Search Results

I was trying to figure out a way to summarize the 2009-2010 session of the California Legislature when I found a summary upon which I could not improve. In its September 3 edition of "Framing the Issues," the affordable housing advocacy group California Housing Law Project nailed the situation. Under the headline "No Budget … No Money … No Legacy … Failed Policy," was this: "Is it too cynical to state that the only good thing to be said about the 2009-2010 legislative session is that it's mercifully over? The Legislature failed to enact a budget this year (although they enacted three last year, none of which worked), failed to address enormous policy issues, including education, pension reform, health care, housing and environmental issues, while frittering away the final days and hours with legislation to ‘save' horse racing, playing word games and the classic pursuits of revenge and name-calling. Cause for cynicism?" I think we may safely conclude the two-year session was unsatisfactory for affordable housing advocates, although they did win passage of AB 602 with bipartisan support. As amended, the bill would extend the statute of limitations for suing over a housing element from 90 days to five years. The affordable housing lobby is hardly the only group frustrated by the Legislature's inaction. Very little significant land use legislation won approval during 2010. No substantial California Environmental Quality Act bills passed, despite the opinion of some alleged expert that this was the year lawmakers would roll back CEQA . Even the CEQA funny business at session's end on behalf of Wal-Mart failed.  Other than a free pass for a football stadium and massive commercial complex in Industry -- although an exemption for another football stadium turned out to be a rumor -- the most important land use legislation of the two-year session was, in fact, water legislation. Lawmakers approved a package of water bills during the fall of 2009 that, among other things, created a new council to unite all Bay Delta policy. However, the package also included an $11.1 billion water bond for the November 2010 ballot. At Gov. Schwarzenegger's urging, lawmakers in early August agreed to postpone the bond election until 2012. Water policy and investment could have been this Legislature's legacy, but even that has been diluted. So, let's review the Housing Law Project's headline. No budget? Check. No money? Check. No legacy? Not much. Failed policy? More like no policy. I recognize California is in a pickle because of a lingering recession over which the Legislature and the administration have no control. But, as experienced managers are inclined to say, you don't ever want to waste a perfectly good crisis. A crisis provides the cover for reconsidering standard practices and for making hard decisions that individuals and organizations would otherwise avoid. Crisis wasted? Check. – Paul Shigley

Maybe there is reason to hope we can get development right in the future. That's the conclusion I draw after looking over the list of projects that the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) recently named "catalyst projects." It's largely rhetoric, the state has put its seal of approval on -- and given valuable publicity to -- some promising, progressive projects. In general, projects are mixed-use, mixed-income infill projects that attempt – to varying degrees – to de-emphasize the automobile and improve the public realm. It's nice to see the state recognize the planning behind such projects, even if the state isn't willing to attach much money to that recognition. A little background: Early this year, HCD, Caltrans and the Department of Conservation sought applications from cities and counties for the pilot project. The application stated: "Approximately six development projects will be selected as Catalyst Projects in communities throughout California to incentivize sustainable communities and test innovative strategies designed to increase housing supply and affordability; improve jobs and housing relationships; stimulate job creation and retention; enhance transportation modal choices that reflect community values, preserve open space and agricultural resources; promote public health; eliminate toxic threats; address blighted properties; reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy conservation and independence." After a review process that seemed to drag, HCD on August 24 named not just six catalyst projects, but instead  selected 13 projects . A pleasant surprise. The projects are divided up at three different levels: Gold: • City of Emeryville, Emeryville Marketplace • City of San Francisco, Mission Bay • City of Sacramento, Township Nine • City of San Diego, Village at Market Creek • City of Fullerton, Fullerton Transportation Center   Silver: • City of National City, Paradise Creek Revitalization • City of Chico, Meriam Park • Town of Truckee, Truckee Railyard • City of Marina, The Dunes on Monterey Bay • City of Ontario, Downtown Core Catalyst Project   Bronze: • City of Oxnard, North Oxnard Communities • City of San Diego, Quarry Falls • City of Hercules, Bay Front Transit Village Each gold project is eligible for a $1.35 million Proposition 1C affordable housing grant, while the silver projects may receive $500,000 each, according to HCD spokeswoman Panorea Avdis. A source who works in the administration told me that she had been skeptical of the program, but she came away with a positive feeling because of the projects themselves. By demonstrating that some cities and developers are willing to depart from California's tired suburban growth pattern, the projects should serve as models for meeting the state's sustainable growth goals, she told me. In a written statement, HCD Director Lynn Jacobs said as much: "This pilot program will provide valuable insights to allow the State to implement best practices and strategies as we move forward with our sustainable development goals in California. Walkable communities, improved air quality, reduced emissions, less time spent in a car and a strong economy can all become reality through sustainable development, and I look forward to seeing how these projects develop." I, too, am interested in how these projects develop, so I checked in on one of them – Meriam Park in Chico. Planned for about 270 acres on the southeastern edge of town, the project would have about 2,300 housing units, at least 1 million square feet of civic and institutional uses, and about 250,000 square feet of commercial space. The project appears to have just about every new urbanist bell and whistle – a walkable grid, alley-loaded housing, minimal setbacks, neighborhood parks and greens, a wide mix of uses and housing types. Meriam