Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEQCB Min 1988-08-16 . . . ~- , ~ - i, COPIES OF THESE MINUTES ARE TO BE DISTRIBUTED WITH STAFF REPORTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR SEPTEMBER 7, 1988: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Victor Grgas Edna Wilson Joyce Risner Frank Laszlo Joe Hunt PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS Jim Sharp Emmett Suggs Joe Rullo Ron Jessner Phillip Fife ~/Ol$-/g ~ ~ JZ.Yc... EOCB MEMBERS Ray Fortner Lowell Kolb Gayle Knapp Donald Eisenberg Stephen Gavlick. - ~ DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Ed Knight Elline Garcia Files . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL BOARD AUGUST 16, 1988 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Gayle Knapp called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Lowell Kolb led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Ray Fortner, District 1/0ld Town Lowell Kolb, District 2/College Park West, Leisure World Gayle Knapp, District 3/The Hill Donald Eisenberg, District 4/College Park East Stephen Gavlick, District 5/Leisure World Also Present: Edward M. Knight, Director, Development Services Department Elline Garcia, Administrative Aide, Development Services CHAIRPERSON KNAPP stated that this was a special meeting, being called to hear a one-item agenda review of the Mola presentation. She noted that last year EoaS had well attended Scoping Sessions when they reviewed the EIR and made subsequent recommendations to the City Council. Ms. Knapp stated this meeting was called at her request because she saw significant changes (in the Mola presentation) and wanted the pUblic to be aware of these changes before this process was finalized. She noted that the EQCB meetings are at 8: 00 (to accommodate some board members who work far away and can't get to Seal Beach by 7:30 p.m.) CHAIRPERSON KNAPP corrected the Agenda, hearing from Mola Development first, then Board members (to answer questions they had in relation to their approvals and recommendations), and then pUblic input. She said the EQCB Board could then decide if they wanted to make any new recommendations, leave the old ones in place or make changes. MR. KNIGHT discussed items in the Staff's report and then turned the meeting over to Kirk Evans of Nola Development. (See copy of Staff Report attached for reference). . Page 2 - EQCB Meeting of August l6, 1988 - Minutes KIRK EVANS, MOLA DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTATIVE . . This project is the same project that was before you three years ago when we first started the study sessions. The Specific Plan was approved in October 1987 and at that time the City Council made various decisions regarding Gum Grove Park, the golf course and development with many mitigation measures, not only an EIR, but as conditions of approval for a future tract map. Subsequent to that, Mola met with the Coastal Commission staff as well as staff from the Fish & Game Commission, Natural Marine Fisheries, and Fish & wildlife Services, and Corps of Engineers. At that time Mola was apprised of a land use plan designation for this area which had been approved. The City's local coastal plan is not approved by the Coastal Commission but the staff does have an Land Use Plan (LUP). In that LUP it mentioned that there was 19.6 acres of wetlands that they would like to be restored on the Hellman Ranch property. At the time the 19.6 acres was addressed and the study was done, it included the entire Hellman property- - the 232 acres, not only the l48 acres were developing. It said that the wetlands restoration should take place roughly north of First Street. They developed a plan to account for 20 acres north of First Street. Mola presented this to the staffs and were told it was totally unacceptable; that they did not want to have a restored wetlands. That it was in similar condition that it is today. They wanted something really nice, enhanced, that would be very benef icial to the environment. They wanted a twenty acre parcel somewhere on the property, roughly in the southwest corner of the property. Right now there is direct access to the San Gabriel River that will allow the water to come in with tidal action. The plan right now, that is being worked on by the State and the federal government, as well as LSA (who has done a lot of wetlands restoration projects) - they're going to come up with exactly how many acres of water should be there, how many acres of Pickleweed, mud flats, salt flats, things of this type. They will determine exactly what shall be in that area. Before they agree on the acreage ... we had to go out and study the entire Hellman Ranch area. We had to go out and field measure all of the areas that are considered wetlands today. The areas that are considered wetlands today basically fall along the same lines as the Coastal Commission had done in the 1980' s. That plan showed roughly the water that's out there right now is roughly 1.4 acres of water, and there's about 16 acres of Pickleweed and the remaining is indigenous shrub. Some of the agencies look at just the hydrology... the Coastal Commission is the most critical. They look at all three definitions of wetlands. They want to see the hydrology, the vegetation, the soil. So if you have a certain type of soil that is normally associated with wetlands --to the Coastal Commission that is considered wetlands. To the Corps of Engineers, they might say (on the one hand) that if it has the right soil but it doesn't have the vegetation, then they don't look at it as wetlands. The Corps of Engineers has said . . . Page 3 - EQCB Meeting of August l6, 1988 - Minutes (pretty much) that although they're the permitting authority, to work it all out with every agency involved and they'll issue the permits if they approve what's been done. So basically, what we've done is go to