HomeMy WebLinkAboutEQCB Min 2003-01-29
...
.~
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
.
1CITY OF SEAL BEACH
Environmental Quality Control Board
Minutes of January 29, 2003
Chairperson Unrath called the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) meeting of
January 29, 2003 to order at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was held in City Council Chambers
and began with the Salute to the Flag.
Pledge of Allegiance
II Roll Call
Present:
Chairperson Unrath, Members Hurley, Barton, and Voce
Absent:
None
Also
Present:
Department of Development Services
Mac Cummins, Associate Planner
Mr. Cummins noted that Member Jones had submitted his letter of resignation from the
Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) and it has been placed on the City
Council (CC) Agenda for the meeting of Monday, February 10, 2003. He stated that
after the CC accepts the resignation, a new Board Member will be appointed.
III Approval of Agenda
MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by Unrath to approve the Agenda as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0
Barton, Hurley, Unrath, and Voce
None
None
IV Oral Communications
None.
1 These Minutes were transcribed from an audiotape of the meeting.
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\01-29-G3 EQCB Minutes.doc 1
"
.~
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
Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2003
V Consent Calendar
1. RECEIVE AND FILE - Memorandum Re: Receipt of Approved Mitigation
Measures - Bellflower Oil Drill Site (Located on Haynes Steam Plant Property
- West of Leisure World), dated January 9, 2003.
2. RECEIVE AND FILE - Staff Report to EQCB Re: Department of Navy RAB
update letter. Letter dated December 18, 2002.
3. RECEIVE AND FILE - Memo to EQCB Re: Boeing Specific Plan Draft EIR-
Meeting Schedule and Document Availability. Memo dated January 8, 2003.
4. RECEIVE AND FILE - Staff Report to EQCB Re: Notice of Preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting for the
PacifiCenter at Long Beach Project.
5. RECEIVE AND FILE - Staff Report to EQCB, Re: Receipt of Proposed
Plan/Draft Remedial Action Plan Site 40, Naval Weapons Station, Seal
Beach.
6. RECEIVE AND FILE - Memorandum Re: Pacific Coast Highway and Seal
Beach Boulevard Contamination. Memo dated December 9,2002.
7. RECEIVE AND FILE - CC's Letter to City of Long Beach Re: City of Seal
Beach comments re: Final Environmental Impact Report for the Bellflower Oil
Drill Site.
8. RECEIVE AND FILE - Orange County Register Article Re: "Money for 22
Freeway In Doubt," December 11, 2003.
9. RECEIVE AND FILE - Memo to EQCB Re: Seal Beach Weapons Support
Facility - Installation Restoration Program - Status Report Re: RAB Project
Update. Memo dated November 12, 2002.
MOTION by Voce; SECOND by Hurley to approve the Consent Calendar as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0
Barton, Hurley, Unrath, and Voce
None
None
VI Scheduled Matters
10. REVIEW and RECEIPT Of Public Comments Boeing Specific Plan Project
Draft EIR.
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\01-29-G3 EQCB Minutes.doc 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
Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2003
Staff Report
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report along with a slide presentation on this item.
(Staff Report and Boeing Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) are on file for
inspection in the Department of Development Services.) He stated that the intent
tonight is to receive comments on the DEIR, which has been circulated for public
review. He said that under state environmental laws any type of environmental
document must be circulated for public review for 45 days. He indicated that the 45-day
review period ends on February 10, 2003. He noted that any comments received will be
forwarded to the City-selected EIR Consultant and will be addressed in the Final EIR,
which will be presented to the EQCB for review. Mr. Cummins then provided some
background information on this item and briefly reviewed the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) process as it relates to EIRs. He stated that once the City has
prepared the Response to Comments letter, formal public hearings before the
Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB), the Planning Commission (PC) and the
City Council (CC) will be conducted and the EIR will either be approved or denied. He
noted that copies of the EIR document are available on the City website, in the
Department of Development Services, at the local libraries, or the City Clerk's office.
He indicated that comment forms are available tonight for anyone wishing to submit
their comments. The Associate Planner then stated that the EQCB is charged
principally with making recommendations to the CC on environmental matters, not land
use matters. He noted that in this case the Board must focus on whether the EIR
document and its Appendices adequately address the environmental impacts of the
proposed project, and not whether the EQCB believes a different land use would be
more appropriate.
