HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem NAGENDA REPORT
DATE: February 25, 2002
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager
FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD STAFF REPORT RE: CITY COMMENT
LETTER TO CALIFORNIA COASTAL
COMMISSION RE: APPLICATION NO. 5 -01 -288,
HELLMAN RANCH PROJECT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Provide direction to staff as determined appropriate and receive and file the Staff Report
BACKGROUND:
At the December 10, 2001 City Council meeting staff was requested to place the subject
letter on the agenda of the EQCB by Councilman Yost. He was concerned as to the lack of
review of the letter by the EQCB, Planning Commission, or City Council prior to the letter
being submitted to the Coastal Commission for consideration. The matter was placed on the
December 19, 2001 EQCB agenda for discussion and continued to the January 30, 2002
EQCB meeting for further discussion. Since the EQCB Staff Report of December 19, 2002
has not previously provided to the City Council, the EQCB requested the Staff Report be
forwarded to the City Council for review and consideration.
Provided for the information of the City Council are copies of the following:
• Environmental Quality Control Board Staff Report re: "City Comment Letter to
California Coastal Commission re: Application No. 5 -01 -288, Hellman Ranch Project',
dated December 19, 2001.
• Minute excerpt, Environmental Quality Control Board Meeting, December 19, 2001
• Minute excerpt, Environmental Quality Control Board Meeting, January 30, 2002
❑ Memorandum, undated, from Mario Voce re: Comments regarding letter from City of
Seal Beach to the California Coastal Commission dated November 6, 2001,
AGENDA ITEM _I%Z
C.My Um mm \HELLMAMEQCB Staff Re nm Hellman Liner CCSR.doc \LW\02 -7M2
Receive and File —EQCB StajfReport re: City Comment Letter to
California Coastal Commission re: Application No. 5 -01 -288,
Hellman Ranch Project
City Council Staff Report
February 25, 2002
❑ Memorandum dated January 28, 2002 from Guy Stivers to Mario Voce re: Hellman
Ranch project, City of Seal Beach comments on Coastal Commission Special
Conditions
Upon review of the provided documents the City Council may provide direction to staff
as determined appropriate and receive and file the subject Staff Report.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide direction to staff as determined appropriate and receive and file the Staff Report.
e Whittenberg
Director of Development Services
Attachments: (5)
Attachment 1:
Environmental Quality Control Board Staff Report re: "City
Comment Getter to California Coastal Commission re:
Application No. 5 -01 -288, Hellman Ranch Project', dated
December 19, 2001.
Attachment 2:
Minute excerpt, Environmental Quality Control Board
Meeting, December 19, 2001
Attachment 3:
Minute excerpt, Environmental Quality Control Board
Meeting, January 30, 2002
Attachment 4:
Memorandum, undated, from Mario Voce re: Comments
regarding letter from City of Seal Beach to the California
Coastal Commission dated November 6, 2001
Attachment 5:
Memorandum dated January 28, 2002 from Guy Stivers to
Mario Voce re: Hellman Ranch project, City of Seal Beach
comments on Coastal Commission Special Conditions
• s s +
EQCB Suff Report re Heamvi LWcr CCSR
Receive and File —EQCB Staff Report re: City Comment Letter to
California Coastal Commission re: Application No. 5 -01 -288,
Hellman Ranch Project
City Council Staff Report
February 25, 2002
ATTACHMENT 1
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD STAFF REPORT RE: "CITY
COMMENT LETTER TO CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION RE: APPLICATION
NO 5 -01 -288, HELLMAN RANCH PROJECT",
DATED DECEMBER 19, 2001
EQCB SOff Re ftm Hellman Uftcr.CCSR
December 19,2001
STAFF REPORT
To: Chairman and Members of the Environmental Quality Control Board
From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
Subject: CITY COMMENT LETTER TO CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION RE: APPLICATION
NO. 5-01-288, HELLMAN RANCH PROJECT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Receive and File Staff Report.
DISCUSSION
At the December 10, 2001 City Council meeting staff was requested to place the subject letter on
the agenda of the EQCB by Councilman Yost He was concerned as to the lack of review of the
letter by the EQCB, Planning Commission, or City Council prior to the letter being submitted to the
Coastal Commission for consideration. The Planning Commission does not normally review
comment letters to other agencies regarding projects impacting the City. Those comment letters
have traditionally been reviewed by either the EQCB or City Council, or by both, depending on the
allowable comment time frame and the meeting schedule of the EQCB and City Council.
The comment letter was prepared by the Director of Development Services and reviewed by the
City Manager and Assistant City Attorney; no consultants were utilized in preparing the comment
letter. The City Manager had approved the letter, but was unavailable to sign the letter and had
authorized June Yotsuya, Assistant City Manager, to sign the letter on his behalf. The comment
letter was placed in each councilpersons mail box at City Hall on November 6, and staff received
no comments or concerns regarding the content of the letter fiom any member of the City Council
prior to the November 13 meeting of the Coastal Commission.
It is the general practice of the Department of Development Services to provide proposed comment
letters conceming issues of concern of the EQCB, the Planning Commission, or the City Council to
the appropriate body for review and approval prior to forwarding the letter to the appropriate
agency. In this particular case, that was not possible given the meeting dates of the EQCB and City
Council in relation to the scheduled hearing before the California Coastal Commission on the
C:Wy Dacwnema\EQCB \HelM Co mtI er.EQCB Staff Kep d.do LM124UI
Environmental Quality Control Board Staff Report re:
City Comment Letter re: Coastal Commission Application No. 5 -01 -288
Hellman Properties LLC (70 -Lot Residential Development)
December 19, 2001
subject application. The EQCB met before the City received the Coastal Commission Staff Report
and the city Council met the same day as the Coastal Commission.
Provided below is a calendar of dates/actions regarding the subject comment letter for the
infomration of the EQCB:
October City Council Meetings:
October 8 and 22, 2001
October EQCB Meeting:
October 24, 2001
Coastal Commission Staff Report received by
Department of Development Services:
October 29, 2001
Date for Coastal Commission to receive comments for
inclusion in supplemental Commissioner's
agenda packet:
November 6, 2001
Date Staff - prepared comment letter signed:
November 6, 2001
Comment letter provided to City Council:
November 6, 2001
Coastal Commission hearing date:
November 13, 2001
City Council Meeting
(Tuesday due to Veteran's Day Holiday):
November 13, 2001
As can been seen by the above information, the Coastal Commission Staff Report was received by
the City after the October 24' EQCB meeting. The comment letter, if it was to be included within
the Coastal Commission supplemental agenda packet to allow the Commissioners time to review
the city concerns prior to the Coastal Commission meeting, had to be received by the Commission
on November 6, prior to the next City Council meeting of November 13, 2001. The City Council
meeting was held on a Tuesday due to the Veteran's day holiday on November 12.
In addition, the Coastal Commission hearing was the same day as the City Council meeting, which
precluded the City Council from reviewing and approving the comment letter on November 13. To
do so would result in the comment letter being received by the Coastal Commission after the
Coastal Commission hearing, resulting in the City concerns not being properly before the
Commission for consideration at all.
Hellman Comm nt Letter EQCB staffaepon
Environmental Quality Control Board SmffReport re:
City Comment Letter re: Coastal Commission Application No. 5 -01 -288
Hellman Properties LLC (70 -Lot Residential Development)
December 19, 2001
In dealing with the Coastal Commission, it is extremely important to have any local concerns
presented to their staff and to the Commissioners in time for the staff to consider requested changes
to conditions prior to the hearing. It is also extremely difficult for the Commissioners to digest
extensive amounts of new information during the public hearing process and to be able to fully
understand the local concerns when most speakers are limited to 3 minutes or less for presentation
time. In this case, the Coastal Commission staff had prepared a supplemental report that modified
several recommended conditions. of approval to reflect specific concerns set forth in the City
comment letter.
Staff understands the concerns of the EQCB and City Council in not being able to review this
particular comment letter. However, the short time frame for properly responding is an unusual
situation, and generally does not occur.
In the opinion of the City Manager and the Director of Development Services it was important for
the City to go record concerning certain issues raised by the proposed conditions of the Coastal
Commission staff. The most important of those issues were as follows:
❑ Southern California native plants for all landscaped areas including all portions of the
Private residential lots. Coastal Commission staff proposed condition - "All landscaping
for the entire development shall be of southern California native plants appropriate to the
natural habitat type. This provision applies to all lots within NYTM 15402 — including but
not limited to residential lots and associated lawns or other turf on those lots —and all areas
proposed and required under this coastal development permit to be landscaped outside of
V7TM 15402."
❑ City Staff Concerns: As indicated in the subject comment letter from the City
...the condition language would require all of the homesites within the
development to also be landscaped only with "southern California native
plants ". This proposed provision is unacceptable to the City. To require all
landscaping of every residential lot within the development to be only of
"southern California native plants" is arbitrary, capricious, and without a
reasonable nexus.
