Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado
202 Cal. App. 4th 1156
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- El Dorado County adopted a 2004 General Plan with a program CEQA EIR that anticipated an oak woodland management plan and an Option B mitigation fee, but did not specify the Option B fee rate or use of funds.
- In 2008 the County adopted the oak woodland management plan and an Option B fee program under a negative declaration, without a separate project EIR.
- Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation et al. challenged the plan, fee program, and negative declaration as CEQA violations; trial court ruled against reversal of the writ.
- The appellate court held that a tiered EIR was required prior to adoption of the oak woodland management plan and Option B, and that the 2004 program EIR did not adequately address critical discretionary choices.
- Key issues include whether CEQA requires a project-specific EIR for the oak woodland plan, whether the 2004 program EIR suffices, and whether the negative declaration was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did CEQA require an EIR for the oak woodland plan and Option B? | Center argues CEQA requires a tiered EIR for the plan and fee program. | County contends the plan/fee fall within the 2004 program EIR scope and can rely on a negative declaration. | Yes, a tiered EIR was required. |
| Did the 2004 program EIR adequately analyze Option B? | 2004 EIR lacked fee rate details and uses for funds, so not adequate. | 2004 EIR anticipated Option B and sufficient to conclude no greater environmental effect. | No; it did not adequately address the discretionary elements of Option B. |
| Was the negative declaration for the oak woodland plan proper? | Negative declaration failed because substantial evidence suggested significant effects and lack of adequate analysis. | Negative declaration relied on existing analyses and prevented duplicative review. | No; the record shows a fair argument of potential significant effects requiring an EIR. |
| Could CEQA review of the oak woodland plan be deferred until the integrated plan? | Deferred review would circumvent CEQA's timely analysis. | Integrated plan would address connectivity and broader impacts later. | Deferred review was improper; EIR analysis could not be postponed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 6 Cal.4th 1112 (1993) (EIR informs decisions and protects self-government)
- Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com., 16 Cal.4th 105 (1997) (CEQA applies when project may have significant effects)
- EPIC v. County of El Dorado, 131 Cal.App.3d 350 (1982) (environmental review must consider project impacts on existing environment)
- California Native Plant Society v. County of El Dorado, 170 Cal.App.4th 1026 (2009) (fees must be CEQA-reviewed; program EIR is not a substitute for project-level review)
- In re Bay-Delta etc., 43 Cal.4th 1143 (2008) (program EIR and tiered EIR distinctions; need site-specific analysis)