Mr. Cummins then provided an overview of the Boeing Project noting the four Planning
Areas as designated on the site map. He described the proposed projects for each
planning area as follows:
Planning Area 1:
Planning Area 2:
Existing Boeing Company campus.
Existing Boeing buildings that mayor may not be replaced
with new Light Industrial development.
Undeveloped portion of the property on the far western side.
Hotel and ancillary retail uses.
Planning Area 3:
Planning Area 4:
He explained that street access to the project is proposed off of both Westminster
Boulevard and Seal Beach Boulevard with a potential connection point going through if
Planning Area 2 is developed. He noted that all of the existing entrance and exit areas
are to remain. Mr. Cummins then described the square footages for the proposed
project as described in the DEIR noting that at ultimate build out Planning Area 1 could
comprise, 1,150,000 square feet. He stated that currently there are 345,000 square feet
in Planning Area 2, where currently there are buildings that have satellite and line-of-
sight connections to other buildings, so they are not yet scheduled for removal. He said
that if these buildings were removed, that square footage would be added to Planning
Area 1 for a total of 1,150,000 square feet. He stated that Planning Area 3 comprises a
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\01-29-G3 EQCB Minutes.doc 3
.~
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
Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2003
little over 625,000 square feet and Planning Area 4, potentially a 120-room hotel and
additional ancillary retail. Member Unrath confirmed that all of the traffic, noise, and
environmental impacts include the additional 345,000 square feet that may be added to
Planning Area 1. Mr. Cummins confirmed that this was correct. He then proceeded to
explain that the purpose of an EIR is to provide a disclosure document and is not
designed as a "catch all" to fix everything that may be wrong with a particular
development, but to identify the impacts of a development.
Public Comments
Chairperson Unrath opened for public comments.
Mr. Terry Sears, Transportation and Security Manager at Leisure World (LW), stated
that he had reviewed the EIR and was in disagreement with the traffic study, particularly
as it affects LW. He stated that the widening of the 405 Freeway overcrossing would
probably not be completed until after 2006 due to funding questions. He noted that the
bottleneck that occurs at this overcrossing will be exacerbated by this project, and in
turn will impact the entrance to LW. He said that he disagreed with the EIR
determination that no traffic impacts would occur at St. Andrews Drive and Seal Beach
Boulevard. He stated that 2 million cars per year use the Golden Rain entrance to LW.
He noted that the City had recently attempted to synchronize the traffic signals along
Seal Beach Boulevard (SBB) and consequently the amount of time in front of LW was
lengthened creating massive gridlock inside the community, so LW approached the City
about changing the timing on the signals, to which the City very quickly responded. He
cautioned that this presents the possibility for hazardous situations as LW receives an
average of 110 paramedic calls per month and emergency vehicles exiting LW would
get caught in the gridlock of cars attempting to access SBB from the LW exit. Mr. Sears
stated that a more thorough traffic study should be completed. He then noted that the
existing noise levels from the Westminster Boulevard area of LW are already at
discomfort thresholds, and he disagrees with the stated average automobile speed of
40-55 mph as listed in the EIR. He stated that 45-65 mph were more realistic numbers
and they substantially increase the noise decibel level. Mr. Sears commented that the
noise level would increase during construction and afterwards with the increase in
traffic. He noted that recently a project that involved pile driving and oil drilling was
being completed on the western border of LW. He said that the developer for that
project had installed at their own expense double-paned, soundproof windows in all of
the LW apartments along the western perimeter. He stated that he would like to see
potential noise mitigation for this project pursued in the same fashion. He then
commented that the air quality issue as addressed in the EIR deals with the population
in general, but does not take into consideration the effects of a large amount of dust and
airborne particles on a senior population with an average age of 79 years. He indicated
that the criteria used in the EIR for high winds, as 35 mph for over an hour is
unacceptable, as at least 5-7 times a year there are periodic winds coming from the
south and moving northward across the Naval Weapons Station (NWS) area moving
toward LW. Vice-Chairperson Hurley asked Mr. Sears if he could cite any medical
professionals that would substantiate his comments regarding the air quality issue. Mr.
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\01-29-03 EQCB Minutes.doc 4
.~
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
Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2003
Sears stated that he could probably contact medical staff or emergency room personnel
at Los Alamitos Medical Center that deal with respiratory ailments and they could verify
this information. He noted that there is a major spike in paramedic calls to LW
whenever the Santa Ana Winds are active.
