|
|
 |
Revisions proposed in the October 10, 1997
text are marked as follows: additions are underlined; deletions
are indicated by
Text revisions in response to public comment
are marked as follows: new additions are bolded and underlined
and deletions are indicated by
15004 - Time of Preparation 15041 - Authority to Mitigate 15060 - Preliminary Review 15061 - Review for Exemption 15063 - Initial Study 15064 - Determining the Significance of the Environmental Effects Caused by a Project 15064.5 - Determining the Significance of Impacts on Historical and Unique Archeological Resources [new section] 15064.7 - Thresholds of Significance [new section] 15073.5 - Recirculation of a Negative Declaration Prior to Adoption [new section] 15086 - Consultation Concerning Draft EIR 15088.5. - Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification 15097 - Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting [new section] 15111 - Projects with Short Time Periods for Approval 15125 - Environmental Setting 15126.2 - Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts [new section] 15126.4 Consideration and Discussion of Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize Significant Effects [new section] 15126.6 Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to the Proposed Project [new section] 15130 - Discussion of Cumulative Impacts 15152 - Tiering 15183 - Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan or Zoning 15204 - Focus of Review 15269 - Emergency Projects 15283 - Housing Needs Allocation [new section] 15304 - Minor Alterations to Land
15325 - Transfers of Ownership in Land to
Preserve 15331 - Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Mitigate or Eliminate the Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Substances. [new section]
15333 - In-Fill
Development Projects [new section]
Appendix G
Appendix
The Following Sections are Withdrawn from
the Proposal 15307 - Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources
15231 - Adequacy of EIR or Negative Declaration
for Use by Lead and Responsible Agencies
No Revisions are Made to the Following Sections
- They remain as proposed on October 3, 1998 15003 - Policies 15045 - Fees 15062. Notice of Exemption (non-substantive) 15065 - Mandatory Findings of Significance (non-substantive) 15075 - Notice of Determination on a Project for which a Proposed Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration has been Approved 15085 - Notice of Completion 15091 - Findings 15093 - Statement of Overriding Considerations (non-substantive) 15107 - Completion of Negative Declaration for Certain Private Projects 15120 - General 15124 - Project Description 15126 - Consideration and Discussion of Environmental Impacts 15162 - Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations 15164 - Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration 15186 - School Facilities [new section] (non-substantive) 15201 - Public Participation 15202 - Public Hearings 15205 - Review by State Agencies (non-substantive) 15206 - Projects of Statewide, Regional, or Areawide Significance
15276 - 15284 - Pipelines [new section] 15285 - Transit Agency Responses to Revenue Shortfalls [new section] 15300.2 - Exceptions 15301 - Existing facilities 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures 15316 - Transfer of Ownership of Land in Order to Create Parks 15332 - Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation [new section]
15378. Project
Appendix
15004. Time of Preparation.
(a) [no change] (b) Choosing the precise time for CEQA compliance involves a balancing of competing factors. EIRs and negative declarations should be prepared as early as feasible in the planning process to enable environmental considerations to influence project program and design and yet late enough to provide meaningful information
for environmental assessment.
(1) With public projects, at the earliest
feasible time, project sponsors shall incorporate environmental
considerations into project conceptualization, design, and planning.
CEQA compliance should be completed prior to acquisition of a
site for a public project.
(2) With private projects, the lead agency
shall encourage the project proponent to incorporate environmental
considerations into project conceptualization, design, and planning
at the earliest feasible time.
(3) To implement the above principles,
public agencies shall
(A) Formally make a decision to proceed
with the use of a site for facilities which would require CEQA
review, regardless of whether the agency has made any final purchase
of the site for these facilities, except that agencies may designate
a preferred site for CEQA review and may enter into land
acquisition agreements when the agency has conditioned the
final consummation of the purchase and the agency's
(B) Commit or solicit funding for a specific
project where the agency binds itself to use the funding to implement
that project.
(C) Otherwise take any action which gives
(c) The environmental document preparation
and review should be coordinated in a timely fashion with the
existing planning, review, and project approval processes being
used by each public agency. These procedures, to the maximum
extent feasible, are to run concurrently, not consecutively.
When the lead agency is a state agency, the environmental document
shall be included as part of the regular project report if such
a report is used in its existing review and budgetary process.
Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Sections 21003, 21061 and
21105, Public Resources Code; Friends of Mammoth v. Board of
Supervisors, (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247; Mount Sutro Defense
Committee v. Regents of the University of California, (1978)
77 Cal.App.3d 20.
15041. Authority to Mitigate.
Within the limitations described in Section
15040
(a) A lead agency for a project has authority
to require feasible changes in any or all activities involved
in the project in order to substantially lessen
or avoid significant effects on the environment, consistent
with applicable constitutional requirements such as the "nexus"
and "rough proportionality" standards established by
case law (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483
U.S. 825, Dolan v. City of Tigard, (1994) 512 U.S. 374, Ehrlich
v. City of Culver City, (1996) 12 Cal. 4th 854.). (b) [no change]
(c) [no change] Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Sections 21002, 21002.1, and 21085,
Public Resources Code; Golden Gate Bridge District v. Muzzi
(1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 707; Laurel Hills Homeowners
Assn. v. City Council of City of Los Angeles (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d
515.
15060. Preliminary
Review.
(a) A
(b) Except as provided in Section 15111,
the lead agency shall begin the formal environmental evaluation
of the project after accepting an application as complete and
determining that the project is subject to CEQA.
(c) Once an application is deemed complete,
a
(1) The activity does not involve the
exercise of discretionary powers by a public agency
(2) The activity will not result in a
direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment
(3) The activity is not a project as defined
in Section 15378.