Park is intended to replicate Chico's excellent downtown and delightful older neighborhoods – and to depart from Chico's more recent suburban blandness. Although a full three years has passed since the Chico City Council approved the project, and local developer New Urban Builders has a reputation for completing first-rate projects , the project hasn't gone far because of the economy. Construction is under way on 90 units of affordable housing, and ground should break soon for a new north Butte County courthouse. "We're bullish long-term, but we're not going to put more infrastructure in the ground that we think is prudent," said John Anderson, of Anderson/Kim Architecture + Urban Design and Meriam Park's chief designer. The $500,000 for affordable housing is nice, but it's not going to make much difference. Still, the HCD recognition could open other state funding doors, according to Avdis. "What we were looking for was the designation," explained Chico Assistant City Manager John Rucker. "We see it as a pretty innovative, sustainable project, and we're looking for a number of ways to make it work. We want to position ourselves so that we can take advantage of funding when it does become available." Anderson said the project could be well-positioned to receive federal grants from the interagency partnership of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency. Let's hope government funding and incentives for Meriam Park and the other catalyst projects emerge quickly. It's one thing for state and federal officials to tell cities and counties they should grow in a more sustainable fashion. It's quite another to provide the money that makes such growth actually happen. – Paul Shigley

My nephew and his wife recently had their second child, and they are following a well-worn path from the city to the suburbs. Four years ago, childless and carless, they lived the urban life in the fashionable Washington, D.C., neighborhood of Cleveland Park. Child No. 1 pushed them four miles out, to the expensive inner Maryland suburb of Bethesda, where they bought a cozy two-bedroom condominium that had been converted from an apartment. Then, a couple of months ago, Child No. 2 pushed them another 12 miles farther out – beyond the Beltway – to Rockville, where they bought a four-bedroom, 2,200-square-foot house. Now they are living the suburban life – which means, inevitably, a large yard, two or three cars, and an autobound life for all concerned, including their infant. Right? Well, not exactly. Yes, Eric and Kate have headed for the suburbs. But their life isn't really very autobound at all. Suburbia to them means an end-unit townhome, one car, a daily bus trip to day care, a 10- to 15-minute walk to the library and shopping at Rockville Town Square, and D.C. Metro commutes (13 minutes for him, 30 for her) to work and back. This is America's New Suburban Dream. In a lot of ways, it's just like the old one – the familiar scramble for a great school district, a lot of square footage, distance from urban grittiness, and proximity to schools, parks, and libraries. But in important ways it's different. When they say they live close to the playground, they don't mean it's five blocks to a city park; they mean it's 30 feet from their barbeque, across the common area of the townhome development. When they say they've traded proximity for space, they don't mean they have to drive five miles to the store. They mean that by living 1,000 yards away from the Rockville Metro Stop – instead of 100 yards – they can get a four-bedroom townhome instead of a two-bedroom condominium. It's not an urban life, exactly. Their townhome development – dating from the early 1980s – is not exactly a New Urbanist's dream. It's basically a cul-de-sac development bounded on two sides by strip shopping centers. The streets look a lot like parking lots and it's not all that easy to walk along the sidewalks in and of the development, as Eric and Kate often do. It's more Clarence Stein than Andres Duany. Clearly, it was designed to accommodate people expecting to drive to the Red Line station when it opened in 1984. Yet even with these drawbacks, it has an appealing combination of suburban feel and urban access. And their life is not so urban that they've abandoned their car. The car is an essential component of life on most days – especially to shuttle the kids around, run weekend errands, and, of course, go on vacation. But Eric and Kate use the car differently. The trips are mostly short and it's possible to go a couple of days without using the car at all. But that doesn't necessarily mean their life is devoid of the good things. A walk of about 15 minutes will take them to the center of Rockville – a surprisingly rich and urbane place and becoming more so all the time. Rockville is the county seat of Montgomery County – an affluent and politically liberal county of almost 1 million people – so there have long been tall office buildings in the downtown. More recently, the city, the county, and private developers – including Federal Realty – teamed up to transform a former in-town shopping mall into Rockville Town Square , a surprisingly dense downtown development project with a library, an "arts and innovation center," shops, and 6-story mixed-use buildings. Not surprisingly, the upper-floor condos aren't doing well at the moment, but the whole thing is walking distance from the Metro station – and from Eric and Kate's townhome. DuPont Circle or Cleveland Park it's not, but there's enough going on to keep most people – especially most family-oriented people – more than busy. The walk from Rockville Town Center to the townhome is filled with close-up views of parking lots and strip centers along Maryland 355. This is exactly the kind of property that infill developers and planners salivate over as they think of multi-story mixed-use projects, which in turn terrifies most suburbanites, who fear ever-more-frightening traffic infestation. Amazingly enough for suburbanites, however, Eric and Kate don't seem to be afraid of more urban-style development creeping toward their townhome neighborhood. Most smart growth evangelists would say that's because they understand the typical party line – that a walkable neighborhood works better as it gets denser, unlike an auto-oriented neighborhood, which breaks down because of traffic congestion when more development arrives. That's true enough – though it's kind of a nerdy way to put it. I'd guess Eric and Kate would think of it differently. To them, living in the suburbs revolves not around driving but around living. Though it's far from perfect, Rockville allows Eric and Kate and their kids to focus on living. Which, I think, has been the point of suburbs from the beginning.

