Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC MIN 1996/04/22MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING Resource Conservation Commission Chula Vista, California 6:30 P.M. Monday, March 11, 1996 Otay Ranch Conference Room Otay Ranch Building 315 Fourth Ave.. Suite A CALL MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order at 6:40 P.M. by Chair Burrascano. City Staff Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid called roll. Also present: Commissioners Clark, Fisher, Hall, and Yamada. It was MSUC (Burrascano/Hall) to excuse Commissioner Marquez as previously noticed; vote 5-0, motion carried. Also present: Jerry Jamriska, AICP Manager, Otay Ranch Staff John Bridges, AICP, Project Manager, Cotton/Aland Associates Larry Sward, Sweetwater Environmental Biologist June Collins, Dudek & Associates Kim Kilkenny, Baldwin Company Rick Rosaler, Senior Planner, Otay Ranch APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was MSUC (HalUClark) to approve the minutes of the meeting of February 26, 1996; vote 5-0, motion carried. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: John Rojas, Chula Vista Historical Society, gave a brief update to the RCC. In the 15 years since the Society was founded, it published several commemoration books, including those for the City's 75th anniversary, the library's centennial, a Chula Vista Police Department anniversary, and other information books about the City. The Chula Vista Museum is currently administered under the library's budget, and the Society's publication funding is from profits made from sale of commemoration books. Mr. Rojas requested the RCC reconsider their budget for the Society's funding of historical signs. NEW BUSINESS: Otay Ranch SPA I Plan & Annexation recirculated Draft Tier Two EIR: Mr. Bridges highlighted the main revisions pertaining to biology, traffic, and landform. A. Biology Mr. Bridges stated there was a program EIR for the overall development plan in Otay Ranch. The noise performance standards require that the California gnatcatcher be exposed to no more than 60 dba. The difficulty of maintaining these standards arises from traffic noise from adjacent busy roadways such as Orange Avenue. The same performance standards criteria of 65 dba as applied to the least Bells vireo is being modified for approval for the gnatcatcher. Resource Conservation Commission 2 The preservation of 80% of habitat standards aze difficult to meet for four bird species due to their wide range of foraging habitat. Compliance of the EIR can be met by being more in line with the MSCP standards on its open space preserve, and within that preserve, provide for the on-site breeding and foraging habitat. B. Traffic circulation The SANDAG traffic model did not account for the circulation problem. and traffic impact. Therefore, a southbound off-ramp from I-805 to East H Street and an eastbound turning movement were slightly modified and it still fell within the parameters of the mitigation. C. Landform aesthetics The criteria is that 83% of the steep slopes within Otay Ranch be maintained and the project will have no problem with that. Mr. Bridges stated that the next review period is March 27, 1996. The only other changes in the EIR were minor in wording for clarification. He stated that the revised EIR sections should replace all of the old sections of the Draft EIR. General clarification was made from questions and comments previously submitted by RCC: • All the maps are now located at the end of the new sections beginning on page 4.3.3. None of the maps were changed. • The pond located in Village I, about 100 yards south of the mapped area on page 4.3-5 and 4.3-4.1 to 4.2, indicates wetland delineations which are performed under jurisdiction of the Army Corps; these are classified as "other waters." • The project lists areas that will become LOSE & F; these significant impacts will be handled in the Phasing Plan and I-805 to Telegraph Canyon Road will be mitigated. • A revised traffic report is included in Section 4-10 of the Recirculation EIR. • Page 4.3 and 4.4 on the replacement of vegetation of the maritime succulent scrub meets its 80% standard. • The buffer listed in Exhibit 42 located north and south of the preserve is not addressed because it is not seeking any authority. The RCC made comments on inadequate surveys on some species as the spadefoot toads, coastal rosy boa, and arroyo toads. Mr. Bridges stated some of these species were not observed. Ms. Collins stated they will conduct Biota Monitoring surveys in the spring and their comments will be included in the final report. Resource Conservation Commission Page 3 The table on page 4.3-28 shows there were no nesting habitat observed in SPA I for the tri-colored blackbird. A flock of approximately 1000 birds were observed in Poggi Canyon. The performance standard for 100% of nesting habitat or MSCP standards will be met because there is no nesting or foraging habitat. There was a discrepancy between dominant species during gnatcatcher surveys and dominant species listed in restoration tazget transects. Dudek & Associates defined them by dominance of native species, lack ofnon-native species, and high vegetated-covered presence of sensitive species. The locations of target transects were neaz the restoration sites and will serve as guides to other plant species. Page 4.2 and 4.3 shows the analysis of compliance. Concern was raised on what was considered a viable population for three of the four listed species which are unmitigable, as noted on 4.3-16, 45, and 46. Ms. Collins cited the PVA as to what is considered viable according to MSCP Standards. A question previously was raised on the methane gasses released from the Bay. The pipeline and air emissions impacts are not significant enough to have a negative effect on the Otay Ranch project. Since Chula Vista used a lot of its take, as SPA I is developed, the 4d permit will be applied for as necessary. . Chair Burrascano was concerned about the inadequate data collected for sensitive plant species in SPA I, especially the Acanthomintha. The programmatic level says it wasn't a specific enough survey to qualify it as a