(d) If the
lead agency can determine that an EIR will be clearly required
for a project, the agency may skip further initial review of the
project and begin work directly on the EIR process described in
Article 9, commencing with Section 15080. In the absence of an
initial study, the lead agency shall still focus the EIR on the
significant effects of the project and indicate briefly its reasons
for determining that other effects would not be significant or
potentially significant. Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code;
Reference:
15061. Review for Exemption.
(a) Once a lead agency has determined
that an activity is a project subject to CEQA
(b) A project is exempt from CEQA if
(1)
(2) The project is exempt pursuant to
a
(3) The activity is covered by the general
rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential
for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it
can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the
activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment,
the activity is not subject to CEQA.
(4) The project will be rejected or disapproved
by a public agency. (See Section 15270(b)). (c) [no change]
(d) [no change] Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code
Reference: Sections 21080(b), 21080.9, 21080.10,
21084, 21108(b) and 21152(b), Public Resources Code; No Oil,
Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68.
15063. Initial Study.
(a) Following preliminary review, the lead
agency shall conduct an initial study to determine if the project
may have a significant effect on the environment. If the lead
agency can determine that an EIR will clearly be required for
the project, an initial study is not required but may still be
desirable.
(1) All phases of project planning, implementation,
and operation must be considered in the initial study of the project.
(2) To meet the requirements of this section,
the lead agency may use an
(3) An initial study may rely upon expert
opinion supported by facts, technical studies or other
substantial evidence to document its findings. However, an initial
study is neither intended nor required to (b) [no change] 7
(c) Purposes. The purposes of an initial
study are to:
(1) - (7) [no change]
(d) [no change] Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3,
21082.1, 21100 and 21151, Public Resources Code; Gentry
v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, San Joaquin
Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994)
27 Cal.App.4th 713, Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors
(1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337.
15064. Determining the Significance of
the Environmental Effects Caused by a Project.
(a) - (f) [no change]
(g) The decision as to whether a project
may have one or more significant effects shall be based on substantial
evidence in the record of the lead agency.
(1) - (6) [no change]
(7) The provisions of Sections 15162, 15163,
and 15164 apply when the project being analyzed is a change to,
or further approval for, a project for which an EIR or negative
declaration was previously certified or adopted. (e.g. a tentative
subdivision, (h) [no change]
(i) [no change]
(j) (1) When assessing whether a (2) A lead agency may determine in an initial study that a project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be avoided or substantially lessened and thus is not potentially significant. When a project might contribute to a significant cumulative impact, but the contribution will be lessened or avoided through mitigation measures set forth in a mitigated negative declaration, the initial study shall briefly indicate and explain how the contribution has been lessened or avoided.
(
(
(5) The mere existence of significant
cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute
substantial evidence that the proposed project's incremental effects
are cumulatively considerable.
Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Sections 21003, 21065, 21068, 21080,
21082, 21082.1, 21082.2, 21083 and 21100, Public Resources Code;
No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68,
San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Center v. County of Stanislaus
(1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 608; Gentry v. City of Murrieta
(1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn.
v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th
1112.
15064.5. Determining the Significance
of Impacts to Archeological and Historical Resources
(a) For
purposes of this section, the term "historic resources"
shall include the following:
(1)
(2) A resource included in a local register
of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the
Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical
resource survey meeting the requirements section 5024.1(g) of
the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically
or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such
resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates
that it is not historically or culturally significant.
(3)
determines to be
1. Is associated with events that have
made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's
history and cultural heritage;
2. Is associated with the lives of
persons important in our past;
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics
of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents
the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high
artistic values; or
4. Has yielded, or may be likely to
yield, information important in prehistory or history.
(
(b) A project with an effect that may
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical
resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the
environment.
(1) Substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historical resource means physical demolition,
destruction, relocation, or alteration in the resource or its
immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical
resource would be materially impaired.
(2) The significance of an historical
resource is materially impaired when a project:
(A) Demolishes or materially alters in
an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical
resource that convey its historical significance and that justify
its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California
Register of Historical Resources;or
(B) Demolishes or materially alters
in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account
for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources
pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or
its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the
requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code,
unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project
establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is
not historically or culturally significant; or
(C) (
(3) Generally, a
(4) A lead agency shall identify any
potentially feasible measures to mitigate significant adverse
changes in the significance of an historical resource. The lead
agency shall ensure that
(5) When a project will affect state-owned
historical resources, as described in Public Resources Code Section
5024, and the lead agency is a state agency, the lead agency shall
consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer as provided
in Public Resources Code Section 5024.5. Consultation should
be coordinated in a timely fashion with the preparation of environmental
documents.
(c) CEQA applies to effects on archaeological
sites.
(1) When a project will impact an archaeological
site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is
an historical resource, which is defined as any site which
(2) If a lead agency determines that the
archaeological site is an historical resource, it shall refer
to the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code,
(3) If an archaeological site does not
meet the criteria outlined above, but does meet the definition
of a unique archeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the Public
Resources Code, the site shall be treated in accordance with the
provisions of that section. The time and cost limitations described
in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 (c-f) do not apply to
surveys and site evaluation activities intended to determine whether
the project location contains unique archaeological resources.
(4) If an archaeological resource is neither
a unique archaeological nor an historical resource, the effects
of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant
effect on the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the
resource and the effect on it are noted in the Initial Study or
EIR, if one is prepared to address impacts on other resources,
but they need not be considered further in the CEQA process.
(d) When an initial study identifies the
existence of, or the probable likelihood, of Native American
human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work
with the most likely descendant (MLD), as designated by the Native
American Heritage Commission, and the applicant to develop an
agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity,
the human remains and any associated grave goods. Action implementing
such an agreement is exempt from:
(1) The general prohibition on disinterring,
disturbing, or removing human remains from any location other
than a dedicated cemetery (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5).
(2) The requirements of CEQA and the Coastal
Act.
(e) In the event of the accidental discovery
or recognition of any human remains in any location other than
a dedicated cemetery, the following steps should be taken:
(1) There shall be no further excavation
or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected
to overlie adjacent human remains until:
(A) The coroner of the county in which
the remains are discovered has been informed and has determined
that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and
(B) If remains are of Native American origin,
1. The MLD has made a recommendation to
the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work,
for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity,
the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, or
2. The Native American Heritage Commission
was unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation
within 24 hours after being notified by the commission.
(2) Where the following conditions occur,
the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the
Native American human remains and associated grave goods with
appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject
to further subsurface disturbance.
(A) The Native American Heritage Commission
is unable to identify a descendant;
(B) The descendant identified fails to
make a recommendation; or
(C) The landowner or his authorized representative
rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation
by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures
acceptable to the landowner.
(f) As part of the objectives, criteria,
and procedures required by Section 21082 of the Public Resources
Code, a lead agency should make provisions for historical or unique
archaeological resources accidentally discovered during construction.
These provisions should include an immediate evaluation of the
find by a qualified archaeologist. If the find is determined
to be an important historical or unique archaeological resource,
contingency funding and a time allotment sufficient to allow for
implementation of avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation
should be available. Construction work could continue on other
parts of the building site while historical or unique archaeological
resource mitigation takes place. Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Sections 21083.2, 21084, and
21084.1, Public Resources Code; Citizens for Responsible
Development in West Hollywood v. City of West Hollywood (1995)
39 Cal.App.4th 490.
15064.7. Thresholds of Significance.
[new section]
(a)
Each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish
(b) Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Sections 21082 and 21083, Public
Resources Code.
15073.5. Recirculation of a Negative
Declaration Prior to Adoption.
[new section]
(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate
a negative declaration when the document must be substantially
revised after public notice of its availability has previously
been given pursuant to Section 15072, but prior to its adoption.
Notice of recirculation shall comply with Sections 15072 and
15073.
(b) A "substantial revision"
of the negative declaration shall mean:
(1) A new, avoidable significant effect
is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must
be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance, or
(2) The lead agency determines that the
proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce
potential effects to less than significance and new measures or
revisions must be required.
(c) Recirculation is not required under
the following circumstances:
(1) Mitigation measures are replaced with
equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section 15074.1.
(2) New project revisions are added in
response to written or verbal comments on the project's effects
identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not
new avoidable significant effects.
(3) Measures or conditions of project
approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration
which are not required by CEQA , which do not create new significant
environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an
avoidable significant effect.
(4) New information is added to the negative
declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant
modifications to the negative declaration.
(d) If during the negative declaration
process
.... If during the negative declaration process
Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Section 21080, Public Resources
Code; Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th
1359; Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990)
222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Long Beach Savings and Loan Assn. v. Long
Beach Redevelopment Agency (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 249.
15086. Consultation Concerning Draft EIR.
(a) The lead agency shall consult with and
request comments on the draft EIR from:
(1) Responsible agencies,
(2) Trustee agencies with resources affected
by the project,
(3) Any other
(4)
city or county which borders on a
(5) For a project of statewide, regional,
or areawide significance, the transportation planning agencies
and public agencies which have transportation facilities within
their jurisdictions which could be affected by the project. "Transportation
facilities" includes: major local arterials and public transit
within five miles of the project site, and freeways, highways
and rail transit service within 10 miles of the project site.
(6) For a state lead agency, the Department
of Fish and Game as to the impact of the project on the continued
existence of any endangered
(7) For a state lead agency when the EIR
is being prepared for a highway or freeway project, the State
Air Resources Board as to the air pollution impact of the potential
vehicular use of the highway or freeway and if a non-attainment
area, the local air quality management district for a determination
of conformity with the air quality management plan.
(8) For a subdivision project located within
one mile of a facility of the State Water Resources Development
System, the California Department of Water Resources.
(b) The lead agency may consult directly
with
(1) Any person who has special expertise
with respect to any environmental impact involved,
(2) Any member of the public who has filed
a written request for notice with the lead agency or the clerk
of the governing body.
(3) Any person identified by the applicant
whom the applicant believes will be concerned with the environmental
effects of the project.
(c) A responsible agency or other public
agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities
involved in the project which are within an area of expertise
of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved
by the responsible agency. Those comments shall be supported
by specific documentation.
(d) Prior to the close of the public review
period, a responsible agency or trustee agency which has identified
what that agency
If the responsible or trustee agency
is not aware of mitigation measures that address identified effects,
the responsible or trustee agency shall so state. Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Sections 21081.6, 21092.4, 21092.5,
21104 and 21153, Public Resources Code.
15088.5. Recirculation of an EIR Prior to
Certification.
(a) - (e) [no change]
(f) The lead agency shall evaluate and
respond to comments as provided in Section 15088. Recirculating
an EIR can result in the lead agency receiving more than one set
of comments from reviewers. Following are two ways in which the
lead agency may identify the set of comments to which it will
respond. This dual approach avoids confusion over whether the
lead agency must respond to comments which are duplicates or which
are no longer pertinent due to revisions to the EIR. In no case
shall the lead agency fail to respond to pertinent comments on
significant environmental issues.
(1) When the EIR is substantially revised
and the entire EIR is recirculated, the lead agency may require
that reviewers submit new comments and need not respond to those
comments received during the earlier circulation period.