the most critical definitions of what "wetlands" is and that means, that if the soil is wetlands then that area is included in the wetlands. Further studies are being done right now and it has been found that cars have been driving on the Hellman Ranch property. If there is Pickleweed growing on two sides of the dirt path then the Coastal Commission is saying if you didn't have cars driving there, then chances are that that dirt path might fill in with Pickleweed and hence it could be classified as wetlands at a future date. So they have asked us to include those acres into our plan that we had already completed. The original plan that we had completed that omitted those areas was 23 acres of existing sorely degraded wetlands. Adding those areas in we got it to somewhere around 25 acres. I believe the Coastal Act requires we restore 75% of those severely degraded wetlands before we're allowed to build on the project. So basically that's where we left it with the State and Feds. At the last meeting we had they said this looks better than what you had before. They withheld their approval on the exact acreage until they were sure exactly what was out there today. We then came back to the City of Seal Beach and met with Mr. Knight and showed him the changes we were forced to make in order to get the 20 acres of wetlands south of First street and on our property. At that time it was determined that because we had wetlands where we once had a golf course that we should have a Specific Plan amendment. And we have applied for a Specific Plan amendment. We also have application in for a Tract Map, a Vested Tract Map, a Precise Plan, the Parcel Map. The other issue that came up was the Gum Grove Park issue. As you may recall, Mola Development, when we first came before this body, the Planning commission and the City Council, we offered to dedicate Gum Grove Park to the City of Seal Beach. We merely said the property going north to south is a little too narrow to provide as wide of an area as it is today but we would give the Park to the City and they could maintain it, accept liability, whatever they would like to do; we were turned down at that time. We also offered to extend Gum Grove Park all the way out to Seal Beach Boulevard which, by the way, is the same way that it was on the original Ponderosa Plan that was approved by the City Council and was in the existing Specific Plan. That was also turned down because of concern about access off Seal Beach Boulevard. Right now what we have done is based on giving the extra 20 acres of wetlands. We have taken a new look at our plan. We had the golf course architect re-layout the golf course and right now it is a par sixty golf course although Ted RObinson, the architect, feels very comfortable with the challenge of this course. He says as long as we are spending the money we are talking about spending on the course, there shouldn't be a problem with getting to play. The other thing . . . Page 4 - EQCB Meeting of August l6, 1988 - Minutes we've done and before the Planning Commission, is showing the economic analysis of an l8-hole golf course as well as the economic analysis of a 9-hole golf course. Initially everywhere we've turned has told u.s that a 9-hole course will not make it economically versus an 18-hole course. What you have is the same amount of installation costs, the same maintenance costs but roughly half the revenues. By far, going with an 18-hole, par 60 is much better. The course will be a pUblic golf course forever. There will be deed restrictions put on the property. No tax dollars will be used to maintain the golf course; it will be owned privately but it will always be open to the pUblic. The other change that c::;ame about on the plan is we moved the original access off of First street to our single family homes and had it come straight through to Forrestal -- we moved that up northerly, closer to Regency to enable us to have better play on that one golf hole and also provided a few more houses on the fairway as opposed to in the middle of the project. It also allowed us to provide what the City Council had asked for --- and that a tot lot wi thin the single family homes as well as a recreation area. There are three tennis courts proposed, which is what we had before for the condominium owners but we have added two new pool areas for the condominium owners as well. other than that, and for the shifting of a few condominium buildings, nothing has changed. We have spoken to the home owner who is most affected by the building coming close to her house and she 'doesn't have a, problem with it. The height of the condominium buildings wi.ll still be below the paths of existing homes along Crestview. The homes along Crestview are at an elevation of 55 and the~ condominiums elevation starts around 4 and the roof line is about 39 feet from the floor elevation so roughly the roof line is about 43. So they would not block anyone's views or anything else. We have taken a harder look at the golf course to make sure there wouldn't be any problems with golf balls hitting houses etc. Most of the homes that are along the golf course are ab01Llt 30 - 40' above the golf course. The Gum Grove exhibit (that we have up there) shows the solid dark line on the bottom to be the existing fence line. One of the things that we tried to do was to find out why that fence line was put right there. And we talked to the Hellman people today and basically when the City entered into a lease with the Hellman family the Hellmans at that time refused to sell the land to the City and wanted to lease it because they wanted to maintain their options. They allowed t:he City to put a fence in, maintain the property, pay the property taxes and in return the Hellmans would allow the City to utilize Gum Grove Park. It is set up (from what the Hellmans told me) as a neighborhood-type park for the