Filed 8/24/18 Coston v. Stanislaus County CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JAMIE COSTON et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

STANISLAUS COUNTY et al.,

Defendants and Respondents;

RB RANCH DEVELOPMENT, LLC et al.,

Real Parties in Interest

F074209

(Stanislaus Super. Ct. No. 2016561)

OPINION

APPEAL from a judgment and order of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Roger M. Beauchesne, Judge.

Law Office of Thomas N. Lippe and Thomas N. Lippe for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, Matthew D. Zinn, Sarah H. Sigman, Peter J. Broderick; John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Thomas E. Boze, Assistant County Counsel, for Defendants and Respondents.

Dennis Bunting, County Counsel (Solano), and Peter R. Miljanich, Deputy County Counsel, and Jennifer Henning for the California State Association of Counties as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.

Herum Crabtree Brown and Steven A. Herum for Real Parties in Interest.

-ooOoo-

FACTS

I. Litigation
II.
In a first amended petition for writ of mandate (the petition), appellants challenged Stanislaus County’s approval of a well construction permit (Permit No. 2014-539; “the well permit”). The well permit was issued to real party in interest RB Ranch Development, LLC (“RB Ranch”), which subsequently constructed the well on property on Orange Blossom road in Oakdale.

Appellants are seven individuals who also own property on Orange Blossom Road in Oakdale. Five of the appellants alleged in the petition that since RB Ranch constructed its well, the “depth to water” at their well has increased.

In its first cause of action, the petition alleged that the County’s issuance of the well permit violated the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, the petition claimed that Chapter 9.36 of the Stanislaus County Code requires that the County exercise discretion in deciding whether to issue well construction permits. Because the decision was discretionary, CEQA requires environmental review, which the County did not perform.

In the second cause of action, the petition alleged the County violated appellants’ procedural due process right to notice and an opportunity to be heard before a government’s adjudicative decision deprives them of a significant property interest. Specifically, the petition alleged the County’s issuance of the well permit “has caused and threatens to continue to cause a substantial interference with [appellants’] property interests including but not limited to loss of groundwater supply in [appellants’] wells; increased traffic congestion; increased risk of traffic accidents; increased air pollution by dust, pesticide drift, diesel pump generator exhaust, and increased noise pollution.”

The first amended petition sought a writ of mandate under section 21168.9; a permanent injunction prohibiting real parties in interest from operating the well constructed pursuant to the permit; attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5; costs; and other and further relief the court deemed proper.

More than a year before the present suit began, another lawsuit was filed in Stanislaus County Superior Court challenging the County’s policy of treating standard well construction permits as discretionary. That case was decided by the same judge as the present case, and was titled Protecting Our Water and Environmental Resources, et al. v. Stanislaus County, et al., Stanislaus County Case No. 2006153 (the “POWER case”). On February 16, 2016, the superior court entered judgment in the POWER case in favor of the County, after concluding that the issuance of standard well permits under Chapter 9.36 was a ministerial act. Shortly thereafter, the County moved for judgment on the pleadings in the present case. The County asked the superior court to take judicial notice of its own decision in the POWER case, which it argued “disposes of this case as well.”

The superior court granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings with leave to amend, concluding that the issuance of the well construction permit was ministerial and that fact was fatal to appellants’ CEQA and due process claims.

III. Background
IV.
Chapter 9.36 of the Stanislaus County Code

In 1973, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors enacted Ordinance No. 443 (the Ordinance). The ordinance was eventually codified as Chapter 9.36 of the Stanislaus County Code. The purpose of the Ordinance was “to protect the ground waters of the State for the enjoyment, health, safety and welfare of the people of the county by regulating the location, construction, maintenance, abandonment and destruction of all wells with may affect the quality and potability of underground waters.” (Stan. Co. Code, § 9.36.010.)

