HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 05-52 Amended Local Guidelines for Implementing the CEQA Resources CodeCITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
' STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Consideration of adoption of amended Local Guidelines for
implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub.
Resources Code §§ 2100 ET SEQ.)
SUBMITTED BY
APPLICANT:
DATE:
CONTENTS:
Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
City of Palm Desert
June 23, 2005
Recommendation
Discussion
Draft Resolution No. 05-52
Best Best & Krieger Staff Report
2005 CEQA Guidelines
Recommendation:
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 05-52 amending and adopting
Local Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act
(Pub. Resources Code §§ 2100 ET SEQ.)
Discussion:
Attached is a staff report from Best Best & Krieger LLP outlining the changes in law
and incorporating amendments into the 2005 Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Submitted by:
_��. .
il Dre(I
Director of Community Development
Approval:
���=�C"����2:-�'
Carlos L. Ortega �
City Manager
Appr I:
Fiomer Croy
ACM for De lopment Services
( W pdo cs\tmisr�CEQA5. cc)
BEST BEST S� KRIEGER LLP
A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCIUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
INDIAN WELLS LAWYERS
(760) 568-26 1 I 3750 UNIVERSfiY AVENUE
- POST OFFICE BOX I 028
ONTARIO RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502-1026
(909) 989-85B4 (95 { ) 6B6-1 450
(95 I ) 686-3083 FAX
B6 KLAW. COM
Carlos Ortega
City Manager
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92261
May 17, 2005
SAN DIEGO
(619) 525-1300
OR,4NGE COUNTY
(949) 263-2600
SACRAMENTO
(91 6) 325-4000
Re: Year 2005 Update to Local Guidelines for Implementing the California
Environmental Quality Act
Dear Mr. Ortega:
We are pleased to enclose the Update to your Local Guidelines for Implementing
the California Environmental Quality Act ("Local Guidelines"). We are enclosing a
memorandum summarizing changes to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and
changes to your Local Guidelines.
Due to the extent of the changes to your Local Guidelines, we are providing a
complete reproduction rather than replacement pages. We are also providing the Guidelines and
CEQA forms on computer diskettes, should you wish to produce additional copies of your Local
Guidelines. We encourage you to put a copy of these documents on your agency's system for
easy access by your staff, especially with regard to forms. You should keep the diskettes as a
back up.
Also included is a suggested draft resolution that should be used to adopt the
Guidelines. Please contact me if you have any questions about the Guidelines or the
accompanying materials.
�7
Enclosures
SACRAMENTOUTB�21620. I
Yours truly,
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST S� KRIEGER LLP
April 30, 2005
MEMORANDUM
To: Project 5 Participants CLIENT-MATTER NO.: 93939.00005
FROM: Best Best & Krieger LLP
RE: Year 2005 Update
INTRODUCTION
Enclosed is your annual update to Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act ("Local Guidelines") for 2005. Important changes in the
law have been incorporated into your Local Guidelines. For easy reproduction and access to
forms, a copy of your Local Guidelines on computer diskette has been included.
This memorandum summarizes the changes to the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") from 2004 to 2005 by explaining regulatory and legislative amendments
and new court decisions. The first sectian summarizes the 2004 amendments to the State CEQA
Guidelines. The second section digests the 2004 CEQA legislation. The third section analyzes
the CEQA decisions that were issued by the courts in the last year. For your convenience, the
cases in this section are loosely grouped by topic.
Your Local Guidelines and this rnemorandum are designed to assist you in
assessing the environmental implications of a project prior to its approval, as mandated by
CEQA. We still recommend, however, you consult with an attorney when you have specific
questions on major, controversial or unusual projects.
REVISIONS TO THE STATE CEOA GUIDELINES
As you will recall, in 2003, the outgoing Davis adrninistration proposed numerous
amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines and many other administrative regulations.
Governor Schwarzenegger put all of these proposed new regulations, including the State CEQA
Guidelines, "on hold" pending review by his staff.
After reviewing the proposed changes to the State CEQA Guidelines, the
Resources Agency withdrew some of the proposed amendments, revised others, and gave notice
that it intended to proceed with some of the proposed revisions. In July 2004, the Resources
Agency released a"Final Statement of Reasons for Proposed Guideline Amendments," which
listed the proposed amendments, explained them, and included the Resource Agency's responses
to the comments it had received during the rulemaking process.
SACRAM EI�3TOUTB117360. I
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST S. KRIEGER LLP
On September 7, 2004, the Resources Agency officially amended the following
sections of the State CEQA Guidelines: 15023, 15041, 15062, 15063, 15064, 15064.5, 15065,
15075, 15082, 15085, 15087, 15088, 15088.5, 15094, 15097, 15126.4, I5130, 15152, 15183,
15205, 15206, 15252, 15313, 15325, 15330, 15378, Appendix C, and Appendix D. The
Resources Agency also added two new provisions to the Guidelines, Section 15333 and
Appendix L.
The substance of these amendrnents was summarized in the memorandum
provided to you in November 2004. Your 2005 Local CEQA Guidelines have been updated to
reflect these changes.
20Q4 LEGISLATION
2004 was a very active session for CEQA legislation. In all, the Legislature
passed and the Governor signed ten bills relating to CEQA The text of these bills is summarized
below.
Assembly Bi113090 (AB 3090)
AB 3090 requires that the CEQA Guidelines be revised to reflect the Califarnia
Supreme Court's holding in Friends of Sier-ra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre, 25 Cal. 4th 165
(2001). Previously, Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines defines the "projects" that are not
subject to CEQA; this definition excluded proposals that are submitted to a vote of the people
from the CEQA review process. Public agencies had relied on this provision to put initiative
measures on the ballot without undertaking environmental review of the potential impacts of the
proposed new laws. In Friends of Sierra Madre, the Court ruled that the Guidelines' exclusion
of initiatives sponsored by public agencies was overbroad. While initiatives placed on the ballot
due to voter-sponsored petition drives are exempt from CEQA review, initiatives placed on the
ballot as a discretionary decision of the public agency are not.
A.B 3090 also moved the provision requiring the Resources Agency to prepare
amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines from Public Resources Code § 210$3 to Public
Resources Code § 21087. The amendments are still required to be prepared every two years.
As explained below, the Resources Agency amended Section 15378 of the State
CEQA Guidelines last September. The new language addresses the issue targeted by AB 3090.
We have revised your Guidelines to reflect the revisions made by the Resources Agency to the
State Guidelines, and no additional revisions are necessary to bring your Guidelines in�o
compliance with this bill.
Assembly Bili 2814 (AB 2814)
AB 2814 relates to CEQA litigation procedures. This bill clarifes that the
petitioner bringing a CEQA lawsuit is required to name as defendants only the public agencies
that issued the approval and the recipients of the approval. Because AB 2814 relates only to
litigation procedures, it does not require any changes to your Guidelines.
-2-
SACRAM EIVTOUTB\l 7360.1
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST S� KRIEGER LLP
Assembly Bill 2922 (AB 2922)
Previously, the statutes governing the use of Master EIRs required the preparation
of Supplemental or Subsequent EIRs to analyze the impacts of such changes. AB 2922 changes
the rules governing the use of Master EIRs to allaw a lead agency to prepare a 11�Iitigated
Negative Declaration to analyze changes that have occuned, or new information that has
surfaced, with respect to the circumstances under which a Master EIR was certified. Section
8.10 of your Guidelines has been revised to reflect these new changes to the law.
Senate Bi11647 (SB 647)
This bill extends the time that local agencies are required to reta.in Notices of
Determination from 9 months to 12 months. Section 6.14 anci 7.33 of your Local Guidelines
have been revised to reflect this new requirement. SB 647 also restored definitions of "reuse
plan" and "military base" that were inadvertently repealed by prior legislation.
Senate Bi11945 (SB 945)
� SB 945 makes slight revisions to existing law regarding certain types of projects
located within'/4 mile of a school site. Previously, CEQA imposed certain requirements on
projects propvsing to construct or alter a facility that might reasonably be anticipated to emit
hazardous or acutely hazardous air emissions or which would handle acutely hazardous
materials, if the proposed location of the project was within %4 mile of a school site. SB 945
changed the terminology frorn "hazardous materials" to "hazardous substance" to make the
statutory language more consistent with the hazaxdous substance laws contained in the Health
and Safety Code. The minor changes to this statute are reflected in the revisions to Section 7.30
of your Local Guidelines.
Senate Bi111334 (SB 1334)
SB 1334 requires counties to consider whether a project will result in conversion
af oak woodlands in determining if a project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Notably, SS 1334 does not apply to any public agencies other than counties.
While SB 1334 defines "oa.k," it does not define "oak woodlands." Presumably,
though, the definition included in the Oak Woadlands Conservation Act would apply. The Oak
Woodlands Conservation Act defines "oak woodlands" to mean "an oak stand with a greater than
10 percent canopy cover or that may have historically supported gxeater than 10 percent canopy
cover." Fish & Game Code § 1361(h).
If impacts to oak woodlands axe identified, the county must impose one or more
of the following mitigation measures: (1) conservation through the use of easements,
(2) planting replacement trees or restoring former woodlands, though this can be used for only
one-half of the total mitigation required, (3) contributing funds to the Oak Woodlands
Conservation Fund, or (4) other mitigation measures as developed by the county for the project.
SB 1334 does not apply to projects: (1) undertaken pursuant to a Natural
Community Conservation Plan or subarea plan that covers oaks or protects oak woodlands in a
SACRAMENTOUTB\i 7360.1
-3-
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST S� KRIEGER LLP
manner that is consistent with the mitigation measures set forth above; (2) to construct affordable
housing in an urbanized area or sphere of influence; (3) involving conversion of oak woodlands
on agricultural land that is used to produce or process plant and animal products for commercial
purposes, or (4) projects that are subject to certified regulatory exemptions from CEQA.
A new Section 5.16 has been added to your Local Guidelines to address this new
law, and the definitions of "oak" and "oak woodlands" have been added as Sections 10.38 and
1039. Also, for our county clients, their Initial Study forms (Form J) have been revised to
include consideration of impacts to oak woodlands within the analysis of Biological Resources.
Senate Bi111889 (SB 1889)
�
SB 1889 adds to the Public Resources Code a new section 21070, defining
"trustee agency" as "a state agency that has jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by
a project, that are held in trust for the people of the State of California," and replaces text in
Sections 21080.3 and 21104 to refer to this newly defined term. Previously, the Public
Resources Code had not defined "trustee agency," perhaps due to oversight. The Legislature did
not indicate any intent to overrule the definition of "trustee agency" contained in State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15386, which lists four trustee agencies: (1) the Department of Fish and
Game, (2) the State Lands Commission with respect to state-owned "sovereign" lands such as the
beds of navigable waters and state school lands, (3) the Department of Parks and Recreation with
regard to units of the state park system, and (4) the University of California with regard to sites
within the Natural Land and Water Reserves system. Interestingly, the substitution of the new
terrn in Section 21104 actually limits the scope of agencies with which lead agencies must
consult. Instead of consulting with any agency with any jurisdiction over the project, the lead
agency must now consult only with responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and surrounding cities
and counties.
SB 1889 also made technical, nonsubstantive revisions to the statute and
extended authorization for a special CEQA exception relating to a Master EIR prepared for
specific development in the City of Oakland.
Your Guidelines already included a definition of "trustee agency." (See Section
10.55.) That definition fully cornports with the new law, so no changes to your Guidelines were
required.
Senate Bi111350 (SB 1350)
SB 1350 repealed Section 21084.2 of the Public Resources Code, which had
instructed the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to consider whether to exempt from
CEQA review projects for the treatment of inedical waste by steam sterilization. Other, limited
categorical exemptions pertaining to the construction of steam sterilization units remain in
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301(0) and 15303(� and are unaffected by SB 1350. The scope of
this bill was so narrow that it did not warrant changes to your Local Guidelines.
-4-
SACRAMENTOVTB117360.1
LAW OFFlCES OF
BEST BEST S� KRIEGER LLP
Senate Bi111752 (SB 1752)
SB 1752 created specific exemptions from CEQA for the Northern California
Youth Reception Center and Clinic in Sacramento and the Fred C. Nelles Correctional Facility in
Whittier. The impact of this law is limited to those specific locations, so we made no revisions
to your Local Guidelines to reflect this legislation.
Senate Bi1118 (SB 18)
Senate Bill 18 ("SB 18") was originally introduced during the 2002-2403
legislative session as the traditional tribal sacred sites amendment to CEQA. However, the bill
was amended several times during the legislative process, and by the time the Governor signed
it, it no longer amended CEQA. Instead, it amends general plan law to require cities and
counties to "consult" with California Native American Tribes as part of the adoption or update to
the local general or specific plan.
The Bill changed California law in six ways. First, a city or county must consult
with a California Native American Indian Tribe during the preparation or amendment of a
general or specific plan. The tribes must be on the contact list of the Native American Heritage
Commission. The puipose of the consultation is to preserve or mitigate impacts to Native
American places, features and objects as described by statute. These places include Native
American sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites, or sacred
shrines. In addition, other places may include historical, cultural, or sacred sites that are listed or
may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources, including historic or
prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or historic sites. After notification by the local
government, a tribe has 90 days from contact to request a consultation. During a consultation,
local governments are directed to protect a tribe's confidentiality. SB 18 also provides a
definition for the term "consultation."
Second, in addition to the consultation requirement, a city or county must refer
the proposed adoption or amendment of a general or specific plan to a California Native
American tribe with traditional lands located within the city or county's jurisdiction. Tribes are
given 45 days to comment on the proposed plan.
Third, notices of a public hearing related to the adoption or amendment of a
general or specific plan must be sent to a California Native American tribe that requests such
notice.
Fourth, SB 18 allows cities and counties to designate open space to protect
Native American places, features and objects. Furthermore, if land designated to be open space
contains a place, feature or object as described by statute, then SB 18 requires the city or county
in which the place, feature or object is located to consult with the California Native American
tribe. The tribe must first give notice that it wishes to be included in such a consultation.
Fifth, SB 18 adds language to the Civil Code that allows a federally recognized
California Native American tribe or a nonfederally recognized California Native American tribe
to hold a conservation easement to protect a Native American prehistoric, archaeological,
-5-
SACRAMENTOV TB\ 17360.1
LAW OFFlCES OF
BEST BEST S. KRIEGER LLP
cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial place. Previously, only local gavernment agencies and
nonprofit organizations could hold such conservation easements.
Finally, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research ("OPR") must develop
Guidelines to assist cities and counties in implementing SB 18. OPR published these Guidelines
on March l, 2005 to comply with the statutorily mandated deadline, but OPR plans to reissue the
Guidelines shortly.
The current version of the Guidelines is a thorough 40-page instruction manual.
The Guidelines include guidance on how to consult with Native American tribes in the following
areas: (1) the preservation or mitigation of impacts to places features and objects belonging ta
California Native American tribes as described by statute; (2) procedures to identify Califomia
Native American tribes through the Native American Herita.ge Commission; (3) procedures to
protect the confidentiality of information concerning the specific identity, location, character and
use of those places, features, and objects; and (4) procedures to facilita.te voluntary landowner
participation during the consultation process. The Guidelines include a helpful overview of the
consultation process with a timeline of events that are expected to take place to fulfill SB 18's
requirements. The Guidelines include suggestions on what a consultation may look like, how to
proceed, and precautionary advice; they also provide guidance on pre- and post-consultation
issues. Anyone interested in obtaining a copy may either write to OPR or download the
document at httn://www.our.ca.�ov/SB182004.html.
2004 CEOA Cas�Law
1. Analysis of Impacts Associated with Wal-Marts and Other Big Box Retailers —
Projects to construct Wal-Marts and other "big box" retail projects continued to supply some of
the most hotly contested CEQA litigation in 2004. Obviously, these projects raise social and
economic issues as well as environmental ones, but CEQA is an environmental protection
statute, and CEQA specifies that social and economic impacts are to be analyzed only to the
extent that they cause or are caused by environmental impacts. As the cases summarized below
demonstrate, courts are struggling to draw the lines between social, economic, and
environmental impacts and ta find a workable rule defining the extent of environmental analysis
that must accompany "big box" approvals.
Maintain Our Desert Environment v Town of Apple Yalley (Pluto Development, Inc.), IZO
Cal. App. 4th 396 (2004).
In this case, the Fourth District Court oiAppeals rejected a claim that an EIR and
the accompanying CEQA notices prepared for a 1.2 million square foot distribution center
project in Apple Valley were defective because they failed to identify Wal-Mart as the center's
tenant. The project challengers had argued that the EIR's project description had to state that the
project was being built for use by Wal-Mart even though the applicant for the project approvals
was Pluta Development, Inc., Wal-Mart's real estate arm. In a rare move, the California
Attorney General filed a friend of the court brief in support of the project challengers.
Nonetheless, the court held that CEQA does not require that the project
description list the end user of the project. The court reasoned that CEQA is concerned solely
with the potential environmental impacts of the project, and the social, economic, and business
-6-
SACRAMENTOV TB\17360.1
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST S� KRIEGER LLP
competition concerns associated with Wal-Mart are "not relevant" to CEQA analysis unless it
has been dernonstrated that those concerns would result in a significant effect on the physical
environment. Substantial evidence supported the agency's decision that the benefits of the
pro}ect outweighed the unavoidable environmental irnpacts to traffic, land use, noise, and air
quality.
Bakersfield Citizens for Local Controt v. City of Bakersfield (Panama 99 Properties LLC) &
Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (Castle & Conke Commercial-CA,
I�cc.),124 Cal. App. 4th 1184 (2004).
In the Bakersfield case, the Fifth District Court of Appeal found the City of
Bakersfield's EIRs for two separate large regional malls, each anchored by a Wal-Mart
Supercenter, inadequate. First, the court faulted the EIRs for ignoring evidence presented by
project opponents that the opening of the two shopping centers within four miles of each other
would have the potential to cause "urban decay." These EIRs declined to analyze, either
individually or cumulatively, the ripple effect that the two shopping centers would have
throughout the community once the Wal-Max� Supercenters opened. The city had taken the
position that these effects were purely sacioeconomic impacts, and CEQA does not require
analysis of such effects. However, CEQA does require analysis of economic and sacial effects
that cause physical changes in the environment. The project opponents claimed that the
operation of the Supercenters would cause "retail saturation" that would kill smaller, existing
local businesses, thus leading to vacant store fronts, unused retail space, and blighted areas
surrounding the Wal-Maxt stores. The court found that these constituted environmental effects
that the EIRs should have analyzed.
Second, the court found the cumulative impacts analyses defective because
neither one acknowledged the existence of the other shopping center project or considered the
combined environmental impacts of the two shopping centers. This omissian was fatal because:
(1) the two shopping centers would compete with each other, which would only serve to
exacerbate the impacts on urban decay; (2) the two shopping centers shared four roadways which
would cumulatively impact traffic; and (3) the two shopping centers would cumulatively impact
air quality.
Third, the court faulted both documents' air quality analysis, which failed to link
the adverse air quality impacts with their effects on people's health. While each EIR concluded
that the shopping center analyzed in that document would cause significant and unavoidable
adverse impacts on regional air quality, neither EIR discussed how these findings would translate
into adverse health effects. The court directed that on remand, the new EIRs must consider the
health consequences of the adverse air quality impacts.
The court criticized procedural steps taken by both parties. The Bakersfield city
council had certified the EIRs and adopted statements of overriding considerations on the
"consent" calendar before the public hearings on the proposed approvals. The court noted that
the city council's refusal to allow comments on the EIRs at the hearings on the land use
approvals violated CEQA.
The caurt also criticized the petitioner's "disastrous tactical choice" of failing to
"diligently and expeditiously" seek a preliminary injunction. By the time petitioner filed for
-7-
SACRAMENTOUTB117360. i
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BES7 S. KRIEGER LLP
relief frorn the appellate court, construction on the shopping centers had proceeded so far that
both shopping centers currently had some stores completely constructed and open to the public.
The court denied the request for relief due to the equities involved with halting these ongoing
businesses. However, because the two Wal-Mart Supercenters were each only partially built, fihe
court enjoined the construction from continuing until the city has complied with CEQA. On
remand, the court stated that it would presume the city would evaluate information from the new
EIRs without giving any weight to the fact that the shopping centers are partially constructed,
even to the point where some of the stores are already open to the public. Even at the shopping
centers' late stage of development, the court ruled that the city still had ttie discretion, after
deliberating over new environmental studies, to impose additional mitigation measures, other
madifications, or even to require removal of the project.
Remarkably, none of the parties to this decision saught review by the California
Supreme Court, so the court's decision was left to stand as precedent. Consequently, cities and
counties considering the approval of Wal-Marts and other "big box" stores should be prepared to
address and analyze issues of "urban decay."
The Redlands Ass'n v City of Redlands (Redlands Joint Venture LLC), 20U4 Cal. App.
Unpub. LEXIS 5314 (2004).
This unpublished case also involved a longstanding fight over proposed "big box"
development, though the key issue in this case was whether CEQA applied to a settlement
agreement resolving the dispute. The development involved in the underlying lawsuit was a
124-acre master-planned commercial development located within ari area known as the "Donut
Hole." (The area was named the Donut Hole because it is an unincorporated part of the County
that is completely surrounded by the City of Redlands.) After years of legal wrangling between
the city, the County of San Bemardino, and the Redlands Joint Venture LLC (RJ�, a11 three
entities entered into a settlement agreement which resolved a number of complex lawsuits and
other disputes that had arisen between the city and County regaxding RJV's proposed
commercial development of the Donut Hole.
.Among other things, the project challengers contended that the public agencies'
approval of the settlement agreement was a discretionary act that was subject to CEQA review.
The challengers claimed that the settlement agreement was a project under CEQA because the
settlement agreement committed the parties to a definite course of action relating to the Donut
Hole and the development. Specifically, the city agreed not to force the Donut Hole area to
obtain its water and sewer services from the city.
In an unpublished opinion, the Fourth District Court of Appeals upheld the public
agencies' determination that execution of the agreernent settling their various land use disputes
was not a"project" pursuant to CEQA. Although the decision cannot be cited as precedent, it is
helpful because it instructs that a public agency's approval of a settlement agreement to resolve
litigation may be exempt from CEQA review if the agreement does not commit the agency to a
future course of action that would lead to a potential for environmental impacts. In such cases,
we recommend that the public agency file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk
detailing why the adoption of the agreement is exempt. On the other hand, if a settlement
SAC RAMEI�fTOUTB117360. i
�
LAW OFFlCES OF
BEST BEST � KRfEGER LLP
agreement does commit the agency to a particular course of action, then the agency should
determine whether the agreement triggers the need for additional CEQA review.
2. Aesthetic Impacts and Neighbors' Comments as Substantial Evidence to Defeat a
Negative Dectaration — Each year, more CEQA cases are filed by neighbors who are opposed to
particulaz projects. A number of these cases consider whether issues raised by lay people
constitute "substantial evidence" to support a fair argument of a significant environmental
impact, thereby requiring preparation of an EIR before the project can be approved.
Unfortunately, the cases are all over the map; there does not appear to be any clear trend in this
area of law. An especially tricky area is that of aesthetics, which is a largely subjective category.
Several of the aesthetics cases released this year are in direct conflict with each other. The only
thing certain about these issues is that they promise to be some of the most hotly contested
CEQA issues for years to come.
Ocean View Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Montecito Water DistriM,116 Cal. App.
4th 396 (2004).
In Ocean View Estates, the court found that the Montecito Water District should
have prepared an EIR, rather than a Mitigated Negative Declaration, to analyze the impacts
resulting &om its proposal to cover its Ortega Reservoir with an aluminum raaf. The four-acre
reservoir is located in Santa Barbara County and supplies potable water to local communities.
Under the urging of the Department of Health Services, the District determined to cover the
reservoir to guard against water quality problems.
After the District completed its Initial Study of the potential environmental
impacts associated with covering the reservoir, the District decided to issue a MNU instead of
preparing an EIR. The Initial Study found no significant impact to aesthetics. However, the
Initial Study found that floading could potentially be a problem because the project would
increase the amount of impervious surface area, which would increase runoff. The District
issued a MI�1D, stating the project would incorporate design measures to prevent excess runoff.
Those measures included retaining the runaff at the reservoir site.
Ocean View Estates Homeowners Association challenged the MND, contending,
among other things, that the MND fai]ed to recognize the project`s significant aesthetic impact.
Again, based on expressions of concern from local residents, the court overturned the Negative
Declaration. The recard demonstrated that besides the complaints from several local residents
that the reservoir cover would be seen from their homes, the Santa Barbara County Planning and
Development Department also had recommended that mitigation measures should include
landscaping and painting to obscure views of the cover from public trails. The court concluded
that in a subjective case such as the view of a reservoir cover, the concern of local residents
combined together with the concern from the County was enough to establish substantial
evidence to support a fair argument that the project may have a significant adverse aesthetic
impact on the environment. The District argued that local residents do not have a commonlaw
right to an unobstructed view. While agreeing with the District, the court distinguished the
commonlaw viewshed doctrine from a project's aesthetic impacts, which znust be analyzed and
mitigated under CEQA. Because the neighbors had raised a fair argument that the project could
have significant aesthetic impacts, the District was required to prepare an EIIZ.
�
SACRAMENTOVTBV 7360.1
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST S� KRIEGER LLP
Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (CH Oceanside), 119 Cal. App. 4th 477
(2004).
MiYa Mar concerns the proposed development of a 96-unit condominium
development on 7.5 acres within the City af Oceanside's Downtown Redevelopment Project
Area. As proposed, the project would consist of two buildings with a view corridor in between
them and underground parking. The density would be 283 tinits per acre. After preparing and
certifying a Supplemerztal EIR, which tiered off of several prior EIRs prepared for the
redevelopment plan, the city approved the project. The project was then challenged by Mira Mar
Mobile Community, a 173-unit mobile home park located immediately adjacent to the north side
of the project site.
Among other things, MMMC contended that the EIR inadequately analyzed
aesthetic impacts because the project would block its view of the ocean. The court rejected this
argument, finding that the CEQA only requires analysis af whether a project will have
significant environmental impacts on people in general, not whether it will affect particular
individuals. Furthermore, the city had previously determined, in its local coastal program, that
only an impairment of public views, not private views, would constitute a significant
environmental impact. Noting that the significance of an aesthetic impact depends on the nature
of the affected area, the court found that the city appropriately determined that impairing
MMMC's private views was not a significant adverse impact on the environment.
Bowman u City of Berkeley,122 Cal. App. 4th 572 (2004}.
In this case, the First District Court of Appeals upheld the City of Berkel�y's
decision to approve a four-story mixed use project which included retail space and 39 affordable
apartrnents for low-income seniors. The project-will be located at the corner of Sacramento
Street, a four-lane divided boulevard which is one of the city's busiest streets, and Blake Street,
which is largely residential. Presently, the lot has a vacant one-story building which had
previously been used for a clothing store.
Neighbors who live in residences on Blake Street contended that the city erred in
adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration rather than preparing an EIR for the project. The
neighbors argued that the building was too large to be aesthetically compatible with the area
because it would cause shadowing impacts to their adjacent properties, interfere with their scenic
views, and generally be visually incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Several local
architects testified in support of the neighbors' challenge.
The court noted that the neighbors had previously approved a three-story building
for the project, and their complaint essentially consisted of their disagreement with the addition
of a partial fourth story on the Sacramento Street side of the building. Essentiaily, the neighbors'
criticism was that the building was one story too tall.
Based pz-imarily on the project's urban context and Iocation, and the fact that ihe
project had undergone an extensive design review process to mitigate its visual impact, the court
rejected the neighbors' claims. If the developer had proposed to constract the project in a rurai
location along "virgin hillsides," then the aesthetic effects of the project might constitute a
significant visual impact. But the court emphasized that this project was located in an area that
-10-
SACRAMENTOUTB\ 17360.1
LAW OFFlCES QF
BEST BEST S. KRIEGER LLP
was already highly developed, not within any kind of environmentally sensitive area. Citing
Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside, the court reasoned that the project's
obstruction of a few private views is not a significant environmental impact.
The court also noted that aesthetic issues are ordinarily the province of local
design review, and the city had already found that the project would not substarztially degrade the
visual character of the area because the project had been subjected to extensive design review.
Accordingly, the court hetd that "[w)here a project must undergo design review under local law
that process itself can be found to znitigate purely aesthetic impacts to insignif cance, even if
some people are dissatisfied with the outcome. A contrary holding that mandated reduridant
analysis would only produce needless delay and expense." Ultimately, the court concluded,
"The aesthetic diiference between a four story and a three story building on a comznercial lot on
a major thoroughfare in a developed urban area is not a significant environmental impact, even
under the fair argument standard." Simply put, the Legislature, in enacting CEQA, did not
intend to require an EIR where the sole environmental impact was the aesthetic merit of a
building in a highly developed area. At teast within the context of an urban setting, the process
of undergoing design review under local law may itself be enough to mitigate purely aesthetic
impacts to a level of insignificance, even in the face of significant neighborhood opposition.
The neighbors also opposed the Negative Declaration on the ground that the
rnigration of soil contaminants from underground storage tanks on the project site would have a
significant effect on the environment. In support of this contention, the neighbors presented an
expert analysis of the site's soil test reports that one of them had performed. This person found
the previous soil and groundwater reports concerning the site's contamination incomplete, but
city staff discounted his opinion because he had previously misrepresented facts in unrelated city
proceedings regarding his own property.
The court upheld the city's determination that the neighbor's lay reading of the
reports did not constitute substantial evidence, especially on technical environmental issues. The
court also found that the city appropriately exercised its discretion to discount the this person's
credibility, given city's staffs knowledge of his prior misrepresentations. Thus, the court found
that neighbors failed to present any substantial evidence that would support a fair axgument that
hazardous materials from the project would pose a significant effect on the environment.
Architectural Heritage Assn. v. County of Monterey,122 Cal. App. 4th 1095 (2004).
In this case, the Sixth District Court of Appeal concluded there was substantial
evidence to support a fair argument that the planned demolition of Monterey County's Old Jail
would result in the loss of the jail's historic value and that the proposed mitigation measures
were inadequate to mitigate the impact below a level of significance. The Old Jail, located in
Salinas, was built in 1931 using Gothic Revival style architecture. In 1970, Cesar Chavez was
incarcerated there for about two weeks after he refused to obey a court order to halt the United
Farm Workers' lettuce boycott. During his incarceration, Mr. Chavez was visited by Coretta
Scott King and Ethel Kennedy. The court noted that many people feel Mr. Chavez' incarceration
may have been a turning point in the farm-worker movement. However, the Old Jail is outdated
by current penal standards, and the County stopped using the building as a jail during the 1980s.
In 1999, the County proposed to demolish the Old Jail.
-11-
SACRAM ENTOUTB117360. I
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST S� KRIEGER LLP
The Old Jail is not officially listed on California's Register of Historic Resources.
However, the County's consultant concluded that the building probably could qualify as eligible
for listing, and the Initial Study concluded that the Old Jail is a significant historical resource.
The County proposed to mitigate for the demolition of the Old Jail by: (1) photographic
documentation of the building to standards identified by the Historic American Building Survey,
(2) preparation of a historic monograph, (3) reuse of architectural elements from the building,
and (4) filing a complete set of architectural blueprints at the local historical society, among
other places. With these mitigation measures, the County concluded that any adverse impacts to
historical resources would be mitigated to less than significant. Thus, the County adopted a
Mitigated Negative Declaration, even though the County's own Historic Resources Review
Board unanimously felt the Initial Study and its mitigation measures were insufficient and
believed the County should prepare an EIR.
Among other things, the Architectural Heritage Association challenged the
County's finding that the mitigation measures contained in the MND reduced the environmental
impacts of the Old Jail's demolition to a less than significant level. Quoting from League fot-
Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Resources v. City of Oakland, 52 Cal. App. 4th 896 (1997),
the court stated that "[t]he proposed demolition of the building can hardly be considered
anything less than a significant effect." "As drawing a chalk mark around a dead body is not
mitigation, so archival documentation cannot normally reduce destruction of an historic resource
to an insignificant level. ... Documentation of the historical features of the building and
exhibition of a plaque do not reasonably begin to alleviate the impacts of its destruction. A large
historical structure, once demolished, normally cannot be adequately replaced by reports and
commemorative markers. Nor, we think, are the effects of the demolition reduced to a level of
insignificance by a proposed new building with unspecified design elements which may
incorporate features of the original architecture into an entirely different shopping center."
Accordingly, the Sixth District concluded that there was substantial evidence to support a fair
argument that the County's proposed mitigation measures were inadequate to reduce the impacts
to historic resources below a level of significance. The court stated that, in cases such as this, an
EIR is required to both identify and examine the full range of feasible mitigation measures and
alternatives to demolition.
The Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (Regis Homes of Northern California, Inc.), 124
Cal. App. 4th 903 (2004), review denied.
In Pocket Protectors, the Third District Court of Appeal rejected the City of
Sacramento's use of a Mitigated Negative Declaration to study the impacts of a housing project
in the tony "Pocket Area." The proposed development consisted of double rows of houses
flanking a narrow, mile-long alley; some of the houses would be built within six feet of the back
yards of existing upscale residences. Angry neighbors testified that the developer was
"cramming" too many homes into an area inadequately designed and sized for such a project.
The court agreed with the neighbors, finding that they had introduced substantial
evidence to support a fair argument the project would have significant impacts to land use and
planning as well as aesthetics. Regarding the land use policies, a Specific Plan, the 1986 "L&P —
Pacific Teichert Planned Unit Development," had been approved for the project site. The
resolution approving the PUD declared itself binding on all persons developing property within
-12-
SACRAMENTOVTB117360. I
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BES7 i: KRIEGER LLP
the area and stated that all development had to conform to the LPPT Development Guidelines.
The PUD had zoned the project site for townhouses, not the detached single family houses that
were proposed. The PUD required a change of zoning to build detached single family houses on
the project site, a change which Sacramento had never undertaken. The court found that these
land use policies had been adopted in part to mitigate environmental impacts. Therefore, the city
was required to consider the project's compatibility with these land use policies in its CEQA
process.
The court found that the project conflicted with several of the PUD's guidelines,
and that, in and of itself, constituted sufficient substantial evidence to support a fair argument
that the project would have significant effects on the environment. Moreover, in the Initial Study
as well as orally during the environmental review process, city planning staff admitted that the
project did not fulfill the intent of the planned unit development land-use designation with
respect to the landscaping and open space concepts therein, the Planning Commission made
findings of fact concluding that the project did not comply with the PUD's design objectives or
"sound principles of land use," and numerous members of the challenger group testified to their
relevant personal observations of the incompatibility of the project's design with the project site
and surrounding neighborhood.
The court also relied on the opinions of area residents familiar with the site in
finding there was substantial evidence that the project could have a significant aesthetic impact.
The Pocket Protectors' concerns included the tunneling effect resulting from two sets of mile-
long double rows of houses that would border narrow streets, the lack of shade trees and
landscaping and the absence of yard setbacks. The court concluded that the Pocket Protectors'
relevant personal observations alone constituted enough substantial evidence related to aesthetic
impacts to require an EIR. Even if others disagreed with the Pocket Protectors' observations,
that disagreement failed to deflate the substantial nature of the Pocket Protectors' evidence,
which is all that is necessary to require an EIR.
The court distinguished Bowman v. City of Berkeley on the ground that Bowman
dealt with a single four-story building located on a busy boulevard in a commercial area of
Berkeley. Without further elaboration, the Third District Court of Appeals stated B'owman was
inapposite because the project in Pocket Pratectors contemplated numerous buildings within a
residential neighborhood.
3. Scope of CEQA Analysis — 2004 saw three important decisions regarding the scope of
the analysis CEQA requires. In one decision, the Third District Court of Appeals provided
clarification about 2003's Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency
decision and the scope of a lead agency's duties to analyze potential environmental impacts.
Another court gave guidance on the proper geographic scape of an agency's cumulative impacts
analysis, while two other decisions elaborated on the appropriate definition of the environmental
baseline.
Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v Amador Water Agency, 116 Cal. App. 4th 1099
(2004).
In this case, the Third District Court of Appeals held that the lead agency's
environmental documents must consider every fair argument that can be made about possible
-13-
SACRAMENTOUTB117360. ]
LAW OFFlCES OF
BEST BEST � KRIEGER LLP
significant environmental effects of a project, not just the categories of information contained in
Appendix G's sample thresholds of significance. Amador Water Agency had prepared an EIR to
evaluate the environmental effects of a pipeline that it proposed to construct in order to replace a
portion of an unlined earthen canal. The Draft EIR noted that surface flow in six local streams
was increased in varying degrees by leakage from the Canal, and, in fact, the Canal may have
been totally sustaining some of the streams during dry years. The EIR acknowledged the
pipeline would eliminate the leakage from the Canal and that local streams "would return to their
historical hydrological conditions." However, the EIR simply concluded that changing the
hydrology associated with dewatering the Canal, and elinninating all leakage, was "not
considered to be a significant hydrological impact per se. The hydrological changes may have
effects on other resouxces dependent on hydrology, for example, water quality or wildlife, and
these effects are discussed elsewhere in the [EIR). Consequently, changes in hydrology are not
significant." The EIR later concluded that the impact of the pipeline would be less than
significant to wetlands and riparian habitats as well.
Petitioner challenged this EIR, alleging that the Agency had improperly relied
exclusively on the thresholds of significance derived fram Appendix G and had ignored
petitioner's fair arguments of the project's other significant impacts, such as the dewatering of
local streams that had been fed by the canal leakage for more than 130 years. Elaborating on its
discussion of thresholds of significance in Communities for a Better Environment v. Calaforrcia
Resources Agency, 103 Cal. App. 4th 98 (2002), the Amador court noted that thresholds of
significance are not used just to determine whether an EIR should be prepared. Rather,
thresholds of significance are also used during the preparation of an EIR to determine whether
the possible environmental impacts of the project will be significant. The Amador court
therefore reasoned that the application of thresholds of significance in the EIR analysis cannot be
an automatic, mechanical determination. Notwithstanding the project's compliance with a
relevant threshold of significance, the lead agency must still consider whether a certain
environmental effect might be significant in the circumstances of each particular case. If there is
any substantial evidence ta support a fair argument that the project could have significant
environmental impact, an EIR must be prepared to analyze that potential effect. Thus, according
to the Amador court, the lead agency must consider every fair argument that can be made about
the project's possible significant environmental effects.
Applying this rule, the court accepted petitioner's argument that the EIR was
inadequate for failing to evaluate whether the seasonal reduction of surface flow in nearby
streams was environmentally significant. The court directed the Agency to rewrite its EIR to
provide analysis of this issue. Thus, the court indicated that it is not sufficient for lead agencies
to rely on the Initial Study checklist provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Rather, lead agencies must go beyond Appendix Ci and conduct all analysis warranted by the
facts of the particular project and its circumstances; environmental documents must include all
environmental analysis warranted by the particular situation.
Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Sierra Pacific
Industries), 123 Cal. App. 4th 1331 (2004). •
In this case, the First District Court of Appeal upheld the Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection's approval of six timber harvesting plans (THPs) for El Dorado and
-14-
SAC RAM ENTO V TB\1 ? 3 60.1
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST S� KRIEGER LLP
Calaveras counties. Similar to an EIR, a THP must include an analysis of environmental
impacts, including cumulative impacts, resulting from the proposed timber harvesting. Relying
on studies published by the United States Forest Service, petitioners claimed the Department had
misidentified the geographic assessment area for the THPs and thus had understated the
cumulative impacts associated with the plans. Specifically, petitioners maintained that the
assessment areas chosen by the Department, which ranged from 3,437 to 20,773 acres, were too
small because the Forest Service studies suggested the appropriate area for determining impacts
to spotted owls was much larger, possibly the entire Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. Thus,
petitioners contended, the THPS did not adequately analyze the projects' cumulative
environmental impacts.
a
Like EIRs, THPs are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. Reviewing
the THPs under this deferential standard, the court rejected petitioners' challenge. In doing so,
the court relied heavily on Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (1976), which specifically
considered assessment areas within the context of coal mining. In Kleppe, the Supreme Court
concluded that determining appropriate assessment areas involved multiple factors, complex
interrelationships, balancing considerations and feasibility issues. Consequently, the Supreme
Court determined that the determination of an assessment area implicates the agency's technical
expertise, and, absent a showing that the agency abused its discretion, courts should defer to the
agency's findings. �
Applying Kleppe, the court noted the extraordinary size of the administrative
record and the fact that the record included all of the Forest Service documents that petitioners
argued the Department had improperly ignored. Both the THPs and the responses to comments
extensively discussed the scope of the assessment areas. Specifically, in responding to
comments raised by the petitioners, the Department noted, among other things, that defining the
assessment area to include the entire Sierra Nevada would not be "practical or reasonable,"
"there are countless other land use decisions being made and changed all the time on other '
private and public land holdings within an assessment area the size of the entire Sierra Nevada,"
and that "the size of an area to be analyzed for cumulative impacts should not be so large as to
cause the particular THP project under discussion to be Iost and the impacts of that particular
THP to be so small as to disappear."
Agreeing with the Department's rationale, the court found that an overinclusive
assessment area could dilute the significance of any adverse environmental impacts caused by
the proposed timber harvesting. The court noted that, on the other hand, if the assessment area
selected is too small, then impacts caused by the proposed project could be overstated. The
Department was not required to "slavishly adhere to [the Forest Service's] findings" as to the
appropriate size of the Department's assessment area. The court reasoned that, essentially, the
dispute amounted to a disagreement among experts, and the Department was free to reject the
Forest Service's findings as long as it had a rational basis for selecting the approach it chose.
Because the standard of review is deferential, it is not appropriate for the court to reweigh the
evidence considered by the agency. By analyzing the various viewpoints and selecting an
assessment area based on a rational consideration of the relevant evidence, the Department
proceeded in the manner required by law.
-15-
SACRAMENTOUTB\17360.1
LAW OFF7CE5 OF
BEST BEST S� KF2IEGER LLP
Petitioners aiso contended that the Department failed to "meaningfully" respond
to public comments regarding both the size of the assessment area and cumulative impacts.
Again, the court disagxeed. The court pointed to the administrative record to demonstrate that
the Department provided thoughtful, analytical responses to all of the significant environmental
issues. While petitioners alleged ihe Department's responses were "conctusory," petitioners were
actually challenging the substance of the Department's conclusions about the scope of the
assessment area, rather than whether the Department considered the contrary viewpoints raised
in petitioners' comments. CEQA did not require the Department to accept peritioners' arguments.
All that was required was that the Department consider petitioners' comments and provide
responses explaining its position, which it did. Therefore, the court found that the Department
adequately responded to comments.
Finally, petitioners argued that the THPs did not adequately assess the impacts of
herbicide use because the information provided was not site-specific. The court rejected this
argument, finding that it was infeasible for the THPs to specify the exact usage and location of a
particular herbicide within a THP because that decision revolves around factors that do not
ernerge until after the logging is completed. The Department's responses to comments
extensively discussed the possible impacts of herbicide usage, albeit in general terms. While this
discussian was general rather than specific, the analysis was as detailed as it could be at this
stage of ths project. Accordingly, the court found that the analysis of herbicide usage was
adequate and there was substantial evidence to support the Depa.rtment's conclusion that no
signif cant adverse environmental impacts would result.
El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth v County of EI Dorado (Cood Cave Quarry,
Inc., 122 Cal. App. 4th 1591 (2004).
