HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC MIN 1999/11/15
- ..-.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
NOVEMBER 15, 1999
Public Services Building
Conference Room 1
MINUTES
RCC MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Cindy Burrascano Ms. Teresa Thomas
Mr. Charles Bull Mr. Juan Diaz
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Robert Fisher, Excused
Ms. Viviane Marquez
ST AFF PRESENT: Mr. Doug Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
Mr. Duane Bazzel, Principal Planner
Ms. Charline Long, Recording Secretary
GUESTS: Ms. Laura McKinley, MNA, Consulting Services
Mr. Joe Monaco, Dudek & Associates, Inc.
Meeting called to order at 6:35 p.m.
MSC (Thomas/Diaz) to approve the Minutes of July 19, 1999 and October 11, 1999. The
minutes of July 19, 1999 could not be approved because there is no quorum and probably will
never have a quorum because members have left and been replaced. Minutes from July 19, 1999
will be HllOO filed as part of the public record without approval. Minutes of October 11, 1999
were approved with changes; minutes of October 11, 1999 will reflect changes. Vote: 4-0-2
(Fisher and Marquez absent)
Doug Reid announced that this evening would be the last RCC meeting he would be attending as
he was retiring as Environmental Review Coordinator and leaving the City of Chula Vista. Mr.
Reid said good-bye and wished everyone good luck with the Resource Conservation
Commission and turned the meeting over to Duane Bazzel.
All of the commissioners wished Mr. Reid well and thanked him for his support and participation
in the RCC.
MSC (Thomas/Bull) made a motion to have a certificate of appreciation made to honor Doug
Reid signifying all of his years' of service and devotion for creating a marvelous environment in
the City Chula Vista and the community and his extremely marvelous professionalism, expertise,
and competence in carrying out the duties of his office. Commissioner Thomas volunteered to
make the certificate. Vote: Approved 4-0-2 (Fisher and Marquez absent)
- ...-.
RCC Minutes November 15, 1999
Page 2
Mr. Bazzel gave a brief overview and update on the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, stating
that the focus of tonight's meeting is on Table No.1 - Vegetation Conservation and Table No.4
_ Species Coverage, from the draft Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (attached). The draft
Subarea Plan should be available to RCC the first week of January 2000 depending on
conversations with the Wildlife Agencies. A question and answer period followed:
Q: Will the SDG&E power plant be disassembled?
A: The Port District has a ten-year lease with Duke Energy who is operating the power plant
now, and nothing will happen until that lease is terminated.
Q: Did the agencies not want you showing the connections that are not part of the City's
jurisdiction so that the line following Sweetwater is no longer green?
A: The Subarea Plan is not a hard-line plan. There are no lines drawn for the preserve itself
and there are a series of standards when development occurs that development has to be
consistent with those biological standards.
Joe Monaco, Dudek & Associates, explained the methodology behind the information contained
in the Species Table. The data that went into the species analysis was MSCP database, so
basically the same level of analysis, the same information that was part of the MSCP framework
plan, and it is the same information that the City and County of San Diego used in their Subarea
Plans. There was no new or different information collected or incorporated into this analysis.
Dudek & Associates looked at how that data was reflected within the boundaries of the City of
Chula Vista and within the defined Subarea Plan. The plan seeks coverage for the full 85 species
that are covered under the MSCP framework plan and the analysis is completely consistent with
the MSCP methodology. A question and answer period followed:
Q: Explain HLIT.
A: Chula Vista has a new ordinance that is being proposed to implement the Subarea Plan; it
is called the Habitat Loss and Incidental Take (HLIT) permit. It will be a permit required
if you are going to impact sensitive habitat and you are not in a covered project area. In
Chula Vista the majority of the MSCP is in covered projects, Otay Ranch, for example is
a covered project. This permit will require mitigation for impacts to habitat and it will
require avoidance and limitations on the impacts that can be made to narrow endemic
speCIes.
Q: Explain the word "Autecology" on page 2.
