HomeMy WebLinkAboutEQCB 1998-08-26
Ii'
I.
"-I
';1 .
"
.
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
City of Seal Beach
Environmental Quality Control Board
Minutes of August 26, 1998
The regularly scheduled Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) meeting of
August 26, 1998 was called to order by Vice Chairperson McGuire at 6:30 p. m.
The meeting was held in the City Council Chambers and began at 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Vice Chairperson McGuire
Members Voce, Hurley, Jones
Also
Present:
Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney
Kyle Kollar, Associate Planner
Absent:
Member Porter
Mr. Whittenberg explained that Member Porter was not present due to a
previously scheduled vacation.
MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by Voce to excuse Member Porter's absence.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Hurley, McGuire, Jones, Voce
Porter
Honor and Thank David Rosenman
Vice Chairperson McGuire said that prior to approving the Agenda, there was a
special person in the audience. She asked David Rosenman to come to the
dais. She indicated Mr. Rosenman was the former EQCB chairman and he did a
lot of work for the EQCB. The EQCB presented Mr. Rosenman with a City
plaque and thanked him for his work on the EQCB and RAAB.
Mr. Rosenman thanked everyone and said it was delightful to work with
everyone.
Welcome Steve Jones
Vice Chairperson McGuire welcomed the EQCB's new member, Steve Jones.
She indicated that Mr. Jones is a registered civil engineer and serves on the
City's tree committee.
1
...-
-,
~
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach EQCB * Minutes of August 26, 1998 Meeting
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
AGENDA APPROVAL
MOTION by Voce; SECOND by Jones to approve the Agenda.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Hurley, McGuire, Jones, Voce
Porter
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
David Rosenman * Seal Beach
Mr. Rosenman asked Mr. Steele to explain the many Responses to Comments,
noting it was hard to tell whom the "players" are.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by Voce to approve the Consent Calendar items 1
through 6 as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Hurley, McGuire, Jones, Voce
Porter
PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no Public Hearings.
SCHEDULED MATTERS
7. Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Final EIR
Receipt of Public;: Comments and Board Review
Staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg said the purpose of the EQCB's meeting tonight is to begin the
review of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Bixby project.
The EQCB held two meetings to received public comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) in April and May 1998. As part of the
process for the FEIR, all the comments received on the DEIR are responded to in
writing by the agency that is preparing the environmental documents. The City's
consultant team, Culbertson, Adams & Associates have prepared this response.
In addition, those persons or agencies or organizations that provided comments
on the DEIR were provided, by Certified U.S. mail, a copy of the responses to
their particular comments. A copy of the topical responses to the three major
issues that were talked about in the Response to Comment document and a
copy of tonight's Public Notice were provided. So, everyone who has a letter in
the comment document itself has received all that previously in the mail.
2
.E
'.r
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach EQCB * Minutes of August 26, 1998 Meeting
1 The purpose of tonight's meeting is to receive a presentation from City staff, from
2 the consultant team and comments from the public regarding the Response to
3 Comments document and the FEIR. The Board may ask staff and the consultant
4 team questions.
5
6 Mr. Whittenberg advised members of the public that speaker slips were available
7 and should be filled out by persons wishing to address the Board.
8
9 Mr. Whittenberg advised that copies of tonight's staff report, the topical
10 responses in the FEIR, a summary of the changes to the mitigation measures set
11 forth in the FIER and a letter received after the document was prepared from the
12 attorney's for the applicant are available for the public. The Board has been
13 provided with these documents.
14
15 Mr. Whittenberg summarized where we're at and how we got here and what
16 happens next. He made clear to the Board member that tonight is not a night
17 where they need to make a decision on the FEIR. That will happen at the
18 EQCB's September 2, 1998 meeting. Tonight the Board should receive
19 presentations and comments from the public. Then digest that information. On
20 September 2nd the resolutions that are in your agenda packet will be before the
21 Board for consideration.
22
23 The resolutions (Attachment 1 and 1 a) do one of two things. One resolution the
24 EQCB will consider to make a finding that the FEIR is adequate under CEQA1.
25 The alternate resolution can be considered by the EQCB to find the FEIR is not
26 adequate and that certain revisions are needed. There is a blank page where to
27 Board members will need to provide staff the information as to how the Board
28 feels the document is inadequate and what to needs to be added to make it an
29 adequate document. These recommends go forward to the Planning
30 Commission and City Council for their consideration. The EQCB's purpose is not
31 to consider the good, the bad or the ugly of the project. The EQCB's charge is to
32 consider the good, the bad or the ugly of the environmental impact report. Does
33 that document provide sufficient information for the Council to make an informed
34 decision on the project? It doesn't have to be neither totally accurate nor as
35 complete as some people may wish. The EQCB is to evaluate the document and
36 receive comments on the document.
37
38 Mr. Whittenberg told members of the audience that their comments should relate
39 to the information in the document. If concerns were not responded to full, the
40 speaker should inform staff of this problem.
41
42 Member Hurley asked the public to identify the number given to the comment.
43 Mr. Whittenberg said staff would do this.
44
45
1 California Environmental Quality Act
3
..-
"
.::
;
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach EQCB * Minutes of August 26, 199B Meeting
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Whittenberg walke~ through issues in the staff report:
o What is an EIR document?
See staff report pages 4 - 6. An EIR is a detailed document, prepared by a city,
analyzing a proposed project's significant effects and identifies mitigation
measures and reasonable alternatives. An EIR has three primary purposes
under CEQA (page 4). rAn EIR is an information document, not a reflecting of the
City's views on the merits of the proposed project. CEQA requires that prior to
approving any project the City Council must consider the environmental
information in the EIR. The City can't approve a CEQA-covered project unless
specified findings regarding the environmental consequences of the project are
made.
Certification of an EIR is an action taken by the City Council after it receives the
EQCB's recommendation. This is a legal action required under CEQA before a
city can approve a projrct.
Mr. Hurley asked if the City Council considers the EIR separately from the project
itself? Do they consider the project first and then consider the EIR?
Mr. Whittenberg said the City Council could consider it either way. In the past
they have done it both ways.
>
Mr. Steele said the City Council has the legal requirement to take action on the
FEIR before it takes action on the merits of the project. Under CEQA the Council
can't approve a projectwithout a certified EIR in front of them.
Mr. Whittenberg said the certification process is a separate process from the
approval process. And the certification does not force the City Council to
approve a project or not. They can certify an EIR and then deny a project. They
can certify and EIR and then approve a project. The process of the EIR again, is
that it's an information 90cument that the City Council uses in evaluating
environmental impacts with a number of other issues, such as fiscal impacts.
o What constitutes adequacy under an EIR?
Mr. Whittenberg said there's a "rule of reason" standard which has been applied.
The courts do not an agency to a standard of absolute perfection but rather
require that an EIR show that an agency has made an objective, good faith effort
at full disclosure. The scope of judicial review does not extend to the correctness
of an EIRs conclusion, but to the EIRs sufficiency as an information document for
decision-makers and the public. Experts and members of the public may
disagree with conclusions reached in the EIR or the means and/or data
employed to reach those conclusions. While disagreement doesn't make an EJR
inadequate, in many cases a full consensus can't be reached, in most cases
4
.'
",
,
.
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach EQCB * Minutes of August 26, 1998 Meeting
1 under CEQA the City m:ust determine whether the main points of such
2 disagreement have been summarized in the EIR. And those decision-makers
3 have that full range of environmental information for their benefit in making their
4 decisions.
5
6 From staff's viewpoint, the document before the EQCB is adequate. City staff,
7 the consultant team anCt the City Attorney's Office have spent a lot of time
8 working on the Response to Comments. In it there are a number of changes to
9 existing mitigation measures. Additional mitigation measures are proposed
10 based on the comment~. There's a summary of those changes available.