The lead agency shall advise reviewers, either within the text
of the revised EIR or by an attachment to the revised EIR, that
although part of the administrative record, the previous comments
do not require a written response in the final EIR, and that new
comments must be submitted for the revised EIR. The lead agency
need only respond to those comments submitted in response to the
recirculated revised EIR. The lead agency shall send
(2) When the EIR is revised only in part
and the lead agency is recirculating only the revised chapters
or portions of the EIR, the lead agency may request that reviewers
limit their comments to the revised chapters or portions. The
lead agency need only
(g) When recirculating a revised EIR,
either in whole or in part, the lead agency shall, in the revised
EIR or by an attachment to the revised EIR, summarize the revisions
made to the previously circulated draft EIR. Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Section 21092.1, Public Resources
Code; Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of
the University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112.
15097. Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting.
[new section]
(a) This section applies when a public
agency has made the findings required under paragraph (1) of subdivision
(a) of Section 15091 relative to an EIR or adopted a mitigated
negative declaration in conjunction with approving a project.
In order to ensure that the mitigation measures and project revisions
identified in the EIR or negative declaration are implemented,
the public agency shall adopt a program for monitoring or reporting
on the revisions which it has required in the project and the
measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental
effects. A public agency may delegate reporting or monitoring
responsibilities to another public agency or to a private entity
which accepts the delegation; however, until mitigation measures
have been completed the lead agency remains responsible
(b) Where the project at issue
is the adoption of a general plan, specific plan, community plan
or other plan-level document (zoning, ordinance, regulation, policy),
the monitoring plan shall apply to policies
and any other portion of the plan that is a mitigation measure
or adopted alternative. The monitoring plan may consist of policies
included in plan-level documents. The annual report on general
plan status required pursuant to the Government Code is one example
of a reporting program for adoption of a city or county general
plan.
(c) The public agency may choose whether
its program will monitor mitigation, report on mitigation, or
both. "Reporting" generally consists of a written compliance
review that is presented to the decision making body or authorized
staff person. A report may be required at various stages during
project implementation or upon
(1) Reporting is suited to projects which
have readily measurable or quantitative mitigation measures or
which already involve regular review. For example, a report may
be required upon issuance of final occupancy to a project whose
mitigation measures were confirmed by building inspection.
(2) Monitoring is suited to projects with
complex mitigation measures, such as wetlands restoration or archeological
protection, which may exceed the expertise of the local agency
to oversee, are expected to be implemented over a period of time,
or require careful implementation to assure compliance.
(3) Reporting and monitoring are suited
to all but the most simple projects. Monitoring ensures that
project compliance is checked on a regular basis during and, if
necessary after, implementation. Reporting ensures that the approving
agency is informed of
(d) Lead and responsible agencies should
coordinate their mitigation monitoring programs where possible.
Generally, lead and responsible agencies for a given project
will adopt separate and different monitoring or reporting programs.
This occurs because of any of the following reasons:
the agencies have adopted and are responsible for reporting on
or monitoring different mitigation measures; the agencies are
deciding on the project at different times; each agency has the
discretion to choose its own approach to monitoring or reporting;
and each agency has its own special expertise.
(e) At its discretion, an agency may adopt
standardized policies and requirements to guide individually adopted
monitoring or reporting programs. Standardized policies and requirements
may describe, but are not limited to:
(1) The relative responsibilities of various
departments within the agency for various aspects of monitoring
or reporting, including lead responsibility for administering
typical programs and support responsibilities.
(2) The responsibilities of the project
proponent.
(3) Agency guidelines for preparing monitoring
or reporting programs.
(4) General standards for determining
project compliance with the mitigation measures or revisions and
related conditions of approval.
(5) Enforcement procedures for noncompliance,
including provisions for administrative appeal.
(6) Process for informing staff and decision
makers of the relative success of mitigation measures and using
those results to improve future mitigation measures.
(f) Where a trustee agency, in timely
commenting upon a draft EIR or a proposed mitigated negative declaration,
proposes mitigation measures or
(g) When a project is of statewide, regional,
or areawide importance, any transportation information generated
by a required monitoring or reporting program shall be submitted
to the transportation planning agency in the region where the
project is located. Each transportation planning agency shall
adopt guidelines for the submittal of such information. Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
References: Sections 21081.6 and
15111. Projects with Short Time Periods
for Approval.
(a) [no change]
(b) Examples of time periods subject to this
section include, but are not limited to:
(1)
(c) In any case described in this section,
the environmental document shall be completed or certified
and the decision on the project Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Sections 21100.2 and 21151.5, Public
Resources Code; N.R.D.C. v. Arcata National Corp. (1976)
59 Cal.App.3d 959
15125. Environmental Setting.
(a)
(b) When
preparing an EIR for a plan for the reuse of a military base,
lead agencies should refer to the special application of the principle
of baseline conditions for determining significant impacts contained
in Section 15229.
(
(
( Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Sections 21061 and 21100, Public
Resources Code; E.P.I.C. v. County of El Dorado (1982)
131 Cal.App.3d 350; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center
v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713; Bloom
v. McGurk (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1307 .
15126.2 Consideration and Discussion
of Significant Environmental Impacts.
[new section]
(a) The Significant Environmental Effects
of the Proposed Project. An EIR shall identify and focus on the
significant environmental effects of the proposed project. In
assessing the impact of a proposed project on the environment,
the lead agency should limit its examination
(b) Significant Environmental Effects Which
Cannot be Avoided if the Proposed Project is Implemented. Describe
any significant impacts, including those which can be mitigated
but not reduced to a level of insignificance.
(c) Significant Irreversible Environmental
Changes Which Would be Caused by the Proposed Project Should it
be Implemented. Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial
and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since
a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse there
after unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts
(such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously
inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar
uses. Also irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents
associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources
should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is
justified.
