LOCAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

Transcription

1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA Opinion No. SO Op. Atty Gen. Cal. 335 September 30, 1977 SYLLABUS: [*1] LOCAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Ordinances and resolutions adopted by a local agency are "projects" within the meaning of CEQA and an adequate environmental impact report must be prepared for each project. Lot splits of less than five parcels and reversions to acreage are not excluded from CEQA requirements. OPINION BY: EVELLE J. YOUNGER, Attorney General (Daniel P. Selmi, Deputy) Requested by: COUNTY COUNSEL, NEVADA COUNTY The Honorable Leo J. Todd, County Counsel, County of Nevada, has requested an opinion of this office on the following questions: 1. Are ordinances and resolutions adopted by a local agency, other than zoning ordinances or general plan amendments, "projects" within the meaning of Public Resources Code sections and 21151, and thus subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (hereinafter "CEQA") Public Resources Code section et seq.? 2. Where a local agency has adopted procedures that provide for completion of public review of environmental documents prior to a separate public hearing on the approval or denial of the project itself, must the local agency nevertheless consider and respond [*2] to evidence reflecting on the adequacy of the environmental documents when that evidence is presented for the first time at the hearing to approve or deny the project? 3. May a local agency exclude from the requirements of CEQA the approval process for all lot splits of less than five parcels and reversions to acreage on the grounds such actions are categorically exempt from the act or are ministerial in nature? The conclusions are: Question 1 Ordinances and resolutions adopted by a local agency are "projects" within the meaning of CEQA. If the ordinance or resolution is discretionary in nature, is not categorically exempt, and may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report must be prepared before approval. Question 2 If evidence comes to the attention of the local agency after completion of the environmental review process which demonstrates the inadequacy of an environmental impact report (hereinafter "EIR") previously certified as complying with CEQA, the public body must reopen the CEQA process to ensure that the environmental effects of the proposed propect are completely discussed in the EIR.

2 Similarly, if it should become [*3] apparent after the completion of a negative declaration but before a project is approved that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, an EIR must be prepared. Question 3 Reversions to acreage may not be excluded from the requirements of CEQA on the basis that they are categorically exempt or are ministerial in nature. ANALYSIS I The first question asks whether ordinances and resolutions, other than ordinances dealing with zoning or amendments to a general plan, are "projects" within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section et seq. n1 Three types of ordinances are given as examples: (1) An open range ordinance affecting a large area of the county which places the burden on the private land owner to fence out cattle; (2) A revised building code ordinance permitting construction of single family dwellings in rural areas without electricity, running water, or flush toilets; and (3) Modifications of road and improvement standards to be imposed on new subdivisions. n1 All references are to the Public Resources Code unless otherwise indicated. Section of CEQA requires all local agencies to [*4] "prepare... and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on any project they intend to carry out or approve which may have a significant effect on the environment." The term "project" is defined by section of the act: "'Project' means the following: "(a) Activities directly undertaken by any public agency. "(b) Activities undertaken by a person which are supported in whole or in part through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies. "(c) Activities involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies." n2 Public Resources Code section directs the Office of Planning and Research to develop guidelines for the implementation of CEQA which are to be certified and adopted by the Secretary of the Resources Agency. Section of the "Guidelines For Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970," 14 California Administrative Code section et seq., defines "project" as follows: "(a) Project means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately, that is any of the following: "(1) An activity directly undertaken by any public agency including but not limited to public works construction and related activities, clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing public

