Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-05-07 RCC MIN MINUTES'OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION May 7, 2007 Ken Lee Building Conference Room .430 'F' Street MEETING CALLED TO ORDER by Chair Reid at 4:31 p.m. ROLL CALL/MOTION TO EXCUSE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Doug Reid, Vice-Chair Stanley Jasek, Commissioners. Georgie, Stillman, Lynda Gilgun, . Eric Mosolgo, Richie Macias,Jr. and Brett Davis STAFF PRESENT: Marisa Lundstedt, Environmental Projects Manager . Maria Muett, Associate Planner Silvester Evetovich, Principal Civil Engineer Glen Laube; Environmental Projects Manager Caroline Young, Assistant Planner Harold Phelps, Associate Planner Ed.Batchelder, Advance Planning Manager Linda Bond, Recording Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Theresa Acerro; 3730 Festival Court, Chula Vista John Willett, 97 Montebello Street, Chula Vista Frank Ohrmund, 12144 Proctor Valley.Road, Chula Vista Ranie Hunter, The Otay Ranch Company Joe Monaco, Dudek & Associates- Tony Ambrose, Burkett.&•Wong Total of 11 guests in the audience, APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April16, 2007 Chair Reid questioned the vote for Item #3. Ms. Linda Bond (RCC Secretary) provided clarification to Chair Reid's question. MSUC (Jasek/Gilgun) to approve the minutes of April 16, 2007. Vote: (7-0) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. I , i RCC Minutes - 2 - May 7, 2007 INFORMATION ITEM 1. Drain ge Training Mr. SiIvester Evetovich (Principal Civil Engineer) handed out an outline of his presentation. He discussed Engineering's requirements for drainage studies and how the studies are analyzed. Mr. Evetovich addressed the following topics: • Basic purpose for drainage studies • Levels of review by Engineering staff • Conformance standards. required for drainage studies • Key elements to look for in drainage studies Commission Comments Chair Reid asked the following questions: In most cases, detention systems would be required for excessive flows. Under what conditions wouldn't one be required? Aren't a lot of the detention facilities in open space maintenance districts, and they are actually maintained by the districts themselves? Commissioner Mosolgo asked for clarification about a circumstance when a development that is upstream of a deficient system increases flows to these systems. Commissioner Mosolgo also had the following question and requests: • Has the City put any thought into potentially making all of these developers within the drainage basin pay through a fee for future upgrades to facilities? • He asked Mr. Evetovich to touch briefly on the City's floodplain ordinance, some of the larger floodplains that the City deals with, and also the upcoming hydro-modification changes. Commissioner Stillman asked if the concrete culverts were buried deep? Is that a big expense? Is there planning for it with the age of the west side? Commissioner Macias inquired as to what grade of concrete the City uses now compared to what the City used in the 70's? Mr. Evetovich satisfactorily provided information and clarification to the Com issioners questions. NEW BUSINESS 2. IS-06-020 -- Napa Place, 445 First Avenue Ms. Maria Muett (Associate Planner) presented the proposed-project, which consists of subdividing a 1.7-acre site into nine single-family parcels. RCC Minutes - 3 - May 7, 2007 Commission Comments Commissioner Gilgun noted the following and had a question: • On page 26 under Environmental Factors that are potentially affected, noise was highlighted, but there was nothing about noise in the report. • When the report talked about compliance-with zoning, it says the General Plan has it zoned' as. RLM, which is supposed to be 3-6 dwelling units per acre, which is being consistent-with the General Plan. But there are nine units in just over an acre. On,page 4 it says 1.17-acre site. • Are there plans to save some of the trees on the site? Chair Reid noted that, given that the trees cannot be saved, is there a need to modify the mitigation measures for fencing around the trees to be retained? Commissioner Macias asked how many dwelling units are currently in this area? Commissioner Mosolgo asked to be shown areas of underground detention. Commissioner Mosolgo then asked the following questions: How are you going about proving medium to high treatment of water quality for this project? Do you consider this to be medium to high removals? Where is the brow ditch located? Chair Reid referred to page 5, Air Quality, 1., that makes reference to the City's Environmental Review Coordinator. Should that now be Environmental Projects Manager? Staff nd consultants satisfactorily provided information and clarification to the Commissioners questions and concerns. Staff will make noted corrections to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. MS UC (Jasek/Davis) that the RCC find that the Initial Study is adequate and recommend that the Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted. Vote: (7-0) 3. IS-07-030 -- Conditional Use Permit for Temporary Championship