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.
69 California opinions name it 3 courts 1986–2025 14 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 |
|---|---|---|
Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordovagreen2 sentences2024Tiering and Program EIRs “CEQA … permits the environmental analysis for long-term, multipart projects to be ‘tiered[.]’ ” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 429 (Vineyard).) A program EIR “is a type of EIR that agencies often use to examine a broad program or plan that will be followed by more narrow, related projects, which can be analyzed in more focused CEQA documents that ‘tier’ from the program EIR.” (Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods v. Regents of University of California (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 226 , 236.) “A tiered EIR is req 2024Tiering and Program EIRs “CEQA … permits the environmental analysis for long-term, multipart projects to be ‘tiered[.]’ ” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 429 (Vineyard).) A program EIR “is a type of EIR that agencies often use to examine a broad program or plan that will be followed by more narrow, related projects, which can be analyzed in more focused CEQA documents that ‘tier’ from the program EIR.” (Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods v. Regents of University of California (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 226 , 236.) “A tiered EIR is req | 8 | 12 |
Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Districtgreen2 sentences2018Both parties agree, consistent with the case law, the Board should normally adopt as a baseline "the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist ... at the time the environmental analysis is commenced...." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125; see Communities , supra , 48 Cal.4th at p. 321 , 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 502 , 226 P.3d 985 ["[T]he impacts of a proposed project are ordinarily to be compared to the actual environmental conditions existing at the time of CEQA analysis, rather than to allowable conditions defined by a plan or regulatory framework."].) However, according 2018Both parties agree, consistent with the case law, the Board should normally adopt as a baseline "the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist ... at the time the environmental analysis is commenced...." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125; see Communities , supra , 48 Cal.4th at p. 321 , 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 502 , 226 P.3d 985 ["[T]he impacts of a proposed project are ordinarily to be compared to the actual environmental conditions existing at the time of CEQA analysis, rather than to allowable conditions defined by a plan or regulatory framework."].) However, according | 7 | 10 |
Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Commissionersgreen2 sentences2024An EIR is, fundamentally, an informational document, and as such, it must “reasonably set[ ] forth sufficient information to foster informed public participation and to enable the decision makers to consider the environmental factors necessary to make a reasoned decision.” (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Commissioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1356 .) The 2019 SEIR fails with respect to this purpose in 30 connection with LM GHG-1. 2023An EIR is, fundamentally, an informational document, and as such, it must “reasonably set[ ] forth sufficient information to foster informed public participation and to enable the decision makers to consider the environmental factors necessary to make a reasoned decision.” (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Commissioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1356 .) The 2019 SEIR fails with respect to this purpose in 30 connection with LM GHG-1. | 5 | 9 |
Cadiz Land Co., Inc. v. Rail Cycle, LPgreen2 sentences2018This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (a).) "[A]n inappropriate baseline may skew the environmental analysis flowing from it, resulting in an EIR that fails to comply with CEQA." ( Citizens for East Shore Parks v. State Lands Com. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 549 , 557, 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 162 ( Citizens for East Shore Parks ); see also Cadiz Land Co. v. Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74 , 87, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 378 .) The "normal[ ]" rule is that the baselin 2018This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (a).) "[A]n inappropriate baseline may skew the environmental analysis flowing from it, resulting in an EIR that fails to comply with CEQA." ( Citizens for East Shore Parks v. State Lands Com. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 549 , 557, 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 162 ( Citizens for East Shore Parks ); see also Cadiz Land Co. v. Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74 , 87, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 378 .) The "normal[ ]" rule is that the baselin | 4 | 4 |
Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of University of Californiagreen2 sentences2025The term ‘project’ does not mean each separate governmental approval.” (Id., § 15378, subd. (c).) “A basic tenet of CEQA is that an environmental analysis ‘should be prepared as early as feasible in the planning process to enable environmental considerations to influence project program and design and yet late enough to provide meaningful 37 information for environmental assessment.’ ” (Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 395, quoting Guidelines, § 15004, subd. (b).) Where “ ‘future development is unspecified and uncertain, no purpose can be served by requiring an EIR to engage in sheer spe 2018The ultimate inquiry, as case law and the CEQA guidelines make clear, is whether the EIR includes enough detail "to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project." ( Laurel Heights I , supra , 47 Cal.3d at p. 405 , 253 Cal.Rptr. 426 , 764 P.2d 278 ; see Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Cmrs. , supra , 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1356 , 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 598 ["Whether an EIR will be found in compliance with CEQA involves an evaluation of whether the discussion of environmental impacts reas | 2 | 11 |
Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authoritygreen2 sentences2017This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant." (Italics added.) In Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310 , 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 502 , 226 P.3d 985 , the court relied on this provision and case law "for the principle that the baseline for an agency's primary environmental analysis under CEQA must ordinarily be the actually existing physical conditions rather than hypothetical conditions that could have existed under applicable per 2017This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant." (Italics added.) In Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310 , 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 502 , 226 P.3d 985 , the court relied on this provision and case law "for the principle that the baseline for an agency's primary environmental analysis under CEQA must ordinarily be the actually existing physical conditions rather than hypothetical conditions that could have existed under applicable per | 2 | 5 |
San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Mercedgreen2 sentences2019(See Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412 , 442, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 821 , 150 P.3d 709 [county could not rely on information not actually incorporated or described and referenced in the EIR]; San Joaquin Raptor Rescue , supra , 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 659 , 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 663 [EIR should not force public and decision makers to "sift through obscure minutiae or appendices" to determine the "fundamental baseline assumptions" used for the environmental analysis]; California Oak Foundation v. City of Santa Clarita (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1219 , 123 2019(See Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412 , 442, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 821 , 150 P.3d 709 [county could not rely on information not actually incorporated or described and referenced in the EIR]; San Joaquin Raptor Rescue , supra , 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 659 , 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 663 [EIR should not force public and decision makers to "sift through obscure minutiae or appendices" to determine the "fundamental baseline assumptions" used for the environmental analysis]; California Oak Foundation v. City of Santa Clarita (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1219 , 123 | 2 | 4 |
Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Maderagreen2 sentences2017(See Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48 , 102, fn. 31, 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 626 [public agency acts as the trier of fact].) Moreover, ARB is not expected to provide an exact or perfect answer. 2017(See Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48 , 102, fn. 31, 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 626 [public agency acts as the trier of fact].) Moreover, ARB is not expected to provide an exact or perfect answer. | 2 | 4 |
Citizens for East Shore Parks v. State Lands Commissiongreen2 sentences2018This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (a).) "[A]n inappropriate baseline may skew the environmental analysis flowing from it, resulting in an EIR that fails to comply with CEQA." ( Citizens for East Shore Parks v. State Lands Com. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 549 , 557, 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 162 ( Citizens for East Shore Parks ); see also Cadiz Land Co. v. Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74 , 87, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 378 .) The "normal[ ]" rule is that the baselin 2018This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (a).) "[A]n inappropriate baseline may skew the environmental analysis flowing from it, resulting in an EIR that fails to comply with CEQA." ( Citizens for East Shore Parks v. State Lands Com. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 549 , 557, 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 162 ( Citizens for East Shore Parks ); see also Cadiz Land Co. v. Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74 , 87, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 378 .) The "normal[ ]" rule is that the baselin | 2 | 3 |
San Francisco Baykeeper, Inc. v. State Lands Commissiongreen2 sentences2018Environmental conditions may vary from year to year and in some cases it is necessary to consider conditions over a range of time periods.' [Citation.]" ( Communities , supra, 48 Cal.4th at pp. 327-328, 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 502 , 226 P.3d 985 ; see also San Francisco Baykeeper, Inc. v. State Lands Com. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 202 , 218-219, 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 880 [five-year average of mining volumes was appropriate baseline].) Thus, "despite the CEQA Guidelines' reference to ... the time environmental analysis is commenced' [citation], '[n]either CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines mandates a uniform, inflexi 2018Environmental conditions may vary from year to year and in some cases it is necessary to consider conditions over a range of time periods.' [Citation.]" ( Communities , supra, 48 Cal.4th at pp. 327-328, 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 502 , 226 P.3d 985 ; see also San Francisco Baykeeper, Inc. v. State Lands Com. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 202 , 218-219, 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 880 [five-year average of mining volumes was appropriate baseline].) Thus, "despite the CEQA Guidelines' reference to ... the time environmental analysis is commenced' [citation], '[n]either CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines mandates a uniform, inflexi | 2 | 2 |
