HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem W October 20, 1999
STAFF REPORT
To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
From: Lee Whittenberg,Director of Development Services
Subject: Public Hearing - Review and Recommendation re:
Adequacy of Negative Declaration 99-1, Seal Beach
Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing Widening Project and
Determination of General Plan Consistency
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Adopt Resolution No. 99-_,and instruct staff to forward to the City Council for consideration in their
review of the subject document. Receive and File Staff Report.
DISCUSSION
The City has prepared of the above-referenced Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), prepared
under contract with the City by the Firm of Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates. The
Environmental Quality Control Board reviewed the document on September 29, and a copy of their
Response Memorandum is provided as Attachment 4. A copy of the EQCB Staff Report and Minutes
of September 29, 1999 is provided as Attachment 5. At the EQCB meeting, the Board added an
additional concern number 8,regarding discussion of certain impacts to Beverly Manor.
Staff is recommending adoption of a resolution from the Planning Commission to the City Council be
adopted regarding the proposed Negative Declaration and forwarded to the City Council, as the
Council will be conducting a public hearing on the Negative Declaration on October 25, 1999. Please
refer to Attachment 1 for a copy of the proposed resolution and to Attachment 7 to review the Draft
Initial Study/Mtigated Negative Declaration.
The MND provides discussion, information, and the basis for the determinations of no significant
environmental impacts for the proposed overcrossing widening and associated interchange
improvements at the San Diego Freeway 0-405)and Seal Beach Boulevard. A copy of the complete
MND,with the Appendices,was provided to the Planning Commission on August 31 and has not been
provided again as part of this Staff Report.
C:1My DocimentLBB.1405 Bridge WidenineConsideralion by Planning
Iii, 1J
Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1-
Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 Overcrossing Widening Project
Planning Commission Staff Report ;t
October 20, 1999
Summary of Proposed Overcrossing Improvements:
The existing Seal Beach Boulevard Overcrossing at I-405 is a 4-span, pre-cast "T' girder bridge that
was constructed in 1965. In summary, the proposed interchange improvement project will widen the
existing Seal Beach Boulevard overcrossing to six through lanes, consistent with it's General Plan
configuration, as well as widen portions of the existing interchange ramps. The interchange and
overcrossing improvements will serve to eliminate an existing "bottleneck" at the Seal Beach
Boulevard Overcrossing.
The proposed project is included in the City of Seal Beach Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The
proposed Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 interchange improvements will include the widening of the
existing overcrossing and roadway approaches from Beverly Manor at the I-405 southbound ramps to
Old Ranch Parkway at the I-405 northbound ramps to provide two additional through lanes(for a total
of three through lanes in each direction), median, sidewalks, and bike lanes. This will result in the
widening of the existing bridge approximately 44 feet to a total width of approximately 122 feet. The
majority of the proposed improvements are located within existing California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) right-of-way (ROW). Small parcels of ROW will be required at the toe of
the slope west of Seal Beach Boulevard and south of Old Ranch Parkway and adjacent to the
northbound 1-405 off-ramp.
Project Objectives:
The widening of the Seal Beach Boulevard Overcrossing is proposed in order to improve Seal Beach
Boulevard to its planned six-lane classification which is consistent with the Orange County Master Plan
of Arterial Highways (MPAH) and the City of Seal Beach General Plan Circulation Element. If the
proposed improvements are not constructed, the interchange will operate at Level of Service (LOS)
"D" and "F' at the northbound I-405/Seal Beach Boulevard intersection and at LOS 'T" at the
southbound I-405/Seal Beach Boulevard intersection by the year 2020. The proposed improvements
will reduce the LOS to"B"and"C" at the northbound I-405/Seal Beach Boulevard intersection in the
AM. and P.M. peak hours respectively, and to LOS `1)" at the southbound I-405/Seal Beach
Boulevard intersection in both the AM. and P.M. peak hour. The project objectives are to provide
adequate levels of service and good pedestrian circulation at the interchange.
Identification of Potentially Significant Impact Areas and Mitigation Measures:
The document is identified as a"Mtigated Negative Declaration", and proposes mitigation measures to
be adopted to mitigate any potentially significant impacts in the following areas of environmental
concern and the number of proposed mitigation measures for each area identified(Refer to Section 4.0,
pages 45 through 48 for a listing of the proposed mitigation measures):
Consideration by Planning ing Co mission.Staff Repoli 2
Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1-
Seal Beach Boulevard4-405 Overcrossing Widening Project
Planning Commission Staff Report
October 20, 1999
a Aesthetics - 2 mitigation measures
o Air Quality - 2 mitigation measures
o Geology/Soils- 8 mitigation measures
o Hazards and Hazardous Materials- 2 mitigation measures
o Hydrology/Water Quality- 1 mitigation measure
o Land Use/Planning- 0 mitigation measures
o Noise- 2 mitigation measures
o Transportation/Traffic- 1 mitigation measure
A"Mitigated Negative Declaration" is defined in Public Resources Code Section 21064.5, and states
as follows:
"Mitigated negative declaration" means a negative declaration
prepared for a project when the initial study has identified potentially
significant effects on the environment, but(1) revisions in the project
plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public
review would avoid the e„ rects or mitigate the effects to a point where
clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and(2)
there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the
public agency that the project, as revised may have a significant
effect on the environment."
Staff has provided a portion of the"CEQA Deskbook—A Step-by-Step Guide on how to comply with
the California Environmental Quality Act", 1999 Edition, discussing the preparation of Negative
Declarations, including Mitigated Negative Declarations, for the information of the Commission
(Please see Attachment 8).
Availability ofDa+cument
The MND is available at the Department of Development Services, City Hall,for public review.
Pubic Comment Period
The public comment period on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was between July 23 and
August 23, 1999. The City has received written comments on the subject document from the
following:
o Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse,August 23, 1999
o Caldwell,Leslie,Newcombe&Pettit,August 23, 1999
o Department of the Navy,Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, August 23, 1999
`" Consideration by Planning Commission Staff Report 3
K
Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1-
Seal Beach Boulevard4-405 Overcrossing Widening Project
Planning Commission Staff Report
October 20, 1999
o Department of Transportation,District 12,Environmental Planning,August 24, 1999
o Southern California Association of Governments,August 10, 1999
o County of Orange,Planning and Development Services Department,August 23, 1999
0 Orange County Fire Authority,August 26, 1999
o Southern California Gas Company,August 7, 1999
a California Department of Transportation,District 12, September 9, 1999
The City's consultant, Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, has prepared "Comments and
Responses" document to all of the above-received comments on Negative Declaration 99-1. A copy
of that document is provided for the information of the Planning Commission (Please see Attachment
6). It is provided to more fully inform the Commission as to the comments and concerns of reviewing
parties and provide the general responses of the City to those comments.
In addition,the City Engineer has reviewed the subject document and the"Comments and Responses"
document and has no concerns regarding the information provided.
City Council Consideration:
The City Council is scheduled to consider this matter on October 25, 1999. The City Council will be
reviewing the Negative Declaration and making a determination regarding project conformity with the
General Plan and adopting the Negative Declaration.
Required Action by Planning Commission:
•
Staff is requesting review of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration by the Planning Commission, and
the providing of any additional comments felt appropriate by the Commission. If there are specific
concerns, please provide those to staff this evening so that those comments and concerns may be
forwarded for the future considerations of the City Council.
Staff has incorporated its comments on Negative Declaration 99-1 within the "Memorandum" of the
Environmental Quality Control Board and is requesting the Planning Commission to provide any
additional comments or concerns which have not already been made by the reviewing parties
comments provided in Attachment 6 or the Staff comments provided in the Memorandum of the
Environments]Quality Control Board(Attachment 4).
In addition to reviewing and making a recommendation to the City Council regarding the adequacy of
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1, the Planning Commission is required to make a
recommendation to the City Council regarding the consistency of the proposed project with the
provisions of the General Plan. The adopted "Circulation Element — Streets and Highways of the
General Plan" map was adopted by Planning Commission Resolution No. 886 on January 15, 1975,
and by City Council Resolution No. 2394 on January 27, 1975. This map indicates Seal Beach
Consideration by Planning Commission Staff Report 4
Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-I-
Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 Overcrossing Widening Project
Planning Commission Staff Report
... October 20, 1999
Boulevard from Pacific Coast Highway to the northerly City boundary at Bradbury Road to be a
"Major — 120' right-of-way' (Please refer to Attachment 2). In addition, the Circulation Element
includes within the "Capital Improvements Program" provision for "Seal Beach Boulevard — San
Diego Freeway interchange improvement"(Please refer to Attachment 3).
•
This project is also included within the City of Seal Beach adopted 7-Year Capital Improvement
Program and within the adopted Southern California Association of Government's(SCAG) 1998-2005
Regional Transportation Improvement Program(RTIP).
In addition, this project proposal was thoroughly reviewed and considered by the City Council in it's
certification of the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center EIR, Revised, and the proposed project is within
the scope of the transportation improvements evaluated within that certified EIR document.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 99-_,and instruct staff to forward to the City Council for consideration in their
review of the subject document. Receive and File Staff Report.
( i %
��
l- Whittenberg,Director
Development Services Department
Attachments: (8)
Attachment 1: Planning Commission Resolution No. 99- A Resolution of the Planning
Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council
Adoption of Negative Declaration 99-1, and Recommending a Determination
of Consistency with the Circulation Element of the General Plan for the
Proposed Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing Widening Project
Attachment 2: "Circulation Element — Streets and Highways of the General Plan", Map
adopted by Planning Commission Resolution No. 886 on January 15, 1975,
and by City Council Resolution No.2394 on January 27, 1975
Attachment 3: "Circulation Element—Capital Improvement Program",Circulation Element of
the Seal Beach General Plan,page 14
Consideration by Planning Conmmission.Staff Repoli 5
Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1-
Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 Overcrossing Widening Project
Planning Commission Staff Report
October 20, 1999
Attachment 4: Memorandum to Planning Commission and City Council from the
Environmental Quality Control Board re: Negative Declaration 99-1, Seal
Beach Boulevard/1-405 Overcrossing Widening Project, dated September 29,
1999
Attachment 5: Environmental Quality Control Board Staff Report and Minutes of September
29, 1999
Attachment 6: "Comments and Responses for the Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1 — SCH 99071096",
prepared for the City of Seal Beach by Robert Bein, William Frost &
Associates, dated October 11, 1999
Attachment 7: Negative Declaration 99-1, Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing
Widening Project (Note: Previously provided to EQCB on August 25, 1999.
Please bring previously provided copy to meeting)
Attachment 8: "CEQA Deskbook — A Step-by-Step Guide on how to comply with the
• California Environmental Quality Act", Solano Press Books, 1999 Edition,
.pages 45-52 discussing "Preparation of Negative Declarations, including
Mitigated Negative Declarations"
Consideration by Pluming 0:om ission.Staff Report 6
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 20, 1999
1
2
3
4
5 PUBLIC HEARINGS
6
7 9. Negative Declaration 99-1
8 General Plan Consistency
9
10 Applicant/Owner: City of Seal Beach
11 Request: Approval of Negative Declaration 99-1 and General Plan
12 Consistency for Seal Beach Boulevard / 1-405 Overcrossing
13 Widening Project..
1.4 Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 99-39 and.instruct Staff to forward to the
15 City Council for consideration in their review of the subject
16 document. Receive and File Staff Report.
18 1 �18 Staff Report
19
20 Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
21 Planning Department.) He provided some background on the project stating that the
22 City had contracted the consultant firm of Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates to
23 prepare the Mitigated Negative Declaration. He noted that a representative of this firm,
24 Mr. Kevin Thomas, was present this evening to answer any questions regarding the
25 information in the Mitigated Negative Declaration document or in the Response to
26 Comments.
27
28 Mr. Whittenberg stated that this matter had come before the Environmental Quality
29 Control Board (EQCB) on September 29, 1999, at which time they had adopted a
30 memorandum setting forth their concerns regarding the document and had included
31 some additional conditions that they felt should be invoked upon the project. He said
32 that a copy of the September 29 EQCB minutes had been provided for each
33 Commissioner. Mr. Whittenberg also noted that a copy of the consolidated and revised
34 Mitigation Measures as set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration with the
35 additional conditions and revisions to those conditions set forth both in the Response to
36 Comments prepared by the consultant and was also included with the additional
37 conditions recommended by the EQCB.
38
39 Mr. Whittenberg explained that the basic objective of the project was to widen the Seal
40 Beach Boulevard overpass over the 405 Freeway. He noted that Seal Beach Boulevard
41 is indicated on the City Circulation General Plan as a major street with 120 feet of right-
42 of-way and is developed with 3 traffic lanes in each direction from Pacific Coast
43 Highway to the northerly City boundary at the City of Los Alamitos, with the exception of
44 the bridge overpass of the 405 Freeway. He stated that at that particular point the
45 roadway narrows down to two travel lanes in each direction instead of three. This
46 reduces the capacity of the street to carry traffic from 56,000 vehicles per day down to
2
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 20, 1999
1 approximately 37,000 vehicles per day. The proposed project would widen the bridge
2 out in each direction, reconfigure the on/off ramp entrance points, and provide a double
3 left-turnf lane from southbound Seal Beach Boulevard onto the southbound 405 Freeway
4 onramp. He stated that these improvements would resolve the current situation during
5 peak traffic hours of cars stacking up.in the left-turn lane leading onto the southbound
6 405 onramp. He said that the project would also provide new pedestrian sidewalks and
7 bike paths on the bridge itself that will meet all current CalTrans design and safety
8 standards. He noted that some widening would occur on the north side of the bridge
9 near the Bixby Ranch Development, and that some dedications would be required in
1.0 that area for the widening. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the south side of the bridge was
1.1 City property and that retaining walls would be constructed along with the building out of
12 the roadway in this area. He stated that the improvements would decrease the current
13 traffic congestion levels during peak hours on the bridge for both north and southbound
14 traffic. He said that the current Level of Service (LOS) was "F," which means that there
15 are more than 37,000 cars traveling through this area at peak hours. He said that the
16 improvements would lower the LOS rates down to Level B and C for southbound traffic
17 and to Level D for northbound traffic because of some of the on/off ramp configuration
18 issues that remain.
19 n AFT
20 Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff is rending approval of the Mitigated Negative
21 Declaration and the finding of Consistency with the General Plan. He noted that the
22 , . consultant had prepared a list of mitigation measures to resolve certain environmental
23 impacts. Mr. Whittenberg noted conditionsfor approval would be included.to mitigate
24 concerns regarding aesthetic issues, primarily having to do with trees currently located
25 . within the cloverleaf of the off-ramps and how these trees will be replaced or relocated
26 during completion of the project. He stated that the City would require a minimum 1:1
27 replacement ratio of trees within this area, and for eucalyptus trees within these project
28 areas, a 2:1 replacement ratio would be required. Mr. Whittenberg stated that
29 conditions would be place upon traffic management plan during the construction phase
30 to ensure adequate traffic flow across the bridge for normal traffic and for emergency
31 vehicle purposes. He pointed out that there were also a number other measures
32 regarding soil and geology issues that must be dealt with as part of the reconstruction of
33 the bridge. He noted that all of the mitigation measures were described in the Negative
34 Declaration. Mr. Whittenberg stated that in addition to recommending approval of the
35 Negative Declaration to the City Council, that State also requires that public
36 improvements be reviewed to ensure that they are consistent with the City's. General
37 Plan. Mr. Whittenberg stated that since 1975 Seal Beach Boulevard had been
38 designated as one of the major roadways within the city, and that since then the
39 long-term goal' has been to improve the bridge to its full 3-lane capacity in each
40 direction. • He said that this project has been included in the City's 7-Year Capital
41 Improvement.Program for funding and that the City has obtained approximately half the
42 funds for this project through the Measure M Program for the County of Orange. He
43 explained that Measure M is a voter approved additional tax on gasoline sales.from
44 which funds are provided to jurisdictions for roadway improvements within their. local
45 communities. Mr. Whittenberg continued by stating that the remaining portions of
46 funding would be provided from Traffic Impact Fees for the Bixby Old Towne
3 . . .
•
- City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
•
Meeting Minutes of October 20, 1999
•
1 development project, should it receive approval for completion. He stated'that the
2 project is shown on the Regional Transportation Plans of the California Association of
3 Governments, which is the overall transportation planning agency for Los Angeles and
4 Orange Counties'and for parts of the San Bernardino and Riverside area, and itmeets
5 all of the criteria for financing through the Federal Highway Program. .He said that Staff
6 feels the project to be consistent with the General Plan and is recommending approval.
7 He stated that a visual presentation had been prepared for view tonight, but'that the
8 computer components were not properly configured and the presentation could not be
9 made. He noted that Resolution 99-39 was scheduled for public hearing before the City
10 Council on Monday, October 25, 1999.
11
1.2 Commissioner Questions •
13
14 Commissioner Lyon commented that driving across the-Seal Beach Boulevard Bridge
15 during peak hours was "terrifying", as there was so much traffic congestion.
16
17 Commissioner Cutuli asked how many lanes of traffic would be open during the
18 construction phase. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this had not yet been determined.
19 He stated that one of the mitigation measures was that a traffic management plan had
20 to be prepared an approved both by the City and CalTrans. He stated that he assumed
21 that there would be a minimum of one lane at all times, and that his best guess was that
22 the construction would be phased so that two lanes in each direction would be available
23 during peak traffic hours.' Commissioner Cutuli then asked what the projected date of
24 completion for the' Old Towne Center would be, should it receive approval. Mr.
25 Whittenberg responded that at this point a date for completion is "up in the air," as a
26 referendum petition has been submitted to the City that, if qualified, would place on the
27 ballot for the March elections the question of whether or not the two commercial
28 portions of the project should be- allowed to proceed. Commissioner Cutuli,asked if a
29 delay in completion of the Bixby project would be good as it would be better to have
30 improvements for the Seal Beach Boulevard overpass completed prior to beginning
31 work on the Bixby Ranch development. Mr. Whittenberg responded that it was difficult
32 to predict that' at this time as it would depend upon whether the petitions for the
33 referendum will qualify as a ballot measure. He stated that he believed the City
34 anticipates that this will occur, and that an election will take place in March. Pending
35 the results of the election, this will determine whether the commercial components of
36 the Bixby Ranch development can proceed. He stated that if the commercial
37 components do not proceed, the amount of transportation impact fees that the City
38 would collect on the remainder of the project would not be adequate to fully fund the
39 Seal Beach Boulevard improvements, and the they would not go forward as anticipated
40 at this point in time. He clarified that because improvement to the Seal Beach
41 Boulevard overpass has been a long-term objective of the City (since 1975), the
42 conditions of approval imposed by the City on the Bixby Old Towne Center did not
43 require improvements to Seal Beach Boulevard to be completed as part of the Bixby
44 development. He stated that the existing problem of traffic congestion in that area is a
45 result of existing traffic flows, regardless of whether or not there is a Bixby development.
46 He explained that the Seal Beach Boulevard improvement is a separate project from the
4
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October-20, 1999
1 Bixby development in both environmental review purposes and in financing purposes.
2 Mr. Whittenberg noted that if the City is not able to obtain money from any future Bixby
3 development to offset the cost of the construction, the City would apply to the County-of
4 Orange through the Measure M Program and talk to CalTrans to get•financing for
5 sharing the- cost of the improvements. He stated that in actuality the bridge •is :a
6 CalTrans bridge, owned by them, and it must be designed to their standards and
7 criteria. He. said- that what the City was attempting to do was to move up the
8 improvements on the CalTrans schedule to be in place more closely to the time that the
9 Bixby project may possibly be completed. . . •
10 . •
11 Public Hearing • • •
12 •
DR A
13 Chairman Hood opened the public hearing. •
14
15 Mr. Reg Clewley stated that this was an issue that was far from ready for being decided
16 upon and that many questions remained regarding this Negative Declaration. He said
17 that the City was jumping ahead of itself, and that this did not need to happen. Mr.
18 Clewley stated that no one was advised regarding this item being on the agenda
19 . otherwise the Council Chambers would be filled with people voicing their objection to
20 approval of this project. He stated that this project would not be-going anywhere until all
21 of the other issues surrounding this project had been resolved. Mr. Clewley stated that
22 this would not come to pass until after the election in March. He said that there were
23 over 2800 signatures from registered voters in this City in favor of the ballot vote. He
24 stated that the City was not going to be able to do away with these signatures, and that
25 the people should have the opportunity to revisit this issue. Mr. Clewley stated that he
26 had not been made aware of a•lot of the documentation until this evening, and that he
27 was not able to acquire a complete agenda packet to review and study prior to the
28 meeting. He stated that just like Zoning Text Amendment 99-4, which .was to be
29 continued, he felt that Negative Declaration 99- should be studied for about 6 months
30 before voting it through. He stated that he was disgusted with the manner in which Staff
31 presents information, and the "underhanded tactics with which they are delivered." He
32 stated thathe wanted more time to study the document and that he believed the citizens
33 of College Park East-would like more time to study it also. He stated that he did not
34 believe that the Commissioners had had sufficient time to study the document and that
35 they did not fully comprehend its contents. He recommended studying the denial for at
36 least a couple of weeks, if not 6 months before voting on this item.
37
38 Ms. Sue Corbin inquired regarding the minimum public review period of 20 days for the
39 mitigated negative declaration. She asked when the document had been presented.
40 She stated that this was the first she had heard of it, and asked if the document should
41 have been presented so that the public could have seen it before tonight. Mr.
42 Whittenberg noted that the question had nothing to do with the Brown Act and stated
43 that as indicated in the Staff Report, a Notice of Preparation and Comment Period
44 appeared on July 23, 1999. A 30-day public comment period was allowed, increasing it
45 over the 20-day minimum under state law, and that the comment period ended on
46 August 23, 1999. He stated that Staff had received written comments from a number of
5
City of Seal teach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 20, 1999
1 different agencies as listed in the Staff Report. He stated that no comments on the
2 document-were received from the public, and that for the public hearing tonight, in
3 excess of 600 notices were mailed out to property owners, business occupants, and
4 residential occupants within Leisure World and to the- surrounding area within the
5 required notice for this type of project. He stated that the Negative Declaration has
6 been apublic document since July 23, 1999, and that the process is ongoing at this
7 point. Commissioner Hood asked that Staff explain again where notices were mailed.
8 Mr. Whittenberg responded that notices for this meeting were mailed out to everyone
9 within a 300-foot perimeter from the boundaries of Seal Beach Boulevard at Beverly
10 Manor and at the northbound 405 Freeway off-ramp at Bixby Old Ranch Parkway. Ms.
11 Corbin stated that she felt that the Staff needed to draw more attention to the document
12 as she was totally unaware of it and she believed that had the public been made aware,
13 there would have been more people in attendance at tonight's meeting. Mr.
14 Whittenberg again noted that over 600 businesses and residential addresses within the
15 City had been notified, which he felt was very substantial notice to the public.. Ms.
1.6 Corbin stated that she didn't know who Staff was trying to fool, but that the last time the
17 Bixby Project came up for approval, it was stopped dead due to lack of funds for the
18 overpass improvements. She stated that now "all of a sudden" the funds were available
19 through Measure M. She said that this was all done in order to "aid and abet" Bixby.
20 She stated that this never would have happened but for the Department of Development
21 Services desiring to "aid and abet" the Bixby Project. She also pointed out that on Page
22 25.of the Final Comments and Responses, it predicted a maximum 7.0 for the' Newport
23 /Inglewood fault zone. She stated that this was inaccurate, as there have been stronger
24 earthquakes within this fault zone. Ms. Corbin requested that monitors from the correct
25 tribes be assigned during the excavation phase to prevent tribal friction. She stated that
26 they are available for these types of assignments. She said that she could not
27 understand how Staff could say that these projects were interrelated but, not directly
28 connected. Ms. Corbin said that.if it were not for the Bixby project, the improvements to
29 Seal Beach Boulevard would not have been completed. She stated that she believed _
30 the-archaeological findings had not been adequately addressed.
31
32 Commissioner Hood closed the public hearing.
33 •
34 Commissioner Comments
35
36 Commissioner Hood inquired as to when construction was projected to begin. :Mr.
37 Whittenberg stated that this was not an issue of construction, but an-issue of insuring
38 that the environmental reviews for the project are completed .within the-time period to
39 meet the commitment for Measure M funding deadline. Commissioner Hood inquired
40 as to the deadline date. Mr. Whittenberg responded that he wasn't sure of the actual
41 date as the Engineering Department is the contact for agencies, and.that Engineering
42 has indicated that this is the schedule that the City needs to follow in order to ensure
43 retention of the Measure M funds. He stated that to his knowledge the deadline date
44 was sometime in mid-November. Commissioner Hood asked if after the Measure M
45 funds were designated for this project, and if the Bixby Project did not receive voter
46 approval, would the City have sufficient funding for the project? Mr. Whittenberg
•
•6
•
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
• Meeting Minutes of October 20, 1999
•
1 responded thatat this.point the amount of funds, allocated through the Measure M
2 program would not fund the entire Seal Beach Boulevard improvement project. He
*3 stated that should the City be unable to provide the required additional funding, the City
4 would then have the opportunity to apply to the Transportation Authority to request
5 supplemental funding on the Measure M program, which would be-done, should the
6 Bixby commercial project be voted down. .
7 .
8 Mr. Whittenberg again explained that this was a project that, had,beenin the City's
9 General Plan since 1975, and again emphasized that this project was not totally'driven
10 by the Bixby Development. He stated that an obvious interconnection was presented
11 because the City did not have all of the funds needed to complete the Seal Beach
1:2 Boulevard Project without the Traffic Impact Fees that would be generated.by the
13 commercial developments of the Bixby Project. Mr. Whittenberg again explained that all
14 this indicatedwas that if the City was not able to provide the funds, the City would. still
15 have the environmental analysis completed for the project and would not have to do this
16 at.some later time. The City would then apply to the County for additional funding to
17 proceed with widening the bridge regardless of whether or not the Bixby development is
18 approved. He stated that the bridge was currently servicing at a'substandard level, and
19 the goal of the City for 24 years has been to widen that bridge to allow traffic to 'flow
20 through thissection as freely as it does on Seal Be Boulevard north -and south of
21 that particular bridge.
22 ®R Af •
23 Mr. . Whittenberg then responded ' to issues presented during the public hearing
24 regarding the Newport/Inglewood fault zone. He stated that 7.0 is a design standard
25 that has been established by the United States Geological Service, California State
26 Division of Mines and Geology. He stated that this agency designates maximum
27 credible .earthquake intensities for all identified earthquake faults within the State of
28 California. He stated that the 1933 Long Beach earthquake measured 6.3 magnitude.
29
30 Regarding the issue of Tribal Monitors, Mr. Whittenberg stated that the City selects the
31 monitors, and that Ms. Corbin's comments would be taken under consideration. He
32 stated that the ultimate determination of the monitor was up to the City and there is no
33 designated tribal monitor under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He said
34 that there was no designated tribe for this area, but that there was a lot of discussion
35 between several different tribal organizations within Southern California as to whose
36 territory this is, and he did not know that this issue would ever be resolved.
37 .
38 Commissioner Lyon stated that Staff had failed to mention that the State had already
39 allocated funds for improvements to the intersection of Westminster Avenue and Seal
40 Beach Boulevard. He stated that he was 100% in favor of the Seal Beach Boulevard/
41. 1-405 Freeway Project, regardless of whether or not the Bixby development is approved.
42 He pointed out that the bridge section of Seal Beach Boulevard was overcrowded now
43 with traffic backing up before the bridge near the cross street leading to the fire
44 department•and the hospital. .
45
•7
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 20, 1999
•
1 Commissioner Larson stated that whether or not the Bixby project is approved; this is a
2 "bad bridge," and is very dangerous for users of the bike path. He stated,that the
-3 curves are bad and that the on-ramps and exits to the freeway are easily confused with
4 other side streets. He stated that he believes the bridge needs to be improved.
5
6 Commissioner Brown was in agreement with the previous Commissioner comments.
7 He stated-that the one criticism he continually hears from residents is "why don't you do
8 something about the Seal Beach Boulevard Bridge overpass." He too stated 'that
9 regardless of whether or not the Bixby project is built, the bridge needs to be widened.
10
11 Commissioner Cutuli seconded the comment.
12 DR NCI •
13 Commissioner Hood stated that it was important for residents of Leisure World to have
14 better access to emergency services. He stated that he agreed with Commissioner
15 Larson. This is a bad bridge. He stated that although he had different views on the
16 Bixby Project, he is in favor of widening the bridge. He stated that his first day as a
17 resident of College Park East was the day that the signal at Lamps.on and Seal Beach
18 Boulevard was opened. He said that previously there had been no signal, only a stop
19 sign, which testifies to how little traffic there was at that time.
20 - •
21 MOTION by Larson; SECOND by Cutuli to adopt Resolution 99-39 and instruct Staff to
22 forward to the City council for consideration in their review of the subject document.
23 Receive and File Staff.Report.
24 '
25 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0
26 AYES: Hood, Brown, Cutuli, Larson, and Lyon
27 NOES: None .
28 ABSENT: None - .
29 -
30 Mr. Whittenberg advised that as a future public hearing item at the City Council -level,
31 this item is to be considered on Monday, October 25, 1999, and the public is invited to
32 make additional comments.
33 -
34
35 STAFF CONCERNS
36
37
38
39
40 -
41 COMMISSION CONCERNS
42 -
43
44 •
45 ADJOURNMENT
46
8
•
Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1-
Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing Widening Project
City Council Staff Report
October 25, 1999
ATTACHMENT 4
"CIRCULATION ELEMENT - STREETS AND
HIGHWAYS OF THE GENERAL PLAN", MAP
ADOPTED BY PLANNING COMIVIISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 886 ON JANUARY 15, 1975,
AND BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2394
ON JANUARY 27, 1975
•
Consideration by City Council.Staff Report 23
Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1-
Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing Widening Project
City Council Staff Report
October 25, 1999
ATTACHMENT 5
"CIRCULATION ELEMENT - CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM", CIRCULATION
ELEMENT OF THE SEAL BEACH GENERAL
PLAN, PAGE 14
Consideration by City Council.Staff Report 1 6
•
respects. Bus, bicycle and other transportation .systems will require close
cooperation between Seal Beach, other cities and regional bodies in the same
canner as the street and highway systems have been developed in the past to
insure that completed systems would function effectively. Specifically, it is
recommended that the city work in close cooperation with the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) which has done much work in the area of
transportation planning, and the OCTD.. Areas of special concern where assistance
may be useful are the development of a shuttle system between outlying parking
areas and the beach area, and expansion of the existing bus system.
rCapital Improvements Program •
An important instrument of implementing the Circulation Element is a program
of capital improvements; that is, based on a perceived priority of areas of
concern these may be specifically planned for in the future. What ought to be ;
established then is a system through which these concerns may be practically
approached. Priorities for the construction of improvements to the circulation
systems need to be established. Areas of concern that ought to be considered
follow (in no priority):
•
First Street extension from Pacific Coast Highway
•
to Seal Beach Boulevard
Seal Beach Boulevard--San Diego Freeway interchange improvement
Continued bicycle route development
Specific study of the Main Street/Commercial area.
First Street extension from Pacific Coast Highway to Westminster Blvd.
Public Transportation' -
. The complementary bus service available to the residents of the city is
of vital concern in the transportation system of the city. It not only provides
. a wider latitude of travel than in most cities, but it also stimulates local )
businesses, due to the convenience of routing. . This service is utilized
r
throughout the year and should continue in the future.
14
•
Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1-
Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing Widening Project
City Council Staff Report
October 25, 1999
ATTACHMENT 6
MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION
AND CITY COUNCIL FROM THE
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
RE: NEGATIVE DECLARATION 99-1, SEAL
BEACH BOULEVARD/I-405 OVERCROSSING
WIDENING PROJECT, DATED SEPTEMBER 29,
1999
Consideration by City Council.Staff Report 17
^2v -
^Ti •
�T'
-4
1
i';':'-'.-;.-7--.:;.- :
-- 4 a( .-1 "dpr • -2.- --•
•
•y" _ _ -:-per.4 ' �. �. 'a �.s� ,-+.._. - I�f _ . .. . . . .
..
.. ._..
y JAI? T-,e1 . Wit- :T*.i...'.- :::-.:::.V:. .-
- •J.Y _ . ; J
C-- t.,--.=::•-::- .,; s -•� _ _ ~--y- _tom.: r .1 1 1 • :7
s.
MEMORANDUM
To: Members of the City Council and Planning Commission
From: Members of the Environmental Quality Control Board
Subject: Review and Forwarding of Comments and Concerns regarding
Proposed Initial Study and Negative Declaration 99-1, Seal Beach
Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing Widening Project
Date: September 29, 1999
r
% The City has prepared a Proposed Initial Study and Negative Declaration 99-1, Seal Beach
Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing Widening Project for review and approval by the City Council.
The Environmental Quality Control Board reviewed said document on September 29, 1999 and is
providing the following 'comments to the Planning Commission and City Council for their
consideration prior to final approval of the Negative Declaration by the City Council.
The proposed project will improve local transportation system capacity at the project location, and
reduce the level of service (LOS) from an existing (1997) worst LOS "E" in the P.M. peak hour
to LOS "B", and a projected future (2020) worst LOS "F" in the P.M. peak hour to LOS "D".
These transportation improvements will result in overall reductions in local air quality impacts
within the community by allowing traffic to flow more freely within the project area, thereby
reducing local CO and other air quality impacts
Concerns of the Environmental Quality Control Boat•
1. Page 25, Section 3.3, Air Quality, item "d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?". The discussion in this paragraph indicates". . . .project
development would reduce the future anticipated peak hour LOS along Seal Beach
Boulevard within the vicinity of the I-450 Freeway." First, the freeway designation
should be corrected to the "I-405". Secondly, it would be appropriate to indicate the
change in LOS level along Seal Beach Boulevard within the vicinity of the I-405 Freeway
after project completion.
2. Page 26, Section 3.4, Biological Resources, item "f. Conflict with the provision of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?" The response should be
modified to indicate the City has an "Eucalyptus Grove Preservation" ordinance (Chapter
7D of the Code of the City of Seal Beach) which regulates the removal of eucalyptus trees
within the City. However, the provisions of Chapter 7D do not apply to Caltrans
property, as it is not controlled under the provisions of Section 7D-4(b)(1) or (2).
However, it is recommended that an additional mitigation measure be proposed to require
the replacement of any eucalyptus trees at a 2:1 ratio within the project area and that the
type and size of replacement eucalyptus trees be approved by a city-selected arborist.
3. Page 27, Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, item "b. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?" As indicated in the
response to Caltrans comment 3d, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to assess the
site if archaeological resources are encountered during construction activities. It is
recommended that the following additional mitigation measures be required regarding
"Cultural Resources" and be included within Section 4.0 of the Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration:
•
o An archaeologist and a Native American Monitor appointed by the City of Seal Beach
City Council shall be present during earth removal or disturbance activities related to
rough grading and other excavation for foundations and utilities that extend below five
feet of the pre-grading natural surface elevation. If any earth removal or disturbance
activities result in the discovery of cultural resources,the project proponent's contractors
shall cease all earth removal or disturbance activities immediately and notify the City
selected archaeologist and/or Native American Monitor, who shall immediately notify
the Director of Development Services. The City selected archaeologist will have the
power to temporarily halt or divert the excavation equipment in order to evaluate any
potential cultural material. -The City selected archaeologist shall evaluate all potential
cultural findings in accordance with standard practice, the requirements of the City of
Seal Beach Archaeological and Historical Element, and other applicable regulations.
Consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission and data/artifact recovery,
if deemed appropriate, shall be conducted.
o If potentially significant cultural resources are encountered during earth removal or
disturbance activities, a "Test Phase", as described in the Archaeological and Historical
Element of the City General Plan is required and shall be performed by the City selected
archaeologist, and if potentially significant cultural resources are discovered, a
"Research Design document" must be prepared by the City selected archaeologist in
accordance with the provisions of the Archaeological and Historical Element of the
General Plan. The results of the test phase investigation must be presented to the
Archaeological Advisory Committee for review and recommendation to the City
Council for review and approval prior to continuation of earth removal or disturbance
activities in the impacted area of the proposed project.
o During all "test phase" investigation activities occurring on site, the City selected
archaeologist and the Native American monitor shall be present to conduct and observe,
respectively, such "test phase" investigation activities.
o Should any human bone be encountered during any earth removal or disturbance
activities, all activity shall cease immediately and the City selected archaeologist and
Native American monitor shall be immediately contacted, who shall then immediately
notify the Director of Development Services. The Director of the Department of
Development Services shall contact the Coroner pursuant to Section 5097.98 and
5097.99 of the Public Resources Code relative to Native American remains. Should the
Coroner determine the human remains to be Native American, the Native American
Heritage Commission shall be contacted pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98.
o If evidence of subsurface paleontological resources is found during construction,
excavation and other construction activity in that area shall cease and the contractor shall
contact the City Development Services Department. With direction from the City, an
Orange County Certified Paleontologist shall prepare and complete a standard
Paleontological Resource Mitigation Program.
4. Page 32, Section 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, item "g. Impair implementation
{ or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?" The discussion in the first sentence indicates the project ". . . would improve the
existing Level of Service (LOS) along Seal Beach Boulevard, thus creating a significant
positive impact." It would be appropriate to indicate the change in LOS level along Seal
Beach Boulevard within the vicinity of the I-405 Freeway after project completion.
5. Page 34, Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, item "j. Inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow?" The discussion indicates the site is located in the Coachella
Valley,which is incorrect. Please correct the site description to indicate the site is located
approximately 3 miles inland of the Pacific Ocean.
•
6. Page 39, Section 3.13, Public Services, item "a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance levels for any of the public
services?" The discussion in the fifth sentence indicates the project ". . . would improve
the level of service (LOS) along Seal Beach Boulevard and at the I-405 interchange, thus
producing a positive affect upon fire protection services within the area." It would be
appropriate to indicate the change in LOS level along Seal Beach Boulevard within the
vicinity of the I-405 Freeway after project completion.
7. Page 42, Section 3.15, Transportation/Traffic, item "f. Result in inadequate parking
capacity?" The discussion indicates "Parking along Seal Beach is currently not allowed . .
". This should be clarified to indicate "Parking along Seal Beach Boulevard is currently
not allowed.
8. The negative declaration should specifically consider the nearby Beverly Manor nursing
home during project construction, in the following paragraphs:
2.3 (d)
2.11.(b)
3.3 (b) &(d)
3.11 (A),(b) & (d)
3.17(c)
Determination of the Environmental Quality Control Board:
It was the determination of the Board to accept the document a complying with the provisions of
CEQA, as revised based on the comments above and as proposed within the "Draft Comments
and Responses" document prepared by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, and the Board
is of the opinion the document is complete, thorough, and reaches appropriate conclusions. The
document is well written and easy to understand. The proposed mitigation measures of Section 4,
List of Mitigation Measures, as revised, are supported by the discussion and analysis within the
subject document, and the Environmental Quality Control Board concurs with the analysis,
conclusions, and mitigation measures, as revised, based on the concerns set forth above.
APPROVED by the following members of the Environmental Quality Control Board:
Members: , j )t'49c€_
NOT APPROVED by the following members of the Environmental Quality Control Board:
Members:
//. • r
William G. Hurley
Vice-Chairperson
Environmental Quality Control Board
Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1-
Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 Overcrossing Widening Project
City Council Staff Report
October 25, 1999
ATTACHMENT 7
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
STAFF REPORT (WITHOUT ATTACHMENTS)
AND MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 29, 1999
Consideration by City Council.Staff Report 1 8
September 29, 1999
STAFF REPORT
To: Chairman and Members of the Environmental Quality Control Board
From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
subject Review and Comment re: Negative Declaration 99-1,
Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing Widening
Project
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Instruct Chairman to sign proposed Response Memorandum, and instruct staff to forward to
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in their review of the subject document.
Receive and File Staff Report.
DISCUSSION •
The City has prepared of the above-referenced Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), prepared
under contract with the City by the Firm of Robert Bein,William Frost and Associates. The document
is being forwarded to the Environmental Quality Control Board for review and consideration. Staff is
recommending a comment memorandum regarding the MND be approved and forwarded to the
Planning Commission and City Council, as those bodies will be conducting a public hearing on the
Negative Declaration in the month of October. Please refer to Attachment 3 to review the Draft Initial
Study/Mftigated Negative Declaration.
The MND provides discussion, information, and the basis for the determinations of no significant
environmental impacts for the proposed overcrossing widening and associated interchange
improvements at the San Diego Freeway(I-405) and Seal Beach Boulevard. A copy of the complete
MND, with the Appendices, was provided to the EQCB on August 25 and has not been provided
again as part of this Staff Report.
Summary ofproposed Overcrossing Improvements:
The existing Seal Beach Boulevard Overcrossing at I-405 is a 4-span, pre-cast `T' girder bridge that
was constructed in 1965. In summary, the proposed interchange improvement project will widen the
existing Seal Beach Boulevard overcrossing to six through lanes, consistent with it's General Plan
configuration, as well as widen portions of the existing interchange ramps. The interchange and
C.1My Doeomeou\SBB-NOS Bridge wideninQlConcidenGon by EQCB.Staff Repon.docUNAD9.22-99
Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1-
Seal Beach Boakvard/1-405 Overcrossing Widening Projea
Environmental Quality Control Board Staff Report
September 29, 1999
overcrossing improvements will serve to eliminate an existing "bottleneck" at the Seal Beach
Boulevard Overcrossing.
The proposed project is included in the City of Seal Beach Capital Improvement Program(CIP). The
proposed Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 interchange improvements will include the widening of the
existing overcrossing and roadway approaches from Beverly Manor at the I-405 southbound ramps to
Old Ranch Parkway at the 1-405 northbound ramps to provide two additional through lanes(for a total
of three through lanes in each direction), median, sidewalks, and bike lanes. This will result in the
widening of the existing bridge approximately 44 feet to a total width of approximately 122 feet. The
majority of the proposed improvements are located within existing California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans)right-of-way (ROW). Small parcels of ROW will be required at the toe of
the slope west of Seal Beach Boulevard and south of Old Ranch Parkway and adjacent to the
northbound I-405 off-ramp.
Project Objectives:
The widening of the Seal Beach Boulevard Overcrossing is proposed in order to improve Seal Beach
Boulevard to its planned six-lane classification which is consistent with the Orange County Master Plan
of Arterial Highways.(MPAH) and the City of Seal Beach General Plan Circulation Element. If the
proposed improvements are not constructed, the interchange will operate at Level of Service (LOS)
"D" and "F" at the northbound I-405/Seal Beach Boulevard intersection and at LOS `T" at the
southbound I-405/Seal Beach Boulevard intersection by the year 2020. The proposed improvements
will reduce the LOS to"B"and"C"at the northbound I-405/Seal Beach Boulevard intersection in the
A.M. and P.M. peak hours respectively, and to LOS "D" at the southbound I-405/Seal Beach
Boulevard intersection in both the A.M. and P.M. peak hour. The project objectives are to provide
adequate levels of service and good pedestrian circulation at the interchange.
Identification of Potentially Significant Impact Areas and Mitigation Measures:
The document is identified as a"Mitigated Negative Declaration",and proposes mitigation measures to
be adopted to mitigate any potentially significant impacts in the following areas of environmental
concern and the number of proposed mitigation measures for each area identified(Refer to Section 4.0,
pages 45 through 48 for a listing of the proposed mitigation measures):
C Aesthetics - 2 mitigation measures
O Air Quality - 2 mitigation measures
O Geology/Soils- 8 mitigation measures
O Hazards and Hazardous Materials- 2 mitigation measures
O Hydrology/Water Quality- 1 mitigation measure
O Land Use/Planning- 0 mitigation measures
O Noise- 2 mitigation measures
Cooridentioa by EQCB.Staff Repot 2 l
Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1-
Seal Beach Boulevard/l-405 Overcrossing Widening Project
Environmental Quality Control Board Staff Report
September 29, 1999
o
Transportation/Traffic- 1 mitigation measure
A`Miitigated Negative Declaration"is defined in'Public Resources Code Section 21064.5, and states
as follows:
"Mitigated negative declaration" means a negative declaration
prepared for a project when the initial study has identified potentially
significant affects on the environment, but (I) revisions in the project
plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public
review would avoid the effects or mitigate the erects to a point where
clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and(2)
there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the
public agency that the project, as revised may have a significant
effect on the environment."
Staff has provided a portion of the"CEQA Deskbook—A Step-by-Step Guide on how to comply with
the California Environmental Quality Act", 1999 Edition, discussing the preparation of Negative
Declarations, including Mitigated Negative Declarations, for the information of the Board (Please see
Attachment 4). •
Avm7ability of Document
The MND is available at the Department of Development Services,City Hall,for public review.
Pubic Comment Period*
The public comment period on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was between July 23 and
August 23, 1999. The City has received written comments on the subject document from the
following:
G Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse,August 23, 1999
C Caldwell,Leslie,Newcombe&Pettit,August 23, 1999
O Department of the Navy,Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach,August 23, 1999
C Department of Transportation,District 12,Environmental Planning,August 24, 1999
O Southern California Association of Governments,August 10, 1999
O County of Orange,Planning and Development Services Department,August 23, 1999
0 Orange County Fire Authority,August 26, 1999
O Southern California Gas Company,August 7, 1999
O California Department of Transportation,District 12, September 9, 1999
Coe ideation by EQCB.Staff Repoet 3
Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1-
Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 Overcrossing Widening Projea
Environmental Quality Control Board Staff Report
September 29, 1999
The City's consultant,Robert Bein,William Frost& Associates, has prepared a"Draft Comments and
Responses" document to all of the above-received comments on Negative Declaration 99-1. A copy
of that draft document is provided for the information of the EQCB (Please see Attachment 2). Please
be aware that the'Draft Comments and Responses"document has not received final approval by City
Staf and there may be revisions-based upon the completion of Staff review. It is provided to more
fully inform the Board as to the comments and concerns of reviewing parties and provide the general
responses of the City to those comments. This document will be finalized prior to the appropriate
public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council.
In addition, the City Engineer has reviewed the subject document and the 'Draft Comments and
Responses"document and has no concerns regarding the information provided.
Planning Contmtiscion and City Council Consideration:
The Planning Commission and City Council are scheduled to consider this matter on October 20 and
25,respectively. The Planning Commission will be considering the Negative Declaration and making a
recommendation to the City Council regarding the consistency of the proposed project with the
General Plan. The City Council will be reviewing the Negative Declaration and making a
determination regarding project conformity with the General Plan and adopting the Negative
Declaration.
Required Action by Environmental Quality Contml Board:
Staff is_requesting review of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration by the Environmental Quality
Control Board, and the providing of any comments felt appropriate by the Board. If the EQCB has
no comments as to the adequacy of the discussion provided in the Initial Study, please indicate that.
If there are specific concerns, please provide those to staff this evening so that those comments and
concerns may be forwarded for the future considerations of the Planning Commission and City
Council.
Staff has incorporated its comments on Negative Declaration 99-1 within the proposed
"Memorandum" of the Environmental Quality Control Board and is requesting the Board to
provide any additional comments or concerns which have not already been,made by the reviewing
parties comments provided in Attachment 2 or the Staff comments provided in the proposed
Memorandum (Attachment 1).
•
Consideration by EQCB.Staff Report 4
Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1-
Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 Overcrossing Widening Project
'\._ Environmental Quality Control Board Staff Report
September 29, 1999
RECOMMENDATION
Instruct Chairman to sign proposed Response Memorandum, and instruct staff to forward to
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in their review of the subject document.
Receive and File Staff Report.
.
id,,
Whittenberg, Director
Development Services Departm-
Attachments: (4)
Attachment 1: Draft Memorandum to Planning Commission and City Council re: Negative
Declaration 99-1,. Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing Widening
Project
Attachment 2: "Draft Comments and Responses for the Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405
`, Overcrossing Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1 - SCH
990710916', prepared for the City of Seal Beach by Robert Bein, William
Frost&Associates, dated September 14, 1999
Attachment 3: Negative Declaration 99-1, Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing
Widening Project (Note: Previously provided to EQCB on August 25,
1999. Please bring previously provided copy to meeting)
Attachment 4: "CEQA Deskbook - A Step-by-Step Guide on how to comply with the
California Environmental Quality Act", Solano Press Books, 1999 Edition,
pages 45-52 discussing "Preparation of Negative Declarations, including
Mitigated Negative Declarations"
Consideration by EQCB.Staff Report 5
City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of September 29, 1999
1 MOTION by Voce; SECOND by Porter to authorize the Vice-Chairperson to sign the
2 draft response letter with board-approved changes. Instruct Staff to forward to the City
3 Council and Planning Commission for Information purposes. Receive and file Staff
4 Report.
5
6 MOTION CARRIED: 3- 0-2
7 AYES: Hurley, Porter, and Voce
8 NOES: None
9 ABSENT: McGuire and Jones
10 Dik
11
12 8. BOARD REVIEW & COMMENT— EQCB STAFF REPORT re: "Negative Declaration
13 99-1, Seal Beach Boulevard/ 1.405 Overcrossing Widening Project."
14
15 Recommendation: Instruct Chairman to sign proposed Response
16 Memorandum, and instruct staff to forward to Planning Commission and City Council
17 forconsideration in their review of the subject document. Receive and File Staff
18 Report.
19
20 Mr. Cummins explained that this item described the project to widen the Seal Beach
21 Boulevard from Beverly Manor Drive to the overpass on the 1-405 Freeway, making it 3
22 lanes wide on each side. A median, sidewalks, and a bike path will also be included.
23 He stated that the improvements would help to improve the flow of traffic, which is
24 currently very poor. Vice-Chairperson Hurley noted that in the Staff Report there were
25 contradictory statements regarding the traffic capacity impacts. He stated that an
26 increase in traffic lanes usually translates into increased traffic.
27
28 Mr. Kevin Thomas, a representative of Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates,
29 consultants for preparation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, explained that
30 theoretically, an increase in the number of lanes would provide for greater capacity, but
31 because there were so few access roads across the 1-405, widening of this overpass
32 would in the long run help to lesson traffic congestion and idling of traffic along-Seal
33 Beach Boulevard. Vice-Chairperson Hurley asked when construction on this project
34 would begin and what the projected date for completion was. Mr. Cummins responded
35 that the projected completion was set for the year 2002, dependent upon the Bixby
36 Ranch Development. . He stated that some of the funding for the project was to be
37 provided by the Bixby Ranch Company. Vice-Chairperson Hurley asked if the hotel and
38 senior care facility would be built before or after construction on the 1-405 overpass was
39 completed. Mr. Cummins responded that he did not know as they were both attached
40 to the same Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Bixby Ranch Old Towne Center.
41 Mr. Thomas stated that if the Bixby project is delayed, funding for construction on the
-42 overpass will be delayed. Vice-Chairperson Hurley asked how soon funding from the
43 Bixby Ranch Company would be available. Mr. Cummins stated that he assumed funds
44 would be disbursed once all entitlements for the project have been approved. Member
45 Voce commented that disbursement of funds might also be dependent upon the
Q:1EQCB Documents109-29-99 Minutes.doc Page 4
City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of September 29, 1999
1 importance to the Bixby Company of having the overpass completed when the Old
2 Town Center is complete.
3
4 Member Voce askedabout replacement of eucalyptus trees on the Old Towne Center
5 development along Seal Beach Boulevard. Mr. Cummins responded that this would fall
6 under the jurisdiction of CalTrans and would not be under the City Ordinance regarding
7 eucalyptus trees. He stated that a proposal has been made to replace the trees but he
8 didn't know what the ratio for replacement would be. Vice-Chairperson Hurley stated
9 that in the report the ratio was stated as 2:1. Member Voce stated that the total number
10 of trees to be replaced had not yet been determined, and that CalTrans would
11 determine the type of tree that would be planted based upon their landscape
12 specifications. Member Voce lamented the fact that the City had no control over issues
13 related to landscape of public right-of-ways. Mr. Cummins stated that decisions related
14 to public right-of-ways were made by CalTrans because they were responsible for the
15 maintenance of these roads. Member Voce emphasized his determination to keep as
16 many trees in this development as possible and stated that he was hopeful that
17 CalTrans would understand this. Vice-Chairperson Hurley complained of not being able
18 to read some of the text in this draft report due to the watermark having copied too
19 darkly. Mr. Thomas assured him that the revised final copy would be a cleaner copy.
20
21 Vice-Chairperson Hurley noted typographical errors in the Response Memorandum and
22 made recommendations for corrections to provide clarification on items within the
23 document. He stated that it would be appropriate to indicate the specific level of change
24 in the Level of Service (LOS).