(d) Growth-Inducing Impact of the Proposed
Project. Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could
foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional
housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.
Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to
population growth (a major expansion of a waste water treatment
plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service
areas). Increases in the population may Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Sections 21002, 21100, 21081.6,
and 21084.1, Public Resources Code; Citizens of Goleta Valley
v. Board of Supervisors, (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel
Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of
California, (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376; Gentry v. City of Murrieta
(1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359; and Laurel Heights Improvement
Association v. Regents of the University of California (1993)
6 Cal.4th 1112; Goleta Union School Dist. v. Regents of
the Univ. Of Calif. (1995) 37 Cal. App.4th 1025.
15126.4 Consideration and Discussion
of Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize Significant Effects.
[new section] (a) Mitigation Measures in General.
(1) An EIR shall describe feasible measures
which could minimize significant adverse impacts, including where
relevant, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy.
(A) The discussion of mitigation measures
shall distinguish between the measures which are proposed by project
proponents to be included in the project and other measures proposed
by the lead, responsible or trustee agency which are
not included but the lead agency determines could reasonably
be expected to reduce adverse impacts if required as conditions
of approving the project. This discussion shall identify mitigation
measures for each significant environmental effect identified
in the EIR.
(B) Where several measures are available
to mitigate an impact, each should be discussed and the basis
for selecting a particular measure should be identified. Formulation
of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future
time. However, measures may specify performance standards which
would mitigate the significant effect of the project and which
may be accomplished in more than one specified way. (C) Energy conservation measures, as well as other appropriate mitigation measures, shall be discussed when relevant. Examples of energy conservation measures are provided in Appendix F.
(D) If a mitigation measure would cause
one or more significant effects in addition to those that would
be caused by the project as proposed, the effects of the mitigation
measure shall be discussed but in less detail than the significant
effects of the project as proposed. (Stevens v. City of
Glendale, 125 Cal.App.3d 986.)
(2) Mitigation measures must be fully
enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally-binding
instruments. In the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation,
or other public project, mitigation measures can be incorporated
into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design.
(3) Mitigation measures are not required
for effects which are not found to be significant.
(4) Mitigation measures must be consistent
with all applicable constitutional requirements, including
the following:
(A) There must be an essential nexus
(i.e. connection) between the mitigation measure and a legitimate
governmental interest. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission,
483 U.S. 825 (1987); and
(B) The mitigation measure must be "roughly
proportional" to the impacts of the project. Dolan v. City
of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994).
(5) If the lead agency determines that
a mitigation measure cannot be legally imposed, the measure need
not be proposed or analyzed. Instead, the EIR may simply reference
that fact and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead
agency's determination. (b) Mitigation Measures Related to Impacts on Historical Resources.
(1) Where maintenance, repair, stabilization,
rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction
of the historical resource will be conducted in a manner consistent
with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,
Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, the project's
impact on the historical resource will generally be
considered mitigated below a level of significance and thus is
not significant.
(2)
(3) Public agencies should, whenever feasible,
seek to avoid damaging effects on any historical resource of an
archaeological nature. The following factors shall be considered
and discussed in an EIR for a project involving such an archaeological
site:
(A) Preservation in place is the preferred
manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites. Preservation
in place maintains the relationship between artifacts and the
archaeological context. Preservation may also avoid conflict with
religious or cultural values of groups associated with the site.
(B) Preservation in place may be accomplished
by, but is not limited to, the following:
(i) Planning construction to avoid archaeological
sites;
(ii) Incorporation of sites within parks,
greenspace, or other open space;
(iii) Covering the archaeological sites
with a layer of chemically stable soil before building tennis
courts, parking lots, or similar facilities on the site.
(iv) Deeding the site into a permanent
conservation easement.
Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Sections 21002, 21100, 21081.6,
and 21084.1, Public Resources Code; Citizens of Goleta Valley
v. Board of Supervisors, (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel
Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of
California, (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376; Gentry v. City of Murrieta
(1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359; and Laurel Heights Improvement
Association v. Regents of the University of California (1993)
6 Cal.4th 1112; Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council of
Sacramento (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011.
15126.6 Consideration and Discussion
of Alternatives to the Proposed Project.
[new section]
(a) Alternatives to the Proposed Project.
An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the
project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly
attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid
or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the
project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.
An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project.
Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible
alternatives
(b) Purpose. Because an EIR must identify
ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project
may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1),
the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to
the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially
lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these
alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the
project objectives, or would be more costly.
(c) Selection of a range of reasonable
alternatives. The range of potential alternatives to the proposed
project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most
of the basic
(d) Evaluation of alternatives. The EIR
shall include sufficient information about each alternative to
allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the
proposed project. A matrix displaying the major characteristics
and significant environmental effect of each alternative may be
used to summarize the comparison. If an alternative would cause
one or more significant effects in addition to those that would
be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects
of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than
the significant effects of the project as proposed. (County
of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, 124 Cal.App.3d 1).
(e) "No project" alternative.
(1) The specific alternative of "no
project" shall also be evaluated along with its impact.
The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative
is to allow decisionmakers to compare the impacts of approving
the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed
project. The no project alternative analysis
(2) The "no project" analysis
shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice
of preparation is published
(3) A discussion of the "no project"
alternative will usually proceed along one of two lines:
(A) When the project is the revision of
an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy or ongoing operation,
the "no project" alternative will be the continuation
of the plan, policy or operation into the future. Typically this
is a situation where other projects initiated under the existing
plan will continue while the new plan is developed. Thus, the
projected impacts of the proposed plan or alternative plans would
be compared to the impacts that would occur under the existing
plan.
