HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2007-02-12 #K
e
AGENDA REPORT
DAlE: February 12, 2.{>07
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: Mark Vukojevic, Acting City Manager
FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF RESPONSE LETTER RE: FINAL EIR -
SEAPORT MARINA PROJECT - CITY OF LONG
BEACH
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Authorize approval of letter with any modifications determined appropriate, instruct Mayor
to sign proposed Response Letter. Receive and File StaffRcport.
e
BACKGROUND:
The City of Long Beach has released the Final EIR regarding the subject project On
September 25, 2006 the City Council reviewed and approved a response letter regarding the
"Draft Environmental Impact Report - Seaport Marina Projecf'. A copy of the September
25, 2006 letter is provided as Attachment 3 for the information of the City Council. The
DEIR document evaluated the potential environmental impacts of a proposed mixed-use
project that will consist of the following major project components:
o Approximately 425 residential units;
o Approximately 170,000 square feet of retail development;
o Structure heights up to 5 stories (68 feet);
o Demolition of existing on-site bUildings - 164,736 square foot Seaport Marina
Hotel;
o The project requires approval by the City of Long Beach of the following items:
o Environmental Impact Report; : ' .
o General Plan/Local CoastaI Program Amendments;
o SEADIP Planned Development District (PD-I) Amendments;
o Site Plan Review;
o Tentative Subdivisi4j>n Map;
o Standards Variance; and
o Local CoastaI Development Permit.
e
Agenda Item ~
Z~y DocumOllIJ\CEQAILoni l3cach Seaport Marina Projoct FEIR.CC S18lfRqJort.docILW\09-14-06
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter 7e:
Draft ElR - Seaport Marina Project, Cily of Long Beach
City COIUlcil Staff &port
September 25, 2006
e
Due to the close proximity of the proposed project to the City of Seal Beach, the proposed
project identifies both project and cumulative impacts to transportation that cannot be
mitigated to a less than significant level as follows:
o Project related significant impact at SR-22 westbound on-ramp at Studebaker Road
(located in the City of Long Beach, but impacts residents of College Parle West in
Seal Beach); and
o Cumulative significant impacts at the following locations :
o SR-22 westbound on-ramp at Studebaker Road in the PM peak hour; and
o Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard in the AM peak hour.
Staff has reviewed the Final EIR to determine how the Final EIR addressed the concerns of
the City as stated in the September 25, 2006 letter. The Final EIR includes several revised
mitigation measures that addressed the City Council's concerns regarding:
o Revision to Mitigation Measure 3A-l regarding the preparation of a ''Construction
Staging and Management Plan."
o Technical corrections to Mitigation Measures 3A-2 and 3A-3.
o Revisions to Mitigation Measures 3B-13, 3B-14 and 3B-16 regarding greater clarity
in reviewing and approval authority for air quality mitigation measures.
o Revision to Mitigation measure 3C-l regarding archaeological and Native American
monitoring during ground disturbance activities.
The City of Long Beach has determined that the Draft EIR does not require re-circulation,
as was requested by the City Council. The "Responses to Comments" (See Attachment 2)
indicates the conclusions of Long Beach regarding our stated concerns on the following
issues and concerns:
o Request for Re-Circulation ofDEIR Document based on:
o Inaccurate Project Description and Identification of Necessary "Standards
Variances";
o Inadequate Presentation of Reasonable Project Alternatives; and
o Lack of Meaningful Evaluation, Analysis, and Comparison with the Proposed
Project.
o Detailed traffic impact "fair share" calculation of all identified proj ect and
cumulative project impacts to identified intersections, including any additional
intersections identified in the Re-circUlated DEIR.
o Imposition of Project-ReIated Traffic Impact Fees for Identified Impacts at Pacific
Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard, and Potentially at other Identified
Intersections in Seal Beach.
o Support for "Environmentally Superior Alternative" based on:
o Reduced Traffic Impacts of "Environmentally Superior Alternative";
o No Need for "Standards Variance" for the "Environmentally Superior
Alternative"; and
o Reduced Air Quality Impacts of "Environmentally Superior Alternative".
tI Comments Regarding Section 31, Transportation and Circu\ation.
e
e
~ ilGllcb Seaport Marina Project FEIR.CC Staff Report 2
e
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Drtift ElR - Seaport Marina Project, City of Long Beach
City Council St<df Report
September 25, 2006
o Demolition Permits not to be Issued Until all Roadway Right-Of-Way is Acquired
For the "Bypass Roadway", Mitigation Measure 31.3.
The "Responses to Comments" also indicated that the concerns of the City Council
regarding the following matters will be referred to the Long Beach Planning Commission
and City Council for consideration during the public hearings on the subject Final EIR
and the accompanying discretionary project entitlements:
o Concern Over Ability To Legally Consider "Standards Variance" Requests;
o Concern Over Ability of Project to Comply with Goals of the "Local Coastal
Plan";
o Concern Regarding Potential Project Revisions to Comply with Identified
"Guiding Principles" and Revision to Proposed Mitigation Measure 3G.l; and
e
A proposed comment letter to the Long Beach PJ~nn;ng Commission has been prepared
to restate many of concerns set forth in the September 25, 2006 letter since the City of
Long Beach was generally not in agreement with the City's comments on the issues of:
ORe-circulation of a revised Draft ErR;
o Preparation of detailed traffic impact "fair share" calculation of al1 identified
project and cumulative project impacts to identified intersections; and
o Imposition of project-reIated traffic impact fees for identified impacts at Pacific
Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard, and potentially at other identified
intersections in Seal Beach.
The proposed comment letter also restates the concerns of Seal Beach regarding:
o Ability To Legally Consider "Standards Variance" Requests;
o Ability of Proj ect to Comply with Goals of the "Local Coastal Plan"; and
o Potential Project Revisions to Comply with Identified "Guiding Principles" and
Revision to Proposed Mitigation Measure 3G.l.
It is appropriate for the City Council to review and approve the letter, with any further
revisions determined appropriate.
Consideration by Long Beach Planning Commission:
The Final EIR and the discretionary projei:t entitlernent requests are scheduled for a
public hearing before the Long Beach Planning Commission on February 15 and staff
will attend the Commission meeting to formally present the concerns of the City as stated
in the approved letter.
FISCAL IMPACT:
e
Potentially significant impacts if identified "significant and unavoidable" impacts cannot
be reduced through modifications to the proposed project or imposition by the City of
Long Beach of requested traffic impact fees.
l.cll1i Beach seaport Marina Project FElR.CC StalfRcport
3
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft EIR - Seaport Marina Project, City of Long Beach
City COll1lCil Staff Report
September 25, 2006
e
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize approval of letter with any modifications determined appropriate, instruct Mayor
to sign proposed Response Letter. ~eceive and File Staff Report.
NOTED AND APPROVED:
ee Whittenberg
Director of Development Services
Mnk'/(iG
Acting City Manager
Attachments: (3)
Attachment 1:
Draft Response Letter re: "Final Environmental Impact
Report for Seaport Marina Project", prepared by the City
of Long Beach, received by City of Seal Beach on February
1,2007
e
Attachment 2:
"Final Environmental Impact Report for Seaport Marina
Project", prepared by the City of Long Beach, dated
January 2007
Note: Complete document, not provided due to length, 215
pages. A complete copy will be available at the City
Council Meeting. Provided are Chapter 3: "Responses to
Comments" for Seal Beach and Chapter 4: Mitigation
Monitoring Program. Compliance Report.
Attachment 3:
City of SeaJ Beach Comment Letter Ie: "Draft
Environmental Impact Reportfor Seaport Marina Project',
dated September 26, 2006
e
Lang Beach Sooport Marina Prt>joot FEIR.CC StaffRoport
4
e
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft EIR - Seaport Marina Project, City of Long Beach
City Council Stq/J Report
September 25, 2Q06
,
ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT RESPONSE LETTER RE: "DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
SEAPORT MARINA PROJECT", PREPARED
BY THE CITY OF LONG BEACH,
RECEIVED BY CITY OF SEAL BEACH ON
AUGUST 15, 2006
e
e
Long Bea<:h Seaport Marina Project FEIR.CC StalfRcport 5
e
City o/Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft ElR - Seaport Marina Project, City o/Long Beach
City COII7Icil Stcrtf Report
&ptember 25, 2006
BY FACSIMILE (562) 570-6068
AND FIRST CLASS MAll..
February 12, 2007
City ofLong Beach Planning Commission
Attn: Leslie Gentile, Chair
333 W. Ocean Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90802
OR~f1
SUBJECT: CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMENTS RE: FINAL EIR -
"SEAPORT MARINA PROJECT'
e
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
The City of Seal Beach has reviewed the above referenced Final Enviromnental Impact
Report ("FEIR'') and has several comments and observations relative to the document.
Although the FEIR indicates that several "Mitigation Measures" have been revised based on
the concerns of Seal Beach the City is still very much concero.ed about the compliance with
CEQA of the subject document and the full disclosure of project impacts and identification
of appropriate '~mitigation measures,"
REQUEST FOR RE-CIRCULATION OF DEIR DOCUMENT:
Inaccumte Project Description - SEADIP Amendments re: New Residential Development
Standards and Amending Allowable Maximum Height:
e
The subject DEIR does not fully disclose the project chaxacteristics that require amendments
to the "Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan (SEADIP) (PD-l). SEADIP, as
most recently revised on February 3, 2005 indicates the subject property is located in "Sub-
Area 17." The "Provisions Applying to All Areas" ofSEADIP stipulate in item 5 on page 2
of the adopted SEADIP that "The maXimum height of buildings shaH be 30 feet for
residential and 35 feet for non-residentillI uses, unless otherwise provided herein."
sEADIP does not provide other language anywhere in the document that such height
limitations may be combined for a mixed use project to achieve a theoretical height of 65
Long Beach S.aport Marina Proj.ct PEIR.CC StaffRoport
6
City ofSelJl Beach Comment Letter re:
Drqft ErR - Seaport Mari7IIJ Project, City of Long Beach
CityCormcil Staff Report _
September 25, 2006 ..
feet. The Sub-Area provisions of Area 17 do not indicate that any greater height for
development is permitted, and the DEIR project description indicates that the maximum
height of the proposed structures is 68 feet (page 2-14).
The NON-response from the City of Long Beach is "Comment noted Page 2-21 of the
Draft EIR has been revised to state that the amendments to Subarea 17 of PD-1 relate to
allowing mixed use developments. adopting new residential development standards anr,i
amending the maximum allowable height from 30 feet to 70 feet." The DEIR "Project
Description" indicates on page "SEADIP (PD-1J Amendment: The project site is currently
located in Subarea 17 of PD-], which allows for commercial uses only. As a result,
apprqval of the project requires an amendment to PD-]." Section 3G.3 of the DEIR, on
pages 3G-8 through 3G-13 discusses the Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures"
of the various regulatory documents that are applicable to the project, including ~EADIP.
There is no discussion in this portion of the DEIR that discusses "adopting new residential
development standards and amending the allowable maximum height from 30 feet to 70
feet." Therefore, the project description is inaccurate and the EIR should be revised and
recirculated to clearly indicate to all reviewing parties that additional amendments to
SEADIP are required that were not fully disclosed in the DEIR, to fully present the
necessary amendments and analyze the environmental impacts of the SEADIP amendments
relative to "adopting new residential development standards and amending the allowable _
maximum height from 30 feet to 70 feet' and to allow for all interested parties to clearly ..
understand the necessary amendments to SEADIP and be able to comment on a revised and
:c~:~ DEffi in a proper IIlllIII1er in accoOi$:FT'fuIl-disclosure" requirements
RESTATED REQUEST FOR RE-CIRCULATION - SEPTEMBER 25,
2006 CONCEERNS:
M was indicated in our letter of September 25, 2006 regarding the DEIR, it is still our
position that, based on the insufficient analysis contained within the. subject document,
impacts associated with the proposed project are clearly unacceptable to Seal Beach.-
Absent complete and thorough environmental analysis and imposition of appropriate
mitigation measures that are enforceable and which adequately respond to the adverse
environmental impacts of the project we continue to assert that the subject document does
not comply with CEQA, as stated in more detail below.
Seal Beach believes that a properly pIepared environmental disclosure document will clearly
describe feasible alternatives that would reduce project-related impacts upon the
environment to an acceptable level. M required under CEQA, "public agencies should not
approve projects as proposed if there are .feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of
such projects" (Section 21002, CEQA) and "each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the _
significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it ..
is feasible to do so" (Section 21 002.1 (b), (CEQA).
I,ong Beach Seoport Marin. Project FElR.CC StaffRoport
7
e
City a/Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft EIR - Seaport Marina Project. City of Long Beach
CltyCounci/ StqffReport
September 25, 2006
Seal Beach believes that Long Beach bas the ability to accomplish the project's objectives
while avoiding, or at least further reducing, significant impacts upon Seal Beach. The
failure to pursue those alternative actions or reduced project scope constitutes a violation of
CEQA.
Inaccurate Project Description and IdentifU:ation of Necessary "Standards Variances":
e
The DEIR does not accurately describe the incompatible design elements to the adopted
SEADIP or discuss any environmental impacts of the increased height of the proposed
structures. Further, page 3A-6, Impact 3A-l, second paragraph includes the following
statement, "The proposed project would chaUenge City development standards regarding
height limitations." The City's own document clearly indicates that the proposed heights of
the project are not in compliance with adopted height standards and provides no discussion
on this "challenge" nor how it will be considered or mitigated~ reducing heights to those
setforthinSEADIP. DRA.f'
Therefore the Dm must be revised and recirculated to accurately describe and evaluate the
potential impacts of the proposed height of the structures, the incompatibility with the
provisions of SEADIP, and develop mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen an
identified significant impact due to non-comp\iance with City of Long Beach height
standards as set forth in SEADIP.
Inadequate Presentation of Reasonable Project Alternatives:
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, "Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to the
Proposed Project', indicates that an EIR "shall describe reasonable alternatives to the
project. . . .which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but
would avoid or substantitdly lessen any of the significant effects of the projecf'(Section
15126.6(a) and that "the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project
or its location which are capable of avoiding or substtur.tiIJllJllessening any signYicant
effects oftheprojecf' "(Section lS126,6(b).
A review of the project alternatives set forth in Section 4 quicldy discloses that both
Alternative 2, Retail Alternative mid Alternative 4, HoteVRetail Alternative do not comport
with the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. Both of these alternatives
are described as having "impacts greater" than the proposed project in the environmental
areas of concern of:
o Air Quality;
o Noise; and
o Transportation and Circulation.
e
The' response to this comment is that the identified 'Project Ahematives" would reduce
other identified impacts. However, these identified alternatives do not reduce the identified
r;o.s Beach Seaport Marina Project FElR..CC Staff Report
8
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter Te:
Draft EIR - Seaport Marina Project, City of Long Beach
City Council Staff Report .-
September 25, 2006 .
"significant and adverse" environmental impacts to any extent greater than the proposed
project or Alternative 3, Reduced Alternative. Therefore the other identified alternatives are
non-responsive to reducing the identified "significant and adverse impacts" which cannot be
mitigated.
The remaining alternatives consist of the "Alternative 1: No Project Alternative",
"Alternative 3: Reduced Project Alternative" and "Alternative 5: Oil Pipeline Relocation."
Alternative 1 assumes no project and no change to the cummt environment, wbile
Alternative 5 evaluates the proposed project with only a change to an underground oil
pipeline location. The only viable alternative evaluated in the DEIR is Alternative 3.
The current DEIR does not comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 in that "a range
of reasonable alternatives" are not presented for the reviewing public to consider. It is
requested that a minimum of two additional alternatives be developed and evaluated that
will "avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects 0/ the projecf'(Section
15126.6). It is suggested that one of the new project alternatives include the same basic
project component as the proposed project, but that the size be reduced by 30%. The other
new Project Alternative should either be a version of Alternative 2 or Alternative 4, but
reduced in size to such a level as to "avoid or substantially lessen any 0/ the signifICant
effects o/the project' pursuant to the provisions ofCEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6.
e
Lack 0/ Meaningful Evaluation, Analysis, and Comparison 0/ Each Alternative with the
Proposed Project:
Further, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d) provides that "The E1R shaH include
sufficient in/ormation about each alternatil1e to allow a meaningful evaluation, analysis,
and comparison with the proposed project." The project alternatives should particularly
include evaluations of the impacts on "Air Quality", "Noise, and "Transportation and
Circulation" at least to the level of analysis as we have provided below in this letter. A
simple analysis can easily be prepared for these 8reas of environmental concern that would
disclose to the public if any of the project alternatives would "avoid or substantially lessen
any o/the signif"lCant effects o/the project' pursuant to the provisions ofCEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.6. Without additional analysis of the areas identified for the project
significant impacts, the requirements of CEQA'are being violated.
ORAfl
e
Ipng Beach soeport Marina Project FEIR.CC StaffRoport 9
e
City of Sea/ Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft EIR - Seaport Marilla Project, City of Long Beach
City COUI'lcil St'fff Report
September 25, 2006
CITY OF SEAL BEACH NOTES FOR THE RECORD THAT
ACCORDING TO RESPONSE 3A.4-9 THE CITIES OF SEAL BEACH
AND LONG BEACH DO NOT HA'VE A RECIPORCAL AGREEMENT
THAT WOULD REQUIRE PROJECTS IN ONE CITY PAY.IMPACT
FEES OF THE OTHER CITY.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH AGAIN REQUESTS DETAILED TRAFFIC
IMPACT "FAIR SHARE" CALCULATION' OF ALL IDENTIFIED
PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE PROJECT IMPACTS TO IDENTIFIED
INTERSECTIONS, INCLUDING ANY ADDITIONAL
INTERSECTIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE RE-CIRCULATED DEIR:
e
The City is still very much concerned that adequate measures have not been proposed as
"mitigation measures" by Long Beach to address the significant and unavoidable
transportation impacts at Studebaker Road and the westbound SR-22 ramp systems. We
hB:ve c~mmented on this concern since 2004 in rewdJ\.~ome Depot project and
this proJect. DI\",r I
Again, we note for the record that the California Department of Transportation, District 7,
has indicated in their letter of September 22, 2006 "Our review indicates the cumulative
traffic impacts to the State facilities is signifICant with other proj ects including the
Home Depot in the project vicinity. The SR-22 interchange at Studebaker Road receives
additional traffic trips from the Seaport Marina project. We ask the City of Long Beach
to mitigate that interchange to alleviate the cumulative traffic impacts." (emphasis
added)
It is the position of Seal Beach th!\t the City of Long Beach has the discretion to impose,
and must impose as a mitigation measure in the certified environmental document, a
"Project-Related Fair Share Contribution" to begin the process of accumulating the
necessary funds to address the existing deficiencies at these "choke-points" in the
regional transportation system in coordination and cooperation with the California
Department of Transportation. It is also our position that projects such as the Seaport
Marina project, and other future projects Should be required to provide this type of
contribution to address the cumulative impacts of these projects upon the regional
transportation system.
e
The City of Seal Beach again requests that Long Beach provide a detailed traffic impact
"fair share" calculation of all identified project and cumulative projects impacts to the
identified intersections, including any additional intersection identified in the requested
"Re-Circulated DEIR" due to the proposed Seaport Marina Project. Such calculations
shoUld include the following major cost categories, including the appropriate cost
assumptions:
I,ong Beach Seaport Mario. Project FEIR.CC StalfR<port
10
City of Seal Beach Comment Lett.,. re:
Dr&fft EIR - Seaport Marina Project, City of Long Beach
City COUllcil Staff Report ..
September 25, 2006 .
o Description of Improvement;
o Area of Improvement;
o Cost per square foot of street widening;
o Number of signal comers;
o Construction Cost estimate;
o Construction Cost Estimate with 25% Contingency;
o Cost of Rigb.t-of- Way;
o Construction Cost with Right-of-Way Acquisition; and
o Project Fair Share Percent
The above "fair sbare" calculation shall be prepared for this project, the Home Depot
project, and for any other identified cumulative projects that are set forth in the traf:fic
analysis as having a significant impact at the subject intersections.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH REQUESTS IMPOSJ110N OF PROJECT-
RELATED TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES FOR IDENTIFIED IMPACTS AT
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD, AND
POTEN11ALLY AT OTHER IDENl1FIIP Jl'i!!flSECTIONS IN SEAL
BEACH: DKp..r I
The project analysis indicates that Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard will
experience significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts due to the proposed project
Seal Beach imposes "Transportation Facilities and Programs Development Fees" and
"Transportation Facilities and Programs Development Application Fees" on projects that
significantly impact roadway intersections, and requests that Long Beach impose such a fee
on the proposed project. Our fee schedule would require payment by the project proponent
to the City of Seal Beach a fee of $1,613.15 per identified PM peak hour trip within Seal
Beach, and the number of PM trips would be determined at the boundary of Seal Beach
closest to the project site along Pacific Coast Highway.
Until it can be determined if significant impact5 are in fact identified along Westminster
Avenue and Marina Drive at First Street in Seal Beach, we cannot indicate if additional
transportation impact fees should be imposCd. The information requested in a "Re-
Circulated DEIR" would allow Seal Beach to Inake those determinations.
e
SUPPORT FOR "ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE":
The City of Seal Beach strongly supports the "Environmentally Superior Alternative" as
set forth on page 4-18 of the DEIR. This alternative. identified as "Alternative 3, Reduced
Project Alternative" is discussed on pages 4-9 through 4-12, and is generally described as.
the siune project as the proposed project, but contAining 140,000 square feet ofretail space .-
and.340 residential units, a 20% reduction as compared to the proposed project. Again, .
based on our comments above, Seal Beach is of the opinion that other project alternatives
LoiIg Besch Sosport Marina Project FElR.CC statrRcport
11
e
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft EIR - Seaport MtJTina Project, City of Long Beach
City Council Stt:df Report
September 25, 2006
must be developed and evaluated in a IIllIIlI1el' to "aUow a meaningful evalUlllion, analysis,
and comparison with the proposed project."
The position of Seal Beach on supporting a "Project Alternative" may change upon our
review of the ''Revised Proposed Project", which would hopefully address the issues set
forth in this letter and upon our review of new "Project Alternatives" that would be set forth
in the "Re-CircuIated DEm" document.
Reduced TrqfflC ImpaJ:u of "Environmentally Superior Alternative":
e
We are disappointed that neither the DEm nor the ''Traffic Impact Report" contained in
Appendix D does not include even a !l1JIIllIllIIY of the different transportation and circulation
impacts of the alternatives described in Chapter 4, especially since the proposed project
results in many intersections having "significant and unavoidable impacts." The other
project alternatives may have resulted in some impacted intersections being reduced to a
"less than significant with mitigation" level if there are less vehicular trips projected from
any of the project alternatives. In our review of the detailed trip generation projections
contained in Appendix D, we have been unable to determine how the "Environmentally
Superior Alternative" would result in trip reductions at intersections within Seal Beach,
compared to the identified impacts of the proposed project. That is because Figures
contained in Appendix D do not contain all information regarding turning movements and
through traffic at Intersections 20, 23, 24 and 25; please refer to Fi~, 8B, llA, liB,
12A, 12B,13A, 13B, 14A, 14B, and 168, DRA'r ,
A simple analysis would seem to indicate that a 20% reduction in the project size would
reduce Daily Total Trips, Daily AM Peak. Trips, Daily PM Peak. Trips, Weekend Daily Trips
and Weekend Peak Trips as follows:
Daily D!illY Daily Weekend Weekend
Total AM PM Daily Peak.
Trips Peak. Peak Trips Trips
Trips Trips
Proposed Project 10,156 354 726 12,738 885
Alternative 3 (20"10
Reduction in 8,125 283 581 10,190 708
project size)
Net Trip 2,031 71 145 2,548 177
Reduction
e
The. above identified trip reduci:ions are substantial, and may be substantial enough to reduce
impacts at some of the intersections identified as having "significant and unavoidable
impacts" to a level such that either mitigation may be proposed to achieve a "less than
1,'OJIg _ Seoport Morina Project FElR.CC Sll1fReport
12
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Drqft ElR - Seaport Marina Project, City of Long Beach
City Council Staff Report .-
September 25, 2006 _
significant impact o;fter mitigation" or to where no mitigation is required based on project-
related trips being less than identified significance criteria for either Long Beach or Seal
Beach. It is impossible for the City or for the interested public to detennine the impacts of
the reduced trips generated by the "environmentally superior project' due to the incomplete
information presented both in the DEIR proper and in Appendix D.
No Needfor "Stflndards Variance" for the. "En'VironmentaIly Superior Alternative";
The City also is of the opinion that Alternative 3, if approved, would result in eliminating
the need for "Standards Variances" since the building footprints would be substantially
reduced, allowing for the project to easily comply with the setback and open space standards
of the City of Long Beach. Please see additional discussion on this issue below.
Reduced Air Quality Impacts of "En 'Vir on mentally Superior Altemati'Ve";
The City is further of the opinion that Alternative 3, if approved, would result in less ROC,
NOx and CO operational emissions and co~ntWI~ the identified impacts of
the proposed project as follows: U~~r I
Alternative 3 - Weekday Operational Emissions .-
Estimated Emissions (poundslDay) . _
Emission Source ROC NOx CO PM10
On-Road Mobile Sources 69 80 873 92
Energy Consumption <1 21 4 <1
Maximum Regional Total 70 101 877 93
Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 100
Maximum Regional Total - 56 81 702 75
20% Emission Reduction
Factor
Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 100
Exceed Threshold Yes Yes Yes No
e
L,ons Beach Seaport Mariu. PrQiOCl FElR.CC StalfRoport
13
e
City o/Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Drqft ElR - Seaport Marina Project, City of Long Beach
City Council Staff Report
September 25, 2006
Alternative 3 - Weekend Operational Emissions
Estimated Emissions (poundsIDay)
Emission Source ROC NOx CO PM10
On-Road Mobile Sources 85 99 1,094 115
Energy Consumption <1 21 4 <1
Maximum Regional Total 86 120 1,098 116
Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 100
Maximum Regional Total - 20% 69 96 879 93
Emission Reduction Factor
Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 100
Exceed Threshold Yes Yes Yes No
e
Other than the possible reduction of Weekend PMIO emissions below the regional
significance 1eve~ the above analysis does not reduce any identified significant impacts to a
less than significant status. Even so, the reduced project size could result in approximately
the following daily emission reductions on w~~~ds:
Alternative 3 - wee~~eratiOnal Emissions
Estimated Emission Reduction (poundsIDay and PoundslY ear)
Emission Source ROC NOx CO PM10
Daily Maximum Regional Total 14 20 175 18
Emissions Reduction
Yearly Maximum Regional 3,654 5,220 45,675 4,698
Total Emissions Reduction ,
Alternative 3 - Weekend Operational Emissions
Estimated Emissions Reduction (poundslDay and PoundsIY ear)
e
Emission Source ROC NOx CO PM10
Daily Maximum Regional Total 17 24 219 23
Emissions Reduction
Ye~ly Maximum Regional Total 1,768 2,496 22,776 2,392
Emissions Reduction
Long Beach Seaport Marina Project FEm.cc Staff Report
14
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft EIR - Seaport Marina Project, City a/Long Beach
City COll1lcil Staff Report .-
September 25, 2006 .