3 structures, enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Sections "(2) An activity undertaken by a person which is supported in whole or in part through public agency contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies. "(3) An activity involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies." (14 Cal. Admin ) This section goes on to exclude from the definition anything specifically exempted by state law, certain proposals for legislation, continuing administrative or maintenance activities, and submission of proposals to a vote of the people of the state or of a particular community. Finally, the section makes clear that the term "project" refers to the activity being approved, even though the activity may be subject to several discretionary approvals by government agencies. The term does not refer to each separate governmental approval. [*5] In Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 263, the California Supreme Court held that a local agency formation commission's approval of an annexation required the preparation of an environmental impact report. The court noted how the definition of "project" in section fits within the overall structure of the act: "... CEQA itself proceeds on a step by step basis, by first defining 'project' so broadly that it covers activities having no conceivable effect on the environment ) Then CEQA declares to what projects the act applies, including in the open ended definition of discretionary projects 'the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances.' ) Finally, CEQA directs what the agencies addressed must do when dealing with projects 'which may have a significant effect on the environment.' and )" Id. at 277 fn. 16. Thus, "project" is broadly defined so as to include many actions taken by public bodies which ultimately may have no effect on the environment whatsoever. Other court interpretations have reflected the breadth of public activities denominated "projects" by CEQA. In Shawn v. Golden Gate [*6] Bridge Highway & Transportation Dist. (1976) 60 Cal. App. 3d 699, a transportation district's decision to increase fares for travel upon its bus line was held to be a project. Similarly, approval of timber harvesting plans by the state forester is a project. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Arcata Nat. Corp. (1976) 59 Cal. App. 3d 959. See also 59 Cal. Ops. Atty. Gen. 173 (1976) annual budgeting and expenditure of funds for trapping animals as part of a predatory animal damage control program constitutes a project under CEQA; and 57 Cal. Ops. Atty. Gen. 490 (1974) cloud seeding by a local agency is a project under the act. The California Supreme Court found that the passage of a zoning ordinance establishing an oil drilling district is a project for purposes of CEQA's requirements in No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68. However, CEQA itself notes that its provisions are not exclusively limited to ordinances pertaining to zoning and planning. Section of the act declaresin part: "(a) [T]his division shall apply to discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies, including, but [*7] not limited, to the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances,..." (Emphasis added.)

4 Given the broad definition of "projects" in CEQA, the holding in the No Oil case, and the language contained in section 21080, it is clear that ordinances passed by cities, counties and local agencies are "activities directly undertaken by any public agency" under Public Resources Code section 21065(a) and thus "projects" within CEQA. This was the conclusion reached by the court of appeal in Rosenthal v. Board of Supervisors (1975) 44 Cal. App. 3d 815, 823, wherein the court stated: "In view of the fact that city ordinances were the subject matter in the No Oil case, it appears that it was held impliedly therein that adopting an ordinance was a project within the meaning of the Environmental Quality Act." Resolutions generally differ from ordinances in that, while an ordinance prescribes a permanent rule of conduct or of government, a resolution normally merely expresses the opinion of the legislative body in disposing of an administrative matter. (35 Cal. Jur. 2d, Municipal 392, pp See also 5 McQuillan, Municipal 15.02, [*8] pp ) For many purposes, the two are equivalent. (Central Manufacturing District, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1960) 176 Cal. App. 2d 850, 860.) As is the case with an ordinance, the adoption of a resolution is an activity directly undertaken by a public body. Hence, it also fulfills the definition of project found in section subdivision (a) of CEQA. Therefore, if the ordinance or resolution is discretionary in nature, n3 is not categorically exempt, n4 and may have a significant effect on the environment, an EIR must be prepared before approval. n3 CEQA applies to projects which are discretionary rather than ministerial in nature. (See Pub. Resources 21080, discussed supra; Day v. City of Glendale (1975) 51 Cal. App. 3d 817; and People v. Department of Housing & Community Dev. (1975) 45 Cal. App. 3d 185.) n4 The act directs that the state guidelines prepared by the Office of Planning and Research "shall include a list of classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and which shall be exempt from the provisions of this division..." (Pub. Resources ) A list of twenty exempt classes is found in the guidelines (14 Cal. Admin ). The three ordinances provided as examples for purposes of this question do not appear to fit within any of the exempt classes. [*9] II The second question poses a situation where an agency has adopted a procedure for public review of environmental documents that takes place prior to a separate public hearing on approval or denial of the project itself. Under such a procedure, the public agency either would determine, after an initial study, that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment, or it would complete an environmental impact report. The question then queries whether the public agency must consider and respond to evidence demonstrating that the EIR is inadequate, or that the project will have a significant environmental effect, when that evidence is presented for the first time at the separate hearing on project approval. n5

