HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/05/1989, 4 - NEW CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM. 11pUl�` I`I City of San Luis OBI SPO M�'�°A$
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 'T""
L /�
FROM: Randy Rossi, Interim Community Development Director; By: f Ho nd Ga ice
^ //
SUBJECT: New City-wide Environmental Monitoring Program.0-
Je
1
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached resolution establishing environmental monitoring policies and
procedures.
DISCUSSION
When the city approves a project, mitigation measures are often included either as part
of a negative declaration or an environmental impact report. These measures are imposed
to avoid or minimize a project's environmental impacts. AB 3180, a new State law which
became effective January 1, 1989, requires state and local agencies to adopt
environmental monitoring or reporting programs to help ensure that mitigation measures
are actually carried out.
Previously, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) did not require verification
of completion of mitigation measures. Due to concerns that mitigation was not being
carried out, the State Legislature adopted the law to take CEQA a step further. AB 3180
simply requires reporting or monitoring of mitigation measures. To comply with the law,
state and local agencies have been given considerable flexibility in designing a
monitoring program to fit into their environmental procedures. Planning staff has
developed such a program, implemented by a set of new administrative procedures and a
draft resolution which amends the city's environmental guidelines.
This program would apply to all projects which have received final planning approval
after January 1, 1989. Changes or time extensions to projects approved before the
effective date, where additional environmental review is required, will also require
monitoring.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The proposed program will have no immediate fiscal impacts. However, the program will
significantly increase staff's current planning workload. Coupled with the current and
advance planning programs in the adopted budget, this program is expected to require
additional Community Development Department staffing by FY 1990-1991.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING AN ACTION
Due to statutory requirements, the City must develop and implement an environmental
monitoring or reporting program of some sort. The legislation does not set deadlines for
establishing the program. However, it does require that all projects subject to
environmental mitigation and approved on or after January 1, 1989, be monitored.
1�0111111IIIIN$IWJJJlj city of sari Luis OBlspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 2
PROGRAM SUMMARY
Under current procedures, planning staff verifies that projects meet all conditions of
approval, including all environmental mitigation measures. From building permit plan
check to completion of the project and sometimes beyond, staff checks to make sure that
mitigation measures have been satisfied. AB 3180 simply formalizes this follow-up
process by requiring mitigation monitoring -- periodic reporting of compliance with
project mitigation measures. Under the proposed program, planning staff will be
responsible for:
-Preparing monitoring/reporting requirements.
-Documenting that project mitigation measures have been met.
-Administering monitoring contracts for environmental consultant services.
-Coordinating mitigation monitoring assigned to other trustee agencies.
-Enforcement of mitigation measures.
-Processing appeals of the Community Development Director's environmental monitoring
determinations.
ADVISORY BODY COMMENTS
I
At its August 9, 1989 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed and commented on the
program. Since the law requires monitoring of projects approved after January 1, 1989,
the Commission felt it was important to establish the program as soon as possible. The
Architectural Review Commission also reviewed the program on July 17, 1989. Both
commissions supported the program. Several changes have been made to the program as
suggested by the Planning Commission. Commissioner comments are addressed in the
relevant text sections.
DISCUSSION
1. The Environmental Review Process:
When a development application is submitted, staff determines the appropriate
environmental processing. The project is either exempt or requires environmental
review. Exempt projects typically include sign permits, home occupations, minor zoning
exceptions, minor/incidental ARC projects, building permit issuance, single-family
houses, and lot line adjustments.
For projects requiring environmental review, staff prepares an initial study to determine
whether the project could cause an adverse environmental effect (refer to the attached I
flow chart, Exhibit D). For large projects, which clearly could cause significant
adverse impacts, an environmental impact report (EIR) is prepared. Where a project is
determined not to result in adverse impacts, a negative declaration is issued.
Mitigation measures are required to reduce project impacts to insignificant levels. Such
measures are usually included as part of a project's findings or conditions of approval(
"'���Hi��0111NppA���� city Of San Luis OBISPO
MMINO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 3
Environmental Determinations are advertised and usually acted on by the Community
Development Director twice a month. In cases where an EIR is prepared, the final
decision authority, Planning Commission, ARC or City Council, certifies the EIR and
approves the mitigation measures. Similarly, all negative declarations must be affirmed
by the final decision authority before approving a project. In the case of a mitigated
negative declaration, the applicant signs a form agreeing to incorporate the measures
into the project. This agreement does two things: 1) it ensures that the applicant
understands and agrees to the mitigation, and 2) it makes enforcement easier in the
event of non-compliance.
