Tracie GrohMay 10, 2005

Professor GaunaEnvironmental Justice Seminar Paper

“The Keys to Making it Happen: Urban Park Development in Los Angeles”

Background and History of Los Angeles County Park Development

Hearing that Los Angeles is park poor could hardly be characterized as the acquisition of

new knowledge. News articles, agency reports and political figures have bemoaned the lack of

parks in Los Angeles for decades. With all the data, studies, criticism and reviews being put out

there, it simply cannot be debated: Los Angeles is park poor. There are numbers to back it up;

lots and lots of numbers. For example, in total, Los Angeles has less than one acre of parkland

per thousand residents.1 This inequality is emphasized in light of the National Recreation and

Park Association standards, which are set at six to ten acres of parkland per thousand residents.2

Further, Los Angeles is failing its children in its failure to provide adequate park access.

Only 36 percent of Los Angeles County children live within one square mile of a park, leaving

over one and a half million children without park access.3 The impact of these statistics is even

more shocking when construed together with local numbers of specific amenities provided for

public use. For instance, in Baldwin Hills state park there is only one picnic table for every

10,000 people and one playground for 23,000 children.4

Large cities like Los Angeles, and especially the smaller communities that make up those

cities, need urban public parks. Parks improve the quality of life, help create good jobs, increase

tourism, increase property values, reduce crime, improve pedestrian safety, improve public

health and promote economic revitalization in the community.5 Parks are essential to a

1 Center for Law in the Public Interest, Los Angeles is Park Poor: A History of Underserved Communities, (2005), at http://www/clipi.org/CityParksPoor1.html. (Los Angeles is Park Poor); Paul Stanton Kibel, Los Angeles’ Cornfield: An Old Blueprint for New Greenspace, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 275, 296 (2004) (broken down per person, this equals a mere 130 square feet of parkland per person in Los Angeles).2 Robert Garcia et al., The Heritage Parkscape in the Heart of Los Angeles, The City Project, Center for Law in the Public Interest, v.12.17.04 (2004). (“Heritage Parkscape”)3 No Place to Play: A Comparative Analysis of Park Access in Seven Major Cities, The Trust for Public Land, November (2004) (“No Place to Play”) (In comparison with other large cities, like Boston, New York and San Franscisco, where well above 80 percent of the cities’ children have park access, Los Angeles’ park performance is nothing short of dismal).4 Los Angeles is Park Poor, supra, at http://www/clipi.org/CityParksPoor1.html5 Robert Garcia, et al., The Cornfield and the Flow of History: People, Place and Culture, The City Project, Center for Law in the Public Interest, April, 2004 (The Cornfield); Project for Public Spaces, Ten Benefits of Creating Good

1

community’s sense of identity and purpose. They are an incredibly logical answer to yesterday’s

front porch in areas where the population density simply cannot support single-family homes on

every street. Unfortunately, parks are also one of the most undervalued parts of a community’s

development vision. Parks all to often take a backseat to horizontal residential and business

development, and it is discovered too late that failing to include space for parks is detrimental to

the community’s health, safety, cohesiveness, and sustainability. In a country where the average

amount spent on parks averages to $80 per resident, Los Angeles doesn’t even spend half that

amount, at a mere $37 dollars per resident spent on parks.6

In Los Angeles, the communities suffering most from the park shortage are those with

low-income and minority residents. Los Angeles communities comprising a majority of non-

white residents with household incomes that fall beneath $25,000, the parkland density is as low

as 0.3 acres per thousand.7 The shortage of parks in these communities is the result of history of

discriminatory land use planning, and discriminatory funding formulas.8 Former Los Angeles

Mayor Richard Riordan admitted that poorer inner city neighborhoods have been historically

short-changed by City funding formulas, which spread the money evenly through the

communities regardless of their individual needs.9 Former Los Angeles director of planning and

development for the city’s Recreation and Parks Development, Dallan Zamrzla and attorney Jan

Chatten-Brown, whose firm actively participates in various coalitions to bring parks to

underserved communities, also recognized the unfair effects of city ordinances that require the

development of parks when new housing is built.10 These ordinances lead to an increase of

parkland in new housing, leaving poor neighborhoods starving for parks because of little, if any,

Public Spaces, (2005) at http://pps.org/info/placemakingtools/casesforplaces/10_benefits. (Benefits)6 Peter Harnick, The Excellent City Park System, The Trust for Public Land, 2003 Appendix V, p. 39 (2001). 7 Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 296.8 Robert Garcia, et al, Heritage Parkscape, supra, , v.12.17.04 .9 Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 296.10 Id. at 296-297.

2

new housing development in these areas.11 These disparities, observed by leaders of Los

Angeles, have not gone unnoticed by its residents. Sixty four percent Californians say lower

income and minority neighborhoods have fewer parks and 72 percent of Latinos say that poorer

communities do not receive their fair share of parks.12

Another damaging and completely unnecessary result of inadequate park access is the

effect it has on the health of the children in urban Los Angeles. These kids are fighting a losing

battle to maintain good physical and mental health. Parks provide the opportunities, motivations

and spaces for children to play and become physically fit. Looking at these health issues alone,

park shortages in low-income and minority communities contribute to a myriad of complications.

For instance, Mexican-American and African-American children are twice as likely as non-

Hispanic white children to be overweight.13 Yet, white communities in Los Angeles have 1.7

acres of park per thousand residents, while the inner city suffers with only 0.3 acres.14 An even

larger disparity is found in the number of play acres in the Los Angeles Unified School District

(“LAUSD”). In elementary schools, non-Hispanic white students enjoy 71% more acres for play

than Latino students.15 Given that over 91% of LAUSD students are of minority descent, the

urgency present on providing urban park areas for low-income and minority communities is

immeasurable.16

11 Id. at 297.12 The Center for Law in the Public Interest at http://www.clipi.org/CPPIsurveypopup.html, citing Mark Baldasare, Statewide Survey on Californian’s and the Environment, Public Policy Institute of California June (2002), page vi. 13 Robert Garcia, et al., Healthy Children, Healthy Communities: Schools, Parks, Recreation, and Sustainable Regional Planning, Center for Law in the Public Interest Policy Brief (“Healthy Children”) (a mere 15 percent of students in the Los Angeles Unified School District is physically fit).14 Ibid.15 Ibid.16 Robert Garcia, et al., Diversifying Access To and Support for the Forests, Center for Law in the Public Interest Policy Brief, v. 11.22.04 (“Diversifying Access”) (Only 17% of fifth graders, 16% of seventh graders and less than 11% of ninth graders in LAUSD, met the minimum fitness standards in the 2002-03 school year); Healthy Children, supra, Center for Law in the Public Interest Policy Brief (California’s childhood obesity costs more than tripled from $35 million to $127 million between 1979 and 1999).

