The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply in reverse, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Overturning the First District Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that, with a few exceptions, CEQA analysis must be limited to the project's impacts on the environment (and, by extension, the project's environmental impacts on its own population) but not the environment's impact on the project.

Among other things, the ruling would seem to suggest that a CEQA analysis cannot analyze and mitigate the effect of future sea level rise or other climate change effects on a proposed project. >>read more

For the past three years, California's cities have been like beachcombers, waving metal detectors over miles of beach in the hopes of discovering $5 billion. They haven't had much luck -- until recently. In the past year, though, Sacramento has bestowed upon the state's cities two new funding tools that, while they don't replace redevelopment, have given cities, developers, and other institutions reasons to salivate. >>read more

The Pismo Beach City Council voted to impose a moratorium on all new development in anticipation of a drastic drop in water supply next year. >>read more

A group calling itself the Coalition to Preserve L.A. announced that it is going to shoot for a ballot measure to block "mega-projects" in Los Angeles. The initiative would effectively freeze all development in the city that does not conform to the current General Plan and community plans. The initiative includes several major provisions: 1) halt amendments to the City's General Plan in small bits and pieces for individual real estate developer projects; 2) require the City Planning Commission to systematically review and update the City's community plans and make all zoning code provisions and projects consistent with the City's General Plan; 3) place city employees directly in charge of preparation of environmental review of major development projects; and 4) impose a construction moratorium for projects approved by the City that increased some types of density until officials can complete review and update of community plans or 24 months, whichever occurs first.

The initiative's main backers, several of whom have actively protested major developments in Hollywood, say the initiative will help preserve the character of Los Angeles neighborhoods. The measure would apply citywide. "This ballot measure is bad for L.A., and bad for the economy," City Council Member Mitch O'Farrell told the Los Angeles Times. "It's bad for transit-oriented neighborhoods. It will also cost thousands of good-paying jobs." The measure requires 61,486 signatures to qualify for the November 2016 ballot.