This happened a couple days ago, but as it's crucial that the clean-truck program at two of the nation's busiest ports go forward, I think it's significant:
A federal court judge in Los Angeles on Monday tentatively denied a trucking association's bid to block a landmark clean-truck program at the nation's busiest port complex.
After a 40-minute hearing, U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder said she would probably allow the program to move forward, despite objections from truckers.
"The balance of hardships and the public interest tip decidedly in favor of denying the injunction," she said in court.
Under the program, the adjacent ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach would upgrade their aging fleet of about 16,800 mostly dilapidated rigs that produce much of the diesel pollution in Southern California.
Though the American Trucking Association is opposing the bill and filed the attempted injunction, the clean-ports program was borne of a true blue-green alliance between labor and environmental groups, which is the next level of how we're going to fight climate change in this country and build millions of new green-collar jobs. The courts are now on the record as saying that reducing greenhouse gas emissions are in the public interest. And the ATA is being a little coy here - a good number of the trucking firms are already upgrading, so their injunction effort was meant to satisfy a few big corporations. It didn't work.
The second exciting development is SB 375, which for the first time links emissions to urban planning, and could easily become a model for the nation. We have to make sure it's signed into law, of course, but if and when it is, it will represent a great leap forward for the environment, live/work issues, quality of life, and traffic reduction.
The measure, known as SB375, aims to give existing and new high-density centers where people live, work and shop top priority in receiving local, state and federal transportation funds. The idea is that such developments check sprawl and ease commutes, in turn cutting the car pollution wafting through the Golden State.
Authored by Sen. Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), the bill reflects California's push to slash its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020. Sponsors say the measure is part of a much-needed growth policy for a state whose population is expected to swell to 50 million from the current 38 million in two decades.
"Many places across the country have realized that if you just build spread-out developments, with the expectation that everyone will have to drive for everything, it should be no surprise when the result is excessive burning of gasoline," said David Goldberg, spokesman for Smart Growth America, a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit group that helps cities and towns plan more workable, environmentally friendly growth.
"SB375 breaks new ground, because it specifically links that pattern of development to excess driving and what we need to do to address climate change," he said.
Instead of trying to capture more resources every time there's an energy shortage, we can reorganize our lives to maximize existing resources while making our lifestyles far less stressful and more pleasant. It's the solution that works on all fronts.
The budget madness is super-depressing, but these developments are cause for optimism.
The Sebastopol City Council kicked off deliberations of a controversial redevelopment plan Tuesday with a majority of members voicing support for higher-density buildings as the most environmentally sound approach.
"Density is what makes transit feasible, giving us the option of getting out of our cars," said Councilman Larry Robinson [...]
The redevelopment plan would allow 300 residential units and nearly 400,000 square feet of new business and civic space between the Laguna de Santa Rosa and downtown.
Supporters have said the plan encourages the most environmentally sound method of development and would help add economic vitality to the city.
This approach is not without critics. There remain those who consider tall buildings an urban blight, think that all development comes with traffic woes and want to maintain local "character" when talking about growth.
The point here is that we have to start to re-orient to a different kind of lifestyle. If basic necessities are within walking distance and a strong transit spoke can build out from denser development, the traffic problems are eliminated, the quality of life goes up, and people can get around and get to work without the need for their cars. Santa Monica is a pretty dense city, with several points of interest and commercial shops within walking distance and a strong bus system. It's not Manhattan and it doesn't have to be. But there's less of a reliance on the automobile, and ultimately reducing that reliance is the key to making us energy secure.
The alternative is areas like the Inland Empire, where runaway sprawl and persistent construction of single-family homes is not only unsustainable, it's unaffordable, as the mortgage crisis and soaring energy costs turn these developments into ghost towns. With 200 dollar-a-barrel oil on the horizon, urban planning simply cannot retain the status quo and expect to survive. There isn't one complete answer here - telecommuting and Internet delivery, increased mass transit (I can't wait for my subway to the sea), and density will all play a role. But we cannot sacrifice any of those options in the name of NIMBYism.
Former (and future?) governor and current Attorney General Jerry Brown was waxing nostalgic about his days in the governor's mansion, driving the famous blue Plymouth ("it lasted 240,000 miles without an engine overhaul - now that was sustainability"), and suing Ronald Reagan over the governor's mansion.
But the core of his speech dealt with our climate crisis. Brown emphasized his administration's earlier efforts to encourage smart growth, urban density, walking, even trains. And he called for renewed action on this today. He conceptualized it as "elegant density" - get people out of their cars, build more walkable communities served by trains and other forms of mass transit, powered by solar energy, to not just deal with global warming, but to encourage a more sustainable California.
