HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Res 4562 1997-09-22
t.
RESOLUTION NUMBER~:L
I
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH CERTIFYING
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE HELLMAN RANCH
SPECIFIC PLAN; ADOPTING THE
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM;
ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND FACTS IN
SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AS REQUIRED BY
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT; AND ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY
FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE:
1
Section 1. Hellman Ranch LLC (the "Applicant") has submitted to
the City of Seal Beach (the "City") a development application for the Hellman Ranch
and adjoining properties. The request is to amend the General Plan and adopt the
Hellman Ranch Specific Plan ("HRSP") which will replace the existing General Plan
land use designation and Specific Plan zoning designations within the boundaries of the
proposed Specific Plan. The proposed Specific Plan would regulate all land use
development on the project site. The Development Regulations section of the proposed
Specific Plan would provide guidance on the implementation of each Planning Area,
including the permitted uses, conditional uses, and prohibited uses. Also provided are
development standards, overall design concepts and general design guidelines for all the
land uses that could be developed within the Specific Plan area (collectively, the HRSP
and associated development entitlement requests are referred to herein as the
"Project"). As shown on Figure 3-3 of the Draft EIR, the proposed Hellman Ranch
Specific Plan allocates land uses over the 231.3-acre property into ten (10) distinct
Planning Areas. The legal description for the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan area (the
"Property") is provided as "Exhibit A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2. The City prepared an Initial Environmental Study for the
Projects pursuant to Section 15063 of the State Guidelines for implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Initial Study concluded that there
was substantial evidence that the Project might have a significant environmental impact
on several specifically identified resources and governmental services. The Initial Study
was distributed for public review on November 26, 1996 for a thirty (30) day public
review period that ended on December 30, 1996.
I
Section 3. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064 and
15081, and based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, a decision was
made to prepare an Environmental Impact Report ("ElR") for the Project. A Notice of
Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DElR") was prepared for the
Project and sent to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research for the
State of California and to other responsible, trustee, and/or interested agencies and
persons. The City contracted with an independent consultant for the preparation of the
ElR.
Resolution
Number4~"z
Section 4. On December 10, 1996 a public scoping meeting was held
before the City's Environmental Quality Control Board. The public scoping meeting was
noticed by publication in the local press, by posting at City Hall and at each' library
within the City, and through an announcement on cable television. The meeting provided
an introduction to the project and the CEQA process, and provided an opportunity for the
public and interested agencies to comment on the issues to be analyzed in the EIR.
Section 5. On April 8, 1997, the DEIR was completed. Pursuant to State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15085, the City prepared a Notice of Completion of the DEIR I
which was filed by mail with the State Office of Planning and Research on April 8, 1997.
A copy of the Notice of Completion and of the mailing list to agencies and interested
individuals, is included in the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR"). The DEIR
was circulated to interested persons and agencies between April 8, 1997 and May 27,
1997 for a 45-day comment period pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section l5087(c).
Duly noticed public meetings were held before the City's Environmental Quality Control
Board on May 6 and May 20, 1997 for the purpose of taking public comments regarding
the DEIR. Duly noticed public meetings were held before the City's Archaeological
Advisory Committee on April 30, May 14, and May 21 for the purpose of taking public
comments regarding the Cultural Resources Section (Section 5.8) of the DEIR.
Section 6. In response to the circulation of the DEIR, the City received
written and oral comments, and additional information from spring surveys conducted by
the Applicant's consultants for the Belding's savannah sparrow, burrowing owl, and
sensitive plant species, which resulted in the identification of additional significant
environmental impacts to the environment. Based upon that additional information, the
City prepared and circulated a "Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report"
("RDEIR"), which was completed on June 5, 1997. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15085, the City prepared a Notice of Completion of the RDEIR which was fIled
by mail with the State Office of Planning and Research on June 10, 1997. A copy of the
Notice of Completion and of themailinglisttoagenciesandinterestedindividuals.is I
included in the FEIR. The RDEIR was circulated to interested persons and agencies
between June 5, 1997 and July 23, 1997 for a 45-{!ay comment period pursuant to State
CEQA Guidelines Section l5087(c). A duly noticed public meeting were held before the
City Environmental Quality Control Board on June 24, 1997 for the purpose of taking
public comments regarding the RDEIR.
Section 7. In response to the circulation of the DEIR and the RDEIR, the
City received written and oral comments regarding the adequacy of the DEIR and the
RDEIR. The City prepared written responses to all comments which raised significant
environmental issues. The City incorporated the comments and the City's responses into
the FEIR and returned responses to commenting agencies at least ten (10) days prior to
the Certification of the FEIR, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5.
Section 8. The FEIR is comprised of the DEIR circulated April 8, 1997,
the RDEIR circulated June 5, 1997, including any revisions thereto and appendices; the
list of persons, organizations and public agencies which commented on the DEIR and
RDEIR; the comments which were received by the City regarding the DEIR and RDEIR
and the City's written responses to significant environmental points raised in the public
review and comment p~s, each of which is incorporated herein and made a part
hereof by this reference.
I
Section 9. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
on the FEIR and the Project on September 3, 1997 at which time evidence, both written
and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission. Notice of the
time, place and purpose of the hearing was provided in accordance with applicable law.
Based upon the record of the hearing, the Planning Commission voted to recommend the
adequacy of the FEIR to the City Council and to recommend approval of the Project to
the City Council.
Resolution Numbe~~~~
Section 10. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on
September 22, 1997.
I
Section 11. The findings made in this Resolution are based upon the
information and evidence set forth in the FEIR and upon other substantial evidence which
has been presented in the record of this proceeding. The documents, staff reports,
technical studies, appendices, plans, specifications, and other materials that constitute the
record of proceedings on which this Resolution is based and the FEIR for the Project are
on fIle and available for public examination during nonnal business hours in the Office of
the Director of Development Services of the City of Seal Beach, 211 Eighth Street, Seal
Beach, California 90740. The custodian of said records is the Director of Development
Services of the City of Seal Beach.
Section 12. The City Council fmds that the public and government
agencies have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Initial
Study, DEIR, RDEIR and FEIR.
Section 13. The City Council fmds, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15084(e), that the EIR has be:en independently analyzed by the City and its Staff, and that
the EIR represents the independent judgment of the City as lead agency with respect to
the Project. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in
the staff reports accompanying the Project descriptions and EIR, the corrections and
modifications to the DEIR and RDEIR made in response to comments (and not
previously recirculated), and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony
presented at the above-referenced hearing does not represent significant new infonnation
so as to require recirculation of the EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21092.1. .
I
Section 14. The City Council fmds that the comments regarding the DEIR
and RDEIR and the responses to those comments have been received by the City; that the
City Council has received public testimony regarding the adequacy of the FEIR; and that
the City Council, as the final decision-making body for the lead agency, has reviewed
and considered all such documents and testimony prior to acting on the Project. Pursuant
to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15090, the City Council therefore certifies that the
FEtR has been completed in compliance with CEQA.
I
Section 15. Based upon the Initial Study, the DEtR, the PEtR, public and
agency comments aild the record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the
Project will lUll cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of Land Use and
Planning (agricultural resources, disruption of established communities, compatibility
with existing uses); Population and Housing (population projections, growth, housing
displacement); Geology (hazards, landslides and m!Jdflows); Hydrology and Water
Quality (groundwater quantity, alteration of flow, reduction in water supplies); Air
Quality (odors, air movement and climate change); Transportation and Circulation (safety
hazards, emergency access, parking, pedestrian or bicyclist barriers, alternative
transportation, air, water and rail transit); Biological Resources (locally designated
species); Energy and Mineral Resources (energy conservation, waste, mineral resources
loss); Hazards (emergency response and evacuation, health hazards, fire hazards); Public
Services (utilities, communications, water, sewer, drainage, solid waste); Aesthetics
(light and glare); Cultural Resources (paleontological resources, ethnic cultural values,
existing religious or sacred uses). Explanations for why the foregoing impacts were
found to be insignificant are contained in the Initial Study in Appendix A of the DEIR,
and also in Section 4.0 of the FEtR. In some cases, 1ess-than-significant impacts
identified above and Section 4.0 of the FEtR were also discussed in detail in the relevant
sections of the EtR, based upon additional field analysis or information. The Initial
Study's conclusions regarding these 1ess-than-significant impacts did not change as a
result of this additional analysis.
Section 16. Based upon ihe initial study, the EIR, public comments and
the record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the Project may create
Resolution NUmber~~
significant impacts in the areas of Land Use, Biological Resources, Hydrology and Water
Quality, Geology, Hazardous Materials, Parks, Recreation and Open Space, Aesthetics,
Cultural Resources, Transportation and Circulation, Air Quality, Noise, Public Services
and Utilities, and Energy and Natural Resources, as further described in Exhibit B and in
Table 1-2 and Section 5.0 of the FE1R. The Project may create significant cumulative
impacts in the areas of biological resources, geology, cultural resources, traffic and
circulation, air qualitY, hydrology and water quality, and noise. With the exceptions of
certain impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology, and air quality
identified in Article ill of Exhibit B, the E1R identifies feasible mitigation measures for
each impact that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. . With regard to the
aforementioned biological resources, geology, cultural resources and air quality impacts,
the E1R identifies mitigation measures that will substantiall y lessen each impact, although
not to a level of insignificance. Further explanation for these determinations may be
found in Sections 2.0,4.0,5.1 through 5.15, inclusive, and 6.0 of the EIR.
I
Section 17. In response to each significant impact identified in the EIR,
and listed in Section 16 of this Resolution, changes or alterations are hereby required in,
or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impacts identified. Each such change or alteration shall be a condition of
approval of the Project. The changes or alterations required in, or incorporated into, the
Project, and a brief explanation of the rationale for this fmding with regard to each
impact, are contained in Exhibit B of this Resolution and are incorporated herein by this
reference. -
Section 18. Section 7.0 of the E1R describes, and the Gity Council has
fully considered., a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project which might fulfill the
basic objectives of the Project. These alternatives include the "No Project Alternative";
"Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Alternative"; Alternative One, which
evaluated an 86-acre restored wetland mitigation bank area, no golf course, and 250
residential units; Alternative Two, which evaluated a 43-acre restored wetland, a 9-hole
golf course, and ISO residential units; and, Alternative Three, ~hich evaluated off-site
wetland mitigation, an 18-hole golf course, and ISO residential units. The alternatives
identified in the E1R either would not sufficiently achieve the basic objectives of the
Project or would do so only with unacceptable adverse environmental impacts.
Accordingly, and for. anyone of the reasons set forth herein, in the E1R, or in the
"Findings and Facts in Support of Findings" document attached hereto as Exhibit B, the
City Council finds that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible
each of the Project alternatives, including the "No Project" alternative, identified in the
ElR and each is hereby rejected. The City Council further finds that a good faith effort
was made to incorporate alternatives into the preparation of the E1R, and that all
reasonable alternatives were considered in the review process of the E1R and the ultimate
decision on the Projects.
I
Section 19. The City Council hereby makes each of the findings contained
in the "Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of Findings" attached hereto as
Exhibit "B" with respect to each of the significant impacts defined in the FE1R and the
alternatives analysis. Further, the City Council hereby finds that each fact in support of
finding is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the FEIR.
For each environmental im~t identified in the FEIR as "significant and unavoidable,"
the City Council adopts the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" set forth in Exhibit
B. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is
presented as Table 15-1 of the. FE1R, as modified by the recommendations of
Archaeological Advisory Committee Resolution 97-2.
I
Section 20. Upon approval of this Resolution, the Director of Community
Development is hereby directed to me a Notice of Detennination with the County Clerk's
Office, County of Orange, and the California State Clearinghouse pursuant to Section
21152 of the Public Resources Code. -
, -
Resolution Number~~
p~ APPROVED AND ADC)PfED by the City c.omcil of the City of ""
Beac a ~:g ~d 08 the '-'.:fA. .,e, day of
. 'h , 1997, by .the following vote:
AYES: Councilmemb
~
NOES: Councilmember ~
I
ABSENT: Councilmember
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
}
}
}
SS
I
I, Joanne M. Yea, City Clerk of Seal Beach, California, do h~Y certify that the
(oregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number :J" 6Z, on file in
the office f the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the
City of h, at ular meeting thereof held on the ~~),~ day
of , 1997.
1
Resolution Number~~
"EXlllBIT A"
HELLMAN RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
LEGAL DESCRIPfIONS OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES
(HeUman Properties LLC - Hellman Ranch Property)
DESCRIPTION
I
,
THE LAND REFERRED TO'IN TInS REPORT IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CAUFORNIA,
COUNTY OF O~GE, CITY OF SEAL BEACH, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THOSE PORTIONS OF SECTION 11 AND OF THE WEST HALF OF SEC'I10N 12, TOWNSHIP 5
SOUTH, RANGE 12 WEST, WITHIN Lor C-I OF THE RANCHO LOS ALAMITOS, AS PER M~S
1 AND 2 FILED IN DECREE OF PARTITION, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CAliFORNIA, IN
AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CASE NO. 13527, A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE
FINAL DECREE OF SAID CASE HAVING BEEN RECORDED FEBRUARY 2, 1891 IN BOOK 14,
PAGE 31 OF DEEDS IN THE OFfiCE OF" THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE
COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSEC'I10N OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID Lor C-l,
ALSO BEING THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE STRIP OF LAND 100 FEET IN WIDTH OF
THE LOS ANGELES GAS AND ELECI'RIC CORPORATION, WITH A UNE PARALLEL WITH
AND SOUTHERLY 1056.14 FEET FROM THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID
SECTION II, SAID INTERSEC'I10N BEING ALSO THE NORTIlWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 18
OF TRACT NO. 1817 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 82, PAGES 26 TO 31 INCLUSIVE OF
MISCElLANEOUS MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY OF
ORANGE; THENCE, ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT, AND ALONG
THE NORTIIERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT NO. 2590 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 82,
PAGES 32 TO 38 INCLUSIVE OF SAID MISCElLANEOUS MAPS, THE FOLLOWING COURSES:
SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47' 55' EAST 535.26 FEET; SOUTH 17 DEGREES 39' 50' EASt 224.72 FEET;
SOUTH 58 DEGREES 14' 20' EAST 233.06 FEET; NORTH 83 DEGREES 25' 10' EAST 483.32
FEET; NORTH 67 DEGREES 58' 55' EAST 235.00 FEET; NORTH 13 DEGREES 25' 35' EAST
110.30 FEET; NORTH 54 DEGREES 00' 10' EAST 139.31 FEET; SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47' 55'
EAST 2640.57 FEET; AND SOUTIl 44 DEGREES 52' 03" EAST 548.68 FEET TO THE WESTERLY
LINE OF BAY BOULEVARD; THENCE, ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, NORTH 30 DEGREES
38' 00' EAST 1702.41 FEET TO TIlE SOUTIlWESTERLY UNE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN
THE DEED TO THE REDEVELOPMENT CENTER OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, RECORDED
FEBRUARY 27, 1976 IN BOOK 11658, PAGE 1767 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE NORTH 65
DEGREES 43' 42' WEST 1344.43 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY UNE TO TIlE
SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND SHOWN AS CONTAINING
124.077 ACRES ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 83, PAGE 22 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF $AID COUNTY OF ORANGE, BEING ALSO THE
SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL C1-104 IN THE DEED TO
THE ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, RECORDED JANUARY 27, 1961 IN BOOK
5609, PAGE 69 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE, ALONG TIlE BOUNDARY OF SAID LAND,
NORTH. 89 DEGREES 48' 27' WEST 380.00 FEET; NORTH 53 DEGREES 34' 46" WEST 11 16.68
FEET; NORTH 89 DEGREES 48' 02' WEST 310.00 FEET; AND NORTH 0 DEGREES 09' 46' EAST
60.85 FEET TO THE BOUNDARY UNE BETWEEN STATIONS I AND 2 OF LOS ANGELES AND
ORANGE COUNTIES, AS SURVEYED BY THE COUNTY SURVEYOR OF SAID LOS ANGELES
COUNTY, AND ESTABUSHED BY TIlE CAUFORNIA LEGISLATURE IN 1919, AND AS SHOWN
ON LOS ANGELES COUNTY SURVEYOR'S MAP NO. 8175 RECORDED IN BOOK 39, PAGE 52
OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID LOS
ANGELES COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 57 DEGREES 06' 51' WEST 2979.04 FEET TO THE
INTER-SECTION WITH THE UNE DESCRIBED IN SEAL BEACH BOUNDARY AGREEMENT
NO.2, AS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 4889 RECORDED APRIL 8, 1968 IN BOOK 8565,
PAGE 1 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE, ALONG S~D AGREEMENT LINE, BEING ALSO
THE RANCHO LOS ALAMITOS UNE BETWEEN STATIONS 50 AND 51, AS PER MAP NO.2 OF
A PARTITION OF SAID RANCHO, FILED IN DECREE OF PARTITION IN SUPERIOR COURT
CASE NO. 13527, IN THE SAID COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A COPY OF WHICH WAS
RECORDED JANUARY 29, 1891 IN BOOK 700, PAGE 141 OF DEEDS IN SAID COUNTY
RECORDER'S OFFICE OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, A COPY OF WInCH WAS RECORDED
MARCH 12, 1891 IN BOOK 4, PAGE 31 OF DEEDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 37 DEGREES 51' 40' EAST 465.20
FEET ALONG SAID AGREEMENT LINE AND RANCHO UNE, TO STATION 50 OF THE
RANCHO LOS ALAMlTOSj THBNCE SOUTII 54 DEGREES 37' OS' WEST 613,07 FEET,
CONTlNUING ALONG SAID RANCHO UNE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
I
I
Resoiution Number~~~
EXCEPT THEREFROM, THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES BY
DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY IS, 1961 IN BOOK 5629, PAGE 527 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
(Southern California Edison)
DESCRIPTION
I
THE LAND REFERRED TO IN TIllS REPORT IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF .CAUFORNIA,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, CITY OF SEAL BEACH, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL A:
THAT PORTION OF TIDE LAND LOCATION NO. 137 'SURVEY NO. 106', AS PATENTED BY
THE STATE OF CAUFORNIA ON FEBRUARY 12, 1901, AND RECORDED APRIL 27, 1901 IN
BOOK 9, PAGE lOS, OF PATENTS, RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, AND RECORDED
SEPTEMBER 5, 1905 IN BOOK I, PAGE 231, OF PATENTS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY,
DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN GRANT DEED TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
COMPANY' DATED NOVEMBER 30, 1976 AND RECORDED FEBRUARY 18, 1977 AS
INSTRUMENT NO. 23970 IN BOOK 12075, PAGE 340, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDS OF
ORANGE COUNTY.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION THEREOF INCLUDED IN TIIAT CERTAIN PARCEL
OF LAND DESCRIBED AND DESIGNATED AS PARCEL 13 OF EXHmIT 'D' IN TIIAT CERTAIN
EXCHANGE AGREEMENT RECORDED APRIL 23, 1970 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 14118 IN BOOK
9272, PAGE 102 AND FOLLOWING, OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS.
ALSO EXCEPTING TIIEREFROM TIIE NORTHWESTERLY 50.00 FEET THEREOF.
(State Lands Commission)
PARCELB:
I
THE NORTHWESTERLY 50.00 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF TIDE LAND LOCATION NO. 137
'SURVEY NO. 106', AS PATENTED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON FEBRUARY 12, 1901,
AND RECORDED APRIL 27, 1901 IN BOOK 9, PAGE lOS, OF PATENTS, RECORDS OF LOS
ANGELES COUNTY, AND RECORDED SEPTEMBER 5, 1905 IN BOOK I, PAGE 231 OF
PATENTS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUN1'Y, DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN GRANT DEED
TO SOUTHERN CAliFORNIA EDISON COMPANY DATED NOVEMBER 30, 1976 AND
RECORDED FEBRUARY 18, 1977 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 23970 IN BOOK 12075, PAGE 340, OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION THEREOF LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF THE
SOUTHERLY UNE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AND DESIGNATED AS
PARCEL 13 OF EXlllBIT 'D'IN THAT CERTAIN EXCHANGE AGREEMENT RECORDED APRIL
23, 1970 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 14118 IN BOOK 9272, PAGE 102, AND FOLLOWING, OF SAID
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
ALSO EXCEPTING FROM PARCELS A AND B, ALL OIL, GAS, PETROLEUM AND OTHER
MINERAL OR HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES IN AND UNDER OR WlllCH MAY BE
PRODUCED FROM SAID LAND, WITIIOUT, HOWEVER, THE RIGHT TO USE THE SURFACE OF
SAID LAND, AS EXCEPTED AND RESERVED IN THAT CERTAIN DEED RECORDED
SEPTEMBER 26, 1924 IN BOOK 542, PAGE 120 OF DEEDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
I
(Southern California Edison)
DESCRIPTION
THE LAND REFERRED TO IN TIllS REPORT IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CAliFORNIA,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THOSE PORTIONS OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTIIWEST QUARTER AND THE
NORTIlWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTIIEAST QUARTER AND THE SOUTII HALF OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER, ALL OF SECI10N II, TOWNSlllP S SOUTII, RANGE 12, WEST, IN
THE RANCHO LOS ALAMITOS, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP
FILED IN DECREE OF PARTITION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, AS
Resolution Number~~~
CASE NO. 13527, A CERTIFIED COPY OF SAID DECREE HAVING BEEN RECORDED
FEBRUARY 2, 1891 IN BOOK 14, PAGE 31 OF DEEDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY AND TIlAT
PORTION OF TIDE LAND LOCATION NO. 137 "SURVEY NO. 106", AS PATENTED BY THE
STATE OF CAliFORNIA ON FEBRUARY 12, 1901, AND RECORDED APRIL 27, 1901 IN BOOK 9,
PAGE 105 OF PATENTS, RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, AND RECORDED SEPTEMBER
5, 1905 IN BOOK I, PAGE 231 OF PATENTS RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT POINT" A", HEREINBEFORE REFERRED TO IN PARCEL 1; TIlENCE SOUTII O.
10' 24" WEST, 419.23 FEET TO A 4 INCH PIPE SET IN CONCRETE MARKED LAG 40; TIlENCE
SOUTII 54. 48' 00" WEST, 2721.05 FEET TO STATION NO. 50 OF SAID RANCHO; THENCE
CONTINUING SOUTII 54. 48' 00" WEST, 613.69 FEET TO A POINT ON TIlE EASTERLY liNE
OF TIlE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO TIlE STATE OF
CAliFORNIA RECORDED DECEMBER 2, 1929 IN BOOK 332, PAGE 237 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
IN TIlE OFFICE OF TIlE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; TIlENCE NORTII O. 54' 57"
WEST, 120.93 FEET ALONG SAID EASTERLY UNE OF THE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY;
THENCE NORTII 540 48' 00" EAST, 3058.35 FEET; TIlENCE NORTII 270 29' 12" EAST, 278.25
FEET; TIlENCE NORTII O. 10' 24" EAST, 146.18 FEET TO SAID 4 INCH PIPE SET IN CONCRETE
MARKED LAG 37, HEREINBEFORE REFERRED TO IN PARCEL 1; TIlENCE NORTII 57. 10' 40"
EAST, 119.22 FEET TO SAID POINT" A" AND TIlE POINT OF BEGINNING.
I
EXCEPTING THEREFROM TIlAT PORTION DESCRIBED AND DESIGNATED PARCEL 13 OF
EXHIBIT "D" IN THAT CERTAIN EXCHANGE AGREEMENT RECORDED APRIL 23, 1970 IN
BOOK 9272, PAGE 140 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN TIlE OFFICE OF TIlE COUNTY RECORDER
OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY.
ALSO EXCEPTING TIlEREFROM TIlAT PORTION LYING WITIlIN TIlE PROPERTY DESCRIBED
IN 11:IE DEED TO TIlE STATE OF CAUFORN'IA, RECORDED FEBRUARY 2; 1981 IN BOOK
13934, PAGE 1637 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
ALSO EXCEPTING TIlEREFROM ALL OIL, GAS, PETROLEUM AND OTIlER MINERALS OR
HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES IN AND UNDER OR WlllCH MAY BE PRODUCED FROM SAID
LAND, WITIlOUT, HOWEVER, THE RIGHT TO USE THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND, AS
EXCEPTED AND RESERVED IN TIl0SE CERTAIN DEEDS RECORDED SEPTEMBER 26, 1924 IN
BOOK 542, PAGE 120 OF DEEDS AND RECORDED FEBRUARY IS, 1961 IN BOOK 5620, PAGE
527, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, BOTH IN TIlE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID
COUNTY.
I
(City of Seal Beach Redevelopment Agency)
DESCRIPTION
THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS SITUATED IN TIlE STATE OF CAUFORNIA,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, CITY OF SEAL BEACH, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL I, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 94, PAGE 1 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN TIlE
OFFICE OF TIlE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
(Orange County Flood Control District)
DESCRIPTION
TIlE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS SITUATED IN TIlE STATE OF CAUFORNIA,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL 1:
THAT PORTION OF TIlE FOLLOWING DESCRffiED LAND:
I
TIlE NORTIlEAST QUARTER OF SECflON 11 AND TIlE NORTIlWEST QUARTER OF SECfIONI12 IN LOT C-1 OF TIlE RANCHO LOS ALAMITOS IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF
CAUFORNIA, AS PER MAPS 1 AND 2 FILED IN DECREE OF PARTITION IN TIlE SUPERIOR
COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CASE NO. 13527, A
CERTIFIED COPY OF TIlE FINAL DECREE OF SAID CASE HAVING BEEN RECORDED
FEBRUARY 2, 1891 IN BOOK 14, PAGE 31 OF DEEDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY.
Resolution
Numbe~
EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WESTERLY OF THE BOUNDARY UNE BETWEEN
SAID COUNTY OF ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, THROUGH SAID
SECTIONS.
ALSO EXCEPT TIlAT PORTION OF SAID SECTION 12 LYING SOUTIlEASTERLY OF THE
SOUTHEASTERLY UNE OF BAY BOULEVARD AS SAID BOULEVARD EXISTED MAY 12, 1944.
I
THAT IS INCLUDED WITInN A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT
TIlE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH, LINE OF SECTION I, TOWNSlDP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 12
WEST WITI{ THE BOUNDARY LINE BElWEEN ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND LOS
ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AS SAID INTERSECTION IS SHOWN ON SHEET 2 OF 2
SHEETS OF THE MAP OF BOUNDARY LINES BElWEEN THE COUNTIES OF LOS ANGELES
AND ORANGE AS RESURVEYED BY THE COUNTY SURVEYOR OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
AND SURVEYED FEBRUARY 1915 TO FI;lBRUARY 1919; TIlENCE SOUTH 890 43' 20" EAST
110.16 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTII LINE TO A POINT 110.00 FEET EASTERLY, MEASURED AT
RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID BOUNDARY UNE BE1WEEN SAID COUNTIES; TIlENCE SOUTH
2" 48' 35" EAST 58.85 FEET ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITII SAID BOUNDARY LINE;
TIlENCE SOUTIl270 35' 51" EAST 46.72 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 470 48' 45" EAST 75.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 420 II' IS" WEST 102.70 FEET TO A POINT 110.00 FEET EASTERLY,
MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN SAID COUNTIES;
THENCE SOUTII 2" 48' 35" EAST 311.27 FEET ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITII SAID
BOUNDARY UNE; TIlENCE SOUTH 10 49' 36" EAST 262.77 FEET; TIlENCE SOUTH 00 16' 50"
WEST 1280.00 FEET; TIlENCE NORTII 890 43' 20" WEST 380.00 FEET; THENCE NORTII 530 29'
39" WEST 1116.68 FEET; THENCE NORTII 890 42' 55" WEST 310.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE EASTERLY UNE OF PARCEL 2, AS DESCRIBED IN
DEED RECORDED APRIL 21, 1925 IN BOOK 3962 PAGE 202 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE
OFFICE OF TIlE COUNTY RECORDER OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TIlENCE NORTII 00
16' 00" EAST 540:79 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION AND SAID EASTERLY
UNE OF PARCEL 2; THENCE NORTII 69044' 00" WEST 548.28 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 400.00
FEET WIDTII RIGHT OF WAY FOR TIlE SAN GABRIEL RIVER CHANNEL, (A RADIAL
THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS SOUTIl590 33' 45" EAST,) SAID POINT BEING TIlE BEGINNING
OF A CURVE, NON-TANGENT, CONCAVE NORTHWES:rERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF
3064.93 FEET; THENCE NORTIlEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 00 56' 54", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 50.73 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE, NON-
TANGENT, (A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS SOUTII 600 30' 39" EAST); THENCE
SOUTH 69044' 00" EAST, 521.52 FEET TO'A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PAR:CEL
2; THENCE NORTH 00 16' 00" EAST 26.00 FEET ALONG SAID EASTERLY UNE; TIlENCE
SOUTH 890 43' 20" EAST 1460.40 FEET; THENCE NORTII 20 44' 56" EAST, 256.91 FEET TO A
POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION OF TIlAT CERTAIN COURSE THAT IS SHOWN
ON SAID MAP OF BOUNDARY UNES AS SOUTH 20 48' 35" EAST, 2207.94 FEET; TIlENCE
NORTIl2" 48' 35" WEST, 544.12 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION AND SAID
BOUNDARY UNE TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH UNE OF SAID SECTION I, SAID POINT BEING
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
I
PARCEL 2:
THAT PORTION OF TIlE NORTIlWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, IN LOT C-I OF TIlE
RANCHO LOS ALAMITOS, IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS MAPS I
AND 2 FILED IN DECREE OF PARTITION IN TIlE SUPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORNIA IN AND
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CASE NO: 13527, A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL
DECREE OF SAID CASE HAVING BEEN RECORDED FEBRUARY 2,1891 IN BOOK 14 PAGE 31
OF DEEDS, IN TIlE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY,
DESCRIBED AS FOllOWS:
I
BEGINNING AT COUNTY CORNER NO.2 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF BOUNDARY LINES
BETWEEN. TIlE COUNTIES OF LOS ANGELES AND ORANGE AS RESURVEYED BY THE
COUNTY SURVEYOR OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, AND SURVEYED FEBRUARY 1915 TO
FEBRUARY 1919, A COPY OF SAID MAP BEING ON FILE IN TIlE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
SURVEYOR OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; TIlENCE SOUTH 570 10' 40" WEST, 723.65 FEET
ALONG TIlE BOUNDARY UNE BETWEEN SAID COUNTIES AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP TO TIlE
LINE CITED AS "SOUTH 890 43' 20" EAST, 1460.40 FEET IN TIlE DESCRIPTION FOR TIlE
LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL NO. CI-I04" IN TIlE US PENDENS FILED IN SUPERIOR COURT
CASE NO. 73534 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR TIlE
COUNTY OF ORANGE, A COPY OF WHICH WAS RECORDED AUGUST 14, 1957 IN BOOK 4006,
PAGE 579 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN TIlE OFFICE OF SAID COUNTY RECORDER; TIlENCE
SOUTH 890 43' 20" EAST 602.61 FEET ALONG SAID CITED LINE TO THE EASTERLY
TERMINUS THEREOF; TIlENCE NORTII 20 44' 56" EAST 256.91 FEET; TIlENCE NORTH 2048'
35" WEST 138.72 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Resolution ~umber~~~~
"EXlllBIT B"
CEQA FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT
OF FINDINGS IN CONNECTION WITII TIlE
HELLMAN RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AND
RELATED DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS,
SfATEMENT OF . OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
I
I. Introduction
. The following environmental findings in connection with the Hellman
Ranch Specific Plan ("HRSP") and related discretionary actions (collectively referred to as
the "Project") are hereby adopted by the Seal Beach City Council ("Council") pursuant to
the requirements of CEQA. Said findings are based upon evidence presented in the record
of these proceedings, both written and oral, the FEIR and all of its contents including,
without limitation, technical appendices thereto, comments on the Draft aIId Revised Draft
EIRs and the City's responses thereto, and staff and consultants' reports prepared and
presented to the Council.
A. Project Objectives
The Project was designed. to create a state of the art project that balances
land use and environmental benefits with ownership economics of the property that will
assure quality, sustainable development and improvement of the property in a manner that
will benefit the local and regional environment, the local community and the owners and I
ultimate users of the property.
Project goals have been established by the Applicant for the development of
the HRSP that the Applicant believes are essential to achieving balance and sustainable
development. These goals include:
CI Maintain significant acreage for restoration/creating of wetlands, restore and
increase the biologic and habitat values of the property, and plan for long-term
retention of viable wildlife habitat and biodiversity on the site.
'-,
CI Creation/restoration of a wetlands and environmental ecosystem that represents a
significant improvement of the existing severely degraded wetlands on the site and
provides a meaningful contribution to the regional system of coastal wetlands and
open space along the Pacific Flyway.
CI Protect and improve water quality of the wetlands by redirecting existing urban
runoff and utilizing the golf course as a filtration system, detention area and buffer
between the wetlands and urban environment.
CI Respect the property's physical constraints.
I
CI Preserve the open space character of the mlijority of the property and create public
access opportunities. .
CI Provide visitor-serving recreational opportunities within the coastal zone that will
contribute to the economic base of the City of Seal Beach.
o Create an effective system of open space, trails and parks.
Resolution Number~
lJ Reduce the acreage designated for residential use and reduce the number of units
as currently designated in the City's existing Specific Plan. .
lJ Provide for comprehensive planning of the Hellman Ranch and surrounding
properties to ensure land use compatibility.
I
lJ Develop a plan that is responsive to community priorities and concerns, consistent
with the California Coastal Act and that can be supported by local, stale and
federal regulatory agencies.
