Plansplaining CEQA: Explaining the Basics of the California Environmental Quality Act

A Senior Project

Presented to

the Faculty of the City & Regional Planning Department

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

City and Regional Planning; Bachelor of Science

Eric Yu Wang

June, 2023

1



APPROVAL PAGE

Department of City and Regional Planning

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

TITLE: Plansplaining CEQA: Explaining the Basics of the California Environmental Quality Act

AUTHOR: E. Wang

DATE SUBMITTED: June 2022

Dave Amos ________________________________ ____________

Senior Project Advisor Date

Amir Hajrasouliha _________________________ ____________

Department Head Date

2



Table of Contents

APPROVAL PAGE ....................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3

Episode 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................ 7

Episode 2: History and Implementation ................................................................................... 13

Episode 3: IS and Exemptions ................................................................................................... 18

Episode 4: EIRs ........................................................................................................................... 25

Episode 4.5: MMRs IRL ............................................................................................................ 32

Episode 5: Professional Opinions and a Conclusion ................................................................ 34

References .................................................................................................................................... 36

3



Introduction



In recent years, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has been attributed to

the issues faced by many parties within the state of California in terms of development of

housing and other important public projects. While the Governor’s Office of Planning and

Research (OPR) does have short articles on topics regarding CEQA, there is a lack of non-

technical guides which can be comprehended by laypeople. The objective of this project is to

transform complex planning topics into accessible explanation videos to those not yet familiar

with urban planning practices.

An inflection point in the law’s history happened after the appellate court ruling of Make

UC a Good Neighbor v. UC Regents (2023) where a neighborhood group successfully delayed a

homeless and student housing project from being built using CEQA’s generous “fair argument”

clause. After news agencies covered the story, Governor Newsome intervened in the ruling,

requesting the State Supreme Court to allow UC Regents to continue the project (Egelko, 2023).

While CEQA litigation is rare (under 1 percent annually), the media has sensationalized large

cases such as Good Neighbor v UC Regents as an example of CEQA being “the preferred lever

of California’s infamously litigious NIMBYs” (Gray, 2021). This has created a public perception

that CEQA is regularly abused and is a wasteful process that harms development, which

contributes to the housing crisis. Like many issues, there are many misconceptions about CEQA

as it is a very technical law that only planners and related professionals fully understand. While

CEQA is fine for planners and related professionals, it is ultimately a public disclosure law and

therefore, it is imperative for the public to be well-informed for them to be effectively engaged in

the process as CEQA’s heart is within public engagement. One of the many “hats” planners wear

4



in their field of work includes being a public educator. Therefore, helping the public obtain a

solid grasp on CEQA is an important goal and is inline with the role of a planner.

Currently, there is an increase in public exposure to the role planning plays in the public’s

daily lives. This trend can be seen on social media sites such as YouTube and Tik Tok with

content creators such as Not Just Bikes, City Beautiful, and City Nerd. While these individuals

create urban planning content (a still admittedly niche space), the content created by these

individuals are based on casual principles such as New Urbanism and other urban design-

oriented subjects. With some exceptions like City Beautiful, there is a lack of content that aims to

explain policy and how planning works at a local level within this content creator space. To take

advantage of the increasing public interest of urban planning and the recent public exposure to

CEQA, the YouTube channel “Plansplainer” was created to engage the public on complex

planning policy topics such as CEQA in a casual way. My target audience were individuals of my

generation from teenagers to young adults which have interest in planning topics. As the videos

are targeted towards this demographic on a social media platform, the videos themselves heavily

use contemporary comedy associated with the age group of 16 to 25. Comedy on social media is

a balance between appropriateness and knowing the audience. While the content is targeted

towards a certain age group, my goal is to ensure every age group can be engaged with the final

product.

The series itself is separated into 6 episodes: An overview of CEQA (Introduction), a

brief history of, and contemporary implementation of the law, the initial study process, the EIR

process, a real-life example, and interviews with three different planning professionals on their

experience with CEQA. The first 4 episodes cover CEQA and rely heavily on reference texts and

thus have more of a conventional script while the last two episodes focus on actual

5



implementation of the law which also have less of a script as they are filmed in real-time. In

preparing and writing the scripts, I consulted with CEQA professionals including Chris Clark,

J.D., a professor within the CRP Department. Professional insight and comments helped directed

the language of my videos since CEQA is a technical law, the mastery of the English language

was important to ensure accurate, yet comprehensible information. Moreover, I also heavily

referenced the 2012 CEQA Deskbook from Solano Press. There were two reasons why I went for

this version compared to a newer version. First, the 2012 version was the only one that I had

access to, and second, I was told that there are very few changes between editions. This advice

seems to be accurate as Solano Press’s website has not released a full revision of their deskbook

since 2012; rather, they have released “Deskbook Updates”, which are complimentary PDFs that

highlight changes to specific texts within the book. Since it is still an older title, I have cross

referenced this work with the 38

edition of Solano Press’s California Land Use & Planning

Law (2023), the 2023 CEQA Guidelines from AEP, and Placework’s 2019 CEQA guide. As

supplements, I also reviewed the opinions of Good Neighbor v UC Regents and Friends of

Mammoth v Mono County to understand these cases before explaining them in the video.

Moreover, the fifth episode uses the MMP from Prefumo Creek Commons as a reference to the

mitigations seen/unseen on the development.

While the first four episodes would have sufficed in obtaining the goal of explaining

CEQA to the public in an engaging way, I opted to add the last two episodes to show an insight

into CEQA from a planner’s perspective. The fifth episode serves as a supplement to the

examples I show in the first four episodes to convey the abundance of mitigations and influence

CEQA has within the built environment. The last episode is meant to convey the insights of

CEQA from professionals themselves to show a diverse perspective of the importance of the law.

6



It also serves as a method of increasing the series’ legitimacy by including experienced

professionals’ opinions. When presenting the videos to faculty, there was generally positive

feedback. The videos were seen to be accurate yet approachable and successful in their comedic

effects (even when the video did not target their age group). When presented to peers that had no

occupational relationship to CEQA, the response was similar. All peers that reviewed the first

episode understood the main concept of CEQA: it is a public disclosure law. Peer feedback

indicated the appreciation of text that reinforce key concepts discussed in the videos as well as

the variety of memes.

Given the 10 weeks to complete all six episodes, if I were to have more time, I would

increase the quality of visual content seen as most of the time was dedicated to research and

script writing. A concern that was brought up with a reviewing faculty member mentioned the

risk of the product videos being inappropriate in the future due to how contemporary some of

these memes are. As this is a risk for any comedic video on social media, I am prepared to revisit

and revise these videos later on. Moving forward, I would like to continue this YouTube channel

as a place to discuss planning topics such as the California Coastal Commission, Tribal planning,

and other complex planning topics.

7



Scripts

Episode 1: Introduction

Ok,soimaginethis.

You’retheheadofamajorpublicinstuonthatisknownforbeingacenterforresearchand

innovaon.

Sinceitisamajorworldclassinstuon,lotsofstudentswanttogotoyourschool

Well,therefore,youneedtobuild

morehousing

Oneofthesehousingprojectshappenstobeplacedonaparcelwherethereisahistoricalpark

Someneighborsgetwindofyourproject

Theybantogetherandsucceed(toadegree)indelayingitunderthissillylilelaw

Thislawiscalled…uhlet’s

see..uhh

Kekwah,cecah?,no.SeeKah,

Wait…CEQA

CEQAstandsfortheCalifornianemploymentquanty‐nowait,

It’scalledtheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityActorCEQA.

Andit’sapublicdisclosurelawthathasbeenaroundforoverhalfacentury.

Beingover50yearsold,CEQA

sllhasalotofcontroversyandmisconcepons.

Someoftheseextremeclaimsincludethatthisintricatepieceoflegislaonisthecauseofthecurrent

housingcrisisbydenyingeverydevelopmentthatmeetsitsdeathly gaze,

toit’stheonlyreasonwhythestate’sdiverseecologysllexists…becauseitkillseverydevelopment

thatmeetsitsdeadlygaze.

Ofcourse,thesearemajorandextrememisconceponsbecausetheyarenottrueatall.Firstoﬀ,

becauseCEQAcan’tstopaprojectas,andthisisVERYIMPORTANT,itDOESNOTDETERMINEWHETHER

ORNOTAPROJECTISAPPROVED.

Moreover,outofalltheCEQAprojectswithinagivenyear,onlyanyfracon,lessthan1percentgo

throughligaon(Bass&Ronald,2012,p.246).

