Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/02/05 Item 08,..,,.~ /~~~=~ - CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ' _ ~ \~1/~ CITY OF '~'CHULAVISTA 2/5/13, Item ~ ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUPPORTING AND APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION TO RENEW AND EXPAND THE RECYCLING MARKET DEVELOPMENT ZONE; AND, AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, OR DESIGNEE, TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS AND ACTIVITIES NECESSARY TO ADMINISTER THE RECYCLING MARKET DEVELOPMENT ZONE PROGRAM SUBMITTED BY: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ~l.i' n^A ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES MANAGER 1`~`t~ REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGER ~-iT~ ~ S ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER ~ 7~ 4/STHS VOTE: YES ^ NO SUMMARY The redesignation or renewal of the South San Diego County Recycling Mazket Development Zone is required so that Chula Vista and the Otay Mesa Communities of the City and County of San Diego may remain active participants in the California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery's (CalRecycle) Recycling Market Development Zone (RMDZ) Program. The goals of the RMDZ Program are to encourage California-based recycling businesses located within California to site new manufacturing facilities and expand existing operations. The intent of the Recycling Mazket Development Zone Loan Program is to help California manufacturers increase their processing capabilities and create additional markets for recycled-content products. This application for renewal includes expanding the boundaries of the zone to include additional jurisdictions in south San Diego County and all of the jurisdictions of Imperial County. The purpose for expanding the boundazies is to increase the area in which companies that use recycled materials as feedstock for manufacturing are eligible for RMDZ incentives. This expanded zone will be renamed the Southern Califona Border Region Recycling Market Development Zone. Recycling market development activities are part of the City of Chula Vista's landfill diversion and recycling activities under the Public Works Department. Therefore, staff is requesting that the Public Works Director or Designee be authorized and empowered to execute all documents and activities necessazy to renew and administer the RMDZ Program. 8-1 2/5/13, Item ~ Page 2 of 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project was covered in a previously adopted Negative Declaration for the South San Diego Recycling Market Development Zone Redesignation, as prepared by the Land Development Review Division of the City of San Diego ("LDR No. 42-0906"). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), on February 24, 2003, the City of San Diego, acting as Lead Agency, adopted Negative Declaration LDR No.42-0906 for the RMDZ. On December 1, 2012, the City of Chula Vista, acting as Lead Agency, having found and determined that certain amendments to the RMDZ, including the referenced boundazy changes, would not result in significant unmitigated impacts and that only minor technical changes or additions to Negative Declaration LDR No. 42-0906 were necessary and that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent environmental document had occurred, adopted an Addendum to Negative Declaration LDR No. 42-0906. Therefore, no further CEQA actions or determinations are required. RECOMMENDATION City Council adopt the resolution. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On January 14, 2013, the Resource Conservation Commission approved their resolution to recommend that Council adopt the resolution supporting the renewal and expansion of the Recycling Mazket Development Zone; and authorize the Public Works Director or Designee to execute all documents and activities necessary to administer the Recycling Market Development Zone Program. DISCUSSION The California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) administers the Recycling Market Development Zone Loan Program to encourage California-based recycling businesses located within California to site new manufacturing facilities and expand existing operations. This program provides low-interest loans for the purchase of equipment and other relevant business costs. The intent of the Recycling Mazket Development Zone Loan Program is to help California manufacturers increase their processing capabilities and create additional markets for recycled-content products. ~ v zs so 8-2 2/5/13, Item $ Page 3 of 4 The Recycling Mazket Development Zones cover roughly 88,000 squaze miles of California from the Oregon border to San Diego. There are two areas in San Diego County that have been designated as zones: South San Diego (#30) in 1992 and North San Diego County (#29) in 1994. The South San Diego County Zone was redesignated again Mazch 31, 2003. The current designation expires on Mazch 31, 2013, and legislation allows for RMDZs to be redesignated (Chapter 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 17914 Zone Redesignations). The redesignation or renewal of the South San Diego County Recycling Market Development Zone is required so that Chula Vista and the Otay Mesa Communities of the City and County of San Diego may remain active participants in the RMDZ Program for another ten (10) years. The City of Chula Vista, Public Works Departrnent- Environmental Services Section is currently the Zone Administrator for the South County RMDZ. Chula Vista will continue to operate as the lead agency under the new designation. Staff is requesting that Council authorize and empower the Public Works Director or Designee to execute all documents and activities necessary to renew and administer the Recycling Market Development Zone Program, in partnership with the CalRecycle. This application for renewal includes expanding the boundazies of the zone to include additional jurisdictions in south San Diego County and all of the jurisdictions of Imperial County, a total of 5,585 squaze miles. The purpose for expanding the boundaries is to increase the available area in which companies that use recycled materials as feedstock for manufacturing are eligible for RMDZ incentives. While some of these jurisdictions have limited or no heavy industrial land, their participation in the zone could provide assistance for smaller cottage industries that also use recycled feedstock. Additionally, all jurisdictions will benefit from having local markets for their recycled materials. The zone will be renamed, the Southern California Border Region Recycling Mazket Development Zone and is outlined in red below. 8-3 2/5/13, Item ~' Page 4 of 4 South San Diego County Jurisdictions Imperial Valley Jurisdictions South San Diego City Westmorland Beach Coronado Holtville ` ~ ~~'r lt?s( r v~`r F "+ r s ,l~n'!uc(~yr~]orated viii e}`~al Cairn}{/ z ~ ,; o , ;emo S- -- ..Y.. m~~...n,«.~ru,ua # . a ~, L«. -.... rw.n,..~.,xb,.n ..._ -. ,..... .. a.'~ `.L.~. ,,,_ ., r ~ ~. ; Y. `J _..._ ... La Mesa Santee The diversion and reuse or remanufacturing of discarded materials from landfills has positive environmental benefits as making products from recycled materials generally requires less energy than those manufactured from virgin materials; recycling provides a more efficient use of the resources already extracted from the earth; and recycling/remanufacturing creates jobs, stimulating the local economy. There will always be discards, but whether they become waste buried in a landfill or not is a matter of choice. Recycling market development is a necessary step in shifting away from a waste management philosophy towards amaterials/resource management philosophy. 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 18704.2(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. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT There will be no direct fiscal impact to the General Fund. All activities related to the Recycling Market Development Zone administration are funded by the Environmental Services Fund and the State of California, Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT There will be no ongoing fiscal impact to the General Fund. All activities related to the Recycling Market Development Zone administration are funded by the Environmental Services Fund and the State of California, Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery. ATTACHMENTS Recycling Market Development Zone Redesignation Application Prepared by: Lynn France, Environmental Services Program Manager, Public Works Department H: IPUBLIC WORKS- ENGIAGENDAICAS2013102-OS-131CAS - Redesignation2073 dmf L-29-13REV.doc a-a State of California RECYCLIIlTG MARKET' DEVELOPMENT BONE Redesignation Application CalRecycle This application is designed for an existing Recycling Market Development Zone (Zone) that is requesting renewal of a current Zone designation and/or requesting area change in boundaries ofthe Zone, The information requested in this application meets the regulatory requirements pursuant to 14 Califorsuia Code of Regulations. (CCR} Section 17914 for Zone Redesignations. Please read the Application Instructions before completing the application (see Attac]nnent 1). Guidance is also provided in the RMDZ California Environmental Quality Act (_CEOAI Toolkit Document (SharePoint/PDP) to assist in completing CEQA requirements for Zone Renewal and Zmie Change in Boundaries. Zone designations are approved for a term of 10 years. RMDZs must reapply for another 10 year designation term prior to the expiration of the 10-year term. If the Zone applies for a change in boundaries before its 10 year renewal anniversary, the clock will reset and a new 10 year clock will he established from the approval date of the change in boundaries. In completing this application, the Zone Administrator should evaluate if there are any changes to the information requested based on the most recent Zone Annual Report, information contained in the Zone Information Reporting System (ZIRS} database, or previously submitted Zone designation or redesignation applications. If changes or updates are identified, please include information in the boxes provided below or attach additional documents to tluis application, if needed, with revised information to be inclilded in the review. If you need assistance in determining what information has been reported to CalRecycle to date, please contact your Zone Liaison. ALL DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING THE APPLICATION, CAN BE SUBMITTED ELECTRUNICALLY. THE APPLICATION COVERSHEET WITH SIGNATURE MUST BE SUBMITTED 1N HARD COPY. Application Coversheet Check the box or boxes indicating the type(s) of redesignation requested: ® Renewal of Designation (Please complete coversheet, certification, and Sections 1, 2 and 4 below) ® Zone Change fn Boundaries (Please indicate which type): ® Expansion ^ Reduction (Please complete coversheet, certification, Section 1, appropriate subsection(s) under Section 3, and Section 4 Below) Ifyou m•e completing both a Renewal of Designation and requesting a Change irz Bowrdaries, please complete sectimz, 1, Z, 3 (choose appropriate subsection), and 4. 8-5 Stale of California CalRecycle Existing Zone Name: South San Diego Recycling Proposed New Name (if applicahle); Market Development Zone Southern California Border Region Recycling Market Development Zone - SoCal RMDZ Primary Contact -Zone Administrator (Name & TitIe): Lynn France, Environmental Services Program Manager, City of Chula Vista- PublicWorlcs Department Mailing Address: 276 Fourth Ave City & Zip Code: Chula Vista, 91910 County/ies covered: South San Diego and Imperial Counties Phone: 619585-5790 Fax:. 619 691-5006 E-mail Address: Ifi•anceCa chulavistaca.gov Certification: I declare, under penalty of perjury, udder the laws of the State of California, that all information submitted for CalRecycle's consideration for redesignation as a Recycling Market Development Zone is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Signature of person authorized by the Resolution: ~ `t'~'~ <~~%~.C~E'.~'('P~~ Date: p~ _ 2.~ - Vie? 13 Type oi• print name and. title: Lymi France, Environmental Services Program Ma a-s State of California Section 1: Application Form CalRecycle For all Redesignation types (renewals and/or change in Uoundaries), please use the following as a guide to determine if there have been any changes to the Zone information since the Zone designation or latest redesignation application that need to be considered as part of the request for Renewal and/or Change in 1oundaries. 1. Briefly descriUe any changes to the Zone Mission Statement (if no changes, indicate N/Aj: The Southern California Border Region Recycling Market Development Zone mission is the same as the original South San Diego RMDZ, Educate Southern. California manufacturers regarding the economic benefits of using recycled materials, encourage Southern California manufacturers to incorporate recycled content into their manufacturing processes, create new local jobs through the attraction and expansion ofrecycled product manufacturers and to increase demand for recyclables through market forces by promoting recycled-content materials and products, 2. Describe any changes to how the Zone will address the four statewide objectives (if no changes,. indicate N/A): Extend Landfill Capacity: The SoCal RMDZhas significant landfill capacity within the proposed boundaries with the Mesquite, Sycamore, and Otay landfills. Therefore, we expect that these landfills will Ue receiving material from outside of the zone boundaries. Through waste reduction, recycling and remanufacturingoctivities within the zone these landfills may extent their expected term of operation to make room for more imported materials: The Zone will work to increase the demand for recyclables; build the demand for these materials locally, which will generate new jobs and new revenue to the region. Encourage Innovative and Emerging Technologies to Address Priority Materials: Infrastructure fos• organic materials is weak within this region. The Zone partners have already begun discussions on how to increase organic material market options and looking for highest and best use of organic materials. Regional collaboration between San Diego and Imperial Comity opens the door to develop markets for a variety of materials as well as providing tools and manufacturing options to both counties that might not .have. developed without their desire to become part of the RMDZ program. Waste tires, dimensional wood and textiles are focus areas. Distribute Zones Throughout the State: The expansion of the South San Diego Zone to include Imperial Cow~ty provides for continuous coverage of the southern border region ofthe state. This expansion may provide one of the largest RMD zones at 5,585. square miles. Stimulate Regional Marl~ets: Imperial Valley Economic Development Carpm~ation and South San Diego RMDZ have Ueen brainstot•ming activities and marketing opportunities to bringnew joUs to the Imperial Valley and the benefits of adding their industrial/manufacturing land to the portfolio for the region overall. A SoCaIRMDZ.ore website is currentlyin development to include the contact names and agencies tlu•oughout the region. This website will also feature outreach activities and presentations as well as a listing of interested parties looking for recycling opportunities. The option of a trade show booth and materials is also inthe works to advertise the zone expansion and new opportunities. In the past, we have had businesses that have approached us with interest to site in our current zone but due to land use restrictions could not assist them. One of those companies moved to Calexico. State of California CalRecycle Zone expansion will help meet operational and financial needs of prospective projects. Imperial County has a prospective venture that would like to recycle textiles and through their intricate process will be able to convert fabrics into thread; once this expansion is complete, we look forward to being aUle to assist them. Historically, recyclable materials travel north to the Los Angeles basin to well-estavlished recycling operations. The transport