The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMisc CorrespondencePat Laughlin Subject: FW: 3rd an k project vista Delmar project - - - -- Original Message---- - From: JOE SPROUSE [jsprs66IS @gmail.com] Received: Sunday, 19 Jun 2016,10:40AM Yo: Kelly Broughton [kbroughton @chulavistaca.gov] Subject: 3rd an k project vista Delmar project I live on k street I think that project would be great that corner on 3rd and k is a awful looking corner it need approvement I hope these no people don't stop the planing people voting yes on the project thank you Joe Sprouse Pat Laughlin From: JOE SPROUSE asprs6615 @gmalt.comj Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 10:43 AM To: Pat Laughlin Subject: 3rd an k project vista del Mar project 1 hope the planning peopte vote yes on the 3rd an k project and t do live on k street don't stop progress vote. Yes Pat Laughlin Subject: FW: City of Chula Vista Planning Commission - Contact Us Survey Details Page 1 Please feel free to contact us with any comments or questions by filling out the form below. First Name Pamela Last Name Sherman -Keel Email Address sta.geid @cox.net Comments Development of muiti housing in Downtown Chula Vista Chula Vista Planning Commission; Folks: You are planning two invasive multiple housing projects, in two of the worse traffic areas in Downtown Chula Vista, 3rd and L Street, and 3rd and K Street. MuldHousing is best built on north to south view to lessen light and breeze impact on neighborhood, taking into account of existing traffic patterns. We live here and we want to make sure you are aware of the impact these structures will have on existing neighborhoods, business, traffic flow and safety to our community. Please review the following lists of concerns. Improvements are needed but not the detriment of our Downtown small town community. Protect our existing Neighborhoods 1. Controlled Traffic flow a) No condo street parking b) Underground parking, with traffic- controlled entrances /exits, Proper drainage (No entrances on Church, or 3rd avenue, Exit only on K, right turn only No entrance or exit on Church street.) 2. Traffic blockage road determent to protect neighborhood drive through. a. Physical concrete barriers to limit neighbor entrance with signage 3. Air, sunlight blockage neighborhood privacy a) Less units to limit height b) Balcony away from Last neighborhood view (3rd and K) 4. More footage to easement from the street. a) Larger sidewalks b) Increased crosswalk safety 5. Structure requiring its own security and parking personnel a) Plus controlled Security Lighting 6. Firewall construction between condos a) Businesses underneath with fire wall construction, as well. 7. Design inline of the West Chula Vista Style (not current design, Its ugly) 8. Affordable senior housing with HOA price freeze 5. Neighborhood enhancement requirements a) Must have Community Park land and Community center Q) available to local neighborhood enhancement 10. Infrastructure! a) Solar power?! With the extreme heat in the summer months, more people equal more use on our power resources b) increased grocery store business and coffee shops in the area c) Increased Police and Emergency services d) Water saving and energy saving features in apartments and condos Thank you, City of Chula Vista 1 DELANO & DE .1 "11V --w �m I k V1,4 -E--AIL41L Planning Commission City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: Proposed Vi and Addendum Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission: This letter is submitted on-behalf of Balboa Equity Capital, Inc., in connection with. the proposed Vista del Mar project (" Project") and related Addendum. The California Envirorariental Quality Act ( CEQN'), Public Resources Code § 21000 et se q., provides that an agency can use a "tiered" EIR in order to., among other things, streamline regulatory procedures and avoid. '*repetitive discussions of the same issues in successive environmental impact reports." Pub, Res, Code § 21093(a). In order to qualify, however, the later project must be: 1. Consistent with the prograin..., plan, policy or ordinance for which an environmental impact report has been prepared and certified; 2. Consistent with applicable local land use plans and zoning; and 1 Not subject to Section 21166. Id., § 21094(b) (emphasis added), Failing to meet any one of these three criteria -would mean that a later project would not be covered by an earlier tiered EIR, In this instance, the Project fails all three criteria. The staff report and draft resolutions of approval assert that the Project is consistent with the City's General Plan ai-id the Urban Core Specific Plan CUCSP") and that the 2006 Ei3vironmental Impact Report ("U'CSP EIR") adequately addressed the Project's potential impacts. In fact, these assertions are incorrect, as the April I S, 2016 letter from Rvelyn Heidelberg explains, Indeed, because of the many inconsistencies, the Project is not "tbe same as or within the scope of the [UCSPI described in the [UCSP EIR]," Sierra Club i� County ofSono?na (1992) 6 Cal.App.4" 1307, 1320 — 21. For example, the. Project violates the UCSP itself, including Key Principle #7, which requir", the City to "[flransition new dcvelopiueut to minimize impacts on existing z z 0 10� Comments re Vista del Mar Project and Addendum June 22, 2016 Page 2 of 4 residential neighborhoods." Nor is the Prqject consistent with several General Plan objectives. Among other things, contrary toLUT-1 1, the Project does not "JeInsure that buildings and related site improvements ... are well designed and compatible with surroundi.4i properties," particularly since it starkly abuts single-family residential uses. Coutaq to LUT-7,. the Project does not provide appropriate transitions between land uses, particularly since the Project would install a co-mplex with 67 unit. /acre immediately adjacent to single-family hornes. Contrary to LUT-60, the Project is principally a residontial use despite the requirement to "[r]einforce the existing land use pattern of . . . office uses on the east side of Third Avenue between J Street and L Street." And contrary to PFS-14, the Project does not "[p]ruvide parks and recreation facilities and programs [] that are well maiatained, safe, and accessible to all residents .. _." UCSP Mitigation Measure 5.2.5-1 requires compliance with the special development regulations for mixed-use projects, the Nleighborhood Transition Combining District ("NTCD") regulations, and the architectural design guidelines. The Project violates many of these requirements. ion other thin�s, it does not "[m]inimize the