1

Filed 11/18/22; certified for publication 12/5/22 (order attached) 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

SAINT IGNATIUS 

NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO,

Defendant and Respondent.

A164629

(City & County of San Francisco

Super. Ct. No. CPF-20-517320)

Plaintiff Saint Ignatius Neighborhood Association (the neighborhood 

association) appeals a judgment denying its petition for writ of mandate 

challenging the approval by the City and County of San Francisco (the city) of 

an application submitted by Saint Ignatius College Preparatory High School

(the school) seeking authorization to install four 90-foot light standards in the 

school’s athletic stadium. The neighborhood association contends the city 

erred by finding that the proposed lighting project was exempt from review 

under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources 

Code,

1 § 21000 et seq.). We agree and shall reverse the judgment.

1 All statutory references are to the Public Resources Code unless 

otherwise noted.
2

Background

The school is located at 2001 37th Avenue in the city’s “Outer Sunset

District.” The school’s athletic stadium is located at the southwest corner of

the campus, with frontage on 39th Avenue and Rivera Street. The stadium

has a seating capacity of 2,008 persons. Surrounding the stadium, including

west across 39th Avenue and south across Rivera Street, are two-story,

mostly single-family homes.

In February 2018, the school submitted an application for approval of 

the addition of four permanent 90-foot tall outdoor light standards to its 

athletic field to enable nighttime use of the stadium.2

In June 2020, the city’s planning department determined that the 

project is categorically exempt from review under CEQA. In July, the 

planning commission approved a conditional use authorization for the project 

with several conditions on use of the lights. The planning commission 

required, among other things, that the lights be used no more than 150 

nights per year, generally dimmed no later than 8:30 p.m. and turned off no 

later than 9:00 p.m., used for larger events until 10:00 p.m. no more than 20 

evenings per year, and not be used by groups unaffiliated with the school. 

The planning commission also required close communication with neighbors 

about events on the field, and required distribution of a large-event 

management plan and a code of conduct for students and others attending 

events.

The board of supervisors affirmed the planning department’s 

determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review and 

approved the conditional-use authorization after imposing additional-use 

2 The project also includes installation of telecommunications equipment 

that is not at issue in the present appeal. 
3

conditions. The board of supervisors further (1) restricted the hours that the 

field lights could be used, requiring that they be dimmed no later than 

8:00 p.m. and turned off no later than 8:30 p.m. except that on 15 nights a 

year lights could remain on until 10:00 p.m.; (2) required the school to report 

the dates and times the lights are turned on, dimmed, and turned off; 

(3) required that for events with anticipated crowds of more than 500 people, 

the school provide off-site parking to accommodate at least 200 vehicles; and 

(4) required that trees be installed to better screen the field and lights from 

neighboring homes.

Thereafter, the neighborhood association filed a petition for writ of 

mandate alleging that the city erred in exempting the project from CEQA 

review and that the city’s approval of the conditional use authorization was 

inconsistent with the city’s planning code and its general plan. 

The trial court denied the petition and the neighborhood association 

timely filed a notice of appeal. 

Discussion

“CEQA and its implementing regulations ‘embody California’s strong 

public policy of protecting the environment.’ ” (Bottini v. City of San Diego

(2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 281, 291.) “CEQA establishes a three-tier 

environmental review process. The first step is jurisdictional and requires a 

public agency to determine whether a proposed activity is a ‘project.’ . . . If a 

proposed activity is a project, the agency proceeds to the second step of the 

CEQA process. [¶] At the second step, the agency must ‘decide whether the 

project is exempt from the CEQA review process under either a statutory 

exemption [citation] or a categorical exemption set forth in the CEQA 
4

Guidelines.’ ”

3 (Ibid.) “The Guidelines contain 33 classes of categorical 

exemptions. (Guidelines, §§ 15301-15333.) Each class embodies a ‘finding by 

the Resources Agency that the project will not have a significant 

environmental impact.’ ” (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for 

Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 

Cal.App.4th 1356, 1381; § 21083, subd. (b).) Categorical exemptions are 

subject to exceptions. (See Guidelines, § 15300.2.) Among other things, a 

“categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a 

reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the 

environment due to unusual circumstances.” (Id., subd. (c).) “If a project is 

categorically exempt and does not fall within an exception, ‘ “it is not subject 

to CEQA requirements and ‘may be implemented without any CEQA 

compliance whatsoever.’ ” ’ ” (Bottini v. City of San Diego, supra, 27 

Cal.App.5th at pp. 291–292.) “[I]f a project is not exempt, the agency must 

then ‘decide whether the project may have a significant environmental 

effect.’ ” (Id. at p. 292.) Where the agency determines the project will not have 

a significant environmental effect, the agency “ ‘must “adopt a negative 

declaration to that effect.” ’ ” (California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area 

Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 382.) “[I]f the agency 

finds the project ‘may have a significant effect on the environment,’ it must 

prepare an [environmental impact report] before approving the project.” 

