In a published opinion filed January 14, 2026, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the Sacramento County Superior Court’s judgment denying the City of Vallejo’s (“Vallejo”) writ petition challenging the City of American Canyon’s (“American Canyon”) EIR certification for and approval of the Giovannioni Logistics Project, a 2.4 million square foot warehouse complex on a 208-acre tract of undeveloped, industrially zoned land in American Canyon (the “Project”). City of Vallejo v. City of American Canyon (Buzz Oates LLC, et al., Real Parties in Interest) (2026) _____ Cal.App.5th _____. The Court rejected appellant Vallejo’s arguments that the Project EIR violated the water supply disclosure requirements of CEQA and its Guidelines, and also the provisions of Water Code sections 10910 and 10911.Continue Reading Third District Affirms Judgment Upholding American Canyon’s EIR for Industrial Warehouse Project and Related WSA Against Vallejo’s CEQA and Water Code Challenges Based On Allegedly Inadequate Water Supply Analyses
Clash of the “Super Statutes”: First District Construes HAA’s Statutory Provisions Aimed at Disincentivizing CEQA Challenges to Housing Projects By Curbing Fee Awards
The laudable efforts of the Legislature in adopting “super statutes” such as the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”; Gov. Code, § 65589.5) notwithstanding, housing in California remains a scarce and precious commodity. The interplay of the HAA with another “super statute” – CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) – also continues to be the subject of interesting and important litigation in which the core objectives and provisions of these two statutory schemes clash and must be reconciled. The First District Court of Appeal’s mostly published 36-page opinion in Coalition of Pacificans for an Updated Plan v. City Council of the City of Pacifica (2025) ___ Cal.App.5th ___, filed on December 30, 2025, deals with the immediate economic fallout from such a clash; the context of the decision was the parties’ post-judgment battle over attorneys’ fees in a case where the CEQA plaintiff prevailed in challenging the HAA-protected housing development approvals for a small infill project in a physically challenging location. While the City and housing developer prevailed in their appeal of an adverse fee award, their victory might be short-lived or of limited impact in light of the narrow grounds on which the Court of Appeal reversed, and the significant discretion the trial court still retains in reconsidering the fee award on remand. Thus, in one of the opinion’s many ironies, the case could actually represent a setback for those seeking to use the protections of the HAA to defend housing projects from being sued, and to protect local agencies and developers from hefty fee awards when such suits are successful.Continue Reading Clash of the “Super Statutes”: First District Construes HAA’s Statutory Provisions Aimed at Disincentivizing CEQA Challenges to Housing Projects By Curbing Fee Awards
Third District Affirms Judgment Denying Validation of DWR Bonds to Finance Amorphously Defined “Delta Program” Conveyance Facilities As Unauthorized By Water Code Section 11260, Mooting Appeals of Unsuccessful CEQA Challenges
In a mostly published 43-page opinion filed December 31, 2025, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment in consolidated actions consisting of the Department of Water Resources’ (“DWR”) in rem validation action seeking to validate its authority to issue revenue bonds for the “Delta Program,” and a reverse-validation action brought under CEQA, the Delta Reform Act, and the public trust doctrine by various environmental NGOs, and other governmental agencies and entities, challenging that authority. Department of Water Resources v. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California et al. / Sierra Club et al. v. Department of Water Resources (The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California et al., Real Parties in Interest) (2025) ___Cal.App.5th___. The Court of Appeal held the trial court properly denied validation of DWR’s authority to issue revenue bonds under Water Code § 11260 to finance the planning, acquisition, and construction of the nebulously defined “Delta Program” as a supposed modification of the existing “Feather River Project” component of the State Water Project (“SWP”), which is one of many separate and distinct legislatively-authorized “Units” of the Central Valley Project (“CVP”).Continue Reading Third District Affirms Judgment Denying Validation of DWR Bonds to Finance Amorphously Defined “Delta Program” Conveyance Facilities As Unauthorized By Water Code Section 11260, Mooting Appeals of Unsuccessful CEQA Challenges
Third District Affirms Judgment Finding City of Davis’s Playground Equipment Relocation Project Categorically Exempt, Rejects Appellants’ Claim of Unusual Circumstances Exception as Unsupported By Fair Argument That Project Would Result in Increased Noise Impacts
In a published opinion filed December 30, 2025, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying a writ petition challenging the City of Davis’s (City) notice of exemption for a project consisting of the relocation of existing playground equipment within a park. The Court held petitioners failed to establish that CEQA’s unusual circumstances exception applied to negate the exemption under either of the alternative tests for proving that exception, rejecting their argument that the project’s alleged violation of a City noise ordinance standard established a significant effect where the only evidence relied on showed the relocation project would actually reduce noise at all measured locations. Joe Krovoza et al. v. City of Davis et al. (2025) __Cal.App.5th__.Continue Reading Third District Affirms Judgment Finding City of Davis’s Playground Equipment Relocation Project Categorically Exempt, Rejects Appellants’ Claim of Unusual Circumstances Exception as Unsupported By Fair Argument That Project Would Result in Increased Noise Impacts
Supreme Court Denies City of San Diego’s Petition for Review and Depublication Request In CEQA Action Invalidating Supplemental EIR For City’s 30-Foot Coastal Height Limit Removal Initiative
On December 30, 2025, one day after Chief Justice Guerrero recused herself, the California Supreme Court issued an order denying the depublication request and petition for review of Defendant and Respondent City of San Diego in Save Our Access v. City of San Diego (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 388 (Supreme Court Case No. S293971). The Court’s action leaves intact the Fourth District’s published opinion invalidating the Supplemental EIR for the second City-sponsored ballot measure to remove a long-standing 30-foot building height limit in its Midway-Pacific Highway Community Planning area; it represents yet another setback for the City in its years-long quest to update its zoning regulations in a key urban area by removing the 50-year-old restriction. In my opinion, the decision to deny review also represents a missed opportunity for the high court to weigh in and provide much needed guidance and clarity on CEQA’s standards for analyzing large-scale planning actions at the plan or “program” level. (For those interested in a detailed summary of the litigation’s history and the Court of Appeal’s opinion, as well as my own thoughts on the CEQA issues involved, see my October 27, 2025 post here.) With judicial relief from the adverse appellate decision not forthcoming, perhaps the beleaguered City can pursue a different legal playbook in 2026 and seek and obtain a legislative solution removing the CEQA roadblock to its important planning efforts.
