Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 2005/01/31TO: Resource Conservation Commission 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, Ca. 91910 FROM: Earl Jentz RE: Draft EIR on General Plan Update DATE January 31, 2005 Dear Commissioners: My name is Earl Jentz. My wife Karen and I have been residents of Chula Vista since 1976 We own three properties in Chula Vista (358-60 Roosevelt, 261 Garrett and 275 Garrett) that will be affected by the General Plan Update. It is our understanding that under Municipal Code (Chapter 2.32) the Resource Conservation Commission is responsible for advising the city on: I) Environmental issues, including protecting people from excessive noise (2.32.030 B). Tra4lic and land use issues, impacts on people due to the loss of affordable housing and displacement would be within the jurisdiction of the Commission. 2) Safeguarding the city's "historic, aesthetic, social, economic, political and architectural past." (2.32.030 J) Protection of historic structures, preservation of neighborhoods and community character are issues central to the Commission's responsibility In addition, the commission has a duty to make recommendations on how to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts of proposed projects (2.32.050) Consequently, we believe that the following issues are germane to the Commission's consideration of the draft EIR. A. Destruction of community character in the Roosevelt Street area. The General Plan update would lead to rezoning that would violate the Cummings initiative in a variety ofways_ (Chapter 19 80~ See Exhibit I). First, the intent of the statute would be violated, as the General Plan Update will lead to intense development in this area that will overburden city streets and other public facilities and services. (See Exhibit 2 Preferred Plan for H Street Focus Area.) Second, the plan for Roosevelt Street area will lead to development that is not tied to and conditioned upon the availability of public services and facilities, especially in the area of transportation facilities and services. Third, the proposed changes would lead to rezoning that, in order to be consistent with the General Plan, as revised, would violate the limitations section 19.80.070 (see Exhibit 1) imposed on raising zoning code densities for residential developments. Fourth, the proposed changes are "inconsistent policies" prohibited by section 19.80.080 (see Exhibit I) B. We would recommend consideration of the Community Character Alternative. (See Exhibit 3) since a purpose of the Commission is to protect neighborhood character and history, we are asking the Commission to support adoption of this alternative to protect the Roosevelt Street area. C. We are recommending delay of consideration of the General Plan until completion of the Housing Element (See Exhibit 4 & note the dates). The EIR doesn't discuss the proposed project's impacts on the city's population and housing. In the Roosevelt Street area, for example, household median income is well below the city average. These residents have few alternatives for housing. Yet, the plan will likely result in the displacement of a substantial number of people, due to the replacement of existing affordable housing stock with new mixed-use and luxury condominium developments, especially in the central core area. There is no discussion of any effort to conserve the existing affordable housing stock. These issues must be analyzed as environmental impacts and cannot be deferred until preparation of the Housing Element at some time in the future. The EIR provides no baseline analysis for impacts to housing, and appears to impermissibly defer any such analysis to completion of the Housing Element in June ?005. The EIR cannot adequately analyze housing-related impacts without first establishing the baseline that would be the foundation of the Housing Element. D. Delay of the General Plan is necessary until the Housing Element can be reviewed concurrently. Having waited more than a decade to update the General Plan, why not wait a few more months until the Housing Element is ready for consideration? E. Reducing the width of H Street to 4 lanes will expose the public to greater congestion, fumes and traffic delays at the same time densities are increased. This makes no sense, and will lead to an increase in adverse impacts on traffic. F. The General Plan Update should not move forward until the financial mechanisms needed to implement it are described and in place. Capital outlay or capital improvement programs are not required to be linked to developments under the proposal. However, this is required for this type of EIR, as well as by the Municipal Code. For example, to the extent grade changes are proposed for public transit along the H Street corridor, there is no explanation of how timing of such improvements would be correlated with changes in the development intensity. Indeed, financing of such changes is expressly stated in the EIR to be unavailable from TransNet funds. G. Land use intensity as shown in Scenario 3 in the Roosevelt Street area (See Exhibit 5) appears to reduce the adverse impact on traffic along H Street, and on the character of the existing developed residential community, and should be recommended for that reason. The Commission can and should recommend changes in the General Plan Update. We are suggesting that Scenario 3 be used in the H Street focus area only. H. Traffic studies are needed to address the impacts of the newly revised Espanada project on the ability of residents to enter and exit from smaller streets such as Roosevelt, to main streets such as 3`a and 4`h, which may experience