Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1992/06/17 (6) City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 17, 1992 Page I 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Olympic Training Center Boathouse - Recirculated Draft Supplemental EIR (EIR-90-12) and Addendum A. BACKGROUND The National Sports Training Foundation proposes to construct a single-story (14,199 square foot) boathouse (not including the deck) on 3.1 land acres and 0.07 water surface acres (for the dock and ramp). The location for this facility is immediately west of the lower Otay Reservoir east of Wueste Road and north of the existing City of San Diego Boat Launch facility (Figure I). The boathouse facility is a critical and integral component of the Olympic Training Center (OTC) allowing for year-round water sports training in the overall OTC support environment. The Boathouse would provide the storage, launching and support base for canoeing, kayaking and rowing sports associated with the OTC training objectives. An EIR was required to analyze the impacts associated with the Olympic Training Center Boathouse. A previous DEIR (November, 1991) was circulated for public review. As a result of additional input received from the applicant concerning their most recent plans to include a dock, in addition to various concerns raised by commentors, particularly the City of San Diego Otay Lakes Committee, the previous EIR was recirculated. According to State CEQA Guidelines, an EIR is required to be recirculated if significant, new information becomes available or significant changes are made to the EIR. The Olympic Training Center Boathouse EIR was recirculated because new information on the inclusion of the dock became available. Additionally, there was a need to address the compatibility of a 2,000 meter training course on fishing, boating, hunting, and recreational activities. The Recirculated Draft Supplemental EIR now contains all the issues analyzed in the previous draft as well as the environmental analysis of the proposed dock and more detailed information on recreational use compatibility between the various lake users. The Olympic Training Center Boathouse Draft Supplemental EIR (DSEIR) was recirculated through the State Clearinghouse for a 45-day public review period which ends on June II, 1992. The City of Chula Vista local 30-day review period ends on June 17, 1992, the date of the Planning Commission's public hearing. At the time of the writing of this staff report, three letters of comments have been received. The letters are from David Nielsen, Executive Vice President of the San Diego National Sports Training Foundation, and Kevin Mineo, President of the San Diego Bass Club (see attachments). It is anticipated that additional letters of comment will be City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 17, 1992 Page 2 forthcoming, and these will be delivered to the Commission at the public hearing on June 17, 1992. All comment letters received will be responded to in the "Response to Comments" section of the Final EIR. The Recirculated Draft Supplemental EIR went before the Resource Conservation Commission on May 18, 1992. At that time the Commission unanimously recommended certification. The Planning Commission certification for the Final EIR is scheduled for July 1, 1992, and the public hearing for the Conditional Use Permit is scheduled for July 8, 1992. B. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a motion to: Open the public hearing and take testimony on the adequacy of the Recirculated Draft Supplemental EIR on the Olympic Training Center Boathouse (EIR-90-12) and the Draft Mitigation Monitoring Program and close the public review period. C. DISCUSSION Project Description The proposed Olympic Training Center Boathouse would consist of a 13,496 square foot set of three buildings (not including deck). The site encompasses a total of 3.1 land acres and 0.07 water surface acres (for the dock and ramp) (Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5). The majority of the roof lines are flat and 14 feet in height; the minimum height required for boat storage. A copper, pyramidal (on hip) roof provides architectural relief and relates the Boathouse to design elements at the adjacent OTC. The peak of the copper roof reaches 25 ft. 6 inches. The dock will consist of a system of portable interlocking modules and will cover approximately 3,000 square feet of water surface when all modules are in use. The Boathouse Facility will be composed of the following main elements: Boat/Canoe/Kayak Storage Repair shop to be shared by both the rowing and kayaking program Equipment and storage Lockers/ showers and offices City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 17, 1992 Page 3 The 26,621 square foot deck located in the front, back and side of the boathouse will be used primarily for preparing and cleaning boats. A special drainage system will be installed to divert runoff away from the reservoir and into a soak-away system, where storm water is filtered to separate out particulate matter and prevent its runoff into the lake. A 0.1 acre sand pathway will provide pedestrian access for the athletes and their boats to the dock. Boats will be carried by hand to the lake where launching will take place. A Nationwide 404 permit has been issued by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers for potential impacts to this wetland. A landscape barrier will establish the parameters of the path and discourage disturbance of the adjacent wetland area. The floating modular 3,000 sq. ft. dock will be connected to the shoreline and would be used to launch the boats. Vehicular access to the boathouse will be provided from Wueste Road across from the OTC main facility site. A 0.3 acre (13,312 sf.) parking lot will provide 38 parking spaces. The proposed facility will be on land that is under the jurisdiction of the City of Chula Vista. The reservoir where the training is proposed and the boat docking facility is under the jurisdiction of the City of San Diego (Figure 2). Proiect Activities Summary The OTC Boathouse project would involve sports training activities associated with Olympic canoeing, kayaking and rowing. Training would take place both on the training course and over the majority of the lake. Meetings and related office functions would occur in the boathouse and the ground level deck and grass areas would provide viewing areas and warm-up space for coaches, athletes and visitors. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 17, 1992 Page 4 Training Schedules and Training Course It is estimated by the applicant that training will occur year round. In addition to the training boats, between 2 and 4 launches will be utilized daily by coaches on the water. During hunting season (mid-October through mid-January), OTC activities will be prohibited in morning hours on Wednesdays and Saturdays when hunting is allowed. Training time for rowers and paddlers is primarily concentrated in a few hours in the early morning and again in late afternoon, with additional workouts occasionally during the lunch hour. It is expected that the boathouse will provide team training for up to thirty rowers and thirty canoeists and/or kayakers year round. Of these sixty athletes, about half would live at the OTC main site facilities, and the other half would live offsite and drive to the boathouse each day (thus the proposed 38 parking spaces). Training becomes most intense during spring and early summer months in preparation for the World Championships in late summer. The training course will be 2,000 meters in length and about 453,024 square feet in surface area, or about 10.4 (1.1 percent of lake area at current level) of lake area. The time trial course will be 2,000 meters in length and about 2.3 million square feet in surface area, or about 52 acres (5.5 percent of lake area at current level) of lake area. Training would occur both within the course and in other areas of the lake (Figure 6). Conflicts With Existing Lake Uses The above described OTC activities could impact the existing uses of the lake, and thus present potential incompatibility impacts of the project. Mitigation measures for impacts to fishing, hunting, recreational boating, and navy activities are discussed below. D. EXISTING CONDITIONS Description of Existin~ Onsite and Surrounding Land Uses The project site is currently vacant open space, fronting on the Lower Otay Reservoir and is included in the Lower Otay Reservoir recreational area. Land uses immediately surrounding the site are open space (to the west, northwest and southwest); the Lower Otay Reservoir (immediately to the east); and open space associated with the reservoir's edge immediately to the south and north. Recreational facilities and other land uses associated with the Lower Otay Reservoir include the City of San Diego boat launch facility (used for fishing, hunting and recreational boating); the County of San Diego campground; the water filtration plant at the south end of the lake; the San Diego Air Sports Center (glider park and skydiving) to the east; and other passive and active recreational uses such as picnicking, walking, jogging and bicycling around the lake. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 17, 1992 Page 5 Wueste Road, which provides access to the recreational uses of the western Lower Otay Reservoir, is to the west of the site. The developing Olympic Training Center (grading/construction underway) is located to the west of Wueste Road. Grading of the approved OTC project (west of Wueste Road) is completed and infrastructure is underway (March 1992). Another approved land use change in the immediate area involves the expansion of the City of San Diego boat launching facility. The project involves the upgrading of the boat launch facility to more efficiently accommodate recreational users and visitors to the Lower Otay Lake. The project's grading and construction is currently underway (March 1992). The existing launching ramp, access, parking and associated visitor facilities will be improved and expanded. The developing communities of eastern Chula Vista (i.e., EastLake III, Salt Creek Ranch, Otay Ranch) will unavoidably result in an increase of human use of the Lower Otay Reservoir environs. The approved EastLake III General Development Plan (GDP) shows not only residential uses but some potential commercial/resort uses along Orange Avenue near Wueste Road, and a potential city park west of Wueste Road south of the OTC. A potential University of California campus is also under consideration. The Otay Valley Regional Park Focused Planning Area encompasses the Lower Otay Reservoir and shoreline. The Park's Citizen Advisory Committee has identified public use as an important component to the future park. These approved and potential commercial, residential and recreational uses in surrounding communities illustrate the area's ongoing and future transition from a uniquely rural environment to a combined suburban and rural recreational area. Description of Lower Otay Reservoir Water Uses Otay Lake is recognized first as one of San Diego's water storage facilities. It is owned and operated by the City of San Diego Water Utilities Department (WUD). The WUD thus has primary responsibility of uses and activities on and around the lake. Uses of the lake (other than water storage) generally include: fishing, waterfowl hunting, recreational row boating and other man-powered boating such as kayaking and canoeing, sailing, and navy helicopter rescue training. City of San Diego WUD Boat Launch Facility This year-round facility is the most notable and active center of activities on Lower Otay Lake. Primary uses of the facility and lake include fishing and hunting, with some general recreational boating such as row boating, sailing, sculling and kayaking. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 17, 1992 Page 6 Fishing season extends from mid-January to mid-October, open on Wednesdays, Saturdays and Sundays. Waterfowl hunting season extends from mid-October through mid-January (off-fishing season at the lake), open on Wednesdays and Saturdays. Total boating tickets per year ranged from 8,344 in 1990 to 12,249 in 1988. The peak fishing season is generally from January to April, although most months are active with the exception of October, November and December. Tournaments are held occasionally on Saturdays. A total of 2,106 birds were taken from the lake environment in 1990 by recreational hunters. These numbers illustrate, among other things, the popularity of not only fishing but also of hunting at the lake. Navy Search and Rescue Practice The North Island Marine Field Search and Rescue Practice Team conducts activities on the lower Otay Lake. The Navy and City of San Diego entered into an agreement allowing water rescue practice and helicopter water landing/take-off operations on the lake. The Navy operations are not allowed on Wednesdays, Saturdays and Sundays (open fishing days), and are further restricted on Tuesdays during waterfowl hunting season (mid-October through mid-January). The Navy operations are also required to stay clear of docks and buoys, conducting operations generally in the center of the lake. Discretionary Actions A Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and Design Review application, are required for the actual construction of the Olympic Training Center Boathouse. A lease agreement from the City of San Diego is also required as the Boathouse will be on land owned by the City of San Diego. E. IMPACT ANALYSIS The following is a synopsis of all the issues identified for the project which are analyzed in the Recirculated Draft EIR and their level of significance. IMPACTS DEEMED LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT AFTER MITIGATION 1. Recreational Use Compatibility Otay Lake is recognized first as one of San Diego's water storage facilities. It is owned and operated by the City of San Diego Water Utilities Department (WUD). The WUD thus has primary responsibility of uses and activities on and around the lake. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 17, 1992 Page 7 Uses of the lake (other than water storage) generally include: Fishing, hunting, recreational row boating and other man-powered boating such as kayaking and canoeing, sailing and navy helicopter search and rescue training. The OTC Boathouse project would include sports training activities associated with Olympic canoeing, kayaking and rowing. The 2,000 meter training course and time (Figure 6) trials course will be located in the western lower leg of the reservoir. The course which begins about 600 feet north of the inlet structure of the lake and ends just west of North Point consists of a series of buoys in a double line, spaced 100 meters apart. When not in use, the cable lines rest on or near the bottom of the lake; when the course is in place, the lines are raised to about 6 - 10 feet below the surface (Figure 7). The training course will be in place all year, being dropped to the bottom of the Reservoir when necessary. Training would occur both within the course and in other areas of the lakes. The above described OTC activities could impact the existing uses of the lake, and thus present potential incompatibility impacts of the project. Mitigation measures are summarized as follows: Fishing Considerations I) During fishing season days (Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday, mid-January through mid-October), OTC boats will not have exclusive rights to the use of the OTC time trials course of up to eight lanes. The OTC boats will have exclusive use of the OTC training course (three lanes) on those days. 2) Boat course crossings: In the event motorized fishing boats warrant crossing the path of a rowing scull/boat underway, the crossing shall occur either in back of (after) the rowers, or a minimum of 500 meters in front of the rowers. 3) Fishing tournaments: OTC training activities shall either be prohibited or restricted on permitted fishing tournament days (occasional Saturdays during fishing season; permitted through the City of San Diego WUD). 4) During the fishing season on Lower Olay Reservoir (approximately mid-January through mid-October), shells, canoes and kayaks will be required to restrict activities on the three days per week when fishing is allowed (Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday). The OTC boats will remain 150 feet from the Reservoir shoreline on all fishing days, except in the area delineated in Figure 3-4 of the EIR in order to avoid conflict with shoreline fishing activities. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 17, 1992 Page 8 Waterfowl Hunting Considerations: 5) During the months of the waterfowl hunting season (approximately mid-October through mid-January) rowing and paddling will be prohibited during the hunting hours of dawn to noon on the two days per week that hunting is allowed at Lower Otay Reservoir (Wednesday and Saturday). In addition, at all times during this season - in order to provide continuous resting area for waterfowl - shells, canoes, and kayaks will be restricted from activity in the Harvey Arm of the Reservoir. Other Measures: 6) Special events: No special events/competitions of over 100 people shall be allowed at the OTC boathouse or lake under this approval. This restriction shall not include typical training competition between OTC training athletes included in the OTC program (provided that no more than 100 spectators attend). Any future request for competitions shall be subject to CEQA review and review by the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego. 7) Public education: In order to educate the public of the OTC lake activities and thus minimize use conflicts, the following items are recommended. An information sign at the lake turn-off at Wueste Road/Otay Lakes Road shall be posted, identifying the OTC facilities and a radio channel from which lake use information can be derived; The radio channel shall provide information on OTC activities (i.e., training times, rules of the lake), public use information (i.e., open days, tournaments, lake conditions), ecological sensitivity of the area and associated protection rules, and lake use rules which must be reviewed prior to boat launching or ticket purchase. At the City boat launch, prior to purchase of tickets or boat launching, the lake user should be required to read and acknowledge the rules of the lake. (WUD). 8) Lake Levels: Lake level data shall be included in each Quarterly Management Report (derived from the City WUD), to provide for ongoing monitoring of the lake surface area available for use. Should lake levels show signs of continued decline, the matter should be raised with the Users' council and OTC, to determine whether potential refinements to use regulations are needed. This City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 17, 1992 Page 9 monitoring and potential resulting actions should guarantee equitable shared use of the lake. 9) Navy Rescue Training: the USOC/OTC shall meet with the Navy to determine an equitable shared use of the lake. It may be that notification of the Navy to the OTC of future days and locations of practice rescue will be adequate to reduce potential conflict. 10) Facility Management Plan (FMP): Prior to the issuance of building permits, the FMP shall be revised to include the above mitigation items. In addition, the following items are recommended to be added to the FMP: Dock operations and OTC boat launching operations should be described. Provisions to minimize impacts to the surrounding ecology (especially while launching) should be specified in the operations plan. OTC motor boats (coach launches) should be quantified (estimated no more than 4 boats). Provisions for launching (at the City launch site); storage (at OTC docks, and when to be out of the lake); fueling and repair should be delineated in the FMP. Fueling shall be conducted using the "pop-on/off" tanks, which would be stored at the OTC main site and brought to the boathouse when necessary. Only minor repairs should be conducted at the boathouse. Athletes, employees and visitors shall be educated regarding the lake rules and, importantly, the sensitivity of the adjacent ecology of the area. Parking shall be by permit only, and to load/off-load boats. Signs shall further be noted, subject to the review of the City of Chula Vista, at locations along the lake (to be determined), to provide for public education and protection of sensitive habitat. Maps shall be posted at the OTC site which identify protected and/or prohibited areas. Walkways and trails shall be clearly marked (refer also to Biology mitigation, Section 3.6). The OTC shall notify the City of San Diego WUD of any OTC event requiring exclusive use of the course two months prior to the event. 11) Quarterly Management Reports (QMRs): The USOC/OTC shall be responsible for preparation of the QMRs. Information to be recorded includes but is not limited to: daily use of the boathouse facility including number and types of boats used and schedules, any boat crossing conflicts, number of athletes each City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 17, 1992 Page 10 day, visitors, etc. The USOC/OTC, City WUD, and Lakes Committee or User's Council shall work together to develop the scope, format, schedule and review/comment system of QMRs. These three entities shall comprise the QMR "review committee. " Geology and Soils Available geologic data suggests that there are no major geologic and soils constraints on the subject site that would preclude development and no unmitigable significant impacts are anticipated. Hydrolo!!y and Water Ouality The subject site lies within the drainage basin of the Otay Reservoir and slopes gently to the east, toward Lower Otay Reservoir. Drainage from this site can be expected to flow by sheet-flow directly to the reservoir, or via small, adjacent ephemeral streams which empty into the reservoir. Surface Draina!!e A major hydrologic concern in this area is the runoff effects on sensitive areas such as the Otay Reservoir, most importantly the potential impacts on the potable water supply of the Otay Reservoir. With development of the project site, the area covered by the boathouse building and adjacent concrete deck (total area + 40,820 sq. ft.) will be rendered impervious to water. As a result, rainfall infiltration into soil in this area will be impeded and overland flow would take place readily over the relatively smooth impermeable surfaces. Grading and utility plans for the proposed boathouse facility include provisions for a drainage system which will divert runoff to a "soakaway basin" where storm water will be filtered to remove particulate matter and dissolved chemicals prior to discharge into Otay Reservoir. A great majority of accumulated contaminants are removed from impervious surfaces during the first 1/2 inch of runoff from a given storm event, which for the OTC project site is equivalent to 0.1 acre feet. Therefore, the storage capacity of the soakaway basin will be a minimum of 0.1 acre feet. Since storm runoff in excess of this quantity is comparatively free of urban pollution, flow occurring after the first 0.1 acre-feet will bypass the soakaway basin and discharge directly into Otay Reservoir. Proper design and use of these measures will reduce impacts due to increases in runoff to a level below significance. The primary water quality issue of the proposed project involves the possible discharge of urban runoff contaminants from the parking lot, drives and other surfaces into the City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 17, 1992 Page 11 Otay Lakes Reservoir. Proper design and use of measures described will reduce impacts due to urban runoff contaminants to a level below significance. Cultural Resources: No project-related impacts will occur to cultural resources. Archaeological sites at the project site were identified during testing as minimal lithic scatters with limited ability to provide important information. No mitigation measures are required. Biological Resources: 1. Project development would result in impacts to approximately 3.0 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub and 0.1 acre of wetland that is primarily freshwater marsh. Impacts to both these resources would be significant. Indirect impacts to California gnatcatcher as a result of increased human access and activity on the site is considered potentially significant. 