As early as February, the Redondo Beach City Council could adopt a specific plan for about 150 acres of waterfront real estate that planners believe could become a new downtown. The "Heart of the City" specific plan envisions a broad mix of stores, offices, apartments, townhouses, live-work flats and parks in a part of town that has been dominated by a huge power plant and cut off from the ocean.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal has cleared the way for a ballot initiative regarding the future of the former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station to appear on the March ballot. The appellate court overturned a trial court ruling that allowed opponents of the initiative to contest the county counsel's title and summary of the initiative prior to the measure qualifying for the ballot.

Planning is nothing more than built politics. In that light, cities are a kind of fossil record of all the arm-twisting, back-scratching and sheer chutzpah that has brought about the creation of cities through time. Give me the map of any major city, and assuming I have adequate knowledge and discernment, I will show you the major landowners, the political donors, the power cliques and the philanthropy that are responsibility for that city's built form.

Farmland preservation, urban sprawl, economic development and long-range planning have collided in the City of Gilroy. Officials are working toward designating 664 acres of tomato fields for high-tech, campus-style development, but opponents of the idea say the city should concentrate on 1,200 acres already designated for industrial growth.

After 20 years of argument and struggle, numerous revisions and a predictable snarl of litigation, the most expensive wetland restoration project in California history has cleared one of its final hurdles and appears poised to become reality at last.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reined in the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's ability to issue "incidental take statements" under the Endangered Species Act. In a grazing case from Arizona, the court ruled that the Service can prepare the statements only when it is likely that a private landowner's activity will "take" an endangered species. The court also concluded that the Service's preparation of incidental take statements in a variety of grazing permit cases was arbitrary and cap

Landlords have won a takings case against the City of Santa Monica regarding the city's regulation of tenant deposits. The Second District Court of Appeal ruled that an ordinance requiring landlords to pay tenants 3% interest on security deposits was an unconstitutional taking. Although the city argued, in part, that the amount of money at stake was not enough to damage the landlords, the court said that $2.3 million was at stake, including about $1,500 for one individual plaintiff. "A small

CP&DR's monthly look at news stories as they developed in the month of December 2001.

Here's a man-bites-dog story to top them all: The biggest redevelopment agency in the state may put itself out of business unless the state Legislature comes to the rescue.

Planners talk a lot about plans – and a lot about implementing plans – and a lot about projects. But they rarely talk about the relationships among all these things.

Riverside County officials are scheduled to start rolling out draft plans and environmental impact reports in February as one of the most ambitious planning efforts in California history reaches the homestretch. County officials vow that they will complete their integrated planning process and the Board of Supervisors will adopt a new general plan, transportation plan and habitat plan before the end of this year.

Citizens cannot force the Environmental Protection Agency to take enforcement action against polluters under the Clean Water Act, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

The final offer that Caltrans made to a landowner whose property was the subject of an eminent domain action was unreasonable and, therefore, the landowner is due litigation expenses from the state, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court ruled that Caltrans's offer was unreasonable because it was based on an illegal nonconforming use of the site.

CP&DR's monthly digest of developing stories culled from around the Golden State.