extremely long queuing times if the preferred alternative is selected. This information is needed for the city and the public to understand the potential impacts of the proposed plan. I. The analysis of each alternative on traffic impacts conclude that each alternative will result in adverse impacts. However, there are no standards or criteria that give the public (or the council) an intuitive or meaningful understanding of the relative magnitude of the adverse impacts of these alternatives. The document fails to serve as an "environmental alarm bell" if no scale of the reverence is provided by which impacts can be assessed. if the city's intent is to follow the General Plan Update with a series of specific plans, why not wait until the specific plans are better developed so that the impacts of the various parts can be better known? For example: On Tuesday, Jan 18`h, at 10 AM I met with Ed Batchelder and Duane Bazzel in the trailer behind the Ken Lee building, Mary Ladiana joined a bit later. I asked about the density and what could be done with our property on Roosevelt Street. What they did tell me is that the proposed or preferred plan designates the area as a mixed transit focus area. In the proposed plan LUT 50 states that this area to be mostly residential with offices and some retail orientated to H Street and Third Ave. However they couldn't tell me what the use or zoning for my property would be or what the density would be All they could tell me is that the density should average 60 units/acre for the mixed use focus area. The mixed use transit focus area is at least 50 TIMES larger than our property. For example, the density might vary between 20 to 60 units per acre. It could be office or retail. These are substantial differences. How do you evaluate an undefined plan? K. Historic home(s) in the Roosevelt area will be threatened by the General Plan redesignations, as the plan anticipates redevelopment and therefore destruction of such buildings. In addition to LUT 10.6, specific procedures should be provided for their protection. L. The cumulative impacts section of the EIR lacks any description or analysis of past, pending, or future projects reasonably expected to occur. Program EIR's are required to address the cumulative impacts of such projects when those can be ascertained. Here, there are several know pending and future projects that would affect and be affected by this EIR and General Plan Update, yet they are not addressed. For example, the Espanada project has gone through an application and planning process that included a project EIR. That project and other past, pending and future projects should be described and analyzed as part of the cumulative impacts analysis for the General Plan Update. In summary, the General Plan Update should be considered only after the EIR is revised to reflect the concerns of the community and the Commission. Also, we are asking the Resource Conservation Commission to recommend a) the Community Character Alternative and b) Scenario 3 for the H Street focus area. Yours truly, ,,~ Earl and Karen Jentz ~ ~-ieir yf Chula Vista Municipal Code 2. The "substantiality" of the expenditures incurred and of construction performed and the question of whether or not such expenditures and construction were in "good faith" are questions of fact to be determined on a case by case basis by the city council following application by the land- owner or developer and upon notice to the inter- ested public, and following public hearing. D. Except for A, B, and C of this section, any development shall provide all necessary public ser- vices and facilities required to serve that devetop- mentare insured in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 19.80.040. (Ord. 2309 Initiative 1988). 19.80 120 zones approved afrer the effective date of this ordi- nance. E. Property which has been previously zoned which changes unit configuration resulting in the same or a decreased level of density (units) shall not be considered a zone change under this section. (Ord. 2309 Initiative 1988). 19.80.080 Adoption of consistent policies. The city council of the city of Chula Vista is hereby authorized and directed to adopt such fur- ther ordinances, resolutions, policies or procedures consistent with the purposes, intents and require- ments oftheordinance. (Ord. 2309Initiative 1988). 19.80.070 Chula Vista zoning code modification. A. Rezoning of property designated for resi- dential development under the city's zoning code shall be permitted only to the next highest residen- tial density category in any two year period accord- ing to the following schedule: A Agricultural Zone R-E Residential Estates Zone R-1 Single Family Residential Zone R-2 One- and Two-Family Residential Zone R-3 Apartment Residential Zone Property in the county pre-zoned for annexation as part of a planned community shall be deemed in compliance with this section regardless of the county zoning approved for the property. Property in the city zoned or proposed to be rezoned as part of a planned community shall be deemed in com- pliance with this section. This section shall not apply to rezones from a residential to a residential agricultural category. B. Any annexation of lands within the city's sphere of influence shall conform to the purposes, intent and requirements of this ordinance. C. After property is annexed by the city, the prezoning approved for the subject property cannot be amended or changed in any way for a two year period. This provision shall apply only to prezones approved afrer the effective date of this ordinance. D. Rezoning commercial or industrial property to a residential zone shall be permitted only to the maximum residential density corresponding to the potential traffic generation that was applicable prior to the rezoning to residential. In addition, property which is rezoned from residential to com- mercial or industrial may not be rezoned to a resi- dential category of higher density than that which was applicable prior to the rezoning to commercial or industrial. This provision shall apply only to re- 19.80.090 Ordinances in conflict. All provisions of the charter, city ordinances or provisions thereof in conflict with this chapter are hereby repealed. (Ord. 2309 Initiative 1988). 