Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC MIN 1999/07/19 - - RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JUL Y 19, 1999 Public Services Building Conference Room 1 MINUTES RCC MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles Bull Ms. Teresa Thomas Ms. Cindy Burrascano Ms. Viviane Marquez Chair Robert Yamada MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Robert Fisher, Excused GUEST: Ms. Laurie McKinley (McKinley, Nielsen Associates) STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Doug Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator Ms. Marilyn Ponseggi, Environmental Projects Manager Mr. Duane Bazzel, Principal Planner Ms. Charline Long, Recording Secretary Meeting called to order at 6:43 p.m. 1. APPROV AL OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 15, 1999 Minutes for February 15, 1999 were not approved. Discussion ensued as to their age and accuracy. Staffwill return next meeting with an appropriate solution. Ms. Thomas commented that it only reinforced the importance of having a secretary present to record the minutes and to have the minutes transcribed and presented to commission members in a timely fashion. Staff agreed to do everything in their power to see that that happens. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT: None 3. NEW BUSINESS ELECTION OF NEW CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR MSUC (Thomas/Marquez) to appoint Commissioner Burrascano as Chair and Commissioner Bull as Vice Chair. Vote: 5-1 (Fisher absent). INTRODUCTION TO THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN Mr. Bazzel introduced Ms. McKinley of McKinley, Nielsen Associates, Consultant to the City, for the MSCP Subarea Plan. Ms. McKinley coordinates this effort internally as well as with the Wildlife agencies to get the subarea map plan revised, completed, and to move forward with it. Ms. McKinley will give an update on the status of the subarea map by tracking through the -- .- RCC Minutes July 19, 1999 Page 2 various components of the subarea plan and issues we've been dealing with as well as the schedule from here on and future updates. Ms. McKinley passed out the Implementing Agreement Public Review Schedule for the MSCP Subarea Plan. The schedule is very ambitious, and we want to incorporate your comments into the draft we are putting together for some of the wildlife agencies, that should go out at the end of this week or the first of next week. We plan to discuss the draft with the wildlife agencies, get some feedback from them, and then come back and give update reports to you, the Planning Commission, the week of August 9, and the Council the following week. At that point and time we hope we have enough information to at least know what some of the major issues mayor may not be. Commissioner Thomas commented that the RCC's next scheduled meeting would be August 2, 1999. Ms. McKinley commented that has been changed to August 9 because they thought that date would be more productive. Between now and then we have several meetings with the wildlife agencies, including a critical meeting August 4, these meetings should give us enough information on the proposals, particularly on the University site. There should be enough information to bring the issues forward for discussion during the August timeframe, take RCC's input, the Planning Commission's input, and the Council's input and redraft a new draft. The draft would be published in a more public format around September 17, 1999. We would then come back for a series of hearings in November with RCC, Planning Commission, and in early December with the City Council. The City of Chula Vista is the responsible agency in the MSCP, the MSCP framework plan and the original draft subarea plan that was issued in 1996 with a master EIR/EIS, Chula Vista was listed as the responsible agency. So we will be functioning as the responsible agency, not a lead agency, and as such we expect that we will be doing an addendum or something similar, an explanation of any kind of changes that have occurred between that draft in 1996 and now. We expect that there will be no changes that will be of significance that will require us to go out with a whole new EIR or EIS. Commissioner Burrascano asked if there would be more detail than was in the original. Ms. McKinley responded that in some cases their will be more detail, in some cases not. Weare using the SANDAG database that was put together for the MSCP. In some situations we have been able to update some of that data, particularly where we are making proposed changes to the map as at the University site there will be updated data. The wildlife agencies however in that particular instance have asked specifically to use the 1996 data on the University site because they want us to be consistent witb the original EIR/EIS and with that data. There will be new information, but in most cases, it will be information that will show us how we were able to do better rather than the opposite and better in terms of biology and species preservation. This is the schedule, a lot of the schedule will depend on what kinds of issues come up with the wildlife agencies, we've had several meetings with them already and we feel pretty comfortable that we are going in the direction that they are comfortable with and we are doing the right thing, but one never knows what issues will come up. Mr. Bazzel interjected that the Draft Subarea Plan document has several holes in it that need to be beefed up, narrow endemics were not adequately addressed at all. When Ms. McKinley talks ~ -- RCC Minutes July 19, 1999 Page 3 about a new draft it is because there is a lot of information that we've had to put in there that wasn't there before. Commissioner Thomas inquired as to the difference between a Responsible Agency and a Lead Agency. Ms. McKinley responded that there are actually two co-lead agencies; the City of San Diego Metropolitan Waste Water Department, which instigated the MSCP, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which drafted the EIS. This is a regional program of which we are a part, and the EIRÆIS has been adopted by the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego and was prepared as a regional project with subregional components including the City of Chula Vista subregional component. The subregional component for Chula Vista was prepared and was included in that EIRÆIS. Therefore, the EIRÆIS covers the regional program and the subregional component of Chula Vista. Ms. Thomas asked if the reference to Metropolitan Waste Water referred to the Treatment Plant. Ms. McKinley commented that the way the MSCP began was that the regional metropolitan Waste Water Division, run by the City of San Diego, serves from the San Diego River South to the border and from the ocean east to the mountains. When they were putting together that waste water reclamation program nine years ago their were indirect impacts associated with the expansion of the sewer program and they worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service to try and address those indirect impacts and the result was a regional multi-species preservation program. Therefore, the wastewater department headed it up because they were having indirect impact because of the expansion of the sewer system. Everyone else then joined in, and it also expanded because at the same point in time there was legislation at the state level called the Natural Communities Conservation Program also known as NCCP. That state legislation provided that regional programs could be set up to address state listed species on a more comprehensive manner in a multi-species manner. Because MSCP in San Diego had been underway almost a year they dovetailed into the NCCP, so this program is both a multi-species conservation program and a natural communities conservation program which is a state level program and that's why the state is involved. Ms. McKinley then went on to explain the different components of the Subarea Plan. The Subarea Plan is composed of three components; the 1 st component is the City component and includes everything within the incorporated boundaries for the City of Chula Vista, exclusive of the Otay Ranch area that was annexed in 1997; the 2nd component is the Bonita component, that is all of the unincorporated area at the center city's general plan area which is also in the subarea plan which is also not Otay Ranch; the 3rd component is Otay Ranch and that is both in the City and in the County. The first set of data that has come out has shown that Chula Vista at both the subarea plan and jurisdiction has done very well in the conservation level if compared to other jurisdictions. That under the MSCP original draft there is a Table 3-5 that is the table of the 85 species that are covered by the MSCP. Coverage by the MSCP means that the jurisdiction at the subarea plan approved by the wildlife agencies then enabled to provide take authorization. Normally the Federal Government provides take authorizations to projects for a subarea plan equivalent in the habitat conservation plan. The take authorizations will be provided to the City of Chula Vista only for certain boundaries, however, the take authorization is based on the entire subarea. In order to encourage development to occur in urban areas and not the fringes, and for a conservation plan like this to occur we then need to be able to mitigate for what happens in the --- -- RCC Minutes July 19, 1999 Page 4 development. Primarily the mitigation will occur in the preserve itself because we want to encourage large blocks of habitat. So take authorization will be in the jurisdiction of the subarea plan functions of the unit. Chair Yamada asked if mitigation must occur within the subarea? Ms. McKinley stated that technically in the framework plan, mitigation could occur anywhere within the MSCP region, first priority is to the subarea plan. Mr. Bazzel added that you could mitigate from species to species in-kind habitat. Therefore, if you impact habitat you can purchase at a particular ratio elsewhere, it does not have to be in that jurisdiction, as long as it is in-kind. For example, some species have a coastal influence and you need to purchase within that area. What is being proposed here, is a focus at purchasing within your subarea, so it is a self-contained acquisition effort and mitigation ratios are higher if you purchase outside that self-contained area. Chair Yamada asked if it was correct to say, if you stay within the subarea that that would move the City towards mitigating for its' impacts within the subarea. Mr. Bazzel stated that was correct. Ms. McKinley stated that the areas that are in the County now, the County has an adopted subarea plan, and that subarea plan includes the Otay Ranch project. In the area that remains in the County for Otay Ranch and the areas of the County that include San Miguel and Bonita we are currently proposing that this subarea be totally consistent. In the implementing agreement between the County and wildlife agencies there are sections that say we expect there will be annexations, particularly to Chula Vista. Ms. McKinley went on to explain in detail the intricacies involved. Closing with what they are proposing to the agencies; is that the accounting of the credits and debits by subarea even though our take authorization is not in our jurisdiction. So, it gets a little complicated but we are hoping that we can make that work. We have had conversations with the County and the County is comfortable with that approach conceptually. Commissioner Burrascano asked if the different agencies that are responsible for conserving the land are responsible for its management. Ms. McKinley responded that they would talk about a couple of other things first and get back to that issue. 