1

Filed 6/30/16

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

BAY AREA CITIZENS, 

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA 

GOVERNMENTS, et al.,

 Defendants and Respondents.

 A143058

 (Alameda County

 Super. Ct. No. RG13690631)

The primary issue raised by this appeal is whether the Bay Area agencies newly 

charged by state law with adopting a plan to reduce regional greenhouse gas emissions 

from cars and light trucks over the coming decades should have relied on emissions 

reductions already expected from pre-existing statewide mandates to fulfill their statutory 

obligation, rather than adopting regional strategies to reduce emissions beyond those 

already expected from the statewide mandates. We conclude, as did the trial court, that 

the relevant agencies correctly declined to count statewide emissions reductions in 

developing their regional plan because doing so would have been inconsistent with the

statute, including as interpreted by the state agency responsible for implementing

California’s greenhouse gas emission laws.

In 2008, the Legislature enacted the “Sustainable Communities and Climate 

Protection Act of 2008”,

1 which we refer to as “SB 375.” SB 375 is one in a series of 

executive, legislative and administrative measures enacted to reduce greenhouse gas 

 

1

 California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management 

Dist.(2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 379, fn. 4; Stats. 2008, ch. 728, p. 5065.
2

emissions and their adverse effects on our climate. Prior measures empowered the 

California Air Resources Board (Board) to enact statewide mandates to reduce emissions, 

such as standards for vehicle technology and carbon content in fuel. SB 375 empowers 

the Board, after consideration of these previous statewide mandates and consultation with 

experts and regional planning bodies, to set targets for each of California’s regional 

planning agencies to reduce emissions from automobiles and light trucks in its region.

SB 375 requires each regional agency, after engaging in an extensive planning process, to 

develop a “sustainable community strategy” to meet the Board’s targets using regional

land use and transportation policies. Sustainable communities strategies are subject to 

environmental impact review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

In 2010, the Board issued its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for the 

Bay Area region. The Board called for the Bay Area’s Metropolitan Transportation 

Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) 

(collectively, the Agencies) to develop regional land use and transportation strategies that 

would result in per capita percentage reductions in emissions of 7 percent by 2020 and 15 

percent by 2035, as compared to emissions in 2005. The Board repeatedly indicated that 

these reductions were to be in addition to those expected from pre-existing statewide 

mandates.

The Agencies prepared an update to the Bay Area’s regional transportation plan 

and their first sustainable communities strategy in “Plan Bay Area.” The Agencies 

outlined ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the Bay Area region independent of 

the statewide mandates so as to meet or exceed the Board’s targets for the region. The 

Agencies engaged in a CEQA review of Plan Bay Area, issued a draft environmental 

impact report, received public comments and approved a final environmental impact 

report. Subsequently the Board accepted the Agencies’ determination that Plan Bay Area 

would meet the Board’s emission reduction targets for the Bay Area region.

Appellant Bay Area Citizens (Citizens) was critical of Plan Bay Area and offered 

an alternative plan of its own that counted on reductions expected from the pre-existing 

statewide mandates. After Plan Bay Area was approved, Citizens filed a petition for writ 
3

of mandate in Alameda County Superior Court challenging the Agencies’ environmental 

impact report for, and adoption of, the Plan. Citizens argued the Agencies did not 

comply with CEQA because their environmental review erroneously failed to include

emissions reductions expected from the statewide mandates in determining how to meet 

the Board’s SB 375 targets. Citizens contended that neither SB 375 nor the Board 

prohibited the Agencies from counting on such reductions, and that the Agencies should 

have adopted, or at least considered, a Citizens-proposed alternative that relied on them 

to avoid what Citizens viewed as the “draconian” land use and transportation strategies

comprising Plan Bay Area. The trial court, concluding that reliance on statewide 

mandates to meet the regional targets would constitute improper double counting not 

permitted by SB 375 or the Board, denied Citizens’ petition. This appeal followed.

Citizens repeats its arguments on appeal, and we, too, find them unconvincing.

Citizens relies on the premise that the Legislature, via SB 375, launched a major new 

climate protection initiative requiring regional agencies to develop regional land use and 

transportation strategies through an elaborate planning process that in the end would be 

superfluous because the agencies could meet the Board’s regional emissions reduction 

targets simply by invoking reductions already expected from pre-existing statewide 

mandates. This interpretation makes no sense. And it is contradicted by SB 375’s 

emphasis on regional innovations, the Legislature’s declarations and findings, and the 

Board’s contemporaneous construction of the statute. Further, even apart from the 

regional focus of SB 375 and the Legislature’s declarations and findings, the Legislature 

conferred on the Board broad discretion to develop targets and require regional agencies 

to meet them through regional planning. It was within the Board’s discretion to require 

regional agencies to achieve emissions reductions entirely through regional planning 

strategies so as to produce emissions reductions beyond those produced by statewide 

mandates. We also agree with the Attorney General, appearing as amicus curiae, that the 

Agencies’ environmental review was sufficient under CEQA regardless of what SB 375 

and the Board required of the Agencies. For these reasons, we affirm the trial court’s 

denial of Citizens’ petition.
4

BACKGROUND

I.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Laws and Regulations

In 1997, the Legislature enacted a law that requires each regional metropolitan 

planning organization (MPO) to prepare and adopt a regional transportation plan 

designed to achieve a coordinated and balanced regional transportation system.2(Stats.

1997, ch. 622, § 24, p. 4405; Gov. Code, § 65080, subd. (a) (§ 65080).) This regional 

transportation plan must be “action-oriented and pragmatic, considering both the shortterm and long term-future” and must “present clear, concise policy guidance to local and 

state officials.” (Ibid.) 

Prior to 2008, a number of statutes and regulations were enacted to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions on the statewide level, which we refer to as the “statewide 

mandates.” In 2008, the Legislature enacted SB 375. It requires each MPO, as part of its

regional transportation plan, to adopt a “sustainable communities strategy.” In this

sustainable communities strategy, each MPO must adopt regional land use and 

transportation strategies designed to meet, if feasible, regional greenhouse gas emissions 

reduction targets for 2020 and 2035 that the Board is given broad discretion to set.

In 2010, after receiving the required input from an expert advisory committee and 

the Agencies, the Board established greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for the 

Bay Area region pursuant to SB 375. The Agencies then developed a sustainable 

communities strategy for the region, “Plan Bay Area,” and in 2013 conducted an 

environmental review of it pursuant to CEQA. The Agencies concluded that Plan Bay 

Area met the Board’s SB 375 targets and was environmentally acceptable, and adopted it. 

In 2014, the Board accepted the Agencies’ determination that Plan Bay Area would meet

the Board’s SB 375 targets. 

 

2

 MPOs also develop these plans to meet federal transportation planning 

guidelines. (See 23 C.F.R., §§ 450.308, 450.322.) 
5

Citizens raises numerous issues related to the Agencies’ compliance with CEQA 

in reviewing the potential environmental impacts of Plan Bay Area, focusing on the

Agencies’ sustainable communities strategy. At the center of all of Citizens’ arguments 

is its contention that the Agencies should have, but did not, include the greenhouse gas 

emissions reductions that are expected from the statewide mandates in determining how 

to meet the Board’s targets for the Bay Area region.

 A. Statewide Mandates Leading Up to SB 375

In 2002, the Legislature enacted A.B. 1493, also called the “Pavley” legislation for 

its author. It requires the Board to develop regulations designed to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions from new passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks and non-commercial 

vehicles sold in California. (Health & Saf. Code, § 43018.5.) Subsequently, the Board

adopted these regulations, known as “Pavley I” and “Pavley II” respectively. Together, 

Pavley I and Pavley II set statewide emissions reduction targets for new passenger 

vehicles and trucks from 2009 through 2025.

3

In 2005, then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-3-05. 

It calls for an overall reduction of greenhouse gas emissions within California to 1990 

levels by 2020 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. 

In 2006, the Legislature passed the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 

2006” (Health & Saf. Code, § 38500 et seq.), or “AB 32,” “California’s landmark 

legislation addressing global climate change.” (Center for Biological Diversity v. 

Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 215.) Like Executive Order S-3-

05, AB 32 mandates that the State’s greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 1990 levels

by 2020. (Health & Saf. Code, § 38550.) It designates the Board as the “agency charged 

with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases that cause 

global warming in order to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.” (Id., § 38510.) It 

charges the Board with developing and implementing regulations “to achieve the 

 

3

The Pavley legislation and regulations went into effect at different times. For 

the sake of convenience, we refer to each and all of these as “Pavley” unless otherwise 

noted.
6

maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reductions 

from sources or categories of sources, subject to the criteria and schedules set forth” in 

the law. (Id., § 38560.) The Board’s responsibilities include development on or before 

January 1, 2009, of a “Scoping Plan” to achieve these reductions, and the updating of that 

plan every five years. (Id., § 38561.) 

In 2007, then-Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-01-07. It calls

for the reduction of the carbon density of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10

percent by 2020, and the Board’s development of a “Low Carbon Fuel Standard” (the 

Low Carbon Fuel Standard) and accompanying regulations for transportation fuel 

providers designed to ensure they meet this reduction schedule. 

As required by AB 32, the Board issued a “Climate Change Scoping Plan” 

(Scoping Plan) in December 2008. The Scoping Plan called for greenhouse gas

emissions reductions in the transportation, electricity, commercial and residential, 

industry, recycling and waste, agriculture and forest sectors, among others. It identified 

measures to reduce emissions by 30 percent, or 174 million metric tons,

4

as compared to 

projected “business as usual” emissions levels of 596 million metric tons as of 2020. 

These included reductions of 31.7 million metric tons expected from Pavley’s vehicle 

technology standards, 15 million metric tons expected from the Low Carbon Fuel 

Standard, and an additional 5 million metric tons expected, preliminarily, from “local 

land use changes” implemented to meet the targets the Board was to set pursuant to SB 

375. The Scoping Plan also included measures to “put the state on a path to meet the 

long-term 2050 goal of reducing California’s greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent 

below 1990 levels.” As our colleagues in Division Three have characterized it, the 

Scoping Plan’s 2020 goal “is but a step towards achieving” the “longer term climate goal” 

set out in Executive Order S-3-05. (Association of Irritated Residents v. State Air 

 

4

In the Scoping Plan, the Board sometimes refers to greenhouse gases in million 

metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent or “MMTCO2E.” 
7

Resources Bd. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1496 [affirming that the Board’s Scoping 

Plan and a supplemental analysis satisfied the requirements of AB 32].)

In 2012, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. issued Executive Order B-16-2012. It

directs State entities to support and facilitate the rapid commercialization of zeroemission vehicles. The order outlines benchmarks for 2015, 2020 and 2025 related to 

establishing infrastructure to support and accommodate zero-emission vehicles, helping 

to get zero-emission vehicles to market and on the road, and increasing their use for 

public transportation and public use. It also establishes a goal of an 80 percent reduction 

of greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector in California by 2050 as 

compared to 1990 levels.

 B. SB 375

As we have indicated, SB 375, enacted by the Legislature in 2008 and effective as 

of January 1, 2009 (Stats. 2008, ch. 728, p. 5065), requires that each MPO, as a part of its 

regional transportation plan, develop a sustainable communities strategy that consists of

regional land use and transportation strategies designed to reduce its region’s greenhouse 

gas emissions. (Id., ch. 728, § 1(e), p. 5066.) Each MPO must strive to meet two 

regional emissions reduction targets for the automobile and light truck sectors set by the 

Board for each region, one to be achieved by 2020 and the other by 2035. 

SB 375 required the Board to provide the greenhouse gas emissions reduction 

targets to the regions by September 30, 2010. (§ 65080, subd. (b)(2)(A).) Before doing 

so, the Board was required to appoint a “Regional Targets Advisory Committee”

(Advisory Committee) to recommend factors and methodologies to be used in setting 

these targets.

5

(Id., subd. (b)(2)(A)(i).) The Board also was required to exchange 

 

5

SB 375 provides: “In recommending factors to be considered and 

methodologies to be used, the advisory committee may consider any relevant issues, 

including, but not limited to, data needs, modeling techniques, growth forecasts, the 

impacts of regional jobs-housing balance on interregional travel and greenhouse gas 

emissions, economic and demographic trends, the magnitude of greenhouse gas reduction 

benefits from a variety of land use and transportation strategies, and appropriate methods 

to describe regional targets and to monitor performance in attaining those targets.” 
8

technical information with, and consider target recommendations by, each MPO. (Id., 

subd. (b)(2)(A)(ii).) 

Further, and particularly germane to this appeal, the Board was required to 

consider other measures that it had approved or planned to adopt that would reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions in the affected regions, including Pavley and the Low Carbon 

Fuel Standard. Specifically, SB 375 states that the Board “[i]n establishing these

[regional] targets,” “shall take into account greenhouse gas emission reductions that will 

be achieved by improved vehicle emission standards [Pavley], changes in fuel 

composition [the Low Carbon Fuel Standard], and other measures [the Board] has 

approved that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the affected regions, and 

prospective measures [the Board] plans to adopt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from 

other greenhouse gas emission sources” consistent with regulations promulgated pursuant 

to AB 32. (§ 65080, subd. (b)(2)(A)(iii).) “[G]reenhouse gas emission reduction targets 

may be expressed in gross tons, tons per capita, tons per household, or in any other metric 

deemed appropriate by the [Board].” (Id., subd. (b)(2)(A)(v).) 

SB 375 also requires the Board to update its regional greenhouse gas reduction 

targets every eight years consistent with each MPO’s timeframe for updating its regional 

transportation plan under federal law. The Board may revise these targets every four 

years, provided that it again considers the other measures that it has approved or plans to 

adopt that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the affected regions. (§ 65080, 

subd. (b)(2)(A)(iv).) 