In EI Dorado, petitioners sought to overturn the County's decision to adopt a
Negative Declaration and approve a reclamation plan to address the effects of longstanding prior
mining activities on the project site, Best Best & Krieger's Derek Cole successfully defended
against this attack, obtaining a decision from the Third District Court of Appeals confinming that
the County properly limited its environmental review to the impacts resulting from the
reclamation plan rather than effects stemming from the underlying mining activity.
The quarry involved in this case had been mined since 1910 and had been in
continuous mining activity since 1946. Consequently, the mining activity constituted a legal,
nonconforming use and a vested mining right pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclama.tion
Act of 1975 (Pub. Resources Code §§ 2710, et seq., "SMARA".) Even though the property
owners had a right to mine, they were required under SMARA to prepare reclamation plans to
address how the land will be restored after the mining activity is ceased. The challenged
reclamation plan represented an update to a previously approved plan. Because the property
owner was considering expanding its mining operations onto an adjacent 16-acre previously
mined tract of federal land, the County determined that the reclamation plan should include the
reclamation of these 16 acres as well as the original property.
Petitioners contended the initial study impermissibly failed to consider the entire
project because it did not evaluate the impacts of the potential future mining activity. The court
rejected this argument, finding that the relevant project was the County's reclamation plan, not
-16-
S AC RAM ENTOV TB117360.1
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST S� KRIEGER LLP
the proposed mining expansion. The court repeatedly emphasized ihat the proposed expansion
of mining onto the government's 16 acres would itself be subject to future environmental review.
During the process for obtaining a Iease of the government mining lands, there would be ample
opportunity to review the environmental impacts associated with leasing the government-owned
mines to a new operator. In fact, any expansion of the mining project would be subject to a host
of legal and political constraints and could not be approved by the County's mere adoption of a
reclamation plan that might cover the expansion site, if the expansion were ever authorized.
Moreover, the decision whether to expand mining activities onto the federal lands was
independent of the adoption of the reclamation pian update. The zeclamation plan included the
proposed expansion lands only because it was more efficient to include them, but the operator
had not obtained any of the approvals necessary before it could actually mine those lands. Even
if the plan was approved, the progosed expansion might not proceed.
Based on alI of these facts, the court concluded that "the project descriptzon [was]
adequate in specifying the type of mine, the type of mining disturbance, the size of the project,
the actions that wi11 cornprise the reclamarion, the environmental and other goals of those
actions, and ihe nature of the land and its uses after reclamativn." The court also rejected
petitioner's argument that there was substantial evidence to show potentially significant
environxnental impacts resulting from the proposed project because the impacts cited by
petitioner were caused by mining operations, not the approval of the propased reclamation plan.
The court approved the County's conclusion that appraval of the reclamation plan would improve
environmental conditions because reclairning the land and closing the quarry would reduce
traffic, air emissions, and other environmental impacts, as compared to existing conditions with
ongoing mining operations.
Ed Dorado may prove helpful outside the reclamation context, as it continues the
recent line of cases affirming that pre-existing environmental conditions constitute the starting
point for the environmental impacts analysis, even when the pre-project conditions include
condirions that have been extensively altered from the state-of-nature. (Sse our 2003 and 2002
annual CEQA update memoranda for a discussion of other recent baseline cases, such as Save
Our- Peninsula u Monterey County Board o, f Supervisors and Fat v. City of Sacramento.) If the
court had nat accepted the County's definition of the scope of the project and the baseline
environmental conditions, this case might we�l have come out differently because the evidence
petitioners presented could have been found to meet the "fair argument" standard and defeat the
Caunty's Negative Declaration. However, consistent with prior caselaw, the court appears to
have accepted the County's defnition of the project and the baseline under the more deferent�al
substantial evidence standard.
Muzzy Ranch Co u Solar�o County Airport Lttnd Use Cvmmn., formerly 125 Cal. App. 4th
810 (2005), review granted, depublished.
Muzzy Ranch has been depublished because the Supreme Court will be reviewing
this case. The Appellate Court's decision is discussed here to give you some idea of the issues
facing the Supreme Court.
Muzzy Ranch concerns an exemption that the Solano Caunty Airport Land Use
Commission adopted for the Travis Air Force Base Land Use Compatibility Plan ("TALUP"),
-17-
SACRAMENTOUT$\17360. i
lAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST S� KRIEGER LLP
which effectively froze growth rates in the area axound Travis Air Force Base. Muzzy Ranch
Co., which owns thousands of acres in the vicinity of the plan, challenged this exemption. The
Court of Appeal ultimately agreed that the Commission should have prepared an EIR because of
the potential physical change to the environment that may occur from c�isplaced development.
Among other things, TALUP froze future development around Travis Air Force
Base at the existing growth rates of the county's and surrounding cities' general plans. The
Comm.ission determined that TALUP was not a"project" subject to CEQA and filed a notice of
exemption. Muzzy Ranch contended that the Commission should have prepared an EIR because
TALUP would cause an indirect physical change to the environment: by freezing the growtlz
rate in the area surrounding the airport, TALUP would necessarily cause increased housing
development in other areas of the region.
The Court of Appeals held that the adoption of TALUP is like the adoption or
amendment of a local agency's General Plan. Because TALUP places larges axeas of land "off-
limits to futiu-e residential development," long term land nse impacts and population distribution
throughout the region wonld result. By freezing the growth rate within the TALUP area,
TALUP would effectively displace development into other azeas. Because housing displacement
is a physical change to the environment, the court concluded that the Commission should have
prepared an EIR. The Snpreme Court will now take up the case to determ'ine whether the Court
of Appeals' reasoning was correct.
4. Agricultural Mitigation Issues — One of 2004's more important CEQA decisions was
actually a non-decision, the Supreme Court's depublication of the Friends of the Kangaroo Rat
case. This case had held that offsite conservation easements do not constitute effective
mitigation for the conversion of agricultural lands, since the project is reducing the total amount
of agricultural lands. Agricultural mitigation issues also surfaced again in the Fourth District's
Defend the Bay case.
Friends of the Kangaroo Rat v California Department of Corrections,111 Cal. App. 4th
(2003), depublished, 2004 Cal. LEXIS 1234.
� One of the cases noted in your 20041egislative and judicial summary
memorandum was the Fresno Kangaroo Rat decision. When the memorandum was distributed,
the petition to depublish the appellate court's decision was still pending before the California
Supreme Court. Decisions that are depublished cannot be relied upon as valid precedent.
In a rare move, the California Supreme Court has ordered depublication of that
Fifth District Court decision. (2004 Cal. LEXIS 1234.) Had the published case remained
standing, it would have had far-reaching impacts regarding the feasibility of using off-site
conservation easements to fully mitigate a project's agricultural impacts under CEQA. The Fifth
District had upheld the agency's determination that this commonly used method of mitigation
would not fully mitigate the project's impacts because there would still be a net loss of the state's
total agricultural land as a result of the project. Based on the Supreme Court's depublication of
that decision, however, it appears clear the court looks favorabIy upon the use of off-site
conservation easements as a form of mitigation for impacts to agricultural resources. This form
of mitigation is also routinely used to mitigate for a project's impacts to biological resources and
habitats.
-18-
S ACRAM ENTOUTB117360. I
L4W OFFICES OF
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
�efend the �ay v. Ciry of Irvine (The Irvine Con:pany),119 Cal. App. 4th 1261 (20Q4).
In Defend the Bay, the Fourth District Caurt of Appeals held that the City of
Irvine had substantial evidence to support the canclusions in its EIR for the development of the
Northern Sphere. While the individual issues of the appellate opinion dealt with the project's
housing, agricultural, and biological impacts, the court's overall theme was that a policy
disagreement with a local public agency daes not equate to a lack of evidentiary support for the
conclusions in its EIlZ.
Irvine's EIR analyzed the impacts for developing the 7,743-acre site known as the
Northern Sphere, which is an area northeast of the former Marine Corps Air Station at El Toro,
under a proposed General Plan amendment. Defend the Bay contended that the EIR did not
contain sufficient evidence to conclude that it was not feasible to mitigate the impact of
developing 3,100 acres of agricultural land. While .the EIR did conclude that the conversion of
this prime farmland was a significant and unavoidable adverse impact, it found that mitigating
the impact would not be feasible because the future of long-term agriculture in Orange County
was not economically viable. Nloreover, reducing the size of the development to preserve
agriculture, the EIR concluded, would only exacerbate Irvine's job/housing imbalance.
Therefore, Irvine rejected any mitigation of the agricultural lands conversion as infeasible for
economic and other reasons. The court rejected Defend the Bay's challenge to this decision,
finding that Defend the Bay's position simply cansisted of a policy disagreement which, by
itself, could not invalidate the EIR's conclusions.
Defend the Bay also contended that the EIR did not contain sufficient evidence to
support the conclusion that the Project would not have a significant adverse impact on housing or
employment growth. Irvine did not dispute the Project's design created more jobs than housing;
the EIR projected a 1.44 jobs to housing ratio. But with Irvine's present ratio at 3.29, the EIR
concluded the Project would actually improve the jobs to housing situation in Irvine. Thus,
while the EIR found the impact to housing would be substantial, it actually concluded the impact
would not be adverse. Defend the Bay argued that because the 1.44 ratio would exacerbate the
housing shortage, the EIR should have concluded the impact to be significant and adverse. The
court sided with Irvine, again concluding that Defend the Bay's argument essentially represented
a policy disagreement with Irvine.
5. Analysis of Water Supply Impacts — Water supply impacts continue to be an area of
vulnerability for CEQA analysis. In three cases considering this issue, the Third District Court
of Appeal gave mixed results. On one hand, the court rejected CEQA analysis of an application
to bank and transfer water, finding that more specific information about the ultimate destination
and use of the water was required. On the other hand, the court approved a water supply
assessment for a development based on specific water supply acquisition plans and upheld the
use of Negative Declarations to effect a transfer of water that had previously been analyzed in a
city's General Plan EIR. ,
C'entral Delta Water Agency u State Water Resources Control Board (Delta Wetlands
Properties), 121 Cal. App. 4th 246 (2004), review denied.
In this case, the Third District Court of Appeal overturned the State Water .
Resources Control Board's decision to approve water appropriation permits for Delta Wetlands
-19-
SACRAMBNTOV TB117360.1
LAW OFF'ICES OF
BEST BESi S� KRIEGER LLP
Properties, which had planned to store water in reservoirs created on two islands in the Delta so
that it then could sell the water later. Essentially, Delta Wetlands proposed to create a water
bank. The court concluded, however, that the permits were invalid under the California Water
Code because they failed to specify the actual, intended use of the water, the amounts of water to
be used and the places of use of the sold water. The permits only listed very broad purposes and
places of use. Remarkably, the court concluded that Delta Wetlands must demonstrate to the
State Board not only that it has contracted to provide the water to a snecific customer, but also
that it has obtained approval %r the conveyance facilities necessary to transport the water to that
customer. The court further found that the CEQA analysis was defective because it failed to
analyze the ultimate users and uses of the water.
While the court agreed with the State Board that EIRs do not need to conduct a
thorough analysis of speculative issues, the court reasoned that when Delta Properties identifies
the actual users and purposes and places of use, then the State Board must conduct a m.ore
detailed analysis of the environmental impacts of the project before reconsidering the permits
Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v City of Rancho Cordova (Sunrise
Douglas Property Owners Assn.), 2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 349 (2005).
Vineyard is the first case approving an EIR's finding of adequate water supply for
a proposed development project based on future water supply development plans. The proposed
development contemplated the conversion of 6015 acres into a combination of residential and
commercial uses, including approximately 22,504 dwelling units. Initially, the developer
proposed to supply the project with groundwater, but this fell through upon the discovery of
groundwater contamination just narth of the project site.
The water supply plan and the EIR were then revised and recirculated. Under the
revised plan, both development and water supplies would be phased. In the first phase, water
would be supplied by a groundwater well field which had been moved to five miles south of the
project site to distance the groundwater pumping from the contamination plume. Under an
existing Water Forum Plan which governed regional groundwater use, the amount of water that
could be pumped from the well field wauld be limited. In the secand phase, water would be
supplied by the "Zone 40" plan. Although this plan is not complete and is presently undergoing
environxnental review, it is intended to exact fees from future development to pay for new water
facilities. The water agency had recently secured water supply contracts to supply water through
both the WFP and the Zone 40 programs, and another coniract was still being negotiated.
Importantly, developrnent of the project was capped by the amount of available
water supplies: before building could occur, water must be available. The court distinguished
this phased approach from the cases where an EIR cornpletely failed to identify potential sources
of water for proj ects. Here, the revised EIR did identify water sources, even if incomplete, and
discussed a reasonable range of water supply scenarios. The court cited approvingly to Napa
Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Ca1.App.4th
342, 373, "which suggests that an EIR is adequate if it identifies and analyzes potential sources
of water even though the final availability of those sources is not confirmed." Consequently, the
court affirmed that the EIR's analysis of the project's water supply plans were adequate.
-20-
SACR.AMENTOVTB117360.1
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST S� KRIEGER LLP
The court also severely criticized petitioners' briefing, noting that petitioners did
not "fairly state" the facts and made many misrepresentations. Consequently, the court
concluded that petitioners had not properly raised their legal issues and their evidentiary claims
were subject to forfeit. Furthermore, the court criticized petitioners for failing to discuss, ar even
acknowledge, the trial court's opinion. Although the trial court's opinion was not binding on the
appellate court, that did not make it irrelevant. Even when the appellate court reviews the case
de novo, as it does in CEQA cases, the appellant must present the facts fairly and discuss the
reasons why the lower court's decision is wrong.
Sierra Club v. West Side Irrigation District, 2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 619 (2005).
The Third District Court of Appeal recently found that that two water districts
complied with CEQA when they adopted Negative Declarations for projects involving the
transfer of Central Valley Project water to the City of Tracy. The court held that the city's prior
EIR for its General Plan provided adequate analysis for any potential environmental impacts
caused by the water transfers, and no new EIR was required.
The city adopted a General Plan to establish policies and goals for the expansion
of the city and the acquisition of additional water resources. The General Plan included a policy
requiring the city to reduce its reliance on groundwater and instead find surface water sources to
meet future needs. The city prepared an EIR which analyzed the potential environmental
impacts of the General Plan, including impacts associated with the city's growth and increased
reliance on surface water sources. In 1993, following the completion of environmental review,
the city adopted the General Plan.
Eight years later, in 2001, the city negotiated water transfers by which it obtained
surface water from Central Valley Project contractors. Negative declarations were adopted for
both transfer agreements. The Sierra Club challenged the approvals, claiming that the Disiricts
should have prepared a joint EIl2.
The court disagreed. It is proper for an agency to conduct separate environmental
reviews for activities which, although similar, are separate�projects which can proceed
independently. The court concluded that the Districts' transfer projects were similar in nature,
but that each transfer could proceed independently of the other. Because each transfer was a
separate project which was not contingent upon the other, the separate environmental reviews did
not violate CEQA's rule against segmenting. �
Sierra Club also argued that the water transfers would cause growth that was not
accounted for in the city's General Plan EIR and that the use of transferred water was not
restricted to areas covered by the EIR. The court flatly rejected Sierra Club's arguments, finding
that the growth inducing impacts did not exceed those analyzed in the General Plan EIR and that
the "initial study clearly state[dJ that the water was to be assigned only to those areas already
subject to the city's general plan." The court went on to state that "Sierra Club's failure to raise
any facts to suggest cumulative or growth-inducing impacts exposes a possible intent to use
CEQA simply to create delay."
Finally, the court considered and rejected Sierra Club's argument that the Districts
did not adequately consider the impacts of water cutbacks during drought years. The Negative
-21-
SACRAMENTOUTB117360.1
LAW OFF'ICES OF
BEST BEST S� KRIEGER LL.P
Declarations analyzed the impacts that would occur frvm a 40% cut in water deliveries during
drought years. Sierra Ctub argued that water cutbacks could exceed the 40% presumption. The
court rejected Sierra Club's argument, finding that it would farce the Districts to "engage in sheer
speculation, an act CEQA does not require."
6. CEQA Litigation Procedures— No less than three of the published CEQA decisions this
year cancern the scope of the petitioners' obligation to request a hearing within 90 days of filing
the CEQA suit and the remedies available when this obligation is not met. In the past few years,
the trend in the cases has been to find that the petitioner can satisfy its obligation by merely filing
a document asking the trial court to set a hearing date, but the failure to timely file this notice
results in mandatory dismissal of the case for which no relief is ava.ilable. Three of the cases
also contain important guidance for public agencies regarding the assembly and contents of the
administrative record. One court finally asked the frequently asked question, " what happens if I
fail to file the Notice of Determination within the statutory five day period?"
Nacimiento Regional Water Management Advisory Committee v Monterey County Water
Resources Agency,122 Cal. App. 4th 961 (2004).
In this case, the parties had agreed to transfer the case to San Francisco County.
As part of the stipulation, the parties also agreed to extend the deadline for petitioner to request a
hearing on the merits pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21167.4(a). However, the petitioner
failed to request the hearing by the agreed-upon date. Four months later, the agency moved to
dismiss the action, and the court granted that request. Petitioner then moved for relief pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b), which allows relief for a dismissal caused by an attorney's
excusable mistake, such as an unclear area of law. However, counsel admitted the mistake was
due to his failure to calendar the deadline to request a hearing, which is considered an
inexcusable mistake. The court denied petitioner's motion for relief, concluding that relief was
not available in this case. Reinstating the case would nullify the purposes of requiring a CEQA
petitioner to request a hearing within 90 days of filing the petition, thereby upsetting the
Legislature's carefully crafted plan for prompt resolution of CEQA litigation. Accordingly, the
court refused to grant relief from the attorney's inexcusable failure to file a request for hearing by
the agreed-upon deadline.
Association for Sensible Development at Northstar, Inc. v. Placer County (Northstar
Mountain Properties, LLC),122 Cal. App. 4th 1289 (2004).
Just five days after the First District filed the Nacimiento case, the Third District
Court of Appeal filed another case construing Public Resources Code § 21167.4. In Association
for Sensible Development at Northstar, Inc. v. Placer County (Northstar Mountain PYoperties,
LLC), the trial court determined that a petitioner can satisfy its obligation under Public Resources
Code § 21167.4 to request a hearing by filing a Request for a Hearing.
Previously, the seminal case on the requirements of section 21167.4 was
McCormick v. Board of Supervisors (1988} 198 Cal.App.3d 352. The McCormick court had held
"section 21167.4 requires the petitioner to take affirmative steps sufficient to place the matter on
the court's docket for a hearing, either by filing and serving a notice of hearing or utilizing some
other method authorized by the Ioca1 rules of the court in which the matter is pending. A mere
advisory pleading stating that the pe�itioner requests a heaxing is inadequate." However, the
-22-
SACRAMENTOUT$\17360. t
LAW OFFlCES OF
BEST 6EST S. KRIEGER LLP
Third District reasoned that McCormick was no longer good law because of the Legislature's
amendment to section 21167.4 in 1994. The amendment added subdivision (c) to the statute,
which allows "any part�' to file an"application" for a hearing date, at which point the court
must set the hearing. Thus, the court reasoned, the McCornzick case's holding requiring the
petitioner to do something more than file a request for a hearing does not reconcile with the new
language added by the Legislature in subdivision (c) stating that "any party" may request the
court to establish a briefing schedule and a hearing date. Accordingly, the court concluded that
the petitioner in this case satisfactorily cornplied with Public Resources Code § 21167.4 when it
timely filed a request for a hearing.
Leavitt v County of Madera (Castle & Cooke California, Inc.), 123 Cai. App. 4th 1502 (2004).
Leavitt also construed the requirement that the petitioner request a hearing within
90 days of filing its CEQA petition, finding that a notice simply asking the court to set a hearing
date satisfies this requirement. Leavitt also held that the petitioners' delay in assembling the
administrative record did not warrant dismissal of the CEQA case when the counsel for the
County and the developers/project applicants were partially responsible for the confusion about
the contents of the administrative record and the delay in its preparation.
Petitioners challenged the County of Madera's approval of a project to develop
6,500 residential units and other public and commercial facilities on 2,392 acres of farmland just
north of Fresno. An EIR was prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the
project; the County Board of Supervisors certified the final EIR and approved an Area Plan and
an amendment to the General Plan in March 2002. Seven months later, the Board adopted
findings, conditions of approval, mitigation measures and a mitigation monitoring program.'
Among other things, the Board's findings stated that the custodian of the documents and the
record of proceedings were located at the office of the Resource Management Agency Directar.
When they initially filed their CEQA suit in November 2002, petitioners elected
to prepare the administrative record themselves, but, by January 2003, petitioners had changed
their position and requested that the County staff prepare it. However, petitioners did not revoke
the Notice of Election to Prepare the Administrative Record that they had previously filed with
the court.
` It is not clear from the record why the findings supporting the EIR were not
made and the mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring and reporting program were
not adopted when the EIR was certified. Although the court did not rule on these issues,
the delay between the project approval and the adoption of the findings, mitigation
measures and mitigation monitoring and reporting program could be construed as
violating CEQA's procedural requirements. See State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091
[prohibiting public agencies from approving projects for which the EIR identifies one or
more significant environmental effects unless findings are made]; 15093 [when statement
of ovemding considerations is required due to project's significant unavoidable impacts,
that statement "should be included in the record of the project approval"; 15097(a)
[mitigation monitoring and reporting program requirement applies when public agency
makes findings that changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the
project to mitigate its environmental impacts].
-23-
SAC RAM ENTOUTB117360.1
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST S� KRIEGER LLP
Counsel for the developers/project applicants took the position that petitioners had
failed to prepare the record by the statutory deadline and, thus, the CEQA case was subject to
dismissal. However, in a letter sent to petitioner's counsel in February, the developers' .counsel
indicated that the County would provide an estimate of costs for the record preparation, and the
developers would not move to dismiss the CEQA case if petirioners deposited the full amount of
the estimate within seven days of receipt of the estimate.
In April, the County's consultant provided petitioners with an esrimate of costs
indicating that preparation of the administrative record would be $59,127.50. This figure
included the costs for the County's consultant to assemble, index and copy 2,200 documents
which were identified as being part of the administrative record as well as the costs associated
with having a court reporter transcribe the hearings.
Upon receiving this information, petitioners again reversed course and began
preparing the administrative record themselves. To that end, petitioners asked the developers'
counsel for a list of documents that he contended were part of the record but not contained in the
County's files. The developer's counsel responded by directing petitioners to documents at nine
different locations throughout the state, including a number of different County offices; offices
of the County's environmental consultant in San Francisco, Sacramento, Oakland, and Los
Angeles; and offices of three other sub-consultants. Developers' counsel declined to provide a
list of documents that should be included in the administrative record, stating that was part of the
task petitioners had elected to undertake, and reiterated that the developers would move to
dismiss the suit based on the petitioners' delay in compiling the record. After the parties were
unable to resolve their dispute, at the end of May, petitioners filed a motion for an order setting a
schedule for the preparation of the administrative record, while developers' counsel filed a
motion to dismiss the case based on petitioners' failure to prepaze the record within 60 days of
filing the petition and on petitioners' purportedly inadequate request for a hearing.
In June, petitioners lodged their proposed adminisixative record. The following
week, after hearing the motion for scheduling order, the trial court ordered the County to certify
the documents lodged by petitioners before the trial court would hear the motion to dismiss. In
July, the County filed a"partial certification," but the document did not state "I certify" or words
to that effect and did not indicate the basis for the witness' knowledge allowing him to certify the
factual assertions. The partial certification described a large number of documents that the
County contended should have been included in the administrative record.
After receiving this evidence, the trial court held a hearing on the motion to
dismiss and granted it, finding (1) petitioners' request that the trial court set a hearing date did
not satisfy their obligation to request a hearing within 90 days of filing their CEQA petition, and
(2) petitioners' failure to prepaxe the administrative record within 60 days of filing their petition
justified dismissal of the case. Petitioners appealed.
Regarding their obligation to set a hearing date, petitioners noted that their Notice
of Motion for Peremptory Writ of Mandate included a"notice for a hearing" indicating it was
meant to satisfy petitioners' obligation under Public Resources Code § 21167.4. The developers
argued that this notice was defective because it failed to schedule an actual hearing date, and,
thus, the case was subject to mandatory dismissal. The appellate court rejected the developers'
-24-
SACRAM ENTOUTB\17360.1
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST S� KRIEGER LLP
argument. The plain language of Public Resources Code § 21167.4 is satisfied as long as the
CEQA petitioner files and serves a document requesting a hearing; the hearing date is to be
established by the court. Although McCormick v. Board of Super-visors, 198 Ca1.App.3d 352,
357-358 (1988), held that CEQA petitions were subject to dismissal if the petitioners did not
"take` affirmative steps to set a hearing date" on the court's calendar, the holding of that case was
superseded by the Legislature's 1994 amendment to Public Resources Code § 21167.4.
Accordingly, the court found that petitioners had complied with the requirement ta set a hearing
and the case was not subject to dismissal on this ground.
On the second issue, the court concluded that dismissal was not an appropriate
sanction to impose on petitioners for the delay in assembling the administrative record. The
court reasoned that CEQA does nat authorize the dismissal of a petition, or any other sanction
for that matter, against a petitioner who elects to prepare the administrative record and then fails
to file it within 60 days. The court was obviously troubled with the apparent discrepancy
between the County's findings, which indicated the documents comprising the administrative
record could be found in one location at the County, and the position taken by counsel for the
County and the developers that a complete administrative record would require petitioners to
gather thousands of documents from multiple locations throughout the state. The cou.rt noted
that, under Public Resources Code § 21167.6(e)(10), the administrative record shall include
"written materials relevant to the respandent public agency's compliance with [CEQA] or to its
decision on the merits of the project, including ... copies of studies or other documents relied
upon in any environmental document prepared for the project and either made available to the
public during the public review period or included in the respondent public agency's files on the
project." The court also noted that the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR must disclose "the
address where copies of the EIR and all documents referenced in the EIR will be available for
public review." (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087{c)(5).)
However, the County's Notice of Availability did not state what documents could
be reviewed, or at which locations. Moreover, although the County's findings identified only one
location and custodian of records, "it appears that the litigation posture of [the developers]
regarding the scope of the [administrative record] is not consistent with the disclosure contained
in the Board's resolution regarding the [administrative record]." The court found that these two
facts contributed to petitioners' confusion ahout the scope of the administrative record, and, as a
result, dismissal of petitioners' case was not an appropriate sanction for the delay in the
preparation of the record.
The Leavitt case indicates that public agencies are well advised to have their files
in order well before any litigation is filed. To ensure that there is no question that relevant
documents were made available for public review, it would be prudent to collect and organize all
the documents constituting the administrative record to date, and deposit them in at least one
accessible location, before releasing the draft EIR or Negative Declaration for public review.
The notice informing the public of the document's release can then also specify where the
relevant agency files may be reviewed. Likewise, the findings made in connection with the
project should designate where the collected documents are located.
There is also a potential cost advantage in this approach. Many times when a
CEQA challenge is filed agaix�st a project and the petitioner elects to prepare the record itself, the
SACRAMENTOVTB117360. ]
-25-
lAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST S. KRIEGER LLP
public agency spends significant staff or consultant time organizing its files before they can be
released to the petitioner for compiling the record. There is no mechanism for recovering this
expense. However, if public agencies organized their files before proj ect approval, private
project applicants would normally bear the costs of organizing the files for their projects, since
most public agencies require reimbursement for staff or consultant time spent processing private
development applications. Thus, by preparing itself before the project is approved, the public
agency can avoid getting stuck with unnecessary expenses.
Leavitt also offers guidan,ce regarding the certification of administrative records.
Generally, CEQA iindings include a section that designates the custodian of records, and this
person certifies the administrative record if any litigation is filed. Leavitt suggests that the
person designated as the custodian of records should be someone who is able to certify, based on
personal knowledge, what documents are properly included in the administrative record. Leavitt
also indicates that the certification form should contain language indicating that the signer
"certifies" or "declares" the contents of the record to be correct. �
Finally, in a footnote, Leavitt suggests that Public Resources Code
§ 21167.6(b)(1) does not authorize public agencies to require the deposit of funds as a condition
to preparing the administrative record. Presumably, the same logic would prevent public
agencies from refusing the release a copy of the administrative record until the petitioner pays
for it.
El Morra Community Ass'n v. California Department of Parks and Recreation, 122 Cal. App.
4th 1341 (2004).
This case concerned Crystal Cove State Park, approximately 2,800 acres of
mostly undeveloped natural land, including about three miles of coastline, located near Laguna
Beach. The park includes two developed areas: the Crystal Cove Historical District and the
287-unit El Morro Mobile Home Park. When ihe California Department of Parks and Recreation
acquired the park through a combination of purchases and gifts in 1979, it also acquired these
developments, subject to their existing leases. At that time, the tenants of the mobile home park
waived their rights to relocation benefits in exchange for 20-year leases, which were later
extended to December 2004. Thus, the Department agreed to forego its right to obtain the
property immediately in exchange for the property owners agreeing to give up some of the
compensation they might otherwise have had a right to receive.
In 1982, the Department adapted a General Plan for the park that included plans
to convert the two residential developments to public facilities. The General Plan specifically
stated that the mobile home park would be eliminated and replaced with parking areas,
bathrooms, picnic facilities, and a campground for recreation vehicles.
Nearly 20 years later, when the mobile home park leases were getting close to
expiring, the Department prepaxed an EIR to analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed
demolition of the mobile home park after the expiration of the residents' current leases and the
conversion of the area to public facilities including a campground, parking, and picnic areas.
Petitioners, representing residents of the mobile home park, challenged the Department's
certification of the EIR.
-2b-
SACRAMET3TOUTB\t 73b0.1
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST S� KRIEGER LLP
Among other things, petitioners contended that the trial court should have
granted its motion to augment the administrative record with three documents. The court
disagreed. The cvurt found that the docurnents were inappropriate to be included in the
administrative record because extra-record evidence is usually not admissible in traditional
mandamus actions challenging quasi-legislative administrative decisions related to CEQA. The
court also noted that even if the documents liad been included in the administrative record, the
excluded documents were either irrelevant or involved minor post-approval changes to the
project that would not have required any major revision to the EIR.
Petitioners also argued that the Department could not have adequately
considered, in good faith, the results from the traffic study because the EIR was certified the day
after the consultants completed the 295-page study. The court disagreed, however, reasoning
that the vast majority of the traffic study consisted of data sheets. The substance of the report
took up only 18 pages, while the heart of the report was the one-page conclusion. Because the
EIR was changed to reflect the information contained in the traffic study, the court presuxned that
the Departrnent adequately considered the traffic study. Petitioners also complained that the
Department's hydrogeologic study submitted to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board in September 2402, one month after the EIR's certificatian, demonstrated that the
Departxnent failed to include relevant information in the EIR. The court determined that
including the actual report in the EIR was unnecessary because the hydrogeologic report was
prepared specifically to comply with the requirements of the Regional Board to complete a waste
discharge report, not as supporting documentation for the EIR. The court concluded that the
completion of the hydrogeologic report had "no bearing" on the Department's decision to
approve the project.
Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. v. City of Irvine (Esseac Properry Trust, Inc.), 125 Cal. App. 4th
1110 (ZQQS).
In this case, the Fourth District Court of Appeals rejected Royalty Carpet's
challenge to Irvine's adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of a conditional
use pernut for an apartment complex. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. makes caipet in an industrial
section of the City of Irvine. Essex Property Trust, Inc. applied for a conditional use permit to
build a 132-unit apartment complex near Royalty Carpet, and the city council approved the
Project and adopted the MND. Six working days later, on May 21, 2003, Irvine filed a Notice of
Determination for the Project. Royalty Caipet filed a petition for writ of mandate.
Because Irvine failed to file its Notice of Determination within five days of
approving the project, Royalty Carpet argued that the longer 180-day limitations period, rather
than the shorter 30-day statute, applied. In a footnote, the court disagreed. The court recounted
that this subdivision of the statute allowed for a longer limitations period if the public agency
failed to file a Notice of Determination. In this case, Irvine did file a Notice of Determination,
even if one day late. The court reasoned that the 30-day limitations period begins to run from the
date the public agency files the Notice of Determination. Since Irvine filed the Notice of
Determination one day late, the court added one day to the time Royalty Carpet had to file the
petition.
- 27 -
SACRAMENTOV TB117360.1
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST �i KRIEGER LLP
7. Miscellaneous EIR Cases
Sierra Club v. County of Napa {Beringer Wine Estates),121 Cal. App. 4th 1490 (20Q4).
This case focused on the type of evidence a public agency may consider in
determining whether a project alternative is "feasible." Beringer proposed to build an integrated
winery facility, including a 115-acre vineyard, on 208 acres located in the Napa County Airport
Industrial Area Specific Plan area. The County prepared a Draft EIR which noted that the
construction of the winery would result in the loss of approximately one-half acre of wetlands
suitable for vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat. Although Beringer agreed to perform a number of
measures to mitigate for the loss of wetlands, the EIR found that the impact still would not be
reduced to level of "less than significant." The EIR identified six alternatives to the proposed
project, but three of these were screened out because they were not capable of ineeting
Beringer's project objectives. The EIIZ then analyzed the resulting three alternatives: (1) a"No
Project" alternative, (2) a"Wetlands Preservation" alternative, and (3) a"Reduced
Development" alternative.
The County rejected both the Reduced Development and the Wetlands
Preservation alternatives as being infeasible. The Sierra Club challenged this decision, arguing,
among other things, that the County had improperly relied on a letter from Beringer's Vice
President explaining why it would not be feasible for Beringer to configure its facility in such a
way as to preserve all wetlands on the site. The letter explained that Beringer sought to
consolidate its warehousing, bottling and distribution operations, so that it could eliminate costly
and inefficient multiple trucking rnovements of bottled and unbottled wine between the five
facilities currently supporting those operations. The configuration of the buildings was dictated
in part by operational concerns. As summarized by Beringer's Vice President, "Given the site
constraints imposed by No Name Creek, the wetlands to be preserved, the utilities easement
bisecting the property, the railway location, and the required access from Devlin Road, the
approved proj ect is the only place on the property to construct a facility of the size and layout
that we must have to meet our fundamental business needs of operational efficiency and
consolidation, which is the justification for this large and expensive project."
Sierra Club complained that the Board should not have relied on this letter
because it was not contained in the EIR and the approval of such a last-minute submission would
violate the spirit of CEQA by allowing a developer to withhold evidence so that the public has
no opportunity to contest it. The court rejected both of these arguments. First, the court held
that nothing in CEQA requires an EIR to analyze issues of economic feasibility or requires a.n
agency to receive public input on the question of economic feasibility. Therefore, the timing of
the submission of the letter did not deprive the public of any right conferred on it by CEQA.
Second, the court rejected Sierra Club's contention that developers should not be permitted to put
evidence into the record at the last-minute. The court found this argument disingenuous,
considering that Sierra Club had submitted its own letter to the Board at the same time in the
process.
SAC RAM ENTO V TB\ 17 3 G0.1
:
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST S� KRIEGER LLP
Federation of Hillside and Canyon Assns. v. City of Los Angeles, 126 Cal. App. 4th 1180
(2004).
This case approved a General Plan Framework and new CEQA fzndings and
statement of overriding considerations adopted by the City of Los Angeles. The city's General
Plan Framework ("GPF"} is an elexnent of Los Angeles' General Plan that sets forth policies,
objectives and goals for the growth of the city. Of particular concern to the petitioners was the
GPF prograxn called Transportation Improvement Mitigation Plan ("TIMP"). TIMP identif ed
mitigation measures to offset transportation impacts of the GPF's land use and growth policies.
Irnportantly, TIMP stated that its "preliminary" analyszs of Los Angeles' share of the cost to
implement its share of the program wouid exceed its anticipated revenues. The city's final EIR
stated project-specific effects on firansportation were significant but could be substantially
reduced through mitigation, but the cumulative adverse irnpacts on the region would continue to
be significant and unavoidabie.
Peritioners successfully challenged the suff ciency of the EIR. The litigation
eventually culminated in a prior published decision, Federation of Hillside and Canyon
Associations v. City of Los Angeles, 83 Cal. App. 4th 1252 (2000), which overturned Los
Angeles' CEQA finding that tne transportation impacts of the GPF wonld be mitigated. In the
prior decision, the court reasoned that funding for the TIlVIP was uncertain at�d the city had made
no provision to ensure that the TIMP would be implemented. The court concluded, "The city
may comply with CEQA by amending the GPF so that effective mitigation measures are required
as a candition of the development allowed under the GPF, or by restricting the scope of
development and then making a fnding under section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), or by making a
finding of overriding considerations as to the significant effects on transportation."
To comply with the decision, Los Angeles vacated the approval of the GPF,
adopted new CEQA findings and a statement of overriding considerations, and readopteti the
GPF without change. In most areas, the new findings were substantially the same as the prior
findings. However, in the area of transportation, the findings stated there would be significant
impacts on transportation, but that Los Angeles now believed it would be able to fund its share of
the costs of those measures. In the findings, Los Angeles took into account the fact that it could
not guarantee state and federal funding for TIMP. Los Angeles concluded that TIMP may be
infeasible because the city could not guarantee funding from state and federal sources. Further,
if TIMP was not implemented, the transportation mitigation measures also would be infeasible.
After revising the findings, Los Angeles proceeded to adopt a statement of overriding
considerations finding that any potentially significant impacts caused by the infeasibility of
TIlVIP were outweighed by the project's benefits.
Petitioners filed a second petition for writ of mandate challenging Los Angeles's
re-adoption of the GPF and its revised CEQA findings and statement of overriding
considerations.
Petitioners challenged the city's findings regarding the potential infeasibil'rty of
the TIMP. Petitioners claimed this finding constituted a significant adverse environmental
impact that required revision and recirculation of the EIR. The court rejected this
chaxacterization of the findings. If anything, Los Angeles' findings reflected a"greater
-29-
SAC RAM ENTOV TB\ 17360. I
�o,w o�icEs oF
BEST BEST S� KRIEGER LLP
likelihood" that the TIMP mitigation measures would be fully implemented because, in contrast
to the situation in the previous litigation, the findings committed Los Angeles to funding the
TIMP. Furthermore, the EIR had already analyzed transportation impacts of the GPF without the
proposed mitigation measures, and petitioners never challenged this analysis and were now time-
barred from doing so. The court determined that just because Los Angeles had issued findings
that TIMP may be infeasible did not result in either new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of significant effects identified in the EIR and, as such, did
not call for a subsequent EIR or supplemental EIR.
Petitioners also attempted to reopen Los Angeles' findings concerning impacts on
air quality, water resources, waste water, solid waste, open space, and utilities. The court
rejected these challenges based upon the doctrine of res judicata, which prevents a petitioner
from re-litigating a cause of action that was previously litigated in another proceeding between
the same parties. Here, the court found that it had previously rejected earlier attempts by
petitioners to challenge the EIR and held that Los Angeles did not need to revise the EIR unless
it decided to change the pro}ect.
8. MisceUaneous Negative Declaration Cases
County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 of Los Angeles Co. v. County of Kern, 2005 Cal. App. LEXIS
516 (2005).
County Sanitation overturned the use of a Negative Declaration to adopt a county
ordinance which restricted the application of sewage sludge to agricultural fields. Because the
ordinance created the potential for environmental impacts caused by alternative methods of
sewage sludge disposal, an EIR was required.
The treatment of human sanitary wastes results in sewage sludge. The further
treatment of this sludge to remove water, results in dried biosolids. Sewage sludge and biosolids
are classified according to their level of treatment, such that "exceptional qualit�' biosolids
contain less pollutants and other materials than Class B biosolids. In California, sewage sludge
and biosolids can be stored, buried, incinerated, or applied to land as a fertilizer.
Citing concerns for public health, air quality, and water quality, the County
enacted an ordinance that %rbade the land application of Class B biosolids after January l, 2003.
Land application of "exceptional qualit�' biosolids remained permissible.
County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los ,Angeles County and the California
Association of Sanitation Agencies each challenged the adoption of the ordinance, which will
prohibit them from exporting Class B sludge to Kern Caunty for land application. Among other
things, petitioners alleged that the County violated CEQA by failing to prepaxe an EIR for the
ordinance.
The County argued that only portions of land in Kern County subject to the
Ordinance should be considered for CEQA purposes. Because the overall effect of the
Ordinance would produce environmental beneiits to those acres, the County argued that an EIR
was not required. The caurt agreed that the Ordinance could have a beneficial effect on Kern
County's environment, however the court found that evidence of environmental benefits does not
-30-
SACRAM EA3TOUTB\I 7360.1
LAW OFFICES OF'
BEST BEST S� KRIEGER LLP
eliminate the requirement for CEQA review where there is also evidence of potentially negative
environmental impacts. Further, the court held that the relevant area for CEQA purposes was not
restricted to the Kern County, but instead included any place "where physical conditions will be
affected by the proposed project."
The court found that the County could reasonably foresee that the ordinance
would have indirect environmental impacts because sewage sludge generators would have to find
alternative disposal methods for sludge, such as(i) trucking the sludge fiirther distances for
disposal, (ii) disposing of the sludge in a landfill, or (iii) treating the sludge to "exceptional
quality" such that it could be spread on Kem County lands. Each of these possible reactions
implicated the potential for environmental impacts, such as additional air pollution, loss of
landfill capacity, and increased consumption of energy and other resources. The court also found
that the County could reasonably foresee that Kern County farmers would react to the ordinance
by using alternative fertilizers such as animal manure and chemical fertilizers. Using substitute
fertilizers had potential environmental impacts such as increased air pollution, water pollution,
and impacts to soil quality. Because the Ordinance had the potential to cause indirect
environmental impacts, an EIR was required. However, the court allowed the ordinance to
remain in effect provided the County completed the EIR in good faith.
9. Miscellaneous Exemption and Other Cases
Salmon Protection and Action Network v. County of Marin, 125 Cal. App. 4th 109$ (2005), as
modified, review denied.
In this case, the First Appellate District set aside the County of Marin's approval
of an exemption and permits to conshuct a single-family residence. The County had determined
that, with mitigation measures, the single-family house was categorically exempt from CEQA.2
However, the lot in this case was in a sensitive riparian area that the County had pre-designated
as an area of critical concern. Accordingly, the court held that the County erred in two ways.
First, this single-family house fell within an exception to CEQA's categorical exemption because
the project could possibly impact an environmental resource of critical concern. Second, the
court held that mitigation measures may be used only with Mitigated Negative Declarations or
environmental impact reports, not categorical exemptions. Only those projects that have no
significant effect on the environment may qualify for a categorical exemption from CEQA
review.
Association for a Cleaner Environment v Yosemite Co�nmunity College District,116 Cal.
App. 4th 629 (2004).
The Fifth District held tlie Yosemite Community College District's plans to close
and xemove a campus shooting range were subject to CEQA, did not qualify for any CEQA
exemptions and the matter was not moot. At the heart of the decision was the court's analysis
z Normally, the application for building permits for a single-family residence is a
ministerial approval, which is not subject to CEQA review. However, here the Caunty
had passed an ordinance requiring people who wanted to build next to the creek to obtain
a discretionary permit so that the County could ensure environmental protection of the
riparian habitat.
