Search Results

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed all but one of the 40-odd planning and development bills the Legislature passed, including – at the last minute – the controversial bill regulating warehouses.

Cities and counties in California are aggressively – and sometimes in a coordinated way – adopting the “objective design standards” required by the Housing Accountability Act.

The new State Capitol Annex has survived yet another court challenge, this one arguing that SB 174 – the bill exempting the project from the California Environmental Quality Act – runs afoul of a 44-year-old constitutional amendment designed to protect the Capitol’s historic character.

A San Diego judge has ruled that a disposition and development agreement that includes a specific development program is a “project” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. The case involves the potential development of Tailgate Park, a four-square-block, 1000-vehicle surface parking lot adjacent to Petco Park in Downtown San Diego that is owned by the City of San Diego. San Diego negotiated a DDA with a development partnership that includes the San Diego Padres, Tishman Speyer, and an investment firm called Ascendant Capital Partners. The developers agreed to purchase the 5.25-acre site for $35 million and in return committed to building 1,700 residential units in addition to 1.3 million square feet of office space and a 1,600-unit parking space among other things. The city concluded that because the EIR had already been certified CEQA did not apply. But San Diego Superior Court Judge Katharine Bacal, an experienced CEQA judge, concluded that the previous EIR did not contemplate zoning permitting so many housing units. “Adding these residential units would appear to cause a direct physical change in the environment, on a property that previously was identified for mixed commercial zoning that did not contemplate at least 1,710 residential units,” she wrote.

In the first important court ruling following up on the People’s Park case, an appellate court in Los Angeles has reversed its earlier ruling that housing project near the University of Southern California isn’t eligible for the Class 32 infill exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act.

It’s yo-yo time.

A “reverse-reverse-CEQA” ruling from Lake County has been upheld by an appellate court, meaning the county still has not complied with the California Environmental Quality Act in trying to approve a controversial resort in Guenoc Valley north of Napa Valley.

In a case brought by grocery workers involving a proposed Grocery Outlet in King City, an appellate court has rejected a narrow definition of the infill exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act. In particular, the court concluded that other provisions of the CEQA Guidelines defining “infill” do not apply to the so-called Class 32 exemption. Doing so, the court said, would thwart the intent of the CEQA Guidelines The case is an important followup to the landmark Berkeley Hillside case in 2015 and further boxes out project opponents seeking to limit the use of the infill exemption. It was initially unpublished but the Sixth District Court of Appeal recently published the case, meaning it can be used as a precedent in other cases. Best Development proposed a Grocery Outlet store on Broadway in King City, adjacent to Highway 101. The site is almost immediate adjacent to Safeway shopping center. It is surrounded by the freeway, industrial uses, and a cemetery, with residential development a block or two away, though it is also located close to agricultural land. Safeway workers are unionized by the United Food and Commercial Workers. In reviewing the project, King City applied a so-called Class 32 infill exemption, which is available under §15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. The infill exemption, which is being widely used by local governments in California now, can be applied to a site that is less than 5 acres and is “substantially surrounded by urban uses”.

In a bold move, two judge from an influential federal appellate court have ruled that the White House Council on Environmental Quality doesn’t have the legal authority to issue “regulations” implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. A third judge ared from the ruling.