Overview A development project in Redding that would destroy critical habitat for endangered species may proceed because the affected habitat constitutes a small percentage of habitat available nationwide, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal has ruled.  The Ninth Circuit's decision puts a new twist on the debate over what constitutes "adverse modification" to critical habitat by upholding a black and white mathematical percentage formula applied by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Using the formula, a FWS biological opinion determine there would not be adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat of three species native to the Central Valley. "The FWS's determination that critical habitat would be destroyed was not inconsistent with its finding of ‘no adverse modification,'" Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote for the court. "After all, the project would affect only a very small percentage of the total critical habitat or vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and slender Orcutt grass." Formal consultation under Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act is required when the property for which a federal permit is sought contains federally listed species or designated critical habitat that may be affected by the permit decision. If formal consultation is required, FWS or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will issue a biological opinion stating whether the permit action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species, or adversely modify or destroy its critical habitat. The Case In this case,  Butte Environmental Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,  the City of Redding sought a Clean Water Act permit to fill wetlands. In 2005, after years of researching potential sites for development of a business park, the city issued a draft Environmental Impact Statement regarding the proposed 678-acre Stillwater Business Park located on wetlands along Stillwater Creek. In December 2006, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued a biological opinion on the project. The opinion stated that more than half of the project site contained habitat deemed critical for species that inhabit vernal pools, small ponds that form during the winter rainy season. The project site contained 356.6 acres of critical habitat shared by the vernal pool fairy shrimp (threatened) and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp (endangered). The project would destroy 234.5 acres of this critical habitat. It would also directly affect 0.56 acres and indirectly affect 6.42 acres of the crustaceans' aquatic habitat. The site also contained 500 acres of critical habitat for slender Orcutt grass, 242.2 acres of which would be destroyed. In calculating the loss of each species, the biological opinion applied a percentage comparison to total nationwide critical habitat. For the fairy shrimp, the 234.5-acre destruction amounted to only 0.04% of the total existing 597,821 acres of the nationwide inventory of fairy shrimp critical habitat. As to the tadpole shrimp, the 234.5 acres that would be destroyed amounted to 0.1% of the 228,785 acres of total critical habitat nationwide. The 242.2 acres slender Orcutt grass habitat to be destroyed amounted to 0.26% of the plant's total nationwide critical habitat of 94,213 acres. The FWS's conclusion was that "the proposed project would not result in the adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat for those species." Butte Environmental Council, a nonprofit environmental organization, filed suit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which issued the Clean Water Act permit, and FWS. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the federal agencies. Butte Environmental Council then appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Arguments & Opinions The council raised four arguments, each of which was rejected by the Ninth Circuit. First, the council argued that FWS applied an improper definition of "adverse modification" that did not account for the recovery needs of the affected species as required under  Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service , (9th Cir. 2004) 378 F.3d 1059. The court rejected the council's assertions, noting that the biological opinion expressly stated that it "does not rely on the regulatory definition of ‘destruction or adverse modification'," but instead relies on the statute itself and the  Gifford  decision to complete the critical habitat analysis. Second, the council asserted that the finding of "no adverse modification" conflicted with the FWS's finding of acreage to be destroyed as part of the project. In rejecting this argument, the court noted that  Gifford  did not alter the rule that adverse modification occurs only where there is a "direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat" (50 C.F.R. § 402.02.). Judge O'Scannlain further opined that "an area of species critical habitat can be destroyed without appreciably diminishing the value of the species' critical habitat overall." The court concluded that FWS's determination that critical habitat would be destroyed was, therefore, not inconsistent with a finding of "no adverse modification." Third, opposing the formula applied by FWS, the council argued that the focus on the project's impact to the species' nationwide inventory of critical habitat "mask the project's localized impact." The court swiftly disposed of this argument, stating that there was nothing in the record to demonstrate that a localized risk was improperly hidden by use the of the large-scale, nationwide comparison and analysis. In its fourth and final argument, the council faulted the FWS for failing to address the rate of loss of critical habitat for each of the species at issue. There is, however, no obligation in either the Environmental Species Act or its implementing regulations for the FWS to calculate a rate of loss. Therefore, the court concluded that FWS's finding of no adverse modification was neither arbitrary nor capricious, where the FWS applied the proper definition of adverse modification and reasonably concluded that the effects of the proposed project would not appreciably diminish the value of the critical habitat. The Case: Butte Environmental Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,  No. 09-15363, 2010 DJDAR 8115. Filed June 1, 2010. The Lawyers: For Butte Environmental Council: Donald Mooney, (530) 758-2377. For the Corps of Engineers: Kurt Kastorf, U.S. Department of Justice,  (202) 514-2701. For the City of Redding: Rick Jarvis, Jarvis, Fay, Doporto & Gibson, (510) 238-1400.

A California Environmental Quality Act amendment that could ease Walmart's entry into new markets appears to be speeding toward approval in the state Legislature. Assembly Bill 1581 (Torres) would exempt from CEQA review the alteration of a vacant retail structure of up to 120,000 square feet so long as the use is consistent with the applicable general plan and meets certain energy and water efficiency thresholds. The exemption would sunset on January 1, 2014. Sponsored by the California Retailers Association, the exemption was added to AB 1581 on August 20 and has the support of the usual collection of development and business interests. As introduced last year, the bill originally concerned recycling. In June of this year, it was amended to impose new noticing requirements for CEQA scoping meetings. After the August 20 amendments were added, the bill somewhat surprisingly received bipartisan support in passing the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, 4-2. Where does Walmart fit in? It's well-known that the big-box retailer is considering smaller boxes. Specifically, it's "Neighborhood Marketplace" format would fit in about 80,000 square feet, or about half to two-thirds the size of the typical Walmart. News reports have said the company hopes to open 200 to 300 such stores in California urban and suburban locations within the next few years. Most of these smaller format Walmarts would fill vacant grocery stores and spaces left behind by Circuit City, Mervyn's and other departed retailers. Labor unions have made Walmart's life difficult by filing numerous CEQA challenges to new big-box stores. The proposed CEQA exemption would prohibit such challenges when Walmart seeks to retool existing, vacant floor space. Of course, the exemption would apply to anyone, not only Walmart. The Sierra Club is leading the opposition. It argues the CEQA amendment "would eliminate examinations of cumulative impacts and changed circumstances of the area since first developed." New CEQA exemptions are always controversial, but this one appears very minor. Why is a change of tenants in an existing retail center subject to environmental review? I'm betting many jurisdictions would not consider this a "project" for CEQA purposes in the first place. That said, whenever CEQA amendments are introduced during Legislature's final days (the two-year session is scheduled to end Tuesday, August 31), red warning lights are sure to flash. - Paul Shigley

While land use litigation per se is not overly complex, it contains two procedural rules that occasionally trip up project opponents. A San Diego community group that challenged a condominium project recently tripped on both hurdles. First, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the petitioner in a lawsuit request a hearing within 90 days (Public Resources Code § 21167.4). An oral request is insufficient. Second, if the challenge is to a tentative map approval, the petitioner must also obtain from the court and serve a summons (Government Code § 66499.37). In  Torrey Hills Community Coalition v. City of San Diego , the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's dismissal of a lawsuit on both grounds. In September 2008, the City of San Diego approved a 484-unit condominium project for a collection of developers and landowners. The city's action included certification of an environmental impact report, rezoning, and approval of a vesting tentative map. Torrey Hills Community Coalition sued, arguing the city had violated CEQA and the Subdivision Map Act. With respect to the dismissal of the CEQA claim, the Fourth District ruled that the coalition's oral request for hearing was insufficient because it failed to comply with the statutory obligation to serve the request on all parties. The Map Act dismissal was more intriguing. The coalition claimed impossibility as a form of relief for failing to request a summons. The coalition pointed to declarations establishing that the San Diego Superior Court has routinely declined to issue a summons in cases involving CEQA. Notwithstanding the evidence that a summons would not have been issued in this case, the appellate court concluded that the coalition had failed to establish sufficient facts to claim impossibility and relief from the mandatory obligation to serve a summons within 90 days. The appellate court followed its earlier reasoning set forth in  Friends of Riverside's Hills v. City of Riverside , (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 743 (see CP&DR Legal Digest, January 2009 ). In the  Friends  case, the court dismissed CEQA claims based upon the noncompliance with the Subdivision Map Act rules for service of a summons. While the holding in  Friends  was published on November 24, 2008, and the 90-day period in  Torrey Pines  expired on December 15, 2008, there was no evidence that the coalition had requested a summons between the publication date and the end of the 90-day service period. " hus, there is no showing of diligence to support an impossibility theory," Presiding Justice Judith McConnell wrote for the court. The Case: Torrey Hills Community Coalition v. City of San Diego , No. D055579, 2010 DJDAR 19397. Filed July 2, 2010. The Lawyers: For Torrey Hills: Julie M. Hamilton, (619) 278-0701. For the city: Carmen A. Brock, deputy city attorney, (619) 236-6220. For the developers: Daniel P. Brunton, Latham & Watkins, (619) 236-1234.

By John Kaliski John Chase, best known to many as urban designer for the City of West Hollywood for the past 14 years – even as he was recorder of all things architectural throughout Los Angeles – passed away suddenly and unexpectedly on Friday, Aug. 13. Over the next few weeks and months I will be re-reading his many articles, essays, and books not only to keep alive his memory but to remind myself of his vivacious and educative voice, which was at once keen, enthusiastic, insightful, humorous, sardonic, always observant, attentive to his audience (whether it was a crowd or just an individual), and loving. John Chase grew up in South Pasadena and as a consequence had a head start in understanding the Southland and all things L.A. – and I mean all things. Over the course of 30 years he not only developed expertise in the canonical histories of design and planning in this region, he expanded this envelope to include architectural types and urban experiences that remain invisible to too many practitioners and academics. John's important early book, Exterior Decoration: Hollywood's Inside-Out Houses , explored the dynamics of what much later came to be called queer space. A later essay, "The Giant Revolving (Winking) Chicken Head and the Doggie Drinking Fountain: Making Small Distinctive Public Spaces on Private Land by Using Commonplace Objects" synchronized Jane Jacobs urbanism with contemporary forms of street culture. In Glitter Stucco and Dumpster Diving: reflections on building production in the vernacular city, John expanded his reach to include dingbats, six-packs and all aspects of Los Angeles's everyday topos. Most recently, with James Rojas, he explored the influence of Latino culture on the transformation of public and private space in ‘‘The Painted Sign Pictures of Latino Los Angeles." John was able to expound upon all of these subjects because he was a Los Angeles flaneur without equal. But John was also a practicing architect who embedded his love of this city's traditions