## Facts

- Manhattan Beach’s city manager recommended an ordinance banning point-of-sale plastic carryout bags and concluded CEQA did not require an EIR because the ordinance would not significantly affect the environment.
- The City adopted Ordinance No. 2115 banning single-use plastic carryout bags at local retail establishments, restaurants, and vendors, while excluding produce bags.
- The ordinance stated Manhattan Beach, as a coastal city, sought to protect the marine environment and local quality of life by reducing plastic bag debris.
- Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, representing plastic bag manufacturers and distributors affected by the ban, objected that the City needed to evaluate broader environmental consequences, including increased paper bag use.
- The Coalition filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the City’s negative declaration and seeking preparation of an EIR.
- The trial court ordered the City to set aside the negative declaration and prepare an EIR, finding evidence the ordinance might cause significant impacts through increased paper bag usage.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, applying the “fair argument” standard and finding substantial evidence of possible significant effects.
- The California Supreme Court granted review on (1) standing for a corporate entity to challenge CEQA compliance and (2) whether the City was required to prepare an EIR.

## Issues

1. Whether a corporate coalition has standing to challenge a CEQA determination, including whether corporations face heightened scrutiny when asserting public-interest standing.
2. Whether CEQA required an EIR for Manhattan Beach’s plastic carryout bag ban or whether a negative declaration sufficed because the ordinance would not cause significant environmental effects.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held the Coalition had standing.
- The Court disapproved the rule that corporations are subject to heightened scrutiny when asserting public-interest standing in CEQA citizen suits.
- The Court also found the Coalition had traditional standing because its members were directly affected by the ordinance.
- On the merits, the Court held the City’s negative declaration complied with CEQA because substantial evidence and common sense supported a finding of no significant environmental effect.
- The Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s judgment requiring an EIR.

## Legal Principles

- Corporations and business entities may assert CEQA public-interest (citizen-suit) standing on the same terms as individuals; corporate status alone does not justify heightened standing requirements.
- A party has traditional standing under CEQA when it has a sufficient beneficial interest, including being directly regulated or economically affected by the challenged action.
- An EIR is required only if substantial evidence supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant environmental effect.
- CEQA significance analysis is context- and scale-dependent; generalized, large-scale studies do not necessarily establish significant effects from a small, local measure.
- A negative declaration is proper where substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the project will not have a significant environmental impact.

## Conclusion

The court confirmed that corporate plaintiffs may sue under CEQA without special standing hurdles and held that Manhattan Beach’s small-scale plastic bag ban was supported by substantial evidence of no significant environmental effect, so the City was not required to prepare an EIR.


Save the Plastic Bag Coal. v. City of Manhattan Beach, 52 Cal. 4th 155 (Cal. 2011)