Misc Docs - 1977-1990!1
• .
RECEIVES
OCT 3 ~ 1990
CAMPBELL FIRE D EPARTMS~iT . ~ ~~~
CEpA (EIR) GDIDBLIIRBS
-~ -- - ~ - -- NO'!B: The procedures -set forth herein --shall ._..
supplement and not' superbede the guidelines
adopted by the City Council.
1. Applicant shall consult with Fire Marshal, and
Hazardous Materials Consultant as necessary. "
-- '2. The applicant shall file a Hazardous Materials
_ - ~ Inventory Statement (HMIs), HMMP, and pay appropriate
_...::..
'-~ fees. The date of receipt is then recorded on the
- ~- - - ~ application. The Department has 3g days to determine
- if` the~~ application is complete..
.~. - ~ ' 3. The application is then forwarded to the Hazardous
Materials Consultant for a recommendation of status
(Exempt, non-exempt) and mitigation measures as
necessary.
4. If the application is found to be in order, and it is
exempt, it is then forwarded to the Fire Marshal for
approval. After a field inspection by the Fire
Prevention Officer to verify situation, application is
either returned to the applicant for modification and
resubmittal, or approved as submitted.
5. If approved, the Fire Marshal issues the permit. .
6. If the application is determined to be non-exempt, the
applicant is notified of the determination and
mitigation measures as required. If applicable, CEQA
process begins.
CEQA REVIBW WHEN FIRE DEPARTMENT IS LEAD AGENCY
1. Application shall receive a preliminary review by the
---- -- -~- -- - - -- Fire Marshal and the Hazardous Materials Consultant. -
~.The :.depar.tment has 30' ..:days :~_ts~:._~:.determne- : i'f °the~- `
applicant~~s ..complete.
2. If the application is complete and information provided
is sufficient to make a determination,. staff will
contact applicant to establish a meeting to develop a.
distribution list of Responsible Agencies..
~~ ~ 3. Staff will prepare initial study findings and mail them
_"-~ ~~~ _"~- to the applicant and Responsible Agencies. The
- ~ department-`mustcomplete. the initial studywithin 30
- - days- after the application is deemed complete.
4. If a Negative Declaration is likely, the CEQA
checklist, completed by the Hazardous Materials
Consultant, reviewed and initialed by the Fire Marshal,
is forwarded to the Eire Chief with a memo summarizing
the HMMP including key mitigation points.
5. A public notice will be given in the West Section of
The Mercury News. The notice will be put out ten days
~- prior to the date that the Negative Declaration will be
finalized. The notice to the newspaper must be
submitted one week prior to the date of publication. ~~
Public notice of the public review period for a
negative declaration shall also be posted with the
County Clerk for 30 days. Notice of Public Hearing
n
~.
must also be mailed to property owners. within 30B feet
of the property.
6. Ten days after publication of the public notice, a
Declaration that an Environmental Impact Report is Not
- - Required, form FP/37-4/89 is prepared and signed by the _
Fire Chief. Once signed, this form goes into the
. address file of the application.
7. Following completion of the above, a Notice of
~._~. ~~ ~ ~ ~ Determination, Form -FD/A36-4-89, is completed and two
- .--_- copies mailed. Once received by the County Clerk, the
form is recorded and filed, and a copy returned to us.
Following the return of this form, the form is placed
- ,. .:_ into the address file, and the process is complete.
:= ~-~;_- ~ The negative declaration. must be completed. and ready '
:` '~ ~` `" - for approval within 1B5 days after the application is
- " -- - "-' deemed complete.
8. If a Negative Declaration is not likely, or if
information provided in the application is insufficient
to make a determination ~roceed with item #1 on the
next page.
9. A time period not to exceed six (6) months shall be
allowed for processing of a Negative Declaration
Project.
~ ..
4-
..
~•
~ EIR WITH FIRE DEPARTMENT AS LgAD AGENCY
1. A preliminary review of the application will be
conducted by the Fire Marshal and Hazardous Materials
Consultant. If sufficient information is available to
make a determination and a Negative Declaration appears
unlikely, an Environmental Impact Report will be
recommended. The completeness review must be finished:.:°
.r:..., ~... .
-.,.. ; .:
• - ~•
.. :.. ...
withitr~ 3A days of receipt of the application.-
" -2~ Staff will complete the initial study using the CEQA.
Checklist. The initial: study shall be completed- wfthins~
- ~ ~ ~ 3~'-days after- the application- is deemed. complete..
3.. The Fire Marshal and Hazardous Materials Consultant
._ .::~_o ...
will refine the distribution list and develop the scope
r ~~- ` ~
..,,.. of the EIR. '
4. The Fire Marshal will notify the applicant of the EIR
--~ - requirement. Applicant will pay a $100 processing fee
before additional administrative work is done. The
determination of an EIR being required must •be made
within 30 days after the application is deemed
complete.
5. Staff will distribute (EIR) notice to Responsible
Agencies for their comments.
6. Applicant will receive comments and prepare a draft EIR
.___- - ~ submittal. If necessary, the Department shall also
file a notice of completion. The "Notice of
Completion "must be filed with the ~fice of Planning
-- ----- and Research upon completion of the draft EIR unless
f
. ~..
the EIR is to be reviewed by the State handled by OPR's
State Clearinghouse.
7. Staff will conduct meetings and review the draft EIR.
Lead Agency designation will be reviewed at .this time..
8. Fire Marshal will receive Final-EIR...
.9.- Fire Department will distribute copies of the Final EIR
" ;, to Responsible Agencies, publish in the newspaper, pos t
' at the library, and mail notices to all affected
,.;:.. ~.
.-., ;..
' property owners.
~w' ~ ~- .~;If~~.. The Department will review comments and hold a public.
' hearing. The-'public. teviev~ period` for an: EIR shall be-
a memorandum~of 45 days.
11. Prepare response to comments received on Draft EIR,
b
Finish Final EIR.
12. The Department will hold a hearing to certify EIR.
13. The Department shall approve or deny project.
14. File Notice of Determination.
15. EIR's must be completed and certified within one (1)
. year after an application has been accepted as
complete.
_: ~
ITEM NO. 4
STUDY SESSION
L'~TY 0~ C~11~j-~'~~~~.
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408j 866-2100
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
November 8, 1989
Honorable Mayor McEnery
and Members of the City Council
San Jose City Hall, 6th Floor
801 North First Street
San Jose, GA 95110
RE: Proposed General Plan Amendment
E1 Paseo de Saratoga Shopping Center Site
Dear Mayor McEnery and Members of the City Council:
The proposed McCandless Development/General Plan Amendment, at the E1 Paseo De'
Saratoga Shopping Center site represents a significant intensification with
potentially significant impacts on adjoining communities. The Environmental
Impact Report assumes completion of Highway 85 improvements to service this '
development. The traffic analysis is very generalized and does not provide
specific review of impacts on the street network within the City of Campbell
(Campbell Avenue, San Tomas Expressway, Hamilton Avenue, etc.)
Approval of the General Plan Amendment should include the stipulation that no
development activity will occur until the Highway 85 improvements are completed
from Highway 280 to Highway 101, to be consistent with the assumptions in the
traffic analysis. Additionally, when the specific development proposal is
submitted, the detailed traffic analysis should evaluate all streets which lead
to or will potentially carry traffic to this site including Campbell Avenue,
Hamilton Avenue, San Tomas Expressway and Highway 17. Roadway widths are
limited and the streets are already at maximum capacity. Any additional
traffic on these streets must be mitigated to avoid significant impacts.
The City of Campbell would appreciate being consulted on any future specific
development proposals on the property. As always the City Staff is available
to work with project applicants, or San Jose Staff to identify impacts of
developments on Campbell's streets.
Sincerely,
Ma r John Ashworth
SP,: ks
.~
~~~~~M~~
crnr of a~r~~€€~
PLANNINt3 ~~.4~~14~€#~
StJNIl~IARY
The proposed project is a General Plan amendment to change
the Land Use/Transportation Diagram of the Horizon 2000
General Plan designation from Regional Commercial to
Administrative Office/Research & Development on 20 acres of
the 32-acre E1 Paseo de Saratoga Shopping Center site,
located on the southeast corner of Saratoga Avenue and
Campbell Avenue. The developer has proposed a Proposed
Project and an Alternative to the Proposed Project for the
site, which are evaluated in equal detail. For purposes of
this EIR analysis, the Proposed Project assumes construction
of 1 million square feet of Administrative Office/Research &
Development on approximately 20 acres. The analysis of the
Alternative to the Proposed Project (the Alternative)
assumes construction of 600,000 square feet of
Administrative Office/Research & Development on
approximately 15 acres, and 200 dwelling units on the
remaining approximately 5 acres.
Uses to be removed from the site would consist of most of
the retail shops that make up the E1 Paseo de Saratoga
' Shopping Center. Existing uses to remain on the site would
include some retail shops, a theater, two financial
institutions, a market, and a restaurant. Other uses around
the amendment site include Regional, General, and
Neighborhood/community Commercial to the south, north, and
northwest, Public/Quasi-Public to the northeast, and Multi-
Family Residential to the south and southeast.
The project is proposed by the McCandless Development
Corporation. The developer's objective in proposing this
project is to provide a major employment center in West
San Jose, thereby easing the city-wide jobs/housing
imbalance. The multi-family housing component of the
Alternative proposal would address the jobs/housing
imbalance.
This EIR discusses the potential environmental effects
associated with residential and industrial development of.
the site, as well as measures that would mitigate the
effects. The impacts of the Proposed Project and the
S-1
SJCR41/311.50
Alternative are qualitatively compare~heoexistingeRegional
impacts associated at the site under
Commercial designation. Therefore, as in all General Plan
amendments, the impacts are compared to the Horizon 2000
base case and not as if the siof theseatypes ofhdevelopment
discusses the general effects
as they relate to traffic, established General Plan
ublic services, noise, air
policies, surrounding land uses, p
quality, hazardous materials, geology, flooding,. and
cultural resources. Further discretionary approvals that
would be required for development include a planned
tentative map, and a Planned
development rezoning,
Development (PD) permit.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CAN
BE REDUCED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
Miti ation
Im acts
SAND USE Implementation of Generaolicies 1,
Proposed Project and the policies (Urban Design p
2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 15, and 18).
