HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 2004/02/16RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 27, 2004
TO: Chair Thomas and Members of the Resource Conservation Commission
FROM: Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator
SUBJECT: Proposed revisions to the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of
Chula Vista
The item before the Resource Conservation Commission consists of the consideration of
proposed revisions to the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista that
would streamline and standardize the public review period for environmental documents, achieve
greater long-term consistency with the CEQA Guidelines, and eliminate an inefficient use of
resources.
DISCUSSION:
Pursuant to § 17.02.0] 0 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the City Council, from time to time,
shall adopt by resolution procedural guidelines to be followed to insure compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local environmental processes. The
Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista (referred to herein as "procedures")
were adopted by the City Council on February 19, 1974, in accordance with Chula Vista
Ordinance No. 1520 and CEQA. Section 15022 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that each
public agency adopt specific procedures for administering its responsibilities under CEQA. The
City Council has adopted numerous revisions to the procedures since 1974, primarily to remain
consistent with the CEQA Guidelines as they were amended from time to time by the Governor's
Office of Planning and Research. The City's current procedures require the Environmental
Review Coordinator to periodically review the procedures and make recommendations to the
City Council regarding any necessary or desirable revisions. After doing so, the Environmental
Review Coordinator has identified a number of revisions that would improve upon the City's
environmental review process.
The proposed revisions to the procedures are contained in Attachment A and are discussed
below:
Section 5.5 (Public Review)
The current procedures do not specifically address the establishment of public review periods for
Negative Declarations and Mitigated Negative Declarations. The proposed revisions to Section
5.5 would establish that the public review period for proposed Negative Declarations and
Mitigated Negative Declarations shall be provided in accordance with Section 15105 of the
CEQA Guidelines and any future amendments to that section. Pursuant to Section 15105, with
specific exceptions, the public review period for a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Page I
Declaration shall not be less than 30 days when submitted to the State Clearinghouse and shall
not be less than 20 days otherwise. Pursuant to Section 15073 of the CEQA Guidelines, where
one or more state agencies will be a responsible agency or a trustee agency or will exercise
jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, or where the project is of
statewide, regional, or areawide environmental significance, the lead agency shall send copies of
the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration to the State Clearinghouse for
distribution to the state agencies.
Section 5.7 (Adoption of N)~
The current procedures require that Negative Declarations be presented to the decision making
authority a minimum of 10 days after the close of public review, they are recommended by the
Environmental Review Coordinator, and notice has been given. Pursuant to the CEQA
Guidelines, Negative Declarations and Mitigated Negative Declarations are typically sent to the
decision making authority together with the proposed project. The proposed revisions to Section
5.7 would eliminate the requirement to present Negative Declarations to the decision making
authority a minimum of 10 days after notice has been given; this requirement is inconsistent with
public noticing requirements and the CEQA Guidelines. Instead, the procedures would require
that Negative Declarations and Mitigated Negative Declarations be presented to the decision
making authority subsequent to the close of the public review period.
The current procedures require that written comments on a proposed finding of no significant
impact must be received by the decision making authority within 10 days after notice of a
Negative Declaration is given. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, Negative Declarations and
Mitigated Negative Declarations are typically sent to the decision making authority together with
the proposed project. The proposed revisions would require that written comments be provided
to the decision making authority together with the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
The current procedures state that when written comments on a Negative Declaration are received,
a minimum of four additional days maybe allowed prior to consideration of the Negative
Declaration for evaluation of the input. This provision is not based upon a requirement of the
CEQA Guidelines. This optional provision does not provide the flexibility to establish on a case
by case basis an appropriate time period that such an optional provision should provide.
Therefore, the proposed revisions to Section 5.7 would allow for an unspecified period of
additional time for the evaluation of public comments, since less than four days maybe sufficient
to evaluate public comments in certain cases. This revision would in some cases eliminate
unnecessary delays in the consideration of proposed projects by advisory and decision making
authorities.
