HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem POctober 9, 2000
STAFF REPORT
To: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Attention: Donald F. McIntyre, Acting City Manager
From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
Subject. COMMENT LETTER RE: COASTAL
COMMISSION STAFF REPORT: PERMIT
AMENDMENT - APPLICATION NO. 5-97-367-A1
(HELLMAN PROPERTIES)
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Authorize approval of letter with any modifications determined appropriate, instruct Mayor to sign
proposed Comment Letter. Receive and File Staff Report.
DISCUSSION
The City has received a copy of the "Staff Report — Permit Amendment 5-97-367-A1, Hellman
Properties LLC. The amendment request before the Coastal Commission is to change the
proposed project description to:
o eliminate a 100 -acre golf course and associated wetland impacts and wetland restoration;
o add a deed restriction reserving 100 acres of lowlands for acquisition for wetlands restoration;
o expand the footprint of the 704ot residential subdivision from 14.9 to 18.4 acres;
o reduce mass grading from 1.6 million cubic yards to 420,000 cubic yards;
o eliminate proposed development on the State Lands Commission parcel;
o construct a bio-swale, riparian corridor and water quality basin; and
C) include changes to the language of previously imposed special conditions.
This project was initially approved by the City in 1997, and subsequently by the Coastal
Commission in 1998. Since that time, the coastal permit has been subject to litigation and a
settlement agreement. The settlement agreement document has as its basic purpose the resolution of
AGENDA ITEM P
C:WyDmummlaWellmui Wnly RwmetionWell Costal PmwA =dmem.CC SWFRep &cLL. l"5-0
City Comment Letter re: Permit Amendment 5-97-367-A1, Hellman Ranch
City Council Staff Report
October 9, 2000
litigation by remanding the subject project to the Coastal Commission for consideration of a modified
Project that would:
o Eliminate development within and impacts to wetlands that would have been caused by the golf
course portion which, in the opinion of the petitioners, would have resulted in the fill of 17.9
acres of"existing" wetlands, and
o Allow the balance of the project within the upland areas to proceed.
As a result of the settlement agreement, an amended project for the upland area has previously
been submitted to the City for conformance with the provisions of the existing "Hellman Ranch
Specific Plan". On May 5, 2000, the Director of Development Services determined the project
amendments to the residential and Gum Grove Park areas were consistent with the provisions of
the Specific Plan, and approved those amendments. A copy of that determination was provided
to the City Council. Refer to Attachment 3 for a copy of the determination of the Director of
Development Services.
An amended project has now been submitted to the Coastal Commission in conformance with the
provisions of the settlement agreement. As indicated above, the revised project eliminates the
golf course and the direct impacts upon wetlands that were previously controversial and carries
forward a revised residential subdivision plan.
As set forth by the Coastal Commission staff, the major issues raised by the revised project
proposal are impacts upon ruderal uplands which presently provide foraging habitat for raptors
and the maintenance of water quality. By addressing water quality issues and compensation for
losses to raptor foraging habitat, some of the land the applicant is proposing for deed restriction
for wetlands restoration will be committed to supporting water quality treatment structures and
providing replacement raptor foraging habitat. This situation results in potential constraints on
future wetland restoration in the lowlands.'
Coastal Commission staff is recommending approval of the amendment application with special
conditions, as follows:
o The carrying forward of previously approved, applicable, special conditions;
o Implementation of the lowland deed restriction, addressing the concerns regarding
displacement of future wetlands restoration by requiring that any land which is in the proposed
deed restricted area which is now going to be used for water quality and raptor foraging
habitat purposes must be replaced by restriction of land elsewhere on the property for wetland
restoration purposes;
o Gum Grove Park dedication conditions;
LI Public Access Program conditions;
' Permit Amendment 5 -97 -367 -AI, Coastal Commission Staff Report, September 21, 2000, page 2.
nd� cowl PaMt Antal CC suffaepon 2
City Comment Letter re: Permit Amendment 5-97-367-A1, Hellnwn Ranch
City Council Staff Report
October 9, 2000
❑ Archaeology conditions;
❑ Submission of final plans for the water quality structures;
❑ Identification and deed restriction of at least 9.2 acres of raptor foraging habitat and the
management of that habitat as raptor foraging habitat;
❑ Implementation of the proposed water quality program (including bio-swale and detention
basin), with such facilities designed to mitigate runoff up to the 85t° percentile 24-hour event;
❑ Deed restriction of land to support the required water quality treatment system;
❑ Construction related requirements to address construction related requirements to avoid
impacts to existing wetlands; and
❑ Strict compliance with the proposal as conditioned by the Coastal Commission
Coastal Commission Staff Report. -
The Coastal Commission Staff Report, pages 1-52 are provided as Attachment 2 for the information of
the City Council. The remaining portions of the Coastal Commission Staff Report are available at the
Department of Development Services for review. The remaining portions of the Coastal Commission
Staff Report include: Appendix A — Previously Imposed Special Conditions of Approval Imposed by
the Commission on September 9, 1998; Appendix B — Substantive File Documents; various map
exhibits; letters re: biological assessments, wetland impacts and water quality treatment system; letters
received as of September 8, 2000 regarding the proposed project (1 letter regarding wetland
acquisition, 71 letters regarding archaeological concerns, 1 letter urging no homes, and 2 letters
regarding dogs in Gum Grove Park); and applicants response to selected issues raised in the letters
received as of September 26 regarding the proposed project.
The Coastal Commission Staff Report, without attachments and exhibits, may also be downloaded at
www.coastal.ca.gov
Pr000sed Comment Letter:
The subject staff report does appear to generate concerns that require comment by the City. Staff has
prepared a response letter for the consideration of the City Council, provided as Attachment 1. This
comment letter reflects review of the subject document by the Planning Department, based on previous
concems expressed by the City Council during previous Coastal Commission consideration of the
Hellman Ranch Specific Plan.
The comment letter addresses several issues and concerns, summarized below:
E3 Bio-Swale/Water Quality Basin/Riparian Corridor and BWior Habttat Area Concem
Commission staff indicates several purposes of wetland areas on page 27 of the Staff Report,
indicating ".. wetlands also serve as statural filtering mechanisms to help remove pollutants from
storm mnoff before the runoff enters into streams and rivers leading to the ocean. Further,
Hd m Co I]`AmeMmm .CC Siadaryon
City Comment Letter re: Permit Anleldmeit 5-97-367-A1, HelNmn Ranch
City Council Staff Report
October 9, 2000
wetkmds serve as whwal flood retention areas." As the City understands the purpose of the "bio-
swale, water quality basin and riparian corridor" proposed by the project proponent, the proposed
facilities would accomplish the exact actions Commission staff indicates a wetland should
accomplish. If that is the case, the bio-swale/water quality basin/riparian corridor can clearly and
convincingly be included within the 100 -acre deed restricted area.
o Gran Grove Park Public Parkin¢Area on Seal Beach Boulevard:
As indicated in previous letters and in public testimony before the Coastal Commission, the
City of Seal Beach continues to strongly disfavor conditions of approval regarding Crum
Grove Park. The proposed "public trail and parking area" from Seal Beach Boulevard to
Gum Grove Park would create a safety and security hazard, and does not further any Coastal
Act goal or objective, in the opinion of the City.
Provision of a rest area, with bicycle racks to lock a bicycle while touring Gum Grove Park on
foot, for bicyclist's who may wish to access Gum Grove Park from Seal Beach Boulevard
would be an acceptable alternative to the City. This would allow a reasonable public access
point to the park area, and greatly relieve the concerns of City regarding criminal activity by
not providing an easy get -away location for criminals using motor vehicles.
o Timing ofArchaeolo¢ical lnvesttgations:
It is a concern to the City that the archaeological investigations approved under Special
Condition 19 cannot begin until the deed restriction is approved and recorded. It would seem
reasonable to allow the archaeological investigations to commence, and as presently
conditioned by Commission staff, to not allow any grading activities for project
implementation to begin until the deed restriction is approved and recorded and the terms of
Special Condition 19 have been complied with.
This process would allow the lengthy period of field investigation, laboratory analysis, and
report preparation of the archaeological investigations to begin upon acceptance of the
conditions by the project proponent, while still protecting the concerns of the Commission
regarding the recording of the deed restriction and the completion of the archaeological
investigations prior to project vitiation.
FISCAL EWPACT
Potential direct fiscal impacts to the City of Seal Beach due to increased law enforcement demand due
to increased public access to Gum Grove Park from new parking lot on Seal Beach Boulevard.
Further delay of project implementation due to the proposed timing of archaeological investigations
nehmen Co lPermit Amwdm LCC St Repon 4
City Comment Letter re: Permit Amendment 3-97-367-A1, Helloran Ranch
City Council Staff Report
October 9, 1000
wellmudr serve ar natural flood retention areas." As the City understands the purpose of the "bio-
swale, water quality basin and riparian corridor" proposed by the project proponent, the proposed
facilities would accomplish the exact actions Commission staff indicates a wetland should
accomplish. If that is the case, the bio-swale/water quality basin/riparian corridor can clearly and
convincingly be included within the 100 -acre deed restricted area.
o Gum Grove Park Public Parking Area on Seal Beach Boulevard:
As indicated in previous letters and in public testimony before the Coastal Commission, the
City of Seal Beach continues to strongly disfavor conditions of approval regarding Gum
Grove Park. The proposed "public trail and parking area" from Seal Beach Boulevard to
Gum Grove Park would create a safety and security hazard, and does not further any Coastal
Act goal or objective, in the opinion of the City.
Provision of a rest area, with bicycle racks to lock a bicycle while touring Gum Grove Park on
foot, for bicyclist's who may wish to access Gum Grove Park from Seal Beach Boulevard
would be an acceptable alternative to the City. This would allow a reasonable public access
point to the park area, and greatly relieve the concerns of City regarding criminal activity by
not providing an easy get -away location for criminals using motor vehicles.
u Timing ofArchaeological hrvesti atm ions:
It is a concern to the City that the archaeological investigations approved under Special
Condition 19 cannot begin until the deed restriction is approved and recorded. It would seem
reasonable to allow the archaeological investigations to commence, and as presently
conditioned by Commission staff, to not allow any grading activities for project
implementation to begin until the deed restriction is approved and recorded and the terms of
Special Condition 19 have been complied with.
This process would allow the lengthy period of field investigation, laboratory analysis, and
report preparation of the archaeological investigations to begin upon acceptance of the
conditions by the project proponent, while still protecting the concerns of the Commission
regarding the recording of the deed restriction and the completion of the archaeological
investigations prior to project initiation.
FISCAL EMPACT
Potential direct fiscal impacts to the City of Seal Beach due to increased law enforcement demand due
to increased public access to Gum Grove Park from new parking lot on Seal Beach Boulevard.
Further delay of project implementation due to the proposed timing of archaeological investigations
Md an C"uul Pm A =m miCC Staff Repos 4
City Comment Letter re: Permit Amendment 5-97-367-A1, Hellman Rwch
City Council Staff Report
October 9, 2000
after recording of the appropriate deed restriction document, resulting in loss of funds to the City
General Fund for an unknown period of time.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize approval of letter with any modifications determined appropriate, instruct Mayor to sign
proposed Response Letter. Receive and File Staff Report.
WX
- -r 1-41 IMPS
-
Attachments: (3)
NOTED AND APPROVED
Donald F. Mc re
Acting City Manager
Attachment 1: Draft Comment Letter re: "Permit Amendment No. 5 -97 -367 -Al - Hellmrm
Properties LLC"
Attachment 2: "Permit Amendment No. 5-97-367-A P, Coastal Commission Staff Report
dated September 21, 2000, without exhibits and attachments (Pages 1 through
52 provided)
Attachment 3: Memorandum - Hellman Ranch Specific Plan File - Ministerial Approval of
Administrative Amendments, May 5, 2000
HdM.Coastal Pamir Am.E tCCStaff Repos
City Continent Letter re: Permit Amendment 5-97-367-A1, Hellman Ranch
City Council Staff Report
October 9, 2000
ATTAMAENT I
DRAFT COMMENT LETTER RE: "PERMIT
AMENDMENT NO. 5 -97 -367 -Al - HELLMAN
PROPERTIES LLC'
Herrman Cominl Pa A .&im CC Suff RVp
October 9, 2000
Sara Wan, Chairperson
Califomia Coastal Commission
45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105-2219
Dear Chairperson Wan and Commissioners:
SUBJECT: COASTAL PERMIT 5 -97 -367 -AI, HELLMAN RANCH
RESERVE PROJECT - CITY OF SEAL BEACH
CONCERNS RE: SPECIAL CONDITIONS
The City has reviewed the Coastal Commission Staff Report regarding the above -
referenced permit amendment application, supports the staff recommendation for
approval with special conditions, and generally concurs with the proposed 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.
Getting such a controversial project before the Commission has entailed a long and
delicate balancing process. We fear that the staffs proposed conditions, if adopted, will
upset that balance. We urge the Commission to approve the project in its proposed form
to ensure that this incredible opportunity to provide for the creation of a 100 -acre deed -
restricted area for future restoration of coastal wetlands and preservation of open space
through limited density residential development will not be lost.
In reviewing the Commission Staff Report, the City believes the analysis and conclusions
of staff are generally acceptable, with concerns regarding the following issues that are
discussed in relation to the proposed Special Condition recommended by Commission
staff:
1. The City Requests Modifications to Proposed Special Condition 16 — Reservation of
Potential for Lowlands Acquisition for Wetlands Restoration.
C: My Doc men NHellmen Wet dReatmn mi ellmen Coe lPo it endmenLCC Comment Letmr.doc\LWgG-09
City of Seal Beach Comment letter re:
Coastal Commission Permit Amendment 5-97-367-A1, Hellman Ranch
October 9, 2000
Summary of Request: Amend condition to allow bio-swale and raptor foraging
area within the 100 -acre deed -restricted wetland restoration area.
Rationale: (1) Consistent with settlement agreement allowing open space, and
(2) creation of bio -diversity within the 100 -acre deed -restricted area.
Analysis: The City is unclear as to the rationale behind the recommended
exclusion from the 100 -acre deed restricted area of the bio-swale and water quality basin
and the raptor foraging habitat area. As indicated in the Commission Staff Report, the
written settlement agreement, signed by the Executive Director of the Coastal
Commission indicates:
"The basis purpose of this Agreement is to resolve litigation by remanding
the subject project to the Coastal Commission for consideration of a
modified project as set forth in Exhibit "A" that would: (1) eliminate
development within and impacts to wetlands that would have been caused by
the golf course portion which would have resulted in the fill of 17.9 acres of
existing wetlands; and (2) allow the balance of the project within the upland
areas to proceed forward ..."
Bio SwaleMater OuaIity Basin/Riparian Corridor and Raptor Habitat Area Concern:
Commission staff indicates several purposes of wetland areas on page 27 of the Staff
Report, indicating ".. wetlands also serve as natural filtering mechanisms to help
remove pollutants from storm runoff before the runoff' enters into streams and rivers
leading to the ocean. Further, wetlands serve as natural flood retention areas." As the
City understands the purpose of the "bio-swale, water quality basin and riparian
corridor' proposed by the project proponent, the proposed facilities would accomplish
the exact actions your staff indicates a wetland should accomplish. Please refer to
Exhibit 7, pages 13-15 of 18 for a fuller discussion of the benefits of the proposed "bio-
swale/water quality basin/riparian corridor". If that is the case, the bio-swale/water
quality basin/riparian corridor can clearly and convincingly be included within the 100 -
acre deed restricted area.
Commission staff indicate on page 32, `9n order to assure that the proposed
approximately 100 acre deed restricted area provides the identified acreage for possible
restoration space, the area committed to the bio-swale and water quality basin, as well
as needed replacement raptor foraging habitat should be deleted from the 100 acres and
offset." It appears the staff is attempting to not allow an area that will clearly meet the
definition of a "wetland" to be included within an agreed upon 100 -acre deed restricted
area that is to be restricted for "... wetlands restoration, open space and environmental
education purposes" (Special Condition 10.A.3). The proposed "bio-swale/water quality
basin/riparian corridor" area may actually consist of the fust stage of a wetland
restoration and open space program on the Hellman Ranch, creating a substantial
number of acres of native wetland habitat vegetated with emergent marsh and riparian
species in an area of current ruderal upland habitat determined to not be appropriate for
saltmarsh restoration due to the elevation and the muted tidal flow to the Hellman Ranch
Hellman Co W Permit Amendmen,.CC Comment tarter
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Coastal Commission Permit Amendment 5-97-367-A1. Hellman Ranch
October 9, 2000
site. It would be dependent upon seasonal rainfall and local runoff for any wetland
value, and the proposed program would seem to be an enhancement to that type of
wetland within the Hellman Ranch.
In regards to the raptor foraging habitat issue, Commission staff indicates on page 35
that the raptor foraging habitat cannot be integrated into the 100 -acre deed restricted
area, as allowing it to be included would not maintain the offer of deed restriction as a
bona -fide offer consistent with the settlement agreement. Again, the City is unclear as
to the reasoning behind the position. Commission staff indicates there are
approximately 27 acres of wetlands in the Lowland area and that approximately 70 acres
of ruderal habitat identical to that being lost for the construction of the homes presently
exist within the 100 -acre deed restricted area. It is understood that any final wetland
restoration plan will be submitted to the Coastal Commission for approval, but it is
difficult to picture any wetland restoration plan not including a significant amount of
ruderal habitat that will serve as raptor foraging habitat also. Cannot the ruderal habitat
areas of a wetland restoration plan also serve as raptor foraging habitat? What is the
biological differences of the ruderal habitat, if also considered to be raptor foraging
habitat, that do not allow it be considered as within the defined uses under the terms of
the settlement agreement for the 100 -acre deed restricted area to be utilized for ". .
wetlands restoration, open space and environmental education purposes"?
The City of Seal Beach respectfully requests the Commission to determine the proposed
"bio-swaletwater quality basin/riparian corridor" area and the `raptor foraging habitat"
to be appropriate to be included within the 100 -acre deed restricted area for "wetlands
restoration, open space and environmental education purposes", and request your staff to
modify the language of Special Condition 16 accordingly.
2. The City Requests Modification to Proposed Special Condition 17 — Gum Grove Park
Summary of Request: (1) Eliminate parking lot for vehicles, and (2) provide a
staging area for pedestrians and bicycles.
Rational: (1) Crime, (2) security, (3) public access to park is presently provided, and
(4) minimize vandalism of the natural environment.
Analysis: As indicated in previous letters and in public testimony before the Coastal
Commission, the City of Seal Beach continues to strongly disfavor conditions of
approval regarding Gum Grove Park. The proposed "public trail and parking area"
from Seal Beach Boulevard to Gum Grove Park would create a safety and security
hazard, and does not further any Coastal Act goal or objective, in the opinion of the
City. We doubt very much there is a nexus between the present application and this
condition.
Gum Grove Park presently has a public access point, and the City is not in objection
to the signage program of the Coastal Commission regarding the existing public
H,11.0 W Permit Amendment.LC Comment Lener 3
City of Sea( Beach Comment Letter re:
Coastal Commission Permit Amendment 5 -97 -367 -Al, Neuman Ranch
October 9, 2000
entrance location. A second public access point would appear to be unwarranted. A
similar facility, EI Dorado Nature Center, in the City of Long Beach, is approximately
107 acres in area and provides a single public access point. This allows for better
supervision and maintenance of the natural environment that is the focus of being
preserved, and has not deterred persons from entering and enjoying that facility. The
City is hopeful the Commission will re -think its position, and determine to eliminate
the vehicular parking lot on Seal Beach Boulevard.
The public parking area could threaten the safety and security of the existing
residences that abut the Hellman property and the proposed homes. It would be
simple for a person to access those residences for criminal purposes by parking in the
proposed public parking lot, access homes from the proposed trail, and easily leave
the area from the public parking area on Seal Beach Boulevard. This proposal by
Commission staff will create a significant additional burden for our police department
to patrol the trail, in an area where police vehicles will not be able to travel. Cities
frequently accept that additional burden where necessary to promote the public's use
of our coastline, but not in a situation where the proposed access trail serves no real
purpose in relation to coastal access.
As an alternative to a vehicular parking area, provision of a rest area, with bicycle
racks to lock a bicycle while touring Gum Grove Park on foot, for bicyclists who may
wish to access Gum Grove Park from Seal Beach Boulevard would be an acceptable
alternative to the City. This would allow a reasonable public access point to the park
area, and greatly relieve the concerns of City regarding criminal activity by not
providing an easy get -away location for criminals using motor vehicles.
While the City recognizes the need for, and supports where appropriate, coastal
access trails, this proposed trail does not further any policy in the Coastal Act, and is
outside the Commission's authority. The Coastal Act requires the provision of public
access to the Coast and to certain coastal resources. The proposed trail does neither.
Rather than a coastal resource, the proposed trail would provide access not to a
coastal resource, but to a public park, for which entirely adequate public access is
already provided by the City. The proposed trail also would provide a path from one
major street - Seal Beach Boulevard — to an existing public parking lot already in
existence within Gum Grove Park. But this proposed trail would never go near the
coast, and the public is to be excluded from the future wetland restoration area the
trail might approach. Further, there has been no historic access across the property,
which has been privately owned and fenced for many years. Again, the issue of the
appropriate nexus to impose the trail condition, in the opinion of the City, is lacking.
