Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-03-08; City Council; 20478-1; AGUA HEDIONDA SEWER LIFT STATIONLAGOONFOUNDATION All Receive-Agenda Item #. For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Board of Directors Greg Rubin Chairman Al Cerda Vice-Chair David Lloyd Treasurer Ken Alfrey Secretory Brian Ougan Mike Howes Mike Metts Eric Munoz Sylvia Pauloo-Taylor Diane Richards Jim Strickland Staff: Lisa Rodman Executive Director Terry Brown Jill Candelaria Katrlna Keddy Quentin Johnston Rebecca Carper Dear Carlsbad City Council:3-8-11 On behalf of the board of directors of Agua Hedionda Lagoon foundation I write to express our support of the proposed Agua Hedionda Sewer Lift station. This construction project aimed at preventing sewage spills into Agua Hedionda Lagoon while overhauling 2.5 miles of Carlsbad sewer pipes will certainly be a welcome project. We were thrilled to read in the NC Times that the Carlsbad's Planning Commission gave its unanimous backing and we wait anxiously for the project to move through the city pipelines. Please feel free to contact us in assisting the city in any form of community outreach you might deem appropriate. Sincerely, Lisa Rodman Executive Director 7608041969 A California Ntm-Profit Corporation, 1580 Cannon Rosit, Carlsbad CA 92008 • 760-804-1969, wimu.aguaheiiionda.org LUCE FORWARD ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873 LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP RONALD W. ROUSE, PARTNER DIRECT DIAL NUMBER 619.699.2572 DIRECT FAX NUMBER 619.235.1338 EMAIL ADDRESS rrouse@luce.com March 7, 2011 600 West Broadway Suite 2600 San Diego, CA 92101 619.236.1414 www.luce.com MAR 7 2011 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLERK'S OFFICEHAND-DELIVERED * Mayor Hall and City Council Members City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: City Council/Redevelopment Commission Agenda March 8, 2011 Item #14 (Agenda Bill #20,478) NRG Energy, Inc. and Cabrillo Power I LLC Objections to Approval of Agua Hedionda Sewer Lift Station and Sewer/Water Pipelines/Facilities Dear Mayor Hall and Council Members/Commissioners: We are special counsel to NRG Energy, Inc. and Cabrillo Power I LLC (collectively "NRG") and submit the following objections on their behalf to the City's proposed approval of the multiple Agua Hedionda Sewer Lift Station and associated Sewer/Water pipelines and facilities identified in the above referenced Agenda Bill #20,478 (collectively the "Project"). Cabrillo Power I LLC is the owner/operator of the existing Encina Power Station ("EPS") and NRG Energy, Inc., its parent company, is processing the Carlsbad Energy Center Project ("CECP") Application for Certification before the California Energy Commission ("Energy Commission") on a portion of the EPS site between the railroad tracks and Interstate 5. The original and ten copies of this letter are being filed directly with the City Clerk; we ask that the original be incorporated into the administrative record and the copies be timely distributed to all Council Members/Commissioners, City Attorney and City Manager. A courtesy copy has been emailed directly to the City Attorney. A.Overview. The CECP is a modern, environmentally beneficial and efficient natural gas fired combined cycle electrical generating facility that will result in the permanent shut down/replacement of three of the five existing, older EPS generating units realizing reduction of ocean water for "once through" cooling purposes and significant reductions in air pollutants/greenhouse gas emissions compared to existing EPS electrical generation. The CECP is fully consistent with the long SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO Los ANGELES CARMEL VALLEY/DEL MAR ORANGE COUNTY RANCHO SANTA FE LUCE FORWARD ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873 LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP Mayor Hall and City Council Members March 7, 2011 Page 2 standing goal of the City, and NRG, for eventual retirement of the older EPS facilities west of the railroad tracks and replacement with a physically smaller, more efficient and cleaner generating facility between the railroad tracks and Interstate 5. The CECP is fully consistent with and implements the State Water Resources Control Board's 316(b) Policy to phase out use of once through ocean water cooling for electrical generation in favor of a closed loop cooling alternative. The City's Project facilities are proposed to be located on the EPS property and encroach into the CECP area, which property is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Energy Commission as part of the CECP process. Notwithstanding the obvious CECP benefits, the City has been a zealous opponent/participant throughout the CECP process before the Energy Commission and related governmental agencies, reportedly having spent in excess of $1.5 Million1 in public funds to date to oppose the CECP, yet the City completely fails to evaluate its proposed Project's significant, adverse impacts and inconsistencies with the CECP and existing EPS operations. Further, the City's process to date and purported reliance on a mitigated negative declaration ("MND") is not consistent with the legal requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). It appears the City is proposing to proceed with its Project without regard to the CECP and other legitimate property owner rights as a continuation of the City's all out effort to block or otherwise interfere with the CECP. We hereby incorporate by reference the record of the CECP proceedings before the Energy Commission available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/carlsbad/index.html (in particular, the documents at http://www.energv.ca.gov/sitingcases/carlsbad/documents/index.htmD as evidence of the City's familiarity with and active opposition to the CECP project. B. City Failure to Provide Legally Adequate Notice to Landowner. Under the City's own ordinances and State Planning and Zoning Law, as the landowner, NRG was to receive actual written notice of the Planning Commission hearings and proceedings at least ten (10) days prior to the February 2, 2011 Planning Commission hearings. (See Gov't Code Sec 65091 and Carlsbad Municipal Code Sec. 21.54). Further under CEQA, NRG should have received actual written notice of the City's intention to rely on a mitigated negative declaration and was to specifically include notification of the applicable comment period and details regarding the public hearings to consider the Project. (See CEQA guidelines Sec. 15072). 