Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1995-06-28i CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA of JUNE 28, 1995 7:30 P.M. * City Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA Next Resolution: #95 -14 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA By Motion of the Planning 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 opportunity for any member of the Planning Commission, staff, or public to request an item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS • At this time members of the public may address the Planning Commission 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. CONSENT CALENDAR 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 action. 1. Minutes of June 14, 1995 • The City of Seal Beach complies with the Amencam Wuh Drsabdures Act of 1990 If you need assistance to attend this meeting, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (310) 431 -2527 at least 48 hours in advance of the mectmg Page 2 - City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Agenda for ]line 28, 1995 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 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: Bixby Ranch Company Property Owner: Bixby Ranch Company Location: 3901 Lampson Avenue - Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course Request: The proposed project would allow a mixture of residential, recreational, and commercial /office 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. 0 Recommendation: Pleasure of the Planning Commission and Adopt Resolutions Numbered: 95- Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) 95- General Plan Amendment #95 -1 (a) and (b) 95- Zone Change 95 -1 95- Vesting Tentative Tract Map #14465 VII. STAFF CONCERNS VIII. COMMISSION CONCERNS IX. ADJOURNMENT The City of Seal Beach complies with the Amiuruans Wish Disabilities Act of 1990 If you need assistance to attend this meeting, please telephone the City Cledt's Office, at (310) 431 -2527 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting • Page 3 - City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Agenda for June 28, 1995 1995 AGENDA FORECAST JUL 05 JUL 19 • Election of Chairman & Vice Chairman • CUP 95 -4 /Rockwell /Signage changes AUG 09 AUG 23 SEP 06 • CUP 94 -8/327 Main /Nip 'n Stuff @ 3 mos. SEP 20 OCT 04 OCT 18 NOV 08 NOV 22 DEC 06 • CUP 94 -8/327 Main /Nip 'n Stuff @ 6 mos. DEC 20 • 1996: JAN FEB MAR APR CUP 95- 1/1013 PCH /Pietro's 12 mos. hours. MAY CUP 94 -1/600 Marina/Radisson 12 mos. ABC CUP 92 -1/909 Ocean/El Burrito 12 mos. ABC JUN CUP 94 -8/327 Main /Nip 'n Stuff 6 mos. 2nd review JUL • The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans Wish DLsabdMa Act of 1990 If you need asnstance to attend this meeting, please telephone the City CkA's Office at (310) 431 -2527 at least 48 hours in advance of the muting a' • CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES of JUNE 28, 1995 The City of Seal Beach Planning Commission met in an adjourned session, at 7:30 p.m., in City Council Chambers, with Chairman Dahlman calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Dahlman Commissioners Campbell, Brown, Sharp, Law Also Department of Development Services Present: Lee Whittenberg, Director Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Absent: Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Campbell to approve the Agenda as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Sharp, Campbell, Brown, Law, Dahlman ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral coin mumcations. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Campbell to approve the Consent Calendar as presented: 1. Minutes of June 14, 1995 MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Sharp, Campbell, Brown, Law, Dahlman Page 2 - City of Seal Beach Planning Conmussion Minutes of June 28, 1995 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 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 Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Planning Commission continued the Public Hearing to allow the applicant to rebut prior public testimony heard at the last three Planning Commission meetings. Staff suggested the Public Hearing be closed once the Commission has heard the rebuttal comments and has asked any questions it has Following that, staff and its consultant team has prepared responses to issues brought up at the previous meetings. Chairman Dahlman asked if there were any persons present who thought there would be additional public testimony given this evening? In response to a comment from the audience, Chairman Dahlman clarified that whatever is decided by the Planning Commission is solely a recommendation to the City Council on each of the four issues; there will be further Public Hearings at the City Council level. Annlicant Rebuttal Ken Bornholdt, Esq. * Appearing for Bixby Ranch Company Mr. Bornholdt said that the applicant, Bixby Ranch Co. as represented, has attended the City Planning Commission's three prior meetings and listened to the concerns expressed by the community regarding this project. They have tried their best to identify and summarize the questions which raised the issues during these hearings. They are prepared tonight to address these issues. Mr. Bornholdt said they have identified those issues as falling into four categories: aviation impacts, traffic, flooding and land use issues. Before discussing these issues specifically, Mr. Bornholdt reviewed the Planning Commissions' duty. In terms of the EIR under review, the Commission must be guided by the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] guidelines. He said City staff has advised the Commissioners on CEQA and those comments are in the staff report. He said he previously mentioned CEQA guidelines as well. The key guideline to keep in mind when reviewing the FEIR and its adequacy is, does it fully disclose all the environmental impacts, does it adequately discuss them and do you have all the information and the facts that you need as decision makers to make a recommendation to the City Council. He ! emphasized the word facts, saying the Commission must base its decision on the facts. The facts are very important and that's why all the voluminous documents have been prepared, containing highly technical information and facts The purpose of the Final Environmental Impact Report Page 3 - City of Seal Beach PI-inning Concussion Minutes of June 28, 1995 [FEIR] as a document is to try to summarize that information into an executive summary but it is not intended to replace all the facts that are in all the documents. The Commission's decision must be based on facts so it doesn't make a decision that is construed to be arbitrary or capricious or a whim. The difficult task the Commission has is taking the facts and interpreting them into "How do I turn these facts into a yardstick to make an intelligent decision as to whether or not this project has a particular impact that I need to be concerned about in my recommendation to the Cory Council". The way this is done, and this is in the FEIR, is with the standards and criteria that are accepted and used by governmental agencies and experts to evaluate facts to give you advice as to your determination as to the adequacy of the document and as to the land use decisions you're being asked to think about. It's important the Commission have standards and criteria to use to measure against these facts because, without those the Commission would be acting in an arbitrary and capricious way. Mr. Bornholdt said the rebuttal would start by discussing the aviation impacts and indicated he would be addressing a lot of the questions asked about the aviation impacts. Mr. Allen will follow as the technical expert to focus specifically on the single event noise levels (SENL). Mr. Bornholdt said his summary was based on the facts contained in the FEIR and he would be pulling out facts and presenting them to the Commission. He would be doing this to put the concerns into the context into which he thought they should be placed. One of the first questions asked about the aviation impacts was asked by Commissioner Brown. • The question was, if you eliminated the night time hours that the airfield is closed, how would that affect the CNEL levels? This is an interesting question because it raises a discussion of CNEL levels versus SEL levels He said it was important the Commission understand CNEL and SEL as they will be constantly bombarded by these terms. The answer to the question is, if you eliminated the night time levels it would not affect the CNEL levels at all. Why? With the CNEL measurement you are required to use a 24 -hour period. That is the definition of a CNEL measurement Therefore the night hours have to be included. There is no dispute that all governmental agencies - -- State, Federal and local - -- use CNEL levels to relate to compatibility of land use The decision to use CNEL levels by all these agencies is based upon years and years of research on the effects of noise on residential communities and human beings. They all decided the 24 -hour period was the proper period to use. The basis of the use of the 24 -hour period is simple - -- that is the total amount of time you're going to be exposed to noise on this earth. Within that time period is included all the single event noise in the environment. The other thing about CNEL levels and the elimination of the night time hours is night time is very important. The studies have shown that the greatest incompatibility with aircraft noise at residential areas around the nation is sleep disturbance. An important fact for the Commission to realize is that the AFRC is closed at night - -- from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Sleep disturbance is the main cause of complaints It is not a factor in this project because of the operations of the AFRC. The California Army National Guard operates the air field, it's a military airport and as such is subject to the Department of the Army [DOA] and the Department of Defense [DOD] guidelines. The DOD and DOA prepared a study, as required by Federal regulations, to advise local communities what they view as compatible uses around their air fields. They have compatibility criteria they use. The AICUZ study shows a table • demonstrating different types of land uses and what is or is not acceptable at different thresholds, including noise. The AICUZ study done for the Los Alamitos AFRC was circulated for public review. Public comments were given and the document went through several revisions. It was Page 4 - City of Seal Bew h Planning Conumssion Minutes of June 28, 1995 reviewed at length in Washington, D C. by several agencies and it was finally published in June 1994 as a final document The conclusion in the AICUZ study is that the 65 CNEL levels do not intrude into the residential community that is being proposed in this project. Under the DOD land use compatibility criteria, they don't want to build an air field and get a lot of complaints. They are saying that under their criteria this residential project is compatible. If someone were to take a standard other than a CNEL standard, and use it in evaluating the compatibility of the proposed residential land use, that person would be inconsistent with the AICUZ study conclusions, with the Federal standard. The State of California uses the CNEL standard for determining the compatibility of land use around airports, they do not use the SEL standards. [He indicated he was putting up an exhibit]. This exhibit is out of Title 21, California Administrative Regulations, published by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and this is a portion of one of the sections where they talk about why they made findings as to the use of the CNEL: The level of noise acceptable to a reasonable person residing in the vicinity of an airport is established as a Community Noise Equivalent Level [CNEL] value of 65 dB for purposes of these regulations. This criterion level has been chosen for reasonable persons residing in urban residential areas where houses are of typical California construction and may have windows partially open. It has been selected with reference to speech, sleep and community reaction. This is the State's standard, they do not use SEL. The Orange County Airport Land Use . Commission [ALUC] is charged with the duty of determining the compatibility of land uses around airports in Orange County. They use the CNEL standard for determining land use compatibility; they do not use the SEL standard. The ALUC has reviewed the 1994 AICUZ study done by the Federal Government, setting forth the Federal view of what the compatible land uses are around this air field. They had public hearings and received comments. The City of Seal Beach made comments on this document They concluded at the end of last year that they would adopt it without change into the Orange County Land Use Plan for this air field. This means they adopted the Federal standard, the 65 CNEL standard. If the SEL noise levels are looked at, it must be with the understanding that that would be deviating from Federal, State and Orange County criteria as none of them use it for determining land use compatibility. The CNEL is an on -going standard which is reviewed all the time Regarding the comment that the noise from aircraft using the air field will cause future residents to complain and eventually force the military to abandon the air field. That concern was addressed by the AICUZ study, which took the CNEL noise contours and measured them against the proposed residential development and determined them to be compatible; see the figures in the FEIR. The military is saying that because this residential development is located outside the CNEL contour it is compatible with their standards Therefore, since the military made this determination and announced it to the public, it is hard to understand how putting a development where they say it's compatible based on their experience is not going to be compatible. The noise standards developed by the military are not dust local to Seal Beach, they are nationally based. The principal irritation and cause of complaints is sleep disturbance at night. That fact would not be present here Page 5 - City of Seal Deacah Phining Conmwssion Minutes of June 28, 1995 • Regarding the issues of safety and liability with respect to locating a residential development so close to the airfield, the DOD, the California Army National Guard and Orange County Airport Land Use Commission [ALUC] are charged with the responsibility of making sure that when they issue statements about compatibility of land use that they are not exposing people to an unreasonable safety risk or an air crash risk. The analyses done by the AICUZ study and the ALUC study and adopted Master Plan for this air field take into account past, current and future operations. By State law, the ALUC must look out twenty years and continue to reach the same conclusions from the time the California Army National Guard took over the operation of this air field in 1973. In 1973 the ALUC looked at this air field and determined there was no accident potential risk which fell outside the base boundary lines. The ALUC is required by law to review their plan for this air field yearly. If it needs to be amended or changed, they must do so. The ALUC decision made in 1973 has remained the same and their plan has not changed. Why) This air field is legally restricted to operating at 98% helicopter operations Less than 2% of total annual flights will be fixed wing. Of that 2 %, less than 1% of the total air field operations will be Jets. All of the aircraft based at the air field are helicopters with the exception of two planes which are two prop King Airs. All of the Jet flights corning into this air field are transient flights. Looking at the air field's history, contained in the annual report or the analyses done by the City's aviation experts, the 2% has remained constant. The reason for this is a conscious decision by the field operator, because when the field was converted from a Navy use to a Guard use, the mission of the field • changed dramatically It went from a predominantly Jet fixed -wing operation to a predominantly helicopter operation In the 1973 EIS they committed to always being at a 98% helicopter operation level. The conclusions reached in the AICUZ study and ALUC have been and continue to be, that there is no safety risk given the types of operations at that air field now or in the future. There has never been any air craft debris, aircraft, or anything with fixed or rotary wings that has ever accidentally fallen onto the Bixby property. The Bixby property has been in the ownership of the Bixby family for over one hundred years. That's not to say that an airplane might fall from the sky - -- we all know that's a risk and that happens. This is a risk everyone assumes in every day life In looking at the accident history of fixed -wing aircraft at the AFRC, all the fixed -wing crashes took place during the tune the Navy was there. Of those that occurred, one in 1960 occurred at Dodger Stadium. Is there an unusual level of risk because of the proximity9 The answer of everyone that's looked at it is no. Regarding the comment on a Caltrans comment letter, dated December 21, 1994 in the FEIR, it expressed concern that the proposed hotel and commercial was located along the flight track of the airfield. Caltrans later learned that they were wrong in what they had believed to be the flight tracks of the airfield and they sent a later comment letter to the City but which is not in the FEIR. That letter is dated March 15, 1995 and was attached to the first staff report the Commission received. That letter retracts their earlier statement and acknowledges that the proposed areas are not under the flight tracks. Regarding the several comments on the disaster support mission of the air field and the impact that might have on area residents, people naturally visualize a huge noise impact coming down • on the residents. What is interesting is the summary in the 1992 Annual Report from the air field, on the number of complaints received by the air field during the time period when many of the activations of the disaster support mission took place. There were very few additional Page 6 - City of Seal Beach Plannmg Conunisswn Minutes of June 28, 1995 complaints in the years when there were emergency activations. [Displayed an overhead exhibit]. In 1990 there were three complaints from Seal Beach, in 1991 there was one complaint and in 1992 there were four complaints from Seal Beach. The L.A. hots occurred in 1992 and there were four complaints from Seal Beach for the whole year and one from Los Alamitos. Regarding a question from Commissioner Brown regarding what happens to the clear zones at the air field if the level of operations change? CEQA guidelines do not permit speculation and the conclusions of ALUC, Department of the Army and the operator of the California Army National Guard are the operations will not change. The history of the operations confirms this. The Army and the National Guard future predictions say the operations will remain the same. Let's say the operations did increase, for example, what would happen to the clear zones? 98% of the operations are helicopters and require a 500 foot box for a clear zone; they don't have any accident potential zones because helicopters come down like a rock when they fail. You could increase helicopter five hundred fold and there would be no change in the clear zone. They take off from the center of the air field so it would not result in any impact off the air base. That's 98% of the operations. If the fixed -wing operations increased, for example, what would happen to the clear zones? Looking at the type of air craft and frequency of flights, the operations of jet and fixed -wing craft would have to double or triple above historic levels before you would get to a threshold where people would begin to look at whether or not the currently- designed clear zones are adequate. If the level of fixed -wing aircraft operations increases and helicopter operations stay the same, they will have exceeded the operations level under their EIS. That's a violation of the national Environmental Protection Act, which requires them to do a isupplemental EIS as they did in 1973. In 1973 the residents didn't want an increase so it didn't happen. If the operation levels did increase and the clear zones were moved off the base's boundary line, Federal law would require any property located inside the clear zone to be condemned and owned by the Federal Government. Gary Michael Allen * Aviation Systems Associates Mr. Allen explained Aviation Systems Associates is a Bixby Co. consultant. [Exhibit displayed]. Referencing the exhibit, Mr. Allen said the limit of 101.5 dB for commercial airlines class A is not the maximum allowed for a single event departing John Wayne Airport. Rather, it's a limit on the quarterly energy average of all departures by each of the airlines operating at the airport. The implications of this energy average is on each individual airline's access and operating rights at the airport The comment at a previous meeting suggested that since he had previously stated that he was involved in setting this limit that perhaps he could explain how it came about and how it was set. He clarified his involvement in that process by explaining he had been retained as a noise consultant by the Airport Working Group, a coalition of homeowner associations surrounding the airport, and the City of Newport Beach to represent their interests in the on -going process to revise the quarterly average noise limits. This revision was necessary because there were to be changes in the departure procedures at John Wayne Airport to be imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Two years ago the FAA decided the departure procedures needed to be modified from the steep initial climb with a severe cut back on the engines. That was the underlying purpose of revising the limits at that tune. The limit • which came out of this process, 101.5 dB He recalled his earlier comments at the first Public Hearing had noted there were a couple of other noise monitoring locations where specific limits were set also. This Iii-nit resulted as a compromise between the needs of the airport owner- Page 7 - City of Seal Beach Planning Conumssion Minutes of June 28, 1995 • operator (Orange County) to provide a reasonable level of air transportation services to the County's residents and the airline's access and operating rights at the airport and the need to minimally exacerbate the noise exposure adjacent to the airport and under the departing flight paths and the need not to expand the 65 dB CNEL contour out into an incompatible residential areas. The determinant of residential land use remained unchanged -- it was, it is and it will be the 65 dB CNEL contour As he stated in the first Public Hearing, the airlines can and do fly many flights above the 101.5 dB limit as long as they have off - setting less -noisy flights to make the quarterly energy average equal the required limit. He said he looked at six months of actual data from the noise monitoring system from John Wayne Airport - -- this amounted to 6,000 to 7,000 departures. He discovered that nearly 700 of the departures exceeded the limit during that time period, ranging up to 105 dB. The 700 equates to approximately 27 departures per week. Contrast that to the AFRC where there are less than 5 calculations for departures per week of aircraft which would cause noise levels exceeding the 100 dB measure. The John Wayne Commercial Airline Access Plan which governs this actually would allow, theoretically, up to 273 departures per week up to that limit without exceeding the quarterly average. With respect to the second item, all other private aircraft, it is correct to say that is a limit on the maximum of SEL noise for private aircraft. He stated that the commentor who made up this exhibit used the wrong value, it's really 100.9 dB at monitoring location #2 at John Wayne Airport. The commentor also neglected to disclose that many exemptions are given to that limit. Exemptions are given to Federal or State aircraft, to law enforcement and emergency fire rescue aircraft, to aircraft that are used during a declared emergency, to Civil Air Patrol aircraft that are flying • search and rescue missions and to emergency flights for medical purposes. He felt the comments were misleading. Moving to the lower part of the exhibit, the summary of SENL measurements at the center of the proposed project, as it's stated on the exhibit, Mr. Allen clarified that Table 4.8 -2, shown at the bottom, actually lists measurements at site #4 which is not in the project's residential area but rather is under the flight path. Table 4.8 -5, mentioned with respect to 727, actually lists calculations and not measurements at various sites, including site #4, and site #2 which actually is in the project's residential area. The 727 measurement is not a measurement but a calculation at site #2. The measurement at site #4 was actually 2.6 dB less than the calculation at that same site This suggests some doubt be cast on the validity of the calculations. With respect to A -7 aircraft, he said A -7's don't fly at Los Alamitos any more. The C -5 measurement shown was made at site #4 and not