HomeMy WebLinkAboutEQCB 1998-09-08
~~
.
.
.
.
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
Environmental Quality Control Board
Minutes of September 8, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Vice Chairperson McGuire
Members Porter, Jones, Voce, Hurley
Also
Present:
Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney
Mr. Steele began with an overview of the EIR review process, indicating nobody
is asking any decision-maker in the City to actually validate the data that's in the
document. You're addressing the adequacy of the document as an information
piece in terms of identifying and mitigating the environmental impacts of the
project.
Member Jones said that was clear and he appreciated Mr. Steele's comments.
Vice Chairperson McGuire said unfortunately that's not how it is used and we
know that from past documents. Once the document is considered adequate,
then the data is used a~ adequate/correct or perfect data. She understands the
intent but that's not how it is used in the real world. People cite that data as the
correct data from the fiscal impacts, to the noise impacts et cetera.
Mr. Steele said in the absence of other data, to show that it's incorrect. And
that's the point of the comment process. If somebody was to walk in with data
this is just wrong, then we step back and evaluate it. If it's credible, we
recirculate the EIR and make the corrections. This was done on the Hellman
Ranch EIR. In the absence of that you have an assumption of validity.
Member Porter commented that when you look at what we're asking these
consultants to do, to forecast out in the future, this takes an expert. They're the
experts and we're not. The data they have come up with, for example on traffic,
is way above our expertise. How else can we can we come up with data to
forecast our own; we can't. We have to take it as more-or-Iess correct.
Mr. Whittenberg said he was not sure if the Board had more questions of City
staff or the consultants.
1
2
.
'.
.
City of Seal Beach eaCB - Minutes of September 8, 1998
1 that were added. The 3-column paper in your right hand includes the measures
2 that were added during this process since the DEIR was distributed for comment.
3
4 Member Hurley asked how they were identified?
5
6 Ms. Culbertson said they are underlined. Mr. Whittenberg said on page 2-11
7 there are examples. Mr. Hurley reviewed these examples.
8
9 Member Hurley said Mr. Whittenberg had "lost" him. When Mr. Whittenberg
1 0 r~ferred to work he had done in September, Mr. Hurley asked September when?
11 Mr. Whittenberg said he was referring to the September 2nd memo Member
12 Hurley was holding. All those mitigation measures are incorporated into this
13 document with the exception of the one measure from the Archaeological
14 Advisory Committee {MC}.
15
16 Member Hurley asked about a summary, page 2-7. He asked what the meaning
17 was of italics?
18
19 Ms. Culbertson said those are the short-term construction impact measures.
20 Mr. Whittenberg said they are shown in italics to affirm those are the standard
21 measures that the South Coast Air Quality Management District {SCAQMD}
22 suggests be utilized in their evaluation of environmental impacts for air quality
23 issues. There is no special significance; they are still mitigation measures that
24 will need to be evaluated. Mr. Whittenberg then showed some examples and
25 explained the italics use.
26
27 Member Hurley asked where Table A fits into the FEIR?
28
29 Ms. Culbertson said that information is already largely incorporated into the EIR
30 but will be incorporated into the FEIR as one of your overheads for the EQCB
31 meeting information. It was a comparison that was requested. There will be a
32 segment of materials presented to EQCB and that will be in that section.
33
34 Mr. Hurley asked if anyone knew of any other additions to the FEIR?
35
36 Ms. Culbertson said she routinely recommends that all of the materials that have
37 been presented at this meeting will be incorporated into the FEIR. There could
38 be copies of the overheads, handouts, etc. The record is all in one place and
39 available to the Planning Commission and City Council.
40
41 Member Hurley asked Mr. Steele to refer to Section 6 of the two proposed
42 resolutions, it says, "Based upon its independent review, ECCB hereby
43 recommends the FEIR to be adequate. In terms of compliance with CECA and
44 the City's local CECA Guidelines". His problem is that the Board was not to use
45 the City's CECA Guidelines because the California Guidelines are more up to
I
,
3
, -
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach EQCB - Minutes of September 8, 1998
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
I
date. The City's CEQA Guidelines have a higher requirement than the CA
Guidelines.
Mr. Steele said he was not sure what he meant by "higher requirement".
I
Member Hurley said page 26 of the City CEQA guidelines it requires the EIR to
explain why the project'was chosen over the other alternatives.
Mr. Whittenberg said that is required at the Council level when they make a
decision on a project. It's not part of the evaluation of alternatives. You're not
choosing a project or recommending a project. You're recommending the
document is adequate to allow the Council to make a decision to choose a
project.
Mr. Hurley said that was not his problem. His problem is that we can't evaluate
the project from both the City and CA guidelines. The EQCB cannot evaluate the
project using the City guidelines because they would have to say it's inadequate
because it doesn't make a choice. It doesn't explain why it chose this project
over the other alternatives. To get out of this, the Board could cross out
reference to the City CEQA guidelines.
Mr. Steele said that would be fine to take that out of the resolution.
,
Member Hurley said that would be the only way he could make an evaluation
because of the conflict between the Seal Beach out of date guidelines and the
current State guidelines.
Mr. Steele said he could discuss his view of this but he would be happy to do it
either way. There is no problem with taking it out.
Member Hurley asked the Board if they had any problem taking it out. They said
no.
Mr. Steele suggested he hold this amendment until they reach a point of making
a motion.
Member Hurley suggested that some citizens may still think that this meeting
would start at 6:30 p.m. as advertised. He suggested that they hold off voting on
the recommendation u~til 6:30 p.m. At that time, if there are late comers, who
want to make a brief remark the Board should let them, do so before they vote.
He asked for remarks from the other Members.
Member Jones said he felt there has been adequate time for the public to
comment.
4
\
.
'.
.
City o! Seal Beach EQCB - Minutes of September 8, 1998
1 Member Porter said it was his understanding that at the last meeting we
2 announced 6:30 p.m. The Board indicated that would not be acceptable and the
3 public was informed at that time that there would be a 4:30 p.m. meeting.
4
5 Member Hurley said that was inadequate notice although it's legal. It was posted
6 on a bulletin board. Whatever the Board wants is fine with him.
7
8 The Vice Chairperson said she would like to defer this issue and take it up as it
9 occurs.
10
11 There were no other comments.
12
13 Member Jones asked a question on behalf of his predecessor on the Board and
14 his community. The traffic analysis is, for the most part, adequate. Was the
15 traffic studied on westbound 7th Street and the Studebaker off-ramp where it
16 affects the incoming and out-flow of College Park West on College Park
17 Boulevard? Their concerns result from a 1 % increase in traffic. That would
18 make the situation at that location worse than ever. While this is an area that is
19 not adjacent to the project, the possibility of the entrance to the 22 Freeway
20 westbound - that traffic would often be exiting on Studebaker.
21
22 Ms. Culbertson said there was an issue when they held the Scoping meeting
23 regarding the traffic from the 22 Freeway exiting to Lampson Avenue Avenue.