1 See attached Agenda Bill #20,216 dated April 27, 2010 stating: "Since 2008, the City of Carlsbad has approved and funded through the City's General Fund $1.5 million to pay for costs related to all legal and other related actions to respond to, and/or establish opposition to, the application submitted to the California Energy Commission by NRG for a new power plant..." LUCE FORWARD ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873 LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP Mayor Hall and City Council Members March 7, 2011 Page 3 NRG believes the required notices were never provided in accordance with applicable law because under well established California case law, due process requires that notice must be "...reasonably calculated to afford affected persons the realistic opportunity to protect its interests." (See Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.Sd 605). Clearly, the City has known of the impacts of its Projects on NRG for years as evidenced by the multi-year Energy Commission CECP process started in September, 2007, the week long Energy Commission Evidentiary Hearings February 1-4, 2010 in Carlsbad, and periodic meetings/discussions (most recently in January, 2010) regarding the design/location of the sewer lift station and single sewer pipeline replacement and potential incompatibility of these facilities with the CECP. Yet, the City failed to meaningfully notify NRG of the proposed MND or the subsequent Planning Commission hearings as required by law. Given these circumstances, it is clear the City has failed to provide the legally required actual written notices to NRG of the entire Project, all the while its staff was engaged in extensive engineering, design and environmental evaluation of a range of facilities it knew would have further significant, adverse impacts on NRG ownership and operation of the EPS and CECP. C. City's Project Design and Engineering Incompatibilities. The City's Project includes the design of a new lagoon utilities bridge to accommodate the future extension of the Coastal Rail Trail along the east side of the railroad tracks through the EPS (see Planning Commission Staff Report at p.2), a location that is well known to the City as incompatible with the CECP and unacceptable to the Energy Commission Staff and NRG. NRG is prepared to accommodate the Coastal Rail Trail in a location that is "mutually acceptable" to both the City and NRG, but the proposed Coastal Rail Trail along the sewer support bridge continuing easterly of the railroad tracks is unacceptable for reasons that have been fully vetted through the Energy Commission proceedings. Further, the scope of the Project as presented to the Planning Commission far exceeds anything previously discussed with NRG. The Project is not simply a sewer lift station replacement and sewer force main replacement, but includes several additional pipelines and facilities, including: (1) a new "utilities bridge" over the lagoon (Note: Cabrillo Power I LLC owns fee title to the lagoon and its dredging/maintenance is a vital part of the EPS operations); (2) leaving the old 42 inch sewer line in place south of the lift station as a "parallel" line to the new force main; (3) new 54 inch sewer line north and south of the lift station; (4) a new pressurized 12 inch recycled water line from Encina Wastewater Treatment Facility ("EWTF") through the EPS even while the City claims recycled water is not available for CECP; (5) a new 6 inch potable water line through EPS; (6) a possible relocation of SDG&E natural gas line; and (7) substantially widening the existing limited 17.5 foot wide easement to 30 feet wide to accommodate the additional facilities. LUCE FORWARD ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873 LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP Mayor Hall and City Council Members March 7, 2011 Page 4 The following list is intended to illustrate some of the unresolved issues regarding the ultimate design, engineering, construction timing, operational constraints and scope of the Project. Without definitive answers to these questions, the Project's actual environmental and EPS/CECP project impacts cannot be realistically evaluated. The Project, as proposed, lacks adequate details and specifics to support CEQA and Energy Commission CECP compatibility analysis. 1. Contrary to the details previously discussed with NRG, the Project is much more extensive, wider and involves multiple pipelines in the CECP area, representing much greater impacts to the CECP. 2. Proposed alignment of Coastal Rail Trail easterly of railroad tracks across the CECP area is not acceptable to NRG nor to Energy Commission Staff; the projected alignment is inconsistent with prior discussions/schematics prepared by City to avoid CECP/EPS operational interference. 3. City Project does not accommodate joint use of surface area for CECP heavy haul, surface access and ongoing power plant operations during CECP construction and subsequent operations of EPS/CECP. 4. City Project footprint conflicts with "construction lay down areas" long planned for CECP, new natural gas transmission line service extension to CECP and the existing and proposed storm water management facilities. 5. City has failed to indicate where its Project electrical power supply will be located and possible interference of Project electrical service with EPS/CECP construction/operation. 6. Project proposes significant new, additional pipelines in an existing "utility congested area", including the existing sewer line, SDG&E gas transmission line, overhead electrical lines, Poseidon desalination product water lines, railroad right of way and SDG&E substation facilities. 7. Project design fails to identify construction lay down areas for lift station/pipelines and access routes, both temporary (during construction) and permanent. 8. Project construction scheduling is unclear and potentially will interfere with other construction projects, including CECP, Poseidon desalination and adjacent SDG&E electrical distribution facilities and easements. 9. No provision is made for the vacation of the current lift station/single sewer pipeline easement presently vested in Vista Sanitation District and City of Carlsbad. 10. City Project removes existing mature vegetation/trees visual impact mitigation for CECP/EPS. LUCE FORWARD ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873 LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP Mayor Hall and City Council Members March 7, 2011 PageS D. The Proposed MND is Inadequate, Incomplete and Insufficient to Comply with the Requirements of CEQA. 1. EIR Required. The City's reliance on a mitigated negative declaration for CEQA compliance is unsupportable. CEQA requires preparation of an environmental impact report ("EIR") whenever there is a "fair argument" that a project may have a significant unmitigated effect on the environment. (CEQA Guideline, § 15064(f)(l).) As set forth below, there is a "fair argument" that the Project will have significant environmental impacts. Even if that were not the case, the MND is inadequate in that it fails to fully analyze all of the Project's potentially significant environmental impacts and also relies on mitigation measures that will not avoid the identified significant environmental impacts. Therefore, there is a reasonable probability that implementation of this Project will have significant unmitigable adverse impacts on the environment. An EIR must be prepared to more fully analyze and disclose the Project's environmental impacts. 