Match the CEQA court case with what it covered:
1: Vineyard case
2: Goleta vs. UC Regents

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The task asks to match two CEQA court cases to statements about what they covered. We have three statements to consider, and two cases to map: Vineyard case and Goleta vs. UC Regents. I will evaluate each option in isolation, noting how it aligns with CEQA-focused content typically associated with these cases, and explain why it would or would not plausibly describe the case.

Option 1: "Greenhouse gases are an air pollutant subject to Clean Air Act regulation"
- This statement frames greenhouse gas issues as a matter governed by the Clean Air Act rather than CEQA. In CEQA practice, courts have addressed whether climate change or greenhouse gas emissions must be studied within a project’s environmental impact report, but the Clean Air Act is a separate regulatory framework. A CEQA case that centers on greenhouse gas considerations is usually about whether the EIR analyzes GHG emissions under CEQA standards (and possibly how to measure and mitigate them) rather than about the Clean Air Act’s regulatory regime. If the Vineyard case covered greenhouse gas considerations under CEQA, the statement would be mischaracterizing the case as primarily about Clean Air Act regulation rather than CEQA analysis itself. If the Goleta/UC Regents case focused on water supply or other CEQA impacts, this description would be even less fitting. Overall, as stated, the assertion reads as a summary focused on Clean Air Act regulation rather than the CEQA-specific issue the case addressed, making it an imperfect match for typical CEQA-case framing.

Option 2: "Established 4 acceptable methods for proving adequate water supply"
- This kind of statement concerns methods to demonstrate water supply adequacy. CEQA analyses sometimes require verification of water supply reliability for project approvals, and some court decisions discuss how to demonstrate adequacy (e.g., using specific approaches or methods to evaluate water availability). If the Goleta v. UC Regents case dealt with water supply adequacy in the CEQA context and set forth recognized methods or criteria for proving adequate water supply, this option would plausibly describe that case. It frames a procedural/technical standard (methods for proving supply) rather than a broad environmental impact category, which aligns with how some CEQA cases discuss how agencies should demonstrate feasibility of water resources for a project.

Option 3: "School overcrowding is a socioeconomic impact, not an environmental impact, and is thus not subject to CEQA"
- This statement asserts a strict separation between socioeconomic impacts and environmental impacts under CEQA, and that such effects are not subject to CEQA. In practice, CEQA does consider socioeconomic impacts as part of the EIR process, particularly as they relate to environmental impacts or cumulative effects, and courts have discussed the relationship between environmental and socioeconomic analyses. The claim that school overcrowding (a socioeconomic effect) is not subject to CEQA would be an oversimplification and generally misstates how CEQA handles socioeconomic and environmental interactions. In many CEQA discussions, while not every socioeconomic effect is an environmental impact, the impacts are analyzed in the context of environmental consequences and land-use decisions. Therefore, this option would be an inaccurate characterization if the case is about CEQA review standards for socioeconomic impacts.

In summary, Option 1 foregrounds Clean Air Act regulatory framing rather than CEQA-specific analysis, making it a weaker match for a CEQA case focusing on environmental analysis under CEQA. Option 2 centers on water supply adequacy assessment methods within CEQA practice, which could reasonably reflect a Goleta v. UC Regents discussion if that case addressed water resources and the standards for proving supply. Option 3 presents a rigid separation of socioeconomic and environmental impacts that contradicts how CEQA treats interconnected environmental and socioeconomic considerations, making it an unlikely fit for a CEQA case discussion.

Note: The precise mappings depend on the exact holdings of Vineyard and Goleta v. UC Regents in the material you’re studying. If your course materials provide specific descriptions of what each case covered, those descriptions should be used to map the options most accurately. The above reasoning analyzes the content style each option represents and how well it aligns with typical CEQA topics those cases are known to address.

ESP 179 001 SS1 2025 Final Exam

Match the CEQA court case with what it covered: 1: Vineyard case 2: Goleta vs. UC Regents

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

People born without creativity never can develop it

A product has a selling price of $20, a contribution margin ratio of 40% and fixed cost of $120,000. To make a profit of $30,000. The number of units that must be sold is: Type the number without $ and a comma. Eg: 20000

Which of the following statement regarding cost is correct:

Under the assumptions used in cost-volume-profit analysis, as the activity increases:

The CVP and break-even analysis are supported by a range of important assumptions. Which of the following is not an assumption of the CVP:

The break-even point is that at which:

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler