Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. El Dorado County Board of Supervisors (Cook Ranch Partners)

FAMILIES UNAFRAID TO UPHOLD RURAL EL DORADO COUNTY et al ., Plaintiffs and Appellants. v. EL DORADO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS et al., Defendants and Respondents. COOK RANCH PARTNERS, Real Party In Interest and Respondent. 3 Civil C025674 3 Civil C026477 (Super.Ct.No. PV001195) California Court of Appeal Third Appellate District (El Dorado) CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION ¹
        APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of the County of El Dorado, Judge Winslow Christian, assigned. Reversed.
        Randy L. Barrow and Thomas P. Infusino for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
        Louis B. Green, County Counsel, Edward L. Knapp, Chief Assistant County Counsel, Howard N. Ellman, John D. Hoffman, Paul J. Neibergs, Ellman, Burke, Hoffman & Johnson for Defendants and Respondents and for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

THE COURT:
        It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on March 9, 1998, be modified in the following particulars:

        The addition of the footnote on page 1 will require renumbering of all subsequent footnotes.

        1. On page 2, line 19, insert after "conclude"
        
        ", in the published portion of this opinion, that"

Line 19 should now read:

"of issues. We conclude, in the published portion of this opinion, that Cinnabar is inconsistent with the Land"

        2. On page 2, line 20, delete the semi-colon after "Plan" and insert a period.

        3. On page 2, line 20, after inserted period, insert

        "In the unpublished portion, we conclude:"

Line 20 should now read:

"Use Element of County's Draft General Plan. In the unpublished portion, we conclude: one of the Board's"

        4. On page 6, line 5 of first full paragraph, after "explain" and before comma insert:
        
        "in the published portion of this opinion"

Line 5 should now read:

"evidence. As we explain in the published portion of this opinion, we agree that Cinnabar is inconsistent"

        5. On page 6, line 6, of the first full paragraph, after "Use", insert"

        "Element. In the unpublished portion, we conclude that Cinnabar is inconsistent with the"

        6. On page 6, line 6, delete "and" after the word "Use".

        7. On page 6, line 6, delete "Elements" and insert "Element".

Line 6 should now read:

"with the Draft General Plan's Land Use Element. In the unpublished portion, we conclude that Cinnabar is inconsistent with the Noise Element and"

        The opinion in the above entitled matter filed on March 9, 1998, was not certified for partial publication in the Official Records. For good cause it now appears that the opinion should be published in the Official Records and it is so ordered. There is no change in judgment.

FOR THE COURT:

SIMS, Acting P.J.
DAVIS, J.
RAYE, J.


FAMILIES UNAFRAID TO UPHOLD RURAL EL DORADO COUNTY et al ., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. EL DORADO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS et al., Defendants and Respondents. COOK RANCH PARTNERS, Real Party In Interest and Respondent. 3 Civil C025674 3 Civil C026477 (Super.Ct.No. PV001195) California Court of Appeal Third Appellate District (El Dorado) Filed March 9, 1998
        In this action, the City of Plymouth, the Foothill Conservancy, and an unincorporated association, The FUTURE (collectively, the plaintiffs), have filed a petition for writ of mandate and a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against El Dorado County and its Board of Supervisors (collectively, County, or individually "County" and "Board," as indicated). Plaintiffs allege the Board failed to comply with the County's Draft General Plan and with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in approving the "Cinnabar" residential subdivision project. Cook Ranch Partners (Cook), the real party in interest, is Cinnabar's developer.
        Cinnabar is a planned development residential subdivision encompassing 566 lots on 7,868 acres of land (about 12 square miles), with an equestrian theme and nearly 2900 acres of open space. The project site is in the southwestern portion of County and is currently used for grazing. The site is roughly six miles in length (north to south) and two miles in width. The northern boundary of the project site is about four miles south of the town of El Dorado. The southern boundary is about six miles north of the City of Plymouth (which is in Amador County).
        The trial court ruled in County's favor, and awarded County judgment and costs. In two consolidated appeals (one of which deals only with the issue of costs), plaintiffs raise a plethora of issues. We conclude: Cinnabar is inconsistent with the Land Use Element of County's Draft General Plan; one of the Board's findings regarding consistency with the Agriculture and Forestry Element (i.e., the Nielsen Ranch) is not supported by substantial evidence; Cinnabar is inconsistent with the Noise Element of the Draft General Plan; the Board's findings rejecting project Alternatives "C", "D", and "E" as economically infeasible are not supported by substantial evidence; the deferred impact analysis/mitigation measure for past mining contamination does not meet CEQA standards; the Cumulative Wildlife Habitat Analysis in the environmental impact report (EIR) is adequate if certain assumptions are true; the EIR must respond to the public inquiries about the effectiveness of County's erosion plan and about Cook's compliance history with mitigation measures; and the Board's findings regarding Cinnabar's rezoning, planned development, and tentative subdivision map are inadequate to the extent they are based on these deficiencies. In light of these conclusions, we reverse the judgment and the award of costs to County. We also remand on the question of administrative record copying costs requested by plaintiffs. For guidance of the parties, we address and reject plaintiffs' other contentions.

DISCUSSION         1. Consistency with the Draft General Plan

        a. Background and Standard of Review
        Every county and city must adopt a "comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city . . . ." (Gov. Code, § 65300.) "The general plan has been aptly described as the 'constitution for all future developments' within the city or county. The propriety of virtually any local decision affecting land use and development depends upon consistency with the applicable general plan and its elements [statutorily-required elements include land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space and noise]." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 570 (Citizens), citations and some internal quotation marks omitted; Gov. Code, § 65302.) "The consistency doctrine has been described as 'the linchpin of California's land use and development laws; it is the principle which infuse[s] the concept of planned growth with the force of law.'" (Corona-Norco Unified School Dist. v. City of Corona (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 985, 994, (Corona), citation omitted.)
        A project is consistent with the general plan "'if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment.'" (Corona, supra, 17 Cal.App.4th at p. 994, quoting an advisory General Plan Guideline from the state Office of Planning and Research.) A given project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every general plan policy. (Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 719 (Sequoyah).) To be consistent, a subdivision development must be "compatible with" the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan. (Id. at pp. 717-718.)
        County was updating its general plan when Cook submitted the Cinnabar project for approval. As it was authorized to do, the state Office of Planning and Research (OPR) required County to make findings, reasonably supported by evidence in the record, (1) that any development County approved be consistent with County's Public Review Draft General Plan (Draft General Plan), and (2) that there be little or no probability that the development would be detrimental to or interfere with the future adopted General Plan. (Gov. Code, § 65361, subds. (c)(3), (d), (e); Harroman Co. v. Town of Tiburon (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 388, 394-396; see also Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 511-518 [an agency's administrative findings must disclose evidence-based reasoning].)
        The Board did make such findings, stating:
        "1. The proposed project, including design and improvements, is consistent with the public review Draft General Plan Policies and Land Use Map because it carries out and implements the important policies of integrating low density residential development with preservation and enhancement of large-scale open space resources, improving public access to open space, locating and preserving cultural resources and providing a type of residential development that is not otherwise available in the County, all as part of the project features under the approval conditions.