A: The consultants agreed to get back to the commission on its exact meaning and use
within the table.
Q: What is the significance of the shading?
A: The shading was supposed to be on every other species for easier readability of the table,
unfortunately it did not work out that way. When the table is redone it will be done
correctly.
Q: The numbers for the San Diego Ambrosia in Rice Canyon don't seem to be correct.
- -
RCC Minutes November 15, 1999
Page 3
A: The SANDAG data was put together in 1995 for the entire MSCP region, which is
everything from the San Dieguito River Valley South and it only included what they
could gather. The biological opinion that came out afterwards and had additional
information is probably where the Rice Canyon information came from.
Q: What is Gabbro soil?
A: The consultants agreed to get back with the exact type of soil it refers to.
Q: Is there someone on staffwho is a biol1Jgical and landscape axpert?
A· That type of expertise is usually contracted out, not cost effective for a p6l1llanent
.......
employee.
Q: Do we have a biologist or a landscape person on staff now in Chula Vista? Is there
somebody in Public Works who has that kind of expertise for appropriate vegetation on
those?
-
A: We typically contract that out.
0: Has anybody looked into how cost effective wise if it would be a [¿ood idea to hire
someone?
A: To date, it has not been cost effective to do that. Although in the future we may need to
as part of the implementation of the MSCP. And that is still a ways off.
Q: Percentages of specific animals/birds and their potential habitat - what is the guideline.
A: These are conservation numbers from the MSCP database. These numbers are
percentages of habitat conservation for that specific habitat type that that species is
generally associated with.
Q: Is the City drafting guidelines that would specify what the specific measures are to
reduce or eliminate detrimental edge effects?
A: Yes. MSCP requires that a framework plan be established with a follow-up area-wide
specific management directive. Page 34 of Table 4, footnote #4 lists all of the edge
effects.
Q: What impact will the Brown Field Cargo plan have on the habitat?
A: The City has several concerns with the Brown Field Cargo plan and is actively
participating in those meetings. The City will keep RCC informed with progress updates.
Q: TYhat measures are being taken to monitor the upst-ream/OO'.i'nstream affects effeets on
the Willowy monardella?
A· Based on the biological study being conducted by CBI, a phased mitigation management
¿ 110-.
plan beginning at the east to the west is being proposed.
0: Commissioners stated that the plan shows that 78% of known points of the Monardella
subspecies are found Chula Vista. Commissioners questioned where those known points
are in relationship to upstream impacts?
- ,-
RCC Minutes November 15, 1999
Page 4
A: Consultants responded that they could not answer the question at that time. It appears
that none of it would be included in the data that we have here because it appears that all
of the subspecies is are just out to the jurisdictional boundary of the City's subarea plan.
Staff will verify the exact location.
Q: Commissioners voiced concern about the viability of what is beinK conserved
downstream if development occurs upstream, you lose them all once that Kets developed.
With development all species plants are lost, that's been demonstrated in Marion Bear
Park in the City of San DieKo.
Staff questioned whether Commissioners would presume that a phased mitigation plan
beginning at the east to the west would be the way to go? Commissioners affirmed that
would be preferred.
A: Consultant responded that they think that that's where we are headed with our
management plan based on a biology study that we are having conducted by CBI
(Conservation Biological Institute). The outgrowth of that will be looking at a phased
management plan. The next step in preparation of the plan is resolution of the
management issues.
Q: Clarification was requested for the percentages stated in the "Level of Conservation"
portion for the Prostrate nararretia (bottom of page 12, Table 4).
A: Commitment was made to get back to the commission.
Q: Request was made that the statement regarding military lands (Miramar) be deleted
(Notes: on bottom of page 14, Table 4).
A: Commitment to delete that statement was made.
Q: Clarification was requested for the percentages stated in the "Level of Conservation"
portion for the Snake cholla (middle of page 13, Table 4).
A: Commitment was made to get back to the commission.
