On November 18th, California’s Sixth Appellate District Court of Appeal granted a request by RCRC and the California State Association of Counties to publish its decision in Working Families of Monterey County v. King City Planning Commission (Case No. H051232).
In April 2021, Grocery Outlet proposed building a new grocery store in King City. Objecting to the project, a representative of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 5 challenged the Planning Commission approval and use of a Class 32 CEQA categorical exemption for in-fill development.
Under CEQA, the Class 32 categorical exemption applies to in-fill development projects consistent with applicable general plan designations, policies, and zoning, occurs within city limits on a site no larger than five acres that is substantially surrounded by urban uses, and meets other environmental requirements.
Project opponents argued the project did not qualify for the CEQA exemption. Opponents tried to limit the exemption’s applicability to larger population, urbanized areas and sites that had previously been developed for “qualified urban uses.” Project opponents appealed their loss at the Superior Court. The Sixth District Court of Appeal issued its decision rejecting the opponents’ arguments in October 2024. The court rejected opponents’ efforts to import new terms and definitions limiting the scope of the Class 32 exemption to urbanized areas. As noted in the RCRC/CSAC request for publication, the regulatory history indicated that the exemption was crafted to enable its use in rural and lower-population communities.
While the decision was favorable, the court’s failure to publish the opinion meant that it could not be cited or relied upon in other similar cases. RCRC and CSAC requested publication of the decision because it provided much needed clarification as to the scope of the Class 32 categorical exemption for in-fill development and its application in rural cities.
Importantly, the decision also embraced the Legislature’s intent that CEQA should not be interpreted "in a manner which imposes procedural or substantive requirements beyond those explicitly stated" in the statute. The Little Hoover Commission recently encouraged the Legislature and courts to reaffirm this intent.
As a published opinion, Working Families of Monterey County v. King City Planning Commission can be cited and is binding upon lower courts.
For more information, contact RCRC General Counsel Arthur Wylene.