1. How we expect to assemble the preserve. There will be a projected number of acres that will become the preserve within the subarea. Chula Vista's plan, the principal methodology for putting this preserve together is going to be through the entitlement process. The green areas of the map are 100% conservation areas, they are the results of various property owners who have said yes we are going to develop "X" number of units in return we are going to preserve "Y" number of acres. So we have several projects that we call covered projects, they are projects where we have an agreement with the wildlife agencIes. In this particular project there is an appropriate amount of conservation development, Otay Ranch is a very good example of that. ---- -. RCC Minutes July 19, 1999 Page 5 2. This area down in the Otay River Valley and the areas that are within the City that are in Sweetwater Valley will be 75% conservation. A minimum of 75% preservation of any properties that are in this area, means when you go to get a permit you can develop about 25% of the land that you own in the least environmentally sensitive area of that land and for your mitigation the remaining 75% will be preserved. 3. In addition to the entitlement process there is a new agency permit for these areas, we have not yet taken to Council. What we are looking at is putting together an acquisition process, whereby they might put some monies together, grants, etc, to target acquisition of some of these properties which we would like to conserve at 100%. That will hopefully increase the conservation in these areas. Chair Yamada asked if on the green areas, does the plan consider the quality of the labeled green area, or does it mean that it is blanketly habitat preserved. Ms. McKinley responded that it varied a little bit. That Otay Ranch was a unique part of the program. Otay Ranch has a requirement for every acre developed in Otay Ranch and that is the developer has to preserve 1.188 acres for conservation. Moreover, the City staff is currently working on a program that will insure that conservation would be in-like kind. Chair Yamada asked about one of the areas they had talked about was Rice Canyon, it is not what you would call a quality preserve, but the City seems to show it as a green area. Ms. McKinley commented that it shows green because Rice Canyon is what you would call a done deal. Mr. Bazzel stated that the green area has been established through a number of ways, the MSCP has core areas of habitat and there are linkages between that, it is all critical to preservation of the species. Those cores and linkages occur in the green areas, on the Otay Ranch where most of the green is on that map the actual habitat and restoration areas were considered when establishing those lines and a lot of the data that we used for that was the same data we used for the MSCP. The refinement of the edges is an on-going process as you get closer to actually doing final surveys, that edge gets refined a little bit, but basically it is established by a multiple habitat planning area as part of the MSCP. Now the Rice Canyon areas are considered viable open space areas, the type of management that is going on there is open space maintenance. Districts today will change with the adoption of this program as we get into better management practices and monitoring those species within those areas. But the importance of those existing preserve canyon areas that are surrounded by development is the fact that they do serve as an anti-government archipelago fragments of open space that are interconnected especially for avian travel, so they may not be direct connections for mammal corridors, however, they do serve as bird connections. Commissioner Thomas offered that management by other people was not appropriate for the habitat, in fact it is more damaging. That is the kind of thing that might be appropriate for mitigation, to go back and make it a more appropriate habitat. Mr. Bazzel replied that putting non-native species or plants that require water attracts the argentine ants and is definitely not appropriate and our open-space coordinator understands that. -- - RCC Minutes July 19, 1999 Page 6 However, some of the things that have occurred have been recognized and identified to the wildlife agencies and they have brought it up as an issue as well. However, additional management practices that we have discussed with adoption of this program are those types of things that will prevent unacceptable management practices. Commissioner Thomas asked what would be happening with the irrigation pipes, that they were detrimental to the habitat. Mr. Bazzel responded that the pipes would be well out ofthe paths designed for human activity. This program here is primarily for species protection. Any of the infrastructure that goes into the preserve areas will have established guidelines for avoidance of sensitive species. If we need to have maintenance access to that infrastructure it needs to be done in a very sensitive way and located in a sensitive way and if we are going to have a trail system it should be combined with that and be one so you minimize the disruption in those types of areas. Commissioner Marquez stated that it should be part of the restoration, if you are going to restore something you do not leave PVC pipe in the way. She also voiced concern over the Rice Canyon situation and the fire buffer that was required in the back of these homes and that is an on-going watering situation and exotic trees and or plants that are all along where these homes are. I do not see how you are going to be able to stop watering or stop having vegetation. We have been told in the past that this would be open space not biological open space and as such, I do not believe that would be suitable for preserve, again. Mr. Bazzel responded that it has been stated that it is not biological open space because of the level of management and maintenance ofthose areas is not biological in nature. However, that is probably going to change with the adoption of this plan, and the wildlife agencies are expecting that to change, and the City of Chula Vista needs to develop a management plan that addresses it from a biology standpoint and so the City is going to have to bite the bullet in addressing that. The existing canyon areas are going to be one of the difficult bullets to bite because the funding source for that has a cap on it based on the assessment district that they are in and no real means for increasing that amount. However, the new areas, like the Otay Ranch, we have the ability to establish funding programs that will cover that type of management. However, the management plan will be a follow-up document to adoption of the subarea plan, so its just another in a step to get us there. Today you are not getting biological management, not in the truest sense that the MSCP expects. Commissioner Marquez asked if the areas that actually belong to McMillin that are part of their open space preserve, not biological open space but regular, are they included in the green area. Mr. Bazzel replied that the majority is. Commissioner Marquez stated that it was her understanding that the City does not own that. Mr. Bazzel replied that the City does own that, and McMillin was required to dedicate that to the City. Ms. McKinley stated there might be some parts that have not been passed on to the City as of yet. - - RCC Minutes July 19, 1999 Page 7 Mr. Bazzel explained that some of the areas are dedicated open space, some of the areas where mitigation is occurring there is a five-year period. The area North of H and West of Discovery Park is dedicated open space, he will check but he is 99% sure. Ms. McKinley stated that there are some projects; Bonita Meadows, and Watson Land Co., that are shown in gray on the map and a few areas shown in dark blue (Rancho San Miguel has changed) where preserves will go and in those cases those will be called amendment areas. They will carry two categories of amendments major and minor they simply mean that they haven't counted the preservation yet and haven't counted the development yet and whether it will be used as a credit or a debit and those property owners are going to have to work with the City and wildlife agencies to come up with the appropriate preservation areas. Continuing on with the Management portion of the presentation. . . Ms. McKinley stated that the MSCP subarea plan draft does have a management segment that is broken up a couple of ways. The City and Bonita components, what we have done is put together a series of priorities. The priority for management, there are two kinds of management; 1) is the kind that is being done right now; 2) is biology management, and there will be a series of priorities and those priorities will include removing, basically keeping evasive species from being reproduced, and transplanting. Those priorities will become part of a more broadly based habitat management program. There is right now a discussion on a regional management program and the regional management proposal to try to put together a mutual management funding source, which would be a joint program with all jurisdictions involved in the MSCP and the two services and agencies. The federal agencies playing a very large hand in helping determine exactly what management is needed, this would become part of that plan. The Otay Ranch management plan would be handled differently. Otay Ranch has set up what they call Preserve Owner Manager (POM) it is a joint venture between the City of Chula Vista and the County who have agreed to manage this property jointly. For Otay Ranch there is already an adopted biology management program with a whole series of tasks of monitoring programs that have to be undertaken. For Otay Ranch there is already a community facilities district in place and two assessments are being levied; 1) assessment for maintenance, and 2) the rest for biology. This is the only and most forward progressive biology management program in the County that actually has funds available for biology. Mr. Bazzel commented to keep in mind that actual maintenance and management and work efforts in those open space areas will occur as those areas become dedicated to the City and it will be conveyed commensurate with the development activity. Moreover, it