|
| This message was sent to will@aialosangeles.org from: NelsonDaly | 1413 N Benton Way | Los Angeles, CA 900326 | Email Marketing by |
| Unsubscribe |
Monday, December 17, 2012
Support NeverBuilt with Kickstarter
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Getty to host talk on Conservation of Kahn's Yale Center for British Art
GETTY CONSERVATION INSTITUTE PRESENTS
Yale Center for British Art by Louis I. Kahn: Planning for Conservation
Conservation Architects Peter Inskip and Stephen Gee
discuss the conservation of Louis I. Kahn’s Yale Center
Harold M. Williams Auditorium, Getty Center
Thursday, January 17, 2013, 7 p.m.
LOS ANGELES—Conservation Architects Peter Inskip and Stephen Gee, along with Constance Clement, deputy director of the Yale Center for British Art, will discuss the development of the conservation plan for the Yale Center in Yale Center for British Art by Louis I. Kahn: A Conservation Plan, at 7 p.m. on Thursday, January 17, at the Getty Center.
The Yale Center for British Art, one of the world's great museums and study centers, was designed by American architect Louis I. Kahn.
In addition to considering the conservation of the building fabric, they will discuss current and emerging issues related to the growth and development of a vibrant institution housed in a significant late-twentieth-century building.
The publication Louis I. Kahn and the Yale Center for British Art: A Conservation Plan, (Yale University Press, 2012), which details the collaboration and conservation management plan, will be available for purchase at the event.
ABOUT THE SPEAKERS
Peter Inskip co-founded Peter Inskip + Peter Jenkins Architects Ltd in 1972. He also serves as a current member of the Architectural Panel of the National Trust and the World Monuments Fund, and the Building Committee for the Paul Mellon Center for British Art at Yale. Peter oversees all of the projects completed by the firm for the National Trust, as well as major restoration projects where existing and historic buildings have been developed for new uses and functions.
Stephen Gee is a director of Peter Inskip + Peter Jenkins Architects Ltd., with an interest in the conservation of modern and historic buildings and contemporary architecture. His work includes the Stowe Garden for the National Trust, for which he has been project architect since 1990, Moggerhanger House (Soane), Holkham Hall, Manchester City Art Gallery, Keble College, Green College, the ancient ruins of Fawsley and Greys Court, and Battersea Power Station.
Constance Clement is deputy director of the Yale Center for British Art.
Yale Center for British Art by Louis I. Kahn: A Conservation Plan, is presented at 7 p.m. on Thursday, January 17 in the Harold Williams Auditorium at the Getty Center, 1200 Getty Center Drive, Los Angeles. Tickets are free; reservations are recommended. Visit www.getty.edu to make reservations or call (310) 440-7300. Parking is $10 after 5 PM.
# # #
The J. Paul Getty Trust is an international cultural and philanthropic institution devoted to the visual arts that includes the J. Paul Getty Museum, the Getty Research Institute, the Getty Conservation Institute, and the Getty Foundation. The J. Paul Getty Trust and Getty programs serve a varied audience from two locations: the Getty Center in Los Angeles and the Getty Villa in Malibu.
The Getty Conservation Institute works internationally to advance conservation practice in the visual arts—broadly interpreted to include objects, collections, architecture, and sites. The Institute serves the conservation community through scientific research, education and training, model field projects, and the dissemination of the results of both its own work and the work of others in the field. In all its endeavors, the GCI focuses on the creation and delivery of knowledge that will benefit the professional conservation community through scientific research, education and training, model field projects, and the dissemination of the results of both its own work and the work of others in the field. In all its endeavors, the GCI focuses on the creation and delivery of knowledge that will benefit the professionals and organizations responsible for the conservation of the world's cultural heritage.
Visiting the Getty Center
The Getty Center is open Tuesday through Friday and Sunday from 10 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and Saturday from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. It is closed Monday and major holidays. Admission to the Getty Center is always free. Parking is $15 per car, but reduced to $10 after 5 p.m. on Saturdays and for evening events throughout the week. No reservation is required for parking or general admission. Reservations are required for event seating and groups of 15 or more. Please call (310) 440-7300 (English or Spanish) for reservations and information. The TTY line for callers who are deaf or hearing impaired is (310) 440-7305. The Getty Center is at 1200 Getty Center Drive, Los Angeles, California.
