Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutB- 5 Adoption of the 1999 CEQA Guidelines by the City of Azusa Redevelopment • 1 • } \11 •`' City of Azusa IOWiill 1,11°Department of Community Development '� AGENDA ITEM TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: ROY E.BRUC :lei CTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT VIA: RICK COLE,EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DATE: JUNE 28, 1998 SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE 1999 CEQA GUIDELINES BY THE CITY OF AZUSA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Recommendation It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the 1999 Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. Summary 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 Redevelopment Agency last amended its CEQA guidelines in 1998. They are once again in need of amendment to reflect current State law and judicial decisions,and are attached for your review and approval. Background 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. Fiscal Impact There is no additional fiscal impact to the Agency that would result from the adoption of the revised CEQA guidelines. Prepared by: William Woolard,Interim City Planner Attachments-Proposed Redevelopment Agency Resolution and 1999 CEAQ Guidelines Memo from BB&K dated 5/7/99 • 4-72e4;Zi-1/ 7 -- //a./9 1v r 9 (111 /r( 7f 44(2/id i4/,-y- 1 AMR, ,t- ' T BEST & KRIEGER LLP" �C , C G ,A 41, w N ORM* LIMITED uwRlu 10 INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPOR^TION! I. ; j` ,- 4tg LAWYERS 4 /^. ARTHUR L ITTLEWORTH• N M. LEWIS• JOHN O. PINKNEY MARCO A. MAVTgI '{`�'� 1 (:.. 2 3750 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WILLIAM R. [WOLFE• B ,Y E. NEUFELD PATRICIA BYARS CISNEROS JOHN F. WALSH 7 2111 L• P.O. BOX 1028 RICHARD T. ANDERSON• PE -. BARMACK JACQUELINE E. BAILEY DANIEL G. STEVENSON RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92502-1028 JOHN D. WAHLIN• JEFF-"- . DUNN SUSAN D. WILSON JEFFRY F. FERRE TELEPHONE (909) 888-1450 JOHN E. BROWN. STEVE - DcBAUN DAVID J. HANCOCK BRONWYN WHITTAKER PETERSEN , MICHAEL T. RIDDELL• ERIC L. • RNER• HAYLEY E. PETERSON DORINE L'AWIYENCE-HUGHES' ; _ TELECOPIERS MICHAEL GRANT. DENNIS M. COTA ROGER K. CRAWFORD BRIAN P. HICKEY - ' + I 4114681 FRANCIS J. BAUM• P.H.W.F. PEARCE SHAWN D. HAGERTY KARLINA E. KUNZ L'L j-.:t(11,I'. �,1 �d>7) 688-3083 882-4812 ANNE T. THOMAS. ROBERT W. HARGREAVES PIERO C. DALLARDA ALISON D. ALPERT �-I W W W,88KLAW.COM GEORGE M. REYES• C. MICHAEL COWETT DWIGHT M. MONTGOMERY JORGE A. MARTINEZ WILLIAM W. FLOYD, JR. BRUCE W. BEACH JAMES P. MORRIS GREGORY L. HARDKE ARLENE PRATER KEVIN T. COLLINS KENDALL H. MACVEY MARK A. EASTER CARYN L. CRAIG OF COUNSEL CLARK H. ALSOP MICHELLE OUELLETTE DAVID W. NEWMAN CHRISTOPHER L. CARPENTER. DAVID J. ERWIN• KEVIN K. RANDOLPH GREGORY K. HANSEN MICHAEL J. ANDELSON• CYNTHIA M. GERMANO JENNIFER T. BUCKMAN MICHAEL D. HARRIS. DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS. MARGUERITE S. STRAND MARIA E. GLESS DONALD F. ZIMMER• GREGORY K. WILKINSON KYLE A. SNOW GLEN W. PRICE CHRISTINA L. DYER GENE TANAKA JAMES B. GILPIN MARYMICHAEL MCLEOD FRANKLIN C. ADAMS VICTOR L. WOLF KIM A. BYRENS JAMES R. TOUCHSTONE DANIEL E. OLIVIER WILLIAM D. DAHLING. JR. STEVEN M. ANDERSON WILLIAM WOOD MERRILL HOWARD 8. GOLDS KIRK W. SMITH ROBERT L. PATTERSON STEPHEN P. DEITSCH BERNIE L. WILLIAMSON BRYAN K. BENARD JOHN R. ROTTSCHAEFER G. HENRY WELLES PAULA C.P. oc SOUSA OFFICES IN MARTIN A. MUELLER DINA 0. HARRIS JAMIE L. RAYMOND J. MICHAEL SUMMEROUR RICHARD T. EGGER LYSA M. SALTZMAN RAYMOND BEST (1888-1957) RANCHO MIRAGE (7901 588-2811 SCOTT C. SMITH DEAN DERLETH THERESA HAN SAVAGE JAMES H. KRIEGER (1913-1975) ONTARIO (9091 989-8584 JACK B. CLARKE. JR. SONIA RUBIO CARVALHO SUSAN M. YOUNT EUGENE BEST (1893-19811 SAN DIEGO (BIB) 525-1300 • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION May 7, 1999 Roy Bruckner Planning Director City of Azusa 213 East Foothill Blvd. Azusa, CA 91702-1395 Re: 1999 Revisions to Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act Dear Roy: We are pleased to enclose an updated set of"Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act" for the City of Azusa. The Guidelines have been revised to reflect important changes made to CEQA by the courts and Legislature during the past year. 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 and your Guidelines are described in greater detail in the enclosed memorandum. Also included is a suggested draft resolution for the City Council which should be used to adopt the Guidelines. We also recommend that the Agency adopt a similar resolution adopting the City's CEQA Guideines by reference. If you have any questions about the Guidelines or the accompanying material, please contact Dean Derleth or me. d_ Sincerely, LI •-E 07� 7 ,(_,;/:}264, y__.--- Sonia R. Carvalho for Best Best& Krieger LLP Enclosures cc: Rick Cole, City Manager RVPUB\NGS\506677 • RESOLUTION NO. 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,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 CEOA Guidelines. The Azusa Redevelopment Agency hereby adopts "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act(1999 Revision)," a copy of which 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. SECTION 4: The Board Secretary shall certify the adoption of this resolution. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this_ day of CRISTINA C.MADRID,CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: BOARD SECRETARY I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. was duly adopted by the Azusa Redevelopment Agency of the City of Azusa at a regular meeting thereof, held on the _ day of 1999,by the following vote of Agency Board: AYES: DIRECTORS: NOES: DIRECTORS: ABSENT: DIRECTORS: BOARD SECRETARY City of Azusa Department of Community Development AGENDA ITEM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: ROY E.BRUC ' �' CTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT VIA: RICK COLE, CITY MANAGER 1~"° DATE: JUNE 28, 1998 SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF TIE 1999 CEQA GUIDELINES BY THE CITY OF AZUSA CITY COUNCIL Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council adopt the 1999 Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. Summary 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 in 1998. They are once again in need of amendment to reflect current State law and judicial decisions,and are attached for your review and approval. At its meeting of June 16, 1999,the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed CEQA amendments and adopted the attached resolution recommending approval to the City Council. Background 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. Fiscal Impact There is no additional fiscal impact to the City that would result from the adoption of the revised CEQA guidelines. Prepared by: William Woolard,Interim City Planner Attachments-Proposed City Council Resolution and 1999 CEAQ Guidelines 7 Memo from BB&K dated 5/7/99 //(1 I Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-30 1 /(40 / ? I • 1 t RESOLUTION NO. Nit A RESOLO I tOF'THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA, + A IFO1 iIA, ;i ;ING AND ADOPTING LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IKPLEM�ENTIN e :1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (" 7f) 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 connection with that evaluation;and WHEREAS, on June 16, 1999,the Azusa Planning Commission reviewed the proposed local CEQA Guidelines and recommended that the City Council,and Redevelopment Agency 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 CEOA Guidelines, The City Council hereby adopts "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act(1999 Revision),"a copy of which 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. SECTION 4: The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this_ day of CRISTINA C.MADRID,CHAIR ATTEST: CITY CLERK I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Azusa at a regular meeting thereof, held on the _ day of , )999,by the following vote of the Agency: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO.99-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AZUSA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT("CEQA') THE PLANNING COMMISSION 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 ofCEQA 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,ifrequired,of environmental impact reports in connections with that evaluation;and WHEREAS,the Azusa Planning Commission and 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 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AZUSA DOES HEREBY FIND: SECTION 1: Adoption of Local CEOA Guidelines,. The Planning Commission had considered the proposed and recommends that the City Council adopt the Guidelines, "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act(1999 Revision),"a copy of which is on file at the offices of the City and is available for inspection by the public. SECTION 2: Staff is directed to convey the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 16th day of June 1999. /s/ Art Martinez AZUSA PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Azusa at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of June 1999, by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: Kent,Flowers,Prado,Munoz,Martinez,Moritz NOES: None ABSENT: James /s/ William Woolard, Interim City Planner AZUSA PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY PAGE 1 OF 1 (l:\res\eega.wpd) BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP CIT�i' t; = P� ''. ;� A CALWORNIA NMTCC UAOKITY►ARTNCRIPOP MCLUOWO ►ROcCS ONAL CORPORATWNS I. n"-{ - LAWYERS ARTHUR L. LITTLEWORTH• BRIAN M. LEWIS* JOHN 0. PINKNEY MARCO A. MA919444AY� 1 1 [" /)• 3750 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WILLIAM R. D[WOLFE• BRADLEY E. NEUFELD PATRICIA BYARS CISNEROS JOHN F. WALSH 7 411 L. P.O. BOX 1026 RICHARD T. ANDERSON• PETER M. BARMACK JACQUELINE E. BAILEY DANIEL O. STEVENSON RSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92502-1028 JOHN D. WAHLIN• JEFFREY V. DUNN SUSAN 0. WILSON JEFFRY F. FERRE JOHN E. BROWN• STEVEN C. DCBAUN DAVID J. HANCOCK BRONWYM WHITTAKER PETERSEN , TELEPHONE (909) 686-1450 MICHAEL T. RIOOELL• ERIC L. GARNER• HAYLEY E. PETERSON DORINE LYIWptHCE-NUGHES: TELECOPIERS MICHAEL GRANT• DENNIS M. COTA ROGER K. CRAWFORD BRIAN P. MICKEY . ' FRANCIS J. BAUM• P.H.W.F. PEARCE SHAWN D. HAGERTY KARLINA E. KUNZ Lim j'r•Ij 1 ill'.'