24 They answered that at that meeting in terms of a bypass. Other than the
25 volumes, Lampson Avenue operates at an acceptable LOS. She did not recall
26 Studebaker and ih Street ever being raised as an issue. Once traffic gets a
27 particular distance from a particular site it blends into the ambient traffic to an
28 extent that it's difficult to separate in any significant way. The real impact of a
29 project is right in its vicinity.
30
31 Member Hurley asked if the traffic study included projected routes of incoming
32 cars to the project? Do they do it by source?
33
34 Ms. Culbertson said generally when you look at a project you have a certain
35 number of trips. The pass-by trips are trips that are already on the roadway
36 system. Then there are situations where you try to decide if the person's turning
37 right or left and that has to do with the sensitivity analysis. Someone who lives in
38 south Orange County ~on't be shopping in this area.
39
40 Member Hurley said the reason for his question is that the traffic study
41 continually refers to Katella Avenue and Bloomfield. The street that Member
42 Jones is referring to is much closer. If you study Katella and Bloomfield it would
43 follow that you might study Studebaker at College Park Drive.
44
45 Mr. Whittenberg said Member Hurley might find his answer if he looked at the
46 Technical Appendix. Exhibit 16 in the traffic technical report shows daily project
5
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach EaCB - Minutes of September 8, 1998
1 traffic volumes for the westbound 22 connector. It shows 733 additional
2 vehicles per day in that area. The area of Katella/Los Alamitos Boulevard shows
3 volumes of 2000 vehicles per day going in both directions. At Bloomfield/Katella
4 you have volumes of 1450 vehicles per day. About twice the volume at the
5 College Park West area. Due to the volumes and LOSs in the College Park
6 West area it did not warrant evaluation.
7
8 Member Voce commented that the condensed mitigation measures, 11-10
9 Biological Resources, G2-6, represent a giant leap forward in tree care. He
10 agreed with them and thanked the consultants for them. The last line at G4 says,
11 liThe job superintendent shall oversee all tree protection measures". He
12 expressed concern on who the job superintendent might be, what are their
13 qualifications are and where the sensitivities might lie in terms of perceived
14 importance and priorities in trying to govern such a massive construction project.
15 They would try to keep barriers up to prevent damage but how could he be
16 reassured that the important tree protection measures are followed? Can the
17 FEIR state what position the City could be in to assure that?
18
19 Ms. Culbertson said Mr. Whittenberg has explained what the City's tree permit
20 process is at the last meeting. That is a discretionary and supervisory process
21 whereby the City is alsc;> alerted to what needs to be done to the trees and it's a
22 carry-through of these mitigation measures. Her personal experience has been
23 that she's found job superintendents that are very good and ones that aren't so
24 good. Where she found the real difference is in highly visible projects. Anything
25 that is not done correctlY on this project is going to be noticed immediately. It is
26 not a hidden project; it's right out on Seal Beach Boulevard. The only real thing
27 that could happen on the job site is the fencing falling down or being removed or
28 pruning not being taken care of in accordance with the mitigation measures. She
29 said she was confident that the City's enforcement program and the City's
30 oversight is sufficient to ensure this measure is not just within the unilateral
31 discretion of a job superintendent.
32
33 Member Voce said we are then relying on the observational capabilities of the
34 Tree Board, the City.
35
36 Ms. Culbertson said we are relying predominantly on the City. The alternative to
37 that is an independent mitigation monitor that would go out to the site and
38 monitor during all phases of grading. That's not necessary in most cases. In
39 most cases the activity around the trees will involve fencing around the tree, for
40 example, and then avoiding that tree. This is done with archaeological sites also.
41 The orange construction fencing is very effective and people want to stay away
42 from it. I
43
44 Mr. Whittenberg said that on page 2-36 you have a number of mitigation
45 measures under aesthetics. They require final landscape plans to be submitted
46 to the City and approved by the City. These include inventory and relocation
6
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach EQCB - Minutes of September 8, 1998
1 plans under M-4. M-5 r.equires the Eucalyptus Windrow Preservation Plan.
2 Those plans need to be prepared by a licensed landscape architect or an
3 arborist. If you have a concern on condition G-4, you may want to insert that the
4 project arborist, rather than the job superintendent, does the work.
5
6 Member Voce agreed, saying he was looking for backup support in that technical
7 area. He suggested that both the arborist and the superintendent be responsible
8 in a joint effort.
9
10 Mr. Steele said G-5, page 2-10, says the ISA arborist is required to prepare the
11 tree protection measures, supervise the fencing etc. The superintendent, in G-4,
12 is charged with making sure that once those things are up they stay up and are
13 complied with. You could combine two people be responsible for the measure or
14 substitute the arborist.
15
16 Member Voce said it would be better to keep the measure with both, as a joint
17 effort. The job superintendent would be relying on the arborist. But not taking
18 jurisdiction away from tbe superintendent.
19
20 Vice Chairperson McGuire asked who picks the arborist?
21
22 Mr. Whittenberg said the City chooses and hires an arborist. He was not sure if
23 the City Council would want to be involved in that level of detail. It could be the
24 Engineering Department or the Tree Committee or to the tree division of the
25 Public Works Department. The City will select the arborist.
26
27 Member Voce indicated it would then be up to the general public to make arborist
28 suggestions to the City.
29
30 Member Hurley asked if Member Voce wanted verbiage added to the last
31 sentence of G-4?
32
33 Member Voce said yes: It could be worded several ways but it should say the
34 project arborist, in conjunction with the job superintendent shall oversee all tree
35 protection measures. tn G-2 we talk about the ISA pruning standards being
36 followed. This is a most important measure to be added. Right now, the
31 Eucalyptus Protection Act of 1990 has certain specifications in the act. It's only
38 for Eucalyptus trees; it must have a minimum of 15 trees with 12" diameter and 4'
39 above the ground level or grade. A person with such a situation could get a
40 permit and have the trees removed or pruned in any way as it currently exists
41 because the Act does not include language referencing pruning standards -
42 such as ISA. The Act tias no guidelines. Hopefully the City will adopt, through
43 the tree board, the ISA standards and make them applicable to all trees in Seal
44 Beach. On G-12, we mention Long Horn Borer. He indicated he has
45 experience with the Long Horn Borer through the Gum Grove Park group. They
46 had hired a representative from the State Department of Forestry and Fire
7
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach eaCB - Minutes of September 8, 1998
1 Protection, an urban forester, to come down to help the City assemble its tree
2 program as it related to Gum Grove Park and another program as it would
3 related to the City's overall tree program. First, Linda Romero from the State
4 Department of Forestry and Fire Protection/Riverside Office helped with Gum
5 Grove. Gum Grove Park had a really bad Eucalyptus Grove Long Horn Borer
6 infestation in the Blue Gums. The Blue Gums are very susceptible to the Long
7 Horn Borer because it has a shaggy, peal-away back that allows the adult
8 beetles to come in and lay eggs. It's important to know that the Eucalyptus trees
9 that are drought-stressed are particularly vulnerable. These trees are less
10 vulnerable to drought-stressing because they're adjacent to a golf course or
11 bordering a golf course that is irrigated and that dramatically reduces that the
12 trees will be drought-stressed and thus more susceptible to Long Horn Borer
13 infestation. There are other things that can stress trees but drought is a big one
14 in this area. Linda Romero mentioned that to protect the trees from the Long
15 Horn Borer, you can only prune them in December or January because you have
16 to wait for the longest, coldest nights of the year. That's when the insect is most
17 dormant. You want to cut Eucalyptus wood when the insect is going to be its
18 most dormant. When you cut the wood, the scent of the wood is very detectable
19 by'the insect and the scent invites Long Horn Borers to come to that site if they're
20 in the area. He suggested that the EaCB makes an evaluation and then a
21 determination if the LOl')g Horn Borer is even present in this windrow of trees. It
22 may not be. If there is a slight infestation it might be controllable. Control
23 happens with removing trees that are so diseased that they're dead or dying.