Homesites immediately adjacent to this site for more than 40 years have not
had any previously identified adverse impacts as to the types of plant species
currently located with Gum Grove Nature Park or the Hellman lowlands.
These homesites are not located within an ecologically sensitive area, they are
located within an area that contains over 137 acres of ruderal grassland and 60
acres of disturbed areas and 25 acres of degraded and severely degraded
HelM Comment LW .EQCB Suff Report
Environmental Quality Control Board Staff Report m.-
City Comment Letter re: Coastal Commission Application No. 5 -01 -288
Hellman Properties LLC (70 -Lot Residential Development)
December 19, 2001
wetlands. The rudeml grassland areas are disced yearly for fire prevention
purposes and the disturbed areas are primarily fill areas that has occurred since
1922, including dredged material from the San Gabriel River and are generally
graded and barren.' The nearest homes are between 171 and 270 feet from the
nearest three concentrations of wetlands. It would seem most appropriate for
the Commission to require "southern California native plants' to be utilized
to the fullest extent practicable for the common open space and recreation
areas within VTl`M 15402 and to encourage the utilization by homeowners of
"southern California native plants" within their private property landscaping
plans."
The City was, and still is, concerned that the Coastal Commission is wishing to obtain
approval authority over private residential landscaping plans. There appears to be no
rational or proportional nexus for such authority unless the project area is within an
identified ecologically sensitive area. Certain areas of the Hellman lowlands have been
identified as such, and the proposed residential development is between 171 and 270 feet
from those identified areas. The Coastal Commission has historically required up to a
100 -foot buffer adjacent to wetland and other ecologically sensitive areas. The language
as proposed by Coastal Commission staff was far in excess of previous condition
requirements imposed by the Commission. City staff was concerned that the imposition
of the condition as recommended by Commission staff would have opened a door for the
Commission to require landscape plan review for all new residential development,
including re- landscaping of existing private residential yards, within the Coastal Zone.
The Coastal Zone extends from the Pacific Ocean to Westminster Avenue.
❑ All landscaped areas of the Private residential lots to be completed within 60 days of the
completion of the house. Coastal Commission staff proposed condition - "All landscaping
on individual residential lots shall be completed within 60 days of completion of construction
of the house."
❑ City Staff Concerns: As indicated in the subject comment letter from the City:
"As discussed above under Condition 4.A(iii)(a) and 4.A(iii)(b), the nexus for
this condition is questionable. The individual residential lots are between 171
to 270 feet away from the nearest three concentrations of wetlands, which are
classified as either "degraded" or "severely degraded'. Residential properties
have adjoined the Hellman lowlands and Gum Grove Nature Park for more
than 40 years without any recognized or clearly identified adverse impacts to
"'Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Rep ort", pages 5 -39 to 5-41.
Hellman Commem l.ener.EQCE Staff Re n 4
Environmental Quality Control Board Staff Report re:
City Comment Letter re: Coastal Commission Application No. 5 -01 -288
Hellman Properties LL (70 -Lot Residential Development)
December 19, 2001
those areas from the existing non - native, suburban landscaping. In addition,
landscaping of private residential properties, particularly of the size and
expected cost of the subject properties, has traditionally been designed and
completed by the residential property owner after they have closed escrow on
the home and taken occupancy.
It is not reasonable to expect residential lots to be landscaped within 60 days
of construction completion; escrow on the home may not be closed within that
time period and there may be no responsible property owner at that time. To
expect a purchaser of property to either purchase a home already landscaped
by the project developer or to landscape within 60 days after construction
completion, when an escrow may not close until after the 60 day time period,
is totally unrealistic. It is reasonable to require the residential properties to be
landscaped within a certain period after the close of escrow, and the City
would suggest 180 days for completion of front yard landscaping and 364
days for rear yard landscaping."
Again, city staff was concerned that the - Commission was improperly imposing
conditions on a private residential property owners that had no rational or proportional
nexus to the concerns of the Commission regarding impacts to the lowland wetland areas
of the Hellman Ranch. City staff was concerned that the imposition of the condition as
recommended by Commission staff would have opened a door for the Commission to
impose landscape completion time -frames for all new residential development, including
re- landscaping of existing private residential yards, within the Coastal Zone. The Coastal
Zone extends from the Pacific Ocean to Westminster Avenue.
o Requiring approval by the Executive Director of exterior colors of the residential
structures, specifying only certain colors and tones are allowable, and requiring a deed
restriction reflecting the above restrictions on exterior colors within the proposed
residential development.
❑ City Staff Concerns: As indicated in the subject comment letter from the City:
"The City is concerned as to the intrusion of the Coastal Commission in
determining what are acceptable exterior colors of structures within the coastal
zone, and having those determinations subject to deed restrictions. The
concerns of the Coastal Commission regarding the visual impact of the
structures have already been mitigated through the use of appropriate screen
planting area along the exterior boundaries of VTTM 15402 that are adjacent
Hellman C... t ,EQCB Staff Report
Environmental Quality Control Board StafjReport re:
City Comment Letter re: Coastal Commission Application No. 5 -01 -188
Hellman Properties LLC (70 -Lot Residential Development)
December 19,1001
to the Hellman lowlands and Gum Grove Nature Park (Special Condition
4.A.(iii), as requested for revision by the City).
. . . The City is in strong disagreement with the position of Coastal
Commission staff that the Coastal Act allows the Commission to dictate the
exterior color of single family residences, or any other structures, that are
adequately screened by approved planting from open space and recreation
areas of importance to the Commission. If this position of Commission staff
is embraced by the Commission, then will the Commission also start to dictate
the exterior color of existing homes adjacent to the Hellman lowlands and
Gum Grove Nature Park that wish to add to the size of their existing homes, or
to demolish an existing home and rebuild a new residence? What about the
exterior color of homes adjacent to a public beach?'
Again, city staff was concerned that the Commission was improperly imposing
conditions on a private residential property owners that had no rational or proportional
nexus to the concerns of the Commission regarding impacts to the lowland wetland areas
of the Hellman Ranch. City staff was concerned that the imposition of the condition as
recommended by Commission staff would have opened a door for the Commission to
impose exterior building color requirements for all new residential development,
including remodeling and exterior repainting of existing private residential homes within
the Coastal Zone. The Coastal Zone extends from the Pacific Ocean to Westminster
Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and File Staff Report.
ee Whittenberg, Duector
Development Services Departm t
Attachment: City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: Coastal Commission Application
NO. 5 -01 -288, Hellman Properties LLC, letter dated November 6, 2001
Md . Cowoent Letter EQC8 Staff Report
f
BY FACSIMLE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL FILE C O P Y
COPY TO PETER M. DOUGLAS AND STEVE RYNAS
IN COMPLIANCE WITH
EX PARTE COMMUNICATION REQUIREMENTS
November 6, 2001
Sara Wan, Chairperson
California Coastal Commission
45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105 -2219
Dear Chairperson Wan and Commissioners:
SUBJECT: APPLICATION NO. 5-01-288
HELLMAN PROPERTIES, LLC
HELLMAN RANCH, SEAL BEACH
City of Seal Beach Requests Approval with Modifications to Special
Conditions:
The City of Seal Beach requests the Commission approve this application as in
conformance with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act, with modifications to the
recommended special conditions as discussed below. This project has been the subject of
extensive and prolonged review at both the City and Coastal Commission, and we urge
the Commission to support the overall recommendation of your staff for approval.
Overall, the City concurs with and supports the recommended conditions of your staff.
However, in reviewing the Commission Staff Report, the City believes the analysis and
conclusions of staff require clarification or are incorrect regarding certain issues. The
AAH.11.. Ranch C..... tatter -5- 0148840 Ml I-06 I
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Coastal Commission Application No. 5 -01 -288
Hellman Properties LLC (70 -Lot Residential Developmen!)
November 6, 1001
remainder of the letter provides a summary of the requested modifications and then
discusses in more detail those areas of clarification and concern to the City of Seal Beach.
Summary of Requested Modifications to Conditions:
Special Condition I.A. The City of Seal Beach requests that the final "Notice of
Intent to Issue Permit" clearly and specifically enumerate each of the referenced
"relevant requirements ", so that our Planning and Engineering Departments we very
clear as to the responsibilities of the project proponent that most be complied with prior
to the City issuing any grading or building permits for the subject residential
development.
Special Condition 2(g): The City requests clarification as to why construction
debris and sediment may not be disposed at a legal disposal site within the coastal zone,
if such sites exist.
