Here's something you might be interested in.
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Court rejects San Diego County's transportation plan
County tries to limit development that would cause more driving – but fails
Lawsuit claimed that the county's plan would lead to more driving, not less.
The county has lost again in a battle brought by environmental groups over its transportation guidelines for new development.
On March 28, California's Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed a Superior Court of San Diego County decision that upheld the county's 2022 transportation study guide.
Builders must now consider commute times, which are affected by putting infill in far-flung rural areas.
Cleveland National Forest Foundation and Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation argued in a lawsuit that the county's plan would lead to more driving, not less. The opposite of what senate bill 743, a state law that took effect in 2018, intended.
While the law doesn't dictate where development can occur, its goal is to reduce vehicle travel by "rethinking how we build." Cities and builders must now consider commute times, which are affected by putting infill in far-flung rural areas. The law also changes how developers measure their projects' traffic impacts by shifting from congestion to "vehicle miles traveled."
Vehicle miles traveled in county's unincorporated areas
According to the county's website, the transportation study guide establishes a vehicle miles threshold using the regional average, which includes the entire San Diego region, including the incorporated cities.
The court ruled that the study guide fails to comply with SB 743 because it lacks evidence to support two of its adopted thresholds, which are meant to streamline the development process, and decide if an environmental impact caused by a project must be evaluated. The thresholds were for the driving miles impact of infill projects proposed in unincorporated villages, and small projects generating fewer than 110 trips per day.
Fire hazard zones in county's unincorporated areas
The appeal says the small project threshold was developed by evaluating projects across the state — not by looking at San Diego specifically. The county adopted it "on the belief that it did not need to take VMT into account."
There was no attempt "to establish facts showing how often development in its designated infill and village areas will not cause a significant transportation related impact as measured by VMT.”
The county had decided developments that meet all the standards required by its general plan would not have to face reviews of their vehicle-related impacts.
In a previous tussle, the county board of supervisors rescinded the 2020 transportation study guide to avoid litigation, but opponents found new flaws in the next version approved, which they said would exempt a majority of projects from studies of vehicle trips and greenhouse gas emissions.
That led to a lawsuit in which the county prevailed — and now an appeal that has turned it all around.
Here's something you might be interested in.
Court rejects San Diego County's transportation plan
County tries to limit development that would cause more driving – but fails
Court rejects San Diego County's transportation plan
County tries to limit development that would cause more driving – but fails
Lawsuit claimed that the county's plan would lead to more driving, not less.
The county has lost again in a battle brought by environmental groups over its transportation guidelines for new development.
On March 28, California's Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed a Superior Court of San Diego County decision that upheld the county's 2022 transportation study guide.
Builders must now consider commute times, which are affected by putting infill in far-flung rural areas.
Cleveland National Forest Foundation and Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation argued in a lawsuit that the county's plan would lead to more driving, not less. The opposite of what senate bill 743, a state law that took effect in 2018, intended.
While the law doesn't dictate where development can occur, its goal is to reduce vehicle travel by "rethinking how we build." Cities and builders must now consider commute times, which are affected by putting infill in far-flung rural areas. The law also changes how developers measure their projects' traffic impacts by shifting from congestion to "vehicle miles traveled."
Vehicle miles traveled in county's unincorporated areas
According to the county's website, the transportation study guide establishes a vehicle miles threshold using the regional average, which includes the entire San Diego region, including the incorporated cities.
The court ruled that the study guide fails to comply with SB 743 because it lacks evidence to support two of its adopted thresholds, which are meant to streamline the development process, and decide if an environmental impact caused by a project must be evaluated. The thresholds were for the driving miles impact of infill projects proposed in unincorporated villages, and small projects generating fewer than 110 trips per day.
Fire hazard zones in county's unincorporated areas
The appeal says the small project threshold was developed by evaluating projects across the state — not by looking at San Diego specifically. The county adopted it "on the belief that it did not need to take VMT into account."
There was no attempt "to establish facts showing how often development in its designated infill and village areas will not cause a significant transportation related impact as measured by VMT.”
The county had decided developments that meet all the standards required by its general plan would not have to face reviews of their vehicle-related impacts.
In a previous tussle, the county board of supervisors rescinded the 2020 transportation study guide to avoid litigation, but opponents found new flaws in the next version approved, which they said would exempt a majority of projects from studies of vehicle trips and greenhouse gas emissions.
That led to a lawsuit in which the county prevailed — and now an appeal that has turned it all around.