The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009/09/15 Additional Information #14-17 EUC .Addr+,O Y1O-( {y\'~r rncchon (1/(0/0'1 JJ:.14:-17(r;uc) Page 1 of2 Donna Norris From: Krogh, David [OAVID.KROGH@cubic.com] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 5.45 PM To: Steve Castaneda; Pamela Bensoussan; Rudy Ramirez; Cheryl Cox Cc: david.krogh@cox.net; Donna Norris; Gary Halbert Subject: Public Comment - City Council meeting of 9/14/09 - Agenda Item EUC (14/15/16/17) When EUC came to the Planning Commission a few weeks ago, questions by planning commissioners were sparse except by commissioners Felber and Thompson, but it sounded like the plan is "EUC will NOT meet the 3 acres of parkland per 1 ,000 population standard" and staff answered Mr. Felber's question by stating GMOC will be instructed that EUC is to be an exception to the standard. It also sounded like "traffic is at level F" and will worsen over time. Since EUC does not exist now, how can it be at F, and does approving a plan for it to be at "F" make sense? I am aware that there are different definitions of Traffic LOS (Level Of Service). I am aware that GMOC measures LOS in a historic manner that differs somewhat from LOS sometimes used for planning purposes. I am also aware of the planning concept of LOS/pedestrian-friendliness trade-offs. However: I am also aware that when the issue came up during western CV planning an initial LOS of "E" was proposed, the matter was scrutinized and LOS of no worse than "0" was determined to be feasible for all but three specific intersections, e.g. Third & J, and I thought the conclusion was "Go with 0 and we'll still see what we can do about those specific intersections." In fact during that timeframe, LOS "E" was initially described as being San Diego's planned LOS for its downtown; however, I learned through contacting and discussing with various persons including Mr. Sorenson of KimleeHorn that there never was a San Diego City policy decision to that effect, only staff discussions, and it was only thereafter that the Chula Vista analysis of LOS "0" feasibility was conducted and conclusion determined. I urge council to be sure that they thoroughly understand this issue and agree with EUC LOS assumptions before acting to approve entitlements that will forevermore be binding upon the city. Furthermore, given that there has not been a single year pass since 2003 while I have been on GMOC where the disparity between parkland acreage per capita in eastern and western Chula Vista has not been a topic high on the discussion agenda, and I THOUGHT the long-ago emerged community consensus was to work toward bringing UP the west side in conjunction with all west-side development, to say nothing of general fund expenditures to remedy the historic west side comparative deficit, it would seem highly ironic if EUC were to be the first step toward parity by REDUCING standards that have historically served us well on the east side of the city These comments are submitted without benefit of my review of the agenda package in possession of planning commissioners used in their deliberations last month, nor review of council's agenda package for its meeting tomorrow night. So, please calibrate these comments accordingly, but I urge council-members to only vote in the affirmative if you are clear and satisfied on the key EUC plan aspects of parks and traffic. A Plan may be revised. Is an entitlement not forever? Last month, most of the planning commissioners sounded like more of a cheerleading squad for "the big EUC game". If the plan is sound, then, but only then, am I ready to cheer along with them. Respectfully submitted, David Krogh Member, Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) Speaking as an individual, and not on behalf of that commission Submitted via email 9/13/09 9/14/2009 Page 2 of2 Ref: From: Crossroads II [mailto:crossroadsii@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 7:52 PM To: Steve Castaneda; Pamela Bensoussan; Rudy Ramirez; Cheryi Cox Subject: Comments on the City Council meeting Council Agenda Tuesday, Sept. 15,4 pm I. Items 14, 15, 16, and 17 have to do with progress in planning and implementing the Eastern Urban Center. The E.U.C. will be a huge, dense development southeast ofSR 125 and Birch Road. The E.U.C. is schedule to eventually have more than 3,000 high density dwelling units plus a large amount of retail and office spaces, plus schools, parks and other civic facilities. It is the only development on the east side of Chula Vista that will allow very tall buildings. These four agenda items speak to approvals of various aspects of the E.U.C. 9/14/2009 FW: Items 14, 15, 16 on the City Council meeting for Sept. 15th Page 1 of 1 Donna Norris Itddt-honcJ lt1fJ r !Y>C(.:fl-{)71 ?11/6/1Y-1 it 14-/7 (EU~) Subject: FVV: Items 14,15,16 on the City Council meeting for Sept. 15th From: Jo Anne Springer [mailto:jaspringerl@cox,net] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 11 :22 AM To: Shari Watson Subject: FW: Items 14, 15, 16 on the City Council meeting for Sept. lSth Shari, I have sent this email to the Council. Would you please do me a favor and ensure that it gets into the public record prior to tonight's meeting, and please bring it to Rudy's attention so that I can be sure that at least one Council Member sees it in a timely manner? I would really appreciate you assistance on this. Thank you. Jo Anne ------ Forwarded Message From: Jo Anne Springer <jaspringer1@cox.net> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11.19:50 -0700 To: Cheryl Cox <ccQx@chulavistaca.gov>, Rudy Ramierez <rramirez@chulavistaca.gov>, Pamela Bensoussan <PBensoussan@chulavistaca.gov>, Steve Castaneda <scastaneda@chuJavistaca.gov> Conversation: Items 14, 15, 16 on the City Council meeting for Sept. 15th Subject: Items 14, 15, 16 on the City Council meeting for Sept. 15th Dear Mayor Cox and Council Members, Due to a prior commitment I will be unable to attend tonight's Council meeting, but would like to provide public input to the agenda items listed below. It is difficult to believe that our City's council members are unaware of the serious water problems that are facing the entire county, nay, much of Southern California. All of the water companies have been either requesting or mandating serious conservation while predicting dire future shortages. WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF WATER! THIS IS A HIGH DESERT AREA. WATER DOES NOT NATURALLY EXIST IN QUANTITIES TO SUPPORT DENSE URBAN DEVELOPMENT. How can we possibly be thinking of approving such dense development in the face of a shortage which does not appear to be temporary? True, the substandard rainfall of the last few years has exacerbated the situation, but the fact remains that there isn't sufficient naturally occurring water in this region to support this level of development. How can we be so greedy to pad the City coffers with developers' fees that we ignore the long-term severe problems that will result.? In fact, those problems will actually manifest in the short term. How can you possibly justify this as responsible governing? Please, for the sake of people who have made a commitment to live here permanently and who have entrusted you with governing in their best interests, do not approve the Eastern Urban Center at the density level proposed. The time to act responsibly is now. Jo Anne Springer Council Agenda Tuesday, Sept. 15,4 pm 1 Items 14, 15, 16, and 17 have to do with progress in planning and implementing the Eastern Urban Center. The E.U C will be a huge, dense development southeast of SR 125 and Birch Road. The E.U.C. is schedule to eventually have more than 3,000 high density dwelling units plus a large amount of retail and office spaces, plus schools, parks and other civic facilities. It is the only development on the east side of Chula Vista that will allow very tall buildings. These four agenda items speak to approvals of various aspects of the E.U.C. ---- End of Forwarded Message 9/15/2009 September 15,2009 ;tc!d/+-;ol'/((.i ! JIl/orrwfi 01\. Cit/I>!Oc; #-!4~ /1 (GUC) RECEIVED 430 F Street, Chula Vista, California 91910 M C de 'I b Bed R' ". CITY Of CHULA VIS"i C; Dear ayor ox an ounCl mem ers ensoussan, astane a, amlrez CITY CLERK'S OFFICE '09 SEP 14 AS 53 RE: EIR, Otay Ranch Eastern Urban Center, SCH No, 2007041074 It is shameful that again the city is contemplating adopting still another EIR with so many significant and unmitigatable impacts. 8 is too many. How can the city expect to provide a satisfactory quality of life for its current and future residents when it consistently makes findings that allow unmitigatable impacts? This developer and others have for years eroded the quality of life and fiscal health of the city. Isn't it about time that the city started demanding that the impacts of development be fully mitigated or the development not be allowed? The Cummings Initiative and the resulting ordinances all say that this should not be allowed. How can the council continue to allow more negative impacts? Where is the respect for laws that residents have a right to expect? The city has finally started to face that development only pays for putting the infrastructure in place. It does not pay for long-term maintenance. How will the city pay for the new firemen to man the new fire station? For the extra policemen needed to patrol this new mini-city? The librarians to man the new library? The workers to maintain the streets, buildings, and parks? In the long term the sales tax and fees provided by the non-residential development, which will not be completed before all the residential development, if ever, most likely will not be adequate to pay for on-going services and expenses. This is a problem the city is now facing with its existing roads and public facilities, not to mention that the infrastructure in the older parts of the city have never been upgraded before the new development was allowed as required by the Cummings initiative, How can the council possibly think there is any social or economic advantage to allowing 2,983 more dwellings to be built? We all know that at this point in time there is not enough water for 8,548 new residents to drink for the life of the new buildings. There soon will not be