in startlingly knowing forms. Like his writing, his built work exulted in fascination with the specific identity, signs, and symbols of place. His buildings were designed like explanatory essays and like him, they loved to explicate in beautifully wrought sentences dripping with wit, flow, and double entendre. His Jacobs studio project of 1988, a revisioning of the classic American bungalow, was widely published and it demonstrated well that one could realize a fascinating contemporary form within the guise of the history of architecture. When John gave up his design practice and joined the City of West Hollywood as its first urban designer, I was at first surprised given how much joy he took in the design of individual objects. But his was a natural progression for someone who wanted to work on a larger stage, was acutely political in all of his viewpoints – design or otherwise – and deeply identified with the movement of neighborhoods, gays and lesbians, small business owners, recent immigrants, and others that culminated in the founding of this city. Here he could seek to influence the form of a city through the nudging of multitudinous and incremental acts of architecture. John mustered his architectural skills, his vast knowledge of Los Angeles environmental design, his capacity to write, his joy of design debate, and his passion for libratory democratic politics to become a consummate professional advocate for what Kevin Lynch described as the "good city" - in this case the good city of West Hollywood. The City of West Hollywood has gone through a remarkable transformation since its founding 25 years ago. The redesign of Santa Monica Boulevard, the creation of numerous small parks, the implementation of the Sunset Specific Plan (which John initially influenced as a citizen volunteer), the construction of the new library, and this town's steady emphasis on design excellence and creativity in each new act of building all bear the imprint of John's daily efforts and design intelligence. Yet John would have been the first to acknowledge that urban design is teamwork. John loved, though admittedly could also be frustrated by, the intricacies of working with an evolving cast of planners, politicians, and architects to create a more beautiful and sustainable West Hollywood. During the course of his years at the city, John never gave up writing, lecturing, befriending, mentoring, and cajoling others to recognize the potential of design to bring people together through infinite acts, at times infinitesimally small acts, of everyday beauty. He was a motivating force behind the Los Angeles Forum for Architecture and Urban Design, a board member of the fledgling Architecture and Design Museum Los Angeles, a board member of the Westside Urban Forum, a steady long time co-chair of the American Institute of Architects Urban Design Committee, and an organizer of countless symposiums, lectures, and tours. John was at the center of design thinking in Los Angeles. Everybody knew him, everybody turned to him, everybody wanted and needed him to be a part of their Los Angeles design conversation because he was simply the best, the most opinionated, and the most accurate observer of the Los Angeles scene and its making. To figure out the full legacy of John Chase and its impact on the Los Angeles design and planning scene would take not only the careful rereading of his published writings but the careful culling of the thousands of memorandums, letters, and emails, he wrote in the course of his daily work. At the very least there should be a quick effort to conserve these for they are an accurate record of the design maturation of Los Angeles from a thousand villages in search of a city to a great city that seeks to preserve its villages. To resort to a complete cliché, there are a thousand stories in the big city and John had the capacity to appreciate, tell, and even make up all thousand all at once. This is his genius. He was the perfect post-modern man of substance, respecting and balancing the multiplicitous, complex, contradictory, and parallel identities and narratives of Los Angeles' unique urbanism. The opposite of an essentialist, his was a voice that sought out, celebrated, recorded, and then sought to design the polymorphous and the polycentric. For 30 years John was at the forefront of showing and telling Los Angeles' many stories and urbanisms. By holding them all with joy simultaneously in his head, voice, and heart, he was a design leader whose gift was to show, tell, and envision the everyday city where there is a place, a street, and a special home for each of us. John Kaliski is principal of Urban Studio, a Los Angeles architecture and urban design firm, and co-authored and edited the book Everyday Urbanism with Margaret Crawford and John Chase.

This month's legislative session, which concludes August 31, includes no game changers like SB 375, but it does include a few bills related to land use and redevelopment that bear watching.  CEQA Los Angeles Stadium CEQA Exemption Over 100 organizations have signed on to a statement circulated by the Planning and Conservation League opposing a CEQA exemption for the development of a would-be NFL football stadium in downtown Los Angeles. The concerns have arisen in part because of an exemption granted to Majestic Realty in 2009 for its proposed stadium in the City of Industry and because of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's stated desire to grant exemptions to certain projects in the name of economic development.  However, rumors about AEG's intentions are purely speculative, according to company officials.  "We have progressed no further than researching and evaluating different alternatives," said Michael Roth, AEG's VP of communications. "We have not sought any legislation or announced any plans to pursue a stadium." Roth added that any stadium would still need to prepare an environmental impact report.   PCL Legislative Director Tina Andolina said no bill has yet come forward but speculated that the exemption might come in the form of a budget amendment or a gut-and-amend. She said that AEG had hired lobbyists in Sacramento for the purpose of seeking the exemption, but that PCL could not confirm those reports. Roth said that the idea for the stadium is in such early phases that to yet call it a plan would be an exaggeration.  Then again, in Andolina's analysis, publicity raised by PCL and its supporters might be the sort of action that would cause a developer to lay low or abandon an excemption request entirely.  "When these things are done in the light of day," said Andolina, "they're typically killed because there's so much opposition to this type of underhanded political maneuvering."  Assembly Bill 499 (Hill)  Status: Senate Floor (Second Reading) Assembly Bill 499 would make it more difficult for courts to dismiss legal challenges regarding CEQA on technicalities. Currently, confusion over which "real parties in interest" to list when a lawsuit is filed can lead to cases being dismissed before they are heard. AB 499 clarifies that the parties that must be named in a CEQA lawsuit for a particular project are those listed by the lead agency as "recipients of approval" for that project in the agencies' Notice of Exemption (NOE) or Notice of Determination (NOD).  