Under Chapter 9.36, landowners must obtain a permit from the County Health Officer to construct, repair or destroy any well. (Stan. Co. Code, § 9.36.030.) The permit application must “contain such information as the health officer may require.” (Stan. Co. Code, § 9.36.030.) Chapter 9.36 also sets forth various standards for well construction, including:

“1.) All wells shall be so constructed as to prevent the entrance of surface water from any source into the well or into any aquifer.” (Stan. Co. Code, § 9.36.060.)

“2.) The construction of a well pit is prohibited; provided, however, a variance permit may be granted by the health officer.” (Stan. Co. Code, § 9.36.060.)

“3.) “All pumping equipment shall be installed with protective devices to effectively prevent the entrance of foreign matter into the well casing.” (Stan. County Code, § 9.36.060.)

“4.) “All wells shall have a sanitary seal. All wells shall also have an annular seal, except agricultural wells not used for domestic purposes and located more than three hundred feet from a domestic well.” (Stan. Co. Code, § 9.36.070.)

“5.) After the construction, installation, or repair of any well, or pumping equipment, and prior to its use, the well and all appurtenances thereto shall be disinfected.” (Stan. County Code, § 9.36.080.)

The health officer must also inspect a well before it is used. (Stan. Co. Code, § 9.36.100.) Under section 9.36.110, the health officer may “authorize an exception to any provision of this Chapter, when, in his/her opinion, the application of such provision is unnecessary. Upon application therefore, the health officer may issue a variance permit and shall prescribe thereon such conditions as, in his judgment, are necessary to protect the waters of the state from pollution.”

Applicants may appeal the denial or revocation of their permits, to be heard by the board of supervisors. (Stan. Co. Code, § 9.36.170.)

Bulletin No. 74

Section 9.36.150 of the County Code provides:

“Except as may be otherwise provided by this chapter, standards for the construction, repair, reconstruction, or abandonment of wells shall be as set forth in Chapter II of the Department of Water Resources Bulletin No. 74, “Water Well Standards” (February 1968), or as subsequently revised or supplemented, which are incorporated in this chapter and made a part of this chapter.” (Stan. Co. Code, § 9.36.150.)

Bulletin No. 74-81 is a document published by the Department of Water Resources containing various specifications for water wells. (See California Groundwater Assn. v. Semitropic Water Storage Dist. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1460, 1469.) Five years after its publication, the Legislature enacted Water Code section 13801 which, among other things, requires local authorities “to adopt an ordinance that ‘meets or exceeds’ the Bulletin 74-81 standards.” (Ibid.; see also Water Code, § 13801, subd. (c).) Additional provisions were added in Bulletin 74-90. (California Groundwater Assn. v. Semitropic Water Storage Dist., supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 1469.)

Stanislaus County Practices in Issuing Well Construction Permits Under Ch. 9.36

Prior to November 25, 2014, Stanislaus County did not engage in CEQA environmental review of well permits under Chapter 9.36, unless the permit was a “variance permit” under section 9.36.110.

Stanislaus County’s Designation of Well Permit Approvals as “Ministerial”

CEQA provides that “[a]ll public agencies shall adopt by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation, objectives, criteria and procedures for the evaluation of projects and the preparation of environmental impact reports and negative declarations pursuant to this division.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21082.) The Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act further directs that a public agency’s implementing procedures should contain “[a] list of projects or permits over which the public agency has only ministerial authority.” (Guidelines, § 15022(a)(1)(B).)

Stanislaus County’s CEQA Guidelines and Procedures, initially adopted in December 1983 and amended most recently in May 2008, reads, in pertinent part:

“(B) In the absence of any discretionary provision contained in the relevant ordinance, it shall be presumed that the following actions are ministerial: [¶] … [¶]

(5) Issuance of sanitary well permits and septic tank permits.”

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

The California Legislature passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”; Water Code, §§ 10720 et seq.), which became effective January 1, 2015. (Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 326, 335, fn. 3.) Among other things, SGMA provides “that certain newly created “groundwater sustainability agencies” may impose groundwater pumping charges to fund the costs of groundwater management….” (City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation District (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1191, 1209, fn. 6.)

