Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 2005/02/07Crossroads II KBSIDENTS WORKING TOGETHER T'O KIiEP CHULA VISTA A GREA'I~ PI•ACE 7~0 L1VE 'ill T. Ilvde GENIa:RAL PLAN UPDATE DEIK o-Fauneer, 1979-3004 CHULA VISTA RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING [erring Committee H ebruary 7, 2005 srricia Aguilar Crossroads II recommends that the RCC make the following ~eciden[ recommendations: rpila Jimenez ice Preciden[ 1. Recommend to the Planning Commission and City Council that staff prepare a soc_io-economic impact report analyzing the effect of implementing rem[ Wa[n~ the General Plan Update on displacement of people. This report should be 'embersl'ip given to the Planning Commission and Council for review before they are L'uordinntnr asked to take action on the GPL1. rnrly Duncan vents G>ordinarur "Che Planning Commission and Council should not be asked to take action on the Treasurer GPU without knowing the extent of the disruption to peoples' lives that unplementation the GPU will cause. This information is not included in the DEIR °rer Fvarn~ ,ti,,.tih[[r,r /:direr nor in the General Plan Update itself, which is missing au updated Housing Klement. nn D,n•i.c 2. Recommend to the Planning Commission and Council that the 1010" ~tO~~`t deadline for the receipt of comments be extended for those who received Cll 11 Golva_ versions of the Draft EIR. ~-Fecordir,g Secre[urt The CD version of the DF,IR is missing page 496. This is a CR 1 ICAL omission ~n Pe[ersr"' in that this page contains a table (]0-3) with crucial information necessary to ll Richrrr understand the impacts of the GPLI. [rlene scou 3. Recommend to the Planning Commission and Council that they NOT r-Reeordb,gSecre[an' certify that the DF,IR is adequate and accurate. rm sc°r[ 'I~he DEIR is wholly inadequate in that is fails to provide any rationale for the fact that the GPl I increases the capacity for additional population and housing units OVER AND ABOVE what SANDAG has determined is Chuki Vista's "fair share' of projected regional population growth_ According to the recently- adopted SANDAG Regional ('omprehensive Plan, Chula Vista is projected to grow by 70,000 people by year ?030. Under the GPlI, Chula Vista can grow by over 101,000 people by year 2030_ The DI~aK's failure to provide any basis for this massive increase over SANDAG assumptions is breath-taking! I~he Land Use section of the T IR is inaccurate in it's assertion that the impacts to community character can be mitigated by policies contained in the plan and by mitigating the impacts of industrial uses along the Otay Rig-cr Valley. I mdcr the current (198'>1 plan General plan, 1,781 more housing units can be built in the 3h~Scc~md,Avenue l~hulaVislaCA'[I~~10 GI'!427J3crl PAX b1~i691 IG51 e nwi~- rrnntLs2icri ar. nc'1 XR2GPU Recs to RCC northwest Chula Vista plan area. Under the GPi J, 16,785 additional housing units could be built, an increase of over 1,000% (!)over the 1989 plan. There is simply no way in increase the number of dwelling units in the Urban Core by this much and avoid significant, umitigatable impacts to community character. The conclusion in the DEIR that policies in the GPU will reduce the community character impacts to below a level of significance is patently INCORRECT. 4. Recommend to the Planning Commission and Council that the Community Character Alternative be adopted instead of the Preferred Plan. Based on the results of the Planning Department's Visioneering input, by far the most important concern to the community is preservation of community character. One OF The alternatives to the GP[I is called the "Community Character Alternative." The Community Character Alternative "assumes that the basic goals, objectives, cmd policies ol [he proposed General Flan Update would he adopted except those pertaining to huilding heights and intensities. " This alternative reduces the designated building heights by one category level to achieve a reduction in building heights throughout the General Plan area. "fhe Community Character alternative to the proposed plan would reduce significant impacts to community character over the Preferred Plan and all of its Scenarios. Per the DEIR, "This reduction would reduce ursy adjacency impacts due to placement oJHigh-rise buildings next to existing sir;Kle family, one-story residences. Reducing these building heights has the potential to retain the traditiaraal charceter of the Downtown area and increase the compatibility ronith sun-ourrding properties compared to the PreJi>rred Plan and each ojthe .Scenarios. " Enough said. 5. Refer the GPU to the ('hula Vista Housing Commission for review. Given the massive displacement of mostly lower income people on the west side of the city, and given the that the GPU is missing an updated Housing Element, the Housing Commission should be afforded an opportunity to weigh in on the Plan and provide their recommendations to the Planning Commission and Council. XRZ GPU Recs to RCC February 6, 2005 Mr. Paul Hellman Environmental Projects manager City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mr. Hellman: Please accept the written comments of the South Bay chapter of the Green Party on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Chula Vista General Plan Update. We believe the Draft Environmental Report on the General Plan Update is inadequate in mitigation measures in the following areas: The following mitigations should be added. ENERGY USE 1. Require the use of "green" building standards, (LEED's silver as a minimum,) in the design and building materials in all new or redeveloped construction in the city. 2. Promote and support a subsidy furnishing financial help to require businesses, schools, and residences to install photo voltaic cells to supply energy needs. Lower income families should be offered this aid first. 