HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem N August 23, 1999
STAFF REPORT
To: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Attention: Keith R. Till, City Manager
From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
Subject: RECONSIDERATION OF BIXBY OLD RANCH
TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN -
REVISIONS TO EIR: Revisions of Final EIR and
Certification of Final EIR and Adoption of Statement of
Overriding Considerations
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Applicant: Bixby Ranch Company
Owner: Bixby Ranch Company
Location: Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course and Tennis Club Properties
Request: Certification of Revised Final EIR and adoption of Findings of
Statement of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Concept Plan proposes a
mixed-use development consisting of a variety of
commercial/retail, hotel, restaurant, senior care, recreation,
residential, and institutional land uses.
Requested Action: Certification of Final EIR, as revised, and Adoption of Statement
of Overriding Considerations: After review and consideration of
the Revisions to the Final EIR, it is recommended the City Council
certify the Revised Final EIR and adopt the Statement of
Overriding Considerations. City Council action should be through
AGENDA ITEM
C:\My Documents\Bixby Towne Center EIR\CC Reconsideration-Revised EIR Staff Report.doc\LW\08-19-99
t
Revisions to EIR—Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Project
City Council Staff Report
August 23, 1999
the adoption of a Resolution, which staff has prepared for the
consideration of the City Council. (See Attachment 1)
DISCUSSION:
The proposed mixed-use project consists of commercial, residential, recreational,
institutional, and open space uses as previously approved by the City Council in
November 1998, and as described in the Revised EIR under consideration as part of
this public hearing. The EIR approval was challenged by several parties and the City
has been instructed by the Court to set aside, vacate, and void Resolution No. 4660
approved on November 23, 1998, certifying the Final EIR for the project. (Refer to
Revisions to Environmental Impact Report, Appendix B, Peremptory Writ of Mandate,
Case No. 803636, dated August 3, 1999)
Prior to approving an action or project for the site, the court required the City to prepare
additional environmental documentation that complies with CEQA. Prior to utilizing the
EIR as the environmental documentation for an action or project, the Court required the
City to revise the EIR to address the following specific deficiencies identified by the
Court in its June 18, 1999 Order Granting Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate:
o project description;
o impacts associated with the increased size of the project;
o school impacts;
o traffic impacts and mitigation measures;
o cumulative traffic impacts;
o cumulative aesthetic impacts; and
o any other environmental issues or impacts that may be affected thereby.
The City engaged the services of environmental consultants Culbertson, Adams and
Associates, independent traffic engineers Linscott, Law & Greenspan and OMB
Electrical Engineers, Inc. to perform additional environmental review. The following
discussion of the issues identified by the judge summarizes their studies:
1. Project Description
ISSUE: Subsequent to the City Council certification of the EIR, the City approved
a site plan for a 299,000 square foot commercial center, plus a 27,000+
square foot outdoor garden center. Petitioners argued that the project
description was therefore inadequate.
Staff is requesting that the City Council approve a site plan a 286,967 square feet of gross
leasable area inclusive of any outdoor ancillary uses (e.g., an outdoor garden center). If
the Council approves the site plan, no changes are needed to the Project Description. The
Project Description is identical to that set forth and analyzed in the EIR, as modified and
CC Reconsideration-Revised EIR Staff Report 2
f t
Revisions to EIR—Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Project
City Council StaffReport
August 23, 1999
analyzed in the additional memoranda, dated November 17 and November 23, 1998,
from Linscott, Law & Greenspan and Culbertson, Adams & Associates, with the
following clarifications:
1. The shopping center development in Development Area A consists of a maximum
of 286,967 square feet of gross leasable area inclusive of any outdoor ancillary
uses (e.g., an outdoor garden center).
2. Development Area A consists of 26.045 acres instead of 25 acres, as indicated in
the EIR. This change results from shifting the commercial center to the east to
accommodate additional eucalyptus windrow preservation -- essentially the
creation of an approximately 40-foot parkway.
Both clarifications have been analyzed by the EIR consultant and the independent traffic
engineer. It is the opinion of the EIR Consultant that the project description in the
original Draft EIR adequately describes the project as that project is proposed tonight
(Revisions to EIR, p. 4). As shown below, the traffic engineer concludes that no
additional traffic is generated by such clarifications. Thus, there is no need to change the
project description.
