Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEQCB 1998-05-27 . . .. . City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of May 27, 1998 The regularly scheduled Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) meeting was called to order by Chairman Rosenman at 6:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers. Roll Call Present: Chairman Rosenman Members Christ, Hurley, McGuire, Voce Also Present: Department of Development Services Director Whittenberg Culbertson. Adams Associates Doug Wood Aeenda Aporoval MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by Christ to approve the Agenda as presented. . MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Rosenman, Christ, Hurley, McGuire, Voce Oral Communications There were no oral communications. Consent Calendar MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by Christ to approve the Consent Calendar as presented: 1. Receive and File - Letter from City Council and EQCB to Weapons Support Facility dated March 9, 1998 re: City of Seal Beach Comments re: Draft Action Memorandum/Removal Action Work Plan, Non-Time Critical Removal Action for Installation Restoration Site 8 - Battery Shop Drainage from Building 235. . City of Seal Beach * Environmental Quality Control Board * Minutes of May 27. 1998 . 2. Receive and File - Letter from City Council to Weapons Support Facility dated March 9, 1998 re: Draft Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis, Non-Time Critical Removal Action for Installation Restoration Site 19 - Building 241 Disposal Pit, Weapons Support Facility, Seal Beach. 3. Receive and File - Letter from Archaeological Advisory Committee to City of Long Beach dated April 8, 1998 re: Recirculated DEIR - Commercial Development of Los Altos Drive-In Theater, Archaeological Resources. 4. Receive and File - City Council Staff Report dated April 13, 1998 re: Receive and File: Final Action Memorandum and Responses to City comment Letter re Draft Action Memorandum/Removal Action Work , Plan, Non-Time Critical Removal Action for Installation Restoration Site 8 - Battery Shop Drainage from Building 235. 5. Receive and File - City council Staff Report and Response Letter to Weapons Support Facility dated April 13, 1998 re: City Response Letter re: Draft Project Work Plan, Non-Time Critical Removal Soil Remediation Project for Installation Restoration Site 19 - Building 241 Disposal Pit. . 6. Receive and File - City Council Staff Report dated April 13, 1998 re: Receipt of Orange County Council of Governmentsl "Air Quality Legislative Platform" and "Air Quality Update" . 7. Receive and File - City Council Staff Report dated April 13, 1998 re: Receipt of OCCOG Draft Scope of Work for Recreation Access Study,,- Phase I, Building a Marketing Profile". 8. Receive and File - City Council Staff Report dated Apri113, 1998, re: Receipt of Orange County Council of Governments "Scope of Work for Livable Communities Project" . 9. Receive and File - City Council Staff Report dated April 13, 1998 re Receipt of OCCOG Draft "1998/99 Overall Work Program" . . 10. Receive and File - City Council Staff Report and City Council and EQCB Comment Letter dated April 27, 1998 re City Response Letter re Draft Site Evaluation Work Plan, Installation Restoration Sites 4,5 & 6 - Weapons Support Facility. J OCCOG 2 " City of Seal Beach * Environmental Quality Control Board * Minutes of May 27,1998 . 11. Receive and File - City Council Staff Report and City Council Comment Letter dated April 27, 1998 re City Response Letter re Draft Work Plan, Supplemental Characterization of Site 7 - Weapons Support Facility. 12. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report and city Council Comment Letter dated April 27, 1998 re: Receipt of Final Focused Site Inspection (PSI) for Operable Unites 4 and 5 - Weapons Support Facility. 13. Receive and File - City Council Staff Report dated April 27, 1998 re Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station Installation Restoration Program - Status Report re All Installation Restoration Sites. 14. Receive and File - City Council Staff Report dated April 27, 1998 re 1997 AQMD Annual Report - Air Quality. 15. Receive and File - City Council Staff Report dated April 27, 1998 re Consideration of Comment Letter re Draft Environmental Assessment for Proposed Rule 1401, New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants - South Coast Air Quality Management District. . MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Rosenman, Christ, Hurley, McGuire, Voce Public Hearings There were no Public Hearings. Scheduled Matters 16. Receipt of Public Comments and EQCB Review Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center DEIR Staff Comments Mr. Whittenberg indicated this is the EQCB's third meeting to receive public testimony on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Bixby Co. proposal. Sign-in sheets are available for persons who wish to speak. Staff has the same handouts available -- an overview of what an EIR is, the purpose of an EIR, the adequacy issues, the general description of the project, the excerpts of the EIR that talk about the project, the mitigation measures and the alternatives. Staff has not prepared a formal presentation for tonight's meeting because the previous two . meetings were broadcast and replayed on Seal Beach TV3. 