is the residents in that development activity area that are paying the freight for that. It is not necessarily open space in the City ofChula Vista its within Otay Ranch. Ms. McKinley commented that here again you see the interplay within the subarea. Chair Yamada commented that they had discussed this issue before, and that's all well and good, but what happens in the middle, before the property is conveyed and the responsibility to take care of it during that interim period before it is conveyed. Ms. McKinley answered pursuant to the MSCP it is the responsibility of the property owners and they pay to maintain the current biological state but they are not obligated to enhance the biology. - - RCC Minutes July 19, 1999 Page 8 Commissioner Marquez asked if there is no biological monitoring how do we know that it is kept in the current biological state, some of this could be 30 to 40 years in process. Mr. Bazzel commented that the development plan might go as long as 20 years. However, certainly the most sensitive areas that we are targeting for acquisition earlier, and that helps because you get your most sensitive species, riparian areas acquired much earlier than your vernal pool areas and the like. You may not get some of your stands of coastal sage until later. But it is a longer term program for bringing it on and the funding doesn't kick in until we actually acquire that land,. There are some limitations on what can be done on there, strong limitations that the property owners can not do certain things, like cattle grazing in areas that have sensitive species. Commissioner Marquez commented that if a fire comes through and then the evasives show up, there is nothing anybody can do. Mr. Bazzel replied not until it comes into the program. Commissioner Thomas asked where in the subarea plan are the dedicated agricultural areas. Mr. Bazzel replied that in the green areas there are very little agricultural areas, in the river bottom there are some areas that have been farmed in the past, they are not being actively farmed at this time. Most of the area in the east is highly and fairly rugged and not agricultural. Commissioner Thomas commented that she was aware that in certain parts they have some mitigation credit even on agricultural land, they get some credits for not killing the bigger varmints. Mr. Bazzel commented that the agricultural community has negotiated certain provisions with the wildlife agencies they kick-in for agricultural lands where they get certain credits for preserving certain areas and they are allowed to farm, but that does not apply to this property. Commissioner Thomas commented that in other words we really do not have any agricultural lands left in that area. Mr. Bazzel replied that is correct and one of the biggest reasons is that there is not a good source of water. Commissioner Thomas asked if the purple pipe going through Otay Ranch, couldn't be used. Mr. Bazzel replied that the funding for that water to come down was intended for agricultural purposes. Commissioner Thomas then asked if you used that reclaimed water, there would be more water available for agricultural purposes. Mr. Bazzel replied it would not be economically feasible. The reclaimed water is really to be used for manufactured open space areas like hillsides, slope areas that have been planted, and golf courses, we hope in the years to come to expand the use of reclaimed water, but again it is - ..- RCC Minutes July 19, 1999 Page 9 not going to be used for agricultural purposes. When the Metropolitan Waste proposed to expand the sewage system to cover the entire development potential of this region, the reason that they were hit with doing a habitat conservation plan was because of the growth producing impacts of the expansion of that sewage facility. Therefore, future development had to be looked at wherever it was going to occur and what impacts were going to occur as a result of it. It really had very little to do with sewage, the fact was by expanding that system, you were enabling the growth to occur, enabling impacts to occur and that's really where the requirement came in to do a habitat conservation plan protecting the species came into play. If they did not establish a planned preserve to conserve the species as growth occurred, then we come down to the municipalities jurisdiction and the one that was proposing the expansion was the City of San Diego and they are the one that got hit with it, but it really is a regional issue. Chair Yamada explained that the issue with the reclaimed water is that there is a quantity problem. By saying that if you provide someone with reclaimed water it frees up potable water, although it does replace potable, demand the issue with agriculture is that you notice when you drive up 1-15 that the issue where you have agriculture is on steep slopes in the north county and that's because you can't develop it. There are very few places left in the County where it still makes economic sense to do agricultural. But, you are not going to find that in the City ofChula Vista, its not the trouble with the availability of imported water to serve agriculture, but the land is much more conducive to other more profitable uses other than agriculture. Commissioner Thomas replied that she was looking at the issue in a more global way, because that's the nature of the argument that was used for San Diego County to get cleaner potable water from the ImperialValley so that the grayer water would be used by agriculture and other uses in Imperial