Legal Digest

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.

A CEQA case from Yolo County forces an EIR, while an unpublished case from San Benito County says a developer owes fees.

Tustin residents are trying to kill a 16-pump Costco gas station by challenging the CEQA infill exemption the city used. So far they've gotten nowhere.

Judge shifts gears and rules against city in Housing Accountability Act case in light of San Mateo ruling.

In case from Los Angeles, appellate court says burden of proof for feasibility in the case of density bonus concessions and waivers lies with the city, not with the developer.

Reversing lower court, First District rules San Mateo's "stepback" requirement was not specific enough and required discretion to apply.

Latest decision in long-running Encinitas housing element battle is sure to be appealed.

In ruling on San Gabriel Mountains case, justice says repeatedly: “It is not the project’s ‘impacts on parking’ that matter; it is the impact of the project’s reduced parking on the environment that matters.”

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.