people on the Hill, who are already walking thru the trees and things of this type --- they'd still be able to do it, but the City would maintain it. The 5.8 acres (which is a little darker . . . Page 5 - EQCB Meeting of August l6, 1988 - Minutes green line that you see there) is where the existing tree line is right now. The difference between the two (color) greens you see is the flatter area. The parking areas, the driving lane and (down toward the east part of the property where there's some picnic tables etc. right now). The City Council asked us to provide 6.8 of land wi thin Gum Grove Park wi thin our existing golf course --- when we lost the 20 acres everything shifted a li ttle bit and we did lose roughly 2.1 acres of land over and above what we have originally tried to provide to the City. There was nothing in the EIR or nor the Specific Plan that holds anything to 6.8 acres. It's more a matter that Gum Grove Park is going to be a part of the golf course but we'll maintain it and we'll provide the nature trail and the wilderness areas that you have now. The difference between the 5.8 acres (which is existing there right now) and the 4.7 acres (is the darker green up there) and you can't differentiate because there's not that much area there until you get further east into the Gum Grove Park area. These areas will be part of the golf tees or fairways. Every tree that we take out within the 5.8 acres of land we will be required to replace and we will replace each tree for tree within the 4.7 acres if we can do it without having too much crowding in there. The nature trail which exists today... we will still provide the nature trail, we will have 3 separate picnic areas within Gum Grove Park (referring to an illustration showing what the picnic areas will visually look like). Those are the only changes that I'm aware of right now and I'd be pleased to answer questions. KNAPP: calls first for EQCB board member questions, to be followed by public questions and comments and then any further Board concerns. FORTNER: Could you explain the new configuration regarding the nature trail. EVANS: The nature trail will come in off of Avalon. At Avalon we would put some bars to keep cars from driving in there. The nature trail will go the same length it goes today. Right now Gum Grove Park will stay the same length that it is today. It stops (referring to a map) ... the nature trail (referring to a map) and at various locations on that trail we will have picnic areas set up. The trail will be on a relatively flat area but there's slope above and below it. (This is shown in the illustration's cross section.) This is still our proposal, the City must act on it --- whether they want the picnic areas, the nature trails etc. Today the Mola engineers were supposed to be out there staking out the 4.7 acres of land so that people could walk out there and see where the 4.7 acres are. We will try to rope it off sometime so that people can understand what we're staking it for. The staking was done today I think; I can't make any promises. . Page 6 - EQCB Meeting of August l6, 1988 - Minutes FORTNER: How does the driving range configuration fit in now and the lighting from that? EVANS: It's basically pretty much the same way it was. In order for a golf course to "make it" economically or not can depend on whether or not it has a driving range. The proposal we had before the City, and which is a condition of approval, is that if we can design a new driving range for lights so that the lights will not intrude upon the privacy of the homeowners along the Hill we will bring that design back to the Planning Commission and maybe the City Council (I can't remember) for a CUP approval. We'll show them how the lights will be designed. If it is permissible we will install the lights only on the driving range. But in the event the lights do not do what we thought they could the City would have the right to tell us to remove them and we would have to do that. There are no plans for lights anywhere else on the golf course. It's strictly on the dri ving range and strictly that the lights would not interfere with the homeowners ... . We will have the end of the driveways fenced off so there will be no problems with your 300 (yard) hitters hitting any of the homes. Those homes up there are about 40 feet above the driving range. . KOLB: How high would the fence be on the driving range? EVANS: I don't know. We will have to talk to the expert on how high the fence has to be in order to protect any homes in that area. Right now I don't think it has to be too high because the homes are up to 40 feet above that area. Probably 20 feet; I don't know exactly. Part of our approval is to meet with the homeowners and go thru the golf course design so they can voice their concerns. If there's a way we can redesign the golf course we would certainly be doing that. . FORTNER: Given the new configuration, can you tell us the approximately density of the dwelling units there and how that might compare to some of the other areas in the community. There have been some recent letters in the newspapers; I think it might be helpful to hear about it. EVANS: The first plan had 18 acres set aside for the single family homes and today it's still l8 acres. There were 24 acres set aside for the condominium development and there are now 26 acres. The difference between the 24 and 26 acres is that at the time the Specific Plan was approved the consultant that was doing the EIR was measuring from the footprint of the building. Once you submit a Tract Map you come out from that building 5 feet. And if you drew a circle around an entire development you'd pick up about an acre and a half by coming out 5 feet from the building footprint. So in figuring the density, if you take net density as opposed to gross density over the entire site you'd . . . Page 7 - EQCB Meeting of August