2. Project Description/Project Splitting. The Coastal Rail Trail alignment needs to be analyzed as part of the project description in an EIR. CEQA defines a "project" to include the "whole of an action" that may result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect impact on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(a); Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal^* 116, 139 [CEQA review required before agency, as a practical matter, may commit itself to any feature of a project].) The City is careful not to call the Coastal Rail Trail alignment part of the "Project" saying that the Project will only accommodate "a future pedestrian trail." However, the City has made clear though its participation in Energy Commission and related proceedings that it intends to locate the Coastal Rail Trail east of the railroad tracks, even though the Energy Commission Staff determined that such location is inappropriate and potentially hazardous to the public safety. Nevertheless, the City notes that constructing the Coastal Rail Trail as part of this Project will implement the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan ("SCCRP") goal of "developing new beach and coastal recreational opportunities." (Staff Report, pp. 2, 8-9.) Under the circumstances, it is reasonably foreseeable that with approval of this Project, the City will seek to make this the east side of the tracks the actual location of the rail trail. Therefore, the failure to analyze the Coastal Rail Trail as an element of the Project constitutes "project splitting" in violation of CEQA. An EIR needs to be prepared that analyzes, among other things, the environmental impacts of having the public pass upon the trail route (e.g., trampling on nearby sensitive vegetation, littering into the lagoon, safety risks associated with people passing nearby the power plant, etc...). The MND also notes that "overhead electrical distribution facilities will be relocated as needed" as part of the Project. (MND, p. 17.) Yet, there is no analysis of which overhead facilities might be relocated, where or how these facilities might be relocated or the environmental impacts associated with that possible relocation. Lastly, the MND states that the sewer support bridge LUCE FORWARD ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873 LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP Mayor Hall and City Council Members March 7, 2011 Page 6 will not require any work to occur within the 100-year flood elevation. The bridge construction methodology, however, is not described and there is no other evidence supporting the City's claim that a bridge can be constructed over the lagoon without impacting sensitive lagoon resources. Similarly, the MND does not describe how the existing bridge can be removed without impacting the lagoon environment itself. All of these issues need to be further described and analyzed in an EIR. 3. Environmental Setting—Surrounding Land Uses. The MND does not adequately describe the surrounding land uses, in particular the Project's proximity to the EPS and the potential conflicts between the construction and operation of the Project, operation of the EPS and proposed construction and operation of the CECP. For example, the MND acknowledges that substantial grading/construction activities will occur on property owned by Cabrillo Power I LLC in connection with the sewer lift station, but there is no discussion of how to coordinate that construction with CECP construction, the risks of having Costal Rail Trail users in close proximity to EPS/CECP facilities, how the Project may impact NRG's use of the Project site as a heavy haul road, the risk of foundation failures created by placing new pipelines adjacent to existing electrical buildings and related construction injury risks. The MND does not fully disclose that substantially expanded easements will be required over EPS/CECP Property. (See also, Section C. above for more details regarding the design/construction incompatibilities.) 4. Aesthetics. MND fails to substantiate how removal of 12 mature eucalyptus trees for the new lift station will have a less than significant impact on views and no mitigation measures are identified to replace the mature trees. With no analysis of this issue, there certainly is a fair argument that removing these trees will have a substantial impact on aesthetics. 5. Air Quality. There are substantial problems with the Project's air quality analysis, including: • Export. The MND discloses that 77,000 cubic yards of soil/gravel will be graded or trenched and 31,000 cubic yards will be exported to an "acceptable offsite location", assumed to be 30 miles away. The MND fails, however, to substantiate these assumptions which are key to the MND's conclusions. A revised CEQA document must be prepared identifying where the export likely is to be taken and the associated traffic/pollution impacts of the export hauling. The MND also fails to analyze the export soil's condition and discuss measures that will be implemented to ensure the export will be free of any hazardous materials. In the absence of these details, a fair argument exists that the Project will have significant air quality and perhaps hazardous materials impacts. • Ozone. The San Diego Air Basin is in a Federal and State non-attainment area for the 8-hour ozone (O3) standard, yet there is no analysis of the City Project's LUCE FORWARD ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873 LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP Mayor Hall and City Council Members March 7, 2011 Page? ozone contributions and impacts. (MND, pp. 35, 37.) One of the key precursors to the formation of ozone is NOx. As shown on Table 2 of the MND, the City Project will exceed the San Diego County APCD's threshold emission limit of significance for CEQA analysis of 250 pounds/day of NOx emissions (Project related construction emission of NOx are shown as 254.46 pounds/day and Table 2 of the MND notes this is a significant impact). As the San Diego Air Basin is in Federal and State non-attainment zones for the 8-hour ozone standard, and as NOx is one of the precursors for ozone, the Project will have a significant impact related to ozone generation. Additionally, the Project's emission of NOx and ROG all contribute to ozone formation in an ozone non-attainment area (the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board define NOx and ROG as ozone precursors). An EIR disclosing and analyzing these ozone related impacts needs to be prepared before the Project can be approved. The MND's analysis of cumulative ozone impacts is also flawed. The MND concludes the Project will not have a significant cumulative impact because the Project has only a "marginal temporary increase in NOx... air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented." CEQA does not permit unsubstantiated reliance on such a "de minimus" finding. Instead, a new CEQA document must be prepared that includes an actual and specific analysis of cumulative air quality impacts. Further, the MND fails to provide substantive facts to substantiate its "de minimus" conclusion. Mitigation Measure AQ-1. The MND states incorrectly that the Project's significant emission of NOx can be mitigated with the inclusion of Mitigation Measure AQ-1. This mitigation measure requires observance of manufacturer's specifications for the proper maintenance of construction equipment and reduction in idling time. The MND fails to recognize that compliance