Q: Clarification was re(juœt<Jd on the locations in the "Le)'el o.l Conservation" portion for
the Arroyo southwestErn toad (t-op a/page 20, Tahlc 4).
A· Commitment was made to get back to the commission.
4.-....
0: Commissioners Questioned the location of the Arroyo Southwestern Toad statin~ that they
believe the Otay River population is actually upstream of Otay Lakes specifically in
Cedar Creek.
A: Consultant responded that Cedar Creek is up by Otay Mountain, which would be
upstream of the Lake. There is Little Cedar and Big Cedar. Consultant will verify the
location and if in fact there are any Arroyo Southwestern Toad within the plan
boundaries.
- .-
RCC Minutes November 15,1999
Page 5
Q: Clarification was requested on the percentages stated in the "Level of Consermtion "
portion f-or the San Diege horned lizard, and the StÐ.t-øment under "Conditions:"
concerning the ants.
A· Commitment was made to get back to the commission.
.¿.L.
Q: Commissioners had questions about the San Die¡zo horned lizard (p¡z. 21). The Draft
Subarea Plan says the area specifìc mana¡zement directives must include specifìc
measures to maintain native ant species and discoura¡ze the Ar¡zentine ant and protect
a¡zainst detrimental ed¡ze effects to this species. Commissioners asked for verifìcation of
the 44% confì¡zurations and how it stands without protection or what that protection
would be.
A: Consultant stated that they would check on that. Typically for wildlife species we talk
about percentage of habitat, and this should be a reference to habitat not necessarily a
point.
Q: Concern over the foraging and nest sites for the Bald Eagle and Northern Harrier was
voiced (top of page 23 and notes, Table 4).
A: The four-mile radius foraging requirement is being met, and there are no nesting sites in
the MSCP Subarea Plan. The Port District is engaged along with the U.S. Navy in
planning the entire Southbay for wildlife preservation, for all the different habitats.
There is also an acquisition boundary that is being adopted by Fish and Wildlife that
includes most of the South Bay from Sweetwater River to the bay.
Q: Clarification '/;as requested on the information presented for the Light foot-ød clapper
rail (bottom of page 26, Tahle 4).
A· It ,vas pointed out that the coverage analysis is based on habitat conservation on the
,L.L.
refuge, and there has beEm some concern expressed by the '.vildlife agencies over how to
incorporate more of the conservation analysis process into MSCP Subarea Plan.
Language has been added, both in the table and the text, that the City makes a
commitment through the CEQA process that will follo'}l the a'loidance of mitigation.
Q: Commissioners stated that there have reports that there are Clapper Rails in the fresh
water section of the Sweetwater River which is pretty far up. Commissioners asked for
current data or verifìcation.
A: Consultant stated that they had not heard those reports and that it is not typical habitat for
Clapper Rails. When it comes to the fresh water and salt water species that are found in
the bay, the City's involvement will be relatively limited because so much is being done
through the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Port and the Navy on the South Bay
Refuge. Our participation in that will probably be limited to what we end up doing
because of the mid-bay front proiect. The coverage analysis is generally based on the
habitat conservation on the refuge. There has been some concern expressed by the
Wildlife Agencies over how to incorporate more of the conservation analysis process into
the MSCP Subarea Plan. It is likely that language will be added both in the Table and in
text that is a little bit better than what was offered in the MSCP and will basically say that
the City makes a commitment through the CEQA process to follow avoidance criteria.
- -
RCC Minutes November 15,1999
Page 6
Q: Ro','.' does the hreeding hahit-at for the Tricolored hlackÐird (t-op of page 33, Tahle 4)
relate tø Pøggi Canyøn and the 59% a/the kn.øwn IocaUtiß8 in. the AfSCP?
A· The conservation numbers were based on the planning for Otay Ranch, which would
.¿:a...
have had Poggi Canyon as part of the loss.
0: Commissioners questioned the preservation shown for the Tricolored blackbird (p~. 32).