l6, 1988 - Minutes probably come up with a little less in the condominium area. But the overall density, which is the way the EIR ... (could not understand the tape) from 5 or 6 units to the ... which is across 148 acres. We have not been asked to calculate the density for 600 condominiums on 26 acres. FORTNER: Mr. Evans, do you have any idea what the density is in other areas of Seal Beach? EVANS: No. SPEAKER (?): Do you have any plans for a public parking lot for residents of the City to park in the (Gum Grove) park? EVANS: The City Council made the decision not to have the parking lot in the Gum Grove Park area. Gum Grove Park is a neighborhood park -- so there wasn't much traffic there. KOLB: You said the Land Use Plan (LUP) for all of the area was 19.6 acres originally. EVANS: Yes. Plus the Coastal Commission made mention of the 32 acres retention basin. The original Ponderosa Plan that was approved as the Specific Plan which was adopted as the LUP by the Coastal Commission did not have wetlands shown on the plan ... . The golf course lost roughly 20 acres. The Park itself was always included in the l05 acres. Gum Grove has never been separated from the original plan, it was always been a part of the golf course. The 20 acres we had to give up to the wetlands came right out of the golf course. In order to get the landscape buffers at the wetlands that the Federal and State governments wanted caused the golf course to shrink 1.1 acres. KOLB: Regarding a buffer between the golf course and the park? EVANS: It's a public golf course and someone from the park could actually walk onto the course. We are proposing a wrought iron fence on the top of the hill. Most of the people don't want a solid wall blocking the view of the golf course. Whatever the homeowners want we will build. EISENBERG: Regarding parking has there been any study regarding the impact on the Hill area is going to be from the use of the park without any available parking on site? EVANS: We do not advocate having a parking lot put in simply because we feel that homeowner would not appreciate a parking lot near his yard. Right now, off Avalon, there is a flat area that we're proposing a little bench area with a lot of trees -- you might be able to park 3 - 4 cars in there. . . . Page 8 - EQCB Meeting of August l6, 1988 - Minutes EISENBERG: Referring to page 3 of the Specific Plan modifications: it suggests to me that replacement trees will be at the ratio of species trees, 24" box trees and 15 gallon trees. How big is a 15 gallon tree? Evans: It comes in a l5 gallon bucket. If we do the required pruning ... you will not have the overgrowth you have now ... a l5 gallon tree is about 6 feet. But it will look sparse. "will be at a ratio of species tree"- please explain. It sounds like you're removing acres of old trees and replanting only one acre of new trees. EVANS: Right now there is 5.8 acres of grove area. We're proposing 4.7 acres of grove area. The difference between the two is we're removing 1.2 acres of existing grove area. If we can save a non-diseased tree we will save it. ... We don't want to take out any tree we don't have to. We must do a full tree study before we do any grading. If we are able to move a tree wi thout harming a tree we will do so wi thin that 1.2 acres of land and build the golf course around it. We're also proposing to replace tree for tree but we want to avoid overcrowding -- now and in the future. We will do whatever the City wants us to do. KNIGHT: I'd like to clear up one point --- the new park will be 4.7 acres, the tree line is 5.8 acres -- but part of the 4.7 acres currently has no trees in it right now. New trees would be put in that location. Of the 5.8 acres of trees, aprox. 2 acres of trees would be removed due to golf course impact or disease. The impact to the 5.8 grove is aprox. 2 acres -- a portion of that would be made up in another area which currently has no trees and new plantings would take place. A "specimen" tree is a certain size and age, a 24" box is a step down from that and is aprox. 8 - 10 feet tall with a 2 inch trunk, a l5 gallon is about 6 feet tall with a 1 inch trunk. A Eucalyptus tree grows very rapidly. . The 24" boxes will grow slower than the l5 gallon because there's less shock. The effect upon the initial planting will look like a variation in sizes ... but wi thin 5 years they'll all catch up to each other. KNAPP: We're looking at the 4.7 acres we have 5.7 acres not 1.1 acres. I don't misrepresented over and over - we're losing wilderness park. left; we have lost like seeing that over half of the EVANS: The fence line is lO.5 acres and the tree line is a 5.8 acres. I apologize for the fact that I didn't know this Board was going to go into detail. I thought they'd advise on environmental issues. Otherwise I would have brought my architect. r . . . Page 9 - EQCB Meeting of August 16, 1988 - Minutes KNAPP: When you were refiguring your plans to keep the same length golf course and the same length gum grove did you consider taking out a condo unit, the driving range or some homes instead of taking out open space? EVANS: Yes, we considered taking out the driving range. But we also considered the action the City Council took and the Specific Plan -- the ma jor concern is that the golf course is a viable enti ty . Not only a recreational amenity to the Ci ty of Seal Beach but overall to maintain itself economically. KNAPP: If any changes are to be made, one would have to influence the City and not Mola, right? EVANS: Right. We did not look to cutting density units out of our si te to preserve Gum Grove Park . .. Gum Grove Park is part of the golf course per the Specific Plan. It's not culled out in the Specific Plan as a park. KNAPP: Mentioning the Coastal Commission negotiating the 19.6 acres? did it need EVANS: No, its a law. The law is that you will replenish 75% of all the area