Enviros' argument that sea-level rise should be considered in EIR also rejected by appellate court.

Recent changes in state law – the density bonus law, expanded CEQA exemptions, and objective standards – are changing the game in the neighborhood-by-neighborhood battle over density and development throughout California

In Santa Cruz, nobody quite knows whether a planned development is supposed to follow slope regulations or is supposed to evade them.

Despite concern about "transition" and "architectural fit," appellate court reverse judge's ruling that Trackside violates city policies. The court noted that there weren't really any objective standards to measure the project against.

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A CEQA case from Yolo County forces an EIR, while an unpublished case from San Benito County says a developer owes fees.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