Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Packet 1996/03/26 Notice is hereby given that the Chairman of the Redevelopment Agency/Mayor of the City of Chula Vista has called and will convene a joint special meeting of the Redevelopment Agency/City Council on March 26, 1996 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the regular City Council meeting, in Council Chambers, located in the Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chuta Vista, California to consider, deliberate and act upon the following: s~~an .., Tuesday, March 26, 1996 Council Chambers ~ 6:00 p.m. Public Services Building ~ (immediately following the City Council meeting) - ( ) "'.s:. ~( )~::" Joint SDeciai Meeting of the RedeveloDment Agencv/Citv Council _.s:.'O'" 0 "',,'0- of the CitY of Chula Vista '1ôc:"~ro .s:.'-", o:I: ~t;~ro~ CALL TO ORDER !~H;~' I. ROLL CALL: Agency Members Alevy -' Moot -' Padilla -' È:'o~' ;.' C: Rindone -' and Chair Horton - ~ ;¿¿,' :':., ¡ ~ ~ .~; ':~ ¿; 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 19,1996 11 b<>'-'~! ( ) '0 ~~ .. (¡; ~ 5 ,'" c<) PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ~ £. r:',~ ,:j ..,<oF-,,", l- E 0':3 '" The following items have been adverlised and/or posted as public hearings as required by ww. If you wislFio ( ) u - a. Q speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak infavor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. 3. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1491 and COUNCIL RESOLUTION 18245 APPROVING THE EXEMPTION/WAIVER OF THE SEWER CAPACITY CHARGE RELATED TO THE VETERANS HOME PROJECT AT THE HOSPITAL SCHOOL SITE LOCATION--The Governor's Commission on a Southern California Veterans Home has recommended Chula Vista as the priority site for the development of the next Veterans Home. Staff has been negotiating with the State to consider a deferral of the sewer capacity fee, but the State has rejected the proposal and is requesting the fee be waived in order for the City to maintain its priority status. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Community Development Director) Agenda -2- March 26, 1996 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is an opportunity for the general public to address the Redevelopment Agency on any subject matter within the Agency's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Council on such a subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency or City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up action. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker. OTHER BUSINESS 4. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) 5. CHAIR'S/MAYOR'S REPORTtS) . Otay Valley Road Name Change 6. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn to (a closed sessions and thence to) the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on April 16, 1996 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. CLOSED SESSION Unless Agency Counsel, the Executive Director, or the Redevelopment Agency states otherwise at this time, the Agency will discuss and deliberate on the following item(s) of business which are permitted by law to be the subject of a closed session discussion, and which the Agency is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the interests of the City. The Agency is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports offi11gJ action taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed sessions, the videotaping will be terminated at this point in order to save costs so that the Agency's return from closed session, reports of fi11gJ action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report of final action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the Office of the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency and the City Clerk's Office. 7. SALE AND DISPOSITION OF REAL PROPERTY - Pursuant to Government Code Sectiou 54956.8 . Property: School District property next to Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center proposed for Veterans Home project. Negotiating Parties: John D. Goss and State Department of Veterans Affairs. Under Negotiations: Price and Terms. Agenda -3- March 26, 1996 8. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Give Iustructions to Negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 . Proposed sale of property: 753 Broadway, Chula Vista, CA 91910 Negotiating Party: John D. Goss/Chris Salomone on behalf of the City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency and J. P. Gabille, Vice President, Corporate Development, The Loewen Group International, Inc. Under Negotiations: Price and Terms. 9. REPORT OF ACTIONtS) TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION ...... COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), request individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency for specific information at 619.691.5047 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at 619.585.5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. [C ,\ WP51 IAGENCYIAGENDAS\O3-26-96.AGD] 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 Services Buildin CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Agency/Council Members Alevy, Moot, Padilla, Rindone, and Chair/May r Horton ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Director/City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency/Ci Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 20, 1996 (Worksession/Meeting); March 5, 1996 MSUC (Rindone/Horton) to approve tbe minutes of February 20, 1996 and Marcb 5, 19% as presented. CONSENT CALENDAR None Submitted. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 3. PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITYITRASH TRANSFER STATION (MRFITTS) AT 1855 MAXWEL ROAD WITHIN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA--In 1995 Coun il determined it wanted to explore feasibility of developing a materials recovery facility/trash transfer station with n the City in order to reduce trash tipping fees. Staff investigated 14 sites, narrowed the list to 3, and selected e 1855 Maxwell Road property as the most desirable. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Communi y Development Director) A. RESOLUTION 1486 ADOPTING INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDYINEGATIVE DECLARATI IS-95-28, ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, MAKIN FINDINGS UNDER THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT A IMPLEMENTATION PLANiDESIGN MANUAL ADDENDUM, AND APPROVING A SPECIAL LAND U PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITYITRASH TRANS STATION AT 1855 MAXWELL ROAD WITHIN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPME PROJECT AREA B. RESOLUTION 1487 APPROVING PLANS AND ENTERING INTO AN OWNER PARTICIPATI AGREEMENT WITH JOHN SEXTON SAND AND GRAVEL COMPANY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT F A MATERIALS RECOVER FACILITYITRASH TRANSFER STATION AT 1855 MAXWELL RO WITHIN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA George Krempl, Deputy City Manager, stated the public hearing was a culmination of several years on behalf of the Agency/Council to provide options for the City to the current solid waste authority monopoly of having to e the solid waste to the Otay Landfill. Three items were before Council for review. Staff suggested that e Agency/Council deal with Items A and B separately and then with Item C. Staff recommended approval of e environmental and special land use permit with conditions. The recommendation regarding the flow agreement as for a 90 day continuance; or an alternative recommendation was to approve the flow agreement with certain .w Ik away" provisions tied to specific milestones. «- / Minutes March 19, 1996 Page 2 Discussion of Items 3a and 3b Michael Meacham, 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/Assistant Planner, reviewed the design review process, facility design, and landscaping. The Design Review Committee unanimously 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 3/18/96, the Project Area Committee for the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Area was scheduled to hear the project. However, based on the City Attorney's advice the item was not discussed because the quorum consisted of three members of the five and two of the members had a conflict of interest because they owned property within three hundred feet of the site. Staff recommended the Agency/Council adopt the initial Environmental Study and the Negative Declaration for IS-95-28; adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for IS-95-28; make findings under the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan/Design Review Addendum; 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 Escondida 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 further permits. Oceanside, Santee, and EI 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 Carlsbad had a transfer station located within it's jurisdiction, but on County owned property. There was a dispute between Carlsbad, 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 Cajon was also considering a transfer station. Mr. Krempl 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 and were interested in using it. Mr. Meacham stated the transfer station was actually located in the City of San Diego and not in National City. The City of EI Cajon's franchised hauler, Waste Management, bad 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 Horton stated 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 currently 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 recycle them or prepare them for other markets. Chair/Mayor Horton questioned the variance between the two types of projects regarding costs. Mr. Krempl responded that staff did not have that information. Chair/Mayor Horton stated the staff report dealt with the improvements that would be required on Maxwell Road to bring the street up to standard and 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. o? -:L Minute March 19, 199 Page Chair/Mayor Horton questioned how the proposed facility compared with the NCRRA project in San Marcos. Mr. Meacham responded that the intent of the proposed facility would be to service the City's solid waste dispo I needs. Out of 106,000 tons per year about 45,000 tons were commercial waste that was hauled by Laidlaw Was Systems. Of that material, approximately 35-40% could be considered rich in cardboard and other fibers. Was from apartments, condos, and restaurants would not be sorted and would go directly into a transfer vehicle fro the tipping floor. The other portion of the facility could service clean source separated materials, i.e. recyclabl s collected from businesses and the City's curbside recycling program. Member Rindone stated the report did not address the evaluation of the impact the transfer station would have n 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 strea from landfills and incinerators by 1995. The City's current recycling rate was about 30-31 %. The goal for 2 was 50% of the waste stream. If the City did not comply they would be subject to a civil liability of up $lO,OOO/day. The proposed facility would operate under a State permit and, therefore, it would be required divert 15% of all the material put through the facility. Member Padilla referred to the air quality mitigation of an air discharge to capture odors of the facility. 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 doors. If the facility was properly operated there should not be any odors outside the facility. Ms. Peace stated the proposal contained mechanical ventilating equipment which would be located within the d g house structure on the roof. The equipment would be fully defined when the working drawings for the facility we e completed which would be at the building permit stage after licensing. Member Padilla stated on the Negative Declaration check-list under Public Services, it indicated that there cou d 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 t e 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 0 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 Mitigati n Contingency Plan and a Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan. It was not unusual and required by the State. Member Padilla stated staff's recommendation on Item 3c was to continue for 90 days. He questioned what impa t 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 st p to the next 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. Once the State permit was issued, or soon , a decision would have to be made as to whether or not to implement the flow agreement. If the flow agreeme t was not implemented, it was his opinion that the permit would still be valid and could be initiated at a future ti e if the City decided to proceed with construction at a later date. Member Padilla clarified that the Agency/Council would be taking action on Item 3a without a recommendati n from the Project Area Committee due to conflicts. It was his understanding that the PAC recommendation was t e equivalent to a Planning Commission recommendation. Mr. Boogaard responded that Member Padilla was correct. At the time of the PAC meeting it was s understanding that there was a request for a continuance on the entire item which would have allowed the PAC a meet with a properly qualified quorum and deal with the issue. The failure of having their recommendation w not critical to approval of Items 3a and 3b. c2-3 Minutes March 19, 1996 Page 4 Member AIevy questioned if the operation would have a higher potential for fire than other industrial uses in the area. Mr. Meacbam responded that the facility was unique in the sense that it was a trash transfer/materials 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 bad to be removed from the floor of the facility at the end of every operating day. They also bad to do load checks and provide notice to those bringing waste into the facility to minimize any hazardous waste. If hazardous waste was discovered they would have to contain it and get it off the facility in a specified 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. Meacham replied that he was not aware of any problems with the existing transfer facilities. Member Alevy referred to the Household Hazardous 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 that was normal operating procedures. Mr. Meacham 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 clarifier 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 he considered hazardous. Member Alevy noted the site was considerably elevated from the Otay Valley Road area 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 curhside residential recycling program in the City. Mr. Meacham stated that the curbside recycling program transported 600,000 tons/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 materials 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 still continue to separate recyclables. Mr. Meacham responded that they would continue to sort their recyclables. Mr. Boogaard requested that the Agency/Council hear the comments on Item 3c before taking action on Items 3a and 3c. C. RESOLUTION 18235 AND RESOLUTION 1489 APPROVING SOLID WASTE FLOW CONTROL AGREEMENT WITH JOHN SEXTON SAND AND GRAVEL COMPANY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TRANSFER STATION AND MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY 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 further information about the County system and C:(-f- Minuts March 19, 19 6 Page 5 evaluation of Laidlaw's detachable service body proposal. Laidlaw had demonstrated a prototype of the vehicle a staff in February. After the demonstration, staff requested that Laidlaw present numerous cost proposals ~ r implementing the system in Cbula Vista. They were in the process of responding to that request and were adhe' g to the schedule as outlined by staff. The Council had previously directed staff to pursue all available options ~ r disposal that could result in user cost savings and staff had identified that Laidlaw's detachable service body y be a cost effective disposal option that could result in lower disposal fees for the users. The detachahle service y could be applied to both residential and commercial customers. The system was designed to make use of local r long haul disposal options that would provide the lowest cost to the ratepayers without significant capital outlay. Their current rates included the replacement of each of their current route vehicles, therefore, the capital investm t was minimized to the ratepayer and was significantly less than the $10 million required for a transfer station. e system would provide the City with long term disposal security, could be used at the County landfill if the Coun y was charging the lowest rate, or could be used to provide the City leverage to negotiate with the County if t e County was not the lowest rate. It could also be used with an alternate low cost disposal site if the City decid to leave the County system. The transfer station was not a necessity for the City to meet its AB 939 goals. D e to partnerships with the City, citizens, and Laidlaw, over 31 % of the waste stream had been diverted from e landfill in 1995. City staff and Laidlaw continued to expand the recycling programs to meet the AB 939 goal. The Agency/Council decision would affect waste collection and disposal costs for the next 20 years. Therefor, 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 wou d be more than $1.00 per mile. He felt $1.00 per mile could be unrealistic. Member Rindone questioned if the City could meet the AB 939 goals by 2000 without a change in the curro t system. Mr. Higgins replied that changes were planned for the current system. They would be adding mixed paper d cardboard to the residential curbside program. Laidlaw was also actively expanding the commercial recycli g 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 e 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. Th y would also be submitting infonnation 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 playa more active role in separating recyclables in ord r to reach AB 939 requirements. Mr. Higgins stated they were working on adding mixed paper and cardboard. A lot of recycling opportunities we e on the commercial side. Laidlaw had bene active in working with generators to identify opportunities for business s to reduce their waste costs. . Ira Cohen, 1815 South Wolf Road, Hillside, Illinois, President of John Sexton Sand & Gravel, reminded Coun il that they were under contract with the City to provide the service to site and permit the facility. He felt mov' g forward on Items 3& and 3b was consistent with the contract and the City's best interests. Regarding Item 3c, th y were concerned with on-going delays. It had been more than two years and they wanted to get on with the proj t. If a continuation was considered they requested that it be less than 90 days. Sexton and their business partne , c{ -..5 - Minutes March 19, 1996 Page 6 AMCOR Paper, were concerned with the delays. Getting a defined time would be beneficial to both Sexton and AMCOR. Member Moot questioned if AMCOR was prepared to make a decision in the next 90 days as to whether they would site and build a facility in Chula Vista. 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 sure that they would give a solid commitment that they would build because that was subject to other planning. He could not answer for AMCOR, but they had given him positive indications that they were going to commit to the City. Member Rindone stated that anything that could be addressed regarding that commitment would be viewed as a positive indication. Mr. Boogaard requested that the public hearing remain open until the end of Agency/Council deliberations. Member Padilla stated as long as it was clear that action regarding the impacts of Items 3a and 3b on the flow control agreement would not limit the flexibility of the City, he was prepared to move folWard. He was inclined to support the staff recommendation for a continuance on flow control. * * * Council met in Closed Session at 9:20 p.m. and reconvened at 10:25 p.m. . * * * Donald R. Palumbo, 4738 Cafe Avenida, Bonita, CA, representing 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 letter 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 (Horton/ Padilla) 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 (Rindone/Alevy) to approve the staffrecmnmendation and approve Resolutions 1486 and 1487, approved 4-1 with Horton opposed. VOTE ON MOTION TO CONTINUE ITEM 3C FOR A 30 DAY PERIOD: passed unanimously. MSUC (Moot/ Alevy) to fonn a Council subcommittee to meet with all the affected parties so when the matter returned to the Agency/Council in 30 days there could he final closure to the issue. Mayor Horton stated that the Council subcommittee would include the Mayor and Councilmember Rindone. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None ;(- ~ ACTION ITEMS 4. RESOLUTION 1490 AUTHORIZING THE TREASURER TO DETERMINE THE FEASmILITY REFUNDING THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1987 SERIES CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION; WAIVING THE CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS, APPOINTING PROJECT FINANCE ASSOCIATES (P.F.A.) AS FINANCIAL ADVISOR TO ASSIST THIS EFFORT; AND, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT--In 1987 the Agen y issues Certificates of Participation in the amount of $6.6 million. It appears the City/Agency could achie e significant savings on annual debt service payments as the result of a refunding under current low interest ra market conditions. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Finance Director/Treasurer) RESOLUTION 1490 OFFERED 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 assessme t district refunding and the TAB refunding for the Bayfront. He was very familiar with the City and had done t e necessary research to determine the feasibility of the refundings which would cut the time involved in t e transaction. Member Rindone questioned if it was a competitive sale and if the underwriter would be selected solely by low bi . 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 REPORTlS) - None 6. CHAIR'SIMAYOR'S REPORTlS) - None 7. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 10:35 P.M. to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on April 16, 1996 at 6:00 p. ., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. by: ~-7 - JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item~ Meeting Date 03-26-96 PUBLIC HEARING: Pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 3.45, Sections 3.45.010, regarding waiver/exemption of sewer capacity charge for proposed Veterans Home Project on Medical Center Drive ITEM TITLE: CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION If:¿ +5 ¡if c¡ / AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXEMPTION/WAIVER OF THE SEWER CAPACITY CHARGE RELATED TO THE VETERANS HOME PROJECT AT THE HOSPITAL SCHOOL SITE LOCATION. SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director C 7, REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes- No..JL1 Council Referral No. - BACKGROUND: On October 25, 1994 the Chula Vista City Council conceptually approved the donation to the State of 20 acres of land currently owned by the Sweetwater Union High School District and the exemption of the majority of development fees, which did not include the sewer capacity fee, in support of the Veterans Home project. On October 27, 1994 the Governor's Task Force on a Southern California Veterans Home voted in favor of recommending the Medical Center Drive site in Chula Vista as the location for the development of the next Veterans Home facility ahead of all other proposals in Southern California. Staff has been negotiating with the state to consider a deferral of the sewer capacity fee, but the state has rejected such proposal and has requested this fee be waived in order for the City to maintain its priority status for the next Veterans Home. RECOMMENDATION: That the City adopt the proposed Resolution waiving/exempting the sewer capacity charge for the proposed Veterans Home. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The City's Housing Advisory Commission and the Veterans Advisory Commission support the development of the Veterans Home facility. DISCUSSION: This report will discuss the following: 1) The background of the Veterans Home Proposal; 2) The status of the proposal; 3) The benefits of the - Item j Page 2 Meeting Date 03-26-96 proposed project; 4) The sewer capacity charge; and, 5) The rationale for waiving the sewer capacity charge. Backaround of proposal Considering that approximately two-thirds of California's veterans reside in Southern California, the need for a Veterans Home is well established. Currently, the Veterans Home located in Yountville, in Napa County, is the only Veterans Home in operation in California. In October, 1991, Governor Wilson signed into law AB 514 which created a 12 member commission to advise the Governor and legislature on establishing a Veterans Home in Southern California which includes the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura. On October 25, 1994 the City conceptually approved the donation of land for the building of the Veterans Home facility at the Hospital School Site location provided that the site was selected for the development of the facility. It also recognized the nature of the facility and approved the relief from the majority of development fees which did not include the sewer capacity fees because no exemptions to public agencies or private entities have been granted from the imposition of the fee since its establishment in 1985. On October 26, 1994 the City submitted a proposal to the Governor's Commission on a Southern California Veterans home to consider Chula Vista as the next Veterans Home Site. The proposal was accepted and the Commission voted in favor of recommending Chula Vista as the priority location for the next Veterans Home project. The site is to accommodate the development of a 400 bed veterans facility to provide independent living, assisted living, and skilled nursing level of care. It has been estimated that facility will cost $32 million from state and federal sources to build and it is anticipated that approximately 300 jobs will be created at the location. Status of Veteran Home Project In January 1996 Governor Wilson approved AB 940 which authorized $1,680,000 for funding predevelopment studies and architectural plans for the Chula Vista and Lancaster sites. The studies and plans are currently underway and the information gathered will be used by the state to prepare an application for federal funds to build the facilities. Item ,j Page 3 Meeting Date 03-26-96 Legislation has been introduced this session to appropriate the necessary funds to build several southern California Veterans Homes, including the Chula Vista Home. Both measures, Assembly Bill 2015 (Knight) and Senate Bill 1382 (Peace) contain language that states that the Chula Visa and Lancaster sites be built "in the order in which they are prepared, ready for construction, and have satisfied the necessary criteria, as determined by the department." However, the SB 1382 provision lists one further criteria stating that the homes must also be "in compliance which the recommendations of the Governor's Commission on a Southern California Veterans home", which currently recommends Chula Vista as the next site. AB 2015 states that these two sites be built "simultaneously, except in the case where federal matching funds are available for only one site", and then in which order they are ready for construction. Over the past six months the competition to be the next project has intensified due to the uncertainty over future funds. The City of Lancaster and the City of Ventura have increased their investment proposals in an effort to be selected ahead of Chula Vista. Project Benefits The development of a Veterans Home will provide the following significant economic and social benefits to Chula Vista; 8 A $30 million construction project which will generate employment opportunities for construction trades for approximately one year. 8 The creation of approximately 250 new permanent jobs ranging from entry level to professional levels. 8 An annual payroll estimated at 8 million dollars which will be a boost to the local economy. 8 An economic stimulus by establishing a demand for services and increasing number of visitors to the City in need of hotels and other accommodations. 8 Regional share housing credit for the City. 8 Social benefit and demonstrated City commitment in meeting Veterans needs. Item 3 Page 4 Meeting Date 03-26-96 Sewer Capacity Fee On September 5, 1995 City Council directed staff to negotiate the deferral of the sewer capacity fee as an alternative to a waiver since no exemption/waiver has been granted from the imposition of the fee since its establishment in April 1985. The City ordinarily collects the fee up front but has in some unique cases approved the deferral of the fee for a reasonable period of time. On February 12, 1996 City staff proposed to the state to spread out the fee over a ten year period with interest accruing on the unpaid balance at the rate of 5% a year. After the ten year amortization period, the sewer capacity component of the bill would disappear, and only the sewer service component would continue to be charged. At the time of the Council action, the sewer capacity charge for the project was estimated at approximately $307,000 based on the local schedule. The State Department of Veterans Affairs has indicated it will reject this proposal citing no budget to cover this cost and fifteen requesting that this fee be waived in order for Chula Vista to maintain its priority status. The Department staff, as well as the Chair of the Governor's Task Force, are indicating that other jurisdictions in the competition are offering sites to the State without cost, and that, given that fact and the fact that no budget exists to pay for costs associated with land acquisition, it would be difficult to select Chula Vista with the sewer capacity charge obligation in place. Since receiving the State's response, City staff has been researching the City's flexibility to reduce or waive this figure. The City Attorney's Office has tentatively concluded that unless the State otherwise agrees to pay a larger figure, the State would be only obligated to pay approximately $58,000. The State Government Code restricts the amount a locality can charge a state facility for sewer fees to a formula that considers historical fee levels and rates of inflation. This formula, when applied to the Chula Vista project, yields a maximum charge of approximatelv $58.000. Therefore the charge waiver would be for the amount of approximately $58,000. Rationale for ExemPtinCl/WaivinCl Sewer Capacity CharCle The proposed Veterans Home project is a government facility which offers very significant economic and social benefit to Chula Vista. The facility will infuse new revenues and jobs into the community, both at the facility and in the form of support and service industries and visitor activity. The facility will provide a much needed and much deserved benefit to the State's veterans. The revenue benefits Item .3 Page 5 Meeting Date 03-26-96 of the project alone far exceed the $58,000 that would be waived by the recommended action. The waiver of the $58,000 is judged to relieve the project of an undue economic burden, and the recommended resolution makes a finding to the effect. The selection of the site of the Southern California Veterans Home is very competitive, and it is judged a distinct possibility that the sewer capacity charge could make the difference for the selection of Chula Vista as the next Veterans Home site. FISCAL IMPACT: If the Chula Vista site is selected by the State for the development of the Veterans Home the City will be donating approximately 29 acres of land, with an estimated value of 1.6 million exempting/waiving approximately $1.6 million in development impact fees and approximately $58,000 in sewer capacity fees by this resolution. It should be noted that other financial issues remain regarding this transaction. The Otay Water District has indicated that it plans to charge an annexation fee of approximately $3,500 - $4,000 per acre to annex the proposed site into district No. 22 prior to the site obtaining water service. Staff is currently negotiating this issue with the district. In addition approximately 20 acres of coastal sage scrub will need to be mitigated by purchasing land off site since the State requires that the proposed site be made available free and clear at the time of conveyance. The State has indicated that it will work with staff to minimize the cost of this mitigation. As indicated the development of the Veteran Home will result in a project which will produce approximately 300 new permanent jobs, a facility with a projected annual operating budget of $8 million and a $32 million construction project which is estimated to proved temporary work for 350 workers. [AG\C,\WPWIN\JUAN\A 113\VETHOME.A1131 COUNCIL RESOLUTION /r~ '-1-5 AGENCY RESOLUTION liC)/ JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE EXEMPTION/WAIVER OF THE SEWER CAPACITY CHARGE RELATED TO THE VETERANS HOME PROJECT AT THE HOSPITAL SCHOOL SITE LOCATION WHEREAS, the need for a Veterans Home in Southern California is well established, with over two-thirds (2/3) of the state's veterans residing in Southern California; and WHEREAS, the State of California has created the Governor's Commission on the Southern California Veterans Home to advise the Governor and the Legislature on the placement of such a Home; and, WHEREAS, it is contemplated that, wherever the Veterans home is located, it will provide shelter and services to 400 veterans and create approximately 300 new local jobs; and, WHEREAS, a substantial portion of the Veterans who will reside at the site earn low or moderate incomes; and, WHEREAS, the City/Agency believes that the social and economic benefits of developing the Veterans Home in Chula Vista would be very significant; and, WHEREAS, the City/Agency staff has negotiated terms for acquisition of the Hospital School Site with the Sweetwater Union High School District. WHEREAS, the City/Agency has conceptually approved the donation of land for the building of a Veterans Home facility at the Hospital School Site property which consists of 30.06 gross acres of undeveloped land located on the east side of Medical Center Drive, between East Naples court and Medical Center Court in the City of Chula Vista; provided that the site is selected for development by the State of California, and recognizing the nature of the facility warrants relief from certain development fees;and WHEREAS, by using the standard formula for determining the sewer capacity fee would result in an approximate fee of $307,000 for this facility. WHEREAS, The City has requested that State pay this fee in order to defray the sewer infrastructure cost to the City. WHEREAS, The State has not agreed to pay such amount due to lack of funding has requested that the City pay this amount in connection with the development of the project. WHEREAS, The City is limited by State law to impose a sewer capacity fee on project of no greater than $58,000 unless the State agrees to pay. WHEREAS, The City after a public hearing has found and determined that the imposition of a sewer capacity fee on the project will pose undo hardship on project because no funding is available to cover this cost. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find, order, determine and resolve 1) The City/Agency makes the finding that the proposed Veterans Home project will not be an economic detriment to the community. the exemption/waives of the sewer capacity fees will be offset by the long term economic benefits of project. 2) The City/Agency hereby exempts/waives all sewer capacity fees related to the Veterans Home project. PRESENTED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: C~( ~ Chris Salomone Bruce M. Boogaard Community Development Director City Attorney - Redevelopment Agency: Item #3 Veterans Home Correspondence (related to Item #3): 1. Letter from Assemblyman, 79th District, Steve Baldwin dated March 8, 1996 2. Letter from Dan Kreyling, Chairman, United Veterans Council dated March 21, 1 996 3. Letter from Stan Standard, Chairman, Governor's Commission on a Southern California Veterans Home - STATE CAPITOL J\ssemhl~ COMMITTEES P,O, BOX 942849 CHAIRMAN SACRAMENTO. CA 94249-0001 (!Jut ifnruiu 1fiegisluture EDUCATION COMMITTEE (9161445-3266 MEMBER FAX {9161323-8470 APPROPRIATIONS OISTRICT OFFICE . CONSUMER PROTECTION. 9584 MURRAY DRIVE ~~} GOVERNMENTALEFFICIENC & LA MESA, CA 91942 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (6191465-7723 HEALTH FAX 16191465-7765 STEVE BALDWIN NATURAL RESOURCES REVENUE AND TAXATION ASSEMBLYMAN, SEVENTY-SEVENTH DISTRICT March 8, 1996 Shirley Horton, Mayor City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mayor Horton: This letter is to update you on legislation regarding the proposed Chula Vista Veterans home as well as my concerns with this legislation and the home's future. Legislation has been introduced this session to appropriate the necessary funds to build several southern California Veterans Homes, including the Chula Vista Home. Both measures, Assembly Bill 2015 (Knight) and Senate Bill 1382 (Peace) contain language that states that the Chula Vista and Lancaster sites be built "in the order in which they are prepared, ready for construction, and have satisfied the necessary criteria, as determined by the department" I have enclosed a copy of these bills for your review. However, the SB 1382 provision lists one further criteria stating that the homes must also be "in compliance with the recommendations of the Governor's Commission on a Southern California Veterans home", which currently recommends Chula Vista as the next site. AB 2015 states that these two sites be built "simultaneously, except in the case where federal matching funds are available for only one site", and then in which order they are ready for construction. Although these measures must move through the legislative process, you can see my initial concerns with Assemblyman Knight's legislation and its potential effects on the Chula Vista home. Rest assured that I will continue my efforts in Sacramento for legislation that keeps Chula Vista listed as the next site for the California Veterans home and will offer amendments if necessary, to correct any legislation that would circumvent the Commission's recommendations. Yet, it has come to my attention that there has been some misunderstanding between the Department of Veterans Affairs and the City of Chula Vista over sewer capacity fees for the Veterans home project I have enclosed a copy of the letter from the chairman of the Governor's Commission on a Southern California Veterans Home, \^Iilliam Manes, dated March 12, 1992. The letter states that "The Commission must give consideration to the availability of federal surplus property and any property available for no cost, or at less than market value, from public or private sources... " My understanding is that the Commission has adopted a "no cost" policy for property Representing the areas of Bon"a. Chuia Vista. EI CaJOn. La Mesa. Lemon Grove. Paradise Hills, Spring Valley, Encanto. National City and Santee P,;nled on Recycled Paper Mayor Shirley Horton March 8, 1996 Page 2 acquisition including all fees, permits, and håok-up costs. I understand that this may put the city in a short term financial dilemma. However, with a projected annual operating budget of over $7 million, 200 new state jobs, discretionary spending by residents, and numerous contracts for support services, I believe that the long term benefits will far outweigh any short term costs to the city. For your information, I have enclosed a brief summary of the investments the City of Barstow and others provided to build the Barstow Veterans home as well as the proposed investments for the Lancaster home. As you can see, my concerns lie with the incentives given by Lancaster and how they may effect Chula Vista's current standing with the Commission and/or the Legislature, especially in light of the current negotiations between Chula Vista and the OVA. As I stated, I will continue my efforts, along with Senator Peace, to make sure Chula Vista remains number one on the Commission's list. I would appreciate any information you could provide me to help in this regard. I know that we are both deeply concerned for this project and wish it to be completed as soon as possible. Anything you can do to expedite a resolution to the current negotiations would be greatly appreciated. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any comments on this or any other issue. Sincerely, ~ STEVE BALDWIN Assemblyman, 77th District SCB:cb Enclosures cc: Chula Vista City Council Senator Steve Peace Greg Cox, Supervisor, 1 st District Dan Kreyling, Chairman, United Veterans Council Bill Ayers, Chairman, Legislative Committee, U.V.C. Rod Davis, Executive Director, Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce Doug Perkins, Executive Director, South County EDC Anna Phillips, Advocation Inc. - BARSTOW CITY "INVESTMENT The city of Barstow waived all fees including water and sewer hook-up, school development, and traffic impact. There were no building inspection or permit fees as this was a state building on state property. Other investments by the city: Four Lane access road to the site from Highway 247 $249,713 Sewer Line from highway to site (including hook-up) 165,000 Water main from Highway to site. 249,754 Drainage system surrounding the site and hook-up to adjacent system at college. 203,000 Relocation of Electrical lines 7,318 Natural Gas line 18,787 Cost of Property (Donated by local college) 652,000 LANCASTER PROPOSED INVESTMENT -The city of Lancaster is waving all fees similar to Barstow. -The city is providing $400,000 to assist new state employees in purchasing homes in Lancaster. -Lancaster has constructed an access road, utilities to the site and a storm drainage system. -Lancaster has offered to loan the state's share of construction cost of $11 million. - o. "°0. 0. o~ V~"'~~~~"U~ ~~c.'~""" ,...."" ()¿ . "~~c o~. uu United Veterans Council AN ALLIANCE OF VETERANS ORGANIZATIONS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY VETERANS MEMORIAL CENTER 2115 PARK BOULEVARD. SAN DIEGO, CA 92101.4792 <>mce (619) 232-6006 March 21, 1996 ~ Œ Œif n '\'; 'i in Shirley Horton. Mayor II 0 ~- ..:,-':"_.CmJ " Ii ,! City orChuia Vùta ì L~ I MAR? I Iqqf; :. 276 Fourth Aveoue ChuJa Vllta, CA 91910 L-_-~ I COUNCIL 01' IC,S I Dear Mayor Horton: CHU¡ I, VlS1A, CA The United Veferans Coundl hu supported the City of ChuJa Vista for many years in having our Southem CaJifomJa Veterans' Home located in Chula Vista. Now Is the critical point in time! Legislation has been IiItroduced in both holUe8 of the CaIif'onúa Legislature. Assembly Bill 2015 (KJqht) aud Senate BW 1382 (Peace), both have an urgency clause to prevent the lolt of federal ftlndlilg. However, J have IOme concerns. It is my undentandinC Uaat the City ofChuia Vùta has not resolved the bsues orthe sewer capacity fee and the wafer district fee for the Veferans Home project. Ever since the Initial hearings, It has been clearly stated the property for the Veferans Homes would be tr8l1Jlferred to the State at "No Cost", I am lure you lUJdel'ltand the urgency ofrec:tifying the city's oversieht In removing these fees. We are requesting your U8Ístance so this issue can be resolved qwddy and the deletion Qf these all fees wiD be ensured. The veterans of this county desperately need aud desene a Vetel'8lJ: HQme here in San Diego County, Thb home wiD serve our veterans and those in Imperial County, Southern Orange and Riverside ColUltiea .. well AdditionaUy, Qar Vetenns Home wiD create hundreds of jobs In COJlStrudJon and over 200 pennanent jobs, RlUnerous support lenic:es contracts, and a projected annual operating bodget of $17 ndWoR- J finnIy beDeve that the Vetel1llll Home being located in Chula VIsta can be a win, win situation for both the City Qf Ollila Vista and our veterans community. I hue and will continue myeUorb to do everything po,ssible to support having the next Veterans Home built In Chula Vista. I strongly ul'le you and the Qty Coundl to support a resolution to waive aU fees. I am deeply concerned ifwe do not move exped.itiQUSIy to resolve the differentes in the current n"E°tiadons between the CaUfomfa Department of Veterans Aft'1Ùrs aad the City QfChula Vista we wiD 100e our chane"" to have a Veterans Home in San DieEo County. I am sure you and the coundl will resolve this lpeed bump problem SQ we can move dQWß the road to breaking ground for our next Southern California Vetel'lUts Home here In Chula Vista. Co. uu u. NU.~.U" V~"'~~~~"U" ""<"LWU """uti. V~ .-" - " C ~U I want to thankyou In advance on behalf of aU our vdenuu for your support. If you have any question or If I Ç IIJ be of any assistance please do not hmtate to contact me ÍßIJr1GdiaUy, ~ ,Chalnnan cc: ChuJa Vista City Counc:ll Community Development Juan Arroyo Senator Steve Peace Supervisor Grell Cox County VdetaJU Service OfJIc:er Jbn Stodola CaUfomia Department ofVeteranø Atrain U3rlOrøð 17:10 'D'916 447 3447 3:51PM ~c1vocat10n. Inc. ;~LA-~., _'r ~~.~~6! SENT BY:1't!AŒ 916 327-3522 J-le-96 . . irAn ( II~.u1NIIIT OJ YBrPAMS -"PAIlS PInS WUCIII. o...w GOVDNO.'S COMMJSSION ON A IOUTBERN CÄlJI'ORNIA. vrI'l!:RANS HOME. . JOn QJIIIØ lOX M28t$ ~ '\NIIIn'O, CAUI'O8MA. INZI$Q O¡ MAR I S :~~::; (PIt) U3-22t) Mareh IS, 1M Tbe Røncnb18 Shirley Ronaa ...,. City of Ollila ViIta 2'76 P-m AWIIU8 0nIIa V"øta, Ca1ifomi& 91910 Ð8r Mayor KanDn: PIa8 IIZCIIC my boIIf8d 1IIIaIra for your IIIIIIdIIIce 11 tile Ø8tiD¡ of the Gov8mar'I Commillioft 01\, Sou1t1em CIIIIomi& VCIaIIII Horae ÌII 5u D. 011 Novembir 14, 1995. W. W8e ptitW by ~ çuIIoa of sappan for a !lame aile in CIulla Vùfa. Mr. 11811 Arroyo or JOIIf iliff 111D114kd th!: Cammiuian IIIIIIiJIp illIIIc:uIIr 01\ J8auIry 5, 1'" 8Dd ia V.... em MaIdI 6. I'", At IIIiI lime, it ap¡an dw 0wIa Villa ÏDIiD aD impo8ùI& . - - for CIIIIIIIdn¡ Ihc pnIpO88d V8IaI'IIIS Bøme ID 1he -- IJ8D U . C1I1IIdidail of ~,Iøa the prupIIrty to !be Stale. 1118 Go¥enIor'a Cammilllan 00IIIIdcn IUCII . fee IIId IIIDdaer ..... f8 for the WIIIf dIstrkt U iIIDanaiItat wid¡ cadiar di8c:uI\oas aDd po'".... 11f-'-' mIdo ID die 00v8nI0t'1 ComIIIiuiœ, IIIIt die ÚI8 would be pwn to It. StúI for dI8 VeIIraIII1Iorae at DO I:aIL As tar bKk u 1992 IIIae _YO '-D Ie&tcn .. ID ~ oftIce Iftd ochera ItII:iII¡ that the Contlllbsion needed ID cœsIder prapert1 ac no COlt. No GIIItIIo tee pIapIrty cnnafcr WU dcø u IIn1Dw lid is bcin¡ dale at lMeUœr. PnIpOIIJIIIø8 '*" J'8C8iV8IcI. from od1&r c:omlllUldtia iI\ICb u PariJ IIId VIllIIUI. for 110 COlt 8IœI for die V.... Bome8. I do DOt ~ dII1 ills ill die bat iIUIrat of VIIaIIIIID apca 1hac aImoIl S4OO,OOO should be deductld ftom die CCIIIItNCIiøD ftmds for . Home in md8r ID ]181 . tee IIOt be1rI& impDMd by any adIa' oommunity. 'tba& c:oWd.weII NIUIt 1ft uvial to 1)uDd I &cilI.ty IIIIII1er tIw1lbe 400 IIedI cumady -- SIIouId that be !he cue, die 0cMrMr'1 Commiuion VIOIIId have DO aItautivo but to ncomllMllCllIIat die home tI1atI14 be built in IDJM OIlIer CDIIIIIIUIIiIy so that all CiDIIItnII:Ikin fuada c:ouId be applied for die 400 1IodI. Yaur Deputy City ÁØIIlf1Ø1. Yr. 0IeII 000¡ùIa, !III wrlll8D ID !be Dooa-b-4 vi V.... AftiirS IllllUdIIJ - die ,. be paid willi apaadll& fluids CIY8I' . periad f1l J8Ø 8Dd 8ddiJIg .". CIII!Jiq dIup. YCIU may apa a np1)' CIII dill .. ftvm ... Department but I do not beBeve tIIIt !be Lep1atm ... the State ~ of I'II8Is8 wauld IppRlYlIUCh an IIIJI1IIJ budf IC ¡filii wb8D Ie wauId bo IIøown tIIIØ , bome cøuId IIÞ8 baIø built in UOIIIer comm\IIÙty wbic1I waulcIlICII baY!: impoled IUd1 a fee and ~ cIIIrp. JIUIDIIG 'VEIDANI nasr - SEI'IT V:PI!I'IŒ 916 32'7-3522 ; 3-11H16 , 5a'M ; :3I1J4t!H 91" --( ...,..'"".. ! -. TIle HOIIOCIb18 SIIirIey IfCIfO8 Much 1', 1996 PIp"r.o 1IIInUIw, 1..8ncIDt, Þerria IIId V.tuJa have 111 rccopiIed dial. willa bomo øpIr&tions commence, IMI' S17 IIIIIIIan. per year will be IddId 10 dac local fI:CIGOIDy ÍIICbIdiDI CMI' 200 new .. Jobs IIId IIIIIIIeIO\II oantIICa far 1UpJIOrt.-vic8L DIåIIIbe S27 IIIIUkIn COIIItnICIion CIIIItI'IIc& tor !be home, up 1:0 350 -an 1118)' b8 Oft - ... 8IID oontrtbutIaa CD 1M kQllCDllOlllY. 1'1Ia CIDIIIInIaIœ IIIaII8Y II1II die payrdl will b8 aD D8W ..., or fIdm1 money, 1lOIII flam die ciIy or 00IIII11 IIMI u wvuJd be die cue if Calla VIsta WIr8 ID build die s:IIaD1 aripI8I1y pIIIID8d far die .. I IIIIVMI tb111IIe City gf CIulla Villi 1IIidIcbw die nIpIIIt for Ib8 ... .... ad lilY IddidøcII1 ftIqUIIt tor . WIII:r diIIrlc:t fe, I wU1 be pleu8I 1:0 di8cuI dID IIIIIICr wi1It 1011 1& ,our ~ If you WÏJI1, I will uk ane of tile -- of die Gowmor's Commisslaa wIIo 11- ÏII tile Saa Diep In::& 10 IØ:OIDpIIIy 1118. Siac8r81y, ~~ 00nmar'1 Onmialion on .3oudIc:m C8BfomIa VcfCrU\S Home œ: Secmuy, CIUronIia D8putmIIIt ofV8rIIIS Aftiin ft7mNG V8JD.UIS IDII'I' - MEMORANDUM March 21,1996 TO: Mayor/Chairman Shirley Horton VIA: John D. Goss, City Manager? ~ . FROM: Chris Salomone, Community Development Director [- SUBJECT: Calling of a Joint Special Agency/Council Meeting Staff requests that you convene a special meeting of the Redevelopment Agency for Tuesday, March 26, 1996 to consider, deliberate, and act upon the following Public Hearinq and Closed Session items: . Public Hearinq: Pursuant to the Chula Vista Municipal Code regarding Waiver/Exemption of Sewer Capacity Charge for Proposed Veterans Home Project on Medical Center Drive. Joint Aqencv/Council Resolution: Approving the ExemptionlWaiver of the Sewer Capacity Charge Related to the Veterans Home Project at the Hospital School Site Location. . Closed Session: Sale and Disposition of Real Property. School District property next to Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center proposed for Veterans Home project. . Closed Session: Sale of Agency-owned Property. Proposal received from the Lowewen Group, Inc. for 753 Broadway. The reason for the request for a joint special meeting is that the Agency/Council needs to inform the State as quickly as possible with regard to the exemption/waiver of the sewer capacity charge related to the Veterans Home project and so that the Agency can respond to the proposal on the Broadway property as soon as possible. I hereby call a Joint Special Meeting of the Agency/Council [C,\WP51 \AGENCY\MEMOS\INF09605.MEMI