Photo of Brooke Miller

Brooke Miller

Subscribe to Brooke Miller's Posts

Brooke Miller is special counsel in the Real Estate, Energy, Land Use & Environmental Practice Group in the firm's San Diego office.

Contact:Read more about Brooke Miller

Our previous post[1] covered the introduction of A.B. 303 (Addis), the “Battery Energy Safety and Accountability Act”, following a catastrophic fire at one of the world’s largest battery energy storage facilities located in Moss Landing, California, starting on January 16, 2025. As we explained, that bill, proposed as an urgency statute, would significantly curtail the authority of both local agencies and the California Energy Commission (CEC) to site new energy storage facilities and would likely result in significant adverse consequences for meeting California’s clean energy goals.Continue Reading California Leaders Move to Support Energy Storage

A week after a large-scale fire at the Moss Landing Power Plant in Monterey County,[1] California Assemblymember Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay) introduced Assembly Bill (AB) 303. If passed, AB 303 – also referred to as the Battery Energy Safety & Accountability Act – will impact the development of large-scale battery energy storage system (BESS) projects in California. Intended to “improve safety standards and restore local oversight for [BESS] facilities in California,”[2] AB 303 will, among other things, limit approval authority to local governmental agencies, require local engagement in the permitting process, and establish mandatory buffer zones between BESS projects and “sensitive receptors.”Continue Reading Understanding AB 303: Potential Impacts for California BESS Project Development

Earlier this year, our article in the Spring 2024 issue of NAIOP Commercial Real Estate Development Magazine touched on some of the challenges of and tools for adapting underutilized commercial spaces and property for residential redevelopment, including California state laws such as Senate Bill (SB) 6, the “Middle Class Housing Act of 2022” and Assembly Bill (AB) 2011, the “Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022.”Continue Reading State of Conversion: Update on Adaptive Reuse and Conversion Legislation

To address the housing crisis in California, Senate Bill 684 (SB 684), passed in 2023 but effective as of July 1, 2024, aims to simplify the approval process for small-scale for-sale housing projects, facilitate a quicker development process, and help to alleviate the state’s housing shortage. Specifically, SB 684 mandates local agencies to ministerially approve proposed subdivisions for housing projects that result in 10 or fewer parcels, provided they meet specific criteria.[1] Applications for up to 10 units as part of a housing development on lots subdivided using this process and for building permits for construction of the units are also ministerial.[2] This streamlined, CEQA-exempt approval process applies to tract maps on lots zoned for multifamily residential development, no larger than 5 acres, substantially surrounded by qualified urban uses[3] and “infill” sites.Continue Reading Big Streamlining for Small Subdivision Developers

Brooke Miller and Shannon Mandich’s article “Adapting Underutilized Commercial Spaces for Residential Redevelopment: New Tools and Challenges” was recently featured in the NAIOP Commercial Real Estate Development Magazine Spring 2024 Issue. The article discusses the tools and challenges of adopting underutilized commercial spaces for residential redevelopment. This article sheds light on the pros and cons of adaptive reuse and California’s support of adaptive reuse through various California state laws such as Senate Bill 6, the Middle Class Housing Act of 2022, Assembly Bill 2011, and the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022.Continue Reading Adapting Underutilized Commercial Spaces for Residential Redevelopment: New Tools and Challenges

Following California Supreme Court and its own case law precedent, the Second District, Division Five, has ruled in Guerrero et al. v. City of Los Angeles (Jan. 17, 2024) (Guerrero), certified for publication, that a CEQA challenge to approval of a vesting tentative subdivision map conditioned on subsequent discretionary rezoning was untimely when not filed until after the rezoning was finally approved.Continue Reading Conditional Approval is Project Approval: Appellate Court Confirms CEQA Statute of Limitations Triggered by Tentative Map Approval Conditioned on Subsequent Rezoning

Last week, in California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley, the Ninth Circuit ruled the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) preempts local bans on the installation of natural gas infrastructure in new construction. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that EPCA’s preemption of local efforts to regulate the energy use of natural gas appliances is to be construed broadly, applying equally to regulations that affect the use of such appliances. In other words, because the City of Berkeley’s ban on natural gas pipes in new construction “render[ed] the gas appliances useless,” it had improperly infringed on the federal government’s exclusive power to regulate the use of gas appliances.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Strikes Down Berkeley’s Ban on Natural Gas in New Construction, Dealing Blow to California’s Electrification Efforts

In a case potentially overshadowed by the California Supreme Court’s same-day denial to hear a request to stay a cap on student admissions at UC Berkeley,[1] the Second Appellate District Court (Div. 2) issued its opinion in Crenshaw Subway Coalition v. City of Los Angeles.  This decision found, in effect, that the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) and its State law counterpart, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), do not protect established minority-majority communities against displacement due to gentrification.
Continue Reading Challenge to Housing and Revitalization Project Found Not Cognizable under the Fair Housing Act and California Fair Employment and Housing Act

In Citizens’ Committee to Complete the Refuge et al. v. City of Newark et al., the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 4) found the California Environmental Quality Act did not require subsequent or supplemental environmental review for the City of Newark’s approval of a 469‑lot residential subdivision project.  Instead, the court affirmed the City’s use of Government Code section 65457’s CEQA exemption for projects consistent with a “specific plan” for which a environmental impact report (EIR) was previously certified.
Continue Reading Petitioners Failed to Show Subdivision Consistent With a Specific Plan EIR Was Outside the Scope of a Statutory Exemption