“Student Party Noise / People’s Park Case” Epilogue: First District Affirms Post-Judgment Order Denying Private Attorney General Fees to Losing Make UC A Good Neighbor Plaintiffs Whose Arguments Culminated in “Smoldering Ruins, Not Citable Precedent”
In a published opinion filed December 19, 2025, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 5) affirmed the trial court’s post-judgment order denying plaintiffs’ Make UC A Good Neighbor and The People’s Park Historic Advocacy Group’s (collectively, “Make UC”) motion for $1,166,097.88 in attorneys’ fees under Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1021.5 (commonly known as the “private attorney general” statute). Make UC A Good Neighbor et al. v. Regents of University of California et al. (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 282. (“Make UC III”). The Court of Appeal rejected Make UC’s argument that it was a “successful party” because it (allegedly) obtained “important legal precedents” as to two issues on which the Court had earlier ruled in its favor (in Make UC I) prior to those holdings being reversed by the California Supreme Court, as abrogated by statute, in Make UC A Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California (2024) 16 Cal.5th 43 (“Make UC II”). (I won’t reiterate here the detailed factual and legal history of this well-known, highly publicized, and sprawling piece of controversial litigation, but for those interested, my June 10, 2024 post on Make UC II can be found here, and my March 3, 2023 post on the Court of Appeal’s original Make UC I decision can be found here.)Continue Reading “Student Party Noise / People’s Park Case” Epilogue: First District Affirms Post-Judgment Order Denying Private Attorney General Fees to Losing Make UC A Good Neighbor Plaintiffs Whose Arguments Culminated in “Smoldering Ruins, Not Citable Precedent”
California Chamber of Commerce Advances Pioneering Initiative to Amend CEQA to Streamline Permitting and Construction of “Essential Projects”
On October 21, 2025, the California Chamber of Commerce (the “Chamber”) announced it had filed a voter initiative to modernize and streamline the review process for building the state’s most essential infrastructure projects. On November 25, 2025, the Chamber filed amendments to clarify and add further substance to the provisions of that proposed initiative measure, which is entitled the “Building an Affordable California Act” (“BACA”). BACA would make numerous significant changes to the permitting and CEQA review processes for “Essential Projects,” which are defined therein as specific types of housing, water, clean energy, public health, education, broadband internet access, and transportation projects. In broad strokes, BACA would make five categories of changes to the various review processes for Essential Projects.Continue Reading California Chamber of Commerce Advances Pioneering Initiative to Amend CEQA to Streamline Permitting and Construction of “Essential Projects”
The Price of CEQA Judicial Streamlining Benefits Is Going Up: Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation Extends Public Comment Period On Proposal to Raise Application Fee for SB 7 (Leadership) and SB 149 (Infrastructure) Project Certifications to $100,000
The Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (“LCI”) has announced it is extending the public comment period through December 31, 2025, for a proposed rulemaking to increase the application fee for projects (excluding exempt housing projects) applying for judicial streamlining benefits under CEQA from $39,000 to $100,000. Pursuant to LCI’s initial October 17, 2025 notice of the rulemaking, the public comment period would have closed on December 1, 2025. LCI will not hold a public hearing on the proposed rulemaking unless an interested person requests the same at least 15 days prior to the close of the public comment period.Continue Reading The Price of CEQA Judicial Streamlining Benefits Is Going Up: Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation Extends Public Comment Period On Proposal to Raise Application Fee for SB 7 (Leadership) and SB 149 (Infrastructure) Project Certifications to $100,000
CEQA Roundup: November 2025
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.Continue Reading CEQA Roundup: November 2025
High Rise Anxiety: Fourth District Holds San Diego’s Supplemental EIR for Second City Initiative to Update Midway-Pacific Community Plan Violated CEQA By Failing to Adequately Analyze Numerous Potential Impacts of Removing 30-foot Coastal Height Limit
In a published opinion filed October 17, 2025, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Div. 1) reversed the trial court’s judgment and directed it to grant a writ of mandate invalidating the City of San Diego’s (“City”) Supplemental EIR (“SEIR”) prepared for its second City-sponsored ballot measure to exclude the Midway-Pacific Highway Community Planning area (“MPH area”) from its Coastal Height Limit Overlay Zone, which generally limits building heights to 30 feet. The Court held the SEIR violated CEQA because it failed to analyze potential significant environmental impacts of this significant plan update other than views and neighborhood character, omitting what it deemed required analysis of noise, air quality, biological resources, geological conditions, and other impacts, and improperly deferring analysis to future site-specific projects. Save Our Access v. City of San Diego (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 388.Continue Reading High Rise Anxiety: Fourth District Holds San Diego’s Supplemental EIR for Second City Initiative to Update Midway-Pacific Community Plan Violated CEQA By Failing to Adequately Analyze Numerous Potential Impacts of Removing 30-foot Coastal Height Limit