Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA- 5 Adoption of CEQA Guidelines MEMORANDUM City of Azusa Department of Community Development rEALE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND REDEVELOPMENT A .. iii OF DIREC ORS FROM: A, ROY E.BRUCKNE'�:: CTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ROBB STEEL,INT 0,' REDEVELOPME D r 'CTOR VIA: HENRY GARCIA,CITY ADMINISTRATO (' DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF CEQA GUIDELINES The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)was adopted in 1970,and sets forth requirements to evaluate environmental impacts of proposed projects. While State law is fairly specific regarding the requirements for such environmental impact evaluation,local guidelines for the implementation of CEQA are required, and must be consistent with State law. These local guidelines are essentially detailed provisions and steps that must be followed in implementing CEQA. Most of these steps are Staff's responsibilities to accomplish as part of their ongoing responsibilities to evaluate proposed projects. The City of Azusa last amended its CEQA guidelines several years ago. They are once again in need of amendment to reflect current State law, and are attached for your review and approval. In order to incorporate a point that recently arose, it is recommended that page 55 be amended to include the following: After the third paragraph, insert new paragraph.... "In the event the Lead Agency desires to extend the review period, the City Council or Redevelopment Agency Board in case of redevelopment projects, shall make such a determination. The number of additional days of extension shall be specified, so that the total number days of the review period shall not exceed 90 days. The State Clearinghouse shall be notified of the Lead Agency's action to extend the public comment period." Recommended Action The City Council and Redevelopment Agency Board should adopt the attached CEQA Guidelines as amended. A46/1//o/ /f 6-6/164- 1 Iv,N..., B.4t BES BE • T & KRIEGER LLP • mous— LI O LIAS41 PARTNtRSINP INCLUDING PROFtSSONAL CORPORATION/ -Nt LAWYERS 400 MISSION SOUARE LE+ ROGER K. CRAWFORD B. JOHN R. PERRY 3750 UNIVERSITY AVENUE Ap LITTLCW M• STEPHEN P. 0 SC KIM A. SYRENBNSHAWN POST OFFICE BOX 1028 W M OSWOCF - MARC R. R011 MARY C. OILSTRAP KEITH L. HIGGINS J t0 ,AERH L. CA NTOR• OHMRROTTS • CR 9. HENRYCYNTHR M.WELLESGERMO MITCHELL L. NORTON RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92502-1028 RIC ARO ANGERS• R G. HEPIERO C. DALLARDA J OHN O. .HAR• y DINA 0. HARRISTELEPHONE (9097 686-1450 MICHAEL . HARRIS• SCOTT B. LA` $ . . BARON DWIGHT N. MONTGOMERY JOHN E. BROWN• JACKIA LEWISSS. RICHARD TEGGER JAMES P. MORRIS TELECOPIERS MICHAEL T. JURY'• BRIAN M. C. NEU KEVIN T. COLLINS (909) 886-3083 HH2'4QYL BRADLEYU B RMACIC D DEAN R.P. R CYE KRISTI L. GUDOSKI P MEREDITH J. JURY. PETER M.MORRISRSOLEAL ORE7ER . MICHAEL GRANT• MATT H. SOMA RUBIO CARVALNO CAR7N L. CRAIG , FRANCIS J. BADS• JEFFREY V. DUNN JULIANN ANDERSON 0.ANNE T.T THOMAS• STEVEN C. D[BAUN PATRICIA BYARS CISNEROS OF COUNSEL G. MARTIN NETNERY• ERIC L GARNER• JACOUELINE E. BAILEY GLEO L 3UNSELN3• GEORGE W.M. RETES•FLOYD. DENNIS M. COTA SUSAN D. WILSON JOHN S.STEPHEN WILLIAM HAROKEO. JR. P H W F PEARCE DAVID J. HANCO-K GREGORY M. DONALD F. TOBIN • KENDALLCLARK N.ALS OVVEY C. MICHAEL COWHARET AVCS PHILIPDAVID M. S AL IV HENRY R. KRAFT. AVIDJ. RWIN' B. BEACH _ RI. RAST BRUCE W. MARC T. RASION STRAND MICHL J.EWIN• ARLENE PRATER MARGUERITE 5. MICHAEL J. ANDELSON• OFFICES IN DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS JASON D. DABAREINER KARENEFFREY 3.EPLIASHMAN GREGORY K. WILKINSON MARK A. EASTER RANCHO (6187 588-2811 WENNE S. FURTH MICHELLE OUELLETTE JEFFREY T. MELCHNOONTARMIRAGEO (BOB) 959-9394 GENE TAN AKA WILLIAM S. DAHLINO. JR. SACHT D. B.HOWIE B ASIL ICTO T. CHAPMAN KIRK W. SMITH ZACHARYHlLEYR. TERTON RAYMOND BEST (1588-1937) KYLE A. SNOW ME E. PETERSON SAN DIEGO (819) 325-1300 VICTOR L. WOLFWILLIAJAMES N. KRIEGER (1913-19751 VICTORVRLE (819) 245-4127 DANIELWE.B. GOLDS BERNIEINKL. ANOO PH MICHAELANDRA A. SCHAEFER HOWARD KEVIN RANOOLPM SANDRA A. JACOBSON EUGENE BEST 0593'1951) • A PROFtS IONAI CORPORATION January 24, 1997 Roy Bruckner Planning Director City of Azusa 213 East Foothill Blvd. Azusa, CA 91702-1395 Re: 1997 Revisions to Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act Dear Roy: We are pleased to enclose a newly revised and updated set of"Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act." The enclosed Guidelines have been revised to reflect important changes made to CEQA by the courts and the Legislature during