HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-28 PC MINS
MINUTES OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Council Chambers
6:00 p.m. Public Services Building
Wednesday, January 28, 2004 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROLL CALU MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Present: Madrid, O'Neill, Hall, Cortes, Hom, Felber
Absent: Castaneda
Staff Present: Luis Hernandez, Deputy Planning Director
Marilyn Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator
Paul Hellman, Environmental Projects Manager
Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney III
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Vice Chair Cortes
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input.
1. ACTION ITEM: Consideration of proposed revisions to the
Environmental Review Procedures in the City of
Chula Vista. Applicant: City of Chula Vista.
Background: Paul Hellman, Environmental Projects Manager stated that for the
Commission's consideration tonight are proposed revisions to the Environmental
Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Mr. Hellman indicated that the State
CEQA Guidelines require public agencies to adopt procedures for administering its
responsibilities under CEQA. The Chula Vista Municipal Code requires the City
Council, from time to time, to adopt procedural guidelines to ensure compliance with
CEQA as well as local environmental processes. The objectives of the proposed
revision are as follows:
o To achieve greater long-term consistency with the CEQA guidelines
0 To streamline and standardize the public review period for all types of
environmental documents, and
0 To eliminate an inefficient use of resources
There are five Sections of the procedures that changes are being proposed, they are:
0 Section 5.5 - Public Review
0 Section 5.7 - Adoption of Negative Declarations
0 Section 6.8 - Public Review of the Draft EIR
0 Section 6.9 - Final EIR
0 Section 6.10 - Presentation to Decision Makers
.-.-----------------.,-
Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - January 28, 2004
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council to adopt the proposed revisions to the Environmental Review Procedures.
Commission Discussion:
Cmr. Hall inquired if these revisions affect any public access or review to the process.
Marilyn ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator responded that the proposed
revisions is simply making our guidelines more consistent with CEQA. Typically we
don't have anyone show up for the closing of the public review period by the Planning
Commission. On those rare occasions when we have had public input, its been
unclear as to whether the project will be discussed or if the EIR is being considered,
which adds confusion in our administrative record and is of concern to us if we were
to be legally challenged.
Furthermore, there are a variety of opportunities throughout the process for the public
to come forward and to make comments on the project and the EIR, either in writing
or during a hearing. There is also a new requirement in State law for scoping
meetings for regionally significant projects then what we previously had. This is yet,
another opportunity for public input.
Cmr. Cortes inquired if the State initiated streamlining the process.
Mr. Hellman responded that the guidelines specify the minimum public review period
for different types of environmental documents; typically its 20 or 30 for a Negative
Declaration, and 30 or 45 days for an EIR. The reason it would streamline our
process is by not having the EIR review period extend out to the public hearing; it
would be typically 45 days and that would be consistent with every project. For Neg
Decs, we currently provide a 30 day public review period even though in a lot of cases
20 days is all that is required under the State law.
MSC (Hall/Felber) (6-0-1-0) that the Planning Commission recommend to the
City Council to adopt the proposed revisions to the Environmental Review
Procedures. Motion carried.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
0 Mr. Hernandez reminded that Commission that the Planner's Institute is coming up
and we need to start the registration process.
Commissioners Hom and Felber expressed an interest in attending.
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS:
Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - January 28, 2004
0 Cmr. O'Neill stated he was in attendance at the City Council meeting during
consideration of the Amendment to the Secondary Accessory Unit Ordinance was
discussed. He spoke under oral communication as a private citizen and expressed
his disapproval of the proposed increase in size to 1,000 sf. The City Council ended
up approving an amendment to increase the size to 850 sf.
ADJOURNMENT at 6:30 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of February 11,2004.
~
- Diana Vargas, sec~lanning Commission