Search Results

Everyone loves parks, right? They're a crucial amenity for young and old alike. Well, apparently not everybody.  As the Los Angeles Times recently reported, the City of Los Angeles recently spent over $600,000 designing and building a pocket park in South Los Angeles.  However, not a single resident got to enjoy it because the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) soon acquired the land via eminent domain and bulldozed the park to make way for a new school.  This is an extreme example of the lack of coordination between the city and LAUSD.  Ideally, to meet the educational and recreational needs of communities, the two entities should not only be talking to each other, but should also be pursuing joint use projects that serve residents as both schools and parks.         Increasing access to recreational facilities that already exist at schools is one of the oldest and most effective ways to provide more opportunities for physical activity and play in neighborhoods.  After all, even the most under-served areas have schools.  At a time of budget cuts and shortfalls, maximizing access to existing facilities—rather than focusing on constructing new ones—is the most efficient and economical use of public resources.   Schools offer recreational amenities, which may be made available to the public during non-school hours.  However, many school facilities are often locked and inaccessible to residents who might otherwise use them on weekday evenings and weekends.  Understandably, some school districts restrict access to their facilities because they lack the capacity and/or funds to run programs, and they may have concerns about additional legal or maintenance costs that might arise from using school property beyond regular school hours. But these obstacles are not insurmountable.  A joint use agreement offers a way for school districts to open their facilities for community use.  It is a written agreement between a school district and one or more public or private entities setting forth the terms and conditions for sharing the use of the district's facilities.  Such an agreement can provide community access to school property by allowing the district to share with another agency the costs and risks associated with opening the property for after-hours use.   In recent years, the Community-School-Park Plan developed by People for Parks has emerged as a strategy to maximize the use of and enhance existing facilities in Los Angeles by opening up elementary schools for public recreation and community services.  The plan also calls for the replacement of asphalt on school playgrounds with lawns and trees, and the creation of new joint use facilities that serve the community as both schools and parks.  This approach is slowly being implemented, with the projects at Trinity Street (South L.A.) and Vine Street (Hollywood) elementary schools completed this year.   In an ideal world, school facilities should be planned, constructed, and used in a way that enables them to effectively serve the requirements not only of the schools but also of the community at large.  In reality, however, schools are under the jurisdiction of school districts formed with an important, but narrow mission: to meet the educational needs of students.   There are also administrative challenges associated with joint use.  In the case of new schools, issues can arise in the planning phase because the needs and budget contributions of the school district and the local jurisdiction have to be ascertained and coordinated.  The two parties must negotiate compromises to resolve conflicting requirements.  Also, successful implementation of a joint use agreement requires the approval and cooperation of the new principal and staff assigned to the new school.               Intervention by local and/or state political leaders may be necessary to make joint use happen.  Over the years, I have learned that discussions and negotiations at the staff level can drag on for extended periods of time with or without progress due to the complexity of such arrangements and the bureaucratic nature of the organizations.  To expedite matters and actually get agreements reached, politicians would need to get involved and be in direct contact with the leadership of school districts. The joint use of schools as recreational facilities has been successful in many communities in California.  Local jurisdictions and school districts should work together to pursue joint use projects that meet both the educational and recreational needs of underserved communities, especially those lacking parks and other amenities.  To do so, they must first talk to each other, avoid the bureaucratic disaster referenced earlier, overcome challenges, and truly plan together.  After all, planning is all about vision, foresight, and coordination. --Clement Lau (Clement Lau is a planner with the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation. He is currently working with several L.A.-area school districts on joint use issues.)

In the case of West Chandler Boulevard Neighborhood Association v. City of Los Angeles , the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, considered the validity of the City of Los Angeles' grant of a conditional use permit, height variance and parking variance to a Chabad of North Hollywood, which was operating a synagogue in a residential neighborhood within the city.  Starting in 1981, the city granted Chabad a conditional use permit and parking variance to operate a synagogue in an R-1 zone for a congregation of 45 people. The variance allowed the synagogue to maintain seven spaces, as opposed to 20, as normally required under the city's zoning code. Approximately 25 years later, the congregation had grown to 200 people.  As a result, in March 2007, Chabad applied to the city for a demolition permit to demolish the existing one-story building and two variances – one to construct a 16,000 square foot, three-story building of 45 feet (instead of 36 feet in height), and the second to allow five parking spaces instead of the required 83 spaces.  The city prepared a mitigated negative declaration for the project finding that the environmental impacts of the project would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.  The city held a public hearing on the application on February 4, 2008, where various residents voiced concerns about the impacts of the project on parking and views, among others. Then in November of 2008, the city's Zoning Administrator conditionally approved Chabad's application, including a conditional use permit for Chabad to build a larger synagogue in the R-1 zone, but reducing its size by around 6,000 square feet to 10,300 square feet. The ZA denied the height variance request, but approved the variance request for five parking spaces, and limited the hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The neighbors appealed the ZA's determination to the area planning commission. But, Chabad also appealed asking for an even larger building and longer hours of operation than in the original application.  The area planning commission held a hearing on the appeals in February of 2009. It sided with the neighbors in granting their appeal and denying Chabad's appeal. Specifically, the area planning commission made findings that the project was too large for the size of the lot, would be materially detrimental to the character of the neighborhood, was inconsistent with the city's general plan, and lacked sufficient parking. In June 2009, pursuant to the city charter, the city council asserted jurisdiction over the planning commission's decision and scheduled a hearing for three days later. At that hearing one of the council members proposed to modify the project as approved by the ZA, deny the neighbors' appeal of the ZA's decision, and grant Chabad's appeal of the ZA's decision. The council did not provide the neighbors an opportunity to address the council member's proposal. Ultimately, the council voted for the council member's proposal to modify the project and grant Chabad a conditional use permit to construct a 12,000 square foot synagogue, 28 feet high, and with five parking spaces. The neighbors timely appealed the council's decision to the superior court. The trial court denied the neighbors' petition for writ of mandate on the grounds that the findings made by the City council in support of the conditional use permit and the parking variance were supported by substantial evidence; it also determined that the neighbors had somehow waived their due process rights and CEQA claims.  The appellate court reversed, granting the writ and ordering the city to comply with its own charter and zoning code in reviewing the ZA's determinations. It first found that the council had the authority, under the city charter, to review the planning commission's decision on the conditional use permit and variance, but that in doing so, the council "stepped into the shoes of the planning commission."  The appellate court also held that the neighbors did not waive the issue of whether the City Council violated the holding in Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506 case and the city's own zoning code by failing to explain and make findings as to why the Zoning Administrators' decision was incorrect. Finally, the appellate court held that in reviewing the conditional use permit, the city council was required to make its decision based on the record, as to whether the Zoning Administrator erred or abused her discretion, and it was required to base its decision on the variance only on the evidence and findings of the ZA and the city council was only entitled to modify the ZA's decision, as it did, by making specific findings as to how the ZA erred, which it did not do.  Thus, the appellate court determined city council abused its discretion by failing to make the proper findings as required by the Topanga case. The court declined to address the issue of whether the city council violated the neighbor's due process rights in refusing to allow them to speak at the city council hearing on the conditional use permit and variance. The Case:  West Chandler Boulevard Neighborhood Association v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 198 Cal. App. 4th 1506; 2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 1162. August 16, 2011, published September 6, 2011.

