million square feet of office and commercial space, and the proposed transit flyover would tie right into a rapidly growing Stanford Medical Center outpost. But Saltworks proponents speak of 300,000 jobs within a 10-mile radius of the proposed development. Most of these jobs – even at Oracle and EA in Redwood City – are really accessible only by car. The Bayshore Freeway is already jammed (including at a spot known as the "Oracle Mile"), and, as mentioned above, Saltworks has very limited access. The public's top concern appears to be that Saltworks will create a massive traffic jam. • And the alternative is… ? For many years, the alternative has been to build houses in Tracy, Modesto, Salinas and other distant places, and require people to endure insane commutes to Bay Area jobs. No one can seriously argue that this is a good long-term strategy. Saltworks is a chance to help offset some of the Bay Area's regional planning sins. • Sea level rise. When experts predict sea level will rise by 3 to 4 1/2 feet this century, does it make sense to build a whole new community on a site that is at the current mean sea level? Saltworks development would rely on low-slung dikes that could be raised over time. Still, they would be artificial structures holding back water that is above ground-floor level.  • The waterfront. It's always last on the list in the Bay Area, isn't it? Like all of its neighbors, Redwood City turned its back on the bay long ago. The bay was a place where you put your LULUs (locally unwanted land uses), such as garbage dumps, airports, batch plants and trailer parks. Redwood City does have a public port and a fairly new privately developed port, but there's no real waterfront. Saltworks would provide a three-mile-long waterfront greenway, permitting people to connect with the bay. What a concept. Although Saltworks has been in the discussion stage for at least three years, and Cargill and DMB submitted an application in 2009, Redwood City is only now beginning the environmental review process. And Redwood City is only one reviewing agency. The project appears to need approval from six federal agencies and at least a dozen state and regional agencies. – Paul Shigley

In some ways, Christine Essel could not have come into her new job at a worse time – or from a more unexpected background. The new CEO of the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency , Essel had previously led Paramount Pictures' government affairs team. She is one of few executives to cross over from Tinsletown to the gritty streets of urban Los Angeles. Those streets, in CRA/LA's 32 project areas and 128 active projects, may get even grittier thanks to the state's $2.1 billion transfer of redevelopment funds this past spring. With the acknowledgment that she cannot just write a script that will solve L.A.'s woes, Essel spoke with CP&DR Editor Josh Stephens about her plans for the agency in these challenging times. The entertainment community has not always been heavily involved in civic affairs in LA. What is the significance of this crossover, and how do you expect your experiences working in Hollywood to inform your perspective as CRA head?  I took on this position because I believe that I can bring a new and different perspective to the challenges facing CRA/LA. I've been involved with civic affairs throughout my career and I believe that my long career at Paramount offers a skill set that is vital to the current needs we have in the city and here at CRA/LA. One of my primary goals is to make the agency more user friendly for the investment community as well as make what we do here at the agency more efficient, streamlined and effective.  The entertainment industry is a vital part of the Los Angeles economy and anything I can do to support the retention and growth of the industry is critical to our city's success. What are some of your goals for CRA/LA? The first goes to the overall message of redevelopment. What redevelopment agencies do can easily be misunderstood and in tough economic times; they often come under attack by the media and politicians. One of my primary goals is to educate people about the importance of redevelopment and the role we are playing to generate economic development in our communities, both through mitigation of blight as well as job creation. Our team is also working to strengthen CRA/ LA's internal processes and make them more efficient and effective. We have begun the process of reviewing internal operations in an effort to streamline our procedures and cut as much red tape as possible. Along with those improvements, I want to bring more focus to job creation. We've done a great job creating affordable housing and commercial projects, as well as public infrastructure improvements, but we have not been focusing specifically on expanding the economic base of the city and bringing companies to the city that produce jobs for the long term. CRA/LA is one of the few tools the city has to bring about job creation. A stronger role in job creation underscores another goal, which is establishing timelines on key redevelopment projects, helping to secure the needed incentives and implementing these important projects. We are also looking for additional resources outside the tax exempt model, which is also essential to our success. Together, all of these goals focus on the long-term sustainability of our communities and businesses while supporting the continued growth of Los Angeles. How is the agency coping with this year and next year's SERAF take?   We have been forced to put a number of key projects on hold for lack of funds. We are going to reduce our salary costs by 20 percent over the next two years through attrition and an early retirement package that is under negotiations. We are working to make our processes and procedures as consistent and streamlined as possible to try to compensate for the lack of funds. We are also focusing on our core services: what we do best and what is critical to our communities at this time. I am confident we will be able to continue to do great work in our project areas despite the hit we took to our budget. We are trying to be as lean and mean as possible, but the truth is there is no more money to take. What redevelopment tools are going to be most effective in this economy?  Across the board, the city is seeing a drop in tax revenues and housing values with job cuts and overall unemployment in the city rising to unprecedented levels. As a result, businesses hesitate to expand and hire new workers and we are seeing a drop in private investment throughout Los Angeles. The City and CRA/LA are facing many of the same challenges. In addition to the SERAF, CRA/LA faces a decline in revenues this year from a drop in property values. This all comes at a time when multiple CRA/LA project areas are expiring over the next several years, further reducing our revenue stream. In response to these challenges, we are increasing our efforts to secure funding from other sources including securing grants from the state and federal level. Throughout this difficult process, I am continually impressed by how dedicated CRA/LA staff is and their commitment to continue the work we do with increasingly limited resources. My hope is that we will continue to develop streamlined ways to do our work, as well as strengthen the methods by which we deliver services to the community as a whole. LA just culminated the $750 million, 35-year investment in the Central Business District Project, one of the most prominent in the city.  What will be the signature projects of CRA in this generation, and what are the keys to success?  The Central Business District Project, adopted in 1975, in some ways tried to correct for what were perceived as failures of the all-clearance urban renewal approach to redevelopment, largely prohibiting the kind of wholesale clearance and emphasizing infill, rehabilitation and a finer scale of urban design with buildings generally built out along the street face. Today we continue to commit to redevelopment with an emphasis on human scale and mixed use development, with a wide variety of housing types and income ranges, served by a mix of neighborhood scaled retail, entertainment, community-service and open space amenities. The focus continues to be on creating a series of neighborhood scale, interconnected pedestrian-friendly zones with easy access to a range of transit options for both local and longer-distance (regional) travel. We promote easy access to amenities and services, mixture of housing and non-housing uses to promote day and evening-time activity, pedestrian walkability, incremental development, preservation of much of the pre-existing building stock and a more limited emphasis on "signature" projects. How important is AB 2531 ( CP&DR Blog 16 July 2010 ) to CRA/LA's work? If it passes, what does it mean for CRA?  AB 2531 places greater emphasis on attracting and retaining businesses and therefore, employment opportunities. Should AB 2531 move forward, redevelopment programs will expand for all businesses. Funding will be available not only to businesses undergoing a rehab, but also to any business that is creating or retaining jobs and/or "greening" their operations. Long-term sustainable efforts in the community that create jobs as well go to the core of CRA/LA's work. WEB EXTRAS: How does Metro's 30/10 transit funding plan affect CRA/LA's priorities? How much emphasis will CRA put on transit-oriented development? Although not all of CRA's project areas may be able to attract regional transit infrastructure investments, CRA/LA will increasingly be stressing access to sustainable mobility choices wherever we can and we would expect Measure R and the 30/10 plan to heighten the success of these efforts. Measure R has been very important in giving developers the confidence that not only will a given transit station at some point become a reality, but that that transit station will be connected to a growing network connecting together the major hubs of employment, commerce, entertainment. The 30/10 plan becomes especially important to CRA as we encourage developers to "build more for the future", to design projects that tap into the longer-term urban living and economic potentials, and to get investors to be patient and understand that there is support for a the longer-term vision. What are the prospects for the Clean Tech Corridor ( CP&DR Blog 13 Aug. 2010 )? The Cleantech Corridor (CTC) is a roughly two mile corridor of industrial land on either side of the Los Angeles River, at the eastern edge of downtown Los Angeles. The Corridor is a focus of CleanTech LA, an initiative to establish Los Angeles as a leader in research, commercialization and deployment of clean technologies. CleanTech LA is a broad consortium of local stakeholders, regional educational institutions, and business groups working together to make this area an attractive place to invest. In addition, CRA/LA and LA's Department of Water and Power are partnering to develop a 3.1-acre campus in the CTC that will co-locate a variety of occupants related to the development and deployment of cleantech technologies.  Occupants will include a DWP research and development space, research labs for regional educational institutions, and a CRA/LA Business incubator that will house office space, testing facilities, and support for cleantech entrepreneurs. The CleanTech Manufacturing Center (CTMC) is a centerpiece of the Cleantech Corridor. This vacant 20-acre parcel is a development opportunity site for cleantech companies and/or sustainable manufacturing. CRA/LA owns the site and we are just about to issue a Request for Proposals from potential developers. CRA/LA and other city departments are developing a program of public improvements to support businesses and residents in the CTC. We are also developing two incentive programs aimed to encourage industrial development in the CTC and beyond.  The Industrial Incentive Program will assist industrial businesses hoping to expand in or relocate into the CTC by providing relocation assistance and funding for the purchase of capital equipment. In addition, a Façade and Building Improvement Program will help fund building improvements to existing industrial business. Before the economic downturn there was a movement to convert industrial land to residential. How do you expect this issue to play out in the future and what strategy might CRA pursue? CRA/LA is looking to a more balanced use of the industrial lands to ensure that Los Angeles can expand its ability to retain and attract innovative businesses. In addition, CRA/LA staff recognize the importance of providing room for the market to function. However, it is important to both new and existing occupants -- both residential and non-residential -- to have some certainty in future patterns of development, so that potential builders and investors feel confident making investments in Los Angeles' communities. Picking up on the recommendations of the Urban land Institute Advisory Panel, CRA/LA will also work with others to see that the infrastructure serves the needs of both the existing and the emerging business and residential communities and to market these communities to potential investors.

