Exceptions to CEQA categorical exemptions: the six in §15300.2
CEQA Guidelines §15300.2 bars a categorical exemption if the project may affect a mapped sensitive resource (Classes 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11), adds to significant cumulative impacts, has unusual circumstances making a significant effect reasonably possible, may damage scenic resources in an officially designated state scenic highway, sits on a Cortese-listed site, or may substantially harm a historical resource.
The six exceptions, and where to check each
Section 15061(b)(2) makes a categorical exemption available only if it is “not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in Section 15300.2.” Three of the six are also in the statute itself: scenic highways, hazardous sites and historical resources (Public Resources Code §21084(c)–(e)).
| Exception | Applies to | Bars the exemption when | Where to check |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) Location | Classes 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 | The project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern “designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law” by a federal, state or local agency | Adopted maps and overlays in the general plan, zoning and other agencies' rules; CDFW's CNDDB records of species found nearby are a lead, not a designation |
| (b) Cumulative impact | All classes | The cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, is significant | The agency's permit history for the area; other notices nearby on CEQAnet |
| (c) Unusual circumstances | All classes | There is a reasonable possibility of a significant effect due to unusual circumstances | How the project's size, location and setting compare with typical projects in the class; comments received |
| (d) Scenic highways | All classes | The project may damage scenic resources (trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings and the like) within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway; not mitigation required by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR | Caltrans's list and map, which show both eligible and officially designated routes; only designated ones count |
| (e) Hazardous waste sites | All classes | The site is on any list compiled under Government Code §65962.5, the Cortese list | The lists that section has the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the State Water Resources Control Board and others compile; the Secretary for Environmental Protection consolidates them |
| (f) Historical resources | All classes | The project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource: demolition, destruction, relocation or alteration that materially impairs it (§15064.5(b)(1)) | The Office of Historic Preservation's listed resources and the local register; an unlisted building can still qualify under §15064.5(a) |
Unusual circumstances: the Berkeley Hillside test
The test for exception (c) comes from Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, the city had used Class 3 (new small structures) and Class 32 (infill) for a 6,478-square-foot house with an attached 3,394-square-foot, 10-car garage on a lot with about a 50 percent slope. The Supreme Court set the rules courts still apply:
- The challenger carries the burden. A party challenging a project that fits a class “has the burden of producing evidence supporting an exception.”
- A possible effect alone is not enough. It is “not enough for a challenger merely to provide substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment,” because that is the question asked of every project without an exemption.
- Two ways to show it. Either a feature that distinguishes the project from others in the class, “such as its size or location,” plus a reasonable possibility of a significant effect due to that feature; or evidence that the project will have a significant effect, which, if convincing, establishes both parts at once.
- Two standards of review. Whether a circumstance is unusual is a factual question for the agency, reviewed for substantial evidence, which defers to the agency. Whether that circumstance creates a reasonable possibility of a significant effect is decided by the agency under the fair argument standard, and a court asks whether the agency “proceeded in [the] manner required by law.”
The court reversed the Court of Appeal, which had treated a possible significant effect as itself an unusual circumstance, and sent the case back. It disapproved Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 129, to the extent it suggested otherwise.
What the exceptions don't reach, and two recent changes
- Statutory exemptions. Section 15061(b)(1) exempts a project “exempt by statute” with no reference to §15300.2; each statutory exemption carries its own conditions instead. See the statutory exemptions.
- The common sense exemption has no exception list, but its test is stricter: certainty that no significant effect is possible. See the common sense exemption.
- Housing that misses by one condition. Since 2025, PRC §21080.1(b) says that if a housing development project would be exempt under a statutory exemption or Class 1 to 5, 12, 15, 20, 27, 30 or 32 “but for a single condition,” including one in §15300.2, CEQA review is limited to effects caused solely by that condition, and an EIR needs no alternatives or growth-inducing discussion. It doesn't apply with two or more conditions, to projects not similar in kind to the exemption, to projects with a distribution center or oil and gas infrastructure, on natural and protected lands, or to some builder's remedy projects over four acres.