19.80.100 Modification. The city council may, after a public hearing, and by an affirmative vote of no less than five members of the city council, amend any part of this ordi- nance, if said amendment and only if said amend- ment is clearly in keeping with the intent of this ordinance. Or, by no less than three affunaative votes of the city council, the city council may place a proposed amendment onto a ballot for the pur- pose of obtaining a binding vote of the people of the city concerning said amendment. (Ord. 2309 Initiative 1988). 19.80.110 Statement of voter intent. This ordinance is inconsistent with and intended as an alternative to any initiative or ordinance which would place a fixed numerical limitation on the rate of residential construction or establish inflexible standards for the requirements of public facilities to be provided by any development project. If this ordinance and any such initiative ordinance are both passed by a majority voting thereon then the one with the most votes shall pre- vail. (Ord. 2309 Initiative ] 988). 19.80.220 Judicial review. A. Any legal action to challenge a decision or denial of the councilor any other government body performing a function under this ordinance, must be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction within 30 days immediately following the action chal- lenged. B. Any legal action to challenge any provision of this ordinance or to challenge the intent of this 19-201 ~XNiI-~iT '~:~Z .\ "C :~ Q r W Q N ~ ~ Z~ ~ 0 Z 9 1 ~ a~ H~ 3 `~ _ _ O Z W W J a¢a 0 UU~ z O ~LL u WU ~ ~ ~ LL a LL w W O ~ ya ~ w N W ~ _~ >~ ' any p~!yl ~ x ass _ ~~ U 3 j ' L W 3 ~ ~ •any y3~noj •any yu!~ W O w = F- ~ U W ~ ~ j N r r ~ D z z Z z ~ ~ 5 5 Q ~ ° Z !~- r W y ~ ] Q X LL LL 6 W i1 J ® ~ , C7 ?~ x l7 X_ ~U ~ E U w J U w y = o y o z V d O W 3 W Q O ~ F~ K =0 W U '~ ~ W tY N ?? Q -J ~ v~ c XHIB/T '~„3 ~ ~ U Allcmativcs 11.3 Community Character Alternative The EIR identified potential adverse impacts to community character that could result from the adoption ofthe Preferred Plan and each ofthe Scenarios. This impact would result from heights and mass of buildings throughout the General Plan area. This potential effect could also impact the historic chazacter of Do~~nto~~n on Third Avenue. While mitigation was identified for these impacts in the land use and cultural resource section of this EIR, an alternative was established that avoids these effects. Because it mould result in reduced densities, it would represent a corresponding reduction in other effects, such as traffic. The Community Character Alternative is analyzed within this EIR as a means of reducing impacts associated ~tiith land use specifically community character, visual resources.. cultural resources, transportation, airquality, and sen ices and utilities. To reduce these impacts, this altemative would reduce the height and intensity of development throughout the General 520 I LO Alternatives Plan area compared to the Preferred Plan and each of the Scenarios. The proposed General Plan Update uses three basic categories of building heights, as follows: ^ Low-rise: 1 to 3 stories ^ Mid-rise: 4 to 7 stories ^ High-rise: 8 or more stories These height ranges identify the predominant building height intended for a particular area and are used throughout the General Plan area. This alternative reduces the designated building heights by one category level to achieve a reduction in building heights throughout the General Plan azea. For instance, every area designated for High-rise would be reduced to Mid-rise, likewise the azeas designated for Mid-rise would be reduced to Low-rise. Areas affected with the reduction from High-rise to Mid-rise include the H Street Focus Area, the E Street V isitor Focus Area, and the H Street Gateway Focus Area. The reduction from Mid- rise to Low-rise effects areas throughout the General Plan area. The E[R also identified the potential effect to the historic character of Downtown on Third Avenue from development under the Preferred Plan or any of the Scenarios. This is in part due to the same scale of development that resulted in community chazacter impact addressed above. Because of the potential impact to historic buildings in the Downtown area, this alternative includes a new GPU policy for the Environmental Element to reduce the significant impacts that could occur if buildings determined to be historic were demolished or significantly altered. This new policy is included below • The City will promote maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, and preservation of historical resources. Where these will be undertaken, they will be conducted in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment ofHistoric Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstmcting Historic Buildings. The Community Character Alternative assumes that the basicgoals, objectives, and policies of the proposed General Plan Update would be adopted except those pertaining to building heights and intensities. While the reduction in mass and scale would not necessarily reduce the footprint of development, nor the extent to which an area is redeveloped, the reduction in mass and height makes it more likely that the current community character would be maintained. It also adds the new policy that sets a standard for preservation, repair and rehabilitation of historic resources. 