A change from heavy regulation of vineyards to a complete ban on new vineyards did not so destabilize the original project description as to amount to a prejudicial abuse of discretion and require a new EIR. Gooden v. County of Los Angeles, 106 Cal.App.5th 1 (2024). 

The Sixth District Court of Appeal held that the undefined terms “in-fill development” and “substantially surrounded by urban uses” in the CEQA exemption for in-fill development were not limited by the definitions of similar terms in other parts of the CEQA statute and guidelines. Working Families of Monterey County v.

The court upheld a mitigated negative declaration for a parcel delivery warehouse project, finding, among other things, that the threshold of significance and baseline used in preparing the MND were supported by substantial evidence. Upland Community First v. City of Upland, No. E078241 (4th Dist., Sept. 19, 2024).

The Third District Court of Appeal held that it was proper to award respondents costs for the preparation of CEQA administrative record documents as the prevailing party, even though petitioners had elected to prepare the record. Yolo Land & Water Defense v. County of Yolo, 105 Cal. App. 5th 710 (2024). 

An appellate court interpreted a writ that ordered an agency to vacate certification of an EIR in part and file a final return to the writ "upon certification of a revised EIR" to require an assessment of the adequacy of the revised EIR before the writ could be discharged.