67 Cal.App.5th 1018
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Inyo County sought to acquire fee title by eminent domain to three landfill sites it leased from LADWP (Bishop‑Sunland, Independence, Lone Pine) and to continue operating those unlined landfills.
- County’s Board adopted resolutions of necessity in August 2017; the published agenda and resolutions did not disclose CEQA analysis or that County would invoke exemptions. A staff comment near the end of the hearing was the first public mention that County might claim the existing‑facilities and commonsense exemptions.
- LADWP sent a detailed prehearing letter raising CEQA and environmental concerns (e.g., increased tonnage, importation of waste, groundwater development, regulatory violations) and later filed a petition for writ of mandate after County took no CEQA steps or filed a notice of exemption.
- The trial court granted the writ, concluding County’s project description was unduly narrow, County misapplied CEQA exemptions, and therefore County violated CEQA. County appealed.
- The Court of Appeal (published in part) affirmed: (1) issue‑exhaustion did not bar LADWP’s exemption challenges because the public lacked adequate notice that exemptions would be considered; (2) the existing‑facilities exemption does not extend to unlined landfills; and (3) County’s narrow project description improperly supported reliance on the commonsense exemption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (LADWP) | Defendant's Argument (County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LADWP was required to exhaust administrative remedies for challenges to County’s claimed CEQA exemptions | County failed to give adequate prehearing notice that it would claim CEQA exemptions, so issue‑exhaustion (§21177) does not bar judicial review | Issue‑exhaustion applies broadly; LADWP should have raised all CEQA theories at the hearing | Held for LADWP: exhaustion does not apply because County failed to give adequate notice that exemptions would be considered (Tomlinson standard) |
| Proper scope of the CEQA “project” (was condemnation merely a change in title?) | Project includes the whole action: continued landfill operation, securing water (including developing groundwater rights), potential importation of waste, increased tonnage/life changes—these foreseeable elements must be included in the project description | Project is limited to condemnation (mere change from tenant to owner); CEQA review of speculative future changes was unnecessary | Held for LADWP: County’s project description was impermissibly narrow; securing water and importation/operational changes are part of the whole action and were omitted, so County procedurally erred |
| Whether the existing‑facilities categorical exemption (Guidelines §15301) covers unlined landfills | Term “facilities” should exclude unlined landfills because landfills are better characterized as alterations of land and many unlined landfills pose groundwater/air/public‑health risks | “Facilities” includes landfills (many modern landfills have built infrastructure); §15301 should apply | Held for LADWP: “facilities” is ambiguous as applied to landfills and must be construed narrowly; unlined landfills are excluded from §15301, so County misapplied the exemption |
| Whether the commonsense exemption (Guidelines §15061(b)(3)) justified no CEQA review | There are legitimate, reasonably foreseeable environmental questions (water source, groundwater development, importation, tonnage) so County failed to meet its burden to show “no possibility” of significant effect | The mere change of ownership will not itself cause environmental effects; record lacks evidence of impacts, so commonsense exemption applies | Held for LADWP: County’s narrow project framing prevented an adequate factual record; County failed to carry its burden to justify commonsense exemption; exemption not proved on this record |
Key Cases Cited
- Tomlinson v. County of Alameda, 54 Cal.4th 281 (Cal. 2012) (issue‑exhaustion applies to exemption determinations only when the agency gives adequate notice of the ground for its exemption determination and a hearing provides opportunity to object)
- Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, 52 Cal.App.4th 1165 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (class 1 exemption ambiguous as to landfills; unlined landfills not appropriate for categorical exemption)
- Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, 60 Cal.4th 1086 (Cal. 2015) (standards for reviewing categorical exemption and unusual‑circumstances exception)
- Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com., 41 Cal.4th 372 (Cal. 2007) (CEQA project scope questions are reviewable as legal issues on undisputed records)
- Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection, 44 Cal.4th 459 (Cal. 2008) (CEQA forbids piecemeal review; review at earliest feasible stage)
- Defend Our Waterfront v. State Lands Com., 240 Cal.App.4th 570 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (inadequate agenda/notice that exemption would be considered negates exhaustion requirement)