Articles

Environmentalists, open space advocates, planners, elected officials and residents of several Los Angeles and Orange County communities are gearing up for the next round in the battle over the fate of thousands of acres in the hills along the 57 freeway.

The City of Fresno cut short its inquiry into the historic significance of two apartment buildings, one of which is proposed for demolition, the Fifth District Court of Appeal has ruled.

Voters in the City of San Clemente will decide on a building height and view ordinance, thanks to a state appellate court ruling regarding signature gathering for a referendum of the ordinance.

The Second District Court of Appeal has ruled that a lower court erroneously rejected an injunction requested by a community group that is seeking to prevent construction of a new school in Los Angeles's Echo Park area.

When individuals barter, they generally have a firm sense of underlying value, i.e. "What's this thing really worth to me?" A 10-year-old car might be worth $1,000, to judge from the Recycler or Craig's List. At $20,000, a used car is a bargain only if it is a 1949 Ferrari Spider with the original piping on the seats.

Cities, on the other hand, often appear not to have a sense of "beyond this price we will not go." True, they bargain for big things on which it is hard to pin values, such as stadiums for NFL football and professional soccer. Still, the fact that cities are willing to entertain highly aggressive offers suggests to me that some city officials have a hard time drawing a line between a good deal and a bad one.

The California Supreme Court has depublished an eminent domain case from San Diego County on the question of when to value property taken by the government.

The state Supreme Court has accepted for review a Clean Water Act case involving a power plant along the Monterey County coast.

The Interstate10 corridor southeast of San Bernardino has served as a relief valve for Los Angeles metropolitan growth during recent years. But the recent real esate slowdown has hit the Beaumont-Calimesa-Yucaipa area hard, partly because of developer bankruptcies and other financial troubles, and partly because of questions about water.

The feds influence planning and development in California only indirectly. Environmental regulation such as the Endangered Species Act and the way money is spent, especially on transportation, help shape the landscape.

It has been a long time since that influence has changed. But in the next 12 months, two federal bills are likely to chart the federal course for the next decade or longer.

After five years, a planning effort for a new growth area in south San Jose has halted because a coalition of developers has ceased funding the effort. Coyote Housing Group, which includes Shapell Homes, Citation Homes and other developers, announced in mid-March that it would suspend funding for work on the Coyote Valley specific plan. The group cited the "extremely complex planning process" and complications with existing industrial entitlements in North Coyote Valley.

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.

The California Supreme Court has accepted a case of considerable importance to regional park and open space districts. The court will review a decision by the Fourth District Court of Appeal, which ruled that the Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District could not sell about 80 acres to a community college district without voter approval.

Park districts say the Fourth District ruling, if upheld, would require districts to conduct elections not only for the sale of land, but also for routine matters such as land transfers and boundary adjustments. One upshot would be a reluctance to acquire new parkland, the districts warn.

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.

A controversial 225-square-mile annexation of territory in San Mateo County by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has been upheld by the First District Court of Appeal. The court rejected annexation opponents' arguments that the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission's approval of the annexation was flawed.