2. Impacts Associated with Increased Size of the Project
ISSUE: Subsequent to the City Council certification of the EIR, the City approved
a site plan for a 299,000 square foot commercial center, plus a 27,000+
square foot outdoor garden center. Petitioners argued that the project
description was therefore inadequate. In the Court's comments on July 2,
the Court stated that if the City approved the commercial center at the
same size (286,967) he would not require recirculation as to the
commercial project.
If the City Council approves the proposed site plan 286,967 square feet of gross leasable
area inclusive of any outdoor ancillary uses (e.g., an outdoor garden center) and adopts
the revised Land Use Element and the Housing Element Resolutions, the project size will
not be increased. The commercial center is proposed at 286,967 square feet, exactly the
size proposed in the EIR. All structural square footage is included in the calculation.
The character of the Center is the same as reported in the Final EIR, and the layout is
typical for a center of this type (see Appendix D). A review of other details comparing
the two plans reveals that there are the same number of access points, approximately 64
more parking stalls, no reduction in the required parkways, and only a slight
reconfiguration of the footprints of buildings to "right-size" the Center at 286,967 square
feet. The net acreage indicated on the plan is 25.29 acres (as opposed to gross acreage of
26.045 acres) which closely corresponds to the approximately 25 acres previously
described in the EIR.
CC Reconsideration-Revised EIR Staff Report 3
Revisions to EIR—Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Project
City Council StaffReport
August 23, 1999
In order to allow for the increased parkway, and to insure that no commercial uses were
located south of the intersection of St. Cloud, the entire center was shifted slightly, and
enlarged by 1.045 acres. These changes were provided in response to public concerns as
encouraged by CEQA. Since the building square footage of the Center did not change
with this increase in land area to accommodate the creation of a parkway for tree
protection, there was no increase in intensity at all.
Nonetheless, the City engaged the services of an independent traffic engineer to
determine whether the increase in the land area creates increased impacts. In addition,
the traffic engineer was asked to review the new plan for the Center, in its reduced form,
to determine if any new issues were present. See Appendix E to Revisions to EIR. As
explained in Appendix E, the Center will produce exactly as much traffic as was
predicted in the EIR, regardless of its acreage size. However, the total traffic predicted in
the Draft EIR for the entire project does change. Traffic impacts are actually reduced
over what was anticipated in the Draft OR. In conclusion, the Center as currently
proposed and revised produces no new significant impacts, and the project overall has
reduced traffic generation due to the reduction in dwelling units.
3. School Impacts
ISSUE The Court required an assessment of potential school impacts from the
development of 75 single-family dwelling units in Development Area D.
The Los Alamitos Unified District has issued a review of the potential impacts of the 75
unit residential project. The District's response dated August 3, 1999 is found in
Revisions to EIR, Appendix G.
The District predicts 67 students total to be generated from the project. The District
indicated that the students could be dispersed throughout the grades in various District
schools. The District found no impact to schools. A review of the table attached to the
August 3, 1999 letter from the District amply demonstrates why this is the case - there
is capacity in the schools at all levels sufficient to accommodate the project. The
addition of students to a school district is also not a significant impact requiring
mitigation under CEQA where, as here, the increase in students does not necessitate a
physically impacting activity, such as the construction of new classrooms. (See Goleta
Union School District v. Regents (1995) 37 Cal App.4th 1025, 1032-33.) Although the
recent information provided by the District expands on the information contained within
the Final EIR, no new significant environmental effects are raised nor is any additional
mitigation warranted. The City has required full payment of statutory school impact
fees for all development, including residential and non-residential pursuant to
Government Code §65995, et seq. No additional mitigation is warranted or permitted
under Government Code §65995, et seq.
CC Reconsideration-Revised EIR Staff Report 4
g
Revisions to EIR—Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Project
City Council StaffReport
August 23, 1999
Thus, there will be no impacts to schools as a result of the 75 dwelling unit project.
Existing Mitigation Measure K-7 requires payment of the statutory school impact fee
for both residential and non-residential components of the proposed project. As
confirmed by the District, no new significant environmental impacts are triggered by
the development of 75 single-family dwelling units and no new or revised mitigation
measures are warranted.
4. Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures
ISSUE In the Court's June 18, 1999 order, the Court found, as to the City's
findings in certifying the Final ETR:
"The finding that the impacts in the Los Alamitos intersections were
significant and unavoidable because Los Alamitos is unwilling to impose
mitigation measures is not supported by substantial evidence in the
record." (June 18 Order, p. 7, 11. 9-11)
Accordingly, the Court ruled:
"The writ is granted as to inadequate consultation and participation with
the City of Los Alamitos regarding mitigation measures with respect to the
Los Alamitos/Katella and Bloomfield/Katella intersections." (June 18
Order, p. 7, 11. 22-24)
To comply with the Court's order and writ, city staff arranged two sessions of
consultation with Los Alamitos to allow Los Alamitos the opportunity to participate in
discussions regarding the feasibility of mitigation measures with respect to the Los
Alamitos/Katella and Bloomfield/Katella intersections. A summary of the two meetings
held on July 14, 1999 and August 11, 1999 is attached as Appendix H to the Revisions to
EIR.
Los Alamitos provided certain documents to Seal Beach concerning those two
intersections, including a portion of a "Background Technical Report" concerning Traffic
Impact Analysis for the Circulation Element of its 2010 General Plan, dated February,
1998 (attached as Appendix Ito the Revisions to EIR). According to the Los Alamitos
representatives, the Circulation Element, including this report, was adopted by the City
Council on August 9, 1999. The discussion in pages 6- 12 of the Revisions to EIR is thus
based upon the most recent information provided by the City of Los Alamitos.
A. Katella/Bloomfield Intersection
Based upon the independent traffic consultant's report(attached as Technical Appendix E
to the Final EIR)the Final EIR found that the project will not add significant traffic to the
Katella/Bloomfield intersection and thus will not create any significant impacts. See, e.g.
V-88, Final EIR ("... as well as those two intersections impacted only by background
CC Reconsideration-Revised EIR Staff Report 5
•
Revisions to EIR—Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Project
City Council Staff Report
August 23, 1999
traffic growth(i.e., Bloomfield Street at Katella Avenue...)"). Accordingly, the Final EIR
does not require any mitigation at this intersection. See, Section F-1, V-111, Final EIR
(the project applicant to pay its fair share for traffic improvements at six intersections, but
not Bloomfield/Katella). In the recent consultations with the City of Los Alamitos, Los
Alamitos representatives confirmed that Los Alamitos does not want any contribution or
mitigation from either the project applicant or Seal Beach as to the Katella/Bloomfield
intersection.
Any language in the Final EIR that may be construed as suggesting that no mitigation
measures were imposed as to this intersection because they were not feasible or practical
has been amplified or clarified in the Revisions to EIR. The City likewise made
unnecessary findings with respect to the Bloomfield/Katella intersection. In the proposed
Resolution, the City's findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations have been
clarified.
B. Los Alamitos/Katella Intersection
1. Traffic Improvements Needed to Mitigate Impacts Arising From the Project
The Final EIR found that the project will add significant traffic to the Los
Alamitos/Katella intersection and thus existing Mitigation Measure F-1 requires the
project applicant to pay its fair share for the following traffic improvements:
❑ Add 2nd southbound left-turn lane;
❑ and 3rd northbound through lane on Los Alamitos Boulevard
Table 28, V-109, Final EIR. See, Section F-1, V-111, Final EIR(The project applicant to
pay its fair share for traffic improvements at six intersections, including Los
Alamitos/Katella).
In the recent consultations with the City of Los Alamitos, Los Alamitos representatives
confirmed that Los Alamitos wants the project applicant to pay its fair share for the above
traffic improvements. Los Alamitos also provided a "Background Technical Report"
concerning Traffic Impact Analysis for the Circulation Element of its 2010 General Plan,
dated February, 1998. Los Alamitos officials represented that the 2010 General Plan was
formally adopted on August 9, 1999. The Report(Appendix Ito Revisions to EIR) takes
into consideration cumulative traffic from the subject project, including 350,658 square
feet of commercial space on a 23 acre commercial site (See, Table C, p.5-58, Los
Alamitos Circulation Element, Appendix I). The Table C forecast of 350,658 square feet
of commercial space for the project exceeds the 286, 967 square feet in the final,
approved project by 63,691 square feet.
Page 5-59 of the Los Alamitos Circulation Element states:
CC Reconsideration-Revised EIR Staff Report 6
Revisions to EIR—Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Project
City Council Staff Report
August 23, 1999
"The Katella/Los Alamitos intersection will add a second southbound left
turn lane and a third northbound through lane in addition to signalized
right-turn overlaps for the exclusive right turn lanes."