3. The City Requests Clarifications Regarding Proposed Special Condition 19 Archaeology
Summary of Request: Allow the City's required archaeological testing program to
commence upon applicant's acceptance of Special Conditions
Hcllm CMM Perrot Amcndmcnt.CC C --' Lem'
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Coastal Commission Permir Amendmem 5-97-367-A1, Hellman Ranch
October 9, 2000
Rational: The archaeological investigation does not include any grading of the site,
only shovel probes and test pits, all done by hand. This program can be accomplished
prior to any grading of the site and during the applicant's satisfaction of the special
conditions of approval and recordation of deed restrictions.
Analysis: It is of concern to the City that the archaeological investigations that are
required under Special Condition 19A cannot begin until the several deed restrictions
required by the Commission are approved and recorded. It would seem reasonable to
allow the archaeological investigations to commence, and as presently conditioned by
Commission staff, to not allow any grading activities for project implementation to
begin until the deed restrictions are approved and recorded and the remaining terms
of Special Condition 19 have been complied with.
This process would allow the lengthy period of field investigation, laboratory
analysis, and report preparation of the archaeological investigations to begin upon
acceptance of the conditions by the project proponent, while still protecting the
concerns of the Commission regarding the recording of the deed restriction and the
completion of the archaeological investigations prior to any grading on the site.
Our staff has reviewed the many letters received by the Commission regarding
archaeology issues and the response to the issues raised in those letters by the
applicant's response. The Commission staff has previously requested much
information from the City regarding this issue, and the requested information has
been provided. The Commission should be reminded the "Research Design" was
subject to City review and approval by the Archaeological Advisory Committee of
the City and the City Council. As part of the review and approval process by the
City, the "Research Design" document was peer-reviewed by three archaeologist's
that have performed substantial cultural research efforts in the southern California
region: Dr. Jon Erlandson - University of Oregon; Dr. Mark Raab - Cal State
Northridge; and Dr. Roger Mason — Chambers Group, Inc.
During the public review and approval process of the "Research Design", the entire
research design document was provided to 22 different interested Native American
individuals or organizations, the South Central Coast Regional information Center, and
4 local libraries. In addition, at the time of City Council consideration of the "Research
Design" document, the Council was provided all comments received on the document,
consisting of City staff comments, the 3 peer reviews referenced above, 8 written
commentors, and 10 oral commentors. City staff also prepared a "Responses to
Comments — "A Research Design for the Evaluation of Archaeological Sites within the
Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Area' document, provided as Attachment 3 of the
Archaeological Advisory Committee Staff Report of September 17, 1997, consisting of
113 pages. The "Responses to Comments" document was also provided to the City
Council, and has been provided to Coastal Commission staff on two separate occasions.
Heilman Coaaul Permit Ame dL n' CC Commem Ult"
' City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Coastal Commission Permit Amendment 5-97-367-A1, Hellman Ranch
October 9, 2000
In addition, the "Research Design" was provided to Cherilyn Widell, State Office of
Historic Preservation, letter dated February 23, 1998. Please note that no response was
received by the City of Seal Beach from Ms. Widell.
In summary, the City of Seal Beach wholeheartedly supports the staffs recommendation
that this project be approved. We respectfully urge the Commission to approve the
project with the modifications to the Special Conditions discussed above.
Sincerely,
nJj^C y� Q
I" QAI. a) JLC, ��- "
Patricia E. Campbell, Mayor
City of Seal Beach
Distribution:
California Coastal Commissioners
Executive Director
Regional Director
Seal Beach City Council
Seal Beach Planning Commission
Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Seal Beach Archaeological Advisory Committee
Acting City Manager Director of Development Services
Hellman Comtel Permit A ndment.CC Comment Istter
City Comment Letter re: Permit Amendment 5-97-367-A1, Hellman Ranch
City Council Staf rReport
October 9, 2000
V�
October 9, 2000
Sara Wan, Chairperson
California Coastal Commissio
45 FremontStreet, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105-2219
Dear Chairperson Wan and Cormttissiorle`
SUBJECT: COASTAL PERMIT 5 -97 -367 -AI, HELLMAN RANCH
RESERVE PROJECT TY OF SEAL BEACH CONCERNS
RE: SPECIAL COND 10
The City has reviewed the Coastal C ssion Staff eport regarding the above -referenced
permit amendment application, supp s the staff reco endation for approval with special
conditions, and generally concurs wi the proposed OF
nditions. The City of Seal Beach
requests the Commission approve t s application as in confo ce with the Chapter 3 policies
of the Coastal Act.
Getting such a controversial oject before the Commission has a ailed a long and delicate
balancing process. We feu that the staffs proposed conditions, i dopted, will upset that
balance. We urge/table,
'ssion to approve the project in its proposed rm to ensure that this
incredible opportuovide for the creation of a 100 -acre deed -restricted area for future
restoration of coads and preservation of open space through limited density residential
development will
In reviewing the CStaff Report, the City believes the analysis and conclusi s of staff
are generally accith concerns regarding the following issues that are discussed in
relation to the procial Condition recommended by Commission staff:
Hdl C I Pmnit A .mil CC a R*w
niy Comment Letter re: Permit AmenCmem 5-97-367-A/, Helbnan Ranch
City Council Staff Retort
October 9, 2000
1. The City requests modifications to Proposed Special Condition 16 — Reservation of Potential
for Lowlands Acquisition for Wetlands Restoration
Summary of Request: Amend condition to allow bio-swale and raptor foraging area within
the 100 -acre deed -restricted wetland restoration area.
Rationale: (1) Consistent with settlement agreement allowing open space, and (2)
creation of bio -diversity within the 100 -acre deed -restricted area.
Analysis: The City is unclear as to the rationale behind the recommended exclusion from
the 100 -acre deed restricted area of the bio-swale and water quality basin and the raptor foraging
habitat area. As indicated in the Commission Staff Report, the written settlement agreement,
signed by the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission indicates:
"The basis purpose of this Agreement is to resolve litigation by remanding the subject
project to the Coastal Commission for consideration of a modified project as set forth
in Exhibit "A" that would: (1) eliminate development within and impacts to wetlands
that would have been caused by the gdlf course portion which would have resulted in
the SII of 17.9 acres of existing wetlands; and (2) allow the balance of the project
within the upland areas to proceed forward .. T DRAFT CT
Commission staff indicates several purposes of wetland areas on page 27 of the Staff Report,
indicating ".. wetlands also serve trs natural filtering mechanisms to help remove pollurains from
storm mwf(before the runoff enters into streams and rivers leading to the ocean. Further,
wetlands serve as namralJlood retention areas." As the City understands the purpose of the "bio -
Swale, water quality basin and riparian corridor" proposed by the project proponent, the proposed
facilities would accomplish the exact actions your staff indicates a wetland should accomplish.
Please refer to Exhibit 7, pages 13-15 of 18 for a fuller discussion of the benefits of the proposed
"bio-swale/water quality basintriparian corridoe'. If that is the case, the bio-swale/water quality
basWriparian corridor can clearly and convincingly be included within the 100 -acre deed restricted
area.
Commission staff indicate on page 32, "In order to assure that the proposed approximately 100
ane deed restricted area provides the identlfned acreage fw possible restoration space, the area
committed to the bio-swale and water quality basin, as well as needed replacement raptor
foraging habitat should be deleted from the 100 acres and offset." It appears the staff is
attempting to not allow an area that will clearly meet the definition of a "wetland" to be included
within an agreed upon 100 -acre deed restricted area that is to be restricted for "... wetlands
restoration, open space and environmental education purposes" (Special Condition 10A3). The
proposed "bio-swale/water quality basin/riparian corridor" area may actually consist of the fust
stage of a wetland restoration and open space program on the Hellman Ranch, creating a
N4Lnen Cwnal Permit Ammdniml.CC Sufi Repos
City Comment Letter re: Permit Amendment 3-97-367-A1, Hellman Ranch
City Council StaJJReport
October 9, 1000
substantial number of acres of native wetland habitat vegetated with emergent marsh and riparian
species in an area of current ruderal upland habitat determined to not be appropriate for saltmarsh
restoration due to the elevation and the muted tidal flow to the Hellman Ranch site. It would be
dependent upon seasonal rainfall and local runoff for any wetland value, and the proposed program
would seem to be an enhancement to that type of wetland within the Hellman Ranch.
In regards to the raptor foraging habitat issue, Commission staff indicates on page 35 that the
raptor foraging habitat cannot be integrated into the 100 -acre deed restricted area, as allowing it to
be included would not maintain the offer of deed restriction as a bona -fide offer consistent with the
settlement agreement. Again, the City is unclear as to the reasoning behind the position.
Commission staff indicates there are approximately 27 acres of wetlands in the Lowland area and
that approximately 70 acres of ruderal habitat identical to that being lost for the construction of the
homes presently exist within the 100 -acre deed restricted area. It is understood that any final
wetland restoration plan will be submitted to the Coastal Commission for approval, but it is difficult
to picture any wetland restoration plan not including a significant amount of ruderal habitat that
will serve as raptor foraging habitat also. Cannot the ruderal habitat areas of a wetland restoration
plan also serve as raptor foraging habitat? What is the biological differences of the ruderal habitat,
if also considered to be raptor foraging habitat, that do not allow it be considered as within the
defined uses under the terms of the settlement agreement for the 100 -acre deed restricted area to
be utilized for ".. wetlands restoration, open space and environmental education purposes"?
The City of Seal Beach respectfully requests the Commission to determine the proposed "bio-
swale/water quality basin/riparian corridor" area and the "raptor foraging habitat" to be appropriate
to be included within the 100 -acre deed restricted area for "wetlands restoration, open space and
environmental education purposes', andrequest_ staff to modify the language of Special
Condition 16 accordingly. D� A
2. The City Requests Modification to Proposed Special Condition 17 — Gum Grove Park
Summary of Request: (I) Eliminate parking lot for vehicles, and (2) provide a staging area
for pedestrians and bicycles.
Rational: (1) Crime, (2) security, (3) public access to park is presently provided.
Analysis: As indicated in previous letters and in public testimony before the Coastal
Commission, the City of Seal Beach continues to strongly disfavor conditions of approval
regarding Gum Grove Park. The proposed "public trail and parking area" from Seal Beach
Boulevard to Gum Grove Park would create a safety and security hazard, and does not further
any Coastal Act goal or objective, in the opinion of the City.
Hellman C.a lP.ii M1 -dm IcC SWrR,w
City Comment Lefler re: Permit AmeMment 5 -97 -367 -AI, Helin an Ranch
City Council StaffReporl
October 9, 2000
The public parking area could threaten the safety and security of the existing residences that
abut the Hellman property and the proposed homes. It would be simple for a person to access
those residences for criminal purposes by parking in the proposed public parking lot, access
homes from the proposed trail, and easily leave the area from the public parking area on Seal
Beach Boulevard. This proposal by Commission staff will create a significant additional
burden for our police department to patrol the trail, in an area where police vehicles will not
be able to travel. Cities frequently accept that additional burden where necessary to promote
the public's use of our coastline, but not in a situation where pVroposed access trail serves
no real purpose in relation to coastal access. DQ At; ,
Provision of a rest area, with bicycle racks to lock a bi'cy`cle while touring Gum Grove Park on
foot, for bicyclist's who may wish to access Gum Grove Park from Seal Beach Boulevard
would be an acceptable alternative to the City. This would allow a reasonable public access
point to the park area, and greatly relieve the concerns of City regarding cruninal activity by
not providing an easy get -away location for criminals using motor vehicles.
While the City recognizes the need for, and supports where appropriate, coastal access trails,
this proposed trail does not further any policy in the Coastal Act, and is outside the
Commission's authority. The Coastal Act requires the provision of public access to the Coast
and to certain coastal resources. The proposed trail does neither. Rather than a coastal
resource, the proposed trail would provide access not to a coastal resource, but to a public
park, for which entirely adequate public access is already provided by the City. The proposed
trail also would provide a path from one major street - Seal Beach Boulevard — to an existing
public parking lot already in existence within Gum Grove Park. But this proposed trail would
never go near the coast, and the public is to be excluded from the future wetland restoration
area the trail might approach. Further,.there has been no historic access across the property,
which has been privately owned and fenced for many years.
3. The City Requests Clarifications Regarding Proposed Special Condition 19 — Archaeology
Summary of Request: Allow the City's required archaeological testing program to
commence upon applicant's acceptance of Special Conditions
Rational: The archaeological investigation does not include any grading of the site, only
shovel probes and test pits, all done by hand. This program can be accomplished prior to any
grading of the site and during the applicant's satisfaction of the special conditions of approval
and recordation of deed restrictions.
Analysis: It is of concern to the City that the archaeological investigations that are required
under Special Condition 19A cannot begin until the several deed restrictions required by the
Commission are approved and recorded. It would seem reasonable to allow the
archaeological investigations to commence, and as presently conditioned by Commission staff,
Hea Co lPa t AmeMmeru.CC SuffRepw IO
City Comment Letter re: Permit Amendment 3-97-367-A7, Hellman Ranch
City Council Staff Reporl
October 9, 2000
to not allow anKgrading activities for project implementation to begin until the deed
restrictions are approved and recorded and the remaining terms of Special Condition 19 have
been complied with.
This process would allow the lengthy period of field investigation, laboratory analysis, and
report preparation of the archaeological investigations to begin upon acceptance of the
conditions by the project proponent, while still protecting the concerns of the Commission
regarding the recording of the deed restriction and the completion of the archaeological
investigations prior to any grading on the site. DRAFT
Our staff has reviewed the many letter received byte Commission regarding archaeology
issues and the response to the issues raised in those letters by the applicants response. The
Commission staff has previously requested much information from the City regarding this
issue, and the requested information has been provided. The Commission should be reminded
the "Research Design" was subject to City review and approval by the Archaeological
Advisory Committee of the City and the City Council. As part of the review and approval
process by the City, the "Research Design" document was peer-reviewed by three
archaeologist's that have performed substantial cultural research efforts in the southern
California region: Dr. Jon Erlandson - University of Oregon; Dr. Mark Raab - Cal State
Northridge; and Dr. Roger Mason — Chambers Group, Inc.
During the public review and approval process of the "Research Design", the entire research design
document was provided to 22 different interested Native American individuals or organizations, the
South Central Coast Regional Inf rmurtion Center, and 4 local libraries. In addition, at the time of
City Council consideration of the "Research Design" document, the Council was provided all
comments received on the document, consisting of City staff comments, the 3 peer reviews
referenced above, 8 written commentors, and 10 oral commentors. City staff also prepared a
"Responses to Comments — " A Research Design for the Evaluation of Archaeological Sites within
the Hellman Ranch Speck Plan Ared' document, provided as Attachment 3 of the
Archaeological Advisory Committee Staff Report of September 17, 1997, consisting of 113 pages.
The "Responses to Comments" document was also provided to the City Council, and has been
provided to Coastal Commission staff on two separate occasions.
In addition, the "Research Design" was provided to Cherilyn Widell, State Once of Ffistoric
Preservation, letter dated February 23, 1998. Please note that no response was received by the
City of Seal Beach from Ms. Widell.
In summary, the City of Seal Beach wholeheartedly supports the staffs recommendation that this
project be approved. We respectfully urge the Commission to approve the project with the
modifications to the Special Conditions discussed above.
Helm C I Pm t A mEme" = Suffft pm 11
City Comment Letter re: Permit Amendment 5-97-367-A1, Neuman Ranch
City Council Staff Report
October 9, 1000
Sincerely,
Patricia E. Campbell, Mayor
City of Seal Beach
Distribution: OR P
California Coastal Commissioners
Executive Director
Regional Director
Seal Beach City Council
Seal Beach Planning Commission
Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Seal Beach Archaeological Advisory Committee
Acting City Manager Director of Development Services
H.]h n Cowl Ps t Amrndnrnt.CC SufrRe ft 12
City Comment Letter re: Permit Amendment 5-97-367-A1, Hellman Ranch
City Council Staff Report
October 9, 2000
ATTACHMENT 2
"PERMIT AMENDMENT NO. 5-97-367A1",
COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 2000, WITHOUT
EXHIBITS AND ATTACHMENTS (PAGES 1
THROUGH 52 PROVIDED)
Mun.0 1 P to .rn .LCC SI R,W 13
v
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THERE SOU',CES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS Govennor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Office
200 Oceangste. Suite 1000 September 12, 2000
Long aeacn. CA 909024302 W 14a Filed:
Long
each C 49th Day: October 31, 2000
180th Day: March11, 0
Staff: KFS -LB
Staff Report: September 1, 2000
Hearing Date: October 10-13, 2000
Commission Action:
STAFF REPORT: PERMIT AMENDMENT
APPLICATION NO.: 5-97-367-A1
APPLICANT: Hellman Properties LLC
AGENT: Dave Bartlett
PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast of Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1). Southeast of
the San Gabriel River, South of Adolfo Lopez Drive, West of Seal Beach Boulevard, and
North of Marina Hill; City of Seal Beach; County of Orange
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED: Subdivision of 196 acre site into 9
parcels, including further subdivision of one of the parcels into 70 single-family residential
lots in a private community; fill of 27 acres of wetlands to construct 28.1 acres for a salt
marsh restoration project and an 18 hole public golf course including 6.8 acres of
freshwater marsh integrated into the golf course and reservation of 16.2 acres of existing
oil production areas for future wetland restoration; dedication of Gum Grove Park to the
'City of Seal Beach;'construction of interpretive areas, visitor -serving recreation facilities,
and a golf clubhouse; dedication of public access trails; extension of Adolfo Lopez Drive;
excavation of test pits for an archaeological testing program; and 1,600,000 cubic yards
of grading.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT: The amendment request is to change the
proposed project description to eliminate a 100 acre golf course and associated wetland
impacts and wetland restoration; add a deed restriction reserving 100 acres of lowlands
for acquisition for wetlands restoration; expand the footprint of the 70 -lot residential
subdivision from 14.9 acres to 18.4 acres; reduce mass grading from 1.6 million cubic
yards to 420,000 cubic yards; eliminate proposed development on the State Lands
Commission parcel, construct a bio-swale, riparian corridor and water quality basin and
include changes to the language of previously imposed special conditions.
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367 was approved by the Commission in 1998. Since that
time, the permit has been subject to a lawsuit and settlement agreement. This amendment
has been submitted in response to the settlement agreement in an effort to carry out the
terms of the settlement. The revised proposed project eliminates the golf course and the
direct impacts upon wetlands which were previously controversial and carries forward a
revised residential subdivision. In addition, the applicant is proposing to deed restrict. for
5 -97 -367 -At (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 2 of 74
wetland restoration purposes, 100 acres of lowlands. Finally, the applicant is proposing a bio-
swale and water quality basin to treat run-off from the proposed development.
The major issues raised by this revised proposed development are impacts upon ruderal
uplands which presently provide foraging habitat for raptors and the maintenance of water
quality. In addition, by addressing water quality issues and compensation for losses to raptor
foraging habitat, some of the land the applicant is proposing for deed restriction for wetlands
restoration, will be committed to supporting water quality treatment structures and providing
replacement raptor foraging habitat. This situation results in potential constraints on future
wetlands restoration in the lowlands. Staff is recommending APPROVAL of the project with
special conditions. Special Condition 15 carries forward previously imposed special
conditions. Special Condition 16 implements the proposed lowlands deed restriction and
addresses the concern regarding the displacement of future wetlands restoration by requiring
that any land which is in the proposed deed restricted area which is now going to be used for
water quality and raptor foraging habitat purposes must be replaced by restriction of land
elsewhere on the property for wetland restoration purposes. Special Conditions 17, 18 and
19 replace previously imposed Special Conditions 4 (Gum Grove Park dedication), 5 (Public
Access Program) and 6 (Archeology), respectively, which must be updated to reflect the
current amendment. Special Condition 20 requires the applicant to submit final plans
regarding the water quality structures. Special Conditions 21 and 22 require the identification
and deed restriction of at least 9.2 acres of raptor foraging habitat and the management of
that habitat as raptor foraging habitat. Special Condition 23 requires the applicant to
implement the proposed water quality program (including bio-swale and detention basin) and
mandates that such facilities be designed to mitigate runoff up to the 85'h percentile 24-hour
event. Special Condition 24 requires the deed restriction of land to support the required water
quality treatment system. Special Condition 25 addresses construction related requirements
to avoid impacts to existing wetlands. Special Condition 26 requires strict compliance with
the proposal as conditioned by the Commission.
LOCAL APPROVALS RECEIVED and SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS: See Appendices
PROCEDURAL NOTE:
A. Coastal Development Permit Amendments
The Commission's regulations provide for referral of permit amendment requests to the
Commission if:
1) The Executive Director determines that the proposed amendment is a material change.
2) Objection is made to the Executive Director's determination of immateriality, or
3) The proposed amendment affects conditions required for the purpose of protecting a
coastal resource or coastal access.
If the applicant or objector so requests, the Commission shall make an independent
determination as to whether the proposed amendment is material. 14 Cal. Admin. Code
13166.
5-97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties LLCI
Page 3 of 74
The subject application is being forwarded to the Commission because the Executive Director
has determined that the proposed amendment is a material change and affects conditions
required for the purposes of protecting coastal resources or coastal access.