enough sewage capacity. The roads will be unacceptably congested. The air will be more polluted. The noise level will be unacceptably high, and the visual quality of the landscape destroyed. How can the council continue to ignore these problems? The integrity and responsibility of declaring over-riding circumstances in all these areas is extremely questionable. It is difficult to see how anyone can have confidence in the fiscal analysis of this project when there are such huge differences between high and low intensities, and density transfers from District to District are allowed. Too many times in the past the city has allowed developers to build more homes than in original plans instead of previously agreed upon non-residential uses or to substitute low paying retail for uses with higher paying jobs. It does not appear that the city has learned its lesson yet, and we are all going to pay for this irresponsibility with more cuts in services. The past has been like a Ponzi scheme with each new development paying old debts. As soon as the development stopped everything fell apart. The debts the city owes are too high and the means of paying them off without service cuts are not here. Adding more development that has 8 unmitigatable impacts just makes no sense at this time. It is good that there is a maximum number of residences that is not to be exceeded, but why in the world is the maximum non-residential not a minimum that must be exceeded? The city has a jobs/housing deficit, which is at least partly responsible for its inability to pay its bills and maintain a high level of services. We need more high paying jobs. There appears to be way too much emphasis upon retail in this plan. The emphasis should be on corporate level jobs, offices, research, etc. The kinds of jobs that would allow people to afford to live here are needed here. The phasing plan allows all the residential to be built before all the non-residential. This is foolish. It should be the reverse. We have plenty of residential already. We need high paying jobs. We need more income producing property. At the scooping meeting the developer made it clear he only wanted to build the residential. If the city is to get all the non-residential promised, it needs to make sure it is built first. If housing is built near where people work they are more likely to move there. If they have a job good enough to allow them to buy a house, they are not likely to quit it to seek work closer to home. 15% over Title 24 for residential and 10% for non-residential for only 50% of the buildings is not adequate. The Energy Sub Committee has suggested 20% for all residential buildings east of 805. This would be more acceptable. A development with the tremendous impacts acknowledged for this one should be much higher over Title 24. Los Vecinos is 43% and produces nearly all its own electricity. This development should be producing a lot of its own electricity as well. The economy of scale should make this very feasible. In Japan and other countries membrane technology is used to put waste treatment in basements. Why in the world is this development not doing this? Clearly all buildings need to be plumbed for a re-watering system so that all moisture that lands on roofs as well as all water from showers, laundry, and bathroom sinks is reused for landscaping and water features with excess going into the ground for ground water replenishment. There should be zero runoff and minimal impact on the sewer system, which might make some of impacts to Poggi and Salt Creek Canyons unnecessary. Tankless water heaters should also be required. It is unfortunate and unnecessary that one of the residential buildings is next to 125. The General Plan clearly acknowledges the incredible negative health impacts to people who live within 500 feet of a freeway from lower lung capacity to heart problems. A health risk assessment showed 8 in a million at risk. This is 8 in a million who will suffer as the result of poor planning. There is no reason to put the residential so close to the freeway when the non-residential could be put there. The city as well as the developer should be held liable for any negative health impacts whether asthma or birth defects or miscarriages. The low-income housing had better not be in this building, because this would be a clear environmental injustice. It also makes absolutely no sense to have a jogging path along the freeway. This is also detrimental to the health of the residents. The development should not be eligible for mixed use and transit credits, because there is no transit available and likely never will be. San Diego wisely pointed out that the likelihood of people in 2020 using possible transit is highly unlikely and the number of trips postulated to be internal is dubious. The ADT is excessively high and other than lowering the number of residences there does not appear to be a way to reduce it, since there is now no transit and if there were transit it likely would not go where anyone needed to go. A city bus would take so long to get anywhere from this far east that it is doubtful anyone would use it. East-West connections are woefully inadequate now and this project will only make the situation worse. Olympic Parkway should have been built as a freeway, but was not. It is important that the developer actually build the library and fire station and other public buildings. This money should not go to the city to be used for debt payments as the money for the Rancho Del Rey library did. It needs to be spent on what it is intended to build. We have a library shortage now. We also have police not meeting a threshold. This should mean that this development should not be allowed. If it is allowed in contradiction with our ordinance, it must build the facilities needed. Most likely there needs to be a police station or at least a storefront station here as well so the police have a chance of meeting their threshold. This might be a good place for community policing with a foot or bicycle patrol that gets to know the people and the community. The park situation.in this development is totally unacceptable. Office plazas, jogging paths, promenades are counted as 2.75 acres. The town square is considered 2.28 acres of park and the Civic Plaza 1.62. These should be considered design amenities, not parks!! This project with a projected population of 7,786-7,696 is providing only one 1.97-acre park, one 1.51-acre park, one 1.9-acre park and one 3.6-acre park. A playing field requires 2.4 acres. This means only one regulation field for all these people. The city already has a critical shortage of regulation size fields! There are no amenities that are going to provide soccer and baseball fields for the youth and adults of this area. The suggested amenities are not going to serve young families or teens at all. This is a horrible precedence. We already have a huge deficit in the west. We do not need to start working on one in the east as well. In lieu of fees are simply not acceptable. This developer needs to build the required parks at adequate size to provide for the needs of the community. They should not be given credit for design amenities that should be required nor allowed to pay in lieu fees. 7^-/~ Theresa Acerro PO Box 8697 Chula Vista, CA 91912 ";i "C ~~ it "C fj [ I~~.. ~ ~S'~ "r. q [1. , " tY ~ t61 F.