HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC MIN 1996/09/09MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING
Resource Conservation Commission
Chula Vista, California
6:30 P.M. Conference Room #1
Monday, August 26, 1996 Public Services Building
CALL MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order at 6:30 P.M. by Chair
Burrascano. City Staff Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid called roll. Present:
Commissioners Burrascano, Hall, Thomas, and Yamada. Commissioners Marquez and Fisher arrived late.
Also present for discussion of SR-125: Ann Koby, California Transit Ventures; Susanne Glasgow,
CalTrans; and Cam Patterson, RECON. Michael Meacham, Conservation Coordinator, was present to
discuss the Mace Street project.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was MSUC (HalUYamada) to approve the minutes of the meeting of June
24, 1996, vote 4-0, motion carried.
[Commissioner Mazquez arrived at 6:39 P.M.]
It was MSUC (Hall/Yamada) to approve the minutes of the meeting of May 13, 1996, vote 4-0-1, abstain:
Thomas, who was not a member at the time of the meeting; motion carried. It was MSUC (HalVThomas)
to approve the minutes of the meeting of June 10, 1996, vote 4-0-1, abstain: Yamada, who was absent from
that meeting; motion carried.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Discussion on SR125 EIIt/EIS: Susanne Glasgow, CalTrans, addressed the specific questions of
RCC. Commissioner Thomas asked a point of information of CalTrans concerning Chapter 6
Mitigation Monitoring Program, page 6-1 (see Footnote #1).
[Commissioner Fisher arrived at 6:42 P.M.]
Corrunissioner Thomas asked if there existed county or other municipal ordinances or other CalTrans or
agency documents that were more specific concerning the concrete protocols or details of carrying out any
mitigation monitoring program. She noted that this statement itself was very vague. RCC asked a
response to what assurances there are that this will be implemented and maintained. Ms. Glasgow
commented that a detailed mitigation plan for SR125 will be prepazed following project approval.
Ms. Thomas requested information concerning CalTrans policies and procedures, in general, for any
highway construction currently in place for dust control to protect the workers, drivers, and residents and
animals within wide range. Also, after construction, further information was requested about SOP or other
ordinances followed for quality control of the air quality around construction sites or areas prone to dust
storms. Ms. Glasgow noted that CalTrans does not own air quality monitoring equipment, but does follow
the recommendations of their chief engineer with regazd to dust control on the job. Ms. Glasgow
explained that a standazd exists for dust control procedures and they would investigate it and forwazd this
information to the RCC.
Resource Conservation Commission Page 2
Commissioner Thomas provided a current journal article entitled "Coccidioidomycosis: AReemerging
Infectious Disease," Emerging Infectious Diseases Vol. 2 (No. 3), July-Sept. 1996, and written by Drs.
Theo N. Kirkland and Joshua Fierer of the Dept. of Pathology and Medicine of U.C. San Diego School
of Medicine and Dept. of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, in San Diego. She explained that the article
noted that San Diego now has San Joaquin Valley Fever (coccidioidomycosis) as an endemic disease and
it is on the rise. It was noted that in Kern County, for the past several years, had become epidemic and cost
the county more than $66 million dollars in direct medical expenses and time lost from work.
It is also noted that, although all people are susceptible to the spores of this agent which are found in the
dust and desert soil of San Diego areas, certain populations have been exhibiting increased vulnerability,
e.g., HIV infected individuals and also pregnant women in their third trimester of pregnancy.
Other types of agents found in dust that are increasing as emerging infectious agents include the bacterial
agent, Legionella pneumophila (legionnaires disease) and assorted fungi which causes allergies in many
individuals. CalTrans said that they would investigate this further and would address any concerns with
regazd to environmental health and highway construction and landscape maintenance, in general, and
provide them to the RCC. Ms. Thomas also noted that they were interested in air drift of pesticides or
particulate matter into bodies of water.
Commissioner Marquez requested a review of the purpose and need for SR125. Ms. Glasgow said the
freeway would improve traffic flow from the U. S. border through Eastlake, Chula Vista, and Bonita. Ms.
Marquez pointed out that all the projects that have been through the RCC and Planning Commission in
the past two years have met traffic analysis criteria based on SR125 not being constructed, why is there
now such a sudden need for this freeway to support the increase in traffic. Ms. Glasgow stated a phase
of Kaiser Hospital was the only project that required the construction of SR125. Doug Reid disagreed with
this statement.
Ms. Glasgow stated that the 905 freeway connection to I-805 has been under consideration for a long time
and would serve a similar function as SR125. However, funds were not currently available for this
freeway and it was unknown when they would be.
