Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Petitioners,
15
16
17
18
19
20
vs.
21
22
23
24
25
26
Petitioners Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. and Fresno Cannabis Association
(Petitioners) respectfully submit the following Opening Brief in Support of Petition for Writ of
Mandamus under the California Environmental Quality Act (Opening Brief).
27
28
PETITIONERS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS UNDER CEQA
I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioners bring a challenge under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
to the adoption of City of Fresno Ordinance No. 2014-20, (otherwise known as Ordinance or
Project). (Administrative Record 14-23.)1 On March 27, 2014, the Fresno City Council
adopted the Ordinance, which bans the cultivation of medical marijuana in all zoning districts in
the City of Fresno. (AR 20.) Respondent City of Fresno (City or Respondent) erroneously
concluded that the Ordinance was exempt from CEQA, citing the common sense exemption
This case presents a relatively simple question: Was the City required to consider the
10
environmental impacts of its efforts to ban all cultivation of medical marijuana in the City? In
11
other words, when presented with evidence from Petitioners that its prohibition would not
12
eliminate the demand for medical marijuana, but, on the contrary, would (1) require patients to
13
drive outside the City to obtain their medicine and (2) displace marijuana cultivation operations
14
outside the City, was Respondent required to analyze the extent of those resultant activities in
15
16
17
Petitioners filed a Verified Petition For Writ of Mandate to vacate and set aside the
18
19
11.) Petitioners members consist of ordinary citizens, individual medical marijuana patients and
20
patient associations in the City of Fresno that would be affected by the Projects environmental
21
22
The Ordinance, a project under CEQA, is not exempt from CEQA, and the Citys
23
actions in adopting the Ordinance without following the steps required by CEQA and the CEQA
24
Guidelines2 constitute prejudicial abuse of discretion. Petitioners thus respectfully request that
25
26
27
28
Citations to the Administrative Record will follow the format of AR: Page Number. Thus, citation to page 5, will
be AR 5. Further, the Administrative Record will be abbreviated as either AR or Record.
2
All further undesignated statutory references are to the Public Resources Code. The CEQA Guidelines
referenced herein are codified at title 14, California Code of Regulations, 15000 et seq.
1
PETITIONERS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS UNDER CEQA
this Court issue a writ of mandate directing the City to set aside the Ordinance until the City has
Health & Safety Code 11362.5 et seq. (AR 26.) In 2012, the City adopted Ordinance No.
2012-13, which prohibited the outdoor cultivation of medical marijuana, but did not prohibit
either indoor cultivation or cultivation within an outdoor fully-enclosed and secured structure
approved by special permit. (AR 6-13.) The Mayor opted neither to veto nor approve the
Ordinance, making the effective date of approval April 8, 2014. (AR 23.) However, two years
10
later, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2014-20, which prohibits those forms of cultivation that
11
were previously exempted under Ordinance Bill No. 2012-13, resulting in a complete ban on all
12
cultivation of medical marijuana in the City. (AR 20.) At the time of the adoption of the
13
Ordinance, there was an estimated 10,117 medical marijuana patients in the City. (AR 178.)
14
15
16
is whether the agency has abused its discretion. Abuse of discretion exists if Respondent fails
17
to proceed in a manner required by law, or if its decision was not supported by substantial
18
evidence in the record. Cal. Pub. Res. Code 21168.5; Western States Petroleum Assn v.
19
20
The common sense exemption under CEQA Guidelines 15061, subdivision (b)(3), is
21
available where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in
22
question may have a significant effect on the environment (emphasis added). The burden of
23
proof rests with the public agency to demonstrate that the common sense exemption applies.
