Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/06/2014

Home

September 25, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 18 Zoning Bulletin "Supercenter." Before the City Council voted on a related draft environ- mental impact report ("EIR") or approval of the project, the City Council was served with a notice of intent to circulate an initiative petition. The "Wal-Mart Initiative" proposed to adopt a specific plan for the contem- plated expansion. Its apparent purpose was to streamline approval for construction and operation of the Supercenter. The petition was ultimately signed by over 20% of the City's 2,489 registered voters. Since the initiative was signed by at least 15% of the City's registered voters, the City, pursuant to California Elections Code § 9214, had three options for action: (1) adopt the initiative, without alteration, within 10 days after the petition was presented; (2) immediately submit the initia- tive to a vote at a special election; or (3) order a report pursuant to § 9212, which must be prepared and presented within 30 days, and then, within 10 days after receiving the report, adopt the ordinance or order an election. The City pursued the third option, and ultimately adopted the ordinance. The Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance ("TJSBA") then sought a writ of mandamus. Among other things, TJSBA asserted that the City Council violated CEQA by adopting the ordinance without first conducting a complete environmental review. The trial court rejected TJSBA's claim. TJSBA appealed. The Court of Appeals held than when a land use ordinance is proposed in a voter initiative petition, full CEQA review is required if the city council adopts the ordinance rather than submitting it to election. Wal-Mart appealed. DECISION: Judgment of Court of Appeal reversed and matter remanded. The Supreme Court of California held that a legislative body does not need to obtain full CEQA review before it may directly adopt a voter ini- tiative under California Elections Code § 9214. The court so held upon finding that CEQA review is "contrary to the statutory language and. legislative history pertaining to voter initiatives, and because policy considerations do not compel a different result." The court determined that a § 9212 report is the exclusive means for assessing the potential environmental impact of such initiatives. In its determinations, the court found that the language of § 9214 makes no mention of CEQA. The court also found that the language of § 9214 "does not support imposing a CEQA requirement on the direct adoption procedures in § 9214(a)." Section 9214 requires short, con- densed deadlines, and CEQA review "typically takes months." Thus, concluded the court, requiring CEQA review would "essentially nullify § 9214(a) for all voter initiatives with potential environmental impact." Further supporting its holding, the court noted that legislative history 6 © 2014 Thomson Reuters