Download NR 416 Final Study Guide (2025) Actual Exam Questions and Answers A+ Graded.pdf and more Exams Nutrition in PDF only on Docsity!
NR 416 Final Study Guide (2025) Actual
Exam Questions and Answers A+ Graded
What .are .the .three .possible .initial .study .conclusions? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-No .significant .environmental .impacts .--> .Negative .Declaration .(ND) Significant .environmental .effects .can .be .mitigated .below .thresholds .of .significance .--> .Mitigated .Negative .Declaration .(MND) Potential .for .significant .environmental .effects .--> .Environmental .Impact .Report .(EIR) What .is .the .basis .for .a .MND? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-Initial .Study .shows .potentially .significant .impacts .but:
- .Revisions .in .project .plans .agreed .to .by .applicant .before .public .review .would .mitigate .to .below .level .of .significance
- .No .substantial .evidence .in .record .of .a .significant .effect .of .mitigated .project What .are .the .required .contents .of .ND's .and .MND's? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-- Project .description
- Project .location
- Identification .of .project .proponent
- Proposed .finding .of .no .significant .effect
- Attached .copy .of .Initial .Study .justifying .finding *For .MNDs, .mitigation .measures .included .in .the .project .description .to .avoid .significant .effects What .is .a .key .point .of .the .ND/MND .process .overview? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER- 30 .days .of .public .review .is .necessary, .but .you .do .not .need .to .explicitly .acknowledge .comments .from .the .public .in .any .documents. Detail .the .recirculation .of .ND's .and .MND's. .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-Recirculation .is .needed .if:.
- New, .avoidable .(mitigable) .significant .effect .is .identified
- Proposed .mitigation .measures .not .sufficient .or .feasible
Recirculation .is .not .necessarily .needed .for .mitigation .measure .substitution, .if:
- New .measure .is .equivalent .or .more .effective
- Agency .considers .the .matter .in .a .public .meeting
- The .new .measure .will .not .cause .a .significant .effect
- "Findings" .must .be .documented If .the .answer .is ."yes" .to .any .of .the .following .questions .after .completion .of .an .initial .study, .what .is .the .recommended .CEQA .document?.
- What .if .there .is .uncertainty?.
- What .if .a .project .is .highly .controversial?
- What .if .there .is .the .remote .possibility .of .a .significant .impact? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-Prepare .an .EIR. A .MND .is .permitted .only ."if: .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-1. .The .initial .study .identified .potentially .significant .effects .on .the .environment, .but .revisions .in .the .project .plans ."would .avoid .or .mitigate .the .effects .to .a .point .where .clearly .no .significant .effect .on .the .environment .would .occur". AND
- .there .is .no .substantial .evidence .that .the .project .as .revised .may .have .a .significant .effect .on .the .environment ....." What .is .the ."Fair .Argument .Standard"? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-An .EIR .must .be .prepared .when .it .can .be: .fairly .argued, .based .on .substantial .evidence, .in .light .of .the .whole .record, .that .a .project .MAY .have .a .significant .environmental .effect. If .the .courts .can .identify .that .a .Fair .Argument .has .been .made, .then .the .project .must .be .addressed .in .an .EIR. What .IS .substantial .evidence? .What .IS .NOT .substantial .evidence? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-Substantial .evidence .is:
- facts
- fact-related .reasonable .assumption .(predicated .on .facts) --> .factual .testimony .about .existing .environmental .conditions .can .form .the .basis .for .substantial .evidence
- expert .opinion .supported .by .facts
- relevant .personal .observations .of .area .residents .on .nontechnical .subjects .may .qualify .as .substantial .evidence Substantial .evidence .is .not:
- argument
- speculation
- unsubstantiated .opinion .or .narrative
- clearly .inaccurate .or .erroneous .information
- economic .impact .not .linked .to .physical .environmental .impact
- .Environmental .Assessment
- .(Mitigated) .Finding .of .No .Significant .Impact: .(m)FONSI
- .Environmental .Impact .Statement CEQA
- .Initial .Study
- .ND/MND
- .EIR How .does .the .decision .to .prepare .an .EIS .and .an .EIR .differ .between .NEPA .and .CEQA .respectively? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-NEPA:. Agencies .must .prepare .an .EIS .only .if .there .is .substantial .evidence .that .the .project .will .have .a .significant .environmental .impact.. CEQA:. Agencies .must .prepare .an .EIR .if .fair .argument .can .be .made .that .a .project .may .have .a .significant .impact. Give .two .examples .of .MND .Proposals. .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-1. .Expansion .of .Downtown .Mission .Plaza
- wanted .to .do .an .expansion .and .used .a .MND
- could .have .made .a .fair .argument .for .significant .cultural .impacts .(cultural .studies .alone .cost .$30k), .so .they .really .needed .to .write .an .EIR
- project .hasn't .really .gone .anywhere .since, .probably .not .a .lot .of .funding
- .Paso .Robles .Airport
- wanted .an .IS, .MND, .permitting .for .a .sewer .line .expansion, .and .some .other .rudimentary .stuff .like .recycled .water .pipelines
- thought .there .was .going .to .be .piecemealing/segmenting, .but .the .people .literally .didn't .care. .They .just .wanted .a .sewer .system .so .they .could .stop .using .septic .tanks. What .are .the .pros .of .MND's? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-1. .Time .and .cost .savings .(depending .on .project complexity)
- .Enforceable .mitigation .(MMRP); .applicant .agreement
- .Certainty .of .less .than .significant .impacts .(no .Statement .of .Overriding .Considerations) What .are .the .cons .of .MND's? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-1. .No .public .scoping .requirements
- .Rely .on .appeals/litigation .to .dispute ."grey .area" .impacts
- .High .risk .of .EIR .due .to .fair .argument .standard What .are .some .things .to .keep .in .mind .when .considering .the .required .contents .of .an .EIR? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER--Format/Style .may .vary
- Each .element .must .be .covered .(less .than .significant .may .be .grouped)
- Plain .language, .easy .to .navigate
- Analytic, .not .encyclopedic
- Specificity .depends .on .detail .of .project
- Disclosure .restrictions: .trade secrets, .archaeological .sites. What .are .the .contents .of .an .EIR? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-Table .of .Contents Executive .Summary Project .Description Environmental .Setting .(Baseline) Environmental .Impact .Analysis
- .Project .Impacts
- .Growth-Inducing .Impacts
- .Cumulative .Impacts
- .Mitigation .Measures
- .Residual .(Impact .Classes) Alternatives .Analysis Significant .Irreversible .Changes References, .Organizations .and .Persons .Consulted What .is .an .executive .summary? .What .are .the .key .components .of .an .executive .summary? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-Guidelines .recommend .clear, .concise .*15- page .limit .(which .people .almost .never .obey) Arguably .one .of .the .most .important .sections .of .an .EIR. .Many .reviewers .will .ONLY .read .the .summary. Should .be .last .section .prepared Key .components: .Significant .Effects .& .Mitigation .Measures .(often .in .matrix .format, .grouped .by .issue .area .OR .grouped .by .impact .class). .Areas .of .known .controversy .Issues .raised .by .agency .and/or .public .Unresolved .issues What .is .a .project .description? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER--Also .one .of .the .most .important .sections- .basis .for .remainder .of .the .document -->Inadequate .PD .may .result .in .overturned .EIR -->Ideal .timing .- .completed .before .NOP .is .distributed -->One .of .the .most .challenging .aspects .of .CEQA .process; .PD .being .developed .after .EIR .process .has .commenced.
- Must .be .accurate, .stable, .complete, .and .include .all .project .components.
- Must .include .reasonably .foreseeable .future .phases.
- Identify .comprehensive, .well-crafted .project .objectives. .