3 City of Seal Beach * Environmental Quality Control Board * Minutes of May 27,1998 . Mr. Whittenberg introduced Doug Wood, who is replacing Andi Culbertson this evening, as Ms. Culbertson is unavailable to attend tonight. For the Record, Chairman Rosenman indicated he searched the World Wide Web on the function of the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). There's a section a www.co.orange.ca. us that says, "The ALUC is a seven-member public body established by the California Public Utilities Code. Its statutory role is to safeguard the general welfare of those within the vicinity of airports and to ensure the continued operation of airports. The ALUC may review and consider one or more of the documents prepared by the master development program (regarding EI Toro)". It seems to be fairly balanced between protecting airports and protecting people. The Chairman opened the public comment period. Ron Bradshaw * Bixby Ranch Co. Mr. Bradshaw said the Bixby Ranch Company has been listening to the EQCB's last two meetings. He thought an area of interest is Bixby's concern with the issue of the trees. He thought the following statement would be appropriate to incorporate into the EIR: . The trees are an important issue and are perceived as a historical issue in the City. It would be Bixby's intent, in the development of the Old Ranch Towne Center, to incorporate the trees into that development. They have not had the opportunity to do all of the tree studies and don't have all the exact points of access located on the maps at this time. It would be difficult to determine what trees could remain and which trees would have to be culled. The intent would be to maintain the windrow effect, retaining as many of the specimen trees as possible. The arborist and landscape architect said there are a number of trees, which should be culled in the interest, and health of all the other trees remaining. The culled trees could be replaced if they don't impact the views for coming in and out of the project from a safety standpoint. They noticed the trees are pretty much of the same vintage except for those that are sprouts. The point is it's Bixby's interest to preserve that landscape look on Seal Beach Boulevard and to incorporate it throughout the entire project. You'd end up with a significantly greater number of trees as a result. It would enhance the windrow element that the City is very positive about. There were no persons wishing to speak and the Chair closed the public comment period. . Board Discussion . Member Voce thanked Mr. Bradshaw for his comments and indicated his comments on trees were well received. Considering that we're dealing with an EIR as it speaks particularly for the consultant directly into the document. 4 City of Seal Beach * Environmental Quality Control Board * Minutes of May 27, 1998 . Regarding site photographs, figure 47.b on page V-201, Volume 1. The bottom photo shows the corner viewpoint and there's an area that's colored in the sky and an area that looks like it could be building. It's just a question of clarifying where the building begins and ends and where the sky begins and end. He said the way it's presented it seems as though the top of this building has been done in a "sky" mural to emulate the sky around it. That may not be the situation but it needs clarification on how high the building would be in relation to the corner and how that fits into the landscaping at the corner of St. Cloud. ' I Member McGuire asked if that could be answered now? Mr. Wood said two configurations are shown in the bottom, or "after", photographs. They portray two different building heights. The lower or solid version of the building is 25'. The top or "sky" area is showing a 35' building height. He didn't see an explanation in the document and this would be clarified. The configurations attempt to show what the building would look like at 25' and 35'. Color choice could make a big difference in how the building looks. Dimensions on the photo would have been best. . At page B- 212, mitigation measure M-5, we need to specify the preservation plan is for the current or the future windrows or both. The maps indicate where the windrow is currently but there's a vegetation map that didn't include the windrow. It would be helpful if the current vegetation map included the windrow area, as does the map provided with the arborist's report. The tree evaluation report is figure 1. Those two should come into vegetation alignment. Member Voce indicated many members of the public were supportive of trees and how valuable they are. There is so much support to preserve existing