HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2006-09-25 #H
e
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: September 25, 2006
TO: Honorab~ Mayor ~ City Council
THRi:r: Jo!>.n"B. Bahorski, City Manager
FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF RESPONSE LEITER RE: DRAFT 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 Staff Report.
e
BACKGROUND:
The City of Long Beach has released the Draft EIR regarding the subject project, On May
25, 2005 the EQCB reviewed and approved a response letter regarding the "Notice of
Preparation - Draft Environmental Impact Report - Seaport Marina Projecf'. That
document indicated the City of Long Beach will prepare a draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR), and requested comments from responsible agencies, other agencies, and the
general public, as to what should be covered in the DEIR. The EQCB approved the letter on
May 25 and the City Council approved the comment letter on June 13,2005. A copy of the
June 13, 2005 comment letter regarding the "Notice of Preparation" is provided as
Attachment 3 for the information of the City Council .
e
The City has now received the DEIR and had previously provided portions of the document
to the Board for early review. The DEIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts of a
proposed mixed-use project that will consist of the following major project components:
[J Approximately 425 reSidential. units; , '
[J Approximately 170,000 square feet ofretail development;
[J Structure heights up to 5 stories (68 feet); .
[J Demolition of existing on-site buildings - 164,736 square foot Seaport Marina
Hotel;
[J The project requires approval by the City of Long Beach of the following items:
[J Environmental Impact Report;
[J General PIanILoca1 Coastal Program Amendments;
[J SEADIP Planned Development District (PD-1) Amendments;
Agenda Item 1/
Z~y DocumcntsICEQAII..ons aooch Seaport Marin. Project DElR.CC StaffReportdoc\LW\09.1~
City of Seal Beach Comment Lener re:
Drq/t EIR - Seaport Marina Project. City of Long Beach
City Council StcrffRRport _
September 25, 2006 ..
Q Site Plan Review;
Q Tentative Subdivision Map;
Q Standards Vl!riance; and
Q Local Coastal Development Permit.
The =nt period on the DEIR will close on September 25, 2006, and the City has
received an extension until September 26 from Angela Reynolds, the Planning Officer for
Long Beach to allow for this City Council review and approval of the comment letter.
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:
Q 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 Park West in
Seal Beach); and
Q Cumulative significant impacts at the following locations :
Q SR-22 westbound on-ramp at Studebaker Road in the PM peak hour; and
Q Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevaid in the AM peak hour.
Staff prepared a draft response letter that was considered by the Environmental Quality
Control Board on September 13, The Board requested minor modifications to the letter and
those are incorporated into the letter, provided as Attachment 1, which sets forth concems
regarding the following major areas of concern:
Q Request for Re-CircuIation ofDEIR Document based on:
Q Inaccurate Project Description and Identification of Necessary "Standards
Variances";
Q Inadequate Presentation of Reasonable Project Alternatives; and
Q Lack of Meaningful Evaluation, Analysis, and Comparison with the Proposed
Project.
CI Detailed traffic impact "fair share" calculation of .alI identified project and
cumulative project impacts to identified intersections, including any additional
intersections identified in the Re-circulated DEIR..
CI Imposition of Project-Related Traffic Jm,pact Fees for Identified Impacts at Pacific
Coast Highway and Seal Beach Bo)llevard, and Potentially at other Identified
Intersections in Seal Beach,
Q Support for "EnvironmentaIly Superior Alternative" based on:
Q Reduced Traffic Impacts of "Environmentally Superior Alternative";
Q No Need for "Standards Variance" for the "Environmentally Superior
Alternative'" and
,
Q Reduced Air Quality Impacts of "Environmentally Superior Alternative",
Q Comments Regarding Section 31, Transportation and Circulation.
Q Demolition Permits not to be Issued Until all Roadway Right-Of-Way is Acquired
For the "Bypass Roadway", Mitigation Measure 31.3.
Q Remaining Comments on DEIR:
e
e
L90i Beaob seaport MBriDa Prqject DElR.CC SlBft'RtporI 2
e
e
.e
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft ElR - Seaport Marina Project, City of Long Beach
City Council Stqff Report
September 25, 2006
Cl Mitigation Measures;
Cl Concern Over Ability To Legally Consider "Standards Variance" Requests;
Cl Concern Over Ability of Project to Comply with Goals of the "Local Coastal
Plan";
Cl Concern Regarding Potential Project Revisions to Comply with Identified
"Guiding Principles" and Revision to Proposed Mitigation Measure 3G.l; and
Cl Possible Clerical Corrections.