Specifically does the plan anticipate preservation of the nestin~ colony in Po~~i Canyon,
which is slated for development? Was preservation of POf!~i Canyon part of the 59%
that was supposed to be preserved?
A: The Consultant responded that the conservation numbers that are in the Draft Subarea
Plan were based on the planning for Otay Ranch, which anticipated development in Poggi
Canyon so the loss in Poggi Canyon was anticipated.
Q: Are there any incentives to have the military when they close down a base or shut down
an area to have a certain part of that land go off to the MSCP in the future?
A: There are no specifics in the BRAC requirements for the transfer of land from the
military related to that specifically. The Navy and Marine bases in San Diego County
have committed to doing their own environmental planning efforts very similar to MSCP.
Q: What is the next step toward the completion of the MSCP Subarea Plan?
A: Meeting with the wildlife agencies on the final draft in two days where it is anticipated all
of the issues will be resolved. Then a public draft will go out in January 2000, in the
mean time the City Attorney's office has begun writing the implementing agreement
based on the draft that has gone to the wildlife agencies. Once the plan is closed,
negotiation with the wildlife agencies for the implementing agreement on the contract.
Meetings with RCC in January and hearings with the Planning Commission and City
Council should start in February 2000.
Q: What about the wetlands?
A: Wetland permits are issued through the Army Corps of Engineers.
Q: Is this the first MSCP of its kind?
A: It is the first urban habitat plan of its kind in the nation and it is being held up nationally
as an approach to habitat management.
Mr. Bazzel offered that the report offered tonight was for information and comments only, that
no motions or recommendations are required.
Ms. McKinley stated they would return to RCC with the answers and clarifications that were
raised in regards to Table 4.
Commissioner Thomas requested that Table 4 be produced using 12-point type for better
readability.
Discussion over the recent vacancies in the Environmental Department as well as a
recommendation for a full-time biologist were discussed, the following comments were offered:
- _.
RCC Minutes November 15, 1999
Page 7
· There are no immediate plans for hiring a full-time biologist.
· Barbara Bamberger's position as Environmental Resources Manager has not been
rep laced. Barbara's duties have been split between a Temporary Expert Professional,
who works 20 hours per week, and Michael Meacham the Conservation Coordinator.
· Doug Reid's position as Environmental Review Coordinator will be filled by the end of
this year.
Commissioner Thomas offered a motion that the City of Chula Vista have a Community Hotline
to report obtrusive and untimely noise from aviation and low-flying helicopters that have impacts
on the quality of life of the natural environment and residents.
Mr. Bazzel commented that the City of San Diego is processing the Brown Field Airport
expansion, the City of Chula Vista is only commenting on the process to the agencies that are
concerned about the impacts to the City of Chula Vista. Concerning the MSCP, there is no way
the City can control the flight paths through the MSCP.
After discussion it was decided that the motion be cancelled and a recommendation be made that
the issue of a Community Hotline be added to the "List of Things for RCC to Address."
Chair Burrascano requested that a Mitigation Monitoring Report be brought to the next RCC
meeting. Other issues that the RCC would like to see addressed by the Commission or the City
are as follows:
· Noise Issues
· Toxic Issues
· Quality of Life
· Program for noise in the General Plan
· Other Environmental Issues
· Amphitheater noise
Suggestion was made that a comprehensive list of all of the Commission's desires be compiled
and presented to staff.
Chair Burrascano requested that the Mayor be contacted to appoint another RCC member to fill
the existing vacancy.
ADJOURNED: At 8:45 p.m. to a regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, November 29, 1999,
at 6:30 p.m. in Conference Room #1.
Respectfully submitted,
Charline Long
Recording Secretary
S.E P. 11. 2 0 0 0 9:38AM - .- NO. 1534 P. 1
.