the past three years, as discussed in the enclosed memorandum. As an ongoing participant in our CEQA Project, you receive annual updates to your Guidelines as well as periodic memorandums on breaking or important CEQA issues. The changes to CEQA are described in greater detail in the enclosed memorandum. Also included with the packet is a suggested draft resolution which should be used to adopt these Guidelines. If you have any questions about the Guidelines or the accompanying material, please contact Dean Derleth or me. Sincerely, c(SPN•Q----- Stephen P. Deitsch of Best Best &Krieger LLP Enclosures LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP January 24, 1997 M_FgMD-M--tatal TO: CITY OF AZUSA FROM: CITY ATTORNEY RE: 1997 LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) n I ODT CTION We are pleased to provide you with your 1997 CEQA Guidelines which we have prepared based on our annual legal review of bills enacted by the State Legislature and court to rt decisions affecting CEQA. This year's Guidelines incorporate not only the notable changes ich CEQA from 1996, but also those changes we informed you of over the past two years standing alone did not warrant a complete revision of your Guidelines. You will be pleased to know that your 1997 CEQA Guidelines incorporate the changes which the State is still "discussing" for possible inclusion in the State CEQA Guidelines to be published within the next several years. In addition, your Guidelines are tailored to your specific needs and contain important information you are not likely to find in the current or future edition of the State Guidelines. As always, we strive to keep you and your Guidelines continuously updated. In addition to discussing in some detail the statutes and case law from 1996, this memorandum will briefly review the changes to CEQA made in 1994 and 1995. As you may recall, the 1994 changes were not significant enough for a complete revision to your Guidelines, but we provided you with several amended sections to supplement your Guidelines. The 1995 modifications to CEQA were also modest enough that we sent you a memorandum summarizing RVPUBVPM\17448 LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP • the changes, indicating that they would be incorporated in this year's revisions. Thus, before you is a final compilation of three years of statutory and judicial changes to CEQA. In this memorandum, we once again address only the statutes and case law we believe are necessary for proper CEQA compliance and would be of interest to you. We have omitted mentioning many cases and statutes since they deal with technical legal points or procedures impacting CEQA litigation which are mostly of interest to attorneys. However, if you are interested in a particular case or statute we have not addressed, we would be happy to discuss it with you, or provide you with a short summary. Your Guidelines are intended to supply you with a road map for assessing and analyzing the environmental implications of a project prior to approval. We still recommend that you consult with legal counsel when you have specific questions on major, controversial, or unusual CEQA projects. 1996 CEQA LEGISLATION During the 1996 legislative session, twelve bills which effect CEQA were signed into law by Governor Wilson. Only four of the measures, however, merit changes in your Guidelines and are discussed in this memorandum. Assembly Bill 1930 (Sweeney, Chapter 808) revises the deadlines for approving or disapproving CEQA projects subject to the Permit Streamlining Act, revises the deadlines for completing and approving a Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and eliminates the time period for executing a contract with a consultant to prepare a Negative Declaration. Senate Bill 1566 (Monteith, Chapter 617) requires that if a proposed redevelopment project area includes land that is in agricultural use, the redevelopment agency must send a copy of the Draft EIR to certain public agencies and agricultural groups. Assembly Bill 2963 (Firestone, Chapter 825) exempts from CEQA review emergency projects undertaken to maintain, repair, or restore an existing -2- RVPUBUPM\17448 LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST 61 KRIEGER LLP highway damaged by a natural disaster. Assembly Bill 298 (Rainey, Chapter 547) exempts from CEQA review the development of a congestion management program. 