Coun;ty. This is why we did our trade-off of Colorado River Water (lost in future) and that agreement supplied us with a more reliable water supply. Ms. McKinley stated that she hoped that gave them an overview of where they were going and distributed an outline for the MSCP Subarea Plan and Plan Summary (attached). We will be back to you when we have a better idea of some real species information. Mr. Bazzel stated regarding the annex portion, the City of Chula Vista General Plan is designed to cover areas that may be annexed to the City in the future. What has happened when the County has received approval of the subarea plan for the entire Otay Ranch and the incorporated area, the area was just being annexed into the City. The idea of the subarea plan covered this entire area is that as annexations do occur and we will have a few, the San Miguel Southern Parcel, Bonita Meadows, Otay Water District Golf Course, the Watson Land Company, and it's a real question mark about the Resort whether that will come to the City or not. But everything else out there in the east is a huge question mark whether it will ever become part ofthe City, but if it does, the idea is that the County Subarea Plan and its conservation level and the City's Subarea Plan and its conservation levels are the same and it's a matter of paper work that the management of those areas and monitoring those areas is exactly the same as comes under the City of Chula Vista. Commissioner Bull requested more information on acquisitions. The MSCP has 90,000 acres that is supposed to be publicly acquired somehow, is Chula Vista responsible for a portion of that? - - RCC Minutes July 19, 1999 Page 10 Ms. McKinley responded that each jurisdiction has a target number and the responsibility to get to that target number is split between the jurisdictions and the wildlife agencies. Mr. Bazzel replied that the entire MSCP is designed around the idea that a certain amount of property would be gained through an entitlement process for development, a certain amount of it is already publicly owned and would be conserved and not developed by the cities or counties, and a certain amount is private land. The private land is being targeted for acquisition, the state and federal government have committed to purchasing half of that private land. It is estimated that 27,000 acres of private land will be acquired County wide, MSCP wide 13,500 is the responsibility of the Federal and State Government, and the other 13,500 is the responsibility of the jurisdictions involved. Each jurisdiction is responsible for acquisition of private lands in its jurisdiction, we have very little private land that does not have some development potential and the majority of the land in Chula Vista is owned by major land owners. There are probably only five to six landowners that own the majority of the development land and open space. We have less than 160 acres of private land that is not considered part of the master plan. Commissioner Burrascano inquired if they were in the Otayand Sweetwater River Valley. Mr. Bazzel replied that they were primarily within the Otay River Valley and we have acquired quite a bit already, and we plan to acquire more next year, so that number is going to go down even further and the rest are just minor fragments. Sweetwater Valley, while it is in our subarea plan is primarily in an unincorporated area and not something we would be targeting in Chula Vista for acquisition, right now the County would have to look at that, but if we annexed it we would. Commissioner Marquez asked if we had anything left to preserve? Mr. Bazzel responded that we had a lot left to preserve, but to acquire with funding we do not have that much to acquire. We still have to figure out a way to pay for managing and monitoring it but most of the acreage coming into the preserve is going to be brought in through the development process. Commissioner Burrascano commented that they were concerned about the two river connections, which sounds like the plan is to buy some more of that land and that the bayfront was an issue but with the refuge that's no longer an issue. Mr. Bazzel replied that we will still have some issues down there, but the Port District controls most of that area. The mid-bayfront area that is above the high tide is part of the City of Chula Vista's responsibility, a lot ofthat has been set aside in the Sweetwater Marsh and some ofit still needs to be set aside but its fairly well covered. It is the area out in the water that's part of the South Bay Wildlife Refuge and a lot of it further south in the City of San Diego. The river valleys are considered major linkages, not only because of the riparian habitat that is down there, but we want to maintain that biological linkage. We have road crossings, but there are ways to get underneath those roads but we don't want to block that so that is a major function of the Otay Valley Regional Park effort to acquire and to be able to maintain that open space. Commissioner Marquez asked if they would be getting a draft before the next meeting? Ms. McKinley replied that she hoped so. - - RCC Minutes July 19, 1999 Page 11 Mr. Bazzel commented that the update report to the Planning Commission is an update but there would be a draft plan. Ms. McKinley replied that it would be a draft per say, but a rough product that they can share with the commission before we have a meeting on August 9, 1999. Therefore, you will at least know what the questions are that we will be asking and we will definitely have a