521 I I U Alternatives 11.3.1 Land Use This altemative would reduce the impacts to community character compared to the Preferred Plan or any of the Scenarios. The mass and heights of buildings in the area would decrease which would be more likely to maintain the current community character over the Preferred Plan or any of the Scenarios. As stated above, the reduction from High-rise to Mid-rise buildings would occur in the H Street Focus Area, the E Street V isitor Focus Area. and the H Street Gateway Focus Area. This reduction would reduce any adjacency impacts due to the placement of High-rise buildings next to existing single family, one-story residences. Reducing these building heights has the potential to retain the traditional character of the Downtown azea and increase the compatibility with surrounding properties compazed to the Preferred Plan and each of the Scenarios. The Community Character Alternative assumes that the basicgoals, objectives, and policies of the proposed General Plan Update would be adopted except those pertaining to building heights and intensities. 11.3.2 Landform Alteration/Aesthetics Implementation of the Community Character Alternative would reduce the significant impacts related to Landform Alteration/Aesthetics compared to the Preferred Plan and each of the Scenarios. This alternative would reduce the heights and bulk of development throughout the General Plan area. This reduction in the height, bulk and mass of the buildings would protect important public viewpoints and viewsheds throughout the planning area, including features within and outside the planning area, such as mountvns, and native habitat azea. This altemative would comply with the objectives and policies which would be implemented as part of future development to reduce aesthetic impacts. While this altemative would reduce impacts to community character and historic resources, without mitigation the impact would remain significant. This is because the ultimate effect on these issues will be based largely on the design of the development ultimateh approved for the area. If combined with mitigation measures 5.2-1 and 52-2, these impacts would be avoided. 11.3.3 Biological Resources The Community Character Alternative's direct impacts to sensitive biological resources would be similar to the proposed General Plan Update. As with the proposed project, this alternative would be required to comply with the Chula Vista MSCP Subazea Plan, which provides comprehensive long-term habitat conservation to address the needs of multiple species and the preservation of natural vegetation communities for lands within the city and sphere of influence boundaries. Regulations would be imposed to all future projects by state and federal resource agencies to provide additional assurances that impacts would not be 522 I I.0 Alternatives significant. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, implementation of the Community Character Altemative would not result in significant impacts to biological resources. 11.3.4 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Implementation of the Community Character altemative would reduce the impacts to historic character of Downtown on Third Avenue compared to the Preferred Plan or any of the Scenarios. As stated above, this altemative would include a new objective to reduce the significant direct impacts that could occur if buildings determined to be historic were demolished or significantly altered. This objective would ensure the preservation of historical resources by providing for preservation, rehabilitating, restoring, and reconstructing historic buildings. All other cultural resources and paleontological impacts associated with the Community Character Alternative would be similar to impacts associated with the proposed project. Mitigation measures identified for the Preferred Plan and each of the Scenarios would also be applicable to this altemative, specifically 5.4-1, and would reduce the impacts to below a level of significance. 11.3.5 Geology and Soils Implementation ofthis altemative would result in asimilar level ofimpact to geological and soils resources as the Proposed Project. Under this altemative, development would still occur throughout the General Plan area, it wouldjust be at a less intense density. Therefore, since development would still occur under this altemative, geological resources would still be impacted. The goals, objectives, and policies associated with geology and soils would also be applicable to this altemative, and would reduce the impact to below a level of significance. 11.3.6 Water Resources and Water Quality The impacts to water quality would be similar to that of the Preferred Plan and each of the Scenarios with implementation of the Community Character Alternative. This alternative would reduce the height and bulk of the building however, the footprint of impermeable surfaces would be similaz to that of the Preferred Plan and each of the Scenarios. As with the proposed project, adherence to water quality control measures required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City's SUSMP and JURMP would reduce the potential impacts to below a level of significance. 