A city resolution restricting parking on certain residential streets to residents with parking permits was categorically exempt from environmental review, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled.
The court rejected business owners' contention that the ordinance was not exempt because of the cumulative impact of parking restrictions or because of "unusual circumstances."
In November 2000, the Santa Monica City Council adopted a resolution establishing Preferential Parking Zone XX (PPZ XX) for streets in a 26-acre area. The resolution allowed only vehicles with residential parking permits to park on unmetered curbs in residential areas of the zone from 7 a.m. to 2 a.m. daily. The City Council also declared the resolution exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guideline § 15301(c), which provides exemptions for minor alterations.
The Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce sued, claiming the resolution was not exempt. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge David Yaffe ruled for the city, and a unanimous three-judge panel of the Second District, Division Three, upheld the decision.
The appellate court first determined that the resolution qualified as an exempt "project" under Class 1 of § 15301(c). That class applies to the operation, repair or minor alteration of existing structures, facilities or topography and involving no expansion of use. The court held that the city's resolution easily met the criteria, and the court rejected the Chamber of Commerce's argument that Class 1 was not intended to apply to a regulatory scheme.
"[T]he Class 1 exemption itself specifically states that it is applicable to activities involving the operation of existing public facilities — and that is exactly what the legislation here involves," Justice Walter Croskey wrote for the court.
As for the Chamber of Commerce's arguments that the exemption did not apply because of cumulative impacts or unusual circumstances, the court ruled that the Chamber did not provide any factual evidence as the basis for a "fair argument."
The Chamber argued that the resolution itself, and combined with other preferential parking zones, created an adverse parking effect. But the court disagreed.
"The only ‘adverse parking impact' of the legislation is that it gives residents, versus commercial users, preferential parking at some unmetered spaces," Croskey wrote. "While it can be inferred from this fact that the legislation may have an adverse financial impact on some persons or businesses, it cannot be inferred from this fact that the legislation may have any environmental impact."
The chamber argued that PPZ XX was "unusually large," its hours were "unusually restrictive" and that an "unusually diverse" mix of users frequent the area. But the court found nothing unusual and said the city was simply "deciding how best to allocate its limited curbside parking in an area with competing user interests."
The court also ruled that it did not matter that the city had not exempted the establishment of earlier preferential parking zones.
Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v. City of Santa Monica, No. B151761, 02 C.D.O.S. 7981, 2002 DJDAR 10002. Filed August 29, 2002.
For the Chamber: Christopher M. Harding, Harding, Larmore, Kutcher & Kozal, (310) 451-2968.
For the city: Cara Silver, city attorney's office, (310) 458-8336.
An exemption to the California Environmental Quality Act for construction of a sea wall below two houses has been upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the potential collapse of a bluff could threaten public safety and qualified for an emergency exemption under CEQA.
A state appellate court has halted a project at the Port of Los Angeles because the city never studied the development's environmental impacts. The court rejected the city's arguments that the project was covered by a 1997 environmental impact report and a 2000 subsequent EIR because the project had not been contemplated in 1997, and there was no evidence the 2000 study considered the project.
In a case that touched on redevelopment law, the California Environmental Quality Act and general plan compatibility, an appellate court has upheld San Francisco's handling of a project on the site of the historic Emporium department store.
The City of Los Angeles was correct to treat as one project a builder's various proposals for 21 new houses on existing parcels on two streets, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court rejected the builder's contention that the city could not demand an environmental impact report on the 21 houses, five of which have already been built.
Opponents of a proposed recycling center were too late in filing a lawsuit regarding a city's failure to prepare an environmental study on the city's sale of land to the recycling company, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled.
When a public agency acquires a property via eminent domain, only a trial court judge -- and not a jury -- can decide whether a business should receive compensation for loss of goodwill, a state appellate court has ruled.
The California Coastal Commission's decision to allow Malibu property owners who are building new houses to exchange existing public view corridors on their property for dedication of an off-site public access to the beach has been upheld by the Second District Court of Appeal.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes does have the authority to regulate placement of radio antennas, but the city cannot deny a use permit for an antenna solely because the antenna would be used for commercial purposes, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled.
A doughnut shop owner who remained in his place of business for six years after the city acquired the property for redevelopment still qualified for relocation benefits as a "displaced person," the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled.
A school district may charge only limited mitigation fees on a redevelopment project in which new houses replace demolished residential units, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has concluded. The court held that the Tustin Unified School District could levy fees only on the difference in square footage between old apartments and the new houses that replaced the apartments.