Vol. 24 No. 16 Nov 2009 - 2
27th Annual* *Land Use Law & Planning Conference Attendees, contact the Circulation Manager to access your special discount! 805-652-0695 or email firstname.lastname@example.org!
The package of water legislation approved by state lawmakers and signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger earlier this month may be the most ambitious attempt yet to address the troubled Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. However, the legislation angers and worries many interests in and around the Delta, including local government leaders concerned about their ability to approve development.
Residents of the Riverside County city of Temecula, which has been among the state’s fastest growing cities for 20 years, have run into some growth they do not want. City leaders and local residents are opposing a proposed quarry located one mile south of the city limits near the San Diego County line.
News from around the state: A Riverside County grand jury has indicted four San Jacinto councilmen and four people in the development business; San Marcos has adopted a specific plan for a new downtown; Yolo County has completed an ambitious general plan update; and Santa Clara County property owners are letting an open space district keep the proceeds of an illegal tax.
Two separate California Environmental Quality Act lawsuits over unrelated measures that raised revenue for transportation purposes have been thrown out by the state Court of Appeal. One case involved a half-cent sales tax in Santa Barbara County. The other concerned a Los Angeles bus fare increase.
A report by the California state auditor gives the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) generally good marks for overseeing nearly $5 billion in bond funds approved by voters.
A state appellate court has struck down a California Environmental Quality Act exemption for an air district rule permitting new power plants to offset emissions by paving roads. The court found that the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District did not have adequate evidence to support its finding that the rule could not have a negative impact on the environment.
A developer is not entitled to reimbursement or damages from a consultant hired by a local government to complete an environmental impact report, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. Even when the consultant fails to complete an EIR in a timely manner, the consultant owes no contractual duty to the developer that paid for the consultant, the court concluded.