Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEQCB Min 1997-06-24 .. / . City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board Meeting of June 24, 1997 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers by Vice Chairman Rosenman. Roll Call Present: Christ, McGuire, Rosenman, Hurley Absent: Voce Also Present: Whittenberg, Director, Development Services Dept. Vice Chairman Rosenman indicated Chairman Voce was on vacation, and hearing no objections, he excused Chairman Voce's absence. Aaenda Approval . MOTION by Christ; SECOND by Hurley to approve the agenda as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Christ, McGuire, Rosenman, Hurley Voce Oral Communications There were no oral communications. Consent Calendar There were no items on the Consent Calendar. Public Comments Review and Receipt of Comments on the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Recirculated DEIR. Mr. Whittenberg explained the purpose of this meeting is to receive public comments on the recirculated DEIR which deals with biology and hydrology It was distributed June 9th and the public comment period will end July 23, 1997. . - 1 - A:: City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of June 24t 1997 . The EQCB will make comments and take testimony from interested persons in the audience who wish to make comments on the recirculated portion of the document. Testimony will also be taken on the original document. He explained the biology section of the DEIR was revised based on new information regarding a rare and endangered plant species found during a spring plant and animal survey on the property. The plant species is Coulter's Goldfield, a species which is classified as rare and endangered by the California Native Plant Society. The revised document discusses the numbers of this plant species found on the site, their location and proposed mitigation measures on how to deal with the species as part of the reconfiguration of wetland areas on the property. The hydrology/water quality section of the DEIR was also revised to reflect how first flush storm water will be handled both on and off the site. This was not correctly presented in the initial DEIR. Vice Chairman Rosenman reviewed the Board's policy of allowing ten-minute speaking times per speaker with new speakers going first. Public Comments . Moira Hahn * Seal Beach Ms. Hahn said she had telephoned the Planning Department in May to find out the sequence of Public Hearings on the DEIR. Mr. Whittenberg said he would call her when the re-written portion on the biology was completed. She didn't get a phone call from him. She said she would like to review it and wondered how she would know what's available if he doesn't let people know? Mr. Whittenberg apologized, noting he had asked a staff member to call Ms. Hahn as he was out of town. The document is available at all libraries in the City. Copies are available for purchase at City Hall. This revised document would cost $15 to purchase. He said a Notice was published in the newspaper regarding the availability of the document, its public comment period and tonight's meeting. Vice Chairman Rosenman called for other public testimony. Hearing none, he closed the Public Hearing. EQCB Comments Paae 5-74 Member Hurley commented on page 5-74, where he thought there were two direction errors. The sentence "Nearest major surface water body in the vacinity of the Hellman Ranch property is the westerly flowing" should say "southerly flowing". . 2 4. City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of June 24, 1997 . Mr. Whittenberg said in that area it actually makes a turn and flows west. Most people consider it to be south. He said the change would be made. Member Hurley said "Existing Site Hydrology" has an error in the first line. It should be "southeast" instead of "southwest". Paae 9. Table 1-2 Member Hurley referred to Table 1-2 on page 9, regarding mitigation measure WQ-4. On the left side it says "The project site is subject to periodic flooding from ...". He said the project site is such that flooding from the Haynes Cooling Channel could not be true. The water comes from the retarding basin. Mr. Whittenberg explained that this is discussing the west boundary of the property. The larger channel is the San Gabriel River and there is a smaller channel, the Haynes Cooling Channel, between the river and the Hellman property. If there were to be an over-topping of the the cooling channel levee's, it would flood the Hellman property. Member Hurley said in all his readings nothing is mentioned about this. This impact isn't covered in the DEIR's text. . Mr. Whittenberg said they would go back and make sure this is covered. Paae 6-3 Member Hurley said on page 6-3 he had a problem regarding cumulative impacts. His opinion was that the text on hydrology should not be crossed out on page 6-3. He felt the statement on page 6-2, "following environmental parameters are either not significant or can be mitigated to below the level of significance". In the text it applies to the hydrology and water quality and he suggested that be removed. Connected with that, he suggested adding in the paragraph below the list "In addition, with the exception of land use --" here insert hydrology and water quality. The biological is right, just strike the hydrology and water quality. Then add it at the little paragraph under the list. . River Contamination Member McGuire agreed with Member Hurley's comments on hydrologylwater quality. She said water quality was a concern to her because after five years the City will be responsible for maintenance of the wetlands. She felt it was important to review the materials on how contamination coming from the San Gabriel River will be dealt with and requested Mr. Webb be present to provide additional information to the EQCB. She would like to have a question and 3 City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of June 24t 1997 . answer time with him. She felt the contamination issues were not fully addressed in this document. For clarification, Mr. Whittenberg restated Member McGuire's request noting she wanted a presentation on the tidal flushing proposed for the wetland areas. The tidal flushing is what determines new water coming in. Member McGuire said she wanted detailed information on the contamination level of the San Gabriel River. The talk should include information on the flushing effect and how it would clean up the water going back to the River. Her concern is that if we don't have a viable wetland within five years, because of the contamination, we'd have a mosquito pool with nobody to maintain it. . Oversiaht Committee Member McGuire explained she wanted an oversight committee composed of one member from every Council district. She has talked to an attorney who specializes in EIR law, and the attorney's comments were that you need a specialist to come in due to legal ramifications. But the Planning Commission and City Council should not be the "lone rangers" in looking at this data; that doesn't work for her. The oversight committee would perform an inspection on a monthly basis and would present their information to the Planning Commission and City Council. She referenced the minutes of May 20th, saying they misunderstood her statements and took them out of context. Her idea was, and is, that this oversight committee would have no legal power, it would be an informational group, which would gather data and pass it along to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Choosina the Bioloaist - Table 15-1. Measure B1.3 Regarding the choosing of the biologist and the decisions on what islwhat isn't significant, Member McGuire did not feel one or two people should be doing this. She said small groups should make all decisions. "No matter if I trust a person or like them, I don't ever want one person making decisions for me". In addition, the biologist is selected by the Director of Development Services Department and the project developer, as are other specialists, and she said she had a really big problem with this. This should be done by the citizens oversight committee, who should look at who to pick and what is significant. These should be group decisions. . Paae 15-2 Section 15.1, page 15-2 - Mitigation Monitoring. The statement "The final report on the mitigation monitoring program for each project developed under Hellman Ranch Specific Plan will be kept in a relevant project files for the City of Seal Beach, Department of Development Services". Member McGuire said she has had trouble getting documents and therefore she wanted the following added to the document "The documents be made available upon request to the public and in the open office". These documents should not be locked up in anybody's 4 City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of June 24, 1991 . office. She shouldn't have to call for these documents. The monitoring system should be made available to the public for its random review. lack of Rossmoor Comments Section 5.3 - Hydrology and Water Quality. Member McGuire was concerned she didn't see any comments from Rossmoor. Mr. Whittenberg said Rossmoor Community Services District received a copy of the DEIR but no comments have been received. Member McGuire said she talked to the President and he had no knowledge of having it. She said Rossmoor is usually quite vocal. Additionally, they had problems with water backing up. Mr. Whittenberg commented on the availability of mitigation reports. Those reports are available to the public at any time, in City Hall offices, with the exception of certain archaeological mitigation reports which contain site-specific information and in accordance with State and Federal law are not available to the public. Staff will clarify this language. . Vice Chairman Rosenman, referencing Member McGuire's comments on citizen monitoring, said he felt City staff were overloaded with other things. It seems to him that double-checking would be good. He felt it was the consensus of the EQCB that an oversight committee is needed. The other members of the board concurred. Public Comments Reopened The Vice Chair reopened Public Comments, with the consensus of the board. Lillian Robles (No Address Given) Ms. Robles said she brought a response letter to the City on June 18th regarding the DEIR. She wondered if this was in the packet the EQCB received? Mr. Whittenberg said the EQCB has not received the final EIR at this time. But that letter was sent to the consultant. The letter is included in their packet and they are preparing responses to those comments. It will be included in the FEIR. Member McGuire said she had a copy of the May 20, 1997 minutes. Would she have had to submit the letter that day for them to be a part of those minutes? Mr. Whittenberg said if Ms. Robles submitted a letter at that meeting it would have been included as a part of the minutes of that meeting. If it was not submitted at that meeting, it will be included as part of the Response to Comments. . Member McGuire said she wanted a copy of that letter. Mr. Whittenberg explained the Department of Development Services has a thick collection of comment letters. These have not been provided to the EQCB. They will be part of the final EIR. Member McGuire told Ms. Robles that when she testifies she can bring a copy of whatever she has and pass it out to the entire EQCB. The 5 City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of June 24, 1997 . Vice Chair suggested that Ms. Robles loan this letter to Mr. Whittenberg so he could make copies for everyone tonight. Member Hurley asked the date of the letter. Mr. Whittenberg said the letter is dated May 23, 1997 and is addressed to the Honorable Mayor Forsythe and Members of the Seal Beach City Council. Moira Hahn * Seal Beach Moira Hahn said she liked the idea of a citizen panel/review committee. Ms. Hahn talked to Lisa Morales, Attorney, Army Corps of Engineers and was advised that if citizens are concerned about all of the DEIR issues, including the biology, hydrology, archaeology etc., the Army Corps would be interested in meeting with the citizens, as long as it covers all the bases. They don't