Cities don’t have to do project-level environmental analysis on sites identified in their housing element to meet their Regional Housing Needs Assessment obligations.   That’s the conclusion reached by the Second District Court of Appeal in a contentious case from Tiburon, where a local citizens group argued that the town’s environmental impact analysis for its housing element was inadequate because it didn’t do a deep dive into the project-level impacts of one of the RHNA sites. The appellate court overturned a Superior Court judge’s decision. The relevant portion of the case was published, meaning it can be used as precedent in other cases.   In an unpublished portion of the ruling, the appellate court sent the case back to the Superior Court to determine whether the town’s decision to rezone the property falls under the new law exempting housing-element related rezonings from the California Environmental Quality Act. (This provision was contained in SB 131, one of last year’s budget trailer bills that made changes to CEQA.)  The ruling strengthens the practice of “tiering” off of program EIRs, especially for housing elements, but doesn’t reduce the need for comprehensive environmental analysis of housing at the project level – at least if they don’t qualify for an exemption.   In the most recent RHNA cycle, Tiburon was given a target of 639 units, or an increase of about 15% over its current housing stock. In preparing its housing element, Tiburon identified and rezoned 17 sites for denser housing, including one site commonly known as “Site H”. Site H is 9 acres in size and currently has two residences located on it. The RHNA rezoning increased the allowable density on Site H from 7 to 93 units.   Tiburon's Site H The Committee For Tiburon  sued, arguing that because the city identified Site H as a specific site for future housing development, project-level environmental analysis was required. (No housing project has been proposed for the site.) The Committee claimed that significant impacts were likely on aesthetics, biological resources, hydrology and water quality, land use, and transportation. Marine County Superior Court Judge Sheila S. Lichtblau ruled in favor of the city, saying that the impacts the Committee put on the table were “reasonably foreseeable” and that a detailed analysis would be “feasible”.   The appellate court disagreed, saying that “absent a specific project proposal for Site H, requiring environmental review of site-specific resources under CEQA is premature and unlikely to yield any meaningful analysis.”   Later in the opinion, Justice Carin Fujisaki, writing for an unanimous three-judge panel, said: “Without a proposed project that identifies critical factors such as the amount and configuration of the proposed housing, the planned means of access to the site, and the availability of alternatives, the Town can only speculate as to the severity of any particular environmental impacts or the effectiveness of potential mitigation measures that would minimize those impacts at the site.  Because it is entirely speculative at this point whether a housing project will even be proposed for Site H, a meaningful environmental analysis focusing on Site H is not feasible.”   The Case:  The Committee for Tiburon v. Town of Tiburon, No. A171983 (partially published, February 2, 2026)   The Lawyers: For The Committee for Tiburon: Peter Prows, Briscoe Prows Kao Ivester & Bazel Prows,  pprows@briscoefirm.com For The Town of Tiburon: Anna C. Shimko, Burke, Williams & Sorensen,  ashimko@bwslaw.com

The City of Upland should be able to move forward with renovation of a major park now that an appellate court has upheld the city’s mitigated negative declaration on the project. The appellate court specifically chose not to use the Save Our Capitol! CEQA case to rule against the city.

In a case that could have significant consequences up and down the state, an appellate court has ruled that buildings built after the passage of the 1976 Coastal Act are not entitled to seawalls or other “hard armature” protection from erosion. In reversing a trial court judge’s ruling, the First Distrct Court of Appeal concluded that while the Coastal Commission could issue a permit for a seawall to protect an apartment building built on a bluff in Half Moon Bay in 1972, it could not do so for a neighboring condo complex and coastal trail built in 1984. The ruling puts many projects built after 1976 at risk. The Coastal Act permits seawalls and othe har armature “to serve coastal-dependent uses or to protect existing structures . . . in danger from erosion.” (Public Resources Code § 30235.) The court concluded the word “existing” means existing on the date the Coastal Act went into effect, which was January 1, 1977. Rejecting the reasoning of San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Marie Weiner, the appellate court concluded that allowing the seawall would open the door to a bait-and-switch approach for new projects, through which developers would obtain Coastal Commission approval for a new project and then the Coastal Commission would subsequently be required to allow a seawall. The court said this was not the Legislature’s intent in 1976, adding: “Such an interpretation gives no independent meaning to the term ‘existing,’ rendering it surplusage.” The case involved several developments along a coastal bluff in Half Moon Bay. A four-unit apartment complex was built immediately on the bluff in 1972. Twelve years later, the four-building Casa Mira condominium complex was built slightly further back from the bluff, along with a sewer line and a trail owned and operated by the state Department of Parks & Recreation.