Corporate Office:760.942.5147 FAX TRANSMITTAL
&. ASS 0 C I ATE S 605 Third Street Fax 760.632.8710DATE: 9/11/00 IJOB NO. 2278-01
A Ca.lifOTn.ia Cup'Ta:Ii.n Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: Subarea Plan
To: Marilyn Ponseggi
Linda Bond
FAX #: (619) 409-5859
Attention: Time:
To Whom It May Concern:
We are sending you via FAX the following items:
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
1 RCC Minutes - Comments
rChangedpagesonly)
,......,,,....
-
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
For approval For your use As requested For review and comment
- - - -
Other
-
Remarks:
A total of 4 pages are being transmitted including this transmittal sheet. If you do not receive all of the
above.
Copy to: Signed:
Joe Monaco
StiP. I!. 2000 9:38AM - - NO. 1534 P. 2
RCC Minutes November 15,1999
Page 2
Mr. Bazzel gave a brief ovexview and update on the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan) stating
that the focus oftonight's meeting is on Table No.1 - Vegetation Conservation and Table No.4
- Species Coverage, from the draft Chula Vista MSCP Subarea PIan (attached). The draft
Subarea Plan should be available to RCC the first week of January 2000 depending on
conversations with the Wildlife Agencies. A question and answer period followed:
Q: Will the SDG&E power plant be disassembled?
A: The Port District has a ten-year lease with Duke Energy who is operating the power plant
now, and nothing wi]) happen until that lease is terminated.
Q: Did the a.gencies not want you showing the connections that are not part of the City '5
jurisdiction so that the line following Sweetwater is no longer green?
A: The Subarea Plan is not a hard-line plan. There are no lines drawn for the preserve itself
and there are a series of standards when development occurs that development has to be
consistent with those biological standards.
Joe Monaco. Dudek & Associates, explained the methodology behind the information contained
in the Species Table. The data that went into the species analysis was MSCP database, so
basically the same level of analysis, the same information that was part of the MSCP framework
plan, and it is the same information that the City and County of San Diego used in their Subarea
Plans. There was no new or different information col1ectec1 or incorporated into this analysis.
Dudek & Associates looked at how that data was reflected within the boundaries ôf the City of
Chula Vista and within the defined· Subarea Plan. The seeks covera e or the' full 85
species that are covered under the MSCP framework plan the analysi\ onsistent ompletely
with the MSCP methodology. Aquestionandanswerp 'odfol1owed: ;~ _ ,V"
ð.. -+0 ' 1Þt I, øf
Q: Explain HLIT. (. +Cou $oJ
A: 'TJ..~ þ,u.jIoseci TOr M~P fur Chula Vista ha.s a. new ordinance that' being proposed, it is f~
called the Habitat Loss and Incidental Take (HUT) pennit. It . I be a permit required if
you are going to impact sensitive habitat and you are not in covered project. In Chula
Vista the majority of the MSCP is in covered projects, Otay Ranch, for e pIe is a
covered project. This permit will require mitigation for impacts to habita and it will
require avoidance and limitations on the impacts that can be made to n ow endemic
speCIes.
Q: Explain the word "Autecology" on page 2.
A: The consultants agreed to get back to the commission on its exact meaning and use
within the table.
Q: What is the significance of the shading?
A; The shading was supposed to be on every other species for easier readability of the table,
unfortunately it did not work out that way. When the table is redone it will be done
correctly.
Q: The numbers for the San Diego Ambrosia in Rice Canyon don't seem to be correct.
s..EP. 11. 2000 9:38AM - - NO, 1534 p, 3
RCC Minutes November 15, 1999
Page 5
Å' Commitm@Jlt 'vas made to get back to the commissieø.
.. ....
0: Commissioners had Questions about the San DieJ{o horned lizard (Pi!. 21). The Draft
Subarea Plan .says the area specific management directives must include specific
measures to maintain native ant species and discourage the Ar,ientine ant and protect
against detrimental edJ{e effects to this species. Commissioners asked for ver.ification of
the 44% confì¡;:urations and how it stands without protection or what that protection
would be.
A: Consultant stated that they would check on that. Typically for wildlife species we talk
about percentage of habitat, and this should be a reference to habitat not necessarily a
point.