        "2. There is little or no probability that the project will be detrimental to or interfere with the future adopted General Plan because:

                "(i) It provides for a low density rural residential use, employing cluster development concepts to enhance environmental sensitivity, over that of a more typical large lot subdivision, with a sensitive relationship between the residential areas and the open space to be preserved in a manner that exemplifies the type of sound planning that should be encouraged within the County;

                "(ii) The project calls for set-aside management and preservation of approximately 3,000 acres of open space in scenic, attractive country very desirable for regional open space use with hiking trails and other provision for limited public access;

                "(iii) The project approval conditions will implement an unprecedented and detailed arrangement for location and protection of archeological resources, artifacts and sacred sites associated with former use of the project area by Native Americans;

                "(iv) The project approvals require that the project applicant implement a detailed wildland fire management plan to provide sanctuary areas available for project residents and others in the vicinity;

                "(v) Development of the project will create a demand for approximately 2,000 construction related jobs and 500 permanent jobs at full buildout; and

                "(vi) [T]he project will meet a demand for a type of housing that is in short supply within the County."
        Plaintiffs claim that Cinnabar is inconsistent with the Draft General Plan. They also claim that the Board's findings of consistency with the Draft General Plan and compatibility with its future general plan are not supported by substantial evidence. As we explain, we agree that Cinnabar is inconsistent with the Draft General Plan's Land Use and Noise Elements and that a finding regarding the Agriculture and Forestry Element is not supported by substantial evidence.
        The Board's determination that Cinnabar is consistent with the Draft General Plan carries a strong presumption of regularity. (Sequoyah, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 717.) This determination can be overturned only if the Board abused its discretion--that is, did not proceed legally, or if the determination is not supported by findings, or if the findings are not supported by substantial evidence. (Ibid.) As for this substantial evidence prong, it has been said that a determination of general plan consistency will be reversed only if, based on the evidence before the local governing body, "a reasonable person could not have reached the same conclusion." (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 223, 243.)

        b. Land Use Element
        In June 1992, Cook asked County to rezone the Cinnabar property from RA-40 and RA-80 (Residential Agriculture, 40 and 80-acre parcels) to RE-10/PD (Residential Estate, 10-acre/Planned Development). Shortly thereafter, Cook sought planned development and tentative subdivision map approval for the proposed lots, ranging in size from 5 to 80 acres. As noted, County was updating its general plan at this time.
        On January 11, 1994, the Board approved a Draft General Plan, consisting of the goals, objectives and policies specified in a third draft and the land use maps set forth in a second draft. The land use map of the second draft specified a "RRL" land use designation (Rural Residential Low density, 1 dwelling unit per 40-160 acres) for almost all the Cinnabar site (with a "NR" [Natural Resources] designation comprising the remainder).
        At the January 11 proceeding, a Cinnabar representative referred to this land use map and said: "[T]he problem is we're stuck now in the way the map process came down . . . and we're here to ask to get unstuck so we can keep going. . . . [T]he RRL . . . virtually kills the project . . . ." County counsel later cautioned the Board that "if you're going to be amending the [Draft General Plan], that you're going to need . . . a due process type procedure to amend [it]." The Board then decided to reserve a decision on the general plan land use designation for Cinnabar.
        On February 15, 1994, County's planning director proposed a Draft General Plan land use designation for Cinnabar that combined the RR (Rural Residential, 1 dwelling unit per 20-160 acres) and the LDR (Low-Density Residential, 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres) land use designations. Under this proposal, the RR category would apply to 5,654 acres of the Cinnabar property and the LDR category to 1,400 acres (about 18 percent of the site), in a "floating" manner without specifically mapped boundaries; this would permit a planned development of up to 579 residential units. ² According to the planning director, this proposal could allow the project to go forward and be reviewed under the current EIR and the Draft General Plan. But the planning director had also cautioned that designating LDR on the Cinnabar site ran counter to Draft General Plan policies that required LDR to be contiguous to Community Regions or Rural Centers, that required LDR not to be separated from these areas by the Rural Residential land use designation, and that precluded previously "platted" (subdivided) lands from being used to justify new incompatible land uses.
        At the February 15 Board proceeding, Cook's counsel responded to the planning director's proposal and comments as follows: "[I]t should be clear that the [proposal] that you have before you will not commit you to anything. It doesn't approve a project. It doesn't approve an inclusion in a final general plan. It simply defines the scope of a study that will be ongoing. You reserve the right . . . to suspend all or portions of general plans after they are adopted."
        On March 1, 1994, the Board considered the planning director's proposal. The planning director reiterated: "There is one area of concern and I believe I discussed [it] last time with the Board . . . . In its purer sense, low density residential [LDR] does not work on [the Cinnabar] property based on the framework of the rest of the land use designations and the land use pattern in the area. And that's why I'm recommending . . ., if [the Board] desire[s] to go forward, that you create a . . . maximum density using the rural residential category [RR] and the LDR category but . . . doing it as a floater and not being specific in terms of where those particular land use designations would apply."
        The Board then adopted, on a 3-2 vote, the proposal of the planning director, who had noted "that the density can be shifted throughout the property . . . depending on land use constraints." ³
        Policy 2.2.1.2 of the Draft General Plan's Land Use Element governs land use designations and specifies in pertinent part:

        "To provide for an appropriate range of land use types and densities within the County, the following General Plan land use designations are established and defined . . . .

        "Low Density Residential (LDR) . . . The application of the LDR land use designation shall be further restricted to those lands contiguous to Community Regions and Rural Centers to provide for a transition of density into the Rural Regions. This designation shall not be assigned to lands which are separated from Community Regions or Rural Centers by the Rural Residential land use designation, nor to any areas contiguous to Natural Resources unless it is for the purpose of recognizing existing platted lands (lands which have previously been subdivided.)"
        The evidence is undisputed that no part of the Cinnabar project site is contiguous to a Community Region (basically, a general plan-identified larger town or area of development) or a Rural Center (basically, a general plan-identified smaller town or area of development). The evidence is also undisputed that the Cinnabar site is separated from Community Regions or Rural Centers in the Draft General Plan by the Rural Residential (RR, RRL) land use designation, except for some LDR-PL and MDR-PL (Low Density and Medium Density Residential Platted Lands) to the northeast. Policy 2.2.2.3 of the Draft General Plan governs the PL (Platted Lands) land use designation and specifies:
        "The purpose of the Platted Lands (PL) overlay designation is to identify isolated areas consisting of contiguous existing smaller parcels in the Rural Regions where the existing density level of the parcels would be an inappropriate land use designation for the area based on capability constraints and/or based on the existence of important natural resources. The PL designation shall be combined with a land use designation which is indicative of the typical parcel size located within the Platted Lands boundaries. The existence of the PL overlay cannot be used as a criteri[on] or precedent to expand or establish new incompatible land uses." (First italics in original; second added.)
        It is readily apparent that the LDR designation for Cinnabar is inconsistent with the Draft General Plan policies set forth above governing contiguous development and rural separation, and cannot be "saved" by the platted lands to the northeast. No reasonable person, on the evidence before the Board, could conclude otherwise. County recognizes this state of affairs. As a direct response to it, County in its brief can muster only the following: "The Board was fully aware of those provisions [i.e., the provisions on contiguous development and rural separation], however, when it approved a hybrid land use designation for the 7868-acre Cinnabar property and made that designation part of the land use map for the Draft General Plan."
        In indirect ways, County attempts to show Cinnabar's compatibility with the Draft General Plan. County argues that inconsistency with simply one general plan policy should not be enough to scuttle a project. The court in San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of San Bernardino (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 738 concluded otherwise. There, a project was deemed inconsistent with a general plan because it conflicted with one policy in the conservation element. (Id. at p. 753.)
        County looks to language in Sequoyah, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at page 719 that "a given project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every [general plan] policy," and that "no project could completely satisfy every policy stated in [a general plan]." That may be true. But the nature of the policy and the nature of the inconsistency are critical factors to consider.
        In Sequoyah, there was substantial evidence that a subdivision project was consistent with 14 of 17 pertinent policies. The three remaining policies were amorphous in nature--they "encouraged" development "sensitive to natural land forms, and the natural and built environment." (23 Cal.App.4th at p. 719.) As to these three policies, there was conflicting evidence of consistency. (Id. at p. 720.)
        There was also a question of density consistency in Sequoyah. (Id. at p. 718.) But the general plan in Sequoyah afforded officials "some discretion" in this area, and their density allowances aligned with this discretionary standard. (Ibid.)
        By contrast, the land use policy at issue here is fundamental (a policy of contiguous development, and the Draft General Plan states that the "Land Use Element is directly related to all other elements contained within the General Plan"); the policy is also mandatory and anything but amorphous (LDR "shall be further restricted to those lands contiguous to Community Regions and Rural Centers [both of which are specified 'town-by-town' in the Draft General Plan]," and "shall not be assigned to lands which are separated from Community Regions or Rural Centers by the Rural Residential land use designation").
        Moreover, Cinnabar's inconsistency with this fundamental, mandatory and specific land use policy is clear--this is not an issue of conflicting evidence. (Compare Corona, supra, 17 Cal.App.4th at p. 996 [in rejecting a challenge of general plan inconsistency, the court there stated: "In summary, the General Plan is not as specific as those in the cases on which the [challenger] relies and does not contain mandatory provisions similar to the ones in those cases."].)
        County notes the Board made Cinnabar consistent with the land use map of the Draft General Plan. As part of its general plan guidelines, the OPR publishes a checklist to determine whether a subdivision is consistent with a general plan. That checklist notes that a subdivision must not only be consistent with the general plan map, but also consistent "with the plan's written policies and standards regarding uses, density, and intensity."
        Continuing in a related vein, County points to the section of the Draft General Plan entitled "Using The Plan." That section states in part:
        "In implementing the General Plan, it must be applied comprehensively. No single component (map, goal, objective, policy or map [sic]) can stand alone in the review and evaluation of a development project. Conversely, the absence of a specific policy enabling a particular aspect of a project (exclusive of basic density consistency) is not to be grounds for a finding of general plan inconsistency." (Italics added.)
        The language highlighted above, however, sows the seeds which destroy this argument.
        Finally, County looks to the policies in the Draft General Plan with which Cinnabar is consistent; these are expressed in the Board's finding of consistency with that plan (quoted at the outset of this discussion) and are confirmed by the principle that the LDR land use designation is generally appropriate in rural regions. The general consistencies expressed in this finding and principle, however, cannot overcome the specific, mandatory and fundamental inconsistencies with the LDR land use policies noted above.
        We conclude that Cinnabar is inconsistent with the Land Use Element of the Draft General Plan and that the Board's implied finding of such consistency is not supported by substantial evidence.

        c. Agriculture and Forestry Element
        Policy 8.1.4.1 of the Draft General Plan requires the County Agricultural Commission to "make recommendations" concerning proposed developments involving agricultural lands, and for the "approving authority" (here, the Board) to determine that the proposed development will not have certain negative effects on agricultural activities.
        Contrary to the Agricultural Commission's findings, the Board found:

        "1. The project will not intensify existing conflicts, or add new conflicts between adjacent residential areas and agricultural activities because any such conflicts have been mitigated to levels that are not significant in terms of the policy issues to be served by creation of a project of low density, with set asides of open space, to provide a model for the manner in which agriculture and low density development can co-exist in harmony.

        "2. The project will not create an island effect wherein agricultural lands between are negatively affected because the agricultural 'island' created by the boundary of the project will actually abut those portions of the project that are set aside for open space; and for that reason, the 'island' that exists based on boundaries of the respective parcels will not exist in terms of the uses allowed thereon.

        "3. The project will not hinder agricultural access to water and public roads, or otherwise cause conflict with the continuation or development of agriculture, because these possible effects have been fully mitigated by project approval conditions wherein the project is required to preserve water and access for agricultural activities.

        "4. The project will not significantly reduce or destroy the buffering effect of existing large parcel sizes adjacent to agricultural lands because the project approval conditions require that large parcel sizes be maintained next to agricultural lands on adjoining properties."
        We conclude the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence, with one exception.
        The Board adopted approval conditions and mitigation measures for Cinnabar that included the following agricultural mitigations: recorded easements or agreements for agricultural activities, including cattle drives; construction of a cattle corral; disclosure to Cinnabar lot buyers of periodic cattle drives; an agreement with the Forni Ranch (on Cinnabar's southwestern border), approved by County Counsel, requiring Cook (or a successor developer) or Cinnabar's Community Services District to provide water, if necessary, and to maintain a water supply system for the ranch; Agricultural Commission-supervised fencing adjacent to Williamson Act Contract lands (agricultural lands taxed at agricultural, not development potential, rates); reconfiguration of parcels adjacent to Williamson Act lands to a minimum size of 10 acres with 200-foot structural setbacks; and cattle loss compensation and dog ownership bans, if necessary.
        The one unsupported finding is finding no. 2 above, as it concerns the Nielsen Ranch which abuts Cinnabar's northeastern boundary. The EIR states that "[i]mplementation of the [Cinnabar] project would leave the Nielsen Ranch surrounded entirely by residential development . . . ." At oral argument, plaintiffs' counsel conceded that a small area of open space in the Cinnabar project abuts a small area of the Nielsen Ranch. A review of Cinnabar's proposed development diagram bears out counsel's concession. The point, however, is that the amount of (Cinnabar) open space abutting the Nielsen Ranch is insignificant compared to the amount of (Cinnabar) residential development abutting the Nielsen Ranch. No one can reasonably conclude that such a small area adjacent to the Neilsen Ranch undermines the existence of the agricultural island addressed in finding no. 2.
        We conclude that the Board's implied finding of consistency with the Agriculture and Forestry Element is not supported by substantial evidence in this one respect.

        d. Public Services and Utilities Element

                i. Water Supply
        Policy 5.2.1.2 of the Draft General Plan states that "[a]n adequate quantity and quality of water for all uses, including fire protection, shall be provided for with discretionary development." We conclude there is substantial evidence to support a finding that Cinnabar is consistent with this policy.
        It is true the evidence shows that there are no off-site water sources and that 27 percent of Cinnabar's parcels (approximately 150 parcels) are not geologically conducive to adequate groundwater for individual wells.
        But the Board imposed the following approval conditions and mitigation measures: the formation of a Community Services District (CSD) to oversee the installation and monitoring of water wells; a requirement that all wells be part of a community system with a minimum of 15 wells (County clarifies this as a requirement in its appellate briefing, a requirement that County will be held to); the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the State Department of Health Services must approve the well system; the CSD must conduct periodic monitoring in compliance with requirements of County's Environmental Management Department, to protect water quality and eliminate interference with neighboring off-site wells; prior to filing the final subdivision map for each phase of development, successful wells must be installed on 25 percent of the lots in that phase or a community water system capable of serving 25 percent of the lots must be established; the sale of each residential lot is contingent on development of a successful water well or an alternative water system, with the County's Environmental Management Department determining whether this requirement has been met; and the developer must show proof of an adequate water supply for each and every lot to be marketed.
        We conclude there is sufficient evidence to show that Cinnabar, with its approval conditions and mitigation measures, is consistent with Policy 5.2.1.2.

                ii. Sewage Disposal
        Policy 5.3.2.3 of the Draft General Plan states: "Consider private community wastewater collection and on-site disposal systems, and/or package wastewater treatment plants as an acceptable alternative to traditional wastewater treatment if managed by a public entity."
        It is estimated that 214 of Cinnabar's parcels (38 percent of the parcels) do not have the land suitability for traditional septic systems. The Board approved use of traditional septic systems where feasible, and individual non-traditional ("hybrid") disposal systems or a community disposal system where traditional systems were infeasible.
        Plaintiffs interpret Policy 5.3.2.3 as prohibiting individual, non-traditional septic systems, even if managed by a public entity. County disagrees.
        We cannot say that County's interpretation of Policy 5.3.2.3 is unreasonable. A County's interpretation of its own enactments, such as a general plan, is "of very persuasive significance." (See City of Walnut Creek v. County of Contra Costa (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1021.) The words "private community . . . on-site disposal system" reasonably may encompass individual, non-traditional septic systems managed by a public entity.
        As approval conditions and mitigation measures for Cinnabar, the Board specified that the developer must form a CSD to oversee the sewage disposal systems, that the County Environmental Health Division must conduct sewage disposal inspections as outlined in County ordinances, and that County is the final authority in any disputes between the CSD and County ordinances. Furthermore, all non-traditional septic systems must be designed and constructed in accordance with State Water Resources Control Board guidelines and County Department of Environmental Management specifications, must be approved by the County Department of Environmental Management, and are subject to specific monitoring requirements.
        We conclude there is sufficient evidence to show that Cinnabar, with its approval conditions and mitigation measures, is consistent with County's reasonable interpretation of Policy 5.3.2.3.

        e. Circulation Element
        Policy 3.2.1.2 of the Draft General Plan states:
        "Development review shall consider the adequacy of public and private roads for emergency vehicle access and for off-site traffic impacts. Inadequate roads shall be improved through such measures as 'area of benefit' districts, fees, project approval conditions, assessment districts or other means. Where no improvement or other acceptable mitigation measures are proposed to alleviate project induced situations concurrent with development, land development projects shall be denied."
        Plaintiffs concede that County is charging Cook for its fair portion of County road mitigation. But plaintiffs note that County did not commit itself to raising matching funds needed to construct the road changes. The result, argue plaintiffs, is there is no alleviation of "project induced situations concurrent with development." An inconsistency with Policy 3.2.1.2 results.
        As noted, Cook (or a successor developer) is obligated to pay its fair share of road mitigation for its "project induced situations." Under Policy 3.2.1.2, land development projects are to be denied "[w]here no improvement or other acceptable mitigation measures are proposed to alleviate project induced situations concurrent with development . . . . " That is not the case here. Under Policy 3.2.1.2, Cook is not obligated to pick up County's tab for inadequacies in the County road system; it is obligated to alleviate project induced situations concurrent with its development. Substantial evidence shows Cook will be doing just that.
        We conclude there is sufficient evidence to show that Cinnabar, with its approval conditions and mitigation measures, is consistent with Policy 3.2.1.2. ⁴

        f. Public Health and Safety Element

                i. Fire Safety
        Policy 6.2.2.1 of the Public Health and Safety Element provides in part that "[l]and use densities and intensities shall be determined by mitigation measures in areas designated as high or very high fire hazard."
        The Board adopted approval conditions and mitigation measures requiring that, prior to final map approval, all homesites and building envelopes within each development phase be reviewed, by a registered professional forester and the fire department, "to assure adequate defensible space is available for each proposed lot." The Board determined that such fire defensibility is best left to the final map stage.
        Plaintiffs are worried that leaving fire defensibility as a condition to final map approval will defer land use density decisions to the entitlement stage of final map issuance. But the approval conditions require the "elimination" of lots or building envelopes for which adequate defensible space cannot be provided. Thus, land use densities are "determined by mitigation measures," as Policy 6.2.2.1 requires.
        Moreover, a final map cannot receive ministerial approval until conditions that have been imposed are fulfilled. (See Gov. Code, § 66473; Soderling v. City of Santa Monica (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 501, 505 (Soderling); see also Curtin's, California Land Use and Planning Law, Solano Press Books (17th Edition, 1997), p. 56 (Curtin).)
        We conclude there is sufficient evidence to show that Cinnabar, with its approval conditions and mitigation measures, is consistent with Policy 6.2.2.1.

                ii. Noise
        Policy 6.5.1.9 states that "[n]oise created by new transportation noise sources, including roadway improvement projects, shall be mitigated so as not to exceed [specified] levels . . . . at existing noise-sensitive land uses."
        The Board found that applicable noise levels would be increased by about 3 dBA north of Sand Ridge Road on Highway 49 and would result in "further exceedence of the County 60 dBA CNEL level at residences located along Highway 49." (Italics added.) The mitigation measure proposed in the EIR was that County and the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), "if deemed feasible as part of proposed Highway 49 improvements, should consider paving with rubberized asphaltic concrete north of Sand Ridge Road. Several studies have indicated that by switching from standard asphaltic concrete to rubberized asphaltic concrete, a traffic noise level reduction of 3-5dBA is probable." The Board found this mitigation measure "would be subjected to further study but could prove infeasible. It depends in part upon performance by an agency not under the control of the County [CalTrans]."
        Policy 6.5.1.9 states that "[n]oise created by new transportation noise sources, including roadway improvement projects, shall be mitigated so as not to exceed [certain] levels [including the 60 dBA CNEL residential level]." (Italics added.) However, the evidence shows that the 60 dBA CNEL level was already being exceeded prior to the Cinnabar project. As the record notes, Cinnabar would increase overall noise levels about 3 dBA on the stretch of Highway 49 at issue; this would "further exceed" the 60 dBA level for residences located along this stretch. Policy 6.5.1.9 mandates that new noise be mitigated so as not to exceed the Draft General Plan levels. As noted, the record shows the 60 dBA noise level was already being exceeded prior to Cinnabar. The question is how to apply Policy 6.5.1.9 to these circumstances.
        It makes little sense to conclude that Policy 6.5.1.9 does not apply in any fashion to Cinnabar. Such a conclusion would mean that if the 60 dBA level is already being exceeded, a new project is essentially exempt from that level and is subject to no dBA limitation at all.
        On the other hand, it is unfair and impractical to make Cinnabar reduce noise levels that are above 60 dBA and that have been caused solely by other projects.
        The solution is this. When a project is approved that would "further exceed" a Policy 6.5.1.9-specified noise level, that project, to be consistent with Policy 6.5.1.9, must mitigate the additional noise it creates. This means the Cinnabar project must reduce the noise level by 3 dBA north of Sand Ridge Road on Highway 49; this is the additional noise above the 60 dBA general plan-standard that Cinnabar creates.
        The Board did not reject the proposed mitigation measure but simply recognized that its feasibility depended upon further study and action by an agency over which County had no control. (AR 9810) This is insufficient. To be consistent with Policy 6.5.1.9, a workable mitigation measure will have to be implemented or a general plan amendment will have to be done.
        For all these reasons, we conclude there is insufficient evidence to support the Board's implied finding that Cinnabar is consistent with Policy 6.5.1.9 regarding the stretch of Highway 49 at issue.

        2. Cinnabar's Potential Interference with Future General Plan
        As required by the OPR, the Board found "[t]here is little or no probability that the [Cinnabar] project will be detrimental to or interfere with the future adopted General Plan." The Board based this finding on:
        (1) The project's low-density, clustered-development character, and its sensitive relationship between residential areas and adjacent protected open space; (2) its set-aside of approximately 3,000 acres of scenic open space desirable for regional hiking and equestrian use; (3) its unprecedented conditions for protection of archeological resources and Native American sites; (4) its detailed wildland fire management plan with provisions for sanctuary for project residents and neighbors; and (5) its contributions to job creation and housing supply.
In summary the Board stated, "[a]ll of the foregoing carry out policies and achieve goals that the new General Plan is likely to incorporate and that represent the consensus view of County residents."
        Plaintiffs argue that an express purpose of the above-stated OPR condition was to "avoid foreclosing planning options during the general plan update process." In disregard of this purpose, plaintiffs argue, Cinnabar's approval foreclosed planning options across more than 12 square miles (nearly 8,000 acres), or 1/60th of County's privately-owned land. When these 8,000 acres are combined with the 16,000 acres previously approved for development during the general plan update process, nearly 1/20th of County's privately-owned land was or is being approved for development without a general plan in place. According to plaintiffs, this is not what the OPR had in mind; this also foreclosed County from considering a reasonable range of alternatives, including a low-growth alternative that would have greatly reduced Cinnabar's density.
        We start with the OPR requirement that "[t]here [be] little or no probability the project will be detrimental to or interfere with the future adopted General Plan." (Italics added.) The focus of the OPR requirement, as applied here, is on Cinnabar's impact with the future adopted General Plan. The cumulative impacts from Cinnabar and the previously approved development may have some relevance in analyzing the piecemeal effect of "the Cinnabar project" on the general plan process. But the OPR focus clearly is on "the project," that is, on Cinnabar itself and how it relates to the future general plan.
        We have previously concluded that Cinnabar is inconsistent with the Draft General Plan's Land Use and Noise Elements and that a finding regarding the Agriculture and Forestry Element is not supported by substantial evidence. To that extent, there is a probability that Cinnabar "will be detrimental to or interfere with the future adopted General Plan."
        Aside from these inconsistencies, however, we conclude the Board acted properly in finding that Cinnabar would not be detrimental to or interfere with the future adopted General Plan.
        First we consider plaintiff's point about foreclosing planning options. In granting County an extension in August 1992 to complete its general plan, the OPR stated that there must be "little or no probability that [an approved land use] project will be detrimental to or interfere with the . . . General Plan eventually adopted by the Board of Supervisors." The OPR added that "[a] further purpose of these conditions is to avoid foreclosing the County's planning options during the general plan update process."
        When the OPR granted County another extension in August 1993, the Draft General Plan was nearly completed; at this point, the OPR rephrased the "little or no probability" condition to state that there must be "little or no probability the project will be detrimental to or interfere with the future adopted General Plan [referring to the Draft General Plan]."
        Although the Draft General Plan was just that, a draft subject to further public review, it was likely to be, in most basic respects, the future adopted General Plan. At the time of the August 1993 OPR extension, then, the County had already considered, in one fashion or another, the basic planning options; its views on those options were embodied, explicitly and implicitly, in the Draft General Plan. As the County notes in its brief: "Under the terms of [the August 1993] extension, County was required only to conclude on a reasonable basis . . . that the [Cinnabar] project would not be detrimental to or interfere with 'the future adopted General Plan.' County was not required to find Cinnabar consistent with every possible variant of the Draft General Plan that it had already selected, after lengthy consideration, as the most likely candidate to be 'the future adopted General Plan.'" In short, Cinnabar's approval did not foreclose various planning options from being considered. Cinnabar itself did not foreclose County from adopting a "low-growth" general plan alternative for the County.
        Plaintiffs also look to Committee for Responsible Planning v. City of Indian Wells (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1005 (Indian Wells). The trial court there found the City's general plan inadequate, noting that it lacked any discussion of moderate or low-income housing. (Id. at p. 1014.) The City had limited area for development. (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal found there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's refusal to allow a large-lot residential project to proceed pending the City's adoption of an adequate general plan, because the project could "significantly impair" the City's ability to adopt a valid housing element in its general plan. (Ibid.; see Gov. Code, § 65755, subd. (b)(1).) (Indian Wells construed the term "significantly impair" to mean a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse effect on the City's ability to adopt a general plan.) (209 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1013-1014.)
        Plaintiffs read Indian Wells as disapproving a project "that . . . develop[s] 1 in 150 acres of undeveloped land during a city's general plan process, thereby foreclosing . . . general plan options over a significant portion of the city." (The residential project in Indian Wells comprised 12.5 acres out of the City's total of 1,916 acres of undeveloped, developable land.) (209 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1009-1010.)
        Plaintiffs read Indian Wells as establishing general standards concerning the amount of land that can be developed during a general plan update process. But the focus in Indian Wells was on whether substantial evidence supported the trial court's determination that the large lot residential project would "significantly impair" (Gov. Code, § 65755) the adoption of a valid general plan, especially its housing element. Indian Wells does not establish some sort of "1/150th" rule.
        Here, the Board cited Cinnabar's low-density clustered-development character, its preservation of nearly 3,000 acres of open space, its archeological protection, its fire management plan, and its economic and housing contribution to support the Board's finding that there is little or no probability that Cinnabar will interfere with the future adopted General Plan. Each of these reasons finds substantial evidence support in the record.
        We conclude that, aside from the inconsistencies regarding the Land Use and Noise Elements and the unsupported finding (finding no. 2) involving the Agriculture and Forestry Element, the Board properly found there was little or no probability that Cinnabar would interfere with the future adopted general plan.

        3. The CEQA Issues

        a. Standard of Review
        The standard of review for the CEQA issues is similar to the standard we used in reviewing the general plan issues. In reviewing agency actions under CEQA, a court's inquiry extends only to whether there has been a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded legally or if its determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence. (Citizens, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 564; see also Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1374-1375.) "The purpose of CEQA is . . . to compel government at all levels to make decisions with environmental consequences in mind. . . . We may not . . . substitute our judgment for that of the people and their local representatives. We can and must, however, scrupulously enforce all legislatively mandated CEQA requirements." (Citizens, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 564.)

        b. Project Alternatives
        An EIR (which is required for a government-approved project which may have a significant effect on the environment) must consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the project which (1) offer substantial environmental advantages over the project proposal, and (2) may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner considering the economic, environmental, social and technological factors involved. (Citizens, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 566; Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21002, 21061.1, 21081, subd. (a)(3), 21081.5, 21151; Calif. Code Regulations, title 14, Guidelines, §§ 15126(d), 15131, 15364 (Guidelines).)
        Plaintiffs claim that the Board's findings regarding project Alternatives B, C, D and E are not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree with respect to Alternative B, but agree with respect to findings of economic infeasibility regarding the others.
        The Board rejected Alternative B (Western Access), finding in part that it required building a major access to the project from the west across lands that Cook did not own. Plaintiffs note that Cook is required, under mitigation measures, to widen the existing northern access provided by China Hill Road and to construct an emergency road departing from the project's western boundary (that meets minimum fire safety standards). Both of these mitigation measures, plaintiffs point out, involve acquisition of land not owned by Cook.
        We cannot say the Board's distinction between these construction projects lacks substantial evidence. There is a significant distinction between building a new major access from the west, on the one hand, and widening an existing access and constructing a "minimum emergency" road, on the other. Furthermore, the major access from the west required bridge construction. ⁵
        The Board rejected Alternative C ("Existing Zoning"--141 residential units, 1 unit per 40-80 acres) partly because it was economically infeasible. The Board rejected Alternatives D ("Reduced Density Cluster"--141 clustered five-acre parcels) and E ("Proposed Buildout Cluster"--569 clustered one-acre parcels) solely on this basis. The EIR concluded that each of these three alternatives was environmentally superior to the project proposal in substantive ways.
        Findings of economic infeasibility must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167, 1180; Village Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 1022, 1033-1035.) That is not the case with Alternatives C, D and E.
        In rejecting these three alternatives, the Board concluded that Cook would recover under them only a fraction of its investment. To arrive at this conclusion, the Board simply relied on statements from Cook's representatives that this was the case, without any evidence or analysis being presented. County Counsel had noted the deficiencies in the economic infeasibility findings and had asked Cook to remedy them by providing supporting evidence. All Cook could muster were the blanket statements from its representatives. A Cook consultant had prepared a fiscal impact analysis, but this study focused on the costs and benefits of the Cinnabar project from a governmental perspective; in any event, the record shows that County did not independently review this study.
        "The core of an EIR is the mitigation and alternatives sections." (Citizens, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 564.) A government agency may have the project applicant's consultant initially draft and analyze the EIR, but the agency must independently evaluate the work product before adopting and using it. (Friends of La Vina v. County of Los Angeles (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1446, 1454.) Here, no substantive evidence was presented regarding economic infeasibility and the County conducted no independent economic review.
        This state of affairs is similar to that of Burger v. County of Mendocino (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 322. In Burger, a board of supervisors impliedly rejected a project alternative as economically infeasible. The appellate court said there was no evidence to support this determination. Burger noted that "[c]ounsel for the developer did state to the board that the alternative . . . was not feasible economically, and one witness assumed the same, although disclaiming any experience or expertise in that field." (Id. at pp. 326-327.) Burger concluded: "There is no estimate of income or expenditures, and thus no evidence that reduc[ing the size of the project] . . . would make the project unprofitable." (Id. at p. 327.) The same can be said here.
        We conclude there is insufficient evidence to support the Board's rejection of Alternatives C, D and E as economically infeasible.
        Our conclusion also applies to the Board's findings rejecting mitigation measures for Impacts LU-6 and TC-5. Impact LU-6 proposed adoption of a project alternative to mitigate development pressures on surrounding lands and Impact TC-5 proposed a significant reduction in project density to mitigate traffic. Both of these mitigation measures were rejected on the same economic infeasibility finding used to reject Alternatives C, D and E.

        c. Mitigation Measures Considered
        Like project alternatives, mitigation measures need only be considered and adopted if they are feasible and would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of a project. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21002, 21002.1, subd. (b); San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519.) As with alternatives, "'[f]easible' means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1.) Plaintiffs challenge the Board's actions regarding several mitigation measures. We turn to those now.

                i. Oak Trees
        The Board rejected a nine-step mitigation measure that called for three or five oak trees to be planted for each oak removed. The Board noted that it would protect oaks on residential lots by making that a condition of issuing building permits, that less than 3 percent of the oaks would be affected by road construction, and that by removing cattle from the project area, the project would substantially reduce impacts on oak seedlings. The Board concluded that "such a small impact [i.e., the less than 3 percent oak loss] is probably not significant."
        The Board's rejection of the oak mitigation measure is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. The record shows that Cinnabar would cause, under a reasonable worst-case estimate, the loss of 17,200 trees for building envelopes/septic fields and 14,900 trees for road construction (i.e., a total of 32,100 trees of which 28,000 are estimated to be oaks). There are an estimated 290,000 trees on the project site. Conditions on building permits are to be imposed to protect the oaks on the building envelopes and septic field sites. That leaves the 14,900 trees lost to road construction, which comprises about 5 percent of the estimated total number of trees (the vast majority of which are oaks). The reduced grazing impacts on oak seedlings could help mitigate some of this loss. This analysis, moreover, is based on a reasonable worst-case assessment. The EIR had considered an 11 percent tree loss to be a significant impact. We cannot say, on this record, that the Board is out of line in concluding that less than 3 percent of the oaks will be affected by road construction and that "such a small impact is probably not significant."

                ii. Water and Sewer Capacity
        Plaintiffs note that the mitigation measures imposed to ensure an adequate water supply system (including for fire fighting) and an adequate sewage disposal system do not apply until the building permit stage. From a CEQA standpoint, plaintiffs argue, it is premature to find these impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance.
        We discussed the approval conditions and mitigation measures for the water supply and sewage disposal systems in our discussion of Draft General Plan consistency. We refer the reader to that discussion. On the basis of it, we conclude the Board acted properly regarding these mitigation measures.

                iii. Allegedly Contradictory Mitigation Findings
        Plaintiffs point to inconsistencies between mitigation measures and the findings adopting those measures regarding the impact to plant communities resulting from the Wildfire Management Plan. (Mitigation Measures BR-3(a) and (b).) The mitigation measures state that their adoption would reduce impacts to sensitive plant communities to less than significant levels. The Board adopted the mitigation measures in its findings but noted that it seems inevitable there will be at least some impact to sensitive plant communities from wildfire management practices.
        Plaintiffs claim that such contradictory findings do not reveal a sound analytical route between the record and the finding, and are therefore defective. We disagree. We think these findings show a careful and forthright consideration of these proposed mitigation measures, and not simply a rubber-stamping blind adherence.
        Plaintiffs also claim that certain findings regarding the widening of China Hill Road inconsistently set that width at 40 feet and at 24 feet. The Board revised approval condition no. 39 to reduce the required width to 24 feet, but neglected to revise the corresponding mitigation measure (finding TC-2A) to reflect this decision.

                iv. Wildlife Protection From Domestic Pets
        Plaintiffs object to the mitigation measure (BR-9(a)) that uses the project's "CC&Rs" to protect wildlife from domestic pets. Plaintiffs note that County cannot publicly enforce the CC&Rs. They argue there is no evidence the CC&Rs will effectuate the intended mitigation.
        The record shows the Board was fully informed about this measure's effectiveness when it approved Cinnabar. We also note there is no evidence these CC&Rs will not effectuate the intended mitigation. This is a matter of judgment for the Board, not the courts. (See Citizens, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 564.)

                v. Recreational Facilities
        Plaintiffs criticize the Board's decision to require the Cinnabar developer to sell the local school district a 10-acre parcel at agricultural land prices for school and public recreational purposes, in lieu of requiring land dedication or fee payments for a baseball/soccer playfield.
        Again, this is a matter for the Board's judgment, not for ours.

                vi. Disruption of Wildlife Movement
        Plaintiffs contend the Board's finding for Impact BR-10 states erroneously that no mitigation was proposed for the disruption of local wildlife movement; plaintiffs note this finding fails both to acknowledge the proposed mitigations and to cite evidence of their infeasibility.
        Plaintiffs are correct if one examines the discussion of Impact BR-10 as it appears on page 9815 of the administrative record. However, a discussion of the same Impact BR-10 appears on pages 9825-9826 of the administrative record. At those pages, the Board partially adopts the mitigation measure for Impact BR-10 (which specifies that all fencing must meet wildlife standards), rejecting it where it conflicts with the fencing mitigation measures prescribed for adjacent agricultural land use.

        d. Impact Analyses and Mitigation Measures Deferred
        A mitigation study conducted after project approval will inevitably have a diminished influence on sound decision-making. (See Sundstrom v. City of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307; see also Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 884-885.) Nevertheless, as this court stated in Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1028-1029 (Sacramento Old City):
        "Sundstrom 'need not be understood to prevent project approval in situations in which the formulation of precise means of mitigating impacts is truly infeasible or impractical at the time of project approval. In such cases, the approving agency should commit itself to eventually working out such measures as can be feasibly devised, but should treat the impacts in question as being significant at the time of project approval. Alternatively, for kinds of impacts for which mitigation is known to be feasible, but where practical considerations prohibit devising such measures early in the planning process (e.g., at the general plan amendment or rezone stage), the agency can commit itself to eventually devising measures that will satisfy specific performance criteria articulated at the time of project approval.'" (Quoting Remy et al., Guide to the Cal. Environmental Quality Act (1991 ed.) pp. 200-201, fn. omitted)."
        Plaintiffs contend that several impact analyses and mitigation measures have been improperly deferred. We agree with plaintiffs regarding the mining contamination study, but disagree regarding the others.
        In many of these challenges, plaintiffs express concern that mitigation conditions deferred to the time of final subdivision map approval will be swept up in the ministerial approval associated with a final map and not be satisfied. (See Youngblood v. Board of Supervisors (1978) 22 Cal.3d 644, 653, fn.4; Curtin, supra, at p. 56.) We reiterate that there can be no ministerial approval of a final map until conditions that have been imposed are fulfilled. (See Gov. Code, § 66473; see also Soderling v. City of Santa Monica, supra, 142 Cal.App.3d at p. 505; see Curtin, supra, p. 56.) Now to the specific challenges.

                i. Fire Defensibility
        We have discussed this measure in our general plan discussion on the Public Health and Safety Element. Suffice it to say here that prior to final map approval, home siting and building envelopes will be reviewed for fire defensibility by a registered professional forester and approved by the fire department. To assure adequate defensible space is available for each proposed lot, special siting requirements and/or building envelope redesign or elimination may be required. For example, pursuant to these measures, lots 2, 27, 107 and 119 in Area A must either not be developed or have their building envelopes redesigned to make their homesites defensible as determined by the fire department.
        These requirements satisfy the "specific performance criteria" guideline of Sacramento Old City (i.e., specific performance criteria articulated at the time of project approval for mitigation measures that are feasible but impractical to devise early in the planning process). (229 Cal.App.3d at p. 1029.)

