Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEQCB 1998-09-30 I . I .. . City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of September 30, 19981 The Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) meeting of September 30, 1998 was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers by Vice Chairperson McGuire. It began with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chairperson McGuire Members Voce, Porter, Jones, Hurley Also Present: Department of Development Services Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney AGENDA APPROVAL Member Hurley requested item #8 be the first Scheduled Matter to be followed by items #9, then #5, 6,7. Member Hurley said he felt item #8 was the most pressing matter and approval of Minutes was not top priority. . Mr. Steele said the Minutes did not have to be approved before another item but noted that staff would like the Board act on these tonight in order that the Minutes may be forwarded to the Planning Commission as approved. Member Hurley said he did not get to review the Minutes of September 2 and 8. MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by Voce to approve the Agenda as amended. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: Noes: 5-0 Hurley, Voce, McGuire, Jones, Porter None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by Porter to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 AYES: Hurley, Voce, McGuire, Jones, Porter Noes: None . 1 These Minutes were transcribed from an audio tape of the meeting. City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of September 30, 1998 . PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no Public Hearings. SCHEDULED MATTERS 8. Board Review - Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Final EIR Vice Chairperson McGuire noted that during this meeting the EQCB would make a decision on the adequacy of the FEIR. She indicated she would like to begin with Board discussion, reminding each member that at the last meeting they had indicated the time they needed for speaking which totaled approximately 35 minutes. . Mr. Steele said two letters were received in the last few days: o One was from the City of Los Alamitos, dated September 28, 1998, from Mayor Roland Bates. The City received it on September 30, 1998. It indicates that the City of Los Alamitos feels that some of the responses to their comments were not sufficient. It does not indicate which responses or specify any particular responses. It reiterates their City's prior concerns and attaches a letter dated May 28, 1998, their comment letter on the DEIR. . o The second letter was from Gerry and Claire Clark, 3261 Yellowtail Drive, Rossmoor, dated September 7, 1998. Received by this City on September 29, 1998. It indicates the mitigation proposed for Seal Beach Boulevard from the north end of Rossmoor Center to the south side of the 405 would not reduce congestion in the area. They suggested additional mitigation measures at the intersection of St. Cloud Drive and Seal Beach Boulevard. Attached to it is a letter to Mr. Whittenberg from the Rossmoor Homeowners Association (RHOA) dated September 14, 1998. It suggests new mitigation measures. Mr. Steele said all Board members received copies of these letters. Member Hurley said he could not see how he would adequately review these tonight. He asked Mr. Steele jf he expected the Board would take these into account while the Board did its deliberating? Mr. Steele said the City staff gave the documents to the Board as soon as the City received them. The Vice Chair asked if the Board would like to take a few minutes to review the new letters before they begin their comments? She noted there was no . response. 2 City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of September 30, 1998 . Member Jones said it would be nice to read these letters but said he didn't think it was the time. The time is past to read concerns such as these. He said it was not that he did not agree with the correspondence but these could be never- ending. There has to be a time frame wherein letters such as these must be filed. He was in favor of filing these for information purposes and proceeding. Member Jones asked if these recently received letters could be incorporated into the EIR at this late date? To accommodate the fact that as concerned citizens they want to express their views? And the fact that the EIR is an information document and this is information? Member Voce suggested this material could be forwarded to the Planning Commis'sion. Member Jones said he felt this EIR meets the legal adequacy requirements for an EIR. It's a good faith attempt at full disclosure and he was in favor of the Board voting in favor of adequacy and accepts the document as it is. Member Hurley said the job of evaluating the FEIR is a big and serious job. He then gave the following comments on what he felt were the inadequacies of the FEIR: . Volume III Oroanization. Member Hurley said Volume III is not organized well. He referenced CEQA Sections15003.c, 15121 and 15151 all of which sayan EIR is to inform. His reactions to the organization of this FEIR were confusion, incredulity, disappointment and suspicion. He said the comments should be organized in accordance with the parts of the EIR they refer to. Not having it organized this way makes its review much more difficult and impedes the work. Organizing by source has nothing to do with the relevance or value of the comment. The DEIR was better organized. He wondered if this mis-organization was done purposely to make it more difficult for the reviewers to find fault with the responses. If so, this would make the document fail the CEQA test of good faith full disclosure. He then read the dictionary terms for "good faith" and "full disclosure". He said the EQCB's recommendation to the City Council should be that Volume III be reorganized to correspond with the DEIR's format before certification on adequacy. . Volume III. Paae 1. Paraaraph 3. Sentences 3 and 4. Member Hurley read: "All of the issues raised in testimony at the public information meetings were also raised in comment letters. The City has responded to these written comments and there is no need, therefore, for redundant responses to issues raised in testimony to the EQCB". He said these statements are made without supporting evidence without basis to know if they're true. Taking Section 15088.b, he read "b". He said there must be good faith and reasoned response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. These 3 City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of September 30, 1998 . statements should be supported with cross-referencing. For example, identifying the testifier who made the same point with the written comment. This would involve very little additional work, because in order to make the statements, the drafters of Volume III had already matched the testimony with the written comments. Coordinating the oral testimony and written comments would go a long way to fixing another inadequacy in Section 15132.c- Contents of FEIR. Section 15132.c - Contents of FEIR It says "The FEIR shall consist of ... c: A list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the DEIR". He said the FEIR lacks the names of people who commented orally. He said the EQCB's recommendation to the City Council must include a comment that oral testimony be identified with the same written comment and a requirement that the list of commentors include non-written ones before the City Council certifies the FEIR to be adequate. . Volume III. Pace 1. Sentences 3 and 4 Member Hurley had a second problem with these two sentences. Since the FEIR provides no supporting evidence of the accuracy of those statements, he decided to see if a sample of issues raised orally at the May 27, 1998 meeting were covered by the written comments. He took the comments made by Board members and went through the responses looking for the issues. Written comments did cover s9me of the oral comments but not all. On page 6 of the May 27, 1998 Minutes'he referred to DEIR page V-181, mitigation measure J-4 and questioned the inclusion of this since it doesn't meet the definition of mitigation. He read CEQA guidelines' definition of "mitigation". In going through the written comments he didn't find this. Similarly, on page 7 of the May 27, 1998 draft Minutes he referred to DEIR pages V-218 and 219: Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures. He stated that a requirement was needed for the training of equipment operators to recognize the signs of potential cultural resources. He didn't fihd this in all of the written comments. Additionally, one of Member Voce's comments, included on page 3 of the May 27, 1998 Minutes, asked for a clarification of lines above the tops of buildings shown on DEIR page V-201, figure 47.B. A member of the consultant team, Mr. Wood, said this would be clarified in the FEIR. Member Hurley did not find this in any of the written comments nor in responses. Their absence from the FEIR raises the question of how many others are not being responded to. Consequently, the EQCB's recommendation to the City Council must include a requirement that all legitimate issues raised in oral testimony, but not covered by a response to a corresponding written comment, be rasponded to before the City Council certifies the FEIR as adequate. . Flicht Tracks Member Hurley commented on misleading character of figures re flight tracks of fixed-wing aircraft. Referring to Volume III, page 145, figure 36, he said this is a 4 City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of September 30, 1998 . . new map, which com~ines two maps that existed in the DEIR. One was for acoustic matters and tHe other was for flight tracks of airplanes. The response to the comment, which brought this up, says, "Attached is an exhibit showing the land use configuration in relation to the flight tracks and noise contours. As can be seen, the flight tracks do not interfere with the proposed land uses.. Figure 36 shows only one track, which appears to turn at the end of runway 22-L. Only small aircraft can do that. The transports and other larger aircraft can't. They need to fly straight a further distance before turning. Figure 36 should show those flight tracks or at least disclose that the map is incomplete. Turning to Volume III, page 328 there is a revised figure 35. These are not labeled but on page 328, the one on the left was in the DEIR and the one on