- Identify .intended .uses .of .the .EIR .by .other .agencies, .for .other .permits. Components .of .project .description: .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-1. .Project .Objectives*
- .When .defined .too .narrowly, .may .limit/restrict .alternatives .analysis .to .point .of .inadequacy What .is .the .environmental .setting? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-Def: .Description .of .physical .environmental .conditions .at .the .time .of .the .NOP, .or .when .environmental .analysis .is .commenced, .if .no .NOP. -->Sometimes .there .are .exceptions! -->Several .case .law .rulings .pertaining .to ."baseline" What .are .the .components .of .the .environmental .setting? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER- Includes:
- .Project .site .description
- .Project .vicinity
- .Regional .description
- .Policy .and .planning .context .(Inconsistencies .with .General .Plan) What .is .the .purpose .of .the .environmental .setting? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER- Determines .baseline .for .environmental .analysis --> .Baseline .physical .conditions .that .the .Lead .Agency .uses .to .determine .impact .significance How .do .you .determine .what .the .baseline .is? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-Adequate .description .of .the .existing .environment .is .a .necessary .prerequisite .for .a .legally .sufficient .impact .analysis. Must .be .established .before .impacts .of .a .project .can .be .determined .or .measured. Dimensions:
- Spatial: .project .site, .vicinity
- Temporal: .timing .of .stuff, .especially .right .NOW
- Functional: .activities, .uses, .function Determining .the .Baseline .example: .North .County .Advocates .vs .City .of .Carlsbad .- .CORRECT .ANSWER- 1969 .shopping .center .was .constructed. .It .featured .retail .shops .and .five .main .anchor .department .store .buildings, .one .of .which .was .a .Robinsons-May .store. Under .a ."Precise .Plan" .approved .by .the .City .in .1977, .developer .was .entitled .to .renovate .the .interior .of .the .Robinsons-May .store .and .fully .occupy .it .without .obtaining .further .approvals.. In. 2006 .the .Robinsons-May .store .became .vacant, .although .smaller .retailers .stores .occupied .the .space .intermittently .from .time .to .time .thereafter. In .August. 2012 .the .City .released .a .draft .EIR .for .a .project .to .demolish .and .reconstruct .the .former .Robinsons-May .store, .approximately .six .years .after .it .had .become .vacant. .The .project .would .result .in .a .net .loss .of. 636 .square .feet .of .total .gross .leasable .area.
In .preparing .the .EIR's .traffic .analysis .for .the .project, .the .City .applied .an .existing .conditions .environmental .baseline .that .was .premised .on .a .fully .occupied .Robinsons-May .building, .even .though .the .space .had .been .vacant .since .2006. NCA .challenged .the .EIR, .arguing .that .the .City .(1) .used .an .improper .baseline .in .the .EIR's .traffic .analysis, .(2) .failed .to .consider .proper .mitigation .measures, .and .(3) .failed .to .respond .adequately .to .public .comments. .The .trial .court .rejected .each .of .these .arguments, .and .NCA .appealed. --> .Note: .Court .only .discussed .argument .(1) .in .their .ruling; .therefore .that .is .the .only .one .that .was .precedent-setting. Historical .operational .levels .can .be .used .to .establish .the .existing .environmental .conditions .baseline, .but .only .if .they .are .supported .with .substantial .evidence, .such .as .actual .entitlements .for .those .historic .levels, .and .demonstration .that .the .use .at .those .levels .had .previously .occurred. Other .cases .referenced:
- .Communities .for .a .Better .Environment .v. .South .Coast .Air .Quality .Management .Dist. .(2010) --> .Supreme .Court .held .that .an .air .district's .selected .air .emis What .is .an ."impact" .and .what .are .the .different .types .of .impacts .a .project .can .have? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-Def .impact: .change .project .will .cause .to .the .environment. Types:
- .Direct .(primary)
- .Indirect .(secondary)
- .Long-term, .short-term .changes
- .Presence .of .a .resource .is .not, .per .se, .an .impact Significant .environmental .impact: .avoidable .v. .unavoidable Avoid .unclear .modifiers:.
- Somewhat .significant .impact
- Very .significant .impact
- Major .impact How .are .residual .impact .classified? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-Class .I .- .Where .an .impact .will .have .a ."significant .and .unavoidable .impact" .even .after .all .feasible .mitigation .and .existing .regulations .are .applied .to .the .impact. --> .EIR Class .II .- .Where .an .impact .is .identified .as .significant, .but .feasible .mitigation .measures .exist .(above .and .beyond .the .application .of .existing .regulations .or .ordinances) .to .reduce .the .impact .to .less .than .significant .levels. --> .MND
What .the .Guidelines .say: "The .EIR .shall .also .analyze .any .significant .environmental .effects .the .project .might .cause .by .bringing .development .and .people .into .the .area .affected...." What .the .Courts .say:
- 2015 .Case .Law: .California .Building .Industry .Assoc. .v. .Bay .Area .Air .Quality .Management .District .(2015). 62 .Cal.4th. 369
- The .Court .invalidated .these .two .sentences .of .the .Guidelines:. --> ."In .light .of .CEQA's .text, .statutory .structure, .and .purpose, .we .conclude .that .agencies .generally .subject .to .CEQA .are .not .required .to .analyze .the .impact .of .existing .environmental .conditions .on .a .project's .future .users .or .residents. --> .But .when .a .proposed .project .risks .exacerbating .those .environmental .hazards .or .conditions .that .already .exist, .an .agency .must .analyze .the .potential .impact .of .such .hazards .on .future .residents .or .users.
