Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 California opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2024 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of Chula Vistagreen2 sentences2013However, through the implementation of energy saving measures, the . . . greenhouse gas emissions for the proposed store are reduced to 7,381 metric tons per year, or 2,956 *842 metric tons less than ‘business as usual.’ This amounts to a 29 percent reduction from business as usual” (Citizens, supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 337 ), more than meeting the Assembly Bill 32 target reduction of 25 percent for the year 2020 from business-as-usual emissions (this 25 percent figure was estimated by the GHG analysis in Citizens). 2013However, through the implementation of energy saving measures, the . . . greenhouse gas emissions for the proposed store are reduced to 7,381 metric tons per year, or 2,956 *842 metric tons less than ‘business as usual.’ This amounts to a 29 percent reduction from business as usual” (Citizens, supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 337 ), more than meeting the Assembly Bill 32 target reduction of 25 percent for the year 2020 from business-as-usual emissions (this 25 percent figure was estimated by the GHG analysis in Citizens). | 2 | 4 |
Martin v. City and County of San Franciscogreen2 sentences2014(Martin v. City and County of San Francisco (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 392, 402 [“CEQA is not to 15 Appellants do not even refer to the substantial evidence standard as to this GHG issue until the last sentence of their closing brief, wherein they argue that “the EIR underestimated the Project’s GHG emissions, especially in the pre-2020 period, and that the EIR’s analysis of GHG emissions did not even address the stated threshold of whether the Project would impede achieving AB 32’s standard for reducing GHG emissions by 2020. 2014(Martin v. City and County of San Francisco (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 392, 402 [“CEQA is not to 15 Appellants do not even refer to the substantial evidence standard as to this GHG issue until the last sentence of their closing brief, wherein they argue that “the EIR underestimated the Project’s GHG emissions, especially in the pre-2020 period, and that the EIR’s analysis of GHG emissions did not even address the stated threshold of whether the Project would impede achieving AB 32’s standard for reducing GHG emissions by 2020. | 2 | 2 |
Friends of Cuyamaca Valley v. Lake Cuyamaca Recreation & Park Districtgreen1 sentence2020(See Friends of Cuyamaca Valley v. Lake Cuyamaca Recreation & Park Dist. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 419, 425 [public interest exception to mootness applies when appeal affects 14 the public interest “and there is reasonable probability that the same questions will again be litigated and appealed”].) The Final Revised EIR does not rely on the EIR’s GHG analysis, and we are unaware of any entity that currently does so in its CEQA analysis or intends to do so in the future. | 1 | 1 |
Cleveland Nat'l Forest Found. v. San Diego Ass'n of Governmentsgreen2 sentences2020(See Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 413, 424 [“continuing public interest” exception to mootness applied because decision on moot appeal would affect agency’s current or future versions of EIR].) As it stands, Petitioners’ concern that other agencies likely will use a GHG analysis like the EIR’s is entirely speculative. 2020(See Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 413, 424 [“continuing public interest” exception to mootness applied because decision on moot appeal would affect agency’s current or future versions of EIR].) As it stands, Petitioners’ concern that other agencies likely will use a GHG analysis like the EIR’s is entirely speculative. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. City of Santa Clarita
green
2 sentences2024Analysis (a) The City’s Discretion to Choose A Significance Threshold As noted, a lead agency “has substantial discretion in determining the appropriate threshold of significance to evaluate the severity of a particular impact,” and the agency’s choice of threshold will be upheld if it is “founded on substantial evidence.” (Mission Bay, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at pp. 192, 206; Jensen, supra, 23 Cal.ap.5th at p. 885; East Sacramento Partnerships For A Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 281, 300 ; Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1068 ; 2024Analysis (a) The City’s Discretion to Choose A Significance Threshold As noted, a lead agency “has substantial discretion in determining the appropriate threshold of significance to evaluate the severity of a particular impact,” and the agency’s choice of threshold will be upheld if it is “founded on substantial evidence.” (Mission Bay, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at pp. 192, 206; Jensen, supra, 23 Cal.ap.5th at p. 885; East Sacramento Partnerships For A Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 281, 300 ; Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1068 ; | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara
green
2 sentences2024Analysis (a) The City’s Discretion to Choose A Significance Threshold As noted, a lead agency “has substantial discretion in determining the appropriate threshold of significance to evaluate the severity of a particular impact,” and the agency’s choice of threshold will be upheld if it is “founded on substantial evidence.” (Mission Bay, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at pp. 192, 206; Jensen, supra, 23 Cal.ap.5th at p. 885; East Sacramento Partnerships For A Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 281, 300 ; Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1068 ; 2024Analysis (a) The City’s Discretion to Choose A Significance Threshold As noted, a lead agency “has substantial discretion in determining the appropriate threshold of significance to evaluate the severity of a particular impact,” and the agency’s choice of threshold will be upheld if it is “founded on substantial evidence.” (Mission Bay, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at pp. 192, 206; Jensen, supra, 23 Cal.ap.5th at p. 885; East Sacramento Partnerships For A Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 281, 300 ; Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1068 ; | 2 | 2024–2024 |
East Sacramento Partnerships for a Livable City v. City of Sacramento
green
2 sentences2024Analysis (a) The City’s Discretion to Choose A Significance Threshold As noted, a lead agency “has substantial discretion in determining the appropriate threshold of significance to evaluate the severity of a particular impact,” and the agency’s choice of threshold will be upheld if it is “founded on substantial evidence.” (Mission Bay, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at pp. 192, 206; Jensen, supra, 23 Cal.ap.5th at p. 885; East Sacramento Partnerships For A Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 281, 300 ; Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1068 ; 2024Analysis (a) The City’s Discretion to Choose A Significance Threshold As noted, a lead agency “has substantial discretion in determining the appropriate threshold of significance to evaluate the severity of a particular impact,” and the agency’s choice of threshold will be upheld if it is “founded on substantial evidence.” (Mission Bay, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at pp. 192, 206; Jensen, supra, 23 Cal.ap.5th at p. 885; East Sacramento Partnerships For A Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 281, 300 ; Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1068 ; | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure
green
2 sentences2024Analysis (a) The City’s Discretion to Choose A Significance Threshold As noted, a lead agency “has substantial discretion in determining the appropriate threshold of significance to evaluate the severity of a particular impact,” and the agency’s choice of threshold will be upheld if it is “founded on substantial evidence.” (Mission Bay, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at pp. 192, 206; Jensen, supra, 23 Cal.ap.5th at p. 885; East Sacramento Partnerships For A Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 281, 300 ; Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1068 ; 2024Analysis (a) The City’s Discretion to Choose A Significance Threshold As noted, a lead agency “has substantial discretion in determining the appropriate threshold of significance to evaluate the severity of a particular impact,” and the agency’s choice of threshold will be upheld if it is “founded on substantial evidence.” (Mission Bay, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at pp. 192, 206; Jensen, supra, 23 Cal.ap.5th at p. 885; East Sacramento Partnerships For A Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 281, 300 ; Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1068 ; | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa
green
2 sentences2024Analysis (a) The City’s Discretion to Choose A Significance Threshold As noted, a lead agency “has substantial discretion in determining the appropriate threshold of significance to evaluate the severity of a particular impact,” and the agency’s choice of threshold will be upheld if it is “founded on substantial evidence.” (Mission Bay, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at pp. 192, 206; Jensen, supra, 23 Cal.ap.5th at p. 885; East Sacramento Partnerships For A Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 281, 300 ; Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1068 ; 2024Analysis (a) The City’s Discretion to Choose A Significance Threshold As noted, a lead agency “has substantial discretion in determining the appropriate threshold of significance to evaluate the severity of a particular impact,” and the agency’s choice of threshold will be upheld if it is “founded on substantial evidence.” (Mission Bay, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at pp. 192, 206; Jensen, supra, 23 Cal.ap.5th at p. 885; East Sacramento Partnerships For A Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 281, 300 ; Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1068 ; | 2 | 2024–2024 |
California Building Industry Ass'n v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District
green
2 sentences2023A. General Legal Principles “CEQA was enacted to advance four related purposes: to (1) inform the government and public about a proposed activity’s potential environmental impacts; (2) identify ways to reduce, or avoid, environmental damage; (3) prevent environmental damage by requiring project changes via alternatives or mitigation measures when feasible; and (4) disclose to the public the rationale for governmental approval of a project that may significantly impact the environment.” (California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 382 .) Wh 2023A. General Legal Principles “CEQA was enacted to advance four related purposes: to (1) inform the government and public about a proposed activity’s potential environmental impacts; (2) identify ways to reduce, or avoid, environmental damage; (3) prevent environmental damage by requiring project changes via alternatives or mitigation measures when feasible; and (4) disclose to the public the rationale for governmental approval of a project that may significantly impact the environment.” (California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 382 .) Wh | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Poet v. State Air Resources Board
green
2 sentences2023A. General Legal Principles “CEQA was enacted to advance four related purposes: to (1) inform the government and public about a proposed activity’s potential environmental impacts; (2) identify ways to reduce, or avoid, environmental damage; (3) prevent environmental damage by requiring project changes via alternatives or mitigation measures when feasible; and (4) disclose to the public the rationale for governmental approval of a project that may significantly impact the environment.” (California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 382 .) Wh 2023A. General Legal Principles “CEQA was enacted to advance four related purposes: to (1) inform the government and public about a proposed activity’s potential environmental impacts; (2) identify ways to reduce, or avoid, environmental damage; (3) prevent environmental damage by requiring project changes via alternatives or mitigation measures when feasible; and (4) disclose to the public the rationale for governmental approval of a project that may significantly impact the environment.” (California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 382 .) Wh | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Golden Door Props., LLC v. Cnty. of San Diego
green
1 sentence2021The document explained the revised GHG analysis was not based on the invalidated CAP, but was consistent with the revised County CAP currently pending approval because the mitigation measures proposed for the 2 The decision was affirmed by this court in Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 892 (Golden Door I). 4 development made the project carbon neutral. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Cucamongans United for Reasonale Expansion v. City of Rancho Cucamonga
green
1 sentence2020(See Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion v. City of Rancho Cucamonga, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 479 .) Petitioners contend the issue of whether the EIR’s GHG analysis was proper is likely to recur in the future because two other agencies, the South Coast District and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (San Joaquin District), have relied on the C&T Program to assess a project’s GHG impacts. | 1 | 2020–2020 |