It is appropriate for the City Council to review and approve the letter, with any further
revisions determined appropriate.
FISCAL IMPACT:
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.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize approval of letter with any modifications detennined appropriate, instruct Mayor
to sign proposed Response Letter. Receive and File Staff Report.
~~
~Mno.dopmom~ .
Attachments: (3)
Attachment 1:
Draft Response Letter re: "Draft ENVironmental Impact
ReplJrl for Seapurt Marina Project", prepared by the City
of Long Beach, received by City of Seal Beach on August
15,2006 .
Attachment 2:
"Draft ENVironmental Impact Report for Seaport Marina
Project", prepared by the City of Long Beach, dated
August 2006
Lpng Besch seaport Marin. projoct DElR.CC StalfRoporl
3
City of Seal Beach Comment Lener re:
Drtifl EIR - Seaport Marina Project, City of Long Beach
City Council StlflfReport ..
September 25, 2006 _
Note: Complete document, not provided due to length, 286
pages not including Appendices. A complete copy will be
available at the City Council Meeting,
Attachment 3:
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: Notice of
Preparation of Draft EIR - "Seaport Marina Project", dated
June 13,2005
e
e
~ Bescb Scsport Marins Project DEIR.CC StalfR.oport
4
e
City of Seal Beach Comment Lener re:
Draft ElR - Seaport Marina Project, City of Long Beach
City Council Stqff Report
September 25, 2006
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
LQ"I Beach Seaport Marin. Pmjoct DElR.CC StaffRoport
5
e
e
e
City of Seal Beach Comment Lener re:
Drqft EIR - Seaport Marina Project. City of Long Beach
City Council Staff Repan
September 25, 2006
September 25, 2006
Angela Reynolds, Environmental Planning Officer
City of Long Beach
, Department of Planning and Building; 7th Floor
333 W. Ocean Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90802
SUBJECT: City of Seal Beach C
Marina Project"
"Seaport
Dear Ms. Reynolds:
The City of Seal Beach has
Report ("DEIR") and has
overall opposition to the
of Long Beach and to other
perIy pre' d environmental disclosure document will clearly
ould reduce project-related impacts upon the
Seal Beach believes th '
describe feasible al ~
,
environment to an acceptab .. 1 el. required und~ CEQA, "public agencies should not
approve projects as propose f(.... re are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
measures available which woul stantially lessen the significant environmental effects of
such projects" (Section 21002, QA) and "each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the
significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it
/sfeasible to do so" (Section 2l002.I(b), (CEQA),
Long BCBOh Scapmt Marina Projcct DEIR.CC StafdfRepOJt
6
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft EIR - Seaport Marina Project. City of Long Beach
City Council StqffReport _
September 25, 2006 .
Seal Beach believes that Long Beach has the ability to accomplish the
while avoiding, or at least further reducing, significant impacts u
failure to pursue those alternative actions or reduced project scope
CEQAo
objectives
Seal Beach. The
es a violation of
REQUEST FOR RE-CIRCULATION OF DEIR DOC
e
. :'C'
Therefore the must be "- ~d " . ulated to accurately describe and evaluate the
potential im~~' f the propo d:. . ght . structures, the incompatibility with the
provisions of S ., and deveIo' otigatio easures to avoid or substantially lessen an
identified signifi , pact due ton-co pliance with City of Long Beach height
standards as set forth ~~ IP, )
InadeqUllte Presentatio~~.r.. asonab' Project Alternatives:
CEQA Guidelines S~on ~;~ ~o/J~onsideratiOn and Discussion of Alternatives to the
Proposed Projecf', indicates ~ EIR "shall describe reasonable alternatives to the
project. . . .which wouldfeasi attain most of the basic objectives of the project but _
would avoid or substantially lessen any of the signifICant effects of the projecf'(Section .
l5l26.6(a) and that "the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project
Long Beach Seaport Marina Project DEIR,CC StafdfReporl
7
e
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft EIR - Seaport Marina Project. City of Long Beach
City Council Stqff Report
September 25, 2006
or its location which are capable 0/ avoiding or substantially lessenin !y signifICant
tiflects o/the projecf"'(Section I5126,6(b). . ~
A review of the project alternatives set forth in Section 4 quic " " closes that both
Alternative 2, Retail Alternative and Alternative 4, HoteVRetail A~a _. 0 not comport
with the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. oth 0 alternatives
are described as having "impacts greater' than the proposed pro] in the - . nmentaI
areas of concern of: .:\,
Cl Air Quality; .~
Cl Noise; and
Cl Transportation and Circulation.
