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

The announcement earlier this week that bookstore giant Barnes & Noble is for sale is important to city planners for two reasons. First, however the deal comes together, the sale will almost certainly result in the closure of some of Barnes & Nobles' 720 U.S. stores. Closures could begin even before there is a sale, as the company tries to increase its appeal by shedding its weakest outlets. Second, and more importantly, the troubles that Barnes & Nobles is experience provide another example of the changing nature of retail sales, and one more warning about basing land use plans or developments on specific uses or businesses. How Americans buy things, and even what we buy, is evolving almost as fast as planners can process development applications. When I was in downtown Seattle last week, I came across an honest-to-goodness newsstand. Tall racks located right next to the sidewalk offered hundreds of mainstream and esoteric magazines, local and out-of-town newspapers, racing forms, puzzle books and even a few paperbacks. It was exactly the sort of operation that used to attract crowds in any large or mid-sized downtown. But the newsstand I saw in Seattle struck me as quaint, almost anachronistic. Is the full-on bookstore going the way of the newsstand? Quite possibly. Independent bookstores have been shutting down rapidly since the 1990s, partly because of competition from the likes of Barnes & Noble, but mostly because reading – and buying – habits are changing. You don't need me to tell you that people read things online all day long. You're doing it right now. And you don't need me to tell you that people buy things online all day long, too. Last year, Barnes & Nobles' biggest competitor, Borders, closed all its stores in the United Kingdom. Borders has barely staved off bankruptcy in this country. I'm not going to bury Barnes & Noble just yet – the business wires report the company has at least two serious suitors – but there's no denying the company is struggling. With the big movement to electronic books, people are likely to buy even fewer printed books in the future. It's a story familiar to any recorded music retailer. Forrester Research analyst James McQuivey told the Los Angeles Times , "It's really starting to be clear that bookstores are, if nothing else, a very valuable way to promote e-readers and e-books." As recently as five years ago, nearly every proponent of downtown redevelopment, a lifestyle center or a mixed-use development fought to get a bookstore. They couldn't contain their glee if they managed to snag a Barnes & Noble or Borders. But if the analyst quoted above is correct, the bookstore that was so prized only a few years back may continue to exist only as a marketing tool for sales consummated elsewhere. I recognize that retail trends come and go. Heck, I'm old enough to have slurped a milkshake at a Woolworth's lunch counter. But retail trends used to hang around for a generation. Now a big trend might last seven years. My point is this: Basing a specific plan, redevelopment plan, or development project on certain retail uses is a very dicey proposition. The bookstore that was a lynchpin 10 years ago may not exist after this Christmas shopping season. Who really knows how other segments of the retail market will evolve over the next few years, let alone over the next 20? I probably sound like I'm advocating form-based zoning. Maybe so. What I'm really advocating, though, is a focus on making great places – the sort of places that remain vital even while uses evolve and adapt. When you're building and rebuilding a city, what matters are the bricks and mortar, the public plazas and landscaping, the circulation systems, the architecture – the stuff that will survive while numerous retail trends rise and fall. I think most people who have studied cities and city planning understand this fundamental concept. But I also think that people can get distracted by the latest shining object. – Paul Shigley

If you are at all involved with urban planning in Los Angeles you were probably either in the audience or on the panel at last night's "The Future of the Los Angeles City Planning Department (and the City of Los Angeles)" event, sponsored by AIA, APA-L.A., ULI, and Cal Poly Pomona's College of Environmental Design. I suppose a third option is that you were stuck in traffic and couldn't make it.    Those of us in the room at Southwestern Law School in Koreatown were treated to perhaps the most far-ranging, sincere, and sometimes entertaining discussion about planning in Los Angeles in recent memory. It was, to an extent, a master class for new Planning Director Michael LoGrande , who attended fresh off his confirmation by the Los Angeles City Council. The event was organized before Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa nominated LoGrande, and his attendance was not promised. But how could he not attend, and how could he not share a few words, given that the entire two hours was dedicated to the equal measures hope and desperation that surround the years to come at the L.A. Department of City Planning? By the looks of things, LoGrande has not exactly picked a cushy job for himself. His own brief introductory remarks, while replete with the requisite visionary rhetoric, focused on the department's financial challenges and his eagerness to partner with outside firms and organizations to help craft the city's plans. Moderated by Planning Commissioner Michael Woo, the 10-member panel represented some of the region's most astute practitioners and observers of planning in Los Angeles, ranging from architects to developers to journalists to former members of the Planning Department staff. They amounted to an unusually candid bunch, whose expertise centers not necessarily on planning per se, but rather on that unquiet beast known as planning in Los Angeles.  