25
26 Vice-Chairperson Hurley also inquired as to why the Beverly Manor nursing facility was
27 not included in the Negative Declaration. Mr. Cummins responded that the reason the
28 senior care facility is not addressed is because it has not yet been entitled and whether
29 or not it will be built is still speculative. He reassured the Board that mitigation
30 measures related to noise would be at the highest level, particularly with regard to the
31 surrounding residential areas. Vice-Chairperson Hurley requested to add a concern
32 that he believed should be a part of the memorandum. He dictated Concern No. 8 as
33 follows:
34
35 'The Negative Declaration should clearly and specifically consider the
36 special case during project construction of the nearby Beverly Manor
37 nursing home in the following paragraphs:
38
39 2.3E
40 2.116 P‘°
41 3.3B & D
42 3.11A, B & D
43 3.17C
44 •
Q:IEQCB Documents109-29-99 Minutes.doc Page 5
City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of September 29, 1999
1 Mr. Cummins noted that Staff would like to omit the word "special," as it gives the
2 impression of assigning more significance to the Beverly Manor over the other usages
3 in the surrounding area. He recommended revising the paragraph to read:
4
5 "The Negative Declaration should specifically consider the nearby Beverly
6 Manor nursing home during project construction in the following
7 paragraphs:..."
8
9 MOTION by Voce; SECOND by Porter to authorize the Vice-Chairperson to sign the
10 Response Memorandum with board-approved changes. Instruct Staff to forward to the
11 City Council and Planning Commission for Information purposes. Receive and file Staff
12 Report.
13
14 MOTION CARRIED: 3 — 0 — 2
15 AYES: Hurley, Porter, and Voce
16 NOES: None
17 ABSENT: McGuire and Jones
18
19p►
20 9. Reschedule of October Meeting O
21
22 Mr. Cummins reminded the Board that at least 2 members had provided notice of a
23 schedule conflict for the October meeting. Member Voce asked if the October agenda
24 had been prepared. Mr. Cummins responded that at this point there were no urgent
25 agenda items. Member Porter noted that he would be out of the country and would not
26 be able to attend the October meeting. Member Voce recommended skipping the
27 October meeting and adjourning to the regularly scheduled November meeting, with
28 possible adjustment of the meeting date due to the Thanksgiving holiday.
29
30
31 VII Public Hearings
32
33 None.
34
35
36 VIII Staff Concerns
37
38 None.
39
40
41 IX Board Concerns
42
43 None
44
45
46 X Adjournment
Q:1EQCB Documents109-29-99 Minutes.doc Page 6
Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1 -
Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 Overcrossing Widening Project
City Council Staff Report
October 25, 1999
ATTACHMENT 8
"COMMENTS AND RESPONSES .FOR . THE SEAL
BEACH BOULEVARD/I-405 OVERCROSSING
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION 99-1 - SCH 99071096", PREPARED
FOR THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH BY ROBERT
BEIN, WILLIAM FROST & ASSOCIATES, DATED
OCTOBER 11, 1999
Consideration by City Council.Staff Report 19
FINAL
F4 - COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
for the
Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
99-1
SCH No. 99071096
Lead Agency:
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
211 Eighth Street
• Seal Beach, CA 90740
Contact:
Mr. Lee Whittenberg
Consultant:
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
14725 Alton Parkway
Irvine, CA 92618
Contact:
Mr. Kevin Thomas, Environmental Services Manager
949/855-3659
•
October 11, 1999
JN 10-034163.001
vvn i i44II U114 rmopu115G5
Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing IS/MND INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
The Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration(IS/MND)was
circulated for the required 30-day public review period, in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),CEQA Guidelines and the City of Seal Beach policies for
implementing CEQA. This included distribution of the Notice of Intent to Adopt the IS/MND
to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project limits, as well as to a project
interest list developed by City staff(refer to Appendix A,NOI Mailing List). It should be noted
that the CEQA Guidelines(Section 15074(b))do not require preparation of written responses
to public comments on an IS/MND,although the City has prepared these responses to ensure
adequate consideration of the comments received.
This Comments and Responses document,combined with the Draft IS/MND circulated from
July 23, 1999 to August 23, 1999, make up the Final IS/MND. Following adoption of this
IS/MND, City staff will file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk.
•
•
•
October 11, 1999 i R2c.wPG
Comments and Responses
Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 Overcrossing lS/MND TABLE OF CONTENTS
Response
NO. Commenting Party Page No.
State Clearinghouse Transmittal Form iii
•
1 Caldwell, Leslie, Newcombe & Pettit (8/23/99) 1
Mr. Christopher G. Caldwell
2 Department of the Navy, Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach (8/23/99) 10
, Mr. Pei-Fen Tamashiro
3 California Department of Transportation-District 12 (8/24/99) 13
Ms. Leslie Manderscheid, Chief, Environmental Planning, Branch B
4 Southern California Association of Governments (8/10/99) 11
Mr. J. David Stein, Manager Performance Assessment and Implementation
5-;.. County of Orange Planning & Development Services (8/23/99) 19
Mr. George Britton, Manager Environmental and Project Planning
Services Division
6 Orange County Fire Authority (8/26/99) 22
Ms. Nacy Foreman, Advance Planning
7 The Gas Company (8/7/99) 24
Mr. Robert S. Warth, Technical Supervisor
8;: California Department of Transportation-District 12 (9/9/99) 26
Mr. Robert F. Joseph, Chief Advanced Planning Branch
APPENDIX A - NOI Mailing List
•
October 11, 1999 ii R2C.WPD
•
STATE OF CALIFORNIA #,a��'L4 �
1, _ Governor's Office of Planninand Rt
g esearch I IA
•
State Clearinghouse
Gray Davis STREET ADDRESS: 1400 TENTH STREET ROOM 222 SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 9581
VERNOR MAILING ADDRESS: T.O.BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO,CA 95812-3044 Loretta Lynch DJR1C7R
O
916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov/clearinghouse.htmi
August 23,1999
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
Lee Whittenburg
City of Seal Beach
=26 ,999
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach,CA 90740
•
Subject: Seal Beach Boulevard Overcrossing!I-40S Improvement Project
SCH#: 99071096
Dear Lee Whittenburg:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for
review. The review period closed on August 20, 1999,and no state agencies submitted comments by that
date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements
for draft environmental documents,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Please call the State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any
environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named questions o ecregatdmg the
eight-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. p please refer to the
•
Sincerely,
/641,04.77
Terry Robe
Senior Planner,State Clearinghouse
= Project Title Seal Beach Boulevard Overcrossing/(-405 Improvement Project
Lead Agency Seal Beach,City of
Type neg Negative Declaration
Description The proposed interchange improvement project will widen the existing Seal Beach Boulevard
Overcrossing to six through lanes,consistent with Its General Plan Configuration,as well as widen
portions of the existing Interchange ramps.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Lee Whittenburg
r. Agency City of Seal Beach
Phone 562-431-2527
Fax
small
Address 211 Eighth Street
City Seal Beach State CA Zip 90740
Project Location
County Orange
City Seal Beach
Region
Cross Struts . Beverly Manor/Old Ranch Pkwy.
Parcel No.
•
Township Range Section 1,6
Base
Proximity to:
Highways 405
rY
Airports Los Alamitos Arm
Railways
Waterways San Gabriel River
Schools
Land Use existing right-of-way •
Project Issues AestheticMsual;Agricultural Land;Air Quality;Archaeologic-Historic;Flood Plain/Flooding;
Geologic/Seismic;Minerals;Noise;Public Services;Schools/Universities;Septic System;
r
Capacity;Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading;Solid Waste;Toxic/Hazardous;Vegetation;Water Quality;
Water Supply;Wildlife
Reviewing Resources Agency;Department of Conservation;Department of Fish and Game,Region 5;Office of
Agencies Historic Preservation;Department of Paries and Recreation;California Highway Patrol;Cattrans,
District 12;Regional Water Quality Control Board,Region 8;Department of Toxic Substances Control;
Native American Heritage Commission;State Lands Commission
Date Received 07/23/1999 •Start of Review 07/23/1999 End of Review'08/20/1999
•
Note: Blanks in data fields result from Insufficient Information provided by lead agency.
Comments and Responses
Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 OvercrossIng IS/MND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Response No. 1
Caldwell, Leslie, Newcombe & Pettit(8/23/99)
Mr. Christopher G. Caldwell
1 a. While identified in the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center EIR,page V-88,this project is necessary
to accommodate existing and projected future traffic levels,with or without the Bixby project.The
proposed overcrossing widening has been analyzed in the context of evaluating future traffic
growth through the year2020,which includes the anticipated future traffic of the Bixby Old Ranch
Project.
lb. The City has been attempting to undertake this improvement for over 20 years (refer to
Circulation Element of the City of Seal Beach General Plan). Although widening of the
overcrossing was referenced within the Bixby Ranch EIR it was not included as a mitigation
requirement of the project. However, in order for widening of the overcrossing to occur,
subsequent widening of the Seal Beach Boulevard northbound and southbound freeway ramps
would be required. With respect to the comment regarding Rossmoor Business Center and the
proposed Bixby project,traffic projections are based upon land uses classifications and assume
maximum buildout.
lc. As previously stated in Response 1 a,above,the proposed project is consistent with the City's
General Plan and the County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways(MPAH). Growth
associated with in-fill development referenced by this comment was anticipated and analyzed in
the City's General Plan. Although the project would accommodate the aforementioned planned
growth it would not facilitate additional growth beyond that which is anticipated in the City's
General Plan and regional growth planning documents such as the County of Orange MPAH.
{: This point is further clarified in paragraph five on page 38 of Negative Declaration 99-1 which
states "In addition, the interchange widening project is not anticipated to after the location,
distribution, density or growth rate of the human population in the City of Seal Beach or
surrounding communities. The project would be consistent with the City of Seal Beach
General Plan Circulation Element and therefore no growth related impacts would occur".
The following revision to page 34 of Negative Declaration 99-1 is included to further clarify the
intent of the proposed project:
The proposed interchange improvements are intended to improve peak hour traffic
flowprovide-additional-capacityand would not alter the location or path of the
current roadway. The proposed improvements are required to accommodate the
existing and future traffic volumes within the vicinity of the project area. As in-fill
development occurs pursuant to the land use designations within the vicinity of the
project area, a greater demand would continue to be placed on the interchange to
provide an adequate LOS. Due to the project's consistency with the City's General
Plan and the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways, no impacts would
occur.'
The following revision to page 38 of Negative Declaration 99-1 is included to further clarify the -
intent of the proposed project:
'The proposed interchange improvements are intended to improve peak hour traffic
flow and would not alter the location or path of the
current roadway".
October 11, 1999 1 R2C.WPD
• Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing IS/MND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
1 d. The following revision to page 38 of Negative Declaration 99-1 is included to further clarify the
intent of the proposed project:
"In addition, existing trees which will be removed shall be replaced on-site with
speciesconsistent with current Ca/trans/City requirements".
Mitigation Measure 4.1 a on page 45 of Negative Declaration 99-1 will be revised to reflect the
Y`, following:
"All mature trees removed by the project shall either be salvaged or relocated in the
project area, or shall be replaced with similar species -consistent with current
Caltrans/City requirements
1e. In the event funding becomes available,low wattage pedestrian lighting would be included along
the west sidewalk of the overcrossing within the concrete baffler. While Negative Declaration 99-
1 will be revised to reflect this new information,the significance conclusions will remain the same
and no significant lighting impact would occur on a project level or cumulative basis.
Page 22 of Negative Declaration 99-1 shall be revised to reflect the following:
"Lighting4. (if
funding is available) would include low wattage pedestrian lighting along the west
sidewalk of the overcrossing within the concrete barrier which would create a minor
amount of additional light and glare. However, compliance with City of Seal Beach
standard design practices,including the use of directional lighting techniques, would
reduce impacts to less than significant levels".
z.-
1 f. Refer to Response 1 b,above. Air quality impacts associated with in-fill development referenced
by this comment were anticipated and are analyzed in the City's General Plan and,therefore,are
• incorporated into the Southern California Association of Governments(SCAG)and South Coast
Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)regional planning documents.Potential air quality
impacts are further clarified on page 25 first full paragraph of Negative Declaration 99-1 which
states the following:
4`r
•
- 'The proposed project will result in overall improved regional and local air
emissions, as the enhanced level of service (LOS) will reduce vehicle congestion,
idle time as well as reduced travel time due to improved local access. Therefore,
the net operational air quality impact is not expected to be significant?
1g. Refer to Response la,1 b,and 1 e,above. The carbon monoxide(CO)levels contained within
the Bixby Ranch El R were utilized to establish existing and future anticipated CO levels within the
•vicinity of the Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 interchange. Under future no project conditions the
CO levels would increase due to a deficient LOS along Seal Beach Boulevard as well as an
increase in vehicle idle time. Therefore,the proposed interchange improvements would provide
a significant positive project impact, due to reducing idle emissions.
,1h. The commentor is correct as the existing daily volume on the overcrossing is 47,955 vehicles per
day(vpd).As this volume is higher than the 37,150 vpd originally reported in Negative Declaration
99-1,the difference between existing conditions and future year 2020 conditions in terms of
anticipated noise and traffic levels would be reduced.While Negative Declaration 99-1 will be
revised to reflect this correction,the significance conclusions will remain the same and no
significant traffic,air,or noise impacts would occur on a project or cumulative basis.As stated
in Response la,above,implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase
October 11.1999 2 R2C.WPD
comments and Responses
Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing IS/MND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
in the roadway's capacity beyond its ultimate planned classification(56,300 vpd)nor result in an
increase in the 24-hour daily flow or demand along Seal Beach Boulevard.
Paragraph 5 on page 34 of Negative Declaration 99-1 shall be revised to reflect the following:
'The Seal Beach Boulevard Overcrossing currently operates at a deficient level of service
(LOS) (lower than LOS D). The existing daily volume on the bridge is 47,955 37,130
vehicles per day (vpd), while the daily capacity of the four-lane bridge is 37,500 vpd.
Therefore, the current V/C ratio is 1.286:990, or LOS FE".
Paragraph 2 on page 40 of Negative Declaration 99-1 shall be revised to reflect the following:
'The Seal Beach Boulevard/)-405 overcrossing currently operates at LOS F-E, with an
existing average daily traffic(ADT) volumes in-excess-of 47,955 vehicles 37,000".
1 i. Refer to Response la through c,above. Any sensitive uses associated with the proposed Bixby
Ranch project along Seal Beach Boulevard would require to be constructed with appropriate
sound attenuation measures(i.e.,sound walls and/or the appropriate Sound Transmission Rated
(STC) glass) in anticipation of Seal Beach Boulevard operating at its ultimate planned
classification (six lanes) in order to achieve City interior and exterior noise standards.
The following revision to page 36 of Negative Declaration 99-1 is included to further clarify the
intent of the proposed project:
'The estimated increase in CNEL is due in part to the addition of through travel lanes and
associated higher daily traffic volumes capacity, as well as bringing travel lanes closer to
existing land uses. However, daily traffic volumes would not exceed the roadway's planned
capacity".
Second full paragraph on page 37 of Negative Declaration 99-1 shall be revised to reflect the
following:
'The project in and of itself does not have the capacity to result in a permanent increase in
ambient noise levels within the project vicinity from stationary and/or mobile noise sources
since the project does not involve land development':
1j. Refer to Response 1a and Response 1 b, above.
1k. Refer to Response 1 b, above.
October 11, 1999 3 R2c.wPD
' . ivi1r1Lill 1 IN U. I
LAW OFFICES
4 CALDWELL. LESLIE, NEWCOMBE 8 PETTIT
CMRI1TORMCR C. CALDWCLL A�ROt(((IOMAI C04►OMTIOW
Reaves C.CROWiMCR 606 SOUTH OLIVE STREET. SUITE 500
DAVID R KOWAL
TAMARA LANG[ LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 900141507sMs RRYL AALR►LIeM.NNTT[t11LSow
JOAN MI R.L[iLls TELEPHONE (213) S29-9040 JAN •. NORMAN
MACK
: MARY MACHNEP/COMM TELECOPIER (213) S29-po22 e.
a OAv10 PVrfl? EMAIL:CLNPOCLNP.COM
11oD01.o I. huts
vrvW.CLNF.COM
August 23, 1999
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
)3Y MESSENGER AUG 2 3
Mr.Lee Whittenberg OEVE� �1En' TEhSCRVICf.S
Director of Development Services
City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach,CA 90740
Re: Comments on Negative Declaration 99-1
•
Dear Mr.Whittenberg: -
.
On behalf of the City of Los Alamitos, Century National Properties,Inc.,and the
Rossmoor Homeowners Association,I am writing to provide you with our comments on Seal
Beach's proposed Negative Declaration 99-1 concerning the Seal Beach Boulevard-405
overcrossing widening project. For the reasons set forth below,we submit that the Ne alive
Declaration is a seriously flawed document, and that the proposed project must $
a full environmental impact report("EIR")in order to com 1 with the r the subject of
California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"). p y equirements of the
At the outset,I note that the project description for the proposedro'ect is flawed.
Negative Declaration attempts to view in isolation the proposed overcross wdenin t Thes
analysis does not take into account the City of Seal Beach's proposed Bixby Ranch ProProject As
you know,the Bixby Ranch Project has been proposed for a site immediately adjacent to and to
the north of the proposed overcrossing widening. Indeed,Negative Declaration 99-1
acknowledges the existence of the Bixby Ranch Project,and attempts to rely on some of impact
analysis contained in the Bixby Ranch EIR(although the Negative Declaration misstates tha
analysis,as discussed below). Similarly,the Bixby Ranch EIR acknowledges that the City has
proposed widening the I-405 overcrossing(EIR at V-88). In fact,one
rtProject is to widen Seal Beach Boulevard from four lanes to six lanes for the rooadway by Ranch a
immediately north of and connecting to the proposed overcrossing widening. (EIR at V-89.
