Legal Digest

Additional incentives on two Westside projects don't exceed Planning Department's power under Measure JJJ.

The high court's ruling appears to clear the way for construction of a 260-unit apartment building in the Spengler's parking lot in Berkeley.

In ruling about new building, trial judge says UC can't "analyze an increase in student enrollment without admitting that increasing student enrollment is a project subject to review."

Court Upholds "Deemed Approved" Status for Mobile Home Expansions in San Juan Capistrano.

In a case from San Francisco, high court punches another hole in the Williamson County doctrine.

Appellate court strikes down CEQA challenge on bridge project, saying the impact of wildfire safety issues on the project isn't a topic of analysis.

Though not a precedent, the case shoots down voter rejection of housing project in Oceanside.

In a case from Santa Barbara, an appellate court ruled that such regulations are a "development" that must be dealt with in the Local Coastal Plan or through a Coastal Development Permit.

Court also concludes the requirement calling for all roads to be built before any private development is constructed runs afoul of the Nollan/Dolan doctrine.

Methodological differences are not CEQA issues, court rules.

First District says SB 35 doesn't interfere with local powers and trumps Berkeley's historic preservation law regarding the West Berkeley Shellmound.

Flat denial of blufftop house meant the "futility exception" was in play. Cost to the city: $3.4 million and counting.

In the latest skirmish over Los Padres Del Mar -- 10 years after the city approved the project for the second time -- an appellate court has ruled that Pismo and the developer do not have to pay LAFCO's attorneys fees.

... There's no remedy in the law when a lead agency fails to notify an interested party, even though it's against the law. >>read more