Thus, Los Alamitos' Circulation Element identifies the identical improvements required
by existing Mitigation Measure F-1 in the EIR.
Apparently, Los Alamitos was not clear that Seal Beach had actually required the
applicant to pay its fair share for the 2nd southbound left-turn lane and 3rd northbound
through lane, stemming from the City's finding that certain mitigation measures were not
feasible or practical. In the consultations, Seal Beach representatives emphasized that
such mitigation has been imposed and that any finding or statement to the contrary in the
Final EIR, resolution adopting the Final EIR, or Statement of Overriding Considerations
would be revised. Accordingly, both cities agree that adding a 2nd southbound left-turn
lane and a 3rd northbound through lane on Los Alamitos Boulevard is both feasible and
practical.
Language in the Final EIR that may be construed as suggesting that no mitigation
measures were imposed, as opposed to additional mitigation beyond those identified in
the Final EIR, as to this intersection has been amplified or clarified in the Revisions to
EIR. For example, Section 6, V-112 states:
"Cumulative (year 2020) traffic impacts which involve regional growth in
traffic with or without the proposed project, can also be mitigated to an
insignificant level with the exception of two roadway intersections, Los
Alamitos Boulevard at Katella Avenue and Bloomfield Street at Katella
Avenue, which cannot be feasibly mitigated. These significant impacts
are due to regional growth and are not project related. These significant
unavoidable transportation/circulation impacts require the adoption of a
Statement of Overriding Considerations by the Lead Agency if the
proposed project is approved." (Emphasis supplied).
Such statement has been amplified in the Revisions to EIR to clarify that the traffic
impacts attributed to the project can be mitigated, have been required, and are feasible
and practical.
In a similar vein, the City made unnecessary findings with respect to the feasibility of
certain mitigation measures at the Los Alamitos/Katella intersection. In the proposed
Resolution, staff has clarified its findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
2. Additional, Non Project Related Traffic Improvements at Los
Alamitos/Katella
CC Reconsideration-Revised EIR Staff Report 7
Revisions to EIR—Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Project
City Council StaffReport
August 23, 1999
During the consultations, additional improvements were discussed. However, the
recently adopted Los Alamitos' Circulation Element states, consistent with the mitigation
required for the project:
"The Los Alamitos/Katella, ... intersections are planned to be improved
with the approved Katella Smart Street Project. The Katella/Los Alamitos
intersection will add a second southbound left turn lane and a third
northbound through lane in addition to signalized right-turn overlaps for
the exclusive right turn lanes. The addition of reconstruction and reuse
and cumulative traffic volumes the intersection is expected to operate at an
ICU/LOS of 0.86/D. Further mitigation does not appear to be practical."
(2010 General Plan, Circulation Element, page 5-66.)
"With the addition of ambient traffic growth, two intersections are
expected to operate at poor levels of service. The Los Alamitos/Katella
and Bloomfield Avenue/Katella intersections are expected to operate at
LOS E or F. Improvements at these intersections will be made as a part of
the Smart Street project and no further improvements are feasible. The
Los Alamitos/Katella intersection is forecast to operate at a poor level of
service (ICU/LOS = 0.92/E) during the PM peak hour period by the Year
2010. Additional improvement beyond that provided by the Los
Alamitos/Katella Smart Street Project does not appear to be practical."
(Id.)
"The Los Alamitos/Katella intersection is forecast to operate at level of
service (ICU/LOS = 0.92/E) during the PM peak hour period by the Year
2010. Additional improvement beyond that provided by the Los
Alamitos/Katella Smart Street Project does not appear to be practical."
(Emphasis supplied). (Id., at 5-65.)
Thus, according to Los Alamitos' General Plan, any other improvements beyond a
second southbound left turn lane and a third northbound through lane (and signal
features) are not feasible or practical. The above language from the General Plan is not
only consistent with language in the Final EIR, but virtually identical. As stated in the
Final EIR(at page V-88):
"The proposed project can be expected to pay a fair share of the
improvement costs identified for the six locations significantly impacted
by the proposed project traffic (see Mitigation Measure F-2). Any further
mitigation beyond that which has been identified for the intersection of
Los Alamitos Boulevard and Katella Avenue does not appear to be
practical or feasible due to right-of-way constraints and physical
restraints." (Emphasis supplied).
CC Reconsideration-Revised EIR Staff Report 8
.