Chapter 9.37 of the Stanislaus County Code

On November 25, 2014, the County approved Ordinance No. C.S. 1155 (i.e., “the groundwater ordinance”), which amended Chapter 9.37 (not Chapter 9.36) of the Stanislaus County Code.

Chapter 9.37 now prohibits (1) the unsustainable extraction of groundwater; and (2) the export of water from the county. (Stan. Co. Code, § 9.37.040.) Section 9.37.050 exempts certain “water management practices” from these requirements, including “de minimis” extractions of water (defined as two acre-feet or less per year). (Stan. Co. Code, §§ 9.37.030(10), 9.37.050(A)(2).)

Stanislaus County Practices in Issuing Well Construction Permits After the Groundwater Ordinance

All applications for well construction permits filed under Chapter 9.36, after November 25, 2014, must put forth substantial evidence “that either: (1) one or more of the exemptions set forth in Section 9.370.50 apply; or (2) that extraction of groundwater from the proposed well will not constitute unsustainable extraction of groundwater.” (Stan. Co. Code, § 9.37.045(A).)

Section 9.37.060 provides that the Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources (DER) “shall establish a system of permits to authorize water management practices otherwise prohibited by this chapter.” The same section also allows for appeal of DER decisions to an appeal review committee.

After the adoption of the groundwater ordinance, the County’s review of well permit applications involves two steps. First, the DER reviews the permit application to determine whether Chapter 9.37 applies. Second, the DER reviews the permit application for compliance with Chapter 9.36.

If a permit application is exempt from Chapter 9.37 pursuant to section 9.37.050(A), then the County does not engage in CEQA review (unless the application is for a variance permit under section 9.36.110.) The County acknowledges that if a permit application is not exempt from Chapter 9.37, then CEQA environmental review procedures apply.

After November 25, 2014, the County issued over 400 well permits, all of which were exempt from Chapter 9.37 and not subjected to CEQA environmental review. The County identified six well permit applications that do require CEQA environmental review, but none of those applications had yet been approved.

DISCUSSION

I. The Decision Stanislaus County’s DER Makes in Approving Well Permit Applications Contains Discretionary and Ministerial Aspects
II.
A. Law of Ministerial and Discretionary Decisions
B.
CEQA applies to discretionary projects (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (a)), but not to “[m]inisterial projects.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(1).)

“ ‘Discretionary project’ means a project which requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation when the public agency or body decides to approve or disapprove a particular activity, as distinguished from situations where the public agency or body merely has to determine whether there has been conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances, or regulations.” (Guidelines, § 15357.)

“ ‘Ministerial’ describes a governmental decision involving little or no personal judgment by the public official as to the wisdom or manner of carrying out the project. The public official merely applies the law to the facts as presented but uses no special discretion or judgment in reaching a decision. A ministerial decision involves only the use of fixed standards or objective measurements, and the public official cannot use personal, subjective judgment in deciding whether or how the project should be carried out. Common examples of ministerial permits include automobile registrations, dog licenses, and marriage licenses. A building permit is ministerial if the ordinance requiring the permit limits the public official to determining whether the zoning allows the structure to be built in the requested location, the structure would meet the strength requirements in the Uniform Building Code, and the applicant has paid his fee.” (Guidelines, § 15369; see also Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 117–118.)

C. Standard of Review
D.
“[T]he legal determination of whether an approval is “exempt from CEQA review as a ministerial action” is subject to … de novo review.” (Friends of Juana Briones House v. City of Palo Alto (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 286, 303 (Friends of Juana Briones House).) However, appellate courts afford considerable weight to a local agency’s classification of its own ordinance as ministerial. (See Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 11, 23–24; Friends of Davis v. City of Davis (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1015; see also Guidelines, § 15268.) When there are doubts as to whether a decision is ministerial or discretionary, the doubt should be resolved in favor of finding the decision to be discretionary. (Friends of Juana Briones House, supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at pp. 301–302.)

