HomeMy WebLinkAboutEQCB Min 1997-09-09
.
NOTICE OF ADJOURNED MEETING
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT
THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CONTROL BOARD ADJOURNED
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1997
HAS BEEN ADJOURNED TO
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1997, AT
6:30 P.M. AT THE CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 211 EIGHTH
STREET, SEAL BEACH
...
September 10. 1997
Date
.
C:\My Documents\EQCB\Adjoumed Meeting Notice.doc\LW\09-10-97
. ~
.
City of Seal Beach
Environmental Quality Control Board
Minutes of September 9, 1997
Call to Orde~
Chainnan Voce called the adjourned meeting of the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB)
to order at 6:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers. Chainnan Voce led everyone in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Roll Call
Present:
Members Rosenman, McGuire, Hurley, Christ, Voce
Also
Present:
DeDartment of DeveloDment Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Barry Curtis, Associate Planner
Aaenda Aooroval
MOTION by Rosenman; SECOND by Christ to approve the Agenda as presented.
MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0
AYES: Rosenman, McGuire, Hurley, Christ, Voce
.
Consent Calendar
There were no items on the Consent Calendar.
Oral Communications
There were no oral communications.
Scheduled Matters
1. Election of Officers
The EQCB held elections for Chainnan and Vice Chairman.
MOTION by Christ to nominate Member Voce as Chairman.
Question by Rosenman on whether the present Chair wishes to continue serving as Chair?
Chainnan Voce said he would serve as Chair if it were the Board's pleasure but added he would
like to give the opportunity to another member.
MOTION by Hurley to nominate Member Rosenman as Chainnan.
Question by Member McGuire on how long Member Voce has been Chair?
Member Voce said he had been Chainnan for about seven years.
Member Christ withdrew his nomination.
MOTION by Christ to close the nominations.
.
VOTE: All in favor of the nominee David Rosenman as Chainnan.
MOTION CARRIES: 5 - 0 - 0
AYES: Rosenman, Voce, Christ, Hurley, McGuire
1
City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of September 9, 1997
.
The members discussed when this nomination would be effective. They said it would be at their
next regularly scheduled meeting.
MOTION by Rosenman to nominate Member McGuire as Vice Chairman.
MOTION that Hurley close nominations.
VOTE: All those in favor of Member McGuire as Vice Chair.
MOTION CARRIES: 5 - 0 - 0
AYES: Hurley, McGuire, Voce, Rosenman, Christ
Chance of Meetina
Chairman Voce clarified the change to meeting nights by noting that the EQCB will now hold their
regularly scheduled meetings on the fourth Wednesday after the first Monday of each month.
That would begin September 24, 1997 this month.
Leaf Blower Videos
Chairman Voce requested leaf blowers be agendized for that meeting. Member Rosenman said
he supported this request. Member Voce said he would like to receive a guest speaker who
would bring two video documentary tapes to view in one hour. Member Hurley asked if the Board
would have any homework. on this subject? Member Voce said he received information from the
guest speaker and would give information to Mr. Curtis for distribution.
2.
Receipt of Public Comment and EQCB Review of the FEIR
Hellman Ranch Specific Plan
.
Staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg said there were two staff reports, one being supplemental. [Staff reports on file
in the Planning Department for reference].
Member Hurley said he thought the supplemental report contained everything in the main staff
report. Do you need the first staff if you've got the second?
Mr. Whittenberg said the Supplemental Report contains additional information and the members
needed to refer to both reports.
.
Mr. Whittenberg said the basic purpose of tonight's meeting was to review the FEIR and forward
any recommendations the EaCB has regarding the adequacy/inadequacy of that document to the
City Council. Once the EQCB has concluded their consideration, staff has provided two
resolutions to be acted on. He explained each resolution. The Council will take the EQCB's
recommendation, along with recommendations from the Planning Commission and the
Archaeological Advisory Committee [MC], and make their determination on whether the FEIR is
adequate or inadequate. If the Council returns the EIR as inadequate, the EIR will then be
returned to City staff and the consultants to be revised based on the deficiencies noted. If the
EQCB determines there are deficiencies in the document, they should so note those for the
Council. The supplemental staff report provides the information from the MC on their
deliberations on August 2ih. Mr. Whittenberg explained the AAC's determinations. He noted the
Planning Commission has considered the project and incorporated the AAC's recommendations
into their recommendation to the Council. Mr. Whittenberg advised the EQCB they need to focus
on whether the EIR is adequate under CEQA. He explained the letter regarding Belding's
Savannah Sparrow and the Western Burrowing Owl and what the Planning Commission did with
that issue. Staff proposed changes to the language in the Specific Plan regarding the height of
the homes, lot coverage requirements, setback measurements and locations of garages on the
2
City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of September 9, 1997
.
lots. The Planning Commission went along with staffs recommendations in all cases and made
no changes to the MC's recommendations.
Member Rosenman asked whether the project would be a gated community?
Mr. Whittenberg said it has the potential to be gated, it has private streets.
Member Rosenman said to him that was an environmental issue. Where would that be resolved?
Mr. Whittenberg said the City Council would determine whether to allow gates? He clarified that
that is not an environmental issue; it's a public access issue.
Member Rosenman requested clarification on who would pick up the responsibility for the
wetlands on an on-going basis.
Mr. Whittenberg said he recalled that if. at the end of five years. the property owners are unable
to find a resource agency that is willing to take over those facilities the property owner is required
to maintain them. He would review the mitigation measures.
Member Hurley asked if it was the City Council who certifies the EIR? Mr. Whittenberg said yes.
Member Hurley said the CEQA Guidelines. page 32. talks about what and how to appeal the
Planning Commission's findings. He said he didn't understand what it meant for only the Council
to certify the EIR. Mr. Whittenberg said two different issues are involved. First, an appeal of a
Planning Commission decision is one that would not go to the Council automatically. In the
CEQA Guidelines it is probably referring to a Negative Declaration. Member Hurley asked if the
only way to appeal the City Council's certification on the EIR would be in a court? Mr.
Whittenberg said yes.
Public Hearina
There were no public comments.
.
Board Deliberations
Member Rosenman said he thought it was important to clarify that the discussion to take place
could include asking the consultants questions. not simply talking among Board members.
Member Hurley asked to have the consultants present identified.
Mr. Whittenberg introduced the City's consultants:
P&D
Noble Engineering
Bob Rusby I Doug Willig
John Moore
Mr. Whittenberg introduced the applicant and his consultant:
Hellman Ranch
Moffat & Nichol
Dave Bartlett
Chris Webb
Member Rosenman said he spoke informally with Mr. Bartlett and Chris Webb. He asked that
once the EQCB has finished its deliberations and the recommendation goes to the City Council,
will it then circulate to various State and Federal agencies for their review on adequacy, including
the wetlands mitigation measures.
.