In a pair of decisions issued on the same day, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Four, has addressed the scope of permitted regulation when a mobile home park owner elects to convert a park into a residential subdivision and sell individual spaces. In cases from the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles suburb of Carson, the court ruled that local government may apply state law and local considerations to restrict mobile home park conversions. The first case,  Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v City of Los Angeles , addressed the question of whether or not the procedures for conversion found in the Subdivision Map Act pre-empt all other regulatory requirements, such as those in the Coastal Act and the Mello Act. The decision also addressed whether or not the city complied with provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act. The second decision,  Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson , dealt with the extent to which the City of Carson could add to the specific statutory requirements for park conversions. The facts of  Pacific Palisades  reflect a common pattern. Starting in April 2007 – and before filing an application – the park owner's representative met with city staff to discuss the approval process for converting the 170-space Palisades Bowl on Pacific Coast Highway into a residential subdivision. Staff provided a packet of information, including information on Coastal Act requirements and permits. At a follow-up meeting, the city staff advised the representative that a general plan amendment and rezoning were required. Over several months, the city was in communication with the park owner's representative and noted that there was continuing internal discussion as to the specific approvals necessary. On November 13, 2007, the property owner submitted an application for a tentative map to convert the mobile home park. Staff said the application was incomplete because it did not include a general plan amendment and zoning change. The property owner asserted that the city was required to process the application pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (specifically, Government Code § 66427.5) and the Permit Streamlining Act. City staff sent a follow-up email message on November 20 referencing items necessary for a complete application. Because the Palisades Bowl is located in the coastal zone, the city pointed to the Coastal Act and the Mello Act. The former requires an applicant to get a coastal development permit prior to nearly any development activity in the coastal zone. The latter preserves low- and moderate-income housing in the coastal zone. Neither the city nor the applicant took further action until January 2008, when the applicant filed a writ and complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The property owner argued that the city wrongly refused to process the application and that only requirements set forth in the Map Act (§ 66427.5) were applicable. The property owner complained about the city's failure to maintain a list of required information for a park conversion and for failing to process the application. The trial court found that the city did not have the required list, but ruled there was no legal sanction for the failure. The court also said that the November 20 email message substantially complied with the Permit Streamlining Act requirement to provide an applicant with a written completeness determination. The property owner then filed an amended lawsuit, arguing that the additional information required by the city was in conflict with the Subdivision Map Act. By this point, the city no longer maintained that a general plan amendment and rezoning were required. Still, the county said the applicant had to comply with the Coastal and Mello acts, and must file a tentative subdivision map. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge James Chalfant concurred in property owner's argument, finding that the Mello Act housing requirements did not apply. The court ordered the application deemed complete, and directed the city to process the application based upon § 66427.5. Both sides appealed. Addressing first the Permit Streamlining Act issue, the appellate court agreed with the trial court that the city's failure to maintain the checklist of requirements for a mobile home park conversion did not result in the application being deemed complete. "In any event," Justice Thomas Willhite Jr. wrote for the court, "the city did maintain and provided to Palisades Bowl a list that it contended applied to Palisades Bowl's proposed conversion, albeit one that included numerous items that could not be required under § 66427.5. As the trial court properly found, the only effect of §§ 65940 and 65942 is to preclude the City from requiring any items not on the list it provided to Palisades Bowl." With respect to the City refusing to accept the application, the court suggested that such an approach violated the Permit Streamlining Act but was "irrelevant" because the city staff had sent an email message outlining the necessary information. While the email message did not meet the technical requirements for a completeness determination, it constituted substantial compliance with the state law, the court ruled. The court then turned to the issue of whether or not § 66427.5 pre-empted the