CP&DR Staff

In this month's roundup of state land use news: The state auditor is again raising questions about construction of a new death row at San Quentin; the State Water Resources Control Board is proposing an overhaul of the water regulatory system; the developer of a proposed Los Angeles project is suing the city for halting the review process; the company that owns the gigantic Newhall Ranch project has filed for bankruptcy. » read more | add to cart

An award of $665,000 in damages and legal expenses to a developer in Pacifica has been thrown out by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The unanimous three-judge panel determined that a questionable condition of project approval that the city eventually repealed did not constitute a violation of the developer’s equal protection rights because the condition did not stop the project from moving forward. » read more | add to cart

The Sierra Club’s challenge of the environmental review for a large annexation by the City of Orange and a related development by the Irvine Company has been rejected by the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

The court turned away arguments that the environmental analysis for the Santiago Hills and East Orange projects improperly described the project, segmented environmental reviews, failed to adequately address water quality, incorrectly analyzed traffic and lacked a proper project alternatives analysis.
» read more | add to cart

An appellate court has reinstated a lawsuit over environmental review of a recreational trail proposed to be built in San Mateo County.

A Santa Clara County Superior Court judge had thrown out the suit because it was filed after the California Environmental Quality Act’s usual 30-day statute of limitations expired. However, the Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled there was “reasonable probability” environmentalists could show that a 180-day statute of limitations applied here. » read more | add to cart

A plan that alters regulations for the operation of a wastewater treatment plant that disposes of effluent into a Sierra Nevada foothills creek, rather than requiring improvements to the plant, has been upheld by the First District Court of Appeal.

Anglers and environmentalists sued over the plan, arguing state water quality regulators violated the California Environmental Quality Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. But a unanimous three-judge panel of the First District, Division One, ruled for the government.

» read more | add to cart

The California Supreme Court has upheld three timber harvest plans that an appellate court had found to be in violation of the state Forest Practices Act and the California Department of Forestry’s functional equivalent of the California Environmental Quality Act. The state high court ruled the analysis of cumulative impact on two rare species was adequate, as was an analysis of likely herbicide use. » read more | add to cart

Redevelopment may have been the biggest winner in Tuesday’s primary election. Statewide, voters rejected Proposition 98, an initiative to prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes. In San Francisco, voters supported a huge redevelopment project at the former Hunter’s Point shipyard and Candlestick Point. And in Napa County, voters rejected a slow-growth initiative that was aimed at halting redevelopment of a former industrial site just south of Napa.

» read more | add to cart

In this month's roundup of news from around the state: Employment and civic engangement concerns confront the Riverside-San Bernardino metro area; a judge rules Carmel Valley incorporation is not a project for CEQA purposes; a different judge throws out an EIR for a Carmel Valley subdivision; hospital bonds fail in Sonoma and Stanislaus counties. » read more | add to cart

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit has dismissed as moot an animal rights group’s challenge of the environmental review documents for a program in which the National Park Service eradicated feral pigs on Santa Cruz Island. » read more | add to cart

A Ninth U.S. Circuit of Appeals ruling striking down San Diego County’s ordinance regulating cell phone antenna location and appearance has been set aside, and the case will be reconsidered by the court. » read more | add to cart