Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCVRC Agenda Packet 04-24-200846 N. on REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CHULA VISTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS Christopher H. Lewis, Chair Paul Desrochers, Vice Chair Rafael Munoz AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CVRC) Thursday, April 24, 2008, 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM C -101 276 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA 91910 Doug Paul Hector Reyes CALL TO ORDER Christopher Rooney ROLL CALL Salvador Salas, Jr. Directors Desrochers, Lewis, Munoz, Paul, Reyes, Rooney, Salas OFFICERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, MOMENT OF SILENCE David R. Garcia, CEO PRESENTATIONS Maria Kachadoorian, CFO A. PERMIT STREAMLINING AND MEASURES TO REDUCE COST AND TIME FOR DEVELOPMENT Ann Moore, General Counsel ENTITLEMENTS, ENCOURAGING ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION Eric C. Crockett, Secretary B. CLIMATE CHANGE WORKING GROUP FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 - 2) The CVRC will enact the Consent Calendar staff recommendations by one motion, without discussion, unless a CVRC Director, a member of the public, or City staff requests that an item be removed for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed immediately following the Consent Calendar. 1. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION A. Memorandum from Christopher Lewis requesting an excused absence from the CVRC meeting of March 13, 2008. Staff Recommendation: That the CVRC excuse the absence. B. Memorandum from Paul Desrochers requesting an excused absence from the CVRC meeting of April 24, 2008. Staff Recommendation: That the CVRC excuse the absence. PUBLIC COMMENTS Persons speaking during Public Comments may address the CVRC on any subject matter within the CVRC's jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law generally prohibits the CVRC from taking action on any issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the CVRC may schedule the topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited to three minutes. ACTION ITEMS The item(s) listed in this section of the agenda will be considered individually by the CVRC, and is /are expected to elicit discussion and deliberation. If you wish to speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. NONE 2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORTS 3. CHAIRMAN'S REPORTS A. SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT B. COMPLEX AND MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS CONFERENCE 4. DIRECTORS' COMMENTS DIRECTOR REYES — CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE ADJOURNMENT The Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation will adjourn to their regularly scheduled meeting on May 8, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. if Of ,. ^•.C" ";! �� {d. : ":;. ° P "M I' i Dr !posted €�� t P12?eiiC Services %3t3't'.c t2u uriia "'e .•. "':�.. In compliance with the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a CVRC meeting, activity, or service request such accommodation at least forty -eight hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact the Community Development Department for specific information at (619) 691- 5047, or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at (619) 585 -5655. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. Page 2 of 2 CVRC — Agenda — April 24, 2008 March 11, 2008 Vice Chairman, Chula Vista Redevelopmer 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mr. Chairman, This letter is to inform you that I will be una attend the scheduled meeting that evening from the regularly scheduled meeting of the rely, 4. s Chairman E M From: Paul Desrochers [mailto:pauld4947 @cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:28 PM To: Eric Crockett cc: Lori Peoples Subject: CVRA - Request for Excused Absence I will be out of the area for the next CVRC meeting set for April 24th. Please excuse my absence for that date. I will be in the Southern States including Nashville Tennessee and will make it a point to see the Gaylord Property on my own. I will tell you my thoughts upon my return. Have a good meeting! 1,�b I CITY OF CHULA VISTA 44111� Redevelopment � Housir�g *NAEMORANDUM r DATE: April 15, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation VIA: David Garcia, Executive Director of Redevelopment & Housing FROM: Eric Crockett, Assistant Director of Redevelopment & Housing RE: EPA Brownfields Grants 2008 In October 2007 the City Of Chula Vista applied for the U.S. Environmental Projection Agency (EPA) Brownfield Grants. Chula Vista applied for two Community -wide Assessment Grants to identify and investigate sites with potential hazardous materials or petroleum contamination, and to plan for cleanup nd redevelopment of priority sites. Assessments were proposed in the Southwest Redevelopment Wroject Area due to the high concentration of suspected or known contamination in that area. Chula Vista received both the Hazardous Materials and Petroleum Community -wide Assessment Grants for $200,000 each, or a total of $400,000. The funds will be used to conduct community outreach around brownfield activities, inventory potential brownfield sites, conduct Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments and investigations, and plan for cleanup and redevelopment activities. Grant activity will take place from mid -2008 through mid -2011. Staff will bring forward the cooperative agreement for the grant to the City Council in the next few months. Please see the attached announcement from EPA for additional details about the grant. 276 FOURTH AVENUE • CHULA VISTA • CA 91910 tel 619. 691. 5047 fax 619. 585. 5698 www.chulavistaca.gov /cvrh J��SED �ArFS A YJ r Z o � � Z e O= t �HT4< PRot�G\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 MAR 7 9 2008 Honorable Cheryl Cox Mayor of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mayor Cox: OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE On behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), I am pleased to congratulate you and confirm that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista has been selected as one of the entities with which EPA will pursue negotiations to award a cooperative agreement for two assessment grants. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista submitted outstanding grant proposals, and we deeply appreciate the tremendous commitment of time and energy that went into their preparation. •Through the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, signed by President Bush on January 11, 2002, EPA is working to help states and communities around the country clean up and revitalize brownfield sites. We fully expect that these brownfield projects will provide benefits to the environment and economy of local communities. Debbie Schechter, your region's Brownfields Coordinator (415- 972 - 3091), will be working closely with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista to negotiate a cooperative agreement prior to the award of the grants. We look forward to working with your staff on the Brownfields program in a new era of Federal, state, and local government cooperation. Sincerely, • san Parker Bodine Assistant Administrator cc: Debbie Schechter Intemet Address (URL) • http: / /www.epa.gov Recycled(Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer) • Brownmids 2008 Grant Fa '- Chula Vistel Agency. 'A EPA Bro%;rjjtieitjs Program _ i`. 0 CTxwCn l - _ - Anj air ;hzi -.. 00; ,'!1Act! iii Ad PA Cor7�t��tar�ity oescription i she (l) wf Qwv vkw Ann >eya'd UnwO C Ina hn-AUMAX „snorucllt 1 l ,_ 1 ,r„ tit 00"n l,i yn L hula `, i,t;l .0 1.4 = , . .CM-K_ its h't_l nilel�l o. wan , 1 qr h en (' ,. i `, a, v %Inch v,, 1,- ri,,,inadk a ,»1\ cd 1.iild �C,� ihal ,I11 o A, <i(1 itds 11!(rc' ko ft,, h!.-., dunil hly sky We (�71q ,Z1i a ,A�.IINIi w nc;' f lh C Ill lh'.> 1. I'�111.!yli(_: iti i)C,^U, M. and -4 qrCCM M ,3200,000 for hazardous substances 2001000 -for pctrafei;,ra PRA hu smand Meg iZc.ie "N'I'rllcnt ;1!,cncy the C� q of � di l V il, ' 0r ILV -) clel� ,i, e sliiu,i "Ian,; 1 Llz�n dons �:l ant hC ti1wd to C'o,, a a bwAA11ANN k" and to ClUl IC hum 12 to 15 1040 1 wd up to 11\C i'1 ;lsc 11 e n Ir: nht llt ;il file ass nicnts in outlt��4�t hula \ 1 M. ('ovum Urant +u As "PI he �!sed to pcl Co m thv tn,ks Lit sites %y id, powmid parolcem contll,nunation. Malt 'funds also "M Inc used to Support 4oni111unit� out]cacl: - - -- - - -- i'or further informaliM, 1l9cEndlilf �pCCltic grlllit contacts, AR M& oMitloforniation, bro"nfidds ne"s and e,'ctits, and pubhotions and links. %isit the UR\ 19o"nficlds "9b site at: ""v” Ma y" l�ro.�� trfielus, EPA I2v.gion `) Bron%110wi ,s i -Cann MACAW rig onk) bro"ill NS Arant KeciEjietjt 1;ACK0111;ient;lMC) oftiie City of CIIIII.t Vi:sttl, C %A 619-476-1341 I i?t it'toltnatic 1, pI7ovIltvrl ill this fact sheet colncs f'ron, the grant propoj ll; 1-TA cannot attest to the I accuracy of IN u,lprhitlti4�fl, hhe cooperativ e agmement Or the gmnt he not 1 A been negoti- ated, i llcreforc. actin itic� described in this i'lct 1 sheet sire subject to 0mll�c. � ih�n1 � � thlr� ,rz ml�l� tin ,�" lacu� 1_,. tl•..It `1i'.R11!. , I:, `„1�11`'I'ir114iC 111t(�I t i o n ]iCl ;t�il �l .liCl .. 111 ")" 1h"Ca Coda Von awi _ F Redevelopment MEMORANDUM DATE: April 17, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporatiol VIA: David R. Garcia, City Manager Scott Tulloch, Assistant City Manag FROM: Eric C. Crockett, Assistant Director of Redevelo nt & Housing ,(( Jim Sandoval, Director of Planning & Building RE: Southwest Strengthening Update — Phase I Summary Southwest Community Strengthening activities have made significant progress since staff's last updated I C't Council in October 2007. Phase I of community outreach efforts has been completed. to t ie i y Progress to Date: Key elements of Phase I included the following: • A preliminary Focus Group meeting attended by over 30 community members to discuss desired outcomes for process and solicit volunteers to help plan activities. • The formation of an Early Partnership Group of residents and volunteers to help strategize to ensure the most effective community outreach possible. • An Embajadores /Ambassadors training for almost 40 community volunteers who helped gather community opinions about neighborhood priorities. Embajadores /Ambassadors collected over 250 surveys from Southwest residents. ■ ry Group of The formation of a Technical Adviso staff from City departments, other public agencies, and community and business organizations to provide technical assistance and to receive community feedback. ■ A large Southwest Community Convention to provide residents information about City and community services and to solicit their opinions about civic engagement and neighborhood priorities. The event was attended by over 100 adults and their families; several city departments and over 20 community organizations provided information about resources. Local businesses donated refreshments. ■ Throughout the process, Mayor Cox held a series of breakfasts to involve various community partners. Many of these individuals, particularly from local elementary schools, have become committed volunteers in the process. 276 FOURTH AVENUE - CHULA VISTA • CA 91910 tel 619. 691. 5047 fax 619. 585. 5698 WWW.chulavistaca.gov /cvrh MEMORANDUM Page 2 of 2 ■ Staff has made presentations about this effort and invitations to participate to various resident groups in the community, schools, affordable housing complexes, local service providing agencies, and service clubs, and several local businesses. Outreach Results: Key outreach findings are attached in the Phase I Summary Report. Staff received comments from over 300 community members total, including Embajadores /Ambassadors surveys and written feedback at the Convention. Over one -third of that feedback was received in Spanish, which indicates that outreach efforts may be reaching residents who are not reached by traditional English language announcements. All meetings have included English- Spanish interpretation and have occurred in the Southwest community. Next Steps: Residents and community partners are continuing to meet to discuss next steps for Phase II of outreach and improvement efforts. The next phase will focus on more specific strategies and priorities for improvement based on feedback received to date. Emphasis will be on how to explore creative solutions and partnerships moving forward. The second (of three) Community Convention will take place sometime in June, and the next Embajadores /Ambassadors training will likely take place in late May. Prepared by: Sarah Johnson, Redevelopment & Housing Project Coordinator 11 276 FOURTH AVENUE • CHULA VISTA • CA 91910 tel 619. 691. 5047 fax 619. 585. 5698 www.chulavistaca.gov /cvrh SOUTHWEST CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY OUTREACH City Of Chula Vista PHASE #1: PARTNERSHIPS, ASSETS, VISIONS, AND OPPORTUNITIES January - March, 2008 ..................................................................................................... ............................... SUMMARY REPORT ......... ........................................................................................... ............................... INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND The City of Chula Vista is facilitating new levels of collaboration in the Southwest Community through a community- driven process that will identify new solutions and partnerships to address a wide range of challenges in the community. Additionally, the City is striving to provide new opportunities for the community to have a stronger voice in local civic life in ways that are relevant and culturally- sensitive to the Southwest Community. This process aims to identify those opportunities, as well as the community's priorities for improvement initiatives and the appropriate stakeholders from all sectors of the community. These efforts are divided into three phases over one year. This three -phase structure provides a clear framework for organizing and implementing the community outreach process. The three phases are: Partnership, Assets, Visions and Opportunities; Strategies and Priorities; and Process Map and Implementation Plan. Phase I has been completed. This summary document describes the key findings from this first round of outreach. The process incorporates several ways for residents and community members to participate, including: Community Conventions, the Embajadores/Ambassadors program, the Early Partnership Team, and the Technical Advisory Group. PHASE I ACTIVITIES Below is a summary of key activities, meetings, and community participation during Phase I. Detailed meeting minutes are available by contacting Sarah Johnson at sjohnson@ci.chula - vista.ca.us or at 619- 585 -5748. It should be noted that community meetings were held in the Southwest area, and all meetings and materials were bilingual in English and Spanish. Focus Group: The first community meeting was held on January 28, 2008 at the South Branch Library. The meeting served as the starting point for considering a process to engage the Southwest Community in planning for the future. Over 30 community members involved in civic life, health, private enterprise, recreation, and other areas of the community attended. Participants discussed their desired outcomes from community improvement efforts, as well as