Special Condition 4.A.M: The City requests that the language be revised to read as
follows, which is in conformance with the stated concerns of the City and is in
compliance with condition language regarding the fence analysis recommended by
Commission staff:
"4.A(i) lw-gassable Perimeter Walls and Fencing. All walls and fencing
within VTTM 15402 facing Gum Grove Park or the lowlands shall be
constructed of solid materials or have decorative bars which are spaced no
more than 4 inches apart in - manne; •40°'• -° —d.. -- O"-w-11 -- A---- iw-gasseltle -hy that shall minimize the entry of common domesticated
animals (e.g. dogs and cats).... prepared by a qualified biologist which
documents that the modified walls/fencing sail' be impassable by
shall minimize the entry of sash domesticated
animals to environmentally sensitive habitat including adjacent wetlands"
Special Condition 4.Miii)(a): the City would request the language of Special
Condition 4.A.(iii)(a) be revised as follows:
"All landscaping for 4he °-a....M dR;-.sp.:,srR all portions of VTTM
15402 except for private residential parcels, and all areas proposed
and required under this coastal development permit to be landscaped
outside of VTTM 15402 shall be, to the fullest extent practicable of
southern California native plants appropriate to the natural habitat type.
be landscaped '..]d.. °` "TT"" ' ` "�-.�° All residential lot owners
shall be encouraged to utilize southern California native plapts within
their private property landscaping plans to the greatest extent
Heiman Ranch Commem Lener- 5 -01- 5$$.EOL
City of Sea/ Beach Comment Letter re:
Coastal Commission Application No. 5 -01 -288
Hellman properties LLC (70 -Lot Residential Development)
November 6, 2001
Special Condition 4.A(iii)(b): The City requests the language of Special Condition
4.A.(iii)(b) be revised as follows:
"The landscape plan shall identify all landscaping for the proposed
development mew including common areas -°.,,r—,. a"°'--+�, and
landscaping along Seal Beach Boulevard."
SSuecial Condition 4.A(iii)(d): The City would request the language of Special
Condition 4.A.(iii)(d) be revised in pertinent part as follows (proposed revisions affect
sentences 2 and 3 of said condition):
"eeia 4.Mfflant ShRil itwluda R4@44a4@ Ft.. _6., Weak
r.. ....a . .stied, In addition to
shrubs and groundcover, specimen size trees (24 -inch
box minimum) shall be planted ^ @_. 19 5, as indicated on
the approved landscape plan in such a manner as to form a visual
landscape barrier to break up large expanses of wall or roof within
the identified viewshed, along the wesvnorthwest facing sides of .."
(Remainder of Special Condition language unchanged).
Special Condition 4.A(iii)(g): The City would request the Commission revise this
condition language as follows: _
"All landscaping on individual residential lots shall be completed within
60- days -@ 180 days for the front yard and 365 days for the rear Yard
after @@mplosioN °` ^ ^' ° «' °° 4 tho kouse the close of escrow of each
residential lot."
Special Condition 4.A(iv)(a): The City requests that this condition be deleted
based on the discussion pertinent to this proposed Special Condition, as indicated on
pages 10 and 11 below.
Special Condition 4.A.(iv)(b): The City requests that this condition be deleted
based on the discussion pertinent to this proposed Special Condition, as indicated on page
12 below.
Hellman Ranch Comment Letter - 5 -01- 288.&c
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter m
Coastal Commission Application No. 5 -01 -188
Hellman Properties LLC (70 -Lot Residential Development)
November 6, 2001
Special Condition 5.A. and Special Condition 5.B.: The City requests that these
conditions be deleted based on the discussion pertinent to this proposed Special
Condition, as indicated on pages 12 and 13 below.
Special Condition 7.A.: The City requests that the language be modified as
proposed below:
"Accordingly, any future nom° „e— °_.,tA to 'tee room additions or
alterations that exceed the height or allowable floor area coverage of
the single family homes described in this permit, ias�a6.liraiied
W rapair aid ffiai :-ea4r.,.d • in .
RA86 oe Ggde 49619(d) „_a TW@ to GalifQmia Csile of
°"°''1919"°° ns 1252'°` (b) require an amendment to Permit
No 5 -01 -288 from the Commission or shall require an additional coastal
development permit from the Commission or from the applicable certified
local government."
Statement of Concerns of City of Seal Beach:
Clarification of Intent of_Special Condition IA:
This proposed condition states "All relevant requirements of Coastal Development Permit
5 -97 -367, as amended by Coastal Development Permit 5 -97- 367 -A1, are hereby
incorporated by reference." The City of Seal Beach requests that the final "Notice of
Intent to Issue Permit" clearly and specifically enumerate each of these "relevant
requirements ", so that our Planning and Engineering Departments are very clear as to the
responsibilities of the project proponent. It is most important for there to be close
coordination between the Coastal Commission and the City of Seal Beach during the
development of this project. It is also important for our permitting departments to clearly
understand all requirements prior to the City issuing grading, building and public
improvement permits for this project.
Clarification oflntent of Special Condition 2(k):
The condition indicates that construction debris and sediment "shall be disposed at a
legal disposal site outside the coastal zone." The City requests clarification as to why
construction debris and sediment may not be disposed at a legal disposal site within the
coastal zone, if such sites exist. The City is unclear as to the concern of the Commission
as to the proper disposal of construction debris and sediment, assuming the disposal is at
a "legal disposal site ", either within or outside of the coastal zone.
Hellman Ranch Comment Leiter - 5 -01- 288.&.
City ojSeal Beach Comment Letter re:
Coastal Commission Application No. 5 -01 -288
Hellman properties LLC (70 -Lot Residential Development)
November 6, 2001
Concern regarding Condition Intent and Modification of Language of Special
Condition 4.Afi):
This proposed condition indicates that walls or fencing facing the lowlands or Gum
Grove Park "shall be constructed of materials or have decorative bars which are spaced
in a manner which renders the wall or fence impassable by common domesticated
animals (e.g. dogs and cats)." (Emphasis added). The language of the proposed
condition sets, in our opinion, an impossible standard to be met, that of rendering a wall
or fence "impassable to dogs and cats ". The City understands and concurs with the
concern of the Commission regarding the potential adverse impacts of domesticated
animals to the existing lowland habitat areas and Gum Grove Park. It is impossible to
design a fence or wall that will be impassable to dogs and cats; certain types of dogs, and
particularly cats, can jump or scale fences or walls of substantial height. The City is of
the opinion that it is impossible to render a fence impassable to dogs and cats.
The subject areas of the Hellman lowlands and Gum Grove Park, and the creatures that
inhabit or visit these areas, have been exposed to domestic animals in excess of 40 years.
In an urban environment with domestic animals being kept very close to such a vacant
area, it is impossible to prohibit domestic animals. If it is the intent of the Commission to
require either a solid wall or fence, or a wall or fence with closely spaced vertical features
that would generally prohibit animals from squeezing between the closely spaced vertical
features (as appears to be the intent based on language within the last sentence of this
condition), the condition should be revised to clearly indicate that intent. The City would
recommend utilization of the standard employed for fencing around swimming pools now
required; that vertical features most not have a distance between features greater than 4
inches.
The City requests that the language be revised to read as follows, which is in
conformance with the above concerns of the City and following condition language
regarding the fence analysis recommended by Commission staff:
"4.A(i) W-fmsable Perimeter Walls and Fencing. All walls and fencing
within VTTM 15402 facing Gum Grove Park or the lowlands shall be
constructed of solid materials or have decorative bars which are spaced no
more than 4 inches apart "" " '" OF fen s@
that shall minimize the entry of common domesticated
animals (e.g. dogs and cats).... prepared by a qualified biologist which
documents that the modified walls/fencing will be impassable by
a"_. "...a_ "a __: —^'- "—a shall minimize the entry of swk domesticated
animals to environmentally sensitive habitat including adjacent wetlands"
Concern regarding Condition Intent and Modification of Language of Special
Condition 4-4 iiii) (a):
H.U.. Reach Comment Isner - 5 -01- 288.doc
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Coastal Commission Application No. 5 -01 -288
Hellman Properties LLC (70 -Lot Residential Development)
November 6, 2001
This proposed condition stipulates that "All landscaping for the entire development shall
be of southern California native plants appropriate to the natural habitat type. This
provision applies to all lots within V7TM 15402 — including but not limited to
residential lots and associated lawns or other turf on those lots — and all areas proposed
and required under this coastal development permit to be landscaped outside of VTTM
15402." (Emphasis added). Discussion of the reasons to support this proposed condition
language appears on pages 17 -19 of the Commission Staff Report. The City of Seal
Beach has very specific concerns regarding the language of the condition and the driving
forces behind the suggested condition language. First, however, the City supports
completely the utilization of southern California native plants within ". . all areas
proposed and required under this coastal development permit to be landscaped outside of
VTTM 15402." This portion of the condition applies to those areas within Gum Grove
Nature Park and the newly created puking area along Seal Beach Boulevard that we to
be dedicated to the City and incorporated into Gum Grove Nature Park.
It is requested that the proposed language be clarified to allow the replacement of existing
eucalyptus trees within Gam Grove Nature Park with other species of eucalyptus trees, as
they are not "southern California native plants ". The eventual loss of eucalyptus tree
habitat within Gum Grove Nature Park due to possible later misinterpretation of this
condition language could result in an unintended significant adverse impact upon the
ability of the monarch butterfly to continue to utilize Gum Grove Nature Park as a
wintering site. -
The City is very much concerned with the proposed impact of the condition language as
to those areas within VTTM 15402, including the open space lots and in particular the
residential home site themselves. Gum Grove Nature Park and the lowland areas of the
Hellman Ranch have been bordered for more than 40 years by the residential homes of
the "Hill" area of Seal Beach. Along Coastline Drive, Surf Place, Catalina Avenue and
Crestview Avenue there are 82 homes immediately adjacent to either the Hellman
lowlands or Gum Grove Nature Park that have been landscaped with typical suburban
landscaping, including lawn and turf areas, without any identified adverse impacts to
either the lowlands or Gam Grove Nature Park during the past 40 years.
The staff report indicates that "The Placement of any non - native Plant species within the
development, which could potentially spread to the natural habitat areas, is a threat to
the biological productivity of adjacent natural habitat and would not be compatible with
the continuance of those habitat areas" (Emphasis added). There is no indication within
the staff report as to the concurrence of this statement by a biologist of the Coastal
Commission, or to any study previously done by the Coastal Commission or other
biological consultants that are site - specific studies and that would support such a far -
reaching conclusion. Without any documentation to support this conclusion, it is a
statement of opinion and not of fact, and therefore, the determination and the resulting
condition language lacks a rational or proportional nexus, and is an inappropriate
condition.
Hellman Ranh Comment LM, - 5 -01- 288.&c
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Coastal Commission Application No. 5 -01 -188
Hellman Properties LLC (70 -Lot Residential Development)
November 6, 2001
Further, the condition language would require all of the homesites within the
development to also be landscaped only with "southern California native plants ". This
proposed provision is unacceptable to the City. To require all landscaping of every
residential lot within the development to be only of "southern California native plants" is
arbitrary, capricious, and without a reasonable nexus.
Homesites immediately adjacent to this site for more than 40 years have not had any
previously identified adverse impacts as to the types of plant species currently located
with Gum Grove Nature Park or the Hellman lowlands. These homesites are not located
within an ecologically sensitive area, they are located within an area that contains over
137 acres of ruderal grassland and 60 acres of disturbed areas and 25 acres of degraded
and severely degraded wetlands. The mderal grassland areas are disced yearly for fire
prevention purposes and the disturbed areas we primarily fill areas that has occurred
since 1922, including dredged material from the San Gabriel River and we generally
graded and barren.' The nearest homes are between 171 and 270 feet from the newest
three concentrations of wetlands. It would seem most appropriate for the Commission to
require "southern California native plants" to be utilized to the fullest extent practicable
for the common open space and recreation areas within VTTM 15402 and to encourage
the utilization by homeowners of "southern California native plants" within their private
property landscaping plans.
Portions of the common open space areas within VTTM 15402 are envisioned to be
neighborhood gathering and recreation areas for residents and visitors, and the inability to
have lawn or turf areas within portions of these common areas would be detrimental to
the purpose and intent of these gathering areas within the community.
Given the above concerns, the City would request the language of Special Condition
4.A.(iii)(a) be revised as follows:
"All landscaping for tha °- -men: all portions of VTTM
15402, except for private residential parcels, and all areas proposed
and required under this coastal development hermit to be landscaped
outside of VTTM 15402 shall be, to the fullest extent practicable of
southern California native plants appropriate to the natural habitat type.
Phis pfevision applies to all r........ hip WXP 4 154921 ifial4ding WA a
' "Heilman Ranch Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report", pages 5 -39 to 5 -41.
Hellman Ranch Comment Loner- 5 -01- 288Aoc
City of Seal Beach Comment Loner re:
Coastal Commission Application No. 5 -01 -288
Hellman Properties LLC (70 -Lot Residential Development)
November 6, 2001
native plants, and said plant palate is to be incorporated in the Codes.
Covenants and Restrictions (CC &R's) or the architectural guidelines
of the homeowner association." (The rest of the language would remain
unchanged)
Concern_ regarding Condition Intent and Modification of Language of Special
Condition 4.Afiii)(b):
This proposed condition stipulates that "The landscape plan shall identify all landscaping
for the proposed development areas including common areas, residential lots, and
landscaping along Seal Beach Boulevard." (Emphasis added). It is not reasonable to
expect landscape plans for individual homesites to be prepared and approved prior to the
issuance of the coastal development permit. Residential lot owners traditionally prepare
their own landscape plans, not the developer of the housing project. It is the
responsibility of the homeowner association, with oversight by the City, to ensure that
landscape and hardscape improvements are compatible with neighboring properties and
in compliance with the development standards of the City. The landscape plan review
process for residential lots will occur after the homes have been completed, escrows have
closed, and the new owners have moved into their homes.
The City would request the language of Special Condition 4.A.(iii)(b) be revised as
follows:
"The landscape plan shall identify all landscaping for the proposed
development areas including common areas,--s ', and
landscaping along Seal Beach Boulevard "
Concern regarding Condition Intent and Modification of Language of Special
Condition 4.Afiii)(d) in coniunction with Special Condition 4.A(iii)(1):
This proposed condition stipulates in pertinent part `.. a minimum of one specimen size
tree (14 -inch box minimum) shall be planted every 10 feet of property along the
west/northwest facing sides of . ." Special Condition 4.A(iii)(f) also requires the
landscape plan to be ".. reviewed and endorsed/approved by the California Department
of Fish and Game prior to subminal for review and approval by the Executive Director of
the Coastal Commission." It would seem more appropriate to allow the licensed
landscape architect to propose a tree spacing plan that will form a visual barrier to the
residential units from the areas of concern of the Coastal Commission and have that plan
"reviewed and endorsed lapproved by the California Department of Fish and Game ".
The approved plan would then reflect, appropriately, the design of a licensed landscape
architectural firm and the comments of the most appropriate resource agency to review
the plan. Depending on the types of trees ultimately approved, a 10 -foot spacing may be
altogether inappropriate in that trees planted that close together may ultimately compete
with each other for necessary nutrients and light if planted to closely together, resulting in
diseased and unhealthy tree specimens.
Hellman R=O Comment Lever - 5 -01 -288 Aoc
City ojSeal Beach Comment Letter re:
Coastal Commission Application No. 5 -01 -288
Hellman Properties LLC (70 -Lot Residential Development)
November 6, 2001
The City would request the language of Special Condition 4.A.(iii)(d) be revised in
pertinent part as follows (proposed revisions affect sentences 2 and 3 of said condition):
_ ^ of wRil and - ^„o ..:.:.:...�.^ :a ^_.:a:va .. ^ ....�. ^a. In addition to
shrubs and groundcover, specimen size trees (24 -inch
box minimum) shall be planted w--F5, ' ^ `eat °`--^-^-'.T , as indicated on
the approved landscape plan in such a manner as to form a visual
landscape barrier to break no large expanses of wall or roof within
the identified viewshed, along the west/northwest facing sides of.."
Concern reeardine Condition Intent and Modification of Language of Soecia[
Condition 4.A(fii)(g):
This proposed condition stipulates in pertinent part (second sentence of proposed
condition) "All landscaping on individual residential lots shall be completed within 60
days of completion of construction of the house " The reasoning for this condition for set
forth on pages 17 -19. As discussed above under Condition 4.A(iii)(a) and 4.A(iii)(b), the
nexus for this condition is questionable. The individual residential lots are between 171
to 270 feet away from the nearest three concentrations of wetlands, which are classified
as either "degraded' or "severely degraded'. Residential properties have adjoined the
Hellman lowlands and Gum Grove Nature Park for more than 40 years without any
recognized or clearly identified adverse impacts to those areas from the existing non-
native, suburban landscaping. In addition, landscaping of private residential properties,
particularly of the size and expected cost of the subject properties, has traditionally been
designed and completed by the residential property owner after they have closed escrow
on the home and taken occupancy.
It is not reasonable to expect residential lots . to be landscaped within 60 days of
construction completion; escrow on the home may not be closed within that time period
and there may be no responsible property owner at that time. To expect a purchaser of
property to either purchase a home already landscaped by the project developer or to
landscape within 60 days after construction completion, when an escrow may not close
until after the 60 day time period, is totally unrealistic. It is reasonable to require the
residential properties to be landscaped within a certain period after the close of escrow,
and the City would suggest 180 days for completion of front yard landscaping and 364
days for rear yard landscaping.
The City would request the Commission revise this condition language as follows:
"All landscaping on individual residential lots shall be completed within
60- Aa5,s -af 180 days for the front yard and 365 days for the rear yard
after asmpl @^.._ ^` ^ ^- ^`° ^° Af kW MaRm the close of escrow of each
residential lot."
