Three Lawsuits, Fifteen Years, One Project: Court Draws the Line on Successive CEQA Challenges

Bair v. California Department of Transportation (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 579

Bair is the third lawsuit over the last 15 years which challenged a highway project through an old-growth redwood grove which would reconfigure an existing 1 mile stretch in Humboldt County. This litigation may be familiar to some readers, as the prior published appellate decision faulted Caltrans’ EIR for failing to disclose the project’s pre-mitigation impact conclusion to the redwood trees and relying upon a non-regulatory handbook to conclude impacts were less than significant. (Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645.)

California Supreme Court Clarifies "Negligible Expansion" Under the Class 1 CEQA Exemption

Sunflower Alliance v. California Department of Conservation (Case No. S287414)

After two years without weighing in on a CEQA case, the California Supreme Court has issued a significant decision clarifying the scope of CEQA's Class 1 categorical exemption for minor alterations to existing facilities. For practitioners and agencies who rely on this commonly used exemption, the Court's new standard for what counts as a "negligible expansion" of use is required reading, and its remand leaves an important secondary issue about permissible mitigation conditions still very much alive.

Appellate Decision Clarifies Scope of Programmatic EIR Analysis for Housing Element Sites

The Committee for Tiburon LLC v. Town of Tiburon (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 259

This appellate decision may be one of the most interesting cases from 2026 for individuals preparing programmatic EIRs. The question presented to the Court was “if a local government is updating its general plan and housing element site inventory and no specific housing project has been proposed for a listed site, must the EIR for the general plan analyze site-specific environmental impacts of potential development of the site.” The Court concluded that no such analysis was required.

CEQA Water Supply Analyses: Court Clarifies Disclosure Requirements

Vallejo v. City of American Canyon (2026) 117 Cal.App.5th 1112

In this case, the City of American Canyon approved a logistics center that required 23.9-acre feet/year of potable water. The City prepared a water supply analysis (“WSA”) pursuant to Water Code §10910, which Petitioner alleged was deficient. Petitioner first asserted the WSA was inadequate for failing “to disclose amount of water actually purchased—as opposed to amount of available for purchase.” In rejecting this assertion, the Court reasoned the City has “historically received ‘100 percent of the full contracted volume’ of…permit water for all but one year.”

Air Quality Modeling Given the Trump Administration’s Clean Air Act Actions

Air quality modeling often requires assumptions about future motor vehicle emissions standards. However, these assumptions have been complicated by (1) the 2025 revocation of California’s Clean Air Act waivers, which previously allowed California to adopt motor vehicle emissions regulations on its own, and (2) the 2026 federal recission of the GHG endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act. More specifically, in May 2025, the U.S. Senate approved several bills under the Congressional Review Act which purported to rescind California’s Clean Air Act waivers.

About the Author

Tyson Sohagi | Principal

Tyson Sohagi is a Principal in Meyers Nave’s Land Use and Environmental Law practice group. He is distinguished among the land use and environmental community for his ability to address the nuanced intersection of legal, technical, and policy challenges. His work focuses on CEQA, NEPA, planning law, housing, the Coastal Act, the Public Trust Doctrine, and Election Law.

Meyers Nave client alerts, email communications, and information provided via webinar or in person presentations do not constitute legal advice and do not create an attorney-client relationship. Recipients should seek the advice of an attorney before acting or relying upon legal alert information. To the extent this communication might be considered attorney advertising, this legal alert does not constitute a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of a recipient's legal question or matter.