Ms. Darlene Dorch, President of Mutual 2 in LW, stated that this is the largest mutual in
LW. She asked what the negative impacts upon the residents of LW would be and what
mitigation has been planned.
Vice-Chairperson Hurley asked if a response to Ms. Dorch's questions could be
provided at this time. Mr. Cummins stated that typically the public comment period is
not a question and answer type forum. He noted that a copy of the DEIR document is
available at City Hall and he would be happy to schedule a time to meet with Ms. Dorch
to familiarize her with the document format and to respond to any questions she might
have at that time.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Unrath closed the public
comment period.
Board Comments
Member Barton stated that the concerns expressed by Mr. Sears and Ms. Dorch are
also her main concerns, in particular for the residents of LW living along the perimeter of
Westminster Boulevard facing the Boeing facility. She said she was not certain what
kind of mitigation measures would work best, but she feels it is important to do
everything necessary to help minimize the impact upon these residents. She then
asked the Associate Planner why Boeing had decided to develop this land when it had
been vacant for so long. Mr. Cummins responded that he was not certain what the
reason might be.
Vice-Chairperson Hurley stated that he had questions regarding items that were not
adequately explained in the EIR. Mr. Cummins noted that it might be best that Vice-
Chairperson Hurley prepare a list of these items to which Mr. Cummins could prepare a
written response. Vice-Chairperson Hurley noted that it would help him prepare any
written comments for submittal before February 10, 2003, if he had some answers to his
questions tonight. Mr. Cummins asked Vice-Chairperson Hurley to proceed with his
questions and he would attempt to respond to them as adequately as he could. Vice-
Chairperson Hurley asked if it would be preferable that he hold his questions until all
other comments had been received tonight.
Vice-Chairperson Hurley referenced the following page numbers in the DEIR with
regard to the questions he had:
Po. 1-2. Sec. 1.2
Line 3
The EIR states, "the City of Seal Beach, serving as the Lead
Agency will: 1) publish a notice of availability of a Draft EIR in The
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\01-29-G3 EQCB Minutes.doc 5
.~
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
Po. 2-6. Sec. 5.4-1
Po.2-10,Sec.5.6-3
Po.2-12.Sec.5.7-2
Po. 3-23.Sec.3-5
Line 11
Po. 4-2.Table 4-1
Po. 5-4-12
Fuoitive Dust
City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2003
Sun, a newspaper of general circulation." Was this done? Mr.
Cummins stated that it was published, but he was not certain of
the date. He believed it was published in early January.
The mitigation for high winds states greater than 35 mph average
for over one hour. Does this means that in high winds work would
not be halted until an hour has passed? Mr. Cummins stated that
this would be correct.
The mitigation ratio for the wetlands drainage ditches is stated as
23: 1. Does this refer to the planting of 23 plants for every one
plant removed? Mr. Cummins stated that he would review this
information and provide a response later.
Who would be responsible for finding paleontologic resources?
Will there be archaeologic monitors on site? Mr. Cummins stated
that during the grading phases of the project as it is now mitigated
there would be a Native American monitor and an archaeologist
on site. Vice-Chairperson Hurley requested clarification on the
difference between paleontology and archaeology. Members
Voce and Unrath provided clarification. Vice-Chairperson Hurley
stated that the fact that monitors would be present should be
clearly stated.
This sentence would read more clearly if it stated, "It is currently
anticipated that all lots would be completed by BRC or sold to
individual lot purchasers who would be responsible for the
construction of the buildings..."
Title of Table is stated differently in the last paragraph of Page
4-1, Lines 1 and 4. Member Unrath noted that all NO.3 items on
Table 4-1 (Bixby Old Ranch Master Plan) should reflect a Status
stating that all projects are built out and occupied.
Provide definitions of the terms "substantial" and "nuisance," as
they are used in the first paragraph of this section. Mr. Cummins
asked if Vice-Chairperson Hurley were looking for a better
explanation within the document, or was he simply asking for his
own knowledge. Vice-Chairperson Hurley stated that the
document should be explanatory to the general public and more
specific rather than generalized terms should be used.
