California Supreme Court Watch

#24-260 Sunflower Alliance v. Department of Conservation, S287414.  (A167698; 104 Cal.App.5th 1135, mod. 105 Cal.App.5th 771; Contra Costa County Superior Court; N221503.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action and remanded for further proceedings.  The court limited review to the following issues:  (1) May an agency claim a categorical exemption from environmental review under CEQA while also adopting conditions of approval relating to potential environmental effects?  (2) Does the term “negligible” in the California Environmental Quality Act’s Class 1 existing facilities exemption (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15301) pertain to a negligible change in use or to a change that presents a negligible risk of environmental harm?

Petition for review granted; issues limited: 12/18/2024

Case fully briefed: 8/11/2025

Cause argued and submitted: 4/06/2026

Opinion filed: Judgment reversed: 6/25/2026

See the Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Petition for Review.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Sunflower Alliance v. Department of Conservation (2026) __ Cal.5th __.)

“We hold that the phrase ‘negligible or no expansion of existing or former use’ in CEQA’s class 1 exemption pertains to an expansion or change in the nature or degree of a structure or facility’s use, not the risk of environmental harm caused by such an expansion or change in use. (Guidelines, § 15301.) Our holding is consistent with the plain language of the class 1 exemption, which does not refer to the risk of environmental harm. It is also consistent with CEQA’s statutory and regulatory scheme as a whole, which reflects the Legislature’s intent to empower the Secretary (Secretary) of California’s Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), rather than lead agencies or reviewing courts, to identify categories of projects that are exempt from CEQA as unlikely to cause significant environmental effects. This interpretation of the class 1 exemption also comports with CEQA’s multistep environmental review process, which generally does not implicate the type of environmental review the Court of Appeal contemplated at the exemption determination stage.

Because the Court of Appeal below misinterpreted the class 1 exemption, we reverse its judgment and remand for the court to reconsider the applicability of the exemption to the proposed well conversion at issue here under the proper analytical framework. In light of our holding, it is unnecessary for us to reach the second question on which we granted review, whether an agency may claim a categorical exemption from environmental review under CEQA while also adopting project conditions relating to potential environmental effects.”

Chief Justice Guerrero authored the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Corrigan, Liu, Groban, Evans, and Chavez* concurred.

Justice Kruger filed a concurring opinion.