Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1975/03/25 Item 14 Item No. 14 March 25, 1975 Ordinance No. 1618 . - AGENDA ITEM N0. [ 14 ] CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL DfEETING OF: March 25, 1975 i'rEDt TITLE: Ordinance No. 1618 - Repealing Article 6 of Chapter 35 of the City Code relating to Environmental Review Policy INITIATED BY: Director of Planning BACKGROUND This ordinance was placed on first reading on March 18, 1975. It is now presented for second reading and adoption. ATTACHED: Resolution [ ) Ordinance [ ] Agreement [ ] Plat [ � See EXHIBITS [ ] No. Financial Statement: Commission-Board Recormnendation: Department Head Recommendation: Place ordinance on second reading and adopt. City Dfanager Recommendation: Concur �� I � • acen�a iTen� no. [ 6a,b ) CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL DiEETING OF: MdPCh 18, 1975 Resolution - Adopti,ng revised Environmental Review Policy and repealing existing Environmental Review Policy ITE�t TITLE: Ordinance = 'Repealing Article 6 of Chapter 35 of the City Code relating to Environmental Review Procedures IvITIATED BY: Director of Planning BACKGROUND 1 . On January 7, 1975, revisions to the California Administrative Code Chapters implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) were adopted by the Secretary for Resources. Local agencies were given until April 1 , 1975 to implement most of these revisions, however, the Energy Conservation guidelines were effective on January 7, 1975, and the Environmental Review Policy was subse- quently amended to include the Energy Conservation guidelines. On January 30, 1975 the Environmental Review Comnittee (ERC), in response to Council policy direction, issued for review purposes a draft of the Revised Environ- � mental Review Policy to implement the revision to the State of California Adminis- trative Code. Copies of the draft were sent to the Planning Cormnission, Environ- mental Control Co�mnission, other agencies, other City departments, and notices were sent to consultants and developers active in our area. Several consultants and developers did obtain copies of the draft policy. 2. Input to draft Environmental Review Policy a. The Planning Cortunission provided no input on the draft policy. There was some discussion concerning the length and complexity of the Initial Study applica- tion form. Staff is currently evaluating the issues and will be reporting back to the Planning Co�mnission. If any revisions to the form are necessary they will be proposed after the State imposed April l , 1975 deadline. b. The;Env.ir.onmental Control Commission could not muster enough votes to provide any formal input on the draft policy. Four votes are necessary to approve any action and the votes taken were t�aq in favor of rejectinQ th policy and three (conti❑ued on plemental aaae ATTACHED: Resolution [X] 6rdinance [�� AgreAme'n [ ] Plat [ ] See EXHIBITS [ XJ No. 1,2 Financial Statement: Commission-Board Recommendation: - � l- - _ . - - --- Department Head Recommendation: " Repeal ArtiCle 6 of Chapter 35 of the City Code pertaining to environmental review procedures and adopt revised Environmental Review Policy. City hlanager Recommendation: Concur . � y.�� ' AGENDA ITEM N0. 6a,b I � Supplemental Page No. 2 in favor of adopting the policy. Cortmissioner Hastings provided-input �independently of the Environmental Control Commission. His primary concerns were the 30 day "time limit" on draft EIR review, the-.300 foot area on notification, and that a member of Environmental �Control Cortunission serve�on �the Environmental Review Cortunittee (ERC). These points are discussed below: (1 ) The 30 day period is the minimum period. The ERC or Planning Cortunissiorrcan. extend this� period if�they find an extension is necessary for ". . . : full public participation, input�and evaluation:" On the Plaza del Rey Draft• EIR��the review period .ran`from May 20, 1974 to July 24, 1974. On most projects the�30 day� period is adequate for �public participation and a longer period would be 'an unnecessary hardship on the applicant. •(2) The 300 foot notification area is the same area for which notice is given on other hearings. ' The consistent use of this notice area is designed to minimize the �amount of staff work while providing reasonable notice in the area of a project. � (3) The ERC is comprised of inembers of .the City staff, as is the case in most if not all simi%lar bodies in other agencies. This is to provide a high level of technical expertise in the initial review of projects and� to expedite projects which clearly have no significant environmental consequences. Meetings can be held during regular business�hours and .if an emergency arises can be called with �little or no notice. c. Other,•Agencies, Developers and Consultants No input has been received from any •of the above sour.ces although comnunica- tions have been established. MAJOR REVISIONS TO THE POLICY 1 . Adoption. It has become apparent that with the courts becoming increasingly active in review of CEQA and the new administration in Sacramento has more frequently revised the State California Administrative Code, thus, the need for changes in the policy will become more frequent. To facilitate these revisions, the ERC has �proposed that the policy be adopted by resolution and that no ordinance be considered. This not only reduces the time required for amendments but also allows for a better organization of the document. 