HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2003-05-21
.
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA for May 21, 2003
7:30 p.m.
District 1 - Ellery Deaton
District 2 - Jim Sharp
District 3 - Gordon Shanks
District 4 - David Hood
District 5 - Phil Ladner
Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Alexander Abbe, AssIstant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Associate Planner
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary
[J
City Hall office hours are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p m. Monday through Thursday and
Fnday 8'00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Closed noon to 1 :00 p.m.
[J
The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you
need assistance to attend this meeting please telephone the City Clerk's Office at
least 48 hours in advance of the meeting (562) 431-2527.
[J
Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Seal Beach TV3. They are
rebroadcast on Sunday evenings, Channel 3 at 4:00 p.m.
[J
Videotapes of Planning Commission meetings may be purchased from Seal Beach
TV3 at a cost of $20 per tape. Telephone: (562) 596-1404.
[J Copies of staff reports and/or written matenals on each agenda item are on file in
the Department of Development Services and City libraries for public Inspection.
1
.
.
.
CIty of Seal Beach Planning CommIssIon · Agenda of May 21, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
The following is a brief explanation of the Planning Commission agenda
structure:
AGENDA APPROVAL: The Planning Commission may wish to change the order of the
items on the agenda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, only
on items not on tonight's agenda, may do so during this time penod. No action can be
taken by the Planning Commission on these communications on this date, unless
agendized.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Public Heanngs allow citizens the opportunity to speak in
favor of or against agendized items. More detailed information is found in the actual
agenda attached. If you have documents to distribute, you should have enough copies
for all Planning Commissioners, City staff and the public. Please give one to the
secretary for the City fIles. The documents become part of the public record and will not
be returned.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Consent Calendar items are considered routine items that
normally do not require separate consideration. The Planning Commission may make
one motion for approval of all the items listed on the Consent Calendar.
SCHEDULED MA TIERS: These items are considered by the Planning Commission
separately and require separate motions. These transactions are considered
administrative and public testimony is not heard.
STAFF CONCERNS: Updates and reports from the Director of Development Services
(Planning and Building Departments) are presented for information to the Planning
Commission and the public.
COMMISSION CONCERNS: Items of concern are presented by the Planning
Commissioners and discussed with staff.
All Droceedinas are recorded.
"
2
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Agenda for May 21, 2003
7:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II ROLL CALL
III AGENDA APPROVAL
By Motion of the Planning Commission, this is the time to:
(a) Notify the public of any changes to the Agenda;
(b) Re-arrange 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 IS 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 the Planning
Commission may undertake no action or diScussion 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 a specific
Item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action
1 Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 7,2003
2 Minor Plan Review 03-7
24 Cottonwood Lane
AppllcanUOwner
Request
Joe & Antonio DeBernardo/Llnc Housing LLC
To construct a 2-story mobile home within the trailer park located off of
First St The applicant proposes to bUild a 2-story modular Unit
Recommendation.
Continue Item to meeting of June 4, 3002
3 Minor Plan Review 03-8
516 Ocean Avenue
AppllcanUOwner
Request
James Dunn
To construct a deck Into the required setback area Under provIsion of
Section 28-401, applicants may apply for a deck to extend up to 10 feet
Into the required rear yard setback area under the Minor Plan Review
process
Recommendation
Approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 03-21
. VI SCHEDULED MATTERS
3
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planmng Commission · Agenda of May 21, 2003
VII PUBLIC HEARINGS
4 Conditional Use Permit 03-3
133-133% Main Street
Applicant/Owner
Request
Recommendation
Melinda Marclullano/Leland M Garrison
To Install a walk-up/take-out only 10 seats or less) restaurant on Main
Street Specifically, the applicant has requested the ability to open an
Italian dell that serves sandwiches and take-out food In addition to dell
meats and cheeses
Approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 03-20
5 ReView of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems (BIDS) Specific Plan
Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue
Applicant/Owner
Request
Recommendation
VIII STAFF CONCERNS
IX COMMISSION CONCERNS
X ADJOURNMENT
Boeing Realty Corporation
Amend the Land Use, Open Space/Recreation/Conservation, HOUSing,
and Circulation Elements of the General Plan, adopt the Boeing
Integrated Defense Systems (BIDS) Specific Plan, amend the Zoning
Map, and adopt a Precise Plan to accommodate the proposed land uses
described In the Staff Report, and approve a vesting tentative tract map
The BIDS Specific Plan proposes a mixed-use bUSiness park on 107
acres consisting of a variety of commercial/retail, hotel, restaurant, and
bUSiness park uses
Recommend certification of Final EIR and approval of subject requests to
City Council With any amendments determined appropriate.
4
.
June 4
June 18
July9
July 23
Aug6
Aug 20
Sept 3
Sept 17
Oet8
Oet 22
NovS
. Nov 19
Dee 3
Dee 17
TO BE SCHEDULED:
Q Study Session
Q Staff Report
Q Study Session
Q Study Session.
.
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission · Agenda of May 21, 2003
2003 Aaenda Forecast
Permitted Uses and Development Standards In Commercial Zones (5/6/98)
Undergroundlng of Utilities
ADA Handicapped-Accessible Restrooms
Parking Issues In Old Town
S
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of May 21, 2003
Chairperson Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission
to order at 7:32 p.m. on Wednesday, May 21, 2003. The meeting was held in the City
Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.1
ROLL CALL
Present. Chairperson Hood, Commissioners Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
Also
Present: Deoartment of Develooment Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Associate Planner
Absent: None
AGENDA APPROVAL
Mr. Whittenberg requested that Item No.2, Minor Plan Review 03-7 for 24 Cottonwood
Lane be continued to the next scheduled meeting of June 4, 2003.
Commissioner Shanks requested that the Minutes of May 7,2003 be removed from the
agenda for further discussion.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Deaton to approve the Agenda as amended
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Hood, Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairperson Hood opened oral communications.
There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed oral communications.
1 These MInutes were transcnbed from audiotape of the meeting
1
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
CIty of Seal Beach Planning CommIssIon
Meeting Minutes of May 21, 2003
CONSENT CALENDAR
2. Minor Plan Review 03-7
24 Cottonwood Lane
Applicant/Owner:
Request'
Joe & Antonio DeBernardo/Linc Housing LLC
To construct a 2-story mobile home within the trailer park
located off of First St. The applicant proposes to build a 2-
story modular unit.
Recommendation:
Continue item to meeting of June 4, 3002.
3. Minor Plan Review 03-8
516 Ocean Avenue
Applicant/Owner:
Request'
James Dunn
To construct a deck into the required setback area. Under
provision of Section 28-401, applicants may apply for a deck
to extend up to 10 feet into the required rear yard setback
area under the Minor Plan Review process.