Revisions to EIR—Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Project
City Council StaffReport
Report
August 23, 1999
The Consultants have concluded that the need for any additional improvements will not
be created by the Bixby project but rather ambient traffic. This is likewise consistent
with the conclusion expressed in the Los Alamitos General Plan: "With the addition of
ambient traffic growth, two intersections [Los Alamitos/Katella and Bloomfield/Katella]
intersections are expected to operate at poor levels of service." (Page 5-66, emphasis
supplied). In addition, the independent traffic engineer has determined that traffic that
would be generated by the Bixby project would not create the need for bus turnouts or
wider east-west lanes on Katella. The traffic engineer further notes that increasing the
width of lanes, as opposed to increasing the number of lanes, does not alleviate traffic
congestion. (See Appendix J.)
Based upon the independent traffic engineer's supplemental report (Appendix J),
consultation with Los Alamitos, and upon the Los Alamitos General Plan, the traffic
generated by the project does not create a need for any of the additional improvements
discussed at the consultations with nor any condemnation other than the possible sliver at
the southeast corner. In any event, the mitigation measure for the project requires the
applicant to pay its fair share for the second southbound left turn lane and a third
northbound through lane. The applicant will pay its fair share for whatever is required
for those two improvements.
5. Cumulative Traffic Impacts
ISSUE The EIR states that the Bixby Project may indirectly result in "recycling"
of the Rossmoor Center. The fiscal impact analyst stated that "spillage"
from visitors to the Bixby site could help existing Rossmoor businesses.
The Court ordered the City "to determine if anticipated revitalization of
the Rossmoor Center is a speculative or reasonably foreseeable impact,
and if the latter, whether it is significant and must be addressed in the
FEIR. The Court distinguished between "revitalization" and the
"expansion" of the Rossmoor Business Center: "The F jilt does not
address whether revitalization alone, instead of expansion, is a
reasonable foreseeable or speculative impact" -- Court's order, page 8,
Lines 19-21.
As a threshold issue, the term "revitalization" is not mentioned in the Draft EIR or in the
Fiscal Impact Analysis and was first introduced by Petitioners in their May 26, 1998
letter commenting on the draft EIR.
The EIR states:
"However, since the Bixby Old Ranch site is surrounded by developed
lands, the proposed project will not set any precedents for future growth or
development in these areas. The Bixby Towne Center may also indirectly
result in the `recycling' of the existing Rossmoor Center sooner than
might otherwise occur due to its age and obsolescence. Because of the
CC Reconsideration-Revised EIR Staff Report 9
Revisions to EIR—Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Project
City Council Staff Report
August 23, 1999
age of certain developments (i.e. Rossmoor Center), a normal pattern to
expect would be a redevelopment of those areas, with or without this
project. (Final EIR VIII-2; emphasis supplied.)
As noted in the underscored passages, the Final EIR states that the Project will not result
in future growth or development on the Rossmoor Business Center site. Any "recycling"
would occur with or without the project.
In the fiscal impact analysis, the fiscal analyst provides the conclusion that seven (less
than 14 percent) of the existing Rossmoor stores may be impacted by certain proposed
uses on the Project site. Importantly, it emphasizes that "spillage" from visitors to the
Bixby site also visiting the Rossmoor site could help existing Rossmoor businesses. The
analysis states:
"In contrast, the development of the Project site would benefit the
Rossmoor Center by attracting more people to the newer retail center,
which would result in a high percentage of `spillage' or visitation to the
Rossmoor Center for other goods and services." (page 12, Emphasis
supplied)
Nonetheless, the Court ordered the City "to determine if anticipated revitalization of
the Rossmoor Center is a speculative or reasonably foreseeable impact, and if the latter,
whether it is significant and must be addressed in the FEIR." (Court's Order, page 8,
Lines 22-24) The City commissioned the EIR consultant and independent traffic
engineer to determine whether revitalization of the Rossmoor Center is a speculative or
reasonably foreseeable impact, and if the latter, whether it is significant and must be
addressed in the FEIR. As shown in the discussion on pages 12-15 of the Revisions to
EIR, they conclude that any impacts arising from revitalization occurring as a result of
the Bixby Project are not significant and thus do not need to be addressed in the k Eilt.
