HomeMy WebLinkAboutEQCB Min 2003-04-21
~
.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
.
1CITY OF SEAL BEACH
Environmental Quality Control Board
Minutes of Apri/21, 2003
Chairperson Unrath called the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) meeting of
Monday, April 21, 2003 to order at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was held in City Council
Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.
Roll Call
Present:
Absent:
Chairperson Unrath, Members Barton, Hurley, O'Malley, and Voce
None
Also
Present:
Department of Development Services
Mac Cummins, Associate Planner
II Approval of Agenda
MOTION by Voce; SECOND by Hurley to approve the Agenda as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Unrath, Barton, Hurley, O'Malley, and Voce
None
None
III Oral Communications
Chairperson Unrath opened oral communications.
There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Unrath closed oral communications.
IV Consent Calendar
None.
1 These Minutes were transcribed from an audiotape of the meeting.
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\04-21-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 Apri/21, 2003
V Scheduled Matters
None.
VI Public Hearing
1. Review and discuss proposed Boeing Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation
Monitoring Plan & Final Environmental Impact Report.
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 03-1 and forward a recommendation to
the City Council regarding the adequacy of the FEIR.
Staff Report
Mr. Cummins explained that the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) is
charged by City Council (CC) to make a recommendation as to whether or not the
document as has been provided is adequate under state environmental legislation and
to adopt a resolution making a finding of adequacy or inadequacy in a specific area. He
stated that this resolution would be brought before the Planning Commission (PC) on
May 7, 2003, when they will review the Boeing Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR). He then briefly described the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
process, noting that the EQCB held two scoping meetings at the beginning of the
process. He stated that the Draft EIR was prepared and released for public comment
with the deadline for comments ending in February 2003. He said the comments and
draft written responses were prepared and included with the FEIR, which was then
redistributed. He commented that the EQCB is not charged with making
recommendations to CC regarding proposed land use changes, as these issues will be
discussed at the PC hearing on May 7, 2003. He stated that the Board is charged
principally with discerning whether the environmental impacts for this project as
proposed in the Executive Summary are adequately described and mitigated within the
FEIR. He again noted that the actual plan amendments and zoning changes and
zoning map amendments will be discussed at the May 7 PC meeting. Mr. Cummins
then used a visual slide presentation to describe the proposed project. He explained
that occasionally when a City adopts an EIR, certain environmental impacts are
declared to be significant and unavoidable, which means that an environmental impact
cannot be mitigated to a level of nonsignificance under state law. He stated that for this
project the City has identified three impacts that meet these criteria. He said that under
State Air Quality standards, virtually all EIRs in the Southern California region must
adopt a statement of overriding considerations because the current existing levels of
emissions are going to be above thresholds. Traffic is also identified as a significant
and unavoidable impact principally due to the Seal Beach Boulevard (SBB) and
Westminster Avenue intersection, requiring some turning movements under the traffic
study that would require the taking of Navy land, which cannot reasonably take place.
He said Staff is recommending to CC that a Statement of Overriding Considerations be
filed for these areas.
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\04-21-03 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 Apri/21, 2003
The Associate Planner then reported that the Archaeological Advisory Committee (AAC)
would meet on Wednesday, April 23, 2003, to review the Cultural resources Section of
the FEIR and would make a similar recommendation to the CC. He noted that at the
May 7 meeting the PC would also discuss the proposed General Plan Amendment,
Zone Change, Precise Plan approvals, and other design issues within the Specific Plan.
He stated that CC would then make the final approvals on this project. He then
introduced Mr. Glenn LaJoie of RBF Consulting.
Mr. LaJoie, Project Manager for the EIR and the process on behalf of the City, referred
to Chapter 5 of the FEIR and reviewed the following findings:
1.
2.
No mitigation measures recommended.
Mitigation measures identified for short-term construction
impacts. No mitigation measures identified for long-term
affects
No mitigation measures identified for long-term affects.
Mitigation identified for trip generation and these affects on
local roadways.
Alternate Access - Mitigation measures identified (Apollo Drive alternative).
Air Quality - Mitigation measures identified for short-term construction
emissions as well as long-term operational emissions
pursuant to South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) Rules and Regulations.
Mitigation measures identified for short-term construction
noise as well as stationary noise affects, such as directional
speakers associated with uses on site.
Mitigation identified for special status species, jurisdictional
waters, and the resources associated with those waters.
Cultural Resource - Mitigation identified for archaeological and paleontological
resources and the potential for burial sites on the property.
Mitigation identified for soil conditions and the overall
stability of the project associated with grading activities as
well seismic conditions in the local area.
Hydrology/Drainage - Mitigation identified for construction-related water quality
affects, drainage, on-site and off-site, as well as post
construction water quality measures.
Public Health/Safety - Mitigation identified for hazardous materials, agricultural
chemicals, residual chemicals due to agricultural operations
on the property, asbestos, and lead paint.
Mitigation identified for water, wastewater, and solid waste
affects.
Land Use-
Aesthetics -
3.
4.
Light and glare -
Traffic -
5.
6.
7.
Noise -
8.
Biology -
9.
10. Geology & Soils-
11.
12.
13. Services/Utilities-
Mr. LaJoie noted that Volume 2 contains new material since the last hearing on January
29, 2003, and includes the Mitigation Monitoring Program, which is a requirement of
CEQA guidelines. He stated that the Mitigation Program includes a verification chart for
City departments and affected agencies and indicates particular milestones for each of
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\04-21-G3 EQCB Mlnutes.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
City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of April 21, 2003
the measures. He stated that Volume 2 also contains the Draft EIR comments and
responses totaling 29 entries with a range of commenters that includes local residents,
agencies, and interest groups. He said the Volume concludes with an Errata Chapter
showing the changes from the Draft EIR to the Final EIR. He noted that it has been
concluded that the comments/response does not result in changes to the significance
conclusions on the issues.
Public Comments
Chairperson Unrath opened the public comment period noting that there is a 5-minute
time limit for speakers. He requested that the consultants in attendance take notes and
hold their comments and respond after all members of the public have concluded with
their comments.
Mr. Clay Corwin of Stonecreek Company, representing the Boeing Company, stated
that since the last public hearing on January 29, 2003, Stonecreek has worked closely
with City Staff and the Consultants, and has worked on the responses to the comments
that Mr. LaJoie referred to on the Draft EIR. He expressed his hope that the Board
would vote favorably on the FEIR.
Mr. Jerry Sears, Seal Beach Leisure World (LW), stated that he feels the FEIR is not
completely adequate in terms of how some of the major factors affect LW, specifically
traffic impacts, air quality, noise, and dust levels. He noted that the report incorrectly
states that the project faces the sides or back yards of many of the LW apartments that
will be most impacted in terms of noise. He said that the majority of the units face
east/west and will be directly impacted. He stated that he had previously done so, and
continues to recommend that at their cost the developers outfit those units that will be
most impacted with double-paned, soundproof windows, such as was done on the
western perimeter of LW to mitigate noise when the Department of Water and Power
(DWP) project pile driving was taking place. With regard to dust, Mr. Sears stated that
applying the SCAQMD rule of 35 mph winds for an hour before stopping work could
result in a large number of LW residents experiencing health and respiratory problems.
He said he would like the City to ask the developers to voluntarily adopt a 20 mph for
one hour criteria as a good neighbor measure during the construction period. He
continued by stating that he does not feel the EIR adequately addresses the traffic
concerns at St. Andrews Drive and Golden Rain Road. He said that the LOS is closer
to C, D, or E and not A or B as stated in the FEIR. He projected that once the project is
complete there could be traffic gridlock on SBB of over 25% between Westminster
Avenue and the 405 Freeway as a result of the bridge overcrossing not being widened
before 2006. He reported that the average number of cars entering and exiting LW at
the main gate is 6,000 per day, and 3,000 at the St. Andrews Drive gate. Mr. Sears
expressed the concern regarding emergency vehicles being able to exit LW if there is
grid locked traffic along SBB. He also noted that the 50 mph speed limit creates a
problem with noise for LW residents living along this perimeter.
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\04-21-03 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 April 21, 2003
Mr. David Lyon, a resident of LW and Treasurer for the "Concerned Shareholders of
Leisure World," stated that LW had passed a resolution requesting that a 12-14 foot
sound wall be constructed to mitigate noise along Westminster Avenue; however, the
City of Seal Beach has informed that the wall cannot be higher than 10 feet. He said
that provision of a pedestrian gate in this wall was also requested. He stated that the
gate and a new pedestrian crosswalk at the traffic signal near Del Taco along
Westminster Avenue would be very helpful.
Mr. A. J. McCarthy, a resident of LW, commended Mr. Sears for his comments, and
noted that the gate near the library at LW could be used and this might be considered
for future traffic studies.
Mr. Charles Gilliard, Director for Mutual 2 at LW, stated that he agreed with Mr. Sears'
comments. He asked what the County plan is for taking care of the drainage ditch? Are
there future plans to expand Westminster Avenue? Has the City Engineer taken into
consideration the dBA levels that traffic will generate not only at an ambient decibel
level, but also for cars and trucks moving in both directions and accelerating after
leaving stoplights? He said he lives approximately one block from the existing sound
wall and traffic sounds can be heard all night. He stated that the area of Mutual 2 is
impacted by dust and road grime. He said that the sound wall is a good idea to help
mitigate some of the noise.
Mr. David Rosenman stated that he wished to address the process issue of writing off
every single thing that is wrong with this project as unmitigatable by and large, and the
recommendation is that CC adopt findings of overriding concern, which in essence
"blows the whole thing off." He said that as the project is presently described there still
exist unmitigatable traffic impacts. He stated that it would not be possible during rush
hour to get an ambulance from the City of Seal Beach to Los Alamitos Medical Center
or even to the freeway to go to St. Mary's Hospital or Long Beach Memorial Hospital in
any amount of time needed to save lives. He said that this would be a greater concern
to the residents of LW who are probably at greater risk for ambulance runs. He noted
that overriding concerns would not save the life of a person trapped in traffic. He
suggested that perhaps Boeing should cover the cost of widening the 405 Freeway
overcrossing as deferring it until CalTrans decides to do this could cost lives. He said
that approving this project as is would be unfair to the citizens of Seal Beach.
(Inaudible question from a member of the public) Mr. Cummins responded that the
entire project would have to go before the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for
approval after the City completes its approvals.