3

Parks and greenspace also carry positive impacts on mental health.17 With divorce rates

skyrocketing, domestic violence on the rise and school bullying becoming an accepted part of

public education, families, and especially children, need places to nurture the family and friend

relationships, run off some pent up aggression and learn acceptance of those that are different by

observation and interaction.

Furthermore, the urban park shortage has been linked to the problem of youth crime in

Los Angeles. The Los Angeles County District Attorney correlated the lack of park access and

discrimination from adult-supervised park programs were among the reasons many young people

turn to gangs, recommending that some form of recreational activity be a part of every gang

prevention strategy.18 If low-income and minority communities lack the park space in the first

instance, there is little hope any such activity or programs can be created and brought into these

areas to deal with these problems.

Complicating this already frustrated situation, transportation disparities in low-income

and minority communities make it that much more challenging for residents and their children to

gain access to parkland outside of their neighborhoods. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

recently held that parks are places of public accommodation that must remain accessible to all,

regardless of race, culture or income.19 Although Los Angeles does boast an amazing amount of

natural forestland in four of the national forests that surround the city, between 77% and 83% of

the visitors to those forests are non-Hispanic Whites.20 Considering that Whites are in the

17 Healthy Children, supra, Center for Law in the Public Interest Policy Brief (Studies indicate that symptoms of Attention Deficit Disorder are relieved after contact with nature and that physical activity can alleviate depression and anxiety as well as provide stress relief).18 Ibid.19 U.S. v. Allen, (2003) F.3d 870, 886-877.20 Diversifying Access, supra, v. 11.22.04 .

4

minority in the region, the disproportionate access is disturbing. Further, only one percent of the

visitors to Angeles National Forest, one of the four, are African-American.21

The numbers of today’s reality could have turned out far differently. There were big and,

more importantly, attainable dreams for Los Angeles County parks once. In 1930 the sons of the

man who designed Central Park in New York City, Federick Law Olmstead, shared their plan to

recreate park magic in Los Angeles with city officials.22 The Olmstead Report created a map of

a green Los Angeles, having hundreds of miles of parkland and warned that ignoring his plan

would result in an unlivable city, overcome with sprawl. According to the report “continued

prosperity [in Los Angeles] will depend on providing needed parks, because, with the growth of

a great metropolis here, the absence of parks will make living conditions less and less attractive,

less and less wholesome…In so far, therefore, as the people fail to show the understanding,

courage and organizing ability necessary at this crisis, the growth of the Region will tend to

strangle itself.”23

Part of this plan involved turning the land along side the Los Angeles River into a buffer

of dual-purpose parkland along the river’s banks.24 The estimated $231 million price tag on the

Olmstead Report contributed to its ultimate demise, and the implementation of the United States

Army Corps of Engineers’ overwhelmingly unattractive and unfriendly paved “water freeway”

Los Angeles residents are so familiar with today.25 Ultimately, the cost of this “water freeway”

far exceeded the estimated cost of the Olmstead Report, but because the federal government paid

21 Ibid.22 Liz Valsamis, 1930 Map of Green L.A. Inspires Urban Vision, Los Angeles Daily Journal, January 28, 2005, at 1. 23 Los Angeles is Park Poor, supra, at http://www/clipi.org/CityParksPoor1.html24 Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 294 (while the river’s flow was minimal, which was during most of the year, the parks would serve the public and should the river overflow during the winter, the parks would serve the dual purpose of acting as basins to retain the floodwaters).25 Id. at 295.

5

for most of the project, whereas the city would have had to pay for the entire Olmstead plan by

itself, it was an irony that went unappreciated.26

The subsequent growth of Los Angeles demonstrated just how much the Olmstead Report

got it right. And as a result of Los Angeles’ failure to see the plan to fruition, paving over the

map’s proposed designated parkland, the city carries the poorest park reputation in the country.27

Until recently, this condition was simply an accepted part of living in Los Angeles. Today,

many of Los Angeles’ low-income, minority and park poor communities are demanding their fair

share of parkland and the asphalt to grass ratio in Los Angeles is beginning to shift. Los Angeles

is now giving the Olmstead Report a second look, keeping one eye on the Report and the other

on the Los Angeles River. At the heart of this issue is that typically low-income and minority

communities are not adequately informed or prepared to take on the public policy fight that often

precedes modern park development in these areas.28 Consequently, the residents of these

communities lose their opportunity to openly participate in those decisions that determine who

gets a park, or where a park will be developed, if at all. Learning to successfully maneuver

through the government procedure and political process that are such a large part of creating

urban parks feels as if it requires a career in politics, a law degree, a decent knowledge of city

planning know-how, and the best connections. However, recent experiences are showing that the

real key to making the dream of a park into a reality for low-income and minority communities is

getting them to find their own voices, and then teaching them to speak up, loudly and often.

Who Gets Involved in the Development of Urban Parks?

There are three main groups working to bring low-income and minority neighborhoods

receive their fair share of park space and development: public agencies, non-profit organizations 26 Ibid.27 Valsamis, supra, Los Angeles Daily Journal, January 28, 2005. 28 Robert Garcia Connects the Dots for Environmental Justice, The Natural Resource: Environmental and Natural Resources Law & Policy Program Newsletter, Stanford Law School, Fall (2003) (“Garcia Connects Dots”).

6

and, vital to the success of any park proposal, the communities themselves. Each group brings

their own unique experience, skills and connections to the planning and negotiating table, and

coming together in order to reach a common goal results in incredible successes.

