Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC MIN 2000/08/14 October 3, 2001 The attached minutes for August 14, 2000 were never approved. The Resource Conservation Commission membership has changed since August 14,2000, and now they cannot be approved. --~ -- - - ,- - MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION August 14, 2000 Public Services Building Conference Room 1 CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Vice-Chair Charles Bull called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: MSC (Thomas/Diaz) to excuse Cindy Burrascano. Vote: (4-0) MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chair Charles Bull, Commissioners Teresa Thomas, Steve Thomas and Juan Diaz GUESTS: Mike Komula, Pacific Noise Control Dennis Marcin, Helix Environmental David Claycomb, Helix Environmental Greg Mattson, McGill Martin Self, Inc. Harry Burrowes, McGill Martin Self, Inc. STAFF PRESENT: Marisa Lundstedt, Environmental Projects Manager Linda Bond, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 17, 2000 The minutes of July 17, 2000 could not be approved since the Commission was not in full attendance. NEW BUSINESS: 1. 15-00-42 - Olympic Parkway Widening from Oleander to Brandywine. Ms. Marisa Lundstedt (Environmental Projects Manager) gave a brief introduction of the project. Mr. David Claycomb (Helix Environmental, 8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150, La Mesa, CA 91941-6452) presented an overview of the project, giving the site location and project description. The primary issues are: geophysical, water, hazardous materials, visual quality, noise and paleontological resources. Commissioner T. Thomas asked to have the air quality during construction addressed. Mr. Dennis Marcin (Helix Environmental, 8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite - - Resource Conservation Commission Minutes - 2 - August 14.2000 150, La Mesa, CA 91941-6452) stated that there is an air quality technical report and conclusions were that they would be in conformance with the State guidelines for emissions and construction. The project is included in regional transportation plans and judged to be in conformance. Commissioner T. Thomas stated that barriers are not only for noise, but act as retaining walls and have incorporated plants so the retaining walls are not obtrusive. The plants could be considered a part of mitigation for aesthetics as well as for erosion purposes. Mr. Marcin stated that there is landscaping as part of the project. The noise walls are solid masonry walls, not intended to serve as retaining walls to hold earth back. The retaining walls are proposed as a part of the design. Mr. Harry Burrowes (McGill Martin Self, Inc., 310 Third Avenue, Suite C-5, Chula Vista, CA 91910) stated that Figure 4 shows retaining walls. Commissioner T. Thomas stated that the landscaping proposed seems mundane and not helpful to biological species. Mr. Marcin stated there are no biological impacts. Commissioner T. Thomas made a recommendation to include native vegetation. Mr. Marcin stated that the landscaping proposal includes vegetation that does not require irrigation and that it does include native varieties. Commissioner S. Thomas asked for comments on mitigation occurring to the east of this project. Mr. Marcin stated he would comment if he knew what was going on there. Commissioner S. Thomas stated that the Olympic Parkway corridor is also Poggi Canyon and was to be restored as mitigation with plenty of places for birds. Mr. Claycomb stated that the recommendation incorporates native materials. Commissioner T. Thomas asked that watering down construction sites be stated as a requirement for future projects. Ms. Lundstedt stated that language could be added for water requirements. Mr. Marcin stated that City requirements were referenced. Commissioner T. Thomas suggested that a statement be added saying the watering should be checked everyday. Mr. Claycomb stated that he thought the City would be able to include a specific monitoring requirement. Mr. Marcin questioned if there was a City mechanism in place for construction inspection. Ms. Lundstedt replied that a construction manager is on-site and can be notified. - - Resource Conservation Commission Minutes - 3 - August 14. 2000 Mr. Claycomb stated that it could not be called a mitigation measure because a significant environmental impact has not been identified. He suggested the Commission make a recommendation to include monitoring as part of the construction contract. Vice-Chair Bull asked if a recommendation was being made to include monitoring for dust. Mr. Marcin suggested that language be added. Mr. Claycomb suggested adding: "in addition to the City standards that require these measures, monitoring will also be included in the construction contract". Commissioner Diaz asked if the burden was being put on the City to monitor instead of the contractor. Mr. Marcin stated that the document would include a measure in the construction contract requiring the contractor to monitor per City standards for dust control. Commissioner T. Thomas stated that there were problems with drainage when developing the Olympic Training Center. Mr. Marcin stated that drainage impacts are referenced in the study and the project will comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System construction permit required for this type of activity. Commissioner S. Thomas stated that a strong water pollution prevention plan has to be prepared before the project can be constructed and needs to contain all mitigation measures that will prevent pollutants from getting in the groundwater. A typical "Best Management Practices" (BMP) would be that all hazardous materials, in the event of a spill, are in a containment area. Ms. Lundstedt stated that page 26 has a paragraph that talks about "Best Management Practices". Mr. Claycomb stated that a portion of the Initial Study text could possibly be moved to expand the description of mitigation measures. Mr. Marcin stated that page 21 gives a description of the things that are used for sediment trapping. There does exist permit requirements that have to be in compliance by State law. Commissioner T. Thomas asked that a few specific things be included. Ms. Lundstedt stated that permit requirements are standard conditions levied by the State and are generally not mitigation measures. Mr. Claycomb