11.3.7 Transportation The Community Character Altemative would result in a decrease in density throughout the General Plan area compared to the Preferred Plan or any of the Scenarios. This would result in a decrease in the amount of trips generated by the project compared to the proposed project. However, the significant traffic impacts associated with the General Plan Update 523 1 L0 Alternatives would be reduced but would not be avoided with implementation ofthis alternative. Because the significant traffic impacts are cumulative, the traffic mitigation measures would be unchanged from those required of the proposed General Plan Update. 11.3.8 Air Quality The Community Character Altemative would decrease the density throughout the General Plan area compared to the Preferred Plan and each of the Scenazios. Because this alternative would produce developments covering the same land mass at lower densities than the Preferred Plan or any of the Scenarios, and because traffic Ilow may be improved, the Community Character Altemative could result in fewer hot spots than the Proposed Project. All other air quality impacts associated with this altemative would be sirrtilar to impacts associated with the Proposed Project. This altemative is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the RAQS. Similar to the proposed project, this is considered a significant adverse impact until the SANDAG TCM Plan is revised. Because the RAQS is the strategy for avoiding cumulative air quality impacts, these effects are considered significant and unavoidable. 11.3.9 Noise Development of the Community Character Altemative has the potential to result in a reduction of significant noise impacts compared to the proposed project. As stated above, this altemative would reduce the overall density throughout the General Plan area, which would represent a decrease in the amount of trips generated by the build out of the General Plan. The reduction in trips would have a corresponding reduction in noise. To the extent that the reduction in trips was associated with an increase in traffic speed, however, that volume based noise reduction would be off set, at least in part. As with the proposed General Plan Update, all future projects with the potential to generate noise in excess of the specified limits shall be required to complete a noise analysis to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator to reduce any noise impacts to below a level of significance. 11.3.10 Public Services and Utilities The EIR identified potential adverse impacts to public services and utilities that could result from the adoption of the Preferred Plan or any of the Scenarios. Development of the Community Character Altemative would reduce the impacts to Public Services and Utilities compared to the proposed project. Thus, the significant water facilities, wastewater, school service, police and fire protection, and park and recreation impacts identified for the proposed project would be lessened under this altemative. As with the proposed General Plan Update, development of the Community Character Altemative has the potential to result in significant impacts to Public Services and Utilities, 524 11.11 Allcmatives specifically water supply and energy supply. While the Community Character Altemative would be required to comply with the policies and guidelines for the provision of public services and utilities in Chula Vista, and would, thereby, avoid significant adverse service and utility impacts to water facilities, wastewater, school service, police and fire protection, and park and recreation, the absence of long term supply contracts for water and energy represent a significant and unmitigable impact. This is the same impact that was identified for the Preferred Plan and each of the Scenarios. While the Reduced Project Altemative would reduce demand for these resources, it does not provide the long term guarantee needed to avoid the impact. The mitigation measures and the policies and guidelines for the provision of public services and utilities in Chula Vista identified for the Preferred Plan and each of the Scenarios would also be applicable to this altemative, and would reduce the impacts to below a level of significance. 11.3.11 Parks and Recreation The Community Character Altemative would have the same impacts to open space and park uses when compared to the Preferred Plan or any of the Scenarios. As with the proposed General Plan Update, this alternative would comply with the policies and guidelines for the development of parks in Chula Vista as well as the policies regarding the Chula Vista Greenbelt, trails, bicycle ways and pedestrian-oriented street corridors linking community parks to the greenbelt and provide guidance for development of park facilities. Implementation of these policies would ensure that any parks and recreation impacts would be below a level of significance. 11.4 Reduced Traffic Impact Alternative The EIR identified the potential for future development in accordance with the adoption of the Preferred Plan, or any of the Scenarios, could have an adverse impact to traffic. As a result of the traffic analysis in this EIR, 13 non-urban roadway segments were determined to have a significant impact after mitigation with the adoption of the Preferred Plan or any of the Scenarios. The reduced Traffic Impact Altemative was developed to reduce these impacts. This altemative would upsize the classification of all roadways segments identified as being significantly impacted under the Preferred Plan and each of the Scenarios to reduce these impacts. Table 1 1-5 shows the roadway segments that were determined to have a significant impact after mitigation with the adoption of the Preferred Plan or any of the Scenarios. This table also lists the roadway classifications proposed under the Preferred plan and what classification the roadways were increased to under the Reduced Traffic Impact Altemative. Upsizing the roadway segments would improve traffic flow and alleviate peak hour congestion. 