Section 6.8 (Public Review of the Draft EIIZ)
The current procedures specify a minimum 30-day public review period for draft environmental
impact reports (EIRs). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15105, the public review period
for a draft EIIZ should not be less than 30 days nor longer than 60 days except in unusual
circumstances, and when a draft EIR is submitted to the State Clearinghouse the public review
period shall not be less than 45 days, unless a shorter period of not less than 30 days is approved
by the State Clearinghouse. The current procedures also require the public review period to
Page 2
terminate with the closing of a public hearing, unless a specific date is established by the final
decision making authority.
The proposed revisions to Section 6.8 would streamline and standardize the public review period
for Ellis by establishing that the public review period for draft EIRs shall be provided in
accordance with Section 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines and any future amendments to that
section. In addition, the revisions would eliminate the termination of public review periods for
draft EIRs through a public hearing.
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, the public review period for a typical EIR is 45 days. Under
the City's adopted procedures, the public review period for a typical EIR varies depending upon
the public hearing schedule of the body responsible for holding the close of public review
hearing. This procedure invariably results in a longer public review period for a draft EIR than is
required pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. Typically, only very limited public testimony on the
adequacy of draft EIIZs has been provided during hearings to close public review, and in light of
the requirement under CEQA for lead agencies to hold scoping meetings for projects of
statewide, regional or azeawide significance, this requirement is duplicative in many instances.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Environmental Review Coordinator that the elimination of this
requirement would streamline and improve the efficiency of the City's environmental review
process for EIRs and would discontinue the inefficient use of staff, consultant, applicant,
Planning Commission and City Council resources.
Section 6.9 (Final EIR)
The proposed revisions to Section 6.9 would modify the City's process for certifying EIRs. The
current procedures define the process for determining whether the Planning Commission or the
City Council will hold the public hearing to close public review and certify the EII2, provided the
required findings can be made. For projects requiring the preparation of an EIR> the CEQA
Guidelines requires advisory and decision making bodies to consider the EIR prior to acting on
the project and requires the decision making authority to certify the EIR prior to approving the
project.
The proposed revisions would eliminate the requirement to hold a public hearing to close public
review for an EIR, consistent with the proposed revisions to Section 6.8 (see discussion above).
The proposed revisions would also eliminate the requirement for the body holding the public
hearing to close public review to certify the EIR. Rather, the proposed revisions would require
the Environmental Review Coordinator to prepare a final EIR subsequent to the close of the
public review period in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. The final EIR would then be
certified by the decision making authority prior to approving a project, consistent with the CEQA
Guidelines. Furthermore, the Planning Commission would no longer become involved in
projects solely due to the preparation of an EIR. Pursuant to Section 6.8 of the adopted
procedures, the City's Resource Conservation Commission is charged with reviewing all draft
environmental documents prepared by the City and making recommendations on their adequacy
to the applicable decision making authority; the Resource Conservation Commission's role
would not change with the proposed revisions.
Page 3
Section 6.10 (Presentation to Decision Makersl
The proposed revision to Section 6.10 would eliminate the reference to the certification of an
EIR in advance of the public hearings held by the advisory and decision making bodies. This
revision is necessary to achieve internal consistency with the above-described proposed revisions
to Section 6.9 with respect to the certification of EIlZs.
CONCLUSION:
The revisions to the Environmental Review Procedures recommended by the Environmental
Review Coordinator would streamline and standardize the public review period for
environmental documents and discontinue the inefficient use of staff, consultant, applicant,
Planning Commission and City Council resources associated with hearings to close public review
for EIIts. Furthermore, the recommended revisions would achieve greater long-term consistency
with the CEQA Guidelines by referencing applicable sections of the regulations rather than
specific requirements since the CEQA Guidelines are revised from time to time and specific
regulations are, therefore, subject to change. Therefore, it is staff's recommendation that the
Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed revisions to the
Environmental Review Procedures.
Attachments
A. Proposed Revisions to [he Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista
Page 4
ATTACHMENT A
The proposed revisions to the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista are
as follows:
5.5 Public Review.
When the ERC issues an draft Negative Declaration or Mitigated Ne ag five
Declarationhl-B, it shall be made available for public and agency review at the Planning
and Building Department office. Every person who a}3ade-submitted written comments
on the applieatien-€er-an Notice of IS, all responsible agencies or agencies with
jurisdiction by law and the project applicant, shall receive a ~~ Notice of
Availability of the proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declarationl~.