-31-
SACRAMENTOVTB117360.1
�ow o�ices oF
BEST BESf S� KRIEGER LLP
regarding what constitutes a"project" for purposes of CEQA in light of an agency's "whole of
an action." The Yosemite Community College I7istrict must now perform an initial study to
determine what additional environmental review will be required under CEQA.
Modesto Junior College, which is a part of the Yosemite Community College
District, built a campus shooting range in 1975. The District used the range for firearms courses
and also allowed local public and private law enforcement officers to practice at the range. In
2001, sparked by tremendous growth in student population on the Callege campus, the District
Board of Directors identified safety, environmental and noise-related concerns with the shooting
range. Because of the existence of newer and better facilities located off-campus, the Board
identified four alternatives for the future of the shooting range: (1} sell it; (2) donate it; (3)
demolish it; or (4) leave it empty.
The administrative record contained evidence showing that the District's plans to
remove the range dated back to 1994. For instance, the District hired an. environmental firm to
investigate lead contamination from the shooring range and hired an architect to look at safety
issues surrounding bullet fragments escaping from the shooting range. Furthermore, the District
received a warning letter from an insurance company questioning the wisdom of continuing to
operate a shooting range in the middle of a college cam.pus. In October 2001, the Board passed a
resolution to close the shooting range, to clean up lead contamination at the site, and to donate
the salvageable portions of the range to the Tuolumne County Sheriff's Office.
The Association for a Cleaner Environment ("ACE") filed a petition for writ of
mandate, contending the District's reliance on exemptions was improper and the District should
have conducted an initial study to determine the appropriate level of environmental review. The
District argued the action was not a project for the purposes of CEQA. The appellate court
identified a two-step process that local agencies must go througli to deternune whether an
activity constitutes a"projecY' subject to CEQA. First, the activity must include a discretionary
action undertaken by a public agency. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21065, subd. (a).) Second, the
"whole of an action" must have a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the
environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15378, subd. (a).) If an agency reaches this determination, then it must
conduct an initial study.
ACE contended the District's actions included closure, cleanup and destruction of
the firing range, as well as transfer of activities to another site. The District argued the Board
had determined only to close the facility and remediate the site, making no decision regarding
removal of the facility. The court disagreed with the District. The court, citing to evidence in
administrative recard, concluded the District had had a long-term goa� to demolish the shooting
range, although the Board had not yet voted upon the final decision. Therefore, the court found,
the "whole of the action" included destroying the range. The court went on to determine the
activities would have the potential for a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect effect on the
environment, finding the lead report indicated a risk that the project could spread lead
contamination at the removal site as well as the salvage site. Because the District's proposed
project included the destruction of the range, and destruction of the range was not subject to an
exemption, the District had to perform an initial study to determine the appropriate level of
environmental review.
-32-
SACRAMENiOUTB\17360.1
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BES7 & KRIEGER LLP
Santa Barbara County Flower and Nursery Growers Association, In� v County of Santa
Barbara,121 Cal. App. 4th 8C4 (20Q4).
In this case, the Sixth District Court of Appeals held that the local coastal plan
(LCP) amendment prepared by the County of Santa Barbara was exempt from the EIR provisions
of CEQA, and the County did not waive its CEQA exemption simply because it chose to prepare
an EIR.
Since 1982, the California Coastal Commission had been working with the
County to conduct an environmental assessment concerning the development of greenhouses in
the Carpinteria Valley. Finally in 199$, the Commission threatened to stop approving any future
greenhouse development until the County completed a LCP amendment and the required
environmental assessment. In February 1999, the County released a paper which provided
various options for greenhouse development in the Carpinteria Valley. In addition, the County
prepared an EIR to satisfy the its environmental assessment obligation. The County issued the
proposed final EIR in March 2000 and certified the final EIR and adopted the LCP amendment
in February 2Q02. The County then submitted the EIR and LCP amendment to the Commission
for its approval.
The next month, the Santa Barbara County Flower and Nuxsery Growers
Association, Inc. filed a petition challenging the adequacy of the EIR. The trial court denied the
petition, finding that the activities and approvals by the County were statutorily exempt from
CEQA because they were necessary for the preparation and adoption of a LCP amendrnent. The
Association contended that reliance upon the exernption was discretionary, and, by electing to
prepare an EIlt, the County waived the exemption and obliged itself to comply with all of
CEQA's EIR requirements.
The court disagreed. The court observed that the California Coastal Act of 1976
is a comprehensive statutory scheme designed to protect the environment of California's coastal
zone by requiring preparation of LCPs and LCP amendments that embody statewide standards.
The court noted that the Coastal Act requires the irnplementation of LCPs and LCP amendments
that embody statewide standards for preserving the coastal zone. A local agency must conduct
environmental review of proposed LCPs or LCP amendments before the LCP amendments
become effective. The Commission must certify that the LCP amendment canforms to the
environmental protection policies of the Coastal Act.
CEQA exempts the approval of a LCP amendment by the Commission from the
EIl2 provisions in CEQA because the environmental regulations set forth in the Coastal Act
operate in place of the EIR process. Accordingly, neither the Commission nor the County was
required to prepare an EIR prior to the approval of the County's LCP amendment. The fact that
the County chose to prepare an EIR to submit to the Commission as its environmental
assessment did not waive the exemption. Nothing in CEQA or the Coastal Act gives local public
agencies the power to opt out of the Commission's regulatory program and choose to be
governed by CEQA instead. Thus, the County could not and did not waive the CEQA exemption
by preparing an EIR.
SACRAMENTOUT"B\t 7360.1
-33-
lAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST S� KRIEGER LLP
Native American Sacred Site and Environmental Protection Association (NASSEPA) v. City
of San Juan Capistrano (Pueblo Serra, LLC), 120 Cal. App. 4th 961 (20{!4).
At issue in NASSEPA was whether the City of San Juan Capistrano was required
to comply with CEQA before enacting a voter-sponsored initiative. The Fourth District Court of
Appeals found that this activity was exempt from CEQA review.
To build a school for 3000 students on two parcels within San Juan Capistrano,
the project sponsor solicited signatures for a petition to qualify a voter initiative to change the
designation of the sites to "Public and Institutional" and the zoning to "Public Institutional."
After the petition was certified, the city agreed to adopt the initiative pursuant to Elections Code
section 9214, which provides that, once 15 percent of a city's registered voters have signed an
initiative petition, the city can either submit the initiative to a vote or simply adopt the initiative
as is, without changes. In this instance, San Juan Capistrano negotiated an agreement containing
certain mitigation conditions and then adopted the initiative.
NASSEPA challenged the city's adoption of the initiative because they claimed
that the city could not adopt the initiative without completing a CEQA review. The court held
that a city's duty to adopt a qualified voter-sponsored initiative, or place it on the ballot, is both
ministerial and mandatory. Because the city has no discretion to shape the law, and is acting
only as an agent for the electorate in such situations, the enactment of the initiative measure is
excluded from CEQA review.
San Jose Christian College u City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir 2004).
In another clash between land use regulations and a religiously affiliated
landowner, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court decision finding a city did not violate the
First Amendment or the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act o�'2000
("RLUIPA") in denying a Christian college's rezoning application. This case presented the
interesting issue of whether a city's application of CEQA regularions to a religious college
violated RLITIPA.
In this case, the San Jose Christian College owned property sited with a hospital.
The property was zoned for "Planned Use Development," which allowed all uses provided the
uses were consistent with the City of Morgan Hill's development plan. The city's development
plan designated the site for hospital use, and the property was the only location in the area
actually designated for hospital use. The college sought to use the inoperative hospital facilities
for educational purposes related to expanding the college's existing campus. To that end, the
college submitted an application to the city for approval of a zoning amendment to change the
allowable uses designated on the city's development plan.
The city reviewed the application and requested additional information about the
site plans, building elevation, landscaping and specific operational details. Rather than
submitting the requested information, the college responded by submitting a scaled-back
application and proposal. The initial application proposed additional facilities, sporting fields
and up to 1200 students added over 20 years. The scaled back proposal described only existing
facilities and an enrollment of 400 students. Representing to the city that it did not have a clear
-34-
SACRAMENTOUTB\17360. i
�aw o�-�cEs oF
BEST BEST S� KRtEGER LLP
picture of any future pians, the college contradicted itself by publishing detailed plans for
expansion in the college alumni magazine.
Parallel to these events, a city task force evaluated the community needs for
medical services and recommended the property remain zoned for hospital use. Although the
city staff disagreed with the task farce, the Planning Commission issued a recommendation to
deny the college's rezoning application, which the City Council followed.
The college filed a complaint and requested injunctive relieve on the basis that the
city's zoning process violated the First Amendment and RLUIPA. The district court denied the
college's request for a prelimina.ry injunction and subsequently granted the city's motion for
summary judgment; the college filed a timely appeal.
Among other things, the college claimed the application of CEQA regulations to
its rezoning application violated RLUIPA because the regulations substantially burdened its
religious exercise. The court noted RLUIl'A only applies to land use regulations. For the sole
purpose of determining the RLUIPA claims, the court assumed CEQA was a land use regulation.
Opining that CEQA did not increase the inconvenience otherwise imposed by the city's lawful
zoning application requirements, the court specifically stated it was not a burden to the college's
free exercise of religion for it to reveal the full extent of its proposed development to allow the
city to assess the environrnental effects associated with the proposed development. Thus, the
court held complying with CEQA regulations did not violate RLUII'A.
The college also claimed it had complied with the city's CEQA regulations.
Again, the court did not agree. While on the one hand the college told the city it could not
predict its future facility requirements, it continued to publish expansive development plans in
the college magazine. Thus, the court found the city reasonably concluded the college did not
provide the necessary detail of foreseeable future development and its impact to avoid addressing
the environmental impact of the more ambitious plans.
CONCLUSION
As always, CEQA remains cornplicated and difficult to apply. The only constant
in this area of law is how quickly the rules change.
Should you have any questions about any of the cases discussed above, or about
the environxnental review of any of your agency's projects, please contact your BB&K attorney
for assistance.
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
Jennifer T. Buckman
Christopher H. Calfee
Ward H. Simmons
-35-
SAC RAM ENTOUTB\ 17360.1
,� -. :.-_�:--
Best es� r�eger �
B
��
CEQA Guidelines
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Local Guidelines for
Implementing the California
Environmental Quality Act
02005 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
RIVERSIDE INDIAN WELLS ONTARIO SAN DIEGO ORANGE COUNTY SACRAMENTO
(951) 689-5552 (760) 568-2611 (909) 989-8584 (619) 525-1300 (949) 260-0962 (916) 325-4000
�
CEQA Guidelines
�
�
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Local Guidelines for
Implementing the California
Environmental Quality Act
�
RIVERSIDE INDIAN WELLS ONTARIO SAN DIEGO ORAIVGE COLTN'I`Y SACRAMENTO
(951)689-5552 (760)568-2611 (909)989-8584 (619)525-134U (949)260-0962 (916)325-4000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
�
Page
l. GENERAL PROVISIONS, PURPOSE AND POLICY .................................................1-1
1.01 GENERAL PROVISIONS .........................................................................................1-1
1.02 Pu�osE ..............................................................................................................1-1
1.03 APPLICABILITY .................................................................................................... 1-1
1.04 REDUCING DELAY AND PAPERWORK ................................................................... 1-2
1.05 COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW .......................................................................... 1-3
1.06 TERMINOLOGY .....................................................................................................1-3
1.�7 PARTIAL INVALIDITY ........................................................................................... 1-3
1.08 ELECTRONIC DELIVERY OF COMMENTS AND NOTICES ....................................... 1-3
2. LEAD AND RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES ....................................................................2-1
2.01 LEAD AGENCY PRINCIPLE .................................................................................... 2-1
2.02 SELECTION OF LEAD AGENCY ............................................................................. 2-1
2.03 DUTIES OF A LEAD AGENCY ............................................................................... 2-1
2.04 CONSULTAT'ION REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ......................... 2-2
2.05 RESPONSIBLE AGENCY PRINCIPLE ....................................................................... 2-3
� 2.06 DUTIES OF A RESPONSIBLE AGENCY ................................................................... 2-3
2.07 RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF PREPARATION BY RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES ................ 2-3
2.08 USE OF FINAL EIR OR NEGATIVE DECLARATION BY RESPONSIBLE
AGENCIES............................................................................................................ 2-4
2.09 SHIFT IN LEAD AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES ......................................................... 2-4
3. ACTIVITIES EXEMPT FROM CEQA ......................................................................... 3-1
3.01 ACTIONS SUBJECT TO CEQA .............................................................................. 3-1
3.�Z MINISTERIAL PROJECTS ....................................................................................... 3-1
3.03 EXEMPTIONS IN GENERAL ................................................................................... 3-2
3.04 PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT ............................................................. 3-2
3.05 T10TICE OF EXEMPTION ....................................................................................... 3-2
3.OE DISAPPROVED PROJECTS ......................................................................................3-2
3.07 NO POSSIBII.,IT'I' OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ............................................................ 3-3
3.08 EMERGENCY PROJECTS ........................................................................................ 3-3
3.09 �ASIBILITY AND PLANNING STUDIES ................................................................. 3-3
3.10 RATES, ToLr.s, FARES AND CHARGES ................................................................. 3-3
3.11 SUBSURFACE PIPELINES WITHIN A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ............................... 3-4
3.12 CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL HOUSING PROJECTS ........................................................ 3-4
3.13 MINOR ALTERATIONS TO FLUORIDAT'E WATER UTILITIES .................................. 3-9
3.14 BALLOT 1VIEASURES ............................................................................................. 3-9
3.15 OTHER SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS ........................................................................... 3-10
�""'� 3.16 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS .............................................................................. 3-10
SACTOUTB122869\C1TY12005 _i_
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued) ���
Page
4. TIlVIE LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................4-1
4.01 REVIEW �F PRIVA'I'E PROJECT APPLICATIONS ..................................................... 4-1
4.02 DE'TERMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT .................................................. 4-1
4.03 COMPLETION AND ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION ...............................4-1
4.04 COMPLETION AND CERTIFICATION OP FINAL EIR ............................................... 4-1
4.05 PROJECTS SUBJECT TO THE PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT .................................... 4-1
4.06 PROJECTS, OTHER THAN THOSE SUBJECT TO THE PERMIT STREAMLINING
ACT, WITH SHORT TIME PERIODS FOR APPROVAL .............................................. 4-2
4.07 SUSPENSION OF TIME PERIODS ............................................................................4-2
5. INITIA.L STUDY ............................................................................................................5-1
5.01 PREPARATION OF INITIAL S'I'LTDY ........................................................................ S-1
5.02 INFORMAL CONSULTATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES ........................................... S-1
S.O3 CONSULTATION WITH PRIVATE PROJECT APPLICANT .......................................... S-2
5.04 PURPOSBS OF AN INITIAL S'TLJDY ......................................................................... S-2
5.05 CONTENTS OF INITIAL STUDY ............................................................................. S-3
5.06 USE OF A CHECKLIST INITIAL STUDY .................................................................. 5-3
5.07 EVALUATING SIGNINICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ....................................... S-3
5.08 Mt�NDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ................................................ S-4 �`""
5.09 MANDATORY PREPARATION OF AN EIR FOR WASTE BUR.NING PROJECTS ......... S-S
5.1 O DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO AN EXISTING COMMUNITY PLAN AND EIR ......... S-7
5.11 LAND USE POLICIES ............................................................................................. S-7
5.12 EVALUATING IMPACTS ON HISTORICAL RESOURCES ........................................... S-7
5.13 EVALUATING IMPACTS ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES .......................................... S-8
5.14 CONSULTATION WI'T'H WATER AGENCIES REGARDING LARGE
DEVELOPMENTPROJECTS .................................................................................... S-9
5.15 SUBDIVISIONS WTTH MORE THAN 500 DWELLING UNITS .................................. S-1�
5.16 IMPACT5 TO OAK WOODLANDS ......................................................................... 5-10
5.17 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................ 5-10
5.18 FINAL DETERMINATION ..................................................................................... 5-11
6. NEGATIVE DECLARATION ....................................................................................... 6-1
6.01 DECISION TO PREPARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ........................................... f-1
6.02 DECISION TO PREPARE A MITIGATED NBGATIVE DECLARATION ........................ 6-1
6.03 CONTRACTING FOR PREPARATION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION ........................ f-1
6.04 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED
NEGATIVEDECLARATION .................................................................................... 6-1
6.05 POSTING AND PUBLICATION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION .................................................................................... 6-2
6.06 SUBMISSION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED NEGATNE ,; -�
DECLARATION TO STATE CLEARINGHOUSE ......................................................... C)-3
SACTOUTB1228691CITY12005 -11-
�
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
6.07 SPECIAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTE AND FUEL BURNING
PROJECTS............................................................................................................. 6-5
6.08 CONSULTATION WITH WATER AGENCIES REGARDING LARGE
DEVELOPMENI' PROJECTS .................................................................................... 6-5
6.09 COIV'I'ENT OF NEGATTVE DECLA.RATION .............................................................. 6-5
6.1 O ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATTON OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION..................................................................................................... 6-5
6.11 MITIGATION REPORTING OR MONITORING PROGRAM FOR MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION .................................................................................... 6-6
6.12 APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF PROJECT .......................................................... 6-7
6.13 RECIRCULATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLEIRATION OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION..................................................................................................... C-7
6.14 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ON A PROJECT FOR WHICH A PROPOSED
NEGATIVE OR MITIGATED NEGATNE DECLAR.ATION HAS BEEN APPROVED ...... 6-8
6.15 ADDENDUM TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION ........................................................... 6-9
6.16 SUBSEQUENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION .............................................................. 6-9
6.17 PRIVATE PROJECT COSTS ................................................................................... 6-10
6.18 FILING FEES FOR PROJECTS WHICH AFF'ECT WILDLIFE RESOURCES .................. 6-10
�' 7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ..................................................................... 7-1
7.01 DECISION TO PREPARE AN EIR ........................................................................... 7-1
7.02 CONTRACTING FOR PREPARATION OF EIRS ........................................................ 7-1
7.03 NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF DRAFT EIR ........................................................... 7-1
7.04 PREPARATION OF DRAF'T EIR .............................................................................. 7-2
7.05 CONSULTATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES AND PERSONS ..................................... 7-2
7.06 EARLY CONSULTATION ON PROJECTS INVOLVING PERMIT ISSUANCE ................. 7-3
7.07 CONSULTATION WITH WATER AGENCIES REGARUING LARGE
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS .................................................................................... 7-3
7.08 A�ORT L� USE PLAN ................................................................................... 7-3
7.09 GErrE�. AsP�c'rs OF AN EIR ............................................................................ 7-3
7.10 USE OF REGISTERED CONSUI.,TANTS IN PREPARING EIRS ................................... 7-4
7.11 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE ......................................................................... 7-4
7.12 STANDARDS FOR ADEQUACY OF AN EIR ............................................................ 7-5
7.13 FORM AND CONTENT OF EIR .............................................................................. 7-5
7.14 ANAI.,YSIS OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .................................................................. 7-6
7.15 ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................ 7-7
7.16 ANALYSIS OF ALT'ERNATIVES IN AN EIl2 ............................................................ 7-8
7.17 ANEu.YSIS OF FuTUx� ExPa1vSION .................................................................... 7-11
7.18 NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF DRAFT' EIR ........................................................... 7-11
7.19 SUBMISSION OF DRAFT EIR TO STATE CLEARINGHOUSE .................................. 7-12
7.20 SPECIAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTE AND FUEL BURNING
PROJECTS........................................................................................................... 7-13
SACTOUTB1228691CT1'Y12005 -111-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
7.21 REVIEW OF DRAFT EIR BY OTHER AGENCIES AND PERSONS ........................... 7-13
7.22 TIME FOR REVIEW OF DRAFT EIR; FAILURE TO COMMENT .............................. 7-14
7.23 PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT EIlZ ...................................................................... 7-14
7.24 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS UN DRAFT EIR ........................................................ 7-15
%.2S PREPARATIONAND CONTENTS OFFINALEIR ...................................................7-15
%.26 RECIRCULATION WHEN NEW INFORMATION IS ADDED TO EIR ........................ 7-16
7.27 CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR ...........................................................................7-1%
%.28 CONSIDERATION OF EIR BEFORE APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF PROJECT... 7-1i
7.29 FI�INGS ...........................................................................................................7-17
%.30 SPECIAL FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR FACILITIES WHICH MAY EMIT
HAZARDOUS AIR EMISSIONS NEAR SCHOOLS ....................................................7-15
7.31 STA1'EMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ................................................7-19
732 MITIGATION REPORTING OR MONITORING PROGRAM FOR EIR ........................ 7-19
7.33 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ............................................................................. 7-21
7.34 DISPOSITION OF A FINAL EIR ........................................................................... 7-22
7.35 PRIVATE PROJECT COSTS ...................................................................................7-22
7.36 FILING FEES FOR PROJECTS WHICH AFFECT WILDLIFE RESOURCES .................. 7-22
8. TYPES OF EIRS ............................................................................................................. 8-1
8.01 PROJECT EIR ....................................................................................................... 8-1
8.02 SUBSEQUENT EIR ................................................................................................ 8-1
H.03 SUPPLEMENT TO AN EIR ..................................................................................... 8-2
8.04 ADDErmUM TO AN EIR ....................................................................................... 8-2
8.05 TIERED EIR .......................................................................................................... 8-2
8.06 STAGED EIR ........................................................................................................ 8-3
8.07 PROGRAM EIR ..................................................................................................... 8-4
8.08 USE OF A PROGRAM EIR WITH SUBSEQUENT EIRS AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATIONS.................................................................................................... 8-4
g.09 USE OF AN EIR �tOM AN EARLIER PROJECT ...................................................... 8-4
8.10 MASTER EIR ........................................................................................................ 8-4
8.11 FocusED EIR ...................................................................................................... 8-6
9. CEQA LITIGATION ......................................................................................................9-1
9.01 TIMELINES ........................................................................................................... 9-1
9.02 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD ................................................................................... 9-1
�
�
14. DEFINITIONS ..............................................................................................................10-1
10.01 "APPLICANT" .....................................................................................................10-1
10.02 "APPROVAL" ......................................................................................................10-1
10.Q3 "BASELINE" ��
.......................................................................................................10-1
20.04 "CEQA" ............................................................................................................10-1
SACTOUTB1228691CTI'Y�2005 _iy_
�
�
�
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
10.05
10.06
10.07
10.08
10.09
10.10
10.11
10.12
10.13
10.14
10.15
10.16
10.17
10.18
10.19
10.20
10.21
10.22
1Q.23
10.24
10.25
10.26
10.27
10.28
10.29
10.30
10.31
10.32
10.33
10.34
10.35
10.36
10.37
10.38
10.39
10.40
10.41
10.42
10.43
10.44
10.45
10.46
10.47
Page
«CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION" ............................................................................ 10-1
«CITY" ............................................................................................................... 10-1
«CLERK" ............................................................................................................1 O-1
<`COMMUNITY-LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW" ............................................10-2
«CUMULATIVE IMPACTS" ................................................................................... 10-2
"CUMITLATIVBLY CONSIDERABLE" .................................................................... 10-2
«DECISIONMAKING BODY" ................................................................................ 10-2
«DEVELOPED OPEN SPACE" ............................................................................... lO-2
«DEVELOPMENT PROJECT" ................................................................................ 1 O-3
«DISCRETIONARY PROJECT" .............................................................................. l O-3
«Dx.��' EIR" .....................................................................................:...............10-3
«EMBRGENCY" ................................................................................................... 10-3
«ENVIRONMENT" ............................................................................................... 10-3
«EIR" .. . . .. ... .... ... . .... ................. ..... ....... . ........ ... ............. ..... . ............... ................ .10-3
«FEASIBLE" ........................................................................................................ 1 �-3
«FiNr�. EIR" ......................................................................................................10-3
«I�ISTORICAL RESOURCES" ................................................................................10-3
«INFILL SITE" ..................................................................................................... 10-4
«INITIAL S'I'LTDY" ............................................................................................... 10-4
«TURISDICTION BY LAW" ...................................................................................10-4
«LAND DISPOSAL FACILITY" .............................................................................10-4
«LARGE TREATMENT FACILITY" ........................................................................ 1 O-S
«LEAD AGENCY" ............................................................................................... lO-S
«LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS" ........................................................................... 1 O-S
"LOW- AND MODERATE-TNCOME HOUSEHOLDS" ............................................... 10-5
«MAJ'OR TRANSIT STOP" .................................................................................... 1 O-S
"MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION" ........................................................... �O-S
«MIT'IGATION" ................................................................................................... 10-5
«NEGATIVE DECLARATION" .............................................................................. 10-6
«NOTICB OF COMPLETION" ................................................................................ 10-6
«NOTICE OF DE1'ERMINATION" ..........................................................................10-6
«NOTICE OF EXEMPTION" .................................................................................. 10-6
«NOTICE OF PREPARATION" ............................................................................... 1 O-6
«OAK" ... .. ..... ......... ..... ............. ... .............. ....... ... ............................. ......... ....... ...10-6
«OAK WOODLANDS" .......................................................................................... 10-6
«OFF'SITE FACILITY" .......................................................................................... 10-6
«PERSON" ..........................................................................................................10-6
«PRNATE PROJECT" ........................................................................................... 1 O-6
«PROJECT" ......................................................................................................... 10-6
«PROJECT-SPECIFIC EFFECTS" ...........................................................................10-7
«QUALIFIED URBAN USE" .................................................................................. 10-7
«RESID�NT�.." ..................................................................................................1 O-7
«RESPONSIBLE AGENCY" ................................................................................... 1 O-7
SACTOUTBi228691C2TI'�2005
Q�Z
TABLE OF C(?NTENTS
(continued) --'�
Page
10.48
10.49
10.50
10.51
10.52
10.53
10.54
10.55
10.56
10.57
10.58
10.59
10.60
«SIGNIF'ICANT EFFECT" ...................................................
"5T�"
..........................................................................
«STANDARD" ..................................................................
«STA'I'E GUIDELINES" .....................................................
"SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" .............................................
«TIERING" .......................................................................
"TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES" .....................................
«TRUSTEE AGENCY" .......................................................
«URBANIZED AREA" .......................................................
"URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY" ......................................
«WETLANDS" ..................................................................
«WILDLIFE HABITAT" .....................................................
«ZONING A.PPROVAL" .....................................................
.................................10-7
.................................10-7
.................................10-8
.................................10-8
.................................10-8
.................................10-8
.................................10-8
.................................10-5
.................................10-9
.................................10-9
.................................10-9
...............................10-10
...............................10-10
11. FORMS .........................................................................................................................11-1
�_
,--e
SACTOUTB1228691CITY�2.005 -Vl-
�
STAFF SUMMARY OF TIiE CEQA EVALUATI4N PROCESS
Excerpted from these Local Guidelines for Implementing
the California Environmental Quality Act
�
(2) As a Responsible Agency, the City shall provide 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.09
data as requested by the Lead Agency, consider
the documents prepared by the Lead Agency and
reach its own conclusion on whether and how to
approve the proposed activity.
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Action
(A) Staff determines whether the City is Lead or Responsible 2.01, 2.02, 2.05
Agency for the proposed activity.
(1) As a Lead Agency, the City shall decide whether
a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative
Declaration or an EIR will be required and shall
prepare and consider the document before
making its decision on whether and how to
approve the proposed activity.
(B) Staff examines proposed activity ("project") to
determine whether it is exempt.
Staff Summary of the
CEQA Evaluation Process
Guidelines Section
Reference
2.03, 2.04, 2.08
3.01
(1) The project can be exempt for any of the
following reasons:
�
(a) The activity does not come within the
legal definition of "project."
(b) It is a disapproved project.
(c) It can be seen with certainty that there is
no possibility that the activity may have
a significant effect on the environment.
SACRAMENTOITTB�21717. 1\C1TY12005 -V ll-
3.01
3.06
3.07
Q 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Staff Summary of the
CEQA Evaluation Process
�r
Action
(d)
(e)
��
It is a ministerial, not discretionary,
action taken by the City.
It is covered by one of the exemptions in
the CEQA statute.
It is covered by one of the exemptions in
the State Guidelines. '
(2) If the activity is determined to be exempt, Staff
completes and files internally a Preliminary Exemption
Assessment (Form "A"). A Notice of Exemption
(Form "B") should be filed with the Clerk followin�
City approval of a project. (Attach Form "A", too.)
The Clerk must post the Notice within twenty-four (24)
hours of its receipt, and the Notice must remain posted
for thirty (30) days. A thirty-five (35) day statute of
limitations for legal challenges begins to run onlv if
and when the Notice of Exemption is filed with the
Clerk. If no Notice is filed, the statute of limitations
for legal challenges is one hundred eighty (180) days.
Guidelines Section
Reference
3.02
3.07; 3.08, 3.09, 3.10,
3.11,3.12,3.13,3.14,
3.15
3.03
3.04, 3.05
(3) If the activity is not exempt, Staff proceeds with its ! 5.01
own environmental evaluation, beginning with the
preparation of an Initial Study. (See Section (C)
below.)
(4) If anyone requests a copy of the Notice of Exemption
prior to the date on which the City determines the
activity is exempt, the copy rnust be mailed, first class
postage prepaid, within five (5) days of the City's
determination. If such a request is made following the
City's determination, then the copy should be mailed in
the same manner as soon as possible.
3.05
��
,�~-�2
SACRAMENTOUTB�21717. 1\CTI'Y�2005 -Vlll- �O 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
�
�
�
Loca1 Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Action
(C) Staff Preparation of an Initial Study.
(1) All Responsible and any Trustee Agencies must
be consulted in the preparation of the Initial
Study.
(2) The City shall hold a scoping meeting if
required.
(3) Staff prepares an Initial Study, including the
environmental checklist form (Form "J") and all
explanations as necessary.
(4) Based on the results of the Initial Study, Staff
prepares an Environmental Impact Assessment
(Form "C") for internal use only.
Staff Summary of the
CEQA Evaluation Process
Guidelines Section
Reference
5.01
5.02, 5.03
7.05
S.O1, 5.05, 5.06,
5.07, 5.0$, 5.10,
5.11, 5.12, 5.13
5.06 (See also 5.03,
5.07, 5.08, 5.10,
5.11, 5.12, 5.13)
(a) If Staff concludes that the project will not 5.04, 5.17, 6.01
have a significant effect on the envi-
ronment, then it must recommend that a
Negative Declaration be prepared.
(b) If Staff concludes that the project could
result in significant environmental effects
but that the significant effects identified
in the Initial Study have been avoided or
mitigated to a point where clearly no
significant effects would occur by
revisions in the project plans or proposals
made by or agreed to by the applicant,
then it must recommend that a Mitigated
Negative Declaration be prepared.
5.04, 5.17, 6.02
(c) If Staff concludes that the project could 5.04, 5.07, 5.17,
or may have a significant effect on the 7.01
environment, it must recommend that an
Environmental Impact Report be
prepared.
SACRAMENTOUTB121717. i\CITY�2005 �1�- O 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Staff Summary of the
CEQA Evaluation Process
�
Action
(D) Staff Preparation of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
(1) If Staff recommends preparation of a Negative
Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Staff must prepare a Draft Negative Declaration
(Form "E") (unsigned but otherwise fully
completed including a statement of supporting
reasons) and fill out a Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (Form "D"). For a Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Staff must also attach to
Form "E" a description of mitigation measures
for each significant impact.
(2) Staff must then post a copy of the Notice of
Intent, the Draft Negative DeclarationJ Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Initial Study at the
City office. The Notice must also be posted in
the affice of the Clerk of each County in which
the project is located within twenty-four (24)
hours of receipt by the Clerk, and must remain
posted for a minimum of twenty (20) days,
unless otherwise required by law to be posted for
thirty (30) days.
(3) At least twenty (20) days before the final adop-
tion of the Negative Declaration/Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Staff must give Notice of
Intent to Adopt a Negative
Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Form "D") by mail to the last known name and
address of all individuals and organizations who
have previously requested such notice and by at
least one of the following:
Guidelines Section
Reference
6.01, 6.02, 6.09
6.01, 6.02, 6.04,
6.09
6.05
6.04, 6.05, 6.06,
6.07
�-��
�
SACi2AMENTOUTB121717. 1\CI'I'Y�2005 -X- OO 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
�
r
�
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Action
(a) publishing once in a newspaper of
general circulation, or if more than one
area wili be affected, in the newspaper of
largest circulation from among the
newspapers of general circuiation in
those areas;
(b) posting on and off site where the project
is to be located;
(c) Mailing to owners and occupants of
contiguous property.
Staff Summary of the
CEQA Evaluation Process
Guidelines Sec�ion
Reference
6.05
C'�1�.7
. ��
A public review period at least as long as the 6.06
period of review by the State Clearinghouse is
required for Negative Declarations or Mitigated
Negative Declarations sent to the State
Clearinghouse.
(4) At the time noticed for ihe meeting of the
decision making body, (either the Planning
Commission or the City Council), the Staff
recommendation shall be considered. Comments, if
any, from the public and Responsible Agencies and
Trustee Agencies which pertain to resources under
their authority and are received within the public
comment period must be considered. If the deci-
sion making body determines in light of the whole
record that the project will not have a significant
effect on the environment, it adopts the Negative
Declaration/ Mitigated Negative Declaration. For a
Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City must also
adopt a mitigation monitoring or reporting program.
In either case, the City must speci�y the location
and custodian of the documents which constitute
the record of proceedings. (If the decision making
6.05, 6.10, 6.11, 7.01;
7.32
�;
SACRAMENTOUTB121717. 1\CITY12005 -Xl" 0 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmentai Quality Act (20Q5)
Staff Summary of the
CEQA Evaluation Process
.�-�..,
Action
body finds, in light of the whole record, that the
project may have a significant effect on the
environment, it must order the preparation of an
EIR.)
I���C���
Move that this Planning Commission/City Council
finds in light of the whole record that the project
will not have a significant effect on the envi-
ronment, the Negative Declaration/Mitigated
Negative Declaration reflects the independent
judgment of the Planning Commission/City
Council, and that the Negative Declaration/
Mitigated Negative Declaration as proposed by
Staff be adopted.
Guidelines Section
Reference
(5) If the Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative 6.12
Declaration is adopted, the decision making body can
act upon the project after reviewing, considering, and
adopting the Negative Declaration/Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
MOTION:
Move approval of the project, and direct Staff to file
and post a Notice of Determination in accordance
with the City's Guidelines.
�
.--,.
SACRAMENTOUTB�2171'7. 11CIT'Y12005 -Xll- � 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
�
�
�
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (Z005)
Actian
(E)
minimum of thirty (30) days.
(6) Staff must file a Notice of Determination (Form "F")
with the Clerk and also with the Office of Planning
and Research if the project requires state agency
approval within five (5) working days of approval. A
fee of $1,250 shall be paid at this time to the Clerk
for projects which will adversely affect wildlife
resources. (Refer to the Index at the end of this Staff
Summary to see whether a handling fee or adminis-
tration fee is also due.) The Notice must be posted in
the Clerk's office within twenty-four (24) hours of
receipt by the Clerk, and must remain posted for a
Staff Summary of the
CEQA Evaluation Process
Guidelines Section
Reference
6.14, 6.1$
(7) Staff simultaneously and conspicuously posts Notice 6.14
of Determination at City Hall.
(8) A thirty (30) day statute of limitations for legal 6.14
challenges usually begins to run onlv after the Notice
of Determination has been filed with and posted by
the Clerk (and with the Office of Planning and
Research if approval by any State agency is
involved).
(9) If anyone requests a copy of the Notice of
Determination prior to the date on which the City
adopts the Negative DeclarationiMitigated
Negative Declaration, the copy must be mailed,
first class postage prepaid, within five (5) days of
the City's determination. If such a request is made
following the City's determination, then the copy
should be mailed in the same manner as soon as
possible.
Staff Preparativn of an EIR.
SACRAMENTOVTB121717. 11CI'TY12005
-xiii-
6.14
7.01
O 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Action
(1) If an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") is
required, the City as Lead Agency shall send a
Notice of Preparation (Form "G") to all
Responsible and any Trustee Agencies, and the
Office of Planning and Research. A Notice of
Completion (Form "H") must be attached as a
cover sheet when a Notice of Preparation is
submitted to the Office of Planning and
Research. Responsible and Trustee Agencies,
must respond within thirty (30) days. The
Notice must be posted in the office of the Clerk
for each county in which the project is located
within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt by the
Clerk, and must remain posted for thirty (30)
days.
(2) Staff shall commence preparation of a Draft EIIZ.
Staff may begin work on it immediately without
awaiting responses to the Notice of Preparation.
If a Draft EIR, EIR or Focused E1R is prepared
under contract to the City, the contract for work
must be executed within forty-five (45) days
from the date the City sends the Notice of
Preparation, unless an extension is mutually
agreed upon by the City and project applicant.
Early consultation ("scoping"} is advisable
during the drafting of the EIIZ with all
Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies and
interested individuals and organizations of which
staff is reasonably aware.
Staff Summary of the
CEQA Evaluation Process
Guidelines Section
Reference
7.03
7.02, 7.04, 7.05,
7.06
SACRAMENTOITTB�21717. i\CITY�2005 -X1V- �O 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
,^:•
�
��
�
�
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Action
(3) Upon completion of the Draft EIl2, Staff shall file a
Notice of Completion (Form "H") with the Office
of Planning and Research and give the Notice
inviting comment upon the Draft EIR (Form "K")
by mail to the last known names and addresses of
all individuals and organizations who have
previously requested such notice and by at least
one of the following:
Staff Summary of the
CEQA Evaluation Process
Guidelines Section
Reference
7.18, 7.19
(a) publishing once in a newspaper of general 7.18
circulation, or if more than one area will be
affected, in the newspaper of largest
circulation from among the newspapers of
general circulation in those areas;
(b) posting on and off site where the project is 7.18
to be located;
(c) mailing to owners and occupants of 7.18
contiguous property.
The Notice shall be posted in the Clerk's office of 7.18
each county in which the project is located, within
twenty-four (24) hours of receipt by the Clerk, and
shall remain posted for a minimum of thirty (30)
days. This begins the comment period, which will
be at least thirty (30) to forty-five (45) days
depending on the project.
(4) The decision making body may at its discretion 7.23
conduct a public hearing on the Draft EIR no
sooner than fourteen (14) days after filing of the
Notice of Completion but before the expiration of
the comment period.
SACRAMENTOUTB121717. IICITI'�2005
-xv-
OO 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Action
(5) Comments on the Draft E1R are evaluated by Staff,
responses are compiled and a Final EIR is
prepared. At least ten (10) days prior to certifying
a Final EIR, the City shall provide a written
response to any agency which has made comments
on the Draft EIR.
Staff Sunnmary of the
CEQA Evaluation Process
Guidelines Section
Reference
7.24, 7.25
(6) If "significant" new information is added to the 7.26
EIR or if the Draft EIR is so inadequate and �
conclusory that xneaningful public review and
comment were precluded, notice and consultation
must be repeated. i
(7) Staff considers the Final EIR and makes a
recommendation to the decision making body
regarding whether the Final EII2 is in order and
whether it has been completed in compliance with
CEQA, the State Guidelines and the City's local
guidelines. The Final EIR and the recommenda-
tion is presented to the City Council which shall
certify that the Final EIR is in order and has been
completed in compliance with CEQA, the State
Guidelines, and the City's Guidelines, or refer it
back to Staff fox further work. A mitigation
monitoring or reporting program must also be
adopted.
MOTION:
Move that this City Council finds and certifies
that the Final EIR has been completed in compli-
ance with the California Environmental Quality
Act, the State Guidelines, and the City's local
Guidelines, that it has reviewed and considered
the information contained therein in making its
decision on the project, and the Final EIR reflects
the independent judgment of the City Council.
7.27, 7.28, 7.29
���
s---
SACRAMENTOUTB�21717. 1\CITX12005 -��'1 OO 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
�
�
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Action
(8) The decision making body must review and
consider the information in the EIR before
considering and approving the project.
(9) Before the decision making body approves a
project, findings must be made as to whether each
significant effect identified in the EIR will be
mitigated, why alternatives which could reduce
environmental impacts were rejected, and, in
some cases, where the record can be reviewed.
(10) Before the decision making body approves a
project which allows significant effects to occur
without mitigating these effects to a level of
insignificance, it must make written findings set-
ting forth the overriding considerations which led
the decision making body to forego full
mitigation. The location and custodian of the
documents which constitute the record of
proceedings shall be specified.
MOTION:
Move approval of the project for the following
reasons:
[State in writing reasons to support approval] and
further find that:
[Incorporate one or more findings of overriding
considerations.]
(11) If the project is approved, the decision making
body directs Staff to prepare a Notice of
Determination (Form "F").
Staff Summary of the
CEQA Evaluation Process
Guidelines Section
Reference
7.28
7.29, 7.30, 7.32
7.29, 7.31, 7.32
7.33
SACRAMENTOVTB121717. 1\C1TY12005 -XVII- �O 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Action
MOTION:
Move approval and instruct Staff to prepare and
file a Notice of Determination thereon pursuant to
the City's Guidelines.
(12) Staff must file a Notice of Determination with the
Clerk and also with the Office of Planning and
Research if the project requires State approval
within five (5) working days of approval. The
Clerk must post the Notice within twenty-four
(24) hours of receipt. A fee of $850 shall be paid
at this time to the Clerk for projects which will
adversely affect wildlife resources. (Refer to the
Index at the end of this Staff Summary to see
whether a handling fee or administration fee is
also due.) The Notice shall be posted in the
office of the Clerk for thirty (30) days. If a State-
ment of Overriding Considerations is adopted,
this must be noted in the Notice of Determination.
(13) Staff simultaneously and conspicuously posts
Notice of Determination at City Hall.
(14) The thirty (30) day statute of limitations for legal
challenges usually begins to run only after the
Notice of Determination has been filed with the
Clerk (and with the Office of Planning and
Research if approval by any State agency is
involved).
Staff Summary of the
CEQA Evaluation Process
Guidelines Section
Reference
7.33, 7.34, 7.36
7.33
7.33
�
SACR.AMENTOUTB121717. 11CI'I'Y12005 -RVlll- c0 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
�
�
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Action
(15) If anyone requests a copy of the Notice of
Determination prior to the date on which the City
certifies the Fina1 EIR, the copy must be mailed,
first class postage prepaid, within five (5) days of
the City's determination. If such a request is
made following the City's determination, then the
copy should be mailed in the same manner as
soon as possible.
Staff Summary of the
CEQA Evaluation Process
Guidelines Section
Reference
7.33
SACRAMENTOUTB�21717. 11C1TY�2005 -X1X— p 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
�
�
a�
� LU y �
V N 4r" V N f�."
