Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental - Corespondence regarding Bixby Final EIR Revisions Public Hearing ,? Rossmoor yBusiness CenterF(2,e>gi 6/ c• 1 121 Seal Beach Boulevard (562) 430-0211 Seal Beach, California 90740 Fax (562) 799-0449 J. Brian Gibbons Vice President August 23, 1999 City Councilmembers City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California 90740-6379 RE: BIXBY FINAL EIR REVISIONS-PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 23, 1999 Dear City Councilmembers: I am unable to appear tonight due to a conflicting mediation settlement meeting being held on the east coast, today. However, Chris Caldwell, as my representative, is submitting my objections, as set forth herein and as he deems appropriate. I object to the EIR's mischaracterization of Rossmoor Business Center's previously stated intentions to respond to the impact imposed upon it due to the proposed Bixby ORTC Project, and, for side stepping the fact that there will be an additional 100,000 SF plus of net building area which generates traffic in the forseeable future as a result thereof. Call it "recycling" , "revitalizing" , "expansion", or "redevelopment", whatever, but don't split hairs and avoid the issue and hide behind the legal veil of consultants' carefully crafted and intentionally misleading opinions to suit their predisposed goals. Contrary to the erroneous assertion made by the EIR consultant, Rossmoor Business Center will revitalize by expanding existing uses in lieu of its complete redevelopment alternatives, and you will be negligent if you do not consider the added traffic impacts in connection therewith, and which are not accounted for in the EIR. The traffic is going to be there, so why are you hiding it from the community by this technical semantic dance? The attached Scheme A plan which is summarized in the EIR Appendix "K" shows the revitalization plan proposed to begin next year in order to compensate for the competitive impacts to our merchants as a result of the ORTC. This plan is needed to give new life to the center, and requires only plan check and building permit approvals, and does not require the city's discretionary approval. The three Pads to be added are the only new structures, and all modernization work to increase existing building areas can be achieved within existing entitlements. This revitalization work would not be required if the Bixby land was not rezoned for the commercial uses. City Councilmembers City of Seal Beach August 23, 1999 Page two The Scheme B and C plans attached are the complete redevelopment plans which I initiated up to the time that the non-competing mixed use residential project was abandoned by Bixby and the city in place of the ORTC commercial plan. Redevelopment instead of revitalization would have been pursued if the ORTC Project was not approved. The problems I have had in completing any plans is that the city has failed for two years to date to provide me with its plan regarding the Seal Beach Boulevard median redesign, which will affect our traffic ingress/egress and circulation within and around Rossmoor Business Center. It is convenient for the city planners to say that I have not submitted my plans to them, but the information I require is being withheld by the city engineer in order to favor the Bixby ORTC and has a material bearing on the direction I take. I, again, refute the undocumented opinions that the April 18, 1999, Rosenow, Spevacek Group, Inc. (RSG) report asserts regarding the financial impact on the Rossmoor Business Center merchants. I am in a better position than RSG to assess the potential for the ORTC to dilute sales by our retailers, and the swapping of consumer dollars by the addition of similar competing uses across the street has not been accounted for, but, rather conveniently brushed off as a project benefit. If the ORTC did not include competing land uses, I would not pursue the revitalization plans otherwise necessary to mitigate the financial losses resulting therefrom. While the Rossmoor Business Center is currently a financially viable project, the impact of the ORTC will cause it to revitalize existing uses or suffer a loss of revenues. Last, the traffic counts performed at Rossmoor Business Center are suspect