In Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, the appellant objected to the approval of a mitigated negative declaration for a use permit for a small motel, restaurant and seven unit apartment. (202 Cal. App. 3d at p. 301.) In part, the appellant objected because conditions for the use permit required the developer to conduct future hydrological studies concerning drainage and to provide an "'approved plan for the disposal of sludge that shall be approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division.'" ( Id. at pp. 306-308.) As to the condition of a future study, the appellate court held this was inappropriate: "By deferring environmental assessment to a future date, the conditions run counter to that policy of CEQA which requires environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process." ( Sundstrom, supra, 202 Cal. App. 3d at p. 307.) In addition, the condition "improperly delegated the County's legal responsibility to assess environmental impact by directing the applicant himself to conduct the hydrological studies subject to the approval of the planning commission staff." (Ibid.) This condition circumvented the provisions of CEQA governing the process of environmental review, by omitting the important input of the public and interested agencies. ( Id. at pp. 307-308.) As to the condition the project proponent submit an approved plan for sludge disposal, the court stated: "On its face, the condition is entirely proper; it merely provides that 'an approved plan for the disposal of sludge shall be approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division.' . . . A condition requiring compliance with environmental regulations is a common and reasonable mitigating measure. The similar conditions in the use permit relating to compliance with air and water quality standards are beyond criticism." ( Sundstrom, supra, 202 Cal. App. 3d at p. 308.) For the latter conditions concerning air and water quality, "the County possessed 'meaningful information' reasonably justifying an expectation of compliance. . . . But the only information in the record concerning sludge disposal raised an obstacle to an environmentally satisfactory solution--the absence of any suitable disposal site in the county. By adopting the condition that applicant would comply with environmental standards for sludge disposal, the County effectively removed this aspect of the project from environmental review, trusting that the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the applicant would work out some solution in the future." ( Id. at pp. 308-309.)