Hellman Ranch Common[ I ,- 5 -01- 288.&c
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Coastal Commission Application No. 5 -01 -188
Hellman Properties LLC (70 -Lot Residential Development)
November 6, 2001
Concern regardine Condition Intent and Deletion of Special Condition 4.A fly) (a):
This proposed condition stipulates that "The proposed vehicle control gates shall be
modified to allow uninterrupted, on- street passage into and out of VTTM 15402 via
bicycle." The City disagrees with the intent of this condition, and feels it is not in
accordance with the findings and conditions of the Commission as set forth in Coastal
Permit 5 -97 -367 and 5 -97- 367 -A1. The Commission found in granting permit 5 -97 -367
the following regarding Public Access and Recreation:
"Finally, the Commission finds that there is no need to require that the
proposed subdivision's streets be public or allow public vehicular access
over private streets if public parking and a separate access entrance
point off of Seal Beach Boulevard to the parking is provided. However,
the Commission does not sanction exclusivity in the coastal zone and finds
that gates which preclude pedestrian and bicycle access cannot be
approved consistent with the access and recreation policies of the Coastal
Act. Therefore, the Commission attaches Special Condition No. 5 which
prohibits the installation of gates precluding pedestrian and bicycle
access to the subdivision proposed under Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
15402." (Emphasis added)
The Conunission subsequently found in granting permit 5 -97- 367 -A1 the following
regarding Public Access and Recreation:
"The Commission previously found that, in this case, there is no need to
require that the proposed subdivision's streets be open for public
vehicular access over the private streets so long as public parking directly
accessible from Seal Beach Boulevard is provided However, the
Commission did not sanction exclusivity in the coastal zone and found that
gates which preclude pedestrian and bicycle access cannot be found
consistent with the access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.
Therefore, any method of prohibiting public vehicular access to the
subdivision (e.g. gates) must be designed such that public pedestrian and
bicycle access to the subdivision is not impeded. The Commission finds
that these requirements must be maintained as part of the development
proposed in this amendment. However, several modifications to the
references in Special Condition 5 are necessary to update this condition.
Therefore, the Commission replaces, in its entirety, Special Condition 5
with Special Condition 18." (Emphasis added)
Special Condition 18 states in pertinent part:
Hellman Ranch Comment Un er.5 -01- 288.doc 10
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Coastal Commission Application No. 5 -07 -288
Hellman Properties LLC (70 -Lot Residential Development)
November 6, 2001
"B. Residential Community Streets (Vesting Tentative Tract Mao
No. 154021. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall execute and record
a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the
Executive Director, which shall provide that: 1) public pedestrian
and bicycle access to the streets and sidewalks constructed
within the area subject to Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
15402 shall not be precluded, 2) no locked gates, walls, fences, or
other obstructions prohibiting public pedestrian or bicycle access
to the streets and sidewalks constructed within the area subject to
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15402 shall be permitted, 3) no
requirement to allow public vehicular access over the private
streets is necessary if the applicant is willing to provide public
parking within Gum Grove Park and a separate vehicular
entrance from Seal Beach Boulevard to said public parking, 4)
.." (Emphasis added)
The Commission staff have now further expanded the previous determinations and
findings of the Commission to determine that bicycle access into and out of the proposed
residential development must only occur on the roadway, and that bicycle access is not
acceptable on the publicly available sidewalk that is immediately adjacent to the roadway
area, in clear and direct contradiction to the finding of the Commission that "no
requirement to allow public vehicular access over the private streets is necessary if
the applicant is willing to provide public parking within Gum Grove Park and a
separate vehicular entrance from Seal Beach Boulevard to said public parking ",
which the project proponent is providing. By allowing bicyclists to access the project
through the open and accessible sidewalk entry/exit locations, the clear intent of the
Commission is maintained — not allowing "gates which preclude pedestrian and bicycle
access ".
Commission staff has provided no sound reason m to why bicyclists cannot enter into the
proposed residential development on the sidewalk, as can pedestrians. This can easily be
accomplished by providing a transition ramp from Street A to the sidewalk area at an
appropriate point to allow bicyclists to either ride on the sidewalk or on Street A, go up a
transition ramp to the sidewalk if necessary, and ride on the sidewalk through the open
and accessible pedestrian/bicyclist entry feature and then either continue to ride on the
sidewalk or go down a transition ramp onto Street A, at the option of the bicyclist.
To require a continuous free access point on Street A for bicyclists would create a public
safety issue with the potential conflicts of vehicles, opening gate structures and bicyclists
that should be avoided.
The City requests that Special Condition 4.A.(iv)(a) be deleted
Hellman Ranch Commmt Letter- 5 -01- 288.doc
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Coastal Commission Application No. 5 -01 -188
Hellman Properties LLC (70 -Lot Residential Developmew)
November 6, 2001
Concern reeardine Condition Intent and Deletion o(Special Condition 4.A.6v
Proposed Special Condition 4.A.(iv)(b) stipulates "The 'entry trellis' structures which
span the sidewalk and the low wall which flanks the sidewalks at the entrance of V7TM
15401 shall be removed" The discussion regarding the reasoning for the imposition of
the condition is on pages 22 to 25. It is indicated that " .. the presence of trellis
structures spanning the sidewalks gives the sense that pedestrian entry into the
residential development is controlled and may require special permission."
Proposed Special Condition 4.A.(v)(b) stipulates "Informational and directional signage
shall be installed on both sides of Street A of =M 15401, in the locations generally
shown on Exhibit So of the findings in support of approval of this permit, which direct
public vehicular traffic toward the public parking lot required for Gum Grove Park,
which notifies the public that Pedestrian and bicycle traffic into the residential area is
allowed and welcome and which notes that vehicular access beyond the gates to the
residential area is limited to residents or guests or other authorized personnel. The
signage shall remain in place and be maintained such that it is legible and visible to
vehicular traffic and pedestrians and bicyclists using Street A." (Emphasis added).
It is unclear as to why the trellis structures are determined to provide an aspect of
"controlled entry" when the Commission is requiring clearly visible signs on both sides
of the project access road, approximately 80 feet in front of the trellis structures, that
notify the public that pedestrian and bicycle traffic into the residential area is allowed
and welcome': Assuming the Commission imposed sign notification program is
effective, it should be very clear to pedestrians that their right of entry into the residential
project is "allowed and welcome ". Further, if the sign notification is effective, then there
is no reason as to why the trellis structures could not be provided. The trellis structures
provide a sense of place for the overall residential development and are designed to work
in conjunction with the other architectural features at the entry into the residential
neighborhood and throughout the residential neighborhood to define the character of the
neighborhood inside the entry points.
Based on the assumption that the sign program proposed by the Coastal Commission staff
is adequate and effective in indicating the ability of pedestrians to into the residential
project, the prohibition of the trellis structures is unwarranted and without a rational or
proportional nexus and should be eliminated.
The City requests that Special Condition 4.A.(iv)(b) be deleted. -
Concern reeardine Condition Intent and Deletion of Special Condition SA and
Special Condition S.B.:
Proposed Special Condition 5.A. and 5.B. require approval by the Executive Director of
exterior colors of the residential structures, specify only certain colors and tones me
allowable, and require a deed restriction reflecting the above restrictions on exterior
Hellman Ranch Comment Leucr- 5,M- 288.doc 12
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Coastal Commission Application No. 5 -01 -288
Hellman Properties LLC (70 -Lot Residential Development)
November 6, 2001
colors within VTTM 15402. The City is concerned as to the intrusion of the Coastal
Commission in determining what are acceptable exterior colors of structures within the
coastal zone, and having those determinations subject to deed restrictions. The concerns
of the Coastal Commission regarding the visual impact of the structures have already
been mitigated through the use of appropriate screen planting area along the exterior
boundaries of VTTM 15402 that are adjacent to the Hellman lowlands and Gum Grove
Nature Park (Special Condition 4.A.(iii), as requested for revision by the City).
The City concurs with the Commission that landscape screening and use of native plants,
as determined appropriate by qualified landscape architects and biologists, are an
appropriate and reasonable method of ensuring compliance with Coastal Act provisions.
The City is in strong disagreement with the position of Coastal Commission staff that the
Coastal Act allows the Commission to dictate the exterior color of single family
residences, or any other structures, that are adequately screened by approved planting
from open space and recreation areas of importance to the Commission. If this position
of Commission staff is embraced by the Commission, then will the Commission also start
to dictate the exterior color of existing homes adjacent to the Hellman lowlands and Gam
Grove Nature Park that wish to add to the size of their existing homes, or to demolish an
existing home and rebuild a new residence? What about the exterior color of homes
adjacent to a public beach? Further, the City of Seal Beach does not establish by
conditions of approval the exterior colors of structures, but does allow an applicant to
present color boards to indicate to the community what the anticipated exterior colors
will be. The City also does not require any type of a permit to repaint an existing
structure, and would therefore have no mechanism to require a submission to the Coastal
Commission for such repainting of structures.