Alternative 3, the Environmentally Superior Alternative, would result in the following total
emission reductions as compared to the proposed project:
Alternative 3 - Daily and Weekend Operational Emissions
Total Estimated Emissions Reduction (poundslDay and PoundsIY ear)
Emission Source ROC NOx CO PMI0
Daily Maximum Regional 31 44 394 41
Total Emissions Reduction
Yearly Maximum Regional 5,422 7,716 68,451 7,090
Total Emissions Reduction
The "Environmentally Superior Alternative" would reduce total daily operational
emissions by approximately 510 pounds and reduce total yearly operational emissions
by approximately 88,679 pounds; in excess of 44 tons per year.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS REGARDING
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION:
SECTION
3L,
The City of Seal Beach is pleased that Section 3.L, Transportation and Circulation,
considered and evaluated potential impacts to the City of Seal Beach, which is immediately
adjacent. In our review of the document we have determined that the appropriate project
evaluation thresholds have been utilized in the traffic impact analysis portions of the
document. However, we are of the opinion that the evaluation and presentation of necessary
information to make a reasoned and informed decision as to potential transportation and
circulation impacts is seriously flawed, if not in the ~ at least in the presentation of
the analysis. DRAt- I
Presented below are the City's comments on the inadequate presentation of information or
conflicting information contained in Chapter 3.L:
e
D The DEIR document does not contain any information regarding "Project Trip
Generation." One has to search the Traffic Study, Appendix D to determine what
the projected trip generation for the proposed project is. This information is so
important to anyone interested in reviewing Chapter 3.L that it is inconceivable to
the City of Seal Beach that this basic project information is not provided within the
basic DEffi document.
a Figures 3L.2 and 3L.3 - both of these figures indicate "trip distribution" along
various roadways that serve the project site.
D It is requested that the figures be revised to indicate the percentage of trips being
allocated at each "Study Intersection" shown in Figure 3L.1. The trip allocations
should provide a breakdown for both the retail and residential components of the
e
Lcing BCICh seaport Marina Proje<:t PEIR.CC Staff Report 15
e
City of Seal Beach Comment Le"er re:
Drqfi EIR - Seaport Marina Project, City of Long Beach
City Council Stqlf Report
September 25, 2006
e
proposed project for each turning movement that is possible at these identified
intersections. The City of Seal Beach has previously provided to your office a
copy of the Traffic Study for the Boeing Integrated Defense Systems ("BIDS")
Specific Plan, prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan ("LL&G"), dated
December 13,2002 as a technical appendix to the BIDS Specific Plan Draft
Environmental Impact Report. If you require an additional copy of this
document, please contact the Department of Development Services. Please refer
to Exhibits 7A through 7F of the Traffic Study, which clearly indicate the
requested method of indicating the anticipated trip distribution for the various
land uses by intersection and by possible turning movement. Without the
requested information it is impossible to independently review and verify the
indicated trip distributions. This revised information should also include the
additional intersections of Pacific Coast HighwaylF~ Street and Marina
DriveIFirst Street n ^ fl
o The Figures should be revised to ~~11aJ Road" between 2nd
Street!Westminster Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway, as there is no existing or
proposed road connection, as is indicated on these exhibits.
o The trip distribution indicates 5% of trips along the roadway segment of 2nd
Street!Westminster Avenue between Studebaker Road and Seal Beach
Boulevard as leaving that roadway segment. There is no indication as to what
percentage of trips is actually using 2nd Street/Westminster Avenue between
Studebaker Road and Seal Beach Boulevard. The same comment is made for
every major roadway that serves the project site, especially Pacific Coast
Highway, Second Street and Studebaker Road.
o It is not possible to determine what ~ercentage of trips from the project site will
utilize Pacific Coast Highway or 2 Street!Westminster Avenue, other than as
indicated on Figure 3L.2, 10010 at Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach
Boulevard, 6% at Pacific Coast Highway and the traffic circle in Long Beach,
10% on Westminster Avenue east of Seal Beach Boulevard and 5% on 2nd
StreetJLivingston Avenue in Long Beach. If 10% of all AM Peak Hour trips are
using Pacific Coast Highway at Seal Beach Boulevard, it is assumed that a
greater percentage of project-related trips will be using Pacific Coast Highway at
BolsalMain Street and at Pacific Coast Highway and Marina Drive, as persons
closer to the project site will also access the project. This could cause
unidentified impacts at other intersi:ctions in Seal Beach.
o 10% of AM Pe{Ik: Hour project trips are identified at Pacific Coast Highway and
Seal Beach Boulevard, and this intersection is identified as experiencing
significant cumulative impacts. The analysis must then be "stepped out to the
next signalized intersection at Pacific Coast Highway and Anderson Street to
determine if "significant impacts" or "impacts less than significant with
mitigation incorporated" are identilied at this intersection. If significant impacts
or impacts that can be mitigated are identilied, then the analysis must step-out to
the next signalized intersections until no "significant impacts" are identified.
e
~ Beach seaport Morina Project FERCC StoffRoport
16
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Drqft ElR-Seaport Marina Project, City of Long Beach
City CO/Illcil Stoff Report
September 25, 2006 e
o 10% of AM Peak Hour project trips are identified on Westminster Avenue east
of Seal B.each Boulevard.. The analysis must then be "stepped out to the next
sigoaH...ed intersection at Westminster Avenu{: and Bolsa Road to determine if
"significant impacts" or "impacts less than significant with mitigation
incorporaterf' are identified at this intersection. If sigoificant impacts or impacts
that can be mitigated are identified, then the analysis must step-out to the next
signalized intersections until no "significant impacts" are identified.
o 17% of PM Peak Hour project trips are identified on Seal Beach Boulevard north
of Westminster Avenue. The analysis must be "stepped out to the next
signalized intersection at Seal Beach Boulevard and Golden Rain Road to
determine if "significant impacts" or "impacts less than significant with
mitigation incorporaterf' are identified at this intersection. If significant impacts
or impacts that can be miti gFItP.d are identified, then the analysis must step-out to
the next signalized intersections until no "significant impacts" are identified.
o Impact 3L.4, page 3L-29: The discussion indicates that the project would provide
"inadequate parking capacity", when other portions of the document indicate that
required parking is provided. Please clarify and correct as appropriate. It is also
requested that a parking analysis by land use be provided to clearly indicate how
much on-site parking is provided for the residential uses and how much for the retail ..
uses, and what the current required off-street parking ratios per housing unit and .
re~~~are. DRAFT
DEMOUll0N PERMITS NOT TO BE ISSUED UNTIL ALL ROADWAY
RIGHT-OF-WAY IS ACQUIRED FOR THE "BYPASS ROADWAY",
MIllGATION MEASURE 3L3:
Proposed Mitigation Measure 3L.3 consists of a proposed "Bypass Route" (Studebaker
Road/Shopkeeper Road) as indicated in Figure 3L.4, from Pacific Coast
Highway/Studebaker Road to Second Street!Shopkeeper Road, behind the shopping center.
This mitigation measure is vitally important to reducing transportation impacts along Pacific
Coast Highway and it is imperative that the language of this mitigation measure clearly
indicate that the necessary right-of-way acquisition for this roadway must be completed
prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any portion of the current structures on the
subject property. 'Failure of the Seaport Marina project to complete this necessary
transportation improvement will only result in a project being approved that is even more
inconsistent with the identified goals of the "Local Coastal Plan", as discussed in greater
detail below.
The project proponent should be required to provide a title report to the City of Long
Beach indicating ownership in the name of the project proponent prior to the issuance of
a deinolition permit, and the acceptance of the offer of right-of-way dedication by the ..
City of Long Beach prior to the issuance of a grading pennit. .
~ B.ocb S.aport Marina Proj.ot FEIR.a:: StaffRoport
17
e
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Drqft ElR - Seaport Marina Project, City of Long Beach
City COIDici/ Staff Report
September 25, 2006
PROJECT REQUESTS FOR "STANDARDS VARIANCE, NON-
COMPLIANCE WITH GOALS OF THE "LOCAL COASTAL PLAN"
AND IDENTIFIED "GUIDING PRINCIPLES"
o Concern Over Abilitv To Properlv Approve "Standards Variance" Reauests:
e
o We have reviewed the "Required Findings" as set forth in Long Beach
Municipal Code Section 21.25.306 regarding "Standards Variance", and are
disappointed that such requests are being considered for a project located on
10.9 acres. Among the "Required Findings" are the following:
o The site or the improvements on the site are physically unique when
compared to other sites in the same zone (Section 21.25.306.A); and
o The unique situation causes the applicant to experience hardship that
deprives the applicant of a .substantial right to use of the proPertY as other
properties in the same zone are used and will not constitute a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with limitations imposed on similarly zoned
properties or inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning regulations.
(Section 21.25.306.B) DR AfT
o The project site is 10.9 acres in size and it is the opiniQn of Seal Beach that the
site is not physically unique when compared to other sites in the same zone,
and that the applicant is not experiencing a hardship that deprives the
applicant of a substantial right to use the property when the proposed project
consists of 170,000 square feet of retail space and 425 residential housing
units.
o A review of the Los Angeles County Assessor Map for the subject property
indicates the property has in excess of 1,258 feet of depth along Marina Drive
and in excess of 1,283 feet of depth along Pacific Coast Highway between
Second Street and the rear property line, The property has approximately 450
feet of frontage along Second Street. There are no physically unique
situations that exist on a property that is basically rectangular in shape, and
that is proposed for new development which can easily be reduced in size and
location to comply with the standards for setback and open space as set forth
in SEADIP.
e
o It is further the opinion of Seal Beach that the granting of the identified
"Standards Variance" would be a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
limitations imposed on similarly zoned properties or inconsistent with the
purpose of the zoning regulations. The project could easily be re-designed or
reduced in size to comply with both the setback and open space requirements
that have been identified as needing a "Standards Variance."
~ng Beach seaport Marina Project FERCC SlIlfReport 18
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Drqft EIR - Seaport Marina Projec~ City of LOTIg Beach
City COU1lcil Staff Report
September 25, 2006 e
o Page 3A-6, Impact 3A.1, last pll1'llgraph and Page 3A-8, Impact 3A.3,
Operation, first pll1'llgraph. This discussion indicates the project would not
meet the lO-foot setback regulation along Second Street and requires a
"Standards Variance", and provides a 5-foot setback The discussion
continues on to indicate that "the decreased setback would
accommodate the increased density and massing of the proposed
project" (emphasis added). The requested "Standards Variance" cannot be
found consistent with the above required findings, as the "Standards
Variance" is for the purpose of "accommodating the increased density
and massing of the projecf', not "addressing a hardship that deprives the
applicant of a substantitzl right to use of the property", particularly when
the proposed project consists of 170,000 square feet of retail space and
425 residential housing UDi.ts.
o Page 3A.7, Impact 3A.2, third paragraph. This discussion indicates the
project would not meet the required 30% use of the site for open space -
20% is proposed. There is discussion about additional landscaping along
peH and Second Street that is in excess of the required setbacks.
However, the provision of a greater setback at some locations on the
project site cannot alleviate the requirement to comply with the overall
open space requirement throughout the entire project site. Again, the _
requested "Standards Variance" cannot be found consistent with the above _
required findings, as the "Standards Variance" does not "address a
hardship that deprives the applicant of a substantial right to use of the
property", when the proposed project consists of 170,000 square feet of
retail space and 425 residential housing units.
o Concern Over Abilitv of Proiect to Comolv with Goals of the "Local Coastal
Plan": RAFT
o We have reviewed the discussiQ in Section 3G.2, pages 3G-3 and 3G-4
regarding adopted Local Coastal Plan policies and are concerned that the
adopted policy provisions regarding "adequate open spaces is preserved",
"improved local circulation", "improving traffic flow on PCH and Studebaker
Road", "controlling the number .of dwelling units so as to minimize traffic
impact', and "improve access to'the downtown area and coastline" all seem
to be discounted in the proposed project.
o Again, it is the position of Seal Beach that the "Environmentally Superior
Alternative" at least addresses the above discussed policies of the Long Beach
Local Coastal Plan much more directly than does the proposed project. To
detennine that the proposed project is consistent with these policies appears to
be in direct conflict with the adopted Local Coastal Plan, particularly when
significant impacts have been identified to roadway intersections along Pacific e
~ Beach Saaport Marina Ptqjact FEIR.CC Staft'Raport
19
e
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft ElR - Seaport Marina Project, City of Long Beach
City Council Staff Report
September 25, 2006
Coast Highway, Studebaker Road, an!! Second Street as a direct result of the
proposed project. .
e
D The proposed project:
D Does not ensure that "adequate open space is preserved" since a
"Standards Variance" is necessary to approve the project with less than
required setbacks and less total open space;
D Does not result in "improved local circulation" since there are many
intersections that will experience significant and unmitigated traffic
impacts;
D Does not result in "improving traffic flow on PCH and Studebaker Road"
since there are many intersections that will experience significant and
unmitigated traffic impacts;
D Does not result in "controlling the number of dwelling units so as to
minimize traffic impact' since there are many intersections that will
experience significant and unmitigated traffic impacts; and
D Does not result in "improve(d) access to the downtown area and
coastline" since there are many intersections that wjIl.,pxperience
significant and unmitigated traffic impacts. DR At ,
D Concern Reeardine Potential Proiect Revisions to Comnlv with Identified
"Guidine Princinles" and Revision to Pronosed Mineation Measure 3G.l:
D We have reviewed the discussion on pages 30-15 through 30-17 and are
concerned that certain project components can be changed significantly to
respond to identified concerns of the City of Long Beach regarding:
D ''providing a more prominent retail presence, particularly at and near
the corner of Second Street and PCH" (page 30-15);
D "the quality of design is critical to the proper functioning of this open
space, and the current project is not developed to a level that allows the
City to make a clear evaluation" (page 30-16);
D "While the layout of the project succeeds in maximizing views of the
adjacent marina, the overall design is not unique to the project site, but
rather has a generic look that fails to account for the unique site
characteristics or the unique location of the site near the marina and at a
prominent intersection of the City. The design should be revised to better
accentuate the unique characteristics of the site, which include the
location of the site on multiple streetfrontages, proximity to the marina,
and the major intersection at the northeast comer of the site" (page 30-
16 and 30-17).
e
D It is a concern that the DEIR appears to be evaluating a "moving target" that is
likely to be subject to further change based on undisclosed and future review
of project plans by staff of the City of Long Beach. Since opportunities for
I,<mg Bc:ocb Seaport Morin. Project FEIR.CC StalfRoport
20
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Drq{t E1R - Seaport Marina Project, City of Long Beach
City Covncil Staff Report
September 25, 2006 e
further public and agency review and co=ent will be substantially curtailed
following the end of the co=ent period on the DEIR, the public's ability to
independently review and submit additional co=ents on any such project
amendments that will ''provide a more prominent retail presence"', allow for
the ''proper functioning of this open space", and revise the design "to better
accentuate the unique characteristics of the site, which include the location
of the site on multiple street frontages, proximity to the marina, and the
major intersection at the northeast corner of the site" will be limited.
D It is unreasonable to appear to disclose the "precise location" of the project,
and then state that changes to the project are likely to occur based on future
reviews by Long Beach staff to determine compliance with the "Guiding
Principles."" DRAft
D The City of Seal Beach is concerned that Mitigation Measure 30.1 could lead
to project changes that are not contemplated in the subject DEIR., and that
these changes should be evaluated in a subsequent environmental review
document to determine if unanticipated impacts are generated. Seal Beach
requests that any determinations of Long Beach that reflect such changes "to
comply with the identified "Guiding Principles" be noticed for a public
hearing before the Long Beach Planning Commission, and that all
co=enting parties on the DEIR be provided notice of said public. hearing
and provided a copy of the Long Beach Planning Commission Staff Report
regarding satisfaction of the identified "Guiding Principles" and copies of all
applicable project plans that are being considered for said approvals a
minimum of 1 0 days before the date of the scheduled public hearing.
e
The City Council considered this matter on February 12, 2007 and authorized the Mayor to
sign this letter, representing the official co=ents of the City of Seal Beach.
Thank you for your consideration of the =ents of the City of Seal Beach. Please do not
hesitate to contact Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, City Hall, 211
Eighth Street, Seal Beach, 90740, telephone (562) 431-2527, extension 313, if you have any
questions regarding this matter. Mr. Whittenberg will be attendance at the Long Beach
Planning Commission meeting to present these concerns and respond to any questions that
the Co=ission might have.
Sincerely,
e
Jobit Larson
Mayor, City of Seal Beach
I,dDg Bc:ocb sooportMarin. Project FEIR.CC StalfRoport
21
e
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Drqft EIR - Seaport Marina Project, City of Long Beach
City COIUIcil Staff Report
September 25, 2006
Distribution:
Seal Beach City Council
Seal Beach Planning Commission
Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Acting City Manager
OR~fl
Director of Development Services
e
e
Long Beach Seaport Marin. i'nliect FEIR.CC StalfRoport
22
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Drqft EIR - Seaport Marina Project, City of Long Beach
City COU1lt:il Staff Report
September 25, 2006
e
ATTACHMENT 2
"FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR SEAPORT MARINA
PROJECT', PREPARED BY THE CITY OF
LONG BEACH, DATED JANUARY 2007
e
NOTE: COMPLETE DOCUMENT, NOT
PROVIDED DUE TO LENGm, 215 PAGES.
A COMPLETE COPY wn.L BE AVAILABLE
AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
PROVIDED ARE CHAPTER 3: "RESPONSES
TO COMMENTS" FOR SEAL BEACH AND
CHAPTER 4: MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM COMPLIANCE REPORT.
e
Long Beach Seaport Marin. Projoct FEIR.CC StalfRoport 23
e
SEAPORT MARINA PROJECT
Final Environmental Impact Report
. ,
Prepared for:
Department of Planning and Building
,333 West Ocean Boulevard, Fifth Floor
Long Beach, California 90802
January 2007
,
e
e
.'r
: '
i'
I
.; I
'..
, ,
e
SEAPORT MARINA PROJECT
Final Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for:
Department of Planning and Building
333 West Ocean Boulevard, Fifth Floor
Long Beach, California 90802
January 2007
e
707 wnahlre Boula'llll'd
Slll81460
lDaArljolaa.CA9lXl17
21S.1ill9.43OlI
WWW.8SIIIIOC.CDm
Oakland
o~anclo
Sammento
San FrBncIaco
Saattla
1m1pa
......
e
rESA
....1
e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Long Beach Seaport Marina
Pace
1. Introduction/Summary 1-1
A. Introduction 1-1
B. Environmental Review Process 1-1
C. Project Overview 1-2
D. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation 1-3
2. Revisions to Draft EIR 2-1
! . 3. Response to Comments 3-1
3A. Agency Comment Letters/Responses
Callfomia Department of Toxic Substances Control 3-7
Califomia Department of Transportation 3-14
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts 3-20
e City of Seal Beach 3-38
3B. Organization Business Comment Letters/Responses
Latham & Watkins 3-74
Long Beach Marina Boat Owner's Association 3-84
. /
I
3C. Individual Comment Letters/Responses
A1ey, Keme 3-91
Altman, Heathe 3-103
Asper, Kelly 3-112
Casarreal-Adajian, Dr. Kenia & Honorable Jacob Adajian 3-114
Cottori, Melinda 3-120
Denison, Ann 3-124
Deysenroth, Kevin 3-126
Gavin, Jeanette 3-129
La Duca, Maria 3-131
Miller, Jeff 3-133
I Muench, Jeanne 3-135
! \ Ondeck, Nancy 3-137
Porter, Denton 3-140
Roson, Ivan 3-143
Stark, Debbie 3-145
Weiss, Ken 3-147
4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-1
A. Introduction 4-1
e B. Monitoring Reports 4-1
C. Mitigation Matrix 4-2
l.Dng Beech Seaport -.tam.
FIn.1 ErMronmenIIlIlmpllCt. Report:
ESA J 2D4452
J8nUlry ZOD7
Table of Contents
Appendices
A. Notice of Availability
B. Air Quality Technical Information
C. Newspaper Notices
D. Distribution List
e
A-1
B-1
C-1
D-1
List of Revised Figures
3L.2 AM Peak Hour Trip Distribution
3L.3 PM and Weekend Peak Hour Trip Distribution
2-11
2-12
List of Tables
1.1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
4.1. Mitigation Measures and Implementation Plan
1-4
4-3
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACM asbestos containing materials
BMP Best Management Practice
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB Califomia Air Resources Board
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Long Beach
CMP Congestion Management Plan
CNEL community noise equivalent level
CO carbon monoxide
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
dBA A-weighted decibel
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development
1-405 San Diego Freeway (Interstate. 405)
LACSD Los Angeles County Sanitation District
LBP lead-based paint
LBPD Long Beach Police Department
LCP Local Coastal Program
LPH liquid-phase hydrocarbons
LUD. Land Use District
NOP Notice of Preparation
e
e
Lang Beach SlIIIIpCll'l MlM8
F\nlII En'llltcnm.nt& Impact Report
ii
ESA I 204452
J.nu.ry 2007
Table of Con1&n\s
e
Acronyms and Abbreviations (cont.)
II
NO.
NPDES
PCBs
PCH
PD-1
PMP
ppd
ROC
ROWD
RWQCB
SCAG
SCAQMD .
SEADIP
SR-22
. ,
I.
voc
e
I'.
I'
I..
'.
I I
e
nitrogen oxides
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
polychlorinated biphenyls
Pacific Coast Highway
Planned Development district
property mitigation plan
pounds per day
reactive organic compounds
Report of Waste Discharge
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Southern California Association of Governments
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan
State Route 22
volatile organic compounds
Hi
(ong Bach s..port Mll'Ir\I
FInal Envllanmentllllmplct RtJlort
ESA I 204452
January 2007
Comment Letter 3A.4
r.
e
r'
!
BYFAC~E (562) 570-6068
AND FIRST CLASS MAD...
I'
~ber2S.2006
AJigela~ ~tal PiamIing ~
Cit;y ofLol\g~
DePartment ofPJauuing llIld B~ 7th Floor
333 w. Ocean BouIevtmI.
Long Beach, CA 90802
r'
i
I
; .
SUBJECf: aty of Seal Beach Comments ra: Draft Em - "Seaport
Mqrina hqjec:f' .
Dear Ms. ReyIIfJlfh:
e
I..
The City of Seal Beach has ~ the above J.,r",e,gd Draft EuviIonmenlaIImpoet
Report ("OEIR") lIIId bas soveml comments and. observatiOllS relative to the document
In submitting the fo11owi1lgl;Cl'\"""'" Sad Beach is not asserting ovemll opposition to the
proposed projeot, but seeks to fon:efuUy convey to the CUr of Long Beach lIIId to otIw
cooperating IIIIli ~le agencies, lbaf the cuu:ent lmviroiuneoW 8D11!ysis documeIIt is
sevetely fI.a\wd and must bo nMsecI and coo:ected to comply wiJh the full disclosure
requimnents of CEQA. Further, based on t\1e insufficient lID8lysis eanteiDed within the
subject dlH:uIneot, i1Dpads IISSOCiated with the proposed pl'QjeI:t me cleerly \IIlIICc;eptable 10
Seal Bellch. abseJ;Jt complete and lhorough environmental 8D8l.ysia and iInposititm of
appropriate mitigation measures 1hat are enfOtl:eabte and 'Which a&quateIy respond to the
advme enviromnental impacfs.
Seal Beal:h believes 1hat a proJ1eTly prepared euviromnental dl.sciosure documenf will clearly
describe fe&S1lllc a1temalives thai would reduce ptOject.m1ated impacts 1IpOI1 die
environment to an acceptable leveL As mtuired \Ii1dQ- CEQA, "public "8"ncie.s $hould not
apprave projects as propoud if thert are feasible alter174fivU Dr felUible mitigation
measures available which would~cmtlal1y l~ the IigniftCfllll environnlental effects qf
such projtcts" (Section 21002. CEQA) and "each pubfjc agency sha1l miligote Dr avoid the
3M-1
e
z."My~\LOnI- SeapalMiliua"*,, DElR.ea.m""LoIIor.docIL~
City qf&ol Beach Cammenl LeJJer re:
DrqfI Envi-onmentoll1njJr1d Report - .Seaparl Marin.. PrqJact"
Sepl~er )5.2006
significanl effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it
i;sfeasible to do so" (Section 21002.1 (b), (CEQA).
e
Seal Beach believes that Long Beach has the ability to accomplish the project's objectives ;lA.4-1
while avoiding, or at least further -reducing, significant impitcts upon Seal Beach. The (canL)
failure to pursue those alternative actions or n:duced project scope constitutes a violation of
CEQA.
REQUEST FOR RE-CIRCULATION OF DEIR DOCUMENT:
/lfllCCurate Project Description and /dentffication of Necessary "StantlArds Vll1'itznces":
The'subject DEIR does not fully disclose the project characteristics.that require amendments
to the "Southeast Area Development and Irrrprovtmlent Plan (SEADIP) (PO-I). SEADIP, as
most recently revised on FebroaIy 3, 2005 indicates the suQject property is located in "Sub-
Area 17." The "Provisions Applying to All Areos" of SEADIP stipulate in item 5 on page 2
of the adopted SEADIP that "The maximum height of buildings shaU be 3D feet for
residential and 35 feet for non-residentiaI l13es, unless. otherwise provided herein."
SEADIP does not provide other language anywhere in the document that such height
limitations may be combined for a mixed use project to achieve a theoretical height of 65
feet. The Sub-Area provisions of Area 11 do not indicate that any greater height for
development is permitted, and the DEIR project description indicates that the maximum
height of the proposed structures is 68 feet (page 2-14).
e
The DEIR. does not accurately describe the incompatible design elements to the adopted
SEADIP or discuss any environmental impacts of the increased height of the proposed
structures. Further, page 3A-6, Impact 3A-1, second paragraph includes the foUowing
statement, "The proposed project would chaIIenge City development standards regarding
height limitaJions." The City's own document clearly indicates that the proposed heights of
the project are not in compliance with adopted height standards and provides DO discussion
on this "challenge'" nor how it will be considered or mitigated by reducing heights to those
set forth in SEADIP.