Mr. David Lyon noted that Beverly Manor Road dead ends at the north end of LW at an
existing gate that could be unlocked and manned for access. He said using this route
would allow the Fire Department and ambulances to more readily access LW and SBB
during rush hour. Member Hurley asked what Mr. Lyon wants the City to do with this
gate. Mr. Lyon said the City could just construct a guard shack so that this gate would
be manned at all times.
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\04-21-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
City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of April 21, 2003
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Unrath asked that the
consultants respond to the concerns expressed by the public.
Mr. Glenn LaJoie stated that the SCAQMD mandates the implementation of Rule 403
regarding construction dust emissions. He said that the typical standard is 35 mph and
when this condition occurs for more than one hour, construction is to be shut down. He
noted that there is no specific provision of the AQMD for senior citizens in terms of a
receptor. He stated that the City might have the latitude to discuss and determine to
lower the 35 mph. With regard to the comments on noise, Mr. La Joie said he could not
speak to the comments on double-paned windows, as this is not a mitigation measure
identified in the long-term noise affects. He stated that based on the analysis the
maximum increase along that segment, based upon existing conditions, is a 1.1 decibel
increase associated with the project and cumulative project at build out. He said the
typical standard utilized in evaluating the significance of noise affects is 3.0 decibels.
He noted that the decibel reading of 1.1 is below the significance threshold, and
additional mitigation is not required. He commented that the bases of the analysis are
the existing conditions along Westminster Avenue. Regarding the gates, Mr. LaJoie
noted that this is not directly related to a CEQA environmental issue. He then
introduced Mr. Rich Barretto, the Traffic Engineer, to address Mr. Sears' comments on
traffic.
Mr. Barretto of Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers, Traffic Consultants assisting
RBF Consulting with preparation of the EIR, stated that the traffic study utilizes the
City's accepted criteria to determine whether a project has a significant impact. He said
that all that is referenced within the report as well as the Response to Comments
identifies whether or not a project has an impact at intersections, particularly in
response to comments that came from Terry Sears regarding St. Andrews Drive and
Golden Rain Road. He said that updated traffic counts were completed at these two
intersections to determine the existing service levels and projections to the year 2006
were made to determine if the Boeing Project would have an impact, based on the
criteria established in the EIR. He said that based upon the methodology accepted by
the City, those two intersections from a volume to capacity standpoint now operate at
LOS A and B, which is not to say that there are not delays during certain hours of the
day, but overall they are operating at a high service level. He stated that there is no
need for additional left turn lanes, right turn lanes, or through lanes on SBB and the
level of service is acceptable. He noted that the City is proposing to make
improvements at this intersection that include additional turn lanes at the off ramps and
on SBB to help decrease cueing of traffic. He stated that the project as proposed does
not have an impact at the two LW entrances, but will have an impact at the interchange,
and the project will participate on a fair share basis to help offset these impacts.
Chairperson Unrath asked if after the project is complete would the intersections still be
operating at level E & F during peak hours? Mr. Barretto stated that in terms of the
interchange itself, which excludes the proposed widening of the bridge but adds
additional turn pockets, the critical time is the p.m. peak hour. He said that currently
you see a LOS F in the a.m. and an LOS EF in the p.m. He noted that with the project
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\04-21-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
.
City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of Apri/21, 2003
the LOS gets worse across the board, but with the proposed improvements those
service levels drop down to LOS C during the a.m. and LOS E during the p.m. for the
southbound onramp, and LOS B and LOS D for the northbound off ramp intersection of
SBB (he referred to Page 14-28 of the Response to Comments). Chairperson Unrath
asked if the southbound junction of SBB and the 405 Freeway is LOS E or F during rush
hour. Mr. Barretto stated that during the p.m. peak hour it is LOS F and is borderline
LOS D LOS E in the a.m. Chairperson Unrath then asked about the northbound side of
the bridge. Mr. Barretto reported it is currently LOS C in the a.m. and LOS E in the p.m.
Chairperson Unrath asked if the conclusion Mr. Barretto was making is that the bridge
does not need widening? Mr. Barretto stated that as the bridge stands now with the
added turn lanes proposed by the City's alternative, traffic would move more efficiently.
Chairperson Unrath asked at what threshold the bridge would have to be widened. Mr.
Barretto stated that ultimately in projecting this out beyond 2006 to 2010 or 2020, a six
lane cross section would eventually be needed through this interchange. He reiterated
that the projected City improvements would help tremendously. Mr. Cummins
interjected that the City's General Plan clearly calls for a widening of the bridge, and it
has always been anticipated that this would occur. He said that City shortfalls have
prevented doing this in the short term, and it is included within this EIR analysis as not
being able to happen until the 2006 capital improvement budget horizon year.
Member Voce asked if the EIR analysis factored in how traffic would flow once the
bridge is widened. Mr. Barretto stated that the original traffic study considered a 6-lane
cross section, but did not consider the additional turn lanes that the City proposes. He
said that the Response to Comments package does consider what the City's is now
proposing. He said that the City could take these findings and do additional analysis to
see what the benefits would be of constructing the 6-lane cross section. Member Voce
asked how many times Mr. Barretto had gone through this area in a week during rush
hour. Mr. Barretto stated that at the beginning of the project 8 months ago he was out
here all of the time doing field observations, which averaged once every 2-3 weeks. He
said that more recently it has been less. He confirmed Mr. Sears' comments of cars
cueing back to Golden Rain Road due to the inadequate capacity of the interchange.