the right is the revision of that figure. It shows the project site location as an asterisk north of the extended runway 22-L. That is where the commercial part of the project is located but completely -ignores the senior care facility. The revision should have shown the whole project, not just an asterisk. Looking at Volume IV, part 3, the ALUC September 17, '1998 meeting agenda you find the map that he's been asking for since last May. This map clearly shows the relationship of the end of runway 22-L and the 'senior care facility. The end of the runway is pointed exactly at the Lampson Avenue/Seal Beach Boulevard intersection. The proposed senior care facility would be only a few feet south of there. The location of the senior care facility is not the business of this Board but the inclusion of misleading or incomplete information in the FEIR is. He is not proposing changes to figures 35 and 36 to the City Council because these are only two of many such ,instances. He brings it up only to bring it to the attention of the Board. \ This concluded his comments. Member Voce said he made his comments last time. He said the only thing he would add to the Planning Commission's hearings is a letter from West Coast Arborists, dated August 27, 1998 to Nancy Beard, Recreation Supervisor. It's a two-page letter but page one refers to the windrow of Eucalyptus trees. He only had one copy and was willing to pass it along for the Board to read and return. I Member Porter said the Board should consider having the inclusion of any oral comments made at these hearings is made part of the FEIR. . Vice Chairperson McGuire said all oral comments were not addressed as requested. Also, the traffic path on Lampson Avenue and the cut-thru traffic from Rossmoor were not adequately addressed despite the recurring comments from Seal Beach and Rossmoor residents. Comparing CEQA law with this document she believed that this is a legally adequate document. She said the traffic on Lampson Avenue and on Rossmoor should be studied and addressed. If this is not done, litigation may occur. There may be a backlog of people testifying on this. It's a very important issue. She disagrees with Ms. Culbertson's position on this issue. 5 City of Seal Beach eQCB Minutes of September 30,1998 . The Board discussed vJhat they would be voting on, Resolution 98-1 or 98-1 A. Mr. Steele said it was critically important that the issues the ECCB brought up get into the form of a resolution to get to the Planning Commission and City Council. The Planning Commission will take testimony on the Bixby proposal on October 21, 1998. He recommended he take time tonight to write down the Board's recommendations and have them typed tomorrow for the Vice-Chairman to sign. He would not be comfortable leaving it to staff to put the Board's thoughts into words. The Vice Chair asked the Board what they wanted to do on this suggestion. The Board discussed their thoughts and decided to adopt Resolution No. 98-1A with specific comments as drafted by the Assistant City Attorney. Mr. Steele said Member Hurley would like to consider the resolution, Resolution No. 98-1 A, which recommends comments. . Mr. Steele said the City's local CECA Guidelines have not yet been updated to reflect one change in CECA that took effect in 1996. Member Hurley's concern at the last meeting was that the ECCB could not make a finding of consistency CECA Guidelines because of that change. What's in the City's Local CECA Guidelines is no longer a requirement of CECA so the FEIR doesn't follow that requirement. Member Hurley felt, and our advice was, that it had no impact on the Board's decision and that phrase should be taken out of the resolution. Mr. Steele suggested he could start writing from his notes and felt the Board could go on to its next item and come back to this. Rather than just sitting and waiting for him to write. The Board unanimously agreed. MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by Voce to adopt Resolution No. 98-1A, amended as follows: . 1. Oral comments raising environmental issues not responded to in Volume III should be responded to in writing prior to the certification of the FEIR. Discussion: The Vice Chair commented that #1 should not be restricted to environmental issues. If it is a non-issue, it needs to state it's a non-issue. She wanted the question stated and if it doesn't pertain to CECA that should be stated. There should be a documentation of what they actually I asked. . Member Hurley said Exhibit A indicates the things the ECCB will pass on to the Planning Commission and City Council. It is what the Board considers to be key inadequacies of the FEIR. If the EIR doesn't have to 6 ,. . . . City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of September 30, 1998 recognize all the other comments he felt that Mr. Steele's version is the one that would take care of the key inadequacies that he brought up. The addition of the other things would be good politically, but not something the Board has td include in its recommendation. The Vice Chair said her concern was that by not including everything it's easy to leave out pertinent things. She noted that when David Rosenman was ECCB Chairman he reassured all commentors several times that their comments would be included. The Board knows that some of the comments and questions had nothing to do with what was required by CECA and that those comments were more appropriate for the Planning Commission. But from her point of view, she would rather the question be stated and say per CECA this not a valid question than for the consultant to be able to pick and choose. You'd have the possibility that pertinent environmental issues would not be answered. She said she would go with what the Board wanted on this issue. Member Jones asked for clarification of the motion and said he would rather have the Vice Chair's recommendation included. MOTION by Porter; SECOND by Jones to accept the language proposed by the City Attorney and not the Vice Chair's recommendation. MOTION FAILS: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 2-3 Jones, Porter McGuire, Voce, Hurley The Vice Chair asks the Board to work on the wording of the Motion some more. She said she would like #1 to be "oral questions asked" instead of "environmental questions". , Mr. Steele read #1 again as amended. MOTION by Voce; SECOND by Jones to accept the language in #1 as stated by City Aftorney Steele. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 3-2 Voce, Jones, McGuire Porter, Hurley 2. To comply with CEQA Guidelines, the list of commentors in Volume III should include those persons who commented orally. 7 . . . City of Seal Beach EaCB Minutes of September 30, 1998 MOTION by Porter; SECOND by Voce that the language in #2 be accepted. Discussion: Before the vote, Member Hurley said he thought the language should precede with what is proposed to be said with something like Din order to comply with CEQA Guidelines". Mr. Steele referenced the memo portion of Resolution No. 98-1A, which says "Following is a summary of what we believe are the key inadequacies of the FEIR ...". Member Hurley asked if it was understood that some of the Board's recommendations aren't entirely required by CEQA Guidelines and some are? Mr. Steele said he saw nothing wrong with adding what Member Hurley suggested. . Member Porter asked for the reason the Board is including this to be repeated. Mr. Steele said he was paraphrasing Member Hurley and said the point is in some cases, some of the recommendations are intended to lead to more complete information in the document even though the document may already be legally adequate. In other cases, like this one, to be strictly compliant with the CEQA Guidelines, you need to add these people's names to the list of commentors. Member Hurley's intent is to provide an illustration of the ones that are absolutely necessary to comply with the letter of the CEQA Guidelines as differentiated from the ones that are additional information. Member Porter said he wanted to amend his Motion to reflect the amendment Member Hurley suggested; he called for a Second. AMENDED MOTION by Voce; SECOND by McGuire to approve #2 as amended. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: 5-0 Voce, McGuire, Porter, Jones, Hurley 3. Comments and responses should be organized by the subject matter of each comment to be consistent with the format and organization of the EIR. MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by Voce to approve item #3 as presented. 8 City of Seal Beach eOCB Minutes of September 30, 1998 . Discussion: Before the vote, Member Porter said it seemed to him that the Board was doing busy work. Member Jones agreed. Mr. Steele said he has reviewed dozens of EIRs and this is the way that comments are always presented. There is a good reason for this. Often times the comment letters come in and they address a variety of subjects in one letter. To organize these comments by subject matter we would have to cut and paste the letters. Basically we would have to retype everything and move all the comments around. Somehow do the formatting. What it does is take away the impact and the ability to judge the credibility of the comments because you take them out of the context of an entire comment letter. If somebody submits 30 pages of comments and all of those things are published in the EIR together as submitted, reviewers are able to look at that and see that that commentor spent a lot of time on the EIR, have many comments to make and add some weight to evaluation of those comments. If all those comments were taken apart and organized by subject you'd end up with no context to the comment. That's the reason they're presented by commentor versus subject. He was not saying this was the legally required way to do it. We could go through each one of the comments that's numbered, based on who submitted the comment and each one of them has a number, and prepare a table that says the following comments are on traffic on Seal Beach Boulevard and put a list in there. The following comments are on noise issue and put a list. They would be cross-r'eferenced both ways and it wouldn't involve cutting up the comment letters. . Member Voce said he understood this issue completely differently. He was thinking that in a situation where you go by subject matter, what we have is DEIR comments then responses. He understood that you wanted a comment letter and then the response. The response to follow immediately. Mr. Steele said the last Bixby EIR and the Hellman EIR were organized the same way this EIR is. Member Hurley said he would check back but that's not his recollection. Mr. Steele said part of it might be the way these responses were originally presented to you. Board member McGuire suggested at that time that it was very difficult to look at the comments and responses. Culbertson Adams went back and republished Volume III so that everything is side-by-side now. All the cities he works for do it this way' also. Again, this is not the way this legally must be done, but it is a practical way to do it. Mr. Steele said there is a Motion and a Second on the floor. Member Hurley asked for a reading of #3 again. Mr. Steele restated the Motion. . Member Voce withdrew his Second because of the context issue and how he said it would cut things up. , 9 . City 01 Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of September 30, 1998 i The Vice Chair asked if there were a Second? There was no response. She asked for rewording on #3. There was none. The Vice Chair said to Mr. Steele that she felt it would be a good idea to have the index he suggested. Mr. Steele said he had no problem with this and suggested that the word Uorganized" be replaced with uindexed". The Vice Chair said she would like it included in a Motion. MOTION by Voce; SECOND by McGuire to adopt #3 as presented with the change suggested by Mr. Steele. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: . NOES: 4. 3-2 Hurley, Voce, McGuire Porter, Jones The information in Figures 35 and 36 should be revised to show all flight tracks from the AFRC in relation to the outline of the project sites. . MOTION by Vo~e; SECOND by Jones to adopt #4 as presented. Discussion: Before the vote Member Hurley said we should say, ushould be revised to show the entire area of the proposed project". The Board reviewed the figures in the EIR and suggested eliminating the asterisk and adding a boundary line. AMENDED MOTION by Voce; SECOND by Jones to adopt #4 as stated by the City Attorney. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: Noes: 5-0 Voce, Jones, Porter, Hurley, McGuire None 5. Cut-through traffic in Rossmoor must be more completely addressed and mitigated. , i MOTION by Porter; SECOND by Voce to accept #5 as proposed. There was no discussion. . MOTION CARRIED: AYES: Noes: 5-0 Porter, Jones, McGuire, Hurley, Voce None 10 City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of September 30, 1998 , . 6. Traffic impacts on Lampson Avenue must be more completely addressed and mitigated. MOTION by Jones; SECOND by Porter to accept #6 as presented. There was no discussion. . I MOTION CARR(ED: AYES: Noes: 5-0 Porter, Jones, Hurley, Voce, McGuire None 7. The letter to the City from West Coast Arborists dated August 27, 1998 should be incorporated into the FEIR. MOTION by Porter; SECOND by Jones to adopt #7 as presented. Discussion: Before the vote the Vice Chair asked if the other recently received letters should be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council or should they be included in #7? . . Member Hurley asked what is the difference between this letter and the recently received letters? Mr. Steele said Member Voce's point was this was the letter from the City's arborist, which relates to actual observations and conditions of the Eucalyptus windrow on the project site. That's why this should be included. The other letters are comment letters, which were received after the comment period closed. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: 5-0 Porter, Jones, Voce, McGuire, Hurley None Mr. Steele said' the final item would be for staff to forward the letters presented to the Board this evening on to the Planning Commission and the City Council. This is not part of the Board's recommendation but a direction to staff. This is not #8; there is no #8. MOTION by Member Porter; SECOND by Jones to forward the two late comment letters to the Planning Commission and City Council. . MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: 5-0 McGuire, Hurley, Voce, Porter, Jones None 11 City of Seal Beach eaCB Minutes of September 3D, 1998 . Member Porter asked if this now means the EaCB has voted on the EIR subject to the 7 conditions? Mr. Steele said the Board now needs a Motion to approve Resolution No. 98-1A with the 7 conditions discussed. MOTION by Porter; SECOND by Hurley that the EaCB adopt Resolution No. 98-1 A subject to the 7 conditions approved. Discussion prior to vote: The Vice Chair asked if since this is .subject to" does that mean the EIR's not approved as adequate unless these conditions are adhered to? Mr. Steele said yes, and referenced Section 6 of the resolution. Vice Chair McGuire assured the Board that she would check the resolution prior to her signing it. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: 5-0 McGuire, Hurley, Voce, Porter, Jones None 9. Board Review - Chapter 7D Code of the City of Seal Beach Eucalyptus Grove Preservation Member Hurley asked the Board to wait until he found the materials. . Member Voce asked for this matter to be brought to the Agenda but did not ask the Board to act on it tonight. He asked only that the Board begin to review this material and perhaps discuss and/or take action in a month. The Eucalyptus Grove Preservation law that we have requires a permit process. It doesn't have any penalties for not obtaining permits and it does not have guidelines. He recommended that the EaCB go to the City Council and ask for this law to be reopened to have amendments added. One would be that the International Society of Arborculture Standards (ISA) or National Arborist Association Standards (NAA) be adopted for the requirement of granting permits for pruning or otherwise shaping the trees. In the FEIR the Board discussed this but it would only cover that one windrow on Seal Beach Boulevard on the Bixby property. This would be Citywide. There are many species of Eucalyptus trees. They would have to have trunks l' diameter minimum at 4' above ground level. There would have to be a minimum of 15 trees minimum in the cluster to qualify as a grove. Other suggestions can be made. Consideration must be taken for removal of trees for various reasons. Member Hurley asked if the EaCB would refer it to staff? . Member Voce said the EaCB will refer this to staff to return, either at the next meeting or at a more suitably scheduled meeting, with the three suggestions discussed or the Board could discuss the matter again when Mr. Whittenberg is present. Member Voc~ didn't mind a month's delay. 12 City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of September 30,1998 . Member Hurley asked if staff would proceed with proposed wording? Member Voce said that wouldn't be necessary. He suggested Board members do some background reading. He would contact tree experts from the State. Member Hurley asked which sections of the law was he addressing these changes to? Member Voce said there is an issuing authority section but that's not the one. It's standards for granting permits. The penalty phase would have to be completely new, if it were desired. Member Hurley asked if there would have to be a separate section on rules governing removal of a tree? Member Voce said Mr. Steele might have to answer this - but not now. The only suggestion the Board could give to the City Attorney's consultant firm is to review the existing law so if there are questions next time they will be able to. They wouldn't be preoccupied with other instructions. . The Vice Chair asked Mr. Steele if, for the next meeting, he could determine if it's legal to have a penalty if someone was to break this code? The Vice Chair rephrased her request and decided to wait until the next meeting to work on this issue. I Member Porter said the two organizations referred to were private organizations and asked if they would be creating the standard? Member Voce said he was not sure if they were technically private organizations. The International Society of Arboculture and the National Arborists Association - he didn't know. When you mandate a standard, if that standard changes, and you update your standards does the original mandate stand? It's a question for our legal staff. ' . Mr. Steele said that when an outside source is incorporated to be the City's standard in the municipal Code, that standard is the one that applies, even if it gets amended. For example, the City incorporates a number of unifying codes - - the Uniform Fire Code etc., and we specify a certain year's edition to be City's standard. Every time those standards get updated (3 - 4 years) the City goes back and adopts them. The City specifies that year to be the City's standard. The situation is a little different if we adopt something as a condition of approval on a permit. For example "All trees will be pruned in accordance with the Arborists' standards as they may be amended from time to time" and that extends over time. It's then the arborists' responsibility to keep up with the standards and comply with them as they change. If it were an ordinance that the 13 City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of September 3D, 1998 . City enforces with a criminal penalty then he'd say no, we'd have to keep going back and updating it. If it's a condition of approval, then that's something entirely different. Member Voce said the State laws, like CEQA, regularly go through changes. The legislature makes changes and constant updates. The laws he referenced are State laws and are applicable to all cities. The Vice Chair said she would like to review this at the next meeting, adding she'd be happy if everybody who trims trees would have a business license. Member Voce said if this item is on the EQCB's next agenda he would hope everybody would have a copy of this material to review. The Vice Chair agreed and noted she would like to see the standards to see how stringent they are. She would like to know what would be imposed. This will be placed on the next agenda. With no more comments on this issue, the Board returned to Mr. Steele and Resolution 98-1A. (Comments incorporated above) . SCHEDULED MATTERS CONTINUED The Vice Chair indicated that items 5, 6 and 7 call for approval of Minutes. MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by _ to table approval of the Minutes. They do not include the items on the Consent Calendar that the Board approved that day. On earlier occasions we wanted a permanent