11
12 Staff feels that in looking at the comments and the responses to those comments
13 there were no issues that would have required a recirculation of the document
14 and that's why it's before the EQCB tonight in a final form.
15
16 Mr. Whittenberg indicated there were a number of communications received after
17 the close of the comme.nt period on the EIR. They have been provided as
18 attachments to the staff report. He walked through those documents. (See
19 pages 9 - 11 of the staff report).
20
21 Member McGuire asked how attachments 2 - 7 would be incorporated into the
22 Response to Comments?
23
24 Mr. Whittenberg said they wouldn't be attached, they will be provided as
25 information to the Planning Commission and City Council as part of their packet.
26 It won't be part of the ~IR but it is part of the record of the project.
27
28 Vice Chairperson McGuire said she wanted to discuss the meeting's format. She
29 noted that they discussed at the last meeting that they would have an agenda for
30 the public to use. Not seeing one, she went over the agenda she had. The
31 meeting tonight will be from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. At 8:45 p.m. staff concerns,
32 board concerns and adjournment. Lee Whittenberg will make a statement. Andi
33 Culbertson will review the three most pertinent topics addressed in the Response
34 to Comments. The Board will be able to ask questions as needed. Once the
35 presentation is over, questions in writing from the public will be read by Member
36 Voce. There will be another meeting at which questions will be addressed.
37
38 Vice Chairperson McGuire said the EQCB would not come up with a
39 determination tonight. Member Porter, a new Board member, is not here this
40 evening. The Board was not aware he would be absent until he telephoned her
41 from Hawaii yesterday.. Whether the EQCB holds their meeting on September
42 2nd or a week later, they will not give their final response until all the members are
43 present and have had t-ime to go through the data.
44
45 Mr. Whittenberg said to this time only one speaker slip has been turned in. He
46 urged anyone wishing to speak to fill out a speaker slip and turn them in to Kyle.
5
~-
",
.1
i'
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach EQCB * Minutes of August 26, 1998 Meeting
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Vice Chairperson McGuire clarified that the questions are to be on the Speaker's
Slips and Member Voce will be reading those questions to the consultant.
(
Mr. Whittenberg suggested having a short recess after Ms. Culbertson's
presentation to allow people to formulate questions and complete Speaker's
Slips.
Andi Culbertson * Culbertson Adams & Associates. Inc.
Ms. Culbertson, President of Culbertson, Adams & Associates, introduced
herself. Their firm has been selected by the City to be the environmental
consultant to the City for this project and have prepared the EIR. She introduced
the members of her team.
Ms. Culbertson said the time to comment on the DEIR is over. Then comes the
time to prepare responses to those comments. Particular care is taken to
evaluate those comments and to evaluate them, paying particular attention on
whether it's a comment on an environmental issue. It is normal there will be
differences of opinion. lThe idea behind the adequacy of the EIR is to be sure all
opinions are brought forward.
Disaoreement Amono Experts. Ms. Culbertson said it's most important that
everyone have a good understanding of what the issue is. Eighty-one (81 )
comments were received for the DEIR. After looking at all the responses, three
central themes emerged. These were aviation/noise issues, traffic issues and
tree issues.
Aviation/Noise Issues.
The State deals with aviation and noise issues. Airports are difficult to plan
around so the State legislature decided they will provide, under the Public
Utilities Code, a mechanism (the Airport Land Use Commission [ALUC]) that
would identify what typ~s of land uses were compatible or incompatible around
an airport based on noise and aviation safety concerns. The ALUC does this job
and follows a number of jobs in forming their conclusions. Their conclusions are
developed into a plan called an AELUP ---- Airport Environs Land Use Plan. This
identifies compatibility 9f land uses between airports and the jurisdictions
surrounding them. No one city could go through the expense and technical
trouble of developing the type of plan necessary to ensure that aviation safety
and noise considerations were properly addressed. There would be varying
ways of addressing these concerns among the jurisdictions. The State
legislature decided that aviation noise and safety matters would be considered by
having the ALUC develop the AELUP. The AElUP is then distributed to the local
government agencies and it identifies where your land uses are consistent or
inconsistent as you propose them. The ALUC uses, among their many tools, a
handbook published by Caltrans' Division of Aeronautics. The handbooks says:
6
.!I
i
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach EQCB * Minutes of August 26, 1998 Meeting
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The primary intent of this handbook is to facilitate the job of airport land use
commissions and their staff in carrying out their duties as set forth in the
California State Aeronautics Act.
\
This handbook therefore is for the ALUC and their staff to develop the AELUP
and hand it over to you. The only decision then is --- are you following it? You
are. The ALUC staff has written a letter stating the City of Seal Beach is in
conformity.
In spite of written comments received that there is some reason to test further
with this issue there is no reason to. The ALUC has already tested further and
evaluated further and enunciated and kept current the AELUP around this issue.
This is the basic gist of/topical response #1. You already have an agency
established by State law to do this for you. They have followed the law and
provided it to you in a package. You have followed it.
Topical response #2 deals with traffic analysis. Not belaboring numbers
specifically tonight, Ms. Culbertson said she wanted to impress on the group that
traffic analyses in the ~,tate of California is a very complicated and complex topic.
It is not as simple as simply taking a trip table --- as they used to do 25 or 30
years ago -- and multiplies trips out by land use. It deals with complicated
equations, pass-by percentages, different types of tools. Because of this, the
entire field of transportation planning and traffic analysis falls to the responsibility
of specialized consultants. The City has that expertise via Linscott, Law &
Greenspan, who prepared the traffic study.
The tension in the comments on traffic was did Culbertson, Adams & Associates
and Linscott, Law & Gr~enspan (sub-consultant) use the proper multipliers?
Was the amount of traffic stated properly? That issue arose because there's an
apparent difference between the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and
SANDAG (San Diego-based Association of Governments). Both produce this
data. In the topical response, Culbertson, Adams & Associates has shown that
using ITE results in the worst-case analysis is (sentence not finished). When you
look on a trip table and pull out a trip generation, say 70 trips per 1,000 square
feet; it sometimes looks like the traffic is being understated if you use the lower
number. The numbers:are only a point of beginning. What you have to do for a
mixed-use project is decide what kind of people are you capturing as they go by?
She explained pass-by reductions and internal reductions very briefly. She then
said that when these reductions are applied properly and you look at how the
SANDAG table was generated and you compare it to ITE, the ITE table results in
about 48 daily trips per thousand. The SANDAG table results in about 37 - 38
trips per thousand. She used the higher figures. But it is because of the other
parts of the equation that we used that help you understand how to properly
account for mixed trips; pass-by trips and allows you to make a definitive
statement on traffic. Culbertson, Adams & Associates and Linscott, Law &
I
Greenspan stands by the information in the EIR on traffic generation.
7
,
.'
;
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach EQCB .. Minutes of August 26, 1998 Meeting
1
2 Trees. There was a great deal of discussion about the trees. There is
3 approximately 1,800 feet of Seal Beach Boulevard that has a tree row. In the
4 topical response they have prepared a Eucalyptus tree-loss table on page 14 of
5 the Response to Comments. This shows that with the setbacks and Seal Beach
6 Boulevard widening/relbcation of sidewalks etc. there will be about 82% of the
7 trees retained. Culbertson, Adams & Associates did this analysis without the
8 benefit of the technical grading plans. This would have shown exactly how many
9 trees would be lost; it might have been one or two more or less. Most of the
10 trees are retained in this plan, even with the widening of Seal Beach Boulevard
11 and the sidewalk.
