Reform

Subscribe to Reform 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

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 an important published opinion filed March 26, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 2) affirmed a trial court’s judgment denying the third CEQA writ petition filed over the last fifteen years challenging Caltrans’ EIR for a project to improve a one-mile stretch of U.S. Highway 101 running through Richardson Grove State Park in Humboldt County.  At issue in each action filed in the serial CEQA litigations – which the Court described as a “labyrinthine” “15-year litigation odyssey” – was the legal adequacy of the EIR’s analysis of the project’s impacts on adjacent old-growth redwood trees and their root systems.  Bess Bair et al. v. California Department of Transportation et al. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 579.  After an extensive procedural and legal analysis, the Court held the last petition was properly denied on res judicata grounds following the trial court’s discharge of peremptory writs in the two earlier actions by final orders that were never appealed.

Continue Reading When CEQA Litigation Becomes “One Battle After Another”:  First District Holds Res Judicata Precludes Third CEQA Action Challenging Caltrans’ Richardson Grove State Park Highway Improvement Project Where Petitioners Sought to Relitigate Issues Necessarily Resolved By Unappealed Final Orders Discharging Two Earlier Writs

In a published opinion filed March 4, 2026, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s post-judgment order denying losing CEQA plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1021.5 under a catalyst theory.  Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles et al. v Department of Toxic Substances Control (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 1071. It held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying fees where the underlying action was adjudicated to a final judgment adverse to plaintiffs and defendant’s voluntary post-litigation actions altering an FEIR’s analysis were thus not performed under threat of judicial compulsion.

Continue Reading Third District Holds Adverse Judgment Bars Losing CEQA Plaintiffs’ Catalyst Fee Claim

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

The laudable efforts of the Legislature in adopting “super statutes” such as the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”; Gov. Code, § 65589.5) notwithstanding, housing in California remains a scarce and precious commodity.  The interplay of the HAA with another “super statute” – CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) – also continues to be the subject of interesting and important litigation in which the core objectives and provisions of these two statutory schemes clash and must be reconciled.  The First District Court of Appeal’s mostly published 36-page opinion in Coalition of Pacificans for an Updated Plan v. City Council of the City of Pacifica (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 647, filed on December 30, 2025, deals with the immediate economic fallout from such a clash; the context of the decision was the parties’ post-judgment battle over attorneys’ fees in a case where the CEQA plaintiff prevailed in challenging the HAA-protected housing development approvals for a small infill project in a physically challenging location.  While the City and housing developer prevailed in their appeal of an adverse fee award, their victory might be short-lived or of limited impact in light of the narrow grounds on which the Court of Appeal reversed, and the significant discretion the trial court still retains in reconsidering the fee award on remand.  Thus, in one of the opinion’s many ironies, the case could actually represent a setback for those seeking to use the protections of the HAA to defend housing projects from being sued, and to protect local agencies and developers from hefty fee awards when such suits are successful.

Continue Reading Clash of the “Super Statutes”:  First District Construes HAA’s Statutory Provisions Aimed at Disincentivizing CEQA Challenges to Housing Projects By Curbing Fee Awards

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

On October 21, 2025, the California Chamber of Commerce (the “Chamber”) announced it had filed a voter initiative to modernize and streamline the review process for building the state’s most essential infrastructure projects. On November 25, 2025, the Chamber filed amendments to clarify and add further substance to the provisions of that proposed initiative measure, which is entitled the “Building an Affordable California Act” (“BACA”).  BACA would make numerous significant changes to the permitting and CEQA review processes for “Essential Projects,” which are defined therein as specific types of housing, water, clean energy, public health, education, broadband internet access, and transportation projects. In broad strokes, BACA would make five categories of changes to the various review processes for Essential Projects.

Continue Reading California Chamber of Commerce Advances Pioneering Initiative to Amend CEQA to Streamline Permitting and Construction of “Essential Projects”

The Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (“LCI”) has announced it is extending the public comment period through December 31, 2025, for a proposed rulemaking to increase the application fee for projects (excluding exempt housing projects) applying for judicial streamlining benefits under CEQA from $39,000 to $100,000.  Pursuant to LCI’s initial October 17, 2025 notice of the rulemaking, the public comment period would have closed on December 1, 2025.  LCI will not hold a public hearing on the proposed rulemaking unless an interested person requests the same at least 15 days prior to the close of the public comment period.

Continue Reading The Price of CEQA Judicial Streamlining Benefits Is Going Up:  Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation Extends Public Comment Period On Proposal to Raise Application Fee for SB 7 (Leadership) and SB 149 (Infrastructure) Project Certifications to $100,000