Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC MIN 1996/10/21CORRECTED MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING Resource Conservation Commission Chula Vista, California 6:30 P.M. Council Conference Room Monday, September 9, 1996 City Hall Building CALL MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order at 6:37 P.M. by Chair Burcascano. Present: Bazbaza Reid, Planning Department staff; Commissioners Burcascano, Hall, Thomas, Mazquez, Fisher, and Yamada. Also present: John Rojas, Chula Vista Historical Society; Jeff Howard, Estrada Land Planning; and Betty De Honey, Tetra Tech. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was MSUC (Mazquez/Hall) to approve the minutes of the meeting of August 26, 1996, with the following corcections: • Page 2, paragraph 7, "Commissioner Hall questioned whether this project conformed to the mandate of CEQA not to carry out growth-inducing development." • Page 3, add to paragraph 1, "A cost estimate was requested and Ms. Glasgow said she will provide the information to RCC." • Paza. 5, correct the spelling to "Pond Turtles" in the center of paragraph. • Under Commissioner's Comments on Page 5, change to "Commissioner Hall was concerned that Fuller Ford, as the responsible party for the toxic material contaminating the soil of their former business location on Broadway, should be required to clean it up, rather than the City having to assume the additional cost of disposing the material." • Page 6, "Commissioner Marquez wanted to note her discouragement of the placement of the Chula Vista Marina and lake's Restaurant in a redevelopment area ... " Vote 6-0, motion carried. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: John Rojas, Chula Vista Historical Society, presented his most recently published book, Chula Vista's Trees. This will be available for sale to the public. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Review of San Miguel Ranch EIR -Jeff Howard, Senior Planner of Estrada Land Planning, presented an overview of the project azea. Betty De Honey, as author of the document, also was present to answer detailed questions on the project. She stated that the constraints centered mostly around SR125 going through the area, with the main analysis surcounding land use azound Bonita and along the freeway connectors. She stated the lower residential density would be around Bonita, with the greater density through the Salt Creek area. Ms. Reid noted that the subarea plan draft currently circulating shows no development within the north parcel. The hope is that the resource agencies will purchase the land and use it as mitigation banking. Resource Conservation Commission Page 2 Ms. De Honey stated the SR125 alignment through Horseshoe Bend was not preferred because it splits the community one-third and two-thirds, and most of the landform becomes obliterated. An attempt was made to tie the project together via Mount Miguel Road, a key element for connectivity. Commissioner Burrascano was concerned about the significant traffic and air pollution impacts. They are already existing below level of service and no plans have been made for a trolley to relieve these impacts. Ms. De Honey pointed out that they're already unmitigable and referenced page 3.4-8 for the studies. She pointed out some discretionary actions they looked at including annexation to Chula Vista for physical connectivity, land use and development impacts, and amendment from prezoning to planned community. They also looked at the impacts of Proctor Valley GDP/Horseshoe Bend GDP, north and south/no project GDP, and reduced density GDP, all based on 50% of the land being estate lots. Page 2-15, gives a summazy of units per acre. She explained that the land form alteration is less than significant at the GDP level and could not be reduced to below LOS. Each of the alternatives aze not mitigable. Biological impacts were not evaluated to the same level of detail for each alternative. They looked to the MSCP for preservation of multispecies. Commissioner Hall asked whether denser development was asked for to keep 166 acres preserved on the north for connectivity to the south. Ms. De Honey stated it was not, plus, in conjunction with the MSCP, dedicated land for gross acreage is 1500 units on 500 acres or 3 units per acre in the Proctor Valley area. She also stated that the applicant requests no development to the north parcel. Ms. Reid pointed out that the EIR alternatives show a variety of different plans based on the proposed alignment of SR125. Commissioner Fisher reiterated that the RCC had already recommended the No Project Alternative, as voted on at the August 26, 1996, meeting; further, that if the City Council must approve the SR125 project, that Alternative #6 be the recommended alignment. He added that biologists have potentially found Silky Pocket Mice adjacent to the south sites, Baja California Racer found in the Chula Vista fragment adjacent to the south site, and the Checker-spotted Butterfly found azound Otay Mountain (close enough to the project site). He requested that these be addressed and adequately surveyed. Ms. De Honey will refer this to her staff and forwazd report to RCC. [Commissioner Fisher left the meeting at 7:52 