Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
closure by determining that no further action is required under CEQA and
the proposed action can proceed to implementation. It is comparable to a
NEPA Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) following completion of
an EA. Similar to a FONSI, the CEQA negative determination can be condi-
tioned by imposing mitigation that must be accomplished when the action
is implemented.
The lead agency issues the negative determination, including any mandated
mitigation, but it is incumbent on all the responsible agencies to concur. The
other agencies must base their issuance of approvals on the finding and are
liable to litigation if all CEQA requirements and conditions are not satisfied by
the determination. Thus, they have a vested interest in review and validation
of decisions associated with the issuance of a negative determination.
If the action could cause significant impact, the lead agency makes and pub-
licizes the decision to prepare an EIR. The lead agency is responsible for the
preparation of the EIR, but they may request information, data, evaluations,
or even funding from the project proponent if the agency action is approval of
a private action. They may also adopt analyses done by others after compre-
hensive review and affirmation that they accurately reflect conditions appli-
cable to the project under review. The CEQA requirements and procedures for
an EIR follow very closely those for a NEPA EIS. Like NEPA, but unlike the
Massachusetts equivalent (Section 8.6.1), scoping of the environmental analysis
is the responsibility of the lead agency. They are required to actively involve
other agencies that must ultimately issue approvals (which is similar to the
Massachusetts program) and other stakeholders in the scoping process. But the
lead agency makes the final decision on scope and under CEQA guidance must
consider and include, or dismiss with cause, a laundry list of environmental
resources and types of effects that are specified as part of CEQA.
The CEQA EIR follows very closely the structure and environmental
impact analysis process described in this topic. It includes a description of
the affected environment, prediction of impacts, evaluation of alternatives,
consideration of mitigation, and a decision at the end of the process. There
are provisions for multilevel environmental analyses (see Chapter 6) includ-
ing programmatic, tiered, master EIR, supplemental, focused EIR, and joint
EIS-EIR (i.e., “piggyback”). There is some variation from NEPA in the areas
covered, treatment of alternatives, and the basis for the decision and these
are discussed in the following section.
8.6.2.2
Unique Features of CEQA
CEQA requires consideration of environmental quality in public decision
making, like most other environmental policies, but California takes it a
step further. Before the lead agency can approve a project and responsible
agencies can issue permits, the EIR must demonstrate that there are no other
alternatives that meet the purpose and need and have less impact. This
requirement results in a substantially different perspective on alternative
Search WWH ::
Custom Search