20 Cal. App. 5th 1039
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Crown Castle proposed a Distributed Antenna System (DAS) of 13 microcell transmitters (two-foot antennas plus pole-mounted equipment) in rural Day Valley, Aptos; most would be mounted on existing utility poles in the public right-of-way.
- Crown submitted separate permit applications for each microcell; County staff and decisionmakers consistently treated the group of units together.
- ARA (Appellant Aptos Residents Association) opposed the project on aesthetic and health grounds and argued CEQA exemptions did not apply because of segmentation, cumulative impacts (including a possible AT&T project and a PG&E pole-replacement project), location (zoning/protection), and unusual circumstances.
- County staff and the Planning Commission found the project fell within the Class 3 categorical exemption for small structures (CEQA Guidelines §15303) and that no exceptions applied; the Board declined to take jurisdiction of ARA’s appeals.
- ARA petitioned for writ of mandate in superior court; the court denied relief. ARA appealed; the appellate court affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Improper segmentation | The County treated each microcell as separate and thus avoided review of the full project | The Class 3 exemption covers "limited numbers" of small structures and the County reviewed the units as a group despite separate permit paperwork | No abuse of discretion; substantial evidence supports Class 3 exemption and County considered units together |
| Cumulative-impact exception (AT&T) | ARA submitted evidence AT&T likely would install similar units, creating cumulative impacts requiring environmental review | County/Board: the AT&T information was double-hearsay, vague, speculative, not "significant new evidence," and did not show a same-type same-place project | No abuse; speculative possibility of future projects insufficient to trigger cumulative-impact exception |
| Consideration of all DAS units together | ARA: County failed to analyze cumulative impact of all microcells together | County: decisionmakers considered all 10/11 units as one project at each level | Held that County did consider the group and did not improperly segment |
| Location exception (mapped protective designation) | ARA: Day Valley’s Residential Agricultural zoning or rural status makes it a designated sensitive location warranting denial of exemption | County: location exception requires a resource "designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted" by law; zoning purpose statement does not satisfy that standard | Held: ARA produced no evidence of a designated, precisely mapped resource; location exception not triggered |
| Unusual circumstances exception | ARA: Day Valley is a particularly sensitive environment; small structures there are unusual | County: no evidence project circumstances are unusual for Class 3 projects; small utility extensions in rural/residential-agricultural areas are ordinary | Held: ARA failed to show unusual circumstances; substantial evidence supports exclusion of the exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. City and County of San Francisco, 208 Cal.App.4th 950 (2012) (speculation about future similar projects is insufficient to negate a categorical exemption)
- Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, 60 Cal.4th 1086 (2015) (standards and burdens for applying the unusual-circumstances exception and review standards)
- Save Our Carmel River v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist., 141 Cal.App.4th 677 (2006) (deferential review of agency categorical-exemption determinations supported by substantial evidence)
- Hines v. California Coastal Com., 186 Cal.App.4th 830 (2010) (discussion of standards for exceptions to categorical exemptions)
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (2007) (CEQA Guidelines are entitled to great weight in interpretation)