3A.4.Z
Therefore the DEIR must be revised and recirculated to accurately describe and evaluate the
potential impacts of the proposed height of ,the structures, the incompatibility with the
provisions ofSEADIP, and develop mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen an
identified significant impact due to non-coinpliance with City 0{ Long Beach height
standaItls as set forth in SEADIP.
lnadequm PresentaJion of Reasonable Project AUerntrlives:
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, "Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to the
Proposed Project", indicates that an EIR "shall describe reasonable alternatives to the
project. . . .which would feasibly attain most of the basic objec/i11t!S of the project but
would avoid or Slwstantia/ly lessen any of the signiju:ant effects of the projecf'(Section
15126.6(a) and that "the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project
3A.4-3
e
1.01)I- Scopon Marina p,gj0Cl DEl1lCammonl LcIIcr
2
e
City qfStal B"aclt Commenl Letter re:
DrqfI Emironmental Impact RqJ07t - .St1I1p07t MarinIJ Prqj<<:r
Septemblll' 25, 2006
e
or its location which are capable of avoiding or SlIbst1mtiB11y lessening any signifu:unt
effects of/he project' "(Section 15126.6(b).
:A review of the project altema1ives set fonh in Section 4 quickly discloses that both
Alternative 1, Retail Alternative and Alternative 4. HoteVRetail Alterllalive do not comport .
with the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines.Section 15126.6. Both of these alternatives 3A.4-3
are described as having "impacts gnaW" than the proposed project !n the environmenta,l (cont.)
areas of concern of: .
o Air Quality;
o Noise; and
o T~portation and Circulation.
The remaining alternatives consist of the "Alternative 1: No Project Altemati.ve",
"Alternative 3: Reduced Project Altemative" and "Alternative 5: Oil Pipeline Relocation."
Alternative I assumes no project. and.no change to the cum:nt environment, while
Alternative 5 evaluates the proposed. project with only a change to an underground oil
. pipeline location. The only viable altemative evaluated in the DEIR is Altemative 3.
The cum:nt DEIR does not comply 'Yith CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 in that "a range
of reasonable alternatives" are not presented for the reviewing public to cQnsider. It is
requested that a minimum of two additioca.l. alternatives be developed and evaluated that.
will "avoid or substantially lessen IlIIJI of the SigniflCDnI effects of the projecr(Section
15126.6). It is suggested that one of the new project alternativC/l includt; the same basic
project component as the proposed project, but that the size be reduced by 30%. The other
new Project Alternative should either be a version of Alternative 2 or Altemative 4, but
teduced in size to such a level as to "avoid or substardUtlly lessen any of the significant
qfects Of the project' pumiant to the provisions ofCEQA Guidermes Section 15126.6.
3A.44
r.
I.
Lsck of Meaningful Evaluation, Amdysis, and Csmparison ofEac/r AlJema.tive with the
Proposed Project:
Further, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d) provides that aThe EIR shaU include
siif.licient information about each alternative to alWw a meaningful evIJIuation. analysis,
and co1flParlson with the proposed project." The project alternatives should particularly
include evaluations of the impacts on "Air Quality", "Noise, and "'l'lllIlsportation and
Circulation" at least to the level of analysis 8lI we have provided below in thiS letter. A 3A..4-5
simple analysis can easily be prepared for these areas of environmental concern that would
disclose to the public if any of the project alternatives would "aPOid 01' substrmtiJ1.ay lessen
any of the significant effects of the project' pursuant to the provisioos of CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.6. Without additional analysis of the areas identified for the project
significant ilnpacts, the requirements of CEQA are being violated.
L..
:e
LonS Boaoh Seaport Marina PJoj= DEIR.CommooI ~
3
~ rfSeal Beeu:h Comment Letler re:
Drqfl Em~a11mpact Report - ~Seaport MprinQProject"
September 25.,2006
CITY OF SEAL BEACH REQUESTS DETAILED TRAFFIC IMPACT
"FAIR SHAREn CALCULATION OF ALL IDENTIFIED PROJECT
AND CUMULATIVE PROJECT IMPACTS TO IDENTIFIED
INTERSECTIONS, INCLUDING'.' ANY .ADDITIONAL',
INTERSECTIONS mENiIFiED IN TH;E RE-CIRCULATED DEIB: .,'.
The City is still very much con~d that adeq~ measures have not been: proposed as
"mitigation measures" by Long Beach to address the significant and, unavoidable.
transportation impacts at Studebaker Road and the westbound SR-22 ramp ~ems: We
have commented on this concem since 2004 in regards to the Home Depot project and
this project.
The City wishes to reinforce and support the comments provided by Mike Bruel, 205
Harvard Lane, Seal Beach, regarding the safc;1;y. and visJ."bility issues that exist' at the
interseCtion of CoUege ParkDpve!\lld the westbound SR-22/Studebaker Roadon-offmmps
that were provided to Long 'Beachas part of the colIlmetlts on the "Home Depot Re-
Circulated DEIR". Those comments are also applicable to this project, as "signifiClint and
unavoidable" impacts are identified in the DEIR for these intersections. It is possible for
Long 1'\each to alleviate those safety and visibility concernS by removing the turning
restrictions established by Long Beach in the residential neighborhood adjacent to College
Park West, and it is requested. that serious CODSideration be given to establishing a mitig".tion
measuxe in the EJR to address the current unsafe situation that will substantially worsen due
to the "significant and unavoidable" impacts altead.y identified in the Hc:>me Depot
Recirculated DEIR for these inte~ons.
It is the position of Seal Beach that the City of Long Beach has the discretion to impose,
and must impose as a mitigation measure in the certified environmental docwnent, a
"Project-Related Fair 'Share Contribution" to begin the process of accumulating the
necessary funds to address the existing deficiencies at these "choke-points" in !he
regional transportation system in coordination and. cooperation with the California
Department of Transportation. It is also our position that projects such as the Seaport
Marina project, and other future projects should be required to provide this type of
contribution to address the cumulativc< impacts of these projects upon the regional
transportation system.
The City of Seal Beach again requests that Long Beach provide a detailed traffic impact:
"fair share" calculation of all identified project and cumulative projects impacts to the
identified intersections, including any additional intersection identified in the requested
"Re-Circulated DEIR" due to the proposed Seaport Marina Project. Such calculations
should include the following major cost categories, including the appropriate cost
assumptions:
D Description ofImprovernent;
o Area of Improvement;
: D Cost per squ~ foot of street widening;
. 0 Number of signal comers;
I.an/l Beach s.opOlt Marina Projco. OEIR.CommoaII.ctt<r
4
3A.4-6
3A.4-7
3A.4-8
.
I
e
l
i
, \
l
'.1
,
~
~
,
L
,
i
.
.
!
;
, .
City of Seal Beach Comlnmt Letter re:
Draj/ Env/ronmmtal Impact Report - "Seoparl Marina Project"
September 25, 2006
e
o Construction Cost estimate;
Q Construction Cost Estimate with 25% Contingency;
Q Cost of Right-of-Way; .
Q , Constructio"," Cost with Right-of-Way Acquisition; and
Q Project Fair Share P~t
The above "fair share" calculation shall be prepared for this project, the Haine' Depo~
project, and for any other identified cumulative projects that are set forth in the traffic
analysis as ,~ving a significant impaCt at the, sti~j~~.~ersections.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH .REQUESTS IMPOSITION OF PROJECT-
RELATED TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES FOR IDENTIFIED IMPACTS AT
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD; AND
POTENTIALLY AT OTHER IDENTIFIED iNTERSECTIONS IN SEAL
~~ :...'., .
'\
"
,
'I
I
[',
i.
! -
The project analysis indicates that Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard will
experience significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts due to the proposed project
Seal Beach imposes "Transportation Facilities tmd Programs Development Fees" and
"Transportation Fac~1ities and Programs Development Application Fees" on projects that
significantIy impact roadway intersections, and ~ that Long Beach impose such a fee
on the proposed project Our fee schedule would require payment by the pmject proponent
to the City of Seal Beach a fee 0[$1,613.15 per identified PM peak hour trip within Seal
Beach; and the nwnber of PM trips would be determined at the, boundary of Seal Beach
closest to the project :;ite along Pacific Coast Highway.
e
Until it can be detemDned if significant impacts are in fact identified along Westminster
Avenue and Marina Drive at First Street in Seal Beach, we C8l1I1Ot indicate if additional
transportation impact fees should be imposed: The information requested in a ''Re-
CiIcu1ated DEIR" would allow Seal Beach to make those d~ons.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS REGARDING CURRENT DEIR
DOCUMENT:
The following comments are provided to allQw the City of Long Beach to consider and
incorporate as it prepares a ~edICulated DEIR document.
SUPPORT FOR "ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIORALTERNATlVE":
L..
The City of Seal Beach strongly S\lpporls the "Environmelltally SuperiQr Allernativeft as
set forth on page 4-18 of the DEIR. This alternative, identified as "Alternative 3, Reduced
Project Alternative" is discussed on pages 4-9 through 4-12, and is generally descn"bed /lS
the same project as the proposed project, but containing 140,000 square feet of relail space
~d 340 residential units, a 20% reduction as compared to the proposed project Again,
e
Lonl B.."h ~ Marinal'rqjt:c. DElR.CommonI Loner
5
3M-8
(cant)
3A.4-9
3A.4-10
I
.
i
l
i
I
,
,
I
I
i
I
t
~
T
,
I
!
i
I
I
j
j
!
.
I
I
;
~
\
{
e
,
,
,
!
3A.4-10 ,
(cont) )
;
,
,
i
{
i
I
1
,
I
City of Seal Beat:h Comm.", Leuer re:
DroJl Emdronmentallmpacl RIporI - "Seoport Marina Projecz"
. September 25, .2006..
~ on our comments above, Seal Beach is of the opinion that other project alternatives
must be developed and evaluated in a manner to "allow II meaningful evaluation, anmysif,
and c:onrpfU"ison w~ the proposed project."
The. ~sition of Seal Beach on 5lIppOiting a "Project Alternative" niay change upon our
review of the "Revised Proposed Project", whicl1 would hopefully address the issues set
forth in this letter and upon our .review of new ''Project Alternatives" that would be set forth
in the "Re,Circulated DEIR" document
Reduced Traff"tc Tnrpacts of"Ef!vironmelltaIly Superior Alternative":
We are disappointed ~ neither the DEIR nor .the "Traffic Impact Report", contained in'
Appendix D does .not include even a ~ of the different transportation and circulation
impacts of the alternatives described in Chapter 4, especially since the proposed project
results in many intersections haVinfl "significant and unavoidable impaCts." The other
project a1temlltives may have resulted in Some impacted intersections being reduced to a
"less than significant with mitigation" level if there are less vehicular trips projeCted from
any of the project alti:malives. In. our review of the detailed trip generation projections
contained in Appendix D, we have been unable to determine how the "Environmentally
Superior Alternative" would result in trip reductions at intersections within Seal Beach.,
compared to the identified impacts. of the proposed project That is because Figures
contained in Appendix D do not contain all information regarding turning movements and
through traffic at ln1eIsections 20, 23,24 and 25; please refer to F~ 7B, 8B, l1A., liB,
12A, 128, 13A, I3B, 14A, 14B, and 16B,
A simple analysis would seem to indicate that a 20".10 reductiOn in the project size would
reduce Daily Total Trips, Daily AM Peak Trips, Daily PM Peak Trips, Weekend Daily Trips
and Weekend Peak Trips as follows:
Daily Daily Daily Weekend Weekend
Total AM PM Daily Peak
Trips Peak Peak Trips Trips
Trips Trips
Proposed Project 10,156 354 726 12,738 885
-
Alternative 3 (20"10
Reduction in 8,125 283" 581 10,190 . 708
project size)
Net Trip 2,031 71 145 2,548 177
Reduction
The above identified trip reductions are substantial, and may be substantial enough to reduce
impacts at some of the intClSections identified as having "significant and ll1lCtVOidable
impacts'" to a level such that eifuer mitigation may be proposed to achieve a "less than.
significant impact 4/fer mitigation" or ~ where no mitigation is required based on project-
Long Sc:ocb S<opotl Morino Proj...1lElR Comm<nl LoIIcr
6
3A.4-11
-
,
L
I
t
i
I
I
I
i '
I
I
,
, .
City qfSea1 Beach Camment Leiter 7f!:
DrqjI EnI1ironmental J"'Pad REport - .Seaport MDrins Prqje.ct"
&pumbt!r 25. 2006
related trips being less than identified significance criteria for either Long Beach or Seal
Beaclt. It is impossible for the City or for the interested public to determine the im~ of 3A.4-11
the reduced trips generated by the "environmentally superior project' due to the incomplete (cant.)
infoxmation presented both in the DElR proper and if). Appendix D.
e
I
I
,I
'j
No Needfor "Standards Voriallce" for the "Envh:onmenlll!J.y Superior Alternative":
.
\
,'.
I
I,
I
I
The City also' is of the opinion that Altenla1ive 3; if approved, would result in eliminating
the need for "Standards Variances" since,the building footprints would be substantia.lly 3A.4-12
reduced, allowing for the project to easily coui.ply with the setback and open spece standards
of the City of Long Beach. Please see additional discussion on this issue belOw.
ReducedAir Quality Impacts of"EnllirorunentJzJIy SuperiDr Altel'lllJtiPe":. :
I,
-
The City is futlher of the opinion that Alteroal:ive .3, if approved, would resiJlt in'less Roc.-
NOx and CO operational emissions and could, potentially reduce the idCntified. impacts of
the proposed project as follows:
Alternative 3 - Weekday Operational Emissions
Estimated Emissions (poundslDay)
Emission Source ~OC NOx CO PMI0
On-Road Mobile Sources 69 80 873 92
Energy Consumption <1 21 4 <1
Maximum Regional Total 70. 101 877 93
Regional Significance Threshold 5S S5 550 100
Maximum Regional Total - 56 81 702 7S
20% Emission Rednction
Factor
Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 100
Exceed Threshold Yes Yes Yes No
;
I
J
I
e
t
3A.4.13
t
I
I
I
;
,_
I
i.
I
[
I
I
I
I
I
l,
e
l
Long 8oar:h Solpllfl Mariaa Prvjoa OEIR.ConrmcaII:IllIcr
7
j.
I
I
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Drqft EnvironmenlDllmpact Report - "Seaport Marina Project"
September 25. 2006
I
I
Alternative 3 - Weekend Operationlll Emissions
Estimated Emissions (poundslDay)
Emission Source ROC NOx <;:0 PMI0
On-Road Mobile Sources 85 99 1,094 115
Energy Co~on <I 21 4 <1
Maximum Regional Total 86 120 1,098 116
Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 100
Maximum Regional Total - 20% 69 96 879 93
Emission Reduction Factor .
Regional SigDificimce Threshold 55 55 550 100
Exceed Thleshold Yes Yes Yes No
Other than the possible reduction of Weekend PMIO emissiOIlS below the regional
significance level, the above analysis does not reduce' any identified significant impacts to a
less than significant status. Even so, the reduced project sit.e could result in approximately
the following daily emission reductions on weekdays and weeketids:
Alternative 3 - Weekday. Operational Emissions 3
Estimated Emission Reduction (po'undsIDay llI1d l'oundslYear)
Emission Source ROC NOx CO PMIO
Daily Maximwn Regional Total 14 20 175 18
Emissions Reduction
Yearly Maximum Regional 3,654 5,220 45,675 4,698
Total Emissions Reduction
Alternative 3 - Weekend Operational Emissions
Estimated Emissions Reduction (poundsIDay and POQ.ndsIYear)
Emission Source ROC NO:!: CO PMIO
. Daily Maximum Regional Total 11 24 219 23
Emissions Reduction
Yearly Maximum Regional Total 1,768 2,496 22,776 2,392
Emissions Reduction
Alternative 3, the Environmentally Superior Alternative, would result in the following tata1
emission reductions as compared to the proposed project
A.4.13
(cont.)
Leas SOlIdI seaport Morino Projocl DEIR.C_ Lcaor
8
I
e
I
.
J
I
,
.j
~
e
I
I
e
.I.
I
,I
,I
CiIy ofSeJJl Beach Conomenl Letter re:
Drqft Environmenlol Impatt &port - ..S8t1port MarintJ /'roj4ct"
September 25, 2006
, I
! .
Alternative 3 - Daily and Weekend Operational Emissions
Total Estimated Emissions Reduction (poundsll)ay and PoundsIY ear)
Emission Source ROC NOx CO PMI0
Daily Maximwn Regional 31 44 394 41
Total Emissions Reduction
Yearly .Maximum Regional 5,422 7,716 68,451 7.090
Total Emissions Reduction The "Environmentally Superior Alternative" would reduce total daily operational
emissions by approximately 510 pounds and reduce ~tal yearly operational elDissio~
by approximately 88,672 poundS; in excess of 44 tons peryear. -
, I
,
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS' REGARDING
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION:
31..,
SECTION
! .
The City of Seal Beach is pleased that Section 3.L, Transportation and Circulation,
considered and evaluated potential imPacts to thi: Ci.ty of Seal Beach, wbjch is immediatCly
adjacent. In our review of the document we have detel:mined that the appropriate project-
evaluation thresholds have been utilized in ihe traffic impact analysis portions of the
docwitent. However, we are of the opinion that the evalua1ion and presentation of necessary
infoIII181ion to make a reasoned and infonned decision as to potential tnmsportation and
circulation impacts is seriously flawed, if not in the analysis, at least in the presentation of
the analysis_.
Presented below are the City's comments on the m3dequate presentation of information or
conflicting information contained in Chapter 3.L:
D The OEIR document does lll)t contain IJI!Y infoIIDation regarding "Project Trip
Generation." One has to search the Traffic Study, Appendix D to detennine what
the projected trip geneJlltion for the proposed J'lUject is. This information is so
important to anyone interested in reviewing Chapter 3.L that it is inconceivable to
the City of Seal Beach that this basic project information is not provided within the
basic DEJR docwnent.
e
c_
. .
! .
l..
o Figures 3L.2 and 3W - both of these figures indicate "trip distribution" along
various roadways that serve the project site.
o It is requested that the fig\lres be revised to indicate the percentage of trips being
allocated at each "Study Intem:ction" shown in Figute 3L.l. The trip allocations
should provide a breakdown for both the retailmi residential components of the
proposed project for i:ach turning movement that is possible at these identified
intersections. The City of Seal Beach has previously provided to your office a
copy of the Traffic Study for the Boeing Integrated Defense Systems ("BIDS")
i.
e
LlIIli Iload1 Soaport Maria. P",jccl DEIR. c.......lottor
9
3A.4-13
(conl) I
I
I
1
i
I
I
,
3AA-14 ,
3A.4-15
.
I
i
I
I
I
I
City ofSsa/ Beach Commenl Letter re:
Drqf/ EriPironnIentol Impact Repon - "Seaport Marina PrOject"
September 25, 2006
I
I
I
\
I
I
Specific Plan, prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspa.n ("LL&Oj, dated
IJec;ember 13, 2002 as a techIl;r;:a1 appendix to the BIDS Specific Plan.l>faft
Environmental hnpact Ri:port. If you require IIII additional copy of this.
document, please contact the Department of Development Services. Please Iefer
to Exhibits 7A through 7F of the Traffic- Study,-which clearly indicate the
requested method of indicatiJig the anticipated trip distribution for the various 3A.4-15
18m! uses by int~on and by possible turning movement. Wlthout the (cant.)
requested infolIIllllion it is impossible to independently review and verify the
indicated trip distributions. Thi.s revised information should.also include the
additiona1 intetscctions of Pacific Coast HighwayfFirst Street. and Marina
DrivclFirst Street.
o The Figures should be revised to eliminate "Studebaker Road" between trio \3A 4-16
StrectlWestmioster Avenue and Paciftc Coast High~y, as there is no existin or .
proposed road connection, as is indicated on these exhibits.
o The trip distribution indicates 5% of trips along the roadway segmen~ of 2""
Street/Westminster Avenue between Studebaker Rood and. Seal Beach
Boulevard as leaving that roadway segment. Then: is no indication as to what
pen:entage of trips is actua.lly uSing 2"" StrcctlWcstminster Avenue between 3A.4-17
Studebaker Road and Seal Beach Bo1,Jlevard. The same comment is made for
every major roadway that serves the project site, espe<lia11y "Pacific Coast
Highway, Second Street and Studebaker Road.
o It is not possible to detennine wbat ~ercc:ntage of trips from the project site will
utilize Pacific Coast Highway or 2" . Street/W estminster Avenue, other than as
indicated on Figure 3L.2, 10"10 at Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach
Boulevard, 6% at Pacific Coast Highway and the traffic circle in Long Beach.,
10"/0 on Westminster Avenue east of Seal Beach Boulevard and 5% on 2nd
3A.4-18
Street/Livinliston Avenue in Long Beach. If 10% of all AM Peak Hour trips are
using Pacific Coast Highway at Seal Beach Boulevard, it is assumed that a
greater JJClceutage of project-related trips will be using Pacific Coast Highway at
BolsalMain Street and at Pacific Coast Highway and Marina Drive, as persons
closer to the project site will also access the )l!9jecl This could cause
unidentified impacts at other intmections in Seal Beach.
o 10"10 of AM Peak Hour project trips are identified at Pacific Coast Highway
Seal Beach Boulevard, and this intersection is identified as experiencing
significant cumulative impacts. The analysis must then be "stepped out Ix> the
next signalized intersection at Pacific Coast Highway and Anderson Street to 3A.4-19
detennine if "significant impacts" or "impacts less than significant with
mitigation incorporaJeel' are identified at this intersection. If significant impacts
or impacts that can be mitigated are identified, then the analysis must step-out to
the next si~ized intersections until no "significant impol;tS" are identified.
o 10% of AM Peak Hour project trips are identified on Westminster Avenue east
of Seal Beach Boulevard. "The analysis must then be "stepped out to the IICld
signalized intersection at Westminster Avenue and Balsa Road to detennine if 3A.4-2D
"significant impactS" or "impacts less than signifiamt wilh mitigation
incorporaJecl' are identified. at this intersection. If significant impacts or impacts
Loos BoacIl SoaI!<JrtMari.. Proja:l DElR.C_ldtc,
10
!
'-
).,
~
1
-. J
,
i
,
I
I.
I
I
I
~
I
I
,
I
I
,
I
I
I
e
\
I
,I
'\
D
'II.
I
:1.
I
,I.
City rf&al Bia!* Comment Letter re.-
. D"'ifl Emir"onmDrlallmpoct Report - 'Seaport Marina ProJed"
. :.. -""""I
3A.4-20
that can be mitigated are identified,' theti the analysis must step-9ut to the nen (cant.)
signalized iDtezsections unti1 no, "significant impdcts" are identified. .
a 17% of PM Peak Hour project trips are iQentitied on Seal Beach Boulcviml. nonh
of Westminster Avenue.. The analysis must.be "stePPed Qut to the next
sign"li71"Ll intersection at Seal .Beach Boulevard and Golden Rain Road to
determine if "significant impacts" or "impacts Ius than significant with 3A.4-21
mitigcmon incorporaWl' are identified at this intersection. 'If significant impacts
'or impacts that can be mitigated are identified, then the analysis must step-out to
the next signalized intersections until no "significant impacta" are identified.
Impact 3L.4, page 3L-29: The discussion indicates that the project would provide
"inadequate parking capacitj', when other portions of the document indicate that
required parking is provided. Please clarify BDd correct as appropriate. It is also 3A.4-22
requested that a parking analysis by land use be provided' to clearly indicate how
much on-site parlcing is proVided for the residential uses ;,md how much for the retail
uses. and what the current requited off-street parlOng ratios per housing unit and
retail space are.
i
I
I
I
I
DEMOliTION PERMITS NOT TO BE ISSUED UNTIL ALL ROADWAY
RJGHT-OF-WAY IS ACQUIRED FOR 11lE "BYPASS R04DWAY",
MITIGATION MEASURE 3L3:
.
I
l
e
, .
Proposed Mitigation Measure 3L.3 consists of a proposed "Bypass Route" (Studebaker
RoadIShopkeeper Road) as indicated in Figure 3L.4, from Pacific Coast
Highway/Studebaker Road to Second StreetlShopkeeper Road, behind the shopping center.
. This mitigation measure is vitally important to reducing transportation impacts aIon8 Pacific
Coast Highway and it is imperative that the language of this mitigation measure clearly
indicate that the necessary right-of-way acquisition for this roadway must be completed
prior to the issuance of a demolition pennit f~ any portion of the current structures on 1he
subject property. The project proponent should be requin;d to provide a title report to the
City of Long Beach indicating ownership in the name of the project proponent prior to the
issuance of tl demolition pc:nnit, and the ac.ceptance of the offer of right-ot:-way dedication
by the City of Long Beach prior to the issuance of a grading pennit. .
3A.4-23
I.
.
.
I
i,
REMAINlJlIG COMMENTS ON DElR:
r.
The City has the following comments on different portions of tile DEIRdocument
i. ~
o Mitigation Measure 3A.l - This mitigation measure only requires a solid
security fence around the perimeter of the site during demolition, and it is
assumed, during project construction. Since project-related demolition and
construction activities are estimated to extend over a 22-month time period,
the mitigation measure should also require preparation of a "Construction
3A.4-24
;
I
i
I
I
I
\
I
o Mitieation Measures:
~
Laog Ilcadl seaport Marina Pn>joct DElR.Com...... Lottor
11
. City a/Seal Beach Comment Lener re:
Draft Emironmerrlal Impact Rq>art - .Seaport Marina Projed"
September 25,2006
Staging and Management Plan~ to be approved by the Director of Planning
and Building that will establish entry and exit points for c;:onstruction workers,
project suppliers, an~ all related demolition and construction vehicles. The
Plan should identify parking areas for on,.site demolition and construction
employees. location of temponuy office facilities, location of demolition
materials marshalling areas, location of construction materials staging sreas,
ana require covering of material that can canieil.by winds in accordance with
SCAQMP regulations.
3A.4.24
(cont)
o Mitigation Measures 3B.B, 3B.14, llnd 3D.lei - These 3 mitigation
measures all include language such as "as feasible", "to the greatest extent
JeasiJ?le", "as appropriate" or "should provide": The City of Long BeaCh
should clarify who is authorized to make such detemrinations and what
criteria that decision-maker will utilize to make such determinations. Unless a
specified City of Long Beach official has the ability to make such a
determination. based on relevant and appropriate infonnation, these mitigation
measures may become meaning1ess, and not Rsult in any mitigation being
taken to address the identified impacts that these measures bave been
identified to address.