)
In spite of this immediate geographic and temporal proximity of the two projects,
Negative Declaration 99-1 fails to analyze the impacts of the proposed overcrossing widening in
the context of the proposed Bixby Ranch improvements. Seal Beach's decision to divide these
August 23, 1999
Paget
two projects into two contemporaneously-prepared documents constitutes a classic case of
piecemealing,which is prohibited by CEQA. As required by the Court, Seal Beach has set aside la
its approval of the Bixby Ranch EIR. Before that EIR is recertified,the entirety of the project,
including the proposed freeway overcrossing must be analyzed in the EIR.
In addition to the fact that the Negative Declaration 99-1 represents impermissible
piecemealing of a single project,there are several substantive errors in the Negative Declaration,
which must be corrected. In order to correct those errors,preparation of a full blown EIR is
required(even assuming arguendo that the overpass widening could be analyzed as a standalone
project). Our specific comments with respect to the substantives errors are as follows:
1. Page six of Negative Declaration 99-1 describes existing land uses to the north of
the proposed project as an office complex, a golf course,and vacant land.
Nowhere does the Negative Declaration describe the land uses proposed in the
Bixby Ranch EIR,nor is there an analysis of the proposed project on those
proposed uses. Such disclosure and analysis is required in order to disclose lb
adequately the impacts of the proposed overpass widening. In addition,this
analysis must include the anticipated revitalization/rehabilitation of the
Rossmoor Business Center,which will affect at least the traffic and air quafity
analyses of the proposed project
2. Negative Declaration 99-1fails to disclose the growth-inducing impacts of the
proposed project,which should be viewed as significant on both a project
specific and a cumulative basis. As the Negative Declaration acknowledges(at
40),the proposed interchange improvements will remove an existing
"bottleneck." The Negative Declaration(at 38)also acknowledges that the
proposed widening will offer additional capacity beyond existing capacity. The
Negative Declaration states(at 34)"in-fill development"can be anticipated to
occur pursuant to existing land use,designations after the widening occurs. All of
this information establishes that the proposed project will remove a constraint to
existing growth,and will facilitate future growth. A discussion of all of these C
issues is required by Guideline Section 15126.2,particularly Guideline Section
15126.2(d). A mandatory finding significance is required because of the nature
• of the impacts. In addition,each specific type of impact that will be caused by
the new growth should be acknowledged as significant
For example,significant cumulative impacts should acknowledgeduine basis.
areas of traffic and circulation,air quality,land use of lann n tthe
housing, p � B,population and
public services,and utilities and service systems. Absent new
mitigation measures,the Negative Declaration also should acknowledge that the
project will enable growth that will further exacerbate the jobs/housing
1
August 23, 1999
Page 3
imbalance in the project area.
3. At page 22,the Negative Declaration acknowledges that the project will result in
the removal existing trees. The nature and type of trees to be removed should be
identified. As currently drafted,there is no support for the statement at
6
of the Negative Declaration that the project does not conflict with local page
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance,because it is impossible to
determine whether any of the trees to be removed are eucalyptus trees. This 7 d
specific impact on eucalyptus trees and any inconsistency with Seal Beach's
eucalyptus tree preservation ordinance should be analyzed and,if present,should
be disclosed as significant
4. Page 22 of the Negative Declaration states that typical street lighting"if
necessary"will be utilized by the project. In order to determine the nature of the
impact to be caused by street lighting,on both a project specific and a cumulative
basis,the Negative Declaration must disclose whether street lighting will be
required and,if so,the nature of the street li 1 e
Negative Declaration should analyzedung' Absent such information,the
ficant lighting a"worst case"scenario,and acknowledge a
si
&u impact,at least on a cumulative basis.
5. The Negative Declaration states at pages 24 and 25 that the proposed project will
result in overall improved regional and local air emissions,because of the
enhanced level of service and reduced idle time and travel time. This analysis
also appears to be premised on the assumption at page 24 of the Negative
Declaration that the project will not generate an increase in long-term air
emissions,because the project does not involve any development This
methodology is flawed,because the Negative Declaration acknowledges that the
• project will remove an existing traffic bottleneck,thereby enabling greater traffic 1 f
(which will be generated by,inter alio,in-fill development,according to the
Negative Declaration). Accordingly,this analysis does not support the Negative
Declaration's conclusion there is no air quality impact on either a project
er ific
or a cumulative basis. Rather,the Negative Declaration must analyze and
disclose the additional traffic that will be generated by removal of the existing
bottleneck.
6. The analyst of carbon monoxide("CO")and sensitive receptors at page 25 of the
Negative Declaration is confusing and appears to be flawed. On theonehand,
the Negative Declaration states that it is relying upon the CO analysis from the
Bixby Ranch EIR. At the same time,however,the Negative Declaration states 19
that"the affected area is predominantly commercial." (Id at 25.) If the Bixby
4
August 23, 1999
Page 4
Ranch project is developed as proposed,the affected area will not be
predominantly commercial. Rather,immediately to the north of thero
sed
freeway widening will be a hotel and senior citizen's center—both of which are
sensitive receptors. In particular,the senior citizen's center will necessarily
require the residents to have access to the outdoors,which use should be viewed
as a particularly sensitive receptor. Thus,it ap•
pears that the Negative
Declaration has borrowed the CO analysis from the Bixby Ranch EIR,but
without aMoreovenalyzing
the new development that would be al
Bixby Ranch EIR's analysis of this issue is alo ed,that EIR. 1 g
flawed, because
of its inaccurate project description and its flawed analysis of cumulative impacts
(including the Rossmoor Business Center),thereby making reliance on that EIR
improper. This specific issue again illustrates why impermissible
has occurred by the concurrent preparation of the EIR and te Negative piecemealmg
Declaration.
7. Page 34 of the Negative Declaration states that information for existing
conditions at the freeway overcrossing are based upon the Bixby RancEIR.
Again,it is unclear how the Bixby Ranch EIR has been utilized in the Negative
�`. Declaration. The Negative Declaration states that,according to Bixby Ranch
EIR, existing daily volume on the bridge is 37,150 vehicles per day.
Bixby Ranch EIR states that existing daily volume on the bridge is 7 9 5
fact,the 1 h
vehicles per day. (EIR at V-77). This error suggests that the entire
traffic
analysis in the Negative Declaration is flawed and must be redone. Existing
traffic conditions are worse than have been disclosed in the Negative Declaration,
and the impacts and benefits of the proposed widening likely been misstated.
8. The Negative Declaration's analysis of noise appears to be flawed in a
impacts
manner similar to its analysis of air qualityP
Declaration acknowledges that the nw impacts. On one hand,the Negative
D er flao c lanes will result in"associated
y traffic capacity" (Id.at 36). The Negative Declaration assumes,
however,that any sensitive receptors along the roadway are residential units that
part of master-planned communities. (Id.at 36-37). This analysis again ignores
the sensitive receptors that would be located immediately to the north of the
proposed project under the Bixby Ranch proposal,including a hotel and senior
citizen's housing. As noted above,senior citizen's housing undoubtedly will
necessitate access to exterior spaces. Accordingly,the impacts on these spaces
should be analyzed (preferably in a single EIR,rather than a piecemealed EIR for
the Bixby Ranch project and a separate Negative Declaration for the adjacent
freeway overcrossing). The Negative Declaration's analysis of noise is also
flawed at page 37,where it states the project will not have the capacity to result
a
August 23, 1999
Pages
in an increase in ambient noise levels from stationery sources. This analysis
ignores the increase that the project would cause the mobile sources(i.e.,
automobiles).
9. As noted above,page 38 of the Negative Declaration should disclose and analyze
the growth inducing impacts of the project on population,particularly because
the Negative Declaration acknowledges here that the proposed widening will 1 J
allow additional capacity beyond existing capacity.
10. At page 40,the Negative Declaration makes the assertion that the project will not
• result in an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load, simply because the proposed improvements are consistent with the
circulation plans of Seal Beach and Orange County. The'mere fact that there is
consistency between these plans does not means that there will not be an increase 1 k
in traffic. Rather,as noted repeatedly above,the Negative Declaration must
disclose the increase that will be facilitated by removing the"bottleneck"
currdntly existing at the site.
For all of the foregoing reasons,the City of Alamitos, Century National Properties,Inc.
and Rossmoor Homeowners Association submit that the Negative Declaration, as drafted,does
not comply with California Environmental Quality Act. Rather,a single environment disclosure
document,which adequately analyzes both this project the Bixby Ranch project,must be
prepared.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on the Negative Declaration 99-1 and
we are prepared to work with the City of Seal Beach in discussing intelligent development at the
sitefor these two projects,which will not exacerbate existing and foreseeable congested
conditions.
Very truly yours,
CHRISTO HER G.CALDWELL
ec: Robert Dominguez
Brian Gibbons
Erwin Aniston
Comments and Responses
Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 Overcrossing 1S/MND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Response No. 2
Department of the Navy, Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach (8/23/99)
Mr. Pei-Fen Tamashiro, Acting Environmental Director
2a. The City of Seal Beach is proposing improvements for the Seal Beach Boulevard Overcrossing
as part of implementing the City's General Plan Circulation Element and Capital Improvement
Program(CIP).As portions of the project are located within the State of California,Department
of Public Works,Division of Highways easement(NOy(R)-62948),appropriate documentation
from the State as to permissible uses of the easement shall be submitted to the U.S.Navy prior
to initiation of construction. The potential for additional real estate documentation(if necessary)
from the Navy for the use of Navy land may be required. These issues shall be resolved prior
to onset of construction.
2b. Three recorded archaeological sites are located adjacent to the proposed interchange
improvements. According to a Revised Draft Historic Properties Evaluation Plan,dated June
1,1999 these sites(30-0010502,30-001503,and 30-001504)are located adjacent to Seal Beach
Boulevard,south of the proposed improvements. These findings include human remains,chert
cores, and various fragments. As indicated on Figure 3 within the Revised Draft Historic
Properties Evaluation Plan,due to the locations of the recorded archaeological resources from
the project site, no impacts would occur.
•
•
October 11, 1999 9 R2C.WPD
,•'cw. 't.. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
;•� 4...•. //. Z NAVAL WEAPONS STATION,SEAL BEACH
•v - N SOO SEAL BEACH BLVD
U�- SEAL BEACH,CA/107404000
� S9 REPLY REFER TO:
' � 5090
•
•Ser 043/0342
23 August 1999 j
CITY OF SEAL BEACH •
Lee Whittenberg
Director of Development Services
City of Seal Beach AUG 2 5 1999
- 211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740 DEPA;TMEf T Of
DEVELOP,:E":T SF ',CES
Dear Mr. Whittenberg:
' The Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach has reviewed the Draft
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Seal Beach
Boulevard Overcrossing/I-405 Improvement Project dated July 1999.
Inreview of the proposed project, it appears that a portion of
the project is on United States (U.S. ) Department of the Navy land
which an easement (NOy (R) -62948) has been given to the State of
California, Department of Public Works, Division.of Highways in
1962 for highways development. it appears this project falls
within this easement scope for highway development, however it is
unclear as to whom is actually proposing the improvements, the City
of Seal Beach or the State Highways Division. If this is a City
project, then documentation from the State as to permissible use
of the easement is required to be provided to the U.S. Navy
well as the potential for additional real estate documentations 2.
from the U.S. Navy for use of Navy land. Please, contact Mr. Paul
Morrison at 562-626-7925 for further information to clarify these
real estate issues.
J •
_ The Negative Declaration reviews the potential to affect
cultural resources; however, it does not appear to adequately
take into account the recent findings around the project. Just
south of the I-405 off-ramp an archaeological site containing
human remains was discovered, and north of I-405 an archaeological
site was discovered during grading for a redevelopment project.
The'-City has been provided all documentation available for the U.S.
Navy archaeological site. .The City needs to consider what shall be
required for completing Section 106 documentation under the
National Historic Preservation Act if any portion of this proposed
project is on U.S. Navy land. Please, contact Lisa Ellen Bosalet,
Cultural Resources Coordinator for our command for at 562-626-7637,
fax 562-626-7131, or electronic mail address
leb0658®sbeach.navy.mil, for further information.
1
Sincerely,
?At.' :7;A II.
PEI-FEN TAMASHIRO
Acting Environmental Director
By direction of
- the Commanding Officer
Copy; to:
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest Div. (SNPR.CL)
Comments and Responses
Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing IS/MND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Response No. 3
California Department of Transportation-District 12 (8/24/99)
Ms. Leslie Manderscheid, Chief, Environmental Planning, Branch B
3a. The requested information will be reflected in the Final IS/MND.
3b. The requested information will be reflected in the Final IS/MND.
3c. Negative Declaration 99-1 analyzed potential short-term construction and long-term vehicular
noise impacts associated with implementation of the Seal Beach/I-405 Overcrossing Widening
Project. This analysis was performed in accordance with the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (TNAP), dated October 1998.
Pursuant to Section 1.4.5,Construction Noise,as contained within the TNAP,construction noise
levels are not anticipated to exceed 86 dBA(L,,,,,)at a distance of 15 m. No sensitive receptors
(i.e.,residential uses)are located adjacent(within 60 m)of the project site,therefore impacts
associated with short-term construction noise are considered to be less than significant.
Upon review of the project it was determined that the Seal Beach Boulevard Overcrossing
widening is not considered a Type I Project as defined by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA)on page 5 of the TNAP and,therefore,no further analysis is required. The TNAP states
the following:
"A Type I project is any project that has the potential to increase noise levels at adjacent
receivers. Such a project specifically creates a totally new noise source, or increases the
volume or speed of traffic or moves that traffic closer to the receivers".
Implementation of the project itself would not"generate"additional traffic volumes along Seal
Beach Boulevard in the vicinity of 1-405,nor increase the roadway's capacity beyond its planned
classification. Although peak hour volumes will not change,the project will improve overall peak
hour flow by reducing intersection congestion and vehicle delay time.Therefore, no new noise
sources would be created. In addition,the noise increase adjacent to Seal Beach Boulevard
would occur with or without implementation of the project.Thus,no project-related noise impacts
are anticipated.
3d. Section 4.0, List of Mitigation Measures, will be revised to include the following mitigation
measure:
It archaeological resources are encountered durin.q construction activities, work within the
area of the resource shall be halted and a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to
assess the site.
3e. Comment noted.Paragraph three on page 28 of Negative Declaration 99-1 shall be revised to
reflect the following:
There are several active and potentially active fault zones that could affect the project site.
Among the ten(10)active faults identified within approximately 100 km(62 miles)of the project
site, three (3)faults are expected to generate earthquakes of significance: the Newport-
Inglewood;the Wither-Elsinore;and the Palos Verdes fault zones.Groundshaking from the
Whittier-Elsinore and the offshore Palos Verdes fault is not expected to impact the site. As
previously discussed above,the northern branch of the Newport-Inglewood fault is located
approximately 5 km (3 miles) south of the project site.
October 11, 1999 12 R2C.WPD
:Seal eeacn Boutevard/1-405 Overcrossing IS/MND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
3f. Mitigation Measure 4.3a shall be revised to reflect the following: ..
• The project shall sheafd comply with State,County,City,and UBC dust control
regulations,so as to prevent the soil from being eroded by wind,creating dust,
or blowing onto a public road or roads or other public or private property.
• SCAQMD Rule 403.1,as amended,shall shettfel be adhered to,ensuring the
clean up on the construction-related dirt on approach routes to the site,and the
application of water and/or chemical dust retardants that solidify loose soils shall
shouter-be implemented for construction vehicle access,as directed by the City
Engineer. This shall sheald include covering,watering or otherwise stabilizing
all inactive soil piles(left more than 10 days)and inactive graded areas(left more
than 10 days).
• Grading activity shall shetrfd be suspended when local winds exceed 25 miles
per hour and during first and second stage smog alerts.
• All trucks hauling dirt, soil or other loose dirt material shall be covered.
• Where available or possible,permanent sources of power shall shetrld-be used
from the beginning of the project. Avoid internal combustion engines for
generating power.
• Reduce or eliminate odors due to construction activity.
3g. Prior to construction,the required encroachment permit will be processed through Caltrans by
-.. the City of Seal Beach. As stated on page 32 of Negative Declaration 99-1,the project is
required to comply to City of Seal Beach NPDES Permit requirements. In addition,construction _
of the proposed project is also subject to the Caltrans statewide NPDES Permit. Short-term
construction Best Management Practices(BMPs)control measures shall be incorporated into the
final PS&E and submitted to Caltrans for review.
Paragraph four on page 21 of Negative Declaration 99-1 shall be revised to reflect the following:
- "Project implementation would not have a substantial effect on any scenic vista, as the
project represents widening of an existing overcrossing and interchange ramps, and there
are no scenic significant-vistas in the project area that would be adversely affected".
31;:. The requested information will be reflected in the Final IS/MND.
3j. According to a telephone conversation with staff with the Southern California Association of
Governments(SCAG)on September 10,1999,the proposed project is included in the 1998-2005
Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP)for the SCAG region.
3k. Paragraph one and two on page 39 of Negative Declaration shall be revised to reflect the
following:
"Short-term construction-related congestion impacts would be mitigated with
implementation of a.Traffic Management Plan(TMP)".
October 11, 1999 13 R2c.WPD
A t t OF GALIFOKNIA—$USINttb,TIKANtruri IA 1 iUN AND MOUSING AGENCY UUMMEN rr NO. 3
EPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STRICT 12 -•11. IL,L' ,
147 MICHELSON DR.,SUITE 100 >S •
VINE.CALIFORNIA 92612-0661 to
24 August,1999
CIN OF SEAL SEACH
DG 12e9
Mr. Lee Whittenburg 2 6
Director of Development Services
City of Seal Beach D LOPMEriM'iENSo Es
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach,CA 90740 •
Re: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Seal Beach Blvd. overcrossing
Dear Mr.Whittenburg:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. Below are our comments:
1. All pages, including tables, exhibits and plans, should have page numbers. Also,these I 3a
page numbers should be included in the Table of Contents.
2. The list of contents in the Appendix does not match with this list in the Table of Contents. 3b
3. The adopted noise standards by the City of Seal Beach are different from the Caltrans
guideline for the noise study projects. According to this guideline,the new Traffic Noise I 3c
Analysis Protocol (TNAP) should be implemented for all projects. Please implement TNAP.
4. Although the likelihood of encountering cultural or paleontological resources during
construction is remote, we suggest including the standard statement to the effect that I 3d
should such resources be encountered, work will halt while an archaeologist assesses the
• site.
5. On page 28, third full paragraph, please include metric distance as well as imperial (62
miles, 100 km.). Also, in the same paragraph, the northern branch of the Newport- 3e
Inglewood fault 9s located approximately three south of the project site." Please specify
units of distance.
6. Most of the mitigation measures for Air Quality are expressed as"should"be implemented. 3f
Unless the measures are optional, they are better phrased as "shall'as are most of the
measures in the document.
7. Any work in Caltrans'right of way will require an encroachment permit. Also,work on
Caltrans property must comply with Caltrans'statewide NPDES permit,-and special I 3g
provisions to deal with water pollution control must be incorporated into the PS&E.
8. In the discussion on Aesthetics (page 21), no"significant"vistas are in the project area. I 3h
This could be better phrased as no scenic vistas,as significant has other connotations for
the environment.
9. In the discussions on Air Quality and Land Use Planning (pages 25 and 35),the discussions 13i
of LOS should reference section 3.15,Traffic.
10.Although the air quality plans and the roles of SCAG and SCAQMD are thoroughly 13j
discussed, it doesn't appear to be stated that the project is included in any regional
transportation plan for the SCAB. This should be stated.
11.We assume that the"short-term congestion impacts"discussed under Public Services 3k
(page 39)are construction-related. Adding this term would clarify this.
City of Seal Beach
Mr. Lee Whittenburg
24 August 1999
Page 2
Overall,this was a very well-written Initial Study, and the maps and graphics were excellent. If
you have any questions, please contact Barbara Gossett at (949)724-2224.
Sincerely,
eslie anderscheid, hief
Environmental Planning, Branch B
C: Kevin Thomas, RBF
Sia Ghahremanpour, Caltrans Design
Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing IS/MND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Response No. 4
Southern California Association of Governments (8/10/99)
Mr. J. David Stein, Manager Performance Assessment and Implementation
4a. Comment noted, no response necessary.
•
October 11, 1999 16 R2C.WPD
• FILECOP ,
„.
dryofsE,.L8S�
ACH ;
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
LA(G / ? 1999 )
ie August 10, 1999 G^
.VrceP4r
nr OF;.,E, T
SERVICES
ASSOCIATION of Mr. Lee Whittenberg
GOVERNMENTS Director of Development Services
City of Seal Beach
Main Office211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
518 West Seventh Street
32tN Floor RE: SCAG Clearinghouse #19900363 Seal Beach Boulevard
Los Angeles.California Overcrossing/I-405 Improvement Project
90037.3435
•
Dear Mr. Whittenberg:
t c233)236.3300
t(2'')2$.s825 We have reviewed the above referenced document and determined
that it is not regionally significant per Areawide Clearinghouse
Innt.i"`ca.Iov criteria. Therefore, the project does not warrant clearinghouse
frac•Madan tyertror le,Tamlwµ,. .
are_• Ma„,.�.,r,�.,�,,,,,, ,,,,,, 'Comments at this time. Shouldd-there be a change in the scope of
t.n to) or L.Quenon•t�vire
1/ea Loran=Eno[.tu.fon lv..r4m the project, we would appreciate the opportunity to review and
� ""Plana
comment or bionna
at that time.
nil Goma�MPR.�..a Coon C .
I alum.N Crobarn Cowry .
T7e Madman".o. A description of the project was published in the August 1, 1999
wd.Coon•At Tarwlw,k,.La awn .
rn.• A t> W••n Intergovernmental_ReviewReport for public review and comment. 4a
rti rows•annn coos,.cor.o.-
p L...lint•PW boron.to hopk.•
n anti.P..m.ad•toss O.L.Ls
;�Maned ,;, The project title and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in
atLa nen Gubi •hair Goblins.la all correspondence with SCAG concerning this project.
,.•b,Cuba ,tag bud•caLai
otaa. d . •
'°"""`".2i La Correspondence should be sent to the attention of the
1ie,..da.La arta•Piot Plain b
loon.`La main dram•`''' Clearinghouse Coordinator.
'O"'`en bleak.
boa"', g If you have any questions, please
o•c...o<Lou cast,.
Burt•Lob Peaks.two.ia outs• contact me at (213) 236-1917.
o P a.Pia L .•ro1 ladla•T1...,
.e flaw C •hok Swank to
, •� � incerel lin ADO.•inn ,
.s.cabaret•I y
•Cann Mira kook.Cant
•
Kft.Lis Mowsaro...--M• • .
14... ......:......rems.,
4 Ca .car,Par•!w Das).Ni ,.p
•4Jrr.ATart.tgor Weed•
t Dun Lai Ina•Abo Ian La Pons•
n.In DAVID STEIN
• Ca �,.elfr ha .It Itatak anager, Performance Assessment
=�= Rana'"'"" and Implementation
roamer Cow: Zak boa. fa
Lao Govan•twl Meaner.Pawn
srthis latb.T•a osoeIulad•
nommlu,an JDS:lj
a ar Parma Lim AG .o a.Gonn =
•
•
•Nortoodon Mr Mt•tor 11.482.
d
�TMW4i. ac•••1• .
k hula.Ito weeaton•adios P...
OJ.•Tor twat.Pon Yha ont
ea limn0 Conti Ca al.ls
af,ra7hyt�rLesh.CaYWa `
err to gonad Port mots .
Comments and Responses
Seal Beach Boulevard/!-405 Overcrossing IS/MND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Response No. 5
County of Orange Planning & Development Services(8/23/99)
Mr. George Britton, Manager Environmental and Project Planning Services Division
5a. Comment noted. Improvements proposed as part of this project do not impact existing County
facilities. The County shall coordinate with Caltrans on any improvements that would occur within
Caltrans right-of-way. Further design development activities for interchange improvements and
adjacent County channel improvements shall be coordinated to ensure compatibility.
5b. As requested,for all work within Orange County Flood Control District(OCFCD)right-of-way
(ROW)the City of Seal Beach shall obtain the proper encroachment permit from the County's
Property Division prior to initiation of construction activities.
5c. Comment noted, no response necessary.
October 11, 1999 18 Ft2c.WPD
o— �
N./Vdkift toy Elfvrunge ' ` "
°4o* Planning & Development Services Department SANTA ANA, CAt¢ORM1A
MAMA*ADDRESS:
P.O. SOX 4041
SANTA ANA, CA 9270240U
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
AUG 2 31999
AUG 2 d 1999 NCL 99-62
OEPAFTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT ScRv/CES
Mr.Lee Whittenberg
Director of Development Services
City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
•
SUBJECT: ND for the Seal Beach Boulevard Overcrossing/1-405 Improvement Project
Dear Mr. Whittenberg:
The above referenced item is a Negative Declaration (ND) for the City of Seal Beach. The
proposed interchange improvement project will widen the existing four lane Seal Beach
Boulevard Overcrossing to six through lanes, consistent with its General Plan configuration, as
well as widen portions of the existing interchange ramps. Project limits are located between Old
Ranch Parkway to the south and Beverly Manor Drive to the north along Seal Beach Boulevard.
The County of Orange has reviewed the ND and offers the following comments:
FLOOD
1. Currently, existing drainage of the area is accomplished generally by sheet flow in the
southwesterly direction towards two major existing drainage facilities,the Federal Storm
Channel (CO1 S06)and the Bixby Storm Channel (COISO4)which are adjacent and 5 a
parallel to the Seal Beach Boulevard Overcrossing. Flooding has been reported at these
channels and improvement alternatives are being studied by Orange County Flood
Control District. (OCFCD).
2. If the proposed widening project impacts worsen conditions of OCFCD's facilities it
must be identified and appropriately mitigated. All work within OCFCD right-of-way 5b
will require a permit from the County's Real Property Division.
WATER QUALITY
3. Page 32 of the ND correctly notes the City's role in the Countywide Drainage Area
Management Program. However,the decision-makers on this project should be informed 5C
that there are practically no standard Best Management Practices(BMPs)in the •
s
Countywide Plan applicable to public streets,and that the bulk of responsibility for BMP
implementation to date has fallen upon the development of land adjoining streets,rather 5c
than the streets themselves.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the ND. If you have any questions,please contact
me or feel free to call Charlotte Hangman directly. Charlotte may be reached at(714) 834-2522.
Very truly yours,
� /
George ritton,Manager
Environmental and Project
Planning Services Division
•
CH
Comments and Responses
Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing IS/MND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Response No.6
Orange County Fire Authority(8/26/99)
Ms. Nacy Foreman,Advance Planning
6a. Comment noted, no response necessary.
Af •
{ •
•
October 11. 1999 • 21 R2C.WPD
VV1V11V1Li11 1\V• U
101E11SP Orange County Fire Autnority
PO Box 86, Orange, CA 92856-9086 • 180 S. Water St., Orange CA 92866-2123
Ch1p Prather, Fire Chi
i&NO�.��• of (714) 744-00400 WWW.ocfa.org
Rsr
CITY OF SEAL BEACH 1
•
August 26, 1999 !
AUG 2319'99
Mr.Lee Whittenberg :
Director of Development Services DEPARTMENT
City of Seal Beach oevELePr.;E�.�_; _
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
SUBJECT: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Seal Beach Blvd
OvercrossingJl-405 Improvement Project
Dear Mr. Whittenberg:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject project. The Orange County Fire
Authority provides fire and emergency services to the City of Seal Beach which includes
the project and adjacent areas.
Fire Station No.48 located at 3131 Beverly Manor Road in Seal Beach is adjacent to the
project area. In addition to mandatory access to and from Beverly Manor Road to Seal
Beach Blvd,we will require unobstructed access north and south on Seal Beach Blvd i 6a
n
order to provide emergency response capability. As noted in your Mitigation Measure
4.15a, a Traffic Management Plan will be essential to ensure that construction does not
interfere with emergency response capability.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. I can be reached at 714-
744-0484.
Sincerely,
Nanc Fo an
Advance Planning
pc: Chief Hunter,Division 1
Battalion 1 Chiefs
Serving the Cities of Buena Park • �esa • Dana Point • Irvine • Laguna Hills • Laguna Niguel • Laguna Woods •Lake Forest • La
Palma • Los Alamitos •Mission Viejo • Placenta • San Clemente • San Juan Capistrano • Seal Beach • Stanton • Tustin • Villa Park •
Westminster • Yorba Linda and Unincorporated Areas of Orange Courtly
RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS AND SMOKE DETECTORS SAVE LIVES
•
Comments and Responses
Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing IS/MND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment No. 7
The Gas Company (8/7/99)
Mr. Robert S. Waith, Technical Supervisor
7a. Comment noted, no response necessary.
•
•
Rr
•
October 11, 1999 23 R2C.WPD
Mit Agion
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
August 7, 1999
• AUG 1 1 1999
DEPARTMENT OF
City of Seal Beach DEVELOPMENT' SERVICES
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740-6379 Swam Unseal
l++Gamey
•
Attention: Lee WhittenbergMailing Add„esr
Soz 31.14
Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration No.99-01 92803-3334
This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed
project but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern
California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is
proposed. Gas facilities within the service area of the project could be altered or
abandoned as necessary without any significant impact on the environment.
• 7a
Information regarding construction particulars and any costs associated with initiating
service may be obtained by contacting the Planning Associate for your area at (714)
634-3041.
Sincerely,
Ao44(
Robert S. Warth
Technical Supervisor
bcr
encl.
eircomm2.doc •
1
•
Comments and Responses
Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 Overcrossing IS/MND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment No. 8
California Department of Transportation (9/9/99)
Mr. Robert F. Joseph, Chief Advanced Planning.Branch
8a. No longitudinal impacts to existing concrete drainage channels would occur with implementation
of the proposed project. However,minor lengthening of underground facilities will be required
in order to accommodate the roadway widening. This would not result in an increase in the
existing drainage capacity beyond current conditions.
8b. An encroachment permit will be obtained for any work within Caltrans right-of-way.
8c. Page 28 of Negative Declaration 99-1 will be revised to reflect the following:
'The Newport-Inglewood fault extends from the southern edge of the Santa Monica
Mountains southeastward to an area offshore of Newport Beach. This zone, commonly
referred to as the Newport-Inglewood uplift zone or zone of deformation, can be traced at
the surface by following a line of.geomorphically young anticlinal hills and mesas.. These
hills and mesas include the Baldwin Hills, Dominguez Hills, Signal Hill, Huntington Beach
Mesa and Newport Mesa. Recent earthquake focal mechanisms for 39 small earthquakes
(1977 to 1985)show faulting along the north segment(north of Domin.quez Hills)and along
the south segment(south of Dominguez Hills to Newport Beach). The 1933 Long Beach
earthquake has been attributed to movement on the Newport-Inglewood fault zone. Based
on historic earthquakes, the fault zone is considered active. The Newport-Inglewood fault
zone is considered capable of generating a maximum credible earthquake or a magnitude
7.0".
"The proposed project.would be designed pursuant to State and local seismic criteria
relative to interchange improvements. Therefore,impacts resulting from seismic activity on
the Newport-Inglewood faut is considered to be less than significant".
8d. The requested lead investigation will be performed prior to grading or as directed by the
District during PS&E.
8e. Comment noted.
8f. Negative Declaration 99-1 was prepared based on the Draft PSR/PR which is currently being
revised to reflect three (3) northbound through travel lanes north of the northbound 1-405
northbound intersection. This does not effect the significance of findings contained within
Negative Declaration 99-1 as the actual `footprint"or impact area of the project is less.
8g. OCTA is currently preparing a Project Report(PR)and EIS for improvements to SR-22 including
proposed direct HOV lanes on 1-405. This proposed concept will require that 1-405 be widened
to accommodate an additional HOV lane in each direction of travel and provide standard left and
right shoulder widths. The construction of those future improvements will require reconstruction
of the Seal Beach Boulevard Overcrossing. During the preparation of the current PSR/PR,OCTA
has been involving in the Project Development Team Meetings for the I-405/Seal Beach
Boulevard Interchange,at which the issue of compatibility was discussed. Since the SR-22
Project is unapproved and OCTA has determined that the direct HOV connector ramps are very
long range improvements(10 to 20 years in the future),they support the I-405/Seal Beach
Boulevard Interchange improvements as recommended in the PSR/PR and recognize that,if
required,the future reconstruction of the proposed six lane Seal Beach Boulevard Overcrossing
will be a cost that will be borne by the SR-22 Project.
October 11, 1999 25 R2C.WPD
iwwiliwbrtirwi-guD uvercrossing I5/MND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
• 8h. • Comment noted.
81. Comment noted.
October 11, 1999 26
R2C.WPD
s k,UmmjN-1- NU. 8
ETATE 0r CAJFOANIA—gINESS AND TRA.NSRORTATrON AGENCY •
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GRAY DAVIS Governor
z' ISTRICT 12
1347 MICHELSON DANE SUITE too ,.—..
IRVINE.CA 22812-0661
OM1
RECEIVED
FAX and SEND
SEP 1 3 1999
ROBERT BEIM, WM FROST
September 9. 1999
Lee Whittenberg, Planning Director
City of Seal Beach IGRJCE�A
211 Eighth Street SCH# None
Seal Beach, CA 90740-6379 ND 99-1
Log# 576
Dear Mr. Whittenberg:
Subject; Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 Overcrossing— Negative Declaration eclaration 99-1
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on Neat'
for the Seal Beach Boulevard!!-405 Overcrossing9 Ne Declaration 99.1
. The prop
is for widening and associated interchange improvementseat the San D eosed o F project
(1-405) and Seal Beach Boulevard interchange. Project limits are locatedreeeen
•Old Ranch Parkway to the south and Beverly Manor Drive to the north a between
Beach Boulevard in the City of Seal Beach. ong Seal
Caltrans District 12 is a responsible agency and has the following comments:
• The impact of the project on the off-site drainage systems. particular!
existing concrete channels has not been addressed. yon the I 8a
• A Caltrans Encroachment Permit will be required.
I 8b
• The seismic data does not sufficiently address or resolve threat from
the
Inglewood•Newport Fault potential. Comments from the California Seismic
Safety Commission regarding this are needed. Their phonenumber8
263-5506 or(916) 327-1857. 8 C
Is916)
(916)
-1 of 2-
SEP-09-1999 16:13 714 724 2592
96'1 P.02
r
• Per the Initial Site Assessment (ISA) part of the document, the project will re uir
lead sampling and testing (ISA/15,2 Recommendations). q e
8d
• Negative Declaration 99-1 for the Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Overcros
project appears to comply with Caltrans Right-of-Way needs and requirements.ng I 8 e
This project was previously reviewed by Traffic Operations - comments are
marked in red on the (City of Seal Beach) plans. The lanes are not consistent
(See Plan Layout-2), The directional arrows are not consistent (See Plan 8f
Layout-2 and cross-sections—Section E-E).
• • The impacts on the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
PR/ED project to widen SR-22 at this project's location should be dis cussed. 8gI
8g
• Caltrans District 12 Design is working in an oversight role with City of Seal Beach
on the design and construction of this project. Design will provide all comments 8h
directly to the City as part of the oversight process.
• Caltrans District 12 is working with the City of Seal Beach to develop thisro'fect
within State Right-of-Way as part of the State's oversight of the City's project. 8i
Please continue to keep us informed of projects that maypotentially p entially impact our State
Transportation Facilities, If
you have any questions or comments, please contact
Lynne Gear at (949) 724-2241.
