California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District

4 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. California Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Case Challenging 2010 Bay Area Air Quality Management District Air Quality Thresholds

    Latham & Watkins LLPChristopher GarrettOctober 15, 2015

    [i]California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (March 5, 2012, RG10548693) 2012 WL 9172278.[ii]California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (August 13, 2013, A135335 & A136212) 218 Cal.App.4th 1171 [161 Cal.Rptr.3d 128].[iii]Id.

  2. First District “Doubts” CEQA Operates In Reverse, Upholds Mitigated Negative Declaration For Urban Infill Project Despite Soil and Groundwater Contamination In Parker Shattuck Neighbors

    Miller Starr RegaliaJanuary 6, 2014

    The bulk of the First District’s opinion, and its most interesting pronouncements, pertained to the CEQA-in-reverse issue and were, of course, merely dicta – since, as it noted, it “need not decide whether the potential effects of a physical change that poses risk only to the people who will construct and reside in a project may ever be deemed significant.” (Citing to its recent decision in California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1195, a case in which it similarly declined to decide the issue, and in which the Supreme Court has now granted review on the “CEQA-in-reverse” issue.) The opinion contained some other interesting conclusions in support of its actual holding in rejecting petitioner’s proffered expert evidence – from a hydrogeology/air quality expert – as not constituting the requisite “substantial evidence” supporting a “fair argument.”

  3. Adopting Thresholds of Significance Under CEQA Not Subject to CEQA Review

    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPAugust 28, 2013

    In California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (CBIA) (Case No. A135335 (Cal. Ct. App. 1st, August 13, 2013)), the First District Court of Appeal overturned the trial court and held that the thresholds of significance adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) were not subject to CEQA review for two reasons. First, “the CEQA Guidelines establish the required procedure for enacting generally applicable thresholds of significance such as those at issue in this case, and a prior CEQA review of the thresholds is not a part of this procedure.”

  4. They’re Back? First District Court of Appeal Paves the Way for Possible Reinstatement of Controversial Air Quality Thresholds

    Morrison & Foerster LLPAugust 21, 2013

    California’s First District Court of Appeal issued a decision on August 13 in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“CBIA”) (Case No. A135335 (Cal. Ct. App. 1st, August 13, 2013)), laying the groundwork for the reinstatement of controversial air quality thresholds, including for greenhouse gas emissions and toxic air contaminants.ADOPTION OF CEQA THRESHOLDS IS NOT ITSELF A “PROJECT” REQUIRING CEQA REVIEW -In CBIA, the court overturned a decision by the Alameda Superior Court that invalidated the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) guidelines for assessing air quality impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). While BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines (issued in June 2010 and updated in May 2011) covered several air quality issues, the thresholds of significance set for greenhouse gas emissions and toxic air contaminants were particularly problematic and difficult to implement.