want to meet on anyone particular issue. Vice Chairman Rosenman asked Moira Hahn to write down the contact information for him. Vice Chairman Rosenman called for further public comments. Being none, he closed the Public Comment portion of the meeting. . Hvdroloov Member Hurley asked Mr. Whittenberg if he understood how the Los Alamitos Retaining Basin water gets pumped over to the San Gabriel River, avoiding the Haynes Cooling Channel? Mr. Whittenberg explained a system of pipes from the Retarding Basin that goes under the Cooling Channel basin and then into the San Gabriel River. The water is pumped through this system. Paoe 5-73 Member Hurley referenced page 5-73, saying most of the text talks about water, saying it flows from higher levels to lower levels. In one spot it talks about the pressure gradient and the salt-water intrusion into the ground water basin. This should be said in every place - that it's elevation and pressure gradient. Mr. Whittenberg said the comment would be included and if it applies in every case it will be so indicated. Oversioht Committee Regarding the oversight committee, Member Christ asked Member McGuire if she was asking for citizens oversight committee related specifically to the wetlands or one that would be specifically monitoring the Hellman site? . Member McGuire said this is a sensitive, complicated issue. She envisioned this group to be a data-collecting committee which would report to the Planning Commission and City Council. She would prefer to see committees set up for specific items, such as wetlands and other issues. 6 City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of June 24t 1997 . Sub-Consultant Problems Member McGuire asked the Director if he had looked into the chairperson or a member of the Archaeological Advisory Committee having a conflict of interest with Nancy DeSautels? Mr. Whittenberg indicated the chairperson has not been at the last couple of meetings to discuss this issue. Member McGuire said Mr. Whittenberg would ultimately have to verify this information, but her sources tell her that not only has she been employed by DeSautels but her two sons have been employed also. This is a blatant conflict of interest. She should be excused from this review process and Member McGuire would like to see the proper steps taken to do so. She indicated that if Mr. Whittenberg could not find out, she would. . Member McGuire said Member Rosenman made a comment at that last meeting, "This is water over the dam", in regard to who wrote the Archaeological Element for this document. Member McGuire said according to Silvia Salenius from P&D Technologies, when they first submitted to prepare the DEIR, SRS was their first company of choice as they had used them for twenty years. Member McGuire said they got permission from staff to use the various consultants --- SRS being one of them. The packet to use P&D was submitted to Council for approval but without the sub-contractors being mentioned. Member McGuire expressed concerns that DeSautels was already in litigation regarding the adequacy of her information. She felt it was staffs duty to do the necessary research to be certain the sub-contractors and contractors are all above reproach. She asked former Councilmember Frank Laszlo how it was presented to him, mentioning DeSautels in particular. Mr. Laszlo said they were presented by P&D, they thought they were a good company and they passed them. Nothing was done in depth on the sub-contractors. She wanted to know what mechanisms can be used in the future to make sure we don't wind up with less-than-perfect subcontractors? . Mr. Whittenberg said the 1990 process, when P&D was selected to prepare the EIR (originally anticipated to be a resubmission by Mola Corp.) was the same process the EQCB went through this time to hire EIR consultants. There were two members of the Planning Commission, two members of the EQCB, two members of the City Council who interviewed approximately six or seven environmental consulting firms to prepare an EIR. Once that selection process was done, that panel made a recommendation to use P&D to the City Council. The City Council concurred. When nothing happened with the Mola Corporation application, P&D was sitting on the sideline with a City agreement to prepare an EIR for a project that never got submitted. When the Hellman's submitted a project of their own, staff went back to Council and said you interviewed this firm 7 City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of June 24, 1997 . in 1990. Do you still feel comfortable with P&D or would you like to go out and look for a new consultant? The Council decided to use P&D. Vice Chairman Rosenman said his problem was not with P&D, it was with the archaeologist involved. The EQCB is trying to learn from mistakes. Mr. Whittenberg said when the City interviewed firms to work for the City on an on-going basis one of the panel's concerns was this same question. The City has already learned from that decision. He was not sure that everybody would agree it was a mistake to work with this particular sub-consultant. The EQCB needs to keep in mind that most of the concerns we have heard about SRS and their capabilities have been in regard to fieldwork, not in preparation of EIR documents. SRS is not, and will not, be doing any fieldwork on this site. The City has hired another firm, KEA Environmental, to do the fieldwork. They are due to have a Research Design to staff by mid-July. KEA was interviewed extensively and background checks were done before that selection was made. The Research Design will go to the Archaeological Advisory Committee, the City Council, the Coastal Commission and the Army Corps of Engineers for approval on how KEA will approach the project. There is a public comment process on this Research Design approval process. Once approved, if a project has been approved for the site, the field excavation will begin in accordance with the . Research Design. KEA will do all this work. Vice Chairman Rosenman said it was his impression that the lack of cultural impacts still persists because of deficient performance by SRS, and Member McGuire said KEA is using the deficient SRS information as their starting point. Research DesiQn and the EIR Mr. Whittenberg explained the purpose of a Research Design. It is to consider all of the information available and synthesize it to determine a reasonable process to evaluate the property. It will review information from the DEIR, Dr. Stickel's site boundary maps, surface artifacts, and field notes, which are now in the possession of KEA. KEA will also physically observe the Redwine collection at the L.A. County Museum of Natural History, and Redwine's maps. KEA will review and evaluate all of the previous archaeological work conducted on the Hellman Ranch, they are not restricted to just looking at the EIR information. Two different processes are going on. . First, the purpose of the EIR is to evaluate what the basic impacts of a proposed project would be to the cultural resources on the Hellman Ranch property. It's only directed to the Hellman property. The EIR doesn't evaluate impacts off the property for other properties in the area. It does evaluate cumulative impacts of a project, but it does not evaluate cultural resources, in a non-encyclopedic document, on other sites. The EIR informs the Council that if you approve a project you have the potential to impact cultural resources on this property. The City has indicated in the EIR that each and every site that is known on the 8 City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of June 24t 1997 . property has the potential to be a significant site, and each site will be impacted. That's as far as you can go in an EIR. Secondly, the next process, which is separate from the EIR process, is the actual investigation of the property. That is where the Research Design, which is being prepared by KEA, comes in. It's required because the City has a General Plan Archaeology Element which says it has to be prepared. It's required because the California Coastal Act says if you're going to excavate more than two square meters of soil in the Coastal Zone, a Research Design must be approved. It's also required by the Army Corps of Engineers. The City has hired KEA Environmental to perform the work. The purpose is to inform these agencies what its methods are, what its purposes will be, how it will evaluate those sites and how it will determine the boundaries of those sites. That sets forth the basic framework of how they will evaluate the sites themselves. Once the Research Design has been approved by all three of those agencies, if a project is approved, an evaluation of those sites will be made in accordance with what the Research Design says. There are two different phases and it may be confusing because they're going on at the same time. . Inaccurate and Incomplete Information Member McGuire said experts have said the information in the DEIR is not complete. She's confused that SRS is providing work, which many experts say is incorrect and incomplete. The experts are sending up red flags and we're being asked to decide whether it's adequate or inadequate. If it's inadequate, the Planning Commission is going to be told that it only has to meet these little guidelines, and if it is not passed there's an element of litigation. Once it's to the Planning Commission level we don't have a chance to fix it. The EQCB doesn't decide if it's a good or a bad project, but it has the ability to decide if information is complete. It's the EQCB's duty to make certain the information is correct and they are pretty much going to have to put it through their commission, that's historic. People are going to come back and say "How can you say that isn't right, you voted on it". It is our duty, at this level, to make sure whatever they get stuck voting on, which will probably be in the affirmative, that the information is right. Number of Sites Member Hurley said KEA will base their work on what has already been done. Will they go into the field and find more sites than the records indicate? Mr. Whittenberg said he couldn't answer the second question. They will investigate the entire Hellman property area, including areas which have never been considered a site, but which they feel may be a site. . Rewritina the Document Regarding the comment on the adequacy of what you see in the DEIR, Mr. Whittenberg said the purpose of the DEIR is to put forth the best information we 9 . ' City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of June 24t 1997 . have available at that time. There are public comments. Quite often the document is changed based on the public comments. When you see the FEIR you should anticipate seeing a totally re-written cultural resources section because of the extensive amount of comments received. For all of the sections of the DEIR, where comments have been received, there may be minor revisions to certain portions and in some cases there will be extensive revisions, similar to the recirculated DEIR. . Member McGuire asked about the rewrite. Mr. Whittenberg said it will be extensive. The reason it's not having to be recirculated is the City has made the determination that each site has the potential to be impacted or to be a signifi98nt site. Whatever information is provided can't change that final determination. On the biology we had no determination of any significance of that particular plant species, because we didn't think that plant species existed on the property. You have a new significant impact that was not addressed in the EIR. Member McGuire asked why the Cultural Resources section was not recirculated. Mr. Whittenberg indicated there was no change to the determination of significance to the Cultural Resources. Member McGuire indicated she didn't know if she agreed with that. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the document says that each site identified has a potential to be impacted and each site has the potential to be a significant site. All the information provided, as comments, provides additional detail as to the level of impact but it doesn't change the conclusion regarding the potential significance or potential impact to each site. It changes the boundary, the type of artifacts discovered but it doesn't change the basic conclusion. If the City had said 2 or 3 sites would not be impacted, when in fact they would be, then the City would need to re-circulate to indicate the new impacts not previously disclosed. The initial document said each site is going to be impacted, and each site has a potential for significance. Findinas Vice Chairman Rosenman asked if the findings would affect the mitigations? Mr. Whittenberg said no, because the mitigation measure says the Research Design has to be done, and an evaluation of each of those sites has to be done by a City-selected archaeologist. That will not change. The City-selected archaeologist has to prepare a Research Design, which has to be approved and they have to do the evaluation. Something that may change is how the Research Design is prepared, and the contents, the methodologies used to do the site evaluations and site excavations. But this is not a part of the EIR, the EIR doesn't get into that much detail. . EQCB and Ethicacv Member Hurley asked if it is part of the EQCB's job to evaluate the ethicacy of those mitigations? Or is it simply okay to say they've covered this area and this is its mitigation? One of the mitigation statements says "Of course, preservation 10 . ' City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of June 24, 1997 . in situ is best but if that's not feasible..." and then it gets very vague on what is going to happen if you can't preserve the site where it exists. Mr. Whittenberg said the decision on whether a site should be preserved in place or be mitigated by an excavation process is not a determination of the EQCB. The determination of the EQCB is to ensure that there's a measure there which says those are the ranges of possibilities for the City Council to ultimately consider. Applicant Jumpina the Gun Member Hurley asked if the EIR is approved and the project is approved, what's to prevent the applicant from going ahead before KEA is done? Mr. Whittenberg said the applicant could not get a grading permit before the archaeological work has been completed. Recirculation Aaain Member McGuire said "Basically what you're looking at here is there's no recirculation because it can't affect the determination of the mitigation measures, which basically is just going to the Research Design" is that correct? . Mr. Whittenberg said it goes much further than just the Research Design. It also indicates that the City-selected archaeologist will do the excavation work, the Native American monitors need to be selected to monitor that work, and there's a number of other things in the mitigation measures besides the Research Design. Member McGuire asked if those were all connected in the second phase? If the first information doesn't affect the second phase, then there's no recirculation? Mr. Whittenberg said the reason you re-circulate an EIR is if there's significant information that changes the conclusions reached in the document, which was not previously known. . Member McGuire read from the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.1, regarding recirculation of an EIR prior to certification. She was glad to see Mr. Whittenberg use the word "substantial", because that is how he described the revisions in the Cultural Resources part. Member McGuire continued to read, stating "New information added to an EIR is not significant unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon substantial, "and that was your word", adverse environmental affects of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an affect". Member McGuire continued to read, focusing on subparagraph (a){4), (b) and (e).: 11 . ' City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of June 24, 1997 . "(a)(4). The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusionary in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded" . Member McGuire said she would have to agree that the way this is written, that definition is applicable. "(e). A decision not to recirculate an EIR must be supported by substantial evidence in the Administrative Record". Member McGuire asked if we have substantial, . . .has it been written in the administrative record why we are not recirculating a document that we had to revise substantially? . Mr. Whittenberg said if she'd like to ask that question of the City Attorney he'd be happy to forward it to him. The City Attorney has evaluated the information and he was involved in the process of determining which sections of the DEIR needed to be re-circulated and it was his determination that based on CEQA, the information discussed has different meanings, and Mr. Whittenberg read CEQA Guidelines ~ 15088.1. (a)( 4), ". . . a new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented". In the cultural resources section the City had already indicated that the impact to all the resources on the property is a significant environmental impact, which cannot be mitigated. We have not found a new significant impact regarding cultural resources. Each and every site was identified in the DEIR as being a significant, unavoidable impact that could not be mitigated. Member McGuire said she agreed with the sites which were identified. One of her conflicts is there is a problem of agreement on where the sites are and how many there are. Until there is agreement on this and a document that is more adequate, then she felt meaningful public review and comment were precluded because they didn't have good information. She could not have commented because things were not matching. . Mr. Whittenberg said the best he could say at this time was the City Attorney was involved in the process and he felt that additional clarification of information regarding sites, did not change the basic conclusion of the documentation. The EIR on this project talked a lot about cultural resources. There was controversy on how big a site might be or where it might be located on the property. The basic conclusion does not change. There may be disagreement among experts, each previous investigator, Redwine, Stickle, SRS, etc., has a different area, and the EIR cannot define them. All it can say is "there are differing opinions as to where the boundaries are and what the significance of them area". KEA's responsibility, when they do actual field work on the property, will be to determine 12 . ' City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of June 24t 1997 . those site boundaries, evaluate the sites, determine whether or not there is still material in those sites which make them significant or not. If they are significant, then KEA has to look at preserving those sites in place, or doing something else. That is a process that goes far beyond what the responsibility of the EIR is. Member McGuire said she agreed with that aspect, but that she wanted a re- circulation because the public hasn't seen all of the comments made by people highly educated in this field. She is not looking for a conclusion, she wanted to see all of the information re-circulated so that comments could be made based on more complete information. She wants a re-circulation of the cultural element. She said we have a person who has done questionable work. Nancy DeSautels has been in litigation. KEA is not in any litigation. Wouldn't it be nice if KEA would compile what we've got -- instead of having a revised document from someone we don't have a lot of trust in. She felt a monetary case could be made with DeSautels that her work was so incomplete that any more work should not be paid for. Everyone would feel a lot more comfortable with KEA. She thought it would be nice if part of the cultural resource section included a monument to the Native Americans, or land left open for them, since it all used to be their land. That should be part of the Cultural Resources section. In her opinion, in reading CEQA, because they are significant part of this research, they should be part of the re-circulation. . Keeoinc Track of KEA Member Hurley asked for more specifics on how the EQCB will keep track of what KEA does? Mr. Whittenberg said one process would be as a part of the City's archaeology element of the General Plan there is a requirement that when the Research Design document is ready to go to the City Council for approval it must be made available to the public for 30 days prior to being considered by the Council. Once approved in some form by the Council it then goes to the Coastal Commission for approval by their Executive Director. He is not sure what process they have for public review. The Council ultimately has to make a decision to approve the Research Design. . Loncer Comment Period Member McGuire asked about the 3D-day comment period. In February she made a request and the Committee was told they were going to have a 4S-day response period. She felt this is a relative short time period. She was told it was going to be 45 days. She then quoted from 15087C which says In order to provide sufficient time for public review the review periods for Draft EIRs should not be less than 30 days nor longer than 90 days from the date of the Notice - except in unusual cases. The review period for DEIRs for which the State agency is the lead agency, or responsible agency, shall be at least 45 days unless a shorter period is approved by the State Clearinghouse. She did some research and found out 45 days is the standard time. But she specifically asked 13 !' City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of June 24, 1997 -- for a longer time period than that, knowing that the Committee would have some problems with the cultural resources section. She noted she was not familiar with wetlands issues such as hydrology. She said the 45-day review period does not work for her now or in the future. Here she's faced with a 3D-day response to the Research Design. She asked where CEQA sets forth a 3D-day review? Mr. Whittenberg explained the Research Design is not a CEQA requirement. It's a requirement of the City's General Plan Archaeology Element. That states 30 days. Member McGuire asked if it would allow extensions? Mr. Whittenberg said he would have to review the language to determine if it did, but he didn't believe so. Member McGuire asked if this Committee wanted to make the review period longer for this specific hearing would it be possible? Mr. Whittenberg said that would be a decision of the City Council. It would go on their agenda for consideration. The Research Design would not come back to the EQCB. Member McGuire said that fact concerns her. She asked who decided on the 45- day response time for the Cultural Resources section? I. Mr. Whittenberg said City staff did. He said the Research Design goes to the Archaeological Advisory Committee for review. They will take public comments on it during their review. They will suggest revisions to the document based on input they receive and the concerns they have. That then goes to the City Council. That packet of information with their comments and concerns will be part of the information packet that's available for that 3D-day period of time prior to the Council consideration. Member Hurley asked staff for clarification. He said the Director had said after the Archaeological Advisory Committee has done their work and forwarded it to the City Council there are 30 days from that point before the City Council acts? Mr. Whittenberg said that was correct. Calendar Vice Chairman Rosenman said he wanted to back track and took out the reference calendar. He explained this is a blank calendar for the next three months with target dates on it. He asked Mr. Whittenberg to prepare this so the Board could track what papers are where and what's due when. For the audience's benefit, he explained various dates: . August 12 End of public comments on re-circulated DEIR. FEIR distributed Archaeological Advisory Committee meeting for final review of EIR as it relates to the Cultural Resources Section. EQCB review of FEIR. . July 23 . August 01 . August 06 . 14 ,. City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of June 24, 1997 -- . August 19 . August 20 Regular EQCB meeting Planning Commission meeting EIR should have been certified adequate/inadequate by EQCB. Planning Commission meeting Possibly the first date the City Council sees the FEIR. . September 03 . September 08 Additional Comments on FEIR Vice Chairman Rosenman asked Mr. Whittenberg if the FEIR is available for distribution on August 1, would that mean that any member of the public as well as the Commission could submit additional comments regarding that document in its final form? ~. Mr. Whittenberg said the FEIR will include all of the comments received during the entire comment period. To this point that has been an initial 45 days and now you're into a second 45 days. It will include written responses to each of those comments. It will include revisions to the document as deemed appropriate by staff, legal counsel and the consultant team. The FEIR package will come back to the Archaeological Advisory Committee, the EQCB, the Planning Commission and the City Council. Everyone will get that FEIR package at the same time. During the review at the EQCB's level, the EQCB can receive comments from the public regarding the FEIR, consider those comments in your evaluations whether to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and to the City Council that in your opinion, the FEIR is either adequate under CEQA or not. What Can the EQCB Do? Vice Chairman Rosenman asked if that was the only the thing the EQCB could do? Mr. Whittenberg said that is the EQCB's responsibility. If it feels the document is inadequate, it would be helpful to the Planning Commission and City Council for the EQCB to provide as much clarity and direction as to where it feels the document is inadequate. Problems with Cultural Resources Section Vice Chairman Rosenman if there were problems with the Cultural Resources element, that would be the focus of everyone's comments at that time. . Mr. Whittenberg said yes, that would also be the focus of the Archaeological Advisory Committee's review. They will make a recommendation to the EQCB and to the Planning Commission. Once the EQCB determines the adequacy of the DEIR, that recommendation goes to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the project. As a part of that hearing, they will receive comments on the FEIR. The public and the EQCB, if they still wished to make comments on the FEIR, could do that at the time of the Planning 15 ~ City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of June 24, 1997 -- Commission hearings. If the Commission should recommend approval of the project and it goes forward to the City Council, those same comments could be made at the Council's public hearing process. The EQCB is not the final determination of that process. Good Information vs. Adeauacv Vice Chairman Rosenman said there's a difference between commenting on adequacy or lack of adequacy and getting a document that has good information in it. He saw them as slightly different tasks. Mr. Whittenberg said that's a difficult line to draw and that's why the EQCB's decisions are very difficult to make. It's not an easy process. New Deadlines & Re-Open the Cultural Resources Section Vice Chairman Rosenman asked what would happen if the ECCB were to decide to set some different time deadlines and decided to reopen the Cultural Resources issue at the next meeting? ~. Mr. Whittenberg said the ECCB could not do that because the determination of whether a re-circulation is required is a legal decision of the City Attorney's Office. That office determines that the circulation process is done in accordance with CEQA provisions. Written Determination bv City Attornev Vice Chairman Rosenman asked if the City Attorney had prepared a written decision on this issue? Mr. Whittenberg said no. Member McGuire said that was a part of her request. She asked the City Attorney to put Section 15088 (4)(e) in writing and she wanted a copy. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the board would need to make that request by Motion. This would have the City Attorney explaining why the City is not re-circulating that document. Member Christ asked if those time limits weren't the minimum set by CECA? Mr. Whittenberg explained CECA sets different time limitations. For example, there's a minimum 30-day time period time period for public comments on an EIR. Once an EIR has to go to any State agency for CECA-required review, there's a minimum 45-day public comment period. This document had to go to a number of State agencies. That's the reason for the 45-day review period. . Member Christ asked if the ECCB had any options to extend or do anything with the time limitations? Mr. Whittenberg said no, at this time those time limits have already expired. 16 .. City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of June 24, 1997 \ . -- MOTION by McGuire; SECOND by Hurley to request a written opinion from the City Attorney's Office addressing Section 15088(4)(e) as to why no re-circulation of the Cultural Resources Element of the DEIR is deemed necessary. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 McGuire, Hurley, Rosenman, Christ Voce Member McGuire said she wanted to address Member Christ's question. She talked to Sylvia Salienus regarding the time frame and an extension over the 45- day period. Ms. Salinas said it is standard practice that once you've requested a longer time period, it's pretty standard to say you can have a longer period of time. Additional Public Comments Member Hurley reviewed Mr. Whittenberg's comments on the EQCB's receiving additional public comments on the FEIR. He asked how that would happen? ~. Mr. Whittenberg explained the way in which the EQCB had done this in the past was at the time the calendar schedules the meeting to consider the FEIR, that would be the time to receive your comments. At that time the EQCB can make a determination as to whether or not it's ready to make a recommendation or if it feels it needs additional time and wants to defer its decision to another meeting. Member McGuire said they would review the FEIR on August 12th? She asked if any public comments would be incorporated into an addendum? Mr. Whittenberg said they would be incorporated as the EQCB's minutes, which will be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Cultural Resources Section Problems Vice Rosenman asked if the Cultural Resources section is good and it will fly without problems, he felt the EQCB was trying to be clear with staff about the fact that "You are going to have four, if not five, people yelling and screaming and failing to certify as adequate and God knows what else, if that Cultural Resources section does not pass muster. The questions is, is that high stakes game that we should be playing? Or, would it be better to have two meetings? One to just take testimony on the Cultural Resources section of it. And allow two weeks to digest that. And then do the Final EIR in the second pass." Mr. Whittenberg said at this point nobody could answer that question because, as stated, it's a hypothetical question because nobody has seen the FEIR's Cultural Resources document. Until that is seen, he didn't think anyone could make that conclusion. . 17 City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of June 24, 1997 \ -- Vice Chairman Rosenman said he just wanted to be clear that the EQCB was giving staff and the Council notice that if there are problems, this thing will come to a crashing halt --- so we do it right. Member McGuire said everyone could agree that it will be a controversial issue. Mr. Whittenberg said that is understood. He added that in staff's opinion the Cultural Resources section will be completely re-written to address those concerns. Staff heard those concerns very loud and clear. The consultant team, the City Attorney and himself spent five hours going over the Cultural Resources comments before they made a decision on whether to re-circulate that portion of the document. It was not a decision made lightly. A lot of time and effort was spent in that review. There was also clear direction given to the consultant team that that document needs to be substantially expanded to include all the additional information received. All the issues are to be addressed. Staff has been beaten over the shoulders on cultural resources for a long time now and we understand that. He thought staff realized this from the beginning. It's staff's desire to come back with a document that we think completely addresses the concerns that were received during the public comment period, understand that there may still be differences among experts and that is not a reason to not declare the document to be adequate. ~. Question & Answer Session Member McGuire said at the beginning of the EQCB's meetings she requested a question and answer session with the experts. She was told that would not happen at the beginning. But once the board was to review the FEIR, the experts would then be available for this session with the EQCB. She wants to clarify that on August 12th all of the experts will be present. Mr. Whittenberg asked to clarify what Member McGuire meant. Vice Chairman Rosenman said he liked Member McGuire's suggestion and noted the board could anticipate areas where they would have questions. This would be conveyed to staff. It will be anticipated that people who can answer those questions will be in attendance. Member McGuire said the July 15th meeting could be used to have the EQCB state what experts we'd like to be at the meeting and submit that in writing to staff. Member Hurley talked about the planning calendar suggested that we don't tentatively set any other date, in accordance with our policy until 14 working days from the day of distribution, not including the date of distribution. This is our work time before we have to have a meeting to decide on the FEIR. . 18 City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of June 24t 1997 " , MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by McGuire that the EQCB hold a meeting to consider the FEIR on the first Tuesday following 20 days after distribution of the FEIR. The meeting date is not to conflict with the regularly scheduled meeting of the City Councilor the Planning Commission. Before the vote the Committee discussed meeting dates. Vice Chairman Rosenman said they should have a regularly published schedule so the public would know when they met. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Christ, McGuire, Hurley, Rosenman Voce STAFF CONCERNS There were no staff concerns. EQCB CONCERNS ~. Chance Meetinc Date Member McGuire said she would like to change the meeting date in the fall because she's involved with the Boy Scouts. She would like to consider Thursday. Mr. Whittenberg said he would check the ordinanceslresolutions establishing the EQCB to see if there is a mandated meeting date. He will report at the July meeting and review the amendment process. SRS Not Present Vice Chairman Rosenman said he and Member McGuire had requested Mr. Curtis have someone from SRS be present at the next meeting. Mr. Curtis never got back to the Board, but no one from SRS showed up. Mr. Whittenberg said he didn't recall that discussion, as he was not at that first meeting. At the next meeting, when the anticipation was that SRS would be attending, he indicated they would not be present and the reasons why. He apologized for not getting back sooner. Reminder Svstem Vice Chairman Rosenman said he felt Mr. Whittenberg and Mr. Curtis need to work out some bookkeeping mechanism so when the Board makes a formal request it is addressed, one way or the other. Member McGuire said that one thing that can be ensured is that SRS will be asked to come as one of the experts. ADJOURNMENT The Vice-Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:08 p.m. . 19 City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board - Minutes of June 24t 1997 . . -- C\~~ Jo~mann Executive Secretary Department of Development Services NOTE: These minutes were transcribed from an audiotape made at the EQCB's June 24, 1997 meeting. APPROVAL: These minutes were approved by the EQCB on -r -.2 9 - YB 19~ -. . 20