effects of any exterior noise, odors, Aare, vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and other potentially significant impacts," UCSP at V.14 L It is not "consistent with the policies outlined in the [General Plan] which identify low and mid rise building forms for this area." UCSP FIR at 5-41. It does not provide "paseos to provide Walkable access to neighborhoods ... [or link] bikeways, sidewalks and urban plazas . _ "Id, at 5- 42. R does not "enhance public views, minirni7c obstruction of views from adjoining structures, and provide adjacent sites vdth maximum sun and ventilation Id, at 5-69. And it does not "avoid or minimize solar access, impacts," Id. at 5-44. U-CSP Mitigation Measure 5.2.5-2 requires the City to "identify the Meci�fic ppqyidm of the UCSP which shall be included in the conditions of approval in order 10 reduce potential light and glare impacts to below significance." The draft resolutions of approval fail to do so. UCSP Mitigation Measure 53.5-4 requires a determination of historical significance "[for those structures 45 years or older." And if a structure is found to be Historically significant, additional mitigation measures must be implemented. The staff report indicates the three buildings on-site "were built during the 1950's and 1960's." Despite this fact, no historical analysis was performed. UCSP Mitigation Measure 5.8.5-4 requires, that "the traffic assessment prepared to quantify the projects' potential traffic impacts will also identity how alternative modes of transportation will be accomplished." The Project's -traffic assessment failed to do so. UCSP Mitigation Measure 5.9-4 requires projects with commercial uses to "demonstrate compliance with the existing performance standards in the City's Noise Ordinance" and requires "compliance %vith the mixed-use provisions of Chapter V1 of the UCSP." The Project has failed to demonstrate such compliance. Comments re Vista del Mar Projlect and Addendum June 22, 2016 Page 3) of 4 UCSP Mitigation Measure 5.10.5-2 requires each project to "demonstrate conformance with the relevant land use and development regulations , . which support smart grov,,th principles such as providing a mix of compatible land uses; locating highest density near transit; utilizing. compact building design and creating walkable communities; providing a range of infill housing opportunities; and increasing transportation choices." Similarly, UCSP Mitigation Measure 5.10,5-33 requires each project "to demonstrate compliance .. to minimi7e air pollutant emissions," including promoting pedestrian activity, bicycle activity, public transit facilities, "arid reintroduction of the traditional street grids' The Project has failed to demonstrate such compliance. UCSP .Mitigation Measure 5.11,1 -1 requires each prqject to "demonstrate that significant impacts to police services resulting from an individual project are addressed" and requires each project to be evaluated "for adequate access for police vehicles .. and integration of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques The Project has failed to demonstrate such compliance. UCSP Eft Section 2,33 provides, "as each new development, is proposed, a Secondary Study be prepared to determine if the [IJCSPI EfR adequately address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed development." UCSP EIR at 2 -11. Th e City has failed to prepare a Secohdary Study. Beyond these inconsistencies, the Project Nvill lead. to significant impacts not adequately addressed in. the UCSP EIR. For example, the Addendum acknowledges that "adjacent residential population to the cast and commeroial properties to the north and south. may be exposed to excessive construction noise ...... Addendum at 7. But there is no analysis of these issues because, the Addendum claims, "construction prqJects are short term in nature." Id, The mere fact that construction impacts may be temporary does not make them insignificant. See Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. i= Board ofPort Commissioners (2001) 91. Cal.AppAth 13344, 1.380 — 81, Furtherraore, although. the Project applicant's aooustical report claims there are no applicable noise limits, the City's General Plan provides a 65 decibel exterior noise level limit for residential land uses. UCSP EIR, Figure 5.9-1. And the Noise Technical. Report prepared for the UCSP states (p. 6): "the noise levels from construction activities to residential receptors are not to exceed 75 dB, averaged over a 12-hour period." The Addendum and UCSP F-IR do not account for existing air quality conditions. Assumed compliance with air emission requirements does'not ensure that impacts will not be significant. Kings Couno) Form Bureau v, City of Ha qford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d, 692,718. On April 29, 2015, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-30-15, which establishes a "new interim statewide greenhouse gas emission reduction target to reduce Comments re Vista del Mar Project and Addendum June 22, 2016 Page 4 of 4 greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Neither the Addendum nor the UCSP EIS address compliance with Executive Order B-30-1.5. Were other projects to develop at the levels and intensity associated with the Project, the cumulativt impacts Avould be substantial. '17hese impacts ,vere not. analyzed in the 'UCSP EIR. See City ofSantee v- County qfSan Diego (1989) 214 Cal'App.3d. 1438,1452 ( "even projects anticipated beyond. the near fat= should be analyzed for their cumulative effect'). ' Wumerous cases illustrate that reliance on. tentative plans for future mitigation after completion of the CEQA process significantly undermines CEQNs goals of full disclosure and informed decisionmak-ing; and consequently, these mitigation plans have been overturned on judicial review as constituting improper deferral of environmental assessment." Communiliesfor a Better Enidronment v City of puchm-ond (201.0) 184 Cal.App.4" 70, 92— The solution is "not to defer the speciAcation and adoption of mitigation measures until a year after Project approval, but rather, to defer approval of the Project until proposed mitigation measures were fully developed, clearly defined, and made available to the public mid interested agencies for review .and coma-nent," M at 95. The Addendum illegally defers analysis of hazardous materials and noise impacts, Addendum at 6 & 7. Fo.r the foregoing reasons, Balboa Equity Capital, hic., requests that you reject the Project and Addendum. That you for your consideration of -ffiese concerns. Sincerely, Everett DeLano