IfyouscrollaroundYouTubeorjustgoogle“CEQA”,youmeeteither3‐minuteunsubstanalpolicalads

usingittoreinforcetheirpolicalagendaorhour‐longboringprofessionalconferenceslideshowsthatno

averagepersoncanunderstand

Therefore,Ihavedecidedtotakeontheinsurmountabletaskoftryingtosimplifythisbehemothofalaw

thataﬀectseveryCalifornian’s 

dailylife(somemorethanothers)yetissomysﬁed,thatmanypeople…

8



Justslldon’tcaremuchaboutit.(Unlessadevelopercomesintotown)

Allina…

Mulpartseriesbecausethere’ssomuchtogoover.

Butifyoustayforallofit,IcanassureyouthatyouwillbemorefactuallyinformedaboutCEQAthan

yourneighborhood/socialnetworkNIMBYorYIMBYwilleverbe,allinamoredigesblewayaswell.

Unlesstheywatchedthisseriestoo.

Ihopeyou’lljoinmeonthisjourneyofplansplainingCEQA!

INTRO

Endofintro

TitleCard:IntroduconandOverview

Themostimportantthingtounderstand

aboutCEQAisit,asstatedbefore,isaPublicDisclosurelaw

Originally,thiswasmeanttobeamethodofincreasinggovernmenttransparencybyinforming“decision

makersandthepublicaboutthepotenalenvironmentaleﬀectsofproposedacviesandtoprevent

signiﬁcant,avoidableenvironmental

damage”(OPR).

Whatdoesthatmean?

Itmeansthatthelawrequirestheprojecttodiscloseanypotenalsubstanaleﬀectsitmayhaveonthe

environment(hencethedisclosurepart).

Anditbringsscienceintothisdecision‐makingprocess.

AGAIN,itDOESNOTMAKEADETERMINATIONOF

WHETHERORNOTAPROJECTISAPPROVED.

CEQAdoesthefollowingthings:

Inform

Idenfy

Prevent

Disclose

Itinformsdecisionmakersaboutthesigniﬁcantenvironmentaleﬀectsofaproject.

Itidenﬁesenvironmentaldamagewhichcanbeavoided.***

ItATTEMPTStopreventdamagebyreducingorminimizingavoidable

damage(asbestasitcan)via

migaons,andalternaves.Itcanonlypreventenvironmentaldamageoutrightthroughcontextualizing

theprojectforotherenvironmentallaws.

Anddisclosestothepublicwhytheprojectisapproved,evenifitleadstoenvironmentaldamage.

Italso:

9



Laysouttheprocessbutdoesnotdictateoutcome.Infact,thestatehaslileinterferencewhenit

comestotheprocessastheﬁnaldecisionisletolocalgovernment.

Infact,diﬀerentjurisdiconshaveslightdiﬀerencesonhowtheycarryoutCEQA,meaning

youcan

mastertheprocessinonecounty,butbecomeslightlylostifyouaempttodothesameprojectina

diﬀerentone.

Requirespublicevolvementanddiscourseinitsstatutes.

Ofcourse,allofthisonlyha ppensiftheprojectisconsidered“discreonary”.

Whatcounts

as“discreonary”?

Basically,anyprojectthatmustgothroughadecision‐makingprocess.

Usually,itisa citycouncilorBoardofSupervisorsthatreviewstheseprojects.(Thesearethepeopleyou

electtolocalgovernmenteveryeleconseason).

Ofcourse,thereisamoretechnicaldeﬁnion

butfornow,justthinkofdiscreonaryprojectsasones

thatmustundergoadecision‐makingprocess.

TheProcess(es)ScreenCard

CEQAisdiﬀerentfromotherconvenonalplanninglaws.

Itisapublicdisclosurelawthatoverlapswithenvironmentalplanninglaws.

Whilelawslikezoningaddressplanning

issuesspeciﬁcally,

CEQAtreatseachprojectasauniquecaseunderenvironmentalissues.

It’sjustthatplanningintersectswithhowprojectsaﬀecttheenvironment

suchasintraﬃc,landuse,housing ,etc.

Whenaproject“triggers”CEQA,itgoesthroughamultudeofphases.

Whileit’seasy

tojustlumpallthesephasesunder“CEQA”,CEQAitselfisn’tonesingleprocess.

Thinkofitasamul‐stagegroupofprocesses.

Tosummarizethewhole,theprojectgoesthroughaninialstudy,whichthendetermineswhetherthe

projectitselfneedstobefurtherlookedatornot.

Ifitdoesnot,itusuallymeansthattheprojectdoesnotaﬀecttheenvironmentsubstanallyenoughor

itdoes,butthemigaonmethodstheprojectproposestodowillinsumnotaﬀecttheenvironment

substanally.

However,iftheinialstudyﬁ

ndsthattheprojectwillcreatesubstanalenviro nmentalimpacts(even

withmigaonmeasures),

ThentheprojectwillgothroughaprocessknownastheEnvironmentalImpactReport(EIR).

ThisiswhatmanypeoplethinkwhenreferringtoCEQA.

10



TheEIRiscomprisedofasetofrequiredseconsthatanalyzeenvironmentalimpactsfromtypical

categorieslikegreenhousegasestolessdirectcategorieslikeaesthecsandarchaeologicalresources.

(SS21082.2)

Dependingonthesizeandscopeoftheproject,theEIRprocessmaytakealong

meandrequirea

varietyofexpertsfrombiologiststohistoriansinsomecases.However,mostCEQAprojectslastaround6

monthsatmost.

However,unlikewhatsometendtobelieve,thereisamelimitoneverything.

We’llgomoreintodetailaboutalloftheprocessesinfuturevideos,

butfornow,thisisasfarasIwillgo

indetail.

Ok,sowhoisresponsiblefortheseprocesses?

Theregulatorybodywhichisreferredtoasthe“leadagency”isresponsibleforthecoordinangand

goingthroughtheprocess.

UnderthedeﬁnionofCalifornia

PublicResourcesCode13.21067,“leadagency”meansthepublic

agencywhichhastheprincipalresponsibilityforcarryingoutorapprovingaprojectwhichmayhavea

signiﬁcanteﬀectupontheenvironment.

…Thanksforthat…

Okay,whatdoIreallymean?

So,it’sabit complicatedifwethink

toohardaboutit.

AsIstatedearlier,therearemanyparesinvolvedwiththeimpactanalysis.

But,thereisoneagencythatleadsthiseﬀortandisreferredtoasthe“leadagency”.

Theleadagencydoesthefollowingthings:

Migatethereportedeﬀectsthrough

migaonoraddionalcondionsandjusfythemasaresult,

AndmakeanddecideCEQAdeterminaons(declaraons).

Theleadagencyisadiscreonaryauthority,meaningit’susually(asstatedbefore)acity,county,LAFCO,

APCD,etc.

Convenonallywithleadagencies,thesta

ﬀwillpreparethereports,nottheactualdiscreonary

members.Oenmoremesthannot,theleadagencywillhireaconsulngﬁrmtoperformtheworkas

thesediscreonaryagencieslackthestaﬀtocompletethereportinamelymanner.

Allofthisobviouslyrequires

money,whichtheleadagencywillbilltheapplicantfor.Theapplicanthas

nosayintheprocesswhenitcomestoenvironmentalanalysis.

Iftheydid,itwouldbeconsideredcollusion.Whichisnotgoodpolicallyandlegallyifyouwere

wondering…

DaRulesScreenCard

11



Remember,CEQAisjusttheretodiscloseanyenvironmentalimpact.

Andasalaw,theremustbeanenforcementmechanism.

Ifit’snotobviousalready,theseguidelinesarebindingtolocalgovernments,meaningtheyMUSTfollow

therulesSTRICTLYorelse…

There’snoCEQApoliceandsinceit’sall

localgovernment,can’tanyonejusttrytobypassit?

Well…no.

Okay,sohowarethesemigaonsenforced?

CEQAisenforcedbythemostscrunizinggovernmentalgroup.

Angryneigh‐

ThecizensofCalifor‐

Actually,it’sspeciﬁedtotheresidentsoftheproject’sjurisdicon.

Thismeansthat

themainenforcementmethodisthroughthepubliccommenngprocessandin

extremecases,ligaon.

You’veprobablyheardoffamouscasesoflargeprojectsgoingthroughcostovershootsandmajordelays.

