Notes are on the Final Staff Assessment (staff’s testimony) (page numbers are pdf pages)
Staff still says that the property tax is over $800,000, which would mean an assessed value of 80 million, which is ridiculous. Over half will not go to the RDA only 40% will. The city will only get around 14.5% of the $25,000 or so taxes on the land. The total tax bill for this thing last year was $49,000.
There is no southwest area plan. This does not comply with the 5-year plan for RDA. He is just repeating all the wrong information he wrote in the PSA.
Page 43 says the surrounding area is mixed use including heavy industrial uses. There are no heavy industrial uses in this area, except cement plant, which is just over a half mile away and existing peaker. Heavy industrial is found at Faivre and Energy Way,
Page 44 says it can exceed emissions for over 400 hours!!! P 45 has very high emissions for CO and Nox. Why are start up periods not counted as air pollution?
Page 91 again refers to an SDGE contract???
I think the project contributes to urban decade as mentioned in the Bakersfield case (BAKERSFIELD CITIZENS FOR LOCAL CONTROL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, Defendant and Respondent; PANAMA 99 PROPERTIES LLC, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. BAKERSFIELD CITIZENS FOR LOCAL CONTROL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, Defendant and Respondent; CASTLE & COOKE COMMERCIAL-CA, INC., Real Party in Interest and Appellant. F044943, F045035 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184; 22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 203; 2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 2121; 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Service 10918; 2004 Daily Journal DAR 14768; 34 ELR 20153) (because the heavy industrial nature of the project in close vicinity to residences, school and rec center it contributes to a further devaluing of the local properties and the neighborhood in general. It is adjacent to the OVRP in which millions of dollars of public funds have been invested in habitat restoration and a trail system. It is adjacent to 100% preserve area. It diminishes both the recreational value of the park and its value as a preserve. Certainly this is part of urban decay as well.
Page 137 these trees are invasive and need to be removed. Pepper trees and Mexican Fan Palms are a big problem in the river bottom as are Eucalyptus
Page 195 Isn’t the existing tank an old tank? Why are they not being required to replace it with a new tank?
Page 201 limited industrial does not even allow more than light auto repairs-major repair facilities are not allowed by zoning ordinance.
P 218 it is not consistent with existing or planned uses for this area. It better not be!! Advance Paint and Body and Southbay Recycling have not been in business for well over a year as I told them in my comments. When they did site reconnaissance neither was in operation the parcels are obviously vacant. The land belongs to VOIT and is to be used for a similar warehouse building when the ground is remediated and the economy improves.
P225 they admit severe impact if interferes with existing or future use. This definitely interferes with Modello Designs and residential as well as any future up scale use for the towing lot. They don’t mention that power plants are specifically listed under heavy industrial uses.
P241 that sewing manufacturer exists now. It is sewing machines and a station wagon that delivers the products made. They are building a bigger building-if they can get financing because the city is hassling them about operating out of a home. A power plant like Larkspur is not compatible!!
P242 the biggest impact of this plant would be to allow future incompatible uses exasperating the negative impacts upon existing residents and newer businesses.
P243 the city’s earlier comment that staff did not show any attempt at avoiding this site seems to be a good argument that even cEC is having trouble dealing with.
I don’t see how if you look at all the zoning within one mile you cannot conclude this is basically a residential area with a narrow light industrial corridor.
“When a jurisdiction, such as the City of CV, establishes zoning designations to implement its general plan, it is the agency’s responsibility to ensure the compatibility of adjacent zoning and permitted uses and incorporate conditions and restrictions that ensure those uses will not result in significant adverse impact (“minimum of detriment”) to surrounding properties.”
This statement is very damning to the city. The city has not implemented its General Plan in this area with zoning changes or specific plans, not will it in the foreseeable future. The city incorporate the 1,000- foot rule but now chooses to ignore it.
P244 they say that staff analyzed alternative, but they did not do so with goal of avoiding impacts-of course this is all the city’s fault for ever agreeing to the first peaker and for selling us out.
P247-248 subsection 8.3.3, page LUT-136 Either CEC is misinterpreting this section or it is a violation of the city’s policies and ordinances in relationship to non-conforming uses. I have quotes from Code Enforcement workshop Nancy Lytle and D. Garcia both say the city’s policy with no room for interpretation is that non-conforming uses must be brought into conformance and no upgrades or changes are allowed except to a conforming use.
Rejection of RAMCO important.
P256 Power Against the People
p56 emission reduction projects close to site as possible.
p.89 staff rec. mitigation measures to reduce PM emissions in the area.
p.91 contractually by SDGE
p.94 mitigation mobile sources or small engines
p.95 table is confusing appears to be for one turbine only instead of two, has different figures than APCD
p193 18 tanker trucks per year
p230 Lut5.6 this does inhibit appropriate infill development
232-233 This does not minimize community impacts and this is not an expansion of an existing use but a totally new use which requires an expansion of the substation as MMC lawyer stated at wkshop
No evidence of attempt to avoid this siting
p.283 No acknowledgement of workers to the east who will be subjected to excessive noise, if pile driving takes place.
p.301 environmental definition of significance is way too narrow. There is acknowledgement that there are public health impacts. Whether they are at level of significance or not is not directly relevant to environmental justice.
p.307 states that the background asthma rates are not higher than would be expected in an area with pollution found by monitoring stations. What is this supposed to mean???
P307 they are again using MMC’s 9 schools in 2 miles, which is NOT correct. There are 18 within one mile.
P.312 this seems very low, considering background, which obviously was not considered.
P314 PM 2.5 acknowledged as a risk factor, but not considered 4.7-14
P78”therefore staff concludes there are significant health impacts”
P340 Relying upon this AFC and others is not reliable data. These are all made up figures. CEC is still ignoring % in redevelopment plan
P 336 response totally ignores the other areas of the Redevlopment plan that this project is not in conformity with.
P341 staff admits that there are not peakers as close to homes as this one and very few schools. This is an environmental justice issue. A peaker by its nature, size and appearance is a negative impact.
p.369 the weather station is for Explorer Park in the east to somehow regulate water use is the east?? In Otay Water District and that is supposed to help us how?
P371 the 4 million saved is in a different water district serving a different population.
P430 they are 13 feet wide not 10
page5.3-3 ..”the CVEUP is expected to consume more fuel than the existing plant because of the addition of a second combustion turbine…
p561 How about building 40,000 more houses? Wouldn’t that cause an energy impact?
Response: Staff has attempted to provide the best data available to compare the existing Twinpac turbines and the new LM6000 turbines in Air Quality table 26 Staff has clearly shown that there is an expectation of increased annual emissions, with the corresponding recommendation for emission mitigation, and has provided the best available information to compare the normal hourly emissions between the existing Twinpac turbines and the proposed LM6000 turbines.
The expected emission rates are higher (data from Final Staff assessment) Air Quality Table 26
One turbine is shown numbers for LM6000 need to be doubled.
page 4.1-72 (pdf 95) Final Staff Assessment.