94 l 's' • • • • r' • _ sr I. • • One of the purposes of Assembly Bill 1930 ("AB 1930") was to reduce confusion by standardizing certain CEQA deadlines. Prior to this year, for "private projects" a Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration had to be completed within 105 days after the project application had been accepted. AB 1930 extends the time for completing this document to 180 days. In addition, as lead agency for a "development project" subject to the Permit Streamlining Act, you previously had to approve or disapprove the project within 6 months of EIR certification, or within 3 months of a Negative Declaration or exemption determination. AB 1930 restates these approval deadlines in terms of days, and shortens the approval deadline for Negative Declarations and exemption determinations. Development projects must now be approved within 180 days of EIR certification, or within 30 days of adopting a Negative Declaration or determination of exemption. AB 1930 also revises the law regarding contracts to prepare CEQA documents. You may recall that our 1995 CEQA memorandum discussed Assembly Bill 314 which requires that contracts with consultants to prepare an EIR or Negative Declaration must be executed within 45 days of determining the need for such documents, although the time period can be extended if there are compelling circumstances. AB 1930 eliminates the time period for execution of contracts to prepare Negative Declarations. A contract to prepare a Negative Declaration can now be executed at anytime as long as the Negative Declaration is completed within 105 days after the project application is accepted. For contracts to prepare an EIR, AB 1930 also eliminates the need for "compelling circumstances" to extend the 45-day deadline. The time period can now be extended for any reason as long as you and the project applicant mutually agree. -3- RVPUBVPM\17448 LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP To address these statutory changes, Sections 4.04, 4.05, 6.03, and 7.03 of your Guidelines are amended, and a new Section 7.02 is added to your Guidelines. B. Redevelopment Projects: Additional CEQA Notification Senate Bill 1566 ("SB 1-566") imposes additional notification requirements for EIRs in redevelopment project areas. SB 1566 requires that if a proposed redevelopment project area includes land that is in agricultural use, the redevelopment agency must send a copy of the Draft EIR to the Department of Conservation, the county agricultural commissioner, the county Farm Bureau, the California Farm Bureau Federation, and any other agricultural groups that request copies of the Draft EIR. The aforementioned groups are entitled to receive the Draft EIR only if they send a separate written notice for each proposed redevelopment plan or amendment. Section 7.18 of your Guidelines is revised to incorporate this new requirement. C. CEQA Exemptions: Emergency Road Repair Projects: Congestion Management programs As you know, the state Legislature has passed numerous statutes which exempt particular projects or activities from CEQA review. We have not included all of these exemptions in your Guidelines as many of them are inapplicable to your actions, or to projects for which you might act as lead agency. We do include those exemptions we believe are applicable. Assembly Bill 2963 ("AB 2963") exempts from CEQA review emergency projects undertaken to maintain, repair, or restore an existing highway damaged by a natural disaster. This exemption would apply to any emergency repair project of a street, alley, road, highway, or other right-of-way as defined in Section 360 of the California Vehicle Code. RVPUBVPM\17448 -4- • LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST 6. KRIEGER LLP There are several limitations, however, to this CEQA exemption. First, the highway must have been damaged as a result of a natural disaster, and repairs must be completed within one year of the damage. Secondly, the exemption only applies to repairs which take place within the existing right-of-way for the highway. Any part of the project which expands, widens, or enlarges the highway is not exempt from CEQA review. Finally, this exemption doesot apply to any highway designated as an official State Scenic Highway under Section 262 of the California Streets and Highways Code.