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
Exemptions
Third Time’s a Charm: Governor Newsom Signs Senator Wiener’s Landmark SB 79 Legislation Into Law
By Arthur F. Coon & Miguel Mauricio on
On October 10, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 79, authored by Senator Scott Wiener, marking a landmark moment in California’s housing reform landscape. The new law represents Senator Wiener’s third major attempt to advance statewide legislation that upzones land near public transportation, i.e., rail, subway, rapid bus. After prior efforts such as SB 827 (2018) and SB 50 (2019-2020) faced strong opposition and ultimately failed, SB 79’s passage signifies a notable breakthrough in the state’s ongoing pursuit of transit-oriented housing policy.Continue Reading Third Time’s a Charm: Governor Newsom Signs Senator Wiener’s Landmark SB 79 Legislation Into Law
California Legislature Enacts SB 79 Expanding Housing Opportunities Near Public Transit, Streamlining Transit-Oriented Development, and Providing For SB 35 Ministerial Approval Process That Would Avoid CEQA Review
By Arthur F. Coon & Miguel Mauricio on
On September 13, 2025, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 79 (“SB 79), authored by Senator Scott Wiener, representing one of the most important land use reforms of the 2025 legislative session, one that is aimed at accelerating housing production in areas served by public transit. Building on Senator Wiener’s record of advancing transit-oriented development (TOD) and housing legislation, and as discussed in greater detail below, SB 79 provides new zoning standards, height and density allowances, and streamlining measures that aim to reduce barriers to housing construction within proximity to rail, bus rapid transit, and other major transit stops.
Although the Governor has not yet taken action on SB 79 and it has garnered opposition from some municipalities due to its restrictions on local land use authority and control, the measure would appear to align squarely with Newsom’s broader housing agenda and policy priorities. The administration has emphasized the need for bold, statewide interventions to accelerate housing production, particularly in infill and transit-rich locations. SB 79’s combination of statewide TOD entitlements, affordability mandates, anti-displacement protections, and enforcement mechanisms would appear to fit directly within those goals.Continue Reading California Legislature Enacts SB 79 Expanding Housing Opportunities Near Public Transit, Streamlining Transit-Oriented Development, and Providing For SB 35 Ministerial Approval Process That Would Avoid CEQA Review
State Budget Bill Includes Landmark CEQA and Housing Law Changes
On June 30, 2025, Governor Newsom signed AB 130 and SB 131 into immediately effective law as budget trailer bills, marking a historic effort to accelerate housing production and to reform the CEQA review process that has been stifling housing and other essential projects across California. These landmark laws effect substantial changes intended to streamline the approval process for infill housing and essential infrastructure projects by establishing clearer timelines, reducing procedural hurdles, and expanding CEQA exemptions tailored to support sustainable development. While AB 130 largely focuses on improving and clarifying the entitlement process for housing projects, SB 131 adds CEQA exemptions and streamlining for a diverse set of projects and actions.Continue Reading State Budget Bill Includes Landmark CEQA and Housing Law Changes
First 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 Period
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 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 Exemptions
Second 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 Ships
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 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 City
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
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
Third Time’s the Charm: Third District Crowns State the Winner By Legislative Decree In Third Published CEQA Decision Arising From Capitol Renovation Project
“Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.”
– Dylan Thomas
In a published decision filed October 7, 2024, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment rejecting a CEQA challenge to the revised EIR for the State Capitol renovation project based on recent legislation exempting that project from CEQA. Save Our Capitol! v. Department of General Services (Joint Committee on Rules of the California State Senate and Assembly) (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1237. This was the Court’s third published appellate decision in the CEQA litigation over the controversial project; see my posts dated January 2 and January 23, 2023 and May 23, 2024, covering the Court’s initial two published decisions finding flaws in the project EIR, and in the trial court’s premature discharge of the remedial writ, and my post dated July 11, 2024 covering the dispositive statutory CEQA exemption enacted through SB 174.Continue Reading Third Time’s the Charm: Third District Crowns State the Winner By Legislative Decree In Third Published CEQA Decision Arising From Capitol Renovation Project