Well,thesehappenwhencizenshaveexhaustedallnon‐legalopons,alsoknownastheexhausonof

alladministraveremedies.ThisisararecaseandwhatgetscoveredbythenewsfrequentlywhenCEQA

comesup.

We’llgointodetailabouttheligaonprocesslater,butfornow,rememberthatthereisalimitasthese

suitsmusthavestanding

(alegimatereason).

Ontopofcizenli gaon,thestateAorneyGener alisabletoforcecomplianceinveryextremeand

rarecircumstances.

Somebridge(WIP)

CEQAisliketheconstuoninmanywa y s,

Theybothstartwiththeleer“c”and

theybotharelivingdocuments.

Thismeansthatthelawanditsinterpretaonisalwayschanging.

Infact,CEQAisaliveastheconstuonwithmulplechangeseveryyearduetohowCEQA’srulesare

deﬁned.

Therulesaredeterminedbythreethings:

StateStatutes(PRC

21000–blahblahblah)

Statuesarethelaw,“enactedandmodiﬁedbythestatele gislature”(Placeworks,2019,pg.1).

StateGuidelines(CCRTitle14,Div6,Ch.3,15000‐15387)

12



Guidelinesarethe“primaryrulesandinterpretaonofCEQA”(Placeworks,2019,pg.1).Guidelines(as 

statedinthename)givedirecontopublicagenciescarryingoutCEQAwhichincludemandatoryand

oponaldirecons.

Andcourtrulings(Courtrulingschangerulesthroughre‐examiningtheinterpretaon

ofthestatute,

hencemodifyingtheguideli nes).

However,whilecourtsdefertoguidelinesinmostcases,theydonot“carrythesamelegalauthorityas

thestatute”(Placeworks,2019,pg.1).

AConclusion

So,ifyouhavelearnedanythingaboutCEQAfromthisvideo(Ihope),hereare somekeypointsto

take

away.

CEQAisapublicdisclosurelawthat’spurposeistodiscloseaproject’senvironmentalimpacts.It’sa

planninglawthatintersectswiththeenvironmentalrealm.

Itismeanttohelpdecisionmakersmakedeterminaonsbasedonscienﬁcevidenceand toactasa

formofgovernment

transparencywhenmakingthesedecisions.

CEQAitselfcannotdenyorapproveaproject.Inaddion,theprojectmustbeconsidered“discreonary”

totriggerCEQA.

Inaddion,CEQAcanonlybeenforcedthroughcivilmeansviacizenparcipaonandinextreme

cases,suits.However,these

suitsmusthavelegalstanding.

TheenvironmentalprocessunderwhichCEQAoutlinescaneitherbefastorlongdependingonthe

scopeoftheprojectandtheamountofimpact.

TherearemulplepublicagenciesandparesinvolvedwithCEQA.However,theseprocessesaremainly

managedbythelead

agency.

Finally,CEQAisalivingdocument,meaningthatitisever‐changingbasedoncourtrulings,statutesand

guidelines.

Outro

13



Episode 2: History and Implementation

IntroCard:HistoryandImplementaon

It’s1969andonaniceJuneSundaymorning,youwakeupinyourniceSFHtothesightofdarkblack

plumesintheskyandaho rrible industrialsmell.Oh,itappearsliketheCuyahogaisonﬁre.Neat...

TheCuyahogaﬁre

wasoneofthewatershed(punintended)momentsthatturnedtheAmericanpublic

towardsenvironmentalconsideraons.

ThiswassummarizedinthefollowingyearwiththenPresidentNixonpassingtheNaonalEnviro nmental

PolicyAct(NEPA)intolaw,whichestablishedtheEPA(EnvironmentalProteconAgency)and

environmentalreviewin

federalprojects.

NottobeoutdonebyhisfuturepredecessorwithintheconﬁnesofRepublicanpresidencies,Ronald

Reagan,thengovernorofCalifornia,passedtheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityActintostatelaw.

Thus,CEQAwasborn.ThiswastotallythecorrectandaccuratereasoningintowhyhepassedCEQA.

Okay,so

that’snotwhyCaliforniapassedCEQA.Therealreasonarguablydealswithfederalism.

Toputitbrieﬂy,whenthefederalgovernmentpassesalawthatregulatesacon,stateswillusuallypass

alawthatequalsorsurpassesthestandardsofthefederallaw.

Whenthishappens,insteadofthefederalgovernmentregulangthelawdirectly,theycangivethe

powerofregulaontothe statesthemselves.Therefore,manystateshavepassedtheirownversionof

NEPAtomaintainstatecontrolofprojects.

Itshouldbenotedthatthatnooneknowswhichlawwasconceivedﬁrst.

WhileNEPAwaspassedﬁrst,becauseofthesimilariesbetweenCEQAandNEPA,itispossibleNEPA

mighthavebeenbasedoﬀofadraofCEQA.

ItisimportanttounderstandthatCEQAismuchmoresubstanvethanNEPAasnotonlydoesitrequire

projectsto

discloseenvironmentalimpacts,“butalsotoavoidormigateimpactswhenfeasibletodo

so”(Bass,2012,pg.7)

ItisalsoimportanttoknowthatsomeprojectsfallunderonlyCEQAwhileothersfallunderNEPAand

CEQA.

Forexample,ifyouwantedtoestablishanuclearpowerplantwithin

thestateofCalifornia,youwould

needtoperformanEIRfromCEQAandanEISperNEPAasboththeCPUCandNPCwouldbelead

agenciesinproject.

SinceCEQAinconsideraonsismorestringentthanNEPA,ifyou’remeeng CEQArequirements,you’re

alreadymeeng

andsomemesexceedingthefederalstandards.

However,becauseoftheinter‐agencyworkingofhavingtwoleadagencies(oneforCEQAandanother

forNEPA),things cangetabittricky…

14



Thus,thereareguidelinesspeciﬁcallydedicatedtoscenarioslikethatonewhichcanbefoundonthe

OPRwebsite!

TitleCard:MonoVMammoth,aMAMMOTHofalegalcase!

Lastepisode,wetouchedonhowCEQAisalivingdocument;itevolvesovermethroughchangesin

the

statutesandinterpretaon.

Well,one ofthesearguablymajorchangesoccurredwaybackin1972…

Let’ssetthescene:1972

LVmillionaireMikeOliver’sLibertarianparadiseofMinervadeclaresindependenceandshortly

thereaerisdismantledbyTongathroughannexaon

TheGermansbeatthesovietsat“football”

The

F‐15makesitsmaidenﬂight

NixonandAgnewarerenominatedattheRNC

Oh,andsomethingsomethingwatergate.SomethingsomethingCIAsomethingsomethingFBI,

somethingsomethingobstrucon.

Ok,nowit’sSeptemberofthesameyearandweﬁndourselvesintheSupremeCourtofCalifornia.

Whyare

wehere?

Theyalreadysolvedthemoralquesonofwhetherthedeathpenaltywasconstuonal,whatelseisso

importanttodecide?

Well…

EarlierinApril,InternaonalRecreaon,adevelopmentcompany,appliedforacondionalusepermit

withinmonocountyonthesitethatwas

nexttomammothlakes.

TheCUPwascomprisedof:twocondos,arestaurantand“specialtyshops”(whateverthatmeans).

FriendsofMammothsuedthecountyastheybelievedthepermittobeinvalidasanenvironmental

reviewwasrequired.

Wellactually,theygotapeontoinvalidatetheprocess

(whichwassenttothewrongcourtsothey

hadtodoittwice),andtheyappealeditallthewaytothestatesupremecourt!

Ahem.anyways,

Remember,thisisslltheearlyyearsofCEQA.

CEQA’soriginalpurposewastodisclosetheenvironmentalimpactofGOVERNMENTacons

(considered

projects).

Thisbiglawhadmanydiﬀerentinterpretaonsbydiﬀerentagencies.

15



Someagenciescoveredgovernmentaconasspeciﬁcallygovernmentprojectswhileotheragencies

believedthatitappliedtoanyprojectthathadgovernmentfunding.

Thingslikeprisons,schools,freeways,wereobviouslycoveredunderCEQA.However,asthecourtnoted,

“nowhereintheactis‘pro ject’deﬁned”(which

mayhavebeenornot,onpurpose).

Well,thattermwasputtothetestherewhereFriendsofMammothchallengedtheMonoCountyBoard

ofSupervisorsregardingtheBOS’sdecisiontoapproveaCUPonthebasisthatapprovingtheprojectwas

adiscreonaryacon,andtherefore…was

subjecttoCEQA.

Ofcourse,thedefendants(inthiscase,InternaonalandtheBOS)arguedthatCEQAonlyappliedto

“publicworksprojects”asthatwashowthestatutewasinterpretedupunlthatpointinmebythe

leadagency.

Longstoryshort,thecourtmajority sided

withFriendsofMammoth,nongthat“theincongruityof

[interprengCEQAassolelyforpublicprojects]wouldbemostvividinthelesspopulouscounes,such

asMono,whichbecauseoflimitedeconomiccapabiliesmightneverengageinmassivepublicworks

projectssigniﬁcantlyaﬀecng

theenvironment,butcouldachievethesameresultbyperming,

licensing,orparallyfundingprivateacvies.”

Basically,thecourtsaidifCEQAweretoconnuetobeinterpretedasjustfullygovernmentfunded

projects,lesseconomicallygiedareaswouldbeshaedecologicallyby

privateinterestsastheywould

havefreereignandnoenvironmentaloversight.

Andthatwasnotthespiritofthislaw.

Thespiritofthelawconsideredgovernment“acon”.

Thisinitselfisabroadrangeofthingsfromdirectconstrucontofunding,to(inthiscase)theac

onof

permingaprivateproject.

Andthatcaseishownowalldiscreonaryprojects(whetherpublicorprivate)nowfallunderCEQA.

Implementaon

Asarepeatoflastme,courtsusuallyabidebythesetguidelinesandstatutes,butwill changethe

interpretaonofthem

ifneedbe.

Whilestatutesareimplementedbylegislaveacon(i.e.senate/assembly oriniaves),theonesthat

writetheguidelinesaretheNaturalResourceBoardandtheGovernor’sOﬃceofPlanningResearch

(beerknownasOPR).

AprojectisdeﬁnedbyCEQAasany

acvitywhichhasapotenalforresulngineitheradirectphysical

changeintheenvironment,orareasonablyforeseeableindirectphysicalchangeintheenvironment,

PublicResourcesCode(PRC21065)

Inpraccalterms,tobea“project ”intermsofCEQA,itmustbeboth

ofthefollowing:“carriedout,

approved,orfundedbythepublicagency”,andwhether“itmaycauseachangeinthephysical

environment”(PRC21065).

Ifitpassesbothtests,itisaprojectandthereforeissubjecttoenvironmentalreviewunderCEQA.

16



Okay,soItalkedaboutthisbrieﬂypreviously.

Inmoredetail,CEQAonlyappliestoprojectsthatrequirediscreonaryapprovals.

Discreonarymeansthatapublicagencyexercisesjudgementindecidingwhethertoapproveor

disapproveaproposedproject.

Addionally,ifanagencyhasauthorityto

“modifyaproposedprojectordenyapprovalinresponseto

environmentalconcerns,itsaconisdiscreonary”(Barclay&Gray,2022,148).

Thisisdiﬀerentfromaministerialprojectwhereapublicagencyapprovesordisapprovesaproposed

projectbasedonwhethertheprojectmeetscertainstandardssetby

statute(akalaw).

Ifit’sministerial,itdoesnotrequireahearingorreviewbyacommissionorboard.

MostprojectsconsideredbyCEQAarethetypicaldevelopmentproject.

However,caseswheremoreliteralformsofaconaretakenarealsocommon.

2005turbineproject

In2005,PGEdecided

toupdatetheDiabloNuclearPowerplantbyremovingitsoldturbinesand

replacingitwithupdatedones.ThisrequiredanEIRwiththeCPUCbeingtheleadagency.

Forsomereason,I’mnotsurewhy,theprojectwasnotcarriedoutevenwithaﬁnishedEIR. 

CEQAappliesto“allgovernmentagenciessubjecttothejurisdiconofCalifornialawatalllevels,

includingstateagencies,stateboards,statecommissions,cies,counes,regionalagencies,andspecial

districts”(Bass,2012,pg.19).

ThisstatelawdoesNOTapplytoanynon‐governmentalagencylikeatribalauthority,nora

federal

agency,thegovernor,orthejudiciary.

However,NEPA(thefederalversion)appliestoselectdiscreonaryfederalprojects.

AlleligibleagenciesmustadoptCEQAimplementaonproceduresthatareconsistentwiththelaw.

Theyshouldcontainthefollowing:

 IDexempons

 ConducngIS

 PreppingND

 Consulngwithotheragencies

 Ensuringadequateopportuniesforpublicreviewandcomment

 Evaluangandrespondingtocomments

 Assigningresponsibilityfordeterminingtheadequacyofenvironmentaldocuments

 Reviewingandconsideringenvironmentaldocumentsbydecisionmakers

 Filingenvironmentaldocuments



Importance

17



Environmentalregulaonwasneverthatbigofadealbeforetheseenvironmentallaws.

However,asscienceadvances,weconnuetofurtherourunderstandingofhowimportantour

environmentiswithinthecontextofmanythingssuchashumanhealthandtheservicesitprovidesto

us.

CEQA’s

roleinprotecngtheenvironmentcannotbeunderstatedinthisregard.Itopensoureyestothe

possibleimpactandmethodsofmigangitwhereaswithoutit,wewouldn’tthinkofanyofthese

things.

ItisaPUBLICDISCLOSURELAW.

Itsmainpurposeispublic transparency

ofdiscreonarydecisions.

Ofcourse,itsareaofimplementaonhasreachedoutwardoverthedecadesfromstrictlygovernment

projectstotoday’sever‐changingdeﬁnions.

However,itsmainpurposehasstayedtruethroughoutthedecadeseveninthefaceofjudicialand

legislaveexpansion.

Conclusion

Tothe

concernedpublic,CEQAisoneofmanylaws(lookingatyou,BrownAct)thatholdslargerpolical

forceswithinthecontextoflocalgovernmentatcheckfromtheabuseofpowerthatcomesalongwith

it.

Toothers,itisawaythatallowsthestatetobuildmore

environmentallyconsciouslyandresponsibly.

Whateverthecasemaybe,thelawitself haschangedcharacterthroughoutitslifeandsllchangesto

thisday.Evenso,itsmainmissionofinformingthepublicisitsmainobjecveandremainsso.

Nextepisode,we’lltalkabouttheCEQAprocessfromstarttoﬁnishsobuckleupforthatone!I’llcatch

younextme!

Outro

18



Episode 3: IS and Exemptions

Intro

Okay,let’sgooverwhattheprocess ofreviewinga“project”lookslike.

First,wehavetodetermineifittriggersCEQA.

Indeﬁningwhataprojectis,

Wehave3quesonsthatguideus:

Doesitinvolveexercisingdiscreonarypowerbyapublicagency?

Does

itresultinadirectorreasonablyforeseeableindirectphysicalchangeintheenvironment?

Istheaconconsidereda“project”?

Inthe“project”queson,itincludes:

Anyacontakendirectlybyagovernmentagency(likestudenthousingestablishedbyapublic

university)

Anaconsupportedbya

publicagency(likeCaltransfundingahighwayproject)

Anyaconthatneedsadiscreonarypermitfromapublicagency(thinkofCUPsoranypermitsthat

requireahearing)

Asyoucansee,thedeﬁnionofaprojectisverybroad.

Sobroadthatthestate

legislaturehasuseditspowertodeﬁnewhatspeciﬁcaconsareNOTconsidered

projectsunderCEQA.Theseinclude(butarenotlimitedto):

‐ ProposalsforlegislaontobeenactedbyStatelegislature

‐ Certainconnuingadministraveormaintenanceacvies

‐ Acity

councilaconplacingavoteriniaveontheballot

‐ Etc.

Whilebroad,thispartisveryimportant.

Soimportant,infact,thatI’mgoingtogiveyouanexample.

SOFIEXAMPLE

Soyoumightalsobewondering,isitpossibletodivideaprojectintosmaller

projects,sothatitdoesn’t

triggerCEQA?

No.

Infact,wehaveatermforit:piecemealing,whichisn’tallowed.

CEQArequiresthewholeintenonoftheproject,andindirectenvironmentaleﬀectsarealsoconsidered.

19



However,itshouldbenotedthattheymustbeREASONABLYFORSEEABLE,

asawidevarietyofthingsareconsideredCEQAprojects,

Therearesomethingswedon’twanttogothroughtheenvironmentalreviewformanyreasons.

So,wehaveanexemponprocess.

