Home  ›  Timeline for Ceqa Review for a Negative Declaration

Timeline for Ceqa Review for a Negative Declaration

Written By mardi 19 avril 2022 Add Comment Edit

California constabulary requiring environmental concerns be considered during land evolution

The California Ecology Quality Human action (CEQA) is a California statute passed in 1970 and signed in to police past then-Governor Ronald Reagan,[1] [ii] soon subsequently the United States federal authorities passed the National Ecology Policy Act (NEPA), to establish a statewide policy of environmental protection. CEQA does non directly regulate state uses, but instead requires state and local agencies within California to follow a protocol of analysis and public disclosure of environmental impacts of proposed projects and, in a departure from NEPA, adopt all feasible measures to mitigate those impacts.[3] CEQA makes ecology protection a mandatory part of every California state and local (public) agency'southward decision making procedure. It has also become the ground for numerous lawsuits concerning public and individual projects.

CEQA has been criticized for existence "abused" (used for reasons other than environmental ones) to block, downsize, delay, or proceeds other concessions from new evolution. CEQA has even been used to cake or filibuster projects that take ostensibly positive environmental impacts, such as solar plants, current of air turbines, cycle lanes on pre-existing roads, and denser housing. 1 report plant that 85% of CEQA lawsuits were filed by organizations with no tape of environmental advocacy and 80% of CEQA lawsuits targeted infill evolution. CEQA has also been used to block homeless shelters and affordable housing projects, and unions take used CEQA lawsuits or threats thereof to force developers to utilize marriage workers.[4]

Policy [edit]

The CEQA statute, California Public Resources Lawmaking § 21000 et seq., codifies a statewide policy of ecology protection. According to the act, all country and local agencies must give major consideration to environmental protection in regulating public and private activities, and should non approve projects for which there be viable and environmentally superior mitigation measures or alternatives.[5]

CEQA procedure overview [edit]

CEQA mandates actions all state and local agencies must take to advance that policy. Specifically, for whatever project under CEQA'south jurisdiction with potentially significant environmental impacts, agencies must identify mitigation measures and alternatives by preparing an Environmental Impact Report, and must corroborate projects with viable mitigation measures and the environmentally superior alternative.[6] The California Resources Agency promulgates the CEQA Guidelines, California Lawmaking of Regulations Title xiv § 15000 et seq., which detail the protocol by which state and local agencies comply with CEQA requirements. Appendix A of the CEQA Guidelines summarizes this protocol in flowchart class.[vii] CEQA originally applied to simply public projects, but California Supreme Court estimation of the statute, too as later revisions to the diction, have expanded the CEQA's jurisdiction to about all projects within California, including those accomplished by private businesses and individuals. § 21002.one: "Each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that information technology carries out or approves whenever information technology is viable to practise then." For private projects, CEQA applies when a discretionary government let or other entitlement for utilize is necessary.[8]

Atomic number 82 agency and responsible agencies [edit]

  1. Pb Agency: The lead agency is responsible for conducting the CEQA review and has final blessing of the project. They are responsible for coordinating with the projection applicant, public and associated agencies during the CEQA process. When more than than 1 agency is involved in a project, the agency with principal responsibleness for approving a project is the lead agency, for purposes of post-obit the CEQA protocol.
  2. Responsible Agency: Other agencies with discretionary blessing ability over the projection are called "responsible agencies." The pb agency has an obligation to consult with these agencies during the CEQA process to ensure their input is accounted for.[9] Responsible agencies often have a vested involvement in a specific environmental resource that they are charged with regulating.
  3. Trustee Bureau: An agency with jurisdiction over a resource held in trust for the people. This bureau has no approval ability over a project.

Initial study [edit]

If a projection is not exempt from CEQA, a pb agency can conduct an initial written report to preliminarily assess project impacts. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines lists types of environmental impacts to consider in checklist form.[10] This initial study guides the lead agency to prepare either a negative annunciation, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental touch on report depending on the impact assessment. The initial study completion also gives the project applicant opportunity to modify their project scope early in the CEQA procedure if the initial study indicates significant impact(s) are likely. If the lead agency determines the project conspicuously has significant impacts, they can skip the initial study phase and immediately acquit an Environmental Bear upon Report.[eleven]

Thresholds of significance [edit]

Under CEQA, every agency in the state "is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance" against which to compare the ecology impacts of projects. Such thresholds are to be published for public review and supported past substantial bear witness before their adoption. A pb agency volition normally consider the environmental impacts of a project to exist significant if and just if they exceed established thresholds of significance. Co-ordinate to a 2001 survey, notwithstanding, few agencies have actually adult thresholds of significance. The survey'south analysts wondered, "if most agencies are not developing thresholds and publishing them for public review, then what criteria are they using?".[12] In absence of thresholds of significance developed independently by lead agencies, impact assessments apply the meaning criteria detailed in Appendix 1000, Ecology Checklist, of the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines, which is produced by the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR).[x] Lead agencies can also defer to authorization agencies that publish their recommended guidelines for the resources they regulate. Examples of this include the California Department of Conservation has threshold tests for assessing impacts to agricultural resources using the LESA model,[13] and the Bay Expanse Air Quality Management District has published guidelines for air quality impacts.[14]

Environmental impact analysis [edit]

The lead agency must analyze project impacts to xviii different environmental resource factors detailed in Appendix G during their CEQA review. The adjacent department discusses background and setting for each resource gene; and how pb agencies bear their analysis and the authority for their significance thresholds for these resources.

Aesthetics [edit]

Agriculture and Forestry Resource [edit]

Air Quality [edit]

Biological Resources [edit]

Cultural Resources [edit]

Energy

Geology and Soils [edit]

Greenhouse Gas Emissions [edit]

GHG legislative history; rule making; regulated greenhouse gases and their sources; and GHG CEQA responsible agencies are discussed beneath. The next section describes the analytical approach to determining if a project has significant GHG impacts using guidelines from two Air Quality Management Districts in California. Finally, mitigation measures recommended by air districts and used on various projects are presented for GHG impact analysis.

Introduction and setting [edit]

Greenhouse gas emissions were not required to be analyzed as an touch to the surround when CEQA was originally adopted. Several scientists have since attributed greenhouse gases to climate modify and resulting negative impacts to humans and the environment.[15] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic change (IPCC) issued a study[xvi] in 2007 stating that man activities are responsible for increased global temperatures. Every bit a consequence of these assessments, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 that mandated greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.[17] Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Club Southward-3-05 in June 2005 that alleged California is vulnerable to climatic change impacts resulting in loss of Sierra snowpack for water supply and rising sea levels threatening coastal real estate and habitat.[18] Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger also signed Executive Order S-21-09 in September 2009 requiring 33% of electricity sold in the California come up from renewable resource by 2020 to curb greenhouse gas emissions.[19] This assembly of legislation and show of environmental bear upon led to California enacting requirements for lead agencies to consider greenhouse gas emissions in their CEQA reviews.

California Office of Attorney General sent several comment letters to atomic number 82 agencies urging them to consider greenhouse gas emissions during their CEQA review.[20] Senate Bill 97 required the Governors Office of Planning and Research to develop and recommend new guidelines to analyze greenhouse gas impacts nether CEQA.[21] California'south Natural Resources Agency adopted new guidelines on December 31, 2009, requiring lead agencies to analyze greenhouse gas emissions under department 15064.4 during their CEQA review through California.[21] [22]

The major category of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human being activities is carbon dioxide. Several other primary gases also include methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, perfluorocarbons, and hydrofluorocarbons.[23] Greenhouse gas sources resulting from project structure activities are typically generated from transportation of materials to the projection site and petrol based equipment used during construction of the project itself.[24] Stationary sources emit greenhouse gases from a single point source such equally a smoke stack. Stationary source examples include coal- or gas-fired ability plants, incinerators, refineries, bakeries, or chemical plants. Projects that are non stationary sources such as residential and commercial developments, schools, and related infrastructure can besides contribute to increases in greenhouse gases. These projects emit greenhouse gases from sources such as vehicle mileage trips to site, energy to run the facility, and landscape maintenance equipment.[14] Land utilize conversion can reduce vegetation sequestration of carbon dioxide.[24]

The State Air Resources Board or California Air Resource Board is the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of greenhouse gas emissions under AB32.[17] California's thirty-five local air pollution control districts (APCD's) and air quality management districts (AQMD's) are the agencies primarily responsible for regulating stationary sources of air pollution. These air districts traditionally provide guidance to pb agencies, such as counties, cities and public utilities, on the evaluation of air pollutants nether CEQA.[25]

Analysis approach [edit]

The lead agency is the public bureau which has the primary responsibleness for approving a proposed projection. The pb agency determines which blazon of environmental certificate volition be prepared (Mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Impact Report, etc.) and has discretion to adopt significance criteria more than bourgeois than those required past CEQA.[26] §15064.4 provides a lead agency discretion to determine which type of analysis arroyo to utilize for a given project level GHG analysis:

"(ane) Use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use. The atomic number 82 agency has discretion to select the model or methodology it considers almost appropriate provided it supports its decision with substantial evidence. The lead bureau should explain the limitations of the detail model or methodology selected for utilize; and/or

(ii) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance based standards."[27]

The lead bureau is charged with making a skilful-faith effort to "describe, summate, or guess the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a projection."[27]

Lifecycle assay of GHG includes the full amass quantity of GHG generated from the extraction, production, distribution and use of energy or fuel.[28] If a lead agency had to complete a GHG lifecycle analysis nether CEQA, they would accept to quantify GHGs produced non only inside the spatial boundary of the project site, but GHGs generated from transportation of products to the site and product supply chain production emissions. Several of these energy emissions could be produced overseas leading to difficulty by the lead agency in verification and enforcement of emission thresholds. CEQA guidance currently does not require lifecycle analysis of GHG emissions since the term is non well divers and too speculative, and the Office of Planning and Enquiry (OPR) removed the term "Life Cycle" from CEQA guidelines in 2010.[29] If any portion of the assay is considered speculative past the atomic number 82 agency and non supported by defensible and quantifiable scientific evidence, the impact must be eliminated pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15145.[30]

Thresholds of significance tin be determined by reference of air quality management district CEQA guidelines, although the ultimate discretion for thresholds remains with the lead agency. The Bay Surface area Air Quality Management Commune, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District are the only districts to date that have adopted CEQA guidelines. Below are highlights from the BAAQMD and SCAQMD:

