5A Public Hearings 2021 0706 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

May 19, 2021 Page 6 5005-004acp printed on recycled paper project alternatives or mitigation measures.17 Without an adequate analysis and description of feasible mitigation measures, it would be impossible for agencies relying upon the EIR to meet this obligation. Under CEQA, an EIR must not only discuss measures to avoid or minimize adverse impacts, but must ensure that mitigation conditions are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other legally binding instruments.18 A CEQA lead agency is precluded from making the required CEQA findings unless the record shows that all uncertainties regarding the mitigation of impacts have been resolved; an agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibility.19 This approach helps “ensure the integrity of the process of decision by precluding stubborn problems or serious criticism from being swept under the rug.”20 Following preliminary review of a project to determine whether an activity is subject to CEQA, a lead agency is required to prepare an initial study to determine whether to prepare an EIR or negative declaration, identify whether tiering or another appropriate process can be used for analysis of the project’s environmental effects, or determine whether a previously prepared CEQA document could be used for the project, among other purposes.21 The initial study must accurately describe the project, identify the environmental setting, identify environmental effects and show “some evidence” to support those conclusions, and a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects of the project, if any.22 CEQA requires an agency to analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an EIR except in certain limited circumstances.23 A negative declaration may be prepared instead of an EIR when, after preparing an initial study, a lead agency determines that a project “would not have a significant effect on the environment.”24 If the project has potentially significant environmental effects but those effects can be reduced to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures that the project's 17 Id., §§ 21002-21002.1. 18 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2). 19 Kings County Farm Bur. v. County of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727-28 (a groundwater purchase agreement found to be inadequate mitigation because there was no record evidence that replacement water was available). 20 Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 935. 21 CEQA Guidelines §§ 15060, 15063(c). 22 CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d) (emphasis added). 23 See, e.g., Pub. Resources Code § 21100. 24 Quail Botanical Gardens v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597; Pub. Resources Code § 21080(c). 65