SB 375 requires that each MPO, once it receives its targets, prepare a sustainable 

communities strategy following certain guidelines. First, each MPO must develop 

strategies that take into account both housing and transportation. Specifically, an MPO

must, among other things, (1) “identify the general location of uses, residential densities, 

and building densities within the region,” (2) “identify areas within the region sufficient 

to house all the population of the region, including all economic segments of the 

 

(§ 65080, subd. (b)(2)(A)(i).) 
9

population, over the course of the planning period of the regional transportation plan 

taking into account net migration into the region, population growth, household 

formation and employment growth,” (3) “identify a transportation network to service the 

transportation needs of the region,” and (4) “set forth a forecasted development pattern 

for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network, and other 

transportation measures and policies, will reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from 

automobiles and light trucks to achieve, if there is a feasible way to do so, the greenhouse 

gas emission reduction targets approved by [the Board].” (§ 65080, subd. (b)(2)(B)(i), 

(ii), (iv), (vii).)6

Each MPO also must adopt a public participation plan for the development of a 

sustainable communities strategy. (§ 65080, subd. (b)(2)(F).) Before doing so, however, 

an MPO must submit a description to the Board “of the technical methodology it intends 

to use to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions from its sustainable communities 

strategy.” (Id., subd. (b)(2)(J)(i).) The Board must respond “with written comments 

about the technical methodology, including specifically describing any aspects of that 

methodology it concludes will not yield accurate estimates of greenhouse gas emissions, 

and suggested remedies.” (Ibid.) 

Before adopting a sustainable communities strategy, an MPO must “quantify the 

reduction in greenhouse gas emissions projected to be achieved by the sustainable 

communities strategy and set forth the difference, if any, between the amount of that 

reduction and the target for the region established by [the Board].” (§ 65080, 

subd. (b)(2)(H).) If there is no feasible way to meet the Board’s targets, an MPO must

prepare an “alternative planning strategy.” (Id., subd. (b)(2)(I).)

After an MPO adopts a sustainable communities strategy, it must submit it to the

Board for review. Its submission must include “the quantification of the greenhouse gas 

 

6

 For the Bay Area region, SB 375 makes ABAG responsible for the development 

of the first and second of these strategies, MTC responsible for development of the third, 

and ABAG and MTC together responsible for development of the fourth. (§ 65080, 

subd. (b)(2)(C)(i).)
10

emission reductions the strategy would achieve and a description of the technical 

methodology used to obtain that result.” (§ 65080, subd. (b)(2)(J)(ii).) The Board’s 

review is limited “to acceptance or rejection of the [MPO]’s determination that the 

strategy submitted would, if implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction 

targets established by the [Board].” (Id., subd. (b)(2)(J)(ii).) 

Finally, a sustainable communities strategy does not regulate land use and is not

subject to state approval other than as prescribed. Nothing in a sustainable communities 

strategy is to “be interpreted as superseding the exercise of the land use authority of cities 

and counties within the region,” nor shall anything “require a city’s or county’s land use 

policies and regulations, including its general plan, to be consistent with the regional 

transportation plan.” (§ 65080, subd. (b)(2)(K).) 

II.

The Agencies’ Development, Environmental Review and Adoption of Plan Bay Area

The Board’s final targets for the Bay Area region, which it adopted in September 

2010, were a 7 percent per capita reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and a 

15 percent per capita reduction by 2035, both as compared to 2005 emissions levels.

7

This was consistent with what the Agencies told the Board their planners thought should 

be the upper limits of the regional targets for the Bay Area. 

The Agencies determined these targets could be met by the land use and 

transportation strategies outlined in Plan Bay Area. The Agencies planned for the Bay

Area region’s growth to occur in a “Priority Development Area” framework. Priority 

Development Areas are transit-oriented, infill development opportunity areas within 

existing communities that local agencies expect will accommodate the majority of future

development. Each Bay Area county and more than half of the Bay Area’s cities have at 

least one Priority Development Area. Plan Bay Area calls for Priority Development 

Areas to be nominated by local jurisdictions. Local jurisdictions may designate as 

 

7

 According to the Board staff’s August 9, 2010 final report on proposed SB 375 

regional targets, the Advisory Committee recommended the year 2005 be used as a base 

year “because it was the most recent year that could be used uniformly by all MPOs.” 
11

Priority Development Areas neighborhoods that are served by at least one transit stop or 

station, are supported by local plans to provide a wider range of housing options, and 

include amenities and services to meet the day-to-day needs of residents in a pedestrianfriendly environment. ABAG reviews each nomination and makes a final determination 

about whether an area qualifies as a Priority Development Area. 

The Agencies projected that the Priority Development Area framework, along 

with associated investments in public transit, would result in significant reduced vehicle 

miles traveled per capita and increased reliance on transit by 2040. These changes in 

passenger travel patterns, resulting from Plan Bay Area’s land use and transportation 

strategies, if implemented, were projected to reduce light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas 

emissions from 2005 levels by 10.3 percent per capita by 2020 and 16.4 percent per 

capita by 2035.

8

In June 2012, the Agencies, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, issued a notice of 

preparation of a draft environmental impact report (DEIR) for the proposed Plan Bay 

Area. They held five public meetings and gave various governmental and nongovernmental groups and individuals the opportunity to provide input. In April 2013, 

they released their DEIR for a public review. 

The DEIR analyzed whether Plan Bay Area would result in any of 46 

“environmental issues and concerns identified as possibly significant,” which were 

grouped into 14 issue areas (e.g., transportation, air quality, noise). Under the 

“Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change” issue area, the Agencies included a climate 

change impact analysis that assessed the potential for significant adverse impacts related 

 

8

 These percentages were later revised in the final environmental impact report 

(FEIR) to 10.4 and 16.2 respectively. 
12

to greenhouse gas emissions. The Agencies found that Plan Bay Area “would have a 

potentially significant adverse impact” if it:

“Criterion 1: Fail[ed] to reduce per capita passenger vehicle and light duty truck 

CO2emissions by seven percent by 2020 and 15 percent by 2035 as compared to 2005 

baseline, per SB 375.

“Criterion 2: Result[ed] in a net increase in direct and indirect [greenhouse gas] 

emissions in 2040 [the last year of Plan Bay Area] when compared to existing conditions.

“Criterion 3: Substantially impede[d] attainment of goals set forth in Executive 

Order S-3-05 and Executive Order B-16-2012.”

9

The DEIR’s Criterion 1 analysis considered whether Plan Bay Area would meet 

the Board’s SB 375 targets. Accordingly, consistent with the Board’s approach, the 

DEIR analyzed what reductions in automobile and light truck emissions would occur by 

2020 and 2035, as compared to 2005. As already discussed, the Agencies projected that 

Plan Bay Area would result in a 10.2 percent reduction in per capita emissions from 

these vehicles by 2020 and a 16.4 percent reduction by 2035, exceeding the Board’s

targets of seven percent and 15 percent, respectively. The Criterion 1 analysis, which 

related to meeting the SB 375 targets, stated that reductions from Pavley I’s vehicle

technology standards and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard were not included in 

determining these emissions reductions.

 

9

 The DEIR also found that Plan Bay Area would have a potentially adverse 

impact if it:

“Criterion 4: Substantially conflict[ed] with any other applicable plan, policy or 

regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of [greenhouse gases.]

“Criterion 5: Result[ed] in a net increase in transportation investments within 

areas regularly inundated by sea level rise by midcentury.

“Criterion 6: Result[ed] in a net increase in the number of people residing within 

areas regularly inundated by sea level rise by midcentury.

“Criterion 7: Result[ed] in an increase in land use development within areas 

regularly inundated by sea level rise by midcentury.” 
13

However, the DEIR took Pavley I and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard into 

account in its Criterion 2 analysis,

10 which determined whether net greenhouse gas 

emissions reductions in the Bay Area would be achieved by 2040, the last year of Plan 

Bay Area, as compared to 2010 emissions, when considering emissions from all vehicle 

classes in the transportation sector, as well as from the electricity, natural gas, recycling 

and waste sectors. The year 2010 was used as the baseline year for this Criterion 2 

analysis because that year provided “the most recent best data available for land use 

transportation, and demographics.’ ” 

The DEIR then took the analyses used for Criterion 1 and Criterion 2 and applied 

them in its Criterion 3 analysis to determine “whether or not implementation of the 

proposed Plan would impede attainment of the identified [executive] orders and whether 

the Plan moves the region towards a downward trajectory of [greenhouse gas] emissions 

in 2050,” a year that was a focus of Executive Order S-3-05 and Executive Order B-16-

2012. Thus, the DEIR’s Criterion 3 analysis also included consideration of Pavley I and 

the Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

The DEIR also included a chapter discussing five different project alternatives, 

including Plan Bay Area. These were (1) a “No Project” alternative; (2) the proposed 

Plan Bay Area, with its focus on growth in Priority Development Areas; (3) a “Transit 

Priority Focus” alternative with a focus on growth patterns primarily in the urban core by 

relying on Transit Priority Project-eligible areas (rather than Priority Development 

Areas), which are areas with high-frequency transit service that are eligible for higherdensity development streamlining; (4) an “Enhanced Network of Communities” 

alternative that had more dispersed growth patterns than the proposed plan; and (5) an 

“Environmental Equity and Jobs” alternative that maximized affordable housing in highopportunity urban and suburban areas through incentives and housing subsidies. The 

DEIR presented each alternative and discussed its potential impacts as compared to those 

 

10 The Criterion 2 analysis did not include the anticipated impact of Pavley II 

because of the limits of the available data, as Pavley II was not approved “in time to be 

integrated into the modeling tools used for the analysis.” 
14

of the proposed Plan Bay Area. The DEIR’s analysis of these alternatives included a 

comparison of their relative impacts regarding Criterion 1 (achieving the Board targets 

set pursuant to SB 375), Criterion 2 (the state of direct and indirect greenhouse gas 

emissions in 2040 when compared to existing conditions), and Criterion 3 (the attainment 

of goals set forth in Executive Order S-3-05 and Executive Order B-16-2012 by 2050),

the latter two analyses including consideration of Pavley I and the Low Carbon Fuel 

Standard. 

During a 45-day public review period, the Agencies held three public hearings on 

the DEIR and nine on the draft Plan Bay Area. They received over 340 written comment 

letters and numerous oral comments during the public comment period, and continued to 

received comments after its close. Citizens was critical of Plan Bay Area and asserted the 

Agencies should consider Citizens’ alternative plan, called the “Bay Area Citizens 

Transportation and Housing Alternative.” The Agencies responded to Citizens’

comments, but did not specifically analyze the impacts of Citizens’ alternative plan, 

instead stating that they had considered a reasonable range of alternatives and that many 

elements of Citizens’ alternative plan were included in the alternatives they had assessed. 

The Agencies submitted their proposed Plan Bay Area to the Board for its 

technical review. In June 2013, the Board’s staff presented to the Board a draft technical 

evaluation of the Agencies’ greenhouse gas emissions reduction quantification in their 

proposed Plan. The staff stated that the Agencies had “appropriately not included 

[greenhouse gas] emissions reductions from the technology and fuel programs adopted by 

[the Board], such as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and [Pavley].” The staff concluded 

preliminarily that Plan Bay Area would achieve the Board’s emissions reduction targets 

for the Bay Area region. 

On July 18, 2013, the Agencies certified the FEIR, which contained relatively 

minor changes to the DEIR that did not alter the DEIR’s conclusions regarding 

significant environmental impacts or mitigation measures. The Agencies also adopted 

findings pursuant to CEQA and adopted Plan Bay Area. 
15

The Agencies approved a “Statement of Overriding Considerations.”11 It asserted 

thirteen considerations overriding the environmental effects Plan Bay Area would have, 

including that it met the SB 375 targets, was part of a “collaborative approach to 

development [that] provides the best opportunity to create a sustainable future for the Bay 

Area,” “places a high priority on moving jobs and households closer to each other and to 

transit options,” and “leads the Bay Area in the right downward trajectory towards the 2050 

[greenhouse gas] emission reduction targets.” 

Pursuant to section 65080, subdivision (b)(2)(J)(ii), the Agencies submitted their 

adopted Plan Bay Area to the Board for its review and acceptance of their determination 

that the Plan, if implemented, would achieve the Board’s emissions reduction targets for 

the Bay Area. On April 10, 2014, the Board accepted the Agencies’ determination in

Executive Order G-14-028. The Board’s executive order regarding Plan Bay Area

referred to, and attached, the Board staff’s April 2014 final technical evaluation of the 

Agencies’ greenhouse gas emissions reduction quantification for their sustainable 

communities strategy. This evaluation states that the Agencies had “appropriately not 

included in [their] greenhouse gas emissions reduction figures any [greenhouse gas] 

emissions reductions from the [Board]-adopted technology and fuel programs, such as the

Low Carbon Fuel Standard or [Pavley] program. This is because the regional targets 

adopted by [the Board] in 2010 do not include reductions from these statewide 

technology and fuel programs, but rather focus on reductions from strategies 

implemented at the regional and local levels.” 

 

11 A lead agency conducting a CEQA review may, “to the extent significant 

impacts remain after mitigation, . . . still approve the project with a statement of 

overriding considerations.” ([Pub. Resources Code, ]§§ 21002, 21002.1, subd. (b), 

21081; [14 Cal. Code Regs.], §§ 15091, 15093, 15126.6.)” (Center for Biological 

Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 231.)
16

III.