Bay Area Air Quality Management District [edit]

The Bay Area Air Quality Direction District (BAAQMD) typically acts every bit the responsible agency for setting CEQA air emission thresholds within the San Francisco Bay Surface area Air Bowl. The BAAQMD adopted new guidance on June 2, 2010 to accost greenhouse gas emission thresholds related to operational related emissions from stationary sources and projects other than stationary sources.[14] Stationary sources are immune to emit upwardly to 10,000 metric tons (MT) CO2east/year. Other projects are allowed to emit 1,100 MT of CO2east / year; 4.6 MT COtwoeast / SP / twelvemonth; or compliance with a qualified greenhouse gas reduction strategy.[14] The BAAQMD has not established construction related emissions thresholds, deferring this responsibility to the CEQA pb agency. Chapter 8.2 of the BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines recommends lead agencies quantify construction emissions and assess if they conflict with AB 32 goals.[14] BAAQMD as well recommends using URBEMIS air modeling software to calculate GHG emissions on land utilize irresolute projects, and RoadMod software for linear projects. BAAQMD recommends assay of operational emissions in the five footstep procedure: eliminate greenhouse gas analysis if project attributes do non pass screening criteria, quantify emissions using appropriate models, compare unmitigated emissions with thresholds of significance, implement mitigation measures if project is over thresholds of significance, so compare emissions again with thresholds of significance.[14]

South Declension Air Quality Management District [edit]

The South Coast Air Quality Management District has developed a tiered analysis procedure for determining the significance of project-related GHG emissions. If a project is not categorically or otherwise exempt, and if it cannot be shown that the GHG emissions from the project are within GHG budgets in approved regional plans, then project applicants are required to bear witness that the project GHG emissions are below, or mitigated to less than, the applicative post-obit significance screening level:

  • x,000 metric tons of CO2e per yr for industrial projects; or
  • 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year for commercial or residential projects[31]
Bear on mitigation measures [edit]

Lead agencies tin can implement several unlike mitigation measures to get-go or reduce GHG emissions. The BAAQMD recommends using the post-obit best management practices for structure activities: 15% of project'due south heavy equipment and transportation armada run on culling fuels and/or electricity, recycling or reusing 50% of demolition waste, and using 10% local of building materials.[14] Other measures used to reduce construction emissions include limiting equipment idle time, car pooling, and purchase and retire of offsite carbon credits.[24] [32]

BAAQMD recommends lead agencies mitigate operational emissions by adopting a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy that is consistent with AB 32.[14] This strategy tin be incorporated into the lead bureau's general plan or programmatic level policy for assessing GHG emissions. The strategy involves assessing "business as usual" electric current and forecasted emissions to calculate a baseline for reduction. The atomic number 82 agency so proposes measures to reduce those emissions to run into AB 32 expectations. BAAQMD recommends the project mitigate to the maximum extent feasible before considering offsite mitigation options, and offsite mitigation should exist measurable, enforceable, and occur within the nine-county Bay Surface area.[14]

Hazards and Hazardous Materials [edit]

Hydrology and Water Quality [edit]

Land Utilise and Planning [edit]

Mineral Resources [edit]

Racket [edit]

Population and Housing [edit]

Public Services [edit]

Recreation [edit]

Transportation [edit]

Tribal Cultural Resources [edit]

Utilities and Service Systems [edit]

Wildfire

Mandatory Findings of Significance [edit]

Level of environmental review [edit]

Projects may exist exempt from CEQA if they are ministerial in nature, have been exempted past the California Legislature through a statutory exemption, or fall within any of the classes of exemption by category that CEQA recognizes that do non take a significant impact on the environs. If the lead agency determines the project could have no significant environmental impacts after completing an initial study, no EIR will be necessary, simply the lead bureau must all the same prepare a Negative Declaration (Neg Dec) that discloses the bear upon analysis. If the project could accept pregnant environmental impacts, just the lead agency has incorporated mitigation measures to lower those impacts to less than pregnant, no EIR volition be necessary, just the lead agency must gear up a Mitigated Negative Announcement that demonstrates how all identified significant impacts volition be mitigated to beneath the level of significance. Finally, if the lead agency determines the projection may take significant environmental impacts, the pb bureau must prepare an EIR.[33]

Ministerial decision [edit]

CEQA applies to any action when a project requires discretionary approval by a state or local governmental body. Projects may also crave ministerial permits that must comply with full general plans and local ordinances such as edifice permits or marriage licenses. These decisions cannot be denied and provides the governmental body with no sentence as long as the proponent meets the specifications detailed in the permit or license requirements.[34] CEQA does not apply when only ministerial approval is necessary.[35]

Statutory exemptions [edit]