map. Commissioner Thomas asked if the County had a web site for their plans? Mr. Bazzel replied that SANGIS (a SANDAG product) has a website where you can go to look at the MSCP. Commissioner Thomas asked if there was a water plan for the future habitat? Mr. Bazzel responded that the Otay Water District that covers most of the water in the east has a water master plan. They are the water purveyor for that area and committed to supplying water to that area. Ms. Ponseggi commented that the water supply is usually addressed in the EIR, in the Public Facilities Finance Plan if there is a need for additional water line. There is often a subarea master plan that is prepared for each project and that is sometimes part of the SPA, and sometimes part of the facilities plan and it is always required prior to final maps. Its required by the water districts but we have to see all of those things to make sure they are signed off and approved before we will approve the maps. Commissioner Burrascano asked about the funding mechanism for the City of San Diego which is probably the worst off in tenns of having to come up with acquisition funds, there time clock started to tick a year-and-a-half to two years ago. They have three years from the signing of the implementing agreement to come up with funding. Mr. Bazze1 replied that it actually applied to the entire MSCP, that there was a three-year period to get it on the ballot. Commissioner Burrascano commented that as soon as we pass the plan we are going to need to work on the funding. Mr. Bazzel replied that they were working on it right now. But that is one of the policy issues that will come before council in August on how the program is going to be funded and what are our resident's commitment is going to be, and Council is very concerned about that and will be asking those questions. We need to establish a program that will make that happen, but this regional funding effort is not just San Diego it affects all of us. I think what the City and County of San Diego are doing is developing other alternatives to that regional funding ballot measure. Discussion ensued about the use of the word "Gun Club" for a specific area. It was made clear that "Gun Club" was only used as a reference to that area as that's what it was called years ago. Mr. Bazzel commented that the MSCP as it refers to the Otay Valley Regional Park is not the plan for the park or its uses, what it addresses is the preserve planning that would be associated - - RCC Minutes July 19, 1999 Page 12 with the park, in other words where is the core areas of the preserve, where the active recreation areas are, and because it is co-terminus with the MSCP planning, the multi-habitat planning area, the regional park concept plan, and the preserve planning for the MSCP are precisely the same and so the EIR for the MSCP addressed the concept plan for the Otay Valley Regional Park for that . purpose. But, the future land uses within the regional park are still subject to master planning of that regional park (the final master plan) so there will be more coming on that as time goes on. The main thing here is to set those preserve boundaries and control what happens within the preserve. Chair Yamada asked if there were any more questions. There were none. 4. STAFF COMMENTS Mr. Reid asked if they were in agreement to combine their August 2, 1999 meeting with the proposed August 9, 1999 meeting. Commissioner Burrascano replied that would be acceptable to them. Ms. McKinley and Ms. Ponseggi left the meeting at 8:30 p.m. 5. CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS Chair Yamada thanked the Commission and Mr. Reid for their involvement and work on the Commission. He is retiring to spend more time with his family. 6. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioners Thomas, Burrascano, Marquez, and Bull voiced their appreciation for the leadership that Chair Yamada offered to the Commission. Commissioner Burrascano asked Mr. Reid if he had checked with the legal department to see if she was eligible to continue with any future MSCP discussions. Mr. Reid replied that yes, Peggy McCarberg of the legal department had confirmed that Ms. Burrascano was eligible for future MSCP discussions. Mr. will see that Ms. Burrascano gets a memo to that affect. Commissioner Marquez asked if Mr. Reid was leaving the City. Mr. Reid confinned that he was retiring at the end ofthe year. Commissioner Thomas requested that the Commission receive an updated schedule with the proposed dates for meetings, workshops, etc. She also asked about the Environmental A wards for this year. Mr. Reid confirmed that the time for this year's awards had passed and they would have to wait until next year in order to nominate someone for the award. - - RCC Minutes July 19, 1999 Page 13 Commissioner Thomas also requested that some sort of monitoring of the minutes be established as there has been references to workshops, field trips, and other events like Barbara Bamberger's presentation that never happened. Mr. Reid responded that it would be helpful if the commission members would go back through their notes and present a list of events that did not happen as well as a list of what they would like to happen for incorporation in future minutes. He also shared that Barbara Bamberger was leaving the City to pursue her Masters Degree. Commissioner Thomas stated she would make a list. Meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m. to August 9, 1999. Respectfully submitted, Charline Long Recording Secretary