24
Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 106, 116 ([T]he agency must itself
25
provide the support for its decision before the burden shifts to the challenger. Imposing the
26
burden on the members of the public in the first instance to prove a possibility or substantial
27
28
2
PETITIONERS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS UNDER CEQA
adverse environmental impact would frustrate CEQAs fundamental purpose of ensuring that
[W]hether a particular activity qualifies for the common sense exemption presents an issue of
fact, that the agency invoking the exemption has the burden of demonstrating it applies. Muzzy
Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Comm'n (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, 386. The
slight, since that exemption requires the agency to be certain that there is no possibility the
project may cause significant environmental impacts. If legitimate questions can be raised about
whether the project might have a significant impact and there is any dispute about the possibility
10
11
of such an impact, the agency cannot find with certainty that a project is exempt. Id.
Here, Petitioners raised legitimate questions regarding the significant environmental
12
impacts of the Ordinance. (AR 175-255, 269-276.) The City abused its discretion by ignoring
13
CEQAs mandates, relying on the common sense exemption and thus evading its obligation to
14
conduct, in light of the possible environmental impacts raised by Petitioners, an Initial Study
15
16
17
IV. DISCUSSION
CEQA was designed to encourage environmental protection by disclosing to decision-
18
makers and the public the potential environmental effects of proposed projects and alternatives
19
20
15002(a)(4). As such, courts have repeatedly stated that informed decision-making and public
21
participation are fundamental purposes of the CEQA process. See Citizens of Goleta Valley v.
22
Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553. Contrary to the mandates of CEQA, the City refused
23
to consider the potential that the environmental impacts brought to its attention might be
24
significant and failed to conduct the required environmental review of the Ordinance, namely an
25
Initial Study, by improperly relying on the common sense exemption. The City could not have
26
seen with certainty that those potential impacts would not be significant when it never even
27
inquired about the degree to which the obvious consequences of its actions might impact the
28
environment.
3
PETITIONERS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS UNDER CEQA
The Ordinance constitutes a project under CEQA, the discretionary approval of which
triggers CEQA review absent an applicable exception. Specifically, the Ordinance has the
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Pub. Res. Code 21065; see also 14
Cal. Code Regs. 15378. No exemption from CEQAs required review applied to the project
project has two essential elements. First, it is an activity that may cause a direct (or reasonably
10
11
12
involving the issuance by a public agency of some form of entitlement, permit, or other
13
authorization. Pub. Res. Code 21065; 14 Cal. Code Regs. 15378; San Lorenzo Valley
14
Community Advocates for Responsible Educ. v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified Sch. Dist. (2006)
15
16
The term project as defined in Cal. Pub. Res. Code 21065 has been broadly
17
interpreted by courts. For example, in a seminal case decided by the California Supreme Court,
18
the court stated that CEQA is to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible
19
protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language. Friends of
20
21
It is beyond doubt that the Ordinance will result in some direct physical changes in the
22
environment. Under the Ordinance, patients who cultivate their own medical marijuana in the
23
City will be forced to cease such activity. (AR 20.) There can be little doubt that patients who
24
currently cultivate their own medical marijuana will now be required to travel great distances
25
outside the City if they want to obtain their medicine. (AR 180, 274-275.) The materials in the
26
27
28
Notably, in approving the Ordinance, Respondent did not contest that the Ordinance constituted a project for
purposes of CEQA. (AR 3, 17-18.)
4
PETITIONERS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS UNDER CEQA
Record are sufficient evidence to establish this fact. Additional travel not only may, but will,
result in a direct change in the physical environment by increasing air pollutants. Id. No further
evidence is required to establish that the Ordinance is subject to CEQA under the CEQA
Guidelines 15060(c).
Similarly, the Ordinances travel implications removes the ability of the City to find with
certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance may have a significant effect on the
environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3). The Ordinance will require patients to
drive outside the City to visit a medical marijuana dispensary to obtain their medicine, which
10
will require travel and air pollution. (AR 180, 274.) It may be fairly reasoned that each of the
11
12
approximately once a week to get their medicine. (AR 178, 180.) However, the nearest storefront
13
medical marijuana dispensary from Fresno is 109 miles away in Bakersfield. (AR 180.)