E. The Determination as to whether a Proposed Well is Adequately Separated from a Contamination Source Involves Subjective Judgment Concerning how the Project Should be Carried Out and is Therefore not Ministerial Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15369
F.
Appellants cite provisions from Bulletin No. 74-90 governing standards for keeping wells untainted by potential pollution or contamination sources. Respondents concede that the contamination source spacing standard is indeed a “standard[] for well construction.” Because such standards are incorporated into the County Code by section 9.36.150, we will now determine whether the standard calls for a discretionary or ministerial decision by the DER.

Potential Pollution or Contamination Sources

Under the heading “Separation”, section 8(A) of the Bulletin provides the following standard: “All water wells shall be located an adequate horizontal distance from known or potential sources of pollution and contamination.”

Later in section 8(A), the Bulletin displays a chart, listing horizontal separation distances between various contamination sources (e.g., 50 feet between a well and a sewer line, 100 feet between a well and an animal enclosure, etc.) Above the chart is the following text:

“The following horizontal separation distances are generally considered adequate where a significant layer of unsaturated, unconsolidated sediment less permeable than sand is encountered between ground surface and ground water. These distances are based on present knowledge and past experience. Local conditions may require greater separation distances to ensure ground water quality protection.”

After the chart, is the following text:

“Many variables are involved in determining the “safe” separation distance between a well and a potential source of pollution or contamination. No set separation distance is adequate and reasonable for all conditions. Determination of the safe distance for individual wells requires detailed evaluation of existing and future site conditions.

Where, in the opinion of the enforcing agency adverse conditions exist, the above separation distances shall be increased, or special means of protection, particularly in the construction of the well, shall be provided, such as increasing the length of the annular seal.

Lesser distances than those listed above may be acceptable where physical conditions preclude compliance with the specified minimum separation distances and where special means of protection are provided. Lesser separation distances must be approved by the enforcing agency on a case-by-case basis.”

Analysis

We conclude the contamination source spacing standard calls for a discretionary decision by the DER.

“A ministerial decision involves only the use of fixed standards or objective measurements, and the public official cannot use personal, subjective judgment in deciding whether or how the project should be carried out.” (Guidelines, § 15369, italics added.) This dividing line is illustrated well in the case of People v. Department of Housing & Community Dev. (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 185 (Department of Housing). There, the question was whether issuing a mobile home park construction permit was ministerial or discretionary. The court noted that the Mobilehome Parks Act contained several “fixed design and construction specifications covering such matters as space occupancy, road access, toilets, showers and laundry facilities.” (Department of Housing, supra 45 Cal.App.3d at p. 193.) Because these were “fixed design and construction specifications … the official decision of conformity or nonconformity leaves scant room for the play of personal judgment.” (Ibid., italics added.) The court held these provisions were ministerial.

However, the Mobilehome Parks Act had other, broader standards as well. “The applicant for a mobile home construction permit must submit a “description of the water supply, ground drainage, and method of sewage disposal.” [Citation.] There must be a “sufficient” supply of artificial lighting. [Citation.] The water supply must be “adequate” and “potable.” [Citations.] The site must be “well-drained and graded.” [Citation.]” (Department of Housing, supra, 45 Cal.App.3d at p. 193.) These standards were “more generalized” and presented “relatively personal decisions addressed to the sound judgment and enlightened choice” of the agency. (Id. at p. 193.) As a result, the decisions were held to be discretionary.

The standard for spacing wells from contamination sources imported into the County Code from Bulletin No. 74 are akin to the discretionary standards in Department of Housing. The ultimate standard for contamination source spacing is that “[a]ll water wells shall be located an adequate horizontal distance from known or potential sources of pollution and contamination.” (Italics added.) Determining whether a particular spacing is “adequate” inherently involves subjective judgment. (See Department of Housing, supra, 45 Cal.App.3d at pp. 193–194.)