2. What Are Mitigation Measures
According to CEQA, mitigation can include changes, additions, modifications or deletions I
to a project to either avoid or minimize a potentially significant environmental
impact. Mitigation measures take several forms including:
-Redesign of project such as realignment of a street, relocation of driveways, or
re-siting of buildings.
-Adding project features such as landscaping, sound barriers, or walls.
C -Reducing project intensity including reducing building size or lot coverage.
-Off-site improvements like traffic signalization, construction of sidewalks and
streets, and public improvement contributions such as sewer/water fees, park and
open space dedication and fees, and school fees.
-Offsetting a project's impact through environmental enhancement measures, such as
off-site creek restoration in connection with a new development project nearby.
3. Checking for Compliance:
i
One method to check for mitigation compliance, sometimes called "design specific", is to
assure that a project's required design features or modifications have been incorporated
at the building permit plan check stage. The project planner verifies compliance again
at final occupancy, prior to occupancy release. During plan check, the project planner
reviews building plans for compliance with all conditions of approval. Final inspection
involves project site and building inspection by both building and planning staff. If
the project conforms to approved plans and satisfies mitigation requirements, staff
releases building occupancy and allows utility hook-up. At both review points, staff
can either withhold permit issuance, or postpone occupancy/utility hook-up until
conditions of approval and/or mitigation are met. As a requirement of the monitoring
program, all project related mitigation measures will be required to be listed with or
noted on the building or subdivision improvement plans.
The "performance specific" check requires periodic review of performance standards I
placed on the project. Staff, a city-retained environmental consultant, or a trustee
G agency (like California Department of Fish and Game) verifies that the project meets a
certain expectation or demonstrates a specific level of performance. This responds to
the Architectural Review Commission's concern that verification of mitigation
effectiveness is built into the program.
�s K
city of san LUIS OBISPO
00 A COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 4
Ongoing, time-specific, and development phasing measures -- where a project is required
to meet certain requirements over a period of time or at a particular development phase
of a project -- may also be used as a means to achieve a certain level of performance.
Staff may require the applicant to post bonds or other guarantees to assure satisfactory
performance is achieved from conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures. Staff
works with the applicant and other agencies to assure that all mitigation measures, as
well as other conditions of approval are met. All correspondence and follow-up memos
are maintained in the city's master address files, and will be available for public
review.
5. The Monitoring Process:
The project planner is responsible for environmental monitoring of the project (refer to
Exhibit A for details of the monitoring procedures). Although most mitigation measures
will be easily verified at plan check or final occupancy stages, some will require
special attention. For example a large project to be built over a 10 year period may
incorporate mitigation measures to be monitored after occupancy. In this case, these
measures would include specific wording about monitoring.
The Architectural Review Commission indicated that follow-up written documentation is
needed to determine adequacy of mitigation. At the plan check or project development
stage, the project planner begins the Environmental Monitoring Checklist and determines
compliance and acceptability of mitigation measures which have been incorporated into -r
the project's design and uses (refer to Exhibit B). During plan check, at final
occupancy inspection, or after occupancy the project planner may consult technical
experts such as building inspectors, Department of Fish and Game Officials or others as
needed to determine adequacy of compliance or performance.
If during building plancheck the required design-specific mitigation measures are not
included in plans, the developer/applicant is notified and plan changes are required. A
note discussing the disposition of these measures is then added to the checklist.
Follow-up plan checks may be necessary to assure compliance. The checklist would be
periodically updated to reflect plan checks and project inspections. The checklist will
be kept in the master address file and if necessary the project case file for
reference.
Project planners use computers which are connected to a system network. The network
will have special software which will inform staff daily of inspections or reports
scheduled as part of the monitoring program. Staff is expecting to create a master
computer log for project mitigation measure status. In conjunction with organization
programing, the computer log comprehensive quarterly or annual reports could be
developed. This type of system would also allow the Community Development Director
and/or other management staff to oversee the monitoring program.