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\01-29-G3 EQCB Minutes.doc 6
.~
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
Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2003
Po. 5.5-4
Table 5.5-2
How does Table 5.5-2 show the acceptability of indoor noise
exposures when all that is discussed on Page 5.5-4 are outdoor
noise exposures? Mr. Glenn Lajoie of RBF Consulting, Project
Manager for the EIR, stated that the Staff of RBF were taking
diligent notes in order to address all concerns expressed tonight
by the Board members and the public. He said that he is unable
to respond to questions on the information in Table 5.5-2,
however, a noise specialist team would be able to address these
comments when preparing the Final EIR. He noted that for the
most part this would be the case with comments presented
tonight, but he would attempt to respond immediately to questions
presented tonight whenever possible.
Po. 5.5-6.
Table 5.5-4
Provide further clarification of Maximum Allowed Duration Period
for the category, "Noise Standard for a cumulative period" which
reflects "30 minutes in anyone hour." Mr. Cummins stated that
within the City's noise standards, readings are taken over the
span of 30 minutes to get a sense of what the actual noise level
is, and this becomes the baseline, with the rest of the readings
indicating dB(A) fluctuations allowed beyond the baseline.
Po. 5.5-9.
Table 5.5-7
Were field measurements completed for Westminster Boulevard
taken while on the Boeing property or across the street next to
LW? Mr. LaJoie stated that typically noise readings are taken at
the property line of the proposed project site. He noted that given
the sensitivity of LW residents, this reading was taken on the
north side of Westminster Boulevard. A typo was noted under
Time on Site NO.4. Vice-Chairperson Hurley requested a
definition of "angle of view" and "hard or soft." Mr. LaJoie stated
that "angle of view" referenced second story windows that have a
direct line of site to a noise source, and "hard" refers to
concrete/paved surfaces while "soft" refers to landscape
materials.
Po. 5.5-10.
Table 5.5.8
The paragraph on Existing Traffic Noise Levels discusses noise
levels in "CNELs" and Table 5.5-8 discusses "Ldns." Which is
correct? Mr. LaJoie stated that he would acquire this information
from the noise specialist team and provide the information later.
Vice-Chairperson Hurley recommended that these terms be
consistent.
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\01-29-03 EQCB Minutes.doc 7
.~
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
Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2003
Po. 5.5-13.
Para. 3
Is it possible to state when the importing of soil will begin after the
initial onset of construction activity?
Po. 5.5-13.
Para. 4
How was the calculation completed for the combined sound level
of 92 dBA for the 3 loudest pieces of equipment as listed in Table
5.5-10? What is the meaning of the phrase in Table 5.5-10
"Maximum Level, dB (50 feet; thence)?
Po. 5.5-15. Para 1
Lines 6 & 9
The phrase "These Communities could face a sHaht increase in
noise levels..." is too subjective. On Line 9, which states,
"ambient levels in the area are currently above 65 dBA," could this
conclusion be referenced to the information either on Page 5.5-9
or 5.5-10 for this section? Also the phrase that states, "these
noise levels are not expected to intrude past the first row of
residential units...," which noise level dBA are they referring to?
Po. 5.7-12. 5.7-1f
Who will monitor excavations of 5 feet or less? Mr. Cummins
stated that typically this is the threshold for having a Native
American monitor present. He said that if the concern is that a
monitor be present whenever any kind of grading is being done,
the City would certainly consider this request. He noted that the
Archaeological Advisory Committee (AAC) would also be
reviewing the EIR at its next scheduled meeting of February 5,
2003.
Vice-Chairperson Hurley referred to Section 5.5. Noise on Page 5.5-1 and commented
on the inadequacy of this section of the EIR and its failure to take into account the
special nature of the "sensitive receptors" on the north side of Westminster Boulevard.
He stated that the LW residents are not like the general population for whom the
standards quoted in the EIR are appropriate. He reiterated that the average age is 78
and many of the residents are not in good health. He said that this failure leads to other
failures based upon incorrect assumptions and speculation. He noted that another
basic flaw in the EIR is the assumption that if an impact lasts only 7 or 8 months it is not
significant regardless of the size of it. He said that no explanation or reference to CEQA
is provided to back this up. He continued by noting the following specific issues:
Po. 5.5-9
It would have been wise to include field measurements for noise
inside LW to provide actual data to support or modify the model
data.
Po. 5.5-10
An explanation is needed after Table 5.5-8 in order to integrate
this information with data presented in Table 5.5-7.
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\01-29-G3 EQCB Minutes.doc 8
.~
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
PQ. 5.5-12,
Sec. 5.5-1
PQ.5.5-13.