2. Cumulative impacts include the loss of habitat and potentially occurring sensitive species populations on a regional basis due to increased human activity on the reservOIr. 3. A 2: 1 mitigation ratio will be used for the high quality sage scrub (1.2 acre), and a 1: 1 ratio will be used for the disturbed sage scrub (2.4 acres). A total of 3.6 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub will be planted on the two southern most slopes on the west side of the Olympic Training Center adjacent to the Salt Creek dedicated open space. Sensitive plant species should be used in the coastal sage scrub restoration if available. In addition, all areas disturbed by grading around the Olympic Training Center boathouse and access road will be revegetated with coastal sage scrub. 4. Since no areas exist around the lake margin to restore freshwater marsh habitat, impacts to freshwater marsh habitat (0.1 acre) shall be mitigated out-of-kind by planting native riparian tree species along the lake margin, outside of the freshwater marsh fringe. 5. Implementation of the mitigation measures previously described would reduce the impacts to a level below significant. The potential indirect impacts due to possible erosion or material sliding into wetlands can be avoided by careful construction practices and standard erosion control measures. Potential indirect impacts to gnatcatchers will also be reduced to a level below significant by reducing human access to the coastal sage scrub on the project site with signs or City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 17, 1992 Page 12 barrier plantings and by eliminating access on the coastal sage scrub mitigation area on the Olympic Training Center site across Wueste Road. 6. The cumulative impacts to resident sensitive species and loss of coastal sage scrub will also be reduced to a level below significance with the implementation of mitigation to coastal sage scrub habitat and wetlands. 7. The proposed mitigation areas shall be approved by City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista staff in consultation with the u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. 8. Implementation of the mitigation measures previously described and any additional considerations specified in the California Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement would reduce the impacts to a level below significant. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has issued a Nationwide 404 permit for impacts to wetlands. Traffic/Access 1. Daily traffic generated by the project is not considered significant. 2. No mitigation is necessary for day-to-day use of the OTC Boathouse facility. During small events (less than 100 people), shuttling of people from the OTC main campus will be necessary once the OTC Boathouse parking (38 spaces) is full. Although ultimate buildout of the OTC project (including Boathouse project) would have a minimal contribution to long term cumulative traffic volumes, measures were incorporated into the OTC project to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts to acceptable levels. IMPACTS NOT MmGATED TO A LEVEL BELOW SIGNIFICANT Visual Impacts The aesthetic atmosphere of the site and surrounding area is that of the rural Otay Reservoir and undeveloped nearby hillsides. Given the natural aesthetics of the lake environment, the Boathouse structure would create significant impacts to views from a portion of Wueste Road to the site and from the Lower Otay Reservoir. Any development in the now pristine environment would be considered significant. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 17, 1992 Page 13 Although the proposed landscape plan and reduction in the building height from the original plan of 27 feet to 14 feet will reduce visual impacts, they will not be reduced to a level below significant. Alternatives Analysis In compliance with CEQA's mandate to provide a reasonable range of project alternatives, the recirculated DEIR included a "No Project Alternative;" the OTC at the City of San Diego Boat Launch Alternative; City of San Diego Facilities at North Point Alternative, the Shared Site- Alternative and the Originally Proposed Project Site. No Proiect Alternative Under this scenario, the boathouse would not be constructed and the site would be retained as open space/passive recreation. Under the No Project scenario, the following identified project impacts to the site and adjacent environs would be eliminated or reduced: recreational land use incompatibility (with nearby boating/fishing activities); visual/aesthetic effects; disturbance/destruction to biological resources (0.4 acre of sage scrub and 0.1 acre of wetland); disturbance of cultural resources; and potential effects of sedimentation/erosion on the adjacent water resources. The No Project Alternative is, however, not consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan, EastLake III General Development Plan, or Olympic Training Center Sectional Planing Area (SPA) Plan. OTC Boathouse at City of San Die~o Boat Launch Site: City Facilities at North Point This alternative proposes the relocation of the existing and planned expansion of the City of San Diego boat launching facility from its current site to another City-owned recreational site across the lake's "North Point" located to the northeast. The OTC Boathouse facility would then be developed on the City of San Diego's existing boat launching facility site. This alternative was created in response to an identified potential impact regarding the project's conflict with existing boating/fishing activities now operating from the nearby City of San Diego Boat Launching Facility. Although this alternative would avoid the majority of the project's operational/use conflicts between the OTC water activities and City of San Diego recreational activities, the alternative would result in more significant biological, archaeological, and aesthetic impacts than the proposed project. Alternative Location 2: City of San Die~o Boat Launch (Shared Site) This alternative would result in the retention of both the proposed project site and the North Point site in open space, reducing biological and aesthetic impacts at these two sites. This alternative would, however, result in more significant operational impacts and land use conflicts City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 17, 1992 Page 14 (i.e., access, loss of public parking, congestion, boat launching conflicts) than the proposed proj ecL Ori!:inally Proposed Proiect Site The originally proposed project site is located just north of the currently proposed project site, closer to the water's edge. This proposal, previously considered and designed in detail, involved a two-story building with observation decks on the second story, and access to the lake from the first floor's cement deck area via two pedestrian pathways. Transition from the deck to water's edge would be accomplished by a rock slope (2:1 slope rate) which would begin at the deck's edge and extend to the approximate 475-foot elevation at the water's edge. This alternative would result in the destruction of undisturbed sage scrub habitat and wetland area. This alternative was dismissed primarily due to biological and visual impacts. CONCLUSIONS In summary, the proposed Olympic Training Center Boathouse will result in significant and unmitigable visual impacts. Due to this fact, a statement of overriding considerations would be required for project approval. (OTCDBIR) ~u /~~t ~- ~rAiI"'~ ' ~tl ~~~ " ~~~ - ,I, I D ~1.,,~ (~ ~ ~ ~ f(5~ ~, ~ ~~" ~'" I i~~:'~'~. 0 < < I I ~ . V '<' eM: ~ ~ S '..J ~ ' ~Fe ! '.~I -;::;-:~.. ~~~ ~ ~ . VJl1!?' .. 11 ~ - ~ '. o. '/ ~l~ :! ~ r;~ ~ _L__~'" ~ ~~ ~iT I :.U ~ ~ l'Ii~ ~~ "'OJ' JM~ ~I:( . "t1' ~t\i} --" . y~ [IWf(({{(;Q\I' ~\ /~~'; ~' ~t r. _, li;~m\\\~ )' =;fI/~ ~ .: "I NORTIiPOINT ~'os ~ .: '\. -t. ~I ~<:~~ p~:~~ ~;~~~~~t~ ~I / " K@l\./~.~ ~[C/Z"~ ~_Vr-J 'I, (, ,;1). ~~& ~ :~ #" I ~ I 'A~~.L(( ~ ~~~')) :' \\ ,: ," ~ )\ ~.'\ ,- ~ '- ~\g Ij, "o<llf,~ .~..w...., ! #....Q. ~I ~ ' -1 ~~? <::> ~~ ~ ~"";;5~ _J.: ./':~~ '! ",..;( ~~ i(\ J'. ~'~~~ '\! ~)li( ~ ~ \) HO' iJ )~ I ,\ ~.1 ~~\C\<{<~~I .. V ~ 2:'~'\". fu;; I ~(;/((~ '(i':f..., \'1" '~I .---c:;*~~ "~'" ~ Y1.l"': Zr.f'.. 111l.'J.., r--' AI;-' %//;.//:::::;,-- ~\.~ :, '/I..{JA'J:i. ~ a; I if~ I, ~ A, "'\l\ 0 IT A ~ ~. ??~ Il~ ~ '~~ \ . :::::..~ If. I(DDMIMBUES) " (, I) ~ '. \ ~~ _ I . c<!.?:+Z- - " ~- ~,' , q ~. D lit .! I s...... .' '~ ~ -~~f\.' .. .~ ..0 I' ~~"81 ~':' ~, ~~ .~ I t .~ . - ~I ~~~ ;d) ~"'-'-.;::.. 0 I .\\ \\' .., ~~ . . ,7~,_,~ "'I i'.!~~ . ~ . ~ ;;:;, CITY OF SAN DIEGO _.._ (~ , ~ ~ , ., BOATLAUNCHFAQLITY I ~ ,~, ~"~.'..' '~ ( . /(/~, ~j .. , " _._w..... , 1Y/P'i. ~\~ '., ~ , i ~', ',.."<"'" ' '..~ Q .... . . ~J ",;, ,_' . ~<;jW~ ' a 0 w'\\"j ~ ' ET ' SOURCE: 0Iay__OIayMau.....7.5'~.... if!.. , ""~{)~ IK?r~:"E.... "''''"I''' 'IGURE VIcInity Map and SIte TopographY 1 :..: " ;:) .011'1 8j~ I mrnmm !~ c N ~ , . [l]WJ ' .- ~)\ < '!I! . I I'"" - I-j!i,! !.~ ! J H I J 0:; '"' !~ I i ml [lJ[J IIlIn Iii \: oc~ J ~ I , I I . II h I :; ::I t ~ l . ! ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ I I ' : 6 II 0 I ~ ~ i b g :1 ~ . g ! ,g ~ ! <t --- ~# , , , , , , , , , ' / : ,;/ ~r----..,- I I ............ ,/'/ ..."" j/ ,/ """ /''1 '", " i '", ./ : "" . , '- , \& ,./ -., ., " i . " . . i . . . . ~ . . . , S . . . . , . . . . !~ . . . . , ~& ~.. Q..... " ...., ''4'_n.. I "-'_..~ 'I , , , , , , , --~~/ ." ==----=:=~..;::.::-==-.::.:.::.=-'"::;:..'"=-"':..-:..--.=-...:=.~=...=-=-===:_':.::===-=~--.. _.:.-: .. iii ~ '" '" t:i ;;;) w ff') IL e" .. roo .. \ JZ III I ~ " ..0. :3 , ~~ ~!~ ~~ -a -a <0. '" l~ l~ .. - ~~: ~ ~ -r -~ ! ~. H . \ "'," .t"," Ii it ~ _. . I; ~ -.