Member Voce stated that the manner in which this situation was analyzed is
unconscionable. Mr. Barretto reiterated that the Response to Comments package
addresses the improvements that the City has planned now, which would improve the
LOS at that interchange and lessen the dependency on the overall bridge widening for
now.
Mr. Barretto then addressed the unmitigated impacts by stating that there are
constructible improvements feasible for the SBBlWestminster Avenue intersection. He
said that what remains in question is whether the Federal Government will provide the
right-of-way to construct them. He said all other improvements identified outside the
City are also feasible. He stated that for those intersections outside of the City
consistent with City policy, the Boeing project would be responsible for helping fund
improvements to push them through.
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\04-21-03 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 Apri/21, 2003
Mr. LaJoie stated that he was not clear on Mr. Gilliard's reference to a drainage ditch.
Chairperson Unrath explained that on the north side of Westminster Avenue is an open
drainage ditch and Mr. Gilliard was referring to attempting to put in another box culvert
there to cover up the open drainage ditch. Mr. LaJoie stated this improvement has not
been identified in the impact analysis nor is it associated with this proposed project. He
then addressed Mr. Gilliard's question regarding decibel readings with ambient noise
and truck noises. He said there is a typical modeling process that considers a mix of
vehicle and this does include truck traffic. He stated that dust and road grime issues
were identified as far as air quality concerns and the conclusion is significant adverse
impacts after mitigation in terms of long-term air quality emissions. With regard to the
sound wall he said that in terms of this particular project and the decibel reading and
considering the existing noise conditions along Westminster Avenue, it is concluded that
a sound wall has not been identified as mitigation, because it does not meet the
significance criteria and has not been considered in the mitigation. With regard to the
comments that the unmitigable areas were not considered, Mr. LaJoie said that the
condition on the significant unavoidable impacts for air quality and traffic contains a
complete analysis for drawing these conclusions. He noted that the project area is in a
non-attainment area pursuant to the AQMD and though the project contributes to air
emissions, this is just a fact of living in Southern California. He said that most projects
of this size are concluded to have an unavoidable adverse affect impact for air quality
no matter what the mitigation is. He stated that the traffic significance conclusions for
the 405 overcrossing and the SBBlWestminster Avenue intersection were addressed by
Mr. Barretto as significant and unavoidable.
Mr. Cummins interjected that the City is aware that the DWP Power Plant did put in
dual-paned windows for some residences on the far western edge of Leisure World;
however, the noise impacts on the DWP project versus the Boeing Project are
completely different. He reported that the DWP project showed a decibel gain of nearly
20 decibels over the span of 2% years of construction. He noted that the Boeing Project
shows a 1-decibel increase in the noise impact as far as short-term construction noise.
He said that this is why the document as it is currently written does not impose these
types of mitigation measures.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Unrath closed the public
comment period.
Board Comments
Chairperson Unrath reviewed the options for making a recommendation on the Boeing
EIR. Mr. Cummins stated that if a majority of the Board were to find some portion of the
document to be inadequate, Staff would like the Board to focus on this area so that Staff
could convey this to City Council.
Vice-Chairperson Hurley asked if any portion of the EIR were to be found inadequate,
this would make the entire EIR inadequate, and the Board could accordingly make this
recommendation to City Council. Mr. Cummins stated that this was correct.
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\04-21-G3 EQCB Mlnutes.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
City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of April 21, 2003
Member Unrath read from the CEQA section entitled "EIR Legal Adequacy." He then
opened for comments from the members of the Board.
Member Voce stated that he had already discussed his concerns and that the EIR is
inadequate in terms of traffic and air quality.
Member O'Malley stated the he was in agreement with Member Voce. He said that the
areas of traffic and air pollution are so dynamic and in many cases insurmountable. He
said that he does not feel that the work done on the preparation of the report was
insufficient to render it inadequate, but there are problems. He stated there are two
areas where there are great problems, but there is no solution. He said either the
community must live with them or continue on with the project.
Member Voce said that the document presents a huge amount of information and the
availability of the document and amount of time allowed to review it prior to making
recommendations was not sufficient.
Vice-Chairperson Hurley asked Member O'Malley if he had stated the EIR was
adequate because the problems of traffic and air quality are unsolvable, or whether the
EIR does not sufficiently address these problems. Member O'Malley stated that he
does not believe it is the job of the EQCB to determine what the final outcome should
be, but rather to make a recommendation on the sufficiency of the document. He said
that in looking at the document and the work that has been done, he believes it to be
adequate.
Vice-Chairperson Hurley stated that he has been unable to conclude that the EIR as
presently written is adequate. He said he found too many instances of faulty analysis,
unfounded conclusions, and inadequate responses. He noted that because of the
shockingly short time (1 week) given to review the Final EIR, he had concentrated
specifically on the noise section. He said that the adequacy or inadequacy of an EIR
depends upon how well it describes the protection of the environment. He then
distributed copies of Page 92 of the CEQA Guidelines, which included his notes on
Page 5.5-12, Table 5.5-9, and Page 5.5.11 of Volume 1 of the Boeing EIR document.