Recommendation:
Approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution
03-21.
MOTION by Shanks; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Consent Calendar as
amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Hood, Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 03-21 begins a 10-day calendar
appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the
appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 7, 2003.
Commissioner Shanks noted that on Page 2, Line 46 of the minutes Chairperson Hood
is noted as having voted on Item No. 3 when the minutes should reflect that he
abstained from vottng. Chairperson Hood noted that although he was in attendance at
the meeting of May 7,2003, he would abstain from voting on approval of the minutes to
ensure there is no conflict of Interest. Staff noted the correction to the minutes.
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of May 21,2003
MOTION by Shanks; SECOND by Sharp to approve the Minutes of May 7, 2003 as
amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
4-0-1
Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
Hood
SCHEDULED MATTERS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. Conditional Use Permit 03-3
133-133% Main Street
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Melinda Marciuliano/Leland M. Garrison
To install a walk-up/take-out only 10 seats or less) restaurant
on Main Street. Specifically, the applicant has requested the
ability to open an Italian deli that serves sandwiches and
take-out food in addition to deli meats and cheeses.
Recommendation:
Approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution
03-20.
Staff Report
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and
noted that City Code does allow these types of restaurants subject to the Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) process, provided there are no more than 10 seats. He noted that
the plans show no more than 10 seats and in reviewing the plans, Staff finds them to be
substantially similar to applications previously approved by the Planning Commission
(PC). He stated that a typical concern related to these types of businesses is whether
or not there will be a service Window. He said there would not be a service Window at
Main Street and customers must enter the store to make their purchases. He stated
that Staff recommends approval subject to conditions as outlined in draft Resolution 03-
20.
3
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of May 21,2003
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Deaton asked If this business would be substantially like the pizza
restaurant, which was approved at the Apnl 9, 2003 PC meeting. Mr. Cummins stated
that as far as on-site food consumption, it is similar, however, Angelo's will also have an
assortment of deli-type items for sale. Commissioner Deaton asked if the deli would
have ItS own trash bin. Mr Cummins stated that it was his understanding that this site
meets all of the concerns raised at the hearing for the pizza store. Commissioner
Deaton asked if the deli would be required to have ItS own trash bin. Mr. Whittenberg
stated that by the Orange County Health Code, the deli would be required to have a
trash bin. Commissioner Deaton asked that this be added as a condition.
Commissioner Shanks noted that Condition No.6 should be corrected, as the deli would
have no outdoor dining area. Mr. Cummins noted the correction. Commissioner
Shanks then stated that Condition No. 4 should state that no seats would be allowed
outside the restaurant. Mr. Cummins explained that in order to acquire a permit for
outdoor seating, the applicant would have to apply for a separate CUP. Commissioner
Shanks noted that there is no condition clearly stating that wine or beer will not be sold.
He asked that this be added as a condition.
Public Heanna
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
Ms. Boshana Jaworski, of RPP Architects, stated that she represents the applicant.
She said the applicant has already ordered a separate trash bin for the establishment.
She said she would be happy to respond to any questions.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
None.
MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Shanks to approve Conditional Use Permit 03-3 and
adopt Resolution 03-20 as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Hood, Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No 03-20 begins a 10-day calendar
appeal penod to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the
appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
4
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon
Meetmg Mmutes of May 21, 2003
5. Review of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems (BIDS) Specific Plan
Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue
Applicant/Owner:
Request'
Boeing Realty Corporation
Amend the Land Use, Open Space/Recreation/
Conservation, Housing, and Circulation Elements of the
General Plan, adopt the Boeing Integrated Defense Systems
(BIDS) Specific Plan, amend the Zoning Map, and adopt a
Precise Plan to accommodate the proposed land uses
described in the Staff Report, and approve a vesting
tentative tract map. The BIDS Specific Plan proposes a
mixed-use business park on 107 acres consisting of a
variety of commercial/retail, hotel, restaurant, and business
park uses.
Recommendation:
Recommend certification of Final EIR and approval of
subject requests to City Council with any amendments
determined appropriate.
Staff Reoort
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He stated that there are a number of things the PC is being
asked to do with respect to the proposed Boeing development. He said that the PC will
act as a recommending body to the City Council (CC) on the following:
1. Adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) under State law.
2. Proposed General Plan Amendments
3. Proposed Specific Plan and Zoning Map Amendments
4. Proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM)
5. Approve or deny a Precise Plan (Site Plan Review)
The Associate Planner stated that Staff is proposing that the PC hold separate public
heanngs on the different major areas of the proposed project. He noted that rather than
present a massive amount of information In a 35-45-minute presentation, this would
allow everyone to comment on their particular areas of concern and maintain more
order than having a series of comments on a number of different issues. He proposed
beginning with hearings on the FEIR starting with a Staff presentation, an applicant
statement, and then the public hearing session. He said that after this the PC could
deliberate and vote or not vote, depending upon the discretion of the PC. He indicated
that the PC could then decide to have a public hearing including a Staff presentatIon on
the General Plan and proposed Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) continuing the process
with the Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM), etc. He noted that the Intent was to focus
the meeting into specific areas that seem to mesh, so that each member of the public
and the PC can clearly understand the specific areas to be reviewed.
5
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 21,2003
Mr. Cummins began by noting the typical questions, comments, or concerns that might
be expressed and where It would be most appropriate to make these comments. He
stated that with regard to concerns about traffic, additional nOise, lighting and glare, etc.,
the appropriate time to address this would be during the public hearing for the FEIR. He
said that for concerns over land use designations or long-range planmng for the City,
these issues would be addressed at the hearing for the General Plan. Questions
regarding building requirements and development standards would be addressed during
the Specific Plan or Zoning hearing. He then indicated that Staff has several proposed
conditions for the VTTM related to needed public infrastructure that have to do with
street design, traffic signals, and sewer and water lines. He said that if the Specific Plan
is adopted as proposed, each time Boeing wants to build out a portion of the site, they
would have to submit to Staff a Precise Plan Review, which Staff will evaluate in
conjunction With the Specific Plan to ensure that it meets all of the standards as
required. The Associate Planner stated that for tomght's hearing Staff is presenting a
proposal for the Precise Plans for Planning Areas 2 and 3 of the Boeing project. He
said that this would be the time to voice concerns regarding slgnage, loading docks, etc.
Mr. Cummins inquired if this procedure would be acceptable to the PC. Chairperson
Hood asked for comments from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Sharp said that the procedure sounded fine.
Commissioner Ladner stated that the procedure makes a lot of sense.
Chairperson Hood said that it is easier and that he hoped that the members of the
public understood the proposed process. He explained that taking the process bit by bit
might make it easier to understand. He emphaSized that everyone would have to focus
his or her questions or concerns on the particular item under discussion.
