The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Min 1995-06-14 .' . . \ CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA of JUNE 14, 1995 7:30 P.M. * North Seal Beach Commumty Center 3333 St Cloud, Seal Beach, CA Next Resolubon: #95-12 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL ill. APPROVAL OF AGENDA By Mobon of the Planmng CommIssion, this IS the time to: (a) Notify the public of any changes to the agenda; (b) Rearrange the order of the agenda; and/or (c) Provide an OpportuDlty for any member of the Planning CommIssIon, staff, or pubhc to request an Item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. IV. QRAL COMMUNICATIONS At this time, members of the public may address the Planning ComffilSSlon regarding any Items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning commission, provided that NO action or dISCUSSIon may be undertaken by the Planning CommIssion unless otherwise authorized by law. V. Items on the Consent Calendar are conSIdered to be routine and are enacted by one motion unless prior to enactment, a member of the Planning commiSSIOn, staff or the public requests that a specific item be removed from Consent Calendar for separate acbon. 1. Approve Minutes of June 7, 1995 ~ .. . . Page 2 . ~ of Seal Belch PIamuog ComnuBBIOIl Agenda of June 14, 1995 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Continued Public Hearing from June 7, 1995 Supplemental Report - Review of Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course Development Plan: Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) General Plan Amendment #95-1 (a) and (b) Zone Change 95-1 Vesting Tentative Tract Map #14465 Applicant: Owner: Bixby Ranch Company Bixby Ranch Company Location: 3901 Lampson Avenue - Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course Request: The proposed project would allow a mixture of residential, recreational, and commerciaVoffice uses on a 212 acre site. The proposed project will require the following actions by the City of Seal Beach: (1) certification of the FEIR; (2) a General Plan Land Use Amendment; (3) zone change approvals to maintain consistency with the requested General Plan Land Use amendments; and (4) a Vesting Tentative Tract Map approval. VII. STAFF CONCERNS VIII. COMMISSION CONCERNS IX. ADJOURNME1IT Continue Open Public Hearing on Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course Development Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), General Plan Amendment #95-1 (a) and (b), Zone Change 95-1, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map #14465 to Wednesday June 21, 1995, 7:30 P.M., at City Council Chambers, 211 8th Street, Seal Beach. / Plge 3 - Ctly of Seal Belch PIaanmg Comnu&8101l Agenda of l1111e 14, 1995 . 1995 AGENDA FORECAST JUN 21 CIty CouncIl Chambers . ContInued Review of Bixby Project . CUP 95-3 @ 550 PCH/Los Cabos Restaurant . Variance 95-3 @ B-21 Surfside re side yard setbacks for addition of 880 sq. ft. JUL 05 JUL 19 . Election of Chairman & VIce Chalrman . CUP 95-4/RockweWSignage changes AUO 09 AUO 23 SEP 06 SEP 20 . OCT 04 OCT 18 NOV 08 NOV 22 DEe 06 DEC 20 1996: IAN FED MAR APR MAY IUN . CUP 94-8/327 Maln/Nip 'n Stuff @ 3 mos. . CUP 94-8/327 Main/Nip 'n Stuff @ 6 mos. CUP 95-111013 PCH/Pletro's 12 mos. hours. CUP 94-11600 MannalRadlsson 12 mos. ABC CUP 92-11909 Ocean/EI Burrito 12 mos. ABC CUP 94-8/327 Main/NIp 'n Stuff 6 mos. 2nd review . . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES of JUNE 14, 1995 The City of Seal Beach Planning Commission met in an adjourned session, at 7:30 p.m. at the North Seal Beach Community Center, with Chairman Dahlman calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Dahlman ComlDlssioners Campbell, Brown, Sharp, Law Also Present: D~artment of Development Services: Lee Whittenberg, Director Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney Barry Curtts, AdministratIve Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Dahlman asked to have Staff Concerns and Commission Concerns heard prior to the Public Hearing. The Commission agreed. MOTION by Campbell; SECOND by Dahlman to approve the Agenda as amended. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0-0 AYES: Dahlman, Law, Sharp, Campbell, Brown ORAL COMMUNICATIQNS No one wished to speak at this time. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to approve the Consent Calendar as follows: 1. Approve Minutes of June 7, 1995 MOTION CARRIED: 5-0-0 AYES: Dahlman, Law, Sharp, Campbell, Brown . . . Page 2 - CIty of Seal Beach PIanmng C0IlIIUI881OD Mmutes of June 14, 1995 STAFF CON:CERNS There were no staff concerns. COMMISSION CONCERNS There were no Commission concerns. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course Development Plan 3901 Lampson A venue - Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) General Plan Amendment #95-1 (a) and (b) Zone Change 95-1 Vesting Tentative Tract Map #14465 Staff Rq>ort Chairman Dahlman said thiS is a continued Pubhc Hearing from June 7, 1995. He noted the Planning Commission does not approve thiS project proposal, the City Council does. The Planning Commission focuses the issues for the City Council. Director Whittenberg summarized the supplemental staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. Copies of the staff report, summary table of Proposed M1.tigation Measures and Minutes of June 7, 1995, were made available for the public. Director Whittenberg explamed the Planning Commission's job at this time is to decide the adequacy or inadequacy of an Environmental Impact Report prepared for this proposal and make a recommendation on the project. Director Whittenberg explained the proposal, by Bixby Ranch Company, is to amend the City's General Plan and allow for expanded residential uses on property which is now only listed to be used for golf course purposes. Referring to a display, Mr. Whittenberg explained the yellow area is the proposed locatlon for 98 detached single family homes with access from Seal Beach Boulevard at St. Cloud Street. The brown area at the top of this map is an area proposed for multiple family resldentlal housing. A range of 100 - 125 units is proposed. This proposal is the result of a current goal which is set forth m the City's Housing Element to provide additional housing in that area of the commumty. One of the two brown areas at the bottom of the map is the current locatlon of the Bixby Tennis Club facility. This property is currently zoned for commercial uses but is not used for that purpose at thiS time. The proposal as set forth in the environmental documents is for the Bixby Ranch Co. to dedicate that facility to the City of Seal Beach as a recreation . . Page 3 - City of Seal Beach P1annmg COIIIIDIS8IOD Mmutes of June 14, 1995 facility. In addition to the current facility there, the Bixby Ranch Co. would be providing the funds to allow the City to construct an additlOnal community building on that facibty, which would allow for indoor recreation facilities such as basketball, volleyball. The commercial area along Lampson Avenue, also shown in brown, is partly zoned for commercial uses. This is the area not used for the existing golf course. The vacant areas are now zoned for commercial uses. The proposal is to change the zoning on those areas which are now used for golf course to the commercial zone and provide about 13.5 acres of commercial zoning in that location. California State law requires the ultimate zoning of property be in conformity With the General Plan. So, as a part of the conformity process which cities have to go through in California, If the City ultimately decides to change the General Plan to different land use designations, the zoning must also be changed to follow those same deSignations. Therefore, there is also a request for zone changes to allow for the change from the golf course zone for the single family residential area, for the multi-family residential area and for the expanded commercial area at Lampson Avenue, which is now utilized by the golf course. The last request is for a Vesting Tentative Tract Map. TIus map allows for the subdivision of the 98 smgle famIly homes so those lots may be sold to individual homeowners. If the Planning Commission and City Council determine not to change the General Plan, the City could not approve the zone changes or the subdlvislOn map. All those requests must be 10 conformance With the General Plan. Regardless of the Planning CommisslOn's decision, be it for approval or denial, there will be another complete set of Pubhc Hearings before the City CouncIl. He told the Commissioners that as they are receiving pubhc testimony they should try to get comments from the public as to what they feel is an appropriate land use for that area, whether the proposal is good or bad for the community, and what concerns they have regarding the project. If a decislOn is made to change the land use designations, then both the Planning Commission and City Council will need to focus on whether or not the proposed land uses are good for the community and if the proposed mitigation measures in the EIR adequately address the community's concerns and adequately reduce the levels of identified impact to a level considered less than significant. If the Commission's recommendation is to not approve the project, then the Commission will not need to deal With mitigation measures. City Attorney Comments Mr. Steele repeated his comments of June 7, 1995, stating he would focus on the legal reqUlrements of the California Envrronmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the Planning Commission is charged with making a decision of adequacy/inadequacy to the City Council. There are four separate, but inter-related, decisions before the Planning Commission. There will be four votes and four separate resolutions adopted. The Tentative Tract Map must be consistent with the applicable zoning. To make that happen, the zon1Og will have to be changed. The areas' zoning must be consistent With the General Plan. To make that happen, the General Plan must be amended. Before this can happen, the City has the responsibility to prepare a legally adequate EIR. The Commission is asked to reVlew the EIR prepared for this project and to make a recommendation to the City Council as to its adequacy. The staff report contains all the . information necessary as to what constitutes an adequate EIR, so that information wIll not be . . . Page 4. CIty of Seal Beach PIannm& CclmmI88101l Mmulc8 of JUIIC 14, 1995 repeated in detail. However, hIghlIghting the following detaIls is important. CEQA sets out a required number of elements for an EIR (See page 10 of the staff report). All of these required elements are in the EIR document. Those requirements are the II nuts and bolts" of the EIR. The heart of the adequacy requirement is set forth at the end of page 11 of the staff report. The Commission must determine if this EIR contains the information that decIsion-makers need to intelligently take account of the environmental consequences of this project. This is a subjective question for each Commissioner as a decision-maker. CEQA doesn't require an absolutely perfect document, but the document must be reasonably complete and fully disclose the environmental impacts of a project. CEQA does not require that everybody agree with every element of the EIR but it does require the EIR be objective and Identify areas where experts disagree. It must explain the reasons for choosing one set of conclusions over others. CEQA doesn't require the analysIs be exhaustIve but it does require the EIR be a good faIth effort at full disclosure. The CommiSSIon must look at the EIR and the public testimony and decide whether it thinks the document enables the CommiSSIoners, as decision-makers, to understand and take account of the environmental impacts of thIS project as it's makIng its' decIsion. If the EIR provides that necessary information, It'S adequate. If it doesn't, the EIR needs more work. Looking at the consequences of a decision on the adequacy of the EIR, what happens if the City Council determines the EIR is inadequate? A decision that an EIR IS inadequate is not the same thing as denying the project. The City has the responsibility to prepare a legally adequate EIR before it can consider the merits of the application. If the Planning Commission recommends this EIR