Citizens’ Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate

In August 2013, Citizens filed a verified petition for writ of mandate in Alameda 

County Superior Court challenging the Agencies’ adoption of Plan Bay Area. In five 

causes of action, Citizens alleged the Agencies failed to comply with CEQA in their 

DEIR and FEIR (collectively, EIRs) by: (1) not adequately identifying Plan Bay Area’s 

basic objectives; (2) not adequately assessing a “No Project” alternative; (3) not 

adequately assessing a “No Project” alternative by relying on “an obviously outdated 

baseline”; (4) not including a reasonable, feasible alternative to Plan Bay Area; and (5) 

not responding to Citizens’ proposed alternative plan. 

According to Citizens, the Agencies imposed unnecessary land use plans on the 

Bay Area in order to meet the Board’s 2020 and 2035 emissions reduction targets

because they improperly ignored the greenhouse gas emissions reductions expected from

statewide mandates. The Agencies planned to meet the Board targets “primarily through 

reduction in the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of passenger motorcars and light trucks”

resulting from “high-density land-use patterns” and “construction and extension of light 

and heavy rail.” As a result, Plan Bay Area required “78 [percent] of new housing and 62 

[percent] of new jobs, through 2040, to be located within [P]riority [D]evelopment 

[A]reas,” defined by Citizens as “ ‘[l]ocations within existing communities that present 

infill development opportunities and are easily accessible to transit, jobs, shopping and 

services.’ ” The new development was to be concentrated in areas that covered only five 

percent of the Bay Area region’s surface area. In Citizens’ view, the Agencies 

unnecessarily adopted “a draconian, high-density land-use regime.” These measures 

were unnecessary and were the product of the Agencies’ failure to take into account

projected statewide greenhouse gas emissions reductions from other initiatives, such as

AB 32. These projected statewide reductions meant “the Bay Area can handily exceed 

the required greenhouse gas reductions [set by the Board pursuant to SB 375] without 

reliance on [the Agencies’] high-density land-use vision.” 
17

Citizens further asserted that the Agencies’ failure to take these statewide 

reductions into account violated CEQA because, rather than convey this basic 

information in their FEIR, the Agencies assumed “ ‘hypothetical’ numbers, thereby 

giving the public the false impression that the [A]gencies’ high-density approach (or 

something very close to it) is necessary to achieve the required greenhouse gas 

reductions. Thus, [Plan Bay Area]’s CEQA analysis undercuts the law’s purposes of 

informing the public and decision-makers of the environmental consequences of, and

alternatives to, discretionary government action.” 

Citizens further claimed that Plan Bay Area’s CEQA analysis ignored three 

specific statewide greenhouse gas reduction mandates regarding technology and fuel 

composition. These were the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and the Pavley I and Pavley II

vehicle technology regulations. As a result, Citizens contended, in 2040, the last year of 

Plan Bay Area, California’s passenger vehicles would produce only 40 percent of the 

greenhouse gas emissions they produced in 2010. 

Citizens also contended the Agencies’ environmental review indicated Plan Bay 

Area would have 39 significant environmental effects, including a substantial net increase 

in construction-related emissions pollution, an increase in large particulate matter 

pollution, the worsening of toxic air contaminant and small particulate matter pollution 

for some Bay Area communities, the disruption or displacement of substantial numbers 

of individuals and businesses, and permanent neighborhood alterations that would restrict 

access to or eliminate community amenities. The DEIR discussed five project 

alternatives, including a “No Project” alternative that would not meet the Board’s 

greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. 

According to Citizens, it and other citizen groups provided comments on the draft 

Plan Bay Area and DEIR that highlighted a number of “serious legal and policy 

shortcomings.” These included that the draft Plan and the DEIR ignored Pavley’s vehicle 

technology standards and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard in measuring the greenhouse 

gas emission impacts of Plan Bay Area and the discussed alternatives, thereby creating “a 

false need for [the Plan’s] draconian high-density development prescriptions. If [Plan
18

Bay Area] were consistently to take the [Low Carbon Fuel Standard], Pavley I, and 

Pavley II into account, it would be clear to the public that the [SB 375] targets can be 

reached without [Plan Bay Area]’s drastic land-use changes. In fact, [the Agencies’] own 

models show that the difference by year 2035 between [Plan Bay Area] and the “no 

project” alternative—taking only the [Low Carbon Fuel Standard] and Pavley I into 

account—will be approximately 2,000 tons per day of greenhouse gas (less than a 3 

[percent] difference), well within any reasonable margin of error.” This difference was

further reduced when factoring out elements of Plan Bay Area unrelated to its highdensity housing and transportation policies. According to Citizens, “that difference is 

dwarfed by the models’ own conclusion that the [Low Carbon Fuel Standard] and Pavley 

I will lead to 14 times more greenhouse gas emission reductions than those strictly 

attributable to [Plan Bay Area].” Citizens further alleged that the draft Plan Bay Area 

included arbitrary revenue assumptions, high-density housing mandates and mass transit 

elements that would actually increase greenhouse gas emissions. It also had unrealistic 

goals, unreliable models for predicting transit use and development decades into the 

future, and inaccurate assumptions regarding population and job growth. 

Citizens also contended that the Agencies certified the FEIR and adopted Plan Bay 

Area without remedying these serious shortcomings. The FEIR included the errors 

previously described, and also contained the “assumption that vehicle miles-per-gallon 

efficiency and gasoline carbon content will remain constant over the life of the Plan.” 

This was “contrary to fact” because the Plan did “not take fully into account the 

greenhouse gas reductions that the region’s transportation system will achieve ‘naturally’ 

simply due to the implementation of the [Low Carbon Fuel Standard], Pavley I, and 

Pavley II,” although the Plan “selectively and opportunistically” did take these emissions 

improvements into account when estimating future particulate matter and other air 

pollutants. 

According to Citizens, the Agencies incorrectly asserted that SB 375, the Board’s 

Scoping Plan and the Board staff’s initial review of Plan Bay Area all indicated that the 

Board’s Bay Area reduction targets were meant to exclude any reductions attributable to 
19

the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Pavley I and Pavley II, since including them would be 

“impermissible ‘double counting.’ ” To the contrary, Citizens contended, SB 375

“expressly requires that the targets, which [Plan Bay Area] is supposed to meet, must take 

into account greenhouse gas reductions achieved through advances in vehicle efficiency 

and fuel cleanliness” pursuant to section 65080, subdivision (b)(2)(A)(iii). The 

Agencies’ interpretation of SB 375 in the FEIR was purportedly inconsistent with SB 

375’s authorization for the Board “to update the targets based on ongoing advances in 

vehicle efficiency and fuel cleanliness” pursuant to 65080, subdivision (b)(2)(A)(iv). 

Moreover, Citizens contended, SB 375 regulated Plan Bay Area, but not its 

environmental impact report. “Thus, even if [Plan Bay Area] were required to ignore 

emission savings from the implementation of the [Low Carbon Fuel Standard], Pavley I, 

and Pavley II when determining whether the targets have been met, that would not mean 

that the [FEIR’s] CEQA analysis should also be subject to the same fictitious 

assumptions.” 

Further, Citizens alleged, it had recommended that the Agencies adopt an 

environmentally sensitive alternative to Plan Bay Area that would achieve Plan Bay 

Area’s basic objectives without its significant environmental effects. Citizens’

alternative reasonably relied on “the anticipated substantial greenhouse gas reductions 

that will occur over the planning horizon owing to the [Low Carbon Fuel Standard], 

Pavley I, and Pavley II,” called for “increasing and improving transit lines further to 

reduce greenhouse gases,” and could “easily achieve the housing goals for the region, 

because it is not limited by [Plan Bay Area’s] draconian high-density housing mandate.” 

Nonetheless, Citizens alleged, the FEIR failed to consider its alternative, stating 

instead that the Agencies were “not required to consider every possible alternative, and 

that existing alternatives adequately incorporate[d] the main parts of the Citizens’

alternative.” Yet the FEIR did not explain how the alternatives discussed in it were

adequate, given that they all ignored the reductions from the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, 

Pavley I and Pavley II. In other words, the FEIR’s disregard of the Citizens alternative 

was “based entirely on its faulty interpretation of [SB 375] as requiring that the Plan 
20

ignore greenhouse-gas-reduction reality when determining whether [Plan Bay Area] will 

meet the regional targets.” Citizens also challenged the Agencies’ issuance of a 

“Statement of Overriding Considerations” to support Plan Bay Area. 

Citizens sought a peremptory writ of mandate directing the Agencies to vacate 

their certification of the FEIR, adoption of the Statement of Overriding Considerations 

and approval of Plan Bay Area, and to produce a new FEIR consistent with CEQA. 

IV.

The Agencies’ Answer to Citizens’ Petition

The Agencies answered Citizens’ petition. They denied there was anything 

improper about their FEIR, Statement of Overriding Considerations, or Plan Bay Area. 

The Agencies acknowledged Plan Bay Area relied on “a strategy of focusing 

growth around the region’s existing and planned public transit system,” primarily through 

the Priority Development Area framework, and that the Priority Development Areas were

“expected to accommodate 78 percent of new housing (approximately 509,000 units) and 

62 percent of new jobs (approximately 690,000).” The Agencies stated that, “[d]ue to 

this focused growth pattern and the associated investments into the public transit system, 

[Plan Bay Area] [was] forecasted to result in 93 percent more transit boardings and 6 

percent fewer vehicle miles traveled per capita by the year 2040,” including significant 

increases in daily transit seat-miles, most notably in heavy rail and commuter rail transit. 

“These changes in passenger travel patterns, along with the land use pattern and other 

transportation and climate program investments, [were] expected to reduce per-capita 

light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions by 10 percent between 2005 and 2020 and 

16 percent between 2005 and 2035,” exceeding the Board’s SB 375 targets of 7 percent 

by 2020 and 15 percent by 2035. 

The Agencies acknowledged their EIR analysis had concluded Plan Bay Area

would result in 39 significant and unavoidable environmental effects. However, the 

Agencies contended, 23 of these effects could be mitigated to less than significant at the 

project level. 
21

V.

The Trial Court’s Statement of Decision

Citizens moved for judgment on its petition, and the parties submitted briefs and a

voluminous administrative record. The trial court held a hearing on Citizens’ motion, 

issued a proposed statement of decision and received the parties’ comments. 

On August 8, 2014, the court issued a thorough and well thought-out 33-page final 

statement of decision denying Citizens’ petition. The court noted that the parties 

submitted briefs consistent with their pleadings and that Citizens’ contentions and 

arguments focused on its basic premise that Plan Bay Area should have striven to achieve 

the Board’s 2020 and 2035 emissions reduction targets by considering the anticipated 

reductions from Pavley and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The court first reviewed the 

statutes, regulations and plans that led up to Plan Bay Area and then reviewed the 

Agencies’ EIRs.

 A. The Court’s Discussion of the DEIR

The court found the DEIR contained statements that identified goals for Plan Bay 

Area. These included that the Plan “ ‘aims to achieve focused growth by building off of 

locally-identified Priority Development Areas and by emphasizing strategic investments 

in the region’s transportation network including strong emphasis on operating and 

maintaining the existing system,’ ” and that the Plan had seven goals: “ ‘(1) Climate 

Protection (2) Adequate Housing (3) Healthy and Safe Communities (4) Open Space and 

Agricultural Preservation (5) Equitable Access (6) Economic Vitality [and] (7) 

Transportation System Effectiveness.’ ” Further, the DEIR identified the “ ‘climate 

change’ ” goal as the reduction of “ ‘per-capita CO2 emissions from cars and light-duty 

trucks by 15 [percent] as required by SB 375.’ ” 

The court further found that the DEIR did not include anticipated greenhouse gas 

emissions reductions from Pavley or the Low Carbon Fuel Standard in its analysis of 

“Criterion 1” environmental effects (failure to reduce per capita passenger vehicle and 

light duty truck CO2 emissions by at least the Board’s 2020 and 2035 targets), but 

included them in its evaluation of “Criterion 2” (whether there was a net increase in
22

direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions in 2040 when compared to existing 

conditions) and “Criterion 3 (the attainment of goals set forth in Executive Order S-3-05 

and Executive Order B-16-2012 by 2050) effects. The trial court concluded this 

difference was because the DEIR is “not bounded by the statutory requirements of 

SB 375 in its evaluation of the [Criterion] 2 issue” and, therefore, evaluated 

transportation emissions for “ ‘all vehicle classes and the emissions reduction benefits 

from Pavley and the [Low Carbon Fuel Standard].’ ” 

The trial court also found that anticipated Pavley and Low Carbon Fuel Standard

reductions were considered in the DEIR’s evaluation of the Criterion 3 issue. This issue

implicated whether the proposed Plan was consistent with Executive Order S-3-05, which 

calls for the reduction of greenhouse emissions to 20 percent of the 1990 level by 2050. 

The Criterion 3 analysis included two charts, one which did not consider and one which 

did consider anticipated Pavley and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard reductions. 

The court emphasized that the Board staff’s June 2013 draft technical evaluation 

of the Agencies’ proposed plan stated that the Agencies had “ ‘appropriately not included 

[greenhouse gas] emissions reductions from the technology and fuel programs adopted by 

the [Board] such as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and [Pavley]. This [was] because the 

targets adopted by [the Board] in 2010 [did] not include reductions from these statewide 

technology and fuel programs but rather focus[ed] on reductions from strategies 

implemented at the regional and local levels.’ ” 

The trial court further found that the DEIR evaluated five “potentially feasible” 

alternative sustainable communities strategies, and that the DEIR concluded these 

alternatives had only “minor” overall variations in environmental impact.

The trial court further discussed that, as part of the public comments about the 

DEIR, Citizens “asserted that the . . . analysis failed to account for, and hid, the fact that 

the Pavley mileage regulations will increase vehicle [miles per gallon] and will decrease 

emissions by approximately 37 [percent] and instead conducted a flawed analysis that 

assumed constant fleet [miles per gallon] through 2035.” Citizens proposed its own 

alternative plan, the “Bay Area Citizens Transportation and Housing Alternative.”
23

The court found the FEIR responded to Citizens when it “explained why the 

[DEIR] focused on emissions reductions from the land use and transportation planning 

sector while not factoring in emissions reductions from the Pavley mileage regulations 

and the [the Low Carbon Fuel Standard].” The FEIR stated that “ ‘ABAG focused solely 

on land use and transportation planning [greenhouse gas] reduction measures and used a 

2005 baseline for their analysis of [greenhouse gas] emissions reductions under the Plan 

because that is what SB 375 and [the Board] require. Pavley and the [Low Carbon Fuel 

Standard] are separate components of the State’s [greenhouse gas] emissions reduction 

efforts. [The Agencies] would be impermissibly double-counting the reductions from

Pavley and the [Low Carbon Fuel Standard] if they were to take credit for those 

emissions reductions in this EIR. [The Board] selected the year 2005 as a baseline (see 

p. 6 in the Recommendations of the Regional Targets Advisory Committee) in September 

2009. The purpose of developing the [sustainable communities strategy] as a component 

of the [regional transportation plan] is to provide a tool for regional governing bodies, 

such as [the Agencies], to meet [the Board’s greenhouse gas] reduction targets specific to 

the land use and transportation planning sector.” 

The trial court further found that the FEIR had sufficiently responded to Citizens’

comments. The FEIR stated that “ ‘[c]onsistent with SB 375,’ ” the Board assigned the 

Agencies targets that required emissions reductions “ ‘beyond those achieved by “new 

vehicle technology and by the increased use of low carbon fuel” (SB 375

Section l(c)).[12]. . . As such, for the purposes of SB 375, [the Agencies] must estimate 

carbon dioxide emissions assuming [a] hypothetical future in which new vehicle 

technologies and the increased use of low carbon fuel are not present.’ ” Further, 

 

12 Again, SB 375, section 1(c) states: “Greenhouse gas emissions from 

automobiles and light trucks can be substantially reduced by new vehicle technology and 

by the increased use of low carbon fuel. However, even taking these measures into 

account, it will be necessary to achieve significant additional greenhouse gas reductions 

from changed land use patterns and improved transportation. Without improved land use 

and transportation policy, California will not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32.” 

(Stats. 2008, ch. 728, § 1(c), p. 5065.)
24

“ ‘[w]hen assessing the environmental impact of the proposed action, [the Agencies]

assume a policy future in which new vehicle technology and the increased use of low 

carbon fuel do exist. . . . [¶] For each scenario, therefore, [the Agencies] have two 

estimates of effective miles per gallon [MPG]. One is the expected future year value, 

expected MPG, and is used as part of the emission estimation process that is the basis for 

assessing the environmental impact of the proposed action. The second is the 

hypothetical value, SB 375, which is used as part of carbon dioxide estimation process 

that is the basis for [the Agencies’] SB 375 [greenhouse gas] target. The only purpose of 

this hypothetical second value is for computing [the Agencies’] SB 375 [greenhouse gas]

target. [¶] . . . [¶] [The Agencies] cannot rely on state-mandated changes in vehicle

technology and increased use of low carbon fuel to meet the region’s SB 375 target.’ ” 

The court continued, their “use of these two separate MPG estimates for two separate 

purposes is not a secret.” Elsewhere in response to Citizens’ comments, the FEIR

referred to the conclusion in the DEIR that, in meeting the SB 375 greenhouse gas 

emissions reduction targets, it was prohibited from including anticipated Pavley and the 

Low Carbon Fuel Standard reductions in its calculations. 

 B. The Court’s Rulings on Citizens’ Claims

The court then stated its rulings on the claims Citizens had brought, which the 

court divided into five categories. 

First, the court rejected Citizens’ basic premise that the Agencies should have 

considered emissions reductions from Pavley and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard in 

determining how Plan Bay Area would meet the Board’s 2020 and 2035 greenhouse gas 

emissions reduction targets. The court concluded, based on its review of statutory text, 

the purpose of a regional transportation plan, the Legislature’s declarations and the 

Board’s interpretations, that SB 375 requires the Agencies to develop a regional 

transportation plan independent of Pavley and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. 

Second, the court rejected Citizens’ contention that the Agencies failed to disclose 

and describe SB 375’s proper legal objective. The court found substantial evidence to the 

contrary, in that the DEIR identified seven goals of the proposed Plan Bay Area and “was 
25

clear that in meeting the goal of reducing per-capita CO2 emissions from cars and lightduty trucks by 15 [percent,] [Plan Bay Area] would be limiting itself to land use and 

transportation issues.” Further, numerous public comments indicated the public’s

understanding that the Plan sought to achieve the Board’s targets independent of Pavley 

and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and there was substantial evidence that the Agencies 

responded adequately to the public comments, including those by Citizens. 

Third, the trial court rejected Citizens’ claim that the Agencies did not comply 

with CEQA because they used the SB 375 framework to analyze the proposed Plan Bay 

Area’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions, rather than some other framework. The 

court found the Agencies had acted within their discretion by analyzing the Plan’s impact 

under three different criteria: the SB 375 standard for meeting reductions targets with a 

2005 base year for 2020 (7 percent) and 2035 (15 percent) (Criterion 1); the Agencies’ 

goal of achieving reductions by 2040 using a 2010 baseline (Criterion 2); and the 

executive order goals of achieving reductions by 2050 equivalent to 80 percent of 

emissions in 1990 (Criterion 3). 

Fourth, the trial court rejected Citizens’ claim that the Agencies did not properly 

consider the “No Project” alternative. As we have discussed, the court rejected Citizens’

contention that the Agencies misinterpreted SB 375 to exclude reductions from Pavley

and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The court also concluded that, contrary to Citizens’

argument, the Agencies properly used 2005 as a base year in considering the “No 

Project” alternative because SB 375 required the Agencies to do so. Finally, Citizens

contended that the Agencies neglected to assess the “real world” consequences of the 

“No Project” alternative by projecting that Bay Area emissions would continue to rise 

despite evidence that nationwide emission rates for the transportations sector have been 

leveling off; the trial court found substantial evidence supported the Agencies’ projection. 

Fifth, the trial court rejected Citizens’ assertion that the Agencies did not properly 

consider and assess Citizens’ proposed alternative plan. The court concluded there were 

three reasons why the Agencies had met their obligation to consider a reasonable range of 

potentially feasible alternative plans. First, in their environmental review, they 
26

considered several alternative plans and, the court found, there was substantial evidence 

that the Agencies did not need to conduct a separate evaluation of Citizens’ alternative

plan. Second, the Agencies were not required to consider Citizens’ alternative plan 

because it was infeasible, given that it improperly included emissions reductions from the 

Pavley regulations and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

13

 Third, the Agencies considered 

several aspects of Citizens’ alternative plan in the course of their evaluations of other 

alternatives, and adequately responded to Citizens, pointing out that they had considered 

a reasonable range of alternatives and that many elements of Citizens’ alternative plan 

were included in the alternatives assessed. 

VI.

Filing of the Judgment and Notice of Appeal

On August 27, 2014, the trial court filed a judgment that incorporated its final 

statement of decision and denied Citizens’ petition in its entirety. 

Citizens filed a timely notice of appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, the 

Agencies made an unopposed request for judicial notice of certain documents, which we 

granted. Further, the Attorney General filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the 

Agencies, which we have also considered.

DISCUSSION

As in its petition for writ of mandate in the trial court, on appeal Citizens contends 

that the Agencies did not comply with CEQA in several ways, all because the Agencies

improperly relied “throughout . . . on the assertion that [SB 375] and the [Board] targets 

forbid any consideration of the Statewide Mandates in assessing whether the targets will 

be met.” 

The Agencies contend SB 375 and the Board require them to strive to meet the 

Board’s emissions reduction targets by developing regional land use and transportation 

strategies that were independent of the statewide mandates. The Attorney General 

 

13 The trial court pointed out that the Agencies did not reject Citizens’ alternative 

because it was infeasible, as this was not apparent from Citizens’ administrative 

submission. 
27

contends the Agencies complied with CEQA because of their EIRs’ extensive disclosures 

and analyses, regardless of SB 375’s and the Board’s requirements.

We agree with both the Agencies and the Attorney General, as we will now 

discuss. 

I.

Legal Standards Governing CEQA Review

“ ‘[T]he foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act

“to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the 

environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” ’ ” (Muzzy Ranch 

Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, 381 (Muzzy Ranch 

Co.).) “The fundamental goal of an EIR is to inform decision makers and the public of 

any significant adverse effects a project is likely to have on the physical environment.” 

(Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 

57 Cal.4th 439, 447.) It serves as “ ‘an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is 

to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have 

reached ecological points of no return.” [Citations.] The EIR is also intended “to 

demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and 

considered the ecological implications of its action.” ’ ” (Californians for Alternatives to 

Toxics v. Department of Food & Agriculture (2005) 136 Cal.App.4th 1, 11–12 

(Californians for Alternatives to Toxics), quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. 

Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) 

“As a general matter the EIR must present facts and analysis, not simply the bare 

conclusions or opinions of the agency. [Citation.] The discussion of impacts is 

acceptable if it provides sufficient information and analysis to allow the public to discern 

the basis for the agency’s impact findings. [Citation.] Thus the EIR should set forth 

specific data, as needed to meaningfully assess whether the proposed activities would 

result in significant impacts.” (Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, supra, 

136 Cal.App.4th at p. 13.)
28

In a CEQA case, “our review of the administrative record for error is the same as 

the trial court’s; we review the agency’s action, not the trial court’s decision.” (Muzzy 

Ranch Co., supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 381.) Our review extends only to “whether there was 

a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not 

proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not 

supported by substantial evidence.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21168.5; see Save Tara v. 

City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116, 131.) 

“[A]n agency’s failure to comply with the procedural requirements of CEQA is 

prejudicial when the violation thwarts the act’s goals by precluding informed decisionmaking 

and public participation.” (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible 

Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1375.) 

Thus, an EIR “will be found legally inadequate—and subject to independent review for 

procedural error—where it omits information that is both required by CEQA and necessary 

to informed discussion.” (California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009)

177 Cal.App.4th 957, 986.) 

In contrast, when reviewing a challenge to an agency’s factual findings and 

determinations, we apply the substantial evidence standard. (San Joaquin Raptor Rescue 

Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 654.) “Substantial evidence” is 

“enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair 

argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also 

be reached,” based on a review of the whole record before the agency. (14 Cal. Code 

Regs., § 15384, subd. (a).) “Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, 

evidence which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate, or evidence of social or economic 

impacts which do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the 

environment does not constitute substantial evidence.” (Ibid.) We consider “all relevant 

evidence, including that which detracts from the administrative decision.” (Ross v. 

California Coastal Com. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 900, 921.) 

Further, “[t]he agency’s findings and actions are presumed to be supported by 

substantial evidence. [Citations.] A person challenging an administrative determination 
29

bears the burden of showing the agency’s findings are not supported by substantial 

evidence.” (Ross v. California Coastal Com., supra, 199 Cal.App.4th at p. 921.) 

II.

The Meaning of SB 375

Citizens first argues that, “contrary to the Agencies’ evident wish,” SB 375 does 

not require that the Agencies meet the Board’s emissions reduction targets without 

considering reductions expected from statewide mandates such as Pavley and the Low 

Carbon Fuel Standard. According to Citizens, “the Agencies’ approach is itself legally 

suspect, particularly given [SB 375’s] mandate that the regional targets must take account 

of” emissions reductions expected from the statewide mandates. And regardless, Citizens

contends its interpretation, even if not compelled by SB 375, is “nevertheless a 

reasonable interpretation of the statute. [Citation.] Considering regional transportation 

planning and the Statewide Mandates together as part of a cumulative target analysis is a 

sensible approach to ensure that the two factors (which necessarily affect and interact 

with the other) complement rather than frustrate each other.” Therefore, “the Plan EIR’s 

foundational assumption—SB 375 compels the Agencies to exclude consideration of the 

Statewide Mandates in the Plan’s target analysis—is false.” 

SB 375’s plain language, the Legislature’s express declarations and findings, and 

the Board’s contemporaneous administrative construction of it make clear that Citizens’ 

construction of SB 375 is incorrect. The only legally tenable interpretation of SB 375 is 

that it requires the Board to set targets for, and the Agencies to strive to meet these targets 

by, emissions reductions resulting from regionally developed land use and transportation 

strategies, and that it requires these reductions be in addition to those expected from the 

statewide mandates. 

We review de novo questions of statutory construction. (Imperial Merchants 

Services, Inc. v. Hunt (2009) 47 Cal.4th 381, 387.) “ ‘In construing statutes, we aim “to 

ascertain the intent of the enacting legislative body so that we may adopt the construction 

that best effectuates the purpose of the law.” [Citations.] We look first to the words of 

the statute, “because the statutory language is generally the most reliable indicator of 
30

legislative intent.” [Citations.] . . . [¶] . . . ‘The intent prevails over the letter, and the 

letter will, if possible be so read as to conform to the spirit of the act.’ ” (People v. 

Nelson (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1083, 1097.) “ ‘[W]here a statute’s terms are unclear or 

ambiguous, we may “look to a variety of extrinsic aids, including the ostensible objects to 

be achieved, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, 

contemporaneous administrative construction, and the statutory scheme of which the 

statute is a part.” ’ ” (People v. Harrison (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1211, 1221–1222.)

 A. The Language of SB 375

We first turn to the language in SB 375. “ ‘The Legislature’s chosen language is 

the most reliable indicator of its intent because “ ‘it is the language of the statute itself 

that has successfully braved the legislative gauntlet.’ ” [Citation.] We give the words of 

the statute “a plain and commonsense meaning” unless the statute specifically defines the 

words to give them a special meaning. [Citations.] If the statutory language is clear and 

unambiguous, our task is at an end, for there is no need for judicial construction. . . . 

“ ‘Nevertheless, the “plain meaning” rule does not prevent a court from 

determining whether the literal meaning of the statute comports with its purpose. 

[Citations.] Thus, although the words used by the Legislature are the most useful guide 

to its intent, we do not view the language of the statute in isolation. [Citation.] Rather, 

we construe the words of the statute in context, keeping in mind the statutory purpose. 

[Citation.] We will not follow the plain meaning of the statute “when to do so would 

‘frustrate[] the manifest purposes of the legislation as a whole or [lead] to absurd 

results.’ ” [Citation.] Instead, we will “ ‘interpret legislation reasonably and . . . attempt 

to give effect to the apparent purpose of the statute.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Nelson, supra, 

200 Cal.App.4th at p. 1098.)

Further, “an enactment is to be read as a whole.” (Harris v. Superior Court (2012) 

53 Cal.4th 170, 188.) In other words, “[l]egislative intent must be gleaned from the

whole act rather than from isolated words.” (Building Industry Assn. v. City of Camarillo

(1986) 41 Cal.3d 810, 819.)
31

With these standards in mind, we turn to the language of SB 375, which calls for 

each MPO’s development of regional strategies to meet the Board targets, suggesting the 

Board’s and the Agencies’ interpretations are correct. By statute, each transportation 

planning agency is required “to prepare and adopt a regional transportation plan directed 

at achieving a coordinated and balanced regional transportation system.” (§ 65080, 

subd. (a).) In this context, SB 375 instructs each MPO to prepare a sustainable 

communities strategy that, among other things “shall . . . set forth a forecasted 

development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation 

network, and other transportation measures and policies, will reduce the greenhouse gas 

emissions from automobiles and light trucks to achieve, if there is a feasible way to do so, 

the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets approved by the [Board].” (§ 65080, 

subd. (b)(2)(B)(vii).) SB 375’s emphasis on the creation of a “forecasted development 

pattern for the region” within a regional transportation plan indicates the Legislature 

intended the MPOs would meet their regional targets by using land use and transportation 

plans and policies to reduce emissions. To rely instead on emissions reductions resulting 

from such statewide mandates as vehicle technology (Pavley) and a low carbon fuel 

standard would frustrate this plainly stated objective. 

Further, Citizens’ interpretation of SB 375 would lead to the absurd conclusion 

that the Legislature created an elaborate process—involving the Board’s appointment of

an expert Advisory Committee, that Committee’s development of target

recommendations to the Board, the Board’s consideration of these recommendations, the 

MPOs’ development of their own recommendations and the Board’s consultation with 

each of the MPOs, extensive analyses by the Board in the formulation of targets for each

region, extensive planning and public participation procedures by each MPO, and a 

CEQA analyses of each of the resulting plans—only to allow the MPOs in the end to 

simply cite the reductions expected from the pre-existing statewide mandates and take 

little or no further action. The conclusion is absurd because, as the Board projected in its

Scoping Plan, and as acknowledged by Citizens, the emissions reductions the statewide 

mandates are expected to achieve dwarf those the regional plans are targeted to achieve. 
32

Pavley and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard alone are expected to result in approximately

46.7 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions reductions (comprised of 31.7 and 

15 million metric tons respectively) by 2020, compared to the baseline year of 2005. 

This is more than nine times the 5 million metric tons reduction the Board estimated will

result from all the regional strategies called for by SB 375 put together. Indeed, as 

Citizens acknowledges and the FEIR stated, “had statewide greenhouse-gas-reduction

policies been taken into account, [Plan Bay Area] ‘could have simply stated that the Bay 

Area meets its emissions reduction targets solely through statewide clean technology 

initiatives.’ ” In short, Citizens’ interpretation makes no sense because it renders SB 375 

superfluous or, even worse, as a costly, time-consuming and ultimately pointless 

exercise. This is reason enough to reject it. (See People v. Nelson, supra, 

200 Cal.App.4th at p. 1098.)

Citizens focuses largely on SB 375’s language requiring the Board to “take into 

account” the reductions to be achieved by statewide mandates such as Pavley and the 

Low Carbon Fuel Standard in establishing its emissions reduction targets. (§ 65080, 

subd. (b)(2)(A)(iii).) Citizens’ argument conflates the Board’s duty to consider the 

statewide mandates in setting its targets with the MPOs’ duty to develop strategies to 

meet these targets. Citizens has not sued the Board or attacked the validity of its targets. 

SB 375 simply does not require the Agencies to “take into account” the statewide 

mandates or the reductions these mandates will produce in meeting their regional targets.

 B. The Legislature’s Declarations and Findings for SB 375

Even if the language of SB 375 were ambiguous, its legislative history eliminates

any doubt about the Legislature’s intent. The Legislature’s declarations and findings for 

SB 375, although uncodified, state that intent. After noting that AB 32 requires the State 

to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (Stats. 2008, ch. 728, 

§ 1(b), p. 5065), the Legislature declared: “Greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles 

and light trucks can be substantially reduced by new vehicle technology and by the 

increased use of low carbon fuel. However, even taking these measures into account, it 

will be necessary to achieve significant additional greenhouse gas reductions from 
33

changed land use patterns and improved transportation. Without improved land use and 

transportation policy, California will not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32.” (Id., 

ch. 728, § 1(c), p. 5065, italics added.) This passage leaves no question but that the 

Legislature intended SB 375 to require each MPO to develop regional land use and 

transportation strategies that will achieve emissions reductions beyond those achieved by

the statewide mandates.

Citizens quotes our Supreme Court in Carter v. California Dept. of Veterans 

Affairs (2006) 38 Cal.4th 914, 925 for the proposition that “statements of legislative 

purpose ‘do not confer power, determine rights, or enlarge the scope of a measure.’ ” 

True enough. But Citizens’ quote is incomplete. Our Supreme Court stated, “ ‘In 

considering the purpose of legislation, statements of the intent of the enacting body . . . in 

an uncodified section do not confer power, determine rights, or enlarge the scope of a 

measure, [but] they properly may be utilized as an aid in construing a statute.’ ” (Ibid., 

italics added) And indeed, the court, in reviewing legislative history of a statute in order 

to ascertain the legislative intent, has found “the most significant source” to be the 

Legislature’s own declarations and findings. (See California Assn. of Psychology 

Providers v. Rank (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1, 15 [Legislature’s own declarations of findings and 

purpose accompanying legislation was “the most significant source” of legislative intent 

for the legislation under review]; see also People v. Soria (2010) 48 Cal.4th 58, 66, fn. 8

[citing previous, uncodified declarations and findings in stating objectives of statutorily 

mandated restitution fines]; People v. Rodriguez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 543, 546 [interpreting 

criminal statute “guided by the . . . express legislative declarations of intent”].) 

Citizens argues we should disregard the Legislature’s own declaration of SB 375’s 

purpose for a number of reasons. First, Citizens contends it is “a mere legislative 

finding” that is trumped by “a clear legislative command,” since “[SB 375] expressly 

requires the Board to take the Statewide Mandates into account when setting the regional 

targets.” Citizens concludes, “Whatever the Legislature may have thought would be 

necessary to achieve the state’s emission reduction goals is legally irrelevant given the 

Legislature’s plain command that the Statewide Mandates be taken into account . . . .” 
34

This is wholly unpersuasive because, as we have already discussed, the Legislature’s 

command is that the Board consider these statewide mandates in formulating its regional 

emissions reduction targets, not that the MPOs consider the reductions expected from the 

statewide mandates in determining how to meet these targets. 

Next, Citizens argues that the Agencies’ interpretation of SB 375 presupposes the 

transportation sector must achieve certain reductions. It points out that AB 32 does not 

require reductions “ ‘from any particular source category (including transportation).’ ” 

This has nothing to do with the Legislature’s determination in adopting SB 375 that the 

reductions resulting from the regional strategies it calls for would be in addition to 

reductions expected from the statewide mandates. 

Finally, Citizens argues that the Agencies misinterpreted SB 375 by relying on 

the Legislature’s incorrect assumption that reductions attributable solely to land use and 

transportation planning were needed to achieve AB 32’s goals since, Citizens contends, 

“that assumption does not mean that any such reductions would be necessary to meet the 

[SB 375] targets.” (Italics omitted.) According to Citizens, this misinterpretation could 

actually frustrate SB 375’s overall goal of reducing transportation-sector greenhouse gas 

emissions. In the same vein, Citizens argues that Plan Bay Area’s reliance on heavy rail 

and transit could result in production of more emissions because these modes of 

transportation are not subject to Pavley and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Thus, 

Citizens concludes, “the Agencies’ blind adherence to the Legislature’s erroneous 

finding could result in the Plan’s irrational dedication to producing more, not fewer, 

greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector.” (Italics added.) At bottom, 

Citizens’ argument amounts to a request that this court correct a purported mistake by 

the Legislature in adopting the policy embodied in SB 375. We are not persuaded by the 

merits of Citizens’ argument,14 but the argument and our view of it are beside the point. 

 

14 The record indicates the Agencies were presented with significant, credible 

research and analysis in determining the environmental benefits of transit-oriented 

growth in adopting Plan Bay Area. Further, their Criterion 2 analysis considered all
35

Even if we agreed with Citizens’ assessment, we would have to decline its request. 

“[W]e may not simply rewrite the statutory scheme, purporting to sit as a superLegislature.” (People v. Cook (2015) 60 Cal.4th 922, 934.) 

 C. The Board’s Contemporaneous Construction of SB 375

We also conclude the Legislature intended by SB 375 that the Agencies would 

develop regional strategies resulting in emissions reductions that would be in addition to 

those expected from the statewide mandates based on our review of the key documents of 

the Board, the agency responsible for implementing SB 375. Specifically, the Board’s 

Scoping Plan, and its endorsement of its staff’s proposed targets report and technical 

evaluation of Plan Bay Area, indicate the Board interpreted SB 375 as calling for the 

development of such regional strategies to achieve additional reductions. This 

“ ‘contemporaneous administrative construction’ ” of SB 375 by the agency charged with 

implementing it is entitled to considerable weight (see People v. Harrison, supra, 

57 Cal.4th at pp. 1221–1222), particularly because the Board is charged with overall 

responsibility for “monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases 

that cause global warming in order to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.” (Health & 

Saf. Code, § 38510.)

 1. The Board’s Scoping Plan

First, there is the Board’s major planning document, its December 2008 Scoping 

Plan. As we have discussed, SB 375 was passed in 2008 and became effective on 

January 1, 2009. The Board issued its Scoping Plan in December 2008 pursuant to 

AB 32, in which it called for significant greenhouse gas emissions reductions in 

numerous sectors. In the Scoping Plan, the Board specifically identified measures to 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent, or 174 million metric tons, by the year 

2020 from the projected 2020 “business as usual” emissions level of 596 million metric 

tons. These included reductions of 31.7 million metric tons resulting from Pavley’s 

 

direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions expected to occur under Plan Bay Area, 

including transit emissions, and concluded emissions would decrease overall. 
36

vehicle technology standards, 15 million resulting from the Low Carbon Fuel Standard,

and, preliminarily, an additional 5 million from “local land use changes” to meet the 

targets the Board would soon set pursuant to SB 375. 

In the Scoping Plan, the Board indicated that each of these measures and 

concomitant reductions was necessary to achieve the Board’s overall goal of reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 by 174 million metric tons as compared to projected 

“business as usual” emissions. In a table contained in the Scoping Plan, the Board 

listed line by line its categories of estimated reductions. It then added the numbers of 

metric tons of projected emissions reductions for each of the categories listed, without 

offsetting or reducing any category to account for overlap between them, to reach the 

overall goal of 174 million metric tons of reductions. In separate lines of this table, it 

listed, among others, reductions from “California Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas 

Standards” (Pavley) of 31.7 million metric tons; reductions from the Low Carbon Fuel 

Standard of 15 million metric tons; and reductions from “Regional TransportationRelated [Greenhouse Gas] Targets” of 5 million metric tons.15

 In this way, the Board 

made clear that each category of greenhouse gas reductions was separate from the 

others. 

The Board further made clear in its Scoping Plan, in a section entitled, 

“Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas Targets,” that SB 375 called for 

greenhouse gas emissions reductions to be achieved through regional land use and 

transportation strategies that were in addition to statewide mandates: “Senate Bill 375 

. . . establishes mechanisms for the development of regional targets for reducing 

 

15

 This last line was the Board’s preliminary estimate of the greenhouse gas 

emissions reductions it anticipated would result from implementation of SB 375. In a 

footnote to the line, the Board stated: “This number represents an estimate of what 

may be achieved from local land use changes. It is not the SB 375 regional target. 

[The Board] will establish regional targets for each Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (MPO) region following the input of the Regional Targets Advisory 

Committee and a public consultation process with MPOs and other stakeholders per 

SB 375.” 
37

passenger vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. Through the SB 375 process, regions 

will work to integrate development patterns and the transportation network in a way 

that achieves the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions while meeting housing needs 

and other regional planning objectives. This new law reflects the importance of 

achieving significant additional reductions of greenhouse gas emissions from changed 

land use patterns and improved transportation to help achieve the goals of AB 32.” 

