Tiered EIR Must Be Prepared Where Program EIR Provides Insufficient Guidance on Discretionary Choices

Plaintiffs and Appellants, led by the Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation (Sierra Nevada), challenged the County of El Dorado’s adoption of an oak woodland management plan and mitigation fee program (the Woodland Plan) without an environmental impact report. The County had completed a program environmental impact report in 2004 in connection with its general plan to deal with land use issues in the face of a growing population. The Woodland Plan, according to the County, was within the scope of the General Plan EIR, which adequately addressed the environmental impacts of the Woodland Plan. Consequently, asserted the County, the General Plan EIR obviated the need for a separate, or “tiered,” EIR before adoption of the Woodland Plan. The Court of the Appeal disagreed and held that the California Environmental Quality Act required the County to prepare a tiered EIR before it adopted the Woodland Plan. The court agreed that the General Plan EIR anticipated the development of the Woodland Plan. However, the General Plan EIR did not provide the County with guidance in making the discretionary choices that served as the basis for the Woodland Plan or adequately address the environmental impacts of the Woodland Plan.

The court pointed specifically to three aspects of the Woodland Plan not addressed in the General Plan EIR: (1) the fee rate that could be paid by land owners as mitigation of destruction of woodlands; (2) how the acreage subject to the fee rate should be measured (i.e., by tree canopy cover or by the total area including the space between canopies); and (3) how the collected fees would be used to mitigate the impact of development on the County’s oak woodlands. The purpose of an EIR is “to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decision before they are made. Thus, the EIR protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” [Citations.] Given that the General Plan EIR did not include necessary details with respect to three key aspects of the Woodland Plan, the General Plan EIR did not serve the purpose of an EIR in this case, and a tiered EIR was required under CEQA to inform the County’s exercise of discretion before it adopted the Woodland Plan.

Please see full article below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.