*1 Bank. Jan. No. 30307. In 1975.] [L.A. v. al., Plaintiffs and BOZUNG et
RICHARD Appellants, OF VENTURA COMMISSION AGENCY FORMATION LOCAL al., et Defendants and COUNTY Respondents; AETNA, in Interest and Real
KAISER Respondent; Party OAKS, Intervener and CITY OF THOUSAND Respondent.
Counsel Hall, Jr., Nichols, W. D. John R. Brent N.
Carlyle Mary Phillips, Rushforth P. for Plaintiffs and Fredric Sutherland and. Appellants. General, O’Brien, J. H. Assistant Evelle Robert Younger, Attorney General, Flette, Nicholas C. Yost and Norman N. Attorney Deputy General, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Attorneys Appel- lants. McBride, Counsel, L. Chief Schechter, James L. County
Dorothy M. Burke, and Counsel, Williams & Sorensen Royal Assistant County and for Defendants Sorensen Respondents. Mix, D. Assistant David Larson, Counsel (Los H. Angeles),
John County Whitsett, Counsel, and John W. County Deputy Chief County Deputy Defendants on behalf of Counsel, Amici Curiae Respondents. Osborne, James L. E. Cohen and
Cohen, & Whitfield Spencer Stanley in Interest for Real Respondent. Party & Perrett C. Attorney, Hathaway, Clabaugh, City Clayton,
Raymond and as Jr., for Intervener and E. E. Webster Respondent Clabaugh, of Defendants and Amici Curiae on behalf Respondents.
Opinion relief, a action for mandate In this declaratory
THE COURT. seek to establish residents and of Ventura number County taxpayers *5 Act a of the California Environmental the require Quality provisions an environ Commission to and Local Formation certify prepare Agency annexation a mental city’s property impact report prior approving Court of After decision intended for future by Appeal, development. District, Five, Division a Second reversing judgment Appellate sustained without demurrers to the were defendants after their complaint amend, court for the leave to we in this purpose granted hearing made a raised. further consideration to the issues Having giving cause, that the we have concluded examination of the opinion thorough and Justice Kaus of the Court of by Presiding Appeal prepared treats and Justices concurred in correctly by Hastings Stephens for the as and and we such of the issues involved adopt opinion disposes deletions and (with of this court. Such opinion appropriate opinion is as follows:* additions) material, are used to indicate without in this manner enclosing *Brackets together, [ ] (other material enclosing of the Court of brackets deletions from the Appeal; opinion indicated, are, to denote used citations) unless otherwise than added editor’s parallel marks thus the extension quotation additions this court. We avoid insertions or by marks, use of such conventional would incident to the within which quotation we In so matter doing, time indicate the accurately quoted. and at same punctuation, Ins. v (See Title Co. us in the Chicago to a method of by past. adhere adoption employed
. 305, 311, 444 P.2d fn. 2 (1968) 69 Cal.2d Cal.Rptr. Great Western Financial Corp. [70 cited.) 481], and cases there The issue in this whether the California Environ- significant appeal mental Act (CEQA) annexation Quality applies approval a Local Formation Commission where (LAFCO), proposals Agency is intended to follow the annexation property development annexation.
The of an action annexation validity challenges City acres, Camarillo of about 677 known as the Bell The Ranch.1 plaintiffs2 are: a Ventura Richard resident and County Bozung, taxpayer; Roger Boedecker, a Ventura resident and who lives near the County taxpayer situated; on and all annexed behalf himself others similarly property, Coalition, Ventura Ventura Environmental County County of whom live in or in residents and Camarillo the area taxpayers, many General has filed an amicus annexation. brief in Attorney issue, on the central of CEQA to support plaintiffs applicability LAFCOs.
The defendants are: The Ventura Local Formation County Agency Commission (LAFCO), approved proposal, of Camarillo The real (Camarillo). in interest is Kaiser City party Aetna which owns Bell Ranch. (Kaiser), of Thousand Oaks City intervention, and, filed a an amicus brief on complaint appeal, behalf of defendants.
Facts In 1963 the established in each local Legislature county countywide Act., formation commission Gov. (LAFCO). (Rnox-Nisbet 54773-54779.5; see Stats. ch. One §§ LAFCO’s *6 is to formation and of local purposes encourage orderly development based on local conditions circumstances. governmental agencies duties (Gov. 54774.) § One of its all approve disapprove annexation cities submitted within the (Gov. county. proposals §
In 1967 LAFCO considered the of influence” development “spheres for Ventura held County, eventually, public hearings January 1The annexed also two which territory includes small owned separately properties would otherwise have created an island of When we refer to unincorporated territory. we mean the as Number “annexation” contained in Camarillo Ordinance 221, 26, 1972. July adopted mandate, is a we refer this for a writ convenience 2Although petition as defendants. respondents petitioners plaintiffs, Later, 1972, the effective of influence a plan.” “spheres adopted LAFCO Act to that each the Knox-Nisbet amended require Legislature Code, 54774.) of influence (Gov. plan. develop spheres Kaiser’s straddled of influence Under the 1968 property spheres plan, was, then of influence. Las Posas the Las Posas and Camarillo spheres is, area. In Kaiser was and still an August planning unincorporated included the Bell Ranch and requested develop property This was the first official of influence. LAFCO readjust spheres the ranch. In Kaiser intended subdivide notice that September of influence lines a shift after spheres approved hearings, Ranch fell into the Las Posas so that the Bell sphere. property 384.91 In October 1970 Kaiser to rezone acres county requested its this was denied or withdrawn.3 property. Apparently request the Las Posas
LAFCO then held various sphere hearings concerning of influence line of influence. In 1971 LAFCO shifted the October sphere the Bell Ranch within the Camarillo so that came land sphere. LAFCO to
In Camarillo and Kaiser approve petitioned April 677 acres of the Bell Ranch. Vital to annexation of Camarillo’s proposed stated that the of this case is that Kaiser’s our application disposition would be used “for was used for land agriculture presently “Rancho we request: 3A statement from which quote part accompanied Aetna, 10,000 Ventura, located in the Las acres of land of Kaiser comprises project land, Kaiser Aetna is acquire Posas in Ventura Valley County. objective use, and sell it for a use.... the land to a specific higher upgrade 10,000 is nearing Ventura property for the entire acres Rancho “The Master Plan certain areas undertaken to better define Area and site has been planning completion. with the overall Master Plan. The Master core area has been Plan for the initial urban Posas to the north Las 1177 acres and is located It generally completed. comprises Road, master Avenue. It has been planned to Los northerly Angeles extending A with all urban services. urban as a self-contained the first development complete specifically majority will occur within this urban core area. Ventura management Rancho development anticipated phase of the new the formation LAFCO has reaffirmed its “Recently position supporting Posas____ of Las City of the Planned with the concept “The Rancho Ventura staff agrees principle *7 existence, but, we must zone request zone it is not in since Community presently However, our Master Plan. element circulation changes adoption changes, within the of the zone being completed of the Planned Community because next possibility area to the minimum Rancho has limited the' area request Ventura year, the entire development of ultimately having in anticipation Phase development zone.” under the Planned Community operating residential, uses,” commercial and recreational and that such develop- ment was ... in the near future.”4 “anticipated 14, 1972,
