Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEQCB Min 1995-05-23 . . . ; '. I , Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes May 23, 1995 Call to Order at 6:30 p.m. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE @~n II. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Voce, Hood, Hurley, Nakagawa Logan (excused) Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant (planning) Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney Jay ZitT, EIP & Associates Bob Brown, Brown-Buntin Associates Mario Sanchez, DKS Associates Bob Close, DKS Associates III. ApPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Whittenberg indicated staff has presented the Board an item on a proposed community safety office at the foot of the pier. Staff wishes to discuss this matter under staff concerns. MOTION BY HOOD; SECO~~Y: TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. ~UWAllf U MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: 4-0 VOCE, HOOD, HURLEY, NAKAGAWA NONE IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - none. 1= \ I,I;;QCIN1INo",a acc k i r,' ... I Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of May 23, 1995 . V. . . CONSENT CALENDAR VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS VII. SCHEDULED MATTERS 1. Public Meeting to receive comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the proposed Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course Development Plan, and to forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission as to the adequacy/inadequacy of IR () ~ Mr. Whittenberg presented the staffreport (on file at partment of Development Services). Mr. Whittenberg indicated the purpose of the Board's meeting was to consider the Draft and Final EIR documents and to make a determination as to the adequacy or inadequacy of the documents and to forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the adequacy/inadequacy. Mr. Whittenberg indicated staff has prepared two draft resolutions for the Board to consider; one of which indicates a finding of adequacy under CEQA and one which indicates inadequacy. Mr. Whittenberg stressed the Board should list specific reasons the final document is inadequate. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the jurisdiction of the EQCB is somewhat limited. The Board should not discuss or take testimony, good, bad or indifferent. regarding the merits of the proposed project. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the staff report lists the items which are required in an EIR under CEQA. Staff believes all items are in place. It's the EQCB's determination whether or not the discussion of those issues and the elements that are required in the document meet the minimum requirements ofCEQA. Mr. Whittenberg indicated staffwould not be bringing a document before the Board if it felt it was inadequate. Mr. Whittenberg discussed the proposed Planning Commission scheduling of this matter. He recommended the Board attempt to reach closure on this issue this evening to allow the Board's findings and recommendation to be forwarded to the Planning Commission at its June 7th hearing. Mr. Whittenberg read CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15151 discussing the definition of adequacy for an EIR. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the City' Archaeological Advisory Board has reviewed the FEIR and its findings, in the form ofa resoluti ained in the staffreport. Mr. Whittenberg discussed the proposed mitigation measure . 1 berg discussed the proposed high density development. Mr. Whittenberg indicated t e velopment of the high density residences consists of the rezoning with a planned development overlay zone. The planned development overlay zone would require review and approval before the Planning Commission once the final development plans are completed. The public once again could address this issue once the final development is proposed. Mr. Whittenberg discussed the Board's request for a noise demonstration. Mr. Whittenberg indicated staff and the City Attorney's office believes this type of request is not appropriate at the Board level as the Board is to review a document. The Board could forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission indicating the Board felt this type of demonstration would be helpful. Mr. Nakagawa indicated this was asked for in December, he was upset it took so long to get this answer. Page 2 1=\ I,I;;QCIN1INo...a BeCk . . . , , Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of May 23, 1995 Mr. Jay Ziff ofEIP & Associates (the principal EIR consultant hired by the City) discussed the changes to the Draft EIR (DEIR) which are incorporated into the FEIR. Mr. Ziff's presentation focused on the document's summary table. He indicated the changes resulted from comments received on the DEIR and in an attempt to correct and clarify information presented in the DEIR. Mr. Ziff discussed responses to several comments. Mr. Bob Close ofDKS Associates spoke regarding traffic impacts. Mr. Close discussed traffic intrusion into the Rossmoor community. The focus of this study wasn't whether or not there is a problem of intrusion into Rossmoor, but rather, what the intrusion effects of this project will be. DKS analysis indicated there will not be sig intrusion into Rossmoor as a result of this project. Second, Mr. Close discussed the L i1 . I Katella Avenue intersection. There is now a mitigation measure for this intersection c) his would restripe the intersection to bring about a level of service (LOS) better than would exist if the project is not built. Third, Mr. Close discussed the mitigation measure addressing the Seal Beach Boulevard I 1-405 overpass. Mr. Close indicated that ultimately the bridge will need to be widened due to future projects whether or not the proposed project is built. The applicant would be required to pay a fair share cost of the bridge widening. Mr. Close presented an interim restriping plan for the area between Beverly Manor and Lampson Avenue. A change from the DEIR recommendation is a widening of the intersections at Beverly Manor and at Old Ranch Parkway, as well as the restriping. The bike lanes would be maintained. Finally, Mr. Close discussed the OCT A trip generation rates. Mr. Close indicated they use land use averages generated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. There currently is not a local standard to do local average generation numbers. OCT A is performing a study, OCTM-3, which is based on socio-economic classifications, but not by land use yet. Eventually, they intend to get to the land use level. There is no date available as to when this will be done. Mr. Hurley asked if the national figures contain regional averages. Mr. Close said no. Mr. Close discussed Mitigation 4.9-4 regarding the driveway access to the commercial site. They cannot determine where the driveway should be located until the footprint of the commercial development is available. Therefore, DKS is recommending a study be performed once this information is available. Bob Brown of Brown-Buntin Associates discussed the noise impact analysis of the EIR. Mr. Brown discussed changes which have come about since the DElR. Mr. Brown indicated the noise impact section has been reorganized to make it clear there are other noise impacts on the subject property other than aircraft noise. He indicated there are two different types of noise descriptors: 1) cumulative (annual average of total noise) this is measured in CNEL; noises during late night and early morning hours are weighted r. nd, 2) single event impacts such as a truck or airplane. Mr. Brown discussed the Fe Committee on Noise (FICON) findings from a study 2-3 years ago which has been 10 I ed' the discussion on noise impacts. Also added was reference to the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook prepared by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. The Caltrans handbook identifies some major problems in trying to use a single event standard for land use compatibility planning, some of these are listed in pages 5-17 and 5-18 of the FEIR. Mr. Brown discussed the differences between the maximum noise level which occurs as a result ofa single event (LmmJ and the sound exposure level (SEL). These two are sometimes used interchangeably, but they are not the same. The SEL will be higher than the Lmax' Mr. Brown discussed a standard set forth by the Orange County Board of Supervisors at John Wayne Airport Page 3 1=\ I,I;;QClN1lNos.oB BCCk . . . . Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of May 23, 1995 which limits single event noise exposure in residential neighborhoods to an SEL of 100 dB. Mr. Brown indicated a correction which was made on page 5-25, Table 8.3-3, column 4 "Average Daily Operations" should read "7 PM to 10 PM" rather than "12 PM to 1 0 PM". On Page 5-31 there is a section which discussed how aircraft and surface traffic noises were combined to show overall noise exposure on the project site (Fig. 4.8-7). Mr. Brown indicated there are certain areas of the project with noise sensitive land use where the noise level exceeds applicable standards, however, these can be mitigated by the pr . n of sound walls, using berms, setbacks, etc. and properly designing the structures. So, t . ue since it can be mitigated. Regarding single event noise exposure, there are infrequent (aver e once per day) single event noise events which exceed 100 SEL and they are considered to be significant. Mr. Nakagawa asked Mr. Brown about the 100 SEL limit set for John Wayne Airport. He noticed there are three aircraft in the FEIR (page 5-24) which exceed this level. Mr. Nakagawa asked how much louder is an event of 106 dB versus 100 dB? Mr. Brown indicated site 4 is not located right where the residences will be located. If it was he felt the noise level would be about 2-4 dB less. He indicated a 10 decibel change would be perceived as twice as loud. Mr. Nakagawa asked Bob Close ofDKS a question regarding Figure 4.9-11 regarding the widths of lanes and the bike lane on the Seal Beach Boulevard overpass. Mr. Nakagawa asked whether this decrease in lane width increases the risk of accident. Mr. Close said no, these are within the standard limits for lane widths. Chairman Voce opened the public comment period. (8:00 PM) PUBLIC COMMENTS Ron Bradshaw - Bixby Ranch Company Mr. Bradshaw indicated Bixby has read the document and will be providing written comments to the City. He feels the setting in the EIR should more adequately depict the surrounding community and the conditions as they now exist. For instance, regarding single event noise issues if you consider the runway layout and the existing flight patterns, the noise impacts are as high or higher in many existing residential neighborhoods in Los Alamitos and Seal Beach than they are in the project area. Also, when you consider cumulative noise issues, the freeway is the greatest noise generator on the project area and eway is much closer to existing residential uses within the City. Bixby isn't arguing wi ' 'stics. They must take into account the environment into which the project will be bUl t. hi IS not a stand alone project, it's an infill project. It doesn't have unusual circumstances when compared to other parts of the community. Mr. Nakagawa asked the public to comment on the preparation of the FEIR, the spirit in which it was written, how easy it was to understand. Mr. Hood asked the public to speak regarding the environmental issues and the adequacy of the EIR. Page 4 1=\ 1,I;;QCB\M1N9...e BCCk ,. . . . Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of May 23, 1995 Sally Unrath - College Park East She questioned the statement made by Mr. Close that there would be no impact on Rossmoor, since there are two schools in Rossmoor and the project would put a high density, middle income project across the street. These people will drive across the street to take their children to school. There will have to be an impact there. Larry Michaels, College Park East Commented on the noise level on the San Diego Freeway. This freeway is the most used freeway section in the world. His home faces the freeway. He's lived there since there was only a chain link fence separating the freeway from his h sound wall has done nothing to decrease noise levels. Sometimes the noise gets wild. ~. Cars from new projects such as Bolsa Chica and Bixby will all go north to get on the ee ay, no matter which way they go. Plus the congestion which will be generated --. As you know to get on the San Diego Freeway and entering on Seal Beach to go north you must cross 2 or 3 lanes of traffic. Everyday there are sigalerts at the Seal Beach Boulevard overpass. LionelOkun - Leisure World He felt periodic noise is more annoying. He's experienced this from the power plant. He questioned the mitigation measure regarding the statement on noise. Does this mean future residents cannot open their windows? David Steele - Rossmoor He questioned Table 4.8-5. There are six kinds of aircraft listed. Why was a C-141 not on the list, also the F-16 and the C-5A. These are much louder. All aircraft which take off and land here should be included to give a full picture of the existing situation. Warren Oatman - College Park East Regarding the traffic mitigation plan, it doesn't include Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard and St. Cloud and Seal Beach Boulevard which will be drastically impacted by people going and coming from work and school busses in and out of the project. The traffic mitigation plan doesn't even address these issues. Nick Reeny - CoUege Park East @~ He had some questions regarding the procedure the Board is being asked to follow at this time. The report is a lengthy report that the Board has only had since May 8th to review. He felt there hasn't been enough time for the Board or the public to review the document. There are many unanswered questions still. During recent rains, water was within feet of his house. He drove by the golf course and it appeared to be a lake out there. He was told in the report there was excess dirt from College Park East dumped in the golf course. If that's the case where was it, why did Page 5 1=\ 1,I;;QCB\MINos.oB BeCk . . . Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of May 23, 1995 the golf course flood? His neighborhood flooded. He couldn't get home because Lampson was flooded. Now they want to build homes, a hotel and a commercial complex and nothing has been done to help already impacted areas. He suggested the Board should insist on additional time to consider and review this matter. Dee Garcia - Tribal Chair GabrielenolTongva Council She expressed the concerns of the Indian tribe regarding the cultural resource section 4.13 of the Bixby Old Ranch EIR. Their concerns center on the proper disposition of any and all cultural material that will be disturbed and recovered d' archaeological surveys and earth moving activities as outlined in the mitigation measur City of Seal Beach and the project area are within the cultural and ethnic boun 1 0:6 e Gabrieleno people, it is important the City of Seal Beach realize the importance of proper tribal representation in all matters pertaining to Gabrieleno cultural resources. As the impact on cultural resources on the proposed project can be potentially significant, the tribe recommends that only a professional native American monitor be used on the project. Also, the native American monitor should be sanctioned by the tribe and show proof of tribal descent. The tribe would like the opportunity to recommend a monitor. Chairman Voce closed the public comment period. (8:35 PM) The Board took a ten minute break. (8:35 PM to 8:42 PM) STAFF/CONSULTANT RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Whittenberg spoke regarding the issue of traffic into Rossmoor. Obviously there will be some traffic generated into Rossmoor. However, the traffic generated does not reach the thresholds of significance set forth in the EIR. The local streets in Rossmoor and College Park East operate at level of service (LOS) B or A; there is a minimal amount of traffic in these areas. Therefore, under the County Growth Management criteria there is not a significant impact