> ffl "'il :;j ~rn ~e tY iA I , I i I I I I b &: }. c). t ;-1 j) -.; ~ ~ j: C) ~ ~ ~ C> ~ '- -f. '- '-J I~ .' F .S lj~~ !fp> i0 n ~0 ~""-'--) ::I, >> a-u=lnl ~e i~ ~3i 1~"7~~). ~I~ I"~II' ~. ~i "'\~\I'\Y\III/ \~m . == - -J. l!!1J ~1 t ~ r ~t~\\\\ ;,':1 , .:, j\' "f--= .':;~ 1~lfI:io1~;; ~"tt= . )J.~ t~'\\\ " 'II' ~~"~I;. :-;l~]~f~I~LqJ~~~~V'~~~rW I~"'~ I~" II ,'~\i" -.> ,""') " Nil ~ I ~" . l.ti \ ,~ ,I. .- -~/ 1/ - y = ~ :':' = '_);.,' ,11~jtr~~"I'~I/;/~~~ ;f<I~ .~~'~ : ~R~t~~ll~~t/ ~~Il~' r -..; , IT4'lr-". f'l'~B'".~.".~~~ .i':f)t~""~~ ..tt~ry~t~ ~,ti-i'! rt~' ; ~ Lt-, " ~'\' < t' "l;:i;f'l"I'I~Jj6.,~4;IV.'i,,' .' .,~~'~' I ~/~7ih' 1- t-!.... ,...... I'../r'O;', , t . '.~ \ '~'i':i"-r-'-"~~,:~,,;;:,~ ,~~ .' ,. =- ,'= It. ~:_'l'-<' \, ..1 -\.... I J:l~" ~.l2....~-I- ~it. {, ~ ':""';,,':, ';;:;'~ :. . " ~'~.",;;q.~' ::-".\1',:4,:=:--':[, ;'3:) ~ ~ -',. r" . -~i-;",:o,;'~c="':"'It,'~J"'~" .~~~'":"V' . ,'.If' ~'~H(~~~-Z~~:~~):~i >~t ~~~~:f;.j:'l~" ~~ . . ::I~ ~ ~ ",!'"'" .1, _" '~'~;;;, .' ~,.~, 'J, '\\\1' =". ,-~', ,- ,:~I . , ij; : . ~'{ .......'i.-:",p:.;..l~.;::;;;'~ .' ~(' - :'1': .' .i\~1 ~l!~~~ ~;-;~ / iIJ:Il:~~1.'__~~ ' " ..v'l . . ".,'~_, -- "~/.~l~~..-'i;~'-,"""""~,,,.,\ ~ '. i;~~\<'t":"/ ii' .' ~~'o_~~i~:.::'~.. - v . t XfS' l;-\:'::,jJ; -.. ,-.,iIY! ~~~j~. . 1"V"'~ . / I.~,<j;;~, ,r-";j"'~., ".'., .....r.1. . ~ ",..{h . ~/I"J;:2"":h -... . ;... . . ; :0"'/'/": '/\'.1 $Fl~,r;~= . .'. . q , ;,?:?-/ d"lV ,3<>",,,,,,,., ~~~~, J II:'@;--/;" . /lt~,C~t1t~~~.-;.;,,;..~~K~..,-=~~\;\;III'f\:. ' . . I; .,' ,t . <JL' 'j 1 .,.-,~~...-." ']1= 'l=J. . , ~ /... : t l" '110:- -!: ____...r , 'r("": ; ~:s'i: :2.":("$' .,;}Y1U'1 J7~;lt!''''''lj :: ''''."\:,'~''_'''\\"4--{-\ ...... ':, - 'A:O:~'l\.\.. s .,.~,t,2111~>!- ,;t;. ~~ ., , '0-'f:' 'f""'''' WH'~i. ~,,;'. ~'. ..' .'~' "'~:' '.1 .'-=',' // 'U'....ol.!1:sjt.,:. ...\~,.-._ .1.. '" .' I'" '~ . "'I, ;;::' "'~,"" _~=-=---' . .,. -+, ' ._. . 1. ~ ..:~~ t~~"'" ~\ '. ,~i~:kd:f:;?~. . ~~,,(""": ~::,.-'~~~... (' ~ ", . . . M'I\; : ~~!.;;/~:t-"]:' ..V: ;.,~)., "'?"N:~., :,,< ~.'/"~ "{-'.', '" . ~ I.. lr':l;.y - ~~~,~..... :::.-0.-.... J~~-= . ~_-\\~" \,4".' "-' ~" ' ] . ,,=~ I!d,;.:---, ~ ~ ~~~,. '. .,., '~~., , ~\' _, . l' ~\"",,-=,',,''J/-,:,.I''\'l .......,..~.~'i...;;_....:;..,;:..,.fI'~"""',.~\\~ i:, .' . :)nt". . . h,~~~il..I~\,fi'R~~."'.'.~'.-MI~.c:'~;:~~:~~I.'1 " , Ij ~'i"" 10ff~, C-- \. "'\11\ '';;1' ,'" .m'n~;"" , :;5r ,b' ,c" ! 'I' '1.fi~ r\~ /~~.,;;./i.l) i:)/4J f\\t.. \ \ 'l.tI~wl:' ' .1; ~ ~~ ,:.: ..}~; ....,.It., ' ~.iVN V~.!. :(;'(1,1 ~\\.tl. \I'~( ~''''''' 'i.V' ~~"""." !'f;flLI!:l:. :, "'.. >'. <t WI' ,',;'. ,;.~ " ,.", i'S;, ~t. 'frl' 'I; ,.E.f,~ , . .. ~__'= J!;r i:. . . . ,:<'i:'" Dfl.'" ill~ 7 :;<.t.. ~t j': . "~"~',T " ~ '. 1~'.1 't'':;;: _ f;r ~'~., _0" '~".;:.... 111/'E"' '-(o.;*fr ' ~"_ \. . . 1'_ i"'1'1~ ~ ;i~ "(I" .,U, ".... I. .,,~ ,i' . .;' it,' r. "'Hn,~ . ~" I' ~l. j,;. '1' ' l;~~.o'>r.l-:-i-ri)llo' :15' ,;:'''If'' ,1-:' . -~ '-'\\i.~''''I'f~' :" !, ~lJI:'F,t'i'" F,,:<, :"', .. r- ".-ifl"- '1"A--:1 ; ~elif -.1' r. C:,,,.' ,. "';\~;"~~L~,\.,, 'I'; :li,'Vircl i ~~~~,~~ "-~'_ '",!I _ tt$,' ~, ,- ,'-.; _' ,~l\ . l~' l-r+."l", ',n-' =", ,_b _" ~. ," \' 111 , .:L, . :~!'f...,?::......- r~ ,..LhT"'~;J: ~- \ _ :.l.; ," z~ 1. --:' :.\ :' "~l~~~" ):\\ -: v'. ~ ~I ::_:j:F '_~'" ~;;-." J /,' ,,""LI.-!;~ .' " ~,f.'r((' .... - '..ll~"_lLun.,VJn , '.: "'~fr~ . ..~.~:,.>v,,; '.' Wf"~~.i~. ~.l':' ;~.' "f~t."'~!".'-li~~'~.~' l! "~~'-'.I, '~m..gf\;~~' " _/~J;;"'.'~.'~ :f1'j ~"'< :.. ~ t~'Y. Qt- :h;-r:-~~,,\C I' l, '1:. - , .., . ""' _~ ~ . 'I ~.' '::''''i--; j .: ~ ~~9t3I1L:'~:~:)" I'" \~,' ~ ~ 't;i'~"\ \ ; ~", ",.,-,' '/", "!idi~'~ .):!;'Ifl"'., c>' ':\. '. '\ ~ ~l" \.\ 1;'...... .' ,'. :,<':. . .- ,", ' ~ 'I~,.. ~#' . '~.'1:: ; '.~ :-;.. .:':'<.i.II,~n'-rr-h \' ,,,,,,;,,,,,,1<,": i ., .'p ^ ,~:, ,:.::.~Jft~:,<:~~, '11":'''I'~~~~.~tig~~~~~'~. ~lll ,.:~ ....._~ f_J' -I _'-; .\-_' :'c'; ,L.-:=;' tV':"..,~.;:,j..:~'" ,: t&~;r-{.J,-::~"';~~t~r-,~-,.~.~\n~:5:t" '::.:~ f:.' .' .- ... i~ ..'- i~1>. !~~ I.~ .' 11 I, ~~:J) H:' f'i' -. ~, '" . a-f?u ~e ~f1 '," JI : ',:: ~' , , ",- " , . " .~ , '. "f.t "1 ~ ; , ' ~ ...., " . -...J. "", .. _ _J. , _. fil' <1- ! . .. , ". ,. ~~ !~ ," !} il~ ,oV" ii!:'1 " 11 ~/0) ~" "-.' ::1',"-- _ a.m ~e ~A , , , t.' "".-'Ie '.:1- 1; , " / , . I " ~,'c:.r" - -=-",', f' 'I \. : _..~ ~ "", ' (. , ~. . ' _......'". ".~ -o:".~J-'.., .. . ~ 1'~' I I '1 ,..\ ~, " ~...- ...... ., i ' c i . , ., '-, .\_4 , " J .' J .. .-...j " .- ./Y ~:): ,"". . , ..' .1 >' :~ -? .'1 : . , . :::< .'.'"' . , .:: ',' '?1 y .... - " .,:.;'1"',f",:o,,,,1." ..:." .. ...~:~.. . , ''.4\ 'to I ':-', ~..~~ .:', )a;~: " "A'7'.." "I :".1> '~_~~~~~~~"_ '''~''..- .~ ': ........>.:... ,......... ?-..I lif 10 B-:, '~t> IfC"2" ",p j~ r. i:;:. ~.~~ ~ '----- I :I"-~_. ./ a.m ~e ~f1 I . , \ I;"~~-~='~ . /Ij;st ~ ~(~~~~~'~~\~W..:~~~!3~{7,::'~'" . I~~\:--:..-- ~~, r \I\~ '~~~4i" ~/'~-"~I"':r/~ifIJJ;1;fJ;~'; 1 " ~ ~. 'il~"""'\';""':~ . . ,,;, ~~- ~' 'il ~~~~, " I\Jf:~(If!'" y ,~/J;:;.'l. ';i, .' ~~,.:V-''''''' C Al ..:~ ~~~,,:{j j I/f ,I '. .'1' (~.. "". ~ f" ~ ,;~'" :r, Iii,' 'I),'':::.): r~"t:' 'I' ""....f.tY..""/. .." F."~. ;'~ .', . "'-Z'\\i;" i I ~~~ ~ <"~""".,,, ;1&' f/"'" ..'" '; ),:(-/',.. <;'..., 1 :. ~"::';,:~~~",{f"'~lilk~~.l,r'::;'~m~~~.;~:; ~ ~\:" l/.ijij-:r~'f')rPl~'p';,r' ~::~, ;,- '~~j' "i -'~'''I'~~ IU'..... -'~,...," ~ /~ ... :J. ~~..~J.j '.;..:i:: . I 1~....0:i"~~ ~". r r,t~lq:; : 'I' ~~. ~:Y~'~ 'J:;.~.-:" '~,.. ~""'" '.' \,~.' I I '~'d~. .. ;(1;::".\ ',> .: . .. -'~~~~"'_l'.,[[;tL'.~""" ..... '. ~ ~ ~ ... , '", ' . ~ J~ ~ ......;.-;;;:;. 1"'~1I<;~;;"'1..~ ' . ~ .,,,; \ , . : l:." -'I"';:' .....~ -~~ -,,~ ~r.:::~~ - ...:.._ 'b ,;I , t;;:"'" " ,,-,,:v...~r=--I\,,--:lt.'"I ' ..- ,\1 ,'\:t'!" ~""""''''~:'1.!~~ ~l"'..:::.o .,:... , ' -..: ...........r. ~ _ ... '- -- .' " ","" :, -. 'I 'I _ '-~ I . ~~... r- ~~11 ......~ ~...~ i \ ...... ~\t.r..':..... \ .' '~~ '" ~ ",-'1 , "~' \ h~~ '. ,'., .,-:-" ~~'"~'~:X''' ":\; ..~., - ;J': ; \. . I' , ."" c. '~<-"",., I"",\~"",... . . ~ . If .\, \ "". i.;i\ \ ~i ~fc~;;.~;SiV'!l\j,:;~\,,\~.8~:,;.. : ~~~ +.~ l")" I -T' r.: I' ", i' 11~~::~r~;~jJ!Jl:MI[~""8;~~ '.. ..~ _,' , , ~ '.~'~,(:I:,~I, "<''r'\'''' ~~"':>i' ~ ~ '~'", ~' ~7"'" ' -' .,~." I " ,- " ~ ~l\'lhtt'd>~ jt~:-~I: It. M \~, . ~r" 1 '...J' ",'.'1 " ,-'>.\1 ' , V!!~'~ "" .-- \ ~'I' , (1\""1"" .l Y ", . I' Ut "t I' _I "';11""""\' 'I ~ fl ~J,,~ f' /....J. '" j . t) ~-l ~;\ i',I. '~1~J:~&kl~~~\~~I.'!'. 'JlIJ'~I' ~. .' :l~(~'-j\;;/'..:~ ~",:,,\.,.]r~(lV;; ,",' /1-11 :1)'/' I "/ jl :- . ':~ ~... _~Ik ~"i!ll < - -'> r' .. I iT .' I/" . ~0wtr~.~[ Ht.. ~~:~ - ~ ':2: : ~.? I k \. ......... '" ~'(.n;/~ ;-;;!f . '~II;'::'.: - j'iil~1 I /~'] I 'I ~f~~r; ..l"'s: r. )~:~~ ~ --,. :!:3.': . _ / J\. I '~;f1~')~"~f . -' ~ . < ~f:lti~. .......-.,. 'rf'" I>ll t;. /- (;, ",Il '~I"'- ~~ ~>-. (. ~,l"""'t~' .~ i'!' ; ...."'" ,~;;::;., . ~'- >l1fl!MI~ jj l~ v,~, >'i:J;'k~! / > I\(~'.i'. ,:,.c:..:.., ;..;",~, ~ - . r/.' . r\.' - . ; '. .~~ 'l.-l'~I'~f{f f:?'~'M'~~' ..:..... ~jJ" .~,cIYO -~""'. . 1 r4jJr~ "1' .;". ~i,l!l . ~ I;';; l}1~V -." r,~}!dL) -.;p" . ~W d. ~ t1?:-~-~~'~ ~tl -'~...;;-:. ~; \~ 'Ia"'...i: .-', ~~ .., ~s: ~ q ;- ~Y4'1 -; .~l!.j>J J/\~~' :j/"~ 1 I:. ," cc;. " ,/;' I . "~.'",,,:!!\~I 'Io'~ .{~~ "'\~~ .' \,,\ ~~ '. . ,rr.~ 7. ~l, "["$.> ~ J'l~r ifl?I''' i~!r::-~1~ IIJl!? ..... '- ,....., :t;i ~ \~ . J , ~' .ffi. VII.... -" If '~. . '. -', " r I ~'~h:I. 'q "\:'1: "" i . \\"r ~......-.... ~~ j '" '..f" 'Pl';":'''O ~ '. ~ ~~;~ /- '~"" _,'jL4 ~'... . .. "ff' '".tJ':~\i>;if' " ::"'Io:,;:(~. + - t:.T ~.1.'.~.pl """:?'/ 'I I' "., ".':j, ,.:;r... ....._ ..._IJ... . '_, ""'l~ t . , '''~,. . -~.'- -::;g;. .' IT.),.. . '"........"..... =- ,\""';". ~~~:'J-' ..' ~~ ~ ':'"~l;'/~ .~~~ ' _.~ .'.- 1 \l:' -. 'Y'':Jo:lf.:-::/'::i'''::;:!'>-o-.'. -... .~,t",~:-:, ..,--'f,~'1-'. "':~.I~.' ....,~ '. ,'\'1\.' j,. ". ." I . ". .,.'-. -., ~L"~ ,,~\~~. .. I<, ~.' . )r..t"\!~ "-~-,,,,-':~~.:- '-'~,.....~'" - ,'.. ""~\= ~~ /"\, r:;".":o..,:' , ~ ~m'..'C~,'.,) ~I'~'''''' "l!!""'~!!"''' "Ii!'r,..._..,c:l~""""";;;-"'~"".""""" 1<;"" . :-: ( "\ ',' S'i,; >..,~ ':~:.-;:;I"~;~._ I~:';:::", ~~;~~~~~~;-;::~ .....:? . Il.':~\~ ~.... . ....\ -..;: . \ ... ' ~', ~ - ~,:'';J.;';;",,:-:.,~l ~"'~;;-~. -...~ :::'~~'~~l:r:;;~l~~;~~ .~ . ~~~~ ~ ~ .. ::1--.. / --.'t ~.~'~1;,i::'{;;'," L.,.....'''''..' '4t:[","""9ii'"''''''-,;'\''''n~.-s=. '.. .~' ". :-;}~..':. ' " \ t2 ,:; lJ~ ,;".:;:' '.' .",:~ I~~'.' ~~ ~ ~.-. ;~~j",..~:~~'\\'-t5;:~ -'. ..' . '~\~ ~A '~.I:~~~x,";'.D;~~~)'Y'. \~~~1~' lO)'1 \', ~1}..\.\'\~~""'1\ fi l:;:;:;z::' .- .. . - " -.-:;~, JJ ~..\\...\\; II' ,'nt':;:;i1,\ ,\ ~'\ .~ .j,) 'r.,...,'", ,:......",11 .". _' l.~... .\l)\.~\\,\"1 - ~~~__.... ...... :.:it j 1....,._. _. _ ':r In ..~ i::;:.t>: f~~ j!:" .. n fir I.} ,.. '~ :;r if! ..,. i~~ I~""" !a,~ ir n rn>~_ II:> (" '\ r. '--; 3,--_ '" ffi ~e ~A ~ " . ,~"..1 .. lit ;-l / I / I '~i l~~ l"'~ I~ n ~:"()) ,0;::,...--"/ =>> ,4" ~ffi 0- -~e ~f1 ,--, ..,.--.".> r- lLIEIE]J) if ([]) Ir' N <engTIn 1b ([]) Ir'TIn ([]) ([]) <ell ]J) <ev<e li ([]) IP> m <e1l1l it Designed to certify exemplary development projects that perform well I in terms of smart growth, new urbanism, and green building 00. "..'.' ~.'.b...".,. [D)......O-..., (C.....'.. .. "'--i, \"i :' _ > ',-. . - . . . THE EARTH'S BEST DEfENSE @Q)~~ ~~ifoom ,:~~< @~ I L. M r'[ElUCC ' A'O'6.. (r',; -. I Tilt' e","'y ~k\lllIIi\ COmr;:.k, \ 0 I ~ -.-.,...- ....... - eastern urban center ; i Chula Vista Research I I Project i I I I Intended to determine how advanced building energy technologies and land use, transportation and urban design features can be integrated to produce energy-efficient development projects in California gti. PLACEM!ATTERS .. SOliE A ~ Sempra Energy utOtye ~v~ -.....- r~--d'-=~ ~~~~ CITY OF CHULA VISTA Iii i~ .... "'I>. Ij~ J~ 11 iu) ~,-~- ~ a.m ~e ~A