HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1994/02/15 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, February 15, 1994 Council Chambers
6:12 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. .ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Members Horton, Fox, Moore, Rindone, and Chairman Nader
ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Director; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency Attorney; and Beverly A.
Authelet, City Clerk
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 1, 1994
MSUC (Nader/Fox) to approve the minutes of February 1, 1994 as presented.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Item pulled: 4)
3. WRITTEN COM]~IUNICATIONS: None Submitted.
4. REPORT STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION HEGARDING THE
PREPARATION AND PROCESSING OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE LOWER
SWEETWATER VALLEY AREA AND REPORT ON NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING--On 12/14/93 Council
directed staff to conduct a neighborhood meeting for the purpose of discussing a number of proposals involving the
Lower Sweetwater Valley Area. Staff held the meeting and the City is now considering preparation and processing
of a General Plan Amendment for the Lower Sweetwater Valley Area to best accomplish the goals and objectives
of the City's General Plan. Staff recommends that the Agency direct staff' to prepare a draft General Plan
Amendment for the Lower Sweetwater Valley Area. (Community Development Director) Pulled from the
Costsent Calendar.
Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, gave a brief synopsis of staff activities. Eight hundred
residents had been noticed regarding the public meeting at Rosebank School and eighty people attended. Their
prime concern was that the lower Sweetwater area remain open space. An additional number of concems was listed
in the staff report. There were four proposed projects for the lower Sweetwater Valley area and those were shown
to the neighborhood groups, i.e. veterans home, Family Fun Center, demineralization plant proposed by the
Sweetwater Authority, and a 400 unit senior residential project. All the projects would require a General Plan
Amendment and staff recommended they proceed to analyze and develop the correct land use designation, hold
another public forum, consult with the appropriate committees/commissions, and return in three to five months to
Council with a reeornxnended land use General Plan designation for further direction at that time~ before
environmental analysis began. He had been contacted by Col. Vatgas of the Govemor's Veterans Affairs Office
who indicated that the veterans, to his knowledge, would prefer the site by Sharps Hospital as their preferred site
in Chula Vista. He also felt Chula Vista was going to be recommended by the Governor in July for funding as one
of the preferred sites in California.
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, gave a brief outline of the process and why the City was pursuing a General
Plan amendment for the area.
Member Rindone questioned if the earthquake fault by the property would have any impact on the proposed project.
Mr. Salomone responded that staff had done a preliminary analysis of that and felt at the current time that the
facility could be located on the site by the hospital. The hospital was actually on a site that had an earthquake fault
and they were able to design arc,~nd it.
Minutes
February 15, 1994
Page 2
Chairman Nader questioned what the cost would be tbr the processing of the general plan amendment.
Mr. Leiter responded that it would be a three month study and would require one half-time position within the
Planning Department. A work program had not been prepared.
Chairman Nader felt that information was a prerequisite to considering the item.
Director Goss felt it would be approximately $5,000 - $10,000 in staff time.
Chairman Nader questioned if the person would be hired or if existing staff would be utilized. If existing staff was
used, he questioned what projects would be delayed.
Mr. Leiter responded that existing staff would be used. Staff would be returning with an Advanced Planning Work
Program. A couple of the projects that had not been scheduled yet were the park implementation program, the child
care element; and the Greenfleet trip reduction program. Those projects would either be delayed or extended over
a longer period of time.
Chairman Nader stated the opinion in the veterans community appeared to be split and it was uncertain as to whether
the other site would be available. The City's Veterans Advisory Task Force unanimously recommended that
Council continue to look at lower Sweetwater for that use. The City had offered incentives to the Commission and
he was not under the impression that they would be enthusiastic in assuming the cost of a land use study. If the
City was to use the property for parks or open space he questioned if staff was saying that the costs would be
absorbed anywhere other than the General Fund. He stated that staff indicated that was correct. He questioned if
there was any legal requirement that the City had to undertake the proposed General Plan Amendment study prior
to amending the General Plan.
Agency Attorney Boogaard responded that the Agency had the legal authority to do so.
