As we approach the end of the month and the Thanksgiving holiday, without a new published CEQA precedent (yet, anyway) to write about, I thought I’d put together a brief “news roundup” of recent items that could be of interest to readers.
City of San Diego to Seek Supreme Court Review of Save Our Access Case
Concerning Ballot Measure to Remove 30-Foot Height Limit
As reported in The San Diego Union Tribune, the San Diego City Council voted 6-2 following a closed session discussion on November 17, 2025, to petition the California Supreme Court for review of Fourth District Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Save Our Access v. City of San Diego (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 388, my October 27, 2025 post on which can be found here. That decision invalidated the City’s Supplemental EIR for its second City-sponsored ballot measure to eliminate the 30-foot height limit of its Coastal Height Limit Overlay Zone from the Midway-Pacific Highway Community Planning Area. The invalidated ballot measure, which passed by 51% of the vote, has been controversial, and The Tribune article stated: “The [Court of Appeal’s] ruling could have devastating implications for new development in a part of town city leaders have said has been hamstrung by the 53-year old building height restrictions.” The Tribune also reported the City Attorney had earlier separately requested that the Supreme Court depublish the opinion. While Supreme Court review is discretionary, and it grants fewer than five percent of the petitions it receives, this case nonetheless poses some interesting issues regarding the practical limits on meaningful and non-speculative CEQA review of community plan revisions (like the height-limit removal at issue here) at a program level. So, in my opinion, this case definitely has a fair shot at high court review – or depublication – and bears watching.
Third District Court of Appeal Modifies Opinion and Denies Rehearing
In Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District Case
In a four-page Order filed November 14, 2025, the Third District modified its opinion in Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, et al. v. Department of Water Resources (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 342, my October 24, 2025 post on which can be found here. The Order, which also denied rehearing and made no change in the judgment, primarily deleted the adjective “preconstruction” where it preceded “geotechnical work” in numerous places throughout the opinion, a change likely made (although I’m speculating here) in response to plaintiffs arguing on rehearing that such qualification understated the scope of their broader challenge to geotechnical work. In any event, plaintiffs still lost the case and were denied rehearing; it is unknown whether they will proceed to seek Supreme Court review.
Questions? Please contact Arthur F. Coon of Miller Starr Regalia. Miller Starr Regalia has had a well-established reputation as a leading real estate law firm for more than sixty years. For nearly all that time, the firm also has written Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 4th, a 12-volume treatise on California real estate law. “The Book” is the most widely used and judicially recognized real estate treatise in California and is cited by practicing attorneys and courts throughout the state. The firm has expertise in all real property matters, including full-service litigation and dispute resolution services, transactions, acquisitions, dispositions, leasing, financing, common interest development, construction, management, eminent domain and inverse condemnation, title insurance, environmental law and land use. For more information, visit www.msrlegal.com