Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1976-8133RESOLUTION NO. 8133 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW POLICY REGARDING INITIAL STUDIES The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, after continued difficulty in explaining the role of the Environmental Review Committee, which is essentially a staff function not subject to public input, it has been recommended by said Committee that changes be affected as reflected herein, and WHEREAS, on the recommendation of the City Manager and the City Attorney, the changes shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full, should be instituted to the Environmental Review Policy. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that the proposed changes to the Environmental Review Policy as shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto, be, and the same are hereby adopted. Presented by Approved as to form by ,.. ~~ D. et ~, a' George D. indberg, City Attorn Environme 1 Review Committee ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 20th day of April 1976, by the ' following vote, to-wit: AYES : Councilmen Egdahl , Scott, Hobel , Hami 1 ton Hyde NAYES : Councilmen None ABSENT: Councilmen None r r ATTES ~"City-Clerk Q STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) yor of the City of Chula,Vista I, , City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution No. and that the same has not been amended or repealed. DATED City Cler # // ~c ~• April 13, 1976 To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Via: Lane F. Cole, City Manager From: D. J. Peterson, Director of Planning Subject: Recommendation of the Environmental Review Committee regarding the Environmental Review Policy A. Proposed Changes to the Environmental Review Policy The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has recommended the following revisions to the Environmental Review Policy: 1. A change in the composition of the ERC to delete the City P9anager and City Attorney (the Attorney would continue to act as legal adviser) and add the Director of B uilding and Housing. 2. Change the time of Initial Study notification from prior to the issuance of a draft Negative Declaration to after its issuance by the ERC. 3. Change in notification procedure from that of a separate notice to an additional section in the regular notice of public hearing on the project. If no hearing is being held, notice would be accomplished by the posting of the project site. Attached are the specific amendments to the Policy. B. Rationale for the recommended changes 1. ERC composition. The participation of the City Manager and the City Attorney in the preparation of a technical recommendation does not seem necessary although the City Attorney should provide legal advice. Most projects which come before the ERC are not of a magnitude which warrant attention by the City Manager. The Director of Planning, Director of Public Works and the Environmental Review Coordinator clearly provide technical input from their respective areas of expertise. The chairperson from the Environmental Control Commission has been included in the ERC to add the expertise which that commission has been developing over the past several years and to insure adequate interchange of ideas and knowledge between the ERC and ECC. The addition of the Director of Building and Housing to the ERC adds expertise in construction techniques, noise attenuation and energy conservation. Over the past several years the Uniform Building Code has had several amendments in the area of energy conserva- tion and noise impact attenuation. Knowledge of these regulations would be most helpful in the evaluation of many projects. 2. Notification. It is the current role of the ERC to make an interdisciplinary technical recommendation regarding the environmental consequences of projects to be carried out or approved by the City of Chula Vista. This process of formulating a professional technical recommendation is considerably different than the original role of the ERC in making the actual environmental determinations. page 2 Under the original concept, public participation was important because a • determination was being made. Now that changes in the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Resources have reduced the role of the ERC to that of making technical recommendations, the need for public participation at the ERC level is not apparent. Public participation should be incorporated into the process after a draft Negative Declaration has been recommended by the ERC, but before the decision making authority has made the final determination. This would insure adequate formulization of a technical recommendation while providing for public comment on the environmental document at the appropriate time. This change would also permit notification of a Negative Declaration to be included in regular hearing notices, thus simplifying administration of environmental regulations. D. J. Peterson Director of Planning DJP:hm Attachment PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ENVIRONr9L:NTAL REVIEW POLICY Sec . 4 Environmental Review Co~~~mittee 4.1 Established. There is hereby establisf~ed an Environmental Review Committee (ERC) composed of the following officials of the City of Chula Vista, or their representatives: ~------Tbe-6~ty-FlapaQe~ 3. 1. The Director of Public Works, 3. 2. The Director of Planning, 3. Tf~e Di~ectQr Qf Building & Housing, 4. 4. The Environmental Review Coordinator, g------Tbe-E~ty-Atte~pey 5. The Chairperson of the Environme~ital Control Commission (Any representative must be a member of the ECC) Sec. 5 5.5 ~ Initial Review of Non-Exempt Projects bJhen a project is found by the project applicant, the Coordinator or the decision making bedy~persen authori~ to be non-exempt from the provision of this policy, the project applicant small submit or cause to be submitted, an-app~~eat~en-#e~•-ae-EAR-e~-tbe- app}~eant-~s-ber~eby-requ}fed-te-sabre}t five (5) copies of the application for an IS te-be-found, a sam le of which is in Appendix A of this Policy. Such applicatio^ shall be a:.ccr~panied by five (5) copies of any supportive documents required by the Coordinator and shall be submitted to the Coordinator in the Planning Department. A X100 filing fee is required with this submission of the application. The Coordinator will conduct a preliminary review of the application to insure that it is adequate. Abe When the application is found to be adequate, the Coordinator shall set the IS for consideration at the next available agenda of the ERC, not less than seven days nor more than twenty-one days from the date of submission. If the need for an EIR is apparent in advance o_f the IS, the proponent of the roject m~ r~-oc~ed directly to an application for an EIR. f~-~---dpep-sabre}ss~en-ef-an-app~~eat~en-ef-an-~S;-the-teerd~nater= w}tb~p-3-days-sf~a~~-Q~ve-r~et}ee-of-said-app~~eatien-as-pret~ided bedew: ~f-tf~e-prejeet-~nve~ves-a-speE~f~e-d~seret~epa~•y-aet-en-a spee}€a~e-pawEe~-e€-}ape;-r~et~ee-sha~~-be-g~+~en-fay-r~a~ ~;+~g-ef a-net}ee-*e-tf~e-er~~e+~s-e#~-p~•operty-w~th~n-tht~•ee-f~ar~dred-#~eet X398=~-ef-tf~e-exte~}er-beunda~y-ef-the-ptepe~•ty-~gve~aed;-as- we~~-as-tf3e-ewner-ef-tf~e-saf3jeet-preperty s-said-ewner~s-be}pg estab~~sfred-fer-th}s-pu~pese-by-a~-exa~~inatiep-ef-~tf~e-assess~~ept reee!ids-held-}p-tf~e-9€free-e€-tf~e-E}ty-6~erf<;-p~•ev~ded-hewever, that-~n-sdEb-eases-wfje~e-~t-~s-fEnewp-that-tf~e-©wr~e~•sh~p--f~as reeer3tly-efjap,~ed;-pct}Ee-sba~ I--a~sa-lie-sent-}n-this-rr~apr~er-te itk~e-EUrreet-eeeGparats-e#~-said-p+~epe~ty;-er €-the-p~ejeec-Bees-yet-~~ave~ve-aey-speei€~e-p~•epe~•ty-bbt-~•a#.fae~ t.Me-adept~e~-e €-deve}epr~erat-Hey i ey-e+~-regr~~ ate eR ;-ar~endmer=ts- to tHe-6er~era}-P}an-Pe}}eyes-e-~-eLhe~-~•eya}atie~s-er-pe}}Eies-- wb}ef~-de-i~et-in~~e}ve-apy-speeifie-p~epet~t}es ;-netiee-sHa}}~-fie g}ven-by-at-}east-epe-pbb}}eat}eA-ef-tHe-net~ee-e€-app}}eatien fer-are-}S-}p-a-r;ewspaper-e#~-ger~e~a}-e}~•eN}at~ep-gip-the-Eity as-prev}ded-~n-tt~e-Ef~atier-of-tbe-E}ty-ef-6f~a}a-~i sta- The Coordinator shall consult with any responsible agency or any agency having jurisdiction by la~•; to obtain comments with regard to the environmental effects of the project. 5.~6 The ERC will, based on the information submitted and otherwise available, conduct an IS of the potentially adverse environmental effects of the proposed project and the level of significance of the impact. Upon completion of the evaluation of form for the project, (see Hppendix Bj the ERC will determine that one of the follo4ving situations exist: 1. Tfnere-~s-ee-pess~f~}~~ty-tbat That the project in question could not have any siynificar~t effect on the environment, and the ERC may }ssue-a recommend that the decision making authority so find, issue a draft PAD and forward it to the decision making ~edy authority on the project for its consideration and final determination. 2. The project could have possible significant effect and an EIR must be prepared to evaluate the project and its consequences, or; 3. More information is necessary and the IS shall be continued for submission of this additional information which may be in form of a tehcnical support document. 5.87 ^dD Contents. A draft ND shall include a brief description of the project as proposed, a statement in support of the finding of no significant impact and where a copy of the IS may be obtained. 5.98, Public Review. 4~hen the ERC ~ssaes recommends a draft ND, it shall be made available for pub lic and agency review at the Planning Department office. Every-pet=see-whe-made-eerflraents-en-tale-app}peat}en fer-aa-}S;-a}} Any responsible agencies or agencies with jurisdiction by law and the project applicant, shall receive a copy of the draft ND. 5.9 Notice of Proposed Finding. If the decision making authority is to hold a public hearing on the proposed project, the notice of said hearin shall include a statement of the ro osed finding of no significant environmental impact and shall stai;e that the IS and ND .are mailable for up blic review at the Planninc Department. If the decision make authority is not required to hold a public hearnc~ on the ~roPosed project, notice of the proposed fndi~r~ o_f no si gnificant environmental impact and the availability of the IS and ~iD siia 1 i 5e + ~dei~ f~ one o f the fo ~ i owi ng_ methods ~/ 1. If the roject involves a discretionar act on a specific ap rcel of land, notice shall be iven b,~ osp tin9 at least one notice of the proposed findin on the site of the project. 2. If the roject does nct involve ar~~ specific property, notice shall be iven ~ at least one ublication of the notice of the ro osed findings of no significant environmental impact in a net~rs aper of general circulation in the City as provided in the Charter of the City of Chula Vista 5.10 Certification of Final ND. The draft ~dD shall be presented to the decision makin _ authority on the roject a minimum of 10 days bat-net-He~~aiiy-m©re-Chap-~~-days-after-issaanee-e#-tbe-draft PIB;-}t-sbal~-be-p~esepted-te-the-deeisiep-r~a{~+~ag-belly-en-the-prejeat- after it is recommended by the ERC. If a public hearin is being held on the proposed project, testimony relative to the proposed findin of no ~nif-icant environmental impact ma,~ be presented durin the ublic hearing, before the decision making authority. If no ublic hearin is to be held, the decision makin authority must consider all comments on the proposed finding of no significant environmental impact• All comments relative to said ro osed findin s must be received ~ the decision making authority within the (10 days after the notice is given. If no comments are rPCeived, the decision making authority m~ consider the ND after the ten 10 d~ comment erP iod• If comments are received, four~4 additional days shall be allowed prior to consideration of the ND for evaluation of any in ut. If the decision making authority finds on the basis of the facts_ relative to the required-Tbe-deeisien-ma{~ing-belly-shai~-e©nsider ~af~ing-belly-finds-that-based-e~-tk~e-€aEts-reiative-te-the-~egaired findings that the project will not have any possible significant impact on the environment, it shall certify that the ND has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the ND shall become final. No further environmental review shall be required, except as other4vise provided in this Policy. If no ubiic hearing has been held on the proposed roject, the decision ma~:in authority shall advise all e~ rsons commenting on the ND of the decision which has been made relative to the ND and the project.