large trees. Mr. Bradshaw's handout will be good to review. . The Congestion Management Program, page 13 of the section, discusses the Orange County MPAH. A few intersections are shown. He wondered why this program hasn't considered Seal Beach Boulevard at the Lampson A venue and St. Cloud intersections. Those two intersections are heavily impacted with or without this project. To leave it out of the MP AH seems unhelpful. Along Seal Beach Boulevard, south of Katella, there's not a lot of discussion on Seal Beach Boulevard proper --- the way it is, the way it's planned. What are Caltrans projections for Seal Beach Boulevard between the Freeway and Katella Avenue? We have Orange County management plans, but what about the State -- Caltrans? His comments were not just about circulation but what happens if Caltrans comes in and widens Seal Beach Boulevard? That will impact the Eucalyptus windrow just as much as any project proposal could. The applicant and the public can do all they can to save the trees but if Caltrans has different plans and overrides everybody then where does that leave us? What are Caltrans' plans? 5 City of Seal Beach * Environmental Quality Control Board * Minutes of May 27,1998 . Member Hurley asked if Caltrans has authority on Seal Beach Boulevard when it's away from the freeway? ' Member McGuire asked Culbertson Adams about Caltrans' plans for Seal Beach Boulevard and widening Of the bridge. Those plans should have been incorporated into this DEIR. Was that an oversight? Mr. Wood said that was a difficult question for him to answer since he's not the traffic engineer. It's a very specialized field with a sub-consulting engineer. What he's hearing is a need for additional background information re the State, Caltrans or any other agency, relative to their long-range plans for Seal Beach Boulevard. They could consider something that makes a lot of our discussions moot. He couldn't testify what those long-range plans could have on the traffic analysis because there's a giant step from long range plans to reality, particularly in the Caltrans time frame. We don't want to be too speculative about it. But he heard the need for more background to be brought in and that's a valid concern. . Member Voce noted Caltrans has plans for the freeway bridge up Seal Beach Boulevard and perhaps for the freeway ramps. Where does that start and stop? Will Seal Beach Boulevard be affected? Do they have jurisdiction to the west and southwest of the project? Mr. Whittenberg said Caltrans does not have general authority on Seal Beach Boulevard itself, it's not a State highway. They do deal with the section of Seal Beach Boulevard between the northbound on/off ramps and the southbound on/off ramps. But north of Lampson A venue they have no control of what happens in that area, no control north of the northbound off ramp on Seal Beach Boulevard even in front of the property where the old Arco station used to be. That's City jurisdiction. The development area between the off ramps is the area that they have current jurisdiction over. If future plans reconfigure off ramps to come in at points further away from the freeway than they currently do, then their jurisdiction would encompass that area in the future. But until we have seen plans, they don't have jurisdiction in those areas. Mr. Whittenberg said St. Cloud and Lampson Avenue intersections are not shown on the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) because those major arterial intersections, identified through a County voter-approved initiative, are the intersections of m~or arterial streets. Lampson A venue and St. Cloud are identified as not being major arterials; they are local and collector streets. They carry 15,000 to 20,000 cars per day. To be an arterial you need to carry 30,000 to 40,000 cars per day. Member McGuire asked about the Smart Street program? . Mr. Whittenberg said that would impact Katella A venue only. There were three or four streets Countywide in that program; Beach Boulevard, Katella A venue, Molten 6 City of Seal Beach * Environmental Quality Control Board * Minutes of May 27,1998 , . Parkway, Golden Lantern, Imperial Highway. These streets will be designed to carry 60,000 cars per day. They are just short of being a freeway. Member Hurley asked about the changing character and function of Seal Beach Boulevard. What's being done to make sure that agencies like Orange County, Caltrans et cetera to lobby them tei give Seal Beach Boulevard a different character? Mr. Whittenberg explained that the classification of Seal Beach Boulevard under the County master plan of arterial highways is related to the number of travel lanes that exist on the street. When you have three travel lanes in each direction it puts it into a certain classification. As long as the roadways stays within three travel lanes in each direction it will remain in that classification. The City and Orange County, every two years, have to go through a process of reconciling the