2. Organization. The IS application/evaluation forms and'the EIR application outlines have been placed in an appendix to allow a less-cumbersome organization of the policy. 3. EIR Threshold. , � In keeping with code revisions and the recent No Oil , Inc. vs. City of Los Angeles court case, any• project which "may�have any possible significant effect" will require an EIR. (Sec. 3.1 ) 4. Adjustment Plats. Since the adoption of the previous policy, the Council has adopted an ordinance to allow the adjustment of lot lines by an adjustment plat instead of a parcel map, if no new lots are created. This type of action is ministerial in nature not requiring any discretion in review or approval and has therefore been added to the list of ministerial projects. (Sec. 3.3) 5. Review of Environmental Documents. In accordance with State Code, all Ne9ative Declarations (ND), and EIR' s will have to be reviewed and considered by the decision making body on all projects. The ERC will conduct Initial Studies and issue draft ND' s which will be finalized by the decision making bodies. EIR' s will be processed in substantial conformance with current-procedures. The Planning Cortmission is the decision making body • • _ .. AGENDA ITEM N0: 6a,tr I Supplemental Page No. 3 on conditional use permits, most-variances, and the City Council is the decision making body on rezoning; tentative maps, Planned Unit Developments, precise plans, and General Plan amendments. 6. Departmental/Agency Guidelines. To insure consistency in the processing of environmental documents through decision making bodies, �the ERC will issue procedural guidelines for departments , and agencies of the City of Chula Vista. 7. Areas of Critical Concern. Various areas have been identified as hazardous or critical areas and these have been deleted• from the categorical exemption section. (Sec. 5.3) 8. Changes in Land Use. A conditional use permit for a change in land use only with no change in or additions to physical structures is no-longer identified as a Class 5 exemption from review requirements. 9. Di'spute. In response to the No Oil Inc. case, if there is any public dispute over the environmental effects of a project, an EIR must be prepared to evaluate the impacts. (Sec. 5.4) 10. Notice. In order to adequately obtain information relative to any public dispute before a draft ND is forwarded to a decision making body, a notice of application for an IS wi11 either be mai•led� to adjoining property owners as is now done with a zone change or a notice will be published in a newspaper. (Sec. 5.6) 19 . Preparation of EIR application. The City of Chula Vista wi-11 prepare a 1'ist of consultants which are qualified to prepare applications for EIR's. An applicant for a private project with possible significant effects must select a consultant from the .list to prepare an EIR application from which the City would prepare the draft EIR. Under some circumstances the City wil�l prepare the application for an EIR, but the scope of this occurrence is very limited. (Sec. 6.3 and 6.4) 12. Final EIR. If there is no need for a response of the City to any environmental issues raised on the draft EIR, the Planning. Cormnission is given authority to adopt the final EIR after the close of� the public hearing. 13. Standard Factor-s. Several of these factors have been updated to incorporate the latest information available to the �City. The Energy Conservations measures are in Sec. 9.11 . 14. Jurisdiction. � The definition-of 'Jurisdiction•by Law�has been expanded to include agencies which . will have major environmental effects from a project which is within the boundaries of a different agency. An agency with Jurisdiction by Law must be consulted in the preparation of any environmental documents by the lead agency. An example would be the, EIR on the Bonita Plaza Regional Shopping Center. Although Chula Vista had no legal authority over the project, Bonita Road/E Street would be impacted and, therefore, Chula Vista would be consulted in the preparation of the EIR. 15. Initial Study. ��The IS application and evaluation forms are essentially the same as the forms received by the Council in early January. .a ' - _ -• AGENDA ITEM N0. 6a,b Supplemental Page No. 4 16. EIR Outlines. . Appendix C and D contain suggested application outlines for EIR's. The alternative outline is -to be used when the EIR is being prepared early in the project development phase'and there are reasonable alternatives which can be formulated. ��If�the project is fairly well defined�by the General Plan, zoning or its setting, then the outline emphasizing mitigation of impacts should be used. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE On March 6, 1975, the Environmental Review Corrnnittee unanimously recommended that the City Council adopt� the Environmental ' Review Policy. � � � � �