- Data centers, from January 1, 2027. SB 887 (Chapter 439, Statutes of 2026) adds PRC §21084(f): a project carried out or approved by a public agency “in furtherance of the development and operation of a data center shall not be exempted” under the categorical exemptions. It excludes publicly funded research, public safety and national security facilities, publicly owned facilities, other utility facilities, and research facilities of independent colleges and universities. Chaptered on September 21, 2026, it takes effect January 1, 2027 under the Constitution's rule for regular-session statutes. The same act makes data center entitlements subject to CEQA notwithstanding any other law (new §21080.08), so they can't be treated as ministerial.
A filled-in exceptions check
Illustrative only: a made-up project showing the level of detail a lead agency's file might hold, not a finding about any real site.
Project: one new single-family house with a detached two-car garage on a vacant hillside lot in a residential zone, claimed under Class 3, §15303(a) and (e).
| Exception | Finding | Evidence kept in the file |
|---|---|---|
| (a) Location | Clear | Lot is outside the adopted landslide hazard overlay and any designated habitat map; CNDDB shows no recorded occurrences on the parcel |
| (b) Cumulative | Clear | Two house permits on the street in five years, both on lots zoned for them |
| (c) Unusual circumstances | Look closer | The slope is steeper than most lots in the zone; a geotechnical report and grading plan show standard measures under the building code, and comments raised no other feature |
| (d) Scenic highway | Clear | Nearest officially designated state scenic highway is miles away (Caltrans list, checked on the decision date) |
| (e) Cortese list | Clear | Parcel not on any §65962.5 list on the decision date |
| (f) Historical resource | Clear | Vacant lot; no listed or eligible resource on or next to it |
Under Berkeley Hillside, the agency would decide as a matter of fact whether that slope is unusual for Class 3 projects in the area and, if it is, whether it creates a reasonable possibility of a significant effect. If an exception applies, the class is unavailable; the agency can look for a statutory exemption or prepare an initial study (§15063). If the claim holds, the reasons go into the Notice of Exemption.
Drafting the check
Planners usually run these lookups by hand from the sources above. ePlan's CEQA Exemption Finder asks about site conditions (historical resource, Cortese list, state scenic highway, sensitive habitat or mapped hazard, similar projects nearby, anything unusual), fills in what it can from CEQAnet, the Cortese list, OHP, Caltrans and CNDDB, and drafts a §15300.2 check for (a) through (f) along with the notice; reading the draft is free and the Word file costs $49. Its lookups are a start: the agency still has to confirm each finding against its own maps and record, and decides whether the exemption holds. Projects that need a Class 32 analysis also have to meet that class's own conditions; see Class 32.
Sources
- CEQA Guidelines §15300.2, Exceptions, §15061, §15303 and §15064.5 (14 CCR; read November 13, 2026)
- Public Resources Code §21084 and §21080.1 (text mirrored from leginfo.legislature.ca.gov; read November 13, 2026)
- Government Code §65962.5 (read November 13, 2026)
- Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086 (read November 13, 2026)
- SB 887 (Chapter 439, Statutes of 2026), chaptered text and digest, via Digital Democracy and California Constitution, art. IV, §8(c) (read November 13, 2026)
- Caltrans, California State Scenic Highways, Office of Historic Preservation, listed resources, CDFW, California Natural Diversity Database and CEQAnet (read November 13, 2026)
- ePlan CEQA Exemption Finder and pricing page (read November 13, 2026)
About this guide
ceqaexemption.com is published by Winding AI, Inc., the company that makes ePlan, which drafts CEQA Notices of Exemption among other permit documents. We make money when someone pays ePlan for a download or a plan; we earn nothing from links to anyone else. This page explains the rules as written and is not legal advice. Visits are counted with Google Analytics; no ads, and no analytics cookies in the EU, UK or Switzerland. Corrections: support@winding.ai.