Articles

The premise behind the categorical exemptions in the California Environmental Quality Act for infill and single-family projects is that projects in relatively dense, established urban areas are unlikely to create major impacts. According to a recent decision, this premise has its limits.  

The definition of wetland would seem to be self-evident: wet land. If only it were that easy in California. 

From vernal pools that slowly diminish in the Central Valley heat to brackish estuaries separating ocean from land, California's topography includes some of the most varied types of wetlands imaginable. Their numbers and varieties baffle that which governmental regulations such as the federal Clean Water Act describe. 

With the American Planning Association National Conference arriving in Los Angeles tomorrow, it's likely that more planners than usual will not just be attending lectures and idly networking but rather will be actively, and sometimes desperately, trying to remain in the profession. 

Loath as I am to make grand pronouncements, I think Bay Meadows, the 83-acre project in San Mateo, is possibly the best plan I've seen for a transit oriented development. 

For many jurisdictions that are part of California's "Big Four" metropolitan planning organizations, Senate Bill 375 has ushered in new, unprecedented degrees of collaboration. But whereas SB 375 makes a regional planning revolution for many, for the jurisdictions of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, the SCS is business as usual. 

In San Diego County, a dispute involving a long overdue application for a conditional use permit has resulted in the closure of a church that had been essentially squatting in a trailer park for over 25 years. 

Having already prepared one environmental impact report that was set aside by a court, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea undertook a new EIR for the purposes of evaluating the impacts of the city disposing, by sale or lease, of a historic mansion. 

As the adage goes, they may not be making any more real estate these days. But, for some bargain-hunters, the death of redevelopment may be the next best thing. 

Though most cities maintained full-time redevelopment teams, not all the work was done in-house. That would be hard to do in a $5 billion annual industry, with countless moving parts in hundreds of agencies across the state. 

Smart growthers tout transit-oriented development more often than any other strategy. Yet with the exception of a few few showpiece developments, TOD has yet to catch fire in practice. This year, the American Planning Association recognized one such development in the hopes that, finally, the trend will catch on. 

Having already prepared one environmental impact report that was set aside by a court, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea undertook a new EIR for the purposes of evaluating the impacts of the City disposing, by sale or lease, of a historic mansion. That EIR and the special circumstances surrounding publically owned historic structures were at issue in Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-By-The-Sea.  

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 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. 

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.