HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1974/01/15 Item 26 Item No. 26
January 15, 1974
Ordinance No. 1520 ` " � aGE��DX ITEPt \0. [ 26 �
CHULA VISTA CITY COU�CIL AfEETING OF: �anuary 15, 1974
Ordinance -
ITEPt TITLE: Revisions to the Environmental Review Procedures - First reading
I�ITIATED BY: Director of Planning
BACKGROUND
On December 17, 1973 the Secretary for Resources promulgated revisions to the
Guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970 (Calif. Admin. Code title 14, Dev. 6). These revised Guidelines will
require modification of Chula Vista's procedures and requirements.
The deadline for local agencies to bring their procedures into conformance is
February 15, 1974. Because of the 30 day delay between adoption of an ordinance
and its effective date, this mid-January adoption is required.
ATTACHED: Resolution [ ] Qrdinance [ ] Agreement [ ] Plat [ ]
See EXHIBITS [ ] No.
Financial Statement:
Corunission-Board Recor.imendation: N.A.
Department Head Recom�endation: Adopt the revised procedures.
City �tanager Recommendation: Concur .
��
. _ � L
Revisions to the State Guidelines for C[QA (CAC) that reouire changes in
the City of Chula Vista 's ordinance are 6riefly as follo��is:
l . Public a9encies may use a draft EIR from a developer only after giving
the draft an independent evaluation.
Froposed Chanqe:
A preliminary draft EIR o-�ould be submitted, or caused to be submitted
by the project proponent. Thz preliminary draft would be revieaied by
staff, modified as necessary and issued by the Environmental Review
Comnittee (ERC) �
� 2. Decision mal:ing bodies must certify tfiat the EIP, has been completed in
conplicance witl� CEQA and the decision making body has revieried and
considered the informatien contained in the EIR.
Preposed Change:
A requirement for the certification by the decision making authority
has been added.
3. � The public agency is required to make an Initial Study (IS) to determine
if an EIR is required or a t�egative Declaration (ND) can be made.
Proposed Change:
The Environmental Assessinent is proposed `to be re-named, Initial Study
(IS). The application for an Initial Stud_v would include only information
and the ERC ti•rould evaluate the information.
4. Negative Declaration (h7D) must include the reasons for the conclusion.
Proposed Change:
- A ��D must include a description of the project and its setting, findings
_ , of fact, a statement in support of the. findings and �ahere a copy of the
IS may be obtained.
5. EIR's on zoning ordinance changes or on general plans may be of general
nature.
_ Proposed Change: .
A section on the degree of.specificity of a construction project EIR vs. .
an ordinance revision or general plan EIR has been added:
6. . A "Statement of Overriding Considerations" may be made when a project is
approved despite adverse environnental consequences.
Proposed Chanqe: �
� This proposal seems to be a good tool in the development of strong legal
2''�
ls - - ... _ _
. �. . " � �? L•
There are also several revisions that are desirable at this time:
l . Any conflicts �•iith State law are to be interpreted to satisfy the
requirements of CEQA (Sec. 35.601 Q) .
2. A section on the separability of each provision, in case any section
is held invalid, has been added (Sec. 35.601 C)
3. Detailed administrative policies or procedures are to be adopted by
the City Council rather than the Environmental Review Coordinator.
. This makes them more enforceable (Sec. 35.605) .
4. The �egative Declaration appeal period is currently set by the
� Environmental Review Coordinator (7 - 30 days). • The City Attorney's
office has questioned the setting of appeal period as an administrative
procedure. Therefore, the Ordinance establishes an appeal period of
15 days (Sec. 35.609 C).
5. Appeal of a decision by the Environmental Review Coordinator can
currently only be revie�aed by the ERC. The revised ordinance provides
for appeal to the Planning Cortunission (Sec. 35.609 C).
6. The taking of testimony or input on a Draft EIR is completed with the
closing of the public hearing. The Environmental Revieo-i Coordinator
begirs to prepare the `inal EIR after all testimony has been taken
(Sec. 35.610 G). _
7. The fee for an initial study has been increased from 575 to 4100.
This is in conformance oiith ihe Council policy to have the fees cover
the costs for -environmental review. A recent study indicated that
costs viere averaging slightly over 5100. Several other. agencies are
currently examining their fee schedules. The Environmental Quality
Department of the City of San Diego has proposed an increase to $125.
8. The fee for receiving all Negative Declarations and notices of Draft
EIR's has been lo��ered from 550 to $25. There has been no request for .
this service but given the lo�aer number of notices that will be necessary
on a given project under the revised requirements, a 525 fee seems more
. appropriate.
c
I
5� .
. . . �. . . aG
" record to support a decision. Therefore, it has been made a requirement ,
of all decision ma4:ing authorities-. The statement would simply contain
the other considerations that supported the decision to approve the
project �•rhen adverse effects are identified.
7. Local agencies are permitted to add examples of Class exemptions and omit
Classes and ezampies �•rhich do not apply to their aciivities, but may not
modify existing examples under the C�asses.
Proposed Change:
Revisions to the Administrative Policy. riill be proposed before february
17, 1974.
2. Local agencies should provide a reviev� period of not less than 30 days
. nor more than 90 days on draft EIR's.
Proposed Change:
Increase tfie revie�•i period from ifs current 21 days to 30 days and give
the ERC the authority to extend the period under specific conditions.
9. _ Actions arnich expose people or structures to various hazards has been
included as an example of an activity �ahich could cause a significant
effect.
Proposed Change:
, ,
These exanples have been added to the proposed ordinance.
10. ND's noYr are filed �•rith a Notice of Determination after action has been
taken on a project. .
Pro�osed Change:
Appropriate revisions have been made to the text.
� 11 . 41hen the State is asked to revie�a a draft EIR, a "Notice of Intent" is
used in lieu of a Notice of Completion and processing is handled by the
State Clearinghouse. �
Proposed Change:
A provision is made for a t�otice of Intent in the ordinance.
There are other minor revisions to CAC to clarify requirements that result
in other minor revisions to the City's ordinance. ,
��