Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1989 1206 CC REG ITEM 08E MOORPARK ITEM8 € . ELOISE BROWN PPpPK �,`� STEVEN KUENY Mayor Fo�t City Manager BERNARDO M. PEREZ / 9 CHERYL J. KANE Mayor Pro Tern City Attorney CLINT HARPER, Ph. D. � PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Councilmember o Director of PAUL LAWRASON 0awW: Community Development Councilmember " ES R. DENNIS DELZEIT SCOTT MONTGOMERY City Engineer Councilmember JOHN V. GILLESPIE RICHARD T. HARE Chief of Police City Treasurer MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable City Council ARIP FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development DATE: November 17, 1989 SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO CEQA REGARDING MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS (AB-3180) Discussion The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the City Council with information regarding the requirements of AB-3180 and to discuss what effect this legislation has on the City in regard to staff costs and time. Effective January 1, 1989, the Legislature amended the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adopting AB-3180. This legislation requires the adoption of a reporting and monitoring program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or avoid significant environmental. impacts. The intent is to ensure the implementation. of measures that public agencies impose to mitigate or avoid the significant adverse impacts identified in an environmental. document. Attached i:; a. copy of the legislation and an informational paper on AB-3180 that was presented at the League of California Cities 1989 Annual Conference. AB-3180 leaves the task of designing a reporting or monitoring program to individual public agencies. Staff has only prepared. three mitigation monitoring and reporting programs since January 1989. We have been including the monitoring program in Lhe Negative Declaration prior to public circulation. This is not required by AB-3180; however, an informational paper prepared by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research does suggest that this should be done. AB-3180 does not provide state reimbursement for implementing the monitoring requirements because local agencies have the authority to levy fees su:fficient to pay for such programs. A:AB-3180.DOC(DW4) 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 The Honorable City Council November 17, 1989 Page 2 Staff recently conducted a telephone survey to find out how other jurisdictions are complying with AB-3180, and specifically to learn whether or not other cities or counties have established a fee system to pay for the monitoring program preparation and compliance review. The Cities of Simi Valley, Ventura, Thousand Oaks, Santa Clarita, and San Diego, and the County of Los Angeles responded to our request for information. At the present time, the City of Santa Clarita and Los Angeles County have no adopted procedures or fee system for mitigation monitoring and reporting. The other local governments contacted do have established procedures, as discussed below: The City of Simi Valley responded that they have established procedures for complying with AB-3180, and that they currently include the monitoring program in the staff report instead of in the environmental document. City staff prepares the monitoring program for Negative Declarations and consultants prepare the program for EIR's. Simi Valley has not established a new fee to pay for mitigation monitoring and reporting. The City of Ventura responded that they have established procedures and a format for the monitoring program. They are not currently including the monitoring program in their environmental documents at the time of public circulation. City staff prepare the monitoring program for Negative Declarations and consultants prepare the program for EIR's. Ventura does not have a separate fee established at this time for mitigation monitoring. The City of Thousand Oaks responded that they are including a condition of approval requiring the applicant to prepare a mitigation compliance report prior to release of a building permit. A planner then reviews the compliance report and charges the applicant for the review time. The City is responsible for the majority of the monitoring. They have no established fee for this monitoring time. If long-term monitoring is required, they would require the applicant to hire a consultant. The City of San Diego, Environmental Analysis Division, identified that they do have established procedures and do include the monitoring program in environmental documents being circulated for public review. The City's fee system requires the developers to pay for all staff costs related to preparation of environmental documents. At the current time, monitoring is being done by either City staff or a consultant hired by the applicant. They have no established fee system to pay for long term staff monitoring, if it extends beyond approval of occupancy. The City has hired an additional Environmental Planner to do mitigation monitoring. The Honorable City Council November 17, 1989 Page 3 While all of the cities surveyed have adopted slightly different procedures, all apparently try to tie the monitoring program into existing enforcement mechanisms such as denial or withholding of building permits or occupancy, fines, etc. This is similar to the procedure we have been following. We have prepared only three monitoring and reporting programs for Mitigated Negative Declarations since January 1989. For two of these projects, we were able to tie most of the monitoring requirements into our standard condition compliance review procedure. However, it is important to point out that preparation of the monitoring program required several hours of staff time, and monitoring is expected to require several more hours of staff time. In addition, just the preparation of the Negative Declaration, itself, now takes more staff time than before. Recent court cases have resulted in the need to explain all "Yes", "Maybe", and "No" responses in an Initial Study, which has expanded the staff time involved in preparation of the Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Several environmental impact reports currently are under preparation