ceqa analysis in California

2023This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant.’ ” (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 320 , quoting Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15125, subd. (a), italics omitted.) In general, “the baseline for CEQA analysis must be the ‘existing physical conditions in the affected area’ [citation], that is, the ‘ “real conditions on the ground” ’ [citations], rather than the level of development or activity that 8 Objective 12, which rea

2023This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant.’ ” (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 320 , quoting Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15125, subd. (a), italics omitted.) In general, “the baseline for CEQA analysis must be the ‘existing physical conditions in the affected area’ [citation], that is, the ‘ “real conditions on the ground” ’ [citations], rather than the level of development or activity that 8 Objective 12, which rea

2024Sierra’s real claim of CEQA error is not that the Project and its objectives were hidden from the public or the City Council, nor could it be: the written comments and responses to comments, as well as the presentations at the public meeting before the City Council to consider the EIR for certification and 25 the Project for approval are proof that the EIR contained “detail sufficient 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, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 405 .) Through public comm

2022The plain language of section 21168.9 grants the trial court the discretion to leave project approvals in place. [Citations.]” (Central Delta Water Agency v. Department of Water Resources (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 170 , 205 (Central Delta Water Agency).) In other words, “ ‘[s]ection 21168.9 was enacted in 1984 to give the trial courts some flexibility in tailoring a remedy to fit a specific CEQA violation.’ [Citation.]” (Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1245, 1253 .) Accordingly, “ ‘section 21168.9 . . . “expressly authorizes the court to fashi

2015(Communities for a Better Environment, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 319; Vineyard Area Citizens, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 435.) Before considering the principal statutory and regulatory provisions governing CEQA analysis of greenhouse gas emissions (§ 21083.05; Guidelines, § 15064.4), we address two related aspects of the greenhouse gas problem that inform our discussion of CEQA significance.

2015(Communities for a Better Environment, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 319 ; Vineyard Area Citizens, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 435 .) Before considering the principal statutory and regulatory provisions governing CEQA analysis of greenhouse gas emissions (§ 21083.05; Guidelines, 10 § 15064.4), we address two related aspects of the greenhouse gas problem that inform our discussion of CEQA significance.

2021A final decision on integrating the desalinated water will come after the project has received all of its permits, and based on those results, the district concludes the project is technically and economically feasible.” “CEQA analysis is not required, and instead may be postponed to ‘a later planning stage [for] the evaluation of those project details that are not reasonably foreseeable when the agency first approves the project.’ ” (Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1058 (Treasure Island), quoting Save Tara v. City of

2021A final decision on integrating the desalinated water will come after the project has received all of its permits, and based on those results, the district concludes the project is technically and economically feasible.” “CEQA analysis is not required, and instead may be postponed to ‘a later planning stage [for] the evaluation of those project details that are not reasonably foreseeable when the agency first approves the project.’ ” (Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1058 (Treasure Island), quoting Save Tara v. City of

2023A lead agency, after all, need not speculate about project impacts (see CEQA Guidelines, § 15145) and instead may discuss potential project impacts at a ‘level of specificity . . . determined by the nature of the project and the rule of reason [citations].” (Sierra Watch, supra, 69 Cal.App.5th at p. 105; see also Muzzy Ranch, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 388 [level of detail required in EIR in any particular case necessarily depends on multitude of factors, including the nature of the project, the directness or indirectness of the contemplated impact, the ability to forecast the actual effects the

2023A lead agency, after all, need not speculate about project impacts (see CEQA Guidelines, § 15145) and instead may discuss potential project impacts at a ‘level of specificity . . . determined by the nature of the project and the rule of reason [citations].” (Sierra Watch, supra, 69 Cal.App.5th at p. 105; see also Muzzy Ranch, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 388 [level of detail required in EIR in any particular case necessarily depends on multitude of factors, including the nature of the project, the directness or indirectness of the contemplated impact, the ability to forecast the actual effects the

2023A lead agency, after all, need not speculate about project impacts (see CEQA Guidelines, § 15145) and instead may discuss potential project impacts at a ‘level of specificity . . . determined by the nature of the project and the rule of reason [citations].” (Sierra Watch, supra, 69 Cal.App.5th at p. 105; see also Muzzy Ranch, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 388 [level of detail required in EIR in any particular case necessarily depends on multitude of factors, including the nature of the project, the directness or indirectness of the contemplated impact, the ability to forecast the actual effects the

