Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC MIN 1999/03/29 -, - RE~v(JRCE CONSERV ATION COMMI~~JlON MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 29, 1999 Public Services Building Conference Rooms 2&3 MINUTES RCC MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Bull Teresa Thomas Cindy Burrascano Viviane Marquez (Arrived 6:40 p.m.) Robert Yamada MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Fisher, Excused STAFF PRESENT: Ms. Ponseggi, Environmental Projects Meeting called to order at 6:35 p.m. 1. APPROV AL OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 1, 1999. MSC (Thomas/Burrascano) to approve the minutes of February 1, 1999, Teresa Thomas requested that under New Business, fourth paragraph, second sentence be amended to read "She requested to see future agreements with other resource agencies." In addition, the last sentence, same paragraph be amended to read, "She requested the meeting to be moved up to better plan for- long-range planning and to alleviate the population traffic impact." Also, under Commissioners Comments, first paragraph, last sentence be amended to read, " She was advised to contact SDG&E to complain about the trash in the area and to find out what are the plans for that piece of land." In the last paragraph, it should read "Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP)." Cindy Burrascano requested that under New Business, end of third paragraph be amended to read "Commissioner Burrascano inquired about the removal of grazing on the resort area Special Study Area for vernal pools. Previous documents stated grazing had already been removed, therefore there were no impacts to myosarus minimus ssp Apus. Is this true?" Minutes approved with stated amendments 4-0-0-2, Robert Fisher and Viviane Marquez absent. 2. NEW BUSINESS: Review of the Otay Water District Golf Course Mitigated Negative Declaration Commissioner Yamada requested that the agenda be taken out-of-order, as suggested by staff, and that the Review of the Otay Water District Golf Course Mitigated Negative Declaration be heard first. Ms. Ponseggi opened by introducing Mike Coleman from Otay Water District and his team. Mike Coleman, Environmental Specialist and Project Manager Otay Golf Course, Otay Water District, gave an overview of the design process for the proposed Otay Water District Golf Course. The parcel is around 509 acres within the County of San Diego, but not yet annexed to the City of Chula Vista. The design plan has been approved by the Planning Commission, but has not yet gone to the City Council. The history of the property is that it has been used for - .- RCC Minutes -2- March 29, 1999 potable and recycled (reclaimed) water. The parcel was originally bought because the district was producing more recycled water than it had markets for in the EastLake area. The water district has owned it for about twenty years. They grew Sudan grass, a salt-tolerant crop, and spilled excess water on to these crops to use up excess water before the markets developed. We will have a reverse effect eventually, there is more market for recycled water than we can produce at the Chapman Plant. There are a couple of typical mellow reservoirs and a couple of lined and covered ponds for keeping the recycled water quality high. A new project scheduled to start construction is the new seven-eleven potable water reservoir providing water services to the communities to the south. Planned for this area is an 8,500 square foot clubhouse and the associated golf cart shed and maintenance facility, primarily most of the area is open and not paved. There are wetlands on the site with drainage for Salt Creek, which will enhance and improve the wetland features on-site. Another feature is that it is an Audubon International Center Course, to be distinguished from the San Diego Audubon Society, and we have voluntarily accepted another layer of requirements, above what the regulatory agencies require, such as pesticide management, the use of native grasses, etc. A three-way partnership between the golf course, the District, and Pacific Bay Homes has been formed to develop a comprehensive burrowing owl mitigation program, several burrows have already been established. Commissioner Thomas asked how the pesticide management and native plant program worked. Mr. Coleman replied that it was not so much a mitigation but a voluntary program to control the use of pesticides and the use of native plants. To be eligible for the Audubon International Society, based out of New York, program you have to have a very comprehensive management plan and a strict regime for controlling and keeping pesticides at a minimal amount. Shauna Anderson, P&D Environmental Consultants, added that in order to receive signature status we must prepare an outline for a very comprehensive plan on how we will manage pesticides, wetlands, planting, etc. The society has visited once, and will visit a couple of more times, before they will give us the signature status that we are requesting. Keith Merkel, Biologist, added that the Audubon International Society does not take a position on whether or not there should be a golf course, but if you are going to develop a golf course it should follow some environmentally conscious conservative plans. They look at water management, energy efficiency, recycling, waste management, mulching, and vegetation management issues. Commissioner Burrascano asked how gophers were killed. Mr. Merkel replied that the vast majority of golf courses use traps, fish and game suggested we use gas pellets. Commissioner Marquez asked about the requirement for native grasses. Mr. Merkel answered that all the areas surrounding the greens and fairways are to be restored to native grassland and scrub vegetation. Ms. Ponseggi distributed a Burrowing Owl Mitigation Plan used for the Rolling Hills Ranch/Otay Use Area prepared by Pacific Bay Homes and Otay Water District. The study indicates that burrows are probably used by the same owls. The program will be under OWD's - - RCC Minutes -3- March 29, 1999 authority, but the City will monitor and receive the reports and stay involved because it is part of the mitigation for Pacific Bay Homes. Mr. Merkel offered that there were 15 artificial burrow sites along the proposed golf course. Mr. Coleman pointed out that surrounding the golf course is a 230-acre mitigation bank that the District manages and monitors, which is an excellent place for the owl to be protected. Commissioner Burrascano asked about the mitigation for foraging habitat for raptors. Mr. Merkel replied that there are 174 acres of impact, the District did a mitigation following the guidelines of one-half to one mitigation per impact grasslands. There is that much land available on-site and so the environmental document that you have has the mitigation being on-site with the grasslands being enhanced and restored on-site. In addition, to that there has been further follow up discussions with the agencies and we added to the on-site mitigation an additional 25 acres of off-site. That will occur within a planning area at a tier I and 2 or 3. Commissioner Burrascano restated that the interior parts of the golf course are the mitigating point of impact, even though it is actively being used as a golf course. She also asked if a Golden Eagle had ever been seen foraging on a golf course. Mr. Merkel replied that they are found regularly around the golf courses at Eagle's Nest and at Pendleton. Mr. Coleman added that this was not a typical golf course, there are many natural areas between the play areas and that is a feature of the Audubon International Society. Mr. Merkel added that there is a significant number of raptors in the area right now. The key is there are a lot of white tailed kite, it's a fairly regular wintering area, and there are also breeding kites on-site. We have tried to enhance the area for the species we thought we could do the most for. In terms of the kite, we have consolidated all of the wetland irrigation areas in blocks and added larger trees. For the eagles we have tried to keep large blocks of open habitat, we have also relied a lot on the MSCP. Commissioner Burrascano voiced her concerns that the impact on the Golden Eagle has not truly been mitigated. Ms. Ponseggi offered that if you feel the document does not adequately address your concerns, that is a comment that you need to make in your motion. If you don't think it is covered adequately, then as with all the other documents you review, when it goes on to the City Council that comment will be noted to the City Council. Commissioner Yamada asked what type of monitoring would be done before and after for the activity of the animals as it is now versus what happens after. What happens after five years if the eagle has disappeared? Mr. Coleman replied that they have a full mitigation monitoring plan. Something unique is the requirement that the construction workers, before the first blade of dirt is turned over, will attend a four-hour environmental training session. In addition to all of the biological monitoring - -. RCC Minutes -4- March 29, 1999 measures, there are monitors on-site for biological and paleontological. The MSCP addresses the eagle on a regional basis and that has been our focus. Mr. Merkel added that they have toured other golf courses in the area and the decline in wildlife has been caused by the surrounding residential neighborhoods. This course will be unique in that it is open on three sides. Commissioner Thomas asked about the septic-sewer system and the disposal of solid waste. Mr. Coleman responded that the septic option has been dropped, and a normal sewage system from EastLake will be used. Reclaimed water from the Ralph Chapman Plant will be used for irrigation and potable water in the clubhouse. Helix Environmental is working with Keith Merkel's office to develop a plan for solid waste. Commissioner Thomas responded that she would feel more comfortable after she saw the Audubon International Society report. Ms. Ponseggi offered that if you are interested in seeing the report you should add it to your motion. Mr. Coleman replied that the signature status of the golf course is actually bestowed a year after the project is opened under the requirements for review of the Audubon International Society. Commissioner Marquez asked what was the advantage of having the Audubon International Society sign off on the golf course. Mr. Coleman responded that from the very beginning the direction was for this to be an environmentally sensitive course. From Otay's perspective, the course of the development was such that embodied what our board wanted to achieve in respect to community responsibility. Commissioner Marquez asked if the board is going to hold the golf course to those standards in perpetuity. Mr. Stobe replied that the District has a 40-year lease and at the end of that lease, the District will own the land. The intent behind this is to look for other revenue generators to help hold the water rates at a reasonable level for our ratepayers. Commissioner Bull asked what is a Master Tax Property Exchange Agreement. Mr. Coleman replied that pertained to the LAFCO annexation. Commissioner Bull asked for clarification on the Golden Eagle question as it pertains to the biology report. The report indicates that it is a significant impact and there is no specific mitigation or is the design of the golf course the mitigation, therefore there is not a significant impact. Mr. Coleman replied when they were working out the design issues with Fish & Game and Fish & Wildlife they worked out the mitigation to where it is acceptable to the agencies and the off- site mitigation. - - RCC Minutes -5- March 29, 1999 Mr. Merkel added that they found the impact significant and the way they addressed the mitigation was that they adopted the guidelines from the MSCP and mitigated accordingly. The MSCP says that the impact to the eagle would not result in the loss of the eagle. Chair Yamada asked for comments from the public. Jim Puegh, San Diego Audubon Society, reiterated that there is no relationship between the Audubon International, the San Diego Audubon, the California Audubon, or the National Audubon Societies. In addition to using native grasses, he hopes that the native sycamores and willows will be used as well. He is also