(B) If the project is other than a land
use or regulatory plan, for example a development project on identifiable
property, the "no project" alternative is
(C) After defining the no project alternative
using one of these approaches, the lead agency should proceed
to analyze the impacts of the no project alternative by projecting
what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable
future if the project were not approved, based on current plans
and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.
(A) Feasibility.
Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing
the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic
viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency,
other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries
(projects with a regionally significant impact should consider
the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably
acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site
(or the site is already owned by the proponent). No one of these
factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives.
(Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, (1990) 52
Cal.3d 553; see Save Our Residential Environment v. City of West
Hollywood, (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1745, 1753, fn. 1).
(B) Alternative locations.
1. Key question. The key question and first
step in analysis is whether any of the significant effects of
the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting
the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid
or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the
project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.
2. None feasible. If the lead agency concludes
that no feasible alternative locations exist, it must disclose
the reasons for this conclusion, and should include the reasons
in the EIR. For example, in some cases there may be no feasible
alternative locations for a geothermal plant or mining project
which must be close proximity to natural resources at a given
location.
3. Limited new analysis required. Where
a previous document has sufficiently analyzed a range of reasonable
alternative locations and environmental impacts for projects with
the same basic purpose, the lead agency should review the previous
document. The EIR may rely on the previous document to help it
assess the feasibility of potential project alternatives to the
extent the circumstances remain substantially the same as they
relate to the alternative. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board
of Supervisors, (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 573).
(C) An EIR need not consider an alternative
whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation
is remote and speculative. Residents Ad Hoc Statium Committee
v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal. App.3d 274. Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Sections 21002, 21100, 21081.6,
and 21084.1, Public Resources Code; Citizens of Goleta Valley
v. Board of Supervisors, (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel
Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of
California, (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376; Gentry v. City of Murrieta
(1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359; and Laurel Heights Improvement
Association v. Regents of the University of California (1993)
6 Cal.4th 1112.
15130. Discussion of Cumulative Impacts.
(a) An EIR shall discuss cumulative
(1) As defined in Section 15355, a cumulative
impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the
combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with
other projects causing related impacts. An EIR should not discuss
impacts which do not result in part from the project evaluated
in the EIR.
(2) When (3) An EIR may determine that a project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be mitigated to a level of less than significant and thus is not significant, A project's contribution is less than significant if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures
designed to alleviate the cumulative
impact.t.
(4) An EIR may determine that a project's
contribution to a significant cumulative impact is de minimus
and thus is not significant. A de minimus contribution means that
the environmental conditions would essentially be the same whether
or not the proposed project is implemented.
(b) The discussion of cumulative impacts
shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood
of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail
as is provided
(1) Either:
(A) A list of past, present, and
(B) A summary of projections contained in
an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in
a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified,
which described or evaluated
1. When utilizing a list, as suggested
in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), factors to consider when
determining whether to include a related project should include
the nature of each environmental resource being examined, the
location of the project and its type. Location may be important,
for example, when water quality impacts are at issue since projects
outside the watershed would probably not contribute to a cumulative
effect. Project type may be important, for example, when the
impact is specialized, such as a particular air pollutant or mode
of traffic.
2. "
3. Lead agencies should define the geographic
scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect and provide
a reasonable explanation for the geographic limitation used.
(2) A summary of the expected environmental
effects to be produced by those projects with specific reference
to additional information stating where that information is available;
and
(3) A reasonable analysis of the cumulative
impacts of the relevant projects. An EIR shall examine reasonable,
feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project's
contribution to any significant cumulative effects
(c) With some projects, the only feasible
mitigation for cumulative impacts may involve the adoption of
ordinances or regulations rather than the imposition of conditions
on a project-by-project basis.
(d) Previously approved land use documents
such as general plans, specific plans, and local coastal plans
may be used in cumulative impact analysis. A pertinent discussion
of cumulative impacts contained in one or more previously certified
EIRs may be incorporated by reference pursuant to the provisions
for tiering and program EIRs. No further cumulative impacts analysis
is required when a project is consistent with a general, specific,
master or comparable programmatic plan where the lead agency determines
that the regional or areawide cumulative impacts of
(e) If a cumulative impact was adequately
Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Sections 21083(b), 21093, 21094,
and 21100, Public Resources Code; Whitman v. Board of Supervisors
(1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 397; San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth
v. City and County of San Francisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d
61; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990)
221 Cal.App.3d 692; Laurel Heights Homeowners Association v.
Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376;
Sierra Club v. Gilroy (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 30; Citizens
to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d
421; Concerned Citizens of South Cent. Los Angeles v. Los Angeles
Unified Sch. Dist. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 826; Las Virgenes
Homeowners Fed'n v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d
300; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Ctr v. County of Stanislaus
(1994) 27 Cal. App.4th 713; and Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v.
Cal. Dept. Of Health Services (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1574.
15152. Tiering.
"Tiering" refers to using the
analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as
one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later
EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating
by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR; and
concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on
the issues specific to the later project.
(a) Agencies are encouraged to tier the
(b) Where a lead agency is using the tiering
process in connection with an EIR for a large-scale planning approval,
such as a general plan or component thereof (e.g., an area plan
or community plan), the development of detailed, site-specific
information may not be feasible but can be deferred, in many instances,
until such time as the lead agency prepares a future environmental
document in connection with a project of a more limited geographical
scale, as long as deferral does not prevent adequate identification
of significant effects of the planning approval at hand.
(c) Where an EIR has been prepared
and certified for a program, plan, policy, or ordinance
consistent with the requirements of this section, any lead agency
for a later project pursuant to or consistent with the program,
plan, policy, or ordinance should limit the EIR or negative
declaration on the later project to effects which:
(1) Were not examined as significant effects
on the environment in the prior EIR; or
(2) Are susceptible to substantial reduction
or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project,
by the imposition of conditions, or other means.