P.tvt. ] Ms. De Honey gave a traffic overview stating that the existing conditions aze already impacted at below level of service. The circulation elements that exist are significant and umnitigable overall. She stated that the project created three criteria to base its findings: a. LOS threshold D or worse - to be significant Resource Conservation Commission Page 3 b. LOS for roadway must lessen by one full LOS segment c. Significant traffic volume by this project be over 5% to warrant significant criteria. She stated that most segments were already low and that this project may or may not be impacted further. The regional requirement is set by CalTrans and MTDB, and these are out of the scope of this project. However, practical mitigation will be made to resolve significant impacts according to CEQA. Mr. Howard stated that the intersections leading to SR125 at various points are still below LOS C and SR125 does not bring any kind of improvement to these intersections. Commissioner Thomas had a major concern about the designer's responsibility to plan for multi- modalities. The transportation elements should allow for emergency provisions (fire and police) and public transportation to improve the level of service from F in some places. She also asked why building a freeway would not improve the traffic flow to an acceptable level of service. Ms. De Honey stated that the GDP does address public transportation and will be part of the improvements for the project. Information on this issue is located in the Air Quality section for an improvement plan to reduce traffic. No light rail is planned at this time, but a Park and Ride facility will be available. A motion was made (Burrascano/Thomas) to reiterate the RCC's earlier motion to approve the No Project alternative or the Proctor Valley alignment alternative, if necessary. Further discussion followed. Commissioner Mazquez questioned whether the slopes and terrain were developable land. Ms. De Honey stated it was not, that it was steep terrain. The area is level around Horseshoe Bend, comes to a ridge point, then drops off steeply. Commissioner Mazquez was concerned that the number of Gnatcatchers and Cactus Wrens, located along the norther portion of the south parcel, would be impacted. As they focused on habitat acreage on pazcels and didn't look at individual numbers, she stated that the north alternative will reduce Cactus Wrens down from thirteen pairs to seven. Any other alternative could impact up to 36 pairs of Cactus Wren. Commissioner Marquez noted that data is not updated into these tables. The RCC was assured that timing on grading will be restricted during nesting season, as already mandated by the U. S. Fish & Wildlife. It is noted that one pair of Cactus Wren is located in the very northernmost part of the project and the rest is not in the project azea. Commissioner Hall questioned how Bonita Vista Middle School and Eastlake High School will be impacted and how the would handle the capacity. Mr. Howazd explained that school fees will be assessed with the project in lieu of a site, with additional building done by the discretion of the Planning Department. The project currently has planned only for an elementary school. The different financing needs of the district will be met by the project. Commissioner Hall questioned how the project would handle possible water pollution of the Sweetwater Reservoir. Although this is an SR125 problem and not in the scope of the project, Ms. De Honey stated that the north pazcel slopes will be cut so it drains to the south. Mr. Resource Conservation Commission 4 Howazd confirmed that the south parcel will not impact the Sweetwater Reservoir The goal of - the GDP is to eliminate any flow to the river. This project will also use the water reclamation plant and have a separate pipe system for reclaimed water. This is already part of the project requirement. Also, the infrastructure is already there at the next level and this is detailed at the SPA level. The motion was restated (Burrascano/Thomas) to reiterate its earlier motion (August 26, 1996) for a No Project Alternative or the Alternative #6 of SR125. Commissioner Marquez revised and added to the motion (seconded by Thomas): that the RCC wants City Council to recognize that even if there is no development on the north, the devastating impacts to biological resources to the south still exist, and the RCC recommends no development on the north pazcel of the San Miguel Ranch; in the event that there is an SR125 and in the event that a recommendation for alignment must be given, the RCC recommends the Proctor Valley alignment of SR125; vote 5-0, motion carried. It is noted that the Specific Plan will address solutions and ways these impacts will be mitigated. Commissioner Burrascano requested that small mammal trappings be required for the SPA level analysis. A motion was made (Burrascano/Yamada) that the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the San Miguel Ranch is adequate under the California Environmental Quality Act; vote 5-Q motion carried. Commissioner Burrascano mentioned that the resource documents for the MSCP program were not available in the library as requested by resource agencies. Staff to check on the availability of said documents. 