State law has lots of definitions of infill and transit-oriented locations. As local governments increasingly use the infill exemption to get around environmental review, this is becoming a problem.

In a case against a grocery store in King City brought by a union, the Sixth District Court of Appeal said that other infill definitions in the CEQA Guidelines do not apply to Class 32 exemptions.

Appellate court says that Lake County didn't adequate analyze the impact of a new resort on wildfire evacuation routes of current residents.

The L.A. County Board of Supervisors changed a staff recommendation on new vineyards in the Santa Monica Mountains from heavy regulation to an outright ban. An appellate court concluded that the change was so small in the overall context of the area plan update that no further CEQA action was needed.

Yes, the rooftop deck near the University of Southern California doesn't create a significant impact under CEQA, as per the People's Park case. But the City of Los Angeles still must find that the project conforms with an old redevelopment plan.

If it includes a disposition and development agreement with a specific development program, the answer is yes, according to a San Diego judge.

Appellate court rules that bill exempting project from CEQA does not violate state constitution. Preservationists made the unsuccessful argument that the state cannot be trusted to implement the law constitutionally.

Altogether the governor signed more than 40 planning and development bills, vetoing only one bill designed to encourage conversion of old office buildings to housing, apparently because off the labor standards contained in the bill.

In reversing trial court ruling, appellate court okays lower significance threshold -- but also says higher baseline in a supplemental analysis was fine.