Legal Digest

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.

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

The Bankers Hill group tried to shoot down a 20-story apartment building by, essentially, ignoring recent changes in state housing law. They failed.

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A CEQA case from Yolo County forces an EIR, while an unpublished case from San Benito County says a developer owes fees.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