Chairman Nader stated it was a matter of whether or not the Agency felt a study was needed to address those issues.
® Paul Kelpin, 3755 Putter Place, Bonita CA, representing San Diego South County Senior Softball
Association and President of the Chula Vista Senior Recreational League, stated they were interested in holding
softball tournaments in the City but they needed the recreational facilities to bring in people from out of state. They
needed an area with multiple diamonds.
· Dr. Mohiner Boomar, 5 Las Flores Drive, Chula Vista, CA, gave a presentation representing those in
opposition. He stated they wanted the area to remain open space. They felt the noise reduction measures proposed
were inadequate. The area would be subjected to chronic health hazards which could result in high blood pressure,
ulcers, increased heart disease, neurosis and personality problems, and deafness. They also expressed concern
regarding the affects of carbon monoxide. Heavy traffic flow on Second Avenue also needed to be addressed. The
hours of the Family Fun Center were of concern as well as undesirable people and drug and alcohol problem. The
brightly lit area would impact the entire neighborhood. The demineralizatinn plant was also undesirable due to the
noise generated by the pumps, storage of toxic chemicals on site, and potential reduction in property values.
Environmentalist concerns regarding wildlife also needed to be addressed and they requested an environmentalista
opinion. A petition was being circulated requesting that the area remain natural open space. Notices of the meeting
were only sent to those attending the public meeting at Ros~bank School.
Member Horton questioned if the residents were notified of the Council meeting.
Mr. Salomone responded that staff's interpretation of Council direction was to hold a public meeting and report back
to Council on the results. Eight hundred residents were notified of the public meeting and those attending that
meeting were noticed regarding the Council meeting. It was also in the newspaper.
Minutes
February 15, 1994
Page 3
Chairman Nader stated he had a problem with that because there was a difference between coming back with a
report on a neighborhood meeting, which was what Council directed, and a recommendation that the Agency
proceed with a GPA study and environmental work that could lead to a change in land use. Had it only been a
report on the neighborhood meeting he would have understood why that notification process was used. The item
before the Agency was a recommendation from staff to proceed with specific action that could result in a change
of land use and the Agency may want to consider whether there should be more complete notification before they
proceeded.
Mr. Salomone stated part of the recommendation would be to go back into the neighborhood and hold another public
forum; none of the meetings were required under the ordinance.
· Lisa Moctezuma-Bender, 48 Las Flores Drive, Chula Vista, CA, spoko in opposition to the staff
recommendation and in support of opon space.
· Susan Luzzaro, 95 "D* Street, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation and in
support of open space. She questioned why developers purchased property in areas that were not zoned for their
projects. She felt the City should be more creative, i.e. assessments for the people in the neighborhood, etc.
· Frank Luzzaro, 95 "D" Street, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation and in
support of open space. He 1~11 the area was the gateway to the City and should not be developed. He expressed
concern regarding noise from the proposed Family Fun Center. He requested that staff return to the neighborhood
at a meeting at Rosebank School with the process necessary to keep that area open space. They were an organized
community and would listen to whatever was presented to keep it open space.
Member Horton questioned if the residents wanted the Agency to consider some type of assessment district where
each of the families had to pay into the district annually to keep it open space.
Mr. Luzzaro stated he wanted the City to bring to them anything that would make that process possible.
· Daminn Zamudio, 478 Parkside Court, Chula Vista, CA, Associated Student Body President-EestLake High
School, spoke in support of the Family Fun Center. He felt the Fun Center could be beneficial in providing a new
and positive activity for teens while taking them away from the negative aspects of the community. It would also
provide jobs for teens.
· Daniel Edward Stevens, 1552 Larkhaven Drive, Chula Vista, CA, Junior Class President-EastLake High
School, spoke in support of the Family Fun Center. He felt it would be a place for families to come together.
· Terry Costclio, Country Vistas Lane, Bonita, CA, Comnussioner of Finance-EastLake High School, Eagle
Scout, and President of EastLake High School Interact, spoke in support of the Family Fun Center. Their
organizations were looking at a reward system for maintaining a certain GPA and he felt activities at the Family
Fun Center could be an incentive.
· Sandee Reyna, 64 Minot, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in opposition of the staff recomnaendation and in support
of open space. She felt EastLake would be a pert~ct place for the Family Fun Center as there were areas currently
zoned for such a project.
· Greg Cox, 3130 Bonita Road, Suite 200, Chula Vista, CA, gave an organized presentation on behalf of
Family Fun Center. He emphasized that the facilities being proposed were a newer generation type. They had lash
vegetation and sensitive type lighting. He reviewed the geographic location of the various components of the
project. He did not feel the noise from the go-carts would be perceptible and they were willing to allow the
environmental and noise studies speak for themselves. The issue on lighting was a legitimate one, but the newer
goneration of lighting not intrusivo on the neighborhood. Traffic was also a legitimate concorn and was another
issue that would be dealt with in further environmental studies and EIR. There would be benefits to the community,
i.e. upwards to one hundred employees during the summer and fifty to seventy-five employees for the balance of
Minutes
February 15, 1994
Page 4
the year. As part of the facility there would be a learning center with a computer lab which would be a free facility
available to adult schools, elementary and secondary schools, business associations, etc. as a community service.
Council had been concerned regarding the lack of recreational facilities in the western portion of the City. The
facility offered a supervised environment for the youth of the community. They had recommended a shared use
of the retreatinn complex where the City would have full control of use for three days a week. The high school
and elementary school did not have any concerns regarding the type of land use being proposed, strictly from their
purview - whether it going to generate additional students for Rosebank Elementary School and the junior and senior
high schools that would be serviced from the project. Whether they were talking about the Family Fun Center,
Sweetwater project, family recreation center, or senior housing, there would be no children generated by the
projects. They were in complete support of the staff recommendation. Even if the Agency wanted to pursue open
space they would have to move forward to the next step. The worse thing the Agency could do would be to do
nothing as it was unfair to those proposing projects and to the residents. If the Agency wanted to pursue open space
they needed to look at it as to whether it should be open space acquired by the City, which had not been the policy
of the City over the last thirty years, or to find out if there was an interest on the part of the residents in the
community to purchase the land at fair market value. He hoped if that was something the Agency wanted to do,
they would still allow the planning process to move forward on the other altenlative land uses.
Chairman Nader questioned if the traffic access would be off Second Avenue.
Mr. Cox stated that was correct, there was a sixty foot easement that was proposed as access for the veterans home.
Chairman Nader questioned the number of parking spaces.
Mr. Cox responded there were 280 parking spaces and it was a shared area for the Family Fun Center and the
Chula Vista Recreation Center. Projections had been made regarding vehicle trips for the Fun Center and that
information would be supplied to the Agency. It was an off-peak type of traffic pattern.
Chairman Nader questioned if any other sites had been looked at.
Mr. Cox responded that Mr. Warnet had been looking in the Chula Vista area for the last 3 1/2 years and did look
at a number of sites including the Rancho del Rey Business Park. Other possible sites were where the tree farm
was located on "H" Street and 805, and the proposed Sweetwater site was the only site they had been able to
identify. They also looked at a site across from Eucalyptus Park but it did not work out for a number of reasons.
The Rancho del Rey site was within days of submitting a proposal for the Home Depot.
Chairman Nader stated EastLake was going to have a requirement to make up some public recreational acreage that
was lost because of a misunderstanding between EastLake and the City as to public versus private nature of parks
in EastLake I. He questioned if there had been discussions about using the project in one of the future phases of
EastLake as a means of EastLake meeting that requirement.
Mr. Cox responded that it had not specifically been discussed, but when looking at the Family Fun Centers in San
Diego County, every one was adjacent to a highway.
Chairman Nader questioned if Mr. Cox had stated that the noise from the go-cam would be dampened to a level
of insignificance to the nearby residents.
Mr. Cox stated he was convinced that was true, but it had to be established through qualified people. That would
be due to the distance to the closest residence and the small size of the engines. There had been a significant
number of changes in the go-carts and emissions and noise were within the State standards.
Member Moore felt it was proper for the Agency to review the site and complete the zoning for the area as it
pertained to the General Plan. Alternatives, including open space, along with the various developers desires and
neighborhood desires should be reviewed and returned to the Agency prior to the environmental impact report. The
drat~ EIR was not official and had to go to the public for review and input. It would then come back as an EIR
Minutes
February 15, 1994
Page 5
which would again go out for public review and input with public hearings by the Planning Commission and
Council.
Member Rindone felt it was important to listen to the community. The one theme consistent with the speakers that
neede~l to be addressad by the Agency was to look at the other alternatives prior to making any motion. Assessment
districts was one option and another option to be considered would be some participation by the City. He hoped
if the item was referred to staff the option of looking at the DIF fees that were collected for purchas~ of parks and
open spaco on the west side of town would be examined. The most obvious problem with any proposal, including
the ones he had mentioned, was the traffic concern which he felt was a critical issue. There was a great deal of
concern expressed by the residents in relationship to the demineralization plant. There was the process of Eminent
Domein available to Sweetwater Authority regardless of the wishes of the City. He questioned if the water was
currently demineralized.
· Jim Smythe, Chief Engineer, Sweetwater Authority, raspended that it was not.
Member Rindone questioned if it was a new process for water in the system.
Mr. Staythe responded that it was not. The quality of the water from the Sweetwater River had more minerals and
required a different process.
Member Rindone questioned why the process was being started now and why in that location.
Mr. Staythe stated Sweetwater Authority's goal was to become less dependent on imported water through the San
Diego County Water Authority. That water was becoming more scarce due to environmental concems in the north
and more water from the Colorado River being taken by Arizona. The lower Sweetwater River basin was another
source of water, but because it was poor quality it required a different treatment.
Member Rindone questioned if the water was more alkaline.
Mr. Staythe responded that the area that drained into the basin was very urbanized so there was a lot of grease, oils,
and other pollutants. The treatment was called reverse osmosis.
Member Rindone stated from what was being described it was not currently being done anywhere else in the system.
Mr. Smythe responded that was correct.
Member Rindone questioned how the Sweetwater Authority came to the conclusion that the Sweetwater site was
their top choice.
Mr. Staythe responded that the property was about 5 1/2 acres and they needed only three acres. There was one
other site at Sweetwater and Plaza Bonita Roads. It was in a flood plain, but would be listed as an alternative site.
Member Rindone questioned what the mineral content was as it entered the site.
Mr. Smythe responded the Authority was under a strict regulatory environment from the EPA and State Health
Department. One measure of water was total dissolved solids and the regulatory requirement was 500 milligrams
per liter. The water going down the river was anywhere from 9,000 to I0,000 milligrams per liter. The water in
Sweetwater Reservoir from rainfall was roughly 1,000 to 2,000 milligrams per liter.
Member Rindone questioned what chemicals and other substances would be added to the water during the process.
Mr. Staythe responded that the first chemical that would be added would be sulfuric acid which would allow the
reverse osmosis to act more efficiently. When the treatment was completed there was a compound that would have
to be disposed of. Once through the reverse osmosis process another chemical, which he could not remember at
Minutes
February 15, 1994
Page 6
the moment, was added to raise the ph and then sodium hypo-chloride was added as a disinfectant to kill the
bacteria. Two chemicals helped the efficiency and one was used as a disinfectant. They were meeting the
guidelines of the regulatory environment and there should not be a problem.
Member Rindone questioned if there were any gases that could be released from the sulfuric acid or other liquids
that could leak into the environment.
Mr. $mythe responded he was not aware of any.
Member Rindone questioned the by-products.
Mr. Staythe stated there would be a concentrate which contained all the minerals. That would be flushed and
disposed of. Their consultant was conducting a pilot program to determine all of the constituents in the by-product
and then they would have to go to the Regional Quality Control Board to sae what could be done with the
concentrate. It could be put in the Spring Valley outfall, put back into the river, and there were a number of areas
that had once been wetlands and they had talked to envirnnmentalists about restoring those areas.
Member Rindone questioned whether those options and impacts would be included in any studies.
Mr. Staythe responded that the EIR would address all that.
Member Rindone stated it was is understanding that the water from Sweetwater Authority was chlorinated.
Mr. Staythe responded that it was not fully chlorinated. They used chloramines which was chlorine and ammonia.
Again, it was a regulatory environment.
Member Rindone stated he wanted assurance that those issues would be addressed. Another issue that had not been
addressed, which had been raised at the Rosebank meeting, was the safety issue of the facility.
Member Hotton stated one of the concerns expressed was how much noise the facility would generate.
Mr. Staythe responded there would be noise from the pumps but they would be contained within the building. The
building would be constructed to attenuate any sound and would meet any noise thresholds imposed by the City.
Member Rindone stated it was important there was a thorough examination of the issues as it was something that
was beyond the authority of the City due to the possibility of Eminent Domain. He had also been told that there
would be containment on-site of any leakage so there would not be contamination of the ground water.
Mr. Staythe responded that any of the tanks containing chemicals would have containment facilities to ensure there
would not be a leak.
· Cary Wright, Director, Sweetwater Authority, felt Member Rindone's questions were well founded.
Reverse osmosis and demineralieation of water was not new and was being done all over the world. To leave any
kind of impression for the public that the Sweetwater Authority would in any way try to pass off any type of safety
hazard to the community was totally inappropriate. Of the twenty-four water agencies in San Diego County,
Sweetwater Authority was probably the most environmentally concerned as they protected the upper Sweetwater
River and fought the Pointe Gosnell development. Of the three chemicals mentioned, the facts should be fully
presented to the people. The EPA and State regulations protected the public on that issue. There were not that
many places to put such a facility and he appreciated the concerns presented by the public, but felt once they saw
the facility and the way it would be landscaped and low noise levels produced, it would be the least of the problems
created by the other proposals being considered. The bottom line was that they were irapotting 90% of the water
and it was predicted there would be less water next year. Sweetwater Authority had an opportunity to become more
independent and therefore give their customers a better break. The citizens should be assured that he would have
no part in any kind of a danger to them or their children. The Council and citizens should get behind the water
Minutes
February 15, 1994
Page 7
commuinty to see that they had a change to deliver more water because the future of water in San Diego County
and South County was in very desperate straights,
Member Rindone stated the conc.~rn of the residents was not only the water supply and costs, but the safety aspects
and the Council had a responsibility to ensure that those were being done. He felt the number one issue was the
traffic impacts and also the commitment the City had to the veterans home.
· Deseret Moctezuma, 48 Las Flores Drive, Chula Vista, CA, representing the Rosebank Safety Patrol, stated
there were people that were driving in the area that students did not know and were playing loud music and it was
gary. There had been an attempted kidnap near the school and she and other students were scared.
Chairman Neder requested that the faculty advisor contact the Police Department regarding the potential kidnapping.
There was also an ordinance that regulated boom boxes and the Police Department would work closely with those
on the Patrol so no student would be afraid to serve on the Patrol.
Member Fox was concerned the residents were not notified of a meeting where the Agency was requested to take
action. He questioned whether the proposed facility by the Sweetwater Authority would impact the other alternatives
proposed.
Mr. Salemone responded that it had not been assessed in detail, it looked like the Sweetwater proposal could go
on its discreet property without impact on the other facilities.
Member Fox appreciated the comments by the representatives of the Sweetwater Authority and knew for a fact that
the comments made were true. He agreed that the worse thing the Agency could do would be to do nothing or go
back and study it again. The issue needed to be resolved. He wanted to give the residents an opportunity to have
what they really wanted, i.e. open space. The City needed to be fair to everyone and allow them to make their case
and that was what an EIR would do. It would give the Agency information on traffic, noise, air pollution, and other
problems regarding the proposed projects. If it was going to create significant impacts that could not be mitigated
he would not support it. It was the first time he had heard from the neighborhood that they wanted open space and
were willing to pay for it also. The Agency also had the duty to look at the Family Fun Center proposal as it
established facilities in an area that was facility poor. He was not endorsing any one particular project, but was
giving all alternatives an equal opportunity.
Chairman Nader stated he had only heard of two proposed uses that he was ready to consider supporting. He was
not speaking about the Sweetwater demineralization plant as that was something under the jurisdiction of the
Sweetwater Authority and the City's jurisdiction would be limited. Of the other proposed projects or uses he would
support the veterans home and park or straight parks and open space which seemed to be the clear preference of
those living in the area. Any use other than low/moderate income housing would require that the City's housing
fund be reimbursed from other funds for that property. There could be ways of achieving that, i.e. an assessment
district or outright purchase by the City. Once the siting of the veterans facility was announced he would be
supportive of polling the residents in the area as to whether they were interested in setting up an assessment district
for permanent open space acquisition and preservation after the City had received a reliable figure as to what the
costs would be so the residents would know what the costs would be. He felt there was a need for a Fun Center
somewhere in the City, but he was concerned regarding the impacts on the existing neighborhood and that was why
staff was directed to hold a neighborhood meeting. He hoped that if the Fun Center did not locate on the
Sweetwater parcel that it would look at properties in East Lake or other parts of western Chula Vista, perhaps along
the I-5 corridor. He had a fundamental underlying problem with the staff recommendation to proee~ to a General
Plan Amendment. Phase It, the environmental process, was required if anything was to be done to the property.
The three items staff indicated would be delayed to accommodate the General Plan Amendment study were of higher
priority than the GPA amendment. He could not support direction to staff to delay those projects and allocate staff
time for a GPA study - Phase I which would basically be preparing a great deal of paper on subjects that had been
discussed numerous times. If there was a policy decision that the Agency wanted to do an assessment district for
termanent open space, or the Veterans Commission indicated it was willing to go ahead with the veterans project,
or the majority of the Agency wanted to go with the Fun Center, or the Sweetwater Authority came in with a
Minutes
February 15, 1994
Page 8
deminemlization plant, the last part of Phase I would have to be drafted at that point. He felt it was putting the cart
before the horse to draft that without specific policy direction. Everything above that on Exhibit A was essentially
a rehash of what had already bean presented, especially if it was done before the environmental analysis. He would
be interested in holding a hearing on, and consideration of an actual General Plan Amendment if one was put before
the Agency in response to policy direction by the Agency.
Member Moore stated staff could only do so much and felt there needed to be priorities. He felt staff was going
in the right direction. Northwest Chula Vista was short of recreational activities and the Fun Center proposal gave
the City control over the recreational facilities for threa days out of the weak for frea and after X number of years
it would be turned over to the City. The study should be done, the statistics should come back, the open space
district should come back, and the assessment district should come back.
MS (Fox/Moore) to adopt the staff recommendation - the draft GPA should include costs for an assessment
district and open space.
Chairman Nader stated he would vote no for reasons already stated. Everything above the last line on Phase I was
material that had been discussed on numerous occasions and he would not assign it a high priority.
Member Fox questioned if the staff recommendation was approved if the review by the boards/comrmssions would
be included in Phase I, prior to Council receiving the report.
Mr. Salomone responded that was correct.
Member Rindone stated he could support the motion as it was partially what was advocated by the property owners.
He wanted to ensure that any park land fees available for the western area of the City would be looked at as
another option. Agreed to by the Maker and Second of the Motion. It could be an additional option, but it was
not intended to deprive the other parks of those DIF fens.
Chairman Nader stated the City had made presentations to the Veterans Commission in the past on a potential
project and he interpreted the motion on the floor as not pulling back on the position. If the State Veterans
Commission wanted to work with the City on that proposal the City would remain willing to work with them.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-1 with Nader opposed.
Member Rindone stated an item of such magnitude should never be put on the Consent Agenda.
The Agency recessed at 8:13 p.m. and reconvened at 9:25 p.m.
