27 Cal. App. 5th 892
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- San Diego County published the "2016 Climate Change Analysis Guidance Recommended Content and Format for Climate Change Analysis Reports in Support of CEQA Document" (2016 Guidance Document) recommending a County "Efficiency Metric" of 4.9 MT CO2e per service population per year for 2020 as the "recognized and recommended method" for CEQA GHG significance determinations.
- The County had earlier adopted a 2012 Climate Action Plan (CAP) and 2013 Guidelines, both of which were challenged by Sierra Club; a writ required the County to set aside the CAP and 2013 Guidelines and to prepare a new CAP and thresholds consistent with CEQA, with the court retaining jurisdiction.
- The County issued the 2016 Guidance Document while the mandated CAP was still under development; the County conceded the 2016 document was not formally adopted, not publicly circulated, and not supported by a public review process.
- Plaintiffs (Sierra Club and Golden Door Properties) challenged the 2016 Guidance Document, arguing it established a de facto threshold of significance without CEQA-compliant adoption or substantial evidence, and constituted piecemeal environmental review in violation of the prior writ.
- The trial court granted a peremptory writ and injunction vacating the 2016 Guidance Document and prohibiting its use for CEQA GHG review on undeveloped County lands; the County appealed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: it held the dispute was ripe, the Efficiency Metric constitutes a threshold of significance, the County failed CEQA adoption and evidentiary requirements, and the document effectuated impermissible piecemeal review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness | Guidance is routinely applied, so review is fit and withholding causes hardship | Matter unripe because CAP development is ongoing per prior writ | Ripe: guidance functions like general-use thresholds; controversy fit and harms present |
| Whether the Efficiency Metric is a threshold of significance | Metric sets a quantitative cut-off that will normally determine significance | Metric is only recommended methodology, not mandatory threshold | Held to be a threshold: identifiable quantitative level (4.9 MT) that normally determines significance |
| CEQA procedural compliance and public adoption | County failed to adopt threshold by ordinance/resolution and did not use public review; violates §15064.7 and prior writ | Guidance was informal, advisory, and CAP development ongoing; not subject to full CEQA adoption now | Violates CEQA: thresholds for general use must be formally adopted with public review; County did not comply |
| Substantial evidence & geographic fit of metric | Metric lacks San Diego–specific evidence and improperly relies on statewide data; does not justify per-service-population uniformity | Metric represents a fair-share application of statewide goals and is appropriate interim guidance | No substantial evidence: County did not bridge analytical gap between statewide standards and county/project-level applicability |
| Piecemealing / compliance with prior writ | Issuing guidance before CAP completion effectuates piecemeal policy-making and violates writ | Guidance necessary to allow project processing and reflects evolving goals; CAP development remains on schedule | Constitutes impermissible piecemealing and violated the supplemental writ; vacated and enjoined |
Key Cases Cited
- Center for Biological Diversity v. California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, 62 Cal.4th 204 (California Supreme Court) (use of statewide emission goals requires substantial evidence to apply at project level)
- Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Commission, 33 Cal.3d 158 (California Supreme Court) (ripeness requires application to specific facts for facial challenges)
- California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist., 2 Cal.App.5th 1067 (Cal. Ct. App.) (agency CEQA guidance that supplies routinely used thresholds is fit for judicial review)
- Sierra Club v. County of San Diego, 231 Cal.App.4th 1152 (Cal. Ct. App.) (prior writ requiring CAP and CEQA-compliant thresholds; guidance cannot substitute for comprehensive CAP review)
- Cleveland Nat. Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments, 3 Cal.5th 497 (California Supreme Court) (regional planning EIRs need not analyze consistency with certain executive order goals; agencies must nonetheless account for evolving state schemes)