'+�i y L-��i � pp 4�-� p� y y b�q �
� 'C7 aj 4r F,y c/� O � �D t� U� c�
n O bA O O � �'�" v� � 00 L=� N 4�+-�,�„ O ��
.� v �� �.� � i � �.�`V O M � °p a �
� �cv a '°�o � > `�' U °o,.., °'�.d � o, ��r� �� o0
V �� .'�' � � °�'Q c .NA;O U�N � d ''� wc`�', � �c`''•�
��1� � � V i M ��,� ��c� .� v�U ��,i,Q. � �cn
a � ° c°�i °� U � •� vi °` � i� °\ � � Q � �+ � � a � V ,� � o�
�
(j �U o�.-��?: o v ¢ Uv�d U�V � a 3 � � �-ci � �V
�'v, � a°n � � � .� � U � � V -d U ,G o � 3� f-'� �rs o � � o y
,� ��� ° Nw U a'��" � p� ��� a C.�G z a. v,�r, � �3 0
� ¢�ti wUr°a, w�Nw x ow ��w a�-�a °°� x�aa xgx
�
. -o
� �
w �' °� �
,Q � �� �"'i M N M o0 •--i 7-+
� r c� r ca oo .-, �o
".3 � V� �—�, M � N O M M�
�-+ M =� � oo V1 N o0 0o N¢
� N N c}., 00 00 l� �O o0 �.. �
O �
� p O� � O � � �O v�i � �
C� N � Q tn l`� I`� h �D v'1 N Ri
r.+
U
�
C'.
O
c.i
S
� �
� �
� U
�
� �
A U
�
0
m
�, �+ o
�� �
� � �
� � �
c.
� � �
x ;�
wb g
A� �
x
�
U
�
O
U
�
w
�
�
N
7
.�
U
N
ci
A
a�i
3
�
0
�
M
b9
^d
w
Da cci
� � � A
U Q W
�
�
U
�
�
U
�
�
A
ti
N
9
.�
N
�
�
Q
�
3
�
0
0
�
N
6FJ
�
a
w
�
�
U
i
'�
U
0
.�
.�
S
N
69
'�
.�
x
�
�
�
'�
U
0
.�
.�
g
N
bF?
as
.�
�
�
�
�
U
aT
'�
U
�
�
z
�
�
�
�
�
'�
U
0
.�
�
S
N
ER
�
�
.�
a
0
.�
'�
S
�
�4
�
x
a
a
�.
�
�o
xi
�
�
�
d
�G
S
OU
:�
�
0
�
�
�
r
�
�
F
7
�
�
¢
�
,--�-
G
�
�
�
A
d y
� M
Ga c,�jl �
0
� ��
� od
A �w�c�
. � o f+�„ �
� �UZi
� � � �'
� v��
� �
� ��
v z
�
� �
� �
Y'�
U
w
�
U O U "" `n �
�
�
� O
�
,�� O
� � �
� d
°-,' '�' o ,�
cp t73, N a
, � �� o �.
il r� � �
A
�
N �
N '�,
c? �
N�
�- �
���
�
a � '
W `'
i�+
� v
� �
�
� �
�
�.
�
�G: G
�
G�
�
W
�
�
0
�
�
Q
.�
�
v
t"'
�
c?
�
�
1°
,�
("3 y � O
O O U � �� � � yM �
� H �O O N ...+ �, �' y 'x* 1�'� � �
N r, � � � p r, N �{', � +-� �/1 � d'
' i O v^CS �' �' �U U['- � U U O U� U
4� �`` � N U s"` �. '�
� A et G o d, y, o� A ca �' o � U �, � �
U a� `C U �" o, � � ,s�'�' U t�J ° � `� � � a °� •
T UU oC7d t�J ; o� o� �-d o o N��
G ra� �3V �o Yr,� QO o�� '�,U
° � r � -U°� ,,°1 � "�� � � a �. `� C'' � c-
C p U� � a� o�� ,� ��'' �' ca
' . � O O � � � ,�}
T. '� a� �'
�
.�
�
�
I�
w
�
�
i
�
U
�
o u''
� A
n° a 3
� � �
*�d � '""�
� � g
A `� �
�
� ��
U _
�
� ���
� �
N
w r �a �p
d' rj �` �d M `"'�
� u�" � � �' � ..i
d' � �' � � ��5,
'� � �� r �
.-� � �
�
�
�
V
�
�
IU
H
�
v
�
�
1 U
�
�
v
�
�
� U
�
0
�
.�
r
�
' g
�
�
�
�
�
�
0
�a
�
�
�
'o0
�
�
�
�
0
.�
r
. �,
�
'�
N
�
c
.�
�
�
�
r�
N
N o �
M ''"" �>.,
� � d
' � � �
["
H
�
U
y
�
�v
�
v-�
0
�
0
0
�
0
�
,�;
�
N
r
' �
�
�
�
U
�
�
IU
�
0
2+
�
�
�
�
.�
�
N
�
N
�
�
�
y
on
�
A
�
3
�
0
g
�
a�'i
�
a
�
,,-- .
�
�
�
7p
HW
� .
6
�
� �
_-,.-..._'--'"''�._--
�
�
�
y
�
'b
�d
�.
�
�
z
q
�
a
�
u
�
q
0
U
c
�
�
R�
a�
A
a�
U � �
� O
a O �N,� � � M
...+
� v, O O •� �" oo � �
U y~ O � � Oi � N�
� a � o � � � � � � U � � ¢ O �
x +.'p � y�Q� N�� � a.�� � N Q
N NO� Ri �Q' U�rn O�..�'+ N� ��pq �U
� U � � U a �
v � v1 +�'., y ,�,,' Q' `� � ° a\ +-, o ' .r.
�rn �'� �`� � � a�iU � °'�U ooMo °' o �`n ° �
C: N ^Q O,^� � p ,G? V l� a.+ �1 ++ ,t� ,r-,
° o ° U �.� � v� � Q V'� o b a� ° �°' o�, � a�i
�� U cd �� � U cn.� � �'�� k �� o�o � ,� �ZW
c�" � O 0 cad N p N � s�-+ N c�d �•� �•� c�d O p O � � O o�o c�C
ZR�uo�Z ZO�Z WO'-,v� U�iP�0.�i r/aWu�Ov� UUMr/�
�
�h O �
�
� d' r''C
M M s""
�n v'� �
� � �
O O Q
�
N
U
�
�
U
�
.-� � .-+
N •�y �.D
•N-� �Yr N
i � �
w
O � d�'
� .� h�
b
o x
U y
� U
� �
� �
U U
a
o �
�
� �'
� U
>,
d�� o.r
o '�
'� � u d
t�+ N
N A O �
W O V ,�
� O
O+,V, a,,, fZ.
� Z C w
O � p �
zw �M
�w ���
c� Q w "'�"'"'�
O N O p
z� z�
�
� �
a� �
w �
O >
tI'� �
M
O � �
�
y � � ��.+
(7y Gz+ o �
� 0 � .�
�" � � Q�.�
"�O
�� �
��
w •� g N U
Gri "d � 'Rt �
A� � 3 �
� �
v z
� q
z o
�
�
M �
� �
Q H
N
� O
� w
� y
� �
�
N
U
�
O
U
O
.�
.�
�
O
�
b
�
>
�
0
i �
�
M M O� �' ,�
.--�
�O l� U f- M �-�i
� .M-� •��r C�� O�O c�
� O s�-� � � �
� Q O � O
� � w � � �
�
N
U
�.�+
�
U
A
0
.�
�
�
S
N
�
0
a�i
�
R
�
^C
�
0
CA
�
0
�
N
U
O
.�
�
�
O
�
0
�
�
�
�
P4
�
�
a
a
�.
biD
�
a"i
Oa
�
a�
�
�n
O
U
�
�
�
a
�
h
�
�
�
�
0
z
�
�
�
x
�
a�
�
�
o �
N �.�+ �D pp O U '�"' V
b.� � y N � � `t`"�' O O� U
�
o� r, U � �', o O �Y, � o �
�r � o N rn °o �, � °'�
�,� � a�°,°` � � i ��'" n '� �o � �,-� � o
o U ,_., ' � � ,� ;.�, o � V � v� � °' � o ?: � o� � v°�i
�>, o c•� �� cv 4-+ U b �o o ¢ t j ra �o U•� o � a�
� ��� •�xQ O °o.�n°, oU �V � o� �°� U �Q
Q 3 � V �� � U � :.fl a�"i :o �y i a � � � � U � � ¢ � � U
O � O 'OL^�' O �0 �� Y� �q'fl UN ;,�'+.: ()„cU ��^�
� � ,� p�° .� � p; .� � •� �-�i •� o � 6 0.�1 as o � � � o �s U � �
� Q � Q �oA �a � x�w� �� 3�+ �� � ��,,
b c�d � � � '" o � � o � � � .? � o � a'�i � � m � a�i �p a�i � M `�
d v��P,r� �U�v� Urr�.--�v� Uv�.--�r� E�f�. °�of� >oo> �o,�
P
G
�
i �
N
Fr
^
I �
e
'F
' �
E
��
.�.
� �
'a � �
z �3
.--� �+
� M c�
� � �
a .o �
w
�
O
U
S
� �
� �
� U
�
a �
A U
d
� o
•� o
� o
,� M
A
..�.� '0
y :G
O Q V
y � O y�j
W � � �
,� . �,
� ° o �
� � Z �
a� � �
� � w �
� .� o �
a
�r "L% N ,�,
A � �
°�
.� a�
� A
a
C� r�
�
�
0
�
�
I �
! O
�
x
�
I U
Y
�
0
U
A
.�
�
�
S
N
�
0
�.
�
�
O
�
�
�
�
�
N
N
�
�
� \
0
�
b
�
0
�
�
�
0
x
, �
� U
I �
a
N
w
�
O
�w
;A
,� o
��
��
U
O ,�
U b
�
`�
.fl
�
GG
�
�
�
0
�
M
M
N
�
0
M
V')
I axi
U
' �
�
U
F".
0
.�
.N
S
N
�
�
�
F
0
N
N
�
�I'1
�
0
�
�
�
U
Y
�
0
U
�
0
.�
�
0
0
O
v'�
�
�
�
a�
9
,-,
�
� �
ow
i �
� �
O �
�¢
�
a�
U
�
�
�
U
�
3
O
�
�
O
U
�
�
w
z
o �
O
� �f'�-.
�
�
�
�
�
W
H
�
h
�
x
h
�
�
�
z
�
a
�
w
a
�
z
�
z
0
a
�
w
0
H
w
�
F�1
�
�
b
�
�
�
0
�
a
�
�
�
w
�
�
��"? �
d
�
�
�
�
�
.�
�
U
O
�
�
�
�
�
�
M
.--�
�
0
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
.�
�
�
.�
�
�
�
.�
.�
b
�
z
�
O
M
N
.-1
00
�
�
U
0
Q)
�
CC$
�
=
u
�
a
U
�
�r-�
�
�
�
O
N
9
O
� �
�
N N
� �
O
x �
� �
� .�
U �
�a
v o
�
.�
�
�
�
�
.�
�
U •
.O �
�
� o
N
� �
�" =
� �J
�
�
N
N
N
�
O �
� �
tI'�
� �
u �
�U
� �
Q� �
�
� �
� �
a
�
�
�
�
�
�
a>
�
y
�
GQ
g
OU
.�
O
�
�
r
n
�
�
�
�
�
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) General Provisions, Purpose and Policy
� LOCAL GUIDELINES
FOR IMPLEMENTING THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(2005 REVISION)
1. GENERAL PROVISIONS, PURPOSE AND POLICY
1.01 CirENERAL PROVISIONS.
These Local Guidelines ("Guidelines") are to assist the City in implementing the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). These Guidelines are
consistent with the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA ("3tate Guidelines") which must
be followed by state and local agencies in California. These Guidelines have been adopted
pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21082.
1.02 PoxrosE.
The purpose of these Local Guidelines is to help the City accomplish the following basic
objectives of CEQA:
(a) To enhance and provide long-term protection for the environment, while providing a
decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian.
'��` (b) To provide information to governmental decision-makers and the public regarding the
potential significant environmental effects of the proposed project.
(c) To provide an analysis of the environmental effects of future actions associated with the
project to adequately apprise all interested parties of the true scope of the project for
intelligent weighing of the environmental consequences of the project.
(d) To identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.
(e) To prevent significant avoidable environmental damage through utilization of feasible
project alternatives or mitigation measures.
(� To disclose and demonstrate to the public the reasons why a governmental agency
approved the project in the manner chosen. Public participation is an essential part of the
CEQA process. Each public agency should encourage wide public involvement, formal
and informal, in order to receive and evaluate public reactions to environmental issues
related to a public agency's activities. Such involvement should include, whenever
possible, making environmental information available in electronic format on the
Internet, on a web site maintained or utilized by the public agency.
1.03 APPLICABILITY.
These Guidelines apply to any activity of the City which constitutes a"project" as
defined in Guidelines Section 10.43. An Environmental Impact Report ("EIl2") is required for
each such project which may have a significant effect on the environment. When the City finds
that a project will have no significant environmental effect, a Negative Declaration or Mitigated
�"""�, Negative Declaration rather than an EIR shall be prepared.
SACTOUTB�22869\CiTY12005 1_ j OO 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) General Provisions, Purpose and Policy
An EIR serves several functions for the benefit of the City and the public. An EIR
(1) identifies and analyzes the significant environmental effects of a proposed project,
(2) identifies alternatives to the project, and (3) discloses possible ways to reduce or avoid
potential environmental damage. These matters are to be evaluated by the City before the project
is approved or disapproved.
The EIR is an informational document. It should not be used to rationalize approval of a
project. 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. Indications af adverse environmental impacts from the project which are
identified in the EIR do not necessarily require disapproval of a project. Rather, when an EIR
shows that a project would cause substantial adverse changes in the environment, the City must
respond to the information by one or more of the following methods:
(a) Changing the proposed project.
(b) Imposing conditions on the approval of the project.
(c) Adopting plans or ordinances to control a broader class of activities to avoid the
problems.
(d) Choosing an alternative way of ineeting the same need.
(e) Disapproving the project.
(� Finding that the unavoidable, significant environmental damage is acceptable pursuant to
a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Although CEQA requires that major consideration be given to preventing environmental
damage, the City also has an obligation to balance other public objectives for each project
including economic and social factors.
1.04 REDUCING DELAY AND PAPERWORK.
The State Guidelines encourage local governmental agencies to reduce delay and
paperwork by, among other things:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
��
Integrating the CEQA process into early planning review; to this end, the project
approval process and these procedures, to the maximum extent feasible, are to run
concurrently, not consecutively;
Identifying projects which fit within categorical or other exemptions and are therefore
exempt from CEQA processing;
Using initial studies to identify significant environmental issues and to narrow the scope
of EIRs;
Using a Negative Declaration when a project not otherwise exempt will not have a
significant effect on the environment;
Consulting with state and local responsible agencies before and during the preparation of
an EIR so that the document will meet the needs of all the agencies which will use it;
Allowing applicants to revise projects to eliminate possible significant effects on the
environment, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a Negative Declaration rather
than an EIR;
��
�
,--�.
SACTOUTB1228691C1TY12005 1_2 �02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
� (g)
(h)
�i)
G)
�
(k)
(1)
i�)
tn)
(o)
(p)
(q)
(r)
1.05
General Provisions, Purpose and Policy
Integrating CEQA requirements with other environmental review and consultation
requirements;
Emphasizing consultation before an EIR is prepared, rather than submitting adverse
comments on a completed document;
Combining environmental documents with other documents, such as general plans;
Eliminating repetitive discussions of the same issues by using EIRs on programs, policies
or plans and tiering from statements of broad scope to those of narrower scope;
Reducing the length of EIRs by means such as setting appropriate page limits;
Preparing analytic, rather than encyclopedic EIRs;
Mentioning insignificant issues only briefly;
Writing EIRs in plain language;
Following a clear format for EIRs;
Emphasizing the portions of the EIR that are useful to decision-makers and the public and
reducing emphasis on background material;
Incorporating information by reference; and
Making comments on EIRs as specific as possible.
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW.
These Guidelines are intended to implement the provisions of CEQA and the State
Guidelines, and the provisions of CEQA and the State Guidelines shall be fully complied with
even though they may not be set forth or referred to herein.
1.06 TERMINOLOGY.
The terms "must" or "shall" identify mandatory requirements. The term "may" is
permissive, with the particular decision being left to the discretion of the City. The term
"should" identifies the guidance of the Office of Planning and Research, which the City can
follow in the absence of countervailing considerations.
1.07 PARTIAL INVALIDITY.
In the event any part or provision of these Guidelines shall be determined to be invalid,
the remaining portions which can be separated from the invalid unenforceable provisions shall
continue in full force and effect.
1.08 ELECTRONIC DELIVERY OF COMMENTS AND NOTICES.
Individuals may file a written request to receive copies of public notices provided under
these Guidelines or the State Guidelines. The requestor may elect to receive these notices via
email rather than regular mail. Notices sent by email are deemed delivered when the staff person
sending the email sends it directed to the last email address provided by the requestor to the
public agency.
Individuals may also submit comments on the CEQA documentation for a project via
email. Comments submitted via email shall be treated as written comments for all purposes.
�"'': Comments sent to the public agency via email are deemed received when they actually arrive in
SACTOUT'B1228691C1TY�2005
1-3
....... . _ .
OO 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
General Provisions, Purpose and Policy
an email account of a staff person who has been designated or identified as the point of contact
for a particular project.
SACTOUTB�228691C1TY�2005 j_4 �02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Loca] Guidelines for Tmplementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Lead and Responsible Agencies
� 2. LEAD AND RESPONSTBLE AGENCIES
2.01 LEAD AGENCY PRINCIPLE.
The City will be the Lead Agency if it will have princ'ipal responsibility for carrying out
or approving a project. Where a project is to be carried out or approved by more than one public
agency, only one agency shall be responsible for the preparation of environmental documents.
This agency shall be called the Lead Agency.
2.02 SELECTION OF LEAD AGENCY.
Where two or more public agencies will be involved with a project, the Lead Agency
shall be designated according to the following criteria:
(a) If the project will be carried out by a public agency, that agency shall be the Lead Agency
even if the project will be locatea within the jurisdiction of another public agency.
(b) If the project will be carried out by a nongovernmental person or entity, the Lead Agency
sha11 be the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising and approving
the project as a whole. The Lead Agency will normally be the agency with general
governmental powers, rather than an agency with a single or limited purpose. (For
example, a district which will provide a public service or utility to the project serves a
limited purpose.) If two or more agencies meet this criteria equally, the agency which
acts first on the project will be the Lead Agency.
�; �c) If two or more public agencies have a substantial claim to be the Lead Agency under
either (a) or (b), they may designate one agency as the Lead Agency by agreement. An
agreement may also provide for cooperative efforts by contract, joint exercise of powers,
or similar devices. If an agreement cannot be reached, the dispute may be submitted to
the Office of Planning and Research by any public agency, or the applicant if a private
project is involved.
2.03 DUTIES OF A LEAD AGENCY.
As a Lead Agency, the City shall decide whether a Negative Declaration, Mitigated
Negative Declaration or an EIR will be required for a project and shall prepare, or cause to be
prepared, and consider the document before making its decision on whether and how to approve
the project. The documents may be prepared by Staff or by private consultants pursuant to a
contract with the City. However, the City shall independently review and analyze all draft and
final EIRs or Negative Declarations prepared for a project and shall find that the EIR or Negative
Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City prior to approval of the document. If a
Draft EIR, Final EIR or Focused EIR is prepared under a contract to the City, the contract must
be executed within forty-five (45) days from the date on which the City sends a Notice of
Preparation. (See Guidelines Section 7.02.)
During the process of preparing an EIR, the City shall have the following duties:
(a) Immediately after deciding that an EIR is required for a project, the City shali send to the
� State Clearinghouse and each Responsible Agency a Notice of Preparation (Form "G")
stating that an EIR will be prepared. (See Guidelines Section 7.03.)
SACTOUTB1228691C1TY12005 2_ j 02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Lead and Responsible Agencies
(b) The City shall prepare or cause to be prepared the Draft EIR for the project. (See
Guidelines Section 7.04.)
(c) Once the Draft EIIZ is completed, the City shall file a Notice of Completion (Form "H")
with the Of�ce of Planning and Research. (See Guidelines Section 7.18.)
(d) The City shall consult with state, federal and local agencies which exercise authority over
resources which may be affected by the project for their comments on the completed
Draft EIR. (See Guidelines Section 7.21.)
(e) The City shall provide public notice of the availability of a Draft EIR (Form "K") at the
same time that it sends a Notice of Completion to the Office of Planning and Research.
(See Guidelines Section 7.18.)
(� The City shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who
reviewed the Draft EIR and shall prepare or cause to be prepared a written response. A
written response must be provided to all commenting public agencies at least ten (10)
days prior to certifying an EIR. (See Guidelines Section 7.24.)
(g) The City shall prepare or cause to be prepared a Final EIR before approving the project.
(See Guidelines Section 7.25.)
(h) The City shall certify that the Final EII2 has been completed in compliance with CEQA
and has been reviewed by the City Council. (See Guidelines Section 7.27.)
(i) The City shall include in the Final EIR, the reply of any Responsible Agency to the
Notice of Preparation or Draft EIR. (See Guidelines Sections 2.07, 7.24 and 7.25.)
As Lead Agency, the City may charge a non-elected body, such as the Planning
Department or Planning Commission, with the responsibility of adopting, certifying or --�,
authorizing environmental documents; however, the City must have a procedure allowing for the
appeal of the CEQA decisions of any non-elected body to the City Council. Existing provisions
of the municipal code may be used to satisfy this requirement.
2.04 CONSULTATION REQUTREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.
An applicant for a development project must submit a signed statement to the City stating
whether the project and any alternatives are located on a site which is included in any list
compiled by the Secretary for Envixonmental Protection of the California Environmental
Protection Agency ("California EPA") listing hazardous waste sites and other specified sites
located in the City. The applicant's statement must contain the following information:
(a) The applicant's name, address, and phone number.
(b) Address of site, and local agency (citylcounty).
(c) Assessor's book, page, and parcel number.
(d) The list which includes the site, identification number, and date of list.
Before accepting as complete an application for any development project as defined in
Guidelines Section 10.13, the City shall consult lists compiled by the Secretary for
Environmental Protection of the California EPA pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5
listing hazardous waste sites and other specified sites located in the City. The City shall notify
an applicant for a development project if the project site is located on such a list and not already
identified. In the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration (see Guidelines Section 6.04) or the Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR (see
SACTOUTB122869\CITY�2005 2_2 OO 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmenta] Quality Act (2005) Lead and Responsible Agencies
Guidelines Section 7.03}, the City shall specify the California EPA list, if any, which includes
�� the project site, and shall provide the.information contained in the applicant's statement.
This provision applies only to projects for which applications have not been deemed
complete on or before January 1, 1992.
2.05 RESPONSIBLE AGENCY PRINCIPLE.
Where a project is to be carried out or approved by more than one public agency, all
public agencies other than the Lead Agency which have discretionary approval power over the
project shall be called Responsible Agencies.
2.06 DUTIES OF A RESPONSIBLE AGENCY.
As a Responsible Agency, the City shall consider the environmental documents prepared
or caused to be prepared by the Lead Agency and reach its own conclusions on whether and how
to approve the project involved. The City shall also both respond to consultation by the Lead
Agency and attend meetings as requested by the Lead Agency to assist the Lead Agency in
preparing adequate environmental documents. The City should also review and comment on
Draft EIRs and Negative Declarations. Comments shall be limited to those project activities
which are within the City's area of expertise or are required to be carried out or approved by the
City or axe subject to the City's powers. As a Responsible Agency, the City may identify
significant environmental effects of a project for which mitigation is necessary. As a
Responsible Agency, the City may submit to the Lead Agency proposed mitigation measures
�' which would address those significant environmental effects. If mitigation measures are
required, the City shall submit to the Lead Agency complete and detailed performance objectives
for such mitigation measures which would address the signi�cant environmental effects
identified, or refer the Lead Agency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference
documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to the Lead Agency by the City shall be limited
to measures which mitigate impacts to resources that are within the City's authority. For private
projects, the City, as a Responsible Agency, may require the project proponent to provide such
information as may be required and to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by it in reporting
to the Lead Agency.
2.07 RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF PREPARATION BY RE5PONSIBLE AGENCIES.
Within thirty (30) days of receipt of a Notice of Preparation of an EIR, the City, as a
Responsible Agency, shall specify to the Lead Agency the scope and content of the
environmental information related to the City's area of statutory responsibility in connection
with the proposed project. At a minimum, the response shall identify the signi�cant
environmental issues and possible alternatives and mitigation which the City, as a Responsible
Agency, will need to have explored in the Draft EIR. Such information shall be specified in
writing, shall be as specific as possible, and shall be communicated to the Lead Agency, by
certified mail or any other method of transmittal which provides it with a record that the notice
was received, not later than thirty (30) days after receipt of the notice of the Lead Agency's
determination. The Lead Agency shall incorporate this information into the EIR.
�;
SACTOUTB122869\CTfY12005 2_3 02005 Best $est & Krieger LLP
Loca1 Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Lead and Responsible Agencies
2.08 USE OF FINAL EIR OR NEGATIVE DECLARATION BY RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES. ��
The City, as a Responsible Agency, shall consider the Lead Agency's Final EIR or
Negative Declaration before acting upon or approving a proposed project. The City shall
consider the adequacy of the prior environmental documents for its purposes and in certain
instances may require that a Subsequent EIR or a Supplemental EIlZ be prepared. Mitigation
measures and alternatives deemed feasible and relevant to the City's role in carrying out the
project shall be adopted. Findings which are relevant to the City's responsibility shall be made.
A Notice of Determination shall be filed by the Responsible Agency, but need not state that the
Lead Agency's EIR or Negative Declaration complies with CEQA.
2.09 SHIFT IN LEAD AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES.
The City, as a Responsible Agency, shall assume the role of the Lead Agency if any one
of the following three conditions is met:
(a) The Lead Agency did not prepare any environmental documents for the project, and the
statute of limitations has expired for a challenge to the action of the appropriate Lead
Agency.
(b) The Lead Agency prepared environmental documents for the project, and all of the
following conditions occur:
(1) A Subsequent or Supplemental EIl2 is required;
(2) The Lead Agency has granted a final approval for the project; and
(3) The statute of limitations has expired for a challenge to the action of the
appropriate Lead Agency.
(c) The Lead Agency prepared inadequate environmental documents without providing
public notice of a Negative Declaration or sending Notice of Preparation of an EIR to
Responsible Agencies and the statute of limitations has expired for a challenge to the
action of the appropriate Lead Agency.
�,
SACTOUTB�22869\CITY�2005 2_4 �02005 Best Best & Kriegec LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
�
�
�
3. ACTIVITIES EXEMPT FROM CEOA
3.01 ACTIONS SUBJECT TO CEQA.
Activities Exempt from CEQA
CEQA applies to discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public
agencies. If the proposed activity does not come within the definition of "project" contained in
Guidelines Section 10.43 it is exempt from CEQA review.
"Project" does not include:
(a) Proposals for legislation to be enacted by the State Legislature.
(b) Continuing administrative or maintenance activities, such as purchases for supplies,
personnel-related actions, and general policy and procedure making (except as provided
in Guidelines Section 10.43).
(c) The submittal of proposals to a vote of the people in response to a petition drive initiated
by voters, or the enactment of a qualified voter-sponsored initiative under Cal. Const.
Art. II, Section 11(a) and Elec. Code Section 9214.
(d) The creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities
that do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may have a potentially
significant physical impact on the environment. Government funding mechanisms may
include, but are not limited to, assessment districts and community facilities districts.
(e) Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or
indirect physical changes in the environment.
(� Activities that do not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change
in the environment.
3.02 MINISTERIAL PROJECTS.
A ministerial project is exempt from CEQA review. This is a project undertaken or
approved by the City upon a given set of facts, in a prescribed manner, and in obedience to
statute, ordinance, regulation or other legal mandate. A ministerial project is one in which the
City officer or employee has no discretionary power to exercise personal judgment or opinion as
to the method in which the project will be carried out. CEQA review would be irrelevant for a
ministerial project, because the City must act in a preordained way regardless of environmental
impacts. The decision whether a proposed project is ministerial in nature may involve or require,
to some extent, interpretation of the language of the legal mandate, and should be made on a
case-by-case basis. Ministerial projects include, but are not limited to:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
ifl
Issuance of business licenses;
Approval of final subdivision maps and final parcel maps;
Approval of individual utility service connections and disconnections;
Issuance of licenses;
Issuance of a permit to do street work;
Issuance of building permits where the City does not retain significant discretionary
power to modify or shape the project.
S ACTOUTB�22869\C1TY12005
3-1
�2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Activities Exempt from CEQA
Where a project involves an approval that contains elements of both a ministerial and `�
discretionary nature, the project will be deemed to be discretionary and subject to the
requirements of CEQA.
3.03 EXEMPTIONS IN GENERAL.
CEQA and the State Guidelines exempt certain activities and provide that local agencies
shall further identify and describe certain exemptions. The requirements of CEQA and the
obligation to prepare an EIR, Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration do not
apply to the exempt activities which are set forth in CEQA, the State Guidelines and this
Chapter.
3.04 PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT.
If, in the judgment of Staff, a proposed activity is exempt, Staff should so find on the
form entitled "Preliminary Exemption Assessment" (Form "A"). The Preliminary Exemption
Assessment shall be retained at City Hall as a public record.
3.Q5 NOTICE OF EXEMPTION.
After City approval of an exempt project, a"Notice of Exemption" (Form "B") may be
filed by Staff with the Clerk. The Prelixninary Exemption Assessment shall be attached to the
Notice of Exemption for filing. If filed, the Clerk nnust post the Notice within twenty-four (24)
hours of receipt, and the Notice must remain posted for thirty (30) days. Although no California �'
Department of Fish and Game ("DFG") filing fee is applicable to exempt projects, most Clerks
customarily charge a documentary handling fee to pay for record keeping on behalf of the DFG.
Refer to the Index in the Staff Summary to determine if such a fee will be required for the
project.
The filing of a Notice of Exemption is recommended because it starts a 35-day statute of
limitations on legal challenges to the City's determination that the project is exempt from CEQA.
The City is encouraged to make postings of all filed notices available in electronic format on the
Internet. These electronic postings are in addition to the procedures required by the State
Guidelines and the Public Resources Code. If a Notice of Exemption is not filed, a 180-day
statute of limitations wi11 apply.
When a request is made for a copy of the Notice prior to the date on which the City
determines the project is exempt, the Notice must be mailed, first class postage prepaid, within
five (5) days of the City's determination. If such a request is made following the City's
determination, then the copy should be mailed in the same manner as soon as possible.
3.06 DTSAPPROVED PROJECTS.
Projects which the City rejects or disapproves are exempt. An applicant shall not be
relieved of paying the costs for an EIR or Negative Decl�ation prepared for a project prior to the
City's disapproval of the project. ,.-�,
SACI'OUTB122869\CTCY12005 3_2 �02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quatity Act (2005)
�
3.07 NO POSSIBILITY OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT.
Activities Exempt from CEQA
Where it can be seen with absolute certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in
question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is exempt.
3.08 EMERGENCY PR03ECTS.
The following types of emergency projects are exempt: (The term "emergency" is
defined in Guidelines Section 10.16.)
(a)
Work in a disaster-stricken area in which a state of emergency has been proclaimed by
the Governor pursuant to Section 8550 of the Government Code. This includes projects
that will remove, destroy, or significantly alter a 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 the Public Resources Code.
Emergency repairs to publicly or privately owned service facilities necessary to maintain
service essential to the public health, safety or welfare.
Projects 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.
Projects undertaken, carried out, or approved by a public agency to maintain, repair, or
restore an existing highway damaged by fire, flood, stortn, earthquake, land subsidence,
gradual earth movement, or landslide, 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
exernption does not apply to highways designated as official state scenic highways, nor to
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.
Seismic work on highways and bridges pursuant to Section 180.2 of the Streets and
Highways Code Section 180, et se�.
(b)
(c)
(d)
��
(e)
3.09 FEASIBILITY AND PLANNING sTUDIES.
A project that involves only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions
which the City has not yet approved, adopted or funded is exempt.
3.10 RATES, TOLLS, FARES AND CHARGES.
The establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring or approval of rates, tolls,
fares or other charges by the City that the City finds are for one or rnore of the purposes listed
below are exempt.
(a) Meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rates and fringe benefits;
(b) Purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment or materials;
(c) Meeting financial reserve needs and requ'vrements; or
�"' (d) Obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service
areas.
SACTOUTB�22869\CiTY12Q05
3-3
02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Qualit,y Act (2005) Activities Exempt from CEQA
When the City determines that one of the aforementioned activities pertaining to rates,
tolls, fares or charges is exempt from the requirements of CEQA, it shall incorporate written
findings setting forth the specific basis for the claim of exemption in the record of any
proceeding in which such an exemption is claimed.
3.11 SUBSURFACE PIPELINES WITHIN A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.
The instaliation of a new pipeline or the maintenance, repair, restoration, reconditioning,
relocation, replacement, removal or demolition of an existing subsurface pipeline is exempt
where the project is less than one mile in length and located within a public street, highway or
any other public right-of-way.
3.12 CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL HOUSING PROJECTS.
CEQA does not apply to the construction, conversion, or use of residential housing if the
project meets all of the general requirements aescribed in Section A below and satisfies the
specific requirements for any one of the following three categories: (1) agricultural housing
(Section B below), (2) affordable housing projects in urbanized areas (Section C below), or (3)
affordable hausing projects near major transit stops (Section D below).
A. General Requirements. The construction, conversion, or use of residential
housing units affordable to low-income households (as defined in Section 10.28)
located on an infill site in an urbanized area is exempt from CEQA if all of the
following general requirements are satisfied:
(1) The project is consistent with:
(a)
any applicable general plan, specific plan, and local coastal
program, including any mitigation measures, as that plan or
program existed on the date that the application was deemed
complete, and
any applicable zoning ordinance, as that zoning ordinance existed
on the date that the application was deemed complete. A project
may satisfy the zoning consistency requirement even if it proposes
rezoning of the project site as long as the proposed zoning is
consistent with the applicable General Plan designation;
(b)
(2) Community level environmental review has been adopted or certified;
(3) The project and other projects approved prior to the approval of the project
can be adequately served by existing utilities, and the project applicant has
paid or committed to pay all applicable in-Iieu or development fees;
(4)
SACTOUTB122869\CTfY12005
The project meets all of the following four criteria relating to biological
resources:
(a) The project site does not contain wetlands; '�'
(b) The project site does not have any value as a wildlife habitat;
3-4
OO 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
�
(c)
��)
(S} The project site is not included on any list of facilities and sites compiled
pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code;
(6) The project site is subject to a preliminary endangerment assessment
prepared by a registered environmental assessor to determine the existence
of any release of a hazardous substance on the site and to determine the
potential for exposure of future occupants to significant health hazards
from any nearby property or activity:
�
�
�
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005}
��)
�g)
SACTOVTB�228691CITY�2005
(a)
��
Activities Exempt from CEQA
The project does not harm any species protected by the federal
Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Native Plant Protection Act,
or the California Endangered 5pecies Act; and
The project does not cause the destruction or removal of any
species protected by a local ordinance in effect at the time the
application for the project was deemed complete;
If a release of a hazardous substance is found to exist on the site,
the release shall be removed or any significant effects of the
release shall be mitigated to a level of insignificance in compliance
with state and federal requirements.
If a potential for exposure to significant hazards from surrounding
properties or activities is found to exist, the effects of the potential
exposure shall be mitigated to a level of insignificance in
coznpliance with state and federal requirements.
The project does not have a significant effect on historical resources;
The project site is not subject to any of the following potential hazards
except when mitigated as set forth below:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
A wildland �re hazard, as determined by the Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection, unless the applicable general plan or
zoning ordinance contains provisions to mitigate the risk of a
wildland fire hazard;
An unusually high risk of fire or explosion from materials stored or
used on nearby properties;
Risk of a public health exposure at a level that would exceed the
standards established by any state or federal agency;
Within a delineated earthquake fault zone, as determined puxsuant
to Section 2622 of the Public Resources Code, or a seismic hazard
zone, as determined pursuant to Section 2696 of the Public
Resources Code, unless the applicable general plan or zoning
ordinance contains provisions to mitigate the risk of an earthquake
fault or seismic hazard zone; or
Landslide hazard, flood plain, floodway, or restriction zone, unless
the applicable general plan or zoning ordinance contains provisions
to mitigate the risk of a landslide or flood;
3-5 �02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Activities Exempt from CEQA
(9) The project site is not located on developed open space;
(10)
(11)
The project site is not located within the boundaries of a state
conservancy; and
The project meets the requirements in either Section 21159.22, 21159.23
or 21159.24 of the Public Resources Code.
B. Specific Requirements for Agricultural Housing (Public Resources Code Section
21159.22.) CEQA does not apply to the construction, conversion, or use of
residential housing for agricultural employees that meets all of the general
requirements described above in Section A and meets the following additional
criteria:
(1) The project either:
(a) is affordable to lower income households, lacks public financial
assistance, and the developer has provided sufficient legal
commitments to ensure the continued availability and use of the
housing units for lower income households for a period of at least
fifteen (15) years; or
(b) provides housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income
households, public financial assistance exists for the development
project, and the developer of the project has provided sufficient
legal commitments to the appropriate local agency to ensure the
continued availability and use of the housing units for low- and
moderate-income households for a period of at least fifteen (15)
years;
(2) The project site is adjacent on at least two sides to land that has been
developed and the project consists of not more than forty-five (45) units or
provides dormitories, barracks, or other group-living facilities for a total of
forty-five (45) or fewer agricultural employees, and either:
(a)
(3)
(b)
The project site is within incorporated City limits or within a
census-defined place with a minimum population density of at
least five thousand (5,000) persons per square mile; or
The project site is within incorporated City limits or within a
census- defined place and the minimum population density of the
City or the census-defined place is at least one thousand (1,000)
persons per square mile, unless the City determines that there is a
reasonable possibility that the project would have a significant
effect on the environment or that the cumulative effects of
successive projects of the same type in the same area would, over
time, be significant;
If the project is located on a site zoned for general agricultural use, it must
consist of twenty (20) or fewer units, or, if the housing consists of
.--->
,--��
SACTOUTB122869\CTI'1'�2005 3_6 02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
I.ocal Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Activities Exemnt from CEQA
dormitories, barracks, or other group-living facilities, the project must not
provide housing for more than twenty (20) agricultural employees; and
(4) The project is not more than two (2) acres in area if the project site is
located in an area with a population density of at least one thousand
(1,000) persons per square mile, and is not more than five (5) acres in area
for all other project sites.
C. Specific Requirements for Affordable Housing Projects in Urbanized Areas
(Public Resources Code Section 21159.23.) CEQA does not apply to any
development project that consists of the construction, conversion, or use of
residential housing consisting of one hundred (100) or fewer units that are
affordable to low-income households if all of the general requirements described
in Section A above are satisfied and the following additional criteria are also met:
(1) The developer of the project provides sufficient legal commitments to the
local agency to ensure the continued availability and use of the housing
units for lower income households for a period of at least thirty (30) years;
�
i2)
(3)
(4)
SACTOUTB�228691CTCY12005
The project site:
(a) has been previously developed for qualified urban uses;
(b) is immediately adjacent to parcels that are developed with
qualified urban uses; or
(c) at least 75% of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are
developed with qualified urban uses and the remaining 25% of the
perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that have previously been
developed for qualified urban uses, the site has not been developed
for urban uses and no parcel within the site has been created within
ten (10) years prior to the proposed development of the site;
The project site is not more than five (5) acres in area; and
The project site is located:
(a)
(b)
(c)
within an urbanized area or within a census-defined place with a
population density of at least five thousand (5,000) persons per
square mile,
if the project consists of fifty (50) or fewer units, within an
incorporated city with a population density of at least twenty-five
hundred (2,500) persons per square mile and a total population of
at least twenty-five thousand (25,000) persons, or
within either an incorporated city or a census-defined place with a
population density of one thousand (1,000) persons per square
mile, unless there is a reasonable possibility that the project would
have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual
circumstances or due to the related or cumulative impacts of
reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the project.
3_'] �02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Activities Exempt from CEQA
D. Specific Requirements for Affordable Housing Projects Near Major Transit Stops '�"
(Public Resources Code Section 21159.24.) CEQA does not apply to a residential
project on an infill site within an urbanized area if all of the general requirements
described above in Section A are satisfied and the following additional criteria are
also met:
(1) Within five (5) years prior to the date that the application for the project is
deemed complete, community-level environmental review was certified or
adopted. This exemption does not apply, however, if new information
about the project or substantial changes regarding the circumstances
surrounding the project become available after the community-level
environmental review was certified or adopted;
�2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
��)
The project site is not more than four (4) acres in total area;
The project does not contain more than one hundred (100) residential
units;
The project meets either of the following criteria:
(a) At least 10% of the housing is sold to families of moderate income
or rented to families of low income or at least 5°l0 of the housing is
rented to families of very low income, and the project developer
has provided the City with sufficient legal commitments to ensure
the continued availability and use of the housing units for very
low, low-, and moderate-income households at monthly housing
costs; or
(b) The project developer has paid or will pay in-lieu fees sufficient to
pay for the development of the same number of units that would
otherwise be sold or rented to families of moderate or very low
income pursuant to subparagraph (a);
The project is within one-half mile of a major transit stop;
The project does not include any single-level building that exceeds
100,000 square feet; and
The project promotes higher density iniill housing.
(a) A project with a density of at least 20 units per acre shall be
conclusively presumed to promote higher density infill housing.
(b) A project with a density of at least 10 units per acre and a density
greater than the average density of the residential properties within
1,500 feet shall be presumed to promote higher density housing
unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates otherwise.
�
,---�_�
SACTOUTB�22869\CITY12005 3_� 02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
�
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
(8) Exception.
(a) The Exemption for Affordable Housing Projects near Major
Transit Stops does not apply if any one of the following criteria is
met:
1. There is a reasonable possibility that the project will have a
project-specific, significant effect on the environment due
to unusual circumstances;
2. Since community-level environmental review was certi�ed
or adopted, substantial changes have occurred with respect
to the circumstances under which the project is being
undertaken, and those changes are related to the project; or
3. Since community-level environmental review was certified
or adopted, new information regarding the circumstances
under which the project is being undertaken has become
available, and that new information is related to the project
and was not known and could not have been known at the
time of the community-level environmental review.
��
(b) If a project satisfies any one of the three criteria described above in
Section D.(8)(a), the environmental effects of the project must be
analyzed in an environmental impact report or a negative
declaration. The environxnental analysis sha11 be limited to the
effects identified pursuant to Section D.(8)(a).
E. Whenever the lead agency determines that a project is exempt from
environm.ental review based on Public Resources Code section 21159.22 [Section
3.12 B. of these Guidelines], 21159.23 [Section 3.12 C. of these Guidelines], or
21159.24 [Section 3.12 D. of these Guidelines], staff and/or the proponent of the
project shall file notice of the determination of exemption with the Office of
Planning and Research within five working days after the approval of the project.
�
3.13 MINOR ALTERATIONS TO FLU�RIDATE WATER UTILITIES.
Minor alterations to water utilities made for the purpose of complying with the
fluoridation requirements of Health and Safety Code Sections 4026.7 and 4026.8 or regulations
adopted thereunder are exempt.
3.14 BALLOT MEASURES.
Activities Exempt from CEQA
The definition of project in the State Guidelines specifically excludes the submittal of
proposals to a vote of the people of the state or of a particular community. This exception
applies only to measures proposed in response to a petition drive initiated by voters. When a
governing body makes a decision to put a measure on the ballot, that decision may be
discretionary and therefore subject to CEQA. In contrast, the enactment of a qualified voter-
sponsored initiative under California Constitution Art. II, Section 11(a) and Electian Code
SACTOUTB�22869\CITY12005
3-9
�02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Activities Exempt from CEQA
Section 9214 is not a project and therefore is not subject to CEQA review. (See Guidelines 'M'`
Section 3.01.)
3.15 OTHER SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS.
CEQA and the State Guidelines exempt many other specific activities, including early
activities related to thermal power plants, ongoing projects, transportation improvement
programs, family day care homes, congestion management programs, railroad grade separation
projects, restriping of streets or highways to relieve traffic congestion, and hazardous or volatile
liquid pipelines. Specific statutory exemptions are listed in the Public Resources Code,
including Sections 21080 through 21080.33, and in the State Guidelines, including Sections
15260 through 15285.
3.16 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS.
The State Guidelines establish certain classes of categorical exemptions. These apply to
classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the
environment and which, therefore, are exernpt. Compliance with the requirements of CEQA or
the preparation of environmental documents for any project which comes within one of these
classes of categorical exemptions is not required. The classes of projects are briefly summarized
below. (Reference to the State Guidelines for the full description of each exemption is
recommended.)
The exemptions of Classes 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 below are qualified in that such projects must '�`p
be considered in light of the location of the project. A project that is ordinarily insignificant in
its impact on the environment may, in a particularly sensitive environment, be significant.
Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances except where the project may
impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern which is designated,
precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state or local agencies.
All classes of categorical exemptions are qualified. These exemptions are inapplicable
when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time
is significant or when there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant
effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
With the foregoing limitations in mind, the following classes of activity are generally
exempt:
Class 1: Existin� Facilities. Activities involving the operation, repair, maintenance,
permitting, leasing, licensing, minor alteration of, or legislative activities to regulate, existing
public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or other property or topographical
features, provided the activity involves negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at
the time of the City's determination. The types of "existing facilities" itemized in Class 1 are not
intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key
consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use.
(State Guidelines Section 15301.) .--...
SACTOUTB�228691C1TY120U5 3-10 OO 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Activities Exempt from CEQA
�*, Class 2: Renlacement or Reconst:ruction. Replacement or reconstructian of existing
� facilities, structures, or other property where the new facility or structure will be located on the
same site as the replaced or reconstructed facility or structure and will have substantially the
same purpose and capacity as the replaced or reconstructed facility or structure. (State
Guidelines Section 15302.)
Class 3: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Construction of limited
numbers of small new facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment or facilities in
small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another, when
only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. This exemption includes
structures built for both residential and commercial uses. (The maximum number of structures
allowable under this exemption is set forth in State Guidelines Section 15303.)
Class 4: Minor Alterations to Land. Minor 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. (State Guidelines Section 15304.)
Class 5: Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations,. Minor alterations in land use
limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 24% which do not result in any changes in
land use ar density. (State Guidelines Section 15305.)
Class 6: Information Collection,. Basic data collection, research, experimental
management, and resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major
�� disturbance to an environmental resource. (State Guidelines Section 15306.)
Class 7: Actions bv Re�ulatory A�encies for Protection of Natural Resources. Actions
taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by state law or local ordinance to assure the
maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the regulatory process
involves procedures for protection of the environment. (State Guidelines Section 15307.)
Class 8: Actions Bv Re�ulatory A�encies for Protection of the Environment. Actions
taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the
maintenance,, restoration, enhancement or protection of the environment where the regulatory
process involves procedures for protection of the environment. (State Guidelines Section
15308.)
Class 9: Inspection. Inspection�activities, including, but not limited to, inquiries into the
performance of an operation and examinations of the quality, health or safety of a project. (State
Guidelines Section 15309.)
Class 10: Loans. Loans made by the Department of Veteran Affairs under the Veterans
Farm and Home Purchase Act of 1943, mortgages for the purchase of existing structures where
the loan will not be used for new construction and the purchase of such mortgages by financial
institutions. (State Guidelines Section 15310.)
Class 11: Accessory Structures. Construction or replacement of minor structures
�"'' accessory or appurtenant to existing commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities, including,
but not limited to, on-premise signs; small parking lots; and placement of seasonal or temporaxy
SACTOUTB�228691C1TI'12005 3-i l OO 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
��
Loca1 Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Activities Exempt from CEQA
use items, such as lifeguard towers, mobile food units, portable restrooms or similar items in ''�
generally the same locations from time to time in publicly owned parks, stadiums or other
facilities designed for public use. (State Guidelines Section 15311.)
Class 12: Surolus Government Pronertv Sales. Sales of surplus government property,
except for certain parcels of land located in an area of statewide, regional or areawide concern as
that term is defined in State Guidelines Section 15206(b)(4). However, even if the surplus
property to be sold is located in any of those areas, its sale is exempt if:
(a) The property does not have significant values for wildlife habitat or other environmental
purposes, and
(b) Any one of the following three conditions is met:
(1) The property is of such size, shape, or inaccessibility that it is incapable of
independent development or use;
(2) The property to be sold would qualify for an exemption under any other class of
categorical exemption in the State Guidelines; or
(3) The use of the property and adjacent property has not changed since the time of
purchase by the public agency. (State Guidelines Section 15312.)
Class 13: Acauisition of Lands for Wildlife Conservation Purooses. Acquisition of lands
for fish and wildlife conservation purposes, including preservation of fish and wildlife habitat,
establishment of ecological preserves under Fish and Game Code Section 1580, and preservation �
of access to public lands and waters where the purpose of the acquisition is to preserve the land
in its natural condition. (State Guidelines Section 15313.)
Class 14: Minor Additions to Schools. Minor additions to existing schools within
existing school grounds where the addition does not increase original student capacity by more
than 25% or ten (10) classrooms, whichever is less. The addition of portable classrooms is
included in this exemption. (State Guidelines Section 15314.)
Class 15: Minor Land Divisions. Division(s) of property in urbanized areas zoned for
residential, commercial or industrial use into four or fewer parcels when the division is in
conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, all
�services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not
involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous two (2) years, and the parcel does not
have an average slope greater than 20%. (State Guidelines Section 15315.)
Class 16: Transfer of Ownershin of Land in Order to Create Parks. Acquisition, sale, or
other transfer of land in order to establish a park where the land is in a natural condition or
contains historical or archaeological resources and either:
(c) The management plan for the park has not been prepared, or
(d) The management plan proposes to keep the area in a natural condition or preserve the
historic or archaeological resources.
SACTOUTB1228691CITY12005 3_ 12 OO 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Activities Exempt from CEQA
�,, CEQA will apply when a management plan is proposed that wili change the area from its
natural condition or cause substantial adverse change in the significance of the historic or
archaeological resource. (State Guidelines Section 15316.)
Class 17: Open Space Contracts or Easements. Establishment of agricultural preserves,
making and renewing of open space contracts under the Williamson Act or acceptance of
easements or fee interests in order to maintain the open space character of the area. (The
cancellation of such preserves, contracts, interests or easements is not included in this
exemption.) (State Guidelines Section 15317.)
Class 18: Desi�nation of Wilderness Areas. Designation of wilderness areas under the
California Wilderness System. (State Guidelines Section 15318.)
Class 19: Annexations of Existing Facilities and Lots for Exemnt Facilities.
Annexations: �
(a) to a city or special district of areas containing existing public or private structures
developed to the density allowed by the current zoning or prezoning of either the gaining
or losing governmental agency, whichever is more restrictive; provided, however, that the
extension of utility services to the existing facilities would have a capacity to serve only
the existing facilities; and
(b) of individual small parcels of the minimum size for facilities exempted by Class 3, New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. (State Guidelines Section 15319.)
��� Class 20: Chan�es in Or�anization of Local A�encies. Changes in the organization of
local governmental agencies where the changes do not change the geographical area in which
previously existing powers are exercised. (State Guidelines Section 15320.)
Class 21: Enforcement Actions bv Re�ulatory A�encies. Actions by the City to enforce
or revoke a lease, permit, license, certificate or other erititlement for use issued, adopted or
prescribed by the City or a law, general rule, standard or objective administered or adopted by
the City; or law enforcement activities by peace officers acting under any law that provides a
criminal sanction. (Construction activities undertaken by the City taking the enforcement or
xevocation action are not included in this exemption.) (State Guidelines Section 15321.)
Class 22: Educational or Trainin� Pro�rams Involving No Phvsical Chan�es. The
adoption, alteration or termination of educational or training programs which involve no physical
alteration in the area affected or which involve physical changes only in the interior of existing
school or training structures. (State Guidelines Section 15322.)
Class 23: Normal Operations of Facilities for Public Gatherin�s. Continued or repeated
normal operations of existing facilities for public gatherings for which the facilities were
designed, where there is past history, of at least three years, of the facility being used for the
same or similar purposes. Facilities included within this exemption include, but are not limited
tv race tracks, stadiums, convention centers, auditoriums, amphitheaters, planetariums,
swimming pools and amusement parks. (State Guidelines Section 15323.)
�
SACTQUTB1228691CITY12005 3_ 13 OO 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Quality Act (2005) Activities Exempt from CEQA
Class 24: Re�ulation of Workin� Conditions. Actions taken by the City to regulate '#
employee wages, hours of work or working conditions where there will be no demonstrable
physical changes outside the place of work. (State Guidelines Section 15324.)
Class 25: Transfers of Ownershin of Interest in Land to Preserve Existin� Natural
Conditions and Historical Resources. Transfers of ownership of interest in land in order to
preserve open space, habitat, or historical resources. Examples include, but are not limited to,
acquisition, sale, or other transfer of areas to: preserve existing natural conditions, including
plant or animal habitats; allow continued agricultural use of the areas; allow restoration of
natural conditions; preserve open space or lands for natu.ral park purposes; or prevent
encroachment of development into floodplains. This exemption does not apply to the
development of parks or park uses. (State Guidelines Section 15325.)
Class 26: Acauisition of Housin� for Housin� Assistance Pro�rams,. Actions by a
redevelopment agency, housing authority or other public agency to implement an adopted
Housing Assistance Plan by acquiring an interest in housing units, provided the housing units are
either in existence or possessing all required permits for construction when the agency makes its
final decision to acquire the units. (State Guidelines Sectian 15326.)
Class 27: Leasin� New Facilities. Leasing of a newly constructed or previously
unoccupied privately owned facility by a local or state agency when the City determines that the
proposed use of the facility:
(1) conforms with existing state plans and policies and with general, community, and specific
plans for which an EIR or Negative Declaration has been prepared;
(2) is substantially the same as that originally proposed at the time the building permit was
issued;
(3) does not result in a traffic increase of greater than 10% of front access road capacity; and
(4) includes the provision af adequate employee and visitor parking facilities.
(State Guidelines Section 15327.)
Class 28: Small Hvdroelectric Proiects as Existin� Facilities,. Installation of certain
small hydroelectric-generating facilities in connection with existing dams, canals and pipelines,
subject to the conditions in State Guidelines Section 15328. (State Guidelines Section 15328.}
Class 29: Co�eneration Proiects at Existin� Facilities. Installation of cogeneratian
equipment with a capacity of 50 megawatts or less at existing facilities meeting certain
conditions listed in State Guidelines Section 15329. (State Guidelines Section 15329.)
Class 30: Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Miti�ate or Eliminate the
Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Substances, Minor cleanup
actions costing $1 million or less to prevent, minimize, stabilize, mitigate, or eliminate the
release or threat of release of a hazardous waste or substance. (State Guidelines Section 15330.)
Class 31: Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation. Maintenance, repairs, �._r
stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation, or reconstruction of historical
resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment
SACTOVTB122869\CITY12005 3-14 002005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Locai Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Activities Exempt from CEQA
of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and
�' Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer. (5tate Guidelines Section
15331.)
Class 32: Infill Developxnent Proiects. Infill development meeting the following
conditions:
(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;
ro�
(c)
(d)
(e)
(b)
Class 33: Small Habitat Restoration Proiects. Revegetation of disturbed areas with
native plant species; wetland restoration, the primary purpose of which is to improve conditions
� for waterfowl or other species that rely on wetland habitat; stream or river bank revegetation, the
primary purpose of which is to irnprove habitat for amphibians or native fish; projects to restore
or enhance habitat that are carried out principally with hand labor and not mechanized
equipment; stream or river bank stabilization with native vegetation or other bioengineering
techniques, the primary purpose of which is to reduce or eliminate erosion and sedimentation;
culvert replacement conducted in accordance with published guidelines of the Department of
Fish and �ame or NOAA Fisheries, the primary purpose of which is to improve habitat or reduce
sedimentation, and other similar projects to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or
protection of habitat for fish, plants, or wildlife. This exemption only applies to project that are
five acres or less in size and that meet the following criteria:
(a)
�
The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more
than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses;
The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species;
Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to
traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and
The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
(State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332.)
There would be no significant adverse impact on endangered, rare or threatened
species or their habitat pursuant to section 15065;
There are no hazardous materials at or around the project site that may be
disturbed or removed; and
(c) The project will not result in impacts tlnat are significant when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects.
SACTOUTB�2.28691C1TY12005
3-15
�2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Loca1 Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
�.,,,, 4. TIME LIMITATION5
4.01 REVIEW OF PRIVATE PROJECT APPLICATIONS.
Time Limitations
Staff shall determine whether the application for a private project is complete within
thirty (30) days of receipt of the application. No application may be deemed incomplete for lack
of a waiver of the time limitations in Guidelines Sections 4.03 and 4.04. Accepting an
application as complete does not limit the authority of the City, acting as the Lead Agency, to
require the applicant to submit additional information needed for environmental evaluation of the
project. Requiring such additional information after the application is complete does not change
the status of the application.
4.02 DETERMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
Except as provided in Guidelines Sections 4.05 and 4.06, Staff's initial determination as
to whether a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration or an EIR should be prepared
shall be made within thirty (30) days from the date on which an application for a project is
accepted as complete by the City. This period may be extended fifteen (15) days with consent of
the applicant and the City.
4.03 COMPLETION AND ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
For private projects involving the issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other
� entitlement for use by one or more public agencies, the Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative
Declaration shall be completed and approved within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date
when the City accepted the application as complete. Completion of a Negative
Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration within the 1$0-day period shall include completion
of the Initial Study, public review and the preparation of documents for approval by the
decisionmaking body, either the Planning Commission or City Council (see definition in
Guidelines Section 10.11).
In the event that compelling circumstances justify additional time and the project
applicant consents thereto, Staff may provide for a reasonable extension of the time limit for
completing and adopting the Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
4.04 COMPLETION AND CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR.
For private projects, the Final EIR shall be completed and certified by the City Council
within one year after the date when the City accepted the application as complete. In the event
that compelling circumstances justify additional time, the City Council may provide a one-time
extension up to ninety (90) days for completing and adopting the EIR, upon consent of the City
and the project applicant.
4.05 PROJECTS SUBJECT TO THE PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT.
The Permit Streamlining Act requires agencies to make decisions on certain development
project approvals within specified time limits. If a project is subject to the Act, the City cannot
� require the project applicant to submit the 'informational equivalent of an EIR or prove
SACTOUTB�22869\CTfY�2005 4_ 1 OO 2005 Best Sest & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Time Limitations
compliance with CEQA as a prerequisite to determining whether the project application is '�`
complete. In addition, if requested by the project applicant, the City must begin processing the
project application prior to final CEQA action, provided the information necessary to begin the
process is available.
Under the Permit Streamlining Act, the City as Lead Agency must approve or disapprove
the development project application within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date on
which it certifies the EIR, or ninety (90) days if an extension for completing an.d certifying the
EIR is granted (see Guidelines Section 4.04). If the City adopts a Negative
Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration, or determines the development project is exempt
from CEQA, it shall approve or disapprove the project application within sixty (60) days from
the date on which it adopts the Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration or
determines that the project is exempt from CEQA.
Except for waivers of the time periods for preparing a joint Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement (as outlined in Government Code Sections 65951 and
65957), the City cannot require a waiver of the time limits specified in the Permit Streamlining
Act as a condition of accepting or processing a development project application. In addition, the
City cannot disapprove a development project application in order to comply with the time limits
specified in the Permit Streamlining Act.
4.06 PROJECT5, OTHER THAN THOSE SUBJECT TO TIiE PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT, WITH
SHORT TIME PERIODS FOR APPROVAL. ,F-�,
A few statutes require agencies to make decisions on project applications within time
limits that are so short that review of the project under CEQA would be difficult. To enable the
City as Lead Agency to comply with both the enabling statute and CEQA, the City shall deem a
project application as not received for filing under the enabling statute until such time as the
environmental documentation required by CEQA is complete. This section applies where all of
the following conditions are met:
(a) The enabling statute for a prograxn, other than development projects under Chapter 4.5
(commencing with Section 65920) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code,
requires the City to take action on an application within a specified period of time of six
(6) months or less;
(b) The enabling statute provides that the project is approved by operation of law if the City
fails to take any action within the specified time period; and
(c) The project application involves the City's issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate
or other entitlement for use.
In any case, the environmental document shall be completed or certified and the decision
on the application shall be made within the period established by the Permit Streamlining Act
(Government Code Sections 65920, et seg.).
4.07 SUSPENSION OF TIME PERIODS.
An unreasonable delay by an applicant in meeting City requests necessary for the
preparation of a Negative Declaration or an EIlZ shall suspend the running of the time periods
SACTOVTB1228691CITY12005 tj_2 02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quaiity Act (2005)
Time Limitations
� described in Guidelines Sections 4.03 and 4.04 for the period of the unreasonable delay.
Alternatively, the City may disapprove a project application where there is unreasonable delay in
meeting requests. The City may also allow a renewed application to start at the same point in the
process where the application was when it was disapproved.
�
�
SACTOUT'B1228691C1TY�2005 �_3 02005 Best Best & KriegerLLP
. , .. ... . . ,.
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
� 5. INITIAL STUDY
S.Ql PREPARATION OF INITIAL STUDY.
Initial Study
If the City determines that it is the Lead Agency for a project which is not exempt, the
City shall prepare an Initial Study to ascertain whether the project may have a substantial adverse
effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or
beneficial. All phases of project planning, implementation and operation must be considered in
the Initial Study. An Initial Study may rely on expert opinion supported by facts, technical
studies or other substantial evidence. However, an Initial Study is neither intended nor required
to include the level of detail included in an EIR.
(a) For City projects, the Initial Study shall be prepared by Staff or by private experts
pursuant to contract with the City.
(b) For private projects, the person or entity proposing to carry out the project shall submit
all data and information as may be required by the City to determine whether the
proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. All costs incurred by
the City in reviewing the data and information submitted, or in conducting its own
investigation based upon such data and information, or in preparing an Initial Study for
the project shall be borne by the person or entity proposing to carry out the project.
5.02 INFORMAL CONSULTATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES.
�'� When more than one public agency will be invalved in undertaking or approving a
project, the City as Lead Agency shall consult with all Responsible and any Trustee Agencies.
Such consultation shall be undertaken as part of the Initial Study process prior to determining
whether an EIR, Mitigated Negative Declaration or Negative Declaration is required for the
project.
This early consultation, which may be dane quickly and informally, is designed to insuxe
that the EIR, Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration will reflect the concerns of
all Responsible Agencies that will issue approvals for the project and all Trustee Agencies
responsible for natural resources affected by the project. It may include consultation with other
individuals or organizations with an interest in the project. The Office of Planning and Research,
upon request of the City or a private project applicant, shall assist in identifying the various
Responsible Agencies for a proposed project and ensure that the Responsible Agencies are
notified regarding any early consultation. In the case of a project undertaken by a public agency,
the Office of Pianning and Research, upon request of the City, sha11 ensure that any Responsible
Agency or public agency that has jurisdiction by law with respect to the project is notified
regarding any early consultation.
If, during the early consultation process it is determined that the project will clearly have
a significant effect on the environment, the City may immediately dispense with the Initial Study
and determine that an EIR is required.
�
SACTOVTB�2,28691CiT1'�2005 5_ 1 �OZ005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental QualiCy Act (2005)
5.03 CONSULTATION WITH PRIVATE PROJECT APPLICANT.
During or immediately after preparation of an Initial Study for a private project, the City
may consult with the applicant to determine if the applicant is willing to modify the project to
reduce or avoid the significant effects identified in the Initial Study. If the project can be revised
to avoid or mitigate effects to a level of insignificance and there is no substantial evidence before
the City that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment, the City
may prepare and adopt a Negative Declaration. If any significant effect may still occur despite
alterations of the project, an EIR must be prepared.
5.04 PURPOSES OF AN INITIAL STUDY.
The Initial Study shall be used to determine whether a Negative Declaration, Mitigated
Negative Declaration or an EIR shall be prepared for a project. It provides written
documentation of whether the City found evidence of significant adverse impacts which might
occur. The purposes of an Initial Study are to:
�
(a) Identify environmental impacts;
(b) Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a praject, mitigating adverse iznpacts
before an EIR is written;
(c} Focus an EIR, if one is required, on potentially significant environmental effects;
(d) Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project;
(e) Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that
�--.r.
a project will not have a significant effect on the environment;
(fj Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and
(g} Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used for the project.
5.05 CONTENTS OF INITIAL STUDY.
An Initial5tudy shall contain in brief form:
(a) A description of the project, including the location of the project. The project description
must be consistent throughout the envixonmental review process;
(b) An identification of the environmental setting;
(c) An identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method
provided that entries are briefly explained to show the evidence supporting the entries.
The brief explanation may be through either a narrative or a reference to other
information such as attached maps, photographs, or an earlier EIR or Negative
Declaration. A reference to another document should include, if possible, a citation to
the page or pages where the information is found;
(d) A discussion of ways to mitigate any significant effects identified;
(e) An examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning and local land
use plans;
(� The name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the Initial Study;
(g) A summary of any comments regarding the project received from Responsible Agencies,
Trustee Agencies or other persons; and �~�
SACTOUTB122869\CIT'Y12005 5_� �02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Initial Study
�
�
�
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Initial Study
(h) Identification of prior EIRs or environmental documents which could be used with the
project.
5.06 USE OF A CHECKLIST INITIAL STUDY.
When properly completed, the Environmental Checklist (Form "J") will meet the
requirements of Guidelines Section 5.05 provided that the entries on the checklist are explained.
Either the Environmental Checklist (Form "J") should be expanded or a separate attachment
should be prepared to describe the project, including its location, and to identify the
environxnental setting.
California courts have rejected the use of a bare, unsupplemented Initial Study checklist.
An Initial Study must contain more than mere conclusions. It must disclose supporting data or
evidence upon which the City relied in conducting the Study. The City shall augment checklists
with supporting factual data and reference information sources when completing the forms.
Explanation of all "potential impact" answers should be provided on attached sheets. For
controversial projects, it is advisable to state briefly why "no" answers were checked. If
practicable, attach a list of reference materials, such as prior EIRs, plans, trafiic studies, air
quality data, or other supporting studies.
5.07 EVALUATING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.
In evaluating the environmental significance of effects disclosed by the Initial Study, the
City shall consider:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Whether the Initial Study andlor any comments received informally during consultations
indicate that a fair argument can be made that the project may have a significant adverse
environmental impact which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Even if a
fair argument can be made to the contrary, an EIR should be prepared.
Whether both primary (direct) and secondary (indirect) consequences of the project were
evaluated. Primary consequences are immediately related to the project, while secondary
consequences are related more to the primary consequences than to the project itself. For
example, secondary impacts upon the resources base, including land, air, water and
energy use of an area, may result from population growth, a primary impact.
Whether adverse social and economic changes will result from a physical change caused
by the project. Adverse economic and social changes resulting from a project are not, in
themselves, significant environmental effects. However, if such adverse changes cause
physical changes in the environment, those consequences may be used as the basis for
finding that the physical change is significant.
Whether there is serious public controversy or disagreement among experts over the
environmental effects of the project. However, controversy or disagreement alone shall
not require preparation of an EIR in the absence .of substantial evidence of significant
effects.
Whether the cumulative impact of the project is significant and whether the effects of the
project are "cumulatively considerable" (as defined in Guidelines Section 10.10) when
viewed in connection with the incremental effects of past projects, current projects, and
probable future projects.
SACTOUTS�22869\CITY12005
5-3
02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Locai Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Initial Study
(� Whether the project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an `�`°
archaeological or historical resource.
5.08 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT.
Whenever there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that any of the
conditions set forth below may occur , the City sha11 find that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment and thereby shall require preparation of an EIR:
(a) The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or
prehistory;
(b) The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals;
(c) The project has possible environmental effects which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects
of past, current, and probable future projects as defined in Guidelines Section 10.10.
That is, the City is required to determine whether the incremental impacts of a project are
cumulatively considerable by evaluating them against the back-drop of the environmental �...�
effects of the other projects; or
(d} The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on humans
either directly or indirectly.
If, before the release of the CEQA document for public review, the potential for
triggering one of the mandatory findings of significance is avoided or mitigation measures or
project modifications reduce the potentially significant impacts to a point where clearly the
mandatory finding of significance is not triggered, preparation of an EIR is not mandated. If the
project's potential for triggering one of the mandatory findings of significance cannot be avoided
or mitigated to a point where the criterion is clearly not triggered, an EIR shall be prepared, and
the relevant mandatory findings of significance shall be used: (1) as thresholds of significance
for purposes of preparing the EIR's impact analysis, (2) in making findings on the feasibility of
alternatives or mitigation measures, (3) when found to be feasible, in making changes in the
project to lessen or avoid the adverse environmental impacts, and (4) when necessary, in
adopting a statement of overriding considerations.
Although an EIR prepared for a project that triggers one of the mandatory findings of
significance must use the relevant mandatory findings as thresholds of significance, the EIR need
not conclude that the impact itself is significant. Rather, the City must exercise its discretion and
determine, on a case-by-case basis after evaluating a11 of the relevant evidence, whether the
project's environmental impacts are avoided or mitigated below a level of significance or
whether a statement of overriding considerations is required.
�
SACTOUTB122869\CITY�2005 5_4. �02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
�
�
�
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Initial Study
With regard to a project that has the potential to substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a protected species, the City does not have to prepare an EIR solely due to
that impact, provided the project meets the following three criteria:
(1) The project proponent must be bound to implement mitigation requirements
relating to such species and habitat pursuant to an approved habitat conservation
plan and/or natural communities conservation plan;
(2) The state or federal agency must have approved the habitat conservation plan
and/or natural community conservation plan in reliance on an EIR and/or EIS;
and
(3) The mitigation requirements must either avoid any net loss of habitat and net
reduction in number of the affected species, or preserve, restore, or enhance
sufficient habitat to mitigate the reduction in habitat and number of the affected
species below a level of significance.
5.09 MANDATORY PREPARATION OF AN EIR FOR WASTE-BURNING PROJECTS.
The City, as Lead Agency, shall prepare or cause to be prepared, and certify the
completion of, an EIR, or, if appropriate, a modification, addendum, or supplement to an existing
EIR, for any project involving the burning of municipal wastes, hazardous waste or refuse-
derived fuel, including, but not limited to, tires, if the project consists of any of the following:
(a) The construction of a new facility.
(b) The expansion of an existing hazardous waste burning facility which would increase its
permitted capacity by more than 10%.
(c) The issuance of a hazardous waste facilities permit to a land disposal facility, as defined
in Guidelines Section 10.25.
(d) The issuance of a hazardous waste facilities permit to an offsite large treatment facility,
as defined in Guidelines Sections 10.26 and 10.40.
This section does not apply to projects listed in subsections (c) and (d), immediately
above, if the facility only manages hazardous waste that is identified or listed pursuant to Health
and Safety Code Section 25140 or 25141 or only conducts activities which are regulated
pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 25100, e• t sea.
The City shall calculate the percentage of expa�nsion for an existing facility by comparing
the proposed facility's capacity with either of the following, as applicable:
(a)
(b}
The facility capacity authorized in the facility's hazardous waste facilities permit
pursuant to Section 25200 of the Health and Safety Code, or its grant of interim status
pursuant to Section 25200.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or the facility capacity
authorized in any state or local agency permit allowing the construction or operation of
the facility for the burning of hazardous waste granted before January 1, 1990; or
The facility capacity authorized in the facility's original hazardous facilities permit, grant
of interim status, or any state or local agency permit allowing the construction or
SACTOVTB122869\CTTY12005
5-5
02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Initial Study
operation of a facility for the burning of hazardous waste, granted on or after January 1,
1990.
The EIR requirement does not apply to any project which exclusivelv burns any of the
following:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
i�
�g)
digester gas produced from manure or any other solid or semi-solid animal waste;
methane gas produced from a disposal site which is used only for the disposal of solid
waste;
forest, agricultural, wood or other biomass wastes;
hazardous waste in an incineration unit that is transportable and which is either at a site
for not longer than three years or is part of a remedial or removal action;
refinery waste burned in a flare on the site of generation;
methane gas produced at a municipal sewage treatment plant and burned in a flare;
hazardous waste, or hazardous waste as a supplemental fuel, as part of a research,
development, or demonstration project which, consistent with the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976, has been determined to be innovative and experimental by the
State Department of Health Services and which is limited in type and quantity of waste to
that necessary to determine the efficacy and performance capabilities of the technology or
process; provided, however, that any facility which operated as a research, development
or demonstration project and for which an application is thereafter submitted for a
hazardous waste facility permit for operation other than as a research, development or
demonstration project shall be considered a new facility for the burning of hazardous
waste, and therefore subject to EIR requirements;
(h) soils contaminated only with petroleum fuels or the vapors from these soils;
(i) exclusively treats less than 3,000 pounds of hazardous waste per day in a thermal
G)
(k)
(1)
processing unit operated in the absence of open flame, and submits a worst-case health
risk assessment of the technology to the State Department of Health Services for review
and distribution to the interested public. This assessment shall be prepared in accordance
with guidelines set forth in the Air Toxics Assessment Manual of the California Air
Pollution Control Officers Association;
less than 1,200 pounds of infectious waste per day, as defined in Section 25117.5 of the
Health and Safety Code, on hospital sites;
chemicals and fuels as part of firefighter training;
exclusively conducts open burns of explosives subject to the requirements of the local or
regional air pollution control district and in compliance with OSHA and Cal-OSHA
regulations; or
(m) exclusively conducts onsite burning of less than 3,000 pounds per day of fumes directly
from a manufacturing or commercial process.
Such projects are not exempt from the other requirements of CEQA, the State Guidelines,
or these Local Guidelines.
This section does not apply to any project over which the State Energy Resources
Conservation and Development Commission has assumed jurisdiction per Health and Safety
Code Section 25500, et se�c .
�"`�
,---a,
�
SACTOUTB122869\CITY12005 5_( 02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
�, 5.10 DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO AN EXISTING COMMUNITY PLAN AND EIR.
Initial Study
Before preparing a CEQA document, Staff should determine whether the proposed
project involves development consistent with an earlier zoning or community plan to
accommodate a particular density for which an EIR has been certified. If an earlier EIR for the
zoning or planning action has been certified, and if the proposed project is approval of a
subdivision map or development, CEQA applies only to the extent the project raises
environmental effects peculiar to the parcel which were not addressed in the earlier EIIZ: Off-site
and cumulative effects not discussed in the general plan EIR must still be considered. Mitigation
measures set out in the earlier EIR should be implemented at this stage.
Environmental effects shall not be considered peculiar to the parcel if uniformly applied
development policies or standards have been previously adopted by a city or county with a
finding based on substantial evidence that the policy or standard will substantially mitigate the
environmental effect when applied to future prvjects. Any rezoning action consistent with the
Community Plan shall be subject to exemption from CEQA in accardance with this section.
"Community Plan'° means part of a city's general plan which (1) applies to a defined geographic
portion of the total area included in the general plan, (2) complies with Article 5(commencing
with Section b5300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code by
referencing each of the mandatory elements specified in Government Code Section 65302, and
(3) contains specific development policies adopted for the area in the Community Plan and
identifies measures to implement those policies, so that the policies which will apply to each
� parcel can be determined.
5.11 LAND L1SE POLICIES.
When a project will amend a general plan or another land use policy, the Tnitial Study
must address how the change in policy and its expected direct and indirect effects will affect the
environment. When the amendments constitute substantial changes in policies that result in a
significant impact on the environment, an EIR may be required.
5.12 EVALUATING IMPACTS ON HISTORICAL RESOURCE5.
Projects that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource, as defined in Guidelines Section 10.21, are projects that may have a significant effect
on the environment, thus requiring consideration under CEQA. Particular attention and care
should be given when considering such projects, especially projects involving the demolition of a
historical resource, since such demolitions have been determined to cause a significant effect on
the environment.
Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means physical
demolition, destruction, relocation or alteration of the resaurce or its immediate surroundings,
such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired.
�
. ._..
SACTOUTB�22869\C1TY�2005 5_'] OO 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Initial Study
The significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project: '�'w
(a) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a
historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in,
or eligibility for inclusion in, the California Register of Historical Resources;
(b) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that
account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources or its identification in a
historical resources survey, unless the lead agency 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 the lead
agency for purposes of CEQA.
Generally, a project that follows either one of the following sets of standards and
guidelines will be considered mitigated to a level of less than significance: (a) the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings; or (b) the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings
(1995), Weeks and Grimmer.
In the event of an accidental discovery of a possible historical resource during
construction of the project, the City may provide for the evaluation of the find by a qualified ,,�,
archaeologist or other professional. If the find is determined to be a historical resource, the City
should take appropriate steps to implement appropriate avoidance or mitigation measures. Work
on non-affected portions of the project, as determined by the City, may continue during the
process. Curation may be an appropriate mitigation measure for an artifact that must be removed
during project excavation or testing.
5.13 EVALUATING IMPACTS ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES.
When a project will impact an archaeological site, the City shall first determine whether
the site is a historical resource, as defined in Guidelines Section 10.21. If the archaeological site
is a historical resource, it shall be treated and evaluated as such, and not as an archaeological
resource. If the archaeological site does not meet the definition of a historical resource, but does
meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource set forth in Section 21083.2 of the Public
Resources Code, the site shall be treated in accordance with said provisions of the Public
Resources Code. The time and cost limitations described in Section 21083.2(c-fl do not apply to
surveys and site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project site contains
unique archaeological resources.
If the archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological resource nor a 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. �
SACTOUTB122869\CITY12005 5_8 002005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Impiementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Initial Study
� In the event of an accidental discovery of a possible unique archaeological resource
during construction of the project, the City may provide for the evaluation of the find by a
qualified archaeologist. If the find is determined to be a unique archaeological resource, the City
should take appropriate steps to implement appropriate avoidance or mitigation measures. VVork
on non-affected portions of the project, as determined by the City, may continue during the
process. Curation may be an appropriate mitigation measure for an artifact that must be removed
during project excavation or testing.
When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native
American human remains within the Project, the City shall comply with the provisions of State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(d). In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of
any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the City shali compiy with
the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e).
5.14
(a)
�
CONSULTATION WITH WATER AGENCIES REGARDING LARGE DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS.
Projects Subject to Consultation Requirements.
This section applies only when a project involves one of the following:
Over 500 homes;
Shopping centers or businesses with over 1,000 employees or 500,000 square feet
of floor space;
Commercial office buildings with over 1,000 employees or 250,000 square feet
of floor space;
Hotels or motels with more than 500 rooms;
Industrial, manufacturing or processing plants which will house more than 1,000
persons, occupy more than 40 acres of land or have more than 650,000 square feet
of floor space;
Mixed-use projects that include one or more of their projects specified in this
section;
Projects that would demand at least as much water as a 500 dwelling unit project;
or
If a public water system has fewer than 5,000 connections, then this section
applies to any proposed residential, business, commercial, hotel or motel, or
industrial development that would increase the public water system's number of
service connections by 10% or more, or any mixed-use project that would
increase water demand by an amount equivalent to a 10% increase in service
connections.
(1)
�2)
i3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
��)
ig)
(b) Water Supply Assessment.
When the City determines what type of environmental document will be prepared for a
project, the City must identify any public water system that may supply water for the project and
request that the public water system prepare a specified water supply assessment. For purposes
� of this section, any system that provides water to 3,000 or znore service connections qualifies as a
SACTQVTB122869\CITY12005 5_9 02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Initial Study
public water system. The assessment must include identificativn af existing water supply `�
entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the water supply for the
proposed project and water received in prior years pursuant to those entitlements, rights, and
contracts. If the public water system concludes that the water supply is, or will be, insufficient, it
must submit plans for acquiring additional water supplies. If a city is unable to identify any
public water system that may supply water for the project, the City must prepare the water
supply assessment itself. The City must include the water supply assessment (prepared by the
public water system or itsel� in any environmental document prepared for the project. For
complete information on these requirements, consult Water Code Sections 10910, et seq.
5.15 SUBDIVISIONS WITH TVIORE THAN 500 DWELLING UNITS.
The City and its advisory agencies are prohibited from approving a tentative map, parcel
map for which a tentative map was not required, or a development agreeznent for a subdivision
of property af more than 500 dwellings units, unless:
(1) The City Council or the advisory agency receives written verification from the
applicable public water system that a sufficient water supply is available; or
(2) Under certain circumstances, the City Council or the advisory agency makes a
specified finding that sufficient water supplies are, or will be, available prior to
completion of the project.
As a result, the City should obtain written verification as described above during the
Initial Study phase of the CEQA process for any proposed residential development of more than
500 dwelling units. For complete information on these requirements, consult Government Code
Section 66473.7.
5.16 IMPACTS TO OAK WOODLANDS.
When a county prepares an Initial Study to determine what type of environmental
document will be prepared for a project within its jurisdiction, the county must determine
whether the project may result in a conversion of oak woodlands that will have a significant
effect on the environment. Normally, this rule does not apply to projects undertaken by the City.
However, if the City is a responsible agency on such a project, the City should endeavor to
ensure that the county, as Lead Agency, analyzes these impacts in accordance with CEQA.
5.17 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT.
The job of the Initial Study is to identify which environmental impacts may be
significant. Based upon the Initial Study, Staff shall determine whether a proposed project may
or will have a significant effect on the environment. Such determination shall be made in writing
on the Environmental Impact Assessment Form (Form "C"). If Staff finds that a pro}ect will not
have a significant effect on the environment, it shall recommend that a Negative Declaration be
prepared and adopted by the decisionmaking body. If Staff finds that a project may have a
significant effect c5n the environment, but the effects can be mitigated to a level of insignificance,
it shall recommend that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be prepaxed and adopted by the ,-�
decisionmaking body. If Staff finds that a project may have a signi�cant effect on the
SACTOUTB�22869\CITY12005 5-10 02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Impiementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Initial Study
�'+, environment, it shall recommend that an EIR be prepared and certified by the decisionmaking
body.
5.18 FINAL DETERMINATION.
The City Council shall have the final responsibility for determining whether an EIR,
Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be required for any project. The
City Council's determination shall be final and conclusive on all persons, including Responsible
Agencies and Trustee Agencies, except as provided in Section 15050(c) of the State Guidelines.
�"�
�
SACTOUTB122869\CITY12005 5-11 02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
,,
�
�
�
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
6. NEGATIVE DECLARATION
6.01 DECISION TO PREPARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
Negative Declazation
A Negative Declaration (Form "E") shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA
when the Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record
that the project may have a significant or potentially significant adverse effect on the
environment. (See Guidelines Sections 10.43 and 10.48.)
6.02 DECISION TO PREPARE A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Form "E") shall be prepared for a project subject to
CEQA when the Initial Study identifies potentially significant effects on the environment, but:
(a) The project applicant has agreed to revise the project or the City can revise the project to
avoid these significant effects or to mitigate the effects to a point where it is clear that no
significant effects would occur and
(b) There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the
revised project may have a significant effect.
If an applicant proposes mitigation measures, the project plans must be revised to
incorporate these mitigation measures before the proposed Negative Declaration is released for
public review. It is insufficient to require an applicant to adopt mitigation measures after final
adoption of the Negative Declaration or to state that mitigation measures will be recommended
on the basis of a future study. The City must know the measures at the time the Negative
Declaration is adopted in order for them to be evaluated and accepted as adequate mitigation.
Evidence of agreement by the applicant to such mitigation should be in the record prior to public
review. Except where noted, the procedural requirements for the preparation and approval of a
Negative Declaration and Mitigated Negative Declaration are the same.
6.03 CONTRACTING FOR PREPARATION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
The City, when acting as Lead Agency, is responsible for preparing all documents
required pursuant to CEQA. The documents may be prepared by Staff or by private consultants
pursuant to a contract with the City, but they must be the City's product and reflect the
independent judgment of the City.
6.04 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION.
When, based upon the Initial Study, it is recommended to the decisionmaking body that a
Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted, a Notice of Intent to Adopt
a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (Form "D") shall be provided to the
public, to all Responsible Agencies and to every other public agency with jurisdiction by law
over resources affected by the project. The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration (Form "D") must be provided at least twenty (20) days, or, in
cases subject ta review by the State Clearinghouse, at least thirty (30) days before the final
adoption of the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration by the decisionmaking
SACTOUTB�22869\CTCY12005
6-1
�2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Quality Act (2005) Negative Declaration
body. The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration "�`
shall be mailed to the last known name and address of all organizations and individuals who have
previously filed a written request with the City. A copy of the proposed Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study shall be attached to the Notice of Intent to
Adopt that is sent to every Responsible Agency and Trustee Agency concerned with the project
and every other public agency with jurisdiction by law over resources affected by the project.
The City may chaxge a fee for this service, except to other public agencies. The City may require
requests fvr notices to be renewed annually. If the documents are submitted to the State
Clearinghouse for circulation, the public review period shall be at least as long as the period of
review by the State Clearinghouse. (See Guidelines Section 6.06.) If the City is submitting a
Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration to the State Clearinghouse, the Notice
of Completion form may be used.
The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration
shall contain the following information:
(a) The period during which comments shall be received.
(b) The date, time and place of any public meetings or hearings on the proposed project.
(c) A brief description of the proposed project and its location.
(d) The address where copies of the proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration and all documents referenced in the proposed Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration are available for review.
{e) The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") list on which the proposed project site is �_,
located, if applicable, and the corresponding information from the applicant's statement.
(See Guidelines Section 2.44.)
(fl The significant effects on the environment, if any, anticipated as a result of the proposed
project.
The propQsed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study
must reflect the independent judgment of the City.
6.05 POSTING AND PUBLICATION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION.
The City shall have a copy of the Notice of Intent to Adopt, the Draft Negative
Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study posted at the City's offices
and made available for public inspection. The Notice must be provided either twenty (20} or
thirty (30) days prior to final adoption of the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration: Negative Declarations prepared for projects subject to State Clearinghouse review
must be circulated for at least thirty (30) days, while all other Negative Declarations must be
circulated for at least twenty (20) days.
The Notice must also be posted in the of�ce of the Clerk in each county in which the
Project is located and must remain posted for a minimum of twenty (20) days, unless otherwise
required by law to be posted for thirty (30) days. The Clerk shall post the Notice within twenty-
four (2�) hours of receipt. ,�
SACTOUTB�228691CTfY12005 6_2 02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Negative Declaration
�, As stated in Guidelines Section 6.04, notice shall be given by mail to the last known
name and address of a11 organizations and individuals who have previously requested such
notice. In addition, it must be given by at least one of the following procedures:
(a) Publication at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the
proposed project. If more than one area will be affected, the notice sha11 be published in
the newspaper of largest circulation from among the newspapers of general circulation in
those areas;
(h} Posting of notice on and off site in the area where the project is to be located; or
(c) Direct mailing to owners and occupants of property contiguous to the project, as shown
on the latest equalized assessment roll.
The City shall consider all comments received during the public review period for the
Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. Comments submitted via email shall
be treated as written comments for all purposes. Comments sent to the public agency via email
are deemed received when they actually arrive in an email account of a staff person who has
been designated or identified as the point of contact for a particular project.
The City is not required to resnond in writing to camments it receives either during or
after the public review period. However, the City may want to provide a written response to all
comments if it will not delay action on the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration, since any comment received prior to final action on the Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration can form the basis of a legal challenge. A written response
� which refutes the comment or adequately explains the City's action in light of the comment will
assist the City in defending against a legal challenge. The City shall notify any public agency
which comments on a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration of the public
hearing or hearings, if any, on the project for which the Negative Declaration or Mitigated
Negative Declaration was prepared.
6.06 SUBMISSION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TO STATE CLEARINGHOUSE.
A Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration must be submitted to the State
Clearinghouse for circulation in the following situations:
(a) The Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is prepared by a Lead
Agency that is a state agency.
(b) The Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is prepared by a public
agency where a state agency is a Responsible Agency, Trustee Agency, or otherwise has
jurisdiction by law with respect to the project.
(c) The Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is for a project identified in
State Guidelines Section 1520b as being of statewide, regional, or areawide significance.
State Guidelines Section 15206 identifies the following types of projects as being
examples of projects of statewide, regional, or areawide significance which require submission to
the State Clearinghouse for circulation:
�
SACTOUTB122869\CITY12005 6_3 02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Negative Declaration
• Projects which have the potential for causing significant environmental effects '
beyond the city or county where the project would be located, such as:
• Residential development of more than 500 units.
• Commercial projects employing more than 1,000 persons or covering
more than 500,000 square feet of floor space.
• Ofiice building projects employing more than 1,000 persons or covering
more than 250,000 square feet of floor space.
• Hotel or motel development of more than 500 rooms.
• Industrial projects housing more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than
40 acres of land, or covering more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.
Projects for the cancellation of a Williamson Act contract covering more than 100
acres.
� Projects in one of the following Environmentally Sensitive Areas:
• Lake Tahoe Basin.
• Santa Monica Mountains Zone.
• Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
• Suisun Marsh.
• Coastal Zone, as defined by the California Coastal Act.
• Areas within one-quarter mile of a river designated as wild and scenic.
• Areas within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission.
Projects which would affect sensitive wildlife habitats or the habitats of any rare, --- r
threatened, or endangered species.
Projects which would interfere with water quality standards.
Projects which would provide housing, jobs, or occupancy for 500 or more people
within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant.
A Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration may also be submitted to the
State Clearinghouse for circulation if a state agency has special expertise with regard to the
environrnental impacts involved. When the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review, the public review period shall be
at least thirty (30) days. When a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is
submitted to the State Clearinghouse, a Notice of Completion (Form "H") should be included as
a cover sheet. A sufficient number of copies of the documents must be sent to the State
Clearinghouse for circulation. Staff should contact the State Clearinghouse to find out the
correct number of printed copies required for circulation. In addition to the printed copies, a
copy of the documents in electronic format shall be submitted on a diskette or by electronic mail
transmission if available.
A shorter review period by the State Clearinghouse for a Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration can be requested by the decisiorunaking body. The shortened
review period shall not be less than twenty (20) days. Such a request must be made in writing by
the Lead Agency to the Office of Planning and Research. The decisionmaking body may
designate by resolution or ordinance an individual authorized ta request a shorter review period. ,.�,,
Any approval of a shortened review period must be given prior to, and reflected in, the public
notice. How.ever, a shortened review period shall not be approved by the Office of Planning and
SACTOUT'B122869tCITY12005 6_tj. OO 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
_.., ..,,...
Local Guidelines for Implemenking the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Negative Declaration
� Research for any proposed project of statewide, regional or areawide environmental significance,
� ' as defined by State Guidelines Section 15206.
6.07 SPECIAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR WA5TE AND FUEL BURNING PR03ECTS.
For any waste burning project, as defined in Guidelines Section 5.09, Notice of Intent to
Adopt (see Guidelines Section 6.04) shall be given to all organizations and individuals who have
previously requested it and shall also be given by all three of the procedures listed in Guidelines
Section 6.05. Tn addition, Notice shall be given by direct mailing to the owners and occupants of
property within one-quarter mile of any parcel or parcels on which such a project is located.
These notice requirements apply only to those projects described in Guidelines Section
5.08. These notice requirements do not preclude the City from providing additional notice by
other means if desired.
6.08 CONSULTATION WITH WATER AGENCIES REGARDING LARGE DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS.
Under specific circumstances the City must consult with the public water system which
will supply the project to determine whether it can adequately supply the water needed for the
project. See Guidelines Section 5.15 for more information on these requirements.
6.09 CONTENT OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
�''. A Negative Declaration must be prepared directly by or under contract to the City and
should generally resemble Form "E". It shall contain the following information:
(a) A brief description of the project proposed, including any commonly used name for the
project, if any.
(b) The location of the project and the name of the project proponent.
(c) A finding that the project as proposed will not have a significant effect on the
environment.
(d) An attached copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the finding.
(e) For a Mitigated Negative Declaration, feasible mitigation measures included in the
project to substantially lessen or avoid potentially significant effects, which must be fully
enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Such permit
conditions, agreements, and measures must be consistent with applicable constitutional
requirements such as the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards established by
case law.
6.10 ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
Following the publication, posting or mailing of the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative
Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, but in no event sooner than the expiration of the
applicable twenty (20) or thirty (30) day public review period, the Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration may be presented to the decisionmaking body at a regular or
�
special meeting. Prior to adoption, the City shall independently review and analyze the Negative
Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration and find that the Negative Declaration or
SACTOUTB1228691C1TY12005 (_5 02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Negative Declaration
Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City. If the '�"'�
decisionmaking body finds that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment,
it shall adopt the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. When adopting the
Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City shall specify the location and
custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon
which it based its decision.
If the decisionmaking body finds that the proposed project may have a significant effect
on the environment that cannot be mitigated or avoided, it shall order the preparation of a Draft
EIR and the filing of a Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR. Recirculation should be considered
if substantial new mitigation is added after public review (see Guidelines Section 6.13).
6.11 MITIGATION REPORTING OR MONITORING PROGRAM FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION.
When adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to Guidelines Section 6.10,
the City shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program to assure that mitigation measures which
are required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment will be fully enforceable
through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures and implemented by the project
proponent or other responsible party in a timely manner, in accordance with conditions of project
approval. The City shall also specify the location and the custodian of the documents which
constitute the record of proceedings upon which it based its decision. There is no requirement
that the reporting or monitoring program be circulated for public review; however, the City may ,
choose to circulate it for public comments along with the Negative Declaration. The mitigation
measures required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment must be adopted as
conditions of project approval.
This reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to assure compliance during the
implementation or construction of a project and shall otherwis� comply with the requirements
described in Guidelines Section 7.32. If a Responsible Agency or Trustee Agency has required
that certain conditions be incorporated into the project, the City may request that agency to
prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. The City shall also require that
prior to the close of the public review period for a Mitigated Negative Declaration (see
Guidelines Section 6.04), the Responsible or Trustee Agency submit detailed performance
objectives for mitigation measures, or refer the City to appropriate, readily available guidelines
or reference documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to the City by a Re'sponsible or
Trustee Agency shall be limited to measures which mitigate impacts to resources which are
within the Responsible or Trustee Agency's authority.
Local agencies have the authority to levy fees sufficient to pay for this program.
Therefore, the City can charge the project proponent a fee to cover actual costs of program
processing and implementation.
Transportation information resulting from the reporting or monitoring program required
to be adopted by the City shall be submitted to the regional transportation planning agency where
the project is located and to the Department of Transportation for a project of statewide, regional -��-�
or areawide significance according to State Guidelines Section 15206. The transportation
SACTOUTB122869\CITY12005 6_( 02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Negative Declaration
�, planning agency and the Department of Transportation are required by law to adopt guidelines
for the submittal of these reporting or monitoring programs, so the City may wish to tailor its
submittal to such guidelines.
6.12 APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF PROJECT.
At the time of adoption of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, the
decisionmaking body may consider the project for purposes of approval or disapproval. Prior to
approving the project, the decisionmaking body sha11 consider the Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with any written comments received and considered
during the public review period, and shall approve or disapprove the Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration. In making a finding as to whether there is any substantial
evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the factors listed in
Guidelines Section 5.08 should be considered. (See Guidelines Section 7.30 for approval
requirements for facilities which may emit hazardous pollutants or which may handle extremely
hazardous substances within one-quarter mile of a school site.)
6.13 RECIRCULATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION.
A Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration must be recirculated when the
document must be substantially revised after the public review period but prior to its adoption.
A"substantial revision" is defined as a new and avoidable significant effect for which mitigation
�; measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to a level of
insignificance. A"substantial revision" can also include when the City determines that the
proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce the potential effects to less
than significant and new measures or revisions must be required.
Recirculation is not required under the following circumstances:
(a) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or rnore effective measures, and the City
makes a finding to that effect.
(b) New project revisions are added after circulation of the Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration or in response to written or oral comments on the
project's effects, but the revisions do not create new significant environmental effects and
are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect.
(c) Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the Negative
Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, but the measures or conditions are not
required by CEQA, do not create new significant environmental effects and are not
necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect.
(d) New information is added to the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Declaration which
merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the Negative
Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration.
If, after preparation of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, the
�.,, City determines that the project requires an EIR, it shall circulate the Draft EIR for consultation
,
SACTOUTB1228691C1TY12005 C_7 �02005 Best Best & Krieger LT.P
Locai Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Negative Deciaration
and review and advise reviewers in writing that a proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated `�"
Declaration had previously been circulated for the project.
6.14 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ON A PROJECT FOR WHICH A PROPOSED NEGATIVE OR
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN APPROVED.
Following consideration and approval of a project for which the City is Lead Agency, the
decisionmaking body shall order Staff to prepare and file a Notice of Determination (Form "F")
which shall contain the following:
(a) An identification of the project including the project title as identified on the proposed
negative declaration, its location, and the State Clearinghouse identification number for
the proposed negative declaration if the notice of determination is filed with the State
Clearinghouse;
(b) A brief description of the project;
(c) The name of the City and the date on which the City approved the project;
(d) The determination of the City that the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment;
(e) A statement that a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted
pursuant to the provisions of CEQA;
(� A statement indicating whether mitigation measures were made a condition of the
approval of the project, and whether a mitigation monitoring plan/program was adopted;
and
(g) The address where a copy of the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration
may be examined.
The Notice of Determination shall be filed with the Clerk of each county in which the
project will be located within five (5) working days of project approval. The City is encouraged
to make copies of filed notices available in electronic format on the Internet. Such electronic
notices are in addition to the posting requirements of the CEQA Guidelines and the Public
Resources Code. The Clerk must post the Notice of Determination within twenty-four (24)
hours of receipt. The Notice must be posted in the office of the Clerk for a minimum of thirty
(30) days. Thereafter, the Clerk shall return the notice to the City with a notation of the period it
was posted. The City shall retain the notice for not less than twelve (12) months. If the project
requires discretionary approval from any State agency, the Notice of Determination shall also be
filed with the Office of Planning and Research within five (5) working days of project approval
along with proof of payment of the California Department of Fish and Game fee or Certificate of
Fee Exemption (see Guidelines Section 6.18). Simultaneously with the filing of the Notice of
Determination with the Clerk, Staff shall cause a copy of the Notice of Determination to be
posted at City Hall.
When a request is made for a copy of the Notice prior to the date on which the City
adopts the Negative Declaration, the copy must be mailed, first class postage prepaid, within five
(5) days of the City's determination. If such a request is made following the City's
determination, then the copy should be mailed in the same manner as soon as possible. The ,--�,
SACTOUTB122869\C1TY12005 (_g �02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Negative Declaration
�
recipients of such documents may be charged a fee reasonably related to the cost of providing the
service.
For projects with more than one phase, Staff shall file a notice of determination for each
phase requiring a discretionary approval.
The filing and posting of a Notice of Determination with the Clerk, and, if necessary,
with the Office of Planning and Research, usually starts a 30-day statute of limitations on court
challenges to the approval under CEQA. When separate notices are filed for successive phases
of the same overall project, the 30-day statute of limitation to challenge the subsequent phase
begins to run when the second notice is filed. Failure to file the Notice results in a 180-day
statute of limitations.
6.15 ADDENDUM TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
The City may prepare an addendum to an adopted Negative Declaration if only minor
technical changes or additions are necessary. The City may also prepare an addendum to an
adopted negative declaration when none of the conditions calling for a subsequent negative
declaration have occurred. (See Guidelines Section 6.16 below.) An addendum need not be
circulated for public review but can be attached to the adopted Negative Declaration. The City
shall consider the addendum with the adopted Negative Declaration prior to project approval.
When a Negative Declaration has been adopted for a project, or when an EIR has been
certified, a subsequent Negative Declaration or EIR must be prepared in the following instances:
6.16 SUBSEQUENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
(a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
(b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative
Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(c) New information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was
certified or the Negative Declaration was adopted which shows any of the following:
(1) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR or Negative Declaration;
(2) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
shown in the previous EIR;
(3) Mitigation measure(s) or alternative(s) previously found not to be feasible would
in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects
of the project, but the project proponents declined to adopt the mitigation
�' measure(s) or alternative(s); or
SACTOVTB�22869\CiTI'�2005 (_9 OO 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Negative Declaration
�r,
(4) Mitigation measure(s) or alternative(s) which are considerably different from
those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt
the mitigation measure(s) or alternative(s).
The City as Lead Agency would then determine whether a Subsequent EIIZ,
Supplemental EIR, Negative Declaration or Addendum would be applicable. Subsequent
Negative Declarations must be given the same notice and public review period as other Negative
Declarations. The Subsequent Negative Declaration shall state where the previous document is
available and can be reviewed.
6.17 PRIVATE PROJECT COSTS.
For private projects, the person or entity proposing to carry out the project shall bear all
costs incurred by the City in preparing the Initial Study and in preparing and filing the Negative
Declaration and Notice of Determination.
6.18 FILING FEES FOR PR03ECT5 WHICH AFFECT WILDLIFE RESOURCES.
At the time a Notice of Determination for a Negative Declaration is filed with the Clerk,
a fee of $1,250 shall be paid ta the Clerk for projects which will adversely affect fish and
wildlife resources. These fees are collected by the Clerk on behalf of the California Department
of Fish and Game ("DFG").
Only one filing fee is required for each project unless the project is tiered or phased and
separate environmental documents are prepared. For projects where a Lead Agency and
Responsible Agencies file separate Notices of Determination, only the Lead Agency is required
to pay the fee.
Note: The Clerk customarily charges a documentary handling fee for each project in
addition to the filing fee specified above. Refer to the Index in the Staff Summary to help
determine the correct amount.
For private projects, the City shall pass these costs on to the project applicant.
No fees are required for projects with a"de minimis" effect on fish and wildlife
resources, or for certain projects undertaken by the DFG and implemented through a contract
with a non-profit entity or local government agency. A project with a"de minimis" effect has no
potential for adverse effect on fish and wildlife. This is an important exception. DFG considers
the following projects as likely to have "de minimis" effects on fish and wildlife, depending on
the specific facts of each project:
(1) Projects which enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats and result in no
accompanying adverse impacts to fish or wildlife;
(2) Lot line adjustments;
(3) Building remodeling;
(4) Annexations;
(5) Redevelopment on existing urban subdivisions with no wildlife habitat;
,--�,
,--- :�
SACTOUTB122869\CiTY�2005 (-10 002005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local.Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Negative Declaration
N,�.,, (6) Infill of undeveloped urban lots; or
' (7) Adaption of a General Plan, where CEQA requires a subsequent discretionary project
approval before any physical change to natural habitat is permitted.
If the City believes that a project will have a"de minimis" effect on wildlife resources, it
should iile the Certificate of Fee Exemption attached as Form "L". This form requires the City
to set forth facts in support of the fee exemption. These facts should include: (1) the name and
address of the project proponent; (2) a brief description of the project and its location; (3) a
statement that an Initial Study has been prepared by the City to evaluate the project's effects on
wildlife resources, if any; (4) a declaration that there is no evidence before the City that the
project will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources; and (5) a declaration that
the City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, "rebutted" the presumption of adverse effect
contained in the regulations. A presumption of adverse effect occurs if the project has the
potential for adverse effects on the fish and wildlife resources as listed on Form "L". To rebut
the presumption of adverse effect, the City should explain in the declaration why the project
would not have an adverse impact on fish and wildlife and reference any supporting evidence.
These findings should be made at the time of approval of the Negative Declaration and attached
to Form "L" when submitted to the County. Two copies of this form must be filed with the
Notice of Determination in order to obtain the fee exemption.
If the City believes that a project has been undertaken by the DFG, that the project's costs
are payable from one or more of the sources indicated in the Fish and Game Code, and that the
project is being implemented through a contract with a non-profit entity or a local government
� agency, the DFG filing does not apply. Since the DFG has not yet adopted regulations to govern
this exemption, including a new "Certificate of Fee Exexnption," the City may wish to use Form
"L" and make appropriate modifications to reflect this exemption.
�
SACTOVTB1228691CITY12005 6-11 OO 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Environmentai Impact RepoR
�,, 7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
7.01 DEcis�olv To Pu�Pax� Alv EIR.
An EIl2 shall be prepared whenever there is substantial evidence in light of the whole
record which supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the
environment. (See Guidelines Sections 10.43 and 10.48.) The record may include the Initial
Study or other documents or studies prepared to assess the project's environmental impacts.
7A2 CONTRACTING FOR PREPARATION OF EIRS.
If a Draft EIR, EIR or Focused EIR is prepared under a contract to the City, the contract
must be executed within forty-five (45) days from the date on which the City sends a Notice of
Preparation. The City may take longer to execute the contract if the project applicant and the
City mutually agree to an extension of the 45-day time limit.
The Draft EIR, EIR or Focused EIR prepared under contract must be the City's product.
Staff, together with such consultant help as may be required, shall independently review and
analyze the Draft EIR, EIR or Focused EIR to verify its accuracy, objectivity and completeness
prior to presenting it to the decisionmaking body. The Draft EIR, EIR or Focused EIR made
available for public review must reflect the independent judgment of the City. Staff may require
such information and data from the person or entity proposing to carry out the project as it deems
necessary for completion of the Draft EIR, EIR or Focused EIR.
� 7.03 NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF DRAFT EIR.
After Staff determines that an EIR will be required for a proposed project, the City as
Lead Agency shall prepare and send a Notice of Preparation (Form "G") to each Responsible
Agency and Trustee Agency involved with the project, as well as the Office of Planning and
Research. When submitting the Notice of Preparation to the Office of Planning and Research, a
Notice of Completion (Form "H") should be used as a cover sheet. Responsible and Trustee
Agencies, the State Clearinghouse, and the state agencies contacted by the State Clearinghouse
have thirty (30) days to respond to the Notice of Preparation. Agencies that do not respond
within thirty (30) days shall be deemed not to have any comments on the Notice of Preparation.
The City shall send copies of the Notice of Preparation by certified mail or any other method of
transmittal which provides it with a record that the Notice was received. The Notice must also
be posted in the office of the Clerk in each county in which the project is located for thirty (30)
days. The Clerk shall post the Notice within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt.
At a minimum, the Notice of Preparation shall include:
(a) A description of the project;
(b) The location of the proj ect indicated either on an attached map (preferably a copy of the
USGS 15' or 71/z' topographical map identified by quadrangle name) or by a street
address and cross street in an urba.nized area;
(c) The probable environmental effects of tlie project;
�""'� (d) The name and address of the consulting firm retained to prepare the Draft EIR, if
applicable; and
SACTOUTB122869\CITY�2005 7_ 1 OO 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Environmental Impact RepoR
(e) The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") list on which the proposed site is located, �
if applicable, and the corresponding information from the applicant's statement. (See
Guidelines Section 2.04.)
7.04 PREPARATION OF DRAFT EIR.
The City as Lead Agency is responsible for preparing a Draft EIR, and may begin
preparation immediately without awaiting responses to the Notice of Preparation. However,
information communicated to the City not later than thirty (30) days after receipt of the City's
Notice of Preparation shall be included in the Draft EIR.
7.05 CONSULTATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES AND PERSONS.
To expedite consultation in response to the Notice of Preparation, the City as Lead
Agency, a Responsible Agency, or a project applicant may request a meeting among the agencies
involved to assist the City in determining the scope and content of the environmental infarmation
that Responsible Agencies may require. The City must convene the meeting as soon as possible
hut no later than 30 days after the request. Prior to completion of the Draft EIR, the City shall
consult with each Responsible Agency and any public agency which has jurisdiction by law over
the project. The City may fulfill this obligation by soliciting the comments of the Responsible
Agency(ies) and any other affected agencies on the City's Notice of Preparation. The City shall
also consult with any city or county which borders the project or within which the project is
located, unless otherwise designated annually by agreement between the City and any other city �
or county. The City may also consult with any individual who has special expertise with respect
to any environmental impacts involved with a project. The City may also consult directly with
any person or organization it believes will be concerned with the environmental effects of the
project including any interested individuals and organizations of which the City is reasonably
aware. The purpose of this consultation is to "scope" the EIR's range of analysis. When a
Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared for a project, no
scoping meeting need be held, although the City may hold one if it so chvoses. The City as Lead
Agency may charge and collect from the applicant a fee not to exceed the actual cost of the
consultations.
For a project of "statewide, regional or areawide significance," as defined in State CEQA
Guidelines section 15206, the City shall hold at least one scoping meeting. Likewise, for a
project that may affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State Department
of Transportation, the City sha11 hold a scoping meeting if requested to do so by the Department
of Transportation.
The City shall provide notice of the scoping meeting to:
(a) Any county or city that borders on the City within which the project is located, unless the
City has a specific agreement to the contrary with that county or city;
(b) Any responsible agency;
(c) Any public agency that has jurisdiction by law over the project; and
(d) Any organization or individual who has filed a written request for the notice.
SACTOUTB�22869\CITI'�2005 ^7_2 �02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Environmental Impact Report
A Responsible Agency or other public agency shall only make comments regarding those
� activities within its area of expertise or which are required to be carried out or approved by it.
These comments must be supported by specific documentation. Any mitigation measures
submitted to the City by a Responsible or Trustee Agency shall be limited to measures which
mitigate impacts to resources which are within the Responsible or Trustee Agency's authority.
For projects where federal involvement might require preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement ("EIS") under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), the City as
Lead Agency shall consult with the appropriate federal agencies as provided in Section 15110
and Sections 15220- 15228 of tlie State Guidelines. In addition, the City shall notify the
appropriate federal agencies regarding any scpping meetings for proposed projects that require
preparation of an EIS.
7.06 EARLY CONSULTATION ON PROJECTS INVOLVING PERMIT ISSUANCE.
Where the project involves issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate or other
entitlement for use by one or more public agencies, the City, upon request of the applicant, shall
meet with the applicant prior to the filing of the application regarding the range of actions,
potential alternatives, mitigation measures and significant effects to be analyzed in depth in the
EIIZ. The City may also consult with concerned persons identified by the applicant and persons
who have made written requests to be consulted. Such requests must be made not later than
thirty (30) days after the City's decision to prepare an EIR.
� 7.07 CONSULTATION WITH WATER AGENCIES REGARDING LARGE DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS.
Under specific circumstances, the City must consult with the public water system which
will supply the project to determine whether it can adequately supply the water needed for the
project. See Guidelines Section 5.15 for more information on these requirements.
7.08 AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN.
When the City prepares an EIR for a project within the boundaries of a comprehensive
airport land use plan or, if such a plan has not been adopted for a project within two (2) nautical
miles of a public airport or public use airport, the City shall utilize the Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook published by Caltrans' Division of Aeronautics to assist in the preparation of
the EIR relative to potential airport or related safety hazards and noise problems.
7.09 GENERAL ASPECTS OF .AN EIR.
Both a Draft and Final EIR must contain the information outlined in Guidelines Section
7.13. Each element must be covered, and when elements are not separated into distinct sections,
the document must state where in the document each element is covered.
The body of the EIR sha11 include summarized techn.ical data, maps, diagrams and similar
relevant information. Highly technical and specialized analyses and data should be included in
� appendices. Appendices may be prepared in separate volumes, but must be equally available to
� the public for examination. All documents used in preparation of the EIR must be referenced.
SACTOUTB122869\CTTI'�2005 7_3 02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Environmental Impact Report
An EIR shall not include "trade secrets," locations of archaeological sites and sacred lands, or �''
any other information subject to the disclosure restrictions of the Public Records Act
(Government Code Section 6250, et s�.).
The EIlZ should discuss environmental effects in proportion to their severity and
probability of occurrence. Effects dismissed in the Initial Study as clearly insignificant and
unlikely to occur need not be discussed.
The Initial Study should be used to focus the EIR so that the EIR identifies and discusses
only the specific environmental problems or aspects of the project which have been identified as
potentially significant or important. A copy of the Initial Study shall be attached to the EIl2 to
provide a basis for limiting the impacts discussed.
The EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating the reason for determining that
various effects of a project that could possibly be considered significant were not found to be
significant and consequently were not discussed in detail in the EIR. The City should also note
any conclusion by it that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation.
The EIR should omit unnecessary descriptions of projects and emphasize feasible
mitigation measures and alternatives to projects.
7.10 USE OF REGISTERED CONSULTANTS IN PREPARING EIRS.
An EIR is not a technical document that can be prepared only by a registered consultant "T''
or professional. However, state statutes may provide that only registered professionals can
prepare certain technical studies which will be used in or which will control the detailed design,
construction, or operation of the proposed project and which will be prepared in support of an
EIR.
7.11 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE.
An EIR may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document which is a
matter of public record or is generally available to the public. Any incorporated document shall
be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the EIR. When all or part of another
document is incorporated by reference, that document shall be made available to the public for
inspection at the City's offices. The EIR shall state where incorporated documents will be
available for inspection.
When an EIR uses incorporation by reference, the incorporated part of the referenced
document shall be briefly summarized, if possible, or briefly described if the data or information
cannot be summarized. The relationship between the incorporated document and the EIR shall
be described. When information from an EIR that has previously been reviewed through the
state review system ("State Clearinghouse") is incorporated by the City, the state identification
number of the incorporated document should be included in the summary or text of the EIR.
SACTOUTB122869\CiTI'�2005 7_4 �02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
�
7.12 STANDARDS FOR ADEQUACY OF AN EIR.
Environmental Impact IZeport
An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision
makers with information which enables them to make a decision which takes into account the
environmental consequences of the project. The evaluation of environmental effects need not be
e�austive, but must be within the scope of what is reasonably feasible. The E1R should be
written and presented in such a way that it can be understood by governmental decision makers
and members of the public. A good faith effort at completeness is necessary. The adequacy of
an EIR is assessed in terms of what is reasonable in light of factors such as the magnitude of the
project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and the geographic scope of the
project. CEQA does not require a Lead Agency to conduct every test or perform all research,
study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commentors, but CEQA does require
the Lead Agency to make a good faith, reasoned response to timely comments raising significant
environmental issues.
There is no need to unreasonably delay adoption of an EIR in order to include results of
studies in progress, even if those studies will shed some additional light on subjects related to the
project.
7.13 FORM AND CONTENT OF EIR.
The text of the EIR should normally be less than 150 pages. For proposals of unusual
scope or complexity, the EIR may be longer than 150 pages but should normally be less than 300
� pages. The required contents of an EIR are set forth in Sections 15122 through 15132 of the
State Guidelines. In brief, the EIR must contain:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
A table of contents or an index.
A brief summary of the proposed project and its environmental impacts.
A description of the proposed project, including its underlying purpose and a list of
permit and other approvals required to implement the project. (See Guidelines Section
7.17 regarding analysis of future project expansion.)
A description of the project's physical environmental conditions from both a local and
regional perspective at the time the Notice of Preparation is published, or if no Notice of
Preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis begins. (State Guidelines
Section 15125.) This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical
conditions by which the City determines whether an impact is significant. However, the
City may choose any baseline that is appropriate as long as the City's choice of baseline
is supported by substantial evidence.
A discussion of any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general
and regional plans.
A description of the direct and indirect significant environmental impacts of the proposed
project explaining which, if any, can be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance,
indicating reasons that various possible significant effects were determined not to be
significant and denoting any significant effects which are unavoidable or could not be
mitigated to a level of insignificance. Direct and indirect significant effects shall be
clearly identified and described, giving due consideration to both short-term and long-
term effects.
i�
�
SACTOVTB122869\C1TY12005
7-5
�02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Environmental Impact Report
An anal sis of a ran e of alternatives to the ro osed ro ect which could feasibl attain `��
(g) Y� g P P P J Y
the project's objectives as discussed in Guidelines Section 7.16.
(h) A description of any significant irreversible environmental changes which would be
involved in the proposed action should it be implemented if, and only if, the EIR is being
prepared in connection with:
(1) The adoption, amendment, or enactment of a plan, policy, or ordinance of a
public agency;
(2) The adoption by a Local Agency Formation Commission of a resolution making
determinations; or
(3) A project which will be subject to the requirement for preparing an
Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act.
(i)
�)
(k)
(1)
(m)
(n)
(o)
�P)
7.14
An analysis of the growth-inducing impacts of the proposed action. The discussion
should include ways in which the project could foster economic or population growth, or
the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding
environment.
A discussion of any significant, reasonably anticipated future developments and the
cumulative effects of all proposed and anticipated action as discussed in Guidelines
Section 7.17.
In certain situations, a regional analysis should be completed for certain impacts, such as
air quality.
A discussion of any economic or social effects, to the extent that they cause or may be
used to determine significant environmental impacts.
A statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a
project were determined not to be significant and, therefore, were not discussed in the
EIR.
The identity of all federal, state or local agencies or other organizations and private
individuals consulted in preparing the EIR, and the identity of the persons, firm or agency
preparing the EIR, by contract or other authorization. To the fullest extent possible, the
City should integrate CEQA review with these related environmental review and
consultation requirements.
A discussion of those potential effects of the proposed project on the environment which
the City has determined are or may be significant. The discussion on other effects may
be limited to a brief explanation as to why those effects are not potentially significant.
A description of feasible measures, as set forth in Guidelines Section 7.15, which could
minimize significant adverse impacts.
ANALYSIS OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.
An EIlZ must discuss cumulative impacts when the project's incremental effect is
"cumulatively considerable" as defined in Guidelines Section 10.10. When the City is
examining a project with an incremental effect that is not "cumulatively considerable," it need
not consider that effect significant, but must briefly describe the basis for this conclusion. 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 designed to alleviate the cumulative
�
SACTOUTB�22869\CITY12005 '7_6 OO 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Environmental Impact Report
� impact. The City must identify facts and analysis supporting its conclusion that the cumulative
impact is less than significant.
(a) 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.
(b) The discussion of cumulative impacts in an EIl2 must focus on the cumulative impact to
which the identi�ed other projects contribute, rather than the attributes of other projects
which do not contribute to the cumulative impact. The discussion of significant
cumulative impacts must meet either of the following elements:
(1) A list of past, present, and probable future projects causing related or cumulative
impacts including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the City; or
(2) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related
planning docurnent, or in a prior environmental document that was adopted or
certified, which described or evaluated regional or areawide conditions
contributing to the cumulative impact.
(c) When utilizing a list, as suggested above, factors to consider when determining whether
to include a related project should include the nature of each environmental resource
being examined and the location and type of project. Location may be important, for
example, when water quality impacts are involved since projects outside the watershed
� would probably not contribute to a cuznulative effect. Project type may be important, for
example, when the impact is specialized, such as a particular air pollutant or mode of
traffic.
(d) The City should define the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect
and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic limitation used.
(e) A cumulative impacts discussion contained in previously certified EIRs may be
incorporated by reference pursuant to the provisions for tiering and program EIRs.
7.15 ANALYSIS UF MITIGATION MEASURES.
The discussion of mitigation measures in an EIR must distinguish between measures
proposed by project proponents and other measures proposed by Lead, Responsible or Trust
Agencies. This discussion shall identify mitigation measures for each significant environmental
effect identified in the EIR.
Where several measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be disclosed 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 effects of the project and which may
be accomplished in more than one specified way.
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
disclosed but in less detail than the significant effects of the project itself.
SACTOVTB122869\CTfY�2045 ']_'] �02005 Best Best & KriegerLLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Environmental Impact Report
If a project includes a housing development, the City may not reduce the project's `�'
proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure or project alternative if the City
determines that there is another feasible specific mitigation measure or project alternative that
would provide a comparable level of mitigation without reducing the number of housing units.
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, regulating, or
other public project, mitigation measures can be incorporated into the plan, policy, regulation, or
project design. Mitigation measures must also be consistent with all applicable constitutional
requirements such as the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards.
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 not significant.
The City should, whenever feasible, seek to avoid damaging effects on any historical
resource of an archaeological nature. The following factors must be considered and discussed in
an EIR for a project involving an archaeological site:
(a) Preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological
sites.
(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, green space, or other open spaces;
(3) Covering the archaeological sites with a layer of . chemically stable soil before
building tennis courts, parkirig lots, or similar facilities on the site;
(4) Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.
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
excavation. Such studies must be deposited with the California Historical Resources Regional
Information Center.
Data recovery shall not be required for a historical resource if the City determines that
existing testing or studies 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.
7.16 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES IN AN EIR.
The alternatives analysis must describe and evaluate the comparative merits of a range of
reasonable alternatives to the project or to the location of the project which would feasibly attain
�
SACTOUTB�22869\CITY�2005 ']_g 02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Environmental Impact Report
�, most of the basic objectives of the project, but which would avoid or substantially lessen any of
the significant effects of the project. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to
a project, and it need not consider alternatives which are infeasible. Rather, it must consider a
reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decisionmaking and
public participation.
Purpose of the Alternatives Analysis: An EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid
the significant effects that a project may have on the environment. For this reason, a discussion
of alternatives must focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of
avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effect of the project, even if these alternatives
would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly.
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
purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant
effects, even if those alternatives would be more costly or would impede to some degree the
attainment of the project's objectives. 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 City and rejected as infeasible during the scoping process, and briefly explain
the reasons for rejection. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives should be
included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate
alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (a) failure to meet most of the basic
�project objectives; (b) infeasibility; or (c) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.
,
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.
The Rule of Reason: The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a"rule
of reason" which courts have held means that an alternatives discussion must be reasonable in
scope and content. Therefore, the EIR must set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit
public participation, informed decisionmaking, and 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 the City determines
could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. An EIlZ need not consider an
alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote
and speculative.
Feasibility of Alternatives: The factors that may be taken into account when addressing
the feasibility of alternatives include: 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 already owns the alternative site or can reasonably acquire, control or
SACTOUTB�22869\C1TY�2005 ']_9 02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Environmental Impact Report
.-,,
otherwise have access to the site. No one factor establishes a fixed limit on the scope of "
reasflnable alternatives.
Alternative Locations: The first step in the alternative location analysis is to determine
whether any of the significant effects of the project could be avoided or substantially lessened by
putting the project in another location. This is the key question in this analysis. Only locations
that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be
considered for inclusion in the EIR.
The second step in this analysis is to determine whether any of the alternative locations
are feasible. If the City concludes that no feasible alternative locations exist, it must disclose its
reasons, and it should include them in the EIR. Where a previous document has sufficiently.
analyzed a range of reasonable alternative locations and environmental impacts for a project with
the same basic purpose, the City should review the previous document. To the extent the
circumstances have remained substantially the same with respect to an alternative, the EIR may
rely on the previous document to help it assess the feasibility of the potential project alternative.
The "No Project" Alternative: The specific alternative of "no project" must be
evaluated along with its impacts. The purpose of describing and analyzing the no project
alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project
with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. The no project alternative analysis,
therefore, is normally not the baseline for determining whether the proposed project's
environmental impacts may be significant. The no project alternative will be the baseline only if .
it is identical to the existing environmental setting and the City has chosen the existing
environmental setting as the baseline.
A discussion of the "no project" alternative should proceed along one of two lines:
(a) When the project is the revisian 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; or
(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. This 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 would result in
predictable actions by others, such as the proposal of some other project, this "no project"
consequence should be discussed.
After defining the no project alternative, the City 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. If the "no project" alternative is the
SACTOVTB122$69\CITY12005 ']_ 10 OO 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Locai Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Environmental Impact Report
�, environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must also identify another environmentally
superior alternative among the remaining alternatives.
Remote or Speculative Alternatives: An EIR need not consider an alternative whose
effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.
7.17 ANALYSIS OF FUTURE EXPANSION.
An EIR must include an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion (or
other similar future modiiications) if there is credible and substantial evidence that:
(a) The future expansion or action is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial
project; and
(b) The future expansion or action is likely to change the scope or nature of the initial project
or its environmental effects.
Absent these two circumstances, future expansion of a project need not be discussed.
CEQA does not require speculative discussion of future development which is unspecific or
uncertain. However, if future action is not considered now, it must be considered and
environmentally evaluated before it is actually implemented.
7.18 NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF DRAFT EIR.
� Upon completion of a Draft EIR, Staff shall file a Notice of Completion (Form "H") with
the Office of Planning and Research in a printed hard copy or in electronic form on a diskette or
by electronic mail transmission. The City is encouraged to make copies of filed notices available
in electronic format on the Internet. Such electronic postings are in addition to the procedures
required by the CEQA Guidelines and the Public Resources Code. The Notice shall contain a
brief description of the proposed project, the location of the proposed project, current land use,
development type and project issues discussed in the EIR.
The City shall provide public notice of the completion of a Draft EIlZ at the same time it
sends a Notice of Completion to the Office of Planning and Research. The Notice of
Availability of Draft EIR (Form "K") shall specify the period during which comments will be
received on the Draft EIR, the date, time and place of any public hearings on the proposed
project, a brief description of the project and its location, the significant effects on the
environment, if any, anticipated as a result of the project, and the address where copies of the
Draft EIR and all documents referenced in the Draft EIR are available for review. Public
agencies are encouraged to make copies of filed Notices of Completion available in electronic
format on the Internet.
Notice shall be given to the last known name and address of all organizations and
individuals who have previously requested it. In addition, notice shall be given by at least one of
the following procedures:
(a) Publication at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the
�"''�, proposed project. If more than one area will be affected, the notice shall be published in
SACTOUTB1228691CITY�2005 �_ 11 02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
. ..,... ,
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Environmental Im�act Report
the newspaper of largest circulation from among the newspapers of general circulation in
those areas.
(b) Posting of notice on and off site in the area where the project is to be located.
(c) Direct mailing to owners and occupants of property contiguous to the project, as
identified on the latest equalized assessment roll.
The Notice shall be posted in the office of the Clerk in each county in which the project is
located for a period of thirty (30) days. The Clerk must post the Notice within twenty-four (24)
hours of receipt. Notice shall be mailed to any person who has filed a written request with the
City. The City may require these requests to be renewed annually and may charge a fee for the
reasonable cost of providing this service. A project will not be invalidated due to a failure to
send a requested notice provided there has been substantial compliance with these notice
provisions.
Copies of the Draft EIR shall also be made available at the City office for review by
members of the general public. Any person obtaining a copy of the Draft EIR shall reimburse
the City for the actual cost of its reproduction. Copies of the Draft EIR should also be furnished
to appropriate public library systems.
7.19 SUBMISSION OF DRAFT EIR TO STATE CLEARINGHOUSE.
A Draft EIR must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by state agencies in
the following situations: _
(a) The Draft EIR is prepared by a Lead Agency which is a state agency.
(b) A state agency is a Responsible Agency, Trustee Agency, or otherwise has jurisdiction by
law over resources potentially affected by the project.
(c) The Draft EIR is for a project identified in State Guidelines Section 15206 as being of
statewide, regional, or areawide significance.
State Guidelines Section 15206 identifies the following types of projects as being
examples of projects of statewide, regional, or areawide significance which require submission to
the State Clearinghouse for circulation:
• General plans, elements, or amendments for which an EIR was prepared.
• Projects which have the potential for causing significant environmental effects
beyond the city or county where the project would be located, such as:
• Residential development of more than 500 units.
• Commercial projects employing more than 1,000 persons or covering
more than 500,000 square feet of floor space.
• Office building projects employing more than 1,000 persons or covering
more than 250,000 square feet of floor space.
• Hotel or motel development of more than 500 rooms.
• Industrial projects housing more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than
40 acres of land, or covering more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.
• Projects for the cancellation of a Williamson Act contract covering more than 100 `��^"
acres.
SACTOUTB122869\C1TY12005 '7_12 �02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Environmental Impact Report
�,, • Projects in one of the following Environmentally Sensitive Areas:
• Lake Tahoe Basin.
• Santa Monica Mountains Zone.
• Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
� Suisun Marsh.
• Coastal Zone, as defined by the California Coastal Act.
• Areas within one-quarter mile of a river designated as wild and scenic.
• Areas within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission.
• Projects which would affect sensitive wildlife habitats or the habitats of any rare,
threatened, or endangered species.
� Projects which would interfere with water quality standards.
� Projects which would provide housing, jobs, or occupancy for 500 or more people
within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant.
A Draft EIR may be submitted to the State Clearinghouse where a state agency has
special expertise with regard to the environmental irnpacts involved.
Where the Draft EIR will be reviewed through the State review process handled by the
State Clearinghouse, a Notice of Completion (Form "H") should be used as a cover sheet. If the
City uses the State Clearinghouse's online process to submit the Notice of Completion form, the
form generated on the Internet site satisfies the State Clearinghouse's requirements.
� A sufficient number of copies of the documents must be sent to the State Clearinghouse
for circulation. Staff should contact the State Clearinghouse to find out the correct number of
printed copies required for circulation. In addition to the printed copies, a copy of the documents
in electronic format shall be submitted on a diskette or by electronic mail transmission if
available.
7.20 SPECIAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTE AND FUEL BURNING PROJECTS.
For any waste burning project, as defined in Guidelines Section 5.10, Notice of
Completion sha11 be given to all organizations and individuals who have previously requested
notice. In addition, Notice shall be given by direct mailing to the owners and occupants of
property within one-fourth mile of any parcel or parcels on which such a project is located.
7.21 REVIEW OF DRAFT EIR BY OTHER AGENCIES AND PERSONS.
Upon the filing and posting of a Notice of Completion, Staff shall consult with and obtain
comments from each Responsible Agency, Trustee Agency, and any other public agency having
jurisdiction by law over resources which may be affected by the project including water agencies
consulted pursuant to Guidelines Section 7.07. Those public agencies having jurisdiction by law
over the project sha11 include, but are not necessarily limited to:
(1) Any city or county bordering the project area;
� (2) Transportation planning agencies and public agencies with transportation facilities
located within the project area; and
SACTOUTB122869\CITY12005 �_ 13 02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Loca1 Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Environmental Impact Report
(3) The State Department of Water Resources, when a project is located within one mile of a �^`�
facility of the State Water Resources Development System.
Staff may also consult with and obtain comments from any person known to have special
expertise whose comments relative to the Draft EIR would be desirable. Staff may also consult
with any member of the public who has filed a written request for notice with the City Clerk and
any person whom the project applicant believes will be concerned with the environmental
effects of the project.
When a redevelopment agency establishes or amends its redevelopment plan and the
project area contains land in agricultural use, the agency shall also send a copy of the Draft EIR
to those specific agricultural and farm agencies and organizations as required by Health and
Safety Code Section 33333.3.
7.22 TIME FOR REVIEW OF DRAFT EIR; FAILURE TO COMMENT.
A period of between thirty (30) and sixty (60) days from the filing of the Notice of
Completion of the Draft EIR shall be allowed for review of and comment on the Draft EIlZ,
except in unusual situations. If a state agency is a Responsible Agency, or if the Draft EIR is
submitted to the State Clearinghouse, the review period shall be at least forty-five (45) days.
When a Draft EIR is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review, the public review period
shall be at least as long as the period of review established by the State Clearinghouse.
A shorter review period of the Draft EIR by the State Clearinghouse can be requested by '�`�
the City; however, a shortened review period shall not be less than thirty (30) days for a Draft
EIR. Any request for a shortened review period must be made in writing by the City to the
Office of Planning and Research. The City may designate a person to make these requests.
A shortened review period is not available for any proposed project of statewide, regional
or areawide environmental significance as determined pursuant to State Guidelines Section
15206. Any approval of a shortened review period shall be given prior to, and reflected in, the
public notices.
In the event a public agency, group, or person whose comments on a Draft EIR are
solicited fails to comment within the required time period, it shall be presumed that such agency,
group, or person has no comment to make, unless the lead agency has received a written request
for a specific extension of time for review and comment and a statement of reasons for the
request.
Continued planning activities concerning the proposed project, short of formal approval,
may continue during the period set aside for review and comment on the Draft EIR.
7.23 PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT EIR.
A public hearing on the Draft EIR document is not required by CEQA but may be held
by the decisionmaking body either in separate proceedings or in conjunction with other
proceedings of the City. The procedures for the manner of conducting the public hearings shall �
be described at the time the hearing convenes.
SACI'OVTB1228691CiTY�2005 �_ 14 02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Environmental Impact Report
The Draft EIR should be, used as the outline for discussion at the public hearing. If a
public hearing is held, it shall be conducted at least fourteen (14) days after the filing of the
Notice of Completion, but in no event after the time set for expiration of the comment period.
Public notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be posted in a conspicuous
location at City Hall and published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City at least
fourteen (14) days in advance of the hearing. The Notice also shall indicate the locations at
which the Draft EIR is available for review. To the extent that the City maintains an Internet
web site, notice of all public hearings should be made available in electronic format on that site.
7.24 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR.
The City as Lead Agency shall evaluate any comments on environmental issues received
during the public review period for the Draft EIR and shall prepare a written response to those
comments. As stated below, the City should also consider evaluating and responding to any
comments received after the public review period. The response of the City may take the form
of a revision of the Draft EIR, an attachment to the Draft EIlZ, or some other oral or written
response which is adequate under the circumstances of the project. The response must describe
the disposition of any significant environmental issues raised in the comment, such as revisions
to the proposed project which mitigate anticipated impacts or objections. If the City's position is
at variance with specific recommendations or suggestions raised in the comment, the City's
response must detail the reasons why such recommendations or suggestions were not accepted.
Moreover, the City shall respond to any specific suggestions for project alternatives or mitigation
� measures for significant impacts, unless such alternatives or mitigation measures are facially
infeasible. The response shall contain recommendations, when appropriate, to alter the project as
described in the Draft EIR as a result of an analysis of the comments received.
Comments submitted via email shall be treated as written comments for all purposes.
Comments sent to the public agency via email are deemed received when they actually arrive in
an email account of a staff person who has been designated or identified as the point of contact
for a particular project.
At least ten (10) days prior to certifying a Final EIR, the City shall provide its proposed
written response to any public agency which has made comments on the Draft EIR. The City is
not required to respond to comments received after the public review period. However, the City
should consider responding to all comments if it will not delay action on the Final EIR, since any
comrnent received before final action on the EIR can form the basis of a legal challenge. A
written response which refutes the comment or adequately explains the City's action in light of
the comment, will assist the City in defending against a legal challenge.
7.25 PREPARATION AND CONTENTS OF FINAL EIR.
Following the receipt of any comments on the Draft EIR as required herein, such
comments shall be evaluated by Staff and a Final EIR shall be prepared.
The Final EIlZ shall meet all requirements of Guidelines Sections 7.12 and 7.13 and shall
�'' consist of the Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft, a section containing either verbatim or in
summary the comments and recommendations received through the review and consultation
SACTOUTB122869\C1TY�2005 c
%-1S 02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Environmental Impact Report
process, a list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the Draft, and a '��
section containing the responses of the City to the significant environmental points raised in the
review and consultation process.
7.26 RECIRCULATION WHEN NEW INFORMATION IS ADDED TO EIR.
When significant new information is added to the EIR after notice and consultation, but
before certification, the City shall recirculate the Draft EIIZ for another public review period.
The term "information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as
additional data or other information.
New information is significant only when the EIR is changed in a way that would deprive
the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental
effect of a project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect, including a feasible
project alternative, that the project proponents decline to implement. Recirculation is required,
for example, when:
(1) new information added to an EIR discloses:
(a) a new significant environmental impact resulting from the project or from
a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented,
(b) a significant increase in the severity of an environmental impact (unless
mitigation measures are also adopted that reduce the impact to a level of
insignificance), or -
(c) a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure that clearly would
lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but which the
project proponents decline to adopt; or
(2) the Draft EIl2 is so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in
nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
Recirculation is not required when the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies
or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIlZ. If the revision is limited to
a few chapters or portions of the EIR, the City as Lead Agency need only recirculate the chapters
or portions that have been modified. A decision to not recirculate an EIR must be supported by
substantial evidence in the record.
When the City determines to recirculate a Draft EIR, it shall give Notice of Recirculation
(Form M) to every agency, person, or organization that commented on the prior Draft EIR. The
Notice of Recirculation must indicate whether new comments must be submitted and whether the
City has exercised its discretion to require reviewers to limit their comments to the revised
chapters or portions of the recirculated EIR. The City shall also consult again with those persons
contacted pursuant to Guidelines Section 7.18 before certifying the EIlZ.When the EIR is
substantially revised and the entire EIR is recirculated, the City may require that reviewers
submit new comments and need not respond to those comments received during the earlier
circulation period. In those cases, the City should advise reviewers that although their previous ,._..�
comments remain part of the administrative record, the final EIR will not provide a written
SACTOUTB�22869\CITY12005 �_ 16 OO 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Environmental Impact Repoft
,�, response to those comments, and new comments on the revised EIR must be submitted. The
�' City need only respond to those comments submitted in response to the revised EIR.
When the EIlZ is revised only in part and the City is recirculating only the revised
chapters or portions of the EIR, the City may request that reviewers limit their comments to the
revised chapters or portions. The City need only respond to: (1) comtnents received during the
initial circulation period that relate to chapters or portions of the document that were not revised
and recirculated, and (2) comments received during the recirculation period that relate to tYie
chapters or portions of the earlier EIR that were revised and recirculated.
When recirculating a revised ETR, either in whole or in part, the City must, in the revised
EIR or by an attachment to the revised E1R, summarize the revisions made to the previously
circulated draft EIR.
7.27 CERTIFICATION O� FINAL EIR.
Following the preparation of the Final EIR, Staff shall review the Final EIR and make a
recommendation to the City Council regarding whether the Final EIR is in order and whether it
has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State Guidelines and the City's Guidelines.
The Final EIR and 5taff recommendation shall then be presented to the City Council. The City
Council shall independently review and analyze the Final EIR and determine whether the Final
EIlZ reflects its independent judgment. The City Council shall certify and find that: (1) the Final
EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State Guidelines and the City's
�,, Guidelines; (2) the City Council has reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR before approving the
project; and (3) the Final EIlZ reflects the independent judgment of the City .
7.28 CONSIDERATION OF EIR BEFORE APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF PROJECT.
The EIlZ shall be reviewed and considered by the decisionmaking body before it approves
or disapproves the proposed project for which the EIIZ was prepared. The decisionmaking body
may then proceed to consider the proposed project for purposes of approval or disapproval.
Separately or in conjunction with its action approving or disapproving the project, the
decisionmaking body shall certify that it has reviewed an.d considered the information contained
in the EIR.
7.29 FINDINGS.
The decisionmaking body shall not approve or carry out a project if a completed EIR
identifies at least one significant effect of the project unless it makes one or more of the
following written findings for each such significant effect, accompanied by a statement of the
facts supporting each finding. Findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(a) That changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment, and which are fully
enforceable through permit conditians, agreements, or other measures. These mitigation
measures must be expressly adopted or rejected in the EIIZ. There should be a description
�"""`� of the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures. Passing references to
SACTOUTB122869\CITY12005 ']_ 1'] OO 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Environmental Impact Report
mitigation measures in other sections of the EIR, or in a Statement of Overriding ��`''
Considerations, are not sufficient.
(b) That such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the City. Such changes have been, or can and should be, adopted
by that other agency.
(c) That specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIIZ. The
decisionmaking body must make specific written findings stating why it has rejected an
alternative to the project as infeasible.
If any of the proposed alternatives could avoid or lessen an adverse impact for which no
mitigation measures are proposed, the City shall analyze the feasibility of such alternative(s). If
the project is to be approved without including such alternative(s), the City shall find that
specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including considerations
for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
alternatives identified in the Final EIR and shall list such considerations before such approval.
The decisionmaking body shall not approve or carry out a project as proposed unless (1)
the project as approved will not have a significant effect on the environment or (2) its signi�cant
environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened (as determined through one
or more of the findings indicated above), and any remaining, unavoidable significant effects have
been found acceptable because of facts and circumstances described in a Statement of Overriding
Considerations (see Guidelines Section 7.31). Statements in the Draft EIR or comments on the
Draft EIR are not determinative of whether the project will have significant effects.
When making the findings required by subdivision (a) of this section, the City as Lead
Agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which
constitute the record of proceedings upon which it based its decision.
7.30 SPECIAL FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR FACILITIE5 WHICH MAY EMIT HAZARDOUS AIR
EMISSIONS NEAR SCHOOLS.
Special procedural rules apply to projects involving the construction or alteration of a
facility within one-quarter mile of a school when: (1) the facility might reasonably be
anticipated to emit hazardous air emissions or to handle an extremely hazardous substance or a
mixture containing extremely hazardous substances in a quantity equal to or greater than the
threshold specified in Health and Safety Code Section 25532(j), and (2) the emissions or
substances may impose a health or safety hazard to persons who would attend or would be
employed at the school. If the project meets both of those criteria, the City may not certify an
EIR or approve a Negative Declaration unless both of the following occur:
(a) The City, as Lead Agency, consulted with the school district or districts having
jurisdiction over the school regarding the potential impact of the project on the school;
and
�.
SACTOV'I'B1228691CIT1'�2005 ']_ j g OO 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implemeating the
Califomia Bnvironmentai Quality Act (2005)
Environmental Impact Report
�,, (b) The school district was given written notification of the project not less than thirty (30)
days prior to the proposed certi�cation of the EIR or approval of the Negative
Declaration.
7.31 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.
Whenever a project approved by the decisionmaking body will cause unmitigated
significant environmental effects, the decisionmaking body must adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations. A Statement of Overriding Considerations allows the
decisionmaking body to approve a project despite one or more unmitigated significant
environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR. A Statement of Overriding Considerations
can be made only if feasible project alternatives or mitigation measures do not exist to reduce the
environmental impact(s) to a level of insignificance and the benefits of the project outweigh the
adverse environmental effect(s). The feasibility of project alternatives or mitigation measures is
determined by whether the project alternative or mitigation measure can be accomplished within
a reasonable period of time, taking into account econornic, environmental, social, legal and
technological factors. Project benefits which are appropriate to consider include the economic,
environmental, technological and social value of the project.
Substantial evidence in the entire record must justify the decisionmaking body's findings
and its use of the Statement of Overriding Considerations. If the decisionmaking body makes a
Statement of Overriding Considerations, the statement must be included in the record of the
� project approval and mentioned in the Notice of Determination.
7.32 MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM FOR EIR.
When making the findings required by subdivision (a) of Guidelines Section 7.29, the
City must do all of the following:
(a) adopt a reporting or monitoring program to assure that mitigation measures which are
required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment will be implemented
by the project proponent or ather responsible party in a timely manner, in accordance
with conditions of project approval;
(b) make sure all conditions and mitigation measures are feasible and fully enforceable
through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Such permit conditions,
agreements, and measures must be consistent with applicable constitutional requirements
such as the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards established by the case; and
(c) specify the location and the custodian of the documents which constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the City based its decision in the resolution certifying the EIR.
There is no requirement that the reporting or monitoring program be circulated for public
review; however, the City may choose to circulate it for public comments along with the Draft
EIR. The mitigation measures required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the
environment must be adopted as conditions of project approval.
��
. . . . ... .. .. .. ..... .. . . .. . . , . .,
SACTOUTB1228691C1TY12005 7_ 19 �02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Environmental Impact Report
The adequacy of a mitigation monitoring program is determined by the "rule of reason." ''
This means that a mitigation monitoring program does not need to provide every imaginable
measure. It needs only to provide measures that are reasonably feasible.
This reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to assure compliance during the
implementation or construction of a project. If a Responsible Agency or Trustee Agency has
required that certain conditions be incorporated into the project, the City may request that agency
to prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. The City shall also require
that prior to the close of the public review period for a Draft EIR (see Guidelines Section 7.21),
the Responsible or Trustee Agency submit detailed performance objectives for mitigation
measures, or refer the City to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents.
Any mitigation measures submitted to the City by a Responsible or Trustee Agency shall be
limited to measures which mitigate impacts to resources which are within the Responsible or
Trustee Agency's authority.
Transportation information resulting from the reporting or monitoring program required
to be adopted by the City shall be submitted to the regional transportation planning agency where
the project is located and to the Department of Transportation for a project of statewide, regional
or areawide significance as defined by State Guidelines Section 15206. The transportation
planning agency and the Department of Transportation are required by law to adopt guidelines
for the submittal of these reporting or monitoring programs, so the City may wish to tailor its
submittal to such guidelines.
Loca1 agencies have the authority to levy fees sufficient to pay for this program.
Therefore, the City will charge the project proponent a fee to cover actual costs of program
processing and implementation.
The City may delegate reporting or monitoring responsibilities to an agency or to a
private entity which accepts the delegation; however, until mitigation measures have been
completed, the City remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation
measures occurs in accordance with the program.
The City may choose whether its program will monitor mitigation, report on mitigation,
or both. "Rep�rting" is defined as a written compliance review that is presented to the Council
or an authorized staff person. A report may be required at various stages during project
implementation or upon completion of the mitigation measure. Reporting is suited to projects
which have readily measurable or quantitative mitigation measures or which already involve
regular review. "Monitoring" is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight.
Monitoring is suited to projects with complex mitigation measures which may exceed the
expertise of the City to oversee, are expected to be implemented over a period of time, or require
careful implementation to assure compliance.
At its discretion, the City may adopt standardized policies and requirements to guide
individually adopted programs.
,—�- �
Standardized policies or requirements for monitoring and reporting may describe, but are ,���
not limited to:
SACTOUTB122869\CTfY12005 '7_20 02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Loca1 Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Environmental Impact Report
� (a) The relative responsibilities of various departments within the City for various aspects of
the program.
(b) The responsibilities of the project proponent.
(c) Guidelines adopted by the City to govern preparation of programs.
(d) General standards for determining project compliance with the mitigation measures and
related conditions of approval.
(e) Enforcement procedures for noncompliance, including provisions for administrative
appeal.
( fl Process for informing the Council and staff of the relative success of mitigation measures
and using those results to improve future mitigation measures.
When a project is of statewide, regional, or areawide importance, any transportation
information generated by a program must be submitted to the transportation planning agency in
the region where the project is located, as well as the Department of Transportation.
7.33 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION.
Following consideration and approval of a project for which the City is the Lead Agency,
the decisionmaking body shall order Staff to prepare, certify and file, a Notice of Determination
(Form "F") which shall contain the following:
(a) An identification of the project by its common name, where possible, and its location.
(b) A brief description of the project.
� (c) The date when the City approved the project.
(d) Whether the project in its approved form will have a significant effect on the
environment.
(e) A statement that an EIR was prepared and certified pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
(� Whether mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project.
(g) Whether findings andlor a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the
project.
(h) The address where a copy of the EIR (with comments and responses) and the record of
project approval may be examined by the general public.
The Notice of Determination shall be filed with the Clerk of each county in which the
project will be located within five (5) working days of project approval. The City is encouraged
to make copies of filed notices available in electronic format on the Internet. Such electronic
notices are in addition to the posting requirements of the CEQA Guidelines and the Public
Resources Code.
The Clerk must post the Notice of Determination within twenty-four (24) hours of
receipt. The Notice must be posted in the office of the Clerk for a minimum of thirty (30) days.
Simultaneously with the filing of the Notice of Determination with the Clerk, Staff shall cause a
copy of such Notice to be posted at City Hall. If the project requires discretionary approval from
a state agency, the Notice of Determination shall also be filed with the Office of Planning and
Research, within five (5) working days of project approval, along with proof of payment of the
California Department of Fish and Game fee or Certificate of Fee Exemption (see Guidelines
�' Section 7.36).
SACTOUTB122869\C1TY12005 ']_21 �02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Loca1 Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Environmental Impact Report
The Clerk must post the Notice of Determination within twenty-four (24) hours of �
receipt. The Notice must be posted in the office of the Clerk for a minimum of thirty (30) days.
Thereafter, the Clerk shall return the notice to the City with a notation of the period it was
posted. The City shall retain the notice for not less than twelve (12) months. If the project
requires discretionary approval from any State agency, the Notice of Determination shall also be
filed with the Office of Planning and Research within five (5) working days of project approval
along with proof of payment of the California Department of Fish and Game fee or Certificate of
Fee Exemption (see Guidelines Section 6.18). Simultaneously with the filing of the Notice of
Determination with the Clerk, Staff shall cause a copy of the Notice of Determination to be
posted at City Hall.
When a request is made for a copy of the Notice prior to the date on which the City
certifies the EIR, the copy must be mailed, first class postage prepaid, within five (5) days of the
City's determination. If such a request is made following the City's determination, then the copy
should be mailed in the same manner as soon as possible. The recipients of such documents may
be charged a fee reasonably related to the cost of providing the service.
For projects with more than one phase, Staff shall file a notice of determination for each
phase requiring a discretionary approval. The filing and posting of a Notice of Determination
with the Clerk, and, if necessary, with the Office of Planning and Research, usually starts a thirty
(30) day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA. When separate
notices are filed for successive phases of the same overall project, the 30-day statute of limitation
to challenge the subsequent phase begins to run when the second notice is filed. Failure to file
the Notice results in a 180-day statute of limitations.
7.34 DISPOSITION OF A FINAL EIR.
The City shall file a copy of the Final EIR with the appropriate planning agency of any
city or county where significant effects on the environment may occur. The City shall also retain
one or more copies of the Final EIR as a public record for a reasonable period of time. Finally,
for private projects, the City may require that the project applicant provide a copy of the certified
Final EIR to each Responsible Agency.
7.35 PRIVATE PROJECT COSTS.
For private projects, the person or entity proposing to carry out the project shall be
charged a reasonable fee to recover the estimated costs incurred by the City in preparing,
circulating, and filing the Draft and Final EIlZs, as well as all publication costs incident thereto.
7.36 FILING FEES FOR PROJECTS WHICH AFFECT WILDLIFE RESOURCES.
At the time a Notice of Determination for an EIR is filed with the Clerk, a fee of $850
shall be paid to the Clerk for projects which will adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.
These fees are collected by the Clerk on behalf of the California Department of Fish and Game
("DFG").
Only one filing fee is required for each project unless the project is tiered or phased and '��
separate environmental documents are prepared. For projects where a Lead Agency and
SACTOUTB1228691CITI'�2005 '7_22 OO 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Environmental Impact Report
�,, Responsible Agencies file separate Notices of Determination, only the Lead Agency is required
to pay the fee.
Note: Most County Clerks customarily charge a documentary handling fee for each
project in addition to the filing fee specified above. Refer to the Index in the Staff Summary to
help determine the correct amount.
For private projects, the City shall pass these costs on to the project applicant.
No fees are required for projects with a"de minimis" effect on fish and wildlife
resources, or for certain projects undertaken by the DFG and implemented through a contract
with a non-profit entity or local government agency. A project with a"de minimis" effect has no
potential for adverse effect on fish and wildlife. This is an important exception. DFG considers
the following projects as likely to have "de minimis" effects on fish and wildlife, depending on
the specific facts of each project:
(1) Projects which enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats and result in no
accompanying adverse impacts to fish or wildlife;
(2) Lot line adjustments;
(3) Building remodeling;
(4) Annexations;
(5) Redevelopment on existing urban subdivisions with no wildlife habitat;
(6) Infill of undeveloped urban lots; or
�^*, (7) Adoption of a General Plan, where CEQA requires a subsequent discretionary project
approval before any physical change to natural habitat is permitted.
If the City believes that a project will have a"de minimis" effect on wildlife resources, it
should file the Certificate of Fee Exemption attached as Form "L". This form requires the City
to set forth facts in support of the fee exemption. These facts should include: (1) the name and
address of the project proponent; (2) a brief description of the project and its location; (3) a
statement that an Initial Study has been prepared by the City to evaluate the project's effects on
wildlife resources, if any; (4) a declaration that there is no evidence before the City that the
project will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources; and (5) a declaration that
the City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect
contained in the regulations. A presumption of adverse effect occurs if the project has the
potential for adverse effects on the fish and wildlife resources listed on Form "L". To rebut the
presumption of adverse effect, the City should explain in the declaration why the project would
not have an adverse impact on fish and wildlife and refer to any supporting evidence. These
findings should be made at the time of approval of the EIR and attached to Form "L" when
submitted to the County. Two copies of Form "L" must be filed with a Notice of Determination
in order to obtain the fee exemption.
If the City believes that a project has been undertaken by the DFG, that the project's costs
are payable from one or more of the sources indicated in the Fish and Game Code, and that the
project is being implemented through a contract with a non-profit entity or a local government
�;
agency, the DFG filing fee does not apply. Since the DFG has not yet adopted regulations to
SACTOUTB�22869\CiTY12005 '7_2,3 �02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Qua(ity Act (2005)
Environmental Impact Report
govern this exemption, including a new "Certificate of Fee Exemption," the City may wish to "
use Form "L" and make appropriate modifications to reflect this exemption.
,--��
SACTOVTB�228691CTfY�2005 '7_24 02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Locai Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2004)
�
S. TYPES OF EIRS
8.01 Pxo,�cT EIR.
Types of EIRS
The most common type of EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific
development project and focuses primarily on the changes in the environment that would result
from the development project. This chapter describes a number of examples of various EIRs
tailored to different situations. All EIRs must meet the content requirements summarized in
Guidelines Section 7.13.
8.02 SussEQuENT EIR.
A Subsequent EIR is required when a previous EIR has been prepared and certified or a
Negative Declaration ,has been adopted for a project and at least one of the three following
situations occur:
(a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of a
previous EIR due to the identification of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is to
be undertaken which will require major revisions of a previous EIR due to the
identification of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects; or
� (c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known with the
exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIIZ was certified as complete or
the Negative Declaration was adopted, becomes available and shows any of the
following: (1) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in a
previous EIR or Negative Declaration; (2) significant effects previously examined will be
substantially more severe than shown in a previous EIR; (3) mitigation measures or
alternatives previously found not to be feasible are in fact feasible and would
substantially reduce one or more significant effects, but the project proponent declines to
adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or (4) mitigation measures or alternatives
which were not considered in a previous EIR would substantially lessen one or more
significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the
mitigation measures or alternatives.
A Subsequent EIR must receive the same .circulation and review as the previous EIR
received.
In instances where the City is evaluating a modification or revision to an existing use
permit, the City may consider only those environmental impacts related to the changes between
what was allowed under the old permit and what is requested under the new permit. Only if
these differential impacts fall within the categories described above may the City require
additional environmental review.
When the City is considering approval of a development project which is consistent with
�' a general plan for which an EIR was completed, another EIR is required only if the project
causes environmental effects peculiar to the parcel which were not addressed in the prior EIR, or
SACTOUTB122869\C1T1'12005 g_ 1 OO 2004 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Quality Act (2004) Types of EIRS
which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior "`��
EIR.
8.03 SUPPLEMENT TO AN EIR.
The City as a Lead or Responsible Agency may choose to prepare a Supplement to an
EIR, rather than a Subsequent EIlZ, if any of the conditions described in Guidelines Section 8.02
would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR and only minor additions or changes would
be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation.
To assist the City in making this determination, the decisionmaking body should request an
Initial Study and/or a recommendation by Staff. The Supplement to the EIR need contain only
the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised.
A Supplement to an EIR shall be given the same kind of notice and public review as is
given to a Draft EIR, but may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous EIIZ.
When the decisionmaking body decides whether to approve the project, it shall consider
the previous EIR as revised by the supplement. Findings pursuant to Guidelines Section 7.29
shall be made for each significant effect shown in the previous EIR as supplemented.
8.04 AnnErrncrn� To Alv EIR.
The City as a Lead or Responsible Agency may choose to prepare an Addendum to an
EIR, rather than a Supplement to an EIR, only if none of the conditions described in Guidelines `�
Section 8.02 calling for preparation of a Subsequent EIR have occurred and only minor technical
changes or additions to the previous environmental document are necessary. Since significant
effects on the environment were addressed by findings in the original EIR, no new findings are
required in the Addendum.
An Addendum to an EIR need not be circulated for public review but should be included
in or attached to the Final EIR. The decisionmaking body shall consider the Addendum with the
Final EIR prior to making a decision on a project. A brief explanation of the decision not to
prepare a Subsequent EIR or a Supplemental E1R should be included in the Addendum, the Lead
Agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. This explanation must be supported
by substantial evidence.
8.05 TiE�n EIR.
"Tiering" refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a previously
certified broader EIR in later EIRs or Negative Declarations prepared for narrower projects. The
later EIR or Negative Declaration may incorporate by reference the general discussions from the
broader EIR and may concentrate solely on the issues specific to the later project.
An Initial Study shall be prepared for the later project and used to determine whether a
Tiered EIR may be used and whether new significant effects should be examined. A Tiered EIR
shall be used for later projects where a prior EIR has been prepared and certified for a program,
plan, policy, or ordinance and the City determines that:
SACTOUTB1228691CITY�2005 8_2 02004 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2004)
Types of EIRS
� (a) The later project is consistent with a program, plan, policy or ordinance for which an EIR
has been prepared and certified;
(b) The later project is consistent with applicable local land use plans and zoning of the city
and county in which the later project would be located; and
(c) The later project would not require a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. (See Guidelines
Sections 8.02 and 8.03.)
Tiering does not excuse the City from adequately analyzing reasonably foreseeable
significant environmental effects of a project, nor does it justify deferring analysis to a later tier
EIR or Negative Declaration. However, the level of detail contained in a first-tier EIR need not
be greater than that of the program, plan, policy, or ordinance being analyzed. When the City is
using the tierin.g 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. Such site-specific information can be
deferred, in many instances, until such time as the City 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.
Where a first-tier EIR has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or
ordinance consistent with the requirements of this section, the City should limit the EIR or
Negative Declaration on the later project to effects which:
� (a) Were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIIZ; or
(b) Are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by specific revisions in the project
such as the imposition of conditions or other means.
VVhen assessing whether there is a new significant cumulative effect for purposes of a
subsequent tier EIR, the City shall consider whether the incremental effects of the project would
be considerable when viewed in the context of past, present, and probable future projects.
The City may use only a valid CEQA document as a first-tier document. Accordingly,
the City should carefully review the first-tier environmental document to determine whether or
not the statute of limitations for challenging the document has run. If the statute of limitations
has not expired, the City should use the first-tier document with caution and pay carefiil attention
to the legal status of the document. If the first-tier document is subsequently invalidated by the
courts, any later environmental document may also be defective.
8.06 STAGED EIR.
Where a large capital project will require a number of discretionary approvals from
governmental agencies and one of the approvals will occur more than two years before
construction will begin, a Staged EIlZ may be prepared. The Staged EIIZ covers the entire project
in a general form or manner. A Staged EIl2 should evaluate a proposal in light of current and
contemplated plans and produce an informed estimate of the environmental consequences of an
entire project. The particular aspect of the project befare the City for approval shall be discussed
�,, with a greater degree of specificity.
SACTOUTB�22869\CTTY�2005 S_3 02004 Best Best & Krieger LLP
.. ,
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2004) Types of EIRS
Where a Staged EIR has been prepared, a Supplement to that EIR shall be prepared when
a later approval is required for the project, and the information available at the time of the later
approval would permit consideration of additional environmental impacts, mitigation measures,
or reasonable alternatives to the project.
8.07 PROGRAM EIR.
A Program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on an integrated series of actions that
are related either:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Geographically;
As logical parts in a chain of contemplated actions;
In connection with the issuance of rules, regulations, plans or other general criteria to
govern the conduct of a continuing program; or
As individual projects carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory
authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in
similar ways.
Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in light of the Program EIR to
determine whether additional environmental documents must be prepared. Additional
environmental review documents must be prepared if the proposed later project may arguably
cause significant adverse effects on the environment.
g.OB USE OF A PROGRAM EIR WITH SUBSEQUENT EIRS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS.
A Program EIR can be used to simplify the task of preparing environmental documents
on later parts of the program. The Program EIR can:
(a) Provide the basis for an Initial Study to determine whether the later activity may have any
significant effects.
(b) Be incorporated b�
cumulative impacts,
(c)
8.09
reference to deal with regional influences, secondary effects,
broad alternatives and other factors that apply to the program as a
whole.
Focus an EIR on a subsequent project to perxnit discussion solely of new effects which
had not been considered before.
USE OF AN EIR FROM AN EARLIER PROJECT.
A single EIR may be used to describe more than one project when the projects involve
substantially identical environmental impacts. Any environmental impacts peculiar to one of the
projects must be separately set forth and explained.
8.10 MasTER EIR.
A Master EIlZ is an EIlZ which may be prepared for:
(a) A general plan (including elements and amendments);
(b) A specific plan;
SACTOUTB�228691CTI'Y12005 8-4
02004 Best Best & Krieger LLP
.�—,
�
�>�
�
�
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2004)
Types of EIRS
(c) A project consisting of smaller individual projects to be phased;
(d) A regulation to be implemented by subsequent projects;
(e) A project to be carried out pursuant to a development agreement;
(� A project pursuant to or furthering a redevelopment plan;
(g) A state highway or mass transit project subject to multiple reviews or approvals; or
(h) A regional transportation plan or congestion management plan.
A Master EIR must do both of the following:
(a) Describe and present sufficient information about anticipated subsequent projects within
its scope, including their size, location, intensity, and scheduling; and
(b) Preliminarily describe potential impacts of anticipated subsequent projects for which
insufficient information is available to support a full impact assessment.
The City and Responsible Agencies identified in the Master EIR may use the Master EIR
to limit environmental review of subsequent projects. However, the Lead Agency for the
subsequent project must prepare an Initial Study to determine whether the subsequent project and
its significant environmental effects were included in the Master E1R. If the Lead Agency for
the subsequent project finds that the subsequent project will have no additional significant
environmental effect and that no new mitigation measures or alternatives may be required, it may
prepare written findings to that effect without preparing a new environmental document. When
the lead agency makes this finding, it must provide public notice of the availability of its
proposed finding for public review and comment in the same manner as if it were providing
public notice of the availability of a draft EIR. (See Sections 15177(d) and 15087 of the State
Guidelines and Section 7.18 of these Guidelines.)
When the Lead Agency cannot find that the subsequent project will have no additional
significant environmental effect and no new mitigation measures or alternatives will be required,
it must prepare either a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an EIR for the subsequent project.
The Master EIR cannot be used to limit review of a subsequent project if it was certified
more than five (5) years before the filing of an application for the subsequent project or if the
approval of a project that was not described in the Master EIR may affect the adequacy of the
environmental review in the Master EIR for any subsequent project. However, the five (5) year
limitation does not apply if the City finds that no substantial changes or information related to
the Master EIR exist and recertifies the Master EIR, or if it adopts a Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration or certifies a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR that makes
appropriate modification to the Master EIR.
The City as Lead Agency must provide Notice of Completion and Notice of Availability
of a Master EIR within a period of time prior to �nal adoption by the public agency, as described
in Guidelines Section 7.18.
The City may develop a fee program to fund the costs of a Master EIR.
�
SACTOUTB1228691CITY�2005
:
�02004 Besf Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2004)
8.11 FocusEv EIR.
Types of EIRS
A Focused EIR is an EIR for a subsequent project identified in a Master EIR. It may be
used only if the City finds that the Master EIR's analysis of cumulative, growth-inducing, and
irreversible significant environmental effects is adequate for the subsequent project. The
Focused EIR must incorporate by reference the Master EIR.
The Focused EIR must analyze additional significant environmental effects not addressed
in the Master EII2 and any new mitigation measures or alternatives not included in the Master
EIR. "Additional significant effects on the environment" means those project-specific effects on
the environment which were not addressed as significant effects on the environment in the
Master EIR.
The Focused EIR must also examine the following:
(a) Significant effects discussed in the Master EIR for which substantial new information
exists that shows those effects may be more significant than described in the Master EIR;
(b) Those mitigation measures found to be infeasible in the Master EIR for which substantial
new information exists that shows those effects may be more significant than described in
the Master EIR; and
(c) Those mitigation measures found to be infeasible in the Master EIR for which substantial
new information exists that shows those measures may now be feasible.
The Focused EIR need not examine the following effects:
(a) Those that were mitigated through Master EIR mitigation measures; and
(b) Those that were examined in the Master E1R in sufficient detail to allow project-specific
mitigation or for which mitigation was found to be the responsibility of another agency.
A Focused EIl2 may be prepared for a multifamily residential project not exceeding 100
units or a mixed use residential project not exceeding 100,000 square feet even though the
project was not identified in a Master EIR, if the following conditions are met:
(a) The project is consistent with a general plan, specific plan, community plan, or zoning
ordinance for which an EIR was prepared within five (5) years of the Focused EIR's
certification;
(b) The project does not require the preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR
pursuant to Guidelines Sections 8.02 or $.03; and
(c) The parcel is surrounded by immediately contiguous urban development, was previously
developed with urban uses, or is within one-half mile of a rail transit station.
A Focused EIR for these projects should be limited to potentially significant effects that
are project-specific andlor which substantial new information shows will be more significant
than described in the Master ElR. No discussion shall be required of alternatives to the project,
cumulative impacts of the project, or the growth-inducing impacts of the project. (See State
Guidelines Section 15179.5.)
�
SACTOUTB1228691C1TY12005 8_6 �02004 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2004)
� 9. CEOA LITIGATION
9.01 TIMELINES.
CEQA Litigation
When a CEQA lawsuit is filed, there are numerous and complex time requirements that
must be met. Pressing deadlines begin to run in the days immediately after a CEQA lawsuit has
been filed. For example, within ten (10) business days of the public agency being served with a
petition or complaint alleging a violation of CEQA, the Lead Agency must provide the petitioner
with a list of Responsible Agencies and public agencies with jurisdiction by law over any natural
resource affected by the project at issue.
There are a variety of other deadlines that apply in CEQA litigation. If a CEQA lawsuit
is filed, CEQA counsel should be contacted immediately in order to ensure that all the applicable
deadlines are met.
9.U2 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD.
When the lead agency's CEQA finding andlor action is challenged in a lawsuit, the lead
agency must certify the administrative record that formed the basis of the lead agency's decision.
To the extent the documents listed below exist and are not subject to a privilege that exempts
them from disclosure, the following items should be included in the administrative record:
(1) All project application materials;
�
(2) All staff reports and related documents prepared by the public agency with
respect to its compliance with the substantive and procedural requirements
of CEQA and with respect to the action on the project;
(3) All staff reports and related documents prepared by the public agency and
written testimony or documents submitted by any person relevant to any
findings or statement of overriding considerations adopted by the public
agency pursuant to this division;
(4) Any transcript or minutes of the proceedings at which the decisionmaking
body of the public agency heard testimony on or considered any
environmental document on the project, and any transcript or minutes of
proceedings before any advisory body to the respondent public agency that
were presented to the decisionmaking body prior to action on the
environmental documents or on the project;
(5)
(6)
All notices issued by the public agency to comply with CEQA or with any
other law governing the processing and approval of the project;
All written comments received in response to, or in connection with,
environxnental docurnents prepared for the project, including responses to
the notice of preparation;
�
SACTOUTB�2.28691C1TY�2005
9-1
OO 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
L.ocal Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2004)
CEQA Litigation
(7) All written evidence or correspondence submitted to, or transferred from, `'�"
the public agency with respect to compliance with CEQA or with respect
to the project;
(S) Any proposed decisions or �ndings submitted to the decisionmaking body
of the public agency by its staff or the project proponent, project
opponents, or other persons, to the extent such documents are subject to
public disclosure;
(9) The docurnentation of the final public agency decision, including the final
environmental impact report, mitigated negative declaration, or negative
declaration, and all documents, in addition to those referenced in
paragraph (3) above, cited or relied on in the findings or in a statement of
overriding considerations adopted pursuant to CEQA;
(10) Any other written materials relevant to the respondent public agency's
compliance with CEQA or to its decision on the merits of the project,
including the initial study; any drafts of any environmental document, or
portions thereof, that were released for public review; copies of studies or
other documents relied upon in any environmental document prepared for
the project and either made available to the public during the public
review period or included in the public agency`s files on the project; and
internal agency connmunications related to the project or to compliance
with CEQA, to the extent such documents are subject to public disclosure; `��
and
(11) The full written record before any inferior administrative decisionmaking
body whose decision was appealed prior to the filing of the lawsuit
The administrative record should be organized either chronologically or by topic area.
The administrative record should include a master index of documents. The documents
generated by the lead agency during the CEQA process should be properly labeled for ease of
identification.
,--���
_.._ ., .... . .
SACTOUTB1228691CITY12005 9_2 02005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
�
Loca] Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005) Definitions
10. DEFINITIONS
Whenever the following terms are used in these Guidelines, they shall have the following
meaning unless otherwise expressly defined:
10.01 "Applicant" means a person who proposes to carry out a project which requires a
lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use, or requires financial aid
from one or more public agencies when applying for governmental approval or
assistance.
10.02 "Aqproval" means a decision by the decisionmaking body or other authorized body
or officer of the City which commits the City to a definite course of action with regard
to a particular project. With regard to any project to be undertaken directly by the
City, approval shall be deemed to occur on the date when the decisionmaking body
adopts a motion or resolution determining to proceed with the project, which in no
event shall be later than the date of adoption of plans and specifications. As to private
projects, approval shall be deemed to have occurred upon the earliest commitment to
provide service or the issuance by the City of a discretionary contract, subsidy, or
other form of financial assistance, lease, permit, license, certificate, or other
entitlement for use of the project. The mere acquisition of land by the City shall not,
in and of itself, be deemed to constitute approval of a project.
For purposes of these Guidelines, all environmental documents must be completed as
of the time of project approval.
10.03 "Baseline" refers to the pre-project environmental conditions. By comparing the
project's potential impacts to the baseline, the lead agency determines whether the
project's impacts are substantial enough to be significant under the relevant thresholds
of significance. Generally, the baseline is the environmental conditions existing on
the date the environmental analysis begins, such as the date of the Notice of
Preparation is published for an EIR or the date of the Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Negative Declaration. However, in certain circumstances, an earlier or later date may
provide a more accurate environmental analysis. The City may establish any baseline
that is appropriate, including an earlier or later date, as long as the choice of baseline
can be supported by substantial evidence.
10.04 "CE A" (the California Environmental Quality Act) means California Public
Resources Code Sections 21000, et se�c .
10.05 "Categorical Exemption" means an exception from the requirement of preparing a
Negative Declaration or an EIR, based on a finding by the Secretary of the Resources
Agency that the class of projects does not have a significant effect on the environment.
10.06
"Citv" means the City of Palm Desert, California.
10.07 "Clerk" means either the "Clerk of the Board" or the "County Clerk" depending upon
�' the county. Please refer to the "Index to Environmental Filing by County" in the Staff
SACTOUTB122869\CTfY12005
1 �-1 OO 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2005)
Summary to determine which applies.
10.08 "Communitv-Level Environmental Review" means either (1) or (Z) below:
(1) A certified Environmental Impact Report for any of the following actions:
(a) A general plan,
(b) A revision or update to the general plan that includes at least the, land
use and circulation elements,
(c) An applicable community plan,
(d) An applicable specific plan, or
(e) A housing element of the general plan, if the Environmental Impact
Report analyzed the environmental effects of the density of the
proposed project; or
(2) A negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration adopted as a
subsequent environmental review document, following and based upon an
Environmental Impact Report on a general plan, community plan or specific
plan.
�
10.09 "Cumulative Imnacts" means two or more individual effects which, when considered
together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental
impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a
number of separate projects, whether past, present or future. ,---�.
The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which
results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related
past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts can
result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a
period of time.
10.10 "Cumulativelv , Considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual
project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.
10.11 "Decisionmaking Bodv" means the body within the City, i.e., City Council or
Planning Commission, with final approval authority over the particular project. (See
Guidelines Section 10.02.)
10.12 "Develoned Open Saace" means land that meets each of the following three criteria:
(a) Is publicly owned, or financed in whole or in part by public funds, �.
(b) Is generally open to, and available for use by, the public,
(c) Is predominantly lacking in structural development other than structures
associated with open spaces, including, but not limited to, playgrounds,
swimming pools, ballfields, enclosed child play areas, and picnic facilities.
.�--�,
Definitions
Developed Open Space includes land that has been designated for acquisition by a
SAC!'OUTB�22869\CITY12005 1 �_2 OO 2005 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2004)
Definitions
�•., Developed Open Space includes land that has been designated for acquisition by a
public agency for open space purposes, but does not include lands acquired by public
funds dedicated to the acquisition of land for housing purposes.
10.13 "Develonment Proiect" means any project undertaken for the purpose of
development, including any project involving the issuance of a permit for construction
or reconstruction but not a permit to operate. It does not include any ministerial
projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies. (Government
Code Section 65928.)
10.14
�
�
10.15
"Discretionary Proiect" means a project for which approval requires the exercise of
independent judgment, deliberation, or decision-making on the part of the City.
"Draft EIR" means an EIR containing the information summarized in Guidelines
Section 7.13.
10.16 "Emergencv" means a sudden, unexpected occurrence, involving a clear and
imminent danger, demanding immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss of, or
damage to, life, health, property, or essential public services. Emergency includes
such occurrences as fire, flood, earthquake, landslide or other natural disaster, as well
as such occurrences as riot, war, terrorist incident, accident or sabotage.
10.17 "Environment" means the physical conditions which exist in the area which will be
affected by a proposed project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna,
ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.
10.18 "EIR" (Environmental Impact Report) means a detailed written statement setting
forth the environmental effects and considerations pertaining to a project. EIR may
mean either a Draft or a Final version of an EIR, a Project EIR, a Subsequent EIR, a
Supplemental EIR, a Tiered EIR, a Staged EIl2, a Program EIR, a Master EIR, or a
Focused EIR.
