6. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

The California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., hereafter CEQA) applies to discretionary projects to be carried out or approved by public agencies. A basic purpose of CEQA is to "inform governmental decision-makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of the proposed activities." (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, hereinafter, "CEQA Guidelines," Section 15002.)

Since the proposed project is subject to CEQA and the Commission must issue a discretionary decision without which the project cannot proceed (i.e., the Commission must act on the application before it for a CPCN), this Commission must act as either a Lead or a Responsible Agency under CEQA. The Lead Agency is the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole (CEQA Guidelines Section 15051 (b)).

Here, the County of Sonoma (County) is the Lead Agency for the project under CEQA, and the Commission is a Responsible Agency. CEQA requires that the Commission consider the environmental consequences of a project that is subject to its discretionary approval. In particular, the Commission must consider the Lead Agency's environmental documents and findings before acting upon or approving the project (CEQA guidelines 15050(b)). The specific activities that must be conducted by a Responsible Agency are contained in CEQA Guidelines Section 15096.

The project before the Commission is Mayacama's application for a CPCN to own and operate certain onsite wastewater treatment facilities serving the entire Mayacama Project. At an earlier stage the project was known as Shiloh Meadow (Meadow) and before that as the Shiloh Ranch (Ranch). At an earlier stage the project known as Meadow proposed to substitute a golf course and accessory uses for the equestrian and conference center originally envisioned for Ranch.

Although Ranch had been approved and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by the Board, Meadow was subject to further environmental review through the preparation of an additional draft and final EIR. The Meadow EIR concluded that the project would not result in any significant unmitigated impacts, and the Board certified that EIR in Board Resolution No. 94-1823 on December 20, 1994. Upon challenge, the adequacy of the Meadow EIR was affirmed by both the Superior Court and the District Court of Appeal. The Board certification of the Meadow EIR stands and was re-affirmed in Board Resolution No. 98-1123 on August 25, 1998.

The Meadow developer subsequently requested a number of revisions which, on the whole, reduced the potential environmental impacts of the project, thereby improving the project as originally proposed and approved. The revised project reduces the amount of roadway and grading associated with the project; clusters the residential units in an environmentally superior manner; restricts the size of structures that can be built in connection with the project; reduces off-site views of structures associated with the revised project; and overall improves the relationship of the revised project and the valley in which it is to be located.

These revisions to Meadow as proposed and previously reviewed were subject to additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA. This review was conducted by the Permit and Resource Management Department (PRMD) of Sonoma County. The Meadow EIR was used in connection with, and as the foundation for, the additional review. The latest revision to the project included the 280 mitigation measures and conditions already developed in connection with the approval of the original project, including mitigation monitoring and compliance requirements. The PRMD identified and recommended the addition of several new mitigation measures identified in PRMD's Initial Study. PRMD concluded that with the additional mitigation measures, all potentially significant environmental effects of the revised project would be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Thus, PRMD prepared Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and circulated it for public comment and agency consultation pursuant to CEQA. On balance, the revised project appears to offer environmental sensitivity beyond that of the original Shiloh Meadow Project, which was determined to result in no unmitigated significant effect. The Board subsequently reviewed and, after public hearings, adopted the MND in Board Resolution No. 99-1374 on October 19, 1999.

The environmental review and analysis of the proposed project included a number of alternatives including: No-Project; Residential Development-Only; Residential Development with Public Golf Course; Reclaimed Wastewater; Conference Center/Saddle Club/Equestrian Center; and Vineyard. The Board determined in Board Resolution No. 94-1823 that the various alternatives failed to meet the project objectives and/or provide the same degree of public benefits as the proposed project, and in the case of the No-Project alternative would potentially result in greater impacts should there be a return to historical levels of heavy grazing practices on the subject project land area. We concur with the Board's conclusion and adopt its findings.

The Meadow EIR and MND identified a number of potentially significant environmental impacts that the project could cause. All of these impacts will be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. With the incorporated mitigation, no environmental impacts associated with the project remain significant or unavoidable. In considering the EIR and MND for the project, the Board made the following findings for specific resource areas.

The EIR found that no significant impacts would occur with respect to:

· Agricultural Resources

· Mineral Resources

· Recreation

The EIR found that the project will result in significant environmental effects with respect to the following issues or resources that can be reduced to less than significant levels and/or avoided with the implementation of adopted mitigation measures:

· Aesthetic and Visual Resources

· Air Quality

· Biological Resources

· Cultural Resources

· Geology and Soils

· Hazards and Hazardous materials

· Hydrology and Water Quality

· Land Use and Planning

· Noise

· Population and Housing

· Public Facilities and Services

· Transportation and Circulation (Traffic)

· Utilities and Service Systems

With reference to the above impacts, and as authorized by the Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Sections 15092 and 15096(f), we concur with and adopt the Board's findings and conclusion that there is no potential for any adverse impact upon agricultural resources, mineral resources, or recreational resources. As to the significant adverse impacts upon aesthetics and visual resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public facilities and services, transportation and circulation, and utilities and service systems, we concur with and adopt the Board's findings and conclusions that the project impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of the adopted mitigation measures.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext PageGo To First Page