3. Meet or exceed the State standard for use of renewable resources to provide 40% of energy needs by the year South Bay Greens Pg. 2 2030. Require these sources of renewable to be located within the county. 4. Discourage the use of substitute materials for "green" materials and require awritten-request explaining the- necessity for the substitution. S.Reduce per capital electricity demand and consumption back to 1980 levels (Regional Energy Strategy goal #6) AIR QUALITY We believe the mitigation measures under Air Quality are inadequate and the following mitigation measures should be added: 1. Require the use of renewable, energy-efficient fuels for city, business and residential use. Provide the infrastructure to service such efficient fuel usage. Biomass will not be considered a renewable fuel. 2. Encourage the use offuel-efficient cars and other equipment by the city, businesses and residents. Aim for mileage of 40 miles per gallon of fuel. 3. Allow no building of residences, schools or businesses closer than 2000 feet to the South Bay Power Plant or the Otay Landfill, or any residences which would be majorly impacted by toxic air emissions, such as the Southwest section, West Fairfield. Etc. South Bay Greens Page 3 4. Include emissions from the B.F. Goodrich plant after a health impact study defines chemical discharges and prevailing wind effects. 5. Analyze and publish the effects of trucks entering from Mexico and require mitigations as needed. (Perhaps this is better cited in the Cumulative Impacts Section.) CLEAN WATER We believe the DEIR requires the following mitigation measures beyond Objective EE-2 to mitigate impacts to water quality: 1. Publish mandatory water conservation goals in the city. 2. Require water-frugal xeriscapiing techniques in all landscaping plans. 3. Offer refunds to local business and residents who install water-efficient landscaping and irrigation systems. 4. Require water-efficient plumbing fixtures in all construction. 5. Encourage water tank storage facilities to be built by water districts supplying water especially to eastern city residents. Require an analysis of future water needs for all areas of the city. South Bay Greens page 4 COMM[.JNITY CHARACTER The DEIR states that no mitigation is required in the Land Use section relating to Community Character. We believe this is in error as the proposed changes brought about the GPU will physically divide an established community and would result in a significant adverse effect on community character. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DE1R. Very truly yours, ,_ ~- ~ ~ ~ , cZ Lupita Jimenez J Chair, South Bay Greens ~~ ~~ ~~~Z. ~z~ C'~ L' /o Chula Vista Resource Convservation Commission Commissioner Comments (J. Chavez) CV GPU DEIR Feb. 7, 2005 TO: Paul Hellman, Environmental Planning, City of Chula Vista, CA cc: Marilyn Ponseggi, Env. Planning; Ed Batchelder, City of CV; Doug Reid, Chair, RC RE: COMMISSIONER COMMENT, John E. Chavez (Vice Chair, RCC) In anticipation that the RCC meeting of this date may likely go beyond my departure time (approx. 5:30 p.m. - to attend Port of San Diego, CVBMB, CAC meeting at 6pm) I am submitting these comments to be entered into the record of today's RCC meeting. I. RECOMMENDED RCC ACTION(S)/MOTIONS(S); I recommend the RCC today consider these actions/motions: i Authorize the RCC Chair, Vice Chair or designated alternate to appear before the planned Feb. 14, 2004 joint City Council and Planning Commission public hearing of the the GPU Draft EIR and authorize comments to be made there. z. IF the RCC feels that more time may be needed for the RCC to review the GPU Draft EIR, "CHEN, authorize a special RCC meeting to be held prior to Feb. 14. NOTE: Such a special meeting only requires 24 hour advance public notice. (I can make most times from Thurs. Feb. 10 to early Feb. 14). 3. RECOMMEND AND ADVISE THAT CV CITY COUNCIL REJECT THE t'KEFERRED ALTERNATIVE IN THE DRAFT EIR AND IN IT'S STEAD ADOPT TIIE "COMMUNITY CHARACTER" ALTERNATIVE AS THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE. 4. RECOMMEND 'CHAT THE FINAL EIR AND GPU INCLUDE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TIJUANA, BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO NEARBY REGION AND FURTHER INCLUDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE BAYFRONT REGION IMMEDIATELY WEST OF CHULA VISTA (INC'LUDING POWER PLANT AIR QUALITY AND HEALTH IMPACTS ON CHULA VISTA AND TAE PORT/CITY CVBMP BAYFRONT PLANNING PROCESS). IL COMMENTS ON THF, GPU DRAFT EIR: Recommend limiting the definition of "High Rise" buildings to 8-I$ stories (max.) in lieu of the current "8~ "story designation, which has no upper limit stated nor otherwise indicated; also allow for the "Transit Focus Areas' near Broadway and "E" St. and Broadway and "H" St. be designated the ONLY zones in which a max. height of 15 stories may be allowed (see below re the "H" St. and 3rd Ave. Transit Focus Area). Recommend the current "Transit Focus Area" near 3rd and "H" St. in the GPLI and DEIR be redesignated as other appropriate mixed use; there is no current SANDAL, City of Chula Vista or other known plan for specialized transit use there. The TFA designation may be a ruse to enable High Rise bldgs. -this redesignated area should be limited to Mid Rise max. building heights (i.e. 4-7 stories max.). 