B. Standard of Review
The City of Seal Beach does not have a certified local coastal program 1"LCP" I. Therefore,
the standard of review is the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act.
C. Permit Expiration
The proposed development is being processed as an amendment to Coastal Development
Permit 5-97-367 which was approved on September 9, 1998. Standard Condition 2 of the
permit states that the permit expires two years from the date on which the Commission voted
on the application, September 9, 1998. Therefore, under normal circumstances, unless an
extension was requested and approved, the permit would have expired in September 2000.
However, Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367 is subject to litigation and a settlement
agreement which serve to toll the permit as of December 29, 1999 (Superior Court of
California, County of Orange, Case #801830 and Case #807590). Therefore, Coastal
Development Permit 5-97-367 has not expired. The tolling on the permit will cease once the
case is dismissed or litigated to conclusion.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION, MOTION AND RESOLUTION
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Commission APPROVE the amendment application with special
conditions.
MOTION:
I move that the Commission approve CDPAmendment #5-97-357-A1 pursuant to the
staff recommendation.
Staff recommends a YES vote. Passage of this motion will result in adoption of the following
resolution and findings. The motion passes only by affirmative vote of a majority of the
Commissioners present.
RESOLUTION:
APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS
The Gmmission hereby APPROVES the amendment to Coastal Devel^pment Permit 5-97.367,
subject to the conditions below, for the proposed development on the grounds that the
5-97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 4 of 74
development, located between the nearest public roadway and the shoreline, would be in
conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976, including
the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3, would not prejudice the ability of the
local government having jurisdiction over the area to prepare a Local Coastal Program
conforming to the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, and would not have any
significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
11: STANDARD CONDITIONS
1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgment. The permit is not valid and development shall not
commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the permittee or authorized agent,
acknowledging receipt of the permit and acceptance of the terms and conditions, is
returned to the Commission office.
2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two years from the
date this permit is reported to the Commission. Development shall be pursued in a diligent
manner and completed in a reasonable period of time. Application for extension of the
permit must be made prior to the expiration date.
3. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition will be resolved
by the Executive Director or the Commission.
4. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided assignee files
with the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and conditions of the permit.
5. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall be perpetual.
and it is the intention of the Commission and the permittee to bind all future owners and
possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions.
M. SPECIAL CONDITIONS (These conditions supplement the previously adopted
conditions; deletions and modifications are also noted)
15. PRIOR CONDITIONS
Unless specifically altered by this amendment, all regular and special conditions
attached to coastal development permit 5-97-367 remain in effect.
Please Note: Special Conditions 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13 and 14 imposed under Coastal
Development Permit 5-97-367 (see Appendix A) have been deleted as a result of this coastal
development permit amendment (5 -97 -367 -Al). Several of these conditions have been
replaced by subsequent conditions, as follows: Special Condition 1 has been replaced by
Special Condition 16; Special Condition 4 has been replaced by Special Condition 17; Special
Condition 5 has been replaced by Special Condition 18; and Special Condition 6 has been
replaced by Special Condition 19.
5 -97 -367 -At (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 5 of 74
W,
A. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant
shall execute and record a deed restriction, in a form and of content acceptable to the
Executive Director which shall provide that:
(1) For a period of twenty-five years, the applicant agrees to sell the lowlands area of
the property as defined in "Attachment 1" las revised pursuant to subsection B. of
this condition) to any public agency or non-profit association acceptable to the
Executive Director that requests in writing to purchase the property;
(2) The sale shall be at fair market value as established by an appraisal paid for by the
buyer and prepared by an appraiser mutually acceptable to the buyer and applicant,
or, if the parties are unable to agree, by an appraiser designated by third party, or if
the buyer and applicant agree through an arbitration on value; and,
(3) The uses shall be restricted to wetlands restoration, open space and environmental
education purposes, with reversion rights to the State Coastal Conservancy.
The deed restriction shall remain in effect for twenty-five years and be recorded over
the lowlands area of the property and shall run with the land, binding all successors
and assigns, and shall be recorded free of prior liens and encumbrances that the
Executive Director determines may affect the enforceability of the restriction. This
deed restriction shall not be removed or changed without a Coastal
Commission -approved amendment to this coastal development permit unless the
Executive Director determines that no amendment is required.
B. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall
submit, for review and approval of the Executive Director, a revised "Attachment 1"
consisting of a map, prepared by an appropriately licensed professional, which (i)
depicts the area to be deed restricted pursuant to subsection A. of this condition, (iil
which maintains this restriction over at least 100 acres, (iii) which removes those areas
necessary for the bio-swale and water quality basin and raptor foraging habitat from
the area to be deed restricted pursuant to subsection A. of this condition and (iv)
which off -sets the removal of those areas from the deed restriction with other land
within the project site suitable for a deed restriction pursuant to subsection A. of this
condition.
Note: Special Condition 16 replaces Special Condition 1 in its entirety.
17. GUM GROVE PARK
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS, the applicant shall
submit, for the review and approval of the Executive Director, written evidence
demonstrating that the area known as Gum Grove Nature Park and as delineated as Lot
3 of proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 15381 has been dedicated in fee to the
5-97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 6 of 74
City of Seal Beach, as proposed by the applicant. The dedication documents shall
provide that: I
(a) The park shall be preserved in perpetuity as a passive recreational nature park
open to the public. Active recreational activities or commercial facilities shall be
prohibited.
(b) Necessary parking facilities which are the minimum required to serve the park
and which meets Americans with Disabilities Act requirements shall be
provided. The existing twenty 1201 striped parking spaces for Gum Grove Park
shall be maintained.
Ic) All trails within the dedicated park area shall be constructed to be accessible to
persons with disabilities consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act
requirements. No trails shall be lighted in order to minimize impacts on
wetlands.
(d) Small scale interpretive signage which describes the Monarch Butterfly may be
permitted if approved by the Executive Director.
(e) Gum Grove Park shall be open from dawn to dusk lone hour after sunset) on a
daily basis. Changes in hours of operation of Gum Grove Park shall require an
amendment to this permit unless the Executive Director determines that an
amendment is not required.
(f) Signage shall be conspicuously posted which states that the park is open to the
general public:
(g) That portion of proposed Lot 3 of Tentative Tract Map No. 15381, comprised of
an approximately 25 foot wide strip of land which borders Seal Beach Boulevard
and extends west from Seal Beach Boulevard to connect with the primarily used
part of Gum Grove Park, shall be subject to the following requirements:
(1)The frontage along Seal Beach Boulevard shall not be gated, fenced, or
obstructed in any manner which prevents public access from Seal Beach
Boulevard.
12)The area shall be reserved for a public trail and parking lot, which are visible,
and directly accessible to the public from Seal Beach Boulevard, and which lead
from Seal Beach Boulevard to the primary part of Gum Grove Park to the west.
The public parking lot area shall be large enough for a minimum of ten (10)
parking spaces. Where it is not feasible to reserve enough public parking area
on this portion of proposed Lot 3, public parking directly accessible from Seal
Beach Boulevard shall be provided for on proposed Lot 2 of Tentative Tract Map
No. 15381 adjacent to proposed Lot 3, in accordance with the provisions of
Special Condition 1 B.B. of this permit.
Note: Special Condition 17 replaces Special Condition 4 in its entirety
5 -97 -367 -At (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 7 of 74
18. PUBLIC ACCESS PROGRAM
A. Public Access Signage. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT, the permittee shall submit, for the review and approval' of the Executive
Director, a detailed signage plan which provides for the installation of signs clearly
visible from Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard which invite and
encourage the public to use the public access, parking, and recreation opportunities
proposed at Gum Grove Park, and the public access trail and public parking linking Gum
Grove Park to Seal Beach Boulevard. Key locations include but are not limited to; 1)
Gum Grove Park, both at its western entrance and at the proposed Seal Beach
Boulevard entrance. The plans shall indicate the location, materials, dimensions,
colors, and text of the signs. The permittee shall install the signs in accordance with
the signage plans approved by the Executive Director.
B. Residential Community Streets (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15402). 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, 21 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, A) if fewer than the ten 110) public parking spaces required by Special
Condition 17.(g)121 of this permit can be constructed on proposed Lot 3 of Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 15381, the portion of the area subject to Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 15402 closest to Lot 3 shall be reserved for the balance of the public
parking spaces so that the parking spaces are directly accessible from Seal Beach
Boulevard. The deed restriction shall be recorded over the entire area subject to
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15402 and shall run with the land, binding all
successors and assigns, and shall be recorded free of prior liens that the Executive
Director determines may affect the enforceability of the restriction. This deed
restriction shall not be removed or changed without a Coastal Commission -approved
amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director
determines that no amendment is required.
C. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15402. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit, for the review and
approval of the Executive Director, two copies of a revised vesting tentative map for
Tract No. 15402 if: (11 all of the ten public parking spaces required under Special
Condition 17.(g)(2) cannot be built on proposed Lot 3 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map
15381, and/or (2) the entities with jurisdiction over Seal Beach Boulevard do not
approve a separate vehicular entrance off of Seal Beach Boulevard to said puolic
parking spaces. The revised map shall show: (1) the locations and design of said
public parking spaces which cannot be built on Lot 3 and instead shall be built on the
5 -97 -367 -Al (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 8 of 74
,t portion of the area subject to Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15402 closest to Lot 3,
and 2) the location of the public street which connects the public parking required
under Special Condition 17.(g)(2) of this permit with the entrance to the subdivision
proposed by Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15402. The revised map shall be
accompanied by written documentation demonstrating that the governmental agencies
which have jurisdiction over Seal Beach Boulevard and parking space standards have
approved the revised map. The applicant shall record the revised map approved by the
Executive Director.
D. Construction of Trail and Parking Lot. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSES WITHIN THE AREA SUBJECT TO VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15402, the applicant shall construct a public access trail
and parking lot, which are visible and directly accessible to the public from Seal Beach
Boulevard, which lead from Seal Beach Boulevard to the primary part of Gum Grove
Park to the west. The public parking lot shall contain a minimum of ten (101 parking
spaces and shall be directly accessible from Seal Beach Boulevard. Where it is not
feasible to construct the public parking and vehicular entrance on this portion of
proposed Lot 3 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15381, public parking directly
accessible from Seal Beach Boulevard shall be constructed on proposed Lot 2 of
Tentative Tract Map No. 15381 (i.e., the area subject to Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 15402) immediately adjacent to proposed Lot 3, in accordance with the provisions
of Special Condition 18.13 of this permit.
Note: Special Condition 18 replaces Special Condition 5 in its entirety.
19. ARCHAEOLOGY
For purposes o1 this condition, "OHP" shat/ mean the State Office of Historic Preservation,
and "NAHC" shall mean the state Native American Heritage Commission.
A. Research Design. The permittee shall undertake the proposed archaeological
investigation in conformance with the proposed archaeological research design entitled
Specific Plan Area dated November 1997 prepared by KEA Environmental, Inc. for the
City of Seal Beach. Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant
shall submit written evidence, subject to the review and approval of the Executive
Director, that a copy of the archaeological research design has been submitted to the
OHP, the NAHC, and the Native American person/group designated or deemed
acceptable by the NAHC, for their review and comment. An amendment to this permit
shall be required for any changes to the research design suggested by OHP, NAHC, or
the Native American group/person unless the Executive Director determines that an
amendment is not required.
B. Selection of Archaeologist(s) and Native American Monitorfsl. The archaeologist(s)
selected by the City shall meet the United States Department of Interior minimum
standards for archaeological consultants, as also endorsed by the OHP. The City shall
select the Native American monitor(s) in compliance with the "Guidelines for
monitorsiconsultants of Native American cultural, religious and burial sites" issued by
5-97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties LLCI
Page 9 of 74
the NAHC, and in consultation with the appropriate Native American person/group
deemed acceptable by the NAHC.
Post -Investigation Mitigation Measures. Upon completion of the archaeological
investigation, and prior to the commencement of construction of any development
approved by this coastal development permit (other than archaeological investigation
activities or subdivision), the applicant shall submit, for the review and approval of the
Executive Director, a written report regarding the following: 1) a summary of the
findings of the archaeological investigation, and 2) a final written mitigation plan which
shall identify recommended mitigation measures, which may include capping of
archaeological sites, data recovery and curation of important archaeological resources
as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act, and detailed additional
mitigation measures which need to be implemented. The applicant shall also submit
for review and approval of the Executive Director, a signed contract with a
City -selected archaeological consultant that provides for archaeological salvage that
follows current accepted professional practice, if additional archaeological data
recovery measures are determined appropriate. The written report and additional
mitigation measures shall also be submitted to the OHP and the appropriate Native
American personigroup designated or deemed acceptable by the NAHC. An
amendment to this permit shall be required to implement any additional mitigation
t measures unless the Executive Director determines a permit amendment is not
required.
D. Implementation of Mitigation Measures and Summary of Fieldwork. Prior to
commencement of site preparation, grading, and construction activities for any
development 1other than archaeological investigation activities) located within a fifty
foot (501 radius of the furthest boundary of each state -identified archaeological site as
delineated in the archaeological research design, all of the requirements of Special
Conditions 19.A., 19.8., and 19.C. shall have been met. All development shall occur
consistent with the final plan required by Special Condition 19.C. A written synopsis
report summarizing all work performed in compliance with Special Conditions 19.A,
193, and 19.0 shall be submitted to the Executive Director, OHP, and NAHC within
six (6) weeks of the conclusion of field work. No later than six months after
completion of field work a final report on the excavation and analysis shall be
submitted to the Executive Director, OHP and the NAHC.
E. Monitoring of. Construction Activities. All site preparation, grading and construction
activities for the proposed development shall be monitored on-site by a qualified
archaeologist and Native American monitor. The archaeologist and Native American
monitor shall have the express authority to temporarily halt all work in the vicinity of
the discovery site should significant cultural resources be discovered. This requirement
shall be incorporated into the construction documents which will be used by
construction workers during the course of their work.
5 -97 -367 -At (Hellman Properties LLCI
Page 10 of 74
F. Discovery of Cultural Resources / Human Remains During Post -Archaeological Testin
Construction Activities. -'
(1) If additional or unexpected archaeological features are discovered during site
preparation, grading, and construction activities for approved development other
than the archaeological investigation, all work shall be temporarily halted in the
vicinity of the discovery site while the permittee complies with the following:
The archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American monitor, shall sample,
identify and evaluate the artifacts as appropriate and shall report such findings to
the permittee, the City and the Executive Director. If the archaeological resources
are found to be significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native
American monitor, shall determine appropriate actions, and shall submit those
recommendations in writing to the Executive Director, the applicant and the City.
The archaeologist shall also submit the recommendations for the review and
approval of the Executive Director and shall be prepared in accordance with the
provisions outlined in Special Condition 19.0 above. Any recommended changes to
the proposed development or the mitigation measures identified in the final plan
required by Special Condition 19.C. shall require a permit amendment unless the
Executive Director determines that a permit amendment is not required.
Development activities may resume if the cultural resources are not determined to
be 'important' as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act ICEQA).
(2) Should human remains be discovered on-site during the course of site preparation,
grading, ago construction activities, immediately after such discovery, the on-site
City -selected archaeologist and Native American monitor shall notify the City of
Seal Beach, Director of Development Services and the County Coroner within 24
hours of such discovery, and all construction activities shall be temporarily halted in
the vicinity of the discovery site until the remains can be identified. The Native
American group/person deemed acceptable by the NAHC shall participate in the
identification process. Should the human remains be determined to be that of a
Native American, the permittee shall comply with the requirements of Section
5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. Within five (5) calendar days of such
notification, the director of development services shall notify the Executive Director
of the discovery of human remains.
G. Incorporation of Archaeology Requirements into Construction Documents. Special
Condition No. 19 of coastal development permit 5-97-367 shall be incorporated in its
entirety into all the construction documents which will be used by construction
workers during the course of their work as well as all construction bid documents.
Note: Special Condition 19 replaces Special Condition 6 in its entirety.
20. FINAL PLANS
"A. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall
submit, for review and approval of the Executive Director:
5-97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 11 of 74
1. Final design, grading, construction, structural, and drainage plans for the bio-
swale, riparian corridor and water quality basin that substantially conform with
the Storm Water Management & Water Quality Control Plan, (SWM & WQCP)
prepared by MDS Consulting and Fuscoe Engineering of Irvine, California, dated
July 27, 2000, submitted to the Commission; and
2. Final landscape plans for the bio-swale, riparian corridor, and water quality basin
that substantially conform with the Storm Water Management & Water Quality
Control Plan, (SWM & WQCP) prepared by MDS Consulting and Fuscoe
Engineering of Irvine, California, dated July 27, 2000, submitted to the
Commission, and the letter from Glenn Lukos Associates of Lake Forest,
California to John Laing Homes and Hellman Properties dated June 28, 2000,
regarding Biological Benefits of Proposed Wetlana Treatment System, CDP 5-97-
367-A1, Hellman Ranch Property, Orange County, California. These final plans
shall be prepared in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and shall be accompanied by written evidence
of their endorsement of the landscape plans.
B. The permittee shall undertake development in accordance with the approved final
plans. Any proposed changes to the approved final plans shall be reported to the
Executive Director. No changes to the approved final plans shall occur without a
Commission amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive
Director determines that no amendment is required.
21. REQUIREMENT FOR IDENTIFICATION OF SUITABLE RAPTOR FORAGING HABITAT
AND REQUIREMENT FOR MANAGEMENT PLAN
A. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall
submit for review and approval of the Executive Director, a map, prepared by a
biologist in accordance with current professional standards, delineating raptor foraging
habitat with long term conservation potential available within the lowlands of the
subject property as identified in the letter from Glenn Lukos Associates of Lake Forest,
California to John Laing Homes and Hellman Properties dated September 11, 2000,
regarding Response to June 19, 2000, letter from the California Department of Fish
and Game Regarding Biological Resources at Hellman Ranch. The area delineated shall
not be less than 9.2 contiguous acres of raptor foraging habitat. The delineation and
site selection shall occur in consultation with the California Department of Fish and
Game, and the map submitted to the Executive Director shall be accompanied by a
written endorsement by the California Department of Fish and Game of the raptor
foraging habitat delineation, the selected site and the map; and
B. The raptor foraging habitat to be identified in subsection A. of this condition shall have
the same or better functions and values as the site to be impacted, in accordance with
the biological assessment prepared by Glenn Lukos Associates in their letter dated
September 11, 2000. If there are no raptor foraging habitat areas with the same or
better functions and values as the site to be impacted in the area previously identified
5-97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 12 of 74
by the applicant as having such, the applicant shall obtain an amendment to this
coastal development permit in order to remedy the discrepancy; and
C. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall
submit for review and approval of the Executive Director, a raptor foraging habitat
management plan which identifies management measures necessary to, at minimum,
maintain the functions and values of the raptor foraging habitat identified in subsection
B. of this condition. Such measures shall include appropriate brush management
measures for the maintenance of raptor foraging habitat. Measures may include brush
clearance and brush mowing; planting of plant species associated with raptor foraging
habitat, and exotic and invasive plant species controls for the removal of plant species
which upset the functioning of the raptor foraging habitat, including, but not limited to,
ice plant,. pampas grass, arundo giant cane, and myoporum. Any chemical controls to
be used in areas adjacent to wetlands shall be limited to those which are non-toxic to
wetland organisms le.g. Rodeos Herbicide). The raptor foraging habitat management
plan shall be prepared in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game,
and shall be accompanied by a written endorsement of the plan by the California
Department of Fish and Game. The permittee shall undertake development in
accordance with the raptor foraging habitat management plan approved by the
Executive Director. Any proposed changes to the approved raptor foraging habitat
management plan shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the
approved raptor foraging habitat management plan shall occur without a Commission
amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director
determines that no amendment is required.
22. OPEN SPACE DEED RESTRICTION
A. No development, as defined in section 30106 of the Coastal Act shall occur in the
raptor foraging habitat delineated by the map required pursuant to Special Condition 21
except for:
1. Activities related to raptor foraging habitat maintenance pursuant to the raptor
foraging habitat management plan required pursuant to Special Condition 21.C.;
and
2. The following development, if approved by the Coastal Commission as an
amendment to this coastal development permit: activities related to public
access, recreation, and wetland restoration provided that such development
continues to designate a minimum of 9.2 acres of equivalent or better
functioning raptor foraging habitat.
B. PRIOR TO 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 shows that the open space area identified pursuant to
Special Condition 21 shall be restricted as open space for raptor foraging habitat and
the deed restriction shall reflect the above restriction on development in the designated
open spPce. The deed restriction shall contain the raptor foiaging habitat management
plan approved by the Executive Director pursuant to Special Condition 21.C. The deed
5-97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties LLCI
Page 13 of 74
restriction shall include legal descriptions of both the applicant's entire parcel and the
open space area. The deed restriction shall run with the land, binding all successors
and assigns, and shall be recorded free of prior liens that the Executive Director
determines may affect the enforceability of the restriction. This deed restriction shall
not be removed or changed without a Commission amendment to this coastal
development permit.
