Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1978/08/01 Item 11CITY OF CHIiLA VISTA COUNCIL AGEfVDA STATEMEiVT Item No. 11 For meeting of 8/1/78 ITEM TITLE Resolution 9a2 / 7 - Adopting revisions to the Environmental Review Policy SUBMITTED BY Director of Planning ~---~~) ITEM EXPLANATION A. BACKGROUND (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED YES N0~) 1. Last year the State Legislature adopted AB884 which, in part, amended CEQA. Sub- sequently, the Secretary of Resources adopted amendments to the State EIR Guidelines (California Administrative Code)-which must now be implemented on a local level. There- fore, the Environmental Review Committee has prepared the following proposed revisions to implement the State mandated changes, generally update the Policy, and enact other amend- ments which the Environmental Review Committee has determined to be necessary or desirable. 2. The amendments required by State Legislature primarily deal with time limitations,. which are in excess of the City's current time limitations and will not result in any problems, and requirements for extensive formal consultation with responsible agencies and agencies with jurisdiction-by-law. 3. -Other major amendments involve the issuance of minor Negative Declarations by the Environmental Review Coordinator when the project is small and noncontroversial in order to expedite clearly nonsignificant projects, and contracting for the preparation of Environmental Impact Reports on private projects by the Environmental Review Committee. B. MAJOR AMENDMENTS AS PROPOSED The attached copy of the Environmental Review Policy has been amended as proposed by the Environmental Review Committee. Those modifications which have no substantive effect, such as section numbers and transfers from one section to another without change, have not been identified. All substantive additions, deletions, or modifications are discussed below. All changes are marked in the text with a bold vertical line in the right hand column EXH1~115 Agreement Resolutions Ordinance Plat Notification List Policy and Other Letters ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached Submitted on FINANCIAL IMPACT N.A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adept the resolution amending the Environmental Review Policy. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On July 13, 1978 the Environmental Review Committee recommended that the Council adopt the amendments. A P P R C~ 'J E D by thU COUNCIL ACTION - ~,,,, icLl C : t. ;; y' ~ i - ~ w~v~~. AGENDA ITEJN N0. ~l Meeting of 8/1-/78 Supplemental page No. 2 1. CEQA has been amended so that it does not apply to projects which are rejected or disapproved. This means a decision making body may deny a project without considering an environmental document and no notice of determination need be filed. (Sec. 2.1 and 4.12, pg. 2 and 22.) 2. When more than one agency is to consider a project, generally only the lead agency need prepare the Environmental Impact Report. However, when the City is a respon- sible agency and using the document of another agency it shall assume the role of lead agency and prepare the environmental document when the other agency has failed to meet certain specified criteria (Sec. 2.3, pg. 3). 3. The new legislation requires much more formal written communication between lead and responsible agencies prior to the preparation of Negative Declarations or EIR's. This will substantially extend the time required to prepare an environmental document when another agency has discretion on a project (Sec. 2.4, pg. 3). Time limitations for this and other processes are contained in a new Section 7 (pg. 38 and 39) of the Policy. 4. Anew process which would allow the Environmental Review Coordinator to issue negative declarations on small projects which clearly have no significant impacts has been added. The Coordinator would consult with the members of the Environmental Review Committee and if all members concurred a negative declaration would be issued. If there is some question concerning a particular project, it would be referred to the Environ- mental Review Committee for discussion and determination. This should result in shorter processing time and lower costs on smaller projects. The costs involved in these projects will be monitored and a recommendation regarding fees made at a later date (Sec. 3.2, 4.6 and 4.7, pg. 7, 19 and 20). 5. It is proposed that the Environmental Review Committee contract for the prepara- tion of EIR's rather than the project proponent. The project proponent will still be responsible for the cost of preparing and processing the EIR but the city staff would oversee the preparation of the document. Because this process is to be carried out on a staff level and because of the need for more communication with other agencies, this procedure will not result in any substantial increase in processing time. There will, in fact, be less need for staff to modify the draft EIR and therefore perhaps less time expended on that portion of the process. Section C of this staff report details the reasons for this recommended change (Sec. 3.2 and 5.4, pg. 7 and 25-26). 6. If there is controversy concerning the environmental effect of a project, an EIR must be prepared (Sec. 4.5, pg. 19). 7. A negative declaration will now be adopted instead of certified (Sec. 4.11, pg. 21). 