(Italics added.)

That the Board did not intend MPOs to rely on reductions expected from the 

statewide mandates for vehicle technology and fuel carbon is further indicated in the 

Scoping Plan’s repeated emphasis on the MPOs’ own development of regional land use 

and transportation strategies that would reduce vehicle miles traveled, which are 

distinct from the statewide mandates. For example, the Board referred to the MPOs 

“fostering efficient land use patterns” that, among other things, “reduce vehicle travel.” 

The Board further stated, “[e]nhanced public transit service combined with incentives 

for land use development that provides a better market for public transit will play an 

important role in helping to reach regional targets.” Also, the Board wrote, “SB 375 

maintains regions’ flexibility in the development of sustainable communities 

strategies. There are many different ways regions can plan and work toward reducing 

the growth in vehicle travel. Increasing low-carbon travel choices (public transit, 

carpooling, walking and biking) combined with land use patterns and infrastructure 

that support these low-carbon modes of travel, can decrease average vehicle trip 

lengths by bringing more people closer to more destinations.” (Italics added.) The 

Board listed supporting measures to be considered in target-setting and regional 

planning, all of which involve regional transportation methods and/or housing 

development. It highlighted a study that found a range of reductions “in vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT) resulting from a combination of land use and enhanced transit.” It

wrote that “[l]and use and transportation measures that help reduce vehicle travel will 

also provide multiple benefits beyond greenhouse gas reductions. Quality of life will 

be improved by increasing access to a variety of mobility options such as transit, 
38

biking, and walking, and will provide a diversity of housing options focused on 

proximity to jobs, recreation, and services.” (Italics added.) 

Citizens argues the Scoping Plan’s provisions do not support the Agencies’ 

interpretation of SB 375 for two reasons. First, “fuel composition and vehicle efficiency 

(the factors that pertain to the Statewide Mandates) necessarily affect a region’s 

transportation sector emissions, even though these factors may be regulated at the state 

level.” Therefore, “there will always be a risk of double-counting between the Scoping 

Plan and SB 375. That being the case, the way to avoid double counting is not to ignore 

such important determinants of regional emissions as the Statewide Mandates, but instead 

to set the targets in such a way that regional and statewide measures work cooperatively 

while also respecting the living choices of California residents.” This argument, too, is 

misdirected. In effect, it is a challenge to the Board’s approach to setting regional targets. 

Since Citizens has not sued the Board or sought to overturn the Board’s targets, the 

argument has no bearing on its claims in this case, which are directed solely at the 

Agencies’ CEQA review of Plan Bay Area. The argument fails to show the Agencies 

wrongly interpreted the Board’s intent and directives.16

Second, Citizens contends the Agencies’ interpretation of the Board’s 

requirements “improperly assumes that the Board failed to satisfy its statutory obligation 

to take the Statewide Mandates into account when setting the targets.” “The only way 

that the Board could have complied with the statutory ‘take account of’ requirement,” 

according to Citizens, “would have been . . . to include the Statewide Mandates as part of 

its comprehensive metric for measuring the targets. Therefore, it is . . . Citizens’ 

interpretation of [SB 375]—not the Agencies’—that both harmonizes with the Scoping 

Plan and maintains fidelity to the statutory text.” 

 

16 And again, while it is largely beside the point, the argument is unpersuasive 

because it fails to explain why targets for regional emissions reductions determined by 

reference to a fixed baseline—in this case 2005 emissions—are inconsistent with 

statewide mandates. Indeed, the Agencies determined that Plan Bay Area was consistent 

with the statewide goals and mandates. 
39

The premise of this argument is flawed. True, SB 375 requires the Board, “[i]n 

establishing these targets,” to “take into account” greenhouse gas emissions reductions 

that will be achieved by statewide mandates the Board has adopted, or plans to adopt, 

consistent with AB 32. (§ 65080, subd. (b)(2)(A)(iii).) But in aiming at an overall 

reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, the Board necessarily took into account the 

statewide mandates and the reductions it anticipated they would produce in determining 

how much more would need to be accomplished through the regional strategies 

developed pursuant to SB 375. Conceivably, under SB 375 the Board could have set 

higher overall regional targets for additional emissions reductions that included

assumptions about emissions already expected from Pavley and the Low Carbon Fuel 

Standard. But it also could set lower overall regional targets for emissions reductions 

that did not factor in reductions expected from the statewide mandates. The choice of 

what target methodology would be the most efficacious in achieving the additional 

reductions called for by SB 375 was for the Board to decide, as Citizens acknowledges, 

and the statutory language Citizens cites neither suggests nor compels either approach. 

One can discern which approach the Board chose from the Board’s own key documents, 

i.e., the Scoping Plan, as well as the reports and technical evaluations we will next 

discuss. The Board chose the second methodology—one that instructed the regions not 

to assume reductions expected from the statewide mandates in measuring the reductions 

that would result from their regional strategies. This approach is entirely consistent with 

SB 375.

 2. The Board’s Staff Reports on Setting the Emissions Reduction Targets

In 2010, as a part of the Board’s development of the regional emissions 

reduction targets called for by SB 375, its staff prepared draft and final reports on 

“Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for Automobiles and 

Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375.” Both indicated the MPOs should develop

regional land use and transportation strategies that would result in emissions reductions 

in addition to those expected from the statewide mandates. 
40

In its draft report, the Board’s staff summarized SB 375 as “a mechanism to 

help further . . . sustainable [communities strategy] planning efforts. . . . [T]he 

[sustainable communities strategy] is a mechanism for more effectively linking a land 

use pattern and a transportation system together to make travel more efficient and 

communities more livable. The result is reduced greenhouse gas emissions from 

passenger vehicles along with other benefits.” (Italics added.) In tables “1” and “2,” 

which propose emissions reduction targets for all of the regions, the staff added 

footnotes which state, “Percent reduction numbers do not include emission reductions 

expected from Pavley Greenhouse Gas Vehicle Standards and Low Carbon Fuel 

Standard measures.” (Italics added.)

Citizens points out that these footnotes were contained in the draft but not the 

final report. It contends, citing Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach

(1988) 46 Cal.3d 736, 744–745 (declining to interpret a statute in a way more consistent 

with a prior version of the statute than with its subsequently amended version), that, since 

this footnote was not included in the final staff report’s table of proposed 2020 and 

2035 Board targets for the Bay Area, the Board impliedly rejected its staff’s contention

that the MPOs should exclude Pavley and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard in developing 

their emissions reduction strategies. 

We disagree. The final report is different in form and content from the draft 

report in several ways. However, the Board staff continued to assert the MPOs should 

meet the Board’s targets not by relying on the emissions reductions already expected 

from the statewide mandates, but rather by developing their own regional land use and 

transportation strategies. The staff stated, “SB 375 provides MPOs the flexibility to 

develop a [sustainable communities strategy] tailored to regional needs. The targets 

can be achieved through any combination of land use patterns, transportation system 

improvements, and transportation-related measures or policies developed at the local 

and regional level.” It began its discussion of the “Nature of 2020 Targets” by 

asserting, “Significant change in land development patterns and transportation 

infrastructure takes time.” The staff wrote about the challenge of the 2035 targets that, 
41

“[w]hile significant changes in land use patterns and transportation infrastructure can 

be expected over the next 25 years, predicting the pace and nature of this change is 

challenging.”

Most importantly, the Board staff again stated the MPOs should strive to 

achieve emissions reductions beyond those expected from the statewide mandates. 

Specifically, the staff stated: “[Board] staff is proposing per capita greenhouse gas 

reductions of 7 to 8 percent in 2020, and between 13 and 16 percent in 2035 for each 

of California’s largest urban areas through regional land use and transportation 

strategies. These benefits are magnified when California’s vehicle and fuels programs 

to reduce greenhouse gases are taken into account.” (Italics added.) This leaves no 

doubt that the Board staff continued to expect the Agencies to meet the Board’s targets 

using regional strategies without relying on the statewide mandates and their expected 

reductions. Citizens points to nothing indicating the Board disagreed with its staff on 

this critical point. 

 3. The Board Staff’s Technical Evaluations

In 2013 and 2014, after the Agencies had prepared Plan Bay Area, the Board’s 

staff, as part of the Board’s evaluation of whether Plan Bay Area’s strategies would meet 

the Board’s emissions reduction targets, prepared draft and final technical evaluations of 

the Agencies’ greenhouse gas emissions reduction quantification. The Board indicated 

by its approval of these technical evaluations that the Agencies correctly did not include 

reductions from the statewide mandates in determining how to meet the Board’s targets.

The Board staff asserted in its June 2013 draft technical evaluation that the 

Agencies had properly excluded reductions from the statewide mandates in determining 

how to reach the Board’s emissions reduction targets. Citizens challenges the 

significance and validity of this assertion by first citing the draft evaluation’s disclaimer 

that its contents reflect the views of the Board. But the disclaimer is simply this: “This 

report has been reviewed by the staff of the [Board] and approved for publication. 

Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of

the [Board].” This language does not deny that the Board shares these views; it is neutral 
42

on the point. But other aspects of the record suggest that the Board likely did agree with 

its staff’s view. Citizens does not contend that there was any debate or disagreement 

about any of the relevant parts of the draft evaluation and we are aware of none. Also, 

we see no indication of disagreement by any Board member with a Board specialist’s 

statement at the Board hearing held shortly after preparation of the draft evaluation that 

the staff had reviewed the Agencies’ emissions reductions methodology with a focus “on 

the accounting of greenhouse gas emission reductions as described in our July 2011 

technical methodology paper.” 

Most importantly, Citizens’ argument that the Board may not have agreed with its 

staff is even weaker regarding the staff’s final technical evaluation. The Agencies 

submitted Plan Bay Area to the Board for its final review pursuant to section 65080, 

subdivision (b)(2)(J)(ii). The staff’s final technical evaluation of the Plan stated that the 

Agencies had “appropriately not included in [their] greenhouse gas emissions reduction 

figures any [greenhouse gas] emissions reductions from the [Board]-adopted technology 

and fuel programs, such as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard or [Pavley] program. This is 

because the regional targets adopted by the [Board] in 2010 do not include reductions 

from these statewide technology and fuel programs, but rather focus on reductions from 

strategies implemented at the regional and local levels.” (Italics added.)

On April 10, 2014, the Board issued Executive Order G-14-028, in which it 

accepted the Agencies’ determinations that Plan Bay Area would meet the Board’s 

targets. The Board attached to this executive order its staff’s final technical evaluation, 

and indicated the evaluation was based on the Board’s own technical methodology and a 

basis for its approval of the Agencies’ sustainable communities strategy: “[Board] staff 

performed a technical evaluation of the [sustainable communities strategy] in the draft 

Plan Bay Area based on the [Board’s] technical methodology for evaluating a 

[sustainable communities strategy] . . . .” 

Citizens points out that this final evaluation also contains the same disclaimer as 

the draft evaluation. But the disclaimer lost any force once the Board endorsed the 

evaluation in its April 2014 executive order. Citizens does not grapple with that 
43

endorsement. Citizens’ suggestion that the Board did not or may not have agreed with its 

staff is untenable in light of it. 

Citizens also argues that, assuming the staff’s technical evaluation represents the 

Board’s view, the evaluation “cannot direct this Court’s interpretation of SB 375” 

because “[t]he California Administrative Procedure Act [APA] forbids agencies from 

enforcing rules, or interpretations of rules, that have not gone through a public notice and 

comment process.” Citizens contends that the “technical evaluation represents either a 

rule for how to interpret the regional targets or, alternatively, a rule to interpret 

[SB 375’s] mandate that sustainable communities strategies meet the targets. Unless that 

interpretation is patently compelled by [SB 375], it is void as a matter of law” as an 

improper “underground regulation.” 

Pursuant to the APA (Gov. Code, § 11340, et seq.), “[n]o state agency shall issue, 

utilize, enforce, or attempt to enforce any guideline, criterion, bulletin, manual, 

instruction, order, standard of general application, or other rule, which is a regulation as 

defined in [Government Code] Section 11342.600, unless the guideline, criterion, 

bulletin, manual, instruction, order, standard of general application, or other rule has been 

adopted as a regulation and filed with the Secretary of State pursuant to this chapter.” 

(Id., § 11340.5, subd. (a).) A “regulation” is “every rule, regulation, order, or standard of 

general application or the amendment, supplement, or revision of any rule, regulation, 

order, or standard adopted by any state agency to implement, interpret, or make specific 

the law enforced or administered by it, or to govern its procedure.” (Id., § 11342.600.) 

Citizens provides little explanation for why the Board staff’s technical evaluation 

is an APA-governed regulation, and does not persuade us this is the case. But we need 

not engage in an extensive analysis of this issue. Citizens’ “underground regulation” 

argument is incorrect for two reasons.

First, APA’s rule-making provisions do not apply to “[a] regulation that embodies 

the only legally tenable interpretation of a provision of law.” (Gov. Code, § 11340.9, 

subd. (f).) As we have discussed, the only legally tenable interpretation of SB 375 is that 

it requires MPOs to develop regional land use and transportation strategies that result in 
44

emissions reductions that are in addition to the reductions expected from the statewide 

mandates. The technical evaluation is consistent with this interpretation. 

