Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC MIN 2000/09/11 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION September 11, 2000 DRAFT Public Services Building Conference Room 1 CALLING MEETING TO ORDER: Chair Cindy Burrascano called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Cindy Burrascano, Vice-Chair Charles Bull, Commissioners Teresa Thomas, Juan Diaz and Steve Thomas GUESTS: Brad Werdick, J.M. Consulting Group Laurie McKinley, McKinley Nielsen & Associates Joe Monaco, Dudek & Associates STAFF PRESENT: Marilyn Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator Edalia Olivo-Gomez, Associate Planner Duane Bazzel, Principal Planner Christina Clark, Associate Planner Linda Bond, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 15,1999 and July 17, 2000 Chair Burrascano submitted for the record clarifications to the November 15, 1999 minutes made by Joe Monaco of Dudek & Associates. Commissioner T. Thomas requested the following revisions to the November 15, 1999 minutes: · Page 1, first paragraph - change 'filled' to 'filed' · Page 3, 8th Q - change 'affects' to 'effects' · Page 4, 1st A - change subspecies 'is' just to subspecies 'are' just · Page 4, 2nd A - spell out CBI (Conservation Biology Institute) Commissioner T. Thomas made a recommendation that staff consider minute revisions to be strikothrough for old text and bold for new text, which is easier to read. Chair Burrascano requested the following revision to the November 15, 1999 minutes: · Page 4, 1st Q - change 'species' to 'plants' MSC (Burrascano/Bull) to approve the minutes of November 15, 1999 as amended. Vote: (4-0-1-0) with S. Thomas abstaining. Resource Conservation Commission DRAFT Minutes -2- September 11 , 2000 Commissioner T. Thomas requested the following revision to the July 17, 2000 minutes: . Page 2, June 5, 2000 minutes - change 'ECO-Mundo' to 'EcoMundo' MSC (Diaz/Bull) to approve the July 17, 2000 minutes. Vote: (4-0-1- 0) with S. Thomas abstaining. OLD BUSINESS: Cancellation of the September 18, 2000 meeting. Ms. Marilyn Ponseggi (Environmental Review Coordinator) indicated that it appeared there was no record of the September 18, 2000 meeting being formally canceled. MSUC (Bull/Diaz) to cancel the September 18, 2000 meeting due to the Board and Commission Recognition Banquet. Vote: (5-0-0-0) NEW BUSINESS: 1. IS-00-26 - Sprint PCS Antennas and Associated Equipment, SDG&E Transmission Line Corridor south of East 'H' Street Ms. Edalia Olivo-Gomez (Associate Planner) gave an overview of the project. Mitigation measures have been incorporated to mitigate potential indirect impacts to nearby Coastal sage scrub during construction and to minimize visual impacts to a less than significant level. Staff has taken into consideration recommenda- tions made on the Sesame Street project, which was a similar project. Commissioner S. Thomas asked what the recommendations were on the Sesame Street project? Ms. Olivo-Gomez stated that one was to have a liner for the tray in case of a spill. Ms. Ponseggi indicated that it was to protect the habitat, and that the provision was incorporated in the biology mitigation. Commissioner T. Thomas noted on page 11 of the Environmental Checklist Form under AESTHETICS that it says 3-year period. She thought staff really meant a 5-year period. Ms. Ponseggi indicated that that provision was an error that should not have been included. It is an aesthetics requirement not a biological requirement, and the 5-year or 3-year monitoring that goes on is when native vegetation is planted. Because this is ornamental landscaping, it should not have any monitoring period at all. If it is put in correctly, according to plan, it is going to work. And if it is not put in according to plan it is not going to work, and they are going to be in violation. DRAFT Resource Conservation Commission Minutes - 3- September 11, 2000 Commission T. Thomas requested that Ms. Ponseggi's response be included as part of the minutes. Ms. Ponseggi indicated that the last line on page 11 should be deleted along with any place else in the Checklist where it talks about a monitoring period for aesthetics for the landscaping. Condition #3 under AESTHETICS should read: Applicant shall install the landscaping as specified in the landscaping plan. Plant materials shall be replaced, as needed, to 3chio'l8 the spocifiod succoss critori3. Commissioner Diaz noted on page 2 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration under "Public Comments" that staff received two letters of concern from the Chapala Condominiums. Why didn't PCS select the north side to help these residents? What is the procedure here for the City of Chula Vista? Ms. Ponseggi indicated that, when an Initial Study is started, a notice goes out to property owners letting them know what is going on. In many instances that is the first time property owners are aware that there is any activity going on. Many times staff gets comments back on environmental Initial Studies that are not of an environmental nature; they are of a planning nature. That is why staff does not deal with them in the Initial Study. But staff does take those letters and makes sure that the project planners are aware of them. Staff lets the Commission know what letters came in, but many times you will not see mitigation measures that specifically addresses those concerns. Mr. Brad Werdick (J.M. Consulting Group, 7747 Opportunity Road, San Diego, CA 92111) stated that the applicant did look at the tower on the north side of East 'H' Street. However, it is about 80 feet lower in height and it is adjacent to residential as well. The applicant would have the same opposition no matter which tower they picked. And if it was located on the north side of the street, the applicant would probably need to locate another site closer by because the range of the site would not be as great from that extra height that was gained from the proposed tower. Commissioner Diaz was not concerned so much about the height. He was concerned about