I
•
I������IwIIIIIN�P ��ll City of San LUIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
C
Staff Report
Page 5
5. Changes to Mitigation:
One of the chief advantages of monitoring is that it allows cities to evaluate the
effectiveness of mitigation, during and after project construction. When monitoring
reveals that mitigation is either ineffective or physically infeasible, the Director may
require modified or new mitigation measures to achieve the intent of the original
mitigation measures. For example, if erosion control measures were found to be
ineffective, the Director could require additional landscaping, hay bales, jute mesh, or
similar measures to reduce runoff. The provision allowing the Director to modify
mitigation measures would be included with a project's original mitigation measures, and
would typically be used for large, phased, or complex projects.
Planning Commissioners voiced concerns that the Director's authority to modify mitigation
should be exercised only to increase the effectiveness of mitigation. Difficulty or cost
factors alone should not be considered as justification for reducing or eliminating
mitigation measures. Planning Commissioner Kourakis felt that the word infeasible should
be better defined or deleted when referring to mitigation.
Staff agrees. The intent of AB 3180 is to improve the effectiveness of environmental
mitigation. This program would enable the Director to change mitigation if during
monitoring, the original measures could not be physically done, or were found to be
C\ ineffective.
Planning Commissioner Roalman was concerned that future changes to monitoring or
mitigation measures need to have the developer's authorization. The program requires
that the developer agree to future changes to mitigation measures.
Any changes made to mitigation measures as a result of the monitoring program will be
publicly noticed subject to the same noticing requirement as the original project
approval. This is intended to give affected property owners, occupants in the area
and/or the public an opportunity to comment on proposed changes. Most changes made to
mitigation measures would be categorically exempt and not subject to separate
environmental review.
6. Freauencv of Monitoring:
For design specific mitigation, monitoring will involve simple sign off of the monitoring
form/computer log when the measure has been completed. However, for performance specific
mitigation, a reminder needs to be set up to assure required review and reporting is
done. Monitoring frequency will be dependent on the criteria or level of performance.
For example, a requirement for off-site circulation improvements based on the results of
an annual traffic monitoring program, may involve periodic staff review of a traffic
engineers annual report over a period of five years.
I
C
"'���N�►VdIiINNI� ►I `I city of san Luis OBISPO
1 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 6
7. Monitorine Responsibility
Although staff and the Community Development Director will be responsible for
administering the program, there are several options available for verifying adequacy of
certain mitigation measures. The program allows other agencies to assume the
responsibility for monitoring mitigation measures which they require or suggest. For
example, the Department of Fish and Game could be asked to oversee a measure which
requires restoration of a wetland habitat. In this event, staff would verify that a
project complied with the restoration measure only after Fish and Game staff were
satisfied.
In another example, the applicant would be responsible for having a qualified engineer
prepare annual reports regarding the performance of a creek bank stabilization system.
The applicant/property owner could be held responsible for repairing and/or maintaining
the system for a specified period. Community Development staff then would determine the
adequacy of the report and verify mitigation performance.
8. Monitoring Fees:
Since staff is typically responsible for mitigation compliance and follow up, costs for
monitoring are included as part of the planning and building application review fees.
The City is currently studying its overall service charges. The Community Development r
Department will study the feasibility of adding the cost of monitoring to planning,
zoning and building plan check fees.
In extraordinary situations where mitigation involves extensive monitoring, the Community
Development Director may impose additional fees to cover the actual costs of
environmental monitoring and reporting. A statement of the added monitoring fees would
be incorporated into the mitigation measure. The Community Development Director may also
impose a fee to cover administrative costs of monitoring and handling consultants'
contracts.
9. Enforcement of Mitigation Measures:
Environmental monitoring requirements are enforceable by the Community Development
Director. In the event of a violation and/or failure to comply with the requirements,
the city would be able to reconsider and possibly revoke a land use entitlement for the
project such as a use permit, development agreement, specific plan, planned development
or variance. Failure to comply may also result in the forfeiture of performance bonds or
guarantees, or subject the applicant to fines, civil action, or other penalties allowed
by state law.