Coastal Act and the Mello Act. While the court recognized earlier decisions that local enactments and development standards may be barred (as well as its own companion decision in  Colony Cove , discussed below), the court ruled pre-emption did not apply to the Coastal and Mello acts. "To be sure, the policy behind § 66427.5 is an important one – to encourage conversions of mobile home parks to resident ownership while protecting nonpurchasing residents," Willhite wrote. "But the policy considerations behind the Coastal Act – as well as the Mello Act, inasmuch as its genesis was the Coastal Act – are far more extensive." He cited the Coastal Act's stated "paramount concern" for protecting coastal resources. The  Colony Cove  case addressed how local governments may apply park conversion requirements, or more specifically, what local governments may not do. In February 2008, the City of Carson adopted an ordinance that applied certain presumptions as to whether or not a conversion was a bona fide conversion, based upon the results of the tenant survey mandated by Government Code § 66427.5. If less than 35 percent of tenants support a conversion, the action is presumed to be not bonafide and the city may reject the proposal. If 35 percent to 50 percent of tenants support conversion, the park owner has the burden of proving the proposal is bona fide. With more than 50 percent tenant support, the conversion is presumed to be legitimate. Colony Cove Properties, which owns Colony Cove Mobilehome Park and which had submitted a park conversion application, filed a lawsuit seeking to set aside the city's ordinance. Soon thereafter, Colony Cove filed an amended lawsuit challenging an earlier interim ordinance that had been periodically extended. The interim ordinance had imposed a moratorium on mobile home park conversions. The Los Angeles County Superior Court consolidated the two lawsuits for trial and agreed with the property owner that the city's duties with respect to the tenant survey were ministerial in character, and that the city's attempts to impose additional requirements were barred by § 66427.5. The trial court also found that the moratorium conflicted with the same code section. On appeal, the Second District agreed with the trial court as to the additional tenant survey requirements. However, the appellate court disagreed with the lower court's decision that the city's duties were ministerial in character and that the ordinance conflicted with the statute. After retracing the legislative history, Justice Nora Manella wrote that although a city or county could not modify the requirements for the survey or create tenant benefits different from those found in the statue, the city could take into consideration the results of the survey in its decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a conversion request. With respect to the moratorium ordinance, the appellate court noted the ordinance had run its statutory course of two years by the time the lawsuits were heard. Accordingly, the court concluded those claims were moot. Both appellate panels invited the Legislature to clean up the statutory ambiguities at issue in the cases. First Case: Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v City of Los Angeles , No. B216515, 2010 DJDAR 13805. Filed August 31, 2010. The Lawyers:For Pacific Palisades Bowl: Craig M. Collins, Blum Collins, (213) 572-0400. For the city: Amy Brothers, deputy city attorney, (213) 978-8069. Second Case: Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson , No. B219352, 2010 DJDAR 13779. Filed August 31, 2010. The Lawyers:For Colony Cove: Thomas W. Casparian, Gilchrist & Rutter, (310) 393-4000. For the city: Jeff M. Malawy, Aleshire & Wynder, (949) 223-1170.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's designation of 858,000 acres in Northern California and Southern Oregon as critical habitat for fifteen endangered or threatened vernal pool species. The court rejected attacks from the Home Builders Association of Northern California on the procedures used by the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to designate the critical habitat. At issue are scattered vernal pool complexes located across a large, two-state region. Vernal pools are seasonal puddles and wetlands that provide habitat for four endangered or threatened species of fairy shrimp and 11 protected plant species. Efforts to designate the vernal pool critical habitat, and related litigation, extend back to the 1990s. In February 2006, with litigation still pending, the USFWS settled on an 858,000-acre critical habitat designation. The Home Builders Association of Northern California and other organizations argued that the USFWS violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. § 1531  et seq .) in issuing its final rule designating the critical habitat by: 1) improperly identifying primary constituent elements on the designated habitat; 2) failing to identify the habitat as either occupied or unoccupied habitat; 3) failing to predict when species will be conserved; 4) improperly excluding developed areas from critical habitat designation; and 5) failing to conduct a cumulative economic impacts analysis. Giving deference to USFWS's procedures, the appellate court, like the trial court, upheld the habitat designations and rejected the home builders' arguments. Primary constituent