Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Court Rules City Council Can’t Skip CEQA By Adopting Voter-Proposed Legislation

By Barbara Schussman on November 2, 2012
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Project proponents often ask whether there is a way to shortcut the CEQA timeline or head off litigation.  In Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court, the court of appeal squelched what had looked like a potential path around CEQA:  use of the initiative process to adopt voter-initiated legislation, without placing the legislation on the ballot.

The Tuolumne court emphatically rejected the plan, declaring:  “Environmental review can be avoided when the voters choose to bypass it, not when the lead agency chooses to bypass the voters.”

Supporters of expansion of a Wal-Mart store had presented the Sonora City Council with a qualified voter-sponsored initiative measure.  The council chose to enact it, rather than place it on the ballot.  It did not certify an EIR or take any other CEQA action,  relying on a published appellate opinion in which the court held such an action is exempt from CEQA.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal disagreed with the prior decision, ruling that a city council’s choice to enact legislation rather than place it on the ballot is a discretionary act.  No fixed criteria dictate whether the city must adopt the legislation or not.  Rather, doing so is a policy choice based on the council’s judgment about the pros and cons of the measure and the costs of an election.

The Tuolumne court acknowledged the direct conflict with the Native American Sacred Site case, which had been decided by another appellate district in 2004.  The court there held that a city council decision to enact a voter-sponsored initiative was a ministerial act because the Elections Code requires that a general law city presented with a qualified initiative measure either enact it without alteration or place it on the ballot.

Faced with this split of authority, the odds are good that the California Supreme Court will decide to hear the case if a petition for review is filed.

Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court, No. F063849 (5th Dist. Oct. 30, 2012).  For further details,  read the Perkins Coie Update on the case.

Native American Sacred Site Environmental Protection Association v. City of San Juan Capistrano, 120 Cal.App.4th 961 (4th Dist. 2004). 

  • Posted in:
    Environmental and Climate, Real Estate & Construction
  • Blog:
    California Land Use & Development Law Report
  • Organization:
    Perkins Coie LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo