Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutG- 3 Adoption of CEQA Guidelines Exhibit B (attachment to City Council memo 6-20-9 411)) CITY OF AZUSA Azusa, California TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: SHERRI DANOFF, INTERIM CITY PLANNER VIA: ROY E. BRUCKNER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: MARCH 25, 1998 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 in 1997. They are once again in need of amendment to reflect current State law and judicial decisions, and are attached for your review and approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should recommend that the City Council adopt the 1998 Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. SD/lmr Attachments: Memorandum from City Attorney 1998 CEQA Guidelines LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGE ILLP `/ Exhibit C (attachment to City Council memo 6-20-98) February 17, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY OF AZUSA FROM: CITY ATTORNEY RE: 1998 LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) INTRODUCTION We are pleased to provide you with your 1998 CEQA Guidelines which we have prepared based on our annual legal review of bills enacted by the State Legislature and court decisions affecting CEQA. This year's Guidelines incorporate the notable legislative and judicial changes to CEQA from 1997. 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. This memorandum discusses in some detail the statutes and case law from 1997 that resulted in changes to the Guidelines. We address only the statutes and case law we believe are necessary for proper CEQA compliance and would be of interest to you, and have omitted mentioning those which they deal with technical legal points or procedures impacting CEQA litigation 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 RVPUB\CSE\38184 LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGL.. LLP you consult with legal counsel when you have specific questions on major, controversial, or unusual CEQA projects. 1997 CEQA LEGISLATION During 1997, Governor Wilson signed eight bills into law which affect CEQA. Only two of the measures, however, merit changes in your Guidelines and are discussed in this memorandum. Assembly Bill 175 (Torlakson, Chapter 415) expands the exemption for affordable housing projects, and requires the Office of Planning and Research to ensure that affected agencies are notified when lead agencies request early consultation. Senate Bill 181 (Kopp, Chapter 4) exempts from CEQA the repair, reconstruction, restoration, or rehabilitation of certain facilities in disaster-stricken areas. A. Affordable Housing Exemption: Informal Consultation with Other Agencies CEQA currently exempts affordable housing projects of up to 45 units from the requirement of preparing an EIR where a project may have a significant effect on the environment. Assembly Bill 175 ("AB 175")expands this exemption to those projects of not more than 100 units. AB 175 also addresses informal consultation with other agencies. Under CEQA, the lead agency must consult with all responsible and any trustee agencies, when more than one public agency is involved in undertaking or approving a project. Upon request, the Office of Planning and Research("OPR")must assist the lead agency or private project applicant in identifying the various responsible and trustee agencies for a proposed project. AB 175 imposes an additional requirement on OPR to ensure responsible and trustee agencies are notified regarding early consultation and meetings requested by a lead agency with respect to certain projects. RVPUB\CSE\38184 -2- LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGit LLP Section 3.12 of your Guidelines reflects the expanded exemption for affordable housing. Also, we have augmented Section 5.02 to include OPR's additional duties regarding consultation. B. CEQA Exemption; Repair of Facilities in Flood Damaged Areas As you know, CEQA exempts various projects or activities from review and many of these exemptions are in your Guidelines. Your Guidelines, however, do not include all CEQA exemptions as many of them are inapplicable to your actions or to projects for which you might act as lead agency. This year, we have added the exemption contained in Senate Bill 181 ("SB 181") because we believe it could be applicable. SB 181 exempts from CEQA the repair, reconstruction, restoration, or rehabilitation of public facilities or private levees damaged or destroyed by the storms and floods of 1997 in areas in which the Governor has proclaimed a state of emergency. The exemption is limited to projects where the facility or levee is restored to its condition immediately prior to the storms and floods. The exemption continues only until January 1, 1999. To address this statutory change, we added subsection (c) to Section 3.08 of your Guidelines. 1997 CEQA CASE LAW Of the numerous CEQA cases decided last year, most dealt with issues particular to CEQA litigation or were factual analyses of established case law. Since your Guidelines set forth procedures for administrative compliance with CEQA and do not address the CEQA litigation process,we do not discuss those cases here. The following are the cases this year which resulted in alterations to your Guidelines. RVPUB\CSE\38184 -3- LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEG_ .