14
Therefore, the Citys ban of all cultivation will result in a weekly increase of 2,205,506, or an
15
annual increase of 115,001,384 in miles traveled. (AR 180.) Based upon Federal Statistics, this
16
would result in approximately 48,869 metric tons per year in CO2 emissions alone. (AR 180.) It
17
would also be expected to generate 49,145 pounds of Reactive Organic Gasses, 36.86 tons of
18
Nitrous Oxide and 82.93 tons of PM10 per year. (AR 180.) Even if only half of the patient
19
population in the City opted to travel outside the City to obtain their medication, significant
20
environmental consequences would result from the Ordinance in the form of increased air
21
pollutants. However, the City failed to analyze any of the information brought to its attention
22
and could not, under the circumstances, have found with certainty that there is no possibility that
23
24
25
To the extent that there may be environmental impacts associated with the indoor
26
cultivation of medical marijuana in the City, the ban will simply result in displacement of those
27
environmental impacts to other jurisdictions. The City itself premised its proposed indoor
28
cultivation ban, in part, on the environmental impacts associated with such activity, citing odors,
5
PETITIONERS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS UNDER CEQA
air quality and nuisance concerns (AR 15, 26). Respondent cannot deny that the ban of indoor
cultivation may cause a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment by
bringing those same impacts to new locations outside the City. [A] government agency may
reasonably anticipate that its placing a ban on development in one area of a jurisdiction may have
development to other areas . . . . Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com.
(2007) 41 Cal. 4th 372, 383. Moreover, [t]hat further governmental decisions need to be made
before a land use measure's actual environmental impacts can be determined with precision does
10
13
[T]he definition of project for CEQA purposes is not limited to agency activities that
demonstrably will impact the environment. . . . CEQA does not speak of projects which
will have a significant effect, but those which may have such effect. Thus, contrary to
the Commission's suggestion, nothing inherent in the notion of displaced development
places such development, when it can reasonably be anticipated, categorically outside the
concern of CEQA.
14
Id. (Internal citations omitted.) Petitioners raised the possibility of such displaced
11
12
15
development impacts, but Respondent chose not to consider them. (AR 181.)
16
Besides the fact that the City was already aware of and, in fact, readily admitted the
17
18
provided the City with ample additional evidence in an effort to convince the City to conduct a
19
meaningful environmental review under CEQA. Petitioners alerted the City to the fact that an
20
estimated 7,587 pounds of cannabis per year would need to be cultivated to meet patient needs in
21
the City. (AR 181.) Petitioners also cited a study entitled The Carbon Footprint of Indoor
22
23
Planning, Environmental and Social Aspects Energy, detailing the environmental impacts of
24
indoor cannabis cultivation. (AR 195-204.) The following are highlights from the study:
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
6
PETITIONERS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS UNDER CEQA
Indoor cultivation also results in elevated moisture levels that can cause extensive
damage to buildings as well as electrical fires caused by wiring out of compliance
with safety codes. (AR 181.)
Indoor carbon dioxide levels are often raised to 4-times natural levels to boost plant
growth when cannabis is cultivated indoors.
Accelerated electricity demand growth has been observed in areas reputed to have
extensive indoor Cannabis cultivation. For example, after the legalization of
medical marijuana in 1996, Humboldt County experienced a 50% rise in per-capita
residential electricity use compared to other parts of the state. (AR 181.)
Shifting cultivation outdoors can nearly eliminate energy use for the cultivation
process. However, outdoor cultivation creates its own environmental impacts.