with these practices is already assumed in the APCD's determination of emissions for construction activities. However, observance of construction equipment specifications is standard practice and are not capable of reducing the Project's NOx emissions below the APCD's significance threshold resulting in cummulative contribution to the continuing unmitigated exceedance of Federal and State 8-hour ozone standards. Accordingly, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 cannot be relied upon to reduce the emissions of NOx to less than significance. Sensitive Receptors. The MND analysis fails to acknowledge that the adjacent YMCA aquatic recreation area and Coastal Rail Trail may place sensitive receptors in close proximity to the Project (MND, pp. 37-38.) In the absence of LUCE FORWARD ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873 LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP Mayor Hall and City Council Members March?, 2011 PageS this analysis, a fair argument exists that approval of the Project would have an adverse impact on the environment. • Odors. Air scrubbers and carbon filters are relied upon to control odors. Maintenance of these features should be required as a mitigation measure and included in the MMRP. (MND, p. 38.) Further, there is no evidence demonstrating that air scrubbers and carbon filters will effectively control noxious odors created by the Project. 6. Cultural Resources. Mitigation CUL-1 states "if significant resources are encountered, appropriate mitigation measures must be developed and implemented." This unlawfully defers development of adequate mitigation measures, which is particularly troubling here because at least two archeological sites are known to exist near the Project site. (MND, p. 51.) In the absence of adequate mitigation measures, approval of the Project does not avoid significant environmental impacts and therefore an MND is inappropriate. 7. Geology. • The MND fails to analyze the potential adverse impacts to the adjacent planned uses, such as the CECP. In particular, there should be an analysis of the depth and strength of the pipeline construction and measures ensuring that construction and operation of pipelines will interfere with planned surface heavy haul and EPS/CECP operations. • The MND fails to analyze the potential adverse impacts to the existing facilities. For example, the Project proposes to construct new pipelines adjacent to existing electrical buildings, which presents a potential risk of foundation failures. The safety risk of installing pipelines adjacent to and crossing under the existing high voltage wires should also be analyzed. 8. Greenhouse Passes. The threshold of significance relied on in the MND is vague as it does not indicate what level of emissions might result in a direct or indirect significant impact. The analysis also fails to "make a good faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse emissions resulting from [the] project" as required by CEQA Guidelines section 150644(a). The City did not even attempt to engage in the qualitative or quantitative analysis required by the CEQA Guidelines. Instead, the MND concludes simply that emissions will be relatively minor and incrementally insignificant. CEQA does not permit the City to conclude that the Project will not have a significant environmental impact simply because its contribution will be "small" or "de minimus". (Communities for a Better Env't v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 * 98, 126.) The MND provides no evidence, let alone substantial evidence, to LUCE FORWARD ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873 LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP Mayor Hall and City Council Members March?, 2011 Page 9 demonstrate that the Project will not have a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. As such, it fails to meet the requirements of CEQA. The critically important issue of greenhouse gas emissions needs to be fully analyzed in an EIR. 9. Hazards. • The MND fails to analyze the impacts resulting from a potential failure/collapse of the new single span bridge carrying sewer and other utility lines over the lagoon or the impacts of potential lift station/pipeline leaks. • The MND fails to analyze the potential adverse impacts to the existing facilities, such as the safety risk of installing pipelines adjacent to and crossing the existing high voltage wires or having pedestrians along the Coastal Rail Trail in close proximity to the EPS/CECP. 10. Hydrology/Water Quality. The MND fails to identify measures that will be implemented to reduce or eliminate the possibility of a sewer spill into the adjacent wetlands or lagoon. Instead, the MND defers development of such measures until the construction phase. (MND, p. 66.) It is reasonably foreseeable that replacement of the existing sewer line could result in a spill which would damage sensitive environmental resources. As such, development of mitigation measures to prevent such a spill, and to prevent damage in the event of a spill, needs to be developed and publicly vetted as part of an EIR for the Project. 11. Recreation. There is no analysis of the physical impacts associated with having people use the coastal rail trail (see above) and bringing public recreation users within the perimeter of the power plant and lagoon. As discussed above, such an analysis is required under CEQA. 12. Cumulative Impacts. The cumulative impact analysis is conclusory and wholly inadequate. The MND identifies a list of cumulative projects and then concludes its analysis by stating: "It would be expected however, that environmental impacts associated with these development projects, plus the massive sewer CIP, could be mitigated to level that would be less than significant by means of mitigation measures similar in content to those identified in this Environmental Initial Study." There is no specific analysis of any cumulative impacts nor evidence in the record that supports this conclusion in the MND. In particular, the MND fails with respect to the following: • Aesthetics: There is no analysis of 1-5 widening on aesthetics. The MND acknowledges that the bridge and lift station will be observable from 1-5, but from LUCE FORWARD ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873 LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS UP Mayor Hall and City Council Members March 7, 2011 Page 10 a distance of 1,600 feet away will not significantly contribute to a coastal view obstruction. The MND does not contain any substantive analysis of cumulative impacts on aesthetics from removal of the 12 trees and fails to take into account the proposed CECP project altogether. • Air Quality. As discussed above, there is no specific cumulative air quality analysis considering cumulative ozone and other pollutant impacts, 1-5 widening, and the CECP project. • Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The MND fails to even attempt a cumulative greenhouse gas emissions analysis because emissions are not analyzed in the relevant general plans. CEQA requires the City to perform a good faith analysis of the cumulative impacts. • Recreation. The MND fails to analyze the cumulative impact