The City's objectives for development of the Property, as outlined in the
FEIR, include:
lJ Restoration of the degraded and severely degraded wetlands areas on the Property.
lJ Preservation of Gum Grove Nature Park and dedication of the Park to the City.
lJ Preservation of cultural resources sites, to the extent feasible.
lJ Preservation of open space, to tJ.Ie extent feasible.
lJ Minimal' traffic and air quality impacts.
lJ Development of visitor-serving commercial and recreation facilities.
II. Significant Environmental Impacts and Adopted Mitigation
Measures.
I
. The Final EIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts of
the Project in several impact categories. For most of these impacts, measures were
identified that would mitigate the impacts to a level of insignificance. CEQA requires
agencies to adopt mitigation measures that would substantially lessen a project's significant
impacts if such measures are feasible (Public Resources Code sections 21002, 21002.1(b)
and 21081(a)(3)).
The Council fmds that the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR are
feasible and, with the exception of the impacts identified in Article IV below, would
reduce the Project's impacts to a level of insignificance. The Council adopts all of the
mitigation measures described in the FEIR, as set forth below, as conditions of approval
of the Project.' .
A. Land Use
1. Potential Impacts
I
The Project will involve land uses that are different than those
contemplated by the Seal Beach General Plan, the existing Specific PIan for the project
site, and the previously appro\(ed Coastal Development Permit. The Project's land uses
will be less intensive than those that were subject to earlier approvals and planning
documents and are generally consistent with State and City land use policies and
programs, but some revisions to existing land use plans and new permit approvals will be
necessary to ensure consistency with the specific aspects of the Project.
2. Finding
For each such impact identified in the EIR, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant
effects on the environment.
Resolution Number~~~
3. Facts in Support of Finding
The EIR identifies significant environmental effects that would occur based
upon the. existing inconsistency between the HRSP and various land use plans and laws
applicable to the subject Property. Mitigation Measures to be imposed as conditions of
approval of the Project are set forth below. Prior to approval of the HRSP, the EIR
requires that the various applicable elements of the City's General Plan and the Riverfront
Redevelopment Plan be amended so that the HRSP is consistent with those Plans. In I
addition, the EIR requires that the applicant ootain appropriate tract Maps and Coastal
Development pennits. Further discussion of land use impacts and the mitigation of those
impacts is contained in Section 5.1 of the EIR.
LU-I Prior to project approval, the proposed HRSP shall be made consistent with all
applicable general, specific and/or redevelopment area plans. If an amendment to
a general, specific, and/or redevelopment area plan is sought by the applicant, said
amendment shall be processed and approved prior to the effective date of the
Hellman Ranch Specific Plan.
LU-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading pennit, the applicant shall apply for and obtain
approval of a vesting tract map, pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map
Act, and the City's local subdi~ision requirements.
LU-3 Prior to the issuance of grading and building pennits for land uses to be developed
on the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan site, a new Coastal Development Pennit shall
be obtained from the California Coastal Commission by the project applicant that
reflects all the changes included in the proposed Hellman Ranch Specific Plan.
B. Biological Resources
1.
Wetlands
I
a. Potential Impacts
The Project would result in the removal of approximately 27 acres of
degraded wetlands habitats according to State criteria. These habitats include southern
coastal salt marsh, alkali meadow, alkali flats, seasonal ponds and brackish tidal channel.
b. Finding
For each such impact identified in the EIR, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant
effects on the environment. To the extent that the project may result in a temporary, but
directly and cumulatively significant and unavoidable, net loss of wetlands during the early
years of the proposed restoration project, specific economic, legal, social, technological,
or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives and any additional mitigation
measures identified in the EIR which might lessen or avoid short-term biological impacts.
c. _ Facts in Support of Finding
In order to minimize the potential wetlands impacts, the mitigation
measures set forth below provide for coastal salt marsh restoration and creation of a' fresh
water marsh complex. The fresh water marsh complex will be developed within the
Project golf course and would provide a beneficial impact on the plants and animals that
would use this wetlands.
I
Some short-tenn loss of the degraded and severely degraded wetlands areas
on the Property is inevitable due to the need for significant hydrological, grading, and
planting activities as part of the long:tenn restoration of the subject areas. Full-scale
restoration of the wetlands area in a manner that would be successful over the long-tenn,
Resolution Number ~:::;.
while avoiding short term impacts, is not economically or technically feasible given the
biological, hydraulic, and geologic constraints of the Property as identified in the EIR.
Therefore, the Council finds that the following mitigation measures would reduce these
impacts to a level of insignificance in the long-term, although short-term impacts may be
significant and unavoidable. An extensive discussion and evaluation of the details of the
Applicant's Conceptual Wetlands Restoration Plan and further discussion of long-term and
short-term wetlands impacts can be found in Section 5.2 of the EIR.
I
B-1 Coastal Salt Marsh Restoration
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall submit to the Director
of Development Services a conceptual restoration plan for the restoration creation
of the coastal salt marsh complex, which has been approved by the resource
agencies with jurisdiction over the project. Such plan shall comply with all
.requirements imposed by the City, the California Coastal Commission, and other
resource agencies with jurisdiction over the project, and shall include, without
limitation, the following elements:
Bl.l Development of an appropriate salt marsh plant palette by a qualified biologist.
B1.2 Plant material will be obtained form two sources: I) salvaged on the project site
and 2) plants grown by a qualified native plant nursery. The plant material
salvaged on the project site will be collected one year prior to implementation and
maintained on the project site in an irrigated and managed nursery area. A CDFG
Scientific Collecting Permit will be required by each person collecting wetland
plants and written permission from CDFG will be required. .
I
B1.3 A qualified biologist will be present during all salvage, grading and replanting
operation. The biologist will have experience in monitoring and implementing
wetland restoration projects, and shall have the full authority to suspend any
operation on the project site which is, in the qualified biologist's opinion, not
consistent with the restoration plan. Any disputes regarding the consistency of an
action with the restoration plan shall be resolved by the Director of Development
Services. .
B1.4 a)
The project site will be contoured following grading plans in the
<;onceptual Revegetation Plan.
b)
The soil will be tilled or ripped to decompact the soils.
c)
Soil samples will be taken above 2.4' MSL.
d)
The soils shall be maintained as described in the Conceptual Restoration
Plan.
B1.5 Weed species will be removed prior to planting of the salt marsh. The weeds will
be eradicated manually or by use of herbicide. The herbicide will be approved by
a licensed pest control advisor and CDFG.
I
B1.6 Irrigation and fertilization requirements shall be carried 'out as required by the
approved Conceptual Restoration Plan.
Bl. 7 All plantings in the coastal salt marsh complex will be conducted between
September and March.
Bl.8 A monitoring and maintenance program will be developed in the Conceptual
Restoration Plan. The monitoring shall be undertaken for 5 years following
implementation, as required by the plan. The monitoring schedule outlined in the
conceptual Restoration Plan will include monthly monitoring for the first year, at
three month intervals for the second year and six-month intervals for years three
Resolution Number~6~.
through five. The monitoring forms will be submitted to ACOE and the
appropriate resource agencies.
B1.9 Shorebird activity will be monitored by a qualified shorebird specialist. These
monitoring visits will be quarterly for the first year and annually for the remaining
four years. The data to be recorded is outlined in the Final Conceptual Wetland
Restoration Plan (Moffatt & Nichol Fngineers, in association with Coastal
Resources Management and Michael Brandman Associates 1996) shown in
appendix D of the project EIR.
B1.lO Annual surveys to document presence of Belding's savannah sparrow and
California least tern will be conducted between late March to late September by a
qualified endangered species biologist. These surveys shall be conducted for as
long as required by applicable wildlife agencies.
I
B1.11 The performance criteria for wetland restoration has been developed in the
Conceptual Restoration Plan. The criteria will include 75 percent cover of the
replanted vegetation at the end of the fifth year of monitoring and the height of
each species will be no less than 75 percent of each species in Bolsa Chica or
Cerritos Wetlands (Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, Coastal Resources Management
and Michael Brandman Associates 1996).
BI.12 If at the three year milestone within the 5-year wetland monitoring period the site
is not functioning as anticipated, remedial measures will be taken to bring the site
into compliance with performance criteria. Specific remedial measures will be
determined at that time in coordination with regulatory/resource agencies (Moffatt
& Nichol Fngineers, Coastal Resources Management and Michael Brandman
Associates 199{j).
BI.13 A post-construction "as-built assessment" of the restored saltwater marsh shall be
conducted in order to document actual project conditions at the time the restoration
is completed and prior to commencement of the marsh monitoring program. Since
as-built Conditions often do not completely coincide with the project design, any
differences between as-built versus design conditions shall be documented and any
corrections deemed necessary by the project biologist shall be made to the project
to conform to design conditions, or to adjust the monitoring program to reflect as-
built conditions. This assessment shall provide an accurate baseline from which
project performance can be monitored. This post-construction "as-built
assessment" of the restored saltwater marsh shall be reviewed and accepted by the
California Coastal Commission and the U.S. Army Corps of Fngineers.
I
B1.14 Appropriate performance standards for open water fishery habitat will be
developed by a qualified marine biologist in coordination with the project biologist
and will be included in the final mitigation program for the project.
BI.15 Appropriate performance standards to ensure shorebird richness will be developed
by a qualified ornithologist in conjunction with the project biologist and will be
included in' the final mitigation program for the project. Also included will be
thresholds which wQuld trigger evaluation of ecosystem function. Species
richness, as used in the mitigation plan, refers to diversity of species and not
number of birds. .
I
B-2 Freshwater Marsh Complex
The creation of the freshwater marsh complex includes development of a
conceptual restoration plan. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant
shall submit to the Director of Development Services a conceptional restoration
plan for the restoration creation of the coastal freshwater marsh complex, which
has been approved by the resource agencies with jurisdiction over the project.
Such plan shall comply with all requirements imposed by the City, the California
Resolution. Numbe~
Coastal Commission, and other resource agencies with jurisdiction over the
project, and shall include, without limilation, the following elements:
B2.l Development of an appropriate native freshwater marsh plant palette by a qualified
biologist.
I
B2.2 Plant material will be collected within the vicinity of the project site. Plant
material should be from similar environmental conditions (e.g., elevation, coastal
influence). The cutting and seeds will be stor~ and/or grown by a qualified native
plant nursery.
B2.3 A qualified biologist will be present during all salvage, grading and replanting
operations. The biologist' w.ill have experience in monitoring and implementing
wetland restoration projects.
B2.4 The project site will be contoured during golf course construction activities. Soil
tests will be conducted to detennine if any soil amendments are necessary. The
sites will receive minimal soil amendments and fertilizers, because fertilizers
increase the establishment of weedy species.
B2.5 Weed species will be removed prior to planting of the freshwater marsh complex.
The weeds will be eradicated manually or by use of herbicide. The herbicide will
be approved by a licensed pest control advisor and CDFG.
B2.6 All planting .in the freshwater marsh complex will be conducted between
September and March.
I
B2.7 A monitoring and maintenance program will be developed in the Conceptual
Restoration Plan. The monitoring shall be undertaken for 5 years following
implementation, as required by the plan. The monitoring schedule outlined in the
Conceptual Restoration Plan will include monthly monitoring for one year, three
month intervals for two years and six -month intervals for years three through five.
The monitorin,g fonns will be submitted to ACOE and the appropriate resource
agencies.
B2.8 Perfonnance criteria will be developed in the Conceptual Restoration Plan. The
criteria will include 90 percent cover of the target wetland vegetation at the end of
the fifth year of monitoring (Moffatt & Nichol Engineers. Coastal Resources
Management and Michael Brandman Associates 1996).
B2.9 If at the three year milestone within the five year monitoring period the site is not
functioning as anticipated, remedial measures will be taken to bring the site into
compliance with perfonnance criteria. Specific remedial measure will be
detennined at that time in coordination with regulatory/resource agencies (Moffatt
& Nichol Engineers, Coastal Resources management and Michael Brandman
Associates 1996).
2. Special Interest Plant Species
I
a. Potential Impacts
The Project will directly impact approximately 3,200 individuals of the
annual southern tarplant species and 1,070 individuals of the annual Coulter's Goldfield
species.
b. Finding
For each such impact identified in the EIR, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into; the project which mitigate or avoid the significant
effects on the environment.
.Resolution Number~
c. Facts in Support of Finding
Section 5.2 of the EIR indicates that impacted populations of the southern
tarplant lIIId Coulter's Goldfield species can be mitigated through a program of seed
collection, replanting and maintenance. The EIR indicates that implementation of the
following measures will ensure that th~ project will not substantially affect identified rare
or endangered plant species, and will not threaten the loss or elimination of the identified
plant communities, with the effect that these impacts will be mitigated to a level of I
insignificance.
B,] Southern Tarplant
Impacts to the Southern Tarplant will be mitigated by seed collection and
revegetation into a 3.8-acre buffer zone surrounding the coastal salt marsh
complex. A qualified project biologist shall be selected by the Director of
Development Services to prepare and implement the mitigation plan. A detailed
mitigation plan shall be developed that includes the following requirements:
B3.1 A pre-construction survey during the peak flowering period, approximately August
through September, will be made by the project biologist. During these surveys
the limits of each impacted southern tarplant location will be clearly delineated
with lath and brightly colored flagging.
B3.2 The existing locations of southern tarplant will be monitored every two weeks by
the project biologist to determine when southern tarplant seeds are ready for
collection. A qualified seed collector will collect all of the seeds from the plants to
be impacted when the seeds are ripe. The seeds will be cleaned and stored by a
qualified nursery or institution with appropriate storage facilities.
I
B3.3 Following the seed collection the top 3 inches of topsoil form the southern tarplant
locations will be scraped, stockpi).ed and used in the selected mitigation location.
B3.4 The southern tarplant mitigation site will be located in the 3.8 acre buffer zone
surrounding the coastal salt marsh complex. The site shall not be impacted by any
pesticides or herbicides used on th~ adjacent golf course. Provisions to protect the
mitigation site from pesticides and herbicides shall be included in the golf course
m~ment plan.
B3.5 The southern tarplant mitigation site will be prepared for seeding as described in a
conceptual restoration plan.
B3.6 The southern tarplant topsoil shall be respread in the selected location as approved
by project biologist. Sixty percent of the southern tarplant seeds shall be spread in
the fall following soil preparation. Forty percent of the seed shall be kept in
storage for subsequent seeding if necessary.
B3.7 A detailed southern tarplant maintenance and monitoring plan will be developed by
a qualified biologist. . The plan will include detailed descriptions of maintenance
appropriate for the site, monitoring requirements and annual reports requirements,
and shall have the full authority to suspend any operation on the project site which I
is, in the qualified biologist's opinion, not consistent with the restoration plan.
Any disputes regarding the consistency of an action wi th the restoration plan shall
be resolved by the Director of Development Services.
B3.8 The performance criteria developed in the southern tarplant maintenance and
monitoring plan will include requirements for a minimum of 60% gennination
(1,920) of the total 3,200 individual southern tarplants impacted. The performance
criteria should also include percent cover, density and seed production
requirements. This criteria will be developed by the project biologist following
Resolution Number~
habitat analysis of an existing high quality southern tarplant habitat. This
information will be recorded by a qualified biologist.
B3.9 A pennanent protective fence approved by the project biologist will be placed
around the southern tarplant buffer zone adjacent to public access areas. This will
ensure that the southern tarplant areas located in the buffer zone will not be
impacted.
I
B3.1O If the gennination goal of 60% is not achieved following the first season,
remediation measures shall be implemented prior to seeding with the remaining
40% of seed. Remedial measures would include at a minimum: soils testing,
control of invasive species, soil amendments, and physical disturbance (to provide
scarification of the seed) of the planted areas by raking or similar actions.
Additional mitigation measures may be suggested as detennined necessary by the
project biologist.
B3.1l Potential seed sources from additional donor sites shall also be identified in case it
becomes necessary to collect additional seed, for use on the site following
perfonnance of remedial measures.
B-4 Coulter's Goldfields
Impacts to Coulter's goldfields will be mitigated by seed and topsoil collection and
revegetation into a 3.8 acre buffer zone surrounding the coastal salt marsh
complex. A qualified project biologist shall be selected by the Director of
Development Services to prepm:e and implement the Coulter's goldfields mitigation
plan. A detailed mitigation plan shall be developed that includes the following
requirements:
I
B4.1 All Coulter's goldfields on the site and the upper two to three inches of topsoil
beneath the plants at all three population sites will be collected by qualified seed
collectors by scraping up .this material and storing it in boxes in a cool, dry place
until this material is to be spread on the buffer zone surrounding the coastal salt
marsh complex. This shall be accomplished as soon as feasible since the majority
of goldfield plants have already gone to seed.
B4.2 The Coulter's goldfields mitigation site will be prepared for seeding as described in
a conceptual restoration plan prepared for this plant.
B4.3 The Coulter's goldfields topsoil shall be respread in the selected location as
approved by the project biologist. Sixty percent of the Coulter's goldfield seeds
shall be spread in the fall following soil preparation. Ten percent of the seed shall
be kept in storage for subsequent seeding if necessary.