Redevelopment AB 1641 (Hall). Redevelopment: blighted areas Status:  Senate Floor (second reading). This bill would codify what critics have long contended about early public housing complexes: they inherently constitute blight. This bill would provide that blighted areas may be characterized by the existence of housing constructed as government-owned projects constructed prior to January 1, 1960. The bill would authorize a project in these areas to include the development of other housing, including privately owned housing units available to persons and families of low and moderate income and workforce market-rate housing units. AB 2531 (Fuentes) Redevelopment: economic development Status: Senate Local Government Committee A game-changer that would allow redevelopment agencies to pay for business development and job programs, rather than just brick-and-mortar remedies for blight. Would have a sunset of January 1, 2018.  See previous CP&DR coverage July 16, 2010 .  Disadvantaged Communities SB 1174 (Wolk) Land use: general plan: Future Sustainable Communities Pilot Project. Status: Assembly Appropriations Committee This bill would creates the Future Sustainable Communities Pilot Project to pay for general plan updates for disadvantaged communities, using Proposition 84 bond funds. The bill would  authorize a city or county with a disadvantaged unincorporated community, inside or near its boundaries to apply to the Strategic Growth Council, as specified, to receive the financial assistance necessary to update its general plan to facilitate the transformation of the disadvantaged unincorporated community into a sustainable community. The bill would require the Strategic Growth Council to choose 5 cities and 5 counties with a disadvantaged unincorporated community inside or near their boundaries to receive financial assistance in order to promote sustainability in those communities. SB 194 (Florez). Community Equity Investment Act of 2010.  Status: Assembly Housing & Community Development Committee Whereas the state currently collects and distributes Community Development Block Grant funds to communities of less than 50,000, this bill would extend that system to large "entitlement communities" as well. Those cities currently receiving CDBG funds directly from the federal department of Housing and Urban Development. It would impose various requirements on a  local government in receipt of those funds that would, among other things, attempt to ensure the representation and participation of citizens of disadvantaged unincorporated communities. AB 853 (Arambula) Local Government Organization Status: Senate Floor, Second Reading This bill would expand planning for, and expedites city annexations of, disadvantaged communities by identifying infrastructure deficits in municipal service reviews. This bill would also require the agency to include in its written statement a determination with respect to the location and characteristics, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies, or any disadvantaged inhabited communities, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would also require a commission, upon the review and update of a sphere of influence on or after July 1, 2010, to include in the review or update of each sphere of influence of a city or special district that provides public facilities or services related to sewers, nonagricultural water, or structural fire protection to include the present and probable need for public facilities and services of disadvantaged inhabited communities. The current sticking point revolves around the costs that counties would have to bear in paying for the annexation application for disadvantaged communities.  Miscellaneous Land Use AB 987 (Ma) expands the maximum area of a transit village development district.   Status:  Senate Floor.   Based on emerging research that suggests that transit-riders are willing to habitually walk up to one-half mile in order to reach a high-frequency transit stop such as light rail or subway, this bill would double the current designation of a transit village development district to one-half mile from one-quarter mile.  Assemblymember Ma introduced a similar bill last year that got veoted. In his veto message, Gov. Schwarzenegger indicated that he objected to a component of the bill that dealt with infrastructure financing districts. Ma has removed that component in this year's bill, which is intended to facilitate the sort of transit oriented development that SB 375 promotes.  "If I was staffing this bill," said Peter Detwiler, Staff Director of the Senate Local Government Committee, "I would make the pitch that what's in this bill is consistent with the governor's commitment to densification."  AB 2650 (Buchanan) Prohibits medical marijuana establishments within 600 feet of schools.   Status:  Senate Appropriations Committee. Even as cities across the state are implementing their own regulations to control – or prohibit – the sale of medical marijuana, AB 2650 would impose a statewide restriction with regards to schools. It would, however, grandfather any opposing local ordinance adopted before 2011.  The League of California Cities has taken the position to oppose the bill unless it is amended, on the grounds that it would interfere with local control.  AB 602 (Feuer). Land Use: Cause of Actions: Time Limitations Status: Senate Floor (second reading) Seeking to change a Court of Appeal (Urban Habitat v. City of Pleasanton), this bill would create an unlimited statute of limitations to challenge land use planning decisions regarding housing elements.    See previous CP&DR coverage  June 24, 2010 .

When the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard closed, the United States Navy was steaming home from the South China Sea and the best way to get across San Francisco was in an airborne Mustang GT. It was then, 36 years ago, that the prospect of a massive redevelopment for Hunters Point and adjacent Candlestick Point first sprang to life. And it was just last month that a project was finally approved. Replacing the former drydocks and heavy industrial facilities on the southern, bayside edge of San Francisco will be up to 10,000 units of housing as well as 5 million square feet of commercial space and and 300 acres of green spaces. Located entirely in a redevelopment project area, the development is intended to be served by a web of transit and revitalize one of the city's most destitute neighborhoods. "The opportunity to get over 700 acres of waterfront land entitled is a once-in-a-generation opportunity," said Michael Cohen, director of the city's Office of Economic and Workforce Development  "It's particularly important because these lands resides in the heart of a part of the city that has been underserved." Miami-based homebuilder Lennar will serve as master developer for the roughly $8 billion plan, which was approved, along with its environmental impact report, by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Aug. 3. Cohen said that Lennar would develop the project's horizontal components while a range of other developers and subcontractors would developer the vertical component, in part to avoid a monolithic development. Along with its waterbound cousin Treasure Island � also a former military installation to be redeveloped by Lennar � Hunters Point and Candlestick Point, which together encompass a full 2 percent of the city's land area, are likely to constitute to be the largest new development that San Francisco will ever see. "We believe pretty strongly that this is not only the biggest but probably the most important development project in San Francisco's modern history," said Cohen. As could be expected in a city famous for its activism, the development plan did not come about without heavy lifting.             The most major hurdle it had to clear come in the form of dueling ballot measures in 2008. Proposition G asked voters to weigh in on the concept of the plan in a nonbinding referendum while Proposition F would have required 50 percent of its housing to be subsidized. The former won with 61 percent of the vote while the latter was defeated. Supervisor Chris Daly, one of Prop F's main backers, cast the lone dissenting vote in the 10-1 final approval last month on the grounds that the project still does not include enough affordable housing. Daly's office did not respond to request for comment. His apparent sentiments, however, are in stark contrast with those of other housing advocates. "There have been few projects in recent city history that have been so aligned with our goals," said Tim Colen, executive director of the San Francisco Housing Coalition. Colen said that the project's emphasis on workforce housing � which he said is currently produced in the city at a rate of "zero, nada, zip" � would be a major contribution to the city. The plan aids very low-income residents by demolishing the Alice B. Griffith housing project and replacing it with an equivalent amount of housing that will be guaranteed to current project residents. Colen said that past displacements had caused residents to "scatter, never to return." Despite the project's lopsided final victory on the Board of Supervisors, preliminary votes on key points were far closer. A rendition of Daly's call for affordable housing and a vote to disallow a key bridge both lost on 5-6 margins. Daly raised the affordable housing issue even after acknowledging Lennar's contention that more affordable housing would make the project financially infeasible. Other critics of Lennar's plan, which was developed in conjunction with the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Department of City Planning as well as input from countless community groups, contend that it is not as progressive as it should be. Although the plan calls for several bus routes to extend into the former base, it includes no directly connection to rail transit. Arthur Feinstein, conservation chair of the San Francisco chapter of Sierra Club, said that a planned bus rapid transit line will not sufficiently reduce the area's dependence on personal autos and that the plan's parking requirements. "They could have required less parking, smaller parking ratios like 0.5 to 1 for every unit rather than 1:1," said Feinstein. "Elsewhere in the city they have approved much lower ratios for parking." Cohen admitted that the project wasn't as transit-rich as the forthcoming new Transbay Terminal, which sits atop several rail lines in downtown Francisco. But he did say that by building up the population of the Bayview area and extending transit lines into the new development, bus transit throughout southeast San Francisco could double the overall use of transit in the area.  Moreover, environmental activists have taken issue with a four-lane bridge that would cross the Yosemite Slough and connect the development with adjacent Candlestick Point, where the 49ers NFL team may play for only a few more years before they make an expected move to Santa Clara. Feinstein said that the Sierra Club, among others, was concerned about the plan's handling of the project's parkland, emissions, and the Yosemite Slough bridge. Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, who represents Bayview and has long championed a redevelopment project at the shipyard, said that the bridge will hardly constitute an intrusion on the bay's ecosystem. "As far as birds and critters are concerned, any bird worth their salt knows how to navigate a bridge," Maxwell.  Perhaps of greatest concern, however, is responsibility for cleanup of the mess left by the Navy. The site is designated as a federal Superfund site, and local officials have called for environmental justice for area residents and insisted that the Navy and EPA commence remediation posthaste. The paradox of the long wait at Bayview is that planning principles have evolved significantly since the property was originally abandoned. Even so, its collection of mostly low-rise multifamily units and park-like neighborhoods strike some as antiquated. "It feels like very old-school and is going to result in a lot of traffic congestions, a lot of greenhouse gas emissions," said Tom Redulovich, executive director of local smart growth and social justice advocacy ground Liveable City. "In the rest of the city we've been trying to say, let's be a city that's more compact and more walkable�.and that shipyard property feels like it's headed in the other direction." City officials expect, however, that the few details in contention are outweighed by massive benefits that came in part from perhaps the most extensive series of planning meetings in the city's history. "The wait has produced a lot of good things," said Maxwell. "It has helped to unite the community." The San Francisco Redevelopment Agency served as the city's lead agency in the planning process to the distress of some critics, who felt that the agency was less responsive than the Planning Department would have been. Cohen dismissed that claim as "absurd" and said "there is not a project in SF's history � there isn't anything close � that has gone through as much public debate and discussion and vetting as this one." "I think they contributed tremendously," added Maxwell. "You have to have both, because there's zoning and then there's planning and then there's redevelopment.  In a lot of ways, what we said was that the redevelopment plan would follow the plan of the planning department, and we had many dual meetings and dual planning sessions together." Although the project has its share of auto-oriented big box retail, of the sort that might be found in a suburban greenfield development, the plan makes a relatively strong connection to the surrounding urban fabric. The Hunters Point plan intends to let the city wash into the shipyard and reach towards the bay by continuing the street grid that currently butts up against the wasteland of the shipyard. "All these streets that currently dead-end into a barbed wire fence will be continued all the way to these waterfront parks," said Cohen. "By doing that we ensure that this project isn't an enclaved separate from the existing Bayview community." Contacts & Resources: Lennar Hunters Point Community Official Site Michael Cohen, Director, San Francisco Office of Economic and Workforce Development http://www.oewd.org, (415) 554-6969 Tim Colen, Executive Director, San Francisco Housing Action Coalition http://www.sfhac.org (415) 541-9001 Sophie Maxwell, Supervisor, City and County of San Francisco District 10, (415) 554-7670 Tom Redulovich, Executive Director, Livable City http://www.livablecity.org/, (415) 344-0489