Alternative Balanced Community (policy 1) and
The proposed office and research the Industrial and Residential
_-and development uses have the Guidelines will apply strong
potential to be incompatible with architectural and site design
surrounding land uses. controls on the project and
mitigate its potential impacts.
POTENTIAL LAND USE IMPACTS CAN BE
REDUCED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
LEVEL.
Horizon 2000 General Plan policies
,.~.,~ nry cnTT $. SEISMIC Hpz,ARDS eotechnical studies to be
~~"L"" require g
Proposed Project and the prepared for development proposals
Alternative (Soils and Geotechnical policies 1
The Proposed Project and the
and 6). This will ensure that
Alternative would be subject to site specific structural
ground shaking in the event of an requirements necessary to reduce
earthquake. those hazards are included in
building designs. Conformance
with applicable building codes and
General Plan policies will
mitigate the project's
geotechnical impacts (Earthquake
policies 1 and 5).
S-2
SJCR41I311.50
Section 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The developer has proposed a Proposed Project and an
Alternative (the Alternative) to the Proposed Project as a
part of this General Plan amendment. The Proposed Project
is a request to change the Land Use/Transportation Diagram
from Regional Commercial to Administrative Office/Research
and Development on 20 acres of the 32-acre E1 Paseo
de Saratoga Shopping Center site. The Alternative to the
Project is a request to change the Land Use/Transportation
Diagram from Regional Commercial to Administrative
Office/Research and Development on 15 acres of the E1 Paseo
site and Very High Density Residential (25-40 DU/AC) on
5 acres of the site.
A. PROPOSED PROJECT
The Proposed Project consists of an amendment to the City of
San Jose's General Plan Land Use/Transportation Diagram for
a 20-acre portion of the E1 Paseo Shopping Center located on
the southeast corner of Saratoga Avenue and Campbell Avenue.
The amendment site is shown on Figures 1-1 and 1-2. The
proposed amendment would change the land use designation of
this site from Regional Commercial to Administrative Office/
Research and Development (AO/RD).
Existing uses on the amendment site include retail shops,
restaurants, offices, and financial institutions as shown in
Figure 1-3. No change in the existing Regional Commercial
designation is proposed for the remaining 12 acres of the
E1 Paseo Shopping Center site.
~ The proposed amendment would allow removal of the existing
uses and redevelopment of the site with administrative
office and research and development uses. Development of a
specific project would require rezoning and other approvals
that would determine the exact physical characteristics of
the development. For purposes of this General Plan
amendment analysis, it was assumed that the 20-acre
amendment site would develop with approximately 1 million
square feet of administrative office and research and
1-1
SJCfl411311.50
. ~
y : ~.w.Ll
.
e/..a. er K.,,~ .
M1I
Mrr eal. a
'
r l l
E
_ I
1 fiUlMrlrt
~ MY{AMO ~ 1
S
R
;
~M M llf
\
1 I
1 a
€ ~
~ ,
I
s
g .
1 * - ~
i ~ 1.6 ~ G 2
8 3 Z
.4
1 e
rM I ~~~..
rr
~
tq. ~ 1
'~ coutot ~
r4 °Y l~l 1
8
+ rr
• .9
r
.°. ~ i ! ~ 1.7 cc
~ •1S • 1 Af~o:o
tOf
t
~
7 w
S
- •uf44
. Ipitas .~..... , s
~~,
gyp. +'n w I.S -.rt; .J - ,,.~
_
1lIrN ~• ~S ~
mrr i
7 _
1
~',
•• 2 i~r`e y y
~
~' rn.w.a.er+w
-6~ rf 1
II . ~ ~ 6 2.1 ~ ~
~~ 7
~ 1 ~4 so MO1
5 .9 ~~a ' '~' » i
9 1 .Ir a .
tlo. .+• ~~ : "A 3. ~
1 ~
` ~n~ '
1 3 ~ , ~ 680 \•2 ~ _ •~.
~ •S Jr[. ~ +~ R eJ ~ v wtst ~ .6 ~ Ew..w/irrn a~ •~3' err~f Jfs~ +~• 4 .4 `~~~a ! mo'b'
I.1 .9 1.5 ~ S~ to Clara = o~wso7ue. '9t ~ti}.8 -+ 11 +`' s6 .:•1 G21 C.
i ~„~ n n ~ ~s •~ ~y,.7 >v~ ~ + as M ~ .B 7i ..4 1.1 1.6 ':
3 t.2 f+s .S `i 7 , 2
^ vo ~ a RO. s •~6 ~, t a. l~ Mye nnr •4 ~
IIMIESIEAD 1.8 W 43 1'8 1 t ,
i tt;4 M .8. -~;. ,4 I ++R~y+y'~, ,, c;. 1.S rr . .8
e i . ~ 1.3 i > .9 i ~ ti 11 ~0~ ~l _ ~~ GV~ a ~.2 ` . ~ ,'. ~ MLLIMf~ ~` 1 W!
.a t~~eo_ .~ a .85an lose ~ ~ e.a.,*. , .. ,.1 .,
a.af t 4 8 ss w. I ssN c3 as .•.: 4+' c~+,~~t ,` ~..~ 1.5 ~.4
.~ ~ 1.8 atu 3 1.2 .5~~ .. ~ ava S t5 +a~ .4 o'~`fidf+ s~ ~~ ~ 1.7
"!' 2 $ 0 ~Ite S tt 1.6 1 ~+1.1 *7 ~ 1 r
tvt ~ Y 1.4 z I. S °' ~rti
swr. tror 1
~ ~ ~ 1.9 eteu 1.1 ~ .7,' yll • G8 I.S 4 ~y ~,~.~ ~ .1
2 2 i 2.1 ~ 2.1 1.7 '~ y rc ; , ~.8 ~` ~Fh'' = 1.7 ' ! a~*" + v~ `
w lur a svr. i °~
..e...~,1.9 ~o. ~ I.e M .6 Ca~btll ~ .2 ~ 1 .Ila ~ ~' ;c~ 1.0 Ku t.'C•'~ 1.6
f w urraE tv tt' < 1.2 ~ ~ '„4. ,4 ~}?F~ 1 .8 ••
.8 ~~ ~ 1.5 ~ I ~ 1.S rpi 1.1 •r..4
\ , •~ .7
~• ~ ~ • er.ln 4 tneceW = 1 / 2 1, 9'~ ~` ` Rs ^:rln,l 2.1 G21 4*F 1.1 colofE
a p•.eryrwrG' •~.. p ra ~ ~~J' s 1 S a .8
3 ~ ~ w ,~ tv ' .7 ~ 4 .7 srri ~, 3 .8 '~ ewuaur
1.6E 1.9 ern ' 1.8 ~ i c 7 ~ ~+a a 2.5 Y .4 '~ 1.4
~ 1 C.
~ 1.8 rrYr. ~f e'~ ~ w 9 r ~` ' y, ~. ~ 1.1
sl.. 1 ~ .7 >E
~ ; 1.1 '.e~ eb }~ 4 .1 i ,. SITE 1 ~ 1 6 1.68 Gi0 1.6
4' ~ ~ iir M_ + v!'°"' • g" r9•.S ~ S r ~ 1 1 .
•~' r ~r ~.S IItA ~ _r
a ., • . ~rwE tOSleLrp (Ib011 : w. •I .9 y wtos rrroEO ~ ~ w. <,~ sr' ~+ '~•~ eO .9 Y ~ f>t ..`
!tee s. s
4111Mtiu UY • , tai. +~ ~ ~ ~ G 1'1 KOfti w 1 8 M~ I. S 1 ~ 1.S AlyreeWw DI~e 1.7 ~ ~ 1.S ~ T[tlll4
.7 WI
~~ ~ .S '° 6tlravygv .a arenarr ^ea ~ ~~ Knr~ ~ ,1 8°~+Iir°, ~ 3
M~ VA 7
Y1J r.J ~•>. 7.~ ~ ~' Wl. 1 .
wulir ' i.IJ r r ~ 1.5 1 f+~ ~-~
'.^ Iro. ~~, aft
No scA~E a6~tos:~; "~'•.. ... a:.. ,: 1.3 ~:
Et Paseo de Saratoga
(3ertsral Plan Amsndrnent 1889
1i
FIGURE 1-1
REGIONAL MAP
8pwd:AAA maps
c~rrHru
sFO z~e2s.AA
I v
.,,w
,~--~ '
t
YI ~t
>W ~ F
~ ~ I
i
~^ ~ ~i I
t ~• -~~ ~-
~~, r~oelnl~ mar
ur a rsr~ ; ~/ i
_'a/~
=~~ ;t y
.i ' Sf ~ ' ~ 7
Ir.LM11CW
(~~. ~~...,
w '~1j1_ ilf1~~ 1
NO 8CALE
EI Paseo de Saratoga
General Plan Amendrnent•1989
.. I
.~.- r M
_rrrn
'~ ' i•
'\~~~__
FIGURE 1-2
VICIMTY MAP
Soures:AAA maps
r s rrr+
!~
~rrrw~
~w
~~
SFO 2782S.AA
COMMERCIAL ~ '~;~~ ••
. :, _.,.•
..•
_ ,.
~.,o......_._,.._,.._~.._ ..._..,.. ~~.,. - , ,
s '~
t ~ IjU~TO ROAD .......-. J~~• .,~`~
1 ~
. ~~• ~ • ».. •s
~,*. : 7
'„ ~ % ~:~ ,•;~('i~;,~ BANK.. ~r ~ ti'~'. `, ~
Y
~~ } "~`'' `: ~~ ` `> COMMERCIAL
SINGLE • ~,~.`.+ ~~~~` ,~,~•~,~ ~' ~.~; _
FAMILY ~ '` :~, ' ~~ ~,,,. `rqq ` .