Theseexemponsfallunder

threecategoriesofreasons:polical,eﬃciency,andcommonsense.

Theﬁrsttypeisastatutoryexempon.

Theseareexemponswrienintothestatestatutebylegislators.

Thingssuchasairqualitypermits,ministerialprojects,emergencyprojects,OlympicGames…

OlympicGAMES?!

Sobecausestatutoryexempons

arewrienintolawbylegislators,someex emponsarepurely

polical.

OlympicGamesandtheconstruconofbuildingsthatfacilitatethemareoneexampleofthis.

Anothertypeofexemponisthecategoricalexempon.

Theseareforthetypesof projectsthathaveshownme

andmeagaintohaveminimalenvironmental

eﬀects.

Moreover,thesetypesofprojectsaresomemescarriedoutsooenthatratherthangoingthroughand

takingmetowriteawholeinialstudyandND(whichwewillgetintosoon),

Itisclassiﬁedas

anexemponforeﬃciency.

Whiletherearelesstypesofcategoricalexempons,acommoncategoricalexemponistheclass32

exempon:alsoknownasinﬁll.

Theseapplytoprojectsthatarewithincityboundarie s ,whichsitehasalreadybeensigniﬁcantlyaltered

fromthenatural

landscape.

Thinkofconverngan oldwarehouseneardowntownintoaraveclub.

However,itshouldbenotedthattherearesomeexceponsrelatedtopotenaleﬀectsandtheysll

requirenocingandpubliccomments.

Thelasttypeofexemponisthegeneral

exempon,alsoknownasthe“commonsense”exempon

Theseareprojects“whereitcanbeseenwithcertaintythatthereisnopossibilitythattheacvityisnot

subjecttoCEQA”(Guidelines15061b).

Ofcourse,thisisdiﬃculttoproveandrequiresaVERYVERYstrongcase.

Iftheprojectisdeterminedtobeanexempon,theleadagencyhastheopontoﬁleanocecalleda

“noceofexempon”orNOE.

Wow.Creave,Iknow.

20



ANOEisrequiredforspeciﬁcstatutoryexempons.

However,inpracce,aNOEisalmostmandatoryformostexemptedprojectsasitwillallowa35‐day

periodinsteadofa180‐dayperiodofchallenge.

Thistherebyencouragestheleadagencytojusfyits

acons,somethingthatisinlinewiththespiritof

CEQAasapublicdisclosurelaw.

TheNOEcontains:

‐ Abriefdescriponoftheproject

‐ Thereasonforthedeterminaon

‐ Citaonsbackinguptheclaim

Ithastobepostedandmadeavailablefor

publicviewing,whichincludestheinternet

AppendixEoftheCEQAguidelineshasarecommendedNOEform.

Iftheprojectinquesondoesnotmeetanyexempon,thenwemoveontothenextstep:theinial

study(IS).

Thisstepistodeterminewhethertheenvironmental

eﬀectsoftheprojectarepotenallysigniﬁcant

enoughtorequireanenvironmentalreview.

This“environmentalreview”isknownastheenvironmentalimpactreport(EIR).

IftheleadagencybelievestheprojectrequiresanEIRrightoﬀthebat,thentheIScanbeskipped.

Thepossibleoutcomesof

anISarethefollowing:

‐ NegaveDeclaraon

‐ MigatedNegaveDeclaraon

‐ EIR

ThereisnospeciﬁcprocessofconducnganIS

Itcanbe don ebytheleadagencyoranotherparty.

However,ifitisdonebyanotherparty,the

leadagencymustreviewitbeforehand.

TheISitselfusesinformaonfromaplethoraofsources,includinginformaonfromtheapplicant.

Moreover,theISdoesnotrequirepubliccirculaon,meaningthatthepublicisnotrequiredtoreview

theIS.

However,theleadagencymaychoosetoinformally

circulateadra,whichisverybeneﬁcial.

Circulaonmayfurtherassistinstreamliningtheprocessascommentscangiveinsightintothe

developmentofmigaonmeasurestosupportaMNDoridenfypotenaleﬀectsahead ofme.

IftheISconcludesanegavedeclaraon(eitherNDorMND),thenanoceofdeterminaonis

circulated.

IfitconcludestheneedforanEIR,anoceofpreparaon(NOP)isdetermined

21



AnIScontainsthefollowing:

‐ Projectdescripon

‐ Environmentalseng

‐ Potenalenvimpacts

‐ Migaonmeasuresforanysigniﬁcanteﬀect

‐ Consistencywithplansandpolicies

‐ Namesofpreppers

Whilethereisnospeciﬁcformat,formostlead

agencies,agoodformatcanbefoundintheGuidelines.

Thisdocumentiswidelyknownas“appendixG”andactslikeanISchecklist

Ifanyanswerontheappendixisansweredas“potenallysigniﬁcantimpact”,thenittellsthereaderthat

anEIRmustbeprepared.

Whileit

isasomewhatcomprehensiveformat,itmaynotaddressallissuespertainingtothespeciﬁc

jurisdicon.

AssumingthatyourISisundisputed,younowmustseewhethertheprojectmeetstherequirementsofa

negavedeclaraon.

Anegavedeclaraon(ND)iswhenthereis

nosubstanalevidenceofanypossiblesigniﬁcantimpacton

theenvironment.

Ifthereare,thenyouwouldneedtomigateit.

Buthavenofear,andEIRisnotrequired(yet).

IftheISﬁndssigniﬁcantimpact,buttheapplicantagreestomigateitand

themigaonisfoundto

reducetheimpacttolowerthanthedeterminedsigniﬁcance,

Thenyoucandetermineittobeamigatednegavedeclaraon(MND).

Easyright?

Surely,there’snowaywecanmessthisoneu‐

TheISconclusioncanfallunderscru

nyif notdone thoroughly.

Thisisfromthefairargumentclause.

AnEIRmustbepreparedwhen,accordingtothepublicresourcescode,when“itcanbefairlyargued,

basedonsubstanalevidence,inlightofthewholerecordbeforetheagency,thataprojectmayhavea

signiﬁcanteﬀectontheenvironment”(PRC21080(d),21082.2(d)).

Thismeansthatifthereis“substanalevidence”presentedtotheagencyofapotenalsigniﬁcant

impact,theleadagencymustprepareanEIR.

Butwhatcountsas“substanalevidence”?

Well,I’mgladyouasked!

22



“Substanalevidence”canbeexpertopinionsu pportedbyfacts.

Itcanalsobesuﬃcientrelevantinformaonandreasonableinferencesfrominformaongiventomakea

“fairargument”

ItdoesNOTincludethefollowing:

‐ Argument

‐ Speculaon

‐ Claimsnotbackedupbyfacts

‐ Erroneousorinaccurateevidence

‐ Socialoreconomicimpactsthatdonotcontributeto/notcausedbyphysicalimpactsonenv.

“eﬀectontheenvironment”isbasedontheexisngenvironmentalsengoftheproject.

Thisisknownasthe“baseline”.

Theagencymustjusfywhy

theyusedaparcularbaselineaswell.

Evenifthele adagencyispresentedwithevidenceoftheprojectnothavingapotenalsigniﬁcant

impact,anEIRmustbepreparedifthereisafairargumentforapotenalsigniﬁcantimpact.

Ok,what’swiththistermandclause,“fairargument”?

It’squitevagueright?

Well,afairargumentclauseinthiscaseisalowbarforligaon.

Itispurposefullysettoalowthresholdinthenameofinformingdecisionmakerstothebestoftheir

ability.

Whilethatisthespirit

oftheapplicaonoffairargument,itissllhighlycontroversial.

ItisnosurprisethatitfavorsopponentsofprojectsastheycanbumpaNDuptoanEIR.

Italsocanbeusedtodiscreditmigaonsproposedtoreduceimpactstobelowthe

thresholdof

signiﬁcance.(We’llgettothattermsoon).

Moreover,itforcestheleadagencytotakereceivedcommentsseriouslyduetopotenallegalacon.

However,itallowstheagencytodiscusscommentsandmakemigaonsthataddressthereceived

commentstoavoidanEIR.

During

ligaon,thefairargumentclauseencompassesallinformaonontheadministraverecord.

Thisincludescommentsfromthepublicaswellasﬁndingsfromagenciesandeventheleadagency’s

staﬀ.

Apologiesforthatrabbitholeofatangent.

Also,wait,whatcountsas“signiﬁcant

impact”?

So,thethresholdofsigniﬁcanceisbasedonthejudgementofanagency.