associated with other segments of the rail trail. • CECP Power Plant Project. The MND acknowledges that "other [cumulative] impacts could result from the NRG Power Plant expansion project inasmuch as that project has not yet been specifically defined." Indeed, the CECP project has been specifically defined and a comprehensive environmental analysis that complies with CEQA has been performed by the California Energy Commission as required by the Warren-Alquist Act. This environmental analysis is set forth in the Energy Commission Preliminary and Final Staff Assessment which the City has actively and aggressively challenged. (See MND, p. 98). Therefore, it is disingenuous and factually inaccurate for the City to say that the NRG Power Plant project has "not been specifically defined." The September, 2007 filing of the CECP Application for Certification makes the CECP a "reasonably foreseeable" project and requires the City to treat the CECP as a reasonably foreseeable project for purposes of analyzing cumulative impacts as part of the CEQA analysis. (See also Section B. above for the City's full awareness of all CECP details as evidenced by the City's involvement in the Energy Commission multi-year certification process.) As detailed above, the MND fails to comply with CEQA as it does not provide an adequate analysis of the Project's significant environmental impact and does not adequately mitigate the Project's significant environmental impacts. Moreover, an EIR, rather than a MND, must be prepared and certified before the Project can be approved by the City because there is a fair argument that the Project will have significant adverse environmental impacts. LUCE FORWARD ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873 LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS.LLP Mayor Hall and City Council Members March 7, 2011 Page 11 E. Conclusion. For all the reasons set forth above, the City's adoption of the Project is not legally supportable. The MND is inadequate under CEQA, and in fact, a full EIR is required to fairly analyze the significant environmental impacts of the Project, particularly when a realistic evaluation of adjacent "reasonably foreseeable" projects, including CECP, is included. The proposed City Project is far more extensive -than the Sewer Lift Station/Force Main replacement previously discussed. The easement widening and additional pipeline/facilities directly and adversely affect the EPS/CECP. Notwithstanding the multi-year Energy Commission proceedings, the City failed to give meaningful, timely notice of the full scope of its Project to the landowner most directly impacted. Respectfully, NRG objects to certification of the MND and approval of the Project as presented until the significant outstanding issues are fully addressed and legally resolved. Ronald W. Rouse of LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP RWR/lb 101454346.4 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL JOINT AGENDA BILL AB# MTG. DEPT. _2fL21fL 4/27/10 HNS Appropriation of Funding for 2009-10 SERAF Payment by the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency, and Acceptance of Loan from City to Agency for South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan Implementation DEPT. DIRECTO CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Housing and Redevelopment Commission adopt Resolution No. 485 authorizing the Finance Director to appropriate $1,350,538 and make a payment from the Village Project Area of the Redevelopment Agency's Debt Service Fund to the County of San Diego (County) for the 2009-10 Supplemental Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (SERAF) as mandated by the State of California, and subject to final disposition of the lawsuit challenging said mandated SERAF payment. 2. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 486 accepting a loan in the amount of one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1.5 million) for funds advanced by the City of Carlsbad to the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency (South Coastal Carlsbad area) to initially and subsequently pay for costs related to all legal and other related actions to respond to, and establish opposition to, the application submitted to the California Energy Commission by Cabrillo Power for a new power plant on property located within the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan Area. 3. City Council Resolution No.2010-097 _authorizing the Finance Director to make an advance from the General Fund to the South Coastal Carlsbad Project Area of the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency (SCCRA) in the amount of one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1.5 million) to initially and subsequently pay for costs related to all legal and other related actions to respond to, and establish opposition to, the application submitted to the California Energy Commission by Cabrillo Power for a new power plant on property located within the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan Area. ITEM EXPLANATION: ERAF Payment The State of California has legislatively established the Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation (SERAF) Fund and is requiring the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency, together DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Debbie Fountain 760-434-2935 debbie.fountain@carlsbadca.gov FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY. COMMISSION ACTION: APPROVED DENIED CONTINUED WITHDRAWN AMENDED D D D CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC D CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN D RETURNED TO STAFF D OTHER - SEE MINUTES D Page 2 with other redevelopment agencies, to deposit payments into this fund for Fiscal Years 2009- 10 and 2010-11. This fund is a tool used by the State to reallocate property taxes away from redevelopment agencies and into the schools so that the State is not required to fund as much to the schools. For Carlsbad, the payment amount for 2009-10 is $1,350,538 and for 2010-11 is $277,781. The payment for this year must be made no later than May 10, 2010. In April 2009, a Sacramento County Superior Court ruled that State raids of redevelopment funds are unconstitutional, invalidating a 2008 state budget bill to take $350 million in statewide redevelopment funds. Despite this court ruling, the State again approved a budget bill (ABX4-26) as part of the 2009 State budget which authorizes a $2.05 billion raid of redevelopment funds. In October, 2009, the California Redevelopment Association (CRA) filed another lawsuit together with two member agencies challenging this action by the State. A court decision is pending. CRA attorneys have advised redevelopment agencies to withhold payments until such time as a court decision is made on the lawsuit. If CRA does not prevail, the SERAF payment will need to be made to the County by May 10, 2010. Staff is recommending that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission approve the appropriation of funding for said SERAF payment for 2009-10 and authorize the Finance Director to make said payment if the legal challenge is not successful. The payment will not be