Though medical marijuana may be legal in California, cities thus far have no obligation to ensure that patients have ready access to cannabis-based medicines. There have been several attempts by medical marijuana dispensary proponents to get the courts to recognize the right of prospective proprietors and co-ops to establish dispensaries, regardless of what the local zoning code allows. Thus far, these attempts have failed. The most recent attempt in Traudt v. City of Dana Point (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 886, is no different. This time the court did not even make it to the merits, but struck the case down at the demurrer stage for lack of standing. Plaintiff Malinda Traudt developed osteoporosis in her 20's, and from that point on, lived a life of pain and constant illness, until she began taking medical marijuana. Traudt is also blind and suffers from several neurological conditions and chronic pain. According to Traudt's complaint, medical marijuana saved her life because it alleviated some of her pain. Due to her condition, Traudt cannot venture far from her house and must be accompanied by her mother, who is her caretaker. Her mother is also unable to leave her alone because she too is in fragile condition. Fortunately for Traudt, a dispensary opened up within walking distance from her home, and her mother could take her in her wheelchair to the dispensary.  Unfortunately for Traudt, the City of Dana Point began shutting down the dispensaries within city limits because they are not permitted under the local zoning code. This included Traudt's dispensary. Although the dispensary brought suit against the city, Traudt decided to initiate a lawsuit of her own, which was dismissed on demurrer for lack of standing, even though lack of standing had not been asserted by the city. Traudt appealed, and the appellate court agreed with the trial court.  As the appellate court readily admitted, "Traudt's condition is tragic and presents perhaps the most compelling case imaginable for individual standing." Nevertheless, according to the appellate court, "an individual medical marijuana patient is not the proper party to challenge generally applicable zoning provisions because – whatever the contours of the right to engage in cooperate or collective medical marijuana activity (see e.g., § 11362.775) – the Legislature invested this right in cooperative and collective groups and entities, not individuals." Therefore, Traudt had no standing to bring an action against the city, and she will just have to wait and see if the dispensary has any more success. The Case:  Traudt v. City of Dana Point (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 886. Filed and published Sept. 30, 2011.  The Attorneys:  Schwartz Law and Jeffrey M. Schwartz for Plaintiff and Appellant. Rutan & Tucker, A. Patrick Muñoz, Douglas J. Dennington and Jennifer Farrell for Defendant and Respondent. Cori Badgley is an attorney with Abbott & Kindermann, LLP, Sacramento.

Jim Evans, 42, of Sacramento, has been appointed deputy secretary for communications and strategic planning at the Business Transportation and Housing Agency. He has been a consultant for Senator Mark DeSaulnier since 2009. He was communications director for Senate President pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg from 2006 to 2009 and communications director for Senator Joe Dunn from 2005 to 2006. Evans was a staff writer for the Sacramento Bee from 2003 to 2004, managing editor at California Journal from 2002 to 2003, a staff writer for the Sacramento News and Review from 2001 to 2002, and a staff writer at The Industry Standard from 1998 to 2001. This position does not require Senate confirmation and the compensation is $129,900. Evans is a Democrat.  Brian Kelly, 43, of Sacramento, has been appointed undersecretary at the Business Transportation and Housing Agency. Kelly has been executive staff director for Senate President pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg since 2008. He was executive principal consultant for Senate President pro Tempore Don Perata from 2004 to 2008, principal consultant for Senate President pro Tempore John Burton from 1998 to 2004, and assistant consultant for Senate President pro Tempore Bill Lockyer from 1995 to 1998. This position does not require Senate confirmation and the compensation is $172,992. Kelly is a Democrat.

Given the scarcity of land in urban neighborhoods in California and the costs involved in acquiring land and building new parks, we must consider alternative approaches to meet recreational needs. There is, of course, no substitute for the development of new parks. But we can still pursue innovative, low-impact strategies to maximize recreational opportunities.  After all, though planners and public officials are always going to be compelled to create lasting monuments, recreation can take place in locations other than parks.   Though Californians may balk at the notion of getting out of their cars, temporary street closures and temporary use of vacant or underused parking lots can ease the shortage, especially in low-income neighborhoods. Unfortunately, many in the planning profession are unfamiliar with these ideas, do not take them seriously, and/or have done little to support them.  As a parks planner, I believe that the time has come for this attitude to change.  Temporary Street Closures Closing some streets either permanently or temporarily for recreational activities is one way to create additional opportunities for physical activity.  Some cities, including Baltimore, Chicago, El Paso, Miami, and New York, have begun experimenting with the idea of once-a-summer or once-a-month road closures on regular city streets, following the example of the "ciclovias" that have become popular in Bogotá, Colombia and several other Latin American cities. Los Angeles recently began holding CicLAvia  events which opened up some streets to the public, creating a temporary network of spaces where participants could walk, bike, socialize, celebrate and learn more about their city.  From Boyle Heights to Downtown, MacArthur Park to East Hollywood, CicLAvia encouraged Angelenos to not only make active use of the streets, but to rediscover the neighborhoods that too often go unnoticed in automobiles.  About 100,000 turned out for the inaugural event in 2010, far exceeding the expectations of organizers, who had wondered whether Los Angeles could tolerate the idea of shutting down busy streets just to give Angelenos more opportunities to walk, bike, or socialize.   Closing streets temporarily recognizes the urgency of addressing the recreational and public health needs of residents, especially children.  