~U{ \ ' I ) '~):~~ \l ,,'''~ "" <, ~. " .", " '~ " "." " ) \\' h'''Y'' \\ ~~\,,~ ,,' i ~ y1 ' I .\..,' ( . ---. \~ ' " ", ~~!\\ ~ -/\ I Ji~ ~I\ :h ~.I ", :.: CI: ;;) · .[U~ I " "II!I' .D~:m ""'<Q J,I - ~)\ ~ !!" . i I";'. !'~ ! J '~J J < ~ ~ II II!! 111 jl I I I jllll \: OI..,,#' J .ml[l][Ui ! I I .... I 1'1 I I , . II h I ~ . ! a ~ ! S :I' ~ w ~ ~i ~! ~ w I;; ~ =:::-"=':"-==-=:="''';'''-=-~'::':::'=''-:::=---==-'':-''':..-''=--=-:=::'=''''"::'.='.-:;:.=-=:=~':.::=-===--==:.-=-==-",,="",::= 1IIIIIIIm -.-J'.",i . IIlIi!':' JP_~\\ ~!~! %~b l~!i 'I<, 0l~<J ~ I I i m ~ ~ , I i E ~ ~ w ~ w :.; "" . I , '~r=l' I II!! lLiJu&J' I i !!II n", I I .MULJ I I I I ~ ~ ." '"' ~i ~a ~ w i!: ~ ---..- ------ '- _.,:::-::~ , ) ,:J. '-- " " r 1200 , FEET FIGURE Time Trials Course 6 ~ - I ~ ~ ~ ~ , i ~ I ~ !i ~ a,.. b , a , ., , ' :.." I ~ !!j ~ .-",' , ,.--" A , . JI 1 '.., , " , ' w~~--, .- : rn ' a: ' / g g i .:' rn C! " ' ~ i!i: ' : I ~ ~ I .. ~ "n~ q~ I i ~ ~ . i /' ~ ~ : . ~ ~ :.. w c; r--- .. ... ~ ~ - <5 rn r.. rn~ ~~ a: a: !!!2 ~ ..... (J w rn ~ ii c E ~ ! .2 J J I .. I I Iii ~ JUN-03-'92 l,JED 16:29 ID: TEL NC1: 11126 POl . SAN DIEGO COUNCIL OF BASS CLUBS 110 West C Street, Suite 2100 San Diego, California 92101 (619) 233-4711 ESCONDIDO BASS PROS HIDDEN VAlLEY BASSMASTERS NORTII COUNTY DASS HOOKERS BASS a.UB OIJ) PltOS RAMONA BASS ANGLBRS ROADRANGERS BASS CLUB SAN DIEOO BASS BUSTERS EAST COUNTY BASSMASTERS SAN DIEOO BASSMASTERS SAN DIEOO BASS PROS TIll! BASS COMPANY BUSHWACKERS BASS CLUB SAN DIEGO STROKBRS BASS CLUB SOUTHLAND BASS a.UB BASS C.1..U.B. MBAA SAN Dll!OO SAN DWOO BASS COUPL.I!S June 3/ li9a ~FlCATlON was notW IWt .3 Time (f.' ~ RecIIWId After 5pm [ ] Other: 1BH'1' VIA TlLBCOPIBR: 691-~171 DO P1:RST cu.sS MAIL PlePl~8 ch~ V"',,_,r ,,"'tR.q'iC.os bft'or8 caUltl~ './yo; d ?roce$Slng r&gardlng Incoming faxes. Barbara Reid City ot Chula Vista Planninq Department 27f Fourth Avenue Chula Vieta, CA 92010 Re: Draft Supplementd Environmental Impaot Report (BIR-90-1:2) Apdl, 1992 Dear MIl. Reidt Plea.e be advised, I have now had the opportunity on behalt of the San Dieqo Council of Bass Clubs to review the above mentioned report and have the followinq comments. 1. There ie eome indication (not contained in the report) that the Olympic Trainees IIIAY requeat II. "no wake" lon./ where boating activities would be restrioted in that the ability to travel trom Point A to Point B would be a.verely limit.d. I would requ..t as part of the mitigation measure. required, that the report clearly state: There shall not be a "no wake" lone in the r..ervoir even during periods ot training. We have had assuranoes from Olympics athletes themselves that they have trained in various locations with boat wakes/ and it is simply one ot the conditione they routinely face in their traininq. L. Kevin Mineo President Steve Brecko Vice President Linda Turner Sccrctarytrreasurer -"-' -.''-- '.'.,''-.1.-.' ...._,. ":"_' J. .1....'. i t:.L tiD: ~126. F'C12 Ba=ara Reid 3une 3, lllt2 Page :a 3. Mitigation ..aaure numbsr 2 on page 3-15 inoorr.ctly terms a turth.r restriotion on boating as a measure mitigating the impaat the Olympio traininq will have on that sport. It is not mitigation to impo.e a reltriction on the aotivity that is theoretioally proteoted. Additionally, a cros.in; at a minimum of SOO meters in tront of rowers would ~e impraotical on a lake of this small size. At tim.. launQhinq trom the launch ramp WOUld be impossible due to the proximity Of the start lins from the 500 meter mark. If you review tiqu~e 3- 4 you will .e. the difficUlty in cross1ng the OOUrse that di.tanoe in front of rowers. We would reoOOend a "no wake" cros.ing ~e required at a minimum aistance of 100 meters in tront ot rowere. 3. Mitigation measure nUmber 3 on paqe 3-15 should call tor the "prohibition" of O.~. c. training aCtivity on permitted ti.hinq tournament daYI, sinoe "restriotion" alone will not be sUfficient to avoid substantial interferenoe with those permitted tournaments. Additionally, the Department of Fish and Game requires no more than 30 days advance notice of a permitted tournament. We t.el the requirement should be the .ame in regard to the notice required.. Therefore/ the mitiqation measure should require notification no earlier than one month prior to the tournament date. 4. Mitigation meaaure nUmber 4 on page 3-16 we feel is important to the fishing program and we teel that m..sure .hould be .trictly construed anQ enforced. 15. We also teel mitigation measure nWllber 6 on p&qe 3-16 18 important, &1 though we are confused by the language as to Whether the restriction is 100 people as spectators or 100 people a8 competitors. We would recommend 100 People total, as there is no provision tor spectators at the facility, And due to the 8ensitivs nature of the environment ancS lake property considerable damage could be aocomplished by 100 .pectatore without facilities. 6. We alao teal mitiqation measure number 7 on page 3-l6 ia important and should ~e strictly enforoed. 7. Overall, we are in .upport or mitigation m.aaure number 9, although we believe this mitigation measure should stat. in the ev.nt water fluctuations decrease surface acreage/ and hence, d.cr.... spaCe available to Us.rs, the current recreational U.ers receive priority in any restruoturing ot lake uuqe. JUN-03-'92 WED 16:30 ID: 10. TEL ND: 11126 P03 Barbara Raid June 3, l!iU Page 3 s. We are .1.0 in ravor of your m1t1qation >>araqrapha 11 and 12, paqe 3-19. In r811ard to the section entitled "Other Potential Miti9ation" contained cn pagee 3-20 and 3-21, we would atronq1y favor the ,.oond recommendation prohibitinq O.T.C. boats from exclusive u.. cf the O.~.O. training COurse or the tim. trial cour.e on Wedn..days, Saturd.ys and Sundays during the fi.hing .eason. To remove 52 acres of fishing area from . lake ot this ail. ia a signiticant detrimental impact. A .hared us. conoept three days a week should be .trongly .dvocat.d to reduce that impaot. We're therefore strongly in favor and recommend that you adopt the potential mitigation sugge.tion that durin; the tishing ....on on Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday, the O.T.C. boats will not have exclusive rights to us. ot the training cour.., and must share that area with other reoreational user.. Ii. Additionally, the "Other Potential Mitig.tion" contained on the top ot page 3-21 prohibiting O.T.C. boats from usinq the lake the first two hours of the day on open days during the fiehing .eason, would as the report correctly note. avoid .ignificant confliots at the commencement of each fishing day due to boat launohing and traVelling aoro.. the coune. Howev.r, there il another siqnitioant 8ffect whioh will be ..en by a r.gulation of this sort. That i., ths t1rat part of each day is considered prime fishing time and by allowing fisherman .xolusive use ot the reservoir during the tirst hours of the day you would have significantly mitiqat.~ the .dv.rse impact this proj.ot will have on fishing aotivities. We ~hereto:r:e support this reoomm.ndation, however/ in the event the two hour restriotion is considered unteaaible in r.gard to the training regime, we would reoommend a minim~ of a 30 minute r.striotion tor the commencement of on water training commencing at dawn. This time period could be used by the Olympio athletes tor their warm-up etretchinq exeroise and launching Of craft, and at ths same time have a significant positive impaot on fishing aotivity. If you have .ny questions regarding this oorrespond.nce pl.... te.l tree to contact m.. ,,; Imn Sinc.rely your., /~,~ L. Xevin Mineo, pre.ident San Diego Oouncil of Bas. ClUb. JUii-\;;,.lC'- ::'.::.. ['IUii ..lc;;.; U::' iV; I t:.L I,~I_,; P.i-..Jl r'u'::': L. KEVIN MINEO uo WatT "c" 11"&IIIi'1', .ViTli ill00 1iI&:H DIEOO, CALIFO."1A. 08101-0081 June B, 1992 81NT VIA '1'ELBCOPIIR: 691-15171 AND r:!:RST CLUS nu Barbara Reid city ot Chula vista Planning Department 276 FOl.I.rth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Rei Dratt Supplemental Environmental IJaPact Report; (BIR-90-la) April, 1992 Dear Ms. Rsid: Plea.. ~e advised, I have two additional comments in regard to the .~ov. mentioned report. First, my paraqraph two on page two or my June 3 letter should b. amendsd to request that we would recol1Ullend a "no waite" crossini be required at a minimum distance of not more than 25 meters in front of rowers. Atter a thorouqh discussion of this subject, it 18 my belief that 2S meters with no wake would certainly ba aUfticisnt trom all points or view. Secondly, paragraph 10 on paqe three of 1IIIY June 3 letter recol1Ullends a 30 minute (trolll sunriss) restriction on the oommenoement of on water training on tishing days to avoid contlicts with tishinq boat launching. On June 4th at the San Dieqo city Lakes Committee meeting, a motion was unanimously passed to the etteot that the Committee has recommended Olympic training be prohibited tor at least 30 minutes trom aunrile on the traininq oourse and time trial course to avoid potential oontliot. :r aqr.s with the city LaJ(s. Committee recoDUll8ndation, and would again urge that such restriction ~e placed in the conditional Use Permit. It is my understanding this will not cause any inconvenience to the Olympic trainees. w. oan also note their Faoilities Management Plan attached to the E.I.R. Ihows no training to beqin before 7:00 a.m. This will allow the majority ot recreational boats to be launched and prooeed through the oourae with no impediment at the beqinning ot the tishing day. TBLBI'HONE. (61Q1 CD(}-Al'l1J TELECOPIER {61$} 'W1,-100il ___JUN-08-'92 MON 12:09 !D: TEL NO: 11131 P03 Barbara Reid June 8, 1992 Paq8 :2 I've also inQluded for your intormation my notes r8latinq to the city L~k8S Committee meeting reflecting their thouqhts on other alpeot. ot the project. If you have any questions regarding these 8ubjects ple... t..l tree to contact m8. Sincerely yours, L. ~n~o LKM/1mn Inclosure JUli-08-'92 MOli 12:09 ID: TEL NO: 11131 P04 L,KEVIN MINEO IIQ ""'II:IIT "c:" 81'''..1', tun'. .100 .~ pzaoo, CA.I.$JI'OaKUo "'UOI"ODO& June 8, 1992 IBNT VIA. 'l'Et.BCOPIER: AND FIRST CLASS MAIL 589-2839 Jim Brown Water Utilities Department 5540 Xiowa Drive La Me.a/ Calitornia 91942 fte: San Diego city Lakes Committee Meeting, June 4, 1992 Dear Jiml The.. are my not.. r.qardinq the above city Lake. meeting. 1. A motion was made, seconded and unanimously pas..d approving the minutes of the City Lakes meeting h.ld May 6/ 19i2, a. pressnted to ths oommittee. 2. Glen Brandenburg moved the city Lak.. Committee approve the development p1ll.n, the Facilities Manaqement Plan, and the lease as presented to us, leavinq the motion open to triendly amendments tor specific qualifications to that approval. The motion died for lack of a second. 3. Kevin Mineo made a motion that the 1.....'. b. requir.d to give acoeptable assurance to the city of San Diego that they have sutfioisnt tunding to go torward with ths construction of the main oampus and that assurance be reoeived prior to any qradinq or qround disturbance on the l.as.d pr.mi.... Th. motion was not intended to indicate approval ot the laue aqreement itself or any aspect thereot. The motion was seconded by Ralph Priem. The motion was passed unanimously. 4. There was a motion made by George Hanson that this oommittee take no final action on the lease aqreement until it receive. a tinal version of the Facilities Manaqement Plan. X.vin Min.o seconded the motion, and a motion was thereupon made by Glen Brandenburg to table the motion, and the motion was tabled. T1IiJ.BrHONZ (eI.O) oOO-""UJ TZLBcopxaB (61.0) IiiJD1-1=:i8g JUN-!9.'1::.' 92 MO~j 12: 10 !D 8. 9. 10. 11. TEL NO: 11131 P05 Jim Brown June 8, Ui:2 Page :2 15. Georqe Hanlon moved that this oommittee reoommend, without voioinq approval or disapprov.l of the l.as. as . whole, th.t the monetary consideration being required trom the lessee is tot.lly inad.quat.. X.vin Mineo I.oonded the motion, and the motion was p....d unanimously. Ceorge H.nson mad. . motion that, without approvinq or di.approving the leas. .s . whols, the analyet. ot marltet value of the property to be lea.sd is inadequate and unrealietio, an4 hence the rental value oharged, whigh 1. . produot of that evaluation, is too low and unr.ali.tio. This motion was seoonded by Ralph Priem and pa..ed unanimously. George Hanson made a motion, without approving or dis.pprovinq the lease as a whole, that the charges proposed to be charged to the Lessee tor the u.. or the water on the re.ervoir are insutticient in light ot the policy of the City th.t .11 u.ers pay equally tor use and under the restraints or Council policy 400-3. Kevin Mineo seconded the motion and the motion was p....d. unanimously. Kevin Mineo made a motion, without approving or disapproving the lease as a whole, that the Olympio athletes not b. allowed to train on the course during tishing days for at least the tirst 30 minute. after sunrise to avoid conflicts with boat launohe. and U.hing- i t..l f. This was seconded by Ralph priem and pass.d unanimously. Ralph Priem made a motion, without approving- or disapproving the leas. a. a whole, p.rking .round the boathouse facility be limited to no more than 10 spaces, and it additional parking is required by other government.l agencies that parking be loc.ted on the wast side ot ths road. It it is neoessary (in order to ensure that parking is only within the Btalls) that .igns be posted and towing be accomplished, and that the enforcement be the responsibility ot the management ot the boathouse. Kevin Mineo Beconded the motion .nd the motion p....d unanimously. George Hanson made a motion, without approving' or disapprovini the le.se .s a whole, that there be no tence erected on either 81de of the sand path leading to the bo.t dook. Glen Brandenburg seconded the motion and the motion pa..ed unanimously. George Hanson made a motion without approving- or dieapprovinq the leas. as a whole, that the sub-paragraph under s.otion 1.4 whioh begins with the word "Exoept" and ends with the words "Otay Reservoir property" be dsleted and its plaoe the following inserted: II LESSEE sh.ll not charge the general 45. ? . ... JUN-0B-'92 MON 12:11 ID: 13. 1... 15. 16. 17. TEL NO: 11131 P06 Jim Brown June 8, 1992 pag'e 3 publio access or spectator fe.. tor special ev.nt. or competitions to be viewed from the premises or any CITY owned Lower otay re..rvoir property." It was seconded by Richard Levy and passed unanimously. A motion was made by Gl.n Brandenburg' that, witho~t approvinq or di.approvinq the lea.e as a who1e/ the ~.s..es be required to strictly entorce regulation. prev.nting any Invite../ Lio.n...., or any partie. using the premi.../ from v.nturing' at: the qsoqraphical area ~efined a. the premises onto the adjaoent shoreline or lake property. Th. motion was seoonded by K.vin Mineo and was passed ~nanimouslY. 12. K.vin Mineo, without approvinq or disapproving the lea.e aa · whole, :made a motion that the l.ale contain . provision stating' that it the water level should be reduoed suoh that there i. less surface acreage to be uled/ then use by the Olympic trainees shall be restructured and the use by public Ulers shall have priority in the .Vent ot any suoh restructurinq (current qage ) . Thll Was seoonded by Ralph Priem and passed unanimously. A motion was made by Glen Brandenburg, without approving' or disapproving the lea.e as a whole, that we voice our opinion that the desiqn concept that has now b..n prea.nt.d to us 1s the beat concept we have seen to date to .erve stated training purpos.s, although we are not endorsing' the size or any other aspect of the faoility. This was leconded by Ralph Priem and pas.ed unanimously. George Hanson made a motion that we disapprove the Faciliti.. Manaqement Plan since it 1s not a complete document at this point. Kevin Mineo seconded the moUon and it wu pas..d unanimously. Kevin Min.o made a motion that we disapprove the current le..e agreement bassd on the variouB criticisms an~ comments in the form ot other motions made this eveninq, and also bas.d on the taot that the Facilities Manaqement Plan, whioh i. attached to the lease and a critical part thereof, is not a complete an4 final document at thi. time. Ralph Priem secon~ed the motion and the motion passed with one abst.ntion. Georqe Hanson/ without approving or disapprovinq the lea.e as a whole, made a motion that even thouqh this de.iqn which hal been pre.ented to Us is the best desiqn we have seen we should disapprove it since it doelil not respond to our criticisms reqardinq heig'ht, Bize, tootprint aesthetics/ and has unnecessary duplication ot the facility. The motion was .econded by Kevin Mineo but was defeated two votes in favor JUI,-08-' 92 MOt, 12: 11 rD: TEL NO: 11131 P0? Jim Brown June I, un Page 4 to three aqainlt. 18. Although no motion was made a consensus was obtained trom the City Lake. Oommittee that the city ef San Dieqo .houl~ request that the Oity ot Chula Vista enter into Bonin; de.iination ot A-I in re9ard t.e the land between Wue.te Road and the shoreline ot the lake. It you have any que.tions or comments reqardinq the a~ov., ple.se teal free to call. Sincerely, L. ~~eo Member/ City Lakes Committee LRM/lmn ee: James D. Anthony, R.P.A. City Property Department ... . . . {:,"'E . \ C"". -., ,f-~ 1\ lr~.'"", -~,' ./ f..~' I " _t,_,_ Seingbuiltbythc SAN DIEGO NATIONAL SPORTS TRAINING FOUNDATION 1904 HOTEl CIRCLE NORTH SAN DIEGO, CA 92108 619/291-8802.293-3990 FAX 619/291-5395. 291-5367 ...)/ "f .A '/1\1/1'/(, Officer$ond ExecutiveCommitree Gloria D. McColl, President C. TcrryBrown, Vice President Ernest W. Hahn, Vice President J Stacey Sullivan, Secrelory Jam<J' H. We:,t, Tr-easurer JackWDovis PeterJ Hall HerbG Kleill RobcrtJ,Wotkins June 4, 1992 Truslee~ PavlCBarkley NicholasB.Binkley Molin Burnham Lodwrick M. Cook RonneyE. Droper DanielJ Epstein AnneL,Evom D. Jay Flood RonL.Fowler RichordH. Gordon Charlie Jocbon DonM, Koll Thomas C Krovi5, MD DavidB. Kuhn,Jr Daniel D. "Ron" Lane Sol Liz:erbram, DO Edwin Moses Carl E. Reichardt HoroldG, Sadler Don F. Sammis HarveyW Schiller, PhD HarryL. Summers Henry S. Williams, MD WalterJZable DavidCNiel,en, ExeculiveVicePresldenl Ms. Barbara Reid City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Ms. Reid: This letter is in response to the re-distributed draft EIR for the Olympic Training Center Boathouse. The revised EIR includes two new sections on "Alternatives Considered and Dismissed from Further Consideration". During the public review period for the first draft EIR, the San Diego City Lakes Committee took a position requesting that certain aspects of the boathouse faci 1 ity be el iminated and/or moved to another site. This included the toilets, showers, offices and multi-purpose rooms, as well as on-site parking. The revised draft notes, appropriately, that this approach would render the project infeasible. The San Die90 National Sports Training Foundation pursued discussion with the National Governing Bodies for the Olympic sports of rowing and canoe/kayaking - the United State Rowing Association and United States Canoe-Kayak Team - re9arding the effect that elimination of some or all of these functions would have on their ability to meet their program needs. These organizations will, cooperatively with the United States Olympic Committee, be the users of the boathouse facility. We believe that the letters of response received from USRowing and USCKT addressing this subject should be incorporated into the final EIR as part of the public comments, and are, therefore, forwarding both letters herewith. -,\',,,,-, ;;':-\~(?J;: ~ IUJjJJ :: 'i- ,'" '1"lJC;,--'.e' An Official United States Olympic Training Center I'1AV-12-:?92 17' HJ "F'D. U, S. CANOE So I<AYAh TO 86192'::>65840 P.02 f'.II1Am'ifl'c,n 1-~'~1I L'idlte 410 2.11 S~11fiI CaP""! Avtnu, M'IIII/I<'Ii', in.!"",. 46JJ5 3'UJ1.569Q M~y U. 1992 * Us.Cs/7tJefJnt! KJJyakTetl1Il HI'. DaTe Nielsen e~ Di"&O Olympic Trainins Centw 1!104 Hot:el CiJI:Ie NQI1h. ~.... Diego. CA 921C!e tJell' Dave: 1'hW you for sending the mised Olympic: Trl:it'tms C..nt", ~ pIaN. Tho U.s. Canoe anc\ Kayak Team has a numblrof ~,"$ III the4!lltire d",PlndapplOVaI ~ Wtwould li.kt to diIICUI the!se at ImgtI\ bat r:pE'd.6caUy . ~ point: 1. Tho dC7\'\'II9CII!od sWl of the I'P\'ised boahoUJP. bo the tninillllllSl .-.ry to CiOJIduct tllhl (UlQtI1cll)'ak pro~ 01 tIw smpe plaNltd fort1\t San ~ OTC. It is....,. dIIappomtiJ1g In.&; \his U.s. Olympic flag$hip fad1lty Ns bI!I!n scaled track '" 1I\u.cb from IhI ori8IJW JICjUCSI. .:. "I'M loc1<a'. showvr, S!t)fAp ;md'otfb space are all U1teval puts of an Olympic Trainlns Center BoathoUSl! facility. U mas ... not dRgNtod ill tht pIuIs tot thew funttioIw. tile ahletes ami coldles ...iJI adapt other _ of the boathDu$f to cany out thttt f1IIII:tioN. This lnight Lndvde sudt undl!!lirablt IldaptatioN U: outdoor ~ 2IJ~ 8Ith1em c:JIansingln the m.tIOOlIISI v.-.ight training in lilt boat bay5 cnatir\g a danpi' tor bCIIh ath1tt. ."d ''uipmmI.; ~ with d8Ib in the! boltho1Dt D\ixi.ng ,,"" oquipmlllt arid bOat ~aIr lnatmals with videotape. CXIIJ\puteI8. Inc\ important NGB paptMo.rk. :-.. Tho ('(Jl1JOlidation of the ~/kayalc IncIIVWiI'lJ muJtil"urpotP. ~ would not dem..... the "'Iuate footll&e I'\ICjIII.mnentll. Rowtns ancl_/1cayak.... twO $t!JI"I'aIe pt\:Igram.'I. t1Itft JIll! many tImt'$ wilen th!!n! wlU be o'#fttappiJIlI ~ r....- ..oJt~ mwtng and canoe/kayalt 1>P. wdsN t~ rtYil!'Wlnl 'YIdtotape or conducting pre or poll tntining t..m ~ al the samv timt. Equipment stol'lp!lftds wID tIDt bR le~ it thtttorap and multi-purpoR __ aN co!ltiguo!lf. In summary tIw plans)'l.1u .....t ani tIw minimum ~blt' to 1M Us. CIJtoc! and Kayalt Team. Wt' e~y anticipate the coa\Q~"~u....4 of t'OII!ItJVCtion and look forwanl to Incorporating the new OTC into IJUC 1993-% quadremdeI plaM. PIowe adYIse !If of 1M tImetabW far IIppIltWAI nnd constr\Jction ;1511 develops. U you'lIm! any ~~ reprd.itI& the abovt. p~ ca11. Sinct!n!Jy . Ws~~ ~ '^-odate I!x1!a1tive DIrecIor <:c: 0I1Kk Wielgus SfI!T1! KeUy A'!ifi'ted with ,~ ~"'r"'-C~11 t'1'I"t" A,t.40c;,tiof! f)~".O'._,,-.!.t~"~M'I' ~Y"'1~~'.19'~2 1';-:35 Fj~rir1 U. S. ri'OU1HG TO 8G1928GS'EI40 P,0! May 12, 1992 David C. Nielson Executive Vice ~sidellt San Diego National SportS rraining FOUlldation 1904 Hotel Cizcle North San Diego CA 92108 Dear MT. Niel$on. I am wribllg to provide the feedback you requested on the locken, showers, offices and the r.wn support:treas (~lOraiC> and multipurpose Space) that8l'e currently part oCthe planned boathouse facility o.tlb<: San ;:)iego Training Center. 'r!1e boathouse fllCilJty (s the focqj point for any successruJ 1'<>Wing' program. The coach must be able 10 Successfully train athlelel; in an environment Ihat RlJows for immedJate off lhe Water coaching (consuJring with tile alhletes both before and af'Iet trlJinini sessions including the review of tratnfn~ Videos, s!roke analysis, land ~ing, etc.). This is interspersed with on water rowin, II1d is as impona.nt to tile athlete's traWlIl as tile inSlrUCtions given from the coachina laaneh durir1g pracdce. III many instances a coach will schedule coftseculi ve sessions With different groups of 3,thletcs, but wiJ! find it nece5S~' to meet with each group iflei' they luve the Water. Expecting the..