California Clean Energy Committee v. City of San Jose
220 Cal. App. 4th 1325
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- CCEC challenged City's Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan CEQA process.
- The city produced a final EIR; Planning Commission certified it as complete and in CEQA compliance.
- City Council, as lead agency, certified the final EIR and approved the plan.
- CCEC commented during the public process, including requests for recirculation.
- No administrative appeal was filed from the Planning Commission’s certification.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for City on exhaustion grounds; on appeal, court reverses and finds proper exhaustion and improper delegation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Planning Commission certification was lawful | CCEC argues Commission lacked authority to certify CEQA compliance | City contends bifurcated process; Commission could certify CEQA compliance | EIR certification by Commission improper; lead agency must certify CEQA compliance. |
| Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies was satisfied | CCEC exhausted remedies via comments to Commission and City Council | Exhaustion required an administrative appeal of Commission certification | Exhaustion satisfied; no further administrative appeal required. |
| Effect of delegation on CEQA duties | Delegation to Commission improper under CEQA Guidelines | Delegation permissible within CEQA framework | Delegation to planning commission improper; City Council remains lead/decisionmaking body. |
Key Cases Cited
- Audubon Society v. County of San Bernardino, 155 Cal.App.3d 738 (Cal. App. 4th 1984) (exhaustion and final arbiter in CEQA context)
- Tahoe Vista Concerned Citizens v. County of Placer, 81 Cal.App.4th 577 (Cal. App. 4th 2000) (exhaustion depends on final decisionmaker; de novo review context)
- Browning-Ferris Industries v. City Council, 181 Cal.App.3d 852 (Cal. App. 3rd 1986) (administrative remedies before final approval authority)
- California Oak Foundation v. Regents of University of California, 188 Cal.App.4th 227 (Cal. App. 2nd 2010) (delegation to a committee can be permissible under CEQA guidelines)
- Kleist v. City of Glendale, 56 Cal.App.3d 770 (Cal. App. 2nd 1976) (questioned delegation of EIR review to nondecisionmaking body)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 6 Cal.4th 1112 (Cal. 1993) (public participation essential; environmental review not segregated from project approval)