Additional information is available at www.getty.edu.
Sign up for e-Getty at www.getty.edu/subscribe to receive free monthly highlights of events at the Getty Center and the Getty Villa via e-mail, or visit www.getty.edu for a complete calendar of public programs.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Event Invitation - Making the Most of MAP-21, the New Two-Year $105 billion Transportation Law - Dec. 10th
Please see the attached invitation and agenda for an event that will examine the challenges and opportunities in the new two-year $105 billion federal transportation law, MAP-21, on December 10th at the Cal Endowment in Los Angeles. The event will include a presentation of Transportation for America's new guidebook, Making the Most of MAP-21, followed by presentations and discussions from SCAG, Move LA, Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, the Safe Routes to School National Partnership, and the Rails to Trails Conservancy.
Register for this free event here: http://makingmap-21work-la.eventbrite.com/
How can LA build momentum for expanding and accelerating transit investments in MAP-21 and the next federal bill?
How can California and its regions maintain and increase funding for bicycle and pedestrian investments as Congress takes a fresh look?
What tools does MAP-21 provide for workforce development and promote good jobs, and how can we build on this for the next round?
For more information:
Ryan Wiggins
California Field Organizer
Transportation for America
ryan.wiggins@t4america.org
(818) 209- 8521
Mayoral Forum on Neighborhood Safety: Thursday, Dec. 13th
|
| ||||||
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Losing with 66% of the vote and other stories
All these stories are posted on our website
Measure J: Turning Defeat Into Victory
Losing Measure J by less than 0.56% (66.11% of the 66.67% required) even as it won 66% of the vote was a painful and, frankly, appalling reminder that anti-tax activist Howard Jarvis and his Proposition 13 – the measure that created the 2/3 vote requirement for local tax measures in 1978 – still hovers over California. But Measure J's defeat is provoking an effort to release us from Jarvis’ yoke by doing what has already been done for school bonds – reducing the local voter threshold to 55%.
The City of LA and its Transportation Mayor
Read Governing magazine on why Mayor Villaraigosa tops the list of candidates
LA Mayor Creates TOD Corridors Cabinet
Read the mayor’s executive order
Metro Ridership Up and Westside Subway Work Begins
Read about Metro ridership increases
You are subscribed to this list as will@aialosangeles.org. You can unsubscribe here.
CEQA Clips: SF Biz Times Editorial and Tom Elias Column
San Francisco Business Times, Editorial, November 30, 2012
Our View: Reining in CEQA would be major benefit for San Francisco
Premium content from San Francisco Business Times
For major projects, San Francisco’s planning approvals process is famously capricious, convoluted, perilous and political.
The city’s anti-development activists prefer it that way, for such unpredictablility is their friend. Even when they are few in number, those who find something to dislike in virtually every major development proposal are highly experienced in bending the approvals enterprise to their will, knowing which bureaucratic buttons to push and levers to pull to induce delay. Indeed, in the right (or wrong) hands, delay is not just the outcome, it’s the objective. As months drag into years and the developers’ costs steadily mount, any but the most committed and well-financed may decide or be forced to forget the whole idea.
No weapon in this arsenal of delay-making has become more fearsome than CEQA. California’s landmark environmental statute is routinely lobbed, grenade-like, late into development deliberations, with the certain knowledge that it will blow up progress on other matters until environmental documents have been subjected to a separate, laborious review.
So the overwrought caterwauling from anti-development types over changes just proposed to how the city administers its responsibilities under CEQA is encouraging. Not because such complaints are valid — they aren’t; there is no attempt afoot to gut CEQA, eliminate public input into development decisions, or anything of the sort — but because it shows how afraid they are that the changes might in fact reduce the most cynical misuses of CEQA as no more than a blocking tool.