< LLP A. Findings Necessary for Making Statement of Overriding Consideration In Los Angeles Unified School District v. City of Los Angeles (October, 1997), the City certified an EIR for a proposed specific plan area containing two schools of the Los Angeles Unified School District ("LAUSD"). During the EIR proceedings, LAUSD alleged that increased air pollution resulting from the development would adversely affect the schools. The City responded to the LAUSD comment finding that additional air pollution would occur throughout the project area despite all feasible mitigation measures. The City subsequently adopted a statement of overriding considerations finding the benefits of the specific plan outweighed the unavoidable effects of increased air pollution. LAUSD argued the EIR failed to discuss the feasible measures for mitigating the effects of increased air pollution on the schools suggested by LAUSD -- air conditioning and filtering. The court noted that an adequate EIR must respond to specific suggestions for mitigating a significant effect on the environment, unless the suggested mitigation is facially infeasible. While the response need not be exhaustive, it must evince a good faith and reasoned analysis. The court found the EIR in this case did not adequately respond to LAUSD's comment because it did not directly address the suggestions regarding air conditioning and filtering. Furthermore, the court concluded that air conditioning and filtering were not facially infeasible measures for mitigating the impacts of increased air pollution, and there were no apparent environmental, legal, social, or bureaucratic factors which would prohibit these mitigation measures. To reflect the court's conclusion that a lead agency must adequately respond to all specific recommendations for reasonable mitigation measures before adopting a Statement of Overriding Consideration, we have added new language to Section 7.28 of your Guidelines. RVPUB\CSE\38184 -4- LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGE4C LLP B. Comments to Draft CEQA Documents In Galante Vineyards, et al. v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (August, 1997), the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District ("District") published a final EIR in March, 1994 and voluntarily held four public workshops and public hearings to receive oral and written comments on the final EIR. The District declared May 2, 1994 to be the close of the public comment period. On September 19, 1994, the District certified the EIR. Although only one of the challengers submitted their objections prior to May 2, 1994, all of them submitted comments prior to September 19, 1994. Public Resources Code Section 21177 requires that persons bringing actions or proceedings to challenge CEQA compliance must to first present the alleged grounds for non- compliance to the public agency and object to the approval orally or in writing during the public comment period, or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination. The District argued that "prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination" refers to a public hearing held during the public comment period for the draft EIR. The court stated that the plain meaning of the language governs the interpretation of the statute. Thus, the Court concluded that any party may bring an action to challenge CEQA compliance if it has raised an objection to the adequacy of an EIR prior to its certification, regardless of whether they participated in the public comment period. We have expanded Sections 7.21 and 6.05 of your Guidelines to reflect the court's holding in this case. RVPUB\CSE'38184 -5- LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGL_.< LLP C. Ballot Measure Exemption In Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Albany(August, 1997), the City Council ordered a zoning amendment and development agreement regarding gaming in the City's waterfront area to be placed on the ballot for general election. In the general election, the ballot measure passed. The petitioners filed an action, claiming the City had failed to comply with CEQA prior to submitting the ballot measure to the voters. The court held that submittal of a zoning amendment to a vote of the people is exempt from CEQA under the provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines. However, it also held that submittal of the negotiated development agreement to the voters constituted conditional approval of the project subject to environmental review under CEQA. The critical consideration, according to the court, was the fact that the City Council submitted a fully negotiated development agreement to the voters, together with other measures, giving the City the power to immediately implement the development agreement in the form submitted to the voters, without further consideration, if the outcome of the election should be favorable. Thus,the court concluded the City's approval of the development agreement and its submission to the voters was a project under CEQA, since their actions restricted the City to a definitive course of action. To reflect the court's application of the ballot measure exemption, we have added Section 3.14 to your Guidelines. D. Demolition of Historical Resources In League for