concerned that there will be more year-round water source than would typically be in a stream like that, a diligent long-term monitoring requirement is needed so the wetlands do not decay. Also, because of the fertilizer and nutrient rich water on the golf course the wetlands will be hyper-fed with nutrients and that is not particularly natural. He does not understand how it can be used as a mitigation site unless there is a commitment for eternal monitoring and management for the wetlands. Also, more water will flow into the soil, surface and subsurface, so downstream there will be more nutrients and year-round water, which will promote evasive vegetation downstream. If this is only going to be monitored for five years, it will not solve the problem; a commitment for eternal monitoring needs to be established. Mr. Coleman replied that the District was in for the long-term, the five-year monitoring refers to the Fish & Game requirement for the Burrowing Owl. We will continue to monitor our existing ponds and operations, as well as the mitigation bank habitat, the District will always be there. Mr. Puegh stated that he did not understand about the eagles, that it was not addressed in the MSCP. He asked how can the fact that the MSCP says that the eagles are not going to become extent in the county be used, that losing eagle habitats isn't something that requires specific mitigation. Mr. Coleman replied that they were almost at the MSCP. Our plan has been approved at the local level and we are going through the final level with the reviews at the legal offices at the state level and the federal level to get the legal implementing agreement completed. Keith Merkel added that when the original MSCP document went out the District was the only special District that actually had a document in that master document. It assumed development for certain areas and it also laid out the preserve areas around us including the surrounding acreage. So, we adopted the assumed level of accreditation occurring on this site and implemented that in accordance with the golf course design. Technically it is not an approved sub-area because it is going through the approval process. The District had a choice, to go the standard route of CEQA or to do something in accordance with what the MSCP would eventually require. We chose to go the latter route, because of the issue of the additional 25 acres that has two different tiers preservation in NHP As. So actually it is above and beyond what the MSCP would require. Ms. Ponseggi offered the following clarification: Since the City of Chula Vista is the responsible agency versus the lead agency, if we were the lead agency the document would have been prepared by the City and would have come to you in draft form prior to it going to the Planning Commission. Because we are the responsible agency, it is similar to when Lafco considers an annexation and the applicant (City) prepares an ErR prior to it going to Lafco. Lafco has the choice at that point or we have the choice of using this environmental document and finding it adequate for the action that is before the City Council. That is approval of the Conditional Use .- - RCC Minutes -6- March 29, 1999 Permit or finding it inadequate and recommending to the City Council that they direct the applicant to prepare an environmental document where we would be the lead agency. So, tonight you need to make a motion similar to that if we were the lead agency that you either find this document adequate or you find it to be not adequate. You are making a recommendation to the City Council so your comments will be considered when they make their decision and they are bound to consider the environmental document in making their decision on the project. Chair Yamada asked for a motion. MSC (Thomas/Bull) motioned to find the document adequate with the following provisions: 1. Maintain the high standard of the International Audubon Society permit standards for the life of the golf course. 2. That there be a structured solid source waste reduction program for both the clubhouse and golf course. 3. That a year-long biological (nitrates, phosphates, BODs, bacteria, and pesticides) monitoring of run-off water quality be established. 4. That a routine (quarterly) removal of exotics in the riparian and grassland areas be established. VOTE: Approved 4-1-0-1 (Commissioner Burrascano voted no because she believes the impact to the Golden Eagle, Hawk and Northern Harrier has not actually been mitigated, therefore this document is not appropriate for this analysis. Robert Fisher was absent.) OLD BUSINESS: Review Nee:ative Declaration IS-99-20. Olympic Parkway Extension Ms. Ponseggi opened the discussion by explaining the process and introducing the experts that were there to help with the process. Since the last meeting a determination was made that this document will be going on to the City Council for their adoption scheduled for April 13, 1999. rather than was originally proposed and that was adoption by the decision maker being the City Engineer who would have approval of the construction plans so this will be going on to the City Council, tentatively scheduled for April 13, 1999. The document that will go on to the Council will contain copies of your comments and any other received comments with responses. Tonight you need to discuss with us the adequacy or inadequacies of the document, and to make a motion that addresses the adequacy of the document. We recognize that there are aspects of the project that the Commission is not happy with, and we need to know to what extent the document does not address the project. That is where we would like you to be focusing your comments so we may go forward in the CEQA process and respond to comments on the adequacy of this document. Now we got a lot of questions from you and from the public regarding the adequacy of the process that we are using and the use of a mitigated negative declaration. We have John Mattox from Remy, Thomas, and Moose, they are the city's special legal counsel on CEQA. Remy, Thomas is a recognized expert in the State of California on CEQA. We have asked John Mattox to discuss the intricacies of CEQA; in addition, we have representatives from our Engineering Department; Keith Merkel, is here to speak to you about the biology issues; Brian Smith, on archeology; and John Bridges, who originally prepared the initial study checklist and the mitigated negative declaration. After John Mattox gives you a brief presentation on some of the CEQA issues we could then get into questions to the technical people. John Mattox, Remy, Thomas, and Moose, stated that we are actually involved with Otay Ranch - .