The California state legislature has, on occasion, abrogated CEQA such that specific projects or types of projects could proceed without an EIR.[36] One such absconding occurred in Oct 2009, with the passage of a wedlock-backed police force exempting the proposed construction of Los Angeles Stadium from CEQA's requirements. The abrogation mooted an ongoing lawsuit, brought past eight residents of a neighboring city, challenging the validity of the programmer's EIR. The developer had originally prepared an EIR for a commercial evolution on the site, then prepared a supplemental EIR to include a proposed 75,000 seat stadium situated within iii,000 feet of homes in that neighboring metropolis; the plaintiffs argued that a single new EIR studying the unabridged project was required.[37] State officials said the absconding ended an abuse of CEQA past individuals seeking to obstruct the project; at the signing anniversary, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said he would "end the frivolous lawsuit.[38]" A plaintiff in the lawsuit said the abrogation "opens up the door for other developers... to hire lobbyists... and get exemptions from the ecology laws.[39]" An environmental lawyer said that the slow economy would probably encourage developers to seek more abrogations, as legislators go more than eager to stimulate task growth.[36]

Categorical exemptions [edit]

Several chiselled exemptions for projects are listed nether Title xiv of the California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, Article 19.[40] These exemptions cover projects that practice pose a significant impact to the surroundings and fit inside the description of the several categories listed under Article nineteen. A common categorical exemption used past agencies is 15301 for maintenance of existing facilities. Since the project is already congenital, the project oft has no significant new impacts. Agencies do not have to file any CEQA findings for categorically exempt projects. They can be legally challenged by the public on whether the project must undergo CEQA. The lead agency can file a Notice of Exemption (NOE) to trigger a 35-day statute of limitations flow for legal claiming or, if no NOE is filed, a 180-day statute of limitations applies.[41]

Negative Proclamation (ND) / Mitigated Negative Proclamation (MND) [edit]

After the initial report is completed, the lead bureau can and then determine if the project could have a pregnant impact on the surroundings. The lead agency must advise mitigation measures to reduce whatsoever impacts to less than meaning "to the maximum extent feasible." The lead agency then prepares a typhoon Negative Declaration (ND) or Mitigated Negative Annunciation (MND) and publishes the document for public review for at least 21 days. Later on comments are considered, the lead agency can either recirculate the ND/MND if public comments required the project telescopic to substantially modify, or the lead agency can adopt the document. The Lead agency must file a Notice of Decision (NOD) after adopting the certificate with a xxx-day statute of limitations for legal challenge.[42] If the lead agency is presented with a fair statement that shows substantial testify of the project having a significant ecology bear upon afterwards mitigation measures are wearied, the lead bureau is required to prepare an Environmental Impact Report.[43] Thus, in essence, an ND/MND may only exist used to satisfy CEQA requirements for projects with no meaning unmitigated agin ecology impacts (ND) or for which all potentially significant adverse impacts take been "avoided, reduced or minimized" to beneath the threshold of significance (MND). If significant impacts remain, an EIR must be prepared and a Statement of Overriding Considerations are necessary.

Ecology Affect Report (EIR) [edit]

According to case law, the ecology bear upon report (EIR) is at "the center of CEQA".[44] An EIR serves to inform governmental agencies and the public of a project'southward environmental impacts.[45] Further, an EIR is required to propose mitigations and alternatives which may reduce or avoid whatsoever significant agin environmental impacts; every bit the EIR is considered the heart of CEQA, mitigation and alternatives are considered the heart of the EIR.[46] One alternative that a pb bureau must usually consider is the no project alternative, that is, cancellation of the project, with the hereafter instead unfolding according to existing plans (i.eastward., the condition quo). Amid all the alternatives, the EIR identifies the environmentally superior alternative; if the environmentally superior alternative is the no projection alternative, the EIR identifies the environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.[47]

The EIR procedure begins with the circulation of a Detect of Preparation (NOP) which informs the public, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the OPR that an EIR will be prepared for a given project. The NOP must include sufficient project description details and probable environmental effects such that agencies and public citizens can provide meaningful comments on the proposed projection for assay in the EIR. The NOP comment catamenia is no shorter than xxx days.[48] Afterwards preparation of the typhoon EIR, a Notice of Completion (NOC) must be submitted to the Function of Planning and Research which includes project location, location of review copies, and public comment review menstruation information.[49] The lead agency must provide public find of the typhoon EIR at the same time information technology bug the NOC. This find must include the location of any public meetings intended to solicit comments on the draft EIR. If the typhoon EIR is circulated through the Land Clearinghouse, then the public comment menstruation must exist 45 days minimum.[fifty] The lead agency must prepare a terminal EIR before approving the projection. The contents of a final EIR are specified in §15132 of the CEQA guidelines, simply responses to typhoon EIR comments are the focus of the certificate.[51] The lead agency then certifies the last EIR and issues its findings.[52] [53] Should pregnant and unavoidable impacts remain after mitigation, a Argument of Overriding Considerations must be prepared.[54] Finally, the atomic number 82 agency may decide whether or how to approve or carry out the projection at which time a notice of determination (NOD) must be filed within five days of approval.[55] Appeal periods and litigation avenues remain after the NOD.

Comparisons to similar laws [edit]

Similar laws at the federal and state levels require ecology impact analysis earlier commencing major projects.

National Environmental Policy Human action [edit]

NEPA, a Us federal statute passed the year before CEQA, is similar to CEQA in that both statutes set along a policy of environmental protection, and a protocol by which all agencies in their corresponding jurisdictions make environmental protection function of their determination making process.

NEPA is narrower in telescopic than CEQA. NEPA applies only to projects receiving federal funding or approval by federal agencies, while CEQA applies to projects receiving any form of state or local blessing, allow, or oversight. Thus, development projects in California funded only by individual sources and not requiring approval by a federal agency would be exempt from NEPA, merely would likely be bailiwick to CEQA.

The environmental impact argument (EIS) required under NEPA and the EIR required nether CEQA are like documents, yet accept some crucial differences. For example, under NEPA, an agency can list all reasonable alternatives and their impacts, then choose their preferred project without regard to the severity of its impacts, fifty-fifty if it is more than harmful to the environment. Under CEQA, the lead agency is required to mitigate all "significant" adverse environmental impacts to "the maximum extent feasible" and can approve a project only if the agency adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations detailing the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations that outweigh the project's significant, unavoidable impacts. If a major federal project, or project using federal funds is seeking approving in California, its atomic number 82 agency must fix both an EIS and an EIR, but both tin can be combined into 1 certificate (since the EIS and EIR have the same elements for the well-nigh function). Said certificate, withal, must be processed through both the CEQA and NEPA approval steps.

Laws in other states [edit]

As of 2005, fourteen states as well as the District of Columbia have CEQA-style laws requiring impacts be reported for projects[56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [ additional commendation(s) needed ]. CEQA influenced many of these laws, and New York state'south police force used CEQA as a foundation.[61] Connecticut'south Environmental Policy Act (CEPA) is modeled on CEQA[ citation needed ] and requires lead agencies to prepare an Ecology Impact Evaluation (EIE) that is very similar in nature to California's EIR. The various country laws are non entirely similar to CEQA, as most only apply to public projects (rather than all public actions, like CEQA) and few have equally rigorous review standards.

Litigation [edit]

CEQA's broad scope and lack of clear thresholds oft lead to litigation, both by groups that back up development, and individuals and agencies opposing such development.

CEQA plaintiffs such every bit community and ecology groups often claiming projects with negative declarations, on the grounds that EIRs should have been carried out. Litigation also occurs on the grounds that EIRs are too cursory or disregarded possible impacts, as there are no guidelines for the length or content of the EIRs.

Plaintiffs also sometimes charge developers of a practice called piece-mealing, by which projects are analyzed incrementally by parts to make the environmental impacts appear smaller to the overseeing bureau.

CEQA plaintiffs succeeded on 1 such claim in June 2009, concerning an expansion of the Chevron Richmond Refinery, the largest employer in Richmond, California. The judge ruled that Chevron erred by defining the projection inconsistently, and the city of Richmond erred in allowing Chevron to slice-meal its projection, and in allowing Chevron to develop a mitigation plan afterwards the project begins. The gauge consequently ruled the EIR to be insufficient to meet CEQA's requirements, ordering the preparation of a new EIR covering the whole, accurately defined project before the refinery's expansion could proceed.[62]

Settlements [edit]

Plaintiffs in CEQA lawsuits seek diverse forms of redress, such as amending the EIR, preparing a new EIR, agreeing to mitigation measures, or paying money to local agencies to kickoff ecology impacts.

Criticisms [edit]

CEQA lawsuits (and threats of CEQA lawsuits) are frequently used by groups that want to block a proposed project for reasons other than its environmental impacts.[63] :1 [64] :1

While CEQA'southward original intent must remain intact, at present is the time to cease reckless abuses of this important police – abuses that are threatening California's economic vitality, costing jobs and wasting valuable taxpayer dollars. ... Today, CEQA is too often abused by those seeking to gain a competitive edge, to leverage concessions from a project or by neighbors who simply don't want any new growth in their community – no matter how worthy or environmentally benign a projection may be. - Former Governors George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson, and Grayness Davis in a 2013 editorial in The Sacramento Bee [65] :one

Carol Galante, a professor of Affordable Housing and Urban Policy at the Terner Middle for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, who served in the Obama Administration as the Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Section of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),[66] :1 stated that "It (CEQA) has been abused in this state for 30 years by people who use it when it has nothing to practise with an environmental reason, ... NIMBY-ism is connected to the fact that for everyone who owns their little piece of the dream, at that place's no reason to want evolution next door to them, CEQA gives them a tool to effectuate their interest ... We need to fundamentally rethink how the CEQA process works in this state."[67] :1 [63] :1

CEQA has been used by residents in San Francisco and Los Angeles to effort to block homeless shelters and affordable housing projects from being located in their neighborhoods.[68] :1 [69] :5 [lxx] :i

A 2015 study by Jennifer Hernandez and others at the ecology and country-employ police firm The netherlands & Knight,[71] :21 looking at all CEQA lawsuits filed during the three-year period 2010-2012, establish that less than 15% were filed by groups with prior records of environmental advancement. (such equally the Sierra Lodge)[72] :1 [71] :24

While environmental groups largely agree that edifice dense housing in urban areas ("infill development") is improve for the environment than converting open up space to new homes, iv out of five CEQA lawsuits target infill evolution projects; just 20% of CEQA lawsuits target "greenfield" projects that would convert open up space to housing.[72] :1

A report by the California Legislative Analyst's Function constitute that in the country'southward 10 largest cities, CEQA appeals delayed projects by an boilerplate of 2 and a one-half years.[73] :8 [74] :1

