Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1977/02/01 Item 11• CITY OF CHULA VISTA COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM NO 11 FOR MEETING OF: 2/1/77 ITEM TITLE: Resolution 849 3 - Adopting amended Environmental Review Policy to implement changes in the State EIR Guidelines SUBMITTED BY~ Director of Planning ITEM EXPLANATION A. BACKGROUND 1. Last year major revisions to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Administrative Code (EIR Guidelines) were adopted by the State. The City of Chula Vista will not have to conform to many of the CEQA amendments until later this year, but conformance to the guideline changes will have to be implemented promptly. 2. One of the major changes in the Policy requires that one of three findings be made if a project involving a significant impact is to be approved. These three findings are: a. The significant impacts are mitigated; b. Another agency has the authority to mitigate the significant impacts; or c. Mitigation is economically or socially infeasible. 3. It is recommended that all Environmental Impact Reports be prepared by the City or by a consultant under contract to the City. This would insure unbiased and accurate reports which would likely generate less public controversy. The project proponent would still bear the costs. 4. The definition of cumulative impacts has been changed to include other past, present and future projects. r\/1 111"11 T['~ ATTA/\1 If~l'1 G~r'IIDI I J HI I Hl.rICV Agreement Resolution X Ordinance Plat Other Policy Environmental Document: Attached Submitted on STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution amending the Environmental Review Policy. BOARD/ COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of the Policy amend- ments; the Environmental Control Commission has recommended adoption; and the Planning Commission suggested minor revisions which have been made to the Policy. COUNCIL ACTION Approved as amended: 1. Section 4.3, subpar. 2 modified to indicate that the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the members shall be required - and to delete the word "present." (over for continuation) Form A-113 (Rev. 5-75) Council Action (continued) 2. Requirement that the City staff prepare the EIR (as outlined in the staff report) be changed back to the way it was whereby the developer not only pays for the consultant, but also has control of the document until it is turned over to the City. r B. DISCUSSION The major revisions to the policy are as follows: AGENDA .ITEM, N0. -11 Supplemental page No. 2 1. Many of the introductory statements which were informational in nature and designed to provide background for those not familiar with the purposes of CEQA have been removed. This background was important during the initial implementation of the Act, but is no longer necessary. 2. Procedures for the incorporation of data by reference into EIR's has been added. This referencing of data can include information contained in an EIR on the General Plan which is referenced in a project level EIR. 3. Provisions for the phasing of an EIR when several approvals are required have been added. 4. When a project has both discretionary and ministerial approvals the project is deemed to be discretionary and subject to CEQA. 5. New classes of exemptions have been added generally dealing with open space and LAFCO activities. 6. Provisions for an "Extended Negative Declaration" have been included. The Extended Negative Declaration will be used in cases where projects with a potential for significant effects have mitigation incorporated into them and there is no substantial adverse impact. The Extended Negative Declaration would be longer than the usual one page Negative Declaration but much shorter than an EIR. 7. Procedures to focus EIR's on the areas of potential impact have been included. Focused EIR's which involve only a few potential impacts will be processed in a shorter time frame than the usual 30 day period. 8. 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 of Chula Vista. This proposal is very similar to procedures being used by the cities of Huntington Beach, Newport Beach and Irvine, and the counties of Orange and Santa Barbara. In order that the City obtain independent, interdisciplinary and fully informative environmental analysis of private projects, this direct contract method has been recommended. The reasons for this recommendation are as follows: a. There is a basic change in the nature of the environmental impact analysis. Documents are becoming less informational oriented and more regulating in nature. Accordingly, the City needs better information concerning the feasibility of these proposals both in terms of effectiveness, economics and social implications. b. 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 judgments 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. AGENDR ITEM'N'0. 11 Supplemental page No. 3 c. 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 now 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. 9. If an EIR has been prepared on a project and the EIR identifies one or more significant impacts, the decision making authority for the project may not approve the project unless one of the followi.mg findings is made: a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the final EIR. b. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the body making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. c. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. 10. The definition of cumulative impact has been changed to include an evaluation of other projects, including past, present and probable future projects. 11. The sections of EIR's dealing with the Long-Term Productivity vs. Short Term use of man's environment and any irreversible changes in the environment will be required only when an amendment or enactment of a plan, policy or ordinance is to be considered. 12. The standard factors section has been updated to reflect the latest data available. 13. The energy conservation section has been revised to comply with the latest regulations of the Resources Agency and the Energy Resources Conservation and Develop- ment Commission. 14. The Initial Study application has been simplified with sections added for the City staff to complete. This approach will avoid the situation where an applicant had to obtain information from a city department which then had to be checked by city staff for accuracy. 15. Sample "Request for Proposals" and agreement between the applicant, the city and the consultant have been added as appendices to the Policv. 16. The standards for Environmental Consultants have been modified to insure that the person(s) primarily responsible for the preparation of EIR's have had adequate experience in the field to accomplish the task in satisfactory manner.