the 16 x 16-foot pad that is going to put there that is 7 -foot high for all the instrumentation. He thought that was the main concern of the residents, not so much the antennas up above. How did the equipment location get selected since it is not a significant impact? Mr. Werdick indicated that the applicant chose to put it there because that is where their biologist said that it would not be impacting any Coastal sage scrub. SDG&E also has protocol. The applicant is not allowed to put it anywhere within their access area to the lattice tower. DRAFT Resource Conservation Commission Minutes -4- September 11, 2000 Ms. Ponseggi thought that staff had put sufficient mitigation measures in as far as the landscape, grading and fencing. The fact remains that the residents are going to see the box. Ms. Olivo-Gomez indicated that the condominiums are lower in elevation, and that there is vegetation on this slope. So it is not a box sitting right in front. It is primarily visible from the second story of the condominiums. Commissioner Diaz inquired about the procedure when staff receives public comments. Ms. Olivo-Gomez indicated that staff usually follows-up with a phone call. She did speak with the president of the homeowners association. Commission T. Thomas asked if this was going to the Planning Commission. Ms. Ponseggi responded in the negative. This is going to the Zoning Administrator. Commissioner T. Thomas indicated that the generators have an internal diesel fuel tank. Instead of diesel fuel, do generators exist that use liquid natural gas? Mr. Werdick was not aware of any. Commissioner T. Thomas asked how long construction would take? Mr. Werdick indicated that it would take approximately 4 to 5 weeks. MSUC (Bull/T. Thomas) that the RCC determines that the Initial Study is adequate and the Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted. Vote: (5-0-0-0) 2. MSCP Update Ms. Ponseggi stated that what RCC had before them was an update on the current status of where the MSCP is. The document will be available for RCC review sometime in the next week. She asked that, if the RCC had more broad- type questions to ask, this would be the appropriate time to do it. After the presentation, the RCC would be asked to consider two possible dates for the actual MSCP to come back for review. One would be a matter of calling a special meeting in order to have RCC comments documented in writing and presented at the Council. The other would be meeting the day before it goes to City Council, which is the RCC regular meeting, and having RCC comments presented verbally. Ms. Laurie McKinley (McKinley Nielsen & Associates, 427 'C' Street, Suite 308, San Diego, CA 92101-5122) wanted to tell the RCC what they had been doing for the last 8 months. Then she would walk the RCC through slides of the changes that have occurred to the last plan that the RCC saw, which was the DRAFT Resource Conservation Commission Minutes - 5 - September 11, 2000 public draft that went out in February. Staff received 17 letters of comments on the public draft that included a significant list of comments from Fish & Wildlife and Fish & Game. Staff and the consultant listened to the RCC and read all the letters. The new draft will be significantly different as a result of all those comments. The consultant then had a series of management meetings with City staff. Staff and the consultant then scheduled a retreat in June with U.S. Fish & Wildlife and CA Department of Fish & Game, representatives from the development community and the environmental community. Staff and the consultant then went back and rewrote the whole plan. It has changed in substance, format and structure. Table 4 has been revised completely. It is no longer in a table format; it is now a list with a better description of each of the species and what is being done for each species. Changes were made to Table 2, which was the summary sheet that showed how many acres were in the Preserve and how many acres of take. THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION OF THE MSCP UPDATE BEGAN 0 University Site 0 Narrow Endemic Species 0 Infrastructure 0 Otay Valley Regional Park/Active Recreation Areas 0 Boundary Adjustments 0 National Wildlife Refuge 0 Preserve Management Studies 0 Preserve Funding 0 Schedule Ms. McKinley indicated that, hopefully, a lot of the species questions are answered in the new section. Mr. Joe Monaco (Dudek & Associates, 605 Third Street, Encinitas, CA 92024) indicated that Table 4 had been formatted to be as close to Table 3-5 as possible. It was found that, after meeting with the RCC and with other comments, that was just not appropriate and too confusing. Table 3-5 was used as a reference and attached as an appendix. The original conservation analysis was done based on the information in that table, so that was kept as a baseline. Then each species was categorized. Commission T. Thomas asked if, when you are doing all this MSCP, we are still going to adhere to National or State laws that deal with wetlands? Ms. McKinley responded in the affirmative. There is a section in the Plan that discusses that. This Plan is not a take authority for any wetlands. DRAFT Resource Conservation Commission Minutes - 6 - SeDtember 11 , 2000 Commission T. Thomas asked that the response be included in the minutes. Ms. Ponseggi reiterated her previous statement regarding a meeting date to review the MSCP. MSUC (Bull/Burrascano). to schedule a special meeting on Thursday, October 12, 2000, at 4:00 p.m. to review the Plan. Vote: (5-0-0-0) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR'S COMMENTS: Ms. Ponseggi announced that, tomorrow night at the City Council, Pamela Bensoussan would be appointed to the Commission. CHAIR COMMENTS: None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. to a regular meeting on Monday, October 2, 2000, at 6:30 p.m. in Conference Room 1 of the Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA. Prepared by: ~/dW~~ Linda Bond Recording Secretary (A:~lb\RCC#1\RCC0911 OOmins.doc)