CEQA News You Can Use – April 2026 – Volume 11, Issue 1

Welcome to “CEQA News You Can Use,” a quarterly production of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP’s Natural Resources lawyers. This publication provides quick, useful bites of CEQA news, which we hope can be a resource for your real-time business decisions. That said, it is not and cannot be construed to be legal advice. Enjoy!

---

In Memoriam: Ryan R. Waterman, founder of CEQA News You Can Use 

As we release this spring edition of CEQA News You Can Use, we pause to honor its founder and longtime editor, Ryan R. Waterman, who passed away in early February.

Ryan launched CEQA News You Can Use in the fall of 2016 with a simple but powerful goal: to translate a constantly evolving and often complex body of CEQA law into practical, timely insights practitioners could actually use. Over the years, the newsletter became a trusted resource for clients, colleagues, agencies and practitioners across California—reflecting Ryan’s rare ability to combine technical mastery with clarity, pragmatism and his love of puns.

True to his character, Ryan brought both rigor and personality to the publication. Last year, we celebrated the 10th anniversary of CEQA News You Can Use—a milestone made possible by Ryan’s vision, consistency and leadership. Every edition included a CEQA quiz—an invitation to stay sharp, engage thoughtfully with the law and, occasionally, smile along the way. That combination of intellectual seriousness and approachable insight became a hallmark of the newsletter and of Ryan’s broader practice. His fingerprints are on every volume: from the issues he flagged early, to the way he explained what mattered most, to the forward-looking perspective that helped readers prepare for what was coming next.

Ryan was an extraordinary attorney, colleague and mentor, as well as a devoted husband and father. He cared deeply about his work, his clients and the people around him—and that care is reflected in the legacy he leaves behind, including this publication.

We are grateful for Ryan’s contributions and proud to carry CEQA News You Can Use forward in the spirit he established. His voice, judgment and curiosity will be missed, but his influence will continue to guide the work we do.

---

No Fair Argument on the Playground: Court Lets the Sky Track Slide

In Krovoza v. City of Davis (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 623 , the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the City of Davis’s decision to relocate its Sky Track playground equipment under CEQA categorical exemptions, rejecting neighbors’ claims that the project triggered the “unusual circumstances” exception. The court emphasized that although the equipment may result in a violation of the city’s noise ordinance, the appellants failed to provide substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the relocation would result in an adverse noise impact when compared to the equipment’s existing location. Accordingly, alleged violations of the city’s noise ordinance, standing alone, were not enough to establish a reasonable possibility of a significant environmental effect. With no fair argument of increased impacts, the court affirmed the exemption—clearing the way for the playground to move without further environmental review.

---

North Bay water supply challenge goes down the drain

It is said that “whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting.” In the latest water battle, City of Vallejo v. City of American Canyon (2026) 117 Cal.App.5th 1112, neighboring cities were pitted against one another over American Canyon’s approval of an EIR for an industrial warehouse complex. Vallejo, which provides much of the water supply to American Canyon, argued that the EIR’s discussion of water supply for the project was inadequate in several respects. The Third District Court of Appeal disagreed, upholding the EIR under the principles of Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412 and CEQA Guidelines section 15155. The court rejected Vallejo’s argument that the EIR should have discussed the amount of water American Canyon had historically used from Vallejo, rather than the amount available under the cities’ contract. As a result, the court found there was no need to discuss “place of use” restrictions in Vallejo’s license to take water from the Delta because the restrictions did not impact the overall amount of water available to American Canyon. The court also held that the EIR adequately disclosed proof of entitlement to an identified water supply and the possibility of simultaneous curtailment of water sources. The decision is now final, no petition for review by the California Supreme Court having been filed.

---

City of Patterson development impact fees invalidated

In a detailed Statement of Decision and addendum issued Jan. 27, 2026, the Stanislaus County Superior Court (Case No. CV-24-010405) granted a petition for writ of mandate brought by a building industry association and a developer challenging the City of Patterson’s 2024 development impact fee program. The court invalidated:

• Resolution No. 2024-59 (new development impact fee schedule and regional transportation impact fee);
• Resolution No. 2024-65 (revised parkland in lieu fees and approval of a revised nexus study); and
• Ordinance No. 878 (amended Quimby Act parkland dedication ordinance).

The court found multiple, independent violations of the Brown Act, the Mitigation Fee Act and CEQA and concluded that the city’s evidentiary record did not satisfy the constitutional “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” requirements of Nollan and Dolan, which the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision of Sheetz confirmed are applicable to a facial challenge of legislatively imposed fees.

The court also issued a peremptory writ of mandate ordering the city to rescind the challenged actions and enjoining enforcement of all fees and exactions adopted by those measures, without prejudice to the city’s ability to undertake new, compliant fee enactments.

---

No proposed housing project, no project-level EIR required

In Committee for Tiburon LLC v. Town of Tiburon (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 259, the First District Court of Appeal confirmed that identifying housing sites to meet Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations does not trigger a duty to analyze site-specific impacts in a program EIR when no specific housing project has been proposed. Here, the Town of Tiburon prepared a comprehensive update to its existing general plan, including a housing element that identified 17 vacant or underutilized sites to accommodate 916 units to meet the Town’s RHNA. The town prepared a program EIR, which included a town-wide review of the broad environmental impacts of adding 916 units rather than conducting environmental review of each of the 17 sites.

The Committee for Tiburon, LLC challenged the town’s EIR, alleging that it failed to properly analyze the significant environmental impacts of rezoning one of the identified sites. The Committee for Tiburon relied heavily on language in Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, explaining that an EIR evaluating a planned land use project must assume that all phases of the project will eventually be built. Here, however, the EIR evaluated a large-scale planning document rather than a concrete development project. Further, the court noted that the EIR did not need to assume that a specific project would be built because a housing element only requires a local agency to identify sites, not build on those sites. The court also disagreed with the Committee for Tiburon’s argument that reports submitted by the town to the Department of Housing and Community Development during review of the housing element demonstrated feasibility of site-specific analysis because the letters did not evaluate the environmental effects or potential mitigation measures associated with any proposed project. As such, a program EIR for the general plan was appropriate because the town made no commitment for a housing project on any of the identified sites.

---

Trial court must weigh the CEQA and the HAA when recalculating petitioners’ fee award

In Coalition of Pacificans for an Updated Plan v. City Council of the City of Pacifica (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 647, the First District reversed and remanded a roughly $1.29 million private attorney general fee award arising from petitioner’s successful CEQA litigation over an eight-unit project. The court held the trial court misapplied Government Code section 65589.5(p)(1) by not giving proper “due weight” to the Housing Accountability Act’s (HAA) housing-centered factors: 

1. the extent to which the approval advances HAA policies,
2. the site’s suitability for housing, and
3. the reasonableness of the city’s approval. 

Critically, the appellate court faulted the trial court for using a statewide, rather than local, scale for weighing whether the approval furthered Housing Accountability Act goals and for treating the “site suitability” analysis as being decided by the CEQA “fair argument” standard that further environmental review was required. 

Bottom line: CEQA petitioners challenging housing approvals are no longer assured a fee windfall simply because they secured additional environmental review. On remand, the trial court must recalibrate the fee scale in favor of housing project proponents and agencies aligned with California’s pro-housing policies.  

---

This document is intended to provide you with general information regarding CEQA-related updates. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. If you have any questions about the contents of this document or if you need legal advice as to an issue, please contact the attorneys listed or your regular Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP attorney. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions. The information in this article is accurate as of the publication date. Because the law in this area is changing rapidly, and insights are not automatically updated, continued accuracy cannot be guaranteed.