Articles

In an extremely long and complex opinion, the Sixth District Court of Appeal has upheld water discharge permits for Duke Energy's Moss Landing power plant.

The Second District Court of Appeal has rejected the environmental review of an oil refinery project in Wilmington and Carson because the South Coast Air Quality Management District used an improper baseline for measuring impacts. Instead of relying on the refinery's permitted level of nitrogen oxides emissions for the baseline, the air district should have used the actual level of emissions, which was less than half the permitted amount, the court ruled.

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.

Is Gov. Schwarzenegger's "Strategic Growth Council" simply the latest in a decades-long string of gubernatorial efforts to make it look like they're dealing with growth? Or can Schwarzenegger actually take coherent action on growth by appointing a Cabinet-level council devoted to the issue?

It's probably a little bit of both.

A pro-development initiative in San Luis Obispo County was not the proper subject for an initiative, a San Luis Obispo Superior Court judge has ruled. Meanwhile, a slow-growth initiative approved by Loma Linda voters in 2006 was upheld by a San Bernardino County Superior Court judge.

A ruling that could result in more plant and animal listings under the California Endangered Species Act will stand. The state Supreme Court on February 13 declined to review a decision by the Third District Court of Appeal, which held that "evolutionary significant units" of a species may qualify for protection, and that state officials need only consider a species' range within California.

A trial court judge's decision ordering the closure of a neighborhood market in Santa Monica has been thrown out by the Second District Court of Appeal. The unanimous three-judge appellate panel said that the lower court judge misread two agreements between property owners and the City of Santa Monica in a way that improperly superceded the city's police power.

A city council or board of supervisors must wait until receiving a planning commission's recommendation before the legislative body gives 10-day notice of a public hearing on the matter, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court also determined that the planning commission's recommendation must be part of the notice.

Stanislaus County voters on Tuesday approved a growth control initiative that prohibits the rezoning of agricultural land in unincorporated areas without voter approval. Elsewhere in California on Super Tuesday, voters in Santa Clara and Rocklin upheld housing project approvals, while voters in San Clemente overturned conversion of a golf course into condominiums.

The California Supreme Court has dismissed a case involving San Diego County's antenna ordinance because the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the ordinance last year.

News from around California: The battle continues over Santee's Fanita Ranch; a Congressional commission recommends tripling the gas tax; Bay Area builders go green; Caltrans demands a refund from Placentia; global warming suit dropped in San Bernardino County; Diablo Grande goes on the market; the historic Cocoanut Grove falls; proposed Barstow casinos die; Madera County water controversy roils; San Bernardino corruption figures must pay up; San Francisco Supervisor forced to resign; local taxing authority explained.

In a case that the court called "unnecessarily complicated," the Fifth District Court of Appeal has ruled against residents challenging the environmental review of a 219-house subdivision in the foothills of Porterville.

Like boxers vying for a title, two very different ideas of planning are competing for the future of Alameda Point, a 770-acre community carved out of the former military base next to Alameda, the city.