24 They never used pesticides to control the Borer. It was recommended that any
25 infested wood that was removed be ground and chipped on site. If you put the
26 wood thru a chipper it grinds up the eggs, larvae and adult insects. It's a
27 preventative measure. 'Therefore, in G-12 the EaCB must sayan evaluation and
28 determination must establish the Long Horn Borer is or is not present. If so, to
29 what extent. How will it affect that mitigation measure with regard to the pruning
30 dates? In Gum Grove Park there are also Monarch butterflies. That was an
31 issue for December/January pruning because the butterflies could be over-
32 wintering or bivouacking on the coastal areas. The urban forester pointed out
33 that the Monarch's would cluster more on live trees than dead trees. We must
34 evaluate one over the other. Is leaving an infested tree and monitoring the
35 Monarch's on that tree is worth it versus letting the infestation go on. On G-13,
36 the very last line says Using 36" box specimens for the non-Eucalyptus
37 replacement (the 2 to 1). He felt that was not that necessary - to go to 36".
38 Eighteen inch or 24 inch containers maximum would suffice. You may
39 unwittingly be planting a 36" tree that is prone to self-dwarfing because it had
40 been confined that long of its young life. You can also hydro-broadcast
41 seedlings. He would stay away from the 36" replacements and select 18" or 24"
42 box maximums replacements. Also, on page 15 of the Responses to Comments,
43 under ~-3, the last paragraph, third line down...
44
45 Member Hurley asked for the reference to be repeated.
46
8
.
.
.
City of Seal8each EQC8 - Minutes of September 8, 1998
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
Member Voce did so. He continued by saying it reads The Director of
Development Services and the City street tree division of Public Works needs to
be clarified. The tree division does not always handle trees. The tree board
plants and maintains trees. The Parks and Landscape supervisor is no longer
handling trees. We have to determine if the Director of Public Works is handling
those jurisdictions and why, because there might be a controversy between
those person.
The Vice Chair asked Member Voce what he would like to see?
Member Voce said no guidelines are stated on specifically who's handling what
except that we know the Parks & Landscape Supervisor is not handling trees.
The Tree Committee is handling the planning and planting of trees. The Director
of Public Works may be the person who distinguishes who schedules the arborist
to perform the routine pruning. This concern is not clarified.
Mr. Whittenberg said he was not sure he could provide a definitive answer to that
either. The language reflects the organizational structure at the time the DEIR
was circulated in April. 'The street tree division was under Public Works
Department was transf$rred to the Recreation Department as a part of the
budget process. Who oversees the planting of trees? Member Voce is a
member of the Tree Committee and probably knows more. He suggested that if
there is a concern about the language, that that concern be forwarded to the City
Council for clarification. Mr. Whittenberg said the Long Horn Borer issue was
discussed on page V-137 of the DEIR. The three-paragraph discussion says the
Eucalyptus trees on the site show very little sign of Eucalyptus Long Horn Borer
infestation. Beetles are known to attack weaker trees that are under stress. Well
hydrated trees having a consistent water supply are more likely to resist Borer
infestation. Based on field inspection, the trees on the Bixby Ranch site,
including the windrow on Seal Beach Boulevard are generally healthy and
vigorous. Most of the trees are not considered relocatable.
Member Voce said the arborist should make sure that when they handle a project
dealing with these trees, that they make sure they look for infestation.
The Vice Chairperson noted it was 5:55 p.m. She asked how many members of
I
the Board felt they would be ready to vote on this evening?
Members Jones, Porter and Voce said they could.
Member Hurley said the vote would have to come around 7:00 p.m. The Vice
Chairperson said it would have to be at 6:30 p.m. due to her other commitments.
Member Hurley said he hoped Member Voce was almost through with his
comments.
9
.
.
.
I
I
City of Seal Beach EQCB - Minutes of September 8, 1998
1 The Vice Chairperson said she would not rush anyone.
2
3 Member Voce, stepping over to the map, said the first questions is about the
4 driveway entrance being across the street from St. Cloud Drive. He noticed a
5 driveway/line-of-site right across from St. Cloud. He asked if this was a mistake
6 and was it actually meant to be in another spot?
7
8 Ms. Culbertson said her testimony was that it was better to align access points.
9 The entrance to the shopping center is aligned with St. Cloud. One of the
10 com mentors suggested that they be off-set. She said it's always better to align
11 them.
12
13 Member Voce said 21 trees are lost at that location. Now, adding up all the trees
14 that have "Losr printed on them, is that the total of the 18% that are projected to
15 be lost? In addition to the 5 because of the street widening.
16
17 Ms. Culbertson said she is dealing with plans, which are not finely engineered
18 improvement plans and have no construction areas. She is doing the best she
19 can to identify how many trees are lost. There could be more than 18% lost or
20 there could be less. It's very closed to 80% preserved/20% lost. But it could be
21 10% either way. It woJld be very difficult for her to do any better than she has
22 forecast given the information she has.
23
24 Member Voce said he appreciated that. He noted a fine line and asked if that
25 was the widening?
26
27 Ms. Culbertson said Ms. Sartain asked that at the last meeting. She said the
28 purpose of this exhibit is to draw the right-of-way line that we would need for
29 additional right-of-way and travel-way and improvement. This is based on the
30 information she has. The technical engineering diagrams have not been drawn.
31 The predominance of trees between the shopping center boundary and Lampson
32 Avenue are retained and are not affected by right-of-way increases.
33
34 Member Voce asked again about the right-of-way line - the thicker and thinner
35 lines. Ms. Culbertson said that was the beginning of the 40' parkway.