Sincerely,
•1/4t/tir
421(2-ei --
Robert F. Jose h. Chief
Advance Planning Branch
cc: Torn Loftus, OPR
Ron Helgeson, HDQTRS Planning
Roger Kao, Hydrology
Eduardo Amezcua, Traffic Operations
Adnan Maiah, Project Management
Roger Nielson, Environmental Engineering
Matt Cugini, Design
-2 of 2-
SEP-09-1999 16:13 714 724 2592
c1Ri 0 ai
Comments and Responses
Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 Overcrossing IS/MND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
APPENDIX A - NOI MAILING LIST
•
October 11, 1999 R2C.WPD
, City of Long Beach SoCal Gas Company City of Huntington Beach
Planning Department 555 West Fifth Street Planning Department
333 W. Ocean Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90013-1011 2000 Main Street
Long Beach,CA 90802 . Huntingdon Beach,CA 92648
CCi..,,mia Coastal Commission City of Garden Grove CALTRANS-District 12
South Coast District Office Planning Department Robert Joseph
245 W.Broadway,Suite 380 11222 Acacia Parkway 2501 Pullman
Long Beach,CA 90802-1450 Garden Grove,CA 92840 Santa Ana,CA 92705
City of Westminster SCAQMD County of Orange
Planning Department 21865 E.Copley Drive EMA-Planning
8200 Westminster Boulevard Diamond Bar,CA 91765 300 North Flower
Westminster,CA 92683 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048
SCAG Development Services Southern California Edison
818 W.Seventh Street, 12th Floor City of Los Alamitos Jerry Dominguez
Los Angeles,CA 90017-3495 3191 Katella Avenue 7333 Bolsa Avenue
Los Alamitos, CA 90720 Westminster,CA 92683
Los Alamitos Unified School District OCEMA-Environmental & Project Ping. Commanding Officer
10652 Reagan 300 North Flower Naval Weapons Station
Los Alamitos,CA 90720 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 800 Seal Beach Boulevard
Seal Beach,CA 90740
> Orange County Fire Department County Clerk, Orange County
OL_.AA-Transportation Planning - 180 South Water Street 700 Civic Center Drive West, Room
300 North Flower Orange, CA 92666 100
Santa Ma,CA 92702-4048 Santa Ana, CA 92701
Rossmoor Community Services District State Clearinghouse
3232 Hedwig Road Office of Planning & Research
Rossmoor,CA 90720 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento,CA 95814
Paul & Susan Opperman Peter Buntman David Clabaugh
3432 Yellowtail Drive 3422 Yellowtail 3412 Yellowtail Drive
Seal Beach, CA 90740 Seal Beach, CA 90740 Seal Beach, CA 90740
Mary Allen Shirley Wolff Scot Nichols
3402 Yellowtail Drive 3392 Yellowtail Drive 3372 Yellowtail Drive
Seal Beach, CA 90740 Seal Beach, CA 90740 Seal Beach, CA 90740
Trust Mihalik Donald Christensen La Delle Clark
3352 Yellowtail Drive 3342 Yellowtail Drive . 3351 Yellowtail Drive
Seal Beach, CA 90740 Seal Beach, CA 90740 Seal Beach, CA 90740
Thomas & Yolanda Potts Donald Orewyler Harriet Devers
3371 Yellowtail Drive 3391 Yellowtail Drive 3411 Yellowtail Drive
Seal Beach, CA 90740 Seal Beach, CA 90740 Seal Beach, CA 90740
Ronald Singer Charles Cook Janice Miller
3312 Yellowtail Drive 3322 Yellowtail Drive 3332 Yellowtail Drive
Seal Beach, CA 90740 Seal Beach, CA 90740 Seal Beach, CA 90740
Bixby Office Park Associates ' Bixby Office Park Associates Bixby Ranch Co.
3010 Old Ranch Parkway 3001 Old Ranch Parkway 12800 Seal Beach Boulevard l
seal Beach, CA 90740 Seal Beach, CA 90740 Seal Beach, CA 90740
3ixby Ranch Co. Occupant Occupant
12800 Seal Beach Boulevard 1860 St. John Road 1920 McKinney Way
>eal Beach, CA 90740 Seal Beach, CA 90740 Seal Beach, CA 90740
3everly Enterprises B & P Custom Building Products Inc.
1000 Seal Beach Boulevard 13001 Seal Beach Boulevard
;eat Beach, CA 90740 Seal Beach, CA 90740
Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1 -
Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 Overcrossing Widening Project
• City Council Staff Report
October 25, 1999
ATTACHIVIENT 9
NEGATIVE DECLARATION 99-1, SEAL BEACH
BOULEVARD/I-405 OVERCROSSING WIDENING
PROJECT (NOTE: PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED TO
EQCB ON AUGUST 25, 1999. PLEASE BRING
PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED COPY TO MEETING)
Consideration by City Council.Staff Report 2 0
Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1-
Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 Overcrossing Widening Project
City Council Staff Report
October 25, 1999
ATTACHMENT 10
"CEQA DESKBOOK- A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE ON
HOW TO COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT", SOLANO
PRESS BOOKS, 1999 EDITION, PAGES 45-52
DISCUSSING "PREPARATION OF NEGATIVE
DECLARATIONS, INCLUDING MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS"
Consideration by City Council.Staff Report 21
r
';. .E•..r .••„ } ..-r'a•r•'",; -T'" ▪•t f-1•Z-`!• ;.- • �.- 4:....--". --::.Y,.,- l: ;2•„ty-5 ..71•:-'- z_•.
'�•r �+�r.✓tp;.._•f.,.�-•--- r%tf :''�y� ..�:�•+Yt.: '+�1 �, , t� rN. .,; y:.. u :y �y.T ..>s.
Z•1.'...�yt�• _`.� �. •�y...]Y�•'• r�,sN�+l' ►'a • W�...T� 1� .N. _�`• • {▪� 13.1
'�f- Y.iba'S •fir �•:t'1:• "�•c•tal-.v.- ,,.: V•1'••• • • s • ,y�,�. "2-••;. ,t •'rc;t•▪+}iaa "�•'
-•:,, 1+.� i.'+-a`_ :".r;!�M••• /w.r - •"'r-`••A.* ,i• h • � ryA.1 4 .,meq .° ., -• •.
:I., '� >v{F .t te r._ * rr(; ••-•`'•• r ytr- '.may -•A' h'1*.•t. uw•.''', -
fA 0 tT•� ^ • .^ -,s4-k.i •_ It ...,......„.__,-,...,,,,..,-:•-•• �'.. •
.i �a r^. :r ,'y -'. � '�'r�'L r ~ r � ••Q.�.`'Y�e�Yl: _- •
•:. cr�`(d 4'Ft'4••,� :. .�•,;7;,..L ,T., Yom-.. ».rte,. %e.� :,•
s� • • • !.• „eta:'..1 .. _ _ _ +'rL`►�c�gr,�r",�$n .� ,y` +r !-r
' •
: • •
M _ y.Dèkb . 1k ;.
F.' es .iss z .�rte! •��, +�=
. -..- D e
„:„..,.:...,_.,.......: :
. :
„ ,...„,„..-„,..,,,:::, : . __ ‘,..
C •+ i `r�., ae ;.c.: i'., - .., t•-M?ri::; `e_ . - fir v
y4cs,� �e,Z r • - ':15. C��.t��'• v�J�iik`'r' .ti::. 4� Y:y i:r:�
d'....'ir•'.fty-tir'7-}',.�l�i�• -_ •.--... . • ! tlI.,7?�S`-p�.ar.�444•7�1xV1.*!.„.._:•‘”
{y-r ' .`• .... 'v
.' •••-•'•••,,,i,,- L.•.:a''-_ i- _ , ! - r �,'....f.;=.d"• ►+{•' �.r la3-a"'+ .`L $.� j�°�•-r.7p` :.
•:,‘.........11.-•, ^_;lC �!4.., ti't:'s: -4ti' - ~ - _ _ ,.• r' tis.. N *+f.%•:t`.. ..r�',-,
L: 0.4..•'••••••••••••.e;...-..` %6.: . .t , gies• '• n -•mow ., .�-n• •• T ;74': .Q at Ai- `�-"_ �sTltii-.--r„'",.
•
fJ. , tf'2 -.'i', .•,�. ,,��- � _ Oso” r'
•
•• a J �y .17 +M'iYa. ire• _ ,�.ter. • ':4'..-414-7...f. • ,..•F'�n, _ • _.
rte`• a e irfr.,►? r• - r1C • /.•;ti ? 4; ,�'• • . ,;z _•.,i�- -.vA
•
s�. f� • • Sw .+,, _ s•� i s 121,, i'^ ,. j•v Y3r', � •"'t `*-.. -.J4•• 4 j
6- A.----),.• "16• -• � tiL-- ^�'q. A~+tea :••••-.•,..1..7:,;.!•• :44..tJl.L.,. tC•'••4_,:':h.A .4 --„.;,4 4 --4` 4-' ..t ,,,G _ - '•
_•'•i:':. \• t 1'�- F.-1• .o-_ y...,.s.•t, °701s1rt•';s '''' '')'4'..r:7• :-W-jt f•� '''?-4.,.
- x • y� .• v.m.o. `
;;r, y.T.. • -> .:'L� `'.� r `"'`uL1�4-i4 ' .•»•a b.. ....7",-......i+.>e�C▪:sel •,°••• -.7..-;....,- ,-7'..1'-',..
° r' '7%.1•73-.4..":•4.--,i...
.+:.--s..'.e'l"..".;•!-Ki �s-s
_ •;y ...`�.tois'i'�.v.a .:"!'R SI",r' _ 'j .....�:,.-.: _ 1.•:7; Ti,4%.':•=t'-.."':• •
.':•=,.a: �•:P---,� z."±... :�'_'`rr [f".NtZli'•,• '
J:y�-.`S`'�i:i�1!�'��"•-6M"� �- j} �� 'h<.r •
.•ti......c .... \.. w�i'I.SS[' _ -- 1�: - •rj••
'�t Tom^ t� . • 'I •.-4144.wtcy+-•i.-. •i• . • •,. E_. r' ?
.;r.4 _F ..."-..i••."•4.4". ....to - . - ep sae :. �:� ,i,_-- . d - �7 �y�rte : ;,�r'14 _.
;:f.:-. 4.•_1_,_,s•'�w/p .Sr'1tx`�a,' •
r •. P • t �•�5.. ytiF.,,.w,�r•, ,fls.:►.3,�,,`, r4L �`i-' :. I--J �_71'7i.,.;i'l�
;f- �• '*`L'• 'S. - - - _,y ses. "\�. .i*. ' '".j,�'j,-,-Lam'^' _--,ysfaS�`�
•
•a S. .-•- v-ti^ . .„. ■{(�■ a •.a.;: "Y -----11-444.4--.
;s ' ri..arc ae• ...1..t.'..--;tt _ OVV.*. t,~' r�J 1t.■ , ..1..-'
+ �'> a`•'q /._ --• .•'
• ,,,Ya. s+•�,.. /_ t t: .•.y .1.n•�' ..t •., .r.ay i•.� �:Y;wr.
•t•Y�4�•:'4+�+.Ip.-��4���1 _ •�• _ _v ,�1'..! _ ��'iZir.`r..,;?..!^ �Y�._•"r�,�yrf•��';�'L:a >,�•.
2 .. .. :
detailed discussion of setting the baseline or `environmental setting" for
( significance determinations can be found in chapter 5. i�'v J • :v .i:i er;• ,-
Historical and Archaeological Resources.CEQA provides special rules for ••,?..„: ,; f s - .�
�r );:t.
'.
determining whether historical and archaeological resources are poten-
4•,4 ,,,, :
Bally significant.As stated above,the Guidelines specify that a substantial r -ot= .
adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a significant -pls I.
A 1.
effect requiring preparation of an ER. The demolition, destruction,reloca- • -s•'. '� •`f` •. '111;1•1
q � � 8P P ., ;. ,. • �
tion,or alteration of an historical resource would be considered a substan- `' '.' ••-•,.r
dal adverse change and therefore, a significant effect. Guidelines sec. i T.y :k i;f 1'l rl �E :•
15064.5.These rules arc described in greater detail in chapter 5 under the 1. I 0"..:•:::.,24.-Mi. :�`
Contents of an ER. • -..)---7.- 4 _�:'
4.4:.1: y.i . Z' 4"-N .
Phase Three: Preparation of Negative Declarations, _ :. .-: :-.:. .'?":4-1-
�1�T°s_`JT��. �-
•
Including Mitigated Negative Declarations ..' •:•,-3.3....41 11' =' –S .
r� y4
Kx ly7.• �iT
Unless otherwise noted,all discussions regarding Negative Declarations in .i. ' 4 ' =
the following section also apply to Mitigated Negative Declarations;see also • . ti-
OPR's CEQA advice memoranda, `Mitigated Negative Declarations”(Appen- CEQA has special detailed procedures for deter-
mining the 8).Chapters 3,4, and 5 include discussion of the third phase of CEQA ologcal ahnd historic nresources impactsce of to archae-
as it pertains to preparation of an EIR if the project may have a significant
environmental effect.
' During the preparation of the Initial Study, the Lead Agency must
make a determination whether it can be fairly argued based on substantial
evidence in light of the whole record that a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. If the Lead Agency concludes that there is no
substantial evidence that a project may cause a significant effect,a Negative
Declaration should be prepared.Guidelines sec. 15063.
Contents of a Negative Declaration
A Negative Declaration is a written statement,briefly explaining why a pro-
posed project will not have a significant environmental effect. It must
include a brief description of the project and location,identification of the Required Contentsof a
project proponent, and a proposed finding of no significant effect. The Negative Declaration
Negative Declaration is also required to include a copy of the Initial Study • °Iect description •
justifying the finding. For Mitigated Negative Declarations,the Negative • Project
location
Declaration must describe the mitigation measures included in the project • Identification of project proponent
description to avoid potentially significant •effects. Guidelines sec. 15371; Proposed finding of tgnficudt effect
Pub.Res.Code sec.21092.6(a). AttachedefnIi
of theInitial Study justi-
fying
ust~
Eying the finding
Although the requirements for preparing a Negative Declaration are • For Mitigated Negative Declarations,
quite limited,in practice,a Lead Agency may want to incorporate many of mitigation measures included in the
the rules governing the preparation and content of EIRs. For example, protect descriptionto
avoid significant
- while a Negative Declaration need not evaluate alternatives,in many cases effects
alternatives are included to support the administrative record.Therefore, ,
persons preparing Negative Declarations should familiarize themselves with
the required procedural requirements(see chapter 4)and contents of EIRs
V,." (see chapter 5)and include relevant information in a Negative Declaration
when necessary to improve the planning and decision-making process.
Chapter 2 Preliminary Review,Exemptions,Negative Declarations 45
- 7—, ---: ---.._ �ti.:,,a• cs:.. .a-r,-z,—....-
Figure 2-9
Negative Declaration Start 0 Contract for Negative Declaration preparation executed
Process (45 days from decision to prepare Negative Declaration)
• Mitigation measures identified and agreed to by project proponent
• Draft Negative Declaration prepared
0 Public notice and review(20-30 days)
• Responses to Negative Declaration received
• Comments considered
O Negative Declaration completed(180 days from acceptance)
• Commenting agencies notified of date of hearing on project
♦ Negative Declaration adopted(180 days from acceptance)
0 Mitigation reporting and monitoring program adopted
- 0 Lead Agency makes determination on project
(2 months from Negative Declaration adoption)
O Notice of Determination filed(5 days from project approiral)
O Notice of Determination posted(24 hours from tiling)
• 0 Responsible Agency makes decision on project
Finish
Legend •CEQA process actions
0 CEQA process actions with time constraint
Preparation and Review of a Negative Declaration
- The preparation and review of a Negative Declaratidn(including the Initial
Study)involves a process similar to, but more abbreviated than, the EIR
process.See Figure 2-9. If a Negative Declaration for non-public projects is
to be prepared under contract, the contract must be executed within 45
days from the Lead Agency's determination that a Negative Declaration is
required. The Lead Agency may take longer to execute the contract if
The Negative Declaration for nonpublic compelling circumstances exist and the project applicant consents.The
projects must be completed and approved Negative Declaration for non-public projects must be completed and
within 180 days from determination that approved within 180 days from determination that the application was
the application was complete.
complete.Pub.Res.Code sec. 21151.5(c);Guidelines sec. 15107.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
As authorized by the Guidelines,Mitigated Negative Declarations have been
used by numerous agencies for many years. However, it was not until the
Legislature approved the 1993 CEQA amendments that specific legislation
authorized the use of Mitigated Negative Declarations.
In practice, the Mitigated Negative Declaration is more of a process
than a document.After preparing an Initial Study and identifying a project's
potentially significant environmental impacts,a Lead Agency may avoid pre-
paring an EIR if it develops mitigation measures to clearly avoid or mitigate
significant impacts and those measures are agreed to by the project propo-
V nent prior to public review of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Initial Study.This relatively straightforward concept sometimes leads to
extended negotiations between the Lead Agency, the project proponent,
46 CEQA Deskbaok
other concerned agencies,and even concerned individuals or organizations.
Such negotiations are often informal and,with the concurrence of a project
applicant,may prolong the formal Negative Declaration review process for
months. However,the goals of CEQA are often better achieved through
such negotiations,making the extra time worthwhile.
The flexibility permitted by the Mitigated Negative Declaration has
been praised by its supporters and criticized by its detractors.People favor-
ing its use cite as the main advantage the guarantee of mitigation.Unlike the Unlike the use of an ER,svbtcb allows un-
use of an ER,which allows unavoidable significant impacts to ultimately be avoidable siguffloont bnpaas to ultimately
overridden by decision makers,the use of a Mitigated Negative Declaration be ow of by on makers, use
is onlypermissible if all potentiallysignificantoef a Mitigated Negative Disctaration is only
impacts are definitely miti- penntastble if all potentially significant
gated.Therefore,many people feel that the Mitigated Negative Declaration rmpaasarrdefnitely,nitdgated
is a far more effective tool than an RR to ensure environmental protection.
Although it is now officially authorized in CEQA, critics of the Miti-
gated Negative Declaration cite three main problems.First is the sometimes
'behind-the-scenes"negotiation process that leads to development of a miti-
gation agreement.Although the agreed-to mitigation is ultimately subjected
to public review,some people feel that meaningful participation by the pub-
lic is eliminated when an ER is not prepared.A second criticism is that alter-
natives need not be evaluated in a Mitigated Negative Declaration.Critics
therefore feel that agencies sometimes jump directly to mitigating a project's
impacts rather than cpnsidering how to avoid those impacts by adopting
alternatives to the project.Finally,some people feel that the Mitigated Nega-
-, tive Declaration relegates the full E it process to little more than a threat for
a project applicant not-agreeing to mitigation measures,a use which was
clearly not intended by the Legislature when it enacted CEQA.Despite the
pros and cons,the unique procedures permitted by the Mitigated Negative
•
Declaration have become a commonly used method of CEQA compliance.
Public Review
The notice of intent to adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration must specify the review period,identify any public meetings or
bearings on the project,briefly describe the project,and state where the RequiredContentsof a Notice
proposed Negative Declaration and all reference documents are available for of Intent to Adopt a Negative
review.Pub.Res.Code sec.21092(bX1).A copy of the notice of intent and Declaration a Mitigatedin
the proposed Negative Declaration must be mailed to responsible and Negative Declaration
trustee agencies and agencies with jurisdiction by law and to all parties pre- Bnefn�0n°fproject
and location
•
viously requesting notice. Guidelines secs. 15073, 15072. The notice of Starting and ending dates for public
review
intent must be posted in the county clerk's office for 20 days.Pub. Res. • pan,time,and place of any scheduled
Code sec. 21092.3.The clerk must post the notice within 24 hours of public meetings or hearings
receipt.Pub.Res.Code sec.21092.3.In.addition,where a state agency is a •Address where copies of the Negative
responsible agency or a trustee agency's involvement is required,or where Declaration or Mitigated Negative Dec-
the project is of statewide,regional,or areawide importance,the proposed oration are available for review
Negative Declaration is required to be sent to the State Clearinghouse. •Whether any listed toxic sites are
The minimum public review period for a proposed Negative Declara- •
presentf • Other information required by statute
tion or Mitigated Negative Declaration is 20 days.When the document is or regulation for a particular type of
sent to the State Clearinghouse for review,the public review period must be Project
30 days unless a shorter period(not less than 20 days)is approved by the SCH ,-
Chapter 2 Preliminary Review.Exemptions.Negative Declarations 47
(see chapter 4 for discussion of where SCH distribution procedures apply).
Pub. Res. Code sec. 21091(b). For a Mitigated Negative Declaration,project
modifications must be identified before circulation of the proposed Negative
•
•
Declaration.Pub.Res.Code sec.21064.5;Guidelines sec. 15070(bX1).
Recirculation of a Negative Declaration
If a Negative Declaration must be substantially revised after public review
and before adoption,the Lead Agency is required to recirculate the proposed
Negative Declaration for an additional public review period.A Negative
Declaration is considered to be"substantially revised"if:
• A new,avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation mea-
sures or project revisions must be added to reduce the effect to a less
than significant level or
• The Lead Agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or
project revisions will not reduce potential significant effects and new
measures or revisions must be required
Recirculation is not required under the following circumstances:
• Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective mea-
sures(see page 49)
• New project revisions are added in response to comments on the proj-
ect's effects identified in the proposed Negative Declaration which are
• •
not new avoidable significant effects
• Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation
•
of the proposed Negative Declaration which are not required by CEQA,
which do not create new significant environmental effects,and are not
necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect
• New information is added to the Negative Declaration which merely
clarifies,amplifies,or makes insignificant modifications to the Negative
Declaration
Guidelines secs. 15073.5(a),(b),(c).
Switching from a Negative Declaration to an EIR
If during the Negative Declaration process If during the Negative Declaration process there is substantial evidence,in
there is substantial evidence that the prof- light of the whole record,that theroject as revised ma have a s'
«t Wray have a significant effect on the P ' Y tgnlfiCant
effect on the environment which cannot be mitigated or avoided, the Lad
environment u�bkb cannot be mitigated
or avoided, the Lead Agency must pre. Agency must prepare a draft EIR and certify a Final EIR prior to project
pare a draft LIR and certify a Final EIR approval. When it circulates the EIR for consultation and public review,
prior to project approvaL the Lead Agency must advise reviewers In writing that a proposed Nega-
tive Declaration had previously been circulated for the project. Guidelines
sec. 15073.5(d).
Consideration of Comments on the Proposed Negative Declaration
and Consideration of Adoption of the Negative Declaration
• The Lead Agency must consider the Negative Declaration, together with
any comments received,before approving the project. Pub.Res. Code sec.
21091(1);Guidelines sec. 15074.The Lead Agency has no affirmative duty to
prepare formal responses to comments on the proposed Negative Declaration
48 CEPA Deskhook
but should have adequate information on the record explaining why the
comment does not affect the conclusion that there are no potential signifi-
cant environmental effects.The Lead Agency is required,however,to notify
in writing any commenting agencies of the date of the public hearing on
the project for which a Negative Declaration is prepared.Pub. Res. Code
sec.21092.5(b);Guidelines sec. 15073.
Substitution of Mitigation Measures
Before approving the project for which a Mitigated Negative Declaration
was prepared,the Lead Agency is permitted to substitute equivalent miti-
gation measures without having to recirculate the Mitigated Negative Substitution
Declaration.The Lead Measuresirtion In a Mitigated
of Mitigation
Agency,however,must hold a hearing on the matter Negative Declaration
and find that the new mitigation measures are at least as effective as the
original ones in mitigating significant environmental impacts and do not A
Lead Agency may substitute one
themselves cause any potentially significant effects.A Lead Agency may also Themitign wn mea:u a for another iF.
•
use this process,and avoid new environmental review,if a court or adminis- •The new measure is equivalent
or more effective
trative body sets aside a condition of project approval.Pub.Res.Code secs. •Agency considers the matter
21080(1),(g);Guidelines sec. 15074.1. at a public meeting
The ability to substitute one mitigation measure for another provides •Agency adopts a written finding that
agencies with considerable flexibility in the project approval process. - New measure is equivalent
However,this provision is also subject to potential abuse if an agency or more effective
substitutes weaker measures that have not been reviewed by the public. - New measure will not
is legallycause a significant effect
Therefore,to ensure that substitution of mitigation
adequate and
justified,the Lead Agency must not only hold the required hearing but
also carefully explain,on the record,why the original mitigation measure is
not feasible and why the newly proposed mitigation is `equivalent.'This
explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. MDD Notice of Determination
Mitigation Monitoring
When approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Lead Agency must
also adopt a monitoring or reporting program for those mitigation mea-
sures included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration or made a condition of
project approval to mitigate or avoid significant
Required for ts of an NOD on
environmental effects.Pub. a Project Which a Negative
Res.Code sec. 21081.6; Guidelines sec. 15074(d).See chapter 5 for a full
discussion of mitigation monitoring and reporting. Declaration latide
Declaration Has Been or MitigatedNegative
Approved
Notice of Determination • Project name
•A Notice of Determination(NOD)for approval of a project based on a Nega- • Project descriptioncatiom
• Project rotation
tive Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration must be filed with OPR • Date of project approval
(for state Lead Agencies or where state Responsible Agencies are involved) • Determination that the project will not
and the county deck(for local Lead Agencies)within five working days after have any significant effects on the envi-
approval of a project for which a Negative Declaration has been prepared. r0nne"t
The Department of Fish and Game filing fee(see page 51)must accompany •Statement that a Negative Declaration
the NOD.The Notice of Determination must be posted by the county clerk eMitigated
d p legative Declaration has
within 24 hours of receipt. Pub. Res. Code sec. 21092.3; Guidelines sec. •Address where the document may be
{ 15075.The Notice of Determination for a Negative Declaration must identify reviewed
and describe the project,indicate the date of project approval, and state
Chapter 2 Preliminary Review,Exemptions,Negative Declarations 49
that the project will have no significant environmental effect and that a Neg-
ative Declaration has been prepared. In addition to the customary noticing
and posting requirements, agencies are encouraged to make copies of all
•
Notices of Determination available in electronic format on the Internet.
• Guidelines sec. 15075(1).
Subsequent Negative Declarations
Generally,only one Negative Declaration is adopted for a project.Once a proj-
' A Subsequent Negative ect has been approved,the Lead Agency's role in ft is completed unless further
Declaration Is Required When: discretionary approval on that project is required.Information appearing after
an approval usually does not require reopening that approval.However,if the
•Substantial changes are proposed for
Lead Agency does have to exercise further discretionary approvals and if new
the project that will involve new,sig-
nificant environmental effects or sub- information arises,then further environmental review may be necessary.
stantially increase the severity of pre- An agency must prepare a subsequent Negative Declaration or Mitigated
viousy identified effects Negative Declaration for a project if it determines,on the basis of substantial
•Substantial changes occur with respect evidence in light of the whole record,that one or more of the following has
to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken that involve new occurred(and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record
significant environmental effects or that the project may have a significant effect on the environment):
substantially increase the severity of • Substantial changes are proposed for the project that will require
previously identified ones major revision of a previous Negative Declaration due to the involve-
• New information of substantial impor-
ment of new,significant gnificant environmental effects or a substantial increase
-The project will have oris or more in the severity of previously identified effects.
significant effects not discussed in • Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under
the previous Negative Declaration which the project is undertaken,requiring major revision to a previous
- Significant effects previously exam- Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant envi-
• fined will be substantially more se- ronmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
vere than shown in the previous Neg- identified ones.
ative Declaration
- Mitigation measures or alternatives • New information of substantial importance that was not known or
previously found not to be feasible could not have been known without the exercise of reasonable dili-
would in fact be feasible and would gence at the time the previous Negative Declaration was adopted
substantially reduce one or more shows any of the following:
significant effects of the project,but — Thero ect will have one or more significant
the project proponents decline to p j effects not discussed
adopt them in the previous Negative Declaration.
- Mitigation measure or alternatives - Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more
that are considerably different from severe than shown in the previous Negative Declaration.
those analyzed in the previous doe- - Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasi-
ument would substantially reduce ble would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or
one or more significant effects,but
the project proponents decline to more significant effects of the project,but the project proponents
adopt them decline to adopt them.
•There is no substantial evidence in - Mitigation measure or alternatives that are considerably different
light of the whole record that a project, from those analyzed in the previous document would substantially
or a project with mitigation agreed to reduce one or more significant effects,but the project proponents
by the project proponent,may have a decline to adopt them.
significant effect on the environment
Guidelines sec. 15162(a).
If the project was approved prior to the occurrence of conditions that
trigger preparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration,the subsequent
document must be prepared by the public agency that grants the next dis-
cretionary approval for the project.Guidelines sec. 16162(c). If no further
50 CEPA Deskbook
discretionary authorities arc nec-
essary for the project to move •
• forward,no supplemental docu- Payment of Environmental Review Fees to
ment is required. California Department of Fish and Came
A subsequent Negative The California Fish and Game Code was amended in the late 1980s to
Declaration is subject to the
require payment of environmental review fees to the California Department
same notice and public review of Fish and Game for all Negative Declarations and EIRs prepared pursuant
requirements as the original doe to CEQA.The requirement was that,at the time the Notice of Determination
tunent and must state whether is filed, the Lead Agency or the private applicant pay a fee of$1,250 for
the previous document is avail- Negative Declarations and $850 for EIRs to the county cleric(or to the Gov-
able for review.Guidelines sec. error's Office of Planning and Research in the case of a state Lead Agency)
15162(d). The fee was then transmitted to DFG to fund its environmental review staff.
Addendum t0 a A project approval was not considered final until the fee was paid.California
Negative Declaration Fish and Game Code sec.711.4.
Payment of this fee was not contingent on the amount of DFG review
An agency may prepare an ad- time,if any,or on the underlying project's potential environmental effects
dendum to an adopted Negative on fish and wildlife resources.The fee for Negative Declaration reviews
Declaration if only minor tech- was higher than the fee for'review'of an EIR because DFG stated that it
nical changes or additions are spent more time reviewing a Negative Declaration and negotiating with the
necessary or if none of the con- Lead Agency
ditions triggering a subsequent From the outset,the requirement for these review fees was controver-
Negative Declaration are pres- sial. Private applicants disliked the requirement because of the added costs
ent.An addendum need not be to prepare a Negative Declaration or EIR and being required to pay a"tax-
circulated for public review but without a definable relationship to actual DFG review.Public agencies other
can be included in or attached than DFG disliked the requirement because of their added administrative
to the adopted Negative Declare- burden to collect and distribute the fees and because many other agencies'
tion.The decision-making body time was not covered by similar fees.
shall consider the addendum In June 1995,the Sacramento Superior Court held that the DFG environ-
with the adopted Negative Dec mental review fees were unconstitutional. In response, DFG agreed to
lavation before making a de- refund the fees to the challengers and stop collecting any'future review fees.
vision on the project. A brief DFG also agreed to submit to the Legislature a proposal to unconditionally
explanation supported by sub- repeal the particular California Fish and Game Code section requiring the
review fees. In response to the court holding, DFG directed that any par-
stantial evidence justifying the ties seeking refunds of previously paid fees may submit requests to the
decision not to prepare a subse- State Board of Control.It should be noted that some counties collect an
quent Negative Declaration or administrative fee of$25 associated with collection of the DFG review fee.
EIR should be included in the Reimbursement of this fee was not addressed in the DFG settlement.
addendum or elsewhere in the • The DFG environmental review fee issue is still not resolved,however.
record.Guidelines sec. 15164. The California Association of Professional Scientists,representing DFG staff,
succeeded in a suit challenging DFG's agreement to stop collection of the
Judicial Review of review fees.The court agreed that DFG had no legal authority to refuse to
Negative Declarations enforce the California Fish and Game Code without appropriate statutory
An EIR,rather than a Negative authority.However,the court acknowledged that,absent a Court of Appeals
Declaration,must be prepared ruling or action by the Legislature,DFG cannot stop complying with a statute.
collecting
Although DFG began again environmental review fees,the monies
if it can be 'fairly argued on
the basis of substantial evidence are being retained in a trust account because the state expects an appellate
in light of the whole record" court or legislation to require refunding the fees.
that the project may have a
Chapter 2 Preliminary Review,Exemptions.Negative Declarations 51
•
significant environmental effect,even though the agency has other substan-
tial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect.Pub.Res.
'Substantial evidence-for an impact sig- Code secs.21080(d),21082.2(d);Guidelines sec 15064(g)(1). 'Substantial evi- )
niffcance determination means enougb dense'means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from
rekvant information and nasonabk fn-
lemma from that information to make a that information to make a fair argument to support a conclusion,even
though other conclusions might also be reached. Pub. Res. Code sea.
fair argument to support a conclusion,
teen tbougb other conclusions migbt also 21080(e),21082.2(c);Guidelines sec. 15384(a).
be rracled Thus, in reviewing an agency decision to rely on a Negative Declara-
tion,the court will review the entire record to determine whether any sub-
stantial evidence was presented to the Lead Agency that a significant impact
could occur.Substantial evidence must include facts,fact-based reasonable
assumptions,and expert opinion. It does not include speculation or clearly
inaccurate evidence.Pub.Res.Code secs.21080(e),21082.2(e).
•
•
•
52 CEQA Deskbook
Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1-
Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing Widening Project
City Council St ff Report
October 25, 1999
ATTACHMENT 11
COMMENT LETTER FROM CALTRANS,
DISTRICT 12, RE: FINAL RESPONSES TO
COMMENTS REGARDING NEGATIVE
DECLARATION NO. 99-1, LETTER DATED
OCTOBER 12, 1999
Consideration by City Council.Staff Report 22
•
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GRAY DAVIS,Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 12 +""+:•
3347 MICHELSON DRIVE,SUITE 100
IRVINE,CA 92612-0661 =`rig
WIEV
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
October 12, 1999
•
Bruce Grove, Jr., REA OCT 15 1999
Robert Bein, William Frost&Associates J
14725 Alton Parkway
nr
:',,r; ��C'E5
PO Box 57057 —_-
Irvine, CA 92819-7057
Dear Mr. Grove:
Subject: Final Responses to Comments
Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
99-1
This letter is written in reply to the Responses To Comments letter dated September 24, 1999. We
would like to comment on Comment No. 8: 8g regarding coordination with OCTA on improvements to
SR-22 including proposed direct HOV lanes on 1-405.
Our concern is that coordination with OCTA begin now. Although this is a long-range improvement
(10–20 years), it is already in the design process and your input could be very valuable in this phase
of design. In response to our original comment, it is stated that these future-improvements will require
reconstruction of the Seal Beach Boulevard overcossing and that costs will be borne by the.SR-22
Project. Caltrans does not agree with this strategy and believes that coordination should begin now to
avoid additional costs and traffic disruptions in the future.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Please continue to keep us
informed of projects that may impact our State Transportation Facilities. If you have any questions or
need assistance, please contact Lynne Gear at(949)724-2241.
Sincerely,
. 1/(i
Robert F. •s:p., Chief p-'4
Advance Planning Branch
cc: Lee Whittenberg, City of Seal Beach
Ron Helgeson, HDQTRS Planning
Terry Roberts, OPR •
Eduardo Amezcua, Traffic Operations