When ministerial approvals become discretionary under CEQA

A lot line adjustment is ordinarily ministerial and exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act. What happens, however, when the approval also requires a separate action over which the agency has discretion?

In Steer v. Town of Los Gatos (Sept. 3, 2026, H053166) __ Cal.App.5th __ (Steer), a newly published 6th District Court of Appeal decision, that separate action was the town's acceptance of a property dedication for a new cul-de-sac. The court held that the dedication made the project as a whole discretionary because the town could reject or seek changes to it in response to environmental concerns.

The Steer case

The applicants sought to adjust the boundaries of three residential parcels in Los Gatos. One contained a home, while the other two were undeveloped. The adjustment would bring the parcels into compliance with minimum lot-size requirements, but the two undeveloped parcels still lacked the street frontage required by the town's zoning code.

To address the frontage issue, the applicants proposed to dedicate an easement to the town for a cul-de-sac at the end of an existing street. The town conditioned approval on the property owners making irrevocable offers of dedication and directed the town engineer to accept them.

The town treated the approval as ministerial. Government Code section 66412, subdivision (d), limits review of a qualifying lot line adjustment to whether the resulting parcels conform to the general plan, applicable specific and coastal plans, and zoning and building ordinances. The statute also limits the conditions an agency may impose. Prior cases had characterized that process as ministerial.

The town also emphasized that it was not approving construction of the cul-de-sac. No grading, tree removal or construction was proposed, and future construction would require separate discretionary review.

An adjoining homeowner challenged the approval. She argued that the town's acceptance of the dedication made the project discretionary and subject to CEQA. The trial court sided with the town. The Court of Appeal reversed.

Where the town retained discretion

Steer applies the established distinction between ministerial and discretionary projects. The label attached to an approval does not control. The question is whether the law gives the agency authority to use judgment in deciding whether and how to approve the project. For CEQA purposes, that discretion must allow the agency to address environmental concerns.

The court first had to identify the project. Under CEQA, the project is the "whole of the action." Here, the project was not just the lot line adjustment. It also included the dedication, the town's acceptance of the property and the resulting delineation of the cul-de-sac on the town map.

Acceptance of the dedication supplied the discretionary component.

The condition stated that the town engineer "shall accept" the dedication. Those words did not make acceptance ministerial. The court looked instead to the town's legal authority. It concluded that the dedication arose under common law rather than the Subdivision Map Act. No law required the town to accept it. The town therefore retained authority to accept, reject or seek changes to the dedication.

That authority allowed the town to respond to environmental concerns. The court noted concerns Steer raised involving fire safety, seismic stability, stormwater and trees, but did not decide whether those concerns were valid or whether the project would cause significant environmental impacts. What mattered was whether the town had authority to reject or modify the project based on environmental concerns.

It also did not matter that the town required the dedication to satisfy its frontage requirements rather than to address environmental concerns. The question was whether the town could disapprove or condition the project based on environmental concerns that CEQA review might identify.

The court therefore rejected the town's argument that Government Code section 66412, subdivision (d), placed it in a "ministerial box." A qualifying lot line adjustment may ordinarily be ministerial. A separate discretionary approval does not become ministerial simply because the agency includes it within a lot line adjustment.

What Steer means for CEQA practitioners

Steer does not make lot line adjustments generally subject to CEQA. It also does not create a new rule for projects that contain both ministerial and discretionary components. The established rule remains: the agency must have discretion that allows it to address environmental effects.

Instead, the decision highlights a threshold question that can be easy to overlook: What exactly is the agency approving?

Identifying the principal permit or entitlement as ministerial is not enough. Agency staff and counsel should also examine conditions of approval, dedications and related agency actions. Applicant counsel should do the same when evaluating the CEQA path for a project. If any component gives the agency authority to modify or reject the project in response to environmental concerns, the project may not qualify for the ministerial exemption.

Steer also draws a boundary around its holding. The court concluded that the project did not include future construction of the cul-de-sac or homes on the adjusted parcels. No construction was proposed, and the town had reserved future construction for separate discretionary review. The court did not decide whether the town had prematurely committed itself to particular project features. It also found that Steer had forfeited her broader argument that the town improperly divided the project into separate approvals.

The practical lesson extends to both sides of the entitlement process. Before relying on the ministerial exemption, identify the whole project, not just its principal entitlement. Then ask whether any part of the project gives the agency authority to modify or reject it based on environmental concerns. If so, an ordinarily ministerial entitlement may be part of a discretionary project.