McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena
A153238
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jan 10, 2019Background
- Property owner McGrath sought demolition and design-review approval to replace a dilapidated, lead-contaminated single-family house with an eight-unit multifamily building in St. Helena’s High Density Residential (HR) zone.
- St. Helena amended its zoning to permit multi-family dwellings as-of-right in HR districts; design review (but not a use permit) remained required by local ordinance.
- Planning staff recommended, and the Planning Commission found, the project qualified for the CEQA Class 32 (infill) categorical exemption and approved demolition and design review; appellants appealed to City Council.
- City Council held a de novo hearing, limited its review to design-related matters consistent with the municipal code, concluded either CEQA did not apply or the Class 32 exemption applied, and denied the appeal.
- Appellants sued seeking writs under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1085 and 1094.5, arguing (a) the Council improperly declined to consider non-design environmental issues and (b) the Class 32 exemption was inapt; the trial court denied relief and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CEQA applied to the project (scope/discretion) | Appellants: Council erred by limiting review to design; CEQA requires elected decisionmaker consider environmental impacts | City: Multi-family use is ministerial under local code; Council’s discretion was limited to design, so CEQA did not apply or was limited | Held: Council properly limited review to design; lack of power to shape non-design aspects means CEQA did not require further review |
| Whether the project qualified for Class 32 (infill) exemption and required checking impacts (15332(d)) | Appellants: Council failed to evaluate traffic, noise, air/water quality and unusual-circumstance exception under 15300.2 | City: Even if exemption uncertain, Council’s review power was limited to design so exemption/inapplicability of CEQA on non-design issues was irrelevant | Held: Findings that design review was the only discretionary component were supported; it was unnecessary to resolve the exemption/exception claim |
| Whether the City unlawfully delegated CEQA decision-making or failed to act as elected body | Appellants: Planning Commission’s earlier action and limited Council review amounted to delegation or non-decision | City: Council conducted de novo appeal, heard evidence, and issued findings—no unlawful delegation | Held: No improper delegation; Council acted and issued findings, so Vedanta-type delegation error not present |
| Whether an "unusual circumstances" exception to categorical exemption applied | Appellants: Site contamination, flooding, fire access, cumulative projects made the project unusual and potentially significant | City: Evidence did not show unusual circumstances or significant environmental effect; design review addressed aesthetic concerns | Held: Record did not show unusual circumstances or significant effects; exception not implicated and in any event moot given limited scope of Council’s discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Cmty. v. County of Los Angeles, 11 Cal.3d 506 (principles of planning and zoning authority)
- Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 191 Cal.App.3d 259 (discretionary vs. ministerial distinction for CEQA)
- Friends of Davis v. City of Davis, 83 Cal.App.4th 1004 (local design-review scope can limit CEQA application)
- San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coal. v. City of San Diego, 185 Cal.App.4th 924 (touchstone is agency’s power to shape project to mitigate impacts)
- Tomlinson v. County of Alameda, 54 Cal.4th 281 (CEQA purposes and three-step review process)
- Vedanta Soc. of So. Cal. v. California Quartet, Ltd., 84 Cal.App.4th 517 (elected body must make CEQA decisions; anti-delegation principle)
- Bowman v. City of Berkeley, 122 Cal.App.4th 572 (aesthetic impacts in developed areas typically addressed in design review, not CEQA)
- Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, 60 Cal.4th 1086 (requirements for showing unusual circumstances and significant effect for exemption exception)