Table 5.5-10
PQ. 5.5-14
Table 5.5-11
PQ. 5.5-15. Line 5
City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2003
Discussion is quite confusing. Some of the information is useful,
but it appears to undermine the conclusion that the impact will not
be significant. Regarding Impact Statement 5.5-1: The amount of
construction noise is not limited by the Municipal Code; you can
make all the noise you want, as long as it occurs between 7:00
a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
Table should have shown the decibels as the distance from the
source is doubled. This would reflect that LW residents would
experience approximately a 76-decibel level of noise. In
Paragraph 3 of this page the soil import schedule provides the
only basis for estimating that site preparation will take at least 7
months (210 days).
According to this Table, Leisure World residents would
experience a sound level of approximately 80 decibels. A
discussion of the combined noise of traffic and construction
should follow Table 5.5-11, including well-based estimates of the
noise during peak traffic hours.
The statement, "Both communities typically feature one-story
structures, and are situated so that the side and rear yards face
the perimeter walls," is false. Ten LW buildings have six
apartments each which face the perimeter wall. On Line 7, even
a "slight" increase would be a significant impact according to
Table 5.5-9, which shows that an ambient noise level above 65
decibels leads to a significant impact occurring if it is 1 decibel or
more. The statement Line 10, "these noise levels are not
expected to intrude past the first row of residential units adjacent
to the walls..." implies that it is all right for 60 LW residents to
experience excessive noise for 7 months or more. Regardless of
CEQA, it should not be OK with Boeing nor with the City.
Paragraph 3, Line 2, which states, "As such, 'short term'
construction impacts are concluded to be less than significant,"
flies in the face of the so-called analysis. In addition, the third to
the last sentence, which states, "However, based upon the
analysis, the local receptors will not experience ambient
construction noise levels that are in excess of existing levels,"
appears to contradict Page 5.5-14, last paragraph, Lines 4-5.
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\01-29-G3 EQCB Minutes.doc 9
.~
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
Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2003
Vice-Chairperson Hurley reminded Mr. LaJoie that both the Boeing Company and RBF
Consulting have been aware of Mr. Hurley's position on this project since the March 13,
2002 scoping session. He stated that City Staff has been aware of his position since
November 29, 2000, when the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the previous
Boeing project was discussed. He said he is deeply disappointed that the EIR does not
reflect an interest by Boeing to be a good neighbor to LW residents and that it does not
reflect the concern by City Staff for the welfare and comfort of LW residents who
together make up one-third of the City's population, nor does it reflect the desire by the
consultant to collect and analyze all of the needed information regarding the impacts of
the project upon LW residents.
Member Voce noted that the first line of Paragraph 4 on Page 5.3-3 under ExistinQ
Conditions should reflect that the speed limit along Seal Beach Boulevard (SBB)
between Westminster Boulevard and Adolfo Lopez Drive is 50 mph. He then referred to
the 7tl1 bullet in the series of bulleted items at the bottom of Page 5.3-4 and noted that
the Exhibit 5.3-1 does not show the location of Saint Andrews Drive and Golden Rain
Road. He stated that since these are the main entrance/exits for LW, a survey should
be completed and the results included on this exhibit map. Member Voce then noted
that according to the EIR the trips down SBB are going to more than double from 9,000
and some to 20,000. He then referred to Page 8-2 under Traffic and Circulation and
stated that he believes signal timing evaluations are needed up and down SBB and the
adjacent areas of the property along Westminster Boulevard to get a better idea of what
drivers will experience on a daily basis both during and after the construction. He noted
that the timing of signals would determine the level of pollution that may be experienced
from automobiles accelerating after coming to a complete stop. Member Voce also
emphasized that the Final EIR must include a complete discussion of how widening of
the 405 Freeway overcrossing along SBB will help to alleviate traffic congestion on this
boulevard. He continued by stating that the Mitigation Measures should discuss
whether any trees will be removed when widening either Westminster Boulevard or
SBB, and if so, what type of replacement mitigation will be planned. He ended by
pointing out that the Mitigation Measures do not discuss consequences for any
violations.
