Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma
11 Cal. App. 5th 11
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Sonoma County adopted an ordinance (governing grading, drainage, vineyard/orchard site development) requiring erosion-control permits for non-hobby vineyard establishment; the ordinance and Best Management Practices (BMPs) set detailed technical standards.
- Ronald and Ernest Ohlson applied (Oct 2013) for Level II erosion-control permits to convert rangeland to vineyard; plans, drainage report by a civil engineer, and biological report were submitted; Commissioner staff inspected and used a 69-item checklist.
- Commissioner approved the permit (Dec 30, 2013) and issued a notice concluding the permit issuance was ministerial and therefore exempt from CEQA; most checklist items met standards and only clarifications/corrections were requested and addressed.
- Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity petitioned for a writ of mandate challenging the ministerial finding; the trial court denied the petition and upheld the Commissioner’s CEQA exemption determination.
- On appeal, petitioners argued the ordinance contains vague or discretionary provisions that permitted the Commissioner to exercise judgment and therefore the permit approval was discretionary (requiring CEQA review); the court reviewed whether any discretion was both applicable to this project and meaningful enough to mitigate environmental impacts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether issuance of the erosion-control permit was a ministerial act exempt from CEQA | Ordinance contains broad/vague standards (cuts/fills, setbacks, stormwater, BMPs) that require subjective judgment, so approval was discretionary and CEQA applies | Most discretion-conferring provisions did not apply to the Ohlsons’ project; where language was arguably discretionary it did not permit meaningful environmental mitigation | Court affirmed: issuance was ministerial; petitioners failed to show applicable, meaningful discretion |
| Whether particular ordinance/BMP provisions actually applied to this project | Many provisions (watercourse/tree treatments, large grading rules, road/culvert rules) applied broadly and so could be used to impose conditions | For this specific project most cited provisions were inapplicable or were expressly marked not applicable on the application/checklist | Court held relevance matters: only three provisions could arguably apply; others did not affect this approval |
| Whether any applicable discretion was the sort that triggers CEQA (functional test) | Even limited discretion is enough; Commissioner’s acceptance of reduced setbacks and requests for clarifications show subjective judgment | Discretion must be able to meaningfully mitigate environmental impacts; mere technical judgments, voluntary applicant commitments, or requests for clarification do not convert a ministerial approval into discretionary | Court applied functional test and concluded any residual discretion did not allow meaningful mitigation; ministerial exemption stands |
| Whether voluntary conditions or requests for corrections make the permit discretionary | Commissioner’s negotiations/conditions demonstrate exercise of discretion | Voluntary measures accepted by applicant and technical clarifications do not constitute legally-enforceable discretionary conditioning under the ordinance | Court held voluntary measures and routine clarifications do not render the otherwise ministerial permit discretionary |
Key Cases Cited
- Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com., 16 Cal.4th 105 (explains CEQA exemption for ministerial acts and rationale)
- Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com., 41 Cal.4th 372 (standard of review for agency CEQA determinations)
- People v. Department of Housing & Community Dev., 45 Cal.App.3d 185 (early decision analyzing when permit approvals are discretionary versus ministerial)
- Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 191 Cal.App.3d 259 (adopts the functional test: discretion that allows mitigation makes action discretionary)
- Sierra Club v. Napa County Board of Supervisors, 205 Cal.App.4th 162 (ministerial approval if fixed objective standards govern; local agency determinations entitled to deference)
- Friends of the Juana Briones House v. City of Palo Alto, 190 Cal.App.4th 286 (discretionary permit if authority to condition in environmentally significant ways exists)