be found inadequate, or if the City Council ultImately determInes the EIR IS Inadequate, the resolution on that decision will set forth a set of findings which identIfy the specific inadequacies in the document. The findIngs serve as the instructions to the consultant and staff as to where the further work is necessary. The inadequacy decision and the findings made by the City Council could be challenged in court. A court would look at the EIR and the findings and make a judgement. The litigation on that issue would be lImited to those issues raised in the PublIc Hearings and whIch are raised in the comments on the Draft EIR. If any person has a position that any element of the EIR is Inadequate, it has to be raIsed at a time when we can still do somethIng about It or, It can't be lItIgated. The court might uphold the decIsion on inadequacy or the court might reverse the City's decISIon and find that the EIR IS legally adequate. In that case, the court would send the EIR back to the CIty and order the CIty to take action on the merits of the project. AlternatIvely, the City Council could find the EIR is legally adequate and certify the EIR. A decIsion that the EIR is legally adequate does not in any way mean that the project is or will be approved. The adequacy of the EIR and the merits of the project are two fully separate Issues. If the EIR is certified as adequate. one pOSSIble consequence is that someone who opposes that decIsion could challenge It In court and argue that it is inadequate. The court would look at it and make its deciSIon. Or, if the deciSIon was not challenged, the CIty Council would then proceed to conSIder the ments of the project, taking into account the environmental Impacts that are Identified in the EIR. ThIS EIR, as it is currently wntten, IdentIfies about forty (40) significant or potentIally significant effects on the environment that would result from thIS project. Under CEQA, the CIty must respond to every one of those significant effects before the project can be approved. . . . Pace 5 - CIty of Seal Beach Plannlllg CommtsaIOll Mmutes of June 14. 1995 One way to respond, is to requIre the applicant IOcorporate changes or alterations in the project which mitigate those environmental impacts to a less than significant level. This EIR proposes that level of mitigation measure for thirty-SIX (36) of the forty impacts. That leaves four (4) identified significant environmental impacts from this project which cannot be fully mitigated. Those four impacts are designated in the report as significant and unavoidable. Looking at the summary table in Chapter 2 of the FEIR, those four impacts are noted with the letters lISUlI 10 the far right-hand column. The finding that some of the environmental impacts of this project cannot be adequately mitigated means that after the technical experts have looked at all of the data and imposed every feasible mItigation measure, thIS project as proposed still would have some significant effects on the environment. And If the City Council certifies an EIR which identifies significant, unavoidable environmental impacts from this project and if the City Council intends to approve the project despite those significant impacts, CEQA places the burden on the City Council to explain that decision in advance. That explanation would be contained in a written document called The Statement of Overriding ConsIderatIOns. That Statement must say essentially, we the City Council have looked at the benefits to the City from this project and we've looked at the identified environmental risks. We've balanced the benefits against the risks and we find the benefits outweigh the environmental consequences. The project can only be approved if the City Council makes those findings as to each SIgnificant environmental impact. If the City Council is unable to adopt The Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Council cannot approve the project as proposed. Chairman Dahlman asked If an EIR should be certified as adequate if, hypothencally, a very unsound project proposal was under consideration and If all the unsoundness was properly documented in the EIR? Mr. Steele said that was correct. Mr. Steele Said It'S important to separate the merits of a project and its EIR because the CommIssion must look at the EIR and decide if it has the information it needs about the envIronmental impacts of the proposed project. If it does, the EIR can be considered adequate. Chairman Dahlman noted the draft Minutes of the EQCB's meeting are available tomght. The EQCB's deciSIOn was not to certlfy the EIR. He asked Mr. Whittenberg what the relanonship is between the EQCB, the Planmng Commission and the CIty Council. HIS understand10g the EQCB is a sub-committee appointed at the pleasure of the CIty Council and is not a sub- committee of the Planning CommIssion. Mr. Whittenberg said the EQCB is a separate adVISOry body to the City Council established by a City ordinance. Their charge is to advise the City on environmental concerns and make recommendations to the City Council on those environmental concerns. As part of that funcnon, they review EIR's for adequacy. They have considered the EIR for this project and 10 their opinion, that EIR IS not adequate. That recommendation has come to the Commission and will ultimately go to the Council. The Commission may take the EQCB's recommendation 1Oto consideration but it's not a binding recommendanon, Just as the CommiSSIOn's recommendations are not binding on the Council. The Council will ultimately consider Planning Commission and EQCB recommendations and receive independent public testimony on the proJect. . . . Pace 6 - CJ1;y of Seal Beach PIannulg ClIIIIII1IlIBIOO Mmute8 or June 14, 1995 With the consensus of the Commission, Chairman Dahlman declared the Public Hearing open. He added that when the Commission gets to the pubhc input portion, he will be contmumg WIth the sign up list from the June 7th meeting. He said he hoped for a brief project presentation from the applicant this evening, summarizing in a few minutes what obviously took a long time at the last meeting. More than two hours was spent at the last meetmg with the presentation. He asked if the tape of the June 7th Planning Commission meeting could be made available in the library so that people who haven't seen the applicant's presentation can still see it? Mr. Whittenberg said that arrangement could be made. The Chairman said he would like to make as much of this information av31.lable as possible. Ron Bradshaw * Bixby Ranch Company. Seal Beach Mr. Bradshaw said he represents BIxby Ranch Company for thIS application. He mdlcated his team of consultants were present and would speak tonight. Mr. Bradshaw said the property now under consideration is an eIghty (80) acre site which had been under a long-term lease with the Federal Government until It expired in the early 1980's. That was when Bixby began thinking of additional planning for that property which Bixby Co. has owned for over 100 years. In 1990 there were a senes of four or five public meetings held in the North Seal Beach Commumty Center. These meetmgs were attended by the applicant, the Planning Director, the CIty'S EIR consultant and an outside Planning Consultant. Those meetings produced a concept for land planning on the balance of the BIxby property. It was unfortunate those meetmgs were cut short, but they did provide a good deal of information. In 1992 the meetings were re-initiated on a more lOCalIZed basis, on a less official basis with the local community in College Park East. Those meetings proceeded for the next two years and resulted in the final plan you see before you. Without going mto the land uses Mr. Whittenberg spoke on, he felt It's important to understand that of the 80 acres, 53 acres go back into golf course use. That 80 acres is currently under golf course sod farmmg. So 53 acres are going back into the same use they have been in for the last ten years. In addItion, the reconfiguration of zoning is the movement of zomng that is currently commercial to conform to the CIty'S requirements under its General Plan that is achieve some affordable housmg within the City. Another important area is the tennis club has been put into a public use, a City use. The property which is currently zoned C-2 would be moved to the West, to an area that had previously been proposed as a park area. That includes two holes that are currently under use at the Old Ranch County Club. The tennis facihty would be relocated to the North, in the driving range area. He noted the community's input was considered and reflected in the final design. There has been a significant reduction in the number of residential umts. It takes a Bixby Ranch Company, a long-term land owner, to be able to have that httle development on a project of this acreage. Bixby has worked closely WIth the air base to make sure the project is totally compatible. Mr. Bornholdt, who represents Bixby, will speak briefly to the EIR Issues. There are strong economic benefits which result from this project and should be considered as positive impacts that the project will have. It has, m the neIghborhood of . Page 7 - CIty of Seal Beach PIaonmg Comnu881011 MInUtes of JIIDe 14, 1995 . City permit fees Property tax basis step-up [property taxes, bed taxes, sales taxes] . Traffic mitigation fees . School fees Jobs - temporary & permanent Community Center's raw land value $ 350,000 $ 850,000/year $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,500,000 There is posinve cash flow to the City. Chairman Dahlman said that at the Planning CommISSIon level they are used to looking primarily at land use issues. ObVIously nothmg can be separated from everything else and there may be some economic input and he wanted to give Bixby the chance to descrIbe its plan faIrly. But, at least from his point of view, it is the land use issues that the CommissIOn WIll be primarily considering. If the Commission decides on a change in use, at least personally, hIS recommendanon would be that any costs of that be negotiated with the CIty CouncIl, they have the responsibility for the budget, the Commission does not. . Ken Bornholdt. Esq. * Law Firm of Walter & Bornholdt Mr. Bornholdt stated he was present as an attorney on behalf of the Bixby Ranch Company. He addressed his comments toward the CEQA document and the EIR. He said he had three comments to make: 1. On the adequacy issue. He felt Mr. Steele did a good job on descnbing the Commission's responsIbIlIties. One phrase Mr. Steele used, "The decision of adequacy was your subjective decision", was rephrased by Mr. Bornholdt as "That the decision of adequacy of the document is your independent judgement that's based on the eVidence you see before you". The CommiSSIOn must look at the document and analyze It in terms of whether they thmk there's a full disclosure of all the environmental impacts associated with this project. Bixby thinks the CIty staff and their team of consultants (which are up here in the front row) have done a full job of disclosing to you all the envIronmental impacts asSOCIated with this project. Bixby thinks, as does City staff and the City Attorney, it is an adequate document. Bixby doesn't agree with all of the conclusions on some of the points. But 10 terms of full dIsclosure to the CommIssion, you can find it to be adequate. . 2. A point needs to be made that this document was prepared not by BIxby Ranch Co. consultants, but by City staff and their selected team of consultants. BIxby dIdn't hIre those consultants. They work independently of Bixby. This IS an independent document that is produced for Commission consIderation. They are not assocIated WIth Bixby . Pego 8 - CIty of Seal Beach PIaDnmg Cooum881Cl1l MmuIoB of Juno 14, 1995 Ranch Co. BIXby has another team of consultants who they used. They are a duphcate of the City's consultant team because Bixby was concerned with the same issues for obvious reasons. 