2. Review of Planning Commission Agenda for September 11, 1996: a. Variance ZAV-96-13: Request to exceed maximum lot coverage 1341 Park Drive; Public hearing; no action by RCC. b. PCM-97-02: Request to demolish and reconstruct project at 219 Madrona St.; Public hearing, no action by RCC. c. SUPS-96-06: Request for CUP at 2400 Faivre Street; Public hearing. Commissioner Hall commented that the company be responsible for clean-up of oil or toxic material that escapes from the trucks. STAFF REPORT: None. CHAIIiMAN'S COMMENTS: Commissioner Burrascano requested council fill the vacancy on the RCC. Resource Conservation Commission Page 5 COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: Commissioner Burcascano relayed Commissioner Fisher's comment: In a construction site area off East H Street neaz Terca Nova, workers have thrown a significant amount of trash into the open space preserve azea. He requested they be made to clean it up and stay out of the preserve. Commissioner Marquez -Commissioners were encouraged to attend the council meeting to speak on the SR125 alternatives. She also requested Bazbaza Bamburger come before the commission to update them on her curcent projects. Commissioner Yamada requested a person from the Traffic Department speak on traffic impacts in the eastern temtories, how TransNet money is working towazds future upgrades and new development, and update on SR-125. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by Chair Burcascano at 9:17 P.M. Respectfully submitted, EXPRESS SECRETARIAL SERVICES Barbaza Taylor CORRECTED MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED SPECIAL MEETING Resource Conservation Commission Chula Vista, California 6:30 P.M. Conference Room #1 Monday September 30 1996 Public Services Building CALL MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order at 6:32 P.M. by Chair Burrascano. City Staff Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid called roll. Present: Commissioners Bun•ascano, Hall, Thomas, Mazquez. Absent: Yamada It was MSUC (Hall/Mazquez) to excuse Commissioner Yamada for personal reasons as previously noticed; vote 4- 0, motion carved. Commissioner Fisher arrived late at 6:44 P.M. Also present: Bob Leiter, Planning Department, June Collins, Dudek Company APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. NEW BUSINESS: Review of Multiple Species Conservation Plan EIR/EIS: The following comments were made by the RCC concerning this Plan, and will be forwazded to Council. 1. Thomas -concerned about the linkage corridors, that habitats would be choked off between azea/sub-area plans. Figure 2-20 shows how cores and linkages were developed with the biologically preferred alternative in mind. 2. The RCC expressed concern whether the Sweetwater River and Otay Rivers aze the two linkages designed to link core preserved azeas. Dudek (June Collins) noted they already provide protection and it has already been analyzed in the plan. She further noted that the Otay Regional Pazk Plan restricts active recreation in these azeas. Phis EIR only evaluates the concept Otay Regional Pazk Plan but is not specifically dealt with. 3. Mazquez noted letters in response to the Notice of Preparation were not answered directly; Dudek stated they were indirectly commented upon throughout various sections of the EIR 4. Hall -Concerned about the complaints made against the MSCP on the amount of money spent on the Nature Interpretive Center, and that others would be too costly to maintain. Dudek stated one is planned for Otay Valley Pazk but is not in this EIR; it is in the sub-area plan if funding becomes available. These facilities should be a lower priority than acquisition for conservation purposes. Hall felt this would not interfere with the adoption of the MSCP. Commissioner Thomas felt the importance of having a site for the community for educational purposes and that these centers could be funded sepazately by grants. 5. Mazquez requested a copy of the Biological Mitigation Ordinance; Dudek to provide. 6. Burrascano - On page 4-3-79, there is an error in the data because Chula Vista has more than 17 acres of Maritime Succulent Scmb. Dudek -noted the footnotes, which are missing from these particulaz tables, explains the numbers used and obtained by Ogden studies. (Table 4-3-1 shows how the footnote should appeaz to explain these numbers). Dudek explained that the Subazea plan includes incorporated and unincorporated azeas; Ogden used numbers from City of Chula Vista's incorporated boundaries. Burrascano felt the database is therefore inconclusive as the numbers don't add up to the 17 acres of preserve, as stated in table. Resource Conservation Commission Page 2 7. Fisher - concern with Poggi Canyon and Salt Creek Ranch, where same MSS and CSS corridors aze now missing from the map. Beginning p. 21-23 of subazea plan shows revision of gains and losses of sensitive species. Dudek said they had negotiated between Baldwin, U.S. Fish & Wildlife and U.S. Fish & Game to create a better preserve design and meet regional species conservation goals. Leiter stated that Salt Creek reflects the GDP. Fisher requested to check configuration of open space, finger canyons, etc. as they're different from previous