California

After a lull during the off-year election of 2007, land use initiatives and referendums are starting to reappear on local ballots this June. Voters in at least seven jurisdictions are scheduled to decide measures that are related directly or indirectly to what gets built and where. » read more | add to cart

In this month's roundup of land use news: The Los Angeles City Planning Commission president gets her wish – a lawsuit against the city; Rancho San Juan conflict settled in Monterey County; planning director's role as head of LAFCO upheld by court; Napa County grand jury scrutinizes farmworker housing cost overruns. » read more | add to cart

The state Supreme Court has accepted a case involving the baseline for an environmental impact report of a Southern California oil refinery project. The decision to accept the case means the state high court now has four California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) cases pending. » read more | add to cart

I hate to be repetitious, but sometimes in the column-writing business it’s inevitable.

Eighteen months ago, I wrote that the debate over Proposition 90 came down to two unfortunately simpleminded campaign slogans – “protect our homes” or “taxpayer trap.” The latter won, but not by much. So now we’ve got Proposition 98 on the June ballot – a watered-down and slightly sideways version of Proposition 90. And for good measure we’ve got Proposition 99 – a countermeasure put forth by local government organizations that would restrict eminent domain, but only in the case of owner-occupied single-family homes.

» read more | add to cart

In a potentially important decision for environmental advocates, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled that environmental groups are eligible for attorney’s fees in a Bay-Delta water lawsuit, even though public agencies won similar litigation. » read more | add to cart

State water quality officials are continuing to press forward with more and more strict regulations for stormwater runoff. In response, planners and developers are worried about the cost of implementation and potentially unintended consequences. » read more | add to cart

An air pollution fee on new development in the San Joaquin Valley has been upheld by a Fresno County Superior Court. Judge Donald Black rejected numerous arguments against the fee in a lawsuit filed by the California Building Industry Association (CBIA), the Modesto Chamber of Commerce, Valley Taxpayers Association and affordable housing developer Coalition of Urban Renewal Excellence.

» read more | add to cart

The Coastal Commission’s ability to prevent development by designating environmentally sensitive habitat areas appears to depend on the existence of a certified local coastal program (LCP).

In a case from Sand City, the First District Court of Appeal said the Coastal Commission could not overturn Sand City's approval of a 495-unit housing project based on the Commission’s conclusion that the site is an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA). The court said that because Sand City’s LCP did not designate the site as ESHA, the Commission could not do so during an appeal of the housing project. However, in a case from Los Angeles County, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that the Commission could reject a landowner’s coastal development permit in part because the site is not covered by a certified LCP.

» read more | add to cart

A key document in the evolving methodology for evaluating development’s impact on climate change has been released by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association.  

Called “CEQA & Climate Change – Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act,” the white paper is lengthy (more than 140 pages), detailed and highly technical. » read more | add to cart

Stanislaus County voters became the first in the Central Valley to approve a county-wide growth-control initiative when they backed a ballot measure that prohibits the rezoning of agricultural land for residential uses without voter approval.

While voters in what had been growth-friendly Stanislaus County endorsed growth control, voters in Santa Clara and Rocklin backed specific housing projects. Meanwhile, voters in San Clemente overturned the city’s approval of a condominium project. Also on Super Tuesday, voters in the western Riverside County community of Wildomar supported incorporation, but voters in the Sierra foothills community of Oakhurst rejected formation of a new city. » read more | add to cart