]>-r ,
Further, CEQ _ Guidelines ~ ~n 15 ~I ,~d) provides that "The EIR shall include
sufficient in/), -, 'on about e'd~~lterna~;ve tq.qllow a meaningful evaluation, analysis,
and comparISon ,",it.~e propos Project,\~fhe project alternatives should particularly
include eva1uatio~~the im ~ "AirtQua\ity", "Noise, and "Transportation and
Circulation" at least ~. level of is as we have provided below in this letter. A
simple analysis can easd{b~ prepare pr these areas of environmental concern that would
disclose to ~e ~ublic if ~ ~the ~ ~ alternatives would "~~d or substantial~ le~en
any afthe Significant tiflec~t e p ecf' pursuant to the proVlSlons of CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.6. Without '0 analysis of the areas identified for the project
significant impacts, therequirem ofCEQA are being violated.
,
The remaining alternatives consist of the "AI .
"Alternative 3: ReduCed Project Alternative" and "Alte
Alternative 1 assumes no project and no change to
e
e
CITY OF SEAL BEACH REQUESTS DETAILED TRAFFIC IMPACT
"FAIR SHARE" CALCULATION OF ALL IDENTIFIED PROJECT
Long Beaoh Scoport Marin. Prqjeet DEIR.CC StafdfRcpon
8
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft EIR - Seaport Marina Project, City of Long Beach
City Council Stqff Report
September 25, 2006 e
AND CUMULATIVE PROJECT IMPACTS TO
INTERSECTIONS, INCLUDING ANY
INTERSECTIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE RE-CIRCa
. 'NTIFIED
. TIONAL
'D DEIR:
.
The City is still very much concerned that adequate measures not proposed as
''mitigation measures" by Long Beach to address the si - ant I~~oidable
transportation impacts at Studebaker Road and the westrol9l SR: 2 ramp ~~ms. We
have commented on this concern since 2004 in regards tc{~i: me Depot .
this project. ~ j
The City wishes to reinforce and support the co~ .
The City of Seal _ h again req . that g Beach provide a detailed traffic impact
"fair share" caIcula'o of all ident . d pro ct and cumulative projects impacts to the
identified intersectio . cluding an dditional intersection identified in the requested
"Re-Circulated DEIR" '. e 0 the pr osed Seaport Marina Project. Such calculations
should include tIie - folio majo 1 cost categories, including the appropriate cost
assumptions:
o Description ofImprove
o Area of Improvement;
o Cost per square foot of et widening;
o Number of signal comers;
o Construction Cost estimate;
Loal BelICh Seaport Marina Project DElR,CC StafdfRepon
9
e
e
e
City o/Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Drqfl EIR - Seaport Marina Project, City of Long Beach
City Council Stqff RBport
September 25, 2006
The above ''fair share" c::lcu1ation shall be prepared for this
project, and for any other identified cumulative projects that
analysis as having a significant impact at the subject inters . .
o Construction Cost Estimate with 25% Contingency;
o Cost of Right-of-Way;
o Construction Cost with Right-of-Way Acquisition; and
o Project Fair Share Percent
CITY OF SEAL BEACH REQUESTS
RELATED, TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES FO
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND S
POTENTIALLY AT OTHER lDENTIF
BEACH:
e
Beach Boulevard will
proposed project.
op en! Fees" and
n projects that
pose such a fee
ity of Seal Beach
identified PM peak
be determined at the
tHighway.
'dentified along Westminster
cannot indicate if additional
e ormation requested in a "Re-
. eterminations.
ADDITION. '
DOCUME
CURRENT DEIR
to all the City of Long Beach to consider and
EIR document
SUPPORT FOR <IE
TALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE":
e
.~
The City of Seal Beach stron the "EnvironmentaUy Superior Alternative" as
set forth on page 4-18 of the DE . This alternative, identified as "Alternative 3, Reduced
Project Alternative" is discussed on pages 4-9 through 4-12, and 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,
Lolli BOlICh Sooport Marina Projoct DElR.CC StafdfReport
10
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Drqft EIR - Seaport Marina Project, City of Long Beach
City Council Staff Report a
September 25, 2006 _
based on our comments above, Seal Beach is of the opinion that other
must be developed and evaluated in a manner to "allow a meaningflll
and comparison with the proposed project,"
. ect alternatives
, analysis,
The position of Seal Beach on supporting a "Project Alternativ
review of the "Revised Proposed Project", which would hope
forth in this letter and upon our review of new "Project Alternative
in the "Re-Circulated DEIR." document.
Reduced TrajJic Impacts of"EnvironmentaIly Superior
e
A simple analysis would
reduce Daily Total Trips, ai
and Weekend Peak Trips as foIl
uction in the project size would
Trips, Weekend Daily Trips
Weekend Weekend
Daily Peak
Trips Trips
Proposed Proj 726 12,738 885
Alternative 3 (2
Reduction in project 283 581 10,190 708
size)
Net Trip 71 145 2,548 177
Reduction
The above identified trip reductions are substantial, and may be substantial enough to reduce e
impacts at some of the intersections identified as having "significant and unavoidable
Long Beach Seaport Marin. Project DEIR.CC StafdfRopDrt
11
e
City a/Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Drqft E1R - Seaport Marina Project, City of Long Beach
City COJl"cil Stqff Report
September 25, 2006
impacts" to a level such that either mitigation may be proposed to a
significant impact qfter mitigation" or to where no mitigation is req ,
related trips being less than identified significance criteria for either
Beach. It is impossible for the City or for the interested public to d
the reduced trips generated by the "environmentally .ruperior proj
information presented both in the DEIR proper and in Appendix
No Needfor "Standanls Variance" for the "Environmen
The City also is of the opinion that Alternative 3, ifa
the need for ,,"Standards Variances" since the bull '
reduced., allowing for the project to easily comply wi
of the City of Long Beach. Please see additional .
Reduced Air Quality Impacts of "Environmentally Super
The City is further of the opinion that Alt
NOx and CO operationa1 emissions and co
the proposed project as follows:
e
Emission Source CO PM10
On-Road Mobile So 873 92
4 <1
877 93
550 100
Maximum 81 702 75
20% E
Factor
Regional Signifi. 55 550 100
Exceed Threshold Yes Yes No
e
Long _ seaport Marina Project DElR.CC Sla!iIfReport
12
City a/Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Drqjt EIR - Seaport Marina Project, City a/Long Beach
City Council Stqff RBport
September 25, 2006
e
Emission Souree
On-Road Mobile Sources
Energy Consumption
Maximum Regional Total
Regional Significance Threshold
Maximum ltegional Total - 20%
Emission Reduction Factor
Regional Significance Threshold
Exceed Threshold
Alternative 3 - Weekend Operational Emissions
Estimated Emissions (poundsJDay)
ROC
85
<1
86
55
NOx
PMIO
115
69
55
No
Other than the possible reduction of
significance level, the above analysis does no
less than signifiCl!11t status. Even so, the red
the following daily emission reductions on
e
Daily Maximum Regional
Emissions Reduction
CO
175
PMIO
18
45,675 4,698
rational Emissions
undslDayand PoundslYear)
NOx
CO
PMIO
23
Daily Maximum Regi.'
Emissions Reduction
Yearly Maximum Regional
Emissions Reduction
17
24
219
1,768
2,496
22,776
2,392
e
Long Beach Seaport Marina Project DEIR,CC SllIfdfRcport
13
e
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft ElR - Seaport Marina Project, City of Long Beach
City Council StqffReport
September 25, 2006
Alternative 3, the Environmentally Superior Alternative, would result in
emission reductions as compared to the proposed project:
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
TRANSPORTATION AND aRea
Alternative 3 - Daily and Weekend Operational E
Total Estimated Emissions Reduction (poundslDay
Emission Source
Daily Maximum Regional
Total Emissions Reduction
Yearly Maximum Regional
Total Emissions Reduction
ROC
31
5,422
The "Environmentally Superior Alternative" woul
emissions by approximately 510 pounds and reduce tot
by approximately 88,679 pounds; in exces of 44 tons per
3L,
e
Presented below
conflicting info
e presentation of information or
ClThe
y information regarding "Project Trip
c Study, Appendix D to determine what
the roposed project is. This information is so
reviewing Chapter 3.L that it is inconceivable to
ic project information is not provided within the
e
CI Figures 3L.2 and 3L.3, of these figures indicate ''trip distribution" along
various roadways that e project site.
CI It is requested that th gures 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 retai1 and residential components of the
LonlI Beach Soap01l MlIrina Projoct DEIR.CC SIllfllfReport
14
City o/Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft EIR - Seaport Marina Project. City 0/ Long Beach
City Council.Stqff Report
September 25, 2006 e
CJ
Seal Beach
'on as to what _
:Avenue between _
ent is made for
cialIy Pacific Coast
CJ
CJ
cos
uniden
CJ 10% of
Seal Beacb:
significant c
next signalized
determine if "si
mitigation incorpor
e
Umg Beach Seaport Marina Project DEIR CC StafdfReport
15
e
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Drqf! EIR - Seaport MfJ1'ina Project, City of Long Beach
City Council Stqtf Report
September 25, 2006
e
Cl
Cl
Cl
Proposed Mitigation Measure 3 "~3 ~ ~ S "Bypass Route" (Studebaker
~ad/Shopkeep~r .:: .~~. i ted ~ .' , 3L.4, . from Paci~c Coast
Highway/Stude ~to.. econ . Shopke . Road, behind the shoppmg center.
This mitigation asure is vi . . po reducing transportation impacts along Pacific
Coast Highwa9' d it is impe '.' .e that . an of this mitigation measure clearly
rom_ ~~ ..,.~'~ . ~rfor this roadway must be completed
prior to the iSsuan~. a demolitio '~yrmit fo y portion of the current structures on the
subject property. ~ dect propo ent shou d be required to provide a title report to the
City of Long Beach' -. . ng ownersMp in the name of the project proponent prior to the
issuance ofa demolition '. 't, and ~~ acceptance of the offer of right-of-way dedication
by the City of Long Beach .. to the?, suance of a grading permit.
REMAINING COMME . "tJN DEIR:
e
The City has the foIlowing comments on different portions of the DEIR document:
Long _h Seaport Marina Project DElR.CC StafdfReporl
16
City a/Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft EIR - Seaport Marina Project. City a/Long Beach
City Council Stqff Report
September 25, 2006
e
CJ Mitil!:ation Measures:
CJ Mitigation' Measure 3A.l - This mitigation measure .' y requires a solid
security fence around the perimeter of the site durin~Olition, and it is
assumed, during project construction. Since projec!7 la' : emolition and
construction activities are estimated to extend over . 2-m '. time period,
the mitigation measure should also require p~ n of a' nstruction
Staging and Management Plan" to be approv~. th Director lanning
and Building that will establish entry and exit's r constructio . kers,
proj ect suppliers, and all related demolitio d construction vehic~ e
Plan should identify parking areas for -site dem~tion and co ti n
employees, location of temporary 0 e acilities, 1fl\8tion of demoli '0
materials marshalling areas, location tion ~als staging ar" '
and require covering of material that can c " by i'ids1\1 accordance with
SCAQMD regulations.
CJ
e
o
e
LoDg Besch Seaport Marina Project DElR.CC StafdfRcport
17
e
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft EIR - Seaport Marina Project, City of Long Beach
City Council Stqff Report
September 25, 2006
CJ Impact 3L.l, "SignifICance After Mitigation"
intersections that will experience significant projec
are inconsistent with the intersections identified on
Please review and correct as appropriate.
"Guiding Principles" and copies of all applicable project p
considered for said approvals a minimum of 10 days be
scheduled public hearing.
CJ
CJ
CJ
e
CJ
CJ
and
Secon
feet of
situations
that is propos
location to com
in SEADIP.
unty Assessor Map for the subject property
- 1,258 feet of depth along Marina Drive
along Pacific Coast Highway between
line. The property has approximately 450
ond Street. There are no physically unique
perty that is basically rectangular in shape, and
elopment which can easily be reduced in size and
standards for setback and open space as set forth
e
CJ It is further the op' on 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
Lmlg Beach SeaportMarina Projocl DE!R.CC StafdfRcporl
18
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft EIR - Seaport Marina Project, City of Long Beach
City Council Staff Report
September' 25, 2006
e
o
purpose of the zoning regulations. The project could easily
reduced in size to comply with both the setback and open
that have been identified as needing a "Standards Varian
o
o
e
substantial right to lLfe of the
. of 170,000 square feet of
ith Goals of the "Local Coastal
o
. Section 30.2, pages 30-3 and 30-4
an policies and are concerned that the
reg g "adequate open spaces is preserved",
" "improving traffic flow on PCH and Studebaker
bel' of dwelling units so as to minimize traffic
ss to the downtown area and. coastline" all seem
osed project.
o Again, it is the pOSl " of Seal Beach that the "Environmentally Superior
Alternative" at least dresses 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
Long Ilcaoh seaport Marina Project DElR,CC StafdfRoport
19
e
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Drajl EIR - Seaport Marma Project. City of Long Beach
City Council Stqff Report
September 25. 2006
o
be in direct conflict with the adopted Local Coastal Plan,
significant impacts have been identified to roadway inters
Coast Highway, Studebaker Road, and Second Street as
proposed project.