Mr. Whittenberg clarified that the issue of adequacy is re~arding the information in the EIR. If the
City Council were to approve a project and it has the mitigation measures in it that require
restoration of salt water and fresh water wetland areas, there are also a separate set of approvals
that need to be obtained from the California Coastal Commission. the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. the Regional Water Quality Control Board. There are also consultations with the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife and the California Department of Fish & Game. There are five separate agencies
3
City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of September 9, 1997
.
that will be further looking at the proposed wetlands restoration plan. They may require additional
monitoring measures or modifications to the plans.
Member Rosenman said that without those reviews the EQCB would be hesitant to let some of
these issues go. He's not assuming the EQCB is the scientific last word on this.
Mr. Whittenberg added that all of those agencies have been provided with copies of the DEIR and
FEIR. The DEIR saw substantial comments from the California Coastal Commission. The City
did not get a lot of comments from the other resource agencies regarding the wetlands issues.
They are aware of what is being proposed and what the City is considering.
Member Hurley said he was not clear on what Member Rosenman was asking. Was he asking if
the City had to get approval of the EIR from these other agencies?
Member Rosenman was trying to highlight the fact that although they're not approving the EIR,
they will be focusing on approving in some fonn the mitigation measures.
Referencing mitigation measure B-1, biological resources, Mr. Whittenberg read: Prior to
issuance of a grading permit (issued by the City), the applicant shall submit to the Director of
Development SeNices a conceptual restoration plan for the restoration and creation of the
coastal salt marsh complex which has been approved by the resource agency with jurisdiction
over the project....
Member Rosenman thanked Mr. Whittenberg for his comments and continued that since he saw
a reporter from the Press Telegram present he thought it might be useful to explain that issue.
.
Member Rosenman asked Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Webb about the connection to the San Gabriel
River through a culvert. What's the potential for the culvert to fill up with debris coming from the
river? We have a system that depends on this connection for its flushing. He was trying to think
through or have the Council make sure that we're covering all the bases on making sure this
culvert works. What is required to keep the culvert flowing and in a functional mode?
Secondly, Member Rosenman said there was a confidential annual maintenance estimate done
for the wetlands. He asked the applicant to share a ballpark estimate on this. Will mechanical
dredging be necessary? Who will pay for that?
Member Rosenman said he and Member McGuire had received telephone calls on having a
backup connection to the Haynes Cooling Channel and what are the pros and cons to this?
For the Record, Member Rosenman stated he had talked to Mr. Webb about this issue.
.
Chris Webb * Moffat & Nichol Enaineerina
Mr. Webb said they are the wetland restoration consultants for this project. He said he had talked
to both Members Rosenman and McGuire on this issue. These issues should be considered and
addressed. In tenns of providing an open culvert to the San Gabriel River [river] all the time,
there are several ways this can be done. The primary way is to have a debris screen on the
outside of the culvert on the river side. If items, such as shopping carts, or chairs or whatever
float down the river, they will be deflected by the screen and float down stream. That item would
be included in the construction. This will be a screen of such size to handle sizeable collisions ---
iron bars. These could be unbolted and removed if the culvert needs to be cleaned regularly; this
would likely be the case. The culvert today is filled halfway up with sediment. It's a 4' in diameter
culvert and 2' of it are buried in fine sediment. The sediment comes from the Hellman site and
flows toward the river. The flows are so low and slow that when it enters the culvert it settles out.
This project would result in higher flow velocities from the wetlands and river back and forth. It
would carry the sediment from one body of water to the other. There would likely not be the
deposits in the culvert that occur today. There may be some but the likelihood of that being a
problem is slim. They suggest the culvert be cleaned on a regular basis by a roto-rooter type
mechanism. The culvert will have a growth of muscles --- bio-fouling. Culverts that connect
4
City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of September 9, 1997
.
wetlands to other water bodies typically have to be cleaned every five to ten years. They exist in
Anaheim Bay and Balsa Chica. This is not an unusual condition. This issue is covered in the
Wetlands Restoration Plan and it's referred to in the EIR; it's incorporated by reference. They
also included in the project installation of a couple of new manholes along the culvert's length.
This makes it easier to clean the culvert. They have been in contact with Rota-Rooter who does
this work. The parent company has a subdivision that would do this work. They have a remote
controlled car with a camera mounted on it. This could be sent into the culvert so they can
videotape and monitor the culvert.
Regarding the cost of the maintenance and its confidentiality, Mr. Webb said the confidentiality
had to do with the construction costs, as opposed to the maintenance costs. The maintenance
costs they estimate to be low because the site is small. He estimated this to be $3,000 to $5,000
every three to five years --- not every year. This would involve inspecting the culvert with an
automated robot video camera and cleaning/rota-rooting the culvert through manhole access.
Member McGuire asked if there were costs for replacing the plants?
Mr. Webb said there are costs for weeding, debris cleaning, replanting, predator control and a
number of things. Those items are relatively low cost because the site is small. There's a benefit
here because you've got a compact site and you can do some of these things at a relatively low
cost.
Member Rosenman said they had heard about an accessory connection to the Cooling Channel.
.
Mr. Webb said yes, they proposed in the restoration plan that an alternative connection be
considered to the Haynes Cooling Channel. This would require a pennit from the City of Los
Angeles and there's no guarantee this can be gained. It's worth pursuing. It's not a bad idea to
have a backup plan to any connection you have. Their consideration of the alternate connection
was based on the fact that the river's temperature is elevated over the ocean. The channel's
water is 4 to 5 degrees cooler than the river's water - it's closer to ocean water temperature.
Since the time that was written, they researched effects on water temperature on wetlands. They
now understand that an elevated water temperature is not necessarily a bad thing for a wetland.
Wetlands are hardy and can sustain themselves under great ranges of water temperature. The
water temperature in the Balsa Chica wetlands today was 78 degrees and the river's temperature
was 79 degrees. Balsa Chica is considered a very successful wetlands. We've learned that
upper Newport Bay experiences higher water temperatures which can be ten degrees higher than
the ocean and that wetlands is successful. Moffat & Nichol were more concerned with water
temperature when they wrote the report than they are now. They also consider fresh water
influxes. Biologists have told them fresh water influxes are important and therefore it's not a good
idea to cut it off from fresh water flows entirely. Fresh water flows stimulate seed production. All
wetlands fonn at the mouth of coastal streams which receive fresh water flows. The culvert, the
primary connection proposed, would provide this.
Member Rosenman asked if it would be reasonable to ask the Council that as the time goes by it
might be worth trying to get the pennit from Los Angeles?
.
Dave Bartlett * Hellman Prooerties
Mr. Bartlett said the applicant wants the wetlands restoration project to succeed and to function
as naturally as possible. It has been designed to have a good hydrology analysis through the
culvert. The river provides a fresh water influx as well as the seawater. They looked at the
Haynes Cooling Channel as an option. Based on the infonnation received from the biologist, the
water quality in the river will not be hannful to biology. The temperature, oxygen and other
factors that sustain wild life are not prohibitive. They still consider the Haynes Cooling Channel
as an option but they believe it should be at their discretion and at the discretion of the biologist
and experts. They have an existing culvert that provides the connection and it will be cleaned out
and maintained in accordance with this plan and more specific construction drawings. They don't
5
City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of September 9, 1997
.
want it to be mandated. It was put there because they thought it should be considered. The
permitting process involves the City of Los Angeles and the Department of Water and Power.