The County’s Well Permitting Scheme Does Allow the DER to Address Impacts That Would be Considered in Environmental Analysis

The County argues the Bulletin’s spacing standard does not allow the DER to address impacts revealed by environmental analysis. (See Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 259, 267 [“the touchstone is whether the approval process involved allows the government to shape the project in any way which could respond to any of the concerns which might be identified in an environmental impact report.”].) We disagree.

Suppose an applicant seeks approval for construction of a well near a contamination source. The applicant says the proposed spacing between the well and the contamination source is “adequate,” even though it is closer than the “generally accepted” distances enumerated in the chart in section 8(A). Environmental analysis of such an application could reveal relevant information, including whether the lesser distance proposed by the applicant was “adequate” under the spacing standard (or whether it was “acceptable” with respect to risk of contamination under the “lesser distances” provision). Depending on what the environmental analysis revealed, the County could deny the permit as failing to satisfy the spacing standard.

The County’s Discretionary Role is not Insubstantial

The County argues that its ability to require, for example, that a well be located 120 feet from a pollution source rather than 100 feet “hardly constitutes the kind of substantial control required to make well construction permits discretionary.” The County cites Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 11 (Sierra Club), a case which involved a permit allowing an applicant to establish a vineyard on his land. Among other things, the applicable ordinance required that a 50-foot setback from wetlands be established “unless a wetlands biologist recommends a different setback.” The county accepted a wetlands biologist’s conclusion that a 35-foot setback would be sufficient for the applicant’s vineyard. (Id. at pp. 29–30.)

In arguing the County’s control over well/pollution source spacing is insubstantial, respondents cite Sierra Club for the proposition that no discretion was involved in that case, even though the agency could make adjustments to setback distances based on the biologist’s report. We conclude Sierra Club is distinguishable on this issue.

“As the trial court put it, “[a]lthough the details for the size of any setback for undesignated wetlands are left open, the qualification is itself ministerial because the Ordinance provides that the setback will be whatever a wetlands biologist recommends. The actual size of the setback is not set, but the requirement to accept a biologist recommendation is set.” (Sierra Club, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 30, italics added.)

In this case, however, the County (through its DER) is the arbiter of “adequacy” – not a third party whose recommendation the County is essentially required to accept. In other words, Stanislaus County’s determination of “adequacy” involves “subjective judgment in deciding … how the project should be carried out.” (Guidelines, § 15369.)

In a similar vein, the County argues that its authority to modify the spacing between a well and a contamination source is a “minor adjustment.” But such a modification is not minor if it is the difference between safe versus contaminated groundwater.

Nor is it minor merely because it involves only one of several decision points in the permitting process. Depending on the project, exercising discretion as to even a single standard can have a profound effect on the project and its environmental impacts. The number of discretionary standards the local agency must consider is not the rubric for determining whether a permitting scheme is ministerial. Rather, the question is whether the public official is only applying fixed standards and objective measurements or, instead, is exercising subjective judgment in deciding whether or how the project should be carried out. (Guidelines, § 15369.) Consequently, if a single standard has the public official exercising subjective judgment as to how the project will be carried out, the scheme is discretionary and subject to CEQA.

The Fact that Chapter 9.36 and Incorporated Standards are Designed to Address Groundwater Contamination Does not Dispense with CEQA

The County also argues that its permitting standards are designed to address the issue of groundwater contamination. As a result, an environmental impact report (EIR) “would not “uncover” or “reveal” groundwater contamination caused by a proposed well because discovery and avoidance of such contaminants is what the County’s permitting program already does.” This argument essentially boils down to the County claiming it should be excused from CEQA review of potential groundwater contamination because it performs comparable environmental review of potential groundwater contamination under its own statutory permitting scheme. But CEQA does not provide for such an equivalency exception.

This Case is Distinguishable from the San Diego Navy Case

This case is also distinguishable from San Diego Navy. That case involved a hotel/retail/office space development in downtown San Diego. The development agreement between the government and the developer created “a development plan and a series of urban design guidelines related to the aesthetic design of the Project.” (San Diego Navy, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at p. 929.) The development agreement required the developer submit its construction documents to the Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC) so it could determine whether the documents were consistent with the aesthetic criteria established in the development plan and urban design guidelines.

