|
|
 |
Revisions to existing Guidelines text are marked as follows: additions are
underlined; deletions are indicated by
SECTIONS AFFECTED
15003 - Policies 15004 - Time of Preparation 15041 - Authority to Mitigate 15045 - Fees 15060 - Preliminary Review 15061 - Review for Exemption 15062. Notice of 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] 15065 - Mandatory Findings of Significance 15073.5 - Recirculation of a Negative Declaration Prior to Adoption [new section] 15075 - Notice of Determination on a Project for which a Proposed Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration has been Approved 15085 - Notice of Completion 15086 - Consultation Concerning Draft EIR 15088.5. - Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification 15091 - Findings 15093 - Statement of Overriding Considerations 15097 - Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting [new section] 15107 - Completion of Negative Declaration for Certain Private Projects 15111 - Projects with Short Time Periods for Approval 15120 - General 15124 - Project Description 15125 - Environmental Setting 15126 - Consideration and Discussion of Environmental Impacts 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 15162 - Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations 15164 - Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration 15183 - Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan or Zoning 15186 - School Facilities [new section] 15201 - Public Participation 15202 - Public Hearings 15204 - Focus of Review 15205 - Review by State Agencies 15206 - Projects of Statewide, Regional, or Areawide Significance 15231- Adequacy of EIR or Negative Declaration for Use by Lead and Responsible Agencies WITHDRAWN 15269 - Emergency Projects
15276 - 15283 - Housing Needs Allocation [new section] 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 15304 - Minor Alterations to Land 15307 - Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources WITHDRAWN 15316 - Transfer of Ownership of Land in Order to Create Parks
15325 - Transfers of Ownership in Land to Preserve
15330
15331
15332 15378 - Project
Appendix G
Appendix
Appendix
In addition to the policies declared by the Legislature concerning environmental protection and administration of CEQA in Sections 21000, 21001, 21002, and 21002.1 of the Public Resources Code, the courts of this State have declared the following policies to be implicit in CEQA:
(a) - (f) [no change]
(g) The purpose of CEQA is not to generate paper, but to compel government at all levels to make decisions with environmental consequences in mind. (Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263)
(h) The lead agency must consider the whole of an action, not simply its constituent parts, when determining whether it will have a significant environmental effect. (Citizens Assoc. For Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151)
(i) CEQA does not require technical perfection in an EIR, but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good-faith effort at full disclosure. A court does not pass upon the correctness of an EIR's environmental conclusions, but only determines if the EIR is sufficient as an informational document. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692)
(j) CEQA requires that decisions be informed and balanced. It must not be subverted into an instrument for the oppression and delay of social, economic, or recreational development or advancement. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assoc. v. Regents of U.C. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112 and Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553)
Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21000-21176, Public Resources Code.
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) To implement the above principles, public agencies shall not undertake actions concerning the proposed public project that would have a significant adverse effect or limit the choice of alternatives or mitigation measures, before completion of CEQA compliance. For example, agencies shall not:
(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 agency's future use of the site on CEQA compliance.
(B) Otherwise take any action which gives impetus to a planned or foreseeable project in a manner that forecloses alternatives or mitigation measures that would ordinarily be part of CEQA review of that public project.
(3) 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.
(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, etc., 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.
15045. Fees.
(a)
(b) [no change]
Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Section 21089 and 21105, Public Resources Code
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 lead agency must first determine whether an activity is subject to CEQA before conducting an initial study. An activity is not subject to CEQA if:
(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.
15062. Notice of Exemption.
(a) [no change] (b) [no change]
(c) When a public agency approves an applicant's project, either the agency or the applicant may file a notice of exemption.
(1) When a state agency files this notice, the notice of exemption is filed with OPR. A form for this notice is provided in Appendix E. A list of all such notices shall be posted on a weekly basis at the Office of Planning and Research, 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, California. The list shall remain posted for at least 30 days.
(2) When a local agency files this notice, the notice of exemption is filed with the county clerk of each county in which the project will be located. Copies of all such notices shall be available for public inspection and such notices shall be posted within 24 hours of receipt in the office of the county clerk. Each notice shall remain posted for a period of 30 days. Thereafter, the clerk shall return the notice to the local agency with a notation of the period it was posted. The local agency shall retain the notice for not less than 9 months.
(3) All public agencies are encouraged to make postings pursuant to this section available in electronic format on the Internet. Such electronic postings are in addition to the procedures required by these guidelines and the Public Resources Code.
