Purpose and Scope

The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) is set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and is intended to implement a statewide policy of environmental protection. (California Oak Foundation v. City of Santa Clarita (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1225 discussing how the legislature intended CEQA to be interpreted to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.)

The basic purposes of CEQA are to:

1. inform the government and public about a proposed activity’s potential environmental impacts,
2. identify ways to reduce or avoid environmental damage,
3. prevent environmental damage by requiring changes in the project through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when feasible, and
4. disclose to the public the rationale for governmental approval of a project that may significantly impact the environment.

(Residents Against Specific Plan 380 v. County of Riverside (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 941, 959.)

The guidelines for implementing the CEQA requirements are contained in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.

Under CEQA, the “lead agency” (the local public agency responsible for granting approval of public and private development plans and projects within its jurisdiction) must analyze a project’s impact on various environmental resources, including natural, scenic, and historical resources. Pub. Res. Code Sec. 21001(b); Cal. Code Regs. Sec. 15002(k).

If the lead agency determines that the environmental impacts of the project are not significant, it prepares and makes available to the public a Negative Declaration. Cal. Code Regs. Sec. 15064(f)(3). Conversely, if the lead agency determines that the project will have significant impacts on the environment, it prepares and publishes for public review an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”). Cal. Code Regs. Sec. 15064(a)(1). In the EIR, the lead agency must identify mitigation measures or alternatives that would avoid the significant effects of the project on the environment, or show that the unmitigated effects are outweighed by the project’s benefits. Cal. Code Regs. Sec. 15065(c).

Finally, once the lead agency decides whether and under what conditions to approve a development project, it issues a Notice of Determination. Cal. Code Regs. Sec. 15094.

Actions Under the CEQA

An individual, business, or association directly impacted by a public agency’s approval of a project under CEQA may challenge the agency’s actions by a petition for writ of mandate. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085, subdivision (a), provides:

“A writ of mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled, and from which the party is unlawfully precluded by that inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person.”

The petition for writ of mandate must be filed within 30 days of the Notice of Determination. (Cal. Code Regs. sec. 15112(c)(1).) In ruling on a petition for writ of mandate, the court’s task is to determine whether the respondent public agency abused its discretion by either failing to proceed in a manner required by law or by making a determination not supported by substantial evidence. Pub. Res. Code Sec. 21168.5. Substantial evidence is evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of sufficient value to support the public agency’s findings and conclusions, even though other conclusions might also be reached. (Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392-393.) If the dispute is predominantly one of facts, the court must uphold the agency’s actions that are supported by substantial evidence. (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2001) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435.) However, the court determines de novo whether the agency failed to comply with the procedural requirements of CEQA, such as approving a project with significant environmental impacts without preparing an EIR. (Save Tara v. City of Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116, 131.)

Standard of Review

In a mandate proceeding to review an agency's decision for compliance with CEQA, the court reviews the administrative record to determine whether the agency prejudicially abused its discretion. Abuse of discretion is shown if the agency has not proceeded in the manner required by law, or the determination is not supported by substantial evidence. (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1106.) Judicial review differs significantly depending on whether the claim is predominantly one of improper procedure or a dispute over the facts. (Ebbets Pass Forest Watch v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Prot. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 936, 945.)

Where the alleged defect is that the agency has failed to proceed in the manner required by law, the court's review is de novo. (Ibid.) Although CEQA does not mandate technical perfection, CEQA's information disclosure provisions are scrupulously enforced. (Id.)

A failure to comply with the requirements of CEQA that results in an omission of information necessary to informed decision-making and informed public participation constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion, regardless whether a different outcome would have resulted if the agency had complied with the disclosure requirements. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1198;

Section 21168.5 provides that a court's inquiry in an action to set aside an agency's decision under CEQA "shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence." fn. 5 [4] As a result of this standard, "The court does not pass upon the correctness of the EIR's environmental conclusions, but only upon its sufficiency as an informative document." (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 387, 392 citing County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, 189.)

Judicial Review

Where the alleged defect is that the agency's factual conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence, the reviewing court must accord deference to the agency's factual conclusions. Substantial evidence to support an agency’s decision means “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support the agency’s conclusion, even if other conclusions might also be reached.” (Joy Road Area Forest & Watershed Ass’n v. Cal. Dept. of Forestry & Fire Prot. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 656, 677.)

The reviewing court may not weigh conflicting evidence to determine who has the better argument and must resolve all reasonable doubts in favor of the administrative decision. The court may not set aside an agency's factual conclusions on the ground that an opposite conclusion would have been equally or more reasonable. (Ebbets Pass, supra, at p.945; County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 946.) A court's task is not to weigh conflicting evidence and determine who has the better argument. (Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at 393.) "The purpose of CEQA is not to generate paper, but to compel government at all levels to make decisions with environmental consequences in mind. CEQA does not, indeed cannot, guarantee that these decisions will always be those which favor environmental considerations." (Id.)

Regardless of what is alleged, the agency’s actions are presumed legally adequate, and the party challenging such actions has the burden of showing otherwise. (Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 149, 158.)