Protection of Oakland's Architectural and Historic Resources v. City of Oakland(February, 1997), the issue was whether the demolition of a building, which does not have any official designation as a historical resource, requires the preparation of an EIR. The building at RVPUB\CSE\38184 -6- LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEG6re LLP issue was the Montgomery Ward Building, an eight-story, 950,000 square foot store and mail-order warehouse which was constructed in 1923. Over the years, the building had fallen into severe disrepair and the City and Montgomery Ward formulated a plan to demolish the building and redevelop the property. The City conducted a initial study and prepared a mitigated negative declaration for the demolition project. The initial study indicated the building was of"major historical or architectural value," although not officially designated as a historical property. Petitioners maintained the Montgomery Ward Building must be classified as a protected historical resource for purposes of CEQA, and any significant impact to it, such as demolition, must be preceded by an EIR rather than a negative declaration. The City contended the building was not a historical resource as defined by CEQA because it had not been "officially designated" as an"historical property" in the National Register or by the State of California or any formal city register. The court declined to adopt the City's position and found that the Montgomery Ward Building must be placed within the category of resources presumed to be historical for CEQA purposes. Moreover, the court noted the proposed demolition of the building could hardly be considered anything less than a significant effect. Therefore,unless the mitigation measures proposed by the City reduced the effects of the building demolition to less than significant levels, an EIR was mandatory. We have clarified the treatment of historical resources under CEQA in Section 5.11 of your Guidelines. RVPUB\CSE\38184 -7- LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEG. LLP 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 1998 Guidelines for future reference. DEAN DERLETH CHRISTA EILERS JAMES P. MORRIS MICHELLE OUELLETTE RVPUB\CSE\38184 -8- CITY OF AZUSA Azusa, California AGENDA ITEM TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: ROY E. BRUC VMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR VIA: JOSEPH HSU, ACTING CITY ADMINISTRATOR -* J DATE: APRIL 20, 1998 SUBJECT: ADOPTION TO THE 1998 CEQA GUIDELINES BY THE CITY OF AZUSA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 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 in 1997. They are once again in need of amendment to reflect current State law and judicial decisions, and are attached for your review and approval. Staff has, again, added the provision that the extension of public comment periods for EIR's be authorized by the City Council only. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the 1998 Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. REB/SD/lmr Attachments -Proposed Redevelopment Agency Resolution and 1998 CEAQ Guidelines Memo from BB&K dated 2-17-98 RESOLUTION NO. 98—R25 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 HEREBYRESOL VE 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(1998 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. SECTI 1 4: s e Board Secretary shall certify the adoption of this resolution. ADOPTED APPR o VED this 2 0 day . A• i • • : . 011111r ' STINA C. MADRID, C ' 'ERSON ATTEST: / /, IA / / BO ' S CRETARY I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No.9 8-R2 5was duly adopted by the Azusa Redevelopment Agency of the City of Azusa at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 2 0 day of April , 1998,by the following vote of Agency Board: AYES: DIRECTORS: HARDISON, STANFORD, ROCHA, BEEBE, MADRID NOES: DIRECTORS: NONE ABSE DIRECTORS: NONE 4?' BO A:4 C (L:REDE-RES\CEQA98) • LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP February 17, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: AZUSA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FROM: CITY ATTORNEY RE: 1998 LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) INTRODUCTION We are pleased to provide you with your 1998 CEQA Guidelines which we have prepared based on our annual legal review of bills enacted by the State Legislature and court decisions affecting CEQA. This year's Guidelines incorporate the notable legislative and judicial changes to CEQA from 1997. 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. This memorandum discusses in some detail the statutes and case law from 1997 that resulted in changes to the Guidelines. We address only the statutes and case law we believe are necessary for proper CEQA compliance and would be of interest to you, and have omitted mentioning those which they deal with technical legal points or procedures impacting CEQA litigation 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 RVPUB\CSE\39364 • LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP you consult with legal counsel when you have specific questions on major. controversial, or unusual CEQA projects. 1997 CEQA LEGISLATION During 1997, Governor Wilson signed eight bills into law which affect CEQA. Only two of the measures, however, merit changes in your Guidelines and are discussed in this memorandum. Assembly Bill 175 (Torlakson, Chapter 415) expands the exemption for affordable housing projects, and requires the Office of Planning and Research to ensure that affected agencies are notified when lead agencies request early consultation. Senate Bill 181 (Kopp, Chapter 4) exempts from CEQA the repair, reconstruction, restoration, or rehabilitation of certain facilities in disaster-stricken areas. A. Affordable Housing Exemption: Informal Consultation with Other Agencies CEQA currently exempts affordable housing projects of up to 45 units from the requirement of preparing an EIR where a project may have a significant effect on the environment. Assembly Bill 175 ("AB 175")expands this exemption to those projects of not more than 100 units. AB 175 also addresses informal consultation with other agencies. Under CEQA, the lead agency must consult with all responsible and any trustee agencies, when more than one public agency is involved in undertaking or approving a project. Upon request, the Office of Planning and Research("OPR")must assist the lead agency or private project applicant in identifying the various responsible and trustee agencies for a proposed project. AB 175 imposes an additional requirement on OPR to ensure responsible and trustee agencies are notified regarding early consultation and meetings requested by a lead agency with respect to certain projects. RVPUB\CSE\39364 -2- LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP Section 3.12 of your Guidelines reflects the expanded exemption for affordable housing. Also, we have augmented Section 5.02 to include OPR's additional duties regarding consultation. B. CEQA Exemption; Repair of Facilities in Flood Damaged Areas As you know, CEQA exempts various projects or activities from review and many of these exemptions are in your Guidelines. Your Guidelines, however, do not include all CEQA exemptions as many of them are inapplicable to your actions or to projects for which you might act as lead agency. This year, we have added the exemption contained in Senate Bill 181 ("SB 181") because we believe it could be applicable. SB 181 exempts from CEQA the repair, reconstruction, restoration, or rehabilitation of public facilities or private levees damaged or destroyed by the storms and floods of 1997 in areas in which the Governor has proclaimed a state of emergency. The exemption is limited to projects where the facility or levee is restored to its condition immediately prior to the storms and floods. The exemption continues only until January 1, 1999. To address this statutory change, we added subsection (c) to Section 3.08 of your Guidelines. 1997 CEQA CASE LAW Of the numerous CEQA cases decided last year, most dealt with issues particular to CEQA litigation or were factual analyses of established case law. Since your Guidelines set forth procedures for administrative compliance with CEQA and do not address the CEQA litigation process, we do not discuss those cases here. The following are the cases this year which resulted in alterations to your Guidelines. RVPUB\CSE\39364 -3- LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP A. Findings Necessary for Making Statement of Overriding Consideratio In Los Angeles Unified School District v. City of Los Angeles (October 1997), the City certified an EIR for a proposed specific plan area containing two schools of the Los Angeles Unified School District ("LAUSD"). During the EIR proceedings, LAUSD alleged that increased air pollution resulting from the development would adversely affect the schools. The City responded to the LAUSD comment finding that additional air pollution would occur throughout the project area despite all feasible mitigation measures. The City subsequently adopted a statement of overriding considerations finding the benefits of the specific plan outweighed the unavoidable effects of increased air pollution. LAUSD argued the EIR failed to discuss the feasible measures for mitigating the effects of increased air pollution on the schools suggested by LAUSD -- air conditioning and filtering. The court noted that an adequate EIR must respond to specific suggestions for mitigating a significant effect on the environment, unless the suggested mitigation is facially infeasible. While the response need not be exhaustive, it must evince a good faith and reasoned analysis. The court found the EIR in this case did not adequately respond to LAUSD's comment because it did not directly address the suggestions regarding air conditioning and filtering. Furthermore, the court concluded that air conditioning and filtering were not facially infeasible measures for mitigating the impacts of increased air pollution, and there were no apparent environmental, legal, social, or bureaucratic factors which would prohibit these mitigation measures. To reflect the court's conclusion that a lead agency must adequately respond to all specific recommendations for reasonable mitigation measures before adopting a Statement of Overriding Consideration, we have added new language to Section 7.27 of your Guidelines. RVPUB\CSE\39364 -4- LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP B. Comments to Draft CEQA Documents In Galante Vineyards. et al. v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (August 