The majority today holds that the words “negligible or no expansion of existing or former use” mean “negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.”  I agree, of course.  Who wouldn’t?”

 — Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Leondra R. Kruger

In an opinion filed on June 25, 2026, the California Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 5) in Sunflower Alliance v. Department of Conservation (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 771, a case involving lead agency California Department of Conservation’s Geologic and Energy Management Division’s (“CalGEM”) determination that a project to convert a former oil and gas extraction well to a treated wastewater injection well was exempt under the CEQA Guidelines’ Class I categorical exemption for existing facilities.  The Supreme Court remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.  Sunflower Alliance v. Department of Conservation (Reabold California, LLC, Real Party in Interest) (2026) ___Cal.5th___.  (My prior 9/9/24 blog post on the Court of Appeal’s original decision can be found here, and my 10/8/24 post on that Court’s modifications to its opinion on denial of rehearing can be found here.)

Continue Reading Tantalizing Tautology:  Supreme Court’s Narrow Decision In CEQA Guidelines Class I Exemption Case Holds Exemption’s Plain Language Requires Change in Existing Facilities’ “Use,” Not Environmental Risk of Changed Use, To Be “Negligible”; Reverses and Remands to First District for Further Proceedings Under Proper Standard

On June 30, 2026, the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI) released its long-awaited Statewide Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Mitigation Program Guidance (“Guidance”), implementing one of the more significant (and perhaps one of the least discussed) provisions of last summer’s AB 130. While much of the attention surrounding AB 130 focused on its housing and CEQA streamlining, the bill also created an entirely new statewide framework for mitigating transportation impacts under CEQA. In short, the Guidance establishes how mitigation contributions will be calculated, where funds may be invested, how VMT reductions will be measured and verified, how mitigation credits will be valued, and how HCD will administer the program through the Transit-Oriented Development Implementation Fund (TDIF).

Continue Reading AB 130’s Statewide VMT Mitigation Program: California’s New Framework for CEQA Transportation Mitigation

For a long time, one of the central tensions in California land use law has been the uneasy relationship between Housing Element Law and CEQA. Under Housing Element Law, local governments are required to identify and rezone sites to accommodate their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). At the same time, those same rezonings have generally been subject to CEQA review, creating opportunities for delay, litigation, and political opposition.

Continue Reading HCD Issues Guidance on New Housing Element Rezoning CEQA Exemption: Has CEQA Been Removed from the Housing Element Rezoning Process?

In a partially published opinion filed June 5, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 1) affirmed a judgment entered after Defendant and Respondent Bay Area Toll Authority’s (BATA) demurrer brought on statute of limitations grounds to a CEQA action challenging the “Bay Lights 360” Bay Bridge illumination project was sustained without leave to amend.  The lawsuit, which was the second CEQA challenge to Bay Lights 360 filed by Plaintiff and Appellant Mark Baker, was held barred because (1) Baker’s allegations regarding an encroachment permit issued by Caltrans to implement lead agency BATA’s project did not restart the statute of limitations, and (2) he was precluded from relitigating the statute of limitations issues that were conclusively resolved against him in his first action and resulted in that action’s dismissal.  The Court’s opinion analyzed the judicial confusion sown by the “on the merits” requirement included in some articulations of the issue preclusion doctrine, but, assuming its applicability, held that that requirement was satisfied by a prior dispositive demurrer ruling based on the statute of limitations.  Mark Baker v. Bay Area Toll Authority (Illuminate the Arts, Real Party in Interest) (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 1254.

Continue Reading Preclusion Confusion?  First District Holds Plaintiff’s Second CEQA Challenge to Bay Lights 360 Project Time-Barred Due to Preclusive Effect of Prior Unappealed Judgment on Demurrer Dismissing Action on Statute of Limitations Grounds; Finds Encroachment Permit Issued By Responsible Agency Caltrans to Implement Project Did Not Restart Limitations Period

“Fishing is an art of patience and timing.” – Daan Uijterwaal

In a published opinion filed May 29, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 3) affirmed a judgment denying a petition for a writ of ordinary mandamus to compel public agency respondents, including the City and County of San Francisco (“City”) and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (“SFPUC”), to immediately obtain an amended water supply permit and open the City-owned Calaveras Reservoir in its natural state to public fishing.  Timothy James Dummer v. City and County of San Francisco, et al. (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 1009.  The Court held that the writ was properly denied because plaintiff and appellant Dummer had not demonstrated any failure by the public agency defendants to perform a ministerial duty under applicable law.