Commissioner Sharp asked about disclosure of any contacts With the public regarding
this project. Mr. Cummins referred the question to Mr. Abbe. Mr. Abbe stated that there
is nothing prohibiting the Commissioners from disclosing this information or not. He
said that there would be no particular time in a meeting when it would be appropriate or
not appropriate to reveal any such information. Commissioner Sharp stated that he
represents a portion of Leisure World as well as across the 405 Freeway and although
everyone seems to think that there is a lot of controversy regarding this project, he has
had only one letter and one phone call and one personal conversation dealing with this
project.
Commissioner Deaton stated that she has received one letter regarding the Boeing
project.
Commissioner Shanks said that he had received one letter.
6
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1;
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
CIty of Seal Beach Planning CommIssIon
Meeting Minutes of May 21, 2003
Commissioner Lander said that he had received one letter and had one conversation
with the same person.
Commissioner Deaton asked If all of the topics mentioned by Mr. Cummins would be
covered this evening. Chairperson Hood recommended covering the EIR and 2 of the 3
Planning Areas and continuing the remainder to the next scheduled meeting.
Commissioner Sharp asked if the PC had a timeline to follow. Mr. Cummins stated that
the PC has the discretion to continue items if they wish to deliberate further, particularly
in light of what may be said dUring the public hearing. Commissioner Sharp confirmed
that all discussion must end at 11 :00 p.m. Mr. Cummins said that the PC could set a
time to stop the meetings if they wished to do so. Chairperson Hood quoted "The
Planning Commission shall not consider any new agenda item after 11 :00 p.m. at any
meeting. Not later than 10:45 p.m. at each meeting the PC shall reschedule the
remaining agenda to a date certain between the present and the following Planning
Commission meeting or vote at that particular time to continue the meeting until it is
resolved. "
Commissioner Shanks noted that the PC did not receive their agenda packets until
Monday, instead of the normal Friday, so there was less time to review the documents.
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) Boeina Intearated Defense Systems (BIDS)
Specific Plan
Mr. Cummins began by reviewing the process for creation of an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He
stated that as the lead agency, the City completed an initial study on the project and
within that process looked at the potential environmental impacts and determined that
an EIR would be necessary. He explained that once this was determined the
Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) conducted a scoping meeting to receive
public comments, which were provided to the City's EIR Consultant, RBF Consulting,
who then produced a Draft EIR. He reported that this Draft EIR was released for public
comment at the end of 2002 Into the early part of 2003 and the City received a
considerable amount of comments from a number of different public agencies and
interested private citizens. He said that under State law, the City is required to respond
in writing to every comment received, and the comments and responses are included in
the FEIR. He indicated that the 45-day review period for the Draft EIR ended in
February 2003 and comments received were considered and the Draft EIR was revised
and the FEIR was then circulated prior to conducting the public hearings on the
document. Mr. Cummins stated that both the EQCB and the Archaeological Advisory
Committee (AAC) held a hearing on the document and have made their
recommendations on the document. He indicated that the responsibility of the PC now
IS to make a recommendation to City Council (CC) regarding the adequacy of the EIR
under State law.
7
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
j
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon
Meetmg Mmutes of May 21, 2003
The Associate Planner then explained that tonight the PC would receive input from the
public regarding the environmental impacts disclosed in the FEIR. He said that this
portion of the meeting is really not a forum to discuss the project itself, Le., the proposed
land uses, types of bUildings, but rather if this project were to be constructed as
proposed, are these the most likely environmental impacts associated with that
development. He noted that there are a series of alternatives that were analyzed as a
part of the FEIR. He continued by stating that after receiving public comment the PC
will be asked to make a recommendation in the form of a resolution to CC on whether or
not the document is adequate under State law. He noted that should the PC find that a
portion of the document requires further review, it could also make this recommendation
to CC. Mr. Cummins then provided a visual presentation of the project and explained
the proposed uses for each Planning Area.
Following the visual presentation Mr. Cummins explained that an EIR is supposed to
inform decision makers and affected persons or agencies about potential significant
environmental impacts and make proposals for reducing these impacts. He noted that
the EIR IS also Intended to demonstrate to the public that under State law the
environment should be protected. He indicated that the EIR is then generated and
where feasible, mitigation measures are imposed to help lessen the environmental
impacts to a level of non-significance, wherever possible. He stated that in some cases
this is not possible, and in this situation CC can adopt a Statement of Overriding
Consideration, where it can make specific findings acknowledging that certain
environmental impacts will be significant, and also state the overriding considerations as
to why the project should take place anyway.
Mr. Cummins then noted the identified significant and unavoidable impacts as follows:
>> Cumulative Traffic Impacts
~ Additional right turn lane from northbound Seal Beach Boulevard to eastbound
Westminster Avenue - Realistically, it may not be feasible to comply with this
proposed mitigation measure as this cannot occur without acquisition of Navy
property on the Naval Weapons Station (NWS).
~ Traffic impact at the 405 Freeway overcrossing - The bridge widening project is
uncertain due to funding and final approval of plans for widening of 22 Garden
Grove Freeway.
~ Short- and long-term air emissions - Because Seal Beach is located within the
Greater Los Angeles region it would be impossible for the City to comply with
these types of standards.
The Associate Planner then stated that the EQCB held a hearing on April 21,2003 and
recommended that CC find the FEIR adequate under State law provided the following
five (5) areas were more adequately discussed within the document
1. Reduce threshold under Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Rule 403,
regarding wind duration and speed before construction would be halted.
8
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon
Meetmg Mmutes of May 21, 2003
2. The Noise Analysis does not adequately address noise impacts both during and
after construction.
3. Traffic analysis as described in the EIR does not reflect actual traffic conditions.
Mr. Cummins reported that on April 23, 2003, the AAC reviewed the Cultural Resources
Section of the FEIR and adopted a resolution recommending that the CC find the
document adequate under State law and certify it as currently written.
Mr. Cummins then explained that the PC will consider and ultimately make
recommendations regarding the FEIR and the changes to the General Plan {GP},
adoption of the Specific Plan, and the VTTM. He said that subsequent to this the PC
will either approve or deny with conditions a Precise Plan for Planning Areas 2 and 3.
He said that once all PC heanngs related to this matter are complete, the City Council
hearing would be scheduled.
Mr. Cummins then introduced Mr. Glenn LaJoie of RBF Consulting. Mr. LaJoie stated
that he was the Project Manager for the preparation and of the EIR and for managing
the process. He briefly summarized some of the key points addressed related to the
identified mitigation program as follows:
1. Mitigation identified for aesthetics and view shed impacts
2. Short-term construction impacts - On-site staging areas.
3. No mitigation for long-term effects with implementation of design standards
presented in the Specific Plan.