525 Table 2-1 State Law Manda[o and 0 Uonal General Plan Elements and To ics Element or Land Use Economic Housing Public Environ- GrowUt Topic and Develop- Facilities mental Management Transpoda- ment and Uon Services Mandato Elem ents rand Gse X Grculation Y Housin X Conservation X o nsa~e x Nuise x sale X X 0 tion al Elernents/ro rigs wdrr x cavnai IrnpmwmenLi/ x s wnu~ Facilities COmmVnltY X Dell n ECOnOmI(/ fiscal X X pcvelo menl Parks and X F Recreation Enu v X HWd~Jdin ManM emeot X Lucal Coastal k %an Sustainable X X [kvelo mtN Transt- X Oriented oe~m mint 2 O I, General Plan Update ' ~ Process Come and tell us what's on your mind Community participation is a priority in the planning process. The general plan must represent the desires of the local residents and business owners and address the concerns most important to the community both now and in the future. The public's input and participation in the update process is key to ensuring a shared vision and strategy for the city. The first phase of the general plan update included community outreach, focus group sessions and a Town Hall Meeting to gather public input INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 2 ~~~~ Jicsf p{rasc of fbe gena~ol plan update included commun;fy outreach, focus group sec~ionc and a moron ~}lall meefrng to gather public ;nput~ What should the City of Chula Vista look like in 2030? How should future growth be guided? Where should certain land uses be located? What roads, transit routes and bikeways are needed? How can neighborhoods be revitalized' These were some ofthe questions asked as Chula Vista began to update the general plan. More than 4,000 public comments were received. The city synthesized these to frame ~w~ :.rte Dr°~enlba~r li, ?004 'I ~. City oY Chula ~isla Genzral Plan f i, !'.6 '~ _ "a CHUTA VISrA ~~tr, ~~ ~~n CHULA VISTA HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN 1999-2004 CITY OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT 1999-2004 Adopted on December 19, 2000 City Council Resolution No. 2000-480 Amended on May 28, 2002 City Council Resolution No. 2002-179 CITY OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT 1999-2004 Adopted on December 19, 2000 City Council Resolution No. 2000-480 Amended on May 28, 2002 City Council Resolution No. 2002-179 v~ d, W o Q, v w ~ aQ a • ~ y > > w 4 .~ ~ p O N ~ ~ lL LL Z ~ U W a~ zLL '~ ° (~ 4 W ~ +~ N ~ N • ~ d Q nd p.yUl , N w W ~, z ~ a 4 •^ ~ ?r Z v w y t N •and 4~nod W x o ."'- u N ~ ~ ~ Q ~ 5 5 ~ *- o z ~ < w ~ t Z 1~ ~ S~ G w V N 2 ~~ 6 X_ 'G~ °o X U w a N ~O ~.: Q N Z w .Z w v ~w N CC >Q ~o From: Kent & Malena Lansing " 374 Roosevelt St. ~ Chula Vista, CA 91910 Phone & fax: (619) 426-5958 '~ E-mail: keritlt>.4a:carthlink_t~et ,,~ Date: 1-31-OS To: Resource Conservation Commission City of Chula Vista Re: Draft EIR on General Plan Update Sub: Historic Homes We are the owners of the above property on Roosevelt Street. It is "Th_e1 k )Sinner , House", built in 1924, and designated as Histor c Site No. 34.1~~.3 ~ ([ r/ 1 ~ y ~ ~ q en we applied for permission to build over our garage, which is not designated as part of the historic house, we were advised our house, our home was a "Protected Site". We could move it to another location but tearing it down and building another residence(s) on the property would not be permitted. Under the Drafr F,IR we appear to be in the Core Area. Under LUT 10.3, as we understand it, it says that the City zoning code needs to be amended to include "...the establishment of a historic preservation ordinance". We are concerned that this is not writtenye~, we do not know when it might be written, and when written might exclude an area that is zoned for redevelopm~e-n/t. LC1Q ~<.~ 1 i /~~, .~ /z.,r,~.:.~,-- Sta'©>~ / .-~'! ~ l~s D ~ c ~ r'. f:?-~Q,.~~~~, pj i DRAFT Summary of EHC major requested additions and changes to the EIR and the Project prior to certification of the FEIR. 1. Improve Analysis and Re-Circulate necessary sections • P.e-do the Growth Inducement Analysis using current conditions and not current adopted plan as the baseline. • Reduce numbers of additional residential units to reflect credible growth expectations or provide justification for need. • Develop and Analyze a true Traffic Reduction Alternative. Re-Circulate for public comment. • Develop and analyze credible Scenarios that are actually adoptable options to the Proposed Project. At least one credible scenario should analyze a lower number of residential units. • Provide information on the increases in housing units broken down by planning area in an easily understood and accessible format in the Final EIR. • Cumulative impacts analysis must include Mexico related issues and impacts. Environmental Justice and safe location of sensitive uses • Add the RCP Healthy Environment Recommended Action #2 Site industries and high-traffic corridors in a way that minimizes the potential impacts of poor air quality on homes, schools, hospitals, and other land uses where people congregate, and implement programs to ensure low income and minority populations are not disproportionately negatively affected. (RCP pg. 278) 3. Air Quality and Safe Location of Sensitive Uses • Add a threshold for causing or adding to a disproportionate impacts on any neighborhoods. This should be listed as a threshold and language should be added to ensure that any additional impacts to these communities require additional analysis and mitigation. • The fourth threshold of significance should be amended to be considered to have been exceeded if there the plan exposes or increases exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • A policy should be added modeled on EE 19.1 for toxic air emitting industries (such as facilities on Table 5.11-6) that reads, All new residential or sensitive uses shall be a minimum of 1,000 feet from existing or new industrial sources, and greater distances could be required depending on the nature and amount of air pollutant emissions or hazardous materials use, storage, and generation hazards. • Re-write Mitigation 5.1-2 to read No residential uses shall be developed and occupied closer than a minimum of 1, 000 feet to the Otay Landfill and the South Bay Power Plant while these facilities are open aad active. 