Exemptions

Subscribe to Exemptions via RSS

In a concise 15-page opinion filed August 7, 2014, the California Supreme Court reversed the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s judgment which had held that a city may not adopt a voter-sponsored initiative with potential environmental impacts unless it conducts a CEQA analysis.  Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. The Superior Court of Tuolumne County (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Real Parties In Interest (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1029, Case No. S207173.  (For relevant case background, my initial post analyzing, criticizing, and predicting that the Supreme Court would grant review of the Fifth District’s decision can be accessed at the following link: “Impossible and Useless CEQA Review Is Required If City Opts Under Elections Code to Adopt Legislative Project Approvals Proposed by Qualified Citizen Initiative Petition – Fifth District’s Holding In Walmart Rejects Fourth District Precedent And Creates Split In Authority,” by Arthur F. Coon, posted November 8, 2012.)
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Holds CEQA Inapplicable To City’s Adoption Of Qualified Voter Initiative Approving Wal-Mart “Supercenter” Project

In a July 3, 2014 published decision more notable for the practical importance of the water rights involved than the CEQA law applied, the Fifth District Court of Appeal rejected the CEQA challenges of various environmental groups and a tribe.  North Coast Rivers Alliance, et al., v. Westlands Water District, et al., 227 Cal.App.4th 832 (5th Dist. 2014).  The lawsuit sought to overturn statutory and categorical exemptions claimed for six 2-year interim renewal contracts between the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and several water districts (i.e., Westlands Water District and its related distribution districts) for Central Valley Project (CVP) water to be delivered, received and distributed within the district’s 600,000+ -acre boundaries.
Continue Reading Fifth District Upholds CEQA Exemptions For Ongoing Pre-CEQA Projects And Continued Operation of Existing Facilities To Reject Challenge To Two-Year Interim CVP Water Contract Renewals

On May 30, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District (Division 4) filed its order denying rehearing and granting the requests of real party in interest AT&T, Verizon, Remy Moose Manley and others to publish its April 30 opinion in San Francisco Beautiful, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al. (AT&T California, RPI) (1st Dist. 2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1012.  The case involved a challenge, by plaintiffs comprised of numerous citizens and neighborhood groups, to the City’s determination that AT&T’s “Lightspeed” project was categorically exempt from CEQA and therefore didn’t require an EIR.  The project involved installing 726 new utility cabinets – most to be 48” high, 51.7” wide, and 26” deep – at undetermined locations on public sidewalks throughout the City within 300 feet of existing cabinets, in order to upgrade broadband speed and capabilities using an expanded fiber-optic network.
Continue Reading San Francisco Beautiful CEQA Decision Interpreting Class 3 Categorical Exemption For Installation of Small Structures Is Ordered Published By First District

In an exceptionally thorough and well-reasoned opinion, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying a writ petition challenging respondent 14th District Agricultural Association’s (District) approval of a rodeo event to be held at the Santa Cruz County Fairground pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines’ Class 23 categorical exemption.  Citizens For Environmental Responsibility v. State of California ex rel 14th District Agricultural Association (3d Dist. 3/26/14) 224 Cal.App.4th 152, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 8.  In doing so, the Court addressed and clarified important issues regarding (1) the scope of the Class 23 exemption for “normal operations of existing facilities for public gatherings” (14 Cal. Code Reg., § 15323), (2) when alleged “mitigation” measures disqualify a project from utilizing a categorical exemption, and (3) operation of the “unusual circumstances” exception to categorical exemptions.  (14 Cal. Code Reg., § 15300.2(c).)
Continue Reading Third District Construes CEQA Guidelines’ Class 23 Categorical Exemption And “Unusual Circumstances” Exception In Rejecting Challenge To Watsonville Rodeo Event

Sometimes in the land use world, municipal planners and other regulators need to be reminded of the simple things.  For example, a fundamental precept of due process is that the rules cannot be changed in the middle of the game because doing so is arbitrary and unfair.  To some extent, this basic concept underlies or informs the law of vested rights, estoppel, stare decisis, and statutory interpretation.