12
13 They amended a mitigation measure to provide for a 40' parkway. She
14 suggested this at a prior meeting.
15
16 Culbertson Adams & Associates believes they have responded to each and
17 every comment thoughtfully, added mitigation where appropriate. It is normal
18 and natural to have controversy on an EIR but it's not about the environment in
19 terms of adequacy of this EIR. This EIR and Response to Comments can be
20 relied on fully in making decisions.
21
22 Member Hurley said Ms. Culbertson went thru the Eucalyptus tree loss pretty
23 fast. On the next page: "Project Revisions", he asked if this paragraph didn't
24 change anything in the Eucalyptus Tree Loss chart?
25
26 Ms. Culbertson said no, it doesn't'. The Eucalyptus Tree Loss chart reflects that
27 project revision.
28
29 RECESS - The EQCB,took a recess for six minutes. Member Hurley said if
30 somebody would pass among the people with the slips that might speed up the
31 operation.
32
33 Public Testimonv
34
35 Member Voce read from the slips:
36
37 0 Transportation. There are currently 39,000 vehicles that travel on Seal Beach
38 Boulevard at St. Cloud each day, over a 24-hour period. This project will add
39 another 14,000 vehtcles. Do you propose to improve the current traffic
40 congestion with the roadwork or, will the congestion remain the same even
41 after the roadwork is completed? Eulalee Siler, College Park East.
42
43 Answer: Traffic congestion will be improved by this project. First, the project
44 brings a number of significant arterial and transportation improvements.
45 Because of the rules on how traffic funds are distributed in the County and
46 State laws have to leave congestion at least as good as it was found. This
8
"
.
.
.
City of S~alBeach EQCB * Minutes of August 26,1998 Meeting
J
1 project brings a number of improvements that solve any congestion that it
2 would cause and also it would improve congestion that now exists. It may
3 seem odd that is the case; however, traffic improvements are very expensive.
4 They are difficult to bring on unless you have a project to bring them with.
5 Will you suddenly not have levels of service like you have out there now? No,
6 if this project is not built it will be much worse because any improvements
7 would have to be built by the City and others. It cannot get worse because of
8 the rules, you have to improve the intersections and the flows so things don't
9 get worse -- otherwise the City doesn't get its money. This is in the area of
10 Seal Beach Boulevard. There are two intersections outside the City of Seal
11 Beach where intersection improvements are possible but disfavored by that
12 jurisdiction. In that case, the City of Seal Beach is without ability to improve
13 those segments.
14
15 0 Traffic. The SANDAG traffic charts used by the County of San Diego
16 generate traffic numbers 2 times greater than what you have projected. Why
17 do you suppose San Diego uses a chart that gives inaccurate numbers?
18 Eulalee Siler, College Park East.
19
20 Answer: Let me refer the person posing the question to topical response #2.
21 The SANDAG table, as previously explained, cannot be compared to the trip
22 generation by itself.' You have to learn what went into the SANDAG number.
23 As the topical response explains, there's an anomaly increases the number.
24 If you were to take that project out and consider al/ other projects that
25 SANDAG uses, and, apply the diverted trips and the pass-by reduction, the
26 SANDAG number actually adds up to fewer trips. If we had used the
27 SANDAG approach, qualified in this manner, we would have come up with
28 fewer trips than we reported in the EIR. This is why we consider this a worst-
29 case analysis.
30
31 Member McGuire said she understood Ms. Culbertson's explanation, but how
32 they arrived at this and they can be so different. Since the traffic experts are
33 here she'd like further explanation.
34
35 Ms. Culbertson said the numbers are not that different. You can't simply
36 reach into a table, pull out a number and apply it to a situation without going
37 through the entire equation. If their traffic engineers had done it that way it
38 would have been unprofessional and not representative of the traffic situation.
39 Traffic has a lot of dynamics; particularly when there is more than one use.
40 Every year traffic engineers work at improving the calculations. The reason
41 they look different on the trip table, in layman's terms, is that SANDAG and
42 ITE approach the numbers differently in terms of how they use the diverted
43 trips. You have to go through a calculation on some of it and see how the trip
44 is studied. Both sets of numbers are based on a huge number of case
45 studies. But if you take out the Rancho Bernardo center and look at drive---
46 volumes and trips you come down to about 37.3 trips per 1000 square feet of
9
.'
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach EQCB * Minutes of August 26,1998 Meeting
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
gross leaseable area for SANDAG. If you were to go through all the steps to
get down to the number, the same way it is represented in the ITE table, it
would be 37.3 trips per 1000 square feet of gross leaseable area and ITE is
48. We are using the higher number. The reason the trips seemed so
different at the outset is that people were taking the number off the table and
multiplying it by the square feet. Then looks different. But, not all the steps
have been performed when that is done.
!
Member McGuire said she and Craig Steele had this same conversation at
the last meeting. She said her problem is that she understands what is being
said but she doesn't understand the process on how you got there. For the
public, the process is very important.
Ms. Culbertson said the entire process is laid out on page 12. It's just
different ways that different ways data is presented. There are qualifiers on
the SANDAG table that say, "Don't use this number until you apply all other
figures". It's not a trick. ITE does the equation up front and then applies a
percentage. Whereas SANDAG requires a number of other steps. If you
perform the steps all the way down on both sides, so you're comparing apples
to apples, the trips are not very different. If the EQCB would like this reduced
to a one-page summary for the next meeting this would be done.
Vice Chairperson said yes, if Ms. Culbertson would put together a one page
and have someone available to go over it for the next meeting. That's actually
what she was hoping for at this meeting.
Ms. Culbertson said she wanted to have this explained in text form versus a
table. Trying to walk you through how you get to the numbers.
Member McGuire said it's not just so the Board can understand, it's for the
public. Not all the public has access to all the information but the do have
access to make comments. If things could be done verbally with a handout.
Ms. Culbertson said she would also prepare an overhead of the handout.
I
a Traffic. On the top map. How many lanes are on St. Cloud and how many are
on Seal Beach Boulevard? How can you explain the horrible congestion and
why should St. Cloud continue across Seal Beach Boulevard and create more
horrendous problems for the residents? Dolores Sartain, Rossmoor.
Answer: Ms. Culbekson said St. Cloud has 3 lanes out and 2 lanes in on the
side across from this project. And 2 lanes out and 2 lanes in our project. And
in the proposed project it is a driveway, not a road.
10
.!
City of Seal Beach EQCB * Minutes of August 26, 1998 Meeting
. Mr. Hurley said he fpund the 2 out on St. Cloud and 2 in. When you talk
1
2 about the driveway where is that? Are you saying that as I look at this, on the
3 right side there are two lanes going into the project?
4
5 Ms. Culbertson said yes, two in and two out. The congestion has been
6 answered already. St. Cloud terminates at Seal Beach Boulevard. There are
7 not many traffic engineers that would not support lining up driveways and
8 roads and offsetting them instead of lining them up. That would be unsafe
9 and inefficient. It isn't a road in Old Towne Center, it's a driveway access and
10 it's normal to line it up with an existing street to make it a four-way
11 intersection.
12
13 Member Hurley ask~d where in the EIR is this information set forth?
14
15 Ms. Culbertson said it's Figure 23-A. These are mitigation concept plans that
16 were asked for and 'included in the DEIR because people were concerned on
17 how the roadway c9nfiguration would look.
18
19 Member Hurley asked about Figure 23-A and what's underneath it.
20
. 21 Ms. Culbertson explained they were match lines. The principal mitigation
22 concept is #23 in the DEIR. This was elaborated upon. There wasn't all the
23 information and this had to be changed for the 40' parkway, which came out
24 after the DEIR, was,published.
25 I
26 Member Hurley said that confused him and asked again if this wasn't part of
27 the DEIR?
28
29 Ms. Culbertson said it is too early in the process to show all this detail
30 because these are usually engineered when the whole plan is approved and
31 you get the engineering diagrams. But there was interest in this. So, the
32 engineer drew it to a more refined and detailed level.
33
34 Member Hurley, referencing 23A in the DEIR, asked if the attachments
35 appear in the EIR?
36
37 Ms. Culbertson said in their conceptual form, yes. These didn't exist at the
38 time the DEIR was published. They were introduced in conceptual form in the
39 DEIR. When you took testimony from people who were reviewing the DEIR
40 they asked for more detail. That's when these were produced. To answer
41 comments on how many lanes, how can we do this etc?
42
43 Mr. Steele asked if Ms. Culbertson could give Member Hurley a site where
44 they could be found in the FEIR?
. 45
11
.-
.'
City of Seal Beach EQCB * Minutes of August 26, 1998 Meeting
.
1 Ms. Culbertson said the FEIR isn't produced yet. It will be incorporated when
2 everybody approves the Response to Comments.
3
4 Q. Where, in the present description in the Seal Beach Code for permissible
5 uses in public use zone does it state or suggest that a church and a
6 private church school qualifies as a public land use? (No name attached).
7
8 Member Voce noted there was no name to this question. Ms. Culbertson
9 said she would rather have staff answer this question, as it's not an
10 environmental is'~ue.
11
12 A. Mr. Whittenberg said the PLU zone at this time does not allow for a church
13 or a school at this time. We are suggesting that the zoning for that zone
14 be changed to allow for those uses -- if that's a use that the City Council
15 ultimately determines to place on this property. The reason for that is that
16 churches and schools now are allowed in residential zones and
17 commercial zones. We did not want that property to be in either of those
18 types of zones. At a future date a church or school were not to go in on
19 the property then the City would be looking at a different zoning of the
20 property and different permitted uses by right that we were not willing to
. 21 consider at that point.
22
23 Q. Was the reported finding of an active, hither-to unknown fault beneath the
24 AFRC itself investigated. And, if so, what conclusions were reached?
25
26 A. Ms. Culbertson said that without knowing which fault is being referred to
27 makes answering the question more difficult. Faulting in California exists
28 everywhere. From the geologists' standpoint, and there is a soils and
29 geology report on this where they look for those issues, the significance of
30 a fault depends on a number of factors. The most important factor is
31 whether it's active. Faulting is a phenomenon (limiting the discussion to
32 Orange County) that occurs in Orange County in bedrock formations.
33 Because of the way our bedrock formations were laid down originally and
34 the way they have moved. Faulting is not unusual. As long as the fault is
35 not active it's usually not significant. And as long as you don't build
36 something over it --- so it's off-site.
37
38 Vice Chairperson McGuire said it is actually an active fault.
39
40 Ms. Culbertson said she did not know of an active fault. She said she
41 wasn't certain where the commentor says the fault is. The Chrtianitos
42 fault is in Orang~ County. There's an offshore fault out in the ocean.
43
44 Mr. Whittenberg said the issue deals with active faults and the State of
. 45 California under the Alquist Priolo Act defines active faults. There are
46 mapped areas throughout the State that define those active faults. The
12
.
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach EQCB * Minutes of August 26, 1998 Meeting
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
City has maps showing active faults within the City. The only active fault
within the City of Seal Beach, or within this area, is the Newport-Inglewood
Fault, which runs through the Hellman property, the Navy Weapons
Station and into the City of Long Beach. It extends through the City of
Huntington Beach and ends up in San Diego as a differently named fault.
There are no other active faults in the City of Seal Beach. For State
planning purposes, active faults are the ones cities are required to
consider. An active fault is one that has had a surface displacement
sometime within the last 11,000 years. So it's something that could have
occurred quite some time ago. In the case of the Newport-Inglewood fault
it occurred recently, during the 1933 Long Beach earthquake. There are
very different periods of time that are involved.
Vice Chairperson McGuire asked the audience if the person who asked
this question had any other questions or comments?
Ms. Culbertson said Doug Wood called to her attention that possibly there
was some confusion on page 534. On this page there is a statement that
the northwestern tip of the northern or upper branch of the Newport-
r
Inglewood fault has been located in the vicinity of the site. It's accounted
for in Table 10. California's seismic code, the Alquist Priolo and the
seismic code, account for these types of shaking events from
earthquakes. And it's not unusual to have construction near an active
fault. An active fault is a fault that has been active in the last 11,000
years. What structures are required to do, since the Sylmar earthquake in
the early 1970's, is to be constructed to withstand a ground acceleration
rate of a certain degree. The larger and more complex the structure, or
the more people it holds, the more rigid the requirements are. There are
ten mitigation measures in soils and geology, many of which lead to this
question of how you deal with soil liquefaction and other types of faults.
But there is nothing unusual in Southern California in terms of faults, as
long as you do not straddle and active fault with a building; this is not
permitted.
Phil Fife. Colleae Park East
Mr. Fife said he asked the question. Following the Landers quake, based
on seismic wave patterns, at least several geologists identified what they
thought was a possibly active fault under the AFRC itself. His question is
has that been investigated? It was in the Orange County Register and
was widely reported at that time. The Northridge fault was not known to
be active until it rammed buildings up at twice gravity.
Ms. Culbertson said she thought Mr. Fife was responding to what she had
just read from the EIR, the northwestern chip of the upper branch. In the
Northridge earthquake there were structures across and adjacent to the
fault zone. Right on it. Although there was a lot of structural damage in
13
r
City of Seal Beach EQCB * Minutes of August 26, 1998 Meeting
. 1 Northridge, some of which she has studied, she said there was a bright
2 line distinction between the post-1975 constructed structures and the pre-
3 1975 structures.; In the mid-1970's, as a result of the Sylmar quake, a lot
4 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and Uniform Grading Code (UGC)
5 were changed to account for ground acceleration rates that can be very
6 strong. She said she knew of nothing unusual in respect to this project
7 that would be a problem.
8
9 The Chair asked if that answered Mr. Fife's question? Mr. Fife's
10 comment(s) could not be heard on the tape.
11
12 The Chair said she would be interested in that information at the next
13 meeting.
14
15 Q. Refer to excerpts provided for EQCB meetings, page 2-41, item 2,
16 respondent Audrey Kime (Member Voce, having trouble with handwriting,
17 said it would be better if the commentor read the question herself)
18
19 Dorothv Whyte. Seal Beach referred to page 241, re the excerpt provided
20 for the EQCB meeting, she said the EIR isn't out yet but she wanted to be
21 sure there was a reference to a letter from Audrey Kime, dated 10/14-
. 22 23/97 (sic) which refers to the College Park East Neighborhood
23 Association. That reference was to be removed from the FEIR and she
24 wanted to know if it is?
25 :
26 A. Ms. Culbertson said yes, the FEIR page has not been published yet, but
27 that has been changed to Alternative J.
28
29 Ms. Whyte said this is important because there is no group that represents
30 College Park East. Although there is a response in the "big book that's in
31 the library that says something from Development Oversight Committee".
32 It's important for people to know that that has not been a public meeting.
33 She said she didn't feel that her question in the Response to Comments
34 was adequately addressed. The letter she got was page 54,54-1 and 54-
35 2 regarding the objectives. You can refer to excerpts on page V-24 and
36 her Jetter. Her question was that the objectives came after the plan, rather
37 than the plan coming after the objectives. Who made these objectives,
38 who wrote them and where did they come from? It seems the plan was
39 made and then somebody made the objectives. They made the objectives
40 look like they were good for the plan.
41
42 Vice Chairperson McGuire said she asked that same question at the last
43 meeting.
44
. 45 Ms. Culbertson ~aid she responded to this a couple of meetings ago.
46 Section 15124b 'of the CEQA guidelines requires a Statement of
14
."
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40 a.
41
42
43
44
45
46
.
.
City of Seal Beach EQCB * Minutes of August 26, 1998 Meeting
Objectives sought by the project applicant. It might look like other
objectives of the' City aren't being sought but that's not the case. This is a
very narrow focus of the guidelines section of the project description.
Unless it's a city':'initiated project, which this is not, you always have to say
what is it you arE! seeking to achieve with this project? And that is what is
reported. The reason for that is the project alternatives then have to be
measured against the objectives sought by the project because looking at
project alternatives involves at least two questions. Do they reduce
environmental impacts and if yes, in doing so do they still reach the
objectives sought by the project? It's required to be done this way.
The Chair asked if the question had been answered?
Ms. Whyte said yes and no. She said this project is not a City project but
it was --- that's where it was generated. I know it didn't come out that way
but that's the way it was done. It was a project generated by the City. It
appears that there was no input from the community and these objectives
were put in the document. It looks like somehow they are good objectives
because the fit the plan.
Mr. Whittenberg clarified that the EIR has two sets of objectives. One is a
set of objectiveslthat the developer provided to us when they submitted
their application. That set sets forth what their objectives are in making
this application. There is another set of objectives from the City that was
prepared by City staff once the application was submitted to the City. This
was done to see what, out of this project, the City would want to
accomplish in considering a project for approval. Those are the City's
objectives and were formulated by City staff.
Mr. Steele said to make sure the Record is clear, the first set of objectives
that Lee referred to is labeled "Item: City Project Objectives 1-9" on page
3-2. Those indicate the objectives of the proposed Bixby Old Ranch
Towne Center project. The second set of objectives that Mr. Whittenberg
referred to as having been formulated by staff is on page 3-5 of the DEIR.
These indicate that these are goals identified by the City of Seal Beach
and some of those goals come from the General Plan, staff formulates
some. There's a list of six City goals on page 3-5. Those are the two
items, for clarity,~ that Mr. Whittenberg referred to.
I
Traffic. There's a concern that the ITE figures only account for Sunday
travel to and from church.
Member Voce turned this statement into a question. It would then be:
What about the concerns for the traffic regarding the church outside
Sunday, or the other days of the week? (Mary Sanpaelo Jones -
Rossmoor)
15
~
City of Seal Beach EQCB * Minutes of August 26, 1998 Meeting
I
.
1
2 A. Ms. Culbertson said this question has been answered in the Response to
3 Comments. She said that what they try to do with traffic is find when the
4 most intense activity is for a use -- which would be on Sunday for a
5 church in most cases. And then, if there are other uses, when they are
6 most likely to opbrate. What churches are during their non-Sunday uses
7 is generally operate off the peak. Most roadway systems and all
8 intersection capacity analyses are geared to peak hours. It's to make the
9 road work when 'it needs to work the most. In the remaining periods of the
10 day most roads are well under capacity. So the church and the school
11 traffic was found to be in an off-peak period or in an off-peak manner.
12 That's generally the case.
13
14 Vice Chairperson McGuire asked for this to be included, saying it had
15 always been a bit baffling to her.
16
17 Q. How much more traffic will this project bring down Seal Beach Boulevard?
18 Give me some hard numbers, not trips or cars per square feet? How
19 much of a percent increase? What is the impact on St. Cloud? And how
20 much more traffic on St. Cloud? (Sid Rhodes, Los Alamitos)
. 21
22 A. Ms. Culbertson asked the traffic engineer to look up the numbers for her.
23
24 [Persons in the audience began addressing the consultant from the audience.
25 The Chair explained they must come to the microphone because their comments
26 will not be heard otherwise].
27
28 Mr. Whittenberg'responded to the question by saying that Table 23 in the
29 DEIR indicates existing traffic levels, year 2001 traffic levels without the
30 project, year 2001 traffic levels with the project and what the future
31 conditions on th9se roads will be with proje'ct improvements. Percentage
32 increases are shown in Table 25 in the DEIR.
33
34 Mr. Rhodes said he wanted figures for St. Cloud and Seal Beach
35 Boulevard.
36
37 Mr. Whittenberg said that for St. Cloud and Seal Beach Boulevard the
38 Bixby project impacts themselves show a 49% increase in the a.m. and a
39 68% increase in 'the p.m.
40
41 Mr. Rhodes thanked him for the answer, saying that's what they wanted,
42 not how many parking spaces for cars. He asked about the noise, the db
43 increased levels in his house in terms of percent?
44
. 45 The Chair said the interior noise db levels would be going from 40% to
46 60%.
16
.
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach EQCB * Minutes of August 26, 1998 Meeting
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Rhodes said how much more noise would I be listening to while I'm
sitting in my house at 5:00 p.m.? Will it be like living on Martha Ann Street
or something? Martha Ann is the nosiest street around.
Member Hurley said to Mr. Rhodes that regarding the db levels, there's a
ten fold increas~ every time a db number changes. It's not a simple linear
increase.
Ms. Culbertson said Member Hurley was correct on this matter. On page
5-175 of the EIR, Table 41 identifies what the noise level increases are on
the project. There is not a noise level increase over 1.2 on this table
"Future Noise Over Existing..." There is the 1-405 bridge over crossing
which isn't near Mr. Rhodes property. In order to ascertain, for human
beings to hear a!noise change and virtually all of these are under 1.0, it's
generally thought to be 3dbs of increase. Some people are sensitive
enough to hear 1. But in traffic noise, they generally do not consider it
significant unless it is over 1. There are only two places where it is over 1 :
the freeway over pass that she mentioned and Lampson Avenue east of
Seal Beach. That's 1 decibel.
Mr. Rhodes asked if 64% more cars wouldn't make this be more than just
1 decibel?
Ms. Culbertson said Member Hurley was correct. Noise is a logarithmic
relationship. Actual numbers do not necessarily increase traffic noise
proportionate to the numbers themselves.
The Chair asked Mr. Rhodes was near the corner of St. Cloud and Seal
Beach Boulevard? Mr. Rhodes said he was about six houses away. The
Chair asked whqt his increase would be at that location?
Ms. Culbertson said at St. Cloud, west of Seal Beach Boulevard, the
change would b~ .2db and .5 noise increase over existing.
The Chair asked what this was based on? What was the db level prior to
the increase?
Ms. Culbertson said that's shown in Table 42, where future noise levels
are shown. The existing CNEL at 100' from centerline. We identify it by
roadway lengths. St. Cloud west of Seal Beach Boulevard --- existing
CNEL is 63.2 and future (because it is future noise over existing noise) is
63.7. It changes % a db in the future. The distance from centerline
(referencing an overhead) is for the 65 CNEL is 82'. This project does not
significantly change noise values at this location.