One of the questions the Court of Appeal faced was whether the CCDC’s determination regarding the aesthetic criteria was “discretionary” or “ministerial.” (San Diego Navy, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at p. 937.) The design standards CCDC was applying included: “Towers shall be designed as slender structures to minimize view obstructions” and “[a] palette of colors and building materials shall be developed for the Broadway complex to ensure harmonious treatment.” (Id. at p. 938.) The CEQA petitioners argued the standards were “subjective” and involved “the exercise of judgment and deliberation.” (San Diego Navy, supra, at p. 938.) As a result, petitioners argued, the City of San Diego should have prepared an updated EIR addressing the Project’s impact on climate change. The Court of Appeal rejected that contention, holding as follows:

“Assuming for purposes of this opinion that in performing the consistency reviews, the CCDC was required to exercise discretionary authority (Guidelines, § 15163(c)) with respect to various aesthetic issues on the Project, the [CEQA petitioners have] made no showing the scope of the CCDC’s discretion extended to the Project’s potential impacts on global climate change. We conclude that the failure to make such a showing is fatal to the … claim.” (San Diego Navy, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at p. 938.)

Whatever the merits of that holding, it does not apply here because the discretion the County exercises does concern an environmental issue: groundwater contamination. Because Stanislaus County’s discretionary authority covers an issue that would be a subject of environmental review, the rationale of San Diego Navy does not apply.

That the County Regulates Groundwater Depletion in Chapter 9.37 Does not Preclude the Conclusion that Chapter 9.36 Regulates Groundwater Contamination in a Discretionary Fashion

The County also argues that it regulates groundwater depletion separately, in Chapter 9.37. As a result, the County argues well construction permits under Chapter 9.36 “are not the tools to address … depletion.” That may well be. (Cf. California Water Impact Network v. County of San Luis Obispo (June 28, 2018, B283846) ___ Cal.App.5th ___ 2018 Cal.App. Lexis 662].) But the fact that the County makes a separate discretionary decision concerning groundwater depletion under Chapter 9.37, does not impact our conclusion that the County also makes a discretionary decision concerning groundwater contamination under Chapter 9.36.

G. Other Provisions in Chapter 9.36 Identified by Appellants are not Discretionary
H.
Appellants point to other provisions in Chapter 9.36 of the County Code and argues they are discretionary. We disagree.

Appellants first cite a portion of section 9.36.030 reading: “The application for a permit shall be in the form prescribed by the health officer and contain such information as the health officer may require.” (Stan. Co. Code, § 9.36.030.) But appellants do not appear to argue that this provision independently renders the permitting scheme discretionary. Rather, they note it “support[s]” the County’s authority to “carry out its discretionary functions under the state standards and to assess whether the permit may have significant environmental effects under CEQA.” To the extent appellants intended to suggest this provision itself is discretionary, they failed to support that argument with reasoned legal analysis.

Appellants next cite to the following portion of section 9.36.060: “All pumping equipment shall be installed with protective devices to effectively prevent the entrance of foreign matter into the well casing.” Appellants argue the inclusion of the word “effectively” requires the County to make a “judgment call.” We disagree. The entire phrase “to effectively prevent the entrance of foreign matter into the well casing” is simply another way to say the protective devices used must actually function. That is an objective standard; the protective device either functions properly to prevent foreign matter from entering the well casing or it does not.

Appellants also point to the provision in Chapter 9.36, which empowers the health officer to grant variance permits. (Stan. Co. Code, § 9.36.110.)

“The health officer may authorize an exception to any provision of this chapter when, in his/her opinion, the application of such provision is unnecessary. Upon application therefor, the health officer may issue a variance permit and shall prescribe thereon such conditions as, in his or her judgment, are necessary to protect the waters of the state from pollution.” (Stan. Co. Code, § 9.36.110.)