- Assembly Bill 298 ("AB 298") also creates a new statutory exemption which we believe might be of interest to you. AB 298 exempts from CEQA review projects for the development of a congestion management program. Although cities are not responsible for developing their own congestion management programs, they usually are members of, or work with the entity that develops the regional congestion management program. We felt it would be helpful if cities were aware of this exemption. The two new statutory exemptions are incorporated into Sections 3.08 and 3.14 of your Guidelines. t 996 CEQA CASELW Of the numerous interesting and contentious CEQA cases decided last year, most dealt with issues particular to CEQA litigation or were very fact specific and thus not generally applicable. Since your Guidelines set forth procedures for administrative compliance with CEQA and do not address the CEQA litigation process which is of principal interest to us as your legal counsel, we have not addressed those cases here. We would, however, like to make you aware of a few cases which resulted in alterations to your Guidelines. -5- RvpUBVIW17448 • LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP A. Proper Tiering of EIRs In Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus(August, 1996), the County certified an EIR for a proposed specific plan to create a 29,500 acre destination resort and residential community. The Project was to be developed in four phases and was anticipated to take 25 years to complete. Phase 1 was to be completed in 15 years. The EIR for Phase 1 admitted that off-site water must be obtained for both residential and commercial purposes, and listed the unavailability of water as a"significant unavoidable impact." The EIR stated that a firm water supply had not yet been established beyond the first five years of development. Moreover, even though the applicant was pursuing several water sources and had established a water district, until a secure water source was established, the EIR treated future water shortage as a significant impact. In attempting to"mitigate" this significant unavoidable impact, the County stated that no development requiring more than 1,200 acre-feet per year would be permitted unless adequate water supplies were secured and an EIR was approved for those water sources. In essence, the County was approving a 25-year project when no water had been assured beyond the first 5 years, and it was deferring CEQA review of additional water sources until either the actual acquisition of water occurred or a specific project was submitted. - The court rejected the County's argument that the"tiering" provisions of CEQA allowed them to defer analysis of potential impacts of the project's long-term water supply. The court held that a decision to "tier" environmental review does not excuse a lead agency from complying with CEQA's mandate to prepare an EIR which includes a detailed statement setting forth all significant effects of the proposed project. The court stated further that"tiering is not a device for deferring the identification of significant environmental impacts that the adoption of a specific plan can be expected to cause. . . . [i]ndeed, the environmental consequences of supplying RVPUBVPM17448 -6- • LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST E. KRIEGER LLP water to this Project would appear to be one of the fundamental and `general matters' to be addressed in a first tier EIR." To reflect the court's vigilance in assuring that"tiering" of EIRs is not used to defer review of potential environmental impacts, new language is added to Section 8.05 of your Guidelines. B. andato Findin• o i• i scant sect- " umulativel onsiderable" sect CEQA requires an EIR to be prepared if the Initial Study determines that the project may have a"significant effect" on the environment. A"finding of significant effect" is mandatory if the incremental impacts of an individual project, when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects, are determined to be"cumulatively considerable." In . ... ' • . . /Wil•lif- I- - -n - v. • n • .ni la (January 1996), the court sought to clarify the standard for determining a"cumulatively considerable" effect on the environment. In this case, Stanislaus County adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a project to extract 600,000 tons of gravel from the Tuolumne River over a ten- year period. In upholding the Mitigated Negative Declaration determination, the courtdiscussed the proper standard for determining whether a project has a"cumulatively considerable" effect which would mandate the preparation of an EIR. The court noted that there is a difference between the"cumulative impacts" analysis required in an EIR(see your Guidelines, Section 7.12(j)) and the Initial Study analysis of whether a project's impacts are"cumulatively considerable" such that an EIR must be prepared in the first place (see your Guidelines, Section 5.08). For the Initial Study analysis, the court held that the agency should determine whether the incremental impacts of a project are"cumulatively considerable" by evaluating