A recent decision by the Fourth District Court of Appeal confirms that the expedited procedures and judicial remedies against municipalities that lack a compliant housing element apply to charter cities. Kennedy Commission v. Superior Court of San Diego County, 114 Cal. App. 5th 385 (2025).

The Court of Appeal again confirmed that the rights to floodwater captured and stored in an aquifer beneath property were not personal property but rather appurtenant to the land and were transferred with the property during a foreclosure sale. Sandton Agriculture Investments III, LLC v. 4-S Ranch Partners LLC, 113 Cal.App.5th 519 (2025).

Twice in the past five years, San Diego voters have approved ballot initiatives seeking to raise the 30-foot height limit for buildings in the city’s Midway-Pacific Highway Community Planning Area (often referred to as the Midway district).

The First District Court of Appeal held that a new certificate of occupancy and substantial property improvements do not exempt former military housing from local rent control under the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act when those units were previously used for residential purposes. CP VI Admirals Cove, LLC v. City of Alameda, 113 Cal. App. 5th 1167 (2025).

The First District Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Move Eden Housing v. City of Livermore, ___ Cal. App. 5th ___, 2025 WL 2837353 (Oct.

The City of Fairfield was not required to demonstrate that an agreement to receive, treat, and return water to Solano County Irrigation District was consistent with the City’s general plan. Not every decision that affects land use is a “land use decision” that requires consistency with the general plan under California Planning and Zoning Law. Solano County Orderly Growth Committee v.

Key Takeaways

• If signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, SB 79 would require local approval of qualified transit-oriented housing projects near certain major transit stops in an anticipated eight urban counties, increasing allowable residential density in transit-rich areas.
• The bill sets specific height and density limits for projects, with require

In the most significant reforms to CEQA in recent years, two new laws—AB 130  and SB 131—exempt certain infill housing from CEQA, limit environmental review for housing projects that nearly qualify for an exemption, and introduce other significant reforms for rezoning and nonresidential projects. 

The First District Court of Appeal held that a local government may condition the issuance of a permit to build residential units on agricultural land on the developer’s willingness to record a restrictive covenant.  Benedetti v. County of Marin, 113 Cal. App. 5th 1185 (2025).

The First District Court of Appeal’s recent published opinion in Thacker v. City of Fairfield, 113 Cal. App.

The Ninth Circuit held that the Forest Service’s substantial reduction of a forest thinning project between the Draft and Final EAs did not require repeating the public comment process or considering new alternatives under NEPA. However, it found the Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to adequately analyze cumulative impacts in conjunction with a related project.

A Court of Appeal held that a provision in the County of Amador’s checklist for an encroachment permit requiring "[o]ther information as may be required" violated the Permit Streamlining Act. Old Golden Oaks LLC v. County of Amador, 111 Cal.App.5th 794 (2025).

The Court of Appeal held upheld the dismissal of a CEQA action for failure to timely name a developer that became a real party in interest during the pendency of the action. Citizens for a Better Eureka v. City of Eureka, 111 Cal.App.5th 1114 (2025).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the United States Department of Agriculture did not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act in approving a predator management program for certain wilderness areas in Nevada.  Wildearth Guardians v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 135 F.4th 717 (9th Cir. 2025). 

The Ninth Circuit held that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to explain in its Record of Decision why it selected a project alternative that did not meet the development standard that it used to eliminate other alternatives.