Articles

An appellate court has upheld an airport land use compatibility plan that a Solano County landowner argued was overly restrictive.

The court rejected the landowner's contention that Solano County's Travis Air Force Base Land Use Compatibility Plan (TALUP) was inconsistent with an Air Force plan because the TALUP used a tighter noise threshold and assumed greater airport use than did the Air Force. The court found nothing in state law that prevented the country from being more restrictive of growth around an airport.

A Contra Costa County order directing a water ski club to remove 28 unpermitted dwelling units plus docks and accessory structures has been upheld by the First District Court of Appeal.

Despite the fact that some of the structures have been in place for 40 years, the county has the authority to order their removal, the court ruled. The court rejected the ski club's argument that the abatement order was a taking of private property and violation of constitutional rights, and the court denied the club's request to limit the county's abatement order.

Senate Bill 375 is alternately being described as the most important land use legislation since the California Coastal Act of 1976, and a step in the right direction. Only time will tell whether the bill is a landmark or an incremental step, but there is no denying that SB 375 author Sen. Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) aimed high. "At the heart of this effort," Steinberg said, "is the need to integrate our housing and transportation plans to create sustainable communities."

Steinberg's bill was by far the most significant land use legislation approved during the two-year legislative session that concluded on August 31.

In this month's roundup: The state auditor says the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority is making strides; the state auditor releases the third report in a series on the plan to build a new death row at San Quentin; the largest deslination project in the country has received final approval; Hercules tries to grow smart; L.A. bans fast-food in the inner city.

A lawsuit challenging the City of Pleasanton's housing policies has been reinstated by the First District Court of Appeal after a trial court judge had ruled the lawsuit was filed too late. The unanimous three-judge appellate panel determined the statute of limitations for the lawsuit had not expired. The court concluded housing advocates had at least three years to sue the city.

Two referendums of large housing projects in the City of Loma Linda have been reinstated by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The court overturned a Superior Court judge's decision to pull the referendums from the June 2006 ballot because referendum petitions failed to contain the full text of challenged ordinances. The Fourth District found the petitions to be legally adequate, clearing the referendums to appear on ballots in 2009.

Calling Proposition 13, "deeply flawed," a new report by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy recommends entirely new approaches to property tax relief.

A federal judge's ruling blocking development of a controversial condominium project on the shore of Big Bear Lake has been thrown out by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that the district court had no jurisdiction to consider alleged Clean Water Act violations because environmental groups' notices to the developer regarding potential violations of the act were inadequate and federal agencies were already forcing corrective action. The Ninth Circuit further rejected alleged violations of the Endangered Species Act as both bogus and moot.

Denial of a conditional use permit renewal is a "project" requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act, the Third District Court of Appeal has determined. The court ruled for the owner of an airport in Sacramento County whose application for a conditional use permit (CUP) renewal was denied by the county Board of Supervisors without any environmental review.

A general plan that does not address the issue of climate change appears to be an endangered species.

Numerous cities and counties in the process of updating their general plans are addressing climate change with policies for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and, to a lesser extent, adapting to changing conditions. Some localities have adopted climate action plans that affect the general plan and other long-term planning documents, while others have written specific general plan policies and implementation measures.

Today more than ever planners are recommending— and being urged to recommend —"sustainable" development practices. But what makes a development truly sustainable remains an open question, as there is uncertainty over what the sustainable community may look like as little as one generation in the future.

In interviews that CP&DR recently conducted with planners, academics, developers and advocates, a rough consensus of sustainable development began to emerge: The sustainable community will be compact, have numerous transportation options besides the car, and be far more energy-efficient than today's neighborhoods and cities.

When an untimely freeze destroyed the Tulare County citrus crop two years ago, costing many people their farm labor jobs, the City of Lindsay responded with a program modeled on the Works Project Administration. The city built a number of projects, the most novel of which was the conversion of an empty fruit-packing plant into a 172,000-square-foot sports and fitness complex.

The majority of California's unique plant species could lose most of their geographic ranges during the next 100 years because of climate change, according to a newly released report by biologists at several universities. The finding could have dramatic implications for land management in California, especially in areas with local or regional habitat plans.

A property assessment to fund open space acquisitions in Santa Clara County has been invalidated by the state Supreme Court, which ruled that the assessment violated Proposition 218.

The court found that the assessment on 314,000 parcels spread across 800 square miles provided only general benefits and was therefore a special tax that should have gone before voters. The unanimous court said that property owner's 2001 approval of the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (OSA) assessment was not legal under the state constitution.