In the case of South Orange County Wastewater Authority v. City of Dana Point (2011) 196 Cal. App. 4th 1604 ("South Orange"), the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District was asked to order an environmental impact report (EIR) be prepared to assess the impact on the environment of a proposed project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Court of Appeal declined to order such an EIR. The Court of Appeal also addressed whether the adopted project was inconsistent with the city's general plan and zoning ordinance, and found that the project was consistent. Background In 2007, a landowner submitted an application to the City of Dana Point to create a new commercial and mixed use zoning under the city's zoning code and to rezone its property from the new commercial to mixed use district. The property to be developed sits on the coastal shoreline, adjacent to the South Orange County Wastewater Authority's sewage treatment plant. The city prepared an initial study and determined that any impacts the project might have on the environment could be mitigated. Accordingly, the city prepared a mitigated negative declaration and circulated it for review in February 2008.  The city revised the MND and recirculated it in October 2008. Given the location of the project, the Coastal Commission also has land use jurisdiction and would need to approve the Project. At both the Planning Commission and City Council, the wastewater authority challenged the project on the grounds that the plant emitted noise, and bad smells, and that it created water runoff on the project site, which would negatively impact future residents.  On July 27, 2009, the City redesignated and rezoned the project site, and adopted an MND for the project. The authority filed a challenge to the city's approvals seeking that an EIR be prepared to address the odor issues, and alleging that the general plan amendments rendered the land use element internally inconsistent. The trial court denied the authority's request for writ of mandate, which the authority appealed. Issues/Holdings Was an EIR required to study the impact of odors from the existing sewage treatment plant on the Project (e.g., redesignation and rezoning of land)? No. Did the general plan amendment create an internal inconsistency? No. CEQA Issue The Court of Appeal first reviewed the standard of review in an MND case – whether there is substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument of a significant environmental impact. It then reviewed the purpose of CEQA, and highlighted the fact that CEQA is intended to study a project's impacts on the existing environment, not vice versa. Presumably irritated with the authority's intent – that of protecting itself from nuisance complaints by potential future neighbors based on putrid odors from the plant – the Court of Appeal noted that " objection to the adoption of the MND for the rezoning essentially turns CEQA upside down." The Court of Appeal analogized the situation to the one in the Baird v. County of Contra Costa (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1464 ("Baird") case, where neighbors of an addiction treatment facility urged that an EIR be prepared for the expansion of the facility on the grounds that the site was contaminated. As in this case, the appellate court in Baird held that and EIR was not necessary since the expansion of the facility would not have any impact on the environment. The authority raised CEQA Guideline section 15126.2, subdivision (a) in support of its position. That subsection states that an EIR must analyze significant environmental effects a project might cause by bringing development and people to the affected area. The Court of Appeal declined to adopt the rationale and noted that "the guideline deals with the content of an EIR after it has been determined one is necessary. It does not address the question at issue here: whether an EIR is necessary at all." The authority also argued that the city was piecemealing the project. More specifically, the authority urged that the city should be required to consider a development project – not just land use changes on the site because to do so conceals cumulative impacts. But, the Court of Appeal noted that neither the scope nor size of a project on the site adjacent to the sewage plant would affect the odors emanating from the sewage plant. General Plan Consistency A general plan is internally inconsistent when one required element conflicts with another or when a part of one element conflicts with another part of the same element.  In this case, the city added a new mixed-used land use designation to its general plan. The new mixed-used designation did not conflict with any other designations, nor did it conflict with any of the goals or policies contained in the land use element. The authority claimed that the new designation was not internally consistent because it did not include a way in which to ensure that the new designation was compatible with surrounding uses. The Court of Appeal dismissed this argument finding that no land use designation is required to do such a thing. Conclusion This decision reaffirms the decisions in Baird and in the City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2009) 176 CalApp.4th 889, both which held that CEQA is intended to identify effects of the proposed project, not the effects of the existing environment on that project. The Case: South Orange County Wastewater Authority v. City of Dana Point (2011) 196 Cal. App. 4th 1604; 127 Cal Rptr. 3d 636; 2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 859. June 30, 2011. The Attorneys:  Bowie, Arneson, Wiles & Giannone, Wendy H. Wiles and Jeffrey A. Hoskinson for Plaintiff and Appellant. Rutan & Tucker, Robert S. Bower and John A. Ramirez for Defendant and Respondent. Katherine J. Hart is an attorney in the firm of Abbott & Kindermann , LLP, of Sacramento.

The Sustainable Communities Strategy unveiled in December by the Southern California Association of Governments struck its member cities and counties with all the uncertainty of an unwrapped Christmas gift.  Rather than surprise the six counties and 191 cities that make up the SCAG region, SCAG planners spent the better part of the past two years surveying their members' own plans and their own projections for population growth and future development in order to develop an SCS that would be far more predictive than prescriptive. As such, SCAG tried to build consensus pre-emptively for the regional plan rather than attempt to come up with a document that would compel cities and counties to change course or to otherwise compel jurisdictions to alter their development patterns. Under SB 375, SCAG must adopt an SCS by next April. "This is very different from what some feared when SB 375 was adopted that we might see a top-down regional imposition of one-size-fits-all," said Richard Lambros, senior policy advisor for the Building Industry Association of Southern California. "That is not what this plan is." Though the SCAG region includes a diverse array of jurisdictions, the SCS attempts to bring some uniformity to the region by identifying a handful of "community types," defined according to density, jobs-housing mix, and transit access. These "types" include, in roughly descending order of density, urban, city, town, suburban, and rural. With these types in mind, the SCS encourages the development of housing in main street and downtown areas. Roughly 1 million new housing units will be directed towards urban, city, and town areas, with 417,00 units directed towards suburbs; suburban areas currently comprise roughly 40% of the region's households but will receive only 28% of projected growth. And much of that growth will be in denser housing types than the region has historically been accustomed to. "We're portraying in our SCS 68% multifamily between today and 2035," said Douglas Williford, SCAG's deputy executive director. "That is about the reverse of what happened in the past." The SCS outlines a plan for integrating the transportation network and related strategies with an overall land use pattern that responds to projected growth, housing needs and changing demographics, and transportation demands. "There was lot of outreach to all 191 cities and six counties," said SCAG President and Santa Monica City Council Member Pam O'Connor. "The document is based on the existing general plan in all of those cities. That's the core foundation." "It was the most collaborative process I think our agency has ever gone through," said Williford. "It surprised us, to be honest, we ended up with over 80 percent attendance of our 197 jurisdictions within our region." The result of this approach, unveiled as the SCAG draft SCS/Regional Transportation Plan at the Dec. 1 Regional Council meeting in Los Angeles, is a twofold benefit: first, the strategy has been roundly praised by member jurisdictions; and, second, if followed in full by 2035, it may beat regional per capita emissions reduction targets set by the state. As mandated by Senate Bill 375, the SCS is intended to reduce the region's per capita greenhouse gas emissions 13 percent by 2035; the draft SCS predicts reductions of 16% by 2035 and on-target reductions of 8% by 2020.  Williford said he is "100% confident" that the region can reach those targets. "We wouldn't have gone over and above our initial targets unless we were completely confident of success." Although new development in the region has been relatively stagnant during the recession, SCAG's growth projections call for the region to add 4 million residents and over 1 million households by 2035.  