Articles

Remember the cliché about "the deal you can't refuse?" The park-for-a-billboard caper in the city of Los Angeles is just such a deal. I'll tell you about it. (Just as soon, that is, as you put that bottle back in the bag where it belongs. I have no desire to add another item to my institutional resume.)

Granted, the billboard story is hard to explain, because at bottom this deal makes so little sense.

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.

The City of Half Moon Bay has reached a settlement agreement with a developer who won a takings lawsuit against the city. Last December, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker awarded developer Charles Keenan $36.8 million in damages, plus interest and attorney's fees, because an incomplete city drainage project had transformed an approved 24-acre housing project site into an unbuildable wetland (see CP&DR In Brief, January 2008).

A property owner that lost a California Environmental Quality Act suit against the City of San Rafael has been told to pay the city for costs incurred recovering emails related to the property and a proposed development project.

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.

An environmental impact report is necessary for a 120-unit senior housing facility in the City of Grand Terrace, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled. The unanimous three-judge appellate panel upheld a trial court judge's ruling that a mitigated negative declaration for the project was inadequate.

The City of Baldwin Park is pressing forward with an extremely ambitious redevelopment project that would convert the present downtown area of mostly single story commercial structures and modest houses into a very high-density, mixed-use district adjacent to a Metrolink station. However, the city's extensive planning and a deal with a developer may be for naught if state voters approve eminent domain restrictions that will appear on the June ballot.

Dave Brown of Calabasas is this year's recipient of the American Planning Association's leadership award for a planning advocate. A member of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy advisory committee since 1985 and a Calabasas planning commissioner since 1992, Brown has been involved in land use and natural resources issues in the area since the 1970s. He received the award in part for his "overlooked but instrumental" role in creating the 153,000-acre Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. For 45 years he has been a history professor at Los Angeles Valley College, where he still teaches two classes. Brown spoke with CP&DR Editor Paul Shigley in April.

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.

A bill that would permit the City of Industry to extend its redevelopment plan's effectiveness for 10 years appears to have died when the bill's author, Sen. Gloria Romero (D-East Los Angeles), pulled SB 1771 before a scheduled mid-April committee hearing.

A hypothetical or speculative use of property is not a proper basis for determining damages caused by a city's temporary construction easement, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled.

The unanimous three-judge appellate panel overturned a jury's decision to award a Fremont homeowner $195,000 in temporary severance damages. The First District ruled that the trial court judge improperly permitted the jury to consider compensation for hypothetical — rather than actual — injuries.

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.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has permitted a property owner's defamation lawsuit against a San Diego County supervisor to go forward.

A divided three-judge panel overturned a lower court's ruling that Manufactured Home Communities' lawsuit against Supervisor Dianne Jacob was a SLAPP suit. The Ninth Circuit determined that a jury could find some of Jacob's challenged statements were "actionable as provably false assertions of fact."

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.