State agencies are often found on the front line and pulling most of the big, bureaucratic

strings in making urban park development happen. It is therefore extremely important that these

directors and leaders of these agencies hold positions in favor of park development, particularly

in low-income and minority communities. For example, Joe Edmonston heads the Santa Monica

Mountain Conservancy (“SMMC”), an agency created by the California Legislature to, among

other things, identify, protect and participate in the development of area parkland in the Santa

Monica Mountains zone.29 Edmonston even participated in drafting the organic statute that

governs the agency’s powers.30 This level of involvement resulted in a park acquisition process

that manages to bypass many of the complications typically associated with creating parkland.31

California Public Resources Code section 33000 et seq. creates the SMMC and provides

for the agency’s purposes and methods of accomplishing its goals. Notably, the SMMC has the

power to acquire and improve land or interest in land for the purpose of park development, using

both federal funds and bond funds via direct purchase, and of particular interest, eminent

domain.32 In the alternative, the SMMC may award grants or make interest-free loans to cities,

counties, resource conservation districts and recreation and park districts for park development

purposes.33 Because these powers are written into the agency’s organic statute, the SMMC

29 California Public Resources Code, § 33000 et. seq.30 Interview with Terry Fujimoto, Deputy Attorney General, California State Attorney General’s Office, in Los Angeles, Cal. (April 28, 2005) (“Fujimoto”). 31 Ibid.32 California Public Resources Code, § 33203.33 Id. § 33204.

7

enjoys freer reign in reaching its goals without going through endless levels of political

approvals.34

In addition, non-profit organizations are an excellent source of the right kinds of

influence and power desired to get parks developed where they are most needed. These groups

are particularly skilled at building coalitions and serving as a vital link between the public

leaders and community residents. An example of such a group is the Center for Law in the

Public Interest (“CLIPI”). Robert Garcia, director of The City Project, heads this small, yet

extremely effective, office of just three attorneys. The City Project works with various coalitions

and alliances to campaign for improved parks, recreation and playgrounds for poorer areas of

Los Angeles.35 CLIPI’s first engages in negotiation with public officials and community

education to get parks developed where they are most needed. The agency utilizes the litigation

process as a last resort in its mission to ensure underserved communities receive their fair share

of greenspace.36 The litigation is built from a civil rights perspective and a disparate impact

regarding public benefits available to low-income, minority communities.37

CLIPI’s approach to park development is multi-dimensional and includes six separate

strategies.38 The organization is guided by a vision of a web of parks, playgrounds, schools,

beaches and transit that serves diverse users. CLIPI also believes in coalition building and public

education. They then focus on policy and legal advocacy outside the courts using political,

planning and administrative processes. They use multidisciplinary research and analysis to

provide data that supports reform. CLIPI engages its opponents in an effort to find common

ground, using litigation only as a last resort. Finally, CLIPI manages to alter the relations of

34 Fujimoto, supra, April 28, 2005.35 Garcia Connects the Dots, supra, The Natural Resource, Stanford Law School, Fall (2003).36 Ibid.37 Interview with Erica Flores, Attorney, Center for Law in the Public Interest, in Los Angeles, Cal. (March 2, 2005) (“Flores”).38 Robert Garcia, et al, Heritage Parkscape, supra, v.12.17.04.

8

power. By taking people who have never before participated in government and showing them

not only how to get heard, but how to get what they want, CLIPI is leaving these communities

with a sense of accomplishment and confidence that has never before been experienced. There

are several campaigns included in this paper to provide examples of the empowerment strategies

employed by CLIPI.

Also, the Trust for Public Land (“TPL”) can be a vital link in the park activists’ chain of

influence. TPL is a national, non-profit land conservation group with its main offices in San

Francisco.39 This organization uses its expertise in real estate finance to protect land as open

space for recreation and wildlife.40 TPL works with local groups, city and county officials and

other agencies in the identification and funding of park improvement projects along the Los

Angeles River.41 On of TPL’s Conservation Initiatives is to work in cities across the United

States to ensure that everyone enjoys “close-to-home access to a park.”42 TPL works

independently and in conjunction with other agencies in accomplishing its goals, providing an

example of how different organizations, all with varying missions and focus, can work together

to facilitate a park campaign. In its employment of empowerment strategies in the communities

while also facilitating financing of land acquisition when needed, TPL helps to structure,

negotiate and complete the transactions needed to acquire land for park development, a key part

to the success of the Cornfield Park, discussed later.43

Friends of the Los Angeles River (“FoLAR”) is another non-profit organization whose

involvement has led to urban park success stories.44 The group is motivated by a vision of a Los

39 Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 286.40 Ibid.41 Ibid.42 About TPL: The Trust for Public Land, (2005), at http://www.tpl.org/tier2_sa.cfm?folder_id=170.43 Ibid. 44 Interview with Jan Chatten-Brown, Attorney, Chatten-Brown & Associates, in Los Angeles, Cal. (March 1, 2005) (“Chatten-Brown”).

9

Angeles River Greenway, made up for parks, bike paths, gathering places and wildlife habitats

that runs 52 miles, from the mountains to the sea.45 FoLAR was founded in 1986 in an effort to

change the public’s image of the Los Angeles River from the world’s largest storm drain,

surrounded by fences and signs to the natural and historical habitat the river once was.46

Note that urban parks are not necessarily the focus point or primary mission for FoLAR,

TPL or any of the various participants in urban park development. But, in the case of FoLAR,

and another non-profit called The River Project, when urban parks become entwined with the

Los Angeles River, which is a focus point for the non-profit, common interests are found. This

link is made over and over among state agencies, non-profit organizations and local

communities, each finding a different motivation for pursuing a common goal. Important

alliances are then formed, meeting everyone’s concerns and strengthening the resolve and power

behind each participant’s cause so much more than if each one battled alone. The desire and

drive of community residents to insist their need for parks get recognized remains vital to this

process. The high profile players in urban park development praise the community involvement

that helps lead to the creation of these urban parks.47 The message these leaders send is that the

community’s involvement is not only key to making these parks a reality, but an absolute,

indispensable necessity.

45 About FoLAR, Friends of the Los Angeles River, (2005), at http://www.folar.org/about.html.46 Ibid.47 California Performance Review’s Recommendation Puts Baldwin Hills Conservancy in Jeopardy, The Planning Report, (2005), at http://www.planningreport.com/tpr.html (“Conservancy in Jeopardy”); Press Release, First Council District: Ed P. Reyes, Councilmember, Reyes, Hahn, State Parks Officials Break Ground at Taylor Yard (Jan. 13, 2004) (on file with the author).

