Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Packet 1996/03/19 Tuesday, March 19, 1996 Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Public Services Building (immediately following the City Council meeting) Joint Meeting of Ihe Redevelopment Agencv/City Council of the Citv of Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: Agency/Council Members Alevy -' Moot -' Padilla_, Rindone -' and Chair/Mayor Horton - 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 20, 1996 (Worksession/Meeting); March 5, 1996 CONSENT CALENDAR None Submitted. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES The following items have been adverlised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to 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 in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staffrecommendation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. "CJ 3. PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE ~ î ESTABLISHMENT OF AMA TERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY/TRASH a TRANSFER STATION (MRF/TTS) AT 1855 MAXWELL ROAD Q. WITHIN THE OT A Y V ALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ~ .~ AREA--ln 1995 Council determined it wanted to explore feasibility of E J."" developing a materials recovery facility/trash transfer station wiIhin Ihe City IOQ)"""""~ - :S "g .~; ~ in order to reduce trash tipping fees. Staff investigated 14 sites, narrowed Ihe r; " ,j ~" -,ii list to 3, and selected the 1855 Maxwell Road property as Ihe most desirable. r~b~i~ Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Community Development Director) !:~ ¡~ i~ ~ . AGENCY 0 '-'~. i' § ~ RESOLUTION 1486 ADOPTING INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDYINEGATIVE ~:~'~~:~Q DECLARATION IS-95-28, ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, MAKING FINDINGS ~ "',. j (¡, UNDER THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ntd~ AREA IMPLEMENTATION PLANIDESIGN MANUAL ADDENDUM, AND APPROVING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MA TERIALSRECOVERYF ACILITY /TRASH TRANSFER STATION AT 1855 MAXWELL ROAD WITHIN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Agenda -2- March 19, 1996 B. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1487 APPROVING PLANS AND ENTERING INTO AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH JOHN SEXTON SAND AND GRAVEL COMPANY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MATERIALS RECOVER FACILITY/TRASH TRANSFER STATION AT 1855 MAXWELL ROAD WITIDN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA C. COUNCIL RESOLUTION 18235 and AGENCY 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) 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. ACTION ITEMS The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by the Agency, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Agency and staff recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Public comments are limited to five minutes. 4. AGENCY RESOLUTION 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 (PF A) AS FINANCIAL ADVISOR TO ASSIST IN TIDS 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 market conditions. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Finance Director/Treasurer) - Agenda -3- March 19, 1996 ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR This is the time the Redevelopment Agency will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar. Agenda items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Agency Members. Public comments are limited to five minutes per individual. OTHER BUSINESS 5. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) 6. CHAIR'SIMAYOR'S REPORT(s) 7. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn to Ihe Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on April 16, 1996 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following Ihe City Council meeting, in Ihe City Council Chambers. ...... COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with Ihe 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 Ihe Redevelopment Agency for specific information at 619.691.5047 or Telecommunications Devices for Ihe Deaf (TDD) at 619.585.5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. [c: \ WP5l \AGENCYIAGENDAS\03-19-96.AGD] - MINUTES OF A SPECIAL JOINT WORKSHOP/MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, February 20, 1996 Council Conference Roo 8:40 p.m. City Hall Buildi CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Agency/Council Members Alevy, Moot, Padilla, Rindone, and Chair/Mayor Horton ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Executive Director/City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaar , Agency/City Attoruey; Chris Salomone, Community Development Directo ; Lyle Haynes, Principal Community Development Specialist; and Berlin BosworIh, Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency 2. APPROVAL OF MINUfES: None. BUSINESS 3.A AGENCY REPORT: REPORT OF FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL 0 FUNDING FOR THE CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FROM REDEVELOPME AGENCY TAX INCREMENT REVENUE--As part of the Mid-Year Budget Report, a necessary task w s deterntining the appropriate level of funding for the City's Economic Development Program from Redevelopme t Agency tax increment revenue. Staff recommends Ihe Agency accept Ihe report and approve Ihe Joi t Agency/Council resolution directing staff to make appropriate budgetary and financial adjustments associated wi the current year and retroactive reduction back to FY 1989/90. (Community Development Director) B. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1484/COUNCIL RESOLUTION 18196 ESTABLISHING THE FUNDIN LEVEL FROM REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT REVENUE AT 31.63 PERCENT FOR CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995-96, AND ESTABLISIDN A RETROACTIVE FUNDING LEVEL FROM REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT REVENUE A 38.53 PERCENT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1989-90 THROUGH 1994-95 Community Development Director Salomone noted, in response to last year's budget process, staff was giv n direction by Council to develop a criteria for economic development funding that was attributable to t Redevelopment Agency. As a result, staff came up with a criteria based on land use acreage inside redevelopme t areas, as opposed to the City at large, and arrived at a percentage of funding which staff was recommending. Sta f analyzed particular activities performed by Economic Development staff such as Ihe BECA program and Ihe Hi h Tech/BioTech Zone and excluded them from economic development funding as Ihey were clearly outside e redevelopment areas. Staff also developed an assessment of the historic funding of econontic development d recommended adjustments be made in the budget responding to Ihat criteria. Additionally, staff developed a monitoring program pursuant to AB1290's Implementation Plans Ihat would be updated annually and monitor d during the budget process. Finally, staff looked at the amount of funding given to econontic development since t e beginning of Ihe Economic Development program and was recommending and amount to be repaid from Ihe Gener Fund to the Agency. Member Padilla wanted to get a better understanding of the nomenclature which was used to determine Ihe amou t of benefit a particular project area, or Ihe combined project areas, would get from a development project or oIh r potentially blight-eliminating influence Citywide and relate that to a particular area. He understood the directi n staff was going, but wanted to know the specific tools that would be used to arrive at that percentage. c2-/ Minutes Special Joint Workshop/Meeting February 20, 1996 Page 2 Mr. Salomone pointed out staff netted out projects Economic Development was funding and knew would not qualify for Agency funding, such as Ihe High Tech/BioTech Zone in Ihe EastLake Business Park and other activities not attributable nor where a nexus could be made to redevelopment project areas. Staff Ihen developed Ihe criteria whereby the amount of commercial and industrial acreage, which was what Ihe City's econontic development activities were concentrated on, excluding housing, Ihat were in the five redevelopment areas and what percentage was that of Ihe commercial and industrial area in Ihe General Plan of Ihe City. Member Moot asked if that excluded, for example, Ihe High Tech/BioTech Zone. Mr. Salomone replied that included just Ihe Zone. Member Padilla said on Ihe one hand staff was saying Ihat it was not a direct physical or direct nexus to a designated project area. But, on the other hand, staff was saying that part of those activities Ihat may be somewhere, such as in the EastLake Business Center, could be funded partially, at least in part, through tax increment revenues generated in a project area on Ihe other side of Ihe City. He sought clarification on: (1) Ihat there was no clear nexus, and (2) the Agency could still find a formula by which part of Ihat activity could be funded by tax increment revenue from a project area. Was the Agency going to decide Ihere was a nexus on a line of logic Ihat Ihere was an allocation based on Ihe total gross receipts for someIhing in terms of income over a given period of time or term, or was Ihe Agency going to say no, there was not. Principal Community Development Specialist Haynes stated staff was making a critical distinction between Ihose activities that are geographical-specific, like the High Tech/BioTech Zone, and those activities that were general in nature Ihat could apply equally to derive benefits, and equally or proportionately as they do to the redevelopment areas as to a non-redevelopment area. Member Padilla was correct, in Ihe sense that Ihere was a kind of mixed bag in some respects. The logic was Ihere. What staff was trying to do was set out a formula, a structure, by which economic activities could be evaluated. If economic development staff was going to be spending a certain amount of time on High Tech/BioTech that was geographically-specific to EastLake, Ihen it was known Ihere was no benefit or nexus to a redevelopment project area. But if Ihey spend, say 20 percent of Iheir time in doing other types of marketing materials or some other type of general business retention and expansion, then the land use factor would come into play. Member Padilla asked, aside from Ihat, what were some of the components of Ihe formula which staff would use to decide what amounts of general activity were being absorbed or impacted in Ihe specific geographic area, such as a designated project area. Mr. Haynes said would be the general components Ihat were within the Redevelopment Law which specifically identified econontic blighting influences. It was not as if staff looked at, for example, the Microenterprise Loan Program and then determined Ihat Ihat would have an impact on reducing commercial vacancy rates. Member Padilla asked how staff connected a measurable impact Ihat was being felt by a specific project area, or by Ihe whole sum of Ihe designated redevelopment areas. For example, in a marketing scheme that econontic development activities were doing in a general sense but covered Ihe whole City, how did staff arrive at what percentage or what amount/value of that activity was thus being absorbed by any particular redevelopment area. What means was staff using, or did staff have one? Mr. Salomone replied staff explored all the different criteria which was developed and it was not practical to do the types of analyses Member Padilla was alluding to. If one targeted marketing, created a Catch the Spirit brochure, attended trade shows, or tried to promote industrial development within the City, the question was then how to attribute that to redevelopment project areas. Staff did not have Ihe ability, time, or felt that Ihat was really a good use of staff time. Member Padilla asked if the percentage was a rough estimate of what was thought to be appropriate. 02-¿ Minut s Special Joint Workshop/Meeti February 20, 199 Page Mr. Haynes replied the percentage was a pure pro-rata share of general activities -- staff grouped general activiti s togeIher which were non-geographically-specific -- and staff was saying Ihose activities would have benefit to t e City as a whole and Iherefore would have a proportionate benefit to redevelopment areas. Some of Ihe activitie , as shown on Ihe Attachment, would have certain influences on certain types of econontic blight and some wou d not. Staff lumped the general activities into one type of account, ED-OOI. Staff then ferreted out Ihose activiti s which were geographically-specific or were larger activities which absorbed a lot of staff time. Member Padilla asked ifIhe general direction of ABI290 underscored Ihe connection between Ihe intent or purpo e of Redevelopment Law and Ihe designation of certain areas as blighted. The City had to designate a redevelopme t area, at least under Ihe existing structure. For example, the city he worked in got real creative and declared e whole City of Coronado a blighted area. What was Ihe reason for having to designate a project area in the fir t place if cites could begin to interpret the nexus between Ihe elimination of blighl and tax increment revenues whi h were directed at any given area. If cities do not have to necessarily retain that wiIhin a given geographical area Ih t was declared as blighted, but extended the premise of Ihat to Ihe whole City, either in whole or in part, it drew in 0 question the whole reasoning why we originally have designated redevelopment project areas. Do you have so e thoughts on that? Mr. Salomone responded by stating Ihe five redevelopment project areas in the City of Chula Vista were classc redevelopment areas, the blight was quantified and identified. They all met the blight criteria quite we I. Redevelopment across Ihe state has been used in so many different ways and was not a clear law Ihat it has b n interpreted in different ways. Cities came to feel Ihey had some leeway. In Chula Vista economic developme t actually started in 1991. At Ihat point, funding part of it from Redevelopment Agency made sense because it w a small amount of money. As you know, Chula Vista has a very successful economic development program d now required a larger amount of funding. The City started wiIh the general assumption Ihat economic developme t helped Ihe entire City -- for example, trying to target new industry to EastLake because of Ihe layoff of 7000 peo Ie at Rohr and maybe some of Ihem then went to work in EastLake. In the beginning that was the kind of Ihinki g even though that was not a clear next. However, with AB1290, it became a very clear legal issue. Member Padilla Ihought everybody was trying to go after a particular objective and use whatever was available at Ihe time Ihat seemed reasonable. His concern was, in terms of a policy discussion, what the risks mayor may ot be that were realistic, and what was Ihe wise policy approach if Ihere was a lot of blight elintination -- perhaps I blight elintination activities could be classified as economic development. What was Ihe wisdom of trying at cert . n times, in certain places, to draw the distinction between where Ihey were separate and where Ihey come toge r and where they overlap. What were some of the laws or procedures wiIh regard to establishing a project ar a. Could the City justify blight as being econontic in itself and designate another project area whereby the City ot complete revenue out of or in to, so Ihere would be no question about where the nexus was. Was that someIhi g staff Ihought about also? Mr. Salomone noted staff did that when the project areas were set up and staff was now looking at another potent al project area. What was before the Agency tonight was Ihe beginning of a process that would become more d more refined with each annual budget and review of Ihe Implementation Plans. In last year's budget review e Agency charged staff to take a look at the issue, to develop criteria, to ascertain how much, historically, has be n spent based on Ihat criteria, and to make its recommendations as understandable and as reasonably legally defensi Ie as possible. The City Attorney wrote accompanying memoranda which identified Ihere was a risk. The risk as Ihat if there were a lawsuit, Ihe Agency could be found to be in noncompliance. Member Padilla asked if it was wise public policy, when there was any identifiable risk, unless it was complet ly minuscule, to take a somewhat more liberal approach when the Agency could take Ihe more conservative appro ch and still get Ihe Agency's objectives met. Mr. Salomone stated the video created by Economic Development was the kind of outreach in marketing that as attributable to development in redevelopment areas. o?-3 Minutes Special Joint Workshop/Meeting February 20, 1996 Page 4 Executive Director John Goss added staff was certainly open to other ideas and suggestions on Ihe approach to take. In terms of assessing Ihe risk, that was a judgment call. It was staff's assessment that Ihey did not see the potential for any lawsuits to be filed, not only as it would relate to Chula Vista, but staff was aware of some other communities that have been much more liberal in this area Ihan Chula Vista and there have been no lawsuits filed there either. While a lawsuit could always occur and there was always Ihe possibility of losing Ihat lawsuit, the net result would be a paper transfer from the General Fund to Ihe Redevelopment Agency. Member Rindone asked the amount of funding directly within Ihe redevelopment areas which staff knew to be 100 percent legal in order for Ihe Agency to know Ihe parameters Ihey were talking about. Mr. Goss stated while the Agency did not anticipate a lawsuit, no one could guarantee that. Mr. Haynes replied the extreme, if Ihe Agency took Ihe most conservative approach and each activity had to have a particular geographical connection to one of Ihe project areas Member Rindone interjected, stating he did not believe Ihe Agency had to go that far, it would have to have eiIher a geographic connection or a direct nexus. Activity "x", even if it was not in redevelopment areas 1 Ihrough 5, but could show Ihat activity directly caused a business to locate in a project area Ihat would seem to be as far out as Ihe Agency would have to go. What was staff talking about, $1,000,000, $2,000,000 or was it $10,000,0007 What was the extent of the potential? Mr. Salomone noted Ihe total impact retroactively, was $1.6 million of everyIhing that was spent on econontic development. Member Rindone said a lot of that was within the redevelopment areas. Mr. Salomone pointed out Ihe total amount the Agency had spent on econontic development was $2.1 million. Mr. Haynes asked Ihat Ihe Agency look at Attachment 5 to Ihe staff report, page 4-15 of the 02/20/96 staff report. In Ihe second to last colunm the Redevelopment Agency Combined Total was the $2.1 million, and Ihe Combined Total Spent was $2.6 ntillion. If Member Rindone was saying Ihat one extreme would be that none of those dollars had any benefit whatsoever to the project areas, Ihe maximum exposure would be $2.1 million. Member Rindone restated Ihat Ihe $1.6 million were dollars not spent in all five of Ihe geographic redevelopment areas. Mr. Haynes agreed if the Agency was saying that none of Ihose dollars had any beneficial impact to the projects areas. Member Alevy asked if Ihose dollars were spent generically for redevelopment-type activities Ihroughout the City raIher Ihan in specific project areas. Mr. Haynes said that was correct. Member Padilla asked, if Ihose monies were spent outside a project area on economic development activities what part, or whole, of Ihe $2.1 ntillion could be identified Ihat went toward specific focus of elimination of blight. His understanding of the intent of Redevelopment Law was to direct those funds toward Ihe elimination of blight and, economic development activities mayor may not also fit in that definition. Member Padilla did not believe it was entirely correct to say that if the Agency spent outside project areas, and spent on economic development activities, Ihat the Agency therefore necessarily spent all Ihat money on Ihe elintination of blight. The Agency may have to go back and look and at what part of Ihat had an impact that could be blight eliminating. tfl-f- Minut s Special Joint Workshop/Meeti g February 20, 199 Page Member Alevy asked if it was physical blight or economic blight. Member Padilla said Ihe Agency would have to look at how blight was defined. Mr. Haynes stated Ihere was economic blight and social blight and one of the things that ABI290 also did was th t it went furIher along in Ihat definition of blight. Unfortunately, the Legislature did not give the practioners Ihe too s to work wiIh in order to know how to link specific activities to specific tangible results in Ihe elimination of blig t. Member Padilla pointed out Ihat if Ihe Agency had specific objectives Ihat could be tied to a redevelopment ar a then why couldn't Ihe Agency delineate more redevelopment areas as needed Ihereby freeing Ihe tax increment lev I and use tax increment revenue in Ihat specific area until Ihere was a very goal-specific, tangible set of objectiv s Ihe Agency desired to achieve. HypoIhetically, if the Agency could get away with defining a certain area in t e City that it wanted to econontically attract investment to as a blighted area, then why not just create a project ar a and have tax increment generated right into Ihat area. Keep it simple. Was that way off course or was that ev n in Ihe realm of possibility. Member Alevy asked if it was wiIhin Ihe purview of the Agency to declare or determine that Ihe whole City s economic blighted interests was served by determining there was a nexus so that spending money on efforts to bri g business to Chula Vista, be it Ihe HighTech/BioTech Zone or anywhere else in the City, as those efforts we e solving economic blight. Mr. Salomone thought under Ihe law Ihere was not. Chair/Mayor Horton stated it was difficult to quantify at a certain point in time. For instance, the HighTec 1 BioTech Zone was excluded in Ihe formula. However, someone could make an argument that the Zone cou d provide different types of benefits throughout the project areas as Ihere were spinoff benefits -- Ihere were supp rt positions that would provide benefit to Ihe entire community. Mr. Salomone noted Ihat assumption was Ihe beginning of staff's process. The law now said Ihat cannot be do However, a portion can be attributable to Ihe project areas. The economic development division was doing gene al marketing and contacting many firms and it would seem, to attribute only one of Ihose contacts, e.g., the Pos al Encoding Service which brought 350 new jobs to a redevelopment project area, was being unduly narrow. Member Moot asked if getting the Postal Encoding Service to locate in the redevelopment area came out of e general economic marketing effort. Mr. Salomone said it did. Member Rindone asked if Ihe 31.53 percent had any relationship to Ihe $2.1 million or were those totally unrelat d. Was the $2.1 ntillion 100 percent. Mr. Haynes responded Ihe $2.1 million was how much money the Redevelopment Agency had spent on th se activities. The total spent by Ihe Agency and Ihe General Fund totalled $2.6 million (100 percent). If the Age cy adopted staff's recommendation, Ihen the Agency should have been reimbursing Ihe General Fund at a lower r te and would have spent slightly over $1 million, which would amount to 38.5 percent. Member Padilla asked of Ihe $2.6 million spent on economic development activities in total, was $2. I million of the $2.6 ntillion funded out of tax increment revenue. Mr. Haynes replied that was correct. Member Padilla asked if Ihe percentage of total economic development activities was over 80 percent. ,),-5 Minutes Special Joint Workshop/Meeting February 20, 1996 Page 6 Mr. Haynes stated it was at 75 percent in 1989-90 and 1990-91, from 1991-92 Ihrough 1994-95 it was at 85 percent, and in the current fiscal year, 1995-96 it was at 65 percent pending Ihe outcome of Ihis evaluation. Member Padilla stated he had no problem, in theory, wiIh trying to find a way the Agency could allocate Ihe general impact to be subsidized by tax increment revenue. The problem was that one got into this area of trying to find a way to do that, and trying to find formulae to break it down in light of the fact Ihat the City could create oilier redevelopment project areas, then Ihere was going to be some ambiguity about what was our current understanding of blight as it was defined, and was that different from economic blight. If it was economic blight, did that mean all economic development activities were therefore Ihe elintination of blight. The City could get to a point where it was defined so loosely Ihat one would call into question why Ihe City had a separate Redevelopment Agency, why we have redevelopment areas in the first place. Why not just have a general revenue source that cities can freeze and collect and use Ihat revenue throughout Ihe City. While the risks may not likely occur, the City Attorney had analyzed Ihem, Ihey were there and they were real. If the Agency proceeded along that line of reasoning, where did one begin to draw the line. For example, where oilier areas of municipal activity now funded through the General Fund or Ihe Operating Budget had some blight elintinating impact, or some econontic impact because of Iheir results, Ihen we could find ways to justify using redevelopment tax increment revenue to start funding other things that Ihe General Fund now paid for Ihat may also have a blight elintinating impact. The prevention of crime has an economic impact. One could make a logical argument that Ihat was a blight elintinating impact and start dissecting how Ihe Agency could fund part of the Police Department crime prevention activities in a geographical area with tax increment revenue. The intent was good, the creativity was good. We all want to do Ihe right Ihing, but are making it more difficult in Ihe absence of better direction from Sacramento or better cases Ihat have been decided to give us clear direction. We are muddying Ihe water raIher Ihan trying to take Ihe best course, being conservative, and we should not walk with our eyes open into any risks that we do not have to. We have oilier options if we want to find ways to use that revenue to fund economic development activities. We could look at other ways to designate new redevelopment areas, or we can make some decisions on the General Fund side that we seriously look at, as a Council, and come up with an econontic development budget that was important as well as articulate some specific goals we want to accomplish so there was no ntixing of the two. It would keep it safer and easier for everybody. Until we have some clarification, as a matter of policy, err on the side of caution until Ihere was an understanding of Ihe Redevelopment Law's intent to elintinate blighted areas and stick to spending tax increment revenue in Ihe project areas and generate some blight elintination in those project areas as they were designed to do in Ihe first place. There were other options to moving our econontic development strategies Ihat the Mayor has championed. We do not necessarily have to take part of that effort out of tax increment, especially when Ihe area is so gray. It is better to err on Ihe side of being conservative and ought not to be spending Ihe tax increment outside the project areas until Ihere was some clear parameters and clear ways to delineate that. Member Rindone said, for the sake of discussion, assume Ihat assumption was made. How was the Agency going to pick up the oilier $2.1 million. That was what would have to be done. Was Ihat correct? Mr. Hayes responded Ihat it would be a paper write-off. Member Moot declared if most of Ihe money being spent on economic development was not assigned to the Redevelopment Agency, Ihen the City would to have to come up wiIh General Fund money in order to keep doing econontic development. A reduction in available General Fund money would mean having to lay people off or not doing econontic development. Mr. Goss said the $2.1 ntillion was a historical figure, or a paper transfer. The real question was how much was the Agency/Council talking about on an annual basis. What was the annual figure, what would have to be absorbed by Ihe General Fund on an annual basis? Member Padilla clarified there were some economic development activities that were occurring within a designated redevelopment project area and if Ihey were, that was fme. But if one was saying none of it was occurring in a designated area, then Ihe Agency ought not be spending those revenues. ~-~ Minut~s Special Joint Workshop/Meeti g February 20, 19 6 Page 7 Member Rindone stated whatever was spent wiIhin the five geographic areas was fine. What was the annual amou ! of money being spent outside the project areas, what was Ihe Agency looking at. Member Padilla said that BECA had to qualify to some extent. Mr. Haynes said BECA was outside the boundaries of any of the redevelopment project areas. Member Padilla asked if Mr. Haynes was saying there was no economic development activities currently, or in t e past, that occurred inside any of the project areas. Was that true? Mr. Haynes stated to his knowledge, looking at those econontic development activities, Ihere was not a particul activity Ihat had a particular geographical focus in any of Ihe project areas. Member Rindone asked why Ihe marketing plan could not be changed. Why not include in Ihe literature and in t e promotional materials availability of space and specifically refer to Ihe redevelopment areas. Mr. Salomone said that was Ihe direction staff was moving. Mr. Goss asked if staff was talking about such things as Ihe money the Agency provided to sponsor the Artu 0 Barrios !OK Invitational which was in a project area. Mr. Salomone said Ihat was fme. Member Padilla asked if Ihe Arturo Barrios !OK Invitational was a blight eliminating activity. Mr. Goss replied to the extent it marketed and brought people to Ihe Bayfront it was. Member Padilla said he believed Ihat was thin, at best. It was great for the City, no doubt, but blight eliminatio ? Mr. Salomone said he would argue Ihat Ihe demographic groups Ihat came to that event and were exposed to City, as well as the 12 international telecasts of our Bayfront, was wonderful public relations. Member Padilla asked if Ihe Agency was challenged on that, would a judge decide Ihat an Invitational promotio al aIhletic activity in a project area was Iherefore the elimination of blight in accordance with the Redevelopment La . Mr. Salomone thought that case could be made. Chair/Mayor Horton stated that when families with median to higher incomes were attracted to a project area, they had more discretionary income and Ihey were going to be spending it in Ihe community, Ihere has to e economic impact. Member Padilla replied it was clear Ihere was an economic impact, but whether all econontic impacts were elintination of blight for the purposes of Redevelopment Law was the question, not wheIher there was an econo c impact in general. There was always an economic impact in general, but whether or not that econontic impact w the elintination of blight for which Redevelopment Law was designed was Ihe question. Mr. Goss pointed out the current Redevelopment Agency's share was 65 percent of econontic development, r $417,712. Should the Agency go wiIh staffs recommendation of 31.53 percent, that would mean Ihe Agenc 's obligation would be reduced from $417,712 to $203,265. If the Agency wanted to go to 0 percent, then e Agency's obligation would be reduced by Ihat $203,265. That would be the additional absorption by the Gene al Fund. The way the budget stood at present, Ihere would be a shift from General Fund to Ihe Redevelopm nt Agency of $214,447. The General Fund would be worse off by $214,447 and the Redevelopment Agency bet er 02-7 - Minutes Special Joint Workshop/Meeting February 20, 1996 Page 8 off to the tune of $214,447. If Ihe 31 percent went to 0 percent, then Ihere would be another $203,265 whereby Ihe General Fund would be worse off and Ihe Redevelopment Agency better off. The total for Ihis fiscal year was in Ihe range of $417,712. Member Moot stated he Ihought Member Rindone was asking for the reverse numbers. If no general econontic development activities were assigned to Ihe Redevelopment Agency, in other words if all the economic development budget was to be spent out of the General Fund, how would that reduce monies available in the General Fund. Mr. Goss replied thaI would be $417,712. Staff was recommending Ihat it go down by $214,447. Member Moot asked ifIhe $417,712 was only 65 percent. Mr. Goss replied Ihe other 35 per cent was already picked up by Ihe General Fund. The total amount would be $642,634. Member Rindone stated he did not see that as a big number. Staff has gone a long way to get that down to $203,265, but Ihat $203,265 represented what had been spent on economic development Ihat was exclusively outside of the five redevelopment areas. Mr. Haynes said no, it was the pro-rata share. Finance Director Bob Powell commented Members kept saying Ihat what was spent was spent totally outside of redevelopment project areas. That was not true. We are talking about money that was being spent on Citywide projects. It was not money spent outside project areas. It was money spent on Citywide projects of which Ihe redevelopment project areas are a part of Ihe City. Member Moot remarked that was the whole Iheory as to why staff did it Ihat way. The assumption was that if money was spent Citywide, Ihen a certain portion of Ihat was going to benefit Ihe redevelopment areas and the question was how to logically calculate Ihat percentage. Mr. Powell stated it was not only "x" percentage of Ihe City, but it was "x" percentage of commercial/industrial properties within Ihe City. Member Moot stated if the Agency went before a judge and said here was Ihe Law Ihat Sacramento passed and it created no criteria for a city to actually make this decision, and you said this was the criteria the City developed and Ihis was why it made sense, absent someIhing specific in Ihe legislation that was passed, how could the judge sit there and tell Ihe Agency the way Ihe Agency did it did not make any sense. One could poke holes in it, but to question it, absent specific criteria in the enabling legislation itself, who was to say the way the Agency developed its criteria was any better or worse Ihan someone else. Member Padilla asked if the Agency did not have to designate a Plan under AB1290, how would Ihe City tie general econontic activities spent Citywide to Ihe Specific Plan wiIhin a project area Ihat went specifically toward elintinating blight. Member Moot said Ihe theory was Ihis: if you take a video tape Ihat promoted econontic development for Chula Vista and made Ihe assumption that on a percentage basis it generated a business activity, then some of Ihat cost could be attributable to a redevelopment area. What were the odds Ihat a Citywide video tape Ihat attracted business that came to Chula Vista was going to go into a redevelopment area as opposed to some other part of the City. Staff was saying Ihe odds were 31 percent chance that it would go into a redevelopment area. Member Padilla asked why Ihe Agency did not have an area wiIhin Ihe budgets in Ihe individual redevelopment project areas Ihat called for doing some of Ihese activities. ,;¿_? Minu s Special Joint Workshop/Meeti g February 20, 19 6 Page 9 Mr. Salomone responded the Implementation Plans were fairly broad and spoke to what the Agency wanted to accomplish and that included promotion, public relations, and marketing. Member Padilla stated some of the general activity was having a specific impact. If some of the specific proj ct areas had revenue already designated why then did Ihey not have a niche carved 001 for specific marketing r economic development activities wiIhin that project area. Mr. Salomone responded there were oilier types of promotions Ihe City did. In the video, for example, it talk about the redevelopment areas in Ihe City, it showed them and talked about Ihe Community Developm nt Department being where one could go to get land writedowns. Staff was saying a detailed analysis was a ve onerous task to do on every program, every project, every dollar, and so staff developed criteria it Ihought as understandable and logical which, over time, would be refined. Member Alevy pointed out the economic development video had a multipurpose use, it told several different stori s wiIhin Ihe same video. It was useable in more venues and it was a much more efficient method of using talent d resources. Member Rindone asked staff to explain one more time how they arrived at Ihe 31 percent as Members were tryi g to get an understanding of the funding issue. Mr. Haynes referred Ihe Agency to Attachment 3. Attachment 3 represented all current economic deve1opm t activities being pursued and it represented, from the Econontic Development Manager and the Senior Econo ic Development Specialist, Iheir estimate of how much total aggregate time their staff would be working on each f the individual activities. Reading across, the key columns: Targeted Land Use for instance, Ihe BECA Progr had a targeted land use for industrial properties, industrial properties only, and Ihey estimated Ihey were going 0 spend 20 percent of staff time [Column (A)] on that activity. The Agency Land Use factor was 46.40 perc t [Column 3(B)]. That figure was because --looking at Attachment I which outlined what percentage of Ihe indust al land lay in redevelopment project areas as opposed to Ihe City as a whole -- it was a matter of simple multiplicati n: 20 percent times the Land Use factor and that came to Ihe percentage of the Redevelopment Agency's sh e [Column 4(D)], or 9.28 percent. Going down the list of each of Ihose activities staff assigned a Land Use fac r to each activity and how much staff time would be assigned to Ihat activity. Member Rindone noted for example, Ihe first one, when staff said 20 percent of staff time, were they saying 0 percent of RDA staff time was related to Ihis activity. Mr. Haynes replied Ihat was correct, Ihe combined total. Another point was that the Ihing being talked about w are all staff costs, there were some additional items that were in Iheir budget, but Ihose on the attachment were 0 y staff costs. It needed to be understood that staff was looking at Ihe staff costs. Some of Ihe general activit es funded by the Agency, such as the Arturo Barrios IOK Invitational, was a separate item and not considered in e calculation. The multiplier factor used only staff costs as a Percentage of Staff Activity. That worked out to e 31.63 percent. The reason why the percentages were a little different was that this took into account all of t e activities. When particular activities -- for example, may be funded by CDBG, Section 108, and/or Microenterpr' e Loan Program -- are added in, Ihat made up Ihe difference between the 38 percent and Ihe 31 percent. It calculat d out Ihat CDBG picked up Ihat additional 7 percent. Section 108 and the Microenterprise Loan Program, under e Agency Land Use factor, show a zero. That was not because it did not apply to the properties, it was that CD G picked up Ihose costs. That brought the 38 percent number down. That ntight explain some of Ihe confusion as to why the numbers were a little different. Member Rindone said okay. Staff has done a lot of work in this area which was very, very good. The issue w was it legal to spend outside the project areas. If Ihe Agency were to be challenged, what was before us toni ht was good staff work in trying to develop a rationale. Let us say, for some crazy reason, we were wrong. e worst case scenario, sometime future, was $204,000 if we were wrong. Prior to pencilling that out, it really w s c2~1 Minutes Special Joint Workshop/Meeting February 20, 1996 Page 10 an arbitrary number and we just Ihought it was a guess, but staff has really done a lot more than that. Staff has taken the programs, taken 100 percent of staff time, and have divided that up, and then related it to Ihe Land Use category and came up wiIh a percentage, which was an excellent approach. Staff does have a rationale and pending some legal constraint or some future law, which was irrelevant because laws change, staff developed a rationale which the Agency did not have before. That was a very positive step in the right direction. We have a rationale. What was the extent of the decision Ihe Agency had to make tonight: either accept or reject Ihe report or redirect staff to come back with some oilier direction. If we are all five comfortable and we prove to be wrong two years from now, or five years from now, we know the extent would be $214,000. We would Ihen have to make an adjustment by that amount in future years. We do not know of a direct legal constraint. We knew what was totally wrong and Ihat was money being spent on something Ihat was outside of Ihe project areas that did not, in some way, benefit the area. That was not what was being discussed, Ihat was not Ihe issue before the Agency. The issue the Agency was debating was a very specific item. It was: what portion, if any, can the Agency take from the econontic development activities and apportion that to redevelopment. Staff's recommendation was saying: Council we have gone Ihrough this. We have taken all Ihe staff time, we have gone through all Ihe projects, we have apportioned each project to whether it was industrial or commercial, and Ihis was our best estimate. We could be wrong, and if we were, we were $214,000 wrong. We have a rationale. He Ihought Ihat logical, not irrational. Staff has done a lot of work, now the Agency can make a policy decision. Chair/Mayor Horton suggested Member Rindone offer the resolution and noted he had made a good point. Member Padilla stated staff needed to know he understood and appreciated their effort. He would personally prefer to go another route. He thought if the Agency could make even a barely reasonable argument, that what Ihe Agency was subsidizing was benefitting wiIhin a project area, he could go along wiIh Ihat to that extent and no furIher. He would prefer not to do it at all and would be inclined to vote against it, but thought he could see where his colleagues were going and was willing to take the risk to support his colleagues, provided that that understanding was clear and that the Agency stayed on top of it. Member Rindone Ihought Ihe oilier understanding was Ihat if something came down from the Legislative arena or Ihere was some new proposal, Ihe Agency had a heads up and knew of nothing at Ihis time Ihat violated Ihe law. Would you concur, City Attoruey? City Attorney Bruce Boogaard said he Ihought Ihe Agency had settled on a fair risk, an acceptable risk. Member Rindone thought Ihat was what staff had done. The Agency could be conservative and go with zero funding, but Ihen maybe Ihe Agency would not be doing the best Ihing for the City. While staff did not have all the answers and was not sure Ihey were 100 percent right, staff thought it was a reasonable risk. Member/Mayor Horton offered Agency ResoIntion 1484 and Council Resolution 18196, read the heading waive the text. Member/Mayor Horton said if something came up in Ihe future Ihen the Agency could refine Ihe policy. Mr. Goss said if the Agency wanted to add Ihat to the motion, as follow-up on some of Ihe suggestions Member Padilla has made, that perhaps staff could become more focused and experienced on how to look at staffing the project areas in terms of promoting Ihem. Staff can refine this as it goes through looking at next year's budget. Member Rindone asked if Ihe Members accepted Ihat amendment. MSUC [Horton/Rindone to approve Agency Resolntion 1484 and Council Resolution 18196 and when something came up in the future, then staff would bring the policy back to the Agency for refinement, approved 5-0. ~-/Ô Minu s Special Joint Workshop/Meeti g February 20, 19 6 Page 1 Mr. Salomone clarified for Ihe Agency that staff prepared time cards for Ihose projects in redevelopment areas, projects such as Wal-Mart, Ihe Auto Park, Palomar Trolley Center, etc. had a clear nexus to staff time. Member Moot commented if Ihe Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency was not one of lhe most conscientio s jurisdictions in doing this he would be surprised. This amounted to a very well thought out, very well document d process. If someone looked at what the Agency did and found Ihe Agency was lacking in any manner or good fa'th he would be surprised. Mr. Goss noted an example of an unnamed jurisdiction in northern California. In looking at Chula Vista's split d formula, we thought that jurisdiction's split being 54 percent to 46 percent was terrific. We thought Ihere mi t be some magic they had found. It turued out Ihe magic was Ihat that was all Ihe money the Redevelopment Agen y had to put into econontic development. If Ihey had more money, it would have been 100 percent. Member Rindone complimented staff on doing a lot of work to get to Ihis point and in reasonable circumstan s it should hold water. The City Attorney said it best, it was a reasonable risk. Member Padilla said it was good then Ihat he raised all those points. Member Moot said that was the important process, as long as Ihe Agency was satisfied they were acting in go d faiIh' That was all Ihe Agency was asked to do. Member Rindone said Member Moot was absolutely right. The Agency now had a handle on Ihis and with t e motion which just passed, Ihe item would be brought back to the Agency periodically, not annually, but maybe in two years, Ihree years, or when the law changes. 4. AGENCY REPORT: FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 MID-YEAR AGENCY BUDGET REPORT-- e Redevelopment Agency Board adopted Ihe FY 95-96 Agency budget on 6/27/95. As part of Ihe budget, staff w directed to return with a Mid-Year Budget Report in order to update Ihe Agency Board on the progress made tow d Ihe goal of restoring Ihe Agency's depleted fund balances. Staff recommends the Agency review and accept t e report. (Community Development Director) Mr. Salomone presented a brief staff report. Staff, at Ihe direction of the Agency, took a number of ste s, including selling property, to reduce Ihe on-going deficit of the Agency. Oilier sales were pending, both to the P rt District and private parties. Staff felt very confident about those sales. Two weeks ago the Agency was present d Ihe Capital Improvement Projects with alternative funding sources for a number of projects Ihat were to have be n funded by the Redevelopment Agency. In addition to that, staff made some prudent operating budget cuts. W' h Ihe completion of the property sales Ihe Agency has moved from a negative $3.3 million to a possible negative f about $400,000 since Ihe annual budget process last year. Staff felt Ihere was some cause for optintism beyond at because of Ihe oilier pending sales. Basically, what this report detailed was that the Agency was moving in Ihe ri t direction -- out of deficit. It also showed how active staff was, there were a lot of projects proceeding. The rep rt also showed Ihe tax increment activity was very good. The property tax in Ihe redevelopment areas w s appreciating faster than the City, and the City was appreciating faster Ihan other cities. That did not mean that it was great, and it did not mean there were not a good number of appeals on the books and Ihose may impact t increment revenue negatively. Basically, the picture was a good one and the direction Ihe Agency was moving w positive. Member Rindone asked Mr. Salomone to share with Ihe Agency what Ihe annual debt service was. Mr. Haynes replied Ihe total was $4.5 ntillion and referred the Agency to Attachment I of the staff report, un r Estimated Expenditures "Debt Service (+ COPS)". Member Moot asked how much Town Centre I and II made up of that $4.5 million. c:J.-I/ Minutes Special Joint Workshop/Meeting February 20, 1996 Page 12 Mr. Haynes stated the Tax Allocation Bonds for Ihe Bayfront and Town Centre I was $2.4 ntillion. Member Rindone asked if the annual projected revenues excluded one-time sales of properties. Mr. Haynes replied yes. If oilier operating expenses were added in, Ihen no. That number, under Operating Surplus/Deficit, was about $340,000 in deficit from an operational standpoint. Member Rindone asked if the total debt service and operational expenses on an annual basis was exceeding annual income for all five redevelopment project areas, excluding one-time sales, of about $340,000. Was Ihat a correct restatement? Mr. Haynes stated that was a correct restatement with Ihe caveat that Ihat did not include Housing, a restricted fund. Housing was doing fine, it was about $300,000 to the positive. Member Rindone asked if in Ihe scenario the Agency was to do nothing next year and continue operating with Ihe SaIne projected revenues and expenditures, then would the $400,000 Agency debt Ihen be $740,000. Mr. Haynes said that was correct. Member Rindone said the Agency could address that when Ihe Agency got new projects and new revenues. The Agency was not out of Ihe woods yet, but does have a clearer picture. Mr. Haynes said the deficit could be made up so easily wiIh a good year or two in tax increment growth. Member Rindone said one could not make that assumption, Ihe deficit would go the same every year, but just for discussion purposes until Ihe year 2024. Member Moot said it was not unusual for a redevelopment agency to run some kind of deficit. Mr. Salomone noted that was correct. Redevelopment agencies were typically 25 or 40 year projects. Member Moot said it was reasonable to assume, over a five year period, given an improved economic situation, that was a number which could be made up. MSUC [AIevy/PadiIIa] to accept the staff report, approved 5-0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. OTHER BUSINESS 5. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) None. 6. CHAIR'S/MAYOR'S REPORHS) None. 7. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS None. ~-/:L Minu es Special Joint Workshop/Meet ng February 20, 1 6 Page 13 ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m. to Ihe Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on March 5, 1996 at 4:00 p. " immediately following Ihe City Council meeting, in Ihe City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, Berlin D. Bosworth Secretary to Ihe Redevelopment Agency [c: \ WP51 \AGENCY\MlNUTES\02-20-96.MI2] c4 - /:3 - This page blank. ~ -l¥ MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, March 5. 1996 Council Chambe s 4:54 p.m. Public Services Buildi g 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 y Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 20, 1996 MSUC (Horton/A levy) to approve the minutes of February 20, 1996 as presented. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items pulled: none) CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY MEMBER ALEVY, reading of the text was waived, passed an approved unanimously. 3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 4. RESOLUTION 1488 GRANTING AN EASEMENT TO THE SWEETWATER AUTHORITY FOR T PURPOSE OF INSTALLING, OPERATING, MAINTAINING, REPLACING AND REPAffiING WATE MAINS, SERVICE PIPES AND THE RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR SUCH PURPOSES 0 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 760 BROADWAY -- Sweetwater Authority h s requested an easement for the purpose of inslalling and mainIaining waler service equipment on Agency proper! in order to provide service for the proposed Broadway Business Homes Project. Staff recommends approval of t resolution. (4/5ths Vote Required) Community Development DirectorlDirector of Public Works) . . END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. . PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 5. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 2.43 TO THE CHULA VIST MUNICIPAL CODE TO EST ABLISH SUCCESSOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE TO OPERATE UNl)ER AUTHORITY OF, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES ESTABLISHED B THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA TO SERVE AS LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ADVISOR BODIES--The Agency adopted Resolution 1309 on 3/16/93 approving revised roles and functions for the To Centre, OIay Valley Road, and Southwest Project Area Committees in response to permit slreamlinin recommendations by the Economic Development Commission. The revised roles and functions were contemplate and approved in order to facilitate a more business friendly environment for business development. At its 08/17/9 meeting, the City CouncillRedevelopment Agency advised additional action would need to be taken in order t formally incorporate all Project Area Committees into the "family" of Boards and Comntissions. Staff determin the most appropriate way to implement this aclion is to have the proposed ordinance adopted. Staff recommen the public hearing be tabled. The public hearing will he re-noticed in accordance with legal requirements (Community Development Director) (Continued from meeting of 2/20/96) c:< - ;S Minutes March 5. 1996 Page 2 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR Items pulled: none. The minutes will reflect the puhlished agenda order. OTHER BUSINESS 6. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORTCS) - None 7. CHAIR'S/MA YOR'S REPORTCS) - None 8. AGENCY/COUNcrL MEMBER COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 5:40 P.M. 10 the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meetiog on March 19,1996 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. CLOSED SESSION The Agency met in Closed Session at 5:00 p.m. and reconvened at 5:40 p.m. 9. SALE AND DISPOSITION OF REAL PROPERTY - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 . Sale of Agency-owned property at 753 Broadway (Parcel Nos. 572-212-01 and 572-180-36), Redevelopment Agency and William Perkins, Investor; instructions to negotiators regarding price and terms. 10. REPORT OF ACTION IS) TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - No reportable actions were taken in Closed Session. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk by: ~-I!o - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT Item (5 et.--r-Þ Meeting Date 3/19/96 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY/TRASH TRANSFER STATION (MRF/TTS) AT 1855 MAXWELL ROAD WITHIN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA RESOLUTION Adopting Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration IS-95-28, Adopting the 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 Permit for the Establishment of a Materials Recovery Facility/Trash Transfer Station at 1855 Maxwell Road within the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area RESOLUTION Approving Plans and Entering into an Owner Participation Agreement with John Sexton Sand & Gravel Corporation for the Development of a Materials Recovery Facility/Trash Transfer Station at 1855 Maxwell Road within the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director C-) . REVIEWED BY: Executive Director ~ '5~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes - No -K..! Council Referral Number: - BACKGROUND: In 1995, the City Council determined it wanted to explore the feasibility of developing a materials recovery facility/trash transfer station (MRF/TTS) facility within the City in order to reduce trash tipping fees. Staff investigated 14 sites throughout the City. In consideration of locational advantages and site availability, staff and the Council narrowed down the list of properties to three: 1855 Maxwell Road, 894 Energy Way, and 900 Bay Boulevard. The property located at 1855 Maxwell Road was ultimately selected as the most desirable site. The proposed facility will include an 85,600 square foot building on a 10.8 acre site. Trash dumping and sorting activities will take place inside of the building, although some limited activities will take place in the yard area as well. The proposed site is currently owned by R. E. Hazard Contracting Company and is used as a storage yard. The site is located within the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area and is zoned loP (General Industrial/Precise Plan). Development of an MRF/TTS facility here will require a Special Land Use permit pursuant to the Otay Valley Road Implementation Plan/Design Manual Addendum and City zoning ordinance. The Redevelopment Plan also requires the developers to enter into an Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) with the Agency in order to proceed with the project. .3-1 Page 2, Item ~.b Meeting Date 03/19/96 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Agency: (1) adopt the Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration IS-95-28; (2) adopt the Miti9ation Monitoring and Reporting Program, (3) Making Findings under the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan/Design Manual Addendum, (4) approve a Special Land Use Permit for the development of a MRF/TTS facility at 1855 Maxwell Road; and, (5) approve an Owner Participation Agreement with John Sexton Sand & Gravel Corporation for development of a trash transfer facility at 1855 Maxwell Road. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Committee (DRC) discussed proposed plans for the MRF/TTS on January 29, 1996 and February 12, 1996 (see Minutes, Attachment A). The DRC expressed concerns over the height of the structure, materials, and articulation of the facade and fencin9. The DRC again met on March 11, 1995 and approved the project as revised pursuant to six conditions which have been made a part of the Owner Participation Agreement. The Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee considered the proposed facility at their Special Meeting of March 18, 1996. The recommendation(s) of the PAC will be presented orally to the Agency. On Wednesday, February 21, 1996, staff conducted a field trip to Orange County to visit two similar facilities currently in operation. Members of the DRC and PAC were invited to attend. Don Palumbo, of the PAC and two representatives of John Burnham and Company, manager of the industrial park in Design Court, attended the field trip. DISCUSSION: The proposed MRF/TTS facility will be developed on the southerly 10.8 acres of the Hazard site on Maxwell Road (see Locator Map, Exhibit 1). The building will include 85,600 square feet with a maximum height of 40 feet. The structure will house offices, a tipping floor, hopper loadout, a materials recovery/sorting belt system, a storage area, shop, loading dock, and product loadout. The grounds will also accommodate scales for weighing incoming and outgoing vehicles, a resident drop-off area, and a yard waste processing area. Hazard will continue to use the remaining 7 acres of their property to the north of the facility for outdoor storage of construction materials. Operations of the MRF/TTS facility include the transporting, weighing, and tipping of refuse by residents and trash collection firms, and the sorting, separation, bailing, loading, and transporting of the sorted refuse materials. The applicant has proposed hours of operation from Monday through Friday, 5:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. and Saturdays from 7:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. As a condition of approval of a Special Permit, staff recommends the following hours of operation: m"w,IU,4 IM",h 14. 1996 [1,53 pmll 6-).- - Page 3, Item ~b Meeting Date 03/19/96 Monday through Friday 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (with no deliveries before 6:30 a.m.) Saturday and Sunday 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (with no deliveries before 7:30 a.m.) The recommended hours of operation will preclude the collection of solid waste any earlier than it is currently collected in order not to disturb residents. These hours may be modified by the Zoning Administrator upon request by the operator of the facility based upon operational efficiencies and community compatibility. Special Permit The overall goal of the Redevelopment Plan is the elimination of blight in the project area and the furtherance of the area's orderly growth and economic development. Toward those ends, the MRF/TTS will provide residents and trash hauling firms with competitive rates and a choice of dumping facilities. The facility will assist the City in meeting State mandated AB 939 recycling goals. The MRF/TTS will also reduce the amount of illegal dumping currently taking place in the Otay Valley area by reducing dumping fees and providing more hours of operation including Sundays. The project site and surrounding sites are zoned loP (General IndustriallPrecise Plan). The nearest residential properties are located in Robinhood Point, approximately 2000 feet from the Hazard property. The current zoning category and Redevelopment Plan allow a trash transfer facility as a conditional land use with an loP zone which requires a Special Permit within the Redevelopment Project Area. An Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration IS-95-28 (Attachment B) was prepared for the project which identified a number of environmental impacts that would be potentially significant if mitigation were not imposed. Based on the findings of the Initial Environmental Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. The project will not result in any impacts on the environment that would be considered significant after mitigation is implemented. Environmental resources that were found to be potentially impacted by the project include: geologic resources, water resources, air quality, transportation/circulation, energy, hazards, noise, public services, utilities, aesthetics, and cultural resources. Odor, noise, and transportation/circulation are addressed in the Initial Study, IS-95-28. However, a brief discussion of each issue is presented below. Odor: The collected materials most likely to produce objectionable odors at the facility will be inside the building for a maximum of 48 hours. To ensure as little odor as possible escapes the building, the Applicant is required to install an air discharge system to capture odors. Such a system should eliminate the vast majority of offensive odors from the air. The applicant must also comply with San Diego Air Pollution Control District rules and regulations, including those relating to prohibiting the formation of odor nuisances. m",w,II.,,4 IM",h 14. 1996 [1,53 pmJl .3-3 - Page 4, Item ;I)..<f'b Meeting Date 03/19/96 Noise: It is estimated that the MRF/TTS will generate approximately 435 ACTs more than are currently flowing on Otay Valley Road once it is fully operational. This will result in an imperceptible increase in the noise generation along Otay Valley Road and is not considered a significant noise impact. Noise levels generated by the operation of the MRF/TTS will be from the heavy equipment and large trucks operating on the property. Given this activity, however, the Initial Study has indicated, on page 33, that "operations will be characteristic of industrial operations and will be able to meet the exterior noise performance standards specified in the Zoning Code (i.e., not exceeding 70 to 80 dBA at adjacent property boundaries). . This is due to sound attenuation provided by the structure that will contain the majority of facility operations. Operations should not result in significant adverse noise impacts on adjacent land uses." Sound attenuation includes turning the building such that the structure is at a 9° angle to the southern property line with the southeast COrner being approximately 70 feet further away from the southwest COrner. The effect is that the eastern elevation is directed more towards the northeast than directly east. In addition, a solid wall is required to be built along the southern property line. T ransDortation/Circulation: The project will primarily affect three transportation corridors: 1-805, Otay Valley Road, and Maxwell Road. Since the project is located on the route to the Otay Landfill, no significant increase is expected in the number of trash trucks that would normally be traveling to the landfill. The main impact will come from semi-tractor/trailers traveling to and from the MRF/TTS. These trucks will be taking trash from the transfer station to less costly landfills located elsewhere in the region and beyond. As stated on page 35 in IS-95-28 "Landfill destinations include local, regional, and remote locations throughout greater southern California and Arizona." IS-95-28 lists the number of average daily trips (ADT) at 942 or: 376 collection trucks 218 transfer trailer trucks 38 materials trucks 150 self-haul vehicles 160 emDlovee/visitors 942 ADT Since the improvements currently being completed on Otay Valley Road took into account heavy truck traffic to and from the landfill, no improvements are needed along that road. However, improvements will be required on Maxwell Road to bring that street up to standard. This is a Municipal Code requirement and not a mitigation measure. No mitigation measures are required for the transportation/circulation issues. As a result of the public review period on the Initial Study which ran from November 15, 1995 to December 15, 1995, letters of comment were received from the following agencies/organizations: County of San Diego Public Works Department, CalTrans, Sky Trucking, and the California Integrated Waste Management Board. It should be noted that the City is not obligated under CEQA to provide individual responses to comments. But because the Integrated Waste Management Board has significant permitting authority over the project, specific responses to their comments were prepared and are attached to the Initial Study. Staff has carefully reviewed the comments and has determined that none of the issues raised m..w"L,,4 IM..,h 14. 1996 (1,53 pmll .3-+ - Page 5, Item 3().oI'Þ Meeting Date 03/19/96 in the comments change any of the conclusions of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with respect to the significance of impacts or the level of mitigation required. Clarifications provided in the response letter to the Integrated Waste Management Board resolve many of the substantive issues raised in that comment, as well as some of the other comments. It should also be noted that staff has discussed the comments from CalTrans with their staff, explaining the results of the City's analysis. CalTrans staff has agreed that no additional traffic study need be performed for the project. Since the Mitigated Negative Declaration requires mitigations to be imposed on the project, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) must also be adopted. The MMRP lists the specific measures required to ensure implementation of the mitigation measures listed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff has concluded that the project at the proposed location is appropriate given the surrounding land uses, proximity to the landfill, the proposed site improvements, and the relatively few adverse environmental impacts from the project. Recommendations The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project required an Initial Study. It is recommended that the Agency review and adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-95-28, as well as the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment C). It is also recommended that the Agency make the following findings pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan and approve the request for a Special land Use Permit for the construction and operation of a materials recovery facility and trash transfer station at 1855 Maxwell Road, subject to the conditions contained in the OPA (Attachment D). FindinQs: A. The proposed project does not constitute a substantial detriment to the Project Area or adjacent areas in that it is compatible with surrounding uses. B. The proposed project generally promotes the orderly physical and economic development of the Project Area in that it will contribute to the local economy by providing competitive waste disposal facilities and services which should result in user costs savings. In addition, the building will meet design standards comparable to other industrial developments along Otay Valley Road, and will put 10 acres of under utilized property in use. C. The proposed project is generally consistent with the townscape/planning and urban design objectives of the Implementation Pian/Design Manual Addendum (see Attachment E), and contributes to the amenity of the Project Area in that the project must implement any requirement related to design, setback, landscaping, exterior structural alterations, etc. as required by the Implementation Plan/Design Manual Addendum to the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan. m.xwell.'" 1M"," ", 199611,53pml( 3-5 Page 6. Item .? ~ ..r/p Meeting Date 03/19/96 Owner Participation Aqreement The CPA between the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency and John Sexton Sand & Gravel Corporation is attached (as Attachment D) for review by the Agency. This document. as required by the Redevelopment Plan for all major projects. formally approves the proposal. Through the CPA. the Developer agrees to: 8 Include non-discrimination clauses in all leases and/or deeds conveying an interest in the property. 8 Not to protest formation of a Special Assessment District by the City (Developer can protest amount of assessment). 8 Maintain the property in first class condition. 8 Develop the property in accordance with approved plans and conditions. 8 Operate the property in accordance with authorized land uses. 8 This Agreement is in effect for the duration of the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan (Year 2023) or until redevelopment of the site occurs. Staff recommends approval the CPA. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed facility, including machinery. is estimated to be valued at $10 million which will generate $100.000 in tax increment funds to the Agency in the first year of completion. The proposed facility will generate approximately 59 jobs at the beginning of operation with the potential to increase to 100 new jobs. It will also help to reduce trash tipping fees by offering comparable and competitive facilities to the County landfill. Under a separate agreement with Sexton. the City has agreed to reimburse the developer for expenses incurred under certain circumstances should the City not go forward with the project. The amount that would be owed Sexton under this agreement through March 30. 1996 is $280,000. This figure includes $190.000 for out-of-pocket expenses and $90.000 for management fees. m",w,II.'" 1M"," 14. 1996 ",53 pm]} ~-~ Page 7,Item )/t oJþ Meeting Date 03/19/96 Exhibit 1: Locator Map Attachment A: Minutes - Design Review Committee meetings of 1/29/96 and 2/12/96 Attachment B.: Letter from Don Palumbo, Gold Coast Engineering, with Petition from Property Owners Attachment C: Initial Environmental Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-95-28 Attachment D: Response Comment Letters Attachment E: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Attachment F: Owner Participation Agreement Attachment G: Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan/Design Manual Addendum, May 1985 Attachment H: Supplemental Noise Data IBB\C:\WP51 \AGENCY\RA4S\MRF- TTS.RA41 moxwell.,,4 IM'"h14,199611,53pmll ,3-7 - This page blank. .3 ---? ~ ~ D..M - EXHIBIT 1 < GI ::S ZCl oü: ~ 0 0 oJ t; W Ó c: D.. , œ ïi '" I 0 Õ z X I ~Z I i I This page blank. c :.I ATTACHMENT "A" - MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Mondav. Januarv 29. 1996 Conference Rooms 2 and 3 4:30 p.m. A. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Spethman, Vice Chair Rodriguez, Members Duncanson and Kelly. STAFF PRESENT: Principal Planner Steve Griffin Assistant Planner Ann Pedder-pease Conservation Coordinator Michael Meacham B. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Spethman made an opening statement explaining the design review process and the committee's responsibilities. He asked that all speakers sign in and identify themselves verbally for the tape when speaking. C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Spethman-Kelly) (4-0) to approve the minutes of the November 27, 1995 meeting as presented. D. PRESENTATION OF PROJECT 1. DRC-96-20 Chula Vista Materials Recovery Facility 1855 Maxwell Road Materials Recovery Facility & Trash Transfer Station Staff Presentation Assistant Planner Ann Pedder-Pease presented the project which consists of a 76,000 sq. ft. materials recovery facility and trash transfer station along with 7,500 sq. ft. of office space, a yard waste processing area and a variety of outdoor storage and staging areas. Included is parking for 87 cars, including 2 handicapped spaces, a public dropoff area for sorted recyclables and a small, landscaped, outdoor seating area, She pointed out to the committee that the intent concerning the circulation was to bring all the large trucks through the outside perimeter, having most of the trucks leaving on the north side of the site, keeping them separated from the pedestrians, vehicles, and self-haul trucks which would be using the facility as a community resource. Ms. Pedder-Pease added it was really necessary to make this project public friendly. She felt that, while this might be hard to achieve for such a large-scale project, the applicant did an excellent job to make this project human scale. 3 - DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 2 JANUARY 29. 1996 Committee Questions of Staff Member Pat Kelly asked about traffic in relation to the landfill. Michael Meacham pointed out that traffic wouldn't be much different than what is going out toward the landfill now, and stated that the size and the expectation of this facility is that, at such a time as the landfill closes, the facility would ultimately have the potential to replace it. Ms. Kelly asked about the use of the facility. Mr. Meacham explained that he would not describe it as more than a recycling facility, but he thinks it is designed to be equally a recovery facility, and feels it compliments the City's programs, which are source separation oriented. Chairman Spethman asked Mr. Meacham if this facility will be adequate to meet future needs. Mr. Meacham stated that the capacity of this facility could easily handle projected growth over the next 20 years. Member Kelly, looking at page 6 of the Environmental Review Study, was concerned about the location of the facility in relation to residential areas and school sites. Mr. Meacham indicated he believes that the State Dept. of Public Resources currently states that a solid waste transfer station or landfill cannot be within 1,000 ft. of a daycare center, school, human hospital, or residence. Member Kelly was also concerned about the odor the surrounding residents would be subject to. Mr. Meacham pointed out the difference between the old facilities vs. the new facilities; the new facilities are totally enclosed and have a negative air flow. Because of the negative air flow odors are not detectable. Chairman Spethman asked about staging and wondered if there was a study as to what the impact is going to be. Michael Meacham stated that trucks usually spend typically 25-35 minutes in a landfill. At the transfer station the time is typically 15-25 minutes, so therefore time spent in the yard is shorter than at the landfill. Principal Planner Steve Griffin pointed out that the trucks waiting outside would be covered or enclosed until they entered the building, and this is a requirement of the operation. David Vladic, representing the applicant, pointed out that six trucks can be serviced at one time and the time that Mr. Meacham pointed out, (15 minutes) is the total time the truck is on the property. Committee Concerns/Questions of Annlicant Chairman Speth man asked Mr. Vladic if he agreed with staff recommendations. Mr. Vladic told the committee that he agreed with everything they need to do as stated in the staff report. Member Rodriguez was concerned about the circulation, and quernoned the entry and loop road. He also asked about the yard waste processing area and questioned the translucent panels used on the building. Mr. Vladic responded by explaining the traffic flow for self-haulers, and transfer trucks. He pointed out that 90% of trucks will go out the north exit. What they were trying to do for safety reasons is to keep the larger If - DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 3 JANUARY 29. 1996 trucks separated from the smaller vehicles. Mr. Vladic explained that they will have spotters working the site to direct and keep traffic moving in the direction that has been laid out. Mr. Vladic continued and addressed the yard waste processing area. All that would happen in this area is bringing the material in, shredding wood and green waste, making it into smaller volume and loading it into a larger vehicle and taking it off site. In reference to the concerns about building materials, Mr. Vladic pointed out that the main reason they had gone with translucent panels was to cut out direct sun light but preserve natural lighting in the building. He felt it also gives a different look to the building and adds to the elevations of the structure. He also mentioned that the bottom of the building is concrete. Chairman Spethman asked about the ability of the translucent materials to hold up over time. Mark Ballew, representing the architect, explained that this type of material carries the same guarantee as the metal panels, which is about 20 years. He went over briefly the different colors and textures of the building materials. Member Duncanson expressed concern about the circulation and the landscaping along the west elevation.. Mr. Vladic again explained the entry of vehicles, the drop-off services and the exit flow of traffic. As for the landscaping issue, Mr. Vladic stated there was low growing plant materials in this area. Member Kelly brought up the issue of the west elevation. She felt this elevation was too plain and lacked articulation. Assistant Planner Pedder-Pease pointed out a large landscape node that would incorporate some berming that would be used as a screening method. She also noted that there are a number of mature eucalyptus trees which also provide screening. Chairman Spethman pointed out that the committee should be looking at this building architecturally to stand on its own, not to look to camouflage it with landscaping. Member Rodriguez asked why a more solid, permanent building material wasn't chosen for a building that is planned to stay for a number of years, and asked whether the material fit in with the surrounding area. Mr. Vladic indicated that he felt that the material is compatible with the surrounding buildings and that for a metal building, it is attractive. Chairman Spethman asked if the applicant was asking for a deviation from the current Design Manual. Principal Planner Steve Griffin addressed the committee, noting that a few years ago, the issue of the aesthetics of metal buildings was brought up. It was decided at that time it is possible to build a metal building that looks as good as any non- prefabricated building. Mr. Griffin stated that simply the fact that this building is metal should not necessarily lead the committee to reject the concept altogether. Mr. Griffin also pointed out that staff usually doesn't want to simply screen a building or accept less architecture just because then can screen with landscaping. He stated that in this case, the screening was for not only a building but a service yard area. If there were normal landscape treatment there, you would be seeing a lot of the truck activity which would detract from the overall appearance. Mr. Griffin felt that in this case, the use of a screening element up front would conceal the activity up to a certain height. He S - DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 4 JANUARY 29. 1996 indicated there is 40 ft. of landscaping that could be treated in any fashion. Mr, Griffin also pointed out that staff is requiring a 6 ft. high decorative wall along the south property line. Mr. Vladic indicated that he would be more than willing to work with staff in reference to the west elevation and the landscape along Maxwell Road. Member Kelly asked if there were any roof top equipment. Mr. Vladic stated that the only thing that will be on the roof is ventilators, and skylights which are flush with the building roof. Public Input Don Palumbo of Gold Coast Engineering stated that he filed a protest letter today, along with a petition from property owners in the area opposing the project. Mr, Palumbo and his partner own the property to the south of the project. He indicated that they have been working with the City for about 5-7 years, have kept active in city politics and development of the project area. He does not want a "dump" in his back yard. He stated that he doesn't mind the architecture, elevations, colors, and the trees, but does have a little problem with the 50 ft. building height request. Mr. Palumbo stressed his concerns with the dumping of garbage inside on a concrete slab, air quality, odor, noise, bacteria, trash being blown around the site, rodent and pest control and the overall heath problems this project could cause his employees. He also feels that this project will lower his property value and would make it hard for him to sell. Mr. Palumbo does feel land use is a big issue. He commented that he couldn't understand why the City seemed to be rushing this project through. He also wanted to make note of a Senate Bill that did not pass which requires such a site to be 2,000 ft. away from any residential area. He pointed out that the Bill is coming back for a second vote and, if passed, would virtually eliminate this project. Principal Planner Steve Griffin inteIjected that the duty of the Design Review Committee is to look at design issues, aesthetic compatibility and, for this project the height issue. The location of this facility is an issue to be dealt by the Project Area Committee (pAC), which is scheduled to meet on February 5, 1996. The Redevelopment Agency meeting is scheduled for February 20th. He alerted the public speakers that there would be plenty of opportunity to forward all the land use concerns to the PAC and on to the Agency. Mr. Griffin also pointed out to the Committee that the selection of this site had been on- going about two years, with various hearings along the way, so staff does not consider this as rushing the project through. Michael Meacham, responded to the concern of waste being dumped on the concrete floor. He stated that the city's permit will enforce State requirements, that all waste from this facility has to be removed from the concrete floor every day at the end of operations and the floor cleaned. There will be no remaining waste on the facility anyvrhere at the end of every day. John Barns, who owns the property at 796 Energy Way, indicated his property is less than 100 yards from the project site. Mr. Barns pointed out to the committee a similar site at 175 Mace Street where there is a smaller version of what they are trying to do 6 - DESIGN REVIEW COMMiTTEE 5 JANUARY 29. 1996 with this project. He indicated that in a period of just 18 months there was increase in smell, flies etc at that site. Mr. Barns expressed concern about diesel smoke, trash, odors, flies, rodents and his employees' health. He also believes the property value will go down. He highly opposes the project. Bob Gunthorp is a property owner near the project site. He indicated that he too shares the same concerns mentioned by property owners in the area. Committee Summation The Design Review Committee members were not comfortable with the proposed building materials, mainly the translucent material. It was felt that the material would not keep its color, and could not be easily maintained. Chairman Spethman would like the applicant to provide a noise study indicating the sound attenuation characteristics of the materials proposed and other members requested the specs on the materials. The Committee members were not comfortable with the building height increase and were concerned about the lack of articulation and relief, particularly on the west elevation. They asked for a more detailed landscape plan, including the size of species used. Members questioned fencing along Maxwell Road. Mr. Griffin stated that fencing will be solid and decorative, and materials and design will be approved by staff prior to building permits. Members also noted that they would like the applicant to key onto some details of the yard waste processing area which could be approved at staff level. MSUC (Speth man/Rodriguez) (4-0) to approve IS-95-28. MSUC (Speth man/Rodriguez) (4-0) to continue DRC-96-20 to the meeting of February 12, 1996. E. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned 6:25 p.m. 7 - MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Mondav. Februarv 12. 1996 Conference Rooms 2 and 3 4:30 p.m. A.. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Spethman, vice Chair Rodriguez, Members Duncanson and Kelly. STAFF PRESENT: Principal Planner Steve Griffin Assistant Planner Ann pedder-Pease Conservation Coordinator Michael Meacham L. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Spethman made an opening statement explaining the design review process and the committee's responsibilities. He asked that all speakers sign in and identify themselves verbally for the tape when speaking. Q." APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Spethman/Rodriguez) (4-0) to approve the minutes of December 11,1995 and January 29, 1996. !2.... PRESENTATION OF PROJECT 1. DRC-96-20 Chula Vista Materials Recovery Facility 1855 Maxwell Road Materials Recovery Facility & Trash Transfer Station Chairman Michael Speth man opened the meeting to any members of the public who wished to speak on this specific issue. Mr. Don Palumbo of Gold Coast Engineering reminded the Committee of his concerns and mentioned the signed petitions that he had submitted. He mentioned to the Committee that he did meet with Mr. Michael Meacham and Mr. George Krempl to get a little more information on the project and to get a feel for what the City's position on the project is. Mr. Palumbo made note that he still opposes the project and feels that it is inconsistent with the Redevelopment Area guidelines. ~ ¡ I I - DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 2 FEBRUARY 12, 1996 Staff Presentation Assistant Planner Ann Pedder Pease pointed out the concerns of the Committee from the previous meeting. She stated that the Committee was not comfortable with the proposed building materials, mainly the translucent panels. It was felt that the panels would not keep their color, and could not be easily maintained. The Committee also requested specs and a noise study indicating the sound attenuation characteristics of the materials proposed. Ms. Pedder Pease stated that the members were not comfortable with the building height increase and were concerned about the lack of articulation and relief, particularly on the west elevation. Ms. Pedder Pease indicated that the Committee asked for a more detailed landscape plan, including the size of species used. Ms. Pedder Pease reminded the Committee of their concern about the details of the fencing proposal and their request to see precisely what might be considered for fencing along Maxwell Road. She also noted that the members wanted the applicant to key onto some details of the yard waste processing area. Assistant Planner Pedder Pease addressed each issue and pointed out the revised plan showing more detail about the circulation around the yard waste area. She indicated that the west elevation had been enhanced with additional landscaping. Ms. Pedder Pease made note to the Committee that the applicant discussed and considered whether it was feasible to look at other materials, but are intending to continue with their previous material selection. As far as the height issue is concerned, the applicant has lowered the proposed maximum height from 50' to 40,' which is actually the top of the doghouse ventilating area, and brings the overall building height down to 35'. Ms. Pedder Pease pointed to the revised site plan which shows additional buffering on the east elevation with more specific plant materials. She indicated that with the exception of the fencing details, the applicant has addressed most of the concerns expressed by the Committee, including showing elevations along Maxwell Road with the much enhanced landscaping. ADDlicants Presentation Mr. Dave Vladic addressed the Committee with an overview of the concerns that had previously been expressed. He mentioned that the height of the building had been lowered and went over the revised plan addressing the yard waste processing area. He also mentioned the revised landscaping, and states that the plan now shows more detail. Mr. Vladic pointed out to the Committee the fencing, which would be PVC coated, the stucco columns, and the extra panels that were added. He made note of the stucco which had been added to the facade to break up the west elevation. Mr. Vladic mentioned to the Committee that a representative from Butler Mfg. was present to address concerns with the building materials. Mr. Tom Waldren of Butler Mfg. gave some background information about the company he represents, stated that they are very involved in transfer stations, and handed out some literature to the Committee members. He went on to address some of the issues previously brought up by the members. Mr. Waldren went over the durability issue, 9 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 3 FEBRUARY 12, 1996 He stated that Butler roofs are renowned for their durability and pointed out the MR24 roof system, which has a 20 year warranty. He mentioned that the wall panels are synthetic stucco finish on a metal panel. Mr. Waldren stated that the material is very durable, has a 10 year warranty, and is very successful. He indicated that the light panels have a UV protective coating, (tevlar), which keeps the panels from yellowing. Committee Concerns/Questions Chair Michael Spethman asked Mr. Waldren if they ever had to replace panels and asked how the panels were cleaned. Mr. Waldren stated they have not replaced panels, and they do carry a 5 year warranty. He said the panels are usually cleaned by the rain, and graffiti or spray paint usually come off very easily. Mr. Waldren made note that the panels are not graffiti proof, but are graffiti resistant. Member Pat Kelly asked about insulation and the noise attenuation. Mr. Vladic mentioned that there was insulation in the roof only. As far as the noise attenuation, Mr. Vladic went over the noise study and pointed out the dB levels. Principal Planner Steve Griffin also went over the dB levels and compared them to City standards, Mr. Griffin indicated to the Committee that if they were not comfortable with the comparison noise study, they could request another study and add this as a condition before permits are pulled. Member John Rodriguez was concerned about the fencing around the property. He indicated that the plans show no detail of a fencing solution. Mr. Vladic indicated that there would be a solid wall on the south, with PVC-coated fencing around the remaining sides. Staff indicated that the Design Manual states that a solid wall would be required along street frontage, i.e. Maxwell Road. Member Rodriguez stated to the applicant that he was still not comfortable with the building being metal, and that he does not care for the translucent panels. Member Richard Duncanson shared concern on the durability of the building materials. Member Kelly was satisfied with the building as it is, but expressed concern on the fencing issue. She also would like to see less of the metal siding. Committee Summation The Design Review Committee members were not completely satisfied with the overall presentation of the project. They felt that a lot of their concerns were not addressed and asked the applicant to come back with solutions to the items of concern to the Committee. The Committee remained unconvinced that the translucent panels are the only way to provide diffused, shadow-free natural light. The members still have some concern that the panels appear temporary and will quickly discolor and deteriorate. It was also noted that the finish and ribbing pattern of the metal skin may not be considered /0 - DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 4 FEBRUARY 12, 1996 entirely consistent with the design standards of buildings, other than temporary storage buildings, in the immediate vicinity. The Committee asked the applicant to continue to explore other aesthetic solutions. It was indicated that no design detail had been offered for the concrete push wall. The members would like to see a detail of that proposal and suggested a textured, exposed aggregate or scored concrete. The Committee members also mentioned the connection detail between the concrete push wall and the prefabricated metal structure, and would like to see some detailing of this. The Committee remained very concerned about the details of the fencing proposal and would like to see precisely what might be considered for both the fencing and gates along Maxwell Road. They asked that a detailed fencing proposal be submitted to them for review and approval. The Members also agreed that a comprehensive signage proposal should be included in the next submittal for review and approval. MSUC (Speth man/Rodriguez) (4-0) to approve continuance of DRC-96-20 to the next regularly scheduled meeting of February 26, 1996. E. AD] 0 URNMENT Meeting adjourned 6:15 p.m. / / .' / /, ~~/. Maureen Wentz, Record¥ "" I "" '. , ¡/ - This page blank. /).r- ; ATTACHMENT "8" 1691 Nirvana Ave., Chula VIsta, CA 919T1 (619) 421-1151 Mailing addnr55: P.O. Box 1109, Bonita, CA 9191J8.1109 . FAX (619)421-1506 i January 24, 1996 City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 91910 : Attn: Design Review Committee i i Subject: Case Number DRC-96-20 Material Recovery Fadlity and Trash Transfer Station i Proposed Location - 1855 Maxwell Road i , ! Gentlemen: Gold Coast Engineering Inc. is located immediately adjacent to the southerly property line of the proposed facility, As owners of Gold Coast Engineeri11g, we are extremely concerned about all the environmental issues which will effect not only the site itself, but also the surrounding properties, We are alllo very conœmed about the reduced value of our multi-million dollar project and the value of all properties within the Otay Valley Road project area. Further, the proposed project Is in complete disagreement with the "Otay Valley Road Development Project Area Implementation Plan/Design Manual Addendum", dated May 1985. When we selected the area for location of our business, and the related acquisition of property and building our facilities, we believed that the goals of the implementation Plan/Design Manual Addendum met the objective we envisioned for our company. In addition, there is an Assembly Bill, number 961, in the California LegislatuIe which would virtually eliminate this site as a candidate for the project. We have been informed that the Bill recently failed to pi1B8 but is going to a second hearing. 13 I~~ £1:£1 96. £1 è tlW èØd 661 111 9Œ"l8 3:)9 90!;Hiò17619 t(pJ January 24, 1996 City of Chula Vista Page Two We are primarily concerned about: . Air quality - airborne particles and bacteria and nauseous odor . Noise . Trash being blown about the site and adjoinmg properties. ¡ . Rodent and pest control , . The proposed 50 feet building height. , ! Obviously the ideal location for this operation is on the county land fill located one half mile from the proposed site, As tax-paying, environmentally-sensitive citizens, it is impossible to understand why the City of Chula Vista. and the City and! or County of San Diego cannot work together and locate this faciIiqr, if required, on the present landfill. The City of Otula Vista has spent considerable effort guiding the development of the Otay Valley Road project into a first class industrial and commercial area- Locating the proposed project in the middle of the Otay Valley Road project is not consistent with the objectives of a first class IndustrlaJ Park. In addition. the proposed project will undoubtedly reduce the value of adjacent properties, We are available to discuss this matter in further detail, if needed. Sincerely, /./.~ Donald R. Palumbo ~~ ChIl1'Q Sutherland Vice President DRP/aw ;f vI :1<:1 96. n èI\:jW Ð!Id 661 HI 9Œì8 3:J!3 911!!:;Hèv619 - ¡ . ! ! i ~ ~ f~ ~t~ ) ~ m Ô) . , i _å , S 0:: ¡ ..9.!!1@ ~II\ 1\ 'ofi5~ t1t., ~ I i I 1Q' ; ~~ I il.~ j .1~~{)~ 'l~~ ¡ E 'I '§ :! ?: œ ^- I m E. a: 'Ii t"' "i- I -¡"tit -!! ~ ¡¡¡ Ii ~ i ~ i E . ~af1 gJ ' I( f - I!! ð. ,¡¡ "tI .!!:! I! :1i! ,¡;;¡ III tna:ii: .i I !- g¡ m .¡;¡ .. i P . ~ III i z ~ III C. E 8 171 :£1 96. £1 è t: W 17l11d 661 111 galE! 3::>9 9I1I£11iò17619 ....-...-..-- - . . ; . . . . CHOLA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~ ~ CWci VIttII MatvIaIJ IIIDJECI' EJISCII'I\CNI 111-."..., DESIGN RIVIEW .. '855 Mall\nU held R8qU8ll: PnlpoICII a 75,900 14. fl. moI8rIal ~ ~ ~ .lfU~ NORTH Nolcafe ... DRC .96.:zo /h . S1:n 96. n èR:JW ~ 661 111 9GìH 3:)9 90SHGt>619 - - - 1\í1I\C\,\tilUIí "c" INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY CITY OF CHULA VISTA MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY! TRASH TRANSFER STATION (Initial Study No. 95-28) Prepared for: CITY OF CHULA VISTA Contact: Joe Monaco, AICP Environmental Projects Manager 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 Prepared by: CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. 16700 Aston Street (92714) P.O. Box 57002 (92619-7002) Irvine, California (714) 261-5414 NOVEMBER 15, 1995 11 ehambers Group. Inc. -- --.---- INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY CITY OF CHULA VISTA MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY/TRASH TRANSFER STATION (Initial Study No. 95-28) TABLE OF CONTENTS Pal:e INTRODUCTION ........................................... v SECTION I-PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................1 1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES................................... 1 1.2 PROJECT SETTING ..................................... 2 1.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS.............................. 2 1.3.1 Operations ........................................2 1.3.1.1 Site Access................................. 10 1.3.1.2 Solid Waste Processing .........................10 1.3.1.3 RecyclablesProcessing.......................... 10 1.3.1.4 Green/Wood Waste Processing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 1.3.1.5 Solid Waste Transfer........................... 11 1.3.2 Contingency Planning ................................ 12 1.3.2.1 Household Hazardous Waste Storage Area . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 12 1.3.2.2 Hazardous and Special Wastes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 1.3.2.3 Fire .....................................13 1.3.2.4 Insect and Vector Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 1.3.2.5 Litter and Dust Control .........................13 1.3.2.6 Disposal of Wastewater .........................14 1.3.3 Facilities ........................................14 1.3.4 Hours of Operation.................................. 15 SECTION 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 SECTION 3 - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. . . . . . . . . . .. 23 3.1 EARTII .............................................23 3.2 AIR................................................ 25 3.3 WATER..............""""""""""""""", 28 m','I9' .K }o TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Pal!e 3.4 PLANTLIFE .........................................30 3.5 ANIl\fALLIFE ........................................31 3.6 NOISE.............................................. 32 3.7 LIGHT AND GLARE ....................................33 3.8 LANDUSE........................................... 33 3.9 NATURALRESOURCES.................................. 34 3.10 RISK OF UPSET ....................................... 34 3.llPOPULATION.........................................35 3.12 HOUSING ...........................................35 3.13 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES .....................................39 3.15 ENERGY ............................................41 3.16 UTILITIES ...........................................41 3.17HUMANHEALTII...................................... 42 3.18 AESTHETICS .........................................42 3.19 RECREATION ........................................43 3.20CULTURALRESOURCES.................................43 3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44 3.22EIRTIERINGDETERMINATION ........................... 44 3.23 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44 SECTION4-REFERENCES...................................45 m't419' .Hi' J q LIST OF fiGURES Filrure Paee 1 RegionalLocationMap .................................3 2 ProjectVicinityMap...................................4 3 Project Location Map ..................................5 4 General Plan Land Use Designations .........................6 5 Existing Views of Project Site .............................7 6 Existing Views of Surrounding Project Area .................... 8 7 Proposed Project .....................................9 LIST OF TABLES Table Pa!!e 1 Roadway Classifications and Existing ADT Levels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 1m", :w J/) INTRODUCTION This Initial Environmental Study has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Chula Vista Implementing Guidelines to detennine whether significant environmental impacts are likely to occur from implementation of the proposed project. The City of Chula Vista will be the lead agency for assuring compliance with CEQA for the proposed project. This Initial Environmental Study includes a completed environmental checklist. Section I provides the environmental setting and a description of the proposed project. Section 2 includes the environmental checklist and provides supplemental infonnation about the items included in the fonn. ~~ ~~I SECTION 1 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sexton/Chula Vista Sanitary Services (Applicant) proposes to construct a Materials Recovery Facility/Transfer Station (MRF/TS) within the City of Chula Vista (City) that is capable of efficiently accepting, processing, and transferring municipal wastes for the City and possibly for some of the surrounding areas. The following infonnation provides details on the project site, facilities, and operations proposed. 1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES In 1989, the California legislature enacted Assembly Bill 939 and Senate Bill 1322, together with approximately 10 other bills, and were codified primarily in the Public Resources Code (pRe), Division 30, under the main title, "California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989." Among the several fIDdingS contained within Section 40000 of the PRC is the following: The amount of solid waste generated in the state coupled with diminishing landfill space and potential adverse environmental impacts from landfilling constitutes an urgent need for state and local agencies to enact and implement an aggressive new integrated waste management program. Section 40051 prioritized the goals of the act as follows: (a) Promote the following waste management practices in order of priority: (1) Source Reduction (2) Recycling and Composting (3) Environmentally safe transfonnation and environmentally safe land disposal, at the discretion of the city or county Sections 41000, 41070, and 41780 of the PRC require counties to "divert 25 percent of all solid waste from landfill or transfonnation facilities by January 1, 1995, through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities." The percentage increases to 50 percent by January 1, 2000. The City is currently reducing approximately 35 percent of its annual solid waste and is therefore well on its way to meeting the goal set for 2000. The primary objective of the proposed project is to recycle a minimum of 15 percent of the solid waste stream authorized to be processed at this recycling and transfer station, or approximately 278 tons per day (tpd) of the authorized maximum capacity of 1,850 tpd. The capability to extract 15 percent of the solid waste as recyclable will aid all of the cities whose solid waste haulers use this recycling and transfer station to meet the statutory requirements of the PRC as outlined above. ~m ~~~ 1.2 PROJECT SETTING The project site is located in the southeastern portion of the City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California, immediately north of Otay Valley Road and approximately 2 miles east of Interstate 805 (see Figure I). The project site is approximately 10.8 acres located' at 855 Maxwell Road, at the corner of Design Court and Maxwell Road (see Figure 2). Access to the site is from Maxwell Road. The site is currently owned by the R.E. Hazard Contracting Co. and is used as a storage yard for metal and wood construction supplies. Improvements on the site are limited to an office trailer and maintenance building. Figure 3 shows zoning designations for the site and surrounding areas. The current zoning designation for the site is IR!IL (Industrial Research and Limited Manufacturing). The property is also located in the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Area. The proposed MRF/TS is a pennitted use in this zone, subject to approval of a Special Land Use Pennit, and is pennitted under the Redevelopment Plan for the area. Open space and the atay Landfill are located to the north and northeast, respectively, of the site. Industrial parks border the site to the east, south, and west. Several auto wrecking businesses are also found east of the site. The Otay River is located south of the project site. Figure 4 shows the general plan land use designations for the project site and surrounding areas. Figures 5 and 6 show the project site and surrounding land uses. 1.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The proposed Chula Vista MRF/TS will receive refuse from commercial collection trucks and the general public, recycle at least 15 percent of the material, and consolidate the residuals into high-capacity transfer trucks for transport to a landfill for disposal. The Applicant plans to obtain pennits to process an average throughput capacity of 1,500 tpd and a peak throughput capacity of 1,850 ppd. 1.3.1 Ooerations The facility will receive and process mixed residential and commercial refuse, as well as source separated and commingled recyclables. The facility will also process source separated green and wood materials from self-haulers (individual members of the public) and possibly residential collection programs. Provision will be made for the temporary storage of household hazardous waste that is inadvertently delivered to the facility. No special waste or hazardous waste will be accepted at the site (see Section 1.3.2.2). The operations at the Chula Vista MRF/TS can be divided into three categories: solid waste processing, recyclables processing, and solid waste transfer. Figure 7 shows the site plan and areas within the facility where various functions will be perfonned. ~ ~23 4008-8 67 Santee El Cajon "" ? " " 0 " '" ? ." uNJTED STATES -.-.-.-. -'-'MËXiëõ'-'-' -.-.-.-.-.-.- .. Miles REGIONAL LOCATION M P 0 4 Figur 1 N Bas. Map Sou,ce: Chamb.'" Group. Inc. ~J.4 0 2000 Base Map Source: USGS 1 :24,000 ";),5 Imperial Beach. CA D.C') <tQl :¡æ~ ~~ ~ (.) 0 ...I ~ W ""') 0 0:: c.. ø " !j, I g ~ "'~h -cz (/)'ot Z GI 0:; -m !;¡ .