4. Traffic mitigation identified for trip generation effects as well as affects on local
roadways.
5. Mitigation identified for alternative access point at Apollo Drive.
6. Air quality mitigation for short-term construction emissions pursuant to South Coast
AQMD Rules and Regulations. Mitigation included for long-term operational
affects.
7. Noise mitigatIon presented for short-term construction effects as well as for
stationary noise affects.
8. Mitigation for biological resources addresses special status species, jurisdictional
waters, and marine sources.
9. Mitigation for archaeological and paleontological resources and for potential burial
sites. A detailed mitigation plan has been added to the FEIR, which includes
monitoring, notification, identification, and storage procedures.
10. Geology and soils mitigation includes addressing soil conditions, stability of soils,
and seismic conditions once the development project continues through the City
review process.
11. Hydrology and drainage mitigation for water quality dunng construction and at build
out for drainage affects as well as post-construction water quality.
12. Health and safety mitigation addresses hazardous materials, including agncultural
operations that have historically occurred on this site, as well as asbestos and lead
paint effects.
13. Sewers and utilities mitigation addresses water, wastewater, and solid wastes.
9
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon
Meetmg Mmutes of May 21.2003
Mr. Lajoie noted that Volume 2 of the EIR includes the Mitigation Monitonng Program,
required by CEQA, and also includes the comments and responses received during the
45-day public review period. He read that "It has been concluded that the comments
and response process does not result in changes to the significance conclusions on the
issues. Areas are further clarified and mitigations further enhanced in the FEIR when
compared to the Draft EIR."
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Shanks stated that the traffic lights along Seal Beach Boulevard (SBB)
are not coordinated and this would, theoretically, be a mitigating factor. He noted that
traffIC counts were not taken at the two Leisure World (LW) entrances, which does not
provide data on how much traffic enters and exits LW. Mr. Cummins stated that
Signalization was discussed at the EQCB hearing and he reported at that time that
getting traffiC signals timed correctly is more of an operational issue and comments on
this issue have been forwarded to the City Engineer. With regard to the LW traffic
counts, thIs intersection was identified as operating at a high level of service (LOS).
Commissioner Shanks reiterated that he was surprised to see that nowhere in the traffic
analysis does it document traffiC counts being taken at the two LW entrances. Mr.
Cummins stated that he would investigate this issue while the public hearing is taking
place.
Commissioner Sharp interjected that he believes the signals at the Boeing entrances
are demand Signals and are not synchronized with the other SBB signals.
Chairperson Hood asked why traffic counts were taken only up to the onramp just north
of the 405 Freeway and did not continue to Lampson Avenue. Mr. Rich Baretto, of
Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers, stated that in setting up the study area the
project percent impact from key intersections was determined. He said that the
Response to Comments took this issue into consideration and the study area was then
extended as far north as SBB and Katella Avenue. With regard to Commissioner
Shanks' comments, Mr. Baretto stated that the two entrances to LW were also
evaluated in detail in the Response to Comments.
Commissioner Shanks stated that in the Noise Section he saw no discussion of pile
driving. Mr. Lajoie responded that during the public hearing period he would complete
some research on this to provide a precise answer to Commissioner Shanks' inquiry.
Chairperson Hood commented that he is glad to see that traffic mitigation is to be
included, however after the traffic control is turned over to the City, sometimes things go
awry. He noted the traffic mitigation for SBB and Lampson Avenue that was supposed
to be signalized, but he noted that every morning for the last six weeks, the left turn
signal for people southbound on SBB wanting to turn left onto Lampson Avenue has
been on a 35-second timer and is not a demand signal that creates a huge backup of
cars. He then asked why did Boeing bother to put a hotel in as part of the project when
It is probably not going to be constructed. He said that it is likely that the hotel would not
10
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
I
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of May 21, 2003
fill during the 18-month window, so why waste time constructing it? Mr. Cummins
stated that this is what was presented to the City and perhaps the applicant could speak
to this.
Public Hearina
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
Mr. Clay Corwin, of the of Stonecreek Company, stated that Stonecreek is the
representative for the Boeing Company on this project. He said that in terms of the EIR
analysis his company representatives are present to respond to any questions from the
Commission. In response to some of the comments, he stated that all of the
construction on site would be on conventional spread footings and there would be no
pile driving. He said that the proposed hotel in Planning Area 4 is not yet designed and
that is why It does not appear in the Precise Plan package. He indicated that a 2-story,
100-120 room hotel is envisioned, also to be constructed on conventional spread
footings. He noted that the hotel is proposed in response to discussions with City Staff
and others within the City in terms of attempting to find mechanisms that would help the
City wIth its fiscal challenges by at least permitting a land use that would drive some
bed tax revenue.
Chairperson Hood polled the Commissioners to determine if they were in favor of
imposing a 5-minute limit to public comments. The Commissioners agreed to this.
Mr. Edmund Loritz, a resident of LW, stated that the project would have a decided
impact upon Mutual No. 2 because it faces Westminster Avenue. He said that it
appears that there will be no way to cut down the traffic, which he believes will increase
tremendously. He proposed that constructing a perimeter wall along this Side of LW
could help reduce the noise from the increased traffic. He noted that LW is already
planning on constructing a new wall, and recommends that the City petition the Boeing
Company for additional funds for construction of the wall so that it can be made higher
and serve as a sound wall. Mr. Loritz then asked why the drainage ditch In Planning
Area 4 was to be eliminated? He said that he was present when flooding took place in
LW, and that the County states that they will add another pump. He said that he does
not understand why the County wants to eliminate a drainage source.
Mr. Dave Bates, President of the Island Village Homeowners Association (IVHA), stated
that this neighborhood would be directly impacted by the Boeing project. He said that in
the past few months the IVHA has written several letters to the Boeing Company and
the City of Long Beach expressing concerns about the EIR and development of the
Boeing property and the negative impact it will have upon Island Village. He stated that
after receiving a response to these letters, the IVHA stili believes that the response
does not address its concerns and does not mitigate these impacts. He Indicated that
thiS project would generate an additional 8,600 vehicle trips daily, 860 of which will be
trucks. He said that traffic is already at gridlock, especially during rush hours. He noted
that in his letter to Boeing, the Long Beach Traffic Engineer has reported "there is no
11
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
CIty of Seal Beach Planning CommIssIon
Meeting Minutes of May 21, 2003
agreement between the City of Long Beach and the City of Seal Beach regarding the
feasibility of the suggested mitigation measures at the intersections of 2nd Street." He
emphasized that there is no plan on what to do with traffic between the two cities. He
encouraged the PC to assure the residents of Island Village (IV) Leisure World (LW)
that some program has been put into place to mitigate these impacts before approving
this FEIR. Mr. Bates stated that regarding noise and visual pollution, the residents of IV
have the same concerns. He said it is exceedingly important that an acoustical/visual
barrier of at least 15 feet, with landscaping on both sides like the one constructed when
the Target Store was bUilt, should be erected on the westerly side of this project.