Based on the assumption that the landscape screening program proposed by the Coastal
Commission staff is adequate and effective in reducing visual impacts in compliance with
the provisions of the Coastal Act, the proposed control over the exterior color of
structures is unwarranted and without a rational or proportional nexus and should be
eliminated, as should be the proposed deed restriction requirement.
The City requests that Special Condition 5.A. and 5.13. be deleted.
Concern renardine Condition Intent and Modifmation of Lanruare of Soecia[
Condition 7.4.:
Proposed Special Condition 7.A. requires approval by the Commission of certain repair
and maintenance activities as specified in Public Resources Code Section 30610(d) and
Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 13252(a) -(b). The justification for this
requirement is unclear to the City.
Public Resources Code Section 30610(d) indicates that no coastal development permit is
required for improvements to single family homes unless there is a "risk of adverse
environmental effect', and then the provisions of Title 14, California Code of
Hellman Ranch Comment Letter5 -01- 288doe 13
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Coastal Commission Application No. 5 -01 -288
Hellman Properties LLC Q0 -Lot Residential Development)
November 6, 2001
Regulations, Sections 13250 et. seq. apply. Title 14, Section 13252, Repair and
Maintenance Activities Requiring a Permit, then indicate the types of activities that
require a permit as being: (1) any method of repair or maintenance of a seawall
revetment, bluff retaining wall, breakwater, groin, culvert, outfall, or similar shoreline
work; (2) any method of routine maintenance dredging; and (3) any repair or
maintenance to facilities or structures or work located in an environmentally sensitive
habitat area, any sand area, within 50 feet of the edge of a coastal bluff or
environmentally sensitive habitat area, or within 20 feet of coastal waters or streams.
As the City views the subject provisions of Public Resources Code and the California
Code of Regulations, it would appear that the residential homes to be constructed within
the confines of VTTM 15402 do not meet any of the above stated criteria of Section
13252 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, and have no reasonable
expectation of creating a "risk of adverse environmental effect" in accordance with the
provision of Section 30610(d) of the Public Resources Code, assuming all of the
appropriate mitigation measures of the certified Hellman Ranch Specific Plan EIR and
this coastal development permit are complied with. Therefore, there seems to be no
rational nexus for imposition of the proposed condition.
The Coastal Commission staff discussion regarding this issue is on pages 20 and 21. The
City recognizes there is a reasonable concern regarding room additions to the subject
residential units that could result in the creation of a "risk of adverse environmental
effect' in accordance with the provision of Section 30610(d) of the Public Resources
Code, and that additional coastal development permits may be required for approval of
room additions. Although this would seem to be a very unusual circumstance, it is still
an understandable concern.
The City would therefore request that the language be modified as proposed below
"Accordingly, any future room additions or
alterations that exceed the height or allowable floor area coverage of
the single family homes described in this permit, i lxdiwg I - iie I
n........_ees roie swegan nnnn(a) .._d Title in Ga4ife...:_ rode of
shall require an amendment to Permit
No 5 -01 -288 from the Commission or shall require an additional coastal
development permit from the Commission or from the applicable certified
local government"
City Support of Approval of Project, as modified by the
Recommendations of the City:
The City of Seal Beach recognizes the extensive staff and Council/Commission effort
that has been devoted to this project by both the City and Coastal Commission over the
past 12 years, and believes this final approval has been thoroughly reviewed by both the
Hellman Ranch Comment Uner- 5 -01488.doc 14
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Coastal Commission Application No. 5 -01 -288
Hellman Properties LLC (70 -Lot Residential Development)
November 6, 2001
City and Coastal Commission. The City, with the exception of the few issues discussed
above, thanks the staff of the Coastal Commission for a thorough and complete review of
this project, and stands in support of the Commission approval of the project with all
conditions, as modified by our comments above.
If you have any questions regarding this letter and the information provided, Mr. Lee
Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, will be in attendance at the time this
matter is considered by the Commission, and will be most willing to provide additional
information or respond to questions from the Commission.
Sincerely,
2 City Manager
City of Seal Beach
Distribution:
Commissioner Cynthia McClain -Hill
Commissioner Christina L. Desser
Commissioner Patrick Kruer
Commissioner Mike Reilly
Commissioner Gregg Hart
Commissioner Patricia McCoy
Executive Director Peter M. Douglas
Orange County Supervisor Steve Rynas
Dave Bartlett, Dave Bartlett Associates
F. Jerome Tone, Helhnan Properties LLC
Commissioner Cecilia Estolano
Commissioner Pedro Nava
Commissioner John Woolley
Commissioner Dave Potter
Commissioner Shirley S. Dettloff
Seal Beach City Council
Seal Beach Planning Commission
Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
City Manager
Director of Development Services
Hellman Ranch Cmnmem Leiter- S -01- 288.doc is
Receive and File — EQCB StafjReport re: City Comment Letter to
California Coastal Commission re: Application No. 5 -01-188,
Hellman Ranch Project
City Council Staf%Report
February 25, 2002
ATTACHMENT 2
NUNUTE EXCERPT, ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY CONTROL BOARD MEETING,
DECEMBER 19, 2001
EQCBSteRRc mm Hellman Lener.CCSR
'CITY OF SEAL BEACH
Environmental Quality Control Board
4 Minutes of December 19, 2001
5
6
7 The Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) meeting of December 19, 2001 was
8 called to order by Chairperson Porter at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was held in City Council
9 Chambers.
10
11 1 Pledge of Allegiance
12
13 II Roll Call
14
15 Present: Chairperson Porter, Members Hurley, Jones, Unrath, and Voce
16 Absent: None
17
18 Also
19 Present: Department of Development Services
20 Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner
21
22
23 III Approval of Agenda
24
25 Member Voce requested that Item No. 1 be removed from the Agenda and that it be
26 placed under "Scheduled Matters" on the Agenda for the January 2002 meeting.
27
28 MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by Voce to approve the Agenda as amended.
29
30 MOTION CARRIED: 5 -0
31 AYES: Hurley, Jones, Porter, Unrath, and Voce
32 NOES: None
33 ABSENT: None
35
36 IV Oral Communications
37
38 Chairperson Porter opened Oral Communications.
39
40 There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Porter closed Oral Communications.
' These Minutes were transcribed from an audiotape of the meeting.
ZACAIvarez \Carmen datatEOCBt12 -19 -01 EQCB Minutes.doc
Receive and File— EQCB StafReport re: City Comment Letter to
California Coastal Commission re: Application No. 5 -01 -288,
Hellman Ranch Project
City Council StnfReport
February 25, 2002
ATTACHMENT 3
MINUTE EXCERPT, ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY CONTROL BOARD MEETING,
JANUARY 30, 2002
EQCB Staff Re n re Hellman Uuce .CCSR
1 - 'CITY OF SEAL BEACH
2 Environmental Quality Control Board
4 Minutes of January 30, 2002
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
The Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) meeting of January 30, 2002 was
called to order by Chairperson Porter at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was held in City Council
Chambers.
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Present: Chairperson Porter, Members Jones, Unrath, and Voce
Absent: Vice - Chairperson Hurley
Also
Present: Department of Development Services
Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner
Chairperson Porter noted for the record that Vice - Chairperson Hurley has been excused
from tonight's meeting.
III Approval of Agenda
MOTION by Voce; SECOND by Jones to approve the Agenda as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
4-0-1
AYES:
Jones, Porter, Unrath, and Voce
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Hurley
IV Oral Communications
Chairperson Porter opened for Oral Communications.
There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Porter closed Oral Communications.
These Minutes were transcribed from an audiotape of the meeting.
ZACANar..lCarmen datalEQCBb1 -3"2 EQCB Minutes.docl
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of January 30, 2002
Consent Calendar
1. RECEIVE AND FILE — Receipt of Final Addendum No. 2 (Aquifier Test for IR
Site 70), Long Term Groundwater Monitoring Plan at IR Site 70, Naval
Weapons Station, Seal Beach. December 2001.
2. RECEIVE AND FILE — Memo to EQCB, Re: Seal Beach Weapons Support
Facility — Installation Restoration Program — Status Report Re: RAB Update
3. RECEIVE AND FILE — Crystal Cove Historic District Newsletter ft4.
4. RECEIVE AND FILE — Memo to EQCB, Re: Navy Comments to EQCB Letter
dated August 29, 2001.
MOTION by Voce; SECOND by Unrath to approve the Consent Calendar as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
4-0-1
AYES:
Jones, Porter, Unrath, and Voce
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Hurley
VI Scheduled Matters
5. Letter to California Coastal Commission. Re: Application No. 5 -01 -207,
Development Agreement, Hellman Properties LLC, Hellman Ranch, Seal
Beach. Letter dated November 6, 2001. Item continued from December
meeting.