On June a resolution adopted approving 26, 1972, ordinance annexation. On Camarillo an July proposed adopted the Bell Ranch to the Pursuant to Government Code annexing city. section to the for ordinance was forwarded State Secretary It was filed not earlier than 1972. filing. August will in Additional facts be the discussion. developed Plaintiffs filed this action on 1972. It contains six causes of August mandate, one, second, action—five in relief. It declaratory prays for a writ of mandate to LAFCO to set aside its annexation compel and to Camarillo from the annexation prevent enacting ordinance. The various causes of action turn on the applicability to LAFCO annexation and the duties of LAFCO approvals, under Knox-Nisbet of influence within the develop spheres county annexation Defendants each filed both approve proposals. demurrers and answers. The answers indicate that the essential facts matters are not In substantive essence defendants bearing disputed. both, all of either or breach of deny duty allegations duty, answers, therefore, do not tender factual appropriate. really any issues; did not become court because trial they operative only sustained the demurrers without leave to amend. The is from the appeal udgment.5 ensuing j 4The Camarillo’s and answers to a contained Kaiser’s standard application question “[Q.] naire. Certain and answers were as follows: What is the significant questions use of the land? Land is in use and is also the site of two
present agricultural [A.] churches water of Camarillo City storage facility. “[Q.] How will the be used after annexation? Please be land specific. Proposed [A.] residential, uses. commercial and recreational it time, “[Q.] at this than is rather earlier at some Why being proposed time in the conferences with future? Planning completed preliminary city [A.] have sufficiently. agencies progressed included of the land under his “[Q.] Has only portion ownership?/^ proponent has included those to be If ‘Yes’ properties anticipated please explain. Proponent [A.] in the future. near developed (6 “[Q Will ] annexed or annexation result in urban area to be growth proposed will annexation? Urban growth in areas specific.] adjacent proposed [Please [A.] within the annexation.” take areas and only place designated 5While the was the Court of appeal pending Appeal] plaintiffs applied [that] [in 2, 1973, court for a Court of issued a stay writ On August Appeal] supersedeas. [the *8 Issues events, of the about the agree sequence parties generally Although order in of the In the about none virtually legal consequences. they agree issues, whether the annexation the (1) which we reach disagree they mandate, on the when turn be by depends challenged one the whether of three the annexation was (2) any legally complete; action; a action is the whether class (3) has standing bring plaintiffs annexations; whether (4) approval applies proper; that LAFCO the what constitutes (5) requirement compliance what factors must (6) influence” established plan; “spheres an annexation. before a LAFCO considered may approve I or all of the discuss issues which all We first several nearly pertain causes action. Mandate
Propriety of Camarillo on was The annexation ordinance July by adopted 24, 1972, was on and an alternative 1972. filed Plaintiffs’ August petition was The ordinance filed the writ of mandate was issued that by day. State 28 or 1972. Defendants contend that Secretary August not because the annexation was mandate is the remedy, proper to attack a warranto is “[Q]uo remedy completed “complete.” proper an lies to terminate mandamus incomplete proceeding, )6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure ed. (2d 1971) § (5 p. proceeding.” 3794. “Annexation Defendants’ contention without merit. proceedings of State of a certified not are before by Secretary filing complete order, use building permits conditional permits, issuance restraining annexed. territory grading permits of the complaint after the filing facts developments Certain undisputed respecting thereto filed from opposition appear petition supersedeas below Kaiser and Camarillo. These however, do, course, were, trial They court. facts before we shall refer to them from time discussed and illuminate certain issues to be time. Quo and mandamus is no mere quibble. 6The between warranto difference quo information, General, on “his own upon the Attorney warranto must be brought worth, Proc., 803.) as we what it is .” Civ. For (Code . . . of a private complaint party noted, curiae brief on behalf plaintiffs has filed an amicus have General Attorney that LAFCO’s proposed their of action alleging cause support CEQA. annexation violated
272 of the ordinance annexation after the of a copy approving lapse 30-day council of an ordinance to period subsequent adoption by city that effect. (Gov. 35316, 35317, Gov. 36937.) (See: §§ Fontana, 35318.)” v. (Guerrieri 232 417, 419 City Cal.App.2d [42 Whether 781].) other an annexation Cal.Rptr. be purposes at an earlier date is beside the Mandamus will complete lie to point. an annexation before it is final within challenge the definition of Government Code. v. 34 (Norlund 672, 676 Thorpe, Cal.App.3d [110 see Hazelton Cal.Rptr. 246]; City Diego, Cal.App.2d 131, v. San 183 135 723].) Cal.Rptr. [6 Standing
Plaintiffs’
Defendants contend that none of the
has
plaintiffs
standing
this action because each lacks the “beneficial interest”
bring
required
an action in mandamus. We
Plaintiff Boedecker is a
bring
disagree.
Ventura
1,800
and resident who lives about
feet from
County taxpayer
the annexed
he had a
real and substantial
interest in the
property;
very
Wells,
Scott
(Cf.
541,
v.
Indian
6 Cal.3d
challenged proceedings.
City of
745,
549
492 P.2d
Plaintiffs
1137].)
and the Ventura
Cal.Rptr.
[99
Bozung
Environmental Coalition have
that
will be harmed
County
alleged
they
the environmental
annexation;
effects of the
challenged
allega
tion is sufficient.
669,
States v. SCRAP
(United
412 U.S.
(1973)
683-685
L.Ed.2d
Moreover,
93 S.Ct.
268-269,,
2405].)
have
[37
plaintiffs
“to
enforcement of a
. . .”
v.
standing
procure
public duty,
(Kappadahl
Co.,
Alcan
222
643
354].)
Cal.App.2d
Cal.Rptr.
[35
Pacific
We do not
attributed
defendants
perceive
significance
whether
live within or without the Camarillo
plaintiffs
city boundaries.
Effects of environmental abuse are
lines;
not contained
strict
by political
rules of
in other contexts have no
standing
might
appropriate
where broad and
effects are involved.
application
United
(See
long-term
SCRAP,
States v.
Class Action (3) Plaintiff Boedecker the action on behalf of himself and brought “all other owners and situated.” Defendants property taxpayers similarly action; contend that this is not a class we proper agree. are v. action discussed The various class Vasquez purposes Court, 964, 53 484 P.2d A.L.R.3d 4 Cal.3d Cal.Rptr. [94
Superior *10 sellers who in fraudulent effect those indulge upon therapeutic 513]: “[A] of of the burden . . . avoidance to judicial process multiple practices Cal.3d of 808); at avoidance (4 identical claims” p. involving litigation of individual burdens on the and “manifold impracticability parties” None these 810). actions because of the amounts involved at of (id, p. “All others will is in this case. situated” served similarly purposes from efforts herein whether or not benefit Boedecker’s automatically are in the action.[] joined they
II in it core of case is reached in the fifth cause of action which The this in to the LAFCO annexation CEQA is claimed applies that defendant LAFCO violated its duty by failing question, an in conformance with Environmental (EIR) Report Impact prepare before on and annexa- CEQA holding hearings approving proposed tion. as if did not the annexation exist.
Admittedly proceeded The of this resolution issue involves of provisions integrating Code, Resources 21000 et those of CEQA (Pub. Knox-Nisbet § seq.) Code, 54773 et the formation and duties of § (Gov. seq.) governs Modesto, LAFCOs. Ceres v. 274 (See City City generally of of 545, 550-553 168].) Cal.App.2d Cal.Rptr. [79 in its two a LAFCO ways. Generally, objectives accomplishes do so until an amendment to Knox- First—though compelled of in influence Nisbet effective 1972—it develops sphere Code, 54774.) each local within the (Gov. § governmental agency county. that a LAFCO is include such factors consider clearly required
environment-oriented as future considerations “projected population and “existence of social and economic growth,” “type development,” . . . .” There is final about interaction interdependence nothing of local influence boundaries spheres plan. Only “probable” established; must must the LAFCO “periodi- governmental agencies Code, (Gov. . .” review and influence . . cally update spheres 54774.) §
However, as the is basis influence intended plan spheres LAFCO involvement Section provides county development. influence, that the after shall be used “spheres adoption, by [LAFCO] decisions on over which it factor has making regular proposals jurisdiction.”
The second function “to review significant performed by annexation to local approve disapprove” territory agencies. has established various factors (Gov. 54790.) § Legislature that LAFCO must consider (Gov. reviewing proposals. them, Some such as “population, population density,” areas, “effect . . . on . . . on mutual social “topography,” adjacent economic . . .” *11 considerations; interests involve environmental clearly none of them excludes such concerns.