10

Anatomies of Creating an Urban Park

Legal Strategies; Taking the Fight to the Courts

More and more, the process of creating an urban park is requiring the involvement of

attorneys, although the exact roles and purpose of the lawyers are different in each case,

depending on the opposition’s willingness to negotiate and work with the park activists. The

Cornfield is perhaps the most important blueprint of the urban park battles, as it proved to Los

Angeles city leaders, developers and residents that bringing the dream of a park to a community

was not only attainable, but one which carried a wide array of support from a myriad of sources.

The Cornfield legacy began with the last abundant open space of Los Angeles: 32 acres of rail

yard, east of Chinatown, an area without any parks and where the only elementary school did not

even have grass.48 The residents of the area are predominantly minorities with low levels of

formal education and disproportionately poor.49 The communities surrounding the park are

historic and ethically diverse: Lincoln Heights, Elysian Park, Solano Canyon, Chinatown,

Chavez Ravine and William Mead Homes.50 Within a half-mile of the Cornfield is the El Pueblo

de Los Angeles Historical Monument and Union Station.51 The land was owned by Union

Pacific and laid abandoned for over a decade.52

When then-mayor of Los Angeles, Richard Riordan introduced an incentive program

aimed at the redevelopment of blighted industrial cites in the spring of 1999, Majestic Realty

positioned itself to purchase the Cornfield to develop River Station, a manufacturing and

warehouse complex, on the site.53 The project found support in that it was presumed that

48 The Cornfield – The Last Vast Green Space in the Heart of L.A., Center for Law in the Public Interest, (2005), at http://clipi.org.ourwork/urbanparks.html (“Vast Green Space”). 49 Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L. J. at 305.50 Cornfield, California State Parks, (2005), at http://www.parks.ca.gov/page_id=22984 (“Cornfield”). 51 Ibid.52 Ibid.53 Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 308.

11

Majestic Realty would bear the brunt of any potential environmental remediation costs, the

proposed facility was to create as many as 1,000 jobs and carried the financial and political

support of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).54 The city

accepted Majestic Realty’s development proposal, requiring only a mitigated negative

declaration, allowing the developer and exemption from the mandated environmental impact

report (“EIR”) under state law.55

What Majestic Realty and the Los Angeles Mayor’s Office didn’t consider was that any

opposition to the River Project was going to be as targeted and fierce as it was, much less that

exempting the developer from preparing an EIR would provide the opposition with legal grounds

to challenge the project. Over 35 organizations came together to form the Chinatown Yards

Alliance (the Alliance) and began to strategically and legally attack the proposed development

from every angle.56 The Alliance was a melting pot of agencies and organizations, including the

Center for Law in the Public Interest, the Chinatown-Alpine Hill Neighborhood Association,

Citizens Committee to Save Elysian Park, Concerned Citizens of South Central L.A., People for

Parks, Friends of the Los Angeles River and Lincoln Heights Neighborhood Preservation

Association, just to name a few.57

One of the first acts the Alliance took was to issue a four-paragraph declaration setting

forth its position regarding the River Project with the ultimate objective being the development

of a park on the site.58 Next, the Alliance found itself legal representation.59 An administrative

complaint stating that federal funding for the River Station project was in violation of federal

54 Id. at 311.55 Ibid.56 Vast Green Space, supra, at http://clipi.org/ourwork/urbanparks.html.57 Chinatown Cornfield’s Challengers Won’t Quit Dreaming of Open Space, The Planning Report, (2005), at http:///www.ablinc.net/tpr/archive/july2000.html.58 Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 314. 59 Ibid.

12

civil rights and environmental justice laws was filed with the Secretaries of Housing and Urban

Development (“HUD”) and the Commerce Department, as well as the head of the Civil Rights

Division of the United States Department of Justice, with FoLAR as the lead petitioner.60 This

complaint, in conjunction with the Alliance’s campaign in promotion of its vision for the

Cornfield and some extremely fortunate power connections via Joel Reynolds of Natural

Resources Defense Council, led to the Alliance’s first victory in the battle for a park at the

Cornfield. Former HUD Secretary, Andrew Cuomo, after learning of the complaint and its

accompanying conflict, made an administrative decision to withhold federal funds for the River

Station project until an environmental impact report (“EIR”) on the project was prepared. 61 And,

finally, Majestic Realty truly understood what it was up against. No matter what steps it took to

develop the River Station project, regardless of political approvals and support, at every level it

was destined to continue hitting the Alliance’s opposition and resistance strategies, which would

unavoidably decrease the value of the project.62

This realization, and the subsequent petition for writ of mandate filed by members of the

Alliance against Los Angeles with Majestic Realty names as a real party-in-interest, brought

Majestic Realty to the settlement table.63 The situation had become one in which there was a

high probability of a long legal battle, with the accompanying time delays and skyrocketing

costs. 64 But, the settlement proposal, as suggested by Majestic’s attorney, William Delvac,

required the Alliance to take some big risks in what would result in a “winner take all” ending. 65

The proposal obligated the Alliance to agree to stay the litigation during a one-year option

60 Id. at 314-315.61 Id. at 316.62 Id. at 318.63 Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 318-319.64 Jan Chatten-Brown & William F. Delvac, A River Tale – The Cornfield to Taylor Yard: From Industrial Development Plans to State Parks’ Acquisition, 12 California Land Use Reporter 1 (2002), at http://www.cbaearthlaw.com/riverarticlepopup.html (“A River Tale”).65 Ibid.

13

period, during which, if the funds were made available, the Alliance could purchase the

Cornfield.66 If not, then all litigation would be dropped and Majestic Realty could proceed with

the River Station project unchallenged by the Alliance.67 If the Alliance found the money and

purchased the Cornfield, Majestic Realty was prohibited from interfering in the park

development.68

The Alliance had to admit, at least to itself, that its litigation demanding an EIR would

not get the group what it truly wanted, the land itself for park development. 69 So, in agreeing to

the settlement proposal, the next battle appeared to be finding the money to buy the Cornfield,

which, according to Jan Chatten-Brown, an attorney representing FoLAR, was absolutely the

most nerve-wracking risk of the project.70 California was hit with the “energy crisis” during this

time, and if someone didn’t come up with the money, all of the Alliances’ efforts would have

been for nothing.71 The Alliance held their breath and looked towards Sacramento hopefully.

