Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports 2004/01/28 AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Chula Vista, California Wednesday, January 28, 2004, 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 CALL TO ORDER: Castaneda Madrid O'Neill Hall Cortes Hom Felber ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 12, 2003 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes. 1. ACTION ITEM: Consideration of proposed revisions to the Environmental Review Procedures in the City of Chula Vista. Applicant: City of Chula Vista Project Manager: Paul Hellman, Environmental Projects Mgr. BUSINESS: DIRECTOR'S REPORT: COMMISSION COMMENTS: COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO) at 585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: Meeting Date: 01/28/04 ITEM TITLE: Action Item: Consideration of proposed revisions to the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Applicant: City of Chula Vista SUBMITTED BY: Environmental Review Coordinator ~ VIA: Director of Planning and BUildingt' The item before the Planning Commission consists of the consideration of proposed revisions to the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula 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. RECOMMENDATION: That the Plarming Commission recommend to the City Council to adopt the proposed revisions to the Environmental Review Procedures. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The proposed revisions are scheduled to be considered by the Resource Conservation Commission on February 2,2004. DISCUSSION: Pursuant to 917.02.010 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 the attached Draft PI arming Commission Resolution and are discussed below. Page 1 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 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 ofND) 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 proj ect. The current procedures state that when written comments on a Negative Declaration are received, a minimum offour additional days may be 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 may be 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. Page 2 Section 6.8 (Public Review of the Draft EIR) 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 EIR 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 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 EIRs 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 EIRs 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 areawide significance, this requirement is duplicative in many instances. Therefore, it is the opinion ofthe Environmental Review Coordinator that the elimination ofthis 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 EIR, 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 proj ect and requires the decision making authority to certify the EIR prior to approving the proj eel. 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 Page 3 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. Section 6.10 (Presentation to Decision Makers) The proposed revision to Section 6. I 0 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 EIRs. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with CEQA and has determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. 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 EIRs. 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 staffs recommendation that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed revisions to the Environmental Review Procedures. Attachments 1. Draft Planning Connnission Resolution Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the Environmental Review Procedures ofthe City of Chula Vista on February 19, 1974, in accordance with Chula Vista Ordinance No. 1520 and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has subsequently adopted numerous revisions to the Environmental Review Procedures; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Procedures establish the duties of the Environmental Review Coordinator, one of which is to periodically review the procedures and make recommendations to the City Council regarding any necessary or desirable revisions; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has identified a number of revisions that would improve upon the City's environmental review process by streamlining and standardizing the public review period for environmental documents, achieving greater long- term consistency with the CEQA Guidelines, and discontinuing the inefficient use of staff, consultant, applicant, Planning Commission and City Council resources associated with hearings to close public review for EIRs; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with CEQA and has determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA and no environmental review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista that it does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the following revisions to the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista as follows: I. Revise Section 5.5 of the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista, to read as follows: 5.5 Public Review. When the ERC issues an draft Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative DeclarationNl}, it shall be made available for public and agency review at the Planning and Building Department office. Every person who mOOe-submitted written comments on the application for an Notice ofIS, all responsible agencies or agencies with jurisdiction by law and the project applicant, shall receive a written C8PY Notice of Availabilitv of the proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative DeclarationNl}. 