in the residential area. He said he used United States Air Force measured data and they have done an extensive ,lob of measuring noise for all of the military aircraft This data was used for the aircraft mentioned in Table 4.8- 3 of the FEIR that can reasonably be expected to exceed 100 dB He also used FAA - approved computer modeling. He calculated expected SELs for site #2, the Bixby site shown on the graph and for locations in College Park East and Garden Grove The chart, despite public comments on the noise issue, shows the existing SEL noise at residential locations in Garden Grove is actually higher than what would be experienced at the project's proposed residences. And, it's only slightly lower in College Park East - -- 0.4 to 2.4 dB depending on the specific aircraft type. This would not be distinguishable by a listener in the outdoor environment. Regarding the comment on the use of runway #22 right by fixed -wing aircraft, the implication was that this wasn't covered in the EIR's noise analysis He said he had recent conversations with the airfield's operation officer and, this is consistent with what he has known all along, learned that the use of runway #22 right by transport, fighter or trainer category aircraft is a rarity and occurs only when #22 left is closed, for example, for resurfacing. The operation's Page 8 - City of Seal Beach Planning Conuussion Minutes of June 28, 1995 • officer could only recall one departure by a C -130 on #22 right all of 1994. In the event that rare operations would occur on #22 right, the officer informed him that those departing aircraft still have to use the south route, still have to make the left turn and fly over the Naval Weapons Station on their way to the coastline Backing up to the SEL, he referenced a previous chart where those values had been calculated. He refreshed the Commission's memory on the exhibit, noting that of all the operations that fly out of the airfield, only 1 % of those departures are by aircraft which have the potential of creating noise events which exceed 100 dB on the project site When 1 % is equated in terms of actual departures or first operations would be 1.56 operations per day (a landing or a take off). That would be 0.7 departures on an average daily basis. Mr. Allen reference attachment #6 to the hand outs, noting there was a draft of the City of Long Beach noise ordinance, Ordinance #C -7320 [Exhibit posted showing page of final adopted version]. The final version is the same as the draft version with respect to the values shown. It applies to all non - governmental operations. Runway 30 -12 is the runway primarily used for commercial operations by the airlines and is also used by industrial operations, for example the aircraft being assembled and test flown for McDonnel Douglas. The far right column shows measurements of noise of departing aircraft on runway 30 -12 at monitoring stations #9 and #10. This page doesn't give any idea where those monitoring stations are but the total document does. Looking at the map, monitoring station #9, the primary monitor that the departing aircraft would over fly, is much farther out than at the Bixby project site. It's about 13,536 feet from the start of take off roll whereas the Bixby site is about 10,933 feet. The implication of that being that if we are looking at similarly situated study sites these levels would probably be much higher than shown As with John Wayne Airport, these limits were signed by the airport's owner- operator and not by an adjacent community and similar exemptions apply as they do to John Wayne Airport. The City of Seal Beach still uses the 65 dB CNEL as a determinant of land use compatibility. The exhibit shows the goal of the City is that incompatible property to the vicinity of the airport shall not be exposed to noise about 65 dB CNEL. The Bixby residential area is simply not exposed to noise above 65 dB CNEL and it is compatible with all measures of land use compatibility used by all the various agencies as discussed by Mr. Bornholdt. Paul Wilkinson * Linscott. Law & Greenspan Mr. Wilkinson explained that Linscott, Law & Greenspan are consultant traffic engineers to Bixby Co. Regarding the DKS handout, he reviewed categories of comments and concerns expressed by the community in the prior Public Hearings He stated again that his firm did not prepare the traffic study, they reviewed the study Regarding study methodology, there were several concerns expressed on the methodology used in the study. He says this report meets professional standards in their opinion. It also meets the Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) standards for CMP studies. There is no deviation from typical practice This study can be relied on and can be the basis to make good decisions from. The format is a typical one and is the same format used in the City's trip fee study. There was a question as to what projects this included. It does include the Bolsa Chica project, and a future development scenario representing 184,000 new daily trips. This translates to 20,000 P.M peak hour trips being added to the street system somewhere. There is no way, Page 9 - City of Seal Beal Phu mg Concussion Minutes of Juno 28, 1995 • in his opinion, that anyone could represent that this document has been understated in terms of the background condition. This is a huge cumulative projects list - -- the largest of which is the Bolsa Chico project Regarding peak hours, comments were asked on when is the peak hour(s). The DKS handout illustrates that the AN peak hour on Seal Beach Boulevard - Los Alamitos Boulevard starts generally at 7:30 to 7 45 a m. and continues to 8 30 or 8.45 a m. This is a result of road counts at the peak hours in the morning on those sections of the streets The P.M. peak hour starts at 4:45 or 5:30 p.m., depending on location. Again, the study did not miss the peak hours that are happening on the street system The peak hours are the focus of the analysis because the focus is to mitigate background only or background plus project volumes in a peak hour. When talking about average dally traffic, to a traffic engineer this means almost nothing. It's what shows up in an hour, not during the course of a day - -- this is not how traffic flows. Regarding forecasting trips, there was a concern on the basis for forecasting trips. It's based on the 5th Edition of ITE The book is not lacking in data or comprehensiveness. It's a compilation for various types of land use complied throughout the country. But he noted that California was the leader in doing that research It's a national compendium but is heavily weighted by the California experience Regarding the comment that maybe Orange County has better figures than the ones used. He • said he has used Orange County's figures as well, noting the last official trip generation list that the Orange County EMA published in 1982 - about five or six pages long - and in no way stacks up to the vast data in the ITE document The Orange County report only stated average daily traffic information and did not focus on the peak hours. He stated that Orange County does not have an official list of trip generation rates that are better than ITE. Orange County and OCTA is updating their Orange County Transportation Analysis III (OCTAM) model. It has been in gestation for three years and is not done. He emphasized it's important to note that it is not done. Even if it were, the generation characteristics represented in that model are inconsistent with the focused analysis like that for Bixby. The County's model is based on socio- economic and demographic data and estimates trips on the number of people per household, the number of jobs et cetera. It is not a land- use - driven model. You cannot use it for a specific project because you'd have to guess at the number of fobs in the Bixby project, the amount of population. It doesn't have useable trip factors at this time and it won't have them. It's a completely different basis and dlsaggregates (sic) from SCAG and works on the Orange County preferred population things et cetera Regarding the comment that the study is all wrong because somehow it only used 2.7 trips per day per dwelling unit and It has to be much more than that. Mr. Wilkinson said he didn't know where that number came from and he hasn't been able to find it anywhere. The DKS information shows that the attached housing project was analyzed at 6.2 trips per day and the single family units were analyzed at 10 4 trips per day. Regarding the interchange area where Seal Beach Boulevard over crosses the I -405. There was • an exhibit, Figure 4 9 -11, that was passed out several hearings ago. He said the exhibit started out as an engineering drawing and in the process of reduction to 11" x 17 ", things got lost and he jokingly suggested passing this out with a magnifying glass In the first Public Hearing they Page 10 - City of Seal lleah Ruining Conunismon hint of Junc, 28, 1995 tried to break up this exhibit into colored overlays. The first overlay shows the existing condition, the second would be where widening and restriping would occur, and the third shows the completed condition. He emphasized and re- emphasized that the bridge right now is not the problem. The problem now and into the future is the intersection at either end of the bridge over the I -405. If those intersections did not exist the public would not realize the bridge was only four lanes wide. During peak hours, the congestion occurs at an intersection. It does back up across the bridge but that's because the intersections at either end don't have enough capacity. The City needs to have these mitigation measures done whether or not the Bixby Co. proposal is built or not. During the public testimony, some people said bigger is not better but bigger, in this case, is necessary There will be 20,000 peak hour trips showing up somewhere in this system and some will be on that bridge. The City needs a defense mechanism against these trips. A lot of those trips start outside the City of Seal Beach and the City can't assess trip fees from them because they are not projects in the City of Seal Beach. The existing volumes at the intersections will increase by 15% - 20% whether Bixby Co adds one car to the situation or not. He said the intersections are teetering at capacity now Regarding the mitigation measures themselves and the concern about 11' or 12' lanes. Everybody may think bigger is better, but an 11' traffic lane is acceptable. If a person walked across the middle of the Seal Beach Boulevard overcross and look down at the I -405 lanes, you'd be looking at 11' lanes. He said there would be, for the near term, a restriction on the overpass bridge. "The bridge is 69' wide We would love to go out tomorrow and widen the bridge but • I don't think anybody in this room, including Bixby [Co.] or the City, has the resources to write a check for $1,000,000 or whatever it is dust to widen the bridge itself. Not to widen the approaches at either end, ,lust to widen the bridge " He indicated it would be a waste of time to solely widen the bridge and not do anything to the intersections. The issue is widening the approaches to the intersections is the issue Also, regarding the prior exhibit on the bridge, it showed 6' bicycle lanes across the bridge He said Caltrans' standard is 5' and some places are as small as 4'. One public comment was that there is a 2' bicycle lane somewhere in this proposal. This project proposal has 6' wide bicycle lanes. The restriction is on the bridge only, the lanes could be wider off the bridge and Bixby Co would accommodate this. He said they have a concept plan on this now. There was also a concern that the sidewalk over the bridge would be eliminated and he said this is not true. The sidewalk which exists now on the east side would remain and would not be affected. Regarding the fees, he said there were snickers at the Public Hearings when he said Bixby Co. would pay their fair share He felt the public comments showed Bixby Co. would short-sheet the City on this issue. The City has better than a fair share program, it has an ordinance. He said this project would pay a fee of $700,000 to $800,000. He also heard the public comment to mitigate first, build later. With that idea the builder would put his money up front, say $2,000,000 and then no one minds while everybody else uses the bridge until the first house is built by Bixby Co. He said that's not the real world and that's not the way things work. As • a practical matter, there is a trip fee program. The estimate for the third colored exhibit he displayed is about a $1,000,000 project. "That's $200,000 to $300,000 more than what Bixby's obligation is going to be" They will turn -key that project. He added that trip fees are paid as you go along. If the residential goes in the first year and nothing else happens, the City would Page 11 - City of Seal Beach Planning Conunmion Minutes of June 28, 1995 get only a couple of hundred thousand dollars. Eventually, at the end of the project, the City would get $800,000. That's not what Bixby Co. is proposing. Bixby Co. is proposing to construct something that is more than their obligation (which will be enforced in a Development Agreement with the City) and will also advance the money sooner than later. This timing is subject to the Development Agreement. "That's a close as any City can get to the mitigate first notion ". Under State law ncxtis mandates a City can only make a developer fix the problems that they create - -- it can't make them build the whole bridge ,lust because you want them to or just because the community says so. That's against the law. He suggested that "maybe in the go -go 80's a lot of communities exacted things from cities (sic) and those developers were willing to pay those fees and that's before the S &Ls failed and so on and so forth. But as a practical matter, Santa visited last December and he's coming again this December" but in the meantime you have to work things out in the resolution you have. He ended his comments by emphasizing that this is a legitimate study which meets professional standards and advances acceptable mitigation concepts which the City needs. But as a minimum, the time and amount Bixby Co. is expending is in excess of what their obligation would be under the trip fees. Doug, F—, gleman * IWA Engineers Mr. Eagleman explained IWA is a civil engineering firm working with Bixby Co. He has been working on the Bixby property for nearly thirty years. Regarding drainage, his firm initially didn't think drainage was worthy of spending much time on but since several questions were • asked by the citizens and the Commission they will make a short presentation His presentation was on the behavior of the drainage system that serves this proposed project. He said his firm agrees with EIP Associates' conclusions that this project will have very little impact on the drainage system, either on the property itself or on the region. The primary facility to drain all this area is the Los Alamitos Retarding basin. It's served primarily by the Los Alamitos Channel, the Federal channel which serves the Bixby property and the several channels which serve the Rossmoor area. The basin, the pumps and all the channels were designed for a twenty -five year frequency of return event. Twenty -five years meaning an event of that magnitude is liable to happen only once in twenty -five years. Al Nessingler, who is Chief of hydraulics and hydrology for the County Flood Control District, now known as EMA, estimated that the January 4, 1995 event was a 200 -year event. A 200 -year event statistically generates just about twice as much water as happens in the typical one -year event That is 30% more water than this system is capable of handling. Naturally everything went under water in the whole region -- there was nothing very special about College Park East, Rossmoor or Leisure World -- it all went under water. A citizen's comment indicated the proposed project site has an easement applied to it which dictates that the property will retain 84 acre feet below elevation #12. Mr. Steele has written the Planning Commission on how that easement works So that duty will remain on the property forever as it's an easement that runs with the land. The real duty of that property is to protect against a 100 -year flood The 84 acre feet was calculated based on a 10 -year flood. The easement was written in 1967. Since the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was • established, this type of development must protect against a 100 -year event. A study was mentioned about a retarding basin and inadequacy of pumps and just in general that it almost flooded in an emergency situation The basin that this study refers to is the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin. It drains by gravity, there are no pumps, there is nothing that was in danger Page 12 - City of Sent Beach Planning C onuiustwn Minutes of June 28, 1995 of failing. The study being referred to is a deficiency study and it primarily identifies what's wrong - -- the whole region is serviced by a twenty -five year drainage system and it should be served by a 100 -year frequency drainage system. That would cost a lot of money but it's not directly related to the Bixby Co. project. The peak flow of the existing project, everything that's tributary to where the drain comes out of the Bixby project, is 1472 cubic feet per second. The project, as planned, will increase the land use of community type development by 1 %. It will reduce the agricultural land use by I%. The 1 % impact on the 1472 acres will be to increase the maximum flow at tributary to that basin by less than 1 % The maximum outflow will be increased by less than 1 % and could actually be reduced. [He referred to an exhibit]. The physical feature that establishes the maximum outflow is not the culvert, it's the Federal channel. How does the drainage work on the property9 [Refers to an exhibit]. There is a lake here which is referred to as a Navy lake and you can see the four culverts coming across from College Park East and the two drains coming off the air field. They all drain into a little lake. That Navy lake has a water surface elevation lower than the culvert (referencing exhibit - that comes out here) and it's pumped up three feet to get the water out. Referring to the exhibit, he said this is a copy of the Flood Insurance Rate Map published by FEMA. He demonstrated the area of innundatation by a 100 -year flood. Zone "X" shows the area which will be inundated by a 100 -year flood. The flooding of this area has no relationship • to the golf course. The golf course has the duty to receive the flood waters that come from this area but they are not limiting the disposal of that flood water. Referring to next exhibit, he showed the proposed project demonstrating where the Federal drain would come. He said one of the lakes would be separated from the rest of the lakes in order that all of the local drainage could come down and be pumped to that outlet there . He said they were concerned about illegal dumping or drainage that we would not choose to have commingled with all of the golf course lakes This plan is a conceptual golf course plan and needs more study regarding the project's hydraulic duty Likewise, where the four drains come across from College Park East, it's also likely that a small lake would be developed in this (referring again to exhibit) area. Any drainage coming off the housing, such as car wash detergents, would be able to be trapped and pump directly off the property. Referring to the next exhibit, he said this is the FEMA A -zone blown up and overlaid. If accepted as is, there would be no housing allowed in the area indicated. Therefore, as part of the proposed project, Bixby will file at Letter of Map Amendment with FEMA to adjust that zone. The lake would be larger because they need a source of material to build up the land where the housing would be to one foot (1') above the maximum water level. According to FEMA, the maximum water level is 14. At 14 the property needs to retain 146 acre feet of water, 65,000,000 gallons, compared to the current easement of 84 acre feet. It can be seen that in ten years they have gone from a ten -year design to a 100 -year design. Referring to the last exhibit, he said it is their effort to explain why the Bixby proposed project • does not impact either the upstream or the downstream property owners. The control on how fast water leaves College Park East is the culverts under Lampson Avenue. Those were designed to a ten -year storm and by modern criteria are inadequate. As you look at the erosion Page 13 - City of Seal Beach Planning C onumsmon Muwtts of June 28, 1995 • at the downstream end of those culverts, it can be seen those culverts are not flowing full. They were not full in the January 4th event The issue is that the upstream end of the culverts has inadequate inlet capacity at the catch basins Potentially all of Leisure World was backwatered by the basin, not by the water coming down the channel. Referencing again the FEMA overlay exhibit, he thinks one of the side benefits of this project would be that the larger volume that they are going to develop as part of the golf course construction, again is to borrow dirt to build up the housing area over the 15 level, will lower the water level on the ten -year storm and therefore the head on the culvert as it leaves. This would reduce the flow rate at the outlet, less than the 380 cfs If this is reduced, this is a better situation for the Leisure World drainage to get into its channel and get into the basin downstream before the peak hits coming off this project. In summary, they see no downstream impact, no upstream impact and a possible improvement in the upstream. There is very little they can do about the upstream conditions. The protect will comply with all modern standards, that is the 100 -year design rather than the current ten - year design in use Commissioner Sharp asked the consultant about the drainage system at the north end having a small lake that would catch the drainage water from the Navy base and a small separate lake at the other end that would catch the water from College Park East under normal circumstances. But if we had a 100 -year flood again wouldn't all the lakes flow together? Mr. Eagleman said yes, the lake would look like this, it would dust be all one big lake again. Taking the overlay off, Mr. Eagleman said the lake patterns would be similar to this but, depending on the size of a particular flood, they would go to where you'd see one big lake. Commissioner Campbell asked the consultant what is the capacity of the redesigned watershed area? How many acre feet? Mr. Eagleman said he's measured it to be about 130 acre feet below elevation #12 Commissioner Campbell asked where, in all the documents, does that information appear9 Mr. Eagleman said the documents require, as a condition, the he prepare a drainage study which meets all the discussed criteria. The information is not in the FEIR, it's not developed yet. The study and design would take a lot of work and he hoped he would be selected to do the work Commissioner Law asked the consultant about flooding in Leisure World. She indicated the City allows about 45 % lot coverage and that alone would cut in half the absorption rate. When streets and sidewalks are figured in, that could more than double the runoff Mr. Eagleman said twenty -two acres are involved in this project and if you assume it was all covered .... There are 1500 acres tributary to this area, so the twenty -two acres is a very small part of the 1500 acres. Commissioner Law asked if there would be runoff during the time it was flooding? Mr. Eagleman said water will be draining off this, into this area but through this culvert the whole time. But it will drain at a much lesser rate than the rain's coming down. Commissioner Law said that in order for her to reach her home in Leisure World she has to drive the length of the flood channel. During a normal rain the water in that channel is so high that debris catches on the bridge; there can't be an extra runoff. Mr. Eagleman said that's the point he was trying to make - -- we have an opportunity now to actually reduce the flow (referenced the exhibit) ... whereas untouched, we have 380 cubic feet per second under maximum condition by 30 to 40 Page 14 - City of Seal Beach Ruining Commission MmnleS of tune 28, 1991 • cfs. Commissioner Law asked how this could be assured? Mr. Eagleman said this is a factor of how big that hole at the golf course will be once the design is done. We have already said we won't be taking dirt off the golf course. The hole cannot be lower than elevation 8' because that's the sill elevation. Commissioner Campbell asked if the reconfiguration would be accomplished before the houses were built? Mr. Eagleman said the resultant hole would be developed as part of the golf course grading. He said it is Bixby Co 's intention to keep playable holes open on the golf course all during construction Greg Wey * The Planning � enter Mr. Wey introduced himself as a principal of the Planning Center and who has been hired by the Bixby Co. to evaluate the public's concerns and problems /concerns with the development. They distilled information from the various meetings to come up with the appropriate Land Use Plan. They evaluate the data appropriately