During the 1970s, Brown had tried to promote a similar agenda. He appointed a trains advocate as the head of Caltrans, promoted a solar energy program, and cut off funds for freeway construction projects, and establishing the Office of Planning and Research. He even promoted an ambitious Urban Strategy for California emphasizing density and limiting sprawl.
Prop 13's passage ended much of this as state government was starved of funds. But Prop 13 was about more than low taxes. It was the reaction of the lovers of suburban sprawl, of the 1950s model of California, against Brown's more forward-thinking model. As recently as 2001 arch-conservative Tom McClintock danced on the grave of Brown's sustainability strategy calling it:
a radical and retrograde ideology into California public policy that quite abruptly and permanently changed the state.
That radical ideology has been the central tenet of governance in California through four successive gubernatorial administrations, Democratic and Republican, to the present day. It was described by Jerry Brown as "the era of limits," punctuated by such new-age nonsense as the mantra, "small is beautiful." Suburban "sprawl" would be replaced with a new "urban strategy."
Republicans continue to make these arguments. They are bent on preserving the failed 1950s model of urban life at all costs. By doing so they have become a party of aristocracy. "Elegant density" isn't just an environmental and climate strategy - it's also necessary for the survival of California's working and middle classes in the 21st century. Republicans will fight against this, and so it is very good to hear Jerry Brown mounting a full-throated defense of sustainable living.
The rest of his speech is pure red meat - bashing the Bush Administration and its EPA ("those idiots"), denouncing them for the mortgage crisis, and calling for the repeal of NCLB. If he does have the governor's office in mind in 2010, this kind of playing to the base would make him an even more formidable opponent in the Democratic primary.
With everyone off doing presidential stuff around the country, I'm gonna sneak in some local fun. For the first time since 1979, the City of San Diego is reviewing and updating its general plan for growth and development. The report is more than 300 pages long and not even I am nerd enough to read it all (ok, not yet), but it's kicking up quite a stir as it recommends a rather dramatic shift to infill, redevelopment and other building up instead of out priorities. Why the shift? Well, there's no more room. As the U-T points out, only 4% of San Diego remains open for new development. Which means it's time to start thinking like an actual city instead of neverending suburbia.
This notion has of course stirred up plenty of controversy. Some of it is legitimate, like Councilmember Donna Frye's concerns about infrastructure and services keeping up with increased density. Some of it is mostly just people just trying to cover their own butts without regard for the broader picture. I'm all for making sure that the projects are executed correctly, but criticisms along the lines of "if it's done wrong, it'll be bad" really don't help me much.
Calitics has, on many occasions, discussed the need to change the way California thinks about development. Robert has led the way on the notion that building density and a non-car based transportation system is key to the next generation of planning. So while I'm cynical like many people around town who say "The plan has these wonderful platitudes but on every page," I'm also encouraged by just the notion of setting a goal of building forward-thinking urban density.
On the flip is a brief rundown of the ten elements that the plan promotes and a bit of local intrigue that, not surprisingly, is getting caught up in this.
You might not be surprised that the Placer County Board of Supervisors is controlled by Conservatives/ John Doolittle acolytes. But, the Placer County Dems have no ideas of giving up the fight. They have been consistently fighting against poor land use and other decisions that would have a disastrous effect on the County, and the state right along with it. You see, Placer County is the future of this state. If we are to maintain control, we must seek to build up our resources in counties like Placer County.
The latest outrage? Well, the Board plans to authorize the "Placer Vineyards" project. If you were thinking a nice little vineyard, um, think again. This will be several thousand acres of sprawl. The developers plan to build 14,000 homes with over 30,000 new residents. Although that number seems low to me, you'd expect each house to have an average of more than 2.2 people. But, that might just be quibbling, so let's say, conservatively 30K people. That many people don't just stay in their house, they need facilities to live and work in. Trouble is, that most of these people are likely to commute back to Sacramento or other parts unknown.
Placer County Dem Chair Larry Dubois responds today in an op-ed in the Bee:
f Placer County residents ever want to stop our inexorable descent into suburban hell where strip malls, six-lane highways and low-density suburban "McMansions" replace mandarin orchards and oak woodlands, then we have to stop supporting politicians who are literally paid, through campaign contributions, to do the dirty work for big-city suburban sprawl developers. (SacBee 8/8/07)
I highly recommend the op-ed to anybody interested in Placer County politics, or really anybody interested in the politics of development. It's one area where progressives have been beat over and over again. It's great to see the Placer County Dems stand up against it.