For example, New York City's Departments of Health and Mental Hygiene, Transportation, and Parks have specifically created the Playstreets program to battle the childhood obesity epidemic.  This program allows communities to close off streets from auto traffic and open them up for play on a recurrent basis.  It is a quick and low-cost way to create active play space, especially for children, the city's most important at–risk population.  Temporary Use of Parking Spaces/Lots and Vacant Lots Another example of creating parks temporarily is " PARK(ing) Day " which began in 2005 when Rebar, an art collective, converted a single metered parking space into a temporary park in an area of San Francisco that was underserved by public open space.  Park(ing) Day has since become an annual worldwide event characterized by energetic participants and diverse installations like croquet courses, dog parks, and urban micro-farms.   In addition to parking spaces, vacant lots or underused parking lots may be used temporarily for recreation by setting up sports equipment like basketball hoops, soccer goals, and portable skate ramps at these locations.  As a park planner, I have observed that underserved communities like Florence-Firestone in south Los Angeles are home to numerous vacant or underused parking lots, some of which may be used as temporary recreation areas in the evenings and on weekends (or whenever they are not needed for their primary use).   Challenges and Solutions • \t Planning Regulations: A number of cities have adopted regulations to limit fast food restaurants in an effort to reduce obesity, but have done little to promote exercise.  It is unclear how planning departments would handle requests to temporarily use parking and vacant lots for recreation.  For example, would a temporary use permit be required?  Typically, such a permit would be needed for seasonal activities like the sale of pumpkins and Christmas trees on vacant lots.  Cities should support temporary use of parking and vacant lots for recreation by establishing a clear approval/permitting process for such uses.    • \t Coordination: Holding events like CicLAvias require many organizations to work together.  This is challenging considering that the stakeholders vary widely, from passionate event organizers and activists to more rigid agencies handling road closures and public safety.  However, the success of past CicLAvias proves that effective collaboration is possible.   • \t Logistics: Implementing the two ideas would mean new roles and responsibilities for parks staff.  Specifically, they would need to set up, take down, and provide sports equipment (like portable basketball hoops) needed for the temporary use of parking or vacant lots.  They would also need to supervise these locations to ensure safe play and proper use of the equipment.  Alternatively, volunteers could be recruited for such tasks. • \t Liability: Liability issues can discourage cities and individual property owners from allowing recreational activities on streets and vacant or underused lots, respectively.  Not being an attorney, I cannot speak intelligently on this matter.  However, it is my understanding that liability concerns can be addressed through adequate insurance coverage and the posting of limitations on liability language at locations where recreation is to take place temporarily.   Conclusion To meet the recreational and public health needs of underserved communities in California, we should explore and embrace creative ideas.  It's ironic that in California, a place with fantastic weather and an athletic culture, is often so reluctant to promote outdoor activities. It's almost as if planners feel that the presence of the ocean, mountains, and vast wild areas beyond the urban fringe has given them a free pass not to embrace recreational opportunities in center cities. But now that we've built cities that accommodate the car so well, it's time to take back a little space for people.  And if these temporary solutions don't work? Well, that's OK. They're just temporary.

For the handful of cities that have declined to serve as their own successor agencies , Gov. Jerry Brown has appointed governing boards that will oversee the dismantling of those cities' redevelopment agencies. The governor appointed one governing board per county, so in counties with multiple cities without successor agencies, one board will oversee all of those cities.  The cities of Bishop, Los Angeles, Los Banos, Merced, Pismo Beach, Riverbank, Santa Paula and Waterford all opted out of serving as their own successor agencies.  Each governing board, also known as a designated local authority, consists of three county residents responsible for winding down the affairs of dissolved local redevelopment agencies. This work will include: paying existing bond debt and following through on pre-existing contractual obligations, maintaining reserves, enforcing former redevelopment agency rights to protect and benefit bondholders, disposing of former redevelopment agency assets, managing properties until contracted work has been completed and preparing an administrative budget and obligations payment schedule. Appointees will work closely with former redevelopment agency staff to accomplish these tasks. They will be overseen by a seven-member Oversight Board consisting of representatives of the taxing agencies in whose boundaries the redevelopment agencies were located. Pismo Beach A. Charles Crabb, 60, of San Luis Obispo, has been appointed to the designated local authority for the former Pismo Beach redevelopment agency, in San Luis Obispo County. Crabb has been a program advisor at the California Agricultural Leadership Foundation since 2010 and assistant to the provost at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo since 2010. He was director of education and operations at the California Agricultural Leadership Foundation from 2007 to 2010, government affairs manager at the California Farm Bureau Federation from 2006 to 2007, dean of the College of Agriculture at California State University, Chico from 1999 to 2006, and regional director for the division of agriculture and natural resources at the University of California, Office of the President from 1995 to 1999. Crabb was a professor and administrator at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo from 1978 to 1995. He earned a doctorate in ecology from the University of California, Davis. This position does not require Senate confirmation. Crabb is a Republican. Janet George, 53, of Pismo Beach, has been appointed