CEQA's requirement that automobile congestion exist considered every bit an "environmental impact" that must be mitigated has resulted in the police force both preventing the cosmos of bicycle lanes on already existing streets,[75] :ane [76] :one equally well as allowing lawsuits challenging new bike lanes both before and even after they take passed ecology review and been created.[75] :1 [76] :i [77] :1

In one case, anti-abortion activists filed a CEQA lawsuit to try to cake a new tenant (Planned Parenthood) from using an already constructed office building in South San Francisco. They cited the racket caused by their own protests as the environmental impact requiring mitigation. This lawsuit delayed the new tenancy by at least 18 months.[78] :1 [79] :ane [80] :1

Labor unions file CEQA lawsuits against projects to attempt to force them to pay prevailing wage.[81]

Governor Jerry Brown, in an interview with UCLA's Blueprint magazine, commented on the use of CEQA for other than ecology reasons: "But it's easier to build in Texas. It is. And peradventure we could change that. Only you know what? The trouble is the political climate, that'south but kind of where we are. Very hard to — you tin't change CEQA [the California Environmental Quality Human activity]. BP: Why not? JB: The unions won't permit you because they use it as a hammer to get project labor agreements."[82] [83] :one

In 2022, the potential environmental impact of a larger incoming undergraduate class, combined with lack of timely environmental review, resulted in a successful lawsuit and courtroom injuction confronting UC Berkeley. The academy said information technology might have to rescind admission to about a third of its incoming students, simply in the finish successfully lobbied the state legislature to modify the law to give information technology more time to perform the required review.[84]

See also [edit]

  • California Environmental Protection Bureau

References [edit]

