Legal Digest

A federal court has ordered Sutter County to grant a conditional use permit for a Sikh temple. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the county violated the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) when the county rejected two use permit applications for the temple. >>read more

A water credit transfer approved for a developer by the City of Monterey and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District has been struck down by an appellate court, which ruled that the city's and the district's reliance on an exemption from environmental review was faulty. >>read more

A state project to convert 225 acres of Colusa County farmland into wetlands and waterfowl habitat is not exempt from environmental review, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled. >>read more

Preservationists have won at least a temporary victory regarding a big-box home improvement store that is proposed for the site of an historic IBM building in San Jose. >>read more

A local agency formation commission may impose as a condition on its approval of the incorporation of a new city the requirement that voters support a general tax funding the new city, the attorney general's office has concluded. >>read more

The California Supreme Court has recently accepted two land use cases and ordered an appellate court decision regarding fees to be depublished. >>read more

The habitat conservation plan for the rapidly growing Natomas Basin in Sacramento and southern Sutter counties has been upheld by a state appellate court. >>read more

The life of a tentative map for a subdivision may be extended for up to five years if the map is subject to a local development moratorium, but the map does not live on if the moratorium continues for more than five years, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. >>read more

In a ruling from the Sonoma County wine country, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has apparently signaled its intent to continue with a broad reading of the Clean Water Act. >>read more

The Coastal Act does not protect views of the coast from off-shore locations, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. In a case from San Luis Obispo County, the court ruled that the Coastal Commission did not have authority to require that a proposed house be relocated and downsized to protect the views of boaters and surfers. >>read more

A mitigated negative declaration for a never-built project cannot be used for a subsequent, similar project proposed for the same site, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled. >>read more

Property owners who received an $850,000 loan from the Carson Redevelopment Agency must return the money because they acquiesced to the mayor's demand for a $75,000 bribe, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. >>read more

The state Supreme Court has rejected California State University trustees' contention that the university does not have to mitigate off-site traffic and fire safety impacts from expansion of the CSU Monterey Bay campus. >>read more

A unanimous California Supreme Court has upheld lower court decisions rejecting an advertising company's claim that it deserves compensation because trees planted along a public street obstructed visibility of six billboards. >>read more