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. A !PUBL1C HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM ENERGY AUTO RECYCLING FOR
THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS FOR THE AUTO STORAGE, WRECKING AND
DISMANTLING AT 793-A ENERGY WAY, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA; PARCEL BEING LOCATED
IN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD HEDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (SUPO-93-03)--The land uses on the
subject parcels were authorized by Conditional Use Permit #PCC-73-27 in 1973 as part of the Otay Industrial Park
and expired in 1986. Under the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan, formed in 1983, the land uses allowed for
this area is Limited Industrial/Research. In order to continue the existing land uses, these being the storage,
maintenance and repair of heavy equipment, the impounding, storage and dismantling, and wrecking of automobiles,
a Special Permit is required under the Redevelopment Plan. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. The
Minutes
February 15, 1994
Page 9
public hearing was opened and continued from the meeting of February 1, 1994 to this meeting (February
15, 1994). (Community Development Director)
RESOLUTION 1~72 MAKING CERTAIN F1NDINGS AND APPROVING SPECIAL PERMIT
TO ENERGY AUTO RECYCLING FOR CERTAIN AUTO WRECKING USES AT 783-A ENERGY WAY,
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA; PARCEL BEING LOCATED WITHIN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
B. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM TOWN AUTO RECYCLING FOR
THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS FOR AUTO STORAGE, WRECKING AND
DISMANTLING AT 793-B ENERGY WAY, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA; PARCEL BEING LOCATED
IN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (SUPO-93-04)
RESOLUTION 1373 MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND APPROVING SPECIAL PERMIT
TO TOWN AUTO RECYCLING FOR CERTAIN DESIGNATED AUTO WRECKING USES AT 793-B
ENERGY WAY, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA; PARCEL BEING LOCATED WITHIN THE OTAY
VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
C. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM ALL-Z AUTO RECYCLING FOR
THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS FOR AUTO STORAGE, WRECKING AND
DISMANTLING AT 793-C ENERGY WAY, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA; PARCEL BEING LOCATED
IN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (SUPO-93-05)
RESOLUTION 1374 MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND APPROVING SPECIAL PERMIT
TO ALL-Z AUTO WRECKING FOR CERTAIN DESIGNATED AUTO WRECKING USES AT 793-C
ENERGY WAY, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA; PARCEL BEING LOCATED WITHIN THE OTAY
VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
D. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM JAY JUSTUS FOR THE PURPOSE
OF ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS FOR AUTO STORAGE, WRECKING AND DISMANTLING AT 891
ENERGY WAY, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA; PARCEL BEING LOCATED IN THE OTAY VALLEY
ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (SUPO-93-06)
RESOLUTION 1375 MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND APPROVING SPECIAL PERMIT
TO JAY JUSTUS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS FOR CERTAIN DESIGNATED
AUTO WRECKING USES AT 891 ENERGY WAY, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA; PARCEL BEING
LOCATED WITHIN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
Chairnum Nader stated he had been informed by the Agency Attorney that the hearings could be heard
simultaneously.
Member Moore stated on page 5-24 and 5-25 some of the conditions were listed. Items under "bullet #3" had to
be dune within ninety days and items under "bullet #5" had to be done within thirty days. He felt it was an
extremely important item. The problems in the area had been brought down to a minimum and the City needed
to do what was necessary to get everything in order.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There being no public testimony,
the public hearings were declared closed.
RESOLUTIONS 1372, 1373, 1374, AND 1375 OFFERED BY MEMBER HORTON, reading of the text was
waived, passed and approved unanimously.
Minutes
February 15, 1994
Page 10
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
ACT1ON ITEMS
None submitted.
riPEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
Item pulled: 4. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order.
OTHER BUSINESS
6. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT - None
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT - None
8. MEMBERS' COMMENTS - None
ADJOURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT AT 9:30 P.M. to the Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency on Tuesday, March 1, 1994
at 4:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, Council Chambers, Public Services Building.
Respectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk
by: X]ic"ki C. S(;de~uist, Deputy C~_l,~rk