Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC MIN 1995/01/09MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING Resource Conservation Commission Chula Vista, California 6:30 p.m. Conference Room #1 Monday, November 7, 1994 Public Services Building CALL MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Burrascano. City Staffperson Barbara Reid called roll. Also present: Commissioners Hall, Mazquez, and Fisher. A motion had already been made to excuse Commissioner Ghougassian from tonight's meeting; Guerreiro is unexcused for the fourth straight meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was MSUC (Marquez/Hall) to approve the minutes of the meeting of October 10, 1994; motion carried 4-0. Fisher stated he still wants to review the Alternatives to the MSCP Plan, even if it can be done at a special meeting. ORAL COMM[JNICATIONS: None. NEW BUSINESS: The agenda was taken out of order to accommodate Michael Meacham. 1. Michael Meacham updated the commission on the Residential Refuse/Recycling Public Education Program as the council was asking for appropriating funds. He reviewed what was currently being done to enhance the existing program by way of newsletters for educating the public, presenting awards on recycling, and expanding the program. It features focus groups, special event recycling, and free pickup of mulch and compost. The "Chula Vista Recycles" gives cash awards for those who exemplify good recycling efforts. Marquez opposed the idea of gift certificates due to potential concern of "giving awa}~' public funds to those who should recycle anyway. Mr. Meacham stated this money comes from monthly dues of around $1, and that only about .10 goes to public education. It was MSUC (Hall/Fisher) to recommend support of the program for resource recycling; motion carried 4-0. The "Variable Rate Unit Pricing Demonstration" was given by Mr. Meacham, who showed the 32, 64, and 96-gallon trash cans. This handles the problem of one large trash can rather than several smaller cans, eliminates the multi-rates, and allows residents to pay by the amount of trash generated according to the size of cans used and are not billed by trash weight but by a standard rate. Meacham suggested this system is more cost effective, people would be more concerned for the volume of trash generated, thus encouraging recycling. Barbara Reid reviewed Alternative 5 of the MSCP plans for further environmental analysis. She provided an overview of the azeas which aze designated for 100% preservation and 90% preservation. The commission did not believe the 5th Alternative adequately showed what land is being used. Questions they wanted to be addressed included: why Rohr Park Resource Conservation Commission Page 2 was incorrectly depicted; how Alternative 5 compares with the other four alternatives (maps); definitions for core areas and linkages; wanted to see maps showing which areas are developed and which are vacant; where development is prohibited based on the General Plan and land use regulations; where is it prohibited based on general plan designations not connected to physical restrictions that would limit development. It was also suggested the proposed Alternative 5 work harder to preserve the gnatcatchers since it's one of the largest habitats in existence. Fisher wanted to know who the biologist was may~ng the detcrmiaati~ns un the map, and what was meant by biological core azeas, particulazly ones that were delineated as 70% preserve. Further questions were raised on watershed restoration, why the greenbelts azound Sweetwater River to the Otay River showed high development azeas, and why the Bayfront areas showed a lack of open space and highly valued resources on the map. Reid also defined the areas on the map that were approved for development. It was still unclear to the commission what is already slated for open space and what was unbuildable vs. unprotected. They still felt they wanted to overlay all four plans and comparison maps to see each of the alternatives. A motion was made by Fisher not to accept this MSCP Plan's 5th alternative without better clarification of opposing points; Marquez amended the motion to include not accepting this alternative in its current form; motion carried 4-0. It was requested a workshop of the MSCP Plan be held to provide further information and detail to the commission. 4. Mitigation Land for various drainage improvements: postponed to the next meeting. 5. ieview of Ciean w aier iviSCi? n:ap: postponed to the next u:eeti..g. 6. Review of Negative Declaration IS-95-O5, Otay Lakes Road, Dual Left-Turn Lanes. It was MSUC (Burrascano/Hall) to accept the negative declaration; motion carried 4-0. A comment was made to put beepers for the blind at the signal lights. It was questioned why there were above-street phone poles when there are underground power lines, and why they lanes couldn't go from 4 to 61anes now to eliminate more construction later. Review of Negative Declazation IS-95-09, Civic Parking Lot. It was MSUC (FishedHall) to accept the negative declaration; motion carried 4-0. 8. Planning Commission Agenda of November 9, 1994 review: No action taken by the commission. STAFF REPORT: None Resource Conservation Commission Page 3 CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS: Chair Burrascano thanked Marquez for bringing the information on the IIistorical Society. Additionally, two new members are still needed on the commission. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by Chair Burrascano at 9:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, i;iCYRESS SECRETARIAL SERVICES ~~~~~ ~~~ Bazbaza Taylor MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING Resource Conservation Commission Chula Vista, California 7:00 p.m. Conference Rooms #2 and #3 Monday. November 21, 1994 Public Services Building CALL MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order at 7:04 by Chair Burrascano. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Burrascano, Commissioners Hall, Fisher, and Marquez MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioners Guerreiro, Ghougassian STAFF PRESENT: Staff present: Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid, Associate Planner Barbara Reid, Planning Director Robert Leiter, Principal Planner Duane Bazzel MSUC (Hall/Fisher) (4-0) to excuse Commissioner Ghougassian due to a business commitment. PRESENTATION OF PROJECTS I. Recommendation to Council approving an agreement between the City, The Environmental Trust, Inc., and Bonita Long Canyon Partnership for purchase of land as wetlands mitigation for two City projects and AT&T's project at 865 Third Avenue. Associate Planner Barbara Reid introduced the project, advising the Commission that the proposal was for the purchase of land to be utilized as off-site wetlands mitigation for three drainage projects. She described the drainage projects, and the location of the proposed mitigation property. Mr. Jim Carter from Environmental Trust described the functions of the Trust, which maintains and manages mitigation properties in perpetuity, therefore providing for the long-term viability of the properties. Commissioner Marquez asked how the properties were selected; Mr. Carter responded that preliminary biological surveys were done to determine appropriate sites for mitigation. Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid pointed out the proposed mitigation properties on an aerial map, noting the adjacent properties. In response to questions by Commissioner Fisher regarding present habitat on the proposed mitigation sites, Mr. Carter explained the current species on site as well as revegetative plans. Ms. Reid noted that the proposed drainage projects being mitigated have degraded wetlands. She indicated that while the Telegraph Canyon Creek project consists of temporary improvements, the AT&T project is of a permanent nature and will include concrete channelization due to engineering requirements related to water velocity. Ms. Marquez asked if the one-to-one ratio had already been approved; Mr. Carter responded that it had. Ms. Marquez asked about success criteria. Mr. Carter indicated that while the final program was not yet in, the Department of Fish & Game would provide the final criteria. Ms. Resource Conservation Commission -2- November 21 1994 Marquez indicated that she was still unsure as to how the mitigation properties had been chosen; Mr. Carter reviewed the mitigation properties, indicating that the sites adjacent to Otay Lakes Road would abut existing open space areas in Rancho del Rey. Commissioner Fisher stated that he was concerned with the proximity of two of the sites to Otay Lakes Road, stating that habitats near roads typically have lower densities of species than areas further away. Mr. Carter responded that these properties would create more of a buffer for the adjacent open space area, adding that the larger parcel could potentially be developed with three to four residential units otherwise. Mr. Fisher asked if biological surveys of the mitigation sites were available; Mr. Carter responded that they were not. MSUC (Marquez/Hall) (4-0) to recommend approval of Resolution 17710. 2. Recommendation to City Council/Planning Commission regarding MSCP plans for further environmental analysis. Planning Director Robert Leiter provided a general background on the Multiple Species Conservation Plan process, reviewing the work conducted over the past three years by consultants in conjunction with an MSCP working group to create standards and criteria and identify core biological areas for an MSCP to be reviewed and approved by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Mr. Leiter described the maps prepared which identified distinct areas of biological resources and linkages throughout San Diego County. These maps are a part of the draft MSCP framework plan which includes four alternatives. Mr. Leiter pointed out and described the various maps. He reviewed the first alternative, known as the biologically preferred alternative, which includes approximately 187,000 acres of the most important biological resources; the second alternative, known as the multiple habitats alternative, includes 150,000 acres of various resources; the third alternative, known as the Coastal Sage Scrub alternative, includes 90,000 acres focused on CSS habitat; and a fourth alternative, submitted by the Alliance for Habitat Preservation (a group of major developers and property owners), which presented heavy use of publicly owned lands and designated open space areas, and included Miramar. Mr. Leiter noted, however, that the Navy had not agreed to be included in the MSCP. Mr. Leiter indicated that recently, the City of San Diego under Mayor Golding had presented a fifth alternative plan which attempted to create a compromise between the other four. This plan looks at publicly-owned lands which would be viable preserve options, and attempts to refine the identification of individual jurisdictions' open spaces as well as biological resources. In June, the Chula Vista City Council endorsed the proposed criteria for the fifth alternative, and directed staff to assist in preparation of this alternative. The evaluation process was reviewed; Mr. Leiter stated that an EIR will be prepared to evaluate all five alternatives, and will quantify the strengths and weaknesses of each; at a regional level, jurisdictions within the MSCP plan will then evaluate ways to fill in the gaps if necessary. Mr. Leiter added that the EIR will include an economic analysis, and should be out by July or August. After the plans have been completed, the framework plan will be adopted on a regional Resource Conservation Commission -3- November 21 1994 level, after which each jurisdiction will amend their General Plan and Zoning Ordinances as needed to implement the MSCP. Commissioner Marquez asked what will be protected by the proposed plans that is not already planned for preservation; Mr. Leiter explained current discussion relating to the proposed San Miguel Ranch project as an example of new preserve areas being planned, as well as plans to create mitigation banks. Mr. Reid added that Rancho del Rey had purchased 360 acres of O'Nea] Canyon for off-site mitigation. Mr. Leiter stated that the new plan will make many reserve systems permanent, and will ensure the long-term financing and maintenance of preserve systems. Commissioner Fisher asked if this plan would interact with SANDAG's; Mr. Leiter responded that it would. Mr. John Brown of Dudek & Associates noted that Dudek is working with the County to identify preserve areas, adding that SANDAG's and the County's plans will be consistent. Mr. Fisher questioned the blank (white) spots within the County areas (east) on the Ciry of San Diego's proposed map. Mr. Leiter stated that Ogden had performed the evaluation, and had presented the maps based on their evaluation of biologically valuable areas. Mr. Brown concurred, explaining the various models that had been used by Ogden, Dudek, and other consultants and experts to arrive at the Habitat Evaluation model. He stated that the white areas referenced probably had low concentrations of CSS. Mr. Fisher expressed concerns that some species were not yet identified or well-researched. Mr. Leiter pointed out that the white areas were not necessarily designated by the County's General Plan for urban development, and that much is planned for low density and agricultural usage. Mr. Fisher questioned references by others to the map boundaries as "hard lines". He felt that if the boundaries indicated were truly hard lines, with development unrestricted by biologically sensitive areas outside of these lines, there was too much habitat outside that had not been analyzed sufficiently. Mr. Leiter stated that he did not believe that the County would adopt the map as shown with the intent to permit urban development in the white areas, but noted that the question should be directed to the County. He added that staff could follow up on this issue. Mr. Brown reviewed the process by which the boundaries had been defined, stating that he did not believe that the subject of hard lines was a serious issue at this point. Mr. Fisher also noted that it was difficult to get a feel for the areas depicted on the various maps. Mr. Brown stated that SANDAG maps included acetate overlays that provided clarification of the different resource areas. Chair Burrascano suggested that overlays be provided to more accurately depict the various resources on one map for the EIR review. Commissioner Marquez expressed concern that Fish & Wildlife staff have not provided input on the information presented and that it is unclear how that agency's staff members feel about the issues. She stated that the agency's formal position will be unknown until the plan is fully completed. Mr. Fisher asked about the "no project" alternative; Mr. Brown stated that it will be presented, and would address current piecemeal mitigation. Mr. Fisher reiterated his concerns regarding the lack of information presented for the white areas, primarily in the easterly portions of the County, as it pertains to identification of potential species. Mr. Leiter responded that this plan would not preclude opportunities relating to the identification of species in the future. Resource Conservation Commission -4- November 21 1994 Chair Burrascano questioned the areas where linkages do not exist between identified core areas (e.g. at SR 125 crossing). She also pointed out that the revegetation taking place at the Otay River Valley area is not depicted on the map. Commissioner Marquez stated that she found the fifth alternative to be a far cry from the first two alternative maps. She felt that resource-wise, the fifth map is lacking, as it shows land that is already protected and does not seem to add much. Commissioner Hall felt that alternative #5 should be combined with the others somehow, and not omitted although it should not stand alone. Commissioner Fisher stated that he felt [hat the overlays were necessary before he would be comfortable voting on a recommendation. Mr. Leiter suggested that the commission could make a recommendation to allow the process to move to the EIR stage, at which time the Commission will have more information with which to make a judgement. He noted that any motion could include an indication that the Commission is not endorsing a particular alternative. MSUC (Hall/Burrascano) (4-ll) to accept alternative #5 (Multi-habitat Planning Area Map) as an alternative, but requesting that each of the alternatives be prepared with overlays on on a vegetation map in the draft EIR. The Notice of Preparation of the Environmental Impact Report on the MSCP shall be brought to the RCC for input on the content of the draft EIR. This action does not constitute endorsement of the fifth alternative. Mr. Leiter advised that more information on this project would be brought to the Commission prior to review of the draft EIR. STAFF COMMENTS Mr. Reid advised that the next regular meeting would be December 12, 1994 rather than November 28, and that there would not be a meeting on December 26. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:13 p.m. ~ ~~ Patty Ne s, Recorder