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 CologneCEQA Guidelines
“Double Counting” or Redundant Mitigation? Second District Holds CEQA Guidelines’ Additionality Requirement Precludes Applying Upstream Energy or Fuel Providers’ Obligatory Cap-and-Trade Compliance To Offset Land Use Project’s Estimated GHG Emissions, Invalidates “Prejudicially Misleading” EIR For Massive LA County Centennial Project On That And Other Grounds
In a partially published 102-page opinion filed June 26, 2025, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 7) resolved cross-appeals by affirming the trial court’s judgment invalidating Los Angeles County’s 2019 EIR certification and project approvals for the Centennial Specific Plan, a 12,323-acre development on the historic Tejon Ranch in the County’s Antelope Valley Area south of Kern County. Center for Biological Diversity v. County of Los Angeles (Centennial Founders, LLC, et al., Real Parties in Interest) (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 317. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court in all respects, holding the EIR’s GHG and off-site wildfire impacts analyses were deficient, while rejecting challenges to its analyses, discussion, and mitigation for wildlife movement corridors and native vegetation and to its alternatives analysis. (Per this blog’s standard practice, this post will discuss only the published portion of the opinion, which addressed only the GHG issues.)
Continue Reading “Double Counting” or Redundant Mitigation? Second District Holds CEQA Guidelines’ Additionality Requirement Precludes Applying Upstream Energy or Fuel Providers’ Obligatory Cap-and-Trade Compliance To Offset Land Use Project’s Estimated GHG Emissions, Invalidates “Prejudicially Misleading” EIR For Massive LA County Centennial Project On That And Other GroundsFirst District Affirms Judgment Dismissing CEQA Action Based On Petitioner’s Failure To Join Indispensable Real Party Developer Within Statute of Limitations Period
In an opinion filed May 14, and later ordered published on June 11, 2025, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 3) affirmed a judgment dismissing a CEQA action challenging an approval for a City parking lot redevelopment/affordable housing project due to the Petitioner’s failure to timely join the necessary and indispensable real party developer of the project’s housing component. Citizens for a Better Eureka v. City of Eureka (Wiyot Tribe, Real Party in Interest) (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 1114.
Continue Reading First District Affirms Judgment Dismissing CEQA Action Based On Petitioner’s Failure To Join Indispensable Real Party Developer Within Statute of Limitations PeriodThird District Holds County Could Require Supplemental Environmental Information From Grading Permit Applicant As Condition of Application Completeness Determination Where Permit Submittal Checklist Alerted Applicant CEQA Compliance Would Be Required
By Arthur F. Coon on
Like a gift to land use lawyers that never stops giving, the strange and wondrous interrelationship between CEQA and the Permit Streamlining Act (“PSA”; Gov. Code, § 65920 et seq) continues to inspire litigation and require judicial explication. In a terse 8-page published opinion filed May 30, 2025, the Third District Court of Appeal explained the finer points of the rules governing PSA-required permit submittal checklists and completeness determinations and how they interact with CEQA when the latter applies to the permit at issue. Old Golden Oaks LLC v. County of Amador (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 794. (And, it can be noted, CEQA should virtually always apply to “development projects” subject to the PSA, which do not include ministerial projects. (Gov. Code § 65928).)
Continue Reading Third District Holds County Could Require Supplemental Environmental Information From Grading Permit Applicant As Condition of Application Completeness Determination Where Permit Submittal Checklist Alerted Applicant CEQA Compliance Would Be RequiredFourth District Invalidates San Diego County’s “Infill” And “Small Project” VMT Screening Thresholds As Lacking Substantial Evidence Support
In a published opinion filed March 27, 2025, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Div. 1) reversed the trial court’s judgment denying a writ petition, and held that two screening thresholds of significance for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts adopted by the County of San Diego as part of its 2022 Transportation Study Guide were invalid because they were unsupported by any substantial evidence. Cleveland National Forest Foundation, et al. v. County of San Diego (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1257.
Continue Reading Fourth District Invalidates San Diego County’s “Infill” And “Small Project” VMT Screening Thresholds As Lacking Substantial Evidence SupportIs Robust and Disruptive CEQA Reform Possible? Senator Scott Wiener Wants to Find Out – His Proposed SB 607 Would Exempt Rezonings Consistent With Approved Housing Elements, Limit The Scope of EIRs for Qualifying “Nearly-Exempt” Projects, and Greatly Strengthen Negative Declarations and Categorical and Statutory Exemptions
On February 20, 2025, Senator Scott Wiener introduced Senate Bill No. 607 (SB 607), a proposed law that is relatively short in text length, but which would engender major CEQA reforms if enacted as currently drafted. The bill would add three new, and amend two existing, statutory sections of CEQA, as discussed below.