He reviewed the information on Ambient Noise Levels on Page 5.5-12 noting that the
average without the project is >65 dBA, and any increase greater than 1.0 is significant.
He then noted that according to the last paragraph on Page 5.5.16, the actual
anticipated increase after the project is 1.1 dBA and there is no mention of mitigation.
He then referred to Page 14-52, Item 6Q and noted the worst-case estimation for noise
of 86 dBA. On Page 8-5 Vice-Chairperson Hurley stated that the Short-Term mitigation
measures listed under 5.5-1 would not be sufficient to attenuate the dBA levels from
construction, and he noted that no Long-Term Noise Impacts are listed. He then noted
that the response on Page 14-52 & 53 to his comment on Page 14-38 Item 6S, simply
repeats the controls and states that impacts are concluded to be less than significant.
He said that this does not address the issue of significant effect on the Leisure World
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\04-21-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 April 21, 2003
residents. He also noted that noise measurements taken were not accurate, as they
were not taken inside Leisure World.
Chairperson Unrath interjected that he believes the Board concedes that the issues of
traffic and noise have not been adequately addressed in the EIR. He asked Vice-
Chairperson Hurley if there were other areas that he wished to address. Vice-
Chairperson Hurley stated that he wished to state that he has given the Board only a
representative sample of the inadequacies of this EIR as presently written. He also
cited the following:
1. The best source of data on existing noise (measurements taken within Leisure
World) was not used.
2. The stated threshold of significance of 1.0 dBA was ignored.
3. Repeated references to the City of Seal Beach Noise Level Provisions are
misleading. Construction noise is completely exempt as there is no limit to the
noise one can make between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
4. Makes contradictory statements in different parts of the EI R about the same
subject.
Member Barton said she is not certain that she is willing to accept the Final EIR as is.
She stated that if Boeing is going to be doing more building, they might be willing to
construct a higher wall to 12 or 14 feet or install dual-paned windows. She said that the
Leisure World residents near the project area deserve every consideration possible.
Mr. Cummins stated that there is a difference between noise levels and significant
impacts as a result of a project. He asked that the Noise Consultant speak directly to
how much this project will impact noise levels.
Mr. LaJoie noted that Vice-Chairperson Hurley had raised several concerns and to
address them point-by-point would involve a considerable amount of time. He said he
would respond to some of Member Hurley's major concerns. He stated that the
analysis looks at short-term and long-term construction noise impacts. He explained
that short-term is directly related to construction. He said that mitigation has been
identified for certain attenuation areas during construction with the conclusion that a
noise consideration exists. He stated that City Code has a provision that exempts
construction noise between certain hours of the day, on certain days of the week. He
said that based on this provision the conclusion is that impacts would not be significant
because it is an allowable noise event. He stated that realistically every construction
project in Seal Beach, from a patio cover to a room addition, could be considered to
have significant impacts requiring an EIR. He said that additional measures could be
identified as far as muffling noise, staging areas, etc. Vice-Chairperson Hurley
confirmed that what Mr. LaJoie was saying is that since construction noise is exempt
from the Municipal Code, it does not represent a significant impact. Mr. LaJoie
responded that when an evaluation of impacts is conducted, thresholds of significance
are established, and part of the measurement of a threshold in short-term construction
is what the standard is pursuant to City Code. He stated that this threshold is
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\04-21-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 April 21, 2003
considered when concluding significance; the threshold being that construction noise
has an exemption within the City Code if it occurs between the hours identified for
specific days of the week. He said that this is the threshold by which to acknowledge an
impact analysis. Vice-Chairperson Hurley stated that he considers this provision to be
irrelevant. He said this is a brand new meaning for threshold as what Mr. LaJoie is
saying is that this new meaning translates into "if it ain't against the law, it's allowable."
Mr. LaJoie reiterated that there is a threshold that is considered in concluding
significance. He said that in the City Code for construction noise impacts there is no
decibel reading that is the measurement, and not many cities in California that have a
decibel reading in terms of construction significance. Vice-Chairperson Hurley said that
he did not understand how the effect on the environment, including the Leisure World
residents is not significant simply because the law doesn't say so. He stated that
common sense says that the noise is there, but it is exempt from the law, and,
therefore, deemed as not significant to the residents of Leisure World. Mr. Cummins
interjected that quite some time ago City Council had determined that construction
related noise impacts were going to happen as a natural byproduct of development, and
there is no practical way to attempt to address this, as with any construction there will
be some level of noise created. Vice-Chairperson Hurley stated that there can be
mitigation measures about the mufflers and staging and other measures can be done to
be a good neighbor to the people of Leisure World. He said that there is no basis for
doing this since measurements of the actual noise that now exists were not taken inside
Leisure World. Mr. La Joie then referred to Section 5.5, which is the basis for the
conclusion on the noise impacts. He said that noise reading and field measurements
were taken, but in terms of the modeling process, they are based on existing traffic
conditions, which is the noise environment, the cause of the noise environment, and the
long-term noise impacts. He stated that the sampling of the noise reading in and
around the project site is to provide the reader with a typical ambient reading at a given
period of time of the day. He said the modeling technique is associated with the
modeling of the traffic, which is the true noise generator for the environment along the
roadway. He then introduced Mr. Eddie Torres, Noise Analyst for RBF Consulting.