B4.4 The buffer zone restoration area shall not be impacted by any pesticides or
herbicides used on the adjacent golf course. Provisions to protect the mitigation
site from pesticides and herbicides shall be included in the golf course management
plan.
I
B4.5 A detailed Coulter's goldfields maintenance and monitoring plan will be developed
by a qualified biologist. The plan will include detailed descriptions of maintenance
appropriate for the site, monitoring requirements and annual reports requirements,
and shall have the full authority to suspend any operation on the project site which
is, in the qualified biologist's opinion, not consistent with the restoration plan.
Any disputes regarding the consistency of an action with the restoration plan shall
be resolved by the Director of Development Services.
B4.6 If the germination goal of 60% is not achieved following the first season,
remediation measures will be implemented prior to seeding with the remaining
40% of seed. Remedial measures would include at a minimum: soils testing,
Resolution NUmber~
control of invasive species, soil amendments, and physical disturbance (to provide
scarification of the seed) of the planted areas by raking or similar actions.
Additional mitigation measures may be suggested as determined appropriate by the
project biologist. .
B4.7 A permanent protective fence approved by the project biologist will be .placed
around the Coulter's goldfields buffer zone adjacent to public access areas. This
will ensure that the Coulter's goldfields areas located in the buffer zone will not be
impacted.
I
B4.8 Potential seed sources from additional donor sites will also be identified in case it
becomes necessary to collect additional seed, for use on the site following
performance of remedial measures. .
3. Wildlife
a. Potential Impacts
Section 5.2 of the EIR indicates that a pair of Belding's savannah sparrows,
a state-listed endangered species, may be impacted by the development of the Project, in
that the Project will result in the loss of approximately 1.5 acres of degraded pickleweed
habitat area. The DEIR had indicated that construction of the golf course could impact
habitat of the western burrowing owl, a species of special concern. However, a
subsequent survey in the Spring of 1997 did not detect the presence of any breeding pairs
of burrowing owls or Belding's savannah sparrow on the site. Section 5.2 of the EIR
further indicates that the Monarch butterflies roosting in Gum Grove Nature Park between
late September and early March could be impacted by the use of pesticides within Gum
Grove Nature Park and on the golf course.
b. Finding
I
For each such impact identified in the EIR, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project .which mitigate or avoid the significant
effects on the environment.
c. Facts in Support of Finding
As a result of a survey conducted on the Property in spring, 1997 for the
western burrowing owl and the Belding's savannah sparrow which did not detect the
presence of any breeding pairs on the project site, the June, 1997, revised DEIR and FEIR
concluded that impacts to these- species would not be significant; however, mitigation
measures that will further reduce potential impacts to the habitat areas for the burrowing
owl and Belding's savannah sparrow are set forth below and will be adopted as conditions
of approval of the HRSP. Although potential impacts to the winter habitat of the Monarch
butterfly are considered significant, those impacts can be mitigated to a level of
insignificance through the implementation of the mitigation measures set forth below.
B-5 Belding's Savannah Sparrow
Within the restored coastal salt marsh complex, the applicant sh~ establish
approximately 9.3 acres of pickleweed marsh which, with an improved tidal
connection, shall be suitable for habitat for the Belding's savannah sparrow.
I
B-6 Western Burrowing Owl
To mitigate the potential loss of burrowing owl habitat, roosting and breeding
areas shall be recreated within the oil production area (P A9) on the project site.
Artificial burrows placed within the oil production area would provide nesting and
roosting opportunities for any resident owls. CDFG and the California Burrowing
Owi Consortium have documented the successful nesting of owls using artificial
Res~lution Numbe~~~
nest sites. A total of ten (10) artificial burrows will be created; these burrows will
be constructed according to specifications adopted by CDFG and the California
Burrowing Owl Consortium.
B-7
Monarch Butterfly
I
To avoid impacts on the aggregating monarch butterflies in Gum Grove NatUre
Park, the City shall restrjct the use of pesticides within Gum Grove Nature Park
and within the proposed project during the winter months when butterflies are
present. The proposed project's pesticide use will be restricted to the provisions
outlined in the Golf Course Management Plan. Pesticides used must rapidly
degrade so that no poisons will persist into .the aggregation SCISOn. Any pesticides
or herbicides will be approved and recommended by a Certified Pest Control
Advisor and the California Department of Fish and Game.
Other related measures to avoid or reduce potential impacts on the monarch
butterflies include: 1) directing all night-lighting away from Gum Grove Nature
Park by means of light placement or light shields; 2) a golf course design and
management plan that ensures run-off will not enter Gum Grove Nature Park, the
saltwater and all but one freshwater marsh restoration site, and limits the use of
pesticides, herbicides and related chemicals.
4. Indirect Impacts
a. Potential Impacts
I
Sensitive species may be significantly impacted by increased human
presence within restored habitat areas and by the displacement of the red fox and other
medium-sized predators from the project site to other habitat areas within the vicinity of
the Project.
. b. Finding
For each such impact identified in the EIR, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant
effects on the environment.
c. Facts in Support of Finding
Section 5.2 of the EIR indicates that the following measures will mitigate
these impacts to a level of insignificance by controlling public and domestic animal access
to restored native habitat areas and by trapping and re!Doving the red fox from the area
under the supervision of appropriate resource agencies.
B-8 Indirect Impacts
I
B8.1 The City Engineer will post signs along trails and public access areas advising
owners that dogs, cats, or any pets and/or domestic animals are prohibited from
entry into the vicinity of the saltwater or freshwater marsh habitat restoration
areas. Prior to admission of the public to the area, the City shall adopt an
appropriate means of enforcing this condition.
B8.2 Prior to project construction, a qualified biologist will conduct a trapping and
removal program for red fox. The trapping program, along with all necessary
pennits, will be coordinated through CDFG.
5. Golf Course Impac~
a. Potential Impacts
. Resolution Number~~~
The DEIR found that the construction of the golf course would create
potentially significant impacts to biological resources, including short term loss of habitat
during construction, permanent loss of the foraging habitat that now exists on the site, and
impacts from the use of pesticides to maintain the golf course and increased human
presence on the site.
b. Finding
For each such impact identified in the EIR, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant
effects on the environment.
I
c. Facts in Support of Finding
These impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance through
implementation of the mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Measure Sections BI
through B8, inclusive, along with the additional measures relating to the golf course
management plan set forth I:!elow. Said mitigation measures will ensure that the
development and operation of the golf course will not significantly impact habitat areas or
rare or endangered species. .
B-9 Golf Course Management
B9.1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the golf course by the City of Seal
Beach, the Director of Development Services shaIl ensure that a final golf course
development and management plan has been prepared and is available at the City
for public viewing and/or reproduction at viewer's expense.
B9.2 Prior to issuance of grading permits for the golf course and the finalization of an
environmental golf course development and management plan, the Director of
Development Services shaIl ensure that all appropriate environmental permit
conditions have been made part of the golf course development and management
plan and are incorporated into the (mal golf course development and management
plan. The golf course development and management plan will specify that
landscaping in the vicinity of the freshwater marsh will consist of native species
that will not invade the freshwater marsh ~.
I
C. Hydrology and Water Quality
1. Flooding
a. Potential Impacts
Section 5.3 of the EIR concludes that the hydrology of the Project could
significantly impact the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin '("LARB") in that stormwater could
exceed the LARB's capacity absent appropriate drainage measures on the Property. In
addition, some areas of the Property would be subject to periodic overflow and flooding if
stormwater flows are not detained on the site during' times of peak flows.
b. Finding
I
For each such impact identified in the EIR, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant
effects on the environment.
c. Facts in Support of Finding
The EIR indicates that the drainage system for the Project has been
designed to detain stonnwater flows on the golf course during major storm events and
flows from the project site to the LARB will be limited to existing peak levels. The
,Resolution NUmbe~~.
Project will be required to include a drainage plan that will meet interim Orange County
Flood Control requirements. Structures on the Property will be constructed on pads at
least one-foot (I') above lOO-year flood elevations. The following mitigation measures
will be imposed to ensure that all significant impacts in connection with flooding potential
will be reduced to a level of less than significant:
I
WQ-I Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Developer shall submit a final
drainage plan for the proposed project for review and approval by the City
Engineer.
WQ-2 Prior to issuance of grading ~rmits, the Project Dev~loper shall ensure that
coordination between the City of Seal Beach and the Orange County Flood Control
District has been undertaken to demonstrate the ability of the project to meet
interim County flood control requirements at the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin.
To this end, a final hydrology report shall be approved by the City Engineer which
reports effects, if any, on the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin.
WQ-3 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project developer shall submit to the
City Engineer proof of payment of the City's drainage fees, as applicable.
WQ-4 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Developer shall provide and
submit measures for approval by the City Engineer which shall ensure that all
structures located within project boundaries, subject to flooding from lOO-year
storm events, are constructed on a pad of earth elevated at least one foot above
lOO-year flood elevations. This requirement will be monitored and enforced by
the City Engineer.
2. Water Quality
I
a. Potential Impacts
Section 5.3 of the EIR concludes that grading and construction activities on
the project site would create the P,Otential for significant water quality impacts as a result
of storm water runoff containing debris and sediments. In addition, the EIR indicates the
potential for a significant impact resulting from the operational use of herbicides in
drainage control areas. The EIR found that impacts arising directly from the increase in
urban stormwaler runoff from the Project's residential, golf course and other developed
areas would be less than significant. However, because the Project would incrementally
add to the regional problem of urban stormwater runoff, the EIR concluded that the
Project's water quality impacts woullj be cumulatively significant.
b. Finding
For each such impact identified in the EIR, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant
effects on the environment. To the extent cumulative impacts will remain significant after
mitigation, however, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations make infeasible the alternatives and/or additional mitigation measures
identified in the environmen~ impact report.
1
c. Facts in Support of Finding
Grading and construction activity impacts can be mitigated to a level of
insignificance through the implementation of NPDES permit conditions and an approved
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan on site, as required by the measures set forth
below. Potential impacts related to the use of herbicides can be mitigated through the use
of such products in compliance with applicable federal and state standards, as required in
mitigation measure WQ-8. As noted in the discussion of Potential Impacts, cumulative
impacts will be partially mitigated by measures WQ-8 through WQ-lO below, but will
remain significant and unavoidable. The significant and unavoidable impacts of the
Resolution Number~
Project, as well as the Council's rationale for rejecting Project alternatives, are further
discussed below.
WQ-5 Prior to moving construction equipment on site, the project developer shall provide
evidence to the City Engi!leer that a national Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) pennit has been ob~ned fonn the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB): Once obtained, the NPDES permit shall be retained on
the construction site throughout the construction period, and a copy shall be filed
with the City Engineer.
I
WQ-6 During construction, the City Engineer shall ensure that all the tenns and
conditions outlined in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) pennits, including the implementation of Best Management Practices
(BMPs) are compiled with.
WQ-7 Prior to issuance of grading pennits, Project developer shall prepare a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the proposed project. This plan
sha1l .be submitted to the City Engineer for review and comment prior to
implementing any SWPPP provisions or starting any construction activity. A copy
of the SWPPP shall be held by the construction contractor(s) on the construction
site throughout development of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan. The City
Engineer will monitor and enforce the provisions of the SWPPP.
WQ-8 During operation of the proposed project, the Project Owner/Operator shall ensure
that all pest control, herbicide, insecticide and other similar substances used as part
of maintenance of project features are handled, stored, applied and disposed of by
those doing facility maintenance in a manner consistent will all applicable federal,
state and local regulation. The City Engineer shall monitor and enforce this
provision. Responsible agencies shall be indicated in the Golf Course
Management Plan.
I
WQ-9 Prior to the issuance of grading pennits, the project developer shall provide
evidence to the Director of Development Services that a water quality management
plan (WQMP) has been prepared for the project in a manner consistent with the
Oranee County Drainll2e Area Management Plan. The WQMP shall contain
provisions and Best Management Practices (BMPs) for both construction and
operating/municipal conditions. The WQMP shall also remain flexible to
modification to provide appropriate safeguards for the wetlands and Los Alamitos
Retarding Basin.
WQ-IOPrior to the issuance of grading pennits, the City Engineer shall verify that
structural BMPs have been permanently incorporated into project plans by the
Applicant. Such BMPs shall ensure that pollutants from project-related storm
water entering the LARB and the San Gabriel River are mitigated consistent with
applicable state and local standards.
D. Soils, Geology and Mineral Resources
a. PotenliJll Impacts
The Project will be constructed in proximity to known earthquake faults
within a seismically active part of southern California. Residential and other structures
built on the site may be subject to seismic impacts, including seismic shaking and ground
settlement. If a catastrophic event.should occur, however, such as one which exceeds
magnitudes used in seismic design standards, the impacts of seismic shaking on reSidential
structures and other Project improvements would be significant and unavoidable. The
significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project are further discussed below.
I
b. Finding
Resolution Number~~~
For each such impact identified in the EIR, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant
effects on the environment. To the extent impacts resulting from catastrophic seismic
events will remain significant after mitigation, however, specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report.
I
c. Facts in Support of Finding
Section 5.4 of the EIR indicates that the following mitigation measures will
ensure that the Project is designed .to all current engineering practices and seismic
guidelines and will reduce seismic-related impacts to a level of insignificance, except for
catastrophic events which exceed magnitudes used in seismic design standards, and which
constitute some risk to development throughout Southern California.
GEO-l
GEO-2
I
GEO-3
GE0-4
I
GEO-5
GEO-6
Prior to issuance of project grading permits or completion of project
construction plans, the project developer shall submit to the City Engineer,
completed subsurface investigations in the proposed project area, prepared
by a licensed geologist, to ensure that appropriate engineering safeguards
have been added to project plans to ensure that seismic standards are met as
defined by the Uniform Building Code (1996), the Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zones Act of 1972 and the City of Seal Beach General Plan. The
Project Developer shall reimburse all City of Seal Beach costs of
independent third-party review of said technical report.
The Director of Development Services shall ensure that all structures to be
constructed within the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan are constructed
accordiJig to the latest adopted edition of the Uniform Building Code
(UBC) and other applicable codes or standards to help ensure that these
structures will be able to withstand earthquakes experienced in the project
area.
Prior to issuance of grading permits or completion of construction plans,
whichever occurs earlier, the project developer shall submit to the City
Engineer, a soil study which identified all soil types on the project site.
The study shall iraclude all measures necessary to safely work in these soil
types as called for by project construction plans. The Project Developer
shall reimburse City of Seal Beach costs of independent third-party review
of said technical report.
Prior to commencement of project grading operations, the construction
contractor shall submit for the review and approval of the City Engineer a
plan explaining the disposal of export or excess graded for fill material and
identify the approved disposal site(s) to be used for the project. The plan
will also include measures to be taken for the safe reuse of on site material
as engineering or environmental fIll, particularly around the constructed
wetlands. Fill Material(s) used from off site construction project(s) shall be
approved by the City Engineer to ensue that the material is clean and free
of environmen.tally deleterious materials.
The Project DevelqJCr shall provide and submit measures for approval by
the City Engineer which' shall ensure that the necessary affected berms and
impounded dredged fill soils are removed and, depending upon final
grades, replaced with compacted fill in order to mitigate the likelihood of
lateral spreading.
Prior to the issuance of project grading permits, the City Engineer shall
meet with the grading contractor and soils engineer to determine which
improvement techniques shall be utilized to reduce or mitigate liquefaction
potential within the lowlands area. The techniques shall include, at a
Resolution NUmber~~~~
G006.l
GE06.2
G006.3
GE06.4
GEO-7
GEO-8
minimum, the following techniques which shall be evaluated as part of the
project geotechnical report:
Densification of loose sands via vibratory techniques, pressure grout the
sand zones, or dewater the area and then remove and recompact the sands
zones with engineered fill.
Provide gravel drains to aid in the dissipation of pore water pressure during
an earthquake.
I
Increase the overburden pressure by adding an appropriate thickness of fill.
Where structures are proposed, provide structural support via deep
foundations in the area of high liquefaction potential, and utilize post-
tensioned/structural mat foundations for structures situated within moderate
liquefaction prone areas.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall meet with
the construction contractor to evaluate options pertaining to the settlement
process in areas underlain by soft silts and clay soils and the preloading of
the ground in these areas by placement of a surcharge fIll if recommenced
by the project geotechnical study.
Organic-rich layers found on the project site should be removed, blended
with other inorganic onsite soils where necessary and recompacted, or
selectively disposed of outside of the structural fIll areas. Excavated soils
may require spreading to dry before being placed as engineered fIll. If
large pockets or thick layers of highly organic materials (dark organic
soils) are encountered during excavation, these material should be
stockpiled for future disposal or used in nonstructural fIlls on the project
site.