10. Aoneals:
The Community Development Director determines the adequacy of mitigation measure
compliance. As with other administrative actions, any person may appeal the Director's
monitoring decisions. Appeals will be publicly noticed subject to the same noticing
requirement as the original project approval. Final determination of the appeal would be
made by the project's final approval authority, usually the Planning Commission or the
City Council.
�
W
MY Of son LUIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 7
11. Program Amendments:
To allow greater flexibility in implementing the new monitoring program, the Community
Development Director or City Council may amend the program at any time to better achieve
the intent of AB 3180 and the City's Environmental Guidelines. The Director will notify
the Planning Commission and City Council of any substantive changes to the program. Such
changes will be publicly noticed as described in the monitoring program.
The original proposal required that the program's overall performance be evaluated by the
City Council within two years of its adoption. The majority of the Planning Commission
commented that the program should be reviewed by both the Planning Commission and City
Council within six months of adoption. This change has been incorporated into the
program
12. Program Application to Previous Proiects•
Previous projects approved after January 1, 1989, the effective date of AB 3180, will be
included in the monitoring program. Staff will review all mitigated negative
declarations granted since that date, and prepare monitoring programs where appropriate.
13. Other Commission Comments:
The Planning Commission felt that monitoring results needed to be publicly accessible.
The environmental monitoring program is intended to allow greater public access to
environmental decision-making, as stated in the Council Resolution. As noted, monitoring
reports and other documentation will be maintained in the planning department's files,
and will be available for public review during regular business hours.
The Architectural Review Commission felt that the public should be involved in
determining the effectiveness of mitigation, especially those who occupy or are directly
affected by the project. During public hearings, commissioners and the public may
comment on the proposed mitigation and monitoring program, or suggest changes. The
Director will consider comments from the public, including those affected by the project, I
in determining mitigation effectiveness. The program allows the public to file appeals
of the Director's determination (refer to section 10 of this report).
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may approve the program with or without changes.
2. The Council may continue the item.
I
II��I���►i�iilllllll i ���Ill city' of San Luis OBISPO
j
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 8
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed monitoring program and has determined that it
meets the requirements of AB 3180.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached resolution establishing the proposed environmental monitoring policies
and procedures.
I
Attachments: Draft Resolution
Monitoring Program Procedures (Exhibit A)
Monitoring Checklist (Exhibit B)
AB 3180, Legislative Text (Exhibit C)
Flow Chart of the Environmental Review Process (Exhibit D)
gpcc 1/monitor
I
•
RESOLUTION NO. (1989 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
WHEREAS, on September 5, 1989, the City Council held a public hearing and considered
Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission comments and public testimony on
the proposed monitoring program; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has adopted Environmental Guidelines (Resolution No.
5302, 1984 Series) to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, and to assist
developers, staff, commissioners and citizens in reviewing and understanding a proposed
project's environmental effects prior to approval; and
WHEREAS, the California State Legislature has enacted, and the Governor has signed into
law, Assembly Bill 3180 (Section 21081.6, Public Resources Code) requiring local agencies
to adopt monitoring or reporting programs to ensure compliance with environmental -
mitigation measures during project implementation; and
WHEREAS, the City has established environmental monitoring policies and procedures to
implement the requirements of AB 3180, as described in the attached Exhibit "A"; and
C'
WHEREAS, the proposed program has been evaluated in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines, and has been
determined to be Categorically Exempt (CEQA, Section 15308); and
WHEREAS, the proposed program promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City's Environmental Guidelines arc hereby amended to include the
environmental monitoring program noted in Exhibit "A", attached.
SECTION 2. The Community Development Director shall be responsible for implementing
said program, with support from other City Departments as necessary and
appropriate, and guided by the following administrative procedures:
A. The Director may amend the environmental monitoring program as necessary to
meet the intent of AB 3180, and may establish applicant or property owner
fees to cover actual costs of environmental 'monitoring and reporting.
Substantive changes to the program, as determined by the Director, shall be
reviewed by the Architectural Review and Planning Commissions and
considered by the City Council.
B. Environmental monitoring programs shall be considered by the appropriate
decision-making bod prior to final city action. Monitoring programs are
Cintended to allow gr ater public access to environmental decision-making,
and approved monit ring programs and subsequent documentation shall be
available for public review during regular business hours.