We now turn to the issue whether a LAFCO CEQA in may ignore business, case, its about in this CEQA or whether going happened Knox-Nisbet must be harmonized in such a that the way objective acts, common to both environment, the of will prevention damage be furthered to the fairly permits, [7] greatest extent which the language, of both statutes is, course,
It of too late to for a of argue grudging, miserly reading CEQA. the 1972 As additions and CEQA amendments to prove, [] the intent in Friends Mammoth v. correctly gauged legislative [we] of 247, Board 8 Cal.3d 761, 259 502 P.2d Supervisors, [104 Cal.Rptr. of 1049], when concluded that the intended “to CEQA be Legislature [] [we] in such manner as to afford the interpreted possible protection fullest the environment within the reasonable of the scope statutory language.” (Italics added.) mind,
With this mandate in we first the material catalogue statutory with which we are concerned and then its apply particular provisions the facts this case. First,
CEQA consists three 1970 parts: original(cid:127) legislation. Code, 21000-21050, 21100-21106, 21 Pub. Resources 150- §§ (Generally 1970, 1433, 1, 21151 ch. 2780 et This is the version of § p. seq.].)[8] [Stats. Code. construed with reference to the whole different codes. be harmonized and 805 Cal.Rptr. . [8] . [7]In this effort we must [249 Unless otherwise P.2d 90].) 241].) (Modesto have effect.” This rule indicated, Irr. Dist. v. applies although guided by (Stafford all statutory system City v. Realty of law of which it is a principle the statutes to be harmonized references are to the Public Resources Modesto, Bond 210 Service “every Cal.App.2d Corp., part statute so that all may 39 Cal.2d 652, should be appear 656 797, [27
275 additions, Second, 1972 in Friends Mammoth. CEQA interpreted 21060- Resources §§ and amendments Pub. deletions (adding 1154, ch. 21090, 21108, to the 1970 CEQA. (Stats. 21152-21174) p. 21083 and section 2270 et the Guidelines authorized Finally, seq.)9 et tit. 15000 Admin. (Cal. 1973.10 issued February originally seq.)
All to this pertinent Kaiser—agree parties litigation—except and of the Guidelines the 1970 sections both legislation issue, the central to a determination are relevant proper LAFCO action Knox-Nisbet. Although applicability the 1972 act taken the summer of before under attack was our of that examination effective December became year, Mammoth, statutes, of Friends when read particularly light is convinces us that this near-unanimity justified. Kaiser, noted, lone which contends that As dissenter *12 For reasons of the amendments do not set 1972 portions apply. pertinent footnote, we forth in do not agree.11 mood of
We now turn to Needless to our say, specifics. and be in the of the state examination must findings spirit legislative of the 1970 Friends 9An excellent between summary relationship legislation, of Mammoth, Seneker, to The Friends and the 1972act will found in Legislative Response (1973) Mammoth 48 State Bar J. 127. (Cal. were amended in December 1973 Admin. No. Register 10The Guidelines 50.) We from the current version. quote added in which is Public section 11Kaiser’s Resources problem Act, section 17of which in 1 of the 1972 The definition section defines “project.” appears 1 of this act is intended and declares that Section reads as follows: “The finds Legislature Act and to of 1970 Quality thereby of the Environmental to clarify existing provisions Act of Quality and administration of the Environmental facilitate to uniform promote Section enacting the state. It is the intent of the Legislature therefore throughout (See 21060.) act declare and law.” existing I of this to to only clarify a statement that unmistakable Kaiser that “Courts cannot argues accept legislative of its in the are more than a restatement original statute clarification nothing changes True, to Kaiser merely points term.” the but there is no unmistakable or disguised. change, 21065 does not that the definition of contained in section embody fact “project” environment, that in a in the change must culminate physical concept demanded project Mammoth. This is The the 1970act as Friends by misleading. interpreted did define Friends Mammoth was an 1970 act not even to “project.” purport EIRs . which section 21151 for on . have “any project. calling interpretation significant retained . . .” of section 21151 was effect on the environment. That language precise at act which the section in other relevant the 1972 amended particulars this point. set forth in sections 21000 and 21001.12 In view of the policies precise us, issue before we must subdivision of section (f) particularly respect 21001, which at all levels to requires “governmental agencies develop standards and to environmental procedures necessary protect quality.”
The first then is whether LAFCO is a governmental to which CEQA addresses itself. conceivable doubt Any score is removed sections 21062 and 2106313 in the quoted margin. section on which rest their case and which plaintiffs defendants claim to be to LAFCO is section 21151 which inapplicable 12Section21000: “The finds (a) and declares as Legislature follows: The maintenance environment of this state now and quality future is a matter of people concern.-(b) statewide It is environment that necessary provide at all high-quality times is healthful and (c) senses and intellect of man. pleasing There is a need to understand the between the maintenance of relationship high-quality ecological systems state, and the welfare of the general their people of the and it is the including enjoyment state, (d) limited, natural resources of the intent of the of the environment is capacity that the Legislature of the state take government immediate to identify steps critical thresholds for the health and of the of the state and safety take all people reached, coordinated actions has a (e) such thresholds necessary prevent citizen being Every to contribute to the responsibility enhancement of the preservation environment, (f) The interrelationship in the policies practices management natural resources and waste and concerted efforts disposal requires systematic by public interests to enhance environmental private and to control environmental quality It is the intent pollution, which of the (g) all of the state Legislature agencies government individuals, activities of regulate private corporations, public agencies environment, are found to affect the of the quality shall such activities so that regulate consideration is major given environmental damage.” preventing Section 21001: “The further finds and Legislature declares that it is the of the policy (a) state future, to: and maintain a Develop environment now and high-quality in the rehabilitate, and take all action necessary protect, and enhance the environmental state, (b) Take all action quality of this state with necessary provide people *13 ' water, aesthetic, natural, scenic, clean air and of enjoyment and historic environmental noise, and qualities,. (c) freedom from excessive Prevent the elimination of fish or activities, wildlife due to man’s insure that fish species and wildlife do not populations levels, below and drop for future self-perpetuating preserve generations representations of all and animal communities and of the plant of examples California major periods (d) Ensure that the history, criterion in nature can exist in of the long-term environment shall be protection the guiding decisions, (e) Create and maintain public conditions under man and which to fulfill the social and productive harmony economic of requirements and (f) future present generations, at all levels to Require governmental agencies standards and to develop procedures environmental necessary protect quality, (g) at all levels to Require governmental agencies consider factors as well as qualitative costs, economic and technical factors and benefits and in long-term addition to benefits short-term and costs and to consider alternatives to actions proposed affecting the environment.” “ 13Section21062: ‘Local means agency’ other than a any public agency state agency, board, or commission. For of this division a purposes is a local redevelopment and not a state agency, board or commission.” agency, “ board, commission, Section 21063: ‘Public includes state agency’ any or agency, any district, and county, city county, city, regional or agency, public redevelopment agency, other subdivision.” political an EIR “on and local any “all certify agencies” prepare requires have a out or intend significant they cariy approve project environment.”14 effect on the need made that section
No sensible can be argument this case is under examination concern LAFCO if the activity Guidelines. as defined and the CEQA by “project” 21065, which reads in section is contained The definition “project” “ Activities means the (a) as follows: in relevant following: ‘Project’ part Activities undertaken ...(c) involving by any public agency directly certificate, lease, license, or other to a of a issuance permit, person for use one or more entitlement by public agencies.” 21066.)15 The definition of includes (§ “city.” “person” the LAFCO General contend that Plaintiffs and activity Attorney under is a both to the Bell Ranch annexation “project” relating and of section 21065.16 subdivisions (a) (c) 14That, course, (8 in Friends Mammoth. is the section very interpreted applied 259-266.) at pp. Cal.3d “ association, firm, 21066: ‘Person’ includes organization, 15Section any person, district, business, trust, and county, city, county, city corporation, company,
partnership, town, state, of such entities.” subdivisions and any agencies political the whole of an “(a) means further define Project 16The Guidelines “project”: environment, action, or ultimately, on the directly resulting physical impact undertaken (1) agency including An activity directly by any public activities, of the following: [H] or grading works construction and related clearing limited public but not structures, land, amendment enactment and zoning existing improvements public ordinances, (3) . elements . An and the local General Plans or adoption [H] thereof. license, certificate, lease, or other the issuance to a permit, activity involving person not include: (b) does Project [H]... entitlement for use one more public agencies. [1] they are (3) instances covered specific . making (except . . general policy procedure applied tit. (Cal. Admin. above), studies.. ..” feasibility planning added.) 15037.Italics than the definition of is somewhat narrower Legislature’s. The Guidelines’ “project” basis, so that it first CEQA broadly itself on a defining “project” proceeds step-by-step 21065.) (§ Then on the environment. covers activities no conceivable effect having definition to what the act open-ended declares projects applies, including (§ ordinances.” “the enactment and amendment zoning discretionary projects *14 with must do when projects directs what the addressed dealing Finally, “which Guidelines agencies 21100, 21150.) The (§§ on the environment.” have a effect may significant 14, 15037) statutory consolidate this (Cal. gradual Admin. tit. which will not excluding any project in the definition of very “project,” by narrowing environment, well as matters as on the or result in impact “directly ultimately” physical or studies.” such as “feasibility planning that this Bystating clarifies added in December 1973 (c), merely approach. Subdivision that which has impact focuses attention on it activity, “refers to” the underlying project overlook definitions might a reader of the Guidelines’ on the environment. Otherwise 278'
Defendants to the fact that studies” are “feasibility point planning excluded from the Guidelines’ definition of and contend that “project” LAFCO of a annexation is more like a approval specific proposal or than the enactment or amendment of a study feasibility planning or ordinance of a local zoning adoption general plan.
