Sierra Club v. Napa County Board of Supervisors
205 Cal. App. 4th 162
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Napa County adopted Ordinance No. 1331 in 2009 to include sequential lot line adjustments within the definition of lot line adjustment, subject to provisos.
- Exemption from the Map Act is claimed for lot line adjustments between four or fewer adjoining parcels, with specific conditions, including approval by the local agency.
- The County historically allowed four-lot adjustments and sought to regulate buildability and prevent substandard parcels; it later allowed sequential adjustments under ministerial review.
- Sierra Club challenged the Ordinance, arguing Map Act conflict and CEQA deficiencies, and alleged piecemealing and lack of CEQA exemptions.
- Trial court held the Map Act allows sequential adjustments and that the approvals are ministerial, thus outside CEQA; petition denied on merits.
- Court of Appeal affirmed, holding (i) time extension stipulation constituted a general appearance; (ii) no preemption by the Map Act; (iii) sequential adjustments are ministerial and not subject to CEQA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time-bar and appearance | Sierra Club argues timing defects bar suit. | County contends no appearance issues; timeliness preserved. | Action not time-barred; stipulation created general appearance. |
| Map Act preemption | Ordinance conflicts with § 66412(d) exemption for four or fewer parcels. | Ordinance fits within exemption and sequential adjustments remain eligible. | No Map Act conflict; Ordinance consistent with § 66412(d). |
| CEQA applicability to sequential adjustments | Approval of sequential adjustments is discretionary and subject to CEQA. | Adjustments are ministerial under the Act; CEQA exemptions apply. | Not subject to CEQA; ministerial unless variance/use permit involved. |
| Legislative history and interpretation | Legislative history shows intent to curb exemptions and broaden CEQA review. | History shows balance in pace of land reconfiguration; does not require broad application to sequential adjustments. | Agency action consistent with legislative history; sequential adjustments managed to avoid abuse. |
Key Cases Cited
- San Dieguito Partnership v. City of San Diego, 7 Cal.App.4th 748 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (exemption scope and numerical limits on lot line adjustments)
- Health First v. March Joint Powers Authority, 174 Cal.App.4th 1135 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (ministerial vs discretionary CEQA review checklist)
- La Fe, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, 73 Cal.App.4th 231 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (coastal development context and development permit jurisdiction)
- Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Comm., 16 Cal.4th 105 (Cal. 1997) (discernment of CEQA discretion and mitigation authority)
- Leach v. City of San Diego, 220 Cal.App.3d 389 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (CEQA discretion vs ministerial decisions in public agency actions)
- San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v. City of San Diego, 185 Cal.App.4th 924 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (ministerial vs discretionary CEQA evaluation in project approvals)