If no other lesson emerged -- for LoGrande or anyone else who would dare imagine what the city should and could look like -- it is that Los Angeles is sui generis, in its form, geography, demographics, history, and politics. Jane Blumenfeld -- the recently retired consigliere to Lo Grande's predecessor, Gail Goldberg -- said it most bluntly by calling it "the most politicized planning land use development city in the world."  The discussion did little to contradict that stereotype. It's an amazing thing when a dozen experts get together and generally agree on goals: We want Los Angeles to be more pleasant (i.e. pedestrian-oriented); we want to preserve distinctive neighborhoods and respect community members' wishes; we want to take advantage of new and existing transit projects and we love the 30/10 plan; we want to provide more housing. To a lesser extent, we want to reach out to under-served communities and we want to stoke the city's economy.  Restoring the L.A. River would be a fabulous thing to do.  All well and good.   (Notably absent, however, was so much as a whisper of rhetoric about sustainability. I have two theories on this: The first is that everyone has grown weary in the process of hoping for, and not achieving, a mythical "green future" -- especially in this economy.  The second, more hopeful theory is that sustainability has become implicit, especially to the extent that, thanks to legislation like SB 375, it has become synonymous with density. Indeed, now that L.A. is built out and that the transit system keeps growing, it's arguable that almost every new development will be sustainable by some measure.)   How, though, to achieve those goals?  Suggestions ranged from "enjoy the recession" as a time to think and plan to "Metro should take all the land surrounding transit stops by eminent domain." Some encouraged LoGrande to align himself with Mayor Villaraigosa's vision (whatever that may be; "elegant density" is still being batted around five years after the mayor first picked it as his slogan) while others were already talking about the next mayor and arguing whether the city charter even made the mayor relevant. Almost everyone agreed that having to serve 15 councilmembers, plus a mayor, is no way to plan a city. Baron Haussmann and Robert Moses would surely concur.   If there was a single point of consensus about how to move forward with high-quality development, it was articulated most clearly by Forest City Sr. Vice President Renata Simril: "For me as a developer, the notion of by-right speaks volumes to my ears. Time is money. I'm more apt to be able to built a project that yields that (desired) result because there's clarity, there's certainty in that plan. And, by the way, I know I'm not going to get challenge by the community because the community has bought into that specific plan."  Bill Fulton followed up that assertion, saying: "You prove to (councilmembers) that by doing a planning process that results in a consensus that people can buy into that developers will have more clarity…and a roadmap. If you can prove to the politicians that there's some kind of a plan in place that makes it easier for developers to get to the end and built stuff that the neighborhood wants, that's how you prove to councilmembers that good planning is good policy." In other words, Los Angeles needs good plans and public officials who will enforce those plans. Beyond that, the panel offered LoGrande an abstracted, highly intellectualized version of what he will experience in L.A.'s neighborhoods and halls of power: passionate, articulate, and often contradictory sentiments. Some highlights from each speaker include the following:  Planning Commissioner Michael Woo (moderator):  "The City Planning Department and the planning director operate in a political culture in which it is more customary than in other cities for elected officials to intervene in the planning process. Also, the Planing Deparmtment and planning director operate in a city in which private property interests have very strong influence over what goes on….and where NIMBYism was not exactly born in Los Angeles but certainly moved here at an early age." Jane Blumenfeld, former Acting Deputy Director, L.A. City Planning "If you revise the community plans, a lot of casework is eliminated.  We need to get rid of that so that the people who are there…can function efficiently and effectively without having everybody be forced to do casework. Know what is expected in a neighborhood, you won't need to review the color of paint and roofs.  There's a lot of work involved, and it's needless and stupid in a lot of ways.  They won't have those project-by-project fights."   Bill Boyarsky, former L.A. Times City Editor "The biggest obstacle to moderate-priced housing are the land developers, property owners, Central City Association, and the building trade unions. They control planning in LA. I wrote many stories about neighborhoods where Moderate-priced apartment buildings were torn down for more expensive condos...the only thing that saved these people was the recession. When this recession ends, you're going to have to go back. The mayor is going to have to take a chance." Vaughn Davies, Director of Urban Design, AECOM "The rulebook is there to protect and safeguard us from poor development. It doesn't really promote great development.  Sets a minimum standard.  All the great places we travel to in the world are illegal to build in Los Angeles.  The more opportunities to create traffic and chaos in this city.  Sidewalks and the public realm. Make the pedestrian the priority. We need to move swiftly and we need to be as nimble as possible.  We can't wait for Planning to unveil some big vision for the city." Bill Fulton, Mayor of Ventura; CP&DR Publisher "Duking it our at the community level is better than duking it out at the project level. But given the history of LA, nobody believes that. They all think they can duke it out at the project level and get a better deal."  