~ athletes 10 walt for tIlt coach in the boat bay, wjthOllt the shower facilities Cor, asking c04ches co~duct a meeting on th~ dock. is 1101 appropriae for an elite program. F1TrthemlOh1, the coachcs work is at me boathOU$e. This inclUdes P"iplring the equipment (,:11' ll'a.ining, de\'e!oping training programs and scheduJes. CoIchinC multiple sessions both ()Q and off the water means that tne coacb will be io !he boathouliC fuJI-lime. Attempting to use another office away from tbe boathouso, not just an Inconvenience but is impnlC1iCal fi"Om . coaching J1Ctspective, I.<lstly, W1:' havc been asked if the muJti-pUq1ose spsces for /'Qwin8' and canoelkaYakin, can be COIUoIidated and uscdjointl)', Rowing and canoelkaYaking ate two entlmy different spons with difFerent $tol1lge requirements and training needs. The CUtrent boathou$e P:1'OgnUn is 3ignificantJy smaller then the ori~a11y proposed program,leaving us little l'tJom for fle1libility. The cUttent space pn,v/dcd, Cor storage and m\1)ti-J'\ItpOSe space barely n:lcets our minimum requirements. Combining the n..cds for $torage lUX! multi-purpose sp~ce would be neither P1'3Ctiea1 for t.!le sports invoJ ve4. nor WOUld it II':duce squaJe footage requirements. The United 5l.itllS Rowing "'"ociat!on ,IOI/;~~C'Pitol Av~,. SUItt 400 !l1di'napolis. IN 46225 31i-237-'1I5(1 fax: 317-23;-5114(1 Member.::.il6nited Stat~s OIY"'I'ic Committee. F'd~ration Intfflladons!c de$ Soctites D'Aviron (FISA) t1=iY-i2-13St2 1.... ~",- (0....':. . . ,t:..t;.':J~(t IJ. S. PCWllei TO 86192'965840 F'.QZ l'SRoWi/lg COt1!.ilIU~$ to ~UppOl't the dev~]opm~r1t of the San Diogo Trueing Center, but 1Aith tho e~ctation that the facility win provide our Olympic 8.th1etes 1IIith tile best training c'~nditions possible. Xl'I can be Of further usistancc or if you have -.ny quesdoll.$, please c~nll{;t m~ at (317) 237.S648. Siltc:etely: (?~z Cfn" Palrick McNerney PI'O&ram DireQor Co:: Leslie Klein Kris Korzenlowski & ~~_.. - -- June 15, 1992 To: From: Chair and Members of the Planning commi~SiO. n Ken Lee, Assistant Director of Planning ".~. (') Doug Reid, Environmental Review Coordina o~ Via: Subject: EIR - DTC Boathouse Attached is a letter regarding the EIR on the DTC Boathouse. Because of the length of this letter and other material being delivered to the Planning Commission, I thought it should get to you as soon as possible. DR:nr Attachment FRD" SU~JECT ~/MRTH PLRCEMENT/ 6195341011 06.10.1992 ,9 P. 2 8 June 1992 Environmental Review Director City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourlh Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 This letter is a response to the Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR 90-12) for the ))roposed Olympic Trainina Center Boathouse. This letter makes some general comments in response to the report; then II proceeds through the report, page by page, makina relevant commenlary where needed. By way of introdue'tion, let me say thai the recirculated draft of the EIR ia much im- proved from the version that had to be withdrawn because of Its manifold dericiencies. Stin, it must be said that this version of the EIR is still a deficient product lacking in credibility, professiona1ism, or any realistic aHempt at objectivity. In theBe rundamentnl waYB, the report is as flawed as the earlier version. My Blrong opinion is that this report should nol be cerlified by the lead agency responsible for accepting it. Indeed, my opinion in this matter Is BO strong that J put you on notice by means of this letter that 1 intend to bring legal action in eha11enge to any such certification. Many Items within the report arc clearly aetionable..and action will be brought unless Ihis draft is yet again revised and recircu1ated. Let me draw your attention 10 about twelve fundamental flaws presenl in Ihe reporl. First, there Is Ihe entirc1y unwarranted and indefensible assertion that Ihe boalhousc is son1e sort of keystone or critical component of the Olympic Training Center. The pro- posed boathouse is only an opportunity afforded by Ihe choice of the current site of Ihe OTC. There is nothing that demands the inclusion of water sports I,aining at Ihe sile. NOI all Olympic training activitics wi11 be compnsscd al this site in Chula Vista. Water sports training could take place at some olher location, including those locations whcre it is eurrentIy carried out. And certainly there is nothing Ihal requires that a boathouse located in San Diego County be localed at LOwer Olay Reservoir. Such a boathouse could just as well be aceommodaled on Chula Vista bayfronl property. 11 is fundamen- tally necessary in any crcdible report that necessities and opportunities nol be confused. Second, too oftcn thc report accepts without cxamination or question certain assertions made by the p,ojeet proponent. Remember, the project proponenl is nOI a neutral parly, and a certain skepticism should be nlaintained when eonsidcring the claims made by Ihe prOponenl as 10 whal is necessary. An even more careaious deficiency is Ihe lendency within the report to simply aceepl Ihose options or plans that the proponent labels as .desirable.. Mere desirabililY as stated by the proponent is not a strong ground on which to base reporl conclusions. Bellcr arounds arc the public lood, a concern ror simple equilY, and a respect for that which can be scientifically evidenced. This lISt Iround ciled moves us to mention a third fundamental flaw. Very frequentIy the report makes asserlions..and draws eonelusions..withoul providing an)' documentation whalSoever, Evidence for positions is generally laekina throughout. Liltle attempl hns been made Ihrouahout Ihe report to bolstcr opinions through references, surveys, data, or even logical Argument. Such lacks arc common In the writing of freshman college 5111- denIS, but J would have hoped that such general sloppiness would have been absent in .......". ,FROn SU~JECT ~/M~TH PL~CEMENT/ESL 619~341e11 06. 10.1992 1~1 ~9 this report, especially as I warned you about this p,oblem in my previous communication. Thai the rcscarch efforts bchind this report have been skimpy and inadequate is indicat- ed by the presence of several other fundamental rtaws. Among these is the fact that the report research staff essentially made no effort whatsoever to assess the opinions of current recrcational users. Since current users of the lake will surcly be impacted by any training activities on the Jake, this omission is crucial. This crucial lack looms all the larser since the tean\ preparing this report included no recreation speeiaBstunor did the team even consul! a recreation specialist. At least there Is no such person listed in the "Individuals and Agencies Consulted" lis\. Similarly, Ihe lisl of references appended to this report is rather skimpy. All In all, then, there seems to have becn a tendency in prepatins this report to simply fly by the scot of the pants, to allow biases and precon- ceived notions to be the auiding spirit for the work rather than an imparlial search fOr the trulh. A seeming contempt for the public is shown by the fact that so little mention is made of the positions taken by citizens' advisory groups. For example, Ihe report essentially brushes away or ign()res the position taken by the Citizens' Advisory Committee for the Olay Valley Regional Park. Allow me to Quole that position here; "In liahl of the extreme importance and priority of preservina the Lower Otoy Reservoir and its shore- line for public use, the Cities of Chula VislD and San Diego shou!d refuse 10 ente' into any a.reemen! that will phee a boalhouse or olher structureS, temporary or permanent, In the Focused rlanning Arca of the Park, or that will allow access 10 the Jakc by private Intercst users on any of those days which the City of San Diego now uses or may usc in the future to conduct its public rec,eation programs." Nor docs the report includc the opinion of the Governing Committee for Ihe Otay Ranch Project, which called for the shoreline of Lowcr Ola)' to be Icft as "natural open space." The report fails to note the action taken by the San Diego County Parks Advisory Committce (quoled here): "The Parks Advisory Committec finds the propos cd OTe Boathouse to hove significant and undesirable impact to the environment. The location and scale propo~ed is detrimental to the invaluable recreational use of Otoy Lake by citizens. Therefore we recommend that permanent OTC Boa1house be located west of Wucste Road and that an~ OTe activity not impact current and future rcercationa! use of the Jake." And, of course, the reporl makes no mcntion of Ihe unrelenting erllieism of the project voiced by the San Diego City Lakes Committee, especially its two (three, R& of June 4) unanimous votes against allowing the project 10 go fOrward. With so much eiti- ~en opinion agajnst the boathouse..voted against every lime eilizens were afforded on opporlunity to express their opinions..it is shocking (and dishonest) for the rcport no! 10 have mentioned Ihis opposition"lInd to havc tried to answer it. As mentioned above, the CAC for the Otay Valley Regiono! Pork did nol wonl 10 see intrusion by Ihe proposed boathouse Into the Focused Plannini Area of thc future park. I mentioned Ihis spccifie conccrn to yOU In my earlier letter. Yet no effort has been made in the report to eonsidcr the special nature of the land at Lower Otoy. Thia lack of sensitivity shows bOlh fundamental disrcgard and sloppiness. Parkland (and future parkland) deserves spccial concern in any planning process, but that touch has not been providcd here. When we speak of park opportunities, We should be aware thai important fisea1 and socioeconomic considerations come Into play. Despite my recommendation, thc reporl docs nOI attcmpt 10 assess what impact the City of Son diego would suffer If recreational P. 3 J T t FROM SU8JECT A/MRTH PLACEMENT/E~L 619~341011 e6.1e.1992 1/ "'0 P. . ulers at Ota~ were to diminish their activities. This 1& an Important omission. Nor docs the report reflect any concern or contemplation or how members or the lower socioeco- nomic strata will be arrected by material and ps~chological disenrranchisement from Lower Otay by the activities of the private users served by the boathouse. No consideration is madc in the report for placing the boathouse across Wuesle Road on the main campus of the OTC--even thoush several citizens' aroups specificall~ recom- mended this stratcsy. The OTC has much land available to It, and so far, in my hcaring. no one has cver offered a reason why the boathouse could not be sited on this prOperly, with the bosts being conveyed to and from the lake (or some other venue) each do)' as needed. It must be mentioned that much or the biological data eolleetcd in the reporl appears Incompletc, deficient, or otherwise untrustworthy. For example, It is not really credible to think that anateatehers arc not using at least parI of the site on which the boathouse is proposed. The site.specific assessment or environmental mailers skipped Ihose observa- tion times or the year thai miSht have been cxpectcd to yield Ihe richest observations. Similarly, Ihe bird census observations were made at a lime when such sightings would be hirly minimal, that is to say, not durina the time when Lower Olay is home to mia,atory birds during the rail and winter months. This objection is, or course, )'et anolher obser- vation about the sloppiness of Ihe research mclhods used in preparing this report. The report reflects a bias when It reveals.