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 MitigationLead Agency
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 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 PeriodSecond District Reaffirms That CEQA Doesn’t Apply To Courts Or Their Agents
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 AgentsThird 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
By Arthur F. Coon on
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 AnalysesIs 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 ShipsSecond District Rejects CEQA Challenges To LA City Planning Commission’s EIR Certification and Categorical Exemption Determination For Multi-Component Project Implementing Westside Mobility Plan, Declines To Reach Significant Issues Forfeited By Appellant
By Arthur F. Coon on
In an opinion filed on July 24, and later ordered published on August 19, 2024, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 4) affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying a writ petition challenging actions taken by the Los Angeles City Planning Commission (“CPC”) to facilitate and implement three components of the Westside Mobility Plan (the “Mobility Plan”). Westside Los Angeles Neighbors Network v. City of Los Angeles (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 223.
Continue Reading Second District Rejects CEQA Challenges To LA City Planning Commission’s EIR Certification and Categorical Exemption Determination For Multi-Component Project Implementing Westside Mobility Plan, Declines To Reach Significant Issues Forfeited By AppellantFirst District Holds CEQA Challenge To Shooting Range Project On City-Owned Land In Unincorporated County Was Not Mooted By Project’s Construction During Trial Court Proceedings Despite Petitioner’s Failure To Seek Preliminary Injunction
In a partially published opinion filed March 29, 2024, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 4) rejected contentions that the pre-judgment completion of construction of a shooting range mooted a CEQA challenge to the project; it held an effective remedy in the form of various mitigation measures alleged in the CEQA petition remained available and reversed the trial court’s judgment entered in favor of respondents and real party after sustaining their demurrers and granting their motions to strike and for judgment on the pleadings. In addition to applying established mootness principles, the Court resolved a number of other issues in holding petitioner Vichy Springs Resort, Inc. (“Vichy”) had sufficiently alleged a CEQA claim at the pleadings stage against both the City of Ukiah (“City”) and the County of Mendocino (“County”) in a unique factual and legal context presenting novel issues of land use regulatory authority and intergovernmental immunity. Vichy Springs Resort, Inc. v. City of Ukiah, et al. (Ukiah Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc., Real Party in Interest) (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 46.
Continue Reading First District Holds CEQA Challenge To Shooting Range Project On City-Owned Land In Unincorporated County Was Not Mooted By Project’s Construction During Trial Court Proceedings Despite Petitioner’s Failure To Seek Preliminary InjunctionThird 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 Filed