Palo Alto claimed that in in-lieu downtown parking fee wasn't really a fee under the Mitigation Fee Act. But an appellate court ruled the other way -- and now Palo Alto developer Chop Keenan stands get almost $1 million back.

An Encinitas bluffside homeowner wanted to build a new house with a basement. The Local Coastal Plan says all structures must be removable in case of further erosion. The homeowner said the basement was removable; the Coastal Commission disagreed. Guess who won?

Both cities claim that their Housing Elements are compliant, even though HCD has not yet approved them. Sonoma also claimed an apartment proposals application was deficient.

Two years ago, an appellate panel ruled that the controversial housing proposal should have been processed under SB 35 -- the first major ruling. Now the court has ruled that a local judge had the authority to rule on Housing Accountability Act violations as well.

In a very strongly worded opinion, a Los Angeles appellate court shot down all the neighbors' arguments about an eldercare facility in Pacific Palisades -- and, in the process, reiterated that the role of the courts is to defer to the city’s judgment when substantial evidence exists and not "re-weigh the evidence". 

History would suggest that the answer is no. It's more likely that the Legislature will punch a couple of holes in the law and plaintiffs' lawyers will continue to figure out how to get around the holes.

An EIR from Grass Valley failed because the project would put multifamily units 170 feet from a state highway and the city didn't analyze the air pollution impact.

In an indication of the increasingly acrimonious nature of land-use disputes, a prominent San Diego land-use lobbyist and a community activist opposed to a church project sued each other for libel. The activist then filed an anti-SLAPP suit -- which was not successful. Now the lobbyist can move forward with the libel suit.