San Diego County
27th Annual* *Land Use Law & Planning Conference Attendees, contact the Circulation Manager to access your special discount! 805-652-0695 or email email@example.com!
The next time a Padre hits one out of Petco Park or a tourist orders another round of Pacificos at a bar in the Gaslamp District, many San Diegans will thank the Centre City Development Corporation. If a new plan succeeds, future kudos will go to Civic San Diego.
One of the many key features of 1978’s Proposition 13 was the rolling back of the taxes, and limiting annual increases. A change in ownership was treated as a triggering event for purposes of establishing property valuation, and in turn, the recalculated property tax liability. Duea v. County of San Diego clarifies as aspect of how, and when, tax liability may be recalculated.
SAN DIEGO -- Seeking to make up for lost redevelopment funds, the City of San Diego has decided to require downtown developers to pay processing fees for the first time in decades. But it remains to be seen who will process the permits and get the money – the city’s planning department or the city’s nonprofit downtown redevelopment entity, the Centre City Development Corp.
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.
San Diego politicians and land-use officials have become polarized over an unusual controversy pitting one of the city’s largest private employers against an apartment developer in the city’s downtown area. At issue is whether the proposed Fat City development in the Little Italy neighborhood threatens the operations of nearby Solar Turbines.
Recent polls suggest that Proposition 13 remains as popular today as when it was enacted. Yet, at the same time, residents demand a high level of services which exceed the ability of local officials to fund absent innovation in developing new funding strategies. This innovation in turn has generated a series of voter-enacted limitations designed to further restrict new revenue measures, absent voter approval. Part of this voter legacy is Proposition 218, enacted in 1996 (California Constitution Art XIIID).
Jurisdictions across California have slowly come to accept that their environmental reviews under the California Environmental Quality Act now must address greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, relatively few rulings exist to help jurisdictions establish thresholds by which to analyze a project’s GHG impact. A recent case suggests that Assembly Bill 32, California’s 2006 climate change law, may provide a reasonable guide.
If, as the adage goes, it’s impossible to tell the dancer from the dance, then it might be even harder to tell the SCS from the RTP.
A world away from the Gaslamp Quarter and the Hotel del Coronado, eastern San Diego County is often described as California’s own outback. Its roughly 3,600 square miles of unincorporated county territory encompasses mountains, farmland, and deserts – and includes only 16% of the county’s 3 million residents. For the past 12 years, county officials and stakeholders have been trying to decide how to marry an ardently rural area with 21st century planning principles.
An agreement between the County of San Diego and the state Department of Corrections to site a state prison reentry facility does not require the county to conduct environmental review prior to entering into the agreement because it did not constitute a commitment to a definite course of action, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled. In the agreement, the county identified potential locations for the reentry facility in exchange for preference in the award of state financing for county jails.