Second, as we will discuss further below, under Citizens’ own analysis, SB 375 

gives the Board the broad discretion to set the regional emissions reduction targets by any 

metric it sees fit to use, subject only to certain specified requirements, including that the 

Board consider the statewide mandates in establishing these targets. Again, Citizens has 

not challenged the Board’s method of setting regional emissions reduction targets or the 

targets themselves as inconsistent with SB 375’s language or purpose. As we have

discussed, the Board clearly intended the regions to meet these targets by reductions 

resulting from localized land use and transportation strategies that are in addition to the

reductions expected from the statewide mandates. “[I]it is well established that an 

agency’s ‘adoption of an interpretation consistent with the language and intention of a 

law and existing regulations as a prelude to enforcement does not require compliance 

with the APA.’ ” (Bernard v. City of Oakland (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1553, 1566.) The 

Board’s technical evaluation did not constitute rule-making for this reason as well.

 4. The Advisory Committee’s Recommendations

As we have discussed, SB 375 requires the Board to establish an Advisory 

Committee, which is to make recommendations regarding the Board’s regional targets. (See

§ 65080, subd. (b)(2)(A)(i).) The Board appointed an Advisory Committee, which issued a 

report entitled, “Recommendations of the Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC)

Pursuant to Senate Bill 375.” Citizens contends certain aspects of this report support its view 

that the Agencies should have considered the statewide mandates in determining how to 

meet the Board’s SB 375 targets. We disagree.

The Advisory Committee recommended the development of a list of “Best 

Management Practices” and a related spreadsheet for stakeholders consisting of 

“available land use and transportation policies and practices that will result in regional 

greenhouse gas reductions.” Citizens cites a passage, in a section of the report entitled 

“Flexibility in Achieving Targets,” in which the Advisory Committee recommended “that 

[the Board] allow for flexibility to implement innovative land use and transportation 
45

strategies to help meet the targets. As such, it is appropriate for MPOs to use, with sufficient 

documentation, transportation sector greenhouse gas reductions that are not on the [Best 

Management Practices] list provided that sufficient evidence exists to reliably predict the 

magnitude of the [greenhouse gas] reductions of their implementation. . . . Greenhouse gas 

reductions not related to the land use and transportation sectors should not be credited 

towards meeting of SB 375 targets.” Notwithstanding the final sentence, Citizens argues this 

passage supports its view because “the Statewide Mandates are related to the transportation 

sector, as they concern vehicle efficiency and fuel composition.” This argument ignores that 

the subject of this recommendation was the regions’ implementation of transportation 

strategies to increase the use of public transit, and that such regional strategies are distinct 

from the statewide mandates.

Citizens also points out that the Advisory Committee, in a section entitled, 

“Accounting for Statewide Fuel and Vehicle Technology,” recommended that the “Board 

provide MPOs with information on the anticipated greenhouse gas emissions reduction 

impacts of the adopted Pavley regulation and Low Carbon Fuel Standard.” Citizens 

contends that “[t]here would be no point to provide this information if, as the Agencies 

contend, this information must be ignored in meeting the targets.” Citizens’ contention is 

incorrect. As indicated by the other statewide measures we have discussed, such as the 

executive orders and AB 32, the Board’s Scoping Plan and the Agencies’ CEQA analysis—

in particular their discussion of Criteria 1, 2 and 3—the reductions called for by SB 375 were 

a part of a larger effort to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California by 

2050. The Advisory Committee may have wanted to enable the Agencies to evaluate their 

regional emissions long-term in the context of this larger effort. 

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Advisory Committee’s recommendations 

were just that: recommendations. SB 375 requires the Board to consider these 

recommendations, but nothing in it indicates the Board is required to adopt them. Citizens 

points to nothing which indicates the Board was required to adopt, or adopted, Citizens’ 

interpretation of the Advisory Committee’s recommendations. Even if the Advisory 

Committee report supported Citizens’ view, it would not be dispositive.
46

III.

The Board’s Requirements for Its Regional Targets

Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the Legislature did not intend by 

SB 375 that the MPOs must develop regional strategies resulting in emissions reductions 

that are in addition to those expected from the statewide mandates, the Board, as the 

agency charged with setting the SB 375 regional targets and developing the overall 

Scoping Plan, had the discretion to require the MPOs to do so. 

Citizens does not dispute that SB 375 gives the Board the broad discretion to set 

its emissions reduction targets. Indeed, Citizens asserts that SB 375 “imposes no 

limitation on how to achieve the targets that the Board has established” and that “the 

Legislature has made clear that the decision as to how to set the targets (and what to 

include within them) is left to the Board’s discretion.” This is correct in that, subject to

the Board’s consultation with the Advisory Committee and MPOs, and its consideration 

of other measures such as the statewide mandates, “greenhouse gas emission reduction 

targets may be expressed in gross tons, tons per capita, tons per household, or in any 

other metric deemed appropriate by the [Board].” (§ 65080, subd. (b)(2)(A)(v).) As 

demonstrated by the key documents discussed above, the Board indicated to the MPOs 

that they should develop regional strategies resulting in emissions reductions that are in 

addition to those expected from the statewide mandates. This is another reason to reject 

Citizens’ appeal.

Furthermore, the Legislature gave the Board broad discretion to determine through 

the Scoping Plan how to meet AB 32’s goals. As our colleagues in Division Three have 

concluded in analyzing AB 32: “[The Board] is explicitly directed by [AB 32] to 

‘prepare and approve a scoping plan, as that term is understood by the [Board].’ ([Health 

& Saf. Code,] § 38561, subd. (a), italics added.) . . . These directives are exceptionally 

broad and open-ended. They leave virtually all decisions to the discretion of the 

Board . . . . Determining the content of the scoping plan plainly falls on the ‘deferential 

end of the continuum accorded quasi-legislative agency action’ for which review under 
47

the arbitrary and capricious standard is appropriate.” (Association of Irritated Residents 

v. State Air Resources Bd., supra, 206 Cal.App.4th at p. 1495.) 

As we have discussed, the Board’s Scoping Plan specifies three separate 

categories of emissions reductions that are relevant here, i.e., those expected from 

improved vehicle technology standards for the State developed by the Board (Pavley), 

from improved fuel composition standards for the State developed by the Board (the Low 

Carbon Fuel Standard), and from land use and transportation planning developed by each 

MPO to meet targets set by the Board (SB 375). Citizens offers no reason why we should 

not defer to the Board’s quasi-legislative decision in the Scoping Plan, and via its 

endorsement of its staff’s proposed targets report and technical evaluation of Plan Bay 

Area, to adopt a targeting methodology that separates these categories and prohibits the 

MPOs from relying on reductions expected from the statewide mandates. 

IV.

Citizens’ Claims About the Adequacy of the Agencies’ EIR Analysis

Citizens argues the Agencies’ environmental impact review in its EIRs frustrated

CEQA’s core purpose of informing decision makers and the public about the 

environmental impact of the choices before them because the Agencies relied 

“throughout . . . on the assertion that SB 375 and the targets forbid any consideration of 

the Statewide Mandates in assessing whether the targets will be met.” Citizens states in 

its opening brief, “Each of these claims depends solely on the proper interpretation of SB 

375 and the targets; any facts on which they rely are undisputed. For example, . . . 

Citizens’ contention that the EIR’s analysis of the ‘no project’ alternative is defective is 

based on the undisputed fact that the analysis does not take into account the impacts of the 

Statewide Mandates when predicting what the world will look like if the Plan is not 

implemented. [Citation.] Similarly, . . . Citizens’ contention that the EIR should have 

analyzed Citizens’ alternative is based on the undisputed fact that the SB 375 targets will 

be met (thus fulfilling a basic Plan objective) if the Statewide Mandates are taken into 

account.”
48

As we have discussed, Citizens’ argument misinterprets the requirements of 

SB 375 and the Board. Therefore, each of its claims about the purported inadequacy of 

the Agencies’ EIRs fails. We briefly review each of these claims.

 A. Citizens’ Plan Objectives Claim

Citizens asserts the Agencies failed to disclose and describe Plan Bay Area’s basic 

objectives because it did not consider greenhouse gas emissions reductions resulting from 

the statewide mandates. 

Under CEQA’s regulations, an EIR’s “project description” must include a 

“statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project” and “include the underlying 

purpose of the project.” (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15124, subd. (b).) The project objectives 

guide the agency’s selection of alternatives for analysis and approval. (Ibid. [“A clearly 

written statement of objectives will help the lead agency develop a reasonable range of

alternatives to evaluate in the EIR . . .”]; see also id., § 15126.6, subd. (c).)

Here, the Agencies identified seven goals for Plan Bay Area as (1) Climate 

Protection (2) Adequate Housing (3) Healthy and Safe Communities (4) Open Space and 

Agricultural Preservation (5) Equitable Access (6) Economic Vitality and (7) 

Transportation System Effectiveness. The Agencies stated these goals were reflected in 

its performance targets, which included “reduc[ing] per-capita [carbon dioxide] emissions 

from cars and light-duty trucks by 15 percent” from 2005 levels by year 2035 as required 

by SB 375, and that to achieve this 15 percent goal, Plan Bay Area would limit itself to 

consideration of the reductions achieved through the combined land use and 

transportation pattern, and not through the statewide mandates. The Agencies stated 

objectives that were sufficiently broad to enable them to discuss a reasonable range of 

alternatives to the Plan, and the Agencies adequately disclosed the Plan’s goals to the 

public. Therefore, Citizens’ “objectives” argument, which is predicated on its 

misperception that the Agencies should have included reductions from the statewide 

mandates in determining how to meet the Board’s SB 375 targets, is without merit.
49

 B. Citizens’ Alternative Plans Claims

Citizens also argues the Agencies’ discussion of alternative plans was inadequate 

because it did not include consideration of Citizens’ own proposed alternative plan, 

offered during the DEIR public comment period. Again, we disagree because, among 

other things, Citizens’ proposed alternative was not feasible in light of the requirements 

of SB 375 and the Board.

 1. CEQA Law Regarding Alternatives

“The core of an EIR is the mitigation and alternatives sections.” (Citizens of 

Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564 (Goleta).) An 

alternatives analysis in an EIR is intended to facilitate consideration of whether an 

environmentally superior alternative could meet most project objectives; therefore, “the 

key to the selection of the range of alternatives is to identify alternatives that meet most 

of the project’s objectives but have a reduced level of environmental impacts.” 

(Watsonville Pilots Assn. v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1086–

1089.) “CEQA establishes no categorical legal imperative as to the scope of alternatives 

to be analyzed in an EIR. Each case must be evaluated on its facts, which in turn must be 

reviewed in light of the statutory purpose.” (Goleta, at p. 566.)

 2. The “No Project” Alternative

Citizens contends that the Agencies’ analysis of the “No Project” alternative

should have included consideration of greenhouse gas emissions reductions expected

from the statewide mandates. Again, this is incorrect.

The purpose of the “No Project” alternative is “to allow decisionmakers to 

compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving 

the proposed project.” (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15126.6, subd. (e)(1).) CEQA requires the 

“No Project” alternative to “discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of 

preparation is published . . . as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the 

foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent 

with available infrastructure and community services.” (Id., § 15126.6, subd. (e)(2); 
50

Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 

715 [citing 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15126.6, subd. (e)(2)].)

Here, the Agencies properly defined the “No Project” alternative as a 

continuation of existing regional policy. Their EIR analysis showed this would result in 

less residential and employment density due to a greater share of regional growth being 

directed to locations outside of the Priority Development Areas that were at the center of 

the Agencies’ sustainable communities strategy. As a result, the “No Project” 

alternative would result in less transit ridership, greater vehicle delay generally, and 

greater congested vehicle miles traveled per capita. Given the increase in vehicle miles 

traveled and decrease in transit use, it would not achieve the Board’s emissions 

reduction targets. The Agencies also stated when the analysis of alternatives did not 

include consideration of reductions expected from the statewide mandates.

Citizens does not explain why the Agencies’ “No Project” alternative approach 

was an abuse of discretion other than to argue, incorrectly, that it should have included 

reductions expected from the statewide mandates and that, if it did, it would be evident 

that the “No Project” alternative “would have met the targets without the Plan’s dozens of 

significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.” This argument fails for two reasons. 

First, as we have discussed, SB 375 and the Board required each MPO to develop 

regional land use and transportation strategies resulting in greenhouse gas emissions 

reductions. These reductions were to be in addition to reductions expected from the 

statewide mandates.

Second, the record indicates that the Agencies analyzed the Plan, the “No Project” 

alternative and the other alternatives regarding, among other things, the possible 

environmental impacts under Criterion 2—whether implementation of the Plan will 

“[r]esult in a net increase in direct and indirect [greenhouse gas] emissions in 2040 when 

compared to existing conditions”—and Criterion 3—whether implementation of the Plan 

would “[s]ubstantially impede attainment of goals set forth in Executive Order S-3-05 

and Executive Order B-16-2012.” These analyses did include consideration of Pavley I 

and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Thus, the Agencies did not ignore anticipated 
51

emissions reductions due to statewide mandates in their EIR analysis of the Plan and 

project alternatives. 

Citizens does not explain why this consideration of the statewide mandates was 

inadequate. The Agencies’ consideration of the statewide mandates was entirely 

appropriate, given the requirements of SB 375 and the Board. This is especially so in 

view of the legal standard: “ ‘ “[A]n EIR need not include all information available on a 

subject” . . . [.] [All that is required is] sufficient information and analysis to enable the 

public to discern the analytic[al] route the agency traveled from evidence to action.’ 