�m9
Resolution No. (1989 Series)
Page 2
C. Once approved, environmental monitoring requirements shall be enforceable
by the Community Development Director, Failure to comply with the
requirements shall be cause for review and possible revocation of land use
entitlements, forfeiture of performance bonds or guarantees, fines, civil
action, or other penalties allowed by California law.
D. Appeals of Director decisions and interpretations shall be appealable to
the decision-making body. Appeals must be filed with the Community
Development Director for Planning Commission or Architectural Review
Commission hearing; and with the City Clerk for hearing by the City Council
SECTION 3. After review and consideration, the City Council hereby upholds the
Community Development Director's determination that the proposed program is
categorically exempt (CEQA Section 15308).
SECTION 4. This resolution shall be published once in full, in the Telegram-Tribune, a
locally published and circulated newspaper, within 10 days of City Council
action.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1989.
MAYOR RON DUNIN
ATTEST:
Pam Voges, City Clerk
Vicki Finuc6fie, Acting City Attorney John inn, City Administrative offic:'
Randall S. Rossi, Interim Community Development Director
i1
EXHIBIT A
C�
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM
I. OVERVIEW
A. Background. These policies and procedures are intended to meet the
requirements of AB 3180, a new State law which became effective January 1,
1989. The law requires,that cities and counties adopt environmental
monitoring programs to ensure that mitigation measures imposed on a
development project are carried out. Monitoring requirements apply to
projects which have received a mitigated negative declaration, or to
projects which need an EIR.
In evaluating the environmental effects of new development, local agencies
have followed the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended.
Recent studies suggest that in some cases, required mitigation has often
been improperly done, or ignored entirely. To comply with AB 3180 and close
this procedural "gap", the City of San Luis Obispo is amending its
Environmental Guidelines to require monitoring whenever mitigation measures
are required of new development.
B. Purpose. The environmental monitoring program will: 1) Ensure that
C' required mitigation measures are implemented; 2) Allow the City and
interested citizens to verify compliance before, during, and after project
construction; 3) Generate information on the effectiveness of mitigation
measures, allowing the City to modify mitigation measures during project
implementation to improve their effectiveness, and 4) Guide future
decision-making.
C. Applicability. Projects which have received final planning approval
before January 1, 1989 are not subject to the environmental monitoring
requirements. The new regulations do apply to all negative declarations and
EIR findings made after that date. Changes to or time extensions for
projects approved before the effective date, where additional environmental
review is required, will also be subject to monitoring requirements.
D. Authority. AB 3180 does not amend the California Environmental Quality
Act. However its provisions do augment CEQA requirements by expanding
cities' and counties' role in environmental protection. Authority to
enforce the monitoring requirements is reserved to local agencies under
Public Resources Code Section 2100 et.seq., together with CEQA guidelines,
and the San Luis Obispo City Charter, Article II., Section 203.
The new law is codified in Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, and
applies to all cities and counties in California. Council Resolution
No. (1989 Series) was adopted , establishing an
environmental monitoring program, and approving the following policies and
procedures. The Community Development Director shall be responsible for
C administering and enforcing the program.
� C�
Page 2
E. Amendment. The Community Development Director or City Council may amend
this program at any time to better achieve the intent of AB 3180 and the
City's Environmental Guidelines. The Director shall notify the Planning
Commission and the City Council before implementing such changes, and
provide public notice in the Telegram-Tribune at least 10 days before the
changes take effect.
F. Commission and Council Review. The Planning Commission and the City
Council shall review this program within 6 months of its adoption. At the
review, the council shall evaluate the program's effectiveness, and modify
it as appropriate.
ll. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
A. Projects Affected. These requirements shall apply to all development
projects approved. on or after January 1, 1989. Also, projects which
received discretionary approvals prior to this date, but undergo changes or
additional phases which require additional environmental review must also
include monitoring.
B. Exempt Projects. Monitoring does not apply to:. 1) Projects which .are
determined to be exempt from environmental review under CEQA; and 2)
Projects which have received a Negative Declaration without mitigation, -
based on the Community Development Director's determination that the project
will not have a significant environmental impact. This determination is
considered during City commission or council hearings on a development
request. At such a hearing, the commission or council may require
additional environmental review, mitigation, or monitoring.