elements The ESA, in part, defines occupied critical habitat as "the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by the species … on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection" (ESA, § 3(5)(A)(i); 16 USC § 1532(3)(A)(i)). The Fish and Wildlife Service refers to the physical or biological features as "primary constituent elements" or "PCEs." Without challenging any specific habitat designations, the home builders claimed that an area must simultaneously contain  all  PCEs for a particular species to be designated as occupied critical habitat for that species. The court rejected this theory, explaining that the elements necessary to species' survival may occur in distinct geographic areas. For example, a species may require topographic features that feed vernal pools, as well as depressions where the vernal pools actually form – two mutually exclusive geographic areas. "In general, there is simply no reason that two elements essential for the conservation of a species need be present in the same area. As FWS points out, the critical habitat for a bird species might contain nesting grounds while another critical habitat contains feeding sites. As explained, such separation is especially appropriate for species that live in vernal pool complexes," wrote District Court Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer, sitting by assignment to the Ninth Circuit. Identification of a conservation point The home builders argued that the USFWS's determination of the PCEs was invalid because the agency identified only the features necessary to the conservation of the species, and did not determine when the species in question would be considered successfully conserved. The court rejected this argument, explaining that the requirement that USFWS determine when a species will be considered conserved applies to the preparation of a recovery plan – a different part of the ESA law (ESA § 4(f)(1)(B)(ii); 16 U.S.C. § 1533 (f)(1)(B)(ii) – and not to the determination of critical habitat. The builders had argued elsewhere that other recovery plan requirements should not be imposed on critical habitat designation. The court found that builders could not, on one hand, argue the recovery plan requirements should apply to critical habitat designation and, on the other hand, argue that the requirements should not apply. Further, if Congress had intended for the recovery plan requirements to apply to critical habitat designation, it would have said so, the court ruled, citing  Russello v. United States , (1983) 464 US 16, 23. Finally, the court stated that the difference between the two portions of the law makes sense because there is a one-year deadline for the designation of critical habitat, but no deadline for creating a recovery plan. Overlap between occupied and unoccupied habitat designation Under the ESA, an area constitutes "critical habitat" if it meets the requirements for occupied habitat or unoccupied habitat (16 U.S.C. § 1532 (5)(A)). The home builders contended that USFWS erred in the designation because the agency conflated the standards for occupied and unoccupied habitat. The court rejected the argument because no law required that every area be classified as either occupied or unoccupied, and because the agency had found that areas designated in the final rule met the more rigorous standard for defining unoccupied habitat. Textual exclusion of areas without PCEs In its final rule, USFWS stated that it had attempted to exclude developed areas that did not contain PCEs for the 15 vernal pool species, but the agency acknowledged that it inadvertently had included some developed areas, such as buildings, paved sites and boat ramps. USFWS stated that the inadvertently included structures were not considered part of the critical habitat. The home builders argued that this "textual exclusion" violated the ESA's requirement that specific areas be designated. However, the court, noting the builders' failure to identify an alterative procedure or point to a specific error in the procedure used, deferred to the USFWS's designation. Economic impact The Endangered Species Act mandates the consideration of economic impact before designating critical habitat, (ESA § 4(b)(2); 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(2);  Bennett v. Spear , (1997) 520 U.S. 154, 172). The Fish and Wildlife Service addressed the economic impact using the baseline approach, which compares the current state of affairs with how things would look after the designation of crucial habitat. The home builders argued USFWS should have used a cumulative assessment, a contention the Ninth Circuit rejected. The court explained that although a cumulative analysis would be required under the National Environmental Policy Act before a government agency took any action that might have a negative effect on the environment, a cumulative analysis is not required before the government takes action to protect the environment under the ESA. The Case: Home Builders Association of Northern California v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service , No. 07-16732, 2010 DJDAR 12302. Filed August 9, 2010 The Lawyers: For the Home Builders Association of Northern California: Damien M. Schiff, Pacific Legal Foundation, (916) 419-7111. For the Fish and Wildlife Service: Robert H. Oakley, U.S. Department of Justice,  (202) 514-2701.