e
o The proposed project:
o Does not ensure that "adequate open space
"Standards Variance" is necessary to app
required setbacks and less total open sp . .
o Does not result in "improved local ci lation" since there
" intersections that will experience s' 'ficant
impacts;
o Does not result in "improving tra
since there are many intersections th8
unmitigated traffic impacts;
o Does not result in "contro
minimize trqfJic impact"
experience significant and
o Does not result in "impro
coastline" since there are
significant and unmitigated tr
Studebaker R
significant and
1 with Identified
n Measure 3G.l:
aqj
rathe
charact
prominent
accentuate
location of the
and the major in'
16 and 30-17),
30-15 through 30-17 and are
be changed significantly to
Beach regarding:
r 'ence, particularly at and near
age 30-15);
. itical to e proper functioning of this open
t is not developed to a level that allows the
alna "age 30-16);
the pr, t succeeds in maximizing views of the
erall sign is not unique to the project site, but
ook that fails to account for the unique site
ique location of the site near the marina and at a
the City. The design should be revised to better
characteristics of the site, which include the
multiple streetfrontages, proximity to the marina,
. ection at the northeast corner of the site" (page 30-
o
e
Long Beach Seaport Mari.. PrnJOCI DEIR,CC SlafdfRoport
20
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Drqft EIR - Seaport Marina Project, City of Long Beach
City Council Stqff Report
September 25, 2006 e
o
o It is unreasonable to appear to discIos
and then state that changes to the project
reviews by Long Beach staff to determine
Principles."
o
o
e
o
- Both of these Mitigation Measures
.: '0 the satisfaction of the "Director or
e bel' e that the intent is to state "Director of
review and revise as appropriate,
o Page 31-6, fir
2005 was 89,52 ,.
489,528. Please c
Indicates that the population of Long Beach in
.1 on page 31-1 indicates the 2005 population was
e
l.on& Boach Seaport Marina Project DElR.CC StafdfRoport
21
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Drqft ElR - Seaport Marina Project, City of Long Beach
City Council Stqlf Report
September 25, 2006
e
The Environmental Quality Control Board considered and discussed the D document on
. September 13, 2006, and authorized the Chairman to sign this letter. ' 'ty Council
considered this matter on September 25, 2006 and authorized the ma. to sign this letter,
representing the official comments of the C;ity of Seal Beach.
Thank you for your consideration of the comments of the City of
hesitate to contact Mr, Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development
Eighth Street, Seal Beach, 90740, telephone (562) 431-2527 i 313, if
questions regarding this matter. In addition, please . our (4) COpl f the
Recirculated DEIR on this project to Mr. Whittenberg, s City can have a copy a; ~
at City Hall ap.d at each library within the City availa for pub' review during th
public comment period..
e
Sincerely,
Mayor, City of Seal Beach
Chairman, Environmental
City of Seal Beach
Distribution:
tor of Development Services
California Coasta1 C
e
Long Bcs<:b Seaport Marina Project DElR.CC StafdfReporl 22
e
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Dr'fft ElR - Seaport Marina Project. City of Long Beach
City COIl1lcil StajfReport
September 25, 2006
ATTACHMENT 2
"DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR SEAPORT MARINA
" PROJECT", PREPARED BY THE CITY OF
LONG BEACH, DATED AUGUST 2006
NOTE: COMPLETE DOCUMENT, NOT
PROVIDED DUE TO LENGTH, 286 PAGES
NOT INCLUDING APPENDICES, A
COMPLETE ~OPY WILL BE AVAILABLE
AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
e
e
Long Boach Sooport Morin. Project DEIR.CC StaffRopoJt
23
e
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft EIR - Seaport Marina Project. City of Long Beach
City Council SlqIf Report
September 25. 2006
ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMENT
LETTER RE: NOTICE OF PREPARATION
" OF DRAFT EIR - "SEAPORT MARINA
PROJECT", DATED JUNE 13,2005
e
e
Lclng Beach Seaport Marina Project DEJR.CC StalfRoport
24
- -
, - ~ '
" , - ~ _' _ . -T", ~" ". :: . . __ ~ _
June 13,2005
FILE COpy
Angela Reynolds, Enviromnental PlAnning Officer
City of Long, Beach
DcplU tw.enl: cifP1Rnn;ng and Bl1nn;ng, 7th Floor
333 W. Ocean Boulevard
. Long Beach, CA 90802
SUBJECT: City of Seal Beach Comments re: Notice of Preparation of
Draft EIR - "Seaport Marina Project"
e Dear Ms. Reynolds:
The City of Seal Beach has reviewed the above referenced Notice of Preparation and
has several general co=ents and observa:tions re1lltive to the docum,ent, whiCh are set forth
l:iel.ow.