3. The EQCB did unanimously adopt a motion at the conclusion of their deliberations. They were asked by City staff to set forth what they believed to be the specIfic inadequacies with the EIR and they did so. That motion is before the Commission. Those Inadequacies really boil down to two issues: a. Traffic and impacts on traffic. b. Noise associated with the airfield, which this project is located next to and the street traffic noise. These are the two issues the EQCB was concerned about. Regarding traffic, BIXby's traffic expert (Linscott Law & Greenspan) concurs WIth the analYSIS done by the CIty'S consultant (DKS) and has reached the same conclUSIOn, that the traffic impacts can be mitigated. This was discussed at length at the June 7th meeting and Mr. Bornholdt dId not discuss that again tonight. . Regarding noise impacts associated with the Armed Forces Reserve Center, that is a very legitimate concern because of the proximity of this development to the airfield. ThIS IS a concern WhIch the CommISSIon should be concerned about. The EIR concludes that when all existIng Federal, State and local (Orange County Land Use) standards are applied on the noise contours which would be generated from the aIrfield that this project can be mitigated and is compatIble with those standards. This project was designed specifically to be compatible with the airport installation land use compatIbility zone study, called the AICUZ study, done by the military in connection with the operation of the airfield. This project is compatIble with what they have told you In that study would be compatible land uses around their airfield. This project will not cause that airfield to leave because it's compatIble with it. Chairman Dahlman said public testimony at the June 7th meeting demonstrated that the re- striping, without physically wIdening the bridge, was not adequate and was one example of how the EIR was inadequate. Mr. Bornholdt SaId he would prefer to defer to the traffic consultant. Chairman Dahlman asked Mr. Bornholdt if he felt the issue about the potential of the aIrfield to operate at a different level that it's currently operatIng at is fully addressed in the EIR? Mr. Bornholdt indicated yes, that under Department of Defense (DOD) and Air Force regulations plus the AICUZ study Itself, the EIR must contemplate current operatIons, It must also contemplate future operations. This airfield has historically been operatIng at a level of approximately 55,000 annual operatIons. It will go a httle bit higher or a httle bIt lower historically. The military looked out into the future and looked at this airfield and made a . conscious decision as to whether or not they thought, in the future, the mission of this airfield . . Page 9 - CIIf of Sea) Beach J>lamwJ,g CIlIIIII1l881011 MInutes of June 14, 1995 would change so as to materially change that operating history. Their conclusion in their study in 1994 was it would not. The princIpal reason IS this aIrfield, unlike most airfields, is not really intended for fixed wing aircraft operations. It was originally deSIgned for that but it's current mission, an It'S mission since 1973 when the CalIfornia NatIonal Guard was given control of it, is helicopters. It is 97 % helicopters --- rotary wlOg operatIons. This airfield has a restraint on it, an environmental document called an EIS, which was done in 1973. In that EIS the military committed to stay at a level of 97 % rotary wing operations. If they were to change in the future, they would have to do a supplemental EIS and have Public HearlOgs. The AICUZ study demonstrates they did consider the present and future. Finally, the Orange County Land Use Commission, in December 1994, amended their Land Use Plan for this airfield and adopted the AICUZ study. Under State law the Orange County Land Use Commission IS required to adopt a plan that includes looking out twenty (20) years. They made the same conclusion the military did --- that the operational level WIll stay the same for the next twenty years. Paul Wilkinson * Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers Mr. Wilkinson said his firm is a traffic englOeering firm who has been advising BIxby on the project. Regarding re-striping the bridge, the bridge is effectively more than four (4) lanes WIde nght now. Iflanes are counted at 11' or 12' wide and the bicycle lane is 8' wide, it is more than an effective WIdth of four lanes. ThIS IS largely because of the merging lanes as you come off the Southbound off-ramp of the 405. The EIR concept IS five (5) 11' or 12' lanes on the bridge with three (3) Northbound and two (2) Southbound with a six (6') foot bicycle lane in each directIon. The Caltrans manual dictates a minimum standard of five (5') foot for an on-street bike lane. The mlOimum standard would be exceeded by one foot. Caltrans standards for roadway lanes are 11' to 12' and that's common standard throughout Orange County. In Los Angeles County they are as httle as ten (10') feet wide. The proposed re-striplOg is an intenm measure but it is an interim measure which reflects standards that are common throughout the State, throughout the community and in fact prescribed in the Caltrans manual. Chairman Dahlman said the citizen who spoke about this on June 7th concluded that by the tIme the full development was completed we would need to widen the bridge to accommodate the impact of this project. Mr. Wilkinson that to some extent it is true the re-striping is an interim measure. He SaId the Commission should keep in mind that this is a $1,000,000 project and the smallest portion of the funds is spent on the bridge. The EIR mitigation figures show there IS substantial widening to either side of the bndge. In fact, that widening is in preparation for the eventual wldenlOg of the bridge. If you think about the full stretch from south of the freeway and south of the southbound freeway off-ramp at Beverly Manor to north of the freeway, including through Lampson Avenue, the types of improvements that are being done off of the bridge are the types . of improvements that ultImately need to be done. They would be done as an initIal step. The . . PBae 10 - Cd)' of Seal Beach PIaonmg CooumSSIOIl Mmutes of I1D1e 14. 1995 capacity through that reach is established, not necessary by the bridge itself, but by the intersections at both ends of the bridge. If you're sitting waiting on the bridge, the reason is you're waiting in a line that's stopped by the signal. The initial improvements fully expand those intersections to their ultimate condition. Through re-striping, we can make the interim cross section work with the existing width that occurs. It gives the City the opportunity to seek grants and accumulate within its own trip fee program funds to be able to implement the ultimate improvements to that roadway. There is nothing wrong WIth the standards that are be10g applied with the re-striping. The re-striping is only on the bridge. There is physical widemng basically along both edges of the roadway everywhere but on the bndge. Commissioner Brown asked what the percentage of increase in traffic generated by the project at those intersections? Mr. Wilkinson replied that at the southbound off-ramp intersection, the background condition in the p.m. peak hour, which is most cnncal, will consume 22% more capacity than would be available at that intersection. 80 % of the capacity is used by the exisnng volume. Another 22 % of capacity would be consumed by background traffic. And during that same period, 8 % would be consumed by Bixby traffic at its full development. So on a relative basis, BIxby traffic IS about J,4 of the total expected near term growth and volume on that bndge at that intersecnon. It's about 8% of the capacity which is 1,4 of the volume increase at the northbound off-ramp. These figures are before mitigation. The figures would be recalculated because the capaCIty 10creases with the intersection improvements. At the southbound off-ramp the background traffic growth would consume about 20% of the capacity, 90% is consumed now by exisnng traffic. The Bixby traffic would consume a further 8 %; something less than 1/3 of traffic growth. It's important to note that at both intersections, WIth the Bixby project in place, with the other cumulative background volumes that are occurring and will occur, the conditions with be better at the southbound off-ramp than they are now. Regardless of what happens with the Bixby project development proposal, these types of improvements need to be done on this bridge and the adjoining intersections. Commissioner Brown said he was trying to understand the references to BIXby paying it's fair share of the traffic improvements. He asked If thIS fair share meant 8% of the improvements or 25 %? Mr. Wilkinson Said "It would mean 25 % of the improvements based on the relative numbers that we just laid out". Commissioner Brown said 8% of the traffic would be Bixby's traffic. Mr. Wilkinson said Bixby would be using 8 % of the capacity but would be shanng 10 25 % of the costs. Commissioner Sharp indicated he had a lot of questions to ask the consultants but felt the time . to do so is after the Public Heanng on June 21 st. . . . Page 11 . Cll1 of Seal Beach PIamuDg CamnuaSIOIl Mmutca of June 14, 1995 Chairman Dahlman said he was not sure if it is appropriate to have the City's environmental consultant (EIP) speak at the June 21st meetlng. Mr. Whittenberg said that's a choice of the Planning Commission. Chairman Dahlman said he was considering June 21st. Mr. Whittenberg said the City has their consultant team present at the meetings so they may hear the public's questions and comments. Once the Commission has closed its Public Hearing, the CIty'S consultants will prepare responses to clarIfy and focus the questions and comments. The City consultants will also be avaIlable to answer questions once the Public Hearing IS closed. Chairman Dahlman, with the consensus of the CommIssion, called for public testimony and called speakers via the sign up list. Chairman Dahlman asked the speakers to give an opinion, if they have one, on the adequacy of the EIR and the advantages/disadvantages to the City of a zone change. Betty Cheevers Ms. Cheevers was not present to speak. Mel Kolumbic Mr. Kolumbic called from his seat that there was a good presentation at the June 7th meeting. Lionel Qkun * Leisure World. Seal Beach Mr. Qkun spoke against the project proposal. He said that at the June 7th meetlng, Mr. Bradshaw went to great lengths to explain how Bixby had met for several years WIth the natives of Rossmoor, Los Alamitos, Rossmoor and College Park East to find out what things BIXby could provide for them while at the same tlme enhancing the Income to the City of Seal Beach. The residents have not been apprecIative of his efforts and promises but have expressed concerns about traffic, noise, atmosphere pollution ariSIng from the proposed hOUSIng, hotel and commercial activities. The extra costs to the CIty --- polIce, fire service, sewage, trash collection, schooling, loss of rain absorptlon and recovery of water into the underground water system --- were not discussed. He said while he was unclear on the proposed community center's on-going costs to the City, some people were excited about the community center, VIewing it as a personal achievement. Mr. Okun disagreed WIth Bixby's consultants by citing a mitigation measure against construction noise was not opening the windows. He said in former City CouncIlmember Joe Hunt's time Bixby was going to pay for WIdening of the bndge over the 405 freeway but now Bixby has a better idea --- to paint more lines on the pavement Instead and he supposed thIS cost less. Mr. Okun said that with traffic from the Bolsa Chica development proposal, the traffic on Seal Beach Boulevard will get worse without Bixby adding to it. The increased traffic might interfere with emergency services to Leisure World. These residents represent a portion of people prone to requiring life and death emergency help. . P8ge 12 - Ctly of Seal Beach PIamuDg Comon881on Mmutca of June 14, 1995 Russ Li&htcap * Rossmoor Homeowner's Association Speakin& on behalf of Shirley Bailey and Milton Peterson Mr. Lightcap presented the Chair With a copy of Rossmoor Homeowners Associanon comments [Attached]. The RHA's posinon on the project proposal is they want the impacts to be properly identified and mitigated. The RHA said it is concerned with the City's action to assure adequately mitigated impacts, about the phas10g of the proposed development and the timing of the mitigations associated with that phasing. Additional funds will be needed to implement those projects. RHA quesnons the applicant's being "responsible for an appropriate fair