23. WATER QUALITY
A. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall
submit a final Storm Water Management and Water Quality Control Plan (SWM &
WQCP) designed to mitigate stormwater runoff and nuisance flow from development
on Vesting Tentative Tracts 15381 and 15402. The final SWM & WQCP shall include
structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPsI designed to control
the volume, velocity and pollutant load of stormwater and nuisance runoff leaving the
developed site. The final plan shall be reviewed by the consulting engineering
geologist to ensure conformance with geotechnical recommendations. The final plan
shall demonstrate substantial conformance with the Water Quality Management Plan
(WOMPI. Tract 15402, Hellman Ranch, prepared by MDS Consulting of Irvine,
California, dated January 2000, and the Storm Water Management &Water Quality
Control Plan, (SWM & WQCP) prepared by MDS Consulting and Fuscoe Engineering of
Irvine, California, dated July 27, 2000, and the following requirements:
i. Post -development peak runoff rates and average volume from the developed
site shall not exceed pre -development levels for the 2 -year 24-hour storm runoff
event.
2. Post -construction treatment control BMPs shall be designed to mitigate
(infiltrate or treat) stormwater runoff from each runoff event up to and including
the 85th percentile 24-hour runoff event.
3. The approved SWM & WQCP shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with
the construction of infrastructure associated with the development on Vesting
Tentative Tracts 15381 and 15402. The approved BMPs and other measures
included in the final SWM & WQCP shall be in place and functional prior to the
issuance of the first residential building permit within Vesting Tentative Tract
15402.
4. All structural and non-structural BMPs shall be maintained in a functional
condition throughout the life of the approved development. Maintenance
activity shall be performed according to the recommended maintenance
specifications contained in the California Stormwater BMP Handbooks
(California Stormwater Quality Task Force, 1993) for selected BMPs. At a
minimum, maintenance shall include the following: (i) all structural BMPs shall
be inspected, cleaned and repaired, as needed prior to the onset of the storm
season, no later than October 1st of each year and (iii should any of the
project's surface or subsurface drainage filtration structures or other BMPs fail
or result in increased erosion, the appl,canY landowner or successor -in -interest
5-97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 14 of 74
shall be responsible for any necessary repairs to the drainage/filtration system
and restoration of the eroded Lisa. Should repairs or restoration become
necessary, prior to commencement of such repair or restoration work, the
applicant shall submit a repair and restoration plan to the Executive Director to
determine if an amendment or new coastal development permit is required to
authorize such work.
B. Any changes to the structures outlined in the Storm Water Management & Water
Quality Control Plan, (SWM & WQCP) prepared by MDS Consulting and Fuscoe
Engineering of Irvine, California, dated July 27, 2000, including changes to the .
footprint of any such structures, necessary to accommodate the requirements of
subsection A of this condition, shall require an amendment to this coastal development
permit.
C. The permittee shall undertake development in accordance with the approved final plan.
Any proposed changes to the approved final plan shall be reported to the Executive
Director. No changes to the approved final plan shall occur without a Commission
amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director
determines that no amendment is required.
D. PRIOR TO 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, reflecting the requirements outlined in subsections A., B., and C. of
this condition.. The deed restriction shall include legal descriptions of both the
applicant's entire parcel and the deed restricted area. The deed restriction shall run
with the land, binding all successors and assigns, and shall be recorded free of prior
liens that the Executive Director determines may affect the enforceability of the
restriction. This deed restriction shall not be removed or changed without a
Commission amendment to this coastal development permit.
24. RESERVATION OF LAND FOR WATER QUALITY PURPOSES
A. The area of land containing the proposed water quality basin, bio-swale and riparian
corridor, and associated appurtenances as depicted in Figure 8 (inclusive of the
landscaped areas) of the Storm Water Management & Water Quality Control Plan,
(SWM & WOCP) prepared by MDS Consulting and Fuscoe Engineering of Irvine,
California, dated July 27, 2000, shall be reserved for water quality improvement
purposes through a deed restriction as required pursuant to subsection B. of this
condition. The deed restriction shall not preclude use of the same such land for
wetland restoration provided the water quality improvement functions of the system
described in the SWM & WQCP, as revised and approved by the executive Director
pursuant to Special Condition 23, is, at minimum maintained. In addition, the deed
restriction shall not preclude construction and maintenance of the access road depicted
Figure 8, nor shall it preclude the construction and maintenance of the utilities and oil
transmission lines depicted on Vesting Tentative Tracts 15381 and 15402, as
approved by the Executive Director, provided the water quality improvement functions
of the system described in the SWM & WQCP. as revised and approved by the
Executive Director pursuant to Special Condition 23, is, at minimum maintained.
5.97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 15 of 74
Finally, the deed restriction shall not preclude development associated with the
archaeological investigation required pursuant to Special Condition 19.
B. PRIOR TO 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, reflecting the above restrictions. The deed restriction shall include
legal descriptions of both the applicant's entire parcel and the deed restricted area.
The deed restriction shall run with the land, binding all successors and assigns, and
shall be recorded free of prior liens that the Executive Director determines may affect
the enforceability of the restriction. This deed restriction shall not be removed or
changed without a Commission amendment to this coastal development permit.
25. STAGING AREA FOR CONSTRUCTION
A. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the permittee shall
submit a plan for the review and approval of the Executive Director which indicates
that the construction staging areas) and construction corridor(s) will avoid impacts to
wetlands.
1. The plan shall demonstrate that:
(a) Construction equipment, materials or activity shall not occur outside the
staging area and construction corridor identified on the site plan required by
this condition; and
(b) Construction equipment, materials, or activity shall not be placed in any
location which would result in impacts to wetlands.
The plan shall include, at a minimum, the following components:
(a) A site plan that depicts:
(1) limits of the staging area(s)
(2) construction corridor(s)
(3) construction site
(4) location of construction fencing and temporary job trailers with respect
to existing wetlands
B. The permittee shall undertake development in accordance with the approved final
plans. Any proposed changes to the approved final plans shall be reported to the
Executive Director. No changes to the approved final plans shall occur without a
Commission amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive
Director determines that no amendment is required.
26. PERMIT COMPLIANCE
All development must occur in strict compliance with the proposal as set Tenn in the
apphcetion for permit, subject to any special conditions set forth herein. Any deviation
5 -97 -367 -Al (Hellman Properties LLC(
Page 16 of 74
from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the Executive Director and
may require Commission approval.
IV. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS
Detailed Site Description and Amended Project Description
The subject site totals approximately 196.6 acres. Of that amount, the applicant owns
approximately 183.9 acres (93% of the site). Southern California Edison utility company
owns a 7.9 acre easement (4%). The California State Lands Commission owns a parcel
totaling 3.4 acres 12%). Finally, the City of Seal Beach owns a parcel totaling 1.4 acres 0 °hl.
The site consists of approximately 160 acres of lowland areas, covered for the most part by
an average of five feet of fill. A low marine terrace known as Landing Hill reaches an
elevation of 66 feet and creates a distinct upland on the south and east edges of the property.
Except for the approximately 11 acre slope comprising most of Gum Grove Park, the upland
on the southern edge of the lowland is off-site and is developed with the existing Marina Hill
residential area of the City of Seal Beach. About 20 acres of the upland on the east side of
the lowlands is on the subject site, forming a mesa, and is currently vacant (Exhibit 1).
In addition, the subject site is bounded on the west by Pacific Coast Highway (State Route
One), on the south by the Marina Hill residential area, on the east by Seal Beach Boulevard, on
the north by City of Seal Beach Police and Public Works Departments and the Los Alamitos
Retarding Basin, and on the northwest by the Haynes Cooling Channel owned by the City of
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (Exhibit t).
The mesa and Gum Grove Park can be considered to be adjacent to the sea because the
lowlands on-site are traversed by a tidal channel which is connected to the San Gabriel River
which leads to the Pacific Ocean. Section 30115 of the Coastal Act states, in relevant part:
"Sea" means the Pacific Ocean and all harbors, bays, channels, estuaries, salt marshes,
sloughs, and other areas subject to tidal action through any connection with the Pacific
Ocean, excluding nonestuarine rivers, streams, tributaries, creeks, and flood control and
drainage channels.
Thus, this tidal channel, which is subject to tidal action with a connection to the Pacific
Ocean, meets the definition of "sea" under the Coastal Act.
The project previously proposed by the applicant included the following basic elements:
subdivision of the 196 acre site into 9 lots, including further subdivision of one of the lots into
70 single-family residential lots in a private community; construction of a public golf course
and golf clubhouse; dedication of Gum Grove Park to the City of Seal Beach; 1,600,000 cubic
yards of grading (800,000 cubic yards of cut and 800,000 cubic yards of fill); creation of
saltwater marsh totaling 39.1 acres (including buffer area) and reservation of 13.2 acres of
existing oil prouuction areas for future wetland restoration; construction of interpretive areas
and visitor -serving recreation facilities; dedication of public access trails; and extension of
Adolfo Lopez Drive. As outlined in more detail below, special conditions imposed by the
5 -97 -367 -Al (Heilman Properties LLC)
Page 17 of 74
Commission reduced the subdivision from 9 lots to 5 lots and required that the residential
subdivision be open to pedestrian and bicycle traffic, but not open to public vehicular traffic.
Under the proposed amendment, the applicant is changing the proposed project to eliminate
the previously proposed golf course, eliminate direct impacts to wetlands and the associated
wetland mitigation, and to eliminate the previously proposed development on the property
within the project area owned by the California State Lands Commission. The changes to the
project are outlined as follows:
1. Subdivision
As -Approved Under Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367
There is no existing subdivision on the Hellman Ranch property. The applicant proposed
subdivision of the 196 acre site into 9 lots, including further subdivision of one of the lots into
70 single-family residential lots in a private community.
More specifically, the subdivision of the site into 9 lots was proposed under Vesting Tentative
Tract Map (VTTM) 15381 as approved by the City of Seal Beach on September 22, 1997.
The 9 proposed lots were for: oil production (3 lots comprising a total of 27.5 acres); single
family detached residential use in a private community on the mesa adjacent to and west of
Seal Beach Boulevard 04.9 acres); Gum Grove Park 01.1 acres), visitor -serving facilities (1.8
acres); golf course and freshwater wetlands (110.1), saltwater marsh wetlands, wetland
buffers and public trails (29.6) acres and 1.4 acres of City owned land to extend Adolfo Lopez
Drive.
Special Condition 2 of Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367 required changes to VTTM
15381 to show only 5 legal lots, rather than 9 legal lots. The 5 legal lots were to be
comprised of 1) the lot currently owned by the California State Lands Commission, 2) the lot
currently owned by the City of Seal Beach Redevelopment Agency, 3) proposed Lot 2 which
is proposed to be further subdivided into seventy residential lots pursuant to proposed
Tentative Tract Map 15402, 41 proposed Lot 3 for the proposed dedication of Gum Grove
Park, and 5) a lot consisting of the remainder of the subject site owned by the applicant.
b. Proposed Amendment
The applicant is proposing to fully comply with Special Condition 2 of Coastal Development
Permit 5-97-367 in that the final project will consist of only 5 legal lots. However, as a result
of this amendment, a change to VTTM 15381 will be required. This change will consist of
increasing the size of the lot proposed for residential subdivision from 14.9 acres to 18.4
acres (Exhibit 2).
2. Residential Development
a. As -Approved Under Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367
Subdivision of the 14.9 acre residential site into 70 single-family residential lots (minimum lot
size of 5,000 square feet with an average lot size of 6,250 square feet), 7 private open space
5-97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties _LCI
Page 18 of 74
lots for landscaping (2.08 acres), and a private roadway system was conditionally approved.
No physical structures weie approved. A subsequent approval is necessary for any structures
such as utilities, storm drains, roads, perimeter walls, houses, and any gating. The conditions
of the Commission's approval prohibited restrictions on the free movement of pedestrians and
bicycles, but did not prohibit restrictions on public vehicular access to the subdivision.
b. Proposed Amendment
The applicant proposes to increase the size of the residential subdivision from 14.9 acres to
18.4 acres. The 18.4 acre site will be subdivided into 70 single-family residential lots, two
landscape lots (Lots A and B), three open space lots [Lots C, D, and E), and four private street
lots (Streets A through D). The 70 single-family residential lots will occupy 11.92 acres of
the 18.4 acre site and have a maximum lot size of 11,059 square feet, a minimum lot size of
6,175 square feet with an average lot size of 7,430 square feet. The two landscape lots will
occupy 1.63 acres of the 18.4 acre site. The three open space lots will occupy 0.55 acres of
the 18.4 acre site. The street lots will occupy approximately 4.30 acres of the 18.4 acre site
(Exhibit 2).
3. Wetland Fill
a. As -Approved Under Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367
A total of approximately twenty-seven (27) acres of wetlands exist on-site (Coastal Resources
Management & Chambers Group, 1996). The 110.1 acre public 18 -hole golf course would
have required the fill of 17.9 acres of existing wetlands. The proposed wetland creation
would have also resulted in the fill of 9.1 acres of wetlands.
b. Proposed Amendment
The amendment would eliminate all proposed development resulting in the fill of existing
wetlands.
4. Salt Marsh
a. As -Approved Under Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367
A total of 52.3 acres of salt marsh (including buffers) were ultimately to be provided. The
applicant was proposing to construct 39.1 acres of salt marsh, including transition buffers,
initially (Phase 11. The applicant was also proposing to reserve two existing areas which
presently contain mineral production facilities for potential future wetland creation in two
future phases. Phase 2 would include a mineral production area adjacent to the Haynes
Cooling Channel and would be contiguous with the proposed salt marsh. Phase 3 would
consist of the westernmost portion of a 19.28 acre mineral production area towards the
center of the site. The applicant proposed to set aside a combined total of 13.2 acres of
existing mineral production area for potential future expansion of the Phase 1 salt marsh. I
all three phases were completed, the entire salt marsh (including buffers) would be 52.3
acres.
5-97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 19 of 74
b. Proposed Amendment
Since the applicant is no longer proposing direct impacts upon wetlands, the applicant is
eliminating all proposed salt marsh restoration.
5. Grading
a. As -Approved Under Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367
A total of one million, six hundred thousand (1,600,000) cubic yards of grading were
proposed. Eight hundred thousand (800,000) cubic yards of grading (cut) would have been
excavated to construct the wetlands. The 800,000 cubic yards of excavated material would
have been used for fill for the proposed golf course and clubhouse.
Proposed Amendment
In the current amendment, the applicant would reduce the amount of grading from 1,600,000
cubic yards to 420,000 cubic yards of grading 1210,000 cubic yards of cut and 210,000
cubic yards of filll. This proposed grading will occur in the upland area for the residential
development.
State Lands Parcel
As -Approved Under Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367
The parcel of land adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway currently owned by the California State
Lands Commission was contemplated for visitor -serving uses. A City historic building, the
Krenwinkle House, was proposed to be moved to the site to be used as a historical museum
and/or interpretive center for the adjacent proposed salt marsh. Also contemplated were
10,000 square feet of visitor -serving commercial uses. Sixty-two (62) parking spaces were
shown on the conceptual site plan. A simple interpretive facility consisting of a raised
platform with displays overlooking the proposed salt marsh was also proposed.
b. Proposed Amendment
All proposed development on the California State Lands Commission parcel has been
eliminated. Any development on this site would be the subject of a separate amendment to
this coastal development permit or a new coastal development permit.
Archaeology
As -Approved Under Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367
The applicant is proposing an archaeological investigation to document the existence of
cultural resources in the eleven cultural resource sites identified on the property. The eleven
State -identified cultural resource sites are CA -ORA -256, CA -ORA -260, CA -ORA -261, CA -
ORA -262, CA -ORA -263/852, CA -ORA -264, CA -ORA -850, CA -ORA -851. CA -ORA -1472, CA
ORA -1473 and Area D.
5-97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 20 of 74
The archaeological investigation consists, in part, of digging 3000 centimeter square shovel
test pits I" STPs") to a maximum depth of 50 centimeters. STPs will be placed at 20 meter
intervals on each cultural resource site, resulting in approximately 91 STPs. An additional 19
STPs will be dug on selected sites to supplement the sampling of the 91 STPs.
In addition, the proposed archaeological investigation will consist of digging Test Excavation
Units I"TEUs"). The proposed TEUs are 1x1 meter square and will be hand excavated at 10
centimeter intervals. A total of 45 TEUs (between 2 and 8 per site) are expected to be dug.
The TEUs will be placed on each site based on the results of both the STPs and a ground
penetrating radar survey of each site.
b. Proposed Amendment
No changes are proposed to the previously approved archeological investigation.
S. Golf Course and Clubhouse
a. As -Approved Under Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367
The applicant was proposing a 110.1 acre, 18 hole golf course open to the public. A golf
clubhouse, also to be open to the public, was also contemplated.
b. Proposed Amendment
The previously proposed golf course and clubhouse have been eliminated.
a
9. Parks and Trails
a. As -Approved Under Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367
The applicant was proposing to dedicate the 11.1 acre Gum Grove Park to the City of Seal
Beach. The City currently leases the park, an unimproved nature park with a eucalyptus tree
grove, from the applicant. The applicant also proposed to dedicate public trails which would
extend from the State Lands parcel to the north and south of the Phase 1 salt marsh and end
at viewing nodes along the salt marsh.
b. Proposed Amendment
The applicant is not proposing to change the previously proposed Gum Grove Park dei:ication.
In addition, the applicant has announced the intention to comply with the requirements of
Special Conditions 4 and 5 as imposed under Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367, In
complying with the previously imposed special conditions, Gum Grove Park is to increase in
size from 11.1 acres to 14.8 acres. The additional 3.7 acres will be reserved for the parking
lot and trail required by the Commission's conditions of approval.
Since the development on the State Lands parcel and the golf course are being eliminated, the
applicant is eliminating the previously proposed public trails and viewing nodes extending from
5-97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties _--I
Page 21 of 74
the State Lands parcel to the north and south of the previously proposed and now eliminated
Phase 1 salt marsh.
10. Acquisition of Southern California Edison Property
As -Approved Under Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367
Prior to the September 9, 1998 Commission hearing, the applicant amended the project
description to provide for the acquisition of the 8 acre Southern California Edison property
which bisected the wetland restoration area. Prior to adding this element to the project
description, the applicant would have been required to buy or lease at least 5 acres of this
land to accomplish their previously proposed restoration. Therefore, this addition to the
project description did not change the quantity of previouslyproposed wetland restoration.
This addition simply clarified that the applicant had a responsibility to acquire or lease lands in
order to carry out their proposed project.
Proposed Amendment
The applicant has not proposed to eliminate acquisition of the Southern California Edison
(SCE) property. Since the wetland restoration is no longer proposed, the SCE property is not
needed for this purpose. However, as outlined below, the applicant is proposing to deed
restrict the 'lowlands" portion of the property. A portion of the area proposed for deed
restriction includes the SCE property. Therefore, in order to carry out their proposal, the
applicant would still need to provide for some legal interest in the SCE property in order to
record the proposed deed restriction.
11. MineraPProduction Area - Deed Restriction/Conservation Easement
a. As -Approved Under Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367
Prior to the September 9, 1998 Commission hearing, the applicant amended the project
description to propose to deed restrict and add a conservation easement over 13.2 acres of
mineral production area that would allow for future restoration or open space upon cessation
of mineral production.
Proposed Amendment
This conservation easement is no longer proposed.
12. Lowlands Deed Restriction
a. As -Approved Under Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367
The previously proposed golf course resulted in the fill of wetlands and was occurring in a
lowland area that had been identified as suitable for wetlands restoration. The Commission
acknowledged that the lowlands were potentially restorable to wetlands given sufficient
funding and the presence of an entity willing to undertake the restoration. In
acknowledgment of this potential, the Commission imposed a special condition ISpecial
5-97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 22 of 74
Condition 1) which required that the lowlands be available for sale to a public or non-profit
entity wishing to perform a wetlands restoration. The deed restriction was to be in place for
the life of the golf course use approved under CDP 5-97-367.
b. Proposed Amendment
The golf course has been eliminated from the proposed project. Therefore, there is no longer
any proposed physical development in the lowlands. However, under this amendment, the
applicant is proposing a deed restriction to be recorded against the property which would
reserve approximately 100 acres of contiguous wetlands, lowlands and uplands on the site
(Exhibit 3). The language of the proposed deed restriction is a slightly modified version of
Special Condition 1 of Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367 (Appendix A). The language of
the proposed deed restriction is as follows:
RESERVATION OF POTENTIAL FOR LOWLANDS ACQUISITION FOR WETLANDS
RESTORATION
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant
shall execute and record a deed restriction, in a form and of content acceptable to the
Executive Director which shall provide that:
(a) for a period of twenty-five years the applicant agrees to sell the lowlands area of
the property as defined in Attachment I to any public agency or non-profit
association acceptable to the Executive Director that requests in writing to
purchase the property;
(b) the sale shall be at fair market value as established by an appraisal paid for by the
buyer and prepared by an appraiser mutually acceptable to the buyer and applicant,
or, if the parties are unable to agree, by an appraiser designated by third party, or if
the buyer and applicant agree through an arbitration on value; and,
(c) for uses restricted to wetlands restoration and education purposes, with reversion
rights to the State Coastal Conservancy.
The deed restriction shall remain in effect for twenty-five years and be recorded over
the lowlands area of the property and shall run with the land, binding all successors
and assigns, and shall be recorded free of prior liens and encumbrances that the
Executive Director determines may affect the enforceability of the restriction. This
deed restriction shall not be removed or changed without a Coastal
Commission -approved amendment to this coastal development permit unless the
Executive Director determines that no amendment is required.
