Gov. Gavin Newsom signed major infill housing reform with the budget, meaning the changes take place immediately. But on the non-residential side, it's still "Swiss-cheese CEQA," and there's no relief for greenfield proejcts. 

In a CEQA case involving a Tejon Ranch project in the Antelope Valley, an appellate court concluded that a land use project is not a "covered entity" under the cap-and-trade law the way an oil refinery is.

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. 

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.

Mt. Shasta charter school case shows that subjective design standards still matter and the threshold for an environmental impact report is low -- at least for non-residential projects. 

But after getting thumped in a local election, parking lot supporters -- backed by a local billionaire -- lose one in court as well.