36
37 Member Voce talked about noise issues, saying the CNELs on the map showed
38 existing flight paths. He pointed out that he has seen planes using a different
39 path. That would mean the contours over the western part of College Park East
40 would deviate, depending on how the planes were taking off and landing. He
41 said we learn that planes take off into the wind. The wind changes. Typical sea
42 breeze patterns aren't always from the southwest or west. Some are due south
43 or from the west in the afternoon. He talked about the air temperatures and air
44 flows from Redondo Beach and other areas. He asked if these conditions would
45 account for deviations from flight paths? The noise contours as presented would
46 be actual for only those planes that take that flight path. If there's a different
10
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach EQCB - Minutes of September 8, 1998
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
flight path there would be different noise contours. He discussed his concerns on
the variability of the flig~t patterns.
Ms. Culbertson, addressing Member Voce's concerns on the effects of the Santa
Ana winds, said there are many questions in Member Voce's comment:
I
o Airplanes take off into the wind and land into the wind. This is not
always true. The approach to runway 3-0 in Long Beach is a
quartering down-wind approach. This is the predominant runway for all
jet flights in Long Beach. The military aircraft take off on any runway
they want. Figure 41 in the DEIR is from the Airport Installation
Compatibility Use Zone Study, the predominance of flight patterns.
Most pilots will make a left turn from this airport because on take-off
you want to make sure you have open area below you if you have to
make an emergency landing. Any aircraft can do it either way
depending on how hard the wind is blowing.
o Wind Direction. In terms of wind direction, most non-military aircraft
flown in this area can withstand a take-off or landing with a direct cross
wind, 90 degrees off the nose of the airplane, at 15 knots or higher.
Wind is a function of how good a pilot you are. A good example of this
is in Orange County at EI Toro. They are exactly opposite; they take
off with the wind and land with the wind. This military airport has been
operating for over fifty years.
o 65 CNEL for Aircraft. What establishes this? It's not only the type of
aircraft and the time of day it flies, but it's the number of operations.
As published by the military most operations at this airport perform a
procedure left turn on takeoff. That is what is published and stated by
the military. Do aircraft or helicopters take off straight out? Yes,
sometimes they do. Do they do it as a general rule? No, not
according to what the military has told them. She would stand by noise
projections published in the DEIR in Figure 41 as published in the
AICUZ and corroborated by the ALUC. She said that the fact that one
. airplane goes over you does not a 65 CNEL make - it's the number
and the type.
The Vice Chairperson asked if the wind affects the way plans take off
I
and land? 1
Ms. Culbertson said sometimes. If this were a civilian and not a
military/emergency airport, she would have a different answer because
the FAA would govern it. The preference is takeoff's into the wind with
30 to 40 degrees off the wind being the maximum. Although 50-60
degrees is acceptable for heavy aircraft such as the 747's. However,
in military airports because of the performance characteristics of the
11
City of Seal Beach EQCB - Minutes of September 8, 1998
. l
1 aircraft, because you can't always guarantee in military aircraft that
2 they're going to have the advantage of the wind on their nose, they are
3 made to higher specifications and generally take off - the rules aren't
4 the same.
5
6 The Vice Chairperson said she could have missed something but she
7 didn't see in the FEIR that that was a possibility - that they could have
8 a different flight track. Is it in there?
9
10 Ms. Culbertson said yes, it's incorporated. Several flight tracks are
11 published in the Aries report published in the prior EIR. This is in the
12 appendix and was incorporated by reference in this EIR. They
13 rechecked this thru the ALUC to determine the significance of those
14 departures and whether they would affect the noise. The opinion of
15 the ALUC, the agency that governs how we look at land use around
16 here, is that it does not.
17
18 The Vice Chairperson said "Mrs. Culbertson, I sat at the ALUC three
19 years ago and they happened to say personally they did see that it
20 affected. Any development in that area would affect the patterns for
21 these planes because it left them no out. And that's probably in the
. 22 minutes". She asked where that is in the appendix.
23
24 Ms. Culbertson said it's in the technical appendix for aviation noise
25 from the prior golf course EIR. It was incorporated by reference into
26 this EIR.
27
28 The Vice ChCjlirperson said she threw that EIR out. She then said it's
29 probably quite important that there are other gray areas that the planes
30 take off and can land in different areas based on the Santa Ana's and
31 the prevailing winds. This is not a black-and-white issue.
32 ,
1
33 Ms. Culbertson said the 65 CNEL incorporates the Santa Ana winds as
34 well. It's the opposite take-off and landing patterns. It is not just the
35 prevailing wind pattern in Figure 41. It also takes care of the
36 instrument approach into this airport.
37
38 The Vice Chairperson asked where she got this map?
39
40 Ms. Culbertson said she got it from the AICUZ report.
41
42 The Vice Chairperson said she didn't see it.
43
. 44 Member Hurley said she was looking at a different map, not Figure 41,
45 which is a 19'84 map.
46
12
City of Seal Beach EaCB - Minutes of September 8, 1998
1
. 1 Ms. Culbertson said that map was created in the Response to
2 Comments. It distills some data in color.
3
4 The Vice Chairperson said when she looks at it; she sees a Wiley map,
5 by the consultants. The Wiley map doesn't seem to match this map.
6
7 Ms. Culbertson said the Wiley map is a noise study. There was a
8 noise study published this year that they were asked to evaluate after
9 the EIR was published. The noise study predicts noise levels that are
10 lower than what is published in the AICUZ report.
11
12 The Vice Chairperson said none of the maps look like the one she was
13 holding.
14
15 Ms. Culbertson said that would be right. The map she was holding
16 was created to reply to a comment, to simplify the data.
17
18 Member Voce said its on page 26 in Response to Comments.
19
20 Ms. Culbertson said this map was created to explain the flight track
21 and the clear; zones and the relationship of the 60 and 65 CNEL to the
. 22 land uses that were proposed. Their office prepared it to distill just that
23 particular data for the response.
24
25 The Vice Ch~irperson said she understood but in regard to that
26 response, the AFRC keeps track of how everybody banks, takes off
27 and lands. And yet, in speaking with Commander Jim Ghormley a few
28 years ago, he did not have an accurate count of that, he did not even
29 have an accurate count of how many jets or fixed-wing flew in and out.
30 So, like the audience, who seems a little apprehensive of data in here,
31 historically I don't trust things when I talk to people who are supposed
32 to be providing this information for you. We keep referring back to the
33 AICUZ and she's got a problem with that report. There was a letter
34 back in 1994 by Lee Whittenberg, which talks about the fact that they
35 were rushed" when the AICUZ came forth. There weren't even proper
36 public hearings on it. She spoke with Mrs. Villa Robles in regard to this
37 and she also said the issue with the AICUZ and how it was developed
38 and approved was inappropriate.
39
40 Ms. Culbertson asked who Mrs. Villa Robles is?
41
42 The Vice Ch~irperson said Mrs. Villa Robles was from the federal
43 government. She is someone who works on developing projects. The
44 Vice Chairman is to get Ms. Culbertson her business card. The Vice
. 45 Chairperson said she wants to explore this further. The Vice
13
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach eaCB - Minutes of September 8, 1998
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
Chairperson said she knows Culbertson Adams used the data from the
AELUP.
Ms. Culbertson said yes, from the AELUP, from the AICUZ and letters
from Colonels who are operating the airport now plus interviews with
the ALUC staff who have reviewed the DEIR. There have been three
amendments to the AELUP regarding this airport. She has never
made any different determinations.
The Vice Chairperson said "That's now, we'll see what happens in the
future". In regard to Ms. Culbertson interviewing the people at the
AFRC, you have a staff report that talks about a lease that was signed.
The AFRC is predisposed to always say that anything regarding Bixby
they have to agree with. Whatever Bixby wants to develop. Do you
have a copy of that lease? "So I have a problem with any data coming
from the AFRC, that they are predisposed to that opinion anyway......
Mr. Whittenberg asked the Vice Chairperson to clarify what lease is in
operation now.
The Vice Chairperson said it's a recorded lease. Councilperson
Patricia Campbell asked the City Attorney if it was still...
Mr. Whittenberg asked if she was talking about the avigation easement
over the entire property?
The Vice Chairperson said yes. A letter was received May 20, 1998,
Ms. Culbertson, we were supposed to be incorporating this in. It talks
about (reading from the letter I think) ... the State of California military
department where support proposals for development of the Old
Ranch Business Park and the development of property presently
known as the Old Ranch Country Club as well as the property
contiguous thereto and under the same ownership. As long as said
development. is permissible under FAA part 77.... Prior to that it talks
about how they will allow the easement. She didn't have a recorded
copy although the City has a recorded copy. She asked this be
clarified and why we are listening to what the AFRC says since this
document says they are already predisposed to that opinion. She said
the EaCB has been dealing with the Planning Department office on
this.
Member Voce said he saw the map on page 26, showing the clear
zones. He thought it would be helpful to update this map and put the
source on th~ map itself.
14
City of Seal8each EQC8 - Minutes of September 8, 1998
. 1 Ms. Culbertson said she would do this. She explained it was a quickly
2 prepared map to get the responses out.
3
4 Member Voce suggested that specific specifications for clear zones be
5 given or shown in a scale. Show the clear zones and fine lines. The
6 scale of the clear zones could be indicated.
7
8 Member Voce said in terms of the number of flights averaged per day,
9 the data came up with 23.5 average flights per day of fixed-wing
10 aircraft. If this increased 3% as projected on the AFRC that would put
11 us to 25 average flights per day, which he thought was a threshold. It's
12 either 10 jets Q.[ 25 fixed wing aircraft. Does that also include
13 emergencies outside the military operations?
14
15 Ms. Culbertson said no; it's the average busiest day.
16
17 Member Voce said he realized they were dealing with big variables but
18 asked how one would factor in the emergency components if possible
19 to compliment the other information?
20
21 Mr. Whittenberg said that issue is addressed in the EIR itself. The EIR
22 clearly indicates that those are issues you cannot evaluate under
. 23 CEQA. CEQA does not require the evaluation of emergency actions.
24
25 Member Voce said then emergency factors are outside the purview.
26
27 Mr. Whittenb~rg said they're not revealable under CEQA to begin with,
28 there is a specific exclusion for those activities.
29
30 Member Voce asked if it would suffice to say that they are additional to
31 the average daily?
32
33 Mr. Whittenberg said no. You can't evaluate them because you don't
34 know what will happen. We can posit an emergency but you can't
35 guarantee it's going to happen.
36
37 Member Voce said no, he didn't mean to project an emergency, only to
38 state that emergency flights that may take place would be an addition
39 to this average. The average does not show emergencies. That would
40 clarify things.
41
42 Mr. Whittenberg said he thought Member Voce's questions was the 25
43 flights a day number a realistic number? The determination of that is
44 within the purview of the federal government. We don't have a way to
. 45 change that guideline that they are using. Under their own guidelines,
46 if they're average busy day numbers start to exceed the 25, his
15
.
.
.
I
City of Seal Beach EaCB - Minutes of September 8, 1998
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
understanding is that they will have to come back and do a new AICUZ
study, evaluate clear zones and accident protection zones based on
the new flight numbers. That is not an issue the City would become
involved withi- other than reviewing and commenting on a new
document as it's released.
Member Voce asked if it would be appropriate to state that any
emergency that may take place would be above the 23.5 and/or the
average?
Mr. Whittenberg said he didn't recall whether it's mentioned in the
document. He would have to research.
Ms. Culbertson said to bear in mind that emergency operations at that
airport, in association with it's being a disaster response center, are
probably going to be helicopter. They will not be fixed-wing
departures. They have mostly helicopter flights and that's what the
Wiley report states as well. Most of the operations there are helicopter
operations and not fixed-wing takeoffs. To give an idea of scale, they
looked at what happened last year at that airport for the big stuff. The
C-5 took off and landed 12 times. Air Force One (a 747) took off and
landed twice from that airport.
Mr. Whittenberg suggested that under mitigation measure J-4, page 2-
14 of the mitigation/summary table, that measure requires a notice be
provided as part of an escrow for persons purchasing structures within
the project ar.ea itself. In section J-4 the sentence starts notification
.
shall also stipulate that in the event the Los Alamitos AFRC is
activated for use as a disaster support area, noise levels could
significantly increase for an unknown period of time due to increases in
airfield operations. This about the best we can do.
Member Voce said his last statement was outside the purview of the EIR
because it's a political question. For the Record, but not involving the EIR
directly, he said he has very serious reticence with County government and does
not trust data emanating from the County. This reticence is based on things he
has seen them do over! several years. While there are new members the
reticence continues because the new members do the same old bad habits. It
makes his acceptance of AELUP and AICUZ... He mentioned the Bolsa Chica
project and the political posturing and political favoritism. "We have a
background of cooked data in this County quite frankly". He felt he would be
remiss to not mention this when the City is reviewing an EIR - because AELUP
and AICUZ is official County data. While we have to accept it as official he has a
reticence on it. Political bias is just that, it's an opinion. But when the reticence
gets to a point where virtually everything they do is so suspect that you just don't
trust it, that seriously impact it. "I'm not an anomaly on that, I'm almost typical if
16
City of Seal Beach EaCB - Minutes of September 8, 1998
. 1 not typical in my reticence, especially since the bankruptcy". There's more-
2 Bolsa Chica, the bankruptcy, EI Toro - he's seen too much political posturing
3 and he really distrusts the County of Orange both as a government and
4 everything that they crank out. Not everything they do is bad but enough of it is.
5 When you're dealing with data on aviation, that's dire, it would be remiss not to
6 mention it.
7
8 Member Hurley said he had to make a phone call and excused himself.
9
10 Mr. Whittenberg responded to Member Voce's comments on County information.
11 With regard to aviation issues, the County has taken the information from the
12 AICUZ study and incorporated it without making any changes to the information.
13 They have not changed anything given to them by the federal government.
14
15 The Vice Chairperson noted it's 6:30 p.m. and indicated Board members had
16 other meetings to attend. She asked why the document was set up as it was,
17 instead of the "r form, where you have the question with the answer next to it?
18 In this EIR you have to flip from book to book to refer to items.
19
20 Ms. Culbertson said this is a format utilized in an effort to have the document
21 made available to the public in a timely manner.
. 22
23 The Vice Chairperson asked about the Air Force instruction versus the present
24 numbers at 23.5 per day. Since the FEIR is not available yet and the Army's
25 made the announcement that they plan to increase their fixed-wing flights, is this
26 something that will be incorporated into the FEIR as to the impact?
27
28 Ms. Culbertson said the Department of the Army has given a letter to the City
29 indicating the AICUZ accurately reflects operations at the AFRC.
30
31 The Vice Chairperson said the announcement to the paper stated that they would
32 be planning on increasing their flights. Has she received that information?
33
34 Ms. Culbertson indicated she has not.
35
36 The Vice Chairperson said she would ask the question again. She said the
37 reporter who reported that information is present tonight. Is that correct Mr.
38 Segura? Maybe the Board needs to get that to Ms. Culbertson before the FEIR
39 is out so it can be incorporated.
40
41 Ms. Culbertson said that would be helpful.
42
43 The Vice Chairperson said this was specifically fixed-wing. They need to look
. 44 into this. If Ms. Culbertson doesn't have this information she will see if she can
45 get it for her. Was it Mr. Johnson from the Department of the Army? Before
46 looking at this as an adequate document, that's new pertinent information as to
17
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach EQCB - Minutes of September 8, 1998
1 rezoning property that may cause an encroachment issue and strangle the base.
2 We don't want the base to close.
3
4 Ms. Culbertson stated letters to the City in August 1998 from the Pentagon
5 indicated the AICUZ is still applicable.
6
7 The Vice Chairperson said she was talking about all of the rezoning. If you
8 rezone and you allow development in an area where the Air Force instruction
9 may come to a point where it needs to be rescinded and they can't increase their
10 flights, what position does that put the City in? Her request from the consultant is
11 she would like to see both sides of an issue so other people can form their own
12 opinion. While she understood the data the consultant must use, it's not black
13 and white, there's a lot of gray area. Her understanding is that this will not be
14 included, right? If the Army is going to increase their flights, will you include that
15 in the FEIR?
16
17 Ms. Culbertson indicated if credible information from the military is provided, it
18 will be included.
19
20 The Vice Chairperson interrupted saying there is limited time and the consultant
21 has had a lot of time to explain. She said she would find out who said it and who
22 wrote it and would make sure the consultant received the information so she
23 could call them. She wanted this information included.
24
25 Ms. Culbertson indicated that would be helpful.
26
27 The Vice Chairperson said what she is looking for is a complete document. They
28 had rumors that this was going to happen and now she's seen it in print. While
29 seeing it in print doesn't always mean it's true, it is definitely something we need
30 to check out before they decide of this document is complete. She's also hearing
31 that all this data is going to be incorporated in an FEIR and she would like to see
32 a complete document with this data included prior to her making a decision and
33 voting. So unlike the rest of this Board, she is not ready until she sees the
34 document signed, sealed and delivered the way it's going to be presented to the
35 Planning Commission. Because, like Member Voce, she's been burned before
36 and until she sees it and accepts it, it's not there. She was not sure all of this
37 would be included unless the Board waits.
38
39 The Vice Chairperson asked the City Attorney about the lease referred to earlier.
40 Where is the recorded lease on the Aircraft Operation Sound Air Space
41 Navigation Easement deed? Is it still in effect? They've got to be doing
42 something so they can still fly over that land. It's either yes or no.
43
44 Mr. Steele said he could not give her a yes or no answer at this moment. He
45 knew that the documents that Council member Campbell asked be distributed to
46 members of the EQCB 'and to the Planning Commission --- the letter from the
18
.
.
.
City of Seal8each EQC8 - Minutes of September 8, 1998
I
I
1 applicant's attorney - indicated that those leases were no longer in effect. As to
2 the avigation easement, he didn't have a copy in front of him. (The Vice
3 Chairperson offered her copy).
4
5 Member Hurley asked if the Vice Chairperson was saying there was something
6 else, other than the package from the applicant's attorney that she's discussing
7 with the City Attorney now?
8
9 The Vice Chairperson said she thought everybody had received a copy of this.
10 Member Hurley said they do but he didn't understand her question.
11
12 The Vice Chairperson explained that during the DEIR there are assumption with
13 the consultant that she's received testimony from the AFRC and they say
14 everything is fine on the project. Her contention is that she would like to see the
15 other side, in that they're predisposed to that opinion because they signed an
16 avigation lease in 1984. Remember that they signed another lease, a 25 year
17 lease, ended in 1985. So they've got another easement so they can continue
18 flying. As part of the agreement they're predisposed to say that whatever Bixby
19 proposes, based on numbers in 1983, is fine. She wants this included because it
20 negates whatever they have to say. Is that still in effect?
21
22 Mr. Whittenberg said there is an avigation easement in effect over all of the Bixby
23 property for airflight operations to occur over their property. That has been in
24 effect since 1960 -- he believed was the date of the document.
25
26 The Vice Chairperson said the lease expired in 1985. This is another one, dated
27 1984.
28
29 Mr. Whittenberg said The Vice Chairperson was confusing this. When she says
30 "a lease" there was a previous lease on certain portions of the property that were
31 actually leased by the Army from Bixby. Those leased areas no longer are
32 leased. You have to clarify between "easement" for avigation for overflights,
33 which this document is and is still in effect. There are no leases over any Bixby
34 property by the federal government at this time.
35
36 The Vice Chairperson asked if this avigation easement is still in effect?
37
38 Mr. Whittenberg said yes. Mr. Steele agreed, noting it is in effect across the
39 entire property. ~
40
41 Mr. Whittenberg said that document allows the federal government to fly aircraft
42 over the Bixby property.
43
44 The Vice Chairperson said the AFRC is part of the State. She said her concern
45 is that this is not included as a concern as the other half in the DEIR. The
46 consultant is giving the,AFRC credibility they shouldn't have.
19
City of Seal Beach EaCB - Minutes of September 8, 1998
. 1
2 Ms. Culbertson disagreed; saying she was giving the ALUC credibility that State
3 law gives them. '
4
5 The Vice Chairperson said she would not argue with Ms. Culbertson. She said
6 uAlIl'm saying is, I'm sitting on this Board and I've got to vote whether this is
7 adequate. If stuff like this is not included, it's not adequate. End of
8 conversation- .
9
10 Mr. Steele said for the Record, it should include the entire provision she's
11 referring to. It says the State will support development on the property as long as
12 that proposed development is consistent with the federal regulations.
13
14 The Vice Chairperson said as well as that they would have to keep flights at the
15 numbers of the 1983 numbers.