The public review period for the proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration shall be provided in accordance with Section 15105 of the CEOA Guidelines
and any future amendments to that section.
5.7 Adoption of NDNegative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration
The hFBNegative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be presented to the
decision making authority on the project subsequent to the close of the public review
ep riod - r it m a n :.. ° .,,~°,7 l._, rl,o ~n~ ..a .,,.t: °
gtvetr•
If no public hearing is to beheld, the decision-making authority must consider all written
comments on the proposed finding of no significant environmental impact. All written
comments relative to said proposed findings must be r~s~. v ~d-o7 provided by the ERC to
the decision making authority together with the Negative Declazation or Miti ag fed
Negative Declaration prior to making a decision on the proiect~°~"~~^ '°^ " m a....~ „a,._
.w° .,°.:°° : °r.~,° rm
If no written comments are received, the decision making authority may consider the
hlBNegative Declazation or Mitigated Negative Declaration subsequent to the close of
the public review°"°-~=~e nt period. If written comments are received, a
-^ °'''^~°'^` additional daytime maybe allowed prior to consideration of the
hFBNegative Declazation or Mitigated Negative Declaration for evaluation of any input.
6.8 Public Review of the Draft EIR.
After issuance by the ERC, copies of the draft EIR shall be distributed to the Resources
Conservation Commission, affected agencies and department heads, others with
jurisdiction bylaw, and all responsible agencies when the City of Chula Vista is
functioning as the Lead Agency, and copies shall be deposited with the Chula Vista
Public Library for check out. The public review period for the draft EIR shall be
provided in accordance with Section 15105 of the CEOA Guidelines and any future
amendments to that section.
°„~~.,,:.t..l,° ..F*t,o A«nR 111 by•he pl~r unless a speeif~Edate-ts
n„Q.,.«:.., /"A««..,..,:«.. D,.A.?°\ nn a.. A.n ««,.: °,.. •l.n « A 1, Il 1, 1.
J Y J Y
f.l..n:«.. ,.F n «..l.l:n 1.°n..:«,. TT«1°nn n: a.,,« A.n Din„«:„.. r„«.....: 1. r' r
b J
>,^° °„°^~~°A ^ A°'° ^°-'°~«, •The ERC may specify a longer un blic review period than is
required pursuant to CEOA for full public participation, input and evaluation. During the
review period, the ERC shall consult with any agency having jurisdiction by law and
persons or groups having special interest. With the exception of testimony at the public
hearings on the protect, all input on the draft EIR shall be in written form. The Resources
Conservation Commission may review the draft EIR and may prepare a recommendation
on the adequacy of the draft EIR to the decision makine authority ~r the .:pPr~i„g
69 Final EIR.
Subsequent to the close of the public review period for the draft EIR. a final EII2 shall be
prepared by the ERC in accordance with Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines.d'he
t,ntt 1,,.1A n «..1_I:,. >,nn«:«,. .° «nv° .°n.:.„ 1. A
o _ ___-_________ _______ _____~ .. r, .... __.. ._~„....b ....»..~ .~.,......,..J .... uav ....vyuuvJ vi
4l.° A«nR ltiro . „1°nn 4r.° r:.., r '1 ' 41. A D A F A 7.
J YY b J b Y J
tt,°«...:n° n .„°A n,.a,,.«:....,. t,..tA .t,n «,.l.l:n 1,°n..:«.. 'T't,° r:.., r,. 't 1, n 1, 1.
.. ...... ....... ..uuuu.vu ........,. .J v ........i,.. r....a.~ ...,... ,..b. :.
