HomeMy WebLinkAboutEQCB Min 1981-04-21
e
MINUTES
Environmental Quality Control Board
Tuesday, April 21, 1981
Regular f1eeting
7:30 P.M.
The regular meeting of the Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board \'/aS
called to order by Chairman Grayson at 7:30 p.m.9 in the Council Chambers of
the City Administration Building, 211 8th Street, Seal Beach. The pledge to the
flag was led by Boardmember Kolb. '
ROLL CALL
Present: Grayson, Potter, Kolb, Willson, LaBar
Absent: None
PUBLIC HEARING
e
A. Draft EIR on Hellman Specific Plan
Secretary presented a Staff report on the project and outlines written comments
'p)~ovi ded by:
-Ultrasystems on the 3-17-81 questions by the EQCB
_The Assistant City Engineer on sect'ions of the Draft EIR
-The Chief of Police on the wording on P. 101 of the Dl~aft
-The Acting Fire Chief on the fire protection section of the !lraft
In addition, a letter from the Orange County E[~A,. dated 4-16-81, was read into
the record. (the County had no comments on th,e Draft EIR).
Prior to opening the Public Hearing, Chairman Grayson explainr~d the puq)ose of
the EQCB and their role in reviewing the Draft EIR. Public Hearing Opened. '
Richard Gunnarson, 965 Catalina Avenue, Commun-rt:y Deve"lopment Din~ctor of Carson,
spoke in opposition to the development noting that \-'"an to warl houses \'JQuld
result in a development similar to t1arina Hill. I-Ie 'favors (J p"lan ""hieh includes
a lake and/or a 9-hole golf course. The City win "lose State subventions by
June 30th and that money \'li"ll go to school disi:r-icts, Therefol~e) some economic
assumpations about the project were in error. Residential doesn't generate enough
money to pay for services. He spoke in opposi't-ion to C.ity pal~kland standards
(5 acres/IOOO) and favored National Standards (1 acre/lOOO). lie spoke in
opposition to City Police Standards (1 officer/6gS per'sons) nnd favored National
Standards (1 officer/IOOD people). There is not enough money to pay existing
police and fire personnel~ yet the EIR suggests 19 additional officers (police)
to serve the project. Secretary corrected 19 po'i'i ce off'i cel~S \1hi ch \'ias an error
in the Draft. Only five (5) officers are requ'i,rc~d. for the pl~oJect. He disagrees
with student generation factors, and suggests 1:otal preservation as an alternative
use for the site. Grading will generate noise and will raise,grade. Alternative
. \'l9uld be to build fUl~ther alt/ay from the bluff.
e
e
e
Minutes - Draft EIR
Qage 2
Gordon Shanks, 215 Surf Place, referred to table VI-A Fiscal Impact Analysis.
This table does not clearly state that proper~y tax money in the Redevelopment
Agency area is limited to expenditures in the Agency. The Fiscal Impact Analysis
seems to imply that this money is not restricted. All previous plans should.
have been reviewed by the Commission and Council pdor to being rejected.
Steve Schneider, 910 Catalina Avenue,' submitted a '~ritten statement on the Draft
EJR. Oral comments recommended: a specific energy conservation plan for the
development addressing a possible toxic waste site (off-site); address traffic
impacts in adjacent areas and ad~ing a bl uff contro"l/buffer zone between the
'project and existing development.
Vic Peterson, 935 Catalina Avenue, presented a written statement and recommended
an open-space green belt from First Street to Avalon Street between the project
and existing development. He is concerned that proposed grading, which would
affect drainage from existing properties onto the He'l1man land and possible
erosion problems. The proposed fence woulcl block views and the project would
adversely affect quality of life due to po\.)r plann'ing. The project's grading
would eliminate a fish pond in the speakers back yard. '
Carl San Filippo, 801 Avalon, stated that the Draft ErR is negated by the statement
that "earthquake fault area needs additional study. II There is too much traffic
on Pacific Coast Highway presently and auto emmissions already affect adjacent
homes. He favors a golf course on the site and likes the existing wildlife on-
site. In addition, no treatment \.,ras given to chimney smoke from proposed homes
at a 10~ler elevation than the Marina Hill homes, r~itigating meast,!res are needed
on fill, gradi ng, buil ding hei ghts and safety of the project.
Richard Gunnarson stated that the nevI homes vlou'ld be on pads to be filled to \'lithin
three (3) feet of existing Hill homes.
Carl San Fi 1 i ppo spoke about dust during gra.di n9 nnd sU~lgested that any import
material be analized prior to placement on site.
George Putnam, Ponderosa Homes, replied to the 'issues l~rdsed by the speakers:
Energy - will be covered in site speC'if"ic plans and any focused
EIR's on same.
Traffic the project has no tie with the Hill) the project will
rel ieve existing Hi 1"1 traff'j c by )~e-routi ng some traffi c
from First and Pacific Coast l1'ighway to First Street and
Seal Beach Blvd.
Pads - there will be a 12-15 fOIJ't grade d"ifferential between existing
Hill lots and new lots.
Buffer - placing a buffer (gy"een be'Jtjlyike tra"il) behJeen the Bill
homes and the project from First Street to Avalon "js
technically possible. However) due to the pad grade differences)
it \'lOuld be somewhat difficu"'t. The slope bluff \\fin be
treated \.,rith a 2 to 1 slope from b"luff to ne\'1 finished pad)
plus a six (6) foot high fence at top of bluff.
Minutes - Draft EIR
I@..~ e 3
.
Sludge - the sludge (possible toxic waste site) was not addressed
because it "/as not in the project area. A ne\oJ la\./ 0-1-81)
specifies that all residential properties within 2000 feet
of a toxic site are entitled to a public hearing on the site.