Member Rosenman said he thought it would be extra insurance. But rather than say it's required
--- and possibly hold up the project -- if it's something that's pursued. He was not suggesting it
be mandated. He suggested the permit process be attempted just in case.
Member Hurley told Mr. Bartlett he lives in Leisure World and it's very apparent they are reducing
the use of the power plants that the Cooling Channel serves.
Member McGuire said that right now they're considering the river because it's the easiest way to
go, but at what point would the Cooling Channel be an option?
Mr. Bartlett said the last thing they want to do is restore a wetlands ecosystem and have it be
unsuccessful. If all the technical information that's been generated for the restoration were
pointing in a direction which said the river was not a good source they would then look at the
channel more closely.
Member McGuire said the pollutants in the San Gabriel River should be disclosed. Scientists in
Northern California have told her the wetlands won't work. Both sides of the picture are not
presented all the information is not there.
.
Mr. Bartlett said he had all the confidence in Moffat & Nichol in making sure this program works
effectively. They designed the wetlands restoration plan for Anaheim Bay and it's celebrating its
25th anniversary and is considered very successful. He didn't know whom Member McGuire
talked to in Northern California but there's a CEQA provision regarding disagreement among
experts. He does not know what data they reviewed or analyzed. He would expect they didn't
put the time and effort Moffat & Nichol has expended on this.
Member McGuire said all she is looking for is both sides and she didn't see both sides in the data
they reviewed. Look at the number of beach closures occurring due to pollution in the river.
There's a question here that this may not succeed. The FEIR should give both the good and bad
information on any subject --- not just the good. Somewhere in the middle is the truth. Life
reflects that situation and definitely an EIR does.
Mr. Bartlett said he considers the restoration plan, as prepared by Moffat & Nichol, is black and
white. We have no reason to think it won't succeed. He suggested she ask Chris Webb more
questions.
Chairman Voce discussed the culvert and the alternative culvert. He asked if there were the
same composition in the Haynes Cooling channel as there is the river? Is it fresh water coming
out and brackish returning?
Mr. Webb said the Haynes Cooling Channel is constructed so it dives underneath the river and
comes up at Alamitos Bay. So it draws salt water from Alamitos Bay --- strictly salt water. It's a
one-way valve, allowing water in from Alamitos Bay, past the Hellman site and into the generating
station. Then the water goes out into the river. The only time any fresh water would be in it is if
enough fresh water came out of the river and went back into the bay and into the intake.
Chairman Voce asked if the channel were the more saline of the two bodies of water?
Mr. Webb said yes.
.
Chairman Voce asked if we could take on additional saline-affected wetlands with this one
culvert?
6
City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of September 9, 1997
.
Mr. Bartlett addressed the point on the oil production property. (Pointing to a map for reference to
area under discussion). Mr. Bartlett said the oil production land use would continue for ten to
twenty years. Its continuation is indefinite, depending on various factors. The current land use is
for mineral production. There were general discussions on what would occur on these parcels in
twenty years. Whatever uses considered would have to come back before the EQCB, the City
Council for a Specific Plan amendment and EIR. But for the sliver of oil production property, they
identified it as a potential park site, potential open space. Potentially it would be possible to see if
it could be more restored wetlands that the ports could pick up. They have not modeled the
hydraulics on that property because it's not within the scope of this project.
Mr. Webb said it's true hydraulic modeling was not done to tell for sure what would work. But it
would. You'd get a longer time for the wetland to flush through the culvert, and the tidal ranges
predicted to occur now (absolute high/low tides and difference between) might change to a more
muted tide. He was confident the culvert could provide flow to an additional wetland depending
on its size. The size would be about seven acres --- which would make 30 acres. You could put
in a bigger culvert. If you wanted to consider the connection to the Haynes Cooling Channel you
could put a new connection up toward the new piece of property --- two directional circulation.
There are ways to modify the project to consider an expanded piece of land. He felt that should
be the prerogative of the landowner.
Chairman Voce said an optional culvert indicated for the future might be put in another area as
opposed to where it's indicated now.
Mr. Webb said the culvert's placement on the diagram was an arbitrary location. It doesn't have
to be there.
Chairman Voce said that concluded his questions.
.
Mr. Webb addressed Member McGuire's concerns by saying they reviewed some data he had
loaned Member McGuire and identified that there weren't any grave concerns about river water
quality. There were some elevated constituents --- some metals that were higher than other
rivers. But the water quality parameters which are very important to wetlands are water
temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH or acidity and salinity. Those four parameters are a function
of the frequency of tidal flushing. When they design a wetland, they try to minimize the time it
takes to flush seawater through the marsh. This site has the shortest time he's ever seen --- two
days.
That compares with other sites which are considered successful restoration projects (like Bolsa
Chica) which has a three to four week residence time. The target residence time is within the
seven days as determined by biological experts. The conditions of the site are definitely feasible
for wetlands restoration. They separately consulted the Regional Water Quality Control Board,
the Southern CA Coastal Water Resources Project, and experts on the San Gabriel River who
are biologists. Each one was consistent in saying that this site is a good site for wetland
restoration. They said there are elevated water temperatures and other perturbations to water
quality due to upstream urban sources but they are not prohibitive to wetlands restoration at the
site. That is evidenced by the fact that there's a wetland on the site now. This project will be
better, it's bigger and will have better tidal flushing.
Member Rosenman said the issue is not only water quality temperature. What we heard from the
Orange County Health Department was problems with biologics --- coliform and viruses.
Biohazards.
.
Mr. Webb said the biohazards of a river are much more of a hazard to animals and people than
they are to salt marsh habitat.
Member Rosenman noted this is being restored for birds to use.
7
City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of September 9, 1997
.
Mr. Webb said "The answer to the question is, I don't know... but my sense is that they wouldn't
be nearly at risk as humans would be. It's a whole different situation".
Member Hurley said that's not the issue.
Mr. Bartlett said that part of a previous project approved by the Council in 1989 included a
wetland restoration component. The restoration plan was approved by the Coastal Commission,
the Department of Fish & Game, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and all the other
regulatory agencies responsible for its implementation. He assumed that because it was
approved previously with the river connection that that data was analyzed by all those resources
agencies. They would have had a chance again to review any concerns when the applicant
submits to the Coastal Commission.
Mr. Webb noted that one of the most successful estuary projects in the State is down at the
Tijuana River. That's got some major biological water quality issues associated with it because
raw sewage comes out of Mexico. That's considered a very successful project. The beach is
closed more there more than it's closed here.
Member McGuire said this is supposed to be a document of information. She said she has talked
to Mr. Webb a lot and wanted that noted for the Record. She felt a complete document should
have included the levels of bio-toxins were in the river, including the temperature levels. The
information is just not there and asked why?