Rn~v ~t env t~mr>- t FUl. i 1,7' t. y t, 1, Di r 'rt,
J J r Y b 7 b
lanluauhicl~ l~ld~ the h..zrlnb-Shah o~hereiri referred to aS "Il-eartnsEed3++ ~`9r-m-r7r
fh u D A 7. Dl r t. Il A 1.1' 1. 1
o Jo b Y b
thin En rl~ nR° ° «. ,.F.t, l.t' A 1.1'
Jn Y Yn
hnn..:«° ,. °,.. .,, n Ana,. nR°« ~n An.,n nR..« tl.n n °«...F N.,. «,.l.l:n ..
° ,.A „,:.t.,.... .t.° nA..n«,.,. n °„. nFal.° r:... r,.,.„°:t rF«,. « t. A R Dro
i ......................a...........,.,., .,.,,,,, .a ..i,....,,.7 ~.v.....,cr~ °
«A « a„~~. „k , „4 r,. 4r.° >~ro nA° al.° TJn ,. D,. A. ,..w: C.
° ° «~ ~b „Y + „b J nJ 7
rl+° A«nR Dro nn ./,° F.„nl DTD :« n.,. A A' 1, A A '4 A 7.
1N::, alp ~b ^^~l, .1.° rr;nn r.«A:„„n nR°«..l..n:«,. n.,, «..i.l:n 1, rr 'F
«nA 1... .1,° ,. .A.n«t ,.« n.n L'D r «.n N.° a°n..:«° D„A.. ,.,.«n: A..«n 4' F 1,
rY-Y :..... ..J ..~ ~.....,... ....... ... .... ~.. i.r ~... w ....~ ii~.......6 r~
,t°«n...„,°„.n ,.„ .t.n Dro TFrt,° u°n«:«,. D..A.. r.„An .t,° _,.«,..a t, t. a '
r b J
,.«An„n° ...irw ewe «° .,:«°.„°«,n ° f the e««nn°A.. A r 1 n A r A rrn n F
..~~.........~~ .. .may„ .~...~...., ., . Y,.,~..,...~s.. ,
:. nl.nll l... «nn„1„i:..„ ,. «4'F A 1, T:ro L 11
rr + 7
vcoir,2=r'rzrfll:
Tl.,, u°....:«,. n..,7.. .«.... ..ln, . ,.°,w:F , tl,° >rro n..l.: °,.a t,. _°..:,.:,.«„ rr al.,. c. «..1 >;ro :.. ~ ..«a
a,. 1. n..., m..:.._ :«.. A ..........:..n :« l:,.l.t ..C al.° nt.,...° _°,. ,.«a., a l.., TJ.,.._ :«,. D,. A.. .«....
° tl, nt m «C .-«,..a:. .„ 1,° :«..1..,7.,.7 :« at... C.«..7 1/ro Tf at. ° a°n« .... r7...7.. :,. al.°
Uln«.,:«,. r°mm:nn:,.« °nt c _ m„_° :.,~ _.,,na:°., : ., >;ro m ., 1. ° n °nt°a t,, tl.°
r:a., r,...«na ..aat,:« 7 n ,7n.. n ,.rntn««:«,. r°mm:nn:°« nnt:,.« c n:,t n „nl.. ,.l.nn 1_° mn,7°
« r .-..,n n .°a 1....t.° >~ nr n«a n.,t.:°n. t,. at.° F ° :., tl.,, 7.,rnn t°_ ~°,, c°7.,.,7..t° cn:,l
«_°..:a° n..nl. ;«r .mnt:,.« n
°.+:r., al...t al... c«..1 >;ro ...n n «°n°nnn_., a.. n,.7.nan«.:nt° a.° n««°nl
n «_°«n_°a :« nnn°_,7n«n° ...:ai. rlan Tl.°
n al... c r:a., r..,.«na mn..
a,.a° r>rn n
., ,
,,,,:a°l;„°n n«.7 ar.°..°.._,.,.°,7
irrfet~nafier~ «_°n ,._..«1.,.1,7 ,. Dl..««:«° r,.mm:nn :,.« _°,. ..°na C _....._„
6.10 Presentation to Decision Makers.
After the final EIR has been prepared by the ERCc°~"~F°°'~°« °Cal.° >;ro ,.., .1.° u°n~«n
~edy, or by another Lead Agency, if the City of Chula Vista is a responsible agency, the
EIIt shall be presented to the recommending and/or decision making authority. The
decision making authority shall certify that the EIR has been completed in compliance
with CEQA and the Cal. Admin. Code and that the authority has reviewed and considered
the information contained in the EIR prior to consideration of the project.