Ms. Glasgow stated that the entire area large enough for eight lanes plus a wide median would be cleared
(and biological resources lost) at the start of the project, even though additional lanes would not be
constructed until needed.
CotnmiSSlOner Hall questioned whether this project conformed to the mandate of CEQA not to carry out
leap-frog development.
Ms. Glasgow stated that it was understood and agreed that all alternatives would significantly impact
biological resources of the region and that it would impact the quality of life in the Bonita area. she also
stated that it was clear that the Bonita area was a unique area and would required a need for special
mitigation regarding resident relocation for displaced Bonita-Sunnyside residents and businesses. The
intense opposition from residents in this area was also noted.
Ms. Glasgow stated that in response to requests from Bonita residents no interchange will be built in
Bonita.
Resource Conservation Commission Pa e 3
Tunneling the freeway was suggested as an option. However, according to Ms. Koby, the tunneling has
been deemed too costly and the monies invested could never be recovered.
It was noted that the western alignment is less fragmenting, but future development is planned for this area
anyway.
The historical and archeological impacts were discussed. Commissioner Thomas noted that the Brown
Field modified alternative option misses the archaeological and historical sites. She ascertained that the
archaeological sites referred to in the statement were Native American lands and noted that they should
be respected and preserved.
CalTrans noted that the western alignment was preferred because it is less fragmented and had a less
impact on the water and species than the eastern alignment. Alternatives 5 and 6 were discussed as having
less impact on scrub brush, and the least amount of impact on Gnatcatchers, Least Bell's Vireo and Coastal
Sage were found in Alternatives 6 and 8.
Commissioner Fisher stated that adequate studies were not conducted for sensitive reptiles and amphibians
such as the Arroyo Toad and Red-legged Frogs, and Pond Turtles. Mr. Patterson of RECON stated that
he was a botanist but he believed the habitat for these species did not exist on or in Otay or Sweetwater
River. Commissioner Fisher stated that Dudek & Associates found Garter Snakes and Pont Turtles in the
Otay River Valley, and Arroyo Toads were found on the Sweetwater River and Reservoir. In addition,
the only known occurrent in the U. S. (in the past decade) of the Baja California Racer was found this year
at Eastlake around the proposed 125 and Salt Creek project. He requested that the above-mentioned
species be addressed.
Commissioner Thomas asked which, if any, of the proposed routes when overlaid with other planned or
proposed projects will contribute to chokepoints or impacts on the Multiple Species Conservation Plan
efforts. Are there any chokepoints created or enhanced? The holistic overview of major construction or
environmental efforts in the region in question should be overlaid and analyzed to see the whole picture
and more valid evaluation and prediction of impacts in Chula Vista and in the region. Ms. Glasgow stated
that it was an approved use in the MSCP and overlays have not been done.
Commissioner Hall noted an error on page 4-127 of the EIR under 4.20.8 WATER (see Footnote #2 for
this section). It should be, "however, there may be incremental degradation in water quality and risks to
the Sweetwater River, Otay River, and Sweetwater Reservoir." Ms. Glasgow agreed and said they would
correct the error. Commissioner Hall stated that no project should be allowed that would result in
incremental or ANY degradation to our water supply.
Commissioners Thomas, Marquez, Fisher, and Burrascano noted that this impact was quite significant and
warranted special attention by the City Council, CalTrans, project developers, and regional planners.
Reasons to support a NO PROJECT alternative were supplied by corrunissioners throughout the meeting.
These included the following:
• The threat to the water supply (source of drinking water) cannot be tolerated
• Neither Chula Vista nor Bonita residents would benefit from this project
• There is strong opposition to this project by a majority of the population
Resource Conservation Commission Page 4
• The biological impacts are too extreme to be mitigated (as stated in the FIR)
• The impact to the Bonita community will have a major impact to the unique chazacter ofBonita
• A large number of Bonita residences and businesses will be affected
• Noise and air quality will be affected
• The 905 freeway could serve the same purpose as SR125
• On page 4-118 and 4-119, the short-term and long-term losses far outweigh the short-term and long-
term gains (i.e., increased jobs due to construction and reduction of congestion vs. a page of negatives)
• There exists too many unmitigated drawbacks to warrant the small advantages this project may bring.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hall that the RCC recommend the No Project Alternative, seconded
by Marquez, vote 4-2 (no: Yamada, Thomas), motion carried.
A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas that although the commission passed the motion for the
No Project Alternative, that, if the City Council finds that it must approve a 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); seconded by
Marquez; vote: 4-2 (no: Fisher, Burrascano), motion tamed.