City of Hayward v. Trustees of the California State Universitygreen2 sentences2018The MND was properly tiered from the TCSP EIR " 'Tiering' refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15152.) "Unlike '[p]roject EIR[s],' which 'examine[ ] the environmental impacts of a specific development project' (CEQA Guidelines, § 1516 2018The MND was properly tiered from the TCSP EIR “‘Tiering’ refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the 23 later project.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15152.) “Unlike ‘[p]roject EIR[s],’ which ‘examine[ ] the environmental impacts of a specific development project’ (CEQA Guidelines, § 15 | 2 | 2 |
Save Tara v. City of West Hollywoodgreen2 sentences2015Anheuser’s argument is missing the “thrust of CEQA which requires governmental agencies ‘at all levels’ to consider environmental factors.” (Bozung, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 282 ; see also Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 129 .) It is useful to have an environmental analysis conducted at the earliest possible stage “ ‘to enable environmental considerations to influence project, program or design.’ [Citation.]” (Bozung, at p. 282; see also Save Tara, at p. 129.) Thus, the fact that the removal of the conservation overlay is in the nature of a land use matter, rather th 2015Anheuser’s argument is missing the “thrust of CEQA which requires governmental agencies ‘at all levels’ to consider environmental factors.” (Bozung, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 282 ; see also Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 129 .) It is useful to have an environmental analysis conducted at the earliest possible stage “ ‘to enable environmental considerations to influence project, program or design.’ [Citation.]” (Bozung, at p. 282; see also Save Tara, at p. 129.) Thus, the fact that the removal of the conservation overlay is in the nature of a land use matter, rather th | 2 | 2 |
Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Department of Forestry & Fire Protectiongreen2 sentences2013“Tiering is a process ‘by which an agency prepares a series of EIRs or negative declarations, typically moving from general, regional concerns to more site-specific considerations with the preparation of each new document.’ (Remy et al., Guide to CEQA (11th ed. 2006) p. 601.)” 9 (Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459, 502 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 28 , 187 P.3d 888 ].) CEQA “permits the environmental analysis for long-term, multipart projects to be ‘tiered,’ so that the broad overall impacts analyzed in an EIR at the first-ti 2013“Tiering is a process ‘by which an agency prepares a series of EIRs or negative declarations, typically moving from general, regional concerns to more site-specific considerations with the preparation of each new document.’ (Remy et al., Guide to CEQA (11th ed. 2006) p. 601.)” 9 (Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459, 502 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 28 , 187 P.3d 888 ].) CEQA “permits the environmental analysis for long-term, multipart projects to be ‘tiered,’ so that the broad overall impacts analyzed in an EIR at the first-ti | 2 | 2 |
Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Districtgreen2 sentences2022The EIR also lists the ways to potentially minimize any significant environmental effects, and presents alternatives to the project.” (California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality 6 Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 383 (Building Industry Assn.).) “Unlike ‘[p]roject EIR[s],’ which ‘examine[ ] the environmental impacts of a specific development project’ (CEQA Guidelines, § 15161), the CEQA provisions governing tiered EIRs ‘permit[ ] the environmental analysis for long-term, multipart projects to be “tiered,” so that the broad overall impacts analyzed in an EIR at the first-t 2022Tiering Under CEQA The Legislature has authorized public agencies to tier EIRS, as set forth in section 21093.6 “Unlike ‘[p]roject EIR[s],’ which ‘examine[ ] the environmental impacts of a specific development project’ (CEQA Guidelines, § 15161), the CEQA provisions governing tiered EIRs ‘permit[] the environmental analysis for long-term, multipart projects to be “tiered,” so that the broad overall impacts analyzed in an EIR at the first- tier programmatic level need not be reassessed as each of the project’s subsequent, narrower phases is approved.’ [Citation; see CEQA Guidelines, § 15152 [‘ | 1 | 5 |
In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedingsgreen2 sentences2024Tiering and Program EIRs “CEQA … permits the environmental analysis for long-term, multipart projects to be ‘tiered[.]’ ” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 429 (Vineyard).) A program EIR “is a type of EIR that agencies often use to examine a broad program or plan that will be followed by more narrow, related projects, which can be analyzed in more focused CEQA documents that ‘tier’ from the program EIR.” (Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods v. Regents of University of California (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 226 , 236.) “A tiered EIR is req 2018The MND was properly tiered from the TCSP EIR " 'Tiering' refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15152.) "Unlike '[p]roject EIR[s],' which 'examine[ ] the environmental impacts of a specific development project' (CEQA Guidelines, § 1516 | 1 | 3 |
