On November 24, 2014, the California Court of Appeal held that
the San Diego Association of Governments' ("SANDAG")
environmental impact report ("EIR") for its 2050 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy failed to
comply with the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA") by not adequately considering the climate change
impacts of the plan. Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego
Association of Governments, Nos. 37-2011-00101593,
37-2011-00101660 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2014).
The court affirmed the superior court's finding that the EIR
violated CEQA because it failed to analyze the inconsistency
between the state's policy goals reflected in Executive Order
S-3-05 and the plan's greenhouse gas emissions impact.
Executive Order S-3-05 sets greenhouse gas emissions reduction
targets in California through 2050. California's legislature
enacted equivalent emissions targets through 2020 into law with the
intention that the progress and reductions extend beyond 2020 and
directed the California Air Resource Board ("CARB") to
develop regional greenhouse gas emissions targets for automobiles
and light trucks for 2020 and 2035. The San Diego plan acknowledged
an increase in greenhouse gas emissions but SANDAG argued that it
did not need to compare the plan's greenhouse gas impacts with
the state climate policy as articulated in Executive Order S-3-05
because (i) there is no statute or regulation translating the
Executive Order into reduction targets specific to the region
through 2050 and (ii) the plan complied with the CEQA Guidelines
located in title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
The California Court of Appeal disagreed holding that, even though
SANDAG may not know the specific reduction targets it needs to
meet, SANDAG could have compared its plan with the state policy of
continual greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The court of appeal
also held that the use of the CEQA Guidelines did not automatically
mean compliance with CEQA when failure to consider other evidence
frustrates the state's climate policy and renders the EIR
misleading.
Despite the fact that the court's decision that the plan
violated CEQA rendered the petitioners' other challenges to the
EIR partially moot, the court addressed the other challenges in
turn and found that the EIR also violated CEQA for the following
reasons: (i) it failed to adequately address mitigation measures
for the post-2020 greenhouse gas emissions; (ii) it failed to
address any project alternative that would significantly reduce
total vehicle miles traveled and instead focused on congestion
relief; (iii) it failed to adequately present a baseline of
existing air-quality conditions and analyze the health effects of
the air-quality impacts and; (iv) it failed to analyze and mitigate
the plan's impact on agricultural land.
Judge Patricia D. Benke filed a dissenting opinion arguing that
the superior court's decision should be reversed because SANDAG
adequately analyzed the EIR's greenhouse gas impacts in
relation to the regional reduction targets promulgated by CARB.
On January 6, 2015, SANDAG filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court arguing primarily that consistency with Executive Order S-03-05 is not an appropriate standard by which to evaluate the significance of the transportation plan's greenhouse gas impacts. An Executive Order is not binding state policy with which local governments must comply, and it cannot repudiate Guidelines § 15064.4, which was specifically adopted at the direction of the legislature to guide analysis of greenhouse gas impacts.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
