Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego

In the fourth appeal in litigation related to San Diego County’s approval of a climate action plan under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s discharge of a writ of mandate directing the County to remedy CEQA violations. Previously, in 2020, the court had directed the County to update a supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR) to sufficiently analyze a “smart growth alternative” to reduce vehicle miles traveled. In September 2024, the County prepared a new SEIR and approved a new climate action plan. The trial court then discharged the writ. On appeal, the Sierra Club contended that the writ had been improperly discharged because the County’s SEIR had not remedied the deficiencies previously identified by the court. Sierra Club further claimed that the County still had not complied with CEQA because it provided contradictory feasibility findings for its smart growth alternative and failed to adopt all feasible mitigation measures and alternatives. The Court of Appeals determined that Sierra Club forfeited its claim that the County had not remedied the deficiencies in its SEIR by failing to raise it in the trial court. Additionally, it found that other CEQA issues Sierra Club raised were not properly before the trial court because they were distinct from the issues addressed by the original writ and therefore could not be addressed on appeal.

Filing Year For Action

The California Court of Appeal rejected key aspects of San Diego County’s appeal of a trial court decision that set aside the County’s approvals of a 2018 Climate Action Plan, Guidelines for Determining Significance of Climate Change, and a supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR). The appellate court held that a mitigation measure in the SEIR that permitted the purchase of carbon offsets from projects outside the County, including international projects, violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the mitigation measure did not require that offsets meet AB 32 requirements, that greenhouse gas emission reductions be additional, and that the offsets originating outside California have greenhouse emissions programs equivalent to or stricter than California’s program. In addition, the appellate court found that the mitigation measure violated CEQA because 100% of greenhouse gas emissions could be offset by projects originating outside California and there were no objective criteria for County officials to use to determine whether a particular offset program was appropriate. The court also found other shortcomings in the SEIR: inadequate cumulative impacts analysis due to the exclusion of greenhouse gas impacts from certain in-process projects; failure to support a finding that the offset mitigation measure was consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan required by SB 375; failure to analyze a smart-growth alternative; and inconsistency between the Climate Action Plan and the SEIR.

Filing Year For Action

Filing Year For Action

Sierra Club and other organizations commenced challenges to a revised Climate Action Plan adopted by San Diego County in 2018. In one case, Sierra Club filed a third amended petition asserting that the County had failed to comply with earlier judicial directives requiring, among other things, that the Climate Action Plan contain enforceable measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Sierra Club and six other groups also filed this new lawsuit seeking to set aside certain portions of the revised Climate Action Plan and the supplemental environmental impact report on which it was based, and also to set aside a threshold of significance established by the County that the petitioners alleged would allow development not contemplated by a 2011 General Plan Update, so long as developers obtained offsets, which could be obtained out of state or even outside of the country. In the new lawsuit, the petitioners asserted that this “offshoring of GHG emissions offsets” had been done without proper review under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Filing Year For Action