(4) When an applicant files this notice, special rules apply.
(A) - (C) [no change]
(d) [no change]
Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21108 and 21152, Public Resources Code.
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 include the level of detail included in an EIR.
(b) - (e) [no change]
(f) Format. Sample forms for an applicant's project description and a review
form for use by the lead agency are contained in Appendices G and H
(g) [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) - (d) [no change]
(f)(
(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, conditional use permit). Under case law, the fair argument standard does not apply to determinations of significance pursuant to sections 15162, 15163, and 15164.
(g)(
(h)(
(i)(1) When assessing whether a cumulative effect requires an EIR, the lead agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. An EIR must be prepared if the cumulative impact may be significant and the project's incremental effect, though individually limited, is cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. "Probable future projects" are defined in Section 15130.
(2) A lead agency may determine in an initial study that a project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable and thus is not significant. When a project might contribute to a significant cumulative impact, but the contribution will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable through mitigation measures set forth in a mitigated negative declaration, the initial study shall briefly indicate and explain how the contribution has been rendered less than cumulatively considerable.
(3) A lead agency may determine that a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem (e.g. water quality control plan, air quality plan, integrated waste management plan) within the geographic area in which the project is located. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency.
(4) A lead agency may determine that the incremental impacts of a project are not cumulatively considerable when they are so small that they make only a de minimis contribution to a significant cumulative impact caused by other projects that would exist in the absence of the proposed project. Such de minimus incremental impacts, by themselves, do not trigger the obligation to prepare an EIR. A de minimus contribution means that the environmental conditions would essentially be the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented.
(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 [new section]
(a) For purposes of this section, the term "historical resources" shall include the following:
(1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).
(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) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following:
(A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;
(B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
(C) 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
(D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
(4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
(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 of 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) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.
(3) Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource.
(4) A lead agency shall identify potentially feasible measures to mitigate significant adverse changes in the significance of an historical resource. The lead agency shall ensure that any adopted measures to mitigate or avoid significant adverse changes are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
(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, as defined in subsection (a).
(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, and this section, Section 15126.4 of the Guidelines, and the limits contained in Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code do not apply.
(3) If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subsection (a), 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 section 21083.2. 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 appropriate native americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as provided in Public Resources Code SS5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission." 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 must be contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and
(B) If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American:
1. The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours.
2. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased native american.
3. The most likely descendent may make recommendations 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) 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 most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission.
(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 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. 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 thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects. A threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant.
(b) Thresholds of significance to be adopted for general use as part of the lead agency's environmental review process must be adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation, and developed through a public review process and be supported by substantial evidence.
Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21082 and 21083, Public Resources Code.
15065. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
A lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment and thereby require an EIR to be prepared for the project where any of the following conditions occur:
(a) [no change] (b) [no change]
(c) The project has possible environmental effects which are individually
limited but cumulatively considerable.
(d) [no change]
Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21001(c) and 21083, Public Resources Code; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Center v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 608.
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 there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record, before the lead agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment which cannot be mitigated or avoided, the lead agency shall prepare a draft EIR and certify a final EIR prior to approving the project. It shall circulate the draft EIR for consultation and review pursuant to Sections 15086 and 15087, and advise reviewers in writing that a proposed negative declaration had previously been circulated for the project.
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.
15075. Notice of Determination on a Project for which a Proposed Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration has been Approved.
(a) - (e) [no change]
(f) Public agencies are encouraged to make copies of all notices filed pursuant to this section available in electronic format on the Internet. Such electronic notices are in addition to the posting requirements of these guidelines and the Public Resources Code.
Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21080(c), 21108(a) and (c), 21152(a) and (c) and 21167(b), Public Resources Code; Citizens of Lake Murray Area Association v. City Council (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 436.
15085. Notice of Completion.
(a) As soon as the draft EIR is completed, a notice of completion must be filed with OPR in a printed hard copy or in electronic form on a diskette or by electronic mail transmission.
(b) - (d) [no change]
(e) Public agencies are encouraged to make copies of notices of completion filed pursuant to this section available in electronic format on the Internet.
Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 21161, Public Resources Code.
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) Any city or county which borders on a city or county within which the project is located.
(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 or threatened species pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 2090) of Chapter 1.5 of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code.