Emily Gabel-Luddy, Past Director, L.A. City Planning Urban Design Studio "NIMBYs play an essential role in the public discussion because they raise things that would otherwise not be raised. People have insights into the local area that none of the planners have because they do not live there."  Christopher Hawthorne, L.A. Times Architecture Critic "There's no city even close to its size that faces so many fundamental questions about what it's going to be in the coming decades." "It's a question of whether development is going to guide planning or whether planning is going to guide development.  There are a lot of vested interests who really like things the way they are and that they like piece-by-piece planning and duking it out. I think if we can agree that's as an ideal to have planning guide development, then the tricky question is politically how do we get there?" John Kaliski, Principal, Urban Studio-L.A.; Past President, AIA/LA "The divide seems to be between those who believe these conversations are useful and those who believe they're useless.  Neighborhood council process that's advisory.  That's a huge cultural shift in the city that hasn't been recognized yet for all that it could be." Renata Simril, Sr. Vice President, Forest City "As we continue to move forward, I think the future is going to be bright as it relates to TOD. Coupled w/ the 30/10 plan and the effort to focus on key TOD projects throughout the city.   "(There's a) battle between density and preserving the single-family house. If we can agree where density occurs, it's not an either/or.  Focusing on TOD gives you not an 'or' but an 'and.'"   Martha Welborne, Executive Director of Countywide Planning, Los Angeles Metro "We've known for some time that we really cannot build our way out of the transportation problem.  If you want to solve mobility issues, a link of land use and transit planning is critical. The MTA controls no land use planning; we just do the transit side. An increased  dialog among the 88 cities in the county and the MTA, is critical if we want to build our way out of the problem." Elva Yanez, Coordinator, L.A. Collaborative for Environmental Health Policy and Justice "It's not just the responsibility of the city to create those mechanisms. There is no intermediary in the city of LA that's funded by foundation funds to educate people about planning and do advocacy in an appropriate and constructive manner. We don't need developer front groups muddying the water." So that's some of what the panel said. Perhaps the more salient question, though, is who heard it?  The "Louis XVI Room" (not kidding) at Southwestern Law School was filled to capacity with acolytes, employees, and even peers of the folks on the panel. It was like old home week for the cognoscenti. But there is a difference between knowing about planning and having an interest in planning.  And who wasn't there? The other four million residents of Los Angeles.  I don't say that to be flippant, but I do mean that for this discussion to matter, it must, by necessity, reach the people who have not yet heard it. Millions of people in Los Angeles don't know what planning is, much less what "do real planning" means. Many haven't considered the pleasures (or not) of density and walkability, or if they have, they don't believe that L.A. could ever be a dense, walkable city. Many would not feel comfortable attending an event (even one free of charge) under crystal chandeliers in a restored Art Deco palace.   As the discussion went on, I kept thinking about all the cars, buses, cyclists and pedestrians passing outside (and about the straphangers passing beneath) the Southwestern Law's Bullocks Wilshire Building in the twilight.  And I wondered if any of them had any idea that, in some small way, the future of their city was being discussed – or if they even knew that the future of the city was up for discussion at all.  If it's true that the recession will, as Renta Simril said, give LoGrande and other L.A. planners some unintended leisure time, then more meetings like this have to take place, both with official department sanction and though the efforts of APA, AIA, ULI, and the like. And they should take place throughout the city in front of mixed audiences, so that residents of different communities can mix and undo some of the atomization that clearly fascinates and troubles Christopher Hawthorne and others.  Los Angeles embodies Jeffersonian democracy at its most absurd, with detached, diverse residents believing that they can control their own fiefdoms – however small – or resigning themselves to having no power whatsoever. And yet, from the city's architecture to its physical environment, Los Angeles strives for greatness even while acknowledging its own shortcomings. Last night's event proved, as ever, that nowhere else do ambition and ambivalence coexist with such intensity.  -- Josh Stephens

As CP&DR's Senior Editor Paul Shigley pointed out last week in his blog , retiring Chief Justice Ronald George of the California Supreme Court gained a well-earned reputation as a centrist and a unifier.  Now it will be up to his presumed successor, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, to carry George's approach forward at a time when significant planning and development litigation is likely to emerge. Schwarzenegger's climate change law, AB 32, is likely to meet some serious challenges in court over the next few years, especially as it is applied through the California Environmental Quality Act. SB 375, the regional planning sidekick of AB 32 that provides a streamlined CEQA process for certain projects, may also generate litigation in the years ahead.  Cantil-Sakauye's record as an appellate judge suggests that she is, as advertised, a moderate – careful, non-ideological, tending to deal with the specific facts of a case rather than broad legal theories. Like so many California judges lacking civil litigation experience, she has struggled with CEQA, which may be one of the reasons she has focused on the factual elements of CEQA cases. Read as a whole, her body of work on these cases suggests she might give a slight advantage to property owners over the government in a CEQA case, all other things being equal. George served as chief justice longer than anyone in the last century, and his calm and centrist approach was a welcome change from the rollercoaster of the previous 20 years, when the court was dominated by super-liberal Chief Justice Rose Bird, who was eventually voted out of office, and then by super-conservative Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan and ascended to the chiefship when Bird was ousted. The Bird court expanded governmental land use powers dramatically, especially in interpreting the CEQA, and the Lucas court subsequently pulled those powers back – most notably in Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors , 52 Cal.3d 553 (1990), which put local judges on notice that CEQA was not to be used to kill projects.  Cantil-Sakauye had little experience practicing law before Gov. George Deukmejian appointed her to the bench in 1990– just about the time the Citizens of Goleta Valley case was handed down. Coming out of law school at UC Davis – which has a strong program in natural resources law and has produced many CEQA experts – she worked for a few years as a prosecutor in the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office before becoming a deputy to Deukmejian's legal affairs secretary, Vance Ray.  She was a trial judge in Sacramento for 15 years before Schwarzenegger elevated her to the Court of Appeal in 2005. Deukmejian, a former attorney general, appointed a lot of prosecutors to the bench and more than a few of them have struggled with all areas of civil law and planning and development law in particular. Land use law is highly specialized and CEQA in particular is a complicated and peculiar animal – so much so that state law requires each county to designate "CEQA judges." Cantil-Sakauye was never designated as a CEQA judge by the Sacramento County Superior Court; for most of her 15 years there, her colleague James T. Ford held that distinction. Prosecutors tend to be conservative, yet their experience teaches them to trust the government's judgment. Therefore many former prosecutors have tended to side with the government agencies that are the defendants in CEQA cases, rather than the environmental groups that are so often the plaintiffs. Cantil-Sakauye doesn't quite fit this definition. Since her ascension to the Third District Court of Appeals, she has written four opinions that have captured CP&DR's attention. Unsurprisingly for an appellate court whose territory covers the Central Valley, three of them dealt primarily with natural resources issues. And three of the four – though not the same three – were CEQA cases. Her record in these cases shows her to be highly case-specific, focusing on the facts in each case and steering clear of opportunities to score ideological points. Perhaps the best example of her non-ideological approach was her ruling in the only non-CEQA case whose opinion she wrote – a quirky takings case called Herzberg v. County of Plumas , 133 Cal.App.4th 1 (2005), which was issued in her first year on the appellate court.  If ever there was an opportunity to show pro-property rights zealousness, Herzberg was it. In the 1980s, Plumas County has passed an ordinance making it illegal for property owners in certain "open range" grazing areas to seize an animal that had strayed onto their property unless their property was fenced in. Represented by strident property rights lawyer Ronald Zumbrun, property owner Jack Herzberg sued, arguing that the ordinance required him to build a fence and, among other things, was an unconstitutional taking of his property because the cattle wandering onto his property created a physical occupation. Herzberg lost in the trial court and appealed to the Third District.  But Cantil-Sakauye didn't bite. She noted that the ordinance didn't require Herzberg to fence in his property and that he had other legal recourse besides confiscating the stray animals. She also knocked down the takings argument by citing cases all the way back to the granddaddy of them all, the 1978 U. S. Supreme Court ruling in Penn Central. She c oncluded that Herzberg had not been robbed of all economic use of his property, as takings law requires, because "the only potential economic burden of this ordinance is the occasional use of and damage to property caused by wandering cattle as they move on. Plaintiffs have not shown, nor can we perceive how plaintiffs could show, this limited burden interferences with their reasonable investment-backed expectations in buying this particular property within a traditional open grazing area when plaintiffs can always avoid it by fencing their property."  In other words, far from requiring Herzberg to fence in his property and trampling on his property rights, the ordinance protected Herzberg by allowing him to built a fence to keep stray animals out in an area otherwise designated for open grazing. In all three CEQA cases, Cantil-Sakauye had to deal with the typical problem: a lawsuit filed to deal with a political, rather than a legal, difference. In one case, a city tried to shoot down a CEQA plaintiff opposed to a local Walmart based on standing. In a second case, local enviros pushed the envelope in arguing that an initial contract over the possible sale of water was subject to CEQA. In the third and most interesting case, the California Farm Bureau Federation fought a state effort to turn agricultural land into wetlands and habitat by arguing that the action was subject to CEQA. The Walmart case, Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi , 144 Cal. App. 4th 865 (2006), was pretty straightforward. Citizens for Open Government had sued Lodi over the EIR on a local Walmart, but the city challenged the group's standing because the group had appealed based on issues raised by a different organization in the administrative hearing. Cantil-Sakauye disposed of this one quickly by noting that even the city's own notice to the group had stated it could appeal based on somebody else's issues.  