5 n5 The question does not ask, and we express no opinion concerning, whether CEQA requires the EIR process to be reopened if such information is presented to the local agency after the project itself is approved. Furthermore, we note that the inadequacy of the EIR, or the error in the determination of no significant effect on the environment, of course must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the local agency. In answering this question, we assume that the inadequacy of the EIR or the insufficiency of the negative declaration is such that a lawsuit challenging them would be successful. [*10] When it is uncertain whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment, CEQA requires that the local agency undertake an initial study to determine the environmental consequences of the proposed action. (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, supra 13 Cal. 3d 68; 14 Cal. Admin ) Should the initial study reveal that the project may have a significant effect, or if this is clear from the outset, Public Resources Code section sets forth the affirmative duties which CEQA places on the local agency: "All local agencies shall prepare, or cause to be prepared by contract, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on any project which they intend to carry out or approve which may have a significant effect on the environment..." (Emphasis added.) In Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal. 3d 247, , the California Supreme Court commented on the intent of CEQA to mandate governmental consideration of a project's environmental effects before that project is approved: "[CEQA] requires various state and local governmental entities to submit environmental impact reports before undertaking specified [*11] activity. These reports compel state and local agencies to consider the possible adverse consequences to the environment of the proposed activity..." That CEQA is intended to ensure consideration of environmental consequences before a public agency acts is also made explicit by section of the state guidelines, which reads in part: "... The EIR process is intended to enable public agencies to evaluate a project to determine whether it may have a significant effect on the environment, to examine and institute methods of reducing adverse impacts, and to consider alternatives to the project as proposed. These things must be done prior to approval or disapproval of the project." (Emphasis added.) See also Public Resources Code sections subdivision (g) and subdivision (d), further declaring the Legislature's intent that the longterm protection of the environment shall be the guiding criteria in public decisions; and Burger v. County of Mendocino (1975) 45 Cal. App. 3d 322, holding a project approval invalid on the basis that no evidence existed in the record to show that the EIR had been considered by the local agency. CEQA thus establishes an [*12] affirmative, mandatory duty on the part of the local agency to consider the environmental effects of a proposed project before that project is approved. A local agency cannot fulfill this duty to "examine and institute methods of reducing adverse impacts" and consider alternatives (14 Cal. Admin ) if the EIR being considered is inadequate, or if a negative declaration has been completed on a project when, in fact, the undertaking may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, in these situations, a reopening of the CEQA process by the local agency would seem to be mandated unless such an action is specifically precluded by some other provision of the act. Section of CEQA is the only part of CEQA that addresses the question of a "subsequent" EIR. That section states:

6 "When an environmental impact report has been prepared for a project pursuant to this division, no subsequent environmental impact report shall be required unless either of the following occurs: "(a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report."(b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances [*13] under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report." n6 The operative part of the state guidelines, section 15067, sheds little additional light on the meaning of section 21166: "Subsequent EIR. Where an EIR has been prepared, no additional EIR need be prepared unless: "(a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR, due to the involvement of new environmental impacts not considered in a previous EIR on the project; "(b) There are substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken, such as a change in the proposed location of the project, which will require major revisions in the EIR due to the involvement of new environmental impacts not covered in a previous EIR." We note that section apparently was intended to apply chiefly in two situations: (1) Where there have been changes in a project on which an EIR was prepared previously, and (2) Where an EIR prepared for a project becomes outdated because of changes in the circumstances surrounding it. The facts given in the opinion request before us present [*14] a different situation, one which assumes that the initial EIR or negative declaration is inadequate and that the period of time between certification of the EIR by the local agency and approval of the project is relatively short. Further, section appears to presume that the EIR prepared was legally sufficient when certified, an interpretation which is consistent with the principle that CEQA allows a local agency to rely only on a legally correct environmental document. Environmental Defense Fund Inc. v. Coastside County Water Dist. (1972) 27 Cal. App. 3d 695, 705. The operation of the statute of limitations found in CEQA also appears to support a conclusion that section does not present the only situations in which a subsequent or supplemental EIR may be prepared. Public Resources Code section provides for an action or proceeding "to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul" acts or decisions of a public agency for noncompliance with CEQA. The statutes of limitation for actions alleging either the inadequacy of an EIR or an improper determination in a negative declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment do not [*15] commence running until a "notice of determination" pursuant to sections and has been filed with the appropriate county clerk.(pub. Resources ) The notice of determination will not be filed until the project itself has been approved or disapproved. Thus, the statutory requirement of CEQA that local agencies may act only upon an adequate EIR or proper negative declaration and the operation of CEQA's statute of limitations lead us to conclude that the CEQA process must be reopened if the EIR is demonstrated to be inadequate, or if the finding that a project will not have a significant impact on the environment is shown to be in error. This conclusion should not prove unduly burdensome to a local agency which has established an adequate initial CEQA review process. Such agencies would rarely find themselves in the position of having to reopen their CEQA procedures after initial review has been completed. Furthermore, in