forwarded to the County prior to May 10, 2010. If the court finds that the payment is unconstitutional and should not be made to the State, the payment will not be forwarded to the County. SCCRA Funding/Loan In September of 1997, the City of Carlsbad began to identify options for action to eliminate or reduce the environmental impacts/blight of the existing Encina Power Plant and to achieve more compatible land uses along its coastline. At that time, the existing power plant, which began operation in 1954, was deemed to be obsolete due to its outdated, inefficient technology and more stringent Air Pollution Control District air emission standards. In addition, the utility/industrial land use represented by the power plant and related facilities was (and is) no longer considered the best use for this beautiful coastal property. As a result of research on the issues surrounding the existing power plant and related land uses and facilities, the City decided to form a redevelopment area known as the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area (SCCRA), the boundaries for which include the power plant property. In July of 2000, the Redevelopment Plan (Plan) for the SCCRA was adopted. One of the goals of the Plan was to convert the utility/industrial land west of the railroad tracks (site of existing power plant) to another more appropriate land use that would 1) provide greater benefit to the community, 2) would eliminate the possibility of an intensification of utility/industrial applications at the site, and 3) enhance coastal access. A land use analysis indicates that a power plant on coastal property is not necessary and/or not appropriate for redevelopment purposes, and that an alternate land use strategy is needed for the area to eliminate the blighting conditions and provide additional community benefit. In September 2007, NRG submitted an application to the California Energy Commission to build a new power plant on the existing power plant property with no guarantees that the existing power plant would be decommissioned and demolished anytime soon. The proposed Page 3 project is not supported by the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency because it will not eliminate the existing blighting conditions (for existing plant) and new blighting conditions will be created with the new project. Through the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission serves as an administrative arm of the State to promote important State policies relating to the elimination of blight, providing jobs, and developing affordable housing. The Commission has previously found that the existing power plant creates blighting conditions in the community through its noxious emissions, 400-foot stack looming over residential areas, parks, and beaches, and use of hazardous materials on the property. It is the statutory duty of the Commission to ensure that those blighting conditions are eliminated through its enforcement of the redevelopment plan, and that new blighting conditions are not created/established as a result of new projects such as the proposed power plant. Since 2008, the City of Carlsbad has approved and funded through the City's General Fund $1.5 million to pay for costs related to all legal and other related actions to respond to, and/or establish opposition to, the application submitted to the California Energy Commission by NRG for a new power plant on property located within the SCCRA. To prevent additional blighting conditions and to encourage the elimination of existing blight within the SCCRA, these costs are necessary to implement the related redevelopment plan and are consistent with the five year implementation plan adopted for the SCCRA in 2005. Since the SCCRA does not yet have adequate tax increment to pay for said costs, the Commission is requesting that the initial $1.5 million funded by the General Fund (which includes costs incurred to date) be considered a loan from the City to cover said costs until such time as the Agency may receive adequate tax increment funds to repay said loan. This loan shall constitute ah indebtedness of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission and shall be repaid according to the Cooperation, Reimbursement and Repayment Agreement between the Council and Commission last amended in July 2009. Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the loan to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission (SCCRA project area) in the total amount of $1.5 million and that the Commission accept said loan, for the funds advanced to pay the costs related to the legal and other related actions to respond to, and/or establish a defense against, the proposed new power plant within the SCCRA. This loan shall become a debt of the SCCRA. FISCAL IMPACT: The SERAF payment from the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency is $ 1,350,538 for Fiscal Year 2009-10. The payment will be paid from the Redevelopment Agency's Debt Service Fund to the County of San Diego as mandated by the State of California, and subject to final disposition of the lawsuit challenging said payment. The Agency has adequate non-housing funds available to make said SERAF payment. There will be no impact on the City's General Fund. To date, a total of $1.5 million in funds have been incurred by the City Council on behalf of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission to pay for costs related to implementation of the SCCRA Plan for all legal and other related actions to respond to, and/or establish opposition to, the application submitted by NRG to the California Energy Commission for a Page 4 new power plant within the SCCRA. Since there are inadequate tax increment funds generated within the SCCRA to cover said costs at this time, the Commission has requested that the funds be provided in the form of a loan from the City Council to be repaid at a later date by the Commission according to the Cooperation, Reimbursement and Repayment Agreement approved for redevelopment implementation efforts in both the Village and SCCRA. The loan shall become an indebtedness of the SCCRA. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The actions set forth above do not qualify as a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 in that they do not have the potential to result in a direct or reasonable foreseeable indirect adverse physical impact on the environment. EXHIBITS: 1. Housing and Redevelopment Commission adopt Resolution No. 485 authorizing the Finance Director to appropriate $ 1,350,538 and make a payment from the Village Project Area of Redevelopment Agency's Debt Service Fund to the County of San Diego for the 2009-10 Supplemental Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (SERAF) as mandated by the State of California, and subject to final disposition of the lawsuit challenging said mandated SERAF payment. 2. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 486 accepting a loan in the amount of $1.5 million for funds advanced by the City of Carlsbad to the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency (South Coastal Carlsbad Project Area) to initially and subsequently pay for costs related to all legal and other related actions to respond to, and establish opposition to, the application submitted to the California Energy Commission by Cabrillo Power for a new power plant on property located within the SCCRA. 