- ¡ "" z~ ~ 4 G 8 - v (/) W C W (/) ::) 1 ~ < ..J Z < ..J a.. ..J < I - ffi r----c-- ~ I I I I I 11)1 <I: I .. I u. I I : I I . CI. . ¿ is I ! ~ . . 5 ¡¡ , m 1j <1J .9 Õ z ....c:Z "" ~? ~ w~ ~ I- .. 05 t;~ w ..., 0 "' a: ~ Q. 0<:> i? ~ "( ¡¡¡ '" I\- ;; ~ u. W 0 - z > ~ fi " - 0 I- ~ '" x w &; . ~ ~ ~ 0 0 "' z '" '" z z § § w w !:: !:: "' "' ~ ~ 0 " z z w w ~ ~ 0 a z "' " " 0 0 IJ' IJ' ¡¡¡ ¡¡¡ ;; ;; .. <D f <ø w" a:~ <6, t¡íL ro w f- .., ;;; 0 f( Œ cr-- ~ c¡ <y ~ ~ <jo 0 c z Z Q ::> ~ 0 U a: 9 a: ::> rJ) LL 0 ~ W :> c¡ ffi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 z '" ~ iE 0 a: 0 0 ~ z w '" ~ z ~ § 0 0 a: ~ w w z f- 8 ~ f- 0 '" a ~ ~ Ii: Ii: ~ ~ :> :> 0 a a; a: ~ ~ s: s: aj cj r f- a: 0 z '" z § ~ ¡;; ~ a; w z a: 0 U f- ro ~ i" a; 0 z :> 0 fE ~ w s: (j ~ m '" ~ ~" UG) W'" '"'):1 0.21 a: II.. D- C W (/ ,0 D- O a: D- ~ <J ~ 1M" ~ II! I. .1 ¡' I I II ! i ! ~ ! . ~ .~ ~ ¡;: æ - -¡¡ i ~ ~ ~ ø 0 Æ ~3D I I 1.3.1.1 Site Access All truck access to the project site is obtained from Maxwell Road. A majority of inbound transfer trucks will enter from the west via Maxwell Road accessed from Otay Valley Road, which is accessible through City surface streets or Interstates 5 and 805. Site egress will be the reverse, with trucks destined for any of severallandftlls and secondary materials markets. All employee access will be provided from Maxwell Road to the employee parking lot onsite. 1.3.1.2 Solid Waste Processing This stage of the operation deals with solid waste in its natural state and unsorted. Collected municipal waste from commercial collectors and municipal wastes brought in by the public are processed to separate the waste into recyclable materials and residual waste at this stage. Commercial collectors that service the sphere of influence for the City of Chula Vista include Laidlaw Waste Services, BPI, WMX, Sanitainer, Pacific Disposal, Jamul Services, and EDCO Disposal Corporation. The ftTst step in this process is weighing and inspecting the wastes brought into the facility. All commercial and residential collection vehicles, as well as small service providers entering the site, will be directed to the sca1ehouse where the truck will be weighed prior to being admitted. The truck scale operator will also provide preliminary screening of the incoming waste at this stage. Any undesirable wastes delivered for recycling (i.e., heavy construction wastes) will be manually sorted, processed, and then directed to a reject area. Trucks carrying hazardous materials will not be admitted to the facility. From the scalehouse, trucks will be directed to the transfer building, where the wastes will be dumped onto a tipping floor inside the building for sorting. Truck unloading will be controlled by a roving traffic director on the tipping floor. After the waste is unloaded, wheel loaders will direct waste directly to the process line area for placement into the conveyor. The wheel loader operator will also be responsible for further screening the waste for unprocessable items and will direct this material to the reject area. 1.3.1.3 Recyclables Processing The processing facility will have the capability to recover cardboard, newsprint, mixed paper, aluminum, ferrous metal, fIlm plastics, mixed plastics, wood, glass, and yard wastes. Large bulky items, such as white goods (i.e., large appliances), tires, construction debris, packing crates, or furniture, will be sorted on the tipping floor. After the large bulky items are removed, a wheel-loading tractor will be used to load the waste onto the conveyor that is recessed in the tipping floor. The conveyor will then carry the materials up to a sort station where the recyclable materials will be removed and placed in recycling bins by sorting personnel. The remaining nonrecyclable materials are returned by conveyor to the tipping floor. fm4NS lott 31 The recyclable materials will be stored in designated bins, bale storage areas, and storage bunkers. Bins will be moved by conveyor or will be directly loaded onto a materials truck using a wheel loader. Bales will be carried by forklift from the baler to the staging area located in the western area of the facility. From the staging area, the bales and containers will again be moved to the shipping area where all separated materials will be loaded into appropriate trailers for transport to secondary materials markets. The conveyor will carry the ferrous metal and aluminum containers along with other materials. The ferrous metal will be removed using a conventional magnetic conveyor system. The aluminum will be recovered using a manual system after other metals are separated. At this point, a concentrated stream of aluminum will be present, intennixed with some reject materials. Aluminum has one of the highest recovered materials marketing prices. While California AB 2020 has diverted some of this material, it requires consumers to pay a redemption value when purchasing beverages in aluminum containers. Many of these same consumers are encouraged to take their containers to a recycling facility and redeem them for cash. This has reduced the stream of aluminum entering the waste stream to MRF/TSs in general. The recovered material will be sent to a densifier where it will be baled for market. This processing equipment used at the MRF/TS will allow the recoverable paper (e.g., newsprint, mixed paper, and corrugated) and mixed plastics to be hand picked (for quality control). In addition, all recoverable glass will be manually recovered and sorted by color. This manual process will ensure quality with regard to contamination and color. All recovered materials will be readied for transport and sold. Manual sorting and separating by material type and color will provide a quality control feature to maintain a high-grade, marketable product. Long-tenn fluctuations in the market and waste stream content can be accommodated easily by increasing or decreasing the number of employees over time. 1.3.1.4 Green/Wood Waste Processing Green waste and wood will also be recycled at this facility. A grinder/shredder will be located in the northeast corner of the property so that commercial and self-haul vehicles have access to ttnload their source separated green/wood wastes. The materials will exit the grinder/shredder via a radial stacker that will be used to load one of two trailers. As the trailers become full, they will be transported to local composting facilities in the area or, alternatively, the processed materials may be sold in bulk for mulch, soil amendments, and so forth. 1.3.1.5 Solid Waste Transfer After the wastes are processed and recyclable materials are removed, a front-end loader pushes the residual waste material through one of two refuse drop slots into a top-loading transfer trailer. Built-in scales in the transfer vehicle tunnels weigh each transfer trailer as it is loaded. A "scoreboard" above the drop slot allows the operator to rapidly load the transfer trailer to the maximum allowable weight without overloading it. Once loaded, trailers (which have an average capacity of 20 to 23.5 tons) will be attached to tractors and will then transport the waste to the designated landfill site. ffl',4I9S H' 3;( Solid waste may be transported to the Otay Landfill located 0.5 mile northeast of the project site. The expected worst-case closure date for the Otay Landfill is 1999. However, the City may transport the material to other regional landfills, such as the City of San Diego's Miramar Landfill or the Campo Landfill. Ultimately, more remote landfills such as facilities in Riverside County, Orange County, and La Paz and Yuma, Arizona, may be used. 1.3.2 Contin2encv Plannin2 The operation of a MRF/TS has special operating concerns dealing with public safety associated with it. These concerns include hazardous and special wastes, fITe, insect and vector control, and litter and dust control. To deal with these contingencies, the Applicant will develop management plans for their control. The following is a summary of draft contingency plans submitted by the Applicant. 1.3.2.1 Household Hazardous Waste Storage Area A temporary storage area separate from the MRF/TS building will be established for any household hazardous waste inadvertently delivered to the facility and discovered during the waste inspection process. Trained personnel will separate batteries, paint, oils, and other household hazardous waste found in the incoming waste stream on the transfer floor and place these materials in the established storage area. The area will have a concrete base with curbing as well as fencing and signs. The household hazardous materials will be removed from the property within 90 days and transported to an approved hazardous waste facility. 1.3.2.2 Hazardous and Special Wastes No hazardous or special wastes (including liquids, sludges, and so forth) will be accepted or handled at this facility. No sealed drums of any kind will be accepted. Signs will be posted at the entrance gates and at the gate houses indicating that no special or hazardous waste materials will be accepted at this facility. The transfer station employees will screen the incoming trucks at the scalehouse to prevent the acceptance of hazardous wastes to the site. The tipping floor will be monitored by the transfer station employees and if any material is found, it will be handled in accordance with approved procedures. The employees working at the station will receive training to pennit them to recognize hazardous and special materials. Additionally, the General Manager will implement a random inspection program that will involve inspecting vehicles prior to and during unloading. Haulers will not be forewarned as to which vehicle will be inspected. If a load is inspected and found to have questionable items, the General Manager or designated personnel will detennine whether that load will be unloaded or rejected and sent back to the generator. The County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health will then be notified that the load in question might be taken to another facility. m',4195 ~ 33 All personnel will be educated to be watchful for any suspicious, smoking, or burning loads as well as unusually odorous loads. In the event that such a problem occurs, the load inspector is instructed to immediately ~ clear the immediate working area; ~ contact Churn Vista Fire Department personnel, who will in turn notify the County of San Diego Environmental Health Agency; and ~ contact the Director of Operations and facility Safety Director. 1.3.2.3 Fire All buildings will meet all applicable fire safety codes and will be fully equipped with fIre sprinklers if required. The General Manager will provide routine training of personnel in effective operation techniques that will reduce or prevent the OCCUITence of a fIre at the MRF/TS. Operations personnel will be trained in procedures to extinguish small fIres that may occur in the waste receiving or transfer areas. Fire extinguishers will be located throughout the site. Fire hydrant(s) and fIre hoses will be designed to service all the buildings and facilities onsite as required by the Fire Marshall. Storage materials will be identified as to their risk of fIre, and safe and appropriate storage areas will be maintained. Paper and plastic recyclables will be stored away from other materials and/or storage items. 1.3.2.4 Insect and Vector Control Insects and vectors will be controlled by moving waste into and out of the facility in a short period of time. All residual waste transported for disposal will not be allowed to remain on the site for more than 48 hours. The tipping floor will have a storage capacity of approximately 3,600 tons. No waste material shall remain on the tipping floor for more than 48 hours and shall be completely cleared once a week. All buildings, paved areas, landscaped areas, and perimeter areas will be inspected montWy for signs of vectors. 1.3.2.5 Litter and Dust Control All vehicles (except for self-haulers) entering and leaving the site will be covered. Entrance signs will request that all loads, including those from self-haulers, are covered when entering and exiting the facility. Employees will be assigned to police the project site for litter cleanup. The MRF/TS will be responsible for street sweeping on Maxwell Road on an as-needed basis. Dust will be controlled by restricting unloading operations to the interior of the building. All suIfaces that are required to handle traffic and parking will be paved. Material passing through the grinder/shredder will be placed directly into transfer trailers on the conveyor belt. A street ffl',4~j U. 34 sweeper will be used to clean all paved sUifaces as necessary. The tipping floor will be cleaned daily to eliminate buildup of dust and residue. 1.3.2.6 Disposal of Wastewater Sanitary sewer facilities are currently available in the area surrounding the proposed project. Wastewater that will primarily come from sanitary facilities for employees and customers will be directed into existing sewer lines after meeting all requirements for discharge to the sewer to be imposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City. The facility and site layout design includes proper stonnwater management techniques. 1.3.3 Facilities The MRF/TS will consist of one large (approximately 75,900 square feet) building with approximately 7,500 square feet of office space connected to it. The remainder of the facility will consist of a number of open storage areas and staging areas as described below. Refer to Figure 7 for the layout of the proposed project. This facility will serve as the MRF/TS for the City of Chula Vista and may serve the Cities of Imperial Beach, south San Diego City, and other unincorporated San Diego areas. The administration building will be attached along the north side of the MRF/TS. This facility will have offices for the General Manager, administrative staff, sales and marketing staff, and general support staff. The office will also include restrooms, a conference room, lunchroom, and locker area. The conference room will include a visitor center with a viewing area to watch the MRF/TS operations. The maintenance area will be comprised of a storage/shop area and a vehicle maintenance shed. The storage/shop area will be attached to the north side of the MRF/TS in an enclosed building. The vehicle maintenance shed will be located next to the shop and will be an open-sided, roofed facility. Approximately 35 employee, 5 visitor, 2 handicapped, and 5 truck parking spaces will be provided. A public dropoff area for sorted recyclables and bulky items will be provided onsite. If necessary, these recyclables will then be processed through the MRF/TS and transported to market or alternately made available for reuse. ~, ~~ 1.3.4 Hours of Operation The typical hours of operation for the Chula Vista MRF/TS will be as follows: ~ Office and Administration 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Monday - Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Saturday - Sunday ~ MRF/TS and Transfer Station 5:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m. Monday - Friday 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. Saturday - Sunday ~ Gates open 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Monday - Friday 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Saturday - Sunday ~ Green Waste/Wood Recycling Area 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Monday - Friday 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Saturday - Sunday ~ Public Dropoff Area 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Monday - Friday 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Saturday - Sunday Approximately 68 employees will work at the facility upon full capacity, with approximately 45 people working during the fIrst shift. Over half of the workers will be truck drivers; therefore, there will not be a time when all the employees are onsite simultaneously. The Churn Vista MRF/TS will observe the same holidays as the Otay Landfill system. The facility will be closed on the following holidays: ~ New Years Day, ~ Memorial Day, ~ Independence Day, ~ Labor Day, ~ Thanksgiving Day, and ~ Christmas Day. ffl'"", ~ 3(0 SECTION 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1. Project Title: SextoniChula Vista Sanitary Services Materials Recovery Facility and Trash Transfer Station 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista Community Development Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Joe Monaco, Senior Planner 4. Project Location: 855 Maxwell Road Chula Vista, CA 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Chula Vista Sanitary Services 1815 South Wolf Road Hillside, lL 60162 6. General Plan Designation: Industrial 7. Zoning: lRilL (Industrial Research and Industrial Limited) Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Transportation/Circulation I!!I Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities and Service Systems 0 Geological Problems 0 Energy and Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources I!!I Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATNE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 ¡ find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the DÚtigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATNE DECLARATION will be prepared. I!!I 11'1'l'I" 1-637 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (t) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigalion measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 0 I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (h) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigalion measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. 0 ~ .nu--- D: I /q' /95'" Jar ~~.Ã'J an- ~ G.-~ V'"sna ~in~Na- F~ ~~ ~3~ Potentially Potentially SigniÍlC8nt Less Than N SigniÍlCant U~I.... SigniÍlCant Imp:ct Impact Mitigation Impaet Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Incorporated I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: aj Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 0 0 0 181 (source #(s): 1,2) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 181 polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (I, 2j c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the 0 0 0 181 vicinity? (I, 2) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., 0 0 0 181 impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?: (3) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 0 0 0 181 established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (3) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 181 population projections? (1) b) Induce suhstantial growth in an area either directly 0 0 0 181 or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (1) cj Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 181 hnusing? (2, 3) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (1, 5) 0 0 181 0 b) Seismic ground shaking? (I, 5) 0 0 181 0 c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 0 0 0 (1,5) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1, 3) 0 0 0 181 e) Landslides nr mudflows? (1, 3) 0 0 0 181 f) Erosion, changes in topngraphy, or unstable soil 0 0 181 0 conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1,4) g) Subsidence of the land? (1,5) 0 0 181 0 h) Expansivesnils? (1,5) 0 0 181 0 i) Unique geologic or physical features? (3) 0 0 0 181 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Chaoges in ahsorption rates, drainage patterns, or 0 0 181 0 the rate and amount of surface runoff>. (4) ~M ~3q PotentiaUy Potentially SignifICant Less Than N SignifICant ~~I"":,, SignifICant 1m :ct Impact Miägation Impact p Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Incorporated b) Exposure of people or property to water-related 0 0 0 181 hazards such as flooding? (1, 4) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration 0 0 181 0 of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 181 water body? ( ) e) Changes in currents, or in the course or direction 0 0 0 181 of water movements? ( ) f) Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either 0 0 181 0 through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? 0 0 0 181 ( ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) 0 0 0 181 i) Substantial reduction in the amount of 0 0 0 181 groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? () V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an 0 181 0 0 existing or projected air quality violation? (t, 3, 4) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (3, 4) 0 0 0 181 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or 0 0 0 181 cause any change in climate? (3, 4) d) Create objectionable odors? (4) 0 0 181 0 VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (4) 0 0 181 0 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 0 181 0 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (4) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby 0 0 0 181 uses? (2, 4) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 181 (2,4) e) Hazards or barriers fnr pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 0 0 181 (4) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 181 alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (4) g) Rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts? (3) 0 0 0 181 m".4/95 ~ J-fO Potentially PotentiaUy SignUlCant Less Than N Signiflcant ~~I,,":, SignifICant 1m :ct Impact Mitigation Impaet p Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Incorporated VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their 0 0 0 181 habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (3) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? 0 0 0 181 (3) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak 0 0 0 181 forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (3) d) Weiland habitat (e.g., macsh, riparian, and vema! 0 0 0 181 pool)? (3) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (3) 0 0 0 181 VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 0 0 181 0 (1,2) b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 181 inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known 0 0 0 181 mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents nf the State? IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal invnlve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 181 0 hazardous substances (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? (4) b) Possible interference with an emergency response 0 0 181 0 plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1,4) c) Creation of any health hazard or potential health 0 0 181 0 hazard? (4) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential 0 0 181 0 health hazards? (3, 4) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 181 brush, grass, or trees? (3, 4) X. NOISE. Wnuld the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1, 3, 4) 0 0 181 0 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 181 0 (1,3,4) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the foUowing aceas: a) Fire protection? (6) 0 181 0 0 b) Police protection? (6) 0 181 0 0 c) Schools? (6) 0 0 0 181 jW,4195 ~ if I PotentiaUy Potentially SignifICant Less Than N SignifICant Unless SignifICant lOt Impact Mitigation Impact mpac Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Incorporated d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 0 181 0 (6) e) Other gnvemmental services? (6) 0 0 181 0 XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the foUowing utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (4) 0 0 181 0 b) Communications systems? (4) 0 0 181 0 c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 181 0 facilities? (4) d) Sewer or soptic tanks? (4) 0 0 181 0 e) Storm water drainage? (4) 0 0 181 0 f) Solid waste drainage? (4) 0 0 181 0 g) Local or regional water supplies? (4) 0 0 181 0 XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (3, 4) 0 0 0 181 b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 181 0 (3,4) c) Create light or glare? (3, 4) 0 0 181 0 XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontolngical resources? (1, 3, 4) 0 0 181 0 b) Disturb archaeological resources? (I, 3, 4) 0 0 181 0 c) Affect historical resources? (I, 3, 4) 0 0 0 181 d) Have the potential to cause a physical change that 0 0 0 181 would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (I) e) Restrict existing religiuus or sacred uses within 0 0 0 181 the potential impact area? (I) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborbood or regional 0 0 0 181 parks or other recreational facilities? (3, 4) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (3, 4) 0 0 0 181 ffl',4195 2I:t Jf~ Potentially Potentially SignifICant Less Than N Significant ~~l.... Significant 1m :ct Impact Mitigation Impact p Issues (and Supporting Information Sourees): Incorporated XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the 0 0 0 181 quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 0 0 181 short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually 0 0 181 0 limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects that 0 0 181 0 will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly nr indirectly? Supporting Information Sources 1. City of Chuta Vista General Plan 2. City of Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance, May 1992 3. Site Visit, August I, 1995 4. Project Description Prepared by Sexton/Chuta Vista Sanitary Services, July 3, 1995 5. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Planning Scenario for a Major Earthquake, San Diego-Tijuana Metropolitan Area, 1990 6. Communication with Project Planner, Mr. Joe Monaco, August 1, October 23, November 2 and 3, 1995 ml419' '},2 tf 3 SECTION 3 - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The discussion presented below relates to the environmental impacts listed on the environmental assessment fonn. 3.1 EARTH The majority of the project site is relatively flat with a small portion of the northeast corner of the site approximately 20 feet higher in elevation. The elevation of the 10.8-acre site is approximately 200 feet. The project site consists of graded, mostly nonvegetated land. Eucalyptus trees are found along the north and west boundaries of the site. Drainage of the site is southeast toward the Otay River. Most of the historic seismic activity in the San Diego region has been centered along the Rose Canyon and Coronado Bank fault zones, both located west of the City of Chula Vista. Other epicenters scattered throughout the region cannot generally be associated with a specific fault zone (Kennedy et al. 1980). However, the lack of historic seismicity does not imply that a fault is not potentially hazardous, merely that it may be currently inactive. According to the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the City's planning area is traversed by five faults. These include two potentially active faults, the Sweetwater and La Nacion, and three inferred faults, the Otay River Valley, Telegraph Canyon, and San Diego Bay-Tijuana. The closest of these to the site is the Otay River Valley Fault. This fault is an inferred nonnal fault of small displacement Impact Analysis a. No changes in the geologic substructure will occur as a result of site preparation, grading, and construction. Buildings onsite will be limited to approximately 2 acres of the 1O.8-acre site. Buildings are anticipated to be constructed on footings requiring only shallow excavation. b. Construction activities on the site will necessitate grading to accommodate construction of structures and roadways. Grading equipment, as well as movement of vehicles and pedestrians, will physically disturb soils onsite. However, due to the limited extent of grading, no significant disturbances of soil would result. Mitigation ~ No mitigation measures required. 1m4~5 tH LJLI c.&d. The project site is relatively flat and does not exhibit any significant ground surface relief features. Project grading will not involve slopes at the northeast end of the project site. Changes in the site topography due to grading will be very slight. Such alteration will be hardly noticeable and will not significantly affect any known geologic structures or hazards or create any new hazards. No significant adverse impacts on geologic structures will occur as a result of implementing the proposed project. e. Grading and other construction activities will remove vegetation and displace soils, which will lead to an inérease in wind and water erosion of soils in the short tenn (during site preparation). No long-tenn increases in erosion are expected to occur. Mitigation ~ Prior to the issuance of grading pennits, appropriate dust control measures shall be developed, and approved by the City of Chula Vista. ~ Prior to the issuance of grading pennits, the Applicant's engineer shall certify that the grading plan is in confonnance with the rules and regulations of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District. ~ Grading shall be accomplished under the supervision of a California registered geologist who shall incorporate erosion control measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Implementation of recommendations listed above will minimize the identified impacts relative to grading and erosion potential. Although some minor erosion and sedimentation, in addition to wind erosion, may occur, incorporation of erosion control measures will ensure that such impacts remain minimal and less than significant. f. The project site will be largely covered with an impervious surface and so will not generate large quantities of silt and sand. Consequently, this urban runoff would not result in significant deposition or siltation of receiving waters or channels. g. A major earthquake on an active fault in the region is likely to occur within the project lifetime. This is considered a potentially significant impact; however, most of the project consists of open storage, parking, and dropoff areas with minimum building coverage (1.9 acres) and a small number of employees (approximately 45 at one time). Mitigation ~ Prior to construction, a geotechnical engineering investigation will be conducted by a Registered Civil Engineer. The investigation report will contain soil, foundation, slope stability, and seismic criteria that will be used in the project design. The study shall be produced by a California Registered Civil Engineer and shall be approved by the City Engineer. 11'ff419' ~45 ~ All buildings shall confonn with the seismic design standards of the Unifonn Building Code and with the requirements of the City of Chula Vista Building and Housing Department. The hazards of groundshaking during seismic events are largely mitigated through strict adherence to the seismic design standards contained in the Unifonn Building Code and implemented as a matter of standard structural engineering practice. Although seismic groundshaking cannot be avoided, damage is minimized by adhering to seismic design standards. The impact after mitigation is adverse but not significant. 3.2 AIR Existing and future baseline air quality levels for the project area can be best inferred from ambient air quality measurements conducted by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) at the Chula Vista air quality monitoring station. Data from these measurements show that photochemical smog (orone) levels exceeded the 0.09 parts per million (ppm) California hourly standard on 12 days in 1993. Levels of other emissions whose primary source is automotive exhaust (carbon monoxide [CO] and nitrogen oxides [NOJ) were not exceeded at the Chula Vista station in 1993. Also, PM1o levels were exceeded twice during the year at the Chula Vista station. The major source of pollutants in the area derive from mobile sources that produce two-thirds of all reactive organic gases (ROG) and NO.. They also produce 80 percent of the CO. Total suspended particulates (TSP) and respirable particulates derive mainly from agricultural tilling, the resuspension of roadway dust by passing vehicles, tire wear and abrasion, and travel on unpaved surfaces. Imoact Analysis a. Construction and operation of the proposed facility could generate a substantial amount of air emissions. Construction Emissions - During construction, earthmoving activities will generate particulate and exhaust emissions. The site already has been rough graded to an essentially flat condition. Construction will require finish grading, building erection, site paving, and landscaping. Such activities will be done in compliance with SDAPCD regulations, including those to mitigate fugitive dust. In order to detennine significance of construction emissions, a screening analysis was conducted. A limiting criterion of 150 pounds per day of NO, may be used to detennine significance of construction operations. Based on AP-42 (1986), the average NO, emissions for heavy earthmoving equipment is 1.835 pounds per hour. Consequently, 10 pieces of heavy equipment could operate on the site without exceeding the criteria (the analysis leaves adequate margin for other sources of emissions during construction). It is not anticipated that this amount of heavy equipment will be necessary. fm4l9S ~ J.t/p Consequently, project construction can be accomplished without producing significant aIT emISSIons. Operations Emissions - During operations, emissions will be generated from space heating, industrial equipment, fuel dispensing, lubricants, and motor vehicle exhaust. The project will also release gas and odors from the trash itself. These impacts are considered to be potentially significant on a local and regional basis. It should be noted that one of the concepts of a MRF/TS is to consolidate waste hauling to landíills. Consolidating several short trips back and forth to the landfill into one larger transfer truck creates a net reduction in daily vehicle miles for waste collection and disposal purposes. Initially, the reduction will be minor because the Otay Landfill is within about '/2 mile of the project site. After Otay Landfill closes, wastes will need to be hauled to other regional sanitary landfill facilities. The reduction in emissions from consolidating waste hauling under these conditions would translate into a more substantial net reduction in daily diesel exhaust emissions. The amount of reduction cannot be quantified because it is not known to which landfill wastes will ultimately be taken. Although the benefit is relatively small on a regional scale, it is nonetheless considered a positive impact on air quality. The facility will also aid in the reduction of mileage traveled by local residents, recyclers, landscapers, and municipal green waste collectors. Mitigation ~ Prior to the issuance of building pennits, the Applicant shall provide written verification to the Planning Department that all required pennits and plans have been secured/approved by the SDAPCD to construct and operate the facility. Conditions of the SDAPCD pennits shall be included as conditions of project approval. ~ The project shall implement measures to control fugitive dust at the project site. In addition to the nuisance dust abatement regulations ofthe SDAPCD, additional measures shall be implemented to include a program of regular watering and/or applying approved dttst suppressants. Furthennore, construction will be halted during high wind episodes (i.e., above 35 mph). b. There will be some odor as the collector truck's contents are dumped on the tipping floor, recycling materials are extracted, and the residual is pushed into the trailer of the transfer vehicle. Residential and commercial rubbish nonnally does not have a highly offensive odor, but there are refuse components such as household pet wastes, soiled disposable diapers, spoiled meat products, and so forth that can produce offensive odors. ~ ~47 Landfill siting studies described in the 1990 North San Diego County Landfill Siting Draft EIR indicate that worst-case daytime odor detectability from open dumping of trash is less than 1/2 mile. There is however only a limited time period at a transfer station between the time the refuse is dumped on the tipping floor and then pushed back into the transfer trailer for removal. Putrescible wastes will not remain at the station 'for more than 48 hours. Also, wastes are not allowed to lie exposed for a long period of time as can occur at a landfill. Rather, such wastes will be secured and covered. Odors can be controlled effectively at the MRF/TS. In addition to the operations being conducted inside an enclosed building, use of efficient waste processing, frequent cleanup and maintenance of the facility, and frequent cleaning of the waste hauling vehicles all contribute to the control of odors from the operation. Such operational policies should be delineated in an odor control plan for the facility. Predominant winds at the site are from the west and northwest. Under worst-case, unmitigated conditions (including appropriate winds and waste handling scenario), it is conceivable that existing residential areas could receive noticeable odors from the facility. However, under nonnal operations, which would include effective processing of wastes and sufficient maintenance of the facility, no significant odor impact will occur. Mitigation ~ The project shall be in compliance with SDAPCD roles and regulations, including those relating to prohibiting fonnation of an odor nuisance. ~ An air discharge system to capture odors from the facility shall be incorporated into bttilding design. c. The proposed project will not have a measurable effect on local or regional air movement, moisture, or temperature, or modify the existing climate. d. The proposed site is in a predominantly industrial land use area, and no school facilities are within 1/2 mile of the site. The project will not produce air quality impacts that would affect the closest school to the site, Valle Lindo Elementary School, which is located approximately I mile to the northwest of the project site. e. The project is not proposing to bum municipal waste, hazardous waste, or refuse-derived fuels. The potential does exist for the accidental burning of waste materials if a fIre were to occur on the site. The Proposed Project incorporates a contingency plan for fue prevention and control. The project will not significantly impact air quality assuming operations will be conducted in full compliance with SDAPCD regulations. ~41" ~If~ 3.3 WATER The site is located north of the Otay River that drains from headwaters reaching far back into the highland area to the San Diego Bay. The Otay River does not flow year round due to the low annual rainfall of the region, percolation into groundwater basins, and surface impoundments. Water service to the project site is provided by the City of Chula Vista through the Otay Water District. The Otay Water District distributes potable water to the area through a system of existing transmission mains from the San Diego County Water Authority fIltered water aqueduct system. The aqueduct system is supplied by the Colorado River and State Water Project. No groundwater is used from the project area to augment potable supplies. Imoact Analvsis a. Not applicable. b&c. The project will change absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate of surface runoff onsite. The project site is currently unpaved. Development of the site will result in the creations of a 1O0-percent impervious surface as the site is paved. Provisions to control stonnwater runoff from the site must be reviewed and approved by the City's Public Works Department, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the EPA through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) pennit process. The project area does not fall within a floodplain (City of Chula Vista 1995). d. The addition of impervious surfaces onsite will increase the amount of runoff from the site in comparison with existing conditions. Drainage presently flows from the northwest to the southeast of the project site. An earthen drainage swale upstream of the project site drains to a 36-inch pipe found at the northwest end of the project site. This pipe tenninates at the southeast end of the project site as a 48-inch corrugated metal pipe that drains to a 60-inch reinforced concrete pipe immediately downstream. Mitigation ~ Prior to issuance of grading pennits, the Applicant shall submit a drainage study for review and approval. Project design for the conveyance of site runoff must be approved by the City. ~ Prior to issuance of grading pennits, the Applicant shall fIle a Notice of Intent (NO!) and Stonn Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with the City's Public Works Department and the Regional Water Quality Control Board that complies with the NPDES pennit for stonnwater discharge, including the full description of the discharge and the demonstration of compliance with EPA- specified effluent limits. A copy of the NO!, SWPPP, and a monitoring plan shall be submitted to the City's Public Works Department a minimum of 30 days prior to commencing grading operations. ~~ ~~ ~ The following measures shall be included as notes on the approved grading plan and monitored throughout grading and construction (where applicable). All disturbed areas shall be stabilized by appropriate soil stabilization methods such as mulching with straw or wood chips as soon as feasible after disturbance. All work perfonned during the rainy season shall be conducted in such a manner that the project site can be stabilized, covered, or somehow protected from the elements during inclement weather (i.e., heavy rains or high winds). The Applicant shall submit an erosion control plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. During construction, temporary benDS such as sandbags or gravel dikes shall be used as necessary to prevent the discharge of materials from the site during periods of precipitation or runoff. e. Development of the proposed project will have the potential to impact the quality of runoff from the site due to oils and other contaminants that will wash off of paved surfaces. There is also the potential for leakage of stored hazardous materials. Mitigation ~ All washing activities will be conducted in areas that are designed to catch and drain all water from those areas. No solvents, degreasers, or other chemicals other than soap will be used. ~ All nongreenlwood wastes will be processed indoors to prevent the exposure to surface water flows or rain water. ~ All special wastes stored onsite shall be handled in accordance with state and local regulations. f. Grading and excavation onsite will be minimal and will not impact the flow of groundwater. g. The project will be served by municipal water sources and will not draw from groundwater resources. The limited site grading is not expected to intercept an aquifer. The proposed project will create impervious surfaces that will reduce the site's infiltration rates. However, the regionally small addition of impervious surface will not create a significant impact. h. The proposed project will not use groundwater, but will use domestic water supplies. The project will consume potable water but is not a significant impact. However, the City has a number of water conservation measures required of all new projects. m'.4195 ~ 50 Mitigation ~ The project shall incorporate all municipal water conservation measures required by applicable law and as promulgated by Depanment of Water Resources. ~ Prior to the issuance of building pennits for the waste reduction/recycling facility, a landscaping plan that includes drought-tolerant plant species shall be submitted to the Planning Depanment for review and approval. i. The site is not within a floodplain. j. Not applicable. 3.4 PLANT LIFE A biological survey was conducted on the site on August 1, 1995. The California Depanment of Fish and Game California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was searched to identify any reportings/records of sensitive species sightings in the project site area. The California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California was also searched. The project site is predominantly graded, unvegetated land. A small amount of ruderal vegetation was found on the north and east borders of the site. These plants included Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), sow thistle (Sonchus oleraceus), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), and slender wild oat (Avena barbata). Several eucalyptus trees were also found in these same areas. No sensitive plant species were observed on the MRF/TS site. The open space north of the project site is predominantly grassland. California buckwheat (Eriogonum fascìculatum) and lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia) were noted in addition to the above-mentioned plants. The industrial areas to the west and east are landscaped with ornamentals and native plants typically used in xeriscaping. The Otay River is a little over 1,000 feet south of the project site, south of atay Valley Road, and contains riparian habitat. Imoact Analysis a. The proposed project will remove existing ruderal vegetation from the site. The value of the existing vegetation is not considered high in either a local or regional context. b. Several important or sensitive plant species are known to exist in the Chula Vista area. No habitat conducive to the occurrence of sensitive species was observed on the MRF/TS site. c. Landscaping of the site will use native plants where appropriate but may introduce nonnative vegetation to the area. This would be consistent with the landscaping fflr4195 ~61 associated with the adjacent industrial uses. This is not a significant impact to plant species in the vicinity of the project site. d. The site is not used for agriculture. The project will not result in any loss of fannland. 3.5 ANIMAL LIFE No reports of observations of threatened, endangered, or candidate species on the site were found. The small amount of ruderal vegetation found onsite provides little habitat for wildlife species. No threatened, endangered, or candidate species are expected to occur on the site. Impact Analvsis a&d. Development of this project will result in the loss of a small amount of ruderal grassland that could be used as wildlife habitat. The value of this disturbed habitat is not high and its loss will not result in a significant impact. b. Several important and sensitive species of animals are known to exist in the Chula Vista area, including the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) , a listed Federal Threatened Species; least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) , a listed Federal and State Endangered Species; and the orange throated whiptai1 (Cnemidophorus hyperythrus), a California Species of Special Concern. The project will not impact any of the species because the project site does not contain suitable habitat for these species. c. The proposed project will introduce large quantities of municipal waste to the project site for processing and may create a food source for animals not currently onsite, including rats, raccoons, squirrels, and other urban scavengers. Mitigation ~ Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the waste reduction! recycling facility, the operator will submit to the County of San Diego Health Department a vector control plan for review and approval. A copy of the approved vector control plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department. ~41" ':ft5~ 3.6 NOISE Major noise sources in the vicinity of the project site are Interstate 805, Otay Valley Road, auto wrecking businesses, and short-tenD road improvement construction on Otay Valley Road. ImDact Analvsis a. The project will create noise on both a short- and long-tenD basis. Short-tenD noise will be increased due to construction activities at the site. Long-tenn noise impacts will be associated with increased truck and customer traffic to and from the site as well as from on site equipment and operations. Noise impacts from these sources are discussed below. Construction Impacts - A typical noise generation level for large-scale, intensive construction is 89 decibels on an A-weighted scale (dBA) measured at a distance of 50 feet from the construction site (Bolt, Beranek, and Newman 1971). Furthennore, the General Plan assumes a range of 80 to 90 dBA for typical construction noise, assuming all construction equipment is in proper working order and properly mufflered. Construction activities are exempt from exterior noise limits established in the City Zoning Code. However, noise generation regardless of source is subject to nuisance noise provisions of the code. Should a complaint occur, the Chief of Police will detennine whether the noise source must be abated. This is not a mitigation measure, but rather a mechanism to provide receptors relief from sources of noise, including construction, that are considered obtrusive. All of the properties surrounding project site are zoned either light or heavy industrial and are not considered sensitive receptors. These uses will experience noise input due to construction that is typical of industrial areas (i.e., exterior noise levels on the order of 70 to 80 dBA), and no significant impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. Truck Hauling Operation ImDacts - Project-related haul trucks will pass through areas zoned for light and heavy industry as well as open lands with few sensitive receptors and disproportionately high volumes of heavy trucks. Furthennore, the local area already has an elevated ambient noise level due to the existing truck traffic traveling to the atay Landfill. The traffic analysis indicates that average daily trips (ADT) on Otay Valley Road east of Maxwell will actually decrease. Noise generation from traffic will also decrease along this segment, although the decrease is so small that it will be imperceptible to the human ear. The project represents an increase of about 200 ADT on atay Valley Road west of Maxwell Road initially, increasing by about 432 ADT ultimately. Based on the 432 ADT ultimate level, the total traffic increase is about 2 percent for atay Valley Road. Again, a very small, imperceptible increase in noise generation will result. Based on this discussion, noise impacts due to project-generated truck traffic will be minimal, and no significant noise impacts will occur. b.' Operations of heavy equipment and machinery onsite have the potential to expose workers to noise levels in excess of regulatory standards. Much of the heavy equipment ~~ æð3 associated with onsite operations will be within the transfer/recycling building. Noise levels of the operation will be characteristic of industrial operations and will be able to meet the exterior noise perfonnance standards specified in the zoning code (i.e., not exceeding 70 to 80 dBA at adjacent property boundaries). This is due to sound attenuation provided by the structure that will contain the majority of facility operations. Shredding of green/wood waste will occur in the open yard. Based on the distance of the equipment to the property line and manufacturer's specifications for the proposed equipment, noise associated with shredding activities would not impact offsite land uses beyond the thresholds established in the noise ordinance. Operations will not result in significant adverse noise impacts on adjacent land uses. Mitigation . Employees working within the processing building or any areas that produce excessive noise, including the container/bin repair area, will wear ear protection devices. 3.7 LIGHT AND GLARE Light sources exist from surrounding industrial uses, street lights installed along Maxwell Road and Otay Valley Road, and headlights from traffic. No sources of glare exist near the site. Imoact Analvsis The proposed project will contribute to increased light due to night lighting. Mitigation . The use of reflective glass or other reflective materials should be minimized without jeopardizing energy conservation. . All onsite exterior lighting shall be oriented and screened so as to minimize light and glare at the property boundary. . The Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a lighting control plan for review and approval prior to the issuance of building pennits. 3.8 LAND USE The site is currently owned by the RE. Hazard Contracting Co. and is used as a storage yard for metal and wood construction supplies. Also presently located on the project site are an office trailer and maintenance building. Access to the site is from Maxwell Road. The current zoning designation for the site is IRIIL (Industrial Research and Limited Manufacturing). The property is located in the atay Valley Road Redevelopment Area. The proposed MRF/TS is a ffl'.4I" ~54 pennitted use in this zone, subject to the approval of a Special Land Use Pennit, and is pennitted under the Redevelopment Plan for the area. Open space and the Otay Landfill are located north and northeast, respectively, of the site. Industrial parks border the site to the east, south, and west. Several auto wrecking businesses are also found east of the site. The Otay River is located south of the project site. The nearest residential uses are located over 2,000 feet to the northwest. ImDact Analvsis The project will not have a significant effect on land use in the vicinity of the site because the site is zoned for industrial use and designated as an industrial site in the City's General Plan and Redevelopment Policy documents. The project will not be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity of the project site. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 3.9 NATURAL RESOURCES a&b. The proposed project will consume natural resources, including gravel and cement products; however, the quantities required are not locally or regionally significant. The proposed project will also conserve natural resources through resource recovery activities. 3.10 RISK OF UPSET ImDact Analvsis a. The proposal involves some risk of upset if hazardous materials are mistakenly hauled to the site and improperly handled at the facility. There is also the potential that the facility may accept hazardous materials without their knowledge, thereby contributing to their mishandling. There is also a risk of fIre associated with the acceptance of unstable materials or smoldering waste products. Mitigation ~ The operator shall obtain and post a copy of the City's Fire Department Hazardous Waste procedures. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the waste reduction/recycling facility, the operator will provide the City Fire Department a Hazardous Waste Spill Contingency Plan for review and approval. Both documents shall be kept on the premises at all times. Employees shall be ms.'N5 3tf 55 trained in the use of the plans. Training shall be documented and training records will be open to inspection by all government agencies. b. Neither construction nor operation of the proposed project is expected to interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 3.11 POPULATION The project is an industrial facility and will not increase the population in the City of Chula Vista or surrounding communities. No impact is anticipated. 3.12 HOUSING The project will not increase the need for housing in the City or surrounding communities. The anticipated 68 employees that the facility is to employ are expected to already live in the area. No impact is anticipated. 3.13 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION The major roadways affected by project-related traffic generation are Otay Valley Road, Maxwell Road, and ultimately Interstate 805 and other regional freeways. Presently, trucks collect solid waste from residential curbsides and businesses in the City of Chula Vista service area and transport the wastes to the Otay Landfill located in the eastern portion of the City. The primary transportation route to the landfill is Otay Valley Road. Upon implementation of the project, waste collection trucks from Chula Vista and other areas will bring their loads to the proposed transfer station rather than entering the landfill. Collection points within the City or other routing of waste trucks within the service area from the standpoint of waste collection will not change as a result of the project. The proposed facility will be located on Maxwell Road approximately 0.1 mile north of the intersection of atay Valley Road. Maxwell Road intersects atay Valley Road approximately I mile east of the Interstate 805/Otay Valley Road interchange and approximately 0.5 mile west of the atay Landfill. Upon separation and sorting of wastes at the proposed site, all wastes that cannot be recycled will be loaded onto transfer trailer trucks for transport to a remote landfill. Recyclables will be loaded onto materials trucks for transport to secondary recycling markets. The destinations of truck traffic exiting the facility cannot be estimated with any degree of accuracy. Landfill destinations include local, regional, and remote locations throughout greater southern California and Arizona. Some wastes could continue to be taken to atay Landfill until its projected closure in 1999. Recyclable material destinations would include numerous locations in greater southern California. ffl','I9' ~51o Interstate 805 provides the most likely link to regional highways accessing the regional and remote landfills and secondary materials markets. From the site, truck traffic will reach Interstate 805 via Maxwell to Otay Valley Road, west. The City of Chula Vista uses the level of service (LOS) standard in measuring the perfonnance of a roadway or intersection. As a general standard, the City has established that LOS C or better operating conditions shall be maintained throughout the road network. LOS C occurs when the demand volume on a roadway reaches 80 percent of the capacity of the roadway. The existing roadway designations and existing ADT levels on Otay Valley Road and Maxwell Road are shown in Table I. As indicated, existing traffic levels on these roadways are well below the LOS C capacity. Table 1 ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION AND EXISTING ADT LEVELS Exist" WS C Street Name General Plan AD~g Designation Capacity atay Valley Road 6-lane Major! 18,530' 40,000 Maxwell Road None2 5,170" 12,0D<J5 I Otay Valley Road is currently being iJnproved to.. six lanes . west of Nirvana Avenue. 2 Maxwell Roadis..atwo-Jane industrial collector.. roadway not.. specifically addressed by the General Plan. 3 Source: City of Chula Vista,1995. 4 Source:. City ofChuJa Vista, 1995; from count data taken 4/92. 5 Based on Class II Collector designation. Imoact Analvsis a- The proposed project will create a substantial number of vehicular trips to and from the project site. The increase will primarily occur on Maxwell Road. The total change in number of trips on Otay Valley Road will be minor since substantial trips already occur from trucking of wastes directly to the Otay Landfill. The total number of trips added to the original transportation network from trucking of wastes to landfills is minor because these trips represent a very small percentage of trucks on these roadways. ml4195 ~ 57 The average number of collection trucks per day accessing the facility was estimated based on the following assumptions: ~ 1,500 tpd of manually separated waste and curbside separated materials, ~ collection trucks have an average capacity of 8 to 10 tons, ~ transfer trailers have an average capacity of 20 to 23.5 tons, ~ materials trucks (bales and/or rolloffs) have an average capacity of 20 tons, and ~ minimum recovery rate at the facility is 15 percent. Given these assumptions and as verified by actual current hauling characteristics, the maximum number of project vehicles accessing the site (trip ends) breaks down as follows: ~ 188 collection truck trips, ~ 64 transfer trailer trips, ~ 11 materials truck trips, ~ 75 self-haul vehicle trips, and ~ 40 employee/visitor spaces - two shifts per day. To detenuine average daily traffic (ADT) for the facility, an adjustment to account for large trucks must be made. Analysis methods described in the Highway Capacity Manual include a weighting factor for large trucks to account for their larger size and slower speed in traffic. One truck trip is equivalent to 1.7 car trips in tenus of roadway capacity used. Also, a worst-case assumption is included that the employee and visitor spaces will turn over twice each day. Based on the above factors, the facility's daily average traffic generation is about 942 ADT, consisting of the following: ~ 376 collection trucks ~ 218 transfer trailer trucks ~ 38 materials trucks ~ 150 self-haul vehicles ~ 160 employee/visitors Impact Assumptions - With respect to collection trucks, the hauling patterns to the facility would be virtually the same as now occurs. Wastes collected at the curbside and from commercial bins would be brought to the facility via the most convenient local roadways; however, the principal access route would be Otay Valley Road. There will be essentially no change to existing conditions relative to collection truck traffic on Otay Valley Road from implementation of the project. Transfer truck and recyclable materials truck activity due to the proposed facility will result in the addition of truck traffic on Otay Valley Road. Prior to closure of the Otay Landfùl, some of the transfer truck traffic may travel the short 0.5-mile distance east on Otay Valley Road to the landfill. However, it is anticipated that transfer trucks will increasingly be destined for other local, regional, and remote landfills prior to closure. After the anticipated 1999 closure, all materials will be trucked to regional or remote m'",9S ~ 53 landfills. Materials trucks will haul recyclables to other destinations in the greater southern California area for additional processing or recycling. For pulposes of this analysis, it is assumed that post-closure traffic distribution represents the worst-case local and regional traffic impact and is assessed for three roadways: Maxwell Road, Otay Valley Road, and Interstate 805. Peak hour traffic of the trips will occur throughout the 12-hour period from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Except for shift changes, travel will occur consistently throughout the day. Assuming a lO-percent peak hour travel demand, about 94 peak hour trips will occur. This level of peak hour activity does not meet the criteria for conducting a detailed traffic impact analysis or create a significant adverse impact. Impact on Otay Valley Road - The primary segment of Otay Valley Road that will experience a considerable increase in traffic is the area between Maxwell Road and the Interstate 805 interchange. ADT on this portion would increase from the added traffic associated with transfer trucks, materials trucks, and employee travel (collection trucks and self-haul vehicles are considered part of the existing traffic). After closure of Otay Landfill, the projected traffic increase on this segment is approximately 416 ADT. This increase, amounting to an approximately 2.2-percent increase in existing traffic volume (1 percent of ultimate LOS C volume), is minor and does not significantly impact operations on Otay Valley Road or cause the LOS C standard to be exceeded. Impact on Interstate 805 - Primary destination points for transfer trucks and materials recycling trucks are not known at this time. Several possible destination points were discussed in the existing conditions section. The primary transportation route to access regional and remote locations from the facility would be Interstate 805. Based on the assumption that all of the heavy truck traffic will use Interstate 805 from the vicinity of Otay Valley Road, 256 ADT will be added to the existing freeway traffic volume. Traffic would then disperse throughout the regional transportation system depending on destination. Existing 1995 ADT on Interstate 805 ranges from 96,000 south of Otay Valley Road to 100,000 north of Otay Valley Road. This addition of 256 ADT amounts to a negligible increase in existing traffic volume and does not significantly impact operations on Interstate 805. Impact on Maxwell Road - On Maxwell Road, traffic activity will increase by the 942 ADT associated with project operations. All project traffic will travel on Maxwell Road for site access and egress. Based on existing traffic levels (reference Table I), the increase in traffic is not significant and will not cause the LOS C standard to be exceeded. b. The project will not have a significant effect on the demand for parking City-wide. The project will provide adequate parking on the site in accordance with zoning requirements, including approximately 35 employee, 5 visitor, 2 handicapped, and 5 truck parking spaces. ~41" ~Sq c. Street improvements will be needed offsite to service the proposed development. Although traffic generated by the project will not affect roadway capacity and LOS on City streets, site development standards dictate improvement of the Maxwell Road section adjacent to the site. Required improvements include widening to the ultimate right-of-way width and installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, asphaltic concrete pavement, street lighting, and utilities. These improvements are a required part of the proposed project and are not specified as mitigation. Improvement of Maxwell Road will facilitate site use by heavy truck traffic. d. The proposed project will not require modifications to local streets and/or intersection improvements in other areas of the City that may encourage changes in local circulation patterns. e. The proposed project does not involve use of waterborne, rail, or air traffic. Consequently, there is no impact on these functions. f. A potential safety hazard exists from large trucks turning on to and off of Otay Valley Road at Maxwell Road. This intersection is not signalized. However, ultimately three travel lanes will be provided on Otay Valley Road in each direction. At full buildout of these improvements, Maxwell Road will be signalized. Because of the low volumes of traffic on this portion of Otay Valley Road, it is anticipated that truck traffic can operate safely without signalization or mitigation, as is currently the case. No significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation No mitigation required. 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ImDact Analvsis a. As an industrial use, it is expected that the proposed project may increase, although not significantly, the demand for fIre protection through accidents involving fires, situations involving hazardous wastes, and the need for increased paramedic services in the event of an emergency. Mitigation ~ Prior to occupancy of the waste reduction/recycling facility, an executed copy of the solid waste facility pennit issued by San Diego County shall be submitted to the Churn Vista Planning Department. The pennit shall include a fIre control plan, hazardous waste exclusion plan, and a hazardous waste storage plan or equivalent plans as approved by the San Diego County Health Department. ~5 ~~ ~ The waste reduction building shall have a fire sprinkler system. Onsite fIre hydrants will be provided as designated by the Chula Vista Fire Department. ~ Prior to the conditional approval of the project, the following measures shall be incOlporated into the site design: a. adequate emergency access and circulation throughout and around the project, and b. proper address signs for easy identification of locations during emergencies. b. The proposed project may increase, although not signifIcantly, the demand for police services. Prior to the conditional approval of the project, the following security measures shall be incOlporated into the site design: ~ adequate lighting to enhance crime prevention and law enforcement efforts, and ~ landscaping feature standards to reduce potential concealment for criminal activity around buildings and parking areas. c. The industrial nature of the project will not directly impact schools. The project is also not expected to increase population in the area; therefore, no significant indirect impacts to schools are anticipated. However, state-mandated school impact fees are still required. d. The industrial nature of the project will not directly impact parks and recreational facilities. The project is also not expected to increase population in the area; therefore, no indirect impacts are anticipated. e. The project is projected to result in a minor increase in area traffic. Therefore, roadway requirements are not expected to signifIcantly increase above existing conditions. f. Other governmental services, such as health care facilities and inspections by public health and water quality agencies, will be affected by the proposed project but not significantly. The proposed project may result in an increased demand for fIre protection, paramedic services, and police protection. Extensive protection features will be incoIporated into the project design and operations. The successful utilization of such features will alleviate any excessive demands that the project could place on City fIre suppression and emergency services. ml4~j #,ff /P I 3.15 ENERGY Imoact Analysis a&b. The proposed project will not require substantial amounts of fuel or energy for either the construction or operation of the proposed facilities. The resource recovery proposed for the project will actually help conserve energy resources. 3.16 UTILITIES Phone service, domestic water, and electricity are available on the site. Sewer and gas are available in the vicinity of the site. Imoact Analysis a. Electric and natural gas service are available to the project site, and the service lines can support the proposed use. No impacts are projected to this utility. b. Telephone service is available to the project site, and no impacts are projected to this utility. c. The project site is currently served by a potable water supply line. A 12-inch water line in Maxwell Road is of sufficient capacity to handle the increased demand from the proposed project. d. An 8-inch sanitary sewer line is located in Maxwell Road that flows southward and outfalls to a lO-inch sanitary sewer line in Otay Valley Road. The current sewer service line is of sufficient capacity to handle the increased demand from the proposed project. e. The proposed project will not significantly increase the amount of impervious surfaces on a regional basis. The project facilities and site layout have been designed to implement proper stonnwater management techniques. Final design and documentation will comply with the NPDES industrial stonnwater pennit regulations adopted by the State Water Quality Control Board. An NOI to comply with regulations will be fùed, and a SWPPP will be prepared. (See also Section 3.3 for a discussion of NPDES pennitting.) f. The proposed project will help the City of Chula Vista and may help other surrounding areas meet the mandated waste reductions stated in AB 939, and will reduce the amount of municipal waste sent to regional landfills. m'l4I95 -tr ~ 3.17 HUMAN HEALTH Impact Analvsis a&b. Certain health hazards are associated with the proposed project as follows: .. exposure of humans to air pollutants, .. risk of injury to workers around heavy machinery, .. risk of injury to persons related to exposure to hazardous materials, and .. exposure to the risk of fire. Mitigation .. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the waste reduction! recycling facility, an executed copy of the Solid Waste Facilities Pennit issued by the County Department of Health shall be submitted to the Chula Vista Planning Department. The pennit shall include a vector control plan, a fire control plan, and a hazardous waste storage plan or equivalent plans as approved by the San Diego County Department of Health. .. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the waste reduction! recycling facility, the operator shall prepare and have approved by the City's Fire Department, an excavation plan for the facility and surrounding areas in case a special waste spill dictates an excavation. .. All buildings shall have automatic fire sprinklers as specified by the City Fire Department. .. The processing building shall have roof vents of adequate size to assure the building is well ventilated. With the implementation of the above-mentioned mitigation measures, an adverse but not significant impact to human health in relation to the inadvertent acceptance of special wastes (hazardous) will remain. Adequate safety precautions can be implemented to protect public health at the facility. 3.18 AESTHETICS The project site is presently used as a construction storage yard. Also presently located on the project site are an office trailer and maintenance building. Open space and the Otay Landfill are located north and northeast, respectively, of the site. Industrial parks border the site to the east, south, and west. Several auto wrecking businesses are also found east of the site. m'f"95 ~{p3 Imnact Analysis The project site is zoned for industrial uses. The site is in an area that is cUIrently dominated by industrial buildings to the east, west, and south, and open fields to the north. Construction of a large warehouse-type building and storage of large trucks onsite are not out of character with existing uses; therefore, no significant impacts are expected. Therefore, aesthetic impacts associated with the project are limited to the potential for blowing litter due to the periodic high winds in the area. Mitigation ~ Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a litter control plan for review and approval, which ensures that all extraneous litter associated with transport of waste to the facility is removed from the project entrance on Maxwell Road to Otay Valley Road and on Otay Valley Road from Maxwell Road to 1-805 in a timely manner. 3.19 RECREATION Imnact Analysis The proposed project will not increase the population of the local area and will not create a direct or indirect impact on recreational facilities. 3.20 CULTURAL RESOURCES Imnact Analysis a&b. Previous grading and site development eliminate the potential for above-surface prehistoric and historic resources. The proposed site could potentially include both subsurface prehistoric and historic resources. Mitigation ~ If any potential cultural resources are discovered during site preparation or construction, work should be halted, and a qualified archaeologist will be summoned to evaluate the material. c. Such values are not known to exist. The cultural ethnography of the site was investigated in conjunction with archaeological and historic resources. d. The proposed project site is not associated with any known religious or sacred uses. m".4195 ~ folf 3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIF1CANCE a. The analysis of the individual issues listed above indicates that the proposed project may degrade the quality of the natural environment; however, mitigation measures have been proposed to mitigate those impacts to a level of nonsignificance. b. Short-tenD construction impacts will not result in adverse long-tenD environmental impacts. The project will beneficially contribute long tenD to reduction of solid waste production. c. Impacts related to the project could contribute to cumulative impacts in relation to public services and exposure to geologic and health hazards. Implementation of the mitigation will reduce the project's contribution to cumulative impacts to insignificant. d. Adverse environmental effects on humans may occur indirectly or directly as a result of the project operation. Mitigation has been proposed that will mitigate the project's impacts on human health to a level of nonsignificance. 3.22 EIR TIERING DETERMINATION a. Not applicable. b. The proposed project is located in an area designated as Industrial Research and Limited Manufacturing, and the proposed land use is pennitted under this zone subject to approval of a conditional use pennit. The project is consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan and Redevelopment Plan. c. Not applicable. 3.23 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATION Based on the Initial Study, the City fmds that the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. However, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in this document have been added to the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. fflr419' 44 fç5" SECTION 4 - REFERENCES Bolt, Beranek, and Newman 1971 Noise from Construction Equipment and Operation, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. Chambers Group, Inc. 1990 Final Environmental Impact Report for Solid Waste Collection and Recycling Facility, Oleander Industrial Complex, SCH# 90020002 for the City of Moreno Valley. Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc., Irvine, CA. City of Chula Vista 1995 Interdepartmental Comment Sheets, Case No. IS-95-28. Roger Daoast, City Engineer. Kennedy, M.P., S.H. Clarke, H.G. Green, and M.R. Legg 1980 Recency and Character of Faulting Offshore from Metropolitan San Diego, California, Point La Jolla to Baja California. California Division of Mines Map Sheet 42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1985 AP 42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors Volume II: Mobile Sources. fl'li'4I95 4'5/oto ~O, ~ ~tate of C!Calífomía j ATTACHMENT "D" - GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET -".",- PETE WILSON SACRAMENTO 95814 LEE GRISSOM GOVERNOR OORECTon tl OPMlN1 December 18, 1995 M JOE MONACO DEC ',: \ 19!:6 CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA 91910 Subject: CHULA VISTA MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY SCH #: 9 111038 Dear JOE MONACO: ..,..'. The State Clearinghouse has submitted the above named proposed Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period is now closed and the comments from the responding agency(ies) is(are) enclosed. On the enclosed Notice of Completion form you will note that the Clearinghouse has checked the agencies that have commented. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that your comment package is complete. If the comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Remember to refer to the project's eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104 of the California Public Resources Code required that: "a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency." Commenting agencie~ are also required by this section to support their comments with specific documentation. These comments are forwarded for your use in preparing your final EIR. Should you need more information or clarification, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency at your earliest convenience. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, .~. ;:,'(./-71, ..Ai ../Î/;:', .' ,'/. /!./I#"/v':';..'/(/( "" "'-""""-,.</[;...;,., '. '-.... -., ... ANTERO A. RIVASPLATA Chief, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency ~. tl This page blank. ~1 """ ...... ""'" .. S"TEOF CALIFORNIA - aUSINES-S, TRANSPORTATION "'"'0 HOUSING AGENCV pen¡ WR.SON, Go'w~' DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OIS'mICT ", P.O. BOX 8"O6,SAN DIEGO, ~21ee-S40. ¡gi~j =:m~ ~DO Nunt>~ . December 'T, 1995 11-80-805 // 3.65 Mr. Chris Belsky L - State Clearinghouse /1 I (""'" - q <- 1400 Tenth Street L" J ( LJ Sacramento, CA 95814 De" M,. S."", e Draft EtR for the Ch!.lla...\lis!!l.M~terlals Recove!)' Facility Caltrans District 11 comments are as follows: . Page 38 - A detailed traffic Impact Study needs to be prepared according to Caltrans policies for the Interstate Roule 805 (1-80S)/Otay Valley Road interchange. . Previous traffic studies by the City of Chula Vista indicate that the 1-805/Otay Valley Road ramp intersections would be operating at or beyond capacity in the near fUture. . The Traffic Impact Study will need to show existing, plus project, plus all known previously approved developments in the area impacting the 1-805/Otay Valley Road interchange. . Average daily traffic, turn movements, intersection lane volumes and Highway Capacity Manual signalized intersection analyses as well as normal background growth should be projected for year 2015 traffic. Our contact person for Traffic Operations is Fred Yazdan, (619) 688-6881. For 1-805 our contact person is John Kempf, Project Engineer, (619) 688-6994. Sincerely, 7f:.~ þ-BILL DILLON, Chief Planning Studies Branch BD/LS:vc /}Et' 0 /) b? fP- This page blank. r¡P "'uu~~ ,",ompleuon ,'UN/,.,um/dry /Joeu"""'t J\1 ""';;;;';;;:~-;;;----l \f"il'~ .~ I;";;;;;;"~;;'-;:;;';;;"~S",,"':S;;';:"""'-"""'~~;';/;-;;~~ SCHI 951¡IJj,I' ',o oc, ,Ch"laVistaMaterialsR,c.o'",:>'..'.:c_,ility l<"A.~" -~ty of Ch"l'-\l.~~_- c.""Op_, Joe Moo"o S'~<A""'..,. 276 Fo""h A'eooe "'~" (619) 691-S016 c"" Ch"laVis\,--- Zip,~ Co~" ...san Diego ----------------------------------------- "' OC' """'Ion C.,"", ~~-.._.~ C",iN,.,o c.~~"" _Ch"!~.~i~ta CrouS,-, Ot" V'l1p, Rn,dtM"weli Rn~ z'pc... ~ T"""""ft, 10 M~'~',P~"'N..~_- s'O;""'_Twp._R"'<i_B~'- W'ili," 'Mil" s".H.,.,,_~ w,~.",..O~River Aiopo~, 8mwn Fipld R'iI..,. -- "hoo', Yalle Lindo flem. --------------------------~-------------- Doc._, T... CEOA, oNOP os'pp._"",....,~", HE'A, oHOI 01".,., OJ.."""",,",,, o..."c- oEIRIPrio,SCNNo.)- oEA of'''''Doaom- !gH"Do, 00"," oDo,r,EIS 0"""' oo.,""R OFOHSI ----------------------------------------- L_.' Ac'lon T... , I/!;< oG,~"" M~Upd., oSp«if<PI~ oR,- 0""""'" 0 "'~,'" PI~ A""""",,~, oM..'"M~ 8~~';':,." oR"'.,Io",,- OG<~,,'PI~E1_o< oPl""""u""O«".",,,o< Dc...",....." oC-~'~Plm oSi"PI~ oLoodD"""'(S,bd'."... 0"""' P~"M....T'~M,p.<W.) ----------------------------------------- Do.olo._., T... OR.."""",,, U..., A"" 0 W,~ F«""., T"" MGD- DOlfi", S'ft==A""==_.,,- oT,."p.,.."", Ty", OC""""',I; S,ft. - Mm- Loopl,yw- OM"""" Min""t 0"',,"'"' S'ft._A""_Loop/oyr,,- OP..~ T"" w,,"~ oEdoc,'~" OW".T."""", "'" DR'o",'.,", @:;:;,'M';'t~;.'1~ [¡"'"eCOVervll raso I ranSter ----------------------------------------- ". oct ,.._. "'_..... ,. Docomo.t 't'j^«"""'N'~" 0 Fiood PI,""""'.' §s_"^"".m,,.. ~W"'Qwl" 0 A",~I~" Lood 0 F.""I.oro.!IF,u H_d S...Sy..=, W"'S_ Qro"""", a ^'Qo"'~ 0 Goolo""s"",. Sr"C'PE" oW""""",poriM 0"',',.'.""",,"-" ß~.':'" ~~:::..e::"",,~_oo/G"", oW'Idli~ DC..",Zooo ~.,...~- g ¡;::~~~~.. oP.",I.iooIH._B"m" OT._"""" Lood- gPobI.S~i<rolFEiIi"" <!IT,..r. C,,,,IuIi~ """"'"'~E"". OF,"" oR="""",... OV,"W~" 0"""' ----------------------------------------- ...-., c... UOO/Zon'.oJO._,.' Pl.. U.. Ught (nd"strial ----------------------------------------- "'Ioc' Do-notion Matedals Recovery Facility and Tmh T"nsfer Statloo that will handle appro>imately 1,500 tons of waste per day. Materials will be sorted and recycled. "oo-recylclb!e mateda!s will be consolidated and t"nsfored to a landfill. nUn '.' """""n_'~ SUO<CI<ari'g'o""C""U~. M,.Chri,Be'",,' Project Sant to tha rollowing Slata Agand.. (9I6)""-06 ] SUO< R~". Be", JL-.Ll-.!l$' -!-=;;" S"'dCH."."S", ~ Go",., S<~ic<c D<p< """""A"n<) /.l-......!:.. 7!"" C"",' Comm >< ~[PA - CouW eon., Ag,"~ R~'" SCH I)... 11 _Co_Rv<Bd ..2!. CA W"", Mgml Bd JL ~::= ...£ - SWRC., G~,u SCH COMPLIANCE 1J,.. j¿ ~ SWRCB: Dcl" _Dcl" ""001'00 ~ Fo...." ~SWRCB: W"Qo""y PI.... .... sca Horn"", 01' Coon"".. - ""'" .. ReeJOHp SWRCB, W"""". - ""......... =z. ~B . ..5f- 95111038 BCOC .,ð:..DWR PI,... ,,~... r,"..mm.....¡"",y Io'h, _OES YlblAdltC,....,io.. Lr.d Ag,.., B" r....p Roo, - ComctJ,.. -^"""","" Inde...',.. Comm AQMDIAl'CD.J,J. (R"""""',.JLI..1.lJ ..L'i!:..... .Ji - Ene... Comm ..i NARC _T....PIanni"" ~PUC ~ """"B .. ""'" """,MoM"" a'oIl"'W",,~ I s""' Londo Co.... - DrinkiBg H2. _rahoeRglPbn ~Merti"'W"" ~OI"":- ø- 7/ - This page blank. 1I1V ,. """ J State of Califo~lia California Environmental Protection Agency MEMORANDUM e - / J--'I5'~f:; To: Chris Belsky Date: December 13, 1995 State Clearinghouse 1400 10th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Joe Monaco City of Chula Vista DEC 13 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 From: 11 v+u...' annie H. Blakeslee vironmental Review Section Permits Branch Permitting and Enforcement Division CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD Subject: H# 95111038 Proposed Negative Declaration for the Chula a Materials Recovery Facility, San Diego County (SWIS# 37-AA-0911) Staff of the Integrated Waste Management Board have reviewed the proposed Negative Declaration (ND) prepared_for establishment of a materials recovery facility (MRF) and transfer station(TS}. Sexton/Chula Vista Sanitary Services proposes to design and construct a facility with a maximum design capacity of 1,850 tons per day (tpd) on 10.8 acres. The facility will have the capability to recover cardboard, newsprint, mixed paper, aluminum, ferrous metal, plastics, mixed plastics, wood, glass and yard wastes. A green waste grinding and shredding operation is included in the project. The intent of these comments is to assist the lead agency in preparing a complete analysis of environmental impacts and identification of appropriate mitigation measures. We recognize that other agencies have regulatory authority over several aspects of this project. Staff offer 'the following comments, and ask that they be addressed prior to adoption of the proposed NO: 'P '1:3 Proiect Characteristics This section may have a typographical error; "The applicant plans to obtain permits to process an average throughput of 1,500 tpd and a peak throughput capacity of 1,850 ppd." Solid Waste Transfer The document indicates that solid waste may be transported to the Otay Landfill, or some other landfill not identified. The document states that Campo Landfill may be used, or some other landfill. Is the service area for waste collection to be expanded? Would implementation of the proposed project result in any increase of quantities of waste landfilled at any of the disposal facilities? The document states that transfer station employees will screen the incoming truck at the scalehouse to prevent the acceptance of hazardous wastes. The tipping floor will be monitored and if any material is found it will be handled in accordance with approved procedures. What are these approved procedures? Development of (unprepared) management plans does not constitute mitigations. Notification of the- General Manager or designated personnel and notification of the San Diego Department of Environmental Health that a questionable load "might" be taken to another facility does not mitigate a potential environmental, health or safety impact. What specific contingencies are in place, and will be implemented in the event that hazardous materials enter the facility? Impact Analvsis Impact analysis mentions that construction activities on the site will necessitate grading, which will result in wind and water erosion of onsite soils. The mitigation measures do not identify any specific dust control measures to potential dust impacts; it merely mentions that appropriate dust control measures shall be developed and approved by the City of Chula Vista. What specific San Diego County Air Pollution Control District rules and regulations apply to the project? What specific erosion control measures shall the registered geologist incorporate into the grading of the site? The document states that implementation of the listed recommendations will minimize the identified impacts relative to grading and erosion, yet it fails to identify or discuss any specific measure which will be implemented that will minimize impacts. The mitigations include appropriate (future) dust control measures which shall be developed and approved by the City, certification of a (undeveloped) grading plan, and incorporation of (undetermined) erosion control measures. Again, undeveloped plans and approvals do not constitute mitigations. The document indicates that a major earthquake on an active fault in the region is likely to occur within the project ~ifetime. It also' states that prior to construction, a geotechnical engineering investigations will be conducted by a Registered it 1Øi ~,' Civil Engineer. The investigation will contain soil, foundation, slope stability and seismic criteria that will be used in the project design. The investigation should have been completed prior to preparation of the negative declaration, and should have been included as part of the document. It is impossible to qualify or quantify potential impacts if a site's existing environment has not been adequately assessed and described. The document indicates that all buildings shall conform with the seismic design standards of the Uniform Building Code and with the City's requirements, but does not described or explain or describe any of the standards or requirements. What specific odor mitigations will be implemented? The document indicates that operational policies should be delineated in an odor control plan for the facility. The word "should" does not assure that any proposed mitigation will be implemented. Staff ask that the air discharge system which is to be incorporated into the building design for odor control be described. There exists a potential for accidental burning of waste materials if a fire were to occur. The document indicates that the Project incorporates a contingency plan for fire prevention and control. Staff ask that a brief describing the components of this contingency plan be included in the ND. Noise Impacts Staff have noted that the noise impact analysis was based on a 1971 study. There are current documents available which may be more accurate, such as the "Threshold Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agent and Biological Exposure Indices", which was published in 1994. The ND states that there would be no significant noise impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed MRF, however, the discussion pertaining to noise impacts indicates that the outside the building to the property boundary is anticipated to be from 70 to 80 dBA, which, over time may adversely impact workers' health and safety. The document further states that as a mitigation, employees will be required to have ear protection. What other measures are to be implemented to abate noise impacts? Conclusion The proposed ND has some flaws in identifying impact-specific mitigations which will be implemented to protect the environment, as well as worker health and safety. Impacts to be mitigated via permits and plans which are to be secured/approved by agencies as conditions of project approval do not constitute project-specific mitigations. What measures might these permits and plans contain which would mitigate impacts? Staff respectfully request notification of the date of adoption of the ND. We ask that we be sent a copy of the final version of the document and any attachments. We also ask that these comments be responded to, in writing, prior to adoption of the ND. ~t5 A' ., , Thank you for the opportunity to review this ND. If you have any questions pertaining to these comments, please contact Jeannie Blakeslee at (916) 255 -4 70'8. ø 1(p ~{~ :-~:; OlY OF CHUIA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT January 23, 1996 Jeannie H. Blakeslee California Integrated Waste Management Board 8800 Cal Center Drive Sacramento, CA 95826 Subject: Negative Declaration for Chula Vista Materials Recovery Facility/Trash Transfer Station Dear Ms. Blakeslee: Thank you for your comments on the above referenced document. The following are responses and clarifying statements related to the issues raised in your comment memorandum dated December 13, 1995. Project Characteristics Comment noted. The referenced sentence should read" ..... peak throughput capacity of 1,850 tpd." Solid Waste Transfer First Paragraph: The service area for waste collection would not be expanded. Waste transfer to landfills other than the Otay LandfIll will result in an increase locally but the operation of the MRF component of the facility would result in a net overall decrease of wastes disposed in landfills. Second Paragraph: For clarification purposes, the following is a summary of hazardous waste screening and handling procedures that are identified in the project application for a Special Land Use Pennit (copy attached). These mitigation measures have been integrated into the project design by the project applicant. All loads shall be inspected for hazardous materials as they are unloaded onto the tipping floor. No sealed drums of any kind shall be accepted by the facility. JIf í7 276 FOURTH AVEICHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5047 I Ms. Jeannie Blakeslee January 23, 1995 Page 3 All personnel shall be provided with evacuation procedures in the event of a fire. Operations personnel shall be trained in the procedures to extinguish small fires that may OCCttr in the waste receiving area. All wastes entering the facility will be checked for burning or smoldering material and if discovered, emergency response shall be enacted, including limiting access to the area and treating the fire with water, foams, fire retardants or smothering. Fire extinguishers shall be located throughout the building and the site. Noise Impacts: The project is required to comply with Cal-OSHA regulations regarding noise levels and thèir impact to workers. The standards setby,CaI-OSHA have beendetennined to be adequate by the City of Chula Vista to ensure that no environmental impact on worker's health and safety would result. Therefore, no mitigation beyond the provision of personal protective equipment is detennined to be necessary. The referenced impacts of 70 dBA at the project boundary are related to operation of the green waste shredder which will be operated outdoors near the property boundary. This is not the impact from machinery located inside the building. The City of Chula Vista appreciates the COmments of your agency and hopes that this letter satisfies your èoncerns. A hearing before the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista to adopt the Negative Declaration and consider the land use application fer the project is scheduled for February 20, 1996. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or Comments at (619) 691-5016. Sincerely, {7Ýl4u-- Joseph Monaco, AICP Environmental Projects Manager cc: George Krempl, Deputy City Manager Dave Vladic, Sexton attachment ~ 1~ CITY OF CHULA VISTA ! ~- sky trucking 187 mace street chula vista, california 91911 December 7. 1995 Mr. Joe Monaco Ci ty of" Chula Vista Environmental Projects 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista. Calif"ornia 91910 Re: Initial Study No. 95-28/Materials Recovery Facility-Trash Transf"er Station Dear Mr. Monaco. We are in receipt of" the above noted initial environmental study document and wish to note comments on several topics covered therein. Section 1.2 Project Setting: The narrative included in this section covers the general conditions f"ound on the proposed site. We do not f"ind any ment ion of" assessment of" any hazardous wastes that may exist due to past or existing uses of" the site. We question if" any underground f'uel or oil storage tanks are or were located on this site. If" so. what mi t igat ion measures are planned? Section 1.3.1.4 Green/Wood Waste Processing: This section deals wi th what we believe has potential to cause signif"icant environmental impacts. Unlike the trash transf"er station. which is contained completely inside a building with the ability to control emissions. this operation wi 11 be conducted outside. From our observation of' various f'acilities in operation around the Count;y. including Mi ramar Landf'ill. * 11 . . Page 2 I.S. NO.95-28 this type of processing of waste utilizes large high horsepower industrial equipment and will create significant noise and a variety of other impacts to the community. Based on empirical evidence as noted we believe this part 01' the operation requires a much more detailed description including, but not limited to, various impacts, scope and size and the required mi tigation measures. Has staf'1' made any observations of' current operations of' this type 01' waste processing, such as, Miramar l.and1' ill in the City of' San Diego? Does sta1'f' intend this section t-o note environmental impacts associated wi th this activity? Section 1.3.4 Hours 01' operation: This section notes that the f'acility will maintain a holiday schedule the same as the Otay Land1'ill. Does the list 01' holidays included in this section accurately re1'lect the holiday schedule observed by the Otay Landf'ill? Section 3.13 Transportation/Circulation: This section includes a discussion of' tra1'1'ic impacts on Otay Valley Road and Maxwell Road. There is no mention of' Main Street which is used to access the site 1'rom Interstate 5. Was Main 'Street a 1'actor or consideration in any traffic analysis 1'or this project? 11' not, why? I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study 1'or this project and look forward to your response. ¡¡~ Mark Watton cvtranflS f{) "-~,~,...,,....,',.. "",..",~"",-~~,..""_..,..:,ì",_,,-~...,,,._.., ,. ""1'- ,.:8 C!tnu~ bf &tttt mitrtn COUNTYlNtWCIR ...u.~ . ~ . ~ :t) COUNlYN"PORTS TOM GARIBAY . COU~="Æ'QNEII Þ1';¡"=:'. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS c=~~:=. .... Id" """" '. w..nWATEA _~MINT LOCATION COO"" 5655 OVERLAND "V~ &I\N DIEGO. CAl.IFORNIA tzI2a.12ta SOUD WASTl! ..t January 19, 1996 '; .~ ; ': City of Chura Vista, Attn: Mr. Joe Monaco, AICl" :. Environmental Projects Manag~r 276 Fourth Avenue '!:. Chula Vista, CA !H910 ,': INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY' - MATERIALS RECOVERY FACII..ITY/TRASH TRANSFER STATION ". Dear Mr. Monaco: The County of San Diego, DePartment of Public Works, Solid Waste Division has reviewed the ptoposed Negative Deolaration (NO) for the Materials Recovery Faèility/Transfer Station proposed by Sexton/Chula Vista sanitary ~ervices, located on Maxwell Road, and offers the following comment~: Specific Comme~~s j ~ Page 12 - 1.3.1.5 - The m); states that the expected worst..case closure date for the Otay ~ndfill is 1999. This is incorrect, even as a worøt case. At cl.lttcmt diøposal lavelll, it is projected that the Otay Annex I..andfill ,~ will provide diøposal service beyond " the year 2020. :.;: ' ',: Page 14 - 1.3,2. Iii - Disposal :$>f Wastewater - The ND states that the tipping floor will be olean~d every day to eliminate buildup of dust and residue. However, there is no discussion as to the means by which any water used to clean the tipping floor of the facility will be disposed. Since the".faoility is apparently a ndirty MRF", any water used to clean thejtipping floor, as well as any water used to clean the aprons, ene:rance, exit, etc. would be considered "contaminated" and would re@ire diel'osal in another manner from the sewer eyetem. Please ': include a discussion of plane for disposal of contaminated was'}ewater in the NO. .~ ' Page 27 - 3.2 b - Air - The NI? etatee, "l?utresoible wastes will not remain at the etation for more than 'B hours. Also, wastes are not allowed to lie exposed for a long period of time as can occur at a landfill. Rather, such wAstès will be secured and covered." -ør 1/ ð ........ - ...... """"" ". ,', .. GOd too i75:6t .1.1-10-9661 c' "<""""":"----~-"""""'" """'-;"'~~~--'-'~""""""-,, '............-...........---...----...,.. ,. .' Mr. Monaco -2- January 19, 1996 !, Landfills are required by l~w to employ a "daily cover" to cover all waste which is disposed on any given day- Therefore, the suggestion that the facility would not generate as much odor as a landfill is not justified. Consequently, odor iSsues should be examined on the basis of the worst-case daytime odor detectability cited in the NO rather than :compared with an incorrect assumption about landfills. Also, a dispussion regarding which materials will be used to cover waste left'~t the facility is needed. Page 28 - 3_3 -- Water - ~ stated above, this section should include a discussion rega~ng the washing of the facilities tipping floor and disposal ~f the contaminated water that would result from this washing. II;. should also discuss in specific terms what permits would be 'requi~d because of this activity. Page 32 -- 3.6 - Noise - The ~ states, "Furthermore, the looal area already has an elevated amb4-ent noise level due to the existing. truck traffic traveling to the Otay Landfill." This is a questionable assumPtion. A 1992 Traffic Impact Analysis conducted for the County by L~nscott, Law 6< Greenspan found eI totell volume of 16,600 between Ma~ell Ro~d elnd I-BaS. Of t~t totell, approximately 567 vehicles (on a busy day) were traveling to the Otay Annex Landfill. Thi..::cònstitutcs approximately three (3) percent of the total traf£i~:on a road which the ND characterizes as having, "disproportionately high volumes of heavy truck.... Consequently, it is unlikely:'tliat noise levels are elevated solely because of traffic t~ the O~y Annex Landfill. The same paragraph states, ".~ased upon the 432 ADT ultimate 1cvcl, the total traffic increase is: about 2 percent for Otay Valley Road. Again, a very small, 1mpe~~~ptible increase in noiee generation will result. Based on tMs discussion, noise impacts due to project-generated truck traf~ic will be minimal; and no signl:ficant noise impacts will oocur." ~ CEQA does not: permit the ntrivialization" of an impact through the argument that: a project's c9ntribution to a potential problem is small. Therefore, the impact caused by the addition of 432 ADT in an area which the NO states has an elevated noise level should be considered fully, a determin~tion of significance ~hOUld be made, and mitigation proposed if necessary. Page 35-39 - 3.11 - Transport;"tion!Circulation - The ND states that an assumed 1999 closure date "for the Otay Annex Landfill represents a "worst-case" scenario. However, with regard to this section, that assumption results in a ~best-case" scenario as far as traffic forecasts are concerned. ':As was stated above, it iEl highly unlikely that the landfill :~ill close in 1999. Therefore, the statement on Page 38 that, ."~t is assumed that post-closure traffic distribution represents the ~orst-oa8e local and regional traffic ~gr . ." j¡¡,.";"""" E:Od 100 flS:6I 1I-tO-966! .,~-, ".~."..;_.~" ....--. ...,....iL~,_:"_..".;...._...__........ ... .,. .... Mr, Monaco -3- JlUluary 19, 1996 :.< imps"t" is incorrect, becau~e it fails to take into account the continuing use of the land,~ïll by both commercial and private customers. .'; Consequently, the "wor/St-caj,e." scenario /Should assume t:he same level of "mom and pop" haulð~/S and privat:e citizens now using the landfill, plus the franchised haulers from Chula Vista, National City, Imperial Beach, Coronado, South San Diego City and unincorporated areas plus the. additional transfer trucks, materials trucks, and employee/visito~:vehicles in its calculations. Furthermore, it is unclea~ exactly which jurisdictions were included in the traffic for!;ocasting- Those mentioned above all currently dispose of waste ali., the Otay Annex Landfill. If all were not included in the calculat~ons, it is likely that the forecasts are flawed. . :.;:-. The traffic section' a.lso stat'ès on Page 38, "[A] fter closure of the Otay Landfill. the projected traffic increase on this segment (Otay Valley Road) is approximately 416 AD'!', This increase amounting to . an estimated 2.2-percent increase in existing traffic volume (1 percent of ultimate LOS :þ'volume) is minor and does not significantly impact opèråt~ons on Otay Valley Road or cause the LOS C standard to be exceed$d.1I It is unclear from the document whether rising levels of tra.l;fic from Otay Ranoh have been included in these calculations, A1s~~ we would once again point out that impacts cannot be 'triviali~éd" and the cumulative impacts of tho additional traffic should b~consideredt particularly in light of the apparently incorrect aå~mptìon that the Otay Annex Landfill will close in 1999. ,~: The Solid Waste Division app:t~ciates this opportunity to comment on thlø environmental document. ~nd would request that the division be . included on any mailing lists: regarding this project, including any hearing dateø. These may bó;sent to the attention of Bob Forsythe at the address shown above (.Mail Station 0383) . ~V~l:;O~. ;.' '. T"- ~;STER: Acting ~BPutyri~rector and San Diego Solid Waste Autb6~~ty General Manager TW:RCF:jww :!~ ~ If; :;: "iI,.. tOd 100 . . '55:61 1.1-10-9661 This page blank. ~f ¡ I . '. . ~~-~~-wc" ~"'".o ,,"C "c.."..c~ ""',","j('; l.:UNTRDL ... ~ . P."" . " COUNrv OF SAN DIEGO .P DEPARTMFNT OF PUBLIC WORKS . FAX COVER SHEET . I'1eaI8 nollly add,..".. that they have ttH:elWtd "FAX. Date: ~!t1!9 C. FAX Number: r.¡ =rc,-l;~/ð . To: 'j. "- 1ft. ^ ..<~ c '"1 ~.p. el.. ~ III {/./~-'I Addressee's Telephone Number: 6'1/- S'ð' It: II MESSAGE tJ:~e- :t...~'trt'..r ~~(J 4ø.kJ ¡)tjr/t: . rr¡...J. ":1 -;¡:~, i... r S.{,.l ~.~ d ./.' g,y/" [IJ "'-fJ,/....t,...""Is- r.t e c,Ðver:l e~'I."l7 /..,-~('/.. ï'~~ f:er ,-!af,'611 f ~ --,'11 ~ e.f j"dtA. : JI/ ~,'r-et;'¡' r:e.fÞv-. f-o yo J1 ð ^ '¡-..{,S' r"'V'~ðfl II /'I e"]C-"¡' week.' S-....r7 .¡2,r- ~e ~~. I -ft.€" IJ... ¿ lie,. ev",..kr ~ ,I.,) W"-'ik '(~fk:t W' ,'II ft"V"'ý. fJ, 1." ~ . tlr-J.tJt fa ¡,..oe7-f r"'¡., ~ ð fA. ,;.", '-f1.. i-/...Q. ,'I"" C IIIH'Y"'-PI'- '>1#1I"<A-h. I:J I Number of pages (Including this cover sheet): 2- From: ~ Telephone Number: t¡tf £""', <1: rr a II œ r!1 II .,..;>5 - I I This page blank. (Ji!I 1~ ~- -- ---~ -~.~~ Oi~ U~~~~~U '~rr.~ ~'JN"'U,- ...."" ....' - -', j . aIO1Ut!v ø£ ~an :!Bbgu CCUNTT ENGIN.... CCUNTT AI"I'ORTa TOM GARlBAV COUNTY.-.o_.....IONIII lllNIIIT _CD IX- DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS COUNrf_- !WIt) ü4-1111 ' I'l.OO0 CONTRO~ PAX! 1I,""'.om WASTIWATlIIM""AGIMIINT LOCATION - II. 11&61 OYERLANDRY¡¡, SAIl 01&00. CAl.IPOIINIA .:naa-II'. 8OIJO WAST. January 11,1996 TO: Dirk Smith, Environmentøl SarvlclS tv~ Department of Public Work. 1038&1 FROM: Robert Hoglen, Route Locations Dep,rtment of Public Works 103361 ~,r.R,(W.CANE ~.,'!(Ip¡¡JOlvßEn¡¡iI1!V' SUBJECT: Initial Environmental Study for City of Chule Villl1:a Metarials Reeovery FacilitylTresh Tnmsfar Station W. have reviewed the 8ubjeçt document end hive the following comments: TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION 1. Include datil for project traffIC end paroent traffic aølltB on all existing County Clrcul,tion Element Road. and other rosdsln the unincorporated arll88, 2, Identify traffic Impact. en the roads in the County and provide eppropriate treHie mitigation measures for thlldantifled traffic Impecta. 3. Route Iccations needs to review future documents for this project. If you heve any questions regarding thlll matter, please call Robert Hoglen at (s.c. S501 694-3244. RCH:PAS:ak ee: Jim Chaoale, DPLU (06501 MIIWPtHOrlLIMMK2rtJØO.PI!I ~¡7 0_..,"""",,- This page blank. fð - - ATTACHMENT "E" Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program CHULA VISTA MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY/TRASH TRANSFER STATION MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead or responsible agency that approves a project where a Mitigated Negative Declaration has identified significant environmental effects, to adopt a "reporting or monitoring program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or ayoid significant enyironmental effects". The City of Chula Vista is the lead agency for the Chula Vista Materials Recovery Facility/Trash Transfer Station (MRF/TTS) project. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project which addressed potential environmental impacts and, where appropriate, recommended mitigation measures to reduce identified significant impacts below a level of significance. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is required to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented. The City of Chula Vista will adopt this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) after considering the Mitigated Negative Declaration and if approval of the project occurs. The proposed MRF/TTS may result in adverse impacts in the event of substantial alterations to the proposed project description. A monitoring and reporting program would prevent adverse impacts by insuring that the proposed project is developed in substantial conformance with the project description and design features used to conduct the analysis for the Mitigated Negatiye Declaration. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The MMRP for the proposed project will be in place through all phases of the project, including final design, grading, construction, and operations. The City of ChuIa Vista has primary enforcement role for the implementation of mitigation measures. The City's Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) will provide final approval for the completion of the implementation of mitigation measures. The ERC will appoint a Mitigation Compliance Coordinator (MCC) who will be responsible for the actual monitoring of the implementation of the mitigation measures. The MCC will interface with the ERC, the City Engineer, the City Landscape Architect, the Construction Supervisor, and the Construction Inspector(s), all who have some responsibility for the implementation of the mitigation measures. Chula Vista Materials Recovery Facility/Trash Transfer Station City of Chula Vista Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ;7 -P f1 ;> '" ;3 -" u ""' 0 b i:J " " " " " "',," "'" ""',," "'" ÔÊ ~ ÔÊ ~ ÔÊ ~ ÔÊ" - ~ê- ~ê - "ê-"ê ~¡;¡h ~¡;¡h ~¡;¡~~ ~¡;¡~~ ~ û::;&1ö û::;&1ö û::;&1ö û::;&1ö S¡, "~"" <:> g ¡¡ g g ~ ~'" ~'" ~ L .- .5- .5 .- .11' .- .5 ~ 9~.'" 9~.'" 9~.~ 9~.'" .~ ~"ê ~"ê ~"Ê ~"ê 1:: '0 - ~ .0 - " .0 - ~ '0 - ~ 8. 0.00. 0.00. 0.00. 0.00. ~ "0 ii 0 0 0 ~ ¡;;;, is': is': '" '" '" '" 01) ,5", ,5", .5"'.5", .~ H H H H <:> "u "u "u "u 'ã .~. ~"-o ~"'- ""'f3"-"~ <:>ê.c:g -5-5~g -5oo~Ê 5~ ii.!!.,,::: :;s C\ilU ¡i-,§ "-§~ ~;;"'s..c:ã = !t-5i"õ .ê~,š'¡:: .g:J,~ .§'1f8.È",,';: § ,.§h~ !t",,:ê~ O]g~~~~~~.§~ .~ g=. ~~~ I!'Ë~o ,,?!g§,.~È,g-~s.~ ii5 1:j "'~-5 ~o~g ~@'~&1 h~h~~~ JJ ~ "õ - È "'~ ~ 0 ~~F ~.§ E -.~ '" ~~ ¡¡¡ "g" "õ-~~ ~S~';; "'g.5gf3.£1:~1!' .... go> ~"o" ""'~-5 "0""" u"' f-< , ~8~ ¡¡~~~ ~ð~"õg~¡':.g"j"§ð ~~' ,""'" ".00'-°. "¡;.o¡¡",g-E_" ........ ~.§]"'~."'¡q \ii"õ8'g g.i~~~".~,š t'ß" -5 ~". ,š .- Bh -5i 05 ~ i§g.~ <g .J! ¡': O;i Èj? ¡!:; 0"" ,,"',,'" ,5"'."0;¡I!'-o,~" - :U . :: J!1I' @' gš~ .£1 ~ :~ "'5ij ¿ ~ > .~ .& g:H~gêi:~"g ~!tß-5 .g~~ì1"'.~\iis. ¡I.,'§ o.¡;¡'~> o.<",iiu ",,~£ o..5u8~~u¡;¡' ¡:-... " " ;.~ 8", ~ § ~ ~ ~ ~ ~gp ] .§ " - 1¡j 13 ::E 0 ",::E 1>: " " '" .~ 0 ,.; ,.; ,.; ,.; >.~ '" bIJ :3 .'" -" .~ u::E % ~ :;: '" " Õ 'ë: b Û S' 1,~ "'11 1 "'õ 1 "'- 1~ õ OJ ð ¡;¡ã v ðã v ðã ~ ð '3 -š v § ':5¡¡:-~~ 'õ_~~ ':5,~~':5"'¡¡~ ~ 8h~! 8~~! 8~~! 8~~! 0 '" ~ v v~ v v a ~ ~-" ~ ~ æ ~'" ~"" ~'" ~'" 5¡, '~~" ~ '~ ~ ~ '~ ~ 0 -""" Bõ -õ- -""" ~g ~~g Sg S~g ~~ 101) "" 0 "" "" 0 "" 0 "" "" 0 "" = 1:: . 0 . 0 8.~§ ~ H ~ OJ .'" - .-- ~ P:š -" H ~ '¿j '0 g8 ~g gU "'0 ; ~':5 ".¡¡ ~'õ &Ie ~ .sB]~.s~¡¡ gq~-,!'gi~::; :!i~.g gš .¡:: Iisg.[£58' §-g'õ-¡J,"S¡; ~.so "';g .g~-cr~i<'~c.o. ~.s~jj~,,~~ 8,š@ ~ii " ï= &'§,;~§'8'õ ~~,~~'õrfl.; ]h -g~g .g "'~-~§~¡¡ ~.EI],~åê:g~ S',šs ~~ '" "'" ,s..~~-- ._~¡¡¡"'~v 0._" 0.£ ~ = H.s~õ':;~ Ë~õ~["q ~¡¡ê ~õ '* .0 ~~õ.~.so ÕõvS.-O,,-õ, ,--@o B§. " ~ ~ v-. 0 005 >'-0 -~ 0 oj ~ ~:1j€~8'õ~ ][~1ì~U'E ~~1!' §š ¡:: <= ~8il"'B~ ij'o~Oü ~'. =",:;; ~~ "'F! .~ ~o.ö¡¡~-g¡¡ --.s-:E,S_"~ .@"'- ~ ~¡;¡ ~"'; õ.u'g~ ~:;.nB;årf:ä .,,~~ ~~ ¡::5b .s"'~'E~8š ~'gi8 .-¡¡@~_~¡¡2~ ~; þ£ B¡¡Ë~"'-~-¡;j-~~,~8~1!'~.§ [8:1i~'§- :¡¡.. ~~""~.s§'-[ ~E.~-Ë.¡¡~-¡¡:i v~~~a""_§; ¡f:-€ æ~.s&ÈJ!~,.. ¡::.2.sS;§.~jjS' ¡::s;-n ~.s~ ç8, 15 ~I u'O ~ ¡¡¡ ~ ~ ¡:¡ ¡:¡ ~ grl ] -':1" ~ 0 " - ¡;¡ -s ::E 0 ",::E ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ :;:-g '" .. " -., '" -- u::S 1/ ~ ~ ;; '" "3 -" U ..... 0 G- O ;:a- ]~E ]"'E ].~';¡i§].~¡þi§ Q,> u'E" u.§. U~.Ê.U§'"" S 'c:~¡j 'c:~¡j 'c:¡¡;~,~ê'c:¡¡;~~ê .~ òiJi.~s. òiJi~s. òiJi.~':;s.òiJi~':;s. ~ 0>.28 0>.28 0>.2 ã8 0>.2 ã8 Q ~ egg æ ~ ~ 5¡¡ '~~~ ~ '" 11' 11' £ ~ ð~ ~ ð~ .~'~ 101) æ'c:æ æ'c:æ 8 8 c t: & ] Æ Q,> '" '" ~ .S'....S'... .S' ,S' "CIc H H ~ ~ ~ "u "u 0 0 .ff ~ u ~ ~ H:U Ê ~ 'c:.,; Hg ~ ~ ~". ] ~ .. "~2~ ,;-"'¡;E-eiìg§]sæ:; ~:~1j tl~ .g .~E E .a!È"'Ë~~.ê<."E§~~ .-..~" eu § .~ "~"" ~--~",~ug.a"-o ¡¡.. "'£ .- § &::,~: &¡¡£l1-gã~§:aoìg. gi!~~ 2" 5 ~ gpg-o., E.8.~"s"-g"'c:~-g-o".~ "s '" c ._.~¡:¡",S'::.g~8&2.:J¡¡0-5S.g 8"§i§§' .~~ ¡¡ Q ~-oë'§ ~~~-gò"'~ 'jjg;"s"¡E2 ~¡¡ ~~ 't:; .~ "'o"'~ "'.g~Ò',",~"'~"p<."'--Bõ§ "'" ¡¡¡ ~ ~Lg 'c:,g,:;,g&~~ !¡i;l.~ ~¡¡~-: ~~ þ .~ -g:~s o.g". "-g,,,...:SO-o"SZ. -0-5. -"" .1:: tl~o" tl~"æ"~,ao",o-g:E~:3-o.iJ §E>; ~¡¡¡ ~ §i;.'o §"""(; "-5Z~.""~"~ ~"O """ ~~§"c: ~'@~b_:§~~q2~S'¡¡H~ §~~ t8' -:-gtl-:1jo¡j~-B-5tl~=¡¡'~,S'.:J~.ê ~~.~ :Eo.. o.o§. O.Ò'"._~~~§ °Oa'" O1J .-. .-00 -~~,",.ì? -~ -5:J'1!'Ö'Ö,",iõ:'¡¡~a ~~-5u o~o :'¡o ~'ã.,"~U ~'ã.§-5"'ij'>; ij'8.-g8 ~:::a~ '.g. ~.€ æ~~8~ æ~v;~~8~~8.d.Ò's =UiJiiJ ~.s¿j è&1 ~ ~ I 8"" ~ ¡¡¡ ~ ~ g) g) '" gpl ~"§ I " _I :;; ,. ::¡; 0 ",::¡; - " -0 -0 "" .~ 0 ~;;; ;;;..; >.~ I 1.~ -" .- u::¡; 16 r 1--- I t! ;;: '" ð ... 0 þ û ~ oô ~ '" ~ '" S '3~ oô '" '3~ """ '3~ """ ~ ~ ~dd ~ £ H ~ £ H .5 ;¡;¡~~s.;¡;¡"O~s.;¡;¡"O~s. = û;>&Jã8û;>ã&J8û;>ã&J8 0 ~ "" ~ ~'" ~'" /) ) '" .~~.~~. ~ .~ ~ :n ~:n ¡o., "'C~" 'C~" /) ) 0 0. "0. 0. 00. = t 8. ã ã "' ¡¡; ¡¡; ~ I It It ~ ~ 3~ 3~ ¡;¡ 0 '" u '" u ~ II); 'g '" ~ ~ U~ " 'š ~ .9g ~ >, r~ Hog .;¡ H ~.~~ g,~.~~ ¿;¡ "'" " " - 0' 1j ~ ~.j;' e .~ [¡ = .." '"~.'i'~ '-""'¡j ... .51 §.s Ps§~J!h § "'iU ]~ e.~ s.~ :;:j11<i ?: I .~ sg 8Š~ì1 ~~~o8 '<:~I ~ ~-E ;n~ ~~~j§: ~6b ~§ ~t~13 ,~.g]§1! tee ~,~~i~~~ I~~~~ :§"'- ~",g ~8~@ S~.s2.> ggf "";3 ~t~s. s*=~ ",'f: ~]~ ¡:H8 ædo~~ ¡:.8.1 " " ><>:: 8", I" ~ 0 0 ~ ~I '" M M ",.s .¡:: i5 " ~ 1¡ ,. ::E 0 ~ ~ I ~ R R ;;.9' ~ ~ ~ ~ 1.~ .<: .- u::E 93 ~ ¡;¡ ;; OJ ;; -'" u '- 0 è U "è O, := = ~ Q ~ § ~ ~ 6b ¡¡ ~ Q Iii Jj >, j.< ",¡J u ¡:¡.., :È[ gf æ~§ .- 00 t: Q ¡:o. ~ "CS æ gf .¡:; ;§ 11 ~ ß: = '58_82 ~ ~~~§<~ ..-: ",~£~_diE = ~§S.~~~ Q ~~~E8-~ ~ ð~H'~! ' i'"'.". " - _'.0.'. . " 00'"'" " ~ ~:,..,,! ' ~£e~~~~ ~ !8.E g."'.E 13 -5 æ ",¡'¡' ' I s[¡,;Q~¡;¡'~ ~¡::: ~8",~8.:!'" ~¡;¡I '0 u 'G v~ E ~ " f-< on ~o~~8~~ ~e .<;:: Po. ~ ~ "" .- - ~ ~ ~& >~ 8", I ~ æ I 0 '~I " " 'I OJ 'S : ~ I t; c ;; .51 "' .!:ibIJ 1'1 ~ ð~ ¡;j >' '" "3 -" U 4-< 0 Ò U ~ -'" ... ",s Š ð ~1I'¡¡ -~ ~"' .~ ... 0 " 8 ,j;'1ii:iS Q, ~ U>ò¡J¿¡ § ÉiJ 0 ~ ,11' gf g 1:: 0 =>. &à '0 I:: <II 011 I:: -g ,~,~ ~ -ã Š ~: 0 " ~ - ~ Q,~ @' I:: ~H ' ~ .~¡, ' ~ _'II I :e .,", ~ ~ ,,', . Ii.! ~ .~]5 Þ ~ 1I'~ 5 ~ § l¡¡: e ~ .0 0 ~ ,È' ¡:\:; ~ gp .... 'E ~ ~& " " ~~ ¡J'" ~ § ~ .. .0 !~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~] ::E 0 ",::E ~ ,§ '" ~ - .. 95 - ð~ ¡] :> '" "3 -" U .... 0 G- O i= ðJ~ ðh ðJ~ ~ 0.. t: ~ 0.. t: ~ 0.. t: ;§~g ~~g ~~g ~ = u>o u>o u>o Q ~ fJ .~,~.~ Q L L L Q ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ .~ ~n .~ ~ 0iJ o. o. o. = t ~ ~ ~ i t t t ~ ~ ~ ~ '" '" '" "0 .. '. ; 0 8 8 0iJ u ¡; "u '" ~ '" = .j;o ~-s .5u,5 ï::: ~ :€ " " !j .;: :g .g 11~ ~~ 0::.5 § 'i3 " " '0 '" u <E "õ .", Q .š~ ~1! .sOu '" ~ °Ëc:;.9-E.¡¡ en = ~p ]~-8 ~ J¡ .51 ~ 5 ~ ~ E '§: § ~ "'u~:¡q ¡¡o'¡; Þ .!2IJ ~.o8 ~:§ ;;¡.§'9 -" ! ~ h~ê9~~2ê ~~ ~ ~~¡;~~~¡¡..':' ¡:,ß" "õ .1f~~El!~~ ""~ u"'~'."èê::E". .CblJ ~~ 1 § ~ & : ~!~ æ~ I ¡5~l~~[¡58~s. Ç8.I ~~ 8", ~ ¡¡¡ ;:: ;:: ;:: .¡;j.Š .;:: i5 " - õj 's ::E 0 ",::E 1;; " ~ ~ ~ ;;.g .g.~ -" .~ u::E 9'" 1J/!f ~ I ] u .... 0 G- O ! 1 I I I I ~ -" I ~ .Ê ~ jj I ê ~q 1 .- þ¡;¡" I Û>Q I § n I 6;,. ~ i? ; 0 S '2 [ I ;. SuB 1 .... ," ~ 0 ~ "00 = ~ I Q. -" ~ ð I "Q ~ , ã 5: I ~ ~~~"~~'O~~~o I = 05'" ~~o~o5.o.o- 1 '¡:: '13~'13~"];§'@:n. I .g >, ~ s~~-'¡¡;~o " I 'a g.~g.š~O:'~¡¡"'~' ,51 0 ~ .e ~ g. ~ ~ ~ ~ê "'M E ::;: ",~,."¡;".oi;"§~~ '" &æ~".š~¡¡'n""Ê~ ~ 'I 8 ~_o5i?Þs.¡¡;;",~8jj ð - ~ -~>,o ¡¡~ . ~sËs['¡JogË~c."ê f:: ~ i!e B.¡:;~~=~~,S~ 1 .- o~SO ,"11050,S> -""I .1:i '@¡¡'æo,5u.§.g"'~g~ ~~I ::;: .¡¡;°'13~88-g'@~~'@ tfi'l særi,,~H."'1<~11i g'¡:l ~ "~d '" - ~ ,- ~ 0 .- ..1 ~-~HHtjH~H ~€ ¡::£E~1jE~g;~'ggš ~o u "u " ~" '0, ~ ~I 8"" 1 .;j § I ;¡; ~ ~I '" '¡:: I ¡:: 0 I Iij -ËÍI ::;: 0 '"::;: I ~ " 0 ,~ 0 I ~ ~'~I " "" -" .- u::;: 97 " I ¡:¡ :> '" ] u 'õ þ Û o:a -3 r " -3.11 - -3 " " ... õ""§ õ~.l1§ Õòd§ § æ 'Zë:¡¡;€ 'Z"'êi€'Z,1fll"€ ;:: .j;>ÈlIiJ. ,d:I:iJ.j;>~êio§iJ. = U>"Q u>òdQ u"':I:o.Q 0 '-' '-'§ 8'Z 8 8 " ~ "" " " "~ .. . 11 >. . '" ~ '" ~ .~'ê~~~"~~,, '8 ~ å8 r~8 ~~ bA) 0. 00 0. 00. 0. 00. = t 8. 'Z -"... ... ~ ~ ~ I õ Õ "5! .g ß ß ß æ '" '" 0. 0. gf ~'Z§-3;;¡¡:J,§ ~2.~ 1f¡¡ § § .;:: ;g::õ:'§~ ~~~ H h'~ ,g ~~J3§êi;>. ~,,;; ~~ '~1f~ § 8 .š ¡¡ ~ .9 IV~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -3 ~ .~ i~ ~~ .§ :E ~~:~~.ê~8~ ~ÈÕ ~2 ~~ ~¡¡ ~ = o§.§¡j.d~€:€ "'~J3 8;; 8£.tJ' ~ .S >'b1iHU~i1. ~~>. r¡:.¡¡ ~§ ~¡¡ ~ ~ ~;¡jj;>2€õ~~8i:'~:;; ;;;~ ¡¡~ .~§' þ .- ""¡o¡"'-",, "£ "0" §. ie?;¡~. ..c ... .1I~"¡¡<"1I"'. 0 ~ .""d "; ~" :@ :¡¡:j g._~'¡¡;Q8"õ:1J .íJ8.~ £~.~ 8- .13~ ~ O~~gll.Ë3":h ~¡¡.g. 811.g ~! :§ t 2~~ g §" aê ¡¡:~ ¡¡ J3H ~g g..s; ¡g .R'§~ë:.g.~8r;.~~€.9:§J3 -¡J.s <¡"Z ¡'¡Š ê.g:.¡rg-B-B§¡r".~.~iJ..8".9 ~'§ 0.~£Q>.8~õ.Q ¡ó:¡;¡.",Q 0.£.8,; .ci ç", " " >~ 8"t:J I ~ § I ~ ;f;f ~ gpl .¡¡'ß I '" ï::i ::E 0 ",::E " "" :;;" .... :,:.... :>.g I '" '" '" '" '" ]:ËI u::E I I 9? -- ~ ;; '" ] U 4-< 0 Þ Û s :H õ ~~"õ ~~"õ ~~"õ ... u,-1f" U"'S" U"'S" U"'S" is 'Z,sH 'Z,s~~ 'Z,s~~ 'Z,s~~ ~ ð~;g ð~;g ð~;g ð~;g 0 <:,¡ ~§ 8'Z 8'Z 8 8 o~ ~~ 0 0 ~~" ~~"~,,~,, 6¡¡~",§~",§ '~~ '~~ ~ ~8s ~8s ~Æ~ ~Æ~ ¡::I., 'C~U 'C~U 'c~E 'c~E I ~ 0.00 0.00 0.00. 0.00. = t , 0 I e- .¡j ~ ~ '" I ~ õ õ õ.¡¡ , 'CI ~ 0 0 0 § ¡¡; .<: .<:.<: .Ëf 'Znp§g~,~ 'ZI~§~§" ~~ 8 ~P8~1t8~Q ~~~¡¡g~ ~, ~~ " .-:= ~~~"IJ~J1:'.~ ~qB~ ¡¡;.~ 'Z1f ,g , § """'-8 a .~" ""~~~- ~~ 8'6 '" I "" u,g" '§¡¡ '9-8 u,g~"]'§. ';;. "'5 ii5 "'"' .g~È'~"~~È' .H,Q;~gg ~.c [¡ ! § 'Z~~-c~idH'Z~'@h! §g :a,g ~ I ~ 8~n~¿q~~æ d-5i;:;; ~~ ::,~ b I ~ ~~-c'~-8""o""Z S~~u-8'H ~u ~~ .... I <= ~"B ;;,!¡9'E~õ ~"1'i ~",.o ",' ¡(j§' ;:;~-8iJgd!~~~.8 ,~-8""~~ '@,g .59 ~~, "'"' "~~~~.<:~.o~t: "~g.-8§. -5i" "" t:oo, -8:~o.~iJi.g.~¡j. -8:.¡jÈ'~~¿ ~~ '~,~, 'È'£II 9[;H~f§~~ 9L;~~s~ H ~¡¡~ ~ gp "",",",._-,,~O""'-8~~~.c'" "'§.'Õ ",'€ i¿Hgð~~~8 i¿] ¡¡:~ g ~ ~ ~ ~H ç g, " " ;. ~, 8", I' ~ ê !J !J !J!J ~ gpl ¡:: '§ 1 ~ ,g I ~ :2 I - "I ... ... ...... ,~ 0 ..; ";"; ~ 'ß " ,'" .... ,- u::E '1'1 ~ I ~ ;; '" '3 -" u 'ë: b Û .gš s S Õ ~~ ~ ~ 'õ ~ ~ ~ .5 <5';; 0>;10 "= ~ ~~ ~ " a ¡¡ ~ >, æ ." .g g 6¡¡ :~ ~ Q 0 U u ~ hö I>.Ð = ~ " i:I. ~ ., "Ô ~ § ~ . , = "">"'. "' ~ ~f".o" - ~ ' ,'¡,~" ~ ., .-...,~. . . "¡",,~ ; ~ ~,.".., . = 0 """0. è . "',¡" . ~ "',-". , = .'.00 " t .s °"'["1. . "-""'0 "- ~ 'I¡.,""! " '" ..°'..,"" " I i'~I"I'1 .. 11'.,._" .. 'I!II"I. 'I I...,.!,; ". . . 0 " ". "', .~.~ I '" 0 ' ~. ~ " .~ 0 ~ .~! - '-1 ..ê .<;:: 00 u~ '" /~O ¡;¡ ;; ð 'õ ò iJ ~i Eg " <a' u ~ ~ go .g ... ~ 0. e 0 = ;£i~§~ .5 u:> '" u.s == 0 ~ .¡¡ § ~ 6;,š.š 0 ~-o It 8~ OJ) I': t 6" 8.811 . ,. ~ ¡¡ 1 ~ 0' 0 , " " , . P' , I i!' ,it ~ I ~ ",' . S "H, ¡ I .. "°, " . ",. " ~ P,. H, = , '" þ "' .. ~,:! ];'1 ~ '"" ,." ~ " ,. '" . - ,,"' -- ~ -", " :;1:', ~. ~!! I: ¡,,~ ~, "", " -"- 0,8 .¡:; 0 " - ¡¡; '" ' ~> :;; " .- 0 :> .¡¡¡ '" bO ]j :5 ' u> ..; !()/ This page blank. /ð,û Recording Requested By ;I and When Recorded Return to: ATTACHMENT "F" - The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Attention: [Space above for Recorder's use only] OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CHUlA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY and JOHN SEXTON SAND & GRAVEL CORP. THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by the CHUlA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a body corporate and politic [hereinafter referred to as "AGENCY"], and John Sexton Sand & Gravel Corp. [hereinafter referred to as "DEVELOPER"]. WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER desires to purchase and develop real property within the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area which is subject to the jurisdiction and control of the AGENCY; and, WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER has presented plans for development to the Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee (PAC) and the Design Review Committee (DRC); and, WHEREAS, said plans for development have been conditionally recommended for approval by said Committees; and, WHEREAS, the AGENCY hereby approves the development proposals as conditioned by PAC and DRC; and, WHEREAS, the AGENCY desires that said development proposal be implemented and completed as soon as is practicable. NOW, THEREFORE, the AGENCY and the DEVELOPER agree as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into this Agreement. 2. The property to be developed is described as Assessor's Parcel Number 644-0040-16 located at 1855 Maxwell Road, Chula Vista. A map of the property is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 3. The DEVELOPER covenants by and for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them the following: /ð3 - A. That the property will be developed in accordance with the AGENCY approved development proposal attached hereto as Exhibit A as though fully set forth herein, and on file in the Office of the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency, known as Document No. RACO-96-_. B. DEVELOPER agrees to obtain building permits and begin development of the property within eighteen (18) months from the date of issuance of the building permits. In the event DEVELOPER fails to obtain such building permits within this time period or fails to obtain an extension to obtain said permits, the approval of DEVELOPER'S development proposals shall be void and this Agreement shall have no further force or effect. C. That in all deeds granting or conveying an interest in the property, the following language shall appear: "The grantee herein covenants by and for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment of the premises herein conveyed, nor shall the grantee himself or any persons claiming under or through him establish or permit any such practice of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenant lessees, or vendees in the premises herein conveyed. The foregoing covenants shall run with the land." D. That in all leases demising an interest in all or any part of the property, the following language shall appear: "The lessee herein covenants by and for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through him, and this lease is made and accepted upon and subject to the following conditions: "That there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons, on account of race, color, creed, national origin, or ancestry, in the leasing, subleasing, transferring use, occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment of the premises herein leased, nor shall the lessee himself or any persons claiming under or through him, establish or permit any such practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number or use, or occupancy of tenants, lessees, sublessees, subtenants, or vendees in the premises herein leased." 4. DEVELOPER agrees that if either the AGENCY or the CITY OF CHULA VISTA proceeds to form a Special Assessment District for the construction or maintenance of parking facilities, public roads, common areas, or other public facilities which benefit the real property, subject to this agreement, the DEVELOPER hereby waives any right they may have to protest the formation of such Special Assessment District. Said waiver shall not preclude the DEVELOPER from protesting the amount of any assessment on such property. Agency represents that it has included this provision in substantially all previous - Page 2. or:> ItJ<f OPA's for the Project Area and it is Agency's current intent to include this provision in all future OPA's for the Project Area. 5. DEVELOPER agrees to accept the attached conditions imposed by the Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee, the Design Review Committee and the Redevelopment Agency as described in Exhibit "8," attached hereto as though fully set forth herein. 6. DEVELOPER agrees to maintain the premises in FIRST CLASS CONDITION. A. DUTY TO MAINTAIN FIRST CLASS CONDITION. Throughout the term of this Agreement, DEVELOPER shall, at DEVELOPER'S sole cost and expense, maintain the property and all Improvements in first class condition, and in accordance with all applicable laws, permits, licenses, and other governmental authorizations, rules, ordinances, orders, decrees, and regulations now or hereafter enacted, issued or promulgated by federal, state, county, municipal, and other governmental agencies, bodies, and courts having or claiming jurisdiction and all their respective departments, bureaus, and officials. If the owners fail to maintain the property in a "first class condition", the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista or its agents shall have the right to go on the property and perform the necessary maintenance and the cost of said maintenance shall become a lien against the property. The Agency shall have the right to enforce this lien either by foreclosing on the property or by forwarding the amount to be collected to the Tax Assessor who shall make it part of the tax bill. B. DEVELOPER shall promptly and diligently repair, restore, alter, add to, remove, and replace, the property and all Improvements in order to comply with this Agreement, or to remedy all damage to or destruction of all or any part of the Improvements. Any repair, restoration, alteration, addition, removal, maintenance, replacement and other act of compliance under this Paragraph [hereafter collectively referred to as "Restoration"] shall be completed by DEVELOPER whether or not funds are available from insurance proceeds or subtenant contributions. The Restoration shall satisfy the requirements of any sub-sublease then in effect for the property or Improvements with respect thereto or, if no sub-sublease is then in effect, shall be repaired or restored in the building standard shell condition existing immediately prior to the date of such damage or destruction. C. In order to enforce all above maintenance provisions, the parties agree that the Community Development Director is empowered to make reasonable determinations as to whether the property is in a first class condition. If he determines they are not, he (1) will notify the owners in writing and (2) extend a reasonable time to cure. If a cure or substantial progress to cure has not been made within that time, the Director is authorized (subject to the following paragraph) to effectuate the cure by City forces or otherwise, the cost of which will be promptly reimbursed by the owners. Provided however, in the event that there is a dispute over whether property is in a first class condition, over the time allowed to cure or over the amount of work and expense authorized by the Director to cure, the parties agree to meet and confer for a period of thirty (30) days to attempt to resolve the dispute. In the event that the parties fail to resolve the dispute in such time period, each party shall reserve any and -Page 2 51 ~ /6S - all rights available at law or in equity to enforce this provision, including, without limitation, self-help remedies with a right of reimbursement or offset. D. FIRST CLASS CONDITION DEFINED. "First class condition," means a condition at least substantially equal in quality to that which exists when the requirements in attached Exhibits A and B are completed except for reasonable wear and tear consistent with the purposes for which the property is used. 7. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the covenants of the DEVELOPER expressed herein shall run with the land for the term of this agreement. DEVELOPER shall have the right, without prior approval of AGENCY, to assign its rights and delegate its duties under this Agreement, and shall thereafter have no further liability hereunder. 8. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the provisions of this Agreement are for the benefit of the AGENCY and the Project Area and may be specifically enforced in any court of competent jurisdiction by the AGENCY. 9. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the premises shall only be used for light industrial land uses permitted under the I-L, Limited Industrial zone of the City of Chula Vista's Zoning Ordinance, or land uses permitted in I-L zones through the conditional use process (Special Land Use Permit process). 10. DEVELOPER or subsequent owners shall not allow activities to be conducted that exceed City code standards for noise, light, dust or other nuisances. Upon completion of the project, DEVELOPER will provide to the owners of adjoining properties the telephone numbers of property managers and the City's Code Enforcement Officer to allow for complaints to be lodged and abatement to be initiated if anyon-site activities result in a perceived nuisance. 11. Unless otherwise superseded, the term of this Agreement shall be the same as the term of the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area which runs until December 2023. 1 2. Agency and Developer agree that this agreement shall become effective upon purchase of the subject property by the Developer. If the Developer fails to purchase the property within one year, from the date of approval hereof, this agreement shall be null and void. 13. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that this Agreement may be recorded by the AGENCY in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, California. -SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS- It) C:, fa~" 4 vi 5 - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA "AGENCY" Dated: By: Shirley Horton, Chairman JOHN SEXTON SAND & GRAVEL CORP. "DEVELOPER" Dated: By: Approved as to form by: Bruce M. Boogaard. Agency Counsel [AK: \COMMD EVIKASSMANIOP ASISEXTON . OP AJ ¡07 PagE; 5 sf 5 - Exhibit "A" The Development Proposal Plans were not received in time to be included with the packet. Staff will make a slide presentation of the development proposal plans at the meeting. /ðf' EXHIBIT B TO OPA DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE CONDITIONS On March 11, 1996, the Design Review Committee considered the site plan and architecture for the construction of a 76,000 square foot Materials Recovery Facility and Trash Transfer Station along with 7,500 square feet of office space, truck parking, scales and yard waste processing area. The Committee, after hearing staff's presentation, approved the request to exceed the maximum allowable building height of 35 feet by 5 feet to a maximum height of 40 feet as minor deviation from the development standards in a Precise Plan Modifying District, and approved the project by unanimous vote, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of this project is contingent upon approval of Special Use Permit SUPO-96-01. 2. Complete landscape and irrigation plans detailing all new landscaping, and to include a plan of existing trees, shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to, or in conjunction with, the building permit submittal package. 3. Any additional roof-mounted equipment or ventilating apparatus shall be screened or treated in the same manner as the proposed rooftop ventilation scheme and shall be submitted to staff for review and approval. 4. The metal panels as shown on the sample board shall be reversed, so that the inside of the metal panel shall be outside (also referred to as the Shadow Ribwall system). 5. The split-face block wall, treated with a graffiti-resistant coating, shall be used for the fencing on the west and south sides, in the location shown on the site plan. Chain link fence with vinyl coating shall be used on the north and east property lines. 6. The final sign package shall be submitted to staff for review and approval. I() c¡ - This page blank. I/O - .. - - ATTACHMENT "G" OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/DESIGN MANUAL ADDENDUM MAY 1985 PREPARED BY: COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. 203 South Brea Boulevard Brea, California 92621 (714) 529-7888 OTAY VALLEY ROAD PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT /If T ABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION................................ ......... ............. 1 GOALS. OBJECTIVES, POLlC IES. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . . . .. .... .. .. " 2 SPECIFIC LAND USE CONTROLS........................................ 4 3.1 - Land Use Map............................................ 4 3.2 - Land Uses Permitted in Project Area..................... 4 3.3 - Special Land Use Requirements in Sensitive Impact Boundary........................................ 6 3.4 - Land Use Standards of Performance....................... 6 3.5 - Land Use Consideration Involving the Use and Handling of Hazardous Materials.................................. 7 DESIGN OBJECTIVES................................................. 8 4.1 - Townscape Planning...................................... 8 4.2 - Site Design.............................................. 9 4.3 - Building Design......................................... 14 4.4 - Circulation and Parking................................. 15 4.5 - Signs................................................... 16 ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS..... ........ ""'" ...................... 19 5.1 - Redevelopment Agency Coordinating Role.................. 19 5.2 - Project Area Committee (PAC)............................ 19 5.3 - Planning and Design Responsibility Within the Project Area 20 5.4 - Amendment of the Implementation Plan/Design Manual 20 ~ {IV 1.0 INTRODUCTION It is with considerable pleasure that the City of Chula Vista and the Chula Vi sta Redevelopment Agency present the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Implementation Plan of the City of Chula Vista to citizens and prospective developers within the municipality. The Otay Valley Road PrOject Area is a newly adopted Redevelopment Project Area that was approved by Ordinance No. 2059 by the Chula Vista City Council on December 20, 1983. The Project Area entai 1 s 771 (+) acres of 1 and wi thi n the City municipal boundaries and the adjoining County lands. This area is more specifically located between Interstate 805 and the eastern City limits of Chul a Vi sta and is bi sected, from east to west, by the Otay Valley Road (See Study Map At tached). This relatively 1 ineal strip of terri tory is designated by the General Plan for limited-industrial and open space uses. The area is now slated for revitalization as an industrial district, and is preplanned, under the text of the Otay Vall ey Road Redevelopment Plan, to accommodate industrial uses withi n an open, 1 ow-i ntensity park like environment. The Project Area is surrounded to the north by new and orderly residential developments, and is bounded to the south by the Otay River and floodplain, which empties into a natural reserve area at the southern end of the San Diego Harbor. Otay Valley road, which is the primary roadway in the project area, will also serve as a future and important major gateway to the City of Chula Vi sta from the Otay Mesa and Tijuana metropol i tan areas. For the reasons stated above, and the industrial environment envisaged by the Redevelopment Plan, a need is established for special emphasi s on urban desi gn of future developments, land use design and land use control s. Without a strong emphas is by the Implementation Plan on such physical and operational acti vi ti es, redevelopment of the Otay Valley road Project Area coul d foster chronic land use frictions and adverse environmental side effects from unscreened industrial uses. The Otay Va 11 ey Road Imp 1 ementati on Pl an was prepared for the purpose of meeting those special urban design, environmental and land use control needs identified in the above paragraphs. The Implementation Plan identifies a proposed land use arrangement which is reflective of the market conditions for industrial activity within the South Bay area and is also sensitive to land use patterns adjacent to and surrounding the Project Area. Land use controls have been recommended which will effectively reduce environmental liabilities to surrounding man-made and natural environments. As a townscape guideline, the Implementation Plan stresses the importance of the visual and functional relationships of people and their Physical environment, and the interrelationship of order (methodical arrangement) and amenity (beauty and pleasantness) in the City building and rebuilding process. ~ 1(3 . 2.0 GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES The Otay Valley Road Redeyelopment Implementation Plan will serve three (3) purposes: 1. La nd use controls: serve to effectuate General P1 an poli ci es and zoning standards by directing their application within the Project Area. 2. Desi~n guidelines: serve as an addendum for the Design Manual of the ity of Chula Vista by incorporating specific design criteria for development in the PrOject Area. 3. Goal s and objectives: promote their achievement and direct the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment effort. GOALS AND INTENT The overall goal of the Redevelopment Implementation Plan is the elimination of blight in the Otay Vall ey Road Area and the furtherance of the area's orderly growth, conservation, amenity and economic development. OBJECTIVES Certain objectives have been established as a means of directing the ultimate achievement of the overall goal for the Project Area. These objectives are as follows: 1) The establishment of land use controls to guide future developments in the Otay Valley Road Project area and to safeguard against adverse environmental side effects; 2) Agency coordi nati on with zoning pennit business license application process to a1 ert Agency and other authori ti es of any proposed 1 and uses requiring precautionary environmental and land use controls; 3) The focusing of perfonnance standards towa rd regu1 ati ng industrial land use activities and operations; 4) The establishment of urban design policy which would include buffering and beautification techniques for the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area; 5) The development of an effective circulation system, free from hazardous vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle interfaces; X Ill/- 6) The fosteri ng of cooperati on and communicati on between the developers of the Project Area and the adjacent residents, workers, and property owners; 7) The promotion of effective, on-going enforcement of land-use and design standards. STATEMENT OF POLICY 1) The Otay Valley Road Implementation Plan shoul d be regarded as the principal statement of the City's urban design guidelines for the Project Area. 2) The Otay Valley Road Implementation Plan is a supportive, companion plan of the zoning regulations, and includes performance standards of the City of Chula Vi sta. 3) The Otay Valley Road Implementation Plan is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Project Area Redevelopment Plan which are al so incorporated and made a part of this document by reference. 4) The Implementation Plan establishes environmental controls which should be actively enforced and pursued to reduce environmental liabilities related to industrial developments to a safe and acceptable level. 5) All of the "Statements of Policy" and all of the "Principles and Standards" of the Design Manual of the City of Chula Vista shall be applicable to development proposed by the Otay Valley Road Project Area, except in those cases where statements, principles, or standards apply solely, expressly, and are exclusively confined to residential development. 6) The Agency should not authorize any approval s or permits or make recommendations in support of any development or land activity, which fails to conform substantially to the controls and guidelines of the Otay Valley Road Implementation Plan/Design Manual Addendum. 7) Notwithstanding the guidelines, criteria, or regulatory provisions of this pl an, proposed changes and additions to buildings, structures, and building sites shall be permitted within the Project Area, where such are specifically required for health or safety reasons by State of California or Federal legislation. These changes and additions shall be reviewed by the Design Review Committee, which may require additional landscaping or urban design features to ameliorate their environmental or visual impact, pursuant to the goals, objectives, and statements of policy of this plan. ~ 115 3.0 SPECFIC LANO USE CONTROLS The specific land use controls designated in this document must comply with the City of Chula Vi sta General Pl an. Pursuant to any future General Pl an land use amendments affecti ng the Project Area, the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment P1 an and correspondi ng guidel ines of thi s Imp1 ementation P1 an shall be automatically amended to comply with the Chula Vista General Plan. It is the intent of the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Pl an and its Implementation Plan and Design Manual Addendum to guide and promote the development of well-designed, well-ordered, and economically sound industrial parks and 1 and uses. The land uses envisaged by the plan i ncl ude 1 i ght manufacturi ng facilities, warehouses, distribution centers, research institutions, and product-development pl ants. As a general rule, the said plans and addendum contemplate and encourage the establishment of indoor or enclosed operations. 3.1 Land Use Map 1) Land use classifications within the Project Area are designated on the Otay Valley Road Implementation Plan Land Use Map and are consistent with the General Plan of the City of Chu1a Vista and Otay Valley Redevelopment Plan. 2) The Otay Va 11 ey Road Implementation Plan Land Use Map shall designate "sensitive impact boundaries" as areas where industrial and residential 1 and uses abut one another. Within these areas, the Agency may apply speci a1 1 and use, en vi ronmenta1, or noi se control s, and may requi re the procurement of a special pennit as a conditi on precedent to the establishment of any land use therein. 3.2 Land Uses Pennitted in the Project Area 1) Industrial activities in the Otay Valley Road Project Area should include all 1 and uses pennitted in the under1yi ng zones, as consi stent with the General Plan except as otherwise restricted herein. 2) The special pennit process shall be used to adequately guard against the establishment of inappropriate land uses. 3) The Design Review ColTl11ittee review process shall be used to foster sound urban design, orderly development and environmental quality. 4) The following shall be subject to Design Revi ew Committee approval whenever located or proposed within the Otay Valley Road Project Area: BUilding and structural heights exceeding two stories or thirty-five feet (35 feet). * ¡/Io Building or structural heights within the Sensitive Impact Boundary and exceeding two stories or twenty-five feet (25 feet). Outdoor storage yards, service yards and building materi al s sales yards, and truck and equipment sales yards which exceed twenty percent (20%) of the gross f1 oor area of all enclosed main and accessory buildings on site; Any deviations from the standards of the Implementation Pl an must be authori zed by the Redevelopment Agency upon recommendati on by the Desi gn Review Committee 5) Ihe establishment or expansion of land uses within the Project Area shall be governed by the following provisions. a) Penni tted Uses All land uses pennitted under the I-L, Limited Industrial zone shall be pennitted in the Project Area. b) Uses Pennitted by Special Pennit All 1 and uses permitted in I-L zones through the conditional use process; all 1 and uses pennitted in the I Industrial Zones but not the I-L zones; and, all 1 and uses permitted in the I zones through the conditional use process shall be pennitted wi th i n the Project Area upon the procurement of special pennits from the Agency. c) Prohi bi ted Uses All land uses prohibited by the I-L or I regulations shall be prohibited in the Project Area. d) Special Pennit Process The Project Area Committee shall review requests for special pennits, and shall report its findings and recommendations to the Agency. An application for a special permit may be approved, conditionally approved, or denied by the Agency. The Committee shall make all of the fOllowing findings prior to its recommendati on that a special penni t be approved or conditionally approved by the Agency. - The proposed proj ect would not constitute a substantial detriment to the Project Area or adjacent areas. - The proposed project woul d promote the orderly physical and economic development of the Project Area. - The proposed project would be consonant with the townscape-planning and urban-design objectives of the Implementation Plan/Design Manual Addendum, and would contribute to the amenity of the Project Area. -X 117 e} Special Provisions: Ex ansion of Existin- Physical Plants, or _n argement 0 xlstlng ulldlngs on lxlstln Bulldlng Sltes Where the expansion of an existing physical plant or the enlargement of an existing building is proposed on an existing building site, and where the physical plant or buil di ng accommodates an ex i sti ng 1 and use which would require a special penni t as a prerequisite to its establishment, a new or additional special permit shall not be required, provided that each of the following criteria is met. The proposed expansion or enlargement would not accommoda te a new or additional land use which would require a special permit for its establishment. The proposed expansi on or en1 argement wou1 d not increase the aggregate of the combination of the building area, floor space, or open use of land, excluding off-street parking, by more than 20%. The proposed expansion or enlargement would bring the involved bu il di ng site into a state of closer conformi ty to the guidelines of the Implementation Plan/Design Manual Addendum. A proposed expansion of the physical plant, or an enlargement of the building(s} covered by the provisions of this subsection shall not be undertaken wi thout the pri or approval of the Redevelopment Agency, and shall be procedurally governed by Procedure C of the chart on page 21 of the Implementation Plan/Design Manual Addendum. Environmental assessments shall also be required, as appropriate. 3.3 Special land Use Requirements in Sensitive Impact Boundary l} Industrial activities permitted in the sensitive impact boundaries should be those which are not obtrusive, incompatible or a nui sance to the surrounding residential developments. 2} Any land use generating unmitigated hazardous waste, as defined within the State Statutes of the State of California Health and Safety Code, will be prohibited. 3.4 land Use Standards of Perfonnance l} Performance standards embodied in the zoning regulations of the City of Chula Vista (see Appendix for references) shall govern the Dtay Vall ey Road Redevelopment Project Area. 2} The noise standards established by the Chula Vista tJoise Ordinance shall also govern land uses and operating activities in the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area. -X lIt' . 3) With respect to ambient noise, the provisions of the Noise Element of the General Plan shall be accepted as the guiding principles. The matter of ambient noise, furthennore, shall be fully addressed under the environmental-assessment process. 3.5 land Use Consideration Involving the Use and Handling of Hazardous Materials 1) Certain proposed land use activities involving the use of or generation of hazardous materials need to be adequately reviewed and monitored to guard against the improper handling or disposal of such materials and the unsafe exposure of the public to such potential risks. 2) Proposed businesses utilizing or generating hazardous materials or wastes, as defi ned by the State Heal th and Safety Code, shoul d recei ve more extensive consideration beyond the nonnal plan review process. 3) Specific identified land use activities should be subject to the performance standards review procedures established in the Zoning Code and thi s Implementation Plan, and also similar review and pennit procedures through the County Health Department-Hazardous Materials Management Unit. 4) The business license review and plan revi ew process should serve as a mechani sm to alert the COl1l11unity Development Director and Proj ect Area Committee of businesses involving hazardous material or wastes within the Otay Valley Road Project Area. The business license review process, however, shall not be used as an enforcement mechanism. 5) The Agency should make all efforts to utilize County programs, undertaken by the County Heal th Department-Hazardous Materi al s Management Unit, to assist the Agency in fulfilling its underlying responsibility to monitor land uses involving hazardous wastes and materials in the Otay Valley Road Project Area. In addition, the Agency shoul d, to the extent possible, utilize established County programs, such as the Hazardous Waste Surveillance and Hazardous Material Disclosure Programs, and professional staffing skills employed by these services. 6) The following land use activities are identified by the County Hazardous Materials Management Unit as potential generators of hazardous waste; this 1 ist should be used as a guideline (not all inclusive) for special consideration under City and County programs: Automotive repair and/or service related facilities, i.e. radiator shops Chemical, medical and photo finishing laboratories; Construction operations and maintenance sites; Dry cleaning plants and industrial cleaning operations; Electroplaters; Manufacturi ng industries including: wood products, textiles furniture, paper, chemicals, rubber leather, plastics, buil di ng materials, machinery, electronics and instruments; ¡>C Ilr 4.0 DESIGN OBJECTIVES Where either the planning regulations or the design guidelines criteria are in conflict, the more restrictive shall supersede. 4.1 Townscape Planning The Otay Valley Road Proj ect Area should include a strong emphasis upon landscape and landscape design. Buffers between industrial sites and adjacent, non-industrial land uses should be established and maintained. 1) Parkway Landscapi ng La ndscapi ng within the pub 1 i c parkways and setback s provide plant materials which establish a sense of conti nui ty throughout the Project Area. Where feasible drought-tolerant trees should be preserved and planted as a continuous townscape element. La ndscapi ng shoul d fonn a conti nuous open space element consistent with standa rds and pl anti ng cros s-secti ons as desi gnated by the Ci ty Landscape Arch itect. Intersection corner 1 andscape design treatments at major i ntersecti ons wi thi n the Project Area shoul d be pursued whi ch make effecti ve use of publ ic parkway and/or pri vate setback areas to create hi ghly aesthetic landscaping, Project Area logo markers and other identifying devices for the traveling public, yet maintain safe visibility for vehicular movement. 2) Riverway Improvements Flood control improvements should utilize construction materials, such as breakwall or rock groin fortification of the riverbanks, which are more conducive to the natural environment associated with ri verway and marshland habitats. Flood control improvements should include measures to maintain the floodway in a natural state and preserve the natural habitat through the selective el imination of invasive Salt-Cedar trees, planting of native Willow, Sycamore, and Cottonwood trees, encouragement of natural ground water recharge, and the removal of debris and abandoned vehicles from the floodplain. The Otay River floodway should serve as a passive recreational open space providing visual amenities to individuals working or living in the area. -~ ¡)tJ . Ri verway improvements shoul d i ncl ude treatment of the open space strip a<Jjacent to the floodway to accommodate passive recreation needs of the local Yicinity. 3) Street Furni ture Use of street furniture such as 1 i ghti ng, seati ng, and trash receptacl es shoul d be uniform in order to compl ement other townscape features wi thi n the public right-of-way. The street furniture selected for use shoul d complement the design of buildings within an industrial environment and is encouraged to manifest a tone of architectural design, but need only be located where found necessary to accommodate pedestrian traffic, pedestrian acti viti es or special needs, or as determined by the Agency. 4) Underground Utilities The improvement of the Otay Valley Road townscape and effective use of street furni ture therei n should be partially dependent upon the undergrounding of public util ity 1 i nes. Such undergrounding efforts shaul d be gauged to redevelopment of the Project Area and di rected along Otay Valley Road as a priority consideration. 5) Poi nts of Entry Island medians or other landmark devices should be used to signify entry into the Project Area and City boundaries. Such entry devices should utilize a uniform logo or structural devices which can be readily equated with the City or Otay Valley Road Project Area. Island median improvements or other landscaped treatments at the entrance of residential developments should be used to effectively denote a separation between industrial and residential traffic flows. 6) Buffers Buffers are strips of land usually landscaped which are established to separate and protect one type of 1 and use from another. They a re often used as a screen to noise, smoke, and visual aspects of industrial areas which are located in adjacency to residential neighborhoods. In the Otay Va 11 ey Road Project Area, buffers shoul d be util i zed for the reduction of land-use friction, and the creati on of a well-ordered and pleasant work environment. 4.2 Site Design The site design of all development projects shoul d permi t vari ous physical components within an improved property, such as parking, vehicular and truck movements, building location, loading areas, 1 andscapi ng and setbacks, to ~ /:¿ I . function wi thout conflict or adverse affect on adjoining land uses. Furthennore, the element of townscape unifonnity shou1 d be reflected among individual site designs through continuity in design criteria. Consistent application of the following site design criteria by the various reviewing bodies and the Design Review Commi ttee will sustain an industrial park enyironment throughout the Otay Valley Road Project Area. The following site design cri teri a al so applies to developments within the Sensitive Impac t Boundary of the Project Area, unless otherwise specified herein. 1) Lot Size and Frontage The mi nimul11 lot si ze which may be developed shoul d not be 1 ess than two (2) acres in area. Each lot should ¡¡aye a minimum public street frontage of 200 lineal feet. The above gui deli nes may be wai ved by the Desi gn Revi ew Commi ttee or other Reviewing Body, where such body determines and finds, at a public hearing, that such waiver is consi stent with the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. Where a parcel of land with a minimum area of ten net acres is proposed for subdivision, a maximum of one-thi rd of the proposed lots may be platted at 1.00 acre in area, and a minimum of 100 feet in fronta~e. The Agency may extend this formula or scale to smaller parcels of land.' The recof11l11endati on of the Project Area Committee will accompany any such reques t to the Agency. 2) Lot Coverage The maximum site coverage by all main and accessory buildings footprints should not exceed 45% of total gross area. 3} Grading All grading within the Project Area shall be sensitive to surrounding land uses, developments, and drainage patterns. 4) Setbacks Along Otay Va 11 ey Road, between I-80S and the easterly project line, exteri or bui 1 di ng setbacks shoul d be no 1 ess than forty (40) feet from the property 1 ine. Building setbacks in all other areas shall be no 1 ess than twenty-fi ve (25) feet from the front yard and exterior side yard property lines. Building setbacks from interior side yard property lines should be twenty (20) feet minimum. Building setbacks from rear yard property lines should be fifty (50) feet, except that the rear set back may be reduced to a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet when industrial sites are platted rear-to-rear, or rear-to-side. -)<; /2-'- . ~ ~ .; .; >- 11); C C .C 1\ . .. : , . " " . . ... C' ' 0 ~ I ' " ~~ . " , ' Z !:;~ ~ ¡ ¡ ; Z ~§ m i " ¡ Z ~o " ,.. I. .. ~. 0 ! . , . ~ ø~ Z . , . , .. ~u j . . ' , ~ ~ ~ m .I'J:¡~' ~~:. ' 0 ~ ~ ,," ".:,1' e: 1-:0> ". ,. ~~ .' "', >- ~¡;; ~ ~ ~.~"':f;;¡\;'&: ~ --"" > ~¡:: >- ¡:: 0 ----J ~ L SON I 2. !.> 5) Setback Within The Sensitive Impact Boundary (SIB) Where a building site within the Project Area is adjacent to a residential lot or unsubdivided residential area, the minimum setback between a building constructed upon the said building site and the closest property line of the sai d residential lot or unsubdivided area should be 200', unless a reduced setback is depicted upon the diagram on page 11. Drive lanes, parking, trash enclosures and other fixed improvements should be setback a minimum of thirty (30) feet from any property line adjoining a residential development or zone. This may be increased where environmental considerations require such. Where a building setback line within the Sensitive Impact Boundary would reduce the ~aximum building coverage of a lot to less than 35%, the Agency may reduce the setback or other bul k guidelines. Any reducti on in a setback wi thi n the Sensitive Impact Bounda ry shall be based upon the fi ndi ng tha t the reducti on woul d not substanti ally impact environmental quality in adjacent residential areas. The recommendation of the Project Area Committee will accompany any such request to the Agency. 6) Landscaping A mi nimum of twenty percent (20%) of each developed lot should be pennanently landscaped and i rri gated. Perimeter landscaping along all Property lines establishing the front yard and exterior side yard should be provi ded wi th the foll owi ng wi dths as a mi nimum 1 andscaped separati on between driveways, parki ng stall s, loading spaces, trash enclosure or other fixed improvements and the respective property line: 40 feet - Along Otay Va 11 ey Road between 1-805 and the easterly project line. 25 feet - Along all other segments of Otay Valley Road. 30 feet - Along Brandywine between Otay Valley Road and residential developments. 20 feet - At all other locations within the Otay Valley Road Project Area. The computation of the area of landscaping shall include the space devoted to external hardscape, textured flooring, pavilions, artistic masonry, yard or entryway furniture, and water features, as well as that devoted to plant materials. "Where i nteri or and exteri or 1 andscaping areas are integrated, the Ci ty Landscape Architect may reconmend that certain Covered areas be regarded as exterior landscaping. The City Landscape Architect may also recommend that landscape areas of extraordinary artistic or environmental quality be computed at a maximum of twice their actual area, in the detennination of the project's compliance with this section. -~ /~'f All interior side yards should have a minimum ten (10) foot wide landscape strip, except when joint access drive lanes or parking areas are Used between properties to reduce the total number of dri veway approaches developed. All areas in excess of one hundred (100) square feet and not utilized for parking, open storage areas, loading or on-site circulation should be 1 andscaped or maintained in a natural state consistent with the topographic character of the area. The area required in this provision shall not be in excess of the 20% minimum requirement. A conceptual 1 andscape plan shall be submitted to the City Landscape Architect for advi ce and recommenda ti on prior to the review of such conceptua 1 1 andscape plan by the Design Review Committee or other reviewing body prescribed by the Zoning Code. All 1 andscapi ng shall be install ed pursuant to a professionally prepared plan, and maintained in accordance with accepted horticultural practices as determined by the City Landscape Architect. All irrigation proposals shall meet the requirements of the City Landscape Architect. The plantation of drought-resistant grasses, native plant materials and specimen trees, and the practi ce of water economy shoul d be encouraged. The use of artistically designed and arranged hardscape should also be . suggested. The guidelines and criteria of the City of Chula Vista's Landscape Manual are hereby incorporated into the guidelines of this addendum by reference. 7) Outdoor Storage and Equipment Parking a. Outdoor storage and sales areas should not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total gross floor area of the main and accessory buildings and must be approved by the Agency with the recommendation of the Design Review Committee. Enclosure requirements will be determi ned by the Design Review Committee. b. Commercial vehicles, trucks and trailer equipment used in conjunction with the primary business operation may exceed the enclosure height when such parking area is not located in the front yard or exterior side yard of the site upon approval by the Design Review Committee or other reviewing bodies requi red by the Zoning Code. The 20% limitation is not applicable to equipment parking provisions. 8) Utility Services All utility services, including electrical, telephone, gas and other services, such as transformers, telephone switching boxes, gas meters or other devices, shall be placed underground or screened as a part of the site design. -,k /,j,5 9) Loadi ng Spaces Each loading space should be located to provide direct loading into an enclosed structure. Where a 1 oadi n9 space faces a street, there should be a minimum sixty- five (65) foot bui 1 di ng setback to the 1 oadi ng doors measured from the required landscape setback of the respective yard area. No loading space should enter directly into the street within 150 feet of a residential development or zone. Each 1 oadi ng space shoul d have sufficient turning area to pennit safe maneuvering of trucks and trailers without obstructing parking spaces or encroaching into landscaping setbacks. 4.3 Buil di ng Desi gn A set architectural theme is not prescribed or recommended within the Project Area, but a design emphasis on structural amenities and aesthetic quality in roof designs and exteri or wall s of buildings is strongly suggested. The building design criteria should serve to evoke an industrial park-like environment within each individual building site and throughout all developed lots within the Project Area. The City Design Manual guidelines and criteria for commercial buildings should apply as a general rule to such development proposals within the Otay Valley Road Project Area. 1) Building Heights Building heights should comply with restrictions embodied in Section 3.2 (Land Uses Pennitted in the Project Area). 2) Roof Design All parapets, offsets, mansard roofs and other roof treatments shoul d be integrated with an overall building design, and should be adequate in size to screen or enclose any roof mounted equipment or devices. Recessed downspouts shoul d be encouraged where feasi bl e but shoul d, at a minimum, match exterior building design and color when not recessed. The configuration and location of roof equipment and associated screening shall be designed so as to maintain architectural consistency and should also be subject to Design Review Committee approval. Solar devices designed and i nsta 11 ed upon a roof structure should be placed in a location to maintain the architectural qual ity of the building, as well as, operating efficiency of the unit. -~ 1~1o All other roof mounted ducts, cyclone blowers and other mechanical devices should be strategically located to preserve the architectural quality of the buil di ng and screened and painted to match the surface to whi ch attached. Because of the topograph i c di fferenti a 1 between the proj ect area and adjacent residential districts, the amenity of the top view of the roof- mounted equipment should be stressed. 3) Building Openings Bay door openings and other 1 arge openi ngs providing di rect access to interior work areas should be directed towards the site interior or other industrial uses and should not open directly towards adjacent residential developments. Pri mary customer. employee or offi ce entrances shoul d be used as a focal poi nt of the building design and located for greater visibility from vehicular traffic. 4.4 Circulation and Parking The foll owing guidelines are designed to accommodate increased vehicular traffi c resulting from the Project Area development and growth in the surroundi ng subregi on. The guidelines are also designed to provide for the wide variety of transportation modes that will be utilized in the Otay Valley Road Project Area. 1) Transit The Chula Vi sta Redevelopment Agency should coordi nate publ ic transit requ i rements with the respecti ve transi t company and, as appropriate, should require bus turn-out pockets within the Project Area. Street furni ture shoul d be used to i denti fy bus stops and provi de for a bus service directory of the greater South County area. 2) Passive Recreational Activity A 1 inear open space park should be provided in conjunction with floodway improvements along the Otay River for passive recreational activity. The passive recreational open space shoul d be ,improved as a 1 ineal park with limited facilities for use by employees from surrounding development and residents adjacent to the Project Area. 3) Bicycle Linkages The Redevelopment Agency shoul d encourage the development and maintenance of bicycle linkages between the Project Area and surrounding territories. -)6(: /).. 7 . 4) Parki ng On-street parking shall be prohibited within the Project Area at any time for all types of vehicles, including cars, tractor trailers, and similar transportati on vehi cl es. 5) Driveway Locations Dri veway entrances and exits should be located in such a manner as to create the least number of traffi c flow interruptions as possible. Therefore, driveways serving industrial developments should be discouraged along hi gher vol ume roadway s and encouraged wi thi n seconda ry and loop roadways. Driveways should not be encouraged along Otay Valley Road where alternate access locations are possible. Driveways should not be permitted closer than two-hundred fifty (250) feet apart for those lots having only one access alternative along Otay Valley Road. Development projects extending beyond a singl e parcel should undertake joint access arrangements to reduce the total number of driveway entries onto a public street. No dri veway access onto a public street should be located closer than one-hundred fi fty (150) feet from the nearest residential development or zone. 4.5 Signs General Criteria a. Signs should be designed as supportive elements to land use. They should be used primarily to identify businesses, professional offices and public and quasi-public facilities. b. Si gns shoul d be compati bl e wi th the nature, character, and desi gn of the locale and land uses they serve. c. Good townscape planning requi res that si gns mani fest arti sti c order and taste. Offensive or obtrusive signing should be avoided. d. In their selection of signs, property owners and tenants should place considerable emphasis upon color, harmony, size, shape, texture, materi al s, and character. e. Signs should be characterized by restrai nt. Where practicable, artistic graphics, logos, or fine art di spl ays should be used in lieu of "commercial-type" signs. Signs which depi ct "prices" or the special features of products would be inappropriate within the Project Area. f. No si gn shall be located within the Project Area without the prior authori zati on of the Design Revi ew Col1lßittee, or upon appeal, the Redevelopment Agency. -X I:<? 1) Si gn Types a. Two (2) distinct sign types should characterize the appurtenant, identification sign environment in the Project Area: Primary Signs - should identify the development project, building or primary tenant of a complex with visual orientation toward vehicular traffic. Seconda ry Signs shou1 d identify individual tenants with building frontage in a complex or building, and shou1 d be oriented to pedestrian and vehicle circulation on the project site alone. 2) Number of Si gns As a general rule: a. One (1) primary sign per building, or one (1) primary sign per building within a complex, should be permitted to identify the entire development project site. b. One (]) secondary sign to identify the business establishment should be permitted for bui 1 di ng tenants havi ng street or court-ya rd 1 i nea1 building frontage and an integrally designed main business entrance on the ground floor. c. Primary leasehold tenants on the second floor or in the interior court of a building or building complex, should be permi tted one (1) directory sign space within the building directory. d. One (1) si gn di rectory per bui 1 di ng for the i dentifi cati on of second story and interior court businesses should be permitted. 3) Si gn Area As a general rule: a. Primary signs may have a total area of one (1) square foot for every 1 ineal foot of buil di ng frontage wi th a maximum sign area of one hundred fifty (150) square feet. b. Secondary signs may have a total area of one-half (1/2) square feet for every lineal foot of business frontage with a maximum sign area of thirty two (32) square feet. c. Individual business di rectory sign spaces should have a total permisSible area of one (1) square foot within the building directory. d. Building di rectory signs shou1 d be 1 imited in total area as is reasonably necessary to identify each building tenant and display a directional map for pedestrian use. -),< /:2.9 4) Placement of Signs a. Primary signs should be placed on the primary building face or wall in a manner consi stent wi th the bu il di ng design and may be 0 ri ented toward vehicular traffic movements. b. Secondary signs should be located on the first level of the building face or wall area for each respective business establishment identified in Paragraph 5 (b) and should be oriented toward pedestrian and parking lot circulation. c. Secondary signs may also be located underneath bui 1 di ng gall eri es or colonnades and similar locations upon approval of the Desi gn Revi ew Committee. d. Di rectory signs may be pl aced as appropri ate at the mai n entrance or Primary pedes tri an passage to the i nteri or or upper spaces of a building(s). e. No roof signs should be permitted in the Project Area. f. No attached buil di ng signs shoul d extend hi gher than the roofli ne of the building or structure. 5) Freestanding Signs (Monument) a. Pole signs should not be permitted in the Project Area. b. One (1) monument type sign may be permitted as a primary sign for each developed site having a minimum of two (2) acres and a minimum frontage of two hundred (200) feet along the primary roadway used for placement of such sign. c. The monument sign area should not exceed a maximum permitted sign area of fifty (50) square feet as measured from a single side of the sign copy. d. Monument signs should be mounted on a base or pedestal and should not exceed eight (8) feet in height, and shall be located a minimum of ten (10) feet from all property lines. e. All design standards applying to primary signs should also apply to monument signs. 6) Si gn Amorti zati on The amortization and abatement of any non-conformi ng signs within the Project Area shall comply with the provisions embodied in the Sign Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, as adopted in 1975, and thereafter amended. ~ ¡3ò 5.0 ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS Al though the text contained withi n thi s Project Area Plan/Design Manua 1 Addendum establishes a framework and coordi nati ng process for effective redevelopment, such goals, objectives and tasks must be pursued and fulfilled by the administrative bodies responsible for successful implementation. Without active implementation of such coordinating tasks, 1 and use control s and design guidelines, the Otay Valley Road Project Area will continue to experience sporadic development which is inefficient, uncoordinated and, more than 1 ikely, adverse to surrounding land uses. Through persistent coordi nati ng and development efforts by the Agency and other admi ni strative offices having the understanding of land use goals and objectives established by thi s document, the Otay Vall ey Road Project Area will become a well ordered, pl easant i ndustri al complex which serves as an economic benefit to the City of Chula Vista and provides a large measure of protection to nearby residents. 5.1 Redevelopment Agency Coordinating Role 1) The Agency should utilize its coordinating capaci ty to fulfill and preserve the 1 and use objecti ves and desi gn gui del i nes promoted by the Otay Valley Road Implementation Plan/Design Manual Addendum. ~) The Agency should utilize the Design Review Committee as the primary agent for reviewing development proposals and maintaining the goals and objectives of the Design Manual Addendum. 5.2 Project Area Committee (PAC) 1) The Project Area Committee shall be an advi sory body composed of seven members, appointed by the Mayor, with the consent of the City Counci l. The membership of PAC shall refl ect representati on from the residential areas adjacent to the Project Area; the ownershi p or management of the lands or businesses within the Project Area; and, the general interests of the Chula Vista Planning Area. 2) The PAC shall review all major proposal s for the development, platting, conservati on, circulation, or public service of the Project Area, and shall report its findings and recommendations to the Redevelopment Agency, Design Review Committee, or referring body. 3) The PAC may, on its own vol ition, advise the Redevelopment Agency on matters of pertinent, City pl anni ng si gnifi cance and may submit to the said Agency such reports on the state of the revitalization of the Project Area as it may consider necessary. -~ ¡Sf 4) The PAC shall util i ze the pub1 i c noti ce peri od to revi ew such proposal s and prepare statements of recommendation to the Design Review Committee or Redevelopment Agency for their consideration in a public forum prior to a final decision. 5.3 Planning and Design Responsibility Within the Project Area 1) The Project Area Committee shall be responsible for advising the Redevelopment Agency on matters of City and townscape planning significance. The advisory jurisdiction of the Committee shall include conceptual development, project, and subdivision plans. 2) The Chu1a Vista Design Review Committee (DRC) shall be responsible for advising the Agency on matters of urban-desi gn, or pos t-p 1 anni ng significance. On minor projects, the action of the Desi gn Review Committee may be final, subject to appeal to the Agency. The Commi ttee' s jurisdiction with respect to minor projects shall be specifically governed by a policy resolution of the Agency, which may be amended at any time. 3) As a general rule, the PAC shall review major projects prior to their review by the DRC and Agency, and shall submit pertinent recorrmendations to those bodies. A major project for the pul1>°ses of this section is defined as a proposal which requires an Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) entered into by the Agency. 4) The Chief Planning Officer of the Project Area shall be the Di rector of Planning of the City of Chu1a Vista. 5.4 Amendment of the Implementation Plan/Design Manual The Implementation Plan/Design Manual Addendum may be amended by the Agency in order to refine, update, or improve its provisions, or to foster the methodical effectuation of the Redevelopment Plan. Proposed amendments shall be referred to the P1 anni ng Commi ssi on and the Project Area Committee for their review and recommendations. WPC 1382H -~ /$2- ..~ ~~~ < 0 . " 0. .. 0."- " 0. U ~o:;: 0..... ".. 0 . . " ""C". ..... e > ~ " . :J " ~ ~ ::~.s.:!' r .. u c ".... 0 ~ ~~~ u " .. ." .. 0..... .. " 0. U """ . 0.... > < e .. . . 0."" "., "'.. 000" .. .... C .... ".. . " .. .... . ..... e ...... Ue >~". H H ~ h~~ QO O. .... ..~.s< : r ~j ; I .., '" r .:: æ .. Ii ~. "........ 0 0 Q . 0 0 0 .... ~ [~~ ~ : " ~o .. O~" .... 0 0 ... ~ h~ ~~ 1: ø: ¡¡E ~ :J¡¡. ø:: k ~ o:~ > ::.:!'; 1;'1 ~ [ ~8 g f <18 ~ j ï 1 ~ 2 r '\ ~ ~ :oJ"" , 0' 1; oi E ~ 0 '" . - .... '" . " . ~ .\:. .:¡: ~...!; .\:. ...:¡~ ¡¡~.\:. ~ ~ ...:¡ ~ ~~.!; ~~...:¡ ~ B ~ ~~ < ~~" 00 U" 0 0. ~~ ~ fa: ~: ~1 ~ ~ ~ fs 5 ..fo~ ß~ ~o a 8 ~ "0 '" .... \../ fr' I;:; I 0 " " 0 ~.. [ [~ ~~ ~ ~~ 0- o. 00" .. "- ..> ">0 ¡ ~: g~ g~~ ., .Ii < ...... ...... .. .... ...." ."- ..... " :¡J U " U ".... ~ ::i ::p ~ T' g; 0 g; 0;: "" <0 <0.. " " 0 " .., .. " e "" " ~ ~~ ~ ~ .. ...... 0 ., ... 0 . ".. .., ., .. > 0.. 0 .0. .. ., "Q . '" .. '" 0 Q 0 " :;: 1;' ..:;; g¡ ~ ..... "... i5 ., 2~-;; ~ /5" 0 ~ .., ""g" Q ~ ~ Ii! g; 0;: ~ ::J ~ .. < 0"" <.... ..¡,.; ú ~ This page blank. ¡Sf ATTACHMENT "H" ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE STUDY CITY OF CHULA VISTA MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY; TRASH TRANSFER ST A nON Prepared for: CITY OF CHULA VISTA Contact: Joe Monaco, AICP Environmental Project Manager 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 Prepared by: SYNECTECOLOGY 10232 Overhill Drive Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 669-9799 MARCH 12,1996 /35 This page blank. l..s~ Introduction and Findings An Initial Environmental Study (Initial Study) was prepared for the City of Chula Vista Materials Recovery Facility/Trash Transfer station (MRF/TS) (Initial study No. 95-28). The Initial study indicated that noise generated from the operation of the facility would not exceed 70 to 80 dBA as measured at the adjacent boundary and would not produce a significant impact. In support of the conclusions reached in the Initial study, Synectecology was retained by Chambers Group to prepare a noise analysis addressing potential impacts of site-generated noise impacts and, if necessary, provide mitigation measures to reduce any potential impacts to a level that is less than significant. This noise analysis includes: . A brief description of local noise ordinances relevant to the project, . Results of a field study that documents existing noise, both on-site and at the nearest residential receptor location, . Results of a field study performed at a similar facility on which to base projected noise from the proposed site operations, . Use of data provided by a manufacturer of a green waste chipper/shredder similar to that proposed, and . Projections of noise from the proposed project at the site boundaries. This noise analysis concludes that projected noise levels at the property line are less than predicted in the Initial study and compatible with zoning designations for light industry and no mitigation, other than that specified in the Initial study to meet OSHA requirements, is necessary. Background and Local Regulations Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air and is characterized by various parameters that include the rate of oscillation of sound waves (frequency), the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content (amplitude). The sound pressure level has become the most cornmon descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level. The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound intensity. Because sound pressure can vary by over one trillion times within the range of human hearing, a logarithmic loudness scale is used to keep sound intensity numbers at a convenient and manageable level. A 137 ~y _.,_._,. .--. ,,_._,~ Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies wi thin the entire spectrum, noise measurements are weighted more heavily within those frequencies of maximum human sensitivity in a process called "A-weighting" written as dBA. Typical human hearing can detect changes in sound levels of approximately 3 dBA under normal conditions. Changes of 1 to 3 dBA are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions and changes of less than 1 dBA are usually undiscernible. Time variation in noise exposure is typically expressed in terms of a steady-state or average energy level called Leq. Alternately, a statistical description of the sound level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period may be used. Because sensitive community receptors (e.g., residential land uses) are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or Day-Night Noise Level (Ldn). The CNEL descriptor requires that an artificial increment of 5 dBA be added to the actual noise level for the hours from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 10 dBA for the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The Ldn descriptor uses the same methodology except that no artificial increment is added to the hours between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Both descriptors give roughly the same 24-hour level with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive. The City of Chula Vista sets noise and vibration control standards to regulate excessive disturbance throughout the City. Table 1, prepared in accordance with Ord. 2276 §2, 1988 and Ord. 2101 §3 (part), 1985, presents noise limitations for various land use categories. Note that heavy industrial land uses carry a noise limitation of 80 dBA. This level should not be exceeded beyond the site's property line and is applied as a threshold of significance. Existing On-site Noise Levels The site of the proposed Chula Vista MRF/TS is in an area designated for industrial research and limited manufacturing. Open space and the Otay Landfill are located to the north and northeast. Industrial parks border the site on the east, south, and west with several auto wrecking businesses to the east. The Otay River is located to the south of Otay Valley Road, south of the site. Of special concern is the industrial land Use situated along the southern border of the site. A driveway of approximately 30 feet in width serves as a buffer Zone between the neighboring structure and the proposed MRF/TS property line. Some sensitive land Uses are also located at extended distances from the project. The nearest residential units are located greater than 2,000 feet to the northwest. This planned community includes both single and multifamily residential units. ~ /3f ~y - Table 1 Exterior Noise Limits" Noise Level (dEA) Receiving Land Use Category 10 p.m. - 7 a.m. Weekdays 7 a.m. - 10 p.m. and Weekdays 10 p.m. - 8 a.m. Weekends and 8 a.m. - 10 a.m. Weekends All residential 45 55 (except multiple dwelling) Multiple dwelling 50 60 residential Commercial 60 65 Light industry - I-R 70 70 and I-L Zone Heavy industry - I 30 30 Zone To ascertain the existing noise levels at the site and nearest residential location, Synectecology conducted field monitoring on March 6, 1996. Monitoring was conducted using a Larson-Davis LDL Model 700 Dosimeter /Type 2 Integrating Sound Level Meter. The unit meets the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard Sl-4-1933, Type 2, and International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 651, Type 2. The unit was calibrated prior to the first set of readings. The accuracy of the calibrator is maintained through a program established through the manufacturer and is traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. The unit meets the requirements of the ANSI Standard S1.2-1971 and the International Electrotechnical Commission Publication 123-1961. six readings were obtained on-site and a seventh was obtained at the nearest residential unit located to the northwest (Figure 1). All readings were 10 minutes in duration. Each reading is discussed below. ¡ In the event the alleged offensive noise, as judged by the enforcement officer, contains a steady audible sound such as a whine, screech, or hum, or contains a repetitive impulsive noise such as a hammering or riveting, the standard limits set forth in this table shall be reduced by 5 dB. p:: 139 ~y - NR-l - Southern Fence Line Near Center of Site This reading was obtained along the southern fence line at a distance of approximately 325 feet from the west fence and 390 feet from the east fence. The southern fence is chain link with wooden slats. The reading was obtained at 9:53 a.m. The measured Leq was 55.3 dBA. The Lmin and Lmax (minimum and maximum values) were 48.5 and 78.5 dBA, respectively. Ambient noise (by order of strength) included operations within the structure to the south, backup alarms from operations to the east, and aircraft flyovers. NR-2 - Southern Fence Line Toward East End of Site This reading was obtained along the southern fence line at a distance of approximately 180 feet from the east fence. The reading was obtained at 10:03 a.m. The measured Leq was 65.0 dBA while the Lmin and Lmax were 63.0 and 73.0 dBA, respectively. Ambient noise included the steady droning of the compressor associated with the San Diego Builders Supply facility to the south, mechanical noise from wi thin the southern structure, backup alarms to the east, aircraft overflights, and the public address system operated at the structure to the south. NR-3 - Northern Portion of Site Toward the Center This reading was obtained at 10:21 a.m. near the northern site boundary at the approximate center. The measured Leq, Lmin, and Lmax values were 54.3, 38.5, and 64.5 dBA, respectively. Ambient noise included vehicles traveling on Maxwell Road, aircraft overflights, backup alarms in the distance, and motorcycles operating across the river to the south. NR-4 - Site of Proposed Chipper/Shredder Operations This reading was obtained at 10:41 a.m. at the site of the proposed chipper/shredder approximately 200 feet from the east fence. The measured Leq, Lmin, and Lmax values were 54.4, 42.5, and 71.0 dBA, respectively. Ambient noise included aircraft overflights (including a proximate helicopter), vehicles traveling on Maxwell Road, backup alarms in the distance, and the public address system to the south. ~ (lfO ~QI~ -- 0--0- ------ -_0'00" -----_..,----- $ ~ 1/).- ~I!! - :¡ ~.~ OIL 0 ...I I- Z w :E w a: ;:) en oCt w .~ :E ~ w z en Õ M Z .Ii: z It) ~ ~. . Z m ;¡; ~ 0 ~ /1--( .....c:Z NR-5 - Road Noise Generated Along Maxwell Road This reading was obtained at 11:03 a.m. approximately 30 feet south of the existing site entrance along Maxwell Road. The meter was situated at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the near lane. At this location Maxwell Road has three lanes, two westbound (upgrade), and one eastbound (downgrade). During the measurement period 15 automobiles, two medium trucks, and 10 heavy trucks were observed to pass. While traffic noise was dominant, ambient noise was further augmented by "hammering" or "stamping" noises generated from the site to the south and lawn mowing operations at the two facilities located across Maxwell Road. The Leg was 64.0 dBA with Lmin and Lmax values of 53.5 and 77.0 dBA, respectively. Note, the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO Version) was used to determine vehicle-generated noise along this roadway. Based on the measured volume of traffic, the model predicts an Leg of 64 dBA for an average speed of 25 mph. (Actual observed speed was less than 25 mph, however, this is the minimum speed that may be modeled.) NR-6 - Southern Fence Line Toward West End of Site This reading was obtained along the southern fence line at a distance of approximately 60 feet from the west fence. The reading was obtained at 11:21 a.m. The measured Leg was 67.3 dBA while the Lmin and Lmax were 64.0 and 77.5 dBA, respectively. Ambient noise was predominated by the steady droning emanating from a vent located along the north wall of the facility to the south. This noise was augmented by aircraft overflights (including a proximate helicopter) and perceptible traffic noise generated along Maxwell Road. After conclusion of the reading, hammering sounds were noted from the structure to the south. The meter was set in instantaneous readout mode and these hammer blows were registered at 70.0 to 75.0 dBA. In the absence of any hammering, road noise, or overflights, the noise from the vents was recorded at 64.5 to 66.0 dBA. NR-7 - 1687 Pelican Point This measurement was obtained at the nearest residential land use located to the northwest. The project site is obscured by an intervening ridgeline and is not visible from this vantage point. The meter was situated overlooking Otay Valley Road and 1-805. The reading was taken at 12:05 p.m. The Leg, Lmin, and Lmax were recorded at 52.4, 48.0, and 60.0 dBA, respectively. Ambient noise included vehicles on Otay Valley Road and 1- 805, music from a local residence, aircraft overflights, and industrial noises from facilities located along Brandywine Avenue. ~ / cf- ')-- ~~gy ---- -- ---------+--- Operational Noise Impacts CVT Noise Level Measurements To determine the potential for site-generated noise, four measurements were obtained at the CVT Transfer Station and Recycling Facility in Anaheim, California for a similar project to be located in Pomona, California. The CVT facility is of similar construction (i .e., corrugated aluminum) to that proposed for the Chula vista MRF/TS and runs a similar operation. Measurements obtained on February 8, 1996 at the CVT facility are described below. TN-l - Weigh Station Activities This measurement was obtained at the CVT Transfer Station to determine the noise generated by heavy trucks as they queue up and are weighed prior to dumping their loads. Two weigh scales are situated on either side of a scale house at the CVT facility. The meter was placed to the side of the trucks where engine noise is most prominent. The meter was situated at a distance of 50 feet from the side of the near truck. This placed the meter at the opening of a maintenance shop such that the reading was taken between the refuse room and maintenance shop area. (This would tend to produce elevated noise readings as the sound reverberates between the two sets of structures.) A green waste processing area was located to the side of the meter at a distance of about 150 feet. "Yard" activities included trucks queuing up (approximately six to eight at a time) and being weighed, and a bucket loader tending to the green wastes. A 15 minute measurement was made beginning at 10:08 a.m. and an Leq of 73.0 dBA was registered. TN-2 - outside Refuse Room at Vehicle Openings For this measurement the meter was situated in the yard at a distance of 50 feet from an opening of the refuse room. The opening was 22 feet wide and a second 22 foot wide opening was located immediately adjacent. As trucks enter the CVT facility they pass through an 80 feet wide opening in the refuse room on their way to the scale house. Weighed trucks then proceed into various areas of the refuse room to dump their loads. Empty trucks then pass out of the refuse room through the same opening that they entered. The meter was situated at a distance of about 85 feet from this opening. The reading began at 10:32 a.m. and ran for 15 minutes. Trucks maneuvering within the yard were observed to come to within less than 10 feet of the meter during the measurement period. Additionally, a front-end loader was observed to be operating in the refuse room just inside the opening being monitored for about 6.5 of the 15 minutes that monitoring was performed. The meter registered an Leq of 77.0 dBA. >< I <¡-3 ~ ~ --~- - ~-.------, --. TN-3 - Inside Refuse Room in Proximity to Passing Trucks and Front-end Loader This measurement was conducted within the refuse room immediately adjacent to where trucks would pass through both on the way to the weigh station and out after dumping their loads. Additionally, trucks would dump their loads in proximity to this location immediately adjacent to the travel lanes. The meter was situated at a distance of 34 inches from the facility wall; a corrugated aluminum. The center of the near travel lane was 20 feet from the meter's location while the center of the far lane was at a distance of 40 feet. Three loaders were operating within the refuse room during this period, the nearest of which ranged from about 40 to 120 feet (average about 80 feet) from the meter. Machinery operating within the facility was also notable. Because of the continual volume of truck traffic through the facility, this was the noisiest point noted. A 15 minute reading began at 10:57 a.m. and an Leq of 83.9 dBA was recorded. Note that the meter's proximity to the wall created an internal echo that elevated the noise registered. TN-4 - outside Refuse Room in Proximity to Passing Trucks and Front-end Loader This measurement was conducted immediately outside of the aluminum wall location monitored in reading TN-3. This measurement was to determine the attenuation provided by the aluminum structure. The meter was situated within a 9.25 foot wide "corridor" created by the administrative office and the refuse room. The meter was set at a distance of 34 inches from the aluminum refuse room wall. Operations within the refuse room were similar to those noted during the TN-3 reading. A 15 minute reading was obtained from 11: 16 a.m. and an Leq of 73.6 dBA was recorded. Based on this measurement, the aluminum structure is calculated to have an attenuation factor of about 10 dBA. (A greater attenuation may have been noted had the meter not been situated in a "corridor" as echo off the administration building would be expected to add to the registered noise level.) Proiected Chula Vista MRF/TS Noise Operational noise will be generated by on-site operations including activities related to truck movement, the use of heavy equipment operating in the tipping room, and green/wood-waste reduction activities. On-site activities that will generate noise include the use of wheeled loaders and trucks operating within the tipping room. Noise levels for equipment use and on-site trucks are based on measurements obtained at the CVT facility in the field study of February 8. The Chula Vista facility is to be oriented such that all ingress and egress is toward the west. Heavy trucks entering the facility will proceed south along the western perimeter, turning east along the southern end of the site. Collection trucks will queue up along the southern portion of the )K I ~lf ~~ site and await weigh-in. Trucks would then be at idle at this location. Additionally, transfer trucks would enter the refuse room along its southern side. The noise created in this location would be due primarily to trucks at idle awaiting weigh-in. site generated noise would be expected to be greatest in this area as the noise from trucks would be additive with that produced from internal refuse room operations, and this location places both vehicles and operations most proximate to site boundaries. Noise produced by idling trucks is best documented by measurement TN-1 obtained at the CVT facility. Here an Leq of 73.0 dBA was recorded at a distance of 50 feet. This is also the proposed distance from queuing trucks to the facility wall at the proposed Chula Vista facility. Therefore, idling trucks would also be expected to produce an Leq of about 73.0 dBA at the southern boundary of the facility. Another source of noise is from operations within the refuse room. Noise within the refuse room was measured at 83.9 dBA at the CVT facility (TN-3). This level was due primarily to the steady flow of trucks passing the meter with the near and far lanes situated distances of 20 and 40 feet, respectively. Because the proposed facility will not pass trucks through the refuse room on their way to and from the weigh-in, projected noise levels at the Chula Vista facility would be less than the CVT facility. However, as a worst-case scenario, an internal noise level of 84 dBA at the inner facility wall is applied to the proposed project. While internal noise is subject to OSHA requirements for workers situated within the structure, of greatest concern to local receptors is the noise that emanates from the structure. The CVT facility is of similar construction as the proposed Chula vista facility (i.e., corrugated aluminum) and would be expected to provide a similar attenuation factor. An attenuation of 10 dBA was noted at the CVT site and this attenuation factor has been applied to the Chula vista MRFjTS. This attenuation factor would actually underestimate at least a portion of the proposed MRF as the project proponents propose a reinforced concrete pushwall at least over portions of the refuse room. The Department of Housing and Urban Development assigns an attenuation factor of 52 dBA to a 7 inch concrete wall (HUD, 1985). Still, again to present a worst case scenario, an attenuation factor of 10 dBA is assigned to refuse room construction and an exterior noise of 74 dBA is projected along the exterior wall. The noise projected at the southern property line would be a combination of that produced from queuing trucks and internal operations. As mentioned above, queuing trucks are projected to create an Leq of 73 dBA at the southern property line. Internal operations are further removed from this lot line and therefore undergo additional atmospheric attenuation. Based on measurements obtained at the CVT facility, and assuming a 10 dBA attenuation factor for the structure, internal operations are projected at 62 dBA at the southern property line. The resultant Leq from both internal operations and idling trucks is then calculated at 73.3 dBA. This level would be further attenuated by the 6 foot high masonry wall that X 1lf-5 ~ .-.-.- -_.._---~~-_.- encompasses the southern and western portions of the site. Attenuation for this wall was modeled is accordance with FHWA methodology and a 5 dBA attenuation is projected. (Model results are included in the Appendix.) This would reduce the offsite noise to a projected level of 68.3 dBA which is compatible with the 70 dBA threshold value for light industry specified in the city noise ordinance. Noise produced at the eastern boundary would be best represented by measurement TN-2 obtained at the CVT facility. The measurement obtained at the CVT site (i.e., 77 dBA) was taken at a distance of 50 feet from two openings to the refuse room where trucks pulled in to dump their loads. Additionally, trucks were observed to pull to within 10 feet of the meter during the measurement. Based on a distance of 225 to 250 feet, projected noise at the eastern boundary would be on the order of 65 to 70 dBA with most of this noise due to proximate trucks pulling in and out of the refuse room. A small amount of additional attenuation will also be attained from the fence which shields receptors to the east. Another source of on-site noise is from the reduction of green wastes through the use of an industrial wood grinder. The proposed grinder is in the range of 80-175 hp. Technical specifications for the Jenz American 175 hp unit show a noise level of 86 dBA at 25 feet and 74 dBA at 100 feet. (A lesser horsepower unit is proposed and would be expected to produce less noise.) The shredding operation is proposed toward the northeast portion of the site, approximately 100 feet from the nearest property line to the north, and its noise is therefore estimated at 74 dBA at this boundary. A loader is assumed to operate in conjunction with this unit. Front-end loaders produce a noise level of approximately 79 dBA at a distance of 50 feet (USEPA, 1971). Also based on a distance of 100 feet, the noise from loader operations is estimated at 73 dBA and the combined noise for the shredder and loader is estimated at 76.5 dBA. To the east this distance is increased to about 225 feet and the resultant noise at the property line is projected at 69.6 dBA. The grade separation (25+ feet) between the shredder operations area and northern and eastern properties will serve as a very effective noise berm and attenuation would be in excess of the 6.5 dBA necessary to assure compliance with the noise ordinance. At a distance of 450 feet, noise from green waste processing is calculated at 63.5 dBA at the southern boundary. However, shielding from the structure and perimeter wall would further reduce this noise and it will not measurably add to that produced from idling trucks and refuse room operations. Mitigation Measures Project-generated noise is not projected to exceed the 70 dBA threshold set by City ordinance for light industrial land uses and no significant impacts have been identified. Noise produced within the refuse room and for all on-site workers is regulated by OSHA and mitigation is as presented in the Initial study. No other significant impacts have been identified and no further mitigation is warranted. ~ It.{-&' ~~ References Chambers Group, Inc. Initial Environmental Study City of Chula Vista Materials Recovery Facility/Trash Transfer Station (Initial Study No. 95- 28), November 15, 1995 city of Chula vista, General Plan, Noise Element City of Chula Vista, Chapter 19.68, Performance Standards and Noise Control, December 1991 FHWA Noise Program, Version OFA January 21, 1985, Modified by Cel Alfafara, July 1987, Calveno Version Jenz American Shredders, Technical Specifications US Department of Urban Housing. The Noise Guidebook, March 1985 US Environmental Protection Agency, Bolt, Beranek, and Newman. Noise From Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, December 31, 1971. US Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, December 1978 )K 19-7 ~ APPENDIX RESULTS NOISE MODEL ¡Iff ~I~gy - ~ - -- - - -. - Microcomputer version of FHWA noise model (Using Calveno emmisions formulas) INPUT FILE 1. Input units = (E)nglish Or (M)etric ? E 2. Input number of elements this run? 1 3. Input number of traffic lanes/element? 2 4. Input first element # and lane # description (30 char. max.) ? MAXWELL WESTBOUND 5. Roadway angle, left? -90 6. Roadway angle, right? 90 7. Dropoff rate hard site=O soft site=0.5 ? 0.5 8. Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value) ? 0 9. (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm? N 10. Volumes: Autos ? 36 Medium trucks ? 0 Heavy trucks ? 18 11. Speed (all vehicles) ? 25 12. Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 56 13. Grade correction: 0 - 2 % = +0 dBA 3 - 4 % = +2 dBA 5 - 6 % = +3 dBA 7+ % = +5 dBA Input? 0 Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment MAXWELL WESTBOUND ----------------------------- Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck --------- --------- --------- Volume(VPH) 36 0 18 Speed (MPH) 25 25 25 Dist. to ctr. of near lane 56 56 56 Site/Barrier Type Soft Soft Soft Roadway Angle, (Left) -90.0 -90.0 -90.0 Roadway Angle, (Right) +90.0 +90.0 +90.0 Ref. energy emiss. level (dBA) 59.5 0.0 78.7 Traffic flow adj. (dBA) 11.3 0.0 8.3 Distance adj. (dBA) -0.8 -0.8 -0.8 Ground effect adj. (dBA) -1. 2 -1.2 -1.2 Barrier fresnel # 0 0 0 Barrier attenuation (dBA) 0 0 0 Shielding + Grade Adj. (dBA) 0 0 0 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 43.7 0 59.9 Leq(~ h)(dBA) Tot. this run 60 I fl Input same element # and next lane # description (30 char. max.) ?MAXWELL EASTBOUND 9. (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm? N 10. Volumes: Autos ? 66 Medium trucks ? 12 Heavy trucks ? 42 11. Speed (all vehicles) ? 25 12. Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 74 13. Grade correction: 0 - 2 % = +0 dBA 3 - 4 % = +2 dBA 5 - 6 % = +3 dBA 7+% = +5 dBA Input? 0 Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment MAXWELL EASTBOUND ----------------------------- Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck --------- --------- --------- Volume(VPH) 66 12 42 Speed (MPH) 25 25 25 Dist. to ctr. of near lane 74 74 74 Site/Barrier Type Soft Soft Soft Roadway Angle, (Left) -90.0 -90.0 -90.0 Roadway Angle, (Right) +90.0 +90.0 +90.0 Ref. energy emiss. level (dBA) 59.5 71.1 78.7 Traffic flow adj. (dBA) 13.9 6.5 11.9 Distance adj. (dBA) -2.7 -2.7 -2.7 Ground effect adj. (dBA) -1. 2 -1.2 -1.2 Barrier fresnel # 0 0 0 Barrier attenuation (dBA) 0 0 0 Shielding + Grade Adj. (dBA) 0 0 0 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 44.5 48.7 61.8 Leq(¿ h) (dBA) Tot. this run 62 Leq(¿ Lanes/element) 64 Leq(¿ elements) 64 /50 This program computes the attenuation provided by a barrier for point sources of sound. THETA, with a value of 1 assumes an infinitely long barrier. The program was adapted from the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. e := 0 Barrier Parameter, 0 for Wall, I for Berm f := 550 Frequency of Sound Emitted (use 550 for Traffic) Hs := 8 Height of Noise Source, in Feet Hr := 5 Height of Receptor, in Feet Hb := 6 Height of Barrier, in Feet Ds := 50 Distance from Source to Barrier Dr := 30 Distance from Receptor to Barrier THETA := I Use 1 for an Infinitely Long Barrier Hs Hr Hb Ds Dr Hsm := ------ Hrm := ------ Hbm:= Dsm := Drm := 3.2808 3.2808 3.2808 3.2808 3.2808 J 2 2 J 2 2 Ps:= Dsm + (Hbm - Hsm) Pr:= Drm + (Hbm - Hrm) 2 2 Dti := (Hsm - Hrm) + (Dsm + Drm) Dt := JDti 60 := (ps + Pr) - (Dt) No := 2'lf-::3J Ni := No'cos(THETA'deg) Ni = 0.0004 60 = 0.0001 (path difference in meters) No = 0.0004 If the height of the barrier is less than the height of the line of site, us,e Fl. If the height of the barrier is equal to or greater than the height of the line of site, use F2. If F2 is greater than 20 for a wall of 23 for a berm, use F3. [ ('.').I-I-(~E__~ 1 Fl := 5'(1 + .60e) + 20'log tan[J (207r) o¡NO¡'COS(THETAodeg)] Fl = 4.9926 [ J(,..).NO.COS(THE~.deg) : F2 := 50 (1 + .6.e) + 20010g tanh[J (2'7r) ONO'COS(THETA'deg)] F2 = 5.0074 F3 := 20'(1 + .15.e) /S { F3 = 20 - This page blank. /52-. RESOLUTION 1486 RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-95-06, ADOPTING THE 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 PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY/TRASH TRANSFER STATION AT 1855 MAXWELL AVENUE WITHIN THE OTAY V ALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Whereas, the John Sexton Sand and Gravel Corporation ("Developer") desires to develop a trash transfer facility (the"Project") at 1855 Maxwell Road (the "Site") within the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area; and, Whereas, the site is located within an I-P (Industrial/Precise Plan) zone and the project requires a Special Land Use Permit in order to be developed within that zone; and Whereas, the Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee noticed and held a public meeting on March 18, 1996 to consider the project, made the requisite findings and recommended that the Agency approve a Special Land Use Permit for the project including certain conditions; and, Whereas, the Agency duly noticed and held a public hearing on the requested Special Land Use Permit on March 19, 1996, and all protests, if any, to the approval of a Special Land Use Permit in the manner herein contemplated, were made and received at said public hearing, and no convincing objections to the proposed transaction were found to exist; and, Whereas, Initial Environmental Study IS-95-28, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project has been conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator who concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommends Negative Declaration IS-95-28 be adopted; Whereas, the Redevelopment Agency is requested to review and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and Whereas, the Redevelopment Agency is also requested to make Findings under the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan/Design Manual Addendum. NOW, THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find, order, determine and resolve as follows: Section 1. to adopt Negative Declaration issued under IS-95-28. Section 2. to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. /53 Resolution 1486 Page 2 Section 3. to make the following Findings under the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan/Design Manual Addendum: a. The Proposed Special land Use Permit does not constitute a substantial detriment to the Project Area or adjacent areas in that it is compatible with surrounding uses. b. The proposed Special land Use Permit generally promotes the orderly physical and economic development of the Project Area in that its continuance contributes to the local economy by providing a needed service. c. The proposed Special Land Use Permit is generally consistent with the townscape/planning and urban design objectives of the Implementation Plan/Design Manua/ Addendum, and contributes to the amenity of the Project Area in that the project must implement any requirements related to landscaping, exterior structural alterations, etc. Section 4. to approve a Special land Use Permit for the establishment of a Materials Recovery Facility/Trash Transfer Station on the property location at 1855 Maxwell Road, Chula Vista, California on the following conditions: This special land use permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any condition of approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City/Agency for additional conditions or revocation. The Applicant/Developer shall: Planninq Department 1. Construct and operate the Project as described in the application and adjoining plans, or as amended in this conditional approval. 2. Comply with and implement all plans and conditions of the Design Review Committee as approved pursuant to DRC-96-20. 3. Comply with and implement all Mitigation and Monitoring Measures as listed in IS-95-28. 4. A minimum of two months prior to the opening of operations, develop and submit to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval an on- and off-site clean-up program. 5. Limit the hours of operation to: A. 5:00 a.m; to 10:00 p.m. (with no deliveries before 6:30 a.m.), Mondays through Fridays; and B. 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (with no deliveries before 7:30 a.m.). Saturdays and Sundays. /5<1 Resolution 1486 Page 3 Police Department 6. At least one month prior to the opening of the Project, schedule a security evaluation of the Project with the Crime Prevention Unit of the Police Department and implement any suggestions resulting from said survey, to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police. Submit written proof of compliance to the Director of Planning prior to opening of the project. 7. To the satisfaction of the Chief of Police, provide additional lighting to that shown on the site plan at the following locations: Gate C, truck parking area, drop-off area, northwest parking, overflow parking, gate house, self- haul staging area, west parking, truck staging area, scales, grinder/shredder or on the perimeter of the property. Enaineerina Division. Public Works Department 8. Pay, comply with or otherwise implement the following to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: A. Pay the following fees: i. Sewer connection ii. Traffic signal iii. Public facilities Development Impact Fees 8. Dedicate a half width of 36 feet along the Maxwell Road frontage. C. Install two (2) 250 watt HPSV street lights on Maxwell Road. D. Install curb, gutter and sidewalk on Maxwell Road. E. Provide sufficient asphalt paving to provide a half-width of 36 feet on the east side of Maxwell Road. F. Obtain all necessary grading permits G. Obtain an encroachment permit for the monument sign in the public right-of-way. School Districts 9. Prior to issuance of building permits, pay all school fees to the satisfaction of the Sweetwater Union High School District and the Chula Vista Elementary School District. /55 Resolution 1486 Page 4 Fire Department 10. Prior to the submittal of building permit applications, review the project with the Chula Vista Fire Department and implement their suggestions, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal. 11. Install fire hydrants at locations and of a type satisfactory to the Fire Marshal. 12. Install fire hose stations at locations and of a type satisfactory to the Fire Marshal. 13. Install fire extinguishers at locations and of a type satisfactory to the Fire Marshal. 14. Install a Knox Box or key gate switch to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal. Miscellaneous 15. Applicant/ operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, its Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorneys' fees (collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from: A. City's approval and issuance of this Special Use Permit, B. City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and C. Applicant's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby. Applicant/operator shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this Special Use Permit where indicated, below. Applicant's/ 9perator's compliance with this provision is an express condition of this Special Use Permit and this provision shall be binding on any and all of Applicant's/operator's successors and assigns. Execution ánd Recordation of Resolution of ADDroval 16. The property owner and the applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines provided below before a notary public, said execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have each read, understood /5~ Resolution 1486 Page 5 and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this notarized document shall be recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the property owner and/or applicants, and a signed, stamped copy returned to the Planning Department. Failure to return a signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within thirty days of recordation to the Planning Department shall indicate the property owner's/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Submitted by Approved as to Form ~~~- Chris Salomone Bruce M. Boogaard Community Development Director Agency Counsel [BB\C:\ WP5l \AGENCY\RESOS\MRF- TISt .RES] /57 This page blank. /51 REVISED 3/18/96 RESOLUTION 1487 AGENCY: ITEM 3a,b RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING PLANS AND ENTERING INTO AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH JOHN SEXTON SAND AND GRAVEL CORPORATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY/TRASH TRANSFER STATION AT 1855 MAXWELL ROAD WITHIN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, John Sexton Sand and Gravel Corporation desires to develop a trash transfer facility ("Project") at 1855 Maxwell Road ("Site") within the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area; and, WHEREAS, the Site is located within an I-P (Industrial/Precise Plan) Zone and the proposed project requires a Special Land Use Permit for construction in that zone; and WHEREAS, the Developer has presented plans for development to the Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee (PAC) and the Design Review Committee (DRC); and, WHEREAS, said plans for development have been conditionally recommended for approval by Baia CoFRmittees and WHEREAS, the Agency has adopted Negative Declaration IS-95-28 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program issued on the Project and has approved a Special Land Use Permit for the Project; and, WHEREAS, the Agency hereby approves the development proposals as conditioned by Project Area Committee and Design Review Committee; and, WHEREAS, the Agency desires that said development proposal be implemented and completed as soon as is practicable. NOW THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find, order, determine and resolve as follows: Section 1. The Owner Participation Agreement, on file in the Office of the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency known as document RACO-xx-96, entered into between the Agency and John Sexton Sand and Gravel Corporation, is hereby approved. Section 2. The Chairman of the Agency is hereby authorized to execute said Agreement. PRESENTED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: ~- ~ Chris Salomone Bruce M. Boogaard Community Development Director Agency Counsel [BBIC:WP51 IAGENCYIRESOSIMRF-TTS2.RESI RESOLUTION 1487 RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING PLANS AND ENTERING INTO AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH JOHN SEXTON SAND AND GRAVEL CORPORATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY/TRASH TRANSFER STATION AT 1855 MAXWELL ROAD WITHIN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, John Sexton San and Gravel Corporation desires to develop a trash transfer facility ("Project") at 1855 Maxwell Road ("Site") within the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area; and, WHEREAS, the Site is located within an I-P (Industrial/Precise Plan) Zone and the proposed project requires a Special Land Use Permit for construction in that zone; and WHEREAS, the Developer has presented plans for development to the Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee (PAC) and the Design Review Committee (DRC); and, WHEREAS, said plans for development have been conditionally recommended for approval by said Committees; and WHEREAS, the Agency has adopted Negative Declaration IS-95-28 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program issued on the Project and has approved a Special Land Use Permit for the Project; and, WHEREAS, the Agency hereby approves the development proposals as conditioned by Project Area Committee and Design Review Committee; and, WHEREAS, the Agency desires that said development proposal be implemented and completed as soon as is practicable. NOW THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find, order, determine and resolve as follows: Section 1. The Owner Participation Agreement, on file in the Office of the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency known as document RACO-xx-96, entered into between the Agency and John Sexton Sand and Gravel Corporation, is hereby approved. Section 2. The Chairman of the Agency is hereby authorized to execute said Agreement. PRESENTED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: &< ~~~ Chris Salomone Bruce M. Boogaard Community Development Director Agency Counsel /51 IBB\C:WP51 \AG ENCY\RESOS\MRF- TTS2. RES] This page blank. j{;O CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT j~ Item No. Meeting Date 3/19/96 ITEM TITLE Resolution - Approving Solid Waste Flow Control Agreement with John Sexton Sand and Gravel corporation in conjunction with the Development of a Transfer station and Materials Recovery Facility at 1855 Maxwell Road SUBMITTED BY Deputy city Manager Krempl . /; IYf& REVIEWED BY c~ty Manager -f~ . 4/5 Vote: Yes - No-L John Sexton Sand and Gravel Corporation (Sexton) has been working with the City on the planning, permitting, siting and development of a solid waste transfer station/material recovery facility (MRF) in Chula vista. This effort has been ongoing since they responded to an RFP in February 1994. A companion Redevelopment Agency item addresses the discretionary land use permit issues pending before the Agency. In the Fall of 1995, Sexton requested a flow commitment from the City of Chula vista as a guarantee so as to be able to proceed with project financing, site acquisition and construction. This report addresses that flow agreement proposal. While Sexton and the City are in agreement on most of the terms of the agreement, there were a couple of points of disagreement discussed later herein. The language of the draft agreement attached represents staff's final position. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council continue this item for 90 days pending further information about the County System and other alternatives. If Council wishes to act on the flow agreement, the alternate recommendation would be to approve the agreement with the herein described walk away provisions prior to site acquisition and construction of the transfer station. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N.A. DISCUSSION Negotiations have been ongoing with Sexton over the past five months on the terms and conditions of a flow control agreement. The city team during the discussions has consisted of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Director, Conservation Coordinator, City Attorney and, from time to time, Mr. Tom Vence of Brown, Vence and Associates, our outside consultant. During the course of the many meetings and discussions, most issues have been satisfactorily resolved but a few policy issues require specific Council direction. A central issue too is the timing of entering into any flow agreement and under what circumstances and conditions. /&1 This report will summarize and discuss the main points of the draft agreement, the issues of disagreement, and choices with regard to how to proceed. A. MAJOR POINTS OF THE AGREEMENT AGREED TO BY STAFF AND SEXTON 1. The original agreement, entered into between the City and Sexton in September 1994, to pursue permitting of the transfer station, is superseded by this agreement. 2. Following execution of this agreement, Sexton is to execute the Hazard property site acquisition option. 3. Sexton has a duty to obtain permits, acquire the site, and construct the MRF at their cost and expense. 4. Sexton has a maximum of 18 months from execution of this agreement to obtain permits, acquire the site and construct the facility. That period may be "tolled" by any third party litigation for up to an additional 18 months or longer, if needed, to settle the litigation should the County tip fee be lower than Sexton's proposed tip fee. 5. The term of the agreement is an initial 10 years with an automatic 10 year extension unless either party gives notice not less than one year prior to the expiration of the original terms of their intent to terminate. During the extended term, the city can terminate the agreement at any time with 18 months' notice. This provision gives the city the ability to go out with an RFP after the initial term and flexibility during the extension period. 6. Performance criteria are established for the ongoing operation of the facility with remedies to cure and the ultimate ability of the City to terminate the agreement if performance continues to be unsatisfactory. Performance criteria include the following: time frame for trucks to move through the facility, hours and days of operation, acceptance of 100% of conforming, non- hazardous waste from Chula vista residents and businesses, record keeping, exclusion of hazardous waste, diversion for mixed waste, and priority at the facility for the city's waste. As to priority, first priority would be given to the city and its franchised hauler. Second priority will be given to a business or individual resident's disposing of waste other than by our franchised hauler, and third priority would be given to those delivering waste from outside the city. x: /¿/J . ~ with regard to diversion, the State Permit for the facility will require not less than 15% recycling or reuse so as to help meet our overall AB 939 recycling mandates. The agreement encourages maximum recycling to the extent economically feasible. 7. The city obligates itself to deliver its solid waste stream to Sexton to the extent legal. 8. Sexton indemnifies the city against any loss incurred as a result of Sexton's operation of the facility. In addition, Sexton will try and dispose of the waste at a landfill that will indemnify them and us from all liability and remediation costs eligible for recovery under RCRA or CERCLA. Solid waste will only be disposed of at a landfill site which meets the most stringent environmental protections; that is a landfill which meets Subtitle "D" requirements. 9. The initial tipping fee proposed by Sexton is $45.13. If at the time actual contracts are negotiated, the original proposed costs for transportation and landfill disposal can be reduced, then the city benefits by 60% and Sexton benefits by 40% in such decreases and savings. 10. The city negotiated assurances of maintaining the lowest possible rates compared to most other users of the transfer station through a number of controls. No other city using the facility will pay a lower tip fee than Chula Vista. If Sexton owns a collection contractor, Chula vista receives their price. Large volume private disposal contracts would not be charged less than we would. Finally, we would benefit from the average tipping fees charged to all customers during the previous 6 months. 11. During the operational term, the City has the right to review subsequent transportation and disposal contracts. If the City is able to secure transport or disposal commitments lower than those presented by Sexton, then Sexton must enter into contract negotiations with such entities. The terms between the Sexton and city alternate, if there is one, should be generally similar. If there is a disagreement as to the comparable provisions which Sexton believes is still to their disadvantage, the matter can be taken to binding arbitration. If there are resultant decreases in future transport or disposal contracts, the City benefits by 60% of the reduction and Sexton by 40%. It has been further ~ {103 clarified that fees are paid only on the tonnage that is actually transported or disposed of and not the tonnage tipped into the transfer station. 12. Facility Construction and other fixed cost components are not subject to any adjustment during the contract term. For the variable cost components, the agreement states they shall be adjusted annually by the change in C.P.I. for the San Diego Region. Adjustments are capped at not to exceed 5% unless the C. P. I. exceeds 9 % in anyone year, in which case the increase above 9% is then passed through. with the breakdown of the total costs into the various components, the limitation on fixed cost adjustments and the review and approval of transport and disposal contracts, staff was comfortable in supporting an automatic C.P.I. pass-through. 13. City customers delivering acceptable recyclables to the facility can do so without charge. 14. Sexton shall pay the City a service fee over each ton of waste delivered to the facility other than from the city, its agents or franchised hauler. The fee shall be 6.65% of the tipping fee. At the initial proposed fee of $45.13, this would equate to $3.00 per ton. 15. A formula has been negotiated giving the City, and providing the ratepayers, extra revenue on a sliding scale based on being able to market additional tonnage growth to the facility. B. ISSUES OF DISAGREEMENT There are two main issues of disagreement with Sexton, of which one is a money issue and the other is a timing issue. 1. Facility Service Fee (Host Fee) Sexton and the City have agreed that Sexton shall pay the city a monthly service fee for each ton of waste received at the Facility, except for waste generated by city facilities and waste delivered from Laidlaw, as our franchised hauler. Sexton has proposed a one dollar per ton service fee and contends that that is the maximum they can afford to pay and still keep their rates competitive. The one dollar is folded into their initial price of $45.13. city staff has taken the position that the service fee should represent 6.65% of the tipping fee as established in the agreement. Based on the initial rate of $45.13, this would amount to three dollars per ton. The amount of )(... 1&'-1 revenue difference at the start of operation would be about $14,500 annually based on Sexton's proposal and $45,000 annually based on the City's proposal. In years 3-5, the amounts would be about $192,000 and $600,000. The amounts would change respectively when the facility is operating at full capacity from $335,000 under the Sexton service fee proposal to $1,000,000 annually under the City service fee proposal. This assumes a constant tipping fee and increasing volume. As the tip fee increases, the service fee would increase even more. 2. Timing and Conditions of Agreement Sexton and the City disagree over what is termed the "back out" or "walk away" provisions. Sexton would like the agreement, and thus the relinquishment of the city's flow rights, to become effective immediately upon execution of the agreement by both parties. The City has drafted the ability to walk away from the agreement and reimburse Sexton for out-of-pocket expenses at a couple of key points in time. The walk away points would be prior to the facility being permitted by the State, prior to site acquisition and prior to construction of the facility, with 30 days' notice by Sexton prior to each event. This process would give the city additional flexibility to determine if the transfer station is still the preferable and most cost effective long-term option. The current amount owed Sexton as of March 1996 is $280,000 should the city decide to walk away prior to permits being approved by the State. Should the City decide to walk away subsequent to state permits being approved but prior to rate acquisition, the cost could be up to an estimated $365,000. Should the City decide to walk away after permits are issued and after the site is acquired but prior to construction, the cost could be an estimated $2,300,200. Enclosed for Council consideration are further statements from Sexton, Hazard and Amcor's representative as to why the walk away provisions should be deleted and the flow agreement executed and why the host fee should be reduced (Exhibits A-C). 3. Additional Choices As to How to Proceed a) continue the Flow Agreement Another option to the walk away provisions would be to continue the flow agreement for some period of time, say 60 or 90 days. As Council is aware, the County is in the process of negotiating a buyout of X 1&5 the NCRRA plant and has advised that the tip fee will be reduced to $40/ton on July 1, 1996. The pending lawsuit by the 9 cities against the County may also be close to resolution. Laidlaw has developed a prototype "pod" truck system which could allow the City to transport its waste out of county without a transfer station and is developing a financial proposal to the City therewith. (See attached letter from Laidlaw dated March 13, 1996, Exhibit D.) Finally, a major manufacturer who might use paper fiber material which would be recoverable from a transfer station is still assessing its locational needs and the possibility of locating in San Diego County. The transfer station permitting by the State is still estimated to take about another 180 days. As always, it is a dynamic process. b) Approve the Agreement Obviously, executing the flow agreement at this time without walk away terms or a continuance is likewise an option but would inalterably commit the City to develop the transfer station. From Sexton's point of view, they have spent considerable time and effort in the planning and processing of the request and desire to build and operate the facility. The R. E. Hazard Contracting company, the transfer station property owner, has also been more than patient holding the land for which they thought an option would have been exercised last Fall, with a close of escrow this Fall. On the other hand, Sexton is guaranteed of being reimbursed for out-of-pocket costs of up to $250,000 plus a $90,000 management fee under the current agreement. Sexton and the City have both continued to negotiate in good faith up to this point on the joint assumption the transfer station will happen. The new developments by the County and Laidlaw have materialized only in the last few weeks. Thus, approval of the agreement with no contingencies is not recommended. C. DENY THE AGREEMENT The agreement could be denied or direction given to renegotiate. As staff supports the content of the agreement and it could offer a number of economic and other advantages to the City, there may not be any reason to simply deny the agreement. ~ I ~(p FISCAL IMPACT: The transfer station offers the City flexibility and an option to the existing County System which is not easily quantifiable. The tip fee proposed, $45.13, is currently $2.37/ton less than the County tip fee of $47.50. However, the county tip fee is proposed to go down to $40/ton on July 1, 1996. The ability of the county to retain fees at that level and for what period of time is unknown. The agreement provides a service fee to the City of between $45,000 per year to $1,000,000 per year over the 10 year term, as operational capacity of the facility is achieved. Revenue sharing for certain excess tonnage which might be delivered to the facility could generate an additional $6,000/month average to the City at some unknown point during the contract term. Once a flow agreement takes permanent effect, the city will be committed to the transfer station's construction, operation and use. The walk away rights stipulated in the agreement could cost the City $280,000, up to $365,000, or up to $2,300,200, depending upon whether the walk away is exercised now, after permits are issued but prior to site acquisition, or after site acquisition but prior to construction. X (~7 This page blank. /&~ Mar. 14. 1996 1 :07PM JOHN SEXTON CONTRCTR No. 9870 P. 2/6 &xton EXHIBIT A JOHN SEXTON SAND & GRAVEL CORP. March 14, 1996 /815 SMI WoIfROild III/I¡j¡ e, Illimis6O/62.2195 108-44P-1250 FAX: lO8-44NJrll The Honorable Mayor Shirley Horton City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Visa, California 91910 Dear Mayor Horton: City Staff has kindly allowed Sexton to attach to its staff report this letter regarding the proposed solid waste transfer station/material recovery facility to be located at 1855 Maxwell Road on land now owned by RE. Hazard Contracting Co. The contract being offered for yol11' consideration, termed a "flow conlrol agreement" by City Staff, considers that the City of Chula Vista would commit to direct the solid waste under the control of its franchise agreement to the proposed facility, and that Sexton will be completely responsible for all costs ofIand acquisition, permitting, construction, and operation of the proposed facility. While negotiations have been lengthy, your Staffhas worked diligently tx;J come to a fair and well-negotiated agreement while protecting the best interests of the City ofChula Vista. We would appreciate your review and consideration of two issues which remain unresol~ed between Sexton and City Staff. The first item relates to what has become known as the "walk- away" provision. This provision was included in a previous agreement between Sexton and the City whereÙ1 Sexton was charged with only siting, design, and pennitting of a facility - but not ownership. In the context of a publicly owned facility, that concept was appropriate. However, City Staffhas attempted to move this walk-away concept to the current agreement where, in our view, it is inappropriate. Sexton is committing its own capital to land acquisition, permitting, cons~tion, and operation of the facility. If it is to make that commitment, it needs certainty that the agreement with the City is finn. ePr'noI onltqdM,... /&1 Mar. 14,1996' 1: 07PM JOHN SEXTON CONTRCTR No, 9870 P, 3/6 . Page Two , , The walk-away ptovision has cunently complicated any 1'clations~p that can be negotiated between Sexton and Hazard relating to Sexton's purchase of the property. A letteJ: ftom Hazat'd is included for , yoU!' information regarding those concerns, We sincerely believe that the agreement as proposed by Sexton more than adequately protects the City fOl' the next twenty year period ftom the previously unpredictable. fluctuations in tenns and pricing of its nearest solid waste disposal alternative. The second and equally important item relates to the "facility se:rvice fee." Sexton tecognìzed early in this ptocess the conc<;pt of paying such fees to the cl?lJ1Dlunity in which privately owned and operated facilities are constructed, and proposed to pay to Chula Vista $1 for each ton of waste received by the fucility which is not delivered under the City's ftanchise agreement. We have estimated this volume to be in the range of 600 tons per day, This represents an annual fee of approximately $160,000 to $170,00019 be paid to the City by Sexton. Throughout OU!' negotiations, City Staffhas maintained a position , of re'luesting payment at an amount of $3 for each ton deIiven:d. The actual impact of this differenc~ presents to Sexton and its business . associate, .AJm:.or, an unacceptable busiIÍess risk. We have advised the City ftom the beginning oftJiese negotiations that the $1 per ~on fee is reasonable and acceptable and has always been calculated in Sexton's Mancia! ptojections. A $3 host fee might necessitate a higher tip fee which places the facility at a competitive disadvantage. It is in the best interest of both the City and Sexton to attract ou~ide waste to this facility. . The $1 fee proposed by Sexton is the level at which we believe this facility can attract'sufficient outside wastefiows. When conside1-ed with other fll18Ilcial im;cntives provided to the City, the $3 per ton fee requested by City Staffis excessive in ow: view. 'Included for'yoU!' information is a letter ftom Amcor describing its concerns with regard to the facility' service fee issue. (,10 - Mar. It 1996 I: 08P},! JOHN SEXTON CONTRCTR No. 9870 P, 4/6 Page Three Sexton and Amcor would appreciate your consideration and allow the contract to ~ exeçuted at a fair faClÌity serVice fee oUI per ton,. We appreciate your consideration and we thanli: CitY Staff for tho opportunity to provide this information to you. . .. ~tL Ira õhen . ' President , , Chief Operating Officer jn att. cc: Scott Alcvy . John Moot . Stephen Padilla Jerry Rindone . " t " !1( , - This page blank. /'iV MAR-14-1996 lB'16 FROM R.E. HAZARD TO 5855612 P.B2 EXHI BIT B RE. HAzARD CONTRACTING COMPANY ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS Mareh 14, 1996 I I INCORPORAlED 1926 Mayor Shirley HOrtoD and Members of the Chula Vista City Couucil 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mayor Hotton and City Council Members: Our Company has been In negotiation for the sale of our property since December, 1994. We have negotiated with the City in good faith during this period and have not receiv.ed a definitive, binding purchase agreement. On December 22, 1994 we received a draft of a Letter of Understanding with the City as a prelude to a fmalized option and purchase agreement. The Letter of Understanding in its final form was dated April 25, 1995 and signed by Mr. Hazard on April 27, 1995. When Mr. ~ signed this Letter of Understanding he believed this transaction would be accomplished in a fair and equitable manner with the City. Subsequently, the City had lohn Sexton Sam and Gravel Corporation commence additional œgotiatioDS with our Company which have continued to this date. Meanwhile, the City has commenced those studies, design reviews, etc. that are associated with ownership of property. Relying on the good faith of the City, Hazard has mt only suffered an economic disadvantage by holding marketable property off the market without an agreement, but it must now deal with the uncertainty of whether this project will ever go forward at all. It is time for the city to act in a more business lilœ manner and complete its commitment to the RE. Hazard Contracting Company. In order to do this, the City must either enter into a binding agreement directly with the R.E. Hazard Contracting Company or, if Sexton is going to be the City's agent, then the City must enter into a binding agreement with Sexton that cannot be terDÙIlated so that our Company can have a binding agreement with Sexton. The R.E. Hazard Contracting Company is not willing to extend itself any further. We have been patient during this whole process because we thought that the City and Sexton were close to making a binding agreement. The Insistence by the City that it be allowed to terminate the agreement with Sexton at any time makes negotiations and any agreement with Sexton absolutely unacceptable to our Company. Very ttuly yours, R.E. HAZARD CONTRACTING COMPANY ,(?,IJ. f:;;:f t¿ ./ RD. Executive Vice President cc: Sexton Sand &. Gravel n:b\1996IboItOD.mI4 6465 MARlNDUSTRY PLACE P.O. BOX 229IXIJ SAN DIE9J. CAUFmNIA 92192 iei1'9) 587-:36ŒJ 173 TOTALP.B2 This page blank. (7tf I Mar, 14, 1996 1: 09PM JOHN SEXTON CONTRCTR Ifo, 9870-1'. 6/6 sggCONSUL r' .. EXHI BIT C .' Fax ATTN.: Ira Cohen Number of pages:'" 1 .. From: Stewart Go Gordon Fax Number: (203) 661-4061 D.ete: 0311.3196 Phone Number: 203 622-Oee4 Re: Transfer $tation- AMCOR ISSUE RESPONSE JU$t spoke with Amcor - while I'm still waiting to learn their new timetable for filing an initial study. I got EI surprisingly concerned reactiOn to the ho$t fee issue. It Geemed to fall on 2 ìnu9s - 1, Their Board must approve the Transfer Staticn investment and they viewed this High Host Fee as financially undesirable both due to higher 00518 but also due to lower volumes (revenuœ) thN the Station s related financial negative. 2. They were aquany concerned that an unreali&tic HO6t fee would reduce volume thru the T,S. ønd would make It an even lower source of fibre for a mIn. I ; I. I : .. .. ,;. /15 ' '. This page blank. /1~ EXHIBIT D /TølTS"Ø' MAR 141996 LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS March 13, 1996 96-LWS-1O22 George Krempl Deputy City Manager City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mr. Krempl, Thank you and City Staff for joining us at our facility on February 9, 1996 for a demonstration of our "detachable body" or "pod" system. As you know, we have been researching and developing this system for some time as this service option can provide the City with long term and low cost disposal security. On February 22, 1996 I received your request for Laidlaw Waste Systems to provide the City with full cost proposals for implementing the pod system. As we have discussed, Laidlaw is preparing proposals for the various scenarios requested by you as follows: 1. Implementing the pod system as soon as possible. 2. Phasing the pod system in over a specified period (approximately 2-4 years). 3. Combining the implementation of the pod system with the implementation of Automated Residential Refuse Collection. We are adhering to your schedule to provide the proposals within thirty to forty-five days so that Staff can give them the appropriate consid"raÚon. In order to respond to your request to include multiple disposal sites and automated residential collection and to ensure that our proposals provide the City with the flexibility of utilizing the lowest cost disposal options, we are working with numerous outside parties and numerous options. On Tuesday, March 19, 1996, the City Council will consider entering into a ten year flow control agreement. I respectively request that this item be continued until Staff and the City Council have been able to fully evaluate Laidlaw's pod system proposal. Upon consideration of our proposal, we are certain that our options will provide the City with cost effective and environmentally appropriate waste disposal services for Chula Vista generators. It doesn't make sense to enter into a ten year flow control agreement until Staff has had the benefit of considering our proposal. /77 P.O. BOX 967 . Chula Vista, California 91912 . (619) 421-9400 . FAX (619) 421-0841 Recycled Paper - -- Page 2 There are scenarios where the "pod" system may be the appropriate option for providing Chula Vista residents and businesses with cost effective collection and disposal service. There are also opportunities to provide more fiber for recycling through Laidlaw's curbside recycling and commercial recycling programs. As your long-term local service provider and partner, I appreciate your consideration of our request to continue a decision on the flow control agreement until our proposal is considered. ~~ Daniel P. Higgins General Manager Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. /jw (71 March 14, 1996 Agreement for Transfer Station and Materials Recovery 1. Parties The parties to this transaction are: A. Sexton. John Sexton Sand & Gravel Corp., an Illinois corporation, whose principal place of business is Hillside, Illinois (herein, "Sexton"); and, B. City. The City of Chula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California (herein, "City"). II. Date. This agreement is made this - day of , 1996 for the purposes of reference only, and effective as of the date last executed between the parties. Ill. Recitals. A. The City desires to assure its residents of long term, efficient trash disposal and recycling services; B. The County solid waste enterprise has been rendered economically unstable as a result of the NCRRA Solid Waste Recycling Facility; C. Sexton has offered to capitalize and operate a trash transfer station and materials recovery facility if it can have assurance of solid waste to process; D. City is willing to give assurances of delivery of solid waste, to the extent legal, if it can have assurances of effective trash disposal and cost effective materials recovery to meet waste stream reduction goals of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO DO HEREBY AGREE, FOR THE MUTUAL PROMISES AND CONSIDERATION HEREIN PROVIDED, AS FOLLOWS: /17f IV. Definitions. A. "Original Agreement" means that agreement dated July 19, 1994, entitled: "Agreement with John Sexton Sand & Gravel Company for Site Selection, Permitting Services and Conditionally Optional Transfer Station Operating Agreement," Executed between City and Sexton." B. "Site" means that approximately 10.8 acre parcel of property currently owned by R. E. Hazard Contracting Company located at 1850 Maxwell Road, Chula Vista, and more particularly described on Exhibit A. C. "Hazard Option" means that offer of option Sexton has negotiated with R.E. Hazard Contracting Company, the fee owner, to acquire the fee title to the Site pursuant to that offer of option entitled" Option Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions," a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. D. "Specifications" means the specifications for the construction of the Facility heretofore prepared by ,dated , and on file in the office of the Planning Director, a footprint layout of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C. E. "Facility" means a transfer station and materials recovery facility constructed at the Site. F. "Mixed Solid Waste" means all non-source separated residential, commercial, institutional and industrial, non-hazardotts and non-infectious putrescible and non- putrescible solid and semisolid wastes, including garbage, trash, refuse, rubbish, industrial wastes, demolition and construction wastes. G. "Franchised Hauler" means all haulers of Mixed Solid Waste to which City has issued a franchise or issues a franchise to during the term of the agreement. For purposes of this Agreement the term "Franchised Hauler" includes the City, in the event the City discontinues the use of a private hauler and collects or hauls Mixed Solid Waste itself. H. "Qualified Customer" means (1) a Franchised Hauler tendering Mixed Solid Waste or Recyclables for disposal or recycling at or by the Facility originally generated from a generator in the City, or (2) a business or individual resident of the City tendering for disposal at the Facility Mixed Solid Waste or Recyclables generated in the City. I. "Recyclables" means those commodities the City currently collects in its curbside, multi-family and yard waste recycling collection programs at the time this agreement is executed, a list of which is attached as Exhibit D. Both parties shall meet and confer in good faith to amend the list upon request, Sexton shall not unreasonably prevent the addition of a material for which a market(s) has been identified. / /!t) J. "Non Conforming Waste," includes hazardous, extremely hazardous, acutely hazardous, infectious substances and wastes, (as those terms are defined by applicable federal, state or local laws or regulations), and/or combination of wastes, which because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics may pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of, or otherwise managed. Non- Conforming Waste shall not include "household hazardous waste" (as defined in California regulations) which is incidental to a load of Mixed Solid Waste. K. "Economically Feasible," when applied to diversion standards means that the net market value of a commodity or group of commodities is equal to or greater than the combined costs of transportation and disposal. L. "Commence Construction," means the intent to proceed with construction in accordance with a duly issued building permit for the Facility. V. Obligations A. Termination of Original Agreement. The Original Agreement is terminated and superseded by this agreement. B. Duty to Obtain Permits, Acquire Site and Construct Facility Simultaneously with the execution hereof, Sexton shall, at its sole cost and expense, (i) execute the Hazard Option, (ii)commence and continue to use good faith and best efforts to apply for and obtain permits from the California Integrated Waste Management Board and such other final, non-appealable permits from such agencies, including the City, as are necessary to construct and operate the Facility at the Site consistent with the terms of this agreement ("Permits") and the Specifications, and (iii) after issuance of a building permit, Commence Construction of the Facility which is capable of processing 1800 tons of Mixed Solid Waste per day, and to diligently prosecute the construction thereafter, and complete construction and make the Facility operational pursuant to the Specifications submitted by Sexton. If Sexton fails to fulfill all of the obligations within 18 months of the date of this agreement, the remaining rights and duties of the parties under this agreement shall be terminated; provided however, prior to such termination the parties shall make a good faith effort to renegotiate the terms of the agreement; provided further, if third party litigation relating to the Site, the Facility or the Permits is instituted during such 18 month period, such period shall be extended for 18 months or until the litigation is sooner resolved by final judgment or settlement. If at the time of any third party litigation relating to the site, the tip fee offered to the City by the County/Solid Waste Authority is lower than Sexton's proposed tip fee, the litigation period shall be extended until the litigation is resolved. / III C. Rights of the City to Terminate the Agreement Prior to Certain Subsequent Actions by Sexton. [Sexton and the City disagree on these provisions] 1. Duty to Give Notice Sexton shall acquire the site no sooner than 75 days subsequent to final operating permit approval by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. Prior to Site acquisition and prior to construction of the Transfer Station and Materials Recovery Facility, Sexton shall give the City 30 days written notice ("Notice of Option A and Notice of Option B") to the City Manager and Mayor of their intent to acquire the Site and their intent to commence construction of a Transfer Station and Materials Recovery Facility at the Hazard site, as follows: Sexton Sand & Gravel intends to acquire the Hazard Site not sooner than 30 days after the date of this notice, to wit, on , 1996 (or Sexton intends to commence construction of a Transfer Station and Materials Recovery Facility at the Hazard site to wit, on , 1996.) This notice is being provided under Section V(C)(1) of the Agreement dated entitled: "Agreement for Transfer Station and Materials Recovery". You will have the option, during the next 30 days, to terminate said agreement pursuant to terms of said agreement. Failure to do so within said 30 day period shall constitute a wavier of your right to exercise Option" A." 2. Option A. For 30 days after receipt of said Notice Of Option A, the City shall have the option, exercisable by the City Manager, and upon the City Manager making a finding that the long term costs of disposal and diversion under this agreement are not likely to be in the City's best interests given the known competing market prices for trash disposal ("Option A Findings"), to terminate this Agreement by giving to Sexton notice of exercise of Option A, and by tendering to Sexton thereafter, within 15 days after demand, the following consideration ("Option A Termination Consideration"): a. Option A Termination Consideration: Management Fee, as defined in the Original Agreement, not to exceed $90,000, out of pocket expenses, as permitted to be paid under the Original Agreement, not to exceed $250,000, and site option costs. b. Upon tender of Option A Termination Consideration, Sexton shall deliver to City all of Sexton's right, title and interest in Hazard Option and Hazard Site, all permits acquired to operate the Facility / /IV at the Site (Sexton shall arrange to make all permits for construction and operation of the Facility assignable to City, if Option A is exercised), all design and construction drawings of the Facility, all environmental impact reports or studies of the Facility; and any and all other reports, notes, drawings, or related documents then in possession of, or under the control of, Sexton relating to this Facility Agreement. c. If Option A is not exercised by City as herein permitted, this Agreement shall not terminate at this point, but shall continue in effect. 3. Option B. For 30 days after receipt of said Notice Of Option B, the City shall have the option, exercisable by the City Manager and upon the City Manager making a finding that the long term costs of disposal and diversion under this agreement are not likely to be in the City's best interests given then known competing market prices for trash disposal ("Option B findings"), to terminate this Agreement by giving to Sexton notice of exercise of Option B, and by tendering to Sexton thereafter, within 15 days after demand, the following consideration (Option B Termination Consideration"): a. Option B Termination Consideration shall include the same as Option A Termination consideration, plus the costs incurred by Sexton in connection with acquisition of the Site, including the assumption of any debt incurred by Sexton. (Sexton shall arrange to make the financing for the acquisition of the Site assignable to City if Option B is exercised and without a prepayment penalty.) b. Upon tender of Option B Termination Consideration, Sexton shall deliver to City all of Sexton's right, title and interest in the Hazard Option and Hazard Site, all permits acquired to operate the Facility at the Site (Sexton shall arrange to make all permits for construction and operation of the Facility assignable to City if Option B is exercised), all design and construction drawings of the Facility, all environmental impact reports or studies of the Facility, and any and all other reports, notes, drawings, or related documents then in possession of, or under the control of, Sexton relating to this Facility or Agreement. / /13 - c. If Option B is not exercised by City as herein permitted, this Agreement shall not terminate at this point, but shall continue in effect. D. Term. Sexton shall, upon completion of construction, and making the Facility operational, and for 10 years thereafter ("Operational Term"), operate the Facility in compliance with the Performance Criteria. The Operational Term shall be automatically extended for one additional ten year term ("Extended Term") unless, not less than one year prior to the expiration of the Operational Term, either party gives written notice to the other of its intent to terminate the agreement at the end of the Operational Term. The City shall have the continuing right during the Extended Term to terminate this agreement by giving Sexton notice eighteen months in advance of the date on which it desires the agreement to terminate. E. Duty to Operate. Sexton shall operate the Facility according to the following performance criteria, and during such time shall accept all Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables tendered by a Qualified Customer, according to the performance criteria set forth below: 1. Performance Criteria. During the Operational Term of this Agreement, the Facility shall meet the following criteria ("Performance Criteria"). a. Turn around time. (1) Except for delays caused by driver neglect or driver option, tarpaulin removal, "compactor" unloading, vehicle malfunction, weather, or off-site occurrences, front, side and rear loading trucks of a Franchised Hauler shall not be required to spend, on average over a 7 day period, more than 25 minutes on the premises from the time they queue up to enter the premises to the time they exit the premIses. (2) The City shall have the right on the first day of operation and a continuing right to inspect Sexton's adherence to these turn around time criteria. The City shall immediately notify Sexton of any failure to so perform. / ¡!<f b. Hours of Operation. Hours for acceptance of waste. The Facility shall remain continuously open and available to receive and process Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables for the hours of operation for the various services set forth in the Special Land Use Permit as approved or amended by the City of Chula Vista. c. Days of Operation. The Facility shall remain continuously open and available to receive and process Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables on all days during a year except the following days on which Sexton may be closed or operate at their discretion: (I) Memorial Day (2) Independence Day (3) Labor Day (4) Thanksgiving (5) Christmas (6) New Years d. Standards for Acceptance of Mixed Solid Waste. (I) 100% of all Mixed Solid Waste or Recyclables from a Qualified Customer tendered to the Facility shall be accepted and processed. (2) Notwithstanding the foregoing Sexton has the right to refuse to accept, or to reject after acceptance, any load of waste delivered to the Facility if Sexton has reasonable cause to believe the waste contains a regulated quantity of any Non Conforming Waste; provided however, Sexton shall not refuse Mixed Solid Waste from a Qualified Customer for containing incidental amounts of "household hazardous waste" as defined by State of California laws and regulations. If a customer delivers Non-Conforming Waste, Sexton shall immediately notify the customer and identify the Non- Conforming Waste and may, in its sole discretion, either remove and dispose of that waste and charge the customer for the waste. Sexton shall have no recourse against the City for delivery of Non- Conforming Waste unless such waste is delivered directly by the City or from City operated facilities. /' /f5 e. Priority Standards. The City and its Franchised Hauler, hauling Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables generated in the City (under the authority of its franchise) shall have first priority in the use of the Facility for the disposal of Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables. Other Qualified Customers shall have the second priority in the use of the Facility. Generators of Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables outside the City shall have third priority in the use of the Facility. f. Diversion Standards for Mixed Solid Waste (1) Sexton shall not accept any Mixed Solid Waste that is not designated by the hauler thereof as having been generated from a specific city or county (or foreign country in the case of Mexico) prior to unloading on the tipping floor. (2) In accordance with the Permits, Sexton will to the extent economically feasible divert from disposal by recycling or reuse not less than 15 % of the Mixed Solid Waste delivered by Qualified Customers to the Facility. Residual Waste may not be sent to a transformation facility without prior City approval. (3) Sexton shall provide the City quarterly with documentation under AB 939 for diversion of City Mixed Solid Waste under a "jurisdiction averaging" or "jurisdiction specific" method. g. Duty to Report and Keep Records Sexton shall keep records with regard to, and provide the City quarterly with such records of the total number of tons of Mixed Solid Waste disposed at the Facility by the City's Franchised Hauler (collected under the authority of its franchise), by other Qualified Customers, and the total number of tons disposed by other customers and the tonnage by each jurisdiction of origin. h. Hazardous Materials No provision herein shall require, or be deemed or construed to require, the acceptance or processing of Non-Conforming Waste or / II" of hazardous material or any component of Mixed Solid Waste or Recyclables that contains hazardous material. Nothing herein shall be construed to consider City a transporter or arranger or generator of hazardous material, except to the extent that such material is delivered to the Facility by the City or is generated at facilities operated by the City. i. Delivery to Disposal Facility. Sexton shall dispose of all Mixed Solid Waste delivered to the Facility by Qualified Customers at a disposal site which meets the criteria of 40CFR258. Sexton shall not enter into a negotiation for the disposal of Mixed Solid Waste with any landfill that operates under the exclusion provisions of 40CFR258. 2. Violations of Performance Criteria. If the City gives notice to Sexton of an alleged violation of any of the Performance Criteria, Sexton shall cure the violation as soon as possible but no later than 120 days from the date of receipt of such notice to cure the violation; provided however, if the required cure is of such a nature that it cannot with reasonable diligence be accomplished within such period, and if Sexton is diligently pursuing the required cure, the 120 day period may be extended at the City's discretion to allow sufficient time to complete the cure. Not less than 7 days after Sexton receives such notice of a violation, at the City's discretion, the City may choose to direct the Mixed Solid Waste collected under its Franchise agreement to another disposal facility during the cure period. At the expiration of the cure period or the extended cure period, the City has the option to terminate the agreement if the violation has not been corrected. F. Indemnity Sexton shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any loss, expense or expenditure, or other costs, including reasonable attorney's fees and court costs, incurred as a result of Sexton's operation of the Facility ("Covered Act") whether the damage claimed to have occurred is for response (including remediation) costs, property damage or personal injury, except to the extent that any such loss, expense, expenditure, cost or damage results from delivery of materials to the Facility directly by the City or from disposal of materials generated at facilities operated by the City (collectively, "City Waste"). Sexton agrees to defend City at City's option and tender of defense, from any claim, suit, complaint, or other proceedings wherein it is contended that a Covered Act has caused City to be liable for response costs, property damage or personal injury, except to the extent that any such I !!7 claim, suit, complaint or other proceeding results from the delivery or disposal of City Waste. However, not withstanding the foregoing exception, Sexton shall use good faith and best efforts to dispose of the Mixed Solid Waste, after recycling, at a landfill which will indemnify Sexton, the hauler, the City and generators from all liability for response, monitoring and remediation costs that are eligible for recovery under RCRA or CERCLA. In the event that Sexton is indemnified for such costs, notwithstanding the exception to the indemnity for City Hauled waste or City facility generated waste, Sexton shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all such costs, losses, expenses, or expenditures (including attorney fees and costs related to such litigation) in connection with all such Mixed Solid Waste delivered to or through the Facility, and shall upon request for defense and tender of defense by City to Sexton, Sexton shall defend, at their own cost and expense, the City in connection with any litigation or other proceeding wherein such costs are, in whole or in part, sought to be recovered from the City. G. Duty to Direct Mixed Solid Waste. City shall, to the fullest extent allowed by law (induding strict enforcement of its waste collection franchise agreement), direct the City's Franchised Hauler to deliver to the Facility all Mixed Solid Waste that said Franchised Hauler collects under the authority of its franchise. In the event the Franchised Hauler fails for any reason to deliver all such Mixed Solid Waste, City shall promptly take enforcement action against the Franchised Hauler. In such event, Sexton will pay all reasonable attorneys fees incurred by the City in such enforcement action. Sexton shall have the right to choose counsel to pursue such action, and any monetary recovery by the City resulting from the action will be paid to Sexton as reimbursement for damages and expenses it has incurred. City may at its option direct Recyclables to the Facility. City and Sexton shall negotiate a price for processing of Recyclables, and if they agree to a price, City shall direct the Recyclables to the Facility. H. Fees Chargeable for Services. I. Maximum Tipping Fee. Subject to the provisions of this Section, Sexton shall not charge to the City or its Franchised Hauler, for the receipt, handling, processing, transportation and disposal of Mixed Solid Waste, more than the lowest of the following (the "Maximum Tipping Fee"): (a) the average tipping fee per ton charged to all customers (excluding Qualified Customers) for disposal of Mixed Solid Waste during the previous six month period; ¡ð I~! (b) the tipping fee charged to any other city for Mixed Solid Waste generated within its limits and delivered to the Facility by such City or its Mixed Solid Waste collection contractor; (c) the average tipping fee per ton resulting from a calculation of (A) the total tonnage of Mixed Solid Waste disposed at the Facility during the previous six month period (excluding Mixed Solid Waste delivered by the City's Franchised Hauler under the authority of its franchise) divided by (B) the gross revenue of the Facility (less any payments made hereunder by Sexton to the City) during such six month period; (d) the tipping fee charged to a Mixed Solid Waste collection contractor owned by Sexton. (e) Any hauler delivering 5,000 tons of Mixed Solid Waste or greater to the Facility in any 30 day period, Every six months from and after the effective date of this agreement, the Maximum Tipping Fee shall be determined in accordance with this subsection, and the result of such calculation shall be the Maximum Tipping Fee for the next six months. 2. Initial Tipping Fee. During the initial year of the Operational Term and subject to the Maximum Tipping Fee, the tipping fee at the Facility shall be $45.13 per ton ("Tipping Fee"), prorated based on actual weight delivered, adjusted as follows: (a) Lower Initial Landfill Rate. The Tipping Fee shall be decreased by 60 % for each dollar less than $ - per ton tipping fee which Sexton is required to pay, under its landfill disposal agreement with its operator. (b) Lower Initial Transport Rate. The Tipping Fee shall be decreased by 60 % for each dollar less than $ - per ton for transportation of Mixed Solid Waste to a landfill which Sexton is required to pay, after rebates if any, under its transport to landfill agreement with its landfill transporter. I' /ð'7 (c) Components. Solely for purposes of calculating adjustments to the Tipping Fee, the $45.13 Tipping Fee for the first year of operation of the Facility shall be deemed to have the following components consisting of the: (i) Disposal Component, representing $- of the Tipping Fee; (ii) Transportation Component, representing $ - of the Tipping Fee; (iii) General Component, representing $- of the Tipping Fee; (iv) Facility Construction and Other Fixed Costs Component, representing $- of the Tipping Fee, (3) Adjustments to Fee. (a) Sexton has the duty to advise the City of any adjustment in cost of the Disposal Component or the Transportation Component of the tipping fee within 30 days. (b) The City shall have the right to review prior to their execution, the entire landfill disposal and transportation agreements which Sexton desires to enter into for the sole purpose of determining (A) the price to be paid by Sexton under such contracts, (B) the terms relating to adjustment in such price, (C) the term of each contract and (D) indemnification provisions with respect to the initial agreements to be entered into by Sexton. With respect to the initial agreements to be entered into by Sexton, Sexton shall present such proposed agreements to the City not less than ninety days prior to the commencement of the Operational Term and the City shall have twenty days to review such proposed agreements from the date it receives them from Sexton. (c) During the Operational Term and the Extended Term, the City shall have twenty days to review any proposed agreements from the date it receives them from Sexton. (d) If during any such period the City is able to secure commitments from a disposal facility and/or a transporter to provide services at a lower price and with a lower rate of adjustment to the price, Sexton shall enter into good faith contract negotiations with such entities; provided however, each such entity must be fully permitted and licensed to / ¡?O perform its obligations, any disposal site must meet the criteria of 40 CFR 258, and any indemnification must provide no lesser protection to Sexton than under its proposed agreements. All other terms and conditions of any such contract must be substantially the same as those which Sexton desires to enter into. If Sexton and the City cannot agree that such terms and conditions are substantially the same, the parties will submit the issue to binding arbitration. (e) During the Operational Term and the Extended Term, the Tipping Fee shall be automatically adjusted to a level not to exceed the Maximum Tipping Fee, in the manner set forth below, upon presentation to the City and verification by the City within 10 days of receipt of information which requires an increase or decrease under the terms of this agreement. Any adjustment shall be effective on the date on which such evidence is verified, but not less than ten days after receipt by the City. (t) Adjustment to Disposal Component of the Tipping Fee. i) Increases. During the Operational Term and the Extended Term, no increase in the Disposal Component shall be allowed except for an actual increase in the tipping fee Sexton shall be required to pay for the disposal of Mixed Solid Waste under its initial contract for disposal. The increase shall be prorated to apply only to actual tonnage disposed at a landfill. ii) Decreases. If any time during the Operational Term or the Extended Term Sexton obtains a lower rate for disposal of Mixed Solid Waste, the Disposal Component shall be reduced by 60 % of the amount of the reduction times a percentage representing the tonnage taken to landfills divided by total tonnage received at the Facility. For example, if the Disposal Component of the $45.13 Tipping Fee is $22.00, and Sexton is able to secure a $20.00 tipping fee during the Operational Term or the Extended Term and 85 % of the intake tonnage is taken to the landfill (15 % being recycled), the Disposal Component of the Tipping Fee shall be reduced by $1.02 per ton, from $22.00 to $20.98. (g) Adjustment to Transportation Component of the Tipping Fee; i) Increases. During the Operational Term and the Extended I ~!PI - Term, no increase in the Transportation Component shall be allowed except for an actual increase in the transportation costs Sexton shall be required to pay for the transportation of Mixed Solid Waste under its initial contract for transportation. The increase shall be prorated to apply only to actual tonnage transported to a landfill. ii) Decreases. If any time during the Operational Term or the Extended Term Sexton obtains a lower rate for transportation of Mixed Solid Waste, the Transportation Component shall be reduced by 60 % of the amount of the reduction times a percentage representing the tonnage transported to landfills divided by total tonnage received at the Facility. For example, if the Transportation Component of the $45.13 Tipping Fee is $10.76 per ton, and Sexton is able to secure a $9.76 per ton transportation charge during the Operational Term or the Extended Term and 85 % of the intake tonnage is taken to the landfill (15 % being recycled) the Transportation Component of the Tipping Fee shall be reduced by $.51 per ton, from $10.76 to $10.25. (h) Adjustment to General Component of Base Year Tipping Fee. Commencing on the second anniversary of the Operational Term, and continuing for each year of the Operational Term and the Extended Term thereafter, the General Component shall be automatically increased or decreased annually on the anniversary date of this agreement in an amount equal to the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for the All Urban Consumers (San Diego Metropolitan Statistical Area) as published by the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, during the preceding 12 month period during which such index has been reported, not to exceed 5 % in anyone year; provided, however, in the event such percentage increase exceeds 9% in any 12 month period, the General Component shall increase by an amount equal to 5 % , plus the amount of the increase in excess of 9 % . Sexton shall present the City with documentation from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to evidence the amount of the increase or decrease. (i) Facility Construction and other Fixed Costs Component. During the Operational Term and the Extended Term, no other adjustment shall be allowed in the Tipping Fee for any other component or part. 4. Drop Off Recyclable Services / /1~ - Sexton shall accept from any Qualified Customer, Recyclables, scrap metal and mixed paper, without any charge therefor if delivered to the Facility by the Qualified Customer; provided, however, Sexton may, in its sole discretion, refuse to accept scrap metal from scrap dealers, contaminated loads, loads which are not separated, or volumes of more than 1,000 pounds per week from any single source. 5. Scales Testing City or its designee shall have the right upon request to review tests of the scales at the Facility conducted by the appropriate regulatory body, including County Department of Weights and Measures. Sexton shall have the scales tested at least monthly and shall notify the City and report the results as soon as reasonably possible but no more than five days after a scale test has been performed by the appropriate regulatory body. If the scales are found to be in error by recording weight more than 100 pounds above actual weight, Sexton shall make a refund to the City of the amount in excess of the 100 pound margin of error of the tipping fees actually paid by Qualified Customers during the month prior to the date of the scale test. If the scales are found to be in error by recording weight more than 100 pounds below actual weight, the City shall credit Sexton in the amount less than the 100 pound margin for error of the tipping Fees actually paid by Qualified Customers during the month prior to the date of the scale test. Any payments or credits due shall be less the costs of the scale test, shall be reconciled on a monthly basis and shall be due within thirty days of the end of each month. 6. Revenue Sharing Provisions a. Facility Service Fee [Sexton and City disagree on the amount of the service fee] Sexton shall pay City a monthly service fee representing 6.65 % of the Tipping Fee, as established in this agreement for each ton of Mixed Solid Waste received at the Facility other than from the City, its designated agent, or its Franchised Hauler under the authority of its franchise dttring the month. There shall be no service fee for source separated Recyclables accepted by the Facility which are not disposed of at a landfill or transformation facility. The fee shall be payable without billing 30 days after the end of the month, and shall be accompanied by a report which shows the total tonnage of Mixed Solid Waste generated outside the City which was received for disposal during the preceding month. Such reports shall be certified to the City annually by Sexton's / /93 - outside auditors. b. Productivity Revenue Sharing for Mixed Solid Waste. Within thirty days after the end of each calendar quarter, Sexton service fee to the City, it shall pay to the City, for every ton of Mixed Solid Waste delivered to the Facility by Qualified Customers during the preceding month, which is in excess of 9000 tons per month ("Base Tonnage"), an amount equal to the entire number of tons in excess of the Base Tonnage multiplied by the appropriate amount per ton specified below: Tons Per Month P&yment Per Ton 9000 - 11000 $ 1.00 11,001 - 13000 $ 1.25 13001 - 15000 $ 1.50 15001 - 17000 $ 1.75 17001 and above $ 2.00 For example: If 14,000 tons is delivered in a month, the payment will be: (i) $2,000 for the tonnage between 9,000 and 11,000; plus (ii) $2,500 for the tonnage between 11,001 and 13,000; plus (iii) $1,500 for the tonnage between 13,001 and 14,000. 1. Miscellaneous Provisions. 1. Assignment. Sexton shall not have the right to assign any of its rights under this agreement without the advance written approval of City by and through resolution of the City Council, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 2. City Waste. City shall have the right to dump up to 1200 tons per year without charge of City generated Mixed Solid Waste, including roadside debris. 3. Attorney Fees and Costs. In the event litigation is instituted in order to protect a right or require the performance of a duty herein specified, the prevailing party shall be entitled to attorneys fees and court costs. / /9;£ 4. Jurisdiction and Venue. The parties agree that this contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, and in the event that litigation is instituted by either party, it shall be instituted in the State of California. 5. Entire Agreement. This agreement represents the entire agreement of the parties as to the subject matter herein addressed. 6. Severability. If any non-material provision of this Agreement is for any reason deemed to be invalid and unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such provisions shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this Agreement that shall be enforced as if such invalid or unenforceable provision had not been contained herein. 7. Notice. Any notice required or permitted to be provided under this Agreement shall be provided by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the following persons: City: City Manager, with copies to City Attorney and Mayor, City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA. Sexton: John Sexton Sand & Gravel Corp. 1815 S. Wolf Road Hillside, IL 60162 Attention: President Copy to: General Manager of the Facility or such other address either party provides or requires for the providing of notice. 8. Equal participation in drafting. This Agreement shall be interpreted and construed reasonably and neither for nor against either party, regardless of the degree to which either party participated in its drafting. 9. Force Majeure. The performance of this Agreement may be temporarily suspended by either party in the event the delivery or transportation of Mixed Solid Waste by Franchised Hauler or the processing or disposal of Mixed Solid Waste by Sexton are prevented by a cause or causes beyond the reasonable control of such party. Such causes will include, but not be limited to, acts of God, acts of war, riot, fire, explosion, accident, earthquake, flood or sabotage; governmental laws, regulations, requirements, orders or actions; national defense requirements, injunctions or restraining orders; labor trouble, strike, lockout or injunction ;ñ /95 (provided that neither party shall be required to settle a labor dispute against its own best judgment). The party asserting a right to suspend performance must, within a reasonable time after it has knowledge of the effective cause, notify the other party of the cause for suspension, the performance suspended and the anticipated duration of suspension. The party asserting a right to suspend performance shall dutifully attempt as soon as possible to cure the cause and reinstate the performance under this agreement. The Party will have a period of 90 days from the date it has knowledge of the effective cause to attempt to cure the effective cause; provided however, if an event is of such a nature that it cannot with reasonable diligence be accomplished within such period, and if the suspending party is diligently pursuing the required cure, the 90 day period will be extended to 180 days. If a cure is not then accomplished within such 180 day period, this clause shall not operate to suspend the duty to perform, and the suspending party will be in breach of this agreement. (End of Page. Next Page is Signature Page.) ;< !9~ Signature Page Come now the parties hereto, and having read and understood the terms and conditions hereof, soliciting separate legal advice as each party deems appropriate, does hereto set their hand as of date mentioned adjacent thereto implying thereby the consent of their principal to the terms and conditions hereof. Date: City of Chula Vista by: Shirley Horton, Mayor Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney Approved as to content: City Manager Date: John Sexton Sand & Gravel Corp. Ira Cohen, President mtm:transfer sexton9.agr /" 197 This page blank. I rtf 1891 Nirvana Ave., Chula Vista, CA 91911 (619) 421-1151 Mailing address: P.O. Box 1109, Bonita, CA 91908-1109' FAX (619) 421-1506 March 19, 1996 íF'~- -:----- ---_. r AGENCY: ITEM 3a,b .:nl~_--__--,--..:.:.. r :. -.', .., Ii ~I' . :: ,JuL MAR 181996 .D City of Chula Vista I --- -1 I 276 Fourth Ave. C(¡ 'q " I.' 1-.--:; Chula Vista, CA 91910 '-~:"~..~ Attn: Redevelopment Agency Subject: Material Recovery Facility and Trash Transfer Station Proposed Location - 1855 Maxwell Road Gentlemen: Gold Coast Engineering Inc. is located immediately adjacent to the southerly property line of the proposed facility. As owners of Gold Coast Engineering, we are extremely concerned about all the environmental issues which will effect not only the site itself, but also the surrounding properties. We are also very concerned about the reduced value of our multi-million dollar project and the value of all properties witJ:¡in the Otay Valley Road project area, especially the properties immediately adjacent to the proposal site. Further, the proposed project is in complete disagreement with the "Otay Valley Road Development Project Area Implementation Plan/Design Manual Addendum", dated May 1985. When we selected the area as a location for our business, and the related acquisition of property and building our facilities, we believed that the goals of the implementation Plan/Design Manual Addendum met the objective we envisioned for our company. We trusted the city to carefully follow the guidelines protecting all of the investments in the area. It is our opinion that if the city permits this operation in the proposed location, the city has abandoned the goal to develop the area into a first class industrial park. In addition, there is an Assembly Bill, number 961, in the California Legislature which would virtually eliminate this site as a candidate for the project. We have been informed that the Bill recently failed to pass but is going to a second hearing. We are primarily concerned about: . Air quality - airborne particles and bacteria and nauseous odor . Noise . Trash being blown about the site and adjoining properties . Rodent and pest control ~EI March 19, 1996 Page 2 Obviously the ideal location for this operation is on the county land fill located one half mile from the proposed site. As tax-paying, environmentally-sensitive citizens, it is impossible to understand why the City of Chula Vista and the City and/or County of San Diego carmot work together and locate this facility, if required, on the present landfill. Recognizing that the city went through a lengthy site selection process in choosing the present proposed site, we challenge the subjective analysis that this is the best location. The land use is clearly not compatible with other business operations in the immediate area, and we, along with business operators and property owners adjacent to the proposed site request that the city: 1. Reconsider the worth of the project in total 2. Reconsider other more compatible land use locations 3. Deny a special use pennit which only bends the ruler to allow this type of an operation in the Otay Yal1ey Road Project area. . . The City of Chula Vista has spent considerable effort guiding the development of the Otay Valley Road project into a first class industrial and commercial area. Locating the proposed project in the middle of the Otay Valley Road project is not consistent with the objectives of a first class Industrial Park. In addition, the proposed project will undoubtedly reduce the value of adjacent properties. The attached petition and map clearly state that the business neighbors of adjacent properties are seriously opposed to the project in the proposed location. We are available to discuss this matter in further detail, if needed. Sincerely, //~ Donald R. Palumbo President J!Iç; DRP/aw ~ ~ ~ H r/. ~ ~~\.. Q) I)- '::;"" " ~~~ .~~~I'J I ';'I <;2\ ", \ \ t - -.:........'----- ) I'll C> = c: r::: ; 0 rl ;: I'll ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i .~ ~.~~. -" /.¡;~ >j (/) r::: '0 ¡g .;: ~~ ~ ~ ct ~ '11 ~~~ .' J "1.-~ 0 .. "C c: í).. I\j-~ - I'll - "Q..o :'\.I. E := 0 ::s. .. ~- A: ra ~ ~ ~ ~ - >0 J Q)~~ ~ ~ (/) r::: - J :::J III ~ rl .è- >0 ]:s .!!! u 0 § œ (/) ,- Q) (/) ~ ~ oS !!! Co ~.5 :g .!!1 8 I!! < oS Q) ~ c>1:t~ c: - ,- as §¡1:fä ~ ~ - E ~ .!0- ra = Q) E I'll Z . >0 . c: ra Co E : 0 ~ () '" -- PROJECT LOCATION ENERGY WAY DESIGN COURT '.. CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ê) ~' aMa VIlla MaNriall ~œscllll'llON: . a.-ry PoeWty DESIGN REVIEW ~: '155 Maaweliload Request: Proposal a 75,900 sq. ft. mal8riall8CDWryfac:ility. SCALI. 1l'1li - NORTH No Scale DRC. 96 - 20 - ., AGENCY: ITEM 3a,b ¡D y ,,- -"~ ,,-q-- " " ¡; ;1 ., .. .V ' " ¡ ¡ !dl ~ ,-,"'-,,-- ...~~-' I ~, ,',' " , , ¡ ,.¡j ",. ¡Ii;! ¡,'¡~. ;¡i;j 0' f I~ IF .J'~ j~ w' '-¡I, ~" ",ii - ',ii ~I- 00 ~. ~I t or ~I~ ~~ w,~ ;," ;" t¡î1 '.1! jiB - m -, ~ 3~ð~ mm5 j; ¿w.. -, ---. !; . H, : ' ~ .' ! ¡ Ui:!_w;¡ . ¡ ! ¡ f ; : " ; ¡ ¡ ~ ¡ : ¡ : ¡ ,0, (0 . ~ ! ¡; J ¡¡I¡)¡;: ¡;:>, """",-:\~I',', ::. " \!;; '~ " ã ¡ . l!í ¡:: u " : j ! ¡ ; ,: ,! i j ¡ í! L ,1, I',¡ ""',j;',;!;'¡",J'ìI ',0' '1---, ~! ¡'¡!i¡,¡¡1i"!¡'¡;1 "f'~, ,':-t--:- . C ~'¡;H!i!¡'¡'iI¡¡¡J!" " . I 0 ~! ~ H ! 1 ií,H H ,¡ H ,J '1,fr=='iP , ¡'," U Æ""'" III ,'-_cli'. I: e '<' ""!"I!I!!1!1ì!lfll,.""""""", ' ]1:, rn .I!""",. - I" /,'<;>-, .. (j ~ > I!I ,/""""!l1I 1:0\ ,: ~1!""'!I"'i"I"l!j, "~,,- § ^- -. - -. - I , I @ . ¡;¡g, .. .. 'V . II / Ii. 1 i ,I,! .. 'II II .,1 ! , I ~ :ii; ä:~ " CDii Co ¡ (t',' CII ' ..J ãi ~ -E. oJ) ~ (; 0 C]J ,,'iI'/; . I ; " :."" , . i @@ ~~-~@~@@ Œ @ ,~@ (] ~ '!",' , . ; .+-' £66l '6<: AoV\l J ,)'r.,,~,-, . ~:~':;;:'J - -~ ,-= :fif"'. J -->',"~:r"- ~~, ;ij¡~ '-, ,. !:=:;:' -' '.;:.,~ :J'J."; 11","",9 "V' 'J l' wm., II" i -J,~ -. ø ad!.-;, - ~:~:,: " .;., . .;; . , \""",;."~~. . ..=-J, .. ;<"". " , . ,~: ,'~~' - ~~} iil ~ "' ,< "--.J ,;!,- I ,~", ' ',; - .\~ c'" ..C-, . "'~C' "-o'ft. . ", ":,~" "j ,,(t, ;.. ~ ' -,' ¡ !"",~ ,..- , , ""..,¡,..~.;". ",...:".; /\~~ .¡,".u" , . \. ¡ "7" , , III! ,', ',' "'i -.,> '; ¡'II/pt", ~ o'in) 1M '~.'!II ""1' .',,' 'iIUJI;I',\~r-1J t¡ ,-\-..-lJ," <;)', ~ ,\JIll l:~ ~ ~-~~, , í , I I ¡! ' ¡ í Ii ! ¡ ¡II¡¡I¡III/¡ I II!) II.nH ~ 0 j 0 ¡ \ .... 00 I ]i I -- '-- ...,- -- '.'- --- ;-m -- ':<!¡ ! "" 1! 111 ~I j~ . Sð ~~ f,¡ h~ ~~ . , .<~ .0 . ". i ~~ ' ..1 ,. ;' II, n' !'---*-.----:¡:---ÿ--- T : , erl--~ ----- :' ¡ ¡ 1 : I OO~ I ", - , " - ;!;!, , II i' ! i! : : ! ~ ' ;, 'i ! : , ~ ! ; IIi , ii' r:£ i ! i , i J '-, ! ¡; , ; , 'I ,- , - , - , " ~: : ; : ! : , ; 1" , ; , i , .¡ , : ! i' ! : ll:Ó i , i , ; , ' : ; : -i I -: i : L'i: ! : i : , ' i ! , , i , i , ,t , i , <3 :,'t -- -t ------ -t ---ri -r ' i : i ' ; !!, t-, - , . , - - , - :L -+,-,- !, ':: :" ! '¡ _J... ,- " t t, , I ' ii' '- -, .-.: , : ! i 'I I 10: i t ¡ i ¡ I I i 'i; : ! ; ! i : i I L 1_- :- I~--i ---- -, , "10<TTirTn , : , . . ! ¡':; JJL..u¡ I I ; ! I ; I :liOO I !.! I . ':. I , I , , ; : ! ¡i!ioc- IJ!I_.liJ ¡I: ! ! ; I ': I . . I -'-'1 ! ; I I I., -, 'In-JTTïï ...LlJ. I . ; ; ! i ¡}!!I.I;~_. . ; ! ; i ! i (! ICJC[qCTIJ , i , ; " ~ I I' I , . : : -; .: l '._',',! I I b,a. ¡, i ! ; '.... . 0 , - ;- I -. -tÇF"-~ ~ . i'" ~ T -- --"'----"'--------¡=jY z+- I ! ! J ! i I r r ¡ I ËI I ,.. I ~:' ]: -~ "'- -- -.,- --------- --"j"""""- , -yroj" . . ~ II I D..;i If' ¡enll þ," h . ~! ."., : "",' 6j~ ~~ . "J" ." AI ..7 <i> "". "2 ' . -, ~¡ ~ ' .1 ---+ ¡. I 0 Ii ~I' i I'. lœ B£ h~~!' . ~.! I .~ ! -~¡ ~ ! <œ ¡:-o ~ .11 \;î . [jID= . :: . ,..g .'. 5~ ~~~. ! §<~ ~ I J ~§ ug~~ ~ ~~: ì . ~~ '~d~ : ;: .1 I .~ ¡¡.! ~; 00,' ~ I .iI . . " ä iÞ' !i CD=¡¡ J ¡ - ! I I I I i I I I . ¡ I1II ~ 'I ' 1 I ¡ . i -, ~ .¡, -- --:-- -- .~,- ~-- ----¡-¡ÿj.':¡ ',.-j . - '"--.-------...- REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT Item ¡.f Meeting Date 3/19/96 ITEM TITLE: Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista authorizing the Treasurer to determine the feasibility of refunding the City of Chura Vista Redevelopment Agency 1987 Series B Certificates of Participation; Waiving the consultant selection process and appointing Project Finance Associates (PFAI as Financial Advisor to assist in this effort; And authorizing the Chair to execute the contract SUBMITTED BY: TreasurevY REVIEWED BY: Executive Director fIj..,. lG (4/5ths Vote: Yes _No-X-I SUMMARY: In 1987 the Agency issued Certificates of Participation in the amount of $6,600,000 for various purposes. It appears that the City/Agency could achieve significant savings on the annual debt service payments as the result of a refunding under current low interest rate market conditions. Since Mr. Mark Northcross, formerly of Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga, Inc., has recently performed at a high level as financial advisor to both the Agency on the 1994 Tax Allocation Bond Refunding, and the City on the 1995 Assessment District Refunding, and by so doing is already very familiar with the City and Agency, it is being recommended that the formal selection process be waived, and that PFA, and specifically Mr. Northcross be appointed as financial advisor on this potential refunding. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolution. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable DISCUSSION: In 1987 the Agency issued Certificates of Participation in the amount of $6,600,000 to 1) refinance outstanding Certificates of Participation issued in 1982 to finance the tri-Ievel parking structure in the downtown business district; 2) finance the Agency's capital improvement obligation to the County of San Diego for the County's South County Regional Center, and; 3) finance the construction of the Police communication center and crime laboratory. There is currently $4,110,000 in outstanding bonds with an average interest coupon of 8.34% and a final maturity date of 2002. Based on preliminary research conducted by PFA, strictly on a contingent fee basis, it appears that the City/Agency would benefit by a savings of more than $50,000 per year on 4-/ - Page 2, Item Meeting Date 03/19/96 their annual debt service payments as the result of a refunding under current market conditions with an obtainable average interest rate of approximately 3.96%. If this resolution is approved, staff will continue to work with PFA and the Agency's Bond Counsel firm of Jones, Hall, Hill & White to analyze all facets of the potential refunding, and if feasible, will proceed with preparation of the necessary legal documents for Agency approval to authorize the sale of the refunding bonds on a "competitive bid" basis. The complexity and timing sensitivity of the more recent City/Agency debt issues have dictated that they be marketed on a "negotiated" basis in order to minimize interest cost. A negotiated sale includes the pre-selection of an underwriter(s) and a negotiated interest cost, presumably based on market conditions at the time of sale. This potential refunding is very straightforward and considering the short maturity period of only seven years, lends itself to be sold on the more conventional competitive bid basis in order to allow the market to establish the lowest interest cost. In a competitive sale the underwriter(s) are selected based solely on a low bid comparison with other underwriters. ADDointment of Financial Advisor Mr. Mark Northcross, formerly a principal in the firm Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga, Inc. (KNN), has previously performed quite extensive reviews of the City/Agency outstanding debt in an effort to determine if there were any economically viable candidates for refinancing. Subsequently, Mr. Northcross served as the financial advisor on both the 1994 Tax Allocation Bond Refunding, and the 1995 Assessment District Refunding. Financial Advisors are especially important in a competitive bid situation where they provide the requisite expertise not available inhouse to recommend the optimum structure of the transaction, plan and coordinate rating agency and insurer briefings, and prepare and evaluate the bids submitted by prospective underwriters. KNN has received $100,000 from the City within the last twelve months, all funded out of the proceeds of the Assessment District Refunding. In continuing to monitor outstanding debt issues of the City/Agency, Mr. Northcross, now a principal in the firm Public Finance Associates, has now concluded that due to recently decreasing interest rates, the Agency's 1987 Series B Certificates of Participation are refundable at a reasonable level of savings. Because of the valuable research already completed on behalf of the City/Agency leading to consideration of a refinancing, the high level of competence that Mr. Northcross has exhibited in recent transactions, and the reasonableness of the fees proposed, it is recommended that PFA be appointed to serve as financial advisor for the refunding. Their fee is proposed to be $28,000, $8,000 of which would go to a disclosure counsel firm for preparation of the official statement document, and is payable solely from the proceeds of the issue. These fees are well within the range that the City and others historically pay for these services. 1-/-.2; - Page 3. Item Meeting Date 03/19/96 FISCAL IMPACT: All costs of issuance, including the cost of the financial advisor, will be paid from the debt proceeds, including the cost of staff time spent in managing the refunding process. This should result in less than $5,000 in reimbursement revenue to the General Fund. 1~3 - This page blank. j-!-~ i Parties and Recital Pages Agreement between City of Chula vista Redevelopment Agency and Public Finance Associates for Consulting Services to the Proposed Refinancing of the 1987 Series B certificates of Participation of the Redevelopment Agency This agreement ("Agreement"), dated March 12, 1996 for the purposes of reference only, and effective as of the date last executed unless another date is otherwise specified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 1 is between the City-related entity as is indicated on Exhibit A, paragraph 2, as such ("city"), whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 3, and the entity indicated on the attached Exhibit A, paragraph 4, as Consultant, whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 5, and whose place of business and telephone numbers are set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 6 ("Consultant"), and is made with reference to the following facts: Recitals Whereas, Public Finance Associates possesses the requisite expertise and knowledge to assist the Agency in analyzing and transacting the subject refunding; and, Whereas, City of Chula vista is desirous of taking advantage of said knowledge and expertise; and, Whereas, Consultant warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required of Consultant to city within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; 1-.5 Obligatory Provisions Pages NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city and Consultant do hereby mutually agree as follows: 1. Consultant's Duties A. General Duties Consultant shall perform all of the services described on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 7, entitled "General Duties"; and, B. Scope of Work and Schedule In the process of performing and delivering said "General Duties", Consultant shall also perform all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, entitled" Scope of Work and Schedule", not inconsistent with the General Duties, according to, and within the time frames set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, and deliver to City such Deliverables as are identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, within the time frames set forth therein, time being of the essence of this agreement. The General Duties and the work and deliverables required in the scope of Work and Schedule shall be herein referred to as the "Defined Services". Failure to complete the Defined Services by the times indicated does not, except at the option of the City, operate to terminate this Agreement. C. Reductions in Scope of Work City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time reduce the Defined Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement. Upon doing so, city and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction. D. Additional Services In addition to performing the Defined Services herein set forth, city may require Consultant to perform additional consulting services related to the Defined Services ("Additional Services"), and upon doing so in writing, if they are within the scope of services offered by Consultant, Consultant shall perform same on a time and materials basis at the rates set forth in the "Rate Schedule" in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11 (C), unless a separate fixed fee is otherwise agreed upon. All compensation for Additional Services shall be paid monthly as billed. E. Standard of Care X ,.j- ro - Consultant, in performing any Services under this agreement, whether Defined services or Additional Services, shall perform in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar locations. F. Insurance Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and subconsultants employed by it in connection with the Services required to be rendered, are protected against the risk of loss by the following insurance coverages, in the following categor- ies, and to the limits specified, policies of which are issued by Insurance companies that have a Best's Rating of "A, Class V" or better, or shall meet with the approval of the City: statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 9. Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, combined single limit applied separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by consultant, which names city and Applicant as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City and Applicant in the same manner as members of the general public ("Cross-liability coverage"). Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, unless Errors and Omissions coverage is included in the General Liability policy. G. Proof of Insurance Coverage. (1) certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of certificates of Insurance demonstrating same, and further indicating that the policies may not be canceled without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional Insured. (2) Policy Endorsements Required. In order to demonstrate the Additional Insured coverage, Primary coverage and Cross-liability coverage required under Consultant's Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy, Consultant shall deliver a policy endorsement to t.he city IX- ~"7 demonstrating same, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Risk Manager. H. Securitv for Performance. (1) Performance Bond. In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Performance Bond (indicated bya check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Performance Bond"), then Consultant shall provide to the city a performance bond by a surety and in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Performance Bond", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A. (2) Letter of Credit. In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Letter of Credit"), then Consultant shall provide to the City an irrevocable letter of credit callable by the city at their unfettered discretion by submitting to the bank a letter, signed by the City Manager, stating that the Consultant is in breach of the terms of this Agreement. The letter of credit shall be issued by a bank, and be in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or city Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Letter of Credit", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A. (3) other Security In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide security other than a Performance Bond or a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "other Security"), then Consultant shall provide to the city such other security therein listed in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or city Attorney. I. Business License Consultant agrees to obtain a business license from the city and to otherwise comply with Title 5 of the Chula vista Municipal Code. 2. Duties of the City A. Consultation and Cooperation X /of--! - City shall regularly consult the Consultant for the purpose of reviewing the progress of the Defined services and Schedule therein contained, and to provide direction and guidance to achieve the objectives of this agreement. The City shall permit access to its office facilities, files and records by Consultant throughout the term of the agreement. In addition thereto, City agrees to provide the information, data, items and materials set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, and with the further understanding that delay in the provision of these materials beyond 30 days after authorization to proceed, shall constitute a basis for the justifiable delay in the Consultant's performance of this agreement. B. Compensation Upon receipt of a properly prepared billing from Consultant submitted to the City periodically as indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, but in no event more frequently than monthly, on the day of the period indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, City shall compensate Consultant for all services rendered by Consult- ant according to the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11, adjacent to the governing compensation relationship indicated by a "checkmark" next to the appropriate arrangement, subject to the requirements for retention set forth in paragraph 19 of Exhibit A, and shall compensate Consultant for out of pocket expenses as provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 12. All billings submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information as to the propriety of the billing to permit the city to evaluate that the amount due and payable thereunder is proper, and shall specifically contain the City's account number indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 18 (C) to be charged upon making such payment. 3. Administration of Contract Each party designates the individuals ("Contract Administrators") indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 13, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized by said party to represent them in the routine administration of this agreement. 4. Term. This Agreement shall terminate when the Parties have complied with all executory provisions hereof. 5. Liquidated Damages The provisions of this section apply if a Liquidated Damages Rate is provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14. tft- ,f-f It is acknowledged by both parties that time is of the essence in the completion of this Agreement. It is difficult to estimate the amount of damages resulting from delay in per- formance. The parties have used their judgment to arrive at a reasonable amount to compensate for delay. Failure to complete the Defined services within the allotted time period specified in this Agreement shall result in the following penalty: For each consecutive calendar day in excess of the time specified for the completion of the respective work assignment or Deliverable, the consultant shall pay to the City, or have withheld from monies due, the sum of Liquidated Damages Rate provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14 ("Liquidated Damages Rate"). Time extensions for delays beyond the consultant's control, other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the city's Contract Administrator, or designee, prior to the expiration of the specified time. Extensions of time, when granted, will be based upon the effect of delays to the work and will not be granted for delays to minor portions of work. unless it can be shown that such delays did or will delay the progress of the work. 6. Financial Interests of Consultant A. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer. If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 15, as an "FPPC filer", Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest and disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the City Clerk on the required statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 15 of Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney. B. Decline to Participate. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant shall not make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement. C. Search to Determine Economic Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations ~ 4--10 promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's duties under this agreement. D. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest'during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act. E. Duty to Advise of conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's which may result in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder. F. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests. Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's immediate family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently have any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, or in any property within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, ("Prohibited Interest"), other than as listed in Exhibit A, Paragraph 15. Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's performance of this Agreement. Consultant promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter. Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this Agreement, except with the written permission of city. Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or for any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. ~ ~ -If 7. Hold Harmless Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of the conduct of the Consultant, or any agent or employee, subcontractors, or others in connection with the execution of the work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful conduct of the city, its officers, or employees. Consultant's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the city, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Further, Consultant at its own expense shall, upon written request by the city, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents, or employees. Consultants' indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant. 8. Termination of Agreement for Cause If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studie.s, surveys, drawings, .maps, reports and other materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the option of the city, become the property of the City, and Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up to the effective date of Notice of Termination, not to exceed the amounts payable hereunder, and less any damages caused City by Consultant's breach. 9. Errors and Omissions In the event that the city Administrator determines that the Consultants' negligence, errors, or omissions in the performance of work under this Agreement has resulted in expense to city greater than would have resulted if there were no such negligence, -errors, omissions, Consultant shall reimburse City for any additional expenses incurred by the city. Nothing herein is intended to limit City's rights under other provisions of this agreement. 10. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City X q- /7/ City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished and unfinished documents and other materials described hereinabove shall, at the option of the city, become city's sole and exclusive property. If the Agreement is terminated by city as provided in this paragraph, Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials to the effective date of such termination. Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein. 11. Assignability The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation), without prior written consent of city. City hereby consents to the assignment of the portions of the Defined services identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 17 to the subconsultants identified thereat as "Permitted Subconsultants". 12. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole and exclusive property of City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant in the United states or in any other country without the express written consent of city. City shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the Public. Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced under this Agreement. 13. Independentcontractor city is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an independent contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the services required under this Agreement. city maintains the right only to reject or accept Consultant's work products. Consultant and any of the Consultant's agents, employees or representatives are, for all purposes under this Agreement, an independent contractor and shall not be deemed to be an employee of City, and none of them shall be entitled to any benefits to which city employees are Á 1- /3 entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, worker's compensation benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits. Therefore, City will not withhold state or federal income tax, social security tax or any other payroll tax, and Consultant shall be solely responsible for the payment of same and shall hold the city harmless with regard thereto. 14. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the city and acted upon by the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement. 15. Attorney's Fees Should a dispute arising out of this Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all reasonable costs incurred in the defense of the claim, including costs and attorney's fees. 16. Statement of Costs In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document, or participates in the preparation of a report or document in performing the Defined Services, Consultant shall include, or cause the inclusion of, in said report or document, a statement of the numbers and cost in dollar amounts 'of all contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of the report or document. 17. Miscellaneous A. Consultant not authorized to Represent City Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, Consult- ant shall have no authority to act as city's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever. B. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman If the box on Exhibit A, paragraph 16 is marked, the Consultant and/or their principals is/are licensed with the State of California or some other state as a licensed real estate þ(' ~- ler broker or salesperson. otherwise, Consultant represents that neither Consultant, nor their principals are licensed real estate brokers or salespersons. C. Notices All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United states mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested, at the addresses identified herein as the places of business for each of the designated parties. D. Entire Agreement This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought. E. Capacity of Parties Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement, and that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. F. Governing Law/Venue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego county, State of california, arid if applicable, the city of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the city of Chula vista. Y-q-þ .-. Signature Page to Agreement between City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency and Public Finance Associates for Consulting Services to the Proposed Refinancing of the Redevelopment Agency debt; IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed this Agreement thereby indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete consent to its terms: Dated: , 19 - City of Chula vista Redevlopment Agency by: Shirley Horton, Chair Attest: Beverly Authelet, City Clerk John D. Goss, Exec. Director Approved as to form: City Attorney Bruce M. Boogaard, Dated: Public Finance Associates By: Principal Mark Northcross, Exhibit List to Agreement ( X) Exhibit A. ( ) Exhibit B: y 4-!~ Exhibit A to Agreement between city of Chula vista and Public Finance Associates 1. Effective Date of Agreement: March 12, 1996 2. city-Related Entity: Redevelopment Agency of the city of Chula Vista, a political subdivision of the state of California 3. Place of Business for City: city of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 4. Consultant: Public Finance Associates 5. Business Form of Consultant: ( ) Sole Proprietorship ( X ) Partnership ( ) Corporation 6. Place of Business, Telephone and Fax Number of Consultant: 244 Manor Drive Mill Valley, California 94941 Voice Phone (415) 380-9746 Fax Phone (415) 380-8547 7. General Duties: Consultant will review and analyze a refinancing plan for the Redevelopment Agency, and orchestrate a potential bond sale on a competitive bid basis in the Agency's best interest. A. Consultant will perform the following services with respect to the proposed refinancing of the Redevelopment Agency debt: 1) Prepare refunding plan showing benefits to the City from refunding the 1987 series B COP's. 2) Prepare a credit review package for the COP refunding, which will be submitted to the rating services and bond insurers as appropriate. 3) Coordinate the credit review process between rating 4-/7 services, bond insurers, and City staff. 4) Select and recommend to City staff reputable disclosure counsel to prepare the official statement and render required opinion regarding adequacy of disclosure. (Fee for disclosure counsel to be paid from fee paid to Public Finance Associates as described under Item # 10) 5) Coordinate the preparation of the official statement with disclosure counsel and city staff. 6) Present the refunding plan and legal documents to city counsel/Agency Board for approval. 7) Coordinate with bond counsel the sale of the COP's through a competitive bid process. 8) Bid the refunding escrow on behalf of the city. 9) Coordinate the closing process with all parties. B. Date for Commencement of Consultant Services: (X) Same as Effective Date of Agreement ( ) Other: C. Date for completion of all Consultant services: Closing date of Bond Sale 8. Insurance Requirements: ( ) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance (X) Employer's Liability Insurance coverage: $1,000,000. ( ) Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000. ( ) Errors and Omissions insurance: None Required (included in commercial General Liability coverage). ( ) Errors and Omissions Insurance: $250,000 (not included in commercial General Liability coverage). 9. Materials Required to be Supplied by City to Consultant: The city will provide the following financial information to consultant as well as other more specific data as required to market the debt: 1) Historical and projected tax increment cash flows for the )I( ,f-/! Agency 2) Redevelopment plan 3) Audited financial reports for the Agency and the City for the last three fiscal years 4) Ordinance amending plan revenue limits and bonded indebtedness limits 10. Compensation: A. (X) Single Fixed Fee Arrangement. For performance of all of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay a single fixed fee in the amounts and at the times or milestones or for the Deliverables set forth below: single Fixed Fee Amount: $28,000, payable at closing of bond sale 11. Contract Administrators: city: Robert w. Powell, Finance Director Consultant: Mark Northcross, Principal 12. Liquidated Damages Rate: ( ) Other: None 13. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of Interest Code: ( ) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer. ( X) FPPC Filer ( ) Category No. 1. Investments and sources of income. ( ) category No. 2. Interests in real property. (X ) Category No. 3. Investments, interest in real property and sources of income subject to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority of the department. ( ) Category No. 4. Investments in business entities and sources of income which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or Y- 1-/1 sale of real property. ( ) Category No. 5. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the City of Chula vista (Redevelopment Agency) to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. ( ) Category No. 6. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the designated employee's department to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. ( ) category No. 7. Business positions. ( X ) List "Consultant Associates" interests in real property within 2 radial miles of Project Property, if any: None 14. ( ) Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman 15. Permitted Subconsultants: None 16. Bill Processing: A. city's Account Number: Bond Proceeds 17. Security for Performance: N/A )L )./ -)..Ò - RESOLUTION NO. - RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA 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 (PFA) AS FINANCIAL ADVISOR TO ASSIST IN THIS EFFORT; AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT WHEREAS, in 1987 the Agency issued certificates of Participation in the amount of $6,600,000 for various purposes; and WHEREAS, it appears that the City/Agency could achieve significant savings on the annual debt service payments a the result of a refunding under current low interest rate market conditions; and WHEREAS, since Mr. Mark Northcross, formerly of Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga, Inc., has recently performed at a high level as financial advisor to both the Agency on the 1994 Tax Allocation Bond Refunding, and the City on the 1995 Assessment District Refunding, and by so doing is already very familiar with the City and Agency, it is being recommended that the formal selection process be waived, and that PFA, and specifically Mr. Northcross be appointed as financial advisor on this potential refunding. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula vista does hereby authorize 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 (PFA) as Financial Advisor to assist in this effort and authorizing the Chair to e~ecute the contract. Presented by Robert Powell, Treasurer C:\rslseriesB.pfa -1" ;2-( This page blank. q-:21- COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO~ AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL/ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING SOLID WASTE FLOW CONTROL AGREEMENT WITH JOHN SEXTON SAND AND GRAVEL CORPORATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DEVELOP- MENT OF A TRANSFER STATION AND MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY AT 1855 MAXWELL ROAD WHEREAS, John Sexton Sand and Grve1 Corporation (Sexton) has been working with the city on the planning, permitting, siting and development of a solid waste transfer station/material recovery facility (MRF) in Chula vista: and WHEREAS, this effort has been ongoing since they responded to an RFP in February, 1994; and WHEREAS, in the fall of 1995, Sexton requested a flow commitment from the city of Chula vista as a guarantee so as to be able to proceed with project financing, site acquisition and construction. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council/Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula vista does hereby approve Solid Waste Flow Control Agreement with John Sexton Sand and Gravel Corporation in conjunction with the development of a Transfer station and Materials Facility at 1855 Maxwell Road, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk as Document No. - BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor/Chairman of the city of Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula vista. Presented by Approved as to form by George Krempl, Deputy City Bruce M. Boogaard, City Manager Attorney C:\rs\sexton (e? 9 This page blank. ;LrJÔ NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE OTA Y V ALLEY ROAD PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA V[ST A, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GWEN that a public meeting will be held by the Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee and that an associated public hearing will be held by the Redevelopment Agency of the City ofChula Vista, Califomia, for the purpose of considering a Special Land Use Permit, SUPO-96-01, for the property localed at [855 Maxwell Road. The application, filed by Sexlon/Chula Vista Sanitary Service, requests permissinn to construct and operate a materials recovery facilityltransfer station (MRFrrS) at the above location. The facility will be composed of an 85,600 square foot, 50 foot high structure on 10.8 acres ofland. The structure will house offices, a tipping floor, hopper loadout, a materials recovery/sorting system convey belt, a storage area, a shop, a loading dock and product loadout. The grounds will also accommodate scales, one for self-haul and one for commercial haulers, a citizen drop-off area for use by privale haulers, and a yard waste processing area. Operations of the MRF include lhe transporting, weighing and tipping of refuse by private haulers and trash collection firms; and the sorting, separation, bailing and loading of said refuse. The hours of operation are proposed to be Monday through Friday, 5:00 a.m. to I I :00 p.m., and Saturdays and Sundays from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. A minimum of20% of the site will be landscaped. An Initial Study, IS-95-28, of possible significant environmental impacts has been conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator. A Negative Declaration finding no significant environmental impacts has been recommended to the Project Area Committee and the Redevelopment Agency and is on file, along with the Initial Study, in the office of the Planning Department The Applicant has also submitted a Design Review application, DRC-96-20, which is also on file in the office of the Planning Department. Any written comments or petitions to be submitted to the Project Area Committee must be received in the Planning Department no later than noon on the worldng day prior to the day of the Project Area Committee meeting and/or Redevelopment Agency hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project Planner, Martin Miller, Associate Planner, in the Planning Department, Public Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista California 91910, or by calling (619)476-5335. Please include the Case Number noted at the bottom nfthis notice in all correspondence. If you wish to challenge the Redevelopment Agency's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this nolice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Project Area Committee or Redevelopment Agency at or prior to the public meeting or hearing described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plans are on file and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department. SAID PUBLIC MEETING WILL BE HELD BY THE OT A Y VALLEY ROAD PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE ON Monday, February 5, 1996 at 9:00 a.m., Conference Rooms 2 & 3, Public Services Building Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ON Tuesday, Fehruary 20, 1996, at 6:00 p.m. following the City Council Meeting City Council Chamhers, Puhlic Services Building Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue At which time any person desiring to be heard may appear. Date: January 22, 1996 Case No: SUPO-96-{)J m'~~."'I""",,'<wû,_....