HomeMy WebLinkAboutEQCB Min 2006-06-28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
1CITY OF SEAL BEACH
Environmental Quality Control Board
Minutes of June 28, 2006
Chairperson Voce called the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) meeting to
order at 6 35 p.m. on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 The meeting was held in City
Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag
Roll Call
Present Chairperson Voce, Members Barton, Hurley, and Vineyard
Also
Present Deoartment of Develooment Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Absent Member Neal
Mr. Whittenberg noted for the record that he had not heard whether Member Neal would
not be In attendance tonight.
II Approval of Agenda
Member Hurley requested that Item No 5 be removed from the Consent Calendar for
further diScussion after "Scheduled Matters."
MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by Vineyard to approve the Agenda as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Voce, Barton, Hurley, and Vineyard
None
Neal
III Oral Communications
None
, These Minutes were transcnbed from an audiotape of the meetmg
06-28-06 EQCB Minutes
Page 1 of 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
City of Seal Beach EnVironmental Quality Control Board
Meetmg Mmutes of June 28, 2006
IV Consent Calendar
1. Receive and File - Memorandum Re: Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station -
Installation Restoration Program - Status Report Re: RAB Project Update,
Dated May 16, 2006.
2. Receive and File - Staff Report Re: San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan
Final Program EIR and Responses To Comments, Dated June 28,2006.
3. Receive and File - Staff Report Re: "Draft Second Annual Groundwater
Monitoring Report - Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Sites 5 & 7 - Naval
Weapons Station Seal Beach," Dated June 28, 2006
4 Receive and File - Staff Report Re' ProvIsion Of "Notice Of Proposed Action
Amending GUidelines Implementing The California Environmental Quality Act,
June 2006," Dated June 28, 2006.
6 Receive and File - Staff Report Re' Overview Of Upcoming Projects For
Review By EQCB, Dated June 28, 2006.
7. Receive and File - Memorandum Re: Follow-Up On Board Concerns From
May 24, 2006 Meeting, Dated June 28, 2006.
MOTION by Hurley, SECOND by Barton to approve the Consent Calendar as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Voce, Barton, Hurley, and Vineyard
None
Neal
V Scheduled Matters
8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 24, 2006.
Recommendation: Approve Minutes subject to any corrections determined
appropriate.
MOTION by Hurley, SECOND by Vineyard to approve the Meeting Minutes of May 24,
2006 as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Voce, Barton, Hurley, and Vineyard
None
Neal
06-28-06 EQCB Minutes
Page 2 of 10
CIty of Seal Beach EnvIronmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of June 28, 2006
1 9 Consideration Of City Response Letter Re' "Negative Declaratlonllnitial Study
2 For Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation Of Chlorinated Plume At Installation
3 Restoration Site 70 - Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach."
4
5 Recommendation' Authorize approval of City response letter with any
6 modifications determined appropriate, instruct Chairperson to sign proposed
7 Response Letter, and Instruct staff to forward to the City CounCil for
8 information. Receive and File Staff Report
9
10 Mr. Whittenberg noted for the record that Member Neal arrived for the meeting at 6 41
11 p.m
12
13 Chairperson Voce requested that Mr. Whittenberg provide a brief Staff Report on this
14 Item Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff finds the analysis presented in the report to be
15 fairly accurate, as the program is designed to remediate groundwater contamination that
16 varies In depth from 15 to 200 feet below ground level. He explained that there are two
17 distinct areas on the Naval Weapons Station (NWS), and IR Site 70 IS the old research
18 testing and evaluation portion of the base where the Saturn 3 Rocket Booster Testing
19 Program was conducted. He said that almost directly under this particular portion of the
20 base there IS a groundwater plume contamination called "a dense, nonaqueous plume,"
21 and he Indicated that this is the area of highest concentration of contamination, which IS
22 the result of past practices at that facility In using cleaning solvents and other materials
23 used for cleaning the equipment that was a part of the Saturn 3 program during the late
24 1960's and early 1970's. He stated that the dense plume under this site has moved by
25 the natural occurrence of groundwater movement on the property, leaving a dissolved
26 plume that is biogradlng in a southeasterly direction toward the National Wildlife Refuge
27 (NWR). He noted that this portion of the plume IS much less concentrated than the
28 dense nonaqueous plume, and this one ranges from a depth of approximately 60 feet to
29 200 feet below ground level, in an aqUifer level Within the Southern California BaSin that
30 has been contaminated by saltwater intrusion and IS not used for drinking purposes. He
31 stated that the proposed program is deSigned to clean up the contamination levels to
32 get to a drinking level condition, absent the existing salinity levels that are already in the