R
w
D v
u
~ o c
U N N
a „~ ~
~ w, y _ti
w G 2 'vi
p 0 p: O v ~ ~' v
O .~ C ~O
~
y
~ ~n W .H ~ ~ R R P.
(7
4Sl V C m _v
.y Y
`
R U ¢ ~ .L.,
°' o'
~o~o
g
~ Gw
u. n o m c 2 U a~
v '• m ~' v w
v
'R"
°
~ ;y
o
~ °
i--i ~
W c ~
~
3
a w
cC ou
° w
U .
CJ.~
C
~ 'O ~ ~
b0 ° ~ ~
C
v
3 -_ ~n R G
~ y
W a
i R m Q 3
R U S N G td
~
cC n. o .o U~ a ~ o a
i
U
o
~ ~ '
~ 0 ~ '
o
c ~ ~~
~ o
.
y Vi ~ aRi v Lcl m ~ G O
Vi ~ U •"[ ~ N C
v '9
^ v
v
C
A
w __
v m
o
~ o
"
CC ~^ U
o '
-
7
C N v
U ~ [d U
3 O 7
h ~ a' 9° m ~ a. o ~ v
O o ~ °'
m °' n
~-
~ ~
-
.
O o OD
d'~.S aS v v y v i3
> ao >
U i =~
"~ 3 s c°_
s
~ v
o O v W R
~ v t v
... 3 c
3
~~ ~ u ~ ~ c w ~ a
~ o_m .
_^ Ua° R~
°
7
v
~ a ~
m
.
o
v
F+ = ~ Q
° a. .
a s
'O
y Q o ~ .E ~ o .5 0
s,
7
~
a° Q ~~ i°
V c
aj
m.° ~ K ~
a .°. R ~. R
C y~ u ~ y °~ =
L
v C11 O
~
_ x
C ^c O i > M ~..L
Cq N oo DA U
~~ y
ro E.-a 5 hL ° .t
s v
00
u c
, 0.
O~ C w U
N 3
u
=
.D Ll ~.- U 1 ° _
C L~ C C
G~ v m 3 ¢~ o
~ ~
z o
°
~ n.
H U
~ °J o ~ m
a°'
a
~
o
_
_
p
~ _ ~ ~ m
R
O
~ CC
U OD O U
~ C ~
° .N R
w
' .p .O 6 'p O
° _
o .
v m 0 CC 0. °
c '~ S .~
z c E ~~ v m .D .v. n.
5 .. v c v
.
p a y W z a. o L c ii. L u
.. v @
°
a o ~
a. ~ o. a D °-
H ..,
ATTACHMENT A
The proposed revisions to the Environmental Review Procedrtres of the City of Chula Vista are
as follows:
5.5 Public Review.
When the ERC issues as draft Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Dec]arationhlB, it shall be made available for public and agency review at the Planning
and Building Department office. Every person who rrrade-submitted written comments
on the applisatiex-fer-ax Notice of IS, all responsible agencies or agencies with
jurisdiction bylaw and the project applicant, shall receive a ~y Notice of
Availability of the proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration~B.
The public review ueriod for the proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Ne ag five
Declaration shall be provided in accordance with Section 15105 of the CEOA Guidelines
and any future amendments to that section.
5.7 Adoption ofl~Ne *a~tive Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration
The 1~FDNegative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Dec]aration shall be presented to the
decision making authority on the project subsequent to the close of the public review
eP--Clo-d~-°-r"T"zrrr ~ --- i~ m ,i_ _ ,. F.° :, :, .,,rr,ci,a~c~vr°.7 }.,, rl.° ~ncC and ::ot,':° is
g~aen.
