Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. County of Marin CA1/3
159 Cal. Rptr. 3d 763
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Marin County enacted Ordinance No. 3553 to ban single-use plastic bags and charge at least five cents for single-use paper bags in unincorporated areas.
- County treated the ordinance as categorically exempt from CEQA under Guidelines 15307 and 15308.
- Save the Plastic Bag Coalition challenged CEQA exemption and sought writ of mandate.
- Trial court upheld the exemption, holding substantial evidence supported the categorical exemptions.
- On appeal, plaintiff limited challenge to CEQA compliance; declaratory relief regarding preemption not challenged.
- Court affirms judgment upholding CEQA exemption and denial of writ, with discussion of Manhattan Beach guidance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the county properly used CEQA categorical exemptions. | Exemption unsupported; fair argument of significant impacts. | Exemption supported by substantial evidence; environmental benefits shown. | Exemption sustained; substantial evidence supports exemption. |
| Whether Manhattan Beach limits apply to Marin’s size and scope. | Manhattan Beach requires more review for larger bodies. | Marin is smaller; exemption still appropriate. | Manhattan Beach guidance did not require EIR here. |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies for exemption grounds. | County failed to give adequate notice of exemption grounds. | Notice complied; not error. | Exhaustion not required for this contention; exemption upheld on merits. |
| Whether paper bag fee is permissible as part of project design for exemption. | Fee used to fit project within exemption; improper. | Fee part of project design and exempt; not mitigation. | Ruling that fee not rendered as improper mitigation for exemption. |
| Whether unusual circumstances would defeat the exemption. | Unusual facts create significant effects. | No substantial local effects; impacts insubstantial. | Unusual circumstances do not defeat exemption; no significant local impact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Manhattan Beach v. City of Manhattan Beach, 52 Cal.4th 155 (Cal. 2011) (guidance on when life-cycle studies mislead CEQA review; scope of local impacts)
- Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose, 54 Cal.App.4th 106 (Cal. App. 1997) (burden shift when exempt class shown; review for exceptions to exemption)
- Magan v. County of Kings, 105 Cal.App.4th 468 (Cal. App. 2002) (regulatory exemptions; ministerial/regulatory actions distinction)
- Tomlinson v. County of Alameda, 54 Cal.4th 281 (Cal. 2012) (exhaustion of remedies for categorical exemption; notice and hearings)
- Hines v. California Coastal Commission, 186 Cal.App.4th 830 (Cal. App. 2010) (review standard for unusual circumstances and fair argument)