3AA-25
D Mitigation Measure 3C.I- Seal Beach requests that this mitigation measure
be revised to contain similar language set forth in Mitigation Measure 3C.3 in
the first paragraph regarding retention of an archaeologist and that the selected
. an:haeologist, and a Native American monitor, be on-site during aU rougij
grading ai1d other significant ground disturbing activities. Potential cultural
resources and Native American remains deserve the same attention and
respect as do potential paleontological resources.
3A.4.26
o Mitigation Measure 3G.l - the City of Seal Beach is concemed that this
mitigation measure could lead to project changes that are not contemplated in
the sUbject DElR., a,od that these changes should be evaluated in a subsequent
environmental .review document to" determine if unanticipated impacts are
generated.. Seal Beach requests that any determinations of Long Beach that
reflect such changes be noticed, for a public hc:aring before the Long Beach 3A.4-27
Planning Commission, and that all commenting parties on the DEIR be
provided notice of said public hearing and provided a copy of the Long Beach
Planning Commission Staff RepOrt regarding. satisfaction of the identified
"Guiding Princip1esu and copies of all applicable project plans that are being
considered for said approvals a minimum of 10 days before the date of the
scheduled public hearing.
o Impact 3L.l, "Signlftcance After Mitigation" - The identifiCatiOn;Jf
intersections that will experience signifICant project impacts after mitigation 3A.4-28
are inconsistent with the intersections identified on pages 3L-30 and 3L-34.
Please review and correct as appropriate.. .
Loos _ seaport Marina Pnu= DEIR.Commont Lotter
12
~
,
e
:
~
I
1
1
e
,
.
e
I
,
. '
e Q
,I
,
'f
r.
'I
'I
['"
i'
J
"
,
, .
-
,
, .
I..
,.
,
i
I.
ie
i.
City rfSeal Beach Comml1nt Lelter re:
Drqft Environmen1al lmpacl Report - ,.~ Marina Project"
September 25. 2006
Concern Over Abilitv To LeI!8l1v Consider "Standards Variance" Requests:.
o We have reviewed the "Required Findings" as set forth in Long Beach
Municipal Code Section:2~.25.306 regarding "Standards Variance", and are
disappointed thai: such requests are being consi~ for a project located on
10.9 acres. Among the "Required Findings" are the following:
D The site or the improvements on the site are physically unique when
compared to other sites in the same zone (Section 21.25.306.A); and
o The unique situation causes the applicant to experience hardship that
deprives the applicant of a substantial right to use of the property' as other 3A.4-29
properties in the same zone: are used' and will no.t constitute a gtant of
special privilege inconsistent with limitations imposed on similarly zoned
properties or inconsistent with the pIlIpose of the zoning regulations.
(Section 21.25.306.8) .
o The project site is 10.9 acres in size and it is the opinion of Seal Beach that the
site is not physically unique when compared to other sites in the same zone,
. and that the applicant is not experiencing a hardship that deprives the
applicant of a substantial right to uSe the property when the proposed project
consists of 170,000 square feet of retail space and 425 residential hous'
units.
a A review of the Los Angeles County Assessor Map for the subject property
indicates the property has in excess of 1,258 feet of depth along Marina Drive
and in excess of 1,283 feet of depth along Pacific Coast Highway between
Second Street and the rear property line. The property has approximately 450
feet of frontage along Si:cond Street. There are no physically unique
situations that exist on a property that is basically rectangular in shape, and
that is proposed for new development which can easily be reduced in size and
'location to comply with the standards for setback and open space as set forth
in SEADIP.
3A.4-30
o It is further the opinion of Seal Beach that the granting of the identified
"Standards .Variance" would be a grant of special priVilege inconsistent with
limitationS imposed on similarly zoned properties or inconsistent with the
purpose of the zoning regwations. The project could easily be re-designed or
reduced in size to comply with both the setback and open space requirements
that have been identified as needing a "Stant:kzrds Variance."
a Page 3A-6, Impact 3A.I, last paragraph and Page 3A-8, Impact 3A.3,
Operation" first pllIagraph. This discussion indicates the project would not
meet the 1 Q-foot setback regulation along Second Street and requires a
"Standards Variance", and provides a S-foot setback, The discussion
cont~ues on to indicate that "the decreased setback would
ac:commodate the increased deBsity and massing of the proposed
project" (emphasis added). The requested "Standards Variance" cannot be
found consistent with the above required [mdings, as the "Standards
3A.4-31
Loa. BcacIl Saport Marina Project DEIR.CommonI LolIa'
I3
I
I
!
;
,
,
I
[
j
I
I
i
,
I
j
I
I
I
I
I
!
i
!
1
l
j
!
City of Seal Bel!lCh Comment Letter re:
Drqfi EmironmmJ:allmpact 1/4p<Nt - "Seaport MI1rina Projoct"
September 25, ~OO6
Variance" is for the pmpose, of "accommodating the increased density
and massing of the project', not "aJldressing a hardship that deprives the
applicant of a substantial right to lISe of the property.... particularly when
the proposed project consists of 170,000 square feet of retail space and
425 residential housing units. .
D Page 3A.7. Impact 3A2. third paragraph. This discussion indi~ the
project would not meet the required 30% use of the site for open space-
20% is proposed. There is discussion about additional landscaping along
PCH and Second Street that is in excess of the required setbacks.
However. the provision of a: greater setback at some locations on the
project, site cannot alleviate the requirement to comply with the overall
open space Iequirement throughout the entire project sit!:. Again, the
requested "StandaId! Variance" cannot be found consistent with the above
required fmdings, as the "Standa;rds V arilll)ce" does not ""address a
hardship that deprwes the applicant of a substantial riglit to lISe of the
property". when the proposed project consists of 170,000 square feet of
retail space and 425 residential housing units. .
o Concern Over Ability of Proiect to Comply with Goals of the "Local Coastal
Plan":
o We have reviewed the discussion jn Section 3G.2. pages 30-3 and 3G-4
regarding adopted Local Coastal Plan policies and are concerned that the
adopted policy provisions regarding ""adequate open spaces is preserved",
"improved local circulation". "improving traffic flow on PCH and Studebaker
Roatf'. ""controlling .the number of dwelling units so as to minimize trcifJic
impact'. and "improve access to fhe downtown area and coastline" all seem
to be discounted in the proposed project.
o Again, it is the position of Seal Beach ,that the "Environmentally Sqperior
Alternative" at least addresses the above discussed policies of the Long Beach
Local Coastal Plan much more directly than does the proposed project. To
determine that the proposed project is consistent with these policies appears to
be in direct conflict with the adopted Local Coastal Plan. particularly when
significant impacts have been identified to roadway intersections along Pacific
Coast Highway, Studebaker Road, and Second Street as a direct result of the
proposed project. '
o The proposed project:
o Does not ensure that "odequate open space is preservetf' since a
. "Standards Variance" is necessary to approve the project with less than
required setbacks ani:lless tota1 open space;
o Does not result in "improved local circulation" since there are many
intersections that wiIl experience significant and unmitigated traffic
impacts;
LOne B_ Seaport Marilla Project DElR.Canlnloa< Ltuor
14
3A.4-31
(cont.)
3A.4-32
3A.4-33
I
e.
I
i
\
>
,
I
,
I
\
i
l
I
,
I
!
.
I
-
}
,
I
\
t
!
,
!
I
I
I
1
-
City of Seal Beach COl/fment !-erter re:
Drqft EnviTonmentlJllnrpacl Report - "Se"l'O'1 Marina Projet:1w
September 25, 2006
D Does not result in "improving traffic flow O/J PCH and Studebaker Roar/'
since there are many intersections that will experience significant and
UlIII1iligatcd tmffic hnpacts;
a Does not result in "controlling the number of dwelling units so as to
. minimize traffic impacf' since there are many intersections that will
experience significant and unmitigated traffic impacts; and
a Does not resUlt in '.'improve(d) access to the downtown area and
coastline" since there. arc many intersections that Win experience
significant and unmitigated traffic impacts.
, ,
r-
o Coneern ReI!8rdine Potential Proiect Revisions to Comnlv with Identifiecl
"Guidinl!: PrinciD~es" and Revision to Pronosed Miti28tion Measure 3(;.1:
a We have reviewed the discussion on pages 30-15 $"ough 30-17 and are
concerned that certain ,project compori.ents can be changed significantly to
respond to identified concerns of the City of Long Beach regarding:
a "providm, a more prominent retflH presence, particularly at and MIIr
the corner of Second Street find peR' (page 30-15);
Q "the quality of design is critical to the proper functioning of this ojJen
'space, tmd the current project is not developed to a level that allow the
City to make a ckar evaluation" (page 30-16);
o )"While tlte layout of the project succeeds in maximizing views of the
adjacent marina, tlte overall de$ign is not unique to the project site, but
rather has a generic look that fatls to account for the unique site
characteristics or the unique location of the site near the marina and at (l
prominent intersection of the City. The design should be revised tD better
accentuate the uniqlle characteristics of the site, which include the
location of the site on multiple street fronmges, proximi(y to the inarilul,
and the major intersection at the northeast comer of the site" (page 30-
16 and 30-17).
e
r.
a It is a concern that the DEIR. appears to be evaluating a "moving target" that is
likely to be subject to further change based on undisclosed lII1d future review
of project plans by staff of the City of Long Beach. Since opportunities for
further public: ~ agency review and comment will be substantially curtailed
following the end of the comment period on the DEIR, the public's ability to
independently review and submit ,additioll8.1 comments on any such project
amendments lhat will "provide a more prominent retoil preserrce", allow for
the "proper fllnctianing of this tpen space"', and revise the design "to better
accentuate the uniqJU! characteristics of the site, which include the location
of the site on multiple street frontages, proximity to the. marina, and the
major intersection at the northeast cOmer of the site" will be limited.
"
Q It is unreasonable to appear to disclose the "precise location" of the project,
and then state that changes to the project are likely to occur based on future
.
,.
Lang aCach ~ MariDa P",jool DEIR.C_Lol1a' IS
3A.4-33
(corti.)
1
.
I
t
3A.4-34
,
r
:
,
i
,
I
I
I
i
i
\
I
I
I
1
City ofSeol Beach eomrnmr Letter re:
Draft Environmental Impact Report - "Seaport Marina PrQjecz"
September 25,2006
reviews by Long Beach staff to determine compliance with the "Guiding
Principles."
D The City of Seal Beach is concerned that Mitigation Measure 3G.1 coilld lead
to project changes that axe not contemplated in the subject DEIR, and that
these changes should be evaluated in a subseqllllnt environmental review
40cument to determine if Il11RIi.ticipated impacts are generated.. Seai Beach
requests that any determinations of Long Beach that reflect such changes to
comply with the identified "Guiding Principles" be noticed for a public
hearing before the Long Beach Planning Commission, and that all
commenting parties on the DEIR be provided notice of said public hearing
and provided a copy of the Long Beach Planning Commission St.aff Report
regarding satisfaction of the identified "Guiding Principles" and copies of all
applicable project plans that are being considered for said IIPProvals a
minimum of 1 0 days before the date of the scheduled public hearing.
o Possible Clerical Corrections:
D Mitigation Measures 3A.2 and 3A.3 - Both of these Mitigation MellSllIeS
indicate that compliance shall be to the satisfaction of the "Director or
Planning or Building". We believe that the intent is to state "Director of
Planning or Building." Please review and revise as appropriate.
o Page 31-6, first paragraph - Indicates that the population of Long Beach in
2005 was 89,528. Table 311 on page 31-1 indicates the 2005 population was
489,528. Please correct.,
The Environmental Quality Control Board considered and discussed the DEIR. document on
September 13, 2006, and authorized the Chairman to sign this letter. The City Council
considered this matter on September 25, 2006 and authorized the mayor to sign this letter,
representing the official comments of the City ofSeai Beach.
Thank you for your consideration of the commentS of the City of Seal Beach.. Please do not
hesitate to contact Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services,.City Hall, 211
Eighth Street, Seal Beach, 90740, telephone (562).431-2527, extension 313; if you have any
questions regarding, this matter. In additiop, please provide four (4) copies of the
Recirculated DEIR on this project to Mr. Whittenberg, so the City can have a copy available
at City Hall and at each horlll)' within the City available for public review during the new
public comment period.
Laos Bad> Scopolt Mariaa ProjocI DEIltC......nll.o."f
16
t
e
I
I
311..4-34 "
(cont.~ 1
t
t
3A,4-35
'\
,
t
i
1
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
~
I
I
,
i
1
I
I
l
I
e
I
I
I
I
, ,
City a/Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Drqft ~ Impact Report - "Seaparl MarinaProjea"
SeptOlllber 2$, 2006
e
Sincerely,
\ I
f I
JI>IIj-W l-'aekf~
Mayor, City of Seal BeaC
.
, I
.'
7C-~
! :
i,
I
Chainnan, Environmental Quality Control Board
City of Seal Beach
Distn"blilion:
Seal Besch City Council
Seal Besch Planning Commission
Seal Beach Environmental Quality Contwl Board
City Manager
Director of Development Services
I
I
I
I
t
1
I
I
e
California. Coastal Commission
I ~
I
l..
!
.
\ ,
, '
,e
Long Bcaob Soaporl MorinaPmjoot DElR.Commont ~ 17
3. Response tD Comments
3A.4 City of Seal Beach, John Larson, Mayor; Mario Voce, Chairman,
Environmental Quality Control Board
e
September 25, 2006
Response 3A.4-1
The comment's citation of CEoA Is correct and the comment is duly noted. It is also
noted that the last sentence of CEOA Statute Section 21002 reads, "The Legislature
further finds and declares that in the event specific economic, social or other conditions
make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual
projects may be approved in spite of one or !TIore significant effects thereof." Thus,
agency decision makers are afforded some latitude in their evaluation of projects with
significam adverse environmental effects. The responsibility of agencies in this regard is
clearly detailed in CeQA Guidelines Article 2 General Responsibilities, Section 15021
Duty to Minimize Environmental Damage and Balance Competing Public Objectives.
The specific requirements for statements of overriding considerations are detailed in the
CeQA Guidelines Section 15093. Where projects are approved despite significant
adverse environmental effects, CECA requires a statement of overriding considerations
demonstrating the decision makers' findings that "economic, legal, social, technological,
or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects."
Response 3A.4-2
Comment noted. Page 2-21 of the Draft EIR has been revised to state that the
amendments to Subarea 17 of PD-1 relate to allowing mixed-use developments,
adopting new residential development standards and amending the maximum allowable
height from 30 feet to 70 feet.
e
Response 3A.4-3 .
In exploring alternatives, there may be reasons to evaluate altematives that may have
greater impacts than the project with regard to some environmental issues, but have
reduced impacts with regard to others. As compared to the proposed project, the Retail
Alternative (Alternative 2) would have reduced impacts in the area of land use, and the
HotellRetail Alternative (Alternative 4) would have reduced impacts for most public
services and utilities, as well as recreation (see Table 4.1 on Draft EIR page 4-19).
CEQA recognizes the possibility of additional or greater alternative impacts in directing
the evaluation to address additional impacts that may not occur with the project (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6(d)). The EIR also evaluates three other alternatives
(Alternatives 1, 3 and 5) where all project impacts would erther be similar or reduced,
without any increase in impacts. The Reduced Project Alternative (Altemative 3)
provides for 14 areas of reduced environmental impact (Table 4.1 of the Draft EIR).
e
Lang SUch s..pert MlIrinII
....---
3-38
I!SA I ......
JIltIUIry2Oa7
3. Response to Comments
I.
Response 3A.4-4
There are significant unavoidable impacts of the project that would remain even after
implementation of substantial mitigation measures. These areas are air quality
(construction ROC, as well as operations ROC, NO. and CO) and traffic (see Table ES-1
Draft EIR, page ES-9). These particular impacts are especially dif:ficult (and often
impossible) to avoid if a site is to be developed or redeveloped in urbanized areas of
southern California. However, in a larger view, intill development and reuse of existing
under-developed sites is considered preferable to urban sprawl and encroachment into
outlying undeveloped areas. The comment requests a 30 percent reduction alternative,
while the EIR already examines a 20 percent reduction alternative. The impacts would
be (for more issues the impact is in direct proportion to size) reduced by approximately
ten percent. The EIR has provided a reasonable range of alternatives to explore
reduction and avoidance of project impacts, to the extent feasible and practical, given
the project and its location. While variations on the EJR alternatives are possible. CEOA
does not require an EIR to 'consider every conceivable alternative. to a project' (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)~
e
, .
Response 3A.4-5
CEQA does nat require an exhaustive analysis of alternatives. but requires rather, as the
commenter quotes "sufficient information about each alternative to allow for a
meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison with the proposed projee;(' (CEQA
Guidelines 15125.6(d)). The level of detail of alternatives analysis in the EIR is
appropriate as required by CEOA As stated in Section 15126.6{ d) of the CEQA
Guidelines: "the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail
than the significant effects of the project as proposed..
e
The level of alternatives' impacts relative to the project's impacts is clearly
demonstrated, issue by issue, in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR, and summarized in Table
4.1. The purpose of CEOA alternatives analysis has thus been met
I.
Response 3A.4-6
The comment includes the City of Seal Beach's concerns regarding the intersection of
College Park Drive and the SR-22/Studebaker Road westbound on-off ramps. The
concerns address a pre-existing condition th~t is unrelated to the project. However,
independent of this project. the City is working with Caltrans to address this existing
condition (see Response 3A2-1) regarding impacts to SR-22 westbound on-
ramp/Studebaker Road (PM peak hour). In addition, it should be noted that the
neighborhood mentioned in the comment has ather access routes, other than this
intersection.
e
I.
Li:ng Beach Sellport MIIdn.
Fnlll Envll'anmentlllmpltl R8part
3.39
ESA I 204452
J8nu.lry 2007
3. ReSponse to COmments
Response 3A.4-7
The commenter does not identify which chokepoints are potentially impacted and
references existing deficiencies that are not appropriate to be addressed in this EIR. The
EIR discusses all potentially significant adverse impacts of the project and either
identifies_mitigation measures for those impacts or identifies significantly impacted
intersections that require a statement of overriding considerations. No further "fair share"
contributions are necessary or appropriate.
e
Response 3A.4-B
The E1R identifies all potential adverse impacts and appropriate mitigation measures.
Since the EIR identifies impacts and states what the associated mitigation measures
should be, the discussion of fair share calculations is not appropriate. In addition, there
is no mechanism for collecting fair share contributions for regional impacts.
Response 3A.4-9
The comment requests project-related traffic impact fees for identified impacts at
PCH/Seal Beach Boulevard intersection. There are no project-related impacts at this
intersection; there is a cumulative impact. Each city collects impact fees for projects
developed in their respective cities. The Cities of Seal Beach and long Beach do not
have a reciprocal agreement that would require projects in one city pay impact fees of
the other city. Based on the lead agency's (City of Long Beach) guidelines, all traffic
impacts are disclosed and mitigation measures are identified.
e
Response 3A.4-10
The comment regarding support of the Reduced Project Alternative (Alternative 2) is
noted and will be forwarded on to the decision makers for their consideration in taking
action on this project. Please also see Response 3A.4-4 above for additional discussion
of reduced project alternatives. No further analysis of alternatives is required.
Response 3A.4-11
The comment requests full analysis of the traffic impacts associated with the Reduced
Project Alternative (Alternative 3). As discussed in Response 3A.4-5 above, the level of
detail of alternatives analysis in the EIR is appropriate as required by CEQA. As stated
in Section 15126.6( d) of the CEQA Guidelines: "the significant effects of the alternative
shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as
proposed."
The EIR generally identifies what the potential impacts associated with the alternatives
would be compared to the proposed project, including that traffic impacts associated with
the Reduced Project Alternative (Alternative 3) would be less than the project Should
the d'ecision makers choose to proceed with this alternative, significant traffic impacts
would still be anticipated. However, additional analysis may be desirable prior to final
e
LanD BlWl SUpart MIInna
--..............
3-40
!SA 12Q44S2
Janu.ry 2lXI7
e
i'
I
e
e
'.
3. Response 10 Comments
approval of the alternative to quantify the reduction in mitigation, as appropriate. The
Reduce Project Alternative (Alternative 3) would not meet the project objectives to the
same extent as the proposed project Additionally, it should be noted that the proposed
project would not have any project-related irnpacts in Seal Beach, and there would
continue to be none, if the decision makers pursue the reduced alternative.
Response 3A.4-12
As discussed on page 4-11 of the Draft EIR, it WBS assumed that the Reduced Project
Alternative (Alternative 2) would require the same discretionary actions as the proposed
project, since this alternative has not been fully designed.
Response 3A.4-13
Comment noted. Implementation ofthe Reduced Project Alternative (Alternative 3)
.would reduce development by 20 percent as compared to the proposed project. This
would result in a corresponding 20 percent reduction in regional operational emissions.
Please see Response 3A.4-4 above for additional discussion of reduced project
alternatives.
Response 3A.4-14
As noted by the commenter, project trip generation was discussed in the traffic study
prepared for the proposed project (Appendix D of the Draft EIR). Project trip generation
was also discussed on page 3L-15 of the Draft EIR.
Response 3A.4-15
The comment requests graphics showing the percentage of project trips allocated at
each study intersection by land use component. The EIR included actual project trips at
each study intersection in accordance with City standards, and the reader, if desired,
can derive the percentages. The level of detail requested is beyond that required for
CEQA traffic impact studies and beyond standard practices and guidelines of the lead
agency (City of Long Beach). It also would not provide meaningful information to the.
reader regarding impacts.
Response 3A.4-16
Comment noted. Please see Chapter 2 of this document for revised Figures 3L.2 and
3L.3 that corrects this typographical error.
Response 3A.4-17
Please refer to Response 3A.4-16, above and the revised trip generation graphics
included in Chapter 2 of this document. Please refer to Response 3A.4-15 regarding the
percentage of project trips allocated at each study intersection.
t.Dnu 8ead'l Suplll\ WlrtnII
An8f EnvflWll1ll!lllllllmplld Report
341
ESA I 2044S2
J.nulry2lXl7
3. Response fa Comments
Response 3A.4-18
Please refer to Response 3A.4-15, above and the revised trip generation graphics
included in Chapter 2 of this document.
e
The commenter is correct that a greater percent of project related trips would pass
through the PCH/Marina Drive intersection than the PCH/Seal Beach Boulevard. since
intersections further from the project site receive less traffic associated with the
proposed project (as a result of dilution with distance). The revised trip generation
graphics accurately illustrate this, and there would be no project-related impacts at any
intersection in Seal Beach.
Response 3A.4-19
Part of the comment is based on incorrect trip distribution graphics included in the Draft
EIR. Please refer to Response 3A.4-16, above and the revised trip generation graphics
included in Chapter 2 of this document.
The analysis extends as far as the project is anticipated to have a cumulatively
considerable contribution to an intersection. The PCH/Seal Beach Boulevard intersection
was assessed and no significant project impacts were identified. The intersections
located further south through the City of Seal Beach are generally less heavily traveled
and would carry successively less and less project traffic as the distance to the project
site increases. Thus, no impacts to any other intersections further downstream are
anticipated. The analysis does not evaluate all cumulative impacts in the region, only as
far as the project's contribution would be considerable.
e
Response 3A.4-20
The comment is based on incorrect trip distribution graphics included in the Draft EIR.
Please refer to Response 3A.4-16, above and the revised trip generation graphics
included in Chapter 2 of this document.
The analysis extends as far as the project is anticipated to have a cumulatively
considerable contribution to an intersection. The Westminster Avenue/Seal Beach
Boulevard intersection was assessed and no significant project impacts were identified.
The intersections located further east through. the City of Seal Beach are generally less
heavily traveled and would carry successively less and less project traffic as the distance
to the project site increases. Thus, no impacts to any other intersections further
downstream are anticipated. The analysis does not evaluate all cumulative impacts in
the region, only as far as the project's contribution would be considerable.
Response 3AA-21
The comment is the same as Comment 3A.4-20, but refers to the PM peak period project
trips. "Please refer to Response 3A.4-20, above.
e
Latlg s.1Ch Suport MIIr1....
Final ErwllCMWnbll Impact Repart
3-42
!!SAI_
JlT1UIIry2007
3. Responsl!l to Commen\s
e
Response 3A.4-22
Comment.noted. The required parking ratios from the proposed project are five spaces
per 1,000 square feet of retail space, two spaces per residential unit, and one guest'
space per six residential units. The proposed project provides 1,700 spaces, which
equates to five spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail space and two spaces per
residential unit No guest parking is provided. However, the City allows sharing of guest
and commercial parking, provided that a shared parking study can demonstrate that the
parking provided is equivalent to the parking demand for the project Chapter 3L
(Transportation and Circulation) of the Draft EIR has been revised to note that the
applicant will prepare a shared parking analysis. Mitigation Measure 3l.4 has been
added to reflect this requirement. See Chapter 2 of this document regarding corrections
and additions to the Draft E.IR.
! .
i
,
Response 3A.4-23
As indicated on page 3L-25 of the Draft EIR, a statement.of overriding considerations
would be required for the intersection of PCHISecond Street, if the extension of
Shopkeeper/Studebaker Road cannot be guaranteed at this time. Please also Response
3A.2-5.
e
Response 3A.4-24
Comment noted. Please see Chapter 2 of this document regarding revisions to
Mitigation Measure 3A.1.
Response 3A.4-25
Comment noted. Please see Chapter 2 of this document regarding revisions to air
Quality mitigation measures.
Response 3A.4-26
Comment noted. Please see Chapter 2 of this document regarding revisions to
Mitigation Measure 3C.1.
! .
\
Response 3A.4-27
Comment noted. Any substantial project desiQn changes would be subject to additional
environmental review per the requirements included in the CEQA Guidelines
(Sections 15162, 15163 or 15164).
I...
,.e
j
I
Response 3A.4-28
The comment is correct in that the inters!!lclion of Second Street and Marina Drive
should be included, however this intersection would not have a cumulative project
impact remaining after mitigation if the project's proposed signal at the project driveway
at P'CH is installed.
Lqng BelICh Sq:Iart Marin.
F"na1 Enwu,,"*,t81Impacr: R.pcrt
3-43
esA' 20<<52
J~.-y 2007
3. Response to Comments
Response JA.4-29
Comment noted. The Draft EIR correctly states that Standards Variances are required
for setbacks and usable open space. The comment presents opinion regarding the .
veracity of the Standards Variance requests. Standards Variances are discretionary
requests which, in the case of the proposed development, are subject to approval by the
Planning Commission in accordance with Section 21.25.306 of the Municipal Code. The
City of Seal Beach will be notified of the time and date of the public hearing, at which
time the Planning Commission will accept public testimony related to the granting of any
Standards Variance request.
e
Response JA.4-JO
Comment noted. Please refer to Response 3A4-29.