as I pointed out in my August 11, 1999, letter to the traffic consultants, a copy of which is attached hereto as a reference. Not all ingress/egress points were covered, and the cut-through traffic on the city streets was not separated from the center owned property. The studies were done on the "low peak" demand weekdays (which is even attested to by the RSG report) as opposed to a reasonable sample which includes weekend traffic. The net effect of this is to provide innacurate analysis which you are relying on. City Councilmembers August 23, 1999 Page three CEQA does not require the Bixby land to be rezoned and thereby impose an undue traffic burden on the nearby communities. You, the council, beyond the . objections of the public majority as well as your hand picked planning commissioners, have decided to do so. The Rossmoor Business Center already has the vested rights to meet its allowable density. The simple truth is that if you do not technically maneuver your findings to exclude the increased traffic impact by Rossmoor Business Center in the forseeable future, the ORTC may not meet even the marginal approval of your own constituents who must, also, bear the burden of the community who must live with a gross miscalculation otherwise entrusted to you for proper assessment. Sincerely, rian Gibbons, Vice President JBG/bg • Rossmoor Business Center a Tradename of Century National Properties,Inc: • ?or 12121 Seat Beach Boulevard (562) 430-0211_ Seal Beach, California 90740 - Fax (562) 799-0449 J. Brian Gibbons Vice President August 11, 1999 • Mr. Richard E. Barretto, P.E., Senior Transportation Engineer LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122 Costa Mesa, California 92626 RE: LICENSE AGREEMENT TRAFFIC COUNTS OF 1'Hi ROSSMOOR BUSINESS CENTER SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Barretto: • In connection with your after-the-fact request to enter our property for the purposes of performing the traffic counts for your client, I am in receipt of your letter dated August 10, 1999, including the Certificate of Insurance I requested. I hereby issue an unassignable license in accordance with, and subject to, the representations contained in your letter for the time period requested. If your work is for the purpose of collecting traffic volume data at Rossmoor Business Center, it would seem to me that your traffic monitors would want to include counts at all access points and during the weekdays which generate a greater volume(Thursday- Sunday), as opposed to only some locations and only the days you've chosen. The cut-through traffic on the City owned Rossmoor Center Way between Montecito Road and Seal Beach Boulevard, including the Rossmoor Center Drive alley connection to Bradbury Road, may not be indicative of shopping center related traffic, which counts could skew the unrelated shopping center visitor volume if not properly accounted for. I noted that no counters are recording traffic ingress/egress points from the Rossmoor Center Drive alley to shopping center property, and only one access point from Rossmoor Center Way to the shopping center is being counted. Neither the Chevron and Unocal stations, which are a part of the center (Site Plan attached) and from which vehicles enter and exit the center, are being counted. Last, the main palm tree lined entry to Seal Beach Boulevard in front of the Wells Fargo Bank building has no counter. '�� •mom -wasiame "�►'� _ Mr. Richard E. Barretto, P.E., Senior Transportation Engineer August 11, 1999 Page Two If an accurate and representative sample is to be counted, I will extend this license for an additional week on the same terms and conditions so that you may perform additional counts. Please advise. Sincerely, 4/ /1111.111111111r rian Gibbons Vice President JBG:mm Enclosures cc: Mr. Christopher G. Caldwell, Esq. LAW OFFICES CALDWELL, LESLIE, NEWCOMBE 8 PETTIT CHRISTOPHER G. CALDWELL APROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ROBYN C. CROWTHER 606 SOUTH OLIVE STREET. SUITE 500 SHERRYL LEE MICHAELSON DAVID P. KOWAL LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90014-1507 RALPH H. NUTTER TAMARA LANGE JAN B. NORMAN MICHAEL R. LESLIE TELEPHONE (213) 629-9040 OF COUNSEL JOAN MACK TELECOPIER (213) 629-9022 MARY NEWCOMBE EMAIL:CLNP@CLNP.COM