The County acknowledges that its consideration of applications for variance permits is subject to CEQA. But appellants contend that the County must exercise judgment and discretion even on nonvariance permits in order to determine whether the normal standards are adequate or must be altered via a variance permit. The County responds that whether it will consider altering a standard is not discretionary because it “may issue variance permits only ‘[u]pon application therefor,’ and not on its own initiative.” Thus, CEQA would apply once an application for a variance permit is submitted, but not before that point.

We agree with the County that the phrase “[u]pon application therefor” requires that an applicant request a variance permit before the health officer may alter an applicable standard. The language clearly conveys an absolute condition on the health officer’s ability to grant variance permits. As a result, the decision to even consider altering a construction standard is ministerial – it arises with an application for a variance permit and without the exercising of discretion by the County. However, once the application is made, the decision of whether to issue the variance permit and on what conditions is clearly discretionary.

I. Practical Considerations
J.
CEQA litigation often involves substantial commercial, industrial and governmental projects for which environmental review can be a costly and time-consuming undertaking. Yet, CEQA is not limited to projects of a specific magnitude or purpose.

Stanislaus County issues hundreds of well permits annually for residential and agricultural wells. In a long-standing ordinance, the County has considered the issuance of these permits to be “ministerial.” We understand that requiring CEQA review for these relatively small, routine projects may seem unnecessarily burdensome and of little benefit. Yet, we are constrained by what the law says about ministerial versus discretionary government approvals. Given the discretion accorded to the County, that standard leads us to conclude that CEQA applies here.

The County and Amicus Curiae argue that CEQA review would require the County to analyze a host of environmental impacts it is powerless to address. But that is not grounds for dispensing with CEQA review altogether. When a lead agency identifies mitigation measures that it lacks legal authority to impose, it may simply make a finding in the environmental document that the measures are legally infeasible. (See Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715–716; see also § 21081, subd.(a)(3) [referencing “legal … considerations” which “make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report”]; Guidelines, § 15364 [referencing the role of “legal … factors” in determining feasibility].) However, the fact that some mitigation measures are outside the lead agency’s authority to impose does not dispense with CEQA altogether.

We are also sensitive to the concerns of Amicus Curiae that our conclusion will likely require the County to obtain and analyze substantial amounts of information, the costs of which will be borne by local agencies and/or applicants. Elsewhere, CEQA does address the reality that some projects are too small or inconsequential to justify the time and expense of an EIR. But we may not shoehorn that concern into the ministerial exemption, which addresses a different issue. Moreover, it may be that many well permits in Stanislaus County will be appropriate candidates for negative declarations, mitigated negative declarations or perhaps even an exemption (other than the ministerial exemption). We leave that determination to the County.

III. APPELLANTS HAVE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE ERROR WITH RESPECT TO THEIR DUE PROCESS CLAIM
IV.
Appellants claim the County’s approval of the well construction permit “is adjudicative in nature and thus required due process notice … and opportunity to be heard under the authority of Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605 [(Horn)].”

Even assuming the County’s approval of the well construction permit in this case was adjudicative, appellants have not established entitlement to procedural due process. The fact that a government action is discretionary and/or adjudicative may be necessary to invoke procedural due process, but it is not sufficient. The property interest deprivation must also be “significant.” (Horn, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 616.) In Horn, the Supreme Court “emphasize[d] … that constitutional notice and hearing requirements are triggered only be governmental action which results in “significant” or “substantial” deprivations of property….” (Ibid.) Yet, appellants offer no legal argument as to why the property deprivation alleged here is “significant” enough to trigger procedural due process under Horn. Appellants have failed to adequately explain and support their claim to appellate relief on this issue.

DISPOSITION

The judgment of dismissal is reversed. The trial court is directed to vacate its order granting respondents’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and to enter an order denying the motion. The matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Appellants shall recover their costs on appeal.

______________________

POOCHIGIAN, Acting P.J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________

FRANSON, J.

______________________

PEÑA, J.