Chairperson Unrath stated that he would provide specific questions in writing, but he did
want to state that in general he has a problem with the SBB overcrossing. He noted
that the City has been holding off on this project until the Garden Grove Freeway is
widened. He commented that based upon recent State budgetary woes, the freeway
may not be widened for quite some time. He inquired as to what the City had planned
with regard to widening the overcrossing even if the freeway is never widened. He then
asked what the term "point of sale for light industrial" means. Chairperson Unrath then
noted that traffic control traveling northbound stops at the northbound junction of the
405 Freeway, but the EIR contains no discussion of traffic beyond that point. He said
he would like to see the traffic survey done at least as far as Lampson Avenue and/or
St. Cloud Drive. Member Voce interjected that he would prefer to see the survey
continued even further up to the intersection at Los Alamitos Boulevard and Katella
Avenue. He stated that this information would be imperative to emergency vehicles
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\01-29-G3 EQCB Minutes.doc 10
.~
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
Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2003
transporting LW residents needing medical attention to the Los Alamitos Medical
Center. Member Unrath agreed. He then referred to Page 5.1-6, Policy 1.5 and stated
he assumed because most of the companies inhabiting the light industrial buildings
would have fewer than 100 employees, they would not be subject to this policy, and the
EIR should specify this. He also noted that because a new signalized entrance off of
SBB was to be constructed, as well as the signal at Adolfo Lopez Drive, would any
consideration be given to reconfiguring the plans to designate Adolfo Lopez Drive as the
entrance rather than creating a separate new signalized entrance? Member Unrath
then noted that one of the permitted land uses for this project is warehousing and this
would involve numerous large trucks entering and exiting the complex adding to the
every day ambient and traffic noise along SBB and Westminster Boulevard. Member
Unrath continued by referring to Page 5.10-7 under Study Area 1 and stated that
considering the volatility of the chemicals found he believes it is important that a closer
look at these contaminated areas be conducted.
Mr. Cummins stated that Staff would provide responses to the comments made and
present them with the Final EIR. Vice-Chairperson Hurley asked if the public would be
invited to the hearing before the Planning Commission. Mr. Cummins stated that notice
would be published notifying the public of the date that this item is to be heard. He
noted that the schedule of meetings is tentative based on how much time is involved in
completing the response to comments and the Final EIR. He said that it is possible that
this process could be completed sooner than indicated on the project timeline.
11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 30,2002
Recommendation: Approve Minutes subject to any corrections determined
appropriate.
Member Barton noted a correction on Page 6, Line 38. Member Unrath also noted
errors on Page 4, Line 38; Page 5, line 15; and Page 3, Line 10.
MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by Voce to approve the Meeting Minutes of October 30,
2002 as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0
Barton, Hurley, Unrath, and Voce
None
None
12. City Response Letter Re: Site 40 Phase II Pilot Test, Work Plan for Pilot Test
Program at IR Sites 40 & 70.
Recommendation: Authorize the Chairman to sign the draft response letter
with any additional comments determined appropriate, and instruct Staff to
forward to the City Council for information.
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\01-29-03 EQCB Minutes.doc 11
.~
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
Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2003
Mr. Cummins noted that the Board is quite familiar with Site 40, and what is before the
EQCB now is the Pilot Test Program to commence work at this site. He said that Staff
has reviewed the report and it is very similar to previous reports received with the
exception of one item that details the possibility that gases may be emitted from the soil,
but there is no language in the document that states what will happen if those gases are
suddenly emitted and on what scale. Staff is, therefore, presenting this question to the
Navy in the response letter. Member Unrath asked if the City has any idea of how much
gas might be emitted. Mr. Cummins responded that the City is not certain what the
threshold is for when these gases become dangerous, so Staff has requested that the
Navy address this information in the Pilot Test document.
MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by Voce to Authorize the Chairman to sign the draft
response letter with any additional comments determined appropriate, and instruct Staff
to forward to the City Council for information.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0
Barton, Hurley, Unrath, and Voce
None
None
VII Staff Concerns
Mr. Cummins extended thanks to Member Jones on behalf of the City for his service on
the EQCB.
VIII Board Concerns
Member Barton asked if a letter of recognition could be sent to Member Jones. Mr.
Cummins stated that he would inquire about this.
Vice-Chairperson Hurley referred to the Minutes of October 30,2002, Page 3 regarding
a memorandum to be created by Staff providing clarification on whether the City met
with the Department of Water and Power. He then referred to Page 6 of the minutes
and asked if the memorandum had been prepared by Staff requesting that City Council
investigate legal remedies for having the Naval Weapons Station participate in
mitigation of contamination that extends in concentric rings from Site 73 onto Seal
Beach Boulevard. Mr. Cummins stated that this is not yet complete.