and they feel this is a viable plan. He said it's seldom that a proponent will want to leave 77 % of the land as a recreation /golf course. Through their various processes, working with the community and the experts, and based on the standards imposed, he felt this is a viable project and would be compatible with the area. is Ron Bradshaw * Bixby Ranch Co Mr. Bradshaw said they appreciated the Planning Commission's indulgence and attention this evening while much of the information is technical and not too stimulating. He felt it was important their responses address concerns expressed. He said the project has always met or exceeded the conditions and mitigate others It has been five years of experts looking at, reviewing and re- reviewing. There has been three major drafts of the EIR and a number of re- drafts of the aviation component as new information was made available. The project meets all of the conditions and is not a burden on the community. It will be a continuing resource and contributor to the overall welfare of the City. If Bixby Co. were to come to the City with 230 acres and be willing to leave 75 % of those acres in some type of an open area, he thought most communities would think that is a fob well done He said that if the Commission has any other large land uses coining before it, and there are several of those in the City to address or readdress, that would be a goal worthy of achieving. Commissioner Campbell said she has questions of various City consultants. With the consensus of the Commission, Chairman Dahlman closed the Public Hearing. Recess Chairman Dahlman called a recess at 9 15 p m. The meeting reconvened at 9:30 p.m. City Consultants' Rebuttal • Mr. Whittenberg said the City would have their consultants making presentations after which he and Mr. Steele would address the Commission The Commission has been given a written copy of the responses from each of the consultants. Page 15 - City of Seil Beach Pl inning Conmusswn Minutes of Lunt. 29, 1991 • Jav Ziff * EIP Associates Mr. Ziff focused on issues which came to the forefront as a result of public testimony at Planning Commission Public Hearings. The issues are flood control, traffic and noise. [As written comments were submitted they are attached to these Minutes for reference. Please note that when the consultant varied from the typed statement the secretary put those comments in the Minutes]. Flooding - There seemed to be an impression that development of the project would reduce the capacity of the golf course retarding basin. He emphasized that the DEIR stated the 84 acre feet of capacity would be retained with development of the protect. The FEIR stated further and actually said there 1s potential that the capacity would actually be increased with development of the project. It has therefore been clear and consistent in the environmental documentation that the capacity of the golf course retarding basin will not be reduced as a result of the project but will actually be increased. Project's Potential for Impacting Off -Site Facilities - The EIR's analysis acknowledges the project has the potential to increase runoff and to increase impacts on off -site facilities The EIR analysis generally estimates that it's a small increase. What is really important 1s the fact that at the time EIP Associates prepared the EIR the amount of • information they had to validate the degree of increase or impact on those regional facilities was limited, EIP made general estimates and took a conservative approach. EIP provided sound mitigation measures to address the potential for project impacts on off -site facilities. A comprehensive drainage study would be required, which must meet certain standards in evaluating the adequacy of off -site facilities to accommodate the project's flows; City budding permits would not be issued until that time. The drainage study must meet the requirements of the City of Seal Beach and the Orange County Flood Control Agency Chairman Dahlman said one comment was received regarding noise which suggested the section be renamed "Aircraft Noise Impacts" so as not to appear to be understanding the nature of the problem in the EIR. Mr. Ziff said he didn't remember the exact comment but noted the noise section in the draft EIR was included in a section called "Aviation Effects" and there was clearly a sub - section with a heading for noise The reason it was put into that "Aviation Effects" section, even though it's a complete, stand -alone analysis, was that there's background information which needs to be put in the EIR and the information was similar to the information the Commission needed to have to evaluate other aspects of aviation impacts. When you get to the FEIR, to focus the information on noise and not get the information confused, they separated that section out and it is presented as a separate chapter in the FEIR Mr. Steel clarified that the comment Chairman Dahlman referred to 1s in the letter from the FAA, comment F1.1 and response are on page 4 -5 of the FEIR. Page 16 - City of Seal Bergh Planning Conumssion Minutes of June 28, 1991 • Bob Close * DKS Associates [As written comments were submitted they are attached to these Minutes for reference. Please note that when the consultant varied from the typed statement the secretary put those comments in the Minutes]. Mr. Close indicated his graphics are for illustration purposes only to talk through the process and are not meant to replace any documents in the EIR; they do contain all the information that is in the EIR. Commissioner Brown asked if he had understood him correctly to say he had overstated the background future traffic increase? Mr Close said yes, that was his statement. Commissioner Brown said that would mean the percentage increase by the project would be underestimated. Mr. Close said if they overstate the background then there's actually more percentage of traffic than protect traffic Commissioner Brown said that may change some of these intersections to whether or not there needs to be mitigation Mr Close said no, because you're going by two levels. First there has to be an increase of .03 over the future without the protect. Commissioner Brown asked if the future without the project is actually less than what you've estimated, because you've said you've overestimated the background, then instead of being .02 it may actually be .04 and require mitigation if the level of service is below "D ". Mr. Close said that would not be correct because the total amount of traffic would be less. We estimated more traffic going through the area than, for example Bolsa Chica, would generate. Commissioner Brown said that for an intersection that is LOS "F" already .... Mr. Close said if the LOS is "F" and there's less traffic going through it the volume to capacity would go is down. Commissioner Brown said a percentage of the project would go up. Mr. Close said that's not how we calculate the V/C is what generates the LOS. Commissioner Brown said the increase would be . from the project would go up. Mr. Close said that was correct but noted the overall volume of traffic would go down Commissioner Brown said that the criteria for determining when mitigation is needed is V/C increases by .03 and if that background increase is lower than .03 then .02 may be higher, it may be .04. Mr. Close said that wouldn't happen - -- the percentage changes but the volume total goes down. For example, if there are 6,000 vehicles going through an intersection and 1,000 are protect drive and 2,000 is background and 3,000 is existing And our background is over - stated, it's not 2,000, it's 1,500 - -- your total volume is reduced. John Sanders * Aries Consultants Ltd [As written comments were submitted they are attached to these Minutes for reference. Please note that when the consultant varied from the typed statement the secretary put those comments in the Minutes]. Mr. Sanders responded to aviation comments on the proposed project. Chairman Dahlman asked where would the airplane begin to turn? Mr. Sanders said it would vary by the plane, its weight et cetera Commissioner Brown asked if Mr Sanders was saying the landing aircraft can follow these same paths? Mr. Sanders replied that for the purpose of these analyses, these have been used as the • generalized tracts to depict both departures and arrivals. You will note by the drawing, both on this chart and on similar charts in the report, that they have both a "D" for departure and an "A" for arrival on these tracts Page 17 - City of Seal Beach Planning Conmussion Muiuws of ]uric, 28, 1995 • Commissioner Campbell said she has been at Rossmoor Center when planes are landing in the opposite direction and they went over the Center. So, they did not come in the way they're supposed to. At one time Colonel Ghormley told her they always have different pilots and they try to tell each one which is the way to come and go. And he said "Well, we just don't let them come again ". But if the pilot is never going to fly in that way it isn't going to matter. Mr. Sanders said the fact that planes fly over Rossmoor Center is correct, noting you are going to get that. He said these are generalized. You're going to have some aircraft that are to the west and some that will be to the east. But for the purposes of the analyses, particularly for doing the noise analyses, he has used a manageable number of tracks to depict the noise contours to lead to the discussion that's been held in the previous meetings on the CNEL and issues like that. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr Sanders to draw on the map the flight track for a plane landing with a Santa Ana (wind) Mr Sanders said these are meant to be generalized arrival tracks too, going in this direction to the northeast. What you are saying, is what would happen if you have this situation, where they're coming straight into either 4 left or 4 right - -- which could occur on occasion. Commissioner Brown asked if the consultant knew the number of days that the operations were reversed? Mr. Sanders said he would have to get the percentages. Dr. Allen said he believes it is 97% on runway #22 and 3% on runway #4. Chairman Dahlman said reference is made to the AICUZ study finalized last June. He asked • why were there two previous AICUZ studies, what was the reason for them and how did they differ from the current study? Mr. Whittenberg said he's aware of one previous study that was prepared in 1989. The consultant who prepared that study released it prior to receiving authorization from DOD to release it, it was rescinded. Chairman Dahlman asked how it differed from the current report, specifically did it have different noise contours? Mr. Whittenberg said the noise contours were "pretty much" the same, it showed clear zones and accident potential zones that extended quite some distances off the runways at both ends of the airfield. The current AICUZ uses some special instructions that the Air Force has utilized that do not meet those same criteria if you have runways that have ten or 25 flights a day or less as far as fixed -wing and that's what causes the clear zones, under the current AICUZ study, to be limited to on -base areas and not extend off the base It's ten flights of jet aircraft and 25 flights of propeller. Commissioner Campbell said there was another difference between the two studies. The first study, in 1989, made reference to a DOD regulation which prohibits the construction of military housing within 3,000 feet of an active runway. Because, at one time the military wanted to put some housing on the north side of the base, east of the entrance to the base. They were prohibited from doing that because of the DOD restriction. Mr. Whittenberg said he felt the issue the Planning Commission needs to focus on is the AICUZ study the Commission is dealing with is the adopted one, the June of 1994 document. The 1989 document was never adopted by any agency of the Federal Government. Commissioner Campbell said the 1989 AICUZ study may not have been adopted, but the DOD regulation still stands. Mr. Whittenberg said there are different regulations which have been utilized by the AFRC in preparing the current document that complies with Air Force criteria and that's the • document the Commission should be considering. Commissioner Campbell, stating there has been controversy about the content of the EIR relative to what Aries Consultants Ltd contributed and what Bixby Co.'s airport consultants contributed. Page 18 - City of Seal Beach P1 inning Commission Minutes of June 28, 1995 is She asked Mr. Sanders if Aries prepared a document dated November 19, 1994? He said yes. She asked what is in Aries report that is not in the EIR that should be? Mr. Sanders said he wasn't sure there was a controversy but answered the question by stating that the Aries' report is referenced in the EIR as a source document in Section 4 -8 of the DEIR. That mentions that the Aries' report is available for review In terms of what was or was not extracted from the Aries report versus what is in the DEIR, Aries had included in their report what they had been asked to do. This was to look at what are the various standards and criteria that different agencies use for this type of situation. In the EIR it's basically the adopted AICUZ that was included in the EIR that related to clear zones and things like that But the comparison of the different standards, the different military standards such as was just referred to regarding the 3,000 feet as well as what the Orange County ALUC had in effect at that time that is all included in the Aries November 1994 report He asked Mr. Steele if he wanted to add what stages it would have been referenced as a separate report? Mr. Steele said that because it's referenced and incorporated by reference, the entire Aries report is a part of the FEIR. Commissioner Brown said that in the DEIR there's a Figure 4.8 -7 and asked Mr. Sanders if he would explain what that means9 Mr. Sanders said the AICUZ was adopted in 1994 by the military. This figure shows the clear zones documented in the AICUZ study and the maximum height for buildings. For runway #4 right we have the cross hatch which extends all the way from here to here and it ranges from a length of 0' here to 1600' or 2000' feet here. Then the other cross hatch in here is the clear zone in the AICUZ report for runway #4 left. When ® you've heard the discussion, such as Mr Bornholdt's discussion earlier, that in the 1994 AICUZ study the military decreed that based on their interpretation of their guidelines that this would be the clear zone area, at the southwest end of the runways for both #4 right and #4 left. Commissioner Brown asked about the numbers, does it say for #4 left that those are heights above ground? Mr Sanders said those heights are the heights for structures Not only do we have the clear zone, the area on the ground, but we also have approach slopes for runway #4 right, an approach slope of 50 -1, and for #4 left an approach surface of 40 -1. That shows the maximum height that would be allowed for a structure as you come away from 0 at the end of the runway to 25', 35', 45' et cetera. So, those are the heights from the regulations below which you should limit any structures in this area. You've heard reference to clear zones in the AICUZ study, this depicted in red is the area we're talking about as included in the June 1994 AICUZ study. Chairman Dahlman asked why it has a rectangular shape and what that has to do with where planes might need space in case they go out of control? Mr. Sanders said these criteria are based on two regulations which are cited in the AICUZ study. The interpretation of those regulations, as stated in the AICUZ study, lead the military to designate these as the clear zones as opposed to what might be considered the more typical clear zones that would be applied to a military base, such as Commissioner Campbell mentioned earlier. Bob Brown * Brown - Buntin Associates. Inc • [As written comments were submitted they are attached to these Minutes for reference. Please note that when the consultant varied from the typed statement the secretary put those comments in the Minutes] Mr Brown introduced himself as the President of Brown - Buntin Associates, Inc., noting they are acoustical engineers with offices in Sacramento and Visalia. They have Page 19 - City of Seal Be -ich Phuimg Coumussion Minutes of Juno 28, 1995 • been in business since 1981 and specialize in aviation noise studies. He focused his comments to issues raised by the public and the Commission in the last three weeks of receiving public testimony. In addition, the City of Seal Beach asked him to respond to certain issues and questions during this process. The underlying responsibility a consultant has when it comes to their particular area of expertise is to make sure that a good faith effort is made to disclose any potential impacts related to that area of expertise during the preparation of the document. The noise study has addressed two major noise sources - -- roadway traffic on Lampson Avenue, Seal Beach Boulevard and the I -405 and the noise levels from aircraft operations at the AFRC. There is not much disagreement between experts tonight in terms of the treatment of roadway noise impacts or aircraft noise impacts when talking about the CNEL metric. He noted his firm went to a lot of trouble to get the very best information they could about the source level of operations, they employed the latest models when the study was prepared and their analysis is very adequate in disclosing noise impacts and noise mitigation measures. Commissioner Brown asked if 10 dB is twice as loud or half again as loud? Mr. Brown said 10 dB is technically ten times the acoustical energy but it is perceived by the human ear as being about twice as loud Mr. Brown said his final point is when talking about calculating the CNEL, we are talking about an annual average day. This means you take all of the operations that occurred during the year and divide by 365. If you take all the operations by large jet transport aircraft and by het fighter aircraft that occur at the AFRC and divide by 365 you find, on the average, about one (1) departure per day. That does not mean there is one departure per day, it means that on the average there is one departure per day What it really means is that on many days there are no departures and on some days there are more than one. Commissioner Campbell said she understood a C5 -A will be taking off tomorrow afternoon about 2:00 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. Mr Brown said he spoke with personnel at the AFRC earlier this week and he was informed a C5 -A landed tonight and will be taking off tomorrow afternoon. He was told around 2:30 p m Commissioner Campbell said she would like to drive further down Lampson Avenue and watch the takeoff Commissioner Campbell asked the traffic consultant whether or not an intersection does or does not get mitigated based on the increase in traffic She said the Lampson Avenue /Seal Beach Boulevard intersection will go from LOS "C" to "D" and that's not enough to mitigate the intersection. The protect, in the EIR, calls for a driveway to the eastern most part of the project. Right now Lampson Avenue does not have to be mitigated but how do you improve Lampson Avenue if it comes to that9 Mr Close said the study assumes the traffic is coming out on Lampson Avenue and therefore there is no mitigation required because it doesn't change the LOS significantly. Commissioner Campbell said she realized that but, if down the road it comes to that, how would traffic on Lampson Avenue be mitigated? Mr. Close responded to this hypothetical question by saying he didn't know if he had an answer, he would have to go look at the roadway and see what would be possible. Theoretically, if the applicant has a parcel of • land for development, the applicant could use part of that land to improve the roadway system. Page 20 - City of Seal Beath Pl mnung C 0numssion MHUMA of June 28, 1995 • He demonstrated that the City needed additional capacity on the roadway and as part of the development the applicant would have to contribute a right -of -way in order to make that capacity occur. Commissioner Brown asked if the commercial traffic has to exit on Lampson Avenue and you have a curve in the roadway, something needs to be done and it's curious that that's not addressed in the EIR Do you Just look at intersections and not look at traffic going into the middle of the street9 Commissioner Brown said that by looking at the trip generation rates you can tell there will be a lot of traffic going in and out of the commercial area. Mr. Close said that's true, and the mitigation measure is to have another traffic study conducted at the time they set up the site plan for the commercial area The study would examine the impacts of the ingress and egress and the impacts on Lampson Avenue and the intersections created by the driveways. Commissioner Brown restated that the mitigation measure would be another study. He asked why this wasn't looked ate Mr Close said it hasn't been looked at because the driveways have not been set and the project hasn't been defined for the commercial area. Commissioner Campbell commented that another problem would the bulk of the traffic would be making a left turn out of the project site to get back on the freeway. Mr. Close said if you were to approve the project with a driveway, part of the approval would be double left turns, a traffic signal, a widening of the road to handle the capacity. It could be automatic for an approved project to have that interchange to allow the newly created driveway to function correctly. Commissioner Brown asked why that isn't in this EIR? Mr. Close said it's because • it will be built to capacity - -- the impact will not occur because you'll build it correctly to start with. Chairman Dahlman asked Mr Brown about Mr Bornholdt's comments that the CNEL is a 24- hour number and it's not an average sound level over any given time period. Since one -third of the day at AFRC has no flights (night hours) does that mean that for the remaining two - thirds of the day they are then permitted a higher average sound level -- higher than a project which has a few flights at mght9 Commissioner Brown interrupted to say the Bixby aviation consultant had told him that that would increase the decibels by two decibels if you were to factor out no noise at night. Mr. Brown said we must be careful here because the CNEL is definitely a 24- hour noise exposure. If you're talking about a source - specific situation, like railroad noise only, the way that you'd calculate the CNEL is based on the events -- how loud they are, how many of them are there and what time of day did they occur, because you'd weight them by a factor of three (3) if they occur in the evening If they occur at night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. you would weight them by a factor of ten (10). You determine the average by the weighted number of operations Another way to look at CNEL, if you're going out in the field to take noise measurements and you're going to place a microphone in the field, you're going to measure noise from all sources. The way the measurement equipment is going to determine the CNEL is it is going to look at the average noise level for each hour during the 24 -hour period. From 7:00 a m to 7.00 p.m. the average will simply be the average. But for the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p m., the evening hours, the software included as part of the sophisticated measuring systems will add about 5 dBs to those average noise levels for those three hours. • During the nighttime hours, the equipment will add 10 dBs to those levels. Chairman Dahlman asked Mr. Brown if that's how noise was measured for this study9 Mr. Brown said they looked at the annual average conditions and individual noise sources, such as the airport. They looked Page 21 - City of Seal Beach Pluuwig Conwussion Mmutcs of 1unt. 28, 1991 • at the single events, how many there are and what time they occur and came up with the same numbers. It's mathematically equivalent, it's dust you're dealing with one source at a time. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Brown if they do any verification process? Mr. Brown said this is the problem with doing noise measurements There have been other noise studies where persons have gone out in the field, with good intentions, and measured the noise level for a 24- hour period and said that the CNEL was 70 dB at a particular location. The problem with that is that that may be exactly what it was under the conditions of the measurement but that may not be representative of annual average conditions at that location. He felt his method of weighting the hours was more adequate. Chairman Dahlman said he thought they would take a statistically random sampling of seasons, times of day, wind conditions etcetera. Mr. Brown said that would take extensive monitoring. He said this is not typically done for EIRs. The only situation he could cite at this time that would be similar would the California Code of Regulation , Title 21 - -- the airport noise regulations It does require that airports that have "noise problems" do noise monitoring to document the location of the 65 CNEL contour. Some airports, like John Wayne Airport, have very sophisticated monitoring systems that operate continuously, 24 -hours per day at multiple locations Chairman Dahlman asked if the data would be available in that case? Mr. Brown said yes Chairman Dahlinan asked how does the mathematical model, using the assumptions that were used for this project, compare with the actual experience from the noise monitoring at John Wayne Airport? What is the standard deviation? Mr. Brown said it's very close. If the modeling assumptions are correctly chosen you can achieve tolerances ± 1 • to 11/2 dBs. Chairman Dahlman asked EIP about geological considerations, that there is a requirement that an additional study be done before approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM). He asked if that was the entire dealing with the geological issues? Mr. Ziff asked if he was referring to a specific mitigation meastire9 Chairman Dahlman said he was referring to soils and geology, safety, liquefaction, earthquake stability Mr. Ziff said it was his understanding that with any development project there would be requirements for soil and geological studies that get more specific as the project becomes more specific. The level of detail gone into in the EIR is similar to what most EIRs do There's not always full information available based on specific location of building pads et cetera. It's their understanding, and it's reflected in the mitigation measures, that more specific studies will need to be done and will have to meet the City's standards and Uniform Building Code standards. Commissioner Campbell said Figure 2 16 was used to arrive at the potential number of residents per household. So 2 16 time 223 homes is 482 proposed residents. She felt this was low, noting College Park East has approximately 5,000 residents in 1,725 homes and that's 2.9 per house. If you multiply 2.9 times 223 houses you get 647 residents - -- not dust adults, but more children. She asked if recreational facilities have been outlined for the children in this project? Mr. Ziff said the approach to recreation is based on estimates which are laid out in the City's Quimby ordinance. The estimates EIP has come tip with in terms of the demand created by this project for parkland are consistent with the ordinance. The bottom line conclusion with the EIR • is the amount of recreation provided by the project exceeds what would be required under the ordinance. Commissioner Campbell said the facility to be provided is a community center in College Park East, where are the children in this development going to play? Mr. Ziff said there is a mitigation measure provided that relates to the attached residential development in the Page 22 - City of Seal Beach Plannmg Conunission Muwtes of June 28, 1995 • northern portion of the site. The mitigation measure specifies that that particular development, being a planned development, would require a review of that development relative to recreational facilities and the adequacy of recreational facilities. Commissioner Campbell said then in effect there is nothing planned for these children. Mr. Ziff said no specific recreational facilities are called out. The EIR's analysis is focused on general consistency with the City's ordinance, with the amount of acreage. We typically don't get into a lot of specifics about what facilities will be on the protect site. Commissioner Campbell, referencing page 4.2 -12 regarding the flood control system, she read a portion: If it is determined in the drainage report that the capacity of existing drainage facilities are inadequate to accommodate the project runoff, the project proponent shall design and implement on -sate facilities or pay a fair share. She said she gets very concerned with the words " ... or pay a fair share" because the City cannot get this far into a project and find that "fair share" is 75% of the costs. The City needs to know up front what those costs would be or the applicant needs to agree that he will not do fair share but will instead design, implement and carry out the necessary work. Mr. Ziff said he felt the wording of the mitigation measure is such that if the complete mitigation measure is read the bottom line is that there needs to be a demonstration that project flows can be • accommodated and that fees, if it becomes a situation where off site facilities have to be addressed, where the capacity problems may not relate to this particular project or whether it's an approach where on site facilities such as a retarding basin is expanded - -- no matter what the approach is - -- the bottom line is it has to be demonstrated that facilities will be improved in order to safely accommodate the project flows and not make a bad situation worse relative to the capacity of any facilities. Commissioner Campbell said this is the wrong time for the City to suddenly be faced with costs it now has to pay. "The only way I see out of that is for the applicant to agree to pick it tip ". Mr. Whittenberg said the staff report contains an extensive discussion about the issue of fair share Once the Commission has concluded its questions to the members of the consulting team, he and the City Attorney have additional comments they would like to make. Commissioner Campbell, referencing play facilities for children, said someone raised the issue to her that if the children don't have a specific play area that Rossmoor Shopping Center will become their play area and the City will end up funding a police sub - station over there. Mr. Whittenberg said he would include recreational facilities in his concluding comments. Chairman Dahlman asked how long Mr. Whittenberg's and Mr Steele's comments would take? Mr. Whittenberg said his would take five to ten minutes. Chairman Dahlman said the Commission has twenty minutes to finish the meeting according to the rule of the Commission. Commissioner Law said she would like to see the application concluded tonight as many Commissioners would be on vacation. Mr. Steele said the Chair could waive the resolution requirements with an affirmative vote of three members. Commissioner Brown said "As much • as I have better things to do right now, but I'd like to finish it. I don't want to drag it out any longer. I don't think that's fair to the applicant or the public ". Commissioner Campbell said she agreed indicating the information is freshest in their minds tonight. Page 23 - City of Seal Beach Plsnnmg Co nnusston Minutes of June 28, 1995 • MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Campbell to extend the meeting until 1:00 a.m. Commissioner Sharp, before the vote, said that if the time is to be extended, he would like to see the Motion made that we extend the time until the Commission takes a vote an it's over with. Commissioner Law agreed. Chairman Dahlman said no, he would object to taking until 4 :00 a.m. Commissioner Sharp said he realized Chairman Dahlman was objecting to 4:00 a.m. but indicated that the Commission had a very, very thorough discussion on time limits for meetings. He felt that if the Commission votes to break the time limit and the Commission stays until 4:00 a m. and then says it can't take a vote so we'll have to carry it over to the next meeting, but Commissioners Brown and Campbell have vacations scheduled and he hated to see a vote taken without the full Commission being present. He felt that after the amount of time the Commission has spent on this project that it needs to be settled tonight. Commissioner Brown said he would accept that as an amendment to his Motion. Commissioner Campbell agreed, noting that at the Mola project proposal the public was still speaking at 4:00 a.m. Chairman Dahlman said he stood convinced. MOTION by Brown; AMENDED by Sharp; SECOND by Campbell to extend the meeting until a vote is taken. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Brown, Campbell, Sharp, Law, Dahhnan Director Whittenberg said he has provided a fourteen page staff report to the Commission which reviews some of the issues the Commission has been discussing over the last couple of meetings, particularly regarding the issues of fair share, Planning Commission consideration of fiscal impacts and under what other mechanisms could the bridge be widened. Staff has provided to the Commission a general summary of the draft Fiscal Analysis for the project. He cautioned the Commission and the public that this is still in draft form and the City's financial people are still reviewing some the assumptions that drive that information and the numbers may change. The project as proposed would result in a net fiscal benefit to the City. There are additional revenues to the City both in Development Impact Fees and Building permit and plan inspections Those fees are estimated to be approximately $1,000,000. There's also an additional $1,000,000 in fees based on the size of buildings constructed to the Los Alamitos Unified School District to meet the requirements of State law in regard to school impacts. He cautioned the Commission that their primary purpose is to look at the benefit of the project to the community and not an economic viewpoint. The Commission's basic purpose if to make a determination as to whether or not this project warrants a change to the long range land development goals of the City, both General Plan and zoning. If the Commission feels the project, as it has been presented to the Commission and as proposed to be mitigated through the approximately 136 mitigation measures, if those impacts do not significantly reduce the levels of concerns that the individual Commissioners have you should not recommend approval of the project. If the Commissioners feel the mitigation measures and the benefits of the project • address concerns that they have in a positive manner, then the individual Commissioners should recommend approval of the project to the City Council. He indicated to the Commission and the public that whatever the Commission's recommendation is there will automatically be another Page 24 - City of Sed BOLh Phnning Comnussion Minutes of June 28, 1995 • set of Public Hearings at the City Council level Commission denial would not stop the Public Hearings at the Council level. Regarding fair share, Mr. Whittenberg said over the last two years staff has provided the Commission with summaries of court cases. One case that was provided was Nolan, a California case on certain types of exactions that could be extracted from a project applicant. The decision of the United States Supreme Court was there had to be a nexus between the imposition of a condition and the problem that your trying to solve with the imposition of those conditions A more recent case is an Oregon case, Dolan v. City of Tigard, summary copies were provided to the Commission. In that case, the primary focus of the court is that there needs to be a proportional analysis done to be sure the conditions imposed rationally relate to the major impacts of the project and that you cannot extract more than is reasonably required to meet the concerns of the project. That gets to the issue of how you deal with existing deficiencies that exist in the City He used the overpass of the 405 freeway as an example and said, the overpass at the freeway right now is operating at LOS "F ". It has more traffic on it now than it is designed to handle It will continue to have more traffic on it than it is designed to handle whether or not a project is approved on the Bixby property or not. The estimates, based on the traffic analysis done, indicate the current LOS, LOS "F" is 37,500 vehicles per day is the maximum capacity that overpass can handle right now. Today there's 38,000 vehicles on it now - -- ,just barely over its capacity. Projections are that by the year 2010 there will be approximately 42,900 vehicles on that bridge The easiest way to increase the bridge capacity • is to provide three travel lanes in both directions. To do that, you'd need to widen the bridge. If you widen the bridge you create a capacity over that overpass of 56,300 vehicles per day assuming three lanes in each direction. The project along with the anticipated from other projects in the area would generate an anticipated use of approximately 45,000 vehicles per day. So by widening the bridge you create an excess capacity of 9,000 vehicle trips per day. That means the projects could be built once the bridge is widened and as long as they don't exceed that level of trips the City would be in a position of not being able to collect the traffic impact fees because there's no deficiency caused by the project. So, when the Commission is examining at the concept of fair share it needs to ask is the fair share for the increase over what is already existing or what is anticipated to exist not as a result of the project. If there are existing deficiencies in the system, and whether it be transportation or sewers or storm drains, they are existing deficiencies. State law and court cases have said that those are the responsibilities of the local government. Those are current responsibilities of the City. The City has not been able to deal with those at this time because of financial constraints. The Development Impact Fee process allows the City to collect money from a number of different projects to create a fiend that is substantial enough to address some of those issues. As we've indicated to the Commission tonight, the proposed project would generate roughly half the money needed to deal with the on and off ramps and the bridge itself. The rest of those funds would have to come from other sources and there are other sources available. The staff report states that the Measure M program has fiords available on a sub - regional basis. In the past we have had some general concurrences from Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) that up to $300,000 could be available from them for the bridge purpose itself. That still does not • get the City to the point of being able to do all of the work but it does get a lot closer than it would be otherwise. The Commission needs to make sure it's keeping proportionality analysis in mind, as set forth by the U S. Supreme Court, when it looks at mitigation measures and Page 25 - City of Seal Beach Planning Conuiustiion Minutes of June 28, 1995 • conditions of approval on a project The Commission must be very careful not to stretch that because it would open the City up to a number of legal challenges. Regarding the commercial acreage that the Chairman was asking about, the document indicates that there is a change of 1 72 acres but that does not include the potential change of 6.6 acres of the now - commercially zoned tennis club to a City facility. If you take the 6.6 acres with the 1.72 acres you get about 9 acres. The City's subdivision ordinance requires a certain number of acres of land be set aside for recreation purposes based on a certain number of housing units built. The number of units this project is proposing would require a dedication of 2.2 acres of land to the City for future recreation purposes The applicant is proposing 6.6 acres Granted it is in a location not immediately adjacent to the residential housing but it is property owned by the project applicant and could be accepted for that purpose. In addition, the mitigation measure regarding the multiple family housing at the far north end of the property indicates that when the Commission considers a final development plan, at a Public Hearing. The Commission will have the option and authority at that time to require recreation facilities be developed to serve that particular multi- family housing development. The Commission will deal with that issue as a future development plan for the multi- family housing area assuming the project is approved at some point. As far as the single family residential area, there's an indication that three (3) of the lots in the area aren't going to be built on. They will be used for pocket park purposes for the single • family area. So there will some recreational facilities provided in the single family area also. When those are combined, there's a provision for recreation facilities that exceeds by a fairly large extent the minimum requirement that the City can impose under its ordinances. Those types of trade -offs, along with the types of proposals being made for the intersection improvements, are properly the types of negotiations that can occur through the Development Agreement process. Again, the Development Agreement also requires Public Hearings at the Commission and Council levels. A Development Agreement may come to the Commission in the future, if a project is approved At that point all of the fiscal impacts will be set forth very clearly. At that time the Commission will have the option to make recommendations to the Council on whether or not the development approvals and the additional improvements the City could seek based on those development approvals are appropriate or not. He urged the Commission to focus on the mitigation measures needing to be proportional to the impact caused by the project He said the Commission needs to focus on the long term land uses and long term zoning designations of the property and whether or not this project, or portions of the project, meet those long term goals for the City. If the Commission feels certain portions do and certain portions don't, the Commission could recommend approval of certain portions and denial of certain portions Mr. Steele said at the June 21st Commission meeting Commissioner Campbell asked him a question about an amendment or modification to the flood plain easement. He provided a brief memo on that subject which indicated there are two means by which that easement could be amended or modified; that would be another step in the process. Also, for the Record, staff did • receive a letter this evening from Dean and Donna McGuire to the Planning Commission. Copies were provided to the Commission. [Attached] Page 26 - City of Seal Duch Planning Conuwssion Mumtis of June 28, 1995 • Chairman Dahlman said it looks like this project has been proposed without a Specific Plan. Looking at the Growth Management Element of the General Plan it says that "Seal Beach will require that any new, large development prepare a comprehensive development plan and Environmental Impact Analysis. A Specific Plan is an example of a comprehensive development plan for a large project ". He asked if this meant there should be a Specific Plan with this project? Mr. Whittenberg said no, it means a Specific Plan is one type of mechanism that could come to the Commission for consideration of approval. The project before the Commission consists of General Plan amendments and zone changes that cover a large area of the community and an equal type of land use entitlement that could be sought by a project applicant. Chairman Dahlman said the implication of this project is that the City would be better managing the timing of when things are built. He asked if Mr WhJttenberg's feeling is that the timing is accounted for and the money will come in on time? Mr. Whittenberg said if the City ultimately approves a protect on this property and that project is required to have a Development Agreement approved prior to the beginning of any actual construction entitlements, it was his opinion and probably the City Attorney's opinion, that the City has much better control over the phasing, the timing, payment of fees, insurance that conditions are met under a Development Agreement than it would under a Specific Plan. Mr. Steele said that is especially true in a mixed -use development like this. Recess Commissioner Campbell asked if the Commission wanted to discuss certifying the EIR at this time? Chairman Dahlman said he thought it might be time for a recess. With the consensus of the Commission, Chairman Dahlman called a recess The meeting reconvened at 11:55 p.m. Chairman Dahlman, talking about the application process, indicated he polled the Planning Commissioners at the June 14th Commission meeting about allowing more give- and -take and having more information brought up during the course of the Public Hearing when the public could still comment. He said he didn't think it would be possible for the consultants and /or the applicant to go through the same process without bringing up new information. "We have used the standard process and we'll live with it" Commissioner Sharp asked in what order would it be best to discuss the issues? Mr. Whittenberg said he felt that when the Commission begins to deal with specific issues he would suggest starting with the adequacy of the EIR document, then the General Plan, zone change and VTTM. However, if there are some overall, general items to discuss it would be best to hear those first. Adequacy of the EIR Commissioner Campbell said the Minutes of the June 7th Planning Commission meeting, page 4, read "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 ". Also, the CEQA requirements for an EIR, as set forth in the staff report of June 7th, state "... must contain a description of the significant environmental effects of the proposed protect, explaining which if any can be mitigated and an analysis of the proposed project's cumulative impacts ". The EIR discusses the flooding issue as it pertains to homes in the project area and further discusses mitigation for that problem. It does not discuss the environmental impacts on College Park East Page 27 - City of Seal Beach Plvumig Commission hhnum of Jum 28, 1995 40 and Leisure World or the flooding which could result from a retarding basin whose capacity is being diminished and which will be subject to more flows from the project area. Her question was that while an EIR does not have to be exhaustive, does the discussion of flooding for solely the project area make the EIR adequate) Commissioner Sharp said perhaps he misunderstood the presentation, but when the flooding was being discussed, he thought they discussed the fact that the capacity was going to be from 84,000 feet to 100,000 feet capacity for containing water on the golf course. The applicant could not do anything about College Park East flooding because he had no control over the drainage from College Park East to the golf course The proposed project would put less water into the channel and by doing so would help control the flooding in Leisure World. Commissioner Campbell said that information was on a transparency and said "Where is it written? It's not ". Mr. Steele pointed out the following information didn't come up when the consultants were speaking. He said it is fairly typical in an EIR document, especially on a legislative approval, to condition future approvals on subsequent studies. The EIR says that prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project engineer must provide a site - specific drainage plan; this must be signed off by the City and Orange County flood control people. The consultants anticipate a fuller examination of the drainage issue will be provided in the drainage plan. It's typical to impose a mitigation measure which requires a future study as long as a performance level is included in the document The mitigation measure requires all the improvements be in place • prior to issuance of building permits. This will be accompanied by a grading plan and a drainage plan. The City Engineer and the County will look at it at that point and impose conditions on the grading permit that are deemed appropriate based on what it actually looks like on the final contours of the property. Chairman Dahlman asked if the EIR is supposed to identify all significant environmental impacts, yet it defers to some future time a study which may well unearth a significant environmental impact is that an adequate EIR? Mr. Steele said the EIR identifies drainage as a significant impact. That's why the mitigation measure is the subsequent study Commissioner Campbell asked again if the terminology says the EIR does not need to be exhaustive but the EIR discusses flooding as an issue would that cover the City down the road in case of litigation? Mr Steele said the fact the EIR identifies flooding and drainage as potentially significant impact covers the City Chairman Dahlman asked Commissioner Campbell if she wanted to hear other comments on the EIR? She said no, she would like to make a motion. Commissioner Sharp said he had comments. Commissioner Sharp said when this project first came before the Planning Commission he had doubts and didn't know whether his concerns could be mitigated. As the Commission has gone through the process and studied the documents, one concern on flooding was answered. Another concern was the location /proximity of the proposed hotel to the aircraft and runway. He noted he was convinced that aircraft would not fly over the hotel very often, dust occasionally when they couldn't make a turn in time Noise was also a concern but he felt we would have to live with noise if we are going to live in cities. He said the applicant has done the best he can do Page 28 - City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Minutes of June 28, 1995 is in locating the residential housing away from as much noise as possible. Having lived in Leisure World for sixteen years he knows there are occasional, special flights out of the AFRC which fly over Leisure World, College Park East and, if built, the new housing area and this will happen again when some of the larger planes are forced to come in with extra large loads. This is not daily, ,lust occasionally He thought