The City of Seal Beach is concemed that the document, particularly
TransportationITraffic. appear to focus oIllyon LOng Beach, and does not appear to propose '
to fully consider and evaluate potential impacts to the City of Seal Beach, wbicb. is
immedj.atelyadjacent The City's position is that impacts in,1:I:!e below m~oned areas of
concern will not stop at a county boundaIy line, but may, and probably will, extend into our
co=unity as well. The City of Seal Beach, in patticular, would seem to be in a position to
experience impacts from the ptoposeq. project, particularly. in the area of
"TransportationlTra:flic". .
Provided below are our coIlCClDS"Tegarding the infurma1ion and discussion witbin specified
sections of the NOP: :
DISCUSSION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES
Item V. CULTURAL RESOURCES:
e
Items IV,b-d - Potential impacts to unique arcbaeologica1lpaleontologica1 reslllJ1'CCS;
human IP.m,,;n..
Z;1My Documc:lllslCEQAILoDB Booch S""PortMlriDaProjoc:tNOP.Cif;y C=".lI LcllI:r.doo\LW\ll6-13~
'.
City o/Seal B~ Comment Letter n:
Notice of Preparation - Seaport Marina Project. Long Bead,
Jims 13: 200S
'.-.~
, "
, Concern of the Citv of Seal Beach:
YG"
The EnvironmP.TItAI Evaluation Checklist indicates "Less than Significant Impact
with Mitigation IncogJorated". The City feels that response is proper, but has a
concern that the imposition of mitigation measures to require on-site
T~OgiCal md Native American monitoring during grading activities to
de~ if my cultural resources, including hUlIlBD. J'P.TT1A;nA will be impacted
due to project ~ activities should be required due to the potential for burled
resources to exist, tmless the envirolimental review clearly indicates that all soil
disturbmce activities would occur in soil pro:files previously disturbed by prior
constrUction activities or within prior :filled. soil pro:files.
.'
This issue should be fully addressed with appropriate mitigation measures set
forth relative to project grading monitoring activities, actions if cultural resources
or human remA;nA are discovered" and sensitive treatment if human rP.mA;nA are
dis~~ .
Item XVI. TRANSPORTATION!I'RAFFl:C
The NOP indicates the DEIR will evaluate the 1raffi.c report to determine the e
project's impact on surrounding roadways.
Concern of the Citv of Seal Beach:
The City requests the trafli.c analysis impacts include those intersections within the
City of Seal Beach which are impacted in accordance with. the County of Orange
Growth MAnAgt'ment standards, which utilizes 1,700 vehicles per hour for lane
capacity and a clearance interval of 0.05.
The impacts of all other cumulative projects within ~ project vicinity in the City of
Long Beach should be thoroughly addressed. The impacts of the increased traffic
from all appropriate projects in the City of Long 5each. along with those projects in
the City of Seal Beach, including the previously approved. Boeing Integrated
Defense Systems Specific Plan, along with cumulative traffic impacts of regional
1rlp increases should be thoroughly analyzed and proposeU mitigation measures
clearly set forth to resolve those problems.
The DEIR. will not be adequate without discussion of the cumulative effects of
1rafIic impacts on Pacific Coast Highway, the 1-405 Frec:waY, Westminster Avenue,
7~ Street, aDd Studebaker Road. at the Cmmty boundary line, and as :filr dis~
from. the County boundary line as is appropriate given. the criteria set forth in the
:.first paragraph oftbis comment We wish to emphasize that vehicular access to the e
. College Park West neighborhood in Seal, Beach is through Studebaker Road. md 7~
S1reet In addition, the reduced lme capacity of the Marilla. Drive Bridge should be
reflected in the traffic analysis.
2
J..onIl!:Beach ~el'lt'lnTfM'.nn1ll 'Prn;~"h1'nD ,..;...~_..T.......
'.
..
e
e,
e
City of Seal Beach Comment Lette re:
Notice of Preparatfon - S,apart Mariruz Project, Long BfItlcn
June 13, 200S
The City of Seal Beach bas previously provided to your office a copy of the Traflic
Study for the Boeing Integrated. Defense Systems (''BIDS'') Specific Plsn, prep8ted
by Linscott L8.w & Greenspan ("u.&G'~, d8ted December 13, 2002 as a technical
appendix to the BIDS Specific Plan Draft Enviromnentsl Impact Report. If you
require an additional copy of this document, please contact the Department of
Development Services.