record of what was approved on the Consent Calendar. MOTION FAILED due to lack of a Second. Member McGuire SECONDED the Motion. Member Voce said the Minutes are to be a part of the Record going to the Planning Commission. . He asked if they had to be approved to go? Mr. Steele said that in the past the Planning Commission has asked for final approved Minutes of the EQCB. When is the next scheduled EQCB meeting? October 28th. . Member Voce asked if that means if one of the Minutes is tabled that they don't go on to the Planning Commission? Does the Board have to come back and approve these Minutes before they can go on? The next EQCB meeting will be October 28th. 14 '. City of Seal Beach EaCB Minutes of September 3D, 1998 . Member Jones asked if the Minutes were generally correct? Vice Chair McGuire sa:d no, but then said she had not read them because she was going through so much data and she was relying on Member Hurley to read the Minutes and ascertain their correctness. She said the issue is whether the Board is going to table them or not. The overwhelming issue is if they're tabled the Planning Commission won't have them at the beginning of their hearings as they requested. She said that if they meet on October 28th and say, "Hey, this is what's going on. We'll have them in time before you make your vote". Member Voce said it's that or the Board meets on another date, like October 14th. Mr. Steele said staff will give the Planning Commission draft Minutes. Member Hurley said his concern is that the only permanent record of the action of the Board is in the Minutes. If we don't list what it was that we consented to the Minutes are incomplete. Mr. Steele said that's not entirely true. The two permanent records of the Board's meetings are the Minutes and the Agenda. You take an action at the beginning of every meeting to approve the Agenda. And then you take an action to approve the Consent Calendar. Both are filed. So two pieces of information . are on record for each meeting. Member Hurley asked to back track for the last ten minutes. He had no idea that the City kept the Agendas. Mr. Steele said that's why the Minutes will say, for example, the Committee approved the Consent Calendar as presented, items 1 - 6. Because we have an Agenda that lists those items. Member Hurley s~id this had never been explained to him before and he withdrew his Motion. MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by Voce to approve the EQCB Minutes of August 26, 1998. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 4-0-1 Voce, Hurley, Porter, Jones None McGuire -* . Member Hurley asked if there were any other Board members who had not read the Minutes of September 2 and 8? I 15 . , , City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of September 30, 1998 . Member Voce said he had reviewed them. Generally speaking he waits for other Board members to peruse them. He wasn't sure if the Board should approve them and correct them retroactively. Member Hurley said the concern is that the Planning Commission and the City Council should get some version of what went on at those meetings. The Board could send the drafts and perhaps next meeting approve the next two sets. Member Jones said he usually reads the Minutes by focusing on what he said. It's generally correct. He didn't usually remember what everyone else said. So he hasn't read them totally. MOTION by Voce; SECOND by Hurley to continue the EaCB Minutes of September 2 and 8th Minutes until the October 28th meeting. They will be reviewed and voted on at that time. DISCUSSION: There was no discussion. . MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: STAFF CONCERNS There were none. 4-0-1 Hurley, Voce, McGuire, Jones None Porter BOARD CONCERNS The Vice Chair said, "Item 9. Okay, we're adjourned". , Member Porter asked if there would be a long meeting the night before Thanksgiving? The Vice-Chairman said sometimes no meeting is held preceding holidays unless there is something quite important to discuss. Member Hurley said he wanted to leave enough time to think about this. The Vice-Chairman said the Board would discuss this at their next meeting. Her intent was that if there's nothing really urgent going on the meeting could be missed or another meeting date selected. . Member Hurley asked Mr. Steele if Tuesday was a good night to meet? Mr. Steele said he would pass along to staff that the EaCB would prefer not to meet on Wednesday, November 25th. Staff will try to keep items off that agenda. I 16 .. City o;f Seal Beach EaCB Minutes of September 30, 1998 . ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Voce; SECOND by Hurley to adjourn the meeting to October 28, 1998 at 6:30 p.m. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: 5-0 Hurley, Voce, McGuire, Jones, Porter None Member Jones said he may not be able to attend the October 28th meeting because he had Junior College classes. The Vice Chair said the Board could always make a motion to hold the meetings earlier to accommodate its members. Respectfully Submitted,2 Joan Fillmann Executive Secretary Planning Department . APPROVAL: The EQCB approved the Minutes of September 30, 1998 on 1999. . 2 The 9/30/98 EQCB Minutes were transcribed from a tape of the meeting. 17