the EIR addressed everything. He would like to be able to say the Commission could solve all the problems that come up for this project. But having gone through a long, drawn -out project proposal with the Hellman property, he knows that there will be a lot of things come up for mitigation and it ultimately comes down to the agreement the City Council draws up. Once that agreement is signed and sealed that the applicant will do this and that, everything will be spelled out in certain terms. He wished the Planning Commission could do that tonight but it can't. He said he was in favor of recommending the EIR be approved and sent to the City Council. Commissioner Law said she felt the EIR is adequate She was concerned about 4.8 -2, where there would be a lot of noise in that area She indicated when there's an emergency the noise level is increased but added when an emergency occurs, everyone has to take the situation into consideration and bear with the extra noise She said wanted a notification included in the final documents to mandate that when someone is buying, renting or leasing a residence or office on the project site they will be notified the AFRC will be there forever. As long as they know the facts and the disclosure will be on the deed then they are forewarned and can't complain later. Also the realtors cannot lie to the purchasers by saying the AFRC will leave in a year or two. • As long as that information is included in the final documents and everyone is forewarned and made aware that the noise level is going to be there and in emergencies it will increase then she thinks the EIR is acceptable and she would like to see the EIR, as it is, sent to the City Council as adequate. Chairman Dahlman said the EIR succeeds in showing there are unmitigatable, significant impacts in the project proposal. He said there could and should have been more work done on this EIR. He stated he has many concerns, his main concerns being the CNEL issues and noise. He is not convinced the math is reliable and felt the necessary information could have been obtained as demonstrated by the way math had been used on other projects where actual measurements were taken. This type of information should have been included in the EIR so the Commission would have had an idea on how accurate these numbers are. For example, a number like 65, to him as a person who works with science every day, is not something to be taken at face value. You would find out what the variability is and that would give you a much better idea of what to expect. There is reason to believe that there is significant deviation from the flight patterns, Santa Ana winds do blow and planes do take off from other directions and he didn't think all the variables were fully addressed Thirdly, the geological safety issues concern him. The idea of deferring that until after the City has rezoned and changed the General Plan is exactly what got the City into trouble with the Hellman Ranch project. In that case, the subsequent studies were done and horrible problems were identified The City turned down the project and it cost the City a fortune He said even though this has been a typical form of mitigation in the past, he didn't think it is acceptable today in Seal Beach in light of the history here. • Commissioner Brown agreed that the EIR is seriously deficient but at the outset it is legally g y egal y adequate. It bothers him when we say we're going to study an issue and see if further mitigation Page 29 - City of Seal Beach Planning Conumsswn Minutes of June 28, 1995 is needed. The problem with that is, as Dr. Dahlman dust said, what if there is no possible mitigation or what if the mitigation is so expensive it doesn't warrant the protect? Then what do you do? We'd be all the way down the road. It would be nice to identify these things up front. The flooding issue is a good example, one where he thinks the EIR is seriously deficient. To say that we'll study that in the future is dust not good and doesn't make for good planning. "In the future" will be many months down the road where the applicant will have spent many more thousands of dollars. With one glaring exception, he felt most of the issues were in the EIR and that the Commission has had a full discussion on the issues and was fairly well informed about the environmental impacts He felt the public has to understand that if the Commission or the Council were to find the EIR inadequate what would happen is that more studies would be done and everyone would come back in a few months and repeat the whole process again. He was not in favor of this. He said he finds the EIR minimally adequate but would vote in favor of certifying it at this point and sending the EIR on to the City Council. He will have other comments on the project later. Commissioner Campbell read a prepared statement In reviewing the dtfinataon for EIR legal adequacy I believe that this document with specific identified areas of concern meets the definition, of barely so. Therefore 1 would like to move that the final EIR be determined to be minimally legally adequate with specific areas of concern identified for the safety and welfare of our citizens, both those here today and those who will be here in the future Those areas of concern are (1) Norse 1 question whether the noise can be properly mitigated. As the new residents will be subjected to cumulative levels of vehicular noise from surrounding roadways and excessive levels of noise from the Armed Forces Reserve Center that involve routine aircraft operations, an increase in operations to meet demands for emergencies, and single event noise levels exceeding acceptable standards. (2) Trgfflc. I question whether the traffic can be truly mitigated. Unavoidable delays will occur on the 1 -405 on -ramps and there will be unacceptable levels of traffic at four intersections and on the I -405 overpass (3) Flood control. Problems associatesd with the flooding issue have not been satisfactorily addressed in this EIR. The existing flood basin is not adequate, and building on a portion of it will only decrease the capacity, thus exacerbating the flood control problems affecting College Park and Leisure World Commissioner Brown said he wanted to know if that Motion was the whole thing because there are parts of it that he doesn't agree with. Or, does Commissioner Campbell want to move that • the Commission finds the EIR minimally adequate9 Commissioner Campbell said she felt there are specific identified areas of concern which, in line with her earlier question, the Commission needed to identify in the event litigation were to come up later on Chairman Dahlman said the Page 30 - City of Seal Beach Pluming Coninimon Minutes of June 28, 1995 City Council would be able to read all of the Commission's comments. Mr. Whittenberg said the Minutes of the meeting will be forwarded to the City Council along with the Commission's recommendations, so the Council will see the Commission's concerns. It's the Commission's choice whether to include those concerns in the motion or not. Commissioner Sharp said he felt one of the things the Commission would like to do is to solve all the problems but the Commission can't solve them. The EIR is to identify the problems and to let everyone know the problems are there and we will have to mitigate and straighten out all these things down the road. A lot of concerns can't be straightened out until the City knows exactly what the development is going to be He thought the Commission should certify the EIR but he would hate to see the Commission try to dictate what the Council would do with the EIR. Commissioner Campbell said if the Commission wishes, she would rescind the definitions of noise, traffic and flood control and dust say those areas of concern are noise, traffic and flood control. She asked if that would be acceptable') Commissioner Sharp said he didn't think the Commission should put any extra verbiage in the motion, perhaps only barely adequate. Chairman Dahlman said there doesn't appear to be uniform agreement to that degree of detail so suggested Commissioner Campbell further modify the motion. Commissioner Campbell referenced Mr. Whittenberg's comment that 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. And she felt the Commission needs to get areas in there to protect the City down the road but, if the Commission wants to take them out fine Mr. Steele said he had made that comment and ,lust the fact that the concerns are in the Record of the hearing is sufficient for raising those concerns later. It's obviously the Commission's choice as to whether they want to put them in their resolution. But if Commissioner Campbell is worried about protecting the City, she has done it by putting her comments in the Record. MOTION by Campbell; SECOND by Sharp that the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) be determined to be minimally legally adequate with specific areas of concern for the safety and welfare of our citizens, both those here today and in the future. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 1 - 0 AYES: Campbell, Sharp, Law, Brown NOE: Dahlman Mr. Steele indicated the Commission has now certified the FEIR is adequate, and the starting point for the decision on the General Plan amendment is whether or not the Commission should recommend to the City Council that it adopt Statements of Overriding Considerations on each of the four (4) significant and unavoidable impacts which are identified in the EIR. He noted the City Council can't approve the project without that statement. Before discussing General Plan amendments, Commissioner Brown asked what would happen if the Commission could not say the City should adopt those statements? Mr. Steele said if it's the opinion of the Commission that they should not adopt the Statements of Overriding Consideration, then the Commission's recommendation is that the Council not approve the project. Commissioner Campbell said she thought the Commission would have to do that only if the Commission felt the FEIR was inadequate. Chairman Dahlman said no, the EIR identifies impacts that cannot be mitigated in the opinion of the EIR consultants. The applicant needs to get the City Council to snake that Statement of Overriding Considerations or refute the findings Page 31 - City of Seal Deach PlaMmg CrnmmsMao Minutes of June 28, 1995 • of the EIR in court. Mr. Steele said that was correct. Commissioner Brown said there are four areas which are significant and unavoidable and each area should be addressed. Mr. Steele said that would be his recommendation because the City Council is going to have to address each one of them. It may also be the Commission has other concerns which the Commission wants to express in a resolution to the Council - -- other issues the Commission wants to raise other than the four. He said he was not limiting the Commission to those four areas but only identifying those four that have to be determined before the Council can do anything else. Commissioner Sharp said those comments were not heard correctly or clear to the other end of the dias. Mr. Steele said the Commission has recommended the EIR be certified as adequate. That EIR identifies four significant, unavoidable impacts from the project. The City Council cannot approve the project under CEQA unless they make a specific finding for each one of those four that the benefits of the project outweigh the risks to the environment. The first thing the Commission must discuss in its recommendation to the Council is whether or not they should make that finding of overriding considerations for each of those impacts. Chairman Dahlman suggested it might be simpler if the Commission discussed whether the project was meritorious and then theY could take that as a motion on the General Plan as to whether the Commission recommends the Statement of Overriding Considerations or not. Mr. Steele said the Commission could do that in either order. Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Steele to name the four areas. Chairman Dahlman said the four are (1) traffic, (2) noise, (3) farm lands and (4) air quality. Mr. Whittenberg said it's the loss of prime agricultural land, single event noise • levels due to aircraft operations, air quality due to operations of the property once it is totally developed both from vehicle emissions and emissions from the residential /commercial structures and disaster support noise impacts General Plan Change Loss of Prime Agricultural Land Commissioner Sharp said that as of recent years the agricultural land has been used as a sod farm for the golf course and the applicant is going to have to provide that on the golf course as they are going to have to replace greens. Actually the City is not losing any productive agricultural land that is producing food for people. They used to raise strawberries on it but they haven't done that for quite awhile, he said he hoped he was correct on this. Changes to the General Plan Chairman Dahlman asked Commissioner Campbell what her thoughts were on changing the General Plan and she said she didn't think the General Plan should be changed. Commissioner joked oked "That was easy. Let's go on. Next " Commissioner Sharp asked if it wasn't mandatory the General Plan be amended for this project to proceed? Chairman Dahlman said yes • Chairman Dahlman said that to over simplify quite a bit the proposed project is to reduce the golf zone by 33 acres, or 17 %, to reduce the commercial by 9 acres if you count the tennis club, to increase the residential by 31 acres, of which they had none authorized previously, so essentially to establish residential where there wasn't any and to concentrate the commercial at Page 32 - City of Seal Beach P6utnmg Conunmion Minutes or June 28, 1995 45 the corner of Lampson Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard. So the question becomes even if the project had no unmitigatable environmental impacts, should Seal Beach increase its housing stock? At least six observations are apparent to the Chairman from the hearings and data supplied to the Commission: (1) The City's schools are crowded and the School Board says it is forced to sell or lease other properties in order to finance the re- opening of Oak Middle School. To him it is pervei se logic to argue that the financial strain of handling a growing student body would be eased by even more growth. This is an argument in town and to him it's ,lust not good logic (2) Traffic is already too heavy for the existing population and the proposal does not, and apparently legally cannot, be required to do more than pay for improvements that are due to the project's own increments in the population. He said he was now satisfied with the method for calculating this impact. But nevertheless, since we're starting out with a problem, adding to it, even if it's mitigated, doesn't solve the problem that exists. (3) He was convinced noise from traffic can be pretty well mitigated but even after mitigation we're left with a CNEL of 65 to 70 at one area which is in excess iof The Code of the City of Seal Beach. CA (Code) requirement for the rest of Seal Beach Then there is the single event noise levels that are experienced from time to time due to aircraft operations These levels, which exceed our local noise ordinance by more than three -fold in terms of energy, probably even more than that, would be most objectionable and would certainly lead to conflict between residents of the proposed project and the AFRC. If there is an overriding consideration after hearing the testimony in this area, then we have heard that Seal Beach, Rossmoor and Los Alamitos residents believe the AFRC is an important local asset. Because of its role in disaster response, we should not make General Plan changes that would increase the potential for conflicts with neighboring residents. And we have heard that the area will be, to his mind as the Commission didn't have a demonstration, virtually unlivable during 24 -hour alert level operations. (4) Soils and geology analysis is deferred to a future date. To him this is a red light - -- look at what happened with the Hellman development proposal. (5) Time tables are not as clear as he would like to see them in the proposal. He understands this would be taken up in more detail by a Development Agreement but he thought that if it's not completely clear by the time a project like this is approved at City Council level then it can lead to endless difficulty for both the applicant and the City with an unfairness to both sides. Page 33 - City of Seal Desch Phumig Conlimmioa Wnuwe of I Wlt 28, 1995 • (6) The municipal economic environment. The issue is, is it appropriate to increase the amount of residentially -zoned property in Seal Beach? The City would be changing the General Plan to add to the residential. In the current municipal environment in which may people are paying $3,000 and more in annual property taxes, why then is there no money to alleviate school crowding? Why can't we pay for needed infrastructure improvements such as streets, underground utilities et cetera9 The answer in part, is that property tax money goes to Sacramento, and increasing by our State government hangs onto it for funding of State -wide programs. Before the remainder comes back to us a sizeable additional portion is lopped off and allocated to the poorer parts of Orange County. What little comes back to us after that is then partly spoken for by State - required but unfunded programs which have come to be called unfunded mandates. So, for this reason and for a lesser extent to other reasons, all the predominantly residential municipalities in our area are having financial troubles. Cities with more in the way of commercial and industrial development have done better in the last few years. So while the applicant has tried to work with the community to lessen the • impacts, and while he seems to have complied with the requirements of our Housing Element, these six concerns make it impossible for me to conclude that the proposed changes represent a net benefit for the community as a whole. Commissioner Sharp asked Chairman Dahlman about his statement regarding the golf course. He asked if he said the golf course would be decreased by 33 %? Chairman Dahlman said the golf course' zone, the area zoned golf course, is decreased 17% or 33 acres. Commissioner Sharp said overall the golf course is going to be bigger than it is now. Chairman Dahlman said that's true and he would acknowledge that they are proposing to enlarge the actual amount devoted to golf course beyond what it is now. But the amount that is allocated as golf course is reduced 17% Commissioner Sharp said while they are taking away a piece of that golf course but when they take it away they are going into the land that was designated for farming and that will become golf course. Mr. Whittenberg said what the Chairman has indicated is correct. What he has indicated is the amount of land which is currently zoned for golf course purposes would decrease tinder the request before the Commission. The size of the course itself will be larger, but there is a lot of land now that is zoned for golf course purposes that is not used for golf course purposes and that's what the Chairman's indicating Commissioner Sharp said that's understandable then. Commissioner Brown said in the FEIR there are four areas where the level of significant is significant and unavoidable, meaning there is no mitigation that can correct for those. The City Council would have to have a Statement of Overriding Concern to say that it's okay that we have • these environmental impacts He said the Commission cannot do that for at least two of these areas. Those are primarily the areas of noise and the aviation noise. He understands the discussion about the CNEL but he read from Mr. Brown's report dated the 28th, page 5: Page 34 - City of Seal Beach PI ummg Commission hllnul64 OI IUUC 28 1995 • • Much controversy has occurred at airports where annual average noise exposure, as defined by CNEL, was used as the only measure of noise impact. Litigation is on -going in many of these cases. He thought the community is telling you in these areas is that they're not happy with that standard. It may be the standard that the law uses but the people are saying they're not happy with that law. What bothers them are the single event noise levels - -- a loud plane going overhead. He said there were three communities where they have tried to enact ordinances to prevent or limit that type of thing A city like Santa Monica has more control over their airport. But in Seal Beach, first of all it's a military airport and it's not in our City - -- so we would have very little control over those noise impacts. He said it would be very foolish of the City of Seal Beach to put homes near the end of the runway where they are going to have noise overflights. He felt the EIR was very correct in saying that is a significant and unavoidable impact. And there is no mitigation for that. There's no way around it It's a simple fact that that's where the runway is and that's where the homes will be and that's where the noise is. Chairman Dahlman alluded to this but he has his doubts about the flight paths. He thinks that overall those may be the averages but he was not sure the pilots can fly those paths with that degree of precision. If looked at, a couple of those runways were a couple of hundred feet apart and some of these planes have wing spans of 150' - 200' Especially the C -5 but he had no idea how large that was. He felt the City of Seal Beach would be looking for trouble if it said "Yes, go ahead and put homes in that area" because sooner or later someone will sue the City saying the City shouldn't have done that, it wasn't correct Commissioner Brown further said that when looking at Figure 4.8 -7, on the clear zones, it is ironic that the crash zone ends exactly at the air field boundary. He didn't know what the meaning of that was but felt it is another concern as it's not the best idea to put a home at the end of an extended line of a runway He recognized that planes will crash anywhere and everywhere and they don't always know where the homes are. But there is the possibility that that would happen. An air force base or an airport is fixed, it's a piece of property with runways and they can't easily change that But the hours of operation can change, they could do an environmental impact study, It could double. It has been seen recently where military bases have been closed and missions have been shifted. There's nothing to say that can't happen at this base. If that happens, the clear zones may be extended again and all of a sudden somebody's high end house is now in a military clear zone that the Federal Government will condemn. Again, it goes back to the primarily principal that we shouldn't be putting homes at the end of runways There are other parts of the project that he likes but, this problem is significant and unavoidable Regarding traffic, he has concel ns about this but is satisfied there are some mitigation measures that can be implemented. However, it's important to recognize that anything Bixby Co. does to this project means they will still have to pay the traffic fees. So it isn't that if the Commission doesn't approve this project Bixby Co. could put a giant hotel there and never improve the traffic at the intersections That's on page 10 of the Staff Report. The fees will be fairly similar to what the City would get in traffic mitigation fees. So whether they're . specific to this project or money the City receives, the money will still be received. He noted one citizen testified that if this project is not built, Bixby Co will go out and build on the Page 35 - City of Seal Dosch Planning C ommnvion Mnults of June 29, 1995 commercially zoned property they have and the traffic will get worse and then we'll have no money to pay for it He would be against any General Plan amendments and against saying anything about the Statement of Overriding Concern for the two noise issues Commissioner Law asked Mr Steele if homes were built at that location could the homeowners sue the City? Mr. Steele said they could sue the City. The City Attorney's Office has looked at the liability issues from that perspective and feel while nothing prevents anybody from suing cities, however they think the liability is with the developer and the Federal Government. Those are Federal airplanes flying into a Federal facility and the homes would be built by a private developer. They don't feel the liability risk for the City of Seal Beach is significant but if the question is could we get sued, the answer is yes Chairman Dahlman indicated that people cannot sue the Federal Government without their consent. Mr. Steele said ,lust as you can't sue cities unless the State legislature has given permission to sue cities for certain reasons -- the City has certain immunities The City of Seal Beach is immune from liability for legislative acts like this one. That same immunity or type of immunity doesn't apply to the Federal Government under Federal law However, the Chair is correct in saying the Federal Government has to give its consent to a lawsuit Dangerous conditions of property and air accidents and that type of incident are included in the situations that they have statutorily given their permission to be sued over. • Commissioner Law said she thinks this