(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 that 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 considers to be significant environmental effects shall advise the lead agency of those effects. As to those effects relevant to its decision, if any, on the project, the responsible or trustee agency shall either submit to the lead agency complete and detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures addressing those effects or refer the lead agency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents concerning mitigation measures. 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 directly to every agency, person, or organization that commented on the prior draft EIR a notice of the recirculation specifying that new comments must be submitted.
(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 respond to (i) comments received during the initial circulation period that relate to chapters or portions of the document that were not revised and recirculated, and (ii) comments received during the recirculation period that relate to the chapters or portions of the earlier EIR that were revised and recirculated. The lead agency's request that reviewers limit the scope of their comments shall be included either within the text of the revised EIR or by an attachment to the revised EIR.
(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.
15091. Findings.
(a) [no change] (b) [no change]
(c) The finding in subsection (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives.
(d) [no change] (e) [no change]
(f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section.
Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21002, 21002.1, 21081, and 21081.6, Public Resources Code; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515; Cleary v. County of Stanislaus (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 348; Sierra Club v. Contra Costa County (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1212; Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433.
15093. Statement of Overriding Considerations.
(a) [no change]
(b)
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.
Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Sections 21002 and 21081, Public Resources Code; San Francisco
Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco (1975) 48
Cal.App.3d 584
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 for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in accordance with the program.
(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 completion of the mitigation measure. "Monitoring" is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight. There is often no clear distinction between monitoring and reporting and the program best suited to ensuring compliance in any given instance will usually involve elements of both. The choice of program may be guided by the following:
(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 compliance with mitigation requirements.
(d) Lead and responsible agencies should coordinate their mitigation monitoring or reporting 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 project revisions for incorporation into a project, that agency, at the same time, shall prepare and submit to the lead or responsible agency a draft monitoring or reporting program for those measures or revisions. The lead or responsible agency may use this information in preparing its monitoring or reporting program.
(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 21081.7, Public Resources Code.
15107. Completion of Negative Declaration for Certain Private Projects.
With
Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21100.2 and 21151.5, Public Resources Code
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
15120. General
(a) - (c) [no change]
(d) No document prepared pursuant to this article that is available for public examination shall include a "trade secret" as defined in Section 6254.7 of the Government Code, information about the location of archaeological sites and sacred lands, or any other information that is subject to the disclosure restrictions of Section 6254 of the Government Code.
Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Sections 21100,
15124. Project Description
The description of the project shall contain the following information but should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental impact.
(a) [no change]
(b) A statement of objectives sought by the proposed project. A clearly written statement of objectives will help the lead agency develop a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR and will aid the decision makers in preparing findings or a statement of overriding considerations, if necessary. The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project.
(c) [no change]
(d) A statement briefly describing the intended uses of the EIR.
(1) This statement shall include, to the extent that the information is known to the Lead Agency,
(A) A list of the agencies that are expected to use the EIR in their decision-making, and
(B) A list of permits and other
(C) A list of related environmental review and consultation requirements required by federal, state, or local laws, regulations, or policies. To the fullest extent possible, the lead agency should integrate CEQA review with these related environmental review and consultation requirements.
(2) If a public agency must make more than one decision on a project, all its decisions subject to CEQA should be listed, preferably in the order in which they will occur. On request, the Office of Planning and Research will provide assistance in identifying state permits for a project.
Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Sections 21080.3, 21080.4, 21165, 21166, and 21167.2, Public
Resources Code; County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71
Cal.App.3d 185
15125. Environmental Setting.
(a) An EIR must include a description of the physical
environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as
(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. Consideration and Discussion of Environmental Impacts.
All phases of a project must be considered when evaluating its impact on the
environment: planning, acquisition, development, and operation. The
(a) Significant Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project.
(b) Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided if the Proposed Project is Implemented.
(c) Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be Involved in the Proposed Project Should it be Implemented.
(d) Growth-Inducing Impact of the Proposed Project.
(e) The Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize the Significant Effects.
(f) Alternatives to the Proposed Project.
Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference:
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 normally limit its examination to changes in the existing physical conditions in the affected area as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or where no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced. Direct and indirect significant effects of the project on the environment shall be clearly identified and described, giving due consideration to both the short-term and long-term effects. The discussion should include relevant specifics of the area, the resources involved, physical changes, alterations to ecological systems, and changes induced in population distribution, population concentration, the human use of the land (including commercial and residential development), health and safety problems caused by the physical changes, and other aspects of the resource base such as water, historical resources, scenic quality, and public services. The EIR shall also analyze any significant environmental effects the project might cause by bringing development and people into the area affected. For example, an EIR on a subdivision astride an active fault line should identify as a significant effect the seismic hazard to future occupants of the subdivision. The subdivision would have the effect of attracting people to the location and exposing them to the hazards found there.