2023A lead agency, after all, need not speculate about project impacts (see CEQA Guidelines, § 15145) and instead may discuss potential project impacts at a ‘level of specificity . . . determined by the nature of the project and the rule of reason [citations].” (Sierra Watch, supra, 69 Cal.App.5th at p. 105; see also Muzzy Ranch, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 388 [level of detail required in EIR in any particular case necessarily depends on multitude of factors, including the nature of the project, the directness or indirectness of the contemplated impact, the ability to forecast the actual effects the

2022“Section 21168.9 was enacted in 1984 to 32 give the trial courts some flexibility in tailoring a remedy to fit a specific CEQA violation.” (San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. Metropolitan Water Dist. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1097, 1103 .) That statute sets forth the remedies a trial court may grant if it finds that a determination by a public agency does not comply with CEQA. (§ 21168.9, subd. (a); San Bernardino Valley Audubon Soc., at pp. 1102-1103.) Among other things, the trial court may enter an order that the agency’s determination be voided “in whole or in part.” (§ 21168.9, subd. (a

2022“Section 21168.9 was enacted in 1984 to 32 give the trial courts some flexibility in tailoring a remedy to fit a specific CEQA violation.” (San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. Metropolitan Water Dist. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1097, 1103 .) That statute sets forth the remedies a trial court may grant if it finds that a determination by a public agency does not comply with CEQA. (§ 21168.9, subd. (a); San Bernardino Valley Audubon Soc., at pp. 1102-1103.) Among other things, the trial court may enter an order that the agency’s determination be voided “in whole or in part.” (§ 21168.9, subd. (a

2015Citing as an example ConocoPhillips’s concern that refinery operations “vary greatly with the season, crude oil supplies, market conditions, and other factors” (id. at p. 327), the court explained that agencies may exercise discretion to accommodate a “temporary lull or spike in operations that happens to occur at the time [of] environmental review” (id. at p. 328; see Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 125 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 326 ] [“Environmental conditions may vary from year to year and in some cases it is necessary to consider conditi

2010In each of these decisions, the appellate court concluded the baseline for CEQA analysis must be the ‘existing physical conditions in the affected area’ (Environmental Planning & Information Council v. County of El Dorado, supra, 131 Cal.App.3d at p. 354 ), that is, the ‘ “real conditions on the ground” ’ (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 121 ; see City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 183 Cal.App.3d at p. 246 ), rather than the level of development or activity that could or should have been present according to

2019Standard of Review Until relatively recently, the standard of review applicable to the three general exceptions to categorical exemptions set forth under Guidelines, section 15300.2, subdivisions (a) through (c) was a subject of disagreement among the appellate courts. 5 (See, e.g., *242 Hines v. California Coastal Com. , supra , 186 Cal.App.4th at pp. 855-856, 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 354 .) Our Supreme Court offered guidance on that subject in Berkeley Hillside I, which like this case, involved a CEQA challenge to the City of Berkeley's approval of a use permit to construct a new home on a steep slop

2019Standard of Review Until relatively recently, the standard of review applicable to the three general exceptions to categorical exemptions set forth under Guidelines, section 15300.2, subdivisions (a) through (c) was a subject of disagreement among the appellate courts. 5 (See, e.g., *242 Hines v. California Coastal Com. , supra , 186 Cal.App.4th at pp. 855-856, 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 354 .) Our Supreme Court offered guidance on that subject in Berkeley Hillside I, which like this case, involved a CEQA challenge to the City of Berkeley's approval of a use permit to construct a new home on a steep slop

2017Such a rigid requirement also conflicts with the language in section 21168.9, subdivision (b), limiting the court's mandates to only those necessary to achieve CEQA compliance and, if the court makes specified findings, to only 'that portion of a determination, finding, or decision' violating CEQA." (Accord, Golden Gate, supra , 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 376 , 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 546 .) Allowing for the partial decertification of an EIR effectuates the statute's purpose. " Section 21168.9 was enacted in 1984 to give the trial courts some flexibility in tailoring a remedy to fit a specific CEQA violati

2017Such a rigid requirement also conflicts with the language in section 21168.9, subdivision (b), limiting the court's mandates to only those necessary to achieve CEQA compliance and, if the court makes specified findings, to only 'that portion of a determination, finding, or decision' violating CEQA." (Accord, Golden Gate, supra , 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 376 , 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 546 .) Allowing for the partial decertification of an EIR effectuates the statute's purpose. " Section 21168.9 was enacted in 1984 to give the trial courts some flexibility in tailoring a remedy to fit a specific CEQA violati

