In a published decision filed August 4, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 2) partially affirmed and partially reversed a judgment granting a writ setting aside Sonoma County’s (“County”) 2023 amended groundwater well permit ordinance. The Court of Appeal rejected the trial court’s determination that County violated the public trust doctrine in approving the ordinance because plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing County’s analysis in that regard was arbitrary, capricious or entirely lacking in evidentiary support; however, applying a less deferential standard of review to plaintiffs’ CEQA challenges, it affirmed the trial court’s ruling that substantial evidence failed to support County’s claimed Class 7 and Class 8 categorical exemptions (for actions taken “to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource” or “the environment”) (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15307, 15308) or the common sense exemption (§ 15061(b)(3).) Russian Riverkeeper et al. v. County of Sonoma (2026) ___Cal.App.5th___. (While the Opinion’s main focus – consuming 29 of the Slip Opinion’s 40 pages – was its analysis of why plaintiffs failed to meet their heavy burden of showing County violated the public trust doctrine, this post will per this blog’s standard practice focus primarily on the Court’s CEQA holdings.)
Continue Reading First District Affirms Judgment Voiding Class 7 and 8 and Common Sense CEQA Exemptions for Sonoma County’s Groundwater Well Ordinance Amendments; Reverses Portion of Judgment Voiding Ordinance on Public Trust GroundsBaseline
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
By Arthur F. Coon on
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) 20 Cal.5th 22. (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 StandardThird 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
By Arthur F. Coon on
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) 117 Cal.App.5th 623.
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 ImpactsFirst District Addresses Significant CEQA Issues Relating to Wildfire Risk, GHG Emissions, and Water Supply Impacts in Lake County Resort Development Case
On November 22, 2024, the First District Court of Appeal’s (Div. 4) partially-published opinion in People of the State of California ex rel. Bonta v. County of Lake (Lotusland Investment Holdings, Inc., et al. Real Parties in Interest) (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1222 (No. A165677) became final. The published part of the decision addresses several significant CEQA topic areas, including the adequacy of an EIR’s discussions of impacts related to a large rural resort development project’s wildfire risks and water supply impacts, and the propriety of a lead agency’s condition of approval imposing a carbon credit purchase obligation to potentially mitigate the project’s significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in light of acknowledged uncertainty as to whether such credits would be available. (As a matter of disclosure, Respondent County of Lake was represented in the trial and appellate proceedings in this case by this post’s authors, Miller Starr Regalia attorneys Arthur Coon and Matthew Henderson.)
Continue Reading First District Addresses Significant CEQA Issues Relating to Wildfire Risk, GHG Emissions, and Water Supply Impacts in Lake County Resort Development CaseFourth District Reverses Judgment Granting Writ and Holds City of Upland’s MND For Warehouse Project Satisfies CEQA; Rejects Arguments That City’s Choice and Application of Quantitative GHG Significance Threshold Lacked Substantial Evidence Support
In an opinion filed August 15, and modified and certified for publication on September 13, 2024, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Div. 2) resolved cross-appeals from a judgment granting a limited writ by reversing with directions to deny the writ. The Court thus found the City of Upland’s (City) Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for approvals of a 201,096-square foot parcel-delivery warehouse project legally adequate under CEQA. Upland Community First v. City of Upland (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1. In doing so, the Court not only upheld an environmental document (an MND) that is, in general, notoriously difficult to defend under CEQA’s applicable “fair argument” standard of review, but also upheld, as supported by substantial evidence: (1) City’s application of a stringent 3,000 MTCO2 e/year quantitative threshold of significance to the project’s GHG emissions, and (2) City’s determination that the project’s “net-over-baseline” GHC emissions would not exceed that threshold – despite some effort being required to “connect the dots” regarding the record evidence to show the City’s math in reaching that determination. While ultimately irrelevant to the outcome in their favor, the Court also held that City and the project’s developer (Bridge) forfeited – by failing to timely raise – their alternative argument that the project’s GHG emissions were insignificant based on a different, qualitative “threshold,” i.e., City’s finding that the project was consistent with its Climate Action Plan (UCAP). Finally, the Court rejected all of project opponent UCF’s appellate challenges to City’s MND based on allegedly faulty traffic and VMT analyses.
Continue Reading Fourth District Reverses Judgment Granting Writ and Holds City of Upland’s MND For Warehouse Project Satisfies CEQA; Rejects Arguments That City’s Choice and Application of Quantitative GHG Significance Threshold Lacked Substantial Evidence SupportThird District Rejects CEQA and Other Challenges to Department of Water Resources’ EIR for Amendments Extending Long-Term State Water Project Supply Contracts Through 2085
In a 51-page published opinion filed January 5, 2024, and resolving consolidated appeals, the Third District Court of Appeal rejected baseline, piecemealing/segmentation, impact analysis, project description, alternatives analysis, and failure-to-recirculate challenges to the EIR for the Department of Water Resources’ (“DWR”) approval of amendments to long-term water supply contracts with local government agencies receiving water through the State Water Project (“SWP”). The amendments extended the contracts, which were originally entered into in the 1960s for 75-year terms, so as to end in the year 2085, and made other amendments to their financial provisions. In the course of affirming the trial court’s judgment upholding the EIR and contract amendments against CEQA, Delta Reform Act, public trust doctrine, and other challenges, the Court of Appeal applied numerous well-established CEQA principles in the enormously significant and complex context of continuing long-term SWP contracts. Planning and Conservation League, et al v. Department of Water Resources, et al, etc. (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 726 (Ct. App. Nos. C096304, C096316, C096384).