them against the backdrop of the environmental effects of other -7- RvpUBVPM\17448 LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP projects. The question is not whether an overall significant cumulative impact will result when the project's impacts are combined with impacts from other activities in the area. Instead, the proper analysis is whether the project's individual effects are themselves cumulatively considerable in light of the effects of other activities in the area. The court rejected the contention that before adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration the County had to perform.a full-blown analysis of all purported environmental impacts of any past, present, or future gravel projects along the Tuolumne River. The court stated that the County was not required to conduct a study of the impacts of other area activities before determining whether or not an EIR must be prepared for the proposed project. New language is added to Section 5.08 of your Guidelines to help refine the "cumulatively considerable" analysis conducted in an Initial Study. C. Adequacy of Project Description:Modification of Prior Approved Project In a case successfully argued by Best Best &Krieger, Temecula Band of Luisenjo Mission Indians v. Rancho California Water District (March 1996), the court addressed two issues we believe may be of interest to you. The case involved the redesign of a small section of a water supply storage project approved in 1984. In approving the redesign, the District adopted a Negative Declaration. Plaintiffs challenged the District's adoption of a Negative Declaration on grounds that it failed to properly consider the "cumulative effects" of both the proposed modification and the entire 1984 water supply project, and that a Supplemental EIR was required. Representing Rancho California Water District, we demonstrated to the court that the Plaintiffs' claims were unfounded. The court agreed, holding that the District was required to consider only the incremental effects of the proposed modification which were not evaluated when the entire project was approved in 1984. Critical to the court's holding was the District's treatment of the project RVPUB'JPM17448 -8- • LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP application as a request for modification of an already permitted project. Accordingly, the court found, (1) that pursuant to the proposed "modification" the District properly considered whether a Supplemental EIR was needed by limiting its analysis to environmental effects not considered in connection with the initial project, and (2) the District's determination that the proposed modification was not a substantial change to the 1984 project, and that a Supplemental EIR was not necessary, was correct. Plaintiffs also alleged that the District's adoption of the Negative Declaration was procedurally defective because the project description failed to mention that the project was a modification of the 1984 project. The court rejected this argument stating that the project description was not fatally defective because plaintiffs were made aware at the public hearing that the project was a modification of the 1984 project. Plaintiffs, therefore, had an opportunity to object to the adequacy of the project description at the hearing, but having failed to do so, were barred from raising the issue before the court. Based on the court's decision in this case, we recommend that for projects which involve only modifications to a prior permitted project or program, you should make clear the proposed action is only a modification of a prior approved project. 1995 CEQA STATUTORY AND CASE LAW CHANGES As you recall, in January 1996 we sent a detailed memorandum explaining the relevant 1995 statutory and case law changes to CEQA. The 1995 changes to CEQA, however, did not warrant the cost of republishing your Guidelines. With the issuance of this year's Guidelines, we felt it might be helpful to briefly review those changes and note for you the appropriate revisions to your Guidelines: RVPLB JPM17448 -9- LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP ❑ Assembly Bill 1860 ("AB 1860")rectified a problem created by the Legislature when it enacted a provision allowing potential petitioners to extend the statute of limitations on a CEQA challenge by requesting written copies of the Notice of Determination ("NOD") or Notice of Exemption ("NOE"). As you may know, a very short statute of limitations begins to run when the County Clerk or Clerk of the Board of Supervisors posts these notices. AB 1860 requires you to mail a copy of your NOD or NOE within five days of your final decision on a project. Notice must be provided to anyone who requests a copy before you make your final decision, but the date of mailing does not affect the statute of limitations. Sections 3.05, 6.12, and 7.30 of your Guidelines are revised accordingly. ❑ Senate Bill 901 ("SB 901") enacted new requirements to address the water supply needs of certain projects when cities or counties prepare an EIR for a new specific plan or amend the land use element of their general plan. Section 7.06 is added to your Guidelines to reflect this new CEQA requirement. 