The justices have taken aim at the "substantive due process" argument -- which landowners have always tried to use to overturn land use decisions they don't like.

In a case from San Diego, an appellate court reaffirms a 13-year old ruling that says the legislature has barred RHNA allocation lawsuits by COG members.

When it doesn't allow the environmental impact report to analyze anything except the project that was proposed -- in this case, a Crystal Geyser bottling plant near Mount Shasta.

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AHF attempted to increase affordable housing in a neighboring project by invoking the repealed redevelopment law.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