(Ibid.)

Here, the city found that the lighting project is exempt from CEQA 

review under the class 1 and class 3 categorical exemptions and that none of 

3 The CEQA “Guidelines” are promulgated by the Secretary of the 

Resources Agency pursuant to section 21083 are contained at California Code

of Regulations, title 14, section 15000 et seq. (hereinafter, Guidelines).
5

the exceptions to the exemptions apply. The city’s determination that the 

project is exempt from compliance with CEQA requirements is subject to 

judicial review under the abuse of discretion standard found in section 

21168.5. (Save Our Carmel River v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management

Dist. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 677, 693.) “Abuse of discretion is established if 

the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the 

determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.” 

(§ 21168.5.) Interpretation of the language of the Guidelines and the scope of 

a categorial exemption is a legal question subject to our de novo review, while 

the city’s determination that the project fits within an exemption is subject to 

review for substantial evidence. (Save our Carmel River, supra, at pp. 693–

694.) 

Class 1 Exemption

The class 1 exemption for “existing facilities” applies to “the operation, 

repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of 

existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or 

topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of the existing or 

former use.” (Guidelines, § 15301.) The Guideline provides a non-exhaustive 

list of examples of the types of projects that qualify for a class 1 exemption 

including, among others, “[i]nterior or exterior alterations involving such 

things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances” and 

“[a]dditions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in 

an increase of more than . . . 50 percent of the floor area of the structures 

before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less.” (Id., subds. (a) & 

(e).) Guideline section 15301 states, however, that the list is “not intended to 

be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The 
6

key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of 

use.” 

The city determined that the project qualifies for a class 1 exemption 

because it involves negligible or no expansion of the existing use of the 

facility. The planning department explained, “The proposed project does not 

entail the construction of a new stadium or the expansion of the existing 

playing surface. The project would not expand the existing bleachers or 

increase the stadium’s capacity. The proposed lights would primarily shift the 

school’s existing use of the field to later times in the day and/or days of the 

week. The school would not be adding new athletic teams and would not rent 

the facility to non-affiliated teams during the evening hours. . . . For 

approximately 40-50 evenings a year, the school uses temporary (portable) 

field lights at the existing stadium. The proposed installation of permanent 

lights would support evening use at the stadium for up to 150 evenings a 

year. . . . [T]he project would shift the timing of the field use, from early 

mornings on weekdays to early evenings on weekdays, and would move 

approximately 5 Saturday afternoon football games to Friday evenings. With 

implementation of the project, evening games and practices are not intended 

to intensify use of the stadium and the school does not anticipate an overall 

increase in attendance at these events.” 

Substantial evidence supports the city’s findings that the project will 

not result in an increase in the capacity of the stadium or the overall 

frequency of its use. Nonetheless, it is undisputed that the project will 

significantly expand the nighttime use of the stadium. Without the project, 

the field is quiet and dark most evenings during the fall and winter months. 

With the project, the field will be lit and in use approximately 80 percent of 

the fall and winter weeknights. The school suggests that the existing 
7

nighttime use of the field is 40 to 50 evenings during the fall and winter with 

the use of temporary lights. The neighborhood association suggests that there 

should be no use because use of the temporary lights is not authorized. Either 

way, increasing the use of the field to 150 nights a year is a significant 

expansion of the facility’s existing use. (Save Our Carmel River v. Monterey 

Peninsula Water Management Dist., supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 697 [a 

categorical exemption should be interpreted “to afford the fullest possible 

protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory 

language”]; County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 

Cal.App.4th 931, 966 [“exemptions are construed narrowly and will not be 

unreasonably expanded beyond their terms”].) As such, the city erred in 

finding the class 1 categorical exemption applicable.