- Ruling: .In .those .specific .instances, .it .is .the .project's .impact .on .the .environment- .and .not .the .environment's .impact .on .the .project- .that .compels .an .evaluation .of .how .future .residents .or .users .could .be .affected .by .exacerbated .conditions." When .do .growth-inducing .impacts .of .a .project .result? .What .are .some .attributes .of .these .projects? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-Would .result .if .Project:
- Fosters .economic .or .population .growth .or .additional .housing
- Removes .obstacles .to .growth
- Taxes .community .services .or .facilities .to .such .an .extent .that .new .services .or .facilities .would .be .necessary
- Encourages .or .facilitates .other .activities .that .cause .significant .environmental .effects Secondary, .or .indirect, .project .impact Guidelines .do .not .specify .level .of .analysis. .Often .glossed .over .in .EIRs. .Program/Master .EIRs .are .best .time .to .evaluate; .Subsequent .EIRs .may .reference .(without .repetitive .analysis) Should .not .be .assumed .either .beneficial .or .detrimental, .but .rather ."Growth .Accommodating" Recommended .approach .to .growth-inducing .impacts: .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-1. .Describe .how .the .project .might .induce .growth
- .Estimate .the .amount, .location, .and .timeframe .of .growth .that .could .occur .as .a .result .of .the .project
- .Determine .the .possible .environmental .effects .from .growth
- .Determine .impact .significance .and .mitigation .measures What .are .some .examples .of .projects .that .could .have .growth-inducing .impacts? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER--Housing
- Expanding .a .lumber .mill .--> .more .jobs .created
- New .mall .in .a .more .rural .area
- Stadium .project.
- Expansion .of .public .facilities .(wastewater .treatment .plant)
- Extension .of .public .transit .line .(BART)
- Extension .of .public .services .(located .outside .of .CSA .boundaries)
- Significant .employment .generation
- Significant .housing .increase What .are .cumulative .impacts? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-Def: .two .or .more .individual .effects .which, .when .considered .together, .are .considerable .or .which .compound .or .increase .other .environmental .impacts.. Incremental .impact .of .the .project .when .added .to .other .closely .related .past, .present, .and .reasonably .foreseeable .future .projects.. Is .the .cumulative .(i.e., .combined) .impact .significant? .Is .the .project's .incremental .contribution .to .that .impact .cumulatively .considerable? A .project .may .have .cumulative .impacts .to .a .resource .even .if .the .EIR .finds .that .the .project's .individual .impact .to .that .resource .was .less .than .significant. What .are .some .methods .used .to .identify .cumulative .impacts? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-List .Approach: .List .of .past, .present .and .reasonably .foreseeable future .projects. Projection .Approach: .Summary .of .projections .based .on .general .plan or .similar .planning .document. Combination. What .is .the .purpose .of .an .EIR? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-1. .Inform .decision .makers .and .public .about .a .project's .significant .environmental .effects .and .ways .to .reduce .them
- .Demonstrate .to .public .that .environment .is .being .protected
- .Ensure .political .accountability .by .disclosing .to .citizens .environmental .values .held .by .elected .and .appointed .officials What .does .CEQA .require .of .an .EIR? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-CEQA .does .not .require .technical .perfection .in .an .EIR, .but .rather: - .Adequacy - .Completeness - .Good .faith .effort .at .full .disclosure What .are .the .parts .of .the .EIR .process? .What .parts .go .in .each .of .the .three .phases? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-Phase .I: .EIR .Initiation
- Kickoff .Meeting/Preliminary .Data .Collection
- Preliminary .Project .Description
- Scoping .and .Agency .Consultation Phase .II: .EIR .Preparation
- Admin .Draft .EIR .(for .Lead .Agency .review)
What .is .a .mitigation .measure .under .CEQA? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-There .are .four .aspects .of .mitigation .measures. .At .the .most .basic .level, .they .should .avoid, .minimize/reduce/eliminate, .rectify, .and .compensate.. Avoid: .avoid .the .impact .altogether .by .not .taking .certain .actions .or .parts .of .actions Minimize, .reduce, .or .eliminate:
- minimize .impacts .by .limiting .the .degree .or .magnitude .of .the .action .and .its .implementation
- reduce .or .eliminate .the .impact .over .time .through .preservation .and .maintenance .during .the .life .of .the .action Rectify: .rectify .the .impact .by .repairing, .rehabilitating, .or .restoring .the .affected .environment .(where .it .happened) Compensate: .compensate .for .impact .by .replacing .or .providing .substitute .resources .or .environments .(somewhere .besides .original .location) Describe .an .effective .mitigation .measure. .What .questions .should .be .addressed .to .properly .mitigate? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-An .effective .mitigation .measure .is .one .that .is .an .explanation .of .mitigation .objectives.. Questions .to .be .addressed:
- How .will .it .be .implemented?