Continue Reading First District Holds CEQA Review of Calaveras Reservoir Fishing Program Proposed Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Requirements Is Prerequisite to Reservoir Owner San Francisco’s Application to SWRCB for Amended Water Supply Permit Allowing Public Fishing; Rejects Mandate Petitioner’s Arguments that State Statutes and Constitution Imposed Ministerial Duty on City to Provide Immediate Public Fishing Access to Reservoir In Its Natural State

Parties intervening in a CEQA case and actively litigating to defend the agency’s challenged decision in order to protect a direct and immediate interest are subject to being held jointly and severally liable for a successful plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, just like respondent agencies and real parties who similarly oppose such a lawsuit.  This is the lesson taught by the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 2) in its published decision, filed April 29, 2026, affirming the trial court’s $857,000 joint-and-several CCP § 1021.5 fee award against respondent Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), named real parties, and Croplife America (“Croplife” or “Intervenors”), a group of trade associations that had intervened to defend the CEQA litigation. Raptors are the Solution v. Croplife America (1st Dist. 2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 237.  Intervenors represented developers, manufacturers, formulators, and distributors of anticoagulant rodenticides which were the subject of DPR’s challenged decisions, and had successfully moved to intervene as of right in the action under CCP § 389(a) on the basis that their members had immediate, direct, and substantial financial and operational interests in the matter in litigation that would not be adequately represented by the initially named real parties or DPR.

Continue Reading First District Upholds Joint-and-Several Attorneys’ Fees Award Against Intervenor Trade Associations That Actively Participated In Defense of CEQA Action Successfully Challenging Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Rodenticide Decisions

In an important published opinion filed March 26, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 2) affirmed a trial court’s judgment denying the third CEQA writ petition filed over the last fifteen years challenging Caltrans’ EIR for a project to improve a one-mile stretch of U.S. Highway 101 running through Richardson Grove State Park in Humboldt County.  At issue in each action filed in the serial CEQA litigations – which the Court described as a “labyrinthine” “15-year litigation odyssey” – was the legal adequacy of the EIR’s analysis of the project’s impacts on adjacent old-growth redwood trees and their root systems.  Bess Bair et al. v. California Department of Transportation et al. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 579.  After an extensive procedural and legal analysis, the Court held the last petition was properly denied on res judicata grounds following the trial court’s discharge of peremptory writs in the two earlier actions by final orders that were never appealed.

Continue Reading When CEQA Litigation Becomes “One Battle After Another”:  First District Holds Res Judicata Precludes Third CEQA Action Challenging Caltrans’ Richardson Grove State Park Highway Improvement Project Where Petitioners Sought to Relitigate Issues Necessarily Resolved By Unappealed Final Orders Discharging Two Earlier Writs

In a lengthy published opinion filed March 5, 2026, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 6) affirmed the trial court’s judgment adopting a “physical solution,” to be implemented by a watermaster, in a multiparty, three-phase litigation adjudicating competing groundwater rights in a Ventura County basin pursuant to the procedures of Code of Civil Procedure section 830 et seq.  Los Posas Valley Water Rights Coalition v. Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 et al. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 1170.  While the constitutional, statutory, regulatory, and judicial water law rules and principles discussed and applied in the case are important and interesting, I’m not going to write further about them here; rather, in keeping with this blog’s subject matter, I’ll stick to the two paragraphs of the Court’s 45-page opinion that disposed of the novel CEQA arguments raised by a dissatisfied plaintiff and appellant.

Continue Reading Second District Reaffirms That CEQA Doesn’t Apply To Courts Or Their Agents

In a published opinion filed March 4, 2026, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s post-judgment order denying losing CEQA plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1021.5 under a catalyst theory.  Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles et al. v Department of Toxic Substances Control (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 1071. It held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying fees where the underlying action was adjudicated to a final judgment adverse to plaintiffs and defendant’s voluntary post-litigation actions altering an FEIR’s analysis were thus not performed under threat of judicial compulsion.

Continue Reading Third District Holds Adverse Judgment Bars Losing CEQA Plaintiffs’ Catalyst Fee Claim

In a partially published opinion filed on February 2, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 3) addressed a “weighty issue . . . affecting the CEQA responsibilities of local governments throughout the state” in reversing the trial court’s judgment granting a writ petition challenging the adequacy of the Town of Tiburon’s (“Town”) program EIR for its general plan/housing element update.  The Committee for Tiburon LLC v. Town of Tiburon (Sierra Pines Group, LLC, Real Party in Interest) (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th259.  Applying CEQA tiering principles in the context of the Town’s update of its general plan and housing element site inventory to comply with state housing law, the Court held “that a program EIR for a local agency’s general plan need not include a site-specific environmental analysis of a site identified in its housing element where . . . no housing project has been proposed for the site.”  It reasoned that “[w]hen a housing project has not even been proposed, the lack of project-specific details precludes an informed review of environmental impacts and mitigation measures, and deferral of such a review to a site-specific, project-level EIR analysis is appropriate.”

Continue Reading Process Versus Production:  First District Upholds Program EIR For Tiburon’s General Plan/Housing Element Update, Holds Site-Specific Analysis Of Impacts Of Developing Identified RHNA Inventory Site Can Be Deferred Under CEQA Tiering Principles Until Specific Project Is Proposed