Response JA.4-J1
Comment noted. Please refer to Response 3A4-29.
Response JA.4-J2
Comment noted. Please refer to Response 3A.4-29. The commenter correctly states that
SEADIP requires 30 percent of the site to be developed as usable open space. In lieu of
providing the 30 percent required under SEADIP. the applicant has attempted to develop
a meaningful, pedestrian oriented open space program that emphasizes views. access
to the Marina, and providing breaks in the building massing. The decision on whether a
hardship exists to justify 9ranting of the Standards Variance, along with whether the
open space provided is adequate for the development, will be made by the Planning
Commission at the public hearing on the entitlement requests.
e
Response JA.4-3J
The commenter's support of the Reduced Project Alternative will be forwarded on to the
decision makers for their consideration in taking action on this project.
Response 3A.4-34
Comment noted. In addition to the development contained in PD-1, the City and the
. applicant agreed on Guiding Principles to address the design, site layout, open space,
and traffic impacts (see pages 2-18 and 2-20' of the Draft EIR). The comments with
respect to project design are noted. Regarding land use mitigation (Mitigation Measure
3G.1). the City will evaluate any design changes in accordance with the CEQA
Guidelines. Should any changes require additional environmental analysis, a
supplemental environmental analysis will be prepared for the project.
Response JA.4-35
Comments noted; please see Chapter 2 of this document regarding corrections and
additions to the Draft EIR.
e
ll:lhg BelIch Seaport M.-fn.
A\IlI EaWonm8rC.Bl knpIICt Report
3-44
ESA/_
J~ry 2007
e
CHAPTER 4
Mitigation Monitoring Program Compliance
Report
i .
Pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and the CEQA Guidelines
Section 15097, a public agency is required to adopt a monitoring and reporting program
for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to
a proposed development. As stated in the Public Resources Code:
. ".. .the public agency shall adopt a program for monitoring orreporting on the
revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to
mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. "
Section 21081.6 provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring
programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be
enforced during project implementation, shall be defined prior to final certification of the
EIR. The public agency may delegate reporting or monitoring responsibilities to another
public agency or a private entity, which accept delegations. The lead agency, however,
remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occur
in accordance with the program.
The mitigation monitoring table below lists mitigation measures required of the project in
order to reduce the significant effects of the project. These measures may also be
included as conditions of approval for the project. These measures correspond to those
discussed in Sections 3A through 3M of the Draft EIR; and reflect any revisions in this
document. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring
program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring
each measure. The applicant will have the responsibility for implementing the measures,
and the various City of Long Beach departments will have the primary responsibility for
monitoring and reporting the implementation 'of the mitigation measures.
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is set up as a compliance
report, with space for confirming the correct mitigation measures have been implemented
for the Seaport Marina project. In order to sufficiently track and document the status of
mitigation measures, the matrix below has been prepared with the following components:
e
. Mitigation measure
, -
e
. . Monitoring phase
long S.ch Suport Millin.
FInIII EnvIronmental hnpacl Report
4-1
ESA /2D44S2
JlII'1ulry20D7
4. MltfgatJon Monitoring Program Compliance Report
. Enforcement agency
. Monitoring agency
. Action Indicating Compliance
. Verification of Compliance (for use during the reporting/monitoring)
Information pertaining to compliance with mitigation measures or any necessary
modifications and refinements will be documented in the verification of compliance
portion of the matrix. The mitigation matrix !ollows this section.
LOng Buc:h .supDlt Mna
FInal En\llrDnrnenlll bnplcl Report
4-2
ESA / 204452
Jlnuary 2007
e
e
e
(.
e
e
,
i
I.
E
il,.
~
a
l
I.
ei
~
:i
..
w
....
~
~
a:
o
o
a:
a..
~
~O
. a..
"'w
~a:
!1i!~
1-'-
a:
o
I-'
Z
o
:E
z
o
~
o
E
:E
.
"
c
!!
a.
E
o
o
-
o
c
o
'"
.
"
'"
'"
~
..
c
;lrJ
II c
-..
.,,-
c-
-...
c E
00
"'0
.:/
c
.,.,
E"
. c
l! .
.e~
c
w
..
...
~
..
E
.
a:
.
..
o
r- . n_ - -
;
i
I
I
,'---
..
ii
'"
:s
I
i
1
I
r---- --
I '" 2>..
:_ E a-G.E c::
IOlDC:U)~D
ll!D.. 0 "Clot!
I C c 'i" c "'''
Oc: a C.t:l
1~i5 0 0I.e'C l!!
10 O"'D lC:_o
.!! Ii i~ 60
, a i:i
,
r--'- ..-..-
liS 1
:"'.",;
,.. c e
"''''''
..",'"
Ie: c CD
IO"EC
':= Co 01
IO.!! .6
ba.;e
:G ~
i;'
c
.
~
'"
C
'C
o
""
C
o
:;
I
.c c
I" ·
"'.",;
.lD 1:.;:
I"' '" ..
..",'"
Cc.
10-0
,..J 2 aJ
Ie.!!! .5
~bD.. ;g
'0 i
.
'"
'"
.c
l1.
..
C
'C
o
'2
o
:;
j--
i-
Is c
PiS 0
: 2:a
'- .5
I~ UI
i85
'dlO
!a:
I
i-_____n___
ic CD
Ig :5
= C >'.J:' "".5
o c J:l,!!. Q I!!"
ElI:I"C::aIlll-C_"C
"".JlllDOO:::Sr:;
"CIs:> 1/1 ~c:= C"'!i
i~llI~lU.s:8ril!>.
IIIca.=a.B's'C.c
1'5 8 CI 1 ~ 0 iii Ii "CI ~
! fJ -.! ~ IS if ! ;-e.8
':ijI!'sm::a!E!III!!B.!!
!:J IV'\::.6Sl5 ~allD::r
1.~!~~.J!1i~~~
:~~'Em 8 ~~Ii!e
I CD lD'tl ...IE nl 10 ,&.00=;
'~i 5 i.e ~E.!!=g
IOCClmJ:9~..!!ra-o
I"C B ra.5.s1! l'IIJ~cn
'~= i e 0 8.) III .!-5
I~ 1i1::::E.!!!.e- E CI E e"J
.... .."a.....s E c .
D :.., II c....o U.... r::: -:8 '0 u
- '.:6IG "COou c:
- 'I.. ClI..CC=;:II~ca
.! ="-1:.9 m o=J:lll!
.. '=~jlil.ti ~ ~ R
.I ~!t05~..e~B ~
I!!
"
.
..
.
::Ii
c
o
'"
..
~
lE
.c C
" .
m~f
"'''''''
""0.
lc C .
0-0
...J2a
,'b..!L5
',a.a. J2
lu dl
n --- - _n - 1 _
1'5 i
'il"'~
I:i!
1.9~~
_c..
0.5.5:
a-D..J2
lu dl
.... . _. . _n.____ .__ _~ ...__ ._.
..
c
:2
'S
"'=
'liE
."
"a..
c
'"
"
~
ii ii
:.u
"'....
..",'"
c c .
.9"20
a!~
ba.:e
U '3
'"
-5 i
m." !;;
ace
"'....
",..'"
c c ..
0-0
...rEa
a.!!.E
boD..:g
u j
-
c
,gc
"t!
is
c '"
~6
I!! 0
0.
.s G c1"O
tD C=':G
.5 'ii j - - alii!
~.a"E i :I!~ CD
.6G=_:::IfS~W :5
~;~!!~.i.8 da
caa"iie=lD .=~6
aB.c c.~.c gJJ! ii=
UlI_ ca- u en~"
8 J: ~ r& CIS Ii OJ -!
cca=Ucen,.=C =
caC.cU=C'IIc.=_1D
::I a aca.c.c u.c1,",;,
';5::.s~gu~ CD.E
II -a.g en .i!:- en ~< 0:5 ;g
=1i.!!J5!~uiClJS.B
Si~o.~C'IIo=.s!15
---m"'-~~~
~ cm:; "g-c as ii a
a.J!ii"C a'e-~ ~oi~
.. 0.= C j;; a. E :g ::e C
"0. mea =C'II"iS.g.!!
~ all ~"ii ai-a,gJIJ=D..
!~iJi-& 8. fi I: -l!~
:I . u "'Cl B e OJ_ C a
'" i1 .. c .. ...~;; oE U
=C--e:::l-aCD-=~ ~
== ! c. ~j ==.a XI a~ is
/:l-
3~
iii..
~ !
a~
..
c
ii
'5
"'''''
'liE
....
"a.
c
..
"
~
~
-
c
jC
,,0
.5'll
...5
c '"
~8
It
,
c .. ."
a g_ -a .E '3
c- aIDC lD-a g
=a~mcllIca .Q=....~Jaa
=q:::::Ia.!!~CD=~aJ!l:a= CD
.51D=~tncaii$! "I:c=:I... :;
)o,=! CD ~a'O'ii5-g!! 0.08..:'0
CCIiIG - f4C'11lDbC.U
II a.... UlI 1: ca 'E r;: tn_ ID 0 C'II lD C
aB ~'3"1i lDE:8.5 a IU ~ ee'i
-i! - "c c .. .. .. ... "
~i [C'II~ ~o~sj:B !I~ii!
caC-aU- -ga.a_au"
"oE a-a;~ I! c.-Ii c:::D.,!! CD a = c.
UlI wc -a.aUll~lD~~CDC
~lD&C'II=tu-aECD~i"OEE~
CD~e.!!1fJ Sr:::lD=~-!a. ~
=ii c.~"ii 8. ca t;;_-s:.!! tI)~B.a:J
S..cmlP"cCD CI':I'Em::-oOC_a
...~=~~=a~!=~~i'O~d
~:5",E"'E.eZ~0.I!!"'S6~m~
D..U1ic:::D ...........J' ii.!!Et:cic
~ i= =8~.g -; 4~ is of! 8 m ~ C i
cca~~~~Ca.s.s~5~S~~
I'IID moO :::IS.g E.s G (!'a
l!!=a~~:5!li!~....~~~~_
"=u=o~="o-~c~ "og
lOeGU"I:,a- EE-a u: "6
:i &[ti! li~.elg ~~~~
8-
u
"
"1
"L
i"ii
i"
il
H
E'
",
10
e
"-
"':
8.
"
'"
'"
.e
i,
51
::i,
e'
~'
f
...
~
z
e
u
-
w
....
III
~
~
Cl
e
~
~lL
.....
...~
we
....lL
Illw
~~
Cl
z
ii!
~
Z
e
::e
z
e
~
Cl
E
::e
.
u
e
:ll
co.
E
o
u
'Ii
"
o
1ii
~
.
>
~
~
..
E
IJ.
111
c
..
"ii
'"
:s
'"
"
;:;3
l!"
-..
...-
"'6.
"C~
~cJ
u
<
c
....
Eu
. "
e.
2:1
"
w
I
f --
-- ------ ----.- -- " - -. .. .~-- ....----. -. --- .~.. -. .-- - . -
.~
;g
.il=
'DE
i'l.f
fi
j
~
"
..
:1
'"
C
'i:
.l!
C
o
lE
{j
oa-~
oaO
",-
g>i~
.3~,g
Q il".g
~C\Q..
c..l
{j i
.....'"
oa"-c
"'"ll
"''''.
S-!c
Q.H
2>Cl..;g
i3 ti
.
..
"
.c
...
...
c
';:
.l!
C
o
lE
"
" e
:ao
j(il
..2
6m
~8
P:
!
"
..
..
.
lE
c
.!!
1ii
g
i
1;
Ii
"
a
~
c
~
.s
..
c
B
.2
!
oa
..
l!!
"
..
I
E
c
o
..
..
if
E
f..
=,!!
-;1
Foa
s oal ~ "a lDm
c :;: ~1~"'E I!!!!!... .<> e
" .s 0, - "'l!! .E S '" l5 !! l5 'iii j
.c ~ il ...s rl " .. - ... _ g _ .c-
I-...!l E'li'6.'C CJN :EIl :::." ".!!!- ""Ii
!!.s.!!! ~."...ii .cal.E:i- "( O!!l-E
::::I c::"C-SftlaGICLU CD J- .eE'C-I!!=
iil..u B.!!!"'~.e;='<>EU~ ."a-s.
i cB~ 5l'ii~~1ii"~ 1lI ].8 p.1l ~ ~'5
~ ~i ~ ~_~lll Hiiiil t;i ;:~;J-~ IU' ~
~".. il~ '!o. ""O~.. li"i..!.!S~:g..
8~1l !!lhH; ~.~ ill H:!! B ~ ~-al
!if = uJ:::::I P."CI 11= -e 5t .@! ~!ll].cci
C\.'C '<>!l!'C ~.5] "I a " O"5l--'<>!'l-!!
.E" hIH..~ ~:ll lts:j:i!€ll8.:::
~{~ ft.I"i!!UlE~1! '0-= CD-;~Ulas2Cl1o
'& E!I -R m c.;5 .!! .s"j .!! 'E;:: . S.E t$ Z. II) J-: = a;
.~Bi .sh g~s';11 i& ~H ~i~~h~~
;;j'iii- .l! ~ "'5 !if ~1l .. 6" 8.ii.li.2~ ~'ll~
""i~Ui .:6,66 ,!1i Q~'5.ia;!~a15e=
!"'lS,,;;l:...iE- ~'5F..E=E",~~",.!!!.!!
::L=-i
Hho
::&o2E"
o
o
.,.
...
=as ;S >.
.c I e-
ill ~~
,-IG..._
0"00';;;:: all J!l
C111t ~ l!!" .<>"
c.-COID ~6
~jillJ 'iE
E"C CD= .!! ca
.c .. \\'15 Vi"
"C:-5 > c: II!:. ~
=-d' e:t O!R
_ S - I!! "C IS
~lDga-8"ti!=
=a'iS.jclD 0_
~E\II:og.H
_B~€i!..a.
~~.t=-! ~ n
;.g]~ill]jA
13!i!ill~~ ..i!
~ GIS II) ID EGo
~ = B ~:g ::( 8
'!i
'"
'5
.L
n
o
o
~
~ i
1 l
"& p
10
Q
1
~ i
~
,
"
-
~
o
8-
~
~
l-
l
C)
~
, -...
.J~
~o
lllfu
, ill: ~
,rC)
~
o
l::
%.
o
:z
%.
o
~
C)
E
:z
"
, '
\
,
I
..
--
t:.
,-
l' !
'"
~
1
,.; \
e"
~:
~~ f:
--- \ \
.-- - \
,
\ \
\ \
\ .-' --.-------..- - ...\...
, .
,
\ \
i \
\- . -'-" .... -'."--'-" .-...- \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\
\-..--.-- .----..-__.....1..-.. .... .. -.-..-"
... 'll'
,i \~.
\e"'l \e'%
\0 \0 lii
\i \~...
Ii! i
\.!!! .!!l
,." . .__--- __ _'__.. ...1
, I
.. .. . ..
'.!t I.!! \~H .~!
,. '. \" if \~.~ ;,.~
n~ ~\~ .\\ m
,.0' .,0' ,0' ,0'
" \0 · ·
\; :;--__ _- _ _ _ \.; 1 .;ii
.:il' In' h\ ,1
~H~ 'ni ~.~ W
~.. ".Z .i;' ~"6 J!! '6
,.', ",~ ,', ,',
~ .. r . .. o.
,_ - - I-
i,) \_8 ~B J
>:--.----- - ::-;1i. -- - . -;-:--- - - ~- -:- .
i"\ ill ,it t~Wl\~ 1 ~h\.\ ~ U~
~g \!\t~i\~1\\\l.~\8\\ Ur~ 1~ i ~i\~~
\' . H rl \1 · I' ' · hi 11 '. ~ \.-
iH lH\~~lll'~\~ iHik'.\! \ 'i~ll~
\\\\ \m\\l \\\\~\\ \i\ \\\\1\1 \\~ \\\'\\1
% _, l' .,. . .1'" _1 · ..1< · .... ·
~
~ \
~ ~ 1'.' . . \. ~.' ...! .l ·
. 0,1> il 1 ..ut>
il
'0"
s%-
,&0
",I,)
~
",
i
::l
"'i
"&i
~..
i
i
"'~
"6~
lie>.
e
1
-- .-.. .-
~
2
'"
.s
;g
~
~
.i';'
%i
,22
.n
1
l!'
'\
...
\i
~\
~
E
!
'"
~
I
~
s
~
~
I
..;
j:?
z
o
~
W
...I
III
~
:IE
<C
0::
Cl
o
0::
-"-
.1-
"'0::
Wo
...1,,-
IIIW
~o::
Cl
z
D2
o
I-
Z
o
::i
z
o
~
Cl
E
::i
t-'~4- --- ..- . - ~___ w__~ ___
.", 'to to
'" l,g 'C c
c 1'5 '6
.- . 1'5 ,= I!
'1;iu "
.g; .CD := ."'- e)=
"",- 10 E jo ~ -e
c- o~
-... 15~ fllf
c ~ III a.
.c .c c
:8u 'm I. !!
u la ,=> ~
< ~.!! .~
..
~ .c -5_ -5_
c 'Mo "0.. "0"
. '.x -~ &r-~ ~-~
'"
< =i~ Dri~ cnii
'" .6€ 0 c E S~g
c .si~
'\: := l!l.:il
.l! - ...... '0 i.g
0.." 0.."
C 'bOD- ","e"- ","e "-
0 '0 u U
:IE
..------- .--. .-.__.. - - - _.- ~----_....
.
~
.!
D.
E
o
t.l
-
o
c
.!!
1;
u
'"
'\:
~
c
....
eo
. c
el;,
.s<
c
W
.
...
~
.
E
.
'"
..---
.
1;
c
L-___ .
..
i
:E
-5_
110.
__-l!:
,- c~
",.
'C E
:.9 -e .!!
_ !:ii
o .. "
'","eo.
u
..
..
m
.c
a.
to
c
'\:
o
'E
o
:IE
c
,.2
U
'S
..
c
.8
,i!
"-
..---'-'-.' ~
..
3
..
..
~
c
.!!
1;
~
i
5 ,!J
CI:l- 'i . 01
.e,i I: SCD ~lD-2
::g ..cC:;lD CDC.a::J
'3~I:~"'O=.J:S.9'="'D
J:I':I:I alIi::.::_..!!i! mill'"
>-c'ii R C'IJ 0 E'O lDij =
'a:~elO~~6~ai
aic.s8a;d~~=5
!,,!Ulaa!i_J!!...~-
I: c:..... Ole:: L::; 0 1ft o_1!!
!!I ~ !"i~ !5i~gfi
:lDme:::SC:,;::lCD'lJa:I::I
,-"~"tJm..5P.'!I5:S r::.b
11)- IG .!! III il Olin
:5~ &~ E~ a.s~ii1S
.s~€.s:i.9:l.E i-8 e .
...ccac:-elll- u lit
III l,g ca CD -- JV It.l ~ Iii cn-E .....
='...u_"u- C lUlU
Q D..~aJ.!_= 'i1:..!!=-a..
: i;: i:; ~ ~i~6j =~~
; :~~ ~a.8'" 6-g~ i~~il
>.'..:1: _lDe!cn...UC-a
ClI~5.!91!!.E 8 E.a c.91ii~u
~;='~~iE5u~u.sj.!..
.'.CD-CD5CDg5CD~=CDe
e ::E a.."ii.c i:;;cncc::>"CI 0.
I""
"-
"0..
,~-~
DlI&~
15.e u
..J m=
- a....
o,,=>
2;-ea.
o
r-'.-- -_. -._-
\s a
1'l 13
.s ~
i!! c::
8 ~
t _._ ___ ____. J:
C
to . to
~'i5 a t'll c.E
--8"'C _ciOIC'
"CI ::I ca,::;:I1C'
=s CD"l5 II m=jg,.!!
.c=.5==s~lOa.
~'iiie~ClJcnao
1D5:a.-"l5E~
osuii=aB-8
"g.s u il-.. . l!!
!l....cug.'l::i5
~6i-;;!ERCD
cnEra~DS!::Sai
.!!!. R-l5"O"iii'a"
1D"Oe"CI4:lCU IC'
-6= cUrG"i:5'9
t'llD.lOSIII.c=1IJ
.9'itD~!C~u-8
dE:-lI:..D"g'6-BJ.!=
.t: ca 0:5"=- CD'lI:I G
n..siC"~GBDlt'll:S
""is.ocu'" arn...
C"!o.;I" O:l-"""ID 0
Cltlu...o -;;::I=~
OJ ..s..e1i-5.5.2-
!=~CII..c:iilia;g
::1= 8'8,& .5.D~
..c ~c=u-
:: t:"CIlf It D.am"g.
:IE CD IC' .b G c...c ...
t c"aI E 11I"0 10 CD ID
..J__. __ _~_
w
___.__1_ __..
.'"
1.5
"0
...
Ie; :=
'- e
'0 Ii;
iBa..
,c
.'g
'ill
1-
'"
c::
,'6
II!
Cl=
''0 E
: fltf
c
..
."
~
.c::
u_
mo.
",-i!
Dl5~
6€ u
..Jca=
- 0....
0."
","e"-
U
-5_ '-5_
\1 0 .. 'ill 0 .
m-i:: m-~
I!H ;!U
'0 i~ '0 i.g
_ ~~ ~_~~e_~
1-5_ -5_
ca 0 III ICCI 0 In
~ c: -t: ~r! 'E -t:
g>~~ '~H
.9 . = ,.9 .. =
'0 i~ ''0 i-g
","e"- ","eo.
,u 'u
_...L~ .
o
~
c c
o .ll
tI 'is
S .s
i!! 1!
- i-----:~
....S
.!!J!!.
01 '0 u.t:
.em ~!o.
"CI~ iSEe
~lDo~B8:
>.=.r.= I! CD
c.. cQ..!!"'5"
Oa)(1:
'O.!I"O: ca '0
llgi-silJ!!
CIIII::;t>C
mCcOEo"
::I 0 m_ E
:e"iS.jJ!e
_ CD lD ._
a"O;6"O..... "
:6= I: D"
.. ~ "=" .
.e.z: -1Gi:;cn
11).1: n.c CD G
5'E:l:o:=~
;t5ml:~-Sll)
..=a.s:8."J i
el1Q.CIIOi5lD'ii
Gl c"Q u..
"CD.!!I:~i6
! -= c.~ :r:;"E e
~=ga~';8E
,,1:::a:IGCDUCD
.l::'raUCDdI>
:e 8..1;; x-"""c 0
cnlD';;;:I_ DI
. to
'", .5 jii
~ C' "iii.5 i5"
\'=6 C J!I i 0
d!~! &
"'=-l"
I~C a .c.
'CI 0 II:' :e
1-" e" E"
0_ ...
: II .= II E ..
'C'In a. 8~
,~6-g!e
. 'fA E lQ. ~ Q.
._ CD~:5 CD
'!!"O .. ~...
=1ilSSii
. .s ij ~]"i
'RE.!! 5"C1
...m_-r:.
a.. u cu III m .
.- :a .c"'D CIJ E
'II! c.; CD !.!!
iC m I:~ il re.
,CO' ID.!!=!Q;;;
.=Q.ar~lU
.!; ~ g'~ a.. ~
=E'6.!!!€.5
'J!! .. I! Iii . I!
2. o.Cl$lD"'O
m_:5i c:::
.E :!'II: 0
"Q::;s:a
,I;." e !e
...5S fl
c c~)C
moCIJICD
'5.! ~1j
8g-ae'
Ii ~.c c.
::Io"'m
UlE~s::.
.!!!m m1:'
CD"C ... ::I
-s= R"'C
.e~Ei
ClJCD.!=
..._-::s
.8 c:! !if
n..'Bco...
..=a,-s. D
'III; Q.m.D
cmt:.=
'"'U..!!!
!= 0.11:I
:;"...rDlDl
.- c C
II E i3 ti:a
-iDeCl
::& Q. CI..!!
I
..
..
'Ii
.
.
."
H
..
'"
B I
~ &.
=a
E
o
<) S
'5 "
c C
o
3
IE ..
~ 'i
"'-
.5
I.
I'
i
~
..,.
. "
" c
:as
c-
~e
!B
~
e
-
l.i
o
t.:l
-
1:\
III
<I:
t-
l
Cl
~
..lL
...~
1:\0
~fu
t-ll:
Cl
Z
~
!::
z
o
::Ii
z
o
~
Cl
E
::Ii
\ ~
E
!
'"
~
"
8-
,!,
5!'
I E
e\
'.' B
3.
..'
'"
"
c
i
\
. ---l-..--....-- .-" -.-' -'.- .-'- ...... ....-. .., .-"
\
.-'- -t---- --... . .-\--- --------.....- - .' .-..---.
, \
, I
{---t- .. -\C----- t
~~ \~t.. \~'jg ~t
~: \~"- \~l ~l
i1L------L----- J____
\ii \-6
\1~~ \.n~
o"~ o"~
,~.E.!I \6h
-!l.lS ,..J '':is
\'0.." \"6 i"
2>0"- \2>0"-
\0.... ..t.. .-.--.' .- ..
'\1!~ \1!~
l!'t~ \g>t~
\~ i~ \\~ it
\2>0"- 2>0 "-
rS ,\\0
~ i~ ~
; it \~
~ ,q \~
~ \~ i~
. . . . _" t-...-....---..... . __.--1- .----.- ".
:.~ : :;~_"'6.5 \ !]
~la~ \l!'~~o:il..Jl ~~~ %i~
l-;li '\'Hlh\il~ \l.ai~Jl~l!'>~.
"'=8~ \"="'6~H~%!~ "~"E'O"6~~~~
ia~.5 ia!'S ''lI'' 6'" i6i!!~2>"'EaJ!
"6!!i1 ui~iI~:~1i~ 1"6!!~hIHti
Il.ll_o ,1l.ll..sgs".=llo \!lga1i""'i~~"
H M \~1!~:sh~Hi!i ~~.!Il iiln~'" ~
!iilll . \!~lc~l\i,=\l5. ;!H~\\'e~.;l!
-.. ,," S 0 ~ ,,-8 oJ! P Q> E ~ ~.ll .. " $0 ~ " 8.... I!
;:,s=-!!,SJl .o;=!!~,"dla .... =1i ... "I>=c
II s.h'~i \Sh'i i.l!Rihi.HH ..xi :-i~
i i n~ ~; \nh~il~\~~: \!~~ ~~o=.e~!l
\; 11> ~\,s"i" \"'8:~ 6-ll"il~~ ajS io!8:~= ll!" :1.5
g 1 ~iU-' \~iU;U Hl~ ~id ~lll~l
'; go 5..rl!'!" .!i..r!..cs.ei!..tslii "..l!'i!'".!llllili
~ ! ilUi \n.dlu~Bi\il\dl!~u.