generated into these areas. Mr. Whittenberg spoke regarding the scheduling of this matter before the EQCB. The Board is to review the EIR for adequacy and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. The EIR and the project' I ill be reviewed at both the Planning Commission and City Council level. The public wil 0 Ci nity to comment on the EIR during this two or more month process. Additionally, die r as had the DEIR since early November 1994. The FEIR, which the Board has only had since May 8th, consists mainly of comment letters and responses to those comments from the City staff and its consultant team. The major changes to the DEIR are in Chapter 5 of the FEIR. This section is about 50-60 pages in length. The Planning Commission public hearings have been scheduled to allow public participation prior to people leaving on summer vacations. The Board does not need to forward a recommendation, but staff is recommending the Board try to reach some type of consensus recommendation for the Planning Commission to consider on June 7th. If the Board cannot reach a consensus, staff recommends Page 6 1=\ I,I;;QCIN1INo...a BCCk Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of May 23, 1995 the Board provide staffwith concerns on an individual basis which will be forwarded verbatim to . the Planning Commission on June 7th. Regarding flooding on the golf course, College Park East was elevated out of the flood plane to allow gravity flood drainage into the golf course. This was done partly with dirt from the golf course. The golf course has agreements in place which require the course to have the ability to retain a certain number of acre feet of water on the property, he believes 84 acre feet. This agreement is between the City and Bixby. The golf course has been designed to flood to take water from College Park East and the Arme~e Center in a time of heavy flooding. Mr. Whittenberg reminded the Board that ra at which occurred in January were of such a rare and extreme nature that it would be nearly imp ssible and impractical to design a system to meet them. Much of the City and surrounding counties flooded, not just College Park East. As part of the proposed mitigation measures the applicant would be required to pay the City for additional drainage studies to be done to update the 1967 requirements. If additional storage capacity is required based on these new studies this would have to be accommodated in the new grading plans for the reconfiguration of the golf course and new homes. Also, new construction will be required to be elevated out of any floodplain. Finally, Mr. Whittenberg indicated a native American monitor is required through the mitigation measures. This doesn't specifically recommend what tribe the monitor would come from. The City Council will take into account the concerns and desires of the Gabrielenos very seriously. . Mr. Hood discussed the holistic versus the piecemeal approach of the EIR. Would the rezoning be done at one time, or would it be piece by piece? Mr. Whittenberg indicated the zoning would all be changed concurrently with the General Plan amendments. Mr. Hood discussed a past zone change in College Park East where a park area was converted to residences. He asked whether a planned development can be reversed. Mr. Whittenberg indicated a General Plan can always be changed. Mr. Hood asked ifit would be inverse condemnation if the zoning and General Plan were later changed. Mr. Whittenberg said not likely as long as the City leaves the property owner some type of economic use of the property. Mr. Hood asked how "fair share" would be computed, particularly regarding the overpass. Mr. Whittenberg indicated this is set forth in the traffic impact fee of the City. Essentially, current traffic levels are considered the City's automatic responsibility. The bridge is already substandard. So the City already has the responsibility t iden the bridge. The analysis then looks at future anticipated buildout. There is a new numb D . ed based on the traffic from other projects that we can actually credit and identl 10 a specific impact on an intersection. On top of that is the specific traffic attributed to this project. This figure is not a function of the EIR but rather of the City Code. Mr. Hood hypothesized if the bridge widening costs $5 million and this project contributes 5% to the traffic then the City would spend $4.75 million and Bixby would contribute $250,000. Mr. Whittenberg indicated it's not that simplistic. Moneys would come from Caltrans and countywide growth management funds among others, in other words funding would likely come from 3 or 4 sources. . Page 7 1=\ I,I;;QCB\MIN9...a BCCk ,. Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of May 23, 1995 . Mr. Hurley indicated his job on this EIR is to study the CEQA guidelines, review the DEIR and its appendices, then the FEIR, then decide whether the FEIR is adequate under CEQA. However, he has located three places where the EIR is seriously and inexcusably inadequate, one place where he believes a serious error was made and one place where there might have been an error. The first inadequacy is the layout of the comments and response section, Chapter 4. This chapter presents a daunting challenge for an EIR reviewer. It contains almost 150 pages and one has to review every page to see if a concern was ad d. He proposed a section be added where all the comments or responses related to a spec . igation measure or their ill numbers from the main section would be grouped under tal ac or mitigation measure. Without such a section, the chapter is essentially useless for the purpose it was intended to serve. The EIR is supposed to be an informational conduit for the Board and public. Mr. Hurley indicated he has a question regarding storm runoffbut he will save it for Mr. ZitI Mr. Hurley stated on page 5-34 (Mitigation Measure 4.8-2) of the FEIR there is a misleading use of the term mitigation. Mr. Hurley read the definition of mitigation. He felt notification was not mitigation under this definition. . Mr. Hurley discussed errors in the FEIR. First, the DEIR in Appendix B, pages 67-70 there is a discussion of project trip generation. The numbers for project trip generation are one of two keys to the discussion of traffic impacts, the other is the capacity of streets or highways. He felt 223 dwelling units with 482 people would produce more than 111 AM peak hour exits and 122 PM peak hour entrances. If only one household member commuted there would be over 220 peak hour trips. He looked at the ITE trip generation equations on page 68, these were useless because of undefined terms. He thought perhaps there are two AM and two PM peak hours. However, he could find no definition of these terms in the EIR. Based on these shortcomings, he could find no basis for how the numbers were generated. Mr. Whittenberg indicated Mr. Close ofDKS could address this matter. Second, Mr. Hurley discussed an apparent error in the EIR. In the DEIR, pages 6-1 and 6-5 to 6-9. He felt there is no need for the inclusion of the increased residential alternative. He feels this alternative consideration is not required Mfi\~his alternative does not eliminate or reduce significant environmental effects'~~fr so much worse that it is not a reasonable alternative. Mr. Whittenberg responded, indicating 1) staff and the City's consultant team had not considered grouping of responses to comments by subject area. However, the format which is before the Board is the industry norm format which is considered to be the best available currently. Grouping as described would result in comments which would frequently be required to be cut up into 3 or 4 pieces, as many sentences address many items. Mr. Whittenberg felt this would actually result in a much more confusing response to comments section. Mr. Hurley said this could easily be done with a computer. Mr. Whittenberg said the responses would no longer be able to be grouped with the comments to which they respond. Mr. Hurley said his proposal would have split sentences . repeated for each comment. Mr. Whittenberg said repeating many of the comments 3 to 4 times Page 8 1=\ I,I;;QCIN1INo""e BCC k . . Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of May 23,1995 would result in a much longer and unmanageable document. Also, all of the changes which have occurred as a result of comments are summarized in Chapter 5. Many of the responses address issues which don't entail having to make changes to the document, correct misinformation or result in changes in mitigation measures. These types of issues don't impact the ultimate determination on the project. These type of comments aren't reflected in Chapter 5. 2) Regarding mitigation measures regarding the notific r oise impacts, the EIR recognizes that they're not sufficient to reduce those impacts to lcance. Those impacts are therefore in the EIR's opinion significant and unavoidable. The ndicates in Chapter 2 under the mitigation measures that those impacts that relate to notification due to the current operation of the Armed Forces Reserve Center and to the use of that facility for disaster support, even if you notify everybody, they're still going to be significant and unavoidable and people need to realize that ifthere is a project those impacts are going to be there. Mitigation measures in all instances don't reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. Mr. Hurley said that was completely irrelevant of his point. His point is the definition of mitigation precludes the use of such measures as mitigation because it does no mitigating. This use of the term mitigation is misleading and it doesn't belong in an EIR. Mr. Whittenberg explained the increased residential alternative was included because it was the original submittal by the applicant. The EIR process began with this as the project and it was the project for a couple of years. Mr. Hurley said it doesn't belong in this EIR, it wasn't required. Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney, discussed the reason for the analysis of alternatives. Mr. Steele indicated the reason that alternatives are included is not because they are completely superior to a proposed project, but rather they may have elements which are environmentally superior. For instance, the increased residential alternative may be more beneficial than the proposed project in areas such as housing, population and employment. The reason for the alternative analysis under CEQA is to give the decision makers a mix of the relative merits of different alternatives. Mr. Hurley said the Assistant City Attorney is wrong. The alternatives are designed to have less environmental impacts. [Q)~ Mr. Nakagawa agreed with Mr. Hurley that the response to comments chapter is unreadable. Seven months ago he asked for a summary section. He felt the DEIR's summary chapter was inadequate. A table of mitigation measures and a couple of columns he felt was inadequate. He based this on CEQA ~15151. He felt the EIR was set up too technically and he and others cannot understand the technical aspects. He felt he was ignored. Maybe the major parts of the response to comments can be summarized. Mr. Nakagawa told the public that we do not look for perfection, but adequacy, completeness and a good faith effort at full disclosure. He asked himself "Does this document, was it really made in a full good faith effort at full disclosure?" He read some of the comments and he really has to deliberate on that. A summary section would have been a good faith effort. Non-technical people . cannot understand the EIR. Chapter 2 is an important part of the EIR and a summary of the Page 9 1=\ I,I;;QClN1lNos-oB BCCk . . . Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of May 23,1995 responses to comments would have been nice, perhaps a summary of the technical appendices could have been added. He said all this in November. Mr. Nakagawa discussed the timing of the FEIR review. He heard some citizens asked for three weeks. Some citizens apparently wrote a letter to the Board which it never received asking for three weeks. Mr. Whittenberg discussed what items should be included in a summary section. The City Attorney, staff and the City's consultants took these requests under consideration. Stafffelt the summary section under CEQA is there to summarize the environmental impacts of a project and the mitigation measures that can reduce th impacts if they can be reduced. The section as written meets that criteria. The additional i . Mr. Nakagawa requested to be included in that section is not an issue that's a e CEQA Guidelines. If you look at Chapter 2 it is already a 56 page section. Mr. Nakagawa asked if Mr. Whittenberg is referring to Table 2-1. Mr. Whittenberg said yes. Mr. Nakagawa said this is only a table. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the table contains impacts, proposed mitigation measures and what the impacts will be after the mitigation measures are in place. That is the requirements of CEQA as to what is supposed to be in a summary. Mr. Whittenberg discussed the issue of summarizing the responses to comments. Once you expect staff to summarize very detailed comments which take up 200+ pages, you put staffin a position of not pleasing anyone. Unfortunately, comments on EIR's are often very technical and detailed and the responses to those comments often have to be very technical and often very lengthy. If you expect staff to decide which one's should be summarized in some manner, you're expecting a lot of staff. I'm not sure that's a good position to put us or you in because each Boardmember will think different issues should be summarized and you get back to every comment being summarized. Mr. Whittenberg indicated he understands Mr. Nakagawa's concern. However, because of the nature of public concerns and the manner and detail in which public concerns are brought forward you cannot reasonably summarize those in 5 or 6 pages. As far as trying to provide a summary of technical appendixes, in staff's opinion the actual chapters of the EIR which relate to those technical appendixes are the summaries of those technical appendixes. Mr. Whittenberg discussed the review period for the FEIR. The public has at least until June 21 st to review the document and comment before the Planning Commission. There is actually 2-3 months for the public to review and comfRm3.}~~IR. The Board asked for and received two weeks to review the FEIR. C::/UWfUlf lJ. Chairman Voce recommended that the GabrielenolTongva tribe be notified and used as monitors for this project ifit takes place. Mr. Whittenberg said staffwill be happy to take those steps once it is the appropriate time to do so. Bob Close, DKS Associates, spoke regarding concerns raised by the Board and the public. Page 10 1=\ I,I;;QClN1lNos.oB BCCk Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of May 23, 1995 . Mr. Close spoke regarding the impact of vehicles into the Rossmoor area. He agree with Mr. Whittenberg that he didn't mean to indicate there would be no trips into Rossmoor, but rather it was insignificant. Regarding impacts of traffic from other potential development areas, it should be noted that all known projects in the area were built into the generation of traffic and analyzed. Bolsa Chica was included in this analysis. ~egarding th~ lack. of mitigation at th.e ~nters~' of St. Cloud and Seal Beach Bo~le~ard, the Impacts of thIs proJect 'on traffic at thIs mters eet the threshold ofslgmficance as it does not change the LOS below D. . Regarding Mr. Hurley's comments, DKS did receive other comments regarding the difficulty in trying to assess trip generation. In the FEIR on page 4-53 a new table was generated which is intended to be simpler. Mr. Hurley said it doesn't explain the equations at all. Mr. Close indicated the table is to substitute for the equations, to be less technical as the Board had asked. Mr. Hurley asked ifthere was an explanation of the table somewhere. Mr. Close indicated the table shows the type ofland use, the daily trips generated by each unit, how the AM peak hour rate is generated, and so on. Mr. Hurley asked what he applied these numbers to? Mr. Close indicated these factors are multiplied by the number of dwelling units to reach a peak hour estimate. Mr. Hurley asked how many hours are in a peak hour? Mr. Close indicated two. Mr. Hurley asked why that wasn't included in the report. Mr. Close said it is included in the appendix. Mr. Hurley said there is no way a layman could look at this and know how the numbers were derived. Larry Michaels - College Park East He said the peak hour for people living in College Park East is 5:30 AM because he leaves at 5:30 AM. The average person doesn't leave for work at 7:00 AM they leave at 5:30 AM. Mr. Close indicated the ITE standards define peak hour as 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM. Regardless of whether many people leave earlier, the actual heaviest peak hour is 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM. Mr. Hurley asked in the AM peak hour, which is two hours long, there are only 111 exiting trips from the project? Mr. Close indicated that's correct. Mr. Hurley asked don't you think that's a little strange or low? Mr. Whittenberg indicated the peak hour is the main time frame for the heaviest concentration of trips coming in or out of the area. There will be trips earlier or later that will be the same type of trips. There are a number of work schedules now where people work earlier or later than the traditional 9 to 5 schedul~p'?)9Rf~le's trips would be non peak hour. Mr. Hurley asked the date of the ITE data.1M/f.I~dIJated 1991. Mr. Nakagawa stated that in December he asked DKS to go to Orange County EMA to see if they have numbers that are more applicable to our area, did you do that? Mr. Close said yes. Mr. Nakagawa asked if the numbers on Table I on Page 4-53 are ITE national numbers? Mr. Close said yes. Mr. Nakagawa asked if the numbers are higher than the national averages, i.e. what number does OC EMA use? Mr. Close said they would use the same numbers, because their numbers are not yet land use based. Mr. Nakagawa indicated he'd spoken to an engineer at the . County who gave him some different numbers, do you have any of those numbers? Mr. Close Page II 1= \ I,I;;QCB\MIN9..,a ace k Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of May 23, 1995 said no, because the County said they don't yet have such numbers and the ITE numbers are . acceptable. Bob Brown, Brown-Buntin Associates, spoke regarding concerns raised by the Board and the public. Mr. Brown spoke regarding the intersection of the I-405/I-605/SR-22 and how it is very noisy and the construction of a sound wall had no affect. The effectiveness of a sound wall depends on where you are located in relation to the~ m~ng others. It is possible to design a sound wall which will work very effectively fo~t I! located fairly close to the sound wall. In looking at the traffic noise contours in the project area it is his opinion that through proper analysis and design those noise levels can be mitigated by proper sound wall design. There is no question that proper engineering can be done to mitigate those impacts. Regarding annoyance from periodic noise, Mr. Brown indicated the average noise level does take into account these periodic events. It's a function of how loud the noise level is, how long it is loud, and the time of day or night the sound occurs. Regarding mitigation of interior noise levels, industry noise regulations which they are required to comply with require that interior noise levels are determined assuming windows are closed. So, to get the type of noise reduction that is necessary for compliance the windows must be closed. . Regarding the complaint that certain aircraft aren't included in Table 4.8-5, Mr. Brown is aware there are a variety of aircraft which fly out of the AFRC. These include C-5's, C-141 's, 727's, C-9's, occasionally F-16's and F-18's. All of these airplanes are capable of creating noise levels in excess of 100 dB in the area of the project where residential land uses are to be located. This is taken into account in their analysis as well as in their conclusions. They have concluded that at certain times, infrequently, the sound exposure levels will exceed 100 dB on the project. Mr. Brown reiterated what Mr. Whittenberg had said that even with the notification requirement in place this will still be a significant and unavoidable impact. That was the conclusion reached in the document. . Mr. Nakagawa stated the figure used as annoying is 100 dB. Would 105 or 110 dB be more accurate given that a C-5A is 114 dB? Especially given that 110 dB is twice as loud as 100 dB. Mr. Brown indicated that on Page 5-18 under standards of significance there are four bullets, the third bullet down discussed SEL exceeding 100 dB or noise that clearly interferes with speech and is considered an annoyance. These are the standards of significance that have been applied to this analysis. The supporting documentati~~CON, the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, it also comes fro~ ~C Board of Supervisors has chosen to use the 100 SEL standard for the John Wayne airport. So, the 100 SEL standard was not pulled from the air. Further, rather than trying to determine the SEL for every type of airplane that could fly at that airfield, they chose to say there are a number of planes that could generate sound levels that are over 100 SEL. Mr. Nakagawa asked if it would be more accurate to say exposure exceeding an SEL of 110 dB and in the notices to future property owners to say over 110 dB? Mr. Brown indicated the chosen standard of significance is 100 SEL, 110 SEL is louder than that, so anything Page 12 1=\ 1,I;;QCB\M1N9...a aCCk . . . Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of May 23, 1995 over 100 is consider too loud and 110 is louder than that so it is assumed that includes an SEL of 110 dB. The F-16, F-18 and the C-5 are very different aircraft but they will generate sound exposure levels on the property that are fairly similar, they're going to be in the 110 SEL range. Mr. Nakagawa felt that perhaps since 11 ~{i\\ifi:iRoud as the standard of significance, 110 dB should be indicated. Mr. Brown said tWrM~e!lthe purpose at this point but if the project goes forward the specific wording could be revisited and perhaps changed. Mr. Hood had a question regarding Page 2-29 of the FEIR. The Board was told of all of the additions, but not about this deletion. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that he had discussed this in his presentation. The condition was not deleted per se, major provisions were folded into another condition on Page 2-30 (4.8-2). Basically the original conditions required a notification due to the general operating conditions of the aircraft going over on an occasional basis, there was also a condition for notification based on disaster support functions. There is now one condition which requires notification of both the general aircraft operations and the disaster support functions. Mr. Hood asked at whose request this was deleted. Mr. Whittenberg said it wasn't deleted, but it was his suggestion. Mr. Hood agreed with Mr. Bradshaw that the proposed project site is not the loudest in the City. Mr. Hood lives near a freeway and under a flight path and he would like to spare future victims the same discomfort he suffers. Mr. Bradshaw is absolutely right and living where he lives is hell. Regarding Table 4.8-5 on Page 5-28, Mr. Hood asked what type of aircraft is the A-7D? Mr. Brown indicated it a subsonic fighter bomber. Mr. Hood asked if it has an afterburner. Mr. Brown said he wasn't sure. Mr. Hood asked ifits noise output would vary from a C-5A or a C-141 or an F16 or F-18? Mr. Brown said the amount of noise an aircraft makes is a combination of the engine type, airframe, how fast it's going, what the power setting is on the engines, and how far the plane is away from the receiver. In this instance potential receivers are about 10,000 - 12,000 feet from the point of brake release. An A-7 doesn't have anywhere near the climb performance of an F-16 or F-18. Therefore it will be a lot closer to the ground than them. The difference is if you're real close, directly under the aircraft, the A-7 will be a lot noisier, but if you're