7 determining whether further work on an EIR is necessary, the local agency would apply the settled standard used by the courts in determining the adequacy of an EIR: "The report should provide decisionmakers with information which enables [*16] them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of the environmental consequences (Cal. Admin. Code, tit ; see Trout Unlimited v. Morton (9th Cir. 1974) 509 F.2d 1276, 1282). However, an evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive (see National Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Morton (D.C.Cir. 1972) 485 F.2d 827, 836). The sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible [cases cited]..." San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco (1975) 48 Cal. App. 3d 584, 594. III The third question asks whether lot splits of less than five parcels and reversions to acreage can be excluded from the requirements of CEQA on the basis they are categorically exempt or are ministerial in nature. The Subdivision Map Act, Government Code section et seq., defines "subdivision" as "the divisions, by any subdivider, of any unit or units of improved or unimproved land, or any portion thereof, shown in the latest equalized county assessment role as a unit or as contiguous units..." (Gov ) Tentative and final maps are required to be [*17] filed for subdivisions creating five or more parcels (Gov ) n7 A parcel map must be filed on all subdivisions for which a final or parcel map is not otherwise mandated by the act. (Gov ) n7 Government Code section does create four exceptions to this general rule, where: "... "(a) The land before division contains less than five acres, each parcel created by the division abuts upon a maintained public street or highway and no dedications or improvements are required by the legislative body, or "(b) Each parcel created by the division has a gross area of 20 acres or more and has an approved access to a maintained public street or highway, or "(c) The land consists of a parcel or parcels of land having approved access to a public street or highway which comprises part of a tract of land zoned for industrial or commercial development, and which has the approval of the governing body as to street alignments and widths, or "(d) Each parcel created by the division has a gross area of not less than 40 acres or is not less than a quarter of a quarter section; provided, however, that a local ordinance may specify tentative and final map approval for a subdivision in which one or more of the resultant parcels is between 40 acres and 60 acres in size." A parcel map is required for these four exceptions. [*18] The Subdivision Map Act does allow for waiver of the parcel map requirement imposed by Government Code section Such a waiver can only be made where, pursuant to local ordinance, the local agency makes specified findings. n8 Thus, a lot split of less than five parcels is a subdivision, as defined in the Map Act, that requires the filing of a parcel map, unless such a filing has been waived.

8 n8 Government Code section declares that an ordinance providing for a waiver shall require a finding that the proposed division of land complies with requirements as to area, improvement and design, flood water drainage control, appropriate improved public roads, sanitary disposal facilities, water supply availability, environmental protection, and "other requirements of this division or local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto." This section also provides that where there is such a waiver, the local ordinance may require a tentative map. The Subdivision Map Act further declares that subdivided real property may be reverted to acreage on the initiative of the local legislative body or by petition of all property owners within the subdivision. (Gov and ) [*19] As is the case with a parcel map waiver, a reversion to acreage may take place only if the legislative body makes specific findings. n9 n9 Government Code section allows such a reversion to acreage only if the legislative body finds that: "(a) Dedications or offers of dedication to be vacated or abandoned by the reversion to acreage are unnecessary for present or prospective public purposes; and "(b) Either: "(1) All owners of an interest in the real property within the subdivision have consented to reversions; or "(2) None of the improvements required to be made have been made within two years from the date the final or parcel map was filed for record, or within the time allowed by agreement for completion of the improvements, whichever is the later; or "(3) No lots shown on the final or parcel map have been sold within five years from the date such map was filed for record." Section of CEQA provides that the guidelines developed by the Office of Planning and Research under the act n10 "shall include a list of classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and which shall be exempt from the provisions [*20] of this division..." Accordingly, the state guidelines detail twenty categories of projects which are categorically exempt from CEQA's provisions (14 Cal. Admin ). The guidelines further require that local agencies, in the course of establishing their own procedures to comply with CEQA, "list those specific activities which fall within each of the exempt classes, subject to the qualification that these lists must be consistent with both the letter and intent expressed in the classes." (14 Cal. Admin ) Of the twenty classes of exempt projects listed in the state guidelines, lot splits into less than five parcels and reversions to acreage most closely resemble two categories: (1) "Class 4: Minor alterations to land" (14 Cal. Admin ); and (2) "Class 5: Alterations in land use limitations." (14 Cal. Admin ) n10 See footnote 2, supra. The application of these two classes to a minor lot split was addressed in a recent California appellate decision, Myers v. Board of Supervisors (1976) 58 Cal. App. 3d 413. In Myers the Real Party In Interest owned two adjacent parcels of land, 8.1 acres and 3.5 acres [*21] in size respectively. She sought