Mr. Webb said the temperature analysis is in the wetlands restoration plan.
Member McGuire said the EQCB never got copies of the wetlands restoration plan.
.
Mr. Webb said that may be why the EQCB is not familiar with a lot of the information. They
address temperature because that was their concern. Their biologist guided them in that
direction. They have not been, and are still not, concerned about the biological stuff because it's
encountered everywhere. Bolsa Chica's got it because four flood control channels dump into
Huntington Harbor and they've all got coliform. During storms, the first flush and subsequent
flushes, the coliform level is elevated. The marshes don't suffer from it --- nothing like humans
do. The marsh systems have an ability to somehow tolerate that stuff. The Tijuana River is a
good example of that. They didn't address toxins because it wasn't an issue they felt was that
important.
Member McGuire said that data on bio-toxins wouldn't have been provided ---.
Mr. Whittenberg said the issue we're dealing with is a human health issue. That's the primary
issue you deal with coliform. There have been no reports of bird species dissemination because
they were eating things off the beach after a beach closure due to what's in the water. The
wetland area the EQCB is considering is in an area which is not available for humans to use. So
it's not an area of concern for human exposure. The issue is a bird issue. As you have heard,
bird species and plant species do quite well in marsh areas that have much higher levels of
contamination than the San Gabriel River does throughout the coast of California.
Member Rosenman said both he and Mr. Whittenberg had set on the Regional Restoration Board
at the Naval Weapons Station. Since that sits directly adjacent to the Federal Wildlife Preserve
there have been times the California EPA Department of Toxic Substance Control have
expressed concern about potential risk to the non-sea gull birds in the Preserve. Sea Gulls can
live with just about anything. He was not sure the data was clear for other birds.
.
Chairman Voce said the issue is can the biohazards affect sensitive species? This includes E-
coli, the most prevalent biological pollutant after rains.
8
City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of September 9, 1997
.
Mr. Webb said that's an issue for the biologist to address. In working closely with the biologist it
was never an issue of concern. At Bolsa Chica there is a concern about colifonn and E-coli but
it's for humans because there's a proposal to route a flood control channel to the beach now,
where it doesn't exist. That doesn't mean there isn't a concern it could affect the birds.
Member Rosenman asked if Mr. Webb could go back to his biologist and inquire about the bio-
toxins and their concerns for animals, birds and humans.
Member Hurley said he had comments on this issue.
Chainnan Voce called for a five-minute recess at 7:45 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:53 p.m.
Member Rosenman said he, Chris Webb and Tony Baumkamp were talking and Mr. Webb said
he'd be pleased to ask his biologist about potential toxicity of biologist for birds and provide a
memo to the EQCB for their next meeting.
Chainnan Voce explained he had to leave the meeting at 8:25 p.m. and Member Rosenman can
pick up the gavel for him being the current Vice Chainnan.
Chainnan Voce commented on culvert water flow, biohazards and the culvert trap door, asking if
a coarse screen versus a bar system to prevent objects from entering and blocking the culvert.
He asked if this was in addition to the flap, which can be opened and closed?
Mr. Webb said yes, it would be in addition to the flap. His thought was the screen would be on
the outside of a stop log gate.
.
Chainnan Voce asked about macadam impacts on wildlife. He explained he had asked about
this while the EIR was in the draft stage. This is ground up street materials, which are deposited
in Gum Grove Park for an emergency vehicle road. Since the macadam was deposited seasonal
ponds in Gum Grove Park do not sustain any fish or amphibious life. This may be a factor on
why nothing was found there. It's conceivable that if the macadam is removed and if the
seasonal pond bed is allowed to return to earth and vegetation that that biological chains will re-
establish themselves. He found the biological response to be .Well, there's no proof either way".
Although there were no studies done he felt that response was sidestepping the issue. He would
like to see that macadam lifted out of the Park so that a regular graded, packed dirt road could
replace the macadam pathway. The macadam should be removed from beneath the fresh-water
seasonal ponds so they can be re-established. The response did not acknowledge that he was
really speaking about seasonal ponds, not on-going, fresh water wetlands as they may be in a
wetter area such as Louisiana. He clarified he was speaking about Response 04-113.
Chainnan Voce asked the status of other review boards?
Mr. Whittenberg said both the AAC and the Planning Commission have concluded their studies
and made their recommendations. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the
FEIR and the project on September 3rd.
Chainnan Voce asked if the Research Design needs to be concluded before the Council can
certify the FEIR?
Mr. Whittenberg said no, the measure indicates that a Research Design needs to be prepared by
a City-selected archaeologist before building entitlements are issued for the projects (issuance of
a grading pennit).
.
Chainnan Voce said that concluded his comments and questions.
9
City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of September 9, 1997
.
Member Hurley asked about the suitability of the San Gabriel River water for the salt-water
wetlands. He felt the failure to deal effectively with this issue constitutes a major defect in the
FEIR. Page 516 ofthe FEIR shows response G9-1. The first sentence says additional
information on water quality of the river was prepared and distributed to the public in the revised
draft. He searched the revised draft and couldn't find any additional information. The closest it
comes is on page 592 of the revised draft, paragraph 1, last sentence. That says Since the
project would add to the discharge of deleterious storm water into the San Gabriel River, even a
relatively small amount, it must be concluded that the project would resu" in a significant
cumulative impact on water quality. It doesn't have any reference to the wetlands restoration
needs as stated in the first sentence of G9-1. Further down, the fourth sentence begins
Regardless, existing data from the California Regional Quality Water Board does not focus on
biological suitability of these waters for restoration purposes. This sentence admits that this
source doesn't provide the data that's required. In the fifth sentence it says... It is assumed that
the quality of the water entering the sa"-water marsh will be satisfactory for restoration purposes.
He said "assume" is not a word that belongs in an FEIR. It indicates that no bona fide, good faith
effort was made to find the facts. Biologists and other specialists have been consulted and they
assured our consultants that everything would be fine but the last sentence in G9-1 says the
infrequent episodes would be quickly and routinely flushed by tidal action --- as though this would
take care of everything with seawater. The trouble with the last sentence, like the river water, no
information is provided about the suitability of the seawater nor how much river water is mixed
with it. In summary, (2) the proposed salt-water wetlands is a major component of the project; (b)
the suitability of the water feeding the wetlands is crucial to the healthy life of the wetlands; (c) if
you go ahead with the project and you find out later that your assumption was wrong you can't
correct it because you have no control over the water you're using; (d) this EIR, this "Information
document for decision-makers", still lacks the necessary information on this critical element.
.
