CEQA News You Can Use – Volume 10, Issue 3 – October 2025

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!

---

State Water Board’s new pollution testing exempt from EIR

In Camarillo Sanitary District et al. v. State Water Resources Control Board (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 407, appellant wastewater dischargers challenged the State Water Resources Control Board’s (State Board) new State Policy for Water Quality Control: Toxicity Provisions, which adopted a new statistical model for testing for a type of pollution known as whole effluent toxicity. Appellants challenged the Toxicity Provisions on the basis that, inter alia, the State Board violated CEQA by (1) using a substitute environmental document to complete its environmental review instead of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and (2) failing to adequately consider potentially significant impacts. Although an EIR is generally required whenever a public agency proposes to approve or carry out a project that may have a significant unmitigable effect on the environment, under certain circumstances, if the project implicates a regulatory program of a state agency requiring a plan or other written documentation containing environmental information, the plan or other written documentation may be submitted in lieu of the EIR, subject to certain conditions. (Pub. Res. Code, Section 21080.5(a).) Here, the State Board utilized that approach, relying on an exempt regulatory program when formulating and adopting the Toxicity Provisions. Conducting an independent review, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that the State Board could use this substitute environmental document in lieu of an EIR. The court also held there was substantial evidence that the board adequately considered potentially significant impacts under CEQA in its environmental checklist analysis. (At the time of publication, a petition for review was pending in the California Supreme Court, see Case No. S292989.)

---

AB 531 turns up the heat on geothermal power

AB 531 continues California’s mission to diversify its clean energy portfolio. AB 531 enables the California Energy Commission (CEC) to certify all geothermal power production projects under the streamlined, opt-in approval process created by AB 205 (2022). (Public Resources Code, Section 25545.1(b)(7).) Specifically, AB 531 adds “geothermal powerplant or a project that comprises multiple geothermal powerplants on a single site” to the facilities eligible to be certified by the CEC. (Public Resources Code, Section 25545.1(b)(7).) AB 531 also lowers the five-year capital investment minimum from $250 million to $100 million for discretionary projects related to the production of specialized components essential to energy storage, wind or solar photovoltaic systems. (Public Resources Code, Section 25545.1(b)(4).) This adjustment aims to enhance supply chain capacities and boost the growth of clean energy-related industries across California.

---

SB 484 calls for coastal development permit categorical exclusion areas for 100% affordable housing projects

Existing law requires most development in the California coastal zone to obtain a coastal development permit (CDP) unless the California Coastal Commission (Commission) categorically excludes a certain category of development from needing a CDP—a rarely used practice. SB 484 establishes a 10-year pilot program requiring the Commission to categorically exclude 100% affordable housing projects in designated infill areas from requiring a CDP. The Commission must identify qualifying infill areas by July 1, 2027, in consultation with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and will only apply the exclusions where projects pose no significant impact on coastal resources or public access. Coastal affordable housing developers should monitor the Commission’s selection of exclusion areas and stay tuned for the Commission’s 2035 report on the success (or failure) of these exclusion areas to streamline housing production in coastal zones while maintaining environmental safeguards.

---

SB 611 extends a lifeline to approved projects in aging community plan areas

SB 611 reenacts provisions safeguarding development projects from being invalidated even when an underlying community plan is challenged under CEQA. In this context, a “community plan” is a policy document that supplements a local agency’s general plan by the provisions of a general plan for an individual neighborhood and serves as the land use element. The bill responds to the expiration of AB 1515 on Jan. 1, 2025, and aims to provide legal certainty for developers during the update of community plans, particularly in cities like Los Angeles, where 28 of the city’s 34 community plans are at least 10 years old. Under SB 611, courts are prohibited from overturning the approval of development projects based on community plans that are later found to be noncompliant with CEQA. Such projects must have been approved or had a complete application prior to the community plan being invalidated. SB 611 only applies to development projects where the community plan has not been updated in at least 10 years, among other requirements. The bill is designed to prevent delays in housing and infrastructure development caused by CEQA litigation, while still requiring project-level environmental review. SB 611 sunsets on Jan. 1, 2036, giving jurisdictions nearly a decade to update their community plans before project protections expire. As an urgency statute, this bill went into effect immediately.

---

Looking for a comprehensive wrap-up on housing bills? Look no further!

Our housing law team has created a comprehensive wrap-up of housing bills from the latest legislative session, with easy-to-digest summaries helpfully arranged into categories and with links to each of the bills. You can access the excellent work by Chris Guillen, Mack Carlson, Steven Stenzler, Cody Sargeant, Shelby Slaughter and Alina Werth here.

---

CEQA and Housing law changes in AB 130 and SB 131 and Brownstein webinars

In case you missed it, Brownstein published a series of alerts on the ramifications of budget bills AB 130 and SB 131, which took effect June 30, 2025, and hosted two webinars, one on CEQA changes and another on Housing Law changes. You can find all of our alerts and webinars here. In case you missed the webinars, it’s not too late—you can access both programs here—both webinars qualify for CLE and AICP continuing education credit.

---

CEQA News celebrates its 10th year!

All year we’ll be celebrating 10 years of CEQA News, our quarterly newsletter designed to bring bite-sized, digestible chunks of CEQA updates to a broad readership. 

For this issue, we thought we’d throw some CEQA trivia your way (the first three responses with a “passing” score of three out of four get a Brownstein Yeti tumbler—email [email protected] with your response!):

1. Which California governor signed CEQA into law, and in what year?
    
2. What early California Supreme Court decision clarified that CEQA compliance was required before a lead agency, including cities and counties, could issue a discretionary approval for privately funded projects?
    
3. Which came first, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or the CEQA?
    
4. What do the Golden 1 Center (where the Sacramento Kings play), SoFi Stadium (where the Rams and Chargers play) and the Intuit Dome (where the Clippers play) all have in common?

---

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.