maps. 8. Burrascano -numbers of species being impacted are not listed-species are there but not the numbers. Dudek showed Chula Vista's subazea plans table. No species were counted on individual sub-azea plans, and no sepazate maps were prepared. Dudek also explained that the County had also asked what level of quantitative analysis documents needed to be included in EIR. 9. Burrascano -felt the EIR is inadequate under CEQA. Leiter noted that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife service will provide detailed follow-up comments through the biological opinion document. He also has problems with connection of corridors and will include this in EIR. This issue will already be addressed, especially at the university site. 10. Noted that the biological database and sensitive species list were provided by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife as the federal lead agency; Dudek based their scientific findings and criteria from this list. Purpose of the EIR is to disclose impacts associated with the MSCP Plan, i.e., loss of species and other significant impacts. It was requested that Dudek come back with the County's plan in the Bonita area as it was not included in the EIR 11. RCC commented that since the data is inadequate, it requested the City to keep the azea around the reservoir a total preserve azea Asked how Dudek dealt with the minor amendment azeas around the river? Ms. Collins stated the studies were done by Ogden and counted as 75% preserve; she didn't know answer. She'll find out how they based their information and will make comment in her follow-up report. 12. Mazquez -questioned survival of cactus wren within the regional plan. Page 4-3-23 shows cactus wren is adequately conserved but she did not see where Maritime Succulent Scrub was being preserved. 13. Fisher suggested that rather than building, leave Poggi Canyon as on the Otay Spa I Plan previously approved by RCC or put significant amounts of natwal open space. Continuous land would be preferred in order to keep and maintain the scrub found in the canyon for now. Keep natural lands to prevent flooding later and destroy natural species and habitat that is still there. 14. Mazquez -asked what would happen if Otay Ranch were broken down into smaller projects, would it change the significant preserve levels? Dudek stated that resource agencies have looked at it and reviewed plans. The approved land use plans aze the land use regulations on the properties regazdless of the ownership. 15. Burrascano -Sensitive Resource Study area, Village 13 of Otay Ranch, p. 24f of subazea plan - the lazge azea shows vernal pool and Acanthomintha She asked that as development occurs, if sensitive species aze found, would it still be covered or will atrade-off occur? Ms. Collins stated a 404 pernut will be required as it is designated development. If sensitive species are found, there is already a clause to adjust and provide coverage for that species already addressed in the EIR Also, according to CEQA, they would need a subsequent document. 16. RCC was concerned that non-sensitive species could possibly be put at greater risk. Leiter will address it in the plan rather than the EIR Resource Conservation Commission Page 3 17. Fisher -concern about the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly which was recently found on Otay Mountain. 18. Fisher -Page 4-3-19, Table 2.2 describes the Red-legged frog as "discountable" and wanted that defined. Page 4-3-27 defines discountable as being not reasonably expected to occur in the MSCP study azea. Fisher noted it had not been surveyed for but they have been observed, and could possibly be listed. 19. Mazquez - ambrosia pumila (San Diego ambrosia) should not be a covered species; it is being proposed for endangered. 20. Burrascano questioned the procedure of analysis for uncovered species outside the preserve. 21. Fisher - Refer to arroyo toad p. 4-3-18, concern with finding it within Otay Valley, and the potential impact in that area. Stated that these impacts were not significant enough, and if it's outside the preserve, they have permission to take it. EIR mentions it's measured in a "kilometer" limit of occupied breeding habitat. 22. Mazquez asked about the shaded boxes in Table 4-3-1 shaded boxes. Page 4-3-27 shows the key but it's incomplete and inadequate. Ms. Collins to verify and ensure its consistency in data. The shaded boxes should be priority species and federally and state proposed species. 23. Thomas -asked if there was an ongoing monitoring plan in the preserve. Dudek said yes, there is a biological monitoring plan but it's not required in the MSCP. It will be included in implementing agreements between individual federal and state agencies and local jurisdictions. 24. Thomas suggested to circulate reports locally, regionally, and federally with an electronic database, including developers, could be linked to universities through intemet and have the global information include trash azeas, rebuilt azeas, development, etc. and more specific information made available to the public. 