C. Responsibility. The Community Development Director shall administer the
monitoring program, with assistance from other city departments as needed.
As part of environmental review, project planners will be directly
responsible for implementation by:
1. Preparing monitoring/reporting requirements as part of a project's
initial study;
2. Verifying compliance with monitoring requirements at building
plancheck, during construction, at final occupancy inspection, and for
a specified period after occupancy, as appropriate for the mitigation
involved.
3. Administering contracts for environmental consultant services,
including environmental monitoring programs;
4. Coordinating with othertrusteeagencies (eg. DFG, AQMD, California
Division of Forestry) to ensure that they proviidc a monitoring or
reporting program to accompany their recommended conditions. In some
cases, the trustee agency may be directly responsible for monitoring
and enforcement of relevant conditions.
•
Page 3
City commissioners and councilmembers review monitoring programs as part of their
final action on a project. As with mitigation measures, monitoring requirements
may be added, deleted, or changed as part of a project's final approval.
D. Types of Mitigation Requiring Monitoring. Virtually all mitigation
measures will require some degree of monitoring; however for most projects,
monitoring will be handled by staff as part of normal building plancheck and
inspection. Monitoring will vary by the type of mitigation and project
scope; and will generally fall under one of the following categories:
1. Location or Design Modification: Measures affecting project location
or design, including but not limited to earthwork, utilities,
rights-of-way, structures, and landscaping. Some examples would be
limiting building location or coverage, reducing the number of
dwellings, or requiring a landscape buffer.
2. Construction Operation/Implementation: Measures that affect the way
construction is carried out. Examples include limits on construction
hours, noise levels, dust and erosion control, and tree protection.
C3. Operational Conditions: These measures apply to the operation and/or
maintenanceof a facility after occupancy. Examples include limits on
hours of operation, transportation management programs, noise and
pollution controls, and wildlife habitat enhancement.
4. Offsite Improvements or Offsets: Measures requiring offsite
improvements to mitigate or compensate for project impacts. Examples
include payment of in-lieu fees for parking or open space
preservation, plumbing retrofits for water conservation, and offsite
street or utility upgrades.
E. Monitoring Procedures. AB 3180 gives cities wide latitude in developing
"reporting or monitoring" procedures. Although not defined in the statute,
the term "reporting" is taken to mean the submittal of compliance reports by
the project developer; while "monitoring" refers to inspection and
documentation carried out by the city. Either approach, or a combination of
the two may be used.
For most projects, the monitoring process would work like this:
Step 1: Project Planner completes the initial environmental study,
including recommended mitigation and monitoring requirements
where appropriate.
Step 2: Community Development Director reviews the initial study,
I revises it as necessary, and makes the environmental
O determination.
y-/3
Page 4
Step 3: Environmental determination is advertised, and the public review
and 30-day appeal period begins.
Step 4: Preparation of an EIR; or if project receives a Negative
Declaration, the project and environmental determination is
scheduled for a public hearing.
Step 5: Public hearing/Final discretionary action by the ARC, Planning
Commission, or City Council (when projects require hearings
before more than one body, the final environmental determination
shall be made by the last body to take final action).
Step 6: Staff begins monitoring during building permit plancheck;
compliance with mitigation measures verified prior to permit
issuance. Staff shall verify that all project mitigation
measures are noted or listed on the building permit or
subdivision improvement plans.
Step 7: Staff continues to monitor and report compliance during
construction. If the mitigation measures are determined by the
Community Development Director to be ineffective or physically
infeasible, the Director may modify or add mitigation measures
to achieve the intent of the original mitigation measures ('the �
developer's authorization of future changes to mitigation must
be included in the project's original mitigation measures).
Step 8: Staff verifies compliance with mitigation measures prior to
final inspection sign-off and release of occupancy.
Step 9: For some projects, staff continues to monitor project compliance
through periodic inspection and/or submittal of reports by
environmental consultants, trustee agencies, and the developer.
Step 10: When monitoring is complete, project compliance is recorded on
the monitoring checklist, the property owner is notified, and
the documentation is permanently maintained as public records
(Community Development Department Address Files).
