Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutecomments_export 7.22.20 Planning Commission Meeting Time: 07-22-20 18:00 eComments Report MeetingsMeetingAgendaCommentsSupportOpposeNeutral TimeItems Planning Commission07-22-20155040 18:00 Sentiments for All Meetings The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown. Overall Sentiment Planning Commission 07-22-20 18:00 Agenda NameCommentsSupportOpposeNeutral PUBLIC COMMENTS3020 2. DR19-0010 Design Review consideration of a seven-story mixed-use1010 building totaling 49,555 square-feet, consisting of a 52-unit apartment complex with an affordable housing component, parking structure, 2,480 square-feet retail commercial with associated open space on approximately 0.48 acres located at 305 E Street. Applicant: Front Runner Investments 1, LLC Project Manager: Caroline Young, Associate Planner 3. IS18-0004, MPA18-0015, PCZ18-0001, PCS18-0006, DR18-0028, and1010 ZAV18-0001 Consideration of Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for amendment to the General Plan, Rezone, Tentative Subdivision Map, Design Review, and a Variance for a one-lot 141-unit Townhome project located at 676 Moss Street. Applicant: Shopoff Realty Investments, LLC Project Manager: Oscar Romero, Associate Planner a. A resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; b. A resolution for amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein; c. An ordinance for a Rezone, in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein; d. A resolution for a Tentative Map in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein; and, e. A resolution for a Design Review Permit in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein; and f. A resolution for variance accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained. That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and adopt the proposed resolutions as follows: * Approve Resolutions IS18-0004, MPA18-0015, PCZ18-0001, PCS18- 0006, DR18-0028, and ZAV18-0001for a condominium project located at 676 Moss Street. Sentiments for All Agenda Items The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown. Overall Sentiment Agenda Item: eComments for PUBLIC COMMENTS Overall Sentiment Pablo Quilantan Location: Submitted At: 3:36pm 07-22-20 One again it appears that the Planning Commission is about to take another bite out of the City's industrial base and remove job producing land uses. Your rubber stamping of such proposals in the past is what has led to the deterioration of the City's revenue base and has also prompted the need for sales tax increases. You should go back and add up how much damage these decisions have costed the City in lost revenues because you have chosen to appease developers instead of representing the best interest of the Citizens. I would hope that you would recommend to the City Council to direct the City Manager to work with those businesses that will be displaced by this action and to help relocate them in order to stem the job losses. I also urge you to do the full environmental mitigation that is necessary to protect the people who will be affected by this action. Jo Anne Springer Location: Submitted At: 3:24pm 07-22-20 I concur with the following statements that were written by Theresa Acerro, and submit them as my comment as well: Moss Street project should require a full EIR to thoroughly analyze the polluted soil and water and potential impacts to residents-especially children- if this project is approved without a full EIR analyzing fully the situation of having children playing in the 45 foot buffer around the underground Telegraph Canyon Creek which overflows through the three inlets above it in intense rains who knows the resulting problems kids will face.. Also these are essential workers working here on projects for the Navy, municipalities and developers. This pandemic has made relocation tremendously more complicated and likely impossible as well as impacting business. This is not the time to be kicking people out who have been serving the community for 20 to 30 years in what is the ideal location for them. These jobs are important to the city's economy-engineers, mechanics and technicians. The EIR also needs a complete financial analysis of impacts: the increased expenses to the city- if approved- which since 2003 has had deficits made up for by using reserves and one time money's due to lack of industrial and commercial businesses and the over abundance of expensive housing which does not pay its way due to Prop 13 after 5 years. Theresa Acerro Location: Submitted At: 6:08pm 07-17-20 You need to know some of the history of the most recently annexed part of the sw. The council only wanted the industrial properties. The County insisted they had to take the residential as well. In exactly 5 years later (delay required by county) they put the entire area into redevelopment and began hassling the businesses. It was good they got the super-fund sites cleaned up, but hassling Crowder Cams which mostly moved to Otay Mesa and making the used car lots leave Main, and closing down small successful businesses for a WALGREENS etc.- not good. Really insulting was spending almost all the tax increment from the southwest in northwest CV instead of improving neighborhoods, as well as allowing a small polluting peaker plant to be built near residential housing off of Main Street, and changing the zoning to build a number of low income housing projects on formally commercial and industrial lands, as well as market rate housing. The Planning Commission has been complicit with many of these actions over the years. It is time for people on the Planning Commision to start refusing to allow these zone changes to take place, even if the councils do it anyway. Del Mar has 20 planners and Chula Vista has only 5, and they are under Development Services. The purpose of planning is to serve the community and uphold the General Plan not to help developers make money. Planning needs to me independent and we need community volunteers on Commissions to start defending communities. Agenda Item: eComments for 2. DR19-0010 Design Review consideration of a seven-story mixed-use building totaling 49,555 square-feet, consisting of a 52-unit apartment complex with an affordable housing component, parking structure, 2,480 square-feet retail commercial with associated open space on approximately 0.48 acres located at 305 E Street. Applicant: Front Runner Investments 1, LLC Project Manager: Caroline Young, Associate Planner Overall Sentiment Todd Voorhees Location: Submitted At: 6:15pm 07-22-20 There are two projects, both 52 units. This project and a 52-unit senior development. Same lot. Same developer. Why aren't both project impacts (construction and long term) looked at for their CUMULATIVE effects? Traffic, parking, construction, noise, air quality and open space should all be evaluated cumulatively. Why wasn't this done? It is is done, would it trigger CEQA? Also, what is being done to blend this large project into the community? This project should not move forward until the CUMULATIVE EFFECTS of both projects can properly be studied and it can be determined that CEQA does not apply .. or does. Thank you, Todd Voorhees 150 Landis Avenue Chula Vista Agenda Item: eComments for 3. IS18-0004, MPA18-0015, PCZ18-0001, PCS18-0006, DR18-0028, and ZAV18-0001 Consideration of Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for amendment to the General Plan, Rezone, Tentative Subdivision Map, Design Review, and a Variance for a one-lot 141-unit Townhome project located at 676 Moss Street. Applicant: Shopoff Realty Investments, LLC Project Manager: Oscar Romero, Associate Planner a. A resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; b. A resolution for amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein; c. An ordinance for a Rezone, in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein; d. A resolution for a Tentative Map in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein; and, e. A resolution for a Design Review Permit in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein; and f. A resolution for variance accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained. That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and adopt the proposed resolutions as follows: * Approve Resolutions IS18-0004, MPA18-0015, PCZ18-0001, PCS18-0006, DR18-0028, and ZAV18-0001for a condominium project located at 676 Moss Street. Overall Sentiment Theresa Acerro Location: Submitted At: 6:50pm 07-17-20 Should be an EIR not an MND because economic report is important (development fees provide more than half of funds paying city's debt payments , so little is left to provide needed services for more people, therefore a multi- million $ deficit is likely (since 2003 the city has had a deficit yearly due to poor planning decisions), and more detailed info and plan for mitigating the pollutants found in the water prior to the start of construction needed in order to make sure cancer causing emissions do not become airborne and threaten the health of future residents..