CEQA News You Can Use – Volume 10, Issue 4 – January 2026

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!

---

Coastal height limit saga continues: San Diego’s environmental review falls short again

In Save Our Access v. City of San Diego (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 388, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the City of San Diego’s supplemental EIR (SEIR) for a 2022 ballot measure to remove a local 30-foot coastal height limit over a large redevelopment site did not comply with CEQA. The court found that the city’s SEIR—which focused on visual effects and neighborhood character as potential impacts of removing the 30-foot coastal height limit—failed to analyze any other potential impacts. In its opinion, the court provided a non-exhaustive list of potential impacts that were inadequately analyzed under the SEIR, including noise, air quality, biological resources and geological conditions. The court emphasized that meaningfully analyzing the environmental impacts of removing an area-wide height limit is particularly important given recent state laws that may exempt certain projects from full CEQA review or subject them to streamlined processes. This was not the first time the Fourth District has considered San Diego’s attempt to remove the 30-foot coastal height limit. In 2023, the court affirmed the superior court’s judgment invalidating a similar 2020 ballot measure for failure to comply with CEQA. (See Save Our Access v. City of San Diego (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 819.) The California Supreme Court rejected the city’s request for review and depublication on Dec. 30, 2025.

---

Preliminary pipeline project prevails in piecemealing protest

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is a key component of the California State Water Project, providing drinking water, irrigation and hydroelectricity across the state. In Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District v. Department of Water Resources (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 342 (as modified on denial of rehearing, Nov. 14, 2025), the courts once again considered a dispute over these critical resources. The case concerns a plan by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to construct a water tunnel beneath the delta. DWR attempted to begin preconstruction geotechnical work for the project, including soil and groundwater testing, but the work was challenged in court by various municipal, tribal and public interest entities. A key issue was whether DWR was required to certify that the geotechnical work was consistent with the Delta Reform Act (Act) prior to commencing testing. The parties agreed that the tunnel project itself was a “covered action” subject to the certification requirement, but that the geotechnical work was not. Petitioners argued that, nonetheless, certification was required for the geotechnical work because the Act expressly incorporated CEQA’s definition of a “project,” and by doing so, the Act also incorporated CEQA’s prohibition against “piecemealing” review of different project components. The trial court agreed with petitioners and issued a preliminary injunction barring DWR from proceeding, but the Third District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the Act did not incorporate CEQA’s rule against piecemealing. The Court of Appeal relied heavily on its finding that CEQA and the Act serve different purposes—unlike a CEQA document, a certification under the Act is not an informational document for use by the decisionmaker. This holding was bolstered by guidance from the Delta Stewardship Council, which found the scope of a project under CEQA is not necessarily co-extensive with a “covered action” under the Act. The court cautioned that it must be mindful of applying definitions and concepts from another area of law that serve a different purpose. Petitioners filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court on Nov. 26, 2025 (Case No. S294127), which remains pending.

---

No attorneys’ fees for CEQA petitioner whose suit was mooted by the California State Legislature

In Make UC A Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California (2025) ___ Cal.App.5th ___, 2025 WL 3687803, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed a superior court ruling denying Make UC A Good Neighbor’s (Make UC) request for over $1 million in attorneys’ fees under the private attorney general doctrine. Make UC argued that it was entitled to attorneys’ fees because it prevailed before the First District, although that victory was later overturned by the California Legislature’s passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 1307, which the Supreme Court found was intended to abrogate the Make UC I decision. (See Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 656 (Make UC I); Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California (2024) 16 Cal.5th 43 (Make UC II).) Make UC argued that it was entitled to attorneys’ fees because AB 1307 only applied to residential projects, meaning that Make UC I’s holding with respect to nonresidential projects remained intact. The court found that Make UC was not a “successful party” under Cal. Civ. Pro. Section 1021.5 because the Supreme Court reversed on the two issues that the First District held for Make UC in Make UC I, resulting in its decision no longer being citable as precedent on those grounds. (As of the time of publication, the time for seeking review of this decision in the Supreme Court remained pending.)

---

BACA to the Future: Ballot Initiative Proposes Significant CEQA Streamlining

The Building an Affordable California Act (BACA) ballot initiative, sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce, aims to relieve one of California’s development bottlenecks by reforming CEQA’s notoriously lengthy review process. If approved by the voters, BACA would impose strict timelines on environmental review and permitting for “essential” projects like housing, clean energy, broadband internet, public health, education, water and transportation. It would, for instance, establish a streamlined scoping process, impose deadlines for completion of environmental review and limit an EIR’s alternative analysis to one applicant-developed alternative (plus the no-project alternative). Under BACA, judicial review of environmental documents would also be streamlined, requiring lawsuits to be filed within 30 days and resolved within 270 days. Should voters greenlight BACA, it could set a new standard for efficiency in the state’s environmental review process.

---

AB 1083 would roll back CEQA streamlining benefits from AB 130 and SB 131 for certain types of projects

AB 1083 (Connolly) takes aim at a number CEQA streamlining benefits created by AB 130 and SB 131, primarily focusing on tourism facilities (i.e., hotels, etc.) and advanced manufacturing. First, AB 1083 would no longer exempt a rezoning for an improved housing element if it includes a tourism facility. By the same token, AB 1083 would omit a tourism facility from the “near miss” CEQA exemption provision, which allows a project that would otherwise qualify for a CEQA exemption except for one environmental impact area to conduct a focused CEQA review on that single environmental impact. Further, the bill would eliminate the CEQA exemption for “advanced manufacturing facilities” and replace it with an exemption for semiconductor manufacturing facilities, so long as those facilities meet certain stringent standards. Finally, AB 1083 would again require electronic emails to be included in the CEQA administrative record, regardless of the type of project.

---

CEQA News You Can Use celebrates its 10th year!

All year we’ve been celebrating 10 years of “CEQA News You Can Use,” 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 holiday trivia your way (the first response with a “passing” score of two out of three gets a bottle of Breathless sparkling wine—email [email protected] with your response!):

1. The first artificial Christmas trees were made from what material?

1. Plastic
2. Aluminum
3. Goose feathers
4. Recycled paper

2. The tradition of hanging stockings at Christmas comes from:

1. Dutch folklore about Saint Nicholas
2. Medieval England gift customs
3. Scandinavian Viking practices
4. Modern marketing campaigns

3. Which is the most “CEQA-friendly” way to decorate a sensitive California habitat for the holidays?

1. Solar-powered lights on existing structures
2. Clearing native vegetation for a light show
3. Igniting fireworks over wetlands
4. Inviting Santa to parachute in

From all of us here at Brownstein, we wish you and yours a joyous and safe Happy New Year!

---

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.