23



Itmustbebackedupbyscienﬁcandfactualdata.

Isthereaspeciﬁcdeﬁnion?

No.

Why?

Becausesigniﬁcancevariesbyseng.

Forexample,thethresholdofsigniﬁcancefortraﬃcisusuallyalothigherinanurbandowntownthan

somewhere

alongarural countyarea.

Perguidelinessecon15358,asigniﬁcanteﬀectontheenvironment“isgenerallydeﬁnedasa

substanalorpotenallysubstanaladversechangeinthephysicalenvironment”.

Let’sdissectthissentenceabit.

“environment”encompassesphysicalcondionsthatexist

withintheareaaﬀectbytheprojectandcan

includeman‐madeandnaturalcondions.

Thingslikeland,air,water,minerals,noise,andevenhistoricalandaesthecresources.

Theaﬀectedareaisdeterminedbytheareaofwhichthesigniﬁcantimpactaﬀectseitherdirectlyor

indirectly.

Theseareasdiﬀerfromimpacttoimpact.

Whiletheﬁndingsforimpactsarenotstrictlylisted,thereare alistofmandatoryﬁndings.

Anyoftheseﬁndings(iffoundtobesigniﬁcantimpacts)willtriggeranEIR.

Guidelinesstatetheprojectwillsigniﬁcantlyimpactthe

environmentif…

[showlist](PRC15065(a)(4))

Ofcourse,therearevaguemodiﬁers.

Therefore,theseare“somewhatopentointerpretaon”(Bass,2012,65).

Addionally,itisn’ttheendoftheworld(yet)astheleadagencycansllapplymigaonsinorderto

reducethe

impact(hopefullytobelowthethreshold).

Howarethresholdsset?

Theyaredonebytheleadagency.

Theymustbeidenﬁable,quantave,qualitave,orperformancelevelofspeciﬁceﬀect.

Thesethresholdsmustbeadoptedthroughpublicreview(usuallyandordinance,resoluon,rules,or

regulaon).

Iftheleadagencyisreviewingaprojectanddoesnothaveanysetthresholdsonhand,thenthespeciﬁc

projectcanadoptthresholdswithoutneedingtheformalmeansIjustmenoned.

24



However,mostthresholdsarebasedonexisngregulatoryagencystandardssuchasairstandardsfrom

CARB,waterthresholdsfrombasinplans,etc.

Actually,appendixGhasalistforeachquesoninregardtowheretosearchforathreshold.

Ok,thishasbeennice,longand

all,butwhyshouldwecareorevenimplementanISanyway?

So,themainpointoftheISistwofold:

Itisusedasaninter‐agencyconsultaonmethod.

WhatImeanbythisisitensuresthatallaﬀectedagencieshaveavoiceinthedecision‐making

process.

Agenciesareconsideredexpertsintheirsubjectmaerandwhatthismeansisthatshouldanagency

requestanEIRtobeprepared,theleadagencyknowsaheadofme.

Moreover,itallowsthatsameagencytocollaboratewiththeleadagencyinincludingpossibl e migaon

measurestoavoidsigniﬁcantimpact.

EvenifanagencyoutrightdeterminesthattheprojectrequiresanEIR,preparinganinialstudyhelps

theprojectdowntheroad.

AnIScanbeusedtofocustheEIRonpotenalsigniﬁcanteﬀectsbyidenfyingthemaheadof

me.

Thisallowstheleadagencytoavoidunnecessaryanalysisofnon‐potenallysigniﬁcanteﬀects.

Italsoisusedtosupportﬁndingsthataprojectwillnothavesigniﬁcantunmigatedenvironmental

impact.

Andﬁnally,somemes,itcanrevealtotheleadagencythat

theprojectitselfcanbemigatedtothe

degreethatitcanbeclassiﬁedasanMND.

Okay,Iknowthiswasalongone.

Butyouknowwhatelseisevenlonger?

Yup,that’sright.

EIRs.

I’llseeyounextme.

Outro

25



Episode 4: EIRs

Ok,we’rehereatthebigone.TheEIR.

Anenvironmentalimpactreport,orEIRisadisclosuredocumentinessence.

Itsmaingoalsaretoinformdecisionmakers,whichallowsforaccountabilityontheirdecisiononthe

projectitselfinaddiontodemonstrangtothepublicthe

environmentalimpactsofdevelopment.

WhileEIRsareaprocessinitself,dependingonthetypeofEIR,somethingsmayormaynotbeneeded.

Yup,youheardmeright.

TYPESofEIRs.

Likedogsandcats,therearemanyvariantsofEIRs;somemoreulizedthanothers.

Themost

basicEIRthereistheprojectEIR.

Likemuchofplanningcolloquial,themeaningisin thename.

ProjectEIRsareEIRsthatfocusonaspeciﬁcproject.

Forprojectsthataremoreinlinewithageneralplanorcampusdevelopmentplanorsomethingsimilar

thatrequiresfuture

acons,programEIRsareimplemented.

Ifyouhaveahumongousprojectlikeasubdivisionthatmightencompassmanydiﬀerentdevelopments,

thenamasterEIRmightberightforyou.

IfyoudeterminedduringtheInialstudythatthereisonlyoneoronlyafewissuesthatneedtobe

addressed,aFocusedEIRisthebestchoice*

*NotethataFocusedEIRisdiﬀerentthanfocusedEIRsasaFocusedEIRwilladdressaspeciﬁcstated

impactwhilefocusinganEIRismoreaboutknowingwhattypesofimpactswillbethere.

Withthatout

oftheway,let’smoveonthebestpartofthiswholeseries:theprocess!(Itonlygoesdown

hillfromherejk).

TheﬁrststepintopreparinganEIRislengEVERYONEKNOWTHATYOUAREPREPARINGANEIR.

Thisiscalledthe“NoceofPreparaon”(NOP).

ThepointoftheNOPistoletbothagenciesandinterestedparesknowwhatpartoftheprocessthe

leadagencyison.

SortaliketheDomino’spizzatrackerinaway.

Withinanoce,theremustbeadescriponoftheproject,thepotenal

impactsandsubsequent

migaonsproposed,andalternaves.

TheNOPisoneofseveral documentsthatmustalsogotothestateClearingho use. 

26



Addionally,commentsreceivedwithin30daysoftheNOPbeingcirculatedmustbeaddressedinthe

EIR.

Tosavemeinanalysis,manyEIRswillhaveascopingphase,whichismeanttoidenfywhatisandisn’t

neededtobediscussedintheEIR.

Examplesof

scopingincludetheIS,NOPcomments,andperforming“scopingmeengs”withthepublic

andinvolvedagencies.

Inpracce,scopingallowsforthelimitaonofdiscussionwithinEIRofnonsigniﬁcantenvironmental

eﬀectstoa“briefexplanaonofwhythoseeﬀectsarenotconsideredpotenally

signiﬁcant”(PRC

21002.1,guidelines15143).

Sinceeveryprojectisdiﬀerent,somemayinduceimpactsthatotherprojectsmaynot.

Forexample,anewCostcogasstaonwillcreatetrips,alongwithdegradingairqualitybecauseofidling

cars.However,whileaHomeDepotmightcreatetrips,it

willnotdegradetheairqualityasbadasthe

gasstaonascarsarelesslikelytoidlewithinitsparkinglot.

Thus,itisquitepossiblethatbothEIRsmighttalkaboutcirculaon,butthegasstaonmayalsoaddan

addionalseconabout

airquality.

AertheNOPiscirculated,theleadagencymaystartworkingontheﬁrstiteraonoftheEIR,knownas

aDraEIR,orDEIR.

TheDEIRisoneoftwolargewringproducts(excludingthatoneMND)CEQApossiblyproduceswiththe

otherone

beingtheFinalEIR(FEIR).

TheDEIRisalsoregularlypreparedbyathirdpartyunderthemanagementoftheleadagency.Thisis

doneaswringEIRshasgrowntobesomeandresourceconsumingthatmanypublicplanning

departmentsandstateagenciessomemeslackthe

personneltoprepareoneinanacceptableamount

ofme.

Thereisnodiﬀerenceinsubstanalandproceduralrequirementsinrelaontoifwhetherornotitwas

preparedbytheleadagencydirectly.

TheleadagencyissllresponsiblefortheﬁnalDEIRasit

sllmustreﬂecttheindependentjudgementof

theleadagency.

ItiscalledadraEIRbecauseitisadra(sorta).

