Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEQCB 1998-05-13 . , . . ::. . . City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of May 13, 1998 The adjourned Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) meeting of May 13, 1998 was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Rosenman Members Voce, Christ, Hurley, McGuire Also Present: Department of Development Services Lee Whittenberg, Director Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney Consultant: Culbertson. Adams & Associates Andi Culbertson, President Bri,an Spiegel, Executive Vice President Di~me Bathgate, Senior Planner . Linscott. Law & Greenspan Jack Greenspan, Principal & Traffic Engineer Rich Barretto, Traffic Engineer AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by Christ to approve the Agenda as presented. MOTION CARRIED: I AYES: 5-0-0 Hurley, McGuire, Voce, Christ, Hurley ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications from the audience. CONSENT CALENDA[~ There were no Consent Calendar items. PUBLIC HEARINGS Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center DEIR . Mr. Whittenberg apprised the Board and audience that handouts were available. They contain a general overview of the process the EQCB is going through. The second handout is an overview of the project, the proposed mitigation measures and the various alternatives being considered. Speaker slips were available for those wishing to speak. 1 ... . . . .. City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of May 13, 1998 . Mr. Whittenberg noted this is the EQCB's second meeting to receive public testimony on the Bixby Ranch DEIR. The comment period is open until May 29. Written comments may be submitted to the City until 4:00 p.m. on May 29. Those will be included in the FEIR. . Chairman Rosenman asked for a show of audience hands on whom did not attend the EQCB's previous meeting. He explained CEQA mandates the EQCB review the DEIR and ensure that as it becomes the FEIR it includes a full discussion of alternatives, mitigations etc. The EQCB will not be able to address whether or not the project is actually built. The Planning Commission and City Council will make this determination. Speakers are free to state whether they like or dislike the project but the EQCB must look at the DEIR's mitigation measures and project problems. Additionally, in keeping with the spirit of open meetings, he said ex parte communications would be disclosed fully. City Attorney Craig Steele said ex parte communications might be listed but not necessarily responded to by the EQCB. He then asked the Board for any ex parte communications't Member Voce said, at the request of City Manager Till, he spoke with Mr. Till regarding the various mitigation measures on exterior noise. Chairman Rosenman said one person telephoned for a copy of the SANDAG report and he was referred to the Department of Development Services. Members Christ and Hurley had no comments. Ms. Culbertson said Culbertson Adams would be focusing on the testimony from the last meeting and will render a presentation in three specific areas: c Traffic , c Parkway Co~cept c Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Role It was the consensus of the EQCB that it will hear anyone who wishes to speak. Jack Greenspan * Traffic Enoineer Mr. Greenspan said he would talk about: c The way traffic studies are developed, including the SANDAG generation factors c Responses from the 4/29/98 hearing on what Seal Beach Boulevard will look like. c Ten comments on the 4/29/98 meeting. . Trip Generation Linscott, Law & Greenspan began serious, formal traffic studies in the early 1970's with the adventof CEQA. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) founded in 1930 publishes a guideline for conducting traffic studies. The basic methodology remains the same. The first step is "What are the land uses"? You 2 City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of May 13, 1998 . . specifically describe them in certain terms. The most typical term is in square feet, number of seats, number of rooms, number of beds. Overlaps occur. Some people look at restaurants in the number of seats and/or square footage. But, there is a great deal of research data that tells you the best approach in terms of getting the most reliable answers. The second thing is "generating trips" - how much traffic. He digressed, asking what is "SANDAG"? It is the San Diego Association of Governments. SANDAG has taken data which they developed in their city plus some national data and created a simplistic table which says, "This is an average trip generation rate". They've included peak hour factors to make it easy to manipulate. Over the years, their data has proven to be high. Most engineers use the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation (ITE) book. There are dozens of studies countrywide. He went into detail on what the figures demonstrate. Every city in California, except those in the SANDAG region, uses this book. The ITE book is very reliable, it's "the bible", it's the most authoritative document. Trip generation is a mathematical process. When you apply reason to the traffic numbers, two things come out: (1) pass-by trips. People who are already on the street and who will turn in to shop or run and errand. They don't add to the system. And (2) capture. This is not on the chart. Here, if you've got a mix of land uses logic tells you to do several errands in the same area. If you performed a theoretical analysis and did a trip generation for every individual use and added it up, then counted all the cars that are coming and going the two numbers would not match. Current research shows it would not match by 55%. The caveat is if you have uses that really fit together you are not getting much overlap. But if there is overlap, people will do several things at the same center. That's why they use a trip generation rate --- rather than add all the pieces together. The fourth aspect is where are these vehicle trips coming and going from? You do a trip distribution and assignment. Distribution being gene'ral assignment in various directions and assignment being putting them into the various turning movements. The fifth aspect is looking at growth. Two ways of looking at this are (1) ambient traffic growth and (2) approved projects. You could also pick your horizon year --- a year when you can reasonably predict when your project will be built. We're looking at the year 2001, a year when this .project could reasonably be built. We're also looking a the year 2020 and assuming this project is in, what are the other major things that would take place that could affect traffic access and circulation in this city. Analyzing traffic impac(s is done in several ways. We look at the intersections --- capacity is really achieved at intersections. It doesn't matter how many lanes you have on the streets, it's how many lanes you have at the intersection. We use the Intersection Capacity Utilization Method. This measures conflicting movements. A second method is to look at the arterial link. This is sizing the roadway. Lastly is the capacity analysis. Tied to this is a Level of Service. If it's more than 1.0 is Level of Service (LOS) "F". If it's less than .5 it's LOS "A". Typical urban standard'is LOS IIE". In some communities this is an acceptable LOS because it's already there. A general description of LOS conditions is: . 3 ; .. City of Seal Beach EaCB Minutes of May 13, 1998 . c A: Traffic moves fast, lane changes are easy, no waiting for lights. Room to change lanes, you should be able to get through every traffic signal without waiting any length of time. You can't always change lanes when you want to, you will probably have to wait thru one traffic signal. You're going to have to wait thru one traffic signal. You may have to wait through more than one traffic signal. c B&C: c 0: c E: c F: Traffic engineers next look to see how improvements can be made. Mr. Greenspan described ~,ome of the current methods, such as smart traffic signals. Next, who is going to pay for these improvements? Mr. Greenspan indicated most communities use a fair share concept. They think that there's not just one development contributing to the traffic impacts, there are many projects and there is a background traffic growth, which no one can say, is attributable to anyone person. For example, some of it's attributable to us --- we have children, they grow up and drive. That's traffic growth. . The Chairman asked for public testimony: Bernard Veskin * 12512 ArQvle Drive. Rossmoor Mr. Veskin asked if the ITE equations take into account the propensity of Southern Californians to jump in their car at the "drop of a hat" and why it's necessary to mix the ITE and SANDAG methodologies in terms of tabling it and using SANDAG by-pass rates? Also, the comment about "letting reason apply" versus taking the num~ers blindly. He said he was confused on how a 3,500- seat church could generate 90 trips per hour. . Mr. Greenspan replied that with respect to ITE and SANDAG, when they use SANDAG they see an ITE rate they don't feel good about. Some figures just don't seem right or feel right. They don't reject SANDAG out of hand. Most of SANDAG's figures are higher and that's why they use the ITE book. Regarding the church, when they do a trip generation the analysis methodology is to use a fairly average weekday, a morning peak commute hour and an afternoon peak hour. While a church will definitely generate a very high volume of traffic at 10:00 a.m. on a Sunday morning, it generates very little traffic between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. on a weekday. That's the big disparity. Chairman Rosenman said that looking at the Crystal Cathedral on a Sunday, there's a lot of traffic. ~omewhere you have to allow for the impact of that church on the community. 4 .. City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of May 13, 1998 . ; Mr. Greenspan said that this is clear and if the EQCB wants, they could look at a Sunday. Definitely there will be more traffic on a Sunday but also the on-street traffic is significantly less. Chairman Rosenman s~id Chapman Avenue is LOS "F" when the services let out. Lance Stein * 12691 Christy Lane. Rossmoor Mr. Stein questioned blended uses. He said Mr. Greenspan had said that when he looks at a retail center he lumps it together. In this case, if a home improvement store would go in, it would generate a lot of traffic. How can he not look at the parts of a retail center and know when there's an incredibly large generator of traffic. He.,didn't see how that would be a typical retail center store. , . Mr. Greenspan said a home improvement store is not typical. However, you'd get a modification in the trip generation of all the uses around it. They end up feeding off the home improvement store. That's basically what they're looking at. In most centers you have a driver, one store that generates everything. Years ago the term anchor store was used -- everything revolved around the anchor stores. Today nobody uses that term or looks at anchor stores. Now they look at total square footage and the inter-play between all the uses. Typically the leasing agents are selling the major generators as being the attractor for all the other stores. . Eualee Siler * Colleae Park East. Seal Beach Mrs. Siler said that when she ran the SANDAG numbers on this project, the figures came out to 26,000 vehicle trips per day. When you use the ITE manual it comes out to 14,000 vehicle trips per day. That's almost a 50% difference. It surprised her that the two manuals can have such wildly different amounts of traffic. Her question is 'why is this so? Also, you are looking at the total shopping center rather than the individual units comprising the center. The home improvement center would generate about 600 vehicle trips per day. What about the grocery store, which would generate about 2,000 vehicle, trips per day per acre? We're looking at a grocery store in that center that would cover six (6) acres or 12,000 vehicle trips per day. Mr. Greenspan used a figure, which showed the entire shopping center generating 13,000 vehicle trips per day. Something's wrong wit~ this. In comment #10 he said why is the traffic generation similar for the proposed project and the existing zoning general plan alternative? What are ihe amounts so different? She said she thought Mr. Greenspan misunderstood that question. What we're saying to Mr. Greenspan and what we're asking is, the existing zoning, the General Plan alternative is the "Default Plan". That plan has 22 acres of commercial development. Mr. Greenspan came up with a traffic number that was more than the proposed plan. The proposed plan has 48 acres of commercial development yet he came up with less than 14,000 vehicle trips per day. The "Default Plan" comes up with 14,247 vehicle trips per day. Why does a project that's half the size come up 5 .. . City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of May 13, 1998 i with almost the same amount more traffic? Why are your traffic numbers from the ITE manual so different from the SANDAG numbers? Address the question on why you came up with more traffic for a smaller commercial development? And explain that grocery store? How can that grocery store have more traffic than you estimated for the entire 25-acre commercial development? Mr. Greenspan, answering the last question first, said, "I don't know". I only know the data we deal with. Answering the first question, he said, "I would respectfully reverse the concept. It's not that ITE is "wildly" different, it's that the SANDAG numbers are wildly different... II You're very close to the ITE figures. The primary point is there is this animal called "capture". If you take each individual piece and multiply it by a trip generation rate and add it up, it will never come close to the ITE numbers that look at a mix of uses on a single site. You will get 55% less traffic. Secondly, as he looked at his respon,se to #10, it's not based on acreage; it's based on potential square footage. The general plan and zoning maximum is 350,000 square feet. And the project case is essentially 287,000. The larger square footage would produce more traffic. Chairman Rosenman advised Ms. Siler that to be fair he would have to let other . people speak first and come back to her later in the meeting. Ken Seif * Colleae Park East. Seal Beach Mr. Seif said Ms. Siler made good points. He questioned ingress and egress points. Secondly, what is the global impact of traffic on the local area and the greater area? Some impacts can not be mitigated, such as areas that are backed to freeways. Mr. Greenspan said the first comment was "less traffic study and more site planning". This is correct, you have to have appropriately designed driveways, and they must be in the right place. He is disturbed when he drives south on Seal Beach Boulevard people are trying to turn into commercial centers from a traffic lane. He has to slow down to allow drivers to make unexpected turns. Regarding impacts at Lampson Avenue, those are Year 2020 impacts. Such impacts are really not attributable to the site or to anyone project. When you are looking out twenty years you will have some issues you can't mitigate. Chairman Rosenman asked Mr. Greenspan if there was more to his presentation? . Mr. Greenspan said he"d covered ITE and SANDAG. With respect to the width of Seal Beach Boulevard, there was a comment it will be nine (9) lanes. "Yes, in some places it will be but it essentially a six (6) lane arterial as called for in the Master Plan. The additional lanes are do-a-Ieft-turn lane to get to and from the 6 City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of May 13, 1998 . freeway. At one point you have an additional northbound lane which essentially goes over the future bridge and connects the two off-ramps ... and provides a lane to accommodate traffic leaving rather than forcing that traffic over...". Chairman Rosenman explained there would be a change in procedures. He will take questions but no responses will be given at this time. Mike Sanders * 12132 Christy Lane. Rossmoor Mr. Sanders asked how do the traffic figures relate to various types of shopping centers? Bernard Guskin * Rossmoor Mr. Guskin wants to see the estimation errors of the ITE process. Wants to see the data on the estimation error that this methodology has introduced in real projects after they have been implemented. . Eulalee Siler Ms. Siler had questions: re 22-acre trip generation. She said question 10 was still misunderstood. She said the existing zoning general plan alternative, that is the 3 parcels of land that Bixby has now that is zoned C-2. The 3 parcels are the tennis courts at 7, the Arco site at 5, and where the Home Savings bank used to be at 10. They equal 22 acres. In the DEIR it says the trips for those 3 parcels of land is going to be 14,247 vehicle trips per day. Question #10, the answer we're trying to get out of you, is why does this 22 acres of commercial generate more traffic than 48 acres of commercial? You told me it's because the square footage is greater on 22 acres. It's only greater because you're looking at the wrong plan. We're not asking you about the general plan and zoning maximum alternative. We're asking you about the existing zoning general plan --- the "Default Plan". Why do we have more trips per day from a project that is half the size? My answer to you is, when the EIR people were told to come in with the lowest traffic numbers possible, to use the ITE manual if that's what generates the lowest numbers, you forgot to go back to the existing zoning general plan alternative and reduce that number so it would be compatible. That they're on that page is proof that somebody made a mistake. You've either got a mistake on the 22-acre plan or you've got a mistake on the 48-acre plan. You didn't answer the question properly. Chairman Rosenman pointed out that this is a draft document. Mr. Steele explained that the document distributed tonight is not the City's Responses to Comme'1ts. The document distributed tonight was intended as an informational document for the members of the public who are present tonight. What will really count will be the Responses to Comments that appear in the FEIR. . 7 . City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of May 13, 1998 . Member McGuire said ~hat as a clarification for persons who want their comments addressed, when you speak at the podium please speak in complete sentences. The comments may be misunderstood. As a suggestion, if you have something specific you want addressed, you might put it in writing and bring it to City Hall. It will be included in the Responses to Comments. Additionally, when people are speaking at the microphone, somebody is going to have to transpose everything that is said. If you talk away from the microphone, those comments will not be heard and can't be a part of the Record. If comments are typed and submitted then they are exactly what the person wants. The Chair said the comments/questions should be directed to the Department of Development Services at the City of Seal Beach. Member McGuire said ~pies of comments could be sent to EQCB members when they are directed to the City. . Andi Culbertson Ms. Culbertson spoke 6n the landscape treatment. She said the following was a comment heard at the I~st EQCB meeting. It was that parkway along the Towne Center and looking at the landscaping theme along Seal Beach Boulevard. The Center has a generous amount of parking, there's buffer. She referenced a graphic and suggested people might want to approach it to view it better. It shows the project as proposed in the DEIR. It shows two buildings at the main e~trances, moved back and inward to the Center very slightly. It shows a variable 20' - 30' parkway with a meandering sidewalk and trees and a large comer at the two entries for signage and more landscaping. The idea is that it would undulate slightly. It would hide some of the parking as seen from the street and would allow for larger tree canopies. This is just a suggestion. If people are interested, it could start forming the foundation for some ideas for the landscape plans. The Center, as proposed, would look very different than the Rossmoor Center. It has a better landscape edge than the Rossmoor Center has. I Chairman Rosenman said everyone seems concerned about the church and suggested modeling and analyses are done. . Regarding the Airport Land Use Commission, Ms. Culbertson said the final item in the presentation is an explanation of the ALUC review process. The Orange County ALUC was created by statute --- the State Aeronautics Act in the Public Utilities Code. The purpose is to protect airports from people encroaching on them. It is not to protect people from operations at airports; it's to protect aviation. How do they do this? The ALUC accomplishes this goal by preparing an Airport Environs Land Use Plan, called AELUP. It takes the area within a certain distance of the airport and evaluates the appropriate land uses for that area from a noise perspective, from an airport operations perspective, from what 8 . City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of May 13, 1998 . kind of airport it is. The, AElUP is mandatory for all civilian airports and is optional for military airpbrts. The Airport land Use Commission can decide not do one for military airports. In Orange County the Airport land Use Commission has done and continues to maintain an AElUP for military airports. We used to have three military airports but now have two. The AElUP is the guiding criteria when the Airport land Use Commission reviews this EIR. Culbertson Adamson & Associates was most careful to explain the AElUP and state their belief that this project is consistent with its policies and its land use cate~ories. The Airport land Use Commission will comment on this DEIR by May 29t. Within sixty (50) days of receiving the DEIR, the Airport land Use Commission must have their comments on consistency or they waive their participation. The forms of recommendations they can make are to find this project consistent with the AEUlP, they can find it consistent and suggest conditions of approval to more fully carry out the objectives of the AEUlP and the State Aeronautics Act or they can deny the project. If they deny the project, then the project can only be approved by the City Council by a 4/5ths over-ride vote. It's a very narrow focus, much like the California Coastal Commission. Member Hurley said the public's deadline for comments is May 29th but what is the Airport land Use Commission's deadline? . Ms. Culbertson said the Airport land Use Commission has the same amount of time to comment on the DEIR --- May 29, 1998. But they take another action, wholly independent of ... [interrupted by Member Hurley apologizing]. Member McGuire asked if the Airport land Use Commission held public meetings? Ms. Culbertson said yes but she did not know when it would be scheduled. Member McGuire advised the public that they might attend and give public testimony at the Airport land Use Commission's meeting on their issues of expertise. . Chairman Rosenman asked about the Caltrans letter and handbook. Ms. Culbertson said that letter was not written by Caltrans headquarters but rather by a member of Caltrans' environmental staff. There are things in the DEIR, which discuss the issues brought up by that letter. There are differences but there are also differences between the Airport land Use Commission and the AElUP with that letter. There is a letter from the Colonel who has the responsibility for managing the operations at the base that disagrees with the general comments of the Caltrans letter. There are several factors to consider and one letter from one division of Caltrans is not necessarily the end of the discussion. Mr. Whittenberg said those letters will be responded to in the Response to Comments --- that's the purpose of the process. 9 City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of May 13, 1998 . , Ms. Culbertson indicated this was the end of their presentation. Recess at 8:07 p.m. R7convene at 8:12 p.m. , The Chairman worked on arranging the order of the speakers. He said people who have not spoken would speak first. Member Hurley asked how long the meeting would last tonight? Member Voce said there are about 12 - 13 speakers. Chairman Rosenman said the tentative adjournment is 9:30 p.m. and they must stop at 9:00 p.m. to change the videotape. . Albert Kime * Colleae Park East Mr. Kime spoke about computation of acreage at Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard. He referenced 2.1, paragraph 4. "This area will contain approximately 5.5 acres of open space in the form of a greenbelt adjacent to Lampson Avenue, Seal Beach Boulevard and the adjacent freeway off-ramps. This greenbelt, to be dedicated to the City, will also offer space for future roadway widenings and transit improvement". The site is 13.7 acres, the developer proposes to dedicate 5.5 acres to the City, leaving 8.07 acres for the developer to develop. It is proposed the remaining site will contain two restaurants on 2.14 acrles, a hotel on two acres and a 90-unit senior citizen complex on four acres.' This is a total on 8.14 acres; there is a negative. This indicates the site will be overbuilt and will have no landscape buffer from the roadways as was intended by the suggested greenbelt. The computation is seriously flawed. Additionally, the DEIR does not recognize the widening of the 22 freeway and the resulting revisions of the northbound off-on ramps. The land dedication required for the north side of Seal Beach Boulevard from the reconstruction of Lampson Avenue does not indicate the two lanes, the bus turn- out, the bike path, parkway or City sidewalk. The Lampson Avenue revisions will also include another lane, a bus turnout, a bike path, a parkway and a City sidewalk. This resulting land dedication could easily require 8 or 9 acres, more than the 5.5. Proposed for the greenbelt. The DEIR incorrectly refers many areas of Lampson Avenue as a four-lane, undivided roadway, no median. There is a median all the way.from Seal Beach Boulevard to the eastern City boundary. This needs to be corrected. Lampson Avenue is a four-lane divided roadway. Serious thought must be given to revising the existing median from Seal Beach Boulevard to Basswo09 Avenue/Lampson Avenue. Particularly because the proposed 10' berm woLlld worsen an already blind curve condition at the proposed driving range. The freeway and roadway concrete, the median dedication required for the proposed changes should be finalized in its entirety prior to the greenbelt considerations. The greenbelt should be vested on the remaining land and thereby reserve the intention of the forests and wooded area within the planned construction. Construction of buildings and landscaping should complement ea~h other. Most of these issues were first brought to public attention in a letter to Keith Till, dated August 20, 1997, signed by myself and several other College Park East residents. He thought this letter was forwarded to the developer and has been included as supporting detail for the DEIR. For . 10 I City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of May 13, 1998 . some reason, the issues have not been fully or adequately addressed. The most conspicuous DEIR absence is the widening of the 22 freeway to the 605-freeway north. This subject has had three public hearings and has convened a committee of interested parties, including Steve Badum the City Engineer. This DEIR cannot be accepted until it addresses these issues. He spoke on improvements to Seal Beach Boulevard, saying the proposed improvements (figures 23A and 23B) Will reduce the open space by 1.2+/- acres, not 5.5 acres. They don't mention the bus turnouts. The 1.2 acres is probably inadequate. They do not mention what is going to happen to Lampson Avenue. He felt the 5.5 acres of wooded lot would be gone. When they widen the 22 freeway it may or may not impact this site but the off-ramp will and they need to plan for this land. This has not been done. The dedication of 5.5 acres for greenbelt, landscape buffer or futl:lre roadway improvements --- but if the roads take more than 5.5 acres make this a silly statement. . Shirlev Kirkpatrick * 12331 KensinQton Road, Rossmoor She has been an urban forestry consult for Dana Woods. Twenty years ago Orange County was stopped from removing 600 trees from the community of Rossmoor. She won this case. This is when the value of urban forests was in its infancy. Now, this is valued nationwide. Given these facts, how can anyone justify the removal of a Ifull-grown stand of Eucalyptus? Ken Seiff * Hazelnut Drive, Seal Beach Mr. Seiff complimented the EQCB and residents on the cogent comments they have made. He hopes the developer does not pull the plan if he doesn't get what he wants. There has been a lot of hard work done. Regarding Area C, the ,site is not mitigatible. There are ingress/egress issues which mandate density. has to be dropped dramatically. The site is troublesome. There is no ingress/egress of Seal Beach Boulevard. If not, the developer would have to compromise in some other way to develop a plan the City could live with. Regarding the loss of trees, replacement on a 4: 1 ratio is not adequate. The new trees will not.grow for a long time. Regarding the devil in the details -- how the driveways are designed, the spacing, the parking lof design -- landscaping should save trees in parking lots. The City should be involved in the removal of all trees. The job of the developer is to gain profit; our job is to protect the area where we live. The developer should listen to the residents, the boards and committees. I Audrev Kime * ColleQe Park East Mrs. Kime said she and her husband walked the site, especially looking at the . trees. 11 I ~ City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of May 13, 1998 . I Regarding the trees, many of the Eucalyptus trees are sprouted stumps. In the windrow they have been hacked, chopped and cut to a point where they are no longer attractive. They're almost like weeds. Some of those trees should be replaced with more attractive trees. Additionally, the view from Rossmoor to the proposed development'is not a pretty view. You're seeing vacant, untended lots with tall weeds. ' Regarding the church, Mrs. Kime decided to prepare another proposal to offer the developer and the consultant. She felt the church was too large. "The Vatican doesn't have a chapel that is that large!" It could be made smaller and offer more services. Regarding the hotel, it i,s not a desirable use at its present location on plot C. Plot C would turn the hotel into a hot sheet hotel with a second owner... in and out in one hour. She suggested making the church smaller and put it on plot C. Then, put the hotel and the senior citizen at the other end, on the 15 acres. She suggested the driving range could be moved and put it in back where the sod farm is. She gave some paperwork to Director Whittenberg. . Irwin Anisman * Rossmoor Mr. Anisman said Rossmoor and Los Alamitos would be severely impacted by this proposed project. The Rossmoor Homeowners Association convened a committee to study, analyze and comment on the DEIR. They recognize the owner's right to develop their property. They will address certain issues before the Planning Commission and City Council when their hearings are held. Regarding the DEIR, they found deficiencies in the analysis and mitigation measures. They will present the highlights tonight and will submit them in writing to the City by May 29. Mr. Anisman indicated that Mike Sanders will present concerns of RHA that deal with land use issues as they relate to the DEIR. There was some talk earlier about the ALUC and their next meeting. He talked to Eric Fried and their need meeting will be May 21, 4:00 p.m. At the Hall of Administration, Santa Ana, first floor. Mike Sanders - Rossmoor Homeowners Association (RHA) Mr. Sanders spoke on land use issues and lack of specificity. His overhead slide focused on the key points while he was making his comments. Four issues related to land use and socio-economic impacts were covered: 1. There is a lack of specificity as they relate to land uses within the project. It is a stated project objective to provide uses that will satisfy demand, satisfy community needs. Yet there has been no attempt to solicit community input. The DEIR has no meaningful community input on retail commercial component for area A, a 25-acre site. There is no information . 12 . . . . City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of May 13, 1998 on the theme of the project, the proposed uses etc. He and the RHA felt it's really impossible to properly evaluate traffic and aesthetics without knowing the kinds of uses going in there. The DEIR is incomplete without this information. The fiscal impact analysis prepared for the City actually has this specific information and yet it's missing from the DEIR. 2. The Rossmoor Center and the fact the DEIR doesn't consider project impacts as they relate to that center. The DEIR indicates that a land use impact is considered significant if a project disrupts an established community or conflicts with adjacent land uses (page 5-11). There's an acknowledgement that the Rossmoor Center is in a state of decline; area residents do not dispute this. There's an implication that it's a candidate for redevelopment and this is likely to happen with or without the proposed project. Any impact on Rossmoor Center is dismissed because the DEIR does not foresee any physical changes. He felt it is interesting the DEIR doesn't considerl physical changes like loss of tenants, customers, increased vacancy and all the things that go along with that. If that center becomes blighted he thought there would be definite aesthetic, public safety, crime and other impacts and these impacts should be addressed. A way to mitigate these impacts would be to look at this plan and at a way to integrate the two centers. 3. There is a question on whether the fiscal benefit to the City associated with the proposed project would allow for the offsetting decreases in revenue to Rossmoor Center, which would likely occur. 4. There are concerns about the proposed land uses. For example, this plan allows up to 75,000 sf of restaurant space in areas A and B. A Sizzler restaurant is about 6,000 sf. This is enough restaurant space to build 12 Sizzler restaurants. This area is across the street from the former Tortilla Beach restaurant, which has been vacant for upwards of five (5) years. This underscores the importance of considering the specific land uses in order to properly evaluate the environmental impacts. 5. Regarding accident potential zones at the southwest end of the base runway and the fact they are not recognized because there is limited activity at the base now. If routine activity at the base increases (page 5- 177) these accident potential zones would extended well into the project and would create significant safety concerns which could not be mitigated once the project is built. The AELUP specifically excluded uses such as churches, schools, restaurants and places of public assembly from these accident potential zones. 6. Regarding jobs/housing balance goals by SCAG, there is a notation in the DEIR that the north Orange County area is jobs rich. He suggested there be more housing as opposed to commercial development. The lack of 13 ~ . City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of May 13,1998 ,i jobs/housing balance is identified as a significant impact and a possible mitigation measure would involve a residential component. Mr. Whittenberg asked for a copy of the overheads. . Milt Peterson · Rossmoor Homeowners Association (RHA) Mr. Peterson said the real and direct added traffic from this project, around and into Rossmoor is one of their most serious concerns. They were concerned about the congestion at the Katella Avenue/Los Alamitos Blvd. Intersection. The DEIR says they would not be able to mitigate this problem to an acceptable level. It will require Seal Beach to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if the project is approved. He hoped the EQCB would carefully consider the appropriateness of this significant compromise. South of Rossmoor, the next major impacts are Seal Beach Boulevard, the 405 Freeway overpass bridge and the freeway on-ramps. The DEIR projects traffic growth requires all of these to be greatly improved, including widening of the overpass bridge. Unlike the Katella Avenue intersection, these improvements are feasible given sufficient funds and time to do the job. The project developer will participate in these improvements according to law. He hopes the City of Seal Beach had all the added required funds to take on such a major task. If not, the direct impact on th~ir citizens in Leisure World --- in terms of medical response and fire respqnse --- would be tragic. I Next, the most signific~nt impact to Rossmoor residents is the cut thru or intrusion traffic. The DEIR traffic analysis has an intrusion study into Rossmoor and Rossmoor residents like this and see it as helpful in the final analysis. . Referring to an overhead, he talked about cut-thru traffic. He described the boundaries of Rossmoor. Katella and Los Alamitos Boulevards are heavily congested intersection~ and will stay that way if this project is approved as scoped. Long-time residents know and the DEIR confirmed that many motorists avoid this congestion by cutting through Rossmoor at Wallingsford and exit at St. Cloud. Northbound Sepl Beach Boulevard traffic can be averted if they reverse this path, thereby missing all the traffic lights and congestion. This can only get worse if this project is built as proposed. Congestion will continue to increase at the intersection and motorists will need to turn south to the project. One of the major exits dumps right into St. Cloud, this is an invitation to drive through Rossmoor. Rossmoor doesn't want this intrusion traffic. We have an identifiable problem and this project will add to it. Despite the traffic analysis, the DEIR states "In the absence of an identifiable intrusion problem, no mitigation is needed". He could not understand this statement. The DEIR is deficient in not identifying the project contribution to this on-going problem and identifying means to mitigate it. 14 ~ City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of May 13, 1998 . Next the project propo~es to add a right-turn lane on eastbound St. Cloud Drive, exiting south from Rossmoor. It's not stated in the DEIR if there's room for this in the current right-of-way. We just opened the bids today for the new community wall. This would preclude the ability to move further south beyond that right-of- way. They need to understand the physical geometry of this. Since Rossmoor has been fully built-out for the last thirty years, it's difficult to foresee what the significant added traffic is that we have to accommodate coming out of Rossmoor. Chairman Rosenman asked the speaker if he had almost completed his comments as his speaking time was expiring. Mr. Petersen continued, saying the DEIR is deficient in not calling for an overall traffic analysis of the two centers and the surrounding local communities. Finally, the traffic generation calculations are of concern. The Chairman asked those figures be submitted in writing and the speaker agreed. , Chairman Rosenman called a five-minute break to change the videotape. Recess at 8:55 p.m. Reconvene at 9:05 p.m. . Bernard Beskind * RHA Mr. B~skind spoke on noise and air quality impacts. Mr. Beskind said he had five charts to present with his comments. Noise measurements are designed to assess the impact of a sound as heard by a human ear. The community noise levels, CNELs, are designed to assess the irritation on an average community. These measures are geared toward healthy human beings, living average lives, doing normal human activities. The residents will feel the largest portion of the noise impacts in the senior care facility located at the end of the runway next to the freeway. The traffic noise in that area exceeds State standards. There are two numbers in the DEIR showing 75dba and another showing the expected noise of an apartment building next to a freeway as being 87dba. The State standard for outside noise is 65 CNEL. The people in the senior center would not be able to participate in any enjoyable activities at that site. The aircraft noise is measured the same way. He asked the audience to consider themselves as lying in a bed, confined, lying in a bed, not well and suddenly hearing a large jet plane coming in. He didn't know if there had been studies done re noise effects on the sick, infirm or elderly. The standard noise measures most likely don't take that into account. Those jets have been measured at 118 dba; cited in Appendix G. There is no estimate in the DEIR on the increased intensity of that traffic due to emergency operations when that site reverts to its designated support for FEMA or other emergencies. From a noise point of view, the site for the senior care facility seems to be inappropriate. . 15 ~ City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of May 13, 1998 . Regarding long term air quality, traffic is the primary source of the air quality problems in our air. The DEIR seriously understates the local effects of the carbon monoxide emissions. The analysis in the appendix assumes the average trip length is 9 miles and that their average speed is 25 MPH. When you're stuck in traffic this isn't true. The difference between traveling 5 MPH in that area (more typical) or 25 MPH is a five-fold increase in the carbon monoxide emissions per unit of time spent there. That says the carbon monoxide problem in the local area is being understated significantly in the DEIR. Similarly, the breathing particulates which come of the tires and brakes, is increased when you're in stop-and-go traffic. This is a more severe air quality impact in this are than is averaged over the 9-mile trip. The consultant's Appendix paints a much grimmer picture than appears in the Summary Report. Mr. Beskind included quotations from the consultant -- "The elderly may suffer worsening illnesses and perhaps premature death, particularly from breathing the particulate matters". The consultant is saying to us don't build that senior care facility at that location. . Regarding the construction phase and changes to mitigation, the DEIR has mitigation measure J-1'suggests that the activities within 500' of residences be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday thru Saturday. There are heavy construction activities, namely the earth grading equipment's, jack hammers, pile drivers, which make very obtrusive sounds. People who live in that area are entitled to have quiet dinner hours. It would be more appropriate to restrict the use of this heavy equipment to more reasonable hours, such as 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday thru Friday. . Regarding dust, mitiga\ion measure E-J says they will suspend all grading when the gusts exceed 25 MPH and they will water the site morning and night and will wash off all the equipment. But, if there are Santa Ana conditions during the grading phase and if there are sustained winds in that area the ground will dry out faster and there will be dust in the air. He suggested another mitigation measure be developed, one dealing with the average speed of wind during the grading phase in particular. For example, if the average wind is exceeding 15 MPH, in addition to the dust criteria, that there be a restriction on the grading. Finally, a common sense wording to the effect that if the dust interferes with air operations or traffic (as determined by the CHP or Army Reserve Center) that similarly the grading will be suspending during this period of time. In summary, we would like to see more stringent controls during construction to get rid of these problems and to make the construction phase more bearable to the residents living in close proximity. The senior care facility should not be allowed at that site and should perhaps be switched with the church site. . 16 " City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of May 13, 1998 . , Helene Helprin * 3201 Kempton Drive, Rossmoor Ms. Helprin went numerically through mitigation measures on aesthetic considerations and corrymented on the cumulative impacts. j I Regarding the following Mitigation Measures (MM): 1: Concerning the concentrated perimeter, the landscaping does not state the type of trees. The plans show "mature trees". But unless they plan and state a certain number, type and maturity level we can expect young trees, which will take many years to grow. 9: They do not state the maturity of the landscape to create a buffer zone. What type of buffer zone? Now or thirty years from now? What types, density? A low buffer will not be adequate to screen views and ensure privacy to surrounding homeowners. . 10: Under the existing DEIR, aesthetics section, it states that aircraft could be sensitive to or disoriented by high intensity lighting. Under the project impact it states the lighting associated with the proposed development would be "typica.l" of that already occurring in the area. What does this mean? They say that would not affect the safety of aircraft operations. Quadrupling the amount of lighting, even if it's low density lighting, assuming that the lighting in the area says it will be compatible with aircraft still seems dangerous and a blight to the aesthetics. 13: The landscaping along the periphery of the site that shields against glare and auto headlights will not be dense enough or adequately tall enough to do the job. This must be considered. 14: This should be changed to read "All materials shall (not should) be selected with attention to minimizing glare impact. . Regarding the cumulative impacts re this section of the DEIR, the statement was "Given the highly urbanized nature of areas surrounding the project site, and other night time lighting in adjacent areas, these cumulative aesthetic impacts are not considered to b~ significant. Project development will therefore not significantly alter regional or cumulative aesthetic conditions". This is totally understated. The changes in visual appearance of the project are very large, they are not incremental. An increment is a tiny amount. Rossmoor is an urbanized area but it is not a highly urbanized area. It is largely residential and the density is actually lower than average for such an area because of the larger- than-average lot sizes. Rossmoor has one of the highest property value averages in all of Orange County because of the large lots makes it a desirable place to live. Erosion of the aesthetics, a blight to the area, will eventually lower revenues and increases the need for police enforcement. If you have an area of higher residential value, people in these areas usually have greater discretionary 17 . ~ City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of May 13,1998 . income for spending on extras. If you want to attract these people, the aesthetics are a major consideration in the enhancement of that area. Again, the Eucalyptus trees are not a frivolous issue here. If Bixby wants to give themselves a positive spin, the trees should be used as a development signature. The trees should be maintained. Jean Beaslev * Rossmoor Ms. Beasley discussed biological resource impacts in the DEIR. The major impact is loss of trees associated with the development plan, particularly the Eucalyptus windrow on Seal Beach Boulevard. The DEIR states that Eucalyptus trees may be used for nesting by birds of prey (Hawks and Owls) and that the Eucalyptus grove may be a wintering site for the Monarch Butterfly. Neither Raptors nor butterflies were observed during the on-site surveys performed for this DEIR. It could be assumed these surveys took place at a time of year when these creatures were not in this area. Therefore, additional site surveys are warranted to establish the true impact of this project on the area's biological resources. Additionally, they would like to have expert testimony on the clustering habits of Monarch butterflies. This should address such issues as how large a grove of trees is required to attract the butterflies to the area. . ~ MM G-12 states that the major tree trimming shall occur mid-October of mid- November in order to avoid interrupting season for birds of prey and the Monarch butterfly clustering. But on page 5-136 it is stated that the butterflies arrive in early November and are intolerant of disturbances involving the microclimate of their site, such as tree trimming. The tree trimming then should be complete by the end of October. This is a moot point if the trees are all removed. Regarding loss of other wildlife to the area, during the site survey most of the bird activity was in the fallo~v area. Under this plan that area would be completely absorbed by this development. With the loss of the Eucalyptus windrow and the managed environment of the golf course will make this area virtually devoid of wildlife. An exception to this could be an increase in the rodent and pest population, which are currently kept under control by the birds of prey. They would like to see the DEIR incorporate features which would attract birds and other wildlife, such as greenbelts, trees and natural water features, open space areas. . In replacing trees, MM G-13 does not state that the trees to be removed will be replaced with like species. This is critical to the success of the mitigation, particularly with regard,to the Eucalyptus. Trees, which are disease prone, should be replaced with hardier species. But they don't want to see the Eucalyptus trees replayed with any other tree but Eucalyptus. The language in the DEIR must be modified to state the species to be replacements. The DEIR should verify the adequacy of the soil where the windrow is to be located and establish an irrigation plan if necessary. Improvement in the tree pruning policy is discussed but it sho~ld be made a long-time commitment by the developer, at 18 . . ~ City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of May 13, 1998 . lease for the life of this project. The RHO wants the developer to make a concerted effort to preserve as many mature trees as possible. They want as natural look to the project as possible. Sandra Genis * No Address Stated Ms. Genis spoke on church issues. She said the Southern California "mega church" has exercise cl~sses, craft classes, "Mommy and Me" classes all day, all evenings. This goes on day in and day out and evenings. A small congregation could not support these activities. She wondered if the consultant did a straight- line projection from a typical small church or whether special consideration was given to a mega church. She wanted to know how many examples of these mega churches are in the ITE manuals and where they are located geographically. With that in mind, she asked for accounts of the specific congregations which are moving in, including what their activity levels are, how many services do they have, how much are they split, what types of evening activities do they have. The church traffic should be considered in conjunction with the recreational traffic, which would happen on weekends. Also the number of occupants per vehicle. The parking appears to assume 3 occupants per vehicle or 3 church seats per vehicle. Does this apply to the current congregation that anticipates moving in? . Regarding air quality, her concern was how the mitigation measures would be enforced. For examplel, the ride share requirements may not be practical for small employers. During the traffic presentation the term "cumulative impact" came up. This will make things worse. To have a meaningful discussion we need to know how much worse, are you sitting through two cycles of a light or will you sit through three or four? How ma~y seconds or minutes will be the additional delay , Eulalee Siler * Colleae Park East Reconsider items 3. 5. and 8. Ms. Siler said the DEIR's beginning pages list nine objectives of this project. The objectives appear to be the objectives of the City of Seal Beach and Bixby Ranch Co. They don't have any input from citizens who live north of the freeway. She suggested items 3, 5 and 8 be reconsidered based on citizen survey. There have been approximately 3 surveys and 1 petition for a total of approximately ~OOO people who have stated they don't want commercial development. f Chairman Rosenman ~sked the speaker to focus on the mitigation measures. How it's deficient and how it could be corrected. . 19 . . .. 1 City of Seal Beach EaCB Minutes of May 13, 1998 I J , . Reconsider Table 53. Appendix A. Volume 2. Requested Appendix A be included in DEIR itself. Appendix A is important because it shows what the traffic is over a 24-hour period. At the corner of St. Cloud/Seal Beach Boulevard the traffic is 40,000 vehicle trips per 24-ho~r period. Eucalvptus trees must come out to widen the highway for this project. It's inconsistent to say you don't want to sit in traffic and you want to save the trees. If this project is built, the trees come out. Paae VI-2 - Requests the consultant change the page number for the five unmitigatible features of this development. Verify this page number. Financial Analvsis - the numbers appear exaggerated for the commercial elements of this project. and underestimated for the residential. If people review the financial analysis prepared two years ago on the residential plan they will see an amount of $850,000 yearly to the City but in the current financial analysis it's only $300,000. . Environmentallv Superior Alternatives #1-11 - Clarify the relation between Tables 51 and 63. Go back to table 51 and re-evaluate before you make list 63 because all the comme'rcial plans float to the top of that environmental superior alternative list. Considering all the alternatives have so much traffic, there really isn't any reason why they should be at the top of being environmentally superior. Drop in Homes Value - While this plan seems to be a financial gain for the City of Seal Beach and for the developer, it is not to the residents north of the freeway. The homes will drop in value when the noise, pollution, traffic, felled trees come into reality. Hal Norton * Colleae Park East Mr. Norton spoke on the impacts on the ability of the AFRC to continue to operate. He said the DEIR has not given enough attention to the AFRC's operations have on the community and the Orange County/Los Angeles basins. The ALUC will look at the place for training of pilots and maintenance personnel, marshalling an operation for disaster, logistic support for the Naval Weapons Station and NASA, a secure place for Air Force One, a place for housing and employment of military:personnel. These tasks will become more important with the closing of EI Toro. Regarding night flying, pilots will wear red goggles to increase their night vision. If the driving range lighting is removed and if they've taken off their goggles ~hey instantly lose their night vision. Mr. Norton said we should look at the impact the AFRC has. . Chairman Rosenman thanked the RHA for the clarity of their overheads. He said this appears to conclude the public portion of this meeting. 20 . . " . City of Seal Beach EQCB Minutes of May 13, 1998 . Staff Concerns Mr. Whittenber~ asked the Board if they wished to receive more public testimony at their May 27 meeting? EQCB Concerns Member Christ thankeq all speakers for their clear comments. Member McGuire asked Mrs. Culbertson how was the criteria measured that Mrs. Siler asked about? . Mrs. Culbertson said State law tells us how to define project objectives. The law says they must state what the project's objectives are, not the citizen's objectives. Once you state that objective that is one of the criteria against which you measure whether the alternative is feasible and capable of achieving project objectives. It's one of the questions that CEQA causes us to ask on project alternatives. It's not the only measure. The goal of project alternatives is to look for alternatives that reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts brought about by the project. At the Scoping Sessions people asked the consultant to look at other land use alternatives. Some have the same impacts as the project and some have greater impacts. There are three tables in the alternatives sections. She explained the three tables. Member McGuire asked if the developer determined the project's objectives? Mrs. Culbertson said the project's objectives are determined by the proposed project. This is a developer project; it's a developer-driven application. It's because State law requires you to state "What is this project trying to do?" Member McGuire stated for the Record that there was a comparison as to numbers on a previously proposed project, and she wanted to state that the figures on the residential (they were talking about the financial analysis) that this Board found that data incomplete, incorrect and inadequate. Those numbers used previously should not be used now. This Board did not certify the previous EIR for the mixed-use plan or recommend that it be certified. Members Hurley asked what figures were wrong? Chairman Roseman answered they were the figures Mrs. Siler was referring to. Regarding comments from the EQCB, Member McGuire said "My comments will be in writing to make s~re that my intent is not lost...". She thanked everyone for speaking. For those unable to attend the meeting tonight she noted a Response to Comments would be prepared and distributed. She encouraged everyone to read these in the local libraries. . 21 " .. ~ ~. . .~ t. 'i. -.' (, . City of Seal Beach EaCB Minutes of May 13,1998 Member Voce said that when the EaCB makes its final de;iberations that a Board member doesn't need to reiterate what the speaker has said. When the 'comments are made at the microphone it's on the Record in the- Minutes. He _ thanked everyone for speaking. . Member Hurley said he wanted to comment on the DEIR and he would do so at the next meeting both orally and in writing. Adjournment The Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. The next EaCB meeting will be May 27, 1997 at 6:30 p.m. in City Council chambers Public testimony on the Bixby Ranch DEIR will be taken. Respectfully Submitted: C\o~ Joan Fillmann Executive Secretary Planning Department' ~ APPROVAL: The EaCB Minutes of May 13, 1998 were approved by the Board on July 29, 1998._ 1 These minutes were transcribed from an audiotape of the EaCB meeting. 22