foremost principle in California

2024Appellants cite Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 , which stated, “The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act ‘to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 390.) Appellants argue this principle compels us to interpret Public Resources Code section 21085 narrowly to apply solely to unamplified noises.

2023CEQA Principles and Standard of Review “The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act ‘to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390 (Laurel Heights); see also Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 511 (Sierra Club); Guidelines § 15003, subd. (f).) “With narrow exceptions, CEQA requires an EIR whenever a public agency proposes to approve or carry

2018Standard of review "The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act 'to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.' " ( Laurel Heights I , supra , 47 Cal.3d at p. 390 , 253 Cal.Rptr. 426 , 764 P.2d 278 , quoting Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247 , 259, 104 Cal.Rptr. 761 , 502 P.2d 1049 .) "With narrow exceptions, CEQA requires an EIR whenever a public agency proposes to approve or to carry out a project that may have a significant eff

2018Standard of review "The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act 'to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.' " ( Laurel Heights I , supra , 47 Cal.3d at p. 390 , 253 Cal.Rptr. 426 , 764 P.2d 278 , quoting Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247 , 259, 104 Cal.Rptr. 761 , 502 P.2d 1049 .) "With narrow exceptions, CEQA requires an EIR whenever a public agency proposes to approve or to carry out a project that may have a significant eff

2010A. Standard of Review. “ ‘The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act “to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” ’ ” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 563-564 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 410 , 801 P.2d 1161 ] (Goleta).) “ ‘[A] court’s inquiry in an action to set aside an agency’s decision under CEQA “shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion.

2010A. Standard of Review. “ ‘The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act “to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” ’ ” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 563-564 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 410 , 801 P.2d 1161 ] (Goleta).) “ ‘[A] court’s inquiry in an action to set aside an agency’s decision under CEQA “shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion.

1998CEQA Overview and Standard of Review The California Supreme Court in Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 563-564 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 410 , 801 P.2d 1161 ], summarized the purposes of CEQA: “As we recently observed in Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 [ 253 Cal.Rptr. 426 , 764 P.2d 278 ] (Laurel Heights [I]): ‘The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act “to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable sco

1998CEQA Overview and Standard of Review The California Supreme Court in Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 563-564 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 410 , 801 P.2d 1161 ], summarized the purposes of CEQA: “As we recently observed in Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 [ 253 Cal.Rptr. 426 , 764 P.2d 278 ] (Laurel Heights [I]): ‘The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act “to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable sco

2023CEQA Principles and Standard of Review “The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act ‘to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390 (Laurel Heights); see also Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 511 (Sierra Club); Guidelines § 15003, subd. (f).) “With narrow exceptions, CEQA requires an EIR whenever a public agency proposes to approve or carry

2019II The EIR A General CEQA Principles “ ‘The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act “to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” ’ [Citations.] ‘With narrow exceptions, CEQA requires an EIR whenever a public agency proposes to approve or to carry out a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.’ ” (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 511 .) A project will have a significant effect on the environment if it will cause “a

2002When interpreting statutes, "we follow the Legislature's intent, as exhibited by the plain meaning of the actual words of the law.... `This court has no power to rewrite the statute so as to make it conform to a presumed intention which is not expressed.'" ( California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of Rialto Unified School Dist. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 627, 632-633 , 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 671 , 927 P.2d 1175 .) B.

2002When interpreting statutes, "we follow the Legislature's intent, as exhibited by the plain meaning of the actual words of the law.... `This court has no power to rewrite the statute so as to make it conform to a presumed intention which is not expressed.'" ( California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of Rialto Unified School Dist. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 627, 632-633 , 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 671 , 927 P.2d 1175 .) B.

2017Overview and Standard of Review “The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act ‘to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’ ” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390 [ 253 Cal.Rptr. 426 , 764 P.2d 278 ] (Laurel Heights).) CEQA requires the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) whenever a public agency proposes to approve or to carry out a project that may have significant impacts on the

2017Overview and Standard of Review “The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act ‘to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’ ” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390 [ 253 Cal.Rptr. 426 , 764 P.2d 278 ] (Laurel Heights).) CEQA requires the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) whenever a public agency proposes to approve or to carry out a project that may have significant impacts on the

2007CEQA is a “comprehensive scheme designed to provide long-term protection to the environment.” (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 112 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 580 , 939 P.2d 1280 ].) “The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act ‘to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’ (Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 761 , 502 P.2d 1049 ].)” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ

2007CEQA is a “comprehensive scheme designed to provide long-term protection to the environment.” (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 112 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 580 , 939 P.2d 1280 ].) “The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act ‘to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’ (Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 761 , 502 P.2d 1049 ].)” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ

2004DISCUSSION PRINCIPLES OF CEQA LAW APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE “The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act ‘to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’ (Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 761 , 502 P.2d 1049 ].) More than a decade ago, we observed that, ‘It is, of course, too late to argue for a grudging, miserly reading of CEQA.’ (Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 274 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 2

2004DISCUSSION PRINCIPLES OF CEQA LAW APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE “The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act ‘to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’ (Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 761 , 502 P.2d 1049 ].) More than a decade ago, we observed that, ‘It is, of course, too late to argue for a grudging, miserly reading of CEQA.’ (Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 274 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 2

2023Applicable Law “‘The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act “to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.”’” (Pocket 11 Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 926 .) “‘[T]he EIR is the “heart of CEQA.”’” (Ibid.) Its purpose “is ‘to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of su

2014CEQA “‘The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act “to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” [Citation.]’” (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 926 .) Analysis of a proposed project pursuant to CEQA may be divided into a three-tier inquiry.

2013(See, e.g., [Federation of\ Hillside [& Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles (2000)] 83 Cal.App.4th [1252,] 1257 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 301 ] [final EIR certified at same hearing during which project was approved]; *1341 [Association of\ Irritated Residents [v. County of Madera (2003)] 107 Cal.App.4th [1383,] 1389 [ 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 718 ] [same].)” (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1200 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 203 ].) Courts have opined that “environmental review is not supposed to be segregated from project approval. ‘[Pjublic participation i

2013(See, e.g., [Federation of\ Hillside [& Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles (2000)] 83 Cal.App.4th [1252,] 1257 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 301 ] [final EIR certified at same hearing during which project was approved]; *1341 [Association of\ Irritated Residents [v. County of Madera (2003)] 107 Cal.App.4th [1383,] 1389 [ 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 718 ] [same].)” (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1200 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 203 ].) Courts have opined that “environmental review is not supposed to be segregated from project approval. ‘[Pjublic participation i

2024If CEQA is scrupulously followed, the public will know the basis on which its responsible officials either approve or reject environmentally significant action, and the public, being duly informed, can respond accordingly to action with which it disagrees.’ [Citation.] The EIR ‘protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.’ ” (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 511-512 , fn. omitted (Sierra Club).) “The fundamental goal of an EIR is to inform decision makers and the public of any significant adverse effects a project is likely to have on the physical e

2020(Ibid.; Friedland v. City of Long Beach (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 835, 842 .) II CEQA Generally "The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act 'to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.' " (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390 (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn.).) "CEQA and its implementing regulations 'embody California's strong public policy of protecting the environment.' [Citation.] ' "The basic pu

2015(Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC v. East Bay Regional Park Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 353, 365 [ 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 546 ] (Golden Gate Land Holdings).) “The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act ‘to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’ ” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390 [ 253 Cal.Rptr.3d 426 ] (Laurel Heights I), quoting Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259

2015(Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC v. East Bay Regional Park Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 353, 365 [ 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 546 ] (Golden Gate Land Holdings).) “The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act ‘to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’ ” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390 [ 253 Cal.Rptr.3d 426 ] (Laurel Heights I), quoting Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259

2015(Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC v. East Bay Regional Park Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 353, 365 [ 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 546 ] (Golden Gate Land Holdings).) “The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act ‘to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’ ” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390 [ 253 Cal.Rptr.3d 426 ] (Laurel Heights I), quoting Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259

2015(Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC v. East Bay Regional Park Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 353, 365 [ 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 546 ] (Golden Gate Land Holdings).) “The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act ‘to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’ ” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390 [ 253 Cal.Rptr.3d 426 ] (Laurel Heights I), quoting Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259

2014Resources Code, § 21001, subd. (d).) "The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act 'to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of 7 the statutory language.' " (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390 .) CEQA and its implementing regulations "have established a three-tiered process to ensure that public agencies inform their decisions with environmental considerations." (Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1

2014Resources Code, § 21001, subd. (d).) "The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act 'to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of 7 the statutory language.' " (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390 .) CEQA and its implementing regulations "have established a three-tiered process to ensure that public agencies inform their decisions with environmental considerations." (Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1

2013Resources Code, § 21001, subd. (d).) “The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act ‘to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’ ” (Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d 376, 390 .) “Pursuant to CEQA’s ‘substantive mandate,’ an agency may not approve a proposed project if feasible alternatives exist that would substantially lessen its significant environmental effects.” (California Native Plant Society, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 996; see Pub.