LOS ANGELES -- For the wind-down of redevelopment to be anything short of a train wreck, successor agencies and oversight boards are going to need a keen understanding of real estate, public policy, economic development, and, of course, accounting. They're also going to need a lot of coffee and patience. But, according to Timothy McOsker, a member of the three-person board serving as successor agency for the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency, the successful completion of the wind-down process is going to require something more subtle.  At this Tuesday's UrbanScape conference, presented by UCLA's Ziman Center for Real Estate and  UCLA Lewis Center , McOsker posited that ultimate agreement on crucial matters such as what to do with agencies' assets and how to approve enforceable obligation will be as much a matter of negotiation and people skills as they are of bean-counting. This was just one of countless insights posited by a panel charged with the unenviable task of explaining what the next year or so will bring for cities, RDA staff, and the nebula of professionals who used to work on redevelopment projects. McOsker noted that the Los Angeles City Council chose not to serve as successor agency because "presumably because they thought the job was impossible." Los Angeles' list of potential enforceable obligations amounts to a reported $1.8 billion.  The challenge McOsker and his colleges around the state face is one of many reasons why, if nothing else, Gov. Jerry Brown's decision to kill of redevelopment in California has led to a profusion of conferences, workshops, discussions, and task forces. Rather than the standard affair in which panelists discuss faraway plans or rehash information that is already well known, yesterday's conference took place in front of a rapt audience. And why shouldn't they be rapt?  Among the small sample of attendees with whom I chatted, there was a landscape architect who is now seeing projects dry up. An executive from one of Los Angeles' biggest affordable housing developers who now doesn't know where much of his funding is going to come from. There were consultants, developers, and public officials all of whom came for real information and usable insight into one of the swiftest changes in the history of California public policy.  CP&DR publisher Bill Fulton led a panel exploring the current state of affairs: the organized chaos that is the wind-down process and the immediate future in which newly formed agencies and oversight committees will try to figure out which pieces of the RDA pie get sold off and which can be kept by cities that are now starving for ways to stimulate their economies. Keep in mind, it's a pretty big pie: at the time of its demise, redevelopment's tax increment accounted for a full 12% of the state's property tax revenue. No wonder Gov. Brown was so eager to get his hands on it.   For Fulton's part, he presented himself as "the only mayor in California who supported the governor." Recently stepped down from his post as mayor of Ventura, Fulton felt that redevelopment needed reform and that gridlock in Sacramento was unlikely to loosen without radical action. None of his panelists necessarily disagreed: it seems, indeed, that the argument over the wisdom of the governor's plan is long gone. Now cities are too busy figuring out what to do with the wreckage of redevelopment.  But it's not just cities, of course. In the coming weeks and months, county auditor-controllers will be inundated by RDAs' books. They will help confirm the share of tax increment that used to go to different entities and the share that will now flow back to those entites in the absence of RDA. oversight boards, which have yet to be formed, will get to wrangle over which projects get to live and which get to die. The negotiations will be intense between those who want not another dime of tax incremnt to go to local projects and those who believe that it would be a waste to let projects die on the vine.  Then there's the Department of Finance. If the death of redevelopment had played out as the Legislature intended -- i.e. if it had been a voluntary culling rather than a massacre -- all of this might work might be taken in stride. The Legislature reasonably expected that a few agenices here and there -- a handful per county -- might have folded rather than agree to the "voluntary" transfer payments to the state. Instead, Finance has 400 dead agencies on its hands, and county auditor-controllers have to deal with every agency in their respective counties.  This is why McOsker was so adamant about the need for "social IQ." Many of the decisions that will be made in the coming months will not necessarily be the result of careful deliberation but rather will take place in frenzy. The Department of Finance likely will not care to appreciate the nuance of every question that arises, and, in many cases, it may tell oversight boards simply to make their own decisions. The ability for public officials to get along with each other may therefore determine the fate of what's left of redevelopment agencies. This is especially important for cities, which, as Fulton noted, are outnumbered, 2-5, on the oversight boards.  Conversely, if Finance doesn't make big decisions, then what about the small decisions? McOsker noted that AB X1 26 is fuzzy on successor agencies and oversight boards' powers and obligations. He posited the "paper clip problem": if the legislation doesn't specifically authorize the purchase of paper clips, then what do successor agencies do when they need to stick two pieces of paper together?  That question is especially pressing since most of them will have to put together far more than just two pieces of paper.  As for all of those audience members looking for answers and, possibly, for business: they may have to keep waiting. Though all the panelists, including Renta Simril, of Jones Lang Lasalle, and Tony Salazar, of McCormack Barron Salazar, were optimistic about the prospects for a replacement to redevelopment, it may not happen soon. As Fulton noted, it's going to be a lot harder for state to give up money that it now controls rather than to take funds away, as it did with the ERAF payments of the past decade.  "I think the governor is waiting for the body to get colder," said Fulton.

