Union of Med. Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego
250 Cal. Rptr. 3d 818
| Cal. | 2019Background
- The City adopted an ordinance permitting medical marijuana dispensaries where none had been legally allowed before; UMMP challenged the City’s CEQA determination.
- The core legal question was whether an amendment to a zoning ordinance (the Ordinance) automatically qualifies as a CEQA "project" or must also be shown to have the potential to cause direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical environmental change.
- The Court of Appeal held the Ordinance was not a project because the claimed indirect effects (traffic, displaced cultivation, changed urban development) were speculative and lacked evidentiary support in the administrative record.
- The Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether Pub. Resources Code § 21080(a) conclusively treats listed actions (e.g., zoning amendments) as projects and to apply the governing test from Muzzy Ranch.
- The Supreme Court concluded § 21080(a) does not alone make every zoning amendment a CEQA project; section 21065’s definition of "project" (potential to cause direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change) controls.
- Applying Muzzy Ranch, the Court held the City erred: the Ordinance—by authorizing a new kind of retail business citywide—was the sort of action capable of causing indirect physical changes (e.g., new construction, altered traffic patterns) and therefore must be treated as a project under CEQA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (UMMP) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §21080(a) conclusively makes zoning amendments CEQA "projects" as a matter of law | §21080 lists zoning amendments among "discretionary projects," so listed actions are projects automatically | §21080 must be read with CEQA’s definitions; listed examples are not conclusive | §21080 does not conclusively declare listed actions to be projects; §21065’s definition governs |
| Proper test to determine if an agency action is a "project" | The Court of Appeal treated the issue as requiring City-specific evidence of foreseeable effects | City urged deference to its finding that impacts were speculative and more appropriate to later permitting | Muzzy Ranch test governs: ask whether by its general nature the activity is capable of causing direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change; analysis is abstract, not fact-intensive |
| Whether the Ordinance was a project under §21065 | UMMP argued Ordinance could foreseeably cause indirect impacts (new construction, traffic, displaced unlicensed sellers) | City argued impacts were speculative and could be addressed at later conditional use permit stage; vacancy and displacement could mitigate impacts | Court held Ordinance was capable of causing indirect physical change (new retail uses, traffic) and thus is a project; record-specific speculation is not dispositive at this tier |
| Standard of review and role of Guidelines | UMMP relied on Court of Appeal’s factual review; City relied on administrative findings and later permitting tiers | City argued CEQA review could wait until discretionary permits for individual dispensaries | Court affirmed de novo legal review of the "project" question, afforded great weight to CEQA Guidelines, and directed further CEQA proceedings for the Ordinance |
Key Cases Cited
- United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co., 4 Cal.5th 1082 (statutory-interpretation standard and de novo review)
- California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist., 62 Cal.4th 369 (interpret CEQA to effect legislative purpose; give great weight to Guidelines)
- Elk Hills Power, LLC v. Board of Equalization, 57 Cal.4th 593 (statutory construction principles)
- Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court, 59 Cal.4th 1029 (look to words of statute as primary indicator)
- Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, 8 Cal.3d 247 (CEQA construed to afford fullest possible environmental protection)
- Muzzy Ranch v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com., 41 Cal.4th 372 (governing test: an activity is a project if by its general nature it may cause direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change)
- Sunset Sky Ranch Pilots Assn. v. County of Sacramento, 47 Cal.4th 902 (CEQA applicability/jurisdictional point)
- Fullerton Joint Union High School Dist. v. State Board of Education, 32 Cal.3d 779 (agency cannot avoid CEQA by pointing to later discretionary approvals)
- Rominger v. County of Colusa, 229 Cal.App.4th 690 (decision disapproved to the extent it held §21080 conclusive that listed activities are projects)