California Oak Foundation v. City of Santa Claritagreen2 sentences2019(See Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412 , 442, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 821 , 150 P.3d 709 [county could not rely on information not actually incorporated or described and referenced in the EIR]; San Joaquin Raptor Rescue , supra , 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 659 , 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 663 [EIR should not force public and decision makers to "sift through obscure minutiae or appendices" to determine the "fundamental baseline assumptions" used for the environmental analysis]; California Oak Foundation v. City of Santa Clarita (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1219 , 123 2019(See Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412 , 442, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 821 , 150 P.3d 709 [county could not rely on information not actually incorporated or described and referenced in the EIR]; San Joaquin Raptor Rescue , supra , 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 659 , 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 663 [EIR should not force public and decision makers to "sift through obscure minutiae or appendices" to determine the "fundamental baseline assumptions" used for the environmental analysis]; California Oak Foundation v. City of Santa Clarita (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1219 , 123 | 1 | 3 |
Sierra Club v. State Board of Forestrygreen2 sentences2015(Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova 7 (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435 (Vineyard); Sierra Club v. State Bd. of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1236 .) However, where the agency includes the relevant information, but the adequacy of the information is disputed, the question is one of substantial evidence. ( Vineyard, supra, at p. 435 ; Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 393 .) When determining whether an agency proceeded in a manner required by law, we do not impose procedural or substantive requirements beyond those explicitly stated in CEQA and the Gui 2013(Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435 [ 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 821 , 150 P.3d 709 ] (Vineyard); Sierra Club v. State Bd. of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1236 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 19 , 876 P.2d 505 ].) However, where the agency includes the relevant information, but the adequacy of the information is disputed, the question is one of substantial evidence. | 1 | 3 |
Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Commissiongreen2 sentences2025Lawson, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at p. 95 ; accord, Mountain Lion, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 114 [although agency operating pursuant to a certified regulatory program is not required to prepare an EIR, agency is still required to “comply with all of CEQA’s other requirements”]; see also POET, LLC, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at pp. 709-711.) For 41 instance, CARB must adhere to “the policy of avoiding significant adverse effects on the environment where feasible.” (Guidelines, § 15250.) Here CARB prepared an environmental analysis (the Regulation EA) “in lieu of” an EIR. 2021(See, e.g., Mountain Lion Foundation, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 134 ; POET, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 714 .) We also are not persuaded by Heritage’s characterization of the procedure in this case – in which the Coastal Commission “[i]n approving the [p]roject, . . . disagreed with its staff, thus requiring that the matter return to the Commission for adoption of revised findings” – as “roughly analogous to when a trial court provides its tentative ruling on a matter at a hearing and only later adopts its written order or findings setting forth its decision, either consistent with or different | 1 | 2 |
Cleveland Nat'l Forest Found. v. San Diego Ass'n of Governmentsgreen1 sentence2025Bonta v. County of Lake (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1222 , 1234.) The “ ‘designation of a particular adverse environmental effect as “significant” ’ ” does not excuse “ ‘the failure to reasonably describe the nature and magnitude of the adverse effect.’ ” (Sierra Club, at p. 514.) However, an “ ‘ “ ‘exhaustive analysis’ ” ’ ” or “technical perfection” is not required; rather, we examine the agency’s review for “ ‘ “adequacy, completeness, and a good-faith effort at full disclosure.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 515; see Guidelines, § 15151.) Moreover, an environmental analysis must “ ‘evaluate a particular envir | 1 | 1 |
Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v. California Department of Forestry & Fire Protectiongreen1 sentence2025Bonta v. County of Lake (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1222 , 1234.) The “ ‘designation of a particular adverse environmental effect as “significant” ’ ” does not excuse “ ‘the failure to reasonably describe the nature and magnitude of the adverse effect.’ ” (Sierra Club, at p. 514.) However, an “ ‘ “ ‘exhaustive analysis’ ” ’ ” or “technical perfection” is not required; rather, we examine the agency’s review for “ ‘ “adequacy, completeness, and a good-faith effort at full disclosure.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 515; see Guidelines, § 15151.) Moreover, an environmental analysis must “ ‘evaluate a particular envir | 1 | 1 |
Sierra Club v. County of Fresnogreen1 sentence2025Bonta v. County of Lake (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1222 , 1234.) The “ ‘designation of a particular adverse environmental effect as “significant” ’ ” does not excuse “ ‘the failure to reasonably describe the nature and magnitude of the adverse effect.’ ” (Sierra Club, at p. 514.) However, an “ ‘ “ ‘exhaustive analysis’ ” ’ ” or “technical perfection” is not required; rather, we examine the agency’s review for “ ‘ “adequacy, completeness, and a good-faith effort at full disclosure.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 515; see Guidelines, § 15151.) Moreover, an environmental analysis must “ ‘evaluate a particular envir | 1 | 1 |
Union of Med. Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diegogreen2 sentences2024J. the definition assigned in section 21065.” (Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 1191 ; see ibid. [Legislature’s “use of the defined term ‘project,’ rather than a generic term such as ‘activity,’ suggests that the Legislature intended to incorporate the defined concept”].)14 Unlike the term “project,” the term “residential” is not statutorily defined within CEQA. 2024J. the definition assigned in section 21065.” (Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 1191 ; see ibid. [Legislature’s “use of the defined term ‘project,’ rather than a generic term such as ‘activity,’ suggests that the Legislature intended to incorporate the defined concept”].)14 Unlike the term “project,” the term “residential” is not statutorily defined within CEQA. | 1 | 1 |
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Cal. Dep't of Conservationgreen1 sentence2024Tiering and Program EIRs “CEQA … permits the environmental analysis for long-term, multipart projects to be ‘tiered[.]’ ” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 429 (Vineyard).) A program EIR “is a type of EIR that agencies often use to examine a broad program or plan that will be followed by more narrow, related projects, which can be analyzed in more focused CEQA documents that ‘tier’ from the program EIR.” (Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods v. Regents of University of California (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 226 , 236.) “A tiered EIR is req | 1 | 1 |
| California Building Industry Ass'n v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Districtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlifegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. Kern Cnty. Bd. of Supervisorsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes Redevelopment Agencygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Chinese Staff & Workers Ass'n v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rural Landowners Assn. v. City Councilgreen | 1 | 1 |
| ASS'N OF IRRITATED RESIDENTS v. County of Maderagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialtogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Board of Supervisors v. Local Agency Formation Commissiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Fullerton Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Educationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commissiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dunn-Edwards Corp. v. BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MGMT.green | 1 | 1 |
| Planning and Conservation League v. Department of Water Resourcesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angelesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisorsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislausgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Environmental Protection Information Center, Inc. v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2017Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." ( Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15355.) Noting the agency's exemption from the EIR requirement as a certified regulatory program, Laupheimer asserted "the specific cumulative-impact provisions of the Guidelines cannot be said to be directly applicable" to its THP. ( Laupheimer, supra , 200 Cal.App.3d at p. 462 , 246 Cal.Rptr. 82 .) But as the court in EPIC , supra , 170 Cal.App.3d at p. 625 , 216 Cal.Rptr. 502 , had done, Laupheimer reasoned "that CEQA's specific-cumul 2017Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." ( Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15355.) Noting the agency's exemption from the EIR requirement as a certified regulatory program, Laupheimer asserted "the specific cumulative-impact provisions of the Guidelines cannot be said to be directly applicable" to its THP. ( Laupheimer, supra , 200 Cal.App.3d at p. 462 , 246 Cal.Rptr. 82 .) But as the court in EPIC , supra , 170 Cal.App.3d at p. 625 , 216 Cal.Rptr. 502 , had done, Laupheimer reasoned "that CEQA's specific-cumul | 4 | 1988–2017 |
Laupheimer v. State of California
green
2 sentences2017Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." ( Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15355.) Noting the agency's exemption from the EIR requirement as a certified regulatory program, Laupheimer asserted "the specific cumulative-impact provisions of the Guidelines cannot be said to be directly applicable" to its THP. ( Laupheimer, supra , 200 Cal.App.3d at p. 462 , 246 Cal.Rptr. 82 .) But as the court in EPIC , supra , 170 Cal.App.3d at p. 625 , 216 Cal.Rptr. 502 , had done, Laupheimer reasoned "that CEQA's specific-cumul 2017Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." ( Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15355.) Noting the agency's exemption from the EIR requirement as a certified regulatory program, Laupheimer asserted "the specific cumulative-impact provisions of the Guidelines cannot be said to be directly applicable" to its THP. ( Laupheimer, supra , 200 Cal.App.3d at p. 462 , 246 Cal.Rptr. 82 .) But as the court in EPIC , supra , 170 Cal.App.3d at p. 625 , 216 Cal.Rptr. 502 , had done, Laupheimer reasoned "that CEQA's specific-cumul | 3 | 2017–2017 |
Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach
green