2021(Banker’s Hill, Hillcrest, Park West Community Preservation Group v. City of San Diego (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 249, 279 [“ ‘Under CEQA, the question is whether a project will affect the 20 environment of persons in general, not whether a project will affect particular persons.’ ”]; Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 430, 446 [“[S]ocial, economic and business competition concerns are not relevant to CEQA analysis unless it is demonstrated that those concerns will have a significant effect on the physical environment.”].) The defendants contend they had

2021(Banker’s Hill, Hillcrest, Park West Community Preservation Group v. City of San Diego (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 249, 279 [“ ‘Under CEQA, the question is whether a project will affect the 20 environment of persons in general, not whether a project will affect particular persons.’ ”]; Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 430, 446 [“[S]ocial, economic and business competition concerns are not relevant to CEQA analysis unless it is demonstrated that those concerns will have a significant effect on the physical environment.”].) The defendants contend they had

2018Assuming that the Windemere did in fact constitute a historic resource under CEQA, 8 the Bottinis' construction project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the Windemere's significance. ( *305 San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist . (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356 , 1392, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 128 [CEQA exception did not apply because "[a] change in physical conditions is a necessary predicate for a finding of environmental impact."], italics added.) Rather, as discussed ante , by the time the Bottinis applied for a CDP in Au

2018Assuming that the Windemere did in fact constitute a historic resource under CEQA, 8 the Bottinis' construction project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the Windemere's significance. ( *305 San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist . (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356 , 1392, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 128 [CEQA exception did not apply because "[a] change in physical conditions is a necessary predicate for a finding of environmental impact."], italics added.) Rather, as discussed ante , by the time the Bottinis applied for a CDP in Au

2015It concluded the commission complied with CEQA when it used a baseline that included the terminal’s use and operation. ( 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 558 .) The court relied on a long line of appellate cases that hold the EIR uses the actual environmental conditions existing at the time of CEQA analysis as a baseline, even when the actual conditions are in violation of current regulatory provisions or were not subject to previous CEQA review.

2014(Communities for a Better Environment, supra, 48 Cal.4th at pp. 321-322 [“the impacts of a proposed project are ordinarily to be compared to the actual environmental conditions existing at the time of CEQA analysis . . .”]; Citizens for East Shore Parks v. State Lands Com. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 549, 558-559 [ 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 162 ] (East Shore Parks) [same]; Riverwatch v. County of San Diego (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1428, 1453 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 322 ] [“environmental impacts should be examined in light of the environment as it exists when a project is approved”].) Where a project involves ongoing o

2026(In re Groundwater Cases (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 659, 693 .) CEQA framework A lead agency must prepare an EIR before approving a project “which may have a significant effect on the environment.” 6 (§ 21151, subd. (a); Friends I, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 943 .) But when “[t]he initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment,” an agency shall prepare a “negative declaration” rather than an EIR.

2025(See § 21094, subd. (b)(1) & (2) [the later project must also be consistent with the program or plan and local land use plans and zoning]; see also Cable Connection, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1334, 1351, fn. 12 [a party is not permitted to change its position on appeal].) 19 language reflects the Legislature’s express intention that EIRs “be tiered whenever feasible, as determined by the lead agency.” (See § 21093, subd. (b).) The Association does not point to any evidence in the record indicating that the 1988 EIR was a tiered EIR or “purport[ed] ‘to defer analysis of certain de

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

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

2020When events render a case moot, the court, whether trial or appellate, should generally dismiss it. [Citations.]” (Wilson, supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at p. 1574 ; Santa Monica Baykeeper v. City of Malibu (2011) 193 9 Cal.App.4th 1538 , 1547 (Santa Monica Baykeeper) [“ ‘appeal should be dismissed as moot when the occurrence of events renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant appellant any effective relief’ ”].) II Analysis Real parties in interest, joined by the County, argue this case is analogous to Wilson, supra, 191 Cal.App.4th 1559 , a reverse validation action including a CEQA ch

