231 Cal. App. 4th 1152
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Sierra Club v. County of San Diego concerns CEQA challenges to the County’s 2011 General Plan Update PEIR and the CAP/Thresholds project adopted June 20, 2012.
- CAP CC-1.2 promised a Climate Change Action Plan with detailed, enforceable GHG reductions by 2020; the CAP allegedly was hortatory and did not ensure reductions.
- CAP/Thresholds were analyzed after the fact via an Addendum, not through proper tiered environmental review, and purportedly did not analyze post-2020 impacts.
- The trial court ruled the CAP failed to provide enforceable GHG reductions and to comply with CC-1.2; CEQA issues included lack of enforceable mitigation, missing deadlines, and inadequate findings.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, upholding the trial court’s CEQA-based conclusions and rejecting several defenses, including statute of limitations and sufficiency of the CAP as plan-level mitigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the action is time-barred by the statute of limitations | Sierra Club timely filed within 30 days of CAP approval | 21167 bars challenges to CAP as post-EIR review | Not barred; timely under PRC 21167 |
| Whether CAP/Thresholds complied with Mitigation Measure CC-1.2 | CAP provided enforceable, detailed GHG reductions by 2020 | CAP offered only hortatory measures and lacked enforceable targets | CAP did not comply with CC-1.2; required enforceable measures and deadlines |
| Whether CEQA required a supplemental EIR for CAP/Thresholds | CAP and Thresholds create new impacts not covered by the PEIR | No additional environmental review necessary | Supplemental EIR required; CAP/Thresholds exceeded scope of PEIR |
| Whether the CAP/Thresholds project complied with CEQA findings and integration into CAP | CAP should integrate mitigation measures directly into CAP per PRC 21081.6 | Implied findings were sufficient; MT measures could be relied on existing standards | County failed to incorporate enforceable mitigation into CAP; improper findings required |
| Whether the CAP/Thresholds post-2020 impacts were properly analyzed | Post-2020 impacts must be considered under AB 32 and EO S-3-05 | State plans do not extend beyond 2020 | Post-2020 impacts require environmental review; CAP not justified by current state trajectory |
Key Cases Cited
- Lincoln Place Tenants Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, 155 Cal.App.4th 425 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (scoping and mitigation require enforceable conditions; deference to agency findings limited when not properly supported)
- Lincoln Place Tenants Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, 130 Cal.App.4th 1491 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (requirement to state legitimate reasons for deleting mitigations with substantial evidence)
- No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal.3d 68 (Cal. 1974) (need for express environmental findings when CEQA review occurs)
- Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado, 202 Cal.App.4th 1156 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (tiered EIR requirement for plan-level mitigation measures not contemplated by prior EIR)
- Latinos Unidos de Napa v. City of Napa, 221 Cal.App.4th 192 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (timeliness and standard of review in CEQA challenges; deference limits)