33 water. Mr. Whittenberg then explained that the Negative Declaration (ND) generally
34 evaluates the surface Impacts of what this program would do to the surface Itself, as It
35 Involves drilling wells that will pump different constituents into the groundwater to
36 provide the treatment and then long-term mOnitoring of that activity With additional
37 monitoring wells prOVided around the IR Site 70 location at the RT&E area and around
38 the dissolved plume as It heads out towards the NWR. He stated that the document
39 Indicates that In DTSC's opinion there are no Impacts from the remediation project Itself
40 that require mitigation measures, and the work can be done in compliance with all
41 current state and federal standards that apply to this type of remediation activity He
42 noted that Staff has reviewed approximately 55-60 different reports on thiS site since the
43 early 90's, and thiS is basically the end of the process prior to beginning on the actual
44 remediation program He said that the only comment from Staff is that the document
45 states that fire services are to be prOVided by the Seal Beach Fire Department, which
46 was absorbed mto the Orange County Fire AuthOrity (OCFA) back In the late 1960's, so
06-28-06 EQCB Minutes
Page 3 of 10
City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of June 28, 2006
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Staff has noted in the comment letter that this reference should be changed. He stated
that the initial deadline for comments was June 24, 2006; however, Staff requested that
the deadline be extended to June 29, 2006, so that the EQCB could review this
document and provide comments tonight.
Member Hurley asked if the present contamination IS a current threat to the ecology
Mr Whittenberg stated that It is not as it is all below ground. Member Hurley referred to
Page 10 of the Staff Report, 2nd Paragraph and noted that he found no basis for the
determination that industrial level clean up would be adequate. He asked if there were
no level of clean up between residential and industrial. Mr Whittenberg stated that
there IS none, and noted that the basis could probably be found in the ND wlthm the
Land Use or Hazards Section. He noted that the general position for this partIcular site
has been that It IS an Industrial site and will continue to be used for industrial purposes
as long as the Navy owns the property, and as long as this IS the case, the City does
not see any reason to require a higher level of clean up.
Chairperson Voce commented that he had also noted the comment on the "industrial
standards," and he stated that when the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) was initially
putting this information together, the community had requested "residential standard
clean up," and he believes that most of the NWS sites have this standard, but Site 70
was an exceptional SItuation, as he believes the buildings surrounding thiS site are
eligible for classification as historic structures, which would Indicate that the use of this
area probably will not change.
MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by Barton to approve the City response letter and
authOrize Chairperson to sign the letter as presented. Instruct Staff to forward to the
City Council for information. Receive and File Staff Report.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Voce, Barton, Hurley, Neal, and Vineyard
None
None
10. Consideration Of City Response Letter Re: Recirculated Draft EIR - Home
Depot, CIty Of Long Beach.
Recommendation. AuthOrize approval of letter with any modifications
determined appropriate, instruct Chairperson to sign proposed Response
Letter. Instruct staff to forward to the City Council for information. Receive
and File Staff Report
Chairperson Voce commented that the report was very comprehensive.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that the Board has reviewed the 2005 version of thiS document
and this 2006 version shows that the proJect has been revised based upon comments
received dUring the review of the 2005 report. He noted that one of the maJor changes
06-28-06 EQCB Minutes
Page 4 of 10
City of Seal Beach EnVironmental QualIty Control Board
Meeting Minutes of June 28, 2006
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
made was to revise the traffic analysis to include cumulative impacts from the Seaport
Marina proposed project, which did not exist when the Initial Home Depot 2005 Draft
EIR was circulated. He noted that thiS is not required under CEQA, but they did revise
the analysis, which Staff believes has helped He then added that Staff has also
Included comments received from a resident of College Park West (CPW) regarding
current problems in attempting to eXit CPW caused by traffic controls imposed by the
City of Long Beach upon a residential neighborhood next to CPW.
Chairperson Voce stated that the report states that traffic impacts have basically been
determined to be an unavoidable impact. He emphasized that the Seal Beach
community is very concerned for the reasons previously stated, particularly for reSidents
of CPW, as they only have one way in and out of thiS neighborhood using Studebaker
Road, and the proposed Improvements will not alleviate the anticipated increases In
traffic. He said that the report does not respond to these concerns.