Please be aware that the BIDS Specific Plan traffic iD,lpact analysis included a
discussion of "Project-Related Fsir Share Contribution" on pages 74 and 75 which
discussed the net traffic impacts of.the BIDS project to the intersections of Pacific
~ast HighwaylWestmiDster Avenue/Second Street and Westminster Avenue and
Studebaker Road. A ~-sbl!re" calCuIa1i.on was prepared and a "wr share" dollar
contribution to the City of Long Beach. was identified.
Mr. retry Olivera o~ the City of Long Beach spoke at the May 21, 2003 plAnning
Comm;'l.'<ion public hearing on the BIDS Specific Plan EIR. and indicated that the
proposed mitigation was inadequate and that the identified fees may not be sufficient
to COVeJ: the costs of the identified improVP.mP.T1t.., especially if right-of-way is
required. Tn reviewing the DrafI: EIR for the Home Depot project within Long
Beach, the mitigation measure proposed for Studebaker RoadlWest Second S1reet is
the same in the traffic analysis of both project traffic studies, and appems to be
consistent. . ,
,Tn regards to impacts at Pacific Coast Highway and West Second Street, the BIDS'
Speci:fic Plan EIR assumed. that improvcmell1:s to 1hat intersection would occur, and
the City of Seal Beach adopted appropria,te mitigation measures requiring the
payment of ''filir-share'' expenses for proposed improvements at this intersection.
The CUIreIlt Home Deport DIER indicates that the Home Depot project will result in
a "sigCificant, unavoiclable impact' clue to right-of-way constraiIrts at this
intersec1ion.1 The Seaport Marina DEIR document should also specify what the
right-of-way constmint is by describing the necessary ac1ions to alleviate the impact
and delineating the impact of such improvements on the speci:lic properties that
would be iIp,pacted if such' 'mitigation were to be undertaken. If the CUIreI1t
determinAtiO!1 regarding this intemecti.On is the ul1imate !iecision of the City of Long
Beach, then there would be no ''nexus'' for Seal Beach to require payment of those
"fair-share" fees' identi,tied 'within the BIDS Specific Plan -Final EIR. for this
intersection. . '
The City of Seal Beach requests that Long Beach provide a detailed traffic impact
''filir share" calculation of all identified project- and cumulative projects impacts to
the identified intersections. Such calculations to include the fullowing maJor cost
categories, including the appropriate cost assumptions, as identified in the u.&G
traffic ana1~ for the BIDS Specific Plan E1R:
1 Home Deport Dmft Environmental Impact Report; page 4.11-22
3
Long Bcscb SoapartMsrina PmjoctNOP.C~ CammoatI.-.
City afS~ BeDCh Comment Letter rs:
Notice of PreparatilJn - &apart Marina Project. Long Beach
June 13. 2005
e
D Description of Improvement
D Area of Improvement .
D Cost per square foot of s1Ieet wideDing
D Number of signal comers
D Consjruc1ion Cost estimate
D Cons1roc1ion Cost Estimate with 25% Contingency
D CostofRiglrt-of-Way
D Construction Cost with Right-of-Way Acquisition
D Project Fail; Share Percent
The ~ove "fair share" calculation shall be prepared based on the identified
cumul8tive impacts of the Home Depot project, the BIDS Specmc Plan Project in
Seal,Beacb. and for any other City of Long Beach or other iOf!n1ified Cllmnlative
projects that are Wf!nnfied in the traffic analysis as having a significant impact at the
subject intersec1ions.
" .
. The Enviro'nmf!ntJIl Quality Control Board- considered and discussed the NOP
docuni.eDt on May 25. 2005, and authorized the Cha;T1Tlan to sigtl1bis letter. The City
Council considered this matter on June 13. 2005 and authorized the mayor to sigtl this letter,
representini the oflicia1 cOmments of the City of Seal Beach.
e
Thank you for your consideration of the comm""ts oftbe' 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 my' questions regarding this matter.. In addition; please provide four (4-) copies of the
Draft EIR. 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 public
ccnnmP.nt period. .
'.
Sincerely, '.
~L.L, L2}'
Mayor, City of Seal Beach
. .
oh~ iL -
rhamnllI)
Environmental Quality Control Board
City of Seal Beach
Distribution:
.'
,.
Seal Beach City Council
Seal Beach Planning CommiR.non
Seal Beach Enviromnen1al Quality Control'Board
e
City Manager
. Director ofDevelopment SCl;Vices
4
... ....---".. - . --