share contribution to the City-wide Traffic Impact Fee Program". ConSiderable fund10g may be required. RHA would hke to know If an implementation plan will be developed? Who will develop it and when will it be available for review? Regarding traffic diversion through Rossmoor, the RHA requires clanfication regarding the generation of the data that states the proposed project traffic will not infiltrate the Rossmoor Community. . Regarding storm water storage on the project area, RHA feels oversight is needed to assure the needs of College Park and Rossmoor are properly considered in the proJect-specific drainage report. Regarding the Rossmoor pump station, the County Sanitation District says their 39-inch gravity flow sewer bypasses the small pump station in Rossmoor and flows directly into the Seal Beach pump station. If this IS not true, the addlnonal flow would exacerbate the existing nOlse, vibration and maintenance problems at the Rossmoor pump stanon. Regarding recreation facilities, RHA feels the needs of the attached residential units which would be directly across from the shopp1Og center are not adequately addressed. RHA noted the high level of 10Cldents requiring police responses over a two month period. RHA felt police incidents could be exacerbated with proper recreational facilities for this housing. Chairman Dahlman S31d as funding for the 10frastructure development, he believed that is negonated at the City Council level. Any proposals as to what is necessary would gladly be heard by the Commission. Marty Mahrer Mr. Mahrer said the Los Alamltos Retarding Basin was bUilt 10 1958 by the Orange County Flood Control Distnct and has a storage capacity of nearly 200 acre feet. It has four pumps that discharge the storm waters into the San Gabnel River. The Los Alamitos Channel was designed in 1957, prior to the urbanized development seen today. A 1976 report authored by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency Flood Control Program Office states that the present . system is inadequate. He did not beheve this situation has improved with age. The exisnng . . . Page 13 - Ctl;y of Seal Beach PIamuog Comnusslllll MlllutcB of June 14, 1995 pumping station is not sufficIent to hold a maximum water servIce in a basIn, + 1 foot elevation, necessary to prevent upstream floodIng. Leisure World street elevations are approximately +3.5'. This elevation would result In the floodIng of parts of LeIsure World In the event of either at 25-year frequency storm, an electrical failure of the pumps or in the event of a tOO-year frequency storm. The January 4, 1995 rain was considered to be either a to-year, a 20-year, a 100-year or a 200-year flood. This is perceIved by the ume and rate of water falling plus the retention of water in the various basins; Los Al is a major basin. The retarding basin in whIch part of the project would be built, and run-off water will come from, directs water under Lampson A venue and the 405 Freeway, approximately fourteen plus lanes wide. Any upgrade will be in the form of larger pumps and not tunneling under the 405 Freeway for a larger opening for the water. During the January 4, 1995 rains, the air-cooled electric pumps came within a half-inch to an inch of shutting down because of the elevation of the rainwater it was trying to handle. If the pumps had shut down, the flooding would have been disastrous both In Leisure World and College Park East. This proposed project WIll result in decreased capacity and increased flows due to impervious surfaces, such as concrete and asphalt, where these surfaces were once able to absorb and retain water. It will take less rain to create the flooding that was prevalent last January 4th. Some correspondence from vanous agencies are Memo for Record attached to letter from the Department of the Army Headquarters, Califorma National Guard, dated January 1995. "The Southwest end of the AFRC and BIxby golf course, Including the area proposed for development, flood each year during the raInY season. The referenced channel that runs from the AFRC to the Bixby property fills very qUIckly. The project report on the Los AI RetardIng Basin and Los Al Channel, dated October 1976, states 'The eXlstmg pumping station was designed for a discharge of 400 cubic feet per second, which is inadequate to hold the maximum water surface in a basin of 1 foot elevation necessary to prevent upstream flooding'. The capacity is reduced, in-flow is increased and houses elevated at least one foot in College Park will have a mess because the pumps can only work so fast and they were deemed inadequate in 1976. The EIR states that prior to final project design, a report IS to be prepared to evaluate the situauon. If it's determined there is a problem, the applicant will pays his fair share toward the Improvement -- WIll this be 5 % or 10% of the cost? That would be the wrong time for this CIty to find it has a huge expenditure to face and no way out --- the City can't look to Orange County, It'S bankrupt. If the CIty is faced WIth a huge expense IS It to fIX the flood control system and widen the bndge at the same time? He SaId the issue of floodmg and water backing up in College Park East has not been properly addressed nor answered to any degree of truthfulness. There has not been a good faith effort a full disclosure by the Bixby Company, nor honesty in their consultant's presentations. He urged the PlannIng Commlssion to vote "no" on this project. Foster Williams * College Park East Mr. Wllliams said he was concerned about safety and pOSSIble liability to the City of Seal Beach. It seemed inconceivable to him that a hotel or houses at the end of aIrcraft runways. Unless the applicant has plans, not yet made public, to have the AFRC closed at some future date. The City has a letter, dated March 15, 1995, stating in part "AIrcraft will be at a low alutude over the restaurant-hotel site". If nothing else, he said, this should stop construction. All the maps . . . Page 14 - CIty of Seal Beach PlaJmmg CCllIIIIIl88I011 Mmute8 of JW1C 14, 1995 that he has seen have been made by Bixby and no runways are shown --- he asked why? He said this is not a safe project and urged the Commission to vote "no". Paul Frenpiel Not present. Harold Norton * College Park East Mr. Norton said he is in favor of the applicant's proposal With some reservations. He has been a College Park East resident for 26 years. He has been associated with the AFRC since 1949, first as a reservist from 1949 to 1952, then as Officer in Charge of the radar approach units from 1956 to 1970. During hiS tenure at Los Alamitos, he was assigned the task of developmg arnving and departure routes compatible with the Federal AViation Administration (FAA) and the surrounding area. It was determined that the departures and a portion of the arrivals should fall within the confines of the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station as much as possible. To accomphsh this requires a pilot, when comfortably airborne, to execute a left turn to 1800, which is 400 left of the centerhne of the runway, remain East of Seal Beach over the Weapons Stanon until reaching the ocean. This flight path passes directly over the existing development South of Lampson Avenue, East of Seal Beach Boulevard and basically over the tennis courts and golf course. To use the term "end of the runway" IS like saying lithe 405 Freeway runs through the City of Seal Beach and College Park East II . Where houses are built in reference to the runway does not determine the noise level or safety factor. Where they are buut in reference to the flight path of the aircraft is the criteria used to determine if they fall within the allowable guidelines. During his tenure at the AFRC he has made over 1000 takeoffs and landings in single and multi-engine prop and jet aircraft and witnessed thousands more. He's yet to witness any aircraft depart north of the centerline of the runway, which is the only way an aircraft could fly over the proposed housing tract. The original owners in College Park East have witnessed considerable reduction m the noise emananng from the AFRC, for which they are all most thankful. Regarding concerns for the mission of the AFRC, it's a well-known fact that mUltary facilities have changes to their missions and Los Alamitos has not been without change. Logistic support to the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, medical evacuation and area disaster support are only a part of their mission. All the occupants of post housing and College Park East will be subject to aircraft noise. Some that buy m either area, even knowmg the AFRC existed, will call and complain. His concerns about the project are cost and surface traffic. Indicating he and the majority of the College Park East homeowners are not privy to all the correspondence. Those in College Park East are the most affected and are the most vocal. The determination must be what is best for all the citizens of Seal Beach and Leisure World. They have been told that if they want to continue receiving the levels of service they now enjoy they must increase their tax base. We cannot, however, stick our heads in the sand and let the surroundmg communities continue to develop and still absorb that mcreased traffic without change. They are not willing to pay the City for traffic improvement but Bixby IS. Will the Bixby project cost the City up-front monies? If so, will the additional revenues derived from the added tax base plus the advance monies of improvements off-set the costs? The Bixby project proposal IS compatible with all arrcraft operations. It provides for a beautifully landscaped greenbelt, which should enhance property values. To achieve thiS we must accept changes to our surface traffic. . . . PIce 15 - CIty of Seal Beach PIamung ComnusSIOD MInutes of June 14, 1995 How much change? This can only be predicted by the professionals and hopefully their predictions and final results will prove minimal. He said he firmly believed an individual has a right to develop hiS or her property if it conforms to all the requirements, even though it may or may not cause inconvemence to others. Audrey Kime * College Park East Ms. Kime said she has been a College Park East resident for fifteen years. She said she had concerns about the FEIR. On page 3, paragraph 2 of the May 23, 1995 EQCB Draft Minutes there is discussion about the traffic itself and mtrusion into Rossmoor. Additionally, it references the traffic on Los Alamitos Blvd. and the number of tnps that will be taken. She SaId she was upset at the consultant's low number of vehicles per residence. When he calculated out it was 2.7 trips per day. She says there is no one in College Park East that has only one famlly car. Most residents have two vehicles that come and go many times per day. Famihes with teen-age children will have additional cars as everyone in Southern California drives. She found it completely unreasonable to assume there were such a low number of cars and trips. She felt this should be reviewed again. Secondly, there don't seem to be any records for Orange County stating the average number of trips for an area like College Park East. She felt the Cybernet would have mformation on dnving habits, number of vehicles, etc. Secondly, the intersectIon of Lampson Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard is heavlly Impacted at rush hour. The bridge needs to be improved right now. How can we say more houses can be built and the increased traffic be mitigated with more lines painted on the street? She said the bridge should be built first and any houses second. She felt the cart was before the horse. Regarding the freeway on-ramps, the Koll project in Huntington Beach has not been factored into this issue. There could be gridlock on both sides of the freeway --- up and down Seal Beach Boulevard and Los Alamltos Boulevard. She asked if mitigation meant puttIng patches on something to make It work? She felt that's not a real solution and probably wouldn't last long. She urged the Commission to look at the EIR with those kmds of thoughts and see the same kind of failings the residents see. The EIR needs a lot of work. As far as the project is concerned, she has a real problem with a hotel being bullt at the end of her street. It would ruin the quality of life they have enjoyed to thiS pomt. Rich Hauser Mr. Hauser said he has been a Seal Beach resident for ten years. He IS in favor of slow planned, understandable development. He said If the bndgeloverpass is re-striped it would be a dangerous situation for bicycle riders. He is a bicycle nder and IS buffeted by the car speeds. The automobile lanes will be too narrow for the many large vehicles and busses that use those lanes. Regarding the turnoffs, it's difficult turning north right now from Lampson Avenue onto Seal Beach Boulevard. Putting the driveways of the proposed single family homes at St. Cloud . . . Pace 16 . CJ~ of Seal Beach Plannmg COIIlDl1SSIOIl Mmutes of June 14. 