Member Hurley's second concern had to do with project alternative number 3. The description of
this project alternative is in DEIR, page 731 and following. This has 150 residential units, a golf
course and wetlands. CEQA Guideline amendments have a definition of "alternative" that says
reasonable a"ernatives to the project which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives but
would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. The purpose of
alternatives gives ways to avoid or mitigate the significant effects a project would have on the
environment. The problem he had with Alternative 3 is that if you look at the pages after 731, it's
a discussion of how this alternative compares in terms of impacts with the proposed project. He
went through all of these. It was clear to him that of 16 areas, which includes a sub-area under
hydrology on the wetlands and population separate from housing, and Alternative 3 would have
worse environmental impacts in 9 of the subject areas and similar impacts in 7 of the areas. It
doesn't lessen the effects are required by CEQA. Alternative 3 should not have been included
with the DEIR. Looking at Response 04-91, on FEIR page 622, that has a sentence starting with
the word "analysis". That is the only sentence focusing on the legitimacy of this alternative. It's
very misleading. On analysis, however, Alternative 3 was found to have several impacts that
would be similar to or more sever than those of the proposed project. This is misleading as it's
not several that would be similar to or more severe -- all of them are similar to or more severe.
None of the impacts would be lessened.
Member Hurley's third concern was Table 15-1, pages 17, 18 and 19 regarding mitigation
measure CR-7. He didn't think it should be left up to the Director of Development Services. It
seems that this mitigation measure gives the Director authority as to whether preserving the
important archaeological site is feasible or not. If anybody is going to destroy archaeological sites
then elected officials should have that authority and responsibility, not the Director.
Member McGuire said that response was somewhat shocking to her and asked staff to explain it
to her.
.
10
City of Seal Beach EaCB Minutes of September 9, 1997
.
Mr. Whittenberg said the statement itself is not correct. To alleviate that concern, he suggested
adding to mitigation measure CR-8 "City Council. that would be fine. The City Council would
have final authority. He explained all his actions are subject to Council consideration.
Mr. Hur1ey said he didn't understand why the Council had the authority to okay the Research
Design in contrast to something like destroying a site.
Mr. Whittenberg explained there's a specific provision in the City's Archaeology and Historical
Element to the General Plan that requires the City Council to approve a Research Design. That
goes back to mitigation measure CR-5. It shows "Director of Development Services. because we
provide all the staff functions that go along to provide the reports to the Council. If the EaCB
would feel more comfortable on mitigation measure CR-8 to add "City Council. he had no
objection. CR-7 is different because it's a notation on subdivision maps that indicate areas, which
would be impacted by development that might impact an area of archaeological concern. It
requires a notation to be put on the map and that's a staff function. The Council would not come
down and physically make those notes on a map.
Member Hurley said the person who is responsible for deciding whether it's feasible to declare
ESAs or not is the Director.
Mr. Whittenberg said no, all construction-related documents will include notations identifying
those areas which have been determined in that classification. That determination is not made
the Director. All the Director is doing is putting a notation on a map. He said he would go back
and re-read the mitigation measures.
Member Rosenman said Member Voce left at 8:23 p.m. and he was now the Chairman.
.
Member Hurley said he thought his question was crucial and he wanted to bring to the board's
attention this issue because he felt it was important and had not been covered elsewhere. That
concludes his remarks.
Acting Chairman Rosenman asked if anyone needed to stretch or take a break? The board
asked to keep going.
Member Christ addressed mitigation measure 5-46 (Response number 02-8) re traffic control to
access to the golf course which he felt were not adequately addressed in the FEIR. He was
concerned with adding another street within 100 yards of the existing streets. Knowing the traffic
flow on Seal Beach Boulevard and given the increase in residences and traffic, they would end up
with three traffic lights in a row. This would not be good. The explanation given was the
proposed access driveway to the golf course is half way between Adolpho Lopez Drive and
Forestall Drive. This will provide a distance of approximately 660', which is adequate to provide
the left turn pockets to both of the adjacent intersections. Traffic volumes into and out of this
driveway are relatively light and channilization of the median could further facilitate traffic
operations, i.e. a median acceleration lane, if.... He didn't think this addressed the problem. No
left turn out is not an option for Adolpho Lopez Drive.
Mr. Whittenberg said the "No left turns oue is made for the golf course, not Adolpho Lopez Drive.
.
Member Christ's next concern was his inquiry re the oil pumping area along Seal Beach
Boulevard. He felt the aesthetic concerns for the pumping units, which are 15' to 20' in height,
would not be hidden easily. He suggested submersible-pumping units would be a better
alternative. The response was there is no plan to replace the existing oil pumps on the project
site with submerged oil pumps. Existing oil pumps on the project site will be fenced, with
landscaping installed in front of this fencing to further screen the oil pumps. Most of the oil pumps
on the project site are far enough from existing residences south of the project site so as not to
create significant aesthetic impact on these residences. His primary concern was not the
11
City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of September 9, 1997
.
residences to the south but rather the proposed residences. This is response G14-2. There must
be a better alternative to the unsightly pumping units.
.
Member McGuire said she would like to see Moffat & Nichol's answers incorporated re the
Resources section. She said Chris Webb's answers were excellent regarding how often the
wetlands are flushed and when and what's included. They are not included in Volume III, the
Resource Section. She said his specific comments were not in there. Above that, she felt it was
very important that the pros and cons plus all the data contained in the FEIR regarding the
biological be .... The document needs to stand alone because what is said verbally never makes
it later. Her problem with the document is it doesn't stand-alone, it's not complete. When we had
to comment on an FEIR meeting after having a Scoping meeting and now they're not contained in
the FEIR there are really issues. The EQCB has been talking about these issues for months and
they still haven't been addressed appropriately, completely or adequately. She said that for
reference, any time there's something biological -- she's concerned that it affects birds or
humans. She wants to know what the contamination levels are. To assume it's only bad for
humans but not for birds -- that data needs to be included. All we're discussing at this level is
collecting data. We have a document with incomplete and incorrect data. It is, however, a well-
written document and what's in there is easy to understand. She said that she knew both the
MC and the Planning Commission had approved this with considerations. The issues brought
up are not included in the FEIR. Those were her issues too and she was looking for answers.
aWe all have busy lives and we come here and we study these documents. And we ask the
questions and we want thorough documents. You know, you feel like you don't matter. And I'm
really feeling really whipped right now --- that I did so much research on this on a project that,
regardless of how I feel about how good it is, I want all the data. So that when it gets to Council
they can make a good decision. And your job, my job and staff is to make sure the data's in here.
And it's just not. And these aren't new issues. We identified these at the Scoping meeting. So, I
want what Chris has in there, and I want the pollutants in there. Which, according to David, give
us additional infonnation ... I am really disappointed...".
Public Comments ReoDened
Acting Chainnan Rosenman said at this point the EQCB needs to adopt the predrawn motions or
do something else.
Mr. Whittenberg said the Chair should call for public comments on the FEIR. Member Hul1ey said
Member Voce did that prior the board's making their comments. The members agreed to have
additional public testimony.
Moira Hahn * Seal Beach
Ms. Hahn said she still has a problem with the FEIR because having the Research Design and
the field investigation conducted later constitutes a deferred study. Her understanding of the
CEQA process is that all the infonnation should be gathered in the document. For the Record,
she would have preferred to see the City complete the investigation, find out what the facts are,
how many artifacts there are, how many burials there are, the significance of the site and its
relationship to the ancient village of Puvunga --- that should have been in the FEIR before they
took a vote on it to certify it.
.
The Acting Chainnan called for additional comments. There being none, the Acting Chairman
closed the public comment period.
Mr. Whittenberg suggested the EQCB fonnulate some sort of recommendation to the Council.
They have scheduled their public hearing for September 22. If the EQCB wants to make
comments to them, the EQCB needs to make sure it has gone through that process prior to that
meeting date.
12
City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of September 9, 1997
.
Acting Chainnan Rosenman asked ifthere is another EQCB meeting scheduled? Mr.
Whittenberg said the EQCB's next regularly scheduled meeting is after the Council's meeting.
Member McGuire said there is a meeting tentatively scheduled for September 16th. Mr.
Whittenberg said this meeting would need to be adjourned to that date. Member Hurley said he
would rather wait until September 16th until Member Voce is back.
Mr. Whittenberg suggested, based on the concerns heard this evening, staff could go back and
prepare a draft resolution for the board which would have those things set forth. It could be
distributed as a part of the agenda packet. The board agreed. The board discussed when staff
could get them their next staff report. The board asked for a copy of what staff was preparing for
the City Council, saying the more infonnation they had the better. Mr. Whittenberg advised them
that the report is approximately 140 pages long.
Acting Chainnan Rosenman said he sent a note to Mr. Whittenberg requesting inquiries be made
a Orange County's Vector Control. He said some spraying is going on. He wanted everyone
looking at making the wetlands survive that there is a problem with mosquito abatement. They
occasionally use an EPA-approved spray with an oil spray (Golden Bear).
Acting Chainnan Rosenman asked Mr. Webb to check the record on the May 16th meeting
regarding a culvert inspection which occurs semi-annually. He noted the flooding in Leisure
World sensitized people to checking things more frequently. He wondered if it should be checked
more than twice a year?
STAFF CONCERNS
There were no staff concerns.
.
BOARD CONCERNS
Member Christ said in dealing with the FEIR and Member McGuire's comments, he felt it could
have been a great FEIR but it fell short of this. It's important when we're dealing with
environmental and development issues they must take into account the three "C'sn ---
Commitment (to do a thorough, complete job), Cooperate (to meet the demands on them) and
Character (everybody working together and providing true and factual infonnation). He still didn't
feel he had enough accurate infonnation on the maintenance of the wetland area and what it
could eventually end up costing the citizens of Seal Beach. He added the Native American
concerns leave him leery due to inadequate EIR responses on monitoring. Assurances on this
are needed.
Verbatim excerpt of Minutes at direction of Mr. Whittenbera:
McGuire: I have one question for Mr. Whittenberg. Has the Planning Commission ever
heard a project and finished with a project before the EQCB has finished with it?
Ever?
Whittenberg: I can't answer "ever". I haven't been here since the Environmental Quality
Control Board has been in existence. In the time that I have been here, there
have been two projects that have had EIRs prior to this one. Both of those
projects --- well, I can't even say that for the first Hellman --- Mola project --- I
wasn't here when one went through even the process. So, really the only one I
have any experience on is the Bixby project. On that one, the Planning
Commission started their hearings after you had completed yours. [Could not
hear next sentence].
McGuire: Okay.
.
Whittenberg: But what happened on previous ones I have no way of knowing. And, when you
were discussing your schedule for this meeting, I think we tried to make it fairly
13
City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of September 9, 1997
.
Rosenman:
McGuire:
Rosenman:
Hurley:
Rosenman:
Whittenberg:
Rosenman:
clear that yes, it's unusual for the Planning Commission to take an action the first
night they hear a project of that magnitude. In my experience with the City that's
something they have never done. I was quite surprised when they got to the
point and they were starting to take actions on motions on September 3rd.
[Could not hear comment].
At this time I have not comment on that.
Okay. Bill, do you have any concerns?
No.
Okay. I have a concern and in part I'm going to need some direction. Basically,
the Board as a whole wishes to meet with the City Manager and discuss a
confidential personnel matter.
That's not your prerogative. You have no control over personnel matters as a
rule.
We have --- okay -- we can --- what is going to happen, and I will just announce
it publicly, that the Board -- members of the Board have indicated they will be
Signing a memo going to the City Manager and each member of the Council
expressing that wish. We can either do it here or we can do it outside of this
meeting but I assure you we will do it.
.
Whittenberg: Let me --- let me just caution you that as Board members you are subject to
Brown Act provisions. You cannot be discussing items, taking actions on matters
and making decisions outside of the public meeting. Be very much aware of it.
There are personal penalties for violation of the Brown Act. I just caution you on
that issue.
McGuire:
Rosenman:
Whittenberg:
Rosenman:
Whittenberg:
Rosenman:
Whittenberg:
Rosenman:
Hurley:
Whittenberg:
.
Then, let's discuss it.
Well, then we can discuss it here.
That would be a much better forum for you personally, as individuals.
I thought you just told me we couldn't do that.
Well, you cannot discuss a matter at this meeting ---
All we want to do is send a note to the City Manager requesting a meeting.
You would need to schedule that for an Agenda item, at a regular meeting of
your body, and have that gone over at a public meeting.
Okay. Can I have a Motion to agendize this for the next meeting?
It would not be a regularly scheduled meeting at our next meeting. We will have
to wait until the 24th --- if my understanding ---.
That's your option. If you wish to put it on as part of the Agenda for your
Adjourned Meeting on September 16th you may do that. But you just would need
to inform staff that that is your desire.
14
City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of September 9, 1997
.
Rosenman:
Whittenberg:
Hurley:
Rosenman:
Hurley:
Rosenman:
Hurley:
Rosenman:
Whittenberg:
Rosenman:
.
Okay.
If you did not do it on the Adjourned Meeting by infonning us of that, we would
put in on your regular agenda for September 24th.
I'm kind of not sure whether we want to add it. We're going to have our hands
full on the 16th. You don't think so?
,
I think this is a .yes" or "no" item. We either vote to send the letter or we don't.
Oh. Oh, that's all we're going to do?
Yeah.
Well then, at this time, I guess you as the Chainnan will infonn the staff that we
want to include that on our agenda for September 16th.
Consideration of a letter to the City Manager to meet with him to discuss a
confidential personnel matter that relates to our deliberations. So we want that
agendized.
You would need to agendize that. Again, personnel matters are not an issue for
your Board. Keep that in mind. We will want to review your request with the City
Attorney's Office.
Fine. Okay. Meanwhile, be notified that the request has been made that it is on
the agenda.
Whittenberg: For which meeting?
Rosenman: The one coming up on the .... 16th. Sorry.
Whittenberg: And you will fonnulate a letter that evening?
Rosenman: Yeah. Lee, let me -- we're not asking for a personnel action. What we're saying
is we have something we want to discuss that because it relates to a, for lack of
a better description, personnel matter, it's not something that we believe is
suitable for a public meeting. Now, I can talk to the City Manager tomorrow
about how we structure that.