wetlands that you are building on. In the early 1980's the Coastal Commission did the study to determine how many acres of wetlands we were building on; by a Mr. Radovitch. It was also done again by our consultant, LSA of Newport Beach. We had meetings in the field with all members of the Fish & Game, the u.S. Wildlife, Corps of Engineers, National Fisheries, and Coastal Commission wherein we walked the entire Hellman site and showed them exactly what was mapped out and showed them exactly what was included. ... KNAPP: Has the Coastal commission seen the proposal of the 20 acres? EVANS: We have not been before the Coastal Commission and can't until the City Council has acted. KNAPP: How does the City Council know this is the correct number of acres? ' EVANS: Make it conditional. KNAPP: Lighting on the driving range. . . . Page 10 - EQCB Meeting of August 16, 1988 - Minutes EVANS: The Specific Plan that is approved today allows us to provide lighting only after we have had a public hearing. It is approved conceptually. This is part of the Specific Plan. We're not positive we're going to have lights; we just want to have the option. The City has the jurisdiction to require taking the lights out if it doesn't work properly. SPEAKER (?): How much does a Eucalyptus tree replant cost? EVANS: I don't know the exact costs. KNAPP: Summarized a letter EQCB received from Gisselle and Jeff Dei tner expressing concern about the Mola Development. Talks about the wetlands and Gum Grove importance. PUBLIC COMMENTS JOYCE RISNER, 845 DRIFTWOOD - Ms. Risner commented that she could not see the green line on the map indicating the boundaries of Gum Grove Park. She expressed concern that the condos would be 196' from the nearest home on the Hill. The condos are building on a 10 foot sea elevation level. This would make the 39' condos at 49' elevation. She also questioned the proposed night lighting of the golf course. ROBERT POST, 1615 CRESTVIEW - Mr. Post expressed his concern about the staking which had taken place earlier in the day. He was concerned about the staking coming close to the houses on Crestview. He also indicated that he would like the proposed dri ving range moved to another location. Suggested increasing Gum Grove Park 50% or more. RANDALL JOHNSON, 1505 CRESTVIEW - Mr. Johnson inquired as to the elevations of the proposed project, to which Mr. Evans replied 30-35 feet. Asked if owners have option for a gate from their yard to golf course. Mr. Evans: Yes. SUZANNE ANDRE, 1300 CRESTVIEW Ms. Andre informed the Boardmembers that she represented a group known as Save Gum Grove Park and said that they were not anti-development, but pro-park. Ms. Andre then outlined a petition which she claimed to have 476 signatures supporting the park. Surveyed bluff side of Crestview --- 75% in favor of the park. . . . Page 11 - EQCB Meeting of August 16, 1988 - Minutes ROBERT THAYER, BEACHCOMBER - Mr. Thayer introduced himself as a Professor of Psychology at Long Beach state and expressed his concern over the changes in the community and the problems that the resulting changes in density would cause to nearby residents. He requested a reduction in density in the proposed project to 100 fine homes, Mola would still make $50.million. Quality of life is issue. JOHN HIRSCH, 1325 CRESTVIEW - Mr. Hirsch expressed his concern with the stress caused by the proposed project. Mr. Hirsch said that he valued the open space provided by Gum Grove Park. He's 18 year old --- used the park as he grew up and wants it for his children. ALICE STEVENS, 224 4th street - Ms. stevens expressed her concern over the staking which had taken place earlier that day. She spoke about the value of the native wildlife. She uses the park daily. RUSSELL MJORATI, 1725 HARBOR WAY - Mr. Mjorati spoke about the fact that there are few open spaces left in the area, and that he would like the park to stay the same or even require it to be increased. JANE McCLOUD, 700 BALBOA - Ms. McCloud indicated that she thought that the native wildlife should be maintained, and, accordingly, that the park should be maintained in its present state. Ms. McCloud also said that she would like to see the buildings reduced with access roads at both ends of the proposed project in case of emergency. SCOTT WILDMAN, 99 WELCOME LANE - Mr. Wildman had questions regarding the map of the proposed project. He specified that he would like the park maintained with more single-family dwellings and less condominiums. RILEY FORSYTH, 523 RIVIERA - Mr. Forsyth spoke about the lack of parklands for children. GORDON SHANKS, 215 SURF PLACE - Spoke about the fact that money for parks is very difficult to acquire. He suggested the flood retarding basin for the driving range. MARIO VOCE, 730 CATALINA - Mr. Voche stated that Gum Grove had been abused and that the wetlands produced oxygen. He then indicated pictures he had taken of the site. MARK RILEY - Mr. Riley stated that the park is necessary. He is 25 years old; he grew up here. . . . Page 12 - EQCB Meeting of August 16, 1988 - Minutes GALEN AMBROSE, 613 SEABREEZE - Mr. Ambrose stated that he would like to see a reduction in the condominiums and an enlargement of the park. END OF PUBLIC COMMENT BOARD COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS KNAPP: Stated she felt the strongest point this evening is what Mr. Evans said --- this is what Mola is proposing. Mola is not pushing this on us; it is up to our City officials to accept or reject this. The park acreage is not in the Specific Plan; she didn't realize that. They're referred to as "the golf course"-- - and is it "golf course/park" or just "golf course"? KNIGHT: It would be in the golf course because it's not a dedicated park. KNAPP: I think we should recommend to the City Council that Gum Grove Park be identified in the Specific Plan as 10.4 acres and maintained and restored as it should be done