  1. ^ https://world wide web.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/sce/sierra-club-california/PDFs/CEQA_Fact_Sheet.pdf[ bare URL PDF ]
  2. ^ California wants to lead America to a greener future March 16th 2013 The Economist
  3. ^ "CEQA History". State of California Section of Justice, Role of Attorney Full general. Archived from the original on 2011-03-13. Retrieved 2011-03-28 .
  4. ^ See the department on Criticisms for more detail with sources cited.
  5. ^ "CEQA Chapter 1: Policy". California Resource Agency. 2005-05-25. Archived from the original on 2009-12-thirteen. Retrieved 2009-12-02 .
  6. ^ "CEQA Chapter 3: State Agencies, Boards and Commissions". California Resources Agency. 2005-05-25. Archived from the original on 2010-01-09. Retrieved 2009-12-02 .
  7. ^ "CEQA Guidelines Appendix A: CEQA Process Flow Chart". California Resources Agency. 2005-12-01. Archived from the original on 2009-12-13. Retrieved 2009-12-02 .
  8. ^ Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors , 8 Cal.3d 247 (Supreme Court of California 1972-09-21).
  9. ^ "Article 20: CEQA Definitions". Archived from the original on 2011-02-25. Retrieved 2011-05-07 .
  10. ^ a b "CEQA Guidelines Appendix Grand: Environmental Checklist Form". California Resources Agency. 2005-12-01. Archived from the original on 2009-12-13. Retrieved 2009-xi-22 .
  11. ^ "Article v:15063-Initial Study". Archived from the original on 2011-06-14. Retrieved 2011-05-07 .
  12. ^ Seiver, Owen H. and Thomas H. Hatfield (March 2001). "The Determination of Thresholds of Environmental Significance in the Application of the California Environmental Quality Human action (CEQA)" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-02-01. Retrieved 2009-11-22 .
  13. ^ "State Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model". California Department of Conservation.
  14. ^ a b c d e f m h i "BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines for GHG". Bay Area Air Quality Management District, December 2010.
  15. ^ [Oreskes Due north. 2004. The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Science. 306(12): 1686.]
  16. ^ "IPCC 4th Assessment Report". Working Grouping 1 Report (WGI). Archived from the original on 2011-07-07. Retrieved 2011-04-30 .
  17. ^ a b "California Assembly Bill 32- Global Warming Solutions Human activity".
  18. ^ "California Executive Order S-03-05". Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, June 1, 2005.
  19. ^ "California Executive Guild South-21-09". Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, September 15, 2009. Archived from the original on 2011-08-eleven. Retrieved 2011-04-30 .
  20. ^ "Attorney General Annotate Letters". California Department of Justice. Archived from the original on 2011-05-06. Retrieved 2011-05-01 .
  21. ^ a b "California Senate Bill 97". California Public Resource Code 21097.
  22. ^ "California Senate Bill 97- CEQA Guidelines for GHG". California Lawmaking of Regulations:15064.4.
  23. ^ "Technical Informational for CEQA and Climate Change". California Office of Planning and Research.
  24. ^ a b c "California Valley Solar Ranch Projection FEIR". California Valley Solar Ranch Conditional Employ Allow, and Twisselman Reclamation Plan and Conditional Use Permit, County of San Luis Obispo, 2011.
  25. ^ "CEQA and Climate change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Discipline to the California Environmental Quality Act". California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. January 2008.
  26. ^ "Public Resources Code Department 21067". Archived from the original on 2010-11-22. Retrieved 2011-05-01 .
  27. ^ a b "Adopted and Transmitted Text of SB97 CEQA Guidelines Amendments" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-02-25. Retrieved 2011-05-01 .
  28. ^ "EPA Lifecycle Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Renewable Fuels". EPA 420-F-09-024, May 2009.
  29. ^ "Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action Pursuant to SB97". California Natural Resources Agency, December 2009. Archived from the original on 2012-04-01.
  30. ^ "CEQA Guidelines 15145- Speculation". California Natural Resources Bureau. Archived from the original on 2011-09-30. Retrieved 2011-05-01 .
  31. ^ "Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans". South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2008-12-05. Archived from the original on 2011-02-25. Retrieved 2011-04-27 .
  32. ^ "San Diego Gas and Electric Sunrise Powerlink Project FEIR". California Public Utilities Commission.
  33. ^ "Article 5:Preliminary Review of Projects and Acquit of Initial Report". Archived from the original on 2011-06-14. Retrieved 2011-05-07 .
  34. ^ "CEQA Guidelines- Article 20". California Natural Resources Bureau. Archived from the original on 2011-08-08. Retrieved 2011-05-01 .
  35. ^ "CEQA Guidelines- Article 1". California Natural Resources Agency. Archived from the original on 2011-09-xxx. Retrieved 2011-05-01 .
  36. ^ a b Shadley, Steve (2009-09-14). "Senate Delays Vote On Los Angeles NFL Stadium Pecker". KPBS. Retrieved 2009-11-19 .
  37. ^ Haldane, David (2009-01-12). "Neighbor blitzes stadium proposal: Walnut wants new EIR for Industry arena plan". Los Angeles Business Journal . Retrieved 2009-xi-19 .
  38. ^ Wagner, James (2009-10-23). "Governor signs bill clearing fashion for NFL stadium in Industry". Los Angeles Daily News. Archived from the original on 2009-x-27. Retrieved 2009-11-19 .
  39. ^ McGreevy, Patrick (2009-x-15). "Environmental exemptions OKd for football game stadium in City of Industry". Los Angeles Times . Retrieved 2009-11-19 .
  40. ^ "Article xix-Categorical Exemptions". Archived from the original on 2011-03-19. Retrieved 2011-04-eighteen .
  41. ^ "Article 5:15062-Notice of Exemptions". Archived from the original on 2011-06-fourteen. Retrieved 2011-05-07 .
  42. ^ "Article 6:Negative Declaration Process". Archived from the original on 2011-02-25. Retrieved 2011-05-07 .
  43. ^ "Negative Declarations:Fair Statement". Archived from the original on 2011-08-09. Retrieved 2011-05-07 .
  44. ^ County of Inyo 5. Yorty , 32 Cal.App.3d 795 (California Courtroom of Entreatment for the Third Commune 1973-06-05).
  45. ^ No Oil v. City of Los Angeles , 13 Cal.3d 68 (Supreme Court of California 1974-12-ten).
  46. ^ Citizens of Goleta Valley five. Board of Supervisors , 52 Cal.3d 553 (Supreme Court of California 1990-12-31).
  47. ^ "CEQA Guidelines Article 9: Contents of Environmental Impact Reports". Westlaw. 2007-07-24. Retrieved 2015-01-04 .
  48. ^ "§15082. Notice of Preparation and Conclusion of Scope of EIR".
  49. ^ "§15085. Notice of Completion".
  50. ^ "§15087. Public Review of Draft EIR".