Oh my! Here's some interesting news on the fight over affordable housing in Anaheim. The Register has a story on last night's Anaheim City Council meeting, and of their latest decision to give Disney, Suncal, and the affordable housing advocates three weeks to work out a compromise.
Obviously, this leaves one HUGE question in my head. Can the two sides reach a compromise? Is there middle ground between affordable housing near Disneyland and giving Disney free reign to do as it pleases in the "resort district"?
Sometimes, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. A couple of days ago, I opened up OC Metro to discover a feature article about all the major coastal resorts banding together to "brand the waterfront" as the ultimate luxury destination. And of course while looking for the article, I had to see a full-page ad urging me to "wake up to the waves" and "rest to the setting of the sun" at "Brightwater in Huntington Beach", the new luxury housing development that sits just west of the other luxury housing development that sits atop what's supposed to be protected wetlands. But of course, all this OC coastal luxuriousness mustn't end there. I soon find a big ad telling me of all the decadently luxurious scenery awaiting me at the Balboa Bay Club in Newport Beach. No matter where I turn the page in OC Metro, I find all this fabulous luxury. Who would have known that I was living in the lap of luxury here in oh-so-fabulous Orange County?
But wait, does everyone really enjoy the "luxurious lifestyle" in The Land of the OC? Can we afford those new houses sitting dangerously close to protected wetlands? Can we even reach the beach amidst all this development? Can we afford to continue ignoring the dire need for affordable housing in the region? Oh yes, and what about the poor kids who want to go to the beach, but can't thanks to OCTA's refusal to meet the demands of bus drivers who themselves can hardly afford the high cost of living in Orange County?
Follow me after the flip to explore just how luxurious (or not) life really is...
Nothing says "California" like the coastline. We love our beaches. We love the ocean. And when we live so close to the ocean, we love to see it from the house. But what happens when your precious ocean view is taken away from you? What happens when your "personal space" with that lovely ocean view is INVADED?
"... [T]hat's a real invasion of our personal space," says Anne Kolp, who bought her home more than three years ago believing that the vista would never change. "It looks like a huge ship coming out of the ocean."
Believe it or not, this is what the War of Shorecliffs is all about. In a small community in San Clemente, people are fighting over property rights, and what that exactly means. Do we have a right to build a second story to our house? Do we have a right to a permanent ocean view? Do we have a right to preserve the "bucolic" feel of the neighborhood?
Cynthia Carranco, 16, must do her homework on the seats of dining room chairs because there is no other place to write in the three-bedroom house shared by nine people.
She knows her situation is not unique: A friend sleeps in a walk-in closet, and others also live in crowded conditions.
"Sometimes it's hard being a teenager and not having any privacy," said Carranco, an Anaheim High School student.
Cynthia Carranco was one of the speakers at last night's forum on affordable housing in Anaheim. She and the other speakers spoke of their dire need for affordable housing. Yes, there's the controversial push for affordable housing in the "Anaheim Resort" district. You know, the one where Disney is putting up an initiative to "save the resort district". However, there are other battles being fought here as well. Of the 8,700 new homes going up in Anaheim's Platinum Triangle "luxury urban high-rise" development, NONE of them will be available for the lower-income workers who already have jobs in the area. There's a dire need for affordable housing, but that need is just being ignored.
But you know what? It's not just Anaheim. It's the entire Southern California region that's facing this crisis of affordable housing. And what are they doing about it? Follow me after the flip for more...
({This is Part 9 of my special report on the proposed extension of the 241 Toll Road to San Onofre State Beach (aka Trestles). If you'd like, you can find the other stories in the "Speeding Our Way to Trestles" series here. As the debate heats up over Trestles and the 241, I'd like to go in depth and examine all the issues involved... And I'd love for you to come along for the ride as we explore what can be done to relieve traffic in South Orange County AND Save Trestles Beach. Enjoy! : ) } - promoted by atdleft)
A proposed toll road through parkland that has become Orange County's most explosive environmental controversy could be jeopardized - and perhaps even killed - if a small amendment added to a defense authorization bill is approved today.
The Foothill South toll road, which would bisect San Onofre State Beach park and cut through highly sensitive natural habitat, has pitted environmental activists against residents who say the road is vital to prevent south county gridlock as populations rise.
Rep. Susan Davis, D-San Diego, who is sponsoring the amendment, believes she has the votes to repeal a 1999 law that authorized the military to grant the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency the right to build a road on 340 acres of parkland.