1997), the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District("District") published a final EIR in March, 1994 and voluntarily held four public workshops and public hearings to receive oral and written comments on the final EIR. The District declared May 2, 1994 to be the close of the public comment period. On September 19, 1994, the District certified the EIR. Although only one of the challengers submitted their objections prior to May 2, 1994, all of them submitted comments prior to September 19, 1994. Public Resources Code Section 21177 requires that persons bringing actions or proceedings to challenge CEQA compliance must to first present the alleged grounds for non- compliance to the public agency and object to the approval orally or in writing during the public comment period, or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination. The District argued that "prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination" refers to a public hearing held during the public comment period for the draft EIR. The court stated that the plain meaning of the language governs the interpretation of the statute. Thus, the Court concluded that any party may bring an action to challenge CEQA compliance if it has raised an objection to the adequacy of an EIR prior to its certification, regardless of whether they participated in the public comment period. We have expanded Sections 7.20 and 6.05 of your Guidelines to reflect the court's holding in this case. RVPUB\CSE\39364 -5- LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP C. Ballot Measure Exemption In Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Albany (August 1997), the City Council ordered a zoning amendment and development agreement regarding gaming in the City's waterfront area to be placed on the ballot for general election. In the general election, the ballot measure passed. The petitioners filed an action, claiming the City had failed to comply with CEQA prior to submitting the ballot measure to the voters. The court held that submittal of a zoning amendment to a vote of the people is exempt from CEQA under the provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines. However, it also held that submittal of the negotiated development agreement to the voters constituted conditional approval of the project subject to environmental review under CEQA. The critical consideration, according to the court, was the fact that the City Council submitted a fully negotiated development agreement to the voters, together with other measures, giving the City the power to immediately implement the development agreement in the form submitted to the voters, without further consideration, if the outcome of the election should be favorable. Thus, the court concluded the City's approval of the development agreement and its submission to the voters was a project under CEQA, since their actions restricted the City to a definitive course of action. To reflect the court's application of the ballot measure exemption, we have added Section 3.14 to your Guidelines. D. Demolition of Historical Resources In League for Protection of Oakland's Architectural and Historic Resources v. City of Oakland(February 1997), the issue was whether the demolition of a building, which does not have any official designation as a historical resource, requires the preparation of an EIR. The building at RVPUB\CSE\39364 -6- LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP issue was the Montgomery Ward Building, an eight-story, 950,000 square foot store and mail-order warehouse which was constructed in 1923. Over the years, the building had fallen into severe disrepair and the City and Montgomery Ward formulated a plan to demolish the building and redevelop the property. The City conducted a initial study and prepared a mitigated negative declaration for the demolition project. The initial study indicated the building was of"major historical or architectural value," although not officially designated as a historical property. Petitioners maintained the Montgomery Ward Building must be classified as a protected historical resource for purposes of CEQA, and any significant impact to it, such as demolition, must be preceded by an EIR rather than a negative declaration. The City contended the building was not a historical resource as defined by CEQA because it had not been "officially designated" as an"historical property" in the National Register or by the State of California or any formal city register. The court declined to adopt the City's position and found that the Montgomery Ward Building must be placed within the category of resources presumed to be historical for CEQA purposes. Moreover, the court noted the proposed demolition of the building could hardly be considered anything less than a significant effect. Therefore, unless the mitigation measures proposed by the City reduced the effects of the building demolition to less than significant levels, an EIR was mandatory. We have clarified the treatment of historical resources under CEQA in Section 5.11 of your Guidelines. RVPUB\CSE\39364 -7- LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 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 1998 Guidelines for future reference. DEAN DERLETH CHRISTA EILERS JAMES P. MORRIS MICHELLE OUELLETTE RVPUB\CSE\39364 -8-