Property owners who acted illegally by blocking parking on a public street fronting their houses were not entitled to use the County's alleged noncompliance with CEQA as a defense to actions enforcing encroachment laws.  Anderson v. County of Santa Barbara, 94 Cal.App.5th 554 (2023).

An environmental impact report need not discuss impacts that are too speculative in nature for proper evaluation or assess economic costs not linked to a physical change in the environment. County of Butte v. Dept. of Water Resources, 90 Cal.App.5th 147 (2023).

The Court of Appeal upheld the City's determination that compensatory mitigation for the loss of a historic building in the form of funding of other historic preservation was not feasible because there were no other buildings in the downtown areas with the same architectural style, period of significance, and purpose. Preservation Action Council of San Jose v.

The appellate court invalidated the City's reliance on CEQA's Class 32 in-fill exemption to approve construction of a hotel because the project included demolition of affordable housing and thereby conflicted with General Plan policies favoring preservation of such housing. United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles, 93 Cal.App.5th 1074 (2023).

In Save Our Access v. City of San Diego, 92 Cal. App.

The Court of Appeal upheld the City of Newport Beach's reliance on an EIR addendum to approve a residential project whose impacts had been evaluated in a 2006 Program EIR for a general plan update. Olen Properties Corp. v. City of Newport Beach, 93 Cal. App. 5th 270 (2023).

The Court of Appeal held that the addition of cannabis retailers to existing commercial neighborhoods through an overlay zoning district was exempt from CEQA as consistent with the existing General Plan and related EIR. Lucas v. City of Pomona, 92 Cal.App.5th 508 (2023).

The court of appeal upheld the project description in the EIR for the University of California, Berkeley's fire hazard vegetation reduction plan, holding that it contained sufficient information to understand the plan's environmental impacts, including objective criteria for vegetation removal, even though it did not include a detailed tree inventory or disclose the exact number of trees that w

Concluding that it was a "near certainty" that the Stratford Public Utility District (SPUD) failed to comply with CEQA when it granted an easement for a water pipeline, the appellate court vacated an order denying a preliminary injunction that would have halted construction and operation of the pipeline, and ordered the trial court to reconsider. Tulare Lake Canal Co. v.

The Court of Appeal held that CEQA challenges to proposed student enrollment increases and development projects were moot due to an updated EIR that addressed the flaws in an earlier EIR, and in light of Senate Bill 118, which clarified that "enrollment or changes in enrollment, by themselves, do not constitute a project" for purposes of CEQA. Save Berkeley's Neighborhoods v.

The Court of Appeal rejected a challenge to the City of Buenaventura's removal of a statue, finding there was substantial evidence for the City's conclusion that the statue was not historically significant. Coalition for Historical Integrity v. City of San Buenaventura, 92 Cal.App.5th 430 (2023).

Plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies when challenging the City's approval of a homeowner's development project on the ground that a Class 1 categorical exemption was inapplicable. Arcadians for Environmental Preservation v. City of Arcadia, 88 Cal. App. 5th 418 (2023).

A local organization appealed the denial of its challenge to the approval of an affordable housing project and disputed the trial court's order requiring it to post a bond. The Court of Appeal rejected plaintiff's contentions on the merits and held that the plaintiff was properly required to post a bond because it was delaying an affordable housing project. Save Livermore Downtown v.

The First District Court of Appeal largely upheld the City of Oakland's EIR and CEQA findings for the Oakland A's proposed new baseball stadium and surrounding mixed-use development, with the exception of one mitigation measure that was improperly deferred. East Oakland Stadium Alliance v. City of Oakland, 89 Cal.App.5th 1226 (2023).