Cleveland Nat. Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. etc.
D063288A
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 16, 2017Background
- SANDAG certified a 2011 Program EIR for its 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy; multiple environmental groups and the People challenged its adequacy under CEQA.
- The trial court granted relief in part, finding defects in the EIR’s analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts post-2020 and inadequate mitigation for GHG impacts; it did not address other alleged defects.
- This court’s original opinion (Cleveland I) found multiple CEQA violations; the California Supreme Court granted review limited to whether the EIR should have analyzed consistency with the state Executive Order GHG targets and reversed this court on that issue (Cleveland II), holding SANDAG’s GHG analysis was adequate given the information at the time but warning future EIRs must keep pace with evolving science/regulation.
- On remand this court considered the remaining issues that the Supreme Court had not decided: adequacy of mitigation for GHG impacts, range of alternatives (including VMT‑reducing alternatives), air quality baseline and health analysis (TACs, PM2.5/PM10), and agricultural impact estimation.
- This court held the EIR: (a) did not adequately analyze or provide feasible mitigation measures for GHG impacts (despite Cleveland II reversal on the consistency issue); (b) failed to analyze a reasonable alternatives range that meaningfully reduced vehicle miles traveled; (c) provided inadequate baseline and health‑correlative analysis for air toxics and particulate matter and improperly deferred mitigation without performance standards; and (d) understated growth‑induced agricultural impacts because key data omitted small farms and recent conversions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of EIR GHG analysis vis‑à‑vis state long‑term goals | EIR should have analyzed consistency with Executive Order and long‑term state targets | SANDAG argued its analysis was sufficient based on available data and applicable thresholds | Supreme Court (Cleveland II) held SANDAG did not abuse discretion on that specific consistency analysis; on remand this court reversed only to the extent the trial court had invalidated the EIR for that reason, but cautioned future EIRs must evolve with science/regulation |
| Mitigation for significant GHG impacts | Mitigation measures in EIR are illusory or deferred; EIR must identify feasible, implementable mitigation alternatives and measures with effect | SANDAG argued proposed program‑level measures were adequate and further detail belongs to tiered/project‑level review | Court held mitigation discussion was inadequate (no substantial evidence it addressed feasible mitigation options); error prejudicial—EIR must discuss mitigation alternatives that can materially lessen GHG impacts |
| Range of project alternatives (VMT reduction) | EIR omitted reasonable alternative focused on significantly reducing vehicle miles traveled, despite Climate Action Strategy recommendations | SANDAG argued alternatives considered were reasonable and focused on congestion relief and other objectives | Court held EIR failed the rule‑of‑reason by not analyzing an alternative focused on VMT reduction; omission prejudicial to informed decisionmaking |
| Air quality baseline and health impact analysis (TACs, PM) | EIR failed to describe existing TAC exposures and location/number of sensitive receptors and failed to correlate emissions increases to health impacts | SANDAG argued program‑level EIR need not provide project‑level detail and further analysis is appropriate at the next tier | Court held baseline and health correlation insufficient—SANDAG could have provided more; mitigation largely deferred without standards; errors prejudicial |
| Agricultural impacts (growth‑induced) | EIR understated impacts by relying on data that omits farms <10 acres and recent conversions; statutory duty to use best available regional data | SANDAG relied on farmland mapping program and its GIS inventory as adequate for program EIR | Court held EIR underestimated agricultural impacts because chosen datasets had known gaps affecting majority of County farms; error prejudicial; two more specific claims regarding small farms and rural residential redesignations were forfeited for lack of administrative exhaustion |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments, 3 Cal.5th 497 (Cal. 2017) (Supreme Court holding SANDAG’s 2011 GHG analysis did not amount to an abuse of discretion given information available; remanding other unresolved issues)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988) (EIR is an informational document and "the heart of CEQA")
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2007) (standard of review in CEQA: de novo for procedures, deferential for factual conclusions; rule of reason for alternatives)
- In re Bay-Delta etc., 43 Cal.4th 1143 (Cal. 2008) (scope of alternatives under rule of reason)
- Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes Redevelopment Agency, 82 Cal.App.4th 511 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (program EIR specificity determined by rule of reason; program EIR does not lower analytic requirements)