Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court
59 Cal. 4th 1029
| Cal. | 2014Background
- Wal‑Mart sought to expand its Sonora store by ~27,491 sq ft into a Supercenter open 24/7.
- City circulated a draft EIR for the expansion in 2009; planning commission unanimously recommended approval.
- Before a vote, the City Council received an initiative petition proposing a specific plan for the expansion.
- Initiative petition obtained signed support from over 20% of registered voters; Council postponed vote.
- Council ordered a section 9212 report on the initiative’s consistency with prior planning approvals and then adopted the ordinance.
- TJSBA sued for mandamus alleging CEQA violation and challenged the initiative’s validity on several grounds; Court of Appeal granted relief as to CEQA and related claims, prompting review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CEQA applies to direct adoption of voter initiatives. | TJSBA argues CEQA review is required for direct adoption. | Wal‑Mart/City contend CEQA does not apply to direct adoption under §9214(a). | No CEQA before direct adoption; §9214(a) controls. |
| Whether section 9214(a) deadlines preclude CEQA review. | CEQA review should precede direct adoption to protect environment. | Statutory deadlines reflect intent to act quickly; CEQA would be incompatible. | CEQA review not required before direct adoption; 9214 deadlines prevail. |
| Does legislative history show CEQA not applicable to voter initiatives? | DeVita/Legislative history indicate possible CEQA extensions. | History shows intent to balance initiative power with abbreviated review, not CEQA. | Legislative history supports non‑application of CEQA to initiatives. |
| Would requiring CEQA before direct adoption subvert the Elections Code scheme? | Would nullify 9214(a) and undermine expedited process. | Public policy favors environmental consideration. | Requiring CEQA before direct adoption would undermine 9214(a) and be impractical. |
Key Cases Cited
- Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore, 18 Cal.3d 582 (1976) (initiative power and public policy considerations)
- Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre, 25 Cal.4th 165 (2001) (CEQA before ballot placement; not controlling for voter initiatives at issue here)
- DeVita v. County of Napa, 9 Cal.4th 763 (1995) (CEQA not required before section 9214(a) action; abbreviated review available)
- Stein v. City of Santa Monica, 110 Cal.App.3d 458 (1980) (CEQA review timelines and context for local actions)
- Greg F. (In re Greg F.), 55 Cal.4th 393 (2012) (statutory interpretation and legislative intent principles)