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

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.

What is it about duplexes that make them such a popular topic? And why did only one CEQA case make the top five legal stories of the year?

A CEQA case from Yolo County forces an EIR, while an unpublished case from San Benito County says a developer owes fees.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

In ruling on San Gabriel Mountains case, justice says repeatedly: “It is not the project’s ‘impacts on parking’ that matter; it is the impact of the project’s reduced parking on the environment that matters.”

In ruling about new building, trial judge says UC can't "analyze an increase in student enrollment without admitting that increasing student enrollment is a project subject to review."

Appellate court strikes down CEQA challenge on bridge project, saying the impact of wildfire safety issues on the project isn't a topic of analysis.

Methodological differences are not CEQA issues, court rules.

... There's no remedy in the law when a lead agency fails to notify an interested party, even though it's against the law. >>read more