Member Hurley proposed the following changes to the response letter.
Pg.7,A.
Delete "Re-Circulation of Draft EIR - Inadequate" Have title read,
"Cumulative Project Analysis"
Pg. 7, Para 2
Change to read' "Seal Beach sincerely appreciates the response to
our comments from June 2005 statmg that the cumulatIVe project
analysis also needed to evaluate the Seaport Marina project. We are
pleased to see that the additional information covering our concerns
regarding Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality, and Noise has been
provided as part of the additional cumulative project analysis regarding
the Seaport Marina project"
Pg.8, B.
Change to read' "ContinuinQ Lack of Discussion as to the Potential
TransDortation ImDact On Seal Beach."
Pg. 8, Para. 1
Line 6
Change to read: "Those comments were related to the level of
analysis and methodologies utilized that failed to fully descrtbe and
evaluate transportation/traffic impacts on the City of Seal Beach and
failed to properly use and calculate the "fair share" costs for identified
transportation Improvements at vaflous intersections withm Long
Beach and Seal Beach"
Pg 8, Par. 2
Line 4
Change to read. "... Studebaker Road at the County boundary Ime,
and as far distant from the County boundary line as is appropflate,
given the criteria set forth in the first paragraph of this comment. We
wish to emphasize that vehicular access to the College Park West
neighborhood in Seal Beach is through the westbound SR-
22/Studebaker Road on-off ramps, and that identified substantial
adverse impacts at these intersections need to be carefully evaluated
06-28-06 EQCB Minutes
Page 5 of 10
CIty of Seal Beach EnVIronmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of June 28, 2006
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
and adequate mitigation measures developed to address the
ingress/egress issues that will affect the College Park West
community. In addition, the reduced lane capacity of the Marina Drive
Bridge should be reffected In the traffic analysis. "
Pg., 8, Par. 3
Line 1
Change to read 'The City wishes to reinforce and support the
comments provided by Mike Bruel, 205 Hatvard Lane, Seal Beach,
regarding the safety and VIsibility Issues that eXist at the intersection of
College Park Drive and the westbound SR-22/Studebaker Road on-off
ramps. "
Pg., 8, Par. 3
Line 8
Change to read. "... impacts already identified in the Recirculated
DEIR for these intersections."
Pg., 8, Par. S
LmeS
Change to read. ":.. proVide four (4) copies of the Final EIR
"
Chairperson Voce referred to Page 8, B., and noted that It would be more correct to
state ". . . to Seal Beach:," as this IS a preposition that shows a relationship, and IS not a
spatial relationship where something is on top of Seal Beach. He then noted that Seal
Beach reSidents that live near PaCific Coast Highway (PCH) would probably take thiS
route to access the freeways, and these proposed proJects could hold reSidents captive
by making traffic worse, not only for Seal Beach, but also for Long Beach He then
referred to Page 7, A, and stated that the word "Inadequate" should remain, as thiS
describes exactly what the report was, and he feels that it is still inadequate. Mr
Whittenberg suggested also reviSing the paragraph text to read:
" . . stating that the cumulative project analysis, inadeauate in our ooinion,
also needed to evaluate the Seaport Marina project. "
MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by Vineyard to approve the City response letter and
authorize Chairperson to sign the letter as amended. Instruct Staff to forward to the City
CounCil for information Receive and File Staff Report.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Voce, Barton, Hurley, Neal, and Vineyard
None
None
Member Barton asked why two of the tanks on the project sIte are not to be removed.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that these tanks are to continue in use by one of the refineries at
that location. Member Barton asked If they would be in harmony With the new proJect.