Off-Road Race 2007; east of the existing terminus of Main Street, east of Heritage Road Commissioner Mosolgo recused himself during this item. Mr. Glen Laube (Environmental Projects Manager) presented the proposed project Conditional Use Permit and Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project is sched led for the Planning Commission on May 23, 2007 and the City Council on June 5', 2007. i RCC Minutes - 4 - May 7, 2007 Public Comments Ms. Theresa Acerro (3730 Festival Court, Chula Vista, CA 91911): You say signs are 150 feet, but in the MND it says 200 feet. You also say no light in parking, but in' the MND says there is minimal light in the parking area. You say the only thing that will be lit are the parking area and camping area. And it also says that pets will be allowed. Now I have always believed that one of the most important goals of the OVRPi and now the MSCP, for that matter, are open wildlife corridors and they allow species to move freely from one area to another. These selected active recreation areas are not intended to preclude this wildlife function or impact passive uses of a park. But in this case, if you look at how it's right next to it, it appears that this will -have an impact. It's very questionable, because-we are right up against the river here. This is the corridor. And also .the Multiple Species Conservation Program, the Otay River Watershed Management Plan say that motorized vehicles are simply not allowed. Motorized vehicle use is inconsistent with the park's vision, Multiple Species Program, and also the Chula Vista's policy. for open space doesn't allow motorized vehicles on the trails even if they are dirt roads. And this unfortunately sets a precedent for allowing that kind of.thing other than emergency vehicles or motorized wheelchairs. And that's unfortunate to have this kind of a precedent. I think the proposed event has more than adequacy impacts because you are actually allowing this motorized use within the preserve area, which is not allowed, theoretically, by regulations. There is also the problem of biological restoration projec s even if they are undertaking around endangered species. It takes around ,6 months to get a permit. And here, th?X put in an application on March 28th, and they are going to have a race on June 7 . This seems like kind of an outrageous and unheard of departure from normal procedures. The MSCP supposedly has very strict provisions against any kind of disturbances during breeding season, which is usually March 15 to September 15. And this has held up lots of construction projects. This again seems to be very preferential treatment for an applicant and I think a bad precedent. As far as biology goes, the letter indicates that there are breeding gnatcatchers and vireos in the area. And allowing this use with only the precaution of putting plyboard on the back of the bleachers is another bad precedent for preventing future disservices during breeding season. It is commendable that there will be a survey of camping and parking areas for borrowing owl nests. That will be protected. But by June, there will be other animals that will have babies here, and they need some kind of consideration, also. The question about how strict the monitors will be to prevent people from walking from the parking areas or the camping areas or outside of the three-strand wires for that matter...you said that they are going to train security guards, and they are going to specify and specifically look for and enforce that. Hopefully, that will help. I think it should specifically say in the Mitigation plan the number of guards and where they will be stationed and to specifically control this kind of behavior because Fish & Wildlife can assure you that signs don't help, fences don't help. Now, as far as the noises goes. Again, it's not really a study; it's a letter. It says the event will provide structural elements for sound attenuation, but it only mentions the plywood.behind the bleachers. Fireworks are particularly frightening to wildlife. They sound like gunshots. The light is something RCC Minutes - 5 _ May 7, 2007 that's unique. And there is also a fire hazard. I think fireworks need to be prohibited entirely. Now, let's look at the biological report. The biological report, on page 8, says that the noise analysis measurement in portions of the quarry adjacent to sensitive habitat in the preserve indicate noise level up to 78 decibels. But if you look at the chart on page 5 in the noise letter, you see that this location is in the MSCP area that is above the preserve. That is almost 3,000 feet away from where the vireos will be nesting. It's not appropriate to use that figure as.ambient noise and say that we are meeting the noise level because there is no way that the ambient noise down here is 78. There was no measurement taken from the preserve area.to the south or, for that matter, to the west, which is where there are historical vireo nests. Since the level measured near the quarry. scales was 68, you can assume that across the river, almost 1,000 feet away, that it is going to be a whole lot less than 68. And so it's not going to be anywhere near where they are saying it's 78 above the q�arry or even for what they gave for inside the quarry. It is most likely that the birds will avoid the area that.is above the quarry where it is so noisy, and they will actuary be to the south or to the west away from where it is less noisy..Page 12 in the noise letter says that the proposed project would generate noise levels greater than 60-decibel hours within portions of the adjacent biological habitat area. Page 10 says te PA system noise would be 70 decibels or less in the habitat areas. Page 9 states 85-decibel race noise would be reduced by plywood and elevation differences to 75 decibels. 