Class 3 Exemption

The class 3 exemption, entitled “New Construction or Conversion of 

Small Structures” applies to “construction and location of limited numbers of 

new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and 

facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures 

from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the 

exterior of the structure.” (Guidelines, § 15303.) “Examples of this exemption 

include but are not limited to: [¶] (a) One single-family residence, or a second 

dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three singlefamily residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. 

[¶] (b) A duplex or similar multi-family residential structure totaling no more 

than four dwelling units. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to 

apartments, duplexes, and similar structures designed for not more than six 

dwelling units. [¶] (c) A store, motel, office, restaurant or similar structure 

not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, and not 
8

exceeding 2500 square feet in floor area. In urbanized areas, the exemption 

also applies to up to four such commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 

square feet in floor area on sites zoned for such use if not involving the use of 

significant amounts of hazardous substances where all necessary public 

services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not 

environmentally sensitive. [¶] (d) Water main, sewage, electrical, gas, and 

other utility extensions, including street improvements, of reasonable length 

to serve such construction. [¶] (e) Accessory (appurtenant) structures 

including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences. . . .” (Ibid.)

In Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 

1086, 1097–1098 (Berkeley Hillside) our Supreme Court explained, “[i]n 

listing a class of projects as exempt, the [Secretary of the Resources Agency]

has determined that the environmental changes typically associated with 

projects in that class are not significant effects within the meaning of CEQA, 

even though an argument might be made that they are potentially 

significant.” As noted above, “[b]ecause the exemptions operate as exceptions 

to CEQA, they are narrowly construed. [Citation.] ‘Exemption categories are 

not to be expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language.’ ” 

(San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San 

Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist., supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 1382.) 

The city contends installation of the four light standards falls within 

section 15303, as it applies to “limited numbers of new, small . . . structures.”

In determining what constitutes a “small” structure within the scope of the 

exemption, we look to the examples provided by the state Resources Agency. 

Although not an exclusive list, the examples do provide an indication of the 

type of projects to which the exemption applies. The light standards are

fundamentally dissimilar from all of the examples. While reference to square 
9

footage is meaningful when referring to commercial and residential buildings, 

as the guideline does, whether a structure is “small” when referring to 

detached light-emitting standards cannot be evaluated solely on the basis of 

the square footage at their base. The residential and commercial structures 

listed in the guideline are subject to applicable zoning requirements, which 

ensure their height will be generally consistent with the surrounding 

neighborhood. (See Guidelines, § 15303, subdivision (a) [“One single-family 

residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone.”]; id., subd. (c) [“In 

urbanized areas, the exemption also applies to up to four such commercial 

buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on sites zoned for 

such use . . . .”].) While the state Resources Agency has determined that any 

potential impacts associated with “small” new residential or commercial 

structures are ordinarily not significant, this determination does not 

reasonably apply to the light standards at issue here. The light standards, at 

90 feet tall, are significantly taller than any other structure in the 

neighborhood. In comparison, homes in the area are typically 20 to 25 feet 

tall, the city’s zoning ordinance limits residential buildings in the area to 

40 feet tall and typical streetlights are only 25 to 30 feet tall. (See S.F. 

Planning Code, §§ 105, 106; Zoning Map HT05; S.F. Pub. Util. Com., 

Streetlight Guidelines (July 1, 2021) p. 4.) In short, a 90-foot tall light 

standard does not qualify as “small” within the meaning of the exemption.

Don’t Cell Our Parks v. City of San Diego (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 338, 

359, relied upon by the city, is distinguishable. In that case, the court 

recognized that “[t]here is a paucity of case law applying this exemption.” 

Nonetheless, the court held that the project, which consisted of the 

construction of a cell tower disguised as a 35-foot-high faux eucalyptus tree 

and a 250-square-foot landscaped equipment structure, fell within the scope 
10

of the class 3 categorical exemption. (Id. at pp. 346, 360.) The court noted 

that the square footage of the proposed project was “much smaller than a 

single-family residence, store, motel, office or restaurant.” (Id. at p. 360.) 

However, the proposed cell tower was “installed in an existing stand of tall

trees, two of which [were] about 55 feet high.” (Id. at p. 346.) The cell tower 

was small within its setting, unlike the light standards at issue here which 

will be by far the tallest structure in the surrounding area. They are not 

small within the environment but instead tower over it.