Authorization from the Navy is necessary before the toll road, which must clear a variety of other regulatory hurdles, can be built.
So can this mean the end of Foothill-South? Follow me after the flip for more...
(Keep an eye out today for what happens at the Resolutions Committee today. The future of Trestles may hang in the balance. - promoted by atdleft)
For quite some time, all of us in Orange County have wondered what the state Democratic Party would do regarding the huge controversy over extending the 241 Toll Road to Trestles. Well, yesterday we finally received an answer. The party would try to reach a compromise between the labor groups supporting the 241 extension to Trestles and the environmental groups opposing this. However in the end, Democratic State Central Committee members may very well vote tomorrow to protect San Onofre State Park and Trestles beach from the reach of TCA and a possble 241 extension.
So what happened yesterday in the Resolutions Committee? And how may this affect the ultimate battle over Trestles? Well, follow me after the flip for more on what happened inside the convention center yesterday...
Oh, my! Check out what Nick Schou has for us in this week's OC Weekly:
Steve Sheldon isn't nearly as famous as his gay-bashing evangelical-minister dad. Most people know him simply as the son of Lou Sheldon, whose Traditional Values Coalition raises money to fight the vast gay conspiracy to undermine America but has less of a problem with sins that don't involve lube. In 2000, Sheldon the elder helped lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his Las Vegas casino clients kill federal gambling legislation. Crucial to that effort was his son Steve, a Newport Beach-based public relations consultant who in the previous decade had already taken more than $100,000 from Sin City to fight Indian gaming in California.
But along Garden Grove's Main Street-one of the last relics of small-town America in the suburban sprawl that has engulfed Orange County-Sheldon the younger is rapidly becoming a celebrity. Just not in a good way. Last October, the longtime consultant to the City of Garden Grove convinced city council to give him the exclusive right to develop a $40 million condominium project adjacent to Main Street. In approving the deal, the city sold him the land-currently a city-owned parking lot serving Main Street businesses-for just $1.5 million.
In January, the Garden Grove Downtown Business Association filed a lawsuit to stop the 100-unit condo project, alleging it violates city and state law by declaring the parking lot "blighted" and handing it to Sheldon without competitive bidding.
Hmmm, so why is America's holiest family involved in some not-so-Godly behavior? Just what is Steve Sheldon up to in Garden Grove? Follow me after the flip for more...
(Cross-posted at Trash Dirty Gary, Southern California's resource for revealing Gary Miller's true record of disservice to his constituents... AND a place for action in restoring honor and integrity to the 42nd Congressional District.)
{This is Part 8 of my special report on the proposed extension of the 241 Toll Road to San Onofre State Beach (aka Trestles). If you'd like, you can find the other stories in the "Speeding Our Way to Trestles" series here. As the debate heats up over Trestles and the 241, I'd like to go in depth and examine all the issues involved... And I'd love for you to come along for the ride as we explore what can be done to relieve traffic in South Orange County AND Save Trestles Beach. Enjoy! : ) }
Once upon a time, a "Magic Kingdom" opened among orange groves and walnut trees in a rural, bucolic community in North Orange County. Over the years, as this "Magic Kingdom" has grown, the rural area transformed into suburban sprawl, and then into urban sprawl.
And during all this time, the two seemed to be growing together pretty well...
Putting itself on a collision course with the city's largest and most famous employer, the Anaheim City Council voted 3 to 2 Tuesday night to reopen debate on whether to allow housing in the resort district - a proposal Disney has fiercely opposed.
The vote is the latest escalation in the debate between city leaders and Disney officials on what belongs in a neighborhood dominated by Disneyland and California Adventure.
So what does this mean for Mickey Mouse, the poor folks who work for him, and the all the neighbors who have to live near him? I'll tell you about it after the flip...
{This is Part 7 of my special report on the proposed extension of the 241 Toll Road to San Onofre State Beach (aka Trestles). If you'd like, you can find the other stories in the "Speeding Our Way to Trestles" series here. As the debate heats up over Trestles and the 241, I'd like to go in depth and examine all the issues involved... And I'd love for you to come along for the ride as we explore what can be done to relieve traffic in South Orange County AND Save Trestles Beach. Enjoy! : ) }
However, is there anything we can do to stop TCA from pursuing total madness? What can we do to save Trestles forever, and stop all this crazy talk about this immoral AND impractical toll road?