(2) When assessing whether there is a
new significant cumulative effect, the lead agency shall consider
whether the incremental effects of the project would be considerable
when viewed in the context of past, present, and probable
(3) Significant environmental effects
have been "adequately addressed" if the lead agency
determines that:
(i) they have been mitigated or avoided
as a result of the prior environmental impact report and findings
adopted in connection with that prior environmental report;
(ii) they have been examined at a sufficient
level of detail in the prior environmental impact report to enable
those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site specific revisions,
the imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection
with the approval of the later project; or
(iii) they cannot be mitigated to avoid
or substantially lessen the significant impacts despite the project
proponent's willingness to accept all feasible mitigation measures,
and the only purpose of including analysis of such effects in
another environmental impact report would be to put the agency
in a position to adopt a statement of overriding considerations
with respect to the effects.
(f) When tiering is used, the later
EIRs or negative declarations shall refer to the prior EIR and
state where a copy of the prior EIR may be examined. The later
EIR or negative declaration should state that the lead
agency is using the tiering concept and that (g) There are various types of EIRs that may be used in a tiering situation. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) General plan EIR (Section 15166).
(2) Staged EIR (Section 15167).
(3) Program EIR (Section 15168).
(4) Master EIR (Section 15175). (5) Multiple-family residential development / residential and commercial or
retail mixed-use development (Section 21158.5,
Public Resources Code).
(6) Redevelopment project (Section 15180).
(7) Housing / neighborhood commercial
facilities in an urbanized area (Section 15181).
(8) Projects consistent with community
plan, general plan, or zoning (Section 15183). Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Sections 21003, 21061, 21093,
21094, 21100, and 21151, Public Resources Code; Stanislaus
Natural Heritage Project, Sierra Club v. County of Stanislaus
(1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 182; Al Larson Boat Shop, Inc. v. Board
of Harbor Commissioners (1993) 18 Cal.App. 4th 729; and Sierra
Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App. 4th 1307.
15183.
(a) CEQA mandates that projects which
are consistent with the development density established by existing
zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an
EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review,
except as might be necessary
(b) In approving a
(1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel
on which the project would be located,
(2) Were not analyzed as significant effects
in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community
plan, with which the
(3) Are potentially significant off-site
impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the
prior EIR prepared for the general plan,community plan or zoning
action, or
(4) Are previously identified significant
effects which, as a result of substantial new information which
was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined
to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior
EIR.
(c ) If an impact is not peculiar to the
parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant
effect in the prior EIR or can be substantially mitigated by the
imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards,
as contemplated by subdivision (e) below, then an additional EIR
need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that
impact.
(1) The project is consistent with:
(A) A community plan adopted as part of a
general plan,
(B) A zoning action which zoned or
designated the parcel on which the project would be located to
accommodate a particular density of
(2) An EIR was certified by the lead agency
for the zoning action, the community plan, or the general
plan.
(1) Each public agency with authority to
mitigate any of the significant effects on the environment identified
in the planning or zoning action undertakes or requires others
to undertake mitigation measures specified in the EIR which the
lead agency found to be feasible, and
(2) The lead agency makes a finding at a
public hearing as to whether the feasible mitigation measures
will be undertaken.
(g) Examples of uniformly applied
development policies or standards include, but are not limited
to:
(1) Parking ordinances.
(2) Public access requirements.
(3) Grading ordinances.
(4) Hillside development ordinances.
(5) Flood plain ordinances.
(6) Habitat protection or conservation
ordinances.
(7) View protection ordinances.
(1) "Community plan" is defined
as a part of the general plan of a city or county which applies
to a defined geographic portion of the total area included in
the general plan, includes or references each of the mandatory
elements specified in Section 65302 of the Government Code, and
contains specific development policies and implementation measures
which will apply those policies to each involved parcel.
(2) For purposes of this section, "consistent"
means that the density of the proposed project is the same or
less than the standard expressed for the involved parcel in the
general plan, community plan or zoning action for which an EIR
has been certified, and that the project complies with the density-related
standards contained in that plan or zoning. Where the zoning
ordinance refers to the general plan or community plan for its
density standard, the project shall be consistent with the applicable
plan.
(j) This section does not affect any requirement
to analyze potentially significant offsite or cumulative impacts
if those impacts were not adequately discussed in the prior
EIR. If a significant offsite or cumulative impact was adequately
discussed in the prior EIR, then this section may be used as a
basis for excluding further analysis of that offsite or cumulative
impact. Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Section 21083.3, Public Resources.
15204. Focus of Review.
(a) In reviewing draft EIRs,
(b) In reviewing negative declarations,
(1) Identify the specific effect,
(2) Explain why they believe the effect would
occur, and
(3) Explain why they believe the effect would
be significant.
(c) Reviewers should explain the basis for
their comments, and
(d) Reviewing agencies or organizations should
include with their comments the name of a contact person who would
be available for later consultation if necessary. Each responsible
agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental
information germane to that agency's statutory responsibility.
(e) This section shall not be used to restrict
the ability of reviewers to comment
(f) Prior to the close of the public review
period for an EIR or mitigated negative declaration, a responsible
or trustee agency which has identified significant effects on
the environment may submit to the lead agency proposed mitigation
measures which would address those significant effects. Any such
measures shall be limited to impacts affecting those resources
which are subject to the statutory authority of that agency.
If mitigation measures are submitted, the responsible or trustee
agency shall either submit to the lead agency complete and detailed
performance objectives for the mitigation measures, or shall refer
the lead agency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or
reference documents which meet the same purpose. Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Sections 21080, 21081.6, and
21080.4, 21104 and 21153, Public Resources Code; San
Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus
(1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 608; and Leonoff v. Monterey County
Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337 .