to the designated local authority for the former Pismo Beach redevelopment agency, in San Luis Obispo County. She has been a certified public accountant and controller at EDA Design Professionals since 2006. She was a certified public accountant and controller at Limberg Eye Surgery from 2001 to 2006, at Den-Mat from 2000 to 2001 and at Gold Coast Packing from 1989 to 2000. This position does not require Senate confirmation. George is registered decline-to-state. Tom Murray, 60, of Arroyo Grande, has been appointed to the designated local authority for the former Pismo Beach redevelopment agency, in San Luis Obispo County. Murray has been a building contractor and principal of Clean Cut Construction since 1983. He is vice president of the board of directors of San Luis Obispo Green Build and a member of the board of directors of the Lucia Mar Foundation for Innovation. This position does not require Senate confirmation. Murray is a Democrat. Los Angeles Timothy McOsker, 49, of San Pedro, has been appointed to the designated local authority for the former redevelopment agency in Los Angeles. McOsker has been a partner at Mayer Brown since 2008. He was chief of staff for the mayor of Los Angeles from 2001 to 2008 and chief deputy city attorney for the City of Los Angeles from 1997 to 2001. He received his Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law. This position does not require Senate confirmation. McOsker is a Democrat. Nelson Rising, 70, of La Cañada Flintridge, has been appointed and designated as chair of the designated local authority for the former redevelopment agency in Los Angeles. Rising has been the chairman of Rising Realty Partners since 2010. He was the president and chief executive officer of MPG Office Trust from 2008 to 2010, chairman and chief executive officer of Catellus Development Corporation from 1994 to 2005, and a senior partner at Maguire Thomas Partners from 1983 to 1994. Rising is a former chairman of the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. He received his Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. This position does not require Senate confirmation. Rising is a Democrat. Mee Semcken, 54, of San Marino, has been appointed to the designated local authority for the former redevelopment agency in Los Angeles. She has been the president of Lee Consulting Group LLC since 2004. She was a partner at Garcia McCoy and Lee Consulting Group from 2003 to 2004, senior vice president at Marathon Communications from 2002 to 2003, and vice president of real estate development at Douglas Emmett, Inc. from 2000 to 2002. Semcken was vice president of corporate real estate and public affairs at Warner Bros. from 1992 to 2000 and served as the city council liaison for the Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles from 1991 to 1992. She received her Juris Doctor degree from Southwestern University School of Law. This position does not require Senate confirmation. Semcken is a Democrat.  Merced Robert Carpenter, 70, of Merced, has been appointed to the designated local authority for the former redevelopment agency in Merced. Carpenter has been a partner at Leap Carpenter Kemps Insurance Agency since 1971. This position does not require Senate confirmation. Carpenter is a Republican.  Mike Gallo, 61, of Merced, has been appointed and designated as chair of the designated local authority for the former redevelopment agency in Merced. Gallo has been the owner of Joseph Gallo Farms since 1972. This position does not require Senate confirmation. Gallo is a Republican. Ralph Temple, 71, of Merced, has been appointed to the designated local authority for the former redevelopment agency in Merced. Temple has been a partner at the Law Offices of Ralph Temple since 1966. He is a member of the board of trustees for the University of California, Merced. This position does not require Senate confirmation. Temple is a Democrat.  Stanislaus Paul Baxter, 67, of Modesto, has been appointed to the designated local authority for the former development agency in Stanislaus. Baxter was a consultant for Stanislaus County Capital Projects from 2002 to 2007. He was the interim clerk recorder for the County of Stanislaus from 2001 to 2002 and deputy city manager for the City of Modesto from 1989 to 2000. This position does not require Senate confirmation. Baxter is a Democrat.  Wendell Naraghi, 69, of Denair, has been appointed and designated as chair of the designated local authority for the former redevelopment agency in Stanislaus. Naraghi has been the owner of Wendell Naraghi Farms since 2006 and the owner of the Naraghi Group since 2000. He was manager of H. Naraghi Farms, a family-run farm and real estate company, from 1967 to 2006. Naraghi has served on the California State Food and Agriculture Board and the UC Hastings Foundation. Naraghi received his Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. This position does not require Senate confirmation. Naraghi is a Republican. Walter Schmidt, 65, of Hughson, has been appointed to the designated local authority for the former redevelopment agency in Stanislaus. Schmidt has been a partner at Crabtree Schmidt since 1971. He received his Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. This position does not require Senate confirmation. Schmidt is a Republican.  Ventura Rodney Diamond, 69, of Newbury Park, has been appointed to the designated local authority for the former redevelopment agency in Ventura. Diamond has been the principal of Diamond Consulting since 2010. He was the secretary-treasurer of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 770 from 2002 to 2010, and he held multiple positions there from 1971 to 2002. This position does not require Senate confirmation. Diamond is a Democrat.  David Maron, 53, of Camarillo, has been appointed to the designated local authority for the former redevelopment agency in Ventura. Maron has been the chief executive officer of Maron Computer Services since 1979. This position does not require Senate confirmation. Maron is a Democrat.  Sidney White, 60, of Ventura, has been appointed and designated as chair of the designated local authority for the former redevelopment agency in Ventura. White was the manager of the economic redevelopment division at the Community Development Department for the City of Ventura from 2002 to 2011, manager of the economic redevelopment division for the Community Development Commission in Los Angeles County from 1995 to 2002, and was a partner at Economics Research Associates from 1986 to 1994. This position does not require Senate confirmation. White is registered decline-to-state.

The Second Appellate District tackled several technical but important legal considerations in Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles , including that of whether a lead agency must analyze the impact of the environment on the project.  This case involves the aftermath of an earlier court decision finding the environmental impact report for the massive Playa Vista infill project on the west side of Los Angeles to be deficient. That decision directed the City of Los Angeles to vacate the approvals and correct certain EIR deficiencies. Consistent with the court's earlier ruling, the city and developer went back to work on a revised EIR.  As a result of amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, the new EIR included an analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. Upon completion of that EIR, and the City Council re-approved the project, with mitigation measures. The Ballona Wetlands Trust, an environmental group dedicated to preserving a creek and wetlands area on the Playa Vista property, filed an opposition to the return to the writ, as well as a new petition.  The trial court consolidated the two actions, denied the petition, then discharged the writ, following which the opponents appealed. The issues on appeal included sufficiency of analysis and disclosure of archaeological resources and mitigation, sufficiency of analysis of GHG as it related to coastal flooding; and whether the opponents could renew a challenge to the project description. With respect to archaeological resources, the appellate court acknowledged the CEQA rules that prioritize preservation in place as the preferred means of mitigating impacts to archaeological resources (Guidelines Section 15126.4). The first EIR identified two sites, and disclosed that a riparian corridor could not be constructed in a manner which avoided impacts to archeological resources. (The first EIR included the only feasible mitigation was data recovery.) In the first EIR lawsuit, the appellate court rejected this approach, saying that the analysis rejecting preservation in place was insufficient. In the second EIR, the lead agency provided additional discussion of preservation in place, as well as other potential mitigation strategies. This time around, the appellate court upheld the analysis as satisfying CEQA.  Turning to climate change, the appellate court considered the argument that the EIR was required to address sea level rise impacts on the project, as well as the project's contribution to sea level rise on surrounding areas. The appellate court, suggesting that Guidelines section 15126.2(a) overstepped the statute, rejected the argument that the EIR was required to study the impact of the environment on the project, citing earlier decisions reaching similar conclusions, including City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2009) (see CP&DR Legal Digest Vol. 24, No. 11, Sept. 2009 http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-2413) and South Orange County Wastewater Authority v. City of Dana Point (2011) (see CP&DR Legal Digest Vol. 26, No. 22, Nov. 2011 http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3068).  Applying the substantial evidence test, the appellate court noted that there was a dispute in the record over the potential impact of global sea level rise on the project. But as there is adequate, competent evidence in the record to support the lead agency's conclusion that the project site would not be inundated by sea rise, the EIR satisfied its disclosure obligation. The opponents also sought to challenge the project description. However, this challenge went beyond the scope of the judgment in the first action, and the trial court's jurisdiction is limited to insuring compliance with the terms of writ. The Case:  Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles  (2011) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, filed Nov. 9, 2011, case No. B231965.  The Attorneys:  Venskus & Associates, Sabrina Venskus and Emilee Moeller for Plaintiffs and Appellants Ballona Wetlands Land Trust, Anthony Morales and Surfrider Foundation. Law Office of Brian Acree and Brian Acree for Plaintiff and Appellant Ballona Ecosystem Education Project. Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, and Siegmund Shyu, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent. Alston & Bird, Edward J. Casey, Robert D. Pontelle and Neal P. Maguire for Real Party in Interest and Respondent. William W. Abbott is a partner in the Sacramento law firm of Abbott & Kindermann, LLP. www.aklandlaw.com .

Last year, the San Diego Association of Governments released the state's first Sustainable Communities Strategy, which Senate Bill 375 requires of California's metropolitan planning organizations. SANDAG officials hailed the SCS, coupled to its Regional Transportation Plan, as a bold step towards reducing sprawl and meeting the per capita emissions reductions targets that the California Air Resources Board had set.  Not so fast, say a group of opponents, including a coalition of environmental groups and Attorney General Kamala Harris. A coalition of environmental groups -- including the Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, and Cleveland National Forest Foundation -- filed a lawsuit alleging that SANDAG's SCS not only fails to meet SB 375's greenhouse gas emissions targets but also violates the California Environmental Quality Act. Whereas SB 375 merely requires MPOs to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets, CEQA requires a thorough analysis of impacts and mitigation measures for all environmental issues, including air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. On that count, plaintiffs say, SANDAG has fallen short.  The suit contends that SANDAG's SCS pays only cursory attention to SB 375's goal of reducing vehicle miles traveled through compact development and decreased use of single-occupancy motor vehicles. Most notably, the plaintiffs argue, the plan calls for the construction of new highway lanes at the expense of development of new rail lines and other forms of public transit and that it does so without the impacts analysis and mitigation alternatives that CEQA requires.  SANDAG planners contend that plaintiffs miss the point of the planned highway improvements. Most of the new lanes are planned as high-occupancy lanes, which will serve both carpools and public buses. Two highways that will be expanded for HOV lanes are I-15 and I-805.  "What we see is transportation planning resembling what we used to see in the 1960s," said Rachel Hooper, a partner at Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger and lead attorney for the plaintiffs, "emphasizing planning for the auto, freeway building and expansion rather than a focus on public transportation and transit." "I'm not sure whether they understand the fact that we're going to be running bus rapid transit on those lanes," said Charles "Muggs" Stoll, SANDAG's director of land use. "They just say, oh, you're investing in freeways." Harris joined the suit last month, thus setting up a confrontation between SANDAG and the state over what is arguably the most significant planning and environmental initiative of the next generation. Last year, Harris' office sent a letter with concerns about the draft SCS. SANDAG officials say that they responded to each of Harris' concerns, but "obviously not to the attorney general's satisfaction," said Stoll. Harris' office declined to comment for this article.  