By Miriam Raftery
View the court’s ruling
April 9, 2025 (San Diego) – San Diego Superior Court Judge Joel Wohlfei has struck down San Diego County’s Transportation Study Guide.
The decision in a lawsuit filed by Cleveland National Forest Foundation (CNFF) and the Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation (CERF) is a win for environmentalists seeking to reduce emissions from vehicles to reduce impacts on climate change, but a setback for opponents of a controversial vehicle miles traveled (VMT) proposal that the county previously scrapped following objections the building industry and an East County supervisor.
Duncan McFetridge, a Descanso resident and Director of CNFF, told ECM the ruling is “major victory.” He adds, “It’s time for the County to stop taking shortcuts and instead implement its low VMT climate policy. We’re running out of precious time to start solving our transportation and housing problems in San Diego. The County’s continued delays hurt San Diegans and the environment.”
Sara Ochoa, Program Director a CERF, states in a press release, “We know we can’t meet our climate goals without significant reductions in automobile travel…We should build housing and transit where it makes sense, instead of dooming future generations to wildfire risks and soul-crushing commutes.”
Senate Bill 743, a state law passed in late 2022, requires local agencies to assure that development projects are designed to minimize environmental harm and reduce vehicle miles traveled by limiting sprawl development in rural areas, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. The County said VMT mandates could cost home builders $60,000 to $200,000 per unit.
The County’s transportation plan sought to provide exemptions to SB 743 VMT requirements for infill and village areas where transit exists or is expected to be added soon. It also sought to exempt small projects that the County contended would have minimal environmental impacts.
But Judge Wohfei wrote, “None of the `evidence’ relied on by the County to support its assumptions concerning its infill threshold comes from independent outside sources or reflects anything other than unsubstantiated opinions….such opinions are not substantial evidence.”
Similarly, regarding small projects, the Judge concluded, “…there was no effort by the County to develop any evidence that small projects generating 110 or fewer trips are likely to cause a less than significant transportation effect in San Diego County…Our independent review of the rest of the record confirms that no such evidence was offered.
The County back in 2011 adopted a General Plan that encouraged growth in village cores in places such as Lakeside, Spring Valley and Ramona–places with village centers, services, jobs, and a need for housing. A Voice of San Diego article in 2024 noted that by encouraging small lot development, the General Plan helped make homes more affordable in places like East County, which are typically easier for first time homebuyers to enter the market.
But after SB 743, the County shelved its General Plan and implemented strict VMT guidelines—so strict that th Building Industry Association declared the county “dead to us,” as some homebuilders pulled out of the area, according to an opinion piece in Voice of San Diego in 2024 written by Lori Holt Pfeiler, CEO of the Building Industry Association. According to Pfeiler, the strict VMTs backfired, leading some homebuyers to purchase houses in Temecula and commute to jobs in San Diego, actually causing more vehicle emissions.
Supervisor Joel Anderson pushed County Counsel to review case law, leading the County to reverse course and create a transportation plan that allowed projects to be built if they are consistent with the General Plan, exempting them from requirements to mitigate for vehicle miles traveled.
The lawsuit filed by the environmental groups successfully argued that the County’s transportation plan violated requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as well as SB 743.
Now, the County may opt to revise its transportation guidelines to comply with the court ruling, or file an appeal.
“