Well, perhaps history canteach usa lesson. After all, this is not the first time that we in OC have fought over the future of our beaches. Follow me after the flip for a wild and wonderful history lesson (illustrated with plenty of fantastic beach pics!) in fighting over development and saving Orange County's coastal treasures.
The city of Brea continues to set the stage for a massive theft of property, a "taking," but is trying to craft its action in such a way that the city won't have to pay for what it takes. The City Council agreed Tuesday to postpone a decision on changing the zoning in a hillside portion of the city, as staff develops more "flexibility" for owners. But a very troubling process is moving forward.
The city attorney, council members and members of a no-growth group closely allied with city officials are all touting their commitment these days to "compromise." But don't think that after five years of depriving owners of their lawful right to develop their land that officials have suddenly gained any newfound understanding of the concept of individual freedom.
So does Brea hate "invidual freedom"...
Or are they really respecting freedom? Follow me after the flip for more...
I saw that a bankruptcy judge sided with Brea and against bankrupt Tower Records' attempt to lease their 30,000 square foot space to Walgreens:
"There are a lot of places in our city where a Walgreens would be great," O'Donnell said. "But not in an entertainment/restaurant district."
A drugstore? Eeeewww...how tawdry! People with illnesses picking up prescriptions! Can't possibly have that across the street from the multiplex!
Have we come to this? Local government inserting itself into the free marketplace to the extent of deciding where it is and isn't appropriate to put a drugstore?
I really don't know. I'll leave that judgment call to you.
- Who's Breaking the Law Now?. The Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals faults the Orange County Sheriff's Department in its detention of an inmate who was cuffed to a hospital bed. The OC Register has more.
- Gingrich (Finally!!) Says He's a Cheater! OK, so this is not a purely Orange County story... But still, Dan Chmielewski has something to say about it at The Liberal OC. : )
Hmmm... I noticed this in today's OC Register, and it's making me think:
Landowners in the hills of Brea blasted the idea as too restrictive.
A majority of speakers during Tuesday's public hearing applauded it as an overdue step toward preservation.
And as of late Tuesday, the City Council had not reached consensus on new zoning laws that would slash the number of homes that could be built in Brea's Carbon Canyon region - more than 1,100 acres east of the Orange (57) Freeway.
So would Brea be limiting property owners' rights by limiting the amount of homes that they are allowed to build along the hillsides of Carbon Canyon? Or would Brea simply be taking a common sense step toward preventing a terrible tragedy like the Laguna Landslides of 2005 from happening in their community?
Follow me after the flip for more on this debate over property rights, public safety, and hillside preservation...
- Anaheim's Disney Dilemma... Now in Court! The Plaintiff: Disney, who insists that housing in the resort district would not fit in with the hotels and tourist venues planned for the area. The Defendant: The City of Anaheim, who insists that the city has the right to determine what fits in the resort district... And now, residential developer SunCal wants to help pay Anaheim's legal fees. Stay tuned as the Disney Dilemma erupts in court!
- No Longer Lost in Translation. The City of Santa Ana is finally giving its 45% of primarily Spanish-speaking residents a chance to better participate in city council meetings by offering simultaneous translation of its City Council meetings in Spanish. Es muy bien, porque mas personas en Santa Ana pueden participar en los negocios de su ciudad. : )
And finally...
- Curt. It's been said that a picture is worth a thousand words... So I guess it shouldn't surprise me that Mike Lawson's one picture at The Liberal OC says more about the wild and crazy special election fallout than all of my updates combined. Way to go, Mike, you artistic genius. ; )
{This is Part 3 of my special report on the proposed extension of the 241 Toll Road to San Onofre State Beach (aka Trestles). If you'd like, you can find the other stories in the "Speeding Our Way to Trestles" series here. As the debate heats up over Trestles and the 241, I'd like to go in depth and examine all the issues involved... And I'd love for you to come along for the ride as we explore what can be done to relieve traffic in South Orange County AND Save Trestles Beach. Enjoy! : ) }
So much for whatever hopes the TCA had that this project could begin any time soon...
For more than a year, transportation planners have said that preparations for a toll road passing through San Onofre State Beach were on schedule.
On Wednesday, that message was revised.
Planners now say it will take at least two years longer than expected to get funding and permits for the controversial turnpike, which will complete Orange County's network of toll roads and link Orange and San Diego counties.
The Irvine-based Transportation Corridor Agencies had hoped to secure funding for the Foothill South by 2008, but underestimated the complexity of the permit process.
So what is it that's "stopping progress" on this great toll road to nowhere? Follow me after the flip for more...
