242 Cal. App. 4th 555
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- The 14th District Agricultural Association (District) approved a Class 23 categorical Notice of Exemption (NOE) for a two-day Stars of Justice rodeo at the Santa Cruz County Fairground (Oct 2011); appellants (Citizens for Environmental Responsibility, Stop The Rodeo, Eric Zamost) sued under CEQA.
- The Fairground has hosted equestrian and livestock events for decades; facilities and operations (including manure removal) predated the rodeo.
- The District formalized a Manure Management Plan (MMP) in July 2010 documenting longstanding manure collection, bunkering, and hauling practices; the NOE referenced the MMP as part of normal operations.
- Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Coast) had identified Salsipuedes/Corralitos Creeks as impaired for fecal coliform, listing several likely sources (storm drains, homeless encampments, pet waste, septic systems, and livestock); the Fairground was identified among agricultural sources but sampling showed downstream E. coli often lower than upstream.
- Trial court denied the petition to set aside the NOE (finding Class 23 applicable; MMP was not a project-specific mitigation; no unusual circumstances or substantial evidence of a significant effect). The Court of Appeal affirmed on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Manure Management Plan (MMP) was a mitigation measure that precludes Class 23 exemption | MMP is mitigation (it reduces/eliminates impacts) and was relied on to avoid CEQA review, so exemption is improper | MMP documents preexisting operational practices (not project-specific mitigation); it predates the rodeo and is part of normal operations | Held: MMP is preexisting operational practice, not mitigation that defeats exemption; exemption stands |
| Whether the rodeo qualified for Class 23 (normal operations of public gathering facilities) | Proximity to impaired creek and potential pollution mean project is not a "normal" operation | Rodeo is same in nature/scope as prior equestrian/livestock events; facilities designed for such events; no change in operation | Held: Rodeo fits Class 23—normal operation, past history, and no change in operation |
| Whether the "unusual circumstances" exception (Guidelines §15300.2(c)) applies because of creek contamination risk | The creek’s impairment and runoff from livestock areas create an unusual circumstance with a reasonable possibility of significant effect | The Fairground’s operations and MMP are not unusual relative to its own typical events; Regional Board evidence is insufficient to show the rodeo will cause a significant effect; monitoring showed lower downstream E. coli | Held: No unusual circumstances proved; appellants failed to show a reasonable possibility of significant effect; exception does not apply |
| Whether substantial evidence supports the agency’s findings under CEQA standards | Appellants claim record shows risk and Regional Board findings warrant EIR/neg dec | District relied on historical use, MMP, and monitoring data; challengers bear burden to show exception; record lacks sampling tying Fairground/r rodeo to significant impact | Held: Agency findings supported by substantial evidence; fair argument standard not met for unusual-circumstances exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Comm., 16 Cal.4th 105 (Cal. 1997) (CEQA construed to afford broad environmental protection)
- Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, 60 Cal.4th 1086 (Cal. 2015) (framework for applying "unusual circumstances" exception; standards of review)
- Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. County of Marin, 125 Cal.App.4th 1098 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (agency should not rely on proposed mitigation to qualify for categorical exemption)
- Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, 52 Cal.App.4th 1165 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (limits on Class 1 exemption; unusual circumstances analysis)
- Wollmer v. City of Berkeley, 193 Cal.App.4th 1329 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (preexisting conditions or project components that address existing problems may be part of project design, not post-hoc mitigation)
- Voices for Rural Living v. El Dorado Irrigation Dist., 209 Cal.App.4th 1096 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (application of unusual circumstances test; two-step inquiry)
- Banker’s Hill, Hillcrest, Park West Community Preservation Group v. City of San Diego, 139 Cal.App.4th 249 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (fair argument standard discussion)
- Lewis v. Seventeenth Dist. Agricultural Assn., 165 Cal.App.3d 823 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (change in facility operation producing greater impacts can create unusual circumstances)
- Campbell v. Third Dist. Agricultural Assn., 195 Cal.App.3d 115 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (distinguishing Lewis where no operational change existed)