Mr. David Lyon, a resident of LW, encouraged the PC to not make a recommendation of
adequacy of this FEIR to City Council without modifications in the mitigation measures
regarding traffic and noise and conditional land uses. He said that CEQA Title 14
California Code of Regulations, Section 15092B states that "if public agency shall not
decide to approve or carry out a project for which an EIR was proposed, unless the
agency has eliminated or substantially reduces all significant impacts where feasible."
He stated that this has not been done. He read from Section 1503A of the regulations,
which states, "the lead agency must consider the EIR the heart of CEQA." Mr. Lyon
said the EQCB found the FEIR to be inadequate because of the long-term noise and
traffic impacts and the inadequate mitigation measures. He noted that no mention is
made in the Staff Report of double left-turn lanes at the intersection of Seal Beach Blvd.
(SBB) and Westminster Avenue. He remarked that at previous hearings it was stated
that the City would be providing for double left-turn lanes at this intersection. He then
referred to Page 8 of the Staff Report and questioned the mention of a second proposal
for additional industrial sites at the 405 Freeway and SBB. He noted Page 20, Table 4,
and asked that the lines for heliports, maintenance and service facilities, automobile
service centers, and facilities for sports related activities be deleted and not permitted
under any circumstances. He referred to Page 25 and asked why the cumulative traffic
effects of the Old Ranch Town Center and the Hellman Ranch development are not
discussed. He asked that the PC bear in mind that the average age of residents in LW
IS 78.
Mr. Jerry Olivera, Environmental Planner for the City of Long Beach, stated that he
wished to reiterate some of the comments made by Angela Reynolds, Acting
Environmental Officer, in her letter drafted in February 2003. He said that significant
traffic impacts would occur at the intersections of 2nd Street and Pacific Coast Highway
(PCH) in Long Beach, and the intersection of Studebaker Road and Westminster
Avenue. He stated that the position of the City of Long Beach is that the proposed
mitigation is Inadequate. He noted that the response to comments received by the City
of Long Beach, there was a comment stating that the project applicant would not be
responsible for off site traffic improvements, but that the City of Seal Beach would pay
traffic impact fees to the City of Long Beach for mitigation for traffic improvements. He
said it is not certain whether these fees would cover the cost of traffic improvements,
especially if rights-of-way are to be acquired in order to proceed. He stated that the City
of Seal Beach's own EQCB has also stated that the long-term traffic analysis and
proposed mitigation is inadequate and the City of Long Beach is in agreement with thIs.
12
,
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon
Meetmg Mmutes of May 21, 2003
Mr. A. J. McCarty, a resident of LW, stated that he agrees with the prevIous speakers
regarding the problems of noise and traffic. He recommended continuing Apollo Drive
all the way from SBB to Westminster Avenue at the beginning of the project to help
alleviate some of the traffic problems. He stated that SBB and Westminster Avenue
should be restudied in order to decide what to do with that. He recommended that CC
speak with representatives of Boeing and the Golden Rain Foundation regarding uSing
Beverly Manor Road as one of the access roads to LW. He suggested that Boeing help
with the cost of fixing this road for use as an entrance/exit to LW.
Mr. David Rosenman stated that he believes his remarks were fairly accurately covered
in the transcript of the minutes of the EQCB meeting. He said he did not receive an
official response to his comments on the DEIR until approximately 5 days after the
hearing, which IS of limited utility. He said that after the last EQCB meeting he spoke
with representatives of Linscott, Law & Greenspan (LLG) to express his concern
regarding the mobility of emergency vehicles during rush hour between the 405
Freeway and the new Hellman project. He stated that LLG had said that they had
spoken to police and fire department contacts that stated that this would not be a
problem. He said he also spoke to volunteer firefighters as well as several police
officers and found that there needs to be a more careful look taken at getting an
ambulance from Old Town to Long Beach Memorial Hospital or Los Alamitos Hospital.
He noted that overriding considerations are not really a good way to deal with this issue.
He stated that during the testimony for the Bixby Ranch Project residents heard about
improvements to be made to the 405 Freeway bridge and the signaling that would take
place prior to the shopping center being built, but this has not yet occurred He said
were he the mayor of Seal Beach he would have the Boeing Company provide the
funds to widen the bridge overcrossing and fix the on and off ramps as part of this
project.
Mr. Jack Michaelson, a resident of LW, questioned why a heliport and sports facilities
would be included in a project like this. He noted that helicopters create a lot of noise
and such a proposal should not be considered.
Mr. Charles Gillard, a resident of LW, stated he does not oppose the project, but in
reading the EIR and attending the last meeting there have been some misnomers. He
said the traffic turn lane is not a no-win deal. He noted that at Port Hueneme the Navy
gladly gave them the land to make a turn lane for the same type of purpose. He
questioned what would be done to mitigate the foxes and rabbits on the project site. Mr.
Gillard then noted that there are approximately 10,000 cars entering and exiting LW at
SBB, which is quite significant. He noted that many of the LW residents use hearing
aids, which amplify sound making it more severe than it might be to younger residents.
He asked why there IS a rush to vest the maps? He asked why a tract map without the
vesting could not be used.
Ms. Carol Franz, a resident of Mutual 2 In LW, stated that the noise along the wall near
Mutual 2 must be taken into consideration. She said that there would have to be a
Variance to allow for a sound wall higher than the 10-foot maximum allowed by the City.
13
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of May 21, 2003
She stated that noise mitigation is not sufficient Ms. Franz indicated that this project
would generate a large amount of traffic including trucks, which will create a
tremendous amount of noise for residents living along the adjacent perimeter of LW.
She said that she does not oppose the project, but would like to see the noise issue
more adequately addressed.
Mr. Mike Hidalgo, a resident of Island Village, noted that the Staff Report states that
SBB may have unavoidable impacts related to the widening of the 405 Freeway. He
said that he does not see the 405 Freeway overcrossing being expanded any time
soon. He indicated that the EIR has not thoroughly evaluated traffic impacts and no
acceptable solutions have been provided. He noted that the Staff Report states that the
affected Intersections currently show a LOS of D and E and will be adversely impacted
by the project. He recommended downsizing the project to help reduce traffic impacts.
Mr. Dennis Webster, a resident of Island Village, stated that the EIR does not
adequately address how this mixed-use project will work. He said that with
warehousing, industrial, and commercial/retail there Will be a variety of vehicles entering
and exiting the area and creating more traffic impacts. He noted that although the City
wishes to generate revenues this project would create a great impact upon the area.
