17 Cal. App. 5th 413
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- SANDAG certified a 2011 program EIR for its 2050 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy; multiple environmental groups and the People sued under CEQA challenging the EIR.
- The superior court partially granted relief, finding the EIR’s greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis (post-2020 inconsistency with Executive Order) and mitigation inadequate; it did not decide other challenges.
- The Court of Appeal (majority) found additional CEQA defects; the California Supreme Court granted review limited to whether the EIR should have compared plan impacts to the Governor’s Executive Order GHG goals.
- The California Supreme Court (Cleveland II) held the EIR adequately informed the public about GHG impacts based on the information available, but cautioned future EIRs must keep pace with evolving science and regulation; it remanded for further proceedings.
- On remand, this Court addressed issues the Supreme Court did not decide and concluded the EIR was defective in several program-level respects (mitigation for GHG impacts, inadequate range of alternatives, inadequate air quality/TAC baseline and health correlation, and understating agricultural impacts), and directed issuance of a writ consistent with Cleveland II and the Court of Appeal’s rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of GHG-consistency analysis with Exec. Order | EIR must analyze plan’s GHG impacts against state long-term targets | SANDAG’s multi-threshold analysis sufficed given available data | Supreme Court: EIR sufficiently informed public based on available info; no per se rule for future EIRs (Cleveland II). On remand, appellate court reversed limited prior ruling but followed Supreme Court on this issue. |
| Mitigation for significant GHG impacts | Mitigation measures were vague/illusory and failed to identify feasible measures that would substantially lessen impacts | SANDAG: proposed program measures and local plans are adequate at program level | Court: mitigation discussion inadequate — measures were nonbinding or infeasible; not supported by substantial evidence; prejudicial error. |
| Reasonable range of alternatives | EIR omitted any alternative focused on substantially reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) despite Climate Action Strategy goals | SANDAG: alternatives provided reasonable program-level choices; transit-emphasis alternatives exist | Court: alternatives deficient under rule of reason — omission of VMT-reduction alternative lacks substantial evidentiary support and is prejudicial. |
| Air quality (TACs) baseline and health correlation | EIR failed to describe existing TAC exposures, locate sensitive receptors near projects, or correlate emissions increases to health impacts | SANDAG: program EIR level limits feasibility of finer analysis; details deferred to project-level review | Court: EIR lacked reasonably available baseline TAC and receptor info and failed to correlate emissions to health consequences; disclosure and mitigation deferrals unsupported by evidence; prejudicial error. |
| Agricultural impacts (growth-induced) | EIR understated farmland conversion by relying on datasets that miss small farms and recent conversions | SANDAG: use of official farmland mapping is permissible for CEQA analysis | Court: reliance on datasets with known gaps produced unreliable estimates; failure to analyze small farms and recent conversions not supported by substantial evidence (some specific subclaims forfeited for lack of administrative exhaustion). |
Key Cases Cited
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (discussion of EIR as informational "heart of CEQA")
- Cleveland Nat. Forest Found. v. San Diego Assn. of Governments, 3 Cal.5th 497 (Supreme Court decision holding EIR adequately informed public re GHG based on available data and remanding)
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (standard of review in CEQA judicial review)
- In re Bay-Delta, 43 Cal.4th 1143 ("rule of reason" for alternatives in CEQA)
- Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal.3d 553 (mitigation and alternatives are core of EIR)