Whittenberg: You, as individual members, have a right to discuss an issue with the City
Manager at any point in time. My concern is that you, as a Board, I'm not sure
have that authority. And I want to make sure that you're not taking actions that
are outside your purview.
Rosenman: Okay. Well, I will double-check with him too.
Whittenberg: We'll check with the City Attorney's Office. That's who that has to be checked
with.
Rosenman: Okay. I will talk to Mr. Till to, so he's clear what I have in mind.
.
Rosenman:
Whittenberg: That's perfectly fine.
But, I just wanted to make sure that potentially the notification is there so we
don't let that slip. Okay?
15
City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of September 9, 1997
.
Hurley:
Whittenberg:
Rosenman:
Hurley:
Whittenberg:
Rosenman:
Hurley:
Rosenman:
Hurley:
In connection with that, this is a five-member board and three members must not
privately discuss anything related to our Board responsibilities at any time.
Except --
There's a further test besides that. There's a prohibition against what is called a
-daisy chain-. Which means that one member calls another member and then
that second member calls a third member and the third member calls a fourth
member. And by that rate you come to making some sort of a decision or taking
an action or indicating you want to do something. That also is illegal under the
Brown Act.
Okay. So far we're good. Okay.
Is it time to ---.
My understanding is that with no objections that that matter be put on the Agenda
for September 16 h.
Are there any objections?
r"
~
i
Do we know Mario's attitude?
I have not asked him in keeping with the spirit of the Brown Act.
Okay. At least four members are in agreement.
.
Okay. We have now gone through staff concerns, Board concerns. I will
entertain a Motion for adjournment.
Whittenberg: You are adjourning to September 16th, 6:30 p.m., here.
Rosenman:
Rosenman:
Sorry. And we will expect some stuff from certain consultants which is
understood. With that we adjourn.
...........-
/
Joan Fill
Executiv Secretary
Department of Development Services
I These Minutes were transcribed from an audiotape of the meeting.
.
16
" __f
.
.
.
Environmental Quality Control Board
Minutes
August 19, 1997
Call to Order at 6:38 p.m.
L Pledge of Allegiance
II.
m
IV.
Roll Call
Present:
Absent:
Christ, McGuire, Voce, Rosenman
Hurley
Also Present:
Barry Curtis, Associate Planner
Approval of Agenda
Member Rosenman asked to add an item to the agenda. He asked that Lorraine Willey of
the City's Archaeological Advisory Committee be agendized to speak regarding the
archaeological Research Design for the Hellman Ranch project. Mr. Curtis indicated
items of this nature could not be added to the agenda at this time. Ms. Willey could,
however, discuss any item she wishes during the oral communications, provided the Board
cannot discuss these matters as they are not on the agenda. Mr. Curtis added that, in the
future, if a member wants something added to the agenda they should clear it through the
chairman and let staff know by the Thursday prior to a meeting at the latest.
Motion by Rosenman; second by McGuire to approve the agenda with the Minutes of
June 24, 1997 and July 15, 1997 tabled to the next meeting.
Motion Carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-0
Christ, McGuire, Voce, Rosenman
None
Hurley
Oral Communications
Lorraine Willey of the City's Archaeological Advisory Committee (AAC) spoke to the
Board at the request of Member Rosenman. Ms. Willey explained the AAC's current
status reviewing the archaeological Research Design for the Hellman Ranch project
prepared by KEA. AAC is trying to focus on issue of ensuring whether the archaeology is
done correctly. They are making suggestions to KEA for improvement, mainly these
focus on dealing with the issues in layman's terms and explaining the entire process in
these terms. Some people are concerned that the test pits called for in the Research
D:\My Documents\EQCB StuffIMinutes of August 19, 1997.doc
.
.
.
EQCBMinutesofAugust 19,1997
Design are the some total of all work to be done. This is not the case. If they find that
further excavation needs to be done another proposal will come in and they will proceed
to a third phase. She feels on the whole the AAC is comfortable with the document. Ms.
Willey indicated that oral history will be included in the final document. Some of this is
difficult because there are three tribal groups with varying views and competing interests.
Dave Bartlett spoke regarding the previous AAC meeting. He felt it's important that
decision makers balance the need to accomplish the project with the desire to meet the
majority of other needs.
v. Consent Calendar
3. Memo from Assistant City Attorney Craig A. Steele re: Recirculation of the
Hellman Ranch Em
4. Staff Report dated August 19, 1997 re: Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station-
Restoration Advisory Board Meeting Materials
Motion by Rosenman; second by Christ to accept the consent calendar as presented.
Motion Carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-0
Christ, McGuire, Voce, Rosenman
None
Hurley
VI. Public Hearings -none
VII. Scheduled Matters
5. Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman
Chairman
Christ nominates McGuire. McGuire declines.
McGuire nominates Rosenman. Rosenman declines.
McGuire accepts.
Motion by Rosenman; second by Christ to continue this matter to the next
meeting.
Motion Carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-0
Christ, McGuire, Voce, Rosenman
None
Hurley
Page 2
Minutes of August 19, 1997
.
.
.
EQCBMinutesofAugust 19,1997
6.
Minutes of May 6, 1997
Motion by Christ; second by Rosenman to accept the Minutes as presented.
Motion Carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-0
Christ, McGuire, Voce, Rosenman
None
Hurley
7. Minutes of June 24,1997 - continued to next meeting.
8. Minutes of July 15, 1997 - continued to next meeting.
9. Consideration of Change in Regularly Scheduled Meeting Dates
Mr. Curtis indicated this matter had been suggested for consideration by Member
McGuire. Mr. Hurley indicated at the previous meeting he would prefer, if the
meeting date is changed, that it be to one of the off Wednesdays. Mr. Curtis
suggested the Board meet on the 4th Wednesday following the first Monday.
Motion by Rosenman; second by McGuire to change the Board's regular meeting
date to the 4th Wednesday following the first Monday of each month.
Motion Carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-0
Christ, McGuire, Voce, Rosenman
None
Burley
10. Board Direction on EIR Consultants/Sub-consultants Requested for
Attendance at Hearing on FEIR for the HeUman Ranch Specific Plan
Member McGuire asked that Chris Webb of Moffatt & Nichols be present. The
Board agreed that any members with a specific request would call staff to let them
know who they wanted.
VIII. Staff Concerns
11. Consideration of Next Meeting Date to Consider FEIR on HeUman Ranch
Specific Plan
YQ~~;__________.........._S.9..1Y.~_~~!l_g9.__Q_!lJQ..th~_n~~jt~m...s.t~tI.c.Qn~~ml$..__m~mh~L9..
~~C.Q_m!i.d..~r.l!ti.Q.!l..Q.f..th~.n.~~..m~~t.ing.d.~t.~..tQ__~.Q.U.~i.d.er.Jh~.F.El&__9.f1h~
Hellman Ranch Specific Plan.
