Land Use and Entitlements

Subscribe to Land Use and Entitlements via RSS

In light of the ongoing devastation wrought by the numerous wildfires plaguing Los Angeles County, California Governor Gavin Newsom has declared a state of emergency[1] and taken immediate action in an attempt to allow Angelenos to rebuild efficiently and effectively. One such action was the issuance of Executive Order (EO) N-4-25 on January 12th to temporarily suspend two time-intensive environmental laws.[2] In response, the City of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass issued her own executive order (Emergency Executive Order No. 1 [LA EEO1]) just one day later to “clear the way for Los Angeles residents to rapidly rebuild the homes they lost.”[3]Continue Reading State and Local Executive Orders Suspend Time-Consuming Permitting and Review Requirements for Rebuilding Los Angeles

Today, the City Council (by a vote of 31 to 20) approved the modified City of Yes for Housing Opportunity text amendment (COYHO), which aims to combat the housing crisis by making it possible to build a little more housing in every neighborhood. COYHO is the final piece of Mayor Eric Adams’s City of Yes vision, a trio of legislative packages that seek to modernize and update the City’s zoning regulations. The first was the City of Yes for Carbon Neutrality, passed in December 2023, which promotes environmental sustainability, and the second was the City of Yes for Economic Opportunity, passed in June 2024, which supports economic growth and resiliency.Continue Reading City Council says Yes to the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity

Yesterday, the Zoning and Franchises Subcommittee (by a vote of 4-3) and Land Use Committee (by a vote of 8-2 and one abstention) approved the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity text amendment (COYHO), with modifications. COYHO is the final piece of Mayor Eric Adams’s City of Yes vision, a trio of legislative packages that seek to modernize and update the city’s zoning regulations (the first being the City of Yes for Carbon Neutrality to promote sustainability, which passed in December 2023, and the second being the City of Yes for Economic Opportunity to support economic growth and resiliency, which passed in June 2024). Continue Reading City of Yes for Housing Opportunity Update

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

Despite strenuous opposition from both the state’s real estate and business communities,1 near the end of the 2024 Legislative cycle, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 98 (“AB 98”) – a bill that, among other things, creates buffer zones and imposes other statewide design and build standards around new warehouse development.2 The bill, which overrides local land use programs, segregates these standards based on warehouse sizes and location within the state. Purportedly, AB 98 is intended to mitigate the negative health impacts associated with warehouse and logistics facility uses have on nearby communities, namely in the Inland Empire region. Prior to the Governor’s signature, the bill passed by fairly narrow margins in both the State Senate and Assembly.Continue Reading A Deep Dive into AB 98’s Restrictions on the Logistics Industry: What the Bill Does and Does Not Do

In Westside Los Angeles Neighbors Network v. City of Los Angeles, the Second District Court of Appeals considered and upheld the City of Los Angeles’s (“City”) actions associated with the approval of the Westside Mobility Plan. Specifically, the court upheld: (i) the Los Angeles City Planning Commission’s (“CPC”) certification of the Westside Mobility Plan Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”); (ii) the determination that the Streetscape Plan was categorically exempt from CEQA; (iii) the finding that Westside Los Angeles Neighbors Network (“Network”) failed to show that the EIR was deficient in its analysis of growth inducing impacts or the imposition of certain traffic-related mitigation measures.Continue Reading Westside Mobility Plan Clears the Road of CEQA Challenges

Louise Dyble’s article “Realizing the Potential of Brownfields” was recently featured in the in the Fall 2024 issue of NAIOP Commercial Real Estate Development magazine. The article explores the emergence of brownfields in the mid-20th century and government legislation since enacted to address their contamination. The article also examines two current federal programs that support redevelopment of brownfield sites: Environmental Protection Agency-administered competitive brownfields grants and tax incentives and credits. The article also discusses challenges that lie ahead for these properties.Continue Reading Realizing the Potential of Brownfields

The New York City Council voted to approve a modified version of the City of Yes for Economic Opportunity (“COYEO”) text amendment, the second in a trio of City of Yes initiatives which aim to: (1) promote sustainability (the City of Yes for Carbon Neutrality, which passed on December 6, 2023); (2) update the City’s zoning tools to support economic growth and resiliency (City of Yes for Economic Opportunity, which passed on June 6, 2024); and (3) spur the development of affordable housing (the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity, which entered public review on April 29, 2024).Continue Reading City Council Approves City of Yes for Economic Opportunity, with Modifications

Undoubtedly, development impact fees (DIFs)[1] can make or break the pro forma of any development project. Until this month, developers hoping to challenge the assessment of project-related DIFs were often limited in the causes of action that could be brought. For instance, in California, a DIF may be challenged under the Mitigation Fee Act (Govt. Code §§ 66000 et seq.), and only DIFs that were “imposed neither generally nor ministerially, but on an individual and discretionary basis” could invoke the Takings Clause embedded in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.[2] This limitation on developers’ ability to utilize the Takings Clause meant that courts would not apply the “Nollan/Dolan test” to DIFs generally applicable to a broad class of property owners pursuant to legislative action.[3]Continue Reading What the Sheetz: Where California Development Impact Fees Stand Following Recent Supreme Court Decision

Jodi Stein, Eva C. Schneider and Samuel Zarkower’s article “We Say ‘YES’ to the ‘City of Yes’ for Economic Opportunity” was recently featured in the New York Law Journal. The article discusses the City of Yes for Economic Opportunity (COYEO), the second in a trio of Mayor Eric Adams’s City of Yes initiatives to revamp New York City’s Zoning Resolution. This article describes the 18 proposals the comprise COYEO, which aim to support economic growth and resiliency by (1) making it easier for businesses to find space within the city and grow their operations; (2) supporting growing industries; (3) making business-friendly streetscapes that are safer and more walkable; and (4) creating new opportunities for businesses to open and expand.Continue Reading We Say ‘YES’ to the ‘City of Yes’ for Economic Opportunity

In its recent decision in Hilltop Group Inc. v. County of San Diego, California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a number of holdings that resulted in a strong ruling in support of streamlined environmental review for projects that are consistent with and within the scope of a program environmental impact report (EIR) for a general plan. The Court clarified that CEQA Guidelines section 15183 (“Section 15183”) does not permit additional environmental review for such projects except as necessary to determine whether a project will have significant effects that are peculiar to the project or the site that were not analyzed in the prior EIR and cannot be substantially mitigated by uniformly applied development policies or standards. The Court went on to hold that public controversy and lay testimony about “peculiar” impacts that might arise from a project do not constitute substantial evidence sufficient to require further environmental review under Section 15183. Perhaps the most important lesson of Hilltop Group Inc. is that decisionmakers cannot err on the side of requiring environmental review simply because a project is controversial, particularly when streamlining is in play. If substantial evidence demonstrates a project’s environmental effects were studied in the prior general plan EIR or can be addressed through uniform policies and procedures, the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) does not permit the lead agency to require an EIR, mitigated negative declaration or other additional environmental review.Continue Reading A Win for Consistency Evaluations Under CEQA Guidelines 15183: Court Rules that Public Controversy is not a Basis for Additional Environmental Review