Bond freeze redux

Just passing along the chisme, folks.  I heard from a couple of sources that state agencies are not expecting bonds for environmental projects to start getting sold again until early summer 2010.  At earliest, one person said.  Others say FY 2010, which isn’t too far away.  The Stimulus package could help backfill funding for projects that have already been allocated under the various prop’s, depending on how the State chooses to allocate the money (loans vs. grants, and who it is allowable to make grantees).

RIO approved by Planning Commission

The Planning Commission approving the River Improvement Overlay

The River Improvement Overlay, or “RIO,” zoning ordinance was approved by the Los Angeles City Planning Commission last week on Thursday February 12th 2009. Keen-eyed non-memory-impaired Creek Freak readers are already familiar with the RIO from our earlier in-depth coverage. The RIO is one small part of the larger 20+ year Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan.

The RIO creates a new set of city planning rules (technically a supplemental use district) that will apply to an irregularly-shaped corridor approximately 1/2 mile on either side of the Los Angeles River, within the City of Los Angeles (actual boundary map here.) The RIO is a kind of river-friendly checklist – a bit like the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) system for certifying green buildings. It makes things a bit greener, more sustainable, and more oriented toward bicycle and pedestrian transportation. It also encourages affordable housing, river-orientation of activities, and more.

Two smart things that I want to point out about the RIO:
> It offers alternative traffic mitigation for development. Right now, when a developer wants to build a new building, she/he is required to include traffic mitigation – often in the form of paying for widening streets, synchronizing traffic signals, etc. I think that this is a big problem – we just continue to plan for more and more cars, and the environment and quality of life goes from bad to worse. Under the RIO, developers can instead provide facilities for bikes and pedestrians, instead of just cars.
> It’s scalable. Right now, the RIO tool kit is just being applied to the L.A. River corridor, but future RIO zones can be implemented along any waterway (or even for watersheds.) Sooner or later I hope we’ll see these districts applied to the Tujunga Wash, the Pacoima Wash, the Arroyo Seco, Ballona Creek, Compton Creek, the Dominguez Slough, Sacatela Creek, and… indeed, all the waterways and watersheds in the city of Los Angeles.

At last Thursday’s meeting, Planning Commission president Bill Roschen had nothing but praise for the RIO. He introduced the items stating that the commission was going to get dessert before lunch, praised the work of planning staff, and closed with “O happy day” when the measures were approved unanimously.

There were eight public comments in favor of the RIO, including representatives from the Mountains Recreation & Conservation Authority, Mujeres de la Tierra, the Arroyo Seco Foundation, and even your friendly neighborhood L.A. Creek Freak. Friends of the Los Angeles River‘s Lewis MacAdams, quoting George Mihlsten, said that he could think of no more powerful words than that he “concurred with the staff report.” The only voice of criticism was from a representative of the Sportsman’s Lodge (which neighbors the river in Studio City) who requested that the RIO include more incentives for development.

Commissioners including Mike Woo and Diego Cardoso praised the RIO. They credited the broad level of support to good staff processes in developing the RIO. The entire commission voted unanimously to approve the RIO and the LA RIO. The RIO puts in place the overlay as a potential tool in the city’s toolbox of zoning regulations. The LA RIO applies that tool to the specified set of boundaries along the Los Angeles River.

From here, the ordinance will be heard by city council committes (I expect it will go to both the Planning and Land Use Management committee and the Ad Hoc River Committee) before going to the full city council. It takes effect only after being approved by the full council.

Kudos to LA City Planning staff – Claire Bowin, Tom Rothman, and Deborah Kahen – for getting things this far!

(Image above cross-posted at my Handmade Ransom Notes art blog.)

New Dominguez Watershed group forms

The Gardena Willows in the Dominguez Watershed is one of several remnants of the former, large Dominguez Slough.

Last week I met up with three people who are very motivated to generate projects and attention for the Dominguez Watershed.  It’s something of LA’s orphan watershed, falling outside of most state conservancy territories, reducing funding opportunities – and therefore a lot of political interest.  It’s also a bit of a sleeper watershed – home to small South Bay cities like Hawthorne, Lawndale, Gardena, Carson, Torrance, parts of Inglewood and Compton, and unincorporated LA County, that don’t often attract a lot of attention.  The County of Los Angeles put together a watershed plan for Dominguez, funded by a Prop 13 grant.  The plan proposes many projects for the remnant wetlands of the watershed, as well as projects to address stormwater.  I don’t know what projects from the plan have moved forward into implementation.  

What’s really exciting about last week’s gathering is that its residents (and one former resident – me) are mobilizing.  Agency expertise and capacity is necessary to get big projects going, but it is the residents with a vision who will call attention to the channel and the watershed, and get political support. 

Check out our Dominguez Watershed blog – it’s just in its infancy (as is our name etc).  If you live in the watershed, get involved!

Prior posts about Dominguez:  http://lacreekfreak.wordpress.com/?s=dominguez

News and Upcoming Events – February 9 2009

A Clean River is a Fun River - from Milwaukee (thanks to Federico for alerting me to this link at the Wooster Collective blog - click image for more and larger photos)

Forgive me, readers, it’s been a long time since my last consolidator post.

(Fairly) Recent News:

Cornerstone Theater Company is producing a new play about the Los Angeles River! They’re looking for river-interested folks to audition, no acting experience necessary, only adventurous spirit. Auditions will be February 18th, 21st and 22nd.

The Los Angeles Times remembers the 1934 New Year’s Day floods, called “The Montrose Flood,” which killed dozens of people as the Pickens Canyon Wash (a tributary of the Verdugo Wash, which is a tributary of the Los Angeles River) overflowed. Check out the historic photos documenting the serious debris flows. (Thanks to the Verdugo City blog)

“It is … not a restored nature, it is an invented nature.” Stephanie Pincetl blogs on The Los Angeles River: Restoration, (Re)Invention? The Politics of Nature in L.A.

“We want it to remain neighborhood-friendly to dogs and anyone else who walks, runs or cycles there.” The Studio City Sun covers the planned Studio City stretch of the Los Angeles River bikeway and greenway.

“At a time when the California economy needs stimulus, it has been devastating to our communities to have to stop work and lay off staff” Read all about it in the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council’s press release on the bond freeze: Legislative and Gubernatorial Budget Inaction Continues to Cripple Water Protection in Los Angeles.  (Creek Freak’s earlier freeze coverage here and here.)

Some Recommended Video Viewing:

>Eye on L.A.’s Exploring the L.A. River (the filming of was mentioned earlier)
>The Environmental Protection Agency’s Reduce Runoff: Slow It Down, Spread It Out, Soak It In.

Upcoming Events:

The City of L.A.’s River Zoning Ordinance will be heard by the City Planning Commission this Thursday February 12th 2009.  The meeting starts “after 8:30am” at City Hall room 1010.  Read earlier coverage here and, for serious creek geeks, read the staff report here.  L.A. Creek Freak encourages river-supporters to attend and make sure that this important ordinance passes.

Ever thought about blogging? Want to learn how to use the internet to promote your business or cause? L.A. Creek Freak‘s Joe Linton and L.A. StreetsBlog‘s Damien Newton will be teaching an internet skills course on Wednesdays February 18th and 25th. The class takes place from 7pm to 9pm at the Bresee Foundation‘s computer center.

On Saturday February 21st from 8am to 11am, the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works is hosting a community clean-up event, including a Los Angeles River clean-up site at Taylor Yard.

Smothering streams

The Rio de Flag: Help! (Photo S. Bergquist)

Today, you are reading the Southwestern Creekfreak, which has elbowed its way in on the LA Creekfreak.  While in Flagstaff recently to attend Tom Moody’s memorial, friends in Flag updated us on the looming public works project on the Rio de Flag.  The words “public works” (worse yet – “improvement”) in concert with “stream”, “river”, or “creek” don’t generally bode well for the waterway in question, and this is no exception.

The Stimulus Plan (the one on the news, like, constantly) has a line item in it that will bury the lower Rio de Flag.  That’s right, bury it.  Lay pipe or culverts in the stream’s bed, and place fill over it.  At the recommendation of (who else?) the Army Corps of Engineers.  That would be the LA District, folks, which prepares projects and permits over several southwestern states.  Our local-right-on-Wilshire Blvd-office of ACOE.  The same office that is studying the LA River and Ballona Creek to see what they can undo of the phenomenal environmental destruction earlier generations of their office wrought.  

Schizophrenia to say the least. 

The Corps has a range of programs through which they provide services to local governments.  Here in the LA Basin, we work a lot with their planners who focus on environmental restoration.  They do complicated analyses to recommend a restoration plan that gets the most credits based on science, economics, and gov’t priorities.  This doesn’t always translate into the most ecologically functional or sensitive plan – it may mean that they are managing a site more intensively for a particular endangered species, or other objective that the government gives big points to – but it can result in good work, and if their preferred alternative is also the local stakeholder’s then we can get a lot of federal help for implementation.