The water contract case involved one of the most controversial natural resource issues in far northern California in recent years – the 2003 decision by the McCloud Community Services District (in Siskiyou County) to sell up to 1,600 acre-feet of water per year to a bottled water company owned by Nestlé. (Nestlé sells dozens of brands of bottled water, including Calistoga and Arrowhead). Local residents sued, claiming that the contract between the McCloud and Nestlé was subject to CEQA. In the Third District ruling , Cantil-Sakauye disagreed, saying that execution of the contract was conditional on many future steps, including CEQA analysis. In so doing, she relied on a pretty well-known CEQA case from nearby Shasta County, Stand Tall on Principles (STOP) v. Shasta Union High Sch. Dist . (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 772, in which the Third District ruled that the selection of a site for a high school was not subject to CEQA so long as CEQA analysis was completed before the project was constructed. It is interesting to note that in the '70s and '80s the STOP case easily could have gone the other way, but the Third District's ruling in STOP came down less than a year after the California Supreme Court's ruling forceful in Citizens of Goleta Valley, telling lower courts to rein in the environmentalists – and less than a year after Cantil-Sakauye was first appointed to the bench in Sacramento. The third CEQA case is by far the most interesting, because the Farm Bureau – not always the biggest defender of CEQA – went to court to force the state to do a CEQA analysis on conversion of farmland to habitat. Despite this somewhat manipulative use of a CEQA lawsuit, Cantil-Sakauye agreed with the Farm Bureau – and read the law and the CEQA guidelines very narrowly in order to do so. California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Wildlife Conservation Board , 143 Cal App.4th 173, was decided a month after the Lodi case and three months before the Nestle case. It involved an agreement between the Wildlife Conservation Board and a Colusa County farmer named Leroy Traynham for the WCB to buy a conservation easement on 235 acres of Traynham's property to expand a wetlands and riparian habitat corridor in the Lower Colusa Trough, an area important to waterfowl.  A plan to restore the wetlands and habitat was approved – including, quite literally, the construction of new wetlands – and the Department of Fish & Game approved a CEQA exemption for the project. (Most of the property in question would be flooded as a seasonal wetland.) The Farm Bureau Federation sued, claiming the land conversion should not be exempt from CEQA. In a long and very detailed opinion, Cantil-Sakauye agreed with the Farm Bureau, interpreting four potential CEQA exemptions narrowly along the way. The most important exemption the state had put forth as a rationale for skipping CEQA was a so-called Class 13 Categorical Exemption, contained in the CEQA Guidelines, which provides an exemption for "the acquisition of land for fish and wildlife purposes including (a) preservation of fish and wildlife habitat; (b) establishing ecological reserves … and (c) preserving access to public lands and waters where the purpose of the acquisition is to preserve the land in its natural condition." In her opinion , Cantil-Sakauye interpreted these provisions quite literally, concluding that the conversion of farmland to wetlands and habitat with the help of heavy construction equipment did not constitute preserving existing habitat, preserving land in its natural condition, or establishing ecological reserves. She even quoted Webster's Dictionary for a definition of "preserve:" "The language simply does not stretch to cover acquisitions for the purpose of physically constructing or creating and activity managing new wildlife habitat." After dispensing with a couple of less-strongly-argued exemptions, she even rejected what is commonly known as the "common sense exemption," which permits a CEQA exemption if "it can be seen with certainty that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment." Though the state asserted that converting farmland to wetlands and habitat quite obviously meets this criterion, Cantil-Sakauye did not agree. "In fact, this project is not a mere passive change in use, a cession of farming on the property," she wrote. "This project involves the physical reshaping of the land to create wetlands and upland for habitat." She then went into detail about how this reshaping would occur and how it might alter the environment. If you ran across this kind of reasoning in a decision by somebody like the dense-but-reliably-conservative Samuel Alito , you'd conclude that he had burrowed deeply into the facts of the case in order to justify his conservative bias without actually revealing it too obviously. But with Cantil-Sakauye, it's hard to come to the same conclusion. Maybe she is fundamentally pro-landowner and will find any way – even rejecting CEQA exemptions – to get the government out of the way. More likely, like so many Republican-appointed judges these days, she's a case judge, focusing on the facts of the case and often interpreting the underlying laws almost too literally to reach a conclusion. Of course, Cantil-Sakauye has not written a takings or CEQA decision in the last 3½ years; all four of the decisions described her came in her first two years on the bench. So perhaps her thinking has evolved. And it may be that over time she – like so many Supreme Court justices – will grow in a direction we can't predict and take the court with her. I'm betting that she won't. I'm betting that she will get the California Supreme Court to stick to the knitting on CEQA and takings cases, and not lift her head up very far out of the facts of the case at hand. That's likely to add up to a court that respects precedent and doesn't push too hard in one direction or the other in the years ahead. -- Bill Fulton

