37 Cal. App. 5th 734
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Lake Arrowhead Community Services District (District) proposed a 0.96 MW, ~2,160-panel solar farm on 5–6 acres of District-owned Hesperia Farms property located inside the City of Hesperia (City), zoned Rural Residential and subject to a City solar-farm conditional-use/distance rule.
- District entered an interconnection agreement with Southern California Edison (Edison) to export generated energy to Edison under a RES-BCT program and contracted SunPower to design and install the system.
- District board adopted Resolution 2015-14 declaring the Project exempt from City zoning under: (1) the absolute exemption in Gov. Code § 53091(e) for facilities "for the production or generation of electrical energy," and (2) the qualified exemption in Gov. Code § 53096(a) after a four-fifths vote finding "no feasible alternative" to the Project Site.
- City sued for writ of mandate and declaratory relief asserting the Project is subject to City zoning and that the District lacked an applicable exemption.
- Trial court denied City's claim that District lacked authority to generate under RES-BCT but granted mandate on zoning claims: held § 53091(e) inapplicable because Project involved transmission, and held District’s § 53096(a) finding lacked substantial evidence.
- Court of Appeal affirmed: Project involves transmission (so no absolute § 53091(e) exemption) and the administrative record lacked substantial evidence that no feasible alternative location existed (so § 53096(a) exemption failed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (City) | Defendant's Argument (District) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 53091(e) absolute exemption applies | Project not integral to District water/waste authority and, because it exports energy, the exception applies so zoning governs | Plain text of § 53091(e) exempts generation facilities; District generation qualifies so zoning inapplicable | § 53091(e) exemption does not apply because Project involves transmission of electrical energy to Edison, triggering the exception |
| Whether § 53096(a) qualified exemption applies | District's four-fifths finding that "no feasible alternative" exists is unsupported by substantial evidence | Board considered alternatives and made a proper four-fifths determination based on site constraints and costs | § 53096(a) does not apply: administrative record lacks substantial evidence on alternatives and the required economic/environmental/social/technological analysis |
| Standard and scope of review | Administrative mandamus review; examine substantial evidence supporting agency findings | Same; defend Board's factual determinations on the record | Court reviews under Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5; findings must be upheld unless arbitrary or lacking evidentiary support |
| Proper construction of "transmission" in § 53091(e) | (City) "Transmission" covers exporting to grid and triggers zoning; (District) statutory context limits meaning to large transmission facilities | (District) urged narrower construction to preserve the generation exemption | Court adopts plain meaning: "transmission" includes exporting/delivery to grid; Project's export/interconnection constitutes transmission |
Key Cases Cited
- Meza v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 6 Cal.5th 844 (2019) (statutory interpretation—start with plain meaning and legislative purpose)
- Lafayette v. East Bay Mun. Utility Dist., 16 Cal.App.4th 1005 (1993) (§ 53091 construed to preserve local zoning control and limit absolute exemptions to facilities directly used to produce/generate/store/transmit)
- Jefferson Street Ventures, LLC v. City of Indio, 236 Cal.App.4th 1175 (2015) (administrative mandamus standard and appellate review of agency factual determinations)
- State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.4th 963 (2009) (deferential review of agency factual findings in mandamus)
- Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 197 Cal.App.3d 1167 (1988) (CEQA principles on requirement to consider feasible alternatives; absence of analysis of alternative sites can be prejudicial abuse)
- Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside, 147 Cal.App.4th 587 (2007) (CEQA policy favoring selection of feasible alternatives to reduce significant environmental impacts)
- Flethez v. San Bernardino County Employees Retirement Assn., 2 Cal.5th 630 (2017) (de novo review of statutory interpretation in administrative mandamus)