- Who .is .responsible .for .implementation?
- Who .is .responsible .for .oversight?
- Where .will .it .occur?
- When .will .it .occur?
- What .are .the .performance .criteria?
- What .steps .will .be .taken .if .criteria .aren't .met? What .is .feasible .mitigation? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-Characteristics .of .feasible .mitigation:.
- Consider .economic, .environmental, .legal, .social, .and .technological .factors
- Mitigation .measures .must .be .fully .enforceable
- 5th .Amendment ."Takings .Clause" .is .a .constraint: ."private .property .shall .not .be .taken .for .public .use, .without .just .compensation"..
- Proponent .concurrence .(lead .agency .can .mandate .certain .measures .and .the .applicant .has .to .suck .it .up) .required .for .MND, .not .EIRs
- There .shall .be .a .clear .connection .("essential .nexus") .between .the .proposed .mitigation .measure .and .the .identified .significant .effect.
- Mitigations .requiring .dedication .of .private .property .or .monetary .exactions .must .be ."roughly .proportional" .(both .in .nature .and .extent) .to .the .impact .of .the .proposed .development. Describe .the .Nollan .vs. .California .Coastal .Commission. 1987 .case .and .the .resulting .legislation. .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-Details:.
.Replacement .of .existing .bungalow .with. 3 .bedroom .house .(Ventura .Co) .Aesthetic .impacts .- .CA .Coastal .Act .requires .diminishing .the ."blockage .of .the .view .of .the .ocean" .California .Coastal .Commission .granted .development .permit .with .condition .to .grant .public .access .easement .along .beachfront The .Nollan .case .described .the ."nexus" .requirement .for .exactions:. .US .Supreme .Court .found .the .requirement .unconstitutional .because .of .the .insufficient .nexus .between .the .public .burden .created .by .the .proposed .construction .and .the .permit .condition .required .by .the .CCC. ."unless .the .permit .condition .serves .the .same .governmental .purpose .as .the .development .ban, .the .building .restriction .is .not .a .valid .regulation .of .land .use .but .an .out-and-out .plan .of .extortion." Therefore, .in .order .for .an .exaction .(or .mitigation) .to .be .valid, .the .type .of .condition .imposed .must .address .the .same .type .of .impact .caused .by .the .new .development. What .was .the .key .takeaway .from .the .Nollan .vs. .CCC .(California .Coastal .Commission) .case? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-Nexus .Requirement Describe .the .Dolan .vs. .City .of .Tigard. 1994 .case .and .resulting .legislation. .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-Details:. .Project: .Redevelopment .(expand .building, .pave .parking .lot) .of .existing .retail .store .in .Oregon. .Impacts: .Traffic, .Water .Resources .(Flooding) .City .approved .permit .w/ .condition .that .owner .donate .portion .of .her .property .for .flood .control .and .traffic .improvements. .The .city .wanted .to .build .a .public .greenbelt .and .pedestrian/bike .path .along .creek .frontage.. Judicial .Rulings:. .Oregon .Appeals .and .Supreme .Court .sided .with .City .(met .requirements .of .Nollan) .US .Supreme .Court .overturned --> .Exactions .not .proportional .to .impact --> .Public .vs. .private .(greenway) --> .Substantial .evidence .(bike .path .to .offset .traffic .increase) What .was .the .key .takeaway .from .the .Dolan .vs. .City .of .Tigard .case? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-The .exaction .needs .to .be .proportional .to .the .impact. Describe .the .Ehrlich .vs. .Culver .City .(1996) .case .and .the .resulting .legislation. .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-Details:. .Project: .multi-unit .residential .condominium; .replacing .previously .operated .private .tennis .club .and .recreational .facility. .Re-zone .required .(REC .to .RES) .REC .impact: .shortage .of .facilities .in .the .city; .developer .required .to .pay .a .mitigation .fee .of .$280,000 .as .a .condition .for .approval .of .his .project. Judicial .Rulings:.
--> .Species .revegetation .in .predetermined .locations .(lily) .- .CORRECT .ANSWER- Proper .deferral! Is .this .an .example .of .a .proper .or .improper .deferral? .Why .or .why .not?. .Biological .Impacts .(vernal .pools .and burrowing .owls) .Developer .must .prepare .management .plans .and .submit .to .USFWS .and .CDFW .for .approval .Conform .to .future .management .plans .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-Improper .deferral!. This .is .improper .because .CEQA .documents .need .to .be .self-mitigating. .Can't .just .push .the .responsibility .on .other .agencies .and .absolve .the .lead .agency. Can .example .mitigation .measures .be .reused? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-Each .jurisdiction .is .different. .Research .previous .environmental .docs .within .the .jurisdiction .for .examples. .However, .don't .re-use .poorly .written .mitigation .measures. What .are .the .four .mitigation .categories? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-Mitigation .Categories:. .Avoid .Minimize, .Reduce, .and/or .Eliminate .Rectify .Compensate What .questions .should .you .be .asking .when .building .mitigation .measures .so .you .know .they'll .be .effective? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-Effective .Mitigation .Measures:. .How .will .it .be .implemented? .Who .is .responsible .for .implementation? .Who .is .responsible .for .oversight? .Where .will .it .occur? .When .will .it .occur? .What .are .the .performance .criteria? .What .steps .will .be .taken .if .criteria .aren't .met? What .are .some .criteria .of .feasible .mitigation .measures? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER- Feasible .mitigation .measures .if:. .Consider .economic, .environmental, .legal, .social, .and .technological .factors .Enforceable How .do .you .ensure .you're .not .performing .a ."take" .when .instituting .mitigation .measures? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-No ."Takings". .Essential .Nexus .Rough .Proportionality What .are .the .two .types .of .mitigation .deferrals? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-Improper .and .proper .deferrals.
What .is .a .Mitigation .Monitoring .and .Reporting .Program? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER- The .public .agency .shall .adopt .a .reporting .or .monitoring .program .for .the .changes .made .to .the .project .or .conditions .of .project .approval, .adopted .in .order .to .mitigate .or .avoid .significant .effects .on .the .environment. .The .reporting .or .monitoring .program .shall .be .designed .to .ensure .compliance .during .project .implementation. .MMRP .is .adopted/certified .separately .from .EIR, .usually .at .the .time .of .certification .of .the .Final .EIR. What .is .arguably .considered .to .be .the .heart .of .CEQA? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER- Mitigation .is .the .heart .of .CEQA. .At .the .end .of .the .day, .it's .one .of .the .most .important .parts. What .are .the .objectives .of .mitigation .monitoring? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-1. .Ensure .implementation .of .mitigation .measures .during .project
- .Allow .for .adaptive .management
- .Provide .feedback .on .mitigation .effectiveness
- .Provide .learning .opportunities .for .improving .mitigation .measures .on .future .projects
- .Identify .need .for .enforcement .action .to .prevent .environmental .damage. .Oversight/Enforcement .varies .significantly .by .jurisdiction. What .are .some .questions/methods .to .be .used .to .evaluate .the .effectiveness .of .different .mitigation .measures? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-1. .How .will .it .be .implemented?
- .Who .is .responsible .for .implementation?
- .Who .is .responsible .for .oversight?
