SECOND DISTRICT HOLDS AGENCY’S ADOPTION OF A MODIFIED PROJECT THAT DEVIATED FROM THAT DESCRIBED IN THE EIR DID NOT RENDER THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION UNSTABLE

Posted by   

In a partially published opinion, Gooden v. County of Los Angeles (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1, the Second District Court of Appeal held that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors’ decision to prohibit new vineyards as part of an area plan update—a proposal not included in the EIR—did not violate CEQA’s requirement that a project description be accurate, stable, and finite. In doing so, the court applied the de novo standard of review to whether the project description contained an accurate, stable, and finite project description.

Background

The Project was a “comprehensive update” to the North Area Plan (NAP) and Community Standards District (CSD), enacted in the years 2000 and 2002 respectively, to serve as part of the County’s General Plan governing 21,000 acres in an unincorporated portion of the Santa Monica Mountains. The NAP served as a “planning tool” with “area-specific policies”; the CSD was a “zoning overlay” to implement the policies of the NAP.

The County issued a Draft EIR in May 2020 which identified revisions to the NAP and CSD including a proposal to reduce the minimum threshold for when grape-growing would be considered a “vineyard” and therefore subject to more stringent development standards and new standards for pest management. The Draft EIR did not include a proposal to ban new vineyards.  While several commenters expressed support for a complete ban, the Final EIR likewise did not propose a ban on new vineyards. The Department of Regional Planning recommended certification of the Final EIR and approval of the NAP and CSD as proposed.

The Board of Supervisors later certified the Final EIR and approved the Project with one pertinent change: prohibiting new vineyards of any size.

A group of petitioners filed a petition for writ of mandate alleging that the Board’s change to the project rendered the project description unstable and thus violated CEQA. The trial court denied the petition. One of the Petitioners, Gooden, appealed.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

In the published portion of the decision, the Court of Appeal found that the Board’s adoption of the modified Project did not violate CEQA’s requirement of an accurate and stable project description.

The court first noted that CEQA allows flexibility for agencies to adopt a project that deviates from what was described in the EIR to allow for alterations in response to public feedback – the very purpose of CEQA’s requisite information exchange. However, the court said, when the later deviation is so great that the project description misleads the public, thwarting the public’s ability to participate in the process and comment meaningfully on the project, the earlier description may be unstable and inadequate.

Applying the “de novo” standard of review, the court concluded that the Board’s approval of the project including a ban on all new vineyards did not render the project description unstable. According to the court, the portion of land dedicated to agricultural land use was small within the greater NAP and CSD and constituted a small portion of the project plan, just half of one page of a total 91 pages. The court found it significant that the topic of vineyard regulation was discussed within the plan, preserving the project and its main features. The court noted the while change was significant to new vintners, a different rule would implicate all subsequent changes to a project description.