Insights
Publications

California Supreme Court Strengthens CEQA’s Categorical Exemptions

3/4/2015 Articles

The California Supreme Court has issued its long-awaited decision in Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley,[1] a case with important implications for developers and public agencies on a wide variety of projects.  The decision clarifies the meaning of the “unusual circumstances” exception to CEQA’s categorical exemptions and the applicable standard of judicial review.  In doing so, the Court’s decision fortifies CEQA’s categorical exemptions and should encourage greater reliance on them. 

 

Full Effect to Categorical Exemptions

 

Categorical exemptions are applicable to certain classes of projects, such as smaller in-fill developments and alterations to existing facilities, that are normally exempt from environmental review under CEQA (and thus do not require preparation of an initial study/negative declaration or an environmental impact report) unless an applicable exception applies, such as “unusual circumstances” that could lead to significant environmental effects. 

 

The “unusual circumstances” exception provides:  “Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.”  CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(c).  The project opponents in Berkeley Hillside argued that the “unusual circumstances” exception is triggered if a proposed activity has a potentially significant effect on the environment and that, by definition, a significant effect presents “unusual circumstances.”  In their view, the mere fact that a proposed activity may have an effect on the environment triggers the exception to the categorical exemption. 

 

The Supreme Court rejected this view, reversing the Court of Appeal and holding that the exception’s application requires both (a) unusual circumstances for projects in the exempt class and (b) a potentially significant effect on the environment due to those unusual circumstances.  The Court noted that the opponents’ reasoning was circular and inconsistent with principles of statutory construction:

 

[A]ppellants’ proposed construction, which mirrors that of the Court of Appeal and which the concurring opinion would adopt, would give no meaning to the phrase “due to unusual circumstances.”  *  *  * [U]nder appellants’ view, categorical exemptions would serve no purpose; they would only apply when the proposed project is, by statute and [regulations], already outside of CEQA review.  *  *  *  Accordingly, the Court of Appeal erred by holding that a potentially significant environmental effect itself constitutes an unusual circumstance. 

 

Clarified Standard of Review

 

The Supreme Court’s decision also clarifies the standard of review applicable to judicial review of agency determinations on the application of the “unusual circumstances” exception to categorical exemptions.  The Court held that a bifurcated approach applies.  First, the “unusual circumstances” part of the test is reviewed under the deferential substantial evidence standard.  If unusual circumstances are found, then the reviewing court proceeds to part two of the test.  This prong—the determination of whether the unusual circumstances result in “a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment”— is reviewed under the project opponent-friendly “fair argument” standard. 

 

Under the substantial evidence standard applicable to the first prong, a court must uphold the agency’s determination on whether there are unusual circumstances if there is any substantial evidence supporting it, even if the record contains conflicting evidence or could support a different conclusion. 

 

In contrast, the fair argument standard applicable to the second prong provides a lower threshold for challenges to agency determinations.  Under the fair argument standard, the “unusual circumstances” exception applies if any substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the proposed activity may have a significant effect on the environment due to the unusual circumstances, regardless of whether other evidence in the record supports a conflicting conclusion. 

 

The Supreme Court explained:

 

While evidence of a significant effect may be offered to prove unusual circumstances, circumstances do not become unusual merely because a fair argument can be made that they might have a significant effect.  *  *  *  Judicial review of such determinations is limited to ascertaining whether they are “supported by substantial evidence.”  On the other hand, when unusual circumstances are established, *  *  * [a]n agency must evaluate potential environmental effects under the fair argument standard, and judicial review is limited to determining whether the agency applied the standard “in [the] manner required by law.”

 

Lessons for Future Projects and Early CEQA Planning

 

As a result of the Court’s bifurcated standard of review, on projects for which the lead agency relies on a categorical exemption to satisfy CEQA, project applicants should ensure that (1) the lead agency makes an explicit finding that the project lacks “unusual circumstances,” and (2) the agency’s finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record.  This is because a robust finding supported by substantial evidence that there are no unusual circumstances is the only way to avoid the opponent-friendly standard of review that applies to the second prong of the test. 

 

Where an agency finds the project presents unusual circumstances and that significant environmental effects are possible because of those circumstances, the project applicant should also consider urging the agency to conduct further CEQA review to avoid the risk of the project being delayed by CEQA litigation and potential remand to the agency under the fair argument standard of review.

 

This case also illustrates how long CEQA challenges can delay projects and thus highlights the importance of early CEQA planning.  Berkeley Hillside stems from a use permit application for a large single family home approved by the City of Berkeley nearly five years ago.  Regardless of what type of CEQA document is prepared in connection with a project—whether a categorical exemption, a negative declaration, or an environmental impact report—significant time and money can often be saved by investing a little more CEQA planning and risk assessment at the project permitting stage. 



[1]  Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, No. S201116 (Cal. Sup. Ct., Mar. 2, 2015).

Firm Highlights

Publication

Wind Energy Project Approvals and Tax Credits Look To Outpace Macroeconomic and Supply Chain Headwinds in 2024

A snapshot of the renewable wind industry on October 31, 2023, captures many of the current challenges and opportunities for the industry and regulatory agencies heading into 2024.  That day, the world’s largest offshore...

Read More
News

Lawdragon Names 7 Farella Lawyers Among “Leaders in Environmental Law”

Northern California legal powerhouse Farella Braun + Martel is pleased to announce that seven lawyers were selected to The Lawdragon Green 500: 2024 Leaders in Environmental Law . Farella lawyers selected for inclusion: Sarah...

Read More
News

EPA Designates PFOA and PFOS as Hazardous Substances

Don Sobelman provided expert commentary in the  Chemical & Engineering News article "EPA Designates PFOA and PFOS as Hazardous Substances." Excerpt from the article: Lawyers are warning anyone purchasing an industrial site where PFOA...

Read More
Publication

Where Are We Now, Following Maui County, Sackett, and the Latest EPA Guidance?

The last few years have seen significant developments in our understanding of the reach of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). (Indeed, “reach” here can be interpreted literally and figuratively.) The two issues plaguing...

Read More
News

City of San Mateo Sued by Nonprofit Over New Housing Plan

Tom Mayhew spoke to CBS News about the lawsuit filed by Housing Action Coalition (HAC) and Farella against the City of San Mateo. The lawsuit challenges the city's recently adopted Housing Element in order to...

Read More
Publication

Achieving Compatibility Between Solar Project Developers and Mineral Estate Holders

By Dirk R. Mueller , Alyssa Netto , and Will Russ Texas and California lead the country in terms of solar energy generating capacity while also maintaining major oil and gas production operations, which...

Read More
News

Farella Announces 2024 Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Pathfinders: Taylor Rottjakob and John Ugai

Farella Braun + Martel is proud to announce that senior associates  Taylor E. Rottjakob and John M. Ugai have been named 2024 Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD) Pathfinders. Pathfinders have been identified as...

Read More
Publication

New PFAS Listing Under Superfund Will Lead to Major Expansion of Liability

On April 19, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) announced its final rule designating perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under Section 102(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation...

Read More
News

Chambers USA 2024 Recognizes Farella Braun + Martel Lawyers, Practices

Farella Braun + Martel is pleased to announce that Chambers USA has recognized 16 lawyers and six practice areas in the legal directory’s 2024 edition. Individual California and Western U.S. Rankings: Sarah Bell &ndash...

Read More
Publication

New PFAS Federal Drinking Water Standards Create Major Liability and Litigation Risk

The United States Environmental Protection Agency has released a final regulation setting individual drinking water maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for five per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). These MCLs are incredibly stringent due to EPA’s stated concerns...

Read More