Recommendation: Receive and file report.
Mr. Cummins reported that this item had been continued from the December 2001
meeting. He stated that Councilperson Yost had requested that the Director of
Development Services, Mr. Lee Whittenberg be present at tonight's meeting to respond
to questions regarding this item.
Mr. Voce stated that he had requested that this item be continued because he felt that
this item required further discussion, and also to entertain comments from individuals
that he believed are more qualified to make comments on the matters included in the
letter. For the record, Member Voce also distributed to those present a copy of his
memorandum regarding the City of Seal Beach comment letter to the California Coastal
Commission dated November 6, 2001. (A copy of this memorandum is on file for
inspection in the Department of Development Services.)
ZACAIvarezlCarmen datMEQCBW1 -3a -02 EQCB Minutes.doc2
City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of January 30, 2002
1 - Public Comment
2
3 Chairperson Porter opened for Public Comment.
4
5 Mr. David Rosenman stated that in talking with several former council people, the
6 concern is that this letter may potentially set policy for other future development issues.
7 He said that there was some question regarding how environmentally responsible some
8 of the policies were.
9
10 Mr. Guy Stivers stated that he had been invited by Member Voce to speak on this issue.
11 He noted that he has previous experience working in Seal Beach with the wildlife refuge
12 at the Naval Weapons Station (NWS) and with the Bolsa Chica wetlands. He indicated
13 that he is a contractor and licensed Landscape Architect, an Arborist, and a Certified
14 Irrigation Auditor. Mr. Stivers stated that he has been in the "green industry" for
15 approximately 25 years, wfth a third of his work being completed in the housing industry.
16 He said that currently he primarily works with homeowner associations and has worked
17 in habitat restoration and aboriculture. He reported that Member Voce had requested
18 that he review the letter written by Staff to the Coastal Commission and make
19 comments primarily on landscape issues. Mr. Stivers' then reviewed his typed report.
20 (A copy of this report is on file for inspection in the Department of Development
21 Services.)
22
23 Member Voce asked if it were possible to have a front yard landscaped with native
24 vegetation as opposed to having a front lawn. Mr. Stivers stated that he recommends
25 having only native grasses in front yards. He stated that it is not really necessary to
26 have front lawns and noted that the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC &Rs)
27 could include a restriction to having lawns only in areas of the yard where people
28 gather, and he noted that typically front yards are not gathering areas.
29
30 When Mr. Stivers read his comments regarding Gum Grove Park, Member Voce
31 interjected that the Gum Grove Park Group now realizes that the eucalyptus tress will
32 die off, and the group is planning on recommending replacement with the appropriate
33 trees native to the environment.
34
35 Member Unrath noted that eucalyptus trees appear to grow quite tall and he noted that
36 most native trees in this area do not grow to this same height as the eucalyptus. He
37 commented that if the eucalyptus trees in Gum Grove Park are replaced this might
38 affect the bird life that currently dwells in the park. Mr. Stivers stated that this could be a
39 problem, but noted that there are a large variety of native trees that could be used to
40 replace the eucalyptus.
41
42 Mr. David Rosenman asked Mr. Stivers how other communities have been able to put
43 into operation some of these types of requirements. Mr. Stivers stated that this is up to
44 the developer and the community in which the development is to be constructed. He
45 noted that specific landscape requirements could be included in the Conditions of
46 Approval and would be carried out by the landscape architect. Mr. Cummins interjected
ZSCAIvamz \Camen_data\EMM01 -3002 EOCB Minvtes.Cac3
City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of January 30, 2002
1 - that typically the CCBRs will assign review and approval of these issues to an
2 Architectural Design Review Committee.
3
4 Mr. Voce stated that he is aware that although many landscaped architects are aware of
5 native plants and tress, they don't normally use them in their plant palettes, and some
6 may even be resistant to mandates requiring the use of these plants.
7
8 Mr. Whittenberg stated that John Laing Homes has retained Tony Boncamp, a
9 landscape architect who is a past president of the California Native Plant Society. The
10 Director of Development Services stated that the California Coastal Commission's
11 (CCC) final conditions of approval for landscaping require a plant palette to come back
12 to CCC that will prohibit all invasives. He noted that in the letter to the CCC Staff had
13 commented on the issue of requiring only native grasses for front lawns and only native
14 plants for landscaping of front yards. He described some of the types of plants that
15 would not be allowed under the CCC conditions, and commented that the City is
16 concerned that residents not be so restricted with regard to how they choose to
17 landscape their own private residential property. Mr. Whittenberg stated that
18 experience has shown that most developers in this area do not provide front yard
19 landscaping. He indicated that with the high selling price range for these homes, the
20 buyers would probably not wish to have their landscaping plans pre - determined. He
21 noted that if the CCC is allowed to impose these types of conditions upon new
22 construction, this could very well lead to giving the CCC the authority to dictate the type
23 of landscaping that would be allowed when home owners are completing a remodel or
24 addition to their homes.
25
26 Mr. Rosenman commented that perhaps one of the concerns of the CCC was the
27 "uniqueness" of this project with regard to the wetlands restoration aspects.
28
29 Mr. Whittenberg stated that when dealing with the CCC previous experience has shown
30 that they are normally concerned with plantings that occur within 100 feet of what the
31 CCC considers to be sensitive habitat areas and wetland areas. He noted that the
32 homes on the Hellman Project are between 270 and 340 feet away from any existing
33 identified wetland or sensitive habitat areas on that property. He commented that
34 although Gum Grove Park is considered a sensitive habitat area, there are homes that
35 back up immediately to Gum Grove Park along the entire length of Crestview Avenue
36 and Surf Place. He said that this was the reason Staff was not concerned with the
37 homes to be constructed on the Hellman property. The Director of Development
38 Services then stated that there had to be limits as to how much say the CCC could have
39 with regard to what homeowners wish to plant in their yards.
40
41 Member Voce again reiterated that the critical key is still the landscape architect. He
42 stated that he knows Mr. Boncamp and although he is a very knowledgeable botanist,
43 he is not a licensed landscape architect. He noted that many times the developer would
44 rely on the landscape architect in terms of marketing their project. He continued by
45 stating that he was not certain whether Gum Grove Park had, in fact, been declared a
46 sensitive area by any agency. He expressed his concerns with the park having been
Z:\CAWMZ \Carmen data \EQCBM.30 -02 EQCB Mmutes.doc4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of January 30, 2002
turned into a dog park, and how now it is abused by large dogs that run around and
flush out any fauna that would otherwise be established there. He questioned why dogs
were allowed to run in this park if it has been classified as a sensitive habitat area.
Member Voce noted his concem that residents of the State of California are not moving
in the direction of native plants and consequently, the population is totally unfamiliar
with what these plants are. He stated that possibly another agency does need to
impose restrictions to send the message that this is not a question of property rights, but
a question of the quality of the environment. He indicated that this involves the question
of not repeating the mistakes of the past and moving into a more enlightened
environmental prospect as regards to landscaping. He explained that birds consume
plants in one location and then excrete seeds in another location, negating any
specified distances from sensitive areas. He noted that invasives take away the space
that would otherwise be occupied by native plants, creating a displacement situation.
He stated that living near to the beach or near wetlands areas isn't just a right, but also
a privilege that requires better environmental vigilance.
Mr. Bruce Monroe stated that he represents the Sierra Club Marine Committee and
provided a brief background of the Sierra Club's beginnings. He noted that he is also a
resident of Seal Beach. He introduced a book edited by Jody Ziegler about the
restoration of tidal wetlands, and noted that Ms. Ziegler states that the wetlands will
never be restored to their original full function. Mr. Monroe then noted that despite the
millions of dollars that have already been invested in restoration, wetlands areas within
Southern California will continue to erode as a result of a variety of environmental
disturbances: He then provided copies of the textbook INFRA STRUCTURES by
Malcolm Wells, which describes how to construct earth - covered buildings or structures.
He also provided copies of draft language from a proposal on special requirements for
homes within natural habitat areas.
Member Jones asked for a definition of earth - covered buildings, which Mr. Monroe
described as a standard building constructed to allow for a layer of earth across the top
of a roof for planting plants. Mr. Monroe stated that these structures are less expensive
to construct, to heat and cool, and to maintain. Member Jones questioned the roofing
materials to be used to support the weight of the soil. Mr. Monroe noted that composite
material rather than wood would be used for the roof of such a structure. He continued
by encouraging homeowners and developers to work toward enhancing and preserving
the environment.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Porter closed the Public
Comment period.