9 permission to divide her properties, and the county approved a split that grouped the 11.6 acre total into three parcels. The defendant county, complying with the mandate of Title 14 of the California Administrative Code section that it "list those specific activities which fall within each of the exempt classes," had denominated "minor land divisions" as an exempt category. The Planning Commission and board of supervisors found that the proposed lot splits fell within this category and were thus exempt from CEQA. The trial court agreed. The court of appeal reversed on the basis that the county's categorical exemption for "minor land divisions" did not conform to CEQA and the State EIR Guidelines. The decision first rejected the notion that section of the guidelines, exempting from CEQA "minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water and/or vegetation..." n11 (emphasis added) might apply, noting: n11 Emphasis added by the court. 14 Cal. Admin states in full: "Class 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes. Examples include but are not limited to: "(a) Grading on land with a slope of less than 10 percent, except where it is to be located in a waterway, in any wetland, in an officially designated (by Federal, State or local governmental action) scenic area, or in officially mapped areas of severe geologic hazard. "(b) New gardening or landscaping. "(c) Filling of earth into previously excavated land with material compatible with the natural features of the site. "(d) Minor alterations in land, water and vegetation on existing officially designated wildlife management areas or fish production facilities which result in improvement of habitat for fish and wildlife resources or greater fish production; "(e) Minor temporary uses of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment, including carnivals, sales of Christmas trees, etc. "(f) Minor trenching and backfilling where the surface is restored. "(g) Maintenance dredging where the spoil is deposited in a spoil area authorized by all applicable state and federal regulatory agencies." [*22] "... The examples listed... [under section 15104] all refer to various types of minor alterations in the condition of land with the exception of subdivision (e) which exempts minor temporary uses of land... Exempting a land division, whether denominated major or minor, which involves an alteration in the permanent use of land is not 'consistent with both the letter and the intent expressed in the classes.' (Cal. Admin. Code tit )..." Myers v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 58 Cal. App. 3d at 423. The court reasoned that the county's categorical exemption for "minor land divisions" was closer to the exemption found in section of the state guidelines n12 but nevertheless also rejected its application. Section exempts "minor alterations in land use limitations,... including but not limited

10 to: [P] (a) minor lot line adjustments, side yard and set back variances not resulting in the creation of any new parcel nor in any change in land use or density;..." The Myers court found it "noteworthy that under this classification minor lot line adjustments resulting in the creation of any new parcel or in any change of land use or density are excluded..." [*23] Id. at pp (Emphasis added by court.) n12 Title 14, California Administrative Code section states in full: "Class 5 consists of minor alterations in land use limitations, except zoning, including but not limited to: "(a) Minor lot line adjustments, side yard and set back variances not resulting in the creation of any new parcel nor in any change in land use or density; "(b) Issuance of minor encroachment permits." Thus, under the holding in the Myers case, lot splits of less than five parcels do not fit within the exempt classes denominated in sections and15105 of the state guidelines. Since these are the only exempt classes possibly applicable to such lot splits, they cannot be categorically exempted from CEQA's requirements. The same rationale would also preclude applying any of the exemptions found in the state guidelines to reversions to acreage under the Subdivision Map Act. As with small lot splits, the only classes of exemptions possibly pertinent are minor alterations to land (14 Cal. Admin ) and alterations in land use limitations (14 Cal. Admin ). However, under the rationale of Myers, these exemptions [*24] are inapplicable. The first class refers to alterations in the condition rather than the use of land, while section specifically excludes "change[s] in land use or density." It is true that a reversion to acreage, as well as a lot split of less than five parcels, may not result in a change to the actual density or land use of the acreage involved. Nevertheless, CEQA's provisions must be applied to authorized rather than actual density and land use. The act requires that environmental impact be assessed as early as possible in the governmental planning stage (Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com., supra, 13 Cal. 3d at 282), and such authorizations are the first step in the chain of events ultimately leading to development of the property. In summary, reversions to acreage, as well as divisions of land into less than five parcels, cannot be categorically exempted from CEQA. The second part of the question asks whether lot splits of less than five acres and reversions to acreage can be excluded from CEQA as being ministerial in nature. Section of the act specifies that CEQA only applies to actions proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies [*25] which are discretionary rather than ministerial in nature. The guidelines define "ministerial project" as follows: "Ministerial projects as a general rule, include those activities defined as projects which are undertaken or approved by a governmental decision which a public officer or public agency makes upon a given state of facts in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority. With these projects, the officer or agency must act upon the given facts without regard to his own judgment or opinion concerning the propriety or wisdom of the act although the statute, ordinance, or regulation

