Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC MIN 2005/02/07DRAFT MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION February 7, 2005 Public Services Building Conference Rooms 2 and 3 276 Fourth Avenue MEETING CALLED TO ORDER by Chair Doug Reid at 4:07 p.m. ROLL CALLIMOTION TO EXCUSE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Doug Reid, Vice-Chair John Chavez, Commissioners Teresa Thomas, Juan Diaz, Stanley Jasek, Pamela Bensoussan and Tracy Means STAFF PRESENT: Marilyn Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator Paul Hellman, Environmental Projects Manager Ed Batchelder, Advance Planning/General Plan Manager John Mullen, Deputy City Attorney Dave Kaplan, Transportation Engineer Steve Power, Environmental Projects Manager Mark Stephens, Principal Planner Linda Bond, Recording Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Charles Bull, RECON Patricia Aguilar, Crossroads II Lorna Barrett, Chula Vista resident Lupita Jimenez, South Bay Greens Georgie Stillman, Chula Vista resident APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 10, 2005 (Action Minutes) MSC (Diaz/Bensoussan) to approve the January 10, 2005 action minutes as submitted. Vote: (5-0-2-0) with Jasek and Means abstaining. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. DRAFT DRAFT RCC Minutes - 2 - February 7, 2005 NEW BUSINESS 1. EIR-05-01 -City of Chula Vista General Plan Update Draft EIR (Continued from the January 31, 2005 Special RCC needing.) Ms. Marilyn Ponseggi (Environmental Review Coordinator) stated that this meeting is a continuation of the discussion during the January 31, 2005 meeting on the General Plan Update EIR. She wanted to remind the RCC that they have two roles: 1) The role in the CEQA process to review the Draft EIR and comment on its adequacy; and 2) To advise the City Council on environmental issues. She stated that what should come out of tonight's meeting is a motion that includes all of the RCC's consensus comments on the Draft EIR that will be included as part of the Final EIR together with City staff's responses. Commissioner Bensoussan asked if the Plan itself would be discussed at a later date. Ms. Ponseggi stated that it's staffs hope that the RCC will be able to get through everything pertaining to the General Plan Update tonight, but that if the RCC would like to have further discussion of the Plan, then staff can schedule that for a future meeting. Chair Reid noted that there is a meeting at 6:00 that some of the Commissioners wish to attend, so our goal is to adjourn the meeting by 6:00. As far as speakers are concerned, if you are speaking for the second time, restrict your comments to new issues and don't repeat comments that they made during the previous meeting. Public Comments Ms. Patricia Aguilar (representing Crossroads 11 - 262 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910) distributed and summarized a memo (see Attachment 1) addressing the following issues: • Socio-economic impact report to address displacement of residents among other issues • Provision of additional public review time for Draft EIR due to a missing table from the CD version of the document • Adequacy and accuracy of the Draft EIR • Community Character Alternative • Review of the General Plan Update by the Chula Vista Housing Commission Ms. Lorna Barrett (181 Halsey Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910) described her preferred character for the downtown Third Avenue area. DRAFT DRAFT RCC Minutes - 3 - February 7 2005 Ms. Lupita Jimenez (representing South Bay Greens, 1134 Arbusto Corte, Chula Vista, CA 91910) read her written comment letter verbatim (see Attachment 2). Commissioner Comments Ms. Ponseggi indicated that Mr. Paul Hellman (Environmental Projects Manager) would write down the comments made by the individual Commissioners to assist them in formulating their motions. Comments made by the Commissioners are listed in Attachment 3. MSUC (Chavezlfhomas) that the RCC recommend and advise that the Chula Vista City Council reject the preferred alternative in the Draft EIR and in its stead adopt the community character alternative as the preferred alternative. Vote: (7-0) Commissioners Diaz and Chavez left the meeting at 5:30 p.m. MSC (Thomas/Reid) that the RCC recommend certification of the Draft EIR subject to the 33 points (see Attachment 3) they raised being addressed in the Final EIR. Vote: (5-0-0-2) with Diaz and Chavez absent. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR COMMENTS: Ms. Ponseggi indicated that another joint Planning Commission, Design Review Committee and Resource Conservation Commission meeting would be scheduled shortly. CHAIR COMMENTS: Chair Reid indicated that he has a conflict for the Planning Commission meeting on February 14th and that Vice-Chair Chavez will represent the RCC at this meeting. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS MSC (Bensoussan/Thomas) that the RCC recommend that the City Council adopt the recommendations made by Laura Hunter (Attachment 4) at the 1131 /05 RCC meeting and Lupita Jimenez (Attachment 2) at the 2/7/05 RCC meeting. Vote: (5-0-0-2) with Diaz and Chavez absent. Commissioner Jasek read from the General Plan Update, page LUT-80, 4th paragraph down: "Gateway areas into the City or its districts that are well-designed, attractive and exhibit a special character help to enhance the City's image and instill community pride." He couldn't agree more. Then you turn to page LUT-52 and you look at the DRAFT DRAFT RCC Minutes - 4 - February 7, 2005 intersection of Broadway and "E". He asked that the black dot that's right in the middle of that intersection be made white because that's an important part of the gateway into the City. Under this identification, it's an urban arterial 4-lane intersection and not a gateway intersection. MS (Bensoussan/Thomas) that the RCC recommend to the Planning Commission and City Council that staff prepare a Socio-Economic Impact Report analyzing the affect of implementing the General Plan Update on displacement of people, and that the RCC recommend that the GPU be referred to the Chula Vista Housing Commission for review. Motion failed: (2-3-0-2) ADJOURNMENT: Chair Reid adjourned the meeting at 6:21 p.m. to a regular meeting on Monday, February 21, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. in the Ken Lee Building Conference Room, 430 "F" Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910. Prepared by: Linda Bond Recording Secretary Attachments: 1. Ms. Patricia Aguilar Comments 2. Ms. Lupita Jimenez Comments 3. RCC Comments on the GPU Draft EIR (EIR-05-01) 4. Ms. Laura Hunter Comments (J:\Planning\RCC\2005\RCC020705Mins.doc) DRAFT ATTACHMENT 1 Crossroads II RESIDENTS WORKING TOGETHEK TO BEEP CHLILA VISTA A GREAT PLACti TO L[VE I'i1lT. Aide GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DEIR "n-Founder, 1919-2004 CHLILA VISTA RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING i'teering Committee February 7, 2005 'arricia.4g:dl°'' Crossroads II recommends that the RCC make the following resident recommendations: ,npi[u Jimenez 'ice President I. Recommend to the Planning Commission and City Council that staff prepare a soc_io-economic impact report analyzing the effect of implementing ;usmt tforrti the General Plan Update on displacement of people. This report should be alenrhership given to the Planning Commission and Council for review before they are Coordinator asked to take action on the GPLt. ~andv Duncan ~:venrs c~aordinarar' The Planning Commission and Council should not he asked to take action on the Treasurer GPU without knowing the extent of the disruption to peoples' lives that s ' implementation the GPU will cause. This information is not included in the DEIR erer !4 anv Jcws[ener F;din,r nor in the General Plan t Jpdate itself, which is missing an updated Housing Element. ~om Puvis 2. Recommend to the Planning Commission and Council that the ~l'aYOY1 Fl"~'`/ deadline for the receipt of comments be extended for those who received CD ':ll Gnh~ez versions of the Draft EiR. 'o-Recording Sacretarv The CD version of the DEIR is missing page 496. This is a C'RTICAI, omission "" Pere'~~`O" in that this page contains a table (] 0-3) with crucial information necessary to tall Riehrer understand the impacts of the GPU. 'arlene scan 3. Recommend to the Planning Commission and Council that they NOT 'o-Recrnzling Secrernr?' certify that the DEIR is adequate and accurate. c rrv scr'rr The DEIR is wholly inadequate in that is fails to provide any rationale for the fact that the GPLf increases the capacity for additional population and housing units OVER AND ABOV P. what SANDAG has detem~ined is Chula Vista's "fair share" of projected regional population growth. According to the recently- adopted SANDAG Regional Comprehensive Plan, Chula Vista is projected to grow by 70,000 people by year 2030. Under the GPU, Chula Vista can grow by over 101,000 people by year 2030. The DElR's failure to provide any basis for this massive increase over SANDAL assumptions isbreath-taking! The Land I Ise section of the EIR 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 C)tay River Valley. Under the current (1989) plan General Plan, 1,781 more housing units can be built in the 262 Second Avenue Chula Vista CA 91910 61~A27.74~3 FAX 619.691J6J1 c-nwil xranrls_'rd~Crzs.net XR2GPU Rees to RCC northwest Chula Vista plan area. Under the GPLI, 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. -l. 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 GPU is called the "Community Character Alternative." The Community Character Alternative "assumes that the basic goals, ofijectives, and policies of the proposed General Plan Update would he adopted except those pertaining to building heights and intensities. " This alternative reduces the designated building heights by one category ]evel 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 redtece any adjacency impacts due to placement of High-rise buildings next to existing single family, one-story residetrces. Reducing these building heights has the potential to retain the traditional churacter of the Downtown urea and increase the compatibility with surrounding properties compared to the Preferred Plan and each of the Scenarios. " Enough said. 5. Refer the GPU to the Chula 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. XR2 GPU Recs to RCC ATTACHMENT 2 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 a written 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 ftxtures 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 COMMUNITY 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 DEIR. Very truly yours, ,~ , n~ I ~ , ri u Lupita Jimenez Chair, South Bay Greens ,, ,~ ,~ . ./ ~~ ~J9~ of y p ~~ . ~ ~u,~l~ Vi~~t~, c~ G'~ C~ /c ATTACHMENT 3 DRAFT RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS ON THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT EIR (EIR 05-01) February 7, 2005 1. Extend draft EIR public review period by 15 days. 2. Support the mandated use of green technologies with respect to municipal infrastructure and land use projects. 3. Traffic impacts attributable to the unavailability of parking must be addressed in Transportation Demand Management plans for areas with traffic level of service "D" or worse, through options such as cell phone parking areas and low-cost, short- loop shuttles. Also, the responsibility of developers to provide parking structures may possibly mitigate other demands on community resources. Incorporate photovoltaic systems into parking structures to help mitigate air pollution. 4. Incorporate SANDAG Congestion Management Program proposals as General Plan Update policies, including 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 system management (signal synchronization, peak period parking restrictions, bicycle paths, etc.), and project design guidelines to encourage walking, bicycling, ridesharing, and transit use. 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 regional solutions in the future. 5. More completely address the historical significance of Chula Vista's long-term industries (e.g., Salt Works, agriculture, railroad, military). 6. The need for a heritage house, an international house, and a museum housing local cultural and paleontological resources should be promoted now and established within the next 30 years. 7. Address environmental justice in the General Plan Update and EIR, using the Regional Comprehensive Plan as a model, including compliance with the following policies: Locate energy facilities, such as power plants and/or transmission lines, so that lower income and minority communities are not disproportionately negatively affected (Regional Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 6, page 380). 1 • A significant buffer zone of at least 1,000 feet should be mandated between past, present, and future waste sites that would impact on sensitive receptors both human and in nature that would result in morbidity, mortality, and well-being of the people and the natural resources and community welfare. • Do not issue permits for certain types of industries, businesses, or operations that would impact the health of sensitive receptors. 8. Eco-tourism, environmental research and education, and economic and environmental sustainability need to be more comprehensively addressed. 9. Air quality health impacts of the South Bay Power Plant to Chula Vista should be addressed. 10. The draft EIR lacks an analysis of pending EPA and CARB regulation of toxic air contaminants (e.g., mercury). 11. The draft EIR lacks an analysis of cumulative environmental impacts with respect to the Baja California/Tijuana region. 12. The draft EIR needs to address socio-economic impacts that would result from physical changes to the environment. 13. The lack of certain potential mitigation measures that can reduce the significant unmitigated impacts of the proposed General Plan Update is problematic. 14. The Preferred Plan would obliterate Chula Vista's small town character. 15. Unnecessary water and energy impacts should be avoided. 16. General Plan Update vision input is not reflected in the Preferred Plan, but is better reflected in other alternatives. 17. Draft EIR, pages 32 and 55: The description and location of the Country Club View Property is inaccurate. Page 65 and Figure 3-4 might identify the correct location. 18. Draft EIR, page 156, Photograph 5.2-3: Caption should state that the view in this photograph is looking east rather than west. 19. Was the proposed deletion of Alta Road assessed with respect to the potential third Otay Mesa border crossing? 20. The statements on pages 297 and 525 of the draft EIR regarding traffic mitigation are inconsistent. 2 21. Draft EIR, Appendix B, GPU Maps: The school site located within the Interstate 5 Corridor District on E Street, between Broadway and I-5, is referred to as Feaster Elementary School on some maps and as Edison Elementary School on others. 22. The draft EIR does not adequately address the environmental impacts associated with extending La Media Road across the Otay River; elaborate the reasons for this lack of analysis. 23. The draft EIR contains inconsistencies regarding building heights and densities. The re{ationship of building heights to densities, which are two separate issues, is not adequately addressed. 24. The project objectives as stated in the draft EIR include the protection of stable residential neighborhoods; however, this objective is not supported by the Preferred Plan in certain locations. 25. The absence of an update of the Housing Element is a deficiency since it would address mitigation of the displacement of residents. 26. The draft EIR does not address the consistency of the proposed General Plan Update with the Cummings Initiative and the impact of non-incremental zoning changes that would result from adoption of the General Plan Update. 