which may require more extensive monitoring and reporting. The City Council will ultimately need to make a determination as to whether or not an additional fee is justified to pay for all staff costs related to preparation of environmental documents and for preparation and enforcement of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. It may be appropriate to adopt a fee for preparation of Negative Declarations similar to the current City fee that was established to pay for staff costs related to preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. This type of fee could incorporate a certain percentage for preparation and/or review of a monitoring and reporting program and could incorporate a certain percentage that would be used for paying staff costs related to monitoring. Another idea would be to establish a fund that would be used to pay for a code enforcement officer (part-time or full-time as required) for monitoring of mitigation measures and enforcement. A fee could be charged for all projects which require mitigation monitoring, and this fee would then be deposited into the mitigation monitoring fund. While staff is not recommending any specific action at this time, we will continue to assess the staff time involved in complying with the new CEQA requirements that were added by AB-3180. The City's existing fee schedule will ultimately need to be revised to reflect the additional staff costs related to compliance. Since State law requires each public agency to adopt procedures consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for administering its responsibilities under CEQA, we will need to update the City's CEQA Procedures sometime within the next year to address AB-3180 requirements. The Honorable City Council November 17, 1989 Page 4 Recommendation Receive and file. PJR/DST Attachments: 1. AB-3180 Legislation 2. AB-3180--Monitoring Mitigation Measures Under The California Environmental Quality Act (paper presented at the League of California Cities 1989 Annual Conference) MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting of /-��� 1981.. ACTION:Li imLe- `Y- /By,AdeL a/&&"-L- L. ATTACHMENT 1 Assembly Bill No. 3180 CHAPTER 1232 An act to add Section 21081.6 to the Public Resources Code, relat- ing to environmental.quality. • [Approved by Governor September 23, 1988. Filed with Secretary oP State September 23, 1988.1 LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 3180, :Cortese. Environmental-impact reports: mitigation findings. (1) The California Environmental Quality Act prohibits a public agency from approving or carrying out a project for 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 in making one of those findings, or 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. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local 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 a specified reason. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 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 21081 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. REPRINT ►: .� CEI r ti 1.02 6 1�-‘q Ch. 1232 —2— The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure 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 the program or level of service mandated by this act. 0 93 70 i* ATTACHMENT 2 1 AB 3180 -- MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURES UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Cristina L. Sierra Attorney at Law Adams, Duque & Hazeltine Presented at the League of California Cities ` 1989 Annual Conference San Francisco, California I. INTRODUCTION I In 1970 the legislature adopted the California 11 Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA" ; Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et sea. ) to ensure that decision makers and the public were fully informed of all potential adverse 11 effects on the environment caused by a new development prior to its approval. CEQA authorized the approval of projects which, if completed as originally proposed, would have or could have a significant adverse effect on the environment, if modifications which avoided or mitigated the significant adverse effects were incorporated in the project or made a condition of approval of the project. These modifications came to be known as "mitigation measures." 111 RECEIVED NOV 2 0 1989 I'`i►v of AAnnret I While in theory the concept of mitigation measures seemed to be the way to strike the balance between allowing development to proceed in order to meet the needs of growing communities while at the same time protecting scarce natural resources, it became apparent that in practice, once the project was approved, public agencies were not monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation measures, or even whether the mitigation measures were being implemented. Thus, in many situations, the imposition of mitigation measures amounted to nothing more than paying "lip service" to the mandates of CEQA and the public concerns over protection of the environment. Referred to as the "missing link" in the CEQA process, AB 3180 imposes an obligation on public agencies to adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures which are made part of the project. The goal of AB 3180 is, "to ensure compliance [with mitigation measures] during project implementation." (Public Resources Code Section 2181. 6) Once in place, this program will provide a public agency with feedback as to whether the mitigation measures are being implemented. Although not mandated by AB 3180, the program can also be used to analyze the effectiveness of the mitigation measures once they are implemented, the results of which can be used in future projects. -2- a .