is a valuable piece of property and they have the right to develop it. She said "I think that some of you have taken the attitude that as I have mine, they can't have theirs and I don't think it's fair" Chairman Dahlman said he thought it was very unpleasant to tell a landowner that he is not free to make better economic use of his property Each of us cherishes his or her freedom. But it turns out that maximizing the personal freedom of each of us requires us to impose on ourselves, restrictions. And General Plans and zoning are examples of those restrictions. Commissioner Law asked if Chairman Dahlman felt there should be nothing done about the property and it should be left as it is9 Chairman Dahlman said the City has a perfectly reasonable General Plan and zoning Commissioner Brown said the Commission is not preventing the property owner from developing the property that he already has and as it's currently zoned He is fully entitled to do that. And if they want to develop the commercial areas that exist they can do that. But for him, he doesn't think it's wise to change the General Plan and the zoning to place homes in an area where they will be impacted by aviation noise. Commissioner Law said she thought as long as the buyers /renters are notified it is alright because there's a lot of people who would like to have a home on the edge of a golf course even if it is noisy. Commissioner Campbell said at one hearing someone made a statement that this protect is good for Seal Beach and that College Park East should endure the problems associated with this project for the good of the City She disagreed with this statement. People come together in villages, towns and cities for protection, not to be cannibalized. If something is bad for College Park East, she felt it's bad also for the City. She did not think the Commission should sacrifice Pete 36 - City of Seal Belch Planning Comnumon Mmutos of June 28, 1995 any area of the City for the good of the City To do that is to turn the City against itself. If that premise were accepted, it would then be okay to say "O.K. Main Street, go high nse. If we're going to endure it, you're going to endure it ". Regarding her concern regarding traffic on Lampson Avenue, Commissioner Campbell said last January it was really brought forward to us how valuable that street is - -- that's the only way out for residents Whether it's flooded or congested with traffic, that's their only way out. She asked how do you mitigate excess traffic on Lampson Avenue later on? You don't; it can't be widened. We would be stuck with this. "I'm sorry gentlemen, you don't live here. We do. And we have to protect our quality of life for our residents ". When College Park East was built the City shorted the development on parks And decisions were made for those residents and the residents got stuck. She felt nobody looked out for them then but now we need look out for the proposed residents "Just because it was done to us doesn't mean we're going to do it to somebody else ". She said it's going to be noisy and unreasonably so. And there's no way to mitigate an F -18 that's screaming down the runway. She said she lives against Lampson Avenue and when she hears that plane take off it's incredible. She can remember that when her children were little and the F -18s did touch- and -go landings that the children would try to hide because it scared them That's how loud these planes can be and that's unreasonable Commissioner Sharp said he had spoken with several people in College Park East and all the people in College Park East don't feel the project isn't good for them. The facilities received • from the development would benefit all City residents. He felt as Commissioner Law does, that if a person is going to purchase a home near an airport then, being fully informed of the AFRC, that they have the right to buy. He felt Bixby Co has the right to develop their land and didn't feel they are being unreasonable He said the General Plan should be amended. The Commission discussed what should be included in the Motion. Mr. Steele indicated it was necessary to have findings and Chairman Dahlman's six previously- discussed points were consistent. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Brown to reject the proposed General Plan amendment for the following six (6) reasons: (1) The City's schools are crowded and the School Board says it is forced to sell or lease other properties in order to finance the re- opening of Oak Middle School. To him it is perverse logic to argue that the financial strain of handling a growing student body would be eased by even more growth. This is an argument in town and to him it's just not good logic. (2) Traffic is already too heavy for the existing population and the proposal does not, and apparently legally cannot, be required to do more than pay for improvements that are due to the project's own increments in the population. He said he was now satisfied with the method for calculating this impact. But nevertheless, since we're starting out with a problem, adding to it, even if it's mitigated, doesn't solve the problem that exists. Page 37 -City of Seal Belch PI uumV Conumssvon ALnulcs of Jung 28 1995 (3) He was convinced noise from traffic can be pretty well mitigated but even after mitigation we're left with a CNEL of 65 to 70 at one area which is in excess of The Code of the City of Seal Beach, CA Code requirement for the rest of Seal Beach. Then there is the single event noise levels that experienced from time to time due to aircraft operations. These levels, which exceed our local noise ordinance by more than three -fold in terms of energy, probably even more than that, would be most objectionable and would certainly lead to conflict between residents of the proposed project and the AFRC. If there is an overriding consideration after hearing the testimony in this area, then we have heard that Seal Beach, Rossmoor and Los Alamitos residents believe the AFRC is an important local asset. Because of its role in disaster response, we should not make General Plan changes that would increase the potential for conflicts with neighboring residents. And we have heard that the area will be, to his mind as the Commission didn't have a demonstration, virtually unlivable during 24 -hour alert level operations. (4) Soils and geology analysis is deferred to a future date. To him this is a red light - -- look at what happened with the Hellman development proposal. (5) Time tables are not as clear as he would like to see them in the proposal. He understands this would be taken up in more detail by a Development Agreement but lie thought that if it's not completely clear by the time a project like this is approved at City Council level then it can lead to endless difficulty for both the applicant and the City with an unfairness to both sides. (6) The municipal economic environment. The issue is, is it appropriate to increase the amount of residentially -zoned property in Seal Beach? The City would be changing the General Plan to add to the residential. In the current municipal environment in which may people are paying $3,000 and more in annual property taxes, why then is there no money to alleviate school crowding? Why can't we pay for needed infrastructure improvements such as streets, underground utilities et cetera? The answer in part, is that property tax money goes to Sacramento. and increasing our State government hangs onto it for funding of State -wide programs. Before the remainder comes back to us a sizeable additional portion is lopped off and allocated to the poorer parts of Orange County. What little comes back to us after that is then partly spoken for by State - required but unfunded programs which have come to be called unfunded mandates. . So, for this reason and for a lesser extent to other reasons, all the predominantly residential municipalities in our area are having financial Page 38 - City of Seal Bench Plsnnmg Conumtitiion Minutes of Jum 28, 1995 troubles. Cities with more in the way of commercial and industrial development have done better in the last few years. So while the applicant has tried to work with the community to lessen the impacts, and while he seems to have complied with the requirements of our Housing Element, these six concerns make it impossible for me to conclude that the proposed changes represent a net benefit for the community as a whole. MOTION CARRIED: 3 - 2 - 0 AYES: Dahlman, Brown, Campbell NOES: Sharp, Law Chairman Dahlman said that having recommended, even without considering the Statement of Overriding Considerations, that the City Council not approve the project then he didn't see the point in considering whether a Statement of Overriding Considerations is necessary. He asked if it is necessary to consider the zone change and TTM? Commissioner Brown said no but asked if the Commission had to consider the four individual overriding concerns? Mr. Steele said that's a pleasure of the Commission, but it is mooted by the Commission's decision. If you want to provide additional advice to the Council they are free to do so but it's not required. • Chairman Dahlman asked if Commissioners Sharp's or Law's votes be changed if it were dust on the question of the overriding consideration, would you oppose that or would you still be in favor of the project9 Both Commissioners Law and Sharp said they are still in favor of the project. Chairman Dahlman said then it is a moot question and the Commission does not need to consider that aspect Having voted to reject the General Plan amendment the Commission does not need to look at the zone change or the VTTM. Mr. Whittenberg said the Planning Commission will be considering resolutions which will set forth the Commission's final cletermi nations Staff will bring those to the Commission on July 19th. Once the Commission has taken a final action and adopted the appropriate resolutions then another set of Public Hearings will be scheduled at the City Council level. He could not give a precise date on when those hearings would be but said the dates will be advertised in the local papers as they were for the Planning Commission hearings. Commissioner Sharp asked which Commissioners will be present on July 19th? Everyone said they would be present ADJOURNMENT Without objection, Chairman Dahlman adjourned the meeting at 1.06 a m. Respectfully Submitted, qoo.� Is Joan Fillmann Recording Secretary Page 39 - City of Seal Bex h Planning Comm stiion Mlnnll4 of Jum 28 1995 0 ATTACHMENTS. 1. EIP Associates Responses, 2 pages 2. DKS Responses; 5 pages 3. Aries Consultants Ltd Responses; 3 pages. 4. Brown- Buntin Assoc., Inc. Responses, 6 pages 5. Letter from Dean and Donna McGuire dated 6/28/95; 3 pages. 6. Memorandum from City Attorney's Office dated 6/27/95; 2 pages NOTE: Recording secretary was not present at the meeting and transcribed the Minutes from the audio and video tapes APPROVAL- The Planning Commission Minutes of June 28, 1995 were approved on Q «_ I cI *$- 1995 L,zy 0 • TO FROM RE- DATE- E I P Associates Comprehensive L north I.a6i Aoi nut 818/ 108-136 3 OtherQffica Environmental and Suitt 380 1'AX 108-1-361 San Francisco Planning Services I'aradt na CA 91101 Sacramento MEMORANDUM Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, City of Seal Beach Jay Ziff, EIP Associates Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course Development Plan EIR June 28, 1995 Adealma of the EIR During public testimony, certain environmental issues surfaced as being of particular concern to the community and questions were raised as to the adequacy of the EIR in addressing these issues These issues primarily focused on flooding, traffic, and noise Because these issues came to the forefront during public testimony, the EIR analysis and conclusions regarding these issues should be restated and clarified The following summarizes the general approach to these issues in the EIR and the conclusions that have been made ■ Fl oche Concern was raised that development of the project would reduce the capacity of the golf course retarding basin The Final EIR (F3 -26) states that the capacity of the retarding basin will be increased in accommodating the project and makes it clear in response to a number of comments that retarding basin capacity and the ability of the site to accommodate off -site flows will not be reduced. The Draft EIR Project Description also indicates that the capacity of the golf course retarding basin will not be reduced - Concern was raised that proposed housing would be constructed within the 100 -year flood base elevation The EIR discusses Flood Plain Regulations and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements that the first floor of residential development must be constructed one foot above the base flood elevation Mitigation provided in the EIR and FEMA regulations would ensure that no homes are built within the 100 -year flood plain Two impacts are identified in the EIR winch acknowledge that there is significant potential for flooding as a result of the project and that there is potential for the project to adversely affect off - site facilities by increasing surface water runoff In responding to these impacts, mitigation measures provided in the EIR require that a Drainage Report be prepared for the project in accordance with City and County standards and that it address the capacity of existing drainage facilities and specify improvements necessary to accommodate project runoff Mitigation measures in the EIR require that all drainage improvements necessary to accommodate the project, in accordance with City and County standards, be in place prior to issuance of building permits Mitigation measures 4 2 -2(a) and 4.2 -2(b) provide a plan of action and appropriate checks to ensure that project impacts related to flooding are reduced to less- than - significant levels. ■ Traffic Concerns were raised about the methodology used in performing the traffic impact analysis The methodology used in the EIR is clearly consistent with industry standards, and with the requirements of most reviewing agencies in the southern California area, including the City of Seal Beach and the Orange County Environmental Management Agency The methodology and analysis is consistent with the City of Seal Beach Traffic Impact Fee Program. The impacts of the project are identified in the EIR consistent with applicable standards - The mitigation measures provided in the EIR are at least proportional to the project's identified impacts and are considered adequate to reduce project impacts on traffic to less- than- sigmficant levels A7`Ti9ChHM EN 7T PRGE I ae z a, or • TO FROM RE- DATE- E I P Associates Comprehensive L north I.a6i Aoi nut 818/ 108-136 3 OtherQffica Environmental and Suitt 380 1'AX 108-1-361 San Francisco Planning Services I'aradt na CA 91101 Sacramento MEMORANDUM Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, City of Seal Beach Jay Ziff, EIP Associates Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course Development Plan EIR June 28, 1995 Adealma of the EIR During public testimony, certain environmental issues surfaced as being of particular concern to the community and questions were raised as to the adequacy of the EIR in addressing these issues These issues primarily focused on flooding, traffic, and noise Because these issues came to the forefront during public testimony, the EIR analysis and conclusions regarding these issues should be restated and clarified The following summarizes the general approach to these issues in the EIR and the conclusions that have been made ■ Fl oche Concern was raised that development of the project would reduce the capacity of the golf course retarding basin The Final EIR (F3 -26) states that the capacity of the retarding basin will be increased in accommodating the project and makes it clear in response to a number of comments that retarding basin capacity and the ability of the site to accommodate off -site flows will not be reduced. The Draft EIR Project Description also indicates that the capacity of the golf course retarding basin will not be reduced - Concern was raised that proposed housing would be constructed within the 100 -year flood base elevation The EIR discusses Flood Plain Regulations and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements that the first floor of residential development must be constructed one foot above the base flood elevation Mitigation provided in the EIR and FEMA regulations would ensure that no homes are built within the 100 -year flood plain Two impacts are identified in the EIR winch acknowledge that there is significant potential for flooding as a result of the project and that there is potential for the project to adversely affect off - site facilities by increasing surface water runoff In responding to these impacts, mitigation measures provided in the EIR require that a Drainage Report be prepared for the project in accordance with City and County standards and that it address the capacity of existing drainage facilities and specify improvements necessary to accommodate project runoff Mitigation measures in the EIR require that all drainage improvements necessary to accommodate the project, in accordance with City and County standards, be in place prior to issuance of building permits Mitigation measures 4 2 -2(a) and 4.2 -2(b) provide a plan of action and appropriate checks to ensure that project impacts related to flooding are reduced to less- than - significant levels. ■ Traffic Concerns were raised about the methodology used in performing the traffic impact analysis The methodology used in the EIR is clearly consistent with industry standards, and with the requirements of most reviewing agencies in the southern California area, including the City of Seal Beach and the Orange County Environmental Management Agency The methodology and analysis is consistent with the City of Seal Beach Traffic Impact Fee Program. The impacts of the project are identified in the EIR consistent with applicable standards - The mitigation measures provided in the EIR are at least proportional to the project's identified impacts and are considered adequate to reduce project impacts on traffic to less- than- sigmficant levels A7`Ti9ChHM EN 7T PRGE I ae z � J r � 0 ■ Noise The EIR identified four significant impacts related to noise. Even assuming implementation of the mitigation measures included in the EIR, impacts associated with high single -event noise levels, and with high temporary cumulative noise levels associated with activation of the AFRC as a Disaster Support, were determined to be significant and unavoidable impacts The EIRs discussion of noise and responses to comments in the Final EIR regarding noise, are thorough and complete and demonstrate an objective good -faith effort at full disclosure. Fees related to lmnacts on the Los Alamitos School District Based on school impact fees of 1.72 per square foot for residential development and .28 per square foot for commercial development, as set forth in Government Code Section 53080, it is estimated that the project would generate approximately $987,210 in development impact fees In addition to requiring payment of statutory school impact fees, EIR mitigation also states that the project proponent may enter into an agreement with the Los Alamitos Unified School District to provide additional mitigation. 6- z8 -95' A/ii9CHMEN / #� PHGE .2 of2 .L- 714 -6 I2 —IX 12 DKS OPHNC9: CJIJI4 r r' 329 F'132 JUL W '95 16+41 0 BD4 6Y OLD RANCH EIR, TIRAFFIC RESPONSE DIGS Assormiip,J wi,� retained by the Cily of Steal Beach through E I P Asmiates to provide the traffic analyars at <i r,rculatron Blemezit lot he Envirci=ent Impact Repol•t on Im Bixby Old Ranch Deva -,,pme 1-1 in the I& it yaar, I hwvr been Involved in four separate EIRs, two for a city and two for a de,•K, oiler''On 'As project., our task is to avaluate the impact of tr:tffi'ic produced by thte dv;e1c;7Jea1 Ian rbe surtoundIDS roWway netwotk at itsult rim development Should the pro ect's trallic agvact the network sil;u lia;antly, as defined by standard practices and City ordinance, v1,1L w, are required to re<•ornr land mitigation measures that would correct those impacts to less ft, significant, or. better lhaa with the project uaffic. It should be :tndiii iaod that, Livsn our crops, whether or not than project proceeds, is not the concern of ['K.2. -I ,►ur task is to exarmn4, Lila traffic unpacts according to W- 4tabl'ti eugmueering prwhco anti prcela.-e an edequnte circ0ii- vi element. for -Ahs S12- l C in C ";4'AA 4.1.4.:, With tftlai umletswl,tdtng, I would like to provide an overview of the analysis procedure, during which I hopc, to a11iwer marry cif the clu;tttatt and comments expressed by ttie Commission and the public. 1 will ki,'ao cover additional coinanunts raised over the last two hoirings in an effort to assure a ooir :dety response. L '�•1 • sr,+ "�,� PROIECT DEP1t-1I]IONS ��,�.�5 .tip y t., 0j°6r'� no first stelo, ,Ln a ',raffic study is to defltu th.: project and the study area. to project definition • is usually giver r) sty by the applicant. #,,, III thizi ca3v it h the pro]cct at lras btmn shown on these boards rind ii, I&SIMI lI' A with 98 :finglr, family detached housing, 25 multi -f trmly attached housing, 35,. -430 iAltrame feet of office sj ace, 30,(100 square feet of retail, 3[1,000 ,►quare feet of teataurant: a., -1 a :80 room hotel. Gem i-i oily, the study area is dobarmined by 1) the ability to reliably anaii- 1nc.- 1 -. impacts on the roalway, 2) potential jurisdictional boundaries and 3) any particular requireii,tntts by the governing, jurlsdlction For B10y.20 intersections were studied. as shown ire lldy;]E+Cf HIT B. LJ LXISTWG i','01s l 1717IONS The next stet i it t j gather all the data on e;c l9ttttg conditions This p rlmarfly ct insists of traffic data ttn3 roadwe.i geoltn +tr 'ecs (number of lanou�, street width, type of traffic conbol, etc) The traffic data for gi-xl, u wism obtained from ooanta i4tai at the various loci tions, Thti dicta 11 on for traffic includ,.d tai'aing movements at t 11s studied intersections. This infolination can then be tepresented ;•iy a t Irr ling movemettr diagrrun for each inmrsection fbr both the a.m. and tine p m. peaks as shown b-,, the example 11111'C' It is also the means by which we, establish the existing Leval of .Norvice (LOS). V.St,64 'tl 169LA d ' ^o4 .04-s The LOS is a s1ar1r1,,1vd accepted calculatuJ,J Mat establishes the ability of an iJatersectlott to handle a certain voli.rie , i" traffic It is eXpn•;; : -1`4 as a ratio of votunle (the number Cif vehicles) to 6- z8 -?,- Re�fachm�nt #� 1-714-6-113-01,12 DK9 OW WCE COr rW H 329 R33 JUL 18 195 iG j 41 capacity (the minkk -r;r of vehicles trust the roadway can carry) or VIC, which produces a number • such as 0.75, For ahample, if you have !' 00 ,Ythiclea per hour in a lane which is eapected to wry 800 -vehicles 1 lit; Y 1,C is 0.75. Cerlain realm of these numbers arc given a liIW 1ralue much as a grade in sdiool i A being thu besr and 17 boing the worst). Visually roadw,syb at these various levels would mok -'--nmethxng like:: EXIM ,IN D All the studied intersections are rated this way for both the a.m and ° Ise p.m peat hour of eniti,ms such as shown in EXEMI' I3. • PuTURE Ct'1r n,i tOriTS The future wif'fic o onditxons in the study arms are the conditwnd ax protect connpleticm and consist of three elemorts. Tice Cost eloment is tho oxiodng traffic. The asoond is the tralfic generated by all the plaiined 111 ojects that would inmpm t iiho study am plus a growth factor. The third is the traffic genexf,IFxt tr, this project itself Uraphically, this can be represented by E7L1EM F The traffic data that xral tees up the t,ecdnd eloinent is usually provided oythe approved EIRs and /or Traffic lmpa�t Sxt,lies for those planned piojecta. The traffic data for the third element is produced by 11n11, t, tffic engimu pieparnu, the EIR or Traffic Impact Study.,,_Usir� the existing a traffic pager, ^4 ai11 potential ititture changeN the new inure trafllc is "dxst.rrbuted' through the J rC ,`c study area a. sl-vcr,, a rn E?f1f�BIT G. I�rnrn this, total future traffic cml e'e uc lated for each C - '�` ��� intersection. .1039,1 INI T H is a graphical n - presiantation of a sample of the studied intersection with the actual pc., mm,, r, � r shown. l for the t,r a f#i:, study the LOS for lxath a.m and p try. is calculated kk ' with the prcel 1 c, ar d %knout thy, projecl TRIP GENE,-1dil'i I ,IN The nxediod 'o e A t knish the number of trips ;,enerated by a pi oject is determme by the land use 0 a residentwi, cast i imercial, recreaetonal, etil), and uses standard accepted values expressed. In trips per a givtm v pit. 10GIIBPTd is a table that, shows the calculation fnr this project with the various land use, inivositio, tease unit, trips per tiait acrd daily anticipated trips for each and the total. There has beta iru,,b diseussion, concern iind +tome confusion expmssed during, the previous public u w1mgs ovr,r %hie "correct" trip values i lx usc. Of particular concern was the use of "National" standards ovrr "Joi al' ones and, in gemted, he relevance of those numbers. For purposes of Traffic Impa, t and in particulai, 12111's, the methods and standatds of the Xnstivite of Tr ansportat c, i En i i neers GM) is used a moss another is specifeally required by law within a given jurisdiction The reason u iese ,numbers wens wiod, i s. U'st they have been validated, published and accepted as the, boat o,wts tC in =hod to assess dew-,lopamnt impacts. It has been poinbod out during these meetings, 810 it is ,i nle, that there are a IIJIMber of local Orange County studies and assessments to determine ottict values. However, noirit, of these, to date, have been valift.ed ft, use in Bill's In fact, the CbuxP,1 Fnviromwitai Maliag,ament Agency PfA) requires ITE standards, even though they ILevo, in the past, created admi trip generation vahies. In additior, the Orange County TrayixpoiI vion Authority {O{A"111) requires the rM standards in its Congestion Management Plat I. -MP), to which all t_ttles must adhere for Nlaosure M ftinding RF,!