The 2023 legislative session culminated in Governor Newsom signing dozens of land use bills. This post discusses the most important.
The Legislature continued its multifaceted approach to addressing the housing crisis, with the Governor signing 56 housing bills. The most important include expansions of SB 35 and the Housing Accountability Act.
Housing bills discussed
In Tsakopoulos Investments v. County of Sacramento (2023) 95 Cal. App. 5th 280, the Third District Court of Appeal (“Court”) upheld the County of Sacramento’s (“County”) certification of the Mather South Community Master Plan (the “Master Plan” or “Project”) environmental impact report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In the published portion
The Fourth District Court of Appeal in Historic Architecture Alliance v. City of Laguna Beach (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 186, found that the City of Laguna Beach’s (“City”) findings for the use of the Class 31 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption to approve the renovation and extension of a historic single-family home (“Project”), and
The Sixth District Court of Appeal, in Santa Rita Union School District v. City of Salinas (2023), 94 Cal.App.5th 298, reversed the lower court, finding that the City of Salinas’ (“City”) final programmatic environmental impact report (EIR) for the West Area Specific Plan (“Specific Plan” or “Project”) did not need to analyze the impacts
In Lucas v. City of Pomona (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 508, the Second District of the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision that the City of Pomona’s (“City”) application of the statutory exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15183 was proper for approval of a zoning overlay district for commercial cannabis activities (the “Project”). Applying
On June 3, 2023, President Biden signed the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (“FRA”) into law, extending the U.S. debt limit into 2025. As part of the Congressional deal, FRA also contains amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), including narrowing NEPA’s scope of consideration, streamlining the documentation of NEPA, and setting time limits, among other things. These amendments are notable as they are a rare statutory amendment to NEPA in nearly four decades. But for the most part, FRA incorporates existing regulations and case law developed over the years to flesh out NEPA requirements. Thus, the amendments are unlikely to significantly change the current practice of NEPA. But those opposing FRA’s NEPA amendments argue that more projects would now sidestep stringent scrutiny and would curb the public’s ability to voice input on projects. Others note, however, that these amendments will prevent repeated and unnecessary delays of important infrastructure projects.
FRA proposes the following substantive and procedural amendments to NEPA:
In E. Oakland Stadium Alliance v. City of Oakland (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1226, the First District Court of Appeal concluded that the EIR prepared for the proposed Oakland A’s stadium was largely satisfactory, but on a single point failed to adequately mitigate wind impacts.
The Oakland Waterfront Ballpark Project (Project) proposed a 50-acre development
In IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development v. City of Irvine et al. (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 100, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the City of Irvine (“City”) violated CEQA when it relied on an addendum to approve a project proposing to redevelop a parcel within the Irvine Business Complex (“the IBC”).
On April 19, 2022, the Biden administration finalized a new rule (“Final Rule”) rolling back the Trump administration’s 2020 changes limiting the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Final Rule re-establishes the prior broader scope of NEPA review, restores key provisions of NEPA that existed prior to 2020, and requires