!~ ~ . 9
RESIDENCES ~ + , v~ ~ ~~~ ,~.. ;t~}'~~1+ ,, ~, . -~,
MARKET ~ ? ,,~ '~-` ~•~
1 ~ ~~ ~4 F
"'~ y ~ 5 •~ ~.~ BANK . ~..~;~.
,~.:_.
r. ~• •~~` ~- ~'.'.~a :, ~• ~?~~. ~, STATION-,~~,'~
,~ ~~'~ I RETAIL. "``i,'tt ;t ~ ;: •. ~~>
~„~' ~~ ~ ,hid` ``~"~~~!!y~'I~~CT''' ~~• ~~~ ,~"„
~ ~ . BANK ~ ;. ,~^
SINGLE ~I "; ~~~ .~1/, w\\ ~~,~~~~ .~''~ _~'
f,.
RESIDENCES jj ~ = kl ~~ •' ~ "~ /~ rf
..
' '~ `~>> ~ WESTGATE
I i ~.~ f. •' ..' •. ~... ' . ~~
~f,,'~~. ~ ~ • ~ MALL
THEATER a' • RESTAURANT es
`, .a
:~
~ ~~ ~J~~
,.
1 '~~ ,/
-. ~~. //i
OFFICE ~
FAMILY a-r~ '~'
RESIDENCES • ~,~:k ; ./-
a~, ~ %r ~ ~
.' ~~
• ~ • MULTI-FAMILY
'' ~• • ~ RESIDENCES
MULTI- •.
FA M I LY ~s ''
RESIDENCES.
• t ~!'_
Qen •,,.,~ „~
NO SCALE
FIGURE 1-3
EXISTING SITE AND'
ADJACENT LAND USES
---p~F~MH/iL-
development uses. The approximate Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
for this development assumption would be 1.15. Zt is
assumed that none of the structures would exceed the 45-foot
height limit. Development of this type would likely be
three stories. It is assumed that some or all of the
required parking for the AO/RD uses would be provided in a
parking structure located adjacent to the amendment-site on
the portion of the E1 Paseo Shopping Center site to remain
Regional Commercial.
Specific plans have not yet been developed for the project.
However, the applicant intends to increase the size of the
existing theater and market and construct a parking garage
on the portion of the site that is designated Regional
Commercial, which is not part of this General Plan
Amendment. Figure 1-4 shows the site and land use proposed.
B. ALTERNATIVE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The Alternative to the Project is not included in the
General Plan amendment proposal, but is analyzed as an
alternative land use for the site in conformance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). This alternative is analyzed at the same level of
detail as the Proposed Project and in a parallel format to
facilitate comparison. ~ -
See Section 5 for a discussion of the "No Project", "Other
Location", and other "Land Use" alternatives.
This Alternative to the Project assumes that approximately
15 acres of the 20-acre General Plan amendment site will
develop with 600,000 square feet of uses permitted under the
AO/RD designation. It also assumes that approximately
5 acres of the E1 Paseo Shopping Center site would develop
with 200 residential units, under the designation of Very
High Density Residential (25 to 40 DU/AC). Figure 1-5 shows
the site and land use assumptions of the Alternative to the
Project. The Alternative would result in FAR of .92 for the
AO/RD development and a residential density of 40 dwelling
units per acre. Administrative Offices/Research and
Development with FAR of .92 would likely result in three-
story buildings with surface parking. Residential
1-5
SJCR41/311.50
ITEM N0. 17
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 8, 1986
Staff Report Staff Report outlining procedural steps
California Environmental followed by City to comply with the
Quality Act - EIR California Environmental Quality Act
Review Process (CEQA) in the Environmental Impact Report
process.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That this report be noted and filed.
STAFF DISCUSSION
At its meeting of May 27, 1986 the Commission directed Staff to prepare an
informational report outlining the procedural steps followed by the City
in order to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
This item was continued from the meetings of June 10 and June 24 due to
the lateness of the hour.
I. Background
The California Environmental Quality Act was originally enacted by the
Legislature in 1970, and was patterned after the federal National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The impact of the environmental
legislation did not hold much meaning for public agencies until 1972, when
the California Supreme Court decided the case known as Friends of Mammoth
v. Board of Supervisors. In this case, the court determined that the term
"project" as used in CEQA, includes private activities which are subject
to governmental permit control. In the interim, since 1972, the
definition of what constitutes a project has been expanded further. At
this time, the definition of a "project" is:
"Project" means the whole of an action, which has potential for
resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or
ultimately, and that is any of the following:
(1) An activity directly undertaken by any public agency including,
but not limited to, public works construction and related
activities, clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing
public structures, enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances,
and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or
elements.
(2) An activity undertaken by a person which is supported in whole or
in part through public agency contracts, grants, subsidies,
loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public
agencies.
EIR Review Process -2- July 8, 1986
(3) An activity involving the issuance to a person of a lease,
permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use
by one or more public agencies.
II. Purpose
The basic purpose of CEQA is as follows:
1. Inform governmental decision - makers and the public about the
potential, significant environmental effects of proposed
activities.
2. Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or
significantly reduced.
3. Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by
requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or
mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the
changes to be feasible.
4. Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency
approved the project in the manner the agency chose if
significant environmental effects are involved.
From the foregoing, it can be seen that the environmental review for a
project serves to provide sufficient information regarding the projects'
environmental impact on which the public agency can make a sound decision.
The different levels of environmental review will be discussed in the
following section.
III. Levels of Environmental Review
In complying with the requirements of CEQA, a public agency may follow one
of three levels of environmental review for a project.
The first level includes those projects which are determined by the State
to be "Exempt". Typically, these exempt projects include alteration or
maintenance of existing facilities, minor alterations or construction of
small structures such as single family residences, carports and swimming
pools. At the present time, there are 29 classes of projects that have
been determined by the State to be exempt from the requirement of CEQA.
These exemptions are termed "Categorical Exemptions".
The second level of environmental review includes projects which are not
categorically exempt, but which is determined not to have a significant
effect on the environmental. It is for these projects that a "Negative
Declaration" is prepared. The term "Negative Declaration" means a written
statement that is prepared by the City briefly describing the reasons that
a project that is not otherwise exempt, will not have a significant effect
on the environment and and therefore does not require an EIR. If a
EIR Review Process -3- July 8, 1986
proposed project does have some significant impact on the environment, but
this impact can be mitigated, then the City can also issue a Negative
Declaration instead of requiring an EIR.
The information necessary to determine a project's impacts is contained in
two questionnaires. One questionnaire is completed by the applicant and
submitted by the applicant at the time a formal application is made. The
other is completed by Staff after reviewing the proposal. Both
questionnaires have been designed by the Secretary for Resources of the
State of California.
The third, and most complete, level of environmental review occurs when
the public agency requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be
prepared. The EIR may be focused on the major anticipated impacts of a
project, or it may be a full EIR in which all impacts must be addressed.
The attached flow chart illustrates the procedures that are followed by
the City of California in processing an application through the
requirements of CEQA.
--- CITY OF CAMPELL
E.I.R. FLOW CHART
APPLICATION MADE
FOR ANY DISCRETIONARY LAND
PROJECT
INCLUDES E 1 R1OUESTIONNAIRE
I
QUESTIONNAIRE IS
REVIEWED BY STAFF.
DETERMINATION WITHIN 5 DAYS
DETERMINATION BY STAFF
THAT PROJECT IS E%EMPT OR THAT IT
••••••••••••• WILL HAVE NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT.
APPEAL TO P. C.
BY ANYONE WISHING TO CONTEST THE
• STAF~F/DECISION
f
P. C. UPHOLDS DETERMINATION
STAFF DECISION- THIS BY P. C. ~ E.I.R.
PROJECT WILL HAVE NO REQUIRED
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
j
NEGATIVE IMPACT DEC-
LARATION (IF REQUIRED)
• • • IS FILED WITH COUNTY
CLERK
DETERMINATION BY STAFF
THAT PROJECT WILL REQUIRE AN E I R.
FURTHER ACTION ON THE APPLICATION IS
POSTPONED PENDING COMPLETION OF THE
E.LR.
APPLICANT DOES APPLICANT DOES
APPEAL TO P. C. NOT APPEAL TO
P. C. UPHOLDS
STAFF DECISION- AN
E I.R. IS REQUIRED
CONSULTANT PREPARES
E.I.R. FOR THE CITY OF
CAMPBELL
P. C. ACCEPTS THE E.I.R. OR
CONTINUES IT PEN DING REVISIONS
RLSI+r7N5F. 7f1 fS512S
REVISIONS
P.C. CERTIFIES
E.I.R.
PW:P:iR11TfRJ nr rfx:v. !'fR
P. C.
DETERMINATION
PROJECT WILL NOT
HAVE SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT 11
1
NEGATIVE IMPACT DEC-
LARATION (IF REQUIRED)
IS FILED WITH COUNTY
CLERK
P. C. REJECTS THE E.I.R.
r
APPLICANT DOES NOT
APPEAL TO THE C. C.
E.I.R. REJECTED
C.C. OVERRULES
P. C. - E. I . R.
ACCEPTED
i
P. C. CONSIDERS PROJECT
APPLICANT DOES
APPEAL TO C. C.
C.C. UPHOLDS P.C.
E.I.R. -REJECTED
PLANNING COMMISSION MTG.
JUNE 24, 1986
MISCELLANEOUS
EIR Review Process Informational item outlining EIR review
process.
Mr. Stafford reported that Staff is recommending a continuance of this
item due to the lateness of the hour.
It was the consensus of the Commission that this item be continued to the
Planning Commission meeting of July 8, 1986.
~,.