The city also cites several cases in which courts have upheld 

application of the class 3 exemption to a wide variety of new 

telecommunication projects. (See Aptos Residents Assn. v. County of Santa 

Cruz (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1039 [10 microcell transmitter units on existing 

utility poles]; Robinson v. City and County of San Francisco (2012) 208 

Cal.App.4th 950 [40 wireless equipment cabinets on existing utility poles]; 

San Francisco Beautiful v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 226 

Cal.App.4th 1012 [726 new utility cabinets on public sidewalks].) The 

installation of new 90-foot light standards, however, can hardly be considered 

similar to the installation of utility boxes on existing utility poles.

Accordingly, the light standards cannot fairly be considered small 

structures within the meaning of the class 3 exemption. 

Conclusion

We therefore conclude that neither exemption from CEQA review relied 

on by the city applies. In view of this conclusion, it is unnecessary to consider 

the neighborhood association’s alternative argument that unusual 

circumstances preclude application of the exemptions. (Guidelines, § 15300.2, 

subd. (c) [A categorical exemption does not apply “where there is a reasonable 

possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment 
11

due to unusual circumstances.”].) Nor do we reach the neighborhood 

association’s additional argument that the city’s approval of a conditional-use 

authorization for the project was inconsistent with the city’s planning code 

and its general plan.

Finally, counsel’s observation at oral argument is worth noting. The

purpose here for enforcing the environmental analysis required by CEQA is 

not necessarily to kill the project but to require careful consideration of 

measures that will mitigate the environmental impacts of the project. There 

is evidence that the proposed light standards may have light, noise and 

traffic impacts on the neighborhood. Although the city has imposed 

conditions designed to address these concerns, the neighborhood citizens are 

entitled to have the sufficiency of these conditions scrutinized in accordance 

with CEQA standards and, if deemed necessary, enforceable limitations 

imposed. 

Disposition

The judgment is reversed. The neighborhood association shall recover 

its costs on appeal. 

POLLAK, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

STREETER, J.

BROWN, J.
Filed 12/5/22

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

SAINT IGNATIUS 

NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO,

Defendant and Respondent.

A164629

(City & County of San Francisco

Super. Ct. No. CPF-20-517320)

ORDER CERTIFYING 

OPINION FOR PUBLICATION

THE COURT:

The opinion in the above-entitled matter filed on November 18, 2022, 

was not certified for publication in the Official Reports. For good cause it now 

appears that the opinion should be published in the Official Reports and it is 

so ordered.

December 5, 2022 POLLAK, P.J.
Trial court: San Francisco County Superior Court

Trial judge: Honorable Rochelle C. East

Counsel for plaintiff and 

appellant:

Michael W. Graf

Counsel for defendant and 

respondent:

David Chiu, City Attorney 

Brian F. Crossman and Christopher T. Tom, 

Deputy City Attorneys
Filed 12/5/22

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

SAINT IGNATIUS 

NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO,

Defendant and Respondent;

IGNATIAN CORPORATION et al.,

Real Parties in Interest and

Respondents.

A164629

(City & County of San Francisco

Super. Ct. No. CPF-20-517320)

ORDER CERTIFYING 

OPINION FOR PUBLICATION

THE COURT:

The opinion in the above-entitled matter filed on November 18, 2022, 

was not certified for publication in the Official Reports. For good cause it now 

appears that the opinion should be published in the Official Reports and it is 

so ordered.

December 5, 2022 POLLAK, P.J.
Trial Court: San Francisco County Superior Court

Trial Judge: Honorable Rochelle C. East

Counsel for Plaintiff and 

Appellant Saint Ignatius 

Neighborhood Association:

Michael W. Graf

Counsel for Defendant and 

Respondent City and County of 

San Francisco:

David Chiu, City Attorney 

Brian F. Crossman and Christopher T. Tom, 

Deputy City Attorneys

Counsel for Real Party in Interest 

Ignatian Corporation:

Counsel for Real Party in Interest 

Verizon Wireless Services:

Counsel for Real Party in Interest 

GTE Mobilnet California Limited 

Partnership:

MOSCONE EMBLIDGE & RUBENS LLP

G. Scott Emblidge

MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP

Melanie Sengupta

MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP

Mark L. Mosley and Melanie Sengupta