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).

The Court of Appeal held that a city-developer agreement that ostensibly precluded the City of Oakland from imposing any new impact fees on the project constituted an impermissible infringement of the City's police power. Discovery Builders Inc v City of Oakland, 92 Cal. App. 5th 799 (2023).

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

Contribution claims brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) are not barred by prior environmental litigation if the property at issue and types of claims brought are distinct from previous claims. GP Vincent III v. Estate of Beard, No. 21-16555 (9th. Cir. May 17, 2023).

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 Ninth Circuit upheld the Federal Aviation Administration's decision to study only the project and the no action alternative in an EIS for a new passenger terminal. However, the court found the FAA violated NEPA by failing to account for the combined noise that could result from the simultaneous operation of different types of construction equipment. City of Los Angeles 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).

The Ninth Circuit held that a Berkeley ordinance prohibiting natural gas infrastructure in new buildings was preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act ("EPCA"), 42 U.S.C. § 6297(c), which regulates the energy use of natural gas appliances used in household and restaurant kitchens. California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley, 65 F. 4th 1045 (9th Cir., 2023).

The Court of Appeal ruled that the protected speech or petitioning activity on which an anti-SLAPP motion is based must be a target of the suit and not merely an event that triggered claims unrelated to such speech or activity. Durkin v. City and County of San Francisco, 90 Cal.App.5th 643 (2023).

A court addressed the City of Clovis' repeated failures to accommodate lower-income housing needs.

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).