Lewis v. Seventeenth District Agricultural Ass'n
165 Cal. App. 3d 823, 1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 1773, 211 Cal. Rptr. 884 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An activity that would otherwise be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is not exempt if there is a reasonable possibility it will have a significant environmental effect due to unusual circumstances, such as its immediate proximity to a residential area.
Facts:
- The Nevada County Fairgrounds, operated by the Seventeenth District Agricultural Association, contains a racetrack that is contiguous with and less than a mile from several residential areas.
- In 1958, a flat dirt race track was built at the fairgrounds for 'stock' car racing, which continued until 1965.
- In 1973, the track was banked, a modification that permitted higher-powered and noisier 'modified stock' car racing.
- Since 1973, Central State Racing Association has conducted these modified stock car races, generally held every Saturday night from spring to fall.
- This increase in racing activity after 1973 resulted in greatly increased gross revenues.
- Beginning in 1979, plaintiff Lewis and other local residents complained to the district board about significant noise and dust generated by the races.
- In response to complaints, the district board required mufflers on all cars in 1980 and prohibited any car that produced more than 95 decibels of noise individually.
- The district association and the racing association entered into a contract for auto racing for the years 1981-1983.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Lewis filed a complaint in the trial court seeking a writ of mandamus to halt auto racing under a 1980 contract, alleging a failure to comply with CEQA.
- While the action was pending, the Seventeenth District Agricultural Association entered into a new 1981-1983 racing contract and filed a notice claiming the project was categorically exempt from CEQA.
- Lewis filed an amended complaint attacking the 1981-1983 contract.
- The trial court found the categorical exemption did not apply and issued a writ of mandamus compelling the cancellation of the 1981-1983 contract until the district association complied with CEQA.
- Defendants Seventeenth District Agricultural Association and Central State Racing Association appealed the trial court's judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 'unusual circumstances' exception to the California Environmental Quality Act's (CEQA) categorical exemptions apply to ongoing auto racing at a county fairgrounds racetrack when the track is immediately adjacent to a residential area, thereby requiring environmental review?
Opinions:
Majority - Regan, Acting P. J.
Yes, the 'unusual circumstances' exception applies, and the racing activity is not exempt from CEQA. The adjacency of a residential area to a racetrack constitutes an 'unusual circumstance' that creates a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. A significant effect is defined as a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change. The fact that the Seventeenth District Agricultural Association took mitigation steps, such as requiring mufflers, demonstrates that it acknowledged the possibility of such an effect. These mitigation efforts may qualify the project for a negative declaration after review, but they do not allow the association to bypass CEQA review altogether. The court also held that the district association is a 'local agency' for CEQA purposes, meaning its failure to ensure proper local posting of its exemption notice rendered the shorter 35-day statute of limitations inapplicable.
Concurring - Blease, J.
Yes, the exception applies, but for a more specific reason. The purpose of a categorical exemption for the 'normal operations' of an existing facility is to prevent duplicative environmental reviews for uses that were already evaluated when the facility was built or modified. CEQA was in effect in 1973 when the track was banked to accommodate high-speed racing. An environmental review of the effects of this intensified use should have occurred then. Because there is no evidence that such a review was ever performed, the conditions that justify the categorical exemption do not exist, and the project cannot be exempted from CEQA now.
Analysis:
This case significantly limits the scope of CEQA's categorical exemptions, establishing that the context and location of a project are critical. It solidifies the 'unusual circumstances' exception as a powerful tool for challenging exemptions where projects are located near sensitive receptors like residential areas. The decision prevents agencies from relying on the historical nature of an activity to avoid environmental review if there is a reasonable possibility of a significant impact. Furthermore, the court's classification of the agricultural association as a 'local agency' for CEQA notice purposes reinforces the principle of local public participation, ensuring that communities affected by a project receive proper notice of agency decisions.
