Court Refuses To Narrow CEQA Infill Exemption

In a case brought by grocery workers involving a proposed Grocery Outlet in King City, an appellate court has rejected a narrow definition of the infill exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act. In particular, the court concluded that other provisions of the CEQA Guidelines defining “infill” do not apply to the so-called Class 32 exemption. Doing so, the court said, would thwart the intent of the CEQA Guidelines The case is an important followup to the landmark Berkeley Hillside case in 2015 and further boxes out project opponents seeking to limit the use of the infill exemption. It was initially unpublished but the Sixth District Court of Appeal recently published the case, meaning it can be used as a precedent in other cases. Best Development proposed a Grocery Outlet store on Broadway in King City, adjacent to Highway 101. The site is almost immediate adjacent to Safeway shopping center. It is surrounded by the freeway, industrial uses, and a cemetery, with residential development a block or two away, though it is also located close to agricultural land. Safeway workers are unionized by the United Food and Commercial Workers. In reviewing the project, King City applied a so-called Class 32 infill exemption, which is available under §15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. The infill exemption, which is being widely used by local governments in California now, can be applied to a site that is less than 5 acres and is “substantially surrounded by urban uses”.

Want to read more?

Subscribe to cp-dr.com to keep reading this exclusive post.

Subscribe Now