In a new case from Oakland, an appellate court ruled that the city can impose new fees on an old project despite signing an agreement that seemed to lock the fees in.
At least that's what an appellate court ruled in a case from Pomona that was brought, ironically, by a prospective cannabis merchant who argued otherwise.
Dueling environmental groups disagreed over how much the university should thin non-native trees to reduce fire hazard. They both sued -- and they both lost.
One-for-one mitigation may work for agricultural land or biological resources. But a court has found that it won't work for "The Sphinx" -- a unique and now-demolished brutalist building in downtown San Jose designed by the famous architect Cesar Pelli.
But Berkeley neighbors lose two other cases in the appellate court -- one dealing with student enrollment levels and the other dealing with a different aspect of the People's Park development.
The city claimed that because the entire 8,800-square-foot property had been conveyed as one more than 75 years ago, the original 25-foot-wide parcels from 1851 were not legal. An appellate court disagreed.
Appellate court says overlay zone doesn't meet state's minimum density requirements because underlying zoning allows less -- and as a result discrimination laws were violated as well.
City makes novel arguments like violation of First Amendment and Commerce Clause, but also argues that its charter city rights are violated and the relationship between the RHNA and CEQA puts it in an untenable position.
Appellate court shoots down a litany of CEQA arguments, finding fault only with wind impacts. But the stadium's sponsors are still looking for more funding for infrastructure.
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?
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.