1994 CEQA STATUTORY AND CASE LAW CHANGES In January 1995 we sent you a detailed memorandum explaining the relevant 1994 statutory and case law changes to CEQA. Again, we felt that the 1994 changes to CEQA did not warrant the cost of republishing your Guidelines. With the issuance of this year's Guidelines, we wanted to briefly review the 1994 changes and note for you the appropriate revisions to your Guidelines: ❑ Assembly Bill 314 ("AB 314") requires that measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment be enforced through any permits, conditions, agreements, or other exactions attached to the project. Sections 6.08 and 6.10 are revised accordingly. RVPUBUPW17448 -10- LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP ❑ AB 314 also prohibits the use of a Master EIR unless certain conditions are met, and authorizes the use of a Master EIR for a regional transportation plan or congestion management plan. Section 8.10 is revised to reflect these changes. ❑ Senate Bill 749 ("SB 749") permits a Lead Agency to focus the discussion in an EIR on those potential environmental impacts which the Lead Agency has determined are significant. SB 749 also clarifies the required contents of EIRs. Amendments to Section 7.12 include these changes. ❑ SB 749 exempts from CEQA any "development project" for the construction, conversion, or use of qualified low and moderate income housing, if less than 45 units are involved. This exemption is added to your Guidelines in Section 3.12. ❑ SB 749 also requires a Lead Agency to specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings on which its CEQA determination is based. This change is added to Sections 6.10 and 7.29, and the Notice of Determination Form (Form "F") is also amended. ❑ Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (December, 1993) requires that an EIR be recirculated for public comment when "significant new information" is added to the EIR. The court held that if an EIR was not recirculated in this instance, the public would be deprived of a meaningful opportunity to comment on the project. Section 7.23 is amended to reflect this new standard. ❑ Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines were adopted in 1994 necessitating changes to your Guidelines. Language is added to Section 7.13 to clarify the new alternatives analysis required in an EIR, and Sections 6.13 and 6.14 are RVPUs\PM\17448 -11- LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP added to allow for the preparation a Subsequent Negative Declaration or Addedum to a Negative Declaration under certain circumstances. The Environmental Checklist Form (Form "J") is also updated per the amended State CEQA Guidelines. CONCLUSION Please let us know if you have any questions about the changes in CEQA law or our revisions to your CEQA Guidelines. We suggest you keep this memorandum filed with your 1997 Guidelines for future reference. DEAN DERLETH JAMES P. MORRIS MICHELLE OUELLETTE RVPUBVPJf,17448 -12- RESOLUTION NO. 9 7-C1 4 5 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AND ADOPTING LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA") THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS,the California Legislature has amended the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the California courts have interpreted specific provisions of CEQA; and WHEREAS, Section 21082 of CEQA requires all public agencies to adopt objectives,criteria and procedures for the evaluation of public and private projects undertaken or approved by such public agencies,and the preparation,if required,of environmental impact reports in connections with that evaluation; and WHEREAS, on August 27, 1997, the Azusa Planning Commission reviewed the proposed local CEQA Guidelines and recommended that the City Council approve them; and WHEREAS,the Azusa City Council must revise its local guidelines for implementing CEQA to make them consistent with the current provisions and interpretations of CEQA; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Adoption of