Mr. Clay Corwin stated that with regard to the intersection of SBB and Westminster
Avenue, after the September 11 attacks on the United States, the proposition of
acqUiring Navy land has become a very difficult proposition. He said that yesterday he
did meet With the local representatives of the Department of the Navy to begin the
process to see if anything can be done. He noted that it would probably be a long and
laborious one, and may not be successful. Mr. Corwin then discussed the suggestion
for alleviating future traffic by completing the proposed connection of Apollo Drive now
as opposed to a future date. He said that this has been proposed as a future
connection as some of Planning Area 2 is currently occupied by existing Boeing
facilities. He indicated that a decision has not been made as to whether these faclhtles
are to be surplused to allow for demolition for new development to occur. He noted that
due to sensitive security issues on this campus in terms of research and development,
there is no assurance that this proposed solution could be implemented today.
Regarding the comments on noise, land use, and permitted uses Mr. Corwin noted that
at the City's insistence there are provisions in the proposed Specific Plan that give the
Planning Commission and the Director of Development Services ultimate authority
when a user is Identified for a particular parcel or building to require follow-up noise
studies to determine whether additional mitigation will be required.
Commissioner Shanks asked if there were any plans to sell or lease the new bUildings.
Mr. Corwin stated that the plan currently is to sell.
Commissioner Sharp asked if the plan is to sell the buildings or to sell the land. Mr.
Corwin stated that the program is to sell the lots, as noted In the Specific Plan. He
noted that five of these lots are in Planning Area 2 and mayor may not be bUildable
depending upon whether the existing facilities are surplused and demolished. He
14
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon
Meetmg Mmutes of May 21, 2003
reiterated that the plan is to subdivide, bUild out the roadways and master Infrastructure,
wet and dry utilities, and to sell the lots to end users.
Commissioner Shanks asked if guidelines have been established for maintaining the
harmony and consistency of the appearance of these buildings. Mr. Corwin explained
that the Specific Plan is very specific in terms of design guidelines and development
standards, down to detailed landscaped requirements, elevations, height limitations,
sign requirements, etc. He said that the focus behind the Specific Plan is to benefit the
City, the community, and Boeing. He Indicated that the Specific Plan ensures that
anyone who comes in must build to the specified standards. Commissioner Shanks
noted that If the lots are going to be individually sold with individual construction
extended over a period of time this would translate into a longer period of increased
construction noise for residents of LW. He said that If construction of all the buildings is
to take place at one time and the lots sold afterward this would mean that construction
nOise impacts would occur over a shorter period of time. Mr. Corwin noted that from a
development perspective there are 3 lots that front Westminster Avenue, with many of
the lot progressing further south away from LW.
Commissioner Sharp asked the Associate Planner if Boeing is selling the lots and the
City is placing specific conditions on how the buildings are to be constructed when a
new owner comes in and is ready to construct a building, under what conditions would
this come before the Planning Commission for review. Mr. Cummins stated that this
type of scenario is currently outlined in the procedural section of the Specific Plan and
states that a Precise Plan approval would be required. He noted that this would be
presented in detail during the Specific Plan discussion.
Commissioner Deaton asked Mr. Corwin to address the drainage channel issue. Mr.
Corwin stated that he is not familiar with thiS issue. He said that the EIR and the City
have identified a "ponding issue" after a storm event near the light at Road C at SBB.
He noted that there is not a drainage ditch there, but simply a backup due to inadequate
drainage in the curb and gutter in the street. Commissioner Deaton then asked Mr.
Corwin to address the drainage areas within the property that will not be built on due to
them being wetlands. Mr. Corwin explained that there are 3 man-made earthen
drainage ditches on the property, which run east thru west through the raw land in what
IS identified as Planning Area 3. He said that these ditches go back to the original
development of the property in 1966 by North American Aviation and were dug to
surface drain the developed areas to the east. He noted that the south and central
ditches have identified some vegetative habitat that by CCC standards might be
considered wetlands, and would likely be preserved. He said that thiS same analysis
has determined that the northerly ditch is not a wetland and would be incorporated into
the development plan.
Commissioner Sharp said that he suspects the drainage ditch that was discussed IS the
one on the north side of Westminster Avenue. He stated that since this property has
reverted back to LW there has been talk of installing underground pipe drainage so that
15
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of May 21,2003
the ditch can be covered, eliminating it as a possible traffic hazard. Mr. Corwin noted
that he is not aware of this issue.
Commissioner Shanks stated that along Planning Area 1, which is where the large
building is, whenever it rains the right-hand lane along SBB usually get flooded. He
asked if measures would be taken to prevent this flooding. Mr. Cummins stated that
there is a proposed condition on the VTTM that specifically addresses this issue and
this issue can be presented during the discussion of the VTTM.
Commissioner Ladner confirmed that Boeing would be selling only the lots with the new
owners then being responsible for the construction of buildings. Mr. Corwin confirmed
that this was correct. Commissioner Ladner asked if a timeline for the sale of the lots
had been established. He said that if there is no timeline, construction could
conceivably go on for several years. Mr. Corwin responded that Boeing is not in the
real estate business per se and this program is designed to dispose of a surplus
corporate asset. He said that Boeing's motivation is to sell the lots as rapidly as the
market will permit and reinvest the funds into their core aerospace business. He noted
that from a purchaser's perspective, typically a developer would not purchase this land
and then just sit on it. He said that Boeing would like to complete the sale of lots within
2 years after recording of the final map with the City. Commissioner Ladner commented
that LW would be subjected to construction noise for at least 2 years or longer. Mr.
Corwin noted that in terms of short-term construction impacts this would be true, but
aside from the 3 lots that front Westminster Avenue, most of the construction would
move away from LW. Commissioner Ladner then asked if there would be more than
one exit from the development. Mr. Corwin stated that on Westminster Avenue as part
of the road improvement plan there is a 600-foot deceleration right-hand turn lane
heading west to east that allows two access points to the business park, one between
lots 2 and 3 and one at Apollo Drive. He said that under the proposed plan and
mitigation measures and map conditions from the City, the signal at Apollo Drive would
be fully improved, and off of SBB there is an entrance at Apollo Drive with a
deceleration lane going east to west on SBB as a proposed traffic mitigation measure.
He noted that the signal currently at SBB and Apollo Road A would also be improved to
current city standards, with a new signal installed at Adolfo Lopez Drive and SBB.