- RCC Minutes -7- March 29, 1999 GDP CEQA process and represented the City for SPA I with respect to the program EIR GDP we represented the City in that litigation. The firm has published a book "The Guide to California Environmental Quality Act" and has had their hand in CEQA since its inception during the early '70s. I'm here tonight to describe the posture of the negative declaration for you in the context of what's occurred previously. In terms of the mitigated negative declaration what you have here is the negative declaration that relies on tiering principles in CEQA. Initially tiering envisions a process whereby a broad programmatic analysis is prepared and as you proceed, your environmental review becomes more and more focused. There are two CEQA Guidelines provisions that particularly talk about tiering that help define the issues that the negative declaration is required to address. The sections that we're required to address at this tier are Sections 15152 and 15183. Tiering is a principle that is supposed to help streamline the environmental review, although I don't think that term is necessarily precise because it suggests that you are able to forgo an environmental analysis at certain levels, and that is not true. The fundamental issue that has to be addressed by the City and is addressed in the negative declaration reflects the fact that this parkway is a project that has been envisioned and addressed in a series of prior EIRs including Otay Ranch GDP Programmatic EIR, the SPA I EIR, EastLake, Sunbow, and others. The CEQA posture in respect to the project that has been contemplated and analyzed in two previous tiers because the SPA I implements the programmatic GDP analysis. So, this is a more project specific analysis of the project. Prom CEQA's perspective the first issue is; to what extent has the Olympic Parkway and its environmental impacts been analyzed in these prior documents; the next question is whether that analysis is adequate for purposes of assessing project specific impacts. The fundamental question is; is the previous analysis adequate to assess the project now. Therefore, what you see in the negative declaration, in the initial study, is a lot of discussion about what impacts were identified in the prior documents and how those impacts were to be addressed. That's not the end of the story though, its simply not an exercise of listing what's occurred in those prior documents, you then have to address or grapple with the issue of whether or not if there is any thing additional you can do now. So, unlike a mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration at the project specific level that has no prior environmental analysis, when you asses the adequacy of the environmental review at this tier you have to address that issue, CEQA requires the City to address that issue, in the context of the analysis that occurred at the previous tiers. I offer this in order to help facilitate your comments about the document, and the extent to which the previous tiers come into play. I also understand that this is a controversial project and meaningful public participation and mitigating to the extent feasible, those are two of CEQAs most fundamental mandates. Commissioner Burrascano asked that with an EIR wouldn't you have an alternative analysis for wetlands impact and try to minimize those impacts. There is nothing in this document that even attempts to do that and a mitigated negative declaration does not have to do that. Mr. Mattox stated that when you look at a particular impact with respect to the project you have to begin with the premise, will this project result in wetlands impacts. The answer in this case as disclosed in the negative declaration is yes, as designed. So, you look at the previous environmental analysis and you have to ask the fundamental question, with respect to wetlands impacts was the analysis of wetlands impacts and the mitigation measures and the alternatives considered in the prior documents with respect to, and remember alternatives are just like mitigation measures in the CEQA context, your alternative analysis and the purpose they serve to provide another mechanism for the lead agency to attempt to address, avoid, or lessen environmental impacts. When you tier and look back and you look at the previous environmental analysis and where an EIR has been prepared the question is, does that analysis - - RCC Minutes -8- March 29, 1999 adequately address the environmental impact at issue. Otay Ranch EIR and SPA I EIR, for example, includes an analysis of wetlands impact, the question then is, in light of the previous analysis which contemplated this project is there anything more that can be done. In the guidelines sections that I specifically, where needs to be done, because there are new significant impacts that were not previously addressed, where substantial increase in the severity of the previously disclosed environmental impact. If you can conclude at this tier 1 that the previous environmental analysis adequately addressed the environmental impacts associated with the wetlands and you determined that they were project specific impacts and they can be mitigated which is what happens in this negative declaration you don't have an obligation to do an alternatives analysis. Just as you wouldn't in any negative declaration context. Commissioner Marquez stated that previous EIRs did not look at alternatives for this road. Their remarks were this is going to be the road, end of story. They were evaluating a given, whereas this is a project in itself. Mr. Mattox responded that he could talk to them about process I can't tell you exactly, I can't tell you