Cuajj;._...__.__.__._Qk~.Y.:._.I.b.eJ~li!u.mn!tC.Qmmil$.~iQn..IDJ.Lb.e..hQIQjngJh~.Pyhlig.H~i!ring
QnJhe..p.r.Qj~g.t..Jb_~__fir.~tPyb.Jig.H~~p.g...Q.!l..s..~p..t~mb.~r..3.~,___.Ihl!ti.~
Page 3
Minutes of August 19, 1997
.
.
.
EQCBMinutesofAugust 19,1997
J.~~~Jh.~_.:fl_d.~y~_ft~ml.tQg~.Y.Jor.y.9.y..gyy._~.____Wh.~t.~~.f~Jti~-Y_QY
h..a.y.~..a...~Qlml~._9.f_~l1Qi~~!i:....Y9.Y_.c.9.y.lg..gQ..tQ..s.~p.t~mb~r__:f~.~b.ic.h
wouldn't give you the time you've asked for. Or you could have
your meeting on September 9th. Which is what we figured --- in
fi.muiDg,..~~..tb.ink_tb.$!t~_~Jluu\i!t~..tb.$!t~lJ._p.r9.p..a.blY..:Y.v.QrlLQP'l_b~~t.fQI
tb.~..EQCIl._._.W.~..d.mJ~t~!i~ip.~t~.th~.PJ.a.nniDgJ:;_9.rrm1i~!iiQ!Lm~Dg._a.
decision that first meeting. You can have the meeting on
September the 9th. If you don't finish on September the 9th. you can
$!gp..Mly._c._QJ)J.in.lJ~J.Q.ntlt~rr.y.p.t~d Qy'..~Qm~9.n~.~a.Y.iDg~~:r~;LS.~p.~~mp._~r
lQ.~l=.:.:..n.Q..~~Yi!1Jy.tjlJ..th~_l~~.....S.tj~k..Qn..tb_~__IY~~g~!i..fQrJl:Y.v.b.il~.
But just go to the 16th. which is the day before the second Planning
Commission meeting --- assuming they have one. And if that was
th~__c._a.~_~...ifY..Q.Y.gyY.~__tl~~g~g..D:Y.Q..m~~~i.Dg~_.tQ__g~tt9.Jh~t.'p'Qi.D1._~~
~QP.J.d..p.r.9.Yi.d..~Jb.~..P.lmmingJ;'9..mmi~~i.Q.n.:Y.v.i~h__iID..9.r.a.L~ta.!~m~nl.Qn
your guys recommendation.
YQ~~;_____________.___._._Y~~h,....L~hQylg__d.~c.l!!f~..tQ..th~__J.!Qm:g..tQQ..tb.i!tl.gi.d._.~.p.~_a.k._~tb._1~~
li!~t}.Y.~~k.ID]g..$!~k~d...b.imjfjt:Y.v.i!~..9.k~y'jf.9.Y.r..m~~!iDg.::'.:.:..in._Qtb.~r.
words --- if the Planning Commission actually took this on before
we were finished with our. you know. looking at it. making a
g_~_c.i~i.9.n..a.b.QY1.~~.r.t.ifi_c.~ti9.!l.___And..h.~..!i~.d..~.~~.~:","y'QY_.c._~._QY.~rJ_a.p..
tb.i!f.~.n.Q..p..r.Qb.J.~m.....Ih.~r~j~_n9.__p.r9._bl~m.~tb...t.b.~..IlQ~rg.Jhi!i._IlQ~rg.
doing that ---
(;.Yl1i~;......_.........._Jf~_I!,-~UY.n9.1.~y.~n..i!.bjg_'p'f.Qb.l~m..:.::..}.Y.~~.r~_h_Q.p._ingjt9_Q~~_n_1_hi!p.p.~n
=_:.:jf.!h~y.J.a.k.~..~.C.ti.9.RP._~fQr.~_YQy'gyy.!i__ma.k~'y'QYr..r.~c.9._mm~tl9.a.!iQn,.
Ultimately your recommendation is going to the City Council and in
that case. it would bypass the Planning Commission and go straight
tQ_tb.~..C..9.Yn~il.....W~~r~_h.9.p'jngjtg.Q.~_~n~_th~p.p.~n_.tb_a.l.}.Y.~y_.~g..89.~~
tQJ.h~..P.li!nning.C.9.mmi~.~i9..n.~ng.g~.t.~Jh~..b.~n.~fi.t..9.fY9.Yr
recommendations. But either way. it would actually work.
YQ~~;.__.___..___________Q_ka.y.._}.Y.~n_h.Q.}.Y...9.Q~!i_.th~__J.!9._a.nt~a.nl.tQ__h~_d.l~jt7.__Un$!Y9.ibl~.f~w
:Y.v.Qnl~J,
McOuire:
I make a motion that we have our meeting the 9th.
(;.Yr.ti~.;..._._______.________Q_n__s..~p.!~mb.~.r..9.~..i!t9..~~Q..p.,.m....h~r.~1.
McOuire: Yes.
YQ.C..~;__.._....._.............S.Q.Jh~f~..Iy~~g~Y-,..21.2,....EQ,C.B_.
Rosenman: That's a Wednesday?
Page 4
Minutes of August 19, 1997
. ..
.. '.. .
EQCB Minutes of August 19, 1997
.
M~Q.1Jir.~___._______.Ib.ilf.UlIY~sdJ.Y..
Voce: At 6:30 p.m.
Mr. Curtis indicated Board needs to adjourn t6 a special meeting to consider the
FEIR.. The Plar~"ling Commission will be considering this matter on September 3M,;,
T:he-.BeaFcl--eflfl--eithef-meet-en-September--2IH';--but..tms-will--ae-less--than.the-~-l--tiay
feview.periecl-.the.Beard..has.-ask:ed.for-;....Attematively.;.-the.Beard.-oould.meet--en
Septem.ber 9d1.. Staff doesn't believe the Plarming Commission will m.ak-e a final
decision on September 3M, but they might. Most likely the Planning Commission
woold-oonsiclef.-tbis-.at-a--seeond.meeting--en--Septembef--l-=1d1.;_.se.the--BeaFcl--oould
oonceivably-meet..agaiR.-on.the..I-edl.:....WhiJe.-staff.wetlld.f"athef--tbis-.net..ae-the--or-def
of events, it would still be aeceptable if the ~Ianning Commission took aetioR prior
to the Board, because the Board's recommenclation goes to the City Council and
flOt-the-Planning.G-ommissien:..-.H-owevef;--staff.pr-efers-te-.ae-abJe..te.-advise--the
Cemmission.ef.the-Board?-s'i'-ecemmendatien'pflor-.to-the.Gommi-ssien?s-.actien:.
IX. Board Concerns
x. Adjournment
Motion by McGuire; second by Rosenman to continue this meeting to Tuesday,
. September 9, 1997 at 6:30 PM in the City Council Chambers.
Motion Carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-0
Christ, McGuire, Voce, Rosenman
None
Hurley
The meeting was adjourned at 7:16 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
Barry Curtis, Secretary
Environmental Quality Control Board
.
Page 5
Minutes of August 19, 1997