\ bw'' �� If DK$ AssCi isles 10UNd values ether true these accepted, we would not be raving any discussion on the adegt,rcr o the BIR The CircUIULon Element of this EIR would, in fact, be inadequate and DKS we Ad iioi have t4xitilled its prOitNSIDnai engineering duties to the city. 197'TFJCH1?;ee7t #2. AL p .2 ��' 1- 714 - 6,18 -01112 DKS ORF ME C13 Jl,a Pr 329 F'134 JUL 10 '95 16:42 • Another dlm-ashiinii that has occiured co%imining trip generation has to do with "peak hours ". First, the peski, how volume is the highEM oma hour volume that occurs in both the, morning and the afternocia :N; that if we say there: ii as a.m. peak hour of 100, we arcs saying that in the morning thei.; is - no hour the bias Melia t-afnc than all the, lest at a paimicalar location and during that tout, worse are 100, vehicles op mating There are two waysto doertrime the existing peak hour v I [no ; he first is to perform counts during the ciassue peak flours of 7 - 9 a.m. a d - S p in. aru' dote a +aatae the highest value I'nom that data. The second wva� ,is hourly counts ell day and tenet tl � highest ota hour l,o3lod. For this project we have X c unts su the studied inter oecticrl ..'We reviewed; tiw lu,urly' counts and in all caws, but ono, the pock number occurs in the hours. MMIM117 11' shows the peak ume at several locations. J 3 ur u c�,� � � � h J u,.�h � Rai \�� Q &0��� Jtir G i'vil'i'IGATION 1?1 VORTS Altar the futorti is i Ac with the project U ;ii W4 i to the background Mare trO ic, the intersechons are anal�,�zecj to a9rie.-'ualne NVhPcb inlra1re�c.t1ona the project "signif?a;,araily itrpaeta" The dctrminatiou of v, rw is significant is dtfuaed by City ordinance in its Traffic Impact Fee Program. Some exampics ark, shown on 1<' MIi IL flak hour project tmiffic which causes En gmx'rsectlon to fall bellow I„ N I.i (E or F), or, if the +n tea section is already at F or F, caul the project traffic causes the it grits �oit to get %orst by triree, ,xercent or "points" (0,03), then the intersection will roquim impr.--mirnns (mitigation) that wo,ild allow it to olwale at a level at or be= then before the Ur &ct I rabic was a,Ided. �,,, h,, „� L4k\ " When signif ,a % a i ~;pacts are found, it u; r ut responsibility to recotnmend improvements in the • EIR The st- ixtard practice is,. c, start 'a Ut tho simplest solution such as restriping where existing road width 'o 31J�i ucra cr shanks drain-,; %Ui exuding signals. If tbcm solutions will not suffice. then more e1 lour, ones would to recraarrrmraulld such as roadnva,, widening; or a new signal If there is no ,,race; t: wuay to entpnov& t!taa urpact, then. it would beconw a "significant and unavoidable' tropa rt and no impraventem. would be recommend(d. As an example of how an intersection i,,oes ihhv9gh this prowls, UN71b.PMM shows the traffic analyse for the 1-405 ramps without the yi.-cijty with the project and witli the project and the improvements i,mitigation) in Plus. In making *.. rocs acnnondativm for bmiTovements (mitigations) in the EIR, DKS assumm that standard desijgri s i ,eria will be used uL tine liaprovement and we usually do not provide specific plans. On t?iv pr�k t, a preliminary plan %as provided for the fbr the Seal Beach Blvd over I -405 bridge, due t w n sE ,, :,fic request by die E, RCN and concerns expressed over tLe use Hof striping and h potaxitiai lose o* Vi--- trice law, Ibis preiinflPary plan used Caltraras desigar statidalds since their �.' epproval -will o, iuired. It should br, iivjxu that this pr4imin#u7 improvcnicut Elan as part of , % a% the EIR Fsn,)t iii,, N,sarlly the f=inal desb;x I'lie actual improvement design would •equi`e review ,p- e. dud approvsl by *n rtous ag ;enctes, including Ilia City. As would be true of ail-v proposed roadway ,r '''`Y irnprovewat It'. a sinillar 'astda,, that the ERR does viol set specific designs, it also does cot establish spocffic cost estitrsatt, fat I! n3 improvements itcov, ever, it should be understood that there are usually two levels of cos; , sec a1ered by the devtdop ul ; direct mitigation costs and Traffic Impact Fee costs, Whenever a p, o a,i I is proposed, the traPiir has a measurable impact on part or the roadway system. In aa,ditiok Et is undersuiod that wixy proj= will produce traffic the: individually will not •4r7-.,9C, A1&77- "Z. page 3 of S 1- 714— E.18— !!111,Q DKS mNGE ciitlyrY 329 1`475 JUL 10 195 16:43 • Impact the siMiera; but all together' will. Because of this, most agencies have cotalilished the practice of Mving ilevelopere pay direct I y I= the specific mittgattan efforts tdentiiied and a to for the Bens, l im p icu. Therefore, for this pnaject, the improvements to the �ariol ". intersections and the restritdol, i if +the bridge would ire the direct responsibilivir of the developer, Ance thew improvements Intlt;ate the direct impaii. rif tie project. The wide,aing for 1lie Seill beach 131vd bridge, hOWMI19, it; M3fOntly on the City'�c limp act Fee Program and the developer would pay into the ptograw base - is the City's oidinanva,, All this is tubjeot to any specific, City requirements and /or any e;l,fcwv,ara reached between ilia parties. u The final asp.-ct oll mitigation ca)ncerw when these improvemmeuts are to be done. Qawta4, it is expected Mal Jw direct mitigations will W. completed by the tAnie. the project ti; completed. However, thr vxiwi timing would normally be, determined by the City. Under the monitoring pi;opram for 1 itib DR the idcnflficd miti;,aIuns arc to be imp'leniented prior to approval of the vesting of thc tmt,nive tract map PUBLIC COpdIPrlFMICOMIKISSION QUIlSTIONS In the foregoing, 1 liave coverer most of Inn comments and questions that win primmted at the earlier mMb,, pi :'-;lime additional items, to lip; addressed include: o Emork,em,y Vehicles - Coticern w-IS impressed about the ability of enwgeaicy vehicles to trav,: l tlrc; ai ca. Sincc the naves e6on improvamonts i mo=nendotl for the impacted mti -i seci a tii provide better tra f Fic operations along Seal Beach Blvd that without the proiatt"'t believe that the Bixby prtject will not by itself impair emergency responses. In laicr, iil'the mitigation measuim are carried out, the project will improve emergency re. ,qn,rtsi:t, However, the EIR does provide one additional mitigation, should the City wlsh to illtiber Improve tills eireclgeacy access, and that bs to instal) pre-emptive signal wnl 'cls I,jr emergency use. 11 zltould be noted that, should the City decided to imE lenuvo, this pre- emption, %den a pre-emption does occurs, arty signal system will �kw� tercl torarii,y Fall out of timing but will recover within a few cycles op�`O _,�. o Ralr-,trumi Community Traffic hilmOon -There isa statement inthe EIR that essentially says flee outering Rossrn+ior from the project is not 4ignific tni. UKS bas met with repioservr I tees of the coitniiiun it � iuid discussed this issue further. Traffic intnMion or infdlixatirn i is where a motorist rattan. a caitimunity with the purpose, of avoiding arterial trai;'lc. '1 lit; EIR does not suite nor Is it supposed to, that there is or is rot a problem TraI rc ,41nd;tions and cominumIy observations indicate t! tat there is a strong potential tbo thii occurs However, sam v Lbo project share Ot trat'fie entering is only about 4% of Ole i i I.*; traffic, aid the t i aft iq is "local" in nature, the projima's traffic is not a sign Miicaiii contributor to lihis pi i bliNn A separate traffic mission .study would need to take plarr tt► determine the naih re and extent of the overall comnnmity problem CONCLUSION In concluswri wet1--beve that the circularlik1h element of the BotbyOld Ranch EIR ii adequate for certification 'I', i. clata, standards an,i nuathodology used meA the li -vel of professional engineerbig latid ti d practices rmd legal l ti w.dence 9ekclimen t i.3 Ace, -,/ of S t 1- 714 - 618 -W,Q DKS ORANGE COt11V f Y 329 FIOG JUL 10 195 16:43 • Finally, it msist Ni remembered that glaalvilive, results cannot be measured b;I quantitative measures. In othe i words, if an bifurawdo n does not need mitigation beoeuise tho quantitative numbers do l iot ri, N legal requirements, it sloes not mean that the quality of the intersection is good for eves yont 'Because we use l l P:) ri travel lanes and 6 foot bike because they are uonnal design widths, docs not xnean tbat they ar-e wwde enough for everyone. We cannot ut ke everyone happy all the lima, irw we work with rewl,pi z*1 standards that meat the vast xngjority of interrests and work for the b, st, 0- • AllaCh Mew t ea- PA&e- S OF- 6 0 • ARIES CONSULTANTS LTD. 16360 Monterey Road, Suite 270 Phone (408) 779 -5776 Morgan Hill, California 95037 Fax (408) 779 -9052 MEMORANDUM TO: Lee Whittenberg, City of Seal Beach FROM: John Sanders, Aries Consultants Ltd. DATE: June 26, 1995 RE: Response to Aviation Comments at Bixby Old Ranch Development Plan Public Hearings 1) Distance of homes and commercial development to existing flight paths of the AFRC• The flight paths can vary in relation to objects on the ground depending on several factors, e.g. the type of aircraft, weight of aircraft and when the turn is initiated for au-craft departing on Runways 22L and 22R and arriving on Runways 4R and 4L. The distances below are based on aircraft using generalized flight tracks as depicted on Figure 4.8 -2 of the DEIR. The following gives the estimated minimum distance from the flight tracks to the proposed single family and multiple family areas and to the existing Bixby Condominiums and single family homes in College Park East. Runway 4R -22L Proposed single family Proposed multiple family Existing Bixby Condominiums Existing College Park East single family Closest Distance in Feet r-'r A Corporation 700 1,500 1,500 1,500 ATTACHmEJuT PAGE 2 bl $I • 0 • ARIES CONSULTANTS LTD. MEMO RAN D U M -- contmued Page 2 Runway 4L -22R Proposed single family Proposed multiple family Closest Distance in Feet F D, With respect to comments that "the project is at the end of runways ", the first row of proposed single family houses abuts the AFRC boundary and is along the extended centerline for Runway 4L -22R at between 1,900 feet and 2,400 feet from the end of the runway. The closest single family home is 2,400 feet from the end of Runway 4R -22L and about 600 feet north of the extended runway centerline. The proposed commercial development (hotel, restaurant, office and retail) area is within 4,500 feet of the end of Runway 4R -22L. The large transport and jet fighter aircraft and helicopter flight track overflys the site and the small fixed -wing aircraft flight track overflys the east edge of the proposed commercial development site. 2) Future AFRC operations. On page 39 of the June 1994 AICUZ in Section 7.1, Projected Airfield Operations, it states: "It is anticipated that the mission and operational requirements of the AFRC will continue at present levels with slight variations in aircraft operations each year. However, mission changes directed by the State of California, the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense could occur. With the exception of emergencies, less than 10 het and 25 propeller -driven aircraft operations will occur on a runway on a normal busy day." 3) Discuss disaster support activities of AFRC and number of flight operations during those time penods. The AFRC has been activated as a disaster support area (DSA) in recent years for: 1) Staging Area for Security Forces for 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles 2) Civil Disturbance in Los Angeles in 1992 3) Laguna Hills Fires in 1993 4) Northridge Earthquake in 1994 fI TifiCH17�6AIr 03 PAGE .2 a� 3 • 0 ARIES CONSULTANTS LTD. MEMORANDUM -- continued Page 3 Disaster support activities of the AFRC can cause aircraft operations to significantly increase and to continue through 24 hours a day (rather than the usual 7 am to 10 pm hours of operation) for several days or weeks at a time depending on the nature and duration of the disaster. This was true in response to the Northridge earthquake. In addition, during the Los Angeles civil disturbance in 1992 there were about 50 heavy cargo (C -130s) operations in the first 72 hours (i.e., during 24 hour operations for 3 consecutive days). 4) Large fixed -wing aircraft use of Runway 22R. Based on discussions with the AFRC, Runway 4L -22R is not intended for use by large fixed -wing aircraft. A recent addition to the Base regulations makes this intention clear to pilots. Runway 4L -22R is a Class A runway which, by definition, means that ordinarily at least 90 percent of the fixed -wing aircraft operations are by small aircraft. ATTACHtr,enT #3 PAGE3af3 BBA) BROWN-BUNTINAssoCIATES, Inc. Auiation Noise Studies I • Community Noise Architectural Acoustics June 27, 1995 Mr Lee Whrttenberg, Director Development Services CITY OF SEAL BEACH City Hall 22 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California 90740 • Enuironmental Noise Assessments RE: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC AND PLANNING COMMISSION -BIXBY OLD RANCH DEVELOPMENT PROJECT EIR • Dear Mr. Whittenberg a.. As requested by your memo dated June 22, 1995, BBA has prepared responses to the following two questionshssues: 1 "Can CNEL information be used only during operational tames of the AFRC ?" By definition, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (or CNEL) is a measure of time - weighted average noise exposure during a full 24 -hour day. This means that all hours of the day or night must be accounted for in the averaging process. For noise sources that consist of discrete single events, such as aircraft overflights or railroad passbys, the source - specific CNEL is calculated on the basis of how loud the single events are, how many times they occur in a 24 -hour period, and what time of day they occur Noise events occurring during the evening hours (7.00 p m. -10.00 p.m.) are weighted by a factor of 3 and noise events occurring during the nighttime hours (10.00 -7 00 a.m.) are weighted by a factor of 10. These weighting factors are mathematically equivalent to increasing evening noise levels by about 5 dB and nighttime noise levels by 10 dB If no • noise events occur during the nighttime hours, the assumed noise level during that period is zero for calculation purposes. 319 West School Ave, Visalia, CA 93291 • (209) 627 -4923 • Fax (209) 627 -6284 5150 Sunrise Blvd, Suite D -3 • Fair Oaks, CA 95628 • (916) 961.5822 * Fax (916) 961 -6418 • Mr. Lee Wluttenberg, Director Development Services City of Seal Beach June 28, 1995 Page 2 The Day Night Average Level (or Ld ,,) is similar to the CNEL The only difference is that the Ldp does not include a penalty for noise occurring during the evening hours As a practical matter, the L& and CNEL are considered to be equivalent descriptors of the community noise environment within ± 1.0 dB Since the CNEL is a measure of average noise exposure, noise levels occurring at any given moment are likely to be either higher or lower than the average for the day Additionally, the CNEL values generally used for land use compatibility planning purposes are annual average values. This means that the CNEL on any given day is likely to be either higher or lower than the annual average CNEL As alluded to above, the CNEL calculation process mathematically combines single event noise level data with time - weighted operations data for the source of concern Because of this, the same CNEL may be caused by either a large number of moderate single events or a small number of loud single events The aircraft CNEL affecting the Bixby Old Ranch project site is defined partly by a few ( an average of one per day) loud events and partly by a larger number of quieter events. For purposes of environmental documentation per C.E.Q A. requirements, noise from all major sources must be quantified. Although there are numerous intermittent noise sources that affect the Bixby Old Ranch project site, the two mayor sources are aircraft operations at the AFRC and traffic on 405, Lampson Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard. Noise from these sources has been quantified by the FEIR for the Bixby Old Ranch Development Project. CNEL contours are shown in that document for aircraft and traffic noise sources individually (Figures 4 8 -5 and 4.8 -6, respectively) and for both sources combined (Figure 4.8 -7) The relative location of proposed residential land uses with respect to cumulative CNEL contours for both aircraft and traffic sources has been used by the Consultant Team to determine the significance of noise exposure as defined by the CNEL. The basic finding of the FEIR noise analysis is that noise exposure as defined by the CNEL may be mitigated to level that is not significant using normal mitigation measures such as soundwalls or berms Rtfachrr�e+�'t �``� PACe .2 of !o Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director Development Services City of Seal Beach June 28, 1995 Page 3 2 "SEL Levels at John Wayne, Long Beach, Santa Monica, etc." Over the years, Iocal communities surrounding airports have put a lot of pressure on airport operators to control single event noise. Such pressure has resulted in much litigation and a number of settlement agreements that included single event standards The FAA has opposed the enforcement of local single event standards because they feel such standards conflict with the federal government's role in regulating individual aircraft levels. Due in part to the proliferation of local single event noise standards and operations restrictions, the FAA facilitated the passage of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA). This legislation was a compromise between the airlines, airport operators and local communities that included the phase -out of older - technology (i.e , noisier) air carrier het aircraft by the year 2000 in return for restricting the development of any new local airport noise regulations ANCA does not apply to military aircraft such as those operated at the AFRC John Wayne Airport, Long Beach Municipal Airport and Santa Monica Airport have local single event noise standards that pre -date ANCA. All three of these airports enacted single event noise restrictions in response to vigorous complaints and/or litigation from the surrounding communities All three airports also define single event noise standards in terms of the Sound Exposure Level (SEL) or Single Event Noise Exposure Level ( SENEL) For all practical purposes, the SEL and SENEL are equivalent to each other and the rest of this letter will refer only to the SEL. The SEL is a measure of the total acoustical energy of a noise event, normalized to a reference duration of one second This may be interpreted to mean that the SEL "compresses" the acoustical energy of a noise event into a one - second period. This means that for a noise event lasting more than one second, the SEL will be higher than the maximum noise level (or Lm. ) of the event For aircraft overflights near an airport, SEL values are typically 5 -10 dB higher than Lm. values. I47Yach"*nt 'T ?a-8e a0& L�] • Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director Development Services City of Seal Beach June 28, 1995 Page 4 The following table compares daytime single event (SEL) standards applied by the John Wayne, Long Beach and Santa Monica Airports with reference to the location or locations where they are applied. The table does not report all of the single event standards applied by each airport, but rather is intended to provide an overview of the least restrictive standards applied during the daytime hours For comparison purposes, the closest residential area proposed by the Bixby Old Ranch project is located about 9,000' from the east end of Runway 22L and about 500' north of the extended centerline of that runway This location is generally similar to the M -1, M -2 and M -3 locations noted by the table for the John Wayne Airport. DAYTIME (7:00 A.M. -10:00 P.M.) SINGLE EVENT NOISE LIMITS FOR AIRCRAFT DEPARTURES* Airport SEL, dB Location Where Standard Applied John Wayne 1015 M -1 (8791' from east end of Runway 19R and 939' north of ext'd runway centerline) 1010 M -2 (8745' from east end of Runway 19R and 1172' south of ext'd runway centerline) 1005 M -3 (10,800' from east end of Runway 19R and 170 feet south of ext'd runway centerlme) Santa Monica 950 1500' from either end of the runway, which Ls 4,987' long Long Beach 102.5 13,500' from south end of Runway 30 and on ext'd runway centerlme 12,890' from north end of Runway 12 and on ext'd 1025 runway centerlme *These are the least restrictive standards that apply during the daytime hours at each airport Generally, they apply to air carrier het or corporate ,let aircraft. In some cases, other more restrictive standards may apply to the evening or nighttime hours or to smaller aircraft i47YmCh/;"7&n-t #S 49Ge 4 &f- iv Mr Lee Whittenberg, Director Development Services • City of Seal Beach June 28, 1995 Page 5 The types of aircraft that operate at the John Wayne, Long Beach and Santa Monica Airports are quite different than those that operate at the AFRC. The John Wayne and Long Beach Airport have frequent operations by air carrier and corporate let aircraft The Santa Monica Airport has frequent operations by private propeller and corporate het aircraft The AFRC, on the other hand, has fairly frequent operations by helicopters and an average of one departure per day by military let transport or het fighter/bomber aircraft. Civilian het aircraft are subject to the provisions of ANCA (noisiest aircraft to be phased out by 2000) whereas military aircraft are not. The noisiest commercial let in normal service at John Wayne Airport is the McDonnel- Douglas MD80 This aircraft produces departure SEL values that are about 10 -15 dB less than those produced by the C5A, C141, B727 or F18 at locations representative of the Bixby Old Ranch project • There has been much debate concerning the use of single event descriptors for the environmental noise assessment of airport improvement projects. Two federal committees recently commissioned to study noise impact analysis methods and criteria ( FICON and FICAN) have concluded that the Ldn (or CNEL in California) should be the primary determinant of land use compatibility around airports. However, the report issued by FICON in August of 1993 suggested that supplementary analysis of noise impacts, including single event analysis, may be appropriate in some instances The federal government has not set forth any recommendations for criteria to be used for single event impact analysis. The noise analysis of the Bixby Old Ranch FEIR has evaluated aircraft noise impacts both in terms of the CNEL and SEL As stated above, noise exposure as defined by the CNEL from traffic and aircraft sources was found to be insignificant after reasonable mitigation measures were applied. Even though there are no existing federal, state or local standards that may be applied to the project, it is the opinion of the Consultant Team that single event noise exposure from periodic departures (an average of one per day) by large let transport or het fighter/bomber aircraft constitutes a significant and unavoidable impact that should be disclosed under C.E.Q.A requirements The primary reasons for this opinion are summarized below: • ' Much controversy has occurred at airports where annual average noise exposure., as defined by the Ld„ or CNEL, was used as the only measure of noise impact Affachmerit :#4 Po-oe : °F Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director Development Services City of Seal Beach June 28, 1995 Page 6 resulting from airport improvement projects. Litigation is ongoing in many of these cases. • The federal government has acknowledged that supplementary noise analysis, including single event analysis, may be appropriate in some cases when considering the potential environmental impact of airport improvement projects. • Some local Southern California airports, such as John Wayne Airport, Long Beach Municipal Airport and Santa Monica Airport, have adopted single event standards in response to litigation and /or complaints from the community surrounding the airport Such standards are consistent with the 100 dB SEL standard of significance applied by the Bixby Old Ranch FEIR. • The military J et transport and J et fighter/bomber aircraft that periodically use the AFRC facility are not subject to the phase -out requirements of ANCA. • The SEL values produced by periodic departures by military Jet transport and jet fighter/bomber aircraft exceed 100 dB at the closest proposed residential uses within the Bixby Old Ranch project site. Measured SEL values for single departures by CSA, B727 and C9 (DC9) ranged from 106 -114 dB at a location about 500 feet south of the closest proposed homes (See Table 4.8 -2 of the FEIR). I am planning to attend the continued Planning Commission hearing on June 28, and will be available to answer questions as may be appropriate. Respectfully submitted, Robert E. Brown 0 President REB:dw /91- 008A.RC4 AOacbrnent 4:� 4 Pole- G of G t / ece f—j 5 fzsleis- • June 28, 1995 Fr: Dean and Donna McGuire 4824 Dogwood Ave Seal Beach, CA. 90740 To" Seal Beach Planning Commission Re= VOTE; Inadequate FEIR It is our understanding per the first Planning Commission Meeting that your role in the approval process of the proposed Bixby project is determining the adequacy of the FEIR. Our understanding is that your yob descritig does not include approving /disapproving the project itse. With that In mind, we have thoroughly reviewed the portions of the "Current Law of California Real Estate; Second Edition; Volume 7 1990 & 1995 Supplements" as they pertain to the California Environmental duality Act, commonly known as "CEQA". After comparing CEQA guidelines with the FEIR we hope that you will find the FEIR "totally inadequate" or at the very Is least "barely adequate" POINTS OF INTEREST; CEQA GUIDELINES Per 20= 105.