Legal Digest

Court sides with developer in 48-year-old case from Tiburon but judge goes off on CEQA. Meanwhile, Marin County negotiates with developer to purchase the property for open space.

AIDS Heathcare Foundation and Redondo Beach get nowhere in their argument that city councils can't override local ballot measures.

AHF attempted to increase affordable housing in a neighboring project by invoking the repealed redevelopment law.

Manhattan Beach tried to retrofit an old ordinance to cover short-term rentals without Coastal Commission approval. It didn't work.

An appellate court says yes -- if funding sources are available, even if it's unlikely that the landowner is willing to sell.

Plus: SB 743 strikes again in Pleasanton Costco case.

EIR didn't give enough detail on wildfire evacuation in latest chapter of 40-year development saga.

Appellate ruling may make it more difficult for CEQA practitioners to reconcile GHG analysis with state targets.

In an published ruling, an appellate court says the city's general plan encourages -- but does not require -- infill development.

Enviros' argument that sea-level rise should be considered in EIR also rejected by appellate court.

The Bankers Hill group tried to shoot down a 20-story apartment building by, essentially, ignoring recent changes in state housing law. They failed.

In Santa Cruz, nobody quite knows whether a planned development is supposed to follow slope regulations or is supposed to evade them.

Despite concern about "transition" and "architectural fit," appellate court reverse judge's ruling that Trackside violates city policies. The court noted that there weren't really any objective standards to measure the project against.

A judge found the EIR for a huge wine resort inadequate -- because it didn't analyze the impact of additional people on current residents' ability to evacuate during a wildfire.