Mr. Eddie Torres stated that he conducted the acoustical and air quality analysis for the
Boeing Project. He explained how the noise analysis was conducted and noted that
Table 5.5-9 can cause some confusion. He said that this table is intended to give an
example of criteria that can be used by different agencies and is not specifically used as
the criteria for the City of Seal Beach. He stated that typically a 3-decibel increase is
noticeable to the human ear, and anything around 1.0 decibel is only perceptible under
laboratory conditions. He added that to determine increases a comparison of model
results to model results would have to be made. He said it is not accurate to compare
measured results to model results based upon the differences in the criteria. He
explained the results of the ambient noise levels as reflected in Table 5.5-9, 5.5-12, and
5.5-13 and noted that the model results do not account for the wall surrounding Leisure
World or the vegetative screening surrounding that wall or around other areas of the
community; therefore, the net affect could actually be lower than 1.1 dBA. Mr. Cummins
interjected that essentially what is being conveyed is that the additional noise off the
Boeing Project would be negligible to the human ear, either in the short term or long
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\04-21-G3 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 April 21, 2003
term. Vice-Chairperson Hurley asked how Mr. Cummins could state this. Mr. Cummins
stated that based upon the model results... Vice-Chairperson Hurley countered that the
model results are about traffic. Mr. Cummins noted that the main source of noise is not
construction noise but traffic noise. Mr. Torres interjected that typically most of the
other noise sources in the area would be below the model traffic results. He said that if
there is a noise difference of 6 decibels or more, which is typical of ambient noises from
stationary sources that contribute to a noise environment (people walking around, car
doors slamming, etc.), these levels are actually drowned out by traffic noise, so that the
major source of noise would be traffic. Vice-Chairperson Hurley asked why Table 5.5-9
was included if the conclusion is that it is of no use in judging the adequacy of the noise
impacts. Mr. Torres said that this table reflects the data typically used by agencies and
shows that where there is a 1.1 decibel increase, the existing modeled results would be
<65 decibels. Member O'Malley asked if Table 5.5-9 reflects the actual field
measurements made or whether standard procedures were used with computer models
to develop the tables. Mr. Torres stated that noise levels are not used as input data for
the computer models, but the analyst will determine whether it is within an accurate,
reasonable determination of what the models are. He said there are two different types
of output: an LEQ, which is a short-term and a CNEL which is long term and more
applicable to criteria. He noted that he used the measured LEQ to show whether the
model results were within a reasonable allowance. Member O'Malley asked if the field
measurements verify the computer models. Mr. Torres confirmed that this was correct.
He said that field measurements are used primarily to determine noise levels from
stationary sources and not from traffic.
Member Voce stated that noise measurements were done between 10:05 a.m. and
11 :35 a.m. He asked if other readings were taken at other times, like 5:30 p.m., to allow
for comparison. Mr. Torres said that typically noise measurements are taken based
upon the Handbook of Noise Control, which recommends taking measurements during
the noisiest hour, which contrary to popular belief is not during peak hours like 7:00 a.m.
to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. He stated that during these hours most cars are
in gridlock. He said that the noisiest hours for cars are during the non-peak daytime
hours. He noted that measurements taken during the peak hour between 7:00 a.m. to
9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. or before these hours are not representative of the
worst case scenario because they would actually be lower than what is shown in the
EIR. Member Voce stated that Mr. Torres is dealing theoretically based upon other
guidelines, and there is nothing to compare this to in the EIR. He said that when traffic
will be increased to this point, and noise does depend on traffic in part, he doesn't see
why more field studies were not included for comparison. Mr. Torres stated that he
understood, and explained that the data was based upon standard established criteria
which could be used as a basis for a typical understanding of what noise conditions
would be during a worst case scenario, as applied by prior experience and agencies
who have established codes and criteria related to traffic noise, such as CalTrans and
FHWA.
Vice-Chairperson Hurley asked if a dBA of 65 has been established as an acceptable
level for ambient noise, how can the statement be made that there will be no affect on
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\04-21-G3 EQCB Minutes.doc 12
.~
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 April 21, 2003
residents of Leisure World if the EIR reflects that at some point the dBA level could rise
to 77? Mr. Torres said that since the EIR is intended to be a full disclosure document,
the analysis under the construction section was primarily intended to provide an
analysis based upon what the estimated or predicted noise levels from the construction
equipment would be. He said these estimated levels took into account some
assumptions, and it is difficult to compare the 77 dBA to a 65-decibel allowance. He
reiterated that construction noise levels are exempt from City Code during the hours
specified.
Vice-Chairperson Hurley stated that Leisure World residents live only 50-60 yards from
the construction site and are currently subjected to CNELs of over 65 dBA, which under
the Seal Beach noise standards is the maximum allowed for that type of housing. He
emphasized that these City standards are deemed appropriate for the general
population and are probably not sufficient for 78 year olds. He continued by stating that
the EIR provides nothing of importance to protect these residents from excessive noise
and repeatedly rates noise impacts as not significant because they are short term, but
as Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines on Page 5.5-11 shows, such a temporary
increase can be considered a significant impact. He noted that the impact statement on
Page 5.5-12 ignores the evidence elsewhere in the EIR that neither the Seal Beach
Municipal Code nor the Minor Requirement in Mitigation Measure 5.5-1 will reduce the
impact to less than significant. He said that whether or not it might be legally required,
why do Boeing and City Staff not show real concern for the comfort and welfare of
Leisure World residents on their behalf.
