Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEQCB Min 1997-04-23 .. .. : . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION - EQCB JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES of APRIL 23,1997 Chairman Brown called the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 1997 to order in City Council Chambers at 7:32 p.m. The meeting began with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL As this was a Joint Study Session with the Environmental QualityControl Board (EQCB), the roll call included both the Planning Commission and the EQCB members: Present: Plannina Commission Chairman Brown Commissioner Hood Commissioner Sharp Commissioner Yost Commissioner Law EQCB Chairman Voce Member Hurley Member Rosenman Member Christ Member McGuire Also Present: Deoartment of Develooment Services: Lee Whittenberg, Director Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney Barry Curtis, Associate Planner Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary Mr, Steele announced the Planning Commission Agenda had not been posted, as required, 72-hours prior to the start of this meeting. Therefore the items on the Planning Commission's Agenda for the Consent Calendar and Scheduled Matters must be continued to the May th Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Steele distributed a letter from Michelle A. Brendel, Ph.D., dated April 23, 1997, to the Planning Commissioners. AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Yost to approve the Agenda as presented with the continuance of Consent Calendar and Scheduled Matters items to May 7, 1997.. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Brown, Hood, Yost, Sharp, Law City of Seal Beach. Joint Study Session of Planning Commission and EQCB · Minutes of April 23, 1997 . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Bruce Stark * Seal Beach Mr. Stark said he had listened to Mr. Bebek's discussion, at the April 9, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, of the Gold Coast's CC&R Review Committee, also known as the Gold Coast's Architectural Committee. Mr. Stark said he felt this Committee operates on behalf of the City of Seal Beach, and violated the Brown Act because there was no notice of their meeting when they approved the construction plans for 206 Ocean Avenue. He suggested construction at 206 Ocean Avenue be stopped until there is compliance with the Brown Act. He said the plans were defective in their initial approval by the City. Mr. Stark said that after reviewing the tape of the April 9th Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Sharp said, "I would love to have approved that Variance if for no other reason than to get Stark", Mr. Stark said the Chairman of the Commission should take serious action if it's the position of the Planning Commission to go after individual citizens. . Mr. Stark said it's a common knowledge in Seal Beach and a joke throughout the Southern California basin that Seal Beach is for sale. He felt approving a Variance for 206 Ocean Avenue would be granting a special privilege Mr. Stark asked if the project proposal for the Hellman Ranch would be self- supporting or would it cost the residents of Seal Beach money as the Mola proposal was going to? He thought it looked like a nice plan but said it must be self-supporting. There were no other speakers and Oral Communications was closed. Staff Concerns Mr, Whittenberg indicated staff is ready to move to the Study Session when the Commission is ready to proceed. Commission Concerns There were no Commission concerns. Adiourn The Chair adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:45 p.m. to the Joint Study Session with the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB). . 2 City of Seal Beach * Joint Study Session of Planning Commission and EQCB * Minutes of April 23, 1997 . JOINT STUDY SESSION PLANNING COMMISSION I EQCB HELLMAN RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR , Director Whittenberg explained this study session would refresh all members on the purposes of an EIR plus the functions of the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) and the Planning Commission in its approval process. He introduced a graphic of the proposed project and model of the project which showed the same items to scale. The project as proposed would develop the Hellman Ranch property from a site now primarily used for oil extraction. The proposed Specific Plan would do the following things differently from any other previous Specific Plans: 1, Incorporate an existina Specific Plan for the State Lands parcel. This parcel is owned separately by the State Lands Commission. It's current Specific Plan calls for a hotel or visitor-serving retail development. This site is located at Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and First Street. If the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan is approved, the existing State Lands Specific Plan would be repealed. . 2, Include a small portion of Citv-owned property at the far west extension of Adolfo Lopez Drive, past the animal care center. The vacant City property to the west of that facility is proposed to be incorporated into this plan to provide a second vehicular access point into the golf course/club house parking lot area and to the service roads to the oil extraction uses. 3. Include the existina Los Alamitos Retention Basin in the Specific Plan and kept as its current use, a water retention basin for storm water. 4. Build 70 sinale family homes along Seal Beach Boulevard. This would be the maximum number of homes built along the bluff area. There would be a single access point directly across from the entry to the Naval Weapons Station (NWS). A separate access road, halfway between the entry for the homes and Adolfo Lopez Drive, would provide the access to the golf course. It would not provide access the residential area. . This is the basic project proposal in the EIR along with the golf course itself. The golf course is approximately 108 acres, an 18-hole regulation course. It is comprised of two wetland areas: 3 City of Seal Beach · Joint Study Session of Planning Commission and EQCB · Minutes of April 23, 1997 . 1, 23,1 acres of restored salt water wetlands; and 2. 