The Second District’s recently published decision in Tower Lane Properties v. City of Los Angeles (2nd Dist. 2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 262, Case No. B244092, applies simple and well established land use rules that the City of Los Angeles and its planners apparently forgot – or ignored.  These include: (1) CEQA applies only to discretionary approvals; (2) grading and building permits are generally not discretionary approvals; (3) approvals of tentative maps for the subdivision of land are discretionary approvals; (4) tentative maps – or any type of subdivision map – are required only for actual subdivisions of land; and (5) an agency’s interpretation of its own ordinance is not entitled to deference if not consistent with the ordinance’s plain language, or not itself longstanding and consistent.Continue Reading Overreaching to Apply CEQA; Second District Strikes Down LA’s Attempted Mid-Game Rule Change in Tower Lane Properties

Followers of CEQA reform efforts over the past several years will have observed two general trends: (1) Legislative reform has proven difficult, incremental, and marked by political division and dealmaking; and (2) the Supreme Court has “taken up the slack” by aggressively granting review of and resolving numerous major CEQA issues.  In doing so, the high court has brought greater clarity and “common sense” to the jurisprudence defining the parameters and operation of this venerable law – a significant judicial reform effort of which CEQA has been sorely in need.  While much remains that could be done to clarify, streamline and modernize CEQA, the Supreme Court’s judicial reform effort continues with seemingly unabated vigor.
Continue Reading Supreme Court is Primary CEQA Reform Engine

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) will undertake a comprehensive review of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal.Code Regs., §15000 et seq) this year and is currently soliciting public input – to be provided not later than COB on February 14, 2014 – on specific possible topics it has developed as a result of stakeholder suggestions and published on its website.  OPR’s 7-page document, dated December 30, 2013, and entitled “Possible Topics to be Addressed in the 2014 CEQA Guidelines Update,” can be found at http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/PossibleTopics2014CEQAGuidelinesUpdate.pdf.
Continue Reading OPR To Review Specific CEQA Guidelines Topics Proposed For 2014 Update, Solicits Public Input

Plaintiff Save the Plastic Bag Coalition (Coalition) lost a third consecutive published appellate decision in its litigation campaign to require EIRs for virtually all local ordinances that ban or restrict the use of single-use plastic bags in favor of alternatives deemed environmentally superior.  The First District Court of Appeal’s opinion in Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City and County of San Francisco (1st Dist., Div. 2, 2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 863, Case No. A137056, which was filed December 10, 2013, and later ordered published on January 3, 2014, extended the existing CEQA precedents to a local ordinance covering a significantly larger urban area – San Francisco – while showing little tolerance for the Coalition’s contrary arguments.
Continue Reading “Bag It!” – Third Published CEQA “Bag Ban” Decision Upholds San Francisco’s Ordinance as Categorically Exempt While Slamming Plaintiff’s Arguments

After years of study, Marin County adopted an Ordinance in 2011 banning single-use plastic bags and mandating a 5-cent fee on single-use paper bags; the ordinance applies to roughly 40 retailers in the unincorporated county.  The county found the ordinance categorically exempt from CEQA as “a regulatory action designed to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of natural resources and the environment.”  (See 14 Cal. Code Regs., §§ 15307, 15308.)  Plaintiff Save the Plastic Bag Coalition (the “Coalition”) sued claiming CEQA required an EIR for such an ordinance, but the trial court denied its writ petition.  On July 25, 2013, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District ordered published portions of its June 25, 2013 decision affirming the trial court’s judgment.  (Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. County of Marin, et al (1st Dist., Div. 3, 6/25/13, part. pub. order 7/25/13) 218 Cal.App.4th 209.)
Continue Reading First District Holds CEQA Categorical Exemptions For Regulatory Agency Actions To Protect The Environment Apply To Marin County’s Plastic Bag Ban Ordinance, Recognizes Case Law Split On Standard Of Review For Exceptions

A recent Sixth District Court of Appeal decision serves as a pointed reminder to practitioners that CEQA exemptions and limitations periods are not always neatly grouped within those statutory provisions of the Public Resources Code known as the “California Environmental Quality Act” (“CEQA”; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.).  Statutes other than CEQA, including provisions codified in the Education Code, Government Code, Health & Safety Code, Water Code, and non-CEQA portions of the Public Resources Code also provide statutory exemptions to CEQA’s requirements.  In May v. City of Milpitas (6th Dist., 7/16/13) 217 Cal.App.4th 1307, the Court applied one such “outlier” statute — Government Code § 65457 — to affirm a judgment dismissing a carpenters’ local union’s CEQA challenge to a residential development project as time-barred.
Continue Reading Sixth District Holds CEQA Action Barred By 30-Day Statute of Limitations of Government Code Section 65457 Despite City’s Filing of Notice of Exemption