AerthecompleonoftheDEIR,anocemustbesentouttothepublic,similartoaNOP.Thisme,it’s

calleda

NoceofAvailability(NOA).

ANOAletseveryoneknowthattheDEIRisavailableforpublicreview.ANOAmusteitherbecirculated

inthenewspaper(largestone),postedonandoﬀtheprojectsite,directlymailedtoownersand

occupantsofconguouspropertyandmembersofthe

publicwhomayhaveaskedforthenoce(PRC

21092.2).

Addionally,itcanalsobepostedonline.HOWEVER,thisdoesNOTsubstuteprintcopies.

27



TheNOAmustbepostedfor30daysthroughtheclerk’soﬃce.

Whilethisishappening,theleadagencyalsoinformsthestateclearinghousebysendingaNoceof

Compleon(NOC),givingaprojectdescripon,wheretoﬁndtheDEIR,andthelengthof

thepublic

reviewperiodoftheDEIR.

Thepublicreviewperiodisusually30–60dayswithanexpedionorextensionpossiblependingOPR

decision.

PubliccommenngandinvolvementingeneralistheheartofCEQAandthereforeshouldnotbe

forgoen.

Imean,thisis

thereasonwhywehaveCEQAintheﬁrstplace.

Whatisthis?Aregulatoryschemeforconsulngﬁrmstogrimoneythroughbillablehours??Pﬀ.

Anyways,

Commentsreceivedin relaontotheDEIRshouldfocusonsuﬃciencyofthedocumentregarding

idenfyingimpactsand

methodsofmigaonandavoidance.

Itistheleadagency’sresponsibilitytorespondtocommentsthatpointtosigniﬁcantenvironmental

issuesraised(aslongastheyhavesuﬃcientevidencetobackuptheirclaim).

Commentersthemselvesareprotectedfromretaliaonthroughan‐SLAPPlaws,as

I’msureadeveloper

wouldliketostrangleanyonewhopointedouttheirprojectwasgoingtowipeoutawetlands.

DuringthismefromtheNOC,agenciesarealsoabletorespondinregardstotheDEIR.Ofcourse,their

commentsarelimitedtotheirareaofexperse;you

can’thaveCalTranscommentonprotectedspecies

whileFWScommentsonimpactstothelocalfreeway.

Addionally,thesecommentsmustalsobesupportedbysubstanalevidence,meaningaconcernwill

alsohaveanalysisdonebytheagencybeforehandandsentalongwithinthecomment.

Ifagenciesiden

fyanimpact,theyalsomustsuggestmigaonmeasuresthataddresstheseimpacts,if

theycan’tdevelopany,thentheymuststatethisfortheadministraverecord.

*SKITaboutCaltransandleadagency*

Commentscanbeoralorwrien.

Intermsoforalcomments,they’reusuallyin

theformofhearings.

Incasesofhearings,atranscriponmustbemade.However,thereisnocross‐examinaonofthe

applicant,andtheleadagencyisnotrequiredtorespondtoquesonsorcommentsraisedatthe

hearing.

Doyouhateitwhenyougeta

NOAandyouhavesomethinginsighulfortheleadagency?Doyoujust

REALLYwanttoseeyourcommentberespondedtobytheleadagencyeventhoughithasnothingtodo

withtheprojectorthesubstanvenessoftheDEIR?

Doyoueverjust…ruminateaboutit

andthenforgettoeverdoit?

28



Well,latecommentsarelikethisforagencies.

Whilenotrespondingwithinthemeframeleadstotheagencyhaving“nocomment”,latecomments

aresllputontheadministraverecord.

Eitherway,commentsandresponsesareoneofthemanythingsfoundontheﬁnalEIR,or

FEIR.

TheFEIRandDEIRorsortafalsenames.FEIRsfocusonthereponsestocommentsandanychangesto

theDEIRthathavebeenmadeinresponsetocomments.

However,FEIRsonlyreferencetheDEIR.

Soinpracce,justbecausetheFEIRexists,doesn’tmeantheDEIRbecomes

useless.

Here’stheFEIRforacancelledprojectontheDiabloNuclearpowerplant.

Asyoucansee,it’sdividedintotwowholevolumesthesizeof2‐inchbinders.

YoucanalsonocethisEIRissomewhatdiﬀerentasitdoeshavesomeoftheDEIRinit

with…

redlining???

Yup,FEIRsmightbetheﬁnalproduct,butit’seasiertoshowhowitchangedfromtheDEIRthrough

editorialmethodssuchasredliningtobringhomethepoints.

Oneofthesebindershousesallthecommentsandleadagencyresponses.

Ifyoureadthroughthem,alot

oftheuselessonesarejustrecorded.

However,theonesthataresubstanveactuallyhaveawell‐reasoned,good‐faithreplytothem.

So,asareminderforcommenng:

GreatcommentsareonesthatIDothersigniﬁcantimpacts,othermigaons,ormethodsofanalysisand

haveabasissuchasdata,references,expertopinion,etc.

Badandannoyingcommentsinclude:mereopinions.

Also,askingforeverypossibletestunderthesunisnothelpfulasperfeconisnotrequiredtobe

adequate.

Finally,ifyouaregoingtoligate,lookbackattheexhaus

ondoctrine:Youcan’thideevidenceforjust

thetrialasyoushouldhavepresentedyourproblemateverypossibleopportunitytocomment.

andhavetobringupthespeciﬁcviolaonofCEQA

ANDMereobjecontotheprojectisnotvalid.



Ok,theFEIRisdone,

thedragonisslain.That’stheendright?

Nope,goasllapprovetheEIR.

Theleadagency’sdiscreonarybody(thinkcitycouncil)sllhastodecidewhethertheEIRiscompliant

withCEQAandifittrulyrepresentstheleadagency’sindependentjudgementandanalysis.

29



Ifitdoes,thentheywillcerfytheEIR,agreeingwiththedocument’sﬁndings.

Themelimitofcerﬁcaonis1year,withsomeexcepons.

Ok,sonowwe’redoneright?

Well…it’sclose.

I’mhopefullydrivingthishome,butCEQAisa

disclosurelaw.Itdoesn’tapproveordenyprojects.

ItsdocumentsareusedasascienﬁcbasisFORapprovingordenyingprojects.

BasedonthecerﬁedEIR,thediscreonarybodyoftheleadagency(recallcitycouncils,etc)caneither

approve,deny,orrequirecondions.

Essenally,

evenwiththeapplicantgoingthroughtheintenseprocessofanEIR,theycanslldenythe

project.

*Ilovedemocracymeme*

Iftheydecidetoapprovetheprojectwith/withoutcondions,thenatthesameme,aﬁndingsoffactis

alsowrien.

The“ﬁndingsof

fact”isawrienstatementmadebythedecision‐makingbodythat“explainshowit

dealtwitheachsigniﬁcantimpactandalternaveintheEIR”(Bass,2012,193).

Foreachimpact/alternavelistedintheEIR,thereisanexplanaonastohowitwasdealt

withandwhy

theydiditthatway.Foralternaves,theyalsoexplainwhythatalternavewasnotchosen.

Forimpactsspeciﬁcally,ﬁndingscomein3tones:

‐ Wechangedtheprojecttoavoid/reducetheimpact

‐ Wecan’tchangetheprojecttoaddressthisimpactas

it’sunderthejurisdiconofadiﬀerent

agency.Therefore,itisnotourproblem.

‐ It’sunderourjurisdiconbutwewillnotchangetheprojectforsocio‐economic,legal,technical,

orotherconsideraonsmakingthemigaon/alternaveinfeasible.

Thelastoneisknownas

a“statementofoverridingconsideraons”.

Basically,withdisclosedsigniﬁcantimpacts(evenwithmigaons),aprojectcansllbeapprovedbythe

discreonaryboard.

However,theymustgiveareasonwhythebeneﬁtsoftheprojectoutweighsthepotenalimpactsand

whythey’re

willingtoacceptthem

Astatementthatoverridesenvironmentalconsideraonsifyouwill(ehh??Yougetitnow???)

Thisstatementisadoptedwiththeﬁndings.

AlotofprojectsthatgothroughandEIRwillhaveatleastonemigaonaachedtoitscondionof

approval.

Withthosecondionscomesanunderstandingthattheyhavetobefollowed.

30



So,thereareMMPs(migaonmonitoringprograms)thatarealsowrienalongwiththemigaonsfor

aproject.