(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. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should be described.
(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 thereafter 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 tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also discuss the characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.
Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21002, 21003, and 21100, 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 or other persons 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 (1981) 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). Where the mitigation measure is an ad hoc exaction, it must be "roughly proportional" to the impacts of the project. Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854.
(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 (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, the project's impact on the historical resource shall generally be considered mitigated below a level of significance and thus is not significant.
(2) In some circumstances, documentation of an historical resource, by way of historic narrative, photographs or architectural drawings, as mitigation for the effects of demolition of the resource will not mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur.
(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:
1. Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites;
2. Incorporation of sites within parks, greenspace, or other open space;
3. Covering the archaeological sites with a layer of chemically stable soil before building tennis courts, parking lots, or similar facilities on the site.
4. Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.
(C) When data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation, a data recovery plan, which makes provision for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the historical resource, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken. Such studies shall be deposited with the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center. Archaeological sites known to contain human remains shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 7050.5 Health and Safety Code.
(D) Data recovery shall not be required for an historical resource if the lead agency determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from and about the archaeological or historical resource, provided that the determination is documented in the EIR and that the studies are deposited with the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center.
Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21002, 21003, 21100, 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 that will foster informed decisionmaking and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553 and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376).
(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 objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are:(i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.
(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 effects 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 (1981) 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 is not the baseline for determining whether the proposed project's environmental impacts may be significant, unless it is identical to the existing environmental setting analysis which does establish that baseline (see Section 15125).
(2) The "no project" analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably 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. If the environmentally superior alternative is the "no project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.
(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 existing 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 the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Here the discussion would compare the environmental effects of the property remaining in its existing state against environmental effects which would occur if the project is approved. If disapproval of the project under consideration would result in predictable actions by others, such as the proposal of some other project, this "no project" consequence should be discussed. In certain instances, the no project alternative means "no build" wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained. However, where failure to proceed with the project will not result in preservation of existing environmental conditions, the analysis should identify the practical result of the project's non-approval and not create and analyze a set of artificial assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical environment.
(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.
(f) Rule of reason. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason" that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision making.
(1) 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).
(2) Alternative locations.
(A) 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.
(B) 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 in close proximity to natural resources at a given location.
(C) 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).
(3) An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Committee v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal. App.3d 274).
Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21002, 21002.1, 21003, and 21100, 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 the combined cumulative impact associated with the project's incremental effect and the effects of other projects is not significant, the EIR shall briefly indicate why the cumulative impact is not significant and is not discussed in further detail in the EIR. A lead agency shall identify facts and analysis supporting the lead agency's conclusion that the cumulative impact is less than significant.
(3) An EIR may determine that a project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable and thus is not significant. A project's contribution is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. The lead agency shall identify facts and analysis supporting its conclusion that the contribution will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable.
(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. "Probable future projects" may be limited to those projects requiring an agency approval for an application which has been received at the time the notice of preparation is released, unless abandoned by the applicant; projects included in an adopted capital improvements program, general plan, regional transportation plan, or other similar plan; projects included in a summary of projections of projects (or development areas designated) in a general plan or a similar plan; projects anticipated as later phase of a previously approved project (e.g. a subdivision); or those public agency projects for which money has been budgeted.
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 the proposed project have already been adequately addressed, as defined in section 15152(e), in a certified EIR for that plan.
(e) If a cumulative impact was adequately addressed in a prior EIR for a community plan, zoning action, or general plan, and the project is consistent with that plan or action, then an EIR for such a project should not further analyze that cumulative impact, as provided in Section 15183(j).
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.
(a) "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.
(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.
(1) Where a lead agency determines that a cumulative effect has been adequately addressed in the prior EIR, that effect is not treated as significant for purposes of the later EIR or negative declaration, and need not be discussed in detail.
(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 future projects. At this point, the question is not whether there is a significant cumulative impact, but whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. For a discussion on how to assess whether project impacts are cumulatively considerable, see Section 15064(i).
(3) Significant environmental effects have been "adequately addressed" if the lead agency determines that:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) 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.
(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 15179.5).
(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.
15162. Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations.