-rather eonstantly--a patholoaical fear of the "No Project A1ternative." Somehow the authors or the report have gotlen Into their hcads the idea that 1heir purpose is 10 somehow justify the proponents' proposed project. No. Thc proper task was to assess the project and render an informed, logical, scientific judgment. But the authors or the report show a constant unwillingncss or inability to adopt this stance nny lime it brings them near the shoals of reeommendins "no project.' Finally, it must bc mentioned that, according to a May 29 communication from the orfiee or lobbyist Lauric McK inley, the size or the sile proposed for the project has increased in the time since this draft or Ihe EIR was issued, from 3.17 acres to 3.69 acrcs. Ihls in- crease in size or 14% would seem 10 demand some reconsideration or the conclusions drawn In the drart EIR, especially tbose havina to do with coastal sage brush and gnat- catcher habitat. Now I want to turn m~ attention to making commentary about specific passaaes in the report. For your convenience, I will key my comments to Ibe section and page numbers In Question: 1.11 As J point out above, the report, to be credible, should have considered fiscal and socioeconomic ractors. 1.18 Here we find a perrect example or circularity and bias. Under the crossheads or "Recreational Compatibility/Operations" and "No Projecl" appears the statement: "Would not conrorm to Gencral Plan Boals and policies; would not fulfill project objectives." There is clearly no compelling reason why anyone should wOrry If General Plan goals and policies arc not met by construction of a boathouse. The Boals and policies or Ihe General Plan arc (I) not sacrosanct, and (2) even Ir the)' were, they could (and probably should) be met in some olhcr way than constructins a boathouse for private users. To sa)' tblt thc "No Project Alternative" would not fulfill project alternatives is 10 say nOlhing. Thc Question, rather, is whether the project should be fuJriUcd, not whether II ~...~. ~'. -. -.-- FROM SUBJECT R/M~TH PL~CEMENT/ 619:5341011 06.10.1992 ., P. , would be fulrilled. 2-2 In the first paragraph under the heading "OTC Boathouse," to call the waterfront at Lower Otay "available" is to unfairly characterize ihe land there. Thc waterfront at Otay has becn held in the public trust for over sevent)' ycars. To say that such land is "available' is to express a contempt for the concept of public rights and bcnefit. Under Ihe hcading "Project Objectives,' to say that 'The boathouse facility is a crilical and Integral component of the OTC' is to accepl, unerlticall)', lIIogicall)', the mere claims of thc proponents. The OTC will 80 forward, with or without. boalhouse. And if the proponents wanted the boathouse to be an integral part of Ihe project, thc)' would build it on the main campus of the projecl rather than isolating il. In the same paragraph, to claim Ihal "Without Ihe boalhouse facility these water Sports activities of thc OTC would Dot be possible" is to commit two strikingly Inappropriate assertions. Firat, watcr SpOrls activities could be accommodated at many other sites In the county, Including San Diego Ba)'. Second, since the OTC will not altempt to accommodate all sports training, to Sly that water sports could not bc accommodated here is hardly a matter of any real impor- tance. These activities could be accommodated (and arc being accommodated) elsewhere. 2-3 through 2.9 All of these pages arc obsolete. The main change is thnt the footprint or the boathouse will be larger than the 3.17 acres listed. The new size is 3.69 acres. One wonders about this new impact on thc coastal sage sc,ub and on gnatcatcher habitat. 2.13 This page statcs that thc locker and shower facilities are designed 10 accommodate up to 200 athletes. Yet the report states that there will be a maximum of 60 athletes undergoing training at anyone time. There's clearl~ a matter of grandiose desisn, or edifice complex he,e. 2-19 More needs to be said about p,eventing spectators from intruding into and damas- ing the shoreline of Lower Olay. The best solution would be to spccirica!l)' ban 'races and other events" since "The applicant has said that races and other events are not re- quired fOr the viability of the boathouse.' 3-2 A classic case of fudging. Here the report soft pedals the concern of the CAC for the Olay Valley Regional Park. The CAC did not merely "identify public use as an important component to the futurc parko..after all, what else Is a public park for If not public use?--the CAC specifically stated that it does not want a boathouse within the future park. and that it does not want private users on the lake on those days when the public is being served. The report simply participates in dishonest)' and shows Its slaring bias when it docs nol responsibly report the opinions of citizens concerned with the boathouse issue. The San Diego County Parks Advlsor~ Committee adopted the lame position. This opposition to the proposed boathouse should be noted. 3.3 'rhe first paragraph on this page says that sailing 81 018Y is "onl~ an extremely minor proponion of lake uses." That's true, but it fails to respect the passion of those sailors who are being served (and who would be most impActed by private users), and it rails to take note of the future, when lurely sailing will become a much mOre prominent activity. 3-' Statistics listcd for 1991 duck hunting permits arc clearly in error. 3-8 It's here that the report says 60 athletes will use Ota)'. So why docs the boathouse need locker and shower facilities for 2001 FROM SUBJECT A/MATH PLACEMENT/~_L 61~~341e11 06.10. 1~~: 1..: 02 P. 6 3-11 Thc rcporl aiain commits a dishoncsly by nOI aivina more mcnlion to Ihc unrCmil- lini opposition by rccrcational uscrs 10 an OTC boathousc at Olay. The paraamph on hunting presents a foolish idca of miligAtion. It states that private user craft will not bc allowed in Harvcy Arm during the hunting scason. That's simply not sufficient. That 80rl of strategy seems bascd on the Idca thaI birds rCSI only In Harvey Arm. To make this mit1aalion idcA more scnsiblc, privatc user craft should be banned from all cOveS on the Jake and should keep a mInimum dislance of ISO feet from the shorcline durina all timcs of thc year. 3-13 Docs not salisfaclorily address the trespassing onto City property by day visitors or observers. This problem is potenlially serious and nccds a far more ex,cnsh'c ptan to allow for protcction of the habitat. Clearly, Ihe autho,s of the report have no solution in mind to answer for the incompatibility of OTC craft and Navy rescue Iminina opera- tions. 3.14 Another soft-pedalini of opposition from the CAC for the Olay Vallcy Reaional Park. And the comment that .public riahts to the lake can be guaranteed" is just hol air. The only way Ihat public righlS can be auarantecd is by statina unequivocally that thc public will always be accommodated over private users. This suarantee will not appear in the leAse, In the Facililies Management Plan, or anywhere else. The whole idea of creating what is facetiously and dishonestly called a "User's Council" is an obvious sham designed to allow the private users to control Ihe lakc through the subterfuge of stacking this committee wilh slooges. The paragraph on special events is an evasion. The impact of possible special events needs 10 be addressed now, not pushed under the carpet. 3.15 Appendix E, Chronology of Citizen Meetings is an inflated sham. Also, here we sec ~ bias entering in. The report seeks 10 dismiss any mitigation measures that would nOI be to the liking of the project proponents. The rtawed reasoning herc is the wholly unwar- ranted assumption that Ihe cHent is the projeel proponent, not the gene,al pubHc. The main intention should not be 10, at any costs, meet the "project objectives." The intention should be to minimize imp~ct on the righu or the public. Miligation -.2 is not a mitiga- tion whalsoever; il is simply a restriction..and an unduly harsh onc..on public movement about the lake. 3-16 ltem.4 sa)'s that private use' boals should slay ISO feet from the shoreline on open fishins days. This restriction should also be in force during the entire months of Sep- tember Ihrough March so as to allow miaraling birds to use Otay as a reasonably undis- turbed winlering and fceding RrC~. More needs to be said about eontrolling spectalors. 3.18 The so-callcd "public education" here is not a miliaation, but a restriction on public IIse. The proposed radio channel idca is ridiculous on the face of things and would not work. If it is to be tried at all, the OTC should be eharged with its operating expense. The next par~araph mentions that use,s will have to read the "rules of the lake," These will obviously be restrictions on public use, but the report docs not make it clcar what these will be. In any ease, the expense of this should not be borne by the Cily of San Dieao. The expense would nol exist except that a private user caused it to be recom- mended by this report. Item 9 does not prOleel the publie. The only potential benefit or this provision would seem to be in favor of the private uscrs, 3-19 A huae bun door provision here in <<112. The recommendation Is for the USOC/OTC to prepa,e the Quarterly Management Reports. These reports should be F~OM SUBJECT ~/M~TH Fl~CEMENT/. 619~341011 06.113.1992 3 prepared by the City of San Diego, The usoe should be required to report on its activj- tics, but it should be the City's interest to report on how its lessee is performina and how its recreation proaram Is beina arrected. ' 3.20 Here is a bizarre idea, The report lays the public should be allowed to fill out forms expressing their thoughts about having private users on the lake, At that point, It will be too late to consider the opinion of the public. Thil lort of public opinion sam- pling should be conducted before the boathouse Is built, not afterward. If this EJR had been intended to be a lerious and honest report, it would have performed this sampling durina this sprina, 3.20 and 3-21 Here the report dismisses "Olher Potential Miliaation" because, IS it stales, the applicant has determined these Sleps to render the project infeasible, Two Questions: (I) Why isn', this Judgment of the applicant questioned or at leut explored rather than aimply sranted assent? Ind (2) so what if the project is rendered infeasible? The purpose of this process is not (or at leut should not be) to simply acquiesce to any wishes the applicant might have, especia11y if no attempt is aoing to be made b)' the authors of the report to differentiate between needs and mere desires expressed by the applicant. The whole drift of this section simply seems to demonstrate that the USOC Is a piggish bunch who will not share with the public, but merely try to piratically rip off their rights, The "Analysis of Significance. pamgraph here is an assertion based on nothing, The authors of the report did not include or consult a recreation specialist, and therefore It is unfair for the report to declare that "The Identified recreational use impacts or Ihe proposed OTC boathouse activities can be mitignted to below a level of sianifieane by Ihe above measures I Ihrough 12,. The authors have no basis for making such a stntemen!. 