DAVID PETTIT WWW.CLNP.COM /� RODOLFO F. RUIZ , /'\ l August 23, 1999 BY MESSENGER Mr. Lee Whittenberg 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 Negative Declaration is a seriously flawed document, and that the proposed project must be the subject of a full environmental impact report ("EIR") in order to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). At the outset, I note that the project description for the proposed project is flawed. The Negative Declaration attempts to view in isolation the proposed overcross widening, yet its analysis does not take into account the City of Seal Beach's proposed Bixby Ranch Project. 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 that 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 aspect of the Bixby Ranch Project is to widen Seal Beach Boulevard from four lanes to six lanes for the roadway 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 Page 2 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 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 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 quality analyses of the proposed project. 2. Negative Declaration 99-1 fails 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 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 on a cumulative basis. For example, significant cumulative impacts should be acknowledged in the areas of traffic and circulation, air quality, land use of planning, population and housing, 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 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 page 26 of the Negative Declaration that the project does not conflict with local policies, 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 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 lighting. Absent such information, the Negative Declaration should analyze a"worst case" scenario, and acknowledge a significant lighting 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 (which will be generated by, inter alia, 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 specific 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 the one hand, 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 that "the affected area is predominantly commercial." (Id. at 25.) If the Bixby 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 the proposed 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 appears that the Negative Declaration has borrowed the CO analysis from the Bixby Ranch EIR, but without analyzing the new development that would be permitted under that EIR. Moreover, the Bixby Ranch EIR's analysis of this issue is also 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 piecemealing has occurred by the concurrent preparation of the EIR and the Negative Declaration. 7. Page 34 of the Negative Declaration states that information for existing conditions at the freeway overcrossing are based upon the Bixby Ranch EIR. 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. In fact, the Bixby Ranch EIR states that existing daily volume on the bridge is 47,955 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 impacts appears to be flawed in a manner similar to its analysis of air quality impacts. On one hand, the Negative Declaration acknowledges that the new traffic lanes will result in"associated higher daily 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 August 23, 1999 Page 5 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 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 in traffic. Rather, as noted repeatedly above, the Negative Declaration must disclose the increase that will be facilitated by removing the"bottleneck" currently 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 site for these two projects, which will not exacerbate existing and foreseeable congested conditions. Very truly yours, Ktil,,(A, CHRISTO HER G. CALDWELL 172-05\Whinenberg 99-01.23 doe cc: Robert Dominguez Brian Gibbons Erwin Aniston cf/ k ; .• 0-/Leet: ,et7L>, e � : . ,���� � � awe "" • / 1--%et- ,eG4e-e- 41-D_ „Zie gz.Z • .r/Ar ,a/tee ,eizetz' R� , zellJo���e-rte.ae/feeve-1-� d2d2 922...e,d_d-Ze}dziVzose- ���.2. „aeg,z04.