[Citation.] ‘A project opponent or reviewing court can always imagine some additional 

study or analysis that might provide helpful information. It is not for them to design the 

EIR. That further study . . . might be helpful does not make it necessary.’ ” (North Coast 

Rivers Alliance v. Marin Municipal Water Dist. Bd. of Directors (2013) 

216 Cal.App.4th 614, 639–640.)

Citizens highlights that the EIR Criterion 2 analysis did not address Pavley II. As 

the trial court noted, the DEIR’s Criterion 2 analysis, while it included estimates of the 

anticipated impact of Pavley I, did not include such estimates for Pavley II because of the 

limits of the available data, particularly given that Pavley II had not been approved until 

December 2012, which was not “in time to be integrated into the modeling tools used for 

the analysis.” 

Citizens argues that the Agencies had “more than a year” after Pavley II was 

adopted (apparently referring to the period between Pavley II’s final approval and the 

Board’s acceptance of Plan Bay Area) “to develop some estimate of their effects, and 

therefore had a duty to make at least a tentative estimate of their impacts.” It cites

Citizens for East Shore Parks v. California State Lands Com. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 

549, 563 (rejecting a challenge to an agency’s revised baseline because “[a]dministrative 

agencies not only can, but should, make appropriate adjustments . . . as the environmental 

review process unfolds”) and Mira-Monte Homeowners Assn. v. County of Ventura 

(1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 357, 364–366 (setting aside certification of EIR that did not 
52

identify environmental effects of subdivision street’s encroachment into a newly 

discovered wetlands area). 

The cases Citizens cites are inapposite in that they involved core aspects of the 

subject projects under review, whereas here, the Agencies’ consideration of Pavley and 

the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, far from being a core aspect of Plan Bay Area, was 

legally irrelevant to meeting the Board’s SB 375 targets. Further, Pavley II was finally 

adopted in December 2012, just four months before the DEIR and seven months before 

the FEIR, and Citizens does not establish that it was feasible for the Agencies to build a 

model during this time that considered Pavley II’s impact given the data available to

them. Under these circumstances, we agree with the Agencies that they were not 

required to consider Pavley II. (See 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15204, subd. (a) [“CEQA 

does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and 

experimentation recommended or demanded by commentors”]; Rialto Citizens for 

Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 899, 937 [“An EIR is 

required to evaluate a particular environmental impact only to the extent it is ‘reasonably 

feasible’ to do so”].)

In short, Citizens does not establish that the Agencies’ treatment of the “No 

Project” alternative was an abuse of discretion.

 3. Citizens’ Proposed Alternative Plan

We next turn to Citizens’ arguments about its proposed alternative plan. “An EIR 

need not consider every conceivable alternative but must consider a range of alternatives 

sufficient to permit the agency to evaluate the project and make an informed decision, 

and to meaningfully inform the public.” (Federation of Hillside & Canyon Associations 

v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1264.) It is sufficient if it provides 

enough information to allow comparison of the project with a reasonable choice of 

alternatives. (Ibid.) “In determining the nature and scope of alternatives to be examined 

in an EIR, the Legislature has decreed that local agencies shall be guided by the doctrine 

of ‘feasibility.’ ‘[I]t is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve 

projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures
53

available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such 

projects . . . . [I]n the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible 

such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be 

approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.’ (Pub. Resources Code, 

§ 21002, italics added.)” (Goleta, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 565.)

An EIR need not examine “alternatives that are so speculative, contrary to law, or 

economically catastrophic as to exceed the realm of feasibility.” (Save San Francisco 

Bay Assn. v. San Francisco Bay Conservation etc. Com. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 908, 

922.) “The Legislature has defined ‘feasible,’ for purposes of CEQA review, as ‘capable 

of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking 

into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.’ (Pub. 

Resources Code, § 21061.1; [14 Cal. Code Regs.], § 15364[.] . . . )[17] Both the California 

and the federal courts have further declared that ‘[t]he statutory requirements for 

consideration of alternatives must be judged against a rule of reason.’ ” (Goleta, supra, 

52 Cal.3d at pp. 565–566.) We uphold an agency’s selection of alternatives unless it is

“manifestly unreasonable” or inclusion of an alternative does not “contribute to a 

reasonable range of alternatives.” (Ibid.) 

The Agencies included the “No Project” alternative and three other alternatives

besides Plan Bay Area. Compared to Plan Bay Area, the “Transit Priority Focus 

Alternative” had the potential for more efficient land uses in transit priority project areas 

(as defined in Public Resources Code section 21155), which would be developed at 

higher densities than existing conditions to support high quality transit. The “Enhanced 

Network of Communities Alternative” sought to provide sufficient housing for all people 

employed in the Bay Area with no increase in the rate of in-commuting from other areas, 

and allowed for a more dispersed growth pattern than the Plan Bay Area. The 

“Environment, Equity, and Jobs Alternative” sought to maximize affordable housing in 

 

17 The definition of “feasible” for SB 375 is virtually the same. (See Gov. Code, 

§ 65080.01, subd. (c).) 
54

both urban and suburban areas through incentives and housing subsidies. None of these

alternatives relied on the statewide mandates for emissions reductions. 

Citizens first insists that the FEIR should have analyzed its proposed alternative, 

the “Bay Area Citizens Transportation and Housing Alternative,” even though this 

alternative relied heavily on greenhouse gas emissions reductions expected from the 

statewide mandates. As we have discussed, reliance on emissions reductions expected 

from the statewide mandates as a means of meeting the Board’s SB 375 targets does not 

comply with SB 375 nor the Board’s requirements. For this reason, Citizens’ alternative

was not feasible and the Agencies were not required to consider it. (See 14 Cal. Code

Regs., § 15126.6, subd. (f)(1) [among the factors to be taken into account in devising a 

range of alternatives are “regulatory limitations”]; In re Bay-Delta etc. (2008) 

43 Cal.4th 1143, 1163 [agencies may eliminate from consideration alternatives that 

would not “ ‘feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project’ ”].)18

Citizens further contends that, without consideration of its alternative, the 

Agencies “otherwise failed to consider any alternative that could meet the Plan’s basic 

objectives and yet still avoid all the significant environmental impacts attributable to the 

Plan’s high-density land-use vision, including increased particulate matter emissions and 

other toxic air contaminants, noise pollution from construction and transit, displacement of 

a substantial number of residents and businesses, loss of forests, and modification of 

habitat for protected species.” We disagree. An agency’s selection of alternatives must 

be upheld unless “ ‘the alternatives are manifestly unreasonable’ ” or inclusion of an 

alternative does not “contribute to a reasonable range of alternatives.” (California 

 

18

 As we have discussed, the trial court noted that the Agencies did not also reject 

Citizens’ alternative plan in its FEIR response on the ground of infeasibility because 

Citizens’ administrative submission did not make it apparent that Citizens’ alternative 

plan relied on the statewide mandates. We see no reason why this should affect our legal 

analysis. The Agencies did argue in their briefing below that they were not required to 

consider Citizens’ alternative plan because it did not comply with SB 375 given its 

reliance on Pavley and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and, therefore, that it was legally 

infeasible. 
55

Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 988.) Citizens

does not establish that either was the case here. The trial court found that the FEIR 

“considered a reasonable range of alternatives, proposed by a reasonable cross-section of 

advocacy groups.” It also found that “[i]n the context of evaluating the other 

alternatives, the [Agencies] considered many of the aspects of the [Citizens] Alternative. 

In the early stages of the EIR process the [Agencies’] Ad Hoc Committee on 

Performance Measures considered that the ‘[f]ocus should be on “output”, not “input” 

targets, consistent with the similar recommendation of [Citizens’] Alternative. Both [the 

Citizens] Alternative and the Environment, Equity, and Jobs Alternative involved the

expansion and improvement of bus lines and subsidizing that form of public transit. 

Both [the Citizens] Alternative and the Enhanced Network of Communities Alternative 

involved . . . more housing in all parts of the Bay Area.” We agree with the trial court

that Citizens has failed to establish that the Agencies abused their discretion regarding 

their consideration of Citizens’ alternative plan, or any other alternative. 

 4. Citizens’ Comments

Next, Citizens contends the Agencies did not adequately consider and respond 

to comments it made during the public comment period on the DEIR. Citizens again

relies on its misinterpretation of the requirements of SB 375 and the Board.

CEQA requires an agency to prepare written responses to comments on a DEIR 

describing “the disposition of each significant environmental issue that is raised by the 

commenters.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d)(2)(B); 14 Cal. Code Regs.,

§ 15088, subd. (c).) If the agency rejects a recommendation, it must explain why in its 

written response. (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15088, subd. (c).) 

Here, Citizens argues that it “addressed major environmental issues in [its] 

comments, arguing among other things that [its] proposed alternative is superior to [Plan 

Bay Area] because it meets the targets without the Plan’s dozens of significant and 

unavoidable environmental impacts. But because the Agencies misinterpreted SB 375 and 

the targets so as to foreclose any consideration of the Statewide Mandates, they necessarily 

failed to adequately consider and respond to the Citizens’ comments.” Again, the Agencies 
56

did not misinterpret SB 375 or the Board’s requirements. Citizens thus fails to establish an 

abuse of discretion regarding the Agencies’ treatment of its public comments.

V.

The General Sufficiency of the Agencies’ CEQA Review

We also affirm the trial court’s judgment based on a ground separate and 

independent from our conclusions about SB 375’s purpose and the Board’s targets. As 

the Attorney General argues in her amicus curiae brief, while Citizens ostensibly 

challenges the Agencies’ CEQA methodology for failing to sufficiently consider the 

statewide mandates, the fact is that the Agencies in their EIRs provided sufficient 

disclosures about their methodologies, where they did and did not consider the statewide 

mandates, the environmental impacts of Plan Bay Area, project alternatives and more. 

Citizens does not explain why under these circumstances the Agencies were required to 

further discuss the statewide mandates in order to comply with CEQA. We agree with 

the Attorney General that Citizens’ arguments amount to a substantive attack on the 

wisdom of Plan Bay Area itself. 

According to Citizens, if the Agencies had included greenhouse gas emissions 

reductions from Pavley and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard in their environmental 

analysis, the public and the Agencies would have been informed that the Plan’s Priority 

Development Area-focused land use and transportation strategies would not be necessary 

to achieve SB 375’s targets. Instead, Citizens contends, the Agencies “crafted a Plan for 

the Bay Area that . . . entirely ignores all expected greenhouse gas reductions 

attributable to various statewide emission reduction programs.” 

As we have discussed, Citizens is mistaken; the Agencies did not entirely ignore all 

expected greenhouse gas reductions attributable to the statewide mandates, and made 

clear in their EIR analyses where they did and did not consider these mandates. This 

belies Citizens’ claim that the Agencies’ EIRs failed to satisfy “CEQA’s core purpose of 

promoting informed public decision-making.” For example, as we have discussed, the 

Agencies’ EIRs took into account reductions from Pavley I and the Low Carbon Fuel 

Standard in evaluating Plan Bay Area and the project alternatives under Criterion 2 and 
57

Criterion 3. Further, as Citizens states in its opening brief, the FEIR stated that, “had 

statewide greenhouse-gas-reduction policies been taken into account, the Plan ‘could 

have simply stated that the Bay Area meets its emissions reduction targets solely through 

statewide clean technology initiatives.’ ” 

Citizens essentially argues that the Agencies violated CEQA by adopting a plan 

that did more than the minimum necessary to meet their SB 375 targets. However, an 

objection to the substantive choice a lead agency makes in approving a project is not a 

legitimate basis for a CEQA lawsuit. (See, e.g., Eureka Citizens for Responsible 

Government v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357, 378 [“[o]ur role . . . is not to 

decide whether the City acted wisely or unwisely, but simply to determine whether the 

EIR contained sufficient information about a proposed project . . . and the projected 

environmental impacts . . . to allow for an informed decision”].) Given that the EIRs 

provided the Agencies and the public with sufficient information on the greenhouse gas 

emissions impacts from Plan Bay Area, the wisdom of the Agencies’ choice in adopting 

this Plan cannot be challenged under CEQA. “An EIR should be prepared with a 

sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information which enables 

them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental 

consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need 

not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is 

reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but 

the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The 

courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith 

effort at full disclosure.” (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15151; see Laurel Heights Improvement 

Assn. v. Regents of the University of California, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 406 [stating 

regarding the discussion of project alternatives, “ ‘Absolute perfection is not required; 

what is required is the production of information sufficient to permit a reasonable choice 

of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned’ ”].)

Citizens does not establish that the Agencies failed to meet this CEQA standard, 

regardless of whether SB 375 or the Board prohibited them from counting emissions 
58

reductions expected from the statewide mandates in determining how to meet the SB 375

targets. We agree with the Attorney General that, while Citizens “may think it is unwise 

to take an ambitious approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions through regional 

and local efforts, rather than relying primarily on projected reductions expected from 

statewide measures,” nonetheless “that disagreement is not the basis of a CEQA 

challenge when the Agencies conducted appropriate analyses and disclosed them in the 

EIR.” 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Respondents are awarded costs of appeal.

STEWART, J.

We concur.

KLINE, P.J.

RICHMAN, J.
59

Trial Court: Alameda County Superior Court

Trial Judge: Hon. Evelio M. Grillo

Counsel: 

Foley & Lardner, Michael E. Delehunt; Pacific Legal Foundation, M. Reed Hopper, John 

M. Groen, Jonathan Wood, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Thomas Law Group, Tina A. Thomas, Ashle T. Crocker, Amy R. Higuera; Association of 

Bay Area Governments, Kenneth K. Moy; Metropolitan Transportation Commision, 

Adrienne D.Weil, for Defendants and Respondents.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Mark J. Breckler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, 

Sally Magnani, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Timothy E. Sullivan, Deputy Attorney 

General, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.