City's local Circulation Element to its General Plan, which indicates that is a major arterial street. This makes sure the County's classification is' consistent. This is not part of the EIR. The street has been classified in that category ever since it was widened to its present six lanes in the late 1960's. It was done to allow for the space program, to allow the Saturn rocket boosters to be taken down to the Naval Weapons Station. . Member Voce said it's too bad there are not similarly large Eucalyptus trees on the opposite side of Seal Bea~h Boulevard by the Rossmoor Center. Member Hurley commented that there are three areas of the EIR he would comment on. Regarding hazards, the EIR needs to have several items presently lacking. First is a set of maps illustrating the geographic relationship of runway 22 and development in development Area B. He suggested figure 2 have added to it a scale to show the distance to the end of runway 22 and development Area B. They could add an indication of scale to fig*e 3 on page 6. And also show the southwest end of runway 22 L on that. People would get an idea of how the end of runway 22 --- how far away it is from development Area B. Regarding flight patterns, the EIR needs a map showing the geographic relationship of the various flight patterns, especially those of the fixed wing and instrument take off flight tracks from runway 22 and development of development Area B. Revising or replacing figure 35, on p~ge V-154 could do this. If you look at figure 37 on page V- 157, you take that and then put the flight tracks from figure 35 on a map like that and add a scale. That would provide a great deal useful information. All of the maps and figures in the DEIR neglect to show the reader how close the end of runway 22 is to development Area B. They do not show the ground under the various flight tracks. . Regarding the flight path of disabled large fixed wing aircraft, the DEIR needs a discussion and map of the probable flight track showing a large transport plane that loses power in an engine immediately after takeoff. Someday that will happen. When ! 7 .' City of Seal Beach * Environmental Quality Control Board * Minutes of May 27, 1998 I . that happens you can't turn back until you get up to 400'. We need to see such a flight track. This will help the reader appreciate the importance of the AFRC and the safety of the people in development Area B. Regarding noise, the DEIR needs to include single event noise data impacts to development Area B from the large aircraft. The field had nineteen C-5A's taking off last year. Loud sudden noises could be traumatic to senior citizens in the area. The DEIR lacks real coverage on this topic. The DEIR must include information on SEL or sound exposure level for single events. SNEL is adequate information for development areas A and C. But by itself it's completely inadequate for development Area B. Additionally, please revise page V -165 re the discussion of ambient noise levels in Table 39. The language needs clarification. The whole page is very incoherent. There's a lot not said. Why are only two readings made at the south location, the critical location, and yet four readings are made at the north location? The attempt at explaining the significance of percentile noise levels leaves him completely confused. "This page is a disaster". Additionally, page V-181, the mitigation measure 1-4 does not belong in an EIR mitigation section, it is not a mitigation measure. It does not minimize significant adverse impacts. He felt including this statement as though it were real mitigation is misleading and wrong. He has complained about this for years and it has never been explained why such a false statement is included in an EIR. . Chairman Rosenman asked if the AAC's findings could be shared with the EQCB, even if it's not for public distribution? I Mr. Whittenberg said the AAC has formulated their comments and staff is transcribing the tapes of those meetings. Mr. Whittenberg said the EQCB could get a copy. The FEIR will include all the AAC's comments, all the EQCB's comments. Those comments will be responded to. Regarding cultural resources mitigation, pages V-218 and V-2l9, Member Hurley will depend mainly on the report by the Archaeological Advisory Committee (AAC) but will ask a few questions now. Mitigation measure N-l, does Phase I cover everything down to 5' below the surface? If not, there's a gap between N-l and N-2. N-2 starts 5' below the surface, the pre-graded surface elevation. Shouldn't there be a provision or requirement for some orientation for the equipment operators who are doing the grading? They would be most likely to see any archaeological evidence, as the monitor can't be everywhere. Mitigation measures N-3 and N-4 refer to test phase and research design but give no indication on what is to be done with artifacts or other materials found; this should be claiified. The Hellman Ranch EIR was more extensive on this issue. . Regarding