75 decibels is clearly an unmitigated negative impact on sensitive species if we are taking 65 decibels to be the criteria, which is normally done in "r these kinds of reports for sensitive habitat. Now June is the time when the eggs have likely hatched. The birds being frightened away from the nests are going to result in death of the young. It would destroy their whole breeding season, and so.1 think that makes it a very significant affect. Mr. Jhn Willett (97 Montebello Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910) had a handout to pass round. I would like to make one comment about the noise level and the birds. I have been out at the quarry when they have dynamited the area out there and used most 900 pounds of dynamite and.watched a bird in a nest in the camping area that,just kind of looked around. So they do get used to it. I chair the Otay Valley Regio al Park Citizens Advisory Committee. At the last meeting, after much discu �sion, we came up with the following comments: 1) The applicant should rigorously.adhere to all conditions set forth in the final version of the MND. 2) The applicant should provide at its' sole expense impartial monitors that will measure and document the baseline conditions and the actual sound, air and water impacts to the Otay River Valley by all aspects of the races. Further, sound monitoring should also take pace at the edge of the property line of private residences south and southwest of the race area. 3) The CAC's CORR subcommittee approval is not to be consic ered as an endorsement of any future proposal by CORR, whether temporary or per anent. One of the things the previous speaker talked about was the water. I co-chaired the development of the Watershed Management Plan for 2 years. I also coorZlate the clean up of the Otay River Valley. Five months'ago, Public Works did some water sampling. I was afraid that the water was contaminated. We basically have ine ponds that have water throughout the year, and we took the first sample RCC Minutes - 6 - May 7, 2007 all the way down at the.west end. Not one of the four was above the danger limits. We propose and recommend and approve the work that has been done for the races. Mr. Frank Ohrmund (12144 Proctor Valley Road, Chula Vista, CA) stated that he is Vice-Chair of the Otay Valley Regional Park Committee, but my comments are my comments. I don't represent the group. My comments come about because I read the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and they have certain things in place that would allow us to develop this park, which is what I'm interested in is putting this park together. I've gone through and talking with Rick Rosaler. I'm curious on how they cn turn this quarry into an off-road park and he said, well, the Reclamation Plan a allows you to push dirt around, and so they are going to push the dirt around and create an off-road track. But when you have a quarry like this, and you reclaim it, it's going to look like a racetrack. And if you are going to use the Reclamation Plan as an excuse for doing the grading for a track, it's not a reclamation plan. A grading permit is probably required to do just the track. And nothing has been evaluated as to how the grading, if there is real grading, they are just using the Reclamation Plan as an xcuse to be doing the grading. Also in the Otay Ranch Plan, as explained by CORR representatives that they consider the active rec areas to be areas that they can develop, that it necessarily doesn't need to be transferred,into the preserve systemsI. But their own documents in the Resource Management. Plan talk about a preserve system of over 11,000 acres. And it says here, of this amount, up.to 400 acres may be used for active rec. So it describes this active rec as being part of this preserve. The Otay Ranch properties would convey land and fee td the Preserve Owner(Manager, and the Resource Preserve Owner/Manager would hold title to land a d permit through a lease or some other instrument of the Regional Park to opera t in the Resource Preserve. They want to take land that is active rec and conve It it before it has been transferred into the preserve. To me, that is a horrible precedence that will allow a private property owner_ property rights within the preserve when it should be transferred to the public, to be designed by the public as they see fit through a public process. The