If no public hearing is to beheld, the decision-making authority must consider all written
comments on the proposed finding of no significant environmental impact. All written
comments relative to said proposed findings must be mired-;ry provided by the ERC to
the decision making authority together with the Negative Declaration or Mitigated
Negative Declaration prior to making a decision on the protect ~~~"~~~ `°~ r, "` ,'°°° °R°-
If no written comments are received, the decision making authority may consider the
1sIBNeQative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration subsequent to the close of
the public review:~,-~~-~.,;~ period. If written comments are received, e
a-oF~~~,-~~ additional days-time may be allowed prior to consideration of the
AIDNegative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration for evaluation of any input.
6.S Public Review of the Draft E1R.
After issuance by the ERC, copies of the draft EIR shall be distributed to the Resources
Conservation Commission, affected agencies and department heads, others with
jurisdiction by law, and all responsible agencies when the City of Chula Vista is
functioning as the Lead Agency, and copies shall be deposited with the Chula Vista
Public Library for check out. The public review Reriod for the draft EIR shall be
provided in accordance with Section 15105 of the CEOA Guidelines and any future
3nlendment5 t0 that SCCiIOn.~-irrn,iixxn"' ~n '1"`• "°""'1 coi-a^°caic" ax d biic :.°.. ,.... ,",h ill
Evri,cccccrEe-yr-+xi-, h~r5/al~}anEE vrti]E-dr••A Lm~TD~ 1~.. ~x2~n~. loni°."..", ~ ~f..°.,^•:F.". `~.^.:.°.:~
1,°~ r°1,1:..1. ~l 1.., rl,,. ...,.,.t .. . 1.,.,1.. ...1'r}ci-r,?us i;-nm acc:°,:....., «. wl.:..,.
"b
1. 'r., /~'A... ~ A. ~'\ ~ r.. rl... °,.r rh°-rcr'is°ml-li--rac°...,,....°..¢..':a: t1:9
1 ,...;., .. ,.F ....,.1.1:.. 1,°°.-:«,. T T..1 °.... °: rl,°.. rl,° Dl.,.,.,:,, .. !'....,.,.: ~s;..,,~~r r1~C~~1 i/'^......:1
1,^° °~^^~''°a ^ a°r° ^°-^°~~,'The ERC may specify a longer up blic review period than is
required pursuant to CEQA for full public participation, input and evaluation. During the
review period, the ERC shall consult with any agency having jurisdiction by law and
persons or groups having special interest. With the exception of testimony at the public
hearings on the proiect, all input on the draft EIR shall be in written form. The Resources
Conservation Commission may review the draft EIR and may prepare a recommendation
on the adequacy of the draft EIR to the decision making authority. ^~ r'-Pm:i=.g
R,vwTai,v-i '•••°•-•7 :r r,. rl.° CD!`
6.9 Final EIR.
Subsequent to the close of the public review period for the draft EIR, a final EIR shall be
prepared by the ERC in accordance with Section 15132 of the CEOA Guidelines.~he
1, A A CTD 1 rl. !':• f'^...°:1 :~ rl.,. A..«.....,:.... D,. A.. F ~ .. ° ~.,~cnr .~„A i.N
CI14 conrlcrrTJTiS~-til~Fn-vrrrrs : i.. ,.~..... ».. ..
..ri ,1 1, ..:• ~ 1,1 rw~ :b. T::° r. j' ~~::.'...,:t ~hwll 6^,.~th°
D ,] r , r' ,.1 ..Cram,.=1+., rl,° D~z~i,,,aT„vrr-1,1'-,v°
bodT..~c-Irllmd '.,--~n~~I~a=~==ss#ail-13e~erei~}refer-red-te-as"Fleari;,~-l~ed3„ F~~an;,
.. rl+.. u° .. T]..,J, rl.,. Dl.. f`,. ~l..,ll ..r .. .,.1„^r~r„1,1~1, ~..., cv].,f ••,••
b
tlcrazrvv-aa' ..A° ° .,r ..F rl. ,. .1,1; ° ° ^a° .,rrzmz.•' a-~publli:
,1 .. ' 1,^. rt. ,J ..r ,.Fri,,, f': r.. !'~.....,.:1 TC..,. .. .. r.. rl.° .7._^41 T:~
1 1 1, rl... ('R!l A C....l:.. ,.~ ..A^. ..I,.,.:.... rh° ....1.1:,. l.ea.:..^ IF ..: r...: ~^^~t
m~axvFib-' ..b. ... b.,........
