Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1996/03/19 RDA MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, March 19, 1996 Council Chambe~ 8:03 p.m. Public S~rvices Building PRESENT: Agency/Council Members Alevy, Moot, Padilia, Rindone, and Chair/Mayor Horton ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Director/City Manager; !!n~e M. Boogasrd, Agency/City Atlomey; and Beverly A. Authdet, City Clark 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 20, 1996 (Worksession/Mee. ting); March 5, 1996 MSUC (Rindone/Horton) to approve the minutes of February 20, 1996 and March 5, 1996 as pns~ted. C.Q. NSENT CALENDAR None Submitted. IPt/BLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 3. ~ APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITYrllASH TRANSFER STATION (MRF/TTS) AT 1855 MAXWELL ROAD WITHIN THE (FRAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA-In 1995 Council determined it wanted to explore feasibility of developing a materials recovery facility/trash transfer station within the City in order to reduce trash tipping fees. Staff investigated 14 sites, nan'owed the list to 3, and selected the 1855 Maxwell Road property as the most desirable. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Community Development Director) A. RESOLUTION 1486 ADOPTING INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDYfNEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-95-28, ADOPTING TttE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, MAKING FINDINGS UNDER THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/DESIGN MANUAL ADDENDUM, AND APPROVING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMYf FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY/TRASH TRANSFER STATION AT 1855 MAXWELL ROAD W1TH]N THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA B. lIESOLUTION 1487 APPROVING PLANS AND ENTERING INTO AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH JOHN SEXTON SAND AND GRAVEL COMEANY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MATERIALS .RECOVER FACILITY/TRASH TRANSFER STATION AT 1855 MAXWELL ROAD WITHIN THE OTAY V.~LI.tY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA George Kxempl, Deputy City Manager, stated the public hearing was a culminltion of s~veral years on b~half of the Agency/Council to provide options for the City to the current solid waste authority monopoly of having to take the solid waste to the Otey Landfill. Three items were before Council for review. Staff suggested that the Agency/Council deal with Items A and B separately and then with Item C. Staff [ecommezIded approval of the environmental sad special land use permit with conditions. The recommendation regarding the flow agreement was for a 90 day enntinmmce; or an alternative recommendation was to approve the flow agreement with c~rtain "walk away" provisions tied to specific milestones. Minutes March 19, 1996 Page 2 Discgssion of Items 3a and 3b Michael Meatham, Conservation Coordinator, gave an overview of the proposed facility and capacity. He then gave a slide presentation of two existing facilities in Orange County. Ann Pedder Peace, Design Review Coordinator/Assislant Planner, reviewed the design review process, facility design, and landscaping. The Design Review Committee ,,n,,.irnously voted approval of the design solution presented to Council with six conditions, none of which were major. Martin Miller, Associate Planner, provided a brief history of the project and the land use issues. On 3118196, the Project Area Committee for the (:Ray Valley Road Redevelopmeat Area was scheduled to lunt the project. However, based on the City Attorney's edviee the item was not discussed because the quorum ennsistod of three members of the five and two of the marehers had a conflict of interest because they owned property within three hundretl feet of the site. Staff reeomnuraded the Agency/Council adopt the initial Environmental Study and the Negative Declaration for IS-95-28; adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progntm for IS-95-28; make findings under the Otay Valley Road Redevelopmeat Project Area Implementation Plan/Design Review Addendure; and approve a special land use permit for the development of the materials recovery facility/trash transfer station at 1855 Maxwell Road. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. Member Rindone questioned if there were any other cities in San Diego County that were planning transfer stations. Mr. Krempl responded that l~scondido had a permitted transfer station site that had not yet gone to construction. There was an existing transfer station in National City which was in the process of expanding and obtaining harther permits. Oceanside, Santee, and El Cajon had already left the County system and were utilizing Waste Management with a pod truck system to transfer their waste out of the County. The City of Carlshad had a transfer slation located within it'sjurisdietion, but on County owned property. There was a dispute between Caslsbad, the operator, and the County as to whether it would continue to function. Member Rindone stated it was his understanding that the City of El C. ajon was als6 considering a transfer slation. Mr. Kaempl clarified that the transfer station was located in National City, but National City was not pursuing its use. It was other jurisdictions that contracted with haulers that had access to that facility end were interested in using it. Mr. Meacham stated the transfer slation was actually located in the City of San Diego sod not in National City. The City of El Cajon's franchised hauler, Waste Management, had approached the City about a facility in El Cajon and they had identified a preferred site. He did not know if they had applied for a transfer station permit. Chair/Mayor Hotton slated one of the options available would be a limited MRF which would provide separation only. She requested clarification between the two types of facilities. Mr. Meacham replied that the City eurretttly generated 106,000 tons of solid waste per year and the proposed facility would allow the transfer of waste over long distances with a lower cost to the ratepayer. The materials recovery facility purpose would be to remove materials from the waste stream to ~__~ycle them or prepare them for other markets. Chair/Mayor Hotton questioned the variance betwee~ the two types of projects regarding costs. Mr. Krompl responded that staff did not have that infornmtion. Chair/Mayor Horton slated the staff report dealt with the improvements that would be required on Maxwell Road to bring the street up to standard end questioned who would pay for the improvements. Mr. Krempl replied that improvements were required on Maxwell Road in terms of right-of-way dedication and half street improvements including curb, gutter, and sidewalks. Those costs would be the responsibility of the applicant. Minutes March 19, 1996 Page 3. Chair/Mayor Hotton questioned how the proposed facility compared with the NCRRA project in San Marcos. Mr. Me·chum responded that the intent of the proposed facility would be to grvice the City's solid waste disposal needs. Out of 106,000 tons per year about 45,000 tons were commercial waste that was hauled by Laidlaw Waste Systems. Of that materinl, approximately 35-40% could be considered rich in cantboard and other fibers. Waste from apartments, condos, and femursets would not be sorted and would go directly into · transfer vehicle from the tipping floor. The other portion of the facility could service clean source separated mat~ials, i,e. recyclables collected from businesses and the City'a curbside recycling program. Member Rindone stated the report did not address the evaluation of the impact the transfer station would have on AB 9939 goals. He requested clarification from staff. Mr. Meacham replied that the State required that the City and all other jurisdictions divert 25% of its waste stream from landfills and incinerators by 1995. The City's current recycling rate was about 30-31%. The goal for 2000 was 50% of the waste stream. If the City did not comply they would be subject to · civil liability of up to $10,000/day, The proposed facility would operate under a State permit and, therefore, it would be required to divert 15% of all the material put through the facility. Member Padilia referred to the air quality mitigation of an air discharge to capture odors of the facility. He requested further information regarding technology and what was normally done regarding such a facility. Mr. Meacham responded that normally a negative air flow system was utilized so air did not escape through the doors. If the facility was properly operated there should not be any odors outside the facility. Ms. Pe~_ce stated the proposal contained mechanical ventilating equipment which would be located within the dog house structure on the rooL The equipment would be fully defined when the working drawings for the facility were completed which would be at the building portnit stage after licensing. Member Pedilla stated on the Negative Declaration check-list under Public Services, it indicated that there could be potential impacts on police and fire protection unless mitigation was incorporated. He felt there would be a potential for hazardous materials exposure and logistical concerns for the fire department. He questioned the description in the actual Declaration which stated that fire and police would not be significantly impacted. Mr. Miller responded that in Resolution 1486 there were five conditions of approval that required the applicant to comply with all the design standards that resulted from review by the Chula Vista Fire Department. Lynn Calvert-Hayes, representing the Chamber Group, stated the applicant had to prepare a Fire Mitig·tinn Contingency Plan and a Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan. It was not unusual and required by the State. Member Padilia stated staff's recommendation on Item 3c was to continue for 90 days. He questioned what impact the approval of Items 3a and 3b would have regarding the flow control agreement. Mr. Krempl stated staff viewed the land use approval as something that ran with the property and was a vital step to the ne, xt step, i.e. the State issuing their permit for the facility. The State needed Agency/Council action as a precedent to that. That process would take approximately six months. Ouee the State permit was issued, or sooner, · decision would have to be Innde as to whether or not to implement the flow agreement. If the flow agreement was not implemented, it was his opinion that the permit would still be valid end could be initi-_t__~_ at · futorc time if the City decided to proceed with construction at · later date. Member Padilia clarified that the Agency/Council would be taking action on Item 3a without a recommendation from the PrOject Afe~ Committee due to conflicts. It was his understanding that the PAC t~comn~ndation was the equivalent to a Planning Commission recommendation. Mr. Booguard responded that Member Padilia was correct. At the time of the PAC meeting it was his understanding that there was · request for a continuance on the entire item which would have allowed the PAC to meet with a properly qualified quorum end deal with the issue. The failure of having their recomdation was not critical to approval of Items 3a and 3b. Minutes March 19, 1996 Page 4 Member Alevy questioned if the operation would have a higher potential for fire than other industrial uses in the Mr. Mucham responded that the facility was unique in the sense that it was a trash trsasferlmaterials recovery facility that handled trash which was different than the other industrial uses in the area. All of the solid waste transported to the facility had to be removed flora the floor of the facility at the e~d of every opeamfing day. They also had to do load checks and provide notice to those bringing waste into the facility to minimize any hlzirdoult waste. If hn7~rdous waste was discovered they would have to contain it and get it off the facility in a si~eci~ed period of time. There was regulatory oversight by the State code enforcement agency. Member Alevy questioned if there was a danger of toxic fumes. Mr. Moacham raplied that be was not aware of any problems with the existing transfer facilities. Member Alevy referred to the Hca~_~h_old I-inzardous Waste Storage area of the report which stated hazardous materials had to be removed within 90 days. He questioned why it would take up to 90 days and if thet was normal operating procedures. Mr. Mucham stated that was the maximum time period. Normally it was held only until a load was developed so that it could be transported cost effectively. There was a household hazardous waste company less than 2 *h miles away from the proposed facility. Member Alevy referred to Item 1.3.2.6 regarding disposal of wastewater and questioned if there was a filtration system before it went to the sewer lines. Ms. Hayes responded that generally there was a cladtier within the building that clarified the water system that went into the sewer system. The requirement for such facilities kept anything from going into the sewer system that could be considered hazardous. Member Alevy noted the site was considerably elevated from the Otay Valley Road ares and questioned if there would be a problem with storm water run-off regarding the sewer system. Mr. Meacham replied that under the State permit the facility would not be allowed to have storm water or sewer run-off from the facility. Member Moot questioned what affect the transfer station would have on the current curbside residential recycling program in the City. Mr. Mucham stated that the cutbside recycling program transported 600,000 Wns/year of material for multi-single family homes about 16 miles one way to a materials recovery facility. The cost of transportation was significant so that the potential to reduce those costs existed if mete~als could be processed locally. In addition, it opened up the possibility that there were other materials, by nature of their volume, would fill up the truck faster. Member Moot questioned if residents would s~iJl continue to separate recyclab]es. Mr. Mucham responded that they Would continue to soft their recyclables. Mr. Boogaard requested that the Agency/Council hear the enrntm~nts on Item 3c before taking action on Items 3a and 3c. C. RESOLUTION 1823S AND RESOLUTION 1489 APPROVING SOLID WA~-rE FLOW CONTROL ACREEMENY WITH JOBN SEXTON SAND AND CRAVEL COMPANY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TRANSFER STATION AND MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILrFY AT 1855 MAXWELL ROAD [This item does not require a public hearing but is related] (Deputy City Manager Krempl) · Dan Higgins, General Manager, Laidlaw Waste Systems, 881 Energy Way, Chula Vista, CA, supported the staff recommendation of a 90 day continuance of Item 3c pending furlher information about the County system and Minutes Merch 19. 199~ Page 5 evaluation of Laidlaw's detachable service body proposal. Laidlaw had demonstrated a prototype of the vehicle to staff in February. After the demonstration, staff requested that Laidlaw present numerous cost proposals for implementing the system in Chula Vista. They were in the process of responding to that request and were adhering to the schedule as outlined by staff. The Council had previously directed staff to pursue all nvallable options for disposal that could result in user cost savings and staff had identified that Laidlaw's detechable service body may be a cost effective disposal option that could result in lower disposal fees for the users, The detachable st~vice body could be applied to both residential and commercial customers. The system was designed to make use of local or long haul disposal options that would provide the lowest cost to the ratepayers without significant capital outlays. Their c~t reW~ included the replacement of each of their current route vehicles, theefore, the capital investment was mlnimi~,i~d to the ratepayer and was significantly less than the $10 million r~luired for a mmsfer station. The system would provide the City with long term disposal security, could be used at the County landfill if the County was charging the lowest rate, or could be used to provide the City leverage to negotiate with the County if the County was not the lowest rate, It could also be used with an alternate low cost disposal site if the City decided to leave the County system. The transfer station was not a necessity for the City to meet its AB 939 goals. Due to partnerships with the City, citizens, and Laidlaw, over 31% of the waste sWeam had been divetied from the landfill in 1995. City staff and Laidlaw continued to expand the recycling programs to meet the AB 939 goals, The Agency/Council decision would affect waste collection and disposal costs for the next 20 years. Therefore, it was imperative the Agency/Council evaluate all the alternatives before making a commitment. Member Rindone questioned the cost of operation of a trash truck per mile. Mr. Higgins responded that they looked at the time cost versus the cost per mile. He would estimate that it would be more tl~,~ $1.00 per mile. He felt $1.00 per mile could be unrealistic. Member Rindone questioned if the City could meet the AB 93,9 goals by 2000 without a change in the current system. Mr. Figgins replied that changes were planned for the current system. They would be adding mixed paper and cardboard to the residential curbside program. Laidlaw was also actively expanding the commercial recycling program which was not a franchised contract service. Member Rindone questioned if the 50% goal by 2000 was realistic. Mr. Higgins felt the goal could be reached and that there were other options that were less costly. Member Rindone questioned how many trucks were operated for the franchise in the City how long it would take to covert all the trucks to the pod system. Mr. Higgins responded that there were fourteen trucks and he felt the vehicle could be in place in six months. They would also be submitting information to staff regarding the replacement of vehicles over a 2-4 year period.. Member Rindone questioned what the typical amortization period was for a trash truck. Mr. Higgins responded that it was 8-10 years depending on the type of the vehicle. Member Moot questioned if the consumer would have to play a ~re active role in separating recyclables in order to reach AB 939 requirements. Mr. Higgins stated they were working on adding mixed paper and cardboard. A lot of meyeling opportunities were o~ the commercial side. Llidlaw had hone netire in working with generators to identify opportunities for businesses to reduce their wiste costs. · Ira Cohen, 1815 South Wolf Road, Hillside, Illinois, President of John Sexton Sand & Gravel, reminded Council that they were under contract with the City to provide the service to site and permit the f~cility. He felt moving forward on Items 3a and 3b was consistent with the contract and the City's best interests. Regarding Item 3c, they were concerned with on-going delays. It had been more than two years and they wanted to get on with the project. If a continuation was considered they requested that it be less than 90 days. Sexton and their business partner, Mmutes March 19, 1996 Page 6 AMCOR Paper, were concerned with the delays. ~etting a defined time would be beneficial to both Sexton and AMCOR. Member Moot questioned if AMCOR was prepared tonmake a decision in the next 90 days as to whether they would site and build a facility in Chula Visa. Mr. Cohen responded that he could not speak for AMCOR in that regard. He had been consistently told by AMCOR that it was not a question of where, they had decided that they would build a facility in Chula Vista, it was only a question of when. He was not an~ that they would give a solid commi~t that thoy would build because that was subject to other planning. He could not answer for AMCOR, but they had givan him positive indications that they were going to commit to the City. Member Rindone stated that anything that could be addreased regarding that commitment would be viewed as a positive indication. Mr. Bcogaard requested that the public hearing remain open until the end of Agency/Council deliberations. Member Padilia stated as long as it was clear that action regarding the impacts of Itsms 3a and 3b on the flow control agreement would not limit the flexibility of the City, he was prepared to move forward. He was inclined to support the staff recommendation for a continuance on flow control. * * * Council met in Closed ~ssion at 9:20 p.m. and reconvened at 10:25 p.m. * * * · Donald R. Palumbo, 4738 Cafe Avertida, Bouita, CA, rapresenting Gold Coast Engineering, Inc., stated he wanted to speak on Items 3a and 3b as he was an adjoining property owner. He submitted a protest letlet to the Agency/Council with a petition signed by property owners that were in opposition to the facility. He was also a member of the Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee and had not been able to participate at that meeting due to the ownership of property near the proposed site. He had been told that the item would be continued so others that were opposed to the project were not in attendance. He had also been told that the PAC would have another opportunity to hear the item. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. MS (ttorton/Padilia) to continue Items 3a, 3b, and 3c for a 30 day period. Member Rindone requested that the item be bifurcated. VOTE ON MOTION TO CONTINUE ITEM 3A AND 3B FOR 30 DAYS: failed 2-3 with Alevy, Moot, and Rindone opposed. MSC (Rindoue/Alevy) to approve the staff recommendation and approve Resolutions 1486 and 1487, approved 4-1 with Horton opposed. VOTE ON MOTION TO CONTINUE rrle;M 3C FOR A 30 DAY PERIOD: passed unanimously. MSUC (Moot/Alevy) to form n Cormell suhcmnmlttoe to meet with all the affected parties so wh~t th~ mat/~ returned to the Agency/Council in ~0 days tlu~re could be final dostare to tissue. Mayor Horton stated that the Council subcommittee would include the Mayor and Councilmember Rindone. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None Minutes March 19, 1996 Page 7 ACTION ITEMS 4. ]i.ESOLUTION 1490 AUTHORIZING THE TREASURER TO DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF REFUNDING THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1987 SERIES B CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION; WAIVING THE CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS, AND APPOINTING PROJECT FINANCE ASSOCIATES (P.F.A.) AS FINANCIAL ADVISOR TO ASSIST IN THIS EFFORT; AND, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT-In 1987 the Agency issues Certificates of Participation in the amount of $6.6 million. It appears the City/Agency could achieve significant savings on annual debt service payments as the result of a refunding under current low interest rate nmrket conditions. Staff recommends approval of the resolution+ (Finance Director/Treasurer) RESOLUTION 14~ OFFIfltED BY CHAIR HORTON, reading of the text was waived. Member Rindone questioned if Northcross had previously worked for the City. Robert Powell, Director of Finance, responded that Mr. Northcross was the financial advisor on the assessment district refunding and the TAB refunding for the Bayfront. He was very familiar with the City and had done the necessary research to determine the feasibility of the ref~ndings which would cut the time involved in the transaction. Member Rindone questioned if it was a competitive sale and if the underwriter would be selected solely by low bid, Mr. Powell stated that was correct. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR Items pulled: none. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order. OTHER BUSINESS 5. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) - None 6. CHAIR'S/MAYOR'S REPORT(S) - None 7. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT AT 10:35 P.M. to the Regular Redevelopmerit--Agency Meeting on April 16, 1996 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, by: Vicki C. soderquist, CM~ty City Clerk