                ii. Slope Stability
        The concern here is with studies analyzing roadway alignments in steeply-sloped areas.
        The requirements of those studies are:
        "Subsurface geotechnical investigation shall be performed in areas of potential retaining walls and each retaining wall specifically designed based on the anticipated conditions in the area of each retaining wall. Design shall be performed by a State of California licensed professional geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. [¶] [Cook] or subsequent developers, as appropriate, shall contract with a State of California licensed engineering geologist and soils engineer to investigate areas of potential slope instability within and adjacent to the project area to determine the potential for future landslides as a result of site grading. The stability of individual cut slopes shall be analyzed for final design on a site specific basis."
Again, these requirements satisfy the "specific performance criteria" guideline of Sacramento Old City.

                iii. Rangeland Management Plan and Prescribed Burn Plan
        These plans are to mitigate impacts to plant communities resulting from wildfire management. Specifically, they are to mitigate impacts from grazing and prescribed burning.
        The Rangeland Management Plan is to address quantified natural resource management objectives, range ecology and productivity, specified range improvements, specified grazing management, protection of identified sensitive habitats and rangeland monitoring and reporting. It is to be prepared by a qualified range specialist. A qualified ranch manager must be retained to implement the plan and coordinate management, monitoring, reporting, and maintenance activities. The plan will become part of the CC&R's and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan.
        The Prescribed Burn Plan is to be prepared by a qualified fire ecologist in coordination with a registered professional forester (qualified in wildland fire management), the fire protection districts, and the California Department of Forestry. It must address, among other things, burn rotations, burning seasons, burning frequency, weather prescriptions and burn preparation. It prohibits certain mechanical blading. It specifies how firelines should be created. And it requires monitoring of plant succession and fuel loads following burning. The plan will become part of the CC&R's and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan.
        The requirements for the Rangeland Management Plan and the Prescribed Burn Plan satisfy the "specific performance criteria" guideline of Sacramento Old City.

                iv. Affected School Districts
        This mitigation measure states:
        "Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall enter into a mitigation agreement with the affected school districts. The scope of the mitigation agreement would be determined as part of the discussion between the applicant and the school districts, but shall at a minimum require payment of the adopted residential unit impact fee, identify any necessary school district boundary adjustments, and if determined to be necessary by the school district(s), shall identify a school site within the project boundaries."
        This measure falls within the guideline of Sacramento Old City that the formulation of precise means of mitigating impacts is truly infeasible or impractical at the time of project approval. As the Board stated in essentially adopting this mitigation measure: "The foregoing mitigation requires that the applicant meet the demands of the school districts. They are the agencies responsible for fulfilling the school demand. . . . The relevant Districts and the applicant shall set the terms of the agreement and it is not within the jurisdiction of the County to specify the 'minimum' requirements."

        v. Cultural Resources Management Plan, Construction Management Plan to Protect Cultural Resources, and Memorandum of Understanding with the El Dorado County Indian Council to Mitigate Impacts to Cultural Resources
        The Cinnabar project area contains several sites of historical and cultural significance, including California Indian sites.
        The mitigation measures include the following three general methods to protect these sites: a Cultural Resources Management Plan, a Construction Management Plan, and a Memorandum of Understanding with the El Dorado County Indian Council.
        To protect cultural resources, the Board has adopted over 30 specific mitigation measures covering nine pages of standard-sized text. These measures address identified sites of unknown significance, identified sites of known significance, known and unknown on-site cultural resources, and known and unknown off-cite cultural resources. These measures, too numerous to mention here, are specific to individual parcels and lots. An annual monitoring program developed and undertaken by an experienced archeologist is required to check, photograph and maintain the condition of the on-site resources.
        The Cultural Resources Management Plan is the comprehensive vehicle that pulls all this information together and contemplates mitigation on a site-by-site basis. The Construction Management Plan is to be developed by a qualified, County-approved archeologist and is to be approved by the County Planning Department. It is to ensure protection of cultural resources from construction activities. The Memorandum of Understanding concerns the identification, protection and preservation of historic sites, artifacts and archeological resources. These mitigation measures are required as a condition to filing the final subdivision map. As noted, the final subdivision map cannot be approved without these conditions being satisfied.
        These requirements satisfy the "specific performance criteria" guideline of Sacramento Old City.

                vi. Past Mining Contamination
        The mitigation measure adopted for this issue states:
        "A limited Phase One environmental site assessment (ESA) shall be performed at the Monarch, China Hill and Bernard Cinnabar Mine sites. The ESA should focus on confirming the presence or absence of contamination due to past mining activities. Particular attention shall be paid to any mine tailings and the mine dump located at the Bernard Cinnabar Mine site. Should contaminated soils or mine tailings be identified, the report shall recommend proper remedial measures which shall be carried out prior to the sale of any proposed residential lot which contains identified contamination. Any required remediation efforts shall be reviewed by a County-approved archeologist for consistency with the adopted Cultural Resource[s] Management Plan."
        Unlike the mitigation measures and impact analyses discussed above, this measure fails to set forth any specific performance criteria; it also fails to specify any objective oversight process. Moreover, the environmental site assessment does not appear to be "truly infeasible or impractical at the time of project approval."
        Consequently, this measure satisfies neither guideline of Sacramento Old City. The Board, therefore, did not proceed in a legal manner and accordingly abused its discretion in adopting the measure.

        e. Cumulative Wildlife Habitat Analysis
        Plaintiffs contend the EIR analysis regarding cumulative impacts on wildlife habitat is inadequate because it is based on stale data. We disagree, with qualifications we shall explain.
        Plaintiffs note that the cumulative habitat analysis is based on aerial photos from 1974 and that El Dorado County has experienced tremendous population growth since that time.
        The EIR noted that the 1974 aerial photographs provide "a rough approximation of impacts." A "rough approximation" is a whole lot better than "out of the ballpark." More importantly, the record shows the aerial photos were used to confirm the general land cover types (habitat flora) disclosed by a relatively low-resolution map which showed the location of each approved project and the cover type category likely to be impacted by each project. So the 1974 aerial photos were used to confirm or supplement another source of information regarding cumulative effects of post-1974 project approvals on wildlife habitat; and that other source of information--the low-resolution land cover (habitat flora) map--was relatively current by showing the location of each approved project and the likely impacts of each project.
        Furthermore, plaintiffs rely heavily on the percentage increase in population growth in El Dorado County. But because of El Dorado County's relatively small population (87,700 in 1980; 124,730 in 1990), that percentage increase is large (the record ambiguously states 70 percent [perhaps measuring from 1975]; the difference between the 1980 and 1990 figures is around 40 percent). The absolute numbers still show a relatively small population, with perhaps less of a cumulative impact.
        We conclude the cumulative wildlife habitat analysis did not improperly rely on stale data. But our conclusion is grounded in the following assumptions: that this analysis was based principally on the low-resolution land cover (habitat flora) map showing the likely impacts from approved projects; that this map was relatively current at the time of Cinnabar's EIR (accounting for most, if not all, of the projects approved up to the time of Cinnabar's approval); and that the 1974 aerial photographs were used merely in a supplemental way to confirm the information disclosed by the low-resolution map. If any of these assumptions is incorrect, the cumulative wildlife habitat analysis will have to be reworked using information that measures the cumulative impact of growth and land use development in El Dorado County from 1974 to 1994. Cumulative impacts cannot be adequately analyzed here by basing that analysis principally on data from 1974.