17
City of Seal Beach EQCB · Minutes of August 26, 1998 Meeting
. Water and drainage. Surface drainage from Bixby Old Ranch Towne
1 Q.
2 Center will flow to the Old Ranch Golf Course. How will this contaminated
3 effluent drain water affect the flora and fauna of the Old Ranch Golf
4 Course?
5
6 A. Ms. Culbertson referred to a mitigation measure in the EIR entitled
7 Comprehensive Water Quality Management Plan. A registered Civil
8 Engineer or a registered, professional Hydrologist prepared this. Under
9 the Clean Water Act, water quality management plans are required prior to
10 grading or building permits in order to prove up that the project is not
11 contributing significant contaminants to the water. In a project such as
12 this, that is not an industrial project where there might be spills, or a gas
13 station, or is not a waste transfer station or an auto shop having oils and
14 petro chemicals, the Water Quality Management Plan generally consists
15 of silting basins and other kinds of filters to filter the water as it leaves the
16 site. One of the best measures is having it go through a golf course or a
17 feature like a golf course, where the water can slow down and the various
18 contaminants cah be washed out. Generally speaking, the entire upper
19 Newport Bay, which is a nationally significant estuary, has the entire cities
20 of Irvine, Santa Ana and the central part of the country draining into it. It
. 21 maintains its water quality because the water is captured as it comes
22 down, because there are point source filters in the water as you go into
23 storm drains or before you enter the storm drain. In all ways these water
24 quality managell,lent plans have been of great assistance to water quality
25 and to wildlife.
26
27 Member Hurley asked if he understood correctly that there had to be a
28 water quality plan for this project and it would include any provision
29 needed to provide satisfactory effluent to the golf course?
30
31 Ms. Culbertson said yes, that was exactly right. The water quality plan is
32 a means of controlling storm water quality at the source.
33 I
34 Q. Did Ms. CulbertJon correctly state that there is no gas station on this site?
35 He thought there was going to be an Arco station directly across from the
36 existing Chevron station. (Gary Marshall)
37
38 A. Ms. Culbertson said that's correct, no new gas station is proposed. And if
39 it were, even gas stations go through special permits from the State to
40 deal with the water quality.
41 1
42 Mr. Whittenberg said the site plan indicates a service station but there's
43 been no formal application. It's a preliminary concept plan.
44
. 45 Member Hurley said there's no formal application for anything is there?
46
18
:
City of Seal Beach EQCB ... Minutes of August 26, 1998 Meeting
. Mr. Whittenberg1said there is a formal application before the City for a
1
2 senior care facility. That's been submitted by the Marriott Corporation. It
3 is scheduled for a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on
4 September 23, 1.998. That's the only use that's been applied for.
5
6 a. Of the 218 acres encompassed by this project, how many of these acres
7 are currently covered by impermeable surfaces, that is buildings, parking
8 lots, streets, driv,eways et cetera. And how many of the 218 acres will be
9 covered with impermeable surfaces after completion?
10
11 A. Ms. Culbertson said she has not memorized those figures. There are
12 small spots of this site that have been improved with impervious surfaces.
13 When the site is constructed it will have parking lots, or impervious
14 surfaces. It will also have landscaping. There is a transition of most of the
15 site and that was studied in the hydrology report so we could ascertain
16 how the peak runoff would be managed. She didn't have the figures
17 memorized. Suffice it to say, most of the site is pervious and it will
18 become impervious, that's a feature of development.
19
20 Q. Next part of sam,e question: Will the excavation and recompaction of the
. 21 loose and alluvial soil on the project site diminish the capacity of such soil
22 to absorb rainfall and effect its percolation into the Seal Beach aquifer? If
23 not, why not? I{so, how has this effect then been evaluated in terms of its
24 additional contribution to surface runoff and its effect on recharging of the
25 acquifer?
26
27 A. Ms. Culbertson said she thought she understood the question and it is, in
28 the course of grading a flat site and compacting it to make the soil
29 consolidated enough for buildings, does that interfere with the recharge of
30 the aquifer?
31
32 Member Voce said the questions seems to be asking for recompaction of
33 so-called loose and alluvial soil on the project site diminish the capcity of
34 such soil to absorb rainfall...
35
36 Ms. Culbertson said to remember that most of this soil, while loose and
37 alluvial has things growing on it. It's not a loose and porous surface for
38 water to recharge in. There's no question that when you create a situation
39 where there are impervious surfaces or tight compaction you will not
40 generally have as much water soak in as run off. However, this is on a flat
41 site. Soil recompaction alone could be considered neutral depending on
42 the situation. For example, when you compact soil for building to build on
43 it, landscape berms, landscape areas are not compacted that way.
44 Compaction would be inconsistent with your desire to have plants grow
. 45 because plants don't grow well in compacted soil. In terms of the aquifer
46 recharge, the commentor concludes that there is aquifer recharge active
19
City of Seal Beach EQCB * Minutes of August 26, 199B Meeting
.
1 on this site now. That this site contributes in an important way to the
2 aquifer recharge. Her experience in representing several ground water
3 agencies throughout Southern California is that aquifer recharge generally
4 occurs in creek beds or in very large areas such as a golf course --- where
5 you have a large surface area where water can slowly seep into the
6 aquifer. She knows of no focus on this site by any ground water agency
7 as an important aquifer contributor.
8
9 Q. Parl 3 of same question: If the project rendering depicts no trees retained
10 on Seal Beach Boulevard north of St. Cloud as it seems to, how can it
11 possibly be that 82% of the existing trees will be spared?
12
13 A. Ms. Culbertson said the EIR contains a different plan than what has been
14 arrived at. What you desire when you issue an EIR is you hope the
15 universe of good ideas is not over. That is what has happened here with
16 respect to these trees. The EIR before the City, with the 40' parkway and
17 the 82%, is a plan that is superior to that presented and evaluated in the
18 EIR. Through comments on the plan in the EIR with respect to trees,
19 changes and prqject revisions, have been accomplished on the site that
20 have preserved trees that were considered to be removed in the EIR. The
21 82% relates to the plan as improved by public comment and by City work.
. 22
23 The Chair asked if the 82% were strictly Eucalyptus trees or just trees in
24 general?
25
26 Ms. Culbertson ~aid they are Eucalyptus, the 1800' tree row.
27
28 Q. Under Project Objectives, Bixby stated their objectives in the EIR for this
29 project. The City stated their objectives in the EIR for this project. Why
30 doesn't the public (the residents north of the freeway) ask what their
31 objectives would be for the development of the Bixby property in north
32 Seal Beach?
33
34 A. Ms. Culbertson said she couldn't answer the question because it's not a
35 CEQA or an EIR question. It's a reasonable question but not
36 environmentally lrelated to her work.
37
38 Mr. Whittenberg said the purpose of the Public Hearing process at the
39 Planning Commission and City Council levels is for the community, the
40 public as a whole, to provide comments to the Planning Commission and
41 City Council as to how they feel that property should be developed. If this
42 is a good project, they should give that information. Conversely, if they
43 feel it's not a good project, they should indicate that. If they have
44 alternatives they feel the City should consider that should indicate that
. 45 also.
46
20
- -
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 Q.
22
23
24
25 A.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
.
.
City of Seal Beach EQCB * Minutes of August 26,1998 Meeting
Vice Chairperson McGuire asked how does the City come up with its
objectives?
Mr. Whittenberg 'said there are a number of goals in the General Plan that
are looked at. If those apply to the project they are included. Next if there
are specific issues related to a development project, in this case the tennis
court reversion to the City was an important issue to the City. The
retention of the golf course as a golf course and not the future conversion
of that to some to a land use in the future --- this was important to the City
also.
Ms. Culbertson said she had the figures on pervious and impervious
figures now:
[J Existing amount of paved surface:
[J Proposed paved surfaces:
17 acres
70 acres
Prior to development we have 17 acres on 218 acres. This is a net
increase of 53 acres of paved surface.
Have you gone back after a project has been up and running, and
checked to see how good your projections were? If so, how do I get these
results? If not, why not?
Ms. Culbertson said yes, she does this as a matter of course. It's very
important to her in her 25 years of planning and CEQA practice to make
sure that her projections are correct. That what she represents to the
public and to governments is correct. She has done most of her work in
Orange County ~Ithough she has done work in other counties as well.