These optimistic numbers and a unanimous vote to release the draft plan for public review is a far cry from the last major discussions surrounding SB 375. Just over a year ago factions in the Regional Council were at odds over the per capita targets, with representatives of some suburban jurisdictions lobbying for less ambitions targets than SCAG staff had originally recommended. Those factions won out, and the California Air Resources Board assigned SCAG the lower targets.  Now that the targets are set, almost no one seems to have a problem with the regional planning scheme that the SCS envisions.  "The fight that happened was important, because that's the civil discourse that's got to happen," said Simi Valley City Council Member and incoming SCAG President Glen Becerra. "I think we're there now. The agreement is there for the targets we need to hit." Becerra originally led the lobbying in favor of lower targets. Developers and builders were also wary of the higher targets, but they too have expressed support for the draft RPT/SCS. "We have been focused on four key principles that we hoped to see in the SCS: local control, providing reasonable flexibility, positive economic impacts, and making sure it would be realistic in its market assumptions for real estate and housing," said the BIA's Lambros. "We're very pleased that the SCS as drafted seems to have addressed all of our concerns." In fact, a certain amount of regional pride has come to surround the SCS, with Regional Council members suggesting that the SCAG region could be a model for cooperation--a model that policymakers in Sacramento and Washington, D.C., would be wise to emulate, according to some speakers at the Regional Council meeting. Adding to its appeal, the RTP/SCS is being pitched in part as a job-creation scheme, with transportation-related projects generating nearly 170,000 annual jobs, according to SCAG estimates. SCAG also predicts a healthy multiplier, of $2.90 generated for every $1 spent implementing the RTP/SCS.  Beyond these optimistic predictions, the SCS was devised in such a way that it would be nearly impossible for it to fail. The drafting has been more of an information-gathering process than a planning process. SCAG planners researched the general plans of nearly all of the region's jurisdictions and matched them up against population growth predictions for the region. They confirmed that the vast majority of jurisdictions are already pursuing development strategies that promote higher-density housing and place it along transit corridors. These patterns have long been advocated by SCAG through its Compass Blueprint regional planning strategy and other decentralized efforts. "Beginning in the 1990s the amount of emphasis�.on smart-growth type planning and implementation of actual projects that was already going on," said Williford. "There were in fact hundreds of examples around the SCAG region of great projects that were either focused already on transit areas�or downtown mixed-use re-visioning that were entirely consistent with the goals of SB 375." "We did not want it to be a blue sky plan that was not realistic," added Williford. "We wanted it to be a progressive plan that was absolutely realistic." Complementing this approach to regional planning are subregional SCS's that are being prepared locally for Orange County and for the Gateway Cities subregion (including Long Beach and neighboring cities of southern Los Angeles County). Of the four metropolitan planning organizations statewide that are required to craft SCS's under SB 375, only SCAG was granted special dispensation to draft subregional plans, in part because SCAG is by far the state's largest MPO region in both population and land area. The concession, as well as deference to cities' general plans, was considered crucial for buy-in among SCAG members.  The SCS attempts to create a unified picture of growth in the region by identifying "High Quality Transit Areas," in which a great deal of projected growth will occur. A HQTA is generally a walkable transit village, consistent with the adopted SCS that has a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre and is within a � mile of a well-serviced transit stop, and includes transit corridors with minimum 15-minute or less service frequency during peak commute hours. The RTP/SCS assumes that 51 percent of new housing developed between 2008 and 2035 will be within HQTAs, along with 53 percent of new employment growth (compared with 39 and 48 percent, respectively in 2008). The RTP/SCS predicts that the number of households in HQTAs will double by 2035.  Then again, some are quick to point out that higher density does not eliminate the type of suburban, single-family developments that have long characterized Southern California. "We want folks to recognize that there's still room in this plan for well-planned greenfield development," said Lambros. "We don't want folks to think that the adoption of the SCS means the elimination of certain housing types." Becerra, of Simi Valley, said that despite his initial skepticism about the emissions targets, these development patterns do not represent a major imposition, even for a largely suburban city. "It won't really have a dramatic re-direction of our community," said Becerra. "Our community was already on-target with our updated general plan. We're not talking about 100 units to the acre. We're talking about 15 units to the acre." Of course, an HQTA can only succeed if the transit actually exists. The RTP calls for $216.9 billion of investment in transportation infrastructure. That includes roughly $50 billion for local bus and rail transit, plus $72 billion for highway upgrades. Infrastructure to promote walking and bicycling alone is budgeted for $6 billion, to increase the region's bikeway miles from roughly 4,000 to over 10,000 and to upgrade 12,000 miles of sidewalks.  The RTP includes financial projections that would fund these investments. Some funding comes from local tax measure that have already been implemented, while other funding comes from more speculative sources, including a mileage-based user fee intended to replace the current gas tax. That fee is projected to raise $110 billion. However, many officials are cautious about spending funds that have not yet materialized.  "Every plan is implemented incrementally," said O'Connor. "We build what we can." Funding also poses a challenge to cities, many of which are hoping to update their general plans to complement the SCS and yet do not have the funds for such an intensive planning exercise. "City governments�.are more than ready to respond to this marketplace and respond to changes and do intelligent long-term land-use planning," said Williford. "But they need help." Though Williford and others admitted that funding is tight, especially with the possible elimination of redevelopment throughout the state, he said that SCAG is disbursing planning funds through a grant program. SCAG gave out $14.5 million in planning grants this year and Wiliford said that SCAG hopes to put out another call for projects shortly, though a timeline has not been announced. Contacts & Resources SCAG RTP/SCS Site: http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Pages/default.aspx Glenn Becerra incoming president of SCAG, Simi Valley City Council Member Lucy Dunn, Executive Director, Orange County Business Council, 949.476.2242 Rich Lambros, Sr. Policy Advisor to BIA Southern California, 949.553.9500 Pam O'Connor, President, Southern California Association of Governments, Santa Monica City Council Member, 213.236.1800 Douglas Williford, Deputy Executive Director, Southern California Association of Governments, 213.236.1919

Over the past few years, publishers have put out enough books on urban sustainability to make Al Gore blush. Unfortunately, making a city sustainable takes a lot longer than does writing a book about making cities sustainable. So while green fatigue may have crept in, 2011 brought an eclectic array of books about urbanism and, in particular, about California. CP&DR has received some captivating titles this year, and somehow, California (or at least Los Angeles) continues to fascinate authors and photographers alike.  This year's crop of CP&DR's most intriguing books ranges from a micro-history of the Hollywood Sign, to a luscious glossary of urban terms in the Language of Towns and Cities, to what may prove to be this generation's most enduring, wide-ranging account of urbanism, Triumph of the City. Though many California cities no longer have bookstores at which to pick up any of the following titles, CP&DR presents its inaugural roundup of urban books from the past year, just in time for the holidays.  BOOKS OF THE WORLD Triumph of the City By Edward Glaeser Penguin Press In a previous era, Harvard professor Ed Glaeser, bedecked in his trademark three-piece suit, might have been the one of the technocrats out there with his slide rule and transit, "scientifically" deciding just how much of a neighborhood to knock down. But, today, urban planning's very own Don Draper has put quantitative analysis to a far more humane use. If Jane Jacobs wrote from the heart, Glaeser writes decidedly from the head. But he reaches much the same conclusions as Jacobs did: cities are wonderful and, most importantly for Glaeser, cities create value. Much of the data analysis--not to mention the poetic connections between Renaissance art, the Golden Age of Athens, and call centers in Bangalore--is intuitive to contemporary progressive urbanists. True to his conservative manner, Glaeser does not call for radical re-visioning of cities. His arguments imply that everything from historic preservation to urban agriculture to congestion pricing can be valuable only insofar as they support a city's ability to nurture ideas and increase prosperity. See original CP&DR Review , Vol. 26, No. 8, April 2011. The Language of Towns and Cities: A Visual Dictionary Dhiru A. Thadani, ed. Rizzoli This is the gift that keeps on giving. The Language of Cities and Towns, an extensive glossary of planning and architectural terms, couldn't be read in one sitting, or even in one year.  