alternatives, he has searched for the statement in the 1997 CEQA guidelines equivalent to a statement in the Seal Beach environmental quality guidelines. Unfortunately, it's not there. He asked staff if the City guidelines are updated when the State guidelines are updated? , 8 " City of Seal Beach * Environmental Quality Control Board * Minutes of May 27, 1998 . Mr. Whittenberg said no, the City guidelines have not been updated. The City Attorney's Office has not completed those. They started several versions of it but the State keeps changing them. That's why staff uses the State guidelines - they are more recent. . Member Hurley said theI:e's a good thing in 1992 City guidelines, at page 26. In the statement on alternatives it says the EIR is supposed to tell why the proposal was chosen over the other various alternatives. The California guidelines say the EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. But the only explanation the lead agency has to make about its determination is about rejecting infeasible alternatives. There's no requirement in the 1997 State guidelines of the reasoning for choosing the proposal. But from a full disclosure standpoint, it would be useful to the reader to understand why the proposal is chosen over all of the other alternatives. He did an analysis of the figures. Table 50 gives a summary of the various alternatives in the proposal. Table 51 talks about the elimination by the alternatives of various significant impacts and Table 52 lines up the alternatives with the project objectives. He combined the data. It came out pretty close to the later comparison made by the consultants; eight out of the ten alternatives are environmentally superior to proposal and two are superior and also meet almost all the objectives. His comparison of the various tables showed Alternative E, the residential replacing the institutional, and Alternative I, the conference center and golf course, both are environmentally, superior to the proposal and meet almost all of the project objectives. In his experience, environmentally superior alternatives are usually rejected as not meeting enough of the objectives of the project or as not being feasible. Feasibility is not even mentioned in any of the comparative analyses of the considered alternatives. We are entitled to know why the proposed project is preferred over Alternatives E and I. There was a short discussion on CEQA handbooks. Mr. Whittenberg said the State is updating the guidelines to more closely track court decisions. The EQCB will be provided new and current copies of this handbook in approximately six weeks. . Regarding the storm channel, on page V-44, third paragraph from the bottom, it talks about a Bixby storm channel. This is not mentioned anywhere else in the EIR. Figures 12 and 14 may need to be changed to show the location of the Federal channel. It should also show a Bixby storm channel if there is one. Presently Figures 12 and 14 show that development Area B has an outlet to "Caltrans". On page V-160, at the bottom, the third line starts as a non-sentence: "As there are no known present or anticipated projects in the vicinity of AFRC, that would be subject to land use safety impacts of a nature similar to the proposed project." This should be corrected. On page V-169 there is a typo --- it's 1994 not 1984 AICUZ study. That same paragraph, last sentence, it is either false or refers to noise contours, one of which does not exist. The last sentence says" As indicated therein, aircraft noise levels on the project site range between 60 and 65 CNEL". This refers to Figure 41, which is itself a disaster, 9 \ City of Seal Beach * Environmental Quality Control Board * Minutes of May 27. 1998 . because the legend is backward. The dotted line is the higher level of dBA and the solid line should be lower but there is no 60-dBA contour. Member McGuire said she put a packet together, which she would give to staff and the consultant. She noted that Andi Culbertson said she deals with "what is", not with "what might be". When you're looking at CEQA projects you can only go by what you have. When she's reviewing the adequacy of the document she refers to the information on hand. She indicated the high school generates significant traffic and there was no reference to this or any new laws being passed, such as youngsters not being able to drive in carpools. There are 3,300 children in peak hour traffic. This number will increase with the performing arts school expanding. We know this is coming. We can't just deal with tomorrow, we need to look five and ten years down the line. . Regarding noise, noise issues are not adequately addressed. We need to look at what we're trying to do. Excessive noise contours, 65 dBA and up, placed over College Park East with relatively~no notice to those residents. Eventually that will be disclosed and this will affect home values. College Park East residents are looking to remove those noise contours and put them from where they came --- which is the Bixby vacant land. This needs to be addressed --- how would this affect this project. The 65 CNEL is related to the AICUZ noise contours. Regarding traffic, this issue needs to be considered into the future also. Based on her review of CEQA, a lot of work still needs to be done on the traffic issues. Regarding mitigation, just because you've thought of something that looks like it could mitigate, if it doesn't mitigate it's not adequate. It's better to say, "We can't mitigate this". If it doesn't make sense, we shouldn't do it. Specifics will be set forth in her packet. Regarding single event noise levels, she said she would FAX her comments to staff. Members Christ said the projected traffic volumes don't address the westbound transition from Old Ranch Parkway to 7th Street, the Studebaker Road transition. He would like to see this inc,luded. The rest of his comments will be in writing. Member Hurley said he was going to comment on the doubling of the traffic flow on Lampson Avenue but then he found out that for the size street that Lampson Avenue is it could double its traffic flow and remain in Category C. It could be that the numbers came out too low to be mentioned in the text. . , j Regarding the senior care facilities, Chairman Rosenman spoke on his concerns. Andi Culbertson indicated she would address what Caltrans said or didn't say. But to him it's common sense -- this is near the base and this is a group of people who do not evacuate well. He hasn't seen an adequate discussion of this fact. The issue of having 10 . . City of Seal Beach * Environmental Quality Control Board * Minutes of May 27,1998 . people sign waivers is not a mitigation, it's a coerced consent and it wouldn't hold up legally. On an overview, as "Joe Citizen", he would like to see traffic impact discussion on what's going to happen to Seal Beach Boulevard if this project is built out, what's the transit time from Westminster Boulevard to Katella Avenue right now? What change in that is anticipated? There needs to be full disclosure in ways that an intelligent citizen could find this information and understand it. He will have additional written comments. Chairman Rosenman thanked the Board for this review of this DEIR. Member Hurley said the DEIR doesn't explain why the consultant used the ITE figures, instead of SanDag. The consultant said how good it was for California to use the SanDag figures but they used the ITE instead. Staff Concerns There were no staff concerns. Mr. Wood thanked the EQCB for its review and the fairness of this review. . Board Concerns Chairman Rosenman asked when the FEIR would be available? Mr. Whittenberg said he would have to wait for all the comments to come in and have had time to peruse them and figure out how long it will take to prepare that document. Once a general time schedule is figured staff will advise the board. Member Hurley said he will be out of town July 14th to 21st. He asked if there were statutory time limits on the FEIR? Staff advised it was one year and that time started in October - November 1997. Member McGuire said her first concern was with the FEIR. She has 14 pages of comments. Some of the comments may be due to her lack of sophistication. In the spirit of that, she would like to have the experts here to educate the Board. Member McGuire indicated she would hope the Board will look for proactive projects for Board rather than being reactive. Once the EQCB is finished with the Bixby FEIR she would like to see this Board work on a proactive project, such as contamination in the San Gabriel River. She wants to see this on the next agenda to discuss a project they can take on as a board. Member Hurley said item 3, page 2 was missing and would like it sent to them. . 11 ! . 0( City of Seal Beach * Environmental Quality Control Board * Minutes of May 27,1998 . Member Voce said yes, he was interested in trees and plants trees on a monthly basis. But he is also interested in water quality. Our local wilderness is our wetlands and our ocean. The subject of water quality should be tied together, be more cohesive. Member Rosenman asked about the Coastal Commission's determination on the Hellman project. Mr. Whittenberg explained they are recommending denial of the golf course. Staff was surprised by this change because that is not the direction they were given by their commission members. City staff must look at this document so it would be premature to comment at this time. The Coastal Commission hearing will be June 10, in Santa Barbara at the Radisson Hotel. Adjournment MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by Voce to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m. . MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Rosenman, McGuire, Voce, Christ, Hurley Respectfully Submitted, Joan Fillmann Executive Secretary Planning Departmenf APPROV AL: The EQCB approved these Minutes on July 29 1998. _ . :2 These minutes were transcribed from an audiotape of this meeting. 12