The fact is that if the aof is a as the adoption general plan project, Guidelines an annexation a LAFCO becomes an a provide, approval by fortiori case.17 While a “is its nature general plan by very merely tentative and Co. v. Buenaven (Selby Realty subject change” City of tura, 10 Cal.3d 514 P.2d a LAFCO 111]), Cal.Rptr. [109 of an annexation is an irrevocable as far as that approval step particular is concerned. public agency make the that such an
Defendants merely permissive point approval and does not to annex. would That observation compel city if it were that pertinent plaintiffs’ position every approval on the have a effect eveiy necessarily “may significant environment,” the condition which calls for the EIR an preparation under section 21151.18That is a with we issue which deal below. separate now the is whether such an is a only Right approval “project” within the of section 21065. meaning
We and the General that an agree plaintiffs Attorney an annexation to a is covered both subdivision (a) city by subdivision of section 21065. It is covered subdivision because (c) (a) by it is an undertaken It is obviously activity directly agency. public covered it subdivision because involves the issuance (c) “person” or the such as the enactment of a ordinance governmental zoning paper-shuffling if, words, are section’s own general plan they “directly adoption projects environment, that, result in on the are ultimately” physical impact conversely, they definition, within the Guidelines’ if the has no direct or projects underlying activity ultimate environmental impact. and choice Guidelines’ of words are not as clear approach they might perhaps mind, however, (c) We be. must other of subdivision keep interpretation CEQA, would make a shambles of the balance of section Guidelines—including (see 15037 itself—and Friends Mammoth fn. itself no involved infra) “underlying activity.” ordinances, 17For the between see section 65860 relationship general plans zoning Code. Government 18At this it is to note a of section legislative change wording point appropriate it 21151 made in 1972 which has less than because actually significance appear, codifies the Friends Mammoth section as enacted merely interpretation 1970. The of the section referred to local having pertinent originally agencies part out . . . .” act added the EIRs “on intend The 1972 they carry prepare any project ” (Italics added.) words “or approve.
279 for defined in section is to a of an entitlement use. that say, city, That, in not not use the entitlement theory, city eventually may turn does not a into a annexing, retroactively project nonproject.19 is We therefore hold that a of a annexation city approval a of section (a) within the subdivisions of (c) project meaning 21065.20
The next whether LAFCO was to question required prepare an EIR because “which have a its was one certify may “project” effect on the environment.” (§21151.) significant
The notion that the itself must have such an effect was project directly scotched in Friends Mammoth. of The a condition- effectively granting of al use of affect the environ- permit—a piece paper—does directly ment more than an annexation of approval—another piece paper. “ Mammoth, course, Friends of said that the word ‘project’ appears of environment, activities to the emphasize physical culminating changes (Id. . . .” 265. at Italics In added.) p. response concept, environment, Guidelines refer to on the “physical impact directly Admin. tit. (Cal. 15037. Italics The added.) ultimately.” forth, detail, Guidelines then to set what considerations proceed great are relevant to a effect.” The sections are set finding “significant key forth in the The Guidelines even for a margin.21 “negative provide declaration” for “which could a have projects potentially significant environment,” finds, effect on the which but on an public agency involve, believed, 19Friends Mammoth did not as is a or grading popularly building which permit entitled owner of the land in to start dirt. decision moving concerned itself with use merely an a conditional addressed to the application permit Mono Cal.3d (8 Commission. effect of that action County Planning body’s was zone land for the merely structures multi-story improvement—two containing annexation, 184 a Just as its mind about living units—contemplated. city may an change so a owner may never property through go project. a'contemplated 20Sincewe with the declaration that agree legislative section clarifies the merely Mammoth, of the 1970 act as provisions in Friends and hold that the interpreted and, is a (a) (c), within the project of subdivisions meaning 24, 1972, effective, since this was filed on proceeding before the 1972 act became August and states a CEQA, cause action for a violation we need not discuss rather 21170, which, event, complex “grandfather" provisions sections in any only (c). defined in apply subdivision projects 21“(a) The determination a on the of whether have effect project may significant involved, environment careful on the based calls for judgment part agency public extent scientific and factual data. An iron clad definition of significant possible effect is not because the of an with the For may possible significance activity vary setting. an not be in an urban area be significant example, activity may may significant a rural area. There be a effect should difference on whether opinion particular beneficial, be, is, be considered adverse or but where there a substantial anticipated adverse, consider the considers or will effect to the lead body opinion *16 to no such effect. Even such a declaration initial have negative study, to before in to the an must be filed time respond give public opportunity to it relates is the which approved.22 project of an Initial statement of reasons to the should have projects Negative finding provide while which prepared. upon made available to the plant project or effect provisions of Determination with a project, should short-term, on the environment is one which occurs project, on the environment and making environment: environment consequences goals indirectly.” may may Determination quences evaluating consider both primary they wildlife water Has a a rare or to solid waste people Causes substantial interference with possibility water; 22“(a) “In more initial study have a result from a occur, that have been the may long-term every substantial are individually significant quality, normally [f] or that the prepare the determination a decision species; [H] an will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, where A the separate are related more the resource Declaration must include a brief structures to This mandatory finding endangered species (8) Could cause substantial flooding, of Negative the opportunity facilitate to (Cal. significant include a case where project total CEQA.” or contaminating Study are or the [if] significance the shall include the decision of or on ambient noise levels for not exceed one project curtail impacts litter the Admin. an EIR to and where a effect on resources where immediately and demonstrable (a) disadvantage base, of those impact (5) Declaration shall be will not have a population shall be found to have adopted population carry Impacts (Cal. control; change major geologic effect Breaches limited, public including support the will or direct and will a statement that no EIR to copy of out members Admin. impacts range on a primary not have each is insignificant. the explore endure environment, the which public that: of animal related [H] copy with sufficient but tit. the environment in connection page any published growth). the the findings, growth environmental approve land, air, (6) following the long-term, of the environment. cumulatively [H] community negative on the of it significance of the public the movement of Results in a substantial detrimental water have the consequences well hazards.” significant impact to the § the (1) Negative length. whether secondary prepared significant or [1] tit. into environmental Is water environment supply but a conditions are found to exist as a result of a project plant, a relatively (c) description aesthetic 14, 15083.) on each resource is and a statement environmental goals. in conflict with environmental project, particular impacts national, state, or time be obtained. [U] potential erosion or the future. (Cal. Admin. which the lead where the effect Some does not considerable. effect on the environment. adjoining agency Declaration attached. [H] (c) for a system adversely affecting or than to the or (the has effect on the before project respond (d) energy the lead agency of habitat effect; examples any indirect project construction of a new treatment been prepared pursuant brief, [1] The environmental effects of a area), a to apply Negative project siltation; or project, effects involved. [K] resident or significant, will have a significant areas; degrade (b) approve a use of the area in Code, [1] of such a (c) indicating definitive with A significant agency project while to two or more consequences. project project Impacts (3) local of project relatively is Negative Impacts environment, the lead A short-term [1] consequences finding. tit. Declaration [if] to be most Substantially the either standards shall file a Notice secondary could finds (9) migratory 14, 15081.) (7) Involves the itself an EIR must be is approved disapprove The Notice of period species; may which effect projects located; quality who effect on the Could § for a proposed, small. agency [H] Declaration directly potentially (an [1] plans affect [1] prepared the basis (d) on air separate Primary shall be relating achieve of time ground project impact impact expose (b) conse- of the affects fish [H] where which (b) A [1] effect If After brief shall two the (2) (4) In or or or a *17 the letter and the of sections 21000 and 21001 Applying spirit of the criteria set forth in Guidelines to the case the particular hand, at think it clear doubt that the LAFCO beyond [we [] is] [and] the 677 of annexation of acres involved this a in case have approval may foremost, effect on the First environment. we out significant point that we are not with an abstract this case does dealing Again, problem. not involve—as the tone of some of defendants’ arguments suggest—the whether LAFCO annexation to question any approval any any city a have effect on the environment. This is not the case may significant rancher who feels that his cattle would chew their cuds more contentedly in an No one makes bones about the fact that incorporated pasture. the for the Bell Ranch annexation is to Kaiser’s desire subdivide impetus 677 land, acres of a destined to agricultural project apparently go nowhere in the near future as as the ranch remains under long county The and Kaiser’s to LAFCO that shows jurisdiction. city’s application this land is to “residential, be used for commercial agricultural proposed and recreational” was con purposes. Planning preliminary completed, ferences with had city agencies progressed “sufficiently” develop ment in the near future was In answer to the anticipated.