the Otay Ranch GDP specifically addressed a particular issue. They were either in the negative declaration or that's a legitimate comment for you to raise. If you do not see that the previous environmental analysis addressed alternatives for the placement of the roadway in Poggi Canyon and if you believe that, then that is a legitimate question to ask. But, to the extent that alternatives to the placement of this roadway or a roadway in Poggi Canyon was previously addressed then the question becomes whether or not that analysis, including the alternatives analysis, adequately discloses the significant environmental impacts as CEQA requires. If it does not because there are new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of those previously disclosed impacts then you are faced with the classic position of a CEQA review, namely, you've got to discuss alternatives to figure out ways to address that project's specific impact. But, whether you have to do that here depends on whether it was addressed at the first tier and the extent to which that first tier analysis is adequate. So, you have to say is there something new, now that you have raised the issue that there was no previous discussion on alternatives on the placement of Poggi Canyon, if that is true then. . . Commissioner Thomas interjected that every time the issue of Poggi Canyon came up on any of the issues where questions were raised, it was implied that we would get a chance to address the mitigation at a future date. So, we waited for that time, this is supposed to be that time. Mr. Mattox replied that this was the time. Ms. Ponseggi replied that is why this meeting was continued for two weeks, in order to give you the opportunity to see the mitigation. Commissioner Thomas responded that if there are pieces in different EIRs that might be adequate, when you have a project like this where there is a bottle neck, it is just not the wetlands its actually the drainage area. There is a need to address it more specifically, the people that are in charge, the City, and the developers need to have a handle on it, as do the people who just want to enjoy the canyon and the animals that live there. This project needs more adequate addressing. Rich Rosseler, Principal Planner, City of Chula Vista, stated that during the Otay Ranch GDP there was an issue paper prepared that dealt with the entire roadway system. There was a citizen's committee that dealt specifically with transportation and then there was an inter- - -- RCC Minutes -9- March 29, 1999 jurisdictional task force that was made up of county and City representatives both at the staff level and the executive and policy level, comprised of two supervisors and two City Councilmembers. They looked at specific roadway alignments and the constraints that were put on them and most of the constraints focused on SR-125 and where the interchange spacing could be and looked at as an entire package. Now the original Baldwin proposal that came in took Orange Avenue after it comes out of what we now call Village II West and took it up onto the Mesa on the southside and had an intersection with SR-125 that was further to the south. So taking a road up out of the Canyon as you have talked about was analyzed. In the EIR that was prepared on GDP there were nine different alternatives that were prepared. Whether all nine addressed different alignments of Orange Avenue or not I don't know. But, at least three of them did, and the reason the citizen's committee recommended that Orange Avenue go in Poggi Canyon was to avoid impacts to sensitive resources, which were the steep slopes along Poggi Canyon. The citizen's committee identified those slopes as being a significant resource and by putting Orange A venue, at that time in Poggi Canyon, those slopes could be preserved and it would become a scenic corridor. That's what went forward to the City Council for adoption and was ultimately adopted by the City Council. So, the alternatives analysis that you've been asking about has been performed back in 1993 when the GDP was adopted. Ms. Ponseggi added that the original GDP is what the Otay Ranch SPA, SPA I, and SPA I West are tiered off of. Commissioner Marquez asked if an area that was deemed to be open space was changed, changing the prior tiered documents that have been created, isn't that enough to request another analysis. Mr. Mattox replied that the short answer to your question is no. The mere fact that additional homes have been built isn't necessarily a CEQA trigger legally to require that a separate independent stand-alone analysis that doesn't tier off prior environmental analysis be prepared. The reason I'm here is to help facilitate the discussion, because as a matter of law the environmental review in a negative declaration is going to be based on and will tier off of the environmental review and the project assumptions that went into the previous environmental analysis. The CEQA question is has any thing changed that are new significant impacts or are impacts that were previously disclosed, will they be more severe than previously disclosed. Is there anything peculiar about this particular project that wasn't adequately addressed in the prior documents, that's the four corners of the CEQA analysis that is required. To the extent that there are changed circumstances, those changed circumstances are significant in the legal CEQA sense if those changes show new significant impacts, substantial changes in the severity of impacts, or ne", projects, specific meaningful impacts that are peculiar to this project that weren't contemplated by any of the prior documents. Now, what you have at a program level is a much broader stroke of environmental review. Obviously, when you are planning to do an environmental review for 30,000 acres you can't get into the level of detail that you should if you are at a project specific point. So, you have the GDP at one end of the spectrum, SPA I which requires even more focused environmental review, but tiers off of the GDP, and now you take it one step further even more specific. So, this negative declaration has to address the extent for which the prior environmental analysis