Citizens Advisory Committee is part of that process. The POM, which I don't think there is a Preserve Owner/Manager really in place other than the County and the City working together on implementing it, they haven' commented on what they would want in the active rec areas because they are su posed to work with the Citizens Advisory Committee to figure out what the community wants. I just think it's a bad precedence here to allow the conversion to the use when the project proponents' own documents state that no conversion of use ithin the preserve is allowed. Only existing agricultural operations can continue.a Well, by allowing camping on the preserve, that's a conversion contrary to their on documents. And the little skinny strip of preserve land that is right in here should also be avoided. If you want to do the track, just stay outside the preserve. I really tihink there should be a legal opinion. I think the City Attorney should make an opinion on whether or.not preserve lands should be donated into the preserve before their Is are converted. RCC Min tes - 7 - May 7, 2007 Comml ssion Comments Commissioner Gilgun was disappointed because the RCC dealt with this issue last year and were reassured that this wouldn't come up again. She was very concerned about the precedent that this is setting. She was very concerned about it running through the preserve areas, which are not designed for uses like this. She had every reason to believe that the RCC will be looking at another Conditional Use Permit or a perma ent permit at some point,in the future, and that really concerns her. Commissioner Macias asked:the following questions: • Why was the track chosen to be so close to the preserve area? Why not over more to where the actual quarry is? • What are the owners' plans after the races? • What are they actually going to do with the land? • Is there any plan in the near future for that land? • How is the City going to benefit? • In 2006, how much revenue did the City receive from the previous race? Vice-Chair Jasek stated that it's very commendable everything that is being done to minimize the impacts, but the impact is still there. We are playing with a-resource that for the longest time didn't get any recognition whatsoever. Now that it is, we are not fulfilling the promises that we have made for that area. He listened to the .comm n on the noise study, and didn't think the numbers actively reflect the noise levels that a person would suffer walking down Auto Park Way or sitting in the parking lot at Coors Amphitheatre. He thought that the manipulation of information makes things a little bit suspect. He also thought the speed at which this has been pushed through makes things a little bit suspect. He felt that a private property owner should be able to do, within reason, anything he wants to,do to his property provided-that it doesn't have a negative impact on the surrounding community. This has a negative impact on the surrounding community. Commissioner Davis was concerned.with the camping area being so close to the preserte. He really didn't see a value of doing it. Commissioner Stillman stated that,.with the multiple species area, there is'an issue of unauthorized use of that terrain. She is not against the CORR racing project at all. It is nod secret that the Baldwins are committed to this type of event,and would like to make it permanent. They would have liked to of brought it forward as a permanent plan for that site. Over the last couple years she has become concerned that these studies of impacts: noise, air quality, etc. There are so many ways of doing it that the science is not exact. So, .she was not concerned that an impact may have been. mitigated to a threshold below a certain level because not only didn't she trust the threshold, she didn't think it's the point here. This preserve is like a green necklace around an urban center. It represents our link and the animals' link with a very important aspect of our past, present, and it should be part of our future. This is not RCC Minutes - 8 - May 7, 2007 the right spot for this. If it was truly going to be temporary, one might consider the issue of the parking, but we know that a permanent request is coming. We need to go forward with this effort to preserve the wildlife and the fauna. We can come to a decision as a community about how that preserve can be used by us. Being as natural as possible is where she felt she-had to be committed. The CORR racing is simply going in the wrongdirection when we have come so far back. If we are going to have a multiple species preserve, we have an obligation to keep going forward. Chair eid noted the following: In the Negative Declaration on page 7, Discretionary Actions, second bullet. "Amendment to Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 5.44.101, for allowance of vehicles with internal combustion engines." This amendment will be required in order to implement the proposed project. • On page 17, 5th paragraph, "There is an existing earthen berm along the southern edge..." Could you explain that in a little more detail? • Page 