whether the annexation would result in urban the proposed city growth, answered: “Urban will take in areas and growth designated only place within the annexation.”23
It therefore seems idle to that here argue project particular involved not culminate in to the environment.24 physical change overlooked,
Since the is we it is obvious so think frequently appro- it: We stated at the outset that LAFCO priate emphasize proceeded entirely 23It would be that infer there underhanded wrong illegal anything this and Camarillo. pre-annexation between Kaiser Government Code cooperation section 65859 for territory specifically provides prezoning unincorporated “for the that will to such adjoining city zoning purpose determining apply in the event of . . . .” do we Nor mean that property subsequent imply Camarillo has somehow its with to such bargained away decisions responsibilities respect as must be made before Kaiser’s can become plans reality. 24To illustrate: Kaiser’s and for Camarillo’s opposition plaintiff’s petition superse deas showed that on December Kaiser requested city change zoning of 28.16 of the 677 acres. The will result in a about 144 planned development density units those 28.16 acres of An was dwelling just land. EIR which before agricultural in the summer 1973 total city indicated that the ultimate “Bell population units. 3,700 8,000, Ranch was to about Village” living about dwelling acres were 28.16 alone to contribute an estimated of vehicle emissions 991 pounds total emissions for were 31.79 tons day. daily Camarillo then estimated at per Ventura, entire tons. tells us the total daily 590 arithmetic County Simple 22,000 emissions from the 677 acres Bell Ranch would be nearly pounds tons. of our discussion is that LAFCO if exist. The entire thrust CEQA did not This does CEQA. that Knox-Nisbet dovetails must recognize EIR, must of an consideration mean after adequate such would be its of the annexation. conclusion withhold Any We issues in this outside of tendered litigation. wildly scope LAFCO was before enforce the mandate that merely acting, legislative bound to address itself to environmental considerations accordance *18 in CEQA. with the set forth procedures Camarillo,
Kaisep LAFCO and of Thousand Oaks City present CEQA several the clear mandate of somehow does arguments why here. apply contention, effect, at
The basic in is that an EIR the a LAFCO stage wasteful, this since—at least in is premature approval EIR can will be before Camarillo case—a further actually required to the rezone the Bell Ranch. defendants Again point exemption CEQA contained in only feasibility relating “involving projects . . . .” We have 21102.) for future actions (§ studies planning possible when definition dealt with that considering already argument not a is a an annexation Obviously reality, “possible “project.” future action.” be would EIR for that the an
It is claimed preparation another since will have wasteful and Camarillo prepare premature sake of EIR in order to rezone the annexed property. Conceding so, which it the entire thrust that this is misses argument only environmental “at all levels” consider governmental agencies requires it that the information factors. is desirable concerning Obviously precise furnished and which an EIR affords be environmental consequences this Guidelines the earliest considered at stage. possible express Thus, in should be as “EIR’s early variety ways. prepared principle considera- as to enable environmental planning process possible 14, Code, tit. Admin. tions to influence (Cal. design.” project, program § “lead
In the criteria to determine listing identity agency”—a more we Guidelines that if which return below—the concept provide criteria, to act than one meets “the is agency public agency on the shall be the lead first (following project as be should assessed environmental early impact principle 15065, tit. Admin. (Cal. § possible governmental planning.” subd. Italics (c). added.)
A Guidelines vital of the Admin. tit. (Cal. provision EIR 15142)25 stresses that an must the environment from both describe a local “and regional” perspective regional knowledge is critical to the assessment of environmental It directs setting impacts. on environmental resources special emphasis peculiar region directs, reference to existent and in the so that projects, planned, region the cumulative of all in the can be assessed. impact projects region While, course, á is not city necessarily incompetent prepare with, evaluate EIR an section a LAFCO complying, obviously must be to be better on both scores. presumed qualified
More to the is this critical consideration: The point, though, purpose CEQA not to but to at all levels generate paper, compel government decisions, to make with environmental in mind. CEQA consequences not, cannot, does indeed that these will decisions guarantee always those which favor least, environmental considerations. At the very *19 however, the a have that those who must decide People right .expect will their task with no interest at Of stake. approach neutrally, parochial course, we do not the motives and of the officials of the impugn integrity involved in the particular city present dispute. Speaking generally, therefore, it seems clear that the officials a which has municipality, with a to the extent that it an annexation cooperated developer requests of that for the it from developer’s property express purpose converting subdivision, land into an difficult, urban find it agricultural if not may environmental considerations impossible, above the put regional narrow selfish interests of their city.26
One final consideration which militates defer- overwhelming against and consideration of an EIR until the ring preparation proposed reaches the level is the mandate of CEQA development city environmental considerations do not become a submerged chopping 25“An EIR must include a of the environment in the of the description vicinity project, as it exists before commencement of the from both a local and project, regional perspective. Knowledge is critical to the assessment of regional setting environmental should impacts. be on environmental resources Special emphasis placed that are rare or to that reference unique to related both region. Specific projects, public included, both existent and in the private, should also be planned, region purposes examining possible impact projects.” (Cal. cumulative of such Admin. Code, 14, 15142.) tit. § 26The obvious interest of officials in matters city within a LAFCO’s is jurisdiction recognized “[Wjhen Knox-Nisbet: the commission is for the considering proposal annexation of officer, to a of which one of the territory city members of the commission is an (cid:127) the member is from in the disqualified participating proceedings commission with and the alternate shall respect proposal member serve and vote Code, in his for such (Gov. 54784.) place § purpose.”