Whatever program the Corps used to consult with Flagstaff came up with an assessment that preferred burying the Rio de Flagstaff over installing new bridges.  I can only guess the Corps’ formulas don’t value the natural functions of a stream very highly.  With the preferred plan of laying pipes, the Corps offers total federal financing of the project.  If Flagstaff were to choose the bridges alternative, I’m told they’d have to raise about 50% of the funds themselves.  The path of least resistance is easy to see in this scenario.  

How many other streams does the Corps want to smother with this Stimulus Package?  

Protection of natural resources – especially our waterways – needs to be a consistent priority – not just something you care about after you’ve jacked it up.  Piping a stream should never be an alternative, and certainly not a preferred one. As an aside, nor should an agency that prefers to pipe a stream have regulatory authority over Clean Water Act permits pertaining to the dredging and filling of waterways and wetlands!  Folks, we seriously need some other agency to develop and manage the projects that involve our waterways.  

Is the potential damage to streams through the Stimulus Package even on the White House’s radar?  After waiting patiently for 2+ years for support and action on a draft stream protection ordinance that was sitting on the desk of then-LA City Deputy Mayor of the Environment Nancy Sutley (now head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality), I wonder indeed.

Commentary on the River through Universal

What the Los Angeles River could look like through Universal (Image from Los Angeles City Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan - for a stretch of the river in Canoga Park)

A few weeks ago I shared some images of possible river improvements that would connect the two halves of Weddington Park, immediately upstream of Universal. These images are one proposed mitigation for development/expansion that Universal is proposing. Today I present an excellent public comment letter that Carol Armstrong of the city’s Los Angeles River Project Office submitted, commenting on the proposed development. It’s great that the city itself is stating that “many possibilities exist to create a River bike path in this area-one that can ensure that
Universal’s growth and security are allowed to exist in concert with much-needed public access to the River.”

Creek Freak hopes that Universal can see the river greenway and bike path as an amenity that will draw more people to Universal. We urge Universal to work closely with city staff, river advocates, and other stakeholders to come up with a creekside greenway that we can all be proud of.

(Letter below verbatim from the city of LA, though I’ve added a link, and removed a phone number. Thanks to Carol Armstrong!)

November 24, 2008

Jon Foreman
City Planner
City of Los Angeles
Department of City Planning
200 North Spring Street, Room 601
Los Angeles, California 90012

Dear Mr. Foreman:

Los Angeles River Project Office Comments on Metro Universal Project:
Planning Case No. ENV-2007-933-EIR, State Clearinghouse Number
2007061078

I am writing as the project manager for overseeing implementation of
the City’s Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan (LARRMP); please
accept this letter as a response to the request for public comments on
the Metro Universal Project’s Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR;
Applicant: Thomas Properties Group, LP; Prepared by: Christopher A.
Joseph & Associates; Location: 3875 North Lankershim Boulevard, Los
Angeles, CA 91604, Sherman Oaks-Studio City-Toluca Lake-Cahuenga Pass
Community Plan Area; Council District: 4).

As you know, the LARRMP was adopted by the City Council in May 2007 and
it proposes the creation of a continuous River Greenway for the 32 miles
of the River within the City of Los Angeles. This Greenway will include
bike paths, trails, parks, greening of connector streets, wildlife
habitat enhancements, ecological restoration where possible, and
multiple-benefit outcomes-such as active and passive recreational
amenities that also provide water quality improvements. The LARRMP
stresses the importance of River-adjacent open space and community
connections to these and along the River. Given this, I would like to
encourage the Metro Universal Project proponents to consider this in
their implementation efforts, including mitigation planning.

