In the most significant reforms to CEQA in recent years, two new laws—AB 130  and SB 131—exempt certain infill housing from CEQA, limit environmental review for housing projects that nearly qualify for an exemption, and introduce other significant reforms for rezoning and nonresidential projects. 

The First District Court of Appeal held that a local government may condition the issuance of a permit to build residential units on agricultural land on the developer’s willingness to record a restrictive covenant.  Benedetti v. County of Marin, 113 Cal. App. 5th 1185 (2025).

The First District Court of Appeal’s recent published opinion in Thacker v. City of Fairfield, 113 Cal. App.

The Ninth Circuit held that the Forest Service’s substantial reduction of a forest thinning project between the Draft and Final EAs did not require repeating the public comment process or considering new alternatives under NEPA. However, it found the Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to adequately analyze cumulative impacts in conjunction with a related project.

A Court of Appeal held that a provision in the County of Amador’s checklist for an encroachment permit requiring "[o]ther information as may be required" violated the Permit Streamlining Act. Old Golden Oaks LLC v. County of Amador, 111 Cal.App.5th 794 (2025).

The Court of Appeal held upheld the dismissal of a CEQA action for failure to timely name a developer that became a real party in interest during the pendency of the action. Citizens for a Better Eureka v. City of Eureka, 111 Cal.App.5th 1114 (2025).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the United States Department of Agriculture did not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act in approving a predator management program for certain wilderness areas in Nevada.  Wildearth Guardians v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 135 F.4th 717 (9th Cir. 2025). 

The Ninth Circuit held that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to explain in its Record of Decision why it selected a project alternative that did not meet the development standard that it used to eliminate other alternatives.

Under the Subdivision Map Act, the creation of legal parcels prior to 1972 requires more than a deed referencing multiple lots—only a conveyance that separates a portion of land from contiguous property creates a new legal parcel. Cox v. City of Oakland, 17 Cal.5th 362 (2025).

The County of San Diego’s thresholds for exempting certain projects from vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis were not supported by substantial evidence showing they were appropriate specifically for the County. Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. County of San Diego, No. D083555 (4th Dist., Apr. 28, 2025).

The Court of Appeal held that petitioners challenging a city’s sewer and trash fees were not required to pay fees under protest or otherwise exhaust administrative remedies. Carachure v. City of Azusa, 110 Cal.App.5th 776 (2025).

The California Public Utilities Commission did not abuse its discretion in issuing a Phase I driverless AV deployment permit to Waymo to operate fared passenger service in San Francisco and parts of San Mateo County.

In Western States Petroleum Association v. California Air Resources Board, 108 Cal. App. 5th 938 (2025), the Court of Appeal upheld CARB’s Control Measure for Ocean-Going Vessels at Berth, rejecting arguments that the regulation was technologically infeasible, inadequately supported by evidence, or improperly evaluated under CEQA. 

The Court of Appeal held that the San Diego Unified Port District’s lease of public trust lands to a private yacht club was a discretionary act not subject to traditional mandamus, and that petitioner’s claim for administrative mandamus was barred by the 90-day statute of limitations. Herron v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., 109 Cal. App. 5th 1 (2025)

The Court of Appeal held that before issuing a CEQA Class 32 exemption, the City of Los Angeles was required to assess whether the project was consistent not only with the applicable zoning ordinance but also with the area’s redevelopment plan. West Adams Heritage Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, 106 Cal. App. 5th 395 (2024).