Although the revitalization of the Rossmoor Business Center is possible, no immediate
plans to revitalize have been disclosed by the property owner, and therefore revitalization
does not appear to be foreseeable in the near future. However, the expanded analysis
demonstrates that even if Rossmoor Business Center were to revitalize, no more severe
environmental impacts related to the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center would be realized
nor are any changed or additional mitigation measures warranted.
Thus, regardless of whether the Center is revitalized or not, revitalization would not
create significant environmental impacts that have not already been analyzed in the
Final EIR. Accordingly, there are no additional impacts that need to be addressed in
the FEIR.
6. Aesthetic Impacts
CC Reconsideration-Revised EIR Staff Report 10
Revisions to EIR—Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Project
City Council Staff Report
August 23, 1999
ISSUE The Court ordered a further evaluation of the potential cumulative
aesthetic impacts due to increased lighting from conversion of a golf
course area and open space into commercial center with night time
lighting.
Appendix M provides an independent review prepared by OMB Electrical Engineers,
Inc. which further describes the existing and projected lighting environment conditions
and evaluates the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures addressing lighting
impacts. The engineers reviewed the EIR aesthetic impacts analysis and mitigation
measures, performed a field inspection, and relied upon standard programming and
design concepts typical for projects of this type.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures M-11 (use of energy-efficient halide lighting
technology) and M-12 (provision of cutoff/shielding optical control) will effectively
remove cumulative lighting impacts. Integration of lighting fixture selection and layout
and installation of the carefully-positioned proposed landscaped buffer zones
(Mitigation Measures M-9 and M-7) will further limit lighting impact to sensitive light
receptors. Prior to issuance of building permits, City review of the proposed lighting
systems, detailed photometric calculations, and manufacturer's data is required by
Mitigation Measure M-10 to assure the required standards are met. Submittal of
lighting calculations and equipment data complement the requirements for Mitigation
Measure M-1 (submittal of complete project plans), thereby confirming to the City of
Seal Beach that the proposed specific lighting technologies have been coordinated also
with site grading and landscaping improvements to effectively reduce adverse lighting
impacts. Lighting impacts are further mitigated by the retention of existing eucalyptus
trees along Seal Beach Boulevard.
Based upon a detailed review of lighting effects, the independent lighting consultant has
concluded that implementation of the lighting-related mitigation measures will
effectively remove light pollution, light trespass and glare effects, will eliminate the
potential adverse aesthetic impacts attributable to the lighting proposed for the project,
and will result in cumulative lighting impacts for the project which fall below a level of
significance. (See Appendix M.) The proposed mitigation measures to reduce light
and glare are considered not only effective, but in excess of the lighting and glare
mitigation of surrounding areas. Therefore, project-related lighting impacts in this area
are not considered individually or cumulatively significant. (See Revisions to EIR,
pages 15-17).
7. Any Other Environmental Issues or Impacts that May be Affected by the
Above Issues
In compliance with the Court's order, additional focused analysis was preformed to
address the identified specific issues relating to project description, impacts associated
CC Reconsideration-Revised EIR Staff Report 1 1
Revisions to EIR—Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Project
City Council Staff Report
August 23, 1999
with the increased size of the project, traffic impacts and mitigation measures, school
impacts, cumulative traffic impacts, cumulative aesthetic impacts and any other
environmental issues or impacts that may be affected thereby. Pursuant to §211092.1
and §15088.5, the supplemental analysis concludes that there is no evidence of any new
significant information requiring recirculation of the EIR. The Revisions to EIR and
attachments thereto have provided more detailed analysis in specific issue areas and
support the conclusions and mitigation measures contained in the FEM. The expanded
analysis has not revealed:
❑ any new significant environmental impacts which would result from the project,
o any new mitigation measures required to be implemented,
o any new feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different
from others previously analyzed which would clearly lessen the significant
environmental impacts of the project, but the project proponent's decline to
adopt it; nor
o any substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact which would
result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of
insignificance.
As no new significant impacts have been identified and no new or revised mitigation
measures are required, the EIR has not been changed in a way that deprives the public
of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental
effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a
feasible project alternative). The supplemental analysis merely clarifies or amplifies or
makes insignificant modifications the EIR. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is
required.
The adequacy of the Final EIR has been litigated and the Court has issued a Writ
indicating only five discrete areas of concern.