Lushly illustrated with photos, maps, and diagrams, it can remind planners of why they do what they do, and it can teach non-planners a little bit of the vocabulary that often makes planning so inaccessible.  The metaphorical use of "language" to describe architectural form is often a cop-out, invoked when a designer or critic actually has nothing to say about a building. Indeed, "visual language" is an oxymoron. But this book takes language literally, with entries on everything from accessibility to fenestration to "parking: off-street automated system" to zeitgeist. Eminent architects and urbanists including Andres Duany, Doug Kelbaug, James Howard Kunstler, and Robert A.M. Stern contributed entries to this monumental coffee-table edifice.  Living in the Endless City The Urban Age Project Phaidon The growth of the world's urban population -- famously topping 50% in 2007, presumably never to reverse course -- has also occasioned the growth of books about that urban population. Exhibit 1 was The Endless City, published in 2007 to celebrate and theorize that global tipping point, and now comes its companion doorstop, Living in the Endless City.  Living in the Endless City offers 430 pages of arresting photos, bold graphics, and statistics exploring what it means for humans to live side-by-side by the tens of millions. While its predecessor focused on six cities on four continents, Living in the Endless City mutes its ambition by focusing on only three cities: Mumbai, Sao Paulo, and Istanbul. Why those three, and why so few, is unclear. Among the images of skylines, graffiti, and traffic are essays by urban scholars – Saskia Sassen, Bruce Katz, and Richard Sennett among them -- all trying to explain what this moment means and how humans are going to cope with cities that just won't stop growing.  BOOKS OF CALIFORNIA The Hollywood Sign By Leo Braudy Yale University Press Consider this for a moment: The single most famous landmark in the nation's second-largest city is not a skyscraper, a museum, a seat of government, or even a home. It is a sign. The semiotic implications are, to say the least, probably too much for the typical starlet's mind to grasp. Or even the typical professor, for that matter. Was there ever a more potent symbol of Los Angeles' superficiality?  For all the theorizing we can do about the Hollywood Sign, Leo Braudy's little history of a big sign adds a nice footnote to the saga of glitz that is Hollywood. Braudy acknowledges that "Hollywood" is a place, an industry, and an idea all wrapped into one, and he does a nice job explaining how the sign fits into all three. His account ranges from the early 1900s, when it was a dusty outpost, to the arrival of movie moguls, to the "Hollywoodland" real estate boom, and onward. He chronicles the sign's deterioration in the 1970s and the campaigns to save the sign, when the movie industry has shown rare flashes of civic pride. As it turns out, something two-dimensional can reveal stories that are more than skin-deep. Even in Hollywood.  Cityscapes: San Francisco and its Buildings By John King Heyday Books Cityscapes is the opposite of The Hollywood Sign. In his introduction, longtime San Francisco Chronicle architecture critic John King notes that San Francisco is often considered greater than the sum of its parts, often overshadowing individual architectural works that punctuate its liberal Victorian splendor. Hence, the book's title. King's mission in Cityscapes, though, is to see the trees for the forest, by highlighting 50 structures that he considers quirky, iconic, and uniquely San Francisco. King includes superstars like the Transamerica Pyramid and de Young Museum, but also reserves equal love for BART stations, beaux arts apartment buildings, houseboats, and an odd pile of logs called "The Spire." Pocket-sized, much like San Francisco itself, Cityscapes is a splendid handbook to California's most urbane city.  Julius Shulman Los Angeles: The Birth of a Modern Metropolis Sam Lubell & Douglas Woods, eds. Rizzoli Previously reviewed in CP&DR (see Vol. 26, No. 14, July 2011 ), Julius Schulman Los Angeles assembles a stunning collection by Los Angeles' signature photographer. Though the debate will forever rage about the spiritual, psychic, and even economic benefits of mid-century modern architecture, no one can deny that the severity and straight lines of the rational age look gorgeous through Shulman's lens. The collection reveals, however, that Shulman was not just a fashion photographer. He was not concerned only with Neutras, Eameses, and Lautners sauntering down the runway. Some of the more humdrum selections from his vast archive reveal a deep fascination with the development of Los Angeles and of the relationship between all those space-age buildings and the natural landscape on which they were placed. Come to Los Angeles for the masterpieces, but stay for the tract homes, factories, and sun-bleached schoolyards of Los Angeles in its heyday.  L.A. Day/L.A. Night By Michael Light Radius Books If Julius Shulman captured Los Angeles as a work in progress, then fellow photographer Michael Light has attempted to capture it as a finished product. As his title suggests, Light's monograph of aerial photos comes in two parts: a series of photos of Los Angeles lit by the sun, and a series in which the city fades into points of light against the darkness. So much has been made of the "sunshine and noir" theme over the years that it's hard to read too much into Light's work. Judging by the eastward tilt of the shadows, his daytime photos all appear to have been taken in the late afternoon, when the light gets soft and the horizon turns into a white blur. His subjects are the industrial nervous system of the city: rail yards, warehouse districts, freeway interchanges, and oil refineries. From his helicopter, the Los Angeles River is the city's spine. As for the city at night, it's neat to think that even when streets are reduced to receding pinpoints and buildings become black silhouettes, Los Angeles can still be recognized as no place other than itself. Light's ambitious photos are accompanied by a brilliant essay by L.A. Times book critic Michael Ulin. Of the day, Ulin writes, "this light..sucks the nuance out of everything, rendering the landscape as desiccated, dry" but then realizes that this lifeless image of L.A. is "nothing more than a trick of the light." At night, though, there are no tricks -- and this is where planners should pay attention: "you cannot walk alone at night in Los Angeles...if harm befalls you, you are irrevocably on your own. This doesnot mean that L.A. is an unsafe city, just an honest one."  Los Angeles in Maps By Glen Creason Rizzoli It's pretty safe to say that Los Angeles In Maps is a required part of any L.A. enthusiast's collection. Starting with an 1857 map of the San Gabriel Mission, ending with the L.A. Times' attempt to create a definitive map of every L.A. neighborhood, Los Angeles in Maps presents 70 historical maps with accompanying essays for each. The collection not only offers striking glimpses into Los Angeles' urban development, but also into the history and culture of map-making itself, with everything from spare maps of housing tracts and sewage networks to whimsically illustrated maps of literary landmarks, murals, and "sunshine fruits and flowers." Google Maps may tell you where you are going in Los Angeles, but Los Angeles in Maps tells you where Los Angeles has been.  OTHER 2011 TITLES OF INTEREST:  The Fate of Cities: Urban America and the Federal Government, 1945–2000 By Roger Biles University of Kansas Press The Agile City: Building Well-Being and Wealth in an Era of Climate Change By James S. Russell Island Press Arrival City: How the Largest Migration in History Is Reshaping Our World By Doug Saunders Pantheon All Over the Map: Writing on Buildings and Cities By Michael Sorkin Verso Press Small, Gritty, and Green The Promise of America's Smaller Industrial Cities in a Low-Carbon World By Catherine Tumber MIT Press

Just in case you thought that suburbanization of the 20th century was a joint venture between God, the invisible hand, and a pot of gold delivered by the Freedom Fairy, Earl Swift's Big Roads might make you think again.  As it turns out, the interstates and other superhighways that gave life to the suburbs were not preordained. They did not design themselves, and they certainly did not build themselves. Swift gives voice to all those lanes of concrete that we take for granted now but were, in their day, one of the most audacious feats of engineering and public finance in human history.  The story of America's highways starts later than that of America's automobiles, and therein lay the challenge for early road-builders. Not long after the turn of the century, auto companies had hit upon the basic formula for the car, and combustible promoters like Carl Fisher -- a former bicycles salesman turned founder of the Indianapolis 500 --  told Americans to buy them. But for every early auto, there were dozens of stories of getting stuck in the mud, spooking horses, or worse. One particularly harrowing off-road journey was attempted by a certain Army lieutenant named Dwight D. Eisenhower, who participated in the first ever cross-country convoy in 1919. Cannonball Run, it was not.  If there's anyone who doesn't like Ike, it's Earl Swift. Though the Interstate Highway System bears Eisenhower's name and is generally credited to him, Swift's account gives credit to the forgotten engineers who envisioned a national road system while Ike was scarcely out of Basic Training. Upon taking office, Eisenhower called for a national highway system and yet, according to Swift, "didn't kow that the executive and legislative branches had already worked out the details of the network he sought." Though his sources are unclear, Swift accounts for this oversight by reporting that "the thirty-fourth president wasn't much of a reader" and hated long briefings. And thus the Interstate Highway System sprung unsullied from the general's imagination.  