- .Where .will .it .occur?
- .When .will .it .occur?
- .What .are .the .performance .criteria?
- .What .steps .will .be .taken .if .criteria .aren't .met? Why .do .we .bother .with .alternatives .analysis .in .CEQA? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER- Just .two .quick .examples:
- Show .the .public .that .the .train .has .not .already .left .the .station..
- Could .possibly .be .implemented .by .the .applicant. What .are .some .of .the .basic .things .to .know .about .alternatives? .What .are .some .introductory .things .to .know? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-Alternatives .are .required .by .CEQA .Guidelines:. .Nature/Scope: ."Rule .of .Reason" .Reasonable .range .of .alternatives .to .the .project .or .project .location .Feasibly .attain .most .of .the .basic .project .objectives .Avoid .or .substantially .lessen .significant .environmental .impacts
.Range .of .alternatives .cannot .be .limited .by .the .fact .that .the .project .applicant .has .made .substantial .investments, .agreements, .or .contracts .in .the .proposed .project .before .obtaining .approval .by .the .decision-making .body.
- .Conduct .detailed .environmental .analysis .of .reasonable .range .of .alternatives .and .No .Project.
- .Identify .the .Environmentally .Superior .Alternative How .do .you .identify .alternative .sites .or .locations? .How .is .this .step .different .for .NEPA .than .it .is .for .CEQA? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER--Need .not .be .evaluated .in .every .case .- ."rule .of .reason" .public .really .likes .this .one
- Key .question: .Are .environmental .impacts .avoided/lessened .overall
- If .alternative .locations .are .NOT .evaluated... .need .to .disclose .reasons
- If .alternative .locations .ARE .evaluated... .rely .on .previous .documents .(plan, .policy, .or .program .EIRs) .to .extent .possible
- Circumstances .where .inclusion .of .alternative .sites .would .be .appropriate: --> .Public .project .(because .of .eminent .domain, .in .which .private .property .is .taken .for .the .public .good) --> .Project .proponent .owning .or .controlling .or .having .access/lease .of .feasible .alternative .sites --> .Two .or .more .developers .seeking .approval .for .same .type .of .development .at .different .locations What .is .the ."No .Project .Alternative"? .What .are .the .details? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-A ."No .Project .Alternative" .must .be .included. The .purpose .of .the ."No-Project" .alternative .is .to .provide .a .comparison .of .the .environmental .impacts .that .would .result .if .the .project .is .approved .with .what .would .occur .if .the .project .was .not .approved. What .are .the .two .types .of .a .no-project .alternative? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-When .the .project .IS .the .revision .of .an .existing .plan, .policy .or .ongoing .operation, .the ."No .Project" .Alternative .will .be .the .continuation .of .the .existing .plan, .policy .or .operation .into .the .future, .and .the .analysis .compares .the .proposed .plan .to .what .would .occur .under .the .existing .plan. When .the .project .is .NOT .the .revision .of .an .existing .plan, .policy .or .ongoing .operation .(for .example, .a .development .project .on .identifiable .property), .the ."No .Project" .Alternative .is .the .circumstance .where .the .project .does .not .proceed, .and .the .analysis .compares .the .proposed .project .to .the .property .remaining .in .its .existing .state. --> .Exception: .Other .future .uses .of .land .or .regulatory .actions .are .reasonably .foreseeable
What .are .some .examples .of .when .a ."No .Project .Alternative" .are .not .necessarily .environmentally .superior? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-Avila .Point .Project .--> .need .to .clean .up .the .site .whether .construction .happens .or .not Eagle .Ranch .(Atascadaro)--> .owners .want .to .increase .the .number .of .residential .units .to .hundreds .of .units, .have .commercial .stuff .and .a .convention .center .there. .The .no-project .alternative .is .a .reduced .number .of .housing .units .(45). What .is .an .Environmentally .Superior .alternative? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-If ."No .Project", .the .EIR .must .also .identify .another .in .the .EIR .Conundrum: .Comparing .apples .to .oranges --> .May .have .different .Environmentally .Superior .Alternatives .for .different .environmental .issue .areas .Lead .Agency .not .obligated .to .adopt; .Findings .must .determine .infeasible .(w/ .substantial .evidence .in .the .record)