  51. ^ "§15089. Grooming of Final EIR".
  52. ^ "§15090. Certification of the Last EIR".
  53. ^ "§15091. Findings".
  54. ^ "§15093. Statement of Overriding Considerations".
  55. ^ "§15094. Find of Determination".
  56. ^ "SEQR - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation". www.dec.ny.gov . Retrieved 2018-08-25 .
  57. ^ "Georgia Environmental Policy Human action". Georgia Section of Natural Resources Historic Preservation Division . Retrieved 2018-08-25 .
  58. ^ "Ecology Touch Standards, Applicability and requirements (343-5)". Hawaii Land Legislature . Retrieved 2018-08-25 .
  59. ^ "2010 Maryland Code / NATURAL Resource / Title 1 - Section OF NATURAL RESOURCES/Subtitle 3 - Maryland Environmental Policy Act / Department 1-304 - Environmental effects reports". Retrieved 2018-08-25 .
  60. ^ "301 CMR xi.00: MEPA Regulations". Retrieved 2018-08-25 .
  61. ^ Sandler, Ross (February 1977). "State Environmental Quality Review Human activity". 49 New York State Bar Journal. 110: 112 – via New York Law School, Environmental Law Commons.
  62. ^ Brenneman, Richard (2009-06-11). "Chevron Defeated in CEQA Lawsuit; Richmond Refinery Plans in Uncertainty". Berkeley Daily Planet . Retrieved 2009-11-28 .
  63. ^ a b Dillon, Liam (2017-09-25). "Which California megaprojects get breaks from complying with ecology law? Sometimes, information technology depends on the project". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2017-10-03. Retrieved 2019-04-23 .
  64. ^ Dillon, Liam (2019-01-28). "California construction workers, builders are near deal that could mean a flood of new building". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2019-01-xxx. Retrieved 2019-04-25 .
  65. ^ Deukmejian, George; Wilson, Pete; Davis, Gray (2013-02-03). "Viewpoints: Preserve CEQA's goals, end its abuses". The Sacramento Bee. Archived from the original on 2013-02-12. Retrieved 2019-05-24 .
  66. ^ "Carol Galante". Archived from the original on 2016-10-09. Retrieved 2018-12-fourteen .
  67. ^ Johnson, Chip (2016-03-10). "Bay Surface area housing crisis fueled by greed, study finds". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2016-04-04. Retrieved 2018-09-20 .
  68. ^ Dillon, Liam; Oreskes, Benjamin (2019-05-15). "Homeless shelter opponents are using this ecology police in bid to block new housing". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2019-06-01. Retrieved 2019-07-10 .
  69. ^ Petek, Gabriel (2019-02-01). "Considerations for Governor's Proposals to Address Homelessness" (PDF). California Legislative Analyst's Office. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-03-23. Retrieved 2019-07-10 .
  70. ^ Bradford, Ben (2018-07-eleven). "Is California's CEQA environmental police protecting natural beauty — or blocking affordable housing?". Southern California Public Radio. Archived from the original on 2018-08-26. Retrieved 2019-07-ten .
  71. ^ a b Hernandez, Jennifer (2018-12-01). "California Environmental Quality Act Lawsuits and California's Housing Crunch" (PDF). 'Hastings Environmental Police Journal'. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2018-12-23. Retrieved 2018-12-23 .
  72. ^ a b Hernandez, Jennifer (2015-12-21). "New CEQA Written report Reveals Widespread Corruption of Legal Process by 'Non-Environmentalists'". 'The Planning Report' - planningreport.com. Archived from the original on 2015-12-24. Retrieved 2018-12-23 .
  73. ^ Taylor, Mac (2016-05-eighteen). "Considering Changes to Streamline Local Housing Approvals" (PDF). California Legislative Analyst's Role. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-12-22. Retrieved 2019-04-06 .
  74. ^ Levin, Matt; Christopher, Ben (2017-08-21). "Californians: Here'southward why your housing costs are so loftier". CalMatters.org. Archived from the original on 2017-09-29. Retrieved 2019-04-03 .
  75. ^ a b Dillon, Liam (2016-04-07). "Desire a wheel lane in your neighborhood? It'due south not so simple in California". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2016-05-12. Retrieved 2019-01-14 .
  76. ^ a b Grabar, Henry (2019-01-10). "California Used to Classify Motorbus Lanes and Cycle Racks as Bad for the Surroundings. Non Anymore". Slate. Archived from the original on 2019-01-11. Retrieved 2019-01-14 .
  77. ^ "San Diego Bike Lane Sued Under CEQA". CEQA Working Grouping.com. 2015-10-22. Archived from the original on 2016-04-xix. Retrieved 2019-01-14 .
  78. ^ "CEQA Misuse Instance Study: South San Francisco Planned Parenthood". CEQA Working Group - ceqaworkinggroup.com. 2015-04-06. Archived from the original on 2015-04-25. Retrieved 2019-01-04 .
  79. ^ Chandler, Collin (2017-09-27). "Court Rejects CEQA Lawsuit Challenging Approval of Planned Parenthood Clinic Premised on Potential Secondary Ecology Impacts Associated with Dispensary Protests". Thomas Police force Grouping - thomaslaw.com. Archived from the original on 2019-01-04. Retrieved 2019-01-03 .
  80. ^ Collins, J (2016-08-29). "Does California's ecology protection law impede development?". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2016-eleven-05. Retrieved 2019-01-04 .
  81. ^ Hernandez, Jennifer. "New CEQA Study Reveals Widespread Abuse of Legal Procedure by 'Non-Environmentalists'". Planning Report . Retrieved 2017-07-06 .
  82. ^ Newton, Jim (2016-05-01). "Gov. Jerry Brownish: The Long Struggle For The Practiced Cause - Jerry Dark-brown has been fighting for the environs for decades. He reflects on that history". UCLA Blueprint. Archived from the original on 2016-05-24. Retrieved 2018-12-23 .
  83. ^ Dillon, Liam (2016-07-20). "Why structure unions are fighting Gov. Jerry Brown's plan for more housing". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2016-08-10. Retrieved 2019-04-25 .
  84. ^ Liam Dillon (2022-03-nineteen). "'The constabulary that swallowed California': Why the much-derided CEQA is then difficult to change". Los Angeles Times.

Farther reading [edit]

  • Fulton, W; Shigley, P Guide to California Planning Tertiary Edition, (2005) Point Loonshit, California ISBN 0-923956-45-X
  • CEQA at 40: A look dorsum, and alee—materials from a conference held at UC Davis School of Police, November 4, 2011
  • Cecily Talbert Barclay; Daniel J Curtin; Matthew South Gray California State Employ and Planning Law, (2012) Point Arena, California ISBN 9781938166013

External links [edit]

  • California Natural Resources Agency, CEQA site
  • Governor's Office of Planning and Inquiry, CEQA site

coxquichishipt.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Environmental_Quality_Act

0 Response to "Timeline for Ceqa Review for a Negative Declaration"

Enregistrer un commentaire

Inscription à : Publier les commentaires (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel