When a court told the City of San Diego to engage in more CEQA review, the city abandoned the project. Then the plaintiff tried to get the city to conduct the review anyway -- but an appellate court overruled her.
Montecito homeowners said Santa Barbara County couldn't enforce its encroachment law because the county had to go through a CEQA process. An appellate court said the homeowners who blocked parking spaces on their road were the lawbreakers, not the county.
In an unpublished ruling, appellate court uses "noisy Berkeley students" precedent to rule that human noise could be a significant impact under CEQA, thus killing infill exemption for project near USC.
California Supreme Court concludes that localities may regulate the location of oil drilling, but the allowable methods must be determined by the Department of Conservation.
Because 40 rent-stabilized apartments would be eliminated by construction of a new hotel, an appellate court ruled that the city cannot ignore the goals and policies in its own housing element.
In an unpublished ruling, an appellate court concluded that cities challenging RHNA targets can't sue the state. Previous rulings only said that cities couldn't sue their council of governments.
Their project was denied even though they asserted the builder's remedy. The lawsuit sets up a legal battle over whether cities can get out from under the builder's remedy by self-certifying their housing element.
In a case that could have significant implications for the application of the builder's remedy, an L.A. County judge said that La Canada-Flintridge's self-certification of its 2022 housing element may not be enough to get out from under the builder's remedy requirement. He implied that HCD approval is also required.
In a case from South Lake Tahoe, an appellate court ruled that the city has the right to eliminate all short-term rental permits in residential zones -- but not to give favorable treatment to local residents.
An appellate court concluded that San Diego staff emails constituted a "smoking gun" that the city had not considered a proposed increase in the height limit in the Midway area's programmatic EIR.
In a new case from Oakland, an appellate court ruled that the city can impose new fees on an old project despite signing an agreement that seemed to lock the fees in.
At least that's what an appellate court ruled in a case from Pomona that was brought, ironically, by a prospective cannabis merchant who argued otherwise.
