Tax Measure to Fund Future Transportation Projects Did Not Trigger CEQA

In Sustainable Transportation Advocates of Santa Barbara v. Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, the California Court of Appeal ruled that the approval of a sales and use tax measure to fund future transportation projects did not require CEQA review.

The Santa Barbara County Association of Governments approved an ordinance extending an existing sales and use tax, and the ordinance was put to the county voters as Measure A. The voters adopted the measure, which was accompanied by an investment plan listing the transportation improvements to be funded.

The court held that Measure A was not a “project” under CEQA. It found that Measure A was merely a financing mechanism, which did not constitute a binding commitment to construct the improvements listed in the investment plan. The court applied the test established by the California Supreme Court in Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood, which examines whether an agency has significantly furthered a project in a manner that forecloses meaningful consideration of alternatives or mitigation measures before conducting CEQA review. The court emphasized the following factors in finding that Measure A did not violate this standard:

• The ordinance approving Measure A explained that before commencing any specific project included in the investment plan, a CEQA review would be required.
• The ordinance provided for future amendments of the investment plan to add or delete proposed projects.
• The plan provided only a brief, general description of the projects. According to the court, “the lack of details and specifications allows flexibility to meet mitigation measures set forth in a subsequent EIR.”
• The ballot materials put the voters on notice that all projects to be funded “must be consistent” with CEQA.
• Implementation of the projects depended on the receipt of substantial matching funds from other sources.

Opponents argued that the staff of the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments conducted an extensive campaign in support of Measure A, but the court explained that the agency’s support of Measure A “does not transform the measure into a project for purposes of CEQA.” The court confirmed that an agency does not commit itself to a project “simply by being a proponent or advocate of the project” or by “having high esteem for a project.” The court concluded: “Measure A does not qualify as a project within the meaning of CEQA because it is a mechanism for funding proposed projects that may be modified or not implemented depending on a number of factors, including CEQA environmental review.”