So you're sipping your coffee and reading the news on your web-enabled phone as you glide along the Expo Line, idly shutting it off as you descend into the downtown connector en route to Union Station. Your bullet train to Sacramento leaves at 9 a.m., but you're not feeling too pressed for time, because as it turns out, that train isn't departing for several years. If you can't quite see yourself in that picture yet, a coalition of urban planners and architects has an exhibit for you.  Through the month of August, railLA is hosting LA Beyond Cars, "a multimedia experience showcasing concepts, ideas, and musings from around the world on the future of Los Angeles." Formed by members of the Los Angeles chapters of the American Planning Association and the American Institute of Architects, railLA aims to build awareness of and enthusiasm for the benefits of high-speed rail in California.  LA Beyond Cars represents the organization's first foray into helping car- and plane-dependent Angelenos wrap our minds around what a transit-oriented city and state could look like. Among the installations featured are James Rojas' famous interactive models of Los Angeles, the recently released Piggy Backyard plan to turn an outdated Union Pacific rail yard into an LA River wetlands and park, as well as numerous transit station design concepts sent in from as far away as Italy and the Netherlands. At the gallery opening on July 29th, railLA Chair Gunnar Hand and Vice Chair Gerhard Mayer focused on the importance of integrating high-speed rail into a multi-modal transit system in Los Angeles that emphasizes rail, buses, and bicycles (i.e people over cars).  An urban planner and architect respectively, the two also discussed how transit hubs can serve not only as centers of mobility, but also as venues for rich civic and social interactions. In a poignant conclusion, Mayer expressed the hope that railLA could facilitate the process of "stitching together the wounds of infrastructure dedicated to the automobile" in Los Angeles. To this author, the individuals behind railLA came across as genuine in their ambitions to improve mobility, sustainability, and quality of life in Los Angeles through careful planning and human-oriented designs.  That said, a quick scan of their sponsors (AECOM, Siemens) alludes to the powerful interests that attend any "capital D" developments in Los Angeles. Indeed, railLA finds itself at the crux of a common planning and development challenge: to work on behalf of the public interest, while harnessing the power and resources of profit-driven developers. Like trying to water a garden with a fire hose, the trick is to hold on tight (to one's principles) and aim high. Exhibit Details: LA Beyond Cars: A Global Perspective on Rail and Public Space Opening on July 29, the exhibit will run through the month of August in the Jewel Box at City National Plaza (525 S. Flower Street). http://railla.org/vision/exhibition

In a case involving the City of Stanton's "sensitive use ordinance," the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled that the city's handling of an application for an adult business was flawed.  On December 1, 2008, Musa Madain submitted tenant improvement plans for a proposed adult cabaret on Katella Avenue. At the same time, he allegedly also attempted to submit the appropriate application and fee for an adult business. However, Madain claims he was told by city staff at the planning counter that the application and fee were not necessary. Two weeks later, Madain received a letter from the city manager stating his tenant improvements were rejected on the grounds his application was incomplete and that it was proposed within 300 feet of a "planned" church.  Madain learned that, in those two intervening weeks, city staff had purportedly encouraged the church to file an application promptly so as to preempt Madain's application under the sensitive use ordinance. Madain appealed the city manager's decision to the City Council on the grounds that the city improperly applied the sensitive use ordinance and that he had been unjustifiably deterred from filing his application and deprived of an opportunity to establish priority over the church. At the City Council hearing, the council took testimony from Madain and the city manager, but no other city staff members with direct knowledge regarding the submittal of the application officially appeared. The council closed the hearing and denied Madain's appeal. He filed a lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court, lost there, and filed his appeal with the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The court considered whether the City Council proceeded without or in excess of its jurisdiction, whether there was a fair hearing, and whether the council abused its discretion. The court never answered the question as to whether the council erred in interpreting the city's sensitive use ordinance as providing protection to the church (or any other religious institution) from the moment it applies for a permit to operate in a particular location. Instead, the court focused on whether the council properly considered Madain's allegations that city staff members had manipulated the process to ensure the church's application was given priority over Mr. Madain's application. Pointing to Sierra Club v. City of Hayward, (1981) 28 Cal.3d 840, 859, the court held that the City Council should have considered Madain's assertions of wrong-doing and resolved the question of