27. Include a new, updated Housing Element as part of the General Plan Update. The General Plan Update should be reviewed by the Chula Vista Housing Commission. 28. Include policies and options in the Housing Element that mandate community services that help facilitate average and below average income households to find affordable housing. 29. Recommend that full and complete relocation assistance be provided to enable displaced residents to obtain equivalent housing locally. 30. The description of the scenarios in the draft EIR is inadequate; it is not clear what the scenarios really are and what they really mean. The final EIR should clarify this. 31. Clarify and quantify the reductions of impacts attributable to proposed mitigation measures that are identified in the draft EIR. 32. Proposed Transit Focus Areas: How can impacts be adequately addressed in the draft EIR if no height limit is specified for high-rise areas? Recommend a cap of 15 stories in high-rise areas. There is no adequate reason to designate the Third Avenue and 'H' Street area as a Transit Focus Area due to the present lack of enhanced transit service in this area and due to the proximity of this area to the 3 ATTACHMENT 4 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 • Re-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 E[R. • Cumulative impacts analysis must include Mexico related issues and impacts. 2. Environmental Justice and safe location of sensitive uses • Add the RCP Healthy Environment Recommended Action #2 Site industries and high-traffic con-idors in a way that minimizes the potential impacts of poor air quality on homes, schools, hospitals, and other land uses ruhere people congregate, and implement programs to ensure low income and minority populations are not disproportionately rtegatiuely 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 he 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 modeVed on EE 19.1 for toxic air emitting industries (such as Facilities on Table 5.7 1-6) that reads, .4I1 Hero residential or sensitise uses shall be a minimurre of 1, 000 feet from e.xisrirrg or rreco 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.]-2 to read No residential uses shall be deoe(oped and occupied closer than a minunum of 1, 000 feet to the Otay Landfill and the SouUr Bay Power Plant while these huilitiec m-e open and active. DRAFT RCC Minutes - 9 - February 7, 2005 Chair Reid: Do we have a motion on those 33 points? Commissioner Thomas: I make a motion that the RCC adopt the...we already have the community character... recommend certification of the Draft EIR at the community character level with the recommendation that all of the standards that were stated during this meeting (#1 thru 33) are included and addressed in the EIR. Chair Reid: Is there a second? Commissioner Bensoussan: I have a question about the motion. How does your motion with finding the document adequate or inadequate? Isn't that what we are supposed to do? Commissioner Thomas: I thought that's what we did before. I thought we already approved it. Ms. Ponseggi: I thought the motion was to find it adequate if all of these things are addressed within the final EIR. Commissioner Bensoussan: Is that your motion? Commissioner Thomas: Yes. Actually that should have been done... Commissioner Bensoussan: I move for different language. Commissioner Thomas: Why don't you make the motion? I would make it inadequate with... Commissioner Bensoussan: But it wouldn't be inadequate if they adopted the community character alternative because that would reduce all the impact. Commissioner Thomas: Let me put it this way...that the EIR as stated as preferable options is inadequate and the recommendations of the RCC as stated (Items 1 thru 33) would help to make it adequate. Chair Reid: Is there a second? Commissioner Thomas: Actually, we have a former Environmental Review Coordinator. Maybe you could verbalize it. It's not adequate the way it is. Chair Reid: That's correct. Recommend certification of the EIR subject to those 33 conditions. DRAFT DRAFT RCC Minutes - 10 - February 7 2005 Commissioner Bensoussan: No, I can't... I thought you were making... You just now made a recommendation that it's inadequate because of those reasons. Isn't that your motion? You didn't make a motion that you found it adequate except for those. Commissioner Thomas: I thought you were making the statements that would make it adequate if these were addressed. Mr. Hellman: These are really the comments as you stated them that such and such is lacking or inadequate, and some are comments that are a little different in nature. But they are really reflecting what you stated as a comment. Commissioner Bensoussan: Could I try to have a go at it? Commissioner Thomas: Well, I personally... Chair Reid: Well, there's a motion on the floor and it's been seconded. Commissioner Thomas: Okay Chair Reid: Any discussion of the motion? Ms. Ponseggi: Could I clarify that the motion that's on the floor is to recommend certification of all the issues addressed up here are taken care of in the Final EIR? Commissioner Thomas: That's right. That's actually the motion I made unless they return it back to us again. We need to make a statement as to what needs to be addressed. Commissioner Bensoussan: And my thing is, the statement that you made is that it's inadequate because of those reasons. It's another way of stating it, but it's a stronger way of stating it. The document is inadequate because of all those reasons; therefore, we don't recommend certification. Commissioner Means; Our ultimate goal is to get this to become adequate because it is a document that has to be done in order to move forward. So that's why I would support finding it adequate subject to those concerns being addressed. Mr. John Mullen: You previously adopted a motion to approve the community character alternative. Of course that alternative could not be acted upon by Council if it chose not to certify the EIR. The question on certification is whether, essentially, the document was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and in DRAFT DRAFT RCC Minutes - 11 - February 7 2005 accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Review Procedures for the City of Chula Vista and whether the document accurately identified the impacts of the project. You can certify an Environmental Impact Report finding that it adequately discloses those impacts and then separately decide not to move forward with the project because of those impacts. That's a policy call, which would ultimately be within the discretion of the City Council. What I'm trying to point out is that you could have mutually inconsistent motions, a motion to adopt a community character alternative and a motion to reject the EIR, which analyses that community character alternative. Chair Reid: And we, as an advisory body, need only to have the Draft EIR as issued to be reviewed before us. Commissioner Thomas: So what you're saying is that, it would eliminate our first motion if we did go that it was inadequate? My motion is that it's not adequate unless those are addressed, so I can understand Pam's concern. Mr. Mullen: I think I was just trying to clarify that if ultimately the City Council wished to choose the community character alternative and to adopt that alternative it would also have to certify the environmental impact report or else that would be a violation of CEQA. You couldn't choose not to certify and then simultaneously adopt the project. Commissioner Bensoussan: Well, I would recommend that the City Council only certify the EIR with the adoption that community character alternative because of the inadequacies stated in all of those 33... Commissioner Thomas: So Mr. Chair and Pam and my fellow Commissioners, if we say that the RCC reviewed the Draft EIR and recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council find that the Draft EIR is adequate only under the community character alternative and with the inclusion of the recommendations for the Draft EIR then and only then should it be certified, and the 33 statements made by the RCC at the meeting of February 7~h, 2005, then and only then do they recommend that this Draft EIR for the GPU be certified. Mr. Mullen: I don't mean to interject, but I just want to again clarify that CEQA doesn't provide for partial certification of an EIR. Either the document can be certified as adequate and serving its informational purpose or it can't. Certainly you could conditionally recommend provided the 33 responses are met to your satisfaction, but you couldn't partially certify a document only with respect to one aspect of the project. DRAFT DRAFT RCC Minutes - 12 - February 7, 2005 Chair Reid: So these are comments that either have to be responded to in the Response to Comments or by change in the text in the EIR? Mr. Mullen: That's right. Ms. Ponseggi: I think what John is referring to is Terry's comment to certify the document only with regards to the community character alternative, and so what we would suggest to you is that you could make a motion to recommend certification provided these 33 items are addressed in the Final EIR. Commissioner Jasek: And I think that's the motion on the floor already, right? Chair Reid: Yes. Commissioner Jasek: So I call for the vote. Commissioner Thomas: And then that would behoove them to actually do that. Chair Reid: All those in favor, please signify by saying I. Commissioner Bensoussan: Abstain. Ms. Ponseggi: So what's the final vote? Chair Reid: Four, I think. Commissioner Bensoussan: I'm not really against, but I'm just not for it. It actually going into the record, I guess, is my problem. Mr. Mullen: Just for purposes of clarity in this report, did you want your vote acknowledged as an abstention? Chair Reid: What are your grounds for abstention? Commissioner Bensoussan: I'd like to hear the motion again and be clear about what it actually intended. Ms. Ponseggi: Okay. That you are recommending in favor of... Commissioner Jasek: What I voted on... What I understood I voted on was that the EIR is adequate yet those 33 items are corrected. DRAFT DRAFT RCC Minutes - 13 - February 7 2005 Commissioner Thomas: That's correct. Commissioner Jasek: Very good. Commissioner Thomas: And also... Commissioner Jasek: No also. Commissioner Thomas: I had inserted the community character in the motion, but I guess it got deleted. Ms. Ponseggi: But not in the first motion, Terry. Commissioner Thomas: In the second motion. That's okay. Yes or no? Commissioner Bensoussan: Reluctantly, yes. DRAFT