Search Results

As virtually every major media outlet in California has reported, SB 79 – Sen. Scott Wiener’s bill that would give significant land-use power to transit agencies – barely squeaked by in the Senate last week and is now in the Assembly.

A local jurisdiction can’t condition the completion of a permit application on environmental information not included in the permit’s application checklist.

A potentially important case involving the California Environmental Quality Act from Eureka has been published, meaning it can now be used as precedent in other cases.

State laws override local land-use ballot measures.

Significant reforms to the California Environmental Quality Act have been included in a “budget trailer bill; and could take effect as soon as next week. The bill also amends the Permit Streamlining Act to speed up ministerial projects. Although at tentative deal was announced Tuesday night as part of a budget agreement, the trailer bill still must be approved by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The legislative analysis of AB 130, the trailer bill, can be found here. Most of the CEQA provisions were moved over from Assemblymember Buffay Wicks’ AB 609. Most importantly, the bill significantly expands the CEQA exemption for infill development ; an exemption that is already being used more and more frequently by cities. Currently, to qualify for the exemption, a project must be less than 5 acres in size and 75% surrounded by urban development. The trailer bill expands the CEQA exemption to include projects of 20 acres or less. The projects can still be 75% surrounded by urban development ; but also applies to projects where 75% of the land within a ¼-mile radius of the site consists of urban development. This essentially brings neighborhood context into the definition of infill, rather than just the parcel. (Builder’s remedy projects seeking a CEQA exemption would still be limited to 5 acres.) The infill exemption applies only to projects of a certain density ; specifically, half of the so-called “Mullin densities; contained in SB 375. The minimum densities would be at least five units per acre for an unincorporated area in a nonmetropolitan county, 10 units per acre in a suburban jurisdiction, and 15 units per acre in a metropolitan jurisdiction. Any project below these densities would be subject to CEQA. To qualify for the exemption, projects still must conform with the local general plan and any specific plans. The trailer bill would also impose Permit Streamlining Act deadlines on ministerial approvals for the first time. Up to now, PSA deadlines have applied only to discretionary approvals. The trailer bill would impose a 60-day shot clock on ministerial projects.

In a new battle between the Tejon Ranch Company and environmentalists, an appellate court has ruled that Los Angeles County’s environmental impact report for the Centennial community in Antelope Valley was misleading because it tried to count “upstream” reductions in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the state’s cap-and-trade program.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the most significant reforms to the California Environmental Quality Act in memory yesterday (June 30) in signing the so-called “trailer bills” to the 2025-26 state budget.

On July 1, the provisions of AB 130 and SB 131 – the two budget trailer bills that reformed the California Environmental Quality Act to streamline housing approvals – went into effect. Although the bills represented something less than comprehensive CEQA reform, they were probably the most significant legislative changes to CEQA in this century. And while the infill housing got the most publicity, a wide range of other provisions are also important.

The City of Fresno has been ordered to overturn its decision to deny a multifamily housing project and instead approve the 82-unit project.

San Diego’s Midway redevelopment project has been held up by litigation again, as an appellate court has ruled – for the second time – that the city did not prepare adequate environmental documents in preparation for a ballot measure lifting the city’s 30-foot coastal height limit. In reversing a lower court ruling, the appellate court also concluded that the state’s reforms of the California Environmental Quality Act adopted back in June do not apply to the Midway plan.

The state is going into the VMT mitigation banking business, but exactly how all this will work is pretty unclear.

After many years of litigation and controversy, environmentalists have reached a legal settlement with the owners of the Palisades Tahoe ski resort that will limit the size of the resort’s expansion. Palisades Tahoe, formerly known as Squaw Valley, is already the largest ski resort in the Tahoe region and gained fame as the home of the 1960 Winter Olympics. The settlement created a significant reduction in the size of the development known as Village at Palisades Tahoe, to be constructed at the baes of the mountain. Alterra Mountain Company, owner of Palisades Tahoe, will build about 900 bedrooms rather than 1,500 and cut commercial square footage from 280,000 square feet to 220,000. Environmentalists claimed that the settlement will reduce projected vehicle trips by 38%. The settlement ends 14 years of fighting in the courts and at the Placer County Board of Supervisors over the project. The first application was filed in 2011. Placer County originally approved the project and certified a related environmental impact report in 2016. ( CP&DR coverage of the 2016 Placer County approval can be found here .)