The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRCC MIN 1995/05/22MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING Resource Conservation Commission Chula Vista, California 6:30 r.Nt. Conference Room #1 Monday May 8 1995 Public Services Building CALL MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order at 6:39 P.M. by Chair Burrascano. City Staffperson, Barbara Reid called roll. Present: Commissioners Hall, Marquez, Fisher, and newly-sworn member, John Thornburg. Also present: Kevin Clark, who will be sworn in by Council, and Duane Bazzel, Principal Planner. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. NEW BUSINESS: John Thornburg was introduced as the newly-sworn commissioner. 2. Commissioners Comments on the Fifth Alternative of the MSCP a. Inconsistent information on the hemizonia conjugens (Otay tar plant) which is not a covered species but the U.S.F.&W.L. wants to protect it. b. Page 3-60, asked for definition ofREO. c. On Lower Otay Ranch, U.S.F.&W.L. wants a larger preserved area. Vernal pool area which contains button celery and grassland containing acanthamintha should be preserved according to the Otay Ranch Master Plan EIR. d. The Otay Ranch General Development Plan shows many habitat islands; would they be functional? e. The Otay River area should be shown as open space. f Orcutts bird's-peak between 805 and the eastern Chula Vista boundary is not shown. g. Grasslands in the plan are not well preserved. Categories listed were "native", "non- native" grasslands, and "disturbed"; what's the difference between disturbed and non- native? How much of native grassland is preserved? h. Golden eagles, burrowing owl, and grasshopper sparrow are at high risk in that habitat; concern with species protection. i. Questions raised about Sweetwater Marsh and J Street marsh which are not being preserved in the plan for the clapper rail, a covered species. j. Page 3-15: figures on shallow bays show there are 1182 acres and 129 are being preserved (11%). What's planned for the rest of it? k. Page 3-15: The Pacific Ocean, zero amount is being preserved; what does that mean? 1. If habitat is gone in a certain area, what happens to the species? Can you take the habitat without taking the species? How does the plan deal with that? m. Buffered areas around preserves-single houses, cattle grazing, and agriculture are allowed; what will be the requirement to prevent exotic species from expanding into the preserve or pesticide spraying? Resource Conservation Commission Page 2 n. The plan is to preserve rosa menutafolia through transplantation; what allows them to cover this when they don't have a plan for the preservation of the species itself. There are no plans to preserve the species but there is a plan to transplant it. Has there been successful transplantation before and for how many years? o. Belding savannah sparrow is covered but the huge populations are not addressed. The plan discusses preserves in the natural wildlife refuge in Silver Strand, what about the population in Chula Vista and surrounding areas of Mission Bay? p. Military should be involved in regional planning. q. Tri-colored blackbird is a covered species under the plan with the assumption there would be adequate buffers surrounding that area. It's discussed as being protected but the area is not specified with adequate buffers. r. Provide an overlay of the plan with the species and include in the report. s. Page 3-43 discusses that the covered species are "open to change depending on biological data." This is general and vague; reference and explain more clearly. t. Everything on the Belding savannah sparrow, clapper rail least tern and the smelly plover refers only to Navy property. u. Marquez asked why the commission is reviewing the plan before the EIR/EIS. v. How were the figures on Table 4-2 and 4-4, areas of compatible land uses compiled; i.e., land fill is used as buffer but could bring other ferret animals; utilities are not compatible with preserve; low density residential is compatible with preserve. How is compatibility determined; how is exercising a pet in a preserve compatible with endangered species? w. Questions raised on the establishment of the linkages, hang gliding and off-road vehicles compatibility should be reviewed more scientifically before it goes into effect. x. Several references were made to "non-like kind mitigation." Concerned with buying disturbed grassland versus similar habitat type and quality. How is this determined and what is the plan's priority system. y. Allowance for skylights at road crossings, what is the proof that skylights work at road crossings? z. The equestrian center planned for Lake Cumei, an open space park adjacent to a large mitigation site for least bells vireo, is inappropriate. aa. The road as a compatible use for preserve changes the management use and access needs in such a major way that it needs to be mitigated. bb. Question about the golf course being depicted as permanent "open space preserve" and not ever build on it. Review of Negative Declaration IS-95-20, General Plan Amendment by Mr. Bazzel. It was MSUC (Burrascano/Hall) to recommend acceptance of the negative declaration; vote 5-0, motion carried. 4. Review of Negative Declaration IS-95-21, Eastlake Affordable Housing by Mr. Bazzel. A brief discussion ensued. Commissioners were concerned about not seeing the whole plan with the different options. A motion was made by Thornburg, seconded by Hall to table the voting on this item until the May 22nd meeting; vote 2-3, motion failed. After further Resource Conservation Commission discussion, a motion was then made by Marquez for RCC to submit its comments and make recommendations upon further review of the document; motion failed due to lack of a second. After Mr. Bazzel's explanations of the areas not supported by staff, a motion was made by Hall, seconded by Burrascano to accept the negative declaration with the elimination of area 9. An amendment was made by Marquez and accepted by Hall to include discouraging the use of the Olympic Training Center dormitories as a substitute for low income credit; vote 5-0, motion carried. 5. Chairman Burrascano reported she turned in her RCC Environmental Improvement Recommendations work program to the Planning Department. Review of Planning Commission Agenda: Items PCA-95-04 and CUP PCC-95-22 have already been commented on by RCC. Item PCM-95-15 is continued. No action by RCC. 7. Discussion of Actions (reconstruction of meting for minutes) for the March 20, 1995 meeting: Review of Negative Declaration IS-95-15, Chula Vista Moose Lodge-A motion was made by Hall, seconded by Fisher to accept the negative declaration; vote 5-0; motion carried. STAFF REPORT: None CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS: None COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by Chair Burrascano at 9:57 P.M. Respectfully submitted, EXPRESS SECRETARIAL SERVICES Barbara Taylor