4. Energy Use Change Threshold of Significance to be considered exceeded if the GPU increases the demand on energy resources without offsetting this increase through credible mitigating actions. • Adapt and Add Regional Energy Strategy (RES) Goal # 3A 6rcr-ease the total electricity supply from renewable resources to I S°!° by 2010, 25% by 2020, and 40% by 2030. • RES Goal #3B Of these renewable resources, achieve 50% of total renewable resources from resources located within the County. • Add RES Goal 6 Reduce per capita electricity peak demand and per capita electricity consumption back to 1980 levels. • Add an additional policy Chula Vista wilt only consider clean renewable energy sources as meeting the renewable energy goals. Biomass and geothermal will not be considered as renewable sources. • Add an additional policy to read Aggressive tree planting programs will be implemented to reduce energy needs. Add the RCP Air Quality Recommended Implementation Measure #5 lrnplement programs and needed infrastructure to increase the availability and usage of energy-efficient vehicles such as hybrid electric vehicles, electric vehicles, or those that run on alternative fuels. (page ] 60) • Add RCP Air Quality Recommended Action #4 Promote reductive of mobile source emissions through the adoption and enforcement of fuel specifications and the improvement of engine and emission equipment systems. (PACE 159) 5. MSCP Implementation • Remove Open Space Active Recreation Land Use Designation for MSCP lands v+- 6. Water Quality • No duuurgrading of a listing for beneficial uses of groundwater will be allowed. Without fhese very feasible changes to the project to mitigate impacts as required by CEQA, the EIR cannot be certified. "1'tcank you for the opportunity to comment on this DEIR. Sincerely, ~~~ ~ ~~,~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ General Plan Update draft Environmental Impact Report draft 31 December 2004 RCC review on 3 ] January 2005 and 7 February 2005 Comments by Commissioner Teresa (Terry) Thomas The use of Green technologies in both municipal infrastructure and land use projects must be mandated and not just recommended or promoted, The City of Chula Vista as an employer and a model for the community and region should be mandate itself to using this technology in all of its public works, operations units, pazks and recreational areas and public services. Traffic Mitigation relationship to Unavailability of Parking Must be Addressed in the Transportation Demand Management Plans. The General Plan needs to address this with more options, such as Cell phone parking areas, Weekend and enhanced low-cost short-loop shuttles, and mandating parking facilities as a part of the Transportation Demand Management Plans and High Density area amenities. This should definitely be addressed as a part of mitigation of the GPU land uses that are showing LOS of D and E during the greater part of the day. Also, the responsibility of the developer to provide parking structures may possibly mitigate other demands on the resources of the community. Coupling Photovoltaic energy units as a part of the parking structures or design would also help mitigate air pollution and use of polluting energy resources. Some of the areas in the draft EIR for the GPU have been indicated to be immitigable. However, if the GPU policy promotes and MANDATES the use of green technologies and/or smart building or smart infrastructure approaches for the proposed future operations or projects, then the so-called "non-mitigable impact on the environment would be mitigated or reduced to less than significant. This is especially true in the area of the availability, reliability, and quality of our current and future potable and reclaimed water resources, as well as our current and source reduction of our solid and hazardous wastes, as well as our When planning and implementing policies and projects that impact on the flow of traffic (LOS D, E, F), consideration of "Parking availability" has been referred to as "not relevant." By staff and other parties, In fact, it has been shown that in areas of high movement of cars, vans, trucking, and bus that if there is a significant deficiency of available parking, that movement of traffic is increased to lower LOS levels D, E, F Example: In our San Diego airport, shopping areas, recreational areas, school areas, and high density mixed use areas. Environmental Justice and Environmental Social Equity Example Certain hazardous emitting operations, such as Dry cleaners using PERC, should not be permitted in areas of the watershed, aquifer or on the Bayfront. SANDAG bases its water supply, public services/utility system and other estimates n 2.84 persons per unity (Sandag 2004 data.) This data needs to be updated. 