8. Anew or supplemental negative declaration or EIR will be required when new information has become avaiable which was not previously available, if the information could change the analysis in the negative declaration or EIR (Sec. 4.13 and 5.9, pg. 22, 23, and 28). 9. Integration of the review requirements of the Regional Air Quality Strategies into the Environmental Review Policy has been accomplished (Sec. 6.3, pg. 36 and 37). 10. Standard factors involving the fiscal impact of projects have been deleted due to the lack of information after Proposition 13. The air pollution emission factors have been updated (Sec. 9, pg. 43-53). 11. New definitions have been added for: • Conditional negative declaration (SEc. 14.6, pg. 56). • Decision making body (Sec. 14.8, pg. 56). • Notice of preparation (.Sec. 14.25, pg. 59). 12. New appendices H and I have been added to provide sample "Request for proposals" and "standard agreement" forms. C. THE EIR PROCESS It is proposed that EIR's be prepared by city staff or by a consultant selected by the proponent but under contract to the City. This is a system very similar to procedures adopted by a number of agencies in California and has been found to be very effective. Among the reasons for this recommendation are: X2/7 AGENDA ITEM N0. 11 Meeting of 8/1/78 Supplemental page No. 3 1. We can only use a draft submitted by an applicant, or his consultant, after independent review and analysis by the City. Many of the areas of analysis which are included in an EIR are areas in which the City has no staff to provide the independent analysis required by State Code. Therefore, we must rely completely on that information which is provided by the consultant. If the consultant is contracting with the City, the objectivity and accuracy of the data will be greater than if received after editing by the project proponent. 2. If the interaction during EIR preparation is primarily between the consultant and staff, not the proponent and consultant, the EIR will reflect the City's position more fully. When consultants previously were in a position to make judgment calls about the level of impact or mitigation, they have tended to be made in favor of those for whom they had a contract. If the City is the contractor, a less biased document will result. 3. There is evolving a basic change in the nature of the environmental impact analysis. Documents are becoming less information oriented and more regulating in nature. The City needs better information concerning the feasibility of mitigation and alternative proposals, both in terms of their effectiveness and their economic and social implications. The City will undoubtedly be challenged if project proponents do not favor the mitigation or alternatives. If the City approves a project despite its adverse environmental impact, the City must specify the overriding circumstances in terms of the social and economic benefits to the community. 4. There have been previous concerns about the delays which might occur due to this process. However, with the new requirements for detailed written consultation prior to the issuance of a draft EIR, implementation of the process at a staff level, and the requirement that this process be concurrent with the preparation of the draft EIR, there will be no delay. D. CONSULTATION A draft of the Policy revisions was circulated to environmental consultants and other local agencies. Written comments were received from Westec Services, Toups Corp., and Project Design Consultants. Those letters are attached, along with some discussion of the remarks. Verbal comments were also received from other firms and local agencies. These were favorable and indicated they would not comment in writing. Many of the suggestions from the consulting firms have been incorporated into the Policy revisions as recommended by the Environmental Review Committee. These include the following: 1. Consultants currently on the list would only have to provide information on new standards which were not previously required (Sec. 5.3, pg. 25). 2. The process for consultant selection, requests for proposals, and agreements have been greatly simplified and can be accomplished without a major amount of City staff and consultant time and effort (Sec. 5.4, pg. 25, and appendices H and I). 3. The Environmental Review Committee had concluded that there was a need to strengthen the consultant qualification standards, including a limitation on the use of subcontractors. Upon analysis it became apparent that these requirements were not absolutely necessary. Since they would place an undue hardship on the consultants, they are not recommended. 4. There was concern expressed about the separation between the consultant and the project designer and the possible inability to suggest changes in the project. The final recommendation includes a provision to encourage such communication and bring about changes in the project to mitigate environmental impacts (appendix I, pg. 104). g~~ 7 .~' . t• ~-. ~,~ : X27.3 arernaa de Te playa, ~ '~ ~~,~ Wiz, y,. ~^_-~,.~,"4,aJa#olta'califo~[iia92t)3T „ _ ~~t' ~ ~~:~'`3* May 15, 1978 engineering _ , _ .a ~Ut -~; landscape architecture environmental studies Mr. Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA Dear Mr. Reid: This letter is in response to your correspondence of April 21, identifying proposed revisions to the Environmental Review Policy of the City of Chula Vista. We appreciate being contacted. On the basis of our review, I have the following comments regarding the area of consultant services. X ~?