and should be part of the Specific Plan. I think other things I've heard here tonight are very valid -- like an additional access road for safety, more single family homes and less condos, relocating the driving range, a longer golf course instead of a shorter one. Only pUblic pressure is going to make a change at this point; we've done this before! (Public pressure got the park lease in the first place 20 years ago. Public pressure prevented a freeway from crossing the Navy base and made it into a national wildlife refuge.) There's a City Council, Planning commission and Parks & Recreation meetings in the next month and a half! EVANS: What you have before you is an approved plan. This is nothing new - we've had plans before us for other projects. This plan has been approved by the City Council twice before and has been approved for eight years. KNAPP: And Ponderosa didn't happen. FORTNER: You have summarized well Madam Chairman. Our recommendation to the City Council was well thought out --- the original recommendation anticipated a larger park than is now proposed by Mola -- not the entire 10.4 acres but about 6 - 7 acres. The public comments said this was a minimum amount. Mola has given the community a "second bite at the apple" -- this is a good development. The public is speaking in a single voice about Gum Grove Park and I would second your (KNAPP's) recommendation that a message be sent to the City Council that Gum Grove be retained at the very least at 6.8 acres. If the golf course . . . Page 13 - EQCB Meeting of August 16, 1988 - Minutes could be reconfigure or their housing density reduced so that the Park could be increased, that the Council should do that. Development is somewhat inevitable the community could stagnate and die without development. A second look at the density issue would be appropriate (to avoid wall-to-wall cars and people). GAVLICK: Mola has the community at heart and is bending over backward to do a nice project for the City. EISENBERG: We made a mistake last year that has nothing to do wi th Mola. I made a motion at that meeting last year that we leave it up to the City Council to determine what the mitigation measure would be. We left the decision to our elected representatives believing they would act on our behalf. I felt it was beyond our scope of our responsibility to do other than to recommend to our elected representatives ... what we are seeing a year later ... the City Council rejected a dedicated park. We made a mistake in not telling them exactly what we wanted. You can't mitigate Gum Grove Park with the golf course; that's still the case. The people here want a wilderness park. KOLB: I'd like to see those stakes; let's go out and see the project myself. Let's do a little homework. KNAPP: We don't have the luxury of time. Meetings are already scheduled. * * * FIRST MOTION MOTION BY: Eisenberg SECOND BY: Failed for lack of a second (Chair should not second said Mr. Knight) EISENBERG - MOTION that the EQCBA (sic) recommend to the City Council that by virtue of the wetlands mitigation measure, which is brought to our attention, that we find the reduction in the Gum Grove portion of the Mola Development to be unacceptable. That it is not satisfactory mitigation of the loss of environmental quality to our community which will result. We strongly urge that the City Council reconsider its prior decision, that we believe the Gum Grove area should be a dedicated park and operated by the City. And that it be restored to as near its total original acreage as can reasonably be feasible within the reconfigure plans of Mola, the Coastal Commission, and the various commissions. The City Council reconsider the Gum Grove Park, that it be made a dedicated park, that it be integrated with the wetlands with the correct type or trees. * * * ,; . Page 14 - EQCB Meeting of August 16, 1988 - Minutes FORTNER: This is what led me not to second the first motion. I'm concerned about this Board recommending to the Council that the City undertake the finances, liability and maintenance of the park. I think this is the developer's responsibility because it's a revenue-producer. The City cannot afford from its general fund to maintain the park. I'm concerned about a one-shot recommendation regarding the existing boundaries of the park. The City should take this as a dedicated park. They should retain as much of the 10.4 acres (as possible) but no less than 6. 8 ( acres). I WOULD ACCEPT THIS AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION. . . EISENBERG: Can anyone help us with the "dedicated park" versus the Mola issue? EVANS: Right now you have a piece of private property for which the owner has seen fit to allow the City to utilize as a park. It was under a lease that expired a number of years ago. It is under a month-to-month lease right now. The City has the obligation to fence it (which they have) and keep the gate locked during the evening hours (which I don't know if they always do) and to maintain it and pay the property taxes on it. That's the only thing that exists out there today. When Mola first came to the City they offered the park as a dedicated park. We made an offer to the City to layout the 6.8 acres and said this will be the limits of what will be a future public park. We also tried to get some parkland credit. The lease says (to the City) if you want this land you can have it but you have to pay for it. In 1979 the City Council signed this lease that states that if the City takes any action whatsoever (like condemnation ...) that the City automatically has to buy the land by the existing lease. We had offered to give the land to the City. But at the same time the City Council was looking at do we give Mola Development some parkland credit because there's value to that park. Because we were looking at the value of the park and wanted parkland credit as well. I believe the Parks & Recreation Department looked at it and I don't believe they felt that there was a value to the park as far as a "fee credit" type deal... but at the time the hearings were before the City Council it was determined at that time that the City did not want to accept the liability. KNAPP: Mr. Evans, when you say "dedicated park" do you mean that Mola would give the land to the city and the City would maintain it? EVANS: Yes. maintain. We offered it to be a park that the City would KNAPP: When we hear the word "dedicated" we're asking the developer to provide us with a park and a golf course because they're getting a development of houses. . . . Page 15 - EQCB Meeting of August l6, 1988 - Minutes EVANS: Right now you do not have a public park. The people who go down there are trespassing outside of Gum Grove Park. The Hellmans would never enforce ... people going down there... you have a month-to-month lease in Gum Grove Park right now. If the Hellmans chose (for whatever reason) that they didn't like the way the fencing was being maintained or the park etc., or if the Hellmans felt there was some perceived liability they could yank that. That was one of the things that Mola was trying to bring out --- you don't have a public park and Mola was willing to provide you with a public park. Regarding the staking --- I told my engineers not to stake the property lines because I didn't want any homeowners on Crestview excited about the fact that they have encroached upon the Hellman property. We are posi ti ve that some of the homeowners have encroached upon the Hellman property. Some homeowners are aware of this and some are not aware of it. If we do not need any of the property where the homeowners have encroached upon the Hellman land we are acquiring, we are not going to require them to move fences. We have staked the property lines -- only where the tree line would be on our new project. Keep that in mind when you look at the staked areas. If an area looks more narrow that what you see behind you there it's probably because a current homeowner has .... Some homeowners have extended their rear yards into the 10.4 acres of Gum Grove Park, have extended their homes where the wetlands would be. We are not planning on taking any of that land away unless it were needed for the wetlands restoration or to put back in the Gum Grove Park. We were asked to go out there and asked to stake out the Park by the City because they didn't have the manpower to do it. RISNER: Reported she has requested the City Engineer to do the staking, not just Mola. * * * . . . Page 16 - EQCB Meeting of August l6, 1988 - Minutes SECOND MOTION MOTION by Eisenberg SECOND by Fortner VOTE: MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 0; KOLB ABSTAINED Mr. Eisenberg: "I'm going to try this (motion) in a number of statements and see if we have consensus among us as to whether these statements are correct." I. That we recommend that Gum Grove be established as a public park without any language of dedication. 2. That we feel it's an environmental necessity to have Gum Grove established as a pUblic park. 3. That we feel that 4.7 acres is too small for the Gum Grove Park. 4. We believe the 6. ~ acres, which was the original amount addressed from this Board for Gum Grove Park is a minimum. 5. We would legally like to see Gum Grove Park be as large as it can possibly be. 6. We strongly urge that they reconsider the issue of Gum Grove Park. . * * * ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent of the EQCB, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. THESE MINUTES WERE TRANSCRIBED FROM A TAPE; SECRETARY DID NOT ATTEND THIS MEETING. THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL BOARD. Respectfully Submmitted, ~ ~. 00--. ~~"Y'""'l c..- _ J an Fillmann secretary, Department of Development Services MINUTES APPROVED ON 1988. (initial)____ 4TTA(!J.I He-A.) T - - . August 12, 1988 MEMORANDUM TO: Environmental Quality Control Members FROM: Department of Development Services SUBJECT: Hellman Specific Plan Modifications BACKGROUND The amended Hellman Specific Plan was adopted by the City of Seal Beach on December 7, 1987 by the City Council. A series of mitigative measures were adopted as conditions of approval to the project, and were incorporated into the specific plan document. . The mitigation measures cover a wide variety of areas, with jurisdiction responsibility for implementation by not only the Ci ty of Seal Beach, but also other agencies. Due to the fact that a portion of the site has the characteristics of wetlands tidal influence, a Section 1600 agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and Section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers is needed. Al though the City conditioned project approval upon the accomplishment of appropriate permits and agreements from these agencies, it is the authority of these agencies to determine whether the permits and agreements shall be issued. The City of Seal Beach has no authority over the scope, location, or approval of the wetlands. Since the approval of the Specific Plan, the developer, Mola Development, has been meeting with representatives of the Corps of Engineers and California Fish and Game to reach agreement regarding on-site wetlands. In July of this year, a tentative agreement calling for the reconstruction of approximately twenty (20) acres of wetlands located in the southwest corner of the project site was reached. The Coastal Commission requested that the City of Seal Beach process the changes to the approved specific plan to account for the wetlands inclusion prior to consideration be by the Commission. PROJECT STATU$ . The purpose of an Environmental Impact Report is to provide pUblic agencies and the public in general with information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment: to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized: and to indicate alternatives to such a project. The EIR for the Hellman Specific Plan is considered a program EIR, which covers the implementation of a series of actions related to a given project. Subsequent actions are reviewed in context to the information provided in the program EIR. If the action is consistent with the discussion and mitigation measures proposed in the program EIR, then no further .' . . August 12, 1988 HELLMAN SPECIFIC PLAN MODIFICATIONS Page 2 documentation is needed and the action can be approved within the scope of the program EIR. The EIR for the Hellman Specific Plan contains a discussion of on-si te wetlands, identifying the flora and faunal associated with the marshland brackish channel, and the alkaline flats. It provides a discussion of the project impacts and identifies that approximately twenty (20) acres of the 147 acres project site may constitute existing wetlands. The EIR proposes mitigation measures requiring that the developer seek approval from Fish and Game and the Corps of Engineers. In keeping with the authority of these agencies, they are requiring that twenty (20) acres of restored wetlands be located in the southwest corner. The wetlands will replace the purposed golf course in this area, reducing the size of the golf course by twenty acres. The change from golf course to wetlands is not considered a significant environmental impact to the project, since the use of wetlands was proposed and discussed in the EIR, and the implementation of the adopted mitigation measures could very well had resulted in the inclusion of wetlands in the site. The wetlands is replacing, another open space use of the site, and although this action creates an impact to the challenge or level of difficulty of the golf course, this is not an environmental impact. RELATED PROJECT ANALYSIS The inclusion of the wetlands creates other minor impacts to the project along with the reduction in golf course acreage. As a result of the redesign due to the wetlands, a portion of condominium development will be closer to the existing homes located adjacent to the project. The previous plan showed that the closest point between the condominiums and the property line of a hill residence was approximately 280 feet. That figures has been reduced to approximately 196 feet, a reduction of 84 feet. While this represents an incremental reduction, staff does not consider this a significant impact, since a reasonable buffer is still in place, which is in keeping with the General Plan objective of maintaining a buffer between existing residences on the hill and proposed development on Hellman property. Another area of discussion is the on-going status of the Gum Grove area. Gum Grove has been addressed in the EIR in two separate locations, under Land Use (open space element) and . . . August 12, 1988 HELLMAN SPECIFIC PLAN MODIFICATIONS Page 3 biological resources. The land use mitigation measure requires the project proponent to work with the City to develop a final plan defining the configuration features, and jurisdictional responsibility of Gum Grove Park. The biological Resources section requires the applicant to remove affected trees and stumps infected with the Eucalyptus longhorn borer. The applicant will undertake a restoration program to remove, retain and replace the Eucalyptus trees. The specific plan also requires the preservation of the grove of trees and determination of jurisdiction responsibility for the Gum Grove area. At the precise plan level, the applicant is responsible for submitting plans for restoration and development of the Gum Grove area. Although no acreage figures devoted to the grove area were given in the EIR or specific plan, general discussion during the hearings process showed that the applicant could preserve up to 6.5 acres for the grove area. During the hearing process, it was determined by the City Council that the grove area would not be a publicly owned park, but preserved with a trail system developed and open to the general public. Public easement conditioned through the subdivision process will assure continued use by the public. The current park area leased by the City of Seal Beach is an area totaling 10.4 acres, which includes the parking lot, level areas adjoining the grove, and the grove area. The actual grove area is approximately 5.8 acres. The project proponent is proposing to set aside approximately 4.7 acres of the grove area for the restoration and preservation, with a public access trail system and improvements throughout the grove area. This 4.7 acres constitutes existing grove area, and areas that are part of the park area, but currently have no existing trees. Of the 5.8 acres of trees, approximately 2.0 acres will be removed. The applicant will be responsible for replacing diseased trees and trees removed due to the golf course on a one-by-one basis. Replacement trees will be at a ratio of species trees, twenty-four (24) inch box trees, and fifteen (15) gallon trees. The restored grove will be a combination of approximately 3.8 acres of existing trees (after removal of diseased trees) and new plantings. ..... :' ~ 4It August 12, 1988 HELLMAN SPECIFIC PLAN MODIFICATIONS Page 4 Along with this report, the minutes of the EQCB meetings regarding the Hellman Specific Plan, and the adopted mitigation measures. FOR: August 16, 1988 fdlmJGt uQ .~ Edward M. Knight Director of Development Services EMK: jf . . . . . .~ -- ~'_"'__,___ns - NOTICE OF MEETING The Environmental Quality Control Board will be meeting on August 16, 1988, at 8:00 P.M. in city Council Chambers, to discuss the proposed amendments to the Hellman specific Plan as a result of the inclusion of approximately twenty (20) acres of land devoted to wetlands. Dated: August 8, 1988 ("'n'rdirt l' () v::~ ~ ~d M. Kn~~ Director Development Services Department City of Seal Beach