Legal Digest

Reversing a trial judge, an appellate court ruled that a seawall can be built to protect an apartment complex built in 1972 -- but not an adjacent condo building built in 1984, eight years after the Coastal Act was passed.

Controversial park project likely to move forward after appellate ruling found no merit in lawsuit from longtime community activist, who argued that the project description wasn't detailed enough and her own comments constituted sustantial evidence for an EIR.

Split court concludes that the White House Council on Environmental Quality doesn't have the legal authority to issue regulations. Confusion among NEPA practitioners is likely.

In a case against a grocery store in King City brought by a union, the Sixth District Court of Appeal said that other infill definitions in the CEQA Guidelines do not apply to Class 32 exemptions.

Appellate court says that Lake County didn't adequate analyze the impact of a new resort on wildfire evacuation routes of current residents.

The L.A. County Board of Supervisors changed a staff recommendation on new vineyards in the Santa Monica Mountains from heavy regulation to an outright ban. An appellate court concluded that the change was so small in the overall context of the area plan update that no further CEQA action was needed.

Yes, the rooftop deck near the University of Southern California doesn't create a significant impact under CEQA, as per the People's Park case. But the City of Los Angeles still must find that the project conforms with an old redevelopment plan.

If it includes a disposition and development agreement with a specific development program, the answer is yes, according to a San Diego judge.

Appellate court rules that bill exempting project from CEQA does not violate state constitution. Preservationists made the unsuccessful argument that the state cannot be trusted to implement the law constitutionally.

In reversing trial court ruling, appellate court okays lower significance threshold -- but also says higher baseline in a supplemental analysis was fine. 

The city was already allowing a controversial project to move forward and paying $2.3 millino to the developer in attorneys fees. Now it must subject itself to five years of HCD monitoring and pay $150,000 in attorneys fees to teh state.

Appellate court rejects CEQA challenges to L.A.'s Westside Mobility Plan, also concluding that the planning commission can certify the EIR even though the city council must approve some aspects of the project.

San Diego judge rules that Santee couldn't end-run a voter referendum by repealing approval and then passing an emergency ordinance moving the project forward. SB 330 was no help.

Neighbors have challenged in the project, located along a high-rise corridor, in two different lawsuits -- one challenging the city's application of an eldercare zoning deviation and the other challenging the city's use of a Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment. So far the church is winning.