9 acres of fresh water wetlands. Mr. Whittenberg next discussed the project's time line: EIR Public Comment Period The City received the project proposal for the Hellman Ranch and determined an EIR was necessary. The EIR was prepared and is now out for the 45-day Public Comment Period. The last date to receive comments on the DEIR is May 27. The City will receive comments from interested citizens, State and public agencies. Once received, the City then prepares a written Response to Comments and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). . Those documents will come back to the EQCB for a determination on whether the FEIR meets the adequacy requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Once the EQCB makes that determination, their determination moves to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will begin its Public Hearings as to the project itself. At the EQCB's May 6th meeting, the members will hold a Public Hearing to receive public comments. They will provide comments on the adequacy of the DEIR, the correctness of the information and areas of concern not addressed. As part of the Response to Comments document, staff will respond to those comments in writing. If portions of the DEIR require revision, those revisions will be part of the FEIR. The EQCB will review the FEIR also. The basic charge of the EQCB is to consider the DEIR, receive comments on it, consider the FEIR and make a determination as to whether or not the FEIR meets CEQA's adequacy requirements. Once made, that recommendation goes to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission then evaluates the EQCB's recommendation and the FEIR. A part of their Public Hearing process is whether to recommend approval of the project itself, the amendment to the Specific Plan and the amendments to all the other elements of the General Plan, Redevelopment Plan and any other documents required to make this project consistent with the City's General Plan and its implementing ordinances. If there are aspects of this proposed project which are felt to be not appropriate, they will recommend approval, denial or approval with modifications, This recommendation then goes to the City Council for the ultimate decision. The EQCB will be focusing on the DEIR's adequacy. The Planning Commission . will be focusing on the appropriateness of the project in the community. 4 City of Seal Beach * Joint Study Session of Planning Commission and EQCB * Minutes of April 23, 1997 . Mr. Whittenberg next presented twenty over-head transparencies which covered the following subjects: . 1. Purpose of an EIR. 2. EIR Legal Adequacy. 3. Judicial Criteria for Determining Adequacy of an EIR. 4. Forecasting and Speculation. 5. Disagreement Among Experts. 6, Alternatives 7. Cumulative Impacts 8. Determining Significant Effect 9. Mitigation Measures 10. Significant Unavoidable Impacts & Overriding Considerations. 11. Issues Address in Draft EIR. 12. Project Goals. 13. City Objectives. 14. Proposed Project Land Uses by Planning Area. 15. Required Updates to General Plan. 16. Required City Approvals 17. Required Approvals of Other Agencies. 18. Project Alternatives. 19. Significant Unavoidable Impacts of the Project. 20. Opportunities for Public Involvement This presentation took approximately forty minutes and the discussion is set forth in the staff report. (Staff report on file in the Planning Department for reference). Mr. Whittenberg explained a Notice of Preparation had been prepared at an earlier date. This is the City's notice to reviewing State agencies, Orange County, CAL TRANS and AQMD as to what the City's first look at the project was and what the "first cut" of areas of concern would be. Member Rosenman asked if these were State approvals, with the exception of the Corps of engineers? Mr. Whittenberg said no, there are both State and Federal agency approvals involved. Member Hurley asked when the EQCB gets the FEIR and would there be public input at that time? . Mr. Whittenberg said at that time the EQCB will have all the written responses to all the comments and any modifications to the DEIR based on those comments. At that point there is not another public comment 5 City ofSea1 Beach * Joint Study Session of Planning Commission and EQCB * Minutes of April 23, 1997 . period on the FEIR. That would occur when the document gets to the Planning Commission. Discussion ensued on who has the expertise and/or authority to determine what is a significant impact. Member Hood, referencing UDisagreement Among Experts", indicated it said ... when experts disagree on impact significance in an EIR, the Lead Agency need only summarize the main points of disagreement and explain its choice of expert opinions, He asked if the Lead Agency had a choice or the authority to determine whether or not an impact is significant? Mr. Whittenberg explained that when you have two "experts", the document needs to indicate that there are two different opinions and the EQCB has the power to make a decision on which opinion it feels is most appropriate in the DEIR. . Commissioner Hood asked if it is the EQCB, the Planning Commission, the City Council, staff or external consultants who make the determination on what is a significant impact? Mr. Whittenberg said it is ultimately the decision of the EQCB. The Planning Commission is recommending to the City Council whether or not the document is adequate. If the Planning Commission feels the document says an impact is not significant but the EQCB feels it is, the EQCB needs to make that recommendation to the Council. Commissioner Hood asked if the EQCB has the authorization to change the significance level of an impact? Mr. Steele said ultimately the determination of whether or not an impact is significant is the determination of the final decision-making body, the City Council. They are the last step in the process. The EQCB and the Planning Commission each have advisory roles in this process. There is no final decision made on these impacts until the Council makes its final decision. Commissioner Hood rephrased the question, asking if the EQCB has the ability to recommend to the City Council that an impact be changed from insignificant to significant? Mr. Steele said yes. . Commissioner Hood asked if the Planning Commission has the ability to make the same recommendation? 6 . ' City of Seal Beach · Joint Study Session of Planning Commission and EQCB · Minutes of April 23, 1997 . Mr. Steele said yes. He added the recommendation could be made in one of two forms: 1. We, the EQCB, recommend that the FEIR be certified as legally adequate, except that we recommend this change be made ... 2. We, the Planning Commission, believe the FEIR should not be certified as legally adequate because we believe the particular impact has been understated. Mr. Steele said he found less confusion arises in reviewing an EIR when it is realized there are two sets of decisions: 1. The decision on legal adequacy of an EIR. 2. A more political decision on the merits of the project itself. . Often there is a desire to apply community standards to the decision on whether an impact is significant. CEQA standards determining whether an impact is significant are bright-line, objective, easily quantifiable standards. For example, does the project cause a 2% or more increase in traffic on a particular street? Does the project cause a certain number of pounds of pollutants to be put into the air daily? It's a standard of objectivity that is used to be fair to everybody in the process. There's a recognition that the process is not perfect because it's universal and not tailor-made to each community. But it's fair to everybody in the process because you can look at a standard and say this impact either falls on the insignificant side or the significant side. Once mitigation measures are applied we look at the impact again. We determine what side it falls on. This is the way the CEQA process works legally. The community standards and the more subjective standards come into play in the second set of decisions. Whether or not the General Plan should be amended to allow a project like this one. Whether it's consistent with community standards. Whether or not the development is compatible with the neighborhood. It's often frustrating because certain standards may not be entirely perfect to use in the City of Seal Beach. Unfortunately the City doesn't have a bright-line standard to look to. The CEQA process uses these established, accepted standards for the EIR and then allows the application of more community-oriented standards in quasi-judicial decisions which are made based on the document. Member McGuire said that during the EIR consultant interviews, the Culbertson . company presented the interviewers with a CEQA booklet, which was quite 7 . . City of Seal Beach · Ioint Study Session of Planning Commission and EQCB · Minutes of April 23, 1997 . informative. She asked if copies could be obtained for EOCB and Planning Commissioners? Mr. Whittenberg said he would check into this. Commissioner Yost, referencing the Notice of Completion page, indicated it did not include Coastal zone. He asked if this property is not considered to be within the Coastal zone? Mr. Whittenberg said the property is within the Coastal zone and that's why it requires Coastal Commission approval. Mr. Whittenberg said he would check this page. Member Voce clarified that at the May 6th EOCB meeting they will discuss the DEIR. They will not be discussing the project itself outside the context of the environmental impacts. . Mr. Whittenberg said the purpose of the EOCB's May 6th meeting is two-fold. One is to receive public comments re information in the document and the other is for the EOCB to make comments for the consultant's edification and response. Member Voce asked if, at the May 6th meeting, members of the public may request the EOCB hold another meeting so they can agendize discussion of the project outside the EIR? Mr. Whittenberg said no, that would be done at the Planning Commission's Public Hearings. The EOCB's charge is to review environmental documents, not to consider goodlbad/indifference of a project. Member Hurley asked if part of the DEIR would be examined by the City's Archaeological Advisory Committee. He asked if they would forward their comments to the EOCB for its consideration along with the FEIR? . Mr. Whittenberg said the City-appointed Archaeological Advisory Committee functions in a manner similar to the EOCB. It advises the City Council on archaeological concerns in the City. They have been given the cultural resources section of the DEIR and will meet to consider that section on May 7, 1997. Their focus is strictly on the discussion of issues, determination of significant impacts, mitigation measures of those, all strictly related to cultural resources. They will make a recommendation to the EOCB. If the EOCB holds a second meeting, their comments would be presented at that time. If EOCB does not hold a second meeting, the Archaeological Advisory Committee determinations will become a part of the record itself as a recommendation to the EOCB and goes as part of the public comments and will be responded to as a part of the response to comments. The Archaeological Advisory Committee will also be making a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the 8 .. < " City of Seal Beach. Joint Study Session of Planning Commission and EQCB · Minutes of April 23, 1997 . adequacy of the mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to a level of less than significant. If modifications are needed, a separate recommendation will be made. Member Hurley asked if the Archaeological Advisory Committee's comments precluded the EQCB's comments? Mr. Whittenberg said no. They will focus on only one issue. The EQCB may also make comments on that portion of the document. Member Voce asked if other City committees, such as the Recreation Commission, the Project Area Committee will look at the DEIR? Mr. Whittenberg said the Redevelopment Project Area Committee will review modifications for the Redevelopment Area Plan. This is not part of the FEIR process, The Recreation Commission will look at issues such as what to do with Gum Grove Park if it's dedicated to the City. This is also not part of the FEIR process. . ADJOURNMENT Chairman Brown adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:35 p.m. MOTION by Christ; SECOND by Hurley to adjourn the EQCB to May 6, 1997, at 8:36 p.m. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Voce, Christ, Hurley, Rosenman, McGuire. Respectfully Submitted, Joan Fillmann Executive Secretary Department of Development Services APPROVALS of APRIL 23, 1997 MINUTES: The Planning Commission approved these Minutes on May _' 1997. _ . The EQCB approved these Minutes on May _,1997._ 9