Appendix N Infill Environmental Checklist Form
14 CA ADC Div. 6 Ch. 3 App. NBarclays Official California Code of Regulations
14 CCR Div. 6 Ch. 3 App. N
Appendix N Infill Environmental Checklist Form
NOTE: This sample form is intended to assist lead agencies in assessing infill projects according to the procedures provided in Section 21094.5 of the Public Resources Code. Lead agencies may customize this form as appropriate, provided that the content satisfies the requirements in Section 15183.3 of the CEQA Guidelines.
1. Project title:
8. Prior Environmental Document(s) Analyzing the Effects of the Infill Project (including State Clearinghouse Number if assigned):
13) Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission's Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
SATISFACTION OF APPENDIX M PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Provide the information demonstrating that the infill project satisfies the performance standards in Appendix M below. For mixed-use projects, the predominant use will determine which performance standards apply to the entire project.
2. If the project site is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, either provide documentation of remediation or describe the recommendations provided in a preliminary endangerment assessment or comparable document that will be implemented as part of the project.
3. If the infill project includes residential units located within 500 feet, or such distance that the local agency or local air district has determined is appropriate based on local conditions, a high volume roadway or other significant source of air pollution, as defined in Appendix M, describe the measures that the project will implement to protect public health. Such measures may include policies and standards identified in the local general plan, specific plans, zoning code or community risk reduction plan, or measures recommended in a health risk assessment, to promote the protection of public health. Identify the policies or standards, or refer to the site specific analysis, below. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Located within a low vehicle travel area, as defined in Appendix M. (Attach VMT map.) Located within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor. (Attach map illustrating proximity to transit.) Consists of 300 or fewer units that are each affordable to low income households. (Attach evidence of legal commitment to ensure the continued availability and use of the housing units for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, for a period of at least 30 years, at monthly housing costs, as determined pursuant to Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code.) Located within a low vehicle travel area, as defined in Appendix M. (Attach VMT map.) The project is within one-half mile of 1800 dwelling units. (Attach map illustrating proximity to households.) Located within a low vehicle travel area, as defined in Appendix M. (Attach VMT map.) Located within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or within ¼ of a stop along a high quality transit corridor. (Attach map illustrating proximity to transit.) The project complies with the requirements in Sections 17213, 17213.1 and 17213.2 of the California Education Code. The project is an elementary school and is within one mile of 50% of the student population, or is a middle school or high school and is within two miles of 50% of the student population. Alternatively, the school is within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor. (Attach map and methodology.) The project provides parking and storage for bicycles and scooters.ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The infill project could potentially result in one or more of the following environmental effects.
| Aesthetics | Agriculture and Forestry Resources | Air Quality |
| Biological Resources | Cultural Resources | Energy |
| Geology / Soils | Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Hazards & Hazardous Materials |
| Hydrology / Water Quality | Land Use / Planning | Mineral Resources |
| Noise | Population / Housing | Public Services |
| Recreation | Transportation | Tribal Cultural Resources |
| Utilities/Service Systems | Wildfire | Mandatory Findings of Significance |
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed infill project WOULD NOT have any significant effects on the environment that either have not already been analyzed in a prior EIR or that are more significant than previously analyzed, or that uniformly applicable development policies would not substantially mitigate. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21094.5, CEQA does not apply to such effects. A Notice of Determination (Section 15094) will be filed. I find that the proposed infill project will have effects that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or are more significant than described in the prior EIR, and that no uniformly applicable development policies would substantially mitigate such effects. With respect to those effects that are subject to CEQA, I find that such effects WOULD NOT be significant and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION, or if the project is a Transit Priority Project a SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, will be prepared. I find that the proposed infill project will have effects that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or are more significant than described in the prior EIR, and that no uniformly applicable development policies would substantially mitigate such effects. I find that although those effects could be significant, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the infill project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, or if the project is a Transit Priority Project a SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, will be prepared. I find that the proposed infill project would have effects that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or are more significant than described in the prior EIR, and that no uniformly applicable development policies would substantially mitigate such effects. I find that those effects WOULD be significant, and an infill ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required to analyze those effects that are subject to CEQA.Signature | Date |
EVALUATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF INFILL PROJECTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
3) For the purposes of this checklist, “prior EIR” means the environmental impact report certified for a planning level decision, as supplemented by any subsequent or supplemental environmental impact reports, negative declarations, or addenda to those documents. “Planning level decision” means the enactment or amendment of a general plan, community plan, specific plan, or zoning code. (Section 15183.3(e).)
4) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur as a result of an infill project, then the checklist answers must indicate whether that impact has already been analyzed in a prior EIR. If the effect of the infill project is not more significant than what has already been analyzed, that effect of the infill project is not subject to CEQA. The brief explanation accompanying this determination should include page and section references to the portions of the prior EIR containing the analysis of that effect. The brief explanation shall also indicate whether the prior EIR included any mitigation measures to substantially lessen that effect and whether those measures have been incorporated into the infill project.