This week Senate Pro Tem Darrel Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) introduced two bills that seek to solve what many consider to be serious problems caused by the demise of redevelopment. The first would give cities and successor agencies greater powers to maximize the value of redevelopment agency assets rather than subject them to a "fire sale." The second represnts a holy grail for many housing advocates: a consistent, dedicated source of funding for affordable housing, to the tune of up to $700 million per year.  SB 1151 would require the successor agency (usually cities in the area formerly covered by the RDA) to prepare a long-range asset management plan that outlines a strategy for maximizing the long-term value of the real property and assets of the former redevelopment agency for ongoing economic development and housing functions. The bill would require the successor agency to submit the plan to the Department of Finance and the oversight board by December 1, 2012, and would require the approval of the plan by the department and oversight board by December 31, 2012. SB 1156 would allow and authorize the use of new joint powers authorities and a new financing option for cities and counties throughout the state to develop sustainable economic development and affordable housing. The bill would require the new authority to assume from a successor agency the responsibility for managing the assets and property of the former redevelopment agency . Funds would be raised from a $75 recording fee assessed to real estate transactions throughout the state. These funds would help replace the 20% set-aside lost when redevelopment agencies went out of business Feb. 1.

LOS ANGELES -- Yesterday's "California's UrbanScape" conference on redevelopment, presented by UCLA Ziman Center for Real Estate and UCLA Lewis Center, was kicked off by perhaps the member of the California Legislature most sympathetic to redevelopment--and therefore most remorseful about the current state of affairs.  State Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Los Angeles) was one of the only Democrats in the Senate to break ranks with Gov. Jerry Brown and vote against the dissolution of redevelopment. Yesterday he offered some optimistic words for the future of redevelopment, assuring the audience that "both houses support some sort of re-creation of economic development at the local level."  Padilla has co-sponsored Senate Bill 659, which would restore some of the affordable housing funding that disappeared with the demise of redevelopment.  The current situation arose in part because the Legislature that voted for Brown's plan failed to understand what redevelopment meant for low-income neighborhoods, according to Padilla. Having represented a low-income area of Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley Padilla said, "even without tools like redevelopment…there's going to be an interest in the Westside. But without redevelopment, would communities like the Eastside, like South Los Angeles even be on the radar for developers, for retailers, for housing investors?"  "That is a point of view and factor that, I think, fell on deaf ears last year in the State Capitol," said Padilla.  Even if the Legsilature did not appreciate what it was doing, Padilla reinforced one of the chief arguments advanced by its supporters doing last year's legislative and legal battles: "the Legislature intended for an alternative mechanism to continue local economic development activity at the local level." In other words, redevelopment's death was accidental, due to legislation -- AB X1 26 and AB X1 27 -- that was crafted hastily and poorly last summer. That haste is in stark contrast with how Sacramento usually works.  "It's not like the state of California was born yesterday," said Padilla. "The public policy challenges that we've had before us are either the new things or the very complicated things." Killing redevelopment was in the latter category, according to Padilla.  As cities and successor agencies try to implement the provisions of AB X1 26, Padilla said that people in the Capitol are already thinking about the equally complicated task of replacing redevelopment. He insisted that a new program might also be based on tax increment financing but with "significantly less dollar amounts than what we were accustomed to, and more structured and, in some ways constrained, by new policies that have been adopted." Padilla said that state policies such as those to reduce greenhouse gas emissions might guide the next incarnation of redevelopment.  While Padilla said that the Legislature would support such a move, he said that the biggest obstacle may be the governor.  "He got what he wanted," said Padilla. "I don't see the policy pushes and pulls for him to really engage here." Nevertheless, Padilla exhorted supporters of redevelopment to embrace the complicated discussions that are likely to ensue.  "There's a lot of excitement about what that could and should look like and very few people interested in dealing with the muck that has been created," said Padilla.

