<p>If it includes a disposition and development agreement with a specific development program, the answer is yes, according to a San Diego judge.</p>

Appellate court rules that bill exempting project from CEQA does not violate state constitution. Preservationists made the unsuccessful argument that the state cannot be trusted to implement the law constitutionally.

In reversing trial court ruling, appellate court okays lower significance threshold -- but also says higher baseline in a supplemental analysis was fine.

The city was already allowing a controversial project to move forward and paying $2.3 millino to the developer in attorneys fees. Now it must subject itself to five years of HCD monitoring and pay $150,000 in attorneys fees to teh state.

Appellate court rejects CEQA challenges to L.A.'s Westside Mobility Plan, also concluding that the planning commission can certify the EIR even though the city council must approve some aspects of the project.

San Diego judge rules that Santee couldn't end-run a voter referendum by repealing approval and then passing an emergency ordinance moving the project forward. SB 330 was no help.

Neighbors have challenged in the project, located along a high-rise corridor, in two different lawsuits -- one challenging the city's application of an eldercare zoning deviation and the other challenging the city's use of a Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment. So

The city bought the theater to avoid sale to an evangelical church. That set up an explosion of litigation -- which the city is winning and the church is losing.

<p>A nearby office-building owner challenged the infill exemption on a condo project, claiming rare species were in the vicinity. In a case of dueling biologists, the Court of Appeal ruled that the species weren't rare enough to qualify.</p>

In case challenging Flower Growers high-rise proposal, court finds that city properly adopted Appendix G as its CEQA checklist.

Even though part of the medical center's Parnassus Heights expansion was for business purposes, the university is still covered because it is pursuing its educational mission.

Appellate court strikes down Anti-SLAPP motion, opening the door for an inverse condemnation lawsuit. Meanwhile, litigation over builder's remedy application continues.