Exemptions

Subscribe to Exemptions 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) 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 Standard

For a long time, one of the central tensions in California land use law has been the uneasy relationship between Housing Element Law and CEQA. Under Housing Element Law, local governments are required to identify and rezone sites to accommodate their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). At the same time, those same rezonings have generally been subject to CEQA review, creating opportunities for delay, litigation, and political opposition.

Continue Reading HCD Issues Guidance on New Housing Element Rezoning CEQA Exemption: Has CEQA Been Removed from the Housing Element Rezoning Process?

In a partially published opinion filed June 5, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 1) affirmed a judgment entered after Defendant and Respondent Bay Area Toll Authority’s (BATA) demurrer brought on statute of limitations grounds to a CEQA action challenging the “Bay Lights 360” Bay Bridge illumination project was sustained without leave to amend.  The lawsuit, which was the second CEQA challenge to Bay Lights 360 filed by Plaintiff and Appellant Mark Baker, was held barred because (1) Baker’s allegations regarding an encroachment permit issued by Caltrans to implement lead agency BATA’s project did not restart the statute of limitations, and (2) he was precluded from relitigating the statute of limitations issues that were conclusively resolved against him in his first action and resulted in that action’s dismissal.  The Court’s opinion analyzed the judicial confusion sown by the “on the merits” requirement included in some articulations of the issue preclusion doctrine, but, assuming its applicability, held that that requirement was satisfied by a prior dispositive demurrer ruling based on the statute of limitations.  Mark Baker v. Bay Area Toll Authority (Illuminate the Arts, Real Party in Interest) (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 1254.

Continue Reading Preclusion Confusion?  First District Holds Plaintiff’s Second CEQA Challenge to Bay Lights 360 Project Time-Barred Due to Preclusive Effect of Prior Unappealed Judgment on Demurrer Dismissing Action on Statute of Limitations Grounds; Finds Encroachment Permit Issued By Responsible Agency Caltrans to Implement Project Did Not Restart Limitations Period

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 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 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

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

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

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