If a site exists that poses a hazard, no building permits
may be issued within that 2000 foot radius.
'Chimneys -'the subject was not addressed' in the Draft EIR. It was
overlooked. If the ,EQCB feels that chimney smoke needs
to be addressed, additional information will be provided.
La Bar asked if consideration had been gdven to placing the park in the high potentiul
liquifaction area.
George Putnam noted that the park area is owned_ by Hellman and Ponderosa cannot
place housing on that site.
Public Hearing Closed. '
Potter noted that the EIR summary table does not directly address which impacts
are significant.
, '
Gra son suggested that interested parties be contacted about the archaeological
sites p. 38-42}. Grayson raised the issue of non-domestic animal control for
the area and costs associated with that control.
e
Potter pointed out that the animals cannot easily be relocated due to their
impacts upon the ecosystems to \'Jhich they \'Jould be relocated. Realistically~ t.hE-~
existing animal population will have to be safely killed. This does not appeal~
to be a significant issued as defined by CEQA.
NON-DOMESTIC ANIMAL CONTROL
Discussion followed on costs and area to be covered in non-domestic animal contr'ol.
LaBar moved, seconded by l~i11sori to establish a !:2 mile radius around the project ~
site as the area for non-domestic animal control. Cost for this animal contl~o'l
to be paid for by the developer.
AYES: Grayson, Kolb, LaBar,' Willson
NOES: Potter
MOTION APPROVED
SEWER LIFT STATION
The Board asked about the cost of the proposed sewer lift station and who wou1d
pay for its installation. SeC)~etal~y noted that such items are usually paid for'
by the developer.
NOISE
e The Board discussed noise, especially related to distances beb/een oil \'Jells C1nd
homes and noise associated \'1ith oil \'Jell \'1orkovers. The City has not needed to
address the problem of noise assodated with well workovers because no hom(~s iln~
near the oil \'1ells. The Board concurred \'/ith the concept of keeping homes 100 f(~et
from the oil \'/el1s and to recommend the mitigating measures on page 60.
Minutes - Draft EIR
.EE.9.e- 4
tit WETLAND ISSUE
The Board asked for clarification about when the Wetland issue \~ould be addressed.
The Wetland issue will be addressed by the Coastal Commission prior to certifying
the specific plan as the City's lCP for this area.
TRAFFIC
The Board asked for clari fication on traffi c figures on Pac"j fi c Coast Hi gh\.ray and
Second Street (Westminster Avenue) in light of Long Beach Seadip information.
Ed Gransbow, Herman Kimmel and Associates, stated that differences in traffic
figures from the Seadip EIR to the present EIR may be based upon the change in
conditions that exist (ie: development has taken place in the Seadip al~ea).
, This traffic analysis is based upon: existing traffic .in the area'" Seadip bui'ldout
and Rockwell's ultimate buildout and employment + ty'affic for the project -:- 5%
and that is the projected 1990 traffic's situation. The area of greatest "impact
would be the Westminster - Seal Beach Boulevard intersection. That situation will
occur \.Jithout the project; however, mitigating measures are recommended.
GEOLOGY
e
The Board asked for clarifi cation about confl i cti ng statements on the Ne\'1port-
Inglewood fault. Paul Davis, Medall, Aragon, Worswick and Associates~. stated
that some confusion may exist due to the differences in "se"ismicity" and "surface
faulting.1I Geologic investigations indicated linear surfacell rupture (35+' be1m<l
surface) some tens of thousands of years age. Consequent"ly~ that area has been'
designated for a green belt.
POWER LINES ALONG BOlSA
Grayson asked if utility relocation included removal of Hnes along Bolsa. George
Putnam stated that the lines would be removed.
STUDENTS
Discussion follo\'led on the number of students from the pl"'oject and the-iI'" "impact.
on schools. George Putnam indicated that the schoo"!s are expedenc-ing dr~cl"illing
enrollment) project buildout \'Iill take 5-7 years and therefore the students
generated by the project should be absorbed by existing schoo"' facn"ities.
CITY vs REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MONIES
The Board asked about revenues to the City vs. Red~~velopment I\genc.y n~v~~nlles.
Councilman Seitz indicated that City Council is looking a.t the totar, costs of
the Agency's debt to the City in order to determine how much money the II.Hclley
must repay the City.
SLAG SOLUTION TO LIQUIFACTION
e The Board asked for more information on the Slag solutiQn to "l"iquifact"ion.
Gr'ayson asked for copies of the various documents to be submitt_ed to the P"'anning
Com'll1ssion and City Council on the project. Secn~t(Jry r-ep1'ied to the request.
stating they \'1111 provide copies as a cow'tesy and for infonnation plll^poses.
. Minutes - Draft EIR
~Jl.e 5
e
Potter \lJas of the oplmon that commercial alternatives should have been explored
fot area 8 (affordable housing site) and information is needed on why alternative
plans were rejected.
Potter asked for clarification on potential flood hazards referenced on page 88
and page 91.
, '
Dori s Stearns, Ul trasystems, Inc.) responded to the val"i ous -j ssues l~a;s~d.,
She noted that the Draft EIR is some\'1hat general in nature due to the absence
of specific development plans. She spoke about: archaeology, rodent control,
noise, traffic, seismicity, schools and flood.
LaBar moved to adopt the resolution with the additions of the words "addressed
and" after word "been" in finding #6 and the addition of finding #7 lithe
mitigating measures shown in exhibit A are recommended to Planning Commission and
City Council. II Motion seconded by Kolb and unanimously aPrl~oved.
Hinutes of f4arch 17, 1981 were unanimously approved' as submi tted.
Meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Chairman of the EQCB
CA/s5
e
--