Huntington Beach has lost around round in its seemingly endless legal battle with the state over housing law. The California Supreme Court has declined to hear a case in which the city argued it doesn’t have to follow state housing law because it’s a charter city.

A local judge has ruled that the City of Dublin should have conducted an environmental analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act before placing a measure on the ballot that would permit development in an area previous protected under the city’s Open Space Initiative.

A few months ago, a Los Angeles judge ruled – in a fairly technical opinion – that SB 9, the lot-split law, is unconstitutional for charter cities.

SB 158, which lifts the CEQA exemption for some projects, apparently applies only to one project in the entire state: a proposed eight-story apartment building behind the iconic Santa Barbara Mission.

Appellate court concludes city should not have exempted car wash, which could lead to more Benzene emissions near school playground

Proponents request for a second review of signatures for ballot is deemed a protected free speech activity and the judge granted an anti-SLAPP motion against the City of San Diego

The city has won two ballot measures to raise the height limit around its longtime sports arena. Now, for the second time, an appellate court has struck down the associated environmental analysis -- and the ballot measure.

Reversing lower court, appellate justices say city acted properly in repealing previous approval and limiting new approval to administrative actions.

In an unpublished ruling, court concludes that city can spend impact fee funds anywhere in the city.

Redondo Beach's residential overlay on commercial and industrial land doesn't meet legal requirements for a housing element site because there's no guarantee housing will be built, court says.

Deletion of fast-food restaurant with drive-through was enough to persuade an appellate court to issue an unpublished ruling in the city's favor.

In a mobile home case from Jurupa Valley, an appellate court seemingly suggests that if a municipal code does not require strict compliance with a general plan, a GP amendment is not necessary.