15269. Emergency Projects.
The following emergency projects are exempt
from the requirements of CEQA.
(a) Projects to maintain, repair, restore,
demolish, or replace property or facilities damaged or destroyed
as a result of a disaster in a disaster stricken area in which
a state of emergency has been proclaimed by the Governor pursuant
to the California Emergency Services Act, commencing with Section
8550 of the Government Code. This includes projects that will
remove, destroy, or significantly alter an historical resource
when that resource represents an imminent threat to the public
of bodily harm or of damage to adjacent property or when the
project has received a determination by the State Office of Historic
Preservation pursuant to Section 5028(b) of Public Resources
Code.
(b) Emergency repairs to
(c) Specific actions necessary to prevent
or mitigate an emergency. This does not include long-term
projects undertaken for the purpose of preventing or mitigating
a situation that has a low probability of occurrence in the short-term.
(d) Projects undertaken, carried out,
or approved by a public agency to maintain, repair, or restore
an existing highway damaged by fire, flood, storm, earthquake,
land subsidence, gradual earth movement, or land or mud slide,
provided that the project is within the existing right of way
of that highway and is initiated within one year of the damage
occurring. This exemption does not apply to highways designated
as official state scenic highways , nor any project undertaken,
carried out, or approved by a public agency to expand or widen
a highway damaged by fire, flood, storm, earthquake, land subsidence,
gradual earth movement, or landslide.
(e) Seismic work on highways and bridges
Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Sections
15283. Housing Needs Allocation.
[new section]
CEQA does not apply to regional
housing needs determinations made by the Department of Housing
and Community Development, Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Section 65584, Government Code.
15304. Minor Alterations to Land.
Class 4 consists of minor public or private
alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation
which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic
trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes. Examples
include, but are not limited to:
(a) Grading on land with a slope of less
than 10 percent, except that grading shall not be exempt in a
waterway, in any wetland, in an officially designated (by federal,
state, or local government action) scenic area, or in officially
mapped areas of severe geologic hazard such as an Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone or within an official Seismic Hazard Zone,
as delineated by the State Geologist.
(b) New gardening or landscaping, including
the replacement of existing conventional landscaping with water
efficient or fire resistant landscaping.
(c) - (h) [no change]
(i) Fuel
management activities within Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Section 21084, Public Resources
Code.
15325. Transfers of Ownership in Land to
Preserve
Class 25 consists of transfers of ownership
in interests in land in order to preserve open space, habitat,
or historical resources. Examples include but are not limited
to:
(a) Acquisition, sale, or other transfer
of areas to preserve existing natural conditions, including
plant or animal habitats.
(b) Acquisition, sale, or other transfer
of areas to allow continued agricultural use of the areas.
(c) Acquisition, sale, or other transfer
to allow restoration of natural conditions, including plant
or animal habitats.
(d) Acquisition, sale, or other transfer
to prevent encroachment of development into flood plains.
(e)
Acquisition, sale, or other transfer to preserve historical resources.
Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Section 21084, Public Resources
Code.
15331. Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize,
Stabilize, Mitigate or Eliminate the Release or Threat of Release
of Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Substances.
[new section]
Class 31 consists of any minor cleanup
actions taken to prevent, minimize, stabilize, mitigate, or eliminate
the release or threat of release of a hazardous waste or substance
which are small or medium removal actions costing $1 million
or less. No cleanup action shall be subject to this Class
31 exemption if the action requires the onsite use of a hazardous
waste incinerator or thermal treatment unit, with the exception
of low temperature thermal desorption, or the relocation of
residences or businesses, or the action involves the potential
release into the air of volatile organic compounds as defined
in Health and Safety Code section 25123.6, except for small scale
in situ soil vapor extraction and treatment systems which have
been permitted by the local Air Pollution Control District or
Air Quality Management District. All actions must be consistent
with applicable state and local environmental permitting requirements
including, but not limited to, air quality rules such as
those governing volatile organic compounds and water quality
standards, and approved by the regulatory body with jurisdiction
over the site. Examples of such minor cleanup actions include
but are not limited to:
(a) Removal of sealed, non-leakingdrums
or barrels of hazardous waste or substances that have been stabilized,
containerized and are designated for a lawfully permitted destination;
(b) Maintenance or stabilization of berms,
dikes, or surface impoundments;
(c) Construction or maintenance of interim
or temporary surface caps;
(d) Onsite treatment of contaminated soils
or sludges provided treatment system meets Title 22 requirements
and local air district requirements;
(e) Excavation and/or offsite disposal
of contaminated soils or sludges;
(f) Application of dust suppressants or
dust binders to surface soils;
(g) Controls for surface water run-on
and run-off that meets seismic safety standards;
(h) Pumping of leaking ponds into
an enclosed container;
(i) Construction of interim or emergency
ground water treatment systems;
(j) Small scale insitu soil vapor extraction
and treatment systems;
(k) Posting of warning signs and fencing
for a hazardous waste or substance site that meets legal requirements
for protection of wildlife.
Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Section 21084, Public Resources
Code.
15333. In-Fill Development Projects.
[new section]
Class 33 consists of projects characterized
as in-fill development meeting the conditions described in this
section.
(a) The project is consistent with the
applicable general plan designation and all applicable
general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation
and regulations.
(c) The project site has no value, or
only de minimus value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened
species.
(d)
(e) The site can be adequately served
by all required utilities and public services. Authority: Section 21083, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Section 21084, Public Resources
Code. 
This file last modified on: Wednesday, May 25, 2005.Document URL: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/rev/text_051598.html Copyright © 1998-2003 California Resources Agency. All rights reserved. |