- e' oe-��r� u.a-7e-c ;i/ gAZ.e/, dAella/4-e -L/ • e72e4ele .Z° G ' a� Monday, August 23, 1999 Matt Stein,Rossmoor. This time I'm a bit more prepared than a week ago when by happenstance I got word from one of you that there was going to be a meeting that night. For those who were not here last week I left the City Council with three thoughts to think about before they vote: 1) There will be 850,000+ square feet of retail between the existing Rossmoor Center and the new Bixby Center. 2) This total square footage is approximately 85%of the size of the Long Beach Towne Center at Carson and the 605 Freeway. 3) Last, I asked where in the world did they think the people to support 850,000+ square feet of retail would come from. Tonight, I have two issues that I want to address: First, I was amazed at last weeks' City Council meeting that Council Members were abstaining from voting due to a"lack of understanding and information." With a hired professional staff and a mountain of printed reports at their disposal,this lack of preparedness so late in the game is dumbfounding. Also, I could not believe my ears when a Council Member asked how long this process had been going on for. When told, the Council Member shook their head from side to side and let out a large and very audible sigh, as if to say: "This process has gone on far too long." I would like to remind you that we live in a free country that is run by a Democratic government. This process that we are going through, no matter how long it takes, is a product of that Democratic government. If any Council Member has a problem with this type of process, I'm sure Fidel Castro would welcome them with open arms. And for your information, if this process takes one nanosecond or one millenium, myself and all the people behind me will be here. Second, I cannot for the life of me figure out why you are so afraid to address the full impacts of the revitalization of the Rossmoor Center, especially when you state clearly in the EIR that the Bixby Center will cause revitalization. Why do you continue to run and hide from reality? Just trying to fix the EIR and not comply with the Judges' order is preposterous. You, as an elected body, are supposed to be responsible for the future,this is not acting very responsible. In closing,I encourage you to do the right thing and vote no on all the ordinances before you. I leave you with one of my favorite quotes: DO UNTO OTHERS, AS YOU WOULD WANT THEM TO DO UNTO YOU. Thank you. Eulalee Siler 1 4217 Birchwood Ave p A 61 Seal Beach, CA 90740 562-430-6862 el/� Dear Council Members and City Staff, Re: Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Project. It appears to me the city is rushing to re-approve this commercial plan, just as they rushed to approve the plan the first time around. Council members are quick to explain the hurry, "We have no choice,we need the money." The city's haste has resulted in procedural errors and an inadequate examination of the environmental issues. PROCEDURAL The council rescinded the original 25 ac. Towne Center ordinances, as court ordered, and re-approved the "new" ordinances all in the same evening (8-16). The public was told by city staff prior to this quickly scheduled, little- advertised meeting; the council would only rescind the original ordinances. However, the council not only rescinded the original ordinances, but approved (8-16) the first reading of the "new" ordinances for the 26 ac. Towne Center (the city has added another acre). This was done before the revised environmental review was even released (8-18) to the public. Not only that, the 8-23 city council meeting was publicly noticed as an opportunity for public comment, even though the council had already voted once to approve the project. The public notice also mentioned the city council meeting at 7:00 pm ,while local papers reported a 5:00 meeting time. TRAFFIC The revised EIR failed to adequately address the traffic issue. The city's high revenue projection from the project are in conflict with their low traffic estimates. It takes many shoppers and cars to generate that kind of revenue. Moreover, the city has failed to add traffic from the revitalization/expansion of the Rossmoor Center and traffic from the Mr. K's restaurant. Also, aspects of traffic mitigation at Katella/Los Alamitos Blvd and Katella/Bloomfield have notibe settled either. SCHOOLS The Los Alamitos School District has a policy of admitting children of employees who work in the area. However, the children of the 1,000+ employees from the Towne Center and revitalized/expanded Rossmoor Center together with children from the motel were not considered in the original or revised EIR. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Finally, the original EIR identified significant, unavoidable, adverse impacts that were not taken seriously by the council when they approved the project: lack of job/housing balance, loss of 78 acres of prime farmland, deterioration of air quality, noise at assisted living facility, loss of trees and grass,and etc. CONCLUSION Traffic is the most serious of the environmental issues and the root of most other complaints. The Previous Mixed Use Plan with golf course homes had only 4,900 cars per day while the Towne Center Plan will have 14,000. Apparently, council members are willing to overlook the traffic and the other 9 significant, unavoidable, adverse impacts because the city needs the money. Maybe that would be a satisfactory answer, if the city's revenue projection for the Towne Center Project was accurate;but it's not accurate and it's certainly not honest. Sincerely, etue42...arz., J<. ?w F-023 - q? '^ ''= Grr.1 owNE0 C "T -TH12 ' ` • IIIIU U III11 :it 11111111 111111 V. .I.I ,I:ill.iu,ll�i aIIIIIIi:iiy I �] p 1 I 1 1 $ I ( I .11 l l::l 11' 'I. !III li!I I I \ f� -'7 \ East Road : V111111111,11; . .:1 ! {'. �I Q `` /, T F. C �!• � a • , f-r---, �.I aD1[� .I I� i�...al.iiillU Illln i i� � : .!% �1� / { El-If k" lifr A a E( t ::iii �' I • ��*,��9I 1 \l �'1 { ri : - I!; . L �.... N n\\\\\\\\nom. v . ' U U U % i 1 jJ l�\\\\\\'.\\`.. I . Center Orive } A^�'�060 M J • 1 �� { V J NatA Port tillr'.'. • (Rane.Port ` N C Si i I �;:ll:I iflilllliii[ G I A.SHOPSIUOUORIF000 - 1 C.FAST FOOD ( 7 �"' — I a D.FAST FOOD /�/ ` . l I C �] `� _ 3 % I ,3 f E.FAST FOOD G.HEALTH Ct.USIAU O SERVICES/SHOPS I - 7 - 1.6I ' I 0 ...* N b G(... 1/4-31.5-1%--72-s.r H.HEALTH ANT I �\LUB �� �j� Q i1 0 i 1 I. RESTAURANT 11; 0 \ / \ rtrt41 J. RESTAURANTJSOWONG 4 , S C N • K.SHOP ` "\ P p7 !� • �I to g` t ` t L. SANK Y.DEPARTMENT STORE y jrj i� /� Z i T \\ '•q.9/" �Cc' Y V� N.PHARMACY/SHOPS C 1 -',4."'' y� \� / �, / R \ -, . O.MEDICAL A V 1. \ �X/ ��1� `7\ /, -l: :. . P.THEATRE 3 '� jY Q . /� .��=--2'--- t '. .�i. f O.SHOPS �, 6 6 d R.SUPERMARKET 0 yL West Road I �•^^��"„_-'� S.MEDICAL V. T.HARDWARE U.RESTAURANTV.FAST tlt II art W.OPPICFOOD Ol 11 /r'�E ./ /../ ,.�...,,r.rrr �r//%./ '!//.•/'/'1 yy..��,,.. I X.SANK/OFFICE a.. \J/r....:i/r./:/./i.r.//ri:.'U V/:// /,i.:q/..!ir::r/r0;.'� ar. '.,rr�J,..� .r,r. �J CountyUnary Y.SHOP . ,.. . .•,,�...... Z.GAS/SERVICE STATION \'. �,\.•�n\�;.'.c\ �., ..;,.n.'�•.�'.\\\'� '' .. � ��..._, .�,.,_�n J irt n n n n n n n�l Not.Part I 1 1 I Not a Pert 2 Nat a Pvt 'D �- . . I (Raataanttal) .15 I (RanaanUral) _ J - - — Monttn.ito Road- - - Rossmoor Business Center ' Site an Seal Beach, California Pl Jiff .= -- G _ lob 1 ` U r 611er ' qf _ . LcqVi, Et.q ,Wr\I &A-1 tc-,Ceo1 Ifl ' ----- I I ii 7- S (��c '64 ) � _ecf‘ler. -- b � L CA- D/(1-- n L.briee (n4- a6)1/4-1— cci),e v_u(�l o� -- - —, -- h rc -4ru4f,L T 014- `1-4\ )< 4-1y _1(Y1 — ------ - - -- a��i4 4 rer6fic r - _ate e� �iv - - - bssm tar C7eir‘ hus ��� Ad chsse_l_. • VbY, hGS J_► 4 c'- bi- 4-t_ (rC1 h� d41 1st k-01)51b it-es ifir-Oson 1-1\t TE.XTh't- Oitv\\-tY- cfe an q-fve__ lei/A 6 peril- AA-We 0-4Yrce- o tnrytsY tguJ) .6141, ,114 �r cs Incl ernebl� ar ttu gym- J `+ _ ra l 1� S h Q�S1=Sb-eff, A 4 vr.S-Se/ a V A4e ..1 : sLe• e-ifeclei) re V envt -t tyrkiecn rh Jt/eY� G r A/GV,n eitn5 deh--- 4-ht_ __v ) C, uli,S h p1- allmo o isC.Uss ; SS o- ith pitliots kre411Nr .s 411.c.rc Turf eA'A 1) rat- +z) /) vitthi_V__,Ntf.))51_ ►� f --( tas ot / 41142.. 