-- Contents of the Environmental Tmpact Report- - General Requirements,Findings Paragraph #2 "The EIR for other local public agencies must provide "detailed" information about the effects that the proposed project is likely to have on the environment, mays that- these effects can be minimized, and alternatives to the project to reduce or avoid adverse impacts on the environment. The report can refer to and incorporate by reference any relevant matter of public record or other material generally a.,ailable to the public ". in regard to the last sentence, pertinent data from the AIRES report was not included rior were their re-commendations Also, although the writers of the FEIP were aware that the air above the land which will be used for tha proposed residential development was recently considered a "crash zone" for the AFRO, there was no mention of this in thr. report. These two items are an example of a blatant lack of disclosure in relation to this project. • In the first Planning Commission Meeting we heard a representative from the City Attorneys office aiid a Bixby representative quote short passages of CEQA law. We were very uncomfortable with their choice of statements because they (0-28 -9s Rtf h n-7e�t 7`s C • were incomplete and ultimately the "intent" of the laws /guidelines were lost. For example, we heard the quote "The test of the adequacy of an EIR is whether the local agency has made a good -faith effort to make a full disclosure of the project's effects on the environment The statue does not require perfection, or that the analysis be exhaustive." (This paragraph can be found 3 pages into this section and is preceded by the above statement and followed by the statement below) What they forgot to include in their statement was the following paragraph which states; "The degree of specificity required in an EIP should correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which the EIR describes Thus, and EIR for a general plan amendment cin ha more general than an EIR for a specific development project because a more "specific" EIR will be necessary for the particular project In reference to the above paragraph, the feeling we got when we read the response to comments was that as long as the EIR was generally in compliance with most of CEQA requirements, then the FEIR should be adequate. Yet when we read the • CEQA document, we felt that it's intent was much more specific as to required data and disclosure than what was provided in the Bixby FEIR. Another problem we have in regard to this FEIR is the omission of data Per CEQA quidelines, the Bolsa Chica Projects data, as well as the data trom the new developments on Valley View, should have be=ar included in this report. Yet when this was requested, the response was unresponsive. PPr 20 105;PG.286. When a local agency emits information from the environmental review process which it is required to consider, the error is prejudicial and the court will reverse the agency's decision; the court does not consider whether the agency's decision would have been different if it had considered the omitted information. From page 287• "The report is not adequate if it is based on bare conclusions and opinions "; This sentence pertains particularly to the retention basin. There basically was no data to support the agency's conclusion. Per 20: 105- - Contents of the Environment Impact Report— General Requirements, Findings "The test of th,3 adequacy of an EIR is whether- the local • agency has made a good -faith effort to make a "full �Jisclosure" of the project's effects on the en,.,ironment. It is our opinion that the above CEQA requirement was not ,#mXchsr>e,1 f,- -`5 -a8'- 9C PRGa ,2 0(- 3 • meet in the areas of, traffic, single event noise lever, crash zones, flooding potential, The projects inadequacy to meet open space and park requirements per the general plan, etc .etc. . • • In short, the EIR must deal with the present and future effects a project will have the environment and must consider whether the proposed project will potentially degrade the quality, or curtail the range, of the environment The EIR must also consider whether the effects of the project will cause adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. When judging the adequacy of the Bixby FEIR, one must consider not only the individual effects but the cumulative effects this project has on the environment. CEQA was created to protect the genera] public from irresponsible projects by providing good and complete data on which to ,fudge the feasibility of developments or general plan amendments /changes in one's community. This FEIR does not gave the "TRUE" environmental impacts because it is "NOT" adequate. Fhe EQCB found this report "INADEQUATE" We hope you will follow in their footsteps. Rest Regards, P&kao Dears and Donna McGuire Post - script; Whale trying to reduce the size of this letter we had to eliminate a get deal of i.nformatioii oii CEQA which pertained to the FEIR. If you would lake additional information of photocopies of the above referenced quotes, please call us at ( 310) 596--9978. /i��07�t. IV-5 6 -.29- 9r RAGe 3 W 3 JLI+:28 -1995 10:86 RI044M. WATT N LP02 213 626 80'?8 P.02iO3 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Chairman Dahlman and Members of the Planning Commission IFp4m: Craig A. Steele OATS: l-___ June 27,'1995 Sua.fEaT: Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course DeveloAment plant Aagndments to Non - Exclusive Flood Plain Easement At last Wednesday evening's Planning Commission hearing, Commissioner Campbell asked me a question regarding the procedure for amendments to the flood plain easement granted to the City by the Bixby Ranch Company ( "Bixby "). As you are aware, the subject easement agreement requires Bixby to maintain a storm grater storage area "in, under, over' and across" the Bixby property. This storm water storage area is referenced-in several sections of the FEIR for the Bixby project. Under the easement deed dated March 27, 3.967 and accepted by the City on April a, 19670 Bixby granted to the City a non - exclusive flood plain easement to serve as a storm water storage area. The term "non- exclusive" easement means that the property burdened by the easement may be put to other uses which do not interfere with the City's rights under the easement. The deed requires Bixby to maintain a specified storage capacity on the property. We have reviewed the easement deed, a copy of which has been provided to each of you. The flood plain easement may be amended by Bixby with the written approval of the City and, under certain circumstances, the orange County Flood Control District. Such approval would be required under the terms of the easement deed if Bixby intends to accomplish ai her of the following changes: 1. Construction of any structure that would obstruct the water storage and carrying capacity of the flood plain; or 2. xodification or alteration of the location and configuration of the storage area. The easement agreement requires different means of ' approval depending upon which of the changes listed above Bixby requests. However, it is important to note that the easement deed does not permit an alteration or modification which would in CAS: can srO6.00116 1201134 96- PAGe- / of z JUN-28 -1995 10 :@9 RiCHARDS, WATSON tA42 283 626 80'78 P.03/W F1C HAF106. WATMON & GERSHON UEU0RANDUM Honorable Chairman Dahlman and Members of the Planning Commission 'Tuna 270 1998 Page I any way decrease. or adverssQly affect the storage capacity or the hydraulic characteristics of the storage area. Further, it should be noted that no such change to the easement has been- proposed by Bixby at the present time, nor would such a proposal be expected until after the City's consideration of Bixby's request for a zone change and General Plan amendment. If the subject application is ultimately approved, we would expect that any necessary modifications to the flood plain easement would be requested by Bixby in conjunction with the project drainage report and grading plan which must be prepared during the project design.process. Please let me know if you have any further questions regarding this issue. CAS Ican 87M -00116 1201184 TOTAL P.03 (- ?8* -ys! PAS ,2 DC- ' 1 1 U n LJ O 0 0 �a L a I sle � p I I i oil • 91i 1 I 1 ` C Tm x W i i l • I ! • 1 i • • 1 ; I \ ! - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I' "s I o- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - --- It �a g milli 91► �rj /I i 1 ■ C /sue W LL- Z • v Q 14 O z mor Z" W Q Y ^VN X99t A %-1 ` too tSZ� QeOe��1p N10�- 0 id.0- =_Z9 I ps W 9 t "z eon .r OL 0611 1 \ { \ �s6 Ltt '1 11 Cm �b ^ is OOON1MWd drat I� �9t I( u o° soy is it3N1Y3H O I J L9 C9 n 5901 v_ •-zs Sol �QQ 9L 06ti 0 W O� 2� 000 �0 000 �p 11� 11(p 9ltl— i J l —099L 9L6t — ftL 1 Qa VOIHO N � m Ott rt oil N 0 O 06ti PIA 11( 0ziLJ h i J l —099L 9L6t — ftL 1 Qa VOIHO N � m Ott rt oil N 0 0 Ov 0 O 0: 0i W N � Z_ F- N W 3 ZS 6tlt -- \tot -� 1 / O 06ti PIA 0ziLJ a W ::ks J l —= cc toiz O •- n 0 VS1O9 Z F- N X W 0 Ov 0 O 0: 0i W N � Z_ F- N W 3 ZS 6tlt -- \tot -� 1 / 06ti 1 U cc 9Z9� 111 •- n W 0 Ov 0 O 0: 0i W N � Z_ F- N W 3 ZS 6tlt -- \tot -� 1 / DKS Associates "Level of Service" LOS A - V/C -0.00 -0.60 LOS C - V/C-0.71 -0.80 LOS E - V/C -0.91 -1.00 LOS B - V/C -0.61 -0.70 LOS D - V/C-0.81 -0.901 LOS F - V /01.00 • ARTERIAL ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE EXPLANATION EXHIBIT D 17_� c: EXHIBIT E Existing Conditions - Intersection Level of Service Analysis INTERSECTION Vic LOS Katella Avenue & Los Alamitos Boulevard 1.04 F Rossmoor Way & Los Alamitos Boulevard 0.50 A Rossmoor Center Way & Seal Beach Boulevard 0.37 A St. Cloud Drive & Seal Beach Boulevard 0.40 A Lampson Avenue & Seal Beach Boulevard 0.63 B NB 1- 405/Old Ranch Parkway & Seal Beach Boulevard 0.67 B SB 1- 405 /Beverly Manor Road & Seal Beach Boulevard 0.90 D Golden Rain Road & Seal Beach Boulevard 0.35 A St. Andrews Drive & Seal Beach Boulevard 0.30 A Westminster Boulevard & Seal Beach Boulevard 0.92 E Basswood Road & Lampson Avenue 0.43 A Candleberry Avenue & Lampson Avenue 0.34 A Heather Street & Lampson Avenue 0.25 A Rose Street & Lampson Avenue 0.29 A Tulip Street & Lampson Avenue 0.22 A Valley View Street & Lampson Avenue 0.85 D 1 -605 NB On -Ramp & Katella Avenue 0.73 C SR -22/1 -405 Ramps & Garden Grove Boulevard 0.91 E Valley View Street & Garden Grove Boulevard 0.97 E Valley View Street & SR -22 WB Ramps 1.05 F 29570 E -J -L -M EXH O O O O UCL U o N ;-1 L I sdial jo aagwnN AV W a C 0 Y U N m N cm C .r N X w F44 W -,� 3 '_ �J1' -� f, : rangy • v - sdial jo aagwnN AV W a C 0 Y U N m N cm C .r N X w F44 W O Zi Z O m CL F- U w O Cie Cl- F- _m X w 0 0 vJ O ^U, 4" z �0-04 L V O U r U Co 4" a. cd G 4" U a ?NMI U c� No O O N O o - M u, M �p O i i O r - __QQ o` _ c co 0 OC d Ne O LO LA O N E a Cc M J > N O E � m w Q Y- 0 � J t -�` OD 1 t O O O O O O O O O O) 00 r— c0 N V M N .— uo'109sa91ul 6uia9lu3 sdial jo aagwnN L C U O G7 H m °- m � m a 0 m m � m � 0 � m Z a m `° d� mLn 0 afOi � cn U N � C m E 11J ! O r� a x W p r p� - � - O - - QO -�` OD 1 t O O O O O O O O O O) 00 r— c0 N V M N .— uo'109sa91ul 6uia9lu3 sdial jo aagwnN L C U O G7 H m °- m � m a 0 m m � m � 0 � m Z a m `° d� mLn 0 afOi � cn U N � C m E 11J ! O r� a x W - ' at _ - Co O O aA � • --� r C -�` OD 1 t O O O O O O O O O O) 00 r— c0 N V M N .— uo'109sa91ul 6uia9lu3 sdial jo aagwnN L C U O G7 H m °- m � m a 0 m m � m � 0 � m Z a m `° d� mLn 0 afOi � cn U N � C m E 11J ! O r� a x W O aA � • --� � .{-A N O V •� v -�` OD 1 t O O O O O O O O O O) 00 r— c0 N V M N .— uo'109sa91ul 6uia9lu3 sdial jo aagwnN L C U O G7 H m °- m � m a 0 m m � m � 0 � m Z a m `° d� mLn 0 afOi � cn U N � C m E 11J ! O r� a x W • O U Q.% U 4.) con U M U C� T A L O �C 1..1. qs CL "RI o U-) V I ' M O V- 0 r OOD C C C ° O OC O° ° N O a CD N r r u0.138s.ialul 6uijaju3 sdi.il }o aagwnN c d o > n > E J M IN O - m N � Y y J = C U C a7 y � a n E N J CL m co a) M LO O (D � �m Z CL U E C� CD o CD v CDm wU N m _c CD n E m � n� N w ,sa .r W CO - OD 4d (Yi 4M - co OD C C C ° O OC O° ° N O a CD N r r u0.138s.ialul 6uijaju3 sdi.il }o aagwnN c d o > n > E J M IN O - m N � Y y J = C U C a7 y � a n E N J CL m co a) M LO O (D � �m Z CL U E C� CD o CD v CDm wU N m _c CD n E m � n� N w ,sa .r W CO rn 4d (Yi 4M - co ' O to T Qo C C C ° O OC O° ° N O a CD N r r u0.138s.ialul 6uijaju3 sdi.il }o aagwnN c d o > n > E J M IN O - m N � Y y J = C U C a7 y � a n E N J CL m co a) M LO O (D � �m Z CL U E C� CD o CD v CDm wU N m _c CD n E m � n� N w ,sa .r W CO rn M 4M N .� C C C ° O OC O° ° N O a CD N r r u0.138s.ialul 6uijaju3 sdi.il }o aagwnN c d o > n > E J M IN O - m N � Y y J = C U C a7 y � a n E N J CL m co a) M LO O (D � �m Z CL U E C� CD o CD v CDm wU N m _c CD n E m � n� N w ,sa .r W rn rn N .� O to O V co 'X i c _ CL. m W C C C ° O OC O° ° N O a CD N r r u0.138s.ialul 6uijaju3 sdi.il }o aagwnN c d o > n > E J M IN O - m N � Y y J = C U C a7 y � a n E N J CL m co a) M LO O (D � �m Z CL U E C� CD o CD v CDm wU N m _c CD n E m � n� N w ,sa .r W rn rn N ti C C C ° O OC O° ° N O a CD N r r u0.138s.ialul 6uijaju3 sdi.il }o aagwnN c d o > n > E J M IN O - m N � Y y J = C U C a7 y � a n E N J CL m co a) M LO O (D � �m Z CL U E C� CD o CD v CDm wU N m _c CD n E m � n� N w ,sa .r W • EXHIBIT Cumulative Projects - Seal Beach Area DESCRIPTION Long Beach Developments - Marriott Hotel - Housing Development Huntington Beach Developments - Bolsa Chica Project - McDonnell - Douglas - Main Street (300 block) - Waterfront Development - Pierside Pavilion - Meadowlark Airport - Holly - Seacliff 29570 / EXH 0 • rI EXHIBIT J Trip Generation Rates DAILY NUMBER DESCRIPTIVE TRIP OF DAILY LAND USE TYPE VARIABLE RATE UNITS/KSF- TRIPS Apartments Dwelling 6.22 125 777 Units (du) Single - Family Dwelling 10.41 98 1020 Detached Housing Units (du) Quality Restaurant KSF Gross 87.27 30 2618 Floor Area (ksf) (ksf) Hotel Rooms (r) 8.48 180 1526 Office KSF Gross 14.99 35.5 532 Floor Area (ksf) (ksf) Retail KSF Gross 39.07 30 1172 Floor Area (ksf) (ksf) 7644 Source /TE Trip Generation, 5th Edition 29570 E -J-L -M EXH • V Q �L M4 N 0 O 2 Q W CL 3 0 O c� Z t; X W C� x W • • EXHIBIT L Sample Intersections INTERSECTION FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT FUTURE WITH PROJECT V /CLOS INCREASE IN V/C V/C LOS Katella Avenue & Les Alamitos Boulevard 1.10 F 1.17 0.07 Rossmoor Way & Los Alamitos Boulevard 059 A 061 B 002 Rossmoor Center Way & Seal Beach Boulevard 0.70 C 072 C 002 St Cloud Drive & Seal Beach Boulevard 072 C 0.75 C 003 Lampson Avenue s Seal Seach Boulevard NB 1- 406101d stanch parkway & Seal 86ach Boulevard 0.79 1.02 G F 0.85 1.10 I # F 0.06 0.08 S8.1- 405/Boverly Manor Road Seel Beach Bouleva d 1.1$ F 0.08 Golden Rain Road & Seal Beach Boulevard 065 B 067 B 002 St Andrews Drive & Seal Beach Boulevard 057 A 061 B 004 Westminster Boulevard & Seal Beach Boulevard 1 J 4 F 1.18 €} 04 Basswood Road & Lampson Avenue 0.43 A 0.44 A 001 Candleberry Avenue & Lampson Avenue 037 A 037 A 000 Heather Street & Lampson Avenue 0.36 A 037 A 001 Rose Street & Lampson Avenue 033 A 033 A 000 Tulip Street & Lampson Avenue 042 A 042 A 000 Valley View Street & Lampson Avenue 1.15 F 1.15 F 000 1 -605 NB On -Ramp & Katella Avenue 088 D 0.89 D 001 SR -22/1 -405 Ramps & Garden Grove Boulevard 1 20 F 1 20 F 000 Valley View Street & Garden Grove Boulevard 1.12 F 1.12 F 0= Valley View Street & SR -22 WB Ramps 1 11 F 1 11 F 000 29570 E -J -L -M EXH • • • G T� i X W k W Z v 7 W 0 N � z D I-O0 1 00 w > o 0 QU. U- 0 a a O co w E' w I_ O wt� —tic w Cy O o 0 oz ¢ w u wtG fu U. Q0 LL y O = w cc x o W LL a CL IL Q c� 4 ° C y Q } p C X00 U LL Q D O w t0 �? LL' �} a t,k o Z i d o O`0 � 0 Y � LL t > N C O "� C cc m > m ea _a �r °0) >r m� C N ~ w w U)m m tom dp m W C mN mcn Z off cn df k W Z v 7 W 0 N SITE CODE : SEAL BEACH 24 HOUR MACHINE COUNTS-BY TRAFFIC COUNTS PAGE: 1 N -S Street: SEAL BEACH BLVD FILE: 09309139 E-Y Street: BET ROSSMOOR /BRADBURY - moi2gp.47, Client : DKS S ASSOCIATES DATE: 9/23/93 -- ------- --- -- - - - -- ------ ---- ----- -- -------- -- - - - - -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ T� - -- - --- NB ---- --- SB ------- ----- COMBINED - - - -- BEGIN AM PH AM PH AM PH ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12:00 40 297 25 301 65 598 12:15 29 274 19 290 48 564 12:30 34 294 13 328 47 622 12:45 32 135 249 1114 16 73 298 1217 48 208 547 2331 1:00 16 281 11 258 27 539 1:15 22 258 13 283 35 541 1:30 10 263 7 268 17 531 1:45 11 59 270 1072 10 41 252 1061 21 100 522 2133 2:00 10 281 15 297 25 578 2 :15 11 264 9 255 20 519 2:30 9 322 4 285 13 607 2:45 8 38 340 1207 3 31 341 1178 11 69 681 2385 3:00 5 308 5 478 10 786 305 12 324 5 482 17 806 3:30 3 275 7 444 10 719 3:45 5 25 292 1199 2 19 479 1883 7 44 771 3082 4:00 4 296 3 461 7 757 4:15 6 324 11 455 17 779 4:30 11 287 18 466 29 753 4:45 19 40 331 1238 14 46 467 1849 33 86 798 3087 5:00 26 383 12 447 38 830 5:15 19 344 36 543 55 887 5:30 38 381 43 519 81 900 5:45 43 126 322 1430 59 150 543 2052 102 276 865 3482 is 93 347 77 489 170 836 3,499 85 289 85 480 170 769 6:30 142 306 106 444 248 750 6:45 248 568 248 1190 147 415 376 1789 395 983 624 2979 7:00 252 292 191 371 443 663 7:15 291 254 195 299 486 553 7:30 370 236 234 272 604 508 7:45 395 1308 186 968 264 884 216 1158 659 2192 402 2126 8 :00 380 168 271 191 651 359 8:15 317 174 296 168 613 342 8:30 301 131 267 170 568 301 8:45 234 1232 116 589 260 1094 151 680 494 2326 267 1269 9:00 264 167 245 169 509 336 9:15 251 182 223 135 474 317 9:30 205 166 247 149 452 315 9:45 234 954 119 634 256 971 148 601 490 1925 267 1235 10:00 258 118 242 122 500 240 10:15 204 116 220 142 424 258 10:30 204 104 209 85 413 189 10:45 240 906 81 419 226 897 70 419 466 1803 151 838 11:00 219 84 246 64 465 148 11:15 226 84 191 38 417 122 11:30 261 74 240 41 501 115 11:45 287 993 63 305 254 931 43 186 541 1924 106 491 TOTALS 6384 11365 5552 14073 11936 25438 DAY TOTALS 17749 19625 37374 SPLIT % 53.5 44.7 46.5 55.3 a F HOUR 7:30 4:45 7:45 5:15 7:30 f-- 5:15 E 1462 1439 1098 2094 2527 3488 P.H.F. 0.93 0.94 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.97 SITE CODE : SEAL BEACH 24 HOUR MACHINE COUNTS -BY TRAFFIC COUNTS PAGE: 1 N-S Street: LAMPSON AVENUE FILE: D9309144 E-Y Street: BET SEAL BEACH/BASSWOOD Client : DKS i ASSOCIATES DATE: 9/23/93 - --� - T - ------ EB ------- - ------ NB ------- ----- COMBINED -- --- BEG AM PM AM PM AM PM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12:00 21 103 4 136 25 239 12:15 19 133 9 114 28 247 12:30 8 119 4 120 12 239 12:45 12 60 130 485 1 18 103 473 13 78 233 958 1:00 2 111 5 112 7 223 1:15 9 123 10 139 19 262 1:30 5 127 1 112 6 239 1:45 7 23 101 462 4 20 117 480 11 43 218 942 2:00 6 112 1 126 7 238 2:15 4 135 1 107 5 242 2:30 6 160 0 109 6 269 2:45 6 22 198 605 3 5 127 469 9 27 325 1074 3:00 4 231 5 124 9 355 3:15 1 220 1 112 2 332 3:30 3 201 2 124 5 325 3:45 0 8 173 825 4 12 112 472 4 20 285 1297 4:00 2 208 2 113 4 321 4:15 0 232 4 130 4 362 4:30 1 223 7 130 8 353 4:45 5 8 237 900 7 20 129 502 12 28 366 1402 5:00 1 201 18 145 19 346 5:15 3 243 28 139 31 382 5:30 10 264 31 133 41 397 5:45 10 24 246 954 46 123 137 554 56 147 383 1508 11 239 68 150 79 389 14 246 93 139 107 385 K54- 100 20 220 142 153 162 373 6:45 40 85 176 881 215 518 160 602 255 603 336 1483 7:00 42 175 228 151 270 326 7:15 52 158 246 144 298 302 7:30 57 130 325 111 382 241 7:45 78 229 136 599 314 1113 85 491 392 1342 221 1090 8:00 88 122 362 73 450 195 8:15 123 114 229 56 352 IS-Up 170 8:30 106 104 188 59 294 163 8:45 B5 402 95 435 163 942 62 250 248 1344 157 685 9:00 84 90 195 45 279 135 9:15 69 92 160 40 229 132 9:30 80 % 102 40 182 136 9:45 59 292 110 388 % 553 36 161 155 B45 146 549 10:00 81 98 121 39 202 137 10:15 67 85 95 26 162 111 10:30 65 77 % 34 161 111 10:45 95 308 48 308 97 409 30 129 192 717 78 437 11:00 92 33 93 21 185 54 11:15 126 35 108 15 234 50 11:30 92 29 99 14 191 43 11:45 107 417 27 124 103 403 6 56 210 B20 33 180 TOTALS 1878 6966 4136 4639 6014 11605 DAY TOTALS 8844 8775 17619 SPLIT % 31.2 60.0 68.8 40.0 P HOUR 11:00 5:30 7:15 6:30 7:30 5:30 4— E 417 995 1247 608 1576 1554 . 0.83 0.94 0.86 0.95 0.88 0.98 SITE CODE : SEAL BEACH 24 HOUR MACHINE COUNTS-BY TRAFFIC COUNTS PAGE: 1 N -S Street: SEAL BEACH BLVD FILE: D9309142 E-W Street: N/0 405 NO ON RAMP Client : DKS R ASSOCIATES DATE: 9/23/93 .. T ------- NB ...... SB ------- ----- COMBINED ----- BEGIN AM PH AM PM AM PM 12:00 40 354 47 327 87 681 12:15 39 334 38 332 77 666 12:30 37 299 23 343 60 642 12:45 27 143 299 1286 24 132 322 1324 51 275 621 2610 1:00 23 300 16 282 39 582 1:15 25 299 17 332 42 631 1:30 17 340 14 313 31 653 1:45 15 80 313 1252 11 58 312 1239 26 138 625 2491 2:00 17 295 10 327 27 622 2:15 7 392 10 280 17 672 2:30 17 402 13 313 30 715 2:45 14 55 417 1506 7 40 324 1244 21 95 741 2750 3:00 9 392 7 441 16 833 3:15 12 364 16 431 28 795 3:30 9 325 4 471 13 796 3:45 3 33 395 1476 7 34 402 1745 10 67 797 3221 4:00 10 336 16 428 26 764 4:15 14 382 9 372 23 754 4:30 12 366 13 406 25 772 4:45 23 59 415 1499 25 63 411 1617 48 122 826 3116 5:00 26 423 25 455 51 ]858 5:15 40 413 25 484 65 5:30 46 413 54 469 100 5:45 63 175 397 1646 81 185 461 1869 144 360 3515 78 376 93 469 171 845 133 333 111 435 244 768 630 155 362 147 448 302 810 6:45 189 555 271 1342 192 543 412 1764 381 1098 683 3106 7:00 240 325 238 363 478 688 7:15 264 318 250 323 514 641 7:30 336 267 305 306 641 573 7 :45 334 1174 267 1177 323 1116 205 1197 F657-j 2290 472 2374 8:00 369 215 399 204 768 419 8:15 367 234 301 175 668 409 8:30 341 177 320 183 661 Z7 54 360 8:45 290 1367 172 798 271 1291 163 725 561 2658 335 1523 9:00 321 183 280 160 601 343 9:15 315 170 255 169 570 339 9:30 291 180 232 171 523 351 9:45 276 1203 192 725 230 997 165 665 506 2200 357 1390 10:00 316 157 230 139 546 296 10:15 284 125 239 142 523 267 10:30 247 128 262 131 509 259 10:45 300 1147 91 501 230 961 110 522 530 2108 201 1023 11:00 292 80 260 99 552 179 11:15 320 71 266 99 586 170 11:30 325 58 272 67 597 125 11:45 348 1285 60 269 302 1100 68 333 650 2385 128 602 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTALS 7276 13477 6520 14244 13796 27721 DAY TOTALS 20753 20764 41517 SPLIT % 52.7 48.6 47.3 51.4 oUR 7:45 4:45 7:45 5:15 7:45 5:00 1411 1664 1343 1883 2754 3515 P.H.F. 0.96 0.98 0.84 0.97 0.90 1 0.98 SITE CODE : SEAL BEACH 24 HOUR MACHINE COUNTS -BY TRAFFIC COUNTS PAGE: 1 N -S Street: SEAL BEACH BLVD FILE: D9309143 E-W Street: BET GOLDEN RAIN /BEVERLY MANOR Client : DKS 8 ASSOCIATES DATE: 9/23/93 -- T ....... NB - -- --- SB - - ----- - ---- COMBINED ----- BE AM PM AM PM AM PM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12:00 22 292 84 287 106 579 12:15 43 307 41 319 84 626 12:30 33 249 30 345 63 594 12:45 20 118 286 1134 25 180 285 1236 45 298 571 2370 1:00 24 256 25 307 49 563 1:15 17 272 19 301 36 573 1:30 5 268 15 308 20 576 1:45 15 61 279 1075 6 65 263 1179 21 126 542 2254 2:00 8 279 8 287 16 566 2:15 9 298 11 357 20 655 2:30 12 293 11 351 23 644 2:45 12 41 307 1177 11 41 367 1362 23 82 674 2539 3:00 8 269 8 441 16 710 3:15 9 294 14 439 23 733 3:30 6 299 11 446 17 745 3:45 3 26 336 1198 8 41 344 1670 11 67 680 2868 4:00 14 321 18 409 32 730 4:15 11 356 12 354 23 710 4:30 10 317 17 324 27 641 4:45 22 57 417 1411 23 70 357 1444 45 127 17 2855 5:00 30 330 14 389 44 719 5:15 45 370 19 426 64 796 5:30 67 298 41 383 108 681 11 Z D 5:45 76 218 318 1316 70 144 404 1602 146 362 722 2918 103 275 95 418 198 693 148 263 112 375 260 638 165 273 120 368 285 641 6:45 215 631 215 1026 143 470 383 1544 3S8 1101 598 2570 7:00 260 247 205 353 465 600 7:15 316 217 227 318 543 535 7:30 342 203 234 305 [E.2,552- 508 7:4S 325 1243 195 862 303 969 229 1205 2212 424 2067 8:00 339 163 385 208 371 8:15 303 176 321 169 345 8:30 264 137 292 181 556 318 8:45 327 1233 124 600 262 1260 187 74S 589 2493 311 1345 9:00 267 156 247 167 514 323 9:15 271 140 228 163 499 303 9:30 269 109 216 200 485 309 9:45 270 1077 118 523 221 912 160 690 491 1989 278 1213 10:00 272 107 202 154 474 261 10:15 261 98 205 160 466 258 10:30 250 92 242 126 492 218 10:45 272 1055 70 367 210 859 103 S43 482 1914 173 910 11 :00 246 63 247 90 493 153 11:15 285 48 250 96 S35 144 11:30 290 49 247 71 537 120 11:45 291 1112 42 202 278 1022 65 322 569 2134 107 524 TOTALS 6872 10891 6033 13542 12905 24433 DAY TOTALS 17763 19575 37338 SPLIT % 53.3 44.6 46.7 55.4 o 'HOUR 7:15 4:30 7:45 2:45 7:30 L2970 5 1322 1434 1301 1693 2552 P. 0.97 0.86 0.84 0.95 0.88 3