In Fat v. County of Sacramento (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1270, the court decided whether the lead agency properly adopted the conditions existing in 1997 as the baseline, instead of prior to 1997 when the project was initially operational. (Fat v. County of Sacramento, supra, at p. 1278.) The court upheld the baseline selected, finding the decision was supported by substantial evidence. (Id. at p. 1281.) The County of Sacramento approved a negative declaration and conditional use permit allowing the opeation and expansion of an airport, which was "a privately owned public facility." The sole issue in Fat, supra, 97 Cal. App. 4th 1270 was whether the county had abused its discretion in considering the physical conditions that existed in 1997 when the application for a conditional use permit was submitted, rather than in 1970 when CEQA was enacted, as the baseline for its initial study. (Id. at pp. 1272-1275.) Although the airport had "developed over a period of nearly 30 years without County authorization" and "there was evidence of environmental damage during that period" (id. at p. 1281), the initial study "described the existing environmental setting" rather than some earlier environmental setting. (Id. at p. 1280.) The appellate court in Fat found it significant that Guidelines section 15125, subdivision (a), had been amended to define "environmental setting" in the context of an EIR as "the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time ... environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective" and "this environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant" (Guidelines, 15125, subd. (a); see Fat, supra, 97 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 1277-1280.) The appellate court concluded that substantial evidence supported "the County's decision to use the 1997 baseline under the general rule set forth in section 15125, subdivision (a) of the Guidelines" for its determination that the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts (id. at p. 1281) and the county had proceeded in the manner required by law. (Id. at p. 1272.) Guidelines section 15125 was used in Fat for the limited purpose of analyzing whether the lead agency had selected the proper reference point in time for assessing the environmental impact of the project. (Fat, supra, 97 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 1277-1278.) The issue on appeal was whether the county abused its discretion in using the physical conditions that existed in 1997 (when the application for the conditional use permit was submitted), as the baseline for deciding whether the proposed project would result in significant environmental impacts. (Id. at pp. 1272-1273.) The Fats, citing another Third Appellate District opinion (Lewis v. Seventeenth Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 823), argued that, since there had been no prior CEQA review, the baseline should be 1970--the year CEQA was enacted. (Fat, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 1275.) In Fat, the Court concluded substantial evidence supported the County's decision to use the 1997 baseline. The area remained largely agricultural with low population density. The Airport Land Use Commission conducted an environmental review in 1992 and adopted a negative declaration, which was not challenged. Although there had been a 30-year period of airport expansion without county authorization and there was evidence of environmental damage during that period, the operators had finally applied for the conditional use permit in 1997, and the county could reasonably view the application as an opportunity to bring the airport under some level of county supervision for the first time. (Id. at p. 1281.)