The outcome of the suit – whether it goes to court or whether SANDAG and plaintiffs can reach a compromise – bears heavily on the statewide effort to pursue sustainable regional plans.  "I think it says that it's sort of business as usual, which is exactly what SB 375 was intended to change," said Bruce Reznik, executive director of the Planning & Conservation League and former executive director of San Diego Coastkeeper. "Because it is first out of the gate, I think it's really important to set a good example for all the SCS's coming forward." "What we're concerned about in part is that their plan may set a precedent for the other SCS's that are emerging," said Hooper.  But MPO officials say it is the suit itself that sets a bad precedent.  "The worst thing that could happen to the implementation of SB 375 is to have these lawsuits, because the MPOs have made great progress in moving the thinking of our leaders," said Hassan Ikhrata, executive director of the Southern California Association of Governments. SCAG released its own SCS/RTP at the end of 2011.  Nonetheless, plaintiffs say that the SCS/RTP explicitly ignores that primary goal of SB 375.  "One of the major issues in our lawsuit is that the plan does not provide for mitigation for global warming impacts," said Hooper. "They could have required that their member cities adopt TOD policies…and they could have required their member agencies to adopt climate action plans."  Meant to accommodate a projected growth of over 300,000 households by 2050, the RTP/SCS calls for the investment of over $200 billion in new highway lanes, trolley lines, and infrastructure projects. Many of those highway miles are funded and mandated by TransNet, the 2003 initiative that imposed a half-cent countywide sales tax to fund certain transportation projects. SANDAG officials say that the TransNet program, which was envisioned well before SB 375 had been drafted – and, indeed, before compact growth became popular in California, constrains the RTP.  Most of the highway projects are slated to be built in the next decade, whereas many of the public transit projects are planned for the 2020s. Opponents say that these priorities are backwards—with 28% more spending on highways than on transit in the first decade of the plan—and that the construction of transit in the near term would stoke centralized, compact growth in the long term. The reverse, they say, simply is not going to happen. "They say that they're going to support transit," said Jack Shu, board president of the Cleveland National Forest Foundation. "That may be true in terms of some of the dollar figures, but …of the 15 trolley projects, half of them will take place after 2030." SANDAG's  RTP extends to 2050, SB 375's targets extend only to 2035. "It's a big challenge now because we have not done our job the past 30 years," said Shu, speaking of the region's low-density development. "That does not mean that we have to avoid that challenge now." Hooper said that the plan should have focused on transit in the urban core.  The suit is also something of a referendum on methods of regional planning, which relies on heavily studied, but often unproven, methods of modeling traffic and emissions. Plaintiffs say SANDAG's models include assumptions that are wildly off-base and, as a consequence, overstate the emissions reductions that will result from implementation of the SCS.  Hooper said that SANDAG assumes unwillingness on the part of high-income residents to ride public transit. This assumption, she said, leads to artificially low transit ridership projects, which in turn bias SANDAG towards highways.  Though methods of regional modeling are still evolving, SANDAG contends that its methodologies follow common practice in the SB 375 era.  "We've worked with all of the other MPOs throughout the state to assure that the methodologies that we're using are consistent among the regions," said Stoll. "We've worked with ARB staff."   Ikhrata said that MPOs have been developing their models "for the past 40 years" and that they have all been rigorously peer reviewed.  Ultimately, SANDAG planners say that plaintiffs and other opponents fail to understand how the SCS/RTP relates to the unique attributes of the San Diego region. Though opponents claim that the plan creates urban sprawl, SANDAG planners say that sprawl in the region is inherently contained by natural and political barriers: the ocean to the west, mountains to the east, and Camp Pendleton and the Mexican border to the north and south, respectively.  "We are a bit unique because we almost have a de facto growth boundary," said Stoll. "There's so much preserved in our county, that when you get to Sacramento, where there's nothing but farms as far as the eye can see, there's a lot more potential for that kind of thing to happen." Stoll said that opponents unfairly assume that the region's history of low-density development will simply persist even though SANDAG planners are confident that the region's culture is already changing. Most importantly, he said, the RTP/SCS plans for 85% of new housing to be multifamily—thus curtailing the sort of low-density, inefficient development that comes with single-family homes.  "There's very little suburban development planned for the next 40 years," said Stoll. "I think that's not well understood by the stakeholders who live outside San Diego." Stoll said that requirements such as TOD policies and climate action plans are not necessarily because most of the region's 18 jurisdictions are already, of their own accord, adopting general plans that promote compact development. The SCS, therefore, simply goes along with a trend that is already well underway.  Opponents, however, call this attitude a cop-out.  "They took the land use plans that were adopted by their jurisdictions and they threw up their hands and said, ‘we're not a land use planning agency….so we're going to build our transportation system around what's already in the plans of these jurisdictions,'" said Hooper. "We're saying that they could have done better." Just how much they could have done is a matter of debate, however. Because land use planning—as opposed to transportation planning—is generally a matter of local control, the authors of SB 375 hesitated to vest too much power in regional planning bodies.   "SB 375 clearly says MPOs have no authority over land use whatsoever," said Ikhrata. "With that in mind, you can't have such an ambiguous law and come back and say, 'well, you need to do more.'" Though many environmental groups may want SCS's in San Diego and elsewhere to strive for more aggressive curbs on greenhouse gas emissions, some remain anxious about suits such as the one brought against SANDAG.  "The reason you don't have 100 groups filing lawsuits is that they are worried about the chilling effect," said Reznik. "If you bring this suit against SANDAG, what happens to groups in like Bay Area and Sacramento who are trying to do a better job. Does this chill discussions and slow everything down?" Groups like SCAG, however, remain undaunted by SANDAG's challenges.  "I don't go to bed worrying about who is going to sue me," said Ikhrata. "I go to bed wondering if I did the right thing for the SCAG region. We all want SB 375 to be implemented and we all want it to succeed."  Contacts & Resources:  SANDAG RTP Website: www.sandag.org/2050rtp Rachel Hooper, Partner, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, LLP, 415.552.7272 Hassan Ikhrata, Executive Director, SCAG, 213.236.1800  Bruce Reznik, Executive Director, Planning & Conservation League, 916.822.5631 Charles "Muggs" Stoll, SANDAG, 619.699.1900 Jack Shu, Director, Cleveland National Forest Fondation

The Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District affirmed a judgment following a jury verdict that found that a homeowners association complied with the California Solar Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 714) when it denied the application of property owners to install solar panels on a slope adjacent to their residence. In Tesoro del Valle Master Homeowners Assn. v. Griffin , defendants Martin and Carolyn Griffin were owners of property who sought to install a solar energy system at their residence in a development that is subject to conditions, covenants and restrictions. The CC&Rs provided that " here shall be no construction, alteration, or removal of any Improvement in the Project (other than repairs or rebuilding done by the Association pursuant hereto) without the approval of the Architectural Control Committee (ACC)." The Design Guidelines adopted by the HOA expressly provided the following architectural standards for solar energy systems, in relevant part: "As provided for in Section 714 of the California Civil Code, reasonable restrictions on the installation of solar energy systems that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance, or which allow for an alternative system of comparable costs, efficiency, and energy conservation benefits may be imposed by the Committee."  The CC&Rs and Design Guidelines listed the requirements for an application to the ACC, which included the submission of a plot plan drawn to scale, a detailed description of the proposed materials, a landscape plan and a drainage plan. The Griffins' application to the ACC for the solar system in this case did not meet those requirements. Their application contained only a handwritten drawing with a rectangle signifying the approximate location of the proposed solar panels; it did not contain information concerning the panels' dimensions, number or color; the setback; the proposed alterations to the landscaping; or the amount of electricity proposed to be generated. After receiving preliminary information from the HOA that the ACC would probably not approve their application, defendants received another bid proposal to install additional solar panels on the roof of their residence. However, defendants did not amend their application to include that rooftop installation.  The ACC did not approve the defendants' application, but instead provided comments on the application noting that the roof of the casita adjacent to defendants' residence should be considered as a location for the panels; that the project's dimensions and minimum setbacks needed to be provided on the site plan; that defendants needed to indicate how the slope beneath the solar panels would be maintained; and that defendants needed to submit photographs of the existing landscape and superimpose the proposed panel elevation. The ACC was concerned about the proposed slope-mounted system because it was at the entry to the neighborhood, adjacent homes had a direct line of sight, the CC&R's prohibited slope alteration and any alteration or landscape removal could impact drainage. The ACC expected that defendants would address those concerns and submit a revised application.   However, defendants went ahead and installed the solar panels on the roof, and then, after discussions between all of the parties, submitted a revised application for the entire project. The ACC approved the roof installation but again denied the slope installation. Defendants installed the solar panels on the slope anyway, and the HOA filed this action against defendants. Defendants filed a cross-complaint that generally alleged that the HOA failed to comply with both Section 714 and the CC&R's in denying the defendants' solar energy system application.  At trial, the jury found, among other things, that the HOA did nothing prohibited by the CC&R's or governing law. It also found that the HOA did not fail to do anything required by the CC&R's and governing law with respect to its consideration of Defendant's solar energy system; that the HOA did not breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and that the HOA did not violate section 714; that Defendants failed to follow the CC&R's and governing law in connection with their solar energy system; and that Defendants were required to remove the 22 solar panels from their hillside slope.  Defendants appealed the judgment based on the jury verdict. The Court of Appeal affirmed. The Tesoro court heavily relied upon a similar Second Appellate District decision in Palos Verdes Homes Association v. Rodman (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 324. The Tesoro court held that substantial evidence supported the jury's conclusion that the CC&R's imposed reasonable restrictions that were in compliance with Section 714. Not only did the Design Guidelines mirror Section 714, but an expert testified for the HOA at trial that, as an alternative to defendants' installation of 22 panels on their slope, defendants could install 16 to 20 panels in an area above the casita that would yield the same performance efficiency but have a 14 percent reduction in output, and it would be less expensive to install than the slope panels.  The court also held that the ACC could properly consider the aesthetic impact of a solar energy system in its determination whether to approve Defendants' proposed solar panel installation. The court further held that the HOA did not have the burden to propose a comparable alternative system at the time it denied Defendants' application. Instead, under the CC&R's, the burden was on the homeowner to submit an application that is complete and sufficient to generate approval of a solar energy system utilizing an application that both satisfied the procedural requirements in the CC&R's, as well as addressed the ACC's concerns about location, safety and aesthetics.  The Case: Tesoro del Valle Master Homeowners Assn. v. Griffin (October 3, 2011, B222531) ___ Cal.App.___. Ordered published Nov. 1, 2011.  The Attorneys: Law Offices of Michael L. McQueen and Michael L. McQueen for Defendants and Appellants. Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger and Ricardo P. Cestero for Plaintiff and Respondent. Glen C. Hansen is an attorney with Abbott & Kindermann, LLP, Sacramento

Linn Warren, 59, of Davis, has been appointed director of the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Warren has been a program director at the California Housing Finance Agency since 2010, where he served in multiple positions from 2009 to 2010 and from 1995 to 2006. He was a program advisor at the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency from 2008 to 2009 and a special advisor at the San Jose Department of Housing in 2007. He was vice president at First Nationwide Bank from 1990 to 1995.  Warren is a Democrat. This position requires Senate confirmation and the compensation is $150,112.  Warren succeeds Cathy Creswell, who recently announced that she would be stepping down.

