Residents-Only Parking District Exempt From CEQA

In Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v. City of Santa Monica, 2002 WL 1980417, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, addressed a controversy involving a city’s attempt to control residential parking versus a chamber of commerce’s desire to protect business interests. The precise issue was whether the City of Santa Monica’s resolution that created a large, residents-only permit parking district was exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Facts

City adopted a resolution that established Preferential Parking Zone XX, which restricts unmetered, curbside parking in a 26-acre area to vehicles displaying a residential parking permit. City filed a CEQA Notice of Exemption stating that the resolution was exempt from CEQA review under a “categorical exemption” because it relates to the operation or minor alteration of existing public structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing. (CEQA Guideline 15301). The Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce sued City under CEQA, claiming the resolution was not categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA.

Appellate Court Decision

The Court of Appeal agreed with City that its resolution was exempt from CEQA requirements. The Court focused on the fact that the resolution results in “negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing” because the resolution does not add any parking spaces or structures to the parking stock in the area.

The Court rejected the Chamber’s argument that the resolution is not exempt from CEQA because of its “cumulative impact” on the environment and the “unusual circumstances” of the resolution. The court noted that the resolution and similar resolutions do not cumulatively impact the environment because they do not increase visitors to the parking zone area, cause need for more parking, or create inadequate parking. Rather, the resolution “simply causes a reshuffling of existing users into existing spaces.” Furthermore, the alleged “unusual circumstances” of the resolution – the large size of the parking zone, the restrictive hours of regulation, and the diverse mix of parking uses – do not significantly impact the environment. Again, the Court focused on the fact that “the only possible impact of the project, regardless of the area it covers, is a change in the identity of the persons who may use the unmetered curbside parking spots.”