Cal. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist.

• Citation: 196 Cal.Rptr.3d 94,362 P.3d 792,62 Cal.4th 369
• Decision Date: 17 December 2015
• Docket Number: No. S213478.,S213478.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (California)
• Parties: CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellant.

62 Cal.4th 369

362 P.3d 792

196 Cal.Rptr.3d 94

CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellant.

No. S213478.

Supreme Court of California

Dec. 17, 2015.

Brian C. Bunger, San Francisco, Randi L. Wallach ; Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, Ellison Folk and Erin B. Chalmers, San Francisco, for Defendant and Appellant.

Matthew Vespa and Kevin P. Bundy for Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Planning and Conservation League as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Burke, Williams & Sorensen, Thomas B. Brown, Napa, and Matthew D. Visick, Oakland, for League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Kurt R. Wise, Barbara B. Baird, Veera Tyagi, Temecula, and Ruby Fernandez for South Coast Air Quality Management District as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Earthjustice and Adriano L. Martinez for Communities for a Better Environment as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Wittwer Parkin, William P. Parkin and Jonathan Wittwer for California Chapter of the American Planning Association and California Association of Environmental Professionals as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, and Paula Forbis, Deputy County Counsel, for San Diego County Air Pollution Control District as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Paul Campos ; Cox, Castle & Nicholson, Michael H. Zischke, Andrew B. Sabey and Christian H. Cebrian, San Francisco, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Perkins Coie, Stephen L. Kostka and Geoffrey L. Robinson, San Francisco, for Center for Creative Land Recycling, Burbank Housing, Bridge Housing, First Community Housing, Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California, San Francisco Housing Action Coalition, California Infill Builders Federation, Bay Area Council, Bay Planning Coalition, East Bay Leadership Council, Orange County Business Council, San Mateo County Economic Development Association and Silicon Valley Leadership Group as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.

Miller Starr Regalia, Arthur F. Coon and Matthew C. Henderson for League of California Cities, County of Tulare, County of Kings and County of Solano as Amice Curiae.

CUÉLLAR, J.

We granted review to address the following question: Under what circumstances, if any, does the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ( Pub. Resources Code,¹§ 21000 et seq. ) require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact future residents or users of a proposed project?

In light of CEQA's text, statutory structure, and purpose, we conclude that agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project's future users or residents. But 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. Our reading is consistent with certain portions of administrative guidelines issued by the California Natural Resources Agency (Resources Agency), to whom we owe a measure of deference in a case such as this one.

Moreover, special CEQA requirements apply to certain airport, school, and housing construction projects. In such situations, 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—and a negative declaration or exemption cannot issue without considering—how existing environmental risks such as noise, hazardous waste, or wildland fire hazard will impact future residents or users of a project. That these exceptions exist, however, does not alter our conclusion that ordinary CEQA analysis is concerned with a project's impact on the environment, rather than with the environment's impact on a project and its users or residents.

Accordingly, we hold that CEQA does not require an agency to consider the impact of existing conditions on future project users except in the aforementioned circumstances. We reverse the Court of Appeal's judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with our decision.

I. BACKGROUND

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (District) is a regional agency authorized to adopt and enforce regulations governing air pollutants from stationary sources such as factories, refineries, power plants, and gas stations in the San Francisco Bay Area. The District's purpose is to achieve and maintain compliance, in its regional jurisdiction, with state and federal ambient air quality standards. (Health & Saf.Code, §§ 39002, 40000, 40001, subd. (a), 40200.)² To fulfill this purpose, the District monitors air quality, issues permits to certain emitters of air pollution, and promulgates rules to control emissions. (Id., §§ 40001, 42300, 42301.5, 42315.)

The Resources Agency, meanwhile, is the agency with primary responsibility for statewide implementation of CEQA. It carries out this task in part by adopting administrative guidelines (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq. )³ that call for other agencies subject to CEQA, such as the District, to develop "thresholds of significance" for determining "the significance of environmental effects." (Guidelines, § 15064.7, subd. (a).) In 1999, the District published thresholds of significance for certain air pollutants, along with its own regional guidelines concerning the use of the thresholds and CEQA air quality issues in general, in order to guide those preparing or evaluating air quality impact analyses for projects in the San Francisco Bay Area. The thresholds set levels at which toxic air contaminants (TACs) and certain types of particulate matter would be deemed environmentally significant.

A decade later, in 2009, the District drafted new proposed thresholds of significance partly in response to the Legislature's adoption of laws addressing greenhouse gases (GHGs).⁴ The District cited three factors to justify the new thresholds: (1) the existence of more stringent state and federal air quality standards that took effect after the District adopted its earlier thresholds, (2) the discovery that TACs present a greater health risk than previously thought, and (3) growing concerns over global climate change. A number of organizations, businesses, and local governments participated in public hearings, meetings, and workshops held by the District regarding the proposed revisions. One such participant was the California Building Industry Association (CBIA), a statewide trade association representing homebuilders, architects, trade contractors, engineers, designers, and other building industry professionals.

During the public hearing process, CBIA expressed concern that the District's proposed thresholds and guidelines were too stringent and would make it difficult to complete urban infill projects located near existing sources of air pollution.⁵ CBIA claimed the proposed thresholds would require environmental impact reports (EIRs) for many more projects than before, and would result in nonapproval of other projects. If these infill projects were not feasible, CBIA argued, development would occur in more suburban areas and result in even more pollution from automobile commuter traffic.

The District was not persuaded. In June 2010, the District's board of directors passed resolution No. 2010–06, adopting new thresholds of significance for air pollutants, including the TAC "receptor thresholds" and thresholds for GHGs and PM_2.5(particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less). The District also published new CEQA air quality guidelines, which include the new thresholds and suggest methods of assessing and mitigating impacts found to be significant. (District, Cal Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines (June 2010).)

CBIA filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging these thresholds. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1085.) After rejecting CBIA's contentions that state law preempts the thresholds, the superior court conducted a hearing on the merits of the following claims: (1) the District should have conducted a CEQA review of the thresholds before their promulgation because they constitute a "project" within the meaning of CEQA; (2) the TAC/PM_2.5risks and hazards thresholds are arbitrary and capricious to the extent they unlawfully require an evaluation of the impacts the environment would have on a given project; (3) aspects of the thresholds are not based on substantial evidence; and (4) the thresholds fail the "rational basis" test because sufficient evidence does not exist for their approval.

The superior court determined that the District's promulgation of the 2010 thresholds was indeed a "project" under CEQA, and that the District was therefore bound to evaluate the thresholds' potential impact on the environment. Because the District issued the thresholds without the required CEQA review, the court entered judgment in favor of CBIA without addressing CBIA's other arguments. The court then issued a writ of mandate directing the District to set aside its approval of the thresholds, without addressing CBIA's claim that the District's TAC/PM_2.5thresholds were arbitrary and capricious because they required an analysis of how a project would impact future residents or users. The court also awarded CBIA attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.

The Court of Appeal reversed. In ordering the superior court to vacate its writ of mandate, the Court of Appeal concluded, among other things, that...