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).

Property owners in the Montecito area of Santa Barbara County

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

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 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

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.