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 anv future amendments to that section. II. Revise Section 5.7 of the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista, to read as follows: 5.7 Adoption ofNPNegative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. The NPNegative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be presented to the decision making authority on the project subsequent to the close of the public review period, a minimum of ten (10) days after it is recommended by the ERC and notice is gweH. If no public hearing is to be held, 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 received by provided bv the ERC to the decision making authority together with the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to making a decision on the proiecnvithin tcn (10) days after the notice is given of the ND. If no written comments are received, the decision making authority may consider the NPNegative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration subsequent to the close of the public reviewaftcr the commcnt period. If written comments are received, a minimHHl of fOIJf (1) additional days-time may be allowed prior to consideration of the NPNegative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration for evaluation of any input. III. Revise Section 6.8 of the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista, to read as follows: 6.8 Public Review of the Draft EIR. After issuance by the ERC, copies ofthe 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 period for the draft EIR shall be provided in accordance with Section 15105 of the CEOA Guidelines and anv future amendments to that section.}, minimum 30 day period for agency and public rcyicvi shall commence with the issaance of the draft Ern by the ERC. Unless a specific date is other,vise established by the most slljJerior body which has final decision making authority ("Approving Body") as to the project, the review period shall terminate with the closing of a public hearing. Unless either the Planning Commission or the City Coancil has specified a date certain, tIhe ERC may specify a longer public 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 forn1. The Resources Conservation Commission may review the draft ErR and may prepare a recommendation on the adequacy of the draft EIR to the decision making authoritv. f-or the }q;)Jreving Boay aIla ferward it 10 the ERC. IV. Revise Section 6.9 of the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista, to read as follows: 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.+Re Pla~ing Cemmissien shall hold a )JuBlio hearing to talce testimony on the aaeqaaoy ef the draft EIR anless the City Coaneil is !be }.ppro'/ing Boay for a given )Jrojeot and has otherwise asslIfIled autherity to hola !be piiSlie hearing. The City Coaneil shall have the right to assame the publio hearing auty fer any projeet fer which they are the Appreving Boay at any time prior to clesure of the pwlic hearing by the Planning Commissien. The body which holas the hearing shall be herein referred to as "Hearing Beay". Fer any project for whidl the City Ceuncil is the Approving Bedy ana the PlarJling Commission is the Hearing BoElc)', the PlamHng Commissisn ooa11 not oenauct a Pllblio hearing later than 60 aays after oemmenoemeflt of the pablio review period er oontinue a piiSlic hearing on a prejeet to a date after 60 days after the eommenoemeflt ofthe pabho review )Jeriod '.vitheut the aIWaflee eenseflt efthe City Ce1Hleil. If no revisioRs to the draft EIR are neeessary and no signifioant input to the EIR is maae, the Hearing Boay may eertify the draft ElF- as the final EIR in the manner aHd aoooraing to the standards permitted by law, along with the CEQA fimliflgs after elesing the )JaMio hearing. rf signifieant environmental issHes are raised 8Hring the consalting process er dHring the )Jublic hearing, a response by the City of ChHla Vista or a re'/isiofl te the draft EIR text shall be prepared by the eensukant sr the ERC )Jrior to the Hearing Bed-y eensidemtion sf the final EIR. The Hearing Body shall review the reeommefldation ofthe oensHltant and the ERC, the final EIR, all pwlie iBfJHt and revie'N any osmments from other agencies er eity departments en the EIR. If the Hearing Body finas the report has beeR prepared in accordanoe with the requirements ef these proceaHres afla Cal. ".amin. Code, CEQf. ef 1970, ana all applioaale state lav,s, it shall by reselution, so eertify and the EIR shall beeome final. The Hearing Body may alse oertify!be EIR subjeot te revisions. rfthe final EIR is feHnd to have major inadequaoies in light of the abave reqHiremsnts, the Hearing Bed)' may reqHire that mere infofffiatiefl be ineladea in the final ElK Ifths Hearing Body is the Planning Cemmissiofl, a reqaest for more informatien in an EIR may be a]3)Jealed to the City COIJReil '.vithin 10 days ofPlar.ning CemmissioB aotion. Said apjJeals shall be made on forms approved by the ERC and sabject to the fee in the Master Fee SohedHle. Said ap)Jeal mHst be based upon the .;rounds that the PlarJling Commission erred, aotea in aaHse of disoretion, or reqaested inap)Jropriate or unnecessarf submission of information. All appeals shall state speeifie objections to the action by the Planning Commission ana provide sueh information as necessary to substantiate the appeal. The City COllneil may certify that the final EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQ.^., the gtate CEQf. guidelines and these prOCed\lfeS, or uphold a PlailRing Commission request for more inf{Jfmation. V. Revise Section 6.10 of the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista, to read as follows: 6.10 Presentation to Decision Makers. After the final EIR has been prepared bv the ERCcertification of the fIR by the Hearing Be4y, or by another Lead Agency, if the City of Chula Vista is a responsible agency, the EIR 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 28th day of January, 2004, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Steve Castaneda, Chair ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary