California Building Industry Ass'n v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District
2 Cal. App. 5th 1067
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (District) adopted CEQA "Thresholds of Significance" (2010) and accompanying CEQA Air Quality Guidelines setting numeric "Receptor Thresholds" for toxic air contaminants (TACs) and PM2.5 to identify when future occupants of new projects would face significant health risks.
- The California Building Industry Association (CBIA) challenged the Thresholds, arguing CEQA does not permit requiring an EIR or mitigation based solely on existing environmental conditions affecting future occupants.
- The trial court initially ordered District to set aside the Thresholds and awarded CBIA attorney fees; the Court of Appeal reversed, and the California Supreme Court granted review on whether CEQA requires analysis of how existing conditions affect future users.
- The California Supreme Court held that CEQA generally does not require agencies to analyze how existing environmental conditions will impact future project users, but agencies must analyze whether a project will exacerbate existing conditions; it remanded to the Court of Appeal to apply that rule to the Thresholds.
- On remand, the Court of Appeal held the Receptor Thresholds are not invalid on their face because they have permissible CEQA uses (e.g., voluntary agency review, assessing exacerbation, school-siting statutes, housing-exemption statutes), but the District Guidelines are misleading if they direct routine use of Receptor Thresholds to assess existing conditions’ effects on all new receptors.
- The court remanded for the trial court to partially grant CBIA's writ (invalidating portions of the Guidelines that call for routine receptor-focused analysis) and to reconsider CBIA's request for attorney fees under the private-attorney-general statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CEQA requires agencies to analyze how existing environmental conditions will affect future users/occupants of a project | CBIA: CEQA focuses on a project’s effects on the environment, not the environment’s effects on a project; therefore agencies cannot require EIRs/mitigation based solely on existing conditions harming future users | District: CEQA can require analysis where existing conditions pose hazards to humans brought to the site; Thresholds measure when future residents face unacceptable risk | Court: CEQA generally does not require such analysis; but agencies may evaluate exacerbation of hazards, and certain statutes (schools, some housing) mandate receptor-focused review |
| Whether the District’s Receptor Thresholds are invalid on their face because they require prohibited receptor-focused analysis | CBIA: Receptor Thresholds compel CEQA review based on environment-to-project impacts and so are invalid | District: Thresholds provide guidance and can be applied legitimately in limited contexts (voluntary agency projects, exacerbation, statutory exceptions) | Court: Receptor Thresholds not invalid on their face; permissible in specified contexts but cannot be used to routinely require EIRs/mitigation solely because existing conditions affect future occupants |
| Whether District Guidelines may direct lead agencies to apply Receptor Thresholds routinely | CBIA: Guidelines improperly encourage routine use inconsistent with CEQA and Building Association | District: Guidelines give recommended procedures and are needed for consistent assessment of health risks | Court: Portions of the Guidelines that suggest routine receptor-based application are misleading and invalid; those portions must be set aside |
| Remedy and fees | CBIA: Sought full vacatur of Thresholds and attorney fees under Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5 | District: Sought to retain Thresholds for appropriate use and defeat fees | Court: Reversed trial court’s full vacatur; remanded to partially grant writ invalidating routine-use language in Guidelines; trial court to determine appropriate declaratory relief and attorney fees in first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 62 Cal.4th 369 (Cal. 2015) (CEQA generally does not require analysis of existing environmental conditions’ effects on future project users; agencies must analyze whether a project exacerbates existing hazards)
- Parker Shattuck Neighbors v. Berkeley City Council, 222 Cal.App.4th 768 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (effects analyzed under CEQA must relate to a physical change; impacts on people can render a physical change significant)
- Rominger v. County of Colusa, 229 Cal.App.4th 690 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (an agency may voluntarily undertake environmental review beyond what CEQA requires)
- Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency, 116 Cal.App.4th 1099 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (thresholds are guidance but cannot foreclose consideration of other substantial evidence)
- Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles, 201 Cal.App.4th 455 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (limitations on CEQA’s scope regarding environment-to-project analysis)
- Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Com., 33 Cal.3d 158 (Cal. 1982) (ripeness and limits of declaratory relief for speculative regulatory application)