As the city currently applies CEQA, any single member of the public may at any time prior to a project’s final approval of by the Board of Supervisors file an appeal against its Environmental Impact Report, or against a determination by city officials that an EIR is not required. In practice, such appeals are launched Hail Mary style, typically at the last after nearly all other administrative and legislative avenues have been exhausted. Nevertheless, once an appeal has been lodged, all other deliberations — no matter how advanced — are halted while separate hearings are scheduled and convened regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the EIR, and a decision reached. In the hands of a resourceful development opponent with the time to pick apart a bulky document line by line, it’s relatively easy to manipulate this into added months or even years on the approvals process.
The reforms put forth by Supervisor Scott Weiner represent a significant improvement. They would require opponents wishing to appeal an EIR to do so early in the process rather than later so that the matter could be considered alongside others as part of the approvals process. They also streamline some other administrative matters so that as far as possible, CEQA operates as it should: As a safeguard against environmental degradation, not as a club with which to beat down development routinely.
Further improvements to CEQA are urgently needed at the state level — a task from which our legislators have so far shied. With 40 years of court decisions and administrative “guidelines” laid on top of a statute that was well-meaning but impossibly vague to begin with, there is a need for far greater clarity on what CEQA should be used to prohibit and what it should allow, and to greatly reducing the bureaucratic effort and expense in reaching a decision one way or the other.
In the meantime, city reforms should aim to once again make the planning approvals process a mechanism for achieving a timely decision. Not a vehicle for delaying one.
Syndicated Columnist, Tom Elias, December 4, 2012
http://www.thecalifornian.com/article/20121204/OPINION04/312040008/Tom-Elias-Expect-CEQA-changes-next-year?odyssey=nav%7Chead&nclick_check=1
Tom Elias: Expect CEQA changes next year
Written by Tom Elias
No law annoys California developers more than the California Environmental Quality Act and they figure to win at least some changes to its strict 42-year-old rules next year.
They almost sneaked through a major softening of the state’s premier environmental law last September in the waning moments of the last legislative session, but were forced to back off in the face of heavy objections to softening the law without any public hearings.
CEQA requires sponsors of a building project or development to write an environmental impact report assessing the effects. Signed in 1970 by Gov. Ronald Reagan, the law was to supplement the National Environment Policy Act of 1969 requiring an environmental impact statement from federal agencies.
The national law, for example, is why the U.S. Navy cannot practice gunnery on the west side of the San Clemente Island without first making sure it won’t affect migrating whales.
The state law has been used by environmentalists to obstruct countless projects, with legal challenges to the EIRs adding months and years to the planning cycle of projects such as sports arenas and apartments.
Development interests maintain they respect CEQA. Effects measured by EIRs include everything from public health — would a new freeway create health risks from vehicle exhaust? — to increased traffic and potential danger to wildlife. Once identified, adverse impacts must be mitigated, often adding to project costs.
No governor since CEQA passed has seemed more receptive to loosening its requirements than Jerry Brown.
Among the alteration attempts likely to return next year is an exclusion from CEQA for projects that already comply with local land-use plans previously certified as consistent with CEQA.
Brown’s turnaround on this law stems from his experience as mayor of Oakland from 1999 to 2007, when several projects aimed at bettering blighted areas were stymied by challenges under CEQA.
In his first year back as governor, Brown signed one bill fast-tracking legal review under CEQA for a proposed football stadium in Los Angeles and another speeding up projects (costing at least $100 million) that incorporate high environmental standards.
The picture dismays environmental leaders and excites development interests. “It would be devastating for California and the rest of the nation for the kind of precedent this would set,” said Jena Price, legislative director of the Planning and Conservation League.
On the other side, the CEQA Working Group, a coalition of business, labor and affordable housing interests, claims that other laws like the Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act and anti-smog laws make CEQA partially redundant, forcing developers to spend time and money going over similar sets of facts in excessive paperwork. This outfit maintains it wants to eliminate duplication and provide even wider environmental disclosure than CEQA now does.
But environmentalists point to a 2005 study by the Public Policy Institute of California indicating only one project in every 354 is ever delayed by CEQA-related actions. They claim business interests don’t want to modernize CEQA, they want to gut it.
Changing CEQA should not happen in secrecy, but with plenty of public input.
Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