stated that specific mitigation measures would be expanded further. Commissioner S. Thomas asked about property on the northeast corner of Brandywine and Olympic Parkway. Vice-Chair Bull stated that the City had acquired property. Mr. Marcin stated that the house would be removed. The southernmost 30 feet of the lot will be used to accommodate the right turn lane - - Resource Conservation Commission Minutes - 4 - August 14.2000 and the right-of-way. The remainder of the lot will include a pedestrian trail and possibly an interpretive exhibit. The rest will be landscaped. Vice-Chair Bull asked what model parameters were used on the road. Mr. Mike Komula (Pacific Noise Control) stated that the main assumptions were the number of cars, 50 mph, 5% truck mix, and volume of approximately 42-44 thousand. One side of the wall is high and the other side low because of the elevation at the road on the right-of-way. Vice-Chair Bull asked how far back off the road is the nearest multi-family unit. Mr. Komula estimated 5 feet. Mr. Burrowes stated that they had met twice with the homeowner's association on the south side and once with the homeowner's on the north side. The general feeling is concern with aesthetics and graffiti. Mr. Marcin stated that the Initial Study text referenced existing City Design Manual guidelines for visual requirements. Vice-Chair Bull asked if a variance for a 12-foot wall was needed. Ms. Lundstedt stated it was not necessary for a CIP project. Vice-Chair Bull stated that it did not look like there was enough room for any landscaping. Mr. Mattson stated that there would be about 2 feet of landscaping behind the sidewalk and ivy creeper to mask the wall. Vice-Chair Bull asked about noise. Mr. Komula stated that units have different orientations and angles. but patio areas face the road. Vice-Chair Bull asked if there was any way to avoid a 12-foot wall. Mr. Komula stated that the wall was necessary to protect the interior and exterior of the homes. Mr. Marcin stated that the Initial Study and Noise Report stated that, if you moved the wall back and up the slope, you could reduce the height and thereby reduce the aesthetic effect. Vice-Chair Bull felt there was a significant aesthetic impact. That seems to be the weak point in the link. Reducing the wall height would help or change the mitigation strategy somehow. Mr. Claycomb stated this was a City sponsored project, and the City might be willing to move the wall back and obtain additional right-of-way or permission to build. Commissioner S. Thomas asked what the potential effect would be of moving the street 2 feet further to the north? Mr. Marcin stated that it would not have a significant effect. It would give an opportunity to plant some trees. There might be , - - Resource Conservation Commission Minutes - 5 - August 14. 2000 a visual benefit, but would not significantly affect noise impacts since the project is in an urbanized area. Commissioner T. Thomas asked if there was room to pull a car over in the event it broke down. Mr. Marcin stated that there are shoulders and a bike lane. There are also sidewalks. Vice-Chair Bull stated he would like to see some discussion of mitigation to visual effects. Mr. Marcin stated that there were specific guidelines required by the City, so those things are not called out as mitigation measure. It can be done. On page 49 and 50 there is some description of three basic references made in terms of the kinds of things that are going into the design. All have some effect with a 12-foot wall. There could be landscaping along the wall. The City Design Manual is most specific to walls. The question is-do we call that out as a mitigation measure? Vice-Chair Bull's opinion was to call it out as a mitigation measure. Commissioner T. Thomas concurred. Mr. Marcin stated that it was no one's intention to mislead anyone about the wall. Other measures, including vines and cascading types of vegetation, can be used on large walls to help reduce the visual impact. Mr. Claycomb stated that public review of the document has started and it has not been identified as a significant impact. Mr. Marcin stated that specific project elements could be added, as opposed to calling them a mitigation measure. Ms. Lundstedt asked if it would be acceptable to add information to the project description consistent with the design manual? Vice-Chair Bull agreed to that approach. Mr. Claycomb asked about modifying the project description, meaning possibly relocating the roadway. Vice-Chair Bull stated it would depend on how the issue should be addressed so the impact is avoided. The City's opinion on what might mitigate the impact might be different than the people living next door, which may increase the potential for conflict. He was not sure if moving the road was feasible. Mr. Marcin stated input from Engineers and City staff would be needed before it could be included in the environmental documents. Vice-Chair Bull agreed that a better solution would be to move the wall up the slope and reduce the height of the wall. - - Resource Conservation Commission Minutes -6- August 14.2000 Commissioner T. Thomas suggested providing homeowners with some amenity for their trouble because of loss of equity in their homes. Ms. Lundstedt stated that you could not enforce a mitigation measure that is up to the discretion of the individuals. Mr. Marcin stated another thing pointed out in the technical report is that there was discussion of possible use of transparent portions of the wall to provide relief from that type of blockade. MSC (DiazIT. Thomas) to approved staff recommendations plus comments made by Commission members during the discussion. Vote: (4-0-0-1) with Burrascano absent. 2. Proposal to cancel September 18, 2000 meeting due to the Boards and Commissions Recognition Banquet and reschedule it for September 11, 2000. MSC (T. Thomas/Diaz) to cancel the September 18, 2000 meeting and move it to September 11, 2000. Vote: (4-0-0-1 ) with Burrascano absent. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR'S COMMENTS: None CHAIR COMMENTS: None COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. to a special meeting on Monday, September 11, 2000, at 6:30 p.m. in Conference Room 1 of the Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA. Prepared by: ,~~/~/ W;µ.,.¿ Li a Bond Recording Secretary (A:\lIb\RCC#1 \RCC081400mins.doc)