South Orange County Wastewater Authority v. City of Dana Point
196 Cal. App. 4th 1604
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- SOCWA appeals denial of writ; seeks EIR for rezoning and land-use changes adjacent to SOCWA plant in Dana Point.
- The City approved general-plan amendment creating a new mixed-use designation and adopted new zoning (R/C-18), then rezoned the Makar site.
- The California Coastal Commission’s approval remained a condition before construction could occur.
- The CEQA review proceeded via an initial study and a mitigated negative declaration (MND); odors were central to SOCWA’s concerns.
- The trial court found no environmental impact from rezoning itself and that odors did not constitute a significant adverse environmental change requiring an EIR.
- SOCWA challenges alleged internal inconsistency in the general plan and argues that the project’s potential odor impacts warrant more extensive CEQA review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an EIR was required for the rezoning component. | SOCWA argues odors constitute a significant environmental impact needing an EIR. | City’s initial study found no significant adverse effects from rezoning; odors do not constitute a change in physical environment. | No EIR required for rezoning; odors do not trigger CEQA review. |
| Whether the general plan’s amendments were internally inconsistent. | Amendment creates internal inconsistency by adding Residential/Commercial designation. | amendments are not internal inconsistency; general plan remains coherent. | General Plan not internally inconsistent. |
| Whether zoning and Makar site rezoning were consistent with the general plan. | Rezoning disrupts general plan objectives. | Zoning is a template; must be consistent overall, but does not require pre-emptive odor mitigation. | Zoning consistent with general plan; no internal inconsistency. |
| Whether CEQA should address environment’s effect on project rather than project on environment. | CEQA should protect project from existing environmental conditions (odors). | CEQA evaluates project impact on environment, not environment’s impact on project. | CEQA not to be used in reverse; odors from plant do not require an EIR. |
Key Cases Cited
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988) (CEQA focus on process and public information; not substitution of environmental burden.)
- Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn., 42 Cal.3d 929 (Cal. 1986) (CEQA public participation and substantial evidence standard.)
- Baird v. County of Contra Costa, 32 Cal.App.4th 1464 (Cal. App. 1995) (no EIR where no environmental change; environment’s effect on project not covered.)
- City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 176 Cal.App.4th 889 (Cal. App. 2009) (purpose of EIR to identify effects on environment, not environment on project.)
- Federation of Hillside & Canyon Assns. v. City of Los Angeles, 126 Cal.App.4th 1180 (Cal. App. 2004) (internal consistency review limited; court assesses reasonableness.)
- Garat v. City of Riverside, 2 Cal.App.4th 259 (Cal. App. 1991) (internal consistency and correlation standards for general plans.)
- Silveira v. Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary Dist., 54 Cal.App.4th 980 (Cal. App. 1997) (CEQA not triggered where no environmental impact shown.)
- California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova, 172 Cal.App.4th 603 (Cal. App. 2009) (CEQA considerations; cumulative effects principles.)
- Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn., 42 Cal.3d 929 (Cal. 1986) (CEQA process and public participation.)