off to the side the A-7 will be quieter because of side line attenuation. Going back to the question about the types of airplanes, they felt there w~U'iam6 kinds of airplanes flown at this airfield that were potentially noise significant. ~~e4ixed-wingjet transport airplanes (C-5, C-141, 727, DC-9) they're all subsonic with no afterburners while they all have somewhat different performance abilities. Many planes that fly out of there fit that general category oflarge fixed-wing jet transport. They modeled those operations using a 727 with a JT8D-17 engine. They did a series of tests using their computer analysis capabilities looking at the noise levels that were actually calculated by the noise map methodology and also the INM for the various types of airplanes. They found the 727-17 approximated all the other aircraft of this type relative to the project site. With the A-7 the same type of analysis held true. They could have tried to calculate other aircraft, but they chose the A-7D because it generated noise levels that were very similar to the types of airplanes which do occasionally fly over the site. Mr. Hood said with that description it makes more sense, but he agreed with Mr. Nakagawa that if they had included all of the other aircraft it would look a lot louder since there would be many aircraft over 100 dB. Mr. Brown disagreed completely. Everyone wants the EIR simplified but they don't want any details left out. Page 13 1=\ I,I;;QClN1lNos.oB BCCk . . . Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of May 23, 1995 That's a real tall order. He will spend as much time as the Board wants to try to explain what has been done. It can literally take up volumes. Mr. Hood didn't question the numbers, but rather the perception of the table. The table gives the perception that there are only a couple of aircraft over 100 dB, whereas there might be 3,4 or 5 aircraft over 100 dB. Mr. Brown said the purpose of this table isn't to list every aircraft but to give representative airplane types that produce noise levels similar to those different types of airplanes. Changing this table would have no bearing on the analysis or the conclusions. Mr. Whittenberg added that the Board should bear in mind that these major noise events only occur on average 0~~'Yif~. lOJ~_ U Mr. Nakagawa indicated a figure on how many times a day or per week a person would be exposed to noise levels over 100 dB would have been helpful, that's what they were looking for. Mr. Brown indicated that is in the technical appendix. Jay Ziff ofEIP & Associates, spoke regarding concerns raised by the Board. Mr. Hurley asked Mr. Ziffabout the DEIR impact 4.2-2 on Page 4.2-12. Mr. Hurley was concerned with the CEQA requirement he mentioned before that the information contained in an EIR shall include relevant information sufficient to permit full assessment of environmental impacts. The DEIR discusses at length the estimated increase in storm runofffrom the project, but it provides no basis for the two conclusions regarding the adequacy of off-site facilities. Specifically, on Page 12, second paragraph, third sentence it says "The storm drain facilities along Seal Beach Boulevard are thought to have adequate capacity to receive flows from the proposed project. However, until a detailed hydrology report is prepared, the exact impact of the project on these facilities cannot be determined. Federal and County facilities downstream of the project are not expected to be significantly affected by development of the proposed project." There is no explanation of the omission of the basis for those two conclusions, nor is there any reference to source material. Mr. Hurley reminded what the courts have said, "a prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision making and informed public participation." His objection meets a test of reasonableness in that it's reasonable to believe that since the off site facilities already exist, estimates of their available capacities would be easier to get that those from the project. He didn't understand why a little extra work couldn't have been done so the reader could understand the basis for the conclusions. Mr. Ziff said there are some specifics given on the preceding pagelfi\fi)li\~y of some of the regional facilities and the project's potential impact on those faci\M'eY.~diHg impacts not being as precisely stated as you might like, there is often difficulty dealing with projects that aren't completely defined, as in this case, in setting forth very specific mitigation measures. What was done in terms of the mitigation in this document is requirements for additional studies and, to the degree possible, they have included performance type criteria that should be used in evaluating those studies, i.e. those studies should address certain concerns and those concerns will have to be accepted as being adequately addressed when that study is reviewed. Based on the project information that they had during preparation of the EIR he felt the mitigation that they have on this issue is adequate. Mr. Hurley said he had no quarrel with the mitigation. His concern is the discussion does not meet the requirement ofCEQA in two respects: 1) all relevant material is not provided to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts. There is no information provided to tell the Board the storms drains on Seal Beach Boulevard have a certain capacity left. Page 14 1=\ I,I;;QCIN1IN9...e BCCk . . . Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of May 23, 1995 For all he knows the storm drains may already be full during a 100 year storm. Mr. Ziffindicated the approach taken in describing the impacts has been to provide for the fullest possible evaluation of potential impacts on all facilities that can be affected by the project. They have in no way taken an approach that would underestimate impacts. They have taken a very broad approach in addressing the potential for impacts on storm drain facilities or the potential for flood hazard. So the impact itselfis very inclusive and the mitigation is very broad as well. In terms of the adequacy of the document in addressing flood control this approach is sound and should alleviate any concerns if the project is approved by providing that comprehensive studies be undertaken to address potential for flood risk. Mr. WhittefPf\Vi)J91t~ on Page 4.2-10 of the DEIR there is a section called "methodology", this sectio~M different documents that were utilized to come to the conclusions that are in the document. It references the 1986 Orange County Hydrology Manual and uses existing documentation including the 1985 Federal Emergency Management Agency program, the Hydrology Reportfor the Los Alamitos Channel Facility No. C01 and the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin Facility No. C01B01. These reference documents were used to reach the conclusions in the FEIR. Mr. Hurley indicated CEQA requires that when you reach a conclusion you must provide a basis so the reader can understand the basis for the conclusion. Mr. Hurley indicated what he is looking for is a sentence that says, "we've looked at the storm drains on Seal Beach Boulevard and the channel and the retarding basin and the pumps, etc. and we have found there is this much available and this exceeds what will be coming out of the project." The reader is denied the simple information which would allow him to see whether there is adequate volume available in the storm drains, etc. Mr. Whittenberg said this is the case because there has to be a further analysis based on what might happen based on the final grading of areas on the golf course which have not been made at this point. We don't know what the final grading and water retention of the golf course will look like. Those issues would be addressed if a project is approved, then there has to be a very detailed study done of the impacts regarding the project for the homes and for the golf course itself. That analysis then would be coming back to the City Council as part of their final approvals of the project. Mr. Hurley said he has no problem with what will come off of the