3. City Council Resolution No. 2010-097 authorizing the Finance Director to make an advance from the General Fund to the South Coastal Carlsbad Project Area of the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency (SCCRA) in the amount of one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1.5 million) to initially and subsequently pay for costs related to all legal and other related actions to respond to, and establish opposition to, the application submitted to the California Energy Commission by Cabrillo Power for a new power plant on property located within the SCCRA. 4. Correspondence from State Department of Finance regarding required SERAF payment for Fiscal Year 2009-10. x l/u!. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 485 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF 3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING 2009-10 4 PAYMENT TO THE SERAF FUNDS AS DIRECTED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND APPROPRIATING SAID 5 FUNDS 6 WHEREAS, the State of California adopted legislation as part of its 2009 budget 7 requiring the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency to deposit payments into the 8 Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (SERAF); and 9 WHEREAS, the adopted legislation requires redevelopment agencies to shift 10 property tax revenues to the State for funding of K-12 schools and community colleges 11 during the 2009-10 and 2010-11 fiscal years; and 12 WHEREAS, in accordance with this legislation, the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency must make a payment of $1,350,538 in 2009-10 to the SERAF, unless a court finds that the payment required by the State of California is unconstitutional and/or not 16 otherwise required to be made; and 17 WHEREAS, said payment as determined by the State Director of Finance must 18 be made to the County of San Diego Auditor for deposit into the SERAF on or before 19 May 10, 2010, unless the legal challenge noted above is successful. 20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment 21 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 22 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.23 24 2. That the Finance Director is authorized to appropriate $1,350,538 from the 25 Village Project Area of the Redevelopment Agency's Debt Service Fund to 26 the County of San Diego for the 2009-10 Supplemental Education Revenue 27 28 1 Augmentation Fund (SERAF) as mandated by the State of California, and 2 subject to final disposition of the lawsuit challenging said mandated payment. 3. That the Finance Director is instructed to make no payment prior to May 10, 4 2010 in the event that a decision on the lawsuit challenging said payment is 5 made prior to that time. 6 4. If the court finds that the payment is unconstitutional and should not be made g to the State, then the Finance Director is authorized to withhold payment until 9 further notice. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 &• 1 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Special Meeting of the Housing and 2 Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad on the 27th day of April, 2010, by 3 the following vote, to wit: 4 AYES: Commissioners Kulchin, Hall, Packard, Blackburn 6 NOES: None 7 ABSENT: Commissioner Lewis8 9 10 11 __:LAUDE A. Lft&j6, CHAIRMAN 12 Ann J. KulchinVvice-Chair 13 ATTEST: 14 15 16 brSA HILDABRAND, SECRETARY (SEAL) 17 18 -»•••>-r |/ESTABLISHED^:: 19 1|\ 1970 )]' "''. *.'*•-. .••* . 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 RESOLUTION NO. 486 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF 3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A LOAN FROM THE CITY COUNCIL IN THE AMOUNT OF $1.5 MILLION FOR FUNDS ADVANCED FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF 5 THE SCCRA PLAN RELATED TO ALL LEGAL COSTS AND OTHER RELATED ACTIONS TO RESPOND TO, AND 6 ESTABLISH OPPOSITION TO, THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY 7 COMMISSION FOR A NEW POWER PLANT ON PROPERTY WITHIN THE SCCRA. 8 WHEREAS, in 2007, NRG submitted an application to the California Energy 10 Commission to build a new power plant on the existing power plant property with no 11 guarantees that the existing power plant would be decommissioned and demolished; 12 and 13 WHEREAS, the site of the new proposed as well as the existing power plant is 14 located on property within the boundaries of the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area (SCCRA); and 16 WHEREAS, the proposed new power plant is not supported by the Housing and 17 Redevelopment Commission because it will not eliminate the existing blighting 18 conditions (for the existing plant) and new blighting conditions will be created if the 20 proposed plant is constructed on said site; and 21 WHEREAS, the initial and subsequent legal and other related costs to respond 22 to, and/or establish a defense against, the application submitted by NRG to the 23 California Energy Commission for said new power plant shall be paid for by the 24 Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency with funds loaned to said Agency from the City of 25 Carlsbad pursuant to a Cooperative Agreement approved by the Council and 26 Commission on August 7, 2001; and 27 //28 o 1 WHEREAS, implementation activities by the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency to 2 eliminate blight and blighting conditions as related to the power plant property and to 3 participate in future redevelopment of said site are consistent with the SCCRA Five- 4 Year Implementation Plan approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission in 5 2005; 6 WHEREAS, the City Council has approved advances to the Carlsbad 7 Redevelopment Agency to cover said costs for said opposition to the application for the 8 9 subject power plant project, and desires to provide these advanced funds in the form of 10 a loan to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission which shall become a debt of 11 the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency for implementation of the SCCRA Plan. 12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment 13 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 14 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 15 2. That the Finance Director is authorized to accept a loan from the City Council 16 in the amount of $1.5 million on behalf of the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency for fund advances and other approved appropriations for initial and lo 19 subsequent costs related to implementation activities within the South 20 Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area related to the opposition to the 21 application submitted to the California Energy Commission for a new power 22 plant on property within the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area. 23 3. That the Finance Director is authorized to advance said funds for the noted 24 costs related to the defense against the proposed power plant project. 