CEQA Guidelines

Subscribe to CEQA Guidelines via RSS

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

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 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

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) 117 Cal.App.5th 1112.  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

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 Impacts

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.

Continue Reading 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

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

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

In a lengthy and highly technical published opinion filed August 5, 2025, the Fifth District Court of Appeal partly reversed and partly affirmed a judgment that had upheld the State Water Resources Control Board’s (“State Water Board” or “SWRCB”) adoption of the “State Policy for Water Quality Control: Toxicity Provisions” (the “Toxicity Provisions”), which policy in relevant part required use of a new “Test of Significant Toxicity” (“TST”) in analyzing a type of pollution known as “whole effluent toxicity.”  Camarillo Sanitary District et al. v. State Water Resources Control Board (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 407.

Continue Reading Fifth District Holds State Water Board’s Adoption of Regulations Requiring New Test for Whole Effluent Toxicity Violated Federal Clean Water Act Regulations Governing NPDES Permitting, But Not CEQA, APA or Porter Cologne