2 sentences2023(Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 656 , 683 (Make UC a Good Neighbor); Banning Ranch, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 1224 .) Improper piecemealing occurs where “the purpose of the reviewed project is to be the first step toward future development.” (Banning Ranch, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 1223 .) An environmental analysis must consider “the environmental effects of future expansion or other action if (1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2) the future expansion or action will be significant in that it w 2023(Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 656 , 683 (Make UC a Good Neighbor); Banning Ranch, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 1224 .) Improper piecemealing occurs where “the purpose of the reviewed project is to be the first step toward future development.” (Banning Ranch, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 1223 .) An environmental analysis must consider “the environmental effects of future expansion or other action if (1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2) the future expansion or action will be significant in that it w | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission
green
2 sentences2015Anheuser’s argument is missing the “thrust of CEQA which requires governmental agencies ‘at all levels’ to consider environmental factors.” (Bozung, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 282 ; see also Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 129 .) It is useful to have an environmental analysis conducted at the earliest possible stage “ ‘to enable environmental considerations to influence project, program or design.’ [Citation.]” (Bozung, at p. 282; see also Save Tara, at p. 129.) Thus, the fact that the removal of the conservation overlay is in the nature of a land use matter, rather th 2015Anheuser’s argument is missing the “thrust of CEQA which requires governmental agencies ‘at all levels’ to consider environmental factors.” (Bozung, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 282 ; see also Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 129 .) It is useful to have an environmental analysis conducted at the earliest possible stage “ ‘to enable environmental considerations to influence project, program or design.’ [Citation.]” (Bozung, at p. 282; see also Save Tara, at p. 129.) Thus, the fact that the removal of the conservation overlay is in the nature of a land use matter, rather th | 2 | 2015–2015 |
John R. Lawson Rock & Oil, Inc. v. State Air Res. Bd.
green
1 sentence2025Lawson, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at p. 95 ; accord, Mountain Lion, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 114 [although agency operating pursuant to a certified regulatory program is not required to prepare an EIR, agency is still required to “comply with all of CEQA’s other requirements”]; see also POET, LLC, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at pp. 709-711.) For 41 instance, CARB must adhere to “the policy of avoiding significant adverse effects on the environment where feasible.” (Guidelines, § 15250.) Here CARB prepared an environmental analysis (the Regulation EA) “in lieu of” an EIR. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Covina Residents for Responsible Dev. v. City of Covina
green
1 sentence2025When a lead agency uses a tiered process in connection with an environmental review for a “ ‘large-scale planning approval, such as a general plan or component thereof . . . , the development of detailed, site-specific information may not be feasible but can be deferred, in many instances, until such time as the lead agency prepares a future environmental document in later EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project.’ ” (Covina Residents for Responsible Development v. City of Covina (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 712, 730 , quoting Guidelines, § 15152, subd. (a).) 14 | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Foster-Gardner, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance
green
2 sentences2023These positions asserted by the District are not supported by Supreme Court authority. 38 In Foster-Gardner, supra, 18 Cal.4th 857, 881 , the high court rejected the contention by the insured, an entity against which an environmental claim was asserted, that, in light of the “ ‘coerciveness’ ” of the administrative order or notice, the insurer under a CGL policy had the obligation to provide a defense to the insured as if a suit had been filed. 2023These positions asserted by the District are not supported by Supreme Court authority. 38 In Foster-Gardner, supra, 18 Cal.4th 857, 881 , the high court rejected the contention by the insured, an entity against which an environmental claim was asserted, that, in light of the “ ‘coerciveness’ ” of the administrative order or notice, the insurer under a CGL policy had the obligation to provide a defense to the insured as if a suit had been filed. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| La Costa Beach Homeowners' Ass'n v. California Coastal Commission green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Poet v. State Air Resources Board green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Towards Responsibility in Planning v. City Council green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Rominger v. County of Colusa green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. Board of Supervisors green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & County of San Francisco green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. County of Kern green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Barthelemy v. Chino Basin Municipal Water District green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Brownrigg v. Defrees green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Sequoia Union High School District v. Aurora Charter High School green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Vandenberg v. Superior Court green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Lee v. City of Lompoc green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of University of California green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Environmental Planning & Information Council of Western El Dorado County, Inc. v. County of El Dorado green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.