1995 Street will only make the situatIon worse. This project will add traffic to an already congested area --- between St. Cloud Street and Lampson A venue. Rossmoor reSidents are concerned the project would send too much traffic into Rossmoor. Seal Beach Boulevard is on a bypass to the 405 -- why? The stretch of the 405 between the 605 and the 22 freeways is in the Guinness Book of World Records as being the heaviest travelled stretches on the freeway. We wind up with the overflow of traffic on Lampson A venue. He wondered how the overpass/bridge would handle the traffic with the Koll project sending traffic out of the Huntington Beach - Balsa ChIca area and the Bixby project to the north -- it Will have to be widened and it wIll cost the taxpayers of Seal Beach. He wanted to know what the bill would be up front. He would lIke the figure in dollar amounts and not percentages. He did trip figures on his neighbors and came up with 3.5 cars or seven trips per day; he thought 2.7 would not be accurate. He believed that if the bridge is not widened before a project were built it would result in the CIty having problems getting emergency vehIcles In and out and there would be spill over into the bicycle lanes. He would also like to know when Bixby would schedule their mitigations -- before or after the houses are built? How much is the cost to perform the mitigations? Lorraine Navarro Ms. Navarro spoke about the dangerous January 4, 1995 rain storm which caused heavy flooding, made Ironwood Avenue Impassible by 4:00 p.m., made the flood control channel overflow, and left her stranded with four children under the age of five In a van. She luckiJy found a pizza store open and was able to stay there until 8:00 p.m. when Lampson Avenue and Ironwood Avenue were re-opened. She found two strange cars parked in her driveway all night; these cars were looking for higher ground. At 9:00 p.m. this water went down to Leisure World and they experienced their own set of miseries. Homes on Guava A venue, Fir Avenue and Elder A venue near Ironwood A venue experienced flooding. Her house and the neighboring houses experienced water in their garages to within one foot of the back door. Cars were flooded with extensive damage and many cars were flooded and many were totalled. Ms. Navarro spoke on behalf of her neighbor, Kathy Freeland, and showed photographs of cars that were flooded including Ms. Freeland's car. Ms. Navarro Said College Park East can flood with just a little rain so the 1994 storm was not unique and floodmg is a real concern to area residents. The 1994 flood brought home to College Park East residents, indicatIng that If Lampson A venue becomes impassible, whether through flooding or exceSSIve traffic, residents will have an intolerable situation which will affect more than 5000 people In College Park East. Since part of the housing proposed for the Bixby project would be built on the retarding basin, the area would have decreased capacity increased water flows due to less availability of land to absorb water and increased concrete to create more runoffs. lilt wIll take less rain to create the disaster we had on January 4th ". She said she has grave reservatIons about thIS project and urged the Commission to vote no. Bob Ewart Mr. Ewart said he would prefer to speak at the June 21, 1995 meeting. Frank DeGregory * Rossmoor Mr. DeGregory said he did not wish to speak. . . . Pqe 17 . CIty of Seal Beach PIanmng COIIlIIlIBBIOII Mmule8 of June 14. 1995 Commissioner Campbell, referencmg the photographs Ms. Navarro gave the CommIssion, saId her daughter's carpool was in one of those cars. Commissioner Campbell said her daughter had to climb out a car window because water filled into the car so fast that the kids inside the car panicked. She said her daughter ran home for help and was terribly upset. Commissioner Campbell said she had no idea the kids had pushed their car into somebody's driveway. She indicated all the phones were dead at 4:00 p.m. in the afternoon and those children didn't get home unb19:00 p.m. Commissioner Sharp said their church in LeIsure World had 1,000,000 gallons of water in its basement. Manny Kou * Seal Beach Mr. Kou spoke in opposition to the Bixby proposal. He has lived in Seal Beach for 15 years. He has been a pilot for 22 years and has flown C-130 military aircraft for 20 years for the Air Force and the California Air National Guard. At the June 7, 1995 Planmng Commission meeting, Gary Michael Allen and Ken Bornholdt, two of Bixby Ranch Company's consultants, addressed the Commission on the nOIse concerns associated with the Los Alamitos AFRC. They talked about CNEL (Commumty Noise Equivalent Level) and SENL (Smgle Event NOIse Level). This is a confusing subject but important enough to be two of the four non-avoidable mibgations. Both consultants tried to downplay the importance of using SENL values. Mr. Bornholdt SaId "SENL is not significant in relation to the surrounding noise". Mr. Kou said SENL IS important. John Wayne Airport uses SENL to improve the quality of life for reSIdents who live in the area of the airport. John Wayne AIrport uses a complex momtoring system, composed of 21 sensors which monitor SENL nOIse levels for all aircraft taking off from John Wayne Airport. In his June 7th presentation, Mr. Allen quoted figures relating to John Wayne Airport. Mr. Kou gave the Commissioners a sheet of paper which read: John Wayne Airport - Single Event Noise Level (SENL) - Maximum Allowed Commercial Airline (Class A) All other private aIrcraft 101.5 dB 100.8 dB Los Alamitos AFRC Summary of SENL measurements at center of proposed project 727 A-7 (Fighter) C-5A (Transport) 107.8 dB 106.2 dB (Table 4.8-5, page 5-28, EIR) 114.6 dB (Table 4.8-2, page 5-24, EIR) Mr. Kou referenced this handout by indicating the maximum allowable SENL for commercial airlines is 101.5 dB. When Mr. Allen mentioned this he mdlcated this value was Irrelevant because the values of each commercial aircraft was averaged out over a quarterly system, so you very seldom have airlines exceeding this limit. Mr. Allen failed to mention that other aircraft . . . Plgc 18 - CIty of Seal Btab PIannmg CooumssIOll MInutes of June 14, 1995 have a maximum SENL value at 100.8 dB. This means that any aircraft which flies out of John Wayne Airport that exceeds the SENL of 100.8 dB w1l1 get an automatic violation --- no excuse. When you land you pick up your violation slip. Pilots don't want to receive violations, it's much worse than getting a ticket from the Highway Patrol or the local police. John Wayne Airport selected a noise monitonng system to try to control the nOIse level generated by the aircraft. They did not simply pick the value of 100.8 dB out of the air, a lot of research went into the selection of this number. Mr. Allen mentioned that he was associated with this selection process. He would be more capable of explaining how they arrived at 100.8 dB than I would. John Wayne Airport feels that the SENL of 100.8 dB is an appropriate noise level that the residents surrounding the airport should be subjected to. As Mr. Allen pointed out last week, even with the value of 100.8, John Wayne Airport management received 80% of all the airport complaints in the area. Mr. Kou directed the Commission's attention to the summary of SENL measurements at the center of the proposed project. He pointed out the A-7 fighter is no longer a flying airplane, instead the F-16 and F-18 are fighter aircraft which often fly out of AFRC. The difference between an A-7, an F-16 and an F-18 is the F-16 and F-18 use afterburners on takeoff while the A-7 does not have an afterburner. So the SENL for the F-16 and F-18 will be htgher than the 106.2 that is shown for the A-7. He compared the decibel values for wrcraft flying out of the AFRC versus the maximum allowed for John Wayne AIrport for all other private aircraft, noting the differences range from 6 dBs to 14 dBs. He Sald he wished there were a noise machine at the meeting tonight so everyone could hear what a 3 dB difference would be. Dbs are measured on a logarithmic scale, like earthquakes. One dB is not 1 % more than 100 dBs. It's like a richter scale, where 7.1 is ten bmes stronger than a 7.0 earthquake. According to experts, a 3 dB increase in nOIse level is notIceable by the human ear. SIX to 14 dBs would definitely be much higher. AFRC is obviously not a John Wayne Airport. The AFRC cannot restrict the types of aircraft that fly in and out hke John Wayne Airport can. However, if John Wayne AIrport selected the SENL of 100.8 dB as the maxImum noise level they would subject the surroundmg residents to, the City of Seal Beach can maintain the quality of life we've been accustomed to by controlling where residential projects are bullt. The City should not subject potentIal reSIdents to a noise level of 106 dB or 114 dB. He referenced an Federal Aviation AdmlD1strabon (FAA) letter dated December 10, 1994, WhICh is in the FEIR at page 4-9, the last sentence of WhICh Sald "We recommend that the CIty of Seal Beach carefully consider all of the potential environmental impacts aSSOCIated WIth this proposal before making a decision". Unfortunately, the public is not allowed to ask questions of the consultants, only the Commission can. Mr. Kou commended Mr. Hurley, EQCB member, for all the questions he asked during the EQCB meetings. He obtained many answers that were not printed in the EIR prior to his making his decision. He urged the Commission to do the same and to vote no on this project. Mr. Kou said he had additional comments on another subject and would like to speak again at a later time. Commissioner Campbell indicated Mr. Kou made reference to a sound demonstratIon and also the EQCB Mmutes had noted they asked about a sound demonstrabon. She asked If the CIty'S airport consultant, R. John Sanders of Anes Consultants, could get a sound demonstration of what the various sounds are like? Mr. Whittenberg Sald that question should be directed to Bob Brown of Brown - Buntin Associates, Inc. as they're the aircraft noise consultants. Mr. . . . Pace 19. City of Seal Beach PIaoomg ComnuSSIOII Minutes of June 14, 1995 Whittenberg indicated to the EQCB that the board's purpose is to review a document and determine whether or not that document makes sense to them. The Planning CommisslOn or the City Council would have the authority to request the preparation and setup of some type of sound demonstration at a later date. The EQCB could not have included that type of test as part of a document. It can be done but there are technical concerns that should be discussed with the Commission prior to a demonstration. Commissioner Campbell said she would like to hear that demonstration at the June 21st Planning Commission meeting. Bob Dienstag * Candleberry Drive. Seal Beach Mr. Dienstag spoke in oppositIon to the Bixby proposal. Mr. Dienstag said he is opposed because of increased traffic. He satd the CIty of Seal Beach opposed the Bolsa Chica housing project because it WIll impact traffic In the area under conSIderation at this tIme. He said thIS Planning CommIssion couldn't have too much to say on the HuntIngton Beach proJect. He asked why there would be any doubt in the Commission's mind that when you have a project In your own backyard, where you really do have something to say about the project, you would want to have more people. He contInued by saYIng that if the traffic IS made faster that the Seal Beach Boulevard intersection it will attract other drivers to use It for their daily tnps to the freeway. Right now Lampson Avenue attracts many drivers from Garden Grove --- more traffic that we really don't need. Nick Rini * Seal Beach Mr. Rini said the legal