2020When events render a case moot, the court, whether trial or appellate, should generally dismiss it. [Citations.]” (Wilson, supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at p. 1574 ; Santa Monica Baykeeper v. City of Malibu (2011) 193 9 Cal.App.4th 1538 , 1547 (Santa Monica Baykeeper) [“ ‘appeal should be dismissed as moot when the occurrence of events renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant appellant any effective relief’ ”].) II Analysis Real parties in interest, joined by the County, argue this case is analogous to Wilson, supra, 191 Cal.App.4th 1559 , a reverse validation action including a CEQA ch

2022(Cf. Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1576 [a project’s completion “moots an action seeking to require preparation of an [environmental impact report] for a particular project”]; Santa Monica Baykeeper v. City of Malibu (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1547, 1548 [noting that “[g]eneral principles for determining whether an appeal is moot have been applied to CEQA cases” but pointing out that “[s]everal courts have considered a CEQA challenge on the merits after determining that effective relief may be granted despite partial or complete construction of

2022(Cf. Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1576 [a project’s completion “moots an action seeking to require preparation of an [environmental impact report] for a particular project”]; Santa Monica Baykeeper v. City of Malibu (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1547, 1548 [noting that “[g]eneral principles for determining whether an appeal is moot have been applied to CEQA cases” but pointing out that “[s]everal courts have considered a CEQA challenge on the merits after determining that effective relief may be granted despite partial or complete construction of

2026The filing of the Petition therefore met both the 90-day statute of limitations applicable to challenges to local planning and zoning decisions (see Travis v. County of Santa Cruz (2004) 33 43 Cal.4th 757, 767 [action challenging conditions of permit brought within 90 days of final administrative action was timely]; Honig v. San Francisco Planning Dept. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 520, 526 [section 65009, subd. (c) “establishes a short, 90–day statute of limitations, applicable to both the filing and service of challenges to a broad range of local zoning and planning decisions”]) and the even short

2026The filing of the Petition therefore met both the 90-day statute of limitations applicable to challenges to local planning and zoning decisions (see Travis v. County of Santa Cruz (2004) 33 43 Cal.4th 757, 767 [action challenging conditions of permit brought within 90 days of final administrative action was timely]; Honig v. San Francisco Planning Dept. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 520, 526 [section 65009, subd. (c) “establishes a short, 90–day statute of limitations, applicable to both the filing and service of challenges to a broad range of local zoning and planning decisions”]) and the even short

2025(Citizens, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 106 .) Indeed, CBE repeatedly argued in its petition that the basis for its CEQA challenge was respondents’ failure to consider the environmental impact of the entire redevelopment project, not just the removal of parking.

2018The agency must instead prepare an addendum to its prior CEQA analysis. ( Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15164 ; San Mateo Gardens , at pp. 946-947, 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 314 , 378 P.3d 687 ; Melom v. City of Madera (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 41 , 48-49, 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 755 ( Melom ); Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda v. City of Alameda (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 91 , 103, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 728 ( Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda ).) Because the question "whether an initial environmental document remains relevant despite changed plans or circumstances-like the question whether an initial environmental docum

2026Thus, to the extent a mixed question requires a 39 determination whether statutory criteria were satisfied, de novo review is appropriate; but to the extent factual questions predominate, a more deferential standard is warranted.” (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 516 (Sierra Club) [cleaned up].) HomeFed asserts the question whether a project is consistent with a general plan is “not a CEQA issue” because CEQA “does not require an EIR to resolve or eliminate potential inconsistencies with a general plan, nor does CEQA require that a project be consistent with a general pla

2025Tejon argues that a reviewing court’s CEQA analysis “’do[es] not require technical perfection or scientific certainty,’” quoting Sierra Club, supra, 6 Cal.5th at page 515 .

2024By describing the project in question, setting forth the agency’s action or decision, and detailing the reasons for the exemption finding, this notice tells the public that the brief period within which a CEQA challenge to the propriety of the noticed action or decision may be commenced has begun to run.” Thus, the decision in Stockton Citizens, supra, 48 Cal.4th 481 is distinguishable because the fact situation did not involve a project opponent’s appeal of a local agency’s initial CEQA-related decision to the final decision-making body.

2024By describing the project in question, setting forth the agency’s action or decision, and detailing the reasons for the exemption finding, this notice tells the public that the brief period within which a CEQA challenge to the propriety of the noticed action or decision may be commenced has begun to run.” Thus, the decision in Stockton Citizens, supra, 48 Cal.4th 481 is distinguishable because the fact situation did not involve a project opponent’s appeal of a local agency’s initial CEQA-related decision to the final decision-making body.