Q: Concern over the foraging and nest sites for the Bald Eagle and Northern Harrier was
voiced (top of page 23 and notes, Table 4).
A: The four-mile radius foraging requirement is being met. and there are no nesting sites in
the MSCP Subarea Plan, The Port District is engaged along with the U.S. Navy in
planning the entire Southbay for wildlife preservation, for all the different habitats.
There is also an acquisition boundary that is being adopted by Fish and Wildlife that
includes most of the South Bay ftom Sweetwater River to the bay.
Q: ClQrifieQtiøn W618 7'ef]UC6teJ $1t Me infrH'FMlti9" pr~ J~T $he Light .f6eted Els]JJgeJ:
X9il (lJettem effJBtge 2~, T..shle 4).
A· It was peiøted ew.t tÀat the ~EJ~a,g~ :malysis is 1:Jas8Q 00 habitat ~e:asenratioR ðA. the
... ...
n~~@. anQ tR~ -has b6efl SGJe,8- ~G«R $xpr0S&€EI. 9Y t}:¡@ 'VílEllife ageßE;ies 0V« ho-v.' to
inoorporatÐ marc of the oonsørvation analysis procsss into MSCP Subarea Plan.
Language has been addli!d, both in tha table and the tGxt, that the City makes a
cs:ommit:rBent through the CEQA process that will follo'''' the avoidance of mitig:a.tioJlo.
0:
A:
. .
SEP. I!. 2000 9:39AM - -- NO. 1534 P. 4
.
RCC Minutes November 15,1999
Page 6
A· The GGIJ,SBrVation mambaŒ were basad OR the pbøniRg fer Otay Ranch, whish woWQ
......
have had Poggi Canyon as part oitha IGss.
Q: Commissioners questioned the preservation shown for the Tricolol'ed blackbird (pJl. 32).
Specifically does the plan anticipate preservation of the ne.stinJ[ colony in Posœi Canyon,
which is slated for development? Was preservation of Po;œi Canyon part of the 59%
that was sUl!l!0sed to be 1?reserved?
A: The Consultant responded that the conservation numbers that are in the Draft Subarea
Plan were based on the planning for OtaY Ranch, which anticipated development in Poggi
Canyon so the loss in Poggi Canyon was anticipated.
Q: Are there any incentives to have the military when they close down a base or shut down
an area to have a certain part of that land go off to the MSCP in the future?
A: There are no specifics in the requirements for the transfer of land from the military
related to that specifically. e Navy and Marine bases in San Diego County have
committed to doing their own vironmental planning efforts "ery similar to MSCP.
t5~ A c:.
Q: What is the n~t .step toward the çompletion of the MSCP Subarea Plan?
A: Meeting with the wildlife agencies on the final draft in two days where it is anticipated all
of the issues will be resolved. Then a public draft will go out in January 2000, in the
mean time the City Attorney's office has begun writing the implementing agreement
based on the draft that has gone to the wildlife agencies. Once the plan is dosed,
negotiation with the wildlife agencies for the implementjng agreement on the contract.
Meetings with RCC in January and hearings with the Planning Commission and City
CounciJ should start in February 2000.
Q: What about the wetland.~?
A: Wetland pennits are issued through the Anny Corps of Engineers.
Q: Is this the first MSCP Qf its kind?
A: It is the first urban habitat plan of its kind in the nation and it is being held up nationally
as an approach to habitat management.
Mr. Bazzel offered that the report offered tonight was for information and comments only, that
no motions or recorrunendations are required.
Ms. McKinley stated they would return to RCC with the answers and clarific;atioILS that were
raised in regards to Table 4,
Commissioner Thomas requested that Table 4 be produced using 12-point type fOJ:" better
readability.
Disc;ussion over the recent vacancies in the Environmental Department as well as a
recommendation for a full-time biologist were discussed, the following comments were offered:
. There are no immediate plans for hiring a full-time biologisL