HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3 - Staff Report - Environ Element Policy AmendITEM 3
CHULA VISTA
PLANNING
COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: 3
Meeting Date: 8/13/14
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: GPA 14 -02 consideration of a technical correction Amendment
to the City's General Plan Environmental Element Policy E 6.4.
Resolution of the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
recommending that the City of Chula Vista City Council approve a
resolution adopting a technical correction amendment to Policy E 6.4 of
the Chula Vista General Plan Environmental Element
SUBMITTED BY: Stan Donn, AICP, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kelly Broughton, FASLA, Director of Development Services
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Council direction Development Services staff reconvened interested members of the
original 2005 Chula Vista General Plan Update (GPU) Environment, Open Space, and Sustainable
Development Subcommittee (the "EGF Working Group "), and members of the business and industry
community (the "Industry Working Group ") to develop proposed regulations and siting criteria for
Electrical Generating Facilities (EGFs) within Chula Vista. The efforts resulted in amendments to
certain portions of the General Plan Land Use and Transportation and Environmental Elements; the
Zoning Ordinance; and a new EGF Council Policy, all of which were approved by the City Council on
October 15, 2013. During recent efforts to refresh the published General Plan, staff discovered that
certain language had inadvertently been deleted in Policy E6.4 of the Environmental Element which
should have remained. This item would reinstate the omitted language.
BACKGROUND
The City of Chula Vista's General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element and the Environmental
Element contain goals, objectives and policies that stipulate the importance of improving air quality,
and minimizing dependency on fossil fuels and exposure of sensitive uses to toxic air contaminants
from facilities such as EGFs, and other major toxic emitters.
Planning Commission
Item 3 GPA 14 -02 Page 2
August 13, 2014
In accordance with Council direction in February 2010, staff in conjunction with the EGF and Industry
Working Groups prepared documents that were adopted in the fall of 2013, which established
requirements and a regulatory framework for the siting of EGFs within the City of Chula Vista.
General Plan Environmental Element Policy E 6.4 was amended to clarify that a minimum 1000ft
separation is needed between baseload or peaking type EGFs and sensitive receptors (e.g. residential
areas, schools, hospitals, child care centers). As outlined further in the Discussion section below,
change in the policy's phrasing resulted in certain wording in Policy E 6.4 pertaining to "other major
toxic air emitters" (separate from EGF's) being deleted in one place, and inadvertently not being
reinserted where it should have remained. Thus, staff is requesting that the deleted language be
reinstated.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed Amendment for compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the proposed action was
adequately addressed in the previously certified EIR 05 -01 for the General Plan Update. Thus, no
further environmental review is necessary. Although environmental review is not necessary for the
General Plan Amendment, environmental review will be required for any Energy Generating Facilities
and "major toxic emitters" that are proposed as part of the conditional use permit evaluation for that
specific project.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. GPA 14 -02 recommending that the Chula Vista City
Council approve a resolution adopting a technical correction amendment to Policy E6.4 of the Chula
Vista General Plan Environmental Element.
BOARDS /COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
As indicated above, the City Council approved amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance,
and new EGF Council Policy that provides comprehensive provisions within the City's regulatory
framework for the siting of EGFs within the City.
The General Plan contains broad Definitions, Goals, Objectives and Policies that encompass /address a
wide spectrum of land uses and related subjects /issues, including air quality and toxic emissions
associated with uses such as EGFs and other toxic emitters.
An important component of these regulations, specifically within the General Plan, are policies such as
E 6.4 that address the necessity to provide adequate separation distance between uses that produce
toxic air emissions and sensitive receptors (i.e. segment of general public such as children and the
Planning Commission
Item 3 GPA 14 -02 Page 3
August 13, 2014
elderly) that can be potentially affected by those toxic emissions. The Policy is included within
Environmental Element Section 3.1.6 — Promoting Clean Air, that is clearly focused on a broad set of
potential sources that can emit toxic air contaminants ranging from tailpipe emissions to a variety of
land uses such as power plants, chrome plating and metal melting operations, landfills, quarry
operations, batching plants and the like.
The wording changes to Policy E6.4 via the EGF work were intended to emphasize "not" siting
baseload or peaking type EGFs within 1000ft. of sensitive receptors (e.g. residential areas, schools,
hospitals, child care centers) and vice - versa. During recent actions to refresh publication of the General
Plan document, staff realized that the revised sentence structure of the amended Policy E6.4 omitted
the important phrase "and other major toxic air emitters." The omission was not intentional, and if not
corrected, would fundamentally change the scope of the policy by suggesting that other types of major
toxic air emitters (other than fossil - fueled EGFs) could be sited in proximity to sensitive receptors.
This is inconsistent with the scope and intent of Section 3.1.6 of the Environmental Element. It is
important that the omitted phrase "and other major toxic air emitters" be reinstated to ensure adequate
separation between these uses and sensitive receptors are addressed in this General Plan Policy as
originally written.
Below is the original Policy E6.4 with strike /underline showing the wording resulting from actions
related to the EGF amendments. The deletion of the phrase "and other major toxic emitters" can be
seen in the first line as part of changing the wording structure. That phrase should have been
reinserted following the first line of new text, but inadvertently was not. The subsequent entry shows
staff's proposal to reinsert the deleted wording in the context and intent of the original Policy.
Current Amended Language
E 6.4 Do
not site new or re powered fossil - fueled baseload or peaking -type Electrical Generating Facilities
within 1,000 feet of a sensitive reeeiver receptors, or plaeement of ° site sensitive feeeive receptors
within 1,000 feet of a majef texie emiae such facilities.
Corrected Amended Language
E 6.4 Do not site new or re- powered fossil - fueled baseload or peaking -type Electrical Generating
Facilities and other major toxic air emitters within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, or site sensitive
receptors within 1,000 feet of such facilities.
CONCLUSION
The proposed Amendment to General Plan Policy E 6.4 to reinstate the wording "and other major toxic
air emitters" will ensure that adequate separation is provided between sensitive receptors and all such
uses.
DECISION -MAKER CONFLICTS
Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site
specific and consequently the 500 foot rule found in California Code of Regulations Section
18704.2(a)(1) is not applicable to this decision.
Planning Commission
Item 3 GPA 14 -02
August 13, 2014
FISCAL IMPACT
Page 4
Correction of the Policy wording does not generate any fiscal impact; processing of the correction was
accomplished with staff resources pursuant to the Development Services Department's approved
FY2014 -15 budget.
Attachments
1. Planning Commission Resolution
2. Draft Council Resolution — Amendment to General Plan
Prepared by Stan Donn, Senior Planner, Development Services Department