of materials/goods between ImperialValley and San Diego counties, along the Interstate 8 corridor is a snore efficient trip than to Los Angeles area. We expect that with this expansion that will change as more unique recycling operations develop within the zone. 3. Describe any changes to the Zone's targeted and regional approach (if no changes, indicate N/A): As described the zone will now encompass a much larger area within an international cmnmerce corridor therefore the changes to the targeted regional approach will reflect opportunities afforded by available program funds. Staff will work with partner jurisdictimr economic development personnel to assure that RMDZ information is part of their marketing strategies. Working with partner jurisdictions is vital to outreach the business communi 4~. Briefly describe any changes to the Zone Marketing Development Plan, including the Goals and Objectives, ntarlteting activities, locating feedstocl{, etc. [if no changes, indicate N/A): Program staff will work with local resources such as professional and trade organizations to inform targeted industries about the opportunities afforded by the RMDZ program. Another sh•ategy will be to work with local chambers of commerce to include information about this program at their tables while attending regional trade shows and meetings. We also plan to purchase advertising in local trade hard copy and on-line publications. Social media. is another useful too] that staff will use to promote the program. Malting the connection between prospective cut•t•ent and prospective business ventures and source material producers will occur by heavily outreachiugto all involved. As mentioned, a website will also be used that will lir~h to CalRecycle's RMDZ site as well as offer local financing and source material resources. Person to person connections are also important as we will be outreaching to the business cotntnunity by traditional methods such as business visits and attendin business rou meetin s. 5. Describe any changes to how you will measure and evaluate the RMDZ Marketing Plan (if no changes, indicate N/A): N/A 6. Briefly describe any changes to the Zone budget, administration, and resources (if no changes, indicate N/A): Manuel Medrano, Recycling Specialist for the City of Chula Vista will assist Lynn France-with RMDZ activities. 7. Please indicate if there have been any changes tomulti-jurisdictional. agreements (e.g., Joint Powers Authority agreements). that pertain to the administration of the Zone. Please provide copies of agreement(s) if there have been changes or if CalRecycle does not currently have a copy of the agreement(s) on file. N/A si-u 4 State of California Ca112ecycle Section 2; Zone Renewals a. For Zone Renewals, please include the following information: i. For Zone Renewals, please provide. a brief description as to why redesignation i sought: South San Diego RMDZ seeks redesignation to continue the important work of connecting business that need to create a viable material or product out of discarded materials that would otherwise be disposed of in landfills. With the new statewide recycling rate goal of 75%, staff believes that it is important to contine the work to develop recycling markets not only in our region but throughout the state of California. Hard-to-recycle materials and products such as plastic film and Styrofoam as well as organic materials, carpet, dimensional wood among others continue to enter otu• landfills, a program like RMDZ in our area wit] help continue efforts to find ventures that could help us reach the recycling milestones, create 'obs and encoura e commerce and trade. ii. For Zone Renewals that do not result in a change to the boundaries of the Zone, please confirm that updates are not needed to the followiug documents compared to documents submitted as part of the original designation or subsequent redesignations. ^ No changes to the redesignation area's boundaries as identified on a street map. N/A ^ No changes to the General Zmijng and Land Use maps of the redesignation area. Section 3: Change in Boundaries a. For Zmie Expansions, which covers the addition. of a jurisdiction or jurisdictions to an existing Zone's boundaries, please include flee following information: i. For Zone Expansions, please provide a description of the proposed change in Zone bowtdaries: This application for redesignation includes expanding the boundaries of the zone to include additional jurisdictions in south San Diego County and all of the jurisdictions of hnperial Valley: Coronado, El Cajon, hnperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Santee, and southern portions of the City and County of San Diego; hnperial Valley cities of Brawley, Calexico, Calipatria, EI Centro, Holtville, Imperial, Westmoreland and unincorporated areas of County of Imperial. The red outlined area below illustrates the new zmte along California's southern border. 8-9 5 State of California CalRecycle ii, PIease provide a brief justification for the Zone expansion, including how the expansion will complement the existing Zmie and will create additional markets for recyclable materials: The purpose for expanding the boundaries is to increase the available area in which companies that use recycled materials as feedstock for manufacturing are eligible for RMDZ incentives. While some of these jurisdictions have limited or no heavy indush•ial ]and, their participation in the zone could provide assistance for smaller cottage industries that also use recycled feedstock. Creating a larger area for material exchange oportunities will also support niche recycling markets that will benefit the region overall, expand commerce andgreen job creation, as well as develop creative entreprenew•ship. Many of the recyclable materials that Californians put in their cw•bside and commercial containers could stay in this State and create jobs for Californians, in anticipation that at some point overseas recyclers could stop accepting ow• material as they develop more efficient methods to recycle their own materials. b. For Zone Reductions, which covets the deletion of a jurisdiction or jurisdictions from an existing Zone's boundaries, please include the following information; i. For Zone Reductions please provide a description of the proposed change in Zone bowldaries including the reason the Zone is being reduced in size: SECTION 4: CEQA Attachments: Negative Declaration and Addendwn Council and Board Resolutions (These are currently be gathered, to be added before final submittal to the state.) 8-160 Negative Declaration (619) 44&5460 LDR No. 42-0906 PTS No. 5498 SCH No. 2002111114 SUBJECT: South San Diego Rec~ng Market Development Zone Redesi ation Resolution to contrnue a State loan program designation that provides economic incentives to businesses using secondary materials from the waste stream as feedstock for manufacturing, and therefore to divert solid waste from landfills. The project area includes portions of the Otay Mesa communities of the City of San biego and unincorporated County of San Diego and portions of the City of Chula Vista. AppBcant: City of San Diego, Environmental Services. Department. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached Initial Study.. II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: See attached Initial Study. III. DETERMINATION: The City of San Diego conducted an Initial Study which. determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. IV, DOCUMENTATION: The attached Initial Study documents the reasons to support the above Determination. V. MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: None required. VI. PUBLIC REVIEW DISTRIBUTION: Draft copies or notices of this Negative Declaration were distributed to: City of San Diego Councilmember Inzunza, District 8 Economic Development Department, Enterprise Zone Program Library Department (81) Other Entities/Organizations City of Chula Vista (94) County of San Diego, Department of Public Works (70) California Integrated Waste Management Board (35) California Trade and Commerce Agency Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce (231A) Otay Mesa Planning Comrnittee (235) San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce {157) -1- 8-11 Land Development Review Division San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation SANDAG (108) State Clearinghouse (46a) I Love A Clean San Diego, Inc. VII. RESULTS OF PUBLIC REVIEW; O No comments were received during the public input period. O Comments were received but did not address the draft Negative Declaration finding or the accuracylcompleteness of the Initial Study. No response is necessary. The .letters are attached. (X) Comments addressing the findings of the draft Negative Declaration and/or accuracy or completeness of the Initial Study was received during the public input period. The. letters and responses follow. Copies of the drafr Negative Declaration and any Initial Study material are available in the office of the Land Development Review Division for review, or for purchase at the cost of reproduction. .+,. November 25. 2002 Terri Bumgardner, Senior larrne~ Date of Draft Report Development Services Department January 16. 2003 Date of Final Report Analyst: Michael VanBuskirk -2- 8-12 Department of Toxic Substances Control Edwin F. Lowry, Dlreclor 5798 Corporate Avenue 'Inston H. Hickox Cypmss, Californle 90630 Gray neNs 3ency Secretary Govemm ali(ornla Envlronmenlel _ PmlecPmn Agency December 20. 2002 Mr. Mlchasl Venbuskirk - City of San Diego 1222 First Avenue San Diego, California 92101 . NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SOUTH SAN DIEGO RECYCLING MARKET DEVELOPMENT ZONE REDESIGNATION - SCH # 2002111114 Dear Mr. Venbuskirk: The Department of Tozlc Substances Control (DTSC) has received your Negative Declaration (ND) for the above-mentioned Project ~ Based on the review of the document, DTSC's commerrls are as follows: ' ~ i) The ND needs to identify and detennlne whether cunent or historic uses have W resulted in any release of hazardouswastes/substances at the site. Z) The ND needs to identify any knovm or potentially contaminated site within the proposed PrvJect area. For all identified sites, Iha ND needs tv evaluate whether conditions et the site pose a Threat to human health or the environment. 3) The ND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investtgailon and/or remediation for any site that may require remediation, and the govamment agency to provde appropriate regulatory oversight. 4) If during construction of the project, soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected, construction in the area should cease and appropriate Health and Safety procedures should he implemented. 1f It is determined that contaminated soil and/or groundwater exist the ND should identify how any required Investigation and/or remediation will be conducted, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. ^re rneyy eae/lenge brine caRomre la real Every WFNmlan neetls b bke irmrtdlele sdmn b raduee emgy confumWion Fora Nsl w aNnge ways you aen retluce tlemand and cW youremryy cost; see ow Wep.Jle el wwx.asc.ca.aov. The project noncems a Recycling Market Development Znric (RivfDZ) Redesigrre[ion. I( . is a resolution [o continue a Slate loan program designation that provides ecomrvie incentives [o businesses within the RfvIDZ in order ro encourage recycling. Them la rte physical development with the project Any project which is Cunded by dre pragmm would require a land use review and approval from the lead agency with jurisdiction. Individual projects pmposW ~ a result of the incentives offered through the RMD'L will be subject to compliance with CEQA amt other State and local planning and pennihing requirements. 71rc torten[ or histodc mkese of hazardous aulrstanees bn individual sites Within the zone will lb evaluatdl if the propedy applies for ph}~eical development of [heir properly which is subject to Curthcr I~QA mview. 2. ~ Please see Response 1 3. No investigations arrd/or rerredietion will 6e necessary as no physical development ie proposed with This project and no hazerdoua wesles/substances will b¢ releeacd es a reuut of thu project . 4. Please see Response 3. ® PHnted on F¢cycled Pepar Mr: Michael VenbuskGk December 20, 2D02 + Page 2 bTSC provides guidance for the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEAj preparaticn and cleanup oversight through the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). For additional information on the VCP, please vIs(t DTSC's web site at www.dtsc.ca oov. If you heve2ny questicns regarding this letter, please contact Ms. Rania A. Zebaneh, Project Manager el (714) 484-5479_ - Sincerely, . ~~~/~~~ Haissam Y. Salloum, P.E. Unit Chief Southern Califomia Cleanup Operations Branch Cypress Office cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 ~ Sacramento, California 95812-3044 Mc Guenther W. Moskat, Chiei .p Planning and Environmental Analysis Section . CEQA Tracking Center - Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O, Box 806 Secramento,Calitomia 958?2-0806 '~. a City of San Diego DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Land Development Review Division 1222 First Avenue, Mail Station 501 San Diego, CA 92101 (619)236-6460 INITIAL STUDY LDR No. 420906 PTS No. 5498 SUBJECT: South San Die o Recycling Mazket Development Zone RedesiQnation Re"solution to continue a State Ioan program designation that provides economic incentives to businesses using secondazy materials from the waste stream as feedstock for manufacturing, and therefore to divert solid waste from landfills. The project area includes portions of the Otay Mesa communities of the City of San Diego and unincorporated County of San Diego and portions of the City of Chula Vista. Applicant: City of San Diego, Environmental Services Department PURPOSE AND MAIN FEATURES: The proposed project is to appear before the City Council to redesignate the South San Diego Recycling Market Development Zone (RMDZ), a State loan program designed to encourage new and existing businesses to use post-consumer recycled content. California legislation created the RMDZ program to provide incentives to businesses that use secondary materials from the waste stream as feedstock for manufacturing, and therefore to divert solid waste material from the State's landfills. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) established RMDZs in 40 regions of the State of California. There are two areas in San Diego County that have been designated as RMDZs: South San Diego in 1992 and North San Diego County in 1994. The RMDZs were designated for 10 years and the South San Diego RMDZ designation expires March 31, 2003. The legislation allows each RMDZ to be redesignated. The South San Diego RMDZ originally consisted a portion of the Otay Mesa communities of the City of San Diego and unincorporated County of San Diego. A portion of the City of Chula Vista was included in the RMDZ in 2000 through a redesignation application. Under the RMDZ program, qualifying companies can apply for below market, fixed rate and long term loans for up to 75% of the project's cost, not to exceed $2 million. Loan proceeds can be used for machinery and equipment, working capital, real estate purchase (maximum of $500,000), leasehold-improvements and the refinancing of onerous debt that results in increased diversion. Qualifying companies include. those that produce a recycled-content, value-added product, or otherwise increase demand for materials that are normally disposed of in a sanitary IandfilL -1- 8-15 II. ENVII2ONMENTAL SETTING: The project site consists of portions of the Otay Mesa community of the City of San Diego and unincorporated County of San Diego, and the portions of the City of Chula Vista. When the South San Diego RMDZ was designated in 1992, the boundaries were as follows: Starting at the intersection of Otay Valley Road and the boundary line between the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego, then following said boundary line easterly to meet the northwest corner of the County of San Diego's East Otay Mesa Specific Plan Area, then following the Specific Pan Area's perimeter to the United States and Mexico Border line, then westerly along the International Border line to a point on the Intemational Border line representing the westernmost area zoned for industrial purposes (as shown on the map filed in the Office of the City Clerk as Document No. 00-16290), northerly along the line designating the azea zoned for industrial purposes to the intersection of Otay Valley Road, then northwesterly along Otay Valley Road to the boundary line between the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego, the point of origination, for a total of 6,300 acres, 3,500 acres within the City of San Diego and 2,800 acres in the unincorporated areas of San Diego County. In 2000, properly zoned portions of Chula Vista were added to this RMDZ. This area includes an additional 1,200 acres in this RMDZ. III. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: See attached Initial Study checklist. IV. DISCUSSION: nLa d Use The project is the redesignation of an azea in which companies that use recycled materials. as feedstock for manufacturing are eligible for incentives. The project does not change zoning, land use patterns or planning, and therefore, no impacts to land use or planning would result. The diversion and reuse or remanufacturing of waste materials from landfills has positive environmental benefits because making products from recycled materials generally requires less energy than manufacture from virgin materials. The goal may be achieved by the siting of new facilities within the zone, or by modification of existing facilities. Any project funded by the program would require land use review and approval from the government agency with jurisdiction. Individual projects proposed as a result of the incentives offered through the RMDZ will be subject to compliance with CEQA and other State and local planning and permitting requirements. V. RECOMMENDATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: X The proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment, and 2 8-16 a NEGATIVE DECLARATION should be prepared. _ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in Section IV above have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION should be prepazed. _ The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT should be required. PROJECT ANALYST: Michael VanBuskirk Attachments: Location Map (Figure 1) Initial Study Checklist -3- 8-17 LOC8t1011 Map Figure Environmental Analysis Section 42-0906 CITY OF SAN DIEGO • DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Initial Study Checklist Date: LDR No.: PTS No.: Project: III. ENVIItONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The purpose of the Initial Study is to identify the potential for significant environmental impacts which could be associated with a project pursuant to Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the Initial Study provides the lead agency with information which forms the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report, Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declazation. This checklist provides a means to facilitate an early environmental assessment. However, subsequent to this preliminary review, modifications to the project may mitigate adverse impacts. All answers of "yes" and "maybe" indicate that there is a potential for significant environmental impacts and these determinations are explained in Section IV of the Initial Study. ~ Ma vbe No A. AESTHETICS /NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER Will the proposal result in: L The obstruction of any vista or scenic view from a public viewing area? _ ~ _ The project would not result in any physical development or and use. 2. The creation of a negative aesthetic site or project? _ ~ See A.1 3. Project bulk, scale, materials, or style which would be incompatible with surrounding development? _ ~ See A.l. 4. Substantial alteration to the existing chazacter of the area? ~ See A.1. 5. The loss of any distinctive or landmark tree(s), or a stand of mature trees? _ ~ See A.1. 6, Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? _ ~ See A.l. 7. The loss, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features such as a natural canyon, sandstone bluff, rock _1_ 8-19 ~ Mavbe N~ outcrop, or hillside with a slope in excess of 25 percent? _ _ See A.I. 8. Substantial light or glare? _ _ / See A.1. 9. Substantial shading of other properties? _ _ / See A.l. B. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES /NATURAL RESOURCES /MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal result in: 1. The loss of availability of a known mineral resource (e.g., sand or gravel) that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? _ _ _~ The project would not result in any physical development or land use. 2. The conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural use or impairment of the agricultural productivity of agricultural land? _ _ / See B.1. - C. AIIi QUALITY WouldYhe proposal: 1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? _ _ / The project would not result in any physical development or land use. 2. Violate any air quality standazd or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? _ _ / See C.1. 3. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? _ - / See C.1. -2- 8-20 ~ Mavbe ~TQ D. 4. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? _ _ ~ See C.1. 5. Exceed 100 pounds per day of Particulate Matter 10 (dust)? _ ~ See C 1. 6. Alter air movement in the azea of the project? _ _ ~/ See C.1. 7. Cause a substantial alteration in moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _ _ _~/ See C.1. BI OLOGY Would the proposal result in: 1. A reduction in the number of any unique, rare, endangered, sensitive, or fully protected species of plants or animals? _ _ ~/ The project would not result in any physical development or land use. 2. A substantial change in the diversity of any species of animals or plants? _ _ ~ See D.1. 3. Introduction of invasive species of plants into the area? See D.1. 4. Interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors? _ _ ~ See D.1. 3_ 8-21 es ~~ NQ 5. An impact to a sensitive habitat, including, but not lirttited to streamside vegetation, aquatic, riparian, oak woodland, coastal sage scrub or chaparral? _ _ / See D.L E. F 6. An impact on City, State, or federally regulated wetlands (including, but not limited to, coastal salt marsh, vernal pool, lagoon, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? / See D.I. 7. Conflict with the provisions of the City's. Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? _ _ Z/ See D.1. ENERGY Would the proposal: 1. Result in the use of excessive amounts of fuel or energy (e.g. natural gas)? _ _ / The project would not result in any physical development or land use. 2. Result in the use of excessive amounts of power? _ _ / See E.1. GEOLOGY/SOILS Would the proposal: 1. Expose people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _ _ / -The project would not result in any physical development or land use. 2. Result in a substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? _ _ / See R1. -4- 8-22 ~ ~~ ~ 3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentiaIly result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? _ _ ~ See F.1. G. H. HISTORICAL RESOURCES Would the proposal result in: 1. Alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? _ _ r/ The project would not result in any physical development or Zand use. 2. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, object, or site? _ _ ~/ See G.1. 3. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to an azchitecturally significant building, structure, or object? _ _ ~/ See G.1. 4. Any impact to existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact azea? _ _ _~ See G.1. 5. The disturbance of any human remains, including those interred outside of forma] cemeteries? _ _ _ /~ See G.1. HUMAN HEALTH /PUBLIC SAFETY /HAZARDOUS MATEffiALS Would the proposal: L Create any known health hazazd (excluding mental health)? _ _ ~/ The project would not result in any physical development or land use. 2. Expose people or the environment to a significant hazazd through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? _ _ ~/ See H.I. 5 8-23 Yes Mavbe N~ 3. Create a future risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including but not limited to gas, oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, or explosives)? _ _ / See H.l. I. 4. Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? _ _ / See H.I. 5. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuantto Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or environment? _ _ _~/ See H.1. 6. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? _ _ / See H.1. 13YDROLOGY/WATER QUALTTY YVould the proposal result in.• An increase in pollutant discharges, including down stream sedimentation, to receiving waters during or following construction? Consider water quality parameters such as temperature dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical storm water pollutants. _ _ / The project would not result in any physical development or land use. 2. An increase in impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff? _ _ / See 1.1. 3. Substantial alteration to on- and off-site drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes? _ _ _ /~ See Ll. -6- 8-24 J ~ ~~ N~ 4. Discharge of identified pollutants to an already impaired water body (as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(b) list)? _ _ ~/ See 1. L 5. A potentiaIIy significant adverse impact on ground water quality? _ _ ~ See I1. 6. Cause or contribute to exceeding applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? _ ~/ See L 1. LAND USE Would the proposal result in: 1. Aland use which is inconsistent with the adopted community plan land use designation for the site or conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over a project? _ _ / -The project is consistent with City zoning and Community Plan designations. 2. A conflict with the goals, objectives and recommendations of the community plan in which it is located? _ - ~/ See J.1. 3. A conflict with adopted environmental plans, including applicable habitat conservation. plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect for the area? _ _ _~ The project is consistent with the City of San Diego's and the City of Chula Vista's Source Reduction and Recycling Elements, the County's Summary Plan and other environmental planning documents. 4. Physically divide an established community? The project is consistent with City zoning mid Community Plan designations and will not result in any physical development. 5. Land uses which are not compatible with aircraft accident potential as defined by an adopted airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP)? _ _ ~ The project would not result in any physical developtent or land use. -7- 8-25 x. NOISE Would the proposal result in: 1. A significant increase in the existing ambient noise levels? The project would not result in any physical development or land use. 2. Exposure of people to noise levels which exceed the City's adopted noise ordinance? See K L Yes Ma e T~ - - -~ 3. Exposure of people to current or future transportation noise levels which exceed standards established in the Transportation Element of the General Plan or an adopted airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan? _ / See K 1. L. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the proposal impact a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geo]ogic feature? The project would not result. in any physical development or land use. M: POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the proposal. 1. Induce substantial population growth in an .area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? .The project would not result in any physical development or Zand use. 2. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? See M.l. _g _ _ / - - -~- 8-26 Yes >~ ~ 3. Alter the planned location, distribution, density or growth rate of the population of an area? _ _ ~/ See M.1. N. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: 1. Fire protection? _ _ The project would not result in any physical development or land use. 2. Police protection? See N 1. 3. Schools? See N.1. O. P _ _ / - Z 4. Parks or other recreational facilities? _ _ ~ See N 1. 5. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? _ _ ~/ See N.I. 6. Other governmental services? ~ _ ~ See N L RECREATIONAL RESOURCES. Would tlxe proposal result in: 1. R'ould the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks. or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be acce]erated? Tlxe project would not result in nny physical development or land use. 2. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? See 0.1. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in: 1. Traffic generation in excess of specific/ community plan allocation? _ _ / _ _ / 8-Z7 es Mavbe The proposed project would not generate any traffic. 2. An increase in projected traffic which is substantial in relation [o the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? _ _ / See P.1. 3. An increased demand for off-site pazking? _ _ / The project would not result in any physical development. 4. Effects on existing pazldng? _ _ / See P.3. 5. Substantial impact upon existing or planned transportation systems? _ _ / See P.3. 6. Alterations to present circulation movements including effects on existing public access to beaches, parks, or other open space azeas? _ _ / See P.3. 7. Increase in trafc hazards for motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians due to a proposed, non-standard design feature (e.g., poor sight distance or driveway onto an access-restricted roadway)? _ _ ~ See P.3. 8. A conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation models (e.g., bus turnouts; bicycle racks)? . _ _ / The project does not conflict with any alternate transportation measures. 8=~' Q. LTTILITIEs Would the proposal result in a need for new' systems, or require substantial alterations to existing utilities, including: R. S. ~s_ Maybe jlo 1. Natural gas? _ _ _~ The project would not result in any physical development or land use. 2. Communications systems? _ _ ~ See Q.1. 3. Water? _ _ ~ See Q.1. 4. Sewer? _ _ ~ See Q.1. 5. Storm water drainage? _ _ _ /~ See Q.1. 6. Solid waste disposal? _ _ ~/ The project would not result in any physical development. If the project is successful ar encour¢ging the diversion of waste from disposal, this goal maybe accomplished either through new facilities that go through the land use pernzitting process, or by modifications to existing facilities. WATER CONSERVATION Would the proposal result in: 1. Use of excessive amounts of water? _ _ ~ The project would not result in any physical development or land use. 2. Landscaping which is predominantly non-drought resistant vegetation? _ _ ~/ See R.I. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: 1. Does theprojecrhave the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant of animal community, reduce the ntitiiber or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate 8=~~ important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? _ _ _~/ No such impacts have been identified. 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts would endure well into the future.) - - / No such impacts have been idenli~ed. 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more sepazate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) - - / No such impacts have been identified. 4. Does the project have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - - / No such impacts have been identified. 8-3~'- IIVITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST REFERENCES A. Aesthetics /Neighborhood Character _ /!._ City of San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan. ~/ Community Plan. Local Coastal Plan. B. Agricultural Resources /Natural Resources !Mineral Resources (N/A} City of San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey -San Diego Area, California, Part I and II, 1973. _ California Department of Conservation -Division of Mines and Geology, Mineral Land Classification. _ Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 153 -Significant Resources Maps. C . .Air (NIA) California Clean Air Act Guidelines (Indirect Source Control Programs) 1940. .Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) - APCD. _ Site Specific Report: D. Biology City of San Diego, Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP), Subarea Plan, 1997 City of San Diego, MSCP, "Vegetation Communities with Sensitive Species and Vernal Pools" maps, 1996. City of San Diego, MSCP, "Multiple Habitat Planning Area" maps, 1997. Community Plan -Resource Element. California Department of Fish and Game, California Natura] Diversity Database, "State and Federally-listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California," January 2001. -13- 8-31 California Department of Fish & Game, California Natural Diversity Database, "State and Federally-listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California," January 2001. City of San Diego Land Development Code Biology Guidelines. _ Site Specific Report: E. Energy (N/A) F. Geology/Soils _ City of San Diego Seismic Safety Study. _ U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey -San Diego Area, California, Part I and II, December 1973 and Part III, 1975. Site Specific Report: G. Historical Resources City of San Diego Historical Resources Guidelines. _ City of San Diego Archaeology Library. _ City of San Diego Historical Inventory of Historical Architects, Structures, and People in San Diego (July 2000) Historical Resources Board List. Community Historical Survey: Site Specific Report: H. Human Health /Public Safety /Hazardous Materials (N/A) San Diego County Hazardous Materials Environmental Assessment Listing, 1996. _ San Diego County Hazardous Materials Management Division FAA Determination _ State Assessment and Mitigation, Unauthorized Release Listing, Public Use Authorized 1995. Airport Comprehensive Land Use PIan. _ Site Specific Report: -14- 8-32 L HydrologylWater Quality _ Flood Insurance Rate Map (PERM). Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Flood Insurance Program - FloodBoundary and Floodway Map. _ Site Specific Report: J. Land Use / City of San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan. _y~/ Community Plan. Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan / City of San Diego Zoning Maps FAA Determination K. Noise Community Plan _ Site Specific Report: San Diego International Airport -Lindbergh Field CNEL Maps. Brown Field Airport Master Plan CNEL Maps. Montgomery Field CNEL Maps, _ San Diego Association of Governments -San Diego Regional Average Weekday Traffic Volumes. San Diego Metropolitan Area Average Weekday Traffic Volume Maps, SANDAG. City of San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan. _ Site Specific Report: L, Paleontological Resources _ City of San Diego Paleontological Guidelines. Demere, Thomas A., and Stephen L. Walsh, "Paleontological Resources City of San Diego," Department of Pa]eontoloov San Diego Natural History Museum, 1996. -15- 8-33 Kennedy, Michael P., and Gary L. Peterson, "Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California. Del Mar, La Jolla, Point Loma, La Mesa, Poway, and SW 1/4 Escondido 7 1/2 Minute Quadrangles," California Division of Mines and Geoloev Bulletin 200, Sacramento, 1975. Kennedy, Michael P., and Siang S. Tan, "Geology of National City, Imperial Beach and Otay Mesa Quadrangles, Southern San Diego Metropolitan Area, California;" Map Sheet 29, 1977. M. Population !Housing _ City of San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan. Community Plan. _ Series 8 Population Forecasts, SANDAL. Other: N. Public Services (N/A) City of San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan. Community Plan. _~ City of San Diego Source Reduction and Recycling Element. / City of Chula Vista Source Reduction and Recycling Element. / County of San Diego Sununary Plan. O. Recreational Resources City of San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan. _ Community Plan. Department of Park and Recreation _ City of San Diego -San Diego Regional Bicycling Map Additional Resources: P. Transportation /Circulation City of San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan. _ Community Plan. San Diego Metropolitan Area Average Weekday Traffic Volume Maps, SANDAL. _ San Diego Region Weekday Traffic Volumes, SANDAL: _ Site Specific Report: -16- 5-34 Q. Utilities (N/A) R. Water Conservation _ City of San Diego Landscape Standards, December 1997. Sunset Magazine, New Western Garden Book. Rev. ed. Menlo Pazk, CA: Sunset Magazine. -17- 8-35 ADDENDUM TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SOUTH SAN DIEGO RECYCLING MARKET DEVELOPMENT ZONE REDESIGNATION (SCH 2002111114; LDR42-0906; PTS 5498) PROJECT NAME: South San Diego Recycling Market Development Zone Redesignation PROJECT LOCATION: The project area includes the southern portion of San Diego County (which includes the communities of Santee, El Cajon, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City,.Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, Coronado, a portion of the City of San Diego and a portion of unincorporated San Diego County) as well as all cities and county of Imperial Valley. PROJECT APPLICANT: Lynn France City of Chula Vista Public Works Department -Environmental Services Section 276 Fourth Ave Chula Vista, CA 91910 CASE NO: SCH 2002111114; LDR42-0906;PTS 5498 DATE: December 1, 2012 L BACKGROUND The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) administers the Recycling Mazket Development Zone Loan Program (RMDZ) to encourage California-based recycling businesses located within California to site new manufacturing facilities and expand existing operations. This program provides low-interest loans for the purchase of equipment and other relevant business costs. The intent of the Recycling Market Development Zone Loan Program is to help California manufacturers increase their processing capabilities and create additional markets for recycled-content products. There aze two areas in San Diego County that have been designated as RMDZs: South San Diego in 1992 and North San Diego County in 1994. South San Diego County Zone was redesignated again March 31, 2003. The original designation consisted of a portion of the Otay Mesa communities of the City of San Diego and unincorporated County of San Diego. Areas of the City of Chula Vista were added to the zone in 2000. The current designafion expires on March 31, 2013 and legislation allows for RMDZs to be redesignated; 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 17914 Zone Redesignations. 8-36 Addendum to Negative Declaration December 1, 2012 II. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The amended project boundary includes the southern portion of San Diego County (which includes the communities of Santee, El Cajon, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, Coronado, a portion of the City of San Diego, and a portion of unincorporated San Diego County) as well as all of Imperial Valley (Calipatria, Westmorland, Brawley, Imperial, El Centro, Holtville, Calexico and unincorporated Imperial County). As a result of the boundary modifications, the name of the project will change to the Southern California'Border Region Recycling Mazket Development Zone. The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (§15162) establish the conditions under which subsequent EIRs and negative declarations shall be prepazed. A. When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepazed for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole public record, one or more of the following: 1. Substantial changes aze proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the EIR or negafive declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known. and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable .diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or negative declaration. was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the enviromnent, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Addendum to Negative Declaration 5-32 Addendum to Negative Declaration December 1, 2012 B. If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent E1R if required under Subsection A. Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent Negative Declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation (Guidelines § 15162). Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that: A. The lead agency shall prepaze an addendum to a previously certified E1R if some changes or additions aze necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent E1R have occurred. B. An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of-the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negatve declaration have occurred. C. An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declazation. D. The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declazation prior to making a decision on the project. E. A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. This addendum has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The proposed boundazy changes do not constitute a substantial change to the previously approved project. Therefore, in accordance with Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepazed this Addendum. IiI. ANALYSIS Summazized below are issue areas potentially affected by the project. As the discussion outlined below indicates, however, the proposed redesignation and boundary amendment does not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the Negative Declaration. Land Use Compatibility The project is the redesignation and boundazy modification of an area in which companies that use recycled materials as feedstock for manufacturing are eligible for incentives. The project does not change zoning, land use patterns or planning, and therefore, no impacts to land use or planning would result. The diversion and reuse or remanufacturing of waste materials from to Negative Declaration 8-38 Addendum to Negative Declaration December 1, 2012 landfills has positive environmental benefits because making products from recycled materials generally requires less energy than those manufactured from virgin materials. The goal may be achieved by the siting of new facilities within the zone, or by modificafion of existing facilities. Any project funded by the loan program would requue land use review and approval from the government agency with jurisdiction. Individual projects proposed as a result of the incentives offered through the RMDZ will be subject to compliance with CEQA and other State and local planning and permitting requirements. Local Plans Conformance The proposed project would not conflict with the intent of local plans within each of the participating jurisdictions, including but not exclusively general plans, specific plans, special district overlays, etc. The proposed project does not create any new land use impacts. IV. CONCLUSION Pursuant to Section 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and based upon the above discussion and substantial evidence in the record supporting said discussion, I hereby find that the proposed project will result in only minor technical changes or additions to Negafive Declazation LDR 42-0906; PTS 5498; SCH 2002] 11114, dated January 16, 2003, and, therefore, an addendum has been prepazed in accordance with state law. ~~'Y't.vU -~- L-~ance Environmental Services Program Manager Public Works Department Addendum to Negative Dedaration 4 8-39 RESOLUTION NO. 2013- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUPPORTING AND APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION TO RENEW AND EXPAND THE RECYCLING MARKET DEVELOPMENT ZONE; AND, AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, OR DESIGNEE, TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS AND ACTIVITIES NECESSARY TO ADMINISTER THE RECYCLING MARKET DEVELOPMENT ZONE PROGRAM WHEREAS, the California Public Resources Code Section 42010 provides for the establishment of the Recycling Market Development Zone (RMDZ) program throughout the State to provide incentives to stimulate development of post-consumer and secondary materials markets of recyclable products and/or materials; and WHEREAS, California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 17914 Zone Redesignations allows for RMDZs to be renewed or redesignated; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has been the administrator of the South San Diego County Recycling Market Development Zone program since 2003 and that designation expires on March 31, 2013; and WHEREAS, the renewal or redesignation of the South San Diego Recycling Market Development Zone is required so that Chula Vista and the Otay Mesa Communities of the City and County of San Diego may remain active participants in the RMDZ Program; and WHEREAS, other jurisdictions in south San Diego County and Imperial County wish to be included in the Recycling Market Development Zone, thus expanding the boundaries of the zone; and WHEREAS, the proposed expansion of the South San Diego RMDZ will include the cities of Coronado, El Cajon, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Santee, and expanded areas of the City and County of San Diego, east to the county line, as well as all jurisdictions and unincorporated areas of Imperial County, under the new name Southern California Border Region Recycling Market Development Zone; and, WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista, Department of Public Works, Environmental Services Section currently is the administrator of the south San Diego RMDZ and wishes to continue as the lead agency under the new, California Border Region RMDZ program; and 8-40 Resolution No. Page 2 WHEREAS, the California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in its Strategic Plan, has adopted a goal to continuously integrate environmental justice concerns into all of their programs and activities, and WHEREAS, the California Legislature defines environmental justice as "the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies" [Government Code Section 65040.2(e)], and has directed the California Environmental Protection Agency to conduct its programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment in a manner that ensures the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and income levels, including minority populations and low-income populations of the state [Public Resources Code Section 71110(a)]; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista hereby agrees to administer the RMDZ program in a manner that seeks to ensure the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures and incomes, including but not limited to soliciting public participation in all communities within the RMDZ; and WHEREAS, the application for renewal of the RMDZ also seeks an expansion of the boundaries, to include additional jurisdictions in south San Diego County and all of the jurisdictions of Imperial County, a total of 5,585 square miles, in order to increase the available area in which companies that use recycled materials as feedstock for manufacturing are eligible for RMDZ incentives; and WHEREAS, recycling market development activities are part of the City of Chula Vista's landfill diversion and recycling activities under the Public Works Department and City staff us recommending that the Public Works Director or Designee be authorized to execute all documents and activities necessazy to renew and administer the RMDZ program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that, as the lead agency, it supports and approves the submittal of an application to renew and expand the Recycling Market Development Zone to include the cities of Coronado, El Cajon, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Santee and expanded areas of the City and County of San Diego east to the county line, as well as all jurisdictions and unincorporated areas of Imperial County; and 8-41 Resolution No. Page 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that the Public Works Director or Designee, is hereby authorized to execute all documents and activities necessary to administer the Southern California Border Region Recycling Market Development Zone program. Presented by Richard A. Hopkins Director of Public Works Approved as to form by 8-42