Aptos Council v. County of Santa Cruz
10 Cal. App. 5th 266
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- County of Santa Cruz undertook multiple zoning/code amendments as part of a broader “regulatory reform” effort; three ordinances at issue adopted in 2014: Ordinance No. 5181 (extend administrative minor exceptions countywide), No. 5171 (amend hotel standards: remove density limit, remove 3‑story cap, reduce parking), and No. 5172 (allow administrative sign exception approvals).
- For the minor exceptions ordinance the County adopted an addendum to a prior negative declaration; for the hotel ordinance the County circulated and adopted a negative declaration/initial study; for the sign ordinance the County adopted a notice of exemption.
- Aptos Council filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging: (1) that the County engaged in unlawful piecemeal CEQA review by considering these ordinances separately; (2) the hotel‑ordinance negative declaration was inadequate because it failed to analyze reasonably foreseeable future hotel development impacts; and (3) the sign ordinance exemption from CEQA was improper.
- The trial court denied the petition, finding no single CEQA “project” encompassing the reforms, the hotel negative declaration was supported (future development too speculative), and the sign ordinance exception was proper. Aptos Council appealed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: no impermissible piecemeal review because the three ordinances are independent regulatory actions (not reasonably foreseeable consequences of one another), and the hotel negative declaration was not deficient because likely future developments were speculative and the County investigated and found no substantial evidence of reasonably foreseeable significant impacts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Piecemeal review / single CEQA project | The three ordinances are steps in a single Countywide zoning overhaul and therefore required a program EIR (no piecemealing). | The ordinances serve different purposes, can be implemented independently, and are not reasonably foreseeable consequences of one another. No single project under CEQA. | Court: No piecemealing. The ordinances are separate actions; Laurel Heights two‑part test not met. |
| Adequacy of negative declaration for hotel ordinance | County should have analyzed environmental impacts of reasonably foreseeable future hotel developments (growth‑inducing effects, water demand, traffic). | Future hotel development was speculative (no imminent proposals; property owners indicated no plans) and any project would trigger separate CEQA review; County investigated and documented this. | Court: Affirmed negative declaration. Future developments were too speculative to require analysis; no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of significant impact. |
| CEQA exemption for sign ordinance | (Raised below) exemption was improper and CEQA review required. | The sign amendment qualified for statutory/categorical/common‑sense exemptions; County properly found exemption. | Court: Trial court's exemption ruling stands (Aptos Council did not press this issue on appeal); not reviewed further. |
Key Cases Cited
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 47 Cal.3d 376 (Sup. Ct.) (EIR must analyze future expansion if reasonably foreseeable and likely to change scope or environmental effects)
- Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach, 211 Cal.App.4th 1209 (Cal. Ct. App.) (separate projects with different purposes/independent implementation need not be combined into single CEQA project)
- Tuolumne County Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Sonora, 155 Cal.App.4th 1214 (Cal. Ct. App.) (analysis of when related steps constitute one CEQA project)
- City of Antioch v. City Council, 187 Cal.App.3d 1325 (Cal. Ct. App.) (lead agency must evaluate probable forms/extent of development reasonably likely to result from infrastructure projects)
- City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino, 96 Cal.App.4th 398 (Cal. Ct. App.) (agency cannot hide behind lack of analysis where record shows reasonably foreseeable development)