Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of Upland
245 Cal. App. 4th 1265
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2007 Upland adopted Ordinance No. 1813 prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries (defined to include mobile dispensaries) and issued a negative declaration under CEQA; that 2007 negative declaration was not challenged.
- In 2013 Upland adopted Ordinance No. 1873 expressly prohibiting mobile medical marijuana dispensaries and citing public-safety concerns about mobile dispensaries and deliveries.
- The Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. (UMMP) submitted comments before adoption arguing the 2013 ordinance was a "project" under CEQA and required environmental review because it would foreseeably cause indirect impacts (increased travel, increased indoor home cultivation with associated energy/water/odors/waste).
- UMMP filed a writ petition seeking to set aside the 2013 ordinance under CEQA; the City contended the ordinance was not a CEQA "project" (or alternatively was exempt under the commonsense exemption).
- The trial court denied the petition; the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the 2013 ordinance was not a CEQA project because it merely restated the prohibition already imposed by the 2007 ordinance and, in any event, UMMP’s alleged indirect impacts were too speculative to be reasonably foreseeable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2013 ordinance is a "project" under CEQA | UMMP: banning mobile dispensaries will have reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental impacts (more travel, home indoor cultivation, increased energy/water/waste/odor) so CEQA review required | City: ordinance is not a project because it restates existing prohibition from 2007 ordinance; alternatively commonsense exemption applies | Held: Not a project — 2013 ordinance merely restated the prior prohibition; alleged impacts are speculative and not reasonably foreseeable |
| Whether the alleged indirect impacts are reasonably foreseeable | UMMP: impacts are foreseeable and supported by studies linking indoor cultivation to environmental harms | City: impacts are speculative, premised on many assumptions and lack substantial evidence | Held: Speculative; layers of assumptions make impacts too unlikely to be reasonably foreseeable |
Key Cases Cited
- Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com., 41 Cal.4th 372 (2007) (CEQA three-tier review framework and project/exemption analysis)
- Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach, 52 Cal.4th 155 (2011) (role of common sense in CEQA review)
- Tomlinson v. County of Alameda, 54 Cal.4th 281 (2012) (CEQA's environmental-protection policy and review standards)
- San Jose Country Club Apartments v. County of Santa Clara, 137 Cal.App.3d 948 (1982) (ordinance that merely restates existing law is not a CEQA project)
- Black Property Owners Assn. v. City of Berkeley, 22 Cal.App.4th 974 (1994) (readoption of existing policies without change is not subject to CEQA)