Opinion ID: 1172485
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: the two statutes

Text: Because CEQA applies only to land use determinations and because LAFCO, in considering annexation proposals, does not regulate land use but only determines which agency shall make land use determinations, it must be concluded that LAFCO annexation decisions are not subject to CEQA. Annexation approval does not constitute a project within the meaning of Public Resources Code, section 21065, subdivision (a) or subdivision (c). It is not an activity directly undertaken by a public agency, for LAFCO does not directly engage in construction or development. Neither is annexation approval an activity involving issuance by a public agency of an entitlement for use because LAFCO does not and cannot regulate private land use. The conclusion is fortified when we consider that LAFCO annexation approval furnishes no assurance that the contemplated development will be accomplished. Similarly, LAFCO disapproval does not assure that the proposed development will not be accomplished. In view of the reality that much of California's urban area has been subdivided and developed in unincorporated areas under the regulation of county planning commissions and county boards of supervisors, there is no reason to believe that annexation approval  rather than disapproval  tends to further development. Although before approving annexation LAFCO may require the city to prezone, LAFCO is prohibited from specifying the zoning or imposing conditions on annexation (Gov. Code, § 54790, subd. (a)), and should annexation be approved after prezoning, the city may later change zoning. On the other hand, disapproval of annexation leaves the county free to regulate land use as it sees fit. Without conducting psychological evaluations and compiling psychological profiles of city and county planning commission members, and of members of the city council and board of supervisors, LAFCO members are unable to determine whether approval or disapproval of annexation will further environmental quality. Such psychological studies hopefully will not be made, and an EIR without the studies would not provide LAFCO with any meaningful indication of the environmental effects of its approval or disapproval. [3] The majority invoke the policy, enunciated in the guidelines, of encouraging preparation of an EIR as early in the planning process as possible. (Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 14, § 15013.) But early preparation is not an end in itself, particularly when the insufficiency of data or plans precludes drawing any meaningful conclusions in the report. The planning process should be viewed as the process of land use determination, when the reporting serves a mature and useful purpose.