Continue Reading Third District Rejects CEQA and Other Challenges to Department of Water Resources’ EIR for Amendments Extending Long-Term State Water Project Supply Contracts Through 2085First District Denies Rehearing and Publication Requests, Slightly Modifies Opinion With No Change in Judgment in CEQA Case Upholding U.C. Regents’ EIR for Parnassus Heights Campus Long-Range Development Plan; Petitions For Review Filed
On October 20, 223, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 3) filed an “Order Modifying Opinion; and Denying Petitions for Rehearing and Publication [No Change in Judgment]” in Yerba Buena Neighborhood Consortium, LLC, et al. v. The Regents of the University of California (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 779, litigation that I analyzed in my 10/10/23 post here. The Order denied petitions for rehearing, denied the California Building Industry Association’s request to publish unpublished portions of the Opinion, and slightly modified the lengthy opinion to add a single footnote and revise one sentence. The Court of Appeal’s docket also reflects that petitions for review have been filed in the case and those may not be acted on by the Supreme Court until around the end of the year.
Continue Reading First District Denies Rehearing and Publication Requests, Slightly Modifies Opinion With No Change in Judgment in CEQA Case Upholding U.C. Regents’ EIR for Parnassus Heights Campus Long-Range Development Plan; Petitions For Review FiledFirst District Affirms Judgment Upholding UCSF’s EIR for Long-Range Development Plan Substantially Increasing Parnassus Heights Campus Development Against Numerous CEQA Challenges
In a partially published opinion filed September 20, 2023, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 3) affirmed the Alameda County Superior Court’s judgments denying writ petitions in three partially consolidated CEQA actions challenging the 2021 project/program EIR for the Comprehensive Parnassus Heights Plan. Yerba Buena Neighborhood Consortium, LLC, et al v. Regents of the University of California/San Franciscans for Balanced and Livable Communities v. Regents of the University of California (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 779.
Continue Reading First District Affirms Judgment Upholding UCSF’s EIR for Long-Range Development Plan Substantially Increasing Parnassus Heights Campus Development Against Numerous CEQA ChallengesSecond District Reverses Preliminary Injunction, Holds CEQA Cannot Trump Santa Barbara County’s Authority To Remove Unpermitted Encroachments Placed In Public Right-Of-Way By Adjacent Landowners
“I fought the law and the law won” – The Crickets
In an opinion filed July 19, and later ordered published on August 16, 2023, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 6) reversed the trial court’s grant of a preliminary injunction in a CEQA action enjoining the Santa Barbara County Road Commissioner from enforcing public laws by removing unpermitted encroachments from a public right-of-way. Christopher Anderson, et al. v. County of Santa Barbara, et al. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 554. The public officer’s law enforcement actions were held to be exempt from CEQA; to have independent utility apart from any alleged larger, “piecemealed” project evading CEQA review; and not to be subject to the “unusual circumstances” exception to applicable categorical exemptions. While the Court was careful to fully analyze all of petitioners’ CEQA arguments, its opinion also offered numerous other reasons why the trial court erred and exceeded its lawful authority under applicable legal principles in issuing the preliminary injunction.
Continue Reading Second District Reverses Preliminary Injunction, Holds CEQA Cannot Trump Santa Barbara County’s Authority To Remove Unpermitted Encroachments Placed In Public Right-Of-Way By Adjacent LandownersMissing the Forest For the Trees: First District Reverses Trial Court, Upholds Project Description And Impact Analysis In Regents’ EIR For Vegetation Removal Projects To Reduce Wildfire Risk At UC Berkeley Hills Campus
By Arthur F. Coon on
In a published opinion filed June 9, 2023, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 3) reversed the trial court’s judgment granting a writ of mandate in consolidated CEQA actions and upheld the adequacy of the UC Regents’ EIR for vegetation removal actions planned to occur within about 800 acres of hilly, forested and fire-prone land on UC Berkeley’s Hill Campus. The Claremont Canyon Conservancy v. The Regents of the University of California/Hills Conservation Network v. Carol T. Christ (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 474.
Continue Reading Missing the Forest For the Trees: First District Reverses Trial Court, Upholds Project Description And Impact Analysis In Regents’ EIR For Vegetation Removal Projects To Reduce Wildfire Risk At UC Berkeley Hills Campus