Cleveland Nat'l Forest Found. v. San Diego Ass'n of Governments
220 Cal. Rptr. 3d 294
| Cal. | 2017Background
- SANDAG adopted a 2011 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) with a 40-year horizon to 2050 and prepared an EIR analyzing greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts.
- The EIR projected GHGs would fall by 2020 but rise by 2035 and further by 2050 (33.65 MMT CO2e vs. 28.85 in 2010), and characterized the 2035/2050 increases as "significant and unavoidable."
- Plaintiffs (environmental groups and the Attorney General) challenged the EIR under CEQA, arguing it failed to analyze consistency with Executive Order S-3-05’s 2050 goal (80% below 1990 levels) and thus failed to adequately inform the public and consider mitigation/alternatives.
- SANDAG defended its approach: it analyzed (1) comparisons to 2010 baseline (GHG-1), (2) SB 375 CARB regional targets for 2020/2035 (GHG-2), and (3) consistency with CARB’s Scoping Plan and SANDAG’s Climate Action Strategy (GHG-3); it declined to adopt EO S-3-05’s 2050 target as a CEQA significance threshold.
- The trial court and Court of Appeal found CEQA violations; the California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal as to the consistency-with-EO issue, holding SANDAG did not abuse its discretion by not using EO S-3-05’s 2050 target as a CEQA significance threshold, but emphasized CEQA analyses must evolve with science and regulation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EIR must analyze project consistency with EO S-3-05 2050 target | EIR must compare 2050 emissions to EO target because target reflects scientific necessity to stabilize climate and provides essential context | No legal obligation; EO is aspirational, not an adopted plan or CEQA threshold; SANDAG reasonably used other measures | Held: No. SANDAG did not abuse discretion in declining to adopt EO 2050 target as significance threshold; EIR sufficiently reported information to allow comparison. |
| Whether EIR failed as an informational document by not contextualizing long-term emissions increases | Plaintiffs: EIR understates and buries the "elephant" (projected long-term rise) and thus fails to inform public and impede meaningful mitigation/alternatives analysis | SANDAG: EIR disclosed projections, explained methodology, and used three analyses (baseline, SB 375 targets, plan consistency) reasonably | Held: Majority: EIR provided adequate information to inform public and decisionmakers; dissent disagreed, finding the EIR obscured key per capita VMT and emissions trends. |
| Whether SANDAG abused discretion by refusing EO as threshold given lack of regional/sector breakdown and speculative future controls | Plaintiffs: EO is scientifically based and should inform CEQA thresholds despite being aspirational | SANDAG: No clear method to allocate statewide 2050 target regionally/sectorally; future technological/regulatory changes speculative | Held: Majority: SANDAG’s reasons were permissible—EO lacks implementing plans and regional allocation—so declining it was not an abuse of discretion. |
| Whether this decision endorses SANDAG’s mitigation/alternatives analysis | Plaintiffs: Inadequate mitigation/alternatives because EIR downplayed long-term harm; remedies required | SANDAG: Not addressed here; lower courts previously found mitigation/alternatives inadequate | Held: Court limited its ruling; it did not approve mitigation/alternatives analysis and remanded other identified defects to Court of Appeal; agencies must improve future CEQA GHG analysis as science/regulation evolve. |
Key Cases Cited
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (discusses EIR as informational "alarm bell")
- Center for Biological Diversity v. California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, 62 Cal.4th 204 (addresses CEQA analysis of GHGs and value of CARB Scoping Plan approaches)
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (standard of review and adequacy of EIR disclosures)
- Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Comrs., 91 Cal.App.4th 1344 (EIR cannot merely label impacts "significant" without analysis)
- Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach, 2 Cal.5th 918 (information buried in appendices is not a substitute for reasoned analysis)
- California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist., 62 Cal.4th 369 (limits on inferring project-level reductions from statewide goals)