As redevelopment agencies shut down last week, criticism shifted from the decision to dissolve them in the first place to the method by which they were dissolved. Assembly Bill X1 26 has been roundly decried as sloppy legislation that was, according to some potential scenarios, never intended to be implemented. Critics say that its provisions may hinder successor agencies' ability to make bond payments and that it includes ambiguous language that could leave projects in limbo.  To correct some of these alleged errors, last week, Assembly Speaker John Pérez (D-Los Angeles), along with six coauthors (all Democrats) introduced AB 1585. The bill would clean up certain provisions of AB X1 26. The bill makes various technical fixes to AB 1x 26 in an attempt to clarify the functions of successor agencies and oversight boards. The bill also seeks to protect affordable housing funds. Like SB 654, which seeks to protect over $1 billion in affordable housing funds, AB 1585 includes an urgency clause and will require a two-thirds vote.  Provisions of AB 1585 include: Changes to the "administrative cost allowance" to include temporary increases in order to carry out enforceable obligations. Temporary increases would be subject to oversight board approval. AB 1585 also specifies that employee costs associated with specific project duties are not included as administrative costs, but rather "project costs." Expansion of the definition of "enforceable obligation" to include any loans specific to a project area or other specified obligations including those between a city and redevelopment agency prior to Dec. 31, 2010. Any such obligations would be subject to oversight board approval prior to payment. Allowance of cities to retain responsibility for housing functions previously performed by the redevelopment agency, including low and moderate income housing. Housing funds must be kept in a separate account and at least 80 percent of the funds must be encumbered within three years. The League of California Cities, a which has led the opposition to the dissolution of redevelopment, calls AB 1585 "a step in the right direction towards addressing some of the concerns raised by cities."

Question: What is sound of urbanism in the California desert? Answer: The sound of birds chirping. Over outdoor loudspeakers.  A press release crossed our desk a few days ago, announcing that CT/KDF Community Development Partners has received funding to redevelop four existing retail buildings and make the entire shopping street sing – literally – with the sound of canned birdsong.  The developer's investment partner (known in some circles as a "lender") U.S. Bancorp Community Development Corp., plans to use $16.15 million from the sale of New Markets Tax Credits to redevelop Lancaster Promenade III, four properties along the new Lancaster Promenade, to be known henceforth as The BLVD (pronounced "bull-vid") in downtown Lancaster.   From the press release: "The BLVD is known for the calming sounds of bird chirping and singing, which have been piped in over 70 speakers for the past several months. The bird chirping, blended with calming synthesized music, is played five hours a day along a half-mile stretch of the boulevard. The piped-in music was the brainstorm of Mayor R. Rex Parris, who says that the chirps have a calming effect on the local population." Make a mental note to yourself: Birdsongs are brainstorms.  This proposal is innovative because sound, per se, is rarely used as a design element in urban areas. One possible exception, if memory serves, is the big barrel vaulted structure that covers historic Fremont Street in Las Vegas, which has a computerized light show with an ear-splitting soundtrack. For further examples, however, I'm stumped. Swallows, of course, play an important role in downtown San Juan Capistrano, by returning each year on the same day, but their melody is apparently unrelated to tax credits.    To my mind, the question is whether little, far-flung Lancaster should be allowed to monopolize the boon of piped-in sounds on public streets. Other California cities have the same right to commit public sound pollution. In the Inland Empire, for instance, which has the highest office vacancy rates in Southern California, we could have loudspeakers blaring the sound of wind whistling through empty spaces, in a creepy way. (Whooo-ooo-ooo!) In high end shopping district of Union Square in San Francisco, we could broadcast the sound of cash registers. (Ka-ching!) In the Pechanga casino outside Palm Springs, we could replicate the sound of a winning slot machine. (Bing-bing-bing, clunk-clunk-clunk-clunk.) And in Sacramento's Old Town, a historic recreation of the city during Gold Rush days, we could pipe in the sounds of a grizzled miner clearing his throat and….  Well, maybe not. But as for the sound of birds, forget it. Lancaster got there first. The "BLVD" in Lancaster. Birdsongs not included in photo.