Just this weekend she was looking at a project outside the County that is
being graded now. She was specifically looking to see if the view shed
protection berm that she called for in the mitigation was being installed; it
was. She goes out on all her projects and examines the way the project
looks and whether the mitigation measures adopted by the agency are
being implemented. Many agencies hire her firm to do just that. In so far
as traffic, she is hot a traffic engineer and is not qualified to go out and
take the trip counts. Recently on a project she worked on, a large planned
community in southern Orange County (approved in 1979) she is pleased
to state that the projects made on traffic were over by about 28%. They
erred on the side of being high on those projections. They actually ended
up being less. l:hat is what she typically finds. If there's a choice of how
to evaluate when dealing with the environment it is her practice to err on
the high side.
Member Hurley asked if she was talking about traffic? The questions
weren't specific. I
21
. .
.
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach EQCB" Minutes of August 26,1998 Meeting
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Culbertson said the projections of her company and their sub-
consultants have borne out over time.
Vice Chairperson McGuire asked where was that project?
,
,
Ms. Culbertson said it was in Aliso Viejo.
Matt Stein. Rossmoor. Mr. Stein said he was hoping she would
understand that the traffic was related to the Bixby big box retail center
that we're talking about here. If Ms. Culbertson can't respond to it, could
the traffic engineer that she refers to answer it? Could they help us out in
seeing how good these projections are? He understood she worked on
the Aliso Viejo project but that's not a big box center.
Ms. Culbertson said yes, it is a big box center. There are also big box
centers along the freeway at Mission Viejo -- she worked on these also.
In that case, in cooperation with that city, after projecting the traffic they
went down and inspected the traffic by trip counts. It came in slightly
under what they.projected. It's not because the center is not successful.
There's Border's Books, a computer warehouse, a SportMart in that
center. It has b~en up and running for three years. It was an unusual
project because there was a large number of big box retailers and fast
foods. There were smaller auto repair places, tire stores. There is only
one access from a four-lane highway. There were houses around that
center --- Nellie Gail -- some of the most expensive houses in Orange
County overlook it. It has only one access to the center because it goes
over a railroad.
Matt Stein said that's only one data point and we need more than one. He
said that Ms. Culbertson said in her ITE study she stated that SANDAG
only had three data points and ITE has 299 data points. That gives a
better statistical number. She has provided two data points and he was
sure there were others out there that she has worked on. He asked if she
I
could provide that information? They have this data to live with and they
realize that som~times the data is wrong.
Ms. Culbertson ~aid she can consult with the traffic engineers, Linscott,
Law & Greenspan, and at the September 2,1998 meeting come back to
the Board with information. They are not in a position now to do trip
counts/driveway counts out of each one. You're really asking "How does
this work on the ground?" She indicated traffic engineers are very
cautious. They err on the side of caution. The improvements must go in
because if you're wrong it's very hard to retrofit. Their monitoring studies
should show the requested track record
22
It
.
.
.
.
City of S~al Beach EQCB * Minutes of August 26, 1998 Meeting
I
1 [J Church Data. Mary San Paolo-Jones, 11952 Foster Road, Rossmoor, CA
2 asked -[could not hear on tape].
3
4 Matt Stein said a 3400 seat church was being proposed. He asked how
5 many churches in that data base are 3600 seat churches?
6
7 Ms. Culbertson said she didn't' know the answer but indicated that the subject
8 of church data was planned for presentation at the next meeting.
9
10 Mr. Stein said if you're talking about a 3600 seat church, you're not talking
11 about a neighborhood church. He wanted to be certain that if we're talking
12 about a 3600 seat church that the database provides information on 3600
13 seat churches.
14
15 Ms. Culbertson said they stated in the EIR and at one of the prior hearings
16 that churches have a very specific and very intense operational hour or two
17 during a day. When that happens it's like an elementary school...
18
19 Mr. Stein interrupted, saying this isn't a usual church. A church will not walk
20 in and pay cash for this building. So they will have to service a debt and it
21 won't come from solely Sunday tithing. He wanted to be certain that the
22 database looks at apples-and-apples.
23
24 Ms. Culbertson said CEQA also provide protection for this kind of decision.
25 An EIR can only go as far as the detail that's provided. If the project changes
26 in important ways that were not anticipated, and create more severe impacts,
27 another environmental document is warranted.
28
29 Member Hurley said this project is characterized as big box, and asked for the
30 definition of a big box project.
31 I
32 Ms. Culbertson said they would discuss this on the table they're brining back
33 on September 2, 1998. She said they are looking at this as a shopping center
34 because that is how it has been portrayed. There are a lot of suggestions as
35 to what might go in it -- barber shop, big box. The acreage won't change.
36 They will attempt to show the Board what the project would look like if it were
37 all big box.
38
39 Member Hurley asked, "What does big box mean?"
40
41 Ms. Culbertson said it designates a type of retailer, like Home Base, Three-D
42 Bed & Bath, Sports Mart. It has the idea that volume creates good pricing.
43
44 Mr. Steele said its shorthand term, not a defined term.
45
23
.
~
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
.
City of Seal Beach EQCB * Minutes of August 26.1998 Meeting
Mr. Stein said that since he raised the issue of a big box, he is using the term
in the fiscal impact report but he couldn't remember the consultant who
coined the term.
Mr. Whittenberg said that document is not before the EQCB and will not be.
It's before the City Council.
Vice Chairperson McGuire said that when you talk about a 3400 seat church
it's not the same as talking about four 800-seat churches. There will be a
debt service. They can't be compared. She wanted this proposed church
compared with like kind 3400 seat churches and information on what types of
activities are planned and when they are planned.
Ms. Culbertson agrees and noted they have limited data. They would
speculate is it a K-8 school or elder care center or senior days care? These
functions are associated with churches and their firm does not have that
information at this time. It would be very speculative to start searching for an
answer on that from their perspective. "We have done our best to
conservatively estimate both on Sundays and during the week what a church-
school combination ,might produce. But there is just very general information
now and that's why CEQA provides a safe-guard... it could require an updated
CEQA documentation in order to evaluate those impacts and mitigate them
properly" .
Mr. Whittenberg clarified the issue re a potential church on the 15-acre site.
The EIR evaluates that type of use primarily for traffic, noise and air quality
issues. The City's Code would first require a change to the zone and a Public
Hearing before the Planning Commission for the establishment of any church
within the City through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. He further
explained the process. What is being discussed at this time is a potential
land use without any specific use at this time in process at the City level. This
is different from the Marriott property where the EIR evaluates a 160-bed
facility for a senior care facility. That application has been submitted to the
City and will be considered by the Planning Commission. A church use would
require Public Hearings before the Planning Commission as will the Marriott
facility.
Vice Chairperson McGuire asked if the CUP application would run concurrent
with the request for approval of the project? Are there any requests for
Variances or CUPs as a part of this project's approval?
Mr. Whittenberg said no. Marriott's application for the senior care facility is a
separate application as set forth in the DEIR.
Vice Chairperson McGuire said that application came before this project was
submitted to the City.
24
.
--
- .
~
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach EQCB * Minutes of August 26, 1998 Meeting
1
2 Mr. Whittenberg said Marriott's application was submitted after the Bixby
3 project proposal. Marriott changed the location of the site. Initially they
4 applied to place the facility on the tennis club site. They withdrew that
5 application. Now they submitted for a site adjacent to the 405 Freeway and
6 Lampson Avenue.
7
8 Chairperson McGuire said there were many questions remaining and it's now
9 9:50 p.m.