The real heroes of big roads, if highway-building can be considered heroic, are Thomas MacDonald and his successor Frank Turner, the engineers who led the federal effort at the helm of the Bureau of Public Roads. MacDonald shephered the national highway system from 1919 to 1953--not only fighting for funding and plotting routes but also inventing the system of highway numbering that remains to this day--with Turner taking over thereafter. Both dull and exacting, nearly to the point of parody (MacDonald responded only to the name "Chief," and then with as few words as possible), neither makes a great protagonist for a national epic. These were men who, according to Swift, "assumed...that everything Americans loved or hated about their cities was quantifiable." For better or worse, their work speaks for itself. In the absence of human drama, Swift delves deep into the policies and funding schemes that first led to the system of U.S. "routes"--the first among them being the scattershot Lincoln Highway--and eventually to the cohesive interstate system that was described in the FDR-era manual Toll Roads and Free Roads and ultimately codified in the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act. Swift covers both the national-scale questions of how many transcontinental highways would be built and how much money Washington would contribute, to the local questions and, particularly, those dark instances in which urban highways did as much to segregate cities nationwide as Jim Crow laws ever did. All told, the government committed 750,000 eminent domain takings in the construction of the interstates.  Swift himself takes a neutral position on the aesthetic value of mega-highways, though he does pay significant attention to the well known (and often racially freighted) battles over urban highways in the 1960s. But his main point is, that for better or worse, those roads didn't get there by accident. And, as a result, neither did the houses, families, and suburban angst that followed them.  The Big Roads: The Untold Story of the Engineers, Visionaries, and Trailblazers Who Created the American Superhighways Earl Swift Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

As much as some planners might not like to admit it, sometimes it seems that the only thing worse than a choked with cars is a street devoid of cars. Forty years ago, Sacramento's K Street Mall – three blocks of prime downtown real estate not far from the State Capitol – was closed off to vehicular traffic as part of a trend that swept downtowns across the country. The premise was simple enough: the absence of cars would increase foot traffic. But – as in other cities -- that foot traffic never materialized in Sacramento  and merchants and planners in the vicinity of the mall have been clamoring for the return of cars for decades. Last month, they finally got their wish. City officials hope that re-opening of K Street to cars will be the catalyst for a downtown revitalization that, though palpable, has been hindered by the ghost town in the heart of what should be a vibrant city center. "It has come up off and on at least over the last 20 years," said Sid Garcia-Heberger. "It was always something that seemed impossibly expensive and difficult from a traffic planning point of view. So it never really got traction. This time around, the sun, moon, and stars aligned, and here we are." The new K Street features extra-wide sidewalks and only two lanes of traffic, which is shared between vehicular traffic and a segment of the city's light rail system. K Street therefore is not expected to become a major thoroughfare but will nonetheless restore what planners consider to be a balance between pedestrian friendliness and the activity that naturally comes with cars. "It's not enough for a city to simply close a portion of its streets to vehicular traffic; the land uses and streetscape must be reconsidered to accommodate pedestrian activity and safety," said Jessica Schmidt, a planner who has conducted research on pedestrian malls. The failure of the K Street Mall stands in stark contrast with successful pedestrian-only streets across the country. Burlington, Vermont; Aspen, Colorado; and Boulder, Colorado, have all created successful outdoor spaces in the hearts of their respective downtowns. And, Santa Monica's bustling Third Street Promenade—the gold standard for pedestrian malls—dispels the notion that Southern Californians refuse to walk. Meanwhile, New York City has famously closed off stretches of Broadway to traffic, creating instant urban plazas with little more than paint and inexpensive outdoor furniture. However, like many other pedestrian malls – including those in Redding and Fresno --  failed to hit on the right formula. Rather than attract pedestrians seeking an unimpeded stroll, K Street repelled them with its emptiness. Indeed, without a thriving commercial district in the first place, a pedestrian mall cannot create foot traffic. It reflects the surrounding environment but is not a catalyst for change. In the case of Sacramento, everyone who should have been visiting K Street was at home on the outskirts of the urbanized area. "You not only have the competition from the suburbs but you also have the general decline of the downtown," said Sid Garcia-Heberger general manager of the Crest Theater, a historic movie theater and performance space. Heberger said that without incidental traffic passing through K Street – enabling drivers to, for instance, see the Crest Theater's marquee or the display windows of shops – some Sacramentens hardly knew that there was a street they could walk down. And at nighttime, without the lunch crowds from nearby offices, K Street was nearly empty. "Property owners and business owners have wanted visibility for their businesses for a long time, and after 42 years we're able to give them that visibility," said Leslie Fritzsche, downtown development manager for the City of Sacramento. "People don't even know that they're there." Despite the success of some pedestrian malls, the story of K Street is hardly unique. Pedestrian malls arose at a time when populations were shifting dramatically towards the suburbs, and planners did not necessarily know how to maintain organic urban places as they emptied out. "Many downtowns were closed to vehicular traffic to try to recreate suburban shopping mall conditions in an urban setting and Main Streets were unable compete with their newer, shinier counterparts, " said Schmidt. Indeed, in Redding the city put a roof on the mall so that it completely mimicked a mall. Planners in many other cities have come to the same conclusions as those in Sacramento did and already taken down their bollards. "I think that pedestrian malls were a bit of a cliché when they were implemented in the 1960s," said Steve Davies, Sr. Vice President at the advocacy group Project for Public Spaces. "Most have been retrofitted in some way or another." Are Sacramento planners committing heresy by inviting traffic? Davies insisted that the demise of pedestrian malls does not contradict the movement towards pedestrian-friendly environments that many urban planners are advocating and that new laws, such as Senate Bill 375, are promoting. "There's nothing wrong with cars. It's all about a balance with cars," said Davies. "Streets are multi-functional places. They have to serve a variety of uses for light rail, pedestrians, cars, bicycles….it's a mix that needs to accommodate all sorts of diverse functions. It's not all sitting on benches and looking at trees." Davies noted that even with density and activity, an entirely closed-off street does not necessarily appeal to pedestrians, who may consider the space to be too open. "There's something psychological," said Davies. "When you look at how people actually walk along pedestrian malls, they cling to the edges and the storefronts like it's this ghost street in the middle." He noted that Santa Monica's Third Street Promenade includes a "fake street," which runs down the middle and gives pedestrians a defined space in which to walk. The design of the new K Street attempts to strike a balance between the space occupied by cars and trains and the space open to pedestrians. "We wanted to make sure that the pedestrian experience wasn't changed and that they still had opportunity for wide sidewalks and all of the aesthetics that a wider sidewalk provides," said Fritzsche. The re-opening of K Street is not expected to spur traffic—foot or otherwise—all by itself. The city has struck an agreement for a major mixed use development in the 700 block, and officials are also hoping to revitalize the suffering Westfield mall, itself a remnant of 1960s urbanism, at the foot of K Street. "We certainly would like them to do a little bit more and turn it inside-out more so that it's facing the ‘letter' streets more effectively, said Fritzsche. She said that the arrival of a car dealership and the expansion of a fitness club are positive signs. In the meantime, stakeholders on K Street are eagerly waiting to see how Sacramentans respond to the resurrected street. "We definitely are going to have some learning curves. I think people are not quite used to the idea that it's a street," said Heberger. "Overall it's pretty exciting to look out and see cars going by." Contacts: Sid Garcia-Heberger, General Manager, Crest Theater 916.44C.REST Steve Davies, Sr. Vice President, Project for Public Spaces,  212-620-5660 Leslie Fritzsche, Sacramento Downtown Development Manager 916.808.7223 Photos courtesy of John Pastor and Neighborhoods.org, respectively.