� i Monitoring programs is not a new concept in California law. The Warren-Alquist Act (Public Resources * Code Sections 25000 gt q. ) requires the California Energy Commission to monitor the power plant facilities certified by the Commission in order to assure the facility is constructed and operated in compliance with air and water quality, public health and safety, and other applicable regulations, 11 guidelines and conditions adopted by the Commission or specified in the written decision on the application. (Public Resources Code Section 25532 . ) Similarly, the Forest Practices Act. (Public Resources Code Sections 4511 et sea. ) has both a reporting and monitoring requirement. The timber owner must report that all work, with certain exceptions, described in the • Timber Harvest Plan has been completed. (Id. , at Section 4585. ) Thereafter, a Department of Forestry inspector determines whether the work described in the report was completed in conformity with the State Board of Forestry rules and regulations and the standards in the Forest Practices Act. (1..4. ) California Government Code Sections 65864 et sea. which authorize local agencies to enter into development • agreements also contain a monitoring requirement. After a development agreement has been approved, the local entity must review, at least every twelve months, the applicant's compliance with the terms of an agreement. If there has not -3- been "good faith" compliance, the local agency is authorized to terminate or modify the agreement. (Government Code Section 65865. 1. ) The following paper discusses the scope of AB 3180, the respective responsibilities of the agency and developer under the new law, issues relating to the design of an effective monitoring program, costs associated with the program and methods available to enforce compliance with the mitigation measures. II. THE SCOPE OF AB 3180 AB 3180 is codified, in part, at Public Resources Code Section 21081. 6 which states: "When making findings required by sub- division (a) of Section 21081 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 pro- ject approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting of monitoring program shall be designed to ensure -4- • 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. " The scope of AB 3180 can be ascertained from the terms of the statute itself. It applies to all public agencies which are subject to the provisions of CEQA. As defined by CEQA, a "public agency" includes, "any state agency, board, or commission, any county, city and county, city, regional agency, public district, redevelopment agency, or other political subdivision." (Public Resources Code Section 21603 . ) Further, the monitoring program adopted under AB 3180 must be followed whenever a public agency 1) adopts a mitigated negative declaration [a negative declaration adopted after a project has been revised or conditions imposed on the project to avoid or mitigate the significant adverse effects] (Public Resources Code Section 21080 (c) (2) ; or 2) completes an environmental impact report ("EIR") and makes findings pursuant to Public Resources Code -5- , —w-mr+Y „, Section 21081 (a) which states that, "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, [a project for which an EIR has been completed] which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report." The scope of AB 3180 includes any public projects which fall 111 within one of these two categories. 111 AB 3180, effective January 1, 1989, does not expressly state that it applies to projects which are pending IEJ as of the effective date of the Bill. As a general rule, once a landowner has secured a vested right to develop 111 property in a particular manner his right cannot be111 interfered with by subsequently enacted land use regulations. (Avco Community Developers , Inc. v. South Coast Regional Con. 17 Ca1 . 3d 785 (1976) . ) Vested rights can attach by (i) issuance of buildingpermits, coupled with substantial expenditures (Id. ) ; (ii) contract (i . e. , development agreement) ; or (iii) approval of a vesting tentative map (Government Code Section 66498 . 1) . It is not altogether clear whether a monitoring program adopted under AB 3180 would be held to interfere with a developer's vested rights since it imposes no new develop- Ion ment conditions on the project and does not alter any of the development standards. On the other hand, it could be argued1111 that "reporting" obligations or, if applicable, .the requirement that the developer enter into an agreement iik -6- :e:— t«N-.ti.. 4..He -Y...:' -..-1•. . ��,J ^Xw, - 4.. ! "!T iF.i�1 -.Y_J,.y - ..,.t✓.. ws r ` regarding implementation of mitigation measures, and the costs associated therewith, do modify the conditions of approval and interfere with the developer's vested rights. To date, there has been no judicial determination as to whether AB 3180 has retroactive effect. Until such a determination has been made, a conservative approach would be to apply AB 3180 only to those projects which were pending as of the effective date of the Bill but which had not yet been granted final discretionary approval or for which vested rights had not otherwise been acquired. By its terms, AB 3180 requires that agencies monitor only the implementation of the mitigation measures. However, in order for the monitoring program to provide the greatest benefit possible to the agency, it should also incorporate provisions to monitor the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. This information will aid the agency in drafting mitigation measures for similar projects or projects which could have similar adverse environmental effects as the project which is being monitored. III. MONITORING VS. REPORTING: DEFINING THE ROLE OF THE AGENCY AND THE DEVELOPER AB 3180 is couched in terms of requiring the agency • to adopt a "reporting or monitoring" program. This language suggests or contemplates a dual role in the program to be -7- r shared by the agency and the developer. However, it is clear that the statutory obligation to adopt and implement the program rests with the agency. Therefore, this responsibility cannot be completely delegated to the developer. The most effective monitoring program will include both monitoring functions by the agency and reporting } obligations on the part of the developer. This approach gives the developer an active role in the monitoring program and may reduce the potential for any conflicts which may arise in the monitoring process. It also creates an incentive for the developer to implement the mitigation r measures so that it can provide a favorable report to the agency. Where changes have been required or incorporated into a project at the request of an agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, the lead or responsible agency may request the agency with such jurisdiction to prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. The intent of this provision was apparently to apply to trustee agencies as defined in the CEQA guidelines. [14 Cal . Admin. Code §15386. ) However, there is no reason that this provision cannot be interpreted more broadly to include any agency which requests that mitigation measures be included in the project or be made a condition of approval so long as that -8- agency has some jurisdiction over the natural resource which the mitigation measure is designed to protect. IV. p_-ESIGNING THE MONITORING PROGRAM "" The following are some factors which should be considered when designing the monitoring program. A. A Standardized Program vs. An Individualized Program From a cost analysis standpoint, it is probably less costly to adopt a comprehensive,ehensive, standardized program with standard forms that can be used to monitor all approvals which fall within the scope of AB 3180. The program can then be incorporated by reference into all such project approvals. Not only will a standardized program save the agency time and money, it will also result in achieving consistency in the monitoring and reporting activities. Further, it provides notice to all developers of the reporting obligations they 40 will have to assume, including the costs associated there- with, if they want to develop within the agency's juris- - + diction. it also provides the general public with some 11111 degree of comfort in knowing what the agency will do to ensure that mitigation measures associated with a project are 1111 being implemented. This can reduce the amount of public -9- !!![ opposition to projects which results simply from the lack of public knowledge of the project approval process and the steps taken by the agency as a matter of course to protect the public welfare and, in this particular case, the environment. There will more than likely always' be that one project that is so unique or complex that the standardized monitoring program can not effectively ensure compliance with fix_ the mitigation measures imposed on the project. In those cases, the standardized program should provide some flexibility to allow the agency to deviate from the program and make modifications to the program which are necessary to meet the objective of AB 3180 . B. Regulations Implementing the Monitoring Program AB 3180 does not require agencies to amend their local CEQA regulations to include the monitoring program. However, since the monitoring program is going to be implemented for each project that falls within the scope of AB 3180 , it should become part of the local CEQA process and, thus, should be incorporated into the agency's local CEQA procedures. -10- C. Incorporating the Monitoring Program Into the Draft Environmental Documents There is no requirement that the monitoring program be incorporated into the draft environmental documents. However, one way of determining whether the mitigation measures will be effective in mitigating or avoiding the adverse environmental effects is to evaluate them in light of the monitoring program. In this regard, it should be emphasized that the key to an effective monitoring program is • to have well drafted and specific mitigation measures. • Mitigation measures which are vague and general in nature (i . e. , "the developer shall take steps to avoid erosion of the adjacent hillsides") cannot be effectively monitored for compliance because, in effect, there is nothing specific to monitor. Further, such vague mitigation measures will almost assuredly generate disputes regarding compliance which will be costly and time consuming to the agency and which will delay completion of the project and implementation of the mitigation measures. Incorporating the monitoring program into the draft environmental documents will also give the public an opportunity to comment upon the effectiveness of the monitoring program at the early stages of the project review. Again, public awareness of the proposed monitoring program can be useful in alleviating the public's concerns over the 1 -11- I potential adverse effects of a project on the surrounding environment. D. Designation of a Person to Be Responsible for Overseeing the Monitoring Program The designation of a person to be responsible for overseeing the monitoring program should be based on the qualifications of the person as well as the resources available to, and the needs of the agency. One possibility is to designate someone already in the agency's employ to undertake the responsibility, such as the head cf the planning department or the community development department. Alternatively, the agency could create a position which, for purposes of discussion, shall be called the "environmental coordinator" whose sole function is to implement and/or coordinate implementation of the monitoring program. The environmental coordinator would be responsible for coordinating the monitoring efforts by various departments, if monitoring responsibilities are delegated to various departments, and ensuring that the developer is meeting its "reporting" obligations under the program. It might be preferable to make this person solely responsible for monitoring efforts . This approach could result in more -12- e � a } - • . consistent monitoring and leave less room for dispute over whether a mitigation measure has been implemented since it eliminates one person in the process. However, it would also require, in many cases, the full-time efforts of a person. If the agency does not believe it has trained personnel to monitor the mitigation measures and does not have the resources or the need for a full-time environmental S R coordinator, it can retain a consultant to handle the i monitoring responsibilities . The cost of the consultant can } be passed on to the developer under AB 3180. This approach t 1 might be preferable if the agency or the developer has 1 already retained a consultant to prepare the EIR or other i t environmental documents . F i Regardless of the option ultimately chosen by the 7 agency, the responsibilities and qualifications of the g Y� environmental coordinator should be set forth in the monitoring program. These responsibilities should include, 4 at a minimum, coordinating the program, having responsibility t over verification of mitigation