standard, according to the CalIfornia Supreme Court, satd the City's General Plan is akin to the Constitution for all future development. The BIxby project proposal is asking this General Plan be changed. The factors which the CommiSSIon must conSIder are listed on page 16 in Mr. Whittenberg's staff report. The factors include the purpose of comprehensive zoning, which is to attain unity in the construction and development of a city along lines of reasonable regulations which tends to promote health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. The standard for consideration IS not whether Bixby Co. has proposed a program that sounds okay or whether they can mItIgate problems. The question IS, has BIXby Co. proposed a project that benefits the City which will promote the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the CIty of Seal Beach? Mr. RIni suggested BIxby Co. has not done this. Mr. Rini said the EQCB' s recommendation was to "... recommend to the Planning Commission that the Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course development plan, Including the DEIR and FEIR is inadequate in terms of compliance with the CalifornIa EnVIronmental Quahty Act (CEQA) and the City's local CEQA guidelines". The EQMD concluded many unresolved concerns could greatly reduce the qualIty of life and the safety of CIty cItIzens. The EQMD mentioned many problems whIch included traffic, noise, flooding. EQMD member Dave Hood voiced grave concerns about flooding and emphasized the problems he foresaw. The pomt is, the EQMD has five very concerned members who looked at this project proposal and stated, after their review, that the project would reduce the quality of life to the reSIdents of Seal Beach. Mr. Rini, referencing the display map of the project, said the proposed houses are the most palatable part of the Bixby proposal. What is not shown is the 180 room hotel, the 30,000 square foot restaurant, the 30,000 square feet of retall sales and the 35,500 square of office . . . Page 20 - Cd)' of Seal Beach PIanmoc CommuISIOll MInutes of June 14, 1995 space. He asked where all the traffic from the commercial endeavors would go? He said the trip generations for the future commercial development has not been shown. Speaking about crime, Mr. Rini Said Rossmoor residents describe a high inCIdence of crime in the Rossmoor Shopping Center, where there are many retall stores. He suggested the Seal Beach Police Department could give statistics to anyone interested. He said the Bixby Co. proposes to put a large retail complex right next to the already existing area of College Park East. These factors are not adequately addressed. Speaking about traffic, Mr. Rini said Bixby Co. says we're going to increase traffic but you've already got traffic problems so it's no big deal. He asked if we have an existmg traffic problem now, what has the City done to correct that traffic problem? He assumed there is not much being done presently to correct the traffic or flooding problems now primarIly because the CIty can't afford it. Speaking about flooding, Mr. Rini said Bixby Co. says you've already got floodmg problems and we're going to increase flooding problems but we'll take care of it later, we'll mlngate it. When Bixby Co. talks about paying their fair share that doesn't mean the City will have the money to pay for the rest of it. If the City does have monies to fix traffic and floodmg problems why isn't it doing somethmg about them right now? Mr. Rini said that when Commissioner Brown asked about the payment for traffic mitiganon the consultant said something to the effect that they beheved theIr proposal would increase the CIty's already existing problem by 8 % and therefore BIxby Co. would pay 25 % of the increased problem. Bixby Co. did not say they would pay 25 % of the whole mitigation to correct the traffic conditions. He Sald the City should find out what the total costs will be and then get everythmg in writing that BIxby will pay "X" number of dollar. Regarding schools, Mr. Rini said Mr. Bradshaw said Bixby Co. would give the City $1,000,000 towards schools. Mr. Rmi asked where is the study which shows the mcrease 10 costs to the school district? He noted the bridge work would cost $1,000,000 so, the money is gone already. He asked who would pay for the excess costs? Mr. Rini said the fourth problem, a sigmficant and unavoidable (SU) impact of the proposed project IS that the air quality impact will exceed the Southern CalIfornIa Air Quality Management District (SAQMD) thresholds with the project traffic. The project, by the applicant's own admission, would increase problems with pollution and air qualIty. That does not sound like a justification to change the General Plan. Chairman Dahlman said there are several persons whose names are on the speaking list from last week or this week who have not yet spoken and asked if they were present? No one replied. Chairman Dahlman asked if there were anyone who wished to speak further tonight? . . . Page 21 - City of Sc81 Beach PIanomg CommISSIOIl Mmutcs of JIIIIC 14, 1995 Manny Kou * Seal Beach Mr. Kou said he would speak on a different subject. On June 7th, Ken Bornholdt S3.1d the mission of the Los Alamitos AFRC was to be activated in the event of an 8.3 or greater earthquake. Some of his friends and neighbors got the Impression that unless there is an 8.3 earthquake the AFRC will not increase. While Mr. Bornholdt was correct, however the AFRC and the California Air National Guard is under control of the State's Governor. The Governor has the authority to activate the AFRC any time he feels necessary -- for example a national emergency, such as an earthquake or flood, civil unrest, such as a riot, or any special event. It's not only an 8.3 earthquake that would increase planned activity. In the past four years the AFRC has been activated at least four (4) times that Mr. Kou could recall. These were the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the Laguna Beach fires in which fire fighters were moved in and out of the AFRC airport, the Los Angeles riots In which the National Guard and State police personnel were moved in and out of the AFRC, the 1992 Olympics in which secunty personnel were moved from the ARFC to the Olympic sites. Aircraft activity varied from a sigmficant Increase in flying to an actual 24-hour per day operation. So when Mr. Bornholdt said It needs to be an 8.3 earthquake or better --- that's not qUite correct. Mr. Kou referenced the flight tracks and was concerned that runway 22 Right, the one to the left on the visual, which is 5900 feet long, is used by most small fixed-wing aircraft. At the present time there are five (5) aircraft at the ARFC which are used for the Medfly Program. Each aircraft flies on the average of 3 to 4 times per day, which is about 15 to 20 times per day out of that left runway. [DiSCUSSion at the visual presentation ensued but was not heard by the Recording Secretary]. Mr. Kou said he has flown C-130 aircraft off that runway. Large aircraft, such as the C-130's, do use that runway on numerous occasions. He didn't see a flight track mentioned on 22 Left as depicted on the chart/visual. However if large transport aircraft are moved to 22 Left you would see that would come very close to the proposed project. Mr. Kou said that in addition to the noise, a safety factor has to be taken into consideration. Chairman Dahlman said to Mr. Whittenberg that he was looking at Figure 3-4 in the FEIR and hoped someone could identify how these runways are labeled. Chairman Dahlman asked If anyone else wished to speak this evening? There were no responses. With the consensus of the Commission, the Chair called a ten minute recess. Recess The meeting recessed at 9:40 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:50 p.m. Commission Comments Chairman Dahlman spoke about the applicant's ability to rebut. The ChaIrman S3.1d hiS position on this is that if there are two or three central issues and there's give and take back and forth then we end up with communication and the ability to examine the issues in greater detail. He asked for the Commission's feelings on thiS. . . . Paac 22 . C1ly of Seal Beach PIannmg ComousaIOll M1nutca of JIIDC 14, 1995 Commissioner Sharp said he thought that if the Commission was gomg to have a rebuttal the Commission should have told the public so they would not have left. Noting many people had left, he thought it would be completely unfair to have rebuttal at this time. The applicant will automatically have rebuttal tlme at the June 21st meetlng. Commissioners Brown and Campbell agreed with Commissioner Sharp. Commissioner Brown said if there were specific questions they could answer quickly that would be appropriate but not to have rebuttal to re-state their opinion. Mr. Steele said it's the applicant's preference to have rebuttal at the June 21st meeting, at the end of all the Public Hearings. Chairman Dahlman asked if any members of the public wished to speak to this tonight before the Public Hearing is adjourned to June 21st? There were none. Mr. Whittenberg said it would be appropriate for the Commissioner's to ask staff or the consultants to address specific concerns at the June 21st meeting. That would give staff and the consultant's time to prepare to answer those concerns. Tonight may not be the best time to respond to those concerns because there is still one mght of Public Hearings scheduled for June 21st. Commissioner Campbell asked about a sound demonstration. Mr. Whittenberg said he had spoken briefly with the noise consultant and found that it is pOSSible to have this demonstratlon via a pre-packaged program that was done for another type of audience but which has general applicability. It would not be an actual recreation of the actual nOlses in this area but there would be an understanding that it IS fairly close. The consults would try to explain the differences to the Commission. This could be made aVailable for the June 21st meeting If the technical aspects of setting up the speaker systems etc. could be arranged. He cautloned a week's notice may not be enough time to make all the arrangements but in any event the demonstration would be scheduled. Commissioner Campbell asked if a Commission vote were needed? Mr. Whittenberg said he would prefer dlrectlon from the entire Commission because the cost of the presentation would be between $2,000 and $4,000. Commissioner Brown said he would not be interested in a sound demonstration at that cost. Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Steele if there were any way to continue thiS meetlng, either before the June 21st meeting or after the June 21st meetlng, to allow the Commissioners to go out to the AFRC and look at the runways? Mr. Steele Said yes, the Commission could adjourn any of their meetings to a specified time and date if the Commission wants to take a field tnp. Commissioner Sharp said he realized the meetings must be open to the public and there may be a problem having the AFRC open to the public. He said in the past there was an opportunity for the Commission to get onto the base and fly over the area. Mr. Steele said yes, recogmzmg the problems identified by Commissioner Sharp. . Page 23 . Cdy of Seal Beach PIaonmg ComnusSIOO Mmutes of Jtmc 14, 1995 Sally Unrath (No Address Given) Ms. Unrath suggested the Commissioners go to the AFRC on a Saturday as it seems to be one of the days you can really hear the nOIse. Commissioner Sharp said he thought visiting the site would be very helpful for him. Chairman Dahlman said it would give the Commissioner's a feel for what it's hke there now. Commissioner Sharp said going to the site phYSIcally would be more helpful to him than looking at a diagram on paper. Commissioners Law and Brown agreed WIth Commissioner Sharp, saying they would like to view the site and its proximity to the airfield. Ken Bornholdt. Esq. Mr. Bornholdt extended an invitation to all the Planning Commissioners to come out to the Bixby property and go onto the project site and see it relative to the airfields for the same reasons. "You'd understand the whole thing a lot better". . Chairman Dahlman asked CommIssIoner Sharp specIfically what he would like to see. Commissioner Sharp said he wanted to see the base but a trip to the site would be good also. Commissioner Sharp asked how many of the CommIssIoners took the helicopter trip when they demonstrated where the homes would be bullt? Chairman Dahlman said he could not attend the flight, therefore It was Commissioners Law, Sharp, Campbell who attended. CommIssioner Sharp said it would be very helpful to have someone in the AFRC tower or observatIon rooms show them which size aircraft takes off where and in whIch direction they go. Chairman Dahlman Sald he would like to see the Public Hearing continued for at least one meeting following that outing. Commissioner Sharp said he would like to see the outing take place prior to the June 21st meeting and perhaps conclude on June 21st as scheduled. Commissioner Campbell said the Commission discussed having a meeting on June 28th but not on July 5th as Commissioner Brown would not be present. Commissioner Sharp said he would not want to hold up the schedule to make this outing if at the next meeting the Commission gets there and there's six people there who want to speak and the applicant's able to rebut and the Commission has time to make a decision. If it can't take place before June 21st, Commissioner Sharp said he wouldn't suggest it. Commissioner Brown agreed, saying it would be a good thing to do but addmg the Planning Commission is an adVISOry body, not the body making the fmal decision. CommiSSIOner Sharp asked Mr. Whittenberg if he would contact the AFRC and see about passes. Mr. Whittenberg said he and Mr. Steele are concerned that, due to changes in the Brown Act laws, splitting a trip to the AFRC up between the Commissioners to where you have less than a quorum in attendance at anyone time but all of the CommIssIoners do the same thing, is now considered to be a meeting. So the Commission would still have the issue of having a meetIng and the public would need to be invited to that activity, no matter how many separate tImes the Commissioners went to the AFRC. . . . . Plgc 2A - CIty of Seal Bach PIaonmg COIDDUIBIOI1 MInutes of June 14, 1995 Mr. Whittenberg said to gain permission for the Planmng Commissioners and members of the public to go onto the AFRC is something that, m the past, can't be done in a short amount of time. The request would go to the National Guard m Sacramento for processing. He suggested there are ways to access the Bixby property itself, where the area involved for the proposed housing development and runways could be seen. Commissioner Campbell said that if non-military personnel are going to go up in a plane then Sacramento must be notified. But to get in a van to drive to the end of a runway would not be too difficult. Mr. Whittenberg said there's obviously a difference there but the issue remains that it would become a public meeting and the public who Wishes to attend that meeting of the Planning Commission has the right to go along with the Commissioners. Whether the AFRC would want to open the base to whoever would want to go could not be determined by staff. Mr. Steele said he hoped he was not putting Mr. Bradshaw or Mr. Bornholdt on the spot, but a few weeks ago when the City Attorney's Office met With staff on the Bixby property a few weeks ago they started at the gate near St. Cloud and looked across the property to the arrfield and they could see the end of the runway. He asked if there was a way to put some stakes or flags up to show the proximity of the reSidential portion of the property'? Those portions could be marked so they're visible from the fence. All the Commissioners could drive by at their convenience, get out and take a look. He suggested a memo could be put out to show what the stakes mean. The public could obtain the memo at City Hall. That would let everyone have a chance to look at the same thing but there would be no meeting at the site. Ron Bradshaw * Bixby Ranch Co. Mr. Bradshaw said there were some liabihty problems with makmg the Bixby property totally acceSSible but said they would agree to place stakes as descnbed by Mr. Steele. He could have that done by Friday, June 16th. Doug England * Civil Engineer Mr. England said he would use different colored flags. Staff would get a memo stating what the various flags represented. This will be done by Friday, June 16th. Mr. Steele said if the public wants to contact the Department of Development Services on Friday, June 16th, or Monday, June 19th the mformation staff is getting w1l1 be made available to the public. Commissioner Campbell asked about going inSide the gate on Bixby's property. Mr. Bradshaw said that people should not go inside this gate as It would pose a liability to Bixby. Mr. Bradshaw described how would be the best way to get to the best viewing location. . . . Plall 2S - CIty of Seal Beacb PIaaDuJa ComnusSIOIl Mmutes of JIIIICl 14, 1995 Chairman Dahlman said this meeting, June 14, 1995, would be televised following the regular telecast of the City Council meetmg which is Sunday at 4:00 p.m. So thIS meeting would most likely be VIewed at 6:00 p.m. CommIssioner Brown said he would be interested in the consultants' response to: 1. 1976 study on the Flood Control Basin. What dId thIS study say and what it means? Or a copy of the study be provIded. 2. Orange County Ah:port Land Use Study. He would like a copy. 3. AFRC Clear Zones re the current levels of the air base. Hypothetically, what would that mean if the levels were increased? How do those clear zones change? Especially at what levels -- doubling, quadruplIng? 4. $1.000.000 Towards Bridge Repairs He would like a better explanation on thIs, for example, is that the total cost of the proJect, or is it for the re-stnping, is Bixby paymg that total cost or is Bixby gomg to pay theIr fair share? 5. EOCB. From the EQCB he would lIke to know specifically why they found the FEIR inadequate. 6. Cost Per Student. He would like a cost figure on what each addIoonal student will actually cost the school district. Commissioner Campbell said she would be mterested in the consultants' response to: 1. Flooding Issue She would lIke to see a dollar figure put on the cost to either upgrade the existing system or does a new system have to be constructed? Chairman Dahlman reiterated that financial cost figures are not the major concern of the Planning Commission. But then again one of speakers did mention the costs or offsets to the economic benefits that Mr. Bradshaw mentIoned. Chairman Dahlman said he would be mterested in the consultants' response to: 1. Agreement. An agreement that was 10 the newspapers a couple of months ago which supposedly binds the golf course to bemg a flood control basm only. CommIssioner Campbell said that it's an Easement Deed. 2. Sources of Traffic. What other sources of traffic are assumed when BIXby says that ~ of the traffic at one mtersectIon and 1/3 at the other mtersection will be due to the Bixby project. . . . hae 26 - CIty of Seal Beach PIamung ComouaaIOll MInutes of June 14, 1995 Regarding the EQCB, Mr. Whittenberg said their next meeting is June 20th. They have already adopted a resolution which sets forth what their concerns were. The EQCB Minutes, In this Commission packet, are the draft Minutes which staff believes they will approve. Commissioner Brown said he read the Minutes carefully but did not find the Information he wanted. Chairman Dahlman asked who would address the issue about 2.7 vehicle trips per day being seemingly too Iowa figure? Mr. Whittenberg said staff will discuss thiS issue With the Commission at the June 21st meeting. Commissioner Campbell said she seemed to remember, when the Mola project proposal with before the City, that the trips generated per day was seven (7) trips per day per household. Mr. Whittenberg said she could expect a detailed response on June 21st. LIOnel Dkun Mr. Dkun said he would like further information about the traffic a hotel would generate. Additionally, if the costs for the project will be discussed, the Commission should conSider the costs for extra police, sewage et cetera. $1,000,000 may be nowhere near what is needed. Chairman Dahlman said there was a time in California when a property tax Increment paid for all the government costs. The current political environment is that everybody's got their hands on our property taxes. He thought the consultant's might like to discuss that issue as well. Commissioner Brown said that he understands the Planning CommiSSIOn does not look at economic impacts but he felt that it would assist the public to have those figures. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Campbell to Continue the Open Public Hearing on Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course Development Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), General Plan Amendment #95-1 (a) and (b), Zone Change 95-1, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map #14465 to Wednesday, June 21, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers. Sally Unrath Before the vote, Ms. Unrath said that two years ago they took away the public bus that the College Park East students were using to get to school. As a result that now there Isn't any transportation, most people are dropping their chlldren off at school. There's 2,800 students at the high school. Not only is there a problem going North and South on the freeway, there's a problem going up Los Alamitos Boulevard. ThiS IS not a traffic pattern that anyone has taken Into consideration. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Campbell, Law, Brown, Dahlman . . . PBge Tl- Ctly of Seal Beach PIlIIInmg CommwIOll Mmutea of June 14, 1995 With the consensus of the CommIssion, ChaIrman Dahlman adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, 9o~ o-r\ " Joan Fillmann Recording Secretary Attachments: 1. Flier entitled "Bixby Project Update". 2. Typed comments from Rossmoor Homeowners Assn., dated 6-14-95. 3. Comments letter from Lorraine Navarro, dated 6-14-95. 4. Typed comments from Marty Mahrer, undated. APPROVAL: The Planning Commission Mmutes of June 14, 1995 were approved on qu.nz. ~~~ 1995. .u.t' " BIXBY PROJECT UPDATE . ON MAY 23, 1995, THE ENVIRONMENT QUALITY CONTROL BOARD (EQCB) FOUND THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) WAS NOT ADEQUATE. WHY 1 The following concerns cannot be "mitigated", that is resolved, by the experts, studIes or Bixby Corporation. This means: FLOODING * Information on Old Ranch Golf Course and Seal Beach itself was left out or Incomplete. Do you want an encore of January 19951 (Unacceptable) TRAFFIC * 405 on ramps will become parking lanes. (Unacceptable) * 405 Seal Beach Blvd Over pass already congested, will gndlock With the KolI Bolsa Chlca Development traffic from the South and Bixby Development traffic from the North (Unacceptable) * 4 intersections feeding Seal Beach Blvd. will have traffiC grinding to a halt at peak ~rafflc hours. (Unacceptable) NOISE . SAFETY * Routine aircraft operations at Los AI AFRC Will expose Bixby home owners at runway's end to excessive Jet nOise, unless sealed Inside their houses (Unacceptable) * Any disaster practice or actualIty at Los AI airfield Will expose Bixby home owners to excessive deCibels . (Unacceptable) II' Smgle event aircraft nOise levels were stated by city hired study experts to be In excess of 110 deCibels, that IS equal to a mlgrame. (Unacceptable) * High denSity Bixby housing located near end of airfield runways have safety and legal Impacts. (Unacceptable) * Although the POSSibilIty of aircraft disaster IS low, the huge consequences. that IS loss of lIfe, mjuryana lIabilIty, from dense Bixby h~using needs serious review. (Unacceptable) * Increased auto congestion on Seal Beach Blvd.l405 overpass Impacts bicyclers, emergency vehicles and senior citizen access. (Unacceptable) * Health complIcations from mcreased air pollution and gndlock stress. COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS ON: c o !a If) E cr E 8~,. tlDO - c ::.3.. ca::~ 'C a:: II> ~o 1ii c...... Q .cttl ~I= Q):;i CCca -~ ~cn en - c .e- c3 Wednesday, June 7, 1995, 7.30PM at City Hall, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach Wednesday, June 14, 1995, 7:30PM at North Seal Beach Commumty Center Wednesday, June 21, 1995, 7:30PM at City Hall, Seal Beach. . PEOPLE'S RESPONSE TO BIXBY EXPANSION (P.R.O.B.E.) Marty Mahrer B ill Erickson 431-9868 596-9978 431-4358 598-2983 Dean Stewart Donna McGUire BE THERE! BE HEARD! BE COUNTED :... CD "T _ -...