by William Fulton

The First District Court of Appeal published a ruling that favored the City of Eureka over opponents of an affordable housing project downtown. The city had separated the surplusing of the land from the selection of the affordable housing developer. 

Appellate court rules that county can't condition permit completeness on additional environmental information not on the checklist -- but can do so if the checklist is more complete. 

The Wiener bill, which squeaked through the Senate last week, would effectively take away land use authority from local governments -- and hand it to transit agencies, at least for the land they own. It's maybe Wiener's most aggressive bill yet -- but he has shown a willingness to compromise to get it through. 

Environmentalists, unions force Wiener to back off of SB 607. It's unclear what the final bill will look like.

"Reasonable foreseeable" development is so deeply embedded in CEQA practice that it seems hard to dislodge. But that doesn't mean CEQA reformers in Sacramento won't try.

LCI would set mitigation fees and funds would likely to become another state source of affordable housing money.

Councilmembers stick to their guns in reaffirming Main Street-oriented specific plan, rejecting big boxes and drive-throughs.

But the ruling is not all bad news for LA Metro, as future development plans for stadium's parking lots do not have rto be considered.

Wiener's bill to give transit agencies great power over development on their land got pushback at the Housing Committee but passed. Another Wiener bill that would have expanded his previous bills was killed. 

Proposed rule would eliminate critical habitat from protection under the federal law. But how will it affect existing federal habitat conservation plans, many of which are embedded in local general plans?

If a city rejects a builder's remedy application as incomplete, is that the end of the story? Or does the applicant have multiple 90-day opportunities to comply? Several Silicon Valley lawsuits have been filed seeking the resolve the question. 

His new executive order -- targting California in particular -- could try to disrupt 20 years of state climate policy, as well as SB 375, SB 743, SB 1000, and local climate action plans.