In an opinion filed on August 31, and later ordered published on September 22, 2026, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Div. 3) reversed the judgment of the Orange County Superior Court denying writ relief and ordered issuance of a writ of mandate invalidating the City of Laguna Beach’s (“City”) amendment of its General Plan’s
CEQA Developments
Blog Authors
Latest from CEQA Developments
CEQA Reform Role Reversal? SB 958 and SB 344 Illustrate How the Legislature Has Stepped Up to Provide CEQA Reform When the Courts Won’t
What a difference a decade can make. Less than a year after I began writing this blog in September 2011, I wrote a post suggesting that – in a “judicial retrenchment” from earlier expansionist interpretations of the law – appellate courts were actively reforming CEQA through published precedents. (See, “Are Courts Actively Limiting CEQA’s…
Fourth District Holds Imperial County’s EIR for Salton Sea Geothermal Power/Lithium Extraction Project Lacked CEQA-Compliant Water Supply and Air Quality Analyses
In an opinion filed August 11, and belatedly ordered partially published on September 2, 2026, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Div. One) partly reversed the trial court’s judgment denying a petition for writ of mandate challenging Imperial County’s (County) approval of a project consisting of a geothermal power plant, lithium extraction facility, and related facilities (project)…
First District Affirms Judgment Voiding Class 7 and 8 and Common Sense CEQA Exemptions for Sonoma County’s Groundwater Well Ordinance Amendments; Reverses Portion of Judgment Voiding Ordinance on Public Trust Grounds
In a published decision filed August 4, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 2) partially affirmed and partially reversed a judgment granting a writ setting aside Sonoma County’s (“County”) 2023 amended groundwater well permit ordinance. The Court of Appeal rejected the trial court’s determination that County violated the public trust doctrine in approving…
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
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…
AB 130’s Statewide VMT Mitigation Program: California’s New Framework for CEQA Transportation Mitigation
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…
HCD Issues Guidance on New Housing Element Rezoning CEQA Exemption: Has CEQA Been Removed from the Housing Element Rezoning Process?
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…
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…
First District Holds CEQA Review of Calaveras Reservoir Fishing Program Proposed Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Requirements Is Prerequisite to Reservoir Owner San Francisco’s Application to SWRCB for Amended Water Supply Permit Allowing Public Fishing; Rejects Mandate Petitioner’s Arguments that State Statutes and Constitution Imposed Ministerial Duty on City to Provide Immediate Public Fishing Access to Reservoir In Its Natural State
“Fishing is an art of patience and timing.” – Daan Uijterwaal
In a published opinion filed May 29, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 3) affirmed a judgment denying a petition for a writ of ordinary mandamus to compel public agency respondents, including the City and County of San Francisco (“City”) and the…
First District Upholds Joint-and-Several Attorneys’ Fees Award Against Intervenor Trade Associations That Actively Participated In Defense of CEQA Action Successfully Challenging Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Rodenticide Decisions
Parties intervening in a CEQA case and actively litigating to defend the agency’s challenged decision in order to protect a direct and immediate interest are subject to being held jointly and severally liable for a successful plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, just like respondent agencies and real parties who similarly…