Continue Reading Is Robust and Disruptive CEQA Reform Possible? Senator Scott Wiener Wants to Find Out – His Proposed SB 607 Would Exempt Rezonings Consistent With Approved Housing Elements, Limit The Scope of EIRs for Qualifying “Nearly-Exempt” Projects, and Greatly Strengthen Negative Declarations and Categorical and Statutory ExemptionsSecond District Affirms Judgment Rejecting CEQA And Other Challenges To CARB’s “Technology-Forcing” Emissions-Control Regulation For At-Berth Tanker And Other Ships
By Arthur F. Coon on
Posted in Administrative Record, CEQA Guidelines, Certified Regulatory Program, Climate Change/GHG, Cumulative Effects, Energy, Environmental Justice, Exemptions, Land Use, Lead Agency, Legislation, Litigation, Mitigation, Piecemealing, Resources, Responses to Comments, Standard of Review, Uncategorized
On February 13, 2025, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 7) filed its 71-page published opinion affirming the trial court’s judgment rejecting CEQA safety hazard and cumulative impacts analysis challenges – as well as Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and generic “arbitrary and capricious” writ challenges – to the California Air Resources Board’s (“CARB”) August 2020 decision adopting the “Control Measure For Ocean-Going Vessels At Berth” (the “Regulation,” codified at 17 Cal. Code Regs. § 93130 et seq). Western States Petroleum Association v. California Air Resources Board (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 938.
Continue Reading Second District Affirms Judgment Rejecting CEQA And Other Challenges To CARB’s “Technology-Forcing” Emissions-Control Regulation For At-Berth Tanker And Other ShipsGovernor Issues Executive Order N-4-25 Suspending CEQA Review And Coastal Act Permitting Requirements To Facilitate Rapid Rebuilding Of Properties Destroyed Or Damaged By Los Angeles And Ventura County Fires
By Arthur F. Coon on
On January 12, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-4-25 (the “EO”) pursuant to Government Code section 8571, which authorizes the Governor to suspend regulatory statutes during a state of emergency upon determining that strict compliance “would in any way prevent, hinder, or delay the mitigation of the effects of the emergency.” (Gov. Code, § 8571.) The Governor had previously, on January 7, 2025, proclaimed a State of Emergency to exist in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties due to fire and windstorm conditions.
Continue Reading Governor Issues Executive Order N-4-25 Suspending CEQA Review And Coastal Act Permitting Requirements To Facilitate Rapid Rebuilding Of Properties Destroyed Or Damaged By Los Angeles And Ventura County FiresSixth District Affirms Judgment Upholding Application of CEQA Guidelines Class 32 Infill Development Exemption To Project On Parcel Substantially Surrounded By Urban Uses In Small-Population City
By Arthur F. Coon on
In an important opinion filed October 21, and later ordered published on November 18, 2024 (at the request of the California State Association of Counties and the Rural County Representatives of California), the Sixth District Court of Appeal interpreted key terms in the CEQA Guidelines Class 32 categorical exemption, which applies to “in-fill development” projects that meet specified criteria, including being “substantially surrounded by urban uses.” In doing so, the Court upheld a low-population city’s use of the exemption for a Grocery Outlet project near Highway 101. Working Families of Monterey County, et al. v. King City Planning Commission (Best Development Group, LLC, Real Party in Interest) (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 833.
Continue Reading Sixth District Affirms Judgment Upholding Application of CEQA Guidelines Class 32 Infill Development Exemption To Project On Parcel Substantially Surrounded By Urban Uses In Small-Population CityFight On! After Grant and Transfer, Second District Holds Upon Reconsideration that Resident Noise Does Not Preclude CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption for USC Area Housing Development Project; But Also Holds City Must First Find Project Consistent With Redevelopment Plan Incorporated Into Zoning Before Granting Exemption
In a partially published opinion filed October 31, 2024, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 1) held, in light of AB 1307 and the Supreme Court’s decision in Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California (2024) 16 Cal.5th 43 (”Make UC II”), that noise from residents congregating on a USC-area residential housing project’s rooftop decks “do[es] not constitute a significant environmental effect impeding application of the Class 32 exemption[,]” including through attempted invocation of the unusual-circumstances exception. West Adams Heritage Association et al. v. City of Los Angeles (Robert Champion at al, Real Parties in Interest) (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 395. The Court held that reversal was required for another reason, however, as the City failed to determine the project’s consistency with an applicable redevelopment plan, which the City had by ordinance incorporated into its applicable zoning, prior to granting the exemption. (In the unpublished portion of its opinion, which won’t be further discussed in detail here, the Court also rejected appellants’ CEQA challenges to the infill exemption based on alleged significant traffic safety, historical resources, and cumulative impacts.)
Continue Reading Fight On! After Grant and Transfer, Second District Holds Upon Reconsideration that Resident Noise Does Not Preclude CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption for USC Area Housing Development Project; But Also Holds City Must First Find Project Consistent With Redevelopment Plan Incorporated Into Zoning Before Granting Exemption