The California Supreme Court has accepted yet another California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) case for review, this one involving the question of whether denial of a conditional use permit extension is subject to CEQA. In an unrelated matter, the court has dismissed a Proposition 218 case regarding assessments for a business improvement district.

A quarry in San Diego and a closed garbage dump in the Los Angeles suburb of Carson provide the locations of huge urban infill projects. The San Diego project recently won City Council approval, while work has begun on the Carson development.

It seems that the government always has the advantage in its ongoing legal battle with property rights advocates. But recently, property owners scored two big wins – although a government agency was responsible for one of the property owners' victories.

In a decision with enormous potential ramifications for environmental regulation, a federal appellate court has ruled that a Bureau of Reclamation mandate requiring a Ventura County water district ensure adequate river flow for an endangered fish species was a physical appropriation of the water. The court ruled that the Casitas Municipal Water District's claims should be considered under the physical takings doctrine, not under the much narrower regulatory takings standard.

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes' 30-year moratorium on new home construction in an area the city says is prone to landslides is an unconstitutional taking of private property, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The decision marks a rare takings victory for property owners in state court. 

State lawmakers need to decide what to do with the Bay Delta, "and soon," the Legislative Analyst's Office urges in a new report. The lengthy document released in late-October is mostly an overview of the state's water system, but the report concludes with several potentially controversial recommendations.

A Riverside County property owner needed to get a county grading permit to repair a seasonal stream's spillway, even though the state Department of Fish and Game had apparently approved the project and the Federal Emergency Management Agency had funded it. So ruled the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, in 2 1/2-year-old litigation over a $500 fine.

Supporters and opponents alike are touting SB 375 as the most significant land use reform bill in recent California history. When he signed it in September, Gov. Schwarzenegger called it the biggest bill since the California Environmental Quality Act 38 as approved years ago. Meanwhile, the hilariously over-the-top Orange County Register has called the bill "one of the most authoritarian, far-reaching and elitist bills that has ever made it to the governor's desk." In fact, it is neither.

A property owner's challenge of a Sierra Madre City Council resolution directing a committee to consider stricter regulation of hillside development has been thrown out by the Second District Court of Appeal.

The unanimous three-judge appellate panel upheld a trial court judge who had ruled that the situation was not "ripe" for judicial review. Although the resolution might lead to less potential development, the resolution itself had no binding implications for the property owner's land, the Second District determined.

If you can tolerate a little smugness and edginess, college towns are often the best towns of all � and college downtowns are often the best downtowns, especially in small cities.

The other shoe has dropped on the SB 375 front, as the California Air Resources Board has more than doubled the target for greenhouse gas emissions reductions to be obtained through regional planning.

SB 375 has left a lot of public commentary in its wake, but none more hilarious than a hostile editorial in the reliably libertarian Orange County Register, which refuses to believe that anyone in the homebuying marketplace would ever want to purchase anything other than a single-family house on a large lot.

While it seemed as if Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed every land use bill besides SB 375, he did in fact sign several pieces of legislation. Although some bills are minor in nature, some pieces of legislation make important changes to aspects of the general plan law, authorize funding for courthouses and parks, and even ease development of a mixed-use project on the Sacramento waterfront.

Here's a look at some of the more important land use bills that the governor signed:

While Gov. Schwarzenegger signed the high-profile SB 375, he vetoed nearly every other land use bill of consequence this year. Legislation regarding financing, fire safety, school fees, the California Environmental Quality Act and other matters all failed to escape the governor's red pen.