13. Infrastructure
a. As -Approved Under Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367
An extension of Adolfo Lopez Drive across land owned by the City of Seal Beach was
proposed.
5-97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 23 of 74
Proposed Amendment
The extension of Adoli&Lopez Drive is still proposed in the amendment.
14. Bio -Swale and Water Quality Basin
As -Approved Under Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367
There was no bio-swale or water quality basin previously proposed.
Proposed Amendment
The applicant is proposing the construction of a bio-swale and riparian corridor plus a water
quality detention and filtration basin (Exhibit 4). The purpose of the proposed structures is to
capture and treat storm water run-off and non -storm related low flows discharged from the
proposed residential subdivision, as well as to treat some off-site storm and non -storm related
discharges originating from Seal Beach Boulevard. The proposed system is outlined in the
Storm Water Management & Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan, dated July 27, 2000,
prepared by MDS Consulting and Fuscoe Engineering of Irvine, California.
The proposed system consists of three basic elements: 1) water quality catch basins within
the residential subdivision designed to remove trash, litter and grease; 2) a "bio-swale"
consisting of vegetated and course gravel filter areas where sediment, debris, soap, dirt,
fertilizers and pesticides will be filtered; and 3) a 1.94 acre filtration basin treatment wetland
where first flush will be detained and nutrients, bacteria, metals, and organics are removed.
B: Ownership and Existing Legal Parcels
The applicant has confirmed that there is no existing subdivision of the Hellman Ranch
property. In addition, this parcel is currently utilized for mineral production, of which Hellman
Properties owns the entire operating interest. Further, although Shell Oil (now Signal Hill
Petroleum) has a 50% producing interest in APN 980-36-605, Signal Hill Petroleum has no
land rights (Exhibit 10).
There are several assessor's tax parcels within the Hellman ownership, including assessor's
tax parcels for mineral rights. However, County of Orange assessor's parcels which are
utilized for tax purposes are not the same as legal lots for purposes of the Subdivision Map
Act.
Under Coastal Devtiopment Permit 5-97-367, the applicant was requesting approval of
Tentative Tract Map 15381 which subdivided the applicant's lot into several lots. This
subdivision of the land was approved by the Commission subject to a special condition which
reduced the total number of lots created from 9 lots to 5 lots. Under this permit amendment,
the applicant is proposing to expand the size of the residential subdivision from 14.9 acres to
18.4 arses.
5-97-367-A (Hellman Properties LLC,
Page 24 of 74
C. Previous Commission Actions
1982 Commission Actions
In 1982, Ponderosa Homes applied for coastal development permit application 5-82-221 for
the fill of all the existing on-site wetlands and construction of parks and 1,000 homes. Staff
recommended that the Commission hold a hearing (May 18, 1982) to discuss the proposed
development in light of the wetland and seismic hazards constraints, but the item was
ultimately withdrawn.
The California Department of Fish and Game prepared a wetlands determination of the site in
conjunction with the Ponderosa project in 1982. In addition, the Coastal Conservancy
developed a wetlands enhancement plan for the on-site wetlands. The Conservancy plan
evaluated several wetland restoration alternatives that would work around the development
proposed under coastal development permit application 5-82-221.
The consolidation of the on-site wetlands into either an on-site tidal salt marsh or an on-site
brackish water marsh near the culvert leading to the San Gabriel River was deemed to be
technically feasible. Ultimately, however, the Conservancy determined that these alternatives
presented significant problems regarding the cost of wetland construction, required changes
to the then -proposed Ponderosa Homes project to accommodate the wetlands and long-term
maintenance of the culvert linking the wetland with the salt marsh site.
The consolidation of the on-site wetlands into a brackish water marsh near the Los Alamitos
Retarding Basin was also considered to be technically feasible. This marsh would have
essentially been an extension of the seasonal wetland created when the flood control basin
fills with winter storm. runoff. , This wetland alternative would be dependent on runoff,
ground -water pumping and diversion of runoff from the flood control basin for its water
supply. Again, however, the Conservancy determined that this alternative would have
required changes to the design of the then -proposed Ponderosa Homes project.
The Conservancy thus concluded that off-site restoration would provide the best chance for
creation of a long-term viable and regionally significant wetland in the area. This conclusion
was also based in part on minimizing changes to the then -proposed housing development,
costs to the developer and revenue loss to the City of Seal Beach. The Conservancy
recommended three preferred off-site areas: the Talbert Marsh and Fairview areas of the
Santa Ana River and uplands areas next to and within the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge
(Anaheim Bay wetlands).
The Conservancy presented these wetland alternatives to the Commission as Coastal
Conservancy Project p1-82. The Commission approved the Conservancy project in concept
with conditions requiring: 1) further study of all alternatives, data from which was to be
presented to the Commission along with the selection of a final site and 21 conditions
addressing the specific alternatives of the on-site wetlands near the culvert, on-site wetlands
near the flood control basin and the Seal Beach wildlife refuge site. None of the Conservancy
project wetland restoration alternatives were undertaken because the Ponderosa Homes
project was never constructed.
5-97-367-A1 IHellman Properties LLC)
Page 25 of 74
2. 1989-1990 Commission Actions IMOLAI
On November 14, 1989, the Commission denied permit application 5.89-514 by the MOLA
Corporation to construbl-355 homes with both wetland fill and wetland restoration. The
Commission then waived the six month waiting period required by the Regulations to rehear a
project which has already been denied by the Commission. On January 12, 1990, the
Commission approved Coastal Development Permit 5-89-1087 for construction of 355 homes,
4 acres of wetland fill, 36.8 acres of wetland habitat and 1.3 million cubic yards of cut and
1.4 million cubic yards of fill.
As a condition of approval, the Commission required the proposed wetland restoration area to
be expanded by four acres to further mitigate the four acres of fill. The four acre expansion
would have: 1) removed planned homes that would have intruded into planned wetland, 2)
removed structural development from a highly liquefiable site, 31 further ensured the success
of the planned wetland by creating additional wetland and buffer area and 4) allowed the Port
of Long Beach to use the site for mitigation credits. The MOLA project was also never
undertaken.
3. 1998 Commission Action (Hellman Properties LLC)
On September 9, 1998, the Commission approved Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367 for
subdivision of the 196 acre Hellman Ranch into several parcels including a 70 -home
subdivision, and construction of an 18 -hole golf course, construction of 39.1 acres of
wetlands, dedication of a public park (Gum Grove Park), visitor serving amenities including
trails and reservation of 13.2 acres of existing mineral production area for future wetlands
restoration. The Commission imposed 14 special conditions (see Appendix A), which required
1) reservation of the lowlands portion of the property for acquisition for wetlands restoration;
2)a revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15381 reducing the number of lots from 9 to 5;
31 lease restrictions on the uses proposed on the State Lands Commission parcel; 4)
dedication of Gum Grove Park; 5) implementation of a public access program; 6) requirements
regarding the review and implementation of the archeological investigation; 7) conformance
with water quality requirements; 8) implementation of mitigation measures for geologic
hazards; 9) requirements to obtain future coastal development permits for the houses; 10)
demonstration of legal interest; 111 requirements for wetlands restoration; 12) requirements
for a final revised wetlands restoration program; 13) requirements related to operation of the
golf course and implementation of a wetland education program for golfers; and 14)
requirements regarding the timing of construction.
The approved project resulted in the fill of wetlands for the construction of a golf course. As
noted more fully in the findings adopted by the Commission on February 3, 1999, the
Commission's approval was based on Section 30233(a)(3) and 30411(b)(3) of the Coastal
Act. This approval was challenged in a lawsuit filed by the League for Coastal Protection,
California Earth Corps and the Wetlands Action Network. In response to the lawsuit, a
settlement agreement was reached by the parties involved. As noted in the written
settlement, " Itlhe basic purpose of this Agreement is to resolve litigation by remanding the
subject project to the Coastal Commission for consideration of a modified Project as set forth
in Exhibit "A" that would: (1) eliminate development within and impacts to wetlands that
would have been caused by the golf course portion which would have resulted in the fill of
5-97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 26 of 74
17.9 acres of existing wetlands; and (2) allow the balance of the project within the upland
areas to proceed forward...". In response to this settlement agreement, the applicant filed the
subject application for:an amendment to Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367 which
eliminates the proposed golf course and direct impacts to wetlands.
D. Chapter 3 Coastal Act Policy Analysis
1. Wetlands
Section 30108.2 of the Coastal Act states:
"Fill" means earth or any other substance or material, including pilings placed for the
purposes of erecting structures thereon, placed in a submerged area.
Section 30121 of the Coastal Act states:
"Wetland" means lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or
permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes,
open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens.
The subject site contains 27.087 acres of scattered wetlands according to a wetlands
assessment of the site (Coastal Resources Management & Chambers Group, 1996).
According to the assessment, the existing wetlands are comprised of 15.91 acres of salt
marsh vegetation, 2.026 acres of seasonally ponded water, 7.0059 acres of alkaline flat and
3.146 acres of tidal channel. The majority of the wetlands are clustered: 1) around the tidal
channel which runs through the middle of the property and delivers site runoff to a culvert
which connects to the San Gabriel River or 2) adjacent to the Haynes Cooling Channel at the
north edge of the property. The project previously proposed and approved under Coastal
Development Permit 5-97-367 resulted in the fill of all of the existing wetlands. The proposed
fill resulted from the construction of a golf course and from implementation of a wetlands
restoration program. Under this amendment request, the applicant is proposing to eliminate
the golf course and associated wetlands impacts and wetlands restoration. There would be
no direct impact to wetlands from the revised project as proposed under this amendment.
e. Background on On-site Wetlands
The Commission found previously in its approval of Coastal Development Permit 5-89-1087
that, historically (and as recently as the late 1890's). all of the lowland areas of the subject
site were part of the 2,400 acre Alamitos Bay wetland complex at the mouth of the San
Gabriel River, Over time, however, man-made alterations reduced the size and quality of the
wetlands.
Substantial degradation of the wetlands on the Hellman property began with oil production in
the 1920's, which resulted in the fill of wetlands for access roads and production facilities.
The wetlands were further altered following the rerouting and channelization of the San
Gabriel River from 1930-34. Marsh land receded further as canals and levees were built to
control water on the property. The construction from 1951-63 of the adjacent Los Angeles
5-97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 27 of 74
Department of Water and Power cooling channel for the upriver Haynes Power Plant resulted
in the deposition of large quantities of fill on the site and additional fill of wetlands.
The City of Seal Beach also allowed fill to be placed on the property during the 1960's and
early 1970's, and the Commission's predecessor Coastal Zone Conservation Commission also
approved fill activity between 1972-75. Continued oil production and off-road vehicle use on
the site currently contributes to the degradation of the wetlands.
b. Importance of Wetlands
One of the main reasons for preserving, expanding, and enhancing Southern California's
remaining wetlands is because of their important ecological function. First and foremost,
wetlands provide critical habitat, nesting sites and foraging areas for threatened or
endangered species. Wetlands also serve as migratory resting spots on the Pacific Flyway, a
north -south flight corridor extending from Canada to Mexico used by migratory bird species.
In addition, wetlands also serve as natural filtering mechanisms to help remove pollutants
from storm runoff b -fore the runoff enters into streams and rivers leading to the ocean.
Further, wetlands serve as natural flood retention areas.
Another critical reason for preserving, expanding and enhancing Southern California's
remaining wetlands is because of their scarcity. As much as 75% of coastal wetlands in
southern California have been lost, and, statewide up to 91 % of coastal wetlands have been
lost. As described earlier, the 27 acres of existing on-site wetlands are part of only 150+
acres which remain of the former 2,400 acre Alamitos Bay wetland complex. Therefore, it is
critical to maintain and enhance the remaining wetlands to ensure that wetlands exist to carry
out the functions described above.
C. Section 30233 Analysis
Section 30233 of the Coastal Act regulates the type of development which may occur in
wetlands located in the Coastal Zone. Section 30233 of the Coastal Act states, in relevant
part:
la/ The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and
lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division,
where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where
feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental
effects, and shall be limited to the following:
!11 New or expanded port, energy, and coastal -dependent industrial facilities,
including commercial fishing facilities.
!2/ Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged, depths in existing
navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas,
and boar launching ramps.
i3i In wetland areas only, entrance channels for new or expanded boating
facilities; and in a degraded wetland, identified by the Department of Fish
5-97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 28 of 74
and Game pursuant to subdivision Ib/ of Section 30411, for boating facilities
if, in conjunction with such boating facilities, a substantial portion of the
degraded wetland is restored and maintained as a biologically productive
wetland. The size of the wetland area used for boating facilities, including
berthing space, turning basins, necessary navigation channels, and any
necessary support service facilities, shall not exceed 25 percent of the
degraded wetland.
l4f In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including streams, estuaries,
and lakes, new or expanded boating facilities and the placement of
structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and
recreational opportunities.
l51 Incidental public service purposes, including but not limited to, burying
cables and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake
and outfall lines.
(6) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in
environmentally sensitive areas.
(7) Restoration purposes.
I8/ Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource dependent activities.
The previously proposed project would result in development upon wetlands regulated by
Section 30233 of the Coastal Act. More specifically, construction of the golf course and
wetland restoration elements of the proposed project would have filled or dredged all 27 acres
of existing on-site wetlands. Of the total 27 acres of wetland fill or dredge, 17.9 acres of fill
would have resulted from construction of the proposed golf course and 9.1 acres of dredging
and some fill would have resulted from the proposed salt marsh enhancement. The applicant
was proposing to construct a total of 39.1 acres of restored wetlands with reservation of an
additional 13.2 acres of land for potential restoration by a willing agency or non-profit entity.
In order to ensure that the proposed wetland restoration program was carried out, the
Commission imposed Special Condition 11 (Wetlands Restoration Area/Conservation) which
specifically identified the applicant's responsibility to provide the approved quantity of
restored wetland habitat. Since the project proposed under this amendment results in no
direct impacts upon wetlands, the Commission finds that the previously imposed Special
Condition 11 is no longer necessary. Therefore, the Commission removes, in entirety, Special
Condition 11.
The Commission also previously imposed Special Condition 12 (Final Wetland Restoration
Program) which outlined various requirements for the wetlands restoration program. Since no
direct impacts upon wetlands are occurring and no wetlands restoration is being proposed
under this amendment, the Commission finds that the previously imposed Special Condition
12 is no longer necessary. Therefore, the Commission removes, in entirety, Special Condition
12.
5 -97 -367 -At (Hellman Properties LLCI
Page 29 of 74
Since the previously proposed golf course was being constructed adjacent to wetlands which
were proposed to be restored and/or created and the golf course would have had adverse
impacts upon wetlands, the Commission imposed Special Condition 13 (Golf Course
Operations and Golfer Wetland Education Program) which identified the timing of golf course
opening, limitations on golf ball retrieval, requirements for golfer education on wetlands, a
deed restriction outlining for existing and future owners the requirements for managing the
golf course in a manner that was compatible with management of the wetlands for habitat
purposes, and design requirements of the golf course. Since the golf course has been
eliminated from the project and there is no proposed wetlands restoration, the Commission
finds that previously imposed Special Condition 13 is no longer necessary. Therefore, the
Commission removes, in entirety, Special Condition 13.
d. Section 30231 Analysis - Wetlands
Section 30231 of the Coastal Act requires wetland biological productivity to be maintained,
and where feasible restored. Section 30231 of the Coastal Act states:
The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams,
wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations
of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be
maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means,
minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment,
controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and
substantial interference with surface water flow, encouraging waste water
reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect
riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams.
The proposed project includes grading for a residential subdivision and construction of a bio-
swale and detention basin. This development will be occurring in areas that are adjacent to
existing wetlands on the project site.
As noted previously, the subject 196 acre site contains approximately 27 acres of wetlands.
Most of these wetlands are concentrated around the Haynes Cooling Channel and around a
linear tidal channel which roughly bisects the Hellman Ranch. However, there are also
scattered wetlands around the property.
The proposed residential subdivision and associated grading will occupy an upland mesa
which is bound by Seal Beach Boulevard to the west and the lowlands and oil production area
to the east (Exhibit 1, page 3). There are three wetland areas in the lowlands which are near
to this development including 1) an irregularly shaped approximately 60 foot long by 40 foot
wide salt marsh (herein referred to as "Wetland A") which will be 171 feet away from the
limits of the grading and residential subdivision; 2) an irregularly shaped 300 foot long by 150
foot wide salt marsh and alkaline flat (herein referred to as "Wetland B") that is 270 feet
away from the limits of the grading and residential subdivision; and 3) the western terminus
of the approximately 20 foot wide tidal channel (herein referred to as "Tidal Channel") which
is 238 feet from the limits of the grading and residential subdivision. Therefore, the limits of
the grading and the residential subdivision will place the development between 171 feet to
270 feet away from the nearest wetlands.
5-97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 30 of 74
The applicant is also proposing to construct a bio-swale and detention basin along the
northeastern side of the proposed residential subdivision. The bio-swale will be placed
between the residential subdivision and Wetland A. The proposed bio-swale and detention
basin will require grading and the placement of structures. In addition, these structures will
be surrounded by a landscaped area that will require the placement of vegetation. At the
nearest point, the edge of the proposed bio-swale will be 60 feet from the edge of Wetland A.
The edge of the landscaped area would be approximately 10 feet from the edge of Wetland A.
Wetland Buffer
Buffer areas are undeveloped lands surrounding wetlands. Buffer areas serve to protect
wetlands from the direct effects of nearby disturbance. In addition, buffer areas can provide
necessary habitat for organisms that spend only a portion of their life in the wetland such as
amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Buffer areas provide obstructions which help
minimize the entry of domestic animals and humans to wetlands. Buffers also provide visual
screening between wetland species that are sensitive to human impacts, such as lighting.
Buffers can also reduce noise disturbances to wetland species from human development.
The proposed project is providing a 171 foot to 270 foot wide buffer between existing
wetlands and the proposed residential development and associated grading. Furthermore, the
applicant is proposing to construct a vegetated bio-swale and water quality basin between the
residential development and existing wetland.
The applicant has provided a biological analysis analyzing the compatibility of the proposed
vegetated bio-swale and water quality basin with the continuance of Wetland A. The
biological analysis identifies impacts upon hydrology as the only substantial source of
potential impacts upon Wetland A. The biological analysis states that Wetland A is an
isolated wetland which exhibits substantial degradation due to a lack of hydrology.
Hydrological input is from direct rainfall only. The proposed bio-swale will not change the
hydrology of the wetland. Therefore, the biological analysis concludes that the proposed
buffer is adequate because the proposed development will not change the hydrology of
Wetland A.
The applicant also submitted a biological analysis of the compatibility of the proposed bio-
swele and water quality basin with the potential future restoration of wetlands in the
lowlands. This biological analysis states that the proposed bio-swale will be planted with
native hydrophytes such as southern cattail, California bulrush, Olney's bulrush, Mexican rush
and iris -leaved rush. In addition, native riparian species such as mulefat, arroyo willow,
narrow -leaf willow and black willow will be planted. The biological analysis states that this
vegetation palette will provide habitat for wetland associated avian species such as marsh
wren, common yellowthroat, song sparrow, mallards, red -winged blackbird. black phoebe, and
a variety of egrets and herons.
However, the biological analysis also states that the final plant palette has not been
developed, but will generally consist of the above species. The Commission finds that the
use of vegetation native to southern California wetland and riparian environments is necessary
to ensure the proposed bio-swale and water quality basin are compatible with the continuance
5-97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 31 of 74
of existing wetlands, as well as potential future wetland restoration. Therefore, the
Commission imposes Special Condition 20 which requires that, prior to issuance of the
coastal development permit, the applicant submit for review and approval of the Executive
Director, a final landscape plan for the proposed bio-swale and water quality basin. The final
landscape plan shall be prepared in consultation with the California Department of Fish and
Game. The final plan shall be accompanied by a written endorsement of the landscape plan
by the California Department of Fish and Game. The applicant shall construct the bio-swale
and water quality basin in accordance with the final plan approved by the Executive Director.
Any changes to the plan shall be reported to the Executive Director and the applicant shall
obtain an amendment to this coastal development permit for any changes the Executive
Director determines requires an amendment.
In addition, if construction equipment and staging is not appropriately managed, adverse
impacts upon wetlands on the project site could occur. For instance, soil stockpiles could
erode causing sedimentation of wetlands. In addition, if not sited appropriately, construction
equipment and activity could cause trampling of the wetlands. Therefore, the Commission
imposes Special Condition 25. Special Condition 25 requires that, prior to issuance of the
coastal development permit, the permittee shall submit a plan for the review and approval of
the Executive Director which indicates that the construction staging areas) and construction
corridor(s) will avoid impacts to wetlands. The plan shall demonstrate that construction
equipment or activity shall not occur outside the staging area and construction corridor
identified on the site plan required by this condition and that construction equipment and
activity shall not be placed in any location which would result in impacts to wetlands. The
plan shall include, at a minimum, the following components: a site plan that depicts the limits
of the staging area(s); construction corridor(s); construction site; the location of construction
fencing and temporary job trailers with respect to existing wetlands.