284 minimal with a little ones—each into potential many large project disastrous have on the environment—which may cumulatively impact 15069 of the in section This expressed principle consequences. in the annexation that Kaiser included statement Guidelines.27 city’s in the near future” to be “those developed properties anticipated only a further Kaiser intends indicates that at some part, develop point all of its holdings.28 a LAFCO that Knox-Nisbet out
Defendants provides point which would annexation, conditions an any “impose approving Code, (Gov. use or subdivision land requirements.” directly regulate see the relevance. We fail to (a)(3).) subd. provision § the local are made final decisions insures that zoning merely to detract from does It power concerned. nothing certainly agencies it violates the if it finds that an annexation LAFCO to disapprove § must consider. (Gov. which a LAFCO detailed criteria to an assertion conclusion, amounts to its Carried argument logical which it has the annexation that if a territory prezoned city requests for to do the annexation LAFCO must 65859) (Gov. approve event, even use.29 In would land otherwise complete regulate of a local actions contemplated disapprove approve impotence EIR the consideration an does not make by regional agency Fund, Inc. v. Environmental That was decided in an idle act. Defense Dist., Water Coastside Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.3d [104 197]. County *20 whether the court was before the a threshold There appellate is, are, to be undertaken and where or a individual phased project 27“Where projects effect, the lead with environmental a significant the total undertaking comprises project is ultimate Where an individual project EIR for the project. must a single agency prepare or commits the lead a on a agency for action larger project, a necessary precedent effect, EIR must address itself to the environmental an with significant larger project, scope public agency, of a is one of several similar Where one projects of the project larger project. the or a ,undertaking larger is not deemed a larger project, but part each but should in either for all or one for project, one EIR projects, may agency prepare 14, 15069.) (Cal. Admin. tit. the combined effect.” comment case upon record in this case is an of the need for regional excellent illustration 28The total before it of a development consideration at the .earliest stage planned environmental 1970, for the ultimate The Kaiser momentum. As indicated planned irreversible gains development 3, Bell 10,000 Ranch (See fn. supra.) acres in Ventura County. 1 of that total. The zoning application presently /15th annexation involves roughly 1 or about 1/360th! of that /15th covers about /24th only before Camarillo pending Code section to Government added the following language 29In 1972 the Legislature subsection, however, construed as 54790, this shall be (a)(3): subdivision “Nothing annexation, that a city condition to from as a a commission requiring, prohibiting prezone annexed; how shall not that the commission specify the be territory provided 1410.)It (Stats. ch. § p. shall be territory prezoned.” or in what manner how shall be territory that LAFCO’s lack power specify ludicrous to argue would be territory. an annexation of prezoned a lack disapprove implies power prezoned should EIR have of the administra challenged by plaintiffs adequacy mandamus tive directed to commission. The county planning asserted that an the water district was the against plaintiffs injunction had no because the commission remedy, planning authority proper veto the at The court 702-703.) (Id. project. agreed plaintiff’s pp. the defendant’s basic contention the court’s rejected position, would decision make the district’s of an with the EIR filing planning an do not commission idle act: “We this conclusion. . . . accept [T]he criticism and adverse comment agency by by planning may persuade of a itself, directors district to revise an EIR. Revision project abandonment, follow, not even use of may by any authority act, is not commission which but reason of planning given by by reconsideration. thoughtful the EIR
“But has another function: the of the executive and informing local, branches of state and and of the legislative government, general of the effect that revered resource which we call public project ” Environment.’ ‘The (27 704-705.) Cal.App.3d at pp. defendants much of make the “lead
Finally, agency” concept “When a CEQA. is to carried out or two or more project approved the determination of whether the have a public agencies, project may effect on the environment shall be made the lead significant agency and such . . shall . the environmental for agency prepare impact report . . .” The lead (§ 21165.) is “the which project, agency public agency has the out or principal responsibility carrying approving project have a effect environment.” (§ 21067.) significant upon course, assume,
Defendants that if the lead agency concept applies, Camarillo, rather than LAFCO. are There several answers to this contention.
First, the that the assumes annexation the argument approval, zoning which is if in the the annexation is and the change offing approved, actual of the Bell all one Ranch are We physical development project. have however shown that the LAFCO of the consideration proposed is a all itself. project by
Second, noted, as the Guidelines that a method of already provide the lead tois determine which is “to act first determining agency agency 15065, It tit. subd. (c).)30 . .” Admin. § on the . (Cal. project. Camarillo that, between LAFCO and if a choice doubtful seems highly made, as the lead Camarillo would to be agency. has emerge the it clear that section 21165 makes disputes concerning Finally, one are not to be resolved of the lead by agency looking agency identity rather are to be and the other itself: the other they way designating which “shall Office of and Research submitted to the designate Planning which the EIR. (§21165.) the lead shall prepare agency” of EIRs to the contention that the One last answer by preparation as this because the local LAFCOs would be wasteful in a case such EIR another before concerned would have prepare proceed- agency the local in an is that there is agency, ing, nothing prevents LAFCO, case, from the EIR suitably by using prepared appropriate Guide- as the basis for its decision-making process. supplemented, Admin. lines for such an (Cal. provide energy-saving procedure. tit. 15067.)31 § under fifth cause of action: our
To sum holding plaintiffs’ up of the disclosed the record the the circumstances by be single proposes nongovernmental person, responsibility is to generally service or will, project service required meet which impact provisions added.) equal 30“where two the be upon request, provide the criteria set or limited Lead Agency claim to be should be assessed carried out in be the agency to carry public of subsections regard for supervising will be project or more utility purpose shall by public to such activities. out the the lead shall be forth a to the agency drafting to the the lead with public agencies in which is involved the lead (a), (b), the lead data early project. determined paragraph agency, general governmental project; agency, concerning approving agency.” as agency agency possible [1] [H] in the lead agency (b) (c) by such (b) are involved (c) Where more than one public agency equally public (following (Cal. shall be above, the all leave If the cases, aspects governmentalplanning). project following principles: reason Admin. agencies may two or more powers EIR, the single project with agency of its activities as a whole. shall be the of the need to public principle Code, tit. a rather than an agency is to be carried out project, which is to act or limited no agency public agencies by agreement designate that the environmental separate The lead public [H] which required with [II] provide (a) If the project purpose agency (d) Where the agency 15065. Italics EIR will be agency the agency first to furnish greatest with an with a public on the which shall will previous proposed involvement Admin. circumstances under which (a) 31“Where an EIR has been prepared, Substantial changes EIR, Code, EIR location due to the involvement of new environmental tit. on the 14, 15067.) § project; are project, proposed [H] which will project (b) There are of new environmental impacts impacts no additional is to be project require not covered substantial undertaken, major EIR need be will revisions in changes in a require major such as a change previous not considered prepared the in the the EIR due to the respect EIR.” revisions unless: *22 (Cal. in a [1] the clear it invalid because Bell Ranch annexation was disregarded should have been action. The demurrer on the LAFCO impact issue, triable no serious on file tendered overruled. Since the answers concerned.32 that cause of action is writ should issue as far as Ill can be causes action Discussion of the balance plaintiffs’ brief. mercifully
A. of action In their third cause allege plaintiffs annexation, consider its violated the Bell Ranch duty approving Code, 54796 of the Government factors listed in section certain of the of services on the cost and of the annexation such as the effect adequacy areas, on “mutual its effect in the annexed and and controls adjacent interests,” or its with social and economic county conformity city general plans. effect, on
In this of action the annexation cause challenges such, the CEQA. that LAFCO need As hypothesis comply cause of action seems intended as an alternative to the fifth cause action, CEQA, to be abandoned we sustain should plaintiffs’ position as we do.33 We therefore deal with it rather summarily. brief, sufficient to survive a demurrer.
In we think it states facts and, so, evidence, it if what is not Whether can ever plaintiffs prove our concern at this time.