The Department of Water Resources is a "person" for the purposes of the Fish and Game Code and thus is prohibited from killing an endangered or threatened species protected by the California Endangered Species Act, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. The ruling came in a case involving the operation of the State Water Project's Harvey O. Banks pumping plant, which extracts water from the Bay Delta for eventual delivery to Southern California cities and San Joaquin Valley farms. Operation of the pumping plant traps and kills significant numbers of fish, including winter-run Chinook salmon, spring-run chinook salmon and Delta smelt. The winter-run chinook salmon is listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), while the spring-run chinook salmon and the Delta smelt are considered threatened. The organization Watershed Enforcers filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the Department of Water Resources (DWR), which oversees the State Water Project, from operating the pumping plant because the agency was "taking" the fish species without a permit under CESA (Fish & Game Code, § 2050 et seq.). The state and three local water agencies that are State Water Project customers – Kern County Water Agency, San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District – argued that CESA did not apply to DWR because the agency was not a "person" within the meaning of CESA. The trial court rejected this argument and ruled that DWR must get a take permit to continue operating the pumping plant. At first, the state appealed. But the agency later decided to drop its appeal and comply with the ruling. The intervening water agencies, however, pursued the appeal because they fear that applying CESA to state pumping plant operations could reduce water deliveries. They continued to insist that DWR was not person that needed to get a take permit. The appellate court agreed to decide the case despite its mootness, because the issue was one of general public interest that is likely to recur.  At issue in the appeal was the meaning of Fish and Game Code § 2080, which provides, "No person shall … take … any species … that the determines to be an endangered species, or a threatened species." The term "take" means to catch, capture, or kill. The Department of Fish & Game, through a permit or memorandum of understanding, may issue an incidental take permit to individuals, public agencies and various other entities that allows the taking of endangered or threatened species for scientific, educational, or management purposes.  The intervening water agencies argued that because the term "person" is ambiguous, reference should be given to the definition in Fish and Game Code § 67. It defines "person" as "any natural person or any partnership, corporation, limited liability company, trust, or other type of association." The code does not specifically name state agencies. The court, however, considered that other statutory language within CESA emphasizes the act's application to state agencies. Further, Fish and Game Code § 2081 exempts several entities – including public agencies – from the § 2080 prohibition in certain circumstances. The court reasoned that if § 2081 could exempt public agencies from § 2080 take prohibition in some instances, then § 2080 necessarily applies to public agencies.  In addition, the court gave deference to the Department of Fish & Game's regulations, which contemplate the application of the incidental take process to state agencies. " nterpreting § 2080 to exclude state agencies would lead to the unreasonable result that major actors, whose operations result in the taking of endangered and threatened species, would be exempt from the general take prohibition," the court concluded. The Case: Kern County Water Agency v. Watershed Enforcers, No. A117715, 2010 DJDAR 9168. Filed June 17, 2010. The Lawyers: For Kern County Water Agency: Daniel J. O'Hanlon, Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard, (916) 321-4500. For San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority: Andrea A. Matarazzo, Diepenbrock Harrison, (916) 492-5000. For Watershed Enforcers: Michael R. Lozeau, Lozeau Drury, (510) 749-9102.

In early 2009, I wrote a story about the City of Bell's plan to lease 15 acres it had recently purchased to Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad for use as a truck yard. An environmental organization had successfully sued to block the project because Bell did not complete an environmental review. As you no doubt know, Bell has been in the news lately for gross levels of corruption at the elected and staff level. Now, the Los Angeles Times has revealed that Bell is unable to pay back a $35 million debt that was issued for the railroad truck yard project. Standard & Poor's has placed Bell on a credit watch list. Back in 2007, the Bell Public Financing Authority – an alter ego of the city – issued $35 million in bonds for the ostensible purpose of purchasing 15 acres of former military property near the Long Beach Freeway and funding capital improvements related to the planned truck yard project. The city's stated plan was to pay off the bonds no later than November of this year by issuing new debt secured with monthly lease payments from Burlington Northern Santa Fe. However, the city never received any lease payments because the project died. I based much of my 2009 story on public documents. No one from Bell – not the city manager, the city attorney or the mayor – would talk to me. The whole deal smelled bad, but I admit I did not recognize just how far out of control things were in Bell. The city had bought 15 acres of industrial land, worked out a lease option with the railroad and began clearing buildings from the site all without environmental review. The city had not claimed the project was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act or adopted some perfunctory negative declaration. Rather, the city simply ignored CEQA altogether. It suggests that the city was not accustomed to playing by the rules. It also suggests that the city was not accustomed to having anyone look over its shoulder. A 2008 Los Angeles Superior Court ruling for the environmental justice organization put an end to the railroad truck yard project. In the two years since, Bell's infamous $1.5 million-per-year city manager, Robert Rizzo, apparently did not find a different use for the property or figure out a way to pay back the $35 million debt. I have to assume that the news from Bell will only get worse as investigators dig deeper into the city's finances and other deals that Rizzo put together. – Paul Shigley

The staff of the California resources board has released a staff report  (pdf) and CEQA functional equivalent  (pdf) document with its proposals for per capita greenhouse gas emissions targets for the state's four largest MPO's. The report comes roughly two months after ARB staff presented the board with a target range of 5-10 percent per capita reductions for 2020 for the four urban MPOs and "placeholder targets" for those of the Central Valley. Somewhat unexpectedly, ARB staff has recommended different targets for each of the "big four."  They are as follows:  MTC Bay Area: 7 percent - 2020; 15 percent - 2035 SANDAG: 7 percent - 2020; 13 percent - 2035 SACOG: 7 percent - 2020; 16 percent - 2035 SCAG: 8 percent - 2020; 13 percent - 2035 San Joaquin Valley MPOs (eight MPOs) placeholder targets: 5 percent - 2020; 10 percent - 2035 ARB is currently accepting comments on these targets. The board is scheduled to consider them Sept. 23.  Please check back with CP&DR for further coverage.  For more information in SB 375, please visit CP&DR's SB 375 Resources Page .  -- Josh Stephens