25. Thomas -need MSCP technical committee involved with technical aspects of the project to include natural historians, ecologists, science ombudsmen, biologists, and other than just non- technical local staff-those with more expertise 26. Mazquez asked why these azeas (part of the finger canyons within the City of Chula Vista, north of H Street) aze being included as open space as it is such a small fragmented azea. She doesn't believe it should qualify as biological open space because it doesn't connect to anything. 27. Thomas -addressed exotic plants and ferrell domestic animals within finger canyons. Inadequate preserve design of canyons make it difficult to manage. EIR should address more closely within the monitoring plan. 28. Hall -asked about the Biological Mitigation Ordinance for county. If azeas in Bonita are annexed to Chula Vista, will the same County regulations regarding horses apply to these lots as they exist? 29. Did Dudek do an analysis of homes per acre in the General Plan pre-MSCP (allowable in preserve) used for take. Mazquez had great concern with the one dwelling unit per one acre allowable in preserved azea She did not agree with the low density as explained on page 6-3 of the subazea plan. It says it maybe compatible and allows private land too easily accessible to sensitive azeas. A motion was made (Burrascano/Mazquez) that the Multiple Species Conservation Plan EIIt lacks quantitafive data in its documents to sufficiently analyze the Plan; therefore, the EIR is inadequate and that any plans based on the MSCP Plan aze also going to be inadequate; vote 5-0. Resource Conservation Commission Page 4 Further discussion: • Wants to see species population data in EIR • Burrascano -correct the reference to the Sycamore alluvial woodland - in the subazea plan p. 19; it should be that it highly restricts sycamore dominated riparian woodland. • Plan doesn't address Preserve Owner Manager, Border Patrol's area, how it would impact the coastal sage scrub, etc. • Great concern and wants to challenge the low density residential development, 39% of the preserved habitat may have one dwelling unit per acre. STAFF COMMENTS: None. CHAIRMAN' S COMMENTS: The RCC is still in need of a new member and requests Council fill this vacancy. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: Thomas - In a recent issue of the Star News, it was erroneously reported the RCC's recommendation of the No Project Alternative of SR125 EIR/EIS; however, if the City Council finds that it must approve an SR125 project, that they approve Alternative #6, including quantitative air and water quality monitoring (Brown Field Modified/Otay Ranch/ EastLake/Proctor Valley Road West, Conduit Road, Conduit Road West)." Hall -Commented on the Star News' headline and inadequate reporting of the Nature Interpretive Center. Fisher - Noted an article in the San Diego Union-Tribune about Baldwin's St. Claire development left partially constructed and abandoned due to bankruptcy. Mr. Leiter pointed out that Council is already trying to deal with this problem to avoid this issue in the future. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by Chair Burrascano at 9:38 P.M. Respectfully submitted, EXPRESS SECRETARIAL SERVICES Barbara Taylor Item 1 Section 200-2.4.4 Noise and Dust Control. Crusher operations on or adjacent to the project site shall be limited to hours between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. A fiber mat, rug padding or other acoustical muffling material shall be used to reduce noise originating from the crushing operations to a tolerable level. Water spray bars shall be operated in such a manner to minimize the emission of dust to a tolerable level. 7-8 PROJECT SITE MAINTENANCE. 7-8.1 Cleanup and Dust Control. Throughout all phases of construction, including suspension of work, and until the final acceptance, the Contractor shall keep the site clean and free from rubbish and debris. The Contractor shall also abate dust nuisance by cleaning, sweeping and sprinkling with water, or other means as necessary. The use of water resulting in mud on public streets will not be permitted as a substitute for sweeping or other methods. When required by the Plans or Specifications, the Contractor shall famish and operate aself-loading motor sweeper with spray nozzles a[ least once each working day for the purpose of keeping paved areas acceptably clean wherever construction, including restoration, is incomplete. Materials and equipment shall be removed from the site as soon as they are no longer necessary. Before the final inspection, the site shall be cleared of equipment, unused materials, and rubbish so as to present a satisfactory clean and neat appearance. All cleanup costs shall be included in the Contractors Bid. Care shall be taken to prevent spillage on haul routes. Any such spillage shall be removed immediately and the area cleaned. Excess excavated material from catch basins or sim- ilar structures shall be removed from the site immediately, Sufficient material may remain for use as backfill if pernti[- ted by the Specifications. Forms and form lumber shall be removed from the site as soon as practicable after stripping. Failure of the Contractor to comply with the Engi- neer's cleanup orders may result in an order to suspend work until [he condition is corrected. No additional com- pensation will be allowed as a result of such suspension.