Ii
-~
!~
. ~ --~-~
-------
__n_--
i
Cl'"
"6~
So..
Ii
~
~.----_..-
ii
:o~
~i~
s\i
~c~
o
\
\1~~
\!€~
._!illS
\0 ii"
2>0"-
i3
l!~
...ii~
a.h
= !illS
o ii"
2>0"-
i3
is
""6..
\\l~
..J":!l
.\~~~..
ii_
:o~
m=.!!
O"s
~\~
0","
2>0"-
U
~
~
~
o
c
'C
o
~
o
:Ii
.r::
u_
!lO"
iii-i!:
~lii~
~"
m'"
oi~
2>0'"
G
;:
et'
'" "
" "
o2f
tii
c
o
'il
~
~
Ii:
"
~
i
~
D:.
m
..
!
..
'"
c
"C
!
"
o
:E
,.. ., .... ~
'S
FRi1a
"'0 I::. &.~
~': a S
~="i.e
~ad
os-
!I....S
e.:s!"O
~hi
_E'5:~
~-8.e ....
~'5:"O
~~si
.g-"jl
,,-i~
cd~
.... .....
0.... CDsl .
I)....-c:
~~"a"6,!l
i1iH
.-:;. Q. 0lI:; CD
I
1
.
1
.
,
!!'"
"'_ ..l!'~"
.a,5 :.! .$0
~O!j~ 8.~
~~ miii 0 .
iaa':~~8-
'U!'i i"6%u;
~ n t~ 81
a % ~.- .. 5 !
....~I!S~t:
.: g,~ E~ 8-
&. e.o....
n.c E 5!'- ~ 0
,;;l 11 B i: >"'0 ~
H~-5~~i
.. -aiO -g" I 'i E
a t!i Is
t'1 c...!. c. ;; >-
1!6g.~"EIi
~Jgsc.8U1'O
r~'Pih
a &....S-.. ~J!
e
l!',
..
e,
a..
"
8.'
m
0:.
..'
.e'
,s'
o
..
~,
e
~
ii,
:i
oj,
-
~
z
o
~
W
-'
III
~
:e
~
Cl
e
a:
_D..
'f-
"'a:
We
-'D..
IIIW
;:Ea:
Cl
z
ii:
g
Z
e
:e
z
o
~
Cl
1=
!i
m
"
c
.!!!
ii
e
a
o
- ..
a 10
C Q
.!!
10
"
'"
.c
..
>
...
.5..
-"
lIc
-..
,,-
.sii.
cE
a a
.-0
Jl
...
C>o
'C"
ac
- m
C..
aC
::E
'"
..
~
..
E
~
'"
i
:E
15~
1I~
lien
".5
.."
.!!!I!!
Cl
en 0"
'5 ~"I::
...J'5lii~
'S Cd .5 u
..~-
.~'" !:o
- .."
<) 011.
C
">0
E"
.. c
l:! "
s:
,jj
..
.5..
S ::
-.c
60.
::E
c
a
'"
e"
11.~
c
<'3
I!!
"
..
..
..
:IE
c
.!!
10
~
:i
..
en f=
C-if .
=0 ~ 0.. i
l!c;::: 0 "'''9.
mtD1i:ll iii
~=.2.! Id
l'IICc=.s
'QOy2a
gi~~.!!
~55~1
'"E'U.c_
,- E ID 0
_'!~::::I .010
., '_= IIIJS'jjij
5.sral!J!S
... .c m-
.!:!.'a~.c~
. "C c: ~ ftI ~
1$ I~ r1"iic e
en -....=as c: S;
"D or: CL In ~ if
~ .~ : j ~ 1
>. ! = Q.i '" .
tIII'::::I . m Ia 01 CD
o .:!:: I: > c: c:
i5'.E~l!!rl1iia
.'IDeo K,CCI
(!J: :Ea.aalDlt.l.!!!
i
I n._.
lo~
....
"Il..
I C ..
I~~
-I!!
Cl
I
1m ~~
!~~U
I~'" g.:6
o c~
1.
I
I
I
.
,
,
.+...
,
I
'1
I'O~
l:i~
Iii 2'
ill;;
I.!!! I!
, Cl
\'" 'OJl
c -~
.9'5 ii~
'O:B.e,g
'balla::i5
1- ..."
o ~a..
,
.. .
'-1
I
i
I
I
.. j.... ._.
I _
l'a g
I'g~
..c
,,-
ill"
-I!!
I Cl
I
I'" '0 '"
C -i!
'S"5 i ~
'O!l~"
ballll;S
D i:ll
011.
I
11g> 2-r! I.. 'O-r!
I~H~ I~d~
,a.m.= b'm 1lI~
- a.-g 1- 2" ::::I
:tJ c! a.. ,0 cD-
, ,
'''' 'i-.~----r~-'
!~ ~'!J
D... a....
C c
~ ..~--- ~ -~--- .~~
I _
..
g>_1l
:e;1!~
l!cQ.
......
...s""
Ii c:=
'= D~ .
-"IOCD
inf~,
lj ~ ~I
lD-8 &..a
=_cam
'S!H
10 ~'t:l 01
j"C. c: . c
~. .~ 'i ;g
.Ma.= ::::I
Id fi ~ ~
M1umO
CD..c::"6.:g
Il:i:; en '"
..._ c. as
nIl~=a.a
::i !~~
I g' iii "0
.- ii C lID
.iJ!-8 I
"'..11;;
~=!5 ...
ftlCIID!!~
- 0 c..- w
os"=lP
!l .. ...11~
c..t::I c w C
a1~J'!!CDID
~ 0 Q.."C_
~ E ga !t~
1~!~]1
,..e~ W lD_
I~ ..iii""ll
gci:! 01
11..._....
..u"$...
Na:e..."g
"": Q.. rn oS ""C
Q aI c: III CD[
I"lIcgmc::
!:si5.~
~...:ClCDQ.
.-.5"0 m
Ji~~!
-=o.ClCIIRJ
s
"ii-.s
....c c"._
'="GlIII DiI
's1ia..,Scu
~~:::!!~ !!~
"'II - a
.. ""
o~.!:is
lD 0..... - C
U C. ,g II
ClrliLcE.
IIV c_ a.!!"'
::t 11I..c a. 0
I.; '!:g Ill; ~
IDCllGe..,_
:SJ:c:6.ca5
~= ra 1II"C.f;:i
..,;lO GI-Il.. -"5.2
~.c C ,,-
.~,=c:.QI~ 8-
n..caZ-lU
...l! E"~:6
~"'8..&BIO-a-
ci il!'iia..l\S
I'"' CD II~:::E!
I!!,e;::;"'''''''
~"'~~'H
tai~5cc
:Ii ...c:!! a a
,
~
'Ol!
II"
"Il..
C'"
IIC
::s-
::"
_I!
Cl
a '0 CfJI
C -i:!
.Hii~
o::.eu
bal !:s
o CD::t
ell..
e
01'1511I mO~
Je ci!: c:-~
.3'5 II~ .3-5 i~
'0 1Il l!.!! '0 l'll!.!!
~'" 115 bCD. tG'li
U " G g."
11. oD.
-- -..I.....
I 5
!e'll
'11. .s
\ '"
.___l...8
'" '0..
C -"I::
.9-55~
'Ol'l~"
21m m=
_ a..g
CJ ~a..
'"
:;j:
5
'"
"""
~.s
Il....
c
..
<)
...!!
~u.s as=i 'is
m.!!.CDCD c-:6.9 CD lIlI II
- C e.5~ :S'Cii ~e ="
3 0 a:"C ';101 m::S;; a..f >0 C
. = II) I! CD>'ii III a.CD..CI.2I
~~=~-ES-o~~ ~:5~3.m
->0 ""C.!! ~-c(j""2
.!! 1.o~"Da.II~S CI'B:;l= E
&a.iJ!I[~6 ~11 ~ ~ g-l!!
G)- ~ G 0 c.; ClP6.9..2'c_ '"' 01
_= -l! .g :6 J m 0 .E 3 !! ~ ~ g ~~
..E; _ as o.!! . c: i a1 ~ c E:6'.E It!
-g,Ra.-'" m asQ,G)~:;,"'C\;,
~.e GJ 0 ~ IIa.E'2 e E 10 m=S ~
u~~a~ tf'ti.g.e 8:Ea:: gm i
!-1:5 m'E tG e.2.CDi co c:a~-
lI:I G ~ J!I ~ a. e c.u r- ! l!I ~ CtI 0
rtl!Q.:t;-CDCo.lD" GJ-=alD
<'1b::teCllD.D .c.::tacU
Ui~"$ ca- E==i~!;:!a ~~ ~
_Dill! 8"D'S"iiiO'Du: .En:llct:I
d s[c....1ii"" cJIlco ~""1ii;;:.!!!
C"I....rau...u.!!:a lDIaDU_G
e:;"5.'i:ij'E:e:g ~ E 6]!C~:S
",g> ~'5 = ii R..s I!'" 'ij ,,-IS g g
'"!Il".!!~"c-,"-'I!-.!l"S!~
1Il s: I!! a;:: a a c &= 110 II ill!: a
::i S CI & ~ &.6 8 l! 'iii ~ CI ClO a
"Ii
:I..
I
'"
u'
.
""
H
e
e
, ,
E
~
..
e
..
'\:
8-
.
a:
..
~!
.e
.~
.
~'
:i
..
-
...:
z
o
2-
w
..J
III
;!:
::;:
~
CI
o
Ill:
.....a..
.1-
""Ill:
Wo
-'a..
Illw
;!:1lI:
CI
Z
ii1
~
Z
o
:e
z
o
!i
CI
i=
:i
.
u
C
.!!
;;,
E
a
o
-
a
C
.!!
ii
u
'"
.;:
~
~
..
E
..
'"
B
..
'"
..
!
:5
..
C
"'.
.. u
uc
-..
,,-
c-
_a.
C E
a a
-0
~
..
'2 t'
DC
"'..
5~
:Iii
'l5
~~
. C
U ..
.e.r
C
w
..
.5 CD
~ .
S..
- .c
5lL
:IE
!
"
..
..
.
:Iii
C
~
..
~
:i
o~
8lL
C..
"c
,,-
.....
.!!I!!
Cl
I.. 0 ~
~'gl~
OIl1:U
baltll=
_ a.~
U ~D..
-
~ ~~
.9iii~
ol€u
bmm=
_ a..g
o ~D..
C
o
",'il
~S
lL..
C
o
U
en 'E r:: :>.
r::: lU 0 I ." c: -
=E6! c.er=raiiS 'ii
.~ 8~ m"C.e1n ~'Q :r;:;l!!:; ii
a:I III C. lD ii c CD - ."
'51S. C !! g "O:ere: g ~!~.!
- C ~ a.~ ~ i c IV CD P! ="'C
~ 0 dI 1: a - ...!!! iii "ii CLS" i
o=;a:.!!! -CI1...!=!lD _
E" ~ a.1!!]~ ~:8oa;i!"CI!!=51.!l
...1Cl. ... Clll...~U J!I
_ lIlI a. CI= 0 CD a = m Cl_ ..
l;;; II ra==i3S~'" u
aCl.so.cralDlP O::J:a-:-
,,_lIS III 'C lD ... ... CD III "0 lD
= ='t:;-c>'-OD:l-CU
I!!"'I!!~::J VllIl.5C'Cts III as
_ Ill! c",raE_uc,ac:
'l! ~Eil!! ~ E.~,s =e-h;!i
o c.::J.,.,;.-...ac::>-c:...:>"c:5i
U UlI..,::l:::: CD .c.tll t:a'" ft rn_
- .s C'ii5 S = ! u"'ii Iii Ill' SC"a C
:!1fi58o~~lD-6~~~CDil
o a:;car:::CO=lDa....S.=.UI
rn "'>00-:501 "ii lOGe
'll d~'ileli'i"ilh~~"'a .
Ill! M CD 11m Ec;'j1! d g,GI~ t:-l!!
>0 I! .; E ~!!..e " .. Dl..J! ID ID,g
ll' ".. == 8 a.;!,.!!"O :;t.E.E 0 is :I..!!!
- - .-iU"O"C- lD::lI
o :1i"Ci"Cc~>=sI!'ii"tJUCl
& ::E J! Ii Iii i B.!! I!! m Q'fi Ii ~ I!!
1--:.--.
,_ E
OlD
Sa..
C C
IDS
:1=
10
-E
ID
'"
gte'C
.9-"
-~~
au..
aoIDa.
-lO" ..
IU'.'"
~!!'E
0- ..
.....u..e
oiim
aollllB-
time
C
o
",'il
~S
a....
C
o
U
a C -= .e
= L1. lI)'Il:-o IIJ_
== m t=:5C'o.KC
a d.'!,. 8 III oj ~ ~
Ii c:m~c:..L~_"'Cl'If
"0 c: lD !! CD.!!! "i5 a. a c: IS
>0 ta ~ 6 a.c. ~ E"iii l'CI -
i~ l\1 5 KEai II 8.~';;
O.cll 51'... lID ;ao Qu:.r!!-=
8ic~=.e~=8=a~B
Ciil!!mEclD::I~_..2
~iii!:.1t!,g,8 r~ "]!i
.!!c'fi;CI:I~'5.ljCla
~~! aji~i ~~ g
.s.8:CI]!-:1!8g~~ .
.g';.9lJ B:S~ l'g~ f!f
a..lDlU~cl~c::nll ,mID
.;.:'~= 1--s:].s~~.E E
u.i Q.,eS:. l! m] i'5 c:~
M1Ji! c:l 8iiBIlI 8.9'8 8-
.. ! .,g E! aoCS1...:i!i I!! ~
It! ::I.!IcaD.r::U1C1:1c~-51li-1!
iii . E.1l a.= '" ~=. 0
. :: lB I ~ 8.~ B !.g '2 II]
::c !:::IE a. ca .e 'is.....I S! is. IQ m = .....
I;l~
;~
lil;o
i ~
iilSJ
I
r--:--'. ---
I-.~
I a ·
Il'l~
Co
"'"
,,=
l~ ~
I.. 0"
c: -~
.9iiii~
10 1Il~ u
bmra=
._ o..g
IU ~D.
I _
Il!' ~~
.9ii U
[0 ill;:.!!
aomca-
_ a..g
o "a..
-_~ _ _~_._....______ n_ .___.
'"
.....
,
""
C
a
'"
"'U
~2
a..i1
8
---- r--
I .! c: ~ lU
Ie: = j~ "C.e
~ 00-5 ~ ~ ~ ~.. l i"
OC'_ cia .&s:66. '5
!i~~~:iii~lL~.!! lln~ ~
"Cc~'O~.e<"iS.!lGJl'IIiilO1ii
~ai"~,,ue~.s~'l5;t.!l
.: III c 1)-0 -:~ 8=a';'i!: 6"2 m
oS"iiiocc -....."''''a.i::c
8 I a. a.- 0 a::..a 0 is- a. ::I"C
c~i=6i!E1! lB1i~:;.e~ ~~
! III III :>._ ::I "&..1: = ::r b u _ 0
In -cali"!l9JlUfII!m,!.!.'iiie
.!!! ~i a." 2!~ ~ a' !!: CD ear.:
lD;j;I P"C CD "C "D lD . Q.15. l'CI
0:5 i i5.c:aEl)S s::::i5~ lD E"C
.e E:g~H.a:Hi~F; il ~
01' ar ~. a.lL c CII a.c..a-... D:I
6:1i-"iliIDu-!;""si:S,5
coo-uso"'!!,s "~D.
NlDl3~="l~"':'="J-gESE
u1:1l< '"i.. .::ii.... Ea", m
r"IiB,,;,..c:ca~E!"'""a:lgg !yj
hUi~~~l~H ~~
CD as ID E a.U..... c.Rn.~a as
:IE a.E! filDo~ i~CQ"i.g E
i
It
'"
. 'II
-I! !
:l! E
ii
I i
U
. c
..W
m=
3~
e' ..
I!!' of
~. ..
E
Do' .
1: I:r:
.
l!
'" .I!!
fl' c;.
-.:. E
..
~i 0
"
::Ii - .
'" 0 ;;
~, c C
0
9' '"
",' .
::Ii u
'"
...=: 'C
.
>
..
!
:5
..: '"
"
Z '" .
0 !1l!
~ ...5
,,-
~ -""
c E
o 0
~ -"
~
i 01
el "'"
0 'Cu
0:: 0"
~Q. "'.
,,'"
.1- 0<
"'0:: :E
Wo
oJ...
!Dill
~a:: C
el
Z ~f;
ii: . "
~ l:! .
~l
z C
W
0
:;;
Z 01
0 .5.
~ ~ "
.9.
el -'"
Ii"
E :E
:E
e
"
.
.
.
:E
C
.e
;;
~
'"
:E
,m Ii I';
-= GI ......
CD.a ""iD
,c: g:' Ia -! N
!~:sl! .. "j
.,g19 Ia- 0;:: a..
!~ C i!!'B.SI.{
liiBil'ii~O .
. !; a!. .6 ,,"!l-~"
;:",,~ii.3
aD.. ail a.a:i=
a.....1tI ra!=l
IU ~ lIH6lD,ftEt
,0 1a="i0:6 a.()
i=Q.. r::: >,=0
.'iii"'.-!l.a-!i"
lD...J"ac::. .CIc:.
IX R to ra"C ::J III
.c~~~~U)lD
UnC!;!!."
'&1<' m c..1:!r--
1m ;g8ti~~
:r CI l:'!l! =-0 0 I'll
c'cm~.ac:"O" .
o ,0 '5 "' C .. ~13
~I=_~- ~'iii't-
-ll :a.hl.s~1ii
"'1- i1ij"6..ra Q',...
B ,0- E"'5 c:. .
" .. .. 5!l."'
:c 1= 'i Ii 8 ~ Illt
I
,
i
i
,
I
'''1 _
\_ E
00
,,0..
Ig a
.=
1::1 ==
I" 0
,.!! ~
c
'", -
Ic !! C
.91l:"
,_.c e
ou"
'beD a.
I'_~ CD
," c
i
ImlU 'E
"~,,
1,,-
-IlLS
'OtiCi
b"a.
od1~
"] . ~
=
"u
-.6
0....
C
o
"
o C
Zo
-=
o~ ~
B....i
cG-I
gj€
ill"
_IL
~
o
,,--
c~ u
G><l!
<li~m
a.. c- 0
~.e!!CD
(,)il'c
II:
~
:>
(,)
C
o
,,'ll
-.6
0....
C
8
=
~'j
"G
"u
=Ii
""l!
00
C8
.1/..
~.E
-811
c>
" 0
"E
.a!!
="
J1!.a
Ia=ui
~"c
~.c 0
l!"=
a ~.!!
E""
...~!
,g E "
"'~:i5
~,,~
ii~Q.
<ca.
...
[.....
r::: ID 1! -8 .
o ~ra IUm::J i~ ~
I~ 1;wca ~gafu '511_~
ID .cJ:_..::c --= a.l'""
I ct:I 0 0 'e: 11_ :5 C"
\~ 1: c'Ii _ ~ G ~ li!! 'iii I!! <!!
>o.:ilL..!!"S r:::.UI E ~~ 1II1i co.b a.. III
iiii :el~! ~ 8 ~qi~ ~~8i'
o~!~e~Ego!!~olB~~
8 ~ Clai lD t: e"tJ 815 m i: a.lB : E
~1.9 [~jill!16 fJ!t;i
1=_10 c..C::::J "- Ift- va=....::1c..c: 0 o~
-t:J::cucu"iaUll - mcaot:_....I
CI ~ - '"C Ii u ~ ftI lU '0 E tQ,c 'E "g CI
=-s"-e..... =-..,;/1-8""'3
.9 8: i ra t1 a.'!! i .9 ~ 5 ~ E CIl to-: e
...mii:I-:'"CBUlI ...o"E!.E::::::iIS:lBm
~1i61Ri!i ~!=~~!::la
..'e=::- ar UlI ~ .. a~ a:I ar:e===
., o.~.eE"tJ.g III ~="C E a.:5jQ_.!
W 10 -:t 4D en CD W l'll 1:= ... c:: c:. ell ~
~~~r:_~enU C")"'Cmo.e~o1SCD
.:;:IIr:CDc::....::JC ..:: ~enCJm::;lI'lIj
... - II) E f2 0 ~ II. c:: oj! IC.
i.l~ e'dJ a.l! ~ i.l= ~!'ii"'~'O E
IIElDm_=~> IIE-.!!JE iD._
~caE5tC::Bl!m6 .!1i~al'llc:e:aCD
-= ca.W C _ J:: U oC a.. co"'C UlI _ e! 11)"
...
~
.
....
'0 cij ..s
iim_ e-c '1:J
c.SIlOa~ Ill,!! 8
.!!E:: GI -Clem
.&jtDCli"'G15.5.!! .
"'I.:: C_O:8e"'GDI
i o...9-g=a& 8 o.a:g
aelDallJn <.Be
1"'_0:5 ~ ....o=;.!!D.. rt.I 01
=. .SI 0 'll b:> -
~~li'J!! ~.!!..~u ~~
';Gii~=a.gu"5i~
~elD8E"'ca=.-I_
_~!!om.m1:.mCO
1i::ll~_IQ..CIO 0_
-5i i 6:S"ii 1i :; ga:s 5
<"'lD'is..c.:ao<e
a..ii..CI =UlID....I1i1D
:>"=!l'l:i'iiiE1!.c"
CJ:S~i"i~l!!=s5
.c:gUl=>.ESOu..E
iCG';~~~~i:2~
1D~~8IfiBuiUl'lllD
oaCGg....r:rac::.; _oS
c::-;; ~.s.g !tJ2=I:D
.3== lD<1!~3! lOU~s
m==D.::::::iI::::::iI::J1D Q
~-i'OG !~e~a:a
1-
".
H
e
..
U
c
.!!
;;.
E
a
o
-
a
c
.5!
1i
U
IE
~
..
>
e
..
'ii
:=
.5
;:: ..
c
Z ="
m ..
0 U C
~ -..
""-
.51i
W c E
.... a a
ID ="
~ .:l
:IE
I\l!
Cl III
c ...
0 'i:u
a: a c
~lL =-
.1- Ii~
"'a: :e
Wo
....lL
!~ 'l:
Cl
z h
ii1 I!i
~ .e~
Z .Ii
0
:IE
z III
0 C _
~ "<0..
a_
"'.c
Cl Ii a..
E ::&
:IE
\ \
E
~
..
e
..
"
8.
..
0:
.. I!!
.e "
.g .. -..
c m 1:
el -
::& a
, , c ~
'" ,g ..
;; ""
g, m ~
:Ii: ~ 111
i -
..; :r
..
...
~
of
E
-
=
.!
of
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
t-- -
I
I
I
-... ~ .. - ",----. ----- - -.--- ._- -.-
r- _-' ------
lo~
-"
"lL
IH'
..."
.!!I!
Cl
I
I
<
a..
::l
o
_ "'C ..=-g
o'fiiaclQ
Ia- ill ...= l! 6<
c:;m..5~'E2~
! ~l!iS !Oi)o
}-OlD U
..Jii: OU)
-1-----,..---- -..
.- ..----.--.--.------.--
c
a
dill
~.s
0....
I a
o
i
\~-~~i~l- -;i!d-i=~' -- ....---.,--.--'-
I&I!::I.~~ e="iO~J!x
l-g oS ~ lD Wi m:A Ii "Q' 8; II
:,i l~~! ui i~=~ il]'! fii~ ~
Ie E~ m c:",w-a oE g>>m1i ~.m":i
I :I ;;;:II lO:; - f!! .Q "2 CII.c 0:;;;: 6
.g..'Oca=:lDal B::I-gI:E:IO'ZI&i7;
a- ~ o.m,g l: V1JY ".9 e..!! ulOj;
Ia.,g 6 ii"D,! 0 .m1i.!1D: II) I! s,ca CD
5J !1j€ ~,;a 1=1i ~'5= e~ B~
'!~.s@i..'ii -;'EU1~~c.:!~"g
"ij:gcglD'Q"Ei :EifJlOmm"-8-eu
li~:5~ l!.1~ IS=a"~ ~ci'~.e-i.s
~ I ~ ii ~~ }.8; EI!~::;;gll~l
-'O~ElD~.o=;Ia..a 0 e-iI
8:,9lD=d:i~:E .n~e~cn8:.!!=j
IG tnJ~:o'i-'pj a.a..tJ...: 1I!:c..!i
15 a 't: 0 !:II .e Ii I'" CD ~ lD i ~ .. III ;:. c
i ~ ~ 'i 1! I'll E I!:S"I: -5 ~ III] !.! !
o.lD.g~:1ii a ;==:8.8 mlR E~ 8-
m :: : Ii oS -E. 1411 E j a i~ = 8'a e
f=. g:5 Jl oS .g J! :Ii!::! a::: 0 e"J is Ii B .
---- ~.-_.__._._- - - .--------
.g a-
~E"C .!
at::s ~ a:I
c: E no VJ
8x.!!! -g
.s '" lJ '"
.. ~E =
~ loam 'ii
-!E'5 !
'iii! CD B
E eii Vi "ii
B a.=!. m
Omra::ll '5
:-.sS'j C
~BJ9 2 .g
o 6E Q. B
~E=il'!5
~e~i 51.:
~H.li':5ll'l
:alili ~15
.;;
8]
lea
~"ii
~"
11.;;
E-
"a
coo
,,"
cE
a=
.c.!!
a...
. c
-0
Ua.t:
J!!.."
CI!!U
B."E
_ca
a of a-
on 'J!
Jill
:;! 8'"
"c
-of
.
.
I!!
1I)~a
a-=,!! iiJ!l
.e! >0 C' :M C:"C
CII"c.!llllOc:.
rn." 0 m if m
"'CI B c.= r= C
iU~!"Ei
,s~"6.l!11!
"I B~i B!
.cb-O"'C !
.!.!!i.!!=a a..
mlDL-uenm
a1-B';oii
:6EI!"'CBg'
1iLE'E.! i"5
-6m8-"D"C
c..a l'l;;'C.'
a=a-"m15
=lD=E_l&~
..c. U 1)-... u
~~sii;S5S
a8l!u~8~
cS-15 B]H B
.
=.!I!
"c
-lia
<il
a...E
::lE
OJ!!
.u
"-
lD"'Q
.....
ao
-'8
~!i
-."."
..... c
,s....
co~
hJ!l
I;::;::I'C
ga"
"cB
o."c
"'..a"
.
~
~!!
"c..
..D~-
='613
"j"
~ ~ ~
.e..e ~
"E~~
a"-5
E 1lI~
" C
-'to
1(i~ C;
66=
~tE!