16
17 Mr. Steele said he was only referring to the one paragraph she was referring to.
18 He wanted to make the Record complete, that we're including the entire
19 paragraph, which says that if that development is consistent with federal
20 regulations... . .
21 1
. 22 The Vice Chairperson interrupted, saying to Ms. Culbertson that all she was
23 saying is that it's not what is in the document that bothers her. When she looks
24 at a FEIR she wants to review it from the aspect that she does not have all this
25 background knowledge. That she can sit down and see both sides. She felt
26 that's the consultant's job. It's not her job to reach a conclusion but it's her job to
27 present both sides and let the other people make the decision. Her problem is
28 that she's not seeing both sides. She talked about Mr. Anisman's comments and
29 lack of both sides.
30
31 The Vice Chairperson said that's the end of her comments. If the rest of the
32 Board is ready to vote,lthe EQCB can vote. Or, they can wait to see what the
33 consultant comes up with at another meeting. She will not vote on any of the
34 handouts unless they become a part of the draft.
35
36 Mr. Steele said the FEIR is what the City Council votes on.
37
38 Member Porter said he'was not sure what format the Vice Chairperson wants
39 before the Board votes.
40
41 The Vice Chairperson said that at the beginning of this meeting Member Hurley
42 was asking if this and that will become part of the FEIR. This confirmed her
43 position. She wants to see all this in a final visual hard form so she can be
. 44 certain that this is what will be submitted. Until that happens, she doesn't trust
45 we will get everything. uln regards to time, I know that we've got Planning
20
'.
-.
.
.
City of Seal Beach EQCB - Minutes of September 8, 1998
1 Commission meetings. That's not my concern. Whatever time we need, that's
2 the time we need. n
3
4 Member Porter asked if there was a timetable for having something sufficient in
5 light of what the Vice Chairperson just said?
6
7 Ms. Culbertson said the information is all here. Were it not for the City's diredion
8 to their firm, to respond to each and every oral question, the record would have
9 closed with the completion of the DEIR. The completion of the DEIR review
10 period and the presentation of the Response to Comments, in which case you
11 would have had the Response to Comments document and nothing more. That
12 would have constituted the DEIR you would have considered. But in an effort for
13 full public participation in each meeting, Mr. Whittenberg has directed their office
14 to prepare supplemental materials to further explain and elaborate on the
15 information in the EIR, drawing from the audience's interest. So those are the
16 materials that Member Hurley was referring to. Some of those materials are in
17 the EIR, some were en!arged or placed into transparencies and hard copies of
18 which were provided to the Board.
19
20 Member Porter asked if all the materials will be presented to the Planning
21 Commission?
22
23 Ms. Culbertson said yes, absolutely. Mr. Whittenberg has already prepared the
24 report to do so.
25
26 Member Porter asked the Vice Chairperson if she was saying she was not
27 comfortable this would happen?
28
29 The Vice Chairperson asked Mr. Whittenberg to go get the report so she could
30 see it. She'd like to see it. If he's got it, then the Board can vote on it.
31
32 Mr. Whittenberg said he didn't have it packaged together for the EQCB at this
33 point.
34
35 The Vice Chairperson said, "Okay, I think that's our answer. Also, we have one
36 year as a guideline to review this. Although October was the submission date,
37 that still gives the Council plenty of time. And... I am losing a little bit of patience
38 because there are certain things that I do think are very important that are in this
39 report. I understand what government officials have to say and that we have to
40 use that data. But there's such a big, gray area here and part of it's by very
41 educated residents who've done a lot of research. And I think that needs to be
42 included as the other data in this document to make it adequate. So I'm hoping
43 that it will be included. And if it takes Culbertson Adams, who have done a very
44 good job I feel as far as all the data and changing the mitigation measures, if it
45 takes them two weeks then we can see it at our regular scheduled meeting and
46 vote on it then. But as you can see, Mr. Whittenberg is not ready. So we really
21
".
City of Seal Beach eaCB - Minutes of September 8, 1998
. 1 don't know what it's going to end up being. If he was ready tonight that would be
2 a different issue."
3
4 Mr. Whittenberg said that as Ms. Culbertson indicated, the final document will
5 include all the documents that you have received, it will include copies of the
6 minutes, it'll include copies of the staff reports, which you have all received. It
7 will include copies of all the handouts. It will include all the information that this
8 Board has received since you started receiving comments on the FEIR."
9
10 The Vice Chairperson ~aid she understood that and appreciated all his help. And
11 when it's all together, for her personally, then we'll vote on it. "lf my son were to
12 hand a report like this in to school, he would fail. He has to have everything
13 together, all at once when he turns it in. When you do a proposal for a company
14 it has to be finished".
15
16 Mr. Steele said it won't be finished until the City Council gets through its
17 hearings.
18
19 The Vice Chairperson said her point was that she wanted it finished as a
20 document.
21
. 22 Member Hurley said it's terribly important that he find out if Member Porter has
23 comments that he wants to make tonight before he leaves. He will be leaving
24 shortly.
25
26 Member Porter said it looks like he won't be leaving until this issue is resolved.
27 "l'm not going to walk out of a meeting. Something is going to give and
28 apparently it will be A YSQ".
29
30 The Vice Chairperson said it wouldn't be A YSQ because it's too important.
31
32 Member Jones said this should be resolved one way or the other. If the form is
33 not acceptable to the body as whole then we should make a decision on what we
34 want. If we're going to vote on it maybe we should get a tentative indication from
35 the members.
36
37 The Vice Chairperson said she had a Boy Scout meeting to attend. The Vice
38 Chairperson said she was finished with her comments, waiting 'till last to speak.
39
40 Member Hurley said she was not the last to speak as he was going to speak on
41 adequacy. He noted she had been talking about adequacy for twenty minutes.
42 The Vice Chairperson said she was done and asked how many members would
43 like to vote within the next five minutes?
. 44 I
45 Member Voce said there is another member who needs to leave. He noted
46 Member Hurley had not made his comments on adequacy. He has reticence on
22
'.
23
. .
City of Seal Beach eaCB - Minutes of September 8, 1998
. 1 Member Hurley said he didn't understand Member Voce's comments.
2
3 Member Hurlel asked if the EOCB had to have their resolution done before
4 September 30 .
5
6 Member Hurley asked why they couldn't wait until then? He could meet on
7 September 23rd but could not meet in the afternoon.
8
9 Member Porter asked why it needed to be done before their regular meeting
10 night and why, then, were they discussing it? There's a meeting night scheduled
11 for the 30th.
12
13 The Vice Chairperson suggested to go with the next scheduled meeting,
14 September 30th. And if Ms. Culbertson decides she wants to bring the other,
15 incorporated document that's up to her. In the meantime, she would FAX Ms.
16 Culbertson her thoughts in regard to CEOA law and how she'd like this
17 structured. She said, "I do take very seriously the testimony we had by the
18 people here and the things they wanted incorporated. So I'd like to adjourn the
19 meeting -".