11 may require, in some degree, a construction of its language by the officer. In summary, a ministerial decision involves only the use of fixed standards or objective measurements without personal judgment." (14 Cal. Admin ) See also, Day v. City of Glendale, supra, 51 Cal. App. 3d 817, holding that the issuance of a grading permit by a city engineer was not ministerial, in that the city engineer exercised discretion in attaching conditions to the permit. The approval of a parcel map involves the exercise of some discretion on the part of the local [*26] agency. For example, Government Code section declares that "[n]o local agency shall approve a map unless the legislative body shall find that the proposed subdivision... is consistent with the general plan..." A proposed subdivision will be consistent with the general plan if a plan has been adopted officially and the proposed subdivision "is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in such a plan." Id. A determination that a parcel map is consistent with the applicable general plan necessarily will involve the exercise of some discretion on the part of the local agency. The Subdivision Map Act also states that the provisions found in it relating to dedications and offers of dedication on final maps are applicable to dedications and offers of dedication on parcel maps. (Gov ) The dedication provisions are discretionary in that they allow a legislative body to accept, accept subject to improvement, or reject any offer of dedication. (Gov ) n13 n13 The Map Act now allows the local agency, under certain circumstances, to delegate to a designated official the power to reject or accept dedications and offers of dedication on parcel maps. (1977 Stats. Ch. 8.) [*27] Further, section of the Government Code authorizes local agencies to establish by ordinance a procedure "for processing, approval, conditional approval or disapproval and filing of parcel maps..." Such a procedure, if established, almost certainly would contain elements of discretion. A local agency's decision to approve a parcel map therefore contains elements of discretion and cannot be deemed ministerial under CEQA. If a decision by a local agency is of a mixed discretionary ministerial character, CEQA is applicable. People v. Department of Housing & Community Dev., supra, 45 Cal. App. 3d at 194; Day v. City of Glendale, supra, 51 Cal. App. 3d at Similarly, approval of a reversion to acreage under the Subdivision Map Act is a discretionary function. Government Code section states that "[s]ubdivided real property may be reverted to acreage..." (emphasis added), thus allowing the local agency to exercise its judgment in this regard. The Subdivision Map Act also requires the exercise of discretion with regard to findings when a local agency is considering a reversion to acreage. Among other findings, the city of county must [*28] find that dedications or offers of dedication to be vacated or abandoned "are unnecessary for present or prospective public purposes..." (Gov ) n14 See footnote 10, supra, for the other findings which are ministerial in nature. The conclusion that lot splits of less than five parcels and reversions to acreage may not be excluded from CEQA does not mean necessarily that an environmental impact report will be required in every such instance. Section of the state guidelines reads:

12 "The requirements set forth in these Guidelines apply to projects which may have a significant effect on the environment... What it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not covered by the requirements set forth in CEQA, and these Guidelines concerning the evaluation of projects and the preparation and review of environmental documents do not apply." See also, No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 13 Cal. 3d at 74. It should also be noted that the recent amendments to CEQA define the term "significant effect on the environment" to mean a "substantial, [*29] or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment." (Emphasis added.) n15 Section 21068, added to CEQA by AB 2679, 1976 Statutes, chapter The specific factual circumstances involved will determine whether it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the lot split or reversion to acreage may have a significant effect on the environment. Myers v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 58 Cal. App. 3d at 427. n16 It seems to us likely that only a small number of such lot splits or reversions to acreage will fall into the category of possibly having such a significant effect. If it is unclear, the public agency then must undertake an initial threshold study to determine whether the project may have a significant effect. (14 Cal. Admin ) If the local agency finds without an initial study that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or reaches such a conclusion after conducting an initial study, an EIR is necessary. n16 The local agency may not state in conclusory terms that the project will have no significant adverse effect on the environment. Instead, the governmental entity "must set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision," which decision in this situation is that there will be no significant adverse effect. Topanga Assn. For A Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506, 515. [*30]