5 12.7 EcoTourism, Environmental Research, Environmental Education, and Smart Environmental Industries as parts of our Community Character, Environmental Sustainability, Economic Development and Sustainability needs to be more Chula Vista in both its GPU and EIR shall address Environmental Justice and Social Equity using the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) as a model and including the local features as presented by the GPU Environmental Open Space and Sustainable Development Subcommittee. (EOSSD). Example: Locate energy facilities, such as power plants and/or transmission lines, so that lower income and minority communities are not disproportionately negatively affected (Ch 6, p 380 RMP) A significant buffer zone of at least 1000 feet should be mandated between past, present, and future waste sites that would impact on sensitive receptors both human and in nature and that would result in morbidity, mortality, and well-being ofthe people and the natural resources and community welfare. Do not issue permits for certain type of industries, businesses, or operations that would impact on the health of susceptible receptors, including residents, workers, schools, or recreational facilities. Enhance the both the reporting and monitoring devices and systems E~~~ Lt~~ C,\ ~', ~L~~ ~J comprehensively addressed ~j ~,~;1 -'-~C~' ~, ~ ~ ~ Y~ ~ ,1 ~ fir, ~; ~ i ~-~~l% i ~ --f `. Z~ ~~ ' l ~~~~~~ ~~ Y~;1 CS:_ ~~t2 ~L~~~-~ ~, r1 C~~_~~ ~~~ ~ ~~'~ The Historic Significance of our Industries, Salt Works, Agriculture, Railroad, Transportation, and Military need to be more completely addressed. Where does the GPU address our Historic preservation and cultural and economic significance and public service iimpacts of our Sister Cities relationships and International Outreach Yo our Pacific Rim neighbors. Heritage and International House Anthropological and Paleontological Terry Thomas comments - ,~ .. I ~ ~r~ I ~ vim, a.,~ C~~~ ~ e~,.~- _ ~~ ,L ~- ((that address existing congestion. These plans identify the causes ofcongestion, potential '~ -t)"~olutions, and establish funding mechanisms for improvements that help manage congestion. • Enhanced CEQA Review -The CMP recognizes that local land use decisions may contribute to traffic congestion. To address future congestion, local jurisdictions must take their review processes a step further, conducting enhanced California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ~ review for large development projects (generating 2,400 or more average daily trips or 200 or more peak period trips). In these cases, local agencies must look at the potential problems on a regional level and find ways to minimize them, to the extent feasible. The 2002 CMP proposals go well beyond standard road improvements. They emphasize awide / range of non-traditional strategies that focus on near-term, low-cost efforts, such as transportation demand management (rideshare programs, transit pass subsidies, flexible work hours, telecommuting, etc.), transportation rystem management (signal synchronization, peak period parking restrictions, bicycle paths, etc.), and project design guidelines to encourage walking, bicycling, ridesharing, and transit use. Many of these strategies are already employed by local jurisdictions to help reduce the local impacts of new development projects. These strategies, if used consistently and effectively, can help local jurisdictions better address new development impacts at the onset, reducing the need for more capital-intensive gional solutions in the future. ---- _ _-__ -"-f ' tonal research for the CMP has developed three tools: a Congestion' M~t~gation Strategies Toolbox, a Model Trip Reduction Program, and Supplemental Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. The Toolbox contains 40 r e is est tr a is est t s to increase the stem's ca act or its efficien g ry p ty, cy, encourage alternative travel modes, shift trips out of the peak period, or reduce vehicle trips. The Trip Reduction Ordinance (TRO) is a voluntary travel demand management program that does what its name suggests. The Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Guidelines provide new information for assessing the true traffic impact of developments that encourage walk, bike, and transit trips. Jurisdictions can use these three tools to accurately address and alleviate traffic impacts. The RCP encourages a mix of land uses and more concentrated housing, offices, and retail around transit stations. These may result in more traffic in certain areas and some localized congestion. But the payoff is on the regional level. It can reduce congestion levels overall, make more efficient use of transportation infrastructure investments, and significantly decrease overall land consumption. The new CMP tools can help local agencies lessen the potential localized problems associated with smart growth. In addition, local jurisdictions can adopt alternative CMP standards for areas designated "infilt opportunity zones." To qualify, these areas must be zoned for compact residential or mixed use commercial development and located within one-third mile of existing or future transit rtations. Regional Transportation Improvement Program Integral to the development of the region's long-range transportation plan is the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), which the SANDAG Board of Directors updates every two years. The RTIP prioritizes projects included in the region's overall strategy for improving mobility, while reducing transportation-related air pollution. The RTIP incrementally implements the vision laid out in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)_ Accordingly, the RTIP is required by federal and state law to be consistent with the RTP. 89