is adequate. And then grapple with these changed circumstances, in your words, and whether those are significant in the legal CEQA sense. If you believe that there are impacts that weren't previously analyzed or might have been analyzed but that analysis isn't sufficient then that's a legitimate comment for you to make. There might have been a wetlands impacts disclosed in the programmatic EIR, I'm sure there were, I'm sure there were mitigation measures there, the same thing with the SPA. Let's assume there wasn't any of - -- RCC Minutes -10- March 29, 1999 that type of analysis in anyone of those documents. Then your comment that these impacts weren't addressed or that there are impacts that are peculiar to the project is what the negative declaration is supposed to be focusing on. Chair Yamada interjected that it sounds as if the programmatic EIR and the focus of the citizen's group in that discussion dealt primarily with its relationship with SR-125 and there must have been some discussion of the impact to the steep slopes and that sort of thing. But, I think that since we have got to this level this project specific nature of this mitigated negative declaration is very focused now on the wetlands impacts and the real focused impacts of Poggi Canyon which I don't think were sufficiently addressed at the programmatic level. Commissioner Burrascano stated that she didn't think that it wasn't just the wetlands. Ms. Ponseggi offered that the Archeologist was there to answer any questions. The Otay Ranch EIR which would have impacted that portion with the archeological does identify about eight or ten potentially significant sites. For CEQA, one of those sites that is within the alignment is deemed to be significant, the ErR calls it significant required mitigation and in fact prior to the roadway there is mitigation that ErR calls for was recovery. Before the roadway has any kind of work done, recovery will be done for that site and in fact some recovery work has already been started. In accordance with Section 106 of the Army Corps, where they also require a certain amount of significant testing, a determination as to whether or not the sites are any significant sites for CEQA and are eligible for historical register. The CEQA review that was previously done for Otay Ranch clearly identifies all the historical sites and archeological sites within the Otay Ranch. Those sites that are within the alignment are required to have recovery and that is addressed in the mitigated negative declaration. For further clarification Brian Smith is here to answer any questions. Commissioner Burrascano stated that if it was fully disclosed before and all that it required was a study of the site and removal of the artifacts then it would not meet the level of a changed circumstance that the wetlands do. But, ideally the mitigation of impacts to significant cultural resources always the avoidance of the resource due to project redesign, if the roadway is locked m. Ms. Ponseggi stated that was pretty standard language for almost every EIR you look at. I know the ones that I have brought forward all have as Option 1 avoidance, Option 2 if you can't avoid, keep in mind that the previous EIR looks at the option of avoidance or recovery and includes recovery . Commissioner Bull stated that it was clear that the mitigated negative declaration is a fine document for processing subsequent environmental issues. The real question we need to address is whether the mitigation that is specified for this particular project adequately meets the impacts that are outlined in the project. Take archeology for example, it talks about a research design but it doesn't say how much amount of excavation or mapping, so I would like to have seen more detail and specificity for cultural resources. But, it is the site that is important and can be dealt with. The question we have to answer is the mitigation in here adequate to deal with the impacts and if it is we shouldn't go through the long drawn out process of preparing another EIR on top of another EIR, ad nauseam. Commissioner Burrascano stated that she didn't think so, because alternatives come up in EIRs - - RCC Minutes -11- March 29, 1999 that do not come up in mitigated negative declaration discussions. Commissioner Bull replied that the goal of the environmental process in mitigation is in a sense to minimize the effect, not necessarily to analyze endlessly potential alternatives. Clearly CEQA did not require an alternative discussion to achieve the goals of the project that invokes some environmental effects and on a general level the Otay Ranch EIR challenged a rather significant report. Commissioner Burrascano replied that they changed the project, that was the pfoblem, when they selected that road alignment it was open space on both sides, its not any more. The scenic value is no longer what needs to be preserved because its going to be gone. That roadway alignment could be moved. Commissioner Bull asked how the designated open space got changed to residential. It seems like that is a weak point in the process, if that's true, how did that process happen. Mr. Rosseler feplied that it was all part of the selection in the nine alternatives that were prepared and which one was the best alternative. When you combined the roadway network with the Village concept which sat up on top of the Mesas, and they were going to have these individual villages, with a pedestrian core and some being served by the transit system, so we'll have a trolley line running through, and then we are going to bound them by the major arterials. That was the major design concept of the GDP that was finally selected after five years of study and nine different alternatives. So, you have the village concept, you have these twelve villages that are planned fOf on top of the mesas and the roadways were designed to run in the valley bottom. Commissioner Burrascano stated that they had already changed that by moving development down into Poggi Canyon. Mr. Rosseler stated there was no development proposed for down in Poggi Canyon. Commission Marquez stated that she understood they were doing land swaps at the fesource