As noted in the project description, under the previously proposed project, the applicant was
requesting approval of a subdivision of one 196.6 acre parcel in a configuration that would
separate the existing mineral production areas from the previously proposed golf course,
wetlands and residential areas. Under the previous approval, the Commission found it
necessary to approve a revised land division configuration that maintained in single parcel
ownership and usage the land areas proposed for the golf course and wetland restoration, as
well as the area currently used for oil production which provides an economically viable use of
the property. This means that should any owner of the separate lowlands parcel come
forward at some time in the future with a new development proposal in the lowlands portion
of the project site now before the Commission, that owner would already have an
economically viable use of the property (assuming mineral production is ongoing). Only by
keeping the mineral production sites combined with the remainder of the lowlands area as one
parcel could the Commission allow the subdivision of the remainder of the project site and
ensure that future development proposals will not compel the Commission to allow uses in the
lowlands solely to avoid a takings claim. Accordingly, the Commission attached Special
Condition 2 for revision of the proposed Tentative Tract Map 15381. Only as conditioned,
could the Commission find the proposed project consistent with the Coastal Act. Under this
proposed amendment, the applicant is proposing to fully comply with Special Condition 2.
The Commission finds that the revised VTTM 15381 depicted in Exhibit 2 confoinis .Jth
Special Condition 2 and complies with the required merger of the oil production parcel with
the lowlands acreage.
5-97-367-A7 (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 32 of 74
Potential Future Restoration
There are few potential wetland mitigation sites left in the Southern California coastal zone
available for meaningful, substantial wetland mitigation. There are several entities, such as
the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach which require wetland mitigation to off -set impacts
to wetlands resulting from improvements to the ports. The need for wetland mitigation sites
in the future is inevitable to the extent certain entities need to fill coastal waters to expand
and grow coastal dependent facilities.
As noted above, the Hellman Ranch lowlands were historically a part of the 2,400 acre
Alamitos Bay wetland complex. These wetlands have been substantially impacted over time
due to oil production activities, work upon the San Gabriel River channel and construction of
the Haynes Cooling Channel. At least one entity, the Port of Long Beach, has identified the
Hellman lowlands as a potential wetland restoration site. In addition, a preliminary plan
prepared by the Southern California Wetland Recovery Project (not a public entity) identifies
the Hellman lowlands as a potential wetland restoration site.
Section 30231 of the Coastal Act encourages the restoration of the biological productivity of
coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, streams, and lakes. In recognition of this and in
compliance with the settlement agreement noted above, the applicant is proposing a twenty-
five year deed restriction which will make available for sale approximately 100 acres of
lowlands of the Hellman Ranch for wetlands restoration and open space purposes.
Specifically, the applicant is proposing that, prior to the issuance of the coastal development
permit, the applicant shall execute and record a deed restriction which shall provide that: (a)
for a period of twenty-five years, the applicant agrees to sell the lowlands area of the
property as defined ih Attachment 1 to any public agency or non-profit association acceptable
to the Executive Director that requests in writing to purchase the property; (b) the sale shall
be at fair market value as established by an appraisal paid for by the buyer and prepared by an
appraiser mutually acceptable to the buyer and applicant, or, if the parties are unable to agree,
by an appraiser designated by third party, or if the buyer and applicant agree through an
arbitration on value; and, (c) for uses restricted to wetlands restoration and education
purposes, with reversion rights to the State Coastal Conservancy. The applicant proposes
that the deed restriction shall remain in effect for twenty-five years and be recorded over the
lowlands area of the property and shall run with the land, binding all successors and assigns.
Special Condition 16.A. implements the applicants proposed deed restriction and replaces
previously imposed Special Condition 1.
The limits of the proposed deed restricted area have been defined in a document titled
"Attachment 1" which is found in Exhibit 3, page 1 of these findings. "Attachment 1" shows
that the applicant is proposing to deed restrict some areas which are also being proposed for
use as a bio-swale and water quality basin. In addition, as noted more fully below, the area
proposed for deed restriction includes some upland areas which must be dedicated as open
space in perpetuity to mitigate for the loss of raptor foraging habitat. In order to assure that
the proposed approximately 100 acre deed restricted area provides the identified acreage for
possible restorat;on/open space, the areas committed to the bio-swale and water quality
basin, as well as needed replacement raptor foraging habitat should Se deleted from the 100
acres and offset. The Commission therefore imposes Special Condition 16.8. which requires
5.97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 33 of 74
the applicant to submit a revised "Attachment 1", for review and approval of the Executive
Director, which maintains the quantity of proposed deed restricted area and which removes
those areas and replaces the removal of those. areas from the deed restriction with other land
within the project site suitable for wetlands restoration, open space and environmental
education purposes. As conditioned, the Commission finds the proposed project is consistent
with Section 30231 of the Coastal Act.
2. Upland Biological Resources
Section 30240 of the Coastal Act states, in relevant part:
tb/ Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks
and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would
significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of
those habitat and recreation areas.
As part of the proposed development, the applicant is dedicating a 14.8 acre passive
recreational nature park, Gum Grove Park, to the City of Seal Beach. As described below,
Gum Grove Park contains natural resources which could be degraded if the proposed
development is not designed to be compatible with the continuance of the park's resources.
According to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan,
approximately 137 acres of the Hellman Ranch site can be characterized as ruderal grassland
containing mostly non-native early successional herbaceous plants. Existing plant species
include slender wild oat, ripgut grass, Italian ryegrass, telegraph weed, bristly ox -tongue,
Australian saltbush, five -hooked bassia, alkali weed and white sweet clover. The EIR states
that these areas are disced on a regular basis.
There are various bird species which nest and/or forage at the Hellman Ranch and within Gum
Grove Park. The EIR and subsequent biological analyses outline species present. The
federally and state listed American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) may
occasionally forage at the site. Loggerhead shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus) (a state listed
Species of Special Concern) may breed in large shrubs and small trees in ruderal areas of the
property and forage on small prey such as insects and lizards which occur on the property.
The white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) Is state listed Fully Protected species) may breed in
Gum Grove Park and has been observed in the project area. In addition, other raptors that are
state listed Species of Special Concern, such as the northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), sharp -
shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus). Cooper's hawk (Accipiter coopeni), osprey (Pandion
haliaetus), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), merlin (Falco columbarius) and short -eared owl
(Asio flammeus), occasionally forage on the subject site. Among these raptors, the Cooper's
hawk has the potential to breed in Gum Grove Park. Other raptors which have been observed
at the project site include the turkey vulture (Cathartes aura). American kestral (Falco
sparverius), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jainaicensisl and red -shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus).
Gum Grove Park provides roosting, nesting and breeding areas for these sensitive avian
species. In addition, Gum Grove Park provides potential habitat for the monarch butterfly
Manaus plexippus).
5-97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties LLCI
Page 34 of 74
The proposed project will subdivide and grade 18.4 acres of ruderal upland habitat within
Hellman Ranch. This ruderal area presently provides foraging area for raptors present at the
subject site and whichroost, nest and breed in Gum Grove Park. In letters from the California
Department of Fish and Game, dated May 21, 1997 and June 19, 2000, as well as by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, dated March 13, 1998 and June 5, 1998, the loss of open
space areas such as ruderal habitat on the subject site would have a significant impact upon
raptor species, especially those that are listed as sensitive or endangered. The most recent
letter from the California Department of Fish and Game, dated June 19, 2000, recommends
that the loss of documented raptor foraging habitat be compensated by committing some
remaining upland forage area as mitigation. The CDFG recommends that losses would be
adequately offset through the onsite dedication of raptor foraging habitat at a 0.5:1
mitigation -to -impact ratio in an area with long-term conservation potential.
The applicant responded to the recommendations of the California Department of Fish and
Game in their letter prepared by their biologist, Glenn Lukos Associates, dated September 11,
2000. The applicant's letter suggests that over 70 acres within the approximately 100 acre
lowlands portion of the property contains ruderal habitat identical to that being lost within the
18.4 acre subdivision. The applicant states in their letter, dated September 11, 2000, that
9.2 acres of suitable habitat would be dedicated by means of a conservation easement or
similar mechanism and that the identification of such areas would occur in consultation with
the California Department of Fish and Game.
The Commission finds that subdivision and grading of 18.4 acres for residential purposes will
impact 18.4 acres of raptor foraging habitat. The foraging habitat to be impacted supports
sensitive resources associated with Gum Grove Park. The California Department of Fish and
Game has recommended thdt,such impacts be mitigated at a 0.5:1 mitigation -to -impact ratio.
The Commission finds that in order to assure the continuance of the resources within Gum
Grove Park, the applicant must preserve 9.2 acres of suitable raptor foraging habitat.
Therefore, the Commission imposes Special Conditions 21 and 22. Special Condition 21
requires that prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit
for review and approval of the Executive Director, a map, prepared by a biologist in
accordance with current professional standards, delineating suitable raptor foraging habitat
with long term conservation potential, within the lowlands of the subject property as identified
in the letter from Glenn Lukos Associates of Lake Forest, California to John Laing Homes and
Hellman Properties, dated September 11, 2000, regarding Response to June 19, 2000, letter
from the California Department of Fish and Game Regarding Biological Resources at Hellman
Ranch. The area delineated shall not be less than 9.2 contiguous acres of raptor foraging
habitat. The delineation shall be prepared in consultation with the California Department of
Fish and Game, and the map submitted to the Executive Director shall be accompanied by a
written endorsement by the California Department of Fish and Game of the raptor foraging
habitat delineation, the site selected and the map. Special Condition 21 also requires that the
raptor foraging habitat to be identified shall have the same or better functions and values as
the site to be impacted, in accordance with the biological assessment prepared by Glenn
Lukos Associates in their letter dated September 11, 2000. The applicant's letter, dated
September 11, 2000, states that equivalent raptor foraging habitat is available in the lowlands
portion of the property (Exhibit 7, pages 16 and 17). If there are nc raptor foraging habitat
areas with the same or better functions and values as the site to be impacted in the area
previously identified by the applicant as having such, the applicant shall obtain an amendment
5-97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 35 of 74
to this coastal development permit in order to remedy the discrepancy. In addition, Special
Condition 21 requires that, prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant
shall submit for review and approval of the Executive Director, a habitat management plan
which identifies management measures necessary to, at a minimum, maintain the functions
and values of the raptor foraging habitat to be preserved. Such measures shall include
appropriate brush management measures for the maintenance of raptor foraging habitat.
Measures may include brush clearance and brush mowing; planting of plant species
associated with raptor foraging habitat, .and exotic and invasive plant species controls for the
removal of plant species which upset the functioning of the raptor foraging habitat, including,
but not limited to, ice plant, pampas grass, arundo giant cane, and myoporum. Any chemical
controls to be used in areas adjacent to wetlands shall be limited to those which are non-toxic
to wetland organisms fe.g. Rodeoe Herbicide). The raptor foraging habitat management plan
shall be prepared in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game, and shall
be accompanied by a written endorsement of the plan by the California Department of Fish
and Game.
Special Condition 22 requires that an open space deed restriction be recorded over the site
identified in Special Condition 21 which provides that no development, as defined in Section
30106 of the Coastal Act, shall occur in the raptor foraging habitat except for activities
related to raptor foraging habitat maintenance; and the following development, if approved by
the Coastal Commission as an amendment to this coastal development permit: activities
related to public access, recreation and wetland restoration provided that such development
'continues to designate a minimum of 9.2 acres of equivalent or better functioning raptor
foraging habitat. Special Condition 22 requires that, prior to 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, reflecting the above restriction on development
in the designated open space. The deed restriction shall include a copy of the raptor foraging
habitat management plan approved by the Executive Director.
In verbal communication with Commission staff, the applicant has suggested that a portion of
the 100 acres proposed to be deed restricted for sale for wetland restoration purposes could
be used for raptor foraging habitat. The applicant has further suggested that the integration
of raptor foraging areas into a wetland restoration plan would be a given component of any
wetland restoration plan which would have mixture of open water, tidal flats and upland
areas. The Commission disagrees and requires that the 9.2 acres be separate from the
proposed 100 acre deed restricted area for the following reasons: 1) requiring the 9.2 acres to
be separate from the 100 acre deed restricted area would maintain the offer for such acreage
as a bona -fide offer consistent with the settlement agreement; 2) the proposed deed
restriction is an offer for sale for 25 years and not a restriction of land -without expiration- as
is necessary to mitigate the permanent impacts upon raptor foraging habitat resulting from
grading and use of 18.4 acres for residential purposes; 31 the proposed deed restriction does
not assure the continued preservation of raptor foraging habitat because it cannot be
guaranteed that any entity wishing to purchase the deed restricted area would pursue a
wetland restoration in a manner that would be consistent with integrating raptor foraging
habitat into the restoration design. Therefore, Special Condition 22 requires a separate
restriction without expiration. Furthermore, Special Condition 16.B. requires the applicant to
submit a revised "Attachment 1 ", for review and approval of the Executive Director, which
maintains the quantity of proposed deed restricted area and which removes those areas
5 -97 -367 -At (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 36 of 74
necessary for the bio -Swale, water quality basin and raptor foraging habitat and off -sets the
removal of those areas from the deed restriction with other land within the project site
suitable for wetlands restoration, open space and environmental education purposes. As
conditioned, the Commission finds the proposed project is consistent with Section 30240 of
the Coastal Act.
3. Archaeological Resources
Section 30244 of the Coastal Act states:
Where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources
as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measures
shall be required.
The subject site contains eleven State -identified cultural resources sites. Two of these sites
would be left untouched in their current location in Gum Grove Park. However, the proposed
grading for the residential subdivision would impact seven of the other designated
archaeological sites. In addition, construction of the proposed bio-swale and detention basin
would potentially impact two additional sites.
This amendment removes the previously proposed golf course and clubhouse, expands the
footprint of the previously proposed residential subdivision and adds the bio-swale and
detention basin. The net effect of the changes proposed under this amendment result in the
same impacts upon archaeological resources as was previously proposed. Therefore, the
scope of work proposed and required under the archeological investigation remains
unchanged.
The various archeological sites have been documented during the course of previous
archaeological investigations. However, because of differences in the methodologies of the
previous investigations, the precise location of each archaeological site is uncertain.
Therefore, the applicant is proposing to undertake an archaeological investigation prior to the
commencement of any grading for the residential subdivision and grading or other
construction for the proposed bio-swale and detention basin to document the precise extent
of cultural resources on-site. To ensure the applicant's measures are implemented, Special
Condition 19.C. and 19.D. are attached by the Commission. Special Condition 19.C., as now
imposed, differs from Special Condition B.C. as previously imposed by the Commission, in
that it eliminates the specific reference to "proposed Lot 2" such that the special condition
relates to all of the development as revised and proposed under this amendment. This is
necessary because Special Condition 13.A., which previously provided this function, is no
longer applicable. Special Condition 13.A. which was previously imposed by the Commission
r@lated to the timing of golf course construction. Since the golf course is being eliminated
under this amendment, the Commission finds that Special Condition 13.A. is no longer
required and is thus eliminated. In addition, several revisions are necessary to Special
Condition 6 in order to update and clarify references within the condition. For clarity, Special
Condition 19 replaces previously imposed Special Condition 6 in its entirety.
TPle applicant has prepared an archaeological research design that at"empts to reconcile as
best as possible the uncertain locations of the identified cultural resources sites using the best
5-97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 37 of 74
information and methods available. The research design will guide the proposed
archaeological investigation. The proposed investigation will consist of the excavation of
small sections within the areas of the overall development site thought to contain the
identified cultural resources sites.
The Commission finds that the following reasonable mitigation measures shall be required.
First, to minimize impacts to cultural resources, Special Condition 19.A. requires that the
archaeological testing program must be done in accordance with the approved research
design. Second, Special Condition 19.A. also requires that the State Office of Historic
Preservation ("OHP"), the state Native American Heritage Commission ("NAHC"1, and the
Native American group/person deemed acceptable by NAHC, shall have the opportunity to
review and comment on this research design.
Further, Special Condition 19.B. requires that selection of the archaeologist must be in
accordance with accepted guidelines endorsed by the OHP. Also, because of the likelihood of
Native American remains being found, Special Condition 19.E. requires that a Native American
monitor must monitor the archaeological activities. The Native American monitor shall be
selected by the City in accordance with NAHC guidelines in consultation with the Native
American group/person deemed acceptable by the NAHC.
To ensure that impacts to cultural resources are minimized, no development (besides the
archaeological testing program) shall take place until the archaeological testing has been
completed and mitigation measures that minimize impacts to cultural resources have been
implemented. However, since the locations of many of the cultural resources sites are in
dispute and not precisely known, it is possible that the archaeological test program may miss
cultural resources that are then discovered during development activities. Therefore, the
Commission finds that the permit must require that development be temporarily halted in the
vicinity of the discovery site until appropriate mitigation measures are developed for resources
discovered during the course of post -investigation construction activities. These requirements
are contained in subsections C, D and F of Special Condition 19.
In addition, the Commission finds that all mitigation measures must comply with the
requirements of the State Office of Historic Preservation and the Native American Heritage
Commission. Therefore, Special Condition 19.F. requires that a qualified Native American
monitor shall also be present during construction activities to ensure sensitive treatment of
Native American cultural resources. Should human remains be found, the Special Condition
19.F. requires that construction shall be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovery site
and the County Coroner notified to initiate identification proceedings. The Native American
group/person shall participate in the identification process. Should the remains be determined
to be that of a Native American, the applicant must comply with the provisions of Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98. However, the Commission notes that PRC Section
5097.98, which governs procedures when human remains of a Native American are found,
exempts these procedures from the requirements of the Coastal Act.
Finally, to ensure that contractors and workers are notified of their obligations related to
archeological conditions at the site, Special Condition 19.G. requires that the content of the
special condition be incorporated into all documents that will be used by contractors and
workers for construction related activity, including bids. Therefore, as conditioned, the
5 -97 -367 -At Mailman Properties LLC)
Page 38 of 74
Commission finds that the proposed project is consistent with Section 30244 of the Coastal
Act.
4. Public Access and Recreation
Section 30210 of the Coastal Act states:
In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution,
maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities
shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to
protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from
overuse.
Section.30213 of the Coastal Act states:
Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where
feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are
preferred.
a. Proposed Gum Grove Park Dedication
The applicant proposes to dedicate Gum Grove Park to the City of Seal Beach. The applicant
currently leases the land to the City for public park purposes. The park, even though it is
leased, is currently signed as being a public park and has been used as such. The
Commission finds that prior to issuance of any residential building permits, the applicant must
submit written evidence that they have dedicated the park to the City for passive recreation,
as proposed, to ensure maximum public recreation opportunities. Therefore, the Commission
imposes Special Condition 17. Special Condition 17 replaces in its entirety previously
imposed Special Condition 4. To provide maximum public access and recreation
opportunities, the Commission finds that the dedication documents must ensure that: 1) new
and upgraded trails will meet the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and provide
access to physically challenged persons, 2) the existing number of parking spaces shall be
maintained, 3) signage informing the general public of the park's public nature shall be
maintained, 4) changes in park hours which adversely affect public access shall be limited to
demonstrated public safety concerns and shall require an amendment to this permit and 5) an
area fronting on Seal Beach Boulevard, as proposed, shall be reserved for a public trail and ten
public parking spaces which are directly accessible from Seal Beach Boulevard.
Special Condition 17 differs from previously imposed Special Condition 4 by requiring the
dedication to occur prior to issuance of residential building permits, rather than prior to
issuance of the coastal development permit; and by including a clarification regarding the
parks closing time to specify that "dusk" means one hour after sunset.
5-97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 39 of 74
b. Trails
Section 30212.5 of the Coastal Act states:
Wherever appropriate and feasible, public facilities, including parking areas or facilities,
shat/ be distributed throughout an area so as to mitigate against the impacts, social
and otherwise, of overcrowding or overuse by the public of any single area.
Section 30252 of the Coastal Act states:
The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public
access to the coast by (1) facilitating the provision or extension of transit service, (2)
providing commercial facilities within or adjoining residential development or in other
areas that will minimize the use of coastal access roads, (3) providing nonautomobile
circulation within the development, f41 providing adequate parking facilities or
providing substitute means of serving the development with public transportation, (5)
assuring the potential for public transit for high intensity uses such as high-rise office
buildings, and by (6) assuring that the recreational needs of new residents will not
overload nearby coastal recreation areas by correlating the amount of development
with local park acquisition and development plans with the provision of onsite
recreational facilities to serve the new development.
(i) Trail Linking Gum Grove Park to Seal Beach Boulevard & Public
Parking
Theapplicant is proposing Tentative Tract Map No. 15402 which would subdivide the
proposed 18.4 acre lot of Tentative Tract Map No. 15381 into lots for seventy (70)
single-family residences, common areas and private streets. The proposed subdivision is
located at the eastern end of the subject site adjacent to Seal Beach Boulevard, a major
thoroughfare which runs to the beach to the south and the freeway to the north. Assuming
there are at least three people occupying each of these 70 proposed homes, the proposed
development will result in an increased burden of at least 210 people on existing public
recreation facilities.