Resolution No. 6386 - M/S: Chamberlin, Podgorsek - authorizing Mayor to execute
authorizing Mayor to an Agreement with Kevin C. Duggan for his employment as
execute agreement City Manager. Motion adopted by the following roll call
with Kevin C. Duggan vote:
for employment as
City Manager AYES : Counci]menbers: Chamberlin, Ashworth, Kotowski,
Podgorsek, Doetsch
NOES Counci].members: None
ABSIIV'!': Councilmembers: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS AMID INIR~IJCTION OF ORDTKANCE~
Public Hearing - This is the time and place for public hearing to consider
Introduction of city-initiated amendments to the Campbell Munidipal Code
Ordinance - city- prohibiting use of model airplanes and rockets in City
initiated amendments parks and Carmunity Center.
to Municipal Code -
prohibiting use of Acting Recreation and Caimdnity Services Director Gale -
model airplanes and Report dated October 16, 1984. -
rockets in City
parks and Cannunity City Manager Duggan recannended that the public hearing
Center be opened and that consideration of this matter be
continued to the December 4, 1984 City Council Meeting.
Mayor Doetsch declared the public hearing open and asked
_. if anyone in the audience wished to be heard.
There being no one wishing to be heard, M/S: Podgorsek,
Kotowski - that the public hearing be continued to the
December 4, 1984 City Council Meeting. Motion adopted
unanimously.
ADVISORY OCl4IlVSISSICd~S AMID CQVIlVIITTEES - MINUI~S AND ACTIN ~ ~IDATIONS
Planning Commission Planning Director Kee - Report dated October 16, 1984.
recannendation re:
Eavironmental Review Following discussion, it was the consensu.S of the Council-
process - California manbers that this item be added to the Joint City Council/
Environmental Quality Planning Commission Study Session scheduled for October 30,
Act 1984. It was also ~e City Council's recatmendation that
this matter should be agendized for a public hearing.
Planning Director Kee stated that it was necessary to
establish procedures for the preparation of negative
declarations in order to canply with State guidelines and
recccrtnended that a resolution be adopted at this time.
-6-
Resolution No. 6837 - M/S: Podgorsek, Kotowski - to adopt a resolution
establishing pro- establishing procedures for thepreparation of negative
cedures for prepara- declarations pursuant to the California Envirorn~ental
tion of Negative Quality Act (Ck761A). Motion adopted by the following
Declarations roll call vote:
pursuant to the
California AYES : Councilmanbers: Chamberlin, Ashworth, Kotowski,
Environmental Podgorsek, Doetsch
Quality Act
(C~7QA) NC~.S Councilmernbers: None
AB~~TI': Counci]maN~ers: None
BIDS
Resolution No. 6838 - Police Chief Burr - Report dated October 16, 1984.
awarding bid for
armored vests M/S: Podgnrsek, Kotowski - awarding contract for
the purchase of armored vests for the Police Departanent
to Summit Uniform Corporation. Motion adopted by the
following roll call vote:
AYES CouncilmemUers: Chamberlin, Ashworth, Kotowski,
Podgorsek, Doetsch
NOES Counci7members: None
ABSErTr: Counciln~embers: None
CITY CCJUNCIL - C~uA~IITI~E REPCff~'1'S - NEW ITEINS
Resolution No. 6839 - M/S: Podgorsek, Ashworth - to adopt a resolution ccamending
ccnmending Congress- Congressnan Norman Y. Mineta. Motion adopted by the following
man Norman Y. Mineta roll call vote:
AYES ; Councilmenbers: Chamberlin, Ashworth, Kotowski,
Podgorsek, Doetsch
NOES : Council,mambers: None
ABSEI1r: Councilmemb~rs: None
Minute Action - City Manager Duggan - Report dated October 16, 1984.
position on State
Initiative - M/S: Ashworth, (~~amberlin - that the City Council go on
Proposition 36 record opposing Proposition 36 (Jarvis IV). Motion
(Jarvis IV) adopted by a 4-Q-4-1 vote, Mayor Doetsch abstaining.
-7-
r'_,..
CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
OCTOBER 30, 1984
TO: CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING STAFF
SUBJECT: EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROCEDURES FOR SELECTION
OF CONSULTANTS TO PREPARE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORTS FOR THE CITY
DISCUSSION
At its meeting of October 16, 1984 the City Council
directed that the issue of the procedures for the selection
at the Study Session of October 30, 1984. Described
briefly below are the existing procedures and the proposed
procedures.
EXISTING PROCEDURES
--- - - -- -------
Currently the City maintains a list of consultants that
have been approved by the Planning Commission to prepare
Environmental Impact Report'S far the City. When the
Planning Director determines that an Environmental Impact
Report is required for a project the applicant would select
from this list the consultant to do the work. The Planning
Director would send the selected consultant a list
outlining the issues to be discussed in the Environmental
Impact Report. The consultant would indicate the cost of
the report and the applicant would deposit with the City
funds to cover the cost.
One problem with this procedure is that a question of
objectivity results. The consultant in this case is
working for the applicant and being paid by the applicant.
It is Staff's opinion that it is more difficult in this
situation to receive an unbiased report.
Another problem is that it is more difficult for Staff to
work with the consultant. For example, if mayor changes or
additions are required which the consultant did not budget
for, he must go back to the applicant to seek approval.
PROPOSED PROCEDURES
-------- -- -------
Under the procedures recommended by the Planning
Commission, the Planning Director would send Requests For
Proposals CRFP) to all the consultants on the City's list.
The RFP would outline the issues to be addressed in the
Environmental Impact Report. From the proposals received
from the consultants, the Planning Director would select
the most qualified one to complete the Environmental Impact
Report. The applicant would then deposit with
-2-
the City an amount to cover the cost of the report plus ten
percent.
The first advantage of this procedure is that the City gets
to choose the consultant which it believes will do the best
fob on the report.
Second, under this procedure the consultant is working
directly for the City which should result in an unbiased
report. There should be no pressure from the applicant
influencing the consultant.
Third, it should be easier for Staff to work with the
consultant in that the consultant will no longer have to
check with the applicant prior to making mayor changes or
additions to the report.
One disadvantage of the procedure is that it will probably
slow down the Environmental Impact Report process. It is
estimated that it will probably add about 30 days to the
process for sending out the RFP, reviewing the proposals
submitted and selecting the consultant.
*~*
f:environ
RESOLUTION N0. 683?
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CAt~BELL ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR THE PREPARATION
OF NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS PURSt1AN'T TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIROrIl~2TTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA).
The City Co~mcil of the City of Campbell, California, does hereby
resolve as follows:
SECTION ONE: Prior Regulations. This Resolution supersedes City
Council Resolution No. 5164, Sections Seven and Eight.
SECTION TWO: Definitions.
1. "City" shall mean the City of Campbell, California.
2. "Director" shall mean the Planning Director, Public Works Director,
Building Official, or ethler department heads.
3. "Lead Agency" means the public agency which has the principal
.responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The Lead Agency
will decide whether an EIR or Negative Declaration will be required for the
project and will cause the document to be prepared.
4. "Responsible Agency" means a public agency which proposes to carry
out or approve a project, for which a Lead Agency is preparing or has pre-
pared an AIR or Negative Declaration. For the purposes of CEQA, the term
"Responsible Agency" includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency
which have discretionary approval power over the project.
5. "Trustee Agency" means a state agency having jurisdiction by law
over natural resources affected by a project which are held in trust for
the people of the State of California.
SECTION THREE: Adoption of State Guidelines By Reference.
Reference is hereby made to the Law and Guidelines for implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, which are hereby
made the official guidelines for projects which are before the City.
SECTION FOUR: Authority.
The Directors shall be responsible for determining the applicability
of CEQA to projects and applications which are normally adminstered by
their department, and are resonsible for compliance with this Resolution
and CEQA.
Resolution No. ri387 2.
SECTION FIVE: Negative Declarations.
1. After completion of the initial study by Staff for a project which is
not categorically or ministerially exempt, the Director shall prepare a Negative
Declaration for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or City Council
when either:
a.. The Intitial Study shows that there is no substantial evi-
dence that the project may have a significant effect vn the envirozunent;or
b. The Initial Study identified potentially significant effect
but:
(l) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or
agreed to by the applicant before the proposed Negative Declaration is
released for public review would avid the effects or mitigate the effects
to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that
the project as revised may have a significant effect on the enviYVnment.
The Director shall prepare the Negative Declaration as expeditiously
as possible, but it must be prepared not later than 45 days from the date
the project application is accepted as complete.
2, a. Notice that a Negative Declaration has been prepared for a
proposed project shall be given by publication at least ten (10) days
prior to consideration by the City for approval in a newspaper of general
circulation in the area affected by the proposed project.
b. The Director also shall send a copy of the notice with the
proposed Negative Declaratia~n to every Responsible Agency and Trustee
Agency concerned with the project and every other public agency with
jurisdiction by law over resources affected by the project.
3, a. The Negative Declaration shall be considered for approval
prior to consideration of the project itself at the first hearing on the
project. In the case where the City Council is the decision-making body,
the Plarming Commission shall first consider the Negative Declaration
and forward a recalmendation to the City Council along with the recommenda-
tion on the project.
b. Prior to approving the project, the decision making body
shall consider the proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments
received during the public review process. The decision making body shall
approve the Negative Declaration if it finds, on the basis of the Initial
Study and any co~ments received, that there is no substantial evidence that
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Resolution No. ~,s87
3.
c. A decision by the Planning Comnission to approve a Negative
Declaration or require an EIR, when it is the decision-making body, may
be appealed to the City Council within 10 days from the date of decision.
4. After adecision-making body approves a project for which a
Negative Declaration has been prepared, the Director shall file a Notice
of Determination with the County Clerk's office. The filing of the Notice
of Determination and the posting on a list of such notices starts a 30-day
statute of limitations on corn t challenges to the approval under CBQA.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of October 1984, by the
following roll call vote:
~ AYES Councilmembers: Chamberlin, Ashworth, Kotowski, Podgorsek, Doetsch
NOES Councilmembers: None
-ABSENT: Councilmer.~bers: None
APPROVED:
1 / c
a • oets , ~ ter. , yor
ATTEST:
e G. Coyne, i Cler
Planning Commission recommendation regarding the Citv's policies and
procedures for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act
(~QA)
PLANNING OMISSION REC~N~IDATION
1. That the City Council adopt the attached resolution (Exhibit B)
establishing objectives, criteria, and procedures for the environ-
mental evaluation of projects and the preparation of negative de-
clarations and Environmental Impact Reports pursuant to the Calif-
ornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
2. That the City Council direct the Planning Commission to review
and update the list of consultants approved to prepare EIR's for
the City.