.1 1, rl, lr ..r ,.~ rl,° RD/` ...-:... r.. rl.., T1°.,.;.... R...1„ .. ~;.7o,-.,ram„ .,£lhy
F ..1 CTD Tl, u,. D,.,1. ..l..,lrl'i~° °.,.1°r: ..F rh° ,1r.,..t.,.,.Lt6
d .,.w.., °..r r1..,~RTD TF rl... LI.,...-:.. ,. D..,l, /:..,1~ rl,° .° ...-r 1. ~...1.. °.°.: .° ...°,]
c-rmrrczcrrt .rSnvvp-+z*iosmc. ..,t..... ,.»., I....j~»..... ..,
7....,. 1, rl. r ..F rM °..° .. ,.°A...°...,..,1 f`..1 A.1..,:.. (`..,1° (`Rfl A ,.C
accvrvuricc~cr-nzv ~cgiz'r'rBr.,c°~ir~ro , .~.~. ..
1 (1"1!1 ,.„A ..11 „1:,.°l,l° ..r°r° 1..,.,~ :r ..1...11 1.., . ..1„r:.." ..°.-r: F., .,...7 lh° RID ~h.,ll
, acme-ra-vaT,-rr~r°e`.ro,c,ixc. , .,r~,.,,~,::ez~::~.,urc
1,°..°...° {:....1
~rmr:
Th TJ T] A.. .,1^, . ^^.f: f:. .h° i:TD ,.,,h: °,.r t.. ~ Tf th ° ~,-,ni fi7D :^ f....«a
z-arc..."». ...b L..»~ ~ ».... . __....~ ..._ ~._.. ,,..,,~___ .., ._ ..,,_., __.,. __ _. -_ ___~__ -___ __ __ ____
' tl. «, :«f .«, Af_ °., h° :«..1.,.J...1 :« rh° C... ^7 L'TD Tf fl,° 7So n':«r. B..~T., :r t4.~
D -J
Dl !` .-. °,.f F ~ ..,...° :«F .-m nr:..« ; « DTD ... .. }.° n onl°A fr. th
r-m.usr.
,
(" (' .. '1 ...: tl,:« l fl ,7....
,. ,.f Dln«.,:«.. f`.. «,...: ,...:.,., n.-r:..,. Cn:.l n. °YY"»...» ........
.
^
~als~
hairb°1~n
•~
' ,,
.
.
.
'
F °.1 h.. th° L
air ..
1 h h.. ,,,1 . « D!' .,.,,] ....h: °,.t t„ rh° G ° :., fh° T,fn~r°~ 1;
..... ...... ., ..~.. ..... ..... ..... .,. ..,.. ..~»» .....
tl,° «.1.. th nt tho Dln !'`.. n:.l
°° C.. i, .1.,1° C
.... ................ ..»_»
° oa ~..r~j-ua
..
A 11 1 h n .. ~ f° ..« ..: F.....h:.,..f:..«.. M the ..,.ti..« h., fh° Dln««:r. r. r m «,J
'r~:..« ..
7
'`
Y~~~h~, i~~ ..,. .1....rn«.: nf° t1,° nl Th „,
° !
;t : ~s» :
~}AT7- '
6.10 Presentation to Decision Makers.
After the final EIR has been prepared by the ERC.,°-'~"^^"°« ^f".' Ero w , twe a ».:..b
~edy, or by another Lead Agency, if the City of Chula Vista is a responsible agency, the
EIR shall be presented to the recommending andlor decision making authority. The
decision makin>? authority shall certify that the EIR has been completed in compliance
with CEQA and the Cal. Admin. Code and that the authority has reviewed and considered
the information contained in the EIR prior to consideration of the project.