4,A filth-t_ /11C- - fcit hto hacl vice s reUised 101.1; c_1() 4-t aqj 624 A f-\ 40 A J ; i4t r., 13 ); (.. (1 e n s, q Th-e AL; ps+ , MI aflA vnr°A c+i MJ Gs 1no+ 9,‘Jen 4/'\/4 Q.411\itk 7- ‘1-\) (.6 r) I 4,40)4 D4- f u s 4.D jd � l 4 5Y1,e Item -- 11 -ems 4), ne s ca vi \J-A e., 4.1 -TNht Iy- 4t Ta -04)-1--/ r rA 61; a-1 4-e 1 vio //- Ght 4-kt_ ni Jed-- do n ces WAS u cid a.4 `a-A _ 4-1 rik-e in-c4na) 2,3fr:464 Aq _ _ j,„,vm-ed J $t n irk J 7 --- A-�-- --- j1, int Srt6- 4 Re5 Is4) 4/V1g/ ru4erratirt vi nt) or,r 1-1"\- 6')*D Tam- Cs2,,,,lei cots E,c )J6c ecl 4-6 9;1 a4- th k _ 1 ” c vn i1 rr Cr ,00Y\ CirAtf- /1'1 S j S a Atliv— RA* _ -M m\s\e a d - `�- � Pvb (,c. s O 6s -�-ofre ven-1- . Our ertrr1.1A n ac.ss> M e u t c 1 a e 041 )0\ A 0# i � ' JOSEPH V. SILER 4217 BIRCHWOOD AVE. SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 562-430-6862 August 23, 1999 Seal Beach City Council 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 PROCEDURE Members of the Council: I believe it is inappropriate for the Council to vote on the Bixby Project without giving the public a realistic opportunity for study and comment. The new EIR documents (exceeding 100 pages) have only been available for 5 days. Clearly this is not adequate time! The Writ of Judge William McDonald says that HE, THE JUDGE, will decide on September 23. 1999 whether recirculation of the EIR is necessary. Neither the council nor the attorneys favoring the project are allowed to make this decision. It appears the Council is skirting the Judge's order and is following some bad advice. Perhaps even worse from a democratic viewpoint, the Council has already voted in favor of the Bixby project for the First Reading which came prior to any public hearing. This is akin to a trial with the verdict first and the evidence later. The People have been left out. They must raise their concerns to a Council which is already voted against their view. Incidentally, the people overwhelmingly oppose this project. So much for democracy and procedural fairness. In conclusion, the Council should rescind its erroneous First Reading approval, await the Judge's September decision on the EIR documents. give the public a fair chance to review the EIR. allow the public time to talk to their council representatives about the EIR and the project, and stop listening to only one side, the attorneys and staff who are strong proponents of this project. These parties want to approve this project regardless of the public's view. Sincerely, Joseph V. Siler JOSEPH V. SILER ��� 4217 BIRCHWOOD AVE. '99 SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 562-430-6862 August 23, 1999 Seal Beach City Council 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 SCHOOLS IMPACT- BIXBY PROJECT Members of the Council: The new EIR documents includes a letter from Ronald Murrey of the Los Alamitos Unified School District that says there is sufficient remaining capacity to absorb the 67 students which he projects from the 75 homes in the Bixby project. Previous EIR's would give a projected total population of the 75 homes as 206. #1. His letter includes a chart which shows that the District's grammar schools are already at 96% of capacity and The added 28 grammar school students will bring it to 97% of capacity. #2. The listed school capacities appear to be estimates not actual numbers. All the numbers are rounded except one. At 97% of capacity one should have exact numbers. #3. The letter fails to deal with the 868 projected employees of the Bixby project. That is four (4) times as many people as it dealt with. Many of these employees will seek to have their children enter our desirable school district under one of the many programs which permit this. #4. Many employees will seek to move into the School District filling vacant units and thereby automatically add their children to the district totals. #5. Presumably, there is a natural growth rate for the District's school population. Financial projection go out 10 years. Surely school projections are just as important, but we have none. Will the Bixby project require a new school years earlier than otherwise? None of the concerns raised in the points above was dealt with by the school documents submitted in the new EIR. If a new school has to be built in the next few years because of this project. that is a major impact. Clearly, this topic needs more study. Sincerely, y Josh V. Siler 7,f_e.