Mr Whittenberg stated that they would have a 12-foot high wall and landscaping
obscunng them. Member Barton then asked for a definition of "fair share." Mr
Whittenberg explained that fair share has to do wrth traffic impacts related to the
06-28-06 EQCB Minutes
Page 6 of 10
City of Seal Beach EnVironmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of June 28, 2006
1 Impacts to a particular intersection and the modifications that would have to be made to
2 that intersection. The traffic engineers then complete calculations of the cost of the
3 work, and when there are multiple projects impacting an intersection, the engineers will
4 use formulas to determine the fair share of costs to each development for their Impact to
5 that Intersection. For this project the City believes that Long Beach should pay their fair
6 share of the cost of improvements that will have to be made to Westminster Avenue and
7 Seal Beach Boulevard, as traffic from this project will travel In this direction also.
8
9 Member Hurley referred to the Home Depot report on air quality that Included qUite a bit
10 of discussion on the PM-10 air pollution factor, and he noted that Studebaker Road is
11 7/101hs of a mile from his home in Leisure World. He asked If any air pollution factors
12 related to the reSidents of Leisure World were ever discussed. Mr Whittenberg stated
13 that the traffic related impacts discussed In the report have to do with C02 hot spots
14 when exhaust fumes from idling cars are emitted, and PM-10 IS also a factor He noted
15 that Increased air pollutants would occur only within a 500-600 foot distance, and the
16 emissions are dispersed qUickly enough that this would not be an Issue.
17
18
19 5. Receive and File - Staff Report Re: Implementation Of Adopted City Council
20 Policy 600-11 - CEQA Evaluation, Short Term Construction-Related NOise
21 Impacts, Dated June 28,2006.
22
23 Member Hurley referred to Page 3 of the Staff Report, 2nd sentence, and With regard to the
24 Boeing Project he asked if the City had not received complaints from reSidents of two
25 Leisure World bUildings that were not offered Installation of double-paned windows. Mr
26 Whittenberg stated that thiS investigation is ongoing, and noted that the Issue IS whether or
27 not these buildings should have been Included as part of the initial mitigation measure to
28 require installation of double-paned windows. He explained that thiS is not an issue of
29 nOise levels exceeding what IS allowable under the mitigation measures. He said that
30 mOnitoring is done when there IS an alleged violation of the City nOise standards He
31 indicated that the Issue is that these reSidents feel that their units should have been
32 included in the mitigation program to begin with Member Hurley stated that their Issue IS
33 that under their current bUildings the nOise is excessive, and their complaint is that they
34 were not included and now they are suffering excessive noise. Mr. Whittenberg reiterated
35 that the Issue is whether or not they should have been included in the initial mitigation
36 measures, and IS not an Issue of ongoing noise at the work Site, but rather that these
37 resident feel that they should have been included in the mitigation program, and had they
38 been included, their opinion is that the noise being generated wouldn't be as much of a
39 problem to them He said that there is a big difference between nOise being a perceived
40 problem to someone, and noise exceeding the levels established in the mitigation
41 measures under the EIR. He noted that the City cannot request that the developer use
42 other construction equipment, when the equipment is In compliance Member Hurley
43 stated that the noise levels could be monitored. Mr. Whittenberg explained that noise
44 during construction hours is not regulated under City Code, and there is a speCifiC
45 exemption that states during construction hours noise levels are not regulated He stated
46 that under mitigatIon programs there can be additional measures requiring that
06-28-06 EQCB Minutes
Page 7 of 10
CIty of Seal Beach EnVironmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of June 28, 2006
1 construction equipment be kept as far away from residential areas as possible, and as
2 long as the equipment is property muffled, the noise levels are not regulated. He said that
3 the City'S investigation involves whether or not some of these Units or all of them should
4 have been included In the mitigation program. Member Hurley asked at what stage is
5 construction activity now causing the most noise, and isn't construction almost over on the
6 Boeing ProJect. Mr Whittenberg stated that he tends to think that the large majority of the
7 construction work is over for a while, but what will generate noise Will be when tenant
8 improvement plans begin to come in for tenants wanting to build out the interior shell of a
9 bUilding before the structure has been roofed and fully enclosed, but thiS type of work IS
10 usually done after a building IS fully enclosed Member Hurley asked how far the nearest
11 new bUilding is from the north Side of Westminster Avenue. Mr. Whittenberg stated that
12 from the south side the nearest building is approximately 60 feet away, and Westminster
13 Avenue IS 120 feet wide
14
15 Member Hurley then proposed that the EQCB request that the Director of Development
16 Services report to the Board on complaints received regarding short-term construction-
17 related noise, whether CEQA related or not. He said that the report could be periodiC or
18 case-by-case at the Director's option, but always as Informative as pOSSible. He asked for
19 the Board's feedback.
20
21 Member Voce stated that this would be a good Idea gIven the fact that the Board had to
22 review a document dealing With the Issue of nOise. He asked If the Director felt thiS to be
23 extraneous. Mr Whittenberg clarified that what the Board was asking was an account of
24 all complaints received related to any type of construction noise, regardless of whether It IS
25 a commercial or residential project Member Hurley stated that there are various projects
26 In the pipeline that may generate complaints about construction noise and receiving thiS
27 information Will provide Information on how well the new ordinance is working.
28
29 Member Neal referred to page 2 of the Staff Report under City of Seal Beach
30 ReaUlrements and noted that this very clearly states what the requirements are. Member
31 Hurley stated that thiS IS being enforced based solely on complaints, and the City does not
32 go out of its own initiative and measure construction nOise levels Member Neal noted that
33 if the nOise takes place outSide of the allowable hours, then this would be a legitimate
34 complaint, but If it occurs dUring the allowable hours, she does not see where there would
35 be a legitimate reason for complaint. Mr Whittenberg interJected to explain that a policy
36 statement is related to conditions that may be imposed on a project that requires CEQA
37 review, and part of the standard mitigation measure is a standard nOIse ordinance
38 provIsion of the City, which allows construction noise during specifiC hours and
39 surrounding residents basically just have to live with It. He continued by noting that the
40 City does have additional proviSions related to pile dnving, and other such construction
41 activities that might create inordinate levels of noise, whIch the City can elect to monitor
42 He indicated that the large maJority of daily complaints received by the City about nOise
43 are not even related to construction nOise, but to Issues like a neighbor's air conditioning
44 condenser Unit being too loud, or neighbOring tenants plaYing loud music or having parties
45 on the weekends. He stated that so far Staff has not used a meter to mOnitor the nOIse
46 levels on the Boeing ProJect. but he believes that eventually thiS will occur. He stated that
06-28-06 EQCB Minutes
Page 8 of 10
CIty of Seal Beach Environmental QualIty Control Board
Meeting Minutes of June 28, 2006
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
It would be more appropriate to report on noise related to discretionary project approvals
that require environmental analysis, as this is what the policy statement addresses, but for
complaints about general construction nOise taking place during the specified hours, this
would be above and beyond what the policy statement is designed to address. Member
Hurley asked how Mr. Whittenberg felt about reporting to the Board on complaints about
nOise on CEQA discretionary proJects. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would not be a
problem Member Hurley then noted that at the last meeting he had requested that a copy
of the policy statement be proVided to contractors before beginning work on a project. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that If this is a CEQA discretionary proJect, the proJect proponent IS
made aware of these conditions, and dUring the pre-construction meetings with City
BUilding Officials copies of the EIR mitigation measures are provided to the developer and
the contractors.
MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by Barton to request that, as appropriate, Staff provide
summaries of complaints received regarding construction related nOise for projects that
require CEQA discretionary review.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Voce, Barton, Hurley, Neal, and Vineyard
None
None
MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by Barton to Receive and File Staff Report Re:
Implementation Of Adopted City Council Policy 600-11 - CEQA Evaluation, Short Term
Construction-Related Noise Impacts, Dated June 28, 2006.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Voce, Barton, Hurley, Neal, and Vineyard
None
None
VI Staff Concerns
Mr. Whittenberg reported that Senior Planner, Christy Teague, IS no longer employed by
the City of Seal Beach, as she has accepted a position as Economic Development
Manager with the City of Dana POint. He noted that a new Senior Planner, Paul
DaVeiga, IS scheduled to begin employment on Monday, July 10, 2006, and will be
introduced to the Board at ItS next meeting He noted that the new Planner would be
trained to eventually serve as secretary to the EQCB meetings.
VII Board Concerns
Member Barton reported that she would not be present at the next scheduled meeting
06-28-06 EQCB Minutes
Page 9 of 10
City of Seal Beach EnVironmental QualIty Control Board
Meetmg Minutes of June 28, 2006
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Chairperson Voce asked when the Board elections are to be conducted. Mr.
Whittenberg indicated that since Member Barton would be absent from the next
meeting, It would probably be best to walt until a full Board is present in August 2006.
VIII Adjournment
Chairperson Voce adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m to the next scheduled meeting of
July 2006
Respectfully Submitted,
(\N.~""~~
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary
Department of Development Services
The Board on July 26, 2006, approved the Minutes of the Environmental Quality Control
Board of Wednesday, June 28, 2006 ~.
06-28-06 EQCB Minutes
Page 10 of 10