At about 10:30 this morning, I stepped out of my office a block from Main St. in Ventura to get a cup of coffee. Almost immediately, I noticed something different. The parking lot on Oak Street, usually two-thirds empty in the morning, was mostly full. And the on-street parking spaces along Oak and Main Street, which are mostly occupied on a typical morning at this time, were mostly vacant. Why the switch? The paid parking portion of our downtown parking management program had gone into effect at 10 a.m., and it was already showing results. People who park all day downtown had moved into the lots and the upper levels of the parking garage. Spaces on the street became available for shoppers, diners, and others who were running short-term errands. In other words, only 30 minutes after we instituted the parking management program, it was working. In all the discussions around town this summer about paid parking, the emphasis has always been on the "paid" part. Why is the city charging for parking downtown? Are we just being greedy? Where will the money go? Why would anyone go downtown if they have to pay to park? These are all fair questions. (And they all have good answers -- for example, all the parking revenue money is going to benefit downtown and not being spent elsewhere in the city.) But the questions have obscured an important goal of the paid parking, which has nothing to do with revenue. The goal is to encourage employees and other long-term parkers downtown in order to free up space on the street for shoppers. And I was stunned at how quickly our "parking management" goal was achieved. In the months leading up to the inauguration of paid parking, I kept hearing stories about how downtown employees were hogging the onstreet spaces. I heard that some merchants told their employees to park on the street -- but a block away, so as not to take up parking in front of the store. I heard that some businesses and employees erase the chalk marks that our parking enforcement folks put on their tires. I heard that some business owners give their employees a few minutes off every two hours to move their cars. Frankly, I wasn't sure if I believed all these stories. After all, why would any merchant park in front of their own store? Why would you deal with all the hassles to park on the street -- erasing chalk, moving cars -- when there's free parking in city lots a half-block away? It seemed ridiculous to me. But the lesson from today is that it's not ridiculous. Obviously, what's been happening is that employees have been parking on the street and now they are parking in the lots. Anybody's first impulse, I think, is that paying for parking is a bad thing. But upon reflection, a lot of folks -- merchants and shoppers alike -- have come around to the idea that it can be a good thing. Main Street merchants have come to see that paid parking can help them too by opening up short-term spaces close to their store. As the owner of Jersey Mike's told me today, her customers used to have to circle the block three times looking for a space or park in a faraway parking lot. Now they can park right in front of her shop for a quarter -- or a dime -- or a nickel -- while they pick up their order. Because even though it's $1 for the first hour, you can buy less time with coins. And there's less traffic on the street because there's less "cruising" for a parking space. 9:15 pm. I walk back up Oak Street toward the office. The spaces on the street are mostly empty. And the parking lot across from office -- usually almost empty by now -- is completely full. Eleven hours later and it's still working. CP&DR Publisher Bill Fulton is Mayor of Ventura. This post was adapted from his mayoral blog .

With the implementation of SB 375 still to come, cities across California will be challenged to revamp their general plans to meet goals of reducing vehicle miles traveled and promoting more compact development. In the race to write the perfect plan, the City of Santa Monica has, according to some, taken an early lead with the approval in July of a new land use and circulation element (LUCE). A combination of a longstanding environmental ethic, a demanding citizenry, and good timing has resulted in Santa Monica's new land use and circulation element, which was approved, along with its EIR, by the city council last month. The plan is intended to take the already vibrant mini-city of 90,000 and give it a few nips and tucks that will create new clusters and, backers hope, alleviate the city's notorious traffic. The result, according to the LUCE's policy statements, will be a slightly more dense but far more sustainable place that balances urbanism against the city's more mellow past. "We're transitioning from � and have been transitioning informally �from a beachside cottage community to a vital, active, sustainable urban community," said Santa Monica Planning Commissioner Hank Koning. The LUCE had last been updated in 1984. Studies and planning for the LUCE commenced even before the passage of SB 375 but have since developed with its principals in mind. Even before it was approved by the City Council in July, the plan had already received awards from the Los Angeles Chapter of the American Planning Association and the Southern California Association of Governments. Last month it received the award for "Outstanding Comprehensive Planning Award, Small Jurisdiction" from the California Chapter of the APA. To some, as Santa Monica goes, so may go the state. "I can't imagine why this wouldn't be an SB 375 poster child," said Walker Wells, director of Green Urbanism Programs at Santa Monica-based environmental group Global Green USA. Every chapter of the LUCE document incorporates green components. This, said Wells, is a profound deviation from how general plans often address climate change. "Otherwise it ends up in the extra chapter that just gets put on for lip service," said Wells. Santa Monica has long had an outspoken environmental community, and its Sustainable Santa Monica plan has promoted environmental stewardship and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in a variety of ways. The LUCE, however, codifies this ethos in the general plan. It includes explicit