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

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 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).

Under the Subdivision Map Act, the creation of legal parcels prior to 1972 requires more than a deed referencing multiple lots—only a conveyance that separates a portion of land from contiguous property creates a new legal parcel. Cox v. City of Oakland, 17 Cal.5th 362 (2025).

The County of San Diego’s thresholds for exempting certain projects from vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis were not supported by substantial evidence showing they were appropriate specifically for the County. Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. County of San Diego, No. D083555 (4th Dist., Apr. 28, 2025).

In Western States Petroleum Association v. California Air Resources Board, 108 Cal. App. 5th 938 (2025), the Court of Appeal upheld CARB’s Control Measure for Ocean-Going Vessels at Berth, rejecting arguments that the regulation was technologically infeasible, inadequately supported by evidence, or improperly evaluated under CEQA. 

The Court of Appeal held that before issuing a CEQA Class 32 exemption, the City of Los Angeles was required to assess whether the project was consistent not only with the applicable zoning ordinance but also with the area’s redevelopment plan. West Adams Heritage Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, 106 Cal. App. 5th 395 (2024).

In California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition v. State Air Resources Board, 105 Cal. App. 5th 304 (2024), the court upheld the Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation (“Regulation”), holding that the California Air Resources Board did not violate CEQA or the Administrative Procedure Act when it rejected the California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition’s proposal for a low-NOx vehicle alternative.

A change from heavy regulation of vineyards to a complete ban on new vineyards did not so destabilize the original project description as to amount to a prejudicial abuse of discretion and require a new EIR. Gooden v. County of Los Angeles, 106 Cal.App.5th 1 (2024). 

The Sixth District Court of Appeal held that the undefined terms “in-fill development” and “substantially surrounded by urban uses” in the CEQA exemption for in-fill development were not limited by the definitions of similar terms in other parts of the CEQA statute and guidelines. Working Families of Monterey County v.