Even though I'm a professional planner and am familiar with the gritty details, I find model cities appealing because they allow me to examine a city from angles and perspectives not possible in real life. The idea of building a city comprehensively from scratch is exciting, especially when compared to the incremental, piecemeal, and fragmented approach to planning most of us have grown accustomed to.  This sort of fantasy is on full display in Metropolis II, a dynamic kinetic sculpture by artist Chris Burden, currently showing at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art.   Metropolis II features miniature cars that race through the city at 240 scale miles per hour; this means that every hour, the equivalent of about 100,000 cars circulate through the dense network of buildings. Steel beams form an eclectic grid interwoven with a complex system of 18 roadways, including a six-lane freeway and train tracks.  Not only is this sculpture a sight to see, it also features the noise of the zooming cars efficiently captures and communicates the busyness and sometimes craziness of city living.  In Burden's words, "The noise, the continuous flow of the trains, and the speeding toy cars, produces in the viewer the stress of living in a dynamic, active and bustling 21st Century city." Traditional architectural models of future projects or even the impressive models of major cities at Legoland are static, and lack the energy and vibrancy generated by Burden's piece. He suggests that motion is as much a part of a city as form is. As a park planner, I was initially disappointed that Metropolis II does not include any parks or open space.  Although the piece could represent a variety of cities and not just Los Angeles, I even thought Burden could have made the point that Los Angeles is one of the most park-poor cities in the country with Metropolis II.  In fact, Burden represents nature by the use of different colored panels that the buildings rest on.  Thus, while abstract, the green, brown, or light tan panels may be perceived as the parks, open spaces, or recreational areas that contribute to the vitality of any city. Abstract though it may be, this sort of representation suggests, rightfully, that open space is a crucial part of any city, even if buildings and vehicles seem more exciting.        While I spent much time marveling at the wide variety of buildings, Metropolis II is actually more about transportation and mobility than architecture.  It is a representation of Burden's dream of a future city where cars can go faster and are completely automated, as envisioned by projects such as Google's driverless car project.  The buildings were only put in after the car-racing tracks had been installed and the entire kinetic sculpture was operational.         The process and approach Burden took to create Metropolis II is refreshing and admirable because he was able to consider the city in its entirety.  Unfortunately, planning in reality has become fragmented, with planners specializing in particular fields (like transportation, land use, parks) and not necessarily working collaboratively due to bureaucratic and other factors.     Two of the biggest ongoing challenges for us planners are communicating clearly with the public and maintaining interest on important planning issues.  Obviously, through Metropolis II Chris Burden has achieved both, as evidenced by the great turnouts at LACMA and the extensive media coverage.  Part of the appeal of Metropolis II can certainly be attributed to Burden's reputation as the well-known artist who created installations like Urban Light (which is displayed at the entrance to LACMA).   Nevertheless, this does not mean that planners cannot attract or engage large crowds at urban planning events without Burden's participation.  On the contrary, the popularity of Metropolis II should challenge all of us to rethink current practices and pursue innovative ways to involve community members in planning.  For example, James Rojas' interactive planning approach through the use of model building has proven successful in engaging the public and encouraging creative city-making.  Having participated in a Rojas-led exercise before, I understand firsthand how this approach empowers participants by allowing them to shape and share visions in a supportive environment without the fear of providing a "wrong" answer. Metropolis II is open for viewing on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays.  For show times and more information, visit: http://www.lacma.org/art/exhibition/metropolis-ii Clement Lau is a planner with the L.A. County Department of Parks. Photos by Julie Yom.

Government Code Section 65589.5(j) which, among other provisions, requires a city or county to adopt findings justifying the denial or density reduction in circumstances in which the project complies with "applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review standards." This code section was added in an effort to tighten down the discretion exercised by local officials when acting on a housing project application. It is codified as part of the Housing Accountability Act. A companion code section places the burden of proof on the city or county  (Government Code Section 65589.6.).  The facts of H onchariw v. County of Stanislaus decision are relatively simple. Nicholas Honchariw applied for a tentative map approval for an eight-lot subdivision in unincorporated Stanislaus County. The local water district agreed to provide service to one lot where it already had a service connection, but issued a "will not serve" letter with respect to the balance of the proposed project, which was located within its service boundaries. The developer proposed drilling individual wells to serve the remaining seven parcels.  The county code, however, provided that all lots had to connect to a public system, "when available." Staff recommended that the applicant apply for an exception from this code provision, which he did. The planning commission denied the request, and on appeal, the Board of Supervisors denied the map request and the exception request. The board denied the map pursuant to the findings set forth in the Subdivision Map Act, that the site was not physically suitable as it would cause split zoning, and that the septic tanks were close to an existing pond and canal.  Having found the project to be noncompliant, the supervisors declined to adopt the findings under Section 65589.5. Honchariw filed a writ. The Superior Court denied the writ, concluding that the Section 65589.5 findings were not required as project did not meet applicable development standards. Honchariw appealed. On appeal, the county first argued that Section 65589.5 had no applicability as the project was not an affordable project. After reviewing the legislative history, the appellate court concluded that while affordability or other qualifications apply to other provisions of Section 65589, that is not an element of paragraph (j). Turning next to the substantive argument, the appellate court then ruled for the appellant, Honchariw. The appellate court rejected the county's characterization that the tentative map was noncompliant with the county regulations pertaining to a public water connection.  In so ruling, the court sidestepped the question of whether or not the connection policy qualified as "design review standard," but instead concluded it was a requirement which applied at the home building stage, not the subdivision stage, and therefore was not an "applicable" standard. The appellate court then determined that the denial of the exception did not mean a lack of compliance with the ordinance. The appellate court noted that the burden of proof fell on the county (Government Code section 65589.6), and as the record lacked the requisite findings, the appellate court remanded the matter back to the Board of Supervisors for further proceedings.  This does not mean that Honchariw will be able to proceed with the project. That will turn on the subsequent findings adopted by the county. Commentary This case turns largely on the court's interpretation of the county's development policy as to when the connection requirement is applicable (tentative map, final map or building permit). Local officials, when drafting general plan policy and development regulations would serve themselves well by making clear what the timing triggers are for various policies. The next domino likely to fall under this code section will be what happens to a housing project application which complies with "objective" standards, but is otherwise inconsistent with broader statements of policies found in the general plan which in the case of a non residential project, could be readily disapproved. The question of what policies and development requirements are "objective" and potentially require Section 65589.5 findings is a factually specific inquiry, unique to each city and county, with an added variable dependent upon the particular application then pending before the decision makers.  The Case: Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus  (Nov. 14, 2011, F060788)  ___ Cal.App. 4th ___. Filed Nov. 14, 2011. Ordered published Nov. 14, 2011. The Attorneys:  Nicholas Honchariw, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Porter Scott, Carl L. Fessenden, Kristina M. Hall and Ashley M. Wisniewski, for Defendants and Respondents. William W. Abbott is a partner in the law firm of Abbott & Kindermann , LLP, of Sacramento.