project. The problem is are the facilities adequate to take what will come off of the project? Mr. Whittenberg said that needs to be further studied based on the final design of the project. Mr. Hurley said it's easier to know that now than what's going to come off the project because you know how big the facilities are, when they were built, you know all about them. Mr. Hurley said he was not satisfied with the answer but he will agree to disagree. Chairman Voce said what Mr. Hurley is talking about is existing capacities and to compare existing capacities with additional --- (interrupted by a member of the audience). Mr. Hurley said the document is supposed to provide infor~tR\~eral public, the reviewers and the decision makers which gives them enough lMrA~oUiecide if this a good idea. For all we know maybe the flood channels, the retarding basin, etc. may already be at capacity and even a 1% increase will require extensive work. Mr. Ziffresponded that the general conclusions of the document relative to flood control facilities would not be likely to change. The impact would remain significant in this general area, and the mitigation measures that would be provided would remain more or less the same. The mitigation measures that are provided would fully take into account existing constraints on off site facilities and there is language to that effect currently. There is also language in the mitigation that states that all improvements necessary to accommodate the project shall be in place prior to issuance of a building permits. Therefore, if there are off site facilities that are already at full capacity and the project is only going to add a Page 15 1=\ 1,I;;QC1N11N9...a OCCk . . . Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of May 23,1995 few percent to that facility there would still need to be adequate facilities to accommodate the project. So to the degree that information could be made available, he didn't think it would affect the impact statement or the mitigation measure that's provided. Mr. Hurley said the only reason would be it would then meet the CEQA requirements, where it doesn't now. Mr. Ziffsaid what is presented clearly meets CEQA requirements in stating the potential impact of the project and providing the mitigation measures that are need to address it. Perhaps more specifics could be brought to bear, but the conclusions would not change. Mr. Hurley said CEQA requires a basis for the conclusions that are made. Mr. Ziff said there is a basis for the impact statement that's in the document, it may not be as thorough as you~~ ~~t's in there. Mr. Hurley said no it's not. l.!d)LlWAYr u Mr. Hurley said he cannot understand why Mr. Whittenberg and Mr. Ziff insist on talking about things at length that he has no disagreement with. He considers that either he's not making himself clear or there is an effort not to answer his question. Chairman Voce had a couple of comments on mitigation measures. On Page 4-94 and 4-95 of the FEIR, on 9.25 regarding gray water, the City should still encourage the use of gray water technology to be used particularly for irrigation purposes. Regarding 9.27, he recommends the use of native trees and plants for landscaping in the project, particularly in the commercial areas. He feels conditions can support native (i.e. the general coast plains of southern California) plants and trees. Regarding 9.34, the Planning Commission should definitely consider the topic of any guard gated project and the future of Seal Beach regarding gated populations. Chairman Voce concluded the consultant rebuttal period. Chairman Voce opened up Board discussion. Mr. Hood suggested a straw poll to determine whether the FEIR is minimally adequate. Mr. Hurley indicated he feels the FEIR is inad~n Chairman Voce felt the document is legally adequate, however, he feels additional suggestions from for the Board are in order. Mr. Hood agreed the document is minimally adequate, with great stringency in the recommendations. Mr. Nakagawa said what he feels is legally adequate and what a judge does could be different. He needs time to decide. Ifhe feels it is not reasonably feasible it would be determined a legally inadequate document. If he feels this document was not made in a good faith effort at full disclosure he has to say no, it's not a legal document. Does the document give him enough information to make a intelligent decision? Is the document made in a good faith effort? He felt Page 16 1=\ 1,I;;QCB\MIN9s.oB BeCk . Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of May 23, 1995 not, it was leaning one way or the other. He asked for a 5 minute recess. Mr. Nakagawa asked what would happen ifthere is a 2 to 2 vote? Mr. Steele indicated a tie vote is no action, so no recommendation would be forwarded to the Planning Commission. He had considered this possibility prior to the meeting. The Board could then forward a motion to the Planning Commission asking the Commission to consider each Boardmembers individual comments as a statement on the adequacy of the EIR. Another option is to formulate a couple of different motions to see if the disagreement of the Board is on specific items as to adequacy or whether it's an overall adequacy problem with the document itself If the Board could agree that except for certain items the document is adequate, t~ be noted. The easiest method would be to forward the Minutes of the meeting w' ents verbatim so the Commission has the benefit of the Board's full input on the adequacy of the IR. Mr. Nakagawa asked if the Board would have to have another meeting ifthere is a 2 to 2 vote. Mr. Nakagawa asked if the matter will automatically be forwarded to the Planning Commission regardless of what the Board does. Mr. Steele said yes, there is a meeting scheduled on June 7th. The Planning Commission could determine they didn't want to continue with the hearing until the EQCB reaches a determination, they may not as well. Mr. Nakagawa asked what the weight of the EQCB's recommendation carries? Mr. Steele said the only body that has any actual authority in this matter is the City Council. The EQCB is an advisory body to formalize the process of taking in public comments. The Board's input is important, but there is no binding effect to what the Board decides. Mr. Nakagawa said he felt based on CEQA ~ 15151 it isn't legally adequate. Chairman Voce called for a three minute break. . Break taken at 10:57 PM . Board reconvenes at 11 :07 PM. MOTION BY HOOD; SECOND BY NAKAGAWA: TO APPROVE PROPOSED RESOLUTION 95-1A AS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: SECTION SEVEN IS REPLACED WITH A TWO PAGE SUBSTITUTION PROVIDED BY MR. HOOD (ATTACHED TO THE MINUTES). THE FOURTH LINE OF THE HANDOUT WILL BE AMENDED TO SUBSTITUTE THFlly~iUlA\'IiiBNIMALL Y ADEQUATE" WITH "INADEQUATE". ~-U-_.- Mr. Steele raised the following questions: 1. Would it be the intention of the Board to also include language regarding the summary section which has been raised as a potential inadequacy? 2. Regarding 4.8-2 and 4.8-3 on the first page of the handout, now that the language of this handout has been changed to inadequate it seems illogical to say the document is inadequate because the mitigation measure that leaves an impact as significant and unavoidable is inadequate. Page 17 1= \ 1,I;;QCB\M1N9...a BeC k . . . Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of May 23, 1995 Mr. Hood said this was emphasized to point out to the Planning Commission these points. He'd prefer to leave them. 3. Regarding Section 2, the recommendation, a recommendation regarding the merits of the project is inappropriate for two reasons: 1) the merits of the project are outside the jurisdiction of the Board, and 2) the recommendation regarding the merits of the project is not on tonight's Agenda. If the Board wants to make a recommendation on the merits of the project, it should agendize the~", with the Brown Act. Mr. Hood asked if the Board had failed to reach consensus and each of the Boardmembers had forwarded a personal opinion would the members been allowed to comment on the project itself? Mr. Steele said he would never physically restrain any member of the Board from making a comment. He would, however, have advised the members that the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board is limited to the EIR itself. Mr. Hurley asked ifhis individual comments would be given to the Planning Commission or just the resolution? Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Minutes of the meeting will also be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council. The Minutes will not be verbatim, but they will be a very detailed summary of the issues that were discussed tonight and they will cover the concerns of the Board. Mr. Nakagawa asked if 4.8-3 could be changed. Mr. Hood pointed out it is a quote. Chairman Voce asked whether Mr. Hood would like to follow the City Attorney's advice. Mr. Hood said he would like to leave his motion as he proposed it. Mr. Hurley asked what the consequences could be if Section 2 ofMr. Hood's amendment was left in the proposal. Mr. Steele said the consequences are that the inclusion of Section 2 in the Board's resolution as a decision or action on the merits of the project which is not agendized for this evenings meeting could arguably be construed as a violation of the Brown Act. His preference would be to agendize a recommendation on the merits of the project at a future meeting if the Board is going to insist on making a recommendation on the project. He reminded the Board this matter is not within its jurisdiction. lWMn Mr. Hurley asked Mr. Hood ifhe could explain how the Brown Act affects the Board's recommendation. Mr. Hood explained as it applies to the California State University system to which he belongs, it says you must agendize an item for a certain number of days if an action is to be taken. There is a question, he felt, about whether the Brown Act covers an advisory board such as the EQCB. Mr. Steele indicated there is no question the Brown Act applies to the EQCB. Mr. Hood indicated the state university system feels differently. Mr. Steele indicated the City Attorney's office is of the opinion that the Brown Act covers every advisory, recommendation making, policy making and legislative committee and board within a city government, particularly in light of the changes to the Act which occurred on January 1st of this year. There is no question the Brown Act applies to this body. Mr. Steele indicated he doesn't want try to get the Board to take a certain position on an issue, rather he is advising the Board to comply with the Brown Act if it wants to take this particular action. Page 18 1=\ 1,I;;QCll\M1N9...a BeCk . . . Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of May 23, 1995 Ken Bornholdt, Counsel for the Bixby Ranch Company asked permission to ask a procedural question. Chairman Voce gave Mr. Bornholdt the floor. Mr. Bornholdt asked whether the two page document that Mr. Hood had presented to the Board as an amendment to the proposed resolution was available prior to the closure of the public comment period. Mr. Hood indicated he drafted it. He brought it in as ifhe had drafted it at the meeting. Anyone as a member ofa Board can present a motion. An amendment to a motion that is on the floor may be legally presented. Mr. Bornholdt said he felt the answer t~~m~" it was not available prior to the close of the public comment period. Mr. Hood a~~ti\:lg he could not even show his proposed amendment to his fellow Boardmembers prior to his motion because that would violate the Brown Act. That's why it wasn't available. Mr. Nakagawa said he could write something down now and pose it in the form of a motion. No one would get to see that until he posed it either. Mr. Steele indicated the intent of staff was if the Board's decision was to recommend inadequacy staff needed to request guidance as to what to put in the resolution. None of that information would have been available to the public prior to the Board's vote. Mr. Steele indicated there is no problem including Section 1 of Mr. Hood's proposed amendment. Mr. Nakagawa asked Mr. Steele ifhe had a problem with the whole recommendation or just the last sentence where the Board recommends the Planning Commission deny the project. Is the first part of Section 2 acceptable? Mr. Steele indicated their feelings on inadequacy would be reflected in the Board's action recommending inadequacy of the EIR itself He indicated he doesn't have any particular problem with that portion of the language itself His concern lies on discussion of the merits of the project itself Mr. Hood asked if the Planning Commission decides on the adequacy of the EIR' Mr. Steele said the City Council makes that decision. Mr. Hurley asked Mr. Hood to read the proposed amendment to his motion. Mr. Hood read the following, "The EQCB recommends that the City Council refuse to certify the FEIR for the Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course Development Plan." I[)\@) /i\\ r5lI MOTION BY HOOD; SECOND BY-t(~~: 'to AMEND HIS PREVIOUS MOTION AT THE END OF THE END OF SECTION 2 TO READ, "THE EQCB RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REFUSE TO CERTIFY THE FEIR FOR THE BIXBY OLD RANCH GOLF COURSE DEVELOPMENT PLAN" . MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: 4-0 VOCE, HOOD, HURLEY, NAKAGAWA NONE Mr. Hood asked to vote on the main motion as just amended. Mr. Bornholdt asked a procedural question. Does the motion include the change to the first paragraph of Mr. Hood's two page amendment. Mr. Hood answered yes. It replaced "minimally adequate" with "inadequate". Mr. Page 19 1= \ I,I;;QCB\MINos.oB BCC k . . . Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of May 23, 1995 Steele pointed out there is language in the first paragraph discussing a recommendation on the project itself. Mr. Hood indicated that language should be struck. MOTION BY HOOD; SECOND BY HURLEY: TO AMEND HIS PREVIOUS MOTION PLACE A PERIOD AFTER THE EIR IN THE NEXT TO LAST LINE OF FIRST PARAGRAPH OF HIS AMENDMENT AND DELETING THE REMAINDER OF THE SENTENCE. MOTION CARRIED: [Q)~n A YES: VOCE, HOOD, HURLEY, NAKAGAWA NOES: NONE Mr. Hood indicated they are now on the main motion. Mr. Steele indicated that technically the Board's action is not final until the full resolution is put together and the Board adopts the full resolution. Iflanguage can be added to his motion instructing staff to finalize the resolution as the Board has indicated and authorizing the Chairman to sign the resolution then this will be complete. Mr. Hood indicated that was his intention in making his motion. The vote on the main motion as amended twice, with the City Attorney's suggestion in place. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: NOES: 4-0 VOCE, HOOD, HURLEY, NAKAGAWA NONE VIII. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Whittenberg indicated staffhas only one item. Staffhas provided a memorandum regarding the review ofa proposed Negative Declaration 95-1. It concerns the proposed construction ofa community safety office at the Seal Beach pier. The Council has asked staff to have this matter before them for their review on June 12th. The Board's next meeting is after June 12th. Staff suggests the Boardmembers review the document. There is a response sheet included where the Boardmembers can express agreement with ~~ the document as it's prepared. If the Board is comfortable dealing with this that vU#~all,heeting will be required. The public will have the opportunity to comment before the City Council on June 12th. The Board felt this approach was acceptable. IX. BOARD CONCERNS Mr. Hood indicated he will miss the June and July meetings due to previous teaching commitments. The Board excused these future absences. x. ADJOURNMENT Page 20 1=\ \l;QC1N11N9...a aCCk . . . "-I 'r Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of May 23, 1995 MOTION BY HURLEY; SECOND BY NAKAGAWA: TO ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: The meeting was adjourned at 11:37 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Barry Curtis, Secretary Environmental Quality Control Board 1= \ 1,I;;QC1N11N9...a BeC be. 4-0 VOCE, HOOD, HURLEY, NAKAGAWA [Q)~h ID)M\f\T Page 21