The Planning Center | DC&E is looking for an urban planner to join our team in the newly established Downtown Los Angeles office. We are seeking someone who is passionate and deeply committed to produce planning and urban design documents that are transformative in shaping and improving our communities. We are looking for someone who is on track for increasing responsibility for project management and marketing. Key qualifications for this position: ? Degree in urban planning, architecture, urban design, or related professional program ? Minimum of three years working for a municipal planning agency or private consulting firm ? Experience in writing policy sections for comprehensive general plans, specific plans, and comparable planning products ? Understands integration of urban form with policy planning and capable of conceptualizing physical development concepts ? Capable of addressing prevailing planning issues and best practices such as climate change, sustainability, and healthy cities ? Understands the tools and methods of public outreach and engagement and able to effectively participate in public meetings ? Has worked collaboratively in a multi-disciplinary environment ? Maintains a healthy and balanced life

As cities across the state are contemplating if and how they can spur economic and real estate development in the absence of redevelopment, the Los Angeles County city of Alhambra has taken early steps towards a self-help plan.   Last week the Alhambra City Council heard a first reading of an ordinance that would empower the city to employ a range of economic development tools and to pursue funds to pay for them now that tax increment financing is no longer available. The ordinance would vest in the city many of the powers that the redevelopment agency held.  The ordinance would permit the city to buy and sell land, provide financial assistance to developers, rehabilitate and remediate city-own land, among other strategies. And it would empower the city to work closely with developers on projects that the city deems desirable.   "Activities in that program would be very similar to the tools used with redevelopment in the sense that we'll be able to continue with a lot of activities that we were using," said Julio Fuentes, Alhambra city manager and president of the board of the California Redevelopment Association.  Fuentes considers it a stopgap measure enabling the city to pursue projects as it and the state's other cities wait for a statewide replacement to redevelopment to emerge from Sacramento. Some say that "Redevelopment 2.0" could be years away.  "We will at least be able to at least continue to do work and if there is a statewide strategy created," said Fuentes.  Alhambra's is possibly the first such ordinance to be considered in the state since redevelopment was dissolved Feb. 1. Fuentes said that other cities have contacted him to inquire about the ordinance, presumably with an eye towards replicating it.  "You have to look towards a self-help program where you need to sit down with your councils and city attorney…and design a program that works for you," said Fuentes.  The ordinance would permit the city to seek funds such as Section 108 and Community Development Block Grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Fuentes also said that it could open the door for the city to garner funds generated by new developments, such as sales tax revenue from new retail establishments. Fuentes suggested that the city could pursue lines of credit, loan transfers, and the sale of city assets. He also proposed that the city could set aside a certain portion of the property tax that it receives from new projects and dedicate it to economic development. Fuentes is particularly enthusiastic about HUD grants because, he said, HUD is focusing on job creation now more than ever before.  Perhaps most importantly, the ordinance calls for the city to retain its former redevelopment staff. Many supporters of redevelopment have speculated that the dissolution of redevelopment agencies and dispersion of RDA staff would make future economic development efforts difficult for lack of expertise, institutional memory, and bureaucratic infrastructure.  Fuentes said that Alhambra can consider the ordinance because it is a charter city. General law cities may have more complicated legal considerations.  Fuentes warned, however, that this sort of local effort will not replace the former system of redevelopment.  "I think we can strive to accomplish the same goals and objectives that the agency had," said Fuentes. "But I think that when you look at the total effort here, it's not going to be on the same level as the agency's effort."

Amid confusion and frustration on the part of former redevelopment agencies, the Legislative Analyst's Office released a report today analyzing the wind-down as dictated by Assembly Bill X1 26 and making recommendations for some legislative patches to that law. The report reviews the history of RDAs, the events that led to their dissolution, and the process communities are using to resolve their financial obligations. The report recommends the Legislature amend the redevelopment dissolution legislation to address timing issues, clarify the treatment of pass–through payments, and address key concerns of redevelopment bond investors. Overall, the report is lukewarm on the former redevelopment system as a statewide economic development tool. It notes that the TIF financing system--which represented 12% of the state's total intake of property taxes--cost the state as much as do the University of California or Cal State systems "but did not appear to yield commensurate statewide benefits."  But with the die already cast in favor of disbanding redevelopment, the report offers analysis of how much money the state actually stands to recoup and discusses the wind-down process. It notes that the estimated $1.8 billion that is estimated to be distributed to local governments in 2011-12 and 2012-13 could be off by "hundreds of millions of dollars" and it reiterates the fact that the dissolution of redevelopment does not increase total revenues -- it just redistributes them.  "As we look over the estimates, we point out that there's a large degree of uncertainty," said Marianne O'Malley, the report's lead author. "Not in the long term, but in the short term, how much and when is not clear."  Other major findings and near-term recommendations include the following:  Although ending redevelopment was not the Legislature's goal, the state had few practical alternatives.  Design of replacement program merits careful consideration.  The redevelopment agency unwinding process could yield important civic bene?ts.  Hold hearings to promote local review over use of the property tax.  Provide funding to train K-14 oversight board members.  Alternative use of redevelopment assets raises dif?cult policy and ?scal issues.  Key state and local choices will drive state ?scal effect.  Clarifying amendments would help implementation of ABX1 26.  Clarify treatment of pass-through payments.  Address timing issues.  Clarify authority to take actions to ensure that funds are available to pay bonded indebtedness. The report also anticipates alternatives to redevelopment that might emerge. They include strategies and tools, usable at the municipal and/or statewide level, such as business improvement districts, infrastructure financing districts, property tax debt override, regulatory changes (such as relaxing parking requirements, changing zoning, streamlining project approvals, etc.), and state housing assistance.  Despite the complexity of the wind-down process and the uncertainties that the report identifies, O'Malley said that she came away believing that the process could spark a healthy discussion about local development and the use of property tax money. She noted that the competing interests of the members of the oversight boards will ensure that there will be vigorous debates over whether to continue certain projects or whether to liquidate them and return the funds to the respective local entities.  "I think those kinds of political debates about how the property tax should be used is long overdue in California," said O'Malley. "I started off looking at the oversight board and getting very worried at the complexity of all of this and then I started thinking that there are some enormously good civic side benefits that could result." The full, 32-page report can be found here:  http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/PubDetails.aspx?id=2564