5) If the infill project would cause a significant adverse effect that either is specific to the project or project site and was not analyzed in a prior EIR, or is more significant than what was analyzed in a prior EIR, the lead agency must determine whether uniformly applicable development policies or standards that have been adopted by the lead agency, or city or county, would substantially mitigate that effect. If so, the checklist shall explain how the infill project's implementation of the uniformly applicable development policies will substantially mitigate that effect. That effect of the infill project is not subject to CEQA if the lead agency makes a finding, based upon substantial evidence, that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that effect.
7) Effects of an infill project that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or that uniformly applicable development policies or standards do not substantially mitigate, are subject to CEQA. With respect to those effects of the infill project that are subject to CEQA, the checklist shall indicate whether those effects are significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. If there are one or more “Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an infill EIR is required. The infill EIR should be limited to analysis of those effects determined to be significant. (Sections 15128, 15183.3(d).)
8) “Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures will reduce an effect of an infill project that is subject to CEQA from “Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how those measures reduce the effect to a less than significant level. If the effects of an infill project that are subject to CEQA are less than significant with mitigation incorporated, the lead agency may prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration. If all of the effects of the infill project that are subject to CEQA are less than significant, the lead agency may prepare a Negative Declaration.
Issues:
Significant Impact | Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated | No Impact | Analyzed in the Prior EIR | Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: | |||||
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? | | | | | |
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? | | | | | |
c) In non-urbanized area, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? | | | | | |
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? | | | | | |
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: | |||||
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? | | | | | |
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? | | | | | |
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? | | | | | |
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? | | | | | |
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? | | | | | |
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: | |||||
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? | | | | | |
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? | | | | | |
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? | | | | | |
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? | | | | | |
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: | |||||
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? | | | | | |
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? | | | | | |
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? | | | | | |
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? | | | | | |
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? | | | | | |
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? | | | | | |
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: | |||||
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in § 15064.5? | | | | | |
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? | | | | | |
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? | | | | | |
VI. ENERGY. Would the project: | |||||
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? | | | | | |
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? | | | | | |
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: | |||||
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: | | | | | |
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. | | | | | |
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? | | | | | |
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? | | | | | |
iv) Landslides? | | | | | |
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? | | | | | |
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? | | | | | |
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? | | | | | |
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? | | | | | |
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? | | | | | |
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: | |||||
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? | | | | | |
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? | | | | | |
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: | |||||
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? | | | | | |
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? | | | | | |
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? | | | | | |
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? | | | | | |
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? | | | | | |
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? | | | | | |
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? | | | | | |
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: | |||||
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? | | | | | |
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? | | | | | |
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: | | | | | |
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; | | | | | |
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; | | | | | |
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or | | | | | |
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows? | | | | | |
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? | | | | | |
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? | | | | | |
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: | |||||
a) Physically divide an established community? | | | | | |
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? | | | | | |
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: | |||||
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? | | | | | |
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? | | | | | |
XIII. NOISE -- Would the project result in: | |||||
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? | | | | | |
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? | | | | | |
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? | | | | | |
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: | |||||
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? | | | | | |
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? | | | | | |
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. | |||||
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: | |||||
Fire protection? | | | | | |
Police protection? | | | | | |
Schools? | | | | | |
Parks? | | | | | |
Other public facilities? | | | | | |
XVI. RECREATION. | |||||
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? | | | | | |
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? | | | | | |
XVII. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project | |||||
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? | | | | | |
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? | | | | | |
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? | | | | | |
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? | | | | | |
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. | |||||
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: | |||||
(i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in the local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources. Code Section 5020.1(k), or | | | | | |
(ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. | | | | | |
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: | |||||
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? | | | | | |
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? | | | | | |
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? | | | | | |
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? | | | | | |
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? | | | | | |
XX. WILDFIRE -- If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: | |||||
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? | | | | | |
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? | | | | | |
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? | | | | | |
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? | | | | | |
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. | |||||
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? | | | | | |
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? | | | | | |
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? | | | | | |
Credits
Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21094.5.5, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21094.5 and 21094.5.5, Public Resources Code.
History
1. New Appendix N filed 2-14-2013; operative 2-14-2013 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(b)(3) (Register 2013, No. 7).
2. Amendment filed 12-28-2018; operative 12-28-2018 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(b)(3) (Register 2018, No. 52).
This database is current through 5/10/24 Register 2024, No. 19.
Cal. Admin. Code tit. 14, Div. 6 Ch. 3 App. N, 14 CA ADC Div. 6 Ch. 3 App. N
| End of Document |