the necessary next steps to continue planning and outreach efforts with the entire Southwest Community. Participants also submitted written comments via comment cards. Key themes from the discussion and comment cards included housing, streets and infrastructure, parks and open space, community involvement, Southwest Chula Vista Community Outreach Phase I Summary Report economic development and planning, youth development, and health and well- being. Several attendees volunteered to be part of the Early Partners Group to help plan outreach efforts. Early Partnership Team (EPT): A core group of volunteer residents and community members was formed to help plan the year -long community building process. The first Early Partners meeting was on February 11, 2008 at the South Branch Library. Participants discussed their desired outcomes and expectations for the outreach process, as well as the EPT's roles and charge in supporting the process. EPT members also reviewed and discussed proposed outreach activities for the first phase of outreach. Technical Advisory Group (TAG): While the Early Partnership Team is focused on input from residents, the TAG convenes staff from public agencies and partner organizations such as the County, School Districts, Chamber of Commerce, business associations, key non - profits, service providers, and community organizations. The TAG also includes staff representatives for various City departments. This group provides technical assistance, shares data and resources, and will benefit from the results of the community outreach that is conducted. The TAG's first meeting was on February 6, 2008 at the Chula Vista Police Department Community Room. City Manager David Garcia welcomed TAG participants and expressed the City's enthusiasm about this unique community engagement process. Community leaders from the school, the non - profit, and resident communities spoke about the value of partnership and encouraged participation and support from TAG members. Embajadores /Ambassadors Group: The success of outreach efforts is largely dependent on the Embajadores/Ambassadors, a group of trained volunteer residents and community members who actively reach out to the broader community to get them involved in community building efforts. The first Embajadores/Ambassadors Training was held on February 28, 2008 at the Loma Verde Recreation Center. Over 30 Embajadores /Ambassadors received training in community outreach techniques and bilingual materials to conduct the first round of outreach in the Southwest Community. Outreach centered around gathering community opinions about values, priorities, and visions for improvement. Participants were asked how to best engage the community, and who should be involved in improvement efforts. The Embajadores /Ambassadors were also given a Facilitator's Guide, and part of the training focused on their role as objective facilitators who solicit and respect others' opinions without inserting their own. Community Convention: On March 15, 2008, over 100 Southwest community members and their children attended the first Community Convention at the Otay Recreation Center from 11:00 -2 :00. The purpose of the Convention was: (a.) to engage participants about their values, visions and continued involvement in the outreach process; and (b.) to provide a wide range of community resources and information. This Saturday interactive community event encouraged input from families, youth, and others who cannot commit to evening meetings or a higher level of participation. Participants gave their opinions to staff at a series of bilingual feedback stations, and were able to visit informational booths from several city departments and over 20 local service providers. The Mayor, City Manager, and most Councilmembers attended to hear from residents. Additional Outreach and Activities: In addition to these key meetings, several other outreach activities occurred during Phase I. A team of residents, service providers, staff, and an elected official received training from a National League of Cities Roundtable that highlighted best practices from other cities that have undergone similar comprehensive outreach and improvement efforts. Additionally, the Mayor held a series of breakfasts to connect city staff to community partners, including all elementary schools in Southwest Chula Vista. Many of the breakfast 2 Southwest Chula Vista Community Outreach Phase I Summary Report attendees became active participants in Phase I. Finally, several local non - profits and service providers helped inform their clients of the community meetings and the March 15`h Convention. These groups invited staff to make presentations to resident and service providers in Southwest Chula Vista, many of whom began to participate. Local businesses also supported this effort by donating refreshments for the meetings. KEY OUTREACH FINDINGS Feedback obtained from residents and community members throughout Phase I is summarized here. Raw data is available by contacting Sarah Johnson atsiohnson@ci.chula-vista.ca.us or at 619- 585-5 748. Community Values: In the questionnaires that the Embajadores /Ambassadors distributed, people were asked, "What are you most proud of about Southwest Chula Vista ?" At the Convention, one of the Feedback Stations asked '7 am most proud of Southwest Chula Vista because we are..." and residents wrote comments about community values. The responses touched on the following areas: Safety: - Many people feel very safe, and enjoy walking around with families - Appreciate peaceful, calm atmosphere - Others are worried about gang activity and transients - Need more safety around parks and schools - Control gang activity and crime - The Recreation Center and Libraries provide safe places for youth to go - Need safer streets; pave potholes and install sidewalks Education: - Praise for schools, school districts, and teachers - Emphasis on the importance of education for the community's future - Worry about budget cuts and implications on schools - Need for community involvement in schools - Need for more technical and vocational programs for youth and adults Family- Oriented: - There are a lot of long- standing ties to the Southwest community - Sense of community where everyone helps each other and works together - The community is growing; a lot of families - Existing resources such as Family Resource Centers help a lot - Like family- oriented activities — festivals, etc. - Parks are very important to families Hard - Working: - People are very hard - working - Need more jobs and higher - paying jobs - Work allows people to have the money needed to live a dignified life - Career /employment centers are important and needed Diverse: - Ethnic Diversity - Mix of restaurants and services — Mexican, Asian, American 3 Southwest Chula Vista Community Outreach Phase I Summary Report - Different cultures, but share the same interests Kids have friends of different races Friendly relations between Americans and Latinos Healthy and Active: - Many think Chula Vista is a calm and healthy city; air is clean - Others feel the environment should be improved; reduce air pollution - Need more parks and green space to exercise - Existing parks are great and are well- maintained - Need for low cost health insurance for adults - There are a lot of health services - Sports and youth services such as Little League are great - The Bayfront is a great asset that should be preserved - Need more gyms for low- income people Community Resources /Assets: - South Branch Library is wonderful - Streets and city are kept clean - Clinics, family centers, County HHS - Affordable housing is great but there could be more - Preserve mobile home parks - Historic businesses - Things are convenient and close together - Public transportation is useful but could be cheaper and routes could be improved Vision: In the questionnaires that the Embajadores /Ambassadors distributed, people were asked, "What should Southwest Chula Vista be in the future? What should stay the same, and what should change ?" The questionnaire also asked "What makes life challenging in Southwest Chula Vista for your family and friends ?" and "which 3 would you make as your top priorities and why ?" At the Convention, one of the Feedback Stations provided maps of the Southwest where residents could indicate their visions for the future in certain areas. Responses touched on the following areas: Walkable Places: - Improve pedestrian safety at key locations and on major corridors including Orange Avenue, Main Street and Industrial Boulevard - Improve or provide sidewalks, crosswalks and curbs at key locations (listed in detailed report) - Ensure that areas around schools, parks, and trolley stations are walkable - Pedestrian Connection from Loma Verde Park all the way to Orange Ave. - Sidewalks should be wide and even - Stoplights with longer time to cross along Main St. east of Hilltop - Barriers are needed between pedestrians and cars in some areas Parks, Open Space, and Recreation: - Assess new park opportunities in the western portion of the community - Enhance play areas in and around Castle Park High School and Loma Verde Park - Increase opportunities for recreation for all members of the Southwest community - Create opportunities for youth - Address safety concerns at parks, particularly Harborside, Lauderbach and Loma Verde - Naples and Second triangle could be a park - Dog Park at Orange and Third Gathering Places: - Need more places to hang out — sk2 - Near parks and schools - Bayfront - Oxford and Third - Regenerate businesses on commerc Traffic safety improvements: - Reduce traffic speeds and increase 1 - Increase lighting at key locations - Improve alleys and consider more r - Focus on areas near schools and pa - Pave pot holes Clean -Up: - Address graffiti - Remove shopping carts - Less eyesore lots - Cleanup vacant lots - Renovate old houses or neighbonc( - Harborside Park - Bayfront south of Palomar Community Resources: - Need a cultural center and theater - More sports teams for youth and ac - Art school /classes - Create local shuttle services - Keep community services - Keep all the stores and malls - Less junk food places Planning and Growth: - More job opportunities; higher pad - Sensible development - Bring the Chargers stadium - No sports stadium - No convention center - Less population density - More industries - More defined downtown area - Don't change Zenith to Industrial - More mixed use areas - Growing like it has been, with opl Housing: - Preserve mobile home parks - Promote affordable housing Southwest Chula Vista Community Outreach Phase I Summary Report Preserve residential areas - More housing for single people - Address homeless population Additional visions: - Nothing should change; I think Chula Vista is on the right path - Code enforcement — no cars on lawns, etc. - Address discrimination and racism - Preservation of the salt ponds and historic businesses - Security at trolley stations - Palomar Trolley station needs access from the south on Industrial - Repopulate shops and restaurants; Fix up old businesses - More energy efficiency - Enforce city codes fairly - Move power plants away from residential neighborhoods and schools - Help residents and business owners of property to upgrade and maintain good places Community Involvement: The questionnaire asked "Who should be involved in community improvement efforts ?" and "What are the best ways to contact and involve the entire community in improving Southwest Chula Vista ?" At the convention, participants provided ideas about how to involve more community members in the process by writing on a large wallgraphic paper at the station and /or in their stamp booklet. Following is a summary of participants' feedback: Who Should Be Involved? - Neighborhood committees - Parents - Seniors - Business - Police department - Churches - Schools; teachers - Kids and youth - Hispanic community - Homeowners - Fire department - Media - Limited influence from developers - Environmental groups - Non - profits - Southwest Civic Association - Metro transit - Local authorities - Smart people who are bilingual - Everyone!!! Everybody; All of us; All residents; Community; Neighbors - City officials; Mayor and Council; City Manager; staff; Parks and Rec staff; government - People interested in changing it for the better and who can go to meetings What are the best ways to get them involved? - Involve youth in the process and address their needs - Address community members' priorities for community improvement - Use media outreach to advertise the process - Provide bilingual interpretation at civic meetings - Promote and support neighborhood -based community associations - Create tangible community improvements - Advertise though a variety of community gathering places - Hold community events /forums that are accessible to all SOUTHWEST CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY OUTREACH City Of Chula Vista PHASE #1: PARTNERSHIPS, ASSETS, VISIONS, AND OPPORTUNITIES January - March, 2008 SUMMARY REPORT ........................................................................................ ............................... INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND The City of Chula Vista is facilitating new levels of collaboration in the Southwest Community through a community- driven process that will identify new solutions and partnerships to address a wide range of challenges in the community. Additionally, the City is striving to provide new opportunities for the community to have a stronger voice in local civic life in ways that are relevant and culturally- sensitive to the Southwest Community. This process aims to identify those opportunities, as well as the community's priorities for improvement initiatives and the appropriate stakeholders from all sectors of the community. These efforts are divided into three phases over one year. This three -phase structure provides a clear framework for organizing and implementing the community outreach process. The three phases are: Partnership, Assets, Visions and Opportunities; Strategies and Priorities; and Process Map and Implementation Plan. Phase I has been completed. This summary document describes the key findings from this first round of outreach. The process incorporates several ways for residents and community members to participate, including: Community Conventions, the Embajadores /Ambassadors program, the Early Partnership Team, and the Technical Advisory Group. PHASE I ACTIVITIES Below is a summary of key activities, meetings, and community participation during Phase I. Detailed meeting minutes are available by contacting Sarah Johnson at sJohnson@ci.chula- vista.ca.us or at 619- 585 -5748. It should be noted that community meetings were held in the Southwest area, and all meetings and materials were bilingual in English and Spanish. Focus Group: The first community meeting was held on January 28, 2008 at the South Branch Library. The meeting served as the starting point for considering a process to engage the Southwest Community in planning for the future. Over 30 community members involved in civic life, health, private enterprise, recreation, and other areas of the community attended. Participants discussed their desired outcomes from community improvement efforts, as well as the necessary next steps to continue planning and outreach efforts with the entire Southwest Community. Participants also submitted written comments via comment cards. Key themes from the discussion and comment cards included housing, streets and infrastructure, parks and open space, community involvement, Southwest Chula Vista Community Outreach Phase I Summary Report economic development and planning, youth development, and health and well- being. Several attendees volunteered to be part of the Early Partners Group to help plan outreach efforts. Early Partnership Team (EPT): A core group of volunteer residents and community members was formed to help plan the year -long community building process. The first Early Partners meeting was on February 11, 2008 at the South Branch Library. Participants discussed their desired outcomes and expectations for the outreach process, as well as the EPT's roles and charge in supporting the process. EPT members also reviewed and discussed proposed outreach activities for the first phase of outreach. Technical Advisory Group (TAG): While the Early Partnership Team is focused on input from residents, the TAG convenes staff from public agencies and partner organizations such as the County, School Districts, Chamber of Commerce, business associations, key non - profits, service providers, and community organizations. The TAG also includes staff representatives for various City departments. This group provides technical assistance, shares data and resources, and will benefit from the results of the community outreach that is conducted. The TAG's first meeting was on February 6, 2008 at the Chula Vista Police Department Community Room. City Manager David Garcia welcomed TAG participants and expressed the City's enthusiasm about this unique community engagement process. Community leaders from the school, the non - profit, and resident communities spoke about the value of partnership and encouraged participation and support from TAG members. E mbaj ado res/Ambassadors Group: The success of outreach efforts is largely dependent on the Embajadores/Ambassadors, a group of trained volunteer residents and community members who actively reach out to the broader community to get them involved in community building efforts. The first Embajadores/Ambassadors Training was held on February 28, 2008 at the Loma Verde Recreation Center. Over 30 Embajadores /Ambassadors received training in community outreach techniques and bilingual materials to conduct the first round of outreach in the Southwest Community. Outreach centered around gathering community opinions about values, priorities, and visions for improvement. Participants were asked how to best engage the community, and who should be involved in improvement efforts. The Embajadores /Ambassadors were also given a Facilitator's Guide, and part of the training focused on their role as objective facilitators who solicit and respect others' opinions without inserting their own. Community Convention: On March 15, 2008, over 100 Southwest community members and their children attended the first Community Convention at the Otay Recreation Center from 11:00 -2:00. The purpose of the Convention was: (a.) to engage participants about their values, visions and continued involvement in the outreach process; and (b.) to provide a wide range of community resources and information. This Saturday interactive community event encouraged input from families, youth, and others who cannot commit to evening meetings or a higher level of participation. Participants gave their opinions to staff at a series of bilingual feedback stations, and were able to visit informational booths from several city departments and over 20 local service providers. The Mayor, City Manager, and most Councilmembers attended to hear from residents. Additional Outreach and Activities: In addition to these key meetings, several other outreach activities occurred during Phase I. A team of residents, service providers, staff, and an elected official received training from a National League of Cities Roundtable that highlighted best practices from other cities that have undergone similar comprehensive outreach and improvement efforts. Additionally, the Mayor held a series of breakfasts to connect city staff to community partners, including all elementary schools in Southwest Chula Vista. Many of the breakfast 2 Southwest Chula Vista Community Outreach Phase I Summary Report attendees became active participants in Phase I. Finally, several local non - profits and service providers helped inform their clients of the community meetings and the March 15`h Convention. These groups invited staff to make presentations to resident and service providers in Southwest Chula Vista, many of whom began to participate. Local businesses also supported this effort by donating refreshments for the meetings. KEY OUTREACH FINDINGS Feedback obtained from residents and community members throughout Phase I is summarized here. Raw data is available by contacting Sarah Johnson at sjohnson@ci.chula- vista.ca.us or at 619- 585 -5748. Community Values: In the questionnaires that the Embajadores /Ambassadors distributed, people were asked, "What are you most proud of about Southwest Chula Vista ?" At the Convention, one of the Feedback Stations asked "I am most proud of Southwest Chula Vista because we are..." and residents wrote comments about community values. The responses touched on the following areas: Safety: - Many people feel very safe, and enjoy walking around with families - Appreciate peaceful, calm atmosphere - Others are worried about gang activity and transients - Need more safety around parks and schools - Control gang activity and crime - The Recreation Center and Libraries provide safe places for youth to go - Need safer streets; pave potholes and install sidewalks Education: - Praise for schools, school districts, and teachers - Emphasis on the importance of education for the community's future - Worry about budget cuts and implications on schools - Need for community involvement in schools - Need for more technical and vocational programs for youth and adults Family- Oriented: - There are a lot of long- standing ties to the Southwest community - Sense of community where everyone helps each other and works together - The community is growing; a lot of families - Existing resources such as Family Resource Centers help a lot - Like family- oriented activities — festivals, etc. - Parks are very important to families Hard - Working: - People are very hard - working - Need more jobs and higher - paying jobs - Work allows people to have the money needed to live a dignified life - Career /employment centers are important and needed Diverse: - Ethnic Diversity - Mix of restaurants and services — Mexican, Asian, American Southwest Chula Vista Community Outreach Phase I Summary Report Different cultures, but share the same interests Kids have friends of different races Friendly relations between Americans and Latinos Healthy and Active: - Many think Chula Vista is a calm and healthy city; air is clean - Others feel the environment should be improved; reduce air pollution - Need more parks and green space to exercise - Existing parks are great and are well- maintained - Need for low cost health insurance for adults - There are a lot of health services - Sports and youth services such as Little League are great - The Bayfront is a great asset that should be preserved - Need more gyms for low- income people Community Resources /Assets: - South Branch Library is wonderful - Streets and city are kept clean - Clinics, family centers, County HHS - Affordable housing is great but there could be more - Preserve mobile home parks - Historic businesses - Things are convenient and close together - Public transportation is useful but could be cheaper and routes could be improved Vision: In the questionnaires that the Embajadores /Ambassadors distributed, people were asked, "What should Southwest Chula Vista be in the future? What should stay the same, and what should change ?" The questionnaire also asked "What makes life challenging in Southwest Chula Vista for your family and friends ?" and "which 3 would you make as your top priorities and why ?" At the Convention, one of the Feedback Stations provided maps of the Southwest where residents could indicate their visions for the future in certain areas. Responses touched on the following areas: Walkable Places: - Improve pedestrian safety at key locations and on major corridors including Orange Avenue, Main Street and Industrial Boulevard - Improve or provide sidewalks, crosswalks and curbs at key locations (listed in detailed report) - Ensure that areas around schools, parks, and trolley stations are walkable - Pedestrian Connection from Loma Verde Park all the way to Orange Ave. - Sidewalks should be wide and even - Stoplights with longer time to cross along Main St. east of Hilltop - Barriers are needed between pedestrians and cars in some areas Parks, Open Space, and Recreation: - Assess new park opportunities in the western portion of the community - Enhance play areas in and around Castle Park High School and Loma Verde Park - Increase opportunities for recreation for all members of the Southwest community - Create opportunities for youth Address safety concerns at parks, particularly Harborside, Lauderbach, and Loma Verde Naples and Second triangle could be a park Southwest Chula Vista Community Outreach Phase I Summary Report Dog Park at Orange and Third Gathering Places: - Need more places to hang out — skate parks, laser tag, movie theater - Near parks and schools - Bayfront - Oxford and Third - Regenerate businesses on commercial corridors Traffic safety improvements: - Reduce traffic speeds and increase enforcement on key streets - Increase lighting at key locations - Improve alleys and consider more pedestrian - friendly design - Focus on areas near schools and parks - Pave pot holes Clean -Up: - Address graffiti - Remove shopping carts - Less eyesore lots - Cleanup vacant lots - Renovate old houses or neighborhoods - Harborside Park - Bayfront south of Palomar Community Resources: - Need a cultural center and theater - More sports teams for youth and adults - Art school /classes - Create local shuttle services - Keep community services - Keep all the stores and malls - Less junk food places Planning and Growth: - More job opportunities; higher paying jobs - Sensible development - Bring the Chargers stadium - No sports stadium - No convention center - Less population density - More industries - More defined downtown area - Don't change Zenith to Industrial - More mixed use areas - Growing like it has been, with opportunities open to all Housing: - Preserve mobile home parks - Promote affordable housing s Southwest Chula Vista Community Outreach Phase I Summary Report - Preserve residential areas - More housing for single people - Address homeless population Additional visions: - Nothing should change; I think Chula Vista is on the right path - Code enforcement — no cars on lawns, etc. - Address discrimination and racism - Preservation of the salt ponds and historic businesses - Security at trolley stations - Palomar Trolley station needs access from the south on Industrial - Repopulate shops and restaurants; Fix up old businesses - More energy efficiency - Enforce city codes fairly - Move power plants away from residential neighborhoods and schools - Help residents and business owners of property to upgrade and maintain good places Community Involvement: The questionnaire asked "Who should be involved in community improvement efforts ?" and "What are the best ways to contact and involve the entire community in improving Southwest Chula Vista ?" At the convention, participants provided ideas about how to involve more community members in the process by writing on a large wallgraphic paper at the station and /or in their stamp booklet. Following is a summary of participants' feedback: Who Should Be Involved? - Neighborhood committees - Parents - Seniors - Business - Police department - Churches - Limited influence from developers - Non - profits - Schools; teachers - Kids and youth - Hispanic community - Homeowners - Fire department - Media - Environmental groups - Southwest Civic Association - Metro transit - Local authorities - Smart people who are bilingual - Everyone!!! Everybody; All of us; All residents; Community; Neighbors - City officials; Mayor and Council; City Manager; staff; Parks and Rec staff; government - People interested in changing it for the better and who can go to meetings What are the best ways to get them involved? - Involve youth in the process and address their needs - Address community members' priorities for community improvement - Use media outreach to advertise the process - Provide bilingual interpretation at civic meetings - Promote and support neighborhood -based community associations - Create tangible community improvements - Advertise though a variety of community gathering places - Hold community events /forums that are accessible to all G PROCEDURES & TIMELINES ABOUT THE AUTHOR ingtin has been a land use lawyer for over 40 years. public practice he was city attorney for Lompoc, a., Thousand Oaks and La Quinta. His private prac- d representation of all sides to land use litigation, andowners and developers, environmental and ust groups, and public agencies. tin is the author of Longtin's California Land Use, a ;ive two - volume set of law and practice books. Mr. continued active law practice in 1996. However, he o study land use and to update Longtin's Cal Land ly. This is a free publication distributed by Local Government Publications P.O. Box 10087 Berkeley, CA 94709 (800) 345 -0899 For complete information about Longtin's publications, including an on -line land use library, visit www.LongtinsLandUse.com Copyright © 2005 by James Longtin LAND USE PROCEDURES AND TIMELINES CONTENTS Introduction and Scope ............................... Code of Civil Procedure Project Application and Review. Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) 4 : PSA Meets CEQA ............................... 4 Applicability. .............................. 5 Project Application ............................ .. 5 CEQA Review ... ............................... 5 Project Decision .. ............................... 5 Deemed Approved ............................... 5 Time Extensions ............................... CEQA Guidelines / 14 Cal. Code of Regulations California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)....... • • • • • 6 6 In General ...... ............................... 6 Exempt Projects .. ............................... 6 Initial Study ..... ............................... 6 Negative Declaration (ND) .................... 7 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) .............. . Notice and Hearing Procedures ........................ 9 Due Process ..... ............................... 9 Notice .......... ............................... 9 Hearing..... ............................... Time Limits. Procedural Defects. Litigation .............. 10 Time Limits. Extensions .......................... 10 Effect of Procedural Defects ....................... 10 Deadlines for Legal Challenge ..................... 10 Expediting Litigation ........................ . ...11 DIAGRAMS Flow Chart and Timelines ........... Chart of Procedures for Specified Activities ... ABBREVIATIONS CCP ....... Code of Civil Procedure Longtin's ... Longtin's California Land Use, legal text CEQA .....California Environmental Quality Act ND Negative Declaration EIR ....... Environmental Impact Report ....... PRC Public Resources Code GovC ...... Government Code ....... PSA Permit Streamlining Act Guidelines.. CEQA Guidelines / 14 Cal. Code of Regulations ....... SMA....... Subdivision Map Act FLOW CI3A.RT AND TIME- COMPLETED INITIAL STUDY to determine whether APPLICATION ND or EIR, within 30 days; mutual 15 -day extension. PRC 21080.1, 21080.2, 21080.3, ine Completion of appli- Guidelines 15063, 15102. ithin 30 days of submittal applicant if incomplete. Lce as complete starts time 'or environmental review. ;943, Guidelines 15060, NEGATIVE DECLARATION may ,ongtin's § §11.23, 11.24. be adopted if no substantial evidence of significant impact or impact mitigated. Guidelines 15070, Longtin's § §4.52 -4.55. Notice of Intent to Adopt ND with EMPT PROJECTS sufficient time to allow review. Post, mail and publish. Guidelines 15072. ject to further review. 980(b), Guidelines 15061, Review and Consultation Period t seq. and 15300 et seq., at least 20 days. Guidelines 15073. Com- 's §4.42 et seq. Agency ments considered. Guidelines 15074(b). )prove /disapprove project Adoption of ND within 180 days of 30 days. GovC 65950(a). complete application. Guidelines 15107. of Exemption filing Notice of Determination of ND filed and > 35 -day time limit for posted within 5 days of project approval. ge. PRC 21152 and Guidelines 15075. Triggers 30 -day time Guidelines 15062. limit to challenge ND. Guidelines 15112. NO CEQA REVIEW NO EIR REQUIRED ND ADOPTED - CEQA AND PSA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR, Required when project may have significant impact. Longtin's §4.52. Notice of Preparation sent to other agen- cies for scope and content response within 30 days. Guidelines 15082 and 15103. Draft EIR prepared by agency. Guidelines I 15084. For content, see Longtin's §4.62. Notice of Completion filed with specified agencies. Guidelines 15085. Notice of Availability. Post, mail and publish. Guidelines 15087. Public Review /Agency Consultation for minimum 30 days. Guidelines 15087, 15105. Comments and Responses in final EIR. Guidelines 15088 and 15132. Findings/Overriding Consideration Statement for approvals with significant effect. Guidelines 15091, 15093. Final EIR Certification within 1 year of completed application. 90 -day extension. Guidelines 15108. Notice of Determination filed and posted within 5 days. Guidelines 15094. Triggers 30 -day limit for CEQA challenge. Guide- lines 15112. PROJECT DECISION If EIR Certified, agency must ap- prove or deny within 180 days (90 days if low- income housing) GovC 65950. Less for subdivision maps GovC 65952.1. Guidelines 15111. Project deemed approved if no action within time limits. GovC 65956. PROJECT DECISION If Project Exempt or ND Adopt- ed, agency must approve/disap- prove within 60 days. GovC 65950. Deemed approved if no action within time limits. GoW 65956. LAND USE PROCEDURES AND TIMELINES LAND USE PROCEDURES AND TIMELINES Introduction and Scope. Most every land use project requires both application and decision pursuant to the Permit Stream lining Act (PSA) and environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Also, notice and hearing, requirements are established by other laws. This procedural intersection can be complex and confusing. This booklet contains a digest of the requirements and time- lines for notice, review, decision and legal challenge for land use projects in California. It includes a flow chart, diagram and explanatory text, with liberal reference to authoritative sources. Although not comprehensive because of size limitations, the booklet covers areas most useful for most permit activities. PROJECT APPLICATION AND REVIEW PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT (PSA) PSA Meets CEQA: The Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) (GovC §§65920 et seq. / Longtin's § §11.22- 11.27) requires agen- cies to follow standardized procedures and strict time deadlines for application, review and approval of development projects. The PSA and CEQA work together like on/off lights. When appli- cation submitted, PSA turns on; when application completed, PSA turns off and CEQA turns on for environmental review; then CEQA turns off when review complete and PSA turns on again through project decision. Applicability: PSA applies to "development projects," which include all adjudicatory approvals such as subdivision maps and most discretionary development permits. It does not apply to min- isterial actions such as building permits, lot line adjustments, and certificates of compliance. Nor does it apply to legislative actions, such as general plan or zoning changes. Longtin's §11.22. PROJECT APPLICATION AND REVIEW PERA UT STREAMLINING ACT (PSA) Project Application: Agency specifies information required from applicant for development project. GovC 065940, 65941. Upon receipt of application, agency has 30 days to determine and notify applicant whether application is complete for pro- cessing. If incomplete, resubmittal starts new 30 -day review period. If agency fails to notify applicant of completion status within 30 -day period, application is deemed complete. A com -- pleted application starts clock for agency review and decision. GovC §65943, Longtin's §11.24. CEQA Review: Once application is complete, agency proceeds with CEQA process, making determinations on exemptions, neg- ative declaration, or EIR certification, all within specified time periods. See CEQA, p. 6. Project Decision: Following CEQA review and determina- tion, PSA again becomes active, with strict time limits for pro- ject decision. After EIR certified, agency must approve or deny project within 180 days from date of certification. If low - income housing project, time shortened to 90 days. If project exempt from CEQA or if negative declaration adopted, agency must approve or deny within 60 days from determination. GovC §65950. Subdivision Approvals: Time limits for approval of tenta- tive subdivision maps (50 days for advisory agency /40+ days for appeal) may be shorter and must be followed (Gov § §65952.1, 66452.1, 66452.2, 66452.5). For CEQA reconciliation with short time limits for approval, see Guidelines §15111. Deemed Approved: If no action is taken on project within specified time limits, project is deemed approved, but only if requirements for public notice and review are satisfied. Options available to applicant to ensure notice compliance. GovC §65956(b), Longtin's §11.26. Time Extensions: PSA time limits for project decision may be extended once, by mutual agreement, not to exceed 90 days. GovC §65957. If there has been an extension under CEQA (see p. 10), to complete and certify an EIR, project must be decided within 90 days of certification. GovC §65950.1. LAND USE PROCEDURES AND TIMELINES CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) In General CEQA (PRC § §21000 et seq.) is a procedural statute designed to inform decision makers and the public about potential environ -. mental effects of proposed land use activities. A major challenge for practitioners is compliance with the various notice, con- sultation and review periods required by CEQA and its Guide- lines. CEQA works together with the PSA by commencing its environmental review after project application is complete. After CEQA review, the PSA controls again through project decision. Based upon the type of project and its potential for environ- mental impact, CEQA review may follow one of three courses: (a) exemption; (b) negative declaration (ND); or (c) environmental impact report (EIR). Exempt Projects CEQA and its Guidelines exempt many types of activities from its requirements. See PRC §§21080-21080.33, Guidelines § §15061,15062, 15260 et seq., 15300 et seq. and Longtin's § §4.42 et seq. If project exempt, agency must approve or disapprove within 60 days. GovC §65950(a). Upon approving exempt project, agency or applicant may file notice of exemption, which triggers 35 -day statute to challenge exemption determination. If notice not filed, time to challenge is 180 days from project approval. PRC § §21152, 21167, Guidelines § §15062, 15112. Initial Study An initial study, including consultations with applicant and other agencies, determines whether to prepare an ND or EIR. PRC §§21080.1-21080.3, Guidelines §15063(8). Agency must decide within 30 days. May be extended 15 days by mutual consent. PRC §21080.2. See Guidelines § §15063, 15102. Negative Declaration (ND) ND may be adopted when no substantial evidence that project may have significant effect. For projects where significant effect CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) identified, but mitigation measures reduce effect to insignificant, mitigated ND may be adopted. PRC §21080(c), Guidelines §15070, Longtin's § §4.52 -4.55. Content: For minimum required, see Guidelines §15071. Notice of Intent to Adopt ND must be posted for 20/30 days and mailed to specified agencies and persons. PRC § §21092; 21092.3, Guidelines §15072. Review and Consultation Period, for agencies and public, at least 20 days. Review period extended when ND sent to state clearinghouse. PRC § §21091, 21092.4, Guidelines § §15073,15206. Comments received during review period must be considered. PRC §21091(d), Guidelines §15074(b). Unlike EIR, comments not required to be attached to ND nor must lead- agency respond. Revised ND requires recirculation. Guidelines §15073.5. Mitigation Measures: Where potential effects identified, but revisions in project reduce effect to insignificant, ND may be used. Guidelines §15070(b). Substitution of mitigation measures, prior to project approval, requires hearing and findings of equiv- alency. PRC §21080(f), Guidelines §15074.1. Completion/Adoption of ND required within 180 days from completion of application. PRC §21151.5, Guidelines §15107. Notice of Determination to be filed within five days of project approval and posted 30 days. PRC §21152, Guidelines §15075. Statute of Limitations to challenge ND decision is 30 days if notice filed and posted, otherwise 180 days from project approval. PRC §21167, Guidelines §15112. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) EIR must be prepared when evidence supports "fair argument" that project may have significant effect on environment. See Longtin's §4.52. For criteria to determine significant effect, see Guidelines § §15064, 15065. Notice of Preparation. Scoping: NOP to be sent to responsible and trustee agencies immediately. Agencies to specify scope and LAND USE PROCEDURES AND TIlVIELINES content of information related to area of responsibility within 30 days. Scoping meeting if requested. PRC §21080.4, Guidelines §§15082,15103. Early Consultation: Early public consultation encouraged. Guidelines §15083. Consultation with water agencies required for specified large projects. Agencies to provide water supply, adequacy assessment within 30 days of NOR. Guidelines §15083.5. Draft EIR to be prepared by, or under contract to, agency. Guidelines §15084. For content of EIR, see PRC §21100, Guide- lines § §15120 et seq., Longtin's §4.62. Notice of Completion to be filed with OPR and state clearing- house, if required, when draft EIR complete. PRC §21161, Guide- lines §15085. Notice of Availability Public Review and A ency Consultation: NOA sent to affected agencies and requesting individuals. Post and mail to contiguous owners. PRC §§21092,21092.3, Guidelines §15087. Lead agency to consult with affected agencies and request comments. PRC §21092.4, Guidelines §15086. Minimum consul- tation and public review period for draft EIR is 30 days, 45 days when submitted to state clearinghouse. PRC § §21091, 21092, Guidelines §15105. Comments and Responses required in final EIR prior to certi- fication. PRC §21092.5, Guidelines § §15088, 15132. Final EIR. Certification prior to project approval and within one year from complete application, unless extended 90 days by mutual consent. PRC §21151.5, Guidelines §15108. Findings and Statement of Overriding; Consideration needed for approvals with remaining unmitigated significant effects. Guidelines § §15091, 15093. Notice of Determination. Statute of Limitations: Agency may file and post notice within five days of approval. PRC §21152, Guidelines §15094. Notice triggers 30 -day statute for CEQA chal- lenge. Guidelines §15112(c)(1). If notice not filed, time extended to 180 days. PRC §21167, Guidelines §15112(c)(5). NOTICE AND HEARING PROCEDURES NOTICE AND HEARING PROCEDURES Due Process ( Longtin's §11.30) The constitutional principle of procedural due process requires that landowners and other affected parties must be provided adequate notice and opportunity to be heard prior to any gov- ernment action that may affect significant property rights. As a practical matter, compliance with required statutory land use procedures will normally ensure due process compliance. Notice ( Longtin's §11.31) Public hearing notice requirements for land use projects are covered by GovC § §65090 and 65091 (notice requirements for CEQA determinations are in CEQA section, above). Generally, projects requiring legislative approval (general/specific plan and zoning amendments) only require publication and posting. GovC §65090. Adjudicatory decisions (tentative maps, variances, use permits, and other discretionary development permits) require both publication/posting and specific mailing to applicant and affected property owners. GovC §65091. For chart of notice re- quirements for specific permits and activities, see pp. 12 -13. Content: Date, time and place of hearing, description of prop- erty, and explanation of matter to be considered. GovC §65094. Publication/Posting: 10 days prior newspaper publication or posting in three public places. GovC §65090. Mailing: 10 days prior mailed notice to applicant and property owners within 300 feet. GovC §65091. Hearing ( Longtin's §11.32) Minimum Standards: Agencies must adopt procedural rules for conduct of zoning hearings. Staff report and record of hear- ing usually required. GovC §65804. Hearing Agenda to be posted 72 hours prior to agency meeting. GoW §54954.2, Longtin's §11.42. Opportunity to be Heard: Affected parties have right to mean- ingful hearing and to raise specific objections. Longtin's LAND USE 10 PROCEDURES AND TIMELINES §11.32[4]: For burden of proof, evidence and issues to be consid- ered, see Longtin's § §11.32[3]- -[12]. Decision - Making Process: For discussion of bias and fairness, conflicts of interest and voting, see Longtin's § §11.40- 11.45. Finding's: Required for adjudicative action, but not required for legislative action. Many exceptions. Longtin's § §11.50 et seq. See Chart of Procedures for Specified Activities, pp. 12 -13. Appeals: See Longtin's §11.32[13]. TIME LIMITS. PROCEDURAL DEFECTS. LITIGATION Time Limits. Extensions For time limits on specified PSA and CEQA activities, see text (pp. 5-8) and chart of timelines, pp. 2-3. CEQA time limits are directory, not mandatory. Longtin's §4.86[3]. Time periods may be extended by mutual consent, within limits. Guidelines §15108. And may be suspended for applicant delay. Guidelines §15109. "Deemed approved" provisions of PSA and SMA are mandatory. See p. 5. Effect of Procedural Defects Defective procedures generally do not invalidate permit or action unless party complaining suffered substantial injury and result would have been different. CEQA notices valid if agency makes "good faith effort." GovC § §65010, 65093, 65945.7. See Longtin's § §11.31[5],11.32[15]. However, cumulative errors may violate due process. See Longtin's §11.32[15]. Deadlines for Legal Challenge The statute of limitations for challenges to land use decisions is short. Guidelines §15112. For most CEQA determinations, 30 days (PRC §21167); for most planning, zoning and subdivision decisions, 90 days (GovC § §65009(c), 66499.37). Many time lim- itations run from date of decision to filing legal action and ser- vice of process (GovC §65009(c)). For list of limitation periods for specific land use permits /activities, see chart, pp. 12 -13. TIME LIM editing Litigatii ses involving CE( )reference and otf ition. PRC §2116' LEDURES .'ICE/HEARING firing notice require - ;lude publication/post- 65090) and mailing 991). See p. 9. earing before planning )n and legislative body. 53- 65356, 65453. .earing before plan - .mssion and legisla- GovC 65854 - 65857. .earing. GovC 65867. .earing. GovC 65905. :ss. earing. GovC Due process. ig required .earing. GovC 66016 ;s); 65905 (permits); subdivisions). Due ig required juires no public However, agencies red to notice various ations /decisions. See 13 DIIAL REVIEW/ REMEDY ion, mandate and are common reme- and use litigation. remedies include as, declaratory it penalties and fees. See Longtin's 12.09A and 12.40. 5 mandate review. adequate, compliance :ovC 65750- 65763. stency, invalidation 3ovC 65860(b). 5 mandate review. ion and damages . CCP 1095, GovC (consistency). 5 mandate review. t60(b) (consistency). 4.5 mandate. ion, damages . CCP 1095. 4.5 mandate. ,ion, damages . CCP 1095. 5 mandate. ,ion, damages . CCP 1095. e to fee adoption, validation. GovC Challenge to fee, invalidation/ �ovC 66020(d)41). 5 mandate. Invali- amages remedies. 5. 5 or 1094.5 "abuse ,ion" standard. 68 and 21168.5. ion and compliance PRC 21168.9, CCP Longtin's §4.90. o Department of Conservation C LAVlSTA I & Environmental Services DATE: April 10, 2008 TO: Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation FROM: Michael Meacham, Director of Conservation & Environmental Services Brendan Reed, Environmental Resource Manager SUBJECT: Acceptance of Climate Change Working Group's Final Recommendations Report In 2007 staff reported to the City Council that Chula Vista's citywide greenhouse gas emissions had increased by 35% from 1990 to 2005, while emissions from municipal operations decreased by 18 %. As a result, the City Council directed staff to convene a Climate Change Working Group (CCWG) to develop recommendations to reduce the community's greenhouse gas emissions or "carbon footprint" in order to meet the City's 2010 greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Over the last ten months, the CCWG - comprised of residential, business and community -group representatives - reviewed over 90 carbon- reducing measures that were previously implemented by other communities to determine their applicability and potential effectiveness in Chula Vista. The CCWG completed its review of these measures and selected seven measures which it recommended to City Council on April 1, 2008. In response, Council adopted all seven measures and directed staff to return within 90 days with more detailed implementation plans. City staff is now working to engage multiple community and stakeholder groups in the implementation planning process. The Department of Conservation & Environmental Services staff is asking the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation (CVRC) to accept the CCWG's Final Recommendations Report (attached). Once the draft implementation plans are developed, City staff will return to the CVRC for review and feedback. The CVRC may want to select a point of contact representative to help staff maintain communication with the Redevelopment Corporation during the implementation planning process and to help solicit the CVRC's detailed responses to the proposed implementation plans. Attachments Climate Change Working Group Final Recommendations Report — April 2008 Council Agenda Statement CCWG Council Presentation CITY OF CHULA VISTA CLIMATE CHANGE WORKING GROUP Final Recommendations Report April 2008 Summary: The Climate Change Working Group of the City of Chula Vista was tasked with identifying climate protection actions that provide the best opportunity for the City to meet, or make the most progress towards meeting its ICLEI/Kyoto commitment of reducing citywide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 20% below 1990 levels. After reviewing over 90 climate protection actions implemented by other cities, the Climate Change Working Group has selected the following measures that it feels are most likely to reduce Chula Vista's greenhouse gas emissions in the next few years: CCWG Final Recommendations Report 1 of 30 April 1, 2008 Background: The Climate Change Working Group was convened in July 2007 under the direction of the Council's ICLEI representatives, Councilmember Castaneda and Councilmember McCann, who serve as the City's Climate Change Subcommittee. The Subcommittee and their staff took an active role in establishing the sectors to be represented in the Working Group, submitting participant names and reviewing all potential representatives. The Planning Department, General Services, Public Works and Community Development were also invited to participate. The final ten - member group included seven Chula Vista residents and three members who lived elsewhere, but were involved in the Chula Vista community. In addition, three ex- officio members with strong interests in Chula Vista's climate reduction actions supported the Working Group (see Appendix A for full participant list). To help direct the Working Group in their task, of identifying effective emissions reduction strategies, City staff provided the following five criteria to guide recommendations: 1) the measure had been previously implemented by an ICLEI local government or California Climate Action Registry business, 2) the measure would be financially feasible (i.e. require little or no additional General Fund support, 3) the measure could be quickly implemented to have immediate impact on the City's efforts to reduce emissions by 2010, 4) the measures' impacts could be quantified using the City's emissions inventory protocol and 5) the measure would not cause a significant adverse community impact. CCWG meetings were initially moderated by a professional City facilitator (Dawn Beintema), while Conservation and Environmental Services Department staff provided administrative support. The Working Group process was divided into three sets of meetings. The first set was spent reviewing the City's 2005 GHG emissions inventory, learning about each of the sectors that generate emissions (energy, land_use /transportation, waste and water) and investigating what actions other cities had taken to reduce emissions from each sector. These actions were compiled into a list of 90 measures (see Appendix E) which could then be evaluated by the five criteria listed above. In the second set of meetings the Group reviewed these lists, and selected the measures from each sector that had the most potential to reduce emissions significantly while still meeting the five criteria (the list was narrowed to approximately 20 recommendations). The final set of meetings was spent distilling the list down to seven recommendations, and collaboratively writing and editing the text explaining these recommendations. In writing the recommendation text, the Climate Change Working Group strove to create implementation strategies that were neither overly specific enda ponscdepttailed enough to general. The Working Group's goal was to create lay the groundwork for speedy implementation, but also general enough to be adaptable CCWG Final Recommendations Report April 1, 2008 2 of 30 under changing circumstances. In the end, the Working Group's approach to the recommendation text was guided by its original charter, which was to create recommendations for Council but to leave the implementation details to staff specialists who are more familiar with municipal codes and processes. Many broader climate reduction actions, such as recommendations to re- organize Chula Vista's land use and transportation systems to favor transit, are absent from this list. While large- scale, system -level changes of this nature are likely to be necessary for sustained GHG emissions reductions, the Group felt that these recommendations were often too complex to be implemented and measured in the short terin. The Chula Vista Carbon Dioxide (COZ) Reduction Plan (2000) contains an excellent list of broader policies that should guide the City in the 21St century as it seeks to reduce its "carbon footprint" (See Appendix Q. The Climate Change Working Group would like to reiterate the importance of these broader policies, while at the same time acknowledging that the implementation of these policies is often outside of the City's purview. The Climate Change Working Group's recommendations represent an important strategic opportunity for the City. Council has reiterated its commitments to reducing GHG emissions, yet if the City continues with a "business as usual" approach, emissions are sure to increase further. On the other hand, if the City follows the Working Group's recommendations (especially pertaining to Green Building standards and solar energy conversion), Chula Vista could begin to slow its community -wide increase in GHG emissions and eventually lead to reduced citywide emissions. Council is strongly encouraged to adopt the Climate Change Working Group's recommendations, and to speed their implementation into municipal code and practice. CCWG Final Recommendations Report 3 of 30 April 1, 2008 Recommendation 1• Require that 100% of replacement vehicles purchased for municipal fleet be high efficiency (hybrid) or alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs). The City of Chula Vista Climate Change Working Group recommends that City of Chula Vista require all replacement vehicles purchased for the municipal fleet be either high efficiency (hybrid) or alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs). Background: The City of Chula Vista Climate Change Working Group recommends that the City of Chula Vista expand its use of high efficiency fuel vehicles including electric, biodiesel, ethanol, hybrid, hydrogen and natural gas based on appropriateness for vehicle task, fueling infrastructure, petroleum displacement, overall cost and environmental benefit. Further, the Group recommends that the City develop policies to efficiently use the vehicles that it currently has, implementing concepts like "right sizing ", "trip chaining" and maintenance in order to derive the most benefit from each "vehicle miles traveled" (VMTs). The City of Chula Vista has long been a pioneer in the use of high efficiency /alternative fuels. The City's transit fleet and some light -duty vehicles run on compressed natural gas and the City has its own compressed natural gas fueling station and hydrogen fueling station. Many cities throughout California have also successfully adopted the use of high efficiency /alternative fuel vehicles from passenger cars to heavy -duty trucks. Additionally, the State of California has made the growth of the use of alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles a high priority and passed myriad legislation creating funding mechanisms to drive this growth. Alternative fuel vehicle options exist in most every class of vehicle in use by the City of Chula Vista, so it is recommended that the City consider all high- efficiency /alternative fuel appropriate options when considering all future vehicle acquisitions. Recommended Performance Metrics for Measure: Performance could be measured by setting aggressive goals for increasing the City's use of alternative fuel vehicles (i.e. number of AFVs /high efficiency vehicles) and alternative fuels (i.e. gallons used), as well as development of associated fueling infrastructure. The effectiveness of the new measure could also be measured by tracking the average fleet "miles per gallon" (MPG) in gasoline, and setting ambitious goals to lower this MPG. Not only would this measure encourage greater adoption of AFVs, it would also focus the City on making the existing fleet as efficient as possible. CCWG Final Recommendations Report 4 of 30 April 1, 2008 Fiscally Feasible: The City can purchase high efficiency /alternative fuel vehicles as vehicle replacement funds become available. Substantial grant funding and incentives for light, medium and heavy duty alternative fuel vehicles are also currently available and expected to increase in years to come. Grant funding for fueling infrastructure may be available and private industry may also invest in necessary fueling infrastructure with local commitment to use. Because high- efficiency vehicles use less gasoline and alternative fuels are typically less expensive than conventional fuels, hybrid and AFVs can often recoup any additional upfront costs over their lifetime. Tax rebates on qualifying alternative fuels also exist, bringing their cost below that of petroleum -based fuels. Short Timeframe: Hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles can be implemented into the fleet immediately as vehicles are replaced, or new vehicles are purchased. Alternative fuel vehicle fueling infrastructure can be accomplished in 2008 and 2009. Quantifiable Results: The use of hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles will permit a reduction in the use of petroleum -based fuels. All targeted alternative technologies /fuels can have significant greenhouse gas emissions benefits over petroleum -based fuels such as gasoline and diesel. Prior Execution: Various cities including Burbank, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Vacaville, CA, as well as Boulder, CO. No Adverse Effects: While some alternative fuel vehicles may cost more than their gasoline and /or diesel counterparts, billions of dollars in current and future State and Federal incentives, grants and tax credits can bring the cost of those alternative fuel vehicles near or below that of a comparable gasoline or diesel - powered vehicle. In some cases, grant applications may need to be written and reports may need to be filed in the process of securing funding for vehicles and/or infrastructure; however, an increase in City staff would not be anticipated. Additionally, private industry may invest in necessary fueling infrastructure to meet the City's needs. Many alternative fuel vehicles currently offer significant fuel and maintenance cost savings over gasoline and diesel - powered vehicles. CCWG Final Recommendations Report 5 of 30 April 1, 2008 Recommendation 2• Encourage City- contracted fleet operators to adopt the use of hiiih efficiency (hybrid) or alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs), stipulating that 100% of replacement vehicle purchases be alternative fuel or hybrid vehicles. The City of Chula Vista Climate Change Working Group recommends that the City of Chula Vista work with fleets under City authority and influence their expanded use of alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs). All replacement vehicles purchased by City - contracted fleets should be either AFVs, high efficiency vehicles or vehicles otherwise able to demonstrate significant reductions in carbon emissions. Background: The City of Chula Vista Climate Change Working Group recommends that the City of Chula Vista work with fleets under City authority to influence their expanded use of