agencies. And the open space that was supposed to be pfeserved as an avian corridor, over the year, is now assumed to be biological open space. Mr. Rosseler stated that those areas are actually up on top of the hillsides and not down in Poggi Canyon. We are wOfking really hard right now to maintain landform grading in Village 1 and Village 2 West along the alignment of Olympic Parkway. Further back up there was open space areas and thefe were habitat areas back up in Village 1 West and Village 2. That area was exchanged, development rights in that area were exchanged for development rights out in Village 13 and Village 15 because wildlife agencies wanted a better wildlife corridor. Those exchanges wefe made. The slopes going down to Poggi Canyon to Olympic Parkway are still seen as a sensitive resource and we have requifed landform gfading. We had a big fight with the Otay Ranch Company on what grading, how much would be preserved, the natural slope, and the existing slope on the sides of Poggi Canyon. Commissioner Burrascano asked why can't we just move it out of the wetlands along the toe of that slope, that's basically what it comes down to for me. Why do we have to impact the wetlands? Mr. Mattox suggested that was a policy question. - - RCC Minutes -12- March 29, 1999 Mr. Rosseler stated that in order to get everything in, the six-lane arterial, and the drainage channel, the cross-section runs from one edge of the floor ofthe canyon to the other. Commissioner Burrascano replied why couldn't that be scooted over and cut into the toe of that slope. Mr. Rosseler replied because we're trying to maintain the steep slopes that are there now. Ms. Ponseggi offered that an appropriate comment would be to recommend that the steep slopes not be maintained in that location and in this natural design as possible and instead of that the road be moved over within the canyon. That would be an appropriate comment to make on this document, to make to the City Council when they are considering this negative declaration, to say that you feel that a more adequate mitigation to the impacts to the wetlands would be to move the road over into the slope. Commissioner Marquez responded that she would like it looked at, but didn't feel strongly enough to say that is the appropriate thing to do. Ms. Ponseggi replied that you should phrase your motion that way and that's certainly the comment that the City Council will receive and if they determine that they want to look at this policy at that point, then they would send it back to us to do that. Mr. Mattox offered some comments on alternatives, a significant issue that you keep raising. The obligation to consider alternatives does not arise where you have a negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration that says that here is the proposed project and the document reflects views that all the impacts can be fully mitigated. So, in the negative declaration context there is no obligation to consider alternatives. The point being that here's the project, here are the mitigation measures, everything is fully mitigated. The alternatives obligation only arises within an EIR context. But, you don't need to prepare an EIR unless there are changes and significant in terms of CEQA. Commissioner Thomas interjected that because of EI Nino there are significant changes to the watershed, a lot more water coming from nature. So, unless you use the kind of roadway material that permits percolation, that might help mitigate something, but if you don't you are blocking off drainage and that is the main thing that I am concerned about. I'm also interested in the paleontology not just the archeology, because I think the paleontology has not been addressed and that's another relative newer thing. Weare finding excellent paleontological fossils that are very unique and they are not just resources they are our inheritances. Ms. Ponseggi offered that would be a very appropriate comment to make on this document. Chair Yamada asked for any public comment. Jim Puegh, San Diego Audubon Society: 1. Concerned that there have been significant traffic changes 2. At the time of the alternative analysis the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge wasn't even envisioned. The reality is, they are buying up land and some of the development that this is going to feed are not going to be there, so the relevance -. . - RCC Minutes -13- March 29, 1999 of that analysis goes away. 3. The initial planning leading up to SR -125 is going to change, all this talk about smart growth is obviously going to obviate the growth in the area that these roads are leading to, I think that the MSCP itself and a lot of the areas that these roads are leading to are part of the MSCP preserve. The previous analysis is largely not relevant. In addition, some of the mitigation agreements of previous analyses were based on Otay Mountain and had not been approved by the service and so they are certainly not relevant to the approved plans. Some of them have been broken and some of the mitigations have gone away. Therefore, I think that there is a lot of information that you are not putting into this thing. In addition, looking at a high-level alternative analysis is really a glib thing, it does not address details, and does not obviate the need for project level alternative analysis. There is a bit of double-speak going on here that is frustrating. The EIR talks about mitigation of one-to-one, so we are taking a natural stream force that has some degradation due to some grazing, but is very recoverable, and replacing it with a drainage ditch next to a highway, and your saying a one-to-one mitigation ratio will replace those functions and values of the wetlands. That's an astounding statement, it just cannot be true. I am also astounded at the concept of preserving steep slopes at the loss of wetlands; I just do not see how an alternative analysis based on that is substantial. 