environmental goals such as the generation of zero net new trips by 2025 � a goal that has obvious implications for other cities attempting to comply with SB 375. "They created a bold policy statement of no net new trips," said Yara Fisher, senior planner at AECOM and Cal APA jury member. "That's beyond anything that you're seeing anywhere else�.that was just really incredible for most of us on the jury." Santa Monica planners estimate that by 2030 the city could be emitting as few as 760,000 annual metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, as compared to nearly 950,000 today. If the 2030 target is reached, it would beat the state's AB 32 target by over 150,000 annual tons. It would even beat the goals of the city's existing Sustainable City Plan, adopted in 1994. "They did what you're supposed to do in this day and age when you're�trying to implement sustainability," said Walker Wells,  "They established metrics for themselves. They've moved from just using rhetoric � a �balanced community,' a �livable place,' a �community with for opportunities for all' � and they asked, what are we really after? "No net new trips. They threw down the gauntlet and said this is what we're after." In addition to promoting density in key locations, the LUCE includes explicit goals regarding bicycling, walking, and even carpooling. Koning said that new development that adheres to the LUCE will not necessarily create a revolution in the way that commuters get to Santa Monica and the way that Santa Monicans get around their own city. He said, though, that incremental changes will be enough to keep traffic at bay. "We're not asking everybody to ride a bike," said Koning. "If 1 percent of the community rode a bike instead of driving and another one percent walked and another 1 percent took the bus, then that�makes a difference." If the LUCE works as intended, it will be no small feat. In addition to having prime beachfront property, Santa Monica is also one of the biggest employment centers in the Los Angeles. Its location on the geographic edge of the county means that commuters come from all directions and pool into the city's downtown and a handful of other commercial districts. The LUCE addresses this by taking advantage of possibly the biggest gift that any city could receive: Phase II of the Expo light rail line, which will create a seamless connection from Santa Monica to downtown Los Angeles. Originally approved in 2002 by Los Angeles Metro, Phase I is under construction and Phase II has been funded and slated for completion in 2015.   The Expo Line's three station stops in Santa Monica � including one at Pico and 17 th  St. that city officials fought for � provide the basis for the lion's share of the LUCE's densification efforts. "The real issue was to create corridors and have current and future jobs all right on the light rail corridor," said Santa Monica Planning Director Eileen Fogarty. "As you go toward downtown you have a tremendous amount of housing on that corridor." Otherwise, the LUCE prescribes small tweaks in land use patterns that, planners hope, will make an enormous overall difference in the city. Of paramount concern was the impact of any changes on the city's residential neighborhoods. Santa Monica has an outspoken no-growth contingent that, in 2008, went so far as to place an initiative on the ballot that would have essentially frozen much commercial development in the city. Fogarty said that in order to ensure that future development is appropriate, developers would have to provide community benefits according to guidelines that call for developers to provide specific amounts of public benefits in accord with the amount of square footage that they wish to build. Though Koning said he supports the LUCE, he also said that some developers and architects felt that restrictions might be strong enough to limit its overall effectiveness. "A design code can always be more restrictive but it never can be less restrictive," said Koning. "The idea of the plan is to have walkable streets and complete communities� if it's overly onerous, then developers won't build." One of the strongest gestures towards the city's anti-growth contingent was a firm cap on building heights at 35 feet, thus encouraging medium-density development throughout the key corridors rather than high-density development that could overshadow neighborhoods. Additionally, the LUCE provides disincentives for converting existing buildings and it promotes commercial activities that serve local neighborhoods rather than customers from the broader region. Rather than fight against outspoken residents, the LUCE process embraced them and made an effort to include as many of the city's voices as possible. Outreach took place on what some consider an unprecedented scale. "Another thing looked at was the public participation program and how different voices were brought into the planning process," said Fisher. "It was clear that they had done so much outreach in so many different ways." Fisher cited innovative outreach methods such as attending farmer's markets and convening over 60 citizens' groups. This outreach, however, has been criticized by some as an inordinately lengthy process that has resulted in a plan whose content � process notwithstanding � would have been the same if the plan had been approved years ago. In total, the LUCE process has taken six years. With the LUCE's passage, Fogarty said that the city will not be waiting to implement it. "To implement this we're looking at an interim control ordinance and then a comprehensive zoning ordinance and then we will be systematically doing area plans and specific plans," said Fogarty. "We're not just waiting several years until there's a final zoning ordinance." Contacts & Resources: SCAG Compass Blueprint Awards 2010 Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element Official Website  Yara Fisher, Senior Planner, AECOM  619.233.1454 Eileen Fogarty, Planning Director, City of Santa Monica,  (310) 458-8341 Hank Koning, Santa Monica Planning Commissioner; Principal, Koning Eizenberg Architecture, (310) 826-6131 Walker Wells, Global Green USA  (310) 581-2700