10.19 "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and
technological factors;
10.20 "Final EIR" means an EIR containing the information contained in the Draft EIR,
comments either verbatim or in summary received in the review process, a list of
persons commenting, and the response of the City to the comments received.
10.21 "Historical Resources" shall be determined according to the following:
(a) Resources listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of
Historical Resources shall be considered historical resources.
(b) Resources included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or identified as significant in a
historical resource survey, as specified in Public Resources Code Section
5024.1(g), are presumed to be historically or culturally significant, unless a
SACTOUTB1228691CITY�2005
��13G�
02004 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Locai Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2004)
Definitions
preponderance of evidence demonstrates that they are not historically or
culturally significant.
Any of the following may be considered historically significant: any object,
building, structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript which a lead agency
determines, based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record, to be
historically signiiicant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific,
economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military or cultural annals of
California.
The lead agency is not precluded from determining that a resource is a
historical resource, as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1,
even if it is: (a) not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California
Register of Historical Resources; (b) not included in a local register of historical
resources; or (c) not identified in a historical resources survey.
10.22 "Infill Site" means a site in an urbanized area that meets either of the following
criteria:
(1} The immediately adjacent parcels are:
(a) (i) developed with qualified urban uses, or (ii) at least ?5% of the
perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with qualified �^'`'
urban uses and the remaining 25°l0 of the site adjoins parcels that have
previously been developed for qualified urban uses,
(b) the site has not been developed for urban uses, and
(c) nv parcel within the site has been created within the past ten (10) years;
or
(2) The site has been previously developed for qualified urban uses. (Public
Resources Code Section 21061.0.5.)
10.23 "Initial Studv" means a prelirninary analysis conducted by the City to determine
whether an EIR or a Negative Declaration must be prepared or to identify the
significant environmental effects to be analyzed in an EIR.
10.24 "Jurisdiction bv Law" means the authority of any public agency to grant a permit or
other entitlement for use, to provide funding for the project in question or to exercise
authority over resources which may be affected by the project.
The City will have jurisdiction by law over a project when the City, having primary
and exclusive jurisdiction over the area involved, is the site of the project, the area in
which the major environmental effects will occur, or the area in which reside those
citizens most directly cancerned by any such environmental effects.
10.25 "Land Disnosal Facilitv" means a hazardous waste facility where hazardous waste is ��
SACTOUTB�22869\CiTY12005 10-4 UO 2004 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2004) Definitions
�'"`�, disposed in, on, or under land. (Health and Safety Code Section 25199.1(d).)
10.26 "Large Treatment Facilitv" means a treatment facility which treats or recycles one
thousand (1,000) or more tons of hazardous waste during any one month of the current
reporting period commencing on or after July 1, 1991. (Health and Safety Code
Section 25205.1(d).)
10.27 "Lead A�encv," means the public agency which has the principal responsibility for
preparing environmental documents and for carrying out or approving a project when
more than one public agency is involved with the same underlying activity.
10.28 "Low-Income Households" means households of persons and families of very low
and low income. Low-income persons or families are those eligible for financial
assistance from governmental agencies for occupants of state-funded housing. Very
low income persons are those whose incomes do not exceed the qualifying limits for
very low income families as established and amended pursuant to Section 8 of the
United States Housing Act of 1937. Such limits are published and updated in the
California Code of Regulations. (Public Resources Code Section 21159.20(c).)
10.29 "Low- and Moderate-Income Households" means persons or families whose
income does not exceed 120% of area median income, adjusted for family size in
accordance with adjustment factors adopted and amended by the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development pursuant to Section 8 of the United
� States Housing Act of 1937. (Public Resources Code Section 21159.20(d).)
10.30 "Maior Transit 5ton" means a site containing an existing rail station, a ferry terminal
served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major
bus routes that operate at least every fifteen (15) minutes during the morning and
afternoon peak commute periods. (Public Resources Code Section 21064.3.)
10.31 "Miti�ated Ne�ative Declaration" means a Negative Declaration prepared for a
Project when the Initial Study has identified potentially significant effects on the
environment, but: (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to
by, the applicant before the proposed Negative Declaration and Initial Study are
released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point
where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no
substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the
project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.
10.32 "Mitigation" means avoiding the environmental impact altogether by not taking a
certain action or parts of an action, minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or
magnitude of the action and its implementation, rectifying the impact by repairing,
rehabilitating or restoring the impacted environment, reducing or eliminating the
impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the
action, or compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources
or environments.
�9 . . ' . , . , . . _
SAGTOUTB�2,2869\C1TY12005 10-5 OO 2004 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2004)
Definitions
10.33 "Negative Declaration" means a written statement by the City briefly describing the ��
reasons that a proposed project, not exempt from CEQA, will not have a significant
effect on the environment and, therefore, does not require the preparation of an EIR.
10.34 "Notice of Completion" means a brief report filed with the Office of Planning and
Research by the City when it is the Lead Agency as soon as it has completed a Draft
EIR and is prepared to send out copies for review.
10.35 "Notice of Determination" means a brief notice to be filed by the City when it
approves or determines to carry out a project which is subject to the requirements of
CEQA.
14.36 "Notice of Exemption" means a brief notice which may be filed by the City when it
has approved or determined to carry out a project, and it has determined that the
project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Such a notice may also be filed by
an applicant where such a determination has been made by a public agency which
must approve the project.
10.37 "Notice of Preuaration" means a brief notice sent by a Lead Agency to notify the
Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies that the Lead Agency plans to prepare an
EIR for a project. The purpose of this notice is to solicit guidance from such agencies
as to the scope and content of the environmental information ta be included in the
EIR. �
10.38 "Oak" means a native tree species in the genus Quercus, not designated as Group A
or Group B commercial species pursuant to regulations adopted by the State Board of
Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4526 of the Public Resources Code,
and that is 5 inches or more in diameter at breast height. (Public Resources Code §
21083.4(a).)
10.39 "Oak Woodlands" means an oak stand with a greater than 10 percent canopy cover
or that may have historically supported greater than 10 percent canopy cover. (Fish &
Game Code § 1361(h).)
10.40 "Offsite Facilitv" means a facility that serves more than one generator of hazardous
waste. (Public Resources Code Section 21151.1(13)(g).)
10.41 "Person" includes any person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business,
trust, corporation, company, city, county, city and county, town, the state, and any of
the agencies which may be political subdivisions of such entities.
10.42 "Private Proiect" means a project which will be carried out by a person other than a
governmental agency, but which will need a discretionary approval from the City.
Private projects will normally be those listed in subsections (b) and (c) of Guidelines
Section 10.43.
�.e
10.43 "Proiect" means the whole of an action or activity which may cause either a direct
physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the
SACTOUTB122869\CTfY12005 10-6 OO 2004 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2004)
�
environment, and is any of the following:
(a)
(b)
(c)
Definitions
A discretionary activity directly undertaken by the City including but not
limited to public works construction and related activities, clearing or grading
of land, or improvements to existing public structures.
A discretionary activity which involves a public agency's issuance to a person
of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or ather entitlement for use, or which is
supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans or
other forms of assistance by the City.
A discretionary project proposed to be carried out or approved by public
agencies, including but not limited to the enactment and amendment of local
General Plans or elements thereof, the enactment of zoning ordinances, the
issuance of zoning variances, the issuance of conditional use permits and the
approval of tentative subdivision maps.
The presence of any real degree of control over the manner in which a project is
completed makes it a discretionary project.
The term project refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be
subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies. The term project
does not mean each separate governmental approval.
10.44 "Proiect-Speci�c Effects" means all the direct or indirect environmental effects of a
�'"'` project other than cumulative effects and growth-inducing effects. (Public Resources
Code Section 21065.3.)
10.45 "Ouali�ed Urban Use" means any residential, commercial, public institutional,
transit or transportation passenger facility, or retail use, or any combination of those
uses. (Public Resources Code Section 21072.)
10.46 "Residential" means a use consisting of either residential units only or residential
units and primarily neighborhood-serving goods, services, or retail uses that do not
exceed 15% of the total floor area of the project.
10.47 "Responsible Agencv" means a public agency which proposes to carry out or approve
a project for which a Lead Agency has prepared the environmental documents. For
the purposes of CEQA, the term "Responsible Agency" includes all federal, state,
regional and local public agencies other than the Lead Agency which have
discretionary approval power over the project.
10.48 "Si�ni�cant Effect" means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in
any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the activity including land,
air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic
significance. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be
considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.
�"� 10.49 "Staff" means the City Manager or his or her designee.
SACTOUTB122869\CITY�2005 10_^] 02004 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2004) Definitions
10.50 "Standard" means a standard of general application that is a11 of the following: �r`�
(a) A quantitative, qualitative or performance requirement found in a statute,
ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, order, or other standard of general
application;
(b) Adopted for the purpose of environmental protection;
(c) Adopted by a public agency through a public review process;
(d) Governs the same environmental effect which the change in the environment is
impacting; and
(e) Governs the jurisdiction where the project is located.
The de�nition of "standard" includes thresholds of significance adopted by the City
which meet the requirements of this Section.
If there is a conflict between standards, the City shall determine which standard is
appropriate based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record.
10.51 "State Guidelines" means the Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act as adopted by the Secretary of the California Resources
Agency as they now exist or hereafter may be amended. (California Administrative
Code, Title 14, Sections 15000, et seg.)
10.52 "Substantial Evidence" means reliable information on which a fair argument can be
based to support an inference or conclusion, even though another conclusion could be
drawn from that information. "Substantial evidence" includes facts, reasonable
assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.
"Substantial evidence" does not include argument, speculation, unsubstantiated
opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of
social or economic impacts which do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical
impacts on the environment.
10.53 "Tierin�" means the coverage of general matters in broad scope or Program EIRs,
with subsequent narrower environmental documents (such as site-specific EIlZs)
incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the
issues specific to the environmental document subsequently prepared.
10.54 "Transaortation Facilities" means major local arterials and public transit within five
(5) miles of the project site, and freeways, highways, and rail transit service within ten
(10) miles of the project site.
10.55 "Trustee A�encv" means a State agency having jurisdiction by law over natural
resources affected by a project which are held in trust for the people of the State of
California. Trustee Agencies may include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) The California Department of Fish and Game ("CDFG") with regard to the fish
and wildlife of the state, designated rare or endangered native plants, and game �..�
refuges, ecological reserves, and other areas administered by CDFG.
(b) The State Lands Commission with regard to state owned "sovereign" lands
SACTOITTB\22869\C1TY12005 10_8 OO 2004 Best Best & Krieger LLP
�
�
�
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2004) Definitions
such as the beds of navigable waters and state school lands.
(c) The State Department of Parks and Recreation with regard to units of the State
Park System.
(d) The University of California with regard to sites within the Natural Land and
10.56
Water Reserve System.
(e) The State Water Resources Control Board with respect to surface waters.
"Urbanized Area" means any one of the following:
(1) An incorporated city that has a population of at least one hundred thousand
(100,000) persons;
(2) An incorporated city that has a population of less than one hundred thousand
(100,000) persons if the population of the city and not more than two
contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least one hundred thousand
(100,000) persons; or
(3) An unincorporated area that meets both of the following requirements:
(a)
ro�
10.57
The unincorporated area is either:
(i) completely surrounded by one or more incorporated cities, the
population of the unincorporated area and the population of the
surrounding incorporated city or cities equals not less than one
hundred thousand (100,000) persons and the population density
of the unincorporated area at least equals the population density
of the surrounding city or cities; or
(ii) located within an urban growth boundary and has an existing
residential population of at least five thousand (5,000) persons
per square mile.
The board of supervisors with jurisdiction over the unincorporated area
has previously issued a finding that the general plan, zoning ordinance,
and related policies and programs applicable to the area are consistent
with principles that encourage compact development, and the board of
supervisors previously submitted a draft of that finding to the Office of
Planning and Research for a thirty (30) day comment period prior to
issuing a final finding. (Public Resources Code Section 21071.)
"Urban Growth Boundarv" means a provision of a locally adopted general plan that
allows urban uses on one side of the boundary and prohibits urban uses on the other
side of the boundary.
10.58 "Wetlands" has the same meaning as that term is construed in the regulations issued
by the United States Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the Clean Water Act. Thus
"wetlands" means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
(Public Resources Code Section 21159.21(d), incorporating Title 33, Code of Federal
SACTOUTB�228691CITY12005
10-9
02004 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2004) Definitions
Regulations, Section 328.3.) �
10.59 "Wildlife Habitat" means the ecological communities upon which wild animals,
birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and invertebrates depend for their conservation and
protection. (Public Resources Code Section 21159.21.)
10.60 "Zonin� Approval" means any enactment, amendment, or appeal of a zoning
ordinance; granting of a conditional use permit or variance; or any other form of land
use, subdivision, tract, or development approval required from the city or county
having jurisdiction to permit the particular use of the property.
�•�
�---�.
SACTOUTB�228691CiT1'�2005 10-10 OO 2004 Best Best & Krieger LLP
�
�
�
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2004)
SACTOUTB�22869\CITY12005
11. FORMS
11-1
Forms
fl2004 Best Best & Krieger LLP
�
PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT
(Certif cate of Determination
When Attached to Notice of Exemption)
�
Name or description of project:
Project Location — Identify street
address and cross streets or attach a
map showing project site (preferably a
USGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographical map
identified by quadrangle name):
Entity or person undertaking project: I A.
IB. Other (Private)
I(1) Name
I (2) Address
1
7
3.
4. Staff Determination:
The City's Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in accordance with the City's
"Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" has concluded that this
project does not require further environmental assessment because:
a. ❑ The prop�sed action does not constitute a project under CEQA. I
b. ❑ The project is a Ministerial Project.
c. ❑ ( The project is an Emergency Project.
d. ❑ I The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study.
e. ❑ I The project is categorically exempt.
IApplicable Exemption Class: �
f. ❑ I The project is statutorily exempt. I
a
IApplicable Exemption:
g. ❑ The project is otherwise exempt on
the following basis:
h. ❑ I The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency. I
IName of Lead Agency: � �
Date:
SACRAMENTOUTB121742. i1C1TY�2005
Staff:
FORM "A"
�
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
TO: ❑ Clerk of the Board of Supervisors FROM:
or
❑ County Clerk
1.
2.
' 3.
1
� 4.
5.
6.
7.
�
�
I
I 8.
I 9.
I 10.
Project Title:
Project Location — Identify street address and
cross streets or attach a map showing project site
(preferably a USGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographical
map identified by quadrangle name):
(a} Project Location — City: �
�
(b) Project Location — County:
Description of nature, purpose, and beneficiaries
of Project:
Name of Public Agency approving project:
Name of Person or Agency carrying out project: I
f
Exempt status: (check one)
(a) ❑ Ministerial project.
(b) ❑ Not a project.
(c) ❑ Ernergency Project.
(d) ❑ Categorical Exempdon.
State type and class number:
(e) ❑ Declared Emergency.
(fl ❑ Statutory Exemption. �
E
State Code section number: �
(g) ❑ Other. Explanation: ;
3
Reason why project was exempt: �
Contact Person:
Telephone:
Attach Preliminary Exemption Assessment (Form "A") before �Iing.
Date Received for Filing:
(Clerk Stamp Here)
Signature (Lead Agency Representative)
Title
rrs�isg9. rcrr�zoos
FORM "B"
ENVIRONMENTAL Il�IPACT ASSESSMENT
� (STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY)
Name or description of project:
2. Project Location — Identify street
address and cross streets or attach a
map showing project site (preferably a
USGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographical map
identified by quadrangle name):
3. Entity or person undertaking project:
A.
B. Other (Private)
(1) Name:
(2) Address:
4. Staff Determination:
The City's staff, having undertaken and completed an Initial Study of this project in accordance with the City's
"Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, has reached the
following conclusion:
a. ❑ The project could not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Negative
Declaration should be adopted.
�a b. ❑ The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects on the environment but revisions in the
project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects, or
mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore a
Mitigated Negative Declaration should be adopted.
c. ❑ The project may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, an Environmental Impact
Report will be required.
Date:
�
Staff:
SACRAMENTOUTB121594.1\CITY12005 FORM "C"
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATNE DECLARATION/
MITIGATED NEGATNE DECLARATION
�
�
�
Notice is hereby given that the public agency named below has completed an Initial Study of the following described
project at the following location:
Public Agency:
Project Name:
Project Location — Identify street address and
cross streets or attach a map showing project site
(preferably a USGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographical
map identified by quadrangle name):
This Initial Study was completed in accordance with the City's Guidelines implementing the California Environmental
Quality Act. This Initial Study was undertaken for the purpose of deciding whether the project may have a significant
effect on the environment. On the basis of such Initial Study, the City's Staff has concluded that the project will not have
a significant effect on the environment, and has therefore prepared a Draft Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative
Declaration. The Initial Study reflects the independent judgment of the City.
The Project site IS on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5.
The Project site IS NOT on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5.
The proposed project IS considered a project of statewide, regional or areawide signi�cance.
The proposed project IS NOT considered a project of statewide, regional or areawide significance.
The proposed project WII.L affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State Department of
Transportation.
The proposed project WILL NOT affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State
Department of Transportation.
A scoping meeting WILL be held by the lead agency.
■
■
■
■
■
❑�
A scoping meeting WILL NOT be held by the lead agency.
�■
If the project meets the criteria requiring the scoping meeting, or if the agency voluntarily elects to hold such a meeting,
the date, time and location of the scoping meeting are as follows:
IDate: l Time: � Location:
Copies of the Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration are on file and are available
for public review at City Hall, located at:
City Hall address:
Comments wili be received until the followirig date:
Any person wishing to comment on this matter must submit such comments, in writing, to the City prior to this date.
Comments of all Responsible Agencies are also requested.
The City Council will consider the project and the Draft Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration at its
meeting on:
IDate:
Time:
If the City Council finds that the project will not have a signiiicant effect on the environment, it may adopt the Negative
Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration. This means that the City Council may proceed to consider the project
without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.
Date Received
for Fiiing:
Staff
(Clerk Stamp Here)
Title
SACRAMENTOUTB121593.11CITY12005
FORM "D"
�
�
�
S ACRAMEiVTOUTB121593.1 \CTf Y12005
•• �
�
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1 A.
IB. Other (Private)
I (1) Name:
I (2) Address:
The City Councit, having reviewed the Initial Study of this proposed project and having reviewed the written camments
received prior to the pub]ic meeting of the City Council, including the xecommendation of the City's Staff, does hereby
find and declare that the proposed project will not have a signiiicant effect on the environment. A brief statement of the
reasons supporting the City Council's findings are as follows:
1. Name or description of project:
2. Project Location — Identify street
address and cross streets or attach a
map showing project site (preferably
a USGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographical
map identi�ed by quadrangle name):
3. Entity or Person undertaking project:
The City Council hereby finds that the Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgment. A copy of the Initial
Study may be obtained at:
� � Phone No.: �
The location and custodian of the documents and any other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon
which the City based its decision to adopt this Negative Declaration are as follows:
IPhone No.: �
Date Received
for Filing:
Staff
�
SACRAMENTOUTB�21603.1 \CTTY12005
FORM "E"
�
�
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
TO: ❑ Clerk of the Board of Supervisors FROM: City of:
or Address:
❑ County Clerk Contact:
County of: Phone:
Address:
❑ Office of Planning and Research (If the project requires state approval)
P.O. Box 3044 (U.S. Mail)
Sacramento, California 95812-3044
1400 Tenth Street, Room 222 (overnight delivery)
Sacramento, California 95814
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in Compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code.
Project Title:
State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person:
(If submitted to SCH):
Telephone Number:
Project Location — Identify street address and cross street or attach a map showing project site (preferably a USGS 15' or
71/z' topographical map identified by quadrangle name):
Project Location (City and/or County):
Project Description:
This is to advise that the (0 Lead Agency or ❑ Responsible Agency) approved the above described project on:
and made the following determinations:
I1. ❑� The project will have a signiiicant effect on the environment.
I❑� The project will NOT have a significant effect on the environment
I 2. ❑� An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified for this project pursuant to the provisions of
CEQA and reflects the independent judgment of the Lead Agency.
❑ A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and reflects the
independent judgment of the Lead Agency.
❑ A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and reflects
the independent judgment of the Lead Agency.
I3. ❑ Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project.
, I ❑� Mitigation rneasures were iVOT made a condition of the approval of the project.
1 4. ❑� A Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Plan was adopted for this project.
f
SACRAMENTO/JTB/21602.1/CTTY12005 1 FORM "F'
I❑ f A Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Plan was NOT adopted for this project. �
,� 5. ❑� A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this project. I
� �
� t
❑; A Statement of Overriding Considerations was NOT adopted for this project i
I6. ❑� Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of C�QA. �I
1
� ❑ i Findings were NOT made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. �
7. ❑ The location and custodian of the documents which comprise the record of proceedings for the Final EIR (with
cornments and responses) or Negative Declaration are specified as follows: (
Custodian:
Date:
Date Received for Filing:
�
�
Location:
Signature:
Title:
SACRAMENTOUTB�21602.1\C1TY�200S 2 FORM "F"
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
�
TO: [Insert Responsible Agency or Trustee Agency] FROM:
[Insert Address]
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Dra�t Environmental Impact Report.
The City of: [INSERT CITY NAME] will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the
project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental
information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your
agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project.
The Project description, location, and the probable environmental effects are contained in the attached materials.
❑ A copy of the Initial Study IS attached.
❑ A copy of the Initial Study IS NOT attached.
❑ The proposed project IS considered a project of statewide, regional or areawide significance.
❑ The proposed project IS NOT considered a project of statewide, regional or areawide signi�cance.
❑ The proposed project WILL affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State Department of
Transportation.
� ❑ The proposed project WII..L NOT affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State
Department of Transportation.
❑ A scoping meeting WILL be held by the lead agency.
❑ A scoping meeting WILL NOT be held by the lead agency.
SACRAMENTOUTB�21601.11CI'TY�2005
FORM "G"
If the project meets the criteria requiring the scoping meetang, or if the agency voluntarily elects to hold such a meeting,
the date, time and location of the scoping meeting are as follows:
� � Date:
Time: I Location:
Your response must be sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice.
Please send your response to [INSERT NAME] at the address shown above. We will need the name of a contact person
in your agency.
� Project Title:
Project Location — Specific: Identify street
address and cross street or attach a map
showing project site (preferably a USGS 15' or
7'/i' topographical map identified by
quadrangle name):
NProject Description:
� Project Applicant (if any):
(California Environmental Protection Agency
Hazardous Waste List (if applicable):
Date: � Signature:
� ( Title:
ITelephone: I
Consulting firm retained to prepare draft EIR (if applicable):
Name: I
Address: �
City/State/Zip: I
Contact Person: +
i
�
SACRAMENTOUTB12160].11C17'Y12005 2 FORM "G"
NOTICE OF COMPLETION & ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT TRANSMITTAL
For U.S. MaiL• State Clearinghouse, PO Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
�r Hand Delivery and Overnight Delivery/Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, Room 222, Sacramento, CA 95812
�916) 445-0613
PROJECT TITLE
LEAD AGENCY ! CONTACT PERSON
I
STREET ADDRESS TE�EPHONE
(If no street address is available, attach a map showing project site (preterably a USGS 15' or 7 Yz' topographical map identified by
quadrangle name.)
CITY ZIP CODE I COUNTY
IPROJECT LOCATION
f COUNTY
�
� CROSS STREEI"S
IASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
IWITHIN 2 MILES: STATE HIGHWAY NO.
I AIRPORTS
DOCUMENTTYPE
� CEQA
Npp �[� I Supplement to EIR
,.] Early Cons ❑ Subsequent EIR
I❑ Neg Dec I❑ I(Prior SCH No.):
I❑ I Mit Neg Dec I❑( Other:
I ❑ I Draft EIR I �
LOCAL ACTION TYPE
( ❑ ( General Plan Update
I❑ I General Plan Amendment
I❑ I General Ptan Element
� p I Community Plan
DEVELOPMENT TYPE
� ❑ � Residential: Units:
� ❑ Office: Sq. Ft.:
I p I Commercial: Sq. Ft.:
I❑ I Industrial: Sq. Ft.:
I❑ Educational:
I ❑ Recreational:
I �
Totat Acres (approx.j;
� }
NEPA
❑ NOI
❑ EA
❑ I Draft EIS
❑ � FONSI
CITY/NEARES7
t TOTAL ACRES
I
� RANGE I BASE
SCHOOLS
( OTHER
I ❑ Joint Document
I ❑ Final Document
I ❑ Other:
� �
� I
❑ Specific Plan ❑ Rezone ❑ Annexation
❑ Master Pian ❑ Prezone ❑ Redevelopment
I❑ Planned Unit Devetopment � ❑ Use Permit ❑ Coastal Permit
I❑ Site Ptan I❑ � Land Division (Subdivision, I❑ Other.
etc.)
Acres:
Acres:
Acres:
Acres:
CITY/NEAREST COMMUNITY
ZIP CODE
SECTION TOWNSHIP
WATERWAYS
flAILWAYS
Employees:
Employees:
Employees:
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
Water Facilities:
Transportation:
Mining:
Power:
Waste Treatment:
Hazardous Waste:
Other:
Type:
Type:
Minerai:
Type:
Type:
Type:
MGD:
MW:
MGD:
SACRAMENTOWTB121600.i\CITYl20a5 1 FORM "H"
PROJECT ISSUES THAT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT OR POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT:
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
AestheticNisual
Agricultural Land
Air Quality
Archeological/Historical
Biological Resources
Coastal Zone
Drainage/Absorption
( Economic/Jobs
I Fiscal
I Flood Plain/Fiooding
I Forest Land/Fire Hazard
■
■'
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
Geologic/Seismic
Minerals
Noise
Population/Housing Balance
Public Services/FaciliUes
Recreation/Parks
I Schools/Universities
� Septic Systems
I Sewer Capacity
I Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading
I Solid Waste
ToxidHazardous
Traffic/Circulation
Vegetation
Water Quality
Water Supply/Groundwater
Wetland/Riparian
Wildlife
Growth Inducement
Land Use
Cumulative Effects
Other:
PRESENT LAND USE20NING/GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (vlease use a seaarate pape if necessarvl
NOTE.• Clearinahouse wi!! assian identification numbers for all new proiects. !f a SCH number alreadv exists (or a proiect (e.q. NoNce or PreDaration ornrevious drak
document) olease fi!lin.
Revised 2005
�
Reviewing Agencies Checklist
KEY: S= Document sent by lead agency
X= Document sent by SCH
T = Suggested distribution
Lead Aaencies mav recommend State Clearinahouse distribution mv markina aoencies beJo�r.
Air Resources Board
Boating & Waterways, Department of
California Highway Patrol
Caltrans District #
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
Caltrans Planning
Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy
Coastal Commission
Colorado River Board
Conservation, Department of
Corrections, Department of
Deita Protection Commission
Education, Department of
Office of Public School Construction
Energy Commission
Fish & Game Region #
Food & Agriculture, Department of
� Forestry & Fire Protection
Generai Services, Department of
Health Services, Department of
Housing & Community Development
Appendix C
Iniegrated Waste Management Board
Native American Heritage Commission
Office of Emergency Services
Office of Historic Preservation
Parks & Recreation
Pesticide Regulation, Department of
Public Utilities Commission
Reclamation Board
Resources Agency
S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission
San Gabriei & Lower Los Angeles Rivers & Mountains Conservancy
San Joaquin River Conservancy
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
State Lands Commission
SWRCB: Clean Water Grants
SWRCB: WaterQuality
Tahoe Regional Pianning Agency
Toxic Substances Control, Department of
Water Resources, Department of
Other.
Other:
SACRAMENTOWT6121600.1\CITY12005 2 FORM "H"
Local Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency):
Starting Date: Ending Da#e:
�3nature:
Lead Agency (Complete if Applicable):
Consulting Firm:
Address:
City/State2ip:
Contact:
Phone:
Appiicant:
Address:
City/State2ip:
Phone:
� "
Date:
For SCH Use Only:
Date Received at SCH
Date Review Starts
Date to Agencies
Date to SCH
Clearance Date
Nofes:
,
SACRAMENTO�,ITB�21600.11CI'M2005 3
FORM "H"
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM,
(To be completed by private project applicant to assist staff in completing Initial Study)
Date Filed:
GENERAI. INFORMATION
1.
�
I 3.
4.
5
Developer or project sponsor: I Name:
IAddress:
Project Location — Identify street
address and cross streets or attach
a map showing project site
(preferably a USGS 15' or 7 1/2'
topographical map identified by
quadrangle name):
Assessor's Block and Lot Number: I
Person to be contacted regarding Name:
this project:
Address:
Telephone:
Permit Application Number for
project:
Existing Zoning District:
Proposed use of site (project for
which this form is filed):
� 6
�7
�
List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required
by city, regional, state and federal agencies:
8. Site size:
I9. Square footage:
10. Number of floors of construction:
11. Amount of off-street parking
provided:
I12. Attach plans:
I13. Proposed scheduling:
� 14. Associated projects:
I 15. Anticipated incremental
development:
SACRAMENTOUT'B121598. 1 C ITI'�2005
Page 1
FORM "I„ '
16.
, �
17.
I
18.
I
19.
1
20.
�
�
If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sales prices or rents and type of
hou�ehold size expected.
If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area
and loading facilities.
If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift and loading facilities.
If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated empioyment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading
facilities and community bene�ts to be derived from the project.
If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the
application is required.
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects?
Discuss below a11 items checked yes {attach additional sheets as necessary).
�■
■
■
■
■
■
NO
❑
�
■
■
■
■
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, lakes, hills or substantial alteration of
ground contours.
22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads.
23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project.
24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Change in ocean, bay, lake, streann or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing
drainage patterns.
Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity.
Site on iilled land or on slope of 10 percent or more.
Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or
explosives.
Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, iue, water, sewage, etc.).
Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.).
Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
Has a prior environmental irnpact report been prepared for a program, plan, policy or ordinance
consistent with this project?
[] ❑ 34. If you answered yes to question 33, may this project cause signi�cant effects on the environment
SACRAMENTOUTB121598. 1CITY12005 Pagg � F(�RM "I"
YES NO
that were not examined in the prior EIIZ?
�
�
�
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
35. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants
and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the
use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. (Snapshots or instant photos acceptable.)
36. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or
scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family,
apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-back, rear yard,
etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. (Snapshots or instant photos acceptable.)
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and
information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information
presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signature:
Date:
For:
SACRAMENTOUTB�21598. 1CT!'Y12005 Page 3
FORM "I"
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
�
�
1. Project Title:
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
4. Project Location:
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
6. General Plan Designation:
7. Zoning:
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the
project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its impiementation. Attach additional
sheet(s) if necessary.)
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement}:
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that
is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
� Aesthetics
� Biological Resources
[� Hazards & Hazardous Materials
� Mineral Resources
� Public Services
� Utilities / Service Systems
CITY (STANDARD)\SACUTB12005�22628.1
� Agriculture Resources
� Cultural Resources
� Hydrology / Water Quality
� Noise
� Recreation
� Mandatory Findings of Significance
Page 1 of 15
■
■
■
■
■
Air Quality
Geology / Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation / Traffc
F�RM �<J„
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
� � I iind that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
� I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
� I find that the proposed project MAY have a signi�cant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
� I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated"
impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
� I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to
applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing
further is required_
Signature
Date
�' Printed Name For
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based
on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,
based on a project-specific screening analysis).
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than signiitcant.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one
or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a"Less than Significant Impact." The
lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
�� �
CITY (STANDARD)1SACUTB12005�22628.1 Page 2 of 15 _,� = FORM "7"
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D}. In this case, a brief discussion
should identify the foliowing:
�
a)
Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b)
Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the eariier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
�
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts
(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should
normaIly address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format
is selected.
The explanation of each issue should identify:
a)
b)
the signi�cance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
�
SAMPLE QUESTION
Issues:
AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, tress, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade, the existing
visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
CITY (STANDARD)\SACVTB12005122628.1
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
Page 3 of 15
❑
❑
❑
No
Impact
❑
❑
❑
0
FORM "J"
�
�
�
Issues:
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmentai effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model
to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b} Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use?
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the
significance criteria established by the applicable air
quality management or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to nnake the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b} Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantiaily to an
existing or projected air quality
violation?
c} Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is nonattainment
under an applicable federa3 or state
ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
CITY (STANDARD)\SACUTB\2005122628.1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
❑�
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
❑�
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
Page 4 of 15
Less Than
Signi�cant
Impact
�
No
Impact
�❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
��
i�
FORM "J»
Issues:
�,
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting
a substantial number of people?
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
b)
�
c)
d)
e)
�
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological intenuption, or
other means?
Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Signi�cant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
0
❑�
�
�❑
❑�
CI
■❑
�
�'
�❑
�I
�❑
U
,�
�❑
❑�
❑�
❑
■❑
❑■
CITY (STANDARD)\SACUTB12005�22628.1 Page 5 of 15 FORM "7"
Issues:
��
fl Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
CITLTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontologicai resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
�� GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fauit, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soii erosion or
� the loss of topsoil?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Signi�cant Mitigation Signifcant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
�
■
■
■
�
■
■
■
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
�.
�
■
1
■
�
'�
■
■
■
■
CITY (STANDARD)\SACUTB12005122628.1 Page 6 of 15 FORM "J"
�
�
�
Issues:
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstabie, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site tandslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18 1 B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a signi�cant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upsetand
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c} Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
CITY (STANDARD)\SACUTB12005122628.1
Page 7 of 15
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
No
Impact
❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
FORM "J"
Issues:
a
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
fl For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
�
�
g) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of Ioss, injury or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net defcit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
CITY (STANDARD)\SACVTB12005�22628.1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
❑
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
❑
❑ ❑
0 0
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
Page 8 of 15
Less Than
Significant
Impact
❑
No
Impact
❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
�
C'�
FORM "J"
Issues:
�
d) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
fl Otherwise substantially degrade
water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year
flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
� h) Place witliin a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede
or redirect flood fiows?
i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of
a levee or dam?
j) Expose people or structures to
inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
�
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Irnpact Incorporated Impact Impact
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
■ ■
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
�I
�
CTI'Y (STANDARD)\SACVTB12005\22628.1 Page 9 of 15 FORM "J"
�**�, Issues:
�
�
b) Conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited
to the general plan, speci�c plan,
local coastai program, or zoning
ordinance} adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of vaIue to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
NOISE. Would the project result in:
a} Exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise leveis?
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
CTfY (STANDARD)\SACVTB�2D05�22628.1
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
n
n
.
n
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
Page 10 of 15
No
Impact
❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
�
0
u
u
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
�❑
❑■
FORM "J"
�
�
�
Issues:
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
fj For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
POPULATION AND HOUSING. WouId the
proj ect:
a) Induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through extension of
road or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a} Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
Fire protection?
CIT'Y (STANDARD)\SACUT"B12005�22628.1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
❑
�i
�❑
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
❑
U
�■�J
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
u
�
Page 11 of 15
❑�
n
Less Than
Significant
Impact
❑
0
�
No
Impact
❑
0
❑�
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
�i
n
�❑
�
FORM "J"
Issues:
Police protection?
s�noois?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regionai parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of
the facility woutd occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreationai
facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational
facilities which have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would the
project:
��
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county
congestion management agency for
� designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, inciuding either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due
to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
� equipment)?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Signiiicant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
❑ o ❑ ❑
❑ 0 ❑ O
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
CITY (STANDARD)\SACUTB12005122628.1 Page 12 of 15 FORM "J"
Issues:
��
�
�
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
fl Result in inadequate parking
capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
UTII..ITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would
the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction
of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion af
existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction
of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
d} Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources,
or are new or expanded entitlements
needed? In making this
determination, the City shall
consider whether the project is
subject to the water supply
assessment requirements of Water
Code Section 10910, et• seq. (SB
610), and the requirements of
Government Code Section 664737
(SB 221).
Cl'TY (STANDARD}\SACUTB\2005122628.1
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Signi�cant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ o ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page 13 of 15
FORM "J"
�
�
�
Issues:
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity
to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's
existing commitments?
fl Be served by a Iandfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFTCANCE
a) Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fsh or
wildlife species; cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels; threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community; substantialiy reduce the
number or restrict the range of an
endangered,rare orthreatened
species; or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term environmental
goals to the disadvantage of long-
term environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumuTatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a
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.)
CTCY (STANDARD)\SACUTB�2005�22628.1
Page 14 of 15
Potentially
Signi�cant
Impact
❑
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ o
❑ ❑
Less Than
Significant
Impact
❑
No
Impact
0
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑�
�
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
FORM "J"
�
�
Issues:
d) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
CITY (STANDARD)1SACUTB�2005�22628.I
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Signi�cant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
❑ ❑ ❑
Page 15 of 15
No
Impact
��l
I�Li7;7�ii�t�
NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF DRAFT EII2,
Project Title:
�;
Project Location — Specific; Identify
street address and cross streets or
attach a map showing project site
(preferably a USGS 15' or 7 1/2'
topographical map identified by
quadrangle name):
�
Project Location — City:
Project Location — County: �
Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project:
The Signiiicant Effects on the Environment, if any, Anticipated as a Result of the Project:
Lead Agency: (
Division
Date when project noticed to public:
Address where copy of the EIR is available:
Review Period:
Contact Person:
Contact Person's Telephone (Area
Code/Extension:
S ACRAMENT'OUTB�21596.1 \C TI'Y�2005
• ._��
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION
�
De Minimis Impact Finding
Project Title/Location (include county):
Name and Address of Project Applicant:
Project Description:
Findings of Exemption:
1. An Initial Study has been prepared by the I.ead Agency to evaluate the project's effects on wildlife
resources, if any.
2. The Lead Agency hereby �nds that there is no evidence before the Agency that the project will have any
potential for adverse effect on the environment.
� 3. (a) The project WILL result in changes � 3. (b) The project WII.L NOT result in changes to the
to the following resources: following resources:
(A) Riparian land, rivers, streams, watercourses and wetlands;
(B) Native and non-native plant life and the soil required to sustain habitat for fish and wildlife;
(C) Rare and unique plant life and ecological communities dependant on plant life;
(D) Listed threatened and endangered plants and animals and the habitat in which they are believed
to reside;
(E) All species listed as protected or identified for special management in the Fish and Game Code,
the Public Resources Code, the Water Code or regulations adopted thereunder;
(F) All marine and terrestrial species subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of Fish and Game
and the ecological communities in which they reside; and
(G) All air and water resources, the degradation of which will individually or cumulatively result in a
�.; loss of biological diversity among the plants and anirnals residing in that air and water.
If the project will result in changes to any of these resources, the Agency has, on the basis of substantial
evidence, "rebutted" the presumption of adverse effect to these resources. A statement in support of this
rebuttal is attached.
CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that the Lead Agency has made the above finding(s) of fact and based upon the Initial Study and
the hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as
defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
Signature - Lead Agency Representative
Title:
Lead Agency:
Date:
JTB121595. I CTI'Y120D5
FORM "L"
NOTICE OF RECIltCULATION
�
To whom it may concern:
CITY OF:
You are receiving this notice because you commented on the Draft EIR for the foilowing Project:
Project Name:
Project Description:
Project Location — Identify street address and
cross streets or attach a map showing project site
(preferably a USGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographical
map identifed by quadrangle name):
' The Draft EIR prepared for this project has been revised.
❑ The entire Draft EIR is being recircutated. Your prior comments remain part of the administrative record, but
they are no longer applicable to the Draft EIR that is under consideration. The Final EIR will not provide a
response to your prior comments. Should you wish to comment on the revised Draft EIR, you will need to
submit new comments.
❑ Only the following chapters or portions of the
Draft EIR have been revised, and only those parts
of the revised Draft EIR are being recirculated:
❑ Your comments should be limited to those parts of the revised Draft EIl2 that are being recirculated.
❑ Your comments need not be limited to those parts of the revised Draft EIR that are being recirculated.
Should you have any questions about this notice, please contact:
Staff:
Title:
Telephone Number:
E-Mail:
Date Received
for �iling:
Staff
(Clerk Stamp Here)
�
Title
SACRAMENTOVTB122617. 1CTI'Y12005 FORM "M"
[Date]
General Manager
ABC Water District/Agency/Company
123 Main St.
Anytown USA, 9xxxx
Re: Water Supply Assessment for Project within the City of
Dear M(r/s.)
We have received an application from [project proponent] for the following project
("Project"):
[list applications and briefly describe project]
[We have consulted with each other and have mutually agreed that your
[District/Agency/Company] is a public water system that may provide water service to
the Project. We have also mutually agreed that the Project is subject to the water supply
assessment requirements of Water Code sections 10910 - 10912.] Pursuant to Water
Code section 10910, [City] requests [District/Agency/Company] to submit a water supply
assessment for the Project on or before , which is within 90 days of the
date of this request. We concurrently request the [District/Agency/Company] to state
� whether the projected water demand associated with the Project was included as part of
the City's most recently adopted Urban Water Management Plan. Please contact me to
confirm receipt of this request.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions about this
request, please contact me at your earliest convenience.
[Name]
[Title]
City of [City]
�
SACRAMENTOUTB120051CITY�21636.1
[Date]
General Manager
ABC Water District/Agency/Company
123 Main St.
Anytown USA, 9xxxx
Re: Water Supply Verification for Project within the City of .
Dear M(r/s.) ,
[Subdivision proponent] has submitted to the City an application for tentative map (No. ## -##)
for the following subdivision ("Subdivision"):
[insert project description]
[City staff has determined that the application is complete. Pursuant to Government Code
section 66455.3, we are enclosing a copy of the application.]
[We have consulted with each other and have mutually agreed that your
[District/Agency/Company] is a public water system that may provide water service to the
Subdivision. We have also mutually agreed that the Subdivision is subject to the water supply
verification requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.] Pursuant to Government Code section
66473.7(b)(1), [City] requests [District/Agency/Company] to submit a water supply verification
�, for the Subdivision on or before , which is within 90 days of the date of this
request. Please contact me to confirm receipt of this request.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions about this request,
please contact me at your earliest convenience.
[Name]
[Title]
City of [City]
�
3ACRAMENTOVTB12005\CITY121637.1
RESOLUTION NO. 0552
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
AND ADOPTING LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR
IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (PUB. RESOURCES CODE §§ 21000
ET SEQ.)
WHEREAS, the California Legislature has amended the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) and
the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regs, tit. 14, §§ 15000 et seq.), and the California
courts have interpreted specific provisions of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, Section 21082 of CEQA requires all public agencies to adopt
objectives, criteria, and procedures for the evaluation of public and private projects undertaken
or approved by such public agencies, and the preparation, if required, of environmental impact
reports and negative declarations in connection with that evaluation; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Desert ("City") must revise its local guidelines for
implementing CEQA to make them consistent with the current provisions and interpretations of
CEQA.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California,
does hereby resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. The City adopts "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California
Environmental Quality Act (2005 Revision)," a copy of which is on file at the offices of the City
and is available for inspection by the public.
CITYISACUTB\2005122071.1
RESOLUTION NO. 05-52
repealed.
SECTION 2. All prior actions of the City enacting earlier guidelines are hereby
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Palm Desert City Council held this
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
day of , 2005, by the following
BUFORD A. CRITES, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, CITY CLERK
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
CITY\SACUTB\2005\22071.1 2