4. No discussion on the effect to animals - there is no provision for north to south movement of wildlife across this canyon, and the east to west movement will be very limited where the stream actually crosses under the roadway and that is not addressed. These are going out towards areas that will be part of the preserve system. The corridor value of this needs to be considered and an alternative analysis should show what different alternatives are going to do for the corridor value. Commissioner Burrascano asked what the mitigation for impacts to wetlands are. Mr. Merkel replied they were one to one for wetlands and non-wetland waters and one to one- half for fresh water marsh and three to one located adjacent to Poggi Canyon grade adjacent to the six-lane road. The cross-section takes up the space, then there is roadway landscaping, then there is a slope down to the drainage which is upland, then there is the bottom of the drainage, and there are native plants that slope up the other side into the landscaping. Keith Merkel pointed out on an artist's rendering of a cross-section of the road and the development of the slopes. The roadway will have landscaping on all sides of the roads, and native slopes down to the mitigation area and the native slopes came back up at three to one and the existing ungraded in the interim condition and in the future pennanent condition on the south side in the new slope development. Commissioner Burrascano asked about the maritime succulents growth, and if all the scenic value that used to be there was gone. Mr. Merkel replied that Otay Ranch has some restoration to do. Ms. Ponseggi stated that Otay Ranch does have to do some restoration on-site as part of their mitigation for that project. They have talked to us about doing that restoration within the slopes. .- - RCC Minutes -14- March 29, 1999 Commissioner Marquez asked why they would want to encourage animals to come to an area where they have the potential to be run over. Commissioner Thomas asked if there was a hydrology expert there to explain the tremendous amount of water that's going through our watershed in recent years. John Morris, Kimley-Hom and Associates, stated that the hydrology that we did was really a compilation of existing studies, that the project was surrounded by quite a number of large subdivisions and they all had good hydrology models. A HEC I Analysis had already been performed for two of them and the numbers from the two studies agreed. To address another part of your question, yes we did have unusually high rains last year but it was not a record breaking year and if we were to do a new study today the numbers that are being used and the precipitation maps that we used to perform a HEC I analysis haven't changed at all. No one has issued a new map that would be adopted by local government agencies that we would be required to use for a study. The analysis takes into account all of the development that would occur under the General Plan including open space and developed areas. Commissioner Marquez asked if there was any change archeology wise. Mr. Smith replied that there had been no change. Nothing significant for the national register. Chair Yamada called for a motion. After lengthy discussion the following motion was finalized. Ms. Ponseggi offered that some kind of action needed to be taken since it had been continued for two weeks. If you find it not to be adequate or that you have issues you want us to respond to we will be preparing a response to those comments, but there does need to be action taken tonight. MSC (Marquez/Burrascano) offered a motion to not accept the negative declaration as the document is inadequate for the following reasons: 1. Recent changes, specifically since 1991: a. Significant increase in wetlands acreage from approximately 0.5 to 7.91 acres b. Recent landswap and its impact on previously approved alignments. 2. Inadequate Mitigation for: a. Equality of replaced wetlands (altering natural stream flow) b. Animal movement not considered c. Numbers of Cactus Wren and Gnat Catchers d. Golden Eagle Foraging e. Does not adequately address paleontological impacts. VOTE: Motioned approved 4-1-0-1 (Charles Bull voted no because the landswap had been approved by the commission earlier, that the [CEQA] mechanism is appropriate, and the document issues could be clarified prior to going to the City Council. Robert Fisher was absent.) Commissioner Bull expressed concern that the last word on page 52 is "the" and does not continue through to page 53. -- - RCC Minutes -15- March 29, 1999 Ms. Ponseggi replied she would look into it. She also distributed a copy of the roster for update, and announced that the meeting for April 5, 1999 had been cancelled, the next meeting would be held April 19, 1999. The scheduled trip (property tour) needs to be scheduled for when Doug Reid returns, further discussion was tabled. OTHER OLD BUSINESS - None COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Burrascano expressed concern that the commission is told that the details and alternatives will be at the SPA level analysis and then something like this comes up where we are not getting the decision making process. At a future step when we have been told - "Oh, don't worry about it now, we will work out all the details then and disclose the impact." So, I would like to express frustration with being told wait till the SPA level analysis. Commissioner Bull expressed that his frustration has not reached that level yet, and he was really pleased to get some substance on the project. What we usually get is a summary, its hard enough to evaluate adequacy when you look at the information, its really tough to evaluate adequacy when you get a little synopsis. If we could get them and get them a little sooner we would be able to come in and look at some of the earlier documents and have more confidence in deciding whether they are adequate or inadequate. Ms. Ponseggi offered that one of the things that you could do is look at the checklist from the mitigated negative declaration. If you would like to see those on a regular basis I would strongly recommend that you bring that to Doug Reid's attention when he gets back. Commissioner Marquez brought in bags of historical documents donated by Barbara Hall. Commissioner Thomas announced the celebration of Earth Day to be held April 19, 1999. OTHER OLD BUSINESS - None Adjourned 9:20 p.m.