~~ .it_. _.. i IXHIBIT 2 1. The idea of maintaining an approved list of consultants is appropriate to efficient provision of public services. However, the additional qualifications required of consultants are somewhat unrealistic and probably counter to the stated purpose of utilizing consultants who work primarily in the environmental field. It is most likely that only a very broadly based firm would have the required specialist. Also, you require licensed specialists where this option exists. In many areas, the most qualified local people are not licensed. For example, there are "licensed traffic engineers" but none of the local persons working in environmental fields have that license as it is not appropriate to their actual function. While our firm could meet your requirements, I doubt that other highly qualified local envircnmental studies firms could. 2. The proposal to restrict a consultant doing environmental work from any other work on the same project does have some advantages. However, this has to be combined with other restrictions such as you propose in the selection of consultants. Simply separating the two functions would have little meaning in itself if the applicant dealt directly with both consultants. Ire fact, the separating of the two functionscan cause delays in getting information and uroblems of understanding development proposals. l7 -: ~ .. ,ti:: =c~ :.=,~-' ~;:: =OC~r1i iC"J CC`.1PANY +'1 -.+ r~ Mr. Douglas D. Reid A competent and ethical firm working on all aspects is the most efficient method and the one that assures most complete understanding. However, if your City has had problems with firms being competent and ethical in all areas, the proposed revisions could resolve those problems if combined with a City controlled consultant select process. 3. The consultant selection process is confusing and appears to be overly complex. It is not clear whether the applicant (proponent) has the right to select one firm or has to select several from which the City will select one. Secondly, it is not clear whether this selection process will result in a competitive bidding system which is contrary to most consultant professions and quality service to the City. Thirdly, the City's responsibilities seem overly bureaucratic and could occupy a great deal of the staff time. I would suggest a more complete separation of proponent-consultant contacts as presently employed by LAFCO. Also, the process employed by the City should be streamlined. Thank you for this opportunity to comment and I hope these comments are useful. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, TOUPS CORPORATION w~, l,U " Thomas A. Weber Coordinator, Environmental Studies Group Zt James Fairman. A!P Prasrdenf ~~~~;~LT ' ,lames .~. H~_rtch~son. P.E.. 'dice rreciaent ~~~~,~-+~' ~euq,as L ~ 3u1. P E.. Vice r'~~:rjJn,t 4.aioi May 12, 1978 Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City Planning Department i'. 0. Box 1007 Chula Vista, California 92012 Subject: Amendments to the Environmental Review Policy Dear Uoug: Following are comments concerning proposed revisions of the Environmental Review Policy. Most of the comments are focused on provisions relating to the preparation of EIRs through contractual arrangements with the City, the establishment of standards for consultants, and the form of proposals and contractual agreements. My initial remarks are directed to the broader issues involved in the ERC's proposals. Subsequent comments are related to some specific items in the text. GENERAL COMMENTS Preparation of EIRs under City contract A number of reasons are advanced be prepared by consultants under arguments run that there will be data, that the EIRs will reflect there will be better information the feasibility of mitigation me. for the proposed requirement that EIRs contract to the City. Generally, the greater objectivity and accuracy of the City's position more fully, and that and support for the City in determining 3sures or alternatives. recognize your objectives in attempting to assure objectivity in the environmental analysis process. Nevertheless, I would like to direct some criticisms toward your suggested approach and the rationale provided to support it: ~~ vrr Enr,+r,~ennq U ban Re_q+onar D1annrnq. E^rrronmental Analysis ^'0 . A. Street. Suite ~Ot. San Ciego. CA 92101 (714) 235-6471 Zl -2- 1. There is certainly no guarantee that EIRs will be more objective or accurate if the document reflects the City staff position. In my experience, I have seen as much bias shown by public agency staff as I have by project applicants. Some of this is inevitable because of the particular perspectives and backgrounds of the individuals involved and the pressures exerted on them. In terms of report preparation 1 have never had a project applicant attempt to edit an EIP. document. Applicants often provide inputs or criticisms relative to factual matters (which is beneficial in terms of report objectivity) and, on occasion, will anguish over findings of significance (which is not so beneficial). But, again, no project applicant I have dealt with has ever attempted to edit the EIR document. On the other hand, I have been exposed to some situations where public agency staff members have massaged, rPCast, and edited documents to conform with staff attitudes stemming from their particular training or area of interest; their special or economic viewpoints; or the politics of the particular project. There is, of course, no way to assure absolute objectivity. would only point out that there are real problems in your pro- posed approach and that the current process (with the consultant firmly in the middle) may be the best way to proceed. 