Commissioner Ladner asked if Mr. Corwin had any idea how many cars would be
exiting the business park at 5:00 p.m. each day. Mr. Corwin said that this information
appears in the traffic impact analysis and he would provide this information to the
Commission. Commissioner Ladner then asked if a right-turn lane and two left-turn
lanes would be provided on Apollo Drive for traffic transitioning onto SBB. Mr. Corwin
said he did not believe there were double left-turn lanes exiting the business park, but
he deferred this information to the traffic engineer. Mr. Baretto, the traffic engineer,
explained that the northbound approach from Apollo Dnve at Westminster Avenue
would provide two northbound left-turn lanes and a single right-turn lane for a total of 3
outbound lanes. He stated that the configuration would be the same for SBB for the
outbound approach from Apollo Dnve. Mr. Corwin stated that unless and until the
Apollo Drive future connection is completed, the current circulation off of SBB accesses
two and at maximum four buildings, and one of them is accessed from Adolfo Lopez
16
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of May 21, 2003
Drive. He noted that on the northerly end of the project, depending upon what happens
in Planning Area 2, there might be as few as 4 and as many as 7 buildings accessed
from Westminster Avenue. Commissioner Ladner asked if Boeing would have control
over what is to be constructed and the types of businesses that would inhabit the
buildings. He noted that depending upon the type of business, noise and air pollution
could be a problem. Mr. Corwin stated that the Specific Plan replaces the existing Light
Manufactunng (M-1) zoning for this site and has cleaned it up to remove some of the
more offensive uses and includes enhanced development standards and design
guidelines. He said that in terms of compliance with use of hazardous materials, noise,
air quality, etc., the City permitting process would govern these. He noted that the
Specific Plan provides the requirement that once an end-user is identified, further noise
studies must be completed to identify actual noise attenuation that might be needed.
He emphasized that because Boeing will continue to occupy, they are also concerned
that the surrounding businesses are quality operations and are compatible.
Commissioner Deaton noted that if Boeing sells the parcels, then it loses control over
them. Mr. Corwin stated that as far as direct ownership control, this would be correct,
however, the Specific Plan then becomes a site-specific zoning document and includes
very detailed design guidelines and development standards that run with subsequent
owners. He said that the business park would also have a property owners association
comprised of those owning the lots that would be responsible for common area
maintenance requirements, including the water retention basin areas, and will have its
own CC&Rs to ensure that properties are well maintained.
Chairperson Hood reminded the Commission that the discussion tonight must focus on
the adequacy of the FEIR.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Sharp requested a short recess. The Commission recessed at 9:25 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m.
Chairperson Hood reopened the public hearing. He explained that the reason for
reopening the public hearing is to prevent having to re-notice this item for the
continuation of the discussion at the next scheduled meeting of June 4, 2003.
Commissioner Deaton requested that notice of continuing the meeting be published in
the Sun Newspaper.
Chairperson Hood asked Staff to provide parallels to the Target Store with regard to
sound screening. Mr. Cummins stated that the EIR sets forth mitIgation measures that
state that when the end user is known, a noise study is to be submitted to the City. He
said that the noise study must have necessary noise mitigation associated with it to
meet the noise thresholds identIfied within City Code. He indicated that if the noise
study requires a sound wall, the Department of Development Services would then
17
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon
Meetmg Mmutes of May 21, 2003
require this of the end user applicant. Chairperson Hood expressed the concern that
once the project is approved, individual building plans will not be brought before the PC
for review.
Commissioner Deaton asked if the studies done on the lots for this project would be
cumulative or simply based upon the individual parcels? Mr. Whittenberg stated that
until the use is identified with the type of noise generation factors that may result from
the business operation, it would be difficult to provide an adequate response as to how
cumulative something may be. He said that the EIR at this point evaluates traffic noise
impacts from business operations, assuming certain trip generations based upon
business park uses, and already includes an analysis for trucks and cars, but does not
include impacts that may result from such items as trash compactors that may be a part
of a particular use. He noted that the EIR does include provisions that require these
types of uses to be located close to the loading dock areas and also for provision of a
supplemental nOise analysis. He said that background noise levels around each
particular facility at the time of the study must be included as part of the noise analyses.
He noted that the Noise Consultant would be able to provide further clarification on
cumulative noise impacts if the Commission so desires. Commissioner Deaton asked
whether the problem might be mitigated if the City had some way of working with the
property owners association on cumulative noise. Mr. Whittenberg stated that these are
Issues that would be addressed as site-specific uses become known. Commissioner
Deaton asked how this could be enforced. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the mitigation
measures in the FEIR require future noise analyses be done and are also conditioned
on the VTTM and there are also proposed conditions on the Precise Plan approvals for
each of the buildings on the project.
Chairperson Hood inquired if approval of the VTTM would mean that the City would
relinquish subsequent approval of what goes into the project. Mr. Whittenberg stated
the VTTM allows the project applicant the authority to subdivide his property in
accordance with that plan, and basically what that says is that if the City were to change
the subdivision requirements after the map has been approved, but before it has been
recorded, the applicant would still be able to record his map. Chairperson Hood asked
what the Precise Plan would do. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the Precise Plan and the
Specific Plan deal with building locations, landscaping, number of parking spaces, hours
of operations, etc.
Chairperson Hood asked that the Associate Planner respond to some of comments
made by Mr. Jerry Olivera from the City of Long Beach. Mr. Cummins stated that when
traffic impacts are identified in a neighboring city, the City of Seal Beach has no
authonty to demand that the neighboring city complete improvements in a specific
manner. He explained that a fair share traffiC impact fee program eXists and in this case
the City of Long Beach engineers have developed their fair share impact fee program
showing that the Boeing project will have some impact upon those intersections
specified within the traffic study. Boeing, therefore, would be responsible for paYing
their "fair share" of fees into the Long Beach impact fee program, and Long Beach city
officials would then make the determination as to whether or not those monies should
18
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meeting Mmutes of May 21, 2003
go towards improving those specific intersections or towards other projects within the
city.
Commissioner Sharp stated that he has spoken to the President of Mutual 2 and the
President of the Golden Rain Foundation and they confirmed that they are planning to
replace the wall surrounding LW. He said that many of the apartments close to the
existing wall enjoy the nice ocean breeze and none of the LW residents that he has
spoken to recommend that the height of the wall be increased. He stated that they all
feel that the height of the existing wall is adequate. He said he would question the
comment made earlier that 10,000 cars enter and exit LW daily as LW has
approximately 9,000 residents, one-third of which do not drive or own automobiles.