20
21 Member Hurley interrupted saying it occurred to him that there's an outstanding
. 22 question he had asked of the City Attorney. Is it legal that the City has to
23 complete action on the EIR within a year after the applicant applies? You said
24 it's not mandatory, it's a guideline. In the guideline, it says, "shall".
25
26 Mr. Steele said he had said, "It's a guideline".
27
28 Member Hurley questioned the term "shall".
29
I
30 Mr. Steele said the document is a compilation of guidelines, called the CEOA
31 Guidelines. Your next question is what happens if the City...
32
33 Member Hurley interrupted to say that was not his next question. His next
34 question is, in law the difference between "will" and "shall" is the difference
35 between "you can" or "you must". This guideline says, "you must". You're saying
36 we don't have to.
37
38 Mr. Steele disagreed, saying he did advocate their following the CEOA
39 guidelines. But he did have to tell the Board that once they get into mandatory
40 versus directive (shall versus may) "shall" is enforceable only when there's a
41 penalty attached to it. And there isn't a penalty attached to the failure to adopt
42 this within one year. He didn't know what would happen if the applicant goes to
43 court and says "Issue an order to finish this within one year because the
. 44 Guideline says within one year". The Permit Streamlining Act is a similar Jaw that
45 says if somebody presents a project to the City you've got to consider it and hear
46 it within a certain number of days. The Permit Streamlining Act has a remedy, a
24
.
I
. .
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach EQCB - Minutes of September 8, 1998
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
penalty. If you don't do as it says within the established time frame the project is
deemed approved. ThE;!re is no similar provision in CEQA. If anybody went to
court based on this guideline a judge would issue an order that says, "Finish the
EIR".
Member Hurley said if ~r. Steele had said that before he would not have asked
this question.
The Vice Chairperson said she thought the Planning Commission has meetings
already set up to start their hearings to run concurrent. But we have information
that they won't make a decision until the EQCB makes its decision.
Member Porter said he was under the impression that the reason why we were
holding this meeting tonight was because the EQCB was to make a decision
before the Planning Commission tomorrow. Had he known that was not the
case, he felt tonight's meeting was not needed. While he got a lot out of tonight's
meeting it could have been done at another time. "We rushed to do this".
The Vice Chairperson said that was her impression too. Her intent was to come
here and make a decision. She felt it was everyone else's intent to make a
decision. "Unfortunately, things don't always happen the way we planned. But I
agree, it's a little frustr~ting that we're sitting here and there's no decision made".
,
Mr. Whittenberg said that when he put together the initial schedule for this body's
hearings, for the Planning Commission and Council hearings, he made it very
clear that if the EQCB was unable to finish its deliberations before the Planning
Commission was ready to make a recommendation to the Council that the
Planning Commission may determine to make their recommendations to the City
Council without benefit of the recommendations of this board. He made this very
clear at the beginning of the process. And the action you're looking at this point
may result in that occurring. Planning Commission hearings are scheduled for
September 9th, 1rth and 23rd. They may go past September 23rd or they may not.
There's no way to know. Just as the EQCB meetings were scheduled for August
26, September 2 and 8th. The EQCB's will obviously go past that. He didn't
know what the Planning Commission mayor may not do. So you should be
aware that on September 30th, when and if you finalize a decision, the Planning
Commission may be done with their process on the project.
Member Hurley asked ~hat the scheduled City Council dates are?
Mr. Whittenberg said the scheduled date is September 28th, adjourned probably
to October 5th.
Member Hurley asked what date in October? October 5th?
25
- J
,
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach EQCB - Minutes of September 8, 1998
I
1 The Vice Chairperson said she would like to adjourn to September 30th.
2 KWhatever Lee's schedule is really not relevant to us. We need to do a good job,
3 finish. I wish we could have finished tonight. We'll close the Public Hearing. Mr.
4 Anisman if you could submit your question in writing - is that a possibility?
5 Would that work for you? Okay. Adjourn to the 30th. No public comment. We'll
6 go right into the Board making their comments and vote. We have another
7 Scheduled Matter for that date which is an issue regarding trees. But that would
8 work for me. We can get out of here probably by that date. I'll only have about
9 ten minutes worth of comments. Mr. Hurley you said you had about 15.
10 Hopefully it will be less than 10 based on whatever we end up with. That's what
11 I'd like to see. Because we're not going to vote tonight. So it's just what date are
12 we going to go to? I'd rather just go to a regularly scheduled meeting. I think the
13 Council will work with us. The Council's not going to want to hear this until we're
14 done. Any comments?"
15
16 Member Voce said he didn't think the Planning Commission would be thrilled with
17 us. They could.
18
19 The Vice Chairperson said, "I don't think they will. But that's okay. I think we
20 need to finish. Mr. Hurley has had this trip planned for quite some time. I think
21 that since we didn't finish, you know, we were all hoping for the draft back in July
22 and we got a little bit of a late start here. If we would have had it then, and I
23 know they were trying to do a great job, we would have been done by now but
24 that wasn't the case. So, what do you guys want to do?"
25
26 Member Hurley asked if the Vice Chairperson wanted to ask for staff concerns?
27
28 The Vice Chairperson asked if anybody had any more comments?
29
30 Staff Concerns
31 There were no staff concerns.
32
33 Board Concerns
34 Member Hurley said he wanted to be sure nobody tries to hand deliver anything
35 to him between September 12 -22 as nobody would be home. He said he had a
36 lot of remarks on adequacy on September 30th. His time frame would be
37 approximately 20 minutes.
38
39 Member Voce said he had finished his comments and would not have comments
40 on adequacy unless something else comes up,
41
42 Member Porter said he would need five minutes reserved.
43
44 Member Jones said he has made his comments.
45
26
~J
.
'.
I.
\.
\
City of Seal Beach eaCB - Minutes of September 8, 1998
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 Vice Chairperson said her comme,..ts would take five minutes. She asked
to have the tree issue put on the Agenda.
Member Voce said the issue regarding trees is about the Eucalyptus Protection
Act and how we can discuss broad-basing the ISA standards and that law in
another City tree policy that's enforceable. He may want to invite the Tree
Committee to attend the meeting give input. That issue is secondary to this
Bixby issue and couid be left to another meeting.
The Vice Chairperson suggested MIf there's any way we could put the comments
in writing I think that, for the minutes, that would be really good because then
they would be verbatim. And if the press wants them they would be exact.
Because I know we've been misquoted before. That's just a request actually".
Member Hurley said if he gets the time between now and Saturday he will. If he
don't he will just have to speak slowly and provide copies after the meeting to
anybody that wants them.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by Voce to the regular meeting time of September
30, 1998 at 6:30 p.m.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Submitted
~.
.. ~
Qo~ -. ..-.~
Joan Fillmann
Executive Secretary
Planning Department
Approved:
These minutes were approved on l- 3 D 19 ~ ~
27