2. An "arms-length" relationship between the consultants and the pro- ject applicant could have detrimental affects in terms of achieving the objectives you have in developing appropriate project modifi- cations or mitigation measures. As you indicate, most agencies need better information concerning the feasibility and effectiveness of potential mitigation measures or project alternatives. Yet, it is difficult to see how an implied adversary proceeding and the development of "arms-length" agency/consultant recommendations will improve the planning process. In my own experience, the most res- ponsive developmental solutions have resulted from multi-disciplinary planning efforts involving environmental consultants throughout the planning process. I realize that most of your EIRs do not have the benefit of this process. But certainly some level of inter- action between the developer and consultant is essential if you are to determine whether mitigation measures are feasible and what kinds of likely impacts will result from proposed measures. And I hope I am wrong in interpreting discussion item 4c as employing consultants support City positions. 3. You may possibly be right that the time required to prepare draft EIRs may not be extended by the process you are suggesting. How- ever, I believe that the process will result in higher costs to pro- ject proponents and, ultimately, consumers. First, you are proposing an elaborate proposal process which will increase consulting firm's G ~ A expenses and will eventually be passed on to the proponent and City. Second, if the City and consultant collaborate to produce ZI -3- EIRs in a vacuum, proponents will be forced to hire "bigger experts" to take on dubious findings and proposals. Third, the effort to reduce the input of specialist consultants will tend to increase costs since many such consultants charge lower rates than full-time staff. 4. I fail to understand your aversion to specialist subconsultants. -t almost goes without saying that the more significant the pro- ject, the more one is inclined to use subconsultants with special expertise and credentials. They are often more credible than full-time staff members of EIR firms (who many times are general- ists or have minimal credentials or experience in their field). understand your laments over editing. But that problem stems from the project manager's failures; not the use of subconsultants. And that problem can be cured by giving a firm bad marks and not hiring them for future assignments. SPECIFIC ITEMS Item 2.5 (page 4) Is there any way to expand this section to include Specific Plans and Community Plans? Anything we can do to move toward the Master EIR and away from project EIR redundancy will be helpful in terms of time, money, and substance. Appendix G, Standards (page 94) 1. I cannot agree that project managers for EIRs should have three years of exclusive experience in document preparation. This is too much like a civil service approach equating time in grade with capability. It seems to favor the person within a firm which has specialized in EIR preparation over a manager or consultant with broader experience in environmental analysis and related disciplines. And why the distinction between a firm's experience and a manager's experience? The measure of a consulting firm's capability lies in the staff to be utilized on a particular assignment. 2. It would seem more appropriate to eliminate the references to ali distinct disciplines and merely provide that the firm (or its sub- consultants) have experience in the areas to be investigated in the EIR process. Once again, I do not comprehend the restrictions on the use of subcontractors. In extremely controversial or complex EIRs, I ~•fould think that you would want all the specialist opinion you could get. In fact, one of the only valid ways to choose be- tween consultants involves the comparative strength of investigators in the areas of focused analysis. (1 am sure you are aware that the last paragraph must be modified in language since it is not possible to use one-half of Mine). -4- 3. As I indicated lightly about a year ago; the provision of written subcontractor agreements to insure qualification is onerous and untimely. What you should be getting is a listing and agreements at the time the firm submits proposals and the requirements of the assignment are known. That way you will know what you are getting. Appendix H {pp. g4-102) II. The proposal requirements are highly inappropriate for most EIR work in many respects: • The Study Plan requirements impose an enormous amount of detailed programming and detail which is not essential in most EIR work. It is one thing to prepare this kind of proposal for a signifi- cant environmental study (e.g., the Bayfront Project) and quite another to provide methodology, manhour estimates, a discussion of topics not covered in the RFP (?), etc., etc., for a draft EIR with perhaps $2,000 budget to cover a focused analysis in three or four areas. • Might it not be more appropriate to just require a scope of work indicating EIR coverage and the specific areas of focus, together with fee, timing, staffing, and product performance? In the end, you are not looking for "innovation" and elaborate proposals, but commitments and capability to produce the document, particularly in identified areas of concern. I hate to say it but in the end it is probably just a.matter of price since you have already qualified all firms involved. UI. 1 once again, fail to see how the "creative ability" of the pro- poser has anything to do with firm selection. I suspect this was drawn from material used in connection with the selection of architects, planners, landscape architects, and other creative disciplines. Unfortunately, there is little room for innovation or creativity in EtR work--the process is too heavily proscribed by law, guidelines, procedures, and budgetary constraints. Appendix I (pp. 103-108) The proposed agreement appears to be drawn from other contracts utilized for engineers, contractors, architects, and the like. The limitation of lia- bility clause is one I have never seen applied to environmental consultants (or a variety of other consultants professions not typically involved in developing plans, designs, and drawings. It would seem appropriate to modify the clause to get rid of inapplicable references (e.g. "design defect") and to limit the contractor's liability to the fee. 2t~ -5- I recognize that all of these agreements are designed to protect primarily the city, without regard to the consultant. As usual, there are no provisions relating to default by the City (failure to pay on time and fail- ure to meet agreed-upon schedules being the most common complaints levied against public agencies) and the right of the consultant to terminate work if the City does not meet its commitments. Thank you for this opportunity to comment, Doug. Sincerely, PROJECT DES_,1 CONSULTANTS ~ r'~ %~ ! ~.- `j l (;~V`~y( L/ R. James Fairman, AIP Pjresident /ms Zl WESTFC Services, fnc. 1520 State Street San Diego, California 92101 (714) 233-7572 78-0582 blay 31, 1978 Mr. Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista Department of Planning 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 92010 Dear Doug: iVe have reviewed the ERC's proposed revisions to the Environmental Review PoZicz~ of the Citz~ of Chula Vista and offer the following comments: 1. We are in general agreement with the proposed revisions and feel they will allow adequate and timely environmental review of proposed actions while meeting the mandates of CEQA and AB 884. 2. ~Ve also agree with the proposed policy that EIRs will be prepared by a consultant working under contract to the City. Our experience has shown that a higher level of analytical objectivity can be more easily achieved in working under such contracts. 3. We concur with your more stringent standards for approving environmental consulting firms to prepare EIRs for the City. However, considering the rather extensive effort (over two days of senior management time) that was required to place WESTEC Services on the City's approved list approximately one year ago, we trust that extensive updating of qualifica- tions materials will not be necessary should the revised policy be adopted. 4. As I have mentioned to you on previous occasions, your proposed "Standard Request for Proposal" (Appendix H of revised Policies) is overly detailed for most EIR projects. Our experience in preparing over 500 separate EIRs has shown that the vast majority run between X4,000 and $10,000. Given an average fee of $6,000, j~+ESTEC Services could not justify expending the time and materials that could be required to pre- pare a responsive proposal. In brief, we would spend more in preparing a proposal in the requisite detail than we would realize in profit should we be awarded the EIR contract. We estimate that an EIR contract of approximately X15,000 to $18,000 would be necessary to justify a proposal of the magnitude and detail indicated in Appendix H of the revised Policies. t•ir. Douglas D. Reid May 31, 1978 Page 2 jae feel that the small to medium size EIR proposals need not go beyond three to four pages, nor into much more detail than a statement of Project ;Manager, fee and time required to prepare the preliminary draft. An EIR consultant deemed qualified by City standards has, in essence, demonstrated the capability to prepare an adequate and acceptable environmental document for a small to medium size project. Thus, we strongly recommend that an abbreviated Request for Proposals be utilized for all but large-scale projects. For your information, an example of the standard EIR proposal used by ti~VESTEC Services for small to medium size projects in San Diego County is attac,ied. If there are any questions concerning the foregoing, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ~~ Frank A. Kingery Manager, Environmental Division FAK:kh Enclosure Zl~ ~ l:: `ll:+t~t~ Llx rt:u1 v~.~L I.UU~v 1 Y Ur 5~~iti llII:C;U 78- Subject: Proposal for Consulting Services (78-9310- ) Dear in response to our recent discussions, j`iESTEC Services, Inc. is pleased to submit this letter proposal to prepare a draft environmental impact report for the proposed Scope 'of Services j'IESTEC Services, Inc, iaill prepare a draft environmental impact report for the proposed project in a format suitable for submittal to the County of San Diego, Tlie report will assemble at;•ailable data and provide assessments of the probable short-term and long-range effects of the project, as well as any measures to mitigate impacts. The analysis will be addressed to 1, Biological impacts to vegetative cover and wildlife, identification of any endemic and endangered species and other flora and fauna related assessments, 2. Physical impacts including: a, ~ti'ater quality effects b. Air quality effects c. Geologic and soils conditions 3. Human environmental impacts of the project related to: a. Transportation effects b. Noise effects c. Effects on public facilities and services d, Any significant change in age, income, family size, and other population characteristics ZI hi age e. Any archaeological or historic resources f. Aesthetic and visual characteristics g. Land use including open space and recreation factors h. Energy usage/conservation i. Growth-inducing effects 4. Alternatives to the proposed project. The rcl:ort ;rill follo:v the format and ordinance ado, ted by the County of San Diego to implement the California Environ- mental Quality Act of 1970 and State of California F,nvironmental Impact Report Gu~deZines effective on riarch 4, 1978. A preliminary report in the amount of copies can be provided weeks after an agreement to perform the work is received. ~iereafter, when your review is complete and comments are received, three additional copies of the preliminary draft report will be prepared for submittal for review by the County Environmental Analysis Division (EAD). 1~re will receive and incorporate any additional materials as required by the EAD. The total number of report copies required by the County for public reviely could range from 30 to 45; thus, we have not included report printing costs in the fee quoted belotiv. Following your verbal authorization, we will print the necessary number of copies, and invoice }-ou separately for this task on a time and materials basis. ~~Frogram Responsibilities IVESTEC Serti-ices, Inc. will be responsible for the preparation of the draft environmental impact report with a qualified member of our staff serving as .study director. Our performance of the analysis i•rill depend on timely provision of site plans, project data, engineering studies, soils and geologic reports, and other available information. The objective of our tvorl: will be a complete and com- prehensive analysis of the environmer_taI impacts of the proposed project. Our experience has indicated that areas of potential erviror_mental concern ma}r be found and that it will be necessary to trork closel}T with you and your other consultants to determine measures to mitigate these problems. bI age 3 Fee jti'e estimate that our total fee for the services outlined above will be ~ and we will not exceed this cost without specific authorization from you. jVe propose to be compensated on a time and material basis. Statements will be submitted monthly for work in progress or upon completion of work. Fees and payment terms for these services are in the attached Schedule of Fees, dated The cost estimate is based on completing the assignment without significant changes or variations in the project description once delivered to us. Should changes occur, we will inform you i•rhen the time and material cost limit is reached and prior to accumulating any additional charges. The fee quoted would cover costs up to the time the printed draft environmental impact report is formally sub- mitted to the County of San Diego. Authorization for any follow-up assignments related~to presentations or reviews with public bodies would be provided in a mutually acceptable supplemental agreement. If potentially significant environ- mental impacts are encountered during the course of our analysis, we will indicate the nature of the problem to you and pro~ride a specific recommendation for any additional courses of action that may be necessary to fully define the problem and identify viable mitigating measures. • Acce~itance You may authorize j1'ESTEC the assignment outlined Herein this agreement for our files. Respectfully submitted, Services, Inc. to proceed with by returning a signed copy of I~ranh ~\. ringer}' I~tanager, Environmental Division Approved by: ~or ate FAK:sal Enclosure: Schedule of Fees, June 16, 1978 T0: Members of the Environmental Review Committee ~,~ ``~ FROM: Douglas D. Reid, Environmental Revie,a Coordinator?:,: SUBJECT: Environmmtnal Review Policy Revisions A. Background At the ERC meeti^.a of June 8, 1978 the Committee continued con- sideration of the policy revisicns in order to review the com~m.ents on the revisicns and possible impacts of Proposition 13. B. Recomslendation Provide the Coordinator with direction for the preparation of the final policy revisions for consideration by the City Council. C. Disc~.~ssion/Consultant Comments 1. WESTEC Services, Inc. Paragraph ~3 w~STEC expressed some concern regarding the amount of update necessary for consultants currently on the list of qualified consultants. This could be clarified by adding to second paragraph of Section 5.3, a statement that firms currentl~- on the list need only provide information on standards which they previously have not demonstrated they meet. ;~e do not want to create any more paper~.~ork than is necessary to show compliance with the standards. Paragraph =4 [dritten comments on the policy reg.=isions all indicated that t::e RFP gas too complex or overly detailed and would require s major e::pense on the Dart of the consultant to prepare a proposal. This, of course, Baas not the intent of the RFP and therefore major changes appear to be necessary. Attached is a revised Appendix H which substantially simplifies the requirements for proposals. Zl 2. Toups Coro. Paragraph -1 It is indicated that under the proposed revisions only "...~•erv broadly based firms cwould 'nave the required specialist." ?•;hile this is true, smaller firms could qualify by the use of a limited number or subcontractors. It is specifically fir~~s with multi-disciplinary expertise and considerable experience in the preparation of EIR's which tae need to avoid delays in processing and excessive commitment of Citv staff time. This paragraph also notes that licensed specialists are required where that option is available and the lack of such persor.el in San Diego Ccunty. This point is well taken and there is a need to re-e~.~aluate that requirement. In t'_;e case noted, traffic engineering, we have had traffic studies prepared by non-licensed traffic personel that were acceptable and many that ~•rere not. If licensing ~•~ere required, an out of Count•:~ firm wculd have to be obtained which could be quite exper.si~-e. Such a fir:.~:aas contracted for the Kaiser facility at Bonita Rd. and ?willow St. The fee for that job was about $3,000 due to the necessity for experts to spend time traveling and faciliarizing themselves with local conditions. For most projects, this does not seem justified. Paragraph ~2 It is not the intent of the revisions to completely separate the project formulation process from the environmental review process. Rather it is intended to involve the City staff more directly at this early stage to more accurately and objectively inform decision making authorities of the environmental effects of proposed projects. Consultation between. the project proponent, design team and the environmental consultant with City staff participating would be encouraged. Paragraph "3 The consultant process does not appear to be confusing. It is designed to be as quick and simple as is feasible. 3. Project Design. Consultants General Comments Paragraph =1 There can ne~.-er be ar.~_~ guarantee that an EIR will be completely objective and accurate. The standards for an adequate EIR involve what is reasonably feasible and that the agency has made Zl a good faith effort (Cal. Admin. 15150). It must be emphasized that. a. "All local agencies shall prepare, or cause to be prepared by contract...an Envirenmental Impact F.eport" (CEQA Sec. 21151) b. The EIR "...must reflect the independent judgmer_t of the Lead Agency." (Cal. Admin. 15061 (b)) The draft and final EIR's are documents of the agency and not developers. Paragraph =2 See ccmments on paragraph =2 to the Toups letter above. Paragraph =3 There should be no substantial increase in costs because first; there will be no comple:c proposal requirements, a standard proposal similar to ~7ESTEC's would be sufficient; second, the report will not be prepared in a vacuum, interaction is to be encouraged; third, broad based multi-disciplinary firms would not '.'.^.ave any increased in costs due to new personel. Paraaraoh ~4 There is no aversion to subcontractors, 2/3 of the fields specified can utilize subcontractors. The restriction on the number of subcontractors on the fields important to the City of Chula Vista is to insure that the firm has a good background in these areas. Specific Comments Item 2.5 (pg. a) The process does apply in the cases of community and this section should be modified to so indicate. In the cases of specific plans, enough detail should be available to preclude the need for any further environmental documents. Aooendi:c G Paragraph 1-3 There is a need to discuss the~~standards for qualification c~ consultants in light of the RFP/agreement proceedure and the need to :peep the proposals as brief as possible. Apnendi:{ H These revisions, as previously discussed, have been made in the City RFP format. Zt~ Aooendi:c I ~' The inappropriate references in this section will be eliminated. ~?. Other Comments on the Draft Policy Revisions Ir. a telephone conversation with Royce Riggen of RECCN, Inc. he indicated that the policy revisions were acceptable to :ni~^ and that they ~,vere in favor of the RFP/agreement process. C. Discussion/Post Prooositior. 13 1. Initial Studies The Environ.:,ental P,eview _nterdiciolinarv initial an EIR :vas required or i also been some fear that for such a determination to Gill the project. Committee was created to provide ar. review of projects to determine if t" an STD was adequate. There may have if a single person was responsible the~~ might be in a position It may be more economically efficient to change this system so that the Coordinator ~Nould be responsible for the initial EIR/ND determination after coordination with other City departments. There could still be an appeal process to the ERC by the project proponent, a member of the public, etc. 2. Environmental Impact P.eports The RFP/agreement process previously discussed should provide a much more economical system for the preparation of EIR's and release clerical and printing staff for other work. Zt)