B. aside the causes of action seek set Plaintiffs’ first and second it was based on an annexation on the inadequate illegally ground outset, that, us as we said at the they of the answers on file convinces 32Our analysis with our that these denials are inconsistent conclusions. To the extent only deny legal law, to the issues. This observation generally views on the raise no triable they applies and more allegations legal contained in plaintiifs’ standing, pleaded, particularly action, addition, however, hi the answers deny very fifth cause documents of which existence as and Boedecker. Official taxpayers plaintiffs Bozung us, however, (See we that these factual denials are in error. take notice convince judicial Hallman, 638, 641, 891].) v. fn. 1 Cal.Rptr. People Cal.App.3d [110 would not cover most matter it is inconceivable that an EIR 33As a practical adequate (See Code. set forth in section 54796 of the Government of the relevant considerations 21100, Guidelines, 15140 et § Cal. Admin. tit. CEQA, Pub. Resources seq.) *23 of influence Knox-Nisbet defines influence” as spheres plan. “sphere “a for the ultimate boundaries and service area of plan probable physical a local (Gov. 54774.) § governmental agency.” Plaintiffs of the fact that LAFCO’s for Ventura complain plan County “includes acre of Ventura in the of influence of a every County sphere presently prospective city.” existing has no merit. There is in Knox point nothing simply which
Nisbet wall-to-wall cities if positively enjoins county inis accordance with the built into Knox-Nisbet development safeguards CEQA. leads to such a What the does seek result. legislation is that at accomplish every along way public agencies step whom it is addressed the enumerated considerations in mind. keep LAFCO we cannot that the mere fact that a has carved Certainly say up its entire into of influence” indicates that it is blind jurisdiction “spheres to its fact that no lies very territory responsibilities. unincorporated outside a of influence may orderly growth designated sphere promote of cities territory by discouraging attempts gobble up unincorporated to be in a claim to such land. better lay just position
C. Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action is moot in of our view probably event, with of an EIR. In it holding respect requirement attacks the Bell Ranch annexation without reference to CEQA, “urban and the annexation Knox-Nisbet ground prohibits sprawl” “constitutes urban as a matter of law.” sprawl misunderstand the thrust of Knox-Nisbet. One of the
Again plaintiffs of a LAFCO is “the of urban (Gov. purposes discouragement sprawl.” However, LAFCO to Knox-Nisbet orders nothing it at all costs. LAFCO is an prohibit discretionary large decision, The mere fact that a legally powers. particular at, does not arrived or results in further urban give permits sprawl, has courts the to assume the Legislature right obligations 40 Cal.2d entrusted to LAFCO. v. Cal Toll (Faulkner Authority, Bridge 317, 326 P.2d 659].) [253
D. Plaintiffs’ sixth cause of action for a writ of mandate directed prays Camarillo, it from an ordinance against purporting enjoining enacting *24 mooted action, too, has become cause of by Bell Ranch. That annex the and this events opinion.
IV
Disposition on the our is influenced
Our uncertainty disposition In third cause action. to their any whether intend press plaintiffs action, to court is directed event, on the fifth cause superior decided, and, remains to be since no factual issue overrule the demurrers If third with this to issue its writ of mandate conformity opinion. the writ will have to cause of action is judgment granting pressed, the answer to that cause issues tendered await the trial on the factual of action. judgment reversed.]
[] [The
Richardson, J., did not therein. participate of the Judicial
Molinari, J., the Chairman under assignment by sitting Council, therein. participated
CLARK, J. dissent. I Code, Act Resources (Pub. California Environmental Quality should be read CEQA) 21000 et (hereinafter require preparation
§ seq.) for an (hereinafter EIR) an environmental only agency’s report impact In to limit or authorize use land. determination considering LAFCO) formation commission (hereinafter a local agency applications, determines of several which govern- questions political power—i.e., Act an area. The Knox-Nisbet mental shall creating agencies regulate authorize, Code, 54773 et does not it LAFCO (Gov. give power seq.) condition or or use land. Accordingly, development prohibit environmental before should not be impact reports required prepare should be whether an annexation determining permitted.
Application Act Quality of the California Environmental to be or cause “shall agencies prepare, requires public ... an environmental they report project impact prepared effect on have a out significant propose carry approve environment.” Resources In (Pub. §§ defined in Public Resources section Legislature “project” subdivision (a) include undertaken directly by any “[activities public and in subdivision to include (c) agency,” involving “[activities lease, license, certificate, to a issuance or other person permit, entitlement for use one or more *25 by agencies.” public
The of subdivision is so broad as cover (a) language any The mere of is an governmental activity. governmental hiring employees undertaken and thus would ostensi- activity directly by public agency come within the terms. literal the of subdivision bly Similarly, language is so (c) broad as to some form encompass any private activity requiring authorization, of the of governmental including, example, licensing physicians. did not intend CEQA to such
Obviously, Legislature apply decisions, and construction this would requiring application definition, absurd. Given the breadth of the no furnishes majority in two that the annexation by insight asserting paragraphs comes within Our function us statutory language. judicial requires be more read the act in of its other searching—to light purposes, and this court’s decision in Friends Mammoth v. Board provisions, of of 8 247 Cal.3d 502 P.2d (1972) Supervisors Cal.Rptr. [104 1049]. the act in this the EIR demands conclusion light Reading activities, to land and use and land requirement applies only development use in authorization or limitation use. land regulation resulting of
The
in first
CEQA
Legislature,
enacting
provided only
basic skeletal structure of its
In Friends Mammoth
present provisions.
of
v. Board
8 Gal.3d
was whether
Supervisors, supra,
of
as well
CEQA
activities.
out that
private
applied
public
Pointing
enacted,
CEQA, as
did not define
this court
originally
“project,”
determined
the basis of the act’s
only
purposes
applies
construction,
to instances in which the
itself
“government
engages
or other
but also
instances in
those
acquisition
developments
[to]
the state
Mammoth v. Board
regulates
(Friends
private activity.”
of
of
guidelines (42 implementing Policy “actions”; one of to federal federal act 4321 et U.S.C. applies seq.) “actions” as then defined included “projects subcategories those included definition The federal activities.” “project” continuing federal and those federal undertaken” involving agencies “directly for use.” license, (Friends or other entitlement “lease, certificate permit, 261-262.) at 8 Cal.3d Board pp. Mammoth v. supra, Supervisors, an environmental that “before impact report it was concluded Thus with the minimal link must have some becomes required government or interest direct regulating either by permitting, proprietary activity, Board v. Mammoth Supervisors, activity.” funding private {Friends discussion 262-263; The entire italics added.) at Cal.3d pp. supra, the context of is within at 259-267) determining law Cal.3d (8 federal pp. ” “ works’ is limited to the act governmental whether ‘public extends to “construction, or other private development” acquisition, *26 to that the act There is no of that nature. works applies suggestion land use authorization matters other than regulation. the Mammoth decision the Friends When in to Legislature response it the
in 1972 broadly defining “project,” urgency legislation adopted law” (Stats. to declare and to intent declared its clarify existing “only words of the the 1972, 1154, almost verbatim ch. 17) § adopted Mammoth. on in Friends relied federal guidelines to the rule of a has declared its intent
When the Legislature adopt of an decision, is framed in the or when language judicial legislation construed, there is a enactment which has been earlier strong judicially Baldwin v. the construction. (See of intent to judicial adopt presumption 145, 424, 491 433-434 6 Cal.3d State (1972) Cal.Rptr. [99 of California Railroad Transit v. Brotherhood Los Met. 1121]; P.2d Authority Angeles 1, 355 P.2d 905].) 688-689 Trainmen Cal.2d (1960) Cal.Rptr. [8 in Thus, the in the instant case it must be defining Legislature presumed term in Friends construction intended to the given adopt “project” Mammoth, i.e., when a CEQA directly only public applies construction, or when it or in regulates development engages acquisition, construction, or development. private acquisition, to the
The intent of given application Legislature incorporate section Code shown Public Resources Mammoth is further Friends section, This of CEQA. merely subdivision (a), scope defining authorized CEQA our government applies codifying holding construction, states that “discretionary projects applies private out or to be carried including, agencies, approved public proposed ordinances, to, and amendment not limited the enactment but zoning variances, the issuance of the issuance of conditional use zoning permits and the of tentative subdivision The enumerated maps.” all involve examples governmental regulation authorizing limiting use of land.
The function and an EIR elements of also demonstrate the emphasis on land use EIR and land The “intended development regulation. enable evaluate to determine whether it public agencies project environment, have a effect on the to examine and institute significant methods of adverse and to consider alternatives reducing impacts, Admin. tit. Public (Cal. project proposed.” Resources section 21100 sets forth factors EIR must consider, effects, adverse environmental measures including mitigation alternatives action.” those factors are “proposed Clearly in the context land use. only meaningful particular contemplated consideration measures and alterna- requirement mitigation tives to condition or alter implies power development plans accordance with environmental such goals; public agencies possess when construction power only they directly engage perform function of directly regulating private development. furnishes no substantial reason to majority reject legislative
declaration that the 1972 is declarative of legislation merely existing law—the Friends Mammoth as to opinion describing project referring of construction, or acquisition, development. rather,
The fails to the limits of it define CEQA; majority implies CEQA is to the of decision within definition applicable coming environment. affect the This is may “project” ultimately regretable because is as to to defined so broadly any governmental “project” apply determination, and there is an infinite of decisions constituting variety A in the ultimate or use of land. eventually, steps resulting development decision to hire additional affect government employees ultimately the use of will a to work. land because the need employees place a issue securities a land development Granting permit corporation to fund a or to a to fund nuclear subdivision utility power plant public the of construction affect environment. licens- may ultimately Adoption standards and issuance of licenses result driver’s ing may ultimately of land because more to handle development highways may necessary increased traffic. decisions,
Rather than EIRs for such and the prepare hiring licensing of should be for decisions use land to build report prepared authorizing
293 subdivisions, and the nuclear office plants highways; buildings, power should lie the authoriz- for such with agencies preparation responsibility activities, whose decisions or such agencies might limiting ing nor have use of who neither affect land but responsibility power I do not land use. believe to authorize limit development Commis- intended Corporations hiring agencies, Legislature EIRs Vehicles should and the Motor sioner prepare Department under issues before but hold on environmental today’s hearings acting; 13 Oil, Los Cal.3d decision and v. 85 No Inc. Angeles, [118 City of “ P.2d action 66], requiring report Cal.Rptr. ‘argua- ” it that such environmental an adverse impact, appears having bly’ will be required.1 report reach of failure face the important majority’s is illustrated opinion. dramatically reasoning is a states that “if the adoption general project,
majority plan annexation a LAFCO becomes an Guidelines an provide, This fortiori (Ante, case.” leap completely ignores p. logic functions and general differing powers plans ordinances Enactment and amendment annexation zoning approvals. use essence land are plans very adoption general control the to which land will be These uses actions directly regulation. LAFCO, as will be shown In passing proposals, put. upon hereinafter, land use. regulate powerless Act
The Knox-Nesbit Act was The Knox-Nesbit et (Gov. seq.) designed of services from indiscriminate curb the wasteful resulting duplication from districts and formation special haphazard municipalities *28 to Ceres v. annexation local (City City territory agencies. existing However, the are some 1I in guidelines confusing respects. agree majority of the is due to the failure to the activities recognize most confusion majority’s use (a) in and of section must be read as land (c) referred to subdivisions 21065 the subdivisions are land determinations. we that activities used in When recognize determinations, in convoluted and distinctions found use reasoning complex 14 majority unnecessary. provision 16 and The in opinion footnotes of the become 19 “ Code, (c), that refers to California subdivision Administrative section ‘project’ becomes evident. and not underlying approval process” activity governmental authorized, what is The reference to is to clear that we must look to make “underlying” which will not whether there is a in the merely process step governmental approval makes clear result in a environment. ultimately that affecting guideline development of the of an EIR is the determination requiring approval preparation to issuance of shares construction the nuclear not the of the power plant, approval it. fund 294
Modesto (1969) 168].)2 Cal.App.2d Cal.Rptr. [79 and of a LAFCO is and purpose responsibility “planning shaping and and coordination of local logical orderly development governmental future, so as to for the and agencies advantageously provide present needs and its . .” communities . . 54774.) (Gov. county § Stated LAFCO constitutes “a review differently, single entity weigh services, alternative methods local and work out providing for the of an structure entire strategies comprehensive governmental area.” (LeGates, Commissions, Cal. Local Formation Agency supra, 21.) P-
The function of LAFCO is to determine which local should agency exercise over a area consistent with jurisdiction particular orderly growth and to extend needed services. While LAFCO capacity consider traditional environmental factors such as land area population density, use, and these not are evaluated with an toward the topography, eye environmental but physical impact proposed development merely toward which local should the area in assessing entity govern light local service and “local existing possible capabilities conditions circumstances.” (Gov. LAFCO’s lack to control land boundaries is power development beyond fixing political from evident Government Code section subdivision (a)(3), LAFCO in annexation from prohibiting proceedings imposing “any conditions which would land use or subdivision directly regulate Moreover, LAFCO not in a land requirements.” position regulate in use a annexa- development approving disapproving proposed tion. Annexation is either at a time when ultimate use frequently sought land has been not determined or at a time when the character of has area become fixed Even where by development. changes formulated, land use are have been existing contemplated plans use, LAFCO has no land’s ultimate after say plans may change and there is no for further consideration LAFCO. provision The Two Statutes land Because use determinations and because only applies LAFCO, in does land use considering proposals, regulate 2The Knox-Nesbit Act was a to three undesirable conditions primarily response local (1) California to its enactment. These were: prevailing government prior annexations, desire within the often motivated shortsighted municipal city bring *29 base area and tax and in odd irrational high tions; resulting boundary municipal configura areas; of (2) (3) districts to service and proliferation special unincorporated (See interests or initiated. municipal incorporations benefiting “defensively” special LeGates, 2-8; Note, Cal. (1972) Local Formation Commissions LAFCO: Is Agency pp. 913, It (1972) 914-921.) In Control Districts? L.J. Special Hastings determinations, make use it shall land but determines which only agency are not LAFCO annexation decisions must be concluded that subject constitute a within the does not CEQA. Annexation “project” approval Code, or section subdivision (a) of Public Resources meaning undertaken” It is not an subdivision (c). “directly public activity or not construction for LAFCO does directly engage agency, an is annexation Neither approval activity involving development. for use LAFCO of an entitlement because issuance aby public land use. not cannot does and regulate private consider that LAFCO annexation is fortified when we conclusion will no assurance that furnishes contemplated development
approval that the LAFCO does assure Similarly, disapproval accomplished. In view the will not be reality accomplished. development proposed area has been subdivided and that much of California’s urban developed under areas regulation county planning unincorporated is reason to boards of there no commissions county supervisors, than believe annexation disapproval—tends approval—rather further development. LAFCO before may city
Although approving require LAFCO or is from prezone, prohibited specifying zoning imposing conditions on subd. and should annexation (Gov. (a)), § annexation be after later approved prezoning, city change hand, the other On annexation leaves the zoning. disapproval county free to land use as it sees fit. Without conducting regulate psychological evaluations and compiling psychological profiles city county members, commission and of members of the council and planning city are board LAFCO members unable determine whether supervisors, or of annexation will further environmental disapproval made, not be Such studies will an quality. psychological hopefully EIR without the would not studies meaningful provide indication of the environmental effects its approval disapproval.3 invoke the enunciated guidelines, majority policy, of an EIR “as in the early process encouraging preparation planning Admin. tit. But (Cal. early possible.” preparation itself, not an end in when the of data insufficiency plans particularly 3At oral it without in the instant case was stated the developer argument dispute but the refused to until first under sought develop county regulation county proceed aby LAFCO determined whether should be development regulated municipality. Thereafter the went to annexation. city, city developer requested *30 conclusions in the
precludes drawing meaningful report. should be viewed as the of land use “planning process” process determination, when serves a mature and useful reporting purpose.
Conclusion of an EIR when a requires preparation only public agency construction, directly engages acquisition development, regulates such activities of It does not determina- private parties. apply tions which affect land use but which neither authorize ultimately nor limit the use of land. In annexation, considering proposed determines does only political question, directly engage and is from development, prohibited regulating private development activities. The has therefore on LAFCO a majority improperly imposed wasteful requirement.