whether Madain had in fact attempted to file a complete application on December 2, 2008. On these facts, and because the proposed activity enjoys First Amendment freedom of expression protection, the court held that the city abused its discretion by failing to make findings as to which application had priority. The court ordered the city to vacate its denial of Madain's application, and to reconsider his application and his contention that he was ready to file an adult business application on December 2, 2008. Presiding Justice David Sills wrote an illuminating concurring opinion. Sills wrote that the court's endorsement of the rule that whichever land use proposal is first in the door should have priority, with a few minor conditions, was merely an observation – and not law. Sills also cautioned two things. First, he said, the majority opinion should not be read for the proposition that the application for a permit means that land use is now "planned." Such an interpretation would run contrary to well-established land use law, he wrote. Second, the case should be limited to its facts, Sills wrote. The record does not concern the city's general plan nor the extent to which the sensitive use ordinance could operate as a de facto amendment to the city's general plan, he noted. The key point of this case is that applications for activities protected by the First Amendment are entitled to extraordinary protections. Specifically, when rejecting on a procedural basis an application for a protected activity, a city or county should make additional findings over and above those otherwise required in anticipation of judicial review.  The Case: Madain v. City of Stanton, No. G042218, 2010 DJDAR 9539. Filed June 23, 2010. The Lawyers: For Madain: Roger Jon Diamond, (310) 399-3259. For the City: Ralph Hanson, Burke, Williams & Sorenson, (949) 863-3363

Today marks the launch of the "Los Angeles Cleantech Corridor & Green District Competition," an event sponsored by the Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc) and The Architect's Newspaper. This call-for-entries seeks submissions focusing on clean technology infrastructure improvements in the Cleantech Corridor, an industrial area just east of Downtown Los Angeles that straddles the Los Angeles River. This cluster-based strategy – spearheaded by Mayor Villaraigosa and the Community Redevelopment Agency – has experienced an impressive wave of attention over the summer, propelling it to the national stage and broadening support for LA's case as the home of clean technologies. More cities than you can count are trying to fashion themselves into the "cleanest, greenest city in the nation." Silicon Valley is hailing itself as the new cleantech capital because it lured Tesla Motors, an electric vehicle company, into taking over Toyota's defunct NUMMI plant  in Fremont, CA. But Los Angeles is going about its cleantech push in a more deliberate fashion, through "CleanTech Los Angeles"  and its Cleantech Corridor. Initially the Corridor was launched as an attempt to save and promote industrial land quickly being converted to residences. The area is located within two redevelopment project areas of the City of Los Angeles, Central Industrial and Adelante Eastside.  While it qualifies for a variety of place-based economic development incentives (Federal Empowerment Zone, Community Renewal Zone, State Enterprise Zone), many of those incentives have expired. The incentives only apply to existing businesses that may obtain tax rebates for previously designated years. Thus, the primary way that the city can entice development is through exposure, connections, and a push to hype the benefits of a so-called "Porterian cluster." In May the Urban Land Institute brought a team of experts to Los Angeles to participate in a Technical Advisory Panel on the Cleantech Corridor. Sponsored by CRA/LA and LADWP, the group interviewed stakeholders, conducted site visits, and created renderings for their recommendations in the corridor. The official report is expected to be released in September.  Concurrently, the Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc) took an interest in the ULI project and decided to plan a competition piggybacking off ULI's recommendations. SCI-Arc's open ideas competitions are yearly events open to professional and student designers, focusing on a specific initiative in Los Angeles.  Through this year's contest SCI-Arc is soliciting ideas as to how architects, designers, planners, and builders can foster environmentally friendly solutions to upgrade the area's infrastructure. The competition panel is looking for a focus on how to integrate clean technology with the built environment in this proposed green district. Recently announced judges include architect Ming Fung, LA. Metro environmental manager Cris B. Liban, L.A. Deputy Mayor Romel Pascual, and former Metro Board Member Nick Patsaouras.  These ideas will complement the efforts of the Mayor's Office and CRA/LA, who are primarily focused on business attraction. LADWP and CRA/LA are making strides towards building cleantech incubator and research space in the heart of the Arts District. While an architect still has yet to be selected to design the campus-like location, CRA/LA has contracted a cluster strategy development company to produce a business plan for the site. When completed and opened, engineers and entrepreneurs will be able to work in the incubator space, eat at new cafes and restaurants, and live in new lofts nearby.  So keep an eye out for the results of SCI-Arc's open ideas competition, the next nudge in the right direction for CleanTech LA. The exposure that will come from an internationally renowned institution is sure to continue Los Angeles' quest to become a global capital of clean technology.  -- Nat Gale Nat Gale is a planner in the Mayor's Office of Economic and Business Policy and is a primary contact for clean technology issues.