F. Monitoring Techniques. Monitoring can be done several ways, including:
1. Visual Inspection
2. Sampling/Testing
3. On-going or periodic studies
4. Reporting
5. Plan Checking
6. Computer simulation or modelling
7. Surveys
n
� i
Page 5
Depending on the type of mitigation and scale of the project, all or a combination
of these techniques may be used. For simple or routine projects, monitoring may
be done by staff during building permit plancheck. For larger or more complex
projects, or for projects which require more extensive monitoring during or after
construction, the developer may be required to: 1) submit periodic compliance
reports, or 2) pay city costs for monitoring done by staff or by consultants hired
by the city. Trustee agencies, like Department of Fish and Game and the Regional
Water Quality Board, may also have monitoring duties in connection with their
mitigation requirements.
F. Mitigations and Monitoring Techniques.
1. Mitigation. For monitoring to work, mitigation measures must be
clear and verifiable. They should be easily understood, and directly
relate to the project's potential impacts. Effective mitigation
measures will specify what should be done, who should do it,
when the mitigation should be done, and how it should be done
(ie. set some acceptance or approval standard).
2. For example: A mitigation requiring that "The developer shall
take appropriate measures to ensure that cultural resources are
preserved" is too vague to be verified by monitoring. A better
wording would read "The developer shall retain a qualified
professional to evaluate archaeological resources. Results of the
evaluation and a preservation plan shall be submitted to the Community
Development Director prior to final project approval. Measures
recommended in the evaluation shall be implemented by the
developer."
3. Monitoring. The monitoring program is included with a project's
initial study, expanded initial study, or EIR. It should specify:
Who does the monitoring, what is monitored and how it is to be done
(See section F) frequency and duration of monitoring, whether
developer funding will be required, and include wording which allows
the Director to modify the mitigation if the monitoring or reporting
program reveals that the mitigation is ineffective or infeasible.
4. Frequency and Duration. There is no standard formula for when and
how long monitoring is needed. It will depend on the project, and
will need to be set on a case-by-case basis. Monitoring or reporting
should occur at key city action points, like plancheck and final
occupancy inspection; and for some projects, at specified intervals
(quarterly, bi-annually, annually) from the date of occupancy.
III. FEES. For small or routine projects, monitoring will be handled by planning
staff as part of its regular duties, and there will be no added cost to the
developer. When the Director determines that monitoring beyond the Cnormal staff} duties or expertise is required, the developer will be charged for the additional
staff time, or for outside consultant services, on a time and material basis.
Page 6
In establishing fees, the Director may also include a fee to reimburse the city for
administrative costs, not to exceed ten percent of the total monitoring program costs.
Iv. ENFORCEMENT. Monitoring or reporting programs may be enforced several ways:
A. Witholding of construction permits.
B. Stop-work orders.
C. Forfeiture of security bonds or other guarantees.
D. Review and revocation of use permits or other planning entitlements.
E. Recordation of Notice of Non-Compliance against a property's title.
F. Civil and criminal fines.
Which measure to use, and when to use it is a judgement call made by the Director
and City attorney based on the project's circumstances. Post-occupancy monitoring
may be the most difficult to enforce. "Up-front" developer payment for monitoring
costs, and clear, prc-arranged monitoring schedules should help minimize
problems. Staff will use special computer software to help "track" key monitorial;
dates and compliance deadlines.
V. APPEALS. Appeal procedures for monitoring programs shall be. the same as those
in Chapter 17.66 of the Zoning Regulations. Any person may appeal a decision of
the Community Development Director or of any city commission, as provided in the
regulations. Such appeals must be filed within 10 calendar days of the rendering
of a decision. Decisions of the Director are appealable to the ARC or Planning \
Commission (whichever body had final approval authority); and commission decisions
arc appealable to the City Council.
Changes to required mitigation measures which result from monitoring shall require
legal notice to the developer, and arc subject to the same noticing requirements
as the original project approval. In most cases, such changes will be
categorically exempt under CEQA, and not require any further environmental review.
sss
I
jh5/ab3180
�Iflllllllll��� � �IIIIIII�
EXHIBIT B
CLy Or san lU s OBISpO
. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING CHECKLIST
DATE: _ CITY FILE NO. PROJECT NAME`.