compliance, acting as the liaison between the agency and the developer regarding the environmental issues , and maintaining the reports and other records and documents generated by the monitoring program. ; 1 1I -13- E. Methods of Monitoring and Reporting The monitoring program can require that monitoring take place during the plan check and permitting process. - This would be a logical place for monitoring since the agency is, during these stages, verifying compliance with other development standards and conditions of approval. Monitoring --- functions would be delegated to the planning department and the building and safety department where permits are issued and monitoring reports or forms could be transmitted to the environmental coordinator. If the agency desires a more centralized method of monitoring, the environmental coordinator could be solely 4 responsible for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation measures, including conducting all inspections incidental to this function. As stated above, the most effective monitoring program will incorporate both monitoring by the agency and reporting by the developer. The developer could be required to submit regular periodic reports to the monitoring coordinator. These reports could then be verified by an on- site inspection. A provision should be included for "post construction" monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. Although the agency will not be in a position to require the developer to use alternative means to t� �`1 -14- mitigate the adverse effects of the project if a mitigation measure proves to be ineffective, the agency can use this information for future projects which will generate similar adverse effects on the environment. F. Dispute Resolution Procedure The ultimate goal of the monitoring program is to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures. This goal is severely undermined if the monitoring program generates disputes between the agency and developer that cannot be quickly resolved. Thus, it is important that the monitoring program contain a dispute resolution procedure. For example, the program could provide that where a dispute arises regarding whether the developer has adequately complied with the mitigation measure, a meeting will be held between the representative of the developer and the environmental coordinator. At the conclusion of the meeting, the environmental coordinator will make a determination as to whether the developer has complied with the mitigation gs measure. If the developer is not satisfied with the decision of the environmental coordinator, the developer can appeal the matter to the planning commission and, ultimately, to the 4 } : city council . 3 ' -15- f G. Identification of Enforcement Measures AB 3180 does not grant agencies any additional power to enforce compliance with the mitigation measures. Agencies must, therefore, rely on their existing powers to enforce conditions of approval for projects and mitigation measures in general. The remedies available ,to agencies • include civil actions based on public nuisance, 011 administrative abatement procedures and issuance of stop orders. These remedies should be expressly set forth in the monitoring program. The agency may also want to consider requiring the developer to post a bond to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures. This "up-front" enforcement mechanism has traditionally proven to be an effective means of ensuring compliance with any act secured by the bond. Finally, the agency can require the developer to enter into an agreement regarding the mitigation measure obligations of the developer. Similar. to a development agreement authorized under Government Code Sections 65864 et sea. , this agreement could identify the specific mitigation measures with which the developer is required quired to comply and incorporate by reference the monitoring program adopted by the agency. The agreement provides the agency with all remedies available for a breach of contract cause of action. Additionally, the agreement could also contain a provision �.a •Y -16- -' r � for liquidated damages in the event of the developer's breach. If the project is one for which a development agreement is to be prepared, the monitoring program could be incorporated by reference into the development agreement. V. COSTS OF MONITORING PROGRAM Section 2 of AB 3180 (not codified) provides: "No reimbursement is required by 1 this act pursuant to Section 5 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because of the local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient' to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act. " ` _ . ; t ? z While the city is not entitled to reimbursement t, from the state for the costs associated with implementing AB 3180, they are entitled to recover this cost from the iL developer of the project. At the outset, the cost of S S implementing the program will be hard to ascertain. However, every effort should be made to arrive at a reasonable estimate of the cost of the program and include an q appropriate fee schedule or system for establishing fees in the monitoring program. 1Al iAi -17- • • is R VI. RESULTS OF THE PROGRAM SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC i The results of the monitoring program, whether in the form of reports generated by the agency or the reports submitted by the developer, are public records under the Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq. ) , and should be readily made available to the public for review. This open-door policy regarding the monitoring system can benefit the agency by enabling it to obtain feedback from the public which can be used to assess the . effectiveness of the mitigation measures for the project being monitored and for future projects. VII. CONCLUSION AB 3180 was enacted to complete the CEQA process and ensure the implementation of mitigation measures. The question of which is the best procedure to implement the monitoring program can only be answered by each public agency on an individual basis, after assessing its needs and �? available resources. Whatever the procedure, AB 3180 will. 11 most assuredly provide agencies with a valuable tool to further ensure that scarce environmental resources are protected. -18-