Whether or not Prop 19 passes, the Oakland City Council is already considering legalizing marijuana for fiscal reasons .  A local owner of industrial sheds claims that if he fills 172,000 square feet of marijuana-related uses, such as growing plants in otherwise empty warehouses, the city could scoop up a cool $38 million annually. That's every year.  (Note to municipal auditor/controllers: Wouldn't an additional $38 million sound good right about now?) The very best part of the story in the L.A. Times, however, is the comment by the real estate owner, Jeff Wilcox, to city officials. "My idea," he said, "is of a cannabis based business park." Whatever one's opinion on the merits of this proposal, one must admire the sublime word magic afoot in this short sentence. Here is a culture re-creating itself by bringing the older, sacral values into new lines of work. By interpolating words that we like, such as business park, with a legitimizing half-euphemism like cannabis (as opposed to "marijuana"), we enact the cultural shift in attitudes toward pot growing from that of hippy moonshining into a kind-of-OK industry, like "gaming," "adult entertainment," and so on. And these "sin-dustries," like 'em or not, and their associated business parks with their lush, suburban style landscaping and their parking ratios of four spaces for every 1,000 feet of leased floor area, are not to be scorned, for they help fill the yawning public purse. As the book says, "the Lord moves in mysterious ways."        But how do you go about explaining this vote to the rest of the nation, including places where people are still being tossed in prison for possessing this particular verdure, which is just naturally bad, like snakes, tarantulas and beetles large enough to be frightening. Maybe it has to do with Original Sin. I'll have to Google it.      Here, published for the first time anywhere, is an actual record of the inner workings of the mind of an unnamed Oakland official, who happens to be fictitious, but is otherwise credible.      "Hard to explain my vote for this. What to say to the reporters from the national news networks, from National Public Radio, from Fox News…" (a wave of nauseating fear comes over the person).     "On the other hand, why not?  Is lightning going to strike us? Lightning would be progress here."     "But how do I explain this to my church-going mother, who believes that government should never condone bad behavior? (Not that I officially hold a position on the near-infinite benefit to be had from cultivating this particular cash crop, if these inflated, absurd numbers are to be believed!)"     "My private life? I have a card, of course. Plus, my insurance pays for it, which they never would for martinis, which is also capable of a medicinal effects, believe you me. But who's to argue?" --Morris Newman

After nearly a decade of conflict, Adam Bros. Farming, Inc.'s quest to receive compensation from the County of Santa Barbara has finally come to an end with a Ninth Circuit ruling in favor of the county.  In 1999 the county had ordered Adams Bros. to cease farming on 95 of its 286 acres near Orcutt because those 95 acres had been designated as wetlands. Adam Bros. originally brought suit in California Superior Court claiming that the wetlands designation was faulty, that it decreased the value and usefulness of their farmland, and that it violated the federal Equal Protection, Due Process and Takings clauses. Adam sought damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.  The Superior Court found the takings claims were not ripe, and Adam amended its complaint to eliminate those claims. At trial, the jury found that the county had in fact conspired to designate a 95 acres as wetlands in an attempt to suppress the value of the land. The court awarded Adam Bros. declaratory and injunctive relief and a jury awarded Adam Bros. $5.6 million in punitive and general damages ( CP&DR Vol. 20, No. 1 ).  The county then appealed, and the appellate court eliminated the damages. It did, however, uphold the declaratory and injunctive relief, holding that the wetlands delineation was contrary to law. In an effort to obtain compensation from the county, Adam Bros. then went to federal court alleging violations of the federal Takings Clause. Adam Bros. lost at the district court based on procedural issues and appealed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal also ruled against Adam based on procedural issues in this case, thus effectively exhausting Adam Bros.'s legal options. According to the Ninth Circuit, Adam Bros.'s takings claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Res judicata bars a plaintiff from re-adjudicating claims that have already been decided by another court. In this case, the Ninth Circuit found that the claims adjudicated by the state court involved the same underlying facts, and the fact that Adam decided to amend its complaint by eliminating the takings claims did not bar the application of res judicata to those claims. Therefore, Adam will not be receiving compensation for the county's faulty wetlands delineation. CASE: Adam Bros. Farming, Inc. v. County of Santa Barbara (2010) 604 F.3d 1142 LAWYERS: For Adams Bros.: J. David Breemer, Pacific Legal Foundation For Santa Barbara County: Lisa A. Rothstein, Deputy County Counsel Cori M. Badgley is an attorney with the firm of Abbott and Kindermann, LLP .