.. Ql
-= t:.
C ~..
a c
z::I.Q 0
1,lI....~!
'05=&8-
" !!lEa
C.~la-
tno.enE
.
I;l'"
3~
lil '"
H
lCl
~
.
...
I
Ii
Ii
H
!:
~.
....
1:
.
/x.
i:
Ii'
::E.
IS
i:
::E'
...
;!
z
e
u
-
W
....
~
!
Cl
e
II:
...A.
""1;2
We
-JA.
~~
Cl
z
ii:
~
Z
e
:&
z
e
~
Cl
E
:&
"
U
c
.!
ii.
E
o
U
-
o
c
o
::
..
~
~
..
...
~
..
E
.
~
I
I .
I I
I
I
.
i
I
I
,
I
,
"
;;
c
..
s
'"
.5
'"
c
ii8
U c
-"
"'-
c-
-...
c E
a a
-u
1i
'-1
I
I'O~
:8l
c'"
~.E
.....
.!!!l!
Cl
-
"O~
. ..
!I a..
Co>
!.e
.....
.!:!l!
Cl
'"
.e~
a c
"'''
g~
:Ii
I
101 '0 ClJea
c --l!~
~gU~
om1:Scr
,b"'l:l.:O...
- t)~C::
10 oD.. cD
;<
'0-
~
U
c
h
"c
l! "
J!'"
c<
w
0> '0 M'"
c -i!:O
.9'5i~i'
1'0 ill ~.!!a:
.~CD ~:a"'D
I-u "a.." c
i C CD
I
.~
.~
:u
,
,
i
I
\
!
>
I
'"
c
'C"
0"
-..
-.c
~Il.
:Ii
c
o
=
'i!! ~
'.Q., 1i
c
8
c
a
=
4lU
~s
"-..
c
o
U
I,. ____n _~
1.- ....
"
~
"
"
..
."
:Ii
c
.2
;;
oS
i
CD elLS OJ
'CQIl) C=25- I Cli.e CD
.E & &.E'ii: =8! .! j
,~'6~"'&.s I I! a; ~
IQ.,.,U ca me-lD '-
'>-la~o.!-g >.B~ 0
Ct: ~::>-cllI C:cra"C
,Glt:!";;mrn I"'l!l ~G:5i
oo@ra"ClDalI O.Q!ctlI
'lDGI:S3=~ ID,. lD=~'E
,Oa.GJOtllO gCV>ID
':i=Ec..efi z l'lIi~]
iill!~a==> -,g ;wol!
.!!:=SUlPGs: ~,.!!!,,;UI
mC:::I'y:.c:6 >. cuiJc:b
=rigi~~ :5 =m.!!1a..
S '6:;; 2'''!i! 0 l!l S E ~ H
L..o.COOclD a '-mC'-GJ
:.g~=.!!ofi ... .gc:C'sE
D.. u 01:;::1' i -5.!!i J! D.. "i ! ~ !!
~ I ...!.-a:..!! ca CD"'ii 1'1 ".9: tD j: '3
'E,U!P-CD..~"'..E~ ~ ...""=i5Ci'str
Q ,w a. _ .. .0::; C l'lI II
.!!..~ID~~lDOi >. "'lDC:O~
., l!=.eca=8-= ~ l!:5~-S:~
"E!1:::IJ:>.aioC...g 1i ;=~om
..."..... c ~ "EBC'!i
al=t:~!:!!.! 1- -IDC='!!!
x:::e!iii;ca.a.a:I:r :&.a.c'J-o.
mID J!!
- C '5
ca_ ...CoD
.e~I'.sl!
.!!"-r::::!ID.!!'s
eIIO::lajiflJ'"
~ae-a ::I.z..g
>mDl.si~.a.
'Oug"!>.....'"
,!::csal'll,,!!U
c~o IJ..!!! Q.O
g.~a:.g o~ fi~
a::: lU CD-C 1ii rt:I
ca=:S U::I~..!
-.e-lL1tT.-.-
E o..a~I!.e
.c-'t:'=-.s
m ~ !! ; 5]
i~~ ~ea~
ell ';" a;:.!! o.g 0
-~r::::IL1!1lDflJdJ
c: j;""E:_ i)1?1U P-I
jI~.!!b"'O m~ ra
D.~!l1iii-fi"iil
<Q.-ol~.c:o!!!.c:-
"U 1l:I'"_"a tD"'Q
,s
"ici
!lc
c!
H
~o
..,l! .
Cello
- -
... 0:0
...e '
13130
-sj..:.
h~
"UeIl
~sl-
1iiaU
.c~ .
.. -
o
~~~
"C...~
"-.;"
iu:~
jl;..u
0=0
.
i.e
ill!
=.,
80s
CD:a 0
.....Ii!
= DIm
!.sir:
"si
Il}'!g
1S..i') ;
E ....c
.. "u!!l
",s'
bCl~
= c~
~"E:';Z
C"~Q
!i-a~
~1!1l
U..cr
:ac:e
a""
"C...~
"c
a....
m
- 1
. "-~- -- --- -,
i
i
!
I
L
.
I
,
i -..-
I
!'O I
Ilia..
.:i Q)
'::I .E
.....
I.!! &i
I
!
; -
I~ ~~
'1~"2U
OID'Eu
Ib'" ll:i!l
U ljl.
I
'"
'm.6 CD-
!~j~1
loD..m"
Ib-a... "-
!oIB li~
I '"
~--. ---
I "';;; C
I o.g
'leU
"-....
I c C
; 88
r----
It! ~ i..
.ip ; ih
.!!"" ~ B ; I.....
~~:s~ .......:~
1lI-5 B"Q.g ~e - 'lll~
"- mo@S c. ~:g.s
!!=O::l~i8:: .CIl'IIlI'Io
~~ ~'~i:; I, ~~:U..
,eo,,-~.su' o~u
..."Jl8"''' I "-EE
.!!~ S!J c::~ 82;oD.. E
'-Il: ~ . caa::O flio ~8
f,f~jl!.e' 'iil~jj..
CD cau_ llA ~::I c:
l!ili'ii.1lli .g-l!Cl"l!
=1lii'jE8~. '~fll.!!l
lDK"'OEa:ll iog_'iQ..
iii IU_-.CI 0. " a.. 1ii= ID
.em ~ 9li gj' I "~j:6
E&EJI.cE!l' 'l""":elltDQ
J!ISmurt:lml ClClD
C'5ii=:Of< " OIl! ".8
~ e ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ i i l~i
c I_ 0==
. ! j ::!!,s lIill
III
~
"
i
r'
. .
.e
..
'Ii.
.i!...
n
\
~
,
"
"
~
3
'0 f,
'6 g
'"
"
~
~
\ \ \
,
\ \ \
, \ \
I
\ ,
\ ,
\ I
\ \
\
\
\ I
\ \
\
,
t.. \
, I
\
\
.., - . ~ ..
\ \\ llli
h
i ~l
\ \ ..
\
\
\
\
,
\ \.....-..- .
~ ........ \
\
I
\ \
\ ,
\ i
..-'~ ~-,,-"-'"
!
s
\ ~ \- ._...~..-"
. .\, - ,'-- ... .
-- ... -.- --. ..--' - -- - -.- .--' --
i~' ,-' "_ '\ · t.. \'6\ ~J
;" .,. ,. ". o'
il. V U \"i_~\ _E
in ' 'it '} ,i~ ~
: ., \. 0 \ . ',.
~ \", ~~_a i\ \~i i"i I'I,!' i\.
i!lU 'm ~... \'O~~~ g_,&:a
'~1l1 \' fi\\8 ~!l! f!,
\.lU. ~\n\!\'\ \~\U
"tH a ..il ,,'.' \.~..
~iil ~ fi\lo~" ~l'...
," ,,,-,, -' .,.... .......- - - ", -" -- '... '''.
,~\\ \~\ ~\ \~\\ \~\\
\ ~3 j , il - ~---...-- ',~--... ,....- .",,-
~_ " " __ __ _._- ' 0
\\ lbU \, 'Ii . \\ ~ 1 l\\i, \~';, ~ J'~'
m\\\\i~\\\\\1\\\\\\ \\\\\\ \\\\\ \\\\\,\
,...\~\..\"' :~!hl.-'\\l \.,\'iil' ,i!, ~\'6St'j~
'\\ ;\~\\.L\\\\\\\\1W\'~\\\\\ ~.\; \ 1\\\l\\\
. ,,\\\\\\W\\\i\h~\\\\~\\ \u\\\ ~\U \\\\\\\\\
~ FiS"6~~"61h, ..~'u "'\r 6~l~~"-i1~~J!!~ \".t\\" "t..:"" liS'"
r ,"Un~,lH\i\~,\!lkn. ~W'i." ir~l~ ~\1'!iht~\
\ t\U\\\~\~\\t\\\~\\\\\\\\\l \u\\\ \~\\\ \\1\\\\\\\
~ ~,:a~0" 0-90'&" I>o,~
,...
:}
, '
...., ..
~ ~.
. ..
0 .!!).
e. ~"6.
'5 c%
t 00
i
I-
\ !
Cl
~ -ci
....1>- \i
,J~ ~
'50
tfu
1-0: ~
~ \\
it
0
t:.
\ .n
:r; ..
0 ii
Ii
Cl :If'"
E 11>0
~
.
, .
\
\
~
_ II
..J
-,
, I
.
\
r
'\
~,
ii'
'2\
~\
~I
,\
..:
.!!!
!
s
-.
l-
%
8
-
l! ""
",GI "OE
GI!! GI
=%i ~l\.
~l il
~t,) ,-.1
~
i
l-
i
C)
~
....11-
..Ii
~o
~~
l-C)
%
~
i
o
":E
%
o
~
Cl
~
&
.- ~... .
. ...-
..- . .
. - ,. -- ..~_.' ..-- --
. ..- ..-- - - . _..- .'
. - . -------.--...-
.'- .."..". -".- -,.- "..- ,.- -.-....
'0\
So.
u.
~1
-- ".-
""
"OE
l~
,~c.
'is
-'i
~i'l
"Oo...i
l;>ii"9 ;s-
GlliO
...
..
....
~
l! 9'.~~;:
6~ ~!!!1~
:.11 gil-t08.
~l ~1121
'"
',~111
,"6,,-,5 i-
,~11o
...
~i,\
oQ..(D .
~\1~.
...
.--'- --.-.- .-' -.- -----
;:
It
GI "
""
~l
%
'"
~i~\
5.!!~.e
"6"-...!!!
l;>ii~ ;s-
0: _0
...
c:D~ ""-
's "ll a
:;:!j~i
oo..tt\;
.~11~
.' .- - .. -" ....- .'-"'"
'"
€GI
0"
-..
-e'"
0"-
,;
" ,. .'
.11 '-l~ -1"
..' <,~ <,i
SS . ," .S
---..-...--.... .. ..-' .-." ..---
'1 ,,:\1 ~ \ ",> .E ~ ~ 1! Ii ~i
1 tU' .t:im~\. VH~h i 1.1~\iJ. 11;
1\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\W\' \\\\\\\\ \\\
. I ,'.'I!h ~.<o., ...~I!h 'f ,..,..t' ,"
hH~lt. il.l.:;'i; l~h.;i'\~~ tl~%~~~l ~i..
. .<..,tl .......,. ...,...I~A' .l"A'" ....
~ \'\"\\~~\ '\\U.\\\ii1 \\\i\\\l\\\~\ \\\\\\~\.t \\\\1
.... :."_..". ....,... ... .'1. -. .1....< · .~...
, .'t'.-- .....<.> ,:\1 ~ ,> · ."\~. · .....
\ l,\~~\\ 1\\'\\~\\ ib\'~\lm i\\l\\i\\ \\!\\
_ "\l.~'-" ,h....~.! . . .: ·
.
.~ ...-..... .'
...-... ---~ .. -.' ...
e
i'
II
l:
,t\
, {.
e1
\,
, i\
.
~\\\
,~\l~\
l\i\
___ . ._~~1.:~ -_/ ..- . -
ItU i\\ \ t\\
~8 ' 88 88
t(~rA\~~ -~~~i! 'ii \ ,i l~:i~~rli~\\r
\\\iH\l.~;h'~nhr'.~ \ tli\t1t~l i;h'~i
.'Hi'~l~..~..;~i.'.' l" ~.l;'jt.i\i5 il~.l~~
. ..l,.-..l......i.~..~ lIU\ll" .....t
rnv~\l.\;l~\'i....\i. .\!\ i\.;.h~\ \~i~"~"
. ....... . ,"" . .... <.<,.
i ; iit.!. ~l\.-h'ih .lI.~"'''' ,1\ :H~t is I~. ~ \~
. ,,; n ll. .~\ F'Ii 1<;' \1 \.l, · ~i \"t \;<' ;'i,U' ,a
\ \ I\\\\\i\\\\\\\\\\'"\\\\ \\ \\!\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\
-..' . - .
\
\
\ .' .~.-.' ..-----.--.. ..'
,-
\ -
\"OE
,~g.
t1
!il\
1~~ i-
61'iiP
..
!\i\
oo..l:OtG
~\l~
..,
~ - -.- .... .-
\
I ~\
I
\ U
\
"
I
,
\
- ~-_. ~.--_...
.. -- ~. .. ..
\ ...
_-.------ .' _~... .0_
0- -.. -.-
- ,
.
'''O~
~ \:.
'i~
~.- i
~'C \\ !ii\lt.~
"O\l\;::.."O"""'!l 0
i!('iiI m'iii!('-6~ 'Ii <)
ti ~lG ~ mO?
~
"0' r ...~
!'C-4\!ji%i".~
'0' uoa..i-t: 0
~.., '.lll!';-'C ~ i-",l)
u alu!tao:J
" ~
!,
~. ..
..' :
t\ ..
u
"
..
l!' :::
l ~
B
:e' "6 ~
i' "
Ii 0
'"
..
u
..;, ~ ,-
..
! >
.!!
~
.s
.-' ". ..
...,. 01
li "
",,,
0 H
0 ...:::
- "o.
~ -E
~ \s
l- 4.
I 01
C)
~ -€>u'
.2;
...0- c;l
...~ l
~O
~~ <:>
~ ~
l-C) E~ ....
z
e h.
g J!<
z &
0
::i! : -.. .-- - --'"
z ~
9 'C..
~ 0"
~..
C) -S'
50.
E :Ii
::i!
. .- . - .- ..-
, '
m Bl ..!
..., Vi g
l-5"l\{".s~
i.s~" g'1s
:P! ~';\~ ifil
'il~g~ g'z, ~1
'g " ~ l~ ~~ " '; ':
=m~1DmGl8at,g.j;
'5=-s.!i-5 ~g~
'~i!l~i~'ii {1\
E _""Jl~~ !!
s-:::."~-'" ~e
~ .B ...6 rnt:!.ate;. ~
...: C>li~~i~ "-
o.~ u. 0 0 ~ t
" 'i 0'"1'"" ,," ~
..
.. ." 'Oo1i 'Il'i~-"
:IE !l....~'5" tl
" ";~'6..st~"i~-,, .
0
~ JI..,l! em" "iVii"l
!l! ~\l\\\ll\h\t
'"
lIE
e
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft EIR - Seaport Marina Project, City of Long Beach
City Council Staff Report
September 25, 2006
ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMENT
LETTER RE: "DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR. SEAPORT MARINA
PROJECT', DATED SEPTEMBE:R 26,2006
e
e
Long Bc:ocb Seaport Mlrina Project FEIR.CC Staft"Rcport
24
BY FACSIMILE (562) 570-6068
AND FIRST CLASS MAtt.,
FILE COpy
S~tember 25, 2006
.
.-.
Angela Reynolds, EnvironJnenta1 plAnning Officer
City of Long Beach'
Department ofP]Anning and Bni.JiHng, 7th Floor
333 w. O~ Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90802
e
SUBJECT: City of Seal Beach Comments re: Draft Em. - "~eapo't
Marina Project"
Dear Ms. Reynolds:
The City of Seal Beach has reviewed the above referenced Draft Envirnnmp.ntal Impact
Report ("DEIR") and has several comments and observations relative to the document
In subiDitting the following comments, Seal Beach is not asserting overall opposition to the
proposed project, but seeks to forcefully convey to the City of Long Beach and to other
cooperating and responsible agencies, that the cuxrent enviroIimental al:1alysis doeument is
severely flawed and must be revised and corrected to comply With the full disclosure
requirements of CEQA Further, based on the insufIicient analysis contained within the
subject doc11mP.T1t. impacts associated with the proposed project are clearly unacceptable to
Seal Beach, absent complete and thorough' environmental analysis and imposition of
approprilite mitigation measures 1hat are enforceable and which adequately respond to the
adverse environmental impacts.
e
Seal Beach believes that a properly prepared environmental disclosure document will clearly
describe feasible alternatives that would reduce project-related impacts upon the
environment to an acceptable level. As required under CEQA, ''public agencies should not
approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
measUres available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of
such projects" (Section 21002, CEQA) and "each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the
. Z:\My DDCUmO:n1lIICEQAILlmg Beach seaport Mmina Prqject DEIR.Comment Lottc:r.doc\LW\ll\l-26-06
City ofSeaJ Beach Comment Letter re: - "(
Draft Environmental Impact Report - "Seaport Marina Project"
. September 25, 2006
significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it e
isfeasible to do so" (Section 21002.1 (b), (CEQA).
Seal Beach believes that Long Beach has the ability to accomplish the project's objectives
while avoiding, or at least further reducing, signHirant impacts upon Seal Beach. The
failure to pllISUC those altemati.ve actions or reduced project scope constitutes a violation of
~~ 'JI,
REQUEST FOR BE-CIRCULATION OF DEIR DOCUMENT:
Inaccurate Project Description and Identification of Necessary "Standilrtls Variances":
The subject DEIR does not fully disclose the project characteristics that require amP.t1dments
to the "Southeast Area Development rind Improvement Plan (SEADIP) (PD-1). SEADIP, as
most recently revised on February 3, 2005 indicates the subj~t property is located in "Sub-
Area 17." The "Provisions Applying to All Areas" of SEADIP stipulate in item 5 on page 2
of .the adopted SEADIP that "The maximum height of buildings shaH be 30 feet for
residential and 35 feet for non-residential uses, unless otherwise provided herein.".
SEADIP does not provide other language anywhere in the document that such h!'i.ght.
limitations may be combined for a mixed use project to achieve a theoretical height.of 65
feet The Sub-Area provisions of Area 17 do not indicate that any greater height for
development is permitted, and the DEIR project description indicates that the maximum
height of the proposed structures is 68 feet (page 2-14).
e
The DEIR does not accurately describe the incompatible design eJ"'"'P.T1ts to the adopted
SEADIP or disCl.\SS any environmenta1 impacts of the increased height of the proposed
structures. Further, page 3A-6, Impact 3A-1, second paragraph includes the following
statement, "The proposed project would challenge City development standtzrds regarding
height limitations." The City's own document clearly indicates that the proposed heights of
the project are not in compliance with adopted height standards and provides no discussion
on this "challenge" nor how it will be considered or mitigated by reducing heights to those
set forth in SEADIP.
Therefore the DEIR must be revised and recirculated to accurately describe and evaluate the
potential impacts of the proposed height of the structures, the incompatibility with the
provisions of SEADIP, and develop mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen an
identified signifi~t impact due to non-compliance with City of Long Beach height
standards as set forth in SEADIP.
Inadequate Presentation of Reasonable Project Alternatives:
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, "Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to the
Prop()sed Project', indicates that an EIR "shall describe reasonable alternatives to the
project. . . . which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but _
would avoid or substantio.1Jy lessen any of the significant effects of the projecf'(Section ,.,
15126.6(a) and that "the discussion of alternatives sha/lfocus on alternatives to the project
Long Beach seaport Marillll Project DEIR.Commont Lotter
2
e
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Drqft Environmental Impact Report - "Seaport Marina Project"
September 25, 2006
or its location which are caPable of avoiding or substtrn.tUdly lessening any significant
~ecls of the project' "(Section 15126.6(b).
A review of the project alte:matives set forth in Section 4 quickly discloses that both
Alternative 2, Retail Alternative and Alternative 4, HoteVRetail Alternative do not comport .
with the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. Both of these alternaJives
are described as having "impacts greater' than the proposed project in the environmental
areas of concern of
D Air Quality;
D Noise; and
D Transportation and Circu\ation.
e
The remaining alternatives consist of the "Alternative 1: No Project Alternative",
"Alternative 3: Reduced Project Alternative" and "Alternative 5: Oil Pipeline Relocation."
Alternative I assumes no project and no change to the cunent environment, while
Alternative 5 evaluates the proposed project with only a change to an underground.oil
pipeline location. The only viable alternative ~aluated in the DEIR is Alternative 3..
The current DEIR does not comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 151.26.6 in that "a range.
of reasonable alternatives". are not presented for. the reviewing public to consider. It is
requested that a minimum. of two additional alternatives be developed and evaluated that
will "avoid or substantkdIy lessen any of the significant ~ects of the projecf'(Section
15126.6). It is suggested that one of the new project alternatives include the same basic
project component as b proposed project, but that the size be reduced. by 30%. The other
new Project Alternative should either be a version of Alternative 2 or Alternative 4, but
reduced in size to such a level as to "avoid or substantkdIy lessen any of the signifICant
effects of the project' pursuant to the provisions ofCEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6.
." ..
Lack of Meaningful Evaluation, Analysis, and Comparison of Each AJtemative with the
Proposed Project:
Further, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d) provides that "The EIR shall inclu.de
sufficient information about each altemative to allow a meaningful evaluation, flIiIllysis,
and comparison with the proposed project." The project alternatives should particularly
include evaluations of the impacts on "Air Quality", "Noise, and "Transportation and
Circulation" at least to the level of analysis as we have provided below in this letter. A
simple analysis can easily be prepared for these areas of envirollIIlental concern that would
disclose to the public if any of the project alternatives would "avoid or substantially lessen
any of the signifICant effects of the project' pursuant to the provisions of CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.6. Without additional analysis of the areas iden:tifi.ed for the project
significant impacts, the requirements of CEQA are being violated.
e
Long Bc:ocb seaport Morin. Project DEIR.Commonl LollI:r
3
City ofSeaI Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft Environmental Impact Report - "Seaport Marina Project"
September 25, 2006
e
CITY OF SEAL BEACH REQUESTS DETAILED TRAFFIC IMPACT
"FAIR SHARE" CALCULATION OF ALL IDENTIFIED PROJECT
AND CUMULATIVE PROJ$CT IMPACTS TO IDENTIFIED,
INTERSECTIONS, INCLUDING ANY ADDITIONAL
INTERSECTIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE RE-CIRCULATEDDEIR:
The City is still very much concerned that adequate measures have not been proposed as .
"mitigation measures" by Long Beach to address the significant and unavoidable'
transportation impacts at Studebaker Road!ID.d the westbound SR-22 ramp systems: We
have commented on this concem since 2004 in regards to the Home Depot project and
this project.
The City wishes to reinforce .and support.the co=ents provided by Mike Brue~ 205
Harvard Lane, Seal Beach, regBl:ding the safety. and visibility issues that exist at the
intersection of College Park Drive and the westbound SR-22JStudebaker Road on-offramps
that WeJ;e provided to Long Beach as part of the co=ents on the "Hotne Depot Re-
Circulated DEIR". Those co=ents are also applicable to this project, as "significant and .
unavoidable" impacts are identified in the DEIR for these intersections. It is possible for
Long:. Beach to all.eviate those safety and visibility concerns by removing the turning
restrictions established by .Long.Beach in the residential neighborhood adjacent to College
Parle West, and it is requested that serious consideration be given to establishing a mitigation _
measure in the EIR to address the CU1l'eIlt unsafe situation that will substantially worsen due .
to the "significant and unavoidable" impacts already ielevtifi.ed in the Home Depot
Recirculated DEIR for these intersections.
It is the position of Seal Beach that the City of Long Beach has the discretion to impose,
and must impose as a mitigation measure in the certified environmental document, a
"Project-Related Fair Share Contribution" to begin the process of accumulating the
necessary funds to address the existing deficiencies at these "choke-points" in the
regional transportation system in coordination and cooperation with the California
Department of Transportation. It is also our position that projects such as the Seaport
Marinli project, and other future projects should be required to provide this type of
contribution to address the cumulative impacts of these projects upon the regional
transportation system.
The City of Seal Beach again requests that Long Beach provide a detailed traffic impact
"fair share" calculation of all identified project and cumulative projects impacts to the
identified intersections, including any additional intersection identified in the requested
"Re-Circulated DEIR" due to the proposed Seaport Marina Project Such calculations. . ,
should include the following major cost categories, including the appropriate cost
assumptions:
D Description of Improvement;
(J Area of Improvement; _
D Cost per square foot of street widening; .
D Number of signal comers;
Loug &ach SoaportMIIlina Project DEIR.Conunont LotIa:
4
City ofSeaI Beach Comment Letter re:
Drqft Enviro1l1llentaI Impact Report - "Seopart Marina Project"
September 25, 2006
e
D Construction Cost estimate;
D Construction Cost Estimate with 25% Contingency;
a Cost ofRigbt-of-Way;
D , Construction Cost With Right-of-Way Acquisition; and
. D ~ject Fair Share Pf?rcent
The above "fair share" calculation shall be prepared for this project, the Home Depot
projeat, and for any other identified cumulative projects that are set forth in the traffic
analysis as having a significant impaCt at the subject intersections.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH REQUESTS IMPOSITION OF PROJECT-
RELATED TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES FOR IDENTIFIED IMPACTS AT
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD, AND
POTENTIALLY AT OTHER Jl)ENTIFlED INTERSECTIONS IN SEAL
BEACH:
e
... .
The project analysis indicates that P.acific Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard will
experience significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts due to the proposed project
Seal.Beach imposes ~'Transportation Facilities and Programs Development Fees" and . ..
'!Transportation Facilities and Programs Development Application Fees" on projects that
significantly impact roadway intersections, and requests that Long Beach impose such a fee
on the proposed project Our fee schedule would require payment by the project proponent
to the City of Seal Beach a fee of $1,613.15 per identified PM peak: hour trip within Seal
Beach, and the number of PM trips wouid be determined at the boundary of Seal Beach
closest to the project site along Pacific Coast Highway.
Until it can be determined if significant impacts are in fact identified along Westminster
Avenue imd Marina Drive at First Street in Seal Beach, we cannot indicate if additional
transportation impact fees should be imposed. The infonnation requested in a ''Re-
Circu1a.ted DEIR" would allo,:," Seal Beach to make those determinations.
AJJDITIONAL COMMENTS REGARDING CURRENT DEIR
DOCUMENT:
The following co=ents are provided 1:Q allow the City of Long Beach to consider and
incOIporate as it prepares a Recirculated DEIR document
SUPPORT FOR "ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE":
e
The City of Seal Beach strongly supports the "Environmen~ Superior Alternatit>e" as
set forth on page 4-18 of the DEIR. 1bis altemative, identified as "Alternative 3, Reduced
Proj~ct Alternative" is discussed on pages 4-9 through 4-12, IlIid is generally described as
the same project as the proposed project, but containing 140,000 square feet of retail space
and 340 residential units, a 20% reduction as compared to the proposed project. Again,
Lcmg Boaoh Seaport Morino Projc:ct DElR. Comment Lolmr
5
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
. Draft Environmentill Impact Report - "Seaport Marina Project"
September 2S, 2006
.
based on our comments above, Seal Beach is of the opinion that other project alternatives
must be developed and evaluated in a mRnnP.f to "allow a meaningful evaluation, ant1/}'sis,
and comparison with the proposed project.'" .
The, p,osition of Seal Beach on supporting a "Project Alternative" may change upon our
review of the "Revised Proposed Projecf', which would hopefully address the issues set
forth in this letter and upon our review of new "Project Alternatives" that would be set forth
in the "Re-Circulated DEIR" document
Redueed Trtiffic Impacts of "Environmentally Superior Alternative":
We are disappointed that neither the DEIR nor the "Traffic Impact Report" contained in
Appendix 0 does not include even a su=ary of the different transportation and circula:tion
impacts of the aliernatives descri,bed in Chapter 4, especially since the proposed P1"9ject
results in marly intersections having "significant and unavoidable impacts." n.e other
project alternatives may have resulted in some impacted intersections being reduced to a
"less than significant with mitigation" level if there are less vehicular trips projected :from
aily of the project' alternatives. In our -review of the detailed trip genera:tion projections
'contained in Appeil.di:x 0, we have been unable to determine how the "Environmentally
Superior A/Jernative" would-result in: trip reductions at intersections within Seal Beach,--.
compared to tIie i.dei1tified impacts of the proposed project That is because Figures
contained in Appendix 0 do not contain all infoIIIllltion regarding turning movements and _
through traffic at Intersections 20, 23, 24 and 25; please refer to Figures 7B, 8B, 11A, 11B, .
12A, 12B, 13A, 13'8, 14A, 14B, and 16B,
A simple analysis would seem to indicate that a 20% reduction in the project size would
reduce Daily Total Trips, Daily AM Peak Trips, Daily PM Peak Trips, Weekend Daily Trips
and Weekend Peak Trips as follows:
Daily Daily Daily Weekend Weekend
Total AM PM Daily Peak
Trips Peak Peak Trips Trips
Trips Trips
Proposed Project 10,156 354 726 12,738 885
Alternative 3 (20%
Reduction m 8,125 283 581 10,190 708
project size)
Net Trip 2,031 71 145 2,548 177
Reduction
The above identified trip reductions are substantial, and may be substantial enough to reduce
impacts at some of the intersections identified as having "significant and unavoidable _
impacts" to a level such that either mitigation may be proposed to achieve a "less than .
significant impact after mitigation" or to where no mitigation is required based on project-
LOng Boaoh seaport Marina ProjoctDEIR.CommOll! Lottor
6
City ofSea1 Beach Comment Letter re:
Drqft Environmental Impact Report - "Seaport Marina Project"
September 25, 2006
e
related trips being less than identified significance criteria for either Long Beach or Seal
Beach. It is impossible for the City or for the interested public to deteJ:min.e the impacts of
the reduced trips generated by the "environmentally superior project" due to the incomplete
information presented both in the DEIR proper and in Appendix D.
No Needfor "Standards Varitmce" for the "Environmentally Superior Alternative":
The City also is of the opinion that Alternative 3, if approved, would result in p.Hminating
the need for "Standards Variances" since the building footprints would be substantially
reduced, allowing for the project to easily comply with the setback and open space standards
of the City of Long Beach. Please see additional discussion on this issue below.
Reduced Ail' Quality Impacts of"EnvironmentaUy Superior Alternative":
The City is further of the opinion that Alternative 3, if approved, would result in less ROC,
NOx and CO operational emissions and could potentially reduce the identified impacts of
the proposed project as follows:
Alternative 3 - Weekday Operational Emissions
Estimated Emissions (poundslDay)
e
Emission Source ROC NOx CO PMlO
On-Road Mobile Sources 69 80 873 92
Energy Consumption <1 21 4 <1
Maximum Regional Total 70 101 877 93
Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 100
Maximum Regional Total - 56 81 702 75
20010 Emission Reduction
Factor
Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 100
Exceed Threshold Yes Yes Yes No
e
Long Bc:ocb seaport MarinaProjoot DEIR.CommODt Letb:r
7
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft Environmental Impact Report - "Ssaport Marina Project"
September 25, 2006
Alternative 3 - Weekend Operational Emissions
Estimated Emissions (poundslDay)
e
Emission Source ROC NOx CO PM10
On-Road Mobile Sources 85 99 1,094 115
Energy Constimption <1 21 4 <1
Maximum Regional Total ~6 120 1,098 116
Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 100
Maximum Regional Total - 20% 69 96 879 93
Emission Reduction Factor
Regional Sigftificance Threshold 55 55 550 100
.
Exceed ~ld Yes Yes Yes . No -
Other than the-. possible reduction of W""kP.01rl PM10 emissions below the regional .
signifi.~ level, the-above analysis does not red~ any identified significant impacts to a
less'than significant status. Even so, the reduced project size could result in approximately
the following daily emission reductions on weekdays and weekends:
Alternative 3 - Weekday Operational Emissions
Estimated Emission Reduction (poundslDay and PoundslY ear)
e
Emission Source ROC NOx CO PM10
Daily Maximum Regional Total 14 20 175 18
Emissions Reduction
Yearly Maximum Regional 3,654 5,220 45,675 4,698
Total Emissions Reduction
Alternative 3 - Weekend Operational Emissions
Estimated Emissions Reduction (poundslDay and PoundslY ear)
Emission Source ROC NOx CO PMlO
Daily Maximum Regional Total 17 24 219 23
Emissions Reduction
Yearly Maximum Regional Total 1,768 2,496 22,776 2,392
Emissions Reduction
Alternative 3, the Environmentally Superior Alternative, would result in the following total e
emission reductions as compared to the proposed project:
l.oni Boach Seaport Marilla ProjoctDEIR.CommoatLottor
8
City ofSea1 Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft Environmenta/lmpact Report - "Seaport Marina Project"
September 25, 2006
e
Alternative 3 - Daily and Weekend OperationatEmissions
Total Estimated Emissions Reduction (ponndslDay and PoundsIY ear)
Emission Source ROC NOx CO PMlO
Daily Maximum Regional 31 44 394 41
Total Emissions Reduction
Yearly Maximum Regional 5,422 7,716 68,451 7,090
Total Emissions Reduction
The "Environmentally Superior Alternative" would reduce total daily operational
emissions by approximately 510 pounds and reduce total yearly operational emissions
by approximately 88,679. poundS; in excess of 44 tons per year.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS REGARDING
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION:
SECTION .3L,
e
The ~J:y, of Seaf. ~each i~ pleased that S~~on ~:L, ~ranspo~on and Circ~tion,
- considere4 and evaluated potential impacts to the City of. Seal Beach, which is iIm)1~ly
adjacent In our review of the document we have determined that the appropriate project
evaluation thresholds have been utilized in the traffic impact analysis portions of the
docm:nept. However, we are of the opiDion that the evaluation and presentation of necessary
information to make a reasoned and informed decision as to potential transportation and
circulation impacts is seriously flawed, if not in the analysis, at least in the presentation of
the analysis.
Presented below are the City's =ents on the inadequate presentation of information or
conflicting infonnation contained in Chapter 3.L:
D The DEIR docmnent does not co~ any information regarding "Project Trip
Generation." One has to search the Traffic Study, Appendix. 0 to determine what
the projected trip generation for the proposed project is. This information is so
important to anyone interested in reviewing Chapter 3.L that it is inconceivable to
the City of Seal Beach that this basic project information is not provided within the
basic om document
e
D Figures 3L.2 and 3L.3 - both of these figures indicate "trip distribution" along
various roadways that serve the project site.
D It is requested that the figures be revised to indicate the percentage of trips being
allocated at each "Study Intersection" shown in Figure 3L.1. The trip allocations
should provide a breakdown for both the retail and residential components of the
proposed project for each turning movement that is possible at these identi.fi.ed
intersections. The CitY of Seal Beach has previously provided to your office a
copy of the Traffic Study for the Boeing Integrated Defense Systems ("BIDS")
Long Bc:ocb seaport Marilla Projoct DElR.C_1 Lollar
9
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft Emironmental Impact Rqwrt - "Seoport MarinD Project"
September 25, 2006
Specific Plan, prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan ("LL&G''), dated e
December 13, 2002 as a technical appendix to the ~IDS Specific Plan Draft
Environmental Impact Report If you require an additional copy of this
docnmMt. please contact the Department of Development Services. Please refer
to Exhibits 7A through 7F of the Traffic Study, which clearly indicate the
requested method of indicating the anticipated trip distribution for the various
land uses by intersection and by possible turning movement. Without the
requested information it is impossible to independently review and verify the
indicated trip distributions. This revised information should also include the
additional intersections of Pacific Coast HighwaylFirst Street !IJld Marina
Drive/First Street.
D The Figures should be revised to eliminate "Studebaker Road" between 2nd
Street/Westminster Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway, as there is no existing or
. proposed road connection, as is indicated on these exliibits.
D The trip distribution indicates 5% of trips along the roadway segment of 200
Street/Westminster Avenue between Studebaker Road and Seal Beach
Boulevard as.leaving that roadway segynMt There is no.indication as to what. . .
percentage of trips is actually using 2nd Street/Westminster Avenue between
Studebaker Road and Seal Beach Boulevard. The same =ent is made for
evfZy major roadway that serves the proJect site, especially Pacific Coast
Highway; Second Street and Studebaker Road.
o It is not possible to detenn.ne what ~ercentage of trips from the project site will _
utilize Pacific Coast Highway or 2 Street/Wes1minster Avenue, other than as _
indicated on Figure 3L.2, 10% at Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach
Boulevard, 6% at Pacific Coast Highway and the traffic circle in Long Beach.
10% on Westminster Avenue east of Seal Beach Boulevard and 5% on 2M
Street/Livingston Avenue in Long Beach. If 10% of all AM P~ Hour trips are
using Pacific Coast Highway at Seal Beach Boulevard, it is assumed that a
greater percentage of project-related trips will be using Pacific Coast Highway at
Bolsa/Main Street and at Pacific Coast Highway and Marina Drive, as persons
closer to the project site will also access the project. This could cause
unidentified impacts at other intersectiops in Seal Beach.
D 10% of AM Peak Hour project trips are identified at Pacific Coast Highway and
Seal Beach Boulevard, and this intersection is identified as experiencing
significam cumulative impacts. The analysis must then be "stepped out to the
next sig11"H7<<1 intersection at Pacific Coast Highway and Anderson Street to
determine if "significant impacts" or "impacts less than significant with
mitigation incorporatetf' are identified at this intersection. If significant impacts
or impacts that can be mitigated are identified, then the analysis must step-out to
the next' signalized intersections until no "significant impacts" are identified.
D 10% of AM Peak Hour project trips are identilied on Wes1minster Avenue east
of Seal Beach Boulevard. The analysis must then be "stepped out to the next
sign,,1i7ed. intersection at Wes1minster Avenue and Bolsa Road to determine if
"significant impacts" or "impacts less than significant with mitigation _
incorporaterl' are identified at this intersection. If significant impacts or impacts _
Long Bc:ocb seaport Morin. Projccl DEIR.Commtmt Lettu
10
..
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Drtfft Environmental Impact Report - "Seaport Marina Project"
September 25, 2006
e
that can be mitigated are identified, then the analysis must step-out to the next
signA H..eeI intersections until no "significant impacts" are identifi.ed. .
D 17% of PM Peak Hour project trips are identifi.ed on Seal Beach Boulevard north
of Westminster Avenue. The analysis must be "stepped out to the next
signAH..ed intersection ;It Seal Beach Boulevard and Golden Rain Road to
det..",.,,;np. if "significant impacts" or "impacts less than significant with
mitigation incorporated" are i:den:tifi.ed at this intersection. If significant impacts
or impacts that can be mitigated are identified, then the analysis must step-out to
the next signA H......-I intersections until no "significant impacts" are identified.
o Impact 3L.4, page 3L-29: The discussion indicates that the project would provide
"inadequate parking capacitY', when other portions of the document indicate that
required parking'is provided. Please clarify and correct as appropriate. It is also
requested that a paiking analysis by land use be provided to clearly indicate how
much on-site parking is proVided for the residential uses and how much for the retail
uses, and what the current required off-street parking ratios per housing unit and
retail space are.
DEMOLITION PERMITS NOT TO BE ISSUED UNTIL ALL ROADWAY, ..
iUGHt:'Oi!':WAY .JS' ACQUIRED FOR THE "BYPASS ROADWAY",
MITIGATION MEASURE 3L3:
e
Proposed Mitigation Measure 3L.3 consists of a proposed "Bypass Route" (Studebaker
Road/Shopkeeper Road) as indicated in Figure 3L.4, from Pacific Coast
Highway/Studebaker Road to Second Street/Shopkeeper Road, behind the shopping center.
This mitigation measure is vitally important to reducing transportation impacts along Pacific
Coast Highway and it is imperative that the language of this mitigation measure clearly
indicate that the necessary right-of-way acquisition for this roadway must be completed
prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any portion of the current structures on the
subject property. The project proponent should be required to provide a title report to the
City of Long Beach indicating ownership in the name of the project proponent prior to the
issuance ofa demolition permit, and the acceptance of the offer of right-of-way dedication
by the City of Long Beach prior to the issuance of a grading pennit
REMAINING COMMENTS ON DEIR:
The City has the following co=ents on different portions of the DEIR document:
D Mitil!ation Measures:
e
D Mitigation Measure 3A.l - This mitigation measure only requires a solid
security fence around the perimeter of the site during demolition, and it is
assumed, during project construction. Since project-related dernolition and
construction activities are estimated to extend over a 22-month time period,
the mitigation measure should also require preparation of a "Construction
Long Beach Seaport Marina Project DEIR.COIlIIIlOl1t Lotto<
11
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Drqft Environmental Impact Report - "Seaport Marina Project"
. September 25, 2006
Staging and Management Plan" to be approved by the Director of plAnning
and BUilding that will establish entry and exit points for construction workers,
project suppliers, and all related demolition and construction vehicles. The
'Plan should identify parking areas for on-site dernolition and construction
employees, location of temporary office facilities, location of demolition
materials marsnA lHng areas, location of construction materials- staging areas,
and require covering of material that can carried by winds in accordance with
SCAQMD regulations.
e
D Mitigation Measures 3B,13, 3B.14, and 3B.16 - These 3 mitigation
measures all include language such as "as feasible", "to the greatest extent
feasible", "as appropriate" or "should provide". The City of Long Beach
should clarify who is authorized to make such determinations and what
criteria that decision-maker will utilize to make such determinations. Unless a
specified City of Long Beach official has the ability to make such a
determinAtion, based on relevant and appropriate information, these mitigation
measures may become meaningless, and ~ot result in any mitigation being
taken to address the identified impacts that these measures have been
identified to' address..
o Mitigation Measure 3C.1 - Seal Beach requests that this mitigation measure
be revised to contain similar language set forth in Mitigation Measure 3C.3 in
the first paragraph regarding retention of an archaeologist and that the selected
archaeologist, and a Native American monitor, be on-site during all rough
grading and other significant ground disturbing activities. Potential cultural
resources and Native American remains deserve the same attention and
respect as do potential paleontological resources.
e
o Mitigation Measure 3G.1 - the City of Seal Beach is concerned that this
mitigation measure could lead to project changes that are not contemplated in
the subject DEIR, and that these changes should be evaluated in a subsequent
environmental review document to determine if unanticipated impacts are
generated. Seal Beach requests that any determinations of Long Beach that
reflect such changes be noticed for a public hearing before the Long Beach
plAnning Commission, and that all co=enting parties on the DEIR be
provided notice of said public hearing and provided a copy of the Long Beach
plAnning Commission Staff Report regarding satisfaction of the identified
"Guiding Principles" and copies of all applicable project plans that are being
considered for said approvals a minimum of 10 days before the date of the
scheduled public hearing.
D Impact 3L.1, "Signlfrcance After Mitigation" - The identification of
intersections that will experience significant proj ect impacts after mitigation
are inconsistent with the intersections identified on pages 3L-30 and 3L-34. _
Please review and correct as appropriate. .
Long Beacb Seaport Marina ProjoctDEIR.Commont Lottor
12
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft Environmental Impact Report - "Seaport Marina Project"
September 25, 2006
e
D Concern Over Ability To Leeallv Consider "Standards Variance" Reauests:
D We' have reviewed the "Required Findings" as set forth in Long Beach
Municipal Code Section. 21.25.306 regarding "Standards Variance", and are
disappointed that such requests are being considered for a project located on
10.9 acres. Among the "Required Findings" are the following:
D The site or the improvements on the site are physically unique when
compared to other sites in the same zone (Section 21.25.306.A) ; and
D The unique situation causes the applicant to experience hardship that
deprives the applicant of a substantial right to l,lSe of the property as other
properties in the same zone are used and will not constitute a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with limitations imposed on similarly zoned
properties or inconsistent with the pUIpose of the zoning regulations.
(Section 21.25.306.B)
D The project site is 10.9 acres in size and it is the opinion of Seal Beach that the
site is not physically unique when compared to other sites in the same zone,
and that the applicant is not experiencing a hardship that deprives the
applicant of a substantial right to use the property when the proposed project
consists of 170,000 square feet of retai1 space and 425 residential housing
units.
e
D A review of the Los Angeles County Assessor Map for the subject property
indicates the property has in excess of 1,258 feet of depth along Marina Drive
and in excess of 1,283 feet of depth along Pacific Coast Highway between
Second Street and the rear property line. The property has approximately 450
feet of frontage along Second Street. There are no physically unique
situations that exist on a property that is basically rectangular in shape, and
that is proposed for new development which can easily be reduced in size and
location to comply with the standards for setback and open space as set forth
in SEADIP.
e
D It is further the opinion of Seal Beach that the granting of the identified
"Standards Variance" would be a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
limitations imposed on similarly zoned properties or inconsistent with the
pmpose of the zoning regulations. The project could easily be re-designed or
reduced in size to comply with both the setback and open space requirements
that have been identified as needing a "Standards Variance."
D Page 3A-6, Impact 3A.1, last paragraph and Page 3A-8, Impact 3A.3,
Operation, :first paragraph. This discussion indicates the project would not
meet the 10-foot setback regulation along Second Street and requires a
"Standards Variance", and provides a 5-foot setback The discussion
continues on to indicate that ''the decreased setback would
accommodate the increased density and massing of the proposed
projecf' (emphasis added). The requested "Standards Variance" cannot be
found consistent with the above required findings; as the "Standards
Lbng Beach seaport MIriDa Projccl DEIR.CommOllt Lctlcr
13
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Drqft Environmental Impact Report - "Seaport MarinJz Project"
September 25, 2006
Variance" is for the pUIpose of "accommodating the increased density
and massing of the project', not "addressing a hardship that deprives the
applicant of a substantial right to use of the property", particularly when
the proposed project consists of 170,000 square feet of retail space and
425 residential housing units.
1:1 Page 3A. 7, Impact 3A.2, third paragraph. This discussion indicates the
project would not meet 1:b.e required 30% use of the site for open space -
20% is proposed. There is discussion about additional landscaping along
PCH and Second Street that is in excess of the required setbacks.
However, the provision of a greater. setback at some locations on the
project site cannot alleviate the requirement to comply with the overall
open space requirement throughout the entire project site. Again, the
requested "Standards Variance" cannot be found consistent with the above.
required findings, as the "Standards Variance" does not "address a
hardship that deprives the applicant of a substantial right to use of the
properly", when the proposed project consists of 170,000 square feet of
retail space and 425 residential housing'units.
D Concern Over Abilitv ofP.roiect tn Comnlv with Goals ofthe ''Local Coastal
Plan":
D We have reviewed the discussion ~ Section 3G.2, pages 3G-3 and 3G-4
regarding adopted Local Coastal Plan policies and are concerned that the
adopted policy provisions regarding "adequate open spaces is preserverf',
"improved local circulation", "improving traffic flow on PCB and Studebaker
Road", "controlling the number of dwelling units so as to minimize traffic
impact', and "improve access to the downtown area and coastline" all seem
to be discounted in the proposed project.
1:1 Again, it is the position of Seal Beach that the "Environmentally Superior
Alternative" at least addresses the above discussed policies of the Long Beach
Local Coastal Plan much, more directly than does the proposed project To
determine that the proposed project is consistent with these policies appears to
be in direct conflict with the adopted Local Coastal Plan, particularly when
significant impacts have been identified to roadway intersections along Pacific
Coast Highway, Studebaker Road, and Second Street as a direct result of the
proposed project
D The proposed project:
1:1 Does not ensure that "adequate open space is preserverf' since a
"Standards Variance" is necessary to approve the project with less than
required setbacks and less total open space;
1:1 Does not result in ~'improved local circulation" since there are many
intersections that will experience significant and unmitigated traffic
impacts;
Long Beach SoaportMarina Project DEIR.=t Lotlo:r
14
e
e
e
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft Environmental Impact Repart - "Seaport Marina Projei>t"
September 25, 2006
e
D Does not result in "improving trafjic flow on PCB and Studebaker Roar.!'
since there are many intersections that will experience significant and
unmitigated traffic impacts; .
o Does not result in "controlling the 1IUmber of dwelling units so as to
minimize traffic impact' since there are many intersections that will
experience significant and unmitigated traffic impacts; and
D Does not result in "improve(d) access to the downtown area and
coastline" since there are many intersections that will experience
significant and unmitigated traffic impacts.
D Concern RCI!ardine Potential Proied Revisions to Comnlv with Identified
"Guidine Princinles" and Revision to Prono~ed Mitil!ation Measure 3G.1:
e
D We have reviewed the discussion on pages 3G-15 through 3G-17 and are
concerned that certain project components can be changed significantly to
. . respond to identified concerns of the City of Long Beach regarding: .
-. D.' l'providing'a more prominent retail presence, particularly at and. near.
the comer of Second Street and PCB" (page 3G-15); .
D "the quality of design. is critical to the proper functioning of this op.en .....
space, and the current project is not developed to a level that allows the
City to make a clear evaluation" (page 3G-16);
D "While the layout of the project succeeds in maximizing views of the
adjacent marina, the overall design is not unique to the project site, but
rather has a generic look that fails to account for the unique site
characteristics or the unique location of the site near the mari1ll1 and at a
prominent intersection of the City. The design should be revised to better
accentuate the unique characteristics of the site, which include the
location of the site on mult;ple streetfrontages, proximity to the marina,
and the major intersection at the northeast corner of the site" (page 3G-
16 and 3G-17).
D It is a concern that the DEIR appears to be evaluating a "moving targef' that i-s
likely to be subject to further change based on undisclosed and future review
of project plans by staff of the City of Long Beach. Since opportunities for
further public and agency review and co=ent will be substantially curtailed
following the end of the co=ent period on the DEIR, the public's ability to
independently review and submit additional co=ents on any such project
amendments that will ''provide a more prominent retail presence", allow for
the ''proper functioning of this open space", and revise the design "to better
accentuate the unique characteristics of the site, which include the location
of the site on multiple street frontages, proximity to the marina, and the.
major intersection at the northeast corner of the site" will be limited.
e
o It is unreasonable to appear to disclose the "precise location" of the project,
and then state that changes to the project are likely to occur based on future
Long Baath Seaport Morina Projoct DElR.Commom Lotter
15
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft Environmental Impact Report - "Seaport MarinD Project"
September 25, 2006
reviews by Long Beach staff to determine compliance with the "Guiding
Pri7lCiples."
e
D The City of Seal Beach is concerned that Mitigation Measure 3G.1 could lead
to project changes that are not contemplated in the subject DEIR, and that
these changes should be evaluated in a subsequent environmental review
document to determine if unanticipated impacts are generated. Seal Beach
requests that any determinAnons of Long Beach that reflect such changes to
comply with the identified "Guiding Principles" be noticed for a public
hearing before the Long Beach Planning Commission, and that all
co=enting parties on the DEIR be provided notice of said public hearing
and provided a copy of the Long Be~ Planning Co=ission Staff Report
regarding satisfaction of the identified "Guiding Principles" and copies of all
applicable project plans that are being considered for said approvals a
minimum of 10 days before the date of the scheduled public hearing.
o 'Possible Clerical Corrections: . .
. 0 Mitigation Measures 3A.2 and 3A.3 - Both of these Mitigation Measures ..
indicate that compliance shall: be to the satisfaction of the "Director or
plAnning or Building". We believe that the intent is to state "Director of
p!IInn;ng or Building." Please review and revise as appropriate. e
D Page 31-6, first paragraph - Indicates that the population of Long Beach in
2005 was 89,528. Table 31.1 on page 31-1 indicates the 2005 population was
489,528. Please correct
The Environmental Quality Control Board considered and discussed the DEIR document on
September 13, 2006, and authorized the Chairman to sign this letter. The City Council
considered this matter on September 25, 2006 and authorized the mayo! to sign this .letter,
representing the official co=ents of the Qity of Seal Beach.
Thank: you for your consideration of the co=ents of the City of Seal Beach. Please do not
hesitate to contact Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, City Hall, 211
Eighth Street, Seal Beach, 90740, telephone (562) 431-2527, extension 313, if you have any
questions regarding this matter. In addition, please provide four (4) copies of the
Recirculated DEIR on this project to Mr. Whittenberg, so the City can have a copy available
at City Hall and at'each library within the City available for public review during the new
public comment period.
e
Long Beach Seaport Morina Project DElR.COIIIDlOlItLottcr
16
City ofSea1 Beach Comment Letter ~e:
Drqft Environmental Impact Report - "Seaport Marina Project"
September 25, 2006
e
Sincerely,
-<Jnltw I--~n~
Mayor, City of Seal B
~
]C~
Ch.iTT1'l'!", EnvironmeIJtal. Quality Control Board
City of Seal Beach
. Distribution:
. Sl:!I1'~each City Council . .'
Seal Beach plAnning Comm;~~;on
Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
City Manager
Director of Development Services
e
California Coastal Commission
e
Long Bc:ocb seaport Marina ProjectDEIR.Commout Lettor 17