DISCUSSION
Attached for the Council's review is Exhibit A, Resolution No. 5164
(adopted by the City Council on March 28, 1977) which sets forth the
environnnental review process for the City. Since 1977 there have been
changes in the law and changes in the City which Staff feels warrant
a revision of this resolution.
Attached for the Councils review is Exhibit B (a revision of the pre-
vious resolution) which suggests some changes in the environmental pro-
cess. More specifically, Exhibit B revises the procedure for approving
Negative Declarations, revises the method by which consultants are
selected to .prepare EIR's, and provides more detail regarding the en-
vironmental review process., Discussed individually below are the changes
to the Negative Declaration and EIR process.
1. Negative Declarations (Neg. Dec.)
A Negative Declaration is prepared for a project when it is determined
that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
In the past, Staff has been delegated the responsibility of approving
Negative Declarations. However, current law requires that the decision-
making body approve the Negative .Declaration prior to reviewing the pro-
ject. If the Planning Commission is the decision-making body for a pro-
ject, it must review and approve the Neg. Dec. prior to reviewing the
project. If the City Council is the decision-making body, the Planning
Commission must make a recommendation to the City Council regarding ap-
proval of the Neg. Dec. and the project. The Council then must approve the
Neg. Dec. prior to considering the project.
P~PA~C ~ Planning Staff ~~ Oct. 16, 1984
On future applications for which a Neg. Dec. has been prepared by the
Planning Director, the first recommendation on the Staff Comment Sheet will
be for approval of the ,Neg. Dec. If the Commission approves or recommends
approval of the Neg. Dec. then it may go on and review the project. If
the Commisison fails to approve the Neg. Dec., the project cannot be con-
sidered and additional information or an EIR may be required. A decision
by the Commission for approval of denial of the Neg. Dec. could be appealed
to the City Council.
This procedure would not delay the approval process, unless a Neg. Dec. was
found to be unacceptable by either the Planning ~mnission or the City Council.
2. Pnviroazmental Impact Reports (EIR's)
~ Environmental Impact Report or Focused EIR is required for a-project when the
Planning Dixector .determaies'that a prmject~may have a: significant effect on .the
environment.. Currently, the EIR is prepared by a consultant that has been
approved by the City. The applicant may select one of the consultants from
the list and then the consultant pr res the EIR for the City. The applicant
must deposit payment for the EIR with the City, which makes payment to the
consultant for the EIR.
A concern has arisen with this consultant selection process in that it seems
to set up the consultant working for the applicant as apposed to working
directly for the City. A question of objectivity arises.
The revised resolution suggests a new selection process whereby the City
selects the consultant who works directly for the City. As stated in the
resolution, the Planning Director would send out Request for Proposals to
the consultants approved by the City. The Planning Director would review
the proposals submitted by the consultants and would maloe a determination which
of the consultants would prepare the EIR. In making this decision, the Director would
consider the consultant's expertise in the issues to be addressed in the EIR,
quality of previously prepared EIR's, and the time frame for completion. The
applicant would be required to deposit with the City an am~umt equal to the
cost of the EIR, plus an additional 10$ to cover any unexpected costs, the
excess to be returned. Staff is of the opinion that by using this selection
process the consultant would be working directly for the City and the
greatest objectivity should be achieved. Staff checked with several local
cities, and the following use a similar process whereby the City selects
the consultant: Los Gatos, Saratoga, S~auiyvale, and Cupertino.
One disadvantage of the systen is that it will probably add abourt 30 days
to the environmental review process for soliciting bids and selecting
the consultant.
LIST OF APPRCJVID CONSULTANTS
The City maintains a list of consultants which have been approved by the
Planning Commission to prepare EIR's for the City. This list contains 11
consultants and is attached for the Council's review. This list was
originally developed in 1981 and since that time several consultants have
been added to it. -Staff is of the opinion that this would be a good time
to review the entire list, and reapprove the consultants the City wishes
to utilize. Because traffic considerations seem to be one of the most
important issues addressed in every EIR, the Cotmnission recommends that much
consideration be given to a consultant's expertise in traffic studies. It
is recommended that a consultant have a Registered Traffic Engineer on
staff. In addition, the City's policy has been to use local firms for the
preparation of EIR's.
Staff proposes to send out letters to the consultants on the list, as well
as other consultants, requesting a statement of qualifications, references,
and possibly samples of work. The Staff and the Commission would review
the applicants and the Camlissim would compile a list of the most qualified
consultants.
COST
The recommended procedure will require additional Staff time to administer,
however it will not add any direct costs to the City.
EXHIBIT A
/• ~ ~. ~
RESOLUTION NO. 5164
BEING A RESOLUTIOW OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL,
CALIFORr~IA, ESTAaLIStIING ODJECTIVES, CRITERIA, ArJD PROCEDURES
FOR THC EVALUATION OF PROJECTS AND THE PREPARATIOi~ OF ENVIROtt!~IEh1~Al
IMPACT RCPOttTS PURSUAfiT TO SECTION 21032 OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
RESOURCES CODE AND SECTiOr~S 15014 AND 15050 OF THE CALIFDRrrIA
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. ..
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL; CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLL04;5:
SECTIOtt ONE: PRIOR REGULATIONS. This Resolution supersedes City Council
Resolution dumber 3766.
SECT]Oi~l TWO: DEFINITION. The use of the word "City" in this Resolution shall
mean the City of Campbell, California.
SECTION THREE: ADOPTION OF STATE GUIDELINES BY REFEREWCE. Reference is hereby
made to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act of~1970, as amended, which are adopted and certified by the Secretary
for Resources of the Resources Agency of the State of California. Uniess
other-vise stated below, these guidelines, as amended, which are set forth in
Title 1Q, Division 6 of the California Administrative Code, are hereby made the
official guidelines of the City of Cs:~ipbell pursuant to the requir~;nents of
Section 21082 of the Public Resources Code to the extent to which guidelines may
be made applicable to applications for projects which are before the City.
SECTION FOUR: OIREC70R. The term "d'i'rector", as used in the Resolution, shall
mean the Planning Director, Public Works Oirector,'Buiiding Official, or other
department heads.
SECTION FIVE: AUTIIORITY. The directors shall be responsible for determining
the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 to projects
and applications ~vl~ich are normally administered~~by their department, and are
responsible for compliance wish this Resolution and CEQA - 1970.
• ~- \
SECTIOi~ SI Y.: APPLI CATIO~~ .PROCEDURE.
(a) Upon applying for approval of any project which is not Categorically or
Ministerially exempt, the applicant shall provide information as required to
assist the Director in determining the environmental impact of a proposed project.
(b) The Director shall notify the applicant of the decision to require an
Environmental Impact Report within ten (10) working days from the date the
application was submitted.
(c) Environmental Impact Reports are to be prepared for the City of Campbell by
competent persons with expertise in the preparation of Environmental Impact
Reports and with the approval of the City. of Campbell. Any and all expenses
accrued in the preparation of any Environmental Impact Report shall be borne by
the applicant.
(d) The person or firm preparing an Environmental Impact Report for the City of
Campbell shall not be in any way associated with the applicant or the proposed
project. -•
(e) -7he City of Campbell shall maintain a list of persons and firms that are .
qualified to prepare Environmental Impact Reports. The appi~canz may serec~
another consultant to prepare the Environmental Impact Report; however, in such
a case c.he Director may refer the Draft Environmental Impact Report to another
independent consultant for analysis as to accuracy and objectivity. The applicant
shall pay costs incurred in such a referral, up to X200.00.
(f) A Draft Environmental Impart Report will not be accepted by the City of
Campbell for general circulation and review until the Director undertakes a
preliminary review of the Draft's acceptability relative to the given project and
its consistency with the Guidelines referred-to in Section Two, above. This
review period shall be no greater than ten (10) working days from the date of
submission to the City, unless the Draft is referred to another independent
consultant. as specified in (e) above.
_~_ •
C ~~
(g) Upon acceptance of the Draft Environmental Impact Report by the Director,
the applicant shall submit twenty (20) copies of the draft to the City for
' distribution and review. A minimum period of thirty (30) days shall be allo~ved
for review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report prior to public
hearing before the Planning Commission.
SECTIO~~ SEVLP~: INITIAL STUDY. When the Guidelines referred to in Section Trio,
above, call for the preparation of an Initial Study, forms EIR-1 and EIR-2 to eg ther
shall constitute such an initial study. Form EIR-1 shall be completed by the
applicant and submitted as part of the application. Form EIR-2 shall be completed
by City staff.
SECTI01~ EIGHT: NOTICES. ~ .
1. Notice that a Negative Declaration has been prepared fora proposed project
shall be given by one of the following:
(a) Publication at least ten (10) days prior to consideration by the City
for approval in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected
by the proposed project;
(b) By posting of notice by the City on and aff site in the area
where the project is to be located at least five {5) days prior to
consideration by the City for approval;
(c) By direct mailing to owners of property contiguous to the project at .
least five (5) days prior to consideration by the City for approval.
2. .Notice of Determination.
(a) After making a decision to carry out.or approve a project for which
a Negative Declaration has been prepared, the City shall file a Notice
• f
of Determination, with a copy of the Negative Declaration attached,
with the County Clerk's office. The filing of a Notice of Determination
with the County Clerk's office starts a thirty (30) day statute of
limitation on Court challenges to the approval under CEQA.
-3-
. ~' . G
(b) After the City certifies a final Environmental Impact Report and
approves or disapproves the project for which an Environmental Impact
Report was prepared, a Notice of Determination shall be filed with the
County Clerk. The filing of a Notice of Determination starts a thirty
(30) day statute of limitation on Court challenges to the approval under
CEQA.
3. Notice of Completion.
(a) if an Environmental Impact Report is required for a particular project,
a Notice of Completion shall be filed with the Secretary for the
Resources Agency upon acceptance by the City of the Draft Environmental.
Impact Report. Such Notice of Completion shall be filed at least thirty
(30~ days prior to the date of public hearing to consider the '
Environmental Impact Report. .
' (b) At the_time the City submits the Notice of Completion with the Secretary
for the Resources Agency, notice shall also be sent for publication
setting the date of a public.hearing before the Planning Commission
for consideration of the Environmental Impact Report.
4. Notice of Exemption.
A Notice of Exemption shall be ailed with the County Clerk's ~•.fice for all
projects which are determined to be exempt fra~n the provisions of LEQA of 1970..
SECTION NINE: FEES. for any project which is not exempt from the regulations
pertaining to CEQA, a filing fee of $25.00 shall be submitted to tt~e City in order
to help defray administration costs. Said fee shall be in addition to other
application fees.
SECTION TEN: At1ENDAtENTS. This resolution may be amended from time to time, as
warranted.
-4-
-- -~- EXHIBIT B
r`t _
RFSOLUTTON N0. PLANNI ti ~ DEPAJiT tit[ `:
BFrING A RESOLtTlTOr1 OF TIC CITY COWCIL OF TfTE CITY OF
CAN~BELL ESTABLISHING OBJECTIVES, QtITERIA, AND PRO-
CED[JRES POR ~ P.NiTIRONMFNTAL EVALi1ATZON OF PI~TECTS
AND TIC PREPARATI(N OAF NEGATIVE DECLARRTIONS AND
PNVIROI~TfAL D~ACf REPORTS PURSUANT TO TES
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QTIALITY ACT (CBQA) .
The City Co~aicil of the City of Campbell, California, does hereby
reso~ve as follows:
SE:CTIarI Qom: Prior Regulations. This Resolution supersedes City
O~uncil Resolution No. 5164.
SECTION TWO: Definitions.
1. "City" shall mlran the City of Campbell, California.
2. 'director" shall mean the Planning Director, Public Works Director,
Building Official, -or other department heads.
3.j "Lead Agency" means the public agency which has the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The Lead Agenry
will decide whether an EIR or Negative Declaration will be required for the
project and~will cause the doct~nent to be prepared.
4. '~tesponsible Agenry" means a public agency which proposes to carry
art or appmve a project, for which a Lead Agenry is Preparing or has pre-
pared sn EIR or Negative Declaration. For the purposes of CE3QA, the term
•~tesponsible Agency" includes all public agencies other than the Lead agency
rich have discretionary approval power over the project.
5. •~Yustee Agency" means a state agency having jia'isdiction by law
over natural resources affected by a project which are held in trust for
the people of the State of California.
SECTION THEtEE: Adoption of State (sidelines By Reference.
Reference is hereby made to the Law and Qiidelines for implementation
of the California plnviiczune~ntal Quality Act, as amended, which are hereby
made the official guidelines for projects which are before the City.
SECTION FOUR:' Authority.
The Directors shall be responsible for deteYmining the applicability
of CBQiA to projects and applications which are normally aaninistered by
their department, and are responsible for compliance with this Resolution
and CBQA.
Resolution No.
2.
SECTION FIVE: Negative Declarations.
1. After completion of the initial study by Staff for a project which is
not categorically or ministerially exempt, the Director shall prepare a Negative
Declaration for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or City O~uicil
when either:
a. The Intitial Study shows that there is no substantial evi-
dence that the project may have a significant effect on the emirarmient;or
b. The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects
but:
(l) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or
agreed tD by the applicant before the proposed Negative Declaration is
released for public review would avid the effects oz mitigate the effects
to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that
the project as revised may have a significant effect on the envirornnent.
The Director shall prepare the Negative Declaration as expeditiously
as possible, but it must be prepared not later than 45 days from the date
the project application is accepted as complete.
2. s. Notice that a Negative Declaration has been prepared for a
proposed project shall be given by publication at least ten (10) days
prior to consideration by the City for approval in a newspaper of general
circulation in the area affected by the proposed project.
b. The Director also shall send a copy of the notice with the
proposed Negative Declaration to every Responsible agency and Trustee
agency concerned with the project and every other public agency with
jurisdiction by law over resources affected by the project.
3. a. The Negative Declaration shall be amsidered for approval
prior to consideration of the project itself at the first hearing on the
project. In the case where the City Council is the decision-making body,
the Plarming Commission shall first eaa~sider the Negative Declaration
and forMrard a reoomnendation to the City Caaaicil almg with the reoamnenda-
tion on the project.
b. Prior to approving the project, the decision making body
shall consider the proposed Negative Declaration together with any eomnents
received during the public review process. the decision asking body shall
approve the Negative Declaration if it finds, on the basis of the Initial
Study and any comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Resolution No. ~ __ 3.
c. A decision by the Planning Commission to approve a Negative
Declaration or require an EIR, when it is the decision making body, may
be appealed to the City Caaicil within 10 days from the date of decision.
4.~ After a decision making body approves a project for which a
Negative Declaration has been prepared, the Director shall file a Notice
of Determination with the County Clerk's office. The filing of the Notice
of Deterntiination and the posting an a list of such notices starts a 30-day
statute of limitations on crnat challenges to the approval under CBQA.
SECTION SIX: Pnvimnmental Impact Reports.
1. a. After completion of the Initial Study for any project which
is not categorically or ministerially exempt, the Director shall require
preparation of an Pavirornmental Impact Report ~ (pIR) wheT-he/she finds that the
project may have a significant effect on the emiro~nment. The decision to
require an EIR shall be made as expeditiously as possible, but in no case
shall the decision be later than 45 days from the date the project applica-
tion is accepted as cauplete.
b. The decision of the Director to require an EIR may be appealed
to the Planning Coamission within ten (10) days from the date of the decision.
c:' Immediately after deciding that an EIR is required fora pro-
ject, the Director shall send to each Responsible Agency, sod to each Trustee
Agenry (by Certified Mail) a Notice of Preparation stating that an EiR will
be prepared. The agencies shall have 45 days to respond with specific
detail about the scope and content of eaiviroirme~ntal information which mist
be included in the Draft EIR.
2. Envimrnme~ntal Impact Reports are to be prepared for the City of
Campbell by canzsulting firms with expertise in the preparation of EIR's
which have been approved by the Planning Oaimission. The City shall
maintain a list of approved consultants.
3. a. The Director shall prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP)
detailing the issues to be addressed in the EIR. The RFP shall be mailed
to the consultants an the City's list. Once proposals are received, the
Director shall select the consultant to prepare the EIR from the three
lowest bids. The Director shall consider the following 3n selecting the
firm; (A) the oansultants expertise in issues to be addressed; (B) quality
of previously prepared EIR's; and, (C) the time frame for canpleti:on.
Resolution No. 4•
b. The applicant shall bear all costs for the preparation of the
EIR. Prior to the consultant begirming work on the EIR, the applicant shall
deposit with the City an amount equal to the cost of the EIR plus an additional
10~ to cover any unexpected costs. Any-excess shall be returned to the appli-
cant. Any additional or unexpected costs shall bq borne by the applicant.
4. a. The consultant shall first submit an Ac~ninistrative Draft EIR.
The Director shall review the draft's acceptability relative to"the given
project and its consiste~y with the CBQA guidelines. ice the Administra-
tive Draft is acceptable to the Director, the consultant shall submit 30
copies of the Draft Enviro~noental Impact Report to the City for distribution
and review.
b. A minimnn period of 30 days (but not longer than 90 days) shall
be allowed for review and comneit on the Draft EIR.
c. As soon as the Draft EIR is submitted, the Director shall file
- a Notice of Completion with the State Secretary of Resources. Also at this
time, the Director shall provide public notice of the availability of the
Draft EIR and the Planning Gomnission public hearing date. This notice
shall be given by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the
area effected by the proposed project at the earliest possible publication
date.
S. a. ice the review period has ended, the oo~nsultant shall prepare
a Final EIR which includes responses to oomne~nts received during the review
period.
b. The Final EIR shall be considered at a public hearing prior to
oansideration of the project itself. In the case where the City Council is
the decision-making body, the Planning Camnission shall first hold a public
hearing and forward a reco®neidation m be considered at the City O~uncil
public hearing along with a reoomne~ndati.on on the project.
c. The decision-making body Est certify that the Final EIR is
complete and must consider the information eo~mained in the Final EIR prior
tQ considering the project itself.
6. The decision~a]cing body shall not appmve a project for which an
EIR was prepared unless either:
a. The project as approved will not have a significant effect
on the envira~m-ent; or
b. The City has
(l) Eliminated or substantially lessened all significant
effects on the envirornoent where feasible and substantiated it with findings.
Resolution No. S•
(2) Determined that any remaining significant effects on the
emrirozmrent are found to be uaawidable aue to overriding concerns. Findings
and a Statement of Overriding Oonsideratians are required.
c. 1~Pith respect to a project which includes housing development,
the decision making body shall not reduce the proposed rnmber of housing
units as a mitigation measure if it determines that there is another feasible
specific mitigation measure available that will provide a canparable level of
mitigation.
7. a. The Director shall file a Notice of Determination following each
project approval for which an EIR was considered. The filing of the Notice
of Determination starts a 30-day statute of limitations on court challenges
to the approval under CBQA.
b. The consultant shall provide a Dopy of the certified, Final
IIR to each Responsible ~ger-ry.
~.,~ ~i~'
DATE: August 20, 1984 cc:
'T0: Planning Commission
s
FROM: Jo Ann Fairbanks
RE: City EIR Consultan Selection Process
City~ ouncil
Planll~ng~ 6taff'
Of late, I have had much concern over the quality of EIRs that
have been before the Planning Commission for consideration. in
connection with applications. I am hereby requesting that the
Commission consider re-evaluating and making appropriate changes
in the criteria for approving EI$ consultants.
My request comes from specific concerns over what I consider the
flimsy mitigating measures that have been offered on recent
projects. I have been finding that I don't believe them to be
what I would call "real;" I find them definitely borderline,
and minimal in complying with CEQA guidelines.
While EIRs are for information purposes only for use by
decision-making bodies in considering project plans, I believe
that this lightweight nature of these mitigating measures makes
them of questionable use and leaves our decision-making bodies
subject to, in my opinion, unwarranted criticism for accepting
these documents as complete and using, or considering using,
many of the measures therein. The implication in that
acceptance goes hand-in-hand with finding these measures
acceptable and viable for the impacts of the project(s) to
which they apply.
I have attached copies of portions of recent EIRs to demonstrate
the areas that are unacceptable to me.
Mitigating measures using term s such as "suggest," "encourage,"
"promote," "incentives" are not truly mitigating measures as
they are not mandated and never "see the Light of day," and
therefore do not mitigate project impacts. Additionally, the
mitigating measure of a City changing zoning in other parts of
the City to accommodate a particular project I find particularly
distressing as it suggests that a city General Plan is to be
taken lightly and that long-term planning is of questionable
value in city planning itself. General plans, zoning, and
other ordinances obviously were designed so that citizens could
rest (somewhat) assured in the knowledge that they won't wake
up in the morning and find that the R-1 zoning across from their
family home has suddenly become Commercial-PD.
In considering criteria and in re-considering consultants, I
would like to review previous reports of these consultants; I
would like to feel comfortable that their employees who prepare
and offer expert advice are qualified and certified in the areas
which they will address. I would also welcome the input of our
City Planning Staff in the areas that they believe wou]~' be
important for the consultant to.address and criteria is ~ee~t•
'before admitting any consultant to Campbell's approved list.
In summary, I am finding that EIRs which have recently come
before me are minimally prepared, barely meeting CEQA guidelines,
and contain questionable mitigating measures. I am therefore
requesting that the Planning Commission:
1) Reconsider the guidelines and criteria for adding
consultants to an approved list for EIR preparation;
2) If and when any new guidelines are formed, that the present
approved list be re-evaluated under the new guidelines;
3) That the Planning Commission forward these guidelines to
the City Council for their consideration and adoption.
Attachments
TABLE 2-1. SUI~IARY OF POTENTIAI. D~IPACTS AND PROPOSED MITSATIOH IEASBRES
SECTION/IMPACT MITIGATION MEASIIRE
..
The pro~eet xould create nex / The City of Campbell should re-
employment and remove the poten- designate additional land Por high
tial Por residential develop- density residential used to compensate
ment of a residentially planned for the loss of future residential
and zoned parcel. uses on the project site and in-
creased housing demand.
The project Would displace the
McConnell House, an on site
structure of potential historic
value in Campbell.
Tie applicant should contact the city's
Hist:or.ic Preservation Board and
and coordinate measures to mitigate
for the loss of the McConnell House,
as necessary.
The pro~eet xould conflict xith
the Level of Service policies of
the ci ties of Campbell and San
Jose at the folloxing inter-
sections:
- Bascom Avenue/Campbell Avenue
(P. M., xithout 900 E. Hamilton
Pro~eet ).
-Hamilton Avenue/Salmar Avenue
(A. M., xith and xithout 900 E.
Hamilton Project).
- Bascom Avenue/Onion Avenue '~
(P.M., xith and xithout 900 E.
Hamilton Pro3 ect) .
- Bascom Avenue/Hamilton Avenue
(P. M., xith and xithout 900 E.
Hamilton Prod ect) .
Recommended mitigation measures regard-
less of the 900 E. Hamilton Pro3ect:
The applicant should xork closely
with the City of Campbell staff
during final design of the proposed
protect to develop plans xhich ensure
safe and efficient access to the site
xhile minimizing the impact to Bascom
Avenue and the Bascom Avenue/E1 Solyo
intersection. Specific measures
should include channelization on
Bascom Avenue and location of
entrance points.
The applicant should xork closely
xith the City of Campbell staff to
furthur evaluate and develop mitiga-
tion measures for the Bascom Avenue/
Union Avenue intersection. A poten-
tial means of mitigating project
reaped impacts xould be to install
as exclusive right turn lane from
southbound Union Avenue to xestbound
Bascom Avenue. Ho~rever, this should
be evaluated further in terms of coat
versus realized improvement.
A tree right turn lane should be oon-
atructed from northbound Bascom Ave-
(CONTINUED)
2-3
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MIT~ATION
MEASURES
SECTION/IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
nue to eastbound Hamilton Avenue.
The LOS calculation methodologies
employed in completing this analysis
are not sensitive enough to quantify
the impact of constructing this addi-
tional lane. Harever, its beneficial
impact Would be very noticeable to
motorists. It should be noted that
the City of Campbell is already con-
templating this improvement as part
of other pre3ects in the area and the
cost c~' this. improvement .may be borne
by several developers.
'~ Preferential parking or other
incentives should be developed to
encourage car and van pooling.
The use of staggered Work hours or
.~~ flex time should be encouraged to the
extent possible.
Recommended mitigation measures
assuming completion of the 900 E.
Hamilton Prod a et
~ A potential means of mitigating pro-
sect related impacts at the Hamilton
Avenue /Highway 17/Salmar Avenue in-
terseetion could be to acquire right
of .way and .add an ezeluaive through
lane to the southbound Highway 17 off
ramp. Construction of this lane
would reduce the forecast A. M. v/c
belay forecast v/c levels without the
proJeet. However, this should be
evaluated further with regard to
other proposed developments in the
area in close coordination with city
staff. An assessment policy may be
the most equitable means of financing
this improvement.
No mitigation would be required at
the Bascom Avenue /Campbell Avenue
intersection with completion of the
(CONTINUED)
2-4
TILE 2-1 (CONTIlJUED). SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITT~ATION
l~ ASU RES
SECTION/IMPACT MITIGATION I+EASURE
900 E. Hamilton Project Which would
include the installation of an addi-
tional left turn lane Prom northbound
Bascom Avenue to westbound Campbell
Avenue.
Recommended mitigation measures
assuming the 900 E. Hamilton Project
is' not completed:
~/ Acquire right of way and add an ex-
clusive right turn lane to the west-
bound Hamilton Avenue approach of the
Hamilton Avenue/Highway 17/Salmar Ave-
nue intersection. Construction of
this lane would reduce the forecast
A. M. v/c below forecast v/c levels
without the pro~eet.
,~ Install a second left turn lane from
northbound Bascom Avenue to westbound
Campbell Avenue. Installation of
this lane would reduce the forecast
v/c with the project below forecast
levels without the project. It
should be noted that this lane addi-
tion is currently part of the 900 E.
Hamilton Pro~eet.
~. ~ PUBLIC SERV ICES
The pro~eet will increase the Sewer connection permits shall be
demand for sewer services. obtained and a plan check shall be made
by Sanitation District #4 (as required
for project approval).
/ The pco~ect should be designed with
water conserving plumbing fixtures and
appliances to minimize water use and
wastewater generation.
The storm drain line beneath The applicant shall arrange for
S. Bascom Avenue does not bane connection to adequate storm drain
sufficient capacity to serve the lines for the project. Final drainage
pro~eet site. plans should be approved by the city
Public Yorks Department. (The develop-
(CONTIIdUED )
2-5
TABLE 2-1 (CONT~TUED) . 3p1rQ~iARY OF POTENTIAL alPACTS AND 'PROPOSED t+QT~ ATION
NE ASII RES
SECTION/Il4PACT NITRATION I+EASDRE
sent of a store drain line on Michael
Drive Will be done jointly bettaeen
the applicant and add scent garden
office project developer. )
The landscaped areas of the project
~ site should be designed to absorb
runoff from roofs, Taallaays and
parking areas.
3.4 V DTI T. ~1T 01. TTY
Lighting from the pro~eat parking Harm tone lights on lox profile dark
structure could affect adjacent ~ standards should be considered for
residents. the parking area lighting.
2-6
contacted prior to the issuance of the demolition permit necessary to remove
the McConnell House, this board rill determine the significance of the
structure. If the structure is significant, application procedure t'~r
•official designation on the city's Historic Aesourees List and a s~ of -
poasible mitigation rill begin. Due to the condition and alterations of the
McConnell House, it is unlikely that the board could consider the structure
suitable to offical designation on the city`s History Resources List (Raley,
1984).
MTTmATTON ~ 1R ~. The following measures should be implemented to mitigate
adverse land use impacts.
- The City of Campbell should redesignate additional land Por high.
density residential uses to compensate for the loss of future
residential uses on the pro~eet site and increased housing demand.
- The applicant should contact the city's Historic Preservation Board and
coordinate measures to mitigate for the loss of the McConnell House, as
necessary.
3-5
TABLE ~-1. SIII~4lAR7 OF ,TERTZAL ZI~ACTS AND PROPOSED !. ~ATZOII Id:ASORES
SECTZOA/ZI~AC?
KITS ATZ0~1 1dSA3QRE
~ ~'. . .
Zhe project could create ner
empla7ment and remove th• poteo-
tial for residential develop-
aent at the reaidentiall~ planned
and zoned portion of the parcel.
The City of Campbell may wish to
consider redesignatiag additional,
land for high density residential
uses to compensate for the loss of
future residential uses oa the
groject site and increased housing
demand.
Zee pro j ecL cool d increase the
potential for vahiale turning ono-
dicta on VSncheater Boulevard
at the project site eatranos.
The project could generate an
average of T76 one xa~ trips per
dad, ooatributiag ctsulativel~ to
an increass in air pollutants
gaaerated and iraftia volusea on
Iocal and regional roadrgs.
Lighting irca the project parking
atruatur• could affect adjacent
rssidsats.
Ths projsat could create partial
~iera of aoasercial develop~aat
adjacent to residential uses.
The project rill iaorsass stae~
xatsr runoff in the •idnit~.