The project previously proposed under Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367 included gating
the residential community. Under this proposed amendment, as noted in the project
description, the applicant has announced their intention to comply with previously imposed
Special Condition 5, which allows the applicant to restrict public vehicular access to the
residential subdivision, but which prohibits the applicant from restricting public pedestrian and
bicycle traffic from entering the community. 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 public pedestrian and bicycle access
cannot be found consistent with the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.
Therefore, any method of prohibiting public vehicular access to the subdivision (e.g.Tates)
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
5-97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 40 of 74
development proposed in this amendment. However, several modifications to the references
in Special Condition 5 are necessary to update the condition. Therefore, the Commission
replaces, in its entirety, Special Condition 5 with Special Condition 18.
In addition, the project previously proposed under Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367
included the creation of Lot 3 of proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 15381 for the purposes of
conveying Gum Grove Park to the City of Seal Beach. The previously proposed Lot 3 was
configured to include a linear strip that extended from the area generally used as Gum Grove
Park eastward to Seal Beach Boulevard. The Commission previously found that this linear
strip of land would provide a second public access entrance to Gum Grove Park. Currently,
the only entrance to Gum Grove Park is at the far western end of Gum Grove Park. The
current park entrance is tucked away in the existing residential subdivision adjacent to the
south side of the subject site. No signs on major public thoroughfares such as Pacific Coast
Highway or Seal Beach Boulevard currently point the way to the existing park entrance. This
requires people driving or biking down Seal Beach Boulevard to find their way through the
existing residential neighborhood clear to the other side of the park. Since Gum Grove Park is
a long, linear park, a second public entrance at it's eastern end would promote public access
to the park. An eastern entrance from Seal Beach Boulevard would also link the park with the
public bike lane on the west side of Seal Beach Boulevard, thus encouraging non -automobile
trips to the park. Also, a park entrance right on Seal Beach Boulevard, a well -traveled arterial
which leads both to the beach to the south and freeway to the north, would be much more
visible to the public than the current entrance and thus promote public access.
Therefore, the Commission previously found that the linear strip of land within the area
proposed for dedication by the applicant shall be reserved for a public access trail and public
parking lot directly accessible from Seal Beach Boulevard. Further, the Commission required
that the applicant shlill construct the trail and ten public parking spaces within the reserved
area. Since parking is prohibited on both sides of Seal Beach Boulevard for at least a half mile
in either direction of the subject site, the Commission found that there is a need for public
parking to make the trail accessible by the public. The two go hand-in-hand. The
Commission found that the construction of a public trail and ten parking spaces would require
a minimal amount of improvement over the mostly flat, relatively narrow strip of land in
question.
Thus, the Commission attached Special Condition 4 to Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367
which required that the park dedication documents for the proposed dedication of Gum Grove
Park provide for the provision of a public trail connecting to Seal Beach Boulevard and the
construction of public parking. In order to update several references within the condition to
reflect current conditions, the Commission replaces Special Condition 4. in its entirety, with
Special Condition 17.
Since the linear strip of land in question was relatively narrow, and it was uncertain that 10
parking spaces and a trail could be provided, the Commission previously required under
Special Condition 5 that if the ten public parking spaces could not be provided entirely on the
dedicated Gum Grove Park area, then the spaces which could not be built on Lot 3 shall be
built on the portion of the area subject to Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15402 closest to
Lot 3. The Commission found that even if all ten parking spaces we•e to be built on the area
'covered by Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15402, they would only occupy a small portion
5-97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 41 of 74
of the residential site. Assuming a parking space dimension of 9'x20', ten spaces at this size
would occupy only about 0.04 acres, which is a fraction of the area covered under Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 15402. Further, the parking spaces would be at the edge of the
residential site so as to be adjacent to the proposed Gum Grove Park dedication area. Thus,
the small area and location at the edge of the subdivision would be the least intrusive method
of providing needed public parking for trail access which cannot be provided on the dedicated
Gum Grove Park land itself.
As noted above, the applicant has indicated the intention to comply with previously imposed
Special Conditions 4 and 5 (now revised and replaced by Special Conditions 17 and 18). In
filing the subject amendment application, the applicant has submitted a revised Tentative
Tract 15381 and revised Tentative Tract 15402. These revised tract maps increase the size
of the previous linear strip of land and allow more space for the construction of the required
parking spaces and trails. The applicant also submitted a conceptual parking and trail plan
which preliminarily indicates that there is adequate space to construct the required parking
and trail in the expanded area shown on revised Tentative Tract Maps 15381 and 15402.
However, previously imposed Special Conditions 4 and 5 included provisions to assure that
the subdivision is designed with enough area to construct the required parking and trails. In
addition, previously imposed Special Conditions 4 and 5 included provisions to assure that the
public parking spaces were directly accessible from Seal Beach Boulevard and that appropriate
signage was provided. The Commission continues to require that such assurances are in
place as they relate to the revised proposed development. However, as noted above, Special
Conditions 4 and 5 must be updated to reflect changes made as a result of this amendment.
Therefore, Special Conditions 4 and 5 are replaced in their entirety by Special Conditions 17
and 18, respectively.
Also, under this amendment, the Commission re -affirms the need for the proposed
development to provide public parking and a trail from Seal Beach Boulevard to Gum Grove
Park. These facilities are an integral feature of the public access and recreational component
of the proposed project by which the Commission finds that the proposed project is
consistent with the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.
(ii) Previously Proposed Trails around Salt Marsh
Under the previously proposed project, the applicant was installing trails around the proposed
salt marsh. The Commission previously imposed Special Condition 5.E. in order to assure the
pubic nature and accessibility of the trails and to minimize the impacts of the trails on
wetlands. Since there is no longer a proposed salt marsh restoration under this amendment,
trails around the salt marsh are no longer proposed. Therefore, the Commission finds that
Special Condition 5.E. is no longer necessary and removes Special Condition 5.E. by not
carrying it forward to Special Condition 18, which has replaced Special Condition 5 in its
entirety.
C. Previously Proposed Golf Course
Under the previous project. a golf course and clubhouse were proposed. In order to assure
the golf course and clubhouse remained public and to assure that adequate parking was
required to support the use, the Commission imposed Special Condition 13. Since neither the
5 -97 -367 -Al (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 42 of 74
golf course or clubhouse are proposed under this amendment, Special Condition 13 is no
longer required. Therefore, the Commission removes Special Condition 13. Therefore, as
conditioned, the Commission finds that the proposed project is consistent with the public
access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.
S. Previously Proposed Visitor Serving Uses
The applicant was previously proposing visitor -serving uses and an interpretive center at the
parcel of land owned by the California State Lands Commission ("CSLC"). The Commission
previously imposed requirements related to this development in Special Condition 3.
However, under this amendment, the applicant is no longer proposing development on the
CSLC property. Therefore, the Commission finds that Special Condition 3 is no longer
necessary and removes Special Condition 3.
6. Hazards
Section 30253 of the Coastal Act states, in relevant part:
New development shall:
M Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard.
0 Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute
significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding
area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would
substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.
a. Seismic I Geologic Hazards
The Seal Beach splay of the Newport -Inglewood fault (a major earthquake fault in Southern
California) transects the site in a northwesterly direction. The Alquist-Priolo Act requires
development for human habitation to be setback 50 feet from a fault zone. The fault across
the subject site is 20 feet wide. Therefore, structures for human habitation cannot be built
within a 120 foot wide strip of land running over the fault (20 feet for the fault plus 50 feet
on either side of the fault).
No homes or other structures for human habitation are proposed on the fault. However, to
further minimize hazards from seismic activity, the Commission previously imposed Special
Condition 8 which required incorporation of the City's geological hazards mitigation measures
outlined in the EIR for the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan. The Commission finds that this
condition shall remain in effect. These measures include requirements such as proper
recompaction of fill material and construction of buildings in accordance with the latest
seismic standards. Special Condition 15 notes that unless specifically altered by this
amendment, all regular and special conditions attached to Coastal Development Permit 5-97-
367, such as Special Condition 8, remain in effect.
5 -97 -367 -Al (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 43 of 74
b. Flood Hazards
The subject site is located near a major river and a flood control basin. As with the previously
proposed project, most of the structural development will be located on an upland mesa well
above flood level. However, in order to minimize flood hazards, the Commission previously
imposed Special Condition 8 which incorporated the City's hydrology mitigation measures
outlined in the City -approved EIR for the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan. The Commission finds
that Special Condition 8 shall remain in effect. These measures include conformance to
floodplain elevation standards and compliance with requirements for the adjacent flood control
basin. Special Condition 15 notes that unless specifically altered by this amendment, all
regular and special conditions attached to Coastal Development Permit 5-97-357, such as
Special Condition 8, remain in effect. Therefore, as conditioned, the Commission finds that
the proposed project is consistent with Section 30253 of the Coastal Act.
7. Water Quality
Section 30231 of the Coastal Act states:
The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands,
estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms
and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored
through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and
entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and
substantial interference with surface water flow, encouraging waste water reclamation,
maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing
alteration of natural streams.
The hydrology and drainage patterns of Hellman Ranch are broken into two drainages which
drain on-site and off-site areas. The first drainage area is approximately 76 acres and includes
a portion of Seal Beach Boulevard, the upland area of the property lincluding all of the
proposed residential subdivision), and existing oil production areas on the property (herein
referred to as Drainage Area A). The second drainage area is an approximately 152 acre area
which drains some of the existing residential development south of the project site, Gum
Grove Park, the lowlands on the property (where the existing wetlands are located) as well as
some existing oil production areas (herein referred to as Drainage Area B). Drainage Area A
presently drains into the adjacent Los Alamitos Retarding Basin, which subsequently
discharges to the San Gabriel River. Drainage Area B drains directly to the San Gabriel River.
Except for a 3 acre region adjacent to Seal Beach Boulevard, the proposed development will
leave these drainage patterns largely unchanged.
The proposed project will result in the subdivision and grading of 18.4 acres within Drainage
Area A for residential purposes. In addition, the amended project includes the extension of
Adolfo Lopez Drive. The implementation of the project will result in two phases where
potential impacts upon water quality would occur: 1) the construction phase; and 2) the post -
construction phase including the commitment of an 18.4 acre area for residential purposes.
Construction phase impacts include erosion and sedimentation of coastal waters during
grading Post -construction phase impacts relate to the use of the proposed project, a
residential subdivision. Run-off from residential developments is commonly polluted with
5 -97 -367 -At (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 44 of 74
petroleum hydrocarbons including oil and grease from vehicles; heavy metals; synthetic
organic chemicals including paint and household cleaners; soap and dirt from washing
vehicles; dirt and vegetation from yard maintenance; litter; fertilizers, herbicides, and
pesticides; and bacteria'and pathogens from animal waste. The discharge of these pollutants
to coastal waters can cause: eutrophication and anoxic conditions resulting in fish kills and
diseases and the alteration of aquatic habitat, including adverse changes to species
composition and size; excess nutrients causing algae blooms and sedimentation increasing
turbidity which both reduce the penetration of sunlight needed by aquatic vegetation which
provide food and cover for aquatic species; disruptions to the reproductive cycle of aquatic
species; and acute and sublethal toxicity in marine organisms leading to adverse changes in
reproduction and feeding behavior. These impacts reduce the biological productivity and the
quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes and reduce optimum
populations of marine organisms and have adverse impacts on human health.
In order to assure that the previously proposed project conformed with Section 30231 of the
Coastal Act, the Commission previously imposed Special Condition 7. Special Condition 7
required that, prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant submit,
for the review and approval of the Executive Director, a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit ("NPDES"), Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, and Structural
and Non-structural Best Management Practices for the proposed project, in compliance with
the standards and requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Special Condition 7 requires the applicant to implement and comply with the water quality
measures approved by the Executive Director. In addition, Special Condition 7 requires that
runoff from the site be directed to the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin (LARB) to the maximum
extent feasible. In addition, Special Condition 7 requires the permittee to comply with
mitigation measures WQ-5 through WQ-10 inclusive as approved by City of Seal Beach City
Council Resolution 4962. Water Quality (WQ) measures 5 through 10 are contained in the
City's certification of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan and are as follows:
WO -5 Prior to moving construction equipment on site, the project developer shall
provide evidence to the City Engineer that a national Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit has been obtained from the State Water
Resources Control Board fSWRCB/. Once obtained, the NPDES permit shag be
retained on the construction site throughout the construction period, and a copy
shall be filed with the City Engineer.
WO -6 During construction, the City Engineer shall ensure that all the terms and
conditions outlined in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits, including the implementation of Best Management Practices
(BMP's) are complied with.
WO -7 Prior to issuance of grading permits, Project developer shall prepare a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the proposed project. This plan
shall 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 the development of the Hellman Ranch Specific
Pian. The City Engineer will monitor and enforce the provision of the SWPPP.
5 -97 -367 -Al (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 45 of 74
WO -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 with 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.
WO -9 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall provide
evidence to the Director of Development Services that a water quality
management plan (WOMP) has been prepared for the project in a manner
consistent with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan. The
WOMP shall contain provisions and Best Management Practices t8MP's) for
both construction and operating/municipal conditions. The WOMP shall also
remain flexible to modification to provide appropriate safeguards for the
wetlands and Los Alamitos Retarding Basin.
WO-1OPrior to issuance of the grading permits, the City Engineer shall verify that
structural BMP's have been permanently incorporated into project plans by the
Applicant. Such BMP's 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.
This proposed amendment to Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367 changes the scope of
work previously contemplated. Therefore, the Commission finds it necessary to define how
Special Condition 7 relates to the development as now proposed and the products which are
expected as compliance with the special condition. Special Condition 15 notes that unless
specifically altered by this amendment, all regular and special conditions attached to Coastal
Development Permit 5-97-367, such as Special Condition 7, remain in effect.
Special Condition 7 references several documents including the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit ("NPDES"), Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan; Structural and
Non-structural Best Management Practices, the Orange County Drainage Area Management
Plan, and a Water Quality Management Plan. These references refer to permits and
documents required under the regulations of other governing agencies with regard to
stormwater runoff associated with new development during and after construction. Relevant
permits implementing these requirements include the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002, Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for
Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity; and the County of
Orange Municipal NPDES Stormwater Permit No. CAS618030.
The proposed project involves construction activity including clearing and grading more than 5
acres of total land area. In cases where more than 5 acres of such construction activity is
involved for residential use, the applicant is required to comply with the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002, Waste Discharge
Requirements (WDRs) for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction
Activity. This permit requires the applicant to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution
5 -97 -367 -Al (Hellman Properties L:_,
Page 46 of 74
Prevention Plan ISWPPPI which addresses construction -related impacts upon storm water
quality associated with the specific development occurring at the particular site in question.
The SWPPP identifies pollutant sources and outlines the measures (i.e. Best Management
Practices) to be taken to avoid impacts from those pollutant sources. By submitting a SWPPP
which is in conformance with the requirements of the NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002
for review and approval of the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission, the applicant
will demonstrate the specific measures which will be implemented to avoid adverse impacts
upon water quality during the construction phase of the project. Such measures would
include, but not be limited to, use of hay bales, sand bags, silt fences and temporary
detention basins/settlement ponds to prevent the discharge of sediment from the construction
site, use of temporary erosion control landscaping to secure graded and disturbed areas. prior
to the rainy season, which remain exposed after interruptions in construction or which remain
exposed after grading is completed and before fine grading and construction of infrastructure
and homes.
The subject site is also governed by the County of Orange Municipal NPDES Stormwater
Permit No. CAS618030 which was issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board - Santa Ana Region to the County of Orange and co -permittees inc!uding the City of
Seal Beach. The municipal stormwater permit requires the County and co -permittees including
the City of Seal Beach to prepare and implement a drainage area management plan which
addresses those measures that will be implemented to mitigate polluted run-off. These
measures include requirements for the use of post -construction phase structural and non-
structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid and minimize the impacts of polluted
run-off upon surface waters.
The Orange County DSainage Area Management Plan IOC DAMP), submitted to the Regional
Boards for compliance with the municipal NPDES permit is the implementing program for the
NPDES permit. The guidelines for the use of structural and non-structural BMPs outlined in
the OC DAMP were developed based upon the principle criterion identified in the NPDES
permit, that being the term Maximum Extent Practicable or "MEP." The NPDES permit defines
"MEP" as follows:
"MEP" means to the maximum extent practicable, taking into account equitable
considerations of synergistic, additive, and competing factors, including but not limited
to, gravity of the problem, fiscal feasibility, public health risks, societal concern, and
social benefits. "
The OC DAMP includes a section focused on New Development Control (Section 7.0), which
requires new development (such as the proposed project) to incorporate non-structural,
routine structural, and special structural BMPs "to minimize the amount of pollution entering
the drainage system."
In order to identify for the Commission the non-structural, routine structural and special
structural BMPs the applicant is proposing to use to address post -construction water quality
impacts from the proposed development, the applicant has submitted a Water Quality
Management Plan (WOMPI, Tract 15402, Hellman Ranch, prepared by MDS Consulting of
Irvine, California, dated January 2000 and a Storm Water Management & Water Quality
Control Plan, (SWM & WQCP) prepared by MDS Consulting and Fuscoe Engineering of Irvine,
5-97-367-A7 (Hellman Properties LLCI
Page 47 of 74
California, dated July 27, 2000. The WQMP outlines, in general, the non-structural and
structural BMPs which are proposed to address water quality impacts associated with the
residential development. Meanwhile, SWM & WQCP describes more fully the specific
measures to be. implemented including the bio-swale/riparian corridor and water quality basin
which is being proposed as part of this amendment.
Briefly, the WQMP describes several BMPs designed to mitigate water quality impacts from
the proposed development. Non -Structural BMPs include: 1) education for property owners,
tenants, and occupants; 2) activity restrictions, to be a part of the Conditions, Covenants and
Restrictions fCC & R's) for the development, including i) no car engine cleaning onsite, ii) car
washing only allowed using bucket and sponge method, iii) a prohibition of car maintenance
on site; iv) limitations on the use of chemicals and fertilizers; 3) in the CC & R's, identification
of the homeowners association as the entity responsible for inspection and maintenance of
structural and non-structural BMPs; 4) common area litter control; 5) inspection and
maintenance of common area catch basins by October 15" of each year; and 6) street
sweeping. Structural BMPs include: 1) filtration of surface runoff through landscaped areas;
2) efficient irrigation of common areas; 31 use of energy dissipaters; 4) catch basin stenciling;
and 51 installation of inlet trash racks.
Expanding upon the WQMP, the applicant submitted the SWM & WQCP which outlines in
more detail the non-structural and structural BMPs which will be implemented to mitigate the
impacts of polluted storm run-off related to the proposed development. The structural BMPs
outlined in the SWM & WQCP are categorized into three zones. Zone One 11) consists of
trash racks and fossil filters installed into catch basins within the proposed development. The
measures in Zone 1 will primarily intercept trash, litter, grease and other hydrocarbons. Zone
Two (2) consists of a bio-swale designed to control fine particle sediments, debris, soap, dirt,
herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers. The bio-swale will consist of an infiltration swale with a
wetland bottom and vegetation which will impound surface runoff and filter it as it passes
through the basin floor. Zone Three (3) will consist of a filtration basin designed to control
nutrients, microbial contaminants and toxic materials. This basin is designed to accommodate
the first flush from a drainage area of 30.6 acres (i.e. the 18.4 acre residential subdivision and
the 12.2 acres of off-site drainage area).
As stated on Page 5 of the SWM & WQCP, the goal of the proposed system is to "manage
developed storm water flows (runoff) and to "minimize pollutants from urban runoff." Page
16 of the SWM & WQCP further states that the system will function such that low -flows will
be shunted to Zones 2 and 3 of the water quality management system, while high flows will
bypass the Zones 2 and 3 and discharge directly to the LARB. In a letter to Commission
staff, dated September 6, 2000, prepared by Fuscoe Engineering, the applicant further
clarifies that the system is designed to capture the first flush storm event. The system has
the capacity to hold two first flush events. Anticipated residence time of the water entering
the system is seven days. During this period, the water is expected to infiltrate or evaporate.
The system is not designed to discharge the water entering it directly to any other body of
water or storm drain system. Meanwhile, the system is also designed with an overflow which
will discharge to the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin in the event that system capacity is
exceeded'.
'Exhibit 4-2 of the SWM & WQCP indicates that overflow from the proposed water quality remediation
system will be discharged directly to the Hellman Ranch lowlands. The applicant has since indicated
5 -97 -367 -At (Hellman Properties LLCI
Page 48 of 74
Critical to the successful function of post -construction structural BMPs in removing pollutants
in stormwater to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP), is the application of appropriate
design standards for sizing BMPs. The majority of runoff is generated from small storms
because most storms are small. Additionally, storm water runoff typically conveys a
disproportionate amount of pollutants in the initial period that runoff is generated during a
storm event. Designing BMPs for the small, more frequent storms, rather than for the large
infrequent storms, resuhs in improved BMP performance at lower costa.
Commission staff requested that the applicant analyze whether the proposed system, which is
designed to capture and mitigate first flush and low flows, would be capable of mitigating
(infiltrating or treating) storm water runoff from each runoff event up to and including the
85th percentile 24-hour runoff event. In a letter dated September 22, 2000, Fuscoe
Engineering responded that conceptually, the system would provide this capacity; however,
final detailed calculations would be necessary to determine whether any adjustments to
capacity would be required. However, Fuscoe Engineering indicated that, in their experience,
the calculations for first flush, which were made to design the system as now proposed, are
conservative, and that it is very likely the system provides the capacity to mitigate the 85th
percentile 24-hour runoff event without any adjustments. The calculations are conservative
because they assume 100% impervious surface within the residential development and off-
site areas. Under final build -out, the amount of impervious surface would be less than 100%.
Furthermore, the currently proposed system has the capacity to capture two first flush
events, rather than a single event. These two features of the system, conservative
estimation of capacity based on discharges from 100% impervious surface, and the capacity
to hold two such events, contribute to the applicant's statement that the currently proposed
system will be capable of mitigating storm water from the 85th percentile 24-hour runoff
event. In addition, the applicant has indicated that if final calculations show that the system
must be enlarged to mitigate the 85th percentile 24-hour event, there is additional land where
this can be accommodated.
The Commission finds that sizing the proposed post -construction structural BMPs to
accommodate (infiltrate, filter or treat) the runoff from the 85" percentile storm runoff event,
in this case, is equivalent to sizing BMPs based on the point of diminishing returns (i.e. the
BMP capacity beyond which, insignificant increases in pollutants removal (and hence water
quality protection) will occur, relative to the additional costs. The applicant has indicated the
proposed water quality management plan will meet the requirements specified in Special
Condition 7. Since the final calculations for the proposed water quality management system
have not yet been performed, and to assure that the proposed measures are consistent with
that this was an error in the drawing, and that Figure 8 of the SWM & WQCP supercedes this exhibit
with respect to the management of overflows. Rather than discharging overflow to the Hellman Ranch
lowlands, Exhibit 8 shows a'diffusion corridor' which will connect the system to the Los Alamitos
Retarding Basin and that overflows will be directed through the diffusion corridor to the retarding basin
rather than into the Hellman Ranch lowlands.
21ASCE/WEF, 199L. Urban Runoff Quality Management. WEF Manual of Practice No. 23. ASCE
Manual and Report on Engineering Practice No. 87.1
5-97.367-A1 (Hellman Properties LLC(
Page 49 of 74
Section 30231 of the Coastal Act, the Commission wishes to clarify for the applicant the
requirements. Therefore, the Commission imposes Special Condition 23.
Special Condition 23 requires the applicant to submit a final SWM & WQCP for review and
approval by the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission which is consistent with the
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), Tract 15402 Hellman Ranch, prepared by MDS
Consulting of Irvine, California, dated January 2000 and Storm Water Management & Water
Quality Control Plan, [SWM & WQCP) prepared by MDS Consulting and Fuscoe Engineering of
Irvine, California, dated July 27, 2000, submitted by the applicant, and which includes the
following specifications. Special Condition 23 requires the proposed post -construction
treatment BMPs to be sized based on design criteria specified in the condition, and finds this
will ensure the proposed overall SWM & WQCP will serve to reduce pollutants in stormwater
to the maximum extent practicable, as required in Special Condition 7. Since the proposed
water quality management system is necessary to mitigate the water quality impacts
associated with use of the development, Special Condition 23 requires that the structural
elements of the SWM & WQCP, approved by the Executive Director, be implemented prior to
or concurrent with construction of infrastructure for the residential subdivision (i.e. streets,
utilities, etc.). Special Condition 23 also specifies that all structural and non-structural BMPs
shall be maintained in a functional capacity throughout the life of the approved development.
Special Condition 23 specifies that any changes to the structures outlined in the SWM &
WQCP necessary to accommodate the requirements outlined in Special Condition 23, shall
require an amendment to this coastal development permit. Finally, in order to assure that the
applicant and all successors -in -interest are aware of the requirements of Special Condition 23,
the condition requires, prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall
execute and record a deed restriction reflecting the requirements outlined in Special Condition
23.
In addition, since final site plans, grading plans, structural plans and landscape plans have not
been submitted related to the proposed bio-swale and water quality basin, the Commission
imposes Special Condition 20. Special Condition 20 requires the applicant to submit final site
plans, grading plans, structural plans and landscape plans for the proposed bio-swale and
water quality basin which conform with the final SWM & WQCP required pursuant to Special
Condition 23 above. In addition, plans shall conform with the specifications regarding
hydrology and landscaping for the system outlined in the letters dated June 28, 2000, and
September 11, 2000, prepared by Glenn Lukos Associates of Lake Forest, California.
In addition, the applicant's SWM & WQCP indicates that land is necessary outside the area of
the residential subdivision to construct the water quality measures necessary to assure the
development is consistent with Section 30231 of the Coastal Act. Therefore, the
Commission imposes Special Condition 24 which requires the applicant, prior to issuance of
the coastal development permit amendment, to execute and record a deed restriction, in a
form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, over the area of land depicted in
Figure 8 of the SWM & WQCP (including the landscaped area surrounding the water quality
basin and bio -Swale) as generally depicted in Exhibit 4, page 1. The area shall be restricted
for uses related to water quality management purposes. As outlined elsewhere in these
findings, the deed restriction shall not preclude use of the area for wetland restoration and
open space purposes so long as any such pro)ect maintains the water quality improvement
function performed by the system proposed under the SWM & WQCP. In addition, this deed
5-97-367-A1 (Hellman Properties _SC)
Page 50 of 74
restriction shall not preclude construction and maintenance of the access road depicted Figure
8 of the SWM & WQCP, nor shall it preclude the construction and maintenance of the utilities
and oil transmission lines depicted on Vesting Tentative Tracts 15381 and 15402, as
approved by the Executive Director, provided the water quality improvement functions of the
system described in the SWM & WQCP, as revised and approved by the Executive Director
pursuant to Special Condition 23, is, at a minimum, maintained. Finally, the deed restriction
shall not preclude development associated with the archaeological investigation required
pursuant to Special Condition 19. As conditioned, the Commission finds that the proposed
project is consistent with Section 30231 of the Coastal Act.
B. New Development
Section 30250 of the Coastal Act states, in relevant part:
(a) New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as otherwise provided
in this division, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing
developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to
accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have
significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources.
The subject site is approximately 196.6 acres in size and is essentially undeveloped except for
about 28.2 acres of oil production facilities and small structures housing the property owner's
offices. Thus, the subject site is one of a few remaining, non-public vacant pieces of land
along the Southern California coast. The proposed development involves subdivision for 70
homes and park uses. The proposed development is less dense and intense than previous
development proposals for the subject site. Further, the subject site is completely surrounded
by urban development. Infrastructure to serve the proposed development exists in the area.
Thus, the proposed development is located within an existing developed area able to
accommodate it. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed development, as
conditioned, is consistent with Section 30250 of the Coastal Act.
9. Other Conditions
The applicant has proposed further subdivision of the mesa for 70 single family residential
lots. However, plans for development of the lots, including the footprint, height, and design
of the homes, grading and landscaping, common walls, and infrastructure and utilities were
not submitted. Therefore, the Commission finds that a subsequent Commission approval is
required for the homes to allow the Commission to review the proposed homes for
consistency with Chapter 3. Therefore, the Commission previously imposed Special Condition
9. Special Condition 15 notes that unless specifically altered by this amesidment, all regular
and special conditions attached to Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367, such as Special
Condition 9, remain in effect.
Also, the Commission has reviewed the materials submitted by the applicant for conformance
with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. The project has been conditioned accordingly. Any
changes to the proposed project must be reviewed for consistency with the Chapter 3 policies
of the Coastal Act. Therefore. the Commission imposes Special Condition 26 which requires
that all development must occur in strict compliance with the proposal as set forth in the
5-97-367-A7 (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 51 of 74
application for permit, subject to any special conditions set forth herein. Any deviation from
the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the Executive Director and may require
Commission approval.
In addition, the proposed project involves the placement of deed restrictions and structures on
land which they must demonstrate a legal interest to do so. For instance, the applicant is
proposing to deed restrict land presently owned by Southern California Edison. In addition,
The applicant is proposing storm water facility connections to the Los Alamitos Retarding
Basin which is owned by the Orange County Flood Control District. Therefore, the
Commission previously imposed Special Condition 10 which requires that, prior to the
issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit, for the review and
approval of the Executive Director, written documentation demonstrating that it has the legal
ability to carry out the proposed development and all conditions of approval of this permit.
Special Condition 15 notes that unless specifically altered by this amendment, all regular and
special conditions attached to Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367, such as Special
Condition 10, remain in effect.
D. Development Agreement
The applicant has entered into a development agreement with the City of Seal Beach for the
proposed development. California Government Code Section 65869 stipulates that
development agreements shall not be applicable to development in the coastal zone unless,
prior to certification of the local coastal program ("LCP") for the jurisdiction in which the
development is located, the Commission, through formal action, approves the development
agreement.
Since the LCP for the City of Seal Beach has not been certified, the Commission will have to
approve the development agreement before the agreement can be effective. The
development agreement will be acted on by the Commission as a separate hearing item.
E. Local Coastal Program
Section 30604(a) of the Coastal Act provides that the Commission shall issue a coastal
development permit only if the permitted development will not prejudice the ability of the local
government having jurisdiction to prepare a Local Coastal Program which conforms with the
Chapter Three policies of the Coastal Act.
On July 28, 1983, the Commission denied the City of Seal Beach Land Use Plan (LUP) as
submitted and certified it with suggested modifications. The City did not act on the
suggested modifications within six months from the date of Commission action. Therefore,
pursuant to Section 13537(b) of the California Code of Regulations, the Commission's
certification of the land use plan with suggested modifications expired. The LUP has not been
resubmitted for certification since that time.
The proposed development, as conditioned, is consistent with the Chapter Three policies of
the Coastal Act. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed development would not
prejudice the ability of the City to prepare a certified local coastal program consider.: with the
Chapter Three policies of the Coastal Act.
5 -97 -367 -At (Hellman Properties LLC)
Page 52 of 74
F. California Environmental Quality Act
Section 13096 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations requires Commission approval
of Coastal Development Permits to be supported by a finding showing the permit, as
conditioned, to be consistent with any applicable requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) of CEQA prohibits a proposed development
from being approved if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available
which would substantially lessen any significant adverse effect which the activity may have
on the environment.
The proposed development is located in an urban area. All infrastructure necessary to serve
the site exist in the area. The proposed project has been conditioned in order to be found
consistent with the wetlands, public access, ESHA, natural hazards, water quality and
archaeology policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. As amended, the mitigation
measures which apply to the project include 1) implementation of the proposed lowlands deed
restriction to make the area available for wetlands restoration and submission of a revised
map showing changes necessary to the delimits of the lowlands deed restricted area in order
that there is no reduction in potentially restorable wetland area; 21 conformance with the
requirement for a revised Tentative Tract Map 15381 limiting the site to 5 parcels in order to
avoid impacts on wetlands; 3) implementation of the proposed Gum Grove Park dedication to
assure public access; 4) implementation of a public access program; 5) conformance
archeological investigation requirements to assure appropriate mitigation for impacts upon
archeological resources; 6) conformance with water quality requirements to avoid the
degradation of coastal waters; 7) conformance with hazard mitigation requirements to avoid
geologic and flood hazards; 8) notification that future residential development requires a
permit; 9) conformance with evidence of legal interest; 10) submission of final plans to assure
that the project conforms with this approval; 111 identification of raptor foraging habitat
suitable for long term conservation and management and recordation of an open space deed
restriction over 9.2 acres for raptor foraging habitat; 12) conformance with water quality
standards related to the proposed bio-swele, riparian corridor and water quality basin; 13) the
reservation of land outside the proposed residential subdivision for water quality purposes;
14) submission of a construction staging plan demonstrating that no impacts to wetlands will
occur; and 15) strict conformance with approved plans. The required mitigation measures will
minimize all significant adverse effects which the activity will have on the environment.
As conditioned, there are no feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available
which would substantially lessen any significant adverse effect which the activity may have
on the environment. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed project, as
conditioned, can be found consistent with the requirements of CEQA.
5.97.367-A1 Wellman$ sir to, October 2000 rural
City Comment Letter re: Permit Amendment 5-97-367-A7, Neuman Ranch
City Council StaffReporl
October 9, 2000
ATTACHMENT 3
MEMORANDUM - HELLMAN RANCH SPECIFIC
PLAN FILE - MINISTERIAL APPROVAL OF
ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS, MAY 5, 2000
hell C--1 Pamit AmeMmmtCC S Rlp 19
To:
HELLMAN RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN FILE —
MINISTERIAL APPROVAL OF
ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS
Attention:
Mayor Yost and Members of the City Council
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Keith R. Till, City Manager
Quinn Barrow, City Attorney
From:
Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
Subject:
APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVISIONS RE:
INCREASE IN AREA OF GUM GROVE NATURE PARK
(Conservation Planning Area 3) AND RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT AREA (Development Area 8) —
HELLMAN RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
Date:
May 5, 2000
Overview of
Proposed Project Revisions to Conservation Planning Area 3 Gum
Grove Nature
Park
Staff has been provided a copy of proposed "Hellman Ranch Lowlands - Hellman Ranch Reserve
Plan, Coastal Development Permit No. 5-97-367, dated December 7, 1999. This plan indicates a
revised and enlarged area for "Conservation Planning Area 3 - Gum Grove Nature Park", which
was originally proposed, and subsequently approved, at 10.2 acres within the Hellman Ranch
Specific Plan by the City of Sea] Beach. The revised Hellman Ranch Reserve Plan submittal to
the California Coastal Commission indicates the area of Gum Grove Nature Park as 12.8 acres
(Refer to Attachment 1).
Dverview of Pronospd ftiecl Revisions to Demlopment Area 8 70 Lot Sing&
Family Residential Development Area
Staff has been provided a copy of proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map (V TTM) No. 15402,
Revision No. 1, dated April 12, 2000 for "Development Area 8 - Single -Family Residential
QWY Dov.,nuMELLMAWpmfi. Pim A .Wmm AWo.? Memo 3.a ILWW5-0I
Hellman Ranch Specific Plan —Administrative Amendments to:
Conservation Planning Area 3 (Gum Grove Nmure Park) and
Development Planning Area 8 (Single -Family Residential)
May 5,2000
Development", which was originally proposed at 14.7 acres within the Hellman Ranch Specific
plan. The area was subsequently approved at 14.94 acres in area at the time of approval of
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 15402. The revised VTrm still provides a maximum of 70 single-
family residential parcels. However, the overall project size is now proposed at 18.4 acres,
including a somewhat larger open space arrangement within the subdivision area (Refer to
Attachment 2).
Previsions of "Settlement Agreement and Order Thereon" — Case Numbers
801830 and 807590:
This document has as its basic purpose the resolution of litigation by remanding the subject
project to the Coastal Commission for consideration of a modified project that would:
o Eliminate development within and impacts to wetlands that would have been caused by the
golf course portion which would have resulted in the fill of 17.9 acres of existing
wetlands, and
o Allow the balance of the project within the upland areas to proceed.
incorporated within this settlement agreement is an exhibit entitled "Hellman Ranch Lowlands",
which delineates the "Hellman Ranch Lowlands", "Hellman Uplands", "Gum Grove Park", and
"Oil Production" (Refer to Attachment 3). The Settlement Agreement has been signed by all
parties, and the project has now been remanded to the Coastal Commission for consideration of a
modified Coastal Development Permit in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
The Settlement Agreement was signed by the City of Seal Beach on November 8, 1999. The
Proposed Project Revisions to Conservation Planning Area 3 — Gum Grove Nature Park and to
Development Area 8 — 70 -Lot Single -Family Residential Development Area discussed above are
in conformity with the "Hellman Ranch Lowlands" exhibit incorporated as a part of the approved
Settlement Agreement.
Rggtre t for g oroval for &poled Project Revisions Pursuant to Section 8.4.1.
Administrative Revisions. Hellman Ranch Spec' c Plan:
Dave Bartlett has submitted a written request to the City, requesting administrative adjustments to
the number of acres of various "Planning Areas" within the approved Hellman Ranch Specific
plan (Refer to Attachment 4). The request seeks approval of the proposed modifications to the
allowable area of Conservation Planning Area 3 and Development Planning Area 8 through the
provisions of the approved "Hellman Ranch Specific Plan, Section 8.4.1, "Administrative
Revisions".
Spaifk Pun Amandmwa Appoad Mauro 2 2
Hellman Ranch .Specific Plan -Administrative Amendments to:
Conservalion Planning Area 3 (Gum Grove Nature Park) and
Development Planning Area 8 (Single -Family Residential)
May 5,2000
Provided below is an overview of the applicable provisions of the "Hellman Ranch Specific Plan"
and an analysis and determination regarding these requests:
A. Section 8.4.1, Administrative Revisions, Hellman Ranch Specific Plan:
"This section grants authority to the Director of Development Services or
designee to administratively act on requests for minor revisions in the
implementation of the Specific Plan.
"The following types of provisionary revisions are permissible through the
administrative revision process:
Adjustments in planning and conservation area acreage not exceeding 25
percent, provided the wetlands, conservation and open space acreage is not
reduced and additional units are not proposed."
B. Approved acreage for Conservation Planning Area 3 — Gum Grove Nature Park
Specific Plan: 10.2 acres as approved x 125% = 12.75 acres
Requested area for Conservation Planning Area 3 is 12.8 acres, within the size increase
permitted through the "Administrative Revision" provisions of the Specific Plan, Section
8.4.1, when the acreage figure is rounded up to the nearest tenth of an acre.
C. Approved acreage for Development Area 8 - Single -Family Residential Area
Specific Plan: 14.7 acres as approved x 125% = 18.375 acres
Requested area for residential area is 18.4 acres, within the size increase permitted
through the "Administrative Revision" provisions of the Specific Plan, Section 8.4.1,
when the acreage figure is rounded up to the nearest tenth of an acre.
The letter request indicates the following proposed amendments to the approved acreage for the
Conservation and Development Planning Areas:
apsifc M. Am ., App M.3
Hellman Ranch Specific Plan-AdminisnativeAmendments to:
Conservation PlanningArea 3 (Gum Grove Nature Park) and
Development PlanningArea 8 [Single -Family Residential)
May 5,1000
Planning
Area
Land Use
Desi nation
Existing
Acreage
Proposed
Acreage
Percentage
Adiustment
1
Saltwater
23.1
23.1
00/0
Wetlands
2
Freshwater
9.7
9.7
0°/a
Wetlands
3
Crum Grove
10.2
12.8
+25%
Nature Park
4
Golf Course
100.8
100.8
00/0
5
Los Alamitos
34.7
34.7
0°/a
Retarding Basin
6
Visitor
1.8
1.8
0%
Commercial
7
Golf Course
6.7
5.0
-25%
Clubhouse
8
Single -Family
14.7
18.4
+25%
Residential
9
Mineral
28.2
23.6
-16%
Production/Future
Development
10
Public Land Use
1.4
1.4
00/0
Total
231.3
231.3
AREA 8:
Based on the analysis of the provisions of Section 8.4.1. of the adopted Hellman Ranch Specific
Plan and the calculations of consistency with those provisions for the subject areas as presented
above, I hereby determine the subject request is:
o consistent with the provisions of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan;
o within the scope of the provisions of Section 8.4.1, Administrative Revisions, of the
Hellman Ranch Specific Plan, which are considered to be ministerial in nature; and ,
o in conformance with the Settlement Agreement and Order Thereon.
The following amendments to Table 4-1, "Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Land Uses" are hereby
approved:
Spairic nm Mmdmmt Apptawl Mma 2 4
Hellman Ranch Specific Plan—AdmimmaliwAmendments to:
Conservation Planning Area 3 (Gum Grove Nature Park) and
Development Planning Area 8 (Single -Family Residential)
May 5,2000
TABLE 4-1
HELLMAN RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USES
CONSERVATION
LAND USE
GROSS
FUNCTION/CftTICS
PLANNING AREA
DESIGNATION
ACRES
3
Gum Grove
4QQ
Historic eucalyptudedicated
Nature Park
12.7
to the City of Seal lic parkDEVELOPMENT
LAND USE
GROSS
MAXIMUM DENSRCIALPLANNING
AREA
DESIGNATION
ACRES
D.U.'s DU/ATAGE
7
Golf Course
6-;
Clubhouse &
5.0
Facilities
8
Single -Family
44-3
Residential
18.4
70 4-93.8
9
Mineral Production/
Future Development
23.6
ADMINISTRATIVE REVISION APPROVED ON: May 5. 2000
BY:
e Whittenberg
Director of Development Service
Attachment 1: "Hellman Ranch Lowlands - Hellman Ranch Reserve Plan, Coastal Development
Permit No. 5-97-367, dated December 7, 1999
Attachment 2: Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTfM) No. 15402, dated April 12, 2000
Attachment 3: "Hellman Ranch Lowlands", Attachment to Settlement Agreement and Order
Thereon, filed December 29, 1999
Spare Pha Amvdn eat Appow M.2
Hellman Ranch Specific Plan —Administrative Amendments to:
Conservation Planning Area 3 (Gum Grove Nature Park) and
Development Planning Area 8 (Single-FamilyResidenfial)
May5,2000
Attachment 4: Letter re: Amendments to Approved Acreage - Hellman Ranch Specific Plan,
letter dated March 29, 2000
Spe jc Ran Ammdmmt Approval Mm 2