~.. -n--I'.I\ . ... ~"..--1.~ --;--.....,. -- . ~~IF BIXBY PROJECT PASSES C--- ~ ' City of Seal deacn Pldlllll ommlSSlon ;:CITY COUNCIL ~"." By SUBMITTED FOR R ,RD ..'. }.. ,,:\-.~ ... '~.' ~" ~: I' .' MAHR.E1Z. ~,1' "'.." .:'\ .fl"'. t" I l'~' :t... ___ ~.. ..." "'...' J: ,. "", .., . j.".--'- t ,. I .. r : I J ....z:=... I ,,-. ~ 1"'-^ , , -. · - ~~'i c- "'.....' ~ - . -.: I . . t . . . --- w. I \ " ,~ ., " ", ,t' ~ \_----------------------------------------- .. . ~ t IF BIXBY PROJECT IS VETOED ~ BY --fITY COUNCIL ~ ... ~ I K~-'. ---- r ~';' '~\t1K""''''''' ~ ; i' ~,r . :~~ "r~ '. ~'~/~ii~)' : ~. .' ~.: ~( - -. <' - _,~i>#?; ~__~ _~~ ~"'tV ~- -cr.Ql......'.-..... ~ 7l~.\,'\t.~ ".r. ~ "jJ(Jt-~-:~,...jI' , --- - ---- < ----- ( 'f .. . .' I " 1\' , I" . . ~ ... ' . . j r t.-'t p. ~CHISBETTERFOR MY FAMILY'? .. , ~ " t. " , - 1_.--..... n~"__-J~ P"!"~" ... .....-..... .A: , ....1 .~.e.,..<..4.~j ~1 C~"lf b(l'\~{ COMMENTS ON BIXBY OLD RANCH GOLF COURSE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH # 91091019 BEFORE THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1 4, 1995 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission SUBMITIED FOR RECORD ~ Russ cuP Date to _I "I...qO) PO ~~l Kossmoor, CalIfornIa, 90721 (310) 799-1401 Chairman D~an, and members of the Seal Beach Planning Commission, thank you f6~' the opportunity to comment on the Final EIR for the Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course Development Plan. I am Russ Lightcap, a director of the Rossmoor Homeowners Association. . The Rossmoor Homeowners Association prepared written comments on the Draft Environmental Report for this project. The response to our letter, designated L 13, satisfactorily answered many of our questions, but we still have some concerns to bring to your attention. We also wish to call to your attention the Importance of action by the City of Seal Beach as well as the project sponsor to adequately mitigate impacts of the proposed project. We have a concern about the phasing of the proposed development and the timing of the mitigations for the impacts associated with that phasing. The FEIR indicates that the project sponsor has met mitigation requirements by contributing funds to projects, but additional funds will be needed to implement those projects. As an example Response L 1 3.1 8 indicates the Seal Beach Overcrossing will be widened, but the project sponsor commitment is to be "responsible for an appropriate fair share contribution to the Citywide TraffiC Impact Fee Program". This IS not an unusual procedure and it will probably apply to other infrastructure needs as well, which means considerable funding may be required. We assume an implementation plan, including funding, will be developed. We would like to know if such a plan will be developed? Who Will develop it, and when will it be available for review? . Response L 13.2 regarding traffic diversion through Rossmoor refers to Response C1.2 and indicates that "project traffiC will not infiltrate the Rossmoor Community". We have reviewed the traffic data and need # City of Seal i,~.J i l)fdllflll,S; Comm S~I'l . SUBMm~D reR RECORD By Date PO Box 5058, Rossmoor, CalIfornIa, 90721 (310) 799-1401 clarification regarding the generation of that data. We feel this concern can be resolved by meeting with OKS Associates and we propose to do that. Response L 13.7 regarding storm water storage on the project area states that a project-specific drainage report will be prepared pnor to final project design. While we feel this IS an adequate response, there needs to be oversight to assure that the needs of College Park and Rossmoor are properly considered in the report. Response to L 13.20 does not address the comment. We understand from the County Sanitation District that their 39-inch gravity flow sewer "bypasses" the small pump station in Rossmoor and flows directly into the Seal Beach Pump Station. If that is true there is no issue. If it is not, the additional flow would exacerbate the existing noise, vibration and . maintenance problems at the Rossmoor pump station. Response L 13.21 refers to response L 7.5 regarding recreational facilities and commits to "provide private recreational facilities if required by the Planning Commission during the review of the "Planned Development" plan submittal". We would hope that the Planning Commission Will follow-up on this mitigation. However, this does not address the need for the attached residential units which are directly across from the shopping center. The shopping center has experienced a high level of incidents requiring police response--78 calls over a 2-month period at one time. This situation could be exacerbated without proper recreational facilities for this housing. The Rossmoor Homeowners Association appreciates the opportunity to appear before you and looks forward to the resolution of these issues. . . City of Seal Beach Plannrng Commission SUBMITTED FOR RECORD ByJ.OIUA/AJ6 Date '--/*1-95 N,q.VI9~o June 14, 1994 My name IS Lomune Navarro and I have hved at 4249 Ironwood Avenue 10 Seal Beach for nearly 11 years I am here to speak about the very real concern of floodmg 10 College Park East With even normal ramfall, my secbon of Ironwood, a major artery to other streets 10 the track, floods qUickly and easlly. With normal ramfall, the water nses to curb level on the south Side of the street, caus10g cars to dnve on only one Side of the street, and makmg It tmposslble for pedestnans to cross the street The school bus must stop on the north Side of the street 10 order for our chlldren to board the bus' Moreover, there have been severalmcldents of major floodtng in just the last three years, which has caused major property damage to homes and cars due to floodtng. Smce the January 4 ram IS the most recent, I would hke to review the disastrous events of that day to SpecifICally 1l1ustrate our problems With flood control 10 College Park East . At around 4 PM, Ironwood became Impassable I returned from plckmg up my and my neighbor's ch1ldren at 5 PM only to fmd that Lampson had Just closed I was told to dnve around to Valley View to try to enter Lampson from there After one hour of traversmg the streets, we arnved at Valley View and Lampson, and were met With pohce who mformed me that Lampson was tmpassable and that the flood control channel had Just overflowed By thiS bme I had four ch1ldren under five years of age, bred, hungry and getbng scared. We were able to fmd a pIZza restaurant nearby to walt unbl we could return home Somebme after 8 00 PM, we were allowed to pass on Lampson It was no longer flooded, but there was plenty of water on It and Ironwood Both streets were httered With flooded and stalled cars When I fmally reached my house, there were two cars parked 10 my dnveway, whose owners had left behmd hopmg for some higher ground They were not towed away unt1l the followmg day. Homes on Guava, Frr, and Elder near Ironwood expenenced floodmg- at my house the water was all the way mto the garage wlthm one foot of the back door Cars were stranded, many flooded WIth extensive damage, and some were totaled. At about 9.00 PM, the flood subSided 10 College Park East, but had moved on the LeiSure World, caus10g senous flood damage there as well. This most recent flood has hteraUy "brought home" Just how Important Lampson A venue IS to US reSidents of College Park East. If Lampson becomes Impassable, wither through floodmg or excessive traffiC, we w1ll have an mtolerable situabon which w1ll affect more than 5,000 people 10 CPE Smce part of the housmg 10 the proposed Bixby prOject IS to be bullt on the retardmg bas1O, we would have decreased capaCIty and mcreased water flows, as there Will be less land avallable to absorb the water, and ,much more concrete to create more runoffs It w1ll take less ram to create the disaster we had January 4 I have grave reservabons about thiS project, and I urge to vote no on the project Thank you . " 'I .) City of Seal Beach Planning CommiS$161\ r~\ c~~r SUBMITTED FOR RECORD '7\ \ \"1 \~~ By!:~"1.8fl.. Oale 6./'I-'1S- . b The Los Alamitos Retarding BasIn was built In 1958 by the Orange County Flood Control District. This retarding basin has a storage capaCIty of approxImately 200 acre feet and four (4) pumps to discharge the storm waters into the San Gabriel River. The Los Alamitos Channel was designed in 1957 prior to the urbanized development we see every day. A 1976 report, authored by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency Flood Control Program Office, states that the present system is inadequate. Since the term inadequate was used 10 1976, I don't believe this situation has improved with age. . The existing pumping station is not sufficient to hold a maXImum water surface in the basin of + 1.0 foot elevation necessary to prevent upstream flooding. Leisure World street elevations are approximately +3.5 feet. This elevation would result in the flooding of parts of LeIsure World in the event of either a 25-year frequency storm, an electrical failure of the pumps, or in the event of a 100-year frequency storm. . The January 4th rain was considered to be one of the folloWIng, depending on whose opinion you value: a IO-year, a 20-year, a 100-year, or a 200-year flood. This is perceived by the time and rate of water falhng plus the retention of water in the various basins and Los Alamltos IS a major basin. The retarding basin on which part of the project will be bUllt and runoff water will come from directs water under Lampson Avenue and the 405 Freeway (approximately 14+ lanes wide). Any upgrade will be in the form of larger pumps and certainly not tunneling under the freeway for a larger opening for the water. I i City of Seal Beach Planning CommissIon SUBMITTED FOR RECORD By Date ~ -14-q( . During the January 4th rain, the electric pumps, which are au cooled, came within 1/2 Inch to 1 inch of shutting down because of the elevatIOn of the rain water it was trying to handle. If these pumps had shut down, the flooding would have been disastrous both in Leisure W orId and College Park East. The bottom line is, this proposed project will result in decreased capacity, and increased flows due to impervious surfaces, such as concrete and asphalt where these surfaces were once able to absorb and retain water. Most importantly, it will take less rain to create the floodIng that was prevalent last January 4th. . Some correspondence from various agencies: Memo for Record attached to letter from the Dept. of the Army. HQ. CA National Guard. dated 1/19/95: "The southwest end of the AFRC and the Bixby Golf Course, including the area proposed for development, flood each year dunng the raInY season. The referenced channel that runs from the AFRC to the Bixby property fills very quickly. " Project Report on the Los Alamitos Retardin~ Basin and Los Alamitos Channel. dated October 1976. states: "The existing pumping station was deSigned for a discharge of 450 CFS, which is inadequate to hold a maximum water surface in the basin of +1 0 elevation necessary to prevent upstream flooding." ~ -Ht.e cbf~c~.f.'-( _ I ~ Re;pOC.C=OJ INFt..OW$ INc.~A:r;t:l1 ho()~~~ cLeVATcO ,efT-LeAST Irr:, 41'1.0 CPC WILt... J./,qlZ= J!1 /YIe:s'5, 7Hl: ,PU41P;;$ ~AIV 0/'/4 Y IV".eK:5(!) -Nl67 ~IVO 7#'E"y wclCC- 7JEEA1EO IN~E"uA7c IN /97" - /'1 V~ ,400 The EIR states that prior to final project design, a report is to be . prepared to evaluate the situation. If it is determined that there is a 2- 01 " . . . . City of Seal Beach Planning Commission SUBMITTED FOR RECORD By Date ,- ,.., - 9S problem, the applicant will pay its fair share toward the necessary improvements. What, another 5-10% of-the-costs situation? That's the wrong time for the City to find out it has a huge expenditure to face, and no way out. Don't look to the County it's bankrupt. And if ~ ~ ~ faced with such a huge expense, we will be too. Are we to widen the bridge and flX the flood control system at the same time? Maybe we should start buying lotto tickets. The issue of floodmg and water backing up in College Park East has not been properly addressed and, most noteworthy. not answered to any degree of truthfulness, nor has there been a good faith effort at full disclosure by the Bixby Company, let alone honesty in their consultants presentations. I urge you, the Planning Commission, to vote NO on this mIsrepresented project. ~