ADDRESS: ROUTING
❑ Building
❑ Planning
U Engineering
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:_--_— ----- --
COMPLIANCE: ❑ ACCEPTABLE ❑ UNACCEPTABLE
❑ Remedial Action Implemented
❑ Required Work Stop
❑ Follow-up Required
❑ Other
MITIGATION STATUS: Met or Is Continuing To Be.Met:
Date Mitigation Measures Disposition
O —-- 2. _.
3. — —
— 4. —
5. -- -
6. - — -
7. ---
8.NOTES:-------
RECOMMENDATIONS:
OTES: _ ----RECOMMENDATIONS: — _-----.--_--
PREPARED BY: -- __-_-__---_ APPROVED BY:
TRUSTEE AGENCY/APPLICANT MONITORING PROGRAM/REPORT:
Trustee Agency Date Program/Report Complete: Yes No
OI hereby certify that I have inspected the project site and that the above information is true to the best of my knowledge.
Name(Print) —__ _-.._ __.___- Representing (Agency/Firm) _--__ —
Signature Date
-� EXHIBIT C
Assembly MH No, 1160
CHAPTER 1232
An act to add Section 21081.6 to the Public Resources Code, relat
ing to environmental quality.
IAPpro�ed by Governor September 23. 1988. Filed LLith
Secretary of State September 23, 1988.)
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 3180, Cortese. Environmental impact reports mitigation
Findings.
(1) The California Environmental Quality Act prohibits a public
agency frorn approving or carrying out a project far which an
environmental impact report identifies significant environmental
effects,unless one of specified findings relative to mitigation of those
effects has been made. If no significant effect on the environment
would occur, a negative declaration is required to be made, which
would identify potentially significant effects that would be avoided
or mitigated, as specified.
This bill would require the agency lin making one of those findings,
Of adopting a negative declaration, to adopt a reporting and
monitoring program.for adopted or required changes to mitigate or
avoid significant environmental effects. The bill would require an
agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a
project, if requested by a lead or responsible agency, to submit a
proposed reporting or monitoring program for changes required or
incorporated into the project at its request. The bill would impose a
state-mandated local program by imposing new duties on local
agencies
f2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
:;,ca) agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for 3 specified reason
The people of the .State of California do enact as f0HOt4'5
SECTION 1 Section 21081.6 is added to the Public Resources
Code, to read.
21081.6 When making the findings required by subdivision (a) of
Section 21031 or when adopting a negative declaration pursuant to
paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21080, the public agency
shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the
project which it.has adopted or made a condition of project approval
in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.
The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure IL
compliance during project implementation. For those changes
which have been required or incorporated into the project at the
request of an agency having jurisdiction by law over natural
resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested
by the lead or responsible agency, prepare,and submit a proposed
reporting or monitoring program.
SEC. 2 No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the
local agency or school district has the authority to levy service
charges,fees,or assessments sufficient to pay for th"t program or level
Of service mandated by this act
C EXHIBIT D
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW PROCESS
O
1. Application for project filed
If exempt
2.City determines if project is exempt(ministerial,emergency,categorical)
If not exempt -----------------.— Appeal (1) - - — —
3. Applicant submits plans and other information necessary for environ-
mental impact determination to the city
If no significant impact, or impact
4.City undertakes an initial study and mitigation/monitoring program,and mitigated with project changes
submits them to the Community Development Director for determination.It
Negative Declaration granted
;he prcject is determined to have significant impact. . .
------------------ Appeal (2) — — — —
5. Draft EIR prepared
6. Community Development Director reviews draft EIR and determines
acceptability for distribution
C
7. City: -files notice of completion
-sets 30-to 45-day review period
- files public hearing notice
------------------ Appeal (3)
8.EIR certified:or Negative Declaration and mitigation/monitoring program
affirmed. If project approved, and monitoring included with project . . .
9. City files Notice of Determination
10. Building Plan Check: Begin Monitoring
It non-compliance
1 1. Occupancy inspection Enforcement
Optional
If complies L— Post-occupancy evaluation
F1 2. Final ER Checklist signed off and retained in permanent files —————— If complies
CJ
APPEALS -any person may appeal a determination to the Dotted lines and figures represent additional
(1) Community Development Director steps for appeals or city actions which may
(2) Planning Commission,or be required.
(3) City Council
at the appropriate phase in the review process. �.,p