Iaprove the rest aide of Yinabsater
Boulevard in front d the project alts
to `full standards including pra-ision
/a tro-ra~ left turn Lana.
/ Pro-ide prelerential parking or other
iaasatives to enaonrage otr and van-
pooling.
~/ Prasote the use of ataggsrsd rock hours
or risz tine to the degree possible.
Yarn tone lights on for protil• dark
standards should be abnsidsrad for the
parking arse lighting.
Site landsoapins ahonld be dea~ignsd
to siniaiz• viers of the projsot fro,
adjacent rssidenoes.
!hs applicant shall arrange !or o0o-
neation to adequate store drain lists
for the project. Final drainap plans
should be appro-sd ~ th• sift Public
Yorks Departasat.
ms lsadaoaped scans at th• pe~ojsat
site should be desigad to absorb ran-
ott tray rods, ralkrgs and parkins
arcs.
(COwT~lOED
Z~-2
CITY OF CAMPBELL
75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 378-8141
Department: PLANNING
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
September 1981
Consultants on the following list are approved by the Planning Commission of the
City of Campbell for the preparation of Environmental Impact Reports for the
City of Campbell. This list may be amended from time to time.
1. Allied Environmental Services
948 Dolores Avenue
Los Altos, CA 94022
(415) 948-6457
2. Creegan & D'Angelo
1046 West Taylor Street
San Jose, CA 95126
(408) 998-1234
3. Earthmetrics
1000 Elwell Court, Suite 226
Palo Alto, CA 94303
(408) 964-3800
4. George Nolte & Associates
1731 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95112
(408) 287-3400
5. Ruth & Going, Inc.
919 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95159
(408) 297-8273
6 . Envi ros
P. 0. Box 1146
Los Altos, CA 94022
(415) 948-0379
7. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
4320 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 220
San Jose, CA 95129
(408) 249-5300
8. Mr. Scott Lefever, AICP
565 Chapman Court
Santa Clara, CA 95050
(408) 243-5719
9. Other consultants as approved by the Planning Commission.
Approved by the Planning Commission on
r 15, 1981
CITY OF CAMPBELL
75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 378-8141-
Planning November, 1977 -
Department:
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Consultants on the following list are approved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Campbell for the preparation of Environmental Impact Reports
for the City of Campbell. This list may be amended from time to time.
1. Allied Environmental Services
948 Dolores Avenue
Los Altos, CA 94022
(415) 948-6457
2. Creegan & D'Angelo
1046 West Taylor Street
San Jose, CA 95126
(408) 998-1234
3. Earthmetrics
1000 Elwell Court, Suite 226
Palo Alto, CA 94303
(408) 964-3800
4. George Nolte & Associates
1731 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95112
(408) 287-3400
5. Ruth & Going, Inc. '
919 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95159
6. Enviros
P. 0. Box 1146
Los Altos, CA 94022
(408) 948-0379
7. Other consultants as approved by the Planning Commission.
Approved by the Planning Commission
on the 15th day of November, 1977.
1d
.~~` , ,
RESOLUTION N0. 5164
BEING A RESOLUTIOt~I OF THE CITY COUtdCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL,
CALIFORNIA, ESTAQLISHING OBJECTIVES, CRITERIA, AND PROCEDURES
FOR THE EVALUATION OF PROJECTS APIU THE PREPARATIOfJ OF E~1VIR0~~'~IENI~AL
It4PACT REPORTS PURSUAfdT TO SECTION 21082 OF THE CALIFORNIA PUQL.IC
RESOURCES CODE AND SECTIONS 15014 AND 15050 OF THE CALIFORl~IA
" ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAl~1PBELL; CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOI~~S
SECTIOF; ONE: PRIOR P,EGULATIOt4S. This Resolution supersedes City Council
Resolution t~umber 3766.
SECTIOi~I TWO: DEFINITION. The use of the word "City" in this Resolution shall
mean the City of Campbe]1, California.
SECTION THREE: ADOPTION OF STATE GUIDELINES BY REFEREtJCE. Reference is hereby
made to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental -
Quality Act of 1970, as amended, which are adopted and certified by the Secretary
for Resources of the Resources Agency of the State of California. Unless
othertivise stated be]ow, these guidel~~nes, as amended, which are set forth in
Title 14, Division 6 of the California Administrative Code, are herby made the
official guidelines of the City of Ca:~ipbell pursuant to the requir,;ments of
Section 21032 of the Public Resources Code to the extent to which guidelines may
be made applicable to applications for projects which are before the City.
SECTION FOUR: DIRECTOR. The term "director", as used in the Resolution, shall
mean tf~e Planning Director, Public Works Director,~Building Official, or other
department heads.
SECTION FIVE: AUTFIORITY. The directors shall be responsible for determining
the applicability of tfie California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 to projects
and applications which are normally administered by their department, and aro
responsible for compliance tivith this Resolution and CEQA - 1970.
SECTION SIY,: APPLICATION PROCEDURE.
(a) Upon applying for approval of any project which is not Categorically or
Ministerially exempt, the applicant shall provide information as required to
assist the Director in determining the environmental impact of a proposed project.
(b) The Director shall notify the applicant of the decision to require an
Environmental Impact Report within ten (10) working days from the date the
application was submitted.
(c) Environmental Impact Reports are to be prepared for the City of Campbell by
competent persons arith expertise in the preparation of Environmental Impact
Reports and with the approval of the City. of Campbell. Any and all expenses
accrued in the preparation of any Environmental Impact Report shall be borne by
the applicant.
(d) The person or firm preparing an Environmental Impact Report for the City of
Campbell shall not be in any way associated with the applicant or the proposed
project.
(e) The City of Campbell shall maintain a list of persons and firms that are .
qualif-~ed to prepare Environmental Impact Reports. The applicant may seiecz
another consultant to prepare the Environmental Impact Report; however, in such
a case ;.he Director may-refer the Draft Environmental Impact Report to another
independent consultant for analysis as to accuracy and objectivity. The applicant
shall pay costs incurred in such a referral, up to X200.00. -
(f) A draft Environmental Impact Report will not be accepted by the City of
Campbell for general circulation and review until the Director undertakes a
preliminary review of ttie Draft's acceptability relative to the given project and
its consistency with the Guidelines referred-to in Section Two, above. This
revie-v period shall be no greater than ten (10) working days from the date of
submission to tf~e City, unless the Draft is referred to another independent
consultant. as specified in (e) above.
_?-
(g) Upon acceptance of the Draft Environmental Impact Report by the Director,
the applicant shall submit twenty (20) copies of the draft to the City for
' distribution and review.. A minimum period of thirty (30) days shall be allowed
for review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report prior to public
hearing before the Planning Commission.
SECTIO~d SEVE~d: INITIAL STUDY. When the Guidelines referred to in Section Tvro,
above, call for the preparation of an Initial Study, forms EIR-1 and EIR-2 to eg ther
shall constitute such an initial study. Form EIR-1 shall be completed by the
applicant and submitted as part of the application. Form EIR-2 shall be completed
by City staff.
SECTIO(J EIGHT: PdOTICES.
1. Notice that a Negative Declaration has been prepared for a proposed project
shall be given by one of the following:
(a} Publication at least ten (10) days prior to consideration by the City
for approval in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected
by the proposed project;
(b) By posting of notice by the City on and aff site in the area
where the project is to be located at least five (5) days prior to
consideration by the City for approval;
(c) By direct mailing to owners of property contiguous to the project at
least five (5) days prior to consideration by the City for approval.
2. Notice of Determination.
(a) After making a decision to carry out.or approve a project for which
a Negative Declaration has been prepared, the City shall file a Notice
of Determination, ~vith a copy of the Negative Declaration attached,
with tl~e County Clerk's office. Tlie filing of a Notice of Determination
with tine County Clerk's office starts a thirty (30)r day statute of
limitation on Court challenges to the approval under CEQA.
-3-
. t,. _~ --
(b) After the City certifies a final Environmental Impact Report and
approves or disapproves the project for which an Environmental Impact
Report was prepared, a Notice of Determination shall be filed witf~ the
County Clerk. The filing of a Notice of Determination starts a thirty
(30) day statute of limitation on Court challenges to Lhe approval under
CEQA.
3. Notice of Completion. '
(a) If an Environmental Impact Report is required for a particular project,
a Notice of Completion shall be filed with the Secretary for the
Resources Agency upon acceptance by the City of the Draft Environmental
Impact Report. Such Notice of Completion shall be filed at least thirty
(30) days prior to the date of public hearing to consider the '
Environrental Impact Report.
(b) At-the time the City submits the Notice of Completion with the Secretary
for the Resources Agency, notice shall also be sent for.publication
setting the date of a public.hearing before the Planning Commission
for consideration of the E~~vironmental Impact Report.
4. Notice of Exemption.
A Notice of Exemption shall be riled with the County Clerk's o:fice for all
projects whici~ are determined to be exempt from the provisions of CEQA of 1970..
SECTION NINE: FEES. For any project ~,rhich is not exempt from the regulations
pertaining to CEQA, a filing fee of $25.00 shall be submitted to tt~e City in order
to help defray administration costs. Said fee shall be in addition to other
application fees.
SECTION TEN: Ah1ENOP1ENTS. This resolution may be amended from time to time, as
warranted.
-a-
SECTIOtJ ELEVEN: URGEtJCI~':-~ In order to protect tfie pool icl"`peace, health..or safety, ~^
and in order to lend certainty to the status of various projects which have been,
or are about to be, undertaken so as to permit the orderly processing and
evaluation of such projects at the earliest possible time, it is necessary that
this resolution become effective immediately upon adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of March 1977, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Councilmen: Chamberlin, Doetsch, Hammer, Paul, Podgorsek
NOES: Councilmen: None
ABSENT: Councilmen: None
APPROVED: //~~~~~ ~-~. ~~ .
t~{ayor.
William R. Podgorsek
~~
ATTEST.
C~ Clerk
Dorothy Trevethan