20, cultural and paleontological resources are identified. There has only been a cultural resource study done. Nothing has been done on paleontological. To identify paleontological on page 20 and again on page 4 of the checklist is not correct. The impact to paleontological to less than significant is not true because there are no impacts. Staff, consultants and the applicant responded to the Commissioners questions and concerns. Staff ill make noted corrections.to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. MSC (Stillman/Gilgun) that the Mitigated Negative Declaration be found insufficient. Vote: (4-2-0-0) with Reid and Jasek opposed and Mosolgo recused. Commissioner Stillman felt that the mitigation studies are not sufficient for me to make a decision about the real impacts. Ms Acerro made a point about where the noise monitors are being made. She didn't think the mitigation to a threshold is the point. She thought we needed to eliminate negative impacts in a preservation area. We should be going forward and eliminating impacts in this very special urban greenbelt. Commissioner Gilgun did not think that the mitigations are adequate especially about t noise threshold because of where the measure was taken and the ambient noise. To use that as a guide is a deficiency. The thresholds may be fine for an urban rea. Commissioner Macias thought the noise estimation is not accurate. Monitoring from the top of the quarry is not the actual area where the race is going to be. They are just too close to the preserve. He loves development. He is business minded. But something like this, they should keep the area the way it is now. RCC Minutes - 9 - May 7, 2007 Commissioner Davis stated that the preserve is an issue for him. We need to find something in a different way than they propose today. You only get one chance to cut a diamond, and he is for keeping it the way it was and the way it is. Vice-Chair Jasek stated that this is something that he personally does not believe in, but our job is not to bring our personal emotions to the table. Our job is to determine whethr the City has done their job. The City has done their job in looking into and mitigating the problems that are going to be created with this. It's hard to look at that area end isolate one specific event and say that that one specific event is going to have a detrimental effect on the preserve. This alone is not a detriment to the preserve. Commissioner Mosolgo returned to the meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS MANAGER COMMENTS Ms. Lundstedt reported the following: • Thg Commission was emailed -.the website link to the "Assessment of Civic Engagement in Chula Vista". It is going to the City Council for consideration on May 15th • On May 16th, the Planning Commission is going to have.a workshop. It will be on processing procedures the City undertakes including overviews of the Brown Act, charter, noticing, legal requirements, and the CEQA process. Planning staff is gong to give the presentation. The Boards and .Commissions recognition event (this is not the Beautification Awards) is going to be Monday,. June 18th, at 6:00 p.m. in the Montevalle Recreation Center. Invitations will-formally go out the last week of May. CHAIR COMMENTS: Chair Reid wanted to remind everyone of the June 6th combined meeting ith the City Council, Planning Commission, Design Review Committee, RAC, GMOC, etc. regarding the infrastructure presentation. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Gilgun handed out a brochure.entitled "Working Today For a Walkable Tomorrov," from Walk San Diego. Commissioner Gilgun stated that,she and Commissioner Mosolgo went to a briefing by City staff regarding redevelopment planning. 4. Redevelopment Advisory Committee (RAC) Update Commissioner Gilgun reported that the two main- projects were the KOA campground redevelopment and the Bay Vista residential development off of Palomar. The majority of the meeting was public comment. on the Riverwalk (aka RCC Minutes - 10 May 7, 2007 KOA) planned community. She highly encouraged the Commissioners to read as much information as they can about that project because she is their representative on the RAC and would appreciate any input that the RCC has. What was interesting is that it seemed to be one of the first RAC meetings that really did what it was supposed to do as far as giving the public a forum. Riverwalk is a project that RCC needs to look real closely at, just like the off-road racing. At issue is taking an area that has been zoned as open space in the General Plan Update for most of the property and putting in high-density residential near a residential area. One of the key issues is that the only entrance into the project would be off of Second Avenue. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Reid adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m. to a regular meeting on Monday , May 21, 2007, at 4:30 p.m. in the Ken Lee Building Conference Room, 430 T" Street Chula Vista, CA 91910. Prepared by: Lin a Bond Recording Secretary (J:\Planning\RUC\2006\RCC050707Mins)