I
E. Hazardous Materials
a. Potential Impacts
Section 5.5 of the EIR indicates that some soils on the Property are
contaminated with crude oil, and identifies potentially adverse human health effects that
could result from the development of residential and visitor serving uses on the Property if
the contamination is not remediated. In addition, residential development will be located
in close proximity to equipment used for extraction of oil. This equipment may represent
a highly visible, attractive nuisance which could result in serious physical injury to
individuals who live on or visit the Property. There are also previously plugged and
abandoned oil wells on the site which could pose a danger to persons and structures should
those plugs become loose. Explosion risks may be present for both active and abandoned
oil wells. Crude oil may be spilled during tanker truck loading. Finally, existing oil, gas,
water and wastewater pipes may be damaged during project construction activities.
b. Finding
For each such impact identified in the EIR, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant
effects on the environment.
I
c. Facts in Support of Finding
The mitigation measures set forth below will reduce these impacts to a
level of insignificance. The draft EIR had recommended an additional measure, HM-8,
which would have required mitigation for potentW methane gas impacts for the area in .
and around oil well 17(a}. This measure was i1eleted from the FEIR in response to new
Resolution Numbe~~~-?
.
information indicating that methane gas is not present at well 17(a) and the. Council has
detennined that the measure is not required to mitigate significant impacts of the Project.
Contaminated soils will be managed, treated, or removed based upon the level of
contamination present. A safety plan will be implemented to eliminate risks to persons
and structures from existing or abandoned oil production facilities through fencing,
landscaping and the location of improvements on the Property.
HM-l
I
HM-2
HM-3
I
HM-4
HM-5
HM-6
I
HM-7
Soils on the project site with low to moderate concentrations of petroleum
hydrocarbons as dermed by the environmental site assessment report, may
be managed using traditional bioremediation techniques during site grading.
These soils can also be blended witlt uncontaminated soils by the
construction contractor for phytoremediation beneath the proposed golf
course fairways.
Project soils with moderate to high concentrations of petroleum
hydrocarbons, as defined by the environmental site assessment report, may
be excavated apd treated by the construction contractor with an approved
technology, such as a bioremediation cell within the oil production areas,
or disposed of or recycled at a licensed treatment, storage, and disposal
facility. These soils may also be blended with asphalt construction
materials which will be utilized for parking lots and/or golf cart pathways.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the golf course clubhouse, the
Project Developer shall develop and' submit for the review and approval of
the City Engineer a security plan which provides the permanent means to
exclude the public from oil production areas of the Hellman Ranch
Property. The provisions of the security plan shall be fully implemented
and constructed priQr to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
golf course clubhouse. At a minimum, the security plan shall require (i)
that wells and associated equipment be enclosed by appropriate security
fencing and landscape screening, (ii) that suitable gates are provided to
permit equipment access to well sites, and (iii) that well sites are
constructed so that spillage from oil wells will be confined to the well
enclosure.
The Project Developer shall provide and submit measures for approval by
the City Engineer which shall ensure that climbable landscaping is not
placed around the perimeter of oil well enclosures in order to restrict
access to these facilities. This shall be verified by the City Engineer prior
to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the golf course clubhouse;
The project developer shall ensure that no proposed structure for human
occupancy on the Hellman Ranch site will be located over or a previously
plugged and abandoned well, unless the plugged well conforms to current
applicable Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas
specifications. This shall be verified by the City Engineer prior to issuance
of building permits.
The project developer shall ensure that buildings intended fOl: human
occupancy located within a minimum distance of 100 feet of any active
well shall have suitable safety and fire protection measures as established
by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). The OCFA shall approve
any building plans for any structure built within 100 feet of an active oil
well.
The project developer shall ensure that adequate clearance and access to
active oils wells is maintained on the site for oil well worlrover equipment.
Roads for oil well workover equipment shall have a minimum 12 foot
width of clearance, and be designed for heavyweight use.
Resolution NUmbe~~~
HM-8
HM-9
HM-lO
If drilling, reworking, injecting into, or plugging and abandoning any oil
well becomes necessary as part of project development, the project
developer shall obtain written permission for such activities from the
Supervisor of the Division of Oil and Gas. The project developer shall also
ensure the Division of Oil and Gas is notified to witness or inspect all
operations specified in the approval of any notice to the division. This
includes tests, and inspections of oil well blowout prevention equipment,
reservoir and freshwater protection measures, and oil well-plugging
operation.
I
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Developer shall provide
and submit measures for approval by the City Engineer which shall ensure
that the location of all oil, gas, water and wastewater pipelines on the
subject property are clearly delineated on a map to be kept on file with the
City Engineer and on the project site during project construction activities.
In areas where exact locations of pipelines can not be determined,
exploratory excavation using hand tools shall be implemented to locate the
pipe prior to any mechanical excavation.
The Project Developer shall ensure that any crude oil spilled on the project
site during the loading or transport of this material is immediately cleaned
up according to the appropriate Federal and State regulations. This will be
monitored by the City Engineer.
F.
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
a. Potential Impacts
The Project will result in the conversion of approximately 24.6 acres of
existing open space on the site to non-open space uses. However, approximately 178
acres of the property would retain their open space character through the restoration of
wetlands, the preservation of Gum Grove Park, the construction of a public golf course,
and the continued use of the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin for flood control and
recreational purposes.
I
b. Finding
For each such impact identified in the EIR, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant
effects on the environment.
c. Facts in Support of Finding
The Project is expected to have a beneficial impact on parks, recreation and
open space with the implementation of the following measures, as discussed in Section 5.6
of the EIR:
R-l The area of Gum Grove Nature Park shall be dedicated by Hellman Properties
LLC to the City of ~ea1 ,Beach prior to recordation of the vesting tentative tract
map for the residential lots.
I
R-2 Park dedication documents shall contain a deed restriction which shall be recorded
against the part of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan site identified as Gum Grove
Nature Park, Conservation Planning Area 3, to ensure that the area will be
preserved in perpetuity as a nature park. The Seal Beach City Attorney will
review the language of such document before 'the park is dedicated.
R-3 Conservation Planning Area 1 shall be dedicated to an appropriate public or non-
profit resources agency by a conservation easement, deed restriction or other
appropriate conveyance, as long as there is an appropriate resource agency willing
Resolution Numbe~~~
to accept the conveyance, to ensure that this area will be preserved in perpetuity as
saltwater wetlands. The conveyance will include the provision that the pedestrian
path and observation areas adjacent to the coastal salt marsh remain available to
the public. The language of the deed restriction 'will be reviewed by the Seal
Beach City Attorney before the deed restriction is recorded by Hellman Properties
LLC.
I
R-4 A conservation easement and deed r!lStriction shall be recorded against the part of
the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan site to ensure that not less 9.7 acres of this area
will be preserved in perpetuity as freshwater wetlands, in the location specified in
the final freshwater marsh/golf course grading plan. The language of the deed
restriction will be reviewed by the ,Seal Beach City Attorney before the deed
restriction is recorded by Hellman Properties LLC.
R-5 The Director of Development Services shall ensure that a bicycle rack is provided
near the entrance to the pedestrian trail for the saltwater wetland prior to issuance
of the certificate of occupancy for the visitor serving/commercial development.
R-6 The proposed block wall along Seal Beach Boulevard will extend to the southerly
project boundary to prevent access to Gum Grove Nature Park from Seal Beach
Boulevard.
G. Aesthetics
a. Potential Impacts
I
Construction activities will cause the removal of existing plant materials.
Development of the proposed residential units, golf course, commercial/recreational
facilities, and wetland restoration will alter the existing views of the project site.
Construction activities and the residential development component will also introduce new
nighttime light sources to the site and the potential for daytime glare.
b. Finding
For each such impact identified in the EIR, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant
effects on the environment.
c. Facts in Support of Finding
I
Section 5.7 of the EIR and evidence presented to the Council indicates that
the existing aesthetic condition of the Property is' degraded and below community
standards. Implementation of the design guidelines, development regulations and site
development standards set forth in Section V of the HRSP, along with the following
mitigation measures, will positively impact existing views and site aesthetics in that an
existing mostly vacant Property is proposed to be extensively improved visually through
the restoration of wetlands areas, the development of a golf course, the removal of
existing utility poles and transmission towers, and the construction of new residences and
a golf course structure to ex,acting design standards. Light and glare impacts from the
development of the Project can be mitigated to a level of insignificance through the
imposition of mitigation measures relating to the control of light and glare spillover on-site
and away from wetlands areas and adjacent residences.
AS-l Prior to issuance of building permits, a landscape plan for common areas of the
project site, including street trees and parkway treatments, shall be prepared by a
licensed landscape architect and submitted to the Director of Development Services
and the Street Tree Division of the Public Works Department for Approval. The
landscape plan shall reflect that all open areas not occupied by residual lots,
service areas, parking lost, walkways and courtyards will be attractively
landscaped and irrigated with a fully automa~ irrigation system. Said landscape
Resolution Numbe.L#b.:2.
plan shall include details of all berms/walls provided for noise mitigation along
Seal Beach Boulevard. '
AS-2 Prior to issuance of Certificates of -OCCupancy for a project phase, the project
developer shall provide evidence to the City's Director of Development Services
that, where appropriate, landscaping, irrigation and other common area features
have been installed, and appropriate provisions for ongoing maintenance have been
included in the project CC&R's. .
AS-3 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project developer shall submit
lighting plans to and obtain approval from the Director of Development Services.
The lighting plans shall provide that all outdoor lighting, including construction-
related lighting and any lighting on the golf course, shall be designed, installed and
operated in a manner that ensures that all direct rays from project lighting are
contained within the project site, and that residences, both within and adjacent to
the project, and wetland areas, are protected for spillover light and glare.
I
AS-4 The proposed block wall along Seal Beach Boulevard will extend to the southerly
project boundary to prevent access to Gum Grove Nature Park from Seal Beach
Boulevard.
H. Cultural Resources
1. Paleontological Resources
a. Potential Impacts
Grading activities may expose and/or impact fossil bearing formations.
b. Finding
I
For each such impact identified in the EIR, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant
effects on the environment.
c. Facts in Support of Finding
The following mitigation measures will reduce impacts to these potential
paleontological resources to a level of insignificance by requiring the participation of
qualified paleontologists in the design and implementation of the Project. Further
discussion of impacts on paleontological resources is set forth in Section 5.8 of the EIR.
CR-l During final design of improvements on the Hellman Ranch site, a qualified
independent paleontologist will be retained by the City of Seal Beach to review the
project designs and determine the potential for construction to affect sensitive fossil
bearing formations on the site. If the paleontologist detennines that the
construction could or may affect a sensitive fossil bearing formation, the
paleontologist will develop a mitigation and treatment plan, including pre-
construction surveys, monitoring and resource recovery during construction,
resource evaluation and duration, and doc!lmentation of those activities in a rmal
report, as appropriate.
I
CR-2 During site preparation, grading and construction, the mitigation and treatment
plan developed in measure CR-I will be implemented by a paleontologist selected
by the City of Seal Beach. The paleontologist shall not be involved in the
preparation of the treatment plan and the recommendations in that plan.
2. Archeological Resources
a. Potential Impacts
Resolution Numbe~""-6.z.
The FEIR identified four important archeological sites that will be
adversely impacted by the Project. The FEIR also found that six other potentially
important sites may be impacted by the Project, but that existing data was ins1,lfficient to
make a' conclusive determination regarding the archeological importance. of these sites
without addition~ study that is required by the EIR.
b. Finding
I
For each such impact identified in the EIR, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant
effects on the environment. To the exient that. direct and cumulative impacts to
archeological resources will remain significant after mitigation, however, specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the
alternatives and additional mitigation measures, if any, identified in the environmental
impact report.
c. Facts in Support of Finding
The following measures will substantially reduce the Project's impacts to
important archeological sites. However, because avoidance of archeological resources and
in situ preservation are the preferred methods of mitigation and it may not be feasible to
avoid or preserve in situ important archeological resources on the project site, impacts to
archeological resources are considered significant and unavoidable. Moreover, long-term
development in the area is likely to result in the loss of additional archeological sites. The
significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project are further discussed below.
I
CR-3 Prior to any site preparation, grading or construction activities, the Director of
Development Services shall verify that a qualified archeologist retained by the City
of Seal Beach will conduct a literature search from baseline survey and cultural
resource records and has confirmed whether each archeological site on the
Hellman Ranch Specific Plan site is important under CEQA. The records search
will include "COntacting 'past and preset. LSA and ERA personnel to obtain data
from their respective investigations of the Hellman Ranch site which may not be
inclu!l~ in a standard literature search and evaluating the materials provided to the
City by ERA.
CR-4 Prior to any site preparation, grading or construction activities, the Director of
Development Services shall verify that a qualified archeologist selected by the City
of Seal Beach has conducted a site survey, consisting of a walkover inspection, on
the ten sites determined to be important or requiring additional study under CEQA
and the City of Seal Beach General Plan, and has documented the present
condition of the archeological resources on those sites. Particular attention will be
placed on attempting to located evidence of past excavations on the important
archeological site. .
CR-5 A qualified archaeologist selected by the City of Seal Beach will prepare a peer-
reviewed research design for a test phase program on those sites determined to be
important. At a minimum, the research design will include:
I
a.
A detailed summary of all information available on a site-by-site basis.
The researcher should also contact appropriate local groups such as the
Seal Beach Historical Society, the Pacific Coast Archeological Society,
local Native American tribes, and informed local residents for any
additional information deemed applicable to the project. In addition, a
substantial amount of anecdotal information regarding cultural resources on
the Hellman Ranch property was provided to the City during the public
comment process' on the Draft' EIR. The City should supply that
information to the researcher for evaluation as part of subsequent
archeological studies. The site descriptions should include a composite
Resolution
Numbe~~2
map for each site which indicated the location of past activities, notes
regarding the location of datum used by each investigator, and the notes
regarding field location points of the units/trenches. This will establish
areas to be avoided by the testing program and simultaneously highlight
areas where information is already available.
b.
A detailed plan for field investigations including how the areas of previous
excavations will be located and' avoided, and how the testing plan will
provide new information to the data which already exists on the sites. The
details of the field investigation shall be determined by the archaeological
firm retained by the City to perform this work, and included in their
Researoh Design. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Director of Development Services before any field investigation work has
been started.
I
c. A detailed plan for additional studies including the methodology to be
employed to obtain information regarding soil stratigraphy, faunal
analyses, pollen studies and radiocarbon dating.
d. A cultural overview of the local region with an emphasis on other sites on
the Landing Hill, Bixby Hill and Balsa Chica Mesa sites shall be prepared.
Comparative material summaries should be compiled from key sites on all
three mesas so that a local chronology can be established. The overview
should clearly explain how the test program will produce data which is
significant to addressing important regional research questions.
CR-6 After the completion of the research design in measure CR-3, a qualified
archaeologist selected by the City of Seal Beach will conduct the test program as
outlined in that research design. A qualified Native American mo~itor shall be on
the project site during all grading activities necessary to implement the test
program. The archaeologist will provide a peer-reviewed report which includes
detailed results of the test program including site descriptions integrating site
formation processes with the results of pollen analyses, soils analyses and
radiocarbon dating. Artifactual and faunal data will be related to the site
descriptions through a distribution analysis. Detailed descriptions of the artifacts
will be provided and the artifactual and faunal data will be integrated and used to
address the regional research questions identified in the research design. This
report will clearly demonstrate the need for additional excavations at each site, as
appropriate, and how .these excavations will provide new and important
information for addressing the identified regional research questions. The CEQA
criteria shall be applied at the sites including evaluation of their importance.
I
CR-7 The clear preference is for the preservation, in-situ, of archaeological sites
determined to be important under CEQA. If feasible, important sites should be
placed in'open space and avoided. The identification of important sites, from the
report prepared in measure CR-4, will be used to assist in the siting of planned
improvements on the Hellman Ranch site to the extent feasible. Documentation of
the preservation of important sites during the final project design process will be
provided to the City, of Seal Beach. All construction related documents will
include notations clearly identifying those areas on the site to be preserved as
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs). All construction documents will clearly
note the all construction activity, including vehicle access and storage, materials
storage, dumping, etc., is absolutely prohibited within or adjacent to any identified
ESA.
I
CR-8 If preservation of one or more sites identified as important under the CEQA
Guidelines by the test phase program is not feasible, the following activities will be
implemented to mitigate the impacts of development of the land uses included in
the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan on those sites:
I
I
Resolution Numbe~~~
a. The City of Seal Beach will select a qualified archaeologist to conduct
investigations in the development area on the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan
site. .
b.
The qualified archaeologist will prepare a research design for final
mitigation for those sites determined to be important based on the test
phase program and which cannot be avoided during construction of
proposed Specific Plan land uses. This task will focus on updating the
previous research design based on the new information gathered during the
test program. The fmal field investigations proposed in this research
design shall be justified and described in detail. Emphasis will be placed
on how the artifact analysis will be conducted and integrated into artifact
interpretation, inter-spatial relations, inter-site comparisons and the broader
questions of travel and trade networking, at a minimum. Consult with
appropriate Native American group(s), as identified by the 'Native
American Heritage Commission, in the development of the research
design, allowing appropriate representatives of those groups to review the
research design.
c.
The qualified archaeologist will conduct the rmal site excavations based on
the research design identified in measure CR-5, specifically emphasizing an
adequate sample for final analysis within the limits of the identified
research questions. Special studies such as additional pollen analyses, soils
analyses, radiocarbon dating, obsidian hydration dating and obsidian
sourcing, artifact pollen analysis and blood residue studies, will be
conducted as appropriate based on the research design and questions. The
final site excavation. report will also specifically establish the needs and
requirements of monitoring during site preparation, grading and
construction activities on the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan site. . The
qualified archaeologist will prepare a detailed, peer-reviewed, final report
for distribution to appropriate private and public institutions.
CR-9 All archaeological field activities on the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan site will be
monitored by a Native American representative who meets the requirements of a
Native American consultant as outlined in the City's Archaeological Element and
by a qualified archaeologist selected by the City of Seal Beach. The frequency of
monitoring will be defined in the rmal report described in measure CR-6 and shall
include monitoring during any site grading activities. When all site disturbance
activities are complete, the Native American monitor will prepare a final
monitoring report for submittal to the City of Seal Beach Director of Development
Services.
The monitoring requirements shall incorporate guidelines set forth by the County
of Orange, which include that monitoring is overseen by a qualified archeologist
currently on the County's List of Certified Archaeologists. In addition, the
location of all archeological resources that require construction grading monitoring
shall be indicated on all pertinent construction related documents noting caution to
construction workers so that important resources are not accidentally disturbed.
CR-lO Concurrent with the activities in measures CR-3 to CR-7, a qualified archaeologist
selected by the City of Seal Beach will conduct ethnographicletImohistoric research
to examine the relationship between the known ethnohistoric sites in the area such
as Motuuchey at Anaheim Landing and Pu'vuunga in Long Beach with the sites on
and surrounding the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan site. This research, will be
integrated into the final report prepared as part of measure CR-6.
I
CR-ll In the event human remains are discovered during any archeological field activities
and/or any site preparation, grading and construction activities on the Hellman
Ranch Specific Plan site,. no further excavation or disturbance of that part of the
site shall occur until the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
Resolution Number~
have been fulfilled. If not already on site, the City-selected archaeologist and the
Native American Monitor will immediately be contacted and they will then
immediately notify the City of S~ Beach Director of Development Services. The
Development Services Director will immediately contact the County Coroner
pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code (pRe) relative to Native
American remains. Should the Coroner determine the human remains to be Native
American, the Native American Heritage Commission will be contacted pursuant
to PRC Section 5097.98.
3.
Historic Resources
I
a. Potential Impact
Although there are no documented historic resources on the Project site,
there is a potential for buried historic resources during grading and construction of the
Project.
b. Finding
For each such impact identifi,ed in the ,EIR, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant
effects on the environment.
c. Facts in Support of Finding
The following mitigation measure will reduce impacts to any such
resources to a level of insignificance, by requiring monitoring of the Project by a qualified
archaeologist.
CR-12
All site preparation, grading and construction activities on the Hellman
Ranch Specific Plan site will be monitored by a qualified archaeologist and
Native American selected by the City of Seal Beach with experience in
both prehistoric and historic resources. When all site disturBance activities
are complete, the archaeological monitor will prepare a final monitoring
report, as reviewed and commented on by the Native American monitor,
discussing any historic resources found during monitoring for submittal to
the City of Seal Beach Director of Development Service.
I
I. Transportation and Circulation
a. Potential Impacts
Section 5.9 of the EIR identifies the potential for conflict between
pedestrians and Project-related traffic on Project Streets. In addition, the EIR indicates
that the Project will also result in an overall increase in the amount of traffic in the
vicinity. Landscaping.at entrances to the Project may impact site distances, and turning
movements into the Project may impact the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and
Forrestal Lane and on the western half of Seal Beach Boulevard generally. Project
construction activities coull! give rise to potentially significant traffic impacts by
temporarily blocking traffic with construction vehicles and narrowing existing travel lanes
on Seal Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway due to construction employee
parking. Busses may impede traffic when stopping to pick-up passengers adjacent to the
Project site.
I
b. Finding
For each such impact identified in the EIR, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant
effects on the environment. As discussed below, however, certain intersections where
traffic improvements are proposed are in part or in whole within the jurisdiction of other
Resolutio~ NUmber~~
I
public agency and have been, and can and should be, adopted by those other agencies.
Specifically, the EIR found that additional traffic volumes caused by the project would
result in significant traffic impacts for intersections in the jurisdiction of the City of Long
Beach and CalTrans, in addition to the City of Seal Beach. Mitigation measure T-2 below
requires the City of Seal Beach to coordinate with the City of Long Beach and CalTrans
the Project's fair share contribution to traffic improvements at four affected intersections
in order to mitigate this impact to a level of insignificance.
c. Facts in Support of Finding
Section 5.9 of the EIR indicates that impacts caused by Project construction
and operational activities, as well as the vehicle entryways into the developed portions of
the Project will be mitigated to a level of insignificance with the implementation of the
measures set forth below. The traffic improvements identified in mitigation measure T-2
below would mitigate the additional traffic volumes generated by the Project.
Implementation of these improvements by Long Beach, CalTrans and the City of Seal
Beach will reduce the Project's impact on the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and
Studebaker Road to a level of insignificance. While the actual implementation of traffic
improvements at the identified intersections is within the jurisdiction of one or more other
governmental agencies, Mitigation Measure T-2 ensures that the Mitigation Measure will
be complied with by requiring compliance prior to the issuance of building permits by the
City of Seal Beach. Other mitigation measures require the Applicant to provide
appropriately engineered traffic improvements, interior sidewalks, and signal
modifications to reduce potential traffic hazards traffic impacts. Bus stops are required to
meet OCTA requirements.
,
T -1 The low traffic volumes on the project internal streets will minimize potential
pedestrian conflicts. However, the project developer shall provide sidewalks on
both sides of the project internal streets.
I
T -2 Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall coordinate with
Caltrans, the City of Long Beach and the City of Seal Beach to develop a plan
ensuring the project's fair share contribution, based on the project percent
contribution as identified in Table 11 of the traffic study, for the roadway
improvements at the following intersections to the extent these improvements are
not included in the City's Road Fee Program:
Pacific Coast Highway (NS) at:
c Westminster Ave. (EW>,- Add a southbound right turn lane. This intersection
is in the City of Long Beach.
c Studebaker Rd. (EW) - Restripe the southbound approach to accommodate
three through lanes. This intersection is in the City of Long Beach.
c Fifth St. (EW) - Restripe the eastbound approach to accommodate a left turn
lane, a shared left-through lane, and an exclusive right turn lane. Split phasing
at this intersection is also a requirement.
I
c Seal Beach Blvd. (EW) - Reconstruct the southbound approach to
accommodate three through lanes.
T -3 The project developer shall ensure that sight distance at each project entrance will
conform to City of Seal Beach sight distance standards at the time of preparation of
rmal project grading, landscape and street improvement plans.
T -4 The project developer will complete half-section street improvements to Seal
Beach Boulevard adjacent to the project site. Half section street improvements are
the improvements from center line of Seal Beach Boulevard to the project site
along the west side of Seal Beach Boulevard. These improvements would include
Resolution Number~~~
sidewalks, street lighting, landscaping within the street right-of-way, curb and
gutter at new entrances to the project site and striping of turns for entrance drive
approaches.
T -5 The project developer will pay for signal modifications at the intersection of Seal
Beach Boulevard and Forrestal Lane. Currently, this operates as aT-intersection.
However, with the development of the proposed project, the fourth leg of this
intersection (WB approach) will be completed. The project developer will also
pay for traffic signal modifications for the project approach to the intersection of I
Pacific Coast Highway at First Street.
T-6 The project developer will provide 150' left turn pockets with 90' transition for the
two project access points on Seal Beach Boulevard.
T -7 The construction contractor will ensure that equipment and/or materials are not
stored in road travel lanes at any time during project construction activities.
T -8 Prior to the start of project construction activities, the construction contractor will
submit parking plans showing employee parking, locations and work staging areas
for review and approval by the City Engineer. Necessary project construction
parking and equipment storage areas may be on the project site or in an off-site
staging area as approved by the City Engineer.
T-9 The project developer will provide bus stops in accordance with Orange County
Transportation Authority requirements. Bus stops improvements shall be reviewed
and approved by OCTA and the City Engineer before they are installed.
J. Air Quality
a. Potential Impacts
I
Air pollutants generated by stationary and mobile construction equipment
during construction activities and fugitive dust generated during grading and site
preparation will result in significant short term impacts to air quality. Emissions arising
from motor vehicle use, both during and after construction, on and off-site energy
generation, and other operational aspects of the Project would fall below state standards
and are therefore not considered to have a significant direct impact on long term air
quality. Because the South Coast Air Basin in which the Project is located is designated a
non-attainment area for certain air pollutants, any incremental contribution of pollutants is
considered to be cumulatively significant.
b. Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. To the extent
that short-term direct and cumulative impacts will remain significant after mitigation,
however, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
infeasible additional mitigation measures and the alternatives identified in the EIR.
c. Facts in Support of Finding
I
Section 5.10 of the EIR indicates that the mitigation measures set forth
below will substantially reduce both the short term and long term air quality impacts of the
Project. However, because they will not eliminate all Project-related emissions, these
impacts are considered directly (short-term) and cumulatively significant and unavoidable.
The significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project are further discussed below. The
EIR proposes a range of construction-related and more long-term mitigation measures
suggested by the South Coast Air Quality Management District as means to substantially
lessen air quality impacts. As noted above, because the South Coast Air Basin in which
the Project is located is designated a non-attainment area for certain air pollutants, any
Resolution Numbe~;1
incremental contribution of pollutants as a result of development on the Property would
likely create a significant air quality impact.
AQ-l Project Construction Contractors shall use low emission mobile
construction equipment where; feasible to reduce the release of undesirable
emissions.
AQ-2
I
Project Construction Contractors shall encourage rideshare and transit
programs for project construction personnel to reduce automobile
emissions into the atmosphere.
AQ- 3 Project Construction Contractors shall water active grading sites at least
twice a day, and clean appropriate construction equipment in the morning
and/or evening to reduce particulate emissions to reduce the release of
fugitive dust.
AQ-4 Project Construction Contractors shall, as necessary, wash truck tires
leaving the site to reduce the amount of particulate matter transferred to
paved streets as required by SCAQMD Rule 403.
AQ-5 Project Construction Contractors shall reestablish ground cover on
construction sites through seeding and watering on portions of the site that
will not be disturbed for two months or more in order to reduce the release
of fugitive dust.
AQ-6 Project Construction Contractors shall sweep on and off site streets if silt is
carried over and onto adjacent public thoroughfares, as determined by the
City Engineer to reduce the amount of particulate matter on public street.
I
AQ-7
AQ-8
AQ-9
AQ-I0
AQ-ll
I
AQ-12
AQ-13
Project Construction Contractors shall limit traffic speeds on all unpaved
road surfaces to 15 miles per hour or less in order to reduce the release of
fugitive dust.
At the discretion of the City's Director ,of Development Services,
Construction Contractors shall suspend grading operations during first and
second stage smog alerts to reduce the release of undesirable emissions.
The City's Director of Development Services has the discretion to order
the Construction Contractors to suspend all grading operations when wind
speeds (including instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour to reduce
the release of fugitive dust
Project Construction Contractors shall maintain construction equipment
engines by keeping them tuned thereby reducing undesirable emissions.
Project Construction Contractors shall use low sulfur fuel for stationary
construction equipment as required by SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2 to
reduce the release of undesirable emissions.
Project Construction Contractors shall use existing on-site electrical power
sources to the maximum extent practicable. Where such power is not
available, the Contractor s.hall use clean fuel generators during the early
stages of construction to minimize or eliminate the use of portable
generators and reduce the release of undesirable emissions.
Project Construction Contractors shall use low emission, on site stationary
equipment (e.g., clean fuels) to the maximum extent practicable to reduce
emissions, as determined by the City Engineer.
Resolution
AQ-14
AQ-15
AQ-16
AQ-17
AQ-18
AQ-19
Numbe$6.z
project Construction Contractors, in conjunction with the City Engineer,
shall locate construction parking to minimize traffic interference on local
roadways.
project Construction Contractors shall ensure that all trucks hauling dirt,
sand, soil, or other loose materials are covered or should maintain at least
two feet of freeboard (i.e. minimum vertical distance between top of the
load and the top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of the
California Vehicle Code Section 23114 to reduce the spilling of this
material on area roads.
I
Prior to the opening dates of the project's public golf course or the
commercial center, the project developer shall meet with the City's
Director of Development Services to determine if a Transportation Demand
Management Program will need to be prepared. If such a plan is required,
the project proponent will provide said Program to the Director of
Development Services prior to the opening of the golf and/or commercial
land uses.
The City Engineer shall ensure that the traffic lights around the project site
are synchronized, to the extent practicable, to minimize mobile source
emissions.
Prior to the opening of the golf course, the golf course operator shall
provide evidence to the Director of Development Services that reasonable
measures have been made to schedule truck deliveries and pickups for off
peak-hour drive times in order to reduce air quality impacts to potentially
sensitive receptors adjacent to the golf course.
Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for the residential
component of the project, the Director of Development Services shaI1
ensure that the project developer prepares a transportation alternatives "fact
sheet" for distribution in each residential unit. The "fact sheet" shall
highlight the regional and project-specific transportation alternatives
available to the residents of the proposed project.
I
J. Noise
1. Long Term Noise Impacts
a. Potential Impacts
Traffic noise from Seal Beach Boulevard has the potential to impact
occupants of new homes proposed to be developed on the project site. Additionally,
impacts from automobile and other noise sources on th~ proposed residential area may be
significant without effective noise barriers.
b. Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
I
c. Facts in Support of Finding
The mitigation measures ,set forth below will reduce these impacts to a
level of insignificance. The DEIR had recommendc;d an additional measure, N-4, which
would have required mitigation for potential helicopter noise impacts generated by the
proximity of the Boeing facility to the Project site. This measure was deleted from the
FEIR in response to new information indicating that helicopter noise would not
significantly impact the proposed residential areas of the Project site, and the Council has
Resolution Numbe~~~
determined that the measure is not required to mitigate significant impacts of the Project.
Section 5.11 of the EIR indicates that noise impact can be mitigated by requiring proposed
residences to be constructed in conformance with State noise standards for habitable rooms
and outdoor living areas, and through the construction of specified noise barriers and
mechanical ventilation, and through notice to potential buyers of residences.
I
N-l Prior to the issuance of grading permits, an Acoustical Analysis Report shall be
submitted to the City Engineer by the project developer for approval. The Report
shall describe in detail the interior and exterior noise levels for residential uses on
the site and the specific design and mitigation features to ensure compliance with
the City of Seal Beach interior and exterior noise criteria of 65 dBA CNEL for
outdoor living areas and 45 dBA CNEL in habitable rooms.
N-2 The required location of the noise barriers on the proposed project site shall be as
shown on Exhibit C in Appendix L (Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Noise Study,
RK1K Assocjates, 1996, pg. 10). The Report shall specify the height of the noise
barriers. The height of noise barriers between Seal Beach Boulevard and onsite
residential uses shall be within the range of six to ten feet.
Noise barrier cons~ction materials shall have a weight of at least 3.5 pounds per
square foot of face area. The recommended barrier must present a solid face from
top to bottom, and no openings or decorative cutouts should be made. All gaps
(except for weep holes) should be filled with grout or caulking. The required
noise control barriers may be constructed using one of the following alternative
materials:
a.
b.
masonry block;
stucco 'veneer over wood framing (or foam core), or 1 inch thick tongue
and groove wood of sufficient weight per square foot;
1/4 incJ, thick glass, acrylic plastic, or other transparent materials with
sufficient weight per square foot may be used to provide views;
earthen berm;
any combination of these materials or other construction materials with a
minimum weight of 3.5 pounds per square foot of face area.
I
c.
d.
e.
I
N-3 Residential lots facing Seal Beach Boulevard that are within the existing 60 dBA
CNEL contour shown on Figure N3 may require mechanical ventilation. When
the operable dQors and windows are open for homes facing Seal Beach Boulevard,
the interior 45 dBA CNEL interior noise limit for these units amy be exceeded.
Therefore, a "Windows closed" condition may be required for these units, and a
means of mechanical ventilation is required' to meet the requirements of the
Uniform Building Code (UBC) standard. It should be noted that the windows
facing Seal Beach Boulevard may be openable windows, but the homeowners
would have the option to close their windows and still obtain adequate ventilation
through the use of a mechanical ventilation system. This mechanical ventilation
system shall supply two air changes per hour to each habitable room, including
20% (one-fifth)' fresh make-up air obtained directly form the outdoors. The fresh
air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating construction and shall consist of a
minimum of ten feet of straight or curved duct or six feet plus one sharp 90 degree
bend. The City Engineer shall ensure that the Acoustical Analysis Report
identifies any requirements for mechanical ventilation for individual onsite
residential units.
2. Construction Noise
a. Potential Impacts
Residential uses south of the project site could experience significant short
term noise impacts from Project-related construction activities.
Resolution Number~~
b. Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or inCorporated into, the
project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the enviro~ment.
c. Facts in Support of Finding
Section 5.12 indicates that these impacts will be mitigated to a level of I
insignificance through the imple~entation of the following measures, which require
Project construction to comply with adopted City noise standards and safeguards.
N-5 Construction on the proposed project site shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM
to 7:00 PM Monday through Saturday, and shall be prohibited on Sundays and
Federal holidays.
N-6 All project construction vehicles or, equipment, fixed or mobile operated, shall be
equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers.
N-7 Stockpiling and/or ~ehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from
residential units on and off the proposed project site.
N-8 Noise from project construction activities will impact adjacent land uses.
Whenever feasible, the noisiest construction operations should be scheduled to
occur together to avoid continuing periods of the greatest annoyance.
K. Public Services and Utilities
a. Potential Impacts
Implementation of the Project will result in an increased demand for a
variety of public services and utilities, including telephone, cable television, police
services, fire and emergency services, schools, libraries, transit services, water supply,
wastewater services, solid waste services, electricity and natural gas.
I
b. Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
c. Facts in Support of Finding
Section 5.13 of the EIR indicates that the following mitigation measures
will reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance in that the Applicant will be required
to design the Project in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of local utility
and public service providers. Further, the Applicant will be required to pay applicable
fees for additional public service needs created by the Project.
PSU-l
During final design, the project applicant/contractor will coordinate with
the applicable public service and utility agencies/companies to determine
their needs to accommodate new utility conduits and any necessary
protection of existing facilities and services during the construction of the
land uses under the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan.
I
PSU-2
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project developer will submit
a construction phasing plan for the subdivisions to the Orange County Fire
Authority (OCFA). The plan will be consistent with OCFA Guidelines for
Fire Apparatus Access Roads and Fire Lane Req,uirements and the
Combustible Soil GnHazard Mitigation Guideline.
PSU-3
PSU-4
I
PSU-5
PSU-6
PSU-7 '
I
PSU-8
PSU-9
PSU-I0
PSU-ll
PSU-12
I
PSU-13
Resolution Numbe~~
Prior to the issuance of building permits in a phase, the project proponent
shall submit evidence to the City's Director of Development Services of a
fee payment between the developer and the Los Alamitos Unified School
District to offset school facility related impacts.
The project developer will provide bus stops in accordance with Orange
County Transportation Authority requirements. Bus stop improvements
shall be reviewed and approved by OCT A and the City Engineer before
they are installed. (Mitigation measure PSU-4 is the same as mitigation
measure T-9).
Prior to the construction of street or utility improvements within the
Hellman Ranch Specific Plan area, the project proponent shall submit
evidence to the City Engineer of coordination with the Orange County
Transportation Authority and Long Beach Transit related to temporary
detour routes and temporary bus stop locations for affected bus lines for
each phase of the construction of the proposed Hellman Ranch Specific
Plan.
Prior to issuance of building permit, the project developer shall complete
water system plans and specifications for submittal and approval by the
City Engineer. The design will address available' water resources and
improvements to the water system required to serve the proposed project
and meet fire flow demands. The specific contents of the plans and
specifications should be determined in coordination with the City Engineer.
The project developer shall pay a fair share of the cost required to offset
project impacts on off-site water system.
Automatic sprinkler systems using the best available technology should be
set to irrigate project landscaping during early morning hours or during the
evening to reduce water losses from evaporation. Care must be taken to
reset sprinklers to water less often in cooler months and during the rainfall
season (November to April) so that water is not wasted by excessive
landscape irrigation.
Project plant varieties should be grouped according to water requirements
to reduce over-irrigation.
Mulch should be used extensively in project common, non-turf landscaped
areas. Mulch applied on top of soil will improve the water-holding
capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and silt compaction.
Prior to the release of a final map by the City of Seal Beach the project
developer shall construct or enter into an agreement and post security
guaranteeing construction of needed sewer collection system facilities, as
required by City of Seal Beach.
In order to ensure adequate service to the project site, plans for the
proposed wastewater collection system shall be submitted by the project
proponent to the CSDOC and/or City Engineer for approval prior to the
issuance of building permits.
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall
demonstrate to the City of Seal Beach that the type and amount of solid
waste generated on the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan site, would conform
with the City of Seal' Beach Source Reduction and Recycling Element
which supports AB 939 requirements for cities to reduce their waste stream
by 25 percent by the year 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000.
Resolution NUmber~
PSU-14
Proposed commercial uses shall incorporate facilities for' compaction,
collection and pick-up of recyclable materials.
PSU-15
A facility shall be provided on the project side for the collection of green
waste from the golf course and other landscaped areas of the site.
Collected green waste shall be composted on site, or delivered to a
centralized processing facility, or be made available for city conection for
this purpose.
L.
Energy and Natural Resources
I
a. Potential Impacts
Development of the Project will result in the consumption of energy
resources, through increased usage of electricity and gas in order to heat, light and cool
residential, commercial and recreational structures developed as part of the Project.
Development of new land uses on the project site will result in the need to install a new
street lighting system to serve these uses, and heating and cooling needs for structures may
be high due to exposure of the structures to sun rays, each resulting in a corresponding
increase in the need for energy. Wood burning fireplaces may produce high amounts of
particulate matter into the atmosphere The FEIR has concluded, however, that although
the Project will result in increased energy consumption, none of these impacts are
considered significant since the amounts of fuel, energy and building materials required
for the Project represent a very small amount of demand in the region.
b. Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
c.
Facts in Support of Finding
I,
The Project's impacts related to the consumption of natural resources and
energy will be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required under
CEQA. However, the City adopts the following measures in order to ensure that energy
efficiency is incorporated into the design of structures on the site.
NR-l In conjunction with the submittal of applications for building permits, the
project developer will submit a report to the Director of Development
Services which demonstrates that the use of alternative energy sources and
current energy efficient technologies have been considered in the project
design. The report will describe the technologies that will be incorporated
into this project and give the reason for rejecting technologies that are not
incorporated.
NR-2 Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company shall be
consulted and, when feasible, energy conservation measures shall be
incorporated into the project.
NR-3
The project developer shall install energy efficient street lighting (e.g., high
pressure sodium, metal halide or clean lucalox) on the project site.
I
NR-4
The project developer shall install low-polluting, energy-efficient
appliances for project residential and commercial uses, as appropriate.
NR-5 The project developer shall install solar water heaters where feasible in
project residential and commercial buildings.
NR-6 The project developer shall incorporate appropriate passive solar design on
project residential and commercial building to the extent feasible.
, Resolution
Numbe~~..z.
NR-7 The project developer shall install outdoors lamps on project buildings that
give the highest light output per watt of electricity consumed.
NR-8 The project developer shall install time clocks or other systems to reduce
energy use within the project site.
NR-9
The proposed project shall use heating and cooling systems which
incorporate cascade ventilation air from high-priority (occupied space)
areas to low-priority (corridors, equipment and mechanical space) areas
before being exhausted to reduce the use of energy.
I
NR-lO All new project buildings shall incorporatC exterior electrical outlets, both
in the front and the rear, to facilitate the use of electric maintenance
equipment.
NR-ll The project developer shall provide shade trees to reduce heating/cooling
demands around project buildings.
NR-12 Fireplaces in project residential and commercial buildings shall be designed
to burn natural gas to the exclusion of wood where applicable to reduce the
production of particulate matter.
ill. Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
A. Impacts that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance
I
The FEIR identified several impacts as potentially significant and
unavoidable. Based on the information provided in the FEIR and the record of decision,
the Council finds that each of these impacts can be mitigated to some degree, but that such
mitigation would not reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance and further mitigation
is infeasible. Therefore, as required by Section 21081 of CEQA, and as shown below in
more detail, the Council finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations make infeasible the additional mitigation measures or alternatives identified
in the EIR. The significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project are described below,
along with measures that would partially mitigate the impacts.
Biological Resources
I
The loss of degraded coastal wetlands ultimately will be mitigated to a less-
than-significant level by the creation of a high-quality 23.1-acre coastal marsh complex.
The restored habitat is intended to increase the habitat value of the site and provide
improved habitat for special interest species. However, during the early years of the
restoration project there will be periods, during which a net loss of wetland values is
experienced. This will result in a temporary, but significant and unavoidable, impact on
wetland values, both directly and cumulatively. Some. short-term loss of the degraded and
severely degraded wetlands areas on the Property is inevitable due to the need for
significant hydrological, grading, and planting activities as part of the long-term
restoration of the subject areas. The record indicates that full-scale restoration of the
wetlands area in a manner that would be successful over the long-term, while avoiding
short-term impacts, is not economically or technically feasible given the biological,
hydraulic, and geologic constraints of the Property as identified in the EIR. If successful,
however, the value of the restored habitat will substantially offset this temporary loss.
Water Quality
The development of the' residential, commercial and golf course
components of the Project will increase the amount of urban stormwater runoff that is
discharged from the project site into the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin ("LA~") and,
Resolution NUmber~ ,
ultimately, the San Gabriel River. The increase is expected to be relatively small in
comparison to the existing amounts of urban runoff that is received by the LARB. This is
particularly true given the limited size of the ,urban component of the Project and the fact
that the detention of storm water on the vegetated areas of the golf course will provide a
certain amount of natural filtration of the runoff before it is discharged into the LARB.
Mitigation measures WQ-8 to WQ-IO, summarized in Article II, will further reduce the
amount of contaminated runoff generated by the Project.
However, the EIR concluded that because the LARB already receives
stormwater from a large urban watershed containing constituents that are deleterious to
surface water quality, the Project's incremental increase of urban runoff, though relatively
small, would result in a cumulatively significant water quality impact. The Council finds
that the mitigation of this impact is technically and economically infeasible, given the fact
that virtually any economically viable development of the Property would include uses that
would incrementally increase urban runoff into an already polluted drainage system.
I
Geology
The Project will be constructed in proximity to known earthquake faults
within a seismically active part of Southern California. The Project has been designed to
locate residential development outside the setback zone of the Seal Beach Fault and away
from areas of the property that are most subject to liquefaction and other seismic hazards.
Mitigation measures GEO-l to GEO-8, summarized in Article II, will ensure that the
Project is designed to all current engineering practices and seismic guidelines and will
reduce most seismic-related impacts to a level of insignificance. However, th~re is always
a remote possibility that a catastrophic event will occur which exceeds the magnitudes
used in seismic design standards. In such a case, the impacts of seismic shaking on
residential structures and other Project improvements would be significant and
unavoidable. Mitigation of such impacts beyond compliance with applicable codes and
regulations is technically and economically infeasible in that the magnitude of such
catastrophic events cannot be accurately predicted, with the effect that the only true
mitigation would be to prohibit construction in a seismically active region.
I
Archaeological Resources
The FEIR identified four important archaeological sites that will be
adversely impacted by the Project. The FEIR also found that six other potentially
important sites may be impacted by the Project, but that existing data was insufficient to
make a conclusive determination regarding the archaeological importance of these sites.
Mitigation measures CR-3 to CR-ll, summarized in Article II, require implementation of
a program of archaeological research, testing, monitoring and recovery prior to and
concurrent with Project grading and excavation 'activities. These measures follow the
requirements of the CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines regarding archaeological resource
mitigation and will substantialiy reduce the Project's impacts to important archaeological
sites.
However, avoidance rather than recovery, and preservation in situ, are the
preferred method of mitigating impacts to archaeological resources under CEQA.
Because it may not be feasible for the Project, or other projects in the area, to avoid and
preserve all important archaeological resources on the Project site, direct and cumulative
impacts to archaeological resouires are considered significant and unavoidable.
Air Quality
I
The Project is located in South Coast Air Basin, which has been designated
as a non-attainment area for certain air pollutants. Therefore, any incremental
contribution of air pollutants by the Project, even if slight, is considered to be
cumulatively significant. The Project would generate both short term construction-related
emissions and long tenn emissions from increased vehicle use and energy consumption.
These impacts will be substantially reduced by mitigation measures AQ-I to AQ-19,
Resolution NUmbe~~~~
summarized in Article II. However, because these measures will not eliminate all Project-
related emissions, air quality impacts are ,considered significant and unavoidable in the
short-term and cumulatively significant and unavoidable. Further mitigation is not
technically or economically feasible, since any economically viable development on the
Project site would likely involve the introduction of additional air pollutants into a non-
attainment area.
B. Additional Impacts Which May Not Be Fully Mitigated
I
The Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been applied,
and that based on the record before the Council all significant impacts will be mitigated to
a level of insignificance. In the event that any other environmental impact identified in the
EIR cannot, through full compliance with mitigation measures imposed herein, be fully
mitigated over time, the Council finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological,
or other considerations make infeasible the additional mitigation measures or alternatives
identified in the environmental impact report, and that the Statement of Overriding
Considerations adopted concurrently herewith applies with equal force and effect to such
impacts.
IV. Project Alternatives
I
CEQA requires agencies reviewing the environmental impacts of a project
to consider a range of reasonable alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d), 14
Cal. Code of Reg. fi 15126(d)). The range of alternatives considered in an EIR should
include those which can feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. As
defined by CEQA, "feasible" means "capable of being accomplished in a successful
manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental,
legal, social, and technological factors." (CEQA Guidelines Section 15365, 14 CaI. Code
of Reg. fi 15365.) Among the factors that can be taken into account in determining
feasibility are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, gener~ plan
consistency, and oth~r plans or regulatory limitations.
The EIR for the Project analyzed a total of five alternatives to the proposed
Project. The alternatives considered were: a No Project Alternative; Development Under
the Existing City General Plan; and three alternatives to the Wetlands Restoration.
Under the No Project alternative, no new development or change in land
uses would occur on the site in the foreseeable future. Another alternative studied would
permit development on the site to the extent currently contemplated in the existing Seal
Beach General Plan's land use element. The remaining three alternatives were designed to
increase the amount of wetlands restored on-site or to provide an alternative means for
achieving the City's wetlands objectives without depriving the landowner of the ability to
make reasOnable economic use of the property.
I
In addition to the alternatives stuqied in the ElR, the City considered
several other alternatives that could meet project objectives while avoiding or minimizing
the environmental impacts of the proposed project, particularly impacts to cultural
resources. As discussed in the EIR, these alternatives were found to be infeasible for a
variety of environmental, safety, technical and, economic reasons and were eliminated
from further consideration and not fully described or analyzed in the DEIR.
The Council has carefully considered the attributes and environmental
impacts of all of the alternatives analyzed in the ElR and has compared them with those of
the proposed Project. As required by CEQA, the Council finds that each of the
alternatives is infeasible for various environmental, economic, technical, social and other
reasons set forth below. (Public Resources Code Sections 21002 and 21081(a)(3); CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), 14 Cal. Code of Reg. fi 1 509 1 (a)(3).) The Project as
Resolution Number~'-Z
propOsed represents the combination of features that, in the Council's opinion, best
achieves the City's objectives while minimizing environmental impacts.
A. No Project Alternative
1. SummlU)' of Alternative
Under the No Project Aliernative, the proposed Hellman Ranch Specific
Plan would not be approved. The property would remain primarily open space and I
existing oil production activities would continue into the foreseeable future. The proposed
housing, public golf course, Yisitor-serving recreational/commercial development,
interpretive center, and related improvements would not be constructed. Gum Grove Park
would not be dedicated to the City and no wetlands restoration would occur.
2. Reasons For Reiectinl! Alternative
The No Project Alternative would have the fewest environmental impacts
as it would not generate any additional traffic volumes, air pollutants, stormwater runoff
or demand for public services or utilities, nor would it disturb biological or cultural
resources on the project site. For this reason, it is considered the environmentally
superior alternative. However, several important environmental benefits would not be
realized under this alternative: the existing wetlands, which are fragmented and degraded,
would not be restored and the poor visual aesthetics of the site would remain.
, The No Project Alternative would fail to achieve the principal objective of
the Project, which is to assure quality, sustainable development and improvement of the
property in a manner that will benefit the local lpld regional environment, the local
community and the owners and ultimate users of the property. As the EIR discusses, the
existing wetlands on the site are severely degraded and retain little wetland value in their
current state. The restoration under the proposed Project would increase the biologic and
habitat values of the property, which is considered a significant environmental benefit.
The No Project alternative would deprive the City of an important opportunity to restore a
fully functioning tidal connection and saltwater marsh ecosystem and to create additional
freshwater wetlands on the site.
I
The No Project Alternative would also prevent the City from realizing
other benefits of the proposed Project. Gum Grove Park would remain in private
ownership instead of being dedicated to the City in perpetuity for use as a public park.
The City would also lose the recreational benefits of the proposed public golf course and
interpretive center, as well as the aesthetic improvements that would occur under the
Project as proposed. The No Project Alternative would not enhance the public's use of
and access to the property. For all of these reasons, the Council has determined the No
Project Alternative to be infeasible.
B. Existing General Plan Land Use Designations Alternative
1. Sumowy of Alternative
This alternative would involve development of the site in accordance with
the land use designations for the property under the existing General Plan. The existing
General Plan allows for the development of 329 single-family residential units, continued
operation of the oil production facilities, development of 26 acres 'of community parks,
including Gum Grove Nature Park, 3.8 acres of service commercial use and the
restoration of 41.4 acres of wetlands on the project site.
I
2. Reasons For Reiectin~ Alternative
Although this alternative would increase the total number of wetlands
restored on the project site, reduce the amount of short-term construction-related impacts
to air quality, and provide the greatest amount of public parkland, the Council rmds that it
Resolution Numbe~~.
would result in more overall environmental impacts than the proposed Project or any of
the other alternatives.
I
A portion of the residential component would be in the lowland area of the
site in close proximity to the Seal Beach Fault and in areas of high liquefaction potential.
This would expose structures and residents to significant seismic safety risks, including
risks associated with existing oil and gas pipe1ilies which cross the fault in the lowlands
area. In addition to exposing structures and residents to significant seismic safety risks,
extensive soil remediation for hydrocarbon contamination would be required to make the
area suitable for residential development. This alternative differs from the proposed
Project in that no residential structures would be permitted to be constructed in the
lowland areas under the HRSP.
The construction of housing in the lowland area and the elimination of the
golf course would decrease the ability of the site to detain and filter stormwater runoff,
which would adversely affect water quality and lead to flooding of residential areas. The
residential development component would also generate up to four or five times the
amount of traffic, three times the amount of air pollutants, and up to three times the
demand for public services and utilities as the proposed project. In addition, a portion of
Gum Grove Park would be graded for residential construction, causing the loss of a
portion of that historic eucalyptus grove and potentially damaging archeological resources
in the Park. For all of these reasons, dev~opment of the property under the existing
general plan land use designations is considered infeasible.
C. Alternative No. l: Wetlands Mitigation Bank
1. Summary of Alternative
I
This alternative calls for 86 acres of wetlands to be restored, more than
twice the acreage of restored wetlands under the proposed project. The wetlands would be
land banked for future restoration by developers of other projects that impact wetland
areas where on-site mitigation is not possible. No public golf course would be
constructed. The number of single family residential units would be increased to 150 units
and 100 multi-family residential units would also be constructed for a total of 250
residential units overall. These units would be located primarily on the mesa area of the
property, although a portion of the development would extend westward into the lowland
area. Oil production activities would continue on 46.6 acres rather than 28.2 acres as in
the proposed Project. The recreational/commercial component and interpretive center
would be approximately the same as in the proposed Project and Gum Grove Nature Park
would be dedicated to the City of Seal Beach.
2. Reasons For Reiectinl! Alternative
I
This alternative would provide for the greatest amount of land to be left in
its existing condition and would have the potential to restore the largest acreage of
saltwater marsh wetlands. However, these benefits are outweighed by several factors.
Wetlands restoration on the site would be dependent on the existence of development
projects in other areas that require off-site wetlands mitigation. Unless and until the
wetlands bank is needed for such projects, the wetlands on the property would remain in
their severely degraded condition.
This alternative would also preclude development of the public golf course.
Without the golf course, urban stormwater runoff would either flow directly into the
wetlands area, impacting sensitive biological resources there, or be diverted from the
wetlands area, resulting in less fIltering of the runoff and an increased potential for
flooding in the residential component of the lowland area. The City would also be
deprived of the active recreational benefits that would be provided by the golf course
under the proposed Project.
Resolution Number~~
In addition, the expanded residential component under this alternative,
which was considered to be n~essary due to the large percentage of the property that
would be required to be left in an undeveloped state, would result in environmental
impacts that are more severe than those in the proposed project. Approximately 40%
more trip ends per day would be generated by this alternative than under the proposed
project. This alternative would produce approximately twice the air pollutants as the
proposed project and would cause greater construction-related air quality impacts. With
the exception of water, this alternative would require approximately three times the
amount of services, utilities and natural resources to construct and operate than the I
proposed project. Alternative No. 1 would present greater seismic hazards than the
proposed Project due to the fact that residential units would be constructed on a portion of
the lowland area containing soils which exhibit high shrink and swell capacity. Those
units would also be located on soils contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbon residues
which would require much more extensive remediation than what would be necessary for
non-residential uses. For all of these reasons, thl'l ~ouncil finds Alternative No. 1 to be
infeasible.
D. Alternative No.2: 9-Hole Golf Course with Additional Wetlands
1. SummaI)' of Alternative
This alternative was designed to increase the acreage of the restored wetlands to an
amount comparable with that in the Existing General Plan Alternative, but with
significantly fewer residential units than called for in that alternative. Alternative No. 2
would restore 43 acres of wetlands, approximately 10 more acres than the proposed
Project. A 9-hole golf course on 65.6 acres would replace the proposed Project's IS-hole
regulation golf course on 107.5 acres. The number of single family residential units
would be increased to 90 units, and 60 multi-family residential units would also be
constructed for a total of 150 units. The visitor-serving recreational/commercial center
would contain the same amount of square footage as the proposed Project, but would be
built on 1.4 acres rather than on I.S acres. Oil production activities would continue on
47.2 acres rather than 2S.2 acres in the proposed Project. Gum Grove Nature Park would
be dedicated to the City, as in the proposed Project.
I
2. R".a""ns For Reiecting Alternative
This alternative is considered environmentally superior to all other
alternatives other than the No Project Alternative because of the increased acreage
available for wetland restoration. However, it would generate greater impacts than the
proposed Project in several other areas. The residential component would generate 13%
more vehicle trips and 70% more air pollutants than the proposed project, and would
require twice the amount of public services, utilities and resources. The portion of the
residential component located in the lowlands area of the property would be subject to
similar seismic and soil contamination impacts as Alternative No.1. In addition, this alternative would provide only a 9-hole public golf course, which would reduce the limited
recreational opportunities afforded the public in comparison to an 18-hole regulation golf
course. For these reasons, Alternative No. 2 is found to be infeasible.
E. Alternative No.3: Offsite Wetland Mitigation
1. SummaI)' of Alternative
I
This alternative would' allow for development of both a golf course and an
expanded residential component by requirit1g wetlands to be restored in locations off-site.
The developer would be required to restore wetlands on one of four identified areas
adjacent to the Santa Ana River at Fairview Regional Park or on the Naval Weapons
Station. An IS-hole public golf course would be constructed on 96.5 acres in the lowland
area. The number of single family residential units would be increased to 150 units,
located primarily on the mesa but with a portion extended west of the mesa into the
lowland area of the property. The visitor-serving recreational/commercial center would
Resolution
Number$6'..e.
be the same square footage as that of the proposed Project, but would occupy 3.4 acres
rather than 1.8 acres. Oil production activities would continue on 47.5 acres rather than
on 28.2 acres as in the proposed Project. Gum Grove Nature Park would be dedicated to
the City, as in the proposed Project.
2. Rp"onns For Reiectine Alternative
I
This alternative would provide for both the restoration of wetlands, at off-
site locations, and the construction of a full-sized public golf course. However, it would
give rise to impacts that are more severe than those of the proposed Project. Alternative
No. 3 would generate the highest amount of traffic among all the alternatives other than
the Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Alternative, creating 55% more vehicle
trips per day and almost 88 % more air pollution than the proposed Project. It would also
generate the need for approximately twice the amount of public services, utilities and
riatural resources. The portion of the residential component located in the lowlands area
of the property would be subject to similar seismic and soil contamination impacts as
Alternatives No. 1 and No.2. In addition, all of the special interes~ species on the site,
including the southern tarplant and Coulter's goldfields, would be directly impacted by
this alternative, and off-site restoration may not be capable of providing the same degree
of mitigation for these species as would an on-site restoration program. For all of these
reasons, this alternative is considered infeasible.
v. SfATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR
THE HELLMAN RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED
DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
I
The following Statement of Overriding Considerations in connection with
. the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan ("HRSP") and related discretionary actions (collectively
referred to as the "Project") is hereby adopted by the Seal Beach City Council ("Council")
pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code section 21000 ~ KQ.. ("CEQA ").
CEQA requires the decisionmaking agency to balance the economic, legal,
social, technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental
risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project
outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered acceptable
(CEQA Guidelines section 15093(a)). CEQA requires the agency to provide written
rmdings supporting the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when
significant impacts are unavoidable. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence
in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (CEQA Guidelines section 15093(b)).
Those reasons are provided in this Statement of Overriding Considerations.
I
The Council rmds that the economic, social or other benefits of the Project
outweigh all of the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts discussed in Article ill of
the Statement of Environmental Findings (attached to this resolution as "Exhibit B") and
any othe,r remaining significant effects found to be unavoidable. In making this finding,
the Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable impacts and
has indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The Council finds that each
one of the following benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits, would
warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding the unavoidable impacts of the Project.
A. ,Wetlands Restoration
The Project will restore 23.1 acJ'e1l of saltwater wetlands and create 9.7
acres of freshwater wetlands. The restoration will fulfill the City's objective of improving
the quality of existing wetlands on the site. The existing saltwater wetlands have been
severely degraded through fragmentation and contamination and retain little wetland value
in their current state. The restoration under the proposed Project would increase the
biologic and habitat values of these wetlands by restoring a fully functioning tidal
Resolution NUmber~~
connection and consolidating the wetlands into a saltwater marsh ecosystem. Sensitive
species on the site would be translocated to the saltwater marsh and its buffer area. The
marsh will provide important nesting habitat for the Belding's savannah sparrow. It will
also provide habitat for shorebirds, herons, egrets and ducks and will have significant
foraging value for the California least tern. The saltwater marsh will serve as an
important biological link in the coastal marsh environments in the region.
In addition to the saltwater marsh, the Project would create a network of
six interconnected open water/freshwater marsh areas on the site. These areas will
provide high-quality habitat for water fowl, herons and egrets as well as passerines. All
plant species associated with the marsh areas will be native to coastal Orange County
freshwater or brackish water marshes.
I
The restored and created wetlands will be further' buffered from
surrounding urban environment by a public golf course. The golf course will provide
over 100 additional acres of open space adjacent to and around the wetlands areas. It will
be constructed and managed in an environmentally sensitive manner in accordance with
the proposed Environmental Management Plan. Out-of-play areas will be planted with
native vegetation which will function as habitat zones and will enhance the habitat values
of the niarsh wetlands system.
The costs of the wetlands restoration program will be guaranteed by the
project applicant as a condition of approval, thus providing assurance that the restoration
program will be funded and that no public funds will be required to ensure its completion.
The saltwater marsh will be dedicated to a public or nonprofit agency or organization for
monitoring, maintenance and management if there is an appropriate agency willing to
accept the conveyance. The freshwater areas will be managed and maintained by the
Hellman Ranch Reserve Golf Course. Both the saltwater and freshwater marshes will be
dedicated as permanent wetlands and open space.
B. Dedication of Gum Grove Nature Park
1
The project applicant will dedicate Gum Grove Nature Park to the City for
open space and park purposes as part of the Project. The Park is a 10.2 acre historic
eucalyptus grove which supports an abundance of wildlife and is a pOtential migration stop
for the Monarch butterfly. The Park also contains several potentially important
archeological sites, including the site with the highest diversity of ethnographic material
culture traits of all the sites located on the specific plan property (ORA-258). In addition,
the Park provides a buffer between existing residential development and existing oil
extraction operations.
Currently, the Park is privately owned by the project applicant and is
leased to the City on an annual basis. The dc;dication of the Park to the City as part of the
Project will preserve the land as a nature park in perpetuity. This dedication will achieve
one of the specific goals of the open space/recreation/conservation element of the Seal
Beach General. Plan and will also ensure that the unique archeological resources in the
Park are left undisturbed.
C. Open Space, Recreation and Public Access
The land use element of the Seal Beach General Plan identifies as an
important goal of the City "to acquire and develop recreational facilities at strategic
loca:tions throughout the Community. Because open land is rapidly being developed,
acquisition of park sites should be accomplished at the earliest date.. (Community Goal
#3). The open space/recreation/conservation element similarly encourages the acquisition
and preservation of parkland, open space and recreation areas. The California Coastal Act
contains policies which promote the protection and provision of public access and
recreational opportunities by private developers (sections 30213 and 30222).
I
Resolution Number~~~
The Project includes 178.5 acres of open spacelrecreational uses, over
75 % of the total project area. In !KIdition to the 32.8 acre wetland restoration program
and dedication of the 10.2 acre Gum Grove Nature Park discussed above, the project will
develop a 100.8 acre public golf course. The regulation-length IS-hole golf course will be
a public access course open for play to the general public on a year round basis, providing
recreational opportunities in the coastat zone for residents and visitors. The Los Alamitos
Retarding Basin will provide an additional 34.7 acres of open space, although the space is
used for a specific purpose.
I
The Project will also greatly enhance public access to the coastal zone.
With the exception of Gum Grove Park, the Project site is currently closed to the public.
As part of the Project, the developer will provide public access to the restored saltwater
marsh by constructing a pedestrian trail system along a portion of the marsh perimeter,
which will include two observation areas for bird and wildlife watching. This trail will be
further linked to the San Gabriel River trail, allowing regional access to the restored
wetlands. An inteI:pretive center will be constructed by the developer adjacent to the
wetlands and will provide information on the area's regional wetlands, wildlife, biology
and Native American history.
D. Sustainable Development
I
The development planning areas of the Project have been designed to
permit the landowner to make reasonable economic use of the property while maximizing
the property's open space and other environmental values. The residential component will
create 70 new units of housing in the City. Unlike previous development proposals for the
property, the residential units will not be spread out across the property but will be
clustered on 14.7 acres of the mesa area. The 6.7 acre golf course clubhouse and facilities
will be located immediately adjacent to the residential component. These development
areas are situated along Seal Beach Boulevard, an existing thoroughfare, and are adjacent
to the existing Marina Hill residential development. The 1.8 acre visitor-serving
recreational/commercial component of the property is located immediately adjacent to
Pacific Coast Highway, another major thoroughfare in the City. The siting and design of
the development components will ensure land use compatibility while limiting the
construction of new urban infrastructure to existing developed areas of the City.
E. Aesthetic Benefits
The Project will improve the aesthetics of the project site in a variety of
ways. The property is currently marked by open weedy vegetation on the mesa, degraded
wetland areas in the lowlands, oil production activities, utility poles and a utilities access
road across the lowlands area, non-operating transmission towers, the remnants of a
derelict building by Pacific Coast Highway, and views of industrial activities in the
distance.
I
Under the Project, the degraded wetlands will be restored to a functioning
saltwater wetland with regular tidal exchange, and approximately 110 acres of lowlands
will be kept in open space as freshwater wetlands and a public golf course. The utility
poles, utility access road and transmission towers will be removed from the site. The
derelict building foundations on Pacific Coast Highway will be replaced by a visitor
serving commercial facility, an interpretive center, and space reserved for the relocation of
the 1920's vintage Krenwinkle House. The mesa will be developed according to the
architectural, landscape and design guidelines set forth in the specific plan and will include
screening from the road and ornamental landscaping. Screening and buffering of oil
production activities will also be created through the use of block walls and landscaping.
The views of industrial facilities in the distance will be screened by the residential
development streetscape. These features of the Project will create a positive aesthetic
experience for residents and visitors viewing the property and will visually improve a
significant land area within City.
F. Minimized Traffic and Air Quality Impacts
Resolution Number~~
.
The City identified as an objective of development on the Property land
uses that would be sustainable, but that would result in minimal traffic and air quality
impacts. The EIR and other evidence presented in the record of these proceedings
indicates that the Project will substantially reduce the number of vehicle trips and air
emissions over that which could pave been expected to occur under the existing Specific
Plan.
G. Development of Visitor-Serving Commercial and Recreation Facilities
I
The City also identified the development of visitor-serving commercial and
recreation facilities as an objective of the proposed Project. The HRSP provides for the
development of a relatively small commercial area in one corner of the Property, as well
as a golf course to be available for play by members of the public. In connection with the
development of publicly accessible trails and the restoration of degraded wetlands areas,
the Property on which the HRSP is located will become a significant visitor serving
commercial and recreational area of the City.
H. Fiscal Benefits
An analysis of projected City revenues and expenditures associated with the
Project has indicated that the City will experience ten successive years of annual surplus of
between $ll,OOO and $74,000 as a result of the Project, with a ten-year cumulative
surplus of approximately $603,000.
PASSED, PPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal
m . g th f held on the r::7~d..../.- day of
, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES:
Councihnembe
I
NOES:
ABSENT:
if:
,
STATE OF CAIlFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
}
}
}
SS
I
I, Joanne M. Yea, City Clerk of Seal Beach, California, do ~~ certify that the
foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number ~ ,t 2. on me in
the office f the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the
City ch, at regular meeting thereof held on the ~~ day
of 't!J9 7,