3. Recommend the final EIR and GPU be delayed to enable inclusion of the anticipated Housing Element and Urban Core Specific Plan. Some of the largest environmental impacts are from the increased levels of residential dwelling units on both the east and west portions of Chula Vista. 4. La Media Road; terminate La Media Road (i.e. do not extend to connect to La Media Road in the Otay Mesa border area) and conduct a new traffic analysis including this change for the final EIK. 5. Air quality impacts: in my opinion the air quality environmental impact analysis and comments are incomplete and inadequate in significant ways: failure to address the down- wind air quality and health risk (health risk assessment) impacts from the current South Bay Power Plant immediately west of Chula Vista; failure to address pending EPA and GARB regulation of toxic contaminants such as mercury (Hg) from power plants and industrial air emissions; faulty citing of traffic related "turbulence" as reducing air quality impacts; faulty rationale that future regional (Regional Air Quality Plan) air quality thresholds may be less severe (they will likely be MORE severe due to federal EPA 8-hr. standards, PM2.5 standards, toxic air contaminant regulations, etc.). 6. There seems to he a general failure of the GPU to reflect many of the comments and requests made by the GPU-EOS sub-committee (and possibly the same for other GPU committees) -many citizens devoted hundreds of hours to supply meaningful and relevant input. City Staff should consider summarizing all these GPU commttee comments (staff has that data) and summarize indicating where each item appears in the GPU, DEIR - or why it does not appear or was not included. 7. In general, I agree with most of the comments and observations regarding the GPU DEI made by Laura Hunter of the Environmental Health Coalition in her letter on this matter dated Feb. 14 to Paul Hellman. Ito found the DEIR to be more difficult to read, to be somewhat "disjointed", to have many inconsistencies, to make many apparently unsupported statements, etc. I urge correction and improvement in the Final EIR for the GPU. 8. I agree with the comments made by a fellow commissioner at last week's RCC meeting on this matter - to paraphrase "Rather than a blueprint for success, this GPU seems to be a blueprint for failure". There are many SIGNIFICANT UMITIGATE IMPACTS in the DEIR that seem to be blithely accepted or excused on the dubious rationale that (substantial) growth must occur -and more meaningful and relevant mitigation measures for these impacts are not considered. Respectfully, .Iohn E. Chavez Vice Chair, Resource Conservation Commission Feb. 7, 2005 Maria Elena Cristo-Lansing 373 Roosevelt Street Chula Vista Ca 91910 Phone (619)426-5958 TO: Resources Conservation Commission 2-7-OS Dear Commission Members, We live in 374 Roosevelt Street, a beautiful house, now;. after ten years of doing repairs and restoring the damage caused to the structure by the passing of time. This house was built in 1924 by Mark Skinner; the city of Chula Vista knocked on my door in order to have it registered as HISTORICAL SITE # 34. I wouldn't like this historical landmark to be affected by excessive traffic and population in this area. Could you please let me know what will be the future for my beautiful histor~ house? 7-- Why ta~~Espanada make tithe entrance and exit of vehicles at the place where the US Nbank is located now?, or another alternative could be having an entrance on H Ave and the exit on 4T" Ave. Espanada wants to build a restaurant there, this could be built somewhere in the towers. We would appreciate if we could have an specific_--_ answer to our concern. Thank you very much for your attention. Respectfully, ~ Maria Elena Cristo-Lansing. , n ~, ,, .. __ , ,.~ J ~ f ~ _~ LJ ~ - -~ -- f~ / ~~~ ~ ,~/, Georgie Stillman, ASA 580 Twin Oaks Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Georgie S t i l l m a n A p p r a i s a l S e r v l e e February 7, 2005 Marilyn Ponseggi Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista Re: General Plan Update EIR Cummings Initiative 619-429-0610 619-429-0737 (fax) Email: georgies(a~,cox.net Dear Ms. Ponseggi, I believe the Chula Vista General Plan Update, as it is currently proposed, is in violation of the Cummings Initiative passed by the City in 1989. The Cummings Initiative prohibits zoning changes that aze not incremental -that go up more than one step above the current zoning. The EIR for the GPU does not address this fact. I request that this issue be addressed in writing at your eazliest convenience. Sincerely, S~//~~% Georgie Stillman