(a) [no change] (b) [no change]
(c) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency's role in project
approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is
required. Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening
of that approval. If after the project
(d) [no change]
Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code
Reference: Section 21166, Public Resources Code; Bowman v. City of
Petaluma (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065
15164. Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration.
(a) [no change]
(b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
(c) - (e) [no change]
Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Section 21166, Public Resources Code; Bowman v. City of
Petaluma (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065
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 to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies.
(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
15186. School Facilities. [new section]
(a) CEQA establishes a special requirement for certain school projects, as well as certain projects near schools, to ensure that potential health impacts resulting from exposure to hazardous materials, wastes, and substances will be carefully examined and disclosed in a negative declaration or EIR, and that the lead agency will consult with other agencies in this regard.
(b) When a project located within one-fourth mile of a school involves the construction or alteration of a facility which might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous or acutely hazardous air emissions, or which would handle acutely hazardous material or a mixture containing acutely hazardous material in a quantity equal to or greater than that specified in subdivision (a) of Section 25536 of the Health and Safety Code, which may impose a health or safety hazard to persons who would attend or would be employed at the school, the lead agency must:
(1) Consult with the affected school district or districts regarding the potential impact of the project on the school when circulating the proposed negative declaration or draft EIR for review.
(2) Notify the affected school district of the project, in writing, not less than 30 days prior to approval or certification of the negative declaration or EIR. This subdivision does not apply to projects for which an application was submitted prior to January 1, 1992.
(c) When the project involves the purchase of a school site or the construction of a secondary or elementary school, the negative declaration or EIR prepared for the project shall not be approved or certified by the school board unless:
(1) The negative declaration or EIR contains sufficient information to determine whether the property is:
(A) The site of a current or former hazardous waste or solid waste disposal facility and, if so, whether wastes have been removed.
(B) A hazardous substance release site identified by the Department of Toxic Substances Control in a current list adopted pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code for removal or remedial action pursuant to Chapter 6.8 (commencing with Section 25300) of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code.
(C) The site of one or more buried or above ground pipelines which carry hazardous substances, acutely hazardous materials, or hazardous wastes, as defined in Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code. This does not include a natural gas pipeline used only to supply the school or neighborhood.
(2) The lead agency has notified in writing and consulted with the county or city administering agency (as designated pursuant to Section 25502 of the Health and Safety Code) and with any air pollution control district or air quality management district having jurisdiction, to identify facilities within one-fourth mile of the proposed school site which might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous material, substances, or waste. The notice shall include a list of the school sites for which information is sought. Each agency or district receiving notice shall provide the requested information and provide a written response to the lead agency within 30 days of receiving the notification. If any such agency or district fails to respond within that time, the negative declaration or EIR shall be conclusively presumed to comply with this section as to the area of responsibility of that agency.
(3) The school board makes, on the basis of substantial evidence, one of the following written findings:
(A) Consultation identified none of the facilities specified in paragraph (2).
(B) The facilities specified in paragraph (2) exist, but one of the following conditions applies:
1. The health risks from the facilities do not and will not constitute an actual or potential endangerment of public health to persons who would attend or be employed at the proposed school.
2. Corrective measures required under an existing order by another agency having jurisdiction over the facilities will, before the school is occupied, mitigate all chronic or accidental hazardous air emissions to levels that do not constitute any actual or potential public health danger to persons who would attend or be employed at the proposed school. When the school district board makes such a finding, it shall also make a subsequent finding, prior to occupancy of the school, that the emissions have been so mitigated.
This finding shall be in addition to any findings which may be required pursuant to Sections 15074, 15091 or 15093.
(d) When the lead agency has carried out the consultation required by paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), the negative declaration or EIR shall be conclusively presumed to comply with this section, notwithstanding any failure of the consultation to identify an existing facility.
(e) The following definitions shall apply for the purposes of this section:
(1) "Acutely hazardous material," is as defined in 22 C.C.R. SS66260.10.
(2) "Administering agency," is as defined in Section 25501 of the Health and Safety Code.
(3) "Hazardous air emissions," is as defined in subdivisions (a) to (f), inclusive, of Section 44321 of the Health and Safety Code.
(4) "Hazardous substance," is as defined in Section 25316 of the Health and Safety Code.
(5) "Hazardous waste," is as defined in Section 25117 of the Health and Safety Code.
(6) "Hazardous waste disposal site," is as defined in Section 25114 of the Health and Safety Code. |