The best method for setting the proper baseline in a CEQA document still remains a matter of debate. For the project opponents, the payoff is often big if they can convince a court that the wrong baseline was used, as the ensuing analysis is all keyed to the baseline. If the wrong baseline is used, then the balance of the CEQA evaluations is upset. Citizens for East Shore Parks v. California State Lands Commission, the last CEQA decision for 2011, involves one of those baseline challenges.  The facts involve a lease extension between Chevron and the State Lands Commission for a marine terminal in the Bay Area city of Richmond. Originally built in 1902, the terminal had been periodically upgraded. In 1947, the Lands Commission entered into a 50-year lease with Chevron's predecessor. Starting in 1998 with the NOP, the Commission eventually certified the EIR for the lease extension, nine years later. CEQA litigation followed, with a case filed by a neighborhood group. The key issue in the case was the setting of the baseline. While administratively the Commission had considered the baseline as if no terminal was currently operating, it eventually determined that the appropriate baseline included existing active terminal operations. The opponents argued that a "no terminal" baseline was appropriate on the basis that the Commission had the right to not extend the lease, effectively terminating the activity. The appellate court disagreed.  The lead agency had the discretion to include the existing operations, and whether viewed as a question of substantial evidence or as a question of law, the appellate court held that the Lands Commission chose correctly. The commission's actions did not include the error of including hypothetical operations, a practice invalidated by the California Supreme Court in Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 315. Most of the opponent's remaining arguments were hinged to their initial argument that the commission erred in its baseline selection. The appellate court rejected those claims as well, including an argument that the commission erred in failing to study an alternative that assumed that the terminal did not exist. Because the proposed lease activity had no impacts to recreational activities, there was no duty to examine potential impacts to trail plans (land and aquatic). The appellate court also rejected an argument that the project description was too narrowly drawn as it omitted the upland operations associated with the refinery. As the appellate court observed, the commission only had jurisdiction over the lease for the marine terminal, it was not required to consider the existing refinery as connected to the proposed lease. The appellate court also considered the claim that the lease violated the public trust doctrine. Upon achieving statehood, the State of California acquired title to all tidal and navigable river lands, and holds them in trust for the public. However, the appellate court concluded that the granting of a lease for a marine terminal was consistent with the public trust, and declined the urgings of the project opponents to compel the commission to engage in a wide-ranging identification, evaluation and mitigation of other potential public trust uses. The Case:  Citizens for East Shore Parks v. California State Lands Commission 2011 Cal.App. LEXIS 1645. No. A129896. Filed December 30, 2011. The Attorneys: Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker, Stephan C. Volker, Stephanie L. Abrahams, Daniel Garrett-Steinman, Jamey M.B. Volker and Joshua A.H. Harris for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, John A. Saurenman, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Christiana Tiedemann, Supervising Deputy Attorney General and Joel S. Jacobs, Deputy Attorney General for Defendant and Respondent. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, Ronald E. Van Buskirk, Kevin M. Fong and Todd W. Smith for Real Parties in Interest and Respondents. William W. Abbott is a partner in the Sacramento law firm of Abbott & Kindermann, LLP. www.aklandlaw.com

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 .