„._;(..., JOSEPH V. SILER f..2 3 4g 4217 BIRCHWOOD AVE. SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 562-430-6862 August 23, 1999 Seal Beach City Council 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 TRAFFIC IMPACT - BIXBY PROJECT Members of the Council: The new EIR documents include a traffic analysis which essentially refuses to acknowledge much of the foreseeable traffic. The reason is simple the EIR consultants have become proponents of the project They want to avoid the unsettling facts of traffic. As background, Seal Beach/Los Alamitos Blvd. is the sole entry way to the proposed Bixby Retail Center. This is also the sole entry to existing Rossmoor Center. It is also the major access street for all nearby residents to the San Diego Freeway. In short this street is a bottleneck with choke points at the major intersections to the north (Katella) and to the south (Lampson). Even cross traffic is important at a bottleneck. The street currently carries about 39,000 trips per day. The EIR's estimate of about 14,000 new trips is much too low. We need a better EIR study. #1. The EIR discusses a REVITALIZED Rossmoor Center. (Same stores but higher occupancy and more traffic). Yet the added traffic is dismissed as unimportant. Cross street traffic isn't even counted. Traffic from the revitalization will add about 2,000 trips per day. Hardly unimportant. #2. The Rossmoor Center has filed documents stating its intent to EXPAND under its existing zoning. The City of Seal Beach was advised of the immanent expansion plans of about 108,000 feet. The Center just wants to know what is going on the Bixby property before they finalize their plans. This information was presented at the original EIR hearings, and recently more detailed plans were given to the City. The new EIR documents contain substantial information about the Rossmoor Center expansion. Yet the traffic consultants have NOT included the traffic projections from this expansion. They claim that since actual building permits have not been issued, they can disregard this traffic But their job is to accurately project future traffic. The expansion traffic is nearly 5,000 trips per day. That's important. #3. Mr. K's American Grill is about to open. This is a large restaurant with an estimated 700- 1,000 trips per day. This traffic was overlooked in the EIR. It should be examined. Clearly, a study which uses 14,000 trips is INADEQUATE. if there are really 22,000 trips. Our already congested street increases from 39,000 trips per day to 61,000 trips. That's a problem. Sincerely, Jo / /O� ,/„ seph V. Siler )Y1 " Li JOSEPH V. SILER 4217 BIRCHWOOD AVE. k, SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 562-430-6862 August 23, 1999 Seal Beach City Council 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 FINANCIAL IMPACT - BIXBY PROJECT Members of the Council: The City Council previously adopted and proposes to again adopt the very unpopular Bixby development The most unpopular part of this project is the Retail Center. Why has the council supported this element in the face of literally thousands of objections (3,300 signatures)? The answer is money. The council has been willing to sacrifice the people's desires because they have been told this will lead to a huge annual surpluses. These projections come from experts hired by proponents of the project, who also downplay the return of the residential alternate. The Council is willing to subject residents to 14,000 or more cars per day rather than changing the retail element to residential and reducing the cars less than 5,000. The council just accepts the rosy financial projections. Opponents were told at various EIR hearing that they could not even talk about finances. That would be out of order. The true financial difference is much less than projected by the EIR. The huge sales tax revenue will not appear. What we really have is a community Center. Most of the sales will occur in the improved Rossmoor Center if the Bixby Retail Center is not built.. It is not important which side of the street the sales tax comes from. Experts representing Lowes recently explained how well situated the Bixby Center was for a regional power center drawing customers from a radius of 5 miles. Well, Lowes backed out. They probably came to realize that the 605 Freeway and San Gabriel River would block any substantial business from Long Beach. The "Population Voids"near this Center would also provide no business, AFRC, Seal Beach Weapons Station, Hellman property, Los Alamitos Racetrack, El Dorado Park. the electric generating plants, the Pacific Ocean, all within 5 miles. Anyone trying