ceqaexemption.com

Published by Winding AI, Inc., the company that makes ePlan.

CEQA §15301: when the Class 1 existing facilities exemption fits

Class 1 (CEQA Guidelines §15301) exempts operating, repairing, maintaining, leasing, permitting or slightly altering existing structures and facilities when the project involves “negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.” Since June 25, 2026, the California Supreme Court reads that as a question of how much the use changes, not how risky the change is.

Published November 13, 2026. The law and sources below were read on November 13, 2026. A guide to the rules, not legal advice: the lead agency decides whether a project is exempt.

What Class 1 covers

Class 1 covers everyday work on things that already exist: a remodel, a reroof, a new tenant, a utility repair, a restriped street. Its sixteen examples, (a) to (p), are “not intended to be all-inclusive.” One sentence decides every case: “The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use.”

So two things must be true: the work is operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or a minor alteration of something that exists, and the use afterwards is the existing or former use, or only negligibly expanded.

The examples in §15301, with their limits

Paraphrased from CEQA Guidelines §15301 (14 CCR), as published in the AEP 2026 edition.
§15301ExampleLimit written into the section
(a)Interior or exterior alterations: partitions, plumbing, electricalNone beyond the general test
(b)Existing electric, gas, sewer and other utility facilitiesNone beyond the general test
(c)Existing streets, sidewalks, trails; bike lanes, bike parking, bike share, bus lanes, pedestrian crossings, street treesMust not create additional automobile lanes (subdivision (c) was amended in the December 2018 Guidelines update)
(d)Restoring deteriorated or damaged structures to current health and safety standardsNot where the damage was substantial and caused by an environmental hazard such as an earthquake, landslide or flood
(e)Additions to existing structuresUp to 50% of the floor area or 2,500 sq ft, whichever is less; or up to 10,000 sq ft where all public services are available for the general plan's maximum development and the area is not environmentally sensitive
(f)–(j)Safety devices; new copy on existing signs; landscape and reservoir maintenance; fish screen, ladder and stream-channel maintenance; fish stockingLandscape maintenance excludes pesticide use
(k)Converting existing buildings to condominiums or subdividing existing commercial or industrial buildingsNo physical changes that aren't otherwise exempt
(l)Demolishing small structuresOne house (three in urbanized areas); a duplex or similar (up to six units in urbanized areas); a small commercial building for 30 or fewer occupants (three on commercially zoned sites in urbanized areas); garages, pools, fences and other accessory structures
(m)–(p)Minor dam repairs under Department of Water Resources supervision; a house converted to office use; an on-site medical waste sterilizer; a house used as a small family day care homeThe sterilizer may accept no offsite waste

“Urbanized area” has its own definition in Guidelines §15387: a central city or group of contiguous cities of 50,000 or more people, plus adjacent areas of at least 1,000 people per square mile.

The addition limits, worked out

Subdivision (e) caps the increase, not the finished building. Two examples:

Sunflower Alliance (2026): change in use, not risk

In Sunflower Alliance v. Department of Conservation (2026) 20 Cal.5th 22 (decided June 25, 2026, S287414), the state's oil and gas regulator had used Class 1 to approve converting a well, plugged since 1984, into a well for injecting treated oil-field wastewater. The Court of Appeal upheld the exemption because the environmental risks of the conversion were negligible. The Supreme Court reversed:

“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.”

Three points from the opinion matter for anyone writing a Class 1 finding:

  1. New uses can qualify. The court read “expansion” to include changes, pointing to examples (c), (n) and (p): a bike lane on a street, a house turned into an office, a house used as a day care home. The test is whether the change in use is itself negligible.
  2. Risk belongs to the exceptions. Environmental effects are weighed under §15300.2, chiefly the unusual circumstances exception and its two-part test from Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, not folded into the Class 1 threshold.
  3. The well itself is undecided. The court sent the case back for the Court of Appeal to apply the right test, and did not reach whether an agency may attach environmental conditions to an exempt project.

Justice Kruger, concurring, would compare a change with the section's examples; where nothing resembles it, they “can still serve as a guide to the nature and scope of change in environmental risk that renders further formal study unnecessary.” Considerations of environmental harm, she wrote, “do have a role to play in applying the Class 1 exemption,” if a narrower one than the Court of Appeal gave them.

In practice: describe the existing or former use and the use after the project in concrete terms (occupants, hours, volumes, activities), compare the change with the listed examples, and, following the majority, keep most of the “it's low risk” reasoning for the exceptions analysis.

A later published appeal, San Joaquin Facilities Management, Inc. v. Department of Conservation (Fifth District, F089182, certified October 15, 2026), upheld the regulator's finding that drilling up to 12 new water injection wells was not exempt: new wells are new construction, not a change to existing ones.

Common projects: fits, check, doesn't fit

ProjectClass 1?Why
Interior remodel of an office, same useFits§15301(a), no change in use
Reroof and HVAC replacement on a city hallFitsRepair and maintenance of an existing facility
900 sq ft addition to an 1,800 sq ft houseFitsExactly 50%, under 2,500 sq ft (e)(1)
Protected bike lane by restriping, no new car laneFitsNamed in (c)
Converting a house to a small officeFitsNamed in (n)
4,000 sq ft addition to a 20,000 sq ft warehouseCheckOver 2,500; needs (e)(2) services and a non-sensitive area
Reopening a dormant facility for a different useCheckMeasure the change in use, per Sunflower Alliance
Adding a general travel lane to a streetDoesn't fit(c) excludes additional automobile lanes
Demolishing four houses in an urbanized areaDoesn't fit(l)(1) allows up to three
Rebuilding after substantial landslide damageDoesn't fit(d) excludes it; look at other exemptions, such as public disaster repairs under PRC §21080(b)(3) after a proclaimed state of emergency

Worked example: a branch library

A city plans to reroof a 6,000 sq ft branch library, replace its HVAC and add a 700 sq ft reading room. The reroof and HVAC are maintenance; the addition cap is the lesser of 3,000 (half) and 2,500, so 700 sq ft fits (e)(1); and a library stays a library. Then the exceptions: Class 1 is not one of the classes the location exception in §15300.2(a) names (3, 4, 5, 6 and 11), but cumulative impact, unusual circumstances, a state scenic highway, a site on the Cortese hazardous-sites list and a historical resource can still bar it. If the library is a listed historical resource, the city checks for a substantial adverse change under §15300.2(f). The lead agency makes the call and, after approving the project, can file a Notice of Exemption to start the 35-day challenge period.

Getting the finding drafted

Guidelines §15061(c) asks each agency to list the projects it routinely finds exempt, so start with your agency's CEQA procedures; CEQAnet shows how other agencies described similar projects in their notices. ePlan's CEQA Exemption Finder lists Class 1 among its choices, checks the Cortese list, listed historical resources, state scenic highways and species records, and drafts a Notice of Exemption and an exemption memo. The draft is free to read and $49 to download as Word. It is an unsigned starting point, not legal advice, and it can't measure a change in use for you: that comparison is the agency's finding.

Sources

  1. CEQA Guidelines §15301, Existing Facilities, and its 2018 amendment history (read November 13, 2026)
  2. AEP 2026 CEQA Statute and Guidelines, §§15300.2, 15301, 15387 (read November 13, 2026)
  3. CEQA Guidelines §15300.2, Exceptions (read November 13, 2026)
  4. CEQA Guidelines §15387, Urbanized area (read November 13, 2026)
  5. Sunflower Alliance v. Department of Conservation (2026) 20 Cal.5th 22, California Supreme Court, S287414, filed June 25, 2026, majority and Justice Kruger's concurrence (read November 13, 2026)
  6. San Joaquin Facilities Management, Inc. v. Department of Conservation, Court of Appeal, Fifth District, F089182 (read November 13, 2026)
  7. Public Resources Code §21080(b)(3), disaster repairs (read November 13, 2026)
  8. CEQAnet, State Clearinghouse database (read November 13, 2026)
  9. ePlan pricing and CEQA Exemption Finder 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.