On December 17, 2015, the California Supreme Court filed its decision on California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The Court held that the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) does not generally require an environmental analysis of impacts from the existing environment on a project. However, the Court determined CEQA does mandate an analysis of how a project might exacerbate existing environmental hazards and where the project in question falls into specific statutory categories governing school, airport, and certain housing projects.

Case Background

In June 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“District”) adopted new thresholds of significance for air pollutants and published new CEQA air quality guidelines. The California Building Industry Association (“CBIA”) challenged the thresholds and the Superior Court determined that the District’s promulgation of the 2010 thresholds was a project under CEQA. The District issued the thresholds without the required CEQA review, and the Superior Court entered judgment in favor of CBIA directing the District to set aside its approval of the thresholds.

The Court of Appeal reversed and vacated the lower court’s decision, finding that the District’s promulgation of the 2010 thresholds was not a project subject to CEQA review and rejected CBIA’s challenges to the substance of the thresholds. The California Supreme Court then granted CBIA’s petition for review, but limited the scope to the following question: under what circumstances, if any, does CEQA require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact future residents or users of a proposed project?

Supreme Court Holdings

After review of the CEQA statute and guidelines, the Court held agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents. The Court went on to say when a proposed project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users. In those specific instances, it is the project’s impact on the environment, and not the environment’s impact on the project, that compels an evaluation of how future residents or users could be affected by exacerbated conditions.

The Court determined that section 21083 and other relevant provisions of CEQA limited evaluation to those impacts on a project’s users or residents that arise from the project’s effects on the environment. The Court stated that section 21083 did not contain language directing agencies to analyze the environment’s effects on a project and requiring such an evaluation in all circumstances would impermissibly expand the scope of CEQA.

The Court also identified exceptions to this general rule and stated in specific situations, school, airport, or certain housing projects, CEQA requires agencies to evaluate a project site’s environmental conditions regardless of whether the project risks exacerbating existing conditions. The environmental review must take into account how existing environmental risks such as noise, hazardous waste, or wildland fire hazard will impact future residents or users of a project. These provisions constitute specific exceptions to CEQA’s general rule.

Implications

This decision clarifies that the CEQA environmental impact analysis required for projects is generally limited to those from the project on the environment. There will likely be additional litigation to determine the extent of this holding related to what exactly “exacerbating existing conditions” means, but the decision makes clear that the Court interprets CEQA analysis to typically go one direction. This will assist local agencies reviewing CEQA documents to determine whether analysis is complete based on project impacts review.

Our office will continue to monitor CEQA analysis case law to determine whether additional procedures will be required for local agencies. If you have any questions regarding the decision or CEQA analysis, please contact Douglas L. White at (916) 468-0950 or at doug@whitebrennerllp.com, or Katie O’Ferrall at katie@whitebrennerllp.com.