Downtown Los Angeles' residential population nearly tripled between 2000 and 2008.  There are now about 45,000 people who call Downtown home, including my wife and I, who recently celebrated the anniversary of our move to Downtown (or DTLA as it's become known among locals).  We are, in many ways, exactly what planners had in mind when they began to promote downtowns as residential neighborhoods. In Los Angeles, the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, enabling developers to convert older commercial buildings into apartments and lofts, is credited with sparking this movement. My wife and I rely on public transportation to get to work and share one car, which we drive primarily on the weekends.  We dine at a wide variety of restaurants, watch the latest movies at a first-rate theater, enjoy diverse cultural events, walk to our church, and go to the gym without driving.  These benefits of downtown living are obvious and have certainly helped to attract people like us to Downtown.  However, now that we are more than ten years into the rebirth of Downtown, the area's evolution remains unclear. Whether Downtown can keep its existing residents in the long-term and draw in new ones will depend to a great extent on the provision and improvement of critical amenities like schools and parks.  Two recent community meetings highlighted the divergent paths that Downtown Los Angeles—like other revitalized downtowns from Oakland to San Diego—might follow. \tOn November 3, 2011, a group of neighborhood churches hosted a town hall meeting for residents who wanted to learn more about schooling options available in the area and discuss ways to make Downtown more kid-friendly.  According to a recent study by the Downtown Center Business Improvement District, over 18% of Downtown residents either have kids at home or plan to start a family soon. It was clear that contrary to public perception, there are a number of quality public and charter schools within close proximity to Downtown in neighborhoods such as Chinatown and Elysian Park.  However, some South Park residents expressed a desire for a new elementary school within walking distance from their homes. It is an understandable desire. People live downtown so that they can abandon their cars. Having to make two round-trip drives per day to pick the kids up at school defeats the purpose. \tA week later, City Councilmember José Huizar hosted "The Future of Your Downtown."  Contrary to the big picture feel of the event title, the meeting was actually focused on two related planning initiatives: Bringing Back Broadway and the L.A. Streetcar. Bringing Back Broadway is the effort to revitalize Broadway, one of the birthplaces of vaudeville and film, and one of the city's oldest, most storied corridors.  The proposed L.A. Streetcar is an approximately 4-mile system that would serve areas including Bunker Hill, Grand Avenue and the Music Center, Historic Broadway and the Historic Core, South Park, LA Live, and the Convention Center. As a Downtown resident, I certainly like to see exciting new projects. However, a cohesive vision of the future of Downtown appears to be missing.  By this, I mean that there are numerous planning efforts happening in DTLA, but they seem to be considered in isolation rather than together comprehensively (the same could probably be said for the other California cities that are planning streetcar lines, see CP&DR Vol. 25, No. 21 , Nov. 2010).Tellingly, the issue of schools was only briefly mentioned at this meeting when a member of the audience asked about the potential to convert unused historic commercial buildings on Broadway to charter or public schools.  As well, this meeting was generally more concerned about attracting visitors to DTLA rather than maintaining or increasing its residential population. DTLA can be both a vibrant residential community and a successful tourist attraction; the two visions can complement rather than conflict with each other.  However, much more resources and attention have been given to projects designed primarily to attract visitors like Bringing Back Broadway, the L.A. Streetcar, and even a professional football stadium.  In order to create well-rounded urban centers in Los Angeles and elsewhere, planning efforts must focus on maintaining and growing resident populations. This means the provision of quality schooling and recreational options must become priorities in Downtown. My sister often gives me props for living the true urban life.  I am convinced that more people will continue living this urban life or try it for the first time when they are assured that DTLA does not just offer good restaurants, shops, and entertainment, but also great schools, parks, and other vital amenities. Planners, developers, and civic leaders deserve credit for the massive efforts they have put forth to make old city centers viable residential areas. But planning is a perpetual, generational project.  It is not enough to look ten years back and marvel at how far we have come. We also have to look ten, or twenty, years ahead and decide what sort of life downtown dwellers want for themselves and—by then—for their children. Clement Lau is a planner and freelance writer based in Los Angeles.

LOS ANGELES—For as long as I can remember, civic leaders in Southern California have been touting "regionalism." They insist that an area as interconnected as Los Angeles and its satellites really ought to coordinate how it grows and what it invests in. This sort of rhetoric usually goes no further than sparsely attended final panel discussions at a conferences about leadership or land use or some such. It's hard to "be regional" when everything from county boundaries to uncooperative public officials keep everything in its respective silos.  Last week, however, Southern California finally got something to be regional about.  At its regional council meeting Dec. 1, the leadership of the Southern California Association of Governments unveiled its draft Sustainable Communities Strategy and Regional Transportation Plan . The SCS was crafted by SCAG planners to respond to the demands of Senate Bill 375, the 2008 law that requires urban regions in California to coordinate their land use and transportation planning in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In the two-month comment period to come, SCAG members and other stakeholders will no doubt grouse emphatically about this or that detail in the RTP. But if last week's event is any indication, the advent of the SCS may mark a new day in regional governance. (Bear in mind that this "region" has a larger population, and has more political subunits, than most nation-states do.) As if all that pent up desire for regional cooperation has finally found a worthy project, city representatives and other stakeholders who offered their comments overwhelmingly supported the spirit of the RTP and exhorted their colleagues and counterparts to cooperate for the good of SCAG and of the plan itself. More than one speaker compared SCAG favorably to the California Legislature and to the U.S. Congress. They said that SCAG and its constituents can prove that regional governance can get things done when others have failed.  For a few moments, it almost felt as if the SCAG region was not part of a bankrupt state and an indebted, politically fractured country. But, of course, it is. So all the optimism and accord may not be able to obviate the fact that implementing the RTP and re-organizing land use for a region of 12 million people may cost a ducat or two. Where they will come from is open to debate.  But SCAG may be off to a good start. It, like its fellow "Big Four" MPOs, clearly has a renewed sense of purpose and a common goal. And now that SB 375 is on the books, there was no sign of the bitter debates over per capita emissions goals—largely between suburban and urban representatives—that complicated the target-setting process that the California Air Resources Board underwent this time last year.  Now if only Congress could follow SCAG's lead.  --Josh Stephens

In a few years, if the funding lines up and environmental clearances are issued, California may welcome the nation's very first high-speed rail system, a high-tech wonder that promises to alleviate traffic, reduce pollution, and get Californians to the blackjack tables as quickly as humanly possible.   But it's not the California High Speed Rail project. Rather, it's the proposed DesertXpress. Five years in the making, the Desert Xpress may sound like a frivolous party train, recent federal approvals have brought the line considerably closer to reality than it has ever been before. And as the projected price tag for the state's high-speed rail system steams towards the $100 billion, it is increasingly likely that the $6.5 billion privately-developed line could turn out to be the nation's first true high-speed rail system.  Under the lead of the Federal Railway Administration, DesertXpress completed its environmental impact statement in April and last month the line received preliminary approvals from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. It has received public support from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood. It has received opposition from environmental groups concerned about the train's impact on desert tortoises. The exclusive, double-tracked right of way would parallel Interstate 15.  As proposed, the line would go from Victorville, in San Bernardino County, to the heart of Las Vegas. The 185-mile trip would take 80 minutes, at speeds of up to 150 miles per hour and spare travelers the agony of the five-hour traffic jams that often back up on Interstate 15.  "That's a hellacious drive," said John Husing, an economist who focuses on the Inland Empire (Husing worked on an economic analysis of DesertXpress for the City of Barstow). "On Friday evenings and Sunday when people are often going for the weekend, it can be bumper-to-bumper practically all the way out there." While the obvious attraction of Sin City awaits at the line's northern terminus, its southern terminus doesn't offer quite the same degree of glamour. The City of Victorville is known as the center of the high-desert Victor Valley, just over the Cajon pass from the Inland Empire. Like its sister communities on the other side of the pass, Victorville has been devastated by the economic downturn and the collapse of the housing market. But the advent of DesertXpress has some thinking that a new, genuine real estate boom could be coming to the city.  "I think it's transformative from the standpoint that it's going to put Victorville on the map from the standpoint of it being really the first HSR on the West Coast…of any significance in the entire nation," said Victorville Mayor Brian McEachron. "A lot of that should spur future development in and around our city and will benefit all the cities and towns here in the high desert." Currently, two sites are being considered for the southern terminus of DesertXpress. The more southerly site is farther from the center of town but has fallen out of favor because it abuts the city's landfill. Regardless, both sites have been included in the expansion of the city's sphere of influence, which was approved by the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission in 2010.  