In a very strongly worded opinion, a Los Angeles appellate court shot down all the neighbors' arguments about an eldercare facility in Pacific Palisades -- and, in the process, reiterated that the role of the courts is to defer to the city’s judgment when substantial evidence exists and not "re-weigh the evidence". >>read more

History would suggest that the answer is no. It's more likely that the Legislature will punch a couple of holes in the law and plaintiffs' lawyers will continue to figure out how to get around the holes. >>read more

An EIR from Grass Valley failed because the project would put multifamily units 170 feet from a state highway and the city didn't analyze the air pollution impact. >>read more

26-foot statue in the middle of a street in Palm Springs also violates the state's Motor Vehicle Code, an appellate ocurt rules. >>read more

Final ruling in People's Park case turns around on one issue and softens the argument on the other -- but prompts Newsom to vow CEQA reform. >>read more

An Arcadia homeowner wanted to stop the expansion of his neighbor's home. He took it to the Court of Appeal -- but he wasn't specific enough in his original comments before the city's planning commission and city council. >>read more

Appellate judges say that density transfer creates potential environmental impacts and therefore an "excxeption to the exemption" under Berkeley Hillside is warranted. >>read more

San Diego judge's decision also faults the City of San Diego for not analyzing cumuative impacts of several adjacent projects. >>read more

Still, some jurists still focus on expanding the law, creating a kind of schism in the appellate courts. Will the Legislature step in to clarify? Not likely. >>read more

Among other things, the appellate ruling found that Livermore's design standards are not objective and therefore cannot be used to deny an affordable housing project. >>read more