Member Barton stated that she is concerned about the traffic that goes up SBB to
Katella Avenue, how residents of District 1 will get to the hospital, and the traffic lighting
system. She asked for clarification on what "six-phase" and "eight-phase" means with
regard to traffic lights.
Mr. Barretto explained that an "eight-phase" traffic signal has a protected left turn arrow
on the left-turn pocket, so for a four-legged intersection, there would be 4 left-turn
pockets for the eight phases and the other four are for thru movements. Member
Barton said that every traffic signal has a left turn arrow and even when there is no
traffic the green arrow is delayed. Mr. Cummins stated that this is an operational issue
that can be addressed by the City Engineer.
Member Voce stated that he has made repeated requests that the Traffic Engineer be
present tonight, and this person is not here. He said that it doesn't matter what
everyone says, what matters is what the community must live with when the project is
complete. He referred to the claims that traffic would improve once the Bixby Project
was complete, and noted that traffic congestion has drastically increased as a result.
He said it is not what is planned, but what will eventually operate on a day-to-day basis.
He emphasized that the City Engineer should address questions about signal lights
along SBB. Mr. Cummins stated that Mr. Bill Zimmerman, the City's Traffic Engineer is
present tonight to respond to questions. Member Voce asked about timing of signals
once this project is complete, noting that constant stopping and accelerating of
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\04-21-03 EQCB Minutes.doc 13
.~
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 April 21, 2003
automobiles creates more emissions. He asked whether Mr. Zimmerman had any input
into the EIR. Mr. Cummins recommended that the Board take a brief recess before
proceeding with Mr. Zimmerman's responses.
Chairperson Unrath declared a recess at 8:51 p.m. with the Board to reconvene at 9:00
p.m.
The Board reconvened at 9:00 p.m.
Chairperson Unrath commented that the Board may have lost track of the entire
purpose of the meeting. He said that a lot of time has been spent picking apart the EIR,
which was also done during the scoping sessions, and comments were received on the
EIR, particularly on the area of noise; however, the 4 volumes of the EIR also cover
land use, environmental, cultural, biological, and many other areas. He said that the
purpose of the meeting is not to pick apart small sections of the report, but to attempt to
decide if the report as a whole meets the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). He encouraged the Board to turn the discussion to this area and
decide whether or not to certify the report or certify it with exceptions. Mr. Cummins
interjected that the EQCB would not actually be certifying the document, but making a
recommendation regarding certification. Chairperson Unrath requested a motion from
the members of the Board.
Mr. Cummins suggested that a vote on the adequacy of the document be taken followed
by straw polls on individual areas of adequacy.
MOTION by O'Malley to recommend to City Council that the Boeing Specific Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report is adequate as written.
Motion dies for lack of a second.
Member O'Malley stated that as he reads the documentation on what the EQCB's
responsibility is regarding this EIR, the Board's purpose is to review the EIR to
determine that the City Council (CC) is able to consider the environmental
consequences of a project before it is approved. He said that in order to do this the
EQCB must determine the legal adequacy of the document, and in order to do this,
specific tests must be done as noted in CEQA Guideline 15.15-1, which states that the
EQCB must consider whether the EIR has been prepared with a sufficient degree of
analysis, which need not be exhaustive, but must be what is reasonably feasible, and
the document should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts.
He said that if the document meets these tests, it can be legally adequate for CC to
make a recommendation on the project. He said that with the exhaustive commentary
tonight, as far as he is concerned, it meets these tests.
Chairperson Unrath commented that the outcome should not be whether the document
is perfect, but whether all parties agree to the conclusions, and the Board does not have
to agree with all of the conclusions, but must simply decide whether sufficient thought
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\04-21-G3 EQCB Mlnutes.doc 14
.~
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
Meeting Minutes of April 21, 2003
and work have been put into these conclusions. He said the important thing is to find
out whether CC can make a decision based upon the information in the document.
Vice-Chairperson Hurley said that the problem he has is that the section on noise does
not provide a clear indication that the environment is being protected and without this he
does not see how the document can be considered adequate.
Chairperson Unrath stated that he believes the Board could recommend to CC that
there are problems with the noise and traffic sections of the EIR; otherwise the
remainder of the document adequately addresses the environmental issues. Member
O'Malley interjected that if the entire document is deemed completely inadequate then
the entire process of preparing the EIR must be repeated.
Member Voce stated he found the document inadequate, particularly in the mitigation
measures. He said reading the document raised more questions than it answered. He
stated that when mitigations are insufficient, that makes the document inadequate.