. I 1 1991 666-3083 662-4612 ANNE T. THOMAS• ROBERT W. HARGREAVES PIERO C. C1ALLARDA ALISON D. ALPERT Ltd WWW,6BKLAW.GOM GEORGE M. REYES• C. MICHAEL COWETT DWIGHT M. MONTGOMERY JORGE A. MARTINEZ WILLIAM W. FLOYD. JR. BRUCE W. BEACH JAMES P. MORRIS GREGORY L. HAROKE ARLENE PRATER KEVIN T. COLLINS KENDALL H. MACVEY MARK A. EASTER CARYN L. CRAIG OF COUNSEL CLARK H. ALSOP MICHELLE OUELLETTE DAVID W. NEWMAN CHRISTOPHER L. CARPENTER* DAVID J. ERWIN• - KEVIN K. RANDOLPH GREGORY K. HANSEN MICHAEL J. ANDELSON• CYNTHIA M. GERMANO JENNIFER T. BUCKMAN MICHAEL D. HARRIS DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS* MARGUERITE S. STRAND MARIA E. GLESS DONALD F. ZIMMER• GREGORY K. WILKINSON KYLE A. SNOW OLEN W. PRICE CHRISTINA L. OYER GENE TANAKA JAMES B. GILPIN MARYMICHAEL MCLEOO FRANKLIN C. ADAMS VICTOR L. WOLF KIM A. STREWS JAMES R. TOUCHSTONE DANIEL E. OLIVIER WILLIAM 0. DAHLING. JR. STEVEN M. ANDERSON WILLIAM WOOD MERRILL HOWARD B. GOLDS KIRK W. SMITH ROBERT L. PATTERSON STEPHEN P. DEITSCH BERNIE L. WILLIAMSON BRYAN K. BENARD JOHN R. ROTTSCHAEFER G. HENRY WELLES PAULA C.P. oc SOUSA MARTIN A. MUELLER DINA 0. HARRIS JAMIE L. RAYMOND OFFICES IN J. MICHAEL SUMMEROUR RICHARD T. EDGER LISA M. SALTZMAN RAYMOND BEST (1888-1957) RANCHO MIRAGE (780) 588-2811 SCOTT C. SMITH DEAN DERLETH THERESA HAN SAVAGE JAMES H. KRIEGER (1913.1975) ONTARIO (909) 989-8584 JACK B. CLARKE, JR. SONIA RUBIO CARVALHO SUSAN M. YOUNT EUGENE BEST (1893-1981) SAN DIEGO (819) 525-1300 • A PROFUOIORAL CORPORATION May 7, 1999 Roy Bruckner Planning Director City of Azusa 213 East Foothill Blvd. Azusa, CA 91702-1395 Re: 1999 Revisions to Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act Dear Roy: We are pleased to enclose an updated set of"Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act" for the City of Azusa. The Guidelines have been revised to reflect important changes made to CEQA by the courts and Legislature during the past year. 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 and your Guidelines are described in greater detail in the enclosed memorandum. Also included is a suggested draft resolution for the City Council which should be used to adopt the Guidelines. We also recommend that the Agency adopt a similar resolution adopting the City's CEQA Guideines by reference. If you have any questions about the Guidelines or the accompanying material, please contact Dean Derleth or me. "_ auird-. l_b Sincerely, �v.- ,- 7 ,:::: 4---,6,ti.;.4....... 9- Sonia R. Carvalho for Best Best & Krieger LLP Enclosures cc: Rick Cole, City Manager RVPUB\NGS\506677 LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP May 5, 1999 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY OF AZUSA FROM: BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP RE: UPDATES TO LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA") INTRODUCTION We have prepared your 1999 edition of the"Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act" ("Local Guidelines"). The 1999 edition is enclosed and can also be made available on diskette for your convenience. As we mentioned in our previous memorandum, dated March 15, 1999, CEQA has undergone significant changes in the past year. Your Local Guidelines reflect these changes including the significant changes to the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the Local 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 CEQA Guidelines. This memorandum discusses some, but not all, of the changes reflected in the 1999 edition of the Local Guidelines. We believe the changes discussed herein are necessary for proper CEQA compliance and would be of interest to you. We have omitted mentioning those which deal with technical legal points or procedures that are not likely to impact you. 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. RVPUB\NGS\506719 LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP Your Local 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. REVISIONS TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES The California Resources Agency adopted a substantial number of revisions to the State CEQA Guidelines which became effective October 26, 1998. These changes are reflected in a number of provisions in your Local Guidelines. The more significant changes are as follows: A. Public Participation Through the Internet The State CEQA Guidelines provide that the City should encourage wide public involvement,formal and informal, in order to receive and evaluate public reactions to environmental issues related to the City's activities. Such involvement should include, whenever possible, making environmental information available in electronic format on the Internet on a web site maintained or utilized by the City. The posting of notices on the Internet is mentioned in a number of Sections of the Local Guidelines including Section 3.05 (Notice of Exemption), Section 6:13 (Notice of Determination for a Negative Declaration), Section 7.18 (Notice of Completion of a Draft EIR),and Section 7.23 (notices of public hearings). B. Reducing Delay and Paperwork Section 1.04 of your Local Guidelines has been revised in accordance with changes to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15004(c). These changes reflect the goal that environmental document preparation and review should be coordinated in a timely fashion with existing planning, RVPUB\NGS\506719 2— LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP review, and project approval processes. These procedures, to the maximum extent feasible, are to run concurrently, not consecutively. C. Activities Considered to be a "Project" Two provisions have been added to Section 3.01 of the Local Guidelines regarding what will be considered a"project" subject to CEQA. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), Section 3.01(e)of the Local Guidelines provides that a project will not include organizational or administrative activities which are political or which do not result in physical changes in the environment (such as the reorganization of a school district or detachment of park land). Section 3.01(f)reiterates the existing policy,as emphasized in the new State CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2), that an activity will not be considered a project where it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. D. Emergency Projects Exempt from CEPA Section 3.08 has been amended to include the substantial additions made to the definition of emergency projects exempt from CEQA compliance. These changes were made to Section 15269 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Emergency projects will include projects for removal or alteration of an historical resource when that resource represents an imminent threat to the public. Emergency projects will also include activities to repair an existing highway damaged by fire, flood, storm, earthquake or landslide provided that the project is within the existing right of way of that highway and is initiated within one year of when the damage occurred. E. Categorical Exemptions Among the changes made to Section 3.16 of your Local Guidelines is the addition of language to Class 25 of the Categorical Exemptions. These changes are the result of revisions to RVPUB\NGS\506719 3— LAW OFFICES OF ' BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP State CEQA Guidelines Section 15325. This additional language provides that Class 25 activities include transfers of land in order to preserve habitat and historical resources. Examples include the sale or transfer of land in order to preserve plant or animal habitats. Other new classes of Categorical Exemptions include a Class 30 for minor cleanup actions costing $1 million dollars or less to prevent or mitigate hazardous waste (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15330), a new Class 31 for maintenance and repair of historical resources(State CEQA Guidelines Section 15331), and a new Class 32 for projects characterized as in-fill development (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332). F. Time Limitations Section 4.03 of your Local Guidelines reflects a change to the time limitations for completion and adoption of a Negative Declaration. Section 15107 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that for private projects involving the issuance of a lease, permit,license, certificate, or other entitlement, the Negative Declaration must be completed, as well as approved,within 180 days from the date when the application is accepted as complete. G. Evaluating Significant Environmental Effects Substantial additions have been made to Section 5.07 of your Local Guidelines which deals with evaluation of the environmental significance of effects. These additions are the result of amendments to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(I) and are reflected in revisions to Section 5.07 subsections (f), (g), and (h). For example, the City may determine that a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not"cumulatively considerable,"as defined in the Local Guidelines,ifthe project will comply with requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which will avoid RVPUB\NGS\506719 4— LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP or substantially lessen the cumulative problem (eg., water quality control plan, air quality plan, integrated waste management plan). Section 5.07(h) provides that a change in the environment is not a significant effect if the change complies with a"standard." A"standard" may be used if: (I) it is found in a statute, ordinance, or regulation, (ii)it was adopted for the purpose of environmental protection, (iii)it was adopted by a public agency through a public review process, (iv) it governs the same environmental effect which the change in the environment is impacting, and(v)it governs the jurisdiction where the project is located. The City is encouraged to develop its own"thresholds of significance" to be used in determining the significance of environmental effects. This authority was created by the new Section 15064.7 of the State CEQA Guidelines. H. Evaluating Impacts on Archeological and Historical Resources Another major change to the State CEQA Guidelines was the addition of a new Section 15064.5 which provides guidelines for evaluating archeological and historical resources. These additions are included in Sections 5.11 and 5.12 of your Local Guidelines. As explained in Section 5.11, resources listed in the California Register of Historical Resources are historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. In addition, resources listed in a local register are presumed to be significant unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates otherwise. The new provisions in the Local Guidelines provide that a Lead Agency is authorized to determine that a resource may be an historical resource even if it is not listed in the California Register or in a local register. As a result, any object, building or site the City determines to be RVPUB\NGS\506719 5— LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, educational or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource. In regard to archeological sites, Section 5.12 explains that the City shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource and if not,then it must be determined whether the site meets the definition of an unique archeological resource as set forth in the Public Resources Code. I. Recirculation of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 15073.5 was added to the State CEQA Guidelines to provide substantial detail to the procedures for recirculating Negative Declarations. These procedures are located in Section 6.12 of your Local Guidelines. Section 6.12 states that a Negative Declaration must be recirculated when the document must be substantially revised after the public review period but prior to its adoption. A "substantial revision" is defined as a new and avoidable significant effect for which mitigation measures or project revisions must be added. J. Consultation with Other Agencies in Preparation of EIR Section 7.08 of your Local Guidelines reflects additions to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15154 which deals with the use of an Airport Land Use Plan during EIR preparation. K. Form and Content of EIR State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 was revised to include further detail regarding what should be contained in an EIR. As a result, Section 7.13(d) of the Local Guidelines provides that a description of a project's physical environmental conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation is published, or if no Notice of Preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis begins, will be considered the environmental setting which will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which the Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant. RVPUB\NGS\506719 6— LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP L. Analysis of Cumulative Impacts Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines has been substantially revised in regard to the appropriate discussion of cumulative impacts in an EIR. As a result, substantial revisions have been made to Section 7.14 of the Local Guidelines. For example, Section 7.14(a) explains that a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. An EIR should not discuss impacts which do not result in part from the project evaluated in the EIR. An EIR may determine that a project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact is de minimis and thus is not significant. A de minimis contribution means that the environmental conditions would essentially be the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. M. Analysis of Mitigation Measures A new Section 15126.4 was added to the State CEQA Guidelines in regard to consideration of mitigation measures. These new provisions are reflected in Section 7.15 of your Local Guidelines. N. Analysis of Alternatives in an EIR A new Section 15126.6 was added to the State CEQA Guidelines in regard to the consideration and discussion of project alternatives. As a result, Section 7.16 of the Local Guidelines was revised. For example, Section 7.16 now explains that an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative. Rather,it must consider a reasonable range ofpotentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. The City is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the RVPUB\NGS\506719 7— LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. Substantial revisions have also been made to the discussion of the "No Project" alternative in the Local Guidelines. O. Recirculation When New Information is Added to an EIR Changes have been made to Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines in regard to the particular set of comments the City must respond to when the EIR is substantially revised and then recirculated. When the EIR is substantially revised and the entire EIR is recirculated, the City may require that reviewers submit new comments and the City need not respond to comments received during the earlier circulation period. When the EIR is revised only in part and the City is recirculating only the revised portions, the City may require that reviewers limit their comments to the revised portions. P. Findings Required for Facilities Which May Emit Hazardous Air Emissions Near Schools The new Section 15186 in the State CEQA Guidelines provides special requirements for certain school projects, as well as certain projects near schools, in order to ensure that potential health impacts resulting from exposure to hazardous materials will be carefully examined and disclosed. These requirements are addressed by Section 7.30 of your Local Guidelines. Q. Tiered EIR Section 8.05 of the Local Guidelines, dealing with use of a Tiered EIR, has been revised along the lines of the revisions made to Section 15152 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1997-1998 CEQA LEGISLATION During the 1997-1998 Regular Session - Statutes of 1998, the Legislature enacted certain bills involving the Public Resources Code and other statutes that have an impact on CEQA RVPUB\NGS\506719 8— LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP compliance. However the following bill is the only legislation which warranted an amendment to the Local Guidelines. SB 2005 Kopp Relating to the Permit Streamlining Act This legislation makes certain revisions to the Permit Streamlining Act. For instance, Section 65950 of the Government Code is amended to provide that any agency that is the Lead Agency for a development project shall approve or disapprove the project within whichever of the following periods is applicable: (1) 180 days from the date of certification of an EIR,(2)60 days from the date of adoption of a Negative Declaration, or(3) 60 days from the determination that a project is exempt from CEQA. This legislation also amends Government Code Section 65951 to provide that in the event a combined EIR-EIS is being prepared on a development project, a Lead Agency shall approve or disapprove the project within 90 days after the combined EIR-EIS has been completed and adopted. SB 2005 also amended Government Code Section 65957 to provide that the time limits established by Government Code Sections 65950,65950.1,65951,and 65952 may be extended once upon mutual written agreement of the project applicant and the Lead Agency for a period not to exceed 90 days. No other extension of these time limits,either by the project applicant or the Lead Agency, shall be permitted. As a result of these changes to the Permit Streamlining Act, Section 4.05 of the Local Guidelines has been amended to include a reference to the requirements of Government Code Section 65957 in regard to waivers of time periods. RVPUB\NGS\506719 9— LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP During the 1997-1998 Regular Session - Statutes of 1997, the State Legislature enacted the following legislation which made certain changes to the authority of Lead and Responsible Agencies to request a meeting with each other during preparation of an EIR. AB 175 Torlakson Relating to Consultation with Other Agencies This legislation amended Public Resources Code section 21153(b)to provide that in the case of a project undertaken by a public agency, that agency may provide for early consultation to identify the range of actions, alternatives, mitigation measures, and significant effects to be analyzed in depth in the EIR. At the request of said agency, the State Office of Planning and Research shall ensure that each Responsible Agency, and any agency that has jurisdiction by law with respect to the project, is notified regarding early consultation. This responsibility of the Office of Planning and Research is reflected in Section 5.02 of the Local Guidelines. CASE LAW REFLECTED IN 1999 EDITION OF THE LOCAL GUIDELINES Provisions were added to the State CEQA Guidelines to reflect requirements of the U.S. Supreme Court cases of Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n 483 U.S. 825 (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard 512 U.S. 374 (1994). Taken together, these cases provide the standard by which a public agency may impose conditions on new development. This standard requires a "nexus" between the legitimate governmental interest of the agency and the condition being imposed by the agency on a development or an applicant. It must then be determined whether there is a "rough proportionality" between the condition being imposed by the agency and the burden resulting from the development. Although no mathematical calculation is required,the agency must make some sort of individualized determination that the condition being imposed is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development. RVPUB\NGS\506719 10- LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP This standard has been incorporated into provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines which authorize an agency to impose conditions on applicants. The typical condition involves imposition of mitigation measures. Consequently, certain provisions of the Local Guidelines have been revised to include a reference to this standard. For example, Section 6.08(e) provides that a Mitigated Negative Declaration shall contain feasible mitigation measures to substantially lessen or avoid potentially significant effects, which must be fully enforceable through permit conditions or other measures. Such conditions and measures must be consistent with the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards. Sections 7.15 and 7.32 provide that mitigation measures in an EIR must be consistent with the standards set forth in Nollan and Dolan. CONCLUSION Please let us know if you have any questions about the changes in CEQA law and the incorporation of such changes in your Local Guidelines. We recommend that you keep this memorandum filed with your 1999 Local Guidelines for future reference. RVPUB\NGS\506719 11—