And while it looked as if the money could eventually be found, it didn’t look as if it could

happen in within the time limitation of the settlement agreement, because the state simply could

not acquire contaminated property, or a site that had not yet been remediated.72

A collective sigh of relief came with when the Trust for Public Land (“TPL”) stepped in

with the answer, providing confirmation that taking the risk was the right decision. TPL had the

will and the way to act as the Cornfield’s first purchaser to buy the time needed to acquire the

state funds through Proposition 12.73 Proposition 12, passed by California voters in March 2000,

66 Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 319.67 Ibid.68 Ibid.69 A River Tale, supra, at http://www.cbaearthlaw.com/riverarticlepopup.html.70 Interview with Jan Chatten-Brown, Attorney, Chatten-Brown & Associates, in Los Angeles, Cal. (March 1, 2005) (“Chatten-Brown”).71 A River Tale, supra, at http://www.cbaearthlaw.com/riverarticlepopup.html.72 Ibid.73 Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 321.

14

provided about $100 million towards the creation of a Los Angeles River Parkway. Given that

the Cornfield was 150 feet or so away from the river, there was some initial uncertainty as to

whether the site would quality.74 Fortunately, state officials, in what was certainly a very wise

political move at this point, indicated the Cornfield’s proximity was close enough to qualify for

the use of those funds.75 So, with TPL’s ability to bridge the time-gap and its reputation as an

expert in real estate matters provided a much-needed level of trust in the process for Majestic

Realty, the Alliance’s gamble paid off.76 The Cornfield Park is now certain to happen and its

Preliminary General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for public

review and comment beginning March 15, 2005.77

At what essentially began the same point in time as the Cornfield park experience, but

north of the Cornfield site, the Anahuak Youth Soccer Association (“AYSA”) joined with CLIPI,

FoLAR and many of the same players in the Cornfield in an effort to bring soccer fields in the

state park at Taylor Yard, another abandoned rail yard along the Los Angeles River.78 Again,

elected officials, environmental justice and environmental advocates, public agencies and the

communities themselves formed another coalition, the Coalition for a State Park at Taylor Yard,

and successfully secured $5.5 million in state funding for a 40-acre park at Taylor Yard, stopping

another attempt at an industrial project.79 Similar to the community of the Cornfield, the children

of Anahauk live in underserved communities and lacked access to the communities that do have

parks.80 However, there were differences between the experience at the Cornfield and the

experience at Taylor Yard; differences that were mostly felt by the developers who wanted to

74 Id. at 320; Cornfield, supra, at http://www.parks.ca.gov/page_id=22984.75 Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 320.76 Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 321.77 Cornfield, supra, at http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=22984.78 Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 342.79 Vast Green Space, supra, at http://clipi.org/ourwork/urbanparks.html.80 Ibid.

15

build on the sites and led to the parties involved actually using the courts as their battleground.

Lennar Partners, a Florida-based developer, wanted to use the site to build a 650,000 square foot

warehouse project.81 Again, instead of requiring the developer to conduct a formal EIR, Los

Angeles city officials adopted a mitigated negative declaration under the California

Environmental Quality Act.82 This was again the lynchpin in the park activist’s opposition and

ultimate success.

Because Taylor Yard did not have the HUD leverage that the Cornfield did the Coalition

had a larger hurdle to clear in securing the site for parkland. Regardless, after Lennar Partners’

blatant refusal to negotiate, the Coalition turned to the courts and legally challenged the lack of a

formal EIR and Lennar Partners’ resulting stubbornness in refusing to negotiate, unlike Majestic

Realty in the Cornfield, led all the parties straight to active litigation. 83 This time the Coalition

found itself engaged in a full hearing on the merits, and its resulting victors.84 The court set aside

the Mitigated Negative Declaration and ordered the preparation of a full EIR, which carried the

devastating effect of potentially delaying Lennar Partners’ project for several years.85

After losing in litigation, Lennar Partners was much more willing to negotiate and went

to State Parks about arranging a possible purchase of the land for park use.86 But because the

developer waited until after losing in litigation, there was no way to avoid the resulting fall in the

land’s value.87 As a result, Lennar Partners ultimately found itself having to sell the property to

the State at a lower price and less favorable conditions than those in the Cornfield acquisition.88

81 Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 342.82 Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 342.83 Flores, supra, Center for Law in the Public Interest, in Los Angeles, Cal. (March 2, 2005).84 Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 342.85 Ibid. 86 Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 342.87 Ibid.88 Ibid.

16

The Cornfield and Taylor Yard experiences are valuable maps to bringing urban parks to

low-income and minority neighborhoods. The communities, activists and developers alike can

apply the lessons found in each experience, to ensure all parties walk away winners. The

attorneys representing these groups must also approach each case with and open mind and open

eyes, and be willing to negotiate as necessary. And perhaps, even the city of Los Angeles has

finally learned that accepting a mitigated negative declaration in lieu of an EIR is the quickest

way to get the litigation ball rolling.

Empowerment Strategies; Avoiding the Courtroom

Not all park development will require an attorney to file a lawsuit, but there are a number

of other ways attorneys are vital to the success of park development. Attorneys are valuable in

bringing attention to the projects and teaching the communities how to properly campaign for

each project. Most importantly, attorneys are needed for their skills of negotiation, working the

system in ways to avoid litigation, while still getting an urban park developed.

For example, Ascot Hills in East Los Angeles is finally seeing the development of an

urban park, thanks to the non-legal efforts of both attorneys and activists. After the community’s

requests persisted for over 70 years, Ascot Hills will be the new home for a 100-acre urban

park.89 The area is one of the poorest areas in Los Angeles, where the largest open space is a

cemetery. Attorney Robert Garcia of CLIPI has criticized the city for sending children the

message that if they want open space, they have to die first.90 City councilman Antonio

Villaraigosa recognized the land as the largest undeveloped open space left in East Los Angeles

that was not already dedicated as parkland.91 Environmentalists and students at an adjacent high

school objected to an attempt to turn part of the land into a sports complex four years ago, 89 Flores, supra, Center for Law in the Public Interest, in Los Angeles, Cal. (March 2, 2005).90 Miguel Bustillo, Former Foes Unite Behind a Proposal to Turn Old Reservoir Site Into Park, LA Times, Jan. 15, 2005, at http://clipi.org/ourwork/latimes-ascothills.html.91 Ibid.