Member O'Malley asked if the EQCB declares the document inadequate, would the
document not go before CC? Mr. Cummins stated that the recommendation of the
EQCB will go to CC and the document will go before CC as it is with a memorandum
that recommends that it not be certified for the following reasons. Member O'Malley
asked what the ramifications of this would be. Mr. Cummins stated that CC would
receive a copy of the minutes of tonight's meeting and a memorandum from the Board
making a recommendation regarding the adequacy of the document. CC will also
receive a similar memorandum from the Planning Commission recommending
certification or non-certification. All of this will be weighed during public testimony at the
CC meeting and ultimately a determination will be made whether or not to certify the
document.
MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by Voce to recommend to City Council that the Boeing
Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report is inadequate as written.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
3-2-0
Barton, Hurley, and Voce
O'Malley, and Unrath
None
Mr. Cummins said that he would like to break down the topical areas found to be
inadequate in the document. Vice-Chairperson Hurley interjected that Resolution 03-1A
denying the adequacy of the Boeing EIR was not written correctly as it recommends
that the CC certify the EIR. Mr. Cummins clarified that the Resolution states that the
Board found the EIR to be adequate with the exception of those areas that would be
listed under Exhibit A of Resolution 03-1A. Vice-Chairperson Hurley suggested the
following text:
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\04-21-G3 EQCB Minutes.doc 15
.~
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
Meeting Minutes of Apri/21, 2003
"Following is a summary of what we believe are the key inadequacies of
this Final EIR:
1. It fails to address adequately the environmental impacts on the
residents of Leisure World in the section on noise. Extensive revision
and additional mitigation measures are required.
Mr. Cummins noted that as he understands the key concern, it is that Leisure World
residents are more sensitive receptors than what the document has identified. He said
that Staff would recommend stating this. Vice-Chairperson Hurley reiterated that one of
the problems is that the document fails to recognize that there are impacts and the
analysis is inadequate. Mr. Cummins suggested using the statement that the noise
analysis does not take the age of the residents in close proximity to the project into
consideration and further mitigation should be proposed to offset those impacts.
Member Voce suggested using the word sensitivity rather than age. Mr. Cummins
recommended breaking down the specific areas and he would then draft the language
for each issue.
Chairperson Unrath stated that the traffic issue related to the Leisure World entrances
and exits has to do with traffic during and after construction remaining at a LOS of A or
B, and that the mitigation measures proposed for the intersections on both the north and
south side of the 405 Freeway overcrossing might not produce the desired result.
Member Voce stated that mitigation regarding the widening of the 405 Freeway
overcrossing must be included in order to understand how traffic would be affected with
or without the bridge widening.
Mr. Cummins noted that, as he understands it, the key areas of concern for the Board
relate to short-term noise, long-term noise, inadequate traffic analysis due to study
areas in and around Leisure World, and inadequate analysis of the 405 Freeway
overcrossing.
Chairperson Unrath noted that he had also mentioned air quality as an issue. Vice-
Chairperson Hurley stated that the section on air quality was also inadequate. He
recommended incorporating a lower limit for work cessation than the 35 mph wind for 1-
hour limit set by the AQMD. Member Voce stated that the proposed mitigation
measures for air pollution are inadequate. He noted that the EIR does not adequately
address the issue of increased pollution generated from more cars.
Mr. Cummins requested a short recess to allow time to draft the proposed language to
include in the memorandum to City Council. Chairperson Unrath declared a 15-minute
recess at 9:45 p.m.
The Board reconvened at 10:05 p.m.
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\04-21-G3 EQCB Minutes.doc 16
.
.~
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 April 21, 2003
Mr. Cummins reviewed the proposed text for the memorandum to City Council giving
the reasons for finding the Boeing Specific Plan Final EIR to be inadequate. The Board
approved the following language:
1. The City Council should consider reducing the wind speed and duration article
within AQMD rule 403.
2. Long-term noise impact analysis is inadequate and does not sufficiently mitigate
noise impacts.
3. Short-term construction noise analysis is inadequate with respect to sensitive
receptors and the proposed mitigation does not adequately address short-term
noise impacts.
4. Traffic analysis at the Leisure World entries is inaccurate.
5. Long-term traffic analysis and proposed mitigation are inadequate. Consideration of
future build out, pursuant to the circulation element of the City's General Plan, of
the Seal Beach Boulevard bridge widening over the 405 Freeway should be
considered within the EIR document.
MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by Voce to recommend that the above-noted language
be included in a memorandum to City Council finding the Boeing Specific Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report inadequate as written.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Barton, Hurley, O'Malley, Unrath, and Voce
None
None
VII Staff Concerns
Mr. Cummins reported that a response from the Orange County Transit Authority was
received regarding the 22 Garden Grove Freeway widening project and it apparently
was redesigned so that the College Park East (CPE) homes would not be impacted,
and the connector lane from the 405 to the 605 Freeway has been lowered to reduce
the impact to Leisure World and CPE. He said that the City was scheduled to receive
the final redesigned EIR document on April 18, 2003.
VIII Board Concerns
The Board Members welcomed Member O'Malley as the new representative for District
Two.
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\04-21-G3 EQCB Minutes.doc 17
, ,
"
. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
.
.
IX Adjournment
City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of Apri/21, 2003
Chairperson Unrath adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
~~
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary
Department of Development Services
The Board on June 25, 2003 approved the Minutes of the Environmental Quality Control
Board of Monday, April 21, 2003. ~ .
Z:\Carmen_data\EQCB\04-21-G3 EQCB Minutes.doc 18