MMPsarenotrequiredtobedisclosedwithintheDEIR,butitisagoodpracceforleadagenciesto

circulatemigaonmeasures

forthepublictocommenton.

Iftherearemigatableimpactsthatfallunderthejurisdiconofanotheragency,theleadagencywill

leavethatimpacttothatagency ’sjurisdicon.

Inthisway,otheragenciescanalsoadoptMMPsifnecessary.

MMPscancomeintwoﬂavors:

monitoringandreporngprograms.

Reporng“consistsofwriencompliancereview”and“mayberequiredatvariousstatesoftheproject”

(Bass,2012,197).

Reporngprogramsareusuallyulizedtoaddressmeasurableimpactswhichtheleadagencymostlikely

alreadyregulateswithinitscodesuchasunit

occupancy.

Amonitoringprogramisan“ongoingprocessofprojectov ersight,oeninvolvingsitevisits,andissuited

toprojectswithincomplexmigaonthatexceedthelocalagency’sexperse,isexpectedtobe

implementedoveraperiodofme,orrequirescarefulimplementaontoassure

compliance”(Bass,

2012,197).

Woah,thatwasalot.

Inamoresimpleterm,theleadagencymonitorsamigaonthroughouttheprojectfromstarttoﬁnish

whenamigaonmethodistoocomplex/delicatefortheleadagencytohandleorisalong‐term

implementa

on.

AgreatexampleisrighthereinSanLuisObispobythisunsuspecngsign.

Youcan’treallyreaditbecauseyou’reprobablytoobusytryingtogettoLosOs os orthe101.

However,ifyoustopandreadthesign,youstarttoreadsomething…

YUP,thisis

amigaonmeasureaspartoftheEIRforthisshoppingplazayouseeonscreenjustupthe

road.

Butwhy?

Well,becausetheimpactthatthismigaonaddressesisabigone.

Inshortsummary,thedevelopmentwasprojectedtotakeawayasigniﬁ

cantamountofwetlands.

Tooﬀsetthis,theapplicantwascondionedtocreateawetlandhabitatthatoﬀsetthesameamountof

wetlanditwasgoingtopaveover.

Thiswetlandhabitathadtoactuallysupportlife,especiallythesebrownlookingplantsyouseeright

here.

Becausethis

wholemigaontookalongmetosetupandwork,itwasdeﬁnitelyamonitoring

program.

31



Witheverythingdon e,and hopefully,theprojectapprovedandmigaonsadopted,we’realmostthere

inclosingthebook.

Theﬁnalthingneededisanoceofdeci sion(NOD)

Thisisonlyneedediftheprojectisapproved.

Itsummarizedsigniﬁcantimpacts,thecondionsput

ontheproject,theﬁndings,MMPs,andthedateof

approval.

Itmustbesentoutwithin5daysoftheactualapproval.

TheNODmustsenttotheSCHandinterestedparesinaddiontobeingpostedforatleast30business

days.

Ok,NOWwe’rethrough.



Wait…no,no,no,NONONO,WAITWAITWAIT



32



Episode 4.5: MMRs IRL

WhileIwishIcouldgothrougheverymigaonforPrefumoCreek,

FormeconstraintsandbecausesomeMMPshappenduringorbeforeconstrucon,Iwillshowyoua

few.

Tellermachineandpostaldropbox

‐ AQ‐3d

‐ Reduceothertripsgeneratedbyproject

Bikeparki ng



‐ AQ‐3f

‐ ReducetripsthereforeNoX

EnergyEﬃcientlighng(windows)

‐ AQ‐3g

‐ Reduceindirectghgincrease

Rooopequipmentplacement

‐ NO‐3a

‐ Reducenoise

Hoodedlightﬁxtures

‐ VIS‐2a,BIO‐3a

‐ Reducelighngontootherplaces,esp.residenal

properes

‐ Divertlighngthecreekanddisturbingitsspecies

Naveplanng

‐ AQ‐4b

‐ Reduceimpactonclimatechange

Electriccharging15percentofparkingspacesalsonearshoppingareas

‐ AQ‐4b

‐ Reduceimpactofclimatechange

Splitrailfencing

‐ BIO

‐3c

‐ Blockhumansbutallowcreaturestomove

LID

‐ HYD‐3c

‐ Reduceimpactsfromstormrunoﬀ

33



Noisebarriers

‐ N0‐2

‐ Reducenoiseimpacts

Traﬃcimprovements

‐ TT‐1a,TT‐1c,TT‐5c

‐ Preventmoretraﬃc

34



Episode 5: Professional Opinions and a Conclusion

1. Nameandoccupaon

2. WhatisCEQAandhowdoesitrelatetoyourcurrent/previousoccupaon?

3. HowmanyyearshaveyouworkedwithCEQA?

4. WhatisthemostcommonmisconceponaboutCEQAyouhearfrompeople?

5. Howdoyoudispelthem?

6. Howhas

CEQAchanged/notchangedoveryourcareer?

7. Canyoudescribeaparcularlychallengingprojectyou’veworkedon?

8. Whatcouldhavemadeit easier?

9. HoweasyisitinyourexperiencetomakeamistakeinCEQAcompliance?

10. Whatisthemostcommonpiall/mistakethathas

beenmadeinyourexperience?

11. Whatmistakeshaveyoumade?

12. DoyoubelievethattheMammothdecisionwasamistake?

13. Frequencyofligaon

14. Whatisthemostridiculousprojectyou’veworkedon?

15. Projectwithmostresponsibleagencies?

16. Anythingyouwouldliketosee

inthefuture?

17. CEQA,badorgood?



WhatdoIthinkneedstobechanged

I’mnotheretotrytosellanysideofthisargumentasthepurposeoftheseepisodeswastoinformyou.

But,hereismypersonaltakeasagraduangplanningstudent.



CEQAisapublicdisclosurelaw.

Andaveryeﬀecveonetoo.

Whetherit ’sgoodorbadreallydependsonthecontextofhowit’sbeingulized.

Withoutit,itistruethatdevelopmentswouldn’taempttominimizeenvironmentalimpacts.

However,atthesameme,it

canbehijackedbyspecialinterestgroups.

Thelawitselfhasbecomesocomplicatedthatyoualmostneedalawyertounderstandit.

Whileplannersdohaveguidelines,they’retoovaguetogetclearguidance.

Becauseofhowleanmostmid‐sizedandsmallerplanningauthorieshavegoen,there

isusuallyno

CEQAplanningspecialist.

Ithinkwhat’simportantasaplanneristhatCEQAshouldbeclearinitsguidelinesandstatutesabout

whatisrequired.

ThereiscurrentlylotsofbloatwithinCEQAdocumentsbecauseofthefearofligaonduetothis.

35



Ithinkthatthereshouldbehigherbarstoligaonbecausethatwouldalsomaketheprocessharderto

hijackforspecialinte rests.

Overall,CEQAisagoodlaw;ithasgoodrootsandbonesanditsmainpurposeissllthesameasitwas

50yearsago.

It’sjustthatmeschange,andhowthewayCEQAhaschanged,hasbeennotopmal.

MorestraighorwardlanguageandahigherbarofligaoniswhatIbelieveisneededtomakeCEQAan

eﬃcientlawagain.

Iwanttogivemy

thankstothemanypeoplewhohelpedmakethisseriespossible,includingtheones

yousawtodayonscreen.

IwillbebackwithmorecontentaerImoveandstartmyjob(asaenvironmentalplanner).

Unlthen,besafe,andhaveagoodnight.

36



References

A practical guide to the California Environmental Quality Act 6

Edition. (2019). Placeworks.

Barclay, C. T., & Gray, M. S. (2023). California Land Use & Planning Law (38th ed.). Solano

Press Books.

Bass, R. E., Bogdan, K. M., & Rivasplata, A. (2012). Ceqa deskbook. Solano Press Books.

2023 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): Statute and guidelines. (2023). AEP.

Egelko, B. (2023, April 28). Newsom asks State Supreme Court to let UC Berkeley build housing

in People’s Park. San Francisco Chronicle.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/newsom-berkeley-peoples-park-17920749.php

Final Environmental Impact Report for the Prefumo Creek Commons Project. (June, 2009). City

of San Luis Obispo.

https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/6317/635640061797200000

Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (Supreme Court of California September 21,

1972).

Gray, M. N. (2021, March 13). How californians are weaponizing environmental law. The

Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/signature-environmental-law-

hurts-housing/618264/

Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of the University of California (Court of Appeal of the

State of California First Appellate District Fifth Division February 24, 2023).