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.
The second Trump Administration is likely to back off of zoning reform, environmental protection, and transit funding. Will the state's own laws and policies serve as a firewall against these changes?
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.
The small North Coast city is seeing an expensive battle over whether to develop downtown parking lots are required by the Housing Element and try to shift housing elsewhere and retain current downtown parking.
Fallout from Supreme Court case on is still unclear, but there's no question that cities and counties will have to make "individualized determinations" more often, bulletproof their nexus studies, and allow more appeals.
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.
Cities are moving aggressively to adopt objective design standards, now required in reviewing housing projects. But developers can use the Density Bonus Law to end-run some of the standards.
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.
The city was already allowing a controversial project to move forward and paying $2.3 millino to the developer in attorneys fees. Now it must subject itself to five years of HCD monitoring and pay $150,000 in attorneys fees to teh state.
Two bills sitting on the governor's desk would make it more difficult for cities and counties to claim that their housing element is compliant just because their elected officials approved it. Those are among the 30 so or planning and development bills approved by the Legislature this year.
Meanwhile, around the state, cities push back against builders remedy applications by saying builders remedy doesn't apply and applications are incomplete. And everybody is waiting for the outcome of the La Cañada Flintridge case.