In particular, I am concerned about the project’s stated air quality,
traffic, and cumulative land use impacts. I understand that there will
be significant and unavoidable impacts regarding exceedence of both
PM2.5 and PM10 standards and traffic (vis-à-vis street closures,
vehicular congestion, pedestrian hazards, etc.) during both the
project’s construction and operation. Additionally, I am aware that
the Universal Vision Plan is a notable related project (Case No.
ENV-2007-0254-EIR; No. 65 in the DEIR) and, when the two projects are
considered cumulatively, they pose potentially significant long-term
land use impacts. However, the DEIR states that the projects “would
not be expected to result in cumulatively considerable impacts with
respect to land use regulations. Therefore the [Metro Universal] Project
would not have a significant cumulative impact.” (Page IV.A. 1-69)

Regarding land use impacts, pages IV.A.1-68 to 1-69 of the DEIR further
states:

“…the Project Site is located within the LARRMP’s boundaries but is
not located adjacent to the river. Therefore, most of the LARRMP’s
goals and recommendations, including those pertaining to restoring the
River’s ecological and hydrological functioning and creating a bikeway
and open space buffers along the River, are not applicable to the
Project. Nonetheless, the Project meets those applicable goals and
recommendations. In furtherance of the LARRMP’s recommendation to
create safe non-motorized routes between the River and transit-oriented
development, transit hubs, parks, and employment centers within one mile
of the River, the Project would include streetscape improvements and
pedestrian amenities along Lankershim Boulevard. These improvements and
amenities include improved access to the Campo de Cahuenga historic
site, pedestrian walkways, seating, street furniture, thematic elements,
landscaping, street trees, and pedestrian lights intended to enhance
pedestrian activity. The Project would also provide a pedestrian connection between the Metro bus and subway facilities and Weddington
Park, and a pedestrian bridge will be constructed across Lankershim
Boulevard to provide a safe crossing for pedestrians. The Project would
also include new facilities that support bicycle access to the Project
Site, including bicycle parking, changing rooms, and lockers. Such
facilities, amenities, and connections would further the LARRMP’s
goals to connect neighborhood’s [sic] to the River.”

From the perspective of the LARRMP, the proposed mitigations do not go
far enough in addressing the potential circulation hazards that would
result from the project’s long-term traffic impacts and they do not
include any meaningful inclusion of or connections to the River. The
Metro Universal project area affects an important and limited regional
resource: riverfront space that is part of the future 32-mile River
Greenway. When combined with the Universal Vision Plan’s riverfront
area, a total distance of approximately 1.6 miles of the River Greenway
may be directly impacted by the combined projects.

I encourage you to consider that some of each project’s individual
impacts as well as their cumulative impacts may be redressed by
incorporating this short segment of the River Greenway into mitigation
planning. For instance, creation of the “Universal River Bikeway”
may be able to accomplish the following:

–Provide safe, non-motorized access to and from the area for visitors
to Campo de Cahuenga, Weddington Park, and Universal, resulting in
avoidance of pedestrian/auto conflicts;
–Provide incentives for walking and cycling instead of driving,
resulting in concomitant air quality and public health improvements;
–Demonstrate compatibility with the public/MTA ownership of the
property by encouraging the use of public transit and non-motorized
links to it; and
–Open up the area to workers from other communities who may not have
access to cars.

As demonstrated in the LARRMP (See, e.g., p. 5-5, 5-6, images on 4-16
and 6-25, and Opportunity Area No. 7, p. 6-47), many possibilities exist
to create a River bike path in this area-one that can ensure that
Universal’s growth and security are allowed to exist in concert with
much-needed public access to the River. This would go a long way in
demonstrating the project proponents’ understanding of its impacts to
and potential support for the City’s long-term River revitalization
efforts.

Thank you very much for your consideration of my comments. Please do
not hesitate to contact me with any questions: (213) xxx-xxxx.

Sincerely,
Carol S. Armstrong

Carol S. Armstrong, Ph.D.
Project Manager
Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan
www.lariver.org

Honoring Tom

Tom Moody in foreground, checking out the LA River. Friend and NCD colleague Allen Haden is with him in the background.

Mentor and friend Tom Moody, engineer, restorer of streams, educator, and river runner died January 24 in a plane crash.  Those of us who worked with him in the LA area here were shocked to get the terrible news, saddened to lose his friendship, and very sad for his family and friends in Flagstaff, Arizona.  I would will this happening to be different, but the beautiful equanimity of his community, who recognized that Tom died doing what he loved, provides comfort and balance.  We should all be so lucky, to live as fully and fearlessly and hopefully as did Tom.  

Tom and his crew at Natural Channel Design came to Los Angeles at the invitation of the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission.  We took him to see our streams, the good, bad, and ugly.  Tom provided a balanced and rational assessment of stream restoration for Los Angeles.  He understood the complicated political environment but also saw the opportunity.  He encouraged us over the two and half years that we knew him, he gave us hope. I am grateful for the brief time I knew him, and am still not quite believing he is gone.

He will be missed.

http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2009/01/24/news/20090124_front_189591.txt