17

concerned over the effect soccer fields and baseball diamonds would have on the hillsides. 92

These groups are now in support of turning the area into a public nature reserve, with nature

trails and restoration of the land’s former plant life.93

A partnership between the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and Los Angeles, each

with their own in-house attorneys advising on the project, led to the acquisition of the state funds

needed to develop the park.94 Turning Ascot Hills into a nature preserve required the acquisition

of $3 million in state bond funding from Proposition 40, a state bond recently passed by

California voters for the very purpose of creating more parks and recreational space in the state. 95

This resulted into approval from the governor in release of the funds for the project; at a time

projects like Taylor Yard were also seeking money.96 As evidence of how much power and

steam park development is picking up at all levels, including the highest-ranking state leader,

funding for both projects was approved.

In another diverse and park-poor region, Baldwin Hills is a predominately African-

American community, with little greenspace.97 The park in Baldwin Hills is an old brownfield

site in the heart of Los Angeles, and has been the target of industrial development twice, despite

the fact that the area had been given priority status for the establishment of a 1400-acre park

since the mid 1970s.98 In 2001 there was a fight against a proposed development of a power

plant and in 2003 another battle ensued over using the site as a garbage dump.99 The community

92 Ibid.93 Ibid.94 Ibid.95 Ibid. 96 Vast Green Space, supra, at http://clipi.org/ourwork/urbanparks.html.97 Ibid.98 Therese Kelly, Baldwin Hills Park, Crenshaw, Los Angeles Forum for Architecture and Urban Design, Issue 5, April 10, 2005, at http://www.laforum.org/issues; Conservancy in Jeopardy, supra, The Planning Report, at http://www.planningreport.com/tpr.html.99 Vast Green Space, supra, at http://clipi.org/ourwork/urbanparks.html.

18

of Baldwin Hills carried a different vision for the site, wanting the area to be a two-square mile

park, the nation’s biggest natural urban park in over 100 years.100

This site also had to fight off two industrial development proposals, and after seeing

success on both, one would think the plan to build a park was on its way to being implemented.

However, the ultimate threat to this park was not from a developer looking for another place to

build warehouses, but from a governor, looking for another place to trim his state’s budget.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected in the recall of Governor Gray Davis, in large part

due to Schwarzenegger’s promises to save California from its fiscal crisis. One of the governor’s

first steps was to determine where State expenditures could be cut. As a result, the state agency

charged with acquiring and developing open space in the Baldwin Hills area, the Baldwin Hills

Conservancy, was put on the chopping block by a state performance review report when it

recommended the agency be devolved into a local joint power agency.101 And in another

example of the right groups getting a park developed, CLIPI, homeowners, soccer leagues, scout

troops, senior citizen groups, church communities and various other constituent groups came

together to help design the master plan for the park.102

Complications, Defeats and Future Concerns

Not every potential park development story can invoke feelings of victorious pride and

accomplishment. Some, in fact, leave the park development activists frustrated, questioning their

abilities to make real progress in the politically dominated arena. Sometimes, even when the

funds are available, human error can truly impede the development of much needed urban parks.

In February 2005, the LA Times reported that the Los Angeles Department of Recreation

and Parks had lost track of a $4 million donation that had been made in 2003. 103 Amazingly, in a 100 Ibid.101 Conservancy in Jeopardy, supra, The Planning Report, at http://www.planningreport.com/tpr.html.102 Vast Green Space, supra, at http://clipi.org/ourwork/urbanparks.html.103 Steve Hymon, Park Gift Lost, Found, The LA Times, Feb. 14, 2005. (“Park Gift”)

19

disturbing example of how damaging inefficient bureaucracy can be, the new general manager of

Los Angeles’ parks department was not aware of the donation himself until November 2004,

nine months after he had joined the department and a mere six months before the potential

complete loss of the money due to an unfulfilled condition.104 The donation’s purpose was to

buy land for playgrounds in low-income areas.105 A prerequisite was that the money must get

spent for that purpose by May 2005 or the funds would be forfeited. The funds of the donation

had the potential to create four to eight parks.106 Someone’s failure to properly oversee the funds

resulted in an unnecessary high-pressured scramble to spend the money before it is lost forever;

obviously, not the best environment for making such decisions.

The heart of Los Angeles’ government center is also not immune to the city’s urban park

shortage. The controversy surrounding an area one block south of City Hall in downtown Los

Angeles presented a surprise challenge, and likely a bitter defeat, for park activists. The site is

the home of the old Caltrans building.107 Developing the area into a civic square or park has been

discussed between city official and the community for at least ten years.108 In 1997 the city

council allegedly adopted a master plan that envisioned the area as a civic plaza.109 Whether or

not this master plan actually exits appears to be debatable, but no evidence has been produced to

prove it does. Caltrans relocated, vacating the building and making way for an ensuing tug-of-

war between the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) and area residents that has

ultimately led to an unusual standoff between the city’s Cultural Affairs Commission and the

104 Ibid.105 Ibid.106 Ibid.107 Steve Hymon, City Panel Won’t Back LAPD Site, The LA Times, Feb. 4, 2005 (“LAPD Site”).108 LA Civic Park: Background, A Civic Park, (2005), at http://lacivicpark.org/background.html.109 Ibid.

20

City Council.110 The LAPD wants to build new home offices there, but some residents and the

city’s Cultural Affairs Commission think a park is better use of the property.111

The residents are still hoping for an urban park that will serve as a “gateway for City

Hall” and serve downtown’s increasing residential population.112 Following the lead of the

Chinatown Yards Alliance and Coalition for a State Park at Taylor Yard, they have even formed

a union of their own, L.A. Civic Park. Their website indicates existence of the master plan and

critically points out that the city council vote to build the 500,000 square foot headquarters was

taken with “virtually no public notice” or comment.113 Unfortunately, regardless of the

controversy surrounding the site, the city council will likely not budge on its approval for the

LAPD to develop a new high-tech replacement for its old headquarters, along with a parking

structure and motor pool.114 Unless and until the master plan can be produced showing the site

was originally envisioned to be a park, the city council has made it clear the residents’ and the

Commissioners’ opinions simply don’t carry much weight with them.115

Perhaps one big difference between the successes of some parks and the defeats of others

is found in the location. The Cornfield and Taylor Yard are both part of parkland along the Los

Angeles River, where there are a lot of abandoned rail yards and support from a wide variety of

entities, political, local and otherwise. In contrast, L.A. Civic Park is not acquiring as much

support for its park, which would be located directly across the street from City Hall, not

abutting the Los Angeles River. Many of the non-profit organizations involved in the Cornfield

and Taylor Yard were involved via their interest in revitalizing and restoring the river, i.e.,

110 LAPD Site, supra, The LA Times, Feb. 4, 2005.111 Ibid.112 Ibid.113 LA Civic Park, supra, at http://lacivicpark.org/background.html.114 Ibid.; LAPD Site, supra, The LA Times, Feb. 4, 2005.115 LAPD Site, supra, The LA Times, Feb. 4, 2005.

21

FoLAR, The River Project. It would at least be arguable that having the Los Angeles River as a

large component of an urban park proposal certainly doesn’t hurt.

Parks that charge access fees are a source of frustration and contention for those who do

not have parks in their own communities and can barely afford the transportation necessary to

get to outside parks, much less pay to get in. One such example is Lacy Park in San Marino,

California. The park has everything to offer: open green space, picnic areas, dog areas, tennis

courts and even a rose garden.116 The problem is that the park is designed to provide these

amenities to its surrounding community, and not others. While the access to the park is free to

everyone on weekdays, its website indicates there is a “nominal fee” for non-resident use on

Saturdays and Sundays.117 The website fails to be specific about how nominal the fee is, and

adding confusion to the situation, in a call to the city inquiring as to the fee amount, the city

representative assured this author that the nominal fee was for large parties who wished to

reserve picnic table space. According to the city, the park is free to non-residents’ general use all

seven days of the week. Yet, another call to the tennis center at Lacy Park resulted in different

information, with the nominal fee being quoted at $2 to $3 for non-resident weekend access to

the park. The mere presence of a fee, along with the confusion and difficulty surrounding it,

sends at least one clear message to the low-income and minority residents of Los Angeles, who

are without their own parks to enjoy: they are unwanted in the parks of other communities during

times when going to the park is likely most convenient.

San Marino residents and city officials may see the fee charge as simply administrative

and managerial necessities to controlling what happens in their community. But, what it really

amounts to is a spin on the NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) issue. Typically employed to

116 Lacy Park, City of San Marino, (2005), at http://www.ci.san-marino.ca.us./city/pts_of_int/park.html.117 Ibid.

22

reference how a community does not want certain industry or business in their town, park access

fees are generally about these communities not wanting certain people and income groups in

their parks. If park access fees are simply unavoidable in certain areas for valid purposes there

are ways to avoid their discriminatory effect. Communities should plan for about 20 percent of

community resident who are unable to afford the access fees and provide alternatives like

scholarships, or fee-free hours or days.118 Parks are public places and should not be withheld

from certain sectors of the public under any guise.

Critical to future park development is the need for new funding mechanisms.119 In the

asphalt jungle that has become Los Angeles, there is too much land already developed and the

price of remaining land continues to climb at alarming rates.120 So far, communities, public

agencies and state officials have been willing and able to find the money, but where will the line

be drawn? But because direct involvement and action is required to generate results; a change in

attitude that recognizes the communities’ legitimate desire and need for parks, not more

warehouses and industrial development must be sustained.121 Also, there is a strong Latino

presence in the state legislature that may contribute to more leaders paying attention to the

problem of park disparity in minority neighborhoods and lead to more solutions.122

As an alternative, Jan Chatten-Brown offers the idea of community-created pocket parks

to fill the park shortage holes.123 Where space is available, communities can engage in

fundraising and apply for grants to find the money needed to build and maintain smaller park

areas.124 The important consideration here is the assurance that the communities continue their

118 Peter Harnick, The Excellent City Park System, The Trust for Public Land, 2003 Appendix V, p. 39 (2001).119 Ibid.120 Ibid.121 Interview with Jan Chatten-Brown, Attorney, Chatten-Brown & Associates, in Los Angeles, Cal. (March 1, 2005) (“Chatten-Brown”). 122 Ibid.123 Ibid.124 Chatten-Brown, supra, in Los Angeles, Cal. (March 1, 2005).

23

involvement throughout the life of the park, or it will simply become a rundown, ignored plot of

land, contributing to the communities problems rather than easing them. One such example is

Via del Norte Park in San Diego.125 This pocket park was underutilized and in need of major

enhancements.126 The district councilman worked with the community and the City’s Park and

Recreation staff to raise $140,000 in donations to re-develop the park, bringing in two swing

sets, a picnic table and renovated landscaping.127 The park’s metamorphosis provides a map for

communities across the state to take action in their own neighborhoods, putting much needed

improvements where they can make a big difference in the lives of local residents.

Whether the park developed is a small pocket park, or large urban park, park safety will

always be an important consideration after a park is developed. A balance must be found

between making the parks safe and not turning them into oppressive places where people and

their children don’t feel watched, harassed or under strict supervision.128 One solution is to get

the communities some level of local ownership of their parks.129 For instance, Jan Chatten-

Brown suggests involving the communities in decisions such as whether to put recycling bins in

the parks.130 Other ideas are to ask for residential input on what kinds of playgrounds to install,

or whether to build a basketball court or tennis court, to even inquiring into the communities’

preferences regarding the plant life in landscaping. Additionally, after a park has been approved

for development contentions may arise regarding whether the final product will be active or

passive in nature. Striking a balance to serve all the community needs is vital to the role the park

125 Via Del Norte Pocket Park, The City of San Diego Council District One, (2005), at http://genesis.sannet.gov/infospc/templates/cd1/pocket_park/jsp.126 Ibid.127 Ibid.128 Chatten-Brown, supra, in Los Angeles, Cal. (March 1, 2005). 129 Ibid.130 Ibid.

24

and the residents who use it and this can only be done by directly asking the neighborhood

residents what they want and need from their park.

It is, therefore, necessary to have some sort of process in place residents can utilize in

reaching a decision everyone can live with and support.131 This will likely depend on the

character of the community itself. Perhaps public hearings are the easiest way to get everyone’s

input. Volunteers could go door-to-door making the proper inquiries of the community residents

and taking suggestions. Or, local “ballots” could be mailed asking the residents for their ideas.

Using a ballot-type mechanism would provide the government entities an opportunity to narrow

the options to what is feasible and then present only those choices to the residents on the ballot.

This may help save a lot of wasted time and resources. The ballots could also allow the resident

to volunteer time, talent or other resources to the maintenance of the park. All of these

mechanisms and processes contribute to creating a personal investment for everyone involved,

helping to foster a feeling of commitment to the park that continues on for years to come.

Without a doubt, patience is the most important tool in a communities’ arsenal of

weapons in any battle to get a park developed. Communities must be patient with their

attorneys, and their local and state governments. It can take years to secure the land for park

development, especially if the state is acquiring land. Assessments and studies must be

performed that simply don’t happen in short periods of time. The actual development of the park

features and landscaping, likewise, will rarely happen overnight, and it is important that those

involved in making the park a reality maintain the motivation and enthusiasm throughout the

entire process. It goes without saying that when the battles for urban parks are fought well, and

won, the final product is a priceless victory for all those who helped make it happen.

131 Chatten-Brown, supra, in Los Angeles, Cal. (March 1, 2005).

25

Biography

1. About FoLAR, Friends of the Los Angeles River (2005), at http://www.folar.org/about.html

2. California Performance Review’s Recommendation Puts Baldwin Hills Conservancy in Jeopardy, The Planning Report, (2005), at http://www.planningreport.com/tpr.html

3. California Public Resources Code, § 33000 et. Seq.

4. Center for Law in the Public Interest, Los Angeles is Park Poor: A History of Underserved Communities, (2005), at http://www/clipi.org/CityParksPoor1.html (“Los Angeles is Park Poor”)

5. Chinatown Cornfield’s Challengers Won’t Quit Dreaming of Open Space, The Planning Report, (2005), at http:///www.ablinc.net/tpr/archive/july2000.html

6. Cornfield, California State Parks, (2005), at http://www.parks.ca.gov/page_id=22984

7. Interview with Erica Flores, Attorney, Center for Law in the Public Interest, in Los Angeles, Cal. (March 2, 2005)

8. Interview with Jan Chatten-Brown, Attorney, Chatten-Brown & Associates, in Los Angeles, Cal. (March 1, 2005)

9. Interview with Terry Fujimoto, Deputy Attorney General, California State Attorney General’s Office, in Los Angeles, Cal. (April 28, 2005)

10. Jan Chatten-Brown & William F. Delvac, A River Tale – The Cornfield to Taylor Yard: From Industrial Development Plans to State Parks’ Acquisition, 12 California Land Use Reporter 1 (2002), at http://www.cbaearthlaw.com/riverarticlepopup.html.

11. LA Civic Park: Background, A Civic Park, (2005), at http://lacivicpark.org/background.html

12. Liz Valsamis, 1930 Map of Green L.A. Inspires Urban Vision, Los Angeles Daily Journal, January 28, 2005, at 1

13. Miguel Bustillo, Former Foes Unite Behind a Proposal to Turn Old Reservoir Site Into Park, LA Times, Jan. 15, 2005, at http://clipi.org/ourwork/latimes-ascothills.html

14. No Place to Play: A Comparative Analysis of Park Access in Seven Major Cities, The Trust for Public Land, November (2004) (“No Place to Play”)

15. Paul Stanton Kibel, Los Angeles’ Cornfield: An Old Blueprint for New Greenspace, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 275, 296 (2004). (“The Cornfield”)

26

16. Peter Harnick, The Excellent City Park System, The Trust for Public Land, 2003 Appendix V, p. 39 (2001)

17. Press Release, First Council District, Ed P. Reyes, Councilmember, Reyes, Hahn, State Parks Officials Break Ground at Taylor Yard (Jan. 13, 2004) (on file with the author)

18. Project for Public Spaces, Ten Benefits of Creating Good Public Spaces, (2005), at http://pps.org/info/placemakingtools/casesforplaces/10_benefits (“Benefits”)

19. Robert Garcia Connects the Dots for Environmental Justice, The Natural Resource: Environmental and Natural Resources Law & Policy Program Newsletter, Stanford Law School, Fall (2003) (“Garcia Connects Dots”)

20. Robert Garcia et al., The Heritage Parkscape in the Heart of Los Angeles, The City Project, Center for Law in the Public Interest, v.12.17.04 (2004) (“Heritage Parkscape”)

21. Robert Garcia, et al., Diversifying Access To and Support for the Forests, Center for Law in the Public Interest Policy Brief, v. 11.22.04 (“Diversifying Access”)

22. Robert Garcia, et al., Healthy Children, Healthy Communities: Schools, Parks, Recreation, and Sustainable Regional Planning, Center for Law in the Public Interest Policy Brief (“Healthy Children”)

23. Robert Garcia, et al., The Cornfield and the Flow of History: People, Place and Culture, The City Project, Center for Law in the Public Interest, April, 2004 (“The Cornfield”)

24. Steve Hymon, City Panel Won’t Back LAPD Site, The LA Times, Feb. 4, 2005. (“LAPD Site”)

25. Steve Hymon, Park Gift Lost, Found, The LA Times, Feb. 14, 2005. (“Park Gift”)

26. The Center for Law in the Public Interest at http://www.clipi.org/CPPIsurveypopup.html, citing Mark Baldasare, Statewide Survey on Californian’s and the Environment, Public Policy Institute of California June (2002), page vi

27. The Cornfield – The Last Vast Green Space in the Heart of L.A., Center for Law in the Public Interest, (2005), at http://clipi.org.ourwork/urbanparks.html

28. Therese Kelly, Baldwin Hills Park, Crenshaw, Los Angeles Forum for Architecture and Urban Design, Issue 5, April 10, 2005, at http://www.laforum.org/issues

29. Via Del Norte Pocket Park, The City of San Diego Council District One, (2005), at http://genesis.sannet.gov/infospc/templates/cd1/pocket_park/jsp.

27