spring survey, and the EIR requirement doesn't specifically mention Acanthomintha. Ms. Collins noted there was an adequate accumulated database of original vegetation sensitive species surveys for SPA I conducted in 1989 and 1991 and focus spring surveys done in 1994. After the programmatic level, there were focus surveys done for gnatcatcher, cactus wren, Hemizonia conjugens, and taz plant. No spring surveys were done on Acanthomintha so Dudek will survey for that and also for cortelantis and spadefoottoads. On Page 240-242, the wording regarding the 100' buffer around the preserve for the cactus wren was inconsistent. It discusses it to be self-buffered plants, roadway, fencing, and sidewalks next to the preserve. Ms. Collins said they will clean up the wording and that Item 2 on page 243 explains the edging better. Other areas to consider for consistency aze the fragmented land areas in within Poggi Canyon and the small preserve area for the mazitime succulent scrub and cactus wren east of Paseo Ranchero. Commissioner Fisher noted there was an area south of E. Palomar where spadefooted toads were breeding in fire ruts and not in vernal pools. Ms. Collins will note that for mitigation to maybe create and develop pools or maintain existing pools for the spadefoot toad. Resource Conservation Commission Page 4 Commissioner Clark asked whether the change in decibel allowances for the gnatcatcher will only apply to SPA I. Ms. Collins stated in Ranch I, the allowance would not apply to the least Bells vireos but just the gnatcatcher. The bird species impacted will not be viable. Commissioner Clazk noted that the standards for the Northern harrier wren and burrowing owl state it needs to preserve 80% or 100% of the breeding population or to use the approved ACP/MSCP standards. Since the wording of the MSCP includes specific language for enhancement and guidelines for preserving the species and the proposed changes are similar as it pertains to the amount of breeding habitat, he suggested using the language in the MSCP standards. The revised wording here is similar, yet vague. Also, he suggested the performance standards include more explanations of how conclusions were made. Commissioner Fisher noted that the numbers from Table 4.3-19, and Table 2.2-5 and 2.2-6 don't add up and the definition of SPA I boundaries charged doesn't match. Ms. Collins stated some parameters were changed and therefore, some of those numbers will be inconsistent. 4.3-1 is the accurate table as it pertains to that specific area west ofPaseo Ranchero. They will recheck the numbers and include them in the final report. Exhibits 34-36 of the RMP showing water and reclaimed water facilities in the preserve areas were clarified that they did belong to Otay Water District. The area of Otay Ranch which borders the Salt Creek Plan is not in the preserve area and is excluded from the sewer site plan. The bird ranch is located away from the treatment facility. Also noted was that the preserve owner-manager (POM) is to be recommended and the City of Chula Vista has not yet been approached. Questions from Commissioner Marquez were read by Chair Burrascano. Mr. Kilkenny confirmed that they will build out one village prior to build-out of the second to avoid impacts and will mitigate as they go along. Mr. Kilkenny addressed the question on the POM. The City and County response is that the POM cannot be run be one person, so all entities will take responsibility for at least the first five years. For expertise in areas such as environmental education, enhancement, and exotic plant control, expertise will be sought among restoration groups, Nature Interpretive Center, and from non-profit and other private groups due to lack of funding. Page 51 shows an organizational chart of management. Commissioner Marquez commented on the current negotiations on the removal of coastal sage restoration in mitigation requirements. Mr. Kilkenny stated it does not, and that discussions are ongoing between the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, U.S. Fish & Game and Fish & Wildlife on the South County version of the MSCP. One of the topics covered is an exchange to declare more of Otay Ranch undevelopable, and Fish & Game and Fish & Wildlife would agree to eliminate the current coastal sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub restoration requirement. However, as discussions are ongoing, they are not Resource Conservation Commission Page 5 part of the project or the Ellt, they will do restorations consistent to the RMP. Maybe as part of the MSCP those plans could change later but for now no changes are proposed to the RMP. They are also discussion preserve boundary changes. Ms. Collins stated she will respond in writing to the following additional questions posed by Commissioner Marquez that are still left unanswered: • The coastal sage scrub plan restoration addressed on Page 19. • Questions pertaining to the Master Plan • Land boundary • The meaning of the bullet point on page 19 needs to be clarified • Question related to Page 58 not related to this SPA and POM • The math on page 93 is inconsistent • Pressure assessment page 100 • Questions on the RMP. The GDP prohibits any structures within Salt Creek and its defining slopes. The proposed university will be a permitted use within the preserve as listed on page 68 of the RMP. For comparison purposes, it was noted that Southwestern College is approximately 100 acres; the proposed university campus will be about 1000 acres. Commissioner Hall asked if an RMP is required for any other land use within the preserve boundary. It was answered that all land use is permitted and is specific, and that boundary delineations are changed based on topography. The following additional revisions will be included in Dudek's final documents for language consistency and other clarification: • The 10-year study Biota Monitoring • Transects • Fix wording so the mitigation bank preserve does not leave question as to the type of funded activities allowed • The conveyance of Poggi Canyon will be done concurrently with the developer in the area • Monitoring of wetland every three yeazs is not enough time • The final alignment of SR-125 has still not been considered and it is confirmed that it may go through some vernal pool habitat • The proposed sewer line is unacceptable • Pitfall traps aze not in the RMP • Vegetation map not addressed. Commissioner Fisher noted that Figure 43-3 and 43-2.5 shows spadefoot toad in fire ruts; bats are cited in project area with wide distribution data but no recent habitat or roosting site have been found. He suggested they look in old structures on Telegraph Canyon Road in SPA I. Resource Conservation Commission Pale 6 A motion was made to continue the Otay Ranch Phase II RMP to the next meeting (Clark/Ha1Q; vote 5-0, motion carried. STAFF REPORT: None. CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS: None. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: Commissioner Fisher questioned the wording of the motion from the last meeting regarding the Historical Society's budget transfer. He asked to put this item on the next agenda to discuss the budget again and obtaining other funding sources. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by Chair Burrascano at 9:50 P.Ivt. Respectfully submitted, EXPRESS SECRETARIAL SERVICES Barbaza Taylor MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING Resource Conservation Commission Chula Vista, California 6:30 P.M. Monday, March 25, 1996 Otay Ranch Conference Room Otay Ranch Building 315 Fourth Ave._ Suite A CALL MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order at 6:35 P.M. by Chair Burrascano. City Staff Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid called roll. Also present: Commissioners Clark, Hall, Marquez, and Yamada. It was MSUC (Marquez~Ilall) to excuse Commissioner Fisher as previously noticed. Also present: Jerry Jamriska, AICP Manager, Otay Ranch Staff June Collins, Dudek & Associates Kim Kilkenny, Baldwin Company APPROVAL OF MINUTES: There was no quorum present from the February 12, 1996 meeting to vote on the minutes. Minutes from March 11, 1996 will be voted on at the next meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. NEW BUSINESS: Review of Negative Declaration IS-96-16, Greg Rogers RV Storage: Modifications were made to the mitigation as follows: Page 3, bullet 2 should read, "Acquire one acre of CSS habitats in another site acceptable to the Director of Planning;" bullet 3, change the word maintenance to "management." There were considerable comments from neighbors against the project. RCC voiced that the project was located in a residential zone and could potentially be a safety hazard. After a brief discussion, it was MSUC (Hall/Marquez) to recommend denial of the project and the negative declaration; vote: 5-0, motion carried. 2. Otay Ranch SPA I EIR: Discussions from the past meeting were reviewed for clarification purposes. It was observed that the cost estimate of the preserve management should probably be higher; Mr. Kilkenny will review those estimates. A comment was made on the small open space area east of Paseo Ranchero, that it connects biologically with the remaining acreage of maritime succulent scrub on the west side of the open space. Ms. Collins noted that Figure 5 of the biotechnical report shows that it does not actually connect since the area is fragmented land and that section is already identified as being indirectly impacted. It was recommended that a revegetation mitigation be established so that the landscaping plan palette applied on the west side of the open space preserve also be applied the same in the east. A concern was raised whether new owners changing midway through the project would further delay buildout. It was explained that the plan is a stay for Otay Ranch and would remain in effect whether or not the owners changed. It was MSUC (YamadaBurrascano) to recommend approval of the Otay Ranch SPA I EIR with the Resource Conservation Commission Page 2 recommendation that the revegetation mitigation include the same criteria east of the open space as in the west; vote 5-0, motion carved. Otay Ranch SPA I Resource Management Plan: Ms. Collins clarified some ofDudek's responses from the March 11, 1996 meeting in regard to revegetation for Hemizonia and coastal sage scrub, and funding for park operations. The definition of what constitutes "active recreation within the 400 acres" was read. Commissioner Clark asked about the impacts in the area west of Paseo Ranchero. Ms. Collins stated the area will be permanently impacted with the first SPA but won't be conveyed. It was suggested that the area be conveyed and preserved first, perhaps by fencing said west side of Paseo Ranchero and the north side of Orange Avenue. After brief discussion of the RMP, a motion was made by Burrascano not to approve the Phase I RMP unless the green azeas designated as open space within the university campus site be used for research only and not for building; Marquez seconded the motion with the addition that a designated preserve owner-manager with experience and expertise in managing open space plans be required after three yeazs; Clark added to the motion that fencing be required in the portion west of Paseo Ranchero to maintain in current state relative to conveyance; vote 4-1; no -Yamada; motion carries. 4. Discussion ofFY-1996-1997 budget: Tabled to the next meeting. Review of Planning Commission Agenda for March 27, 1996: Mr. Jamriska stated they were asked by the City to write a policy paper on the pros and cons of a gated community. They were provided criteria for evaluation and a list of recommended guidelines. Otay Ranch will make a presentation to the City Manager then evaluate all the projects versus the criteria. After a brief review of the PC Agenda, no other action was taken by the RCC. STAFF REPORT: None. CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS: Chair Burrascano requested Staff ask the mayor to appoint a new member to the RCC. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: Commissioner Marquez reminded members to turn in their Form 740 by April 1, 1996. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by Chair Burrascano at 8:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, EXPRESS SECRETARIAL SERVICES