Chairperson Hood posed a theoretical Case No. 1 where two neighbors own adjoining
properties and development of each property requires an EIR. Property Owner A
commissions an EIR and the person completes his building. Two years later Property
Owner B commIssions an EIR and the person completes his building. In Case No.2
Property Owners A and B decide to do their building together and commission a single
EIR for that development. He asked whether there is a difference in impact when the
development is separated by time? Mr. Glenn LaJoie stated that it is quite common in
the business of preparing EIRs to have two separate properties under one project
analysis. He noted that whether this is due to property ownership or phases of
development it is a common scenario. He said that when you develop your
understanding of the project description, there is a provision of CEQA in which you
identify phasing. He explained that phasing is the basis to define the opening year of an
individual project and then identify a buildout year. He noted that it is imperative in the
project description to call out what the project is, if there is a separation and the timeline
pursuant to a phasing scenano. Chairperson Hood asked Mr. LaJoie whether he was
instructed to write the EIR as if the development would be one development or a
phased development. Mr. LaJoie stated that the EIR analysis was pursuant to a
phasing program. Chairperson Hood inqUired as to how many years the EIR analysis
covers. Mr. LaJoie referred to Page 3-23 of the EIR to Section 3.5 Phasing, which
identifies the buildout scenario for each of the planning areas and a timeline for
completion by the end of 2006.
Commissioner Deaton asked whether the traffic signals are or are not synchronized.
Mr. Cummins introduced Mr. Bill Zimmerman, the City Traffic EngIneer. Mr.
Zimmerman stated that portions of SBB do have synchronized signals up to Road A on
SBB, which is an older type controller. He then indicated that from Road C to the 405
Freeway the signals are synchronized, and north of the 405 Freeway along SBB,
signals are synchronized. He noted that the signals along Westminster Avenue are still
on time base coordination and on demand. CommissIoner Deaton asked if the signals
at the LW entrances are timed. Mr. Zimmerman stated that they are. He explained that
the timing sequence for the signals, excluding LW, are on a 120-second cycle, and for
the LW area they are on 60-second cycles. Commissioner Deaton asked if this means
that these signals are not synchronized. Mr. Zimmerman responded that they are
synchronized but are on a half cycle and do conform to the synchronization of the
19
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of May 21, 2003
corridor. Commissioner Deaton asked if Mr. Zimmerman sees other options for
possible mitigation measures, other than those that appear in the EIR. Mr. Zimmerman
stated that as part of the improvements to the Boeing property, most of the signals
along Westminster Avenue as well as the signal at Road A will be upgraded to current
standards, which will allow synchronization of all signals along SBB and introduce
synchronization along Westminster Avenue. He noted that the City is also proactive in
developing a traffic management system that allows management of traffic on a citywide
basIs so that it can be monitored daily and adjustments can be made. He stated that a
project on the 405 Freeway overcrossing IS pending to make improvements to the
ramps as well as the intersections of those ramps, which will allow for connection and
coordination of those signals. Commissioner Deaton asked how soon these
improvements are scheduled to begin. Mr. Zimmerman stated that the City has just
received the approved project report from CalTrans and is now in the preliminary stages
of circulating a Request for Proposals to select a design consultant.
Chairperson Hood asked If it would be appropriate to consider downsizing as a
mitigation measure. Mr. Cummins stated that a "No Project" alternative has been
identified within the EIR. Chairperson Hood commented that downsizing might help
reduce or eliminate an unmltigatable impact. Mr. Cummins stated that with regard to
the traffic impacts that have been categorized as unavoidable, he doesn't believe that a
reduced project would have the impact that would make this a completely nonsignificant
issue. Chairperson Hood noted that what the Associate Planner is stating is that if even
one building were constructed, this would create a significant impact. Mr. Whittenberg
stated that the Traffic Consultant should address this issue as the EIR evaluates future
traffic without the project. Mr. Baretto stated that no project or a reduced project would
result in the same traffic impacts as the proposed project. He indicated that traffIC
conditions would stIli be adverse as projected to the 2006 hOrizon year. Mr.
Whittenberg referred to Page 5.3-53 of the EIR and noted that it shows a 2006 peak
hour capacity analysis, which shows that in the year 2006 at the 405 Freeway and at
Westminster Avenue/SBB even if there is no project, significant impacts will still occur at
these Intersections and at those in Long Beach as a result of general population growth.
CommiSSioner Deaton asked whether opening of Beverly Manor Road is mentioned as
an alternative for mitigation. Commissioner Sharp interjected that Beverly Manor Road
is open now and it is possible to enter LW with bicycles and electric cars. He said that If
this road were to be opened to automobiles it would require revamping the entrance and
having an attendant on site from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. to monitor the gate, which would
create additIonal expense for LW. Commissioner Deaton asked if the entrance could
have an electronic gate operation. Commissioner Sharp noted that this type of
operation might no be feasible for the age group of this population.
Mr. Whittenberg noted that traffic may be dispersed as it comes out of LW, but it still
goes onto SBB, so the number of vehicles on SBB is not affected. He stated that the
EIR analysis shows that the existing impacts at both current entrances to LW operate at
a LOS A or B today, and the City does not anticipate that these will change based upon
the BoeIng project because employees will not be entering or exiting LW to any great
20
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
..
CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon
Meetmg Mmutes of May 21,2003
extent. He said that from a traffic impact issue, It really doesn't change the analysis
along SBB as to where the major unmitigable impacts are. He reminded the
Commission that the reason the impacts are unmitigable is because the City cannot
acquire property from the Navy nor the 405 Freeway bridge can be widened by the year
2006.
CommissIoner Deaton requested clarification on what a vote on adequacy would entail.
Mr. Whittenberg explained that a recommendation of adequacy means that the PC is
stating that the EIR provides the Information that City Council needs in order to make an
Informed decision, and as part of that information, it indicates that as currently identified
there are no ways to eliminate impacts at those intersections. He emphasized that a
vote of adequacy does not reflect agreement or disagreement with these
determinations. He stated that the EIR is basically a public disclosure document
identifying the environmental impacts of a proposed project and the mitigation measures
proposed to eliminate those impacts to the extent practicable.
Commissioner Shanks stated that the EIR does underestimate some of issues and he
noted that tracking throughout this document was very difficult.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that in considering this recommendation the PC does not bind
itself to any future decision on the project itself one way or the other.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Shanks to recommend to City Council that the Boeing
SpecIfIc Plan Final Environmental Impact Report is adequate as written.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Hood, Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Deaton to continue the public hearing for Review of
Boeing Integrated Defense Systems (BIDS) Specific Plan to the next scheduled meeting
of June 4, 2003.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Hood, Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
STAFF CONCERNS
None.
21
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
.
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of May 21,2003
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Sharp asked if the current color of the buildings for Sunrise Assisted
Living is to be the final color. Mr. Whittenberg reported that this was not the finished
color.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Hood adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
C'~~~o AA ~_
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary
Planning Department
APPROVAL
The Commission on June 4, 2003, app~ the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of Wednesday, May 21, 2003. .
22