to get to the Bixby Center has to go through the choke points of Katella/Los Al or Lampson/SB. These intersections couldn't handle power center traffic, even if it came, which it won't. Finally, It looks like the state is going to change to a sales tax allocation on population not point of sale. We will shoot ourselves in the foot to reject a population increase thereby reducing revenue and instead built a retail center with all its problems and no revenue. Sincerely, Joseph V. Siler ' 4. ' Ai. i ' z FRIDAY, AUGUST 20;1999 Sales-taxr® osadings . . c' ies ..._ GOVERNMENT: The controller wants to divide p. tax money based on cities' and counties' popula- tion rather than where the sales took place. By DOUG WILLIS The Associated Press SACRAMENTO — The state To implement Connell's plan, by population would also discour- controller Thursday proposed a voters would have to approve an age competition among adjoin- nue," Ezell said. "It's a back- new formula for dividing local amendment to the state constitu- ing communities to give often- door way for cities that don't sales taxes that would shift tens tion. She said it could be placed costly incentives to attract auto have auto malls to take our reve- of millions of dollars from com- on the ballot next year. malls and other big retail outlets, nues." munities with auto malls and oth- The proposal would encourage her report said. Steve Szalay, executive direc- er big shopping outlets. . ,cities and counties "to invest in Phil Ezell, finance director for tor of the California State Associ- The proposal would divide lo- community,housing and quality- Roseville, a city of 72,000 near ation of Counties,said his associ- cal sales-tax revenue among cit- of-life programs, instead of Sacramento that has one of Cali- ation is interested.in the_C_ _nonell ies and counties based on popula- (erecting huge car malls on cheap fornia's largest auto malls, said proposal. — annual state aid to local govern tion rather than where the sales land to attract tax revenue," there is nothing fair about taking "We are convinced that the i ments $450 million and bar the took place.The change would be said Connell,a Los Angeles Dem- revenue from cities that had the current system is flawed and 1 state from imposing new duties phased in over 10 years. ocrat. entrepreneurial vision to invest needs to be reformed," ,Szalay on local governments without The shift would result in better The current point-of-sale for- in roads and other improvements said,who stopped short of an en- providing money to pay for land use and economic planning, mula_encouraees local govern- to attract auto malls. dorsement but described the pro-I them. said State Controller Kathleen j ments to favor strip malls that Ezell said Roseville spent posal as "an approach that we' Aid to local governments was a Connell, whose proposal was ! produce immediate sales-tax $11.8 million to help develop an believe is workable." key topic during negotiations on drafted by a task force of local revenue, even though those auto mall that now sells about California's 58 counties and 440 a new state budget this summer. government officials and busi- malls typically provide lower- 20,000 vehicles a year and pro- cities together get nearly$3.5 bil- The budget, which took effect ness executives. paying jobs than manufacturing vides $5 million a year toward lion annually from their penny- July 1, gave cities and counties She said local governments or other commercial develop- the city's$55 million annual bud- per-dollar share of the sales tax. $700 million in temporary aid this have faced a revenue squeeze in ments that may be better for the get. The $19 billion annually the fiscal year. It would permanent- recent years that has forced overall economic health of the "The real equity issue is state collects from the sales tax ly shift$1 billion annually to local them to abandon responsible community, Connell's report whether it is fair for us to pay for would not be affected by Con- governments by 2003 if voters ap- planning and pursue any avail- , said. the infrastructure for the auto nell's proposal. prove a constitutional amend- able tax source. Distributing sales-tax revenue mall and then lose that reve- Iter proposal also would boost rent on it next year.