Member Voce made a motion to forward the information presented along with a copy of
the Staff Report to City Council. Mr. Whittenberg noted that although he understood the
Board's concerns regarding the comment letter, it has been sent, received, and acted
upon by the CCC by making revisions to their Staff Report. He stated that the content
of the letter cannot be changed. Member Voce asked whether City Council had been
provided with a copy of the Director of Development Services Staff Report to EQCB
ZACAlvamz \Carmen data%EQCB101 -30 -02 EQCB Minules.Eoc5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
City of Seat Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of January 30, 2002
dated December 6, 2001. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this document had not been
provided to City Council members. Member Voce stated that he would like to have this
forwarded to the Council members in addition to copies of Mr. Stivers report for
reference on future projects.
MOTION by Voce; SECOND by Porter to Receive and File Staff Report Re: City
Comment Letter to California Coastal Commission Re: Application No. 5 -01 -288,
Hellman Ranch Project, Dated December 19, 2001, and forward to City Council for
information purposes along with information and comments presented tonight.
MOTION CARRIED:
4-0-1
AYES:
Jones, Porter, Unrath, and Voce
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Hurley
Z:1CANarez \Carmen daW\ECCBWI3042 EQCB Minures.doc6
Receive and File —EQCB StaffRepor/ re: City Comment Letter to
California Coastal Commission re: Application No. 5 -01 -288,
Hellman Ranch Project
City Council StaffReport
February 25, 2002
ATTACHMENT 4
MEMORANDUM, UNDATED, FROM MARIO
VOCE RE: COMMENTS REGARDING
LETTER FROM CITY OF SEAL BEACH TO
THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
DATED NOVEMBER 6, 2001
EQCB Smff Report m Hellman Uaer.CCSR
TO: EQCB and Staff of the City of Seal Beach
FROM: Mario Voce, EQCB Member District 3
RE: Comments regarding letter from City of Seal Beach to the
California Coastal Commission dated November 6, 2001
The unnecessary letter by the City Staff to the CCC has embarrassed the
City and it's leadership.
Due to explained time constraints, it would have been better for the City
Staff not to have sent any comment letter, at all, than to send any letter
to another government agency without adequate board and city council
review.
If a communication were to happen regarding VTTM 15402 at all, it would
have been appropriate for the project proponent, not the City, to make
such comments.
First, use of the words "impossible to render a fence impossible to dogs
and cats ", at the bottom of the first paragraph on page 5 may not be true
at all.
In the next paragraph ...... the creatures that inhabit or visit these areas,
have been exposed to domestic animals in excess of 40 years. ",
demonstrates the interruption of fauna in the area by domestic animals.
This is one of the causal reasons of further degradation of the environs
that contain wetlands, and underscores the necessity to keep all
domestic animals out of the area. This is especially important given the
slated wetland and upland restoration. In other words, "minimize the
entry of domesticated animals" is insufficient.
Regarding the monarch butterfly noted in second paragraph on page 6,
the current use of Gum Grove Park by monarch butterflies needs to be
established. Indigenous flora, including trees, suitable for over wintering
or bivouac needs to be researched and established.
In the last paragraph on page 6, regarding the lack of documentation on
the spread of non native plant species by any vector, one could simply
ask the CCC for such relevant documentation. Instead, the letter went
out stating, "language lacks a rational or proportional nexus, and is an
inappropriate condition."
The statement in the first paragraph on page 7, "To require all
landscaping... to be only of 'southern California native plants' is arbitrary,
capricious, and without a reasonable nexus." At best, this statement is
highly debatable if not downright false. The "reasonable nexus" may
indeed exist.
Page 8, last paragraph states, "It would seem more appropriate to allow
the licensed landscape architect... from the areas of concern ", it needs to
be pointed out that not all landscape architects have indigenous flora
experience, and many still resist native plant mandates that would have a
complicating effect with flora choice and planning.
In all, the letter served to weaken the environmental special conditions of
the CCC in such a way as to make the City of Seal Beach appear as an
agent for the project proponent, not a municipal entity interested in the
best environmental requirements, and anxious not to repeat the mistake
of the past 40 years and longer.
We do have a special responsibility as a coastal city to that goal
Receive and File — EQCB StaffReport re: City Comment Letter to
California Coastal Commission re: Application No. 5 -01 -288,
Hellman Ranch Project
City Council Staff Report
February 25, 2002
ATTACHMENTS
MEMORANDUM DATED JANUARY 28, 2002
FROM GUY STIVERS TO MARIO VOCE RE:
HELLMAN RANCH PROJECT, CITY OF
SEAL BEACH COMMENTS ON COASTAL
COMMISSION SPECIAL CONDITIONS
EQCB Staff Report re Hellman Lener.CCSR
Date: January 28, 2002
To: Mr. Mario Voce
From: Guy Stivers
Re: Hellman Ranch project, City of Seal Beach comments on Coastal Commissions
Special Conditions:
Special Condition 4.A. (1), the Coastal Commission wants: "All walls and fencing within
VTTM 15402 facine Gum Grove Park or the lowlands shall be constructed of solid
materials or have decorative bars which are spaced no more than 4 inches apart that shall
minimize the entry of common domesticated animals (does & cats) ...........
City staff asserts that "it is impossible to design a fence or wall that will be impassable to
dogs and cats; certain types of dogs, and particularly cats, can jump or scale fences or
walls of substantial height. The City is of the opinion that it is impossible to render a
fence impassable to dogs and cats."
My opinion: Glass walls are commonly used fencing in high -end communities throughout
southern California. They are visually appealing, reduce noise, enhance views, are low
maintenance, flexible, cost competitive and do a better job of containing domestic cats
and dogs. It is dcultfor even cats to negotiate the smooth glass panels with narrow
tops (7/. " wide panels). Glass walls are widely used in coastal communities such as
Laguna Niguel, San Clemente and Laguna Beach.
Special Condition 4.A. (iii) (a), the Coastal Commission wants: "All landscapin for
or the
entire development shall be southern California native plants appropriate to the natural
VTTM 15402."
City staff wants: All landscaping for all portions of VTTM 15402 except for private
residential parcels and all areas proposed and required under this coastal development
permit to be landscaped outside of VTTM 15402 shall be to the fullest extent practicable
of southern California native plants appropriate to the natural habitat type. All residential
lot owners shall be encouraged to utilize southern California native plants within their
private property landscape plans to the greatest extent practicable. The homeowner
association shall prepare a recommended plant palette to reflect the characteristics of
each style of residential structure that shall incorporate southern California native plants
and said plant palate is to be incorporated in the CCRs and the architectural guidelines of
the HOA.
My opinion: There are many southern California native plants that would work well in
offsite street medians, parking lots and in Gum Grove Nature Park
The entire community should have one unifying architectural theme that is compatible
with southern coastal California environments. Mediterranean, California colonial or
craftsman architectural styles would be appropriate. A good example of this can be seen
in Coto de Coza where there is generally one architectural theme with mostly native
vegetation (coastal sage scrub) used in the common areas. Homeowners are restricted to
southern California native vegetation, some Mediterranean type non - natives and
absolutely no invasive plants. Coto de Caza has won national planning awards for their
environmentally sensitive landscape designs (Urban Land Institute).
The developer should provide "typical front and rear yards" as part of the purchase
price of the house; it makes good marketing sense and is a common practice in the
housing industry. In a good housing market, where homes are selling briskly,
homeowners could even be provided with several design choices. It takes the burden off
of the homeowner to fnish their landscape in a narrow time frame.
Whatever the situation, typical front yards (approx. 1,500 sq. f.) should be 100 %
southern California native vegetation; non - native grasses should not be allowed. Rear
yards areas (approximately 2, 000 -sq. f.) should consist of 25% hardscape, 25% native
vegetation and 50% non - invasive grass lawns. Invasive ornamental grasses, such as
Bermuda, St. Augustine and certain fescues, would not be allowed If the homeowner
wants to supplement their landscapes the developer should provide them with CCR's
design guidelines and a suitable native plant palette. All landscape improvements should
follow the community design guidelines.
Staff asserts if the Coastal Commission had their provision the "eucalyptus trees in Gum
Grove Nature Park would have to be replaced with natives and that this will have a
significant adverse impact upon the ability of the monarch butterfly to continue to utilize
Gum Grove Nature Park as a wintering site."
My opinion: Before there were eucalyptus trees monarch butterflies wintered on
California native vegetation such aspines, bays, myrtles, oaks, toyon, thus, buckwheat,
etc. The existing eucalyptus trees are diseased and senescing; they may have another
twenty years of life in them. After the eucalyptus are gone then what?
My opinion: Plant palettes for the entire community should be developed by the following
experts and agencies:
• A licensed landscape architect with experience in native plant design and installation,
habitat restoration (specific to southern California coastal sage scrub and riparian)
and arboriculture;
• A qualified biologist specializing in habitat ecology and restoration (specific to
southern California coastal sage and riparian); and
• Reviewed and approved by the Californian Department offish and Game and the
Seal Beach Quality Control Board