Member Unrath stated that Member Jones had been a real asset to the EQCB during
his tenure. He also reported that he had participated in the initial scoping session for
the General Plan Update.
IX Adjournment
Chairperson Unrath adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\01-29-G3 EQCB Minutes.doc 12
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
.
.
Respectfully Submitted,
~""-^"^'-~....- ~~ ..--
- 25
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary
Department of Development Services
City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2003
The Board on February 26, 2003 approved the Minutes of the Environmental Quality
Control Board of Wednesday, January 29, 2003. ~ .
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\01-29-G3 EQCB Minutes.doc 13
.![.!:!.,.., ,
~~ it ~;.
~"'-':l'.;:.
~"."'rf
~'\"./
fttt;
~.
.1
2 Pg. 5.5-12,
3 Sec. 5.5-1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 Po. 5.5-14
18 Table 5.5-11
19
20
21
22
~~
25 Po. 5.5-15. Line 5
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43 Vice-Chairperson Hurley reminded Mr. LaJoie that both the Boeing Company and RBF
:.s;; 44 Consulting have been aware of Mr. Hurley's position on this project since the March 13,
. 2002 scop'ing session. He stated that City Staff has been aware of his position since
46 November 29, 2000, when the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the previous
f;. th~: ''ijrHelld!e(5" &j etr;?fJ) ~j. d~ tI ~r.lx ~I::.. tp.; ~ ~~j ~gT2. ~ ~
t.ry. # - -
. Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\01-29-G3 EQCB Mlnutes.doc 9
w,,\.\.~rv... '~\e'-Cs ~ {r-e.. c:.~l~ -\-~ J"'-...\..:v...--\ cz..~ )
. City of Seal Beach Environment~1 Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2003
Discussion is quite confusing. Some of the information is useful,
but it appears to undermine the conclusion that the Impact will not
be significant. -He netod that the City Municipal Code Iilllits tile-
amount of eon~tn lC'tlon noise only ta the Aettf'!)between 7.00 a.ffi. -rA/
UiYl~/A,uch'#n ))Pt ~nd 8:00 p.m. ~1.M,~.f. ~;c:f 5faT~ s S - I f ~E' t1Mt~ -I'
~ ~ ,fk-,La /"I'Ip;r ..:g~:W k -cf&.(/,/UI<< &;,p~ ~, :J4.~ t!tG.-.I11aA ~ f1u-
Po. 5.5-13. ~ao<~ao-~ ~...k~ 7-:7./I1,..J~?tP~.
Table 5.5-10 Table should have shown the decibels as the distance from the
source is doubled. This would refleCt that LW residents would
experience approximately a 76-decibel level of noi~
Paragraph 3 of this page the soil import schedule provide~.c:.~I~( ..-?~
for estimating that site preparation 'will take at least 7 montHs (210
days). "1 U
~~ 0/\ ll(
According to this Table, Leisure World residents would ,'iJ<' )
experience a sound level of approximately 80 decibels. A~; r
discussion of the combined, noise of traffic and construction b
should follow Table 5.5-11, including well-based estimates of the , :
noise during peak traffic hours. '
( 'y -
c..!. ~
.'
The statement, "Both communities typically feature one-story
structures, and are situated so that the side and rear yards face
the penmeter walls," is false. Ten LW buildings have six
apartments each which face the perimeter wall. On Line 7, even
a "slight" increase would be a significan~ impact according to
. Table 5.5-9, which shows that an ambient noise level above 65
decibels leads to a significant Impact occurring if it is 1 decibel or
more.' The statement Line 10, "these noise levels are not
expected to intrude past the first row of residential units adjacent
to the walls..." implies that it is all right for 60 LW reSidents to -L...
. . ", experience excessive noise for 7 months or more'7f-paragraph 3, . (-.;:-
t 11 ~ 1'f~~J(T- ,;<<,.,) Line,' 2; which statestA"construction impacts are concluded to be
//5 s \("" \ ~Iess than signrficant," flies in the face of the so-called analysis #
~ allr1i o~ -along with the third to the last sentence, which states, "However,
based upon the analysis, the local receptors will not experience
ambient construction nois~ lev~ls tl1at are in excess of existing /J_
{evels~' app/VO 10 ed>-</7I;~<iie..TI'_ 5'..>~- llj I .t~1)?~rv""/,~, '1-~
/
., ,
-~: .. ~
..;.;.~. -