        f. Response to Public Comments
        Plaintiffs contend that County failed to provide a good faith, reasoned analysis to certain public comments regarding the Draft EIR.
        A public agency need not respond to every comment made during the public review process, but must specifically respond to the most significant environmental questions presented. (Gallegos v. State Bd. of Forestry (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 945, 954; Browning-Ferris Industries v. City Council (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 862.) Responses to comments must demonstrate a good faith reasoned analysis, but need not be exhaustive. (Towards Responsibility In Planning v. City Council (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 671, 683; Guidelines, § 15088(b).)
        The Cinnabar EIR contains more than 1,000 pages responding to over 900 comments. We agree with County that plaintiffs, in some respects, have focused on particular responses in isolation without considering the responses in the EIR as a whole. We turn now to the specific challenged deficiencies.
        Plaintiffs say that a letter from their counsel identified 23 issues, but County addressed only 8. On appeal, County has pointed to where it has responded to the other 15.
        Similarly, Regan K. Asher's letter was responded to, although the response was incorrectly indexed to a letter submitted by another commentator.
        How Cinnabar specifically affects the mutual aid agreements between the City of Plymouth, Amador County and El Dorado County does seem beyond the scope of a project EIR. That is a matter more appropriate for those jurisdictions.
        County did respond to the issue of wildlife habitat loss by noting that it "is considered less than significant because of the amount of open space left inaccessible in the area as compared to the relatively small percentage of the area affected by human activities." The EIR also discusses the amount of woodland and other habitat flora to be developed. Measures to mitigate wildlife impacts have also been imposed. The Final EIR also cannot be faulted for responding that undeveloped acreage within lots and in recreation/community areas would continue to function as wildlife habitat, given the large size of the lots, the amount of open space set aside, and the general continuance of the rural environment that the Cinnabar project envisions.
        The requested analysis of the effectiveness of CC&R's on mitigating impacts to Blue Oak Woodlands in subdivisions, the requested complete survey of the Cinnabar site for the Elderberry Longhorn Beetle, and the requested traffic analysis should County not match Cinnabar's funds for road mitigation, may not constitute the "most significant environmental questions presented." (See Browning-Ferris, supra, 181 Cal.App.3d at p. 862.)
        There are three areas, however, where County has not made adequate responses in the Final EIR.
        The first concerns the economic feasibility of project Alternatives "C", "D" and "E." As we have concluded previously, the evidence is insufficient to support the Board's findings that these alternatives are economically infeasible.
        The second concerns Cook's (or any successor developer's) history of compliance with mitigation measures in past projects. The Final EIR stated this "is a County enforcement issue which is beyond the scope of the EIR." We disagree. "Because an EIR cannot be meaningfully considered in a vacuum devoid of reality, a project proponent's prior environmental record is properly a subject of close consideration in determining the sufficiency of the proponent's promises in an EIR." (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 420.)
        The third concerns the Final EIR's failure to answer whether the County's erosion control program has been shown to be effective. The Draft EIR relies on this program to mitigate erosion impacts.
        With those three exceptions, we conclude that County has responded adequately in the Final EIR to comments raised during the public's review of the Draft EIR.

        4. The Board's Findings Regarding Rezoning, Planned Development, and Tentative Subdivision Map
        Plaintiffs claim that the Board's rezoning finding is not supported by substantial evidence because that rezoning (from 40/80-acre Rural Residential to 10-acre/Planned Development) is inconsistent with the Draft General Plan. Plaintiffs also challenge the Board's Planned Development and Tentative Subdivision Map findings as mere unsupported conclusions.
        Each of these findings is set forth in the footnote below. ^{6 1  2  3  4  5  6} ause these findings align with the matters discussed previously in this opinion, they are adequate and inadequate to the extent indicated by those discussions.

DISPOSITION          The judgment dismissing the petition for writ of mandate and the complaints for declaratory and injunctive relief is reversed. We have concluded that: Cinnabar is inconsistent with the Land Use Element of County's Draft General Plan; the Board's implied finding that Cinnabar is consistent with the Agriculture and Forestry Element regarding the Nielsen Ranch is not supported by substantial evidence; Cinnabar is inconsistent with the Noise Element of the Draft General Plan; the Board's findings rejecting project Alternatives "C", "D" and "E" as economically infeasible are not supported by substantial evidence; the deferred impact analysis/mitigation measure for past mining contamination does not meet CEQA standards; the Cumulative Wildlife Habitat Analysis in the EIR is adequate if certain assumptions are true; the EIR must respond to the public inquiries about the effectiveness of County's erosion program and about the developer's compliance history with mitigation measures; and the Board's findings regarding Cinnabar's rezoning, planned development, and tentative subdivision map are inadequate to the extent they are based on these deficiencies.
        The order awarding costs to County is reversed. The request by plaintiffs that County and Cook pay plaintiffs the respective amounts of $753.90 and $704.78, plus interest, for their copies of the administrative record provided by plaintiffs, is remanded to the trial court for further consideration in light of our reversal.
        Plaintiffs are awarded their costs on appeal.

We concur:
        SIMS, Acting P.J.
        RAYE, J.



        1. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 976(b) and 976.1, this opinion is certified for partial publication, except for sections 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 3e, 3f, and 4.
        1.         The balance of the acreage in the Cinnabar site would be designated NR (Natural Resource), covering natural resource areas that are not amenable to development.
        1.         Plaintiffs argue that Cinnabar is not consistent with the "legitimate" map of the Draft General Plan--that is, the second draft map. As we have seen, however, the Board did not apply the second draft map to Cinnabar. Instead, the Board gave Cinnabar a "floating" land use designation for general plan purposes as described above.
        1.         Plaintiffs also argue that County's failure to mitigate existing deficiencies in its road system in and about Cinnabar but unrelated to the project itself, violate Policy 5.1.2.1. Policy 5.1.2.1, however, does not apply to roads; it ensures that water, sewage, drainage, school, ambulance services and fire and police protection keep pace with development.
        1.         This analysis also dispenses with the plaintiffs' contention that mitigation measure FH-3(d), which required the emergency western access, is logically inconsistent with the refusal to require a regular western access.
        1.         "C. Rezone Findings.
                "1. The project is consistent with the General Plan for the reasons stated in [the consistency findings] above [that we have previously quoted].
        "D. Planned Development Findings (17.04.030).
                "1. The PD zone request is consistent with the General Plan for the reasons stated in [the consistency] findings above and because the goals and objectives of the project plan facilitate desirable planning and environmental objectives.
        "2. The proposed development is so designed to provide a desirable environment within its own borders because the project approval conditions require a sensitive accommodation between residential and open space uses.
        "3. The exceptions to the standard requirement of the zone regulations are justified by the design, the existing topography and the goals and objectives to be achieved by the plan for the project.
        "4. The site is physically suited for the proposed uses under the project approval conditions that require accommodation with environmental constraints.
        "5. Adequate services are available for the proposed uses including, but not limited to water supply, sewage disposal, roads and utilities under and subject to the approval conditions imposed with respect to the project.
        "6. The proposed uses do not significantly detract from the natural land and scenic values of the site and in fact may enhance them by providing for preservation of open space, location and protection of archeological resources, artifacts and sacred sites and through other project approval conditions.
        "E. Tentative Subdivision Map Findings (16.12.030).
                "1. The proposed map is consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. (See [Consistency] Finding[s] above).
        "2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. (See [Consistency] Findings [above]).
        "3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. (See Finding D4).
        "4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (See Finding D4)
        "5. The design of the subdivision or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantial and avoidable injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat because project approval conditions are fashioned to reduce such damage and avoid such injury.
        "6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health hazards and safety problems or unacceptable fire risks to occupants on adjoining properties because the project approval conditions address and reduce these risks and the fire management plan improves the fire safety associated with the project over the condition that currently exists.
        "7. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision because the project will provide access to open space areas that are not now accessible and provides formal easements for and accommodation of agricultural operations in the vicinity."