noise standard in California

2022(Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (c); King & Gardiner Farms, LLC, at p. 887 [conformity with a maximum noise level specified in a general plan does not prevent a fair argument from being made that the proposed project will generate environmentally significant noise impacts]; East Sacramento Partnerships, at pp. 301-303 [finding traffic impact analysis deficient where the EIR found impacts less than significant based solely on the mobility element in the City’s general plan, without any evidence that such impacts were insignificant]; Keep Our Mountains Quiet, supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. 732 ; Berke

2020The appellate court cited Oro Fino for the principle that “ ‘conformity with a general plan does not insulate a project from EIR review where it can be fairly argued that the project will generate significant environmental effects.’ ” (Grand Terrace, supra, at p. 1338 .) The court considered the record as a whole, including testimony about the noise generated by the proposed window-mounted air conditioners; took into account the mitigation measures; and concluded “there is substantial evidence that it can be fairly argued that the Project may have a significant environmental noise impact.” (Id

2020“DNL” is the “Day-Night Average Level,” which is the average equivalent sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after adding 102. 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 1338 .) The initial study concluded the facility’s air conditioner units would cause noise impacts, but with mitigating measures the project would operate within the general plan’s noise standard.

2020In the present appeal, DNL and CNEL were considered equivalent descriptors for purpose of the EIR’s noise study. 102. 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 1338 .) The initial study concluded the facility’s air conditioner units would cause noise impacts, but with mitigating measures the project would operate within the general plan’s noise standard.

2018II Cognizable Contentions on Appeal This court directed the parties and the RPI to address in supplemental briefing the following issues: (1) whether the March 2016 decision was the final judgment despite its label; (2) whether the December 2016 decision was a postjudgment order despite its label; and (3) whether ACCORD's contentions had been forfeited and are not cognizable on this appeal except insofar as they relate to whether the trial court erred in determining that respondents fully complied with its March 2016 decision. 4 A. Grant of the Peremptory Writ was the Final Judgment for Appeal

2018Both resolutions contained a factual recital indicating that a new IS/MND had been prepared, which incorporated the new noise analysis. 8 on this appeal except insofar as they relate to whether the trial court erred in determining that respondents fully complied with its March 2016 decision.4 A. Grant of the Peremptory Writ was the Final Judgment for Appeal Purposes “The right to appeal is wholly statutory. [Citation.]” (Dana Point Safe Harbor Collective v. Superior Court (2010) 51 Cal.4th 1, 5 .) In general, a civil appeal may be taken “[f]rom a judgment, except an interlocutory judgment.” (C

2022(King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814 , 883-884 (King & Gardiner Farms, LLC); East Sacramento Partnerships for a Livable City, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 300 .) But compliance with a threshold such as the noise standard set forth in a general plan does not relieve a lead 11 agency of the obligation to consider substantial evidence indicating that the project’s environmental effects may still be significant.

2014Relying primarily on this court’s decision in Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. City of San Jose (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 689 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 868 ] (Santa Teresa), the trial court found that there was substantial evidence to support City’s decision that an EIR addendum, rather than a SEIR, was appropriate under CEQA because (1) the noise analysis attached to the eighth addendum showed that noise impacts from the proposed airport modifications would be less than the impacts that were disclosed in the 1997 FEIR and the 2003 SEIR; (2) the effects of greenhouse gases do not constitute new informa

2014Relying primarily on this court’s decision in Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. City of San Jose (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 689 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 868 ] (Santa Teresa), the trial court found that there was substantial evidence to support City’s decision that an EIR addendum, rather than a SEIR, was appropriate under CEQA because (1) the noise analysis attached to the eighth addendum showed that noise impacts from the proposed airport modifications would be less than the impacts that were disclosed in the 1997 FEIR and the 2003 SEIR; (2) the effects of greenhouse gases do not constitute new informa

2001Requests for Supplementary Noise Analysis “The purpose of requiring public review [of an EIR] is to ‘ “ ‘demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.’ ” [Citation.]’ . . .” (Schoen v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th *1375 556, 573-574 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 343 ].) It is fair to say that the disposition of the citizenry who attended public hearings, signed petitions, and wrote letters in response to the draft EIR’s noise analysis went beyond “apprehensive” and could more aptly