alternative fuels and high- efficiency /alternative fuel vehicles including electric, biodiesel, ethanol, hybrid, hydrogen and natural gas based on appropriateness for vehicle task, fueling infrastructure, petroleum displacement, overall cost and environmental benefit. While there are a number of fleets operating in the City of Chula Vista, few are under direct authority of the City with the exception of taxis and refuse trucks. There are currently over 200 taxis permitted by the Police Department to pick up passengers in the City of Chula Vista and over 50 refuse trucks authorized to collect household discards. There are currently hundreds of alternative fuel taxis and refuse trucks operating throughout California. Helping these fuel- intensive fleets adopt hybrid/alternative fuel vehicles should be the City's near -term priority. Additional fleet operators not directly under the City's authority that the City may be able to influence include United Parcel Services (UPS) (which uses alternative fuel vehicles at various hubs throughout the country), as well as other local manufacturers, distributors and service providers. Recommended Performance Metrics for Measure: Performance could be measured by setting aggressive goals for increasing fleet operators' use of high- efficiency /alternative fuel vehicles (i.e. number of hybrid and AFVs) and alternative fuels (i.e. gallons used), as well as associated fueling infrastructure. Fiscally Feasible: Fleet owners can purchase alternative fuel vehicles with existing vehicle replacement funds, ultimately meeting percentage targets set through contract negotiations. CCWG Final Recommendations Report 6 of 30 April 1, 2008 Substantial grant funding and incentives for light, medium and heavy duty alternative fuel vehicles are also currently available and expected to increase in years to come. Grant funding for fueling stations may be available and private industry may also invest in necessary fueling infrastructure with local commitments to use. High - efficiency /alternative fuel vehicles often recoup their higher initial costs by life -cycle savings on fuel. Tax credits on qualifying alternative fuels also exist, bringing their cost below that of petroleum -based fuels. Short Timeframe: High - efficiency /alternative fuel vehicles can be implemented into fleets immediately with all scheduled vehicle replacements and/or new vehicle acquisitions. Alternative fuel vehicle fueling /charging infrastructure expansion can be accomplished in 2008 and 2009. Quantifiable Results: The conversion to high- efficiency /alternative fuel vehicles will reduce the use of petroleum -based fuels. All targeted alternative fuels have significant greenhouse gas emissions benefits over petroleum -based fuels such as gasoline and diesel. Prior Execution: Various cities and agencies in our neighboring South Coast Air Quality Management District, as well as Smithtown and Brookhaven, NY and San Antonio, TX. No Adverse Effects: While some high- efficiency /alternative fuel vehicles may cost more than their gasoline and/or diesel counterparts, billions of dollars in current and future State and Federal incentives, grants and tax credits can bring the cost of those alternative fuel vehicles near or below that of a comparable gasoline or diesel - powered vehicle. In some cases, grant applications may need to be written and reports may need to be filed in the process of securing funding for vehicles and/or infrastructure; however, an increase in staffing would not be anticipated and private industry partnerships are available to incur these costs on behalf of fleet owners. Additionally, private industry may invest in necessary fueling infrastructure to meet fleet owners' needs. Many alternative fuel vehicles currently offer significant fuel and maintenance cost savings over gasoline and diesel - powered vehicles. CCWG Final Recommendations Report 7 of 30 April 1, 2008 Recommendation 3: Require Citv of Chula Vista - licensed businesses to participate in an energy assessment of their physical premises every three years and upon change of ownership, The City of Chula Vista Climate Change Working Group recommends that City of Chula Vista - licensed businesses be required to participate in an energy assessment of their physical premises every three years and upon change of ownership. Background: The City of Chula Vista Climate Change Working Group recommends that City of Chula Vista - licensed businesses be required to participate in an energy assessment of their physical premises every three years as a way of helping businesses take advantage of rapidly evolving energy - efficiency practices and technologies. The City of San Diego has had a similar code in place since the early nineties requiring that all buildings receiving water service from the City of San Diego obtain a Water Conservation Plumbing Certificate upon change of ownership. This requirement has led to widespread installation of water- conserving equipment in the building stock. The City of Berkeley has a similar municipal code in place requiring businesses to complete an energy assessment upon change of ownership. This code has been shown to create a heightened awareness of energy conservation among citizens. The proposed recommendation is based on the City of San Diego/ City of Berkeley codes and would require assessments for businesses every three years and upon change of ownership. The proposed code would with assessments to be conducted by City staff sw with Business License Renewal Program, support from the SDG &E Partnership Program. Energy assessments would vary by business type, but would be designed for flexibility in order to help take advantage of available incentive and rebate opportunities. Because water use and energy consumption are directly linked, water - conserving practices and technologies would also be encouraged under this program. Recommended Performance Metrics for Measure: The implementation of this measure requires a change to the City's business licensing code stipulating the energy assessment requirement. Before the code could be written it would be necessary to establish who would perform the assessments (likely City staff supported by SDG &E), what standards were � Once met the dcode was n place, performance integrated into the business licensing pro cess could be gauged by measuring the number of assessments completed. CCWG Final Recommendations Report April 1, 2008 8 of 30 Fiscally Feasible: City staff currently conduct energy assessments as part of the SDG &E -City of Chula Vista Energy Efficiency Partnership Program. The required business assessments would be an outgrowth of that effort. In the last year, the City has completed approximately 400 business assessments. The City currently licenses approximately 3,500 businesses with physical premises, meaning that the assessment efforts would need to be stepped -up to assess an additional 700 -800 businesses per year. This is not unmanageable under the existing program format, but would require efforts to be re- focused on business assessments rather than residential lighting exchanges. Short Timeframe: Increased business energy assessments could result almost immediately in energy conservation behaviors and efficiency improvements. Reduction in carbon emissions can reasonably be expected within a 2 -3 year time frame. Quantifiable Results: Reductions in energy use are among the easiest measures to quantify in the City's GHG emissions inventory. Effective energy assessments that change business behaviors can be expected to yield quantifiable, albeit modest, GHG reductions. Prior Execution: Berkeley, CA, San Jose, CA, San Diego, CA (water assessment) No Adverse Effects: While requiring businesses to complete an energy assessment every three years would add an additional complication to the business licensing process, the benefit to businesses in cost savings through energy use reduction can be expected to overwhelm the hassle of completing the assessment. It is possible that the assessments would create additional complexity for the City's business licensing staff. Relevant Links: 1) City of San Diego Plumbing Retrofit Ordinance: http: �% «r"-tiv. sandiego.gov ;'water /consery atioii/selling. shtml 2) City of Berkeley Commercial Energy Conservation Ordinance http: / /«�-tiv.ci.berk-eley. ca.us /ContentDisplay.aspx ?id =15474 CCWG Final Recommendations Report April 1, 2008 9 of 30 Recommendation 4• Adopt community -wide green building standards that are comprehensive in coverage and mandatory. New and substantial renovated structures will be required to be built to LEED silver or to an equivalent 3rd party certification green building program, with the effect of having an energy efficiency impact of at least 20% over Title -24. The City of Chula Vista Climate Change Working Group recommends that City of Chula Vista adopt community -wide green building standards that are comprehensive in coverage and mandatory. Permits shall not be given to a building unless it is designed and built as LEED silver, or equivalent from another 3rd party certification green building program, with the effect of having an energy efficiency impact of at least 20% over Title - 24. This requirement would then be regularly updated to meet Architecture 2030 goals of energy net zero construction by 2020 for homes and 2030 for businesses. Background: Energy use by existing building stock accounts for half of Chula Vista's community greenhouse gas emissions. The City's Climate Change Working Group recommends that the City take action to reduce emissions from buildings by changing the municipal code stipulations to require builders to exceed Title -24 standards. Requiring builders and building managers to meet higher energy efficiency standards would help support the long -term value of the City's building stock by encouraging upkeep and assuring the future reliability and comfort of structures. Building energy efficiency standards are currently set by California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24.12. Though Title -24 energy standards are among the most rigorous energy codes in the U.S., buildings constructed to LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards are at least 14% more efficient than buildings simply built to current Title -24 standards. Opportunities for energy savings are particularly great in the residential sector, where Title -24 requirements are comparatively less stringent. The Climate Change Working Group recommends that the City take advantage of this potentially tremendous energy savings by creating a municipal code requiring buildings to exceed Title -24 standards. A variety of different approaches could be taken to mandate the construction of energy efficient structures within the City of Chula Vista. Requiring that builders construct green buildings, which are designed to maximize energy efficiency and sustainability, can be an effective way to exceed Title -24 requirements. The Working Group's recommendation both encourages the use of green building methods and focuses specifically on energy efficiency. CCWG Final Recommendations Report 10 of 30 April 1, 2008 Furthermore, the Climate Change Working Group recommends the following guidelines for implementation of these recommendations as to properly capture the letter and spirit of the Working Group's findings: 1. Any energy code /green building measure must be required for both public and private development. 2. The requirements must be comprehensive in the size and types of structures covered. 3. The requirements should include participation in an already existing green building 3rd party certification program with an energy efficiency component. If there is a phase -in period, it must be relatively short as to be relevant to the 2010 GHG emission deadline and must be connected to a clear and concise timetable for implementation. Prior Execution: While the Climate Change Working Group strongly recommends that the City enact codes to make both new and remodeled buildings more efficient, the logistics of creating a Green Building Code for Chula Vista require research time and effort beyond the scope of the Working Group. By approving this measure, Council will direct staff to research and develop an implementation plan for this recommendation. Recommended Performance Metrics for Measure: The implementation of this measure requires an addition to the City's municipal code outlining the new green building standard. Performance would be gauged by the number of building permits applied for, the number accepted, and the number of compliant buildings built. Fiscally Feasible: The City of Chula Vista currently has building code requirements that must be met before a building can be permitted. This recommendation would require a modest addition to these existing building standards. The new codes should be designed to work within pre- existing implementation and compliance mechanisms to allow for cost - effective enforcement. While additional training for existing staff may be required, it is not likely to impose significant additional costs upon the City. Short Timeframe: The implementation of these standards could occur as soon as municipal codes are amended and adequate notice is given to the public. The fact that the implementation and CCWG Final Recommendations Report 11 of 30 April 1, 2008 enforcement process for building new structures is already in place shortens the recommendation's implementation Quantifiable Results: Reductions in energy use by buildings are among the easiest carbon - reducing actions to quantify. Credible sources ranging from the Department of Energy to the California Attorney General have endorsed green buildings standards as an effective means of reducing carbon emissions. Prior Execution: Mandatory green building standards have been adopted in Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Los Angeles, San Diego, West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Boston and Washington D.C. (to name a few). (Please see Appendix B) No Adverse Effects: While these standards require project applicants to meet additional requirements before they can be issued a building permit, the areas to be regulated by these green building codes are no different than other building requirements currently imposed on developers including structural, lighting, earthquake safety and ventilation requirements. Such standards have proven to have little, if any, adverse effects on the number of permits sought. Studies by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) have shown that building to basic "LEED certification" can be done at virtually no extra cost. The fact that the proposed standards allow developers the flexibility and autonomy to determine how best to meet these requirements will offset the burden associated with meeting an additional procedural requirement. This recommendation is consistent with the CPUC and California Energy Commission's stated goal to make new residential and commercial buildings "carbon- neutral" by 2020 and 2030, respectively. In addition, such a requirement will reduce the future growth in peak demand for electricity thus reducing the future need for the South Bay Power Plant. Relevant Links: 1. Boston Green Building Program: http:'1 ww. cityofboston .gov/br.a/gbtf /GBTFhome.asp 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code: http: / / «rwiv.gcode.us /codes /santamonica/index.php ?topic =8- 8_108- 8_108_060 3. Los Angeles Bar Association Review of California Municipal Green Building Codes: http:/ hw-wtiv .laeba.org /showpage.cfln .9pageid =8922 CCWG Final Recommendations Report April 1, 2008 12 of 30 4. Santa Barbara Green Building Code http : / /w\A,�v. santabarbaraca. gov /Documents /Sustaii Pr ess_Releases /2007 -10- 29 Santa Barbara _ Energy_Crdinance_Beats—Cal 5. San Francisco Green Building Codes http://,,vn«v.sfenvirolunelit.org/ourl_proarams/topic Please see Appendix B for further links to municip CCWG Final Recommendations Report April 1, 2008 Recommendation 5• Facilitate widespread installation of solar photovoltaic (P') systems on commercial, residential and municipal facilities by developing and implementing a solar energy conversion program. Proactively enforce existing codes requiring pre - plumbing for solar hot water. The City of Chula Vista Climate Change Working Group recommends that the City of Chula Vista facilitate widespread installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems on commercial, residential and municipal facilities by developing and implementing a solar energy conversion program. The Group also recommends that the City more proactively enforce existing codes requiring pre - plumbing for solar hot water. Background: Developing cleaner energy sources is an essential tool for slowing climate change. Solar energy remains a largely untapped resource for generating clean energy. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): • Each day more solar energy hits the Earth than its inhabitants could consume in 27 years. • Solar energy technologies produce minor amounts of greenhouse gases, generated mostly during the manufacturing process. • A 100 - megawatt solar thermal electric power plant, over 20 years, will avoid more than 3 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions when compared to the cleanest conventional fossil fuel- powered electric plants. Photovoltaic (PV) solar panels convert sunlight directly into electricity. PV panels can be mounted to commercial, residential and municipal buildings and connected directly to the energy grid. For residential applications, annual audits by the energy company provide a comparison between the energy contributed from the solar system to the amount of energy used. If there is a shortfall, the user then pays for the difference. Energy conservation is also an important part of an efficient solar system. Financing Options The primary barrier to the installation of solar PV systems is cost. The average 2 kilowatt (kW) solar system can cost between $16,000- $26,000 to install. The payback period for a solar system can be anywhere from 15 -30 years, depending on location, type of panels used, maintenance and weather. Options for overcoming this barrier include: 1) Power Purchase Agreement (PPA): In a PPA, a property owner allows a solar energy contractor to install and operate PV solar panels on their property. Though energy produced by the panels is used on -site, the property owner continues to pay their electric bills, this time to the solar installer rather than the utility company. Once the cost of the solar installation has been paid back, the property owner generally has the option of CCWG Final Recommendations Report April 1, 2008 14 of 30 taking over the ownership /operation of the solar panels. This type of solar agreement is most often used on large structures such as schools, municipal facilities and retail stores. Application: This type of solar financing would be most practical for City facilities with large roof areas, such as parking garages. Implementation: The City could require a certain percentage of its municipal energy to be generated on -site with solar PV panels. PPAs are a tool which could be used to help the City reach this solar goal, especially if the City was not able to afford Solar through other means. 2) City Solar Financing /Special Assessment: The City of Berkeley is helping residents afford solar by paying up -front for the cost and installation of residential solar systems, and then recouping the cost by assessing an additional tax on participating properties which would pay back the cost of the system over a 20 year period. Residents benefit immediately from reductions on their energy bills. The City of Berkeley won a $200,000 solar grant from the EPA to help cover the start-up costs for the program. Application: This type of solar financing would help surmount the costs of solar system installation for individual homeowners. By helping spread the cost of the solar system across a 20 year period, residents are able to experience the solar system payback more immediately. Implementation: The City could establish a program like the one in Berkeley, giving Chula Vista property owners the option to install City - financed solar systems on their buildings. These systems would then be paid off over a set timeframe through special property assessments. 3) Community Solar Program and Trust Fund: The City of Santa Monica's comprehensive solar program helps lower the cost of solar by simplifying the permitting process for solar construction, identifying solar contractors who are willing to do installations at a reduced "Santa Monica" rate, identifying banks /lenders to help residents finance solar installation costs and by providing free energy assessments to residents. Energy assessments help residents reduce their energy consumption through conservation first, thereby reducing the size of the solar system they will eventually install. For residents who rent their homes, or have a site that is not suitable for the installation of solar panels, the City offers the option of buying shares in a Community Solar System Fund. This fund helps buy down the cost of solar installation for the City overall. Application: This tool could be used to create funds for the general establishment of solar programs, to buy down the cost of solar installation in the City and to expedite the processing of solar permits. Implementation: The City could establish a solar program modeled on "Solar Santa Monica," with an option that allows residents to buy into the "Solar Trust Fund." Determining the appropriate combination of financing options and program designs for the City would require research and policymaking beyond the scope of the Climate CCWG Final Recommendations Report April 1, 2008 15 of 30 Change Working Group. The group does recommend that the City hasten to adopt a solar energy conversion plan that incorporates the strategies listed above. At the same time, there are a variety of less elaborate actions that the City can take to ensure the adoption of solar technologies: Pre -Plumb /Pre -Wire for Solar Since 1982 the City has had a code in place requiring pre - plumbing for solar hot water on new homes. Though this code has been in place since the early ` 80s, it has received little ommen to no enforcement. The Climate Change WourthermorepthecGroup recommends that enforce this code requirement going forward. F this code be amended to require that new homes are also pre -wired for solar PV. Pre - plumbing and pre - wiring for solar reduce�b an be easily econvertedlto alternative technologies, and ensures that conventional ho energy sources as funds become available. Require Solar Installation as an "Upgrade Option" on New Homes: "upgrade" option Some homebuilders (ex. Pardee Homes) offer solar PV systems as an p on new homes. However, this option is not offered by any developers in the City of Chula Vista at this time. The Climate Change Working go coup recommends that h a City new home developers in Chula Vista to offer option. Provide Residents Free Home Energy Assessments: Home energy efficiency can reduce the cost offset ever houses "net Any solar PV program reducing the size of the solar system needed too energy The City's Conservation should be complemented by energy conservation programming• tY and Environmental Services DepartmenGcurrently & The offers that the assessments Crty part of the City's partnership with SD continue to provide these assessments going forward. Recommended Performance Metrics for Measure: Performance can be measured by the number of commercial, residential tial and municipal icipal facilities installing solar PV systems each year. Performance can also number of megawatts produced by program- installed PV systems. Citywide clean energy generation goals could be established (ex: 100 megawatts of solar generation by 2012). Fiscally Feasible: of In addition to the financing me chanisms mentioned an o addition t re eiving a� $160,000 non - profit funds for solar programs are available. I "Solar America" grant from the EPA for the administrative costs of establishing a solar 16 of 30 CCWG Final Recommendations Report April 1, 2008 program, Berkeley also received a $75,000 grant from its regional Air Quality Management District. The Berkeley Program also benefits from the California Solar Initiative rebate, which is applied to the total cost Berkeley pays for the solar systems. Solar systems installed on municipal facilities can take advantage of a similar State and Federal incentives. Because the amount of these incentives and rebates is designed to decrease over time, the Climate Change Working Group recommends that the City work to take advantage of these financing opportunities while they are still significant. Short Timeframe: If aggressively pursued, a basic program could be put in place in 12 to 18 months. Developing a more elaborate program with financing for residential solar installation would be more within the 2 to 4 year timeframe. Quantifiable Results: Widespread solar energy conversion in the City of Chula Vista would help shift energy production away from greenhouse gas producing power plants. (See the discussion of performance metrics above). Prior Execution: City of Santa Monica "Solar Santa Monica" program, City of San Francisco "Climate Action Plan". No Adverse Effects: Facilitating solar energy conversions would not cause adverse economic or social impacts or shift negative environmental impacts to another sector. Creating a robust solar energy conversion program would encourage economic development and create opportunities for the struggling housing construction industry. Relevant Links: 1. U.S. EPA Fact Sheet: Climate Change Technologies, Solar Energy http: / /yosemite.epa.gov/ oar /globalwarming.nsf/ JniqueKeyLookup /SHStj5BVR3A /$File/ solarenergy.pdf 2. Solar Santa Monica http:! %t��-r"7. solarsantamonica .corn /niaijl/'index.html 3. The GfK Roper Yale Survey on Environmental Issues http:/ .• /envirom- nent.yale.edu/'docum eats/ downloads ;h- n/LocalActionReport.pdf 4. San Francisco Solar Plan Press Release CCWG Final Recommendations Report 17 of 30 April 1, 2008 http: / /www.sfaov.org /site /assessor_page.asp` ?id =7 5. City of Berkeley Solar Plan Press Release http://` vtiviu. ci. berkeley .ca.us/'Mayor;PR/pre,ssrelea; CCWG Final Recommendations Report April 1, 2008 Recommendation 6: Facilitate "Smart Growth" around the H Street, E Street and Palomar Street Trolley Stations. The City of Chula Vista Climate Change Working Group recommends that City of Chula Vista facilitate smart growth around the H Street, E Street and Palomar Street Trolley Stations. Background: Chula Vista's trolley stations offer a unique smart growth opportunity. Smart growth is a compact, efficient and environmentally sensitive pattern of development that provides people with additional travel, housing and employment choices by focusing future growth away from rural areas and closer to existing and planned job centers and public facilities. Smart growth reduces dependence on the automobile for travel needs. Automobile travel reductions prevent the burning of fossil fuels that contribute to greenhouse gases and climate change. The E Street and H Street trolley stations are defined as "Primary Gateways" within the Promenade Vision Area in the City of Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan. The vision description is as follows. "A dynamic mix of regional transit centers, visitor serving uses and a retail complex surrounds an enhanced, medium -rise residential quarter. Circulation is improved by re- establishing the traditional street grid. A tree - lined, extended linear park offers both neighborhood and community serving amenities supported by mid -block paseos. The park transitions from an active community venue with a more formal landscape to recreational features such as tennis and basketball courts to passive greens. Anchoring the park, the retail plaza links the Bayfront to the regional mall. Ample public spaces provide for open air markets, mercados, cultural festivals, art exhibits and other community events." The Palomar Station is already zoned as a "Gateway Transit District" under the current zoning plan, with densities up to 40 dwelling units per acre permissible by code. Recommended Performance Metrics for Measure: Performance could be measured by the number of building permits issued within one - quarter mile of the trolley stations. CCWG Final Recommendations Report 19 of 30 April 1, 2008 Fiscally Feasible: Yes. Short Timeframe: If aggressively pursued, new building permits could be issued in 18 to 24 months. Quantifiable Results: Possible. Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. could be quantified by developing an estimated emission value per square foot of smart growth residential space and an estimated emission value per square foot of more traditional suburban residential space. The difference between the two could be used to calculate the emissions reduction due to new residential smart growth around the trolley stations. Prior Execution: "New Places, New Choices: Transit - Oriented Development in the San Francisco Bay Area, November 2006" www.mtc.ca.gov /library /TOD /index.htm, transitvillages.org, transitorienteddevelopoment. org. No Adverse Effects: A difficult topic to address with any smart growth project is traffic impact. This issue would be easier to address if a trolley station were made an integral part of the smart growth project. Interstate 5 and a robust network of local strets Trolley Stations.relmplementmg proximity to the E Street, H Street and P alomar smart growth around trolley stations would potentially cause t another sector. economic or social impacts and potentially shift negative environm ent p a CCWG Final Recommendations Report April 1, 2008 20 of 30 Recommendation 7• Coordinate with Otay Water District, San Diego County Water Authority and the Sweetwater Authority to convert turf lawns to xeriscape. The City of Chula Vista Climate Change Working Group recommends that City of Chula Vista coordinate with Otay Water District, San Diego County Water Authority and the Sweetwater Authority on turf lawn conversions for commercial and residential properties. Pumping water is a significant contributor to GHG emissions in California. Converting lawns to water -wise gardens and /or artificial turf has been shown to reduce outdoor residential water use by 40 %, thereby reducing emissions from this sector. Background: The pumping of water and wastewater in California is estimated to take up at least seven percent of the State's total energy usage, making water use a significant contributor to the State's overall COZ emissions. (2007 PIER Report). According to the San Diego County Water Authority, up to fifty percent of household water use goes to thirsty turf grass lawns. The Climate Change Working Group recommends that the City support and coordinate with existing programs aimed at reducing the amount of water used in landscaping. The Otay Water District's "Cash for Plants" program pays residents and businesses up to $2,200 to convert turf lawns or other high water -use plants to drought- tolerant plants. This type of landscaping is often called "xeriscaping" and utilizes San Diego native and California- friendly plants. However, the program is restricted to turf grass lawns larger than 750 square feet. This restriction prevents many smaller residential and commercial properties from participating in the program. Otay Water District has recently begun a second program that pays single - family homeowners to replace their lawns with artificial turf, with a $1 /sf incentive. This program only applies to lawns smaller than 1,000 SF, though it supplements programs that pay schools to convert their fields to artificial turf. Ideally, the Climate Change Working Group would like to see the City develop its own program to supplement the rebates offered by the local water districts, and to extend the programs to parts of the City under the jurisdiction of the Sweetwater Authority which currently doesn't offer the programs. If developing an independent incentive program is not fiscally possible, the Climate Change Working Group encourages the City to work with Otay Water District to help promote its program to all residents and businesses. The City could help by integrating the information into existing community outreach activities, thereby increasing the numbers of Chula Vista lawns converted to xeriscapes. The City could also help residents overcome Home Owner Association rules and other logistical barriers to CCWG Final Recommendations Report April 1, 2008 21 of 30 xeriscape conversion. Additionally, the City mig hact t participating to aggregate participating homes to buy -down the cost of contractor Recommended Performance Metrics for Measure: Effective implementation of this measure could be gauged by b numbers of apps cations 2 or the rs of existing turf- to- xeriscape incentive applications with 3 years into the future, with the expectation that the City's efforts would result in an increase in applications. Fiscally Feasible: The recommendation's fiscal impact would vary depending on the degree (and type) of support the City provided. At present, the City has a nature - friendly gardening program (Naturescape) that encourages residents to adopt water -eater gfo use on turf -tol xeriscape program could be easily adapted to put an even greater to conversion programs. The Naturescape program ise expected state this program woth however, primarily due to lack of funding. The City could l potential financial support from the local water districts. Short Timeframe: Because the City has funding in place for the Naturescape program until June 2008, support and promotion of Otay Water District's "Cash or Plants" program a could begin of at once. It is expected that increased promotion would landscape conversion in the next 2 -3 years. Quantifiable Results: A study from the Southern Nevada Water Authorn ty shows a net erted turf t average xe isg ape.l Large scale use savings of 30% for homes that have co an implementation of the Water Authority "Cash For Plants" the toverallgeffect onithe1kCity'saGHG impact on GHG emissions from water use, though emissions would be relatively small. Prior Execution: Similar programs have been implemented with success in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Mesa, Arizona and Cathedral City, California. No Adverse Effects: CCWG Final Recommendations Report April 1, 2008 22 of 30 adies show that well -w; reasonably assume that ng gas - powered mow >ff outweigh any carbor. Cs ater District Flyer ?,ywater.gov/owd/pages, Nevada Water Authorii tp://www.siiNva.com./as,, Recommendations Repoi Appendix A• Climate Change Working Group Members List NAME Lynda Gilgun Alan Ridley Chris Schodowski Erin Pitts ORGANIZATION Resource Conservation Commission Cuyamaca College Leviton Manufacturing Inc. South Bay YMCA/Earth Service Corps SECTOR Resident/RCC Resident/Energy Resident/Business Youth ALTERNATE Leo Miras Environmental Health Coalition Environmental Laura Hunter Cesar Rios ECM Networks Energy Alma Aguilar Southwestern College Youth/Environmental Hector Reyes Reyes Architects Resident /Architect Richard Chavez SANDAG Resident/Transportation Derek Turbide Clean Energy Resident/Transportation Brian Holland SANDAG Ex Officio SDG &E Ex Officio Julie Ricks Risa Baron Andrea Cook CA Center for Sustainable Energy Ex Officio Michael Meacham CV Conservation& Environmental Serv. Staff Brendan Reed CV Conservation& Environmental Serv. Staff Carla Blackmar CV Conservation& Environmental Serv. Staff Richard Hopkins CV Public Works Operations Staff Marisa Lundstedt CV Planning & Building Staff Josie McNeeley Lynn France CV General Services Staff Manuel Medrano CV - National Energy Center for Sustainable Staff Denny Stone Communities Recommendations Report 24 of 30 Appendix B• Municipal Green Building Standards Summary MANDATORY RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS AND ORDINANCES Boulder, CO- created their own point -based system for ALL residential development within the city. The bigger the project, the more points they must acquire. The system is essentially based on LEED criteria. It should be noted that one of the largest categories in which to get possible points is focused completely around solar- solar energy, passive solar, solar hot water, etc. http: // www .bouldercolorado.gov /index.php ?option= com_content &task = view &id = 208 &Iteamid = 489 West Hollywood, CA- also created a custom -made point -based system. Requires new residential development with three or more units to submit a green building plan and meet a minimum number of points. All covered projects must be solar- ready. http: // www. weho. org / index .cfm /fuseaction/DetailGroup /navid /53/cid/4493/ Santa Cruz, CA- all new residential development are required to obtain a certain number of points from GreenPoint. http: // www. ci. santa- cruz.ca.us /pl /building /green.html Marin County, CA- all new residential development in unincorporated sections of the county are required to achieve a certain number of GreenPoint points. All single family dwellings larger than 3,500 sq. ft. are subject to the energy efficiency budget of a 3,500 sq. ft. building. http: / /www.co. marin. ca. us /depts /CD/ main /comdev /advance /Sustainabilitiv.cfin Santa Barbara, CA- The ordinance mandates building regulations, based on Architecture 2030 principles, which exceed Title 24 requirements by 20 percent for low -rise residential buildings, 15 percent for high -rise residential buildings and 10 percent for nonresidential buildings, among other measures. http:// sbdailysound .blogspot.com/2007 /10 /santa - barbara- boosts - green- building.html Chicago, IL- requires all residential development to meet energy requirements more stringent than the IL state standard. Palm Desert, CA- requires all new residential development less than 4000 sq. ft. to meet energy requirements 10% beyond Title 24, and residential development greater than 4000 sq. ft. to meet energy requirement 15% beyond Title 24. Santa Monica, CA- requires all new multi - family homes to meet a series of energy efficiency requirements that are 15% above Title 24. http: / /wNvw.greenbuildings .santa- monica.org /whatsnew/ green - building - ordinance /green- building- Ord- 1- 5- 2002.pdf Austin, TV recently began adopting a series of building code requirements designed to create net zero energy homes. These are related to duct system leakage, HVAC sizing calculations, new 1; ],tin requirements, and building thermal envelope testing. g g http://action.nwf.org/ct/Cl—aQw5 I IaZd/ CCWG Final Recommendations Report April 1, 2008 25 of 30 MANDATORY COMMERCIAL STANDARDS AND ORDINANCES West Hollywood, CA- requires all new commercial development to meet a certain number of points within their custom -made point system. Chicago, IL- requires all commercial development to meet energy code requirements that are more stringent than the IL energy conservation code. Santa Monica, CA- requires all new commercial development to meet energy code requirements that are 15% above Title 24 requirements. Washington, DC- requires LEED certification or LEED silver (depending on the project type) for commercial development above 50,000 sq. ft. htt : / /action.nwf.orQ /ct/Cd aQw5l IaZc/ Boston, MA- requires LEED certification for commercial development above 50,000 sq. ft. http : //w w,,v.bostongreenbuilding.org/ Seattle, WA- required all commercial development to met and code Conditioning requirements that are 20% above American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, standards. (ASHRAE) http: / /wwtiv. seattle. gov /DPD /stell ent/groups /pan/ @pan/ @codes / @energycode /documents /web_t nformational /2 006SECsummary.pdf Santa Barbara, CA- The ordinance mandates building regulations, based on Architecture 2030 principles, which exceed Title 24 requirements and 10 0 perc for nonresidential lbuildings, lamon g 15 percent for high -rise residential buildings percent other measures. http:// sbdailysound .blogspot- com/2007 /10 /santa - barbara- boosts- green- building.html CCWG Final Recommendations Report April 1, 2008 26 of 30 Appendix C: Recommen, CO2 Reducti( Tabte 6.3 ACTION MEASL 1. Municipal clean fuel vehicle purchases. 2. Green Power; (RepJaced 'Plivate Fleet Cj 3. Municipal Clean: Fuel Demonstration PrOj 4. Teittrommuting and Teleconfors 5. Agunicipal Bujiding Upgrades and Trip R4 6, Enhanced Pedestrf*n Connections To T' 7. increased Housing Density Near Transit a, Site Design with Transit OflOnt8tion 9. Increased Land Use Mix 10. Grew Power Public Education: PrO-91 Parking Requirements- "8) if. Site j>esjgrj with Pedestrial-WBICYCIO 06 I z Bicycle Iniegrgtion with Transit and Em 13. Bkyeje Lanes, Paths and Routes 14. Energy Efficlent Landscaping 15, Solar Pool Heating is. Traffic Signal and System Upgrades 17. Student Transit Subsidy i'8. FpWgy iFfficoont Building Recognition 19, Agunicipal Life-Cycle Purchasing SlAnr- 20. Increased EmplOyfnent Density Near T CCWG Final Recommendations Report April 1, 2008 Appendix D Refuting the Denialists from the San Diego Union - Tribune CLIMATE CHANGE Refuting denialists: an inconvenient truth By Richard C. J. SomervilleDJuly 12, 2006 As a climate scientist, I am often asked, "Do you believe in global warming ?" Climate change, however, is not a matter of personal belief. Instead, among experts, it's just settled science that people are changing the climate. The Intergovernmental Panelthat most of the warming observed over the is new and stronger evidence last 5o years is attributable to human activities." Every reputable scientific organization that has studied the IPCC conclusion has endorsed it. Recent research (http: / /realclimate.org) reinforces this assessment. The next major IPCC report, due in 2007, is likely to cite more supporting evidence. Al Gore's film and book, "An Inconvenient Truth," do a fine job of summarizing the science. You may agree or disagree 1 ma�e change�forysome two decades and has he has maintained a serious interest in become quite knowledgeable about it. For San Diegans, it's a fascinating bit of history that Gore first learned about this issue as a Harvard student in the 196os. His teacher was our own Roger Revelle. Before moving to Harvard, Revelle had been director of Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a founder of the University of California San Diego. The Earth as a whole is always in approximate energy balance, absorbing energy from sunlight and emitting an equivalent amount of energy to space as infrared radiation. Some infrared energy is emitted directly from the surface of the Earth. The rest is emitted from the atmosphere, by clouds and particles and the gases (chiefly water vapor and carbon dioxide) that contribute to the greenhouse effect. Incidentally, we know that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased substantially in recent decades, because this increase has been measured very accurately. The measurements were initiated by Charles David Keeling (1928 -2005) whom Revelle brought to Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the 195os. Keeling, who spent his entire career at Scripps, discovered that human activities are changing the chemical composition of the global atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is produced by burning fossil fuels. Adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere means that more of the energy emitted to space must come from higher (hence colder) levels of the atmosphere. The Earth will respond to this new situation by warming up, thus emitting more infrared energy, until the equilibrium is restored. CCWG Final Recommendations Report 28 of 30 April 1, 2008 That's our fundamental scientific understanding. It comes from rock - solid, well - understood physics. Everything else, from heat waves to hurricanes, is fascinating and important, but that is really just the details, scientifically speaking. Working out all the details will take a long time. But a promising start has been made, and climate science can already usefully inform policy. In a similar way, you might say that an ultimate goal of medical science is to eliminate all disease. That this task is incomplete is no reason to treat your physician with disdain. A group of people dispute the scientific consensus. They like to call themselves skeptics. A healthy skepticism, however, is part of being a good scientist, so I am unwilling to surrender this label to them. Instead, I call them denialists. You don't get anything like a balanced view from climate denialists. Their only goal is finding ways why the climate might be resistant to human activities. By and large, these denialists have convinced very few knowledgeable scientists to agree with them. Experience shows that in science, it tends to be the exception rather than the rule when a lone genius eventually prevails y k Galileo does come along, but not often, and nearly all the people who think are a Galileo are actually just wrong. Science is very much a cooperative process and is largely self- correcting. We publish our research methods and our findings in detail and invite other scientists to confirm or disprove them. Incorrect science ultimately gets rooted out and rejected. What of the future? I can imagine both an optimistic and a pessimistic scenario. In my optimistic scenario, climate science informs the making of wise public policy. Technological creativity then leads to rapid development of practical energy alternatives to fossil fuels. We stabilize the Earth's greenhouse effect before it gets too strong. My pessimistic scenario is a different planet, with sea level much higher and dangerously altered weather patterns. You cannot fool nature. Climate science warns us that strengthening the greenhouse effect must eventually produce serious consequences. That's not radical environmental ise before that days or whether weemu t wart for some one of guessing whether g shocking and unpleasant climate surprise that wakes us all up. For my children's sake, I hope that the optimistic scenario is the one that develops. The choice is ours to make. Somerville is distinguished professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. CCWG Final Recommendations Report 29 of 30 April 1, 2008 viewed by the Climate 30 of 30