10
11 Mr. Whittenberg replied to someone in the audience (no identified) that the
12 application included a 25-acre shopping center with approximately 286,000
13 square feet of commercial buildings on that site. The City is considering
14 changing the General Plan to allow a commercial use and changing the
15 zoning to allow for a commercial use. If those requests are approved, the
16 City would consider detailed plans for whatever the commercial shopping may
17 entail later. Those uses would require additional applications most likely
18 requiring CUPs, Variances etc. to be held as Public Hearings before the
19 Planning Commission. This current process evaluates changing the land
20 uses over what now is allowed on the properties.
21
22 Vice Chairperson McGuire apologized for the 23 questions that went
23 unanswered due to the late hour. The Board will reconvene to a date to be
24 decided tonight.
25
26 The Vice Chair closed the public comment period and adjourned the meeting
27 to another date.
28
29 Staff Concerns
30
31 Mr. Whittenberg said the Public Notice for tonight's meeting indicates the
32 meeting will be continued to September 2, 1998.
33
34 Vice Chairperson McGuire said it's unfortunate that went out. We'll have to
35 discuss another date.
36
37 Board Concerns
38
39 Member Voce indicated that 23 speaker slips remain to be answered. He
40 wanted the Board to indicate how this would be handled at the next meeting.
41
42 Mr. Whittenberg said a City Council member was present in the audience and
43 asked staff to query the audience. He then asked for a show of hands as to how
44 many people in the audience are from College Park East? Rossmoor?
45 Rossmoor Highlands? Other areas of the City of Los Alamitos?
46
25
-'
- .
:J
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach EQCB * Minutes of August 26, 1998 Meeting
1 Vice Chairperson McGuire gave the Board some background on the dates.
2 Joseph Porter is not present tonight and he gave staff notice of his absence prior
3 to the Board's last EQCB meeting. Unfortunately, at the Board's last meeting
4 they thoroughly discussed that they wanted to have this presentation for the
5 benefit of the Board and the audience, they weren't informed Member Porter
6 would not be present. They would most likely not have had the meeting on the
7 26th had they known Joseph Porter was not going to be able to attend. He had
8 had his vacation plans set some time ago and had informed staff a long time ago.
9 There was an unfortunate communication issue. The Board wants him at the
10 next meeting. The Board wants the two newest members to have ample time to
11 go through the CEQA law book, which they are just receiving tonight. They also
12 want Member Porter to listen to the tape recording and have time to speak with
13 Mrs. Culbertson about her presentation. When the date of September 2nd was
14 arranged the Board wasn't given all the data staff had at the time. This Board is
15 very interactive and they like the public to participate. They want the Board
16 members to be well informed.
17
18 Member Jones said Member Porter's education was more critical than his was.
19 He has had a good week to spend many hours reading through the material and
20 to retain as much as pqssible. He would feel comfortable if the Board set the
21 next meeting around Member Porter's criteria.
22
23 Member Hurley asked what Member Porter's wish was for the next meeting?
24
25 Vice Chairperson McGuire said Member Porter had left her a message that he
26 would attend the September 2nd meeting. She indicated that Councilmember
27 Shawn Boyd was present.
28
29 Member Voce suggested that there are many questions remaining. Even if the
30 meeting were held on September 2nd that might just be enough time to get
31 through these questions. A third meeting may be required.
32
33 Member Hurley said Mr. Whittenberg had indicated tentative review dates had
34 been set for the Planning Commission and the City Council. He asked about
35 CEQA's guidelines.
36
37 Mr. Steele said CEQA requires the EIR to be certified within one year from the
38 Notice of Preparation. It's a guideline, not a mandatory requirement.
39
40 Member Hurley asked what date was the Notice of Preparation finished?
41
42 Mr. Whittenberg said he thought it was an October-November time period. He
43 said the Board needs to remember that the Planning Commission hearings start
44 September 9th.
45
26
..
.
--
.
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach EQCB * Minutes of August 26, 1998 Meeting
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Vice Chairperson McGuire said it was her understanding that the Planning
Commission hearings would start when the EQCB hearings were done.
,
I
,
Mr. Whittenberg said the Planning Commission hearing is scheduled and Noticed
for September 9, 1998. That is when they will start their Public Hearing process.
It is not when they will conclude their Public Hearing process.
Vice Chairperson McGuire said "Well, that's their decision. That's not really an
issue we need to discuss as when they're going to start, I don't believe. I don't
want to go there".
Mr. Whittenberg said "You don't control the agenda for the Planning Commission.
I'm just making you aware the Planning Commission will start September 9th.
They have a second meeting scheduled for September 1 ih with an anticipation
of them concluding their Public Hearings and reaching their decisions on
September 23rd. So, all we would suggest to you is when you're looking for
continuing a date past the September 2nd, if you want to make a recommendation
to the Planning Commission that you try to schedule that meeting before the
September 23rd date of:the Planning Commission".
I
Vice Chairperson McGuire said it was her understanding from the Planning
Commission is that they don't want to start their hearings until the EQCB is
through. But since that is not the Board's issue she suggested reviewing dates
and time and how the Board is going to handle this.
Member Voce suggested meeting on a different night.
Mr. Whittenberg suggested that the Planning Commission would not be meeting
on Wednesday, September 16th but rather on the 1ih. The EQCB could meet on
the 16th.
Member Hurley said he would be out of town on September 16 and/or 1ih. He
will be here September 2 and ath.
Mr. Whittenberg sugge$ted the Board could review the date issue on September
2nd, when everyone has had a chance to review their calendars.
The Board agreed to set a tentative EQCB meeting for September 8th in case it is
needed. They discussed and agreed to start at 6:30 p.m. and to review the
ending time at 9:00 p.m. The Board will review the questions remaining and
make a decision at that time.
Regarding the format, she asked if the Board wanted to use speaker slips with
written questions. Member Hurley asked today's written questions from tonight
are preserved for the next meeting. He felt the written questions should come
27
.- .
.
. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
. 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
. 44
45
City of Seal Beach EaCB * Minutes of August 26, 1998 Meeting
first, with oral questions following. Mr. Steele said copies of tonight's questions
w.luld be provided to Andi Culbertson.
Member Hurley reminded the Vice-Chairman that she had neglected to ask if the
Board had any remaining concerns.
Member Jones stated for the Record that he was impressed with Culbertson,
Adams & Associates comments.
MOTION by Hurley; SECOND Jones that the EaCB will hold the following
meetings:
c September 2, Wednesday beginning at 6:30 p.m.
At 9:00 p.m. the Board will review the remaining questions and decide
how much longer they want to go. The written questions from August
26th will take precedence. After that questions from the podium will be
answered.
c September 8, Tuesday beginning at 6:30 p.m.
This is the date the EaCB will most likely be making their decision.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
ABSENT:
4-1-0
Hurley, Voce, McGuire, Jones
Porter
Vice Chairperson McGuire thanked the public for their hard work and their
comments. A few people have asked to meet after this meeting to share their
information. She appreciated that because "This is worse than War and Peace".
Even the opinions she doesn't agree with make her think about the way other
people perceive the data. She welcomed Member Jones and said the Board
looked forward to seeing him on September 2nd.
Adiournment
Vice Chairperson McGuire adjourned the meeting at p.m.
Respectfully Submitted2,
~
I .
.90 ~ '4. J~,"",
Joan Fillmann
2 The EQCB Minutes of August 26,1998 were transcribed from an audiotape of the meeting.
28
"\
r I!
..
'.
..
,:.
~.:ity of Seal Beach EQCB * Minutes of August 26, 1998 Meeting
1
2
3
4
5
6
Executive Secretary
Planning Department
APPROVAL:
The eaCB Minutes of August 26, 19~ app("Dved by
the Board on t "5.t::7:?r "3 Cd 19.2B.. U/
29