DesertXpress is now reportedly seeking $4.9 billion in federal transportation loans. Even with such a daunting price tag, some believe that the project is viable, in part because the train has strong support in the Las Vegas area. "I think it's real, mostly because it has a very large private sector commitment to get it done. It's not like the high-speed rail California, which is essentially federal and state and looks like it's going nowhere," said Husing.  If the the line goes forward, it could eventually lead to an annexation of the land surrounding the high-speed rail station and the development of a brand-new town center which, planners say, could eventually be the home up to 70,000 people. Victorville's current estimated population is 115,000.  Planning for the station and its surrounding area is likely to follow a far different strategy than that for the stations envisioned for the statewide high-speed rail system. Most of those stations, including San Francisco's Transbay Terminal and Los Angeles' Union Station, are in big-city downtowns. Whether Victorville can entice travelers to stay a while—between the time they park their cars and the time they board the train—and whether the vibrancy of a station will be enough to bring life to what is currently a plot of scrub brush remains to be seen. (The current Amtrak station in Victorville is located in the downtown.) The Federal Railway Administration's record of decision does not predict that the station in Victorville would spur much development because "unlike other rail lines, the Project would primarily serve non-work trips between the two stations; use of the rail line for frequent commute trips is expected to be minimal….Although anticipated to be small, there is potential for the Project to result in beneficial TOD effects within the vicinity of the stations." That analysis, however, may underestimate the ambitions of DesertXpress' developers and the city. City officials say that it will and are already planning for it in conjunction with Transit Real Estate Development Co. (TRED)—the real estate development arm of the Las Vegas-based company that is developing DesertXpress. The agreement between the city and TRED was the subject of a lawsuit was brought against the city in 2008. Stakeholder groups claimed that the agreement was a back-room deal that gave the company the right to develop the station and the surrounding area without a proper competitive bid or request for proposals process. That suit settled, however, and the developer agreement remains.  DesertXpress company officials declined to comment for this story.  While DesertXpress is reported to be planning a surface parking lot that could hold up to 15,000 cars. DesertXpress has promised that the Las Vegas "experience" will begin in Victorville, but whether that means neon lights and showgirls, city officials are hoping that there will be some land left over for rail-oriented development.  "I think a train station in that area could spur a lot of development that would have taken a lot more years down the road would see any if it weren't for the train," said the city official.  The city had already begun preliminary discussions of the planning and engineering necessary to link the southern site into the city's infrastructure; the northern site is four miles from current city boundaries and therefore will require a new round of studies and discussions on the part of the city.  "Because we expanded our sphere of influence to the north of our city to include land that would ultimately encompass not only the station but also the surrounding development," said McEachron. "We've done a lot of pre-planning with that organization and zoning." McEachron said that the city has master-planned the annexation area for a full build-out that could evolve into a multifaceted community, with commercial, retail, multifamily housing, and amenities such as parks and paseos.  "The commercial core that we have planned around it would allow an adequate band of development around the train station," said a Victorville city official who requested that his name not be used. "The train station would be the core. But there is a band of commercial, enough for shopping, hotels, conference centers and things like that. Outside of that ring, we're thinking possible Victoria Gardens-style multifamily buildings."  Victoria Gardens is an upscale lifestyle and shopping center in Rancho Cucamonga, on the southern end of the Cajon Pass.  While DesertXpress will be designed to serve the transportation needs of eager partiers, it may also affect transportation and employment patterns in Victorville. McEachron said that the construction would generate 28,000 jobs in San Bernardino County, plus jobs that would be associated with the train's eventual operation. That means that area residents, many of whom have suffered in the recession, would not have to go over the Cajon Pass for work.  "The primary earners are commuters down to place like Ontario," said Husing. "So this will add to the local job base." Despite the enthusiasm and development opportunities, some in Victorville are wary of scheduling any ribbon-cuttings just yet. While Victorville has reaped the economic benefits of nearby Southern California Logistics Airport, other seemingly ideal megaprojects have come and gone.  "I think at the end of the day is that the challenge that the High Desert region has….always have projects like this on the horizon, and they don't happen," said Joseph W. Brady, president of the Bradco Companies, a commercial leasing brokerage based in Victorville. "I'd love to see a bunch of development out there, but I'm also realistic. I'm not going to be a part of convincing people to speculate on land that may or may not happen." Brady and McEachron both said that the ultimate ambition is for DesertXpress to eventually traverse the Antelope Valley and connect with the planned California High-Speed Rail station in Palmdale. But with the state system facing an uncertain future, many stakeholders in Victorville will be happy just being the portal to Las Vegas.  "If they can push this thing forward and put the money in the ground and people use it, then God bless them, because everybody's going to win," said Brady.  Contacts:  Joseph W. Brady, President, The BradCo Companies, 760.951.5111 John Husing, Economics & Politics, Inc. Brian McEachron, Victorville Mayor, (760) 955-5000 Victorville Planning Division, 760.955.5135

The past few years have been great for not building things. The Great Recession has particularly devastated developers building on the urban fringe, who found themselves saddled with entitlements for homes that no one would ever buy.  But for a distinct group of non-developers, the so-called Great Recession has been great for business.  The state's 150 land trusts are a diverse lot. But many have escaped the fate of their for-profit counterparts due to a fortunate coincidence. At the very moment when land prices have dropped, state, federal, and even philanthropic funding has generally remained robust.  "For the most part, the speculative values have gone down, so it's actually a better time to be buying than during the craziness of a few years ago," said Brian Leahy, assistant director at the Division of Land Resources at the California Department of Conservation. "Overall, it's been favorable as long as you have dry powder," said George Yandell, director of real estate for the California chapter of the Nature Conservancy. By that he means, of course, money. So far, money has flowed smoothly enough during the recession for land trusts large and small around the state to make major acquisitions. For example:  • The Nature Conservancy has, according to Yandell, recently been adding roughly 10,000 to 15,000 acres annually in easements and outright purchases to its statewide total - roughly 400,000 acres.   • The Eastern Sierra Land Trust has acquired roughly 4,000 acres since 2008, more than doubling its total holdings.  • The Sonoma Land Trust recently made one of its biggest acquisitions ever, a 6,000-acre assemblage along the Jenner Headlands, at the mouth of the Russian River.  Others have suffered decreases in donations and bureaucratic impediments.  In the Bay Area, where land prices have scarcely dropped, the economic situation has "drastically reduced (the) ability to secure land," according to Craige Edgerton, executive director of the Silicon Valley Land Conservancy. Edgerton said that his organization missed out on the chance to purchase 500 acres for $1.9 million when the state, amid its own budget troubles, put a temporary freeze on the disbursement of bond funds that had already been granted to the organization. Though they are independent organizations, many land trusts effectively act as conduits for state-sponsored conservation activities. Trusts identify properties with significant ecological resources and willing sellers but often fund the purchase of title or easements with state funds that are earmarked for conservation.  The most robust source of funding in recent years have been bonds issued under Proposition 84, the 2006 voter initiative that approved the sale of $5.8 billion in bonds for a variety of purposes related to drinking water, flood control, and conservation. Just under $1 billion in uncommitted funds remain.  The continued availability of those funds has, in some ways, put land trusts in their own economic time warp. "Because of the number of bond acts that were passed over the last 5-10 years, there's been a carryover of funding," said Hardy. Though land trusts are well aware that this pool of money will dry up when the final round of funding is disbursed, many have tried to take advantage of the funds and the deals that have come available over the past few years.  Karen Ferrell-Ingram, executive director of the Eastern Sierra Land Trust said that the "vast majority" of funding for the 4,000 acres her group acquired has come from either Prop. 84 or Prop. 50 funds, much of it disbursed through the newly created Sierra Nevada Conservancy. Prop. 50 is the $3.4 billion clean water bond passed in 2002. Nonetheless, Ferrell-Ingram said that 5,000-15,000 acres of "high-value resources" remain to be preserved in her region, which is centered on the town of Bishop.   Some of land trusts' most fortuitous acquisitions have come at the expense of would-be developers on the urban fringe. Investors who bought land before the real estate bubble burst have had to unload it at a discount. Those discounts have been 10-15% off peak prices, according to Paul Hardy, executive director of the Feather River Land Trust. That's compared to 60% drops in residential and commercial prices in his area in Plumas County, Hardy said.   "There was a combination of developers and holding companies and real estate investors buying these large ranch properties, many of them rapidly proceeding with entitlements and zoning and subdivision permits," said Hardy. "When the bubble burst there wasn't a market for those kinds of subdivisions."  "We've picked up ranches that were slated for development into everything from suburban-type housing, or large trophy, second-home, hobby ranch types of opportunities," said Yandell.  Hardy even said that some investors have approached him trying to unload their properties. "It's kind of created this super-demand and super-level of interest in working with us," said Hardy. "We used to do a lot of landowner outreach—and now we're doing donor discouragement." Across the state, however, opposing forces are acting, on the one hand, to create a buyers market for land trusts but, on the other hand, to limit the availability of properties.  Would-be developers who bought rural land, and are carrying debt on it, likely have neither desire nor expertise to put it to agricultural use and therefore may be willing to unload it on to land trusts for a relative bargain.  By contrast, the prospect of building exurban mini-mansions may not be nearly as enticing as that of using rural land for old-fashioned agriculture. Many working farms and ranches show no signs of coming on to the market because, in this economic climate, those activities have remained profitable. And owners who have been in business for years have nearly zero incentive to get out, particularly because grain and beef are currently fetching relatively high prices.  "Many of the ranchers are not overburdened with debt, so they don't have the liquidity needs," said George Yandell. "They're not in a rush to sell….they're making good money." Those landowners are, in essence, unfazed by market conditions and are likely to sell land only according to their personal inclinations or family situation.   "Probably the main thing that has changed is that there's not as many potential parties that are interested in selling," said Darla Guenzler, executive director of the California Council of Land Trusts.  Land prices would likely be lower except that trusts must purchase land according to appraised development value, and those values still persist even if no one actually intends to develop the land.  When those properties do come up, however, they often lead to a scramble. When trusts have funding on-hand, they can jump at those opportunities—or be sorely disappointed.  "It's not just where you can pick and say, let's get this in 2012, 2013," said Ralph Benson, executive director of the Sonoma Land Trust. "It's all of a sudden there's a death in a family and a really critical property comes on the market….and you either respond or you're really not in the game." The game, however, is set to change drastically for everyone.  When Prop. 84 funds run out in 2013—without any indication of another bond measure on the horizon—it will be the first time in recent memory that land trusts have not been able to draw from a dedicated pot of state funds. Guenzler said that state capital has been available consistently since 2000.   "California has such a history of having periodically renewed sources of capital, so up until now, it's been fairly constant," said Benson. "We'll miss opportunities. It's hard to say what they are, but I'm sure it'll be a setback and there will be some things that are just irreversible."  Land trust administrators say that a combination of strategic planning for acquisitions and diversified funding sources will be essential for them to ensure that they minimize those irreversible losses. Many trusts say they will rely more heavily on donations, which have remained consistent for many of them.  "It seems like there are people recently fed up with government," said Hardy. "My own perception is there could be a broader trend and that people are feeling like taking direct action. One way they can take direct action is voting with the dollars for things they care about."  In order to stretch those dollars as far as possible, land trusts may become increasingly more  picky about the properties that they try to acquire. It has to have some value to our mission: biodiversity, threatened, and of a critical size or adjacent to something making it meaningful," said Yandell. "We have to find those critical projects that are going to make a difference in those large environmental problems that we're facing in California." Though Guenzler noted that donations have been down at many land trusts, overall she said that Californians are likely to continue supporting the work of land trusts. "Californians love land," said Guenzler. "They love parks and open spaces… there may be changes and the change in pace in the coming years, but Californians are pretty dedicated to seeing land protected." Notwithstanding that rosy prediction, Leahy, of the Division of Land Resources, said that the organizations that are facing this future—however uncertain it may be—are far more stable and mature than they were before the current 11-year wave of state funding began.  "Fifteen years ago there were land trusts, but they were more like coffee klatches," said Leahy. "Now we have some very professional land trusts throughout the state and they have become part of the planning process in many areas."  In the absence of state funding, Leahy said that local jurisdictions must make conservation a formal part of their planning and permitting process.  "These farmland easements are valuable planning tools for lots of reasons: open space, food, buffers," said Leahy. Leahy suggested that all counties should consider programs, such as one in Stanislaus County, by which developers who build on farmland are required to pay for the preservation of farmland elsewhere in the jurisdiction.  He also said that the implementation of Senate Bill 375, the regional planning law that requires the creation of Sustainable Communities Strategies, may have implications even for rural land conservation.  "SB 375 is basically trying to get to a land ethic," said Leahy. "And that's what we're about. We're trying to figure out how we instill in the local planners and supervisors an understanding that some land is more valuable as developed land and some land is more valuable as working land."  Contacts:  Brian Leahy, Assistant Director, Division of Land Resources, California Department of Conservation,  916.324.0850 Ralph Benson, Executive Director, Sonoma Land Trust, 707.526.6930 Karen Ferrell-Ingram, Executive Director, Eastern Sierra Land Trust, 760.873.4554 Craige Edgerton, Silicon Valley Land Conservancy 408.460.1102 Paul Hardy  Feather River Land Trust   530.283.5758  George Yandell, Director of Real Estate, Nature Conservancy, California Chapter, 415.777.0487

The outreach process that developers and planners often undergo has always struck me as less a negotiation and more like a perverse game of Marco Polo. Planners and stakeholders chase each other blindly, never quite knowing where each other are and rarely knowing what to do if one actually catches up with the other. It goes something like this:  "Setbacks?"  "10 feet!" "FAR?" "2.5!" "Height limit?"  "40 feet!" "Parking...?" Don't get me started.  This process often devolves into the lamest sort of entrenchment, where even if the stakes are trifling, neither side is willing to admit that they have common ground and common interest. Wouldn't it be nice if planners understood what stakeholders wanted before they tried to go to bat for their projects? The first thing they need to know is that everyone hates their project. Once they know that, everything else gets a little easier.  At last month's Urban Last Institute Fall Meeting in Los Angeles, I attended a panel ostensibly about how developers can contribute to urban design. It was really about how developers and planners can tame the beast known as the public.  The panel was framed around some compelling survey data collected by Saint Consulting and presented by Saint VP Jay Vincent, who delicately referred to American cities as an "opposition-rich environment." According to Vincent, the 2010 "Saint Index" found the following:  In recent years, opposition to all types of development is down. However, 74% of respondents still said that they would not support any new development in their own communities and only 24% said that their community needs new development. The most strongly opposed types of development include, not suprisingly, landfills, casinos, quarrys, power plants, and large malls.  The most favored are single-family homes and groceries, with 87% and 74% support, respectively.  The demographic group most likely to oppose new development are older, college-educated liberals who earn more than $100,000 per year.  Supporters of new development are more likely to be ages 21-35, educated, and less wealthy -- and therefore less likely to spend time or money opposing a poject.  The group most likely to support new development is the Tea Party: 77% of self-identified Tea Party members leaned towards support of new projects.  Key reasons for opposition to a project are protecting community character (23%), protecting the environment (22%) and protecting the value of a home or real estate (16%). Other reasons for opposition include fear of too much new traffic (13%) and that the project is too close to the person's home (13%). The good news for planners, however, is that the survey showed that when stakeholders are educated about the positive impacts of a project, they are more likely to support the project. This seems like the biggest no-brainer of all time, but I doubt that planners abide by this advice as often as they should. Planners can get so bogged down in the minutiae of a project that they neglect to remind stakeholders that a project -- new stories, more jobs, more attractive environment, more neighborhood amenities, and all the rest -- is not merely a money-making engine for developers. If developers think about the benefits that they can confer on stakeholders, then American cities might get fewer timid projects and watered-down compromises. To that end, Vincent recommends that developers and planners not hang back and wait for community opposition to boil over, as it inevitably will. Instead, he recommends that developers present their projects early and often. Once angry neighbors show up, then developers have "lost first-mover status and are on defense," said Vincent.  So, what do public sector planners do with all of this information? In some cases, they may have to lay low, because the public is very suspicious of the relationship between planners and developers. 51% believe that the "planning environment" is fair to poor and assume that there is an "unfair relationship" between the public sector and developers. Here, too, Vincent recommends that planners be proactive. "The days when a (public official) can just show up for a ribbon cutting are gone," he said. Instead, they need to get out into the community and participate in charettes and other collaborative planning activities.  Then maybe we'll get something that resembles less a zero-sum game--be it Maro Polo, chess, or Risk--and looks more like democracy.