Local CEQA Guidelines. The City Council hereby adopts "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act(1997 Revision)," as amended as follows: after the third paragraph on page 55 of the document, insert: "In the event the Lead Agency desires to extend the review period, the City Council or Redevelopment Agency Board in case of redevelopment projects, shall make such a determination. The number of additional days of extension shall be specified, so that the total number of days of the review period shall not exceed 90 days. The State Clearinghouse shall be notified of the Lead Agency's action to extend the public comment period" A copy of the"Local Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (1997 Revision) is on file at the offices of the City and is available for inspection by the public. SECTION 2: Prior Actions Repealed. All prior actions of the City Council enacting earlier guidelines are hereby repealed. SECTION 3: Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.97-C145 PAGE 2 OF 2 SECTION 4: The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 6th day of October / / 1. C' ""''AC. MADRID MA •R ATTEST: / / Adift Ae AGO CITY 'RK I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution NcO7-Cl45was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Azusa at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of October 1997, by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: HARDISON, STANFORD, ROCHA, BEEBE, MADRID NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NO jed CITY CLERK (L:CCRES\CEQA) RESOLUTION NO. 9 7-R 4 7-A A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE AZUSA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AMENDING AND ADOPTING LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA") THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF AZUSA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS,the California Legislature has amended the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the California courts have interpreted specific provisions of CEQA; and WHEREAS, Section 21082 of CEQA requires all public agencies to adopt objectives,criteria and procedures for the evaluation of public and private projects undertaken or approved by such public agencies,and the preparation,if required,of environmental impact reports in connections with that evaluation; and WHEREAS, on August 27, 1997, the Azusa Planning Commission reviewed the proposed local CEQA Guidelines and recommended that the City Council approve them; and WHEREAS, the Azusa Redevelopment Agency must revise its local guidelines for implementing CEQA to make them consistent with the current provisions and interpretations of CEQA; NOW, THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF AZUSA CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE,DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Adoption of Local CEQA Guidelines. The Azusa Redevelopment Agency hereby adopts "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act(1997 Revision)," as amended as follows: after the third paragraph on page 55 of the document, insert: "In the event the Lead Agency desires to extend the review period, the City Council or Redevelopment Agency Board in case of redevelopment projects, shall make such a determination. The number of additional days of extension shall be specified, so that the total number of days of the review period shall not exceed 90 days. The State Clearinghouse shall be notified of the Lead Agency's action to extend the public comment period" A copy of the"Local Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (1997 Revision)is on file at the offices of the City and is available for inspection by the public. SECTION 2: Prior Actions Repealed. All prior actions of the Azusa Redevelopment Agency enacting earlier guidelines are hereby repealed. SECTION 3: Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption. AZUSA REDEVELOPMENT RESOLUTION NO. 97-R47 PAGE 2 OF 2 SECTION 4: The Board Secretary shall certify the adoption of this resolution. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 6th day of October . el sy 4 A C. MADRID, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: / / ,J 1 i , )// B• ' • 0 SECRETARY I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No.9 7-R 4 7 was duly adopted by the Azusa Redevelopment Agency of the City of Azusa at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of October , 1997, by the following vote of Agency Board: AYES: DIRECTORS: HARDISON, STANFORD, ROCIiA, BEEBE, MADRID. NOES: DIRECTORS: NONE ABSENT: DIRECTORS: NONE i if / BO' " II SECRETARY ' (L:REDE-RES\CEQA)