Footnote #1: Chanter 6 Mitigation Monitoring Pro rgram page 6 1
According to this section, "The mitigation monitoring program will follow athree-phase sequence
including design of the project, construction, and post-construction maintenance activities. During
preparation of the contract plans, there will be a periodic review to ensure mitigation measures and other
commitments that have been made are being incorporated into the final project plans, specifications, and
cost estimates.
Prior to the start of construction, meetings with environmental specialists, field engineers, and contractor
staff will be conducted to identify environmental mitigation measures, the locations of environmentally
sensitive azeas (FBAs) and other environmental commitments or concerns and to explain their background
and importance. A preliminary environmental monitoring plan and schedule of review for the duration
of construction will be developed, including the names of contact persons who have expertise in
environmental matters that could arise during construction. This plan will also include the contract's
Water Pollution Control Plan which will be reviewed periodically during construction. Proposed changes
to the original contract plans will be reviewed by the environmental branch to determine if environmental
impacts could result. All three phases of this monitoring will involve CalTrans' environmental specialists
as appropriate.
Implemented environmental mitigation measures will be maintained after construction work is completed
and their effectiveness determined through timely monitoring by CalTrans environmental specialists and
the engineering coordinator. Highway maintenance personnel will check that all drainage facilities,
erosion wntrol devices, irrigation systems, and other environmentally-related installations aze functioning
as intended. Plant material will be swept to remove dirt and debris that could become air-borne
particulates or water sediments." (page 61 ofEIR/EIS).
Resource Conservation Commission Page 5
Footnote #2: 4.2.8 Water
During project construction, both the Route 125 South project and associated development projects may
contribute to erosion and sedimentation problems in the watershed. Subsequently, during operation of the
transportation and development projects, the major water quality issue is pollutant deposition on surfaces
and subsequent flushing by runoff. The first flush of runoffwater contains the highest concentration of
contaminants. Water quality issues may also be associated with chemicals used in landscaping
development projects. Water quality impacts of the project will be effectively mitigated through use of
Best Management Practices as required under CalTrans' specifications and the Clean Water Act. Urban
runoff from development projects in the study azea will also be subject to state and federal regulation.
However, there may be incremental degradation in water qualit}•, and risks to the Sweetwater River and
Otay River.
2. Review of Negative Declaration IS-95-14; Mace Street Project: A brief overview of the project
was presented by Michael Meacham. He stated that this project was located within the Montgomery
Community and that it would not adequately serve the needs of the City since another similar project
is already located in Otay Mesa. The recommendation is denial of the project due to
nonconformance to Montgomery's Specific Plan. There are also a number of adverse environmental
concerns of unclassified land use, and storm and sewer runoff. After a very brief discussion, a
motion was made by Yamada, seconded by Thomas to take no action on the negative declazation
and recommend denial of the project; vote 5-1, no: Burrascano; motion carried.
3. Discussion of Valley Fever Ordinance: Commissioner Thomas questioned whether the City had
an ordinance on dealing with dust control and other particulate matters causing infectious diseases
such as valley fever. Pending any discussion, the item was referred to staff to provide the details
of the current ordinance and to obtain information from the engineering department. Then if further
recommendations need to be made, the RCC will address them after review of the ordinance.
4. Review of Planning Commission Agenda for August 28,1996:
a. Public Hearing SUPS-96-02, Mace Street Transfer Station - No action by RCC.
b. Public Hearing PCA-95-03, Amendments to regulations regazding Home Occupations -
continued indefinitely, no action by RCC.
C. PubGC Hearing PCC-97-11, Foster Properties for ABC Career Training - No action by RCC.
d. Public Hearing PCC-97-10, CUP for Roberto's Automotive Repairs Shop - No action by
RCC.
STAFF REPORT: Doug Reid reported that the last batch of historical site signs aze now ordered.
CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS: The RCC is requesting Council to appoint another new member to its
commission.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: Commissioner Hall was concerned that Fuller Ford, as the
responsible party for the toxic material spread on Broadway, should be required to clean it up, rather than
the City having to dispose of material.
Resource Conservation Commission Page 6
Commissioner Marquez wanted to note her discouragement of the displacement of the Chula Vista Marina
and Jake's Restaurant to a redevelopment azea, and felt that they were not located in a blighted area.
Commissioner Fisher raised concern on the environmental assessment project on the Otay Mountains as
they improve roads for emergency purposes. He requested the City's stand on this issue, particulazly as
part of the wilderness grounds may impact the preservation area within Chula Vista's boundaries.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by Chair Burrascano at 9:25 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
EXPRESS SECRETARIAL SERVICES
Bazbaza Taylor