3.28 Discussion of views ignores Ihe fact thnt the proposed boathouse will be 2S feel high, an insignificant OIitigation froOl its originally proposed 29.foot height, 3-29 This page ignores the fact that the boathouse wi11 be the only struelure cast of Wue5!e Road. That fact means Ihnt the boathouse will hnve a visual impact much larae, Ihan the authors pretend, 3-47 through 3-S2 The claimed gnat catcher habitats supposedly mapped arc simp\)' not credible. It might be credible thnt gnatcatchers do not exploit fully the disturbed constnl &age habilal on thc boathousc site, but it is wholly uncredible to suggest that they do not wholly exploit thnt part of the boathouse site that is undisturbed coastal &age, The mapped lerritories arc simply (cheatinaly) too convenien!. It is clear that sradina for Ihe boathouse would impact the existing territories or breeding gnatcalchers. 3.S2 As Slated earlier, the report docs not suggcst adequate mitigation to avoid disturb- ance of migrBlina bi,ds, Private user boats should be reQuired 10 slay out of all coves Ind at least ISO feet away from 011 shorelines during the months of September through March. 3.S3 concentrates on the number of privale USer boats rather than recognizing the unremittina nature of their presence on the lake. That is the potentia11y dan13ging relture, not their mcre number. 3.53 Not enough attention Is paid to Ihe balerul effects Ihat the boathouse will havc on the value of the City of San Diego property as a bioloaiea! resource, and thereby as a cornerstone for natural open space prescrves, The Governing Committee of the Otay Ranch Project has specifically uid that the shoreline of Lower Olay should remain as P. ? .,...i .. e F~OM SUBJECT ~~MA1H PLACEMEH1/ESl 61~53~lel1 06.10.1992 14;04 natural open space. 3.S4 ToP paragraph is a chealing Slalemen!. Th~ land-use designalions here would never properly allow for a hugc boathouse to be occupied by a privale inleres\. Arter all. recreation has bcen laking place al Otay for Icvenly years, and no one has ever had Ihe idea that a bOAthouse would be needed or desired here. Such a proposal al this junCIurc is lurely at odds wilh pasl and current use and with a wise future. 3.S8 Report should not simply drop mailer of pOlenlial problems caused by special cvcnts. This is a crucial maller, and it must be addressed. 4.1 No mention Is made of an "across-the-road" alternalivc for thc boathouse even thOugh Ihis alternative was recommended by citizens' IroupS and even thoulh the aulhors of the reporl say Illal an "alternativCs analysis' for this report "is cspccially crilieal." 4-2 Applicant calls four days of trainina "undesirable." S07 h the mere desirability of an option as determined by Ihe applicant our only system of mcASure? 4.3 This section compounds the idiocy beginnina on the previous pagc. The claim Is made that the 8\llleles would "nol have the time to ehanle sites." This stalement nlakes no sense. No athletes would be chanaing siles. They would merely be drivinl to differ- ent locations on various days. Movements of boats would be made by support crewS. In thc discussion of an oplion allowing for a smaller building, similarly specious claims arc made. It is said Ihal Hal leasl an extra hour pcr workout" would be required if trainees were to 10 back and forth between Ihe nlain sile and Ihe lake. 1I's hard to Imagine I\ow that could be !rue considerina t"al Ihe main sile is simply acrOSS Ihe road and I"al automobiles arc part of thc twentieth eenlury. In any case, cven if extra time wcre required for transiting, that milht simply be Ihc price that an alhlele would havC 10 pay for use of such an important recreational resourcc. Once again. it is Quite apparent that the USOC is being piggish in 1\s bchavior. and it is evcn n,orC obvious that the aulhOrs of the rcport have nol been objeclive In evaluating asserlions made by the applicants. (Even I"e aulhors admit on this page Ihal reducing Ihe showcr/loeker area would be a feasible way of reducing tM sizc of the building.) 4.4 On this page we encounter an oulrighl lie. The claim is made thai the applicant's representatives "held QumerouS meellngs with. . . fishinl and hunling representatives." There werc a few meetings with fishing represcnlalivcs, and virtually none wilh hunting representativcs. In any case, the advice received was roundly ignored. The middle paragraph on this page makes clcar. once again, thc plUish nalure of the applicant. Sitel S. 6, and 7 arc said to be unacceptable because they do not offcr cnough room for Ihc boathousc. But if the boathouse were a less grandiose affair, Ihen there would be plenty of room. Thh is an ClrcgiouS cxample of an applicant showing utter disrelUd for the public and or any spirit of cooperation or accommodation. 4.7 The bottom lines on this page simply make no logical or coherent sense. To cite · line from a rcport as saying Ihat arealer recreational oppo,tunilieS at Otny might be desirable means that thc site of thc proposed boalhouse Is "disturbed "is a leap of logic that is breathtaking evcn by the Slandards of the aulhOrs or this repor\. 4-g So whal if the "No Project Alternative" is not consislent with the Oeneral Pevelop- menl Plan? The plan is not sacrosanct, and its provisions could be met in ways other than building a boal1\OU5e on the shores of Lowcr Olay. And to say that the NPA would r~ \ \ , T F~OM SUSJECT A/MATH PL~CEMENT/~_~ 6195341011 06.10.1'$192 l'to 04 ~. 9 not meet the project objcctives is simply a truism. Alain, 10? Just because Ihere arc stated objeelives, is thai a ralionale to short-circuit reason and fact (jnding~ The authors clearly take leave of their objectivity (and senses) when they aver here that the project objectives arc thcir only real value. And to say th81 the OTC would not be complete without water sports training is to make a statement so stupid as to be beneath contempt. 4-10 Authors admit that the boathouse could be accommodated on the City of San Diego boat launch site. So why not pursue this possibility? Havlnl all boalina.related facitidcs clustered together makes aood sense. 4-14 Bottom paragraph makes no sense In asserting that a location farther south would not be "optimal." The only "optimal" proximilY would be achieved by having the boat- house at the main site. Once the boathouse If off the main site, then a liltle more dis- tance Is Irrelevant. The amount of Integration with the rest of the project is essentinlly the 18 me. As Alternative Location J has so much in its favor, It is surprisina th81 the authors do not IJrge its adoption. 4.23 The ImpAct SIJnllnary on this pAle makes no sense, especially in jls pronouncements about what wOIJld be environmentally infcrior. (Compare wjth the stAtement mAde on 4. 26.) 4-24 Too mIJch is made, line fOIJr, abolJt site access, parking and eongeslion for the alternative being discIJssed, especially as these potential p,oblems cOIJld easily be solved, Also, mIJeh too much is made about the desirability of this site "to the OTC." What about the desires of the pIJblic? Why must their wishes essentiAlly be tholJght of as inferior to those of the Applicant? 5.1 Notice the absolute paucity of references. Shameful. The lock of IrIJe research is apparent. 6.1 I am listed as an individual who was conslJlted. That ao-ealled consultation was a fraIJd. My interlocutor simply asked me if a bluebill duck was the same as 8 ruddy duck. My questioner could have had the answer to that quandry by consultinl a dictionary. I think this episode is a good example of how weak, phony, and meaningless has been the researCh efforts of the aIJthors. 6.2 It's not clear why the aIJlhors sought information from Ihe director of Ihe Sacramen. to National Wildlife RefIJge. SIJrely Ihere wOIJld be better reason \0 consult with some- one familiar with Lower Olay. And why list Lauric McKinley? She's limply a paid lobbyist for the project. What valuable information, what scientific Insights was she able to supply? '.1 Note that no recreAtion specialist is listed, even thoulh the recreational aspects of Lower Otay arc probably its most important fealure. MitiSftlion Monitoring PrOlram, p. 3-.The Water UI1Iities Department has been excluded rrom this plan. That's a hIJge and dangerous oversight. p. 9..Selr-reportlng by USOC/OTC will not be sufricient. The lessee should b. under strict observation, not running the show. p. IO..Putting out comment rorms to the public afler the facility has been built is IJseless and. terrible insIJh. Gauge public opinion before committing to the project. p. I J.-A change In building heighl from 29 feet to 25 reet is hardly an Important mitiaa- FROM SUSJECT R/MATH PLRCEMENT/E~L 6195341011 06.10.19921"'C!5 P. 10 .. tion. The building Is slill too high and 100 big. Appendix C This whole section, the Facililies Management Plan, Is obsolete. Besides, It Is egresious that the lessee Is the parly that has wrlllcn it rather than the Icssor. Appendix 0 Attachment B.2, figure 3, shows a gnateateher territor)' mop. This map shows anatcatchers exactly on the proposed site of the boathouse. Attachment C discusses the disturbance to waterfowl and other migrator)' birds. The Ittachment makes too much of the number of boats to be on the lake rather than takins note of their almost constnnt, harassing presence. Please note that the Ogden surve)' of 9/18/90 did not take place durinS a time when most migrolor)' species have moved into the area. The survey is thus Quite deficient. Pase S, as stated above, Is essentially a deception. The only Question asked of me was whether a bluebill duck Is the same as a rudd)' duck. The consultation was clearl)' a sha m. I will not be at the meeting on 17 June as 1 will be out of the country. But I will try to attend subsequent meetings at which this EJR is considered. My lack of presence al any meetings is not to Imply Ihat in any way r suppon the ErR, or that r have surrendered an)' of my rights in challenging it. Sin~~e r )',' /j1Y/-'/ 0-'~V'1'''7'''- o geJh nson 12598 Portada Place San Diego, CA 92130 (619) 259.1834 Member, San Diego City Lakes Committec Member, CAC, Ot8)' Valley Rcgional Park .........END... June 11, 1992 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Maryann Miller, Environmental Review Coordinator dJ.~ r I tl Robert A. Leiter, Director of Planning f' VIA: SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Report, EIR 91-05 Telegraph Canyon Estates (Baldwin) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Attached is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the proposed 112.4-acre Telegraph Canyon Estates project. The proposed subdivision consists of approximately 350 single-family residential units, two private park areas, and two community purpose facilities. The public hearing on the DEIR is scheduled for July 22, 1992. If you have any questions, please call Maryann Miller at 476-5330. Enclosure MM/je June 10, 1992 To: Planning Commissioners From: Barbara Reid, Associate Planner ? '} f(('- Subject: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, EIR-90-12, Olympic Training Center Boathouse This DSEIR was previously circulated to you. An additional copy is forwarded to you with this package for your convenience (in case you no longer have the copy circulated previously). BR:nr Attachment