These include deforestation; destruction of wetlands, runoff of soil, pesticides,
insecticides, rodenticides and human waste; abandoned solid waste; and
unpermitted impounding and withdrawals of surface water. These practices can
compromise water quality, fisheries and other ecosystem services. However,
outdoor cultivation can compromise security. (AR 181.)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
It is reasonably foreseeable that the Citys ban of indoor cultivation of medical marijuana
27
within the City will result in an increase in cultivation outside the City. Cultivation of medical
28
environmental concerns and require meaningful review under CEQA. (AR 182.) Obviously,
cultivation of medical marijuana to meet existing patients demand will need to take place outside
City limits as a result of the Ordinance (in fact, outside of the County due to the ban on
cultivation by the County of Fresno) and additional waste water will be created as a result of
these cultivation activities. (AR 182.) Moreover, additional waste plant material (a.k.a bio-waste)
will be created that must be disposed of properly. However, because these activities may take
place indoors, the proper means of disposal is unclear and the City has failed to mitigate the
foreseeable environmental impacts. (AR 182.) The City failed to analyze any of the reasonably
foreseeable impacts of the increased indoor cultivation of medical marijuana. The facts presented
10
11
Gas Emissions, (2) Hazards & Hazardous Materials and (3) Hydrology / Water Quality.
12
The City did not even attempt to rebut the evidence presented by Respondents regarding
13
the environmental impacts of indoor cultivation. The evidence presented by Petitioner removed
14
the ability of the City to find with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question
15
16
D. The Ordinances Positive Effects Do Not Eliminiate Need for CEQA Review
17
The City wrongly concluded that the common sense exemption was applicable because
18
the Ordinance would have positive effects on the environment, including helping to reduce
19
water consumption and to eliminate offensive odors. (AR 3.) Activities intended to protect or
20
preserve the environment are not automatically immune from environmental review. The
21
Guidelines provide that categorical exemptions may not be used where there is a reasonable
22
possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment (1) when the
23
cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is
24
25
15300.2(c).) See Dunn-Edwards Corp. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (1992) 9
26
Cal.App.4th 644 (overturning amendments to air district regulations designed to reduce the
27
amount of volatile organic carbons in paint for failure to comply with CEQA); Building Code
28
Action v. Energy Resources Conservation & Dev. Com. (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 577 (adoption of
8
PETITIONERS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS UNDER CEQA
construction could have significant impact on air quality as result of increased glass production).
As outlined above, the Ordinance will not eliminate the demand for medical marijuana in the
City and will require patients to drive outside the City to obtain their medicine, which create both
traffic and air pollution. Moreover, the Ordinance simply displaces the impacts of cultivation to
other jurisdictions.
Because the Ordinance is not exempt from CEQA, the City was required to conduct an
Initial Study to determine whether the Project might have a significant effect on the
10
environment. See CEQA Guidelines 15070(a). While Respondent may argue that common
11
sense indicates that a single individual driving outside the City to obtain medical marijuana may
12
not be significant, CEQA clearly requires consideration of the cumulative effects of a project. It
13
is fundamental that a piecemeal approach to the analysis of significance is not consistent with
14
CEQA. Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Comm'rs (2001) 91
15
Cal.App.4th 1344, 1358 ("There is no dispute that CEQA forbids "piecemeal" review of the
16
17
cumulative impacts of actions by a significant segment of the population will (or at least
18
certainly may) themselves be significant. At the very least, the City had the obligation to inquire
19
about the extent of these potential cumulative impacts of the Ordinance. The common sense
20
exemption was not designed to allow an agency to refuse to ask the critical question raised by the
21
evidence presented to it, in this case, "How extensive will the occurrence of these foreseeable
22
23
V. CONCLUSION
24
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that this Court grant the
25
Petition for Writ of Mandate under CEQA, invalidate Respondents adoption of the Ordinance,
26
and require Respondent to conduct the legally required environmental review for the Project.
27
Moreover, Petitioners request that Respondent be enjoined and restrained from taking any
28
physical, administrative and/or legal actions toward enforcement of the Ordinance until
9
PETITIONERS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS UNDER CEQA
Respondent could not have found with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance
may have a significant effect on the environment rendering the project exempt pursuant to
5
6
Respectfully submitted,
7
8
___________________________
Jamie T. Hall
Julian K. Quattlebaum
Attorneys for Petitioner
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
PETITIONERS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS UNDER CEQA