In preparing the Revisions to EIR document, Staff, the City Attorney's office and the
City-retained consultant team carefully reviewed the Writ of the Court. Those areas of
concern set forth above have been responded to in full in the Revised Final EIR. As to
each issue, the analysis clarifies, amplifies or makes insignificant modifications to an
otherwise adequate EIR. The document does not include "significant new information"
as set forth in CEQA Guideline § 15088.5(a), and therefore does not require recirculation.
Staff believes that the Final EIR, as revised, meets the standard for legal adequacy under
CEQA, as described above, and in accordance with the Writ of the Court.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The FEW indicates that there are five significant environmental effects of the project
which cannot be eliminated or substantially mitigated and are "unavoidable." Thus, the
City Council adopted a "statement of overriding considerations pursuant to CEQA
CC Reconsideration-Revised EIR Staff Report 12
Revisions to EIR—Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Project
City Council Staff Report
August 23, 1999
Guidelines § 15093. When a public agency approves a project that will significantly
affect the environment, CEQA imposes a burden on the public agency to show that it has
considered the impacts and to explain its decision allowing those changes to occur.
[Citizens for Quality Growth v. Mount Shasta, 198 Cal.App.3d 433 (1988)]. CEQA does
not prohibit public agencies from approving projects that will produce significant
environmental effects. Instead, CEQA requires that decision-makers balance the benefits
of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether
to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable
adverse environmental effects, such impacts may be considered "acceptable" under
CEQA. [CEQA Guidelines § 15093(a)]. In that situation, CEQA requires that the
agency first adopt a written statement of overriding considerations to explain its decision.
[CEQA Guidelines § 15093(b)]. As stated above, the City has previously adopted a
statement of overriding considerations for this project. The additional analysis contained
in the Revisions to EIR has not changed the five significant, unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts. In other words, there will be no greater or no lesser unavoidable
significant impacts. The statement regarding the unavoidable impact on cumulative
traffic by the year 2020 has been amplified to indicate that the deterioration in level of
service at the intersections of Bloomfield and Katella and Los Alamitos and Katella is the
result of the increase in regional, ambient traffic and is not caused by the project.
According to the Los Alamitos General Plan: "With the addition of ambient traffic
growth, [those] two intersections are expected to operate at poor levels of service." As to
the intersection of Bloomfield and Katella, "Additional improvements beyond those
associated with the Smart Street Project are not acceptable mitigation measures because
of extensive additional property acquisition and building demolitions attendant to this
option." (See, Los Alamitos Circulation Element, Appendix I, p. 5-65) Likewise, as to
the intersection of Los Alamitos and Katella, "Additional improvement beyond that
provided by the Los/Alamitos/Katella Smart Street Project does not appear to be
practical." (Id.) Accordingly, staff recommends that the Council re-adopt the Statement
of Overriding Considerations, with the corresponding amplification.
RECOMMENDATION
After review and consideration of the Revisions to EIR document, it is recommended the
City Council adopt the attached Resolution, which staff has prepared for the
consideration of the City Council (Refer to Attachment 1).
NOTED AND APPROVED
/
- Whittenberg, r irector Keith R. Till
r epartment of Development Services City Manager
CC Reconsideration-Revised EIR Staff Report 13
Revisions to EIR—Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Project
City Council StaffReport
August 23, 1999
Attachments: (2)
Attachment 1: Resolution Number , A Resolution Of The City
Council Of The City Of Seal Beach Certifying The Revised
Final Environmental Impact Report For The Bixby Old
Ranch Towne Center Development Plan; Adopting The
Mitigation Monitoring Program; Adopting The Findings
And Facts In Support Of Findings As Required By The
California Environmental Quality Act; And Adopting A
Statement Of Overriding Considerations
Attachment 2: "Revisions to EIR — Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center",
prepared by Culbertson, Adams & Associates, Inc., dated
August 1999 (Previously provided to City Council, not
provided with this Staff Report. Please bring your original
EIR documents also for reference)
CC Reconsideration-Revised EIR Staff Report 14
Revisions to EIR—Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Project
City Council StaffReport
August 23, 1999
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution Number , A Resolution Of The
City Council Of The City Of Seal Beach
Certifying The Revised Final Environmental
Impact Report For The Bixby Old Ranch
Towne Center Development Plan; Adopting
The Mitigation Monitoring Program; Adopting
The Findings And Facts In Support Of Findings
As Required By The California Environmental
Quality Act; And Adopting A Statement Of
Overriding Considerations
CC Reconsideration-Revised EIR Staff Report 15