Orange County is known for its miles of tract homes, car traffic and a booming economy. Much of that growth is due to the work of the Irvine Company, which has shaped a swath of the central county through its control and development of 93,000 acres that were once one of California's great ranches. But beyond the residences and gleaming office towers the Irvine Company has built over the past 45 years, the company also, more quietly, committed a great deal of the old Irvine Ranch property to parkland. Altogether it has kept 50,000 acres in parkland. Many of the parks are of the landscaped neighborhood variety, a key selling point to its master-planned communities.  But recently the company deviated from ballfields and tot lots by completing paperwork on a 20-year old plan to turn over 20,000 acres in open space to the county. Even environmentalists are relatively happy with this one. "This is the largest single donation of land in the County's history," said Marisa O'Neil, public information officer for OC Parks, the county agency which will manage the property. "OC Parks does not have plans to develop any of it as manicured parklands. We will keep the natural character to it and allow people to make their own connections to the land." Some of the Irvine Company's most valuable development has occurred in the coastal plains of Orange County, where cooling breezes and ocean views are selling points. The city of Irvine is located there, and the company has built it into a community of over 200,000 residents. Almost all of the donated land is in the hotter northern reaches of the county, lying south of the Riverside Freeway and east of the Cleveland National Forest. Full of canyons and steep mountains, it contains areas that could have been developed into housing or industry. Instead, about all that runs through it is State Route 241, a north-south toll road. Much of the new parkland is located in unincorporated county land. The Orange County Board of Supervisors accepted 20,000 acres of permanent protected open space and parklands from the Irvine Company on June 29. The land will be managed for the next three years by the Irvine Ranch Foundation, a non-profit started with help from the Irvine Company. The Irvine Company's well-known chairman, billionaire Donald Bren, started the path towards the donation in 1990 when the Irvine Company began a collaboration with the Nature Conservancy, to survey and manage company-owned wildlands. At the time, it was announced that the land would ultimately be turned over to public ownership. The recent transfer to the county completed a 20-year process. When the donation was originally announced, "everyone looked at 'what's the catch'"? recalled Dan Silver, executive director of the Los Angeles-based Endangered Habitats League. "No one ever found a catch. The only concern was how the county would pay for it and how it would manage it." For the next three years, the Irvine Ranch Foundation will manage the land at a cost of nearly $1.6 million. The Irvine Company is also providing $4 million to establish the Orange County Parks Foundation, which will be combined with $2 million from the Nature Conservancy to help with land monitoring and new park infrastructure. The transfer of the property was watched closely by Orange County environmental groups, who formed a steering committee last year to monitor it. Members included representatives of such groups as the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society, Laguna Greenbelt, Hills for Everyone and Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks. The committee said it had four major concerns about the transfer: making sure the land kept its conservation protections, funding, and that it had a resource management plan and an independent oversight committee. "The county has assured us that these elements are or will be in place," said Jean Watt, President of the Friends of the Harbors, Beaches and Parks, in a press release at the time of the transfer. But Watt made it clear that the environmentalists will be monitoring the transfer. "Because we want the land transfer to succeed, we are accepting the county's assurances in a leap of faith. For now." The donated land includes land that is part of the largest Natural Communities Conservation Plan in Orange County, the central/coastal subregion NCCP. The NCCP was formed in the 1990s, to set aside open space land for endangered and threatened species in the region, including the California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren, and to allow development on other land. The donated land includes areas that have been designated as both California and National Natural Landmarks for their outstanding geological and biological features. Of the 20,000 acres transferred by the Irvine Company to Orange County, 9,500 acres is in the Central Coastal subregion NCCP, according to Michael O'Connell, executive director of the Irvine Ranch Conservancy. The transferred land is nearly five times the size of Los Angeles' Griffith Park and dwarfs the 843 acres of New York's Central Park. In contrast, Yosemite National Park is 761,000 acres. "From my own perspective, this gift is largely unprecedented," said O'Connell.  "There have been large donations of land to the public throughout California's history, and they have all become places are cherished today and will be into the future. The difference here, however, is that instead of being way up North somewhere or out in the remote Sierras, this land is right in our own backyard." He added, "It's big, and incredibly valuable, piece of nature that's close by and can be experienced and cared for as a part of the community, as opposed to a place you have to take a vacation and go visit. The land is valuable that I doubt funding could have ever been raised to buy it." Silver of the Endangered Habitats League said much of the transferred land has been damaged due to extensive cattle grazing and mammoth fires that have burned through the area. Contacts: Marisa O'Neil, Public Information Officer, OC Parks, (714) 973-6870 John Christensen, Irvine Company spokesman (949) 720-2000 Michael O'Connell, executive director, Irvine Ranch Conservancy (949)735-0394 Dan Silver, Executive Director, Endangered Habitats League (213)804-2750