25 26 27 28 4. That said loan from the City Council to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission for said implementation costs for the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area shall constitute an indebtedness of the Housing and 4 Redevelopment Commission and shall be repaid according to the terms of the 5 Cooperative Agreement approved by the Council and Commission on August 6 7,2001. 8 " 9 10 // 11 // 12 // 13 // 14 // 15 16 17 18 " 19 " 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 26 27 28 1 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Special Meeting of the Housing and 2 Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad on the 27th day of April, 2010, by 3 the following vote, to wit: 4 AYES: Commissioners Kulchin, Hall, Packard, Blackburn 6 NOES: None 7 ABSENT: Commissioner Lewis8 9 10 11 CLAUDE A. igfafiS, CHAIRMAN 12 Ann J. Kulchm, Vice-Chair 13 ATTEST: 14 15 16 LISA HILDABRAND, SECRETARY (SEAL) 17" 18 /£/ESTM5USHEDY%r- = si ''•%'-19 -"• 1970 :o'••' •* Q. ••. / * * ***•" <*^ 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2010-097 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A LOAN FROM 3 THE CITY COUNCIL TO THE HOUSING AND . REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1.5 MILLION TO COVER FUNDS FOR 5 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCCRA PLAN RELATED TO ALL LEGAL COSTS AND OTHER RELATED ACTIONS TO 6 RESPOND TO, AND ESTABLISH OPPOSITION TO, THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO THE CALIFORNIA 7 ENERGY COMMISSION FOR A NEW POWER PLANT ON PROPERTY WITHIN THE SCCRA. 8 9 WHEREAS, in 2007 NRG submitted an application to the California Energy 10 Commission to build a new power plant on the existing power plant property with no 11 guarantees that the existing power plant would be decommissioned and demolished; 12 and 13 WHEREAS, the site of the new proposed as well as the existing power plant is located on property within the boundaries of the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area (SCCRA); and 16 WHEREAS, the proposed new power plant is not supported by the City Council 17 or the Housing and Redevelopment Commission because it will not eliminate the 18 existing blighting conditions (for the existing plant) and new blighting conditions will be 2Q created if the proposed plant is constructed on said site, and said site is no longer 21 appropriate for this heavy industrial use; and 22 WHEREAS, the initial and subsequent legal and other related costs to respond 23 to, and/or establish opposition to, the application submitted by NRG to the California ^ A Energy Commission for said new power plant shall be paid for by the Carlsbad 25 Redevelopment Agency with funds loaned to said Agency from the City of Carlsbad 26 pursuant to a Cooperative Agreement approved by the Council and Commission on 27 August?, 2001; and 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Joint Special Meeting of the Carlsbad City Council and Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Commission, held on the 27th day of April, 2010, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Council Members Kulchin, Hall, Packard, Blackburn None Mayor Lewis CLAUDE A LV&WIS, Mayor Ann J. Kulchin, Mayor Pro-Tern ATTEST: LORR^NE (SEAL) Karen R. Kundtz, Assistant City Clerk EXHIBIT 4 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR _ »TATC CAPITOL • ROOM l i 49 • BABBAMEMTO DA • QBB 1 «--«OBB • www.DOF.CA.aavOFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR November 13, 2009 TO ALL COUNTY AUDITORS, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES, AND THEIR LEGISLATIVE BODIES: Chapter 21, Statutes of 2009, requires redevelopment agencies to shift $1.7 billion in property tax revenues to K-12 schools during the 2009-10 fiscal year via the Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds (SERAF) that the phapter created in each county. The Director of Finance is required to determine the amount ea^ch redevelopment agency shall transfer to the SERAF, and is further required to notify each redevelopment agency and legislative body of those amounts. In accordance with the above requirements, the attached document provides the amount determined for your redevelopment agency. Each redevelopment agency must allocate the specified amount to the county auditor-controller for deposit into the SERAF on or before May 10, 2010. By March 1, 2010 the legislative body shall either report to the county auditor-controller how the redevelopment agency intends to fund its SERAF obligation, or report that the legislative body intends to fund the SERAF obligation on behalf of the redevelopment agency pursuant to Section 33692 of the Health and Safety Code (HS.C). If a redevelopment agency determines that it will not be able to allocate to the SERAF the full amount required, it may enter into an agreement with its legislative body by February 15, 2010, for the legislative body to fund either the full SERAF obligation, or a portion thereof. Alternatively, pursuant to HSC Section 33690 (c), a redevelopment agency that makes a finding that insufficient monies are available to fund its SERAF obligation may borrow from monies contained in its Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. Redevelopment agencies also may borrow from the amount otherwise required to be remitted in 2009-1 0 to its Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. All borrowed funds must be fully repaid by June 30, 201 5. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Chris Hill, Principal Program Budget Analyst, at (916) 322-2263. MICHAEL C. GENEST Director By: ANA MATOSANTOS Chief Deputy Director Attachment Redevelopment Agency Name 2009-10 Redevelopment Agency SERAF Shift Health and Safety Code Section 33690 2006-07 Tax Increment Net of Pass- _.J3?15*!!flft!l 2006-07 Gross Tax Increment 850,000,000 on Net Tax Increment Based on Net Factor J0.2261168310) 850,000,000 on Net Tax Increment Based on Gross Factor (0.1793855082)Iota[SERAF L?*". ^l&oCountol L§?tLP*l99 C2HD&I ! Community Development Commission of the City of National City 't?D!5[l5r!?!!SJ5S^Sy^RlPl!lPi/iPoway Redeveiopment Agency .L . 12,09^8941 2,365,597! 13,543.245! J2.735,140i 534,901 1 _357,516 2,429,46r2 490.644 793.345 _ _ 1.02S,S46j '32,022,715!'~ 36;6ll7865r 7,240,8751 6,460,007 "13,700,882; I3/884!?48! _ _?.5_Q7.7?8I __ 2,490,758 4,998,557] 5,923,169! "7,403,962!"" " 1,339,3281 "T328.163 "~ ........ 2,667 ,492 1 5J6.623J ___ ^I§§i48l_ ?.i^?!1j??! " ...... 20,220,665j'7.586,810! 8,632^1351 i imperial Beach Redevelopment Agency I La Mesa Commynjty ftedevejogment Agency (San Marcos Redeyelopmenf Agency ISolana Beach Redevelopment Agency 442,5021 100.057! 2^26^525! 109,883 I Redeveloprnent Agency of the Ci^ of San jDiego* 209,941 j __ 8,968,323] ........ ~ 2,027r889i" ' ' 1 "608,787 3,636,6761 \ City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency jCarlsbad RedeyelpDment Agency ^ iCommunitjr Development Commission of the CJty oJT Escondjdo fCprnmunity Deveiogment Agency of the City of Cpronado __ 8.931,739; 11,935,6211 2,019,617! 2,141,077 4,160,694i 3,330.530! _3_,3j30,53pj 753,0891 _ _ 597.449 1.350,5381 "22^929,7971"" 54^953r_"_""4J13,273 |^226J " "1^837^31" 111,251,333-^ 5,08)9,157!