Examples of AB 3180 Comprehensive Programs

The City of Encinitas

Encinitas adopted a comprehensive monitoring program in 1989, soon after AB 3180 was enacted. In addition to project-specific monitoring and reporting, the program commits the city to regular review of and reporting on city-wide impacts on development fees, the mitigation measures adopted as part of the general plan, and the progress general plan implementation.

Encinitas' program establishes the following basic provisions: (1) All mitigation measures are to be adopted as conditions of project approval. The conditions will specify a time at which implementation is expected to be complete.

(2) Project approvals will be by resolution or formal notice of decision and will identify those mitigation measures being adopted as conditions. Copies of all decisions will be routed to the affected city agencies.

(3) The resolution or notice of decision will be attached directly to all permits issued to the project. Mitigation which requires monitoring will be marked on the construction plans for the inspector and contractor. No permits will be issued until the Community Development Department has confirmed that any preconstruction mitigation requirements have been completed.

(4) Staff is required to confirm completion of mitigation measures prior to signing off on city forms. Each department is required to confirm the measures which relate to its responsibilities, coordinated by the Community Development Department.

(5) The Community Development Department is responsible for any monitoring which occurs after project completion. This includes administering the review of long-term monitoring plans required of applicants. The program authorizes the Department to collect fees to recover its costs.

(6) Each department will maintain the original program files for projects which it approves. Copies of the documentation will be given to each agency imposing mitigation.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

The district's 1993 "Environmental Review Guidelines" contain standardized requirements for establishing district monitoring and reporting programs. Under these requirements, approval of the project does not become final until the adoption of a mitigation monitoring or reporting program. Compliance with the adopted program is imposed as a condition of project approval. Upon adoption, the program is forwarded to the County Recorder for recordation in order to put the requirements of the program into the chain of title and provide successors to the permittee with substantive notice of the requirements. A "program completion certificate" must be issued by the district before the project will be considered to meet all requirements of a program. This certificate is also recorded, indicating that the requirements of the program have been met.

The district's guidelines require that district programs contain the following standard elements: (1) A statement that the requirements of the program run with the property involved, as opposed to the permittee, and all successive owners.

(2) A statement that the permittee must provide a copy of the adopted program to any potential lessee, buyer, or transferee of the involved property.

(3) A statement of the responsibilities of the applicant and the district's environmental coordinator, as well as whether other professional expertise is necessary to complete or evaluate of any part of the program.

(4) A schedule of tasks or phases which, upon completion, will allow issuance of a program completion certificate. With regard to compliance, the Guidelines requires the applicant to submit regular written progress reports to the district, verified by the district environmental coordinator, and to correct any noncompliance in a timely manner.

The County of Santa Barbara

Santa Barbara County established some of the earliest mitigation monitoring programs in the State, monitoring large projects even before the passage of AB 3180. The County's Environmental Quality Assurance Programs (EQAPs), which establish comprehensive monitoring programs for large-scale environmentally sensitive projects were first developed before AB 3180. An EQAP describes the relative roles of staff, consultants, and project proponents in the monitoring process. It also provides specific performance standards for compliance and the sanctions for failure to meet those standards .

After enactment of AB 3180, the County adopted a "Permit Compliance Procedure Manual" to ensure compliance with mitigation measures and conditions of approval; to initiate county enforcement procedures; establish a systematic and consistent approach to monitoring mitigation measures and conditions of approval; maintain standard mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, mitigation measures, and conditions of approval across departmental lines; develop a reporting program that provides feedback on the effectiveness of mitigation measures and conditions of approval; and use the feedback from monitoring programs to develop more effective comprehensive planning policies. These procedures also include reporting on the effectiveness of mitigation measures, even though AB 3180 does not require this.

The manual establishes the role and authority of the County's Permit Compliance group to monitor mitigation and conditions of approval. It also establishes detailed administrative procedures for monitoring and compliance activities, including the roles and specific responsibilities of applicable staff, and the use of outside consultants. The County's "DataEase" computerized tracking system continuously tracks cases from initial application, to approval, to reporting, and to final compliance.
Among other things, Santa Barbara County's procedures provide for the formal exemption of qualifying minor projects from monitoring requirements. The manual includes standard administrative forms as well.

The City of Santa Maria

Santa Maria amended its adopted CEQA procedures to establish a general mitigation monitoring system. Environmental mitigation measures imposed by the city are monitored through the permit and plan check process. Santa Maria's system provides a written record of mitigation without necessitating major changes to city practices.

The key to this system is a checklist that individually identifies the mitigation measures to be monitored for a given project as well as the city department responsible for monitoring each measure. Measures are checked off when they are incorporated into project design and when they have been implemented. Monitoring generally takes place during plan check and project inspection.
On-going measures which will require monitoring over a longer period are also handled through a checklist. Projects are inspected or the developer is required to submit progress reports periodically until implementation is complete. The city makes the final verification of the adequacy of the measure before signing off on its completeness.

Fees are collected from project proponents to pay for monitoring programs. Fees are limited to actual cost, and any excess is refunded to the proponent. If consultants are needed, they are hired by the city and their cost paid by the project proponent.

South Coast Air Quality Management District

The South Coast AQMD has adopted extensive guidelines covering all aspects of CEQA compliance. The 1993 edition of the District's "CEQA Air Quality Management Handbook" contains detailed advice for establishing monitoring programs.

The District recommends that programs do the following: (1) Communicate mitigation measures and reporting responsibilities to the applicant clearly.

(2) Identify the agency which will be responsible for monitoring each mitigation measure.

(3) Identify the time frame within which each measure is to be completed and during which monitoring will occur.

(4) Establish specific standards or criteria for completion of each mitigation measure.

(5) Identify remedial measures which will be imposed in case of non-compliance.

(6) Include a mechanism for periodic reporting. The District's handbook also recommends that monitoring should be linked to a specific point in the development process, such as issuance of a grading permit, occupancy permit, building permit, or construction inspection, and that mitigation measures should be limited to those which are legally enforceable. Suggested enforcement tools include conditions of approval, impact fees, improvement security, development agreements, Memoranda of Understanding, and recorded "Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions" (CCRs).

Return to Contents

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-322-2318