Everyone loves parks, right? They're a crucial amenity for young and old alike. Well, apparently not everybody. 

In the case of West Chandler Boulevard Neighborhood Association v. City of Los Angeles, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, considered the validity of the City of Los Angeles' grant of a conditional use permit, height variance and parking variance to a Chabad of North Hollywood, which was operating a synagogue in a residential neighborhood within the city. 

In the case of South Orange County Wastewater Authority v. City of Dana Point (2011) 196 Cal. App. 4th 1604 ("South Orange"), the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District was asked to order an environmental impact report (EIR) be prepared to assess the impact on the environment of a proposed project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Court of Appeal declined to order such an EIR.

The Sustainable Communities Strategy unveiled in December by the Southern California Association of Governments struck its member cities and counties with all the uncertainty of an unwrapped Christmas gift. 

LOS ANGELES—For as long as I can remember, civic leaders in Southern California have been touting "regionalism." They insist that an area as interconnected as Los Angeles and its satellites really ought to coordinate how it grows and what it invests in. This sort of rhetoric usually goes no further than sparsely attended final panel discussions at a conferences about leadership or land use or some such. It's hard to "be regional" when everything from county boundaries to uncooperative public officials keep everything in its respective silos. 

In a few years, if the funding lines up and environmental clearances are issued, California may welcome the nation's very first high-speed rail system, a high-tech wonder that promises to alleviate traffic, reduce pollution, and get Californians to the blackjack tables as quickly as humanly possible.  

For a lot of planners, the idea of an "infill exemption" to the California Environmental Quality Act has been a kind of holy grail over the past few years. CEQA is a fact of life in California and unlikely to go away. But having to run though the entire CEQA process for a project a quarter-acre infill site – just as you might for a project on 5,000 acres of raw land – has been more than a little frustrating for developers and planners alike. Sure, an infill project has an impact. But if getting environmental clearance is a hassle, then what's the point?

The past few years have been great for not building things. The Great Recession has particularly devastated developers building on the urban fringe, who found themselves saddled with entitlements for homes that no one would ever buy. 

But for a distinct group of non-developers, the so-called Great Recession has been great for business. 

The outreach process that developers and planners often undergo has always struck me as less a negotiation and more like a perverse game of Marco Polo. Planners and stakeholders chase each other blindly, never quite knowing where each other are and rarely knowing what to do if one actually catches up with the other. It goes something like this: 

"Setbacks?"  "10 feet!"

"FAR?" "2.5!"

"Height limit?"  "40 feet!"

"Parking...?" Don't get me started. 

As the state's public disclosure statute, the California Environmental Quality Act directs lead agencies to disclose the likely impacts associated with agency approval of projects. And while legal caution dictates that more disclosure is preferable to less disclosure, lead agencies have to recognize that there are two notable exceptions to this practice: information relating to cultural resources, as outlined in Government Code section 6254, CEQA Guidelines section 15120(d), and trade secrets, per CEQA Guidelines section 15120(d).