Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1983/12/20 T RAN S C RIP T ~ MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED JOINT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Tuesday, December 20, 1983 Counc il Chamber 7:30 p.m. Public Services Building Mayor Cox called the meeting to order explaining the purpose of the meeting is to consider and act upon the Redevelopment Plan for the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project and certification of the Final Environmenta; Impact Report on the Redevelopment Plan. ROLL CALL Councilmembers present: Mayor Cox, Counci lmembers Moore, Scott, McCandliss, Malcolm Agency Members present: Chairperson Cox, Vice Chairperson Moore, Members Scott, McCandliss, Malcolm Planning Commissioners present: Cha irperson O'Neill, Commissioners Shipe, Green, Pressutti, Guiles Planning Commissioners absent: Commissioners Johnson, Cannon Conflicts of Interest City Manager Goss stated he reviewed the status of the City Council and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency as it relates to the Conflict of Interest provisions of the City of Chula Vista and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency. In conjunction with the City Attorney, he concluded no member of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency has a direct or indirect conflict of interest relative to the matters being considered this evening. Affidavit of Publication and Ce~,tificattons of Mailing,s of Notice Community .Development Director Desrochers entered into the record the f~nowil'~,~ocuments: Exhibit No. ,1 Affidavit of publication of notice of the joint public hearing, AFFIDAVIT published once a week for four successive weeks in the Chula OF Vista Star News as required by Sections 33349 and 33361 of the PVBLICATlON Heälth and Safety Code. rhibit No.2 Certificate of mailing notice of the joint public hearing, ERTlFICATE together with a statement concerning acRuisiton of property by F MAILING the Agency, to each assessee of land in the Project Area as NOTICE TO shown on the last equalized assessment roll as required by PROPERTY' Sections 33349 and 33350 of the Health and Safety Code. OWNE~";,, JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 2 - December 20, 1983 MEETING Exh ibit No.3 Certificate of mailing notice of the joint public hearing to CERTIFICATE the governing bodies of each taxing agency within the Project OF MAILING Area as required by Section 33349 of the Health and Safety Code NOTICE TO TAXING AGENCIES Mayor Cox stated these records will be made a part of the record. This being the time and place as advertised, Mayor Cox declared the joint public hearing open. He explained the State law under which the the hearings will be conducted is the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California. That law requires following certain procedures, some of them formal, in the conduct of tonight's joint public hearing. Introductory Statement Concerning Procedures Persons making statements and giving test imony will be sworn and wi 11 be subject to questions through the Chair. All persons desiring to speak will be given an opportunity to do so. Noting this is a combined hearing on both the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan and the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report on the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan, Mayor Cox asked it be made clear when speaking whether remarks are directed to the Redevelopment Plan, the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report, or both. He also asked they fill out a form listing their name, address, who they are representing, whether speaking for or against, or have a question concerning the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan or Final EIR. If they have a question, to write it on this form and bring it up to the City Clerk prior to consideration of oral testimony. All quest ions received wi 11 be answered prior to recei~ing testimony. The staff presentation tonight will be made by: John Goss, City Manager/Executive Director Jennie Fulasz, City Clerk/Agency Secretary Marshall B. Krupp, Consultant Alonzo pedrin, Consultant Tom Harron, City Attorney Paul Desrochers, Community Development Director Bud Gray, Acting Planning Director Mayor Cox asked the following persons to stand and raise their right hands to be sworn by the Deputy City Clerk: JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 3 - December 20, 1983 MEETING John Goss, City Manager/Executive Director Jennie Fulasz, City Clerk Marshall B. Krupp, Consultant Alonzo Pedrin, Consultant Tom Haron, City Attorney Paul Desrochers, Community Development Director Bud Gray, Acting Planning Director Mayor Cox requested all persons in the audience desiring to speak tonight to also stand and to be sworn. The Oath was administered by the Deputy City Clerk. Mayor Cox then explained the order of procedure as follows: 1. The staff will present the contents of the Redevelopment Plan, the Final Environmental Impact Report, the Agency's Report to the City Council, and other evidence and test imony in support of the Redevelopment Plan. 2. The staff will then introduce the titles of the various required and appropriate resolutions and' ordinances for Redevelopment Agency and City Council consideration. 3. Next, the Council/Redevelopment Agency will receive any written comments. 4. The Council/Redevelopment Agency will then receive any evidence or oral testimony from those present concerning the Redevelopment Plan or the Final Environmental Impact Report. Representative of taxing jurisdictions are respectfully requested to a 11 ow residents, property owners, and business persons of the community to give their oral testimony first. 5. Follqwing the introduction of all evidence and testimony tonight, and upon the conclusion of the hearing, City Council/Redevelopment Agency will consider and act upon all objections and then act on the Final Environmental Impact Report and the Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Desrochers submitted the following Exhibit: Statement of Findings for Adoption of Chula Vista Redevelopment Plan Mr. Desrochers made the following remarks: As the Mayor has indicated, the purpose of this hearing is to consider evidence and testimony for and against the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan and the certification of the Final EIR. Evidence will be introduced for consideration by the City Counc il and the Agency in connection with the following findings and determinations that will be made in the adoption of an ordinance adopting the Redevelopment Plan. These findings and determinations are contained in Section 33367 of the Health and Safety Code and are generally as follows: ._,_.,..,~-_.._., JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 4 - December 20, 1983 MEETING 1. The Project Area meets the legal qualifications set forth by the Legislature for a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes described in the California Community Redevelopment Law. 2. The Redevelopment Plan will plan, develop, replan, redesign, clear, reconstruct and rehabilitate the Project Area in conformity with the law and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety, and general welfare. 3. The adoption and carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan is economically sound and feasible. 4. The Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan of the City and the County of San Diego as applicable. 5. The carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan will promote the public peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the community and will effectuate the purposes and policies of the California Community Redevelopment Law. 6. The condemnation of real property if ever required and as provided for in the Redevelopment Plan is necessary to the execution of the Redevelopment Plan, and adequate provisions have been made for payment for properties to be acquired as provided by law. 7. The Agency has a feasible method or plan for the relocation of famil i es or persons displaced from the Project Area if the Redevelopment Plan results in the temporary or permanent displacement of any occupants of housing facilities in the Project Area. 8. There are or will be provided within the Project Area or within other areas not generally less desirable with regard to public utilities and public and commercial faciltities, at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons who may be displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and avail ab le to such d isp 1 aced fami 1 ies and persons, and reasonably accessible to their place of employment. 9. There are no noncontiguous areas of the Project Area. 10. Inclusion of any lands, buildings, or improvements which are not deterimental to the public health, safety, or welfare is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the whole area of which they are a part, and any such area included is necessary for effective redevelopment and is not included for the purpose of obtaining the a 110cat ion of tax increment revenues from such area without other substantial justification for its inclusion. "_._-----~-,------_._.,---_. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 5 - December 20, 1983 MEETING 11. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Project Area could not reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise and acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency. There are other statements and determinations set forth in the proposed ordinance adopting the Redevelopment Plan, but the foregoing are the major evidentiary findings. Certification of Official Actions Exhibit No.4 Community Development Director Desrochers presented an entry CERTIFICATION into the record a certification of official actions that have OF CERTAIN been taken by the City Council, City Planning Commission, and OFFICIAL the Agency in connection with the preparation of the Otay ACTIONS Valley Road Redevelopment Plan for the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project. Mayor Cox stated if there are no objections, the certification shall be made a part of the record. Mr. Desrochers made the following staff presentation: ATTACHMENT A GENERAL PLAN - TESTIMONY The City and County have adopted comprehensive General Plans. The General Plans set forth the State mandated General Plan Elements and contain General Plan Land Use Maps which apply to properties within the boundaries of the City and County; and refers to potential land uses in the Project Area. Parce 1 1 of the Project Area. genera lly located north of Otay Valley Road is located within the City of Chula Vista. Parcel 2 of the Project Area genera lly located south of Otay Valley Road is located within the County of San Diego. The City Council, Planning Commission, and staff have evaluated the various tools availablé to the City to implement the General Plan and alleviate those real constraints which impede implementation of the applicable General Plans in general, and the Project Area in particular. It has been concluded that the administrative and financial program which can best alleviate these constraints with the least adverse affect on property owners, business persons, and residents of the community is the use of the California Community Redevelopment Law and the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Program. The Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Program is intended to accomplish the following objectives: 1. The elimination of existing blighted conditions, be they properties or structures, and the prevention of recurring blight in and about the Project Area. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 6 - December 20, 1983 MEETING 2. The development of property within a coordinated land use pattern of commercial, industrial, recreational, and public facilities in the Project Area consistent with the goals, policies, objectives, standards, guidelines and requirements as set forth in the City's and County's adopted General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 3. The development of public services and facilities including, but not limited to, recreational, maintenance, and operational services and facilities as are necessary and required for the development of the Project Area. 4. The elimination of environmental deficiencies including inadequate street mprovements, inadequate utility systems, and inadequate public services; and mitigation of highway impacts, including its circulation, movement and its potential social, physical, and environmental characteristics of blight. 5. The development of a more efficient and effective circulation corridor system free from hazardous vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle interfaces. 6. The implementation of techniques to mitigate blight characteristics resulting from exposure to highway and public right-of-way corridor activity and affecting adjacent properties within the Project Area. 7. Beautification activities to eliminate all forms of blight including, but not limited to, visual blight, in order to encourage community identity. 8. The encouragement, promotion, and assistance in the development and expansion of local commerce and needed commerc i a 1 and industrial facilities, increasing local employment prosperity, and improving the economic climate within the Project Area, and the various other isolated vacant and/or underdeveloped properties within the Project Area. 9. The acquisition, assemblage, and/or disposition of sites of usable and marketable sizes and shapes for residential, open space, recreational and Project public facility development within the Project Area. 10. The creation of a more cohesive and unified community by strengthening the physical, social, and economic ties between residential, commerc ia 1, industrial, and recreational land uses within the community and the Project Area. 11. The acquisition and disposition of property for the purpose of providing relocation housing, as may be required, to implement the objectives of this Plan. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 7 - December 20, 1983 MEETING 12. To provide for affordable housing availability as required by County, Region, or State law and requirements, as necessary and desirable, consistent with the goals and objectives of the community. 13. To encourage the coordination, cooperation, and assistance of other local agencies, as may be deemed necessary, to ensure that projects undertaken by this Agency are implemented to their fullest and practical extent. 14. The achievement of a physical environment reflecting a high level of concern of architectural and urban design principles deemed important by the community. 15. To encourage community involvement and citizen participation in the adoption of policies, programs, and projects so as to ensure that the Redevelopment Plan is implemented in accordance with the objectives and goals of the General Plan. 16. To provide a procedural and financial mechanism by which the Agency can assist, complement, and coordinate public and private development, redevelopment,' revitalization, and enhancement of the community. Through a comprehensive relationship between the public and private sectors, it is anticipated that the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Program will accommodate the growth of the community within the limited paramaters of the applicable General Plans and their goals and objectives by: 1) increasing job and housing opportunities; 2) improving the economic character of the community; 3) improving the circulation systems and infrastructure of sewers, storm drains, streets, and other public utilities in the Project Area; and 4) eliminating that blight within the Project Area which has constrained reasonable development growth. Without the program, the Project area wi 11 remain deteriorated and disused, and would become a greater burden on the community. Summary of Agency's Report to 'Council Consultant Marshall Krupp: I would now like to refer to, and briefly summarize, pertinent parts of the Report of the Agency to the City Council, which is the basic supporting documentation for the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan and the ordinance which will adopt the Otay Va lley Road Redevelopment Plan. Since this Report has been previously submitted to, and. reviewed by the Agency and the Council and has been available for public inspection, I wi 11 only cover certain pertinent parts of the Report in detail. My test imony wi 11 also supplement the facts contained in the Report and will be considered as part of the Report. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 8 - December 20, 1983 MEETING Mr. Krupp then identified the following four Exhibits: 1. General Plan Land Use Designation of the Project Area - identified as Exhibit General Plan. 2. Existing Zoning of Project Area - the zoning is both consistent with the General Plans of both the County and the City. 3. Exhibit of General Plan Acreage Allocations for the Project Area. 4. Zoning Acreage Allocations Consistent with the Zoning Map. Mayor Cox stated they would be so noted and would become a part of the permanent record. Mayor Cox stated that persons desiring to question the staff on any of their envidence, through the Chair, will have an opportunity to do so when asked for public comments. No public comments or questions were offered. Mayor Cox stated that if there were no objections, the Report of the Agency will be made a part of the record, along with the testimony and documents just received. Final Environmental Impact Report Mr. Krupp: I would like to refer to and briefly summarize the pertinent parts of the report of the Agency to the the City Council which is the basic supporting documentation for the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan and the ordinance which will adopt the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan. Since this report has been previously submitted to you and reviewed by the Agency and City Council and has been available for public inspection, I wi 11 only cover certain pertinent parts of the report in detail. My testimony will also supplement the facts contained in the report and will be considered as a part of the report. Mr. Krupp submitted the following Summary of Agency's Report to Council (Exhibit No.5) ATTACHMENT B AGENCY 33352 REPORT - TESTIMONY Pursuant to Section 33352 of the California Health and Safety Code, more commonly known as the Ca lifornia Community Redevelopment Law, the report of the Agency to the City Council includes a variety of information and data relative to the proceedings and analysis which have occurred prior to this evening's meeting. The Report is contained in fourteen (14) Chapters, which I will summarize for you at this time. 1. Chapter 1 provi des an overview and general summary of the activities which have occurred to date. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 9 - December 20, 1983 ,MEETING 2. Chapter 2 provides the reasons for selection of the Project Area including the definition of blight; the requirements for inclusion of non-blighted properties; the role of the City Council with regard to findings of blight and the justification for inclusion of non-blighted properties; the declarations of State policy with regard to blight and use of redevelopment; the general blight conditions which exist within the Project Area, and the intent of the Redevelopment Program. 3. Chapter 3 contains a description of the physical, social, and economic conditions in the Project Area. 4. Chapter 4 sets forth the proposed method of financing the redevelopment of the Project Area and identifies specific financing authorities of the Chula Vi sta/Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan, specific financing 1 imitat ions or constraints, and financi ng project ions for the Project Area. 5. Chapter 5 contains the proposed relocation plan and methodology for the implementation of the Redevelopment Program. 6. Chapter 6 contains an analysis of the Preliminary(Krupp said Redevelopment) Plan as approved by the Planning Commission and Redevelopment Agency. 7. Chapter 7 contains the Report and recommendations of the Planning Commission which found that the Redevelopment Plan is in conformity with the applicable City and County General Plans. 8. Chapter 8 indicates that a Project Area Committee was not required or appointed for this project. 9. Chapter 9 contains the Planning Commission's finding(s) that the acquisition, disposition, and construction of projects in the Redevelopment Plan are in conformance with the adopted applicable General Plans. 10. Chapter 10 contains the' final Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area and Plan. 11. Chapter 11 contains a discussion relative to the County Fiscal Officer. 12. Chapter 12 contains a discussion relative to the Fiscal Review Committee. 13. Chapter 13 contains an analysis of the impact on residential neighborhoods, and discusses the general project impact on residents and neighborhoods and specifically considers relocation, traffic circulation, environmental quality, availability of community facilities and services, effect on school population and quality of education, property assessments and taxes, other matters affecting the physical, social, and quality of neighborhoods, and specific issues of housing, construction, and relocation. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 10- December 20, 1983 MEETING 14. Chapter 14 contains an analysis of the reports submitted by the County and a summary of the consultation with the County and affected taxing entities. As previously stated, Chapter 3 of the Agency's Report contains a description of the physical, social, and economic conditions of the Project Area. This Chapter generally identifies the blighting influences of (those) properties which have been included within the revised Project Area. For purposes of summary, I would like to summarize the conditions of blight in the Project Area. Although portions of the Project Area are vacant, certain physical and economic conditions exist which constrain development of the area resulting in an economic disuse of properties that has caused a reduction and/or lack of proper utilization of the area. This constitutes a present and potentially future burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone. The emphasis of these physical and economic blighting conditions is focused on the inadequacy and lack of major circulation and infrastructure improvements which are dictated if the Project Area is to be permitted to develop, and the compat ibil ity of existing land uses with further land uses, the adjacent residential area, and the sensitivity of the natural character of the area. The major circulation and infrastructure systems which in previous years were the responsibility of State, County and local jurisdictions are now required to be developed with no viable financing vehicles which would permit a reasonable development schedule of the required improvements. A more specific and detailed discussion of the physical, social, and economic character of the Project Area is set forth in Chapter II I of the Agency's Report to the City Council and within the Agency's Supplemental Report to the City Council. Mayor Cox asked if there were any questions by the members of the Council to the Agency. None were offered. He stated if there were no objections, the Report of the Agency (Exhibit No.5) would be made a part of the record, along with the testimony and documents just received. Mr. Krupp stated the Agency's Report which consists of the original report and the addendum to the report should be identified as Exhibit 5 for the record. Mayor Cox so directed. Final Environmental Impact Report Mr. Krupp referred to and summarized the Final Environmental Impact Report on the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan. He stated this is also a part of the report of the Agency of the City Council on the Redevelopment Plan. The Agency is the "lead agency" in the preparation of the EIR. .-.-.-, --".- JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 11 - - December 20, 1983 MEETING Statement by Mr. Krupp: ATTACHMENT C FINAL EIR - TESTIMONY A Final Environmental Impact Report on the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area has been prepared and circulated according to the California Environmental Qualtiy Act, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Agency's environmental guidelines adopted pursuant thereto. A Final EIR is comprised of a Draft EIR, the comments received on the Draft EIR, and the responses to those comments. Prior to preparation of the Draft EIR, an Environmental Assessment was prepared and a Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR was sent to all responsible agencies, and it was determined that the following impacts of the project may have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, shoul d be di scussed in the Draft EIR: Land Use, Demographics, Traffic and Circulation, Air Quality/Climate, Energy, Biological Resources, Visual, Soil/Geology/Seismicity, Hydrology/Water Quality, Archeo logica 1/Hi stori ca 1 Resources, Noise Public Service/Utilities, and Economics and Fiscal. The Draft EIR described the project, the existing environmental setting, the environmental impacts, and the mitigation measures. In addition, the Draft EIR discussed alternatives to the proposed project, the growth-inducing impacts, the irreversible environmental changes, short-term and long-term effects, and the unavoidable adverse impacts of the project. Approximately 42 persons, organizations, and public agencies were notified when the Draft EIR was completed and approximately 8 of those notified submitted comments. The major issues raised in the comments received were: 1. The EIR did not discuss the extent and significance of mineral resources which exist in the Project Area. 2. San Diego County Water, Authorities are not seeking alternate water sources, information related to the possibility of a third Otay Valley Reservoir should be included in the EIR. 3. More detailed or extensive discussion should be given to existing biological resources and potential impacts on habitats as a result of project improvements. 4. The Otay Sewer Line Extension Project is intended for the principle service of Brown Field and the Otay International Center. 5. If sufficient data is not available to evaluate potential impacts associated with the Project, the EIR should clearly state that subsequent environmental review will be necessary. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 12 - December 20, 1983 MEETING 6. The EIR should clarify the environmental determination given with respect to the Otay Sewer Extension Project. 7. The EIR should propose a project architect that would be contracted to formulate the principle implementation strategy based on a specific plan with detailed improvement criteria. 8. The proposed redevelopment project could potentially alter the southeastern sector of Chula Vista from a peaceful suburban residential community to an obnoxious, and health-threatening, toxic industrial wasteland. 9. If Chula Vista is seriously interested in cleaning up this area, a pivotal project must be the removal and relocation of toxic materials and contaminated soils from both the Omar and Otay Class I Dumps. 10. The EIR is inadequate as it does not incorporate CEQA revisions made on August 1, 1983, and does not meet the requirements of a programmed EIR according to the newly revised CEQA guidelines. 11. The EIR does not adequately discuss environmental factors related to existing conditions, environmental impacts, nor proposed mitigation. 12. Conclusions and determinations made by the EIR are not based on substantiated evidence to support such findings related to any item of environmental discussion. Mr. Krupp added that for the record a supplement to the Environmental Impact Report was prepared and dealt with these among others comments that the Agency had received. Significant affects concluded in the EIR include: 1. Traffic circulation and access improvements via projects anticipated under the Redevelopment Plan for street widening and street improvements with increases in traffic volumes resulting from future commercial, industrial and residential development of the Project Area and surrounding region. 2. Visual change in character of the Project Area resulting from implementation of projects and development with beneficial affects on (the) deteriorating conditions of existing land uses with a loss of visual open space characteristics. 3. Increase in sewer disposal service demands resulting from future development of the Project Area, which may surpass transport capacity of existing main lines extending through the area. Mitigation resource recommended to reduce these impacts to an acceptable level are summarized: JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY -13 - December 20, 1983 MEETING 1. Anticipated street improvement projects are the resource for mitigation of existing circulation deficiencies which exist; also monitoring of future increases and review of individual development projects with consideration for needed mitigation improvements, such as intersection signalization should it be needed in the future. 2. Public improvement projects and encouragement of revitalization, redevelopment, and new development to mitigate visual impacts of neglect and deterioration which exist will be considered; also landscaping, set back requirements and site design review to off-set loss of vegetation and open space characteristic due to industrial development will be taken into consideration during development of properties. 3. Utility improvements off-site to provide sewer service connection would be included in the program, undertaking of sewer main improvements or cooperation efforts with other public agencies to utilize additional capacity available in ongoing projects would be considered; also required conformance of all future developments to the Region and City Sewer Master Plan. Growth-included and secondary effects of the Plan have been discussed in the EIR as follows: 1. Change in scale and character of Project Area and inducement of commercial and industrial development. 2. Growth in the local economy and tax base. 3. Increased needs for public services and utilities. 4. Improvements of circulation, employment opportunities and economic development. Also alternatives to the Plan have been discussed in the EIR as follows: 1. No project alternative. 2. Alternative Project Areas and sizes. 3. Phasing of the Plan's implementation. 4. Reduction in the term of the Redevelopment Plan. 5. Financing alternatives. Mr. Krupp read the following into the record two mitigation measures which were contained in the supplement and the EIR and which he recommend be considered in conjunction with the Certification of the EIR and the Final Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Krupp quoted from (page 1.4 of the supplement). JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY -14 - December 20, 1983 MEETING "Environmental factors, potential impact and mitigation measures are discussed in general terms in this document. When relative information is available quantatative discussions and a more exhaustive analysis of an environmental text have been provided. In the event that in the future more specific projects are taken for ~ublic improvements and private development, more private discussion and se ected environmental factors may be necessary. When it is found that a substantive conclusion based on environmental discussion provided in the initial program EIR cannot be made regarding particular environmental impacts of a specific project proposal future detailed discussion should be provided. Additional consideration and mitigation analysis should be prepared and a sufficient degree of analysis that provides decision makers with information that enables them to make a decision which i nte 11 igent ly takes into account environmental consequenses. Additional environmental analysis may include but is not limited to the following: Subsequent EIR,supplemental EIR, EIR Addendum, Focused EIR, determination of adequate prior review on a Negative Declaration". Mr. Krupp read the second mitigation measure into the record (page 1-6 of the Supplemental EIR): "To insure compatability of future land uses with community development and to prevent the creation of potential health hazards, performance standards required by Chapter 19.66 of the City's Zoning Code should be strictly enforced. These performance standards provide relative and objective measures of operations and conduct and provide for measures for the community from nuisances and hazards. A complete discussion of such performance standards is included in Appendix "F" of this report and is incorporated as a recommended mitigation measure. Various components of the performance standard include purpose, time limit for conforming or not conforming purposes, noise, odor, contaminants, liquid or solid waste discharge or deposit, investigation authori ty and enforcement procedures". That would conclude my testimony on the Environmental Impact Report. Mayor Cox asked if there were any questions by members of the Councilor the Agency on the Final Environmental Impact Report. He stated if there were no objections, the Final Environmental Impact Report as submitted will be made a part of the record as part of the Report of the Agency. Mayor Cox declared Exhibit 6 entitled "The Final Environmental Impact Report" is the draft Environmental Impact Report dated October 14, 1983 and is supplemental to the Environmental Impact Report dated December 9, 1983. Mr. Krupp referred to and summarized the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan and referred to Technical Amendments to Redevelopment Plan and Boundary Changes (Attachment D) as follows: JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 15 - December 20, 1983 MEETING ATTACHMENT D OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN - TESTIMONY The Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan has been prepared in accordance with the Ca 1 ifornia Community Redevelopment Law and contains the requ ired provisions as set forth in the California Health and Safety Code beginning with Section 33000. The Plan is based upon a Preliminary Plan formulated and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City. The City of Chula Vista on September 14, 1983 requested the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego (pursuant to Section 33213 of the California Health and Safety Code) to designate and authorize the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency to undertake the redevelopment of that certain real property located within the territorial limits of the County of San Diego, contiguous to the City of Chula Vista, more particularly described as Parcel 2 of the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area. Section 33213 permits the Board to "authorize the redevelopment of an area within its territorial limits by another community if such area is contiguous to such other Community". The Board determined that the subject properties are contiguous to the City of Chula Vista. Pursuant to Section 33213 of the California Health and Safety Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego did on October 18, 1983 adopt Ordinance No. 6676 (new series) authorizing the City of Chula Vista and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency to undertake redevelopment activities within specifically designated unincorporated areas of the County of San Diego contiguous to the City of Chula Vista. The Plan provides the Agency with powers, duties, and obligations to implement and further the program genera lly formulated in the Plan for the redevelopment, rehabilitation, and revitalization of the area within the boundaries of the Project Area. The Plan does not present specific plan details or e.stablish specific project details for the redevelopment, rehabilitation, and revitalization of any area within the Project Area, nor does this Plan present specific proposals in an attempt to solve or alleviate the concerns and problems of the community relating to the Project Area. Instead, this Plan presents a process and a basic framework within which specific plans will be presented, specific projects will be established, and specific solutions will be proposed, and by which tools are provided to the Agency to fashion, develop, and proceed with such specific plans, projects, and solutions. The Plan does provide, however, an Initial-Anticipated Projects List which is intended to be those Project Area improvements necessary to alleviate the blight conditions in the Project Area. The Redevelopment Project Plan will be undertaken in order to carry out the intent and purpose of the State Community Redevelopment Law, the development objectives of the City, and the goals of the applicable General Plans of the City and County. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 16 - December 20, 1983 MEETING The Agency proposes to eliminate or alleviate the conditions of blight existing in the Project Area, to strive for economic revitalizaton and Project Area enhancement in terms of infrastructure and circulation improvements, and to mitigate the negative social, physical, economic, and environmental impacts resulting from existing and anticipated disuse of the Project Area. The Agency has the authority to acquire property within the project area. Included is the use of eminent domain which must be exercised within 12 years from the time the project is adopted. It is expected that the Agency wi 11 make very limited use of this authority, if at all, in the implementation of the redevelopment project. The Plan also authorizes the Agency to enter into owner participation with people owning properties within the Project Area so that those persons may develop their properties consistent with the Plan in a manner approved by the Agency and by the City. In return for developing property consistent with the Plan and the General Plan, the Redevelopment Agency gives up its authority of condemnation over that property. In accordance with State Law, the Redevelopment Plan requires the relocation of any persons displaced by the Redeveloæment A~enCy. In this particular project,. it is the present intent of the gency t at there will be very few displaced persons, if any, since there will be very little use of the power of eminent domain, if any. The Plan allows the Agency to dispose of or sell property to developers to allow development in accordance with the Plan within the Project Area. The Agency has greater flexibility in the disposition of property to developers than does the City and most other public bodies. The Plan gives the Agency the authority to establish land use controls in the Project Area to ensure that the development is consistent with the Redevlopment Plan and applicable General Plans of the City and County. The Plan authorizes the construction of public improvements and a list of the intended or hoped for public, improvements is attached and made part of the Plan. The Plan authorizes a variety of forms of financing the Redevelopment Project including the ability to receive loans from the City to sell bonds, to receive money from the sale or lease of property, and to engage in what is commonly known as tax increment financing. Tax increment financing can be briefly explained in this manner: if debt is incurred by the Redevelopment Agency after adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency will receive property taxes which are attributable to, or come from, increases in the assessed value of the property in the Project Area which has occurred after the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. These are monies which otherwise would go to other taxing agencies. Therefore, tax rates will not be raised within the Project Area as a result of the adoption of this Plan. JOINT COUNC:L/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 17 - December 20, 1983 MEETING The laws of the State Constitution generally prohibit the agency or the cities from raising property tax rates and the Redevelopment Plan gives the Agency no new authority to levy taxes. Tax increment finanicng wi 11 result in no increase in property taxes to any person or persons either inside or outside the Project Area. Twenty percent (20%) of these tax increment monies must be used to improve and increase the supply and quality of low- and moderate-income housing within the City unless certain findings can be made as set forth in the Plan. The Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan finally contains certain limitations required by law, the length of the Plan, and the total amount of tax increment to be received by the Agency. The adoption and carrying out of the Plan is economically sound and feasible since it is based upon the Otay Valley Road Preliminary Redevelopment Plan which has been shown to be both economically sound and feasible as a financing mechanism for the Agency. This finding is based on the fact that under the Plan, no public redevelopment activity will be undertaken unless the Agency can demonstrate that it has adequate revenue to finance the activity. The Plan. is subject to its approval by ordinance of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego pursuant to Section 33213 of the California Health and Safety Code. Should said approval not be obtained, the Ordinance of the City Council approving the Plan shall be deemed amended to exclude Parcel 2 of the Project Area and the Project Area's legal description shall so indicate. Two aspects of the Plan should be noted at this point. First, Section 500.34 of the Plan requires that all new construction in the Project Area should comply to all applicable State and local laws. In particular, the provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance shall be complied with, and Chapter 19.66 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to performance standards shall be enforced to protect the natural environment of the adjacent res ident ia 1 areas. Second, Section 500.10 of the Plan requires that the land use authorized by the Plan conform to the applicable General Plans of the City and County. As such, Section 1100.00 of the Plan provides a mechanism that as the applicable General Plan is amended, the Redevelopment Plan will automatically be amended without any other necessary proceedings. This, then, in summary sets forth the primary elements of the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan. Mayor Cox asked if there were any questions by members of the Councilor the Agency on the proposed Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan. Mayor Cox asked the question whether the desire on the part of the representatives from the Community Action Network to have language that would be more restrictive in reference to zoning concerning light industrial and industrial based upon Mr. Krupp's comments would be inappropriate in this plan. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 18 - December 20, 1983 MEETING Mr. Krupp: The law specifically says the land use map of the Redevelopment Plan has to be in conformance with the General Plan of the City or in th i s case of the City and the County. Of course, the zoning by State law requires the compliance with the General Plans of both the City and the County. The recommendation that has been made would be inappropriate at this time. Councilman Moore: The proper procedures would be if that would be the Councilor Agency's desire, amendment to the General Plan would be the first step. Mr. Krupp: I agree an amendment to the Genera 1 Plan would be the first step and then proceed with a zoning amendment. When the General Plan was amended and the ordinance was adopted amending the General Plan or the County General Plan, then the Redevelopment Plan would automatically be amended without any further proceedings. Mayor Cox: If there are no objections, the proposed Redevelopment Plan would be made a part of the record. Mr. Krupp: The Redevelopment Plan should be noted as Exhibit No.7. Owner Participation Rules Mr. Desrochers: To complete the documents at this time, I woul d 1 ike to have entered into the record the Rules Governing Participation by Property Owners and Business Occupants in the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project, as said Rules have been adopted by the Agency. These rules have been previously made available and discussed with City Council and have also been made available for public inspection. Mayor Cox: Are there any questions by the Council or the Agency concerning these rules. If there are no objections, the Rules Govèrning the Participation by Property Owners and Bus iness Occupants in the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project, as adopted by the Agency, will be made a part of the record. Mr. Krupp: This should be identified as Exhibit 8 for the record. Written Comments Exhibit No.9 Mayor Cox asked for any written comments received on the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan or the Final Environmental Impact Report, so they could be placed into the record at this time. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 19 - December 20, 1983 MEETING Mr. Desrochers read the following letter from the Citizen's Action Network received December 13, 1983: Dear Chairman Cox: This letter is submitted in reply to the Agency's request for comments from persons who have reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project. Following is a brief summary of significant environmental issues which the draft EIR fails to adequately address: 1. Air Pollution: Scope/impact of increased motor vehicle emissions (lead, hydrocarbons, etc.) as a function of second border crossing and construction of large-scale industrial parks in nearby Otay Mesa/Brown Field areas (probable future projects); cumulative impact assessment, including nature/scope of B.K.K. plant emissions/discharges; stack emissions and other atmospheric discharges from industrial facilities sited in the proposed Redevelopment project area (including probable future projects); scope/impact of dust/particulate matter air pollution incident to excavation/construction activites. 2. Noise Pollution: Scope/impact of noise generated by motor vehicle trafflc, lndustria 1 plant operations (including Hyspan and future probable industrial facilities); type, quantity, location, and construction standards for noise buffers; noise pollution mitigation measures which must be included in plant construction/architectural/design standards. 3. Ri sks of Upset: Scope/impact/ri sks of seismic/geologic instabil ity assoclated wlth excavation/construction of industrial plants and facilities on and in very close proximity to the La Nacion Fault; cumulative scope/impact of continuing to maintain underground "storage" (abandonment) of millions of gallons of toxic wastes, and of pérmitting daily interstate transport of toxic wastes into the project area, and treatment and storage of substantial quantities of toxic wastes/hazardous materials at the B.K.K. plant in an area of known seismic/geologic instability. 4. Water Pollution: Scope/impact/risks of water pollution due to toxic leachate from Otay Class I dump and Omar Class I dump; disposal of hazardous materials at Apache dump site; spills/upset of toxic wastes/hazardous materials processed at B.K.K. plant. 5. Solid Waste (sewage) Disposal: Scope/impact of projected substantial demand; concomitant depletion of water resources. 6. "Flood Plain"/Increased Runoff Risks: Scope/Impact of expected erosion problems and mudslide activities. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 20 - December 20, 1983 MEETING 7. Flora/Fauna Resources: Specific known/potential impacts on endangered/sensitlve species of proposed development (excavation, facility construction, Otay River channelization) affecting the entire Otay River Valley, within and downstream from the project area, and specifically including the southern portion of San Diego Bay into which the Otay River empties. 8. Water Resources: Scope/impact of expected substantial depletion of water resources associated with proposed high density industrialization. 9. Energy Resources: Scope/impact of expected substantial depletion of energy resources (including electricity and gas) associated with proposed high density industrialization. 10. Geothermal Energy Resources: We have recently learned of engineerlng studies pertaining to geothermal energy resources within project area. Draft EIR fails to address existence of the geothermal energy resources, scope, location, and impacts of proposed redevelopment on this important energy resource. 11. Vernal Pools: We have recently received unconfirmed reports that the project area contains vernal pools. If true, draft EIR fails to address existence of vernal pools, location, size, and impacts of proposed redevelopment on this important natural resource. We hereby incorporate by reference the more specific unresolved environmental issues identified in our letter of October 17, 1983 and the 13-page annotated initial study attached thereto. For those environmental issues which are identified, the draft EIR generally merely sets forth conclusionary statements unsupported by empirical data, scientific authorities, or explanatory facts. There is a notable absence of good faith reasoned analysis. The failure to address the cumulative impact of existing environmental liabilities and the impact of probable future projects in and near tlie project area is the most egregious shortcoming of the draft EIR. . The only viable solution to the gross deficiencies of this project's environmental review process to date is to direct an objective third party to prepare an EIR which substantively and procedurally complies with C.E.Q.A. Sincerely, Larry McKenna Director, Citizens' Action Network JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 21 - December 20, 1983 MEETING Mr. Krupp: For the record, the two correspondences that were indicated in the letter has been included in the supplement to the EIR which have been received. In addition to that, all other letters that have been received on the Environmental Impact Report are contained either in the supplement or the report itself. Mayor Cox: Were the comments made in Mr. McKenna's letter presented tonight addressed in the supplemental EIR? Mr. Krupp: They were not as they had been received after the comment period as authorized by the State Clearing House on which we had issued notice on. But the previous letters have indicated that letters are included in the Supplemental EIR and have been responded to. Mayor Cox: I s there was any staff response to the items Mr. McKenna has itemized? Mr. Krupp: Not at this time; I would prefer to respond at the end of the oral testimon~. A five minute recess was called at 8:30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:35 p.m. Agency Secretary Mayor Cox,it would be appropriate for the titles of the Fulasz: resolutions and the ordinances to be considered this evening to be entered into the record. The following are the Agency Resolutions for consideration. The first is a Unanimous Consent Resolution. PUBLIC HEARING ADOPTING RELATED RESOLUTIONS FOR APPROVAL OF THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (Community Development Director) UNANIMOUS CONSENT ITEM RESOLUTION 467 OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA STATING INTENT TO CONSIDER CERTAIN ITEMS RELATIVE TO THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA OF TAHE CITY OF CHULA VISTA a. RESOLUTION 468 APPROVING THE AGENCY'S FINAL REPORT ON THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSMITTAL OF THE REPORT TO THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 22 - December 20, 1983 MEETI NG b. RESOLUTION 469 ADOPTING AND CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ON THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA c. RESOLUTION 470 FINDING THAT THE USE OF TAXES ALLOCATED FROM THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD PROJECT AREA FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING AND INCREASING THE COMMUNITY'S SUPPLY OF LOW-AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT AREA d. RESOLUTION 471 APPROVING THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PROJECT AREA AND DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF THE AGENCY TO TRANSMIT REQUIRED REDEVELOPMENT DOCUMENTS TO THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL The following are City Council resolutions and an ordinance for consideration: 5. PUBLIC HEARING ADOPTING RELATED RESOLUTIONS FOR APPROVAL OF THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (Community Development Director) a. RESOLUTION 11493 FINDING THAT THE USE OF TAXES ALLOCATED FROM THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING AND INCREASING THE COMMUNITY'S SUPPLY OF LOW-AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT AREA b. RESOLUTION 11494 CONCURRING WITH THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S APPROVAL AND CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PROJECT AREA c. RESOLUTION 11495 ELECTING TO RECEIVE THE ALLOCATION OF TAXES PURSUANT TO SECTION 33676 OF THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE FOR THAT PORTION OF THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA d. ORDINANCE 2059 APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PROJECT AREA - FIRST READING In response to the Mayor Cox' question, the Secretary Fulasz stated there were no questions submitted. ",,- ,"----,,~--- ,-,-_.__.,,-- JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 23 - December 20, 1983 MEETING Mayor Cox asked for statements or testimony from those per sent in favor of the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan or Final Environmental~mpact Report asking they identify themselves and state if they have previously been sworn. A recess was called by Mayor Cox at 8:32 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m. Robert Bell, Attorney Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps 110 West "A" Street, San Diego, CA 92101 Mr. Bell representing Walker Scott Properties/Palm stated his firm represents the major property owner on the south side of the property in major Parcel No.2. His clients have been involved with the County for at least half a century. They are against blight, toxic waste and all those other th ings peop le are concerned with and want to see a quality development on their parcel and the parcels that are adjacent to it. What Pl anni ng staff has come up with is probably the only way to successfully carry out a quality project in that area. One thing his client is concerned with is the discussion of a fund that would be imposed upon the developers of the property or owners to clean up problems that may now exist. They feel to the extent the Redevelopment Agency has funds that are generated by the tax increment as a means of financing the project, those funds may be used if necessary to clean up necessary problems or an existing blight. To impose a fee or additional fees by the owners of the property would be improper for several reasons. (1) If the problems do exist, they are problems that impact a wider area than the project area and if an assessment district is to be formed, it should be a district which includes all the properties which would be benefitted from any sort of resolution of existing problems. (2) These are not problems that are generated by the development itself; therefore, fees would be improper to impose on the development per se because the development would not create the problems; the problems presently exist. The only alternative left is a special tax which would be prohibited by Proposition 13 and the implementation of a special tax would require 2/3 majority vote of those upon whom the tax is imposed. Mr. Bell stated for the record they oppose the financing of supposed problems with developer fees but are very much in favor of the project itself and believe staff has done a good job in the time constraints they have and hope the Redevelopment Agency would concur with that opinion. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 24 - December 20, 1983 MEETING Dick Kau 3404 Bonita Road Chula Vi sta Mr. Kau, representing the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce/South Bay Realtors and some of the property owners stated he has no objection to Environmental Impact Report and supports staff recommendation. He stated it makes good sense to clean up a blighted area. He agreed with Mr. Bell regarding the tax issue adding it would price valley property too high to be developed. There are just two users on the land now: J.T. Racine and Hyspan in operation at the present time. Redevelopment will be a great asset to the community. Mr. Kau added the City will be competing with Otay Mesa in the future and encouraged adoption of the project. Timothy C. Flanagan H.T. Fenton Material Company/Nelson Sloan P.O. Box 64 San Diego 92112 Mr. Flanagan, a property engineer, commented his company owns 40 acres of 1 and with in proposed Redevelopment Area and in conjunctión with Nelson Sloan, an additional 29 acres in Parcel 2 south of Otay Valley Rd (toward the east end) and 11 acres within the City of Chula Vista presently. 1. He is in favor of having the Redevelopment Agency take staff recommendations and adopt the redevelopment plan as proposed. 2. Concerned as property owners when property is placed with a redevelopment area in Assessment District but has confidence the City acting as a Redevelopment Agency will be fair in assessment of property in relationship to the benefits seen. 3. Due to timing, suggested actions be kept as simple as possible as recommended by staff. Urge not to attempt to do detailed land planning. Jeff Wissler 4349 N. Talmadge Drive San Diego, CA 92116 Mr. Wissler, representing Sammis Properties stated his company present ly ho 1 ds an opt i on on 40 acres in parcel No.1 north of Otay Valley Road and west of Maxwell Road. They have been studying this property for several months and just entered into their option phase about 30 days ago. One of the reasons they entered into the proposed option phase has been because of the proposed JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 25 - December 20, 1983 MEETING Redevelopment Agency in area to help develop the property. Of their 40 acres, approximately 25 acres would be developable, net usable, acres with a 35-40% building ratio coverage with a substantial amount of open space enhancement associated with the project. One of the problems faced as a developer today is the financing of infrastructure and they would look to the Redevelopment Agency to assist them in setting up an appropriate program to provide infrastructure in the area and specificially in their project. This provides them with an advantage and gives them additional dollars to work with in providing additional property enhancement. The fact that a Precise Plan has been provided on the project will give the Council and Redevelopment Agency an opportunity to review the project in great detail and mitigate any potential problems which might be associated with the project. Any concerns the community group might have would be mitigated through the implementation of measures as mitigated in the EIR and also the Precise Plan would help to mitigate a lot of concerns the community group might have. They look forward to coming down here and developing the project; and hope the Redevelopment Program would be approved inasmuch as they would like to get in and buy the property and develop it as quickly as possible. Oral Testimony in Opposition Mayor Cox asked for statements or testimony from those present in opposition to the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan or Final Environmental Impact Report asking the people to identify themselves and state if they have previously been sworn. He again requested the taxing jurisdictions to give their testimony after all oral testimony in favor and in opposition has been given by the community. Marilyn Johnson 304 D Rancho Drive Chula Vista Marilyn Johnson stated she would 1 ike the following proposals to be included in the Redevelopment Plan: 1. Added emphasis that the Plans purpose is of benefit to the surrounding community as well as the Project Area. 2. A call for landscape buffer zones between residential neighborhoods and the industrial area. 3. An emphasis that the health and safety of the community is the goal of the project and that the plans purpose is to correct environmental liabilities which constitute physical blight. ",... ,-"....-"",,-------'--'--- JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 26 - December 20, 1983 MEETING 4. A ban on the following uses: new toxic waste dumps or new hazardous waste processing plants, new garbage dumps and sewage plants, chemical manufacturing plants and waste energy plants when it comes to waste energy plants - she has thousands of signatures from the Council's constituents opposing a Sander trash-to-energy plant in or adjacent to the City of Chula Vista. It is essential that trash burning plants be restricted in this Redevelopment Project. 5. A notification of Homeowner's Associations within a three mile radius of proposed industries. The plan now, only notifies land owners within 500 feet. 6. A call for more specific restrictions of land uses. Quay P. Collicott 827 Woodlawn Chula Vista Quay Collicott stated depletion of water resources is my main concern. The development of this plan is designed to enable rapid industrialization. The impact being water is a scarce resource, industrialization will substantially increase water demands increasing the depletion of this most precious resource. Citing from "Nor a Drop to Drink" from William Ashworth page 47: San Diego, California, located ln a sunny coastal basin, 100 miles south of Los Angeles and just a few miles from Mexico. San Diego, California, second largest city, boasting population of under one million and a rainfall of scarcely 10 inches a year with local surface supply next to non existant and the ground supply scarce. The City must import, virtually, all of its water. For years, that has meant lifting part of the Colorado River over the San Bernardino mountains and pumping it south via the twin branches of the San Diego aquaduct. The Colorado River supply will be drastically cut due to the demands of the central Arizona Project. That is coming up in 1985. EIR under water - water is a projected area in the entire Otay Valley subregion and provided by the Otay Water District. Company representatives indicate that any future demands could be met with current service capacity. Who is the source of these facts, what is the factual data, for this incredible, broad conclusion? Guess work projections are not acceptable. EIR findings must be based on etherial data. The EIR fails to address cumulative impact of decrease in vanishing Colorado River water supply and increased water demand by probable future projects in this area. The EIR fails to properly address key water issues such as recycling and nowhere has recycling been addressed anywhere. I think that recycling should be imposed on JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 27 - December 20, 1983 MEETING anyone that builds down there. I th ink they shoul d have to recycle at least 60% of their water. The use of ground water for industrial uses what is the feasibility and what will the impact be. One of my main concerns is that the Ci ty has spent "megabucks" for a package of words that fail to address the depletion of water resources and the numerous and other environmental issues. J. R. Norman 908 Mission Avenue Chula Vista (1) Sewer capacity - limitations not addressed in EIR. Does not think we have unlimited capacity. It does not address the sewage system demands to my satisfaction. (2) It addresses the treatment plant and the need for it but there is no solution. (3) It addresses the need for new lines but no money. (4) It does not address the raw sewage issue - the Tijuana River bed and the health problems it is creating. And the law suit the City of San Diego just lost for their a 110wing the farml ands to be flooded down there. It does not address the cumulative impact of the Tijuana Sewage, all the sewage from Otay Mesa and the prison; it does not address the Council's decision recently to sell the Sewage capacity to the Otay Valley District. I think the EIR was grossly inadequate, it fails to properly respond to the sewage and solid waste disposal problems. There is an absence of hard core facts. I could find no letters, no responses from responsible agencies in that report that I read. It fails to take into effect the cumulative impact of future developments down there. I have two other things that I would like to say. The Council will remember, I am sure, when you were selling the sewage capacity to the Otay (the new District down there) you made a couple of statements at that time. I would like to just refresh your memory. I will read it just the way I read it then: It would 'appear to me that the current system would be greatly overtaxed if the capacity is sold. Any new business in the proposed Otay Redevelopment Area would require the replacement of the entire system. I think that has come to pass. The other portion of it is this is the first step to open the door a crack to developers in Otay Mesa. At last, I would like to say this from your own report Environmental Impact ... development within and outside of the redevelopment area will be contingent upon the expans ion of the City's sewage treatment facil it ies. As there is no plan, I think we should reject this entire EIR report. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 28 - December 20, 1983 MEETING Barbara Hall 1675 Point Reyas Court Pt. Robinhood I have sat and listened to several of these meetings held by the Planning Commission. I noticed one of the big things mentioned was the peace, health and safety of the citizens that are being addressed by this Plan. As a resident who lives right above the Hyspan Plant which is in Industrial Research and Limited Development (some of you may have read my letter that was put in the newspaper sometime ago) this is an example of limited industrial. I hate to think of what general industrial and some of the heavy industry that has been originally proposed for this area is going to do to our valley as a whole. When we moved to California, I had a choice of living in Rancho Bernardo and La Jo 11 a and I picked Chula Vista because frankly I think its a nicer place to live. I sti 11 think so in spite of some of the problems, but the noise has gotten to be so bad already from the traffic that is going up to BKK and the traffic that goes to the garbage dump and Hyspan at times is just totally unspeakable. This morning at 7 o'clock, it sounded as though someone had a giant sledge hammer and was smashing down on metal piles. You should wake up to this every morning - go to sleep to it at night. I feel that some of these things should be more adequately addressed. My husband, after hearing a few talks at the Planning Commission got up and gave a very impassioned speech about his feelings and the lack of sleep he has had. They have been making noise at two 0' clock in the morning all summer long when our windows were open. With windows closed this morning we had the noise I was referring to. At the time th i s was brought up, I believe Mr. Desrochers made a comment that it would behoove the City of Chula Vista to take some tests that show the decibel range during the day up there. I really would like to know if anything has been done about that, whether anything will be done about it and just hope that some of this will be taken into consideration for those of us who live here - we like the place and hate to see it go down the dumps. Mr. Desrochers: This has been discussed in house with staff and we have not made a formal request through the City or Redevelopment Agency to study the matter, but feel it would be appropriate since we heard through this process of review the few comments on the noise there. It appears there is a violation of the City noise standards. I would 1 ike to see us use some kind of equipment that we could monitor 24 hours a day. I th ink we know what happens in the daytimne but it's during periods of the late hours ,--",--- - JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 29 - December 20, 1983 MEETING that we don't have any measurement of standards or any type of equipment to use. We will bring this up as we go further into this project, if this is a redevelopment project. This has been discussed with Planning and Engineering and have not proposed a solution to the City Manager yet but we haven't forgotten it either. Councilwoman McCandliss: When we monitored San Diego Gas and Electric we had to borrow some equipment to do it. If we felt that in the formation of this district, we needed that kind of equipment or to put together a monitoring station, would that be an appropriate expense of the District? Mr. Desrochers stated it would be. Brenda Maldenado 281 B Rancho Drive Chula Vista, CA 92011 I'm talking in regard to the aspect of the EIR which relates to the geologic instability and sesmic disturbances. According to the EIR with the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan, La Nacion fault, which is potentially active, runs through the project area adjacent to Brandywine Road. A major quake in the El Sonora fault north of the area would result in moderate to severe earth shaking. The Otay Road Redevelopment Area already contains the BKK toxic waste plant when two storage tanks are built to withstand only a .04 quake. We have experienced a quake of slightly more than that intensity within the last six months. When that occurred around one o'clock in the morning or the early hours, BKK sent out immediately its Manager to see if its tanks were intact. Considering the geologic instability, the citizens of Chula Vista do not need additonal hazards in the form of industry producing, transporting or using toxic or combustible materials. For the safety and future of Chula Vista, it - is imperat ive that an amendment to the Genera 1 Plan be approved so that the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Area be zoned light industrial and that measures such as more open space around the fault area be incorporated into the general plan to mitigate the impact of geologic instability and siesmic upsets. Specific land use restrictions should include no new solid waste, trash disposal, waste transfer or trash burning facilities, the manufacture of coal, coke, or tar projects, the manufacture or storage of turpentine, matches, paint and other combustible products or the storage of fireworks or explosives within the project area - nor should the production of rubber products and chemicals be permitted. Also there should be no stock piles, slaughter houses or new rendering plants within the area. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 30 - December 20, 1983 MEETING Councilman Malcolm: questioned the fact that .04 is the earthquake stability of BKK storage tanks. Mr. Desrochers sa id he was not aware of the earthquake stability of BKK. Ms. Maldenado: stated Mr. McKenna spoke with the Manager of BKK who explained what happened when a quake occurred. Mr. McKenna asked why the tanks were not built for a more intense quake and was told because of the cost. Mr. Krupp: Staff has investigated the licensing of BKK, the landfill, to determine if they are required to maintain certain standards in the operation of that activity over there. It is our understanding there are State and local requirements that are imposed upon the users of the area and they are required to comply with them, are regularly monitored and are. To this date, we have not been advised by those we have contacted that there have been violations. Whatever comment has been made by the Manager of the BKK - it is his comment - we have investigated those public agencies that are responsible for monitoring. We have been clearly advised that there is not a problem existing out there. Mayor Cox: asked if the City has had an opportunity to come up with more stringent standards. Mr. Krupp: The City could come up with a zoning ordinance that would apply to all properties in the City. The City already has standards in Chapter 19 wh ich app 1 ies to the performance of facilities. For example, the City has a requirement that no toxic waste material shall be stored in such a manner that it can penetrate into the ground and affect water quality. The City has that standard already and there is a procedure in there for monitoring and responding to complaints. Since we already have those kinds of ,procedures, that could be in excess of State standards. Mayor Cox called a recess at 9:15 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 p.m. Irene Maxwell 473 Berl and Way Chula Vista,CA I wrote a letter to Mayor Cox on November 29, regarding the inadequacies of the EIR regarding air quality. The EIR fails to meet the guidelines of the air quality impact assessment, general development and transportation projects required by the Air Resources Board regarding air quality analysis. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 31 - December 20, 1983 MEETING The letter regarding this matter did not appear in the Supplement to the EIR. Mayor Cox asked Mr. Desrochers if the letter had been referred to the Redevelopment Agency and asked if he' recalled receiving it at all. Mr. Desrocher: I cannot respond to that and do not know why we don't have it. I'm sure that it was sent but I don't remember seeing it. Mayor Cox asked if by any chance he had a copy of it and requested that after the comments are made that it would be appropriate to read that into the record. Irene Maxwell: The EIR fails to provide empirical data, regarding types of po 11 utants quantities permitted, ambient background levels, potential impact on public health. The report should list the cumulative impact of sources of air pollution such as motor vehicles, Class I dumps, and the illegal dumps such as Apache, rendering plants, BKK plants, metal particles released by dismantling autos, San Diego Gas and Electric emissions, the biologic waste plant emissions, construction dust plus the impact of probable future projects such as (things I have been reading in the paper and also some of the concerns of the people living here in the area have told me about) The Otay Mesa Industrial Park of the second border crossings, Regional Shopping Center, diesel truck depot and plastic extrusion company. The EIR merely shrugs off air pollution concerns; there is no evidence of communication with Air Pollution Control District. For instance, they should have been contacted regarding the air study promi sed September 29. I have a copy of an art icle from the Star News which mentions this air monitoring which is going to be done by APCD. It will test for air pollution above and near the former class I dumpsite, toxic industrial waste that was dumped in earthen pits in the Otay landfill from 1960 to 1980. In 'his remark, Mr. Krupp said that he did not have any data for more air analysis studies; but by contacting APCD he could have received more. I would like to enter this as an exhibit. (Article from Star News, October 2, 1983) The redevelopment plan is designed to rapidly industrialize the area. There must be base 1 ine data to determine the appropriate air pollution limits on land uses and construction within the project area. For instance, no heavy industry only light. There is no meaningful analysis of air pollutants now in the area or those reasonably expected to be created as a result of probable future projects. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 32 - December 20, 1983 MEETING In conclusion, the EIR glaringly omits facts concerning air pollution sources, quantities emitted and documented air quality assessment - a neglect to set both present and expected future impacts on human health. It fail to analyze and discuss project alternatives and realistic mitigation measures. Councilman Moore requested the consultant to advise the Council on on th is matter. Mr. Krupp: We should look at the intent of the California Environmental Act and the requirements that are imposed upon us in terms of the specificity of the Environmental Impact Report. Section 15147 of the guidelines state: "The degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond with the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR... The EIR in a Construction project will be in far more detail than an EIR that would be required on adoption or amendment of an ordinance on a general zoning plan". It should also be noted that Section 15150 of the guideline states that: "An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide this decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes into account the environmental consequences". Many of the environmental consequences that the residents adjacent to the project area raised are consequences that really cannot be evaluated and determined at this time, because we don't know specifically what kind of industrial or what the intensity of that industrial use will be. A recent case which was ruled on August 20, 1983 - (Atherton v. The Board of Supervi sors of Orange County) specifically dealt with the question as to the level of specificity of the EIR. I will quote you one section of the synopsis of the case: "The court has he 1 d that even though an EIR was general and vague in many areas, the discussion of the issues was adequate since the project itself was conceptual in nature". We believe, and your City Attorney has reviewed with us the adequacy of the EIR, and based upon the conceptual nature of the plan, we believe that the EIR does adequately respond to those issues that you can evaluate at this time and that we can deal with. One of the reasons for requiring the mitigation measure which entails additional envirnomental impact reports when '~ ._--,~, JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 33 - December 20, 1983 MEETI NG future projects are proposed, is to deal with those areas of environmental concern that could not be dealt with at this particular time; ie, the impact on air quality or the impact on water quality. I would also like to refer you to the basic general plan zoning and zoning of the area. The Redevelopment Plan is not proposing a project, nor is it proposing a land use. It is a consistent document that will accommodate the implementation of the general plan, the zoning of the City and the procedures that are already required to be imposed in terms of development of the area. To go any further than the level of detail that we have gone presently would enta il knowing specificially what projects will develop out there and then doing a detailed analysis of those projects. Councilman Moore asked for the reference of Mr. Krupp's initial statement. Mr. Krupp: In the environmental impact report, pages 1.1 - 1.4 discusses the , requirements of the California Enmvironmenta 1 Quality Act. In particular, pages 1.2 discusses section 15150 and section 15147 of the guide 1 ines. Councilwoman McCandliss: Once the district were to be formed and the more specific ErRs were to be completed, they would then establish some of the base line data that we are talking about for the area and for the particular site. Mr. Krupp: That is correct as it relates to that particular project. Not only the base line data but they would provide the projection of that date as it relates to the fact on the environment. This is a very unusual situation in that we are using the Redevelopment Authority to impose a specific requirement to undertake an environmental analysis that may be deemed to be categorically exempt or may be deemed to be a Negative Declaration requiring no Environmental Impact Report. But we have said through the mitigation measure provided herein that any project, whether it is considered categorically exempt, ministerial, normal Negative Declaration, will have to go through some kind of environmental analysis, and we defined at the beginning of the meeting what those environmental analysis were (Supplemental ErR, Addendum EIR, etc.). ,--, '--_..- JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 34 - December 20, 1983 MEETING I think we have been very sensitive to the environment of the area and not knowing the specifics of future development, tried to give both you the direction and to you, the developers, the respons ibil ity to look at the environmental concerns. Robert Maxwell 473 Berland Way Chula Vista I am concerned with the EIR. This is a very explicit survey of who we are and how we belong. I request a copy of who spoke tonight and a similar paper stating where the redevelopment board people live and what your concerns are in this area, so I would know "whose ox is being gored here and whose purse is being fattened." The EIR does not address flood ri sks in a positive way. It merely goes over them. I have seen flood control projects to provide and construct channelization improvements along a two-mile portion of the Otay river channel and wondered if it was feasible, allowable and affordable. I saw 15 million dollars as the estimated cost of such a channelization. Mr. Krupp: One of the projects presented in the anticipated projects list is a flood channelization program to mitigate some of the severe existing problems in the flood area. One example is the wash out of Otay Valley Road which occurred last year. That would not have occurred with the kinds of natural channelization considerations that have been given to the 15 million dollar project. Yes, the project is financible. The redevelopment plan as it is being proposed is a financible redevelopment plan. The costs as contained within the documentation have been reviewed with engineers and we are comfortable with those costs. The basis for the limitation were those costs, both in terms of direct costs as well as in terms of financing costs for future bonding capabilities. There was an issue raised at an earlier meeting - what did we mean by channelization? Did we mean a concrete culvert that would channelize the water? We did not mean that. We believe that is a natural drainage network and really what would be provided is a some man made improvement to insure that network does not create further flood hazard and further that it wi 11 not deteriorate existing properties which are adjacent to the flood plain. As you know, the properties, if you looked at the 20-40 years ago, you would have seen the developed potential of those properties then were far greater than they are today and that is because of the lack of channelization and maintenance of those areas that have occurred over the last 40 years. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 35 - December 20, 1983 MEETING Councilman Malcolm: I have some concerns about the channelization but from my understanding tonight of this, there wi 11 be additional reports and studies on the channe 1 hat ion before that would ever occur. It that true? Mr. Krupp: That is correct, we are not approving any project tonight or any specific project contained in the plan. All you are approving are basically three items: 1. Legal description of the project area boundary. 2. Authority agency has within that area - of which you have similar authority in other areas of the City. 3. Financing mechanism that will allow you on a annual basis to consider specific projects and budget those projects under the authority of the redevelopment agency. That is what you are approving this evening when you approve the plan. Mr. Desrochers: The agency approved a contract with Berryman and Stevenson. We have held up on any further investigation of that report until the redevelopment plan is accomplished. At part of that report, you will be getting specific responses to manners in which to mitigate the channelization of the river or the flood problem, road systems, sewer, water, etc. These wi 11 be taken in due course as the reports are completed and considered at Redevelopment Agency meetings and then for the specific projects that environmenta 1 impact reports would have to be accomplished financing plans, etc. As you wi 11 reca 11 , that work is under contract. Mr. Krupp: The Redevelopment Plan preparation has been coordinated by the preliminary work that has been done by Berryman and Stevenson. The intent is to come in with a complimentary mechanism to implement what potentially will be recommended or be considered in the final discussions by Berryman and Stevenson as they finalize their reports. Mr. Maxwell: Discussed storm drainage in the EIR and because of the currently undeveloped or marginal design of the major roads and collector roads, he said that called for more design work and expenses, there will be a lot of problems with that. It is a major area of flood control and also the runoff. We are looking for safeguards and some guarantees. One item that was in here was the statement "the prioritization of projects may be revised on an annual basis based upon City goals and objectives, "--,-,,---,-,,,------------- JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 36 - December 20, 1983 MEETING budgetary constraints, administrative priorities". That's interest ing but flood control projects is the headl ine article there on page 3.41 of the EIR. We note that increased runoff wi 11 result from increased water flow from new buildings, park i ng lot and roads. You have to insure controlling or the vectoring flow of the water to the Otay river beds within the project area safely to protect the City. If the Redevelopment Agency is fortunate and resolves the flood problems in the area then what coordinated action has been planned to mitigate flood risks downstream from this project area? When you make your decision, I suggest you be specific in determining what action you take around the Otay river bed because among other things, there are significant botanical and biological resource impact within the project area and downstream to and including San Diego Bay. There are also significant flood risks downstream, as mentioned, and I wonder how the City will deal with any anticipated liability claims. I'm disappointed,' in particular, that the EIR waffled in the extremist onto discussion of the flood plain issues; for example, inadequate factual basis, incomplete discussions, which are obviously slanted, failure to identify significant issues and the gross failure to discuss project alternatives, alternative such as leaving the Otay river bed a permanent open space area, a fresh water marsh or reparian woodland habitat. The EIR does not discuss this. This EIR by my observations can only be described as "cursory, extremely inadequate, a patchwork compendium of half thoughts and unsubstantiated conc 1 us i onary statements." Good luck. I would wish you stop to consider the failures this EIR has been brought out by the people this evening, many by your own advisory staff, and request you vote against approval of this EIR ton i ght for the pub li c good and the protection of our City. Mr. Krupp: For the record, the definition of the project. The project is the Redevelopment Plan which is a legal document. It is not the channelization of the river; it is not the land use or change of land use of the area; it is not the construction of industrial facilities, it is a legal document that provides authority and financing mechanisms and defines an area where that authority and financing mechanism is allowed to be implemented. When we talk about projects alternatives, the project alternative relates to the legal document. What are the alternatives to this legal document. It is not having this document an JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 37 - December 20, 1983 MEETI NG alternative. Yes, it is. Is having an area that is less than the project area because the project area is defined as part of the project - is that an alternative? Yes, it is. Is taking away certain authority from the Agency an alternative? Yes, that would be an alternative. When we talk about alternatives, we feel fairly comfortable that those reasonable a lternat ives to this document are contained within the plan. Marion Fouquette 1735 A Rios Ave Chula Vista 92011 Playmoor I Development What I'm really concerned about is the traffic in our area. You are talking about widening the roads and about lights. We live west of 805 and there are over 900 individual homes in the area, some of these are apartments as well as six sets of planned communities developing there. So this are a lot of people expected (to pay taxes). We pay taxes just like everyone else, I have said this to someone else before. We seem to be on the very end of Chula Vista and we get the very end of everything. Nothing anyone else wants. And we are goi ng to get a prison, this is no fault of yours and maybe it is. We've got toxic wastes, rendering plants. I'm sure none of you live in the area. The smell is really something at times. I must admit it has been better recently. These are things that concern us and we would like to be considered a part of Chula Vista. Michael Yee 1675 Jeremy Pt. Court Chula Vista, CA 92011 I live adjace~t to proposed development area. Rather than talk about the shortcomings of the plan, I would like to ta lk about why we feel the proposed changes submitted by the Citizen's Action Network are necessary and important. I would like to thank members of the Council and the members of the staff who have met with some of us in the community in terms of what we see as problems in the area as proposed projects. Unfortunately, expressions of concern are not enough in this case. As one of the speakers talked about info she received regarding the ability of the storage tanks on the BKK projects to withstand any type of earthquake activity - if that piece of information is true, that is just incredible. The reason I bring up that particular project as the Council is well aware, especially considering the nature of the business, came into Chula Vista, into our neighborhood, JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 38 - December 20, 1983 MEETING without any kind of report. As a matter of fact, this particular project never came up in front of City Council before it was bui It. Now, I don't doubt that the City Counc i 1 or members of the staff are concerned about the feelings of the residents in the area. We a 11 know th at political bodies change, institutions change. We want some permanent recognition in the plan to make sure that we have some contro 1, some input down the line so that things like the BKK project cannot come into our area in the future. Again, I don't want to talk about what the various vaguenesses in terms of the plan. What I would like to do is ask the Council give the same aggressive approach and consideration that you have given to the Bayfront Plan. I am very impressed with the public re lations campaign, with the educat ion that the Counc i 1 has engaged in in terms of promotion of this plan in front of the Coastal Commission and in front of the community. And that's great. However, I can't help but feel that those of us in the eastern sector of the City have been gett i ng the undesirable projects. Now, this particular project may not be as glamorous as the Bayfront Plan, its every bit as important to the residents of that area. We would like to ask the Council to recognize that and adopt the proposed changes that we feel are necessary and important. Furthermore, we don't think its going to be a threat to the redevelopment plan. I believe, I read a comment from the City Attorney, Mr. Harron, in the Star News in which he stated he would like to protect the integrity of the plan as a legal document. With all respect to Mr. Harron, on the contrary, I believe the way to protect a document, the way to protect a plan is to read all of the legitimate concerns of the citizens involved. Rather than take what may be a defensive approach, I th ink that it's in interest to Council to reaffirm the concerns of the citizens. We think the changes that we have proposed are reasonable and essential in terms. of the welfare of the res idents of the area. Thank you. ,- ---- , - - '- '" '-,-, , -----' JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 39 - December 20, 1983 MEETING David E. Foreman 1653 Pt. Cabrillo Ct Chula Vista 92011 I live near the dump and near where the pit was closed. I have some proposed changes to the plan. I was a little bit dismayed here last week that on such an important issue that it degenerated to petty squabb 1 i ng over the xerox mach ine. I have some proposed changes to the plan. And what a plan it is. Some would say that it was on a par with the sequel to War and Peace or at the very least a Mitchner novel. It's definitely long, wordy, designed to hide the true intent, I believe, (much like a shell game) and it wi 11 aid uncontrollable development of the area in the search for big bucks. At the very least, I'd say its the product of a word processing machine gone amuck. I would urge that what we do in addressing this plan is that we search for the best plan possible instead of pride of authorship. The first topic that I would like to discuss is blight as designed in the plan. On page 7 of the plan it talks about blight. It's uncomprehens ib le to me that we can talk about blight in the area without talking in very specific terms about some of these areas that are annotated on these transparenc i es. Nowhere in our description of blight do I see anything that talks about what the real blight in the area is. I find that rather confusing. The proposed change that I have would be to strike Item 13 on page 8 under the Section 100.00 and add a new item 1 which reads: environmental liabilities within the project area which includes but are not limited to two toxic waste dump sites, a toxic waste treatment plant, a rendering plant, a land fill sight, an inadequately designed auto dismantling yard which create a disincentive for new development. Secondly, I'd like to talk about the incentives of the plan which are on page 14 section 400. These objectives must be tied to what the real blight in the area is and in that regard, I would like to change the wording of the objectives which would parallel the proposed change of our definition of blight in the plan. In that regard, I would propose striking the wording of objective 1 to add a new objective 1 which reads "the elimination and or mitigation of existing environmental liabilities including but not 1 imited to toxic waste dumps ites to BKK Tox ic Waste Treatment plant, the Omar Rendering plant, the landfill site, and inadequately designed auto dismantling yards and the prevention of new or cumulative environmental problems including but not limited to toxic waste hazardous materials proliferation, air pollution, water contamination, depletion of water resources, noise pollution and a risk of geologic seismic upset". There are some other proposed changes in th i s area of the plan that I think you have gotten before but I think that is the key one aside from Item 13. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 40 - December 20, 1983 MEETING I talked with Councilman Moore before on the need to hold some people's feet to the fire and some other agencies that are responsible for monitoring throughout the County and the State. I think that Item 13 should be changed to read: "To encourage the cooperation and assistance of other local agencies as may be deemed necessary. To insure that projects undertaken by this agency are implemented to their fullest and practical extent and in an environmenta lly safe and prudent manner." Going back to Item 4, I'm sorry I skipped over that one, I had a proposed change on there. Come on now, who are we kidding on what we are saying on Item 4. The elimination of environmental deficiencies. Nothing on that Item 4 is an environmental deficiency. Those are all infrastructure problems. Let's say the resolution of infrastructure deficiencies including inadequate streets, etc. There's nothing environmental about anything .... In summary, I am in principle and concept in favor of the redevelopment area out there. But I want it to be something I can live with in the future. I would like not to have to spend the rest of my 1 ife down here every Tuesday night kibbitzing and complaining about every little thing that is going on down on Otay Valley Road. If you relegate me to that role in life, I guess I'll have to take up the mantle of it. What I'd rather do is help you in the future with some of the other projects that you have that you obviously need citizen input on. Those are the types of things that I would 1 ike to dedicate the remainder of my time to. Guy C. Lichty 1652 Point Sal Ct. Chula Vista After the"Redevelopment Agency meeting last week, we took to heart some of the comments of the proposed changes to the plan that we had submitted. You have verification of those in front of you. We also submitted a copy for the record to the Clerk of the proposed 45 pages which incorporate these changes that you now have. -"-",,--,,.... ,-"",,--,- JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 41 - December 20, 1983 MEETING I was going through the Redevelopment Plan and came across a rather interesting comparison. If you look at Section 500 in the Redevelopment Plan, it's rather wordy. If you take a look at the same section in the Town Centre Redevelopment Plan, you will find it only goes about four lines. As one who always likes the economy of the written word, it made me curious as to what the rest of that Section 500.01 of the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area contained. If you start on line 5 which ta lks about properties developed in accordance with the land use designations of the applicable general plan as that plan may be amended from time to time and 1 and use provisions as are set hereinafter set forth are declared to be conforming land uses within the project area. The Agency shall not change the land use designations of these properties declared to be conforming land uses within the project area. However, the Agency may request the City Council to consider the general plan land use designations in order to effectuate the attempt of the Redevelopment Plan - that portion of the plan, etc." I was wondering what the exact intent of that was. The only thing that I can think of as far as land use plans is being used is the County landfill area which I am told operates legally, the BKK facilities which I am told operates legally and wondered why this specific language is in there to protect the two entities and their perpetuation in those uses. That made me a little bit nervous. I think part of what this plan needs to address is the characteristics of blight which were absent from the plan and which our submitted changes hope to rectify. The other thing if you take a look at the next pages of the submi ss ion I made to you, you wi 11 not ice what our changes actually are. We would like to see that portion from line 5 on stricken, and new language adopted at the end of that paragraph which would read: "Upon adoption of the redevelopment, the land use restrictions and development standards within the project area may be more indicative than the provisions of the City/County". We would like to change that, after consultation with Mr. Desrochers in finding out about the statutes governing conformity. Rather than to state "general plan" to substitute for general plan "specific zoning plan", so as to enable attainment of the project objectives. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 42 - December 20, 1983 MEETING Taking a look at the overview of general objectives under the land lease provisions, Sections 500.21, we would like to see some changes in those general objectives to illuminate and for all concerned that the Agency plans to encourage development that is environmentally compatab le with the quality of design light industry and commercial and open space. There are some other changes that we would 1 ike to see in that section. Specifically on Number 4, we would like to see development consistent with the general plan - that is not against our intent. Also in Section 9 of the Plan where the 1 anguage ca 11 s for "development to its fullest and ultimate uses," we would like to see that changed to "optimal uses". In Section 10, there is wordage which calls for a transitional area, the project area from lower to high intensity use. We are not sure that area being as sensitive as it is can take high use and medium intensity land use may be better. Also please note in Section 10, there has been a change in the wording of "aesthetic" to "townscape" which I think is easier to find legally. Another change we would like to see is in the environmental action fund which we have proposed. Taking into account that there are elements of rather severe physical blight of an environmental nature in that area that were not addressed in the plan, we looked for a mechanism to help mitigate or alleviate those problems and came across this idea, which was taken from a section of the des i gn manua 1 for a fine arts fund. If fine arts deserves consideration in the downtown area, we think that in this area which does have significant environmental blight, an environmental action fund is certainly appropriate. Also the funding for this would also help to serve as ,a substitute for the performance bond, which I think that Council will tell us and the Redevelopment Agency are very hard to collect - and this will be some up front money to take care of some problems going in. There are three areas in which language enabling this Environmental Action Fund have been placed in our proposed changes. The first occurs on page 4 of the Redevelopment Plan under the Tax Increment Procedures and Bond section. (Mayor Cox asked for summarization). JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 43 - December 20, 1983 MEETING Mr. Lichty: . I was told the time to ask for proposed changes was to be at the time the plan was being promulgated. In the last couple of meetings the tenor of the Redevelopment Agency and the Council has changed. We are now told that that language should be set back in the process and would be better implemented in a design manuaL We are told the City has started a process to look at a proposed change to the General Plan. That will take four months and will put us down the road even further. It's a situation I feel that someone is hanging that carrot out in front of the cart. Someone is telling us, as long as we hang in there everything is going to be okey. With what's gone in there since I moved in the area three years ago, I don't think that's enough to see the concerns addressed in the plan as we were told they would be. Mr. Krupp referred to the exhibits displayed and stated: I have had many hours of discussion with Mr. McKenna with these items that have been discussed this evening. The City Attorney will support the position that I have taken and that is the Redevelopment Plan has to conform with the General Plan. You will be making a finding when you adopt the ordinance at second reading. Statements in the General Plan itself have to satiate that. You have to be assured there is some conformity there. If we were to not allow existing property owners who have property rights under the present General Pl an to cont inue havi ng those property rights, we would place the Agency and the City in a significant financial liability. Un 1 ess you change the Genera 1 Pl an and go through the procedures of State 1 aw that are required to change the General Plan, we could not recommend to you that you impose restrictions on the land use of the property that would take away certain rights that are authori zed to that property through the General Plan. That point has to be made very clear. We are not talking about imposing new land use rights to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. The Redevelopment Plan can impose certain performance standards and it can impose more restrictive design standards (both performance and design standards) but it cannot eliminate rights which property owners presently have, and those rights are set forth in the General Plan. I would also like (referring to the next chart) there was a comment made to change the plan from General Plan to Specific Plans. The fine thread that can be seen through all the comments, and that is to de-emphasize the requirements of the General Plan and more emphasize the Redevelopment Plan. There is on page 28 of JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT - 44 - December 20,1983 MEETING Redevelopment Pl an (referring to the top paragraph) - it begins with section 500.53 page 27 called Standards for Development. These are the standards that would be imposed upon development in terms of specific types of building, land coverage, design criteria, traffic circulation, traffic access and other development and design controls for the proper development of both public and private improvements with in the area of the project area. On page 28 at the top of the page, it specifically says "the City Council shall effectuate the development and design controls by the adoption of an ordinance creating a specific plan for the area. The view of the approval of the specific plan shall be in accordance with the provisions of the City of Chula Vista according to State law. To the mechani sms that are being asked for here in place of the general plan are already provided. We cannot rep 1 ace the Genera 1 Plan we have to comp 1 ement and supplement the General Plan. Those provisions are provided for in this text. The other comments with regard to goals and objectives -. those are a matter of priority as to where you want to set those goals and objectives and I really don't need to comment on those at this time. Councilwoman McCandliss: If there is an existing land use and Council through general plan or through rezoning wanted to go back and rezone that existing developed parcel - we couldn't do it without creating real hardships or financial liability to the City. Mr. Krupp: As the City Council, if you wanted to down zone a general plan in essence reduce the intensity of the general plan, you have the authority to do that. You have the authority to also change the zoning to a higher intensity or low intensity ,use as a City Council. With regard to financial liability those would be non-conforming uses in terms of the new land use designation and there would be an abatement procedure and there is a mechanism in the zoning ordinance that provides for the abatement over a period of years based upon value (according to what the abatement procedure is). That is how you minimize your liability position by providing the property owner with a fair and equitable time to use his property consistent with the non-conformity that he has when you created that new general plan use amended zoning. As a Redevelopment Agency, you don't have the authority to change the land use of the general plan. You are a separate legal body different than the City Council. I know that it is difficult to exchange hats, but you have no control over JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 45 - December 20, 1983 MEETING the general plan. You are required by law, as an Agency, to be in compliance with the general plan and that is the project that has been explained. You cannot down-zone the property, you cannot up-zone the property. To put that into the genera 1 plan woul d be doing just that and then you would have gone around the administrative and legal requirements of the City Council and the City of Chula Vista. Councilwoman McCandliss asked Mr. Lichty: Regarding the improvements to the area in the last three years since you lived there - regarding BKK and the Hyspan development, could you refresh my memory of any others that have happened in the last three years? Mr. Lichty: The reason BKK was a 11 owed to go through with a Negative Declaration was the State agency determined there was no change in land use. Councilwoman McCandliss: I am not arguing that. Mr. Lichty: That is the type of language they are sti 11 a little worried about that is still an Open Class I dump. Without a change in land use that opens the way for all kinds of development nature of a rather untoward nature to go into that area. It seems to me that since the City has adopted language in its Town Centre Redevelopment Plan which reads as is, it certainly could do the same for that Otay Valley area which has severe environmental problems. Councilman Moore: What type of action was taken to prevent that from reoccurring again (the BKK plant coming in unbeknown to Council and legally through the Planning Commission)? It seems we took some action to make sure the Council is more informed.' Director of Planning Gray: The zoning ordinance was amended to require in future that all unclassified uses such as the BKK facil ities would come to you from the Planning Commission and would be acted upon by the City Council before they would be permitted. Mr. Krupp: There is no class I dump in the project area. The dump is landfill and the BKK is a Class II facility. We have verified that. The statements that have been made are in error. There is only one Class I dump in southern California and that is in West Covina. I would like to have some staff people provide some additional testimony on that one. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 46 - December 20, 1983 MEETING Alonso Pedrin Community Assistance Associates Mr. Krupp mentioned that the landfill operation itself is not classifiable as a Class I designation by the State. There is only one Class I designation and that is in West Covina. There is also only one other designation in Southern California which will permit 1 imited toxic materials to be deposited and that is in Imperial County, it has an R-l classification. What is under operation by , the BKK Corporation is what's know as Appropriate Technologies Facility II. That does provides treatment, neutralization, removal of water from toxic waste generated in San Diego County area. The treatment facilities are provided there. The water removal and neutralization of those materials are then transported to Class I facil it ies. The water contaminants are then placed into the sewer system and treated at the Point Lorna treatment facility. There are no toxic waste deposits in the Otay landfill and there have not been since November 1980 when the landfill was reclassified as a Class 3 facility. Mr. Lichty: The point has been made that that Class I toxic pit has never been closed. It's just not accepting new deposits but its still officially open. Councilman Moore: In checking into that and it is not legally closed until a certa i n process takes place and they expect that to take place this summer. Then when the, paper work is finally finished the Omar Rendering Site.. .. .. . .. .. It's not officially closed until the paper work is completed. Mr. Lichty: The only problem is that as long as its not officially closed, it's officially open. Councilman Malcolm asked Mrs. Reid from the County to clarify this. He understood it would take two years for a permit to dump any toxic materials in there. Sharon Reid County of San Diego Department of Public Works 5555 Overland Avenue San Di ego The County Hazardous Waste Facility was permitted prior to the enactment of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requirement which went into effect November 1, 1980. While the existing facility has not completed its closing process as Councilman Moore pointed out, we are in the process of doing that through the Regional Water Quality Control Board. We never app 1 i ed for a part A Class I permit and therefore we cannot accept hazardous materials at Otay. , ~"---'---'--"----'-- JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 47 - December 20, 1983 MEETING The area is neither open or closed. It is in the process of being closed. Councilman Malcolm asked how long it would take if a person wanted to get a part A permit. Mrs. Reid': If we (County) started the process to obtain a Part A permit, if it took less than a year's time for the part A processing, I would be surprised. Councilwoman McCandliss: questioned the BKK current class designation. Mrs. Reid: The comments made by the consultant were correct. There is only one permitted Class I landfill in Southern California and that is the West Covina sight. The current status of the Imperial County site is under legal review, as I recall, because of some suits brought by the County because the private sector operator was accept i ng waste that was not within the permit. Whether or not that limited permit has been reinstated, I cannot tell you. Councilman Malcolm: asked regarding earthquake standards at BKK. Mrs. Reid: From my recollection of the tour, if there was any breakage occurring in the tanks, the containment tanks around the pond are sufficient to hold any material that the tanks can hold. Bud Pocklington 656 Glover Place Chula Vi sta Discussed the development plan on page 19 & 20, Section 500.25 public use. There are several paragraphs in there that indicate that public land - he asked how may acres Otay dump is. Mr. Krupp: There are within the project area 255 acres and the expansion area outside the project area to the east would make up approximately 500 acres in total. Mr. Pocklington: The 265 acres referred to as open space and parks is really 265 acres of Otay dump. Mr. Krupp: That is incorrect. The Otay dump is to the left of the vertical line on the map and the expansion goes further to the east out of the project area. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 48 - December 20, 1983 MEETING Mr. Pocklington: asked for a breakdown of how many acres would be parks and how may for open space, stating the way it is written all of the comments you hear about BKK and Sander - if they want to put it in there they can. All they have to do (if you follow page 20 lA) is to publish it once in the paper, post it in three public spaces and mail it to all persons within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property. BKK is 2600 feet to the nearest property. As you can see it snuck in there. We are talking about a legal document. Why can't we get a legal document that can get more print to it so that if the people living within two miles from there want to know about it that it is in the plan. I would like to comment specifically on the items in this plan. In 1971, the San Diego Gas and Electric Franchise was renegotiated and during that public meeting here in the City Council, a number of citizens got up and talked about the noise and air pollution problem, the structure of SDG&E. Why couldn't something be done about and why couldn't those comments be put into the document? Your City Attorney at that time said that the comments and concerns were not relevant to the issue and therefore none were incorporated into the comments. And we've been living with it ever since. I think the problem that we have here is that if we can't make some specific changes to the plan, where is the credibility? Who can the majority of people who are here rely on to insure that we don't have undesirable industry move into the area? If the Planning Commission, Redevelopment Agency and City Council cannot guarantee that then the wording should be changed. And I know that it's a problem. I believe that the Redevelopment could be a real progress in that area if it has the proper guidance, proper planning and as the Mayor of San Diego used to say "controlled growth". It could be successful and I think it could be helpful to the neighborhood. But you have to realize that those people are living around a dump out there. They feel they are sitting on a powder keg. They don't know what's going to be moved in there next. So, if you can't guarantee them wording, how do they get it? That's all. Councilman Scott: As far as I know, Chula Vista is the only City that does not have an indefinite franchise. The rest of them gave them a franchise forever. Councilman Malcolm: Council has had them (SDG&E) spend close to 3/4 of a million dollars in improving the air quality and noise reductions in the South Bay plant. We are on the right road. Mr. Litchie stated its taken a long time to get us on the right road. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 49 - December 20, 1983 MEETING Mr. Krupp: The residential area north of this area.. .you have to be confident that the development of the area has to be in conformance with your regulations (standards for development in your land use regulation). Two things should be noted: 1. The gentleman indicated that only mailing to property owners within 500 feet. That is only one of the noticing mechanisms that are required. There is also publishing in the newspaper, posting in three public places, and any other means the agency deems appropriate or necessary to inform people of a public use. If a County stated they wanted to do this in an area, you could say, fine but we want everyone noticed for the next ten miles around the area and that could be required within the Agency. 2. Section 500.33 (Development Regulations) and Section 500.34 (State and Local Laws) specifically requires that all development that is undertaken within the project area conform to all State and local laws. If you have an adopted general plan that general plan has to be complied with. If you have a zoning ordinance, the zoning ordinances have to be complied with. The performance standards within the zoning ordinance has to be complied with. All procedures in regard to building permits have to be complied with. I think I could personally guarantee that as long as the City has those documents adopted, there is control over the development of the area. Councilman Scott: The guarantee could only be given for that which is on the books as long as the Council complies with the State law or whatever law is applicable to that property. There is no absolute guarantee, there never can be. Larry McKenna 1347 Mt View Lane Chula Vista Larry McKenna spoke on behalf of the Citizens Action Network: I want to primarily invite the attention of the City Counci 1 and the Redevelopment Agency (wearing wh ichever hat you choose to put on) to prob 1 ems proposed to the Environmental Review Process and with the lack of specificity of the plan itself. First let me address the differences in the environmental review process. As you all know, this Agency and its staff has been on a fast track ever since this preliminary plan was adopted, JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 50 - December 20, 1983 MEETING without discussion, at a similar joint meeting of City Council and Redevelopment Age~cy on September 14. According to Paul Desrochers, nlne months of work was compressed into three months. And I would suggest to you that 'haste makes waste' and this is a classic example of how haste can make waste in a procedural manner. First of all, one of the irregularities that I would like to remind you of is that we were invited to make comment on the initial study that was done by Mr. Desrocher's department back in September (September 15). According to the notice that was in the paper, we had 30 days from September 18 to submit our comments. We spent probably about 75-100 man hours going through the initial studies and trying to pinpoint the environmental issues that we felt were not adequately addressed in the initial study. We submitted those concerns as an attachment to a letter dated November 17 to the Redevelopment Agency and much to our chagrin, those comments were not even taken into consideration and didn't even appear in the draft EIR which we would submit is in violation of Woodland Hills decision of the California Supreme Court. The second disturbing point about that submission was that the letter of October 17 was not distributed to the Agency network unt i 1 three weeks subsequent to its submission. We would submit to you that it is the Agency that is responsible for making the decisions and taking action on this matter, not the staff. The staff does not serve you well on this particular matter. Perhaps they are too involved in getting Bayfront plans greased through. We also would like to strongly criticize the performance rendered by the outside consultant that you brought in from the north to work up this Redevelopment Plan and the Environmental Impact Report. He's not from this area, he's not aware as was evident from this hearing tonight of the problems that we have in this area. We would much have preferred to have seen your staff work on this plan and work with us. I have had virtually no contact with Mr. Krupp, one on one, since this particular project was initiated, except during the public hearing process. What deficiencies are we concerned about in the Environmental Impact Report itself? First of all, by design itself, the EIR is general and vague in all respects. Mr. Krupp would have you believe that if you make your plan very general and vague that then it's okey to have a very general and vague EIR. I would submit to you that that's erroneous reasoning. He fails to adequately assess significant environmenta 1 issues in numerous areas that have been covered by other speakers and I won't belabor the points that were made. I would simply like to 1 i st the areas where significant environmental issues have been adequately addressed. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 51 - December 20, 1983 MEETING Risk of seismic disturbance, air pollution - particularly addressing existing sources of air pollution such as the toxic waste dumps and the BKK plant. Flood risk - in particular the downstream impact. I'd like to get an answer from this agency before you conclude your deliberation as to whether or not channelization is intended. If so, that causes all kinds of environmental problems, biological and other natura 1 resources located in the Otay riverbed. As far as the lack of sewage capacity - you did identify this as a particular environmental issue, but he fails to address how the issue is going to be resolved. I want to submit to you that one way of resolving the issue is to build into your plan restrictions on land use. For example, certain types of land uses such as warehouses are not going to put as much demand on sewer systems that may not even have any sewer facilities in warehouses. That might be an adequate mitigation measure that you would want to take into account. He has also failed to recognize and even discuss the impact of toxic waste mismanagement which have plagued this area for the past two decades. There are significant environmental liabilities which have been caused by that toxic waste management and the Counci 1 is well aware of those problems. We have varied within the project area probably 50-60 million gallons of toxic substance. The staff would have you believe (also the staff of the Water Resource Board) those substances are safe and sound in their present location because the area is underlined by clay which could prevent the leaching of toxic substance down into the ground water supply. I would refer you to your own staff's report of August 1983 Exh ibit D of that report, is a closure order from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego region, Order No. 80-06. In commenting on the geological data in this particular area they made reference to the existence of what is called the San Diego formation within project area. It notes that it genera lly contains County high cloride ground water. Occasionally, along this formation contact with Otay River stream gravels it contains fresh water. San Diego formation is moderately errodable. Remember now that this development that is conceived is going to risk of errosion and the formation is normally a problem only when it is has been disturbed by heavy equipment. Now if we are going to move bulldozers and other construction equipment into this area and develop it industrially, I would submit that environmental impact and other plans must take into account the ~roblems that construction and excavation activity cou d have with regard to disturbing those toxic wastes, and it doesn't take that into account. ---,---,-,--- JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 52 - December 20, 1983 MEETING I would also like to submit as a matter of public record a copy of this Preliminary Report on Hazardous Waste Materials in Chula Vista which also talks about the anticipated placement of another Class I toxic dump within this particular area. I don't know what the factual basis is for that statement in the report, but it is something the Environmental Impact Report must address and it fails to address. I would next like to share with the Agency my concern that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) fails to give an accurate assessment of the environmental setting with in the project area as required by the CEQA guidelines which went into effect in August 1983. Section 15125 requires that an EIR must include a description of the environment within the vicinity of the project as it exists before the commencement of the project from both the local and regional perspective. You can't look at this project area as an island, we've got to look at it in context. Where a proposed project is compared with an adopted plan, i.e., the General Plan, the analysis shall examine the existing physical conditions, as well as the potential future conditions discussed in plan - or which, I would submit should have been discussed in the plan. One of the suggested changes that should have been submitted was that the Agency in Section 500.48 of the plan expand the definition or the scope of what you deem to be incompatible uses with the project area. We would like you to particularly scrutinize that particular section which is on page 26 of our proposed changes. We would like you to prohibit as being incompatible with the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of property situated in nearby residential tracts the following uses: construction of new or continued use of existing toxic waste or hazardous material dumpsites; new or expansion of existing toxic waste transfer storage and or treatment facilities (no more BKK or at least no expansion of BKK ops or no similar BKK facilities within the project area); prohibit construction of new or expansion of existing refuse disposal or landfill site faci lities; prohibit construction of trash burning or trash-to-energy plants and facilities, i.e., the Sander type plant construction of new solid waste sewage disposal plants within the project area; allowing infectious waste processing and di sposa 1 faci 1 it ies such as the one that snuck in on us down on Main Street. We don't want any of those types of facilities within the project area. We would like to have you prohibit construction of new or existing rendering plants, such as the Omar rendering plant, and generally prohibit commerc i a 1 and industrial and industrial activities which involve proliferation of toxic substances and hazardous materials. .._"--, JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 53 - December 20, 1983 MEETING Mayor Cox stated for the record that Mr. McKenna had already spoken ten minutes. Mr. McKenna stated he wished he had equal time as the proponents of the plan but would try to speed up his comments: Mr. McKenna: I would like to suggest that Mr. Krupp's concept of what is required legally in terms of your finding that the Redevelopment Plan conforms with the General Plan. It just doesn't make sense from a practical standpoint. Neither Mr. Krupp, or your City Attorney could cite me any authorities for their position. I would submit to you that conformity does not mean congruity - rather it means consistency. And if you take the area that has been zoned general industrial and you say that certain types of genera 1 industrial uses are not compatible with a residential area that in Mr. Krupp's words encroach on the project area. Rather interesting term. That you could say that certain types of uses are not compatible. You could also say that in view of the fact that it should have been made known in this review process that only 1 i ght industrial uses should be allowed in the project area so as to ensure compatability with the residential area. Mr. Krupp has failed to really properly advise you of the project alternatives. Particularly, he's telling you this plan or no plan at this time. I would submit to you that he is not really being candid with you because we have given you 40 pages of proposed changes which would transform the plan that he has drafted into a more specific plan which would meet our most specific concerns. What are your responsibilities in this matter and what basically do we want? Our wants and needs are rather simple. All we want is clean air, clean water, abatement of noise pollution, proper management of toxic wastes, elimination and mitigation of environmental liabilities. As the promotor of this plan, Mr. Krupp is really asking the Agency to put on blinders and to look at the project area as an island. We submit that you must look at this project area in terms of the big picture. Keep in mind that local government has failed in the past to properly scrutinize the impact of environmentally significant projects that have gone into the area such as allowing BKK to go in with a Negative Declaration. We would submit to you that the City has also failed to force zoning performance standards within the project area. A good example is notwithstanding the complaints of Mr. Hall from the Planning Colllllission on November 9 concerning noise emitting from Hyspan. The City in the past 42 days has failed to positively respond to that noise complaint and deal effectively with it. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 54 - December 20, 1983 MEETING In summary, 1 et me urge you not to st i ck your heads in sand along with Mr. Krupp. We do not want you to ignore the problems that persist in that area in passing on this plan. We want you to recognize them and to act on them. How can you recognize them? By redefining blight to include the physical blight consisting of the environmental liabilities that we have identified. By considering project alternatives such as the more specific plan that we suggested. By considering additional mitigation measures which have been suggested to you this evening. We want you to balance the risk of uncontrolled developments against benefits of the type of plan that we have proposed for your consideration by the 40 some pages of submissions that we have presented to you. We don't feel that you should be in a position to make a decision on this matter this evening. There have been so many issues that have been raised that you need to simply mull over that, we would urge you to continue this hearing until some later date to properly evaluate the terms that we have expressed. We don't necessari ly want to see the project plan defeated. What we want to see is a more specific plan that protects our interests. We're tired of appeasement, we're tired of promises of remedial action down the line, we want you to give us the protection that we need now. Thank you. Councilman Malcolm: If we want to adopt a Redevelopment Agency on Otay Valley Road, we have to take action tonight. City Attorney Harron: The deadline is December 31 as this has to go through two readings. It is the effective date of adoption which would be December 27. Mr. Krupp: We also have requirements that after the second reading of the ordinance we have to file certain documents and record those documents. With the 30th being Friday, we basically have three days to record and complete the document. Mr. Krupp stated both the City Attorney and I have concluded that we need to have second reading of the ordinance on the 27th of December If you back off of that 5 legal working days, you would come up with today's date. There must be 5 days between the first and second reading). Mr. Desrochers: Regarding Mr. McKenna's comments regarding the proposed draft EIR, the draft was prepared before his comments were a va il ab 1 e. He did submit them to the Redevelopment Agency as you directed me, and we followed through and we developed his comments in the draft in the supplement. In the circulation of the draft, we included his comments in JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 55 - December 20, 1983 MEETING your direction. That was at the October mi dmonth meet ing of the Redevelopment Agency. Specifically, his letter of October 17 was included as part of the draft document and it is also in the comments of responses to the date of December 9th with regard to the EIR, so it was in two places. Those comments were reviewed by the State Clearing House as we 11 as any other persons that have reviewed the document. Mr. Krupp: There were some statements Mr. McKenna made that were in error. First, the EIR does not require to comply with the most recent amendment to CEQA which took effect on August 1, or 120 days thereafter. The 1 aw says that an EIR that has begun being prepared and circulated prior to that 120 day period can comply with the previous guidelines that the State requires you to follow. We are not required to follow the new guideline amendments. The second statement Mr. McKenna made referred to mine and the City Attorney's abil ity to discuss conformity of the Redevelopment Plan and the General Plan. It is true, that there is nothing' in the Redevelopment Law which defines what conformity is. What does conform mean? However, it is stated three different times in the law, that the Redevelopment Plan shall conform to the General Plan. For purposes of discussion, I picked up the dictionary that's on the secretary's desk out of your lobby and "conformed" means 'to give the same shape, outline or contour, bring into harmony or accord, to be similar or identical, obedient or compliant'. I think its fairly clear that I do not have my head in the sand. Conformity means conformity, it means that the land use of the General Plan of the redevelopment plan has to conform to the land use of the General Plan. If your intention is to allow a land use that is less intensive than the General Plan authorizes, then the means for doing that is for a General Plan amendment. It is not through the authority authorized by the Redevelopment Plan. I've also read Mr. McKenna's 20 some odd pages of comments and though I am sensitive to his concerns that he has raised and he made a statement that we have not met, we have met on several occasions outside the public hearing to discuss these things. And I have advised him that though I am sensitive to some of the statements, and though some of them may be very relevant to the broad overall goals and objectives of the plan, there is a fine thread that seems to fall through all of the changes and that is a circumvention of the legal requirements of the law. That is, to take the Redevelopment Plan and use that as the primary restricting document vs. the zoning ordinance in the General Plan _._-,--,- JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 56 - December 20, 1983 MEETING which you as a City Council have adopted. I would find it very hard pressed to recommend to you to do that in light of the property rights that the property owners have. I am not an attorney, so I always refer to my legal counsel for comment, and I think that if your Attorney would like to add some words, I think it would be appropriate. City Attorney Harron agreed stating: It would be wrong for us to try to amend the General Plan through the Redeve 1 opment Plan. They are two separate things. The Redevelopment Plan is required by law as being in conformance with the General Plan, and I think if we take any action that would change that, we would run the risk of invalidating the whole thing. Mr. McKenna: requested a continuance to December 22 in order to adequately review the material that was submitted at this heari ng. I would 1 ike this preliminary report on Hazardous Waste Materials in Chula Vista dated August 1983 to be entered into the record. Councilman Malcolm: As a point of legality, Mrs. Maxwell brought in a letter that she claimed had been submitted prior to the time and should have been read into the record. Mayor Cox stated this should be read into the record at this time. Letter addressed to the Mayor and Redevelopment Agenèy was read by the Deputy City Clerk. "Reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area and Plan, I believe that the report fails to meet the guidelines of the Air Quality Impact Assessments: General Development and Transportation Projects (issue date: May 4, 1983; revised: June 10, 1983) of the Air Resources Board because an air quality analysis of the project areas was not included. Since the project area includes known sources of hazardous or toxic pollutants (closed Class I Dump and Omar) must include an air quality analysis of hazardous air borne pollutants which addresses the types of po 11 utant, quantities emitted, ambient background levels and potential impact on pub 1 ic hea lth". Submitted by Irene H. Maxwell, dated November 29, 1983. Mayor Cox: We wi 11 now hear any statements or test imony from those present who officially represent a taxing jurisdiction and who wish to give testimony on the Otay Valley Road Development Plan or Final Environmental Impact Report. You have an opportunity to question staff through the Chair if you desire. Please identify yourself, the taxing jurisdiction you represent, and state if you have been sworn in. There were no comments from representing taxing agencies. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 57 - December 20, 1983 MEETING Mr. Yee: Mr. Krupp cited a legal case earlier that relates to the Environmental Impact Report. Can you tell me whether that's a California case and at what level that case might be. Mr. Krupp: The case is Atherton vs. Board of Superv i sors of Orange County, Califonrina August 27, 1983. It was a lower court ruling and then upheld by the Court of Appeals. Mayor Cox: If there is no further testimony or evidence to be received, the Chair will entertain a motion to close this hearing. MSUC (Cox/Moore) to declare the public hearing closed. Mayor Cox: The joint public hearing of the City Counci 1 and Redevelopment Agency is closed. The meeting recessed at 10:55 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Mayor Co'x asked Mr. Krupp if there was any correspondence received from any State or Federal or other responsible agencies. Mr. Krupp: We did go through the normal state clearing house review process which entails sending copies of the Draft Environmental Report to the State Clearing House. The State Clearing House then has the respons ibil ity to distribute those documents to various agencies that may be affected or may have technical or professional expertise to provide input relative to the EIR. All of those comments that we have received and as we indicated, there was a possibility of 8 total comments, have been placed in the EIR and have either been incorporated by reference in terms of the air quality guidelines, they have been incorporated into the document by reference in terms of the botanical names of the plants, they have been included in there by reference and specifically documented. In addition to that, I think its important to note that our respons ibil ity as a preparer of an environmental document is one of seeking out available data and taking that data on its face value. It's not one of questioning the legitimacy of that data nor is it one of questioning the legitimacy of an agency and the agency's comments to the draft environmental impact report. It's unfortunate that Mr. McKenna has interpreted some of the Agency's comments as not being technically accurate, but on the other hand, those are the agencies that are responsible for the particular areas of concern and our responsibility is to provide you with as much documentation as we can within a complete document that you can then review and determine whether there is or there is not a significant environmental effect. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 58 - December 20, 1983 MEETING Mayor Cox: Is the correspondence from the State and various agencies is a part of the EIR? Mr. Krupp: Yes, it's contained as a supplement to the EIR and if you will give me a moment, I will give you those agencies that have provided comments. The following agencies have provided comments: There is a Memorandum from the Department of Water Resources to the State; a Memorandum from the Department of Health Services to the State; a second letter from the Department of Health Services; a letter from the San Diego Association of Government, the office of Planning and Research which is the State Clearing House which has attached to it a letter from the Resources Agency; a letter from the Association of Colorado River Waterway Recreation Project which a private organization, letter from the City of San Diego, personal letter from Mr. Coler, Mr. Fink, all of Mr. McKenna's letters. Those are the only letters that we have received. During the review process on the Environmental Impact Report, if it was determined by any one of the agencies that reviewed the document that if the document was not adequate, that if the document did not provide adequate information, they would have advised us by letter and then we would have had to respond to that letter by providing analysis or providing response to the comment. As you can see, we have not received a significant amount of letters from an outside agency. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY IN SESSION The Redevelopment Agency is now in session. Chairman Cox stated the Agency in session and will now consider the Agency's Final and Supplemental Report to the City Council. A reso 1 ut ion has been prepared for consideration by the Agency. Will the staff please read the title of the Resolution. ' City Attorney Harron: It would be appropri ate to take that second resolution first before approving the Final EIR Report. I just noticed that we had done it in the wrong order. Mr. Desrochers: Staff has prepared a resolution that you may consider as a unanimous consent item that may be appropriate to consider before these other resolutions. If you have a copy of that and it's appropriate to consider the Unanimous Consent, I would 1 ike to have you look at it and if you want we can read that into the record. ,-,-----" ,----,-,------- JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 59 - December 20, 1983 MEETING This is a Memo from Mr. Desrocher via the City Memo and attached to the memo on the last page is the resolution. Agency Secretary Fulasz read the Unanimous Consent Item. UNANIMOUS CONSENT ITEM RESOLUTION 467 RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA STATING INTENT TO CONSIDER CERTAIN ITEMS RELATIVE TO THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (Community Development Director) WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista is considering a redevelopment project for the Otay Valley Road area of the City; and WHEREAS, the subject area is adjacent to residential neighborhoods; and, WHEREAS, certain uses exist in the subject area that are a concern to the City as a whole and particularly to the adjacent neighborhood due to their environmental sensitivity; and, WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Chula Vista to impose design, use, aesthetic, and environmental standards relative to the future development of the Otay Valley Road Project Area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Redevelopment Agency supports the following measures for the Otay Valley Road Redeveopment Project Area: 1. A design manual will be prepared for Planning Commission and Redevelopment Agency review and consideration. The design manual will provide standards for industrial park development including buffers, landscaping requirements, and design review of all new exterior developments costing in excess of $10,000. 2. Consideration will be given relative to the formation of a Project Area Committee to advise the Agency on policy matters. Said committee would be composed of project property owners, tenants of the project, 'a representative of the adjacent residential neighborhood, and a representative from the City's business community. 3. During the budget process, consideration will be given to the estab 1 i shment of an env ironmenta 1 action fund to assist in the review of existing hazards and clean-up actions. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it is the Redeve lopment Agency's goal in establishing the Otay Valley Road Project to provide for the orderly expansion of the City's economic base. It is the desire of the Agency to provide the framework to promote design and environmental qualities. This will be considered in the utilization of tax increment funds to assist in the provision of infrastructure rograms in order to achieve the stated goal without harming the residentia quality of the adjacent neighborhood. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 60 - December 20, 1983 MEETING Chairman Cox: This is the item that we will consider first. Is there any discussion of this particular resolution? RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MEMBER MOORE Councilwoman McCandliss: With the development of the Committee, will the purpose of the compos it ion of the committee be defined as we get into it a 1 ittle more. I'm concerned there is only one representative "a representative of the adjacent residential neighborhood" that speaks to project property owners, tenents of the project, and I'm just looking at the balance of the Committee. I have some questions about that. Mr. Derochers: The Project Area Committee, as discussed in the State law, is that if you have residential development, it requires that you have representatives - it's probably the only Conrnittee where a confl ict of interest is actually required. What we are attempting to do here is to provide you with the same type of framework because the project area committee, as I stated in my memo also, is a policy review board. It provides recommendations to the agency - so you can change that. What I would like to do is create a framework. I would like to be able to work with the members of the community and with our legal staff in giving you the appropriate type of resolution and formation to consider at the appropriate time. I am suggesting not only project representatives but the neighborhood and business community in general be represented on this committee. Councilwoman McCandliss: To provide that added flexibility, I would 1 ike to add an amendment that we say "composed of projects, property owners, tenants of the project and "representatives" (plural) of the adjacent resident neighborhood". The actual numbers can be determined at a later time. Simply amend and remove "representative" and include "representatives". AMENDED RESOLUTION SUBMITTED MS(McCandliss/Cox) to amend the resolution to read "representatives" (plural) of the adjacent resident neighborhood instead of "representative" (singular). City Attorney Harron: Responded to Councilman Moore's question of whether the document, because of the way it is worded gives the City latitude in what it wants to do regarding future changes stating it does. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 61 - December 20, 1983 MEETING Councilman Moore: I feel the document gives us flexibility in the way it is worded. Councilwoman McCandliss: I clearly want to state my intent that there will be a full representation from the area which can add that flexibility if it does not specify "a" representative. Mayor Cox: Asked if she wanted to do the same thing regarding "a representative from the business community". Councilwoman McCandliss: That would be fine. Councilman Scott: Counc i lwoman McCandliss had a good point and it should be IIthoroughlized" and made more than one. Mr. Desrochers: It's going to be a while before we realize any significant tax increments. I think the first year is under $15,000. Hopefully, we can get more seed money from other sources so that we can address it. I want the Redevelopment Agency, the Planning Commission and the members of the community that once this is declared, it's going to take a couple of years before we can really realize the funds that we hope can assist in the development of the area. Councilwoman McCandliss: The first few months will be spent working on the General Plan Amendment. Motion carried by unanimous conset. Mr. Krupp: Requested the Resolution (for the record) be identified by number. He stated he would like all the resolutions for the Council and Redevelopment Agency to be numbered for the record. Mr. Desrochers: I will get my Redevelopment Agency book to obtain the numbers. Mr. Krupp: We can proceed with the text reading while waiting for the numbers. Mayor Cox: Asked Mr. Krupp if he wi shed to have the Council/Agency consider the resolutions adopting certifying the Environmental Impact Report. Mayor Cox: The Agency, in session, wi 11 now consider the Final Environmental Impact Report on the Redevelopment Plan for the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project. A resolution has been prepared for consideration by the Agency. Will the staff please read the title of the resolution. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 62 - December 20, 1983 MEETING RESOLUTION 467 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA STATING INTENT TO CONSIDER CERTAIN ITEMS RELATIVE TO THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RESOLUTION OFFERED BY CHAIRMAN COX, the reading of the text was waived, by unanimous consent. Councilman Malcolm: After hearing all the discussion tonight, we all bel ieve and know that the citizens of Chula Vista have had irreversible environmental exposure due to several local agencies locating the only hazardous waste dump, the only infectious waste incinerator, SDG&E and almost exposing ourselves to a trash burning plant here in Chula Vista. I'm glad I haven't supported any of those. The problem tonight in the EIR is that on one hand, we have the legal staff saying that we change it. It might not be legally defensible or supportable and yet on the other side of the fence, it's very general in nature. Due to the Redevelopment Agency requiring owner participation agreements which I believe afford a tremendous amount of control over environmental and developmnenta 1 issues, I believe that I can support the EIR. It is my conviction and hope that each of my colleagues will give careful review to each and every project that will come before us especially addressing the issues as pointed out regarding air quality, traffic, drainage, etc. Councilman Scott: I don't think there is any problem with that at all. Not only will we do it, not only are we conscientious, not only was I was also against those projects mainly, but I think the State requires this and I think the document requires that we have those same concerns. As far as I am concerned, I wi 11 guarantee that we will do it. I have no problem at all. Chairman Cox: This has obviously been a long process but I wish to make one observation. This City Council as it's presently constituted, I don't think any of us were on the Counc i 1 at the time the Otay landfill was annexed to the City of Chula Vista and placed there, the Omar Class I dump, the Omar Rendering Plant, the Otay Dump. We can't get away from the BKK facility but hopefully we have taken some precautions that would allow us to review that type of facility if anything like that ever happens again. I think this whole process has been healthy. I don't know, if we , -- ---------'- JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 63 - December 20, 1983 MEETING hadn't begun this process and we began it a year ago August 1982, whether we would have had the type of community interest and reaction. Sometimes by being willing to stick your necks out a little bit and try to consciously and very honestly try to improve an area you certainly run the risk of having it chopped off and I hope this doesn't happen with this item tonight. I think the City Council is concerned with that area, I th i nk that the Redevelopment District (although I think some of you may take exception to the fact of whether this is the best way to approach it) I look at it as what is the alternative. Certainly, the City Council is interested in that area. The Redevelopment Agency is going to provide the mechanism or means where the City can afford to go in and see not only infrastructure improvements but, hopefully, some of the improvements that have been referred to such as park areas, buffer areas, make that area a very attractive and viable area not only economically but environmentally. I shudder to think what would happen if we chose to do nothing and allowed Otay'Mesa to develop as I am sure it will in the next few years and sit back some 15 or 20 years down the line and have the same type of problems on Otay Valley Road that I think currently are on Bonita Road, specifically in reference to traffic. I think that one of the reasons we have the problems on Bonita Road (not the only reason) but certainly one of them is the existence of Bonita Plaza and that was the decision the City Council had absolutely no control over and no input over and certainly we are suffering the consequences. I would hate to see us in a situation 5 to 10 years down the line where we would have a reaction as a result of some other governmental agency. By having this mechanism available we will be able to assure this infrastructure wi 11 be adequate to meet the needs of the community and will provide us an opportunity to sincerely address the environmental concerns that have been brought up here tonight. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 64 - December 20, 1983 MEETING Councilwoman McCandliss: The project that Mr. Malcolm mentioned - I think that we were all appa 11 ed when we found out what happened. I think that we have all tried to explain to the residents of the area what happened. I don't think any of us are really satisfied by it. We have addressed the County with the infectious material incinerator on Main, we've dealt with BKK, we've as you said put in protections. And when I read these environmental reports, I've read enough and I've seen enough Master EIR's to where I am convinced that many of the questions and concerns brought out in the material we have and the residents can and will be addressed in the more detailed focused EIR. I have one major concern - if we go ahead and approve the EIR tonight and the Redevelopment Plan and we don't incorporate some of these changes that the residents there wi 11 become tota lly frustrated with the City and drop out of the system. I can see this is a multi,multi year development plan in that area and we are going to need involvement of the residents. I'm looking at things here that I am sure will be included and brought up when we do the general plan amendment and the zoning down in that area. I have a tremendous respect for the amount of effort and technical background that went into this review. I haven't seen many groups present this kind of detailed review and professional review. I just hope that if it passes tonight you continue to stay involved because it's just one stage of many. The motion passed by unanimous consent. Councilman Malcolm recommended waiving any further reading and to vote. RESOLUTION 468 APPROVING THE AGENCY'S FINAL REPORT ON THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANS AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSMITTAL OF THE REPORT TO THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION OFFERED BY CHAIRMAN COX, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously. RESOLUTION 469 A RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADOPTING AND CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICED OF DETERMINATION ON THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA. RESOLUTION OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN MALCOLM the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously. ,,------, ..,- ------------------ JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 65 - December 20, 1983 MEETING Low- and Moderate-Income Housing finding of Benefit Chairman Cox: The Agency will now consider a resolution finding the use of taxes allocated from the Project Area for the purposes of improving and increasing the community's supply of low-and moderate- income housing outside the Project Area will be of benefit to the Project. A resolution has been prepared for consideration by the Agency. Wi 11 the staff please read the title of the resolution. RESOLUTION 470 A RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FINDING THAT THE USE OF TAXES ALLOCATED FROM THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING AND INCREASING THE COMMUNITY'S SUPPLY OF LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT AREA. RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MEMBER McCANDLISS, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously. Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan Approval Chairman Cox: The Agency will now consider a resolution approving the Final Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan and Project Area. A Resolution has been prepared for consideration by the Agency. Will the staff please read the title of the resolution. RESOLUTION 471 APPROVING THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PROJECT AREA: AND DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF THE AGENCY TO TRANSMIT REQUIRED REDEVELOPMENT DOCUMENTS TO THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL. RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MAYOR COX, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously. The Redevelopment Agency adjourned at 11:23 p.m. and reconvened as the City Council. jJ~d, ~ Transcript typed by: PATRICIA A. GUARDACOSTA Deputy City Clerk WPG:0381C PAG '--"',,-----------,-,-- -- --,,-----, -------,