Court Orders County To Prepare EIR And To Comply With CEQA

In City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 398, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, affirmed a lower court’s order requiring the County of San Bernardino to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

County approved amendments to its general plan relating to land use regulation of unincorporated territory located within a city’s “sphere of influence.” County stated that its amendments merely “clarified” County’s land use planning authority and discretion in “sphere of influence” areas. County did not prepare an EIR, as required of a governmental agency under CEQA, when it is anticipated that a project or decision proposed by such governmental agency may cause significant impact to the environment. Instead, County adopted a “negative declaration” in which it certified that the amendments would have no such effect on the environment. In a lawsuit filed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City of Redlands (hereinafter referred to as the “Cities”), a trial court set the amendments aside and prohibited County from adopting any similar amendments to the general plan without first preparing an EIR. County appealed to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

A governmental agency must prepare an EIR whenever “substantial evidence” in an administrative record supports a “fair argument” that a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. In any subsequent challenge, where an EIR is foregone through adoption of a “negative declaration,” if such evidence is determined to exist, the courts must set aside an agency’s “negative declaration.” In the instant case, the Court of Appeal determined that Cities had presented substantial evidence to show that the effect of County’s amendments on the environment would be significant.

In arriving at this conclusion, the Court noted that a negative declaration is inappropriate where an agency fails to provide an accurate project description or to gather information and undertake an adequate environmental analysis. County described the amendments as merely “clarifying” the County’s authority and discretion relating to land use planning and development. The Court determined that this project description was not adequate because the amendments would have far broader consequences. For example, by replacing mandatory language with more permissive or discretionary language, the amendments eliminated County’s duty under the original general plan: (1) to conform development, within a city’s sphere of influence, to that city’s planning and zoning standards; (2) to support annexation of urban areas within a city’s sphere of influence; and (3) to require conditional use permits for certain development. In effect, the amendments eliminated the requirement that the County give substantial weight to or even implement the standards provided for in an affected city’s general plan.

Moreover, the Court determined, County’s threshold environmental study was inadequate because it failed to provide sufficient evidence or analysis of the potential environmental effects. Specifically, County had not shown how the shift from a city’s standards to County’s significantly broader exercise of discretion would have little or no effect on the environment. Furthermore, County had not considered the consequences of anticipated future development.

The Court concluded that Cities had presented sufficient “substantial evidence” to support a fair argument that the general plan amendments might have a significant effect on the environment. Cities had met this “substantial evidence” requirement by comparing County’s original general plan, the language of the amendments, and the provisions of the cities’ general plans, and then drawing reasonable inferences from that evidence. According to the Court, “reasonable assumptions of environmental impact may be discerned simply from the language of the amendments themselves.”

The Court noted that the environmental analysis of a proposed general plan amendment must, by its very nature, focus on expected secondary effects, rather than on specifically identifiable consequences. Cities had reasonably inferred from the amendments that the environment would be significantly effected in several ways. Specifically: (1) an amendment allowing the County to disregard cities’ slope guidelines would result in an increase in grading, thereby destroying the natural contours of hillsides and possibly eliminating the natural habitat of certain plants; (2) amendments allowing the County to disregard cities’ growth control limits, development standards, and use permit requirements would reduce the amount of open space and adversely impact traffic and air quality; and (3) amendments dealing with public utilities and services would lead to conflicts in coordinating services for the areas within a city’s sphere of influence.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal determined, the lower court had acted appropriately in setting aside County’s already approved general plan amendments, and in directing County not to readopt the same, or any similar amendments, without first preparing and considering an EIR in full compliance with the CEQA.