Title
CONSIDERATION OF A CITY-SPONSORED TECHNICAL CORRECTION AMENDMENT TO GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT POLICY E6.4
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-176 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING A TECHNICAL CORRECTION AMENDMENT TO POLICY E6.4 OF THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT
Body
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommended Action
Council conduct the public hearing and adopt the resolution.
Body
SUMMARY
The City of Chula Vista's General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element and the Environmental Element contain goals, objectives and policies that stipulate the importance of improving air quality, and minimizing dependency on fossil fuels and exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants from facilities such as energy generation facilities (EGFs), and other major toxic emitters.
In accordance with prior Council direction, staff in conjunction with the EGF and Industry Working Groups prepared documents that were adopted in the fall of 2013, which established requirements and a regulatory framework for the siting of EGFs within the City of Chula Vista.
General Plan Environmental Element Policy E 6.4 was amended to clarify that a minimum 1000ft separation is needed between baseload or peaking type EGFs and sensitive receptors (e.g. residential areas, schools, hospitals, child care centers). As outlined further in the Discussion section below, change in the policy's phrasing resulted in certain wording in Policy E 6.4 pertaining to "other major toxic air emitters" (separate from EGF's) being deleted in one place, and inadvertently not being reinserted where it should have remained. Thus, staff is requesting that the language be reinstated as originally intended.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed Amendment for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the proposed action was adequately addressed in the previously certified EIR 05-01 for the General Plan Update. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary. Although environmental review is not necessary for the General Plan Amendment, environmental review will be required for any Energy Generating Facilities and "major toxic emitters" that are proposed as part of the conditional use permit evaluation for that specific project.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On August 13, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed technical correction amendment, and adopted Resolution GPA-14-02 (6-0-1-0), recommending the City Council approve the proposed amendment.
DISCUSSION
As indicated above, in fall 2013 the City Council approved amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and a new EGF Council Policy that provides comprehensive provisions within the City's regulatory framework for the siting of EGFs within the City.
An important component of these regulations, specifically within the General Plan, are policies such as E 6.4 that address the necessity to provide adequate separation distance between uses that produce toxic air emissions and sensitive receptors (i.e. segment of general public such as children and the elderly) that can be potentially affected by those toxic emissions. Policy E6.4 is included within Environmental Element Section 3.1.6 - Promoting Clean Air, that is clearly focused on a broad set of potential sources that can emit toxic air contaminants ranging from tailpipe emissions to a variety of land uses such as power plants, chrome plating and metal melting operations, landfills, quarry operations, and batching plants, among others.
The wording changes to Policy E6.4 via the EGF work were intended to emphasize "not" siting baseload or peaking type EGFs within 1000ft. of sensitive receptors (e.g. residential areas, schools, hospitals, child care centers) and vice-versa. During recent actions to refresh publication of the General Plan document, staff realized that the revised sentence structure of the amended Policy E6.4 omitted the important phrase "and other major toxic air emitters." The omission was not intentional, and if not corrected, would fundamentally change the scope of the policy by suggesting that other types of major toxic air emitters (other than fossil-fueled EGFs) could be sited in proximity to sensitive receptors. This is inconsistent with the scope and intent of Section 3.1.6 of the Environmental Element. It is important that the omitted phrase "and other major toxic air emitters" be reinstated to ensure adequate separation between these uses and sensitive receptors are addressed in this General Plan Policy as originally written.
Below is the original Policy E6.4 with strike/underline showing the wording resulting from actions related to the EGF amendments. The deletion of the phrase "and other major toxic air emitters" can be seen in the first line as part of changing the wording structure. That phrase should have been reinserted following the first line of new text, but inadvertently was not. The subsequent entry shows staff's proposal to reinsert the deleted wording in the context and intent of the original Policy.
Current Amended Language
E 6.4 Avoid siting new or re-powered energy generation facilities and other major toxic air emitters Do not site new or re-powered fossil-fueled baseload or peaking-type Electrical Generating Facilities within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receiver receptors, or placement of a site sensitive receiver receptors within 1,000 feet of a major toxic emitter such facilities.
Corrected Amended Language
E 6.4 Do not site new or re-powered fossil-fueled baseload or peaking-type Electrical Generating Facilities and other major toxic air emitters within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, or site sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of such facilities.
The proposed Amendment to General Plan Policy E 6.4 to reinstate the wording "and other major toxic air emitters" will ensure that adequate separation is provided between sensitive receptors and all such uses.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site specific and consequently the 500 foot rule found in California Code of Regulations Section 18705.2(a)(1) is not applicable to this decision. Staff is not independently aware, nor has staff been informed by any City Councilmember, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter.
LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS
The City's Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. This item meets the Healthy Community goals as it clarifies provisions in Policy E6.4 that protects the public/sensitive receptors from potentially harmful air pollutants from EGFs and other major toxic air emitters.
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
Correction of the Policy wording does not generate any fiscal impact; processing of the correction was accomplished with staff resources pursuant to the Development Services Department's approved FY2014-15 budget.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
None
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution
Staff Contact: Stan Donn