California Building Industry Ass'n v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal. 4th 369

Background

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (District) adopted 2010 CEQA "thresholds of significance" and air quality guidelines, including "receptor thresholds" for toxic air contaminants and PM2.5.
California Building Industry Association (CBIA) challenged the thresholds by writ (Code Civ. Proc. §1085), arguing among other things that the District unlawfully required analysis of how existing environmental hazards would affect future occupants (a "reverse CEQA" claim).
Superior Court held the District’s promulgation of thresholds was a CEQA "project" and set aside the thresholds for lack of CEQA review; awarded CBIA fees. The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding the thresholds were not a project and that receptor thresholds were not facially invalid.
The Supreme Court granted review limited to whether CEQA requires agencies to analyze how existing environmental conditions will impact future project users or residents.
The Resources Agency Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15126.2(a)) instruct EIRs to identify significant effects from "bringing development and people into the area affected" and to evaluate locating development in hazard-prone areas.
The Supreme Court evaluated CEQA text, structure, purpose, and deference to the Resources Agency to decide the scope of any obligation to analyze environmental effects on future occupants.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CEQA generally requires analysis of how existing environmental conditions will affect future project users/residents	CBIA: CEQA does not require "reverse" analysis; Guidelines exceed statutory authority	District: Section 21083(b)(3) covers environmental effects causing substantial adverse effects on humans, including existing conditions impacting future users	Generally no — CEQA does not require analysis of how existing conditions will affect future users, except in specific circumstances
Validity of Guidelines §15126.2(a) language requiring analysis of hazards to future occupants	CBIA: Portions of the Guideline are unauthorized and erroneous	District/Resources Agency: Guideline reasonably interprets CEQA to require such analysis when project brings people into hazardous areas or exacerbates hazards	Guideline valid in part: valid to the extent it requires analysis where a project may exacerbate existing hazards; invalid where it mandates analysis of environmental hazards on future occupants irrespective of project exacerbation
Whether statutes or caselaw create broader duty (e.g., airports, schools, housing)	CBIA: Guideline unnecessary because statutes already cover specific situations	District: These statutes show legislative intent to protect occupants generally	Court: Specific statutes (airport, schools, certain housing/transit projects) are exceptions that independently require occupant-focused analysis; they do not create a general rule
Remedy / disposition below (thresholds as "project"; fees)	CBIA: Superior court correct to set aside thresholds and award fees	District: Court of Appeal correctly reversed; thresholds not a project and not facially invalid	Supreme Court reversed Court of Appeal on some issues, held Guidelines valid only in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion (did not decide whether thresholds adoption was a project)

Key